PRINCETON, N. J. 
 
 "2c 
 
 Shelf.^ 
 
 Division AZ) O/v' C)\^ \ 
 
 Section J .t^.>D\.h!-J,,, 
 Number ..V » ..-< 
 
 
M A" 
 
 s^ .» 
 
 wM 
 
 Jr .k' 
 
 ^ ^ 
 
CS.Ctma.er.B.'E.T'-l 
 
 Uonctoti , IjirngnuxTts & Co. 
 
 i:av\-<'\\'elL£!r 
 
AN 
 
 AMERICAN COMMENTARY 
 
 ON THE 
 
 NEW TESTAMENT. 
 
 EDITED BY 
 
 ALVAH HOVEY, D.D., LL.D. 
 
 V -5, 
 
 PHILADELPHIA : 
 
 AMERICAN BAPTIST PUBLICATION SOCIETY, 
 
 1420 Chestnut Street. 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 For a statement of the purpose and plan of tliis series of Commentaries on the 
 New Testament, the reader is referred to the last part of the General Introduction, 
 published in the volume on the Gospel of Mark, and for a more particular account 
 of the sources of the present volume, to the last part of the following Intro- 
 duction. Two or three remarks are all that seem to be required in the way of 
 further explanation. 
 
 Whenever the words of another writer are employed, his name is given, 
 though it has not always been thought advisable to mention the volume and page 
 from whicii the words are taken. In a great majority of cases they are from 
 Notes on the particular passage under examination. Sentences are sometimes put 
 in quotation marks, not because they are borrowed from another, but because they 
 are meant to represent in paraphrase the words of Christ, or of the Evangelist, in 
 the text explained. 
 
 For critical notes upon the text in several important passages, the writer is 
 indebted to the kindness of Prof. John A. Broadus, D. D., who is preparing the 
 volume on the Gospel according to Matthew. These Notes have been inserted in 
 the margin, followed by the letter B. They are uncommonly clear and discrimi- 
 nating, and the conclusions which they reach are believed to be, in every instance, 
 correct. The judgment of one who has given special attention to textual criticism 
 will be highly valued by the reader. 
 
 To the preparation of this Commentary, the writer has given all the time at 
 his command for such labor, during many years. And though the work produced 
 is very imperfect, when compared with his own conception of what it should be, 
 he cannot repress the hope that it will be useful to some who love " the spiritual 
 Gospel." Often has this Gospel appeared to him, while exploring it, like the land 
 promised to the Israelites by the Lord — " a good land, a land of brooks of water, 
 of fountains and depths that spring out of valleys and hills ; a land of wheat, and 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 barley, and vines, and fig trees, and pomegranates ; a land of olive oil and honey ; 
 a land wherein thou shalt eat bread without scarceness, thou shalt not lack any- 
 thing in it." (Deut. 8 : 7-9.) Wells of purest truth, deeper than Jacob's well at 
 Sychar, are in this Gospel, and the interpreter may let down his tiny cup a 
 thousand times, with perfect confidence that it will always return filled to the brim. 
 
 May the Son of God, whose person is so fully revealed in this Gospel, accept 
 the humble effort which has been made to expound his words, and by means of it 
 bring a blessing to the hearts of his people ! Aud to this end, may the reader 
 fervently pray to the Father of lights, " Open thou mine eyes, that I may behold 
 wondrous things out of thy law." (Fs. 119 : 18.) Alvah Hovey. 
 
 Newton Theological Institution, Nov. 26, 1885. 
 
COMMENTARY 
 
 ON THE 
 
 GOSPEL OF JOHN. 
 
 BY 
 
 ALVAH HOVEY, D. D., LL. D. 
 
 PHILADELPHIA: 
 
 AMERICAN BAPTIST PUBLICATION SOCIETY, 
 1420 Chestnut Street. 
 
Entered, according to Act of Congress, in the year 1883, by the 
 
 AMERICAN BAPTIST PUBLICATION SOCIETY, 
 In the Office of the Librarian of Congress, at Washington, D. C. 
 
INTRODUCTION TO THE GOSPEL OF JOHN. 
 
 For reasons, which will readily occur to every one who is familiar with Biblical 
 criticism during the present century, an Introduction to the Fourth Gospel must treat 
 with some fullness the question of its authorship. If the Gospel is believed to have 
 been written by the Apostle John, the grounds of this belief should be clearly stated, 
 even though they cannot be elaborately defended ; and if this ancient belief is im- 
 pugned and rejected by any one, the grounds for such rejection should be carefully 
 explained. We propose therefore to consider (1) the authorship of the Fourth Gospel ; 
 (2) its trustworthiness as a historical record, especially as a record of the discourses of 
 Jesus ; (3) the time and place of its composition ; (4) the occasion, object, and plan of 
 the work ; and (5) the aim and sources of this commentary. 
 
 I. AUTHORSHIP OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL. 
 
 It has been the common belief of Christians from the second century until now that 
 the Fourth Gospel was written by John, the brother of James, an apostle of Jesus 
 Christ our Lord. This belief has rested upon certain indications of authorship which 
 the Gospel itself affords, and upon certain passages in Christian writings of an early age 
 which point to the same authorship. First. While the name of the writer is not men- 
 tioned in the Gospel, he that " beareth witness of these things, and wrote these things," 
 is plainly declared to be "the disciple whom Jesus loved," and who "also leaned on his 
 bosom at the supper" (ch. 21 : 20-24). But "the disciple whom Jesus loved," and to 
 whom he committed his mother from the cross as to a son, must have been one of that 
 inner circle of three — Peter, James, and John — whom Jesus honored with his special 
 confidence. Now Peter is distinguished from "the disciple whom Jesus loved" in the 
 passage just cited (ch. 21 : 20-24), as well as in others (e. 7., 13 : 23 sq. ; 20 : 2 sq.) ; and 
 James, the brother of John, was slain by the sword at the command of Herod, about 
 A. D. 40 (see Acts 12 : 2), long before this Gospel was written. Interpreters are 
 therefore generally agreed in saying that, if the Fourth Gospel was written by an 
 apostle, the words of the Gospel itself point clearly to John as that apostle. Second. 
 The references of early Christian writers to this Gospel prove that they either knew, or 
 at least supposed, it to be a work of the Apostle John. These references are so con- 
 clusive that nearly all who admit the Gospel to have been written before the close of the 
 first century hold that the Apostle John was its author. But certain modern scholars 
 of much learning and acuteness have denied its origin in the first century, and have 
 attributed it to some unknown writer of the second century. Indeed, nearly all the 
 arguments by which the authorship of John have been assailed are meant to prove that 
 it could not have been written by any immediate follower of Christ. We propose to 
 look first at the external testimonies relating to the authorship of the Fourth Gospel, 
 and then at the internal evidences. 
 
 In examining the external evidences, it will be important to bear in mind two facts. 
 
 7 
 
INTRODUCTION TO THE GOSPEL. 
 
 Firsts that the early Christian writers, who were contemporaneous with the apostles 
 during a part of their lives, make use of the New Testament in a very informal way, 
 often quoting its language inexactly, and generally neglecting to mention the writer 
 or book from which they quote ; and, second, that they quote from the first three 
 Gospels and some of the Epistles more frequently than from the Fourth Gospel. These 
 facts are accounted for by the practical necessity of quoting largely from memory, and 
 by the earlier and wider circulation of the writings more frequently used. Yet there are 
 traces of the use of the Fourth Gospel in the writings ascribed to the Apostolical Fathers. 
 
 For if, with many of the best scholars, we assume that the Shorter Greek recension 
 of the Seven Epistles of Ignatius is, for the most part, genuine, there are passages in 
 those letters which are so similar to certain expressions in the Fourth Gospel, or the first 
 Epistle of John, that it is difficult to account for them without supposing that Ignatius 
 had seen the latter. Thus, in his letter to the Ephesians (ch. 7), he speaks of Christ as 
 both "originated and unoriginated, God incarnated, true Life in death, both from Mary 
 and from God, first passible, and then impassible." Yet the reminiscence is not abso- 
 lutely certain. But, in his Epistle to the Romans (ch. 7), he writes: "I desire the 
 bread of God, the heavenly bread, the bread of life, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, 
 the Son of God, who was afterwards made of the seed of David and Abraham ; and I 
 desire the drink of God, his blood, which is incorruptible love and perennial life." This 
 language seems to be founded on the sayings of Jesus preserved in the sixth chapter of 
 our Gospel (vs. 41-59). So, too, in his letter to the Church in Smyrna, after asserting 
 that Christ had suffered in the flesh (ch. 2), he adds these words : " For I know that 
 soon after the resurrection he was in the flesh, and I believe that he is so still. And 
 when he came to Peter and those about him, he said unto them : ' Take hold of me, 
 handle me, and see that I am not an incorporeal spirit, or demon' " (ch. 3). With this 
 compare John 20 : 20-27, and 1 John 1:1, and the probability that Ignatius had seen 
 both the Gospel and the First Epistle will appear strong. Other reminiscences might be 
 adduced from this writer, who died not later than A. D. 115 ; but while the genuineness 
 of the epistles attributed to him is still in doubt, the value of their testimony is 
 uncertain. 
 
 In the Epistle of Poh/carp to the Philippians, written about A. D. 116, there occurs 
 the following passage : " For every one who does not confess that Jesus Christ has come 
 in the flesh is antichrist" (ch. 7). And we readily perceive that it is borrowed from 
 1 John 4 : 2, 3. But it is generally admitted that whoever wrote the First Epistle of 
 John was also the writer of the Fourth Gospel. Hence, if one of these writings belongs 
 to the first centurj% and could be used by Polj^carp in A. D. 116, just as he used the 
 Epistles of Paul, it is extremely probable that the other belongs to the same early age. 
 Indeed, Canon Lightfoot regards the First Epistle of John as a sort of postscript to the 
 Fourth Gospel (see "Contemporary Review" for 1875, p. 835, sq.). Polj^carp was 
 probably not less than thirty j'ears old when the Apostle John died at Ephesus. 
 Irenaeus represents him as one who had known the apostle, and enjoyed his instruction. 
 Thus he was a living link, connecting the apostolic age with that of Justin Martyr and 
 Iren^us (Irenaeus "Adv. Hger.," III. 3, and Euseb. "H. E.," V. 20, 24). 
 
 The five books of Papia% entitled, "Interpretation of the Oracles of the Lord," 
 have all perished except a few brief extracts made by Irenaeus and Eusebius, or Christian 
 writers of a later age. Of Papias himself Irenasus speaks with uniform respect, calling 
 him in one place, " Papias, a man of the olden time, the hearer of John and companion 
 of Polycarp" ("Adv. Hter," III, 33. 3). Eusebius thinks that his "understanding was 
 
INTRODUCTION TO THE GOSPEL. 
 
 very small'' ("H. E." III. 39), probably because of his adhesion to Chiliastic views, 
 rejected by the father of church history. In his "Chronic. Ad. Olyiu." 220, he states 
 that " Irenseus and others relate that John the theologian and apostle continued in life 
 until the times of Trajan" {x. D. 98), and that " Papias, Bishop of Hierapolis, and 
 Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna, were well known as his hearers "• (conip. " H. E. " III. 40). 
 In view of all the facts accessible to scholars, it is safe to say that Papias lived from 
 about A. D. 70 to about A. D. 150, and that any use of the New Testament writings, 
 or reference to them, which he makes, is worthy of close examination. But Euscbius, 
 who had read his "five books," affirms that " he made use of testimonies from the First 
 Epistle of John, and likewise from that of Peter" ("H. E." III. 39), which shows the 
 existence of John's First Epistle in the first part of the second century. It also shows 
 that Papias considered the words of the Epistle "testimonies" (naprvpCaii) to the truth 
 by a proper witness. Moreover, as we have remarked, the existence gf the Pipistlc at 
 this early date must be accepted as probable evidence of the existence of the Fourth 
 Gospel also ; for they were both written by the same man. 
 
 But if Papias had the Fourth Gospel, he probably made use of it in his four books 
 entitled, " Interpretation of Dominican Oracles "; perhaps he took from it many of the 
 Oracles which he explained. Why then did Eusebius fail to mention his use of the 
 Gospel ? Because the purpose which he sought to accomplish did not require him to do 
 this. By a critical study of the prefatory statements of Eusebius concerning his 
 citation of early testimonies relating to the books of the New Testament, Prof Light- 
 foot has established the following propositions : (1) " His main object was to give such 
 information as might assist in forming correct views respecting the Canon of Scripture. 
 (2) He was indiiferent to any quotations or references which went towards establishing 
 the canonicity of those books which had never been disputed in the church. Even 
 when the quotation was direct and by name, it had no value for him. (3) To this class 
 belonged (i) The Four Gospels; (ii) the Acts; (iii) the thirteen Epistles of St. Paul. 
 (4) As regards these, he contents himself with preserving an jf anecdotes which he may 
 have found illustrating the circumstances under which they were written . . . (5) The 
 Catholic Epistles lie on the border-land . . . between the universally acknowledged and 
 the disputed books," etc. (" Contemporary Review " for 1875, p. 179, sq.). Hence the 
 circumstance that Eusebius reckons the Four Gospels among the books universally 
 received is a sufficient reason why he should not have called attention to the use of them 
 by Papias — to say nothing of the probability that the whole work of Papias was an 
 exposition of them. 
 
 Again, Westcott refers to a passage in Irengeus where the testimony of "the elders ' 
 is adduced, and then, a little after, the same testimony is said to be from the fourth 
 book of Papias. He therefore supposes it probable that another citation from "the 
 Elders" by Irenseus, containing a part of John 14 : 2 — viz., "m mj/ Father's house are 
 many mansions'' — is taken from the work of Papias. (See Irengeus "Adv. Haer." 
 V. 36.) 
 
 About the middle of the second century Justin Martyr, who, in his journej^s, visited 
 Ephesus, Alexandria, and Rome, refers many times to certain writings which he calls 
 "Memorabilia of the Apostles" ("Dial, with Trypho " cc. 100, 101, 103, 104, 106, 88), 
 "The MemorabiUa of the Apostles which are called Gospels" ("Apol." I. c. 66), and 
 " Memorabilia which were composed by his apostles, and by those who followed with them 
 ("Dial, with Trypho" cc. 103, 106). This last expression may be compared with the 
 words of Tcrtullian : "We have established this, first of all, that the Gospel Instrument 
 
10 INTRODUCTION TO THE GOSPEL. 
 
 has for its authors apostles, on whom this office of promulgating the Gospel was imposed 
 by the Lord himself; and if also apostolic men, yet these not alone, but with apostles 
 and after apostles" ("Adv. Marc." IV. 2). It is observable in both these passages that 
 the word referring to apostles, as well as the word referring to their companions, is 
 plural ; and it cannot be reasonably doubted that by the former were intended Matthew 
 and John, by the latter Mark and Luke. It may also be noticed that, according to 
 Justin, these Memorabilia or Gospels were read in his day, along with the writings of 
 the prophets, in the public worship of God ("Apol." I. 67). 
 
 But the following passage in his description of the rite of Christian baptism deserves 
 particular attention : "After this they (t. e., the candidates) are led by us where there is 
 water, and are regenerated after the same manner in which we were regenerated : for 
 upon the name of the Father of all and Sovereign God, and of our Saviour Jesus 
 Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they there receive the bath in the water ; for Christ also 
 said : Except ye he horn again, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. But it is 
 evident to all that those who have been once born cannot enter into the wombs of those 
 who bore them," etc. ("Apol." I. 61 ; compare John 3 : 3 sq.). Justin, it is true, does 
 not quote the precise words of Christ as recorded in the Fourth Gospel ; but, from his 
 customary method of citing passages from Scripture, there is ample reason to believe 
 that he had read the Fourth Gospel, and that he intended to give the words of Christ to 
 Nicodemus. Especially evident is this from the reference which he makes to the 
 language of Nicodemus. 'For an elaborate and conclusive examination of this passage, 
 the reader is referred to Dr. Ezra Abbot's "Authorship of the Fourth Gospel" 
 (pp. 29-41). His conclusion is stated in the following moderate, but unhesitating, 
 terms: "It has been shown, I trust, that in this question of the language of Christ 
 respecting regeneration, the verbal differences between Justin and John are not such as 
 to render it improbable that the former borrowed from the latter. The variations of 
 phraseology are easily accounted for, and are matched by similar variations in writers 
 who unquestionably used the Gospel of John. The positive reasons for believing that 
 Justin derived his quotation from this source are, (1) the fact that in no other report of 
 the teaching of Christ except that of John do we find this figure of the new birth ; 
 (2) the insistance in both Justin and John on the necessity of the new birth in order to 
 an entrance into the kingdom of heaven ; (3) its mention in both in connection with 
 baptism ; (4) and last and most important of all, the fact that Justin's remark on the 
 impossibility of a second natural birth is such a platitude in the form in which he 
 presents it, that we cannot regard it as original. We can only explain its introduction 
 by supposing that the language of Christ which he quotes was strongly associated in 
 his memory with the question of Nicodemus as recorded by John." 
 
 Moreover Justin's doctrine of the Logos presupposes a knowledge of the Fourth 
 Gospel. A careful comparison of his doctrine with that of Philo, will reveal a verj^ im- 
 portant difference. For Justin teaches the incarnation of the Logos in a great number 
 of passages (e. g. "Apol" L 32, 66; "Dial, with Trypho " 45, 84, 87, 100; also 
 "Apol." I. 5, 23, 42, 50, 53, 63; "Apol" II. 13; "Dial, with Try." 48, 57, 64, 67, 68, 
 76, 85, 101, 125), while this doctrine is inconsistent with the teaching of Philo. Be- 
 sides, it has been clearly pointed out that the doctrine of the Logos in Justin is not 
 so simple as that in the Fourth Gospel — a circumstance which proves that Justin bor- 
 rowed from the Gospel, and not the Gospel from Justin. Still further, it is noticeable 
 that Justin refers to the ' ' Memorabilia " as teaching that Christ as Logos was the only- 
 hegotten Son of God, a title which is applied to him by the Fourth Gospel only (see 
 
INTRODUCTION TO THE GOSPEL. 11 
 
 "Dial, with Try." 105). For other passages which confirm the view that Justin was 
 famiUar with this Gospel, reference may be made to the work of Dr. Ezra Abbott, cited 
 above. The first Apology of Justin is now supposed to have been written about the year 
 146 or 147, and his other writings a few years later. 
 
 Here we may also speak of latian, the Assyrian, who was for a time a disciple of 
 
 Justin, and whose literary activity has been assigned to the period between A. D. ]55- 
 
 170. In his " ratio ad Graecos," we find these words: "Do not hate us being such 
 
 persons, but dismissing the demons, follow the only true God. 'All these things are by 
 
 him, and without him not one thing has been made' " (p. 158). "And this, then, is 
 
 that which is said : ' The darkness comprehendeth not the light. The Word indeed is 
 
 the light of God'" (p. 152). With these and other passages must be combined the 
 
 testimony of Eusebius (" H. E." IV. 29). Speaking of the Severians, he uses this 
 
 language: "These indeed make use of the Law and Prophets and Gos^pels, giving a 
 
 peculiar interpretation to the passages of the sacred writings, but they abuse Paul the 
 
 Apostle, and set aside his Epistles ; neither do they receive the Acts of the Apostles. 
 
 But their chief and founder, Tatian, having formed a certain body and collection of 
 
 Gospels, I know not how, has given it this title, ' Diatessaron,' that is, the 'Gospel of 
 
 the Four,' or, the Gospel formed of the Four ; which is in the possession of some even 
 
 now." The expression, "I know not how," only implies that the plan of the wort 
 
 seemed strange to Eusebius, but does not mean, as some have thought, that he had 
 
 never seen it. Tatian' s work was [either] a harmony of the Four Gospels, or a single 
 
 Gospel uniting in itself the statements of the Four. Theodoret, in his work on Haere- 
 
 ses(Fab. i. 20), says that "he found more than two hundred copies of the book, held 
 
 in esteem in his diocese, and substituted for it copies of our own Gospels." Theodoret 
 
 was Bishop of Cyrus in Syria, from about A. D. 420, until his death, in a. d. 457. 
 
 " His objection to Tatian's book is founded on the absence of the genealogies ; and he 
 
 seems to have known no other fault " (Charteris). There is no evidence that any other 
 
 Gospels than the four which we now have, were in circulation among the churches about 
 
 the middle of the second century, unless we except the so-called Gospel according to the 
 
 Hebrews, "which, in its primitive form, may have been the Hebrew original from 
 
 which our present Greek Gospel, ascribed to Matthew, was mainly derived." (Ezra 
 
 Abbot). And the hypothesis that the Gospel according to the Hebrews was used by 
 
 Tatian, instead of our Fourth Gospel, is destitute of any historical foundation. As to 
 
 the Apocryphal Gospels, they were not occupied with the public ministry of Jesus, and 
 
 were justly rejected from the first as unworthy of confidence. 
 
 Athenagoras, "an Athenian, a philosopher, and a Christian, "offered his "Embassy" 
 or Apology to the Emperors Marcus Aurelius Antoninus, and Lucius Aurelius Com- 
 modus, in A. D. 176 or 177. In this Apology he says: "But the Son of God is the 
 Logos of the Father in idea and energy ; for of him and through him were all things 
 made, the Father and the Son being one. But the Son being in the Father and the 
 Father in the Son, by the oneness and power of the Spirit, the Son of God is the 
 Father's Reason and Word." (Compare John 1 : 1-3 ; 17 : 21-23). Again, "For from 
 the beginning God himself, being eternal Reason, had in himself the Logos, since he 
 was eternally rational." (John 1 : 1 sq.) This attempt to express in a semi-philo- 
 sophical way the doctrine of the Trinity, or at least the relation of the eternal Word 
 to the Father, is evidently founded on the language of John. 
 
 Contemporary with Athenagoras was Theophihis, bishop, or pastor, of Antioch 
 from A. D. 169, onward. Writing to Autolychus he uses these words : "Whence the 
 
12 INTRODUCTION TO THE GOSPEL. 
 
 Holy Scriptures, and all those moved by the Spirit teach, [one] of whom, John, says : 
 'In the beginTiing was the Word ; and the Word was with God'; showing that at the 
 first God was alone and in him was the Word. Then he says : 'And the Word was 
 God. All things were made by him, and without him was not anything made.'" 
 (See John 1 : 1-3). Jerome informs us ( " De viris ill. , ' ' XXV. , and ' ' Ej). ad Algasiam ' ' ) 
 that he wrote a harmony of the Four Gospels with a commentary on the same, and Bleek 
 justly observes: "Now this fact, merely, that soon after the middle of the second 
 century more than one Christian scholar undertook the task of treating our Four 
 Gospels synoptically and in a Harmony, shows that these Gospels must already have 
 been. held in high repute in the church, as distinguished from and above other writings 
 of a similar kind ; and the Fourth Gospel, in particular, could not have been thus 
 esteemed, if it had not already been recognized by the church for a considerable time 
 as a genuine and apostolical work. 
 
 To the same period belongs the Muratorian Fragment on the Canon, which has the 
 following passage: "Of the Fourth of the Gospels John, one of the disciples [is 
 author]. Entreated by his fellow-disciples and his bishops, John said : ' Fast with 
 me three days from this time, and whatever shall be revealed to each one of us let us 
 relate to one another.' On the same night it was revealed to Andrew, one of the 
 apostles, that John should relate all things in his own name, subject to the revision 
 of all," etc. (See the " Canon Muritorianus, the earliest Catalogue of the Books of the 
 New Testament, edited with Notes and a Facsimile of the JNIS. in the Ambrosian 
 Library at Milan," by S. P. Tregelles, 1867). How much of truth or error maybe in 
 the circumstances here related, we may find it difficult to decide ; but the testimony of 
 the Fragment as to the authorship of the Fourth Gospel is unambiguous, agreeing with 
 all other indications of the second century. 
 
 Prof Lightfoot has examined, with great care, the brief extracts which have been 
 preserved from such writers as 3felito, Bishop of Sardis, and Claudius Apolliaaris, 
 Bishop of Hierapolis, who flourished in the last part of the second century ; but we 
 must content ourselves with only a reference to his instructive article (" Cont. Rev." for 
 1876, pp. 471-496). His concluding paragraph may be quoted in part, as it describes 
 the evidence gleaned by him from "The School of St. John in their Asiatic home." 
 "Out of a very extensive literature, by which this school was once represented, the 
 extant remains are miserably few and fragmentary ; but the evidence yielded by these 
 meagre relics is decidedly greater, in proportion to their extent, than we had reason to 
 expect. As regards the Fourth Gospel, this is especially the case. If the same amount 
 of written matter — occupying a very few pages in all — were extracted accidentally from 
 the current theological literature of our own day, the chances, unless I am mistaken, 
 would be strongly against our finding so many indications of the use of this Gospel. In 
 every one of the writers, from Polycarp and Papias to Polycrates, we have observed 
 phenomena which bear witness directly or indirectly, and with different degrees of dis- 
 tinctness, to its recognition. It is quite possible for critical ingenuity to find a reason for 
 discrediting each instance in turn. . . . By a sufficient number of assumptions, which 
 lie beyond the range of verification, the evidence may be set aside. But the early ex- 
 istence and recognition of the Fourth Gospel is the one simple postulate which explains 
 all facts." (Id. p. 495). 
 
 Irenceus, who flourished in the last quarter of the second century, speaks in extcnso 
 of the Four Gospels, naming their writers, and affirming that they were received as 
 authoritative documents by heretics as well as orthodox Christians. Thus "the 
 
INTEODUCTION TO THE GOSPEL. 13 
 
 Ebionites," he saj's, "made use of the Gospel by Matthew, and Marcion of that by 
 Luke, though with some oiuissions, while those who separate Jesus from Christ, saying, 
 that Christ remained impassible, though Jesus suffered death, prefer the Gospel by 
 Mark, and the followers of Valentinus use that of John." (Quoted ad sensam). Indeed, 
 he argues, fancifully yet strenuously, that in the fitness of things the gospel record 
 must be fourfold. ' ' For as there are four quarters of the earth over which the church 
 is scattered, and also four universal winds, so tlie gospel which, with the Spirit, is the 
 pillar and support of the church, ought to have four pillars, breathing from all direc- 
 tions immortality, and vivifying men" ('/Adv. Haer." iii. 11, 7 sq.). 
 
 Clement of Alexandria, who was a contemporary of Irenaeus (flor. A. D.192), writes 
 concerning a saying ascribed to the Lord, that "we do not have it in the Four Go.<ipcIs 
 that have been handed down to us, but in that according to the Hebrews" ("Strom." 
 iii, 553). In another work, as quoted by Euscbius("H. E." VI. 14), Clement states 
 the tradition of the ancient presbyters concerning the order of the Gospels containing 
 the genealogies, which is as follows: "They were wont to say that the Gospels 
 containing the genealogies were written before the others , . . but that John, last of 
 all, perceiving that what had respect to the natural [or bodily life of (Jhrist] hud been 
 made manifest in the Gospels, and being encouraged by his familiar friends, as well as 
 divinely moved by the Spirit, made a spiritual Gospel." This statement has distinct 
 points of resemblance to the one cited above from the "Fragment on the Canon" 
 discovered by Muratori. 
 
 Tertidlian, of North Africa, another contemporary of Irenaeus, remarks as follows 
 in his treatise against Marcion (IV. 2) : "We maintain, first of all, that the Evangelical 
 Instrument has for its authors apostles, on whom this office of pi'omulgating the Gospel 
 was imposed by the Lord himself: if also apostolic men [t. e. , associates of apostles], 
 yet not these alone, but with apostles and after apostles. For the preaching of disciples 
 might have been suspected of a desire for glory, if the authority of masters, yea, of 
 Christ, who made the apostles masters, did not support it. In fact, John and Matthew, 
 who were apostles (lit. of the apostles), implant in us faith ; Luke and Mark, who were 
 apostolic men, renew it." Again, having shown that the Gospel according to Luke was 
 received by all the principal churches, TertuUian proceeds thus : "The same authority 
 of apostolic churches endorses also other Gospels which we receive through them and 
 on account of them — I mean those of John and Matthew ; while that also which Mark 
 published may be ascribed to Peter, whose interpreter Mark was. Moreover, they are 
 accustomed to ascribe the Digest of Luke to Paul " ("Adv. Marcionem " IV. 2, 5). 
 
 Origen, the greatest Biblical scholar of the Ante-Nicene Church, began his work as 
 a teacher in Alexandria, about A. D. 203. A part of his extended commentary on the 
 Fourth Gospel has come down to us in the Greek original ; and in it he says : "For one 
 may also venture to say that the Gospel is the first-fruits of all the Scriptures. . . . But 
 we must know that the first-fruits and the first product are not the same. For the 'first- 
 fruits ' are ofiered after all the fruits, but the first product before all. Therefore of the 
 Scriptures in circulation, and believed to be divine in all the churches, one would not err 
 in saying that the law of Moses was the first product, but the Gospel the first-fruits ; for, 
 after all the fruits of the prophets who were until the Lord Jesus, the perfect Word 
 sprang up " (Tomus I. 4). Again, speaking of the Four Gospels and their distinctive 
 aims, he says that Luke "keeps for him who leaned upon the bosom of Jesus, the 
 greater and more perfect words concerning Jesus. For no one of those (viz., the first 
 three Evangelists) manifested clearly his deity, as did John, who introduced him saying : 
 
14 INTRODUCTION TO THE GOSPEL. 
 
 ' / am the Ligid of the World ; I am the Way and the Truth and the Life; I am the 
 Resurrection; I am the Door; I am the Good Shepherd;' and in the Apocalypse : '7 
 am the Alpha and the Oniega^ the Beginning and the End, the First and the Last.' 
 One may therefore venture to say that the Gospels are the ' first-fruits ' of all the 
 Scriptures, and that according to John, the ' first-fruits ' of the Gospels, the mind (or 
 meaning) of which no one is able to receive who has not leaned on JlSus' breast " (Tom. 
 I. 6). Again, referring to the language of Luke's preface, that many had taken in hand 
 to set forth the events of Christ's life, he remarks that " Matthew did not 'undertake,' 
 but wrote, being moved by the Holy Spirit. In like manner also Mark and John ; and 
 similarly Luke " (" Hom. in Luc." Tom. iii). Here we have the clearest evidence that 
 Origen regarded the Four Gospels as written by inspired men, Matthew, Mark, Luke, 
 and John, and as the only Gospels then known to the churches as the work of inspired 
 teachers. 
 
 It would be superfluous to adduce further evidence from Christian writers of this 
 period, that our Fourth Gospel was received by the churches as authentic and divine. 
 It was reckoned with the undisputed books, and was believed to be the work of John, 
 the brother of James. This is freely admitted by scholars who themselves suppose it 
 was written by some unknown Christian near the middle of the second century. To 
 bring forward the opinion of later times would, therefore, be of no avail. Yet the testi- 
 mony of Eusehius, who was familiar with many writings of the second century that 
 have since perished, deserves a moment's consideration. The Christian writings to 
 which he refers as produced in the period reaching from the death of John to the death 
 of Irenaeus, would form a respectable library ; and, if in our possession, would answer a 
 multitude of perplexing questions. With many of these books in his hands, Eusebius 
 undertook to write a history of Christian faith and life down to his own time (before and 
 after A. D. 325). Making free and careful use of sources of knowledge since lost, he 
 testifies that the "Gospel of John was well known in the churches throughout the 
 world," and must "be acknowledged as genuine." He includes it in what he calls 
 "the holy quaternion of the Gospels." and remarks that " besides the Gospel of John, 
 his first Epistle is acknowledged, without dispute, both by those of the present day, and 
 also by the ancients" (" H. E." iii. 24, 25). Nowhere does he express any doubt con- 
 cerning the apostolic origin of the Fourth Gospel. And it is incredible that he should 
 have stated the case as he has, making no qualifications, if he had discovered in any 
 early Christian writings doubts respecting that spiritual Gospel. His testimony is, 
 therefore, of singular importance, and must not be treated as that of a man speaking for 
 the men of his own generation only. His voice repeats the united testimony of many 
 witnesses, and there is no reason to suspect that it is not faithful and true. 
 
 Again, the presence of the Fourth Gospel in the earliest versions of the New 
 Testament proves that it was received by the authors of those versions, and by the 
 churches for which they were made, as an authentic and inspired document ; moreover, 
 if authentic and inspired, written by the Apostle John. For there exists no shadow of 
 reason to suppose that the Christians of the second century would have accepted any 
 writing as authentic or inspired, which they did not believe to have been written in the 
 first century by an apostle, or by a companion of apostles. And if they believed the 
 Fourth Gospel to have been written by one of the apostles, or by one of their com- 
 panions in the first century, there is everj'thing for, and nothing against the view, that 
 they held the writer to have been the Apostle John. This will scarcely be denied by the 
 assailants of the Gospel. The Old Syriac and the Old Latin are the two earliest 
 
INTRODUCTION TO THE GOSPEL. 15 
 
 versions of the New Testament which are known to scholars ; and both these contain 
 the Fourth Grospel, as well as the first three. 
 
 Of the Old Sj/riac, Westcott remarks : " The history of this Syriac Version offers 
 a remarkable parallel to that of the Latin, but with this difference, that of the Old 
 Syriac one very imi)erfect copy only, the Curetonian Version of the Gospels, has 
 been preserved. But this is sufficient to show that the Old Syriac was related very 
 nearly to the later revision of the Peshito, as the Old Latin was to the Ilieronymian 
 Latin." Again : " If a conjecture may be allowed, I think that the various facta of 
 the case are adequately explained by supposing that versions of separate books of the 
 New Testament were first made and used in Palestine, perhaps within the apostolic age, 
 and that shortly afterwards these were collected, revised, and completed at Edessa." 
 For a statement of the grounds of this conjecture, we refer the reader to Westcott' s 
 "History of the Canon of the New Testament : Fifth Edition ; " p. 238 sq. We have 
 not been able to find any valid reason for assigning the Old Syriac to a later date 
 than the middle of the second century (a. d. 150), and it may have been completed 
 much earlier, possibly near the beginning of the century. 
 
 The Old Latin Version appears to have been made in North Africa, where the 
 Greek language was not understood by the common people as it generally was in Italy. 
 Hence, Tertullian, though having himself a knowledge of Greek, wrote in Latin, and 
 employed, in his quotations from the New Testament, a Latin Version with which the 
 people of North Africa were familiar. This version he sometimes criticised as unsatis<» 
 factory, but it was afterwards improved by revision, and at length superseded the 
 original Greek in all the Western Church. As to the date of the Old Latin, Westcott 
 says : "If the version was, as has been seen, generally in use in Africa in his 
 [Tertullian' s] time, and had been in circulation sufficiently long to stereotype the 
 meaning of particular phrases, we cannot allow less than twenty years for its publicationi 
 and spread ; and if we take into account its extension into Gaul and its reception there^ 
 that period will seem too short. Now the beginning of Tertullian' s literary activity 
 cannot be placed later than 190 A. D., and we shall thus obtain the date 170 A. D. , as 
 that before which the version must have been made. How much more ancient it really 
 is, cannot yet be discovered." 
 
 As to the use which heretics living in the second century made of the Fourth Gospel, 
 reference may be made in the first place to the testimony of Irenaeus. Speaking of the 
 Four Gospels, he says in his work against Hceresies {hih. in. 11 . 1) : "So firm is the 
 ground upon which these Gospels rest, that the very heretics themselves bear witness to 
 them, and. starting from these [documents], each one of them endeavors to establish 
 his own peculiar doctrine." And after mentioning certain errorists who rely, some on 
 this and some on that Synoptic Gospel, he proceeds thus : " Those, moreover, who fol- 
 low Valentinus, making copious use of that according to John to illustrate their Con- 
 junctions, shall be proved to be totally in error by means of this very Gospel, as I have 
 shown in the first book. Since then, our opponents do bear testimony for us, and make 
 use of these [documents], our proof derived from them is firm and true." 
 
 According to Hippolytus, whose "Refutation of all Haeresies" is accepted as one of 
 the best sources of knowledge concerning the earliest perversions of Christian truth, the 
 Naassenes, or Ophites, must have begun to disseminate their speculations near the close 
 of the first century. He represents them as making use of sayings found in the Gospels 
 or in the Epistles of Paul. Those from the Fourth Gospel are quoted freely, as, e. g. , 
 " I am the true gate " (John x. 9) ; and, " No one can come unto me, except my heav- 
 
16 INTRODUCTION TO THE GOSPEL. 
 
 enly Father draw some one unto me " (John 6 : 44) ; again, " bj^ whom all things were 
 made, and nothing was made without him" (Id. 1:3); and, "For God, he says, is 
 spirit ; wherefore, he affirms, neither in this mountain do the true worshippers worship, 
 nor in Jerusalem, but in spirit " (Id. 4 : 21) ; also, " This," he says, " is the water that is 
 above the firmament," concerning which, he says, the Saviour has declared, "If thou 
 knewest who it is that asks, thou wouldst have asked from him, and he would have 
 given you to drink living, bubbling water " (Id. 4 : 10) ; and, " If any one is blind from 
 birth, and has never beheld the true light ' which lighteneth every man that cometh 
 into the world ' (Id. 1 : 9 ; 9 : 1), by us let him recover his sight." 
 
 The Feratcp are described by Hippolytus as another early class of heretics, akin to 
 the Ophites, whose leader made use of the Fourth Gospel, thus: "This, he saj^s, is 
 that which has been declared : ' In the same manner as Moses lifted up the serpent in 
 the wilderness, so also must the Son of man be lifted up' (John 3: 14, 15); also, 
 " Concerning this, he says, it has been declared : 'In the beginning was the Word, and 
 the Word was with God, and the Word was God. This was in the beginning with God, 
 all things wei-e made by him, and without him was not one thing that was made. And 
 what was formed in him is life ' " (Id. 1 : 1-4) ; again . " When, however, he [Jesus] re- 
 marks, ' Your father is a murderer from the beginning,' (Id. 8 : 44), he alludes to the 
 Ruler and Demiurge of matter," etc. ; and, " I am the door " (Id. 10 : 7). 
 
 Basilides flourished in the reign of Hadrian, A. D. 117-138, and was the author of a 
 Gnostic theory of the universe. He appears to have acce^jted the writings of the New 
 Testament as of divine authority, but to have interpreted them according to a religious 
 philosophy of his own. He is represented by Hippolytus (VII. 22) as sajnng : "This 
 [viz., the Word, " Let there be light,"] is that which has been stated in the Gospels : 
 ' He was the true light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world ' ' ' (John 
 1 : 9). "Now this," remarks the translator of Hippolytus in the "Ante-Nicene Chris- 
 tian Library," "is precisely the mode of reference we should expect that Basilides 
 would employ ; whereas, if Hippolytus had either fabricated the passage or adduced it 
 from hearsay, it is almost certain he would have said 'in the Gospel of John,' and not 
 indefinitely, 'the Gospels.' " It is certainly for more natural to suppose that Basilides 
 is here quoted as interpreting a passage of Genesis by one in John, than to suppose that 
 any unmentioned disciple of this heretic is thus quoted. 
 
 Valentinus was a contemporary of Justin Martyr. Irenaeus saj's that he "came to 
 Rome in the time of H3'ginus, flourished under Pius, and remained until Anicetus." 
 "The date a. d. 140-160 represents the close of his Hfe " (Charteris, p. 413). Accord- 
 ing to Irenaeus (L. I. 8, 5) the Valentinians "teach that John, the disciple of the Lord, 
 has revealed the first Ogdoad," etc., and that " he expresses himself thus : 'In the be- 
 ginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.' Having 
 first of all distinguished these three — God, the Beginning, and the AVord — he again 
 unites them, that he may exhibit the production of each of them, that is, of the Son 
 and of the Word, and may at the same time show their union with one another, and 
 with the Father . . . ' The same was in the beginning with God ' — this clause discloses 
 the order of production. 'AH things were made by him, and without him was nothing 
 made ' ; for the Word was the author of form and beginning to all the Mon% that came 
 into existence after him. But ' what was made by him,' says John, ' is Hfe.' " It wiU 
 be seen that the Valentinians " made copious use " of the Fourth Gospel, and the only 
 doubt concerning the value of this fact arises from the possibility that Irenaeus quotes 
 from later adherents of the heresy, instead of the founder. But it is well to remember 
 
INTRODUCTION TO THE GOSPEL. 17 
 
 that Irenaeus was probably born about A. D. 135-140; that in early life he was a 
 eunteuiporary of Pulj'carp, Justin Martyr, Basilides, and Valcntinus ; and tliat he 
 writes as if the whole Valentinian sect perverted the Gospel of John in order to 
 commend their extraordinary speculation. That the Fourth Gospel, borrowed from the 
 teaching of Valentinus, is a wild conjecture, resting upon no testimony, and contradicted 
 by his followers, if not by himself; that it was written after his demise, and was laid hold 
 of by his followers to bolster up his system, is no less unhistorical and absurd. 1'liat it 
 was cited as an authoritative Christian document, likely to have great influence with 
 the men of that generation, is perfectly obvious. And that it had such an influence 
 because, and only because, it was believed to have been written by "John, the disciple 
 of the Lord," is equally obvious to one familiar with Christian literature of the second 
 century. How impossible, then, to believe that it had just seen the light, being foisted 
 upon the Christians of that age, and received by them, without evidence of apostolic 
 authority ! An age, be it remembered, when heresies were breaking out in every 
 quarter, and the churches were being wai'ned against them by such men as Polyearp and 
 Irenaeus and TertuUian. 
 
 Finally, it may be well to observe the manner in which TertuUian refers to A''alen- 
 tinus. In his treatise, "De Prsescript. Haereticorum " (ch. 37), he maintains that 
 heretics have no right to employ the Scriptures, adding: "To whom it should properly 
 be said: ' Who are ye? When, and whence have you come? AVhat are j'ou doing in 
 my [domain], not being mine? By what right, Marciou, dost thou cut down my forest? 
 By whose permission, Valentinus, dost thou turn nwai/ 7n>j fountains f By what power, 
 Apelles, dost thou remove my boundaries? Why do ye, aliens, here sow and feed 
 according to your own will? This is my possession; from of old I possess it. I have 
 firm titles from the authors to whom it belonged. I am heir of the apostles." Again 
 (ch. 38) : " One perverts the Scriptures by his hand ; another, by his explanation of the 
 meaning. For if Valentinus seems to use the entire Instrument [A c, Bible], he raises 
 his hand against the truth with as prompt a mind as Marcion. For Marcion plainly and 
 openly made use of a swoi'd, not a pen, since he slaughtered the Scriptures for his 
 material. But Valentinus spared them, since he did- not invent Scriptures for his 
 material, but material for the Scriptures. And j'et he took away more, and added more, 
 by removing the proper meanings of single words, and by inserting combinations of 
 things discordant." It appears from this testimony of the great African, that Valen- 
 tinus in his day accepted the entire Canon of Scripture received by orthodox Christians 
 in the time of TertuUian ; and this, we know, included the Fourth Gospel. 
 
 This unvarnished statement of the external evidence in favor of the belief that 
 the Fourth Gospel was written by the Apostle John, is sufficient to prove the correct- 
 ness of that belief, unless there is something in the Gospel itself inconsistent with such 
 authorship. 
 
 Passing to the internal evidence, we discover many things in this Gospel which con- 
 firm the view that it was written by the Apostle John, rather than by some unknown 
 Christian of the second centurj\ And this is the alternative advanced by modern 
 criticism. Whoever believes that it was written by a personal follower of Christ, i. e., 
 by a witness of much that is here said to have been done or taught by him, will concede 
 that its writer was John ; and whoever disbelieves that it could have been written by 
 John, will be sure to assign it to some unknown Christian of the second century. 
 
 Attention may first be given to the hearin'^ of certain differences between the Fourth 
 Gospel and the other three npon the question of authorship^ as stated above.. One of these 
 
18 INTRODUCTION TO THE GOSPEL. 
 
 differences pertains to the localities in which Christ is said to have fulfilled his ministry. 
 If a reader had the first three Gospels onl^^ he would be apt to conclude that Jesus did 
 very little teaching in Jerusalem before his final visit to that city — a visit which, after 
 two or three days of public service, was terminated by his arrest and trial and cruci- 
 fixion. A microscopic scrutiny might reveal to him a few traces of the Lord's earlier 
 presence and influence there (Matt. 23: 37; Luke 13: 34; 10: 38, 39), but even such 
 scrutiny would not discover any trace of a previous ministry of Jesus in the province of 
 Judea, or in that of Samaria. According to these Gospels, Galilee appears to have 
 been the almost exclusive theatre of the Saviour's ministry. But, on the other hand, 
 the Fourth Gospel represents the Lord as going up to Jerusalem at a passover which 
 occurred soon after his baptism, as expelling the money-changers from his Father's 
 house, as doing signs for several da3'S in the holy city, and as continuing his ministry 
 for a considerable period, perhaps for months, in the province of Judea. (See "Out- 
 lines of the Life of Christ," by I]. R. Condor, pp. G2-4) ; also as preaching two days, 
 with remarkable effect, in Sychar, near the ancient Shechem, on his way through 
 Samaria to Galilee ; then, at the next passover, as returning from Galilee to Jerusalem 
 (John 5 : 1), where he healed the infirm man on the Sabbath and afterwards boldly 
 preached to the Jews ; and as coming once more after a long period of service in 
 Galilee, to Jerusalem at the Feast of Tabernacles, six months before his death, that 
 he might remain there off and on, teaching and doing wonderful works for another in- 
 definite time ; and finally, as returning, after an absence in Ephraim, through Jericho, to 
 spend the last da3-s of his public life in the holy city. 
 
 It would then be not far from correct to say that the first three Gospels appear to 
 assign about sixty-four out of sixty-five parts of the Saviour's i^ublic ministrj' to Galilee 
 and its neighborhood, while the Fourth Gospel appears to assign not far from one 
 hundred and seventeen out of one hundred and sixty-nine parts to Galilee, and 
 perhaps fifty-two parts to other regions, especially Judea. The difference is striking. 
 But it is a difference, not a contradiction. And there is no evidence that the writer 
 of the Fourth Gospel was conscious of any difference requiring exi)lanation between 
 his Gospel and the first three ; for had he been conscious of such a difference, he 
 would have given the requisite explanation, as was his custom in other instances 
 where exjilanation was needful. These are the facts : A great difference ; a difference 
 that involves no contradiction ; a difference that was unperceived, or, at least, unfelt 
 by the writer ; in other words, a harmony in diversity which is remarkable and 
 apparently unsought. How then can these facts be most naturally accounted for? 
 By supposing that the Fourth Gospel was written by John, a personal attendant of 
 Jesus, or by supposing that it was written by a fakarius of the second century? 
 
 It does not appear to be at all improbable that a perfectlj' honest writer, as John is 
 presumed to have been, who is relating what he has seen or heard, should fearlessly put 
 down events as he remembers them, being sure that it is his duty as a first witness to 
 declare the truth without change, and equally sure that the truth Avhich he declares 
 cannot be inconsistent with any other truth. This, I saj', would be a natural state of 
 mind in a conscientious writer, who was relating what he distinctly remembered seeing 
 or hearing. And if, in this state of mind, he should intentionally omit much that he 
 remembered, either because it had been already put in writing b}' others, or because a 
 complete record would be too voluminous for use, he would do this without feeling it 
 necessary to adjust his own narrative, minutely, to other narratives ; he would simply 
 omit what his plan required him to omit, and describe the rest as he remembered it. A 
 
INTRODUCTION TO THE GOSPEL. 19 
 
 sense of reality would control his pen. But this could not be the case with a.falsanus 
 of the second century. In his own mind he could not be as independent of the Synop- 
 tic Grospels as the writer of the Fourth Gospel appears to have been. He could not 
 have assigned so large a part of the Saviour's public ministry to new places, without 
 feeling that there was great danger of contradicting the well known and approved Gos- 
 pels. In a word, it seems quite improbable that he would have ventured to differ in 
 this respect so widely from the Synoptists ; improbable that, having ventured to do 
 this, he would have escaped the danger of actual contradiction between his record and 
 theirs ; and improbable, if he accomplished this at all, that he could have done it, 
 without betraying the slightest apprehension of the danger to which he was exposed, 
 or the slightest attempt to adjust his narrative to theirs, or the slightest wish to correct 
 what he might regard as inaccurate in their narratives. It is clear to me, therefore, that 
 the difference between the Fourth Gospel and the other three, as to the localities of 
 Christ's ministry, is best accounted for by ascribing the last of the Gospels to John. 
 
 Another difference relatiis to the duration of our Lord's ministry. If we had the 
 first three Gospels only, we should probably think that the period from Christ's baptism 
 to his crucifixion comprised about one year and a third ; but with the Fourth Gospel in 
 our hands, we should probably infer that this period comprised three years and a third. 
 Even if it could be shown that the feast of the Jeics, spoken of in John 5: 1, was not the 
 passover, the Fourth Gospel would prove that the public life of Jesus filled a period of 
 two years and a third. Now this difference between the first three Gospels and the 
 fourth, is readily explained if the fourth was written by an apostle, familiar with the 
 public life of Christ. For such a writer would see no difficulty in the case. It would 
 probably never occur to him that any of his readers might be puzzled to ascertain which 
 of the Jewish feasts he meant in John 5: 1, or that there could ever be any difficulty in 
 reconciling his account of the duration of Christ's ministry with that of the Synoptical 
 writers. The very clearness and certainty of his knowledge would prevent explanation. 
 But it would have been far otherwise with a Christian of the second century in attempt- 
 ing to write as an eye-witness concerning events that he knew only by report, or that he 
 imagined for a purpose. Too much boldness would have led to contradiction between 
 his story and the earlier documents ; while too much caution would have betrayed itself 
 in minute adjustment or explanation. Marvelous indeed would have been the genius 
 of any man of the second century, who could have written the Fourth Gospel ! I do 
 not hesitate to say that he would have been far greater than any of the apostles, and 
 the task which he performed far more difficult than any that has been achieved by 
 writers of history or of storj' since the world was. 
 
 Another difference relates to the miracles of Jesris. As to those recorded in the 
 Fourth Gospel, four remarks may be made: 1. That, with two exceptions, they are not 
 the same as those described in the other Gospels. The two exceptions are Christ's walk- 
 ing on the sea and his feeding the five thousand. 2. That several of them are singularly 
 conclusive when studied as evidences of divine power. Such are the changing of water 
 into wine, the feeding of the five thousand with five loaves and two small fishes, the 
 giving of sight to one who had been born blind, the raising to life of one who had been 
 dead four days, and, perhaps, the healing of the nobleman's son from a distance. But 
 the same cannot be said of the other two, viz. : walking upon the sea, and helping the 
 disciples to take an extraordinary draught of fishes. Hence, six out of the eight 
 miracles recorded in the Fourth Gospel may be pronounced remarkable even as 
 miracles, affording the strongest proof possible, from such a source, of supernatural 
 
20 INTRODUCTION TO THE GOSPEL. 
 
 power wielded by Christ. 3. That they seem to have been selected for narration, 
 because of their fitness to beget faith in Christ in the minds of those who believed 
 the record. For not without a measure of reason has the Fourth Gospel been described 
 by certain scholars as a Tendenzsclirift ; i. e., a treatise composed with a definite aim, or 
 to accomplish a given purpose. The writer himself authorizes this view of his work : 
 "So also did Jesus many other signs before the disciples, which are not written in this 
 book ; but these have been written that ye may believe that Jesus is the Christ, 
 the Sun of God; and that believing, ye may»have life in his name" (20: 30, 31.) 
 A better statement of the object which moved the writer of this Gospel to select for 
 insertion the particular miracles which are described in it, need not be sought. 4. That 
 with the miracles are also related their obvious consequences. Indeed, the consequences 
 are so manifestly important as to furnish an ample justification of the miracles. A 
 thoughtful reader will observe the words of the Evangelist in John 2 : 23 : " Many be- 
 lieved in his name, beholding his signs which he did " (Rev. Yer.); and the similar words 
 of Nicodemus, 3:2: " We know that thou art a Teacher come from God, for no one 
 can do these signs which thou doest, except God be with him " ; also, the kindred state- 
 ment of the Evangelist respecting the miracle at Cana, 2:11: "This beginning of his 
 signs did Jesus in Cana of Galilee, and manifested his glory ; and his disciples be- 
 lieved on him" (Rev. Ver.) ; and his notice of the consequence of Christ's next mira- 
 cle in Galilee, namely, the faith of the nobleman (^aaiAiKos) and his house, ch. 4: 53: 
 "The father knew therefore that it was in the same hour in which Jesus said unto him : 
 Thy son lives; and he himself believed, and all his house" (Bible Union Version). 
 More at length are the consequences of the cure of the infirm man in Jerusalem 
 described in the fifth chapter of this Gospel, as well as the consequences of feeding 
 the five thousand, in the sixth chapter, the consequences of giving sight to the man who 
 was born blind, in the ninth chapter, and the consequences of raising Lazarus, to life 
 again, in the eleventh chapter. The Fourth Gospel differs then from the first three in 
 the four respects mentioned, in the particular miracles which it describes, in. the great- 
 ness of these miracles, in their eminent fitness to inspire belief on the name of Jesus, 
 the Son of God, and in their important consequences at the time. Not that the 
 miracles of the earlier Gospels are entirely wanting in the three characteristics last 
 named, but that these characteristics are more distinct and pronounced in the miracles 
 of the Fourth Gospel. It is a difference of degree onlj', yet a difierence so clearly 
 marked as to need explanation. 
 
 What bearing, then, has the difference in question on the authorship of the Fourth 
 Gospel? Is it best explained by considering the writer an apostle who selected his 
 materials without fear from the life of Christ with which he was familiar, or by con- 
 sidering him a post-apostolic Christian, who shaped or invented materials to suit his 
 purpose? Unless there is something really incredible in the miracles of the Fourth 
 Gospel, something which compels us to assign them to the realm of fable, I see no good 
 reason for supposing that an apostle may not have chosen to insert just these, and no 
 others, in his narrative. Writing after the Synoptical Gospels had come into use, and 
 writing for a definite and Christian purpose, it is easy to believe that he may have 
 chosen them, chiefly because they were fitted to accomplish the object of his Gospel, 
 but also because most of them were not recorded in existing Gospels. But I cannot see 
 how a wise and good man of the second century could have learned or invented the 
 simple, but perfect, storj' of these miracles, unrecorded by the other Evangelists ; nor 
 can I easily believe that the Fourth Gospel was written by any man who was not both 
 
INTRODUCTION TO THE GOSPEL. 21 
 
 wise and good. It does not bear the marks of folly or of craft. It seems a very bold 
 and stniiglitforward writing, and, looking simply at its record of miracles, I think the 
 probabilities are as ten to one in favor of its Johannean authorship. 
 
 Before leaving this point we may recur to the object of the Fourth Gospel, as declared 
 by the author hiuLself, viz. : to lead its readers to "believe that Je.sus is the Christ, the 
 Son of God, and that believing" thej'^ "might have life in his name." Assuming the 
 truth of this statement, can we doubt the sincerity of the author's fiith in Christ as 
 the Saviour of men? If not, and we admit the sincerity of his Christian faith, can we 
 doubt his belief of the truth of what he was writing? Could he, being an honest 
 believer in Jesus on groumls satisfactory to his own powerful mind, resort to fictions of 
 tlie most extraordinary kind in persuading others to share his faith ? Could the man 
 who truly honored the Saviour, and desired to have others honor him, ascribe to him, 
 falsely, sucli words as, " T am the way, and the truth, and the life," or such a praj'cr to 
 tiie Father as this: "Sanctity tliem in the truth, thy word is truth?" (Revised Version.) 
 There is a psychological absurdity involved in this view. But if we assume that the 
 author of the Fourth Gospel did not himself truly believe in Jesus as the Christ, the 
 Son of God and the Saviour of men, and did not seriously aim to lead others to this 
 belief, how shall we explain the moral and spiritual elevation of this Gospel? "By 
 their fruits ye shall know them." An evil tree cannot bring forth good fruit. But here 
 certainly is good fruit. 
 
 Another difference relates to the parables of Jesus. The Fourth Gospel does not 
 contain the word "parable" (n-apa^oA^)^ or any discourse of Jesus that exactly corre- 
 sponds with the beautiful illustrations of truth which bear that name in the Synoptical 
 Gospels. His representation of himself as the door of the sheepfold, and then as the 
 good shepherd that giveth his Ufe for the sheep, in John 10 : 1-17, reminds one of the 
 ])erfect parables reported by Matthew and Luke, but does not fill the mould in which 
 they are cast. Yet, though there are no perfect parables in the Fourth Gospel, there 
 are many passages which may be said to breathe the spirit of parables. Nature is 
 made to utter the profoundest lessons of religious truth. Jesus represents himself as 
 the way, the truth, and the life, as the light of the world, as the true bread from 
 heaven, as the true vine, and as the king of all those who are of the truth. Moreover, 
 the writer calls some of his sayings "proverbs" (TapoiM«it). Now it is easy to believe 
 that Jesus made use of dark sayings (n-apoi^tai) as well as of parables (n-apa3oAai)^ and that 
 in some parts of his ministry he employed the former, while in others he employed the 
 latter, skillfully adapting his method of instruction or appeal to the spiritual condition 
 of those addressed. Nor is it difficult to believe that an apostle, who had often listened 
 to both forms of teaching, might be led by his deeper interest in one form than in the 
 other, or by his wish to record the truths which his Lord had taught in that form, but 
 not in the other, to insert in his narrative of Christ's ministry the teaching which had 
 been given in that form. But it is not so credible that afalsarius of the second century 
 could have originated the metaphorical teaching of the Fourth Gospel, or could have 
 received it in so perfect a form through oral tradition, or would have ventured to put so 
 much teaching of this form in his Gospel, without even saying that Jesus sometimes 
 taught in parables. 
 
 Another difiierence is found in the events related. Perhaps it may be suggested that 
 a diiference of locality and of duration in the ministry of Christ would account for this 
 difi'erence of events, whoever may have been the writer. To some extent it would ; but 
 nothing short of an examination of cases will show whether it is or is not a sufficient 
 
22 INTRODUCTION TO THE GOSPEL. 
 
 explanation of the actual narrative. Take the following instance : The Fourth Gospel 
 not only asserts that Jesus was preaching and making disciples for a considerable period 
 in Judea before the imprisonment of John the Baptist, but also that, by the hands of 
 his first disciples, he was baptizing disciples in that region. Now as the work of Jesus 
 in baptizing led to the debate about purification, to the consequent appeal to John the 
 Baptist, and so to the testimony which he gave in respect to Christ, it evidently fell in 
 with the purpose of the Evangelist to insert the whole story in his Gospel. If the events 
 were actual, there is no reason why an apostle should not have made use of them in 
 his narrative. But I think it flir less probable that a writer of the second century, 
 knowing the Lord's ministry through the earlier Gospels or oral tradition, would have 
 been acquainted with these events, if they really occurred, or that he would have dared 
 to relate them without historical warrant. For I need not pause to show that the 
 M'riter of this paragraph in the Fourth Gospel (3 : 22-30) has come very near, ap- 
 parentl.v, to a contradiction of the earlier accounts which seem to represent the ministry 
 of Jesus as beginning after the imprisonment of John the Baptist, and not in Judea, 
 but in Galilee. Matt. 4 : 12, 17, 24 ; Mark 1 : 14, 28 ; Luke 4 : 14. Speaking of seem- 
 ing contradictions, reference may also be made to the words which this Gospel ascribes to 
 the Baptist : "And I knew him not," etc., (John 1 : 31). Would it have been natural 
 for a writer of the second century, familiar with the first three Gospels, to put these 
 words into the mouth of the Bajitist? Would he not have inferred just the contrary 
 from Matthew's account of John's words when Christ ap])lied to him for ba]itism : 
 "I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me" (3: 14)? But, on 
 the other hand, if the writer was one who had heard the Baptist, a great prophet 
 and his revered teacher, utter these words, might he not have recorded them without 
 fear of contradiction ? He would not have been carefully and laboriously working up 
 a case, but simply stating what he remembered. But to return from this digression : 
 I do not think it at all probable that there was any Christian in the second century who 
 could have put into the mouth of John the Baptist these beautiful and magnanimous 
 words: "A man can receive nothing, except it have been given him from heaven. Ye 
 yourselves bear me witness, that 1 said, I am not the Christ, but that I am sent before 
 him. He that hath the bride is the bridegroom ; but the friend of the bridegroom, who 
 standeth and heareth him, rejoiceth greatly because of the bridegroom's voice : this my 
 joy therefore is made full. He must increase, but I must decrease " (Rev. Ver). If any 
 Christian of the second century originated such a response, I would join with all 
 my heart in calling him the Great Unknoicn of New Testament writers ; but I have an 
 impression that the theory of great unknown writers of Scripture has been stretched 
 to the utmost, and even carried at times beyond the limits of sober reason. 
 
 Again, according to the Fourth Gospel, Jesus, when seized and bound in the garden, 
 was "led to Annas first," because " he was father-in-law of Caiaphas, the high-priest." 
 But the first three Gospels do not mention the fact that Jesus was led to Annas before 
 he was taken to Caiaphas and the Sanhedrin. Precisely what was accomplished by 
 leading him to Annas first is not stated in the Fourth Gospel ; nor is it perfectl}' clear 
 how the record of this fact contributed to securing the object sought hy the Evangelist 
 in writing this Gospel. We are therefore unable to imagine any reason for the insertion 
 of this statement, if it is not true ; and if what is stated was done, who so likely 
 to mention it as one who followed Jesus from the garden that night ? Its insertion by 
 & faharius o^ i\\Q second century would be simpljMinaccountable ; especially as anj' one 
 who was adjusting his narrative to earlier Gospels must have seen that the introduction 
 
INTRODUCTION TO THE GOSPEL. 23 
 
 of this event would be crowding an already crowded period, and would be likely to pro- 
 duce confusion in the reader's mind. Only one supposition, namely, that the statement 
 is erroneous, can justify the view that it was made by some unknown writer of tiie 
 second century ; and that supposition cannot be proved correct. 
 
 Again, the Fourth Gospel seems to place tlia mppar in Jktiuiii}/, at which Christ was 
 anointed by Mary, six days before the pussover, while the other Uosjjels seem to place 
 it two days before the passover. The language is not such in either case as to make the 
 date perfectly certain against other testimony ; but if we had only the Fourth Gosjjel 
 we should doubtless put the supper on Saturday, while if we had only the Synoptical 
 Gospels, we should put it on Wednesday. In this instance, also, I believe that an 
 apostle, writing from the springs of personal knowledge, would scarcely think of a pos- 
 sibility of contradiction between his record and any other ; but 1 cannot easily imagine 
 that n falsariun, who had learned from others all that he knew of these events, would 
 have failed to shun such a difference as the one in question — especially as there ajiijears 
 to be no assignable motive for giving the feast an earlier date than it seems to have in 
 the Synoptists. 
 
 Another difference arises from omissions. There are a few things omitted in the 
 Fourth Gospel which are recorded in the first three, and which John would have been 
 more likely than a falsarius to omit. One of these is the mime of the Apoatle John. 
 This does not once occur in the Fourth Gospel. And it is conceivable that a truly 
 modest man might never refer to himself by name, though he had filled an important 
 place among the disciples. But it is impossible to discover any motive that would have 
 led a Chistian of the second century to omit the name of John, the companion of Peter. 
 A similar remark may be made concei'ning the omission of the r,ame of his hrotlicr 
 Jamts, who was the third member of the inner group of three, so highly distinguished by 
 Christ. Andrew, Peter, Philip, Nathanael, Thomas, even Judas Iscariot, are frequently 
 mentioned, but neither James nor John. And the same may be noticed in regard to 
 Salome, who was probablj^ the mother of James andJolui. Compare, on this point, John 
 19: 25, with Matthew 27: 56, and Mark 15:40. "It is very unlikely," says Conder 
 ("Outlines of the Life of Christ," p. 55, Note), "that Mary, the mother of Jesus, had 
 a sister of the same name ; and it quite accords with St. John's suppression of his own 
 name that he should refer to his own mother in the same manner. This view throws a 
 beautiful light both on the special love of the Master for this one disciple, and on John 
 19 : 26, 27," where Jesus commits to John the care of his mother. 
 
 Again, the Fourth Gospel never adds the epithet Baptist to the name of John, the 
 harbinger of Christ. If the modest author was himself the only other John who was 
 closely connected with Jesus, it is quite conceivable that he would speak of the fore- 
 runner as John — the John who needed no epithet to distinguish him from the writer — 
 the only person, in fact, whom the writer, in his oral reminiscences, had any occasion to 
 denominate John, since if he referred to himself at all it would naturally be done bj' 
 means of the pronoun I. In such circumstances, I say, it is by no means improbable 
 that the apostle would uniformly call his great namesake simply John. But this would 
 not have been a natural thing for any one else to do, certainly not for a Christian of the 
 second century. 
 
 The force of the argument from these omissions in favor of the view that the Fourth 
 Gospel was written by the Apostle John rather than by some unknown Christian of the 
 second century, depends in part upon the assumption that this apostle was a truly modest 
 man. If there were good evidence that he was a forward, conceited, self-asserting man, 
 
24 INTRODUCTION TO THE GOSPEL. 
 
 the force of this consideration would be greatly weakened. And two facts have been 
 supposed to favor the idea that he was the reverse of modest or self-forgetful, namely : 
 First, that he sometimes refers to himself as the disciple lohom Jesus loved (viz. , in 1 3 : 
 23 ; 19 : 26 ; 20 : 2 ; 21 : 7, 20). But in estimating the bearing of this fact, we ought to 
 ask ourselves : first, how this way of referring to himself was modified in his own feelings 
 by withholding his name ; secondly, how it was modified by the warmth of his nature 
 which may have made him peculiarly grateful to Christ for tender love, and inexpressibly 
 eager to utter in some strong, though impersonal way, his profound appreciation of that 
 love ; and, thirdly, how he bore himself, though a powerful and ardent soul, when after- 
 wards he was associated with Peter and the other apostles in Christian service. If we 
 answer these questions, as they ought to be answered in justice to the life and character 
 of John as they appear in the sacred record, the argument from the omissions noted 
 above will lose none of its force. The second fact which is alleged to be inconsistent 
 with genuine or at least peculiar modesty on the part of John, is the request which he 
 joined with his brother James in making, through their mother, that they two might sit, 
 one on his right hand and the other on his left, in his kingdom. But in estimating the 
 value of this fact, as an objection to the modesty of John, we may properly bear in mind, 
 {(i) that these two brothers were expecting that Jesus would establish an earthly kingdom, 
 (Ij) that they were probably cousins of Jesus, and were certainly honored with his special 
 intimacy, (c) that they presented their request through their mother, if not by her 
 advice, and (d) that they appear to have quietly droi)ped the matter as soon as the 
 Master" s will was known. Beyond question they were among the ablest as well as the 
 best beloved of the disciples, and this one request does not, in view of all the circum- 
 stances, prove that tliey were specially forward, or in any respect conceited men. The 
 presentation of their request through their mother, points rather in the opposite 
 direction. 
 
 We have now briefly considered the bearing of certain differences between the Fourth 
 Gospel and the other three on the question as to the authorship of the former, namely : 
 (a) a difference as to the localities in which Christ fulfilled his ministry, {L) a difference 
 as to the duration of that ministry, (c) a difference as to the miracles ascribed to Jesus, 
 (d) a difference as to parables or method of teaching, (r) a difference as to events related, 
 (/) a difference occasioned by a definite class of omissions, — and have found them all to 
 be favorable to the Johannean authorship of the Fourth Gospel. 
 
 Attention may be given, secoudlt/, to certain narratices of the Fou th Gospel tchich are 
 rendered peculiarly graphic by means of unimj)ortant circumsta)ices — meaning by unim- 
 portant circumstances those which are not essential to the expression of religious truth. 
 
 One of these is the circumstantial way in which the Fvangelist di-scrihe^'i the gathering 
 to Je.fus of his first disciples (1 : 29-42). After giving an account of an interview between 
 John the Baptist and a deputation of Pharisees from Jerusalem, he mentions the place 
 where this deputation was received, viz. : Bethany (or Bethabara), beyond Jordan, where 
 John was baptizing, and then proceeds to relate how on the morrow the Baptist saw 
 Jesus coming unto him, and said : "Behold the Lamb of God," etc.; how on the follow- 
 ing day he was standing with two of his disciples and, looking upon Jesus as he walked, 
 said again : '' Behold the Lamb of God ! " how the two di.sciples heard him saying this, 
 though it may not have been addressed particularly to them, and therefore followed 
 Jesus; how Jesus having turned and seen them following, said unto them: "What 
 seek j'e?" And when they answered, "Rabbi, where dwellest thou?" invited them 
 to "come and see"; how they complied with this invitation ; and, it being about the 
 
INTRODUCTION TO THE GOSPEL. 25 
 
 tenth hour, abode the rest of the day with him, though one of them, meanwhile, whose 
 name was Andrew, found his more distinguished brother and brought liim to Jesus ; and 
 liow Jesus looked ui)on tliat brother, and, perceiving wliat he was to bec(nue, said : 
 " Thou art t«'imon, the son of Jona ; thou shalt be called Cephas " (<'. c, Peter). 
 
 Does not this narrative decilare itself to be the work of an eye-witness, by almost 
 every line ? For so brief a paragraph, the number of particulars mentioned is very 
 great. And they are such particulars as a deeply interested witness might be exftected 
 to remember. If the writer was the Apostle John, the day when these events took place 
 was a day never to be forgotten by him — a veritable turning-point in his life, to which 
 he would look back with peculiar gratitude as the beginning of his fellowship with 
 Christ. It is not therefore a matter of surprise that he should be able to sketch so bold 
 and distinct and perfect a picture of it. Nor is it strange that he should have ventured 
 to differ, as he seems to do, without a word of explanation, from the earlier Evangelists, 
 both as to the time when the four leading disciples began to follow Jesus, and as to the 
 time when the Lord gave to Simon his new name. I do not say or believe that there 
 is any real contradiction between the Fourth Gospel and the first three on either of these 
 points ; but I think there is a difference of representation that cannot readily be ac- 
 counted for, without supposing the Fourth Grospel to be true, and the testimony of an 
 original witness. Everything is credible and, indeed, natural, if this Gospel be received 
 as the work of the Apostle John ; but much is surprising, if it be ascribed to some 
 unknown Christian of the second century. The picture before us is too simple and 
 vivid, too minute in detail, and independent in character, to be the work of a 
 falsarina. 
 
 Equally graphic is the next paragraph, which relates what was done on the following 
 day, viz. : how Philip was found by the Lord as the latter was about to go forth into 
 Galilee, and then how Nathanael was found by Philip. Especially fresh and spicy is 
 the conversation between Philip and Nathanael, while that between Nathanael and 
 Christ is more striking and original still. It will also be observed that the native place 
 of Philip is mentioned, with an added notice that it was the native place of Andrew and 
 Peter as well. With no less particularity does the Evangelist describe the events of the 
 next day — the marriage and miracle in Cana of Galilee. All these paragraphs appear 
 to be the story of an eye-witness, of one who was present when the deputation ques- 
 tioned John the Bajjtist on the first day, when the Baptist pointed out Jesus as the 
 Messiah on the second day, when he pointed him out again, on the third daj', and two 
 of his own disciples followed Christ to his abode, when Jesus went to Galilee on the 
 fourth day, and when he turned the water into wine on the fifth day. 
 
 Another portion of the Fourth Gospel may be studied from the same point of view- 
 namely, the conversation of Jesus with the Samaritan woman at Jacob's weU (4 : 5-45X 
 But our study of it must be brief. Reference may, however, be made in a single 
 paragraph to several particulars. Here are allusions to sceneri/ — e. g. , to the deep well, 
 the adjacent mountain, the neighboring city, the fertile plain ; to historic facts — as the con- 
 nection of Jacob with the well, the non-intercourse of Jews and Samaritans, thd wor- 
 ship of the foi'mer in Jerusalem and of the latter in Gerizim ; to social customs — for the 
 disciples, it is said, " marvelled that he was speaking with (a) woman," and, notwith- 
 standing their non-intercourse with Samaritans, went into the city and mingled with the 
 people enough to buy food of them ; and, perhaps, to the season of the year — " Say ye 
 not, there are yet four months, and then cometh harvest?" In all these respects the 
 narrative appears to be remarkably true to place, age, and circumstances. 
 
26 INTRODUCTION TO THE GOSPEL. 
 
 But the question of the woman, addressed to the men in the city, seems to bear the 
 stamp of originality in a peculiar degree. According to the narrative the woman evi- 
 dently believed that Jesus was the Christ ; would not a writer of fiction have made her 
 intimate this belief in her question? — even as the Common English Version : " Is not 
 this the Christ ? ' ' intimates it ? But according to the Grreek narrative she did not. For 
 some reason she saw fit to speak as if she were herself in doubt, and even a little in- 
 clined to think that he was not the Christ, — (m^" oStos ^(rri.v 6 Xpurros), — though she was 
 nevertheless anxious to have the judgment of her neighbors on the point. Sa3's Grodet : 
 "She believes more than she saj's ; but she does not venture to assume even as probable 
 so great news. Nothing could be more natural than this little trait." Possibly it 
 would be right to say that because she was a woman, and because she was such a woman, 
 she felt that the people to whom she spoke would be more influenced by the fticts she 
 reported if she did not seem to draw, with too great confidence, the highest possible 
 inference from them. 
 
 jMen are sometimes too proud to be guided in their judgment, especially by women, 
 and women are sometimes keen-sighted enough to perceive this. If this woman had 
 known human nature perfectly, I question whether she could have made a report of 
 Christ's words better calculated to lead the men of Sychar to consider fairly the claims 
 of Jesus. But it seems to me that a writer of fiction in the second century would 
 scarcely have had so subtle a perception of the workings of a woman's mind as to put 
 into her mouth this form of question. 
 
 But how, it may i)erl)aps be asked, could the Apostle John have learned the precise 
 form or purport of this woman's question to the men of the city? We answer, from the 
 men themselves, as he met and conversed with them during the two days spent by Jesus 
 and his disciples in Sychar or Shechem. Or how, it may again be asked, could John 
 have learned the substance of the remarkable conversation of Christ with the woman at 
 the well ? We answer, by hearing it, as he remained at the well with Jesus ; for it is 
 unnecessary to suppose that all the disciples went into the city to buy food. At the 
 same time we must likewise admit that Jesus himself mnj/ have given an account of the 
 conversation to the disciple whom he loved, or that this disciple may have learned it 
 from the woman. The first sui:)position, however, seems to be more iDrobable than either 
 of the others. 
 
 As another instance of graphic narrative we may refer to the ninth chapter, which 
 contains the aton/ of the Lords giving sight to a nidii icho had been blind from his birth, 
 together with a sketch of the transactions springing out of that miracle. Perhaps no 
 person ever read the chapter without a feeling of admiration at the firmness, the 
 honesty, the good sense, and the quickness of retort displayed bj'^ the man whose con- 
 genital blindness had been removed, or without a feeling of regret, if not of shame, at 
 the timid and evasive answer of his parents, when thej'^ were questioned hy the Phar- 
 isees, or without a feeling of deep indignation at the malicious and unscrupulous enmity 
 of the Jewish leaders to Jesus. The whole narrative is powerful — instinct with reality 
 and life. Especially do we admire the man who washed in the pool of Siloam and 
 returned seeing, when he was brought before the rulers. As he stands there and 
 answers, at once for himself and for his Benefactor, he is in our judgment a model 
 witness. He clings to the simple truth with a lion's grip. His insight is as clear as his 
 new-found sight. With only a beggar's education, his logic is sharp and strong as 
 reason itself, and his attack on the position of his judges terrible as the stroke of 
 a catapult. While his heart is singing: "Hail, holy light, offspring of heaven, first- 
 
INTRODUCTION TO THE GOSPEL. 27 
 
 born," his intellect and conscience and purpose are unshaken by the deadly scowl of 
 fanaticism armed with power. But there is one touch of nature in this narrative, 
 which has long seemed to me inexplicable if the Fourth Gospel was written by a 
 folsarius of the second century. For such a writer must be presumed to have filled 
 in the details of the narrative by his own imagination, since it is scarcely possible that 
 they could have reached him in this furm by means of oral tradition. The touch of 
 nature to which I allude is the way in which his neighbors describe the man whose eyes 
 had now, for the first time, been opened to see the sun. For they ask, not as the 
 thought of his blindness and its miraculous removal would naturally shape their questioii : 
 Is not this he that was horn blind f but rather: "Is not this he that sat and hegr/eAf 
 (6 Ka.irit>.ivo^ KoL npoaaiTmv), And I do not think it Uncharitable to suspect that these '' neigh- 
 bors and they who saw him aforetime that he was a beggar" (Rev. Ver.), had been 
 more troubled by the man's begging than by his blindness; and therefore the fact 
 that he was wont to ask an alms was more deejjly impressed on their minds than the fact 
 that he could not see. Hence, it was perfectly natural for them to employ the designation 
 here reported. But I doubt whether any writer of the second century would have put 
 these words into the lips of " the neighbors," any sooner than he would have put them 
 into the lips of Jesus, or of the Jewish rulers. In describing this great miracle, the 
 giving of sight hij Jesus to one born blind would have been the absorbing idea ; and a 
 perfect side-stroke in his picture, like the one here introduced, would have been beyond 
 the skill of any writer of that age. If not, this writer must have been, as I have in- 
 timated, more than once, a great unknown, a prodigy in his generation. 
 
 Another portion of the Fourth Gospel which is rendered peculiarly graphic and life- 
 like by the insertion of circumstances non-essential in a doctrinal respect, is the narrative 
 of the resurrection of Lazarus, in the eleventh chapter. jNIej'er remarks that " the 
 narrative is distinguished for its thoughtful tenderness, certainty, and truthfulness." 
 Let us notice a few particulars which are best accounted for by supposing that this 
 chapter was written by an apostolic witness, and therefore by John, the brother of 
 James. 1. It is difficult to believe that a writer of the second century would have 
 dared to ascribe this miracle to Christ without having any evidence that he wrought 
 such a miracle, near the close of his ministry, in Bethany ; and it is erpially difficult to 
 believe that he could have had satisfictorv knowledge of the miracle in question. But 
 if Lazarus was raised from the dead, and if John was present when this occurred, it is 
 perfectly credible that the aged apostle may have been led by the Spirit and providence 
 of God to insert an account of it in his Gospel. 2. It is difficult to believe that a writer 
 of the second century either knew through oral tradition, or invented without the help 
 of tradition, the striking particulars of this narrative. These particulars are too 
 numerous for separate examination, but upon close scrutiny the.y will be found entirely 
 self-consistent and wonderfully interesting. And thej'^ are withal such particulars as 
 a loving disciple might be expected to remember with satisfaction and to put on 
 record with his account of the miracle itself. 3. The impression which this narrative 
 gives of the distinctive traits of Martha and Mary exactly accords with the impression 
 which Luke's account of another scene gives (10 : 38 sq). For Luke says that "a cer- 
 tain woman, named Martha, received him [J. e., Jesus] into her house. And she had a 
 sister called Mary, who also sat at the Lord's feet, and heard his word. But Martha 
 was distracted about much serving ; and she came up to him, and said : Lord, dost 
 thou not care that my sister did leave me to serve alone ? " etc. (Rev. Ver.). To judge the 
 sisters by this account, Martha was probably older than Mary, and likewise more 
 
28 INTRODUCTION TO THE GOSPEL. 
 
 energetic, practical, and pains-taking in domestic aifairs, bearing the chief burden 
 of care and service ; but at the same time not afraid to speak her mind, even to a 
 guest ; while Mary was more gentle, docile, appreciative, spiritual, and eager to catch 
 every word that fell from the lips of their divine Teacher. It may also be conjectured 
 from the language used by Luke that they were in easy, if not in affluent circum- 
 stances. Now, without reproducing a phrase or incident from this earlier narrative, 
 the impression made by the eleventh chapter of the Fourth Gospel concerning the traits 
 of character and the circumstances of these sisters, is the same as that made by Luke. 
 Thus, wheu Martha heard that Jesus Avas coming, she went and met him, entering at 
 once into conversation with him, and expressing her confidence that if he had 
 been with them her brother would not have died; but not accepting readily the 
 Lord's intimation that Lazarus might even now be recalled to life. Moreover, 
 when Jesus commanded the stone to be taken away from the door of the tomb, 
 it was Martha who promptly raised an objection to this act. On the other hand, 
 Mar}' remained at home until sent for by Jesus, when she rose quickly and wont unto 
 him. Seeing him, she fell down at his feet, saying unto him: "Lord, if thou hadst 
 been here, my brother had not died." This was the only word that she is reported to 
 have spoken. What more she did was to weep in silence, and we know that her weep- 
 ing went to the heart of Jesus. Perhaps it will not be making too fine a point, if I call 
 attention to the first sentence uttered by Martha, and the only one uttered by Mary upon 
 meeting Jesus, as substantially identical. This identity may be taken as an indication 
 that the words had been often on their lips during the last four days — a sorrowful re- 
 frain as the sisters communed together: "If He had been here, our brother would not 
 have died." In this, then, the substantial identitj' of their first word to Jesus, I per- 
 ceive a very delicate note of truth, an echo or reminiscence of private and sisterly con- 
 verse, expressing the deepest feeling of their hearts. There is, indeed, a slight differ- 
 ence between the Greek sentence used by Mary and the one used by Martha. Accord- 
 ing to Meyer, the pronoun my (f^o") is a little more noticeable in Mary's remark than it 
 is in Martha's. In other words, it is slightly emphatic. This, however, the position of 
 the pronoun my in the Greek sentence, is the only difference between the expression 
 used by Mary and that used by Martha ; and it is too slight to require explanation. 
 
 Very beautiful and trustful was the message which these sisters sent to Christ bej'ond 
 the Jordan : "Lord, behold he whom thou lovest is sick." Perhaps they knew that 
 Jesus could not visit them without extreme peril to his own life, and therefore would not 
 ask him to come, though they could not refrain from letting him know of their brother's 
 sickness. Perhaps they had learned that his Messianic work had claims upon his time 
 more sacred even than those of personal friendship. At any rate their message was 
 never surpassed in delicacy and appropriateness, and we instinctivelj' imagine that it was 
 dictated by the younger sister. 
 
 Again, in harmony with the respectable standing of the family, suggested by the ac- 
 count of Luke, is the representation that " many of the Jews had come to Martha and 
 Mary to console them concerning their brother" (Rev. Ver.). For the writer of 
 this Gospel commonly intends by "the Jews" the leaders of the people, and especially 
 those in office, as members of the Sanhedrin. The fict that " many of the Jews " had 
 come to console the mourning sisters, renders it probable that some of them were ene- 
 mies of Christ (see v. 46), while a knowledge of this on the part of the sisters accounts 
 for the circumstance that Martha spoke to Mary "secretly," saying: "The Master is 
 here, and calleth thee" (Kev. Ver.). For evidently she wished her to go to Jesus 
 
INTRODUCTION TO THE GOSPEL. 29 
 
 without being followed by the company — showing thereby a wise and friendly in- 
 terest in Christ. For she probably fc^ared, as the event proved, that nothing which Jesus 
 might do or say would diuiiuisli their hatred, or change their purpose to worlc his ruin. 
 
 Another point may be noted. The writer of this Gospel gives a certain precedence to 
 Mary, thus : "Now a certain man was sick, Lazarus of Bethany, of the town of Mary 
 and her sister Martha. And it was tliat Mary wliO anointed the Lord witli (jintuieiit, 
 and wiped his feet with her hair, whose brother Lazarus was sick" (Rev. Ver.). 
 Two remarks are suggested by these verses : (1) That in spite of the precedence assigned 
 to Martha by the passage in Luke, and, in some respects also, by the narrative under 
 consideration here, Mary, at the time when the Fourth Gospel was written, had the 
 first place in the mind of the writer, and, as he appears to assume, in the minds of those 
 who would read his Gospel. (2) That the reason for this greater prominence of Mary is 
 alluded to by the writer's saying, that tliis Mary was the one "who anointed the Lord 
 with ointment, and wiped his feet with her hair," as if there had been something 
 peculiar in the service thus performed wliich had given distinction to Mary. And, 
 according to the description of the anointing, which is afterwards given in this Gospel, 
 there had been something very remarkable connected with it ; namely, the murmuring of 
 Judas Iscariot and the approval of Jesus. 
 
 If now, looking at these features of the narrative, we ask whether it reads like the 
 story of an eye-witness, or like that of a person living a hundred years later, I think the 
 answer will not be doubtful. There are too many delicate harmonies, obviously natural, 
 to allow of hesitation. Thej' belong to the class of undesigned coincidences. To account 
 for them we must either suppose that the story is true, which is an adequate explanation 
 of all, or that it is the work of a consummate artist whose genius has never been matched. 
 And by those who adopt the latter hypothesis, we are asked to believe that this great 
 but unknown literary artist was a contemporary of Justin MartjT ! that he was a man 
 who never saw Jesus or felt the inspiration of intimate communion with him ! and withal, 
 that he was a man who could solemnly testify that his fiction was a record of actual 
 words and deeds ! The demand is too great. To believe this surpasses our credulity. 
 At least we cannot believe it while the other alternative is ofi'ered to our acceptance. 
 
 In the thirteenth chapter we find another piece of historic description remarkable for 
 its particularity and vividness. Jesus and his disciples are represented as about lo par- 
 take of the paschal supper, in fact, as having taken their places in a reclining posture 
 about the table. Jesus, then, as we are told, before the supper actually began, "riseth 
 from supper, layeth aside his (outer) garments, taketh a towel and girdeth himself, pour- 
 eth water into the basin, and began to wash his disciples' feet, and to wipe them with 
 the towel " (literallj-). What could be more minute or graphic than this ? Does it not 
 read like the account of a deeply interested spectator or witness ? But the question rises 
 to our lips : With what emotions did the disciples see all this? Why did they not spring 
 to their feet to take their Lord's place in the service which he was evidently preparing 
 to render ? Were they overawed by something in his look or bearing which forbade re- ■ 
 monstrance ? Or were they so filled with a spirit of rivalry as to who should be greatest 
 that no one of them was ready to take the place of a servant? There is some reason, 
 found especially in the Gospel of Luke, 22 : 24 sq., to suspect that the latter may have 
 been the case, though nothing in this narrative directly afiirms it. To proceed : Now as 
 Jesus was thus washing and wiping his disciples' feet, " he cometh," we are told by the 
 Evangelist, "to Simon. Peter," and was met by the question : "Lord, dost thou wash my 
 feet? " [Note the position of " my " (/^o") in the Greek sentence : is it only slightly em- 
 
30 INTRODUCTION TO THE GOSPEL. 
 
 phatic ?] This question of Peter implies that he clearly perceived the indecorum of his 
 being thus served by his Master, though it does not show that he was wilUng to take his 
 Master's place and complete the menial service, which was doubtless suitable to the occa- 
 sion, if not required by it. Then Christ answered him : " What I do thou knowest not 
 now, but thou shalt understand hereafter" (Rev. Ver.). This answer would probably 
 have silenced any other disciple than Peter. But he, the rash and positive, replied : 
 "Thou shalt never wash my feet." O headstrong man, unwilling to trust the Son of 
 God ! Thy voice will soon be changed ; for Jesus now answers : "If I wash thee not, 
 thou hast no part with me." Peter did not look for this, and his next words reveal a 
 sudden and complete revulsion of feeling : " Not my feet onl.v, but also my hands and my 
 head" ! Yet the reaction has carried him too far. He asks for something that Jesus 
 had neither done nor proposed to do. Peter's frank, bold, impulsive nature, as we see, 
 is not easily trained to follow the will of another. But he is in the hands of a wise and 
 jiatient Teacher, and is certain to learn submission at last. In the next paragraph we 
 read : " So when he had washed their feet, and taken his garments, he said unto them ' ' — 
 going on to explain and enforce bj* his words the lesson of his significant action in wash- 
 ing their feet. This surely is the record of a loving disciple who delights to recall every 
 look and act of his Lord. 
 
 And it is followed by a wonderfully graphic sketch of the scene in which the be- 
 trayer of Jesus was pointed out and sent away from the supper. "When Jesus had 
 tlius said, he was troubled in the spirit (/(« sj^irit), and testified, and said. Verily, 
 verily, I say unto you, that one of you shall betray me. The disciples looked one on 
 another, doubting of whom he spake. There was at the table reclining in Jesus' bosom 
 one of his disciples, whom Jesus loved. Simon Peter therefore beckoneth to him, and 
 saith unto him. Tell us who it is of whom he speaketh. He leaning back, as he was (or, 
 thus), on Jesus' breast, saith unto him, Lord, who is it? Jesus therefore answereth, He 
 it is, for whom I shall dip the sop, and give it him. So when he had dipped the sop, he 
 taketh and giveth it to Judas, the son of Simon Iscariot. And after the sop, then en- 
 tered Satan into him. Jesus therefore saith unto him. That thou doest, do quickly (or, 
 more quichhi) ! Now no man at the table knew for what intent he spak^e this unto him. 
 For some thought, because Judas had the bag, that Jesus said unto him, Buy what 
 things we have need of for the feast ; or, that he should give something to the poor. He 
 then having received the sop went out straightway: and it was night" (Rev. Ver.). 
 This life-picture deserves careful study. The first words of Jesus, so direct and une- 
 quivocal ; the surprised and questioning look of the twelve into the faces of one another ; 
 the description of the exact position and posture of the disciple whom Jesus loved ; 
 the beckoning gesture of Peter to that disciple and the sotto-voce question which fol- 
 lowed ; the leaning back of that disciple until his head touched the breast of Jesus ; the 
 substance of Peter's request convej^ed by him in a low voice to the Lord and the Lord's 
 answer addressed to that disciple's private ear; the giving of the sop to the betrayer, 
 thus pointing him out to the disciple whom he loved ; the open word to Judas as the sop 
 was given to him ; tlie conjectures of some of the disciples as to what that word signified, 
 casting suddenly a flash of light upon the duties of Judas as treasurer of the chosen 
 band ; the prompt exit of the traitor from the room and the house ; and the terse com- 
 ment picturing the out-side darkness into which the betrayer went : it teas night: — all 
 these particulars betoken the pen of an eye-witness who was at least a warm friend of 
 Jesus. And a great part of them could be of no logical use in a Tendenzschrift, such as 
 the school of Baur has proclaimed this Grospel to be. It would also be easy to show that 
 
INTRODUCTION TO THE GOSPEL. 31 
 
 this narrative is very different from those in the Synoptic Gospels, though all may be 
 true. The difference, however, is greater tlian any writer save an eye-witne.ss would be 
 likely to venture upon, if he were acquainted with the earlic^r Gospels. And if not ac- 
 quainted with those Gospels, it is surprising that no real contradiction between his narra- 
 tive and theirs appears. 
 
 Another passage which sparkles with evidence, derivable from unimportant circum- 
 stances, that it was written by a si)ectator of the events related, is a i)aragraph of the 
 eighteenth chapter (ver. 15-27). Simon Peter is said to have followed Jesus when the 
 latter was led from the Garden of Gethsemane to iiis trial in the city ; which statement 
 was preliminary to a record of Peter's denials, and these were important events, . 
 fulfilling tlie words of Christ. But the writer of the Gospel also inserts the following 
 interesting particulars, which do not seem to be essential to the substance of the 
 narrative, viz. : another disciple followed Jesus also, and that other disciple, being 
 known to the high priest, and therefore no doubt to the portress and servants, was 
 allowed to enter without remonstrance into the court of the high priest witli Jesus. 
 But Peter, being unknown to the high priest's household, could not thus enter, but 
 stood without for a time. Therefore the other disciple went out and, speaking to the 
 maid who was door-keeper, brought in Peter. But, as Peter was entering, the door- 
 maid asked him, doubtfully: "Art thou also one of this man's disciples?" (Rev. 
 Ver.) And Peter's first denial was uttered — an essential part of the history. Then 
 follows a statement that "the servants and officers were standing there, having made a 
 fire of coals, for it was cold ; and they were warming themselves ; and Peter also was 
 with them, standing and warming himself" (Rev. Ver). This picture is perfect, 
 and it represents a scene in the central court awhile after Peter was introduced ; but it 
 cannot be considered essential to the history in the same sense as the record of what 
 next occurred in that group is essential to it. For, as Peter was standing there, some of 
 the group said to him: "Art thou also one of his disciples?" (Rev. Ver.) The 
 question being so framed, perhaps in courtesy, as to suggest that a negative answer was 
 expected (Buttmann, p. 248, 1st P.). It came, and was probably, as in the preceding 
 instance, heard by the writer of this Gospel. Next a very exact specification occurs. 
 "One of the servants of the high priest, being his kinsman whose ear Peter cut off, 
 saith : 'Did not I see thee in the garden with him?' " And in this case the question, 
 as one might conjecture beforehand, is so framed as to anticipate, or perhaps, if we 
 could hear the tone of voice, to demand an affirmative answer (Buttmann, p. 247). But 
 it came not ; for "Peter denied " the third time, " and immediately the cock crew." 
 
 Now this is to me, on the very face of it, a truthful as well as a very graphic 
 narrative, and I cannot suppress the conviction that it is far more reasonable to ascribe 
 it to the Apostle John, as "the other disciple," and an eye-witness of the events 
 described, than to ascribe it to an unknown writer of the second century, who drew 
 upon his imagination for his facts, or at least for the side-touches, which give life and 
 naturalness to his picture. 
 
 Another sketch in this Gospel may be associated with the one just considered, viz. : 
 the story of the runnmg of Peter and another disciple to the tomb after Christ had ri'^en 
 (ch. 20 : 3-8). It reads thus : " Peter therefore went forth, and the other disciple, and 
 they went toward the tomb. And they ran both together ; and the other disciple outran 
 Peter, and came first to the tomb; and stooping and looking in, he seeth the linen 
 cloths lying ; yet entered he not in. Simon Peter therefore also cometh, following him, 
 and entered into the tomb ; and he beholdeth the linen cloths lying, and the napkia 
 
32 INTRODUCTION TO THE GOSPEL. 
 
 that was upon his head, not lying with the linen cloths, but rolled up in a place by 
 itself. Then entered in therefore the other disciple also, who came first to the tomb, 
 and he saw and beheved " (Rev. Ver.). Can we suppose that these details are the 
 fruit of imagination or of oral tradition? Or, granting that such a supposition is not 
 strictly incredible, is it the fairest, the most rational account which can be given of their 
 origin? I am willing to submit the case to the judgment of any impartial reader — sure 
 that his verdict will be favorable to the apostolic authorship of the sketch. And the 
 same result would follow a study of the next paragraph (ver. 11-18), which describes the 
 Lord's first appearance to Mary Magdalene. 
 
 Other parts of the Fourth Gospel, especially the scene described in chapter 
 twenty-one, might be examined under this head ; but these are enough for our present 
 purpose. They all point in one direction, towards the Johannean authorship of this 
 Gospel, and their testimony is so clear and positive that we do not expect it will ever be 
 set aside. 
 
 Attention may be paid, thirdh/, to the fact that namesi and facts are mentioned m the 
 Fourth Gospel which icoidd not p)-nh(d}iy have been hioicn to a icriter of the second 
 century. We have already referred to the fact, stated by this Gospel, that another 
 disciple followed Peter on the evening after our Lord's betrayal, and that the other 
 disciple icas known to the high priest, and that he was therefore suffered to enter freely 
 into the court of the high priest. This agrees with the circumstance that the name of 
 the high priest is mentioned repeatedly, together with the fact that Annas was his 
 father-in-law. The writer was, therefore, somewhat familiar with the high priest's 
 famil.y. But this familiarity is thought to be improbable. Would Caiaphas have 
 allowed himself to be on friendly terms with a disciple of Christ? Would he have 
 consented to recognize such a man as an acquaintajice ? Must we not rather pronounce 
 this acquaintance a fiction of the writer, and conclude that he could not have been an 
 apostle ? I am unable to do this. It does not seem to me probable that the rulers were 
 as yet greatly embittered against the disciples of Christ. For some reason, the Lord 
 himself was so prominent, so principal and towering an object, that his followers were 
 deemed of little account. Their time had not yet come. They were still pupils, not 
 champions. Jesus stood practically alone in all his great encounters with the Jews. 
 And so I think it altogether credible that John was known to the high priest — more 
 credible than that a skillful writer should have imagined this without cause. 
 
 Again, the writer of the Fourth Gospel mentions the name of the high priest's 
 servant whose right ear was cut off by the impetuous stroke of Peter in the garden, 
 and this notice agrees with the supposition that the unnamed disciple who was known 
 to the high priest was the writer of this Gospel. It is quite natural that one who was 
 so well known to the portress as to be admitted without question, knew the names of 
 other servants of Caiaphas, or would be likely to learn them. But is it probable that a 
 writer of the second century would have known that the name of the wounded servant 
 was Malchus? Or, if not, that he would have assigned him a name, when there was no 
 necessity for his doing it ? Instead of pursuing this enumeration of instances further, we 
 will show the importance which others have seen in the line of inquiry adopted by us in 
 the preceding pages. In 1865, Dr. Otto Thenius, an eminent Biblical scholar of Germany, 
 addi-essed an open letter to Dr. David F. Strauss, in which he defends the Johannean 
 authorship of the Fourth Gospel against the assaults of that famous critic. In one part 
 of the letter he enumerates the following circumstances as bearing the stamp of reality, 
 and as furnishing proof that the Gospel was written by one who knew whereof he 
 
INTRODUCTION TO THE GOSPEL. 33 
 
 affirmed ; viz. : " That Jesus had observed Nathanael under the fig tree (1 : 48) ; that his 
 brothers did not believe on him, while officers of the Jews were impressed by his dis- 
 courses ; that Nicodemus took his part, and the Sanhedrists in their passion falsely 
 asserted that no prophet cometh out of (lalilee (7 : 5, 46, 50, 52) ; that during the rainy 
 season Jesus taught in a sheltered place (10 : 22, 23) ; that Mary rose and went to Jesus 
 only when called by Martha (11 : 20, 28, 29) ; that Judas had the common purse, and 
 Jesus said unto him : "That thou doest do quickly " (12 : 6 ; 13:7); that a Roman cohort 
 assisted in taking Jesus ; that the servant wounded at his capture was named .Malchus, 
 and that it was Peter who cut off his ear (18 : 3, 10, 2()) ; that one of the servants who 
 was standing by at the examination struck Jesus with his hand (18: 22); that Pilate 
 sought to excite sympathy for Jesus in the hearts of his accusers by crying: "Behold 
 the man ! " that he sat down on the judgment-seat at a place called the Pavement, or in 
 Hebrew, Gabbatha ; and that he refused the request of the chief priests that he would 
 change the superscription on the cross (19 : 5, 13, 21, 22) ; that the place of crucifixion 
 was near the city; that four soldiers performed the dreadful deed, and that his 
 mother was present as a beholder (19 : 20, 23, 25); that the grave was in a garden 
 (19: 41); and that Peter saw the napkin lying by itself (20: 7)." With this 
 extract from Thenius may be profitably compared the words of Sanday, in his able 
 work on the "Authorship and Historical Character of the Fourth Gospel," (p. 163 sq.): 
 "The author of the Fourth Gospel stands out a single isolated figure, with a loftiness 
 and intensity to which there is hardly a parallel to be found in history ; with a force 
 of character that transmutes and transforms all the more ductile matter that comes 
 within its range, and yet with a certain childlike simplicity in the presence of external 
 facts. This is not the personality of great writers of fiction in any community or time ; 
 least of all is it the personalitj' of one writing under a feigned name, and asseverating 
 all the time that he records nothing but that which he has heard and seen. It must be 
 remembered too that, if it is a fiction, it is not merely a fiction that would fit in equally 
 well to any point of space or time. It is a fiction which is laid in definite local- 
 ities, and in the midst of circumstances and a circle of ideas that are remarkably 
 definite. It is written after a series of tremendous changes had swept away all 
 the landmarks to which it might have been afiixed. The siege and destruction of 
 Jerusalem, together with the rapid progress and organization of Christianitj', caused 
 a breach between the ages before and behind it, which could be crossed only by 
 memory', not by imagination. Those who deny the Johannean authorship of the 
 Gospel require the supposed author of it to transgress the conditions of his age and 
 position, and to throw himself back into another set of conditions entirely different 
 from his own. They do not indeed do this in words ; but this is, as I have tried 
 to show, and as I think we cannot but see, because they have failed to take in, by far, 
 the larger part of the phenomena. The hypothesis of apostolic and Johannean author- 
 ship satisfies these, while it satisfies also, as I believe, all the other phenomena as well. 
 It gives a consistent and intelligible account of all the facts, and I venture to say that 
 no other hypothesis as j'et propounded has done so." 
 
 II. TRUSTWORTHINESS OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL AS A RECORD OF 
 THE DISCOURSES OF JESUS. 
 
 A study of this Gospel brings to light, as we have seen, many indications that it was 
 
 written by one of the apostles, and therefore by John, the brother of James. But these 
 
 indications are found principally in the narrative parts of the Gospel, as distinguished 
 
 C 
 
34 INTRODUCTION TO THE GOSPEL. 
 
 from the discourses of Jesus. An examination of the latter reveals the fact that they 
 differ materially in style and thought from the discourses preserved in the Synoptical 
 Gospels. Two questions are therefore suggested, viz.: (1) Is the difference referred to 
 of such a nature as to make the Johannean authorship of the Fourth Gospel improbable, 
 in spite of evidence from other sources in its favor ? (2) Is the difference of such a na- 
 ture as to disprove the substantial correctness of that part of the record ? ^ 
 
 (1) An argument against the Johannean authorship of the Gospel, founded on a dif- 
 ference of style and thought between the discourses ascribed to Jesus in that Gospel and 
 the discourses ascribed to him in the Synoptical Gospels, must rest upon one or more of 
 the following assumptions : (a) That the Synoptical report of Christ's discourses is trust- 
 worthy in respect to style and thought ; for if it is not, the report of the Fourth Gospel 
 may be correct, though it furnishes a type of discourse differing from any in the Syn- 
 optical record, (h) That if John wrote the Fourth Gosjiel he must have reproduced the 
 discourses of his Master with substantial correctness ; for if he can be supposed to have 
 changed, either consciously or unconsciously, the style or substance of Christ's teaching, 
 he may have been the author of the Fourth Gospel, though it does not represent cor- 
 rectly the words of Jesus. ((■) That the Synoptical report contains ample specimens of 
 every kind of discourse which the Lord ever employed ; for if it does not, the report of 
 the Fourth Evangelist may furnish a variety of teaching not distinctly represented in the 
 first three Gospels. 
 
 To the first of these assumptions, that the Synoptical Gospels furnish a trustworthy 
 report of Christ's teaching, no valid objection can be made. Jesus of Nazareth certainly 
 did teach, much of the time, after the manner represented by the first three Gospels. 
 To deny that the Sermon on the Mount, the numerous parables, and the discourse about 
 the overthrow of Jerusalem -and the final coming of the Son of Man, as read in those 
 Gospels, preserve faithfully certain parts of the Lord's teaching, would be to disregard 
 the rules of historical evidence. Again, much may be said in support of the second as- 
 sumption, that if John wrote the Fourth Gospel he must be presumed to have reported 
 the discourses of his Master with substantial accuracy. For the circumstance that he 
 had been a disciple of Jesus and a hearer of many or all of the discourses reported in the 
 Fourth Gospel, must be regarded as favorable to the general accuracy of that report. It 
 would be unreasonable to suppose that Christ's language and teaching had made so little 
 impression on the soul of John that he could ascribe to him thoughts which he never 
 uttered, and a style of teaching which he never emplojed. If then the third assumption 
 were certainly correct, if it were a case made out by just criticism that the discourses of 
 Jesus in the Synoptical Gospels furnish ample specimens of every kind of discourse em- 
 ])loyed by him, so that it is safe to affirm that those ascribed to him in the Fourth 
 (xospel were never uttered by him, it would undoubtedly be easier to believe that the 
 latter were composed by some person not a hearer of Christ, than to believe them com- 
 posed by John, who heard him so often. 
 
 But to this final assumption there are grave objections. For it is worthy of remark, 
 in the Jir^t place, that the Synoptical Gospels nowhere pretend to furnish a complete 
 record of Christ's teaching. Indeed, nothing is more evident from the Gospels them- 
 selves than the fact that they contain only a small part of what he said (see Matt. 4 : 23 ; 
 9: 35; 11 : 1). The passages referred to are but samples of the Lord's preaching, a 
 great part of which the Evangelists do not profess to record. It would probably be safe 
 to affirm that not more than one discourse out of fifty which he delivered during the 
 years of his public ministry is preser%ed by the Synoptists. This rough estimate, how- 
 
INTRODUCTION TO THE GOSPEL. 35 
 
 ever, includes frequent repetitions of the same essential truth to different persons in 
 nearly the same terms, and to the same persons in different terms. Fur why should not 
 the same truth be repeated to different persons in nearly the same terms, and to the 
 same persons in varied forms of speech ? Is not this done more or less by every great 
 teacher ? 
 
 It is worthy of remark, in the second place, that there is no evidence in the Synoptical 
 Gospels that they were meant to furnish illustrative specimens of every kind or style of 
 discourse which the Saviour employed. The authors do not appear to have been guided 
 in their selection of materials by any such purpose. If an inference may be drawn from 
 the prevailing character of their narratives, it would be that they inserted some of the 
 most striking parts of certain discourses which were addressed to the people of Galilee 
 during the Lord's ministry there, together with a few of his impressive utterances in 
 Jerusalem shortly before his death, ^\^lether they made use of an earlier record which 
 has since perished, or rather put in writing each for himself such special portions of 
 the Saviour's teaching as were most frequently repeated by the apostles, may always be 
 a matter of doubt, but certainly there is in their writings no trace of a plan to give a 
 complete picture of the diversified work of Christ as a teacher of truth. And, apart 
 from such a plan, what sufficient reason is there for thinking that the Synoptical Gospels 
 furnish examples of every kind of discourse employed by Jesus? Is it safe for us to 
 decide that One who delivered the Sermon on the Mount, the parables of Matthew and of 
 Luke, the warnings and predictions of the last passover week, the answers which silenced 
 by their sagacity Pharisee and Sadducee and lawyer, and indeed the right word to every 
 man whom he met, was nevertheless restricted to just those ranges of thought and styles 
 of expression which may be found illustrated in the first three Gospels ? May it not 
 rather be assumed that the truly marvelous insight and sympathy of Jesus were com- 
 plemented by an equallj' marvelous power of adapting his thought and style to the minds 
 before him ? Is it not reasonable to suppose that his great nature, which represented 
 mankind rather than any one type of liumaiuty, was able to express itself in manifold 
 ways, some adapted to deep and mystical souls, and others to sharp and practical intel- 
 lects, some to men of spiritual vision and fervor, and others to punctilious observers of 
 law and precedent? This is surely a credible hypothesis. 
 
 Furthermore, it is admitted by competent critics that the language and thought of 
 Jesus in Matthew 11 : 25-30, are strikingly similar to his discourses in the Fourth Gospel. 
 But is, any scholar justified in pronouncing that paragraph unliistorical, because it differs 
 thus from manj', or from all other utterances of Christ preserved in the First Gospel ? If 
 not, let us suppose that Matthew had ascribed to Jesus a dozen such paragraphs ; would 
 a critic then have had any better ground for thinking the dozen unhistorical than he has 
 for thinking the one to be so? If Jesus could have spoken on one occasion after the 
 manner reported by John, as Matthew testifies, who can prove that he could not have 
 spoken thus on a dozen occasions? Moreover, if a Johannean style in the First Gospel 
 does not discredit the record, why should it do this in the Fourth Gospel? This ques- 
 tion can be answered in only one way. 
 
 A hundred examples might be adduced to show the remarkable changes of thought 
 and style in different addresses of the same man — changes occasioned sometimes by the 
 moods of the speaker, sometimes by the themes discussed, and sometimes by the moral 
 conditions of those addressed. Let a reader compare the Epistle to the Galatians with 
 that to the Ephesians or Colossians, and he will perceive a vast difference between them. 
 Or let him compare Paul's discourse to the Jews in their synagogue at Antioch of 
 
36 INTRODUCTION TO THE GOSPEL. 
 
 Pisidia (Acts 13 : 17-41), with his discourse to the men of Athens on Mars' Hill (Acts 
 17 : 22-31), or with his address to the Elders of Ephesus in Miletus (Acts 20 : 18-35), and 
 lie will observe such differences of method and tone as will make it seem probable that 
 Jesus spoke sometimes after the manner represented by the Synoptical discourses, and 
 sometimes after the manner represented by the discourses of the Fourth Gospel. For 
 surely in this matter of variety and adaptation, it would be inconsiderate to imagine the 
 servant greater than his Lord. 
 
 Enough has been said to show that the difference between the discourses ascribed to 
 Jesus in the Fourth Gospel and those ascribed to him in the first three, is not incon- 
 sistent with a Johannean authorship of the former. "But even the Johannean author- 
 ship of the record of Christ's discourses in the Fourth Gospel does not, it has been 
 further said, prove them to be substantially correct, much less does it prove them to be 
 strictly accurate. For sixty years may have elapsed between the time when they were 
 spoken, and the time when they were put in writing, and the memory of one man can 
 hardly be trusted to bear the words of another over so vast a period. Is it not extremely 
 probable that John, revolving in his mind through the years of a long life the teaching of 
 his Master, had, unconsciously to himself, changed more or less the substance and form 
 of that teaching ? Is it not almost certain that he had recast and remoulded in the 
 laboratory of his own great spirit the doctrine of Jesus, adding to it much that was 
 foreign to the original discourses, and imi>ressing upon it everywhere the stamp of his 
 own genius? And is not this the true and sufficient explanation of the difference in 
 style and thought between the Fourth Gospel and the first three?" Thus we come to 
 the second question to be answered in this part of our introduction, viz. : Is the differ- 
 ence referred to so great, or of such a nature as to disprove the substantial correctness 
 of John's record of his Master's teaching? 
 
 The first reason for answering this question in the negative has already been noticed. 
 It is the marked resemblance of the words of Christ in jMatt. 11 : 25-30 to his teach- 
 ing in the Fourth Gospel. It would surely be rash to deny that One who delivered the 
 Sermon on the Mount, and the last paragraph of the First Gospel, could have uttered 
 the sublime words: "I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou 
 didst hide these things from the wise and understanding, and didst reveal them unto 
 babes : Yea, Father, for so it was well-pleasing in thy sight. All things have been de- 
 livered unto me of my Father : and no one knoweth the Son, saA'e the Father ; neither 
 doth any know the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son willeth to reveal 
 him. Come unto me, all ye that labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest : 
 Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me ; for I am meek and lowly in heart : and ye 
 shall find rest to your souls : For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light " (Rev. Ver.). 
 But it would be no less rash to deny that One who uttered the words just cited could 
 have spoken as follows : "I am the good Shepherd ; and I know my own, and mine own 
 know me, even as the Father knoweth me, and I know the Father ; and I lay down my 
 life for the sheep. And other sheep I have which are not of this fold : Them also I 
 must bring, and they shall hear m}' voice ; and there shall be one flock, one shepherd. 
 Therefore doth the Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I may take it 
 again. No one taketh it away from me, but I lay it down of myself I have power 
 to lay it down, and T have power to take it again. This commandment received I from 
 my Father " (Rev. Ver.). The same authority, dignity, simplicity, and sweetness per- 
 vade the two paragraphs. Are we not then warranted in saying that Jesus sometimes 
 spoke after the manner represented in the Fourth Gospel ? And it he spoke thus on a 
 
INTRODUCTION TO THE GOSPEL. 37 
 
 few occasions, it seems difficult to assign any conclusive reason why he may not have 
 spoken thus as often as John affirms. 
 
 A second reason for answering the question before us in the negative is that John, as 
 well as the other apostles, was assisted in liis work of teaching the truth by the inspira- 
 tion of the Holy Spirit. Unless we approach the Fourth Gospel with unwarrantable 
 suspicion, refusing to allow its testimony any value, it will be impossible fur us to deny 
 that the Holy Spirit, as a revealer of truth, was promised by the Lord himself to his dis- 
 ciples just before his death. And if we admit that such a promise was given, and that 
 it began to be fulfilled on the day of Pentecost, there will be no reason to doubt the 
 specification, distinctly stated, that the Spirit of truth would bring to their remembrance 
 all that Christ had said unto them (14: 26). The Spirit of God was therefore to assist 
 John, by what process we need not inquire, to recall the words and deeds of his 
 Master, whenever he had occasion to use them in preaching the gospel or building up 
 the churches. Unless this extraordinary assistance of the Spirit be taken into account, 
 the whole reason for our confidence in the record of John is not grasped. Nay, this is 
 the strongest pillar of our fliith in the testimony of the apostles. They are to be be- 
 lieved, not only because there is abundant evidence of their intelligence and integrity, as 
 witnesses to the works and words of Jesus, but also, and especially, because they were 
 illuminated by the Spirit of God, and enabled by his quickening power to recall the say- 
 ings of their Lord. When therefore it is asked, "Could John have retained the teach- 
 ing of Jesus in his memory fifty or sixty years ? " it may be answered in the affirmative, 
 (1) because the Holy Spirit was, in a very special sense, his Helper ; and (2) because he 
 was called by his work as an apostle to repeat more or less of this teaching every week, if 
 not every day, dwelling no doubt with peculiar satisfietion upon those parts of it which 
 were most congenial to his spirit and refreshing to his faith. 
 
 These considerations would probably be sufficient to satisfy almost everj' one that the 
 diffisrence in style and thought between the discourses ascribed to Jesus in the Fourth 
 Gospel and those ascribed to him in the first three, is not so great or of such a nature as 
 to disprove the substantial accuracy of John's record, were it not for a single circum- 
 stance, viz.: the striking resemblance of the stj'le of the other parts of this Gospel to tlie 
 style of the Saviour's teaching recorded in it. In other words, the style of John is said y 
 to be identical with the style of his Master, as reported by him. And this circumstance 
 suggests the thought that John has not given us the teaching of Jesus pure and simple, 
 but rather some of that teaching recast and recolored by its passage through his own 
 mind. The suggestion is a natural one, but there is danger of allowing it to pass for 
 more than it is worth. 
 
 For, in the Jirst place, it might be conceded that John has not given us the precise 
 words and style of Jesus, without conceding that his report is incorrect as to the mean- 
 ing of what Jesus said. Especially easj^ would it be to justify this proposition in case 
 of a report which is also a translation . And this is probably true of all the reports of our 
 Lord's discourses in the Fourth Gospel, if not of all that are found in the Synoptical 
 Gospels. We may then safely believe that John's report of his Master's teaching is no 
 more unlike the original than any fiithful and fluent version is apt to be. John's report 
 must be looked ujion as his own conscientious rendering of what he had heard the Master 
 say ; for these discourses do not appear in the earlier Gospels and are not supj)osed to 
 have been among the " common places" of apostolic preaching. But if the.v are trans- 
 lations made by John himself from the Aramaean into the Greek language, the tran.slator 
 may have put the impress of his own style upon them, though the sentiments of Jesus 
 
38 INTRODUCTION TO THE GOSPEL. 
 
 are correctly reported. There is a plain difference of style between Pope's translation of 
 the Iliad and Oowper's, even in passages where the Homeric thought is fairly reproduced 
 by both. The same may be said of Prof. Torrey's translation of Neander's "History of 
 the Christian Religion and Church," when compared with any other translation that I 
 have seen. Many years ago the writer of this Introduction was associated with a friend 
 in translating Perthes' "Life of Chrysostom." The first half of the volume was trans- 
 lated by the writer, and the second half by his friend ; and the former did not feel him- 
 self flattered by observing that the second part was said by competent critics to "be done 
 into better English than the first, though the sense of the original appeared to be repro- 
 duced with equal fidelity in both." From such instances it appears that a translation 
 may closely resemble the translator's style and yet be faithful to the meaning of the 
 original. Hence, if it were certain that John had given his own style to his Master's 
 discourses, it would not follow tliat any part of the tliought, or any i>articular illustration, 
 ascribed to Jesus, was contributed by John ; it would not follow that we have in the 
 Fourth Gospel an unreliable report of the Lord's teaching. It might in fact be just as' 
 reliable as any of the "common places" preserved in the other Gospels ; for they too 
 must be regarded as versions of the more popular and striking paits of his teaching. 
 
 In the secoml place, the memory of John appears to have been singularly tenacious. 
 As we have already seen, his narrative is remarkable for its accuracy in the represen- 
 tation of accompanying circumstances. Times and events were so deeply engraved on 
 his memory that years could not erase them. There is no one of the Evangelists, not 
 even Mark (virtually Peter), for whom events and the occasions of them had a pro- 
 founder significance, no one who saw in them more clearly the purpose and hand of 
 God. Plainly then he must have pondered these things in his heart, as he did the 
 words of his Master. Yet they do not seem to have been transfigured by the action of 
 his imagination. They retained their simple and real character, although subject, for 
 more than half a century, to the influence of his brooding meditation. This fact de- 
 serves consideration. For it is scarcely probable that John gave more earnest heed, in 
 the first in.stance, to any thing else than he gave to the loords of Jesus. And, other 
 things being equal, it is a law of the mind, that the closer the attention in the first 
 instance, the better the memory ever after. If then his memory of events, occasions, 
 and circumstances was singularly exact, there is much reason to suppose that it was 
 equally clear and firm in its hold on the teaching which fell from the lips of his gracious 
 Lord, and which must have made a deep impression on his mind. And if his brood- 
 ing over events, and his growing apprehension of their meaning, did not change his 
 view of them as objective realities, it would be somewhat surprising to find that his 
 meditation on the words of Christ, and his growing insight into their meaning, uncon- 
 sciously modified his recollection of those words as objective realities. Nor is this remaik 
 at all aff"ected by the view we entertain of the help afforded by inspiration to the apostle. 
 Whatever may be the true explanation of his vigorous memorj', it is very certain that he 
 possessed it, so far as scenes and events are concerned, and therefore probable that he 
 possessed it, so far as the teaching of his Lord is concerned. And this raises a certain 
 presumption against the theory proposed, and moves us to ask whether the phenomenon 
 in question can be accounted for in any other way. 
 
 J Is it then too much to assume, (1) that, beyond any other disciple of Jesus, John had 
 a profoundly loving and spiritual nature, and that by reason of such a nature he was 
 peculiarly susceptible to the influence of his Lord's words when they related to the Lord's 
 person, or to the higher and mystical aspects of Christian truth ? (2) That this extra- 
 
INTRODUCTION TO THE GOSPEL. 39 
 
 ordinary susceptibility to the sayings and sermons of Jesus which related to the Saviour's 
 own person, or to the more vital and spiritual aspects of religion, led him to recall such 
 sayings and sermons with peculiar interest, to meditate upon them with intense satis- 
 faction, to use them frequently in his preaching, and thus to keep them ever fresh and 
 distinct in his memory? And (3) that all this tended to bring the loving disciple's style 
 of thought and of expression into closer and closer accord with a certain part of his 
 Master's teaching, so that in foct his language was unconsciously modeled after that part 
 of Christ's language which was dearest to his heart and oftenest on his tongue? 
 
 In favor of these assumptions is the fact that they recognize in the Founder of our 
 religion One greater than any or all of his disciples. They represent his spiritual being as 
 large enough, many-sided enough, to match and move and inspire the capacities of every 
 man with whom he had to do. Yet they are also consistent with the view that each one 
 of his twelve disciples had some eminent qualification for the work of an apostle,^ some 
 single faculty lifting him above the dead level of mediocrity and giving promise of valua- 
 ble service in a certain direction, but they insist that no one of them equaled his Master, 
 even in the faculty which had led to his selection as an apostle. And this estimate of 
 Jesus agrees with his definite claims to pre-eminence in knowledge and authority, with 
 his disciples' recognition of those claims and life-long devotion to his service, and with 
 the place which many modern scholars give to his person and influence. 
 
 Especially does this estimate accord with the tone of the Fourth Gospel in speaking of 
 Jesus. If John, as we have shown, was the writer of that Gospel, he certainly believed 
 that Jesus had unparalleled knowledge of God and man, and also that, by union with 
 Jesus, he himself had come into possession of new spiritual truth and life. Notice the 
 following expressions : " But Jesus did not trust himself unto them, for that he knew all 
 men, and because he needed not that any one should bear witness concerning man ; fjr 
 he himself knew what was in man " (John 2 : 24, 25. Rev. Ver). " Of his fulness we all 
 received, and grace for grace. For the law was given by Moses : grace and truth came 
 by Jesus Christ " (1 : 16, 17. Rev. Ver). " Many other signs therefore did Jesus in the 
 presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book : but these are written, that 
 ye may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God ; and that believing ye may have 
 life in his name " (20: 30, 31. Rev. Ver). It is perfectly evident that the author of such 
 testimonies looked up to Jesus with reverence as well as love, counting him ^Master even 
 though he were also Friend, and prizing his words as a leg^.cy no less precious and divine 
 than his works. How susceptible, impressible, plastic, his soul was to the influence of 
 Christ may be partly inferred from his writings ; and in view of their tone and testi- 
 mony it is reasonable to assume that his habits of thinking and speaking must have been 
 greatly influenced by those of his Lord, but especially by the discourses of Jesus that 
 satisfied the deepest tendencies of his own spirit. These it is, that he has preserved in 
 his Gospel. For the time came, in the history and ferment of Christian inqulrj-, when 
 the churches were in need of that part of the Lord's instruction which had been wel- 
 comed with the greatest satisfaction by the soul of John, and which could be put on 
 record in the best manner by him. He therefore, in obedience to the call of Providence, 
 wrote his Gospel and gave it to the churches. 
 
 But though it is in itself credible, and indeed probable, that John's style was greatly 
 influenced by that part of his Master's teaching which was peculiarlj' adapted to his 
 
 1 Save Judas Iscariot, who appears to have had no moral qualification for the apostleship. But it was 
 known to Jesus from the beginning that this unworthy disei]>le would at last hetruy hiui to his foes (see 
 Notes on 6: 64,70, 71; 13: 11, IS) and then perish, before entering upon the proper work of an apostle. 
 
40 INTRODUCTION TO THE GOSPEL. 
 
 spiritual nature, tliis explanation of the resemblance between his style and that of Jesus 
 in the discourses recorded by him, cannot be accepted unless satisfactory answers can be 
 given to the following questions, viz. : (1) Is there any reason to suppose that the 
 discourses reported by John were identical with discourses reported in other language by 
 the Synoptists? For if there were reason to suppose this, the probability that John's 
 record has been colored by his own thought and style, rather than his style derived from 
 that of Christ, would be very strong, and the explanation proposed would deserve little 
 favor. But the question may be confidently answered in the negative, leaving the 
 explanation undisturbed. (2) Do the persons addressed in the discourses of John's 
 Gospel furnish any argument against this explanation ? The answer to this question 
 should be carefully made. For if the persons addressed in the discourses of the Fourth 
 Gospel were the same, and in the same mental condition, as those addressed by the 
 discourses of the other Gospels, the change of style would be surprising and an 
 argument against the theory ; but if they were different, there may be no argument 
 from this source against the theory, inasmuch as difference of hearers might account 
 for difference of manner in addressing them. Now it will be found, upon close examina- 
 tion, that the words of Jesus reported by John were, most of them at least, addressed 
 to hearers who differed in important respects from those to whom his words in the first 
 three Gospels were addressed. Let the record of John be read with an eye to this 
 difference as accounting tor its character. 
 
 This record first gives the words of Jesus to Andrew and John, as they were follow- 
 ing him, viz. : What seek yef and next, his response to their question : "Rabbi, where 
 abidest thou?" Come, and i/e shall see. Then follow in rapid succession his saying to 
 Peter: Thou art Simoii, the son of John ; thon shalt }>c called Peter ; his commendation 
 of Nathanael : Behold an Israelite indeed, in ivhom there is no guile; his answer to 
 Nathanaels question : "Whence knowest thou me?" Before Philip called thee, ivhen 
 thou least tinder the fiff-tree, I saw thee; and his response to Nathanael' s confession 
 of him as the Son of God, the King of Israel : Because I said unto thee, I saw thee 
 ■under the fij -tree, helievest t'ou? Thou shalt see greater things than these. Verily, 
 verily, I say unto you. Ye shall see the hea en opened, and the angeh of God ascending 
 and desicending on the Son of Man. Only this last verse can be called Johannean, and 
 this does not differ in tone or spirit from Christ's response to a similar confession of 
 Peter, as recorded by Matthew (16: 16-19). In both instances it was called forth by 
 the spiritual attitude of the person addressed. 
 
 Three brief remarks of Jesus at the marriage in Cana of Galilee are preserved by 
 John ; one to his mother : Woman, what have I to do loith thee f Mine hour is not 
 yet come; and two to the servants : Fill the icater-pots with water, and, Draw out now, 
 and hear unto the • nler of the feast. But none of these reniarks would strike a reader 
 as peculiar if found in the Synoptic Gospels. In John's account of Christ's purifj'ing 
 the Temple, the only sayings attributed to Jesus are two, viz. : TaJce. these things hence ; 
 make not my Fathers house a house of merchandise ; and. Destroy thi Temple, and in- 
 three days 1 xcill rawe it up ; both of which find support as to fact and style in the other 
 Gospels. (See Matt. 21: 13; Mark 14: 58). And it is noticeable that when John, aa 
 in these instances, gives any sayings of Christ to which reference is made in the earlier 
 Gospels, the character of his report agrees with their reference. 
 
 Passing on to the third chapter, and the Lord's conversation with Nieodemus, we 
 meet for the first time with a type of thought and expression rarely appearing in the 
 Synoptical Gospels. But it is also true that the person addressed differs from any one 
 
INTRODUCTION TO THE GOSPEL. 41 
 
 addressed by Jesus in the discourses of the first three Gospels. Fur Nicodeiiius was 
 " a ruler of the Jews," that is, probablj', a ineiuber of the Sanhedrin (7 : 50). He was 
 also called by Jesus in this conversation, if it is correctly reported, the teacher of hrael 
 (Rev. Ver.), meaning at least one who belonged to the learned class in the Council, an 
 expounder of the law. Besides, and this is a chief point, he was evidently a thouglitfa: 
 man, fully persuaded by miracles or "signs" wrought in Jerusalem, that Jesus was "a 
 teacher come from God," and half-convinced, it is probable, that he was the expected 
 Messiah. Well might the Lord, in a quiet, confidential interview, turn the eye of such 
 an inquirer to the necessity of a radical inward change, of liis entering upon a new 
 spiritual life, as indispensable to real discipleship. This was clearly the one thing tliat 
 Nicodemus needed to know, and there is no solid ground for doubting that he w;is in a 
 state of mind to profit by it more than he would have profited by any other teaching. 
 Still further, if the words of Jesus close witli the fifteenth verse, it is worthy of remark, 
 that they abound in figurative language. The spirit of parables is in them. Thus we 
 have the figure of a new birth as expressive of the moral change experienced by those 
 who enter truly upon the service of Christ, the figure of the wind moving unseen as an 
 emblem of the Holy Spirit renewing the hearts of men, and the figure of the brazen ser- 
 pent lifted up in the wilderness as a symbol of the Lord himself to be lifted up as an 
 object of saving faith. To say that the Jesus of the Synoptical Gospels could not have 
 conversed in this manner with such a man, would be to speak unadvisedly. 
 
 But it may perhaps be asserted that John meant to ascribe the six following verses 
 also to Jesus, that these verses contain a much smaller proportion of figurative lan- 
 guage than was generally used by him, and that they seem to be an explanation, repe- 
 tition, and expansion of thoughts already expressed. From these considerations it is 
 inferred that John has here put his own words into the mouth of Jesus. On the other 
 hand it may be said that exi)lanation, iteration, expansion, are more or less characteristic 
 of every wise teacher, especially in the freedom of conversation ; and, further, that the 
 expansion of these verses is in perfect keeping with the germinal thoughts previously 
 uttered. There is, then, no conclusive evidence that these verses could not have been 
 spoken by Jesus ; yet it is equally true that there is no conclusive evidence of John's in- 
 tention to ascribe them to Jesus. Only this may be strongly afiirmed, that the difference 
 between Christ's style and thought in conversation with Nicodemus, and his style and 
 thought in many discourses of the Synoptical Gospels, may be accounted for without 
 ascribing it to John the Evangelist. It is sufficiently explained as a result of adapting 
 truth to the mind of the hearer. 
 
 The next passage to be noticed is Christ's conversation with a Samaritan woman at 
 Jacob's well. Of this conversation it may be remarked that it was held with one person 
 only, that her spiritual condition was evidently divined by the Lord, that apt and free 
 use was made of illustration, and that the truth graduall}'^ imparted appears to have been 
 suited to the woman's spiritual state. To be sure, our knowledge of this woman is re- 
 stricted to what may be learned from the narrative in question. But this at least may 
 be inferred from it, that she was neither stupid nor thoughtless. She had a bright intel- 
 lect, a ready wit, and a conscience still alive. Indeed, she was better prepared to receive 
 the truth than were many of the Jews ; and, perceiving this, the great Teacher gave 
 himself earnestly and skillfully to the task of infusing it into her soul. The first hint of 
 his religious mission was given in the words, -i/" thou hiewest the gift of God, and who it 
 if that saith unto thee, Give me to drink ; thou icoiddeat have asked of him, and he icouhl 
 have given, thee living water. And the next was similar, continuing the same metaphor: 
 
42 INTRODUCTION TO THE GOSPEL. 
 
 Every one that drinlceth of this water shall thirst again : but whosoever drinketh of the 
 water that I shall give him shall never thirst; hut the icater that I shall give him shall he- 
 come in him a. icell of neater springing np unto eternal life (Rev. Ver.). This use of 
 imagery taken from objects at hand and familiar, is characteristic of the Christ of the 
 Synoptists. Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow ; they toil not, neither do they 
 spin : yet I say unto you, that even Solomon in all his glory ivas not arrayed like one of 
 these. But if God doth so clothe the grass of the field, which to-day is, and to-morroio is 
 cast into the oven, shall he not much more clothe you, ye of little faith ? (comp. Luke 10 : 
 41, 42, and 14 : 7-24; Matt. 7 : 28-30. Lev. Ver.). Is there not the same divine skill 
 and insight revealed in both passages? The same matchless use of natural objects in 
 conveying religious truth ? Do the writings of John, any more than those of Matthew, 
 prove that he, the disciple, could have put such teaching into his Master's lips? Jesus 
 now approaches the woman's conscience. Go, call thy hushand, and come hither; and, in 
 answer to her evasive reply, says, Thou saidM well, I have no hushand: for tJiou hast had 
 five Jiushands ; and he ichom thou now hast is not thy hushand (Lev. Ver.). The woman, 
 perceiving from this reply that he was a prophet, introduces the mooted question as to 
 the proper place of worship, and he responds : Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when 
 neither in this mountain nor in Jerusalem shall ye ivorship the Father. Ye worship that 
 wliich ye hnoui not : we worship that ichich we know : for .talvation is from the Jews. But 
 the hour cometh, and now is, when the worshippers sh(dl worship the lather in sjjirit and 
 trutli : for such doth the Father seek to he his worshipjyers. God is a spirit : and tliey that 
 worship him muM worship in spirit and truth (Lev. Ver.). Thereupon the woman ex- 
 pressed her belief that the coming 3Iessiah would explain and settle all things now in 
 debate between the Jews and Samaritans, and Jesus saith unto her plainly : I that speak 
 unto thee, am he. Can any one affirm that a word of this is far-fetched or improbable ? 
 That wliat Christ is here reported to have said was any less fitting than what he said, 
 according to Luke, in his own village Nazareth, To-day hath this Scripture been fulfilled 
 in your ears f Or what he said at the ruler's table, according to Luke 14 : 7-24? Plainly, 
 the woman was better prepared to hear his final word than were his neighbors in Galilee 
 to hear what he said to them. She was a part of the field which he looked upon as 
 white already for the harve.'<t, while the people of Nazareth promptly rejected him when 
 he spoke of mercy for the Gentiles, though a moment before they had wondered at the 
 words of grace which fell from his lips. The Samaritans were better prepared to hear 
 spiritual truth than most of the Jews, and it is quite probable that no one of them was 
 more conscious of needing divine grace, and so in a more suitable moral condition to weL 
 come such truth, than the woman whom Christ met at the well. On the whole, there- 
 fore, this conversation bears internal evidence of being trul}' reported. It is Christ- like, 
 rather than Johannean. 
 
 And the same is equally true of the language which he is said to have employed in 
 speaking to his disciples on their return from the city. There is nothing Hke it in 
 the known writings of John, so figurative and j'et so condensed. My meat is to do the 
 will of him that sent me, and to accomplish his ivork. Say not ye, Tliere are yet four 
 montlis, and then cometh the harvctt f behold, I say unto you : Lift up your eyes, and look 
 on the fields, that they are white already unto harvest. He that reapeth receiveth wages, 
 and gathereth fruit unto life eternal; that he that soiceth and he that reapeth may rejoice 
 together. For herein is the saying true. One soweth and another reapeth. I sent you to 
 reap that whereon ye have not laboured; others have lahound and ye are entered into their 
 labour (Lev. Ver.). Thus speaks the Christ of John to his disciples, and in every 
 
INTRODUCTION TO THE GOSPEL. 43 
 
 sentence we seem to hear the faniihar voice of the Synoptical Master. In no sentence 
 do we catch the faintest echo of words indubitablj' original with the author of the 
 Fourth Gospel. 
 
 Tip to this point, then, there is no sufficient reason to suppose that the record of 
 Christ's teaching found in this Gospel is impaired bj' infusions of any .sort from the 
 writer's theology or style. And the writer's correctness thus far is a very considerable 
 aiigument for his trustworthiness in the remainder of his work. Two other sayings, 
 addressed to the nobleman from Capernaum, whose son was sick, complete the record 
 which John gives of the Saviour's words during the first and tranquil period of his 
 ministry, and these say lugs— Except ye see signs and ivonders, ye ic'dl in nowise belieie, 
 (Rev. Ver.), and. Go thy way, thy son liveth — are manifestly appropriate to the Christ of 
 the earlier Gospels. 
 
 In the same manner it can be shown that all the sayings ascribed to Jesus by 
 the Evangelist in the last four chapters of his Gospel, are such as the Christ of the 
 Synoptists may be supposed to have uttered in perfect consistency with the style of 
 speech attributed to him. Let the reader test for himself the correctness of this state- 
 ment by carefully reading those chapters. With equal confidence we invite him to apply 
 the same statement to the ninth and eleventh chapters of this Gospel, which contain the 
 remarkable narratives concerning the giving of sight to a man who had been blind from 
 birth, and the raising of Lazarus after he had been dead four daj-s. The remaining 
 chapters (viz.: the 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 13-17), contain discourses or discussions addressed to 
 influential companies of Jews who denied his Messianic authority and charged him with 
 blasphemy, or to his chosen disciples on the evening before his arrest. Before looking 
 at these discourses, it may be well to study for a moment the character and style of 
 John. 
 
 The notices of John in the Four Gospels and the first part of the Acts are .scarcely 
 sufficient to reveal his character with distinctness. But in the impression which they 
 make respecting him, thej' agree with the Fourth Gospel, the Epistles, and the Book of 
 Revelation. And we can hardly be mistaken in saying, with Meyer, that love was the 
 central principle of his I'enewed nature, and his fellowship with the spirit and life of 
 Christ most true and deep and vital. In the words of Plumptre (Smith's "Dictionary 
 of the Bible")-. "The truest thought that we can attain to is still that he was 'the 
 disciple whom Jesus loved ' (<> en-KTTijJio?) returning that love with a deep, absorbing, 
 unwavering devotion. One aspect of that feeling is seen in the zeal for his Master's 
 glory, the burning indignation against all that seemed to outrage it, which runs, with its 
 fiery gleam, through his whole life, and makes him, from first to last, one of the sons of 
 thunder. To him, more than to any other disciple, there is no neutrality between Christ 
 and Antichrist. The spirit of such a man is intolerant of compromises and concessions. 
 . . . He is the Apostle of Love, not because he starts from the easy temper of a 
 general benevolence, nor again as being of a character soft, yielding, feminine, but 
 because he has grown, ever more and more, into the likeness of him whom he loved so 
 truly. ' ' 
 
 But where shall we go to learn the style of John ? To his Gospel alone ? Or to his 
 Gospels and his Epistles, especially the first? Or to all these together, with the Book of 
 Revelation? It will be safe to Hmit our examination to his First Epistle and his 
 Prologue to the Fourth Gospel : for his Second and Third Epistles are very short, while 
 the narrative parts of the Gospel and much of the Revelation would not require the 
 same style as discourses would naturally take. As seen in the Prologue and First 
 
44 INTRODUCTION TO THE GOSPEL. 
 
 Epistle, the literary stj'le of John is uneommonl}' simple. Very rarely does the reader 
 find an involved sentence. In point of grammatical accuracy, these portions of the New 
 Testament are superior to many othei's. But in the structure and connection of 
 sentences, there is almost nothing to remind one of classic Greek literature. Looked 
 at from this point of view, John's style, is through and through Hebraistic. Every 
 thing is cai?t in a Hebrew mould, though expressed in Greek words. In this respect it is 
 impossible to perceive any difference between Matthew and Mark, on the one hand, and 
 John, on the other, or betweeen either of these Evangelists and the Lord himself. 
 Thu.s John's habit of presenting the same truth, after the manner of Hebrew paral- 
 lelism, in both a positive and a negative form, is very noticeable. For example : "All 
 things were made by him, and without him was not anything made." "God is light, 
 and in him is no darkness at all." " We lie, and do not the truth." This antithetic 
 parallelism is a most obvious and pervasive characteristic of the style of John's First 
 Epistle ; but it is less prominent in the prologue, though we find three or four instances 
 of it in the latter. With it may be associated his habit of presenting two slightly 
 different aspects of the inner life in successive clauses. "Love not the world, neither 
 the things that are in the world." "Whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither 
 known him." " Whatsoever is begotten of God overcometh the world ; and this is the 
 victory that hath overcome the world, even our faith " (Rev. Ver.). 
 
 Again, with a certain Hebraic simplicitj' of style, John is wont to express an idea in 
 its absolute, unqualified form : "Whosoever is begotten of God doeth no sin, because 
 his seed abideth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is begotten of God" (Rev. 
 Ver.). "If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him." Any 
 qualification of such a statement will generally be found in some other passage which, 
 taken by itself, is equally unqualified. " If we say that we have no sin, wc deceive 
 ourselves, and the truth is not in us." Such a stj-le betokens one who looks at the 
 nature of things, and sees the perfect whole in the smallest part — one who bears witness 
 of what he perceives, instead of appealing to argument in support of what he believes. 
 To him truth is an atmosphere of light, vast, limitless, covering the whole face of the 
 sky, rather than distinct lines of light, piercing the darkness here and there. More- 
 over, the light is golden, full of heat as well as splendor. 
 
 This great, yet simple, way of enunciating truth is, however, accompanied by a 
 certain uniformity of style and a somewhat persistent repetition of the same thought. 
 Every sentence is deep, intense, powerful. But now and then the light which gleams 
 from the apostle's page without interrujition, and spreads itself over a boundless skj^ of 
 truth, concentrates its energy at a single point and dazzles the soul with its brightness. 
 When we read such expressions as the following (in Rev. Ver.) : " He that doeth sin is 
 of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning," "Every spirit which con- 
 fesseth not Jesus, is not of God," and " Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is 
 the Christ? This is Antichrist," we understand whj^ this disciple was surnamed "son 
 of thunder." (Comp. John 8 : 47 ; 8 : 42 ; 8 : 44.) Yet the style of John, as a whole, 
 gives the reader a sense of elevated uniformity as one of its prominent characteristics. 
 It is like a sunset sky, covered with golden clouds that overlap and graduallj^ melt into 
 each other. It reminds one of a "solemn music," with variations of the same theme, 
 until the spirit of it penetrates the whole being of the listener. It deals with a few 
 all-embracing conceptions in almost mystical language, but with simple grandeur of 
 expression. There is progress, ascent, but, as has been said, b.v a kind of spiral move- 
 ment, which brings the mind round to the same view again and again, though in every 
 
INTRODUCTION TO THE GOSPEL. 45 
 
 instance at a higher point of observation. Another trait of John's style appears in the 
 use of cardinal ideas and words, such as Life and Death, Light and Darkness, Truth and 
 Falsehood, Love and Hatred, Believing and Disbelieving, llighteousness and Sin, 
 Propitiation and Forgiveness, the World, Antichrist, etc. Many of these terms are 
 figurative, some of them elastic, all of them rich in meaning. 
 
 Thus the style of John differs from that of any other New Testaniont writer. And 
 the study of Christ's longer discourses preserved in his (iospel will bring to view a marked 
 resemblance in style between the Master and his disciples. Let us now return to the 
 beginning of the second, stormy period of the Lord's ministry for the purpose of looking 
 at some of these discourses. That period was initiated by hcnUiif/ <tn infirm mnn in one 
 of the five porches of the Pool of Bethesda, which was by the Sheep-gate. (Notice the 
 particularity of the description). The Mords of Jesus to the man were few. Wnuhh-at 
 thou he made tohoh'f (Rev. Ver.), and, ^Ir/'sr, t/tke i(p thjj bed and walk. But the cure 
 was wrought on a Sabbath day. and the leading Jews of the holy city, who were looking 
 for a charge against Jesus, repi'oved the man who had been healed for taking up his bed 
 on the Sabbath. He excused himself for the act by referring to the command of Jesus; 
 and afterwards Jesus, finding him in the Temple, said: ''Behold, thou art madeichole: 
 sm no more, lest a worse thing befall thee (Rev. Ver.). For some reason the man then 
 informed the Jews that it was Jesus who had made him whole ; and they began to 
 persecute Jesus because he did these things on the Sabbath. And his response to their 
 accusation was: J\Ji/ Father worketh even until now, and I vnrk. "Therefore the Jews 
 sought the more to kill him, because he not only brake the Sabbath, but also called God 
 his own Father, making himself equal with God" (Rev. Ver.), and he proceeded to 
 vindicate his course in truly remarkable terms. This vindication is, however, too long 
 to be quoted, though a brief analysis of it may be given. It naturally falls into two 
 parts, the first reasserting and amplifying his claim to be in a special sense the Son of 
 God, doing his Father's work and Avill, and the second bringing forward the witnesses 
 that attested his claim, but were stubbornly rejected by his persecutors. In the Jirsf, 
 while passing by the charge of desecrating the Sabbath, and replying only to the graver 
 charge of blasphemous assumption in claiming to be the Son of God, and thus, as the 
 Jews conceived, setting himself in sharp antagonism to God, he affirms the closest union 
 between himself and the Fatlier, he declares himself the Son of God in so true and 
 absolute a sense that it is morally impossible for him to start from himself as the source 
 and end of his action, impossible for him to do anything save as he sees the Father 
 engaged in doing it ; and at the same time he declares himself to be so loved by the 
 Father that the Father shows him all his work, and indeed performs it all in and by 
 him, imparting spiritual life, raising the dead in the last day, and judging all mankind 
 through the agency and person of the Son, to the end that men may honor the Son 
 even as they honor the Father. In the second, he briefly re-affirms his inseparable 
 union with the Father, and then brings forward in support of his claims the witness of 
 John the Baptist, who was a lamp kindled and shining, the witness of the Father which 
 had been given in his own Godlike works, and the witness of the Jewish Scriptures, 
 which his enemies professed to revere as a source of life, but which they could not 
 understand because of their self-seeking spirit. 
 
 Now it will be observed (1) that this defense and vindication of his claims is ad- 
 dressed to leading Jews, many of them probably scribes and lawyers belonging to the 
 Sanhedrin, and therefore capable of understanding the drift and tenor of .such a dis- 
 course. They were men familiar with the Scriptures, who could be reached and coa- 
 
46 INTRODUCTION TO THE GOSPEL. 
 
 vinced in their present mood, if at all, not by parables, but by the boldest assertion of 
 the highest truth concerning himself. (2) It relates to his own person and office. The 
 scope of it from first to last agrees with the occasion of it. True, it is very bold in 
 its reproof of his adversaries, but not bolder or sharper in this respect than much that 
 is recorded in the other Gospels as having been said by him to the same class {e. g., 
 Matt. 21 : 31 ; 23 : 13-36). (3) It teaches with authority, and appeals to testimony in 
 the same way as do some of Christ's discourses in the Synoptic Gospels (Matt. 7 : 29 ; 
 15 : 4). There is in it no subtle argumentation, no attempt to make everything clear to 
 the logical understanding, no misapprehension of the character of his assailants, or per- 
 suasion that all they needed was light for the reason. Their moral bias was clearly 
 perceived: "How can ye believe, who receive glory one of another, and the glory 
 that Cometh from the only God ye seek not?" (Rev. Ver.). (4) It is a discourse well 
 suited to the mind and heart of John, for it is a luminous assertion and vindication 
 of his Master's divine Sonship and work. If the Jews were not moved by it to greater 
 reverence for the Lord, this disciple, we may be certain, was. It is impossible to read 
 his writings without perceiving in him a capacity for such instruction. His loving spirit 
 would drink in every word of it. From it he may have first learned the hsson that 
 Christ is our life. "Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and be- 
 lieveth him that sent me, hath eternal life, and conieth not into judgment, but hath 
 passed out of death into life. . . . For as the Father hath life in himself, even so gave 
 be to the Son to have life in himself" (Rev. Ver.). Bearing in mind all these facts, 
 it is evidently unnecessary to ascribe to John any influence modifying the style or 
 thought of this discourse. 
 
 The next considerable discussion of Jesus recorded in the Fourth Gospel took "place 
 in Capernaum, the day after the feeding of the five thousand. In a certain way it grew 
 out of that n)iracle, and its figurative language was connected with it. For some of the 
 tliousands who had been miraculously fed in a desert place on the northeast shore 
 of Gennesaret, and had wished thereupon to take Jesus by force and make him king, 
 found him the next day on the west side of the lake, and said : "Rabbi, when camcst 
 thou hither?" As often, the Lord took no notice of their question, but adapted his 
 word to their spiritual condition. " Ye seek me, not because ye saw signs, but because 
 ye ate of the loaves, and were filled. Work not for the meat which perisheth, but for 
 the meat which abideth unto eternal life, which the Son of man shall give unto you, for 
 him the Father, even God, hath sealed" (Rev. Ver.). Thus Jesus announces himself 
 as the Gh-er of true and abiding food for the souls of men. The people, however, 
 catch at the idea of " working," and ask : " What must we do that we may work the 
 works of God?" And the answer came : "This is the work of God, that ye believe 
 on him whom he hath sent" (Rev. Ver.). But in response to this demand for fiiith in 
 himself, they ask for a sign from heaven to justify such faith, reminding Jesus of the 
 manna which was given to their ancestors in the desert. To this Jesus replies by 
 denying that the manna was given by Moses, as they appear to have been thinking, 
 and by affirming that his Father was now giving them the true bread from heaven — a 
 bread that giveth life to the world. Scarcely comprehending this, and doubtless 
 associating it with the long continued supplj' of manna, they cried : "Lord, evermore 
 give us this bread" ; and Jesus answered : "I am the bread of life : he that conieth 
 unto me shall never hunger, and he that believeth on me shall never thirst." The Jews 
 were naturally offended at this saying, and pronounced it inconsistent with their knowl- 
 edge of his earthly parents ; but he repeated and amplified it, declaring, among other 
 
INTRODUCTION TO THE GOSPEL. 47 
 
 things, that the fatliers who ate manna in the wilderness died, while any man who 
 should eat of himself, the living bread that had come down out of heaven, should not 
 die. And to this he added : " Yea, and the bread that I will give is my fiesii, ibr the 
 life of the world" (llev. Ver.) ; an expression which led to still further debate. " IIuw 
 can this man give us his flesh to eat? " But Jesus persisted in his form of teaching, 
 and even carried the representation a little further. '"Except ye eat the flesh of 
 the Son of man and drink his blood, ye have not life in yourselves. He that eateth my 
 flesh and drinketh my blood abideth in me, and I in him " (Rev. Ver.), — thus affirming 
 that divine life could only be secured by a vital union with himself as one who had 
 suffered death. 
 
 Such is a brief sketch of what the Saviour said to the Jews at Capernaum, and the 
 question to be considered is this : Has John reported his Master correctly ? Or has 
 he unintentionally changed the substance or form of that Master s teaching? In favor 
 of John's report may be mentioned : (1) The obvious connection between the figurative 
 language of Jesus and the circumstances of the hour. Nothing can be more natural 
 than the way in which Christ introduces the idea of spiritual food, and then represents 
 that it had been sent from heaven in his own person. This finally leads him to speak of 
 his death, of his flesh and blood, as the one source of true life to men. And 
 according to the first three Gospels, as well as the Fourth, Jesus was accustomed to make 
 use of natural objects or passing events to set forth in a striking manner the facts 
 or laws of his kingdom. (2) Those parts of the Gospel in which John uses his own 
 language, do not possess all the qualities of paragraphs here ascribed to Jesus. They 
 make, e. g., less abundant use of illustration. I may be mistaken, but these paragraphs 
 seem to me to approach much nearer the manner of teaching ascribed to Jesus by the 
 Synoptical Gospels than do the First Epistle of John and the prologue. (3) The sub- 
 sequent remarks of Jesus on this occasion bear the stamp of historic truth. Jesus, 
 knowing that his disciples were murmuring at his final saying, added : "Doth this 
 cause you to stumble? What then if ye should behold the Son of man ascending 
 where he was before ? It is the spirit that quickeneth ; the flesh profiteth nothing : the 
 words that I have spoken unto you are spirit, and are life. But there are some of you 
 that beheve not" (Rev. Ver.). And when he saw many of his disciples leaving him, 
 he said to this twelve : " Will ye also go away ? " The noble answer of Peter did not 
 deceive the Lord, who, foreseeing the unfaithfulness of Judas, remarked, sadly : " Have 
 I not chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil ? " 
 
 The next conversation of Jesus which requires notice is preserved in the seventh 
 and eighth chapters. The scene of it was Jerusalem, at the Feast of Tabernacles, and 
 the persons with whom it was held were "the Jews" who had sought to kill him for 
 healing a man on the Sabbath, and yet more for "making God his own Father." It is 
 clear from the colloquy between Jesus and his brothers before the latter went up to the 
 feast, from his manner of going up at a later day, ^. e., " not publicly, but as it were in 
 secret," and from the way in which he was received, that "the Jews" had lost none 
 of their hostility to him. Naturally enough, therefore, what he said to them was very 
 similar in tone and substance to what he is represented in the fifth chapter as saying to 
 them. And if that could be rationally accounted for by supposing the language of 
 Christ to have been adapted by him to the persons addressed, this can be accounted for 
 in the same way. 
 
 The ninth chapter contains an account of the giving of sight to a man who had been 
 born blind, and of the deadly enmity of "the Jews," which was rendered more intense 
 
48 INTRODUCTION TO THE GOSPEL. 
 
 by that great miracle. In the first part of the tenth chapter Jesus speaks of hinisell 
 as the Good Shepherd that giveth his life for the sheep, and in the last part he asserts 
 once more his divine Souship. The raising of Lazarus from the dead is narrated in 
 the eleventh chapter, and the triumphal entrance of Jesus into Jerusalem, with the 
 brief sayings or discussions which followed that exciting event, are reported in the 
 twelfth. 
 
 The next four chapters (13-16) are filled with a narrative of Christ's last passover 
 with his disciples, and a record of his incomparable words to them in view of his 
 impending crucifixion. It should not be an occasion of surprise that this discourse 
 diflFers in style and thought from any other attributed to Jesus by the Evangelists. 
 How could it have failed to be different? The occasion had no parallel in his ministrj'. 
 If we say that this discourse is more unlike his denunciation of the Pharisees in 
 Matthew's Gospel than David's elegy over Saul and Jonathan is unlike the Second 
 Psalm, it is only necessary to observe that the contrast between the occasions was more 
 marked in the former instance than in the latter. The words of Jesus were in both 
 instances, as far as we can judge, perfectly suited to the occasion. Here it was his last 
 interview before the crucifixion with his dearest and truest followers — men whom he 
 knew far better than they knew themselves, and whom he loved with more than a 
 brother's affection. Before himself were shame, agony, torture, and death. Before 
 them, a trial too great for the strongest to bear, a blow so terrible that by it they would 
 all be stunned. Yet with what matchless forecast, tenderness, and love does he speak 
 to them of the many mansions in his Father's house, of his oneness of spirit with the 
 Father, of their vital union with himself, of the divine Advocate whom he would send 
 to abide with them forever, and of other blessings equally precious, until the reader 
 who enters somewhat into the spirit of the record is lost in wonder at the "sweetness 
 and light" which flow in his words. And now, having communed as never before 
 with his disciples, Jesus offers to the Father a prayer which, while it seeks for himself 
 and for them and for believers in all times just that which the holiest most crave as the 
 highest good, completes the impression which he desires to make on their hearts. 
 
 From this rapid glance at the principal discourses of Jesus in the Fourth Gospel, it 
 appears that the mental conditions or special circimistances of those addressed were such 
 as might lead him to speak much of himself, of his Sonship to the Father, of his doing 
 the Father's will, of his relations to believers, of his sacrificial death for mankind, of 
 the deeper personal and vital aspects of union with himself, and of the Spirit's work in 
 days to come. And if it is rational to believe that Nicodemus, an educated, thoughtful, 
 half-convinced, but over-cautious or timid ruler of the Jews, — that a woman of Sj'char, 
 having a sense of sin smouldering in her soul, and with it an expectation of the Messiah 
 as a religious teacher, without the disturbing influence of looking for him as a civil ruler, 
 — that Jewish leaders who had resolved to kill Jesus, because he had violated their 
 regulations as to keeping the Sabbath by doing cures on that day, and their ideas of 
 reverence to Jehovah by claiming to be the Son of God, — that a multitude who had set 
 their hearts on making Jesus an earthly king, while thej' were indifferent to his kingship 
 in the realm of truth and eternal life, — and that the eleven faithful disciples, just 
 after his last passover with them, and just before his betrayal, were each and all in 
 spiritual conditions that called for such teaching as John has recorded, we may certainly 
 believe that it was uttered by Christ, and merely reproduced by the Evangelist. For 
 precisely this part of the Saviour's teaching was suited to the nature of John, and likely 
 to sink down into his spirit. And that which attracts the soul will influence its character 
 
INTRODUCTION TO THE GOSPEL. 49 
 
 and action. The type of thought and expression which awakens the deepest response 
 within, will re-appear in language, and send its echo out into the world. 
 
 Hence, the resemblance between the style of John and that of Jesus in the dis- 
 courses reported by John, is partly due to the influence which Christ's deeper teaching 
 had upon the thought and style of his devoted follower. John was not great enough 
 to supplement or change the teaching of his Master ; but he was great enough to be 
 moulded in an extraordinary degree by that which was highest in the personality and 
 teaching of that Master. Again, this resemblance is partly due to the mental con- 
 stitution of John, which was doubtless predisposed to the peculiar type of thought and 
 expression found in his First Epistle. And, therefore, if Jesus had always spoken as the 
 Synoptists lead us to suppose that he generally spoke, the style of John would doubt- 
 less have resembled in some degree that which we see in his First Epistle. But if Jesus 
 had always spoken after the Synoptic pattern, it may be doubted whether John would 
 have been chosen by the Spirit of God to write a Gospel, or, indeed, have been drawn 
 to Jesus as powerfully as he manifestly was. Once more, the resemblance of John's 
 style to that of certain discourses of Christ preserved by him, may be closer than it 
 would have been if he had given all the words spoken by Christ in those discourses. 
 No doubt his reports are but epitomes, and it may therefore be presumed that 
 he has omitted sentences and illustrations that were less significant and impressive to his 
 mind than those which are given. For the Holy Spirit avails himself, as far as possible, 
 of the special powers and tendencies of those whom he inspires. Finallj', the re- 
 semblance in question may be closer than it would have been if John had given us, in 
 all cases, the ipsissima verba, instead of the essential thoughts of his Master. But it 
 was impossible for him to do the former, unless he had written his Gospel in the 
 Aramaean dialect used by Jesus. And it was likewise unnecessary; for it is the facts, 
 the principles, the thoughts, expressed by Christ, rather than the particular words em- 
 ploj'ed in doing this, which reveal to men their moral ruin and the way of recovery. 
 The words may be changed by translation, by paraphrase, by condensation, by repetition, 
 without serious loss, provided the essential thoughts are neither mutilated nor distorted. 
 Many illustrations and applications of truth may be omitted without harm to the reader, 
 if only what is given be given with substantial accuracy. For "the heavens," though 
 we see but a part of them, "declare the glory of God." John himself calls attention 
 to the fact that his record is incomplete, but he nowhere intimates that it may be in- 
 correct. Yet the fragmentary character of a record, though it be correct as far 
 as it goes, is likely to make it appear abrupt, disconnected, and perhaps in some 
 degree obscure. It is not therefore surprising that imperfections of such a nature 
 are found in the Fourth Grospel. All history, in proportion to its veracity, contains 
 them. Any alleged record of human life on a large scale that shows in full the 
 connection of events, so that all the reasons for the actions narrated are manifest, must 
 be fictitious — ideal instead of real. Hence, the broken connections, the obscure passages 
 in the Gospels, are in reality signs of their veracity, marks of historical trustworthiness. 
 Bearing in mind these considerations, we are unable to discover any solid grounds for 
 withholding our confidence from John's record of the Lord's discourses. That record 
 we receive as the testimony of an honest, intelligent, inspired witness, giving us the 
 essential truth without admixture of real error. 
 
 We do not forget that Biblical scholars have often denied to John the authorship of 
 the Fourth Gospel, on the ground that he wrote the Book of Revelation. For it is in- 
 credible, they aver, that the same man cotild have written two books so unlike each 
 
 D 
 
50 INTRODUCTION TO THE GOSPEL. 
 
 other in thought and expression as these. The diiference asserted, and its bearing on 
 the question of authorship, have been briefly discussed by Dr. Smith, in his Introduc- 
 tion to the Book of Revelation ; but a few remarks may be added in this place : (1) The 
 difference of thought between the two books is not doctrinal but practical. The object 
 of the Grospel is not the same as that of the Apocalypse. For the former aims to pro- 
 duce belief in Christ as the Saviour of individual men who trust in him, while the latter 
 aims to strengthen confidence in Christ as One who is able to do battle with organized 
 sin, and overcome the world at last. Bat, in so far as the person and work of Christ are 
 concerned, the doctrinal basis of the two books is identical. (2) The difi'erence of ex- 
 pression may be partially explained. First, by the fact that one of the books is his- 
 torical, and the other apocalyptical. While writing the former, the author's mind was 
 engaged in a deeply interesting, but calm review of the past, and in a careful statement 
 of familiar events ; but while writing the latter, it was " in the Spirit," rapt, entranced, 
 and filled with wondrous visions of glory or terror. Even if the act of writing or dic- 
 tating followed after the last vision was seen, it must have been performed before the 
 ecstatic condition and illumination had entirely passed away. Secondly, by the fact that 
 the two writings were not probably composed in the same period of John's life. An 
 interval of fifteen or twenty years may lie between them. If the Gospel was written as 
 early as A. D. 80, and the Revelation as late as A. D. 98 or 100, John had passed from 
 the age of about seventy-five, to the age of about ninety-five, and it is certainly credible 
 that his use of an acquired language may have been less careful at the greater age than 
 it was at the less. When a man reaches an advanced period of life, he sometimes falls 
 back in his forms of speech to the habits of youth. Thirdly, by the possible circum- 
 stance that the language of John, in the Apocalypse, was taken down by a less scholarly 
 amanuensis than the one by whom his Gospel was written out. For an amanuensis may 
 be supposed to mend or mar the language of his principal, in a grammatical respect, 
 without fliiling to give every word dictated. Especially if the Gospel is supposed to 
 have been dictated to an intelligent Greek, can we account for its grammatical correct- 
 ness ; for by his aid the Hebrew thought of John might have been expressed in gram- 
 matical Greek ; while this might not have been always the case with a less Grecian 
 amanuensis. (3) The similarity of style in the two books should not be overlooked. 
 For this is marked and undeniable. In both the construction is simple and Hebraistic, 
 perhaps equally so. The narrative parts of the Gospel remind us of the story of Joseph 
 in Genesis : the symbolical descriptions of the Apocalypse recall the style of certain pas- 
 sages in Ezekiel and Daniel. In neither do we meet with anything that is suggestive of 
 Greek habits of thought or expression. Indeed, the difference of vocabulary between 
 the books is sufficientlv accounted for by the difference of themes, while the similarity 
 is such as to favor the tradition of a single author. (4) The evidence of John s author- 
 ship of the Apocalvpse is not really equal to that for his authorship of the Fourth Gos- 
 pel and the first Epistle. For Eusebius, who had access to a large amount of early 
 Christian literature, since lost, reckons the Gospel and the Epistle among the undisputed 
 books ; and his treatment of the Gospel, shows that he felt it wholly unnecessary to cite 
 testimonies in its favor. But the same cannot be said of the Book of Revelation. Its 
 apostolic authorship had been questioned before that time by certain Christians, and 
 Eusebius himself, perhaps on doctrinal grounds, entertained doubts respecting it. As 
 a matter of fact, therefore, if Eusebius is to be trusted, the testimony of the early 
 church is stronger in support of the Gospel than it is in support of the Apocalypse. 
 And if the question were to be answered by an appeal to the judgment of Irenaeus, 
 
INTRODUCTION TO THE GOSPEL. 51 
 
 Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and Tertullian, who flourished a hundred years earlier, 
 the same conclusion would be reached. We believe, however, that both writiuiis are 
 genuine, and the work of the same apostle ; but if either were to be denied him it should 
 not be the Gospel. 
 
 III. TIME AND PLACE OF ITS COMPOSITION. 
 
 No external or internal evidences are conclusive as to the precise date of this Gospel. 
 But ecclesiastical tradition points to a time after the other genuine Gospels had been 
 written, and indeed after the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus in the year 70. 
 Irenaeus, whose early life was spent in Asia Minor, and who must have been familiar, 
 through Polycarp, with the work of John in Ei)hesus, speaks of the first three Gospels 
 as prepared by jMatthew, Mark, and Luke, and then says: "Afterwards John, the 
 disciple of our Lord, the same that lay upon his bosom, also published the Gospel 
 whilst he was yet at Ephesus in Asia" ("Adv. liner." IIL i. 1). Clement of 
 Alexandria states that: "Last of all, John, perceiving that what had reference to the 
 body in the Gospel of our Saviour was made known in the Gospels [already extant], and 
 being encouraged by his familiar friends and moved by the Spirit, made a spiritual 
 Gospel" (Euseb. "H. E." VI. 14). Jerome repeats the same tradition, adding to it 
 several particulars. Moreover, the character of the Gospel favors the view that it was 
 the last of the four, and especially does the way in which "the Jews " are spoken of 
 imply that the writer had been absent many years from his land and people. Westcott 
 assigns the origin of this Gospel without hesitation to "the last quarter of the first 
 century," and thinks that it may belong "in its present form to the last decennium of 
 that period." He also remarks that "this late date of the writing is scarcely of less 
 importance than its peculiarly personal character, if we would form a correct estimate 
 of the evidence whicli establishes its early use and authority." 
 
 There is a similar lack of indubitable testimony as to the place where this Gospel 
 was written. Yet the best evidence within our reach points clearly to Ephesus. For 
 early tradition represents John as making that city his residence and the centre of his 
 apostolic ministry during the last part of his long life ; and, as we have just seen, 
 Irenaeus declares that he wrote the Gospel there. Polycrates, Bishop of Ephesus about 
 A. D. 190, testifies that "John, who leaned on the bosom of our Lord and was a priest 
 that bore the sacerdotal plate, as well as a martyr and teacher, rests also at Ephesus ' ' 
 (Euseb. "H. E." III. 20). According to Irenaeus, he lived until the time of Trajan 
 (a. d. 98). He also speaks of his meeting with Cerinthus the heretic in a bath, and 
 of his rushing out of the place, declaring that he dare not remain under the same roof 
 with this enemy of the truth ("Adv. Haer." III. 3, 4). Clement of Alexandria has 
 placed on record the story of a young man whom John in his old age recovered from a 
 course of robbery and sin into which he had fillen after conversion. (See Quis divea 
 salutem consequi possiX c. 42). And Jerome relates that, when very old and feeble, so 
 that he could not walk, he had himself carried to the meetings of the church, and 
 there, when he could say no more, repeated the words : Little children, love one another 
 (In " Epist. ad Galatos," VI. 10). We may, therefore, rationally hold that this Gospel 
 was written between the years A. D. 75 and A. D. 85, in the city of Ephesus. 
 
52 INTRODUCTION TO THE GOSPEL. 
 
 IV. THE OCCASION, OBJECT, AND PLAN OF THE WORK. 
 
 In the Fragment on the Canon discovered by Muratori, it is said that John was 
 exhorted by his feliow-diseiples and bishops to engage in writing the Gospel, and that he 
 asked them to fast with him three days, for the purpose of obtaining ft-om the Lord 
 a message in relation to the apostle's duty. It is also said that x\ndrew, one of 
 the apostles, received the same night a revelation that John should describe all 
 things in his own name, though all should review it. Jerome appears to have given 
 credit to a similar tradition, for he relates that "John last of all wrote a Gospel, when 
 asked to do so by the bishops of Asia, against Cerinthus and other heretics, and 
 especially against the rising dogma of the Ebionites, who asserted that Christ did not 
 exist before Mary" ("Catal. Script. Eccl." c. 9). It is therefore possible that the ex- 
 ternal occasion for this Gospel was a request of his fellow-disciples who were serving the 
 churches of Asia Minor. This, perhaps, is all that can be safely affirmed ; for some have 
 urged that the story may have been invented to account for the last verse of the Gospel. 
 Yet we detect in it no features of extravagance, and believe it may be true. 
 
 But the religious purpose or object of the Gospel is of far greater interest to us than 
 its external occasion. What was there at that time in the state of the churches, or in 
 the thought of the world, which called for another Gospel, presenting new aspects of 
 the Saviour's teaching? The early Christian writers do not perfectly agree in their 
 answers to this question. Irenoeus declares that John wrote his Gospel "to remove 
 from the minds of men the error which Cerinthus had sown therein, and still earlier, the 
 Nicolaitans .... also to establish in the church the rule of truth, that there is one 
 God Almighty, who, by his Word, created all things, visible and invisible," etc. ("Adv. 
 Haer. " III. 11. 1). Different from this is the statement of Clement of Alexandria, to 
 which reference has already been made, namely, that "John last, perceiving that the 
 bodily things [relating to Christ] had been made manifest in the Gospels [previously 
 written], being also encouraged by his intimate friends and moved by the Spirit of God, 
 made a spiritual Gospel," ('' H. E. " VI. 14). Eusebius himself defends another view, 
 namely, that John wrote his Gospel to supply the deficiencies of the first three, 
 particularly their omission of any narrative of Christ's ministry before the imprisonment 
 of John the Baptist. ' ' For these reasons the Apostle John, it is said, being entreated to 
 undertake it, wrote the account of the time not recorded by the former Evangelists 
 .... giving the deeds of Jesus before the Baptist was cast into prison .... It is 
 probable, therefore, that John passed by, in silence, the genealogy of our Lord, because 
 it was written by ^latthew and Luke, but commenced with the doctrine of the divinity, 
 as a part reserved for him, by the Divine Spirit, as if for a superior" ("H. E. " 
 IIL 24). 
 
 There may be some truth in every one of these representations. The erroneous 
 teaching of that period may have led the Evangelist to select for his Gospel such words 
 and deeds of the Lord as would be likely to counteract and eradicate that insidious 
 teaching. Again, the circumstance that the earlier Evangelists had put on record many 
 of the parables and more popular sayings of Jesus, may have led John to see the need 
 of preserving some part of his deeper instruction concerning his union with the Father, 
 and the spiritual nature of his reign. And precisely this instruction may have been 
 better fitted than any other to meet the errors which were at that time beginning to sap 
 the foundations of faith in Christ. And lastly, the apostle maj' have remembered that 
 Jesus began to assert his divine origin and power in Judea during the period of 
 
INTRODUCTION TO THE GOSPEL. 53 
 
 liis ministry that had not been described by the earlier Evangelists, and their 
 silence may have been an additional reason for including in his narrative some ac- 
 count of that period. But, v/hile this must be admitted, the question may arise 
 whether any of these statements rest upon tradition reaching back to the time of 
 Jolin. May not all of them have been inferences from the character of the Book itself? 
 Possibly ; though the relation of Irenaeus to the Elders of the School of John in Asia 
 Minor leads us to regard his testimony of some historical value. Besides, the narrative 
 concerning John and the young robber, which Clement of Alexandria relates, renders it 
 probable that he was familiar with some of the Asiatic disciples ; and the reference 
 which Eusebius makes to common report, by " it is said," forbids us to suppose that he 
 is giving a mere conjecture of his own. 
 
 Yet we find no clear evidence in the Gospel itself that it was written with a distinct 
 purpose of supplying deficiencies in earlier narratives, or of resisting the beginnings of 
 error, or of giving to Christians the more spiritual aspects of their Lord's life. If the 
 apostle had any of these things in mind, they liiust liave been altogether subordinate to 
 the one comprehensive aim which he avows near the close of his narrative: "Many 
 other signs therefore did Jesus in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in 
 this book : hut these are loritten, that ye may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of 
 God ; and that helieving, ye may have life in his name.'^ Here we have a definite state- 
 ment of the object for which the Gospel was written. With this key in his possession, 
 the interpreter may unlock the rooms of this divine treasure-house, and bring out of it 
 stores of truth and grace. It is needless to attempt any explanation of this key, any 
 restatement of that which has been so clearly and powerfully expressed. 
 
 But how did the writer accomplish, or seek to accomplish his object? What is the 
 plan of his great argument ? Apparently, a very simple one. The Evangelist first gives 
 his own view of the Lord Jesus, and then justifies that view by a recital of such pas- 
 sages from the history of Jesus — including his death and resurrection — as prove it to be 
 correct. Possibly it would be more exact to say that he justifies the truth of his own 
 view, given in the prologue, by a selection and recital of certain words and deeds and 
 events in the history of Jesus which had been principal sources of his own belief and 
 spiritual life. In doing this, he generally follows the order of time, and testifies of what 
 he has himself seen or heard. 
 
 A. During the first and peaceful period : (1 : 19 ; 4 : 54). (1) The witness of John 
 the Baptist, {a) before the deputation of Pharisees from Jerusalem, to the priority and 
 superiority of Jesus (1: 20 : 27) ; (6) before his own disciples, to his being the Lamb of 
 God (1: 36), the Son of God (1: 34), the Christ, and the Bridegroom of God's people 
 (3: 28-30). (2) The witness of Jesus as to himself by works and words ; (a) by mirac- 
 ulous signs, as at the wedding in Cana of Galilee (2: 1-11), in the expulsion of traders 
 from the Temple (2: 13-22), in miracles at Jerusalem (2: 23; 3: 2), and in healing the 
 nobleman's son from a distance (4:47-54) ; {h) by words manifesting or claiming that he 
 had superhuman knowledge as to Peter (1: 42), and Nathanael (1: 48), that he was the 
 Son of God and King of Israel (1: 49, 50), that he had special communion with heaven 
 (1: 51), that he possessed power to raise his dead body to life again (2: 19, 21), that he 
 had direct knowledge of heavenly things, because he had been in heaven (3: 12, 13), that 
 belief in himself as "lifted up " on the cross, was the condition of eternal life (3: 14, 
 15). that he was the giver of the water of life (4: 10, 14), and, indeed, the expected 
 Messiah (4: 25, 26). 
 
 B. During the second or controversial period {b: 1-12 : 50). (1) The further witness 
 
64 INTRODUCTION TO THE GOSPEL. 
 
 of Jesus as to himself, (a) by healing the infirm man on the Sabbath (5: 2-9), by feeding 
 the five thousand men (6: 5-^14), by giving sight to a man who had been blind from birth 
 (9: 1-7), and by raising Lazarus from the dead (11: 3-44); and (2) by asserting, after the 
 first miracle, his special Sonship to the Father, and unity in knowledge and action with 
 him (5: 17, 19-30); by asserting, after the second miracle, that he was, himself, God's 
 bread out of heaven, and so the source of eternal life to those who should believe in 
 him (6: 27-40), and, indeed, that only such as received him as slain for them could have 
 that life (6: 51-58), also that he was the Light of the world (8: 12), and One who had a 
 timeless existence like God's (8: 58); by affirming, after the third miracle, that he was 
 the Son of God (9: 36, 37), and, still later, that he was the Door of the sheep, and the 
 good Shepherd, giving his life for the sheep (10: 7, 11, 15), having power, by virtue of 
 his oneness with the Father, to keep all the flock (10: 28-30); and by affirming, in con- 
 nection with th-e last miracle, that he was himself the llesurrection and the Life to those 
 who should believe in him (1 1 : 25), and, soon after, that, by being lifted up from the 
 earth at death, he would draw all men unto himself (12: 32). This is only a brief sketch 
 of his answers and discussions pertaining to his nature and work. 
 
 C. During the third and final jicriod (13: 1; 21: 25). (1) By exhorting his disciples 
 to belief in him as well as in God (14: I), by declaring that he was the AVay and the 
 Truth and the Life (14: 6), a knowledge of whom was a knowledge of the Father (14: 7), 
 also that he was the true Vine, in whom they must abide as branches, in order to have 
 spiritual life (15: 1-C), that he would send them the Holy Spirit to be their Advocate 
 (14: 16, 17; 15: 26; 16: 7-15), and that a knowledge of the Father and the Son was eter- 
 nal life 07: 3), also by testifying before Pilate that he was King in the realm of highest 
 truth (18 : 37, 38) ; (2) finally, by rising from the dead on the third day (20 : 1 sq.): by 
 lireathing upon his disciiilcs, and saying : '' Receive ye the Holy Spirit" (20 : 22), by ac- 
 cepting divine homage from Thomas (20 : 28), and by reinstating Peter in the apostleship 
 (21: 15 sq.). In connection with all these claims to a divine nature and office, there is a 
 plain recognition of his human nature, with all its normal limitations. 
 
 V. AIM AND SOURCES OF THIS COMMENTARY. 
 
 The writer's aim in preparing this volume has been to ascertain, if possible, the 
 exact meaning of the sacred text, and then to state that meaning with the utmost clear- 
 ness consistent with suitable brevity. Yet in doing this it has been deemed important 
 to keep always in view the practical bearing of the Saviour's words, and to call attention 
 frequently to that bearing. Not critical processes, but simply the results of such pro- 
 cesses, have been thought to be entitled to any considerable si)ace in a work designed for 
 the people. And, in so far as this aim of the writer has been realized in the Com- 
 mentary, will it be found, he is confident, useful as an explanation of Holy Scripture to 
 readers of every class. But owing to the exceeding riches of the Fourth Gospel in the 
 deep things of God and of his Son Jesus Christ, the work must fail to correspond in all 
 respects with the ideal contemplated. Of this the writer is profoundly conscious. Yet 
 the study of the Gospel has been delightful and quickening, even though the attempt 
 to express the thoughts of the Master in words different from those chosen by himself, 
 or by the disciple whom he loved, has often seemed to be ineffectual, if not irreverent. 
 For, verily, beneath the tranquil surface of this Gospel, which is filled to so great an 
 extent with what the Lord himself said, are deep and fervid ocean-currents of holy 
 
INTRODUCTION TO THE GOSPEL. 55 
 
 life and love, which no one can undertake to explore and describe without being made to 
 feel the dimness of his vision and the feebleness of his speech. 
 
 But while the text of the Gospel itself has been studied with special and principal 
 care, the writer has made constant use of the best commentaries and nionograi)hs 
 within his reach, and has derived from them important aid. Not unfrequently have 
 citations been made from some of these works, but their helpfulness has been greater 
 than would be inferred from the passages borrowed from them. Among the books that 
 have been consulted with reference to the authorship of the Gospel may be named the 
 anonymous work entitled, "Supernatural Religion," (6ed.); especially Vol. II., and 
 the article on the "Fourth Gospel," in the ninth edition of the "Encyclopaedia 
 Britannica," besides a great number of volumes or articles by German scholars who 
 deny that this Gospel was written by the Apostle John. In favor of the Johannean 
 authorship maybe named Westcott "On the Canon of the New Testament," (5ed. ); 
 Bleek, "Introduction to the New Testament," 8. 71 ; Sanday (W.), "Authorship and 
 Character of the Fourth Gospel" ; Abbot (Ezra), "The Authorship of the Fourth 
 Gospel" ; several articles in the "Contemporary Review" for 1875, by Lightfoot ; also 
 Luthardt, "St. John, the Author of the Fourth Gospel," which gives in the Appendix 
 a list of the most valuable works on the subject published between 1792 and 1875. To 
 these maybe added, " Canonicity, A Collection of Early Testimonies to the Canonical 
 Books of the New Testament," by Prof Charteris, of Edinburgh. Among the com- 
 mentaries which have been used most freely, the following deserve to be mentioned, 
 viz. : those of Gill, Alford, McClellan, Westcott, Watkins, Abbt)t, Clark, Milligan and 
 IMoulton, in English ; those of Liicke, De Wette, Luthardt, Meyer, Hengstenberg, 
 Ewald, and Weiss-Meyer, in German ; those of Calvin, Lampe, and Bengel, in Latin ; 
 and that of Godet, in French. In the examination of the Greek text the critical labors 
 of Tischendorf, Tregelles, Westcott and Hort, Scrivener, Burgon, Abbot, and Mc- 
 Clellan, have been consulted; also Schaff's "Companion to the Greek Testament and 
 English Version." 
 
THE 
 
 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 [N the beginning " was the Word, and the Word ' was I 1 
 with God,'' and the Word was God. 
 
 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word 
 
 iProv. 8: 22, 23, etc.; Col. 1 : 17 ; 1 John 1:1; Rev. 1:2; 19: 13 b Prov. 8: 30; oil. 17 : 5 ; 1 John 1:2 c Phil. 2:6; 1 Joliu 5: 7. 
 
 The object for which John wrote the Fourth 
 
 Gospel is stated by himself in the following 
 words: "These are written, that ye may 
 believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of 
 God; and that believing ye may have life 
 in his name" (20:3i, Rev. ver.). For, though the 
 term "these" refers only to "the signs" nar- 
 rated by the Evangelist, it may be certainly 
 inferred from the uniform tendency of the 
 Gospel that the writer's choice of "the say- 
 ings," as well as of "the signs" to be re- 
 corded by him, was influenced greatly by 
 the object which is here named. 
 
 Ch. 1: 1-18. The Prologue. 
 
 With this the prologue agrees; for it in- 
 troduces the narrative which is to prove 
 that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, by 
 a statement concerning his being and work 
 which, for simplicity, completeness, and 
 depth, has never been approached. By this 
 remarkable statement the reader is furnished 
 beforehand with an interpretation of all that 
 follows, and is invited, as it were, to compare 
 the evidence with the interpretation — if it 
 would not rather be more correct to say, 
 that by it the reader is prepared, in some 
 measure, to interpret aright the subsequent 
 narrative of the wonderful words and works 
 of Jesus. 
 
 This introduction to the narrative embraces 
 eighteen versos, and may be divided into 
 three parts. The _^?'s^ (ver. 1-5) speaks of the 
 original being and the permanent offices of the 
 Word; the second (ver. 6-13), of the treatment 
 of the God-revealing Word by men ; and the 
 third (ver. u-18), of the incarnation of the 
 Word, by which God was most clearly re- 
 vealed to men. 
 
 1-5. Original Being and Permanent 
 Offices of the Wokd. 
 
 In this part of the introduction the apostle 
 speaks with absolute certainty of the original 
 existence, condition, and nature of the Word, 
 
 of his agency in the creation of all things, 
 and of his work in revealing God to men. 
 
 It will be observed that tiie Being of whom 
 the writer speaks in this paragraph is called 
 the. Word; and from ver. 14 it appears that 
 this expression is used to denote tlie higher 
 nature of Christ before that nature "was 
 made flesh." Why this designation was ap- 
 plied to that nature in its pre-incarnate state, 
 is not explained ; yet it may bo r.afoly as- 
 sumed that, whatever else recommended it to 
 the apostle, its own proper meaning was the 
 principal reason for his choice of it. 
 
 In human intercourse, it is the proper office 
 of "the word" to reveal thought, feeling, 
 purpose, character. By "rational speech," 
 the natural and best medium of expression, 
 the spirit of man, itself invisible, makes 
 known its being and will to others. And 
 therefore, if the existence and perfection of 
 God were revealed from the beginning by the 
 higher nature of Christ which, in the fullness 
 of time, became flesh, no other designation of 
 that nature could have been more appropriate 
 than the one selected by John for this para- 
 graph. But the Evangelist affirms, in his 
 own way, that the being and character of 
 God were thus revealed. "In him was life, 
 and the life was the light of men." With 
 the utmost propriety, then, this Being is called 
 "The Word," that is to say, the One through 
 whom God made himself known to man- 
 kind. 
 
 But how dijd John know that the Being 
 who was made flesh in the person of Jesus 
 Christ, was the medium of divine revelation 
 from the first? He knew this doubtless by 
 the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, who had 
 been sent, according to the Saviour's pro- 
 mise, to guide the apostles "into all truth" 
 (i6:i:<). But in what way did the Spirit of 
 Truth impart a knowledge of divine things to 
 the apostles? He appears to have done this 
 chiefly by such action upon their spiritual 
 
 57 
 
58 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 [Ch. I. 
 
 powers as enabled them to recall and com- 
 prehend the instructions of Christ, and also 
 those of the ancient Scriptures. In other 
 words, the truth which he revealed was, for 
 the most part, evolved from what had been 
 said or done before. Its roots were in the 
 past ; it was old as well as new ; and we may 
 therefore expect to find germs of it in the 
 Jewish Scriptures, as well as in the sayings of 
 the Lord. 
 
 Now, in the first chapter of Genesis, which 
 could not well have been absent from the 
 mind of John when he wrote the opening 
 sentences of his Gospel, the word of God is 
 represented, by a ninefold repetition, as the 
 medium of his creative energy. By the sole 
 agency of his word, he originated the cosmos 
 — the world of order, beauty, and life, of 
 which man is the crown. But there is here 
 no personification of this word. It is power- 
 ful, simply because it is spoken by God. It 
 originates order and beauty, simply because 
 it is the vehicle of divine wisdom. Yet in 
 one expression of this chapter: "Let us 
 make man in our image," there is a mysteri- 
 ous hint of Divine Society, a passing glance 
 at some plurality of a personal nature in the 
 Godhead, though the hint does not represent 
 the word of God as having any part in that 
 Divine Society which is suggested by the 
 pronouns "us" and "our." 
 
 But the ancient Scriptures offered more 
 than this to the inspired understanding of 
 John; for they spoke of a Being who was 
 called the Angel of Jehovah, or of God, the 
 angel that wrestled with Jacob and redeemed 
 Israel from all evil, the angel of his presence, 
 and the angel in whom was God's name, as if 
 he were a special messenger of God, repre- 
 senting his authority and glory ; while he 
 was also called God, or, his Presence, Jeho- 
 vah, or, I am that I am, as if he were the 
 true God manifesting himself to men. And 
 these various designations point to a Being 
 who is in some respects identical with the in- 
 visible God, and in other respects distin- 
 guishable from him — to a Being through 
 whom the true nature of God is revealed to 
 men, and who maj% therefore, be called, in 
 the highest sense, the Word. 
 
 But the mind of John, quickened and 
 guided by the Holy Spirit, would readily 
 connect these suggestions of the Old Testa- 
 ment with many references that were made 
 
 by Christ himself to his existence and state 
 before the incarnation. For the Saviour had 
 spoken, in the presence of his disciples, of the 
 glory which he had with the Father before 
 the world was; of himself as the only being 
 who knew the Father and could reveal him 
 to men ; of his knowledge of heavenly things ; 
 of his coming into the world from above; 
 and of his being the Life, the Light, and the 
 Truth, in a pre-eminent sense : and these 
 wonderful sayings, when added to the signifi- 
 cant intimations of the Old Testament, and 
 interpreted by a mind full of the Spirit of 
 Truth, may have sufficed to give the Evangel- 
 ist his surprising knowledge of the Divine 
 Word ; or, at least, may have prepared him 
 for the direct illumination of the Spirit as to 
 the ofiBce of the higher nature of Christ 
 before the incarnation. 
 
 It is, therefore, unnecessary to suppose that 
 the knowledge in question was imparted to 
 John by the Spirit as a wholly new revela- 
 tion, foreshadowed by nothing in the past, or 
 that it was borrowed from any philosophical 
 or Rabbinical source. Divine revelation is 
 itself progressive; "first the blade, then the 
 ear, then the full corn in the ear." The 
 fountain from which the apostle drew, in 
 writing the prologue, was neither the doc- 
 trine of Philo concerning the Logos, nor the 
 doctrine of the scribes concerning the Memra 
 or the Bath-Kol, but it was the teaching of 
 the prophets and of Christ, unfolded and 
 complemented by the work of the Spirit. 
 We do not, however, deny that the religious 
 speculations of Philo, and other Jews, may 
 have prepared the minds of Christian people, 
 in some measure, to understand John's use of 
 the term Logos. Never before, it may be, 
 would the meaning which he put into this 
 word, as a designation of the higher nature of 
 Christ, have been so readily apprehended by 
 those for whom his Gospel was written. Yet 
 the doctrine of Philo as to the Logos is, in 
 many respects, very different from that of 
 John, and it is impossible to discover in his 
 writings the source of John's Christology. 
 
 1. In the beginning was the Word. 
 (Compare Gen. 1:1; 1 John 1:1, 2; John 
 17:5; Eph. 1:4; Rev. 3:14; Prov. 8:23.) 
 This expression affirms the existence of the 
 Word at the time referred to in the opening 
 verse of Genesis, when God created the 
 heavens and the earth. He, the Word, was 
 
Ch. I.] 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 59 
 
 alreddy in being when that which before was 
 not began to be. His existence, therefore, is 
 witiiout beginning, or eternal. This is a 
 logical inference from the statement of John, 
 and it is also suggested by the verb (V) which 
 he employs. For there are two Greek verbs 
 by means of which he is wont to express the 
 idea of existence, one of tbem signifying ex- 
 istence with an implication of origin, and the 
 other signifying existence with no such im- 
 plication. The latter word is used in this 
 place, and in the last part of the declaration, 
 "before Abraham was, I am" {^■^>*)\ while 
 the former is used in verse 6, below : 
 "There was (arose, appeared,) a man sent 
 from God," and in the first member of the 
 saying, "before Abraham was {came to be), I 
 am." The eternal existence of the Word is, 
 therefore, logically implied and verbally 
 suggested in the first sentence of this Gospel. 
 — And the Word Avas with God, (Compare 
 1 John 1:2; John 17 : 5 ; 1 : 18. ) An expres- 
 sion which brings to mind the words of 
 Genesis: " Let us make man in our image." 
 For the preposition here used points to inti- 
 macy, and so to distinction of a personal 
 nature between the Eternal Word and the 
 God revealed b}' him. If the Evangelist had 
 said "in God," it might have been supposed 
 that he had in mind some attribute of God, 
 e. g., reason ; if he had said from God, it 
 might have been supposed that he had in 
 mind something impersonal, issuing from 
 God, as creative energy ; but he has used a 
 preposition which "expresses, beyond the fact 
 of co-existence, or immanence, the more sig- 
 nificant fact of perpetuated intercommunion." 
 — Liddon. According to Godet, this preposi- 
 tion "expresses jDroxwHi^y ; but, combining 
 •with this notion that of drawing near, it indi- 
 cates an active relation — a felt and personal 
 communion." (Compare Mark 6:3; .9:19; 
 Matt. 13:56; 26:55; 1 Cor. 16:6 sq. ; Gal. 
 1: 18; 4: 18.) And Westcott, commenting 
 on the passage, remarks that "the idea ex- 
 pressed by" the phrase was with {f,v wpos), 
 " is not that of simple co-existence, as of two 
 persons contemplated separately in company 
 {Ava.1 ittra 3:22), or united under a common 
 conception (eWi <jvv, Luke 22 : 56), or (so to 
 speak) in local relation (elfoi napi 17 : 5), but 
 of being (in some sense) directed towards and 
 regulated by that with which the relation is 
 fixed (5:19). The personal being of the 
 
 Word was realized in active intercourse 
 with and in perfect communion with God." 
 . . . "This life (iJoiiniti) 'was with the 
 Father' ; it was realized in the intercom- 
 munion of the Divine Persons when time 
 was not." "This expression, as in 1 John 
 1 : 2, also denotes the presence of the Logos 
 with God from the point of view of inter- 
 course. ... So in all the other passages 
 where it appears to mean simply by or vnth. 
 Mark 6 : 3; 9 : 19; Matt. 13 : 56; 26 : 55; 1 
 Cor. 16 : 6 sq. ; Gal. 1 : 18 ; 4 : 18."— Weiss. 
 
 The Word knows and loves the Father 
 whom he reveals ; his relation to God ante- 
 
 I dates and conditions his relation to man. 
 
 j With this proposition may be compared the 
 words of Christ: "And now. Father, glorify 
 thou me with thine own self with the glory 
 which I had witii thee before the world was" 
 (17:5), und, "No one knoweth the Son, save 
 the Father; neither doth any one know the 
 Father save the Son, and he to whom the Son 
 
 Willeth to reveal him" (Mau. n:27. Rev. Ver.) ; for 
 
 these two saj'ings are a suflScient foundation 
 for the statement that " the Word was with 
 God." (See also 1 John 1:2.) 
 
 Having asserted the eternal existence and 
 communion of the Word with God, the 
 Evangelist adds another fact of supreme in- 
 terest to his account of that Being, viz. — And 
 the Word was God. This is the only cor- 
 rect translation of the clause ; and it would 
 have been diflScult for .John to construct a 
 more definite and emphatic assertion of the 
 proper deity of the Word. For the terms of 
 this clause are so arranged in the original 
 that, according to the laws of the Greek lan- 
 guage, the emphasis falls upon the term 
 God. Hence the Evangelist pronounces the 
 pre-existent Word to be strictlj' and fully 
 Divine. Although distinguishable in a per- 
 sonal respect from the Father, in essence and 
 nature he was truly God. The construction 
 of the sentence is precisely the same as that 
 of John 4: 24: "God is a Spirit," where by 
 virtue of its position the term " spirit" is em- 
 phatic, and is used to define the nature and 
 essence of God. (See also 1 John 1 : 5, "God 
 is light," and John 3 : 29, "He that hath the 
 bride is the bridegroom.") Meyer quotes 
 from Luther the pithy remark, "The last 
 proposition, the Word was God, is against 
 Arius; the other, the Word was with Ood 
 against Sabellius." 
 
60 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 [Ch. I. 
 
 2 "The same was in the beginning with God. I 2 was with God, and the Word was God. The same 
 
 3 'All things were made by him; and without him if was in the beginning with God. All things were 
 was not any thing made that was made. | made through him ; and without i him 2 was not an y- 
 
 aGea.l: I....&P9. .13:8: 
 
 Rev. 4: 11. 1 Or, hy 2 Or, wot not anything made. 
 
 in him: and the life, etc. 
 
 2o The same (or, This one) was in the 
 begiuuiiig with God. The three proposi- 
 tions of the first verse are here reduced to 
 one, and solemnly re-affirmed. For the pro- 
 noun (oCto?), translated The same, appears 
 to represent the Word as he is described in 
 the last and highest assertion of thiit verse, 
 an assertion which, on account of its meaning 
 and position, must hold the first place in the 
 mind of writer or of reader. This Being, 
 himself by essence and nature God, was in 
 the beginning with God, which emphatic 
 repetition of tlie first verse prepares the way 
 for the statement that follows in verse third. 
 And the practice of repeating an important 
 truth for the sake of emphasis, or of prepar- 
 ing the mind for some connected truth, is 
 characteristic of this Evangelist's style. 
 
 3. All things were made by him. The 
 Greek word translated All things (wdvra), 
 means every object in the universe; not the 
 universe as a great whole, made up of num- 
 berless parts, but all the parts, however nu- 
 merous and dissimilar, that exist in the wide 
 universe. All these owe their existence to 
 the agency of the Word. Through him they 
 came to be (eyeVeTo). For the term which is 
 rendered were made, signifies in itself he- 
 came or came to be, and only by virtue of its 
 connection with an agent does it take the 
 meaning were made. The preposition by, 
 or through (S«£), represents the Word as the 
 mediating and proximate cause of the exist- 
 ence of all things, and, interpreted by other 
 statements of Scripture, suggests the will of 
 the Father as the first cause of their exist- 
 ence. By the agency, therefore, of the 
 Word, the being and power of the invisible 
 God were expressed in things created. — And 
 without him was not anything made 
 that was made (lit., has been ■>nade). The 
 same thought is here repeated in a negative 
 form. Not one of all the objects that have 
 been brought into being and now exist, was 
 made without him. Look abroad, O man, 
 over the universe, and consider all its parts, 
 great and small ! There is not one of them 
 which does not owe its existence to the 
 agency of that Divine Word who was in the 
 
 beginning with God. With this declaration 
 should be compared the language of Paul to 
 the Colossians : "Who is the image of the 
 invisible God, the first-born of all creation; 
 for in him were all things created, in the 
 heavens and upon the earth, things visible and 
 things invisible, whether thrones or dominions 
 or principalities or powers: all things have 
 been created through him and unto him ; 
 and he is before all things; and in him all 
 
 things consist" (l:15-17, Rev. Ver.). 
 
 It may be added that the statement of 
 John in this verse appears to affirm the crea- 
 tion of ever^'thing that exists save the God- 
 head. For to say that "all things came into 
 being" through the agency of the Word, is 
 tantamount to saying that the entire reality, 
 the substance as well as form of things, was 
 due to the Word. This, to say the least, is 
 the most obvious interpretation of the phrase, 
 and there is nothing in the context which 
 fairly suggests a different one. That Grecian 
 philosophy pronounced matter eternal is no 
 sufficient reason for supposing that the Evan- 
 gelist believed it eternal, and, on that ac- 
 count, would not speak of it as created. It 
 must now be added that many editors and 
 interpreters close the third verse with the 
 words, without him was not anything 
 made, and begin the fourth verse thus: 
 That which hath been tnade was life in him. 
 But the earl^' authorities are not conclusive; 
 and '\f that which hath been made had been 
 intended by the writer to go with what fol- 
 lows, he would surely have written "is 
 life," instead of "was life" ; or if, for any 
 reason, the past tense had been here pre- 
 ferred, the previous verb would have been, 
 was made (iyeyero), rather than hath been 
 made (yiyovtv). Indeed, sevenil manuscripts 
 and versions have is, instead of was ; but 
 the evidence for was decidedly outweighs 
 that for is, though is would have been more 
 readily substituted for was, than Avas for is, 
 by the early Fathers who generally con- 
 nected which hath been made with what fol- 
 lows. W^e, adhere then, with AVeiss and a 
 majority of modern scholars, to the ordinary 
 punctuation as correct, even though we do 
 
Ch. I.] 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 61 
 
 4 "In hiui was life; and 'the life was the light of 
 men. 
 
 5 And «tbe lis'it sliineth in darkness; and the dark- 
 ness comprehended it not. 
 
 4 thing made that hath been made. In him was life; 
 
 5 and the life was the light of men. And the light 
 shineth in the darkness; and the darkness 'appro- 
 
 ach. 5: 26; IJobn 5: II & ch. 8: I'i; 9: &; 12: 35, 16 c ch. 3: 19. 1 Or, overcome. Seech. 12: 35 (Or.). 
 
 not insist on the fact that the other punctua- 
 tion introduces a mystical and unintelligible 
 expression. 
 
 4. . In him was life; i. e., life in the 
 highest sense, spiritual life, springing ever- 
 more, in his case, from direct vision of God 
 and perfect fellowship with him (compare 
 17: 3, and 1 John 1: 2). This seems to be 
 the idea of true life from the religious point 
 of view taken by the Evangelist. And the 
 object of this sentence is to assert that life, in 
 the truest and deepest sense of the word, 
 belonged to the Logos from the beginning, 
 thus preparing the reader's mind for what 
 the Evangelist was about to state as the sec- 
 ond office or work of the Word. This clause, 
 therefore, stands in the same relation to the 
 next as the second verse stands to the third. 
 — And the life was the light of men; i. e., 
 the life, as it was realized in the Divine 
 Word, spiritual, holy, blessed, consisting in 
 perfect knowledge of the Father and com- 
 munion with him. All true knowledge of 
 God on the part of men has come from the 
 Word. Through him, and through him 
 alone, have men been enabled to see and 
 know the Father of lights. All revelation 
 of the Divine Being, whether to Israel or to 
 the nations, has been mediated by him. This 
 interpretation will be confirmed by a careful 
 study of the Evangelist's use of terms and by 
 the end for which his Gospel was written. 
 But two questions may be asked : Why is life 
 conceived of as the source or principle of 
 light? And why is light made the symbol of 
 divine revelation ? If we can answer these 
 questions, we shall be prepared in some de- 
 gree to understand the Fourth Gospel. In 
 answering the second question, it may be said 
 that, in the natural world, light is the means 
 of sight, and that so much of human knowl- 
 edge depends on sight, and therefore on light, 
 as to make it suitable to use the word light to 
 denote any means of knowledge. To see is 
 to know, and to know is to see, in the lan- 
 guage of common life. We see an argument 
 as clearly as we do a mountain, and we know 
 a color as well as we do an axiom. Hence if 
 divine revelation brings to men a knowledge 
 
 of God, it is light, that is, a means of spirit- 
 ual vision; and inasmuch as this knowledge 
 is the highest and only satisfying knowledge, 
 he who brings it, is pre-eminently "the light 
 of men." But the Divine Word is the Ono 
 Being through whom God is made known to 
 men, and he is therefore most fitly called 
 the light of men. (Compare 1: 17, 18; 8: 
 12; 14: 6; Matt. 11: 27.) In answering the 
 first question : Whj' does the Evangelist start 
 with life, as if this were the source or princi- 
 ple of light— as if the Word could be the 
 light of men only because there was in him 
 the true and perfect life? — we may say, that 
 all knowledge presupposes life. Intuition, 
 perception, experience, are functions of life. 
 A teacher must know what he teaches; ii 
 revealer must be acquainted with him whom 
 he reveals. Tl)e highest life of which the 
 Saviour speaks in this Gospel consists in 
 knowing Gad; and he himself had possessed 
 that life from eternity. Fellowship with the 
 Father — a life which had been identified with 
 the Father's in knowledge, feeling, and pur- 
 pose, so that the whole fullness of the divine 
 mind was his— qualified him to be the light of 
 men. Out of this perfect life came the light 
 which enlightens every man (ver. 9). Atten- 
 tion may also be called to the universality of 
 the term men. As, in ch. 8: 12, Jesus is 
 represented as having said : "I am the light 
 of the world" — that is, not of the Jews only, 
 but of all mankind — so in this place the 
 Evangelist declares that the life of the Word 
 was the light of men. Nothing, indeed, is 
 said concerning the process by which the 
 knowledge of the Eternal Word had been 
 imparted to men before his incarnation; but 
 the fact that he was the source of their 
 knowledge uf Go.l is broadly affirmed. And 
 this affirmation is in harmony with his own 
 sayings. (See the last three passages referred 
 to above^. 
 
 5. And the light shineth in (the) dark- 
 ness. According to Meyer, the emphasis 
 falls upon the expression in {the) darkness. 
 This expression introduces the new thought 
 of the verse, and in the original precedes the 
 verb shineth, an order of words which calls 
 
62 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 [Ch. I. 
 
 6 "There was a man sent from God, whose name «i(w | 6 hended It not. Tliere came a man, sent from God, 
 John. I 7 whose name was John. The same came for witness. 
 
 7 * The same came for a witness, to bear witness of I that he might bear witness of the light, that all 
 the Light, that all men through him might believe. | 
 
 a Mai. 3:1; Matt. 3:1; Luke 3:2; ver. 33 h Acl8 19 : 4. 
 
 special attention to the new thought. More- 
 over, the emphasis is increased by the use of 
 an abstract instead of a concrete term to de- 
 note the sphere in which the light shines; 
 for the darkness evidently means sinful 
 humanity, or the wcrld as it lies in "the 
 wicked one." But why is the present tense 
 employed? Many have answered: Because 
 the Evangelist wishes to characterize this 
 action of the light as constant, continuous, 
 through all time. The light always shines, 
 because it is its nature to shine. But it is, 
 perhaps, equally natural to suppose that the 
 present tense was selected because the Evan- 
 gelist wished to say that in his own time the 
 light was shining still, in spite of all that had 
 been done to obscure it. This view is favored 
 by the change of tense in the next sentence. 
 —And the darkness comprehended it 
 not. Better, with Wcstcott, Schalf, AVeiss, 
 and the Greek Fathers, overcame it not. 
 John uses the verb in but one other passage 
 (12:35), where the meaning is to "come down 
 upon, to enwrap." "As applied to light," 
 remarks We.stcott, "this sense includes the 
 further notion of overwhelming, eclipsing." 
 The darkness had indeed, according to its 
 nature, re-acted against the light, in order to 
 suppress it ; Calvary had witnessed this con- 
 flict; but it did not succeed in quenching the 
 light. And because in that crucial attempt 
 of moral darkness to overcome the true light, 
 it signally failed, the light shines on even 
 now. This interpretation is preferable to the 
 one which is suggested by the word "compre- 
 hended" ; especially if this word be equiva- 
 lent to " understood." 
 
 6-13. Treatment of the God-reveal- 
 ing LiGgT BY Men. 
 
 0. There was a man sent from God, 
 whose name was John. The word 
 (€7ei'eTo) translated was, signifies primarilj' 
 "became," and is sometimes used with refer- 
 ence to birth, as in Gal. 4:4. But it maj' 
 also denote such an event as the historical 
 appearance of John to the people as a mes- 
 senger of God; and this seems to be its im- 
 port here. The added expression, sent from 
 God, characterizes John as a true prophet, 
 
 one entrusted with a special message or mis- 
 sion from God. (See 3:2, and Mai. 3:1.) 
 The writer of this Gospel, here and else- 
 where, calls the harbinger of Christ simply 
 John, as none but the Apostle John would 
 be likely to do. Any other writer would 
 have distinguished him from the apostle by 
 calling him John the Baptist. See Introduc- 
 tion, p. 23. 
 
 7. The same came for a witness (or, 
 more briefly, for witness). The chief end 
 for which John the Baptist appeared, is here 
 expressed by a single word, " testimonj'," or 
 "witness" (ii.ixprvpi.a). This was the highest 
 and immediate, if not the only, object of his 
 mission to the people. And the difference 
 between teaching or preaching, and bearing 
 witnes.s, should be borne in mind. (Compare 
 3 : 11, 32; 15 : 27 ; also 1 : 19 ; 8 : 13, 14; 19 : 
 35; 21 : 24.) One bears witness of what he 
 knows by personal observation, or by reve- 
 lation from God. — To bear witness of 
 the Light. (Compare 1 : 33, 34.) Literally, 
 that he anight bear witness concernitig the 
 light. This clause repeats the idea of the 
 foregoing, together with a statement of the 
 person concerning whom the testimony was 
 to be given. That person is here called the 
 Light, because in and through him divine 
 truth was offered to the souls of men. John 
 was indeed "the lamp kindled and shining" 
 (5:35), but he was in no proper sense "the 
 Light." His light was borrowed and dim, 
 but Christ was light, self-revealing and God- 
 revealing, the original and perfect light. 
 This clause depends on the verb came. — 
 That all men through him might be- 
 lieve. The word him refers to John ; and 
 the belief meant is belief in Christ, the true 
 light. (Calvin, Bengel, Liicke, Olshausen, 
 Tholuck, Lange, Luthardt, Alford, Meyer, 
 De Wette, Godet, Weiss, Abbott, Clark.) 
 The direct object of John's mission was to 
 bear witness concerning the Word, or Light, 
 who is the Kevealer of the Father; and the 
 remoter object to be secured by this witness- 
 ing, was belief in the Word made flesh, the 
 Saviour of the world. " The person of John 
 is in itself of no importance, because it is 
 
Ch. I.] 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 63 
 
 S He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness 
 of that Light. 
 
 9 « T/in/ was the true Light, which lighteth every man 
 that Cometh into the world. 
 
 10 He was in the world, and 'the world was made by 
 him, and the world knew him not. 
 
 8 might believe through him. He wa.s not the light, 
 but cawe that he might bear witness of the light. 
 
 9 "There was the true light, I'lun tk,- li,,t,i which light- 
 10 etii "every man, ciimiiig into the w<jrld. He was in 
 
 the world, and the world was made through him, 
 
 a ver. 4; Isa. 49: 6; 1 Johu 2: 8.. ..6 ver. 3j Heb. 1 : 2; 11 : 3. 1 Or, The true light, which lighteth every man. v,a» coming. ...2 Or, 
 
 every man at he cometh. 
 
 human ; its importance lies only in the testi- 
 mony it has to give." — Luthardt. 
 
 8. He was not that (the) Light, but was 
 sent to bear witness of that Light. The 
 
 first three words are emphatic. This maj- be 
 inferred from their position in the Greek sen- 
 tence, and from the pronoun selected by the 
 Evangelisi; {i. e., exelvoi). After the conjunc- 
 tion but (oXAa), .some expositors (Mej'er, 
 Schaff) would supply the word "came," to 
 complete the sense ; others would supply 
 "was sent," and still others "was"; while 
 yet others maintain that the thought of the 
 writer is fully expressed. The third of these 
 views is probablj' correct. The form of ex- 
 pression is one by which the writer hastens to 
 the positive and principal thought contained 
 in the second clause, carrj'ing with him the 
 idea of the verb " was" from the first. Such 
 elliptical and slightly irregular expressions 
 are very forcible, and are common to all lan- 
 guages. 
 
 9. That was the true Light, etc. The 
 construction and interpretation of this verse 
 are diflScult. It has been variously trans- 
 lated: (1) "'There was the true light, which 
 lighteth every man that cotnes into the world''' 
 {Bible Union); (2) ^'Present was the true 
 light which lighteth every man that cometh 
 into the world" (Meyer); (3) "The true 
 light, which lighteneth every man, came into 
 the world" (Alford); (4) "The true light 
 which lighteneth every m,an, was cotning into 
 the world" (Noyes, Davidson, Liicke); (5) 
 " That was the true light which lighteth every 
 ■man (by) coming into the .world" (Godet, 2d 
 ed.). The third and fourth versions (Alford, 
 Noyes) may be regarded as virtually one; for 
 Alford interprets the words, "came into the 
 world," as meaning, "was in process of mani- 
 festing himself." That is to say, the true 
 Light was already making its appearance 
 when John was testifying of it. This seems 
 to be a more exact translation than any save 
 the first, and the meaning which it offers is 
 satisfactory. — The Light of which John was 
 to bear witness, and which was already ap- 
 
 pearing in the world, is characterized, in the 
 first place, as being the true Light (to oA.j3ii'd»<, 
 see Trench's "N. T. Synonyms," 7th ed., p. 
 25 sq.), that is, the genuine, original Light, 
 answering to the perfect idea of light, and 
 used here in contrast with the imperfect and 
 borrowed light of John; and in the second 
 place, it lighteth every man— an expression 
 which has been variously understood. It 
 cannot, however, mean that every man is, in 
 fact, spiritually enlightened by the Word, so 
 that he has a true knowledge of God; for 
 this is fjrbidden by the immediate context — 
 unless we assume, with Bengel, that by 
 "every man" is here meant "every one 
 who is spiritually enlightened," which seems 
 to be a scarcely ju.stifiable restriction of the 
 language. But it may signify that some 
 knowledge of God is given to every man 
 by the "Word. AVe understand it, however, 
 as a description of the normal relation of the 
 Word to the world of mankind, as an affirm- 
 ation that, if any one fails of true and saving 
 knowledge, it is because he closes the ej'e of 
 his soul to it, and not because the W"ord has 
 failed to offer it to him. 
 
 10. He was in the world, and the world 
 Avas made by him, and the world knew 
 him not. Three questions have been raised 
 concerning this verse, viz.: (1) At what 
 point does the writer pass from the neuter 
 and impersonal idea of the ninth verse to 
 the masculine and personal of the eleventh, 
 from the Light to the Word? (2) To what 
 time does he refer in the several clauses, 
 especially the first and the last? (3) What is 
 the meaning of the world in the several 
 clauses? In answer to the first, it may be 
 said that though the Evangelist used a term 
 in the ninth verse which is neuter in form 
 (to 0M5), it is by no means certain that it was 
 used by him in an impersonal sense. Indeed, 
 when saying that John was not the Light, he 
 must have been thinking of One who was the 
 Light, that is, of the Light as a person ; and 
 therefore it may be assumed, that as soon as 
 the gender of the word light ceased to rule, 
 
64 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 [Ch. I. 
 
 11 "He came unto his own, and his own received him 
 not. 
 
 12 But 'as many as received him, to them gave he 
 power to become the sons of God, even to them that be- 
 lieve on his name : 
 
 11 and the world knew him not. He came unto ihis 
 own, and they that were his own received him not. 
 
 12 But as many as received Iiim, to them gave he the 
 right to become children of God, even to them that 
 
 a Luke 19: 14; Acts 3: 26; 13: 46 h Isa. 56 : 5 ; Eoui. 8: 15; Gal. 3 : 26 ; 2 Pet. 1 : 4; 1 Johu 3 : 1. 1 Gr. his own things. 
 
 in a merely formal way, the gender of rela- 
 tive words, the writer, had he used a pronoun, 
 would have employed the masculine form. 
 (Compare 14: 26; 15: 26; 16: 7-13.) In an- 
 swer to the second: At what time does the 
 writer mean to affirm that the Light, i. e., 
 the Word, was in the world? it may be said: 
 In the time of his public ministry, when he 
 was manifesting himself to the world, and 
 John was bearing witness of him. ^'^ He was 
 in the world — and therefore the world should 
 have known him — a7id the world was made by 
 him — so much the more should it have known 
 him — and yet the xoorld knew him not^' 
 (DeWette). "The world (6 (cda/no?) is repeated 
 three times with tragical emphasis, the noun 
 instead of the pronoun. This makes the con- 
 trast between what should have been and 
 what was the more affecting." — Luthardt. 
 In answer to the third question: What is 
 meant bj' the world in the several clauses ? 
 we remark, that in the last clause it must 
 mean the world of mankind, or the world as 
 represented by mankind; for only men could 
 know the "Word. But in the previous clauses 
 the term may have a less restricted meaning. 
 And it is characteristic of John to use words 
 of comprehensive signification, leaving their 
 exact reference to be inferred from the con- 
 text. He teaches much with but few words. 
 11. He came unto his own, and his 
 own received him not. In the first sen- 
 tence of this verse, the words rendered his 
 own (tA liia) are neuter, and serve to fix the 
 mind on the Jewish nation as the Messiah's 
 heritage or possession ; but in the second sen- 
 tence, the words so translated (oi ISioi) are 
 masculine, and serve to fix the mind on the 
 same people as persons who belong to the 
 Messiah, and are subjects of his government, 
 or members of his household. The simple 
 idea of oionership is more forcibly expressed 
 by the neuter form ; but this form gives 
 place to the masculine, because on\y persons 
 can receive or reject. The Messiah, the 
 Light of the world, was rejected bj' his own 
 people, the members of his own family. 
 Compare the language of the Old Testament 
 
 in Ex. 19: 5; Deut. 7:6; Psalm 135: 4; 
 Isa. 31 : 9, with that of the New Testament in 
 1 Peter 2:9; Matt. 8 : 12; John 4 : 22; Pvom. 
 1 : 16. " In the negative form of expression, 
 verses 10, 11, there is a profoundly elegiac 
 and sorrowful tone."— iV/eyer. The beloved 
 disciple felt a holy grief at the rejection of 
 his Lord. Yet while the people, as a whole, 
 rejected Christ, there were individuals who 
 believed in him, and the Evangelist now 
 turns to the manifestion of Christ in relation 
 to them. He has spoken of unbelief, and he 
 now speaks of belief. 
 
 12. But as many as received him, to 
 them gave he power to become the sons 
 of God, even to them that believe on 
 his name. Compare the Kevised Version. 
 Following the order and emphasis of the 
 Greek words, the verse may be rendered: 
 But as m,any as received him, he gave them 
 right (or power) to be children of God, to 
 them who believe in his name. Gave, rather 
 than them, is emphatic in the second clause. 
 This verse, in connection with the next, taxes 
 the wisdom of an interpreter severely. Yet 
 one thing is evident, viz., that the first and 
 last clauses refer to the same class of persons, 
 and to the same kind of action ; hence the re- 
 ceiving was effected by believing, and the 
 last clause explains the first. This appears to 
 us certain, though Weiss decides that the act 
 of receiving Jesus, as the true Light, pre- 
 ceded belief in his name. Does, then, the 
 second clause refer to regeneration? so that, 
 according to John, faith precedes and condi- 
 tions regeneration ? This is assumed to be 
 his teaching by Meyer, De Wette, Godet, 
 and many others. But the objections to this 
 assumption are very grave, (a) The next 
 verse appears to teach that those who believe 
 in the name of Christ have been begotten of 
 God. (b) The same thing is clearly taught 
 by John in his Fir.st Epistle, e. g., 5 : 1. 
 (Compare 4: 7; 2: 29.) (c) Faith in Christ 
 appears to be as truly a fruit of divine grace 
 as any other Christian act. 
 
 If, then, we reject the assumption that 
 faith precedes regeneration, the words of our 
 
Ch. I.] 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 65 
 
 13 « Which were horn, not of Mood, nor of the will o?fi3 believe 
 the flesh, nor of the will of m:in, l)Ut of God. 
 
 14 'Aiul the Word = was made ''flesh, and dwelt 
 among us, (and « we beheld his glory, the glory a*i ni'ilie 
 only begotten of the Father,) /full of grace and truth. 
 
 his name: who were 'born, not of 
 
 •-'bloi.d, nor of the will of llie flesh, nor of the will 
 
 11 of liian, l)Ut of (idd. ,\nd ihe Word became flesh, 
 
 and ''dwelt aiuong us (and we beheld liis glory, 
 
 glory as of Hhe only begotten from the Father), 
 
 a ch.3: 5; James 1 : 18 ; 1 Pet. 1 : 23 b Malt. 1 : IB, 20; Luke I : 31, :«; 2:7; 1 Tim. 3: 16 e Rom. I : 3' 
 
 16, 17 e Isa. 40: a; Matt. 17 : 2 i oh. 2 : 11 ; 11 : 40: 2 Pel. 1 : 17.... /CI. I ; 19 ; 2: 3, 9. 1 Or, begotten.'. 
 
 nacted 4 Or, an only hnjottcn/rom a father. 
 
 Gal. 4: 4....dHch.2: II. 14, 
 . .2 Gr. bloode 3 Gr. taber- 
 
 second ckuse must either refer to what Paul that they all deny the production of a spir- 
 calls "adoption" {vioeeaia), or mu.st represent | itiial life by natural generation, or, in other 
 regeneration as due to a gift of grace from \vord.s, that a state of grace is ever iniierited 
 Christ. In the former case the word trans- ' fi-uiu one's parents or ancestors. But is not 
 lated power (cfouaia) means " privilege," l thi.s fully expressed by the first negation? 
 "right," or "title," and the word translated [ And do not the second and third deny that 
 to become (yeMo-eai), means "to be"— of this state is ever originated by an act of 
 
 course with an implication of origin. 
 Against this the use of "children" (Tcict-a), 
 instead of*'sons" (vidi), has been urged; but 
 without the fullest right, for John nowhere 
 uses the latter term to denote sons by adop- 
 tion, and Paul's style is not decisive as to the 
 use of words by John. (Compare John 11 : 
 52; 1 John 3:1.) But why not accept tl)i' 
 second view, accqrding to which the word 
 rendered power means the moral ability of 
 men, under the renewing influence of the 
 Spirit, to receive Christ and become thereby 
 children of God? In fiivor of this interpre- 
 tation may be alleged the position of gave, 
 which makes this verb, instead of the pro- 
 noun them, the emphatic word of the clause. 
 Had John meant to emphasize the human 
 act alone as decisive, he would probably 
 have placed the word them before the word 
 gave, i. e.. to them, because they received 
 him when others did not. Nor is this inter- 
 pretation inconsistent with the use of a pre- 
 sent participle in the last clause, while an 
 aorist verb is used in the first. For this 
 change may have been due to the interven- 
 ing thought. The meaning would then be 
 this: "Many did not receive him ; but some 
 did; and, as to all who received him, he 
 gave them grace by which they were enabled 
 to do this, and so to become God's children." 
 This emphasizing of the grace of God in 
 Christ perfectly accords with the general 
 tone of the prologue. 
 
 13. Which (or toho) were born {begotten) 
 not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, 
 nor of the will of man, but of God. The 
 main purpose of the Evangelist in this verse is 
 to deny that regeneration owes its origin to 
 man, and to affirm that it is effected by the 
 power of God. Most interjireters supjjose that 
 the three negations are essentially one, in 
 
 human will or choice? This is certainly the 
 most obvious meaning of the words. Yet, if 
 this be the meaning, why, it may be asked, is 
 will of the flesh distinguished from will of 
 man? Possibly because the writer would 
 first reject a notion which is very plainly 
 absurd (of blood), then one that is appar- 
 ently less absurd (of the will of the flesh), 
 and, finally, one that appears to many per- 
 sons even probable (of the will of man). 
 Thus faith in Christ is not transmitted 
 from parents to children in the elements 
 of physical life ("bloods" for blood). Nor 
 is this faith originated by an act of will 
 springing from a nature ruled by flesh and 
 sense. Nor yet is it a product of man's will, 
 although will of man signifies all that is 
 highest and noblest in merely human power. 
 The origin of this new life of faith is divine; 
 it is implanted in the soul by God. If this 
 interpretation is correct, the word man is 
 here used (and Liicke maintains this view) as 
 the antithesis of God, and not of woman, 
 though the term here emploj'ed is generally 
 used in the latter sense. At all events, the 
 last clause distinctly aflSrms that believers 
 have a life which owes its origin to God — that 
 the new birth is effected by God, and that all 
 believers in the name of Christ have experi- 
 enced it. But it does not say that the grace 
 of God for regeneration is resisted equally by 
 those who are, and b}- those who are not, re- 
 newed. The positive, eflScient agency is di- 
 vine; but whether this divine agency is con- 
 ditioned on an3' particular state of the human 
 soul or not, the Evangelist does not explain. 
 
 14-18. Incarxatiox of the Word by 
 WHICH God w^as Most Clearly Kevealed 
 to Men. 
 
 14. And the word was made [became) 
 flesh. This sentence Is ai once simple and 
 
66 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 [Ch. L 
 
 sublime, unsurpassed by any in the sacred 
 record. With it should be compared 1 John 
 4: 2; 2 John 7; ITim. 3: 16; Gal. 4: 4; Kom. 
 1: 3; 8: 3; Phil. 2: 7; Col. 2: 9; John 8: 58; 
 17:5; 3: 11-13. A careful study of these 
 passages will lead one to hesitate long before 
 concluding with Gess, Godet, and others, that 
 the verb became (eyerero) includes a sur- 
 render of his divine consciousness, or mode 
 of existence, by the Word, and an entrance 
 upon a simple human mode of existence. 
 For this term does not assert that the Divine 
 Word v;as converted into flesh, or human 
 nature. It only declares that he became one 
 of whom true humanity could be affirmed. 
 If the order of the Greek original marl<s any 
 word as emphatic, it is the word flesh. And 
 this word is generally conceded to be a des- 
 ignation of human nature, taken from its 
 lower and visible side. The meaning would 
 have been nearly the same if John had said : 
 The Word becntne man. Yet the word flesh 
 serves to bring forward a little more dis- 
 tinctly the fact that he was visible, and had a 
 human body, as well as a rational soul. (Com- 
 pare John 17 : 2.) If John had meant to saj' 
 that the Word took to himself a human body 
 simply, he would have said that he came in a 
 body, or at least "in flesh." The expression 
 Avhich he has employed naturally signifies 
 that the AVord, though divine, became hu- 
 man. Bej-ond this, his language scarcely 
 warrants our going. "In Jesus Christ,"' says 
 Meyer, was "the absolute synthesis of the 
 divine and the human." Meyer's exposition 
 of this verse is, in most respects, admirable, 
 while that of Godet, though extremely in- 
 teresting and positive, is scarceh- justified by 
 the language of the Evangelist. Ami dwelt 
 among us— full of grace and truth. The 
 verb translated dAvelt (eo-K^i-wo-ec) signifies, lit- 
 erally, "pitched his tent," "tented," "taber- 
 nacled"; and "this word was chosen," Meyer 
 holds, "for the purpose of fixing attention 
 on the appearing of the incarnate W^ord, 
 whose human nature became his holy tent 
 (2 Pet. 1:13) in fulfillment of God's promise that 
 he would dwell among his people. Ex. 25: 8; 
 29:45; Levit.26:ll; Joel3: 21 ; Ezek. 37: 27; 
 Hag. 2: 9, cf Sir. 24: 8; Kev. 21 : 3. The con- 
 text, and we beheld his glory, etc., au- 
 thorizes this assumption." A similar thought 
 underlies the statement of John in 2: 21: 
 "But he spake of the temple of his body." 
 
 There is nothing in the context favorable to 
 the view that this verb, "tented," was chosen 
 with reference to the brevity of Christ's so- 
 journ upon earth. The pronoun us means 
 the disciples of Christ, of whom the writer 
 was one. The last words of the verse, full 
 of grace and truth, are descriptive of the 
 Word as he dwelt among his people. Ke- 
 demption was in him, and -was revealed by 
 him. AVhat he was he manifested, and he 
 was the Saviour of sinners. The word grace 
 answers to the word life above, and the word 
 truth to the word light. Life and light are 
 equivalent to grace and truth. Several ex- 
 cellent expositors (Meyer, Lange, Alford, 
 Schaff") regard these words — full of grace 
 and truth — as a final exclamation, not re- 
 ferable to the second clause, or as belonging, 
 by an irregular construction, with his (aixoO) 
 of the next preceding clause. But it is safer to 
 connect tliem witli the Word, the subject of 
 the verb dwelt. AVe now return to the inter- 
 vening clause, which may be literally ren- 
 dered : And we beheld his glory, a glory 
 as of an only begotten from with the Father. 
 The word beheld means to look at, or con- 
 template with admiration. "It needed be- 
 lief to see the Son of God in Jesus, but that 
 belief could see even in the incarnate One 
 the fullness of the divine glory" (Luthardt, 
 freely). This glory was revealed to believers 
 by the whole life, bearing, teaching, work, 
 of the incarnate AVord. And it was such a 
 glory as answered to the true idea of an Only 
 Begotten from tlie Fatlier. The preposition 
 (irapd) before Father means "from with," or 
 "from the presence of,'-" and it is plain that 
 the peculiarity' of Christ's Sonship depends 
 on the divine nature of the AVord, since he 
 could be "from with God" by virtue of his 
 higher nature only. But it maj' be doubted 
 whether this language proves the eternal Son- 
 ship of the AVord; though it clearly proves 
 that the Sonship of Christ was, in a true sense, 
 natural as well as unique. A different prepo- 
 sition would probablj' have been selected by 
 John, if he had intended to speak of the 
 pre-incarnate AA'ord as the Son of the Father. 
 AVhether then the doctrine of the eternal 
 generation of the AVord from the Father is 
 Biblical or not, it is not directly taught in 
 this passage. Only this is said, that the glory 
 of Jesus was such as could belong to none 
 but an only begotten Son, who, as to his 
 
Ch. I.] 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 67 
 
 lo "John bare witness of hiiu.aiKl cried, siiying, This I 15 full of f;race and truth. John l)earcth witness of 
 was heot whom I spake, Mle tliat coiiielli after me is him, and crieth, saving, ' This was he of wliom I 
 
 preferred before me ; ' for he was before me. | said, lie that comelii after me is bicome l)efore lue- 
 
 aver. 32; ch. 3:32; 5: 33.... 4 Matt. 3: 11; Mark 1 : 7 ; l.uke3: 16; ver. 27: 30 ; ch. 3 : 31....C ch. 3: 58; Col. 1: 17 I Some ancient 
 
 auihoi'itU-8 rend (t/tio wa» he that said). 
 
 higher nature, had come from with the 
 Fi^tlier. That Christ was this gracious and 
 gUirious Being is now re-asserted, by appeal- 
 ing to the testimony of John the Baptist, and 
 to tiie grace which the first disciples had re- 
 ceived from him. 
 
 15. John bare witness of him, and 
 cried, saying (Literally: John bearcth wit- 
 ness of him, and hath cried, saying). Tlie 
 tense of tlic former verb (heareth) may be 
 explained by supposing that the Evangelist 
 merely thought of John's testimony as al- 
 ways pertinent, valid, and decisive, or by 
 supposing that it was vividly present to him, 
 and sounding as it were in his ears. Tlie 
 hitter hypothesis is perhaps preferable to the 
 former; for the testimony of the Baptist, re- 
 ceived in faith, had proved the turning point 
 in the writer's life, and would therefore be 
 likely to remain in his soul as fresh and 
 powerful as when it was first heard. If the 
 former explanation of this verb were adopted, 
 it would still be necessary to suppose the 
 writer a disciple of John, as well as of Christ, 
 in order to account for the graphic descrip- 
 tion and singular prominence which he has 
 given to the testimony of the Baptist. An 
 unknown Christian of the second century 
 could not have written the remainder of this 
 chapter. — The verb translated cried, or hath 
 cried, is in the perfect tense, and represents 
 the act as sounding over from the past into 
 the present. Mej^er says that the perfect 
 is here used as a present, but it is not really 
 necessary to assume this ; for from the testify- 
 ing, as a present reality, the mind of the Evan- 
 gelist might easily' pass to the vocal utterance 
 as bringing that testimony from the past to the 
 present, and continuing it still. — This was 
 he of whom I spake, He that cometh af- 
 ter me is preferred \has come to be) before 
 me ; for he was before me. The tense of 
 the verb was, in the first clause, may be ac- 
 counted for by supposing that John refers to 
 Jesus on some other past occasion, e. g., "The 
 teacher, whom I saw again yesterdaj'^, Avas 
 he of whom I spake," etc. Weiss thinks 
 that John the Baptist is conceived of hy the 
 Evangelist as still bearing witness, and there- 
 
 fore as now saying, This was he of whom I 
 spake. His view is po.ssibly correct; for the 
 perfect, hath cried, includes the present as 
 well as the past. AVeiss holds that this is an 
 instance, though the only one in the New 
 Testament, of a perfect tense used for a pres- 
 ent; but we do not see any solid ground for 
 such an opinion.' The clause, has come to be 
 before me, may refer either to time or to rank. 
 If it refers to time, the Baptist meant to say 
 that the coming of Jesus into the world pre- 
 ceded his own; or, in other words, that Jesus 
 was the One who had appeared to the fathers 
 as the Angel of Jehovah, the Angel of the 
 Covenant, etc. But by the tense of the verb 
 employed, has come to be (yeYOj-ei-), the coming 
 of Jesus in flesh would, in that case, be repre- 
 sented as a continuance of his coming in a 
 very different way, which is scarcely natural. 
 The view that this clause refers to the superior 
 dignity or rank obtained by Christ, is there- 
 fore better. " He that is coming after me has 
 taken his place before me, i. e., in authority 
 and rank — a position to which he is entitled, 
 because he was before me, or first in relation 
 to me." This precedence in existence (last 
 clause) might surely be appealed to as a suf- 
 ficient ground for precedence in dignity, for 
 it implied the superhuman nature of Christ. 
 (Notice, too, that the verb here is in the im- 
 
 1 [" This was he of whom I said" (oc elnov), js sup- 
 ported by all known documents except X (first cor- 
 rector) B C, which read, "This was he who said" 
 (o hnuiv) ; and the original .«cribe of X gave, "This 
 was he that cometh after me, who is become before 
 me," showing confusion and uncertainty as to the 
 text. Now an.y reader will notice that John the 
 Baptist has not been recorded as previously saying 
 what in the common te.Kt he here tleelares himself 
 to have said. Hence an apparent difficulty, which 
 the reading of X B C tends to remove. If only X 
 and C bad given tliis, Westcott and Hort would have 
 promptly called it an "Alexandrian" correction, a 
 well meant attempt to remove a difficulty. 'I'heir 
 jreneral po.sition that B added to other e:irly authori- 
 ties gives a "neutral" form of text, free from ".Alex- 
 andrian " and " Western " corrections, cannot, in our 
 opinion, be maintained without allowing somewhat 
 numerous exceptions. Compare on .3: 13; 7:8, .39; 
 18 : 1. There can be little hesitation in here rejecting 
 the reading 6 einiii' as a correction. B.] 
 
68 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 [Ch. I. 
 
 16 And of his "fulness have all we received, and grace I 16 for he was 'before me. For of his fulness we all 
 for grace. I 17 received, and grace for grace. For the law was 
 
 17 For * the law was given by Moses, 6((< "grace and given through Moses; grace and truth came 
 ''truth caiue by Jesus Christ. I 
 
 oh. 3: 34; Eph. 1 : 6, 7, 8 ; Col. 1 : 19 ; 2:9, 10 ft Ex. 20: 1, etc. ; Deut. 4: 44; ' : 1 ; .33: 4 c 
 
 14 : 6. 1 Gr.JirBt in regard Vo me. 
 
 . 3 : 24 ; 5 ; 21 ; 6 : 14 d ch. 8 : 32 ; 
 
 perfect tense, V.) Moreover, when this proc- 
 lamation was made by the Baptist (see ver. 
 30), Jesus harl already begun to take his true 
 position as compared with John. The tense 
 of the verb {yiyovtv)., in the second clause of 
 John's testimony, is therefore fully accounted 
 for by this interpretation. 
 
 16. And of his fulness have all Ave re- 
 ceived, and grace for grace. Yielding to 
 the force of authority,^ we must substitute 
 for, in place of and, at the beginning of 
 this verse. Yet we cannot attribute these 
 words to John the Baptist. Lil<e the words 
 we beheld, etc., of verge 14, they evidently 
 belong to the Evangelist, and the all Ave 
 refers to himself and the whole body of primi- 
 tive disciples. The time indicated by the 
 verb (lit., received) is that in which they first 
 believed in Jesu.s. And the expression, his j 
 fulness, shows that this verse was meant to 
 be a confirmation of the last statement in 
 verse fourteenth. AVhether it is to be directly 
 connected with that verse, however, or with 
 the fifteenth, is doubtful. If, with the latter, 
 the course of thought is somewhat obscure, 
 but as follows: "We beheld him dwelling 
 among us, full of grace and truth." For tlie 
 witness of John the Baptist is to this effect, 
 that Jesus had justly taken precedence of 
 himself, because he was in existence first, 
 even in eternity. And that he was thus pre- 
 existent and superior to John, and therefore 
 full of grace and truth, is also certain, "be- 
 cause we all received grace out of his fullness 
 at the time of our espousals to him." The 
 
 1 [This verse ought to begin with on, " because " or 
 "for," which is supported by X B C (first hand) 
 D L X, :«, some copies of the Old Latin, the Mem- 
 phitic, Armenian, and iEthiopie, and numerous pa- 
 - trisiic quotations. Notice that the uncials include 
 three groups, X B, C L, D. We can see ho\f this 
 reading may have been changed to xat, "and" 
 (which has inferior outward eviiience), by persons 
 who could not see any such relation as " because" 
 between verse 15 and verse IC, and who did not 
 perceive that verse 15 is parenthetical or digressive, 
 and in verse 16 the Evangelist gives the "because" 
 for verse 14. There is even a verbal connection, 
 "full . . . fulness," "grace . . . grace." B.] 
 
 word received has no expressed object, but its 
 implied object is a portion of that with which 
 Christ was filled, namely, "grace and truth." 
 The manner in which this was received is de- 
 scribed by the words and grace for grace. 
 That is, " new grace constantly took the place 
 of that which had been received before." 
 — Meyer. "A grace received becomes our 
 title to receive a new grace." — Godet. "Every 
 new wave taking the place of, and over- 
 whelming, though not superseding or de- 
 stroying, the other." — Schnff. Not only the 
 freeness of divine grace is suggested by this 
 expression, but also its adaptation to every 
 state and want of the renewed man, as he 
 passes on from childhood to maturitj' in the 
 divine life. It will be observed that these 
 additional words, and grace for grace, ap- 
 pear to glance at the whole course of Chris- 
 tian life, while the verb received fixes the 
 mind on a particular time or act. 
 
 17. For the law was given by Moses, 
 I but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ. 
 
 j This verse assigns a reason (For) why Chris- 
 
 I tians could and did receive from his fullness 
 
 i grace for grace, namely, because through 
 
 j him the grace and the truth of salvation, or 
 
 grace and truth in their ideal sense, were 
 
 I brought into existence {eyevero) ; and while 
 
 j assigning this reason, it magnifies his work 
 
 I by contrasting it with that of Moses. The 
 
 ] law was, at best, only the shadow of good 
 
 j things to come. It manifested the justice of 
 
 I God and the sinfulness of man with great 
 
 clearness, but it only intimated, through 
 
 types, the reality and the method of divine 
 
 forgiveness. These were disclosed by the 
 
 mediation of Christ, even as they depended 
 
 on that mediation. Hence, it is said that 
 
 grace and truth came, i. e., came into being, 
 
 or view, through Jesus Christ. The law was 
 
 only given (e5o0r)) or transmitted through 
 
 Moses ; for it was in substance the eternal 
 
 rule of right, existing in the mind of God; 
 
 but saving grace and truth were brought into 
 
 being by the work of Christ. He himself 
 
 was the perfect revelation of the Divine 
 
 Will. In him was "the redemption," and 
 
Ch. I.] JOHN. 
 
 18 «No man hath seen God at any time; ''the only I 18 through Jesus Christ. No man hai 
 bfKOtteu S(ju, which is in the bosom of tlie Father, he any time; "the onlv IieL'otten Son 
 
 69 
 
 hath declared h 
 
 hath seen God at 
 , who is in the 
 bosom of the Father, he hath declared him. 
 
 o Ex. 33:20; Deut. 4 : 12; Matt. 11:27; Luke 10: 22; ch.6:46; 1 Tim. 1: 17; 6: 16; 1 John 4: 12. 20....6 ver. U; ch. 3 : 16, 18; IJi.hn 
 4 : 'J. 1 Many very aiicieut autborities read, God otUu beaotten. 
 
 by him was it made known to men. Here, 
 first in the prologue, do we meet the full 
 name of the Saviour, who has been desig- 
 nated hitherto as the Word, the Light, and, 
 by implication, the Only Begotten from with 
 the Father. 
 
 18. No man hath seen God at any 
 time; the only begotten Son, which is 
 in the bosom of the Father— he hath 
 declared him. By its position in the origi- 
 nal — God — hath no man ever seen — the word 
 God is made emphatic; and, according to 
 this last and crowning declaration of the pro- 
 logue, God the Father has never been seen 
 by mortal ej'e, but was made known by 
 Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son, who 
 enjoys perfect and uninterrupted communion 
 with him. Jesus Christ, in the days of his 
 flesh, interpreted and revealed the Father to 
 men; this he was able to do, because he is 
 the only begotten Son, having the same 
 nature with the Father, and because he is 
 ever at home in the bosom of the Father, 
 loving him and knowing all his heart.' 
 
 1 [It Is quite difficult to decide whether the true 
 reading here is (1) o \i.ovoye.v-t\% uios, "the only-begot- 
 ten Son," or (2) \iiOvoyivy\% Seo? (without article) "one 
 wlio is only-begotten God." Tlie evidence of manu- 
 scripts, versions, anil Fathers, is veiy strong on both 
 sides; and that of the Fathers is curiously compli- 
 cated with questions as to the early creeds, and the 
 current phraseology of the early centuries. Fach 
 reading may claim some tianscriptional. and somt* 
 intrinsic probability. Thequestion d^es not materi- 
 ally atfect the general te:iehing of the New Testa- 
 ment as to the Son of God, and so we can hardly sup- 
 pose changes on that account. Athanasius seems to 
 have had only the former reading, while Arins, and 
 some of his followers, quote the latter, explaining it 
 in accordance with their theory. 
 
 (1) 6 /uoi'oyei'r)? vids is supported by A C (third 
 hand) X T A A 11, nine other uncials, nearly all 
 cursives, old Latin, Vulgate, old Syriac (Curetonian), 
 Harklean (text) and Jerusalem Syriac, Armenian, 
 and some manuscripts of the ^Ethiopic. It is found 
 in Irenceus (Latin translation). Hippolytus ; Euse- 
 Viius several times fonce giving the alternatve read- 
 ing "the only-begotten Son, or (one who is) only-be- 
 gotten God," as either sufficed for his argument; 
 .■Vthanasius repeatedly ; and often in Basil, Chrysos- 
 tum, and many other Greek Fathers; also in Tertul- 
 
 Meyer supposes that the expression which 
 is in the bosom of the Father, refers to 
 Jesus Chri.st after his glorification, but does 
 not cover the period of his humiliation on 
 earth. But, if that were the case, I cannot 
 see why the clause was in.serted here. It 
 would have .seemed far more natural to have 
 referred to his pre-incarnate fellowship with 
 the Father, hue most natural of all to have 
 referred to his intimacy with the Father 
 while he was declaring him. The participle 
 (wi-) translated is, seems to be used to express 
 what is permanently true of Christ, and true 
 in such a sense as to make his account of the 
 Father worthy of all acceptation. Lucke 
 saj's that the ''timeless present participle is 
 here used, like the finite present in 1 John 
 3:3, 7, to express an inherent, permanent 
 relation of the only begotten Son to the 
 Father" (I. 363). It may al.so be remarked 
 that there is no expressed object of the word 
 "declared" (efij-yijo-oTo), he expounded, ex- 
 j}lnined, taught [i. e., ca, qiice ad deum spec- 
 tant) ; or, what he knew by being in the 
 
 lian, Hilary, often (in a work on the Trinity), and 
 other Latin Fathers. 
 
 (2) ii.Qvoy(vy\% Seds is supported by X B C (first hand) 
 L..'i3 (which very often concurs with this group of 
 uncials). Memphitic, Peshito, and margin of Hark- 
 lean Syriac, ^thiopic fsome Mss ). It is found in 
 IreiiBBus (Latin translation, next page to the quota- 
 tion of the other rea<iing), is s;tid to have been used 
 by the Valentinian Gnostics, is given once in Clem- 
 ent of Ale.x., and several times in Origen, repeatedly 
 in Didvmns (on the Trinity), and Gregory of Nyssa, 
 and Epiphanius and Cyril of .\lex. (in commentary 
 on John), and in various other Greek Fathers. 
 
 Carefully to be distinguished from quotations of this 
 passage is the frequent use of the expression iiovoyevrif 
 ved? without any apparent reference to this con- 
 nection) tjy many Fathers, including Athanasius 
 (who quotes only the other text), Basil, Gregory of 
 Nyssa. and Gregory 'Nazianzen, Cyril of Alex., and 
 the Latin Fathers Hilary (who quotes only the other) 
 and FiilL'entius; also by Arius (in Epiphanius) and 
 some obscure Latin Arian writers. This same ex- 
 pression is found in certain early creeds (see Hort, 
 "Two Dissertations." Cambridge, 1877). 
 
 Internal evidence as to this passage is not decisive, 
 but seems somewhat more favor;ible to 9ed«. The 
 unique and strange-looking novoyivin S«6s would 
 
70 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 [Ch. I. 
 
 19 And this is " the record of John, when the Jews I 19 And this is the witness of John, when the Jews 
 sent priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him, sent unto him from Jerusalem priests and Levlies 
 Who art thou? I 
 
 bosom of the Father; or, perhaps, the Father, 
 as he could do this by being in the Fathers 
 bosom. 
 
 19-28. John's Testimony TO THE Depu- 
 tation FROM Jerusalem. 
 
 Having prepared the minds of his readers 
 bj' this marvelous introduction to appreciate 
 the events and discourses which he is about to 
 relate, the Evangelist, whose object did not 
 require him to rehearse again the well-known 
 story of the birth, the early history, and the 
 opening ministry of John the Baptist, or of 
 Jesus, the son of Mary, begins his narrative 
 by describing an interview between the Bap- 
 tist, and a deputation of priests and Levites 
 from Jerusalem. This interview took place 
 on the east side of the Jordan, in Bethabara 
 (see ver. 28), more than forty days after the 
 baptism of Christ. Hence, according to the 
 best conjecture, John had been preaching and 
 baptizing between seven and eight months, 
 and many of the people were beginning to 
 speak of him as in all probability, the expected 
 Messiah. It was time, therefore, for the rulers 
 to ascertain his claims, and prepare them- 
 selves to oppose or to support them. 
 
 19. And this is the record (better, wit- 
 
 ness) of John. A slight but natural empha- 
 sis is thrown upon the predicate this bj- giving 
 it the first place in the sentence. The writer 
 calls attention thereby to the character of the 
 testimony which is to be recited. "The wit- 
 ness which John bore on a particular occasion 
 is this (observe its character) which I now re- 
 peat, and it was given": When the Jews 
 sent priests and Levites from Jerusa- 
 lem. By the Jews must be understood in 
 this place, the Jewish authorities, probably 
 the members of the Sanhedrin. This was a 
 formal deputation, and was naturally com- 
 posed of priests and Levites, as men who were 
 occupied with religious services, and familiar 
 with the prophetic Scriptures. They were 
 sent from Jerusalem, the capital of the na- 
 tion, by tlie chiefs of the Jewish people, to 
 ascertain the precise claims of the Baptist, as 
 appears from the next clause; for they were 
 j sent, it is said, to ask him, Who art thou ?' 
 (For the use of l^a, and the subjunctive in the 
 sense of the infinitive, see Winer § 45, 9, and 
 Buttmann ^ 139, 4.) The question thus pro- 
 posed was perfectly general, but in view of 
 the circumstances, was equivalent to the defi- 
 nite inquiry, Art thou the Messiah ? And 
 
 more readily be changed into the familiar o 
 fiovo-yti'jjs vids of .3: Ifi, 18; 1 John 4: 9. Still it may 
 he answered that the erpression iiovoyevti^ Seds was 
 familiar in various quarters. It is more likely 
 that the creeds and theologians borrowed this ex- 
 pression from the Gospel, than that it crept into the 
 Gospel from their ussge. Dr. E. Abbot replies (Ril>- 
 liotheca Sa-'-ra, 1801. and Unitarian Review, 187.">). that 
 the favorite phrase S-ed? Adyos was not borrowed from 
 Scripture, but made V>y combining two words in 
 John 1:1; and so novoyevji^ Sed« might have been 
 made by combination fiotn 1 : 1 and 14. But ihe two 
 cases present the important difference that S'ebs Adyos 
 lias not crept into the test. And Dr. H<>rt points out 
 that if the use of fioi-oyevJi? ^ed? in theologians and 
 creeds brought it into our passage, then there must 
 have been such use early in the second century, to 
 account for its appearance in the various documents 
 which contain it. The possibility that -«ds mny 
 have been changed to vids because of the closely 
 following Trarpds, is met by the possibility that a 
 scribe retained the impression of the foregoing S^fov, 
 and thus unconsciously mistook the contracted form 
 of vids for the other. Many have argued that "only 
 
 begotten God" is intrin'^ieally improbable, because 
 unique and foreign to New Testament phraseology. 
 But Hort justly replies, ^" Two Disseitations,") that 
 the entire prologue to John (1 : 1-18) is thoroughly 
 unique, and he shows that "only begotten God" 
 at the close, would well sum tip the the thought of 
 the whole passage. Thus, transcriptional probability 
 is rather in favor of iiovoyevrii: Seds, ami intrinsic 
 probability is not clearly oppo.'sed to it. And as the 
 remarkable group of documents which contain it, 
 are so commonly shown by clear, internal evidence 
 to contain the true text, it seems right to regard 
 novyev'ri^ Sed« as more probably the correct reading. 
 There is, of late years, as critics become used to the 
 strange expression, an increasing readiness to aceopt 
 this proliable conclusion. But the complex difficul- 
 ties of the problem are very serious, and one can 
 hardly speak with great eonflclence. In text-criti- 
 cism, as in exegesis, we must not be surpii-ed if 
 some questions remain unsettled. It should be care- 
 fully observed that ''only-begotten" is here without 
 an article, as in ver. 14. Even " God only-begotten" 
 {marijin of Revised Version) is too definite an ex- 
 pression. B.] 
 
Ch. I.] 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 71 
 
 20 And " he confessed, and denied not ; but confessed, 
 I am not the C'liiist. 
 
 21 An' tliey iiskcd him, What then ? Art thou « Elias ? 
 And he saith, 1 am not. Art thou " that Prophet '! And 
 he answered, No. 
 
 22 Then said they unto him, Who art thou? that we 
 may give an answer ti them that sent us. What sayest 
 thou of thyself? 
 
 23 <i He said, I aiu the voice of one crying in the wil- 
 derness, Malie straight the way of the Lord, as «said 
 tlie prophet Esaias. 
 
 20 to ask him. Who art thou? And he confessed, and 
 denied not; and he confessed, 1 am not thi; ( hrisl. 
 
 21 And they asked him, What then? Art tht.ii Klijah:' 
 And he saith, I am not. Art thou tlie iirophut? 
 
 22 And he answered. No. They said Iherelore unto 
 him, Who art thou? that we may give an answer 
 to them that sent us. What sayest tliou of thv.self ? 
 
 23 He said, I am the voice of one crying in the w"il(ler- 
 nes.s, Make straight the way of the Lord, as said 
 
 a Luke 3: 15; ch. 3: 28; Acts 13: 25.... i Miil. 4:5; Matt. 17: 10 cDout. 18: 15, 18 d Matt. 3:3; Mark 1:3; Luke 3 : 4; cli. 3: 28.... 
 
 e Isa. 40 : 3. 
 
 the Baptist responded to its import, rather 
 than to its form. Meyer supposes that this 
 import is slightly indicated by the emphatic 
 position of the pronoun thou (2u ris elj; but 
 this i.s perha)).'? doubtful. 
 
 2U. And he confessed, and denied not; 
 but (rather, and he) confessed, I am not 
 the Christ. Two points deserve speciiil at- 
 tention. 1. The msinner in which the Evan- 
 gelist introduces this testimony of the Baptist. 
 For by his double statement, positive and 
 negative, and by his deliberate repetition 
 of tlie positive statement, he confessed, 
 he clearly reveals the extraordinary impres- 
 sion which this tinswer and testimony had 
 made on his own mind. The language is 
 evidently that of a hearer and believer; per- 
 haps, too, of one who was at the time half 
 expecting a different answer from the BaptLst. 
 2. The position of the pronoun I in the an- 
 swer of the Baptist renders it emphatic, and 
 gives to that answer the meaning, "I myself 
 am not the Christ" (thus suggesting that 
 there was another among them who was the 
 Christ). This meaning arises chiefly from 
 the order of words established by the highest 
 authorities, and adopted by Lachniiinn, Tis- 
 chendorf, and Tregelles, though the use of 
 the pronoun at all, renders it somewhat em- 
 phatic. 
 
 21. But the deputation was not satisfied ; 
 it would hiive a more definite answer from 
 John. Hence the next question: What then? 
 Art thou Elias? For it was expected, ac- 
 cording to Mai. 4: 5, that Elijah would re- 
 appear on earth and introduce the Messiah ; 
 while it is evident that the deputation sup- 
 posed the mission of the Baptist to be con- 
 nected in some way with the Messiah. Hence 
 they say: "If this is so, if thou art not the 
 Christ, how does the case stand? Art thou 
 Elijah?" They probably suppose that be 
 will claim to be at least Elijah. But no. — He 
 saith, I am not. Meaning, I am not Elijah 
 
 the Tishbite, to whom you refer. This an- 
 swer of the Baptist need not be pronounced 
 inconsistent with the words of the angel to 
 Zachariah his father (Luke i: i;), or with those 
 of Christ (Matt, u: 14; 17: 11,12); for it was doubt- 
 less a true answer to the precise thought as 
 well as language of his interrogators. For 
 some reason he deemed it unnecessary to in- 
 terpret the words of Malachi, which signified 
 that he was an Elijah in "spirit and power," 
 though not identical with him in person. 
 The deputies, therefore, continue their scru- 
 tiny: Art thou that prophet? (Literally, 
 The prophet, art thou?) And he answered. 
 No. It is presumable that the questioners 
 meant by the prophet, the unnamed projjhet 
 foretold by Moses in Deut. 18: 15. whom they 
 did not identify with the promised Messiah, 
 while John briefly answered, No, because he 
 knew that the prediction of Mo.ses referred to 
 the Messiah, or at least did not refer to him- 
 self. Ob.serve the life-like style of the dia- 
 logue, and the curt, decisive manner of the 
 Baptist. It was a dialogue well-remembered 
 b3' the writer — not a colloquy invented by a 
 literar3^ forger of the second century. 
 
 23. Then said they unto him. Who art 
 thou? that we may give an answer to 
 them that sent us. This question could not 
 be answered by a single negative, and there- 
 fore John gives an account of himself in the 
 language of Scripture, but in such a way a.s 
 to keep his own personality in the background 
 while he exalted Christ. " Notice — they ever 
 ask him 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 
 of Christ, which is everything. So the form- 
 alist ever in the church asks. Who is he? while 
 the witness for Christ only exalts, only cares, 
 for Christ's work." — Alford. 
 
 23. He said, I am thd (rather n) voice 
 of one crying in the wilderness. Make 
 straight the way of the Lord, as said the 
 
72 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 [Ch. I. 
 
 24 And they which were sent were of the Pharisees. | 24 Isaiah the prophet. lAnd they had been sent from 
 
 25 And they asked him and said unto him Why bap- 
 tizest thou tlieii, if thou be not that Clirist, nor Eiias, 
 neither tliat Prophet? 
 
 20 John answered them, saying, "I baptize with 
 water: * but there standeth one among you, whom ye 
 know not; 
 
 27 " He it is, who coming after me is preferred before 
 me, whose shoe's latohet I am not worthy to unloose. 
 
 25 the Pharisees. And they asked him, and said unto 
 him. Why then baptizest thou, if thou art not the 
 
 26 Christ, neither Elijah, neither the prophet? John 
 answered them, saying, I baptize -in water: in the 
 
 27 midst of you staudeth one whom ye know not, even 
 he that cometh after me, the latchet of whose shoe 
 
 1 Matt. 3 : 11 h Mai. 3 : 1 c ver. 15, 30; Acts 19: ■». 1 Or, And certain had been sent from among the Pharisees 2 Or, imth. 
 
 prophet £saias. The second clause of the 
 quotation from Isa. 40: 3 is not literal, but it 
 gives the substance of two sentences of the 
 original, which reads: "Prepare ye the way 
 of the Lord, make straight in the desert a 
 highway for our God." Matthew (3:3) ap- 
 plies the same passage to John the Baptist. 
 This answer to the deputation is in perfect 
 keeping with the Evangelist's own language 
 in verses 7 and 8, above. The greatness of 
 John was in his being a voice, a herald, a 
 witness, announcing Christ and directing 
 men to him. He was less than his office, 
 Avhile Jesus was greater than his office; he 
 was great because of his office, while the 
 office of Christ was supremely great because 
 it was filled by him. 
 
 24. And they which were sent were of 
 the Pharisees. The Revised Version, fol- 
 lowing the oldest reading, translates: And 
 they had been sent from the Pharisees. This 
 remark is inserted to prepare the way for 
 what follows; for the Pharisees, who at- 
 tached the highest importance to all cere- 
 monial observances, were just the people to 
 call in question the authority of one who 
 should introduce a new religious rite. And 
 this John had done. 
 
 25. And they asked him, and said unto 
 him. Why baptizest thou then, if thou be 
 not that (the) Christ, nor Elias, neither 
 that (the) prophet? It appears from this, 
 that the Pharisees looked upon baptism as 
 a rite which appertained to the Messiah's 
 reign, and which could only be introduced 
 by the Messiah himself, by Elijah his fore- 
 runner, or by the prophet like unto Moses. 
 But they did not interpret Isa. 40: 3 as re- 
 ferring to any one of these. Hence, they 
 called in question the right of John to 
 baptize; and he, taking little pains to vin- 
 dicate his right, pointed them to his Master. 
 
 26. 27. I baptize with (in) water, etc 
 The Revised Version reads: In the 7nidst of 
 you standeth one whom ye know not, even 
 he that cometh after ■)ne, the latchet of 
 
 lohose shoe I am not worthy to unloose. 
 This, according to the best editors, Lach- 
 mann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Westcott and 
 Hort, is the true te.xt of the verse. And if so, 
 the response of John to his inquisitors was 
 brief, even to obscurity ;. yet it was probably 
 understood by tlie deputation. Their question 
 assumed that none but the Messiah, or one 
 closely and officially' ccMinected with him — 
 as Elijah or "the prophet" — could have 
 authority to baptize; and the answer of 
 John, though obscure, is exactly to the 
 point, and may be paraphrased thus: "I 
 mj'self do indeed baptize in water: I myself 
 am administering this new and significant 
 rite by which those who are entering u))on 
 a new religious life solemnly' testify' their re- 
 jientance and readiness to welcome tlie Com- 
 ing One; and my authority for doing this is 
 the fact that he who cometh after me, whose 
 way I am calling on the people to prejjare, 
 but whom you yourselves do not know 
 or recognize, is even now standing among 
 you; and so great and wonderful is he, that 
 I, though sent to announce him and to pre- 
 pare the people for him by this divinely ap- 
 pointed and significant rite, feel myself un- 
 worthy to render him the humblest service." 
 Meyer says that, after I in the first clause, 
 the emphasis falls on in water; but there is 
 nothing in the Greek text to warrant this. 
 For thp order of the words is the natural and 
 logical order, and the only emphatic part is 
 the pronoun I. Perhaps there is a definite 
 feeling of rightful authority implied in the 
 accentuated pronoun: "This is my mission, 
 tny work as the herald of the far greater One 
 who is even now standing among you" ; yet 
 the pronoun may be expressed for the sake 
 only of a more marked antithesis between 
 the speaker and the One described as he that 
 com,eth after me. "When speaking to the 
 more docile, but less instructed people, John 
 had expresslj- contrasted the bajitism in water, 
 which he administered, with the baptism in 
 the Holy Spirit, which the One coming after 
 
Ch. L] 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 73 
 
 28 These thiiif^s were done "in Bethabara beyond 
 Jordan, where John was baptizing. 
 
 28 I am not worthy to unloose. These thines wore 
 done in 'Uetliauy beyond Jordan, wliere Jidin was 
 baptizing. 
 
 I Juiiges 7 : 24 ; ch. 10: 40. 1 Maiij aticii-nt auihoritiea read, Bethabarah, some Betharabah. 
 
 him would administer; (See Miitt. 3: 11; 
 Mark 1: 7, 8; Luke 3: 16); but in re.sponding 
 to the more learned and captious Pharisees 
 from Jerusalem, a briefer statement was 
 enough. 
 
 28. Th-^se things were done in Beth- 
 abara (or Bethany) beyond Jordan, where 
 John was baptizing. The importance 
 which the Evangelist attaches to this inter- 
 view, on account of the testimony which tiie 
 Baptist gave in it respecting the Christ, leads 
 him to mention the place where the deputa- 
 tion examined the prophet and harbinger of 
 the Lord. Bethany, instead of Bethabara, is 
 the reading of the oldest manuscripts (e. g., 
 J* A B C), and is adopted by the critical edi- 
 tors. Origen says: "We are not ignorant 
 that almost all the copies have, These things 
 took place in Bethany; and this, it seems, 
 also forinerly to have been ; therefore we have 
 read Bethany in Herakleon. But we were 
 persuaded that it is not necessary to read 
 Bethany, but Bethabara, when we were in 
 those places for the purpose of tracing by 
 sight the footsteps of Jesus, and of his disci- 
 ples, and of the prophets. For Betliany, as 
 the Evangelist himself saj's, the native place 
 of Lazarus and Martha, and Mary, was fifteen 
 furlongs distant from Jerusalem, while the 
 river Jordan is one hundred and eighty fur- 
 longs beyond this. Neither is there a place of 
 the same name as Bethany about the Jordan. 
 But they say that there is pointed out on the 
 bank of the Jordan the Bethabara, where 
 they relate that John baptized" (VI. 24). 
 It seems necessary in accordance with the tes- 
 timony, though against the opinion of Origen, 
 to follow the best authorized reading, and to 
 suppose that the place over the Jordan called 
 Bethany had disappeared, or changed its 
 name before the time of Origen. Somewhere 
 in the neighborhood of the Jabbok, as it 
 enters the Jordan, there was a Bethabara in 
 the days of Gideon (Judg. 7:24), and at that 
 place, as well as at Bethany, John may have 
 baptized. This would account for the tra- 
 dition which Origen found. Caspari argues 
 ingeniously that Bethany is represented by 
 Tell Anihje, on the east side of the Jordan, 
 
 a few miles north of Lake Genncsjireth ; 
 for, as he maintains that the word Tell has 
 taken the place of Beth as a prefix to many 
 names of places in Palestine, he considers 
 Tell Anihje equivalent to Beth Anihje, that 
 is, Bethany. (See "Chronological and Geo- 
 graphical Intro, to the Life of Christ," pp. 
 92, 93). "Von Ranmer also argues that there 
 was a Judah beyond Jordan, northeast of the 
 Sea of Galilee, called Golan, Jaulan, or Gau- 
 lonitis. If so, a comparison of Matt. 19: 1 
 with John 10: 40, might lead to the conclu- 
 sion that Bethany was in that province. Yet 
 it is by no means certain that John first bap- 
 tized in Bethany beyond the Jordan, and it 
 seems quite improbable that Matt. 3: 5, B, 
 and Mark 1 : 6, refer to any place north of 
 the Sea of Galilee. Some members of the 
 English Company sent out to explore the 
 Holy Land, locate Bethany on the east of the 
 Jordan, not far south of the Sea of Galilee. 
 But its exact topography is still unknown. 
 Mr. Condor, of the Royal Engineers, speaks 
 of a ford of the Jordan named 'Abarah, "just 
 above the place where the JalQd River, flow- 
 ing down the valley Jezreel by Beisan, de- 
 bouches into Jordan. . . . We have collected 
 the names of over forty fords, and no other is 
 called 'Abarah; nor does the word occur 
 again in all the 9,000 names collected by the 
 survey party. . . . The ford 'Abarah is about 
 twenty-two miles from Kefr Kenna, and no 
 place can be found, on the Jordan, much 
 nearer or more easily accessible to the neigh, 
 borhood of Cana. . . . Bathania, meaning 
 '.soft soil,' was the well-known form used in 
 the time of Christ, of the old name Ba.shan, 
 which district was in Per:i?a, or the country 
 beyond Jordan. ... If Bethabara be a true 
 reading, the place should thus, most probably, 
 be sought in Bathania, and the ford should, 
 therefore, lead over to Bashan. This, again, 
 strengthens the case for the 'Ab§,rah ford, 
 which is near the hills of Bashan, whereas the 
 Jericho fords are far away, leading over 
 towards Gilead and Moab " (Vol. II. pp. 
 64 sq.) 
 
 29-34. John's Testimony to His Own 
 Disciples tuk Next Day. 
 
74 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 [Ch. I. 
 
 29 The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, 
 and saith, Behold « the Lamb of God, which ' taketh 
 away the sin of the world ! 
 
 29 On the morrow he seeth Jefusconii 
 and saith, Behold, the Lamb of Uod, 
 
 ng unto him, 
 that Haketh 
 
 o Ex. 12: 3; Isa. 53 : 7 ; ver. 36; Acts 8: 32; 1 Pet. 1 : 19; Rev. 5. 6. etc b Is.i. 53 : 11 ; 1 Cor. 15: 3; Oal. 1:4; Heb. 1: 
 
 1 Pet. 2: 24; 3: IS; 1 Joliu 2:2; 3:5; 4: 10; Rev. 1 : 5. 1 Or, bearetlt the sin. 
 
 29. The next day John (or he, meaning 
 Jolin), seeth Jesus coming unto him. 
 
 Jesus now ai)pears for the first time in the 
 proper narrative of tlie Evangelist. All tlie 
 interesting circumstances of his birth, his in- 
 fancy, his childhood, his visit to the Temple 
 at the age of twelve, hi& baptism, and his 
 temptation in the wilderness, are passed by in 
 silence, and he, is brought forward at the very 
 time when, probably, the writer first saw him, 
 and began to think of him as the hope of 
 Israel. The purpose for which Jesus was 
 coming to John is not named, and it can only 
 be conjectured from what follows. He was 
 about to enter upon his public ministry, to 
 call about him disciples, and to prepare a 
 select company of them to be witnesses of his 
 miracles and resurrection: where could he 
 expect to find men so well prepared to receive 
 him as were some of those who had been 
 taught by John the Baptist? by one who was 
 "more than a prophet," because he was a 
 messenger sent to prepare the way of the 
 Lord? 
 
 Wiien now the Baptist saw Jesus ap- 
 proaching, he said to the group of serious 
 men about him : Behold the Lamb of 
 God, which taketh away the sin of the 
 Avorld ! For he recognized Jesus, and knew 
 that he was the Son of God (ver. 32-34). But 
 why did he call Jesus the Lamb of God? 
 "Without doubt because he saw in him "the 
 servant of Jehovah," described in the fiftj'- 
 third chapter of Isaiah, who was "led as a 
 lamb to the slaughter." The best interpre- 
 ters unite in this answer — e. g., Liicke, 
 Meyer, Godet, Lange, Alford, and many 
 others. The principal reasons for this answer 
 are found in the use of the definite article 
 before the word lamb (6 a^ivot), and in the 
 meaning of the next clause. It is indeed 
 possible that, by directing attention to Jesus 
 as the Lamb of God, John meant to affirm 
 that in him was to be fulfilled, in a perfect 
 manner, the whole idea and ofiice of sacrifice 
 by blood. Yet, if this was his meaning, it is 
 not very obvious why he made choice of 
 " the lamb " to represent all the animals that 
 were oflTered in Ssicrifice ; for some of the most 
 
 important sacrifices of the Mosaic Economy 
 were made with other animals. But in the 
 fifty-third of Isaiah, "the servant of Jeho- 
 vah" is represented as "a lamb," and was 
 believed by many, if not by all of the pious 
 Israelites of that time, to be the Messiah. 
 That the Messiah is there depicted as one 
 who "is brought as a lamb to the slaughter," 
 as one who bore up the sins of many upon 
 the altar of sacrifice, as one who " was 
 wounded for our transgressions," and 
 "bruised for our iniquities," is reason 
 enough why the Baptist should point him 
 out as the Lamb of God. The next clause 
 also favors this interpretation, though it is 
 properly translated, which taketh away 
 the sin of the world. For it has been well 
 said: "How does Christ take away sin? 
 Not, as we are often told, b\' simply remov- 
 ing it from the offender, and putting it out of 
 sight. ... A careful examination of the 
 word (aipui), meaning, to take away, will 
 show that it permits one to take an object 
 away only by taking it upon himself. . . . 
 Christ took away our sins, therefore, Dy 
 taking them upon himself. . . . We 
 may then say, that while we are to translate 
 by "take away," and while the idea of de- 
 portation is in the foreground of the picture, 
 there is in the background the idea of taking 
 up sin as a load and bearing it to sacrifice" 
 (Bib. Sac, Vol. xxxii., pp. 48, 49). Some 
 interpreters have thought it improbable that 
 John the Baptist knew as much res|)ecting 
 the work of Christ as this language suggests, 
 and have, therefore, called in question the 
 accuracy of the Evangelist's report. But, in 
 rejily to this, it may be reniiirked, that the 
 Bai)tist was not as a prophet inferior to 
 Isaiah, that he had the predictions of Isaiah 
 in his hands, that he was the harbinger of 
 I Christ, enlightened beyond others in respect 
 to him, and that he may have seen in the 
 I baptism of Jesus a type of his death for 
 I sinners. There is, therefore, no good reason 
 for supposing that he could not have ut- 
 I tered the words here attributed to him, 
 j meaning by them all that has been ex- 
 1 plained above. 
 
Ch. L] 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 75 
 
 30 "This is he of whom I said, After me conieth a 
 man which is iirclerred before me ; for he was before 
 me. 
 
 31 And I knew him not: but that he should be made 
 manifest to Israel, '•therelore am I come baptiisiug with 
 water. 
 
 3J = And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit 
 
 30 away the sin of the world! This is he of whom I 
 said. After me couieth a man who is become before 
 
 31 me: for lie was 'before mc And I knew him not ; 
 but that he sliould be made manifest to Israel, for 
 
 :i2 this cause came I baptizing -in water. And .lohii 
 bare witness, saying, I have beheld the Spirit de- 
 scending as a dove out of heaven ; and it alMjde 
 
 a ver. 15 : 27 6 Mai. :) : 1 ; Mait. 3:6; Luke 1 : 17, 76, 77: .t : 3. 4 c Matt. 3: 16; Mark 1: 10; Luke 3: 22; ch. &: 32.- 
 
 regard of me 2 Or, with. 
 
 -IGr.^riliit 
 
 30. This is he of whom I said. After 
 me cometh a man which is preferred be- 
 fore me ; for he was before me. The in- 
 terpretation of this btnguage, which was given 
 at verse 15, need not be repeated. But it is 
 worthy of notice that the first clause there 
 had was, while the first clause here has is. 
 We are unable to account for this variation, 
 if both passages refer to the same occasion and 
 testimony, (unless we adopt Weiss's explana- 
 tion of Avas, in ver. 15). But there is no 
 necessity for supposing this. In the case 
 here related, John maj' have been speaking 
 of Jesus with reference to his present move- 
 ments, while in that, he may have been 
 speaking of him with reference to some past 
 action in which he had been concerned. The 
 probability of this explanation is increased, if 
 Lachmann, Tischendorf, and Tregelles, are 
 correct in substituting/or — in behalf of—{vn4p) 
 for of, concerning, (fepO, before the pronoun 
 whom, thus: This is he m behalf of whom 
 I said. The manuscript evidence for the 
 two prepositions is about equal, but a change 
 from of (nepi) to for {vrtep) would be less likely 
 to occur, than a change from for to of. The 
 more difficult reading is therefore likely to be 
 correct; and John must be supposed to have 
 referred, in this instance, to his testimony 
 as giver in behalf of Christ. 
 
 31. And I knew him not. Some exposi- 
 tors find evidence in this statement that the 
 Evangelist was ignorant of the facts recorded 
 by Lukt and Matthew in respect to the kin- 
 ship and acquaintance of Elisabeth and Mary 
 (Lukei), and also of the reluctance of John to 
 baptize Jesus (M.itt. 3: ii). But & falsariu/t of 
 the second century would have been likely to 
 know the contents of the first and third Gos- 
 pels, and not likely to write anything palpa- 
 blj' inconsistent with their accounts. There 
 is, however, no sufficient ground for the 
 as.sertion, that Jesus and John must have 
 been personally acquainted. For, from his 
 childhood, John had lived a Nazarite, mostly 
 in the desert, while Jesus had lived, with his 
 
 mother and her other children, in Nazareth. 
 Still further, the knowledge here disclaimed 
 by John may have been the certain knowl- 
 edge that Jesus was the Messiah, which was 
 to be given by a sign from heaven; and if so, 
 he may have been acquainted with Jesus, and 
 may have expected that he m'lght prove to be 
 the Messiah. This expectation would also 
 account for his language to Jesus, when the 
 latter applied to him for baptism. Besides, 
 John required of those whom he baptized ii- 
 confession of sin, and the unrecorded response 
 of Jesus to such a requirement may have led, 
 by its profound and holy character, to the 
 Baptist's exclamation: "I have need to bo 
 baptized of thee: and comest thou tome?" 
 (Matt. 3: u). — But that he should be made 
 manifest to Israel, therefore am I come 
 baptizing with {in) water. While John 
 did not know Jesus as the Messiah until the 
 hour of his baptism, he did know that his 
 own work of baptizing in water was ordained 
 for the purpose, among other.s, of manifesting 
 the Messiah to Israel. It was deemed proper, 
 by the wisdom of God, that .Jesus be an- 
 nounced to the people, and identified as the 
 Christ, by a great prophet, entrusted with the 
 function of introducing a new religious ordi- 
 nance and era. The order of the words in the 
 last clause makes in vmter emphatic, and sug- 
 gests that John had in mind, as a contnist, 
 Christ's baptizing in the Holy Spirit. Ob- 
 serve, also, that the order of the la.st two 
 clauses gives special prominence to the mani- 
 festation of Christ to the people as a leading 
 object of John's baptism. We have omitted 
 the article before water in agreement with a 
 majority of the early copies, though there is 
 considerable force in Mej'er's argument that 
 a transcriber, with verses 26 and B3, whore 
 the article is not used before him, would be 
 more likely to omit it here if it was in the 
 original text, than to insert it if it was not in 
 the text. Lachmann, Tischendorf Tregelles, 
 with Westcott and Hort, unitein omitting it. 
 32. And John bare record (or witness) 
 
76 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 [Ch. I. 
 
 descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon 
 liiiu. 
 
 ;« And I knew him not: but he that sent nie to bap- 
 tize with water, the same said unto me, Upon wliom 
 thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on 
 hiiu, «the same is he whicli baptizelh with the Holy 
 Ghost. 
 
 33 upon him. And I knew him not ; but he tliat sent 
 me to baptize i in water, lie said unto me. Upon 
 whomsoever thou shalt see the Spirit deseending, 
 and abiding upon him, the same is he that bap- 
 
 a Matt. 3: 11; Act-s 1:5; 2:4; 10: 44; 19: 6. 1 Or, 
 
 saying, I saw (rather, / have beheld) the 
 Spirit descending from heaven like a 
 dove, ami it abode upon him. By saying, 
 '' I have beheld,'' instead of ''I beheld,'' John 
 affirms that he is still vividly conscious of the 
 sight. Tiie vLsion was not transitory in its 
 effect upon his soul. What he saw as a sym- 
 bol of the Spirit had a dove-like shape, though 
 the significance of this is nowhere explained. 
 In view of it Alford says, that "the Spirit 
 manifested in our Lird was gentle and 
 benign." Lange remarks that "no one virtue 
 of the dove" is meant; "but her virtues; . . 
 . . hence purity, loveliness, gentleness, friend- 
 liness to men, and vital warmth." But most 
 expositors, influenced by the words of Christ, 
 recorded in Matt. 10: 16, suppose that the 
 dove is a symbol of puritj' and innocence. 
 The precise meaning of the last clause is not 
 easily given by a translation. For {ini) upon, 
 followed by the accusative, signifies motion 
 towards, or down upon ; and the symbol 
 which John saw, represented the Holy Spirit 
 as having floated swiftly down from the 
 opened heaven, and as about to rest, or, per- 
 haps, as already resting, on the head of Jesus. 
 
 33. And I (or / myself) knew him not ; 
 but he that sent me to baptize with (or 
 in) water, the same (or he) said unto me : 
 Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit de- 
 scending, and remaining on him, the 
 same is he which baptizeth with (in) the 
 Holy Ghost. The note of Godet on this pas- 
 sage is very satisfactory. "Not only has a 
 sign been announced to him (ver. si), and he 
 had seen a sign (ver. 32), but that sign was pre- 
 cisely the one announced. Everything like 
 human caprice is, therefore, excluded from the 
 interpretation of the sign which he gives. . . 
 The expression, he that sent me, has in it 
 something solemn and mysterious; it evi- 
 dently means God himself, who spoke to him 
 in the wilderness, andgsive him his commis- 
 sion. . . The act of baptizing with the Holy 
 Spirit, is named as the essential characteristic 
 of the Messiah." 
 
 But what is meant by baptizeth with {in) 
 
 the Holy Spirit ? In answering this ques- 
 tion we must consider the special connection 
 of this baptism with Christ, the natural im- 
 port of the expression, the instances of this 
 baptism mentioned in the New Testament, 
 and the references to the same thing in other 
 language. 
 
 It is plain that John thought of baptism in 
 the Holy Spirit as a very important and char- 
 acteristic part of Christ's work. Perhaps he 
 referred to it all the more frequently because 
 of the resemblance which he perceived be- 
 tween his own work and this part of the 
 Messiah's work. Christ alone was to intro- 
 duce and give this baptism. It must there- 
 fore have been regarded as something dif- 
 ferent in kind or degree from any blessing con- 
 ferred on saints under the Mosaic Economj'. 
 
 But the expression, to btiptize in the Holy 
 Spirit, points to a difference in degree, rather 
 than in kind, between this blessing and any 
 that had been given before. Moses and 
 Samuel, David and Isaiah, were not strangers 
 to the illuminating and sanctifying work of 
 the Spirit. All good men from the beginning 
 had felt his gracious influence. But this in- 
 fluence was not so all-embracing and over- 
 flowing as immersion in the Spirit. It did 
 not flood their souls with such light and 
 power as came on the early disciples. This 
 general difference between the presence of 
 the Holj' Spirit before, and his presence after 
 the Day of Pentecost, is obvious to every 
 student of the Scriptures. 
 
 But in describing the fulfillment of this 
 prediction of the Baptist, the sacred record 
 does not affirm that all Christians, from the 
 Day of Pentecost onward, were baptized in 
 the Spirit. In two instances it represents the 
 prediction as fulfilled, that is, on the Day of 
 Pentecost and before the baptism of Cornelius 
 (Acts 1; 5, 8; 2: 1 sq. ; 10: 44-49; 11: 15, IG), 
 and in both these instances some of the re- 
 sults were extraordinary. Great power, as 
 well as great grace, was imparted to those 
 who were immersed in the Spirit; for they 
 spoke with tongues and prophesied. 
 
Ch. I.] 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 77 
 
 34 And I saw, and bare record that this is the Son of ! 34 tizcth ' in the Holy .Sjiirit. And I have seen, and 
 
 God, 
 
 35 Again the next day after, John stood, and two of 
 his disciples ; 
 
 36 And looking upon Jesus as he walked, he saith, 
 •Behold the Laiub of (lod! 
 
 37 Aiul the two disciples heard him speak, and they 
 followed Jesus. 
 
 have borne witness that this is the Son of liod. 
 
 35 Again on the morrow Jolin was standing, and 
 
 36 two of his disci|>les ; and he looked ujion Jesus as 
 he walked, and sailli. Heboid, the J>anib of (iod! 
 
 37 And the two disciples heard him sfteak, and they 
 
 But the fulfiUinent of the promise was not 
 liniited to those instances, any more than was 
 the promise itself to the form which it took 
 on the lips of John the Baptist. The same 
 promise was uttered by Joel, in other terms, 
 and the same promise was fulfilled when other 
 terms were used to describe the event. Yet 
 there is some reason to believe that, as it was 
 understood by the apostles, its fulfillment in- 
 cluded in every insttmce one or more of the 
 special gifts which distinguished the first age 
 of the church (Joel 2: 28 sq, ; Isa. 44: 3; John 
 16: 12-15; 20: 22, 23; Actsl: 8; 2:16sq.; 6:3, 
 6, 8; 8: 6, 7, 16, 17; 19: 6). Not that these 
 gifts were deemed more precious than faith, 
 hope, and love, but that the former as well as 
 the latter are fruits of the Spirit, and were 
 embraced in that wonderful work which was 
 foretold by Joel, by John, and by Christ. 
 
 If this be correct, it can hardly be said that 
 baptism in the Spirit is equally the privilege 
 of all Christians. Yet it may be said that the 
 presence of the Spirit is with every Christian, 
 doing for him, in the way of sanctification and 
 support, all that he needs or accepts. This 
 gracious presence of the Spirit is the spring 
 of holy peace, and joy, and strength in the 
 soul. Whether an\'thing like miraculous en- 
 dowment would be of real service to Chris- 
 tians in the present age, may be doubtful ; 
 but if it is needed now, or should be needed 
 hereafter, it will surely be given ; for he who 
 baptizeth in the Holy Spirit sits upon the 
 throne. 
 
 34, And I saAV, etc. The Revised Ver- 
 sion of this verse is correct : And I have 
 seen, and have borne witness that this is 
 the Son of God. Thus the Baptist repeats 
 the two great facts of his work as the harbin- 
 ger of Christ, viz., that he himself has wit- 
 nessed the divinely appointed sign of the 
 Messiah, and has borne witness of Jesus, 
 when he had been thus pointed out by a sign 
 from heaven, as the Son of God. And this 
 expression, the Son of God, simply echoes 
 the voice from heaven, which accompanied 
 
 the descent of the Spirit, and was heard by 
 
 Jesus and by Jolm (Matt. 3: n; Lnkc3:22). To 
 
 explain the importance which the Evangelist 
 attaches to this testimony of the Baptist, it is 
 only necessary to suppose that he was a disci- 
 ple of the Baptist and heard it from liis lips; 
 and to explain the importance which the 
 Baptist attached to it, it is only necessary to 
 suppose that he had received from God the 
 communication described in this verse, be- 
 fore he witnessed the descent of the Spirit 
 and the voice from heaven. Besides, it is 
 possible that Jesus and John were alone at 
 the baptism, or that the vision and voice 
 were a subjective revelation to them, or that, 
 though perceived by the people, they were 
 not understood. (See John 12: 28,29.) If 
 either of these .suppositions is correct, the 
 testimony of John would seem to be more 
 isolated and important still. 
 35-42. The First Dispiples of Jesus. 
 
 35. Again, the next day after, John 
 stood (or, was standing), and two of his 
 disciples. It is not surprising that the 
 writer, if he was himself one of these two 
 disciples, should have been thus particular in 
 his notices of time. These were days never 
 to be forgotten, and these were testimonies 
 that led him to the Lord. 
 
 36. And looking upon Jesus as he 
 walked, etc. The participle translated 
 looking upon seems to denote an earnest 
 and perhaps fixed gaze (compare John 1 : 42; 
 Mark 10:21, 2;; 14:67; Luke 20:17; 22: 
 61) ; and the brief expression uttered by the 
 Baptist was full of meaning, and recalled all 
 his testimony of the day before. 
 
 37. And the two disciples heard him 
 speak (or, sj^eaking). Evidently his excla- 
 mation was not addressed particularly to 
 them ; perhaps it was merely the cry of his 
 heart that must needs utter itself Some of 
 the greatest and best results are brought to 
 pass by almost aimless acts of a holy soul. 
 In this case, the words, though addressed to 
 no one in particular, fell upon prepared 
 
78 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 [Ch. I. 
 
 38 Then Jesus turned, and saw them following, and 
 saith unto them, What seek ye.' They said unto him, 
 Kabhi, (which is to say, being interpreted, Master,) 
 where dwellest thou? 
 
 o9 He saith unto them, Come and see. They came 
 and saw where he dwelt, and abode with him that day : 
 for it was about the tenth hour. 
 
 40 One of the two which heard John speak, and fol- 
 lowed him, was « Andrew, isimon Peter's brother. 
 
 38 followed Jesus. And Jesus turned, and beheld 
 them following, and saith unto them. What seek 
 ye? And they said unto him. Rabbi (which is to 
 say, being interpreted, iMaster), where abidest 
 
 39 thou f He saith unto them, Come, and ye shall 
 see. They came therefore and saw where he abode ; 
 and they abode with him that day : it was about 
 
 40 the tenth hour. One of the two that heard John 
 speak, and followed him, was Andrew, Simon 
 
 a Matt. 4 : 18. 1 Or, Teache 
 
 hearts, and bore fruit in action. — And they 
 followed Jesus. That is, they went after 
 him, as he walked awaj', for the purpose of 
 learning more about him from his own lip.s, 
 and expecting, no doubt, to find in him the 
 Me-ssiah. But their steps were heard by the 
 Saviour. 
 
 38. Then (better, And) Jesus turned, 
 and saw (beheld) them following, and 
 saith unto them, What seek ye? This 
 question was perfectly natural, whether it 
 was asked for the purpose of ascertaining 
 why they followed his steps, or whether it 
 was intended, as we rather believe, to open 
 the way for them to express wliat he saw 
 already was in their hearts.— Rabbi (which is 
 to say, being interpreted, Master), where 
 dwellest (i. e., abidest) thou? By this re- 
 sponse the^' recognize him as a Teacher, and 
 intimate their desire to speak with him at 
 some convenient time in private. His an- 
 swer to their suggestion is prompt and cor- 
 dial, for 
 
 39. He saith unto them. Come and 
 see: or, Come, arid ye shall see (Rev. 
 Ver.). This was an invitation to come at 
 once. Let Christian teachers imitate their 
 Master. Now is the convenient time for one 
 who is eager to do good. As to the text, the 
 evidence for the reading ye shall see, out- 
 weighs that for see.— They came (there- 
 fore) and saw Avhere he dwelt (or, abode); 
 literally, ichere he abides; a.reminiscence of 
 the form of their question, verse 38. There- 
 fore makes their coming a consequence of 
 his invitation. — And they abode [remained] 
 with him that day : for it was about the 
 tenth hour. For should be omitted as an 
 interpolation. "The great importance of 
 this hour for John himself {it runs the first of 
 his Christian life) made it forever memorable 
 to him, and led him to mention it expressly 
 in this place." — Meyer. According to Jew- 
 ish reckoning, the tenth hour of the day was 
 four o'clock in the afternoon; but there is 
 
 reason to believe that John did not follow 
 this method of reckoning the hours of the 
 da^', but reckoned from midnight to noon- 
 day, and from noonday to midnight. (Com- 
 pare 4 : 6, 52; 19 : 14.) From ten in the 
 morning until the evening was, doubtless, 
 the period which is here called that day, 
 i. e., the rest of that day. With this view 
 the language of the Evangelist is certainly 
 more expressive, if not more natural, than it 
 would be if the other mode of reckoning had 
 been followed, so that this would have been 
 four o'clock p. m. See notes under 4 : 6, 52, 
 and 19: 14; also Edersheim, "The Life and 
 Times of Jesus the Messiah" on these pas- 
 sages. 
 
 40. One of the two which heard John 
 speak, and followed him, was Andrew, 
 Simon Peter's brother. According to 
 certain modern critics of the Fourth Gospel, 
 its author sought to diminish the influence of 
 the Petrine party in his own day, by giving 
 to Peter a lower place among the apostles 
 than had been assigned to him by Synoptical 
 tradition. But we discover no evidence of 
 such a purpose in the Gospel. On the con- 
 trary, the same leading position is given to 
 him in this Gospel as in the others. Andrew 
 is introduced as Simon Peter's brother, 
 while the character of Peter is perceived by 
 the Lord at once, and recognized by the gift 
 of a new name (ver. 42.). 
 
 But who was the unnamed companion of 
 Andrew? Probably the Evangelist himself. 
 For (1) the narrative in this place is very 
 particular and graphic, making it probable 
 that the writer was an ej'e-Avitness. (2) The 
 writer of such a narrative would have been 
 sure to mention the name of the other disci- 
 ple as well as that of Andrew, tinless there 
 had been some reason for withholding it. 
 (3) The writer of this Gospel never refers to 
 himself elsewhere by name, and the same 
 feeling which led him to withhold his name 
 elsewhere accounts for his withholding it here. 
 
Ch. I.] 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 79 
 
 41 He first findeth his own brother Simon, and saif h 
 unto hiiu, We have found the Messias, which is, being 
 interpreted, the Christ. 
 
 42 And he brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus 
 beheld him, he said, Thou art Simon the sou of Jona: 
 <» thou shall be called Cephas, which is by interpreta- 
 tion, A stone. 
 
 43 The day following Jesus would go forth into Gali- 
 lee, and findeth Philip, and saith unto him, Follow me. 
 
 41 Peter's brother. He findeth first his own brother 
 Simon, and saith unto him, We have found the 
 
 42 Mes.siah) whieh is, being interpreted, U'hrist). He 
 brought him unto Jesus. Jesus looked upon him, 
 and said. Thou art Simon the son of 2Johu: thou 
 shah be called Cephas (which is by interiiretalion, 
 ^I'eter). 
 
 43 On the morrow he was minded to go forth into 
 Galilee, and he findeth Philip: and Jesus saith 
 
 a Matt. 26: 18. 
 
 That is. Anointed 2 Gr., Joanes : called in Matt. xvi. 17, Jonah 3 Tliat is, Rock or Stone. 
 
 41. He first findeth his own brother 
 Simon, and saith unto him, We have 
 found the Messias, which is, being in- 
 terpreted, the Christ. The word first is 
 probably an adjective agreeing with he, or 
 this one ; and, if so, it suggests that tliere was 
 another, a second, viz., the Evangelist, who 
 also •\vent after his own brother, but did not 
 find him as soon as Andrew found Peter. 
 But each went after his own brother, and 
 was successful in finding and bringing him 
 to Jesus. A good example! It is then a 
 reasonable conjecture that Andrew and Peter, 
 John and James were at Bethany, beyond 
 the Jordan, attending on the ministry of 
 John the Baptist, when Jesus returned from 
 his trial in the wilderness, that all were made 
 acquainted with Jesus the same day, and 
 that, after the Baptist, these four men were 
 the first to acknowledge Jesus as the Messiah. 
 And it is worthy of notice that Andrew says, 
 "We have found the Messias," as if they 
 had been seeking him. Hence they were 
 truly devout men, "waiting for the consola- 
 tion of Israel." They were prepared to fol- 
 low the Messiah as soon as he was known to 
 them. They were already renewed in heart, 
 and therefore eager to discover the promised 
 Christ. No wonder then that they felt, from 
 the first moment, the attractive power of his 
 presence, the divine puritj'' and sweetness of 
 his spirit. The ministry of John had borne 
 fruit, and the way of the Lord was prepared in 
 these hearts. The parenthesis, which simply' 
 translates the Hebrew term Messiah into 
 Greek, shows that the Evangelist was writing 
 for persons, some of whom were not supposed 
 to know the Hebrew language. Both terms 
 signify anointed. Prophets, priests, and kings 
 were anointed, in token of their having the 
 Holy Spirit to qualify them for their re- 
 spective offices. In the person of Jesus of 
 Nazareth were united the offices of prophet, 
 priest, and king, and to him the Spirit was 
 given without measure. He was therefore 
 pre-eminently the Anointed. 
 
 If now it be asked : What did the Holy 
 Spirit do for the Lord Jesus? this answer 
 may be suggested: Just what the relation of 
 the Spirit's work in the soul of Christ may 
 have been to that of his higher nature, the 
 Word, is unrevealed ; but from the office of 
 the Spirit in the economy of salvation, i. e., 
 to renew, sanctify, and prepare men for the 
 reception of truth, it may be inferred that the 
 human soul of Jesus was moved by the Spirit 
 to desire and seek the verj' things which the 
 incarnate Word desired and sought, thus 
 contributing to the perfect unity of aim and 
 spirit which distinguished Christ from all 
 other men. 
 
 42. For a literal translation of this verse, 
 see Revised Version above. It was probably 
 a very easy task which Andrew performed in 
 leading his brother to Jesus. As they drew 
 near, Jesus fixed his eyes upon Sitnon with a 
 gaze that pierced even the depths of his soul. 
 Perceiving the strength of his character, he 
 at once bestowed on him a name expressive 
 of that strength; he dechired that he should 
 be called Cephas, that is, Peter, that is. Rock. 
 Surely the writer who mentions this early 
 recognition of Peter's greatness by his Lord 
 did not seek to diminish the influence of this 
 prompt and noble servant of Christ. It will 
 be n-jticed that the Revised Version omits 
 the conjunction and {xai) before brought, 
 with Tischendorf, Tregelles, Westcott and 
 Hort; also and (Se) before beheld, or 
 looked (eM^Ae^os), with Tisch., Treg., W. and 
 H.; and substitutes John for Jona, as the 
 name of -Peter's father, with Lachmann, 
 Tisch., Treg., W. and H. 
 
 43-51. Another Group of Disciples 
 Called. 
 
 43. The day follOAving, etc., better as in 
 Revised Version : On the moj-row he wns 
 minded to go forth into Galilee, and he 
 findeth Philip : and Jesus saith unto hitn. 
 Follow me. This was probablj' the fourth 
 day from the visit of the deputation (v. 
 19, sq.), and the finding of Philip seems to 
 
80 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 [Ch. I. 
 
 44 Now " Philip was of Bethsaida, the city of Andrew 
 and Peter. 
 
 45 Philip finJeth *Nathaiiael, and saith unto him, 
 We have found him, of whom >: Moses in the law, and 
 the ''prophets, did write, Jesus « of Nazareth, the son of 
 Joseph. 
 
 4(j And Nathanael said unto him, /Can there any 
 good thing come out of Nazareth? Philip saith unto 
 him, Come and see. 
 
 47 Jesus saw Nathanael coming to him, and saith of 
 him, Behold s an Israelite indeed, in whom is no guile ! 
 
 44 unto him. Follow me. Now Philip was from Beth- 
 
 45 saida, of the city of Andrew and Peter. Philip 
 fiudeth Nathanael, and saith unto him. We have 
 found him, of whom Moses in the law, and the 
 prophets, did write, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of 
 
 4G Joseph. And Nathanael said unto him, Can any 
 good thing come out of Nazareth? Philip saith 
 
 47 unto him, Come and see. Jesus saw Nathanael 
 coming to him, and saith of him, Behold, an Israel- 
 
 och. 12: 21 5ch. 21: 2 c Gen. .S: 15; 49 : 10 ; Deut. 18: 18. See ou Luke 24 : 27 d Isa. 4:2; 7: 14; 9 : 6 ; 53 : 2 ; Mic. 5:2; Zech. 
 
 6: 12; 9: 9. See more on Luke 24 : 27 e Malt. 2: 23; Luke 2: 4..../ch. 7: 41, 42,52 g Ps. 32 : 2 ; 73: 1 ; ch. 8: 30; Rom. 2: 28, 29; 9:6. 
 
 have occurred when Jesus was about leaving 
 his temporary abode in the trans-Jordanic 
 Bethany. See the note of Meyer on this 
 passage, and tlie remarks of Luthardt on the 
 frequent co-ordination of one chiuse with 
 another in the New Testament, and especially 
 in the writings of John, when in classic Greek 
 one of them would have been subordinated to 
 the other. Thus: "As he was minded to go 
 forth into Galilee, he findeth Philip," would 
 have been more classical than the text. 
 
 Was Jesus seeking for Philip? Or did he 
 meet him casually ? The import of findeth 
 would, perhaps, be satisfied by merely assum- 
 ing that Jesus was already intent upon win- 
 ning disciples, so that the apparently casual 
 meeting with Philip led at once to a call 
 which expressed the feeling of a person who 
 was seeking him. The words, follow me, 
 were surely a call to accept Christ as a spirit- 
 ual guide and teacher, and not merely to 
 accompany him into Galilee. They were not, 
 however, a definite call to the Apostleship. 
 According to the best authorities, the word 
 Jesus should be omitted in the first clause of 
 the common text, and inserted in the third. 
 
 44. Now Philip was of Bethsaida, the 
 city of Andrew and Peter. The exact po- 
 sition of Bethsaida is unknown, but it appears 
 to have been situated near the Sea of Galilee, 
 on the northwest side. Dr. Thompson sup- 
 poses that it was situated east of the entrance 
 of the Jordan into the Sea of Galilee ; but 
 Major Wilson identifies it with Khan Min- 
 yeh, further south. ("Sea of Galilee," in 
 Warren's "Recoverj' of Jerusalem," pp. 342, 
 387.) Philip is mentioned several times in 
 this Gospel (e. ^r., 6: 5, 7 ; 12: 21, 22; 14: 8). 
 
 45. We have found him, of whom 3Ioses 
 in the law, and the prophets, did write, 
 Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph. 
 Philip was acquainted with Nathanael (Theo- 
 dore, Gift-of-God), and knew him to be a de- 
 vout soul, waiting for the Messiah. He, 
 
 therefore, at once sought and found him. 
 And from his language to Nathanael, We 
 have found, it may be inferred that Philip 
 was also seeking in spirit for the Christ when 
 Jesus found him. It seems probable, there- 
 fore, that all these, Andrew and Peter, James 
 and John, Philp and Nathanael (called, also, 
 Bartholomew), were disciples of John, from 
 the same part of Galilee, and so were ac- 
 quainted with one another; also, that they 
 were all at Bethany, and accompanied Jesus 
 to Galilee. Philip was not mistaken when he 
 said that Moses and the prophets wrote of 
 Christ; for the Lord himself afterwards as- 
 serted the same (5: 39, 46; Luke 24 : 44). At 
 this time Philip did not know the particu- 
 lars of Jesus' birth, and therefore described 
 him as the son of Joseph, his reputed father. 
 
 46. Can there any good thing come out 
 of Nazareth ? What may be inferred from 
 the question of Nathanael as to Nazareth? 
 Was it simply an insignificant town? Or 
 was it a place of ill repute also? Since Na- 
 thanael was from Cana of Galileee, a village 
 not far from Nazareth, and in the same prov- 
 ince, it is presumable that he would not speak 
 thus of the latter place simply because it was 
 situated in Galilee, or because it was an in- 
 considerable village. Nazareth must have 
 been in ill repute for morality. And this cir- 
 cumstance may afford a clue to the interpret- 
 ation of Matt. 2: 23, if the phrase, "He shall 
 be called a Nazarene," is regarded as an epit- 
 ome of the predictions which speak of him 
 as "despised and rejected of men." On 
 Philip's brief response. Come and see, 
 Bengel remarks: "The best remedj' for pre- 
 conceived opinions!" and Lange: "A watch- 
 word of the Christian faith ! " 
 
 47. Behold an Israelite indeed, in 
 whom is no guile ! The Evangelist, doubt- 
 less, means to suggest that Jesus looked into 
 the soul of Nathanael and perceived him 
 to be a genuine servant of God, sincere, 
 
Ch. I.] 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 81 
 
 48 Nathana('l saith tinto him, Whence knowest thou 
 me? Jeisiis answered and said unto him, Before that 
 Philip called thee, when thou wast under the tig tree, I 
 saw thee. 
 
 49 Nathanael answered and saith unto him, Rahlii, 
 « thou art the Son of (Jod ; thou art' the King ot' Israel. 
 
 51) Jesus answered and said unto him, because I said 
 unto thee, I saw thee under the fig tree, believest thou? 
 thou shalt sec greater things than these. 
 
 51 And he saitli unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto 
 you, "Hereafter ye shall see heaven open, and the an- 
 gels of God a.scending and descending upon the Son of 
 man. 
 
 48 ite indeed, in whom is no guild Nathanael saith 
 unto him, Wlience knowest thou me? .lesiis an- 
 swered and said unto him, Uefore Philip called 
 thee, wlien thou wast under the tig tree, I saw thee. 
 
 49 Nathanael answered him, Kahlii, thou ait the ,Soli 
 
 50 of (iod; thou art King of Israel. .Jesus answered 
 and said unto him, llceause I said unto thee, I saw 
 thee underneath the fig tree, helievest thou? thou 
 
 51 shalt see greater things than these. And he saith 
 unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Ye shall 
 see the heaven opened, and the angels of God as- 
 cending and descending upon the Sou of man. 
 
 a Matt. 14: ;« ...ft Matt. 21 : 5 ; 27: 11, 42; ch. 18: 37; 19: .3 c Gen. 28: 12; Matt. 4: 11; Luke 2 : 9. 13; 22: 43; 24: 4; Acts 1 : 10. 
 
 truthful, open-hearted. His remark was not 
 addressed to Nathanael, but was heard by 
 him as he drew near. Hence, the next verse. 
 
 48. Before that Philip called thee, 
 when thou wast under the fig tree, I 
 saw thee. By this answer to Nathanael's 
 question, Whence knowest thou me ? Jesus 
 evidently intended to claim supernatural 
 knowledge. The fig tree in question must 
 "therefore have been out of sight from any 
 and every place where Jesus might have 
 been at the time. Otherwise, his answer 
 would not have made such an impression 
 on the mind of Nathanael as it did make, 
 and as he surely intended to have it make. 
 But if Jesus had seen Nathanael when and 
 where it was impossible to do this by any 
 natural power of vision, he might well be 
 supposed to look into the soul itself, and dis- 
 cover its true character. By this reference 
 to an event which Nathanael recognized, he 
 proved that he had supernatural knowledge 
 in the world of sense, and plainly intimated 
 that he had similar access to the soul of man, 
 and had learned the character of Nathanael 
 bj' direct intuition. Hence, the conviction 
 uttered by Nathanael in response to this reve- 
 lation. Whether there was anything in the 
 purpose for which Nathanael had resorted to 
 the fig tree, or in his action while under it, 
 which added force to the Saviour's remark, 
 we are unable to say ; but it is very natural 
 to imagine that he was there for a religious 
 purpose — for solitary communion with God ; 
 and it is quite possible that his spirit had 
 been deeply moved at that time by the Spirit I 
 of God with reference to the Messiah, if not j 
 with reference to Jesus as the Messiah. If j 
 this was so, the statement of Jesus must have | 
 been all the more impressive and convincing. | 
 
 49. Rabbi, thou art the Son of God ; | 
 thou art the King of Israel. If Nathanael \ 
 was present when John the Baptist uttered 
 
 the words recorded in verse 34 above, and 
 knew that they referred to Jesus, or, at least, 
 to the Messiah, it is not in the least surprising 
 that he now expressed his faith in Jesus by 
 the same words, Thou art the Son of God. 
 Especially natural would this have been, if 
 he had gone to the fig tree with this remark- 
 able testimony of the Baptist in his mind, 
 and had there in solitary communion with 
 God been prepared for the message brought 
 by Philip. Yet, it is not to be forgotten that 
 the Messiah is represented as the Son of God 
 in the Second Psalm. Very excellent are the 
 comments of Godet on this verse: " The two 
 titles complete one another: Son of God, bears 
 on the relation of Jesus to God ; King of 
 Israel, on his relation to the chosen people. 
 The second title is the logical consequence of 
 the first. The personage who lives in so in- 
 timate a relation to God, can only be, as is 
 alleged, the King of Israel, the Messiah. Thi.s 
 second title corresponds to the Israelite in- 
 deed, with which Jesus has saluted Natbanael. 
 The faithful subject has recognized and sa- 
 lutes his king." Liicke remarks, "that the 
 order of these two designations may be due 
 to the immediate iinpression of the divine in 
 Jesus, from which the utterance of Nathanael 
 flowed." 
 
 50. Because I said unto thee, I saw 
 thee under the fig tree, believest thou? 
 Thou shalt see greater things than these. 
 
 The words translated, believest thou? might 
 he tTwwf^AteA thou believest ; but the meaning 
 would remain essentially the same. Jesus ac- 
 cepts the utterance of Nathanael as a sincere 
 expression of faith, and assures him that the 
 evidence on which that faith rests will be 
 greatlv surpassed by other evidence to be 
 given by the Messiah. 
 
 51. Verily, verily, I say unto you. 
 Hereafter ye shall see heaven open, and 
 the angels of God ascending and de- 
 
82 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 [Ch. II. 
 
 CHAPTEK II. 
 
 LND the third day there was a marriage in "Cana of 
 Galilee; aud the mother of Jesus was there: 
 
 1 And the third day there was a marriage in Caua 
 of Galilee; and the mother of Jesus was there: and 
 
 1 See Josh. 19 : 2R. 
 
 scending upon the Son of man. Though 
 the Evangelist represents Christ as speaking 
 these words to Nathanael, they were meant 
 without doubt for the others also, as the plural 
 ye intimates. The double verily, or amen, 
 which this Evangelist attributes to .Tesus 
 twenty-five times (Meyer), is never attributed 
 to him by the other Evangelists, is never used 
 for himself by the writer of the Fourth Gos- 
 pel, and is never attributed by him to any 
 one save Christ. These facts are unaccount- 
 able, if this Gospel was written by a forger 
 of the second century; they can only be ex- 
 plained, if it was written by a disciple of 
 Jesus whose spirit had been deeply moved 
 by this form of expression. The words that 
 follow seem to be taken, in part, from the 
 language used in describing Jacob's vision at 
 Bethel (Oeu. 2S: 12). But to what do they refer? 
 If we draw an answer to this question from 
 the probable import of that vision, it will be 
 to this effect: "You will have the clearest 
 evidence that heaven is near, and open to the 
 Son of man, and that the angels of God are 
 ever reaay to do his will." AVe do not mean 
 to say that a frequent appearance of angels 
 was predicted by Christ in connection with 
 his ministry, but rather that the powers of 
 heaven were to be with him, and to befriend 
 him. — If we adhere to the common text, the 
 word hereafter (an apn), meaning "from this 
 time forward," shows tliat no special refer- 
 ence is here made to the Transfiguration, or to 
 the Agony in the Garden ; and without doubt 
 the phrase (in-' ipn.) would be more naturally 
 omitted, from an idea that Christ referred to 
 those particular events, than inserted, when 
 there seems to be no reason whatever for the 
 insertion. Yet some of the best manuscripts 
 (X B L) and early Versions, with Origen, 
 Epiphanius, and Cyril, omit these words, 
 meaning hereafter, or henceforth; and are 
 followed in this by Lachmann, Tregelles, 
 Tischendorf, "VVestcott and Hort, the Revised 
 Version, and many able scholars. We can- 
 not, therefore, feol at all confident that they 
 belong to the original text, though the im- 
 probability of their insertion by a transcriber 
 appears to us very great. 
 
 Jesus here refers to himself as the Son of 
 man, and there is no record of his appro- 
 priating the title before. What then did it 
 signify in his lips? And why did he apph' it 
 so often to him.self? Some have answered 
 these questions by referring to Daniel (7: is) : 
 "I saw in the night visions, and behold one 
 like the Son of man came with the clouds of 
 heaven ; and he came to the Ancient of Days," 
 etc. But this prophecy merely describes the 
 Messiah as "like unto a Son of man" (see Rev. 
 Ver. of Old Test. ). It does not call him ''the 
 Son of man." It may, however, be said to 
 describe him as one who was to he connected 
 by nature with mankind in general, rather 
 than with the chosen people, or with the 
 house of David in particular. And this bear- 
 ing of the expression was intended, as the 
 context proves, just as the effect of calling 
 himself the Son of man was intended by 
 Christ, to wit, that his connection with the 
 whole human race should be emphasized. 
 The title must therefore, in the last resort, be 
 appealed to as self-interpreting. And looking 
 at the expression as used by Jesus, it niay be 
 said to imply three things, viz. : (1) That he 
 was horn of man ; (2) that he was a veritable 
 man ; and (3) that he was the perfect man, or 
 the one member of the human race in whom 
 the idea of man was realized. He was a son 
 of man, and therefore man; he was the Son 
 of man, and therefore the perfect or ideal 
 man. He was neither Jew nor Greek in 
 character or .sympathy, but the representative 
 man, the head of renewed humanitv. All 
 this is expressed by the designation which he 
 here appropriates to himself — the Son of 
 man. 
 
 Ch. 2: 1-11. Marriage AND Miracle in 
 Cana of Galilee. 
 
 1. And the third day there was a mar- 
 riage in Cana of Galilee. The Evangel- 
 ist passes at once from the neighborhood of 
 Bethany bej'ond the Jordan, to Cana of Gali- 
 lee, a village situated, according to Dr. Robin- 
 son's identification, about nine miles noj-th of 
 I Nazareth, on the southern declivity of a hill, 
 
Ch. II.] 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 83 
 
 2 And both Jesus was called, and his disciples, to 
 the marriage. 
 
 3 And when they wanted wine, the mother of Jesus 
 saitJi uuto him. They have no wine. 
 
 2 Jesus also was bidden, and his disciples, to the mar- 
 
 3 riage. And when the wine Tailed, the mother of 
 
 and overlooking a broad and fruitful plain. 
 This village is now called Khurbet-Cana, 
 which is said to have retained the name 
 Kana el-Jelil (see Kobinson's " Biblical Ke- 
 searches," etc., II. 346-449). Others have 
 insisted that the site was at Kefr Kenna, less 
 tluin four miles to the northeast of Nazareth. 
 This, we observe, is the view of Professor 
 Stevens, of Rochester, in a recent article de- 
 scribing a journey from Nazareth to Caper- 
 naum. (See the "Sunday School Times," 
 for Feb. 7, 1885, entitled, "From Nazareth 
 to Capernaum.") Kefr Kenna lies on the 
 side of a hill sloping towards the north or 
 northwest. The valley towards the west is 
 well-watered and fertile; but the prospect 
 from the village is not very extensive. If 
 Bethany was east of the southern part of the 
 Jordan, the journey from that place to Cana 
 may have occupied between two and three 
 days; for the distance was about sixty miles, 
 and the marriage and miracle here described, 
 belong to the third day after the one last 
 named (i:«). But if the Bethany referred to 
 was at or near the ford Abarah, discovered 
 by Conder (see note on i : 28), it was only about 
 twenty-two miles from Cana; and Jesus may 
 have rested a day at Nazareth on his way to 
 the more northern village. And the mother 
 of Jesus was there. From the solicitude 
 which the mother of Jesus felt in respect to 
 the entertainment, and from the authority 
 which she used in speaking to the servants 
 (ver. 5), it has been conjectured that the wed- 
 ding was in the family of a relative. Dr. 
 Hanna remarks: "If Simon, called the Ca- 
 naanite, was called so because of his connec- 
 tion with the village of Cana, his fitther 
 AlphiBUS, or Clophas, who was married to a 
 sister of Christ's mother, may have resided 
 there; and it may have been in his familj' 
 
 that this marriage occurred At 
 
 any rate, we may assume that it was [in] a 
 family connected by some close ties, whether 
 of acquaintance or of relationship with that 
 of Jesus, that the marriage feast was kept." 
 The Evangelist, however, simply states that 
 "the mother of Jesus was there," without 
 intimating the reason why she was there. 
 Everything be^'ond this is conjecture, though 
 
 there may be considerable ground for the 
 conjecture. 
 
 2. And both Jesus was called, and his 
 disciples, to the marriage. The invitation 
 of the disciples was, probablj', due to their 
 connection with Jesus; and the invitation of 
 Jesus was probably given after his return to 
 Gal'lee, though it is possible that his wish to 
 return into Graliiee, mentioned above (t:«), 
 was occasioned by his knowledge of this wed- 
 ding. We know that he was pleased to honor 
 this marriage festival with his presence, and 
 we may conjecture that, if he was on the 
 lower Jordan, he desired to leave his place 
 just three days before, because it was neces- 
 sary for him to do so, in order to reach Cana 
 in time for the marriage. But there seem to 
 be strong reasons for doubting whether he 
 was south of the Jabbok, and not rather 
 north of that stream, and so within twenty or 
 thirty miles of Cana. Here, first, are "the 
 disciples," mentioned as a group of followers, 
 who accompany the Lord iu his journeys 
 from place to place. A more exact render- 
 ing of the original would be: And Jesus also 
 was bidden, and his disciples, to the marriage. 
 
 3. And when they wanted wine. 
 More precisely : And lohen the wine failed. 
 Whether this failure of wine was due to the 
 presence of more guests than had been ex- 
 pected, or to some other cause, will never be 
 known ; and how long the marriage had been 
 in progress, must also be a matter for con- 
 jecture. But for some reason, perhaps from 
 an unexpected accession of guests coming with 
 Jesus, there was now a lack of wine', and this 
 lack was known to the mother of Jesus. Re- 
 lying on the ability of her son, she informed 
 him of the want that would soon be felt ; but 
 with something in her look or tone which 
 indicated an expectation of timely help. — 
 They have no wine. To state the want is, 
 in such a case, to make request for relief. 
 Whether she anticipated anything miracu- 
 lous may be doubtful ; but it is plain that she 
 looked for assistance in some way. This 
 might come by natural means, and she may 
 have thought of nothing else; yet the cir- 
 cumstance that Jesus had returned to Galilee 
 with a band of disciples, may have led her to 
 
84 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 [Ch. II. 
 
 4 Jesus saith unto her, "Woman, ''what have I to do 
 ■with thee? "mine hour is not yet come. 
 
 5 His mother saith unto the servants, Whatsoever 
 he saith unto you, do it. 
 
 6 And there were set there six waterpots of stone, 
 ''after the manner of the purifying of the Jews, con- 
 taining two or three firliins apiece. 
 
 4 Jesus saith unto him, They have no wine. And 
 Jesus saith unto her, Woman, what have I to do 
 
 5 with thee? mine hour Is not yet come. His mother 
 saitli unto the servants, AVhatsoever he saith unto 
 
 6 you, do it. Now there were six waterpots of stone 
 set there after the Jews' manner of purifying, con- 
 
 1 ch. 19 : 26 i So 2 Sam. 16 : 10 ; 19 : 22 c cb. 7 : 6. . . .d Mark 1 : 3. 
 
 anticipate some sign or proof of his Messianic 
 power. 1 
 
 4. Jesus saith unto her. The best text 
 has a connective, thus: And Jesus saith 
 unto her, Woman, what have I to do 
 with thee ? It may be confidently aflBrmed 
 that there is nothing disrespectful in the ad- 
 dress, woman (comp. 19: 26; 20: 13, 15; 
 4: 21), but it must at the same time be con- 
 ceded that it failo to give anj' definite expres- 
 sion to filial sentiment or obedience. It 
 could not have meant to recognize and honor 
 the dearest human relationship. And in this 
 respect it was suitable; for it was associated 
 with words that denied to his mother an^' 
 share in marking out his course, any part in 
 the work he was sent to do {see 2 Sam. 16: 10; 
 1 Kings 17: 18; 2 Chron. 35: 21 ; Matt. 8: 29). 
 As the Messiah, he must act in sole subordi- 
 nation to his Fathers will. Every thing 
 must be done at the exact time and in the 
 precise manner prescribed by divine wisdom. 
 Yet he did not, in this case, refuse to do what 
 his mother had virtually requested ; he rather 
 intimated by the saying, mine hour is not 
 yet come, that he would, in his own time, 
 fulfill her desire. Perhaps there was enough 
 in the tone of his emphatic not yet, to assure 
 Mary that her request was granted. " There 
 is no inconsistency between this declaration 
 of Christ that his 'hour was not yet come,' and 
 the fulfillment of the prayer which followed 
 immediately. A change of moral and spir- 
 itual conditions is not measured by length of 
 time." — ( Westcott.) 
 
 5. Whatsoever he saith unto you, do it. 
 The it which is added by the translators, is 
 unnecessary. The mother of Jesus appears 
 
 1 According to a reading which Tischendorf adopts, 
 this verse should be translated: "And they had no 
 wine, because the wine of the marriage feast had 
 failed." In support of this text, he appeals to tt with 
 a b ff2 el, five Latin MSS. (iv.-vii cent.), Gaudentius, 
 Syr. (White) margin, and AEth., while the common 
 text is sustained by N* A B L X T A A n etc., also c f 
 q, Vulg. Cop. Syr. (three editions). Epiph. Chrys. Cyr. 
 Plainly the ordinary text must stand. 
 
 to have had authority over the servants who 
 waited on the guests, and she appears, also, 
 to have expected that Jesus would, in some 
 way, provide the wine that was needed. 
 How it was to be procured, she had, as jet, 
 no means of knowing; but anything which 
 her Son might direct, she was sure would be 
 wise. Thus she left all to Jesus. 
 
 6. And there were set there six water- 
 pots of stone. More exactlj' : Now there 
 were six waterpots of stone set there after 
 the manner of the purifying of the Jews. The 
 place in the house where these waterpots stood 
 is not mentioned, but the exact number of them 
 is stated, as well as the purpose which they were 
 intended to serve. Someof the Jews carefully 
 observed rites of purification not prescribed by 
 the Mosaic law. Thej- were accustomed to wash 
 their feet after walking in the highway (John 
 13: 4-io\ and their hands before eating (Mart 7: s). 
 They also kept a tradition which required 
 sundry immersions of cups and pots, and 
 vessels of brass, if not of couches ( ibid ). 
 To hold the water needed for such rites of 
 purification, these six waterpots had been 
 provided, and they were now at hand for 
 another use. As everything touching the 
 substance of this miracle was deemed im- 
 portant by the Evangelist, he mentions the 
 size, as well as the number, of the waterpots: 
 containing two or three firkins apiece. 
 A firkin was a little less than nine gallons. 
 If, then, we suppose that they held two and a 
 half firkins apiece, on an average, or fifteen 
 firkii.s in all, it would take about 133 gallons 
 of water to fill them — certainlj* a moderate 
 provision for the purifications that might be 
 needed at such a feast, even though they were 
 occasionally replenished, and though the com- 
 pany was not very large. . . . "Walking 
 among these ruins [at Cana] we saw large, 
 massive stone waterpots . . . not preserved 
 nor exhibited as reliqucs, but lying about, 
 disregarded by the present inhabitants. . . . 
 From their appearance and the number of 
 them, it was quite evident that a practice of 
 keeping water in large stone pots, each hold- 
 
Ch. II.] 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 85 
 
 7 Jesus saith unto them, Fill the waterpots with 
 water. Aud they tilled them up to the hrim. 
 
 8 And he saith unto them, Draw out now, and bear 
 unto the governor of the least. And they bare il. 
 
 9 When the ruler of the feast had tasted " the water 
 
 7 taining two or three firkins apieoe. Jesus saith 
 unto them. Fill the water)Mits with water. And 
 
 8 they filled them up to the brim. .\nd he saith unto 
 them, Draw out now, and bear unto the i ruler of 
 
 9 the feast. And they bare it. And when the ruler 
 
 a oil. i : 46. 1 Or, steward. 
 
 iiig from eighteen to twenty -"seven gallons, 
 was once common in the country" (E. D. 
 Clarke, "Travels," II. p. 445; Van Lennep, 
 "Bible Customs," p. 45, note). 
 
 7. Fill the waterpots with water, etc. 
 The persons addressed by Jesus were servants, 
 and what they put into the vessels was water. 
 — And they filled them up to the brim. A 
 significant statement. The Evangelist him- 
 self was doubtless a witness of this whole 
 transaction, and therefore was aware of the 
 minute particulars, and knew that there was 
 no collusion. But if he did not hear the 
 words of Jesus and of his mother, or see what 
 the servants did in obedience to the words of 
 Mary and of Christ, he was of all the disciples 
 just the one who would in all probability 
 have heard a minute account of this miracle 
 from the lips of Mary; for he it was to whom 
 the Lord committed his mother from the 
 cross, and who from that hour took her to his 
 own home (See 19: 26, 27). 
 
 8. . . . Draw out now, or. Draw noiv, 
 and bear unto the governor of the feast. 
 Between the filling of the waterpots and this 
 drawing of a portion for the ruler of the 
 feast, the miracle seems to have been wrought. 
 Tliis is the most natural hypothesis, though 
 it is certainly possible that the water was 
 changed to wine after it was drawn and 
 while it was being carried to the ruler of the 
 feast. Westcott, however, questions this view, 
 as follows: "Tiiere is nothing in the text 
 which definitely points to such an interpreta- 
 tion ; and the original word is applied most 
 naturally to drawing water from the well 
 (4: 7-15), and not from a vessel like the water- 
 pot. Moreover, the emphatic addition of 
 now seems to mark the continuance of the 
 same action of drawing as before, but with a 
 different end. Hitherto they had drawn to 
 fill the vessels of purification ; they were 
 charged now to 'draw and bear to the 
 governor of the feast.' It seems most un- 
 likely that water taken from vessels of puri- 
 fication could have been employed for the 
 purpose of the miracle. On the other hand, 
 the significance of the miracle comes out 
 
 with infinitely greater force, if the change 
 is wrouglit through the destination of the 
 element. That which remained water when 
 kept for a ceremonial use, became wine when 
 borne in faith to minister to the needs, 
 even to the superfluous requirements, of life. 
 This view, thtit the change in the water was 
 determined by its destination for use at the 
 feast, can be held equally if the water so used 
 and limited to that which was used were 
 ' drawn ' from the vessels, and not from the 
 well." I cannot see that there is much force 
 in any one of these reasons. The verb may 
 be used as naturally of drawing water from a 
 deep jar as from a well. (See Liddell & Scott 
 on tlie word). The word now is as appropri- 
 ate if the servants drew from a waterpot to 
 carry to the ruler of the feast, as if they drew 
 from a well. It naturally points to some 
 change in the action of the servants. No 
 reason is obvious why water from the stone 
 jars might not be changed into wine as fitly 
 as water from a well. And how the change 
 could be wrought "through the destination 
 of the element" does not appear. That it 
 was wrought in view of the destination of 
 the element, is supposed by the common in- 
 terpretation as well as by the one suggested 
 by Westcott. Moreover, why were the water- 
 pots mentioned at all, if the filling of them 
 had nothing to do with the miracle? Mani- 
 festly, the Evangelist would have his readers 
 understand that the water in the six stone 
 vessels was changed into wine. If not, why 
 did he state the number and the capacity of 
 these vessels? His doing this would surely 
 mislead his readers ; for they would be certain 
 to conclude that the exact account of the 
 waterpots and the record that they were 
 filled to the brim, had something to do with 
 the miracle. This Evangelist never mentions 
 circumstances without a reason for doing it. 
 On the whole, then, though it is possible 
 that the change occurred after the water 
 was drawn from the vessel, it is much more 
 probable that the water was changed to wine 
 in the jars. 
 9, 10. And when the ruler, etc. The 
 
86 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 [Ch. II. 
 
 that was made wine, and knew not whence it was, 
 (but the servants which drew the water knew,) the 
 governor ol' the feast called the bridegroom, 
 
 10 And saith unto him. Every man at the beginning 
 dot li set forth good wine; and when men have well 
 drunk, then that which is worse; but thou hast kepi 
 the good wine until now. 
 
 11 This beginning of miracles did Jesus in Cana of 
 Galilee, "and manifested forth his glory; and his dis- 
 ciples believed on him. 
 
 of the feast tasted the water i now become wine, and 
 knew not whence it was (but the servants who had 
 drawn the water knew), t he ruler of the feast calleth 
 
 10 the bridegroom, and saith unto him. Every man set- 
 teth on first the good wine, and when wen, have 
 drunk freely, then that which is worse: thou hast 
 
 11 kept the good wine until now. This beginning of 
 his signs did Jesus in Cana of Galilee, and mani- 
 fested his glory ; and his disciples believed on him. 
 
 -I Or, that it had become. 
 
 Revised Version reads as follows: And when 
 the ruler of the feast tasted the loater now be- 
 come wine, and knew not lohcnce it was [but 
 the servants loho had drawn the water knew), 
 the ruler of the feast calleth the bridegroom, 
 and saithunto him, Every man setteth on first 
 the good wine; and when {men) have drunk 
 freely, (then) that which is worse: thou hast 
 kept the good wine until now. The word 
 translated ruler of the feast signifies, ac- 
 cording to Griniiii, "One whose office it was 
 to spread the tables and couches, to arrange 
 the courses of the feast, and to taste before 
 others the dishes and wines." To biiu, there- 
 fore, the servants were properly directed to 
 bear the first cuj) of water now become wine; 
 and for hiui it was specially natural and suita- 
 ble to commend the unusual excellence of the^ 
 wine. This be did, without knowing by 
 whom it was provided; and therefore his 
 testimony was regarded by the Evangelist 
 as conclusive. The expression, whe?i men 
 have drirnk freely, is part of the ruler's de- 
 scription of a common custom which rested, 
 perhaps, on the idea that men somewhat 
 afl^ected by the wine they have drunken, are 
 less particular, than at first, about the quality 
 of what they drink. The ruler's remark has 
 no reference to the actual state of the guests 
 before him ; it only expresses his surprise and 
 pleasure that the good wine had been brought 
 iniit so late an hour of the feast. 
 
 11. This beginning of miracles did 
 Jesus, etc. Better, This beginning of the 
 signs did Jrsus, etc. The miracles of Christ 
 are designated by four different terms in the 
 Gospels, viz.: (1) Works, (epya), because they 
 were wrought by Jesus as a part of his Mes- 
 sianic service (comp. Matt. 11: 1; John 5: 
 20, 36; 7: 3; 10: 38; 14:11 sq. ; 15:24). 
 (2) Povters, or effects of power ({wifiew), be- 
 cause they were wrought by divine power 
 (comp. Matt. 11: 20, 23; Mark 6: 2, 5; 9: 39; 
 Lake 10: 13; 19: 37). (3) Miracles {ripara., 
 
 miracula), because they were events fitted to 
 excite the wonder of beholders (comp. Matt. 
 24: 24; Mark 13: 22; John 4 : 48). (4) Signs, 
 ((n)iu.€ia), because they were indications of 
 God's will, "revelations of truth through the 
 symbolism of outward acts" (comp. Matt. 
 12: 38 sq. ; 16: 1, 4; Mark 8: 11 sq. ; 16: 17, 
 20; Luke 11: 16, 29; 23: 8; John 2: 18, 23; 
 3: 2; 4: 54; 6:2, 14, and often). The word 
 signs is, therefore, in some respects, the most 
 important naine given to these extraordinaiy 
 deeds of Christ. And the changing of water 
 into wine was the beginning of the signs 
 which Jesus wrought in revealing his divine 
 power and mission. It was one which mani- 
 fested his glory, and increased his disciples' 
 faith in him as the Son of God and the King 
 of Israel. The evidence for this marvelous 
 sign is thus characterized by Kitto: "First, 
 the vessels used were such as were standing 
 by for ordinary purposes, precluding any 
 idea of collusion ; then thej- were not wine- 
 vessels, but waterpots, so that it could not be 
 suggested that there was some sediment of 
 wine remaining in them, which gave a flavor 
 to the water poured in ; . . . then there is the 
 intervention of the servants in filling the ves- 
 sels; but for which it might have appeared 
 . . . that the wine had coiue from some un- 
 expected quarter; lastly, there is the evidence 
 of the . . . 'ruler of the feast,' who, knowing 
 nothing of the history of this wine, pro- 
 nounced upon it that it is not only real wine, 
 but good wine — better than had yet been 
 produced in the feast. Nothing can be more 
 complete than this evidence." 
 
 Again, this first miracle of Jesus showed 
 his sj-mpath}^ with mankind, and his piirpose 
 to honor and ennoble all the relations and 
 enjoyments of life. Had he been a teacher 
 of as(!eticism, this miracle would have been 
 incongruous; but not so when we understand 
 the whole purpose of his mission. He came 
 to quicken, to exalt, to spiritualize all things, 
 
Ch. IL] 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 87 
 
 12 After this he went down to Capernaum, he, and I 12 After this he went down to Capernaum, lie, and 
 his mother, and "his bretliren, and his disciples; and his mother, and /(i.s hrethrcn, and his disciples: and 
 
 they continued there not many days. | there they abode not many days. 
 
 a Matt. 12: 46. 
 
 and this miracle was a symbol of his work. 
 Two things are worthy of special notice ; 
 Firxt, that Jesus by this sign honored marriage 
 and all the relations of domestic life; and, 
 second, that he recognized the propriety of 
 doing something for enjoyment as well as 
 for sustenance. Hence, a Christian father 
 is warranted in seeking for liis family more 
 
 12. Visit to Capernaum. 
 
 12. After this, etc. The first note of time 
 here employed is general, but it suggests a 
 comparatively brief intervtil between tlie wed 
 ding and the going down to Capernaum. 
 A few days at most were probably sj)ent in a 
 visit to the home in Nazareth ; and then the 
 Saviour, at the head of his little company of 
 
 ^m^miH^' 
 
 /r- 
 
 SUPPOSED SITE OF CAPERNAUM. 
 
 than the necessaries of life; some of its luxu- 
 ries may at times be enjoyed. 
 
 It may also be remarked, that this miracle 
 lays no foundation for the papal doctrine of 
 transubstantiation. For, according to John, 
 tlie new substance was recognized and identi- 
 fied by the senses of men, while, according to 
 the papal doctrine, the new substance in the 
 cucharist, the real presence, cannot be thus 
 known. In the one case, properties and sub- 
 stance answer to each other after, as well as 
 before, the miracle; in the other they do not. 
 In the one case, appearance corresponds with 
 ix-ality; in the otlier case, it does not, but is 
 illusory. The Christian fact is, therefore, no 
 argument for the papal theory. 
 
 kindred and disciples, went down to Caper- 
 naum, with a view to joining a larger com- 
 pany, and going up to the passover in Jeru- 
 salem. He is said to have gone down to 
 Capernaum; and the expression is exact, 
 whether his journey was from Nazareth, or 
 from Cana of Galilee. The distance from 
 Nazareth to the place of destination could 
 not have been less than sixteen miles, while 
 the distance from Cana may have been some- 
 what less. 
 
 The site of Capernaum has not been satis- 
 factorilj' ascertained ; but it was certainly on 
 the western side of Lake Gennesaret, and as 
 far north as the northern side of the plain 
 from which the lake took its name. Dr. 
 
88 
 
 
 
 
 
 JOI 
 
 IN. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 [Ch. 
 
 II. 
 
 13 ' 
 
 ■weut 
 
 And 
 up to 
 
 the Jews' passover 
 .lerusalsm, 
 
 was at 
 
 baud, 
 
 and Jesus 
 
 1 
 
 13 
 
 A 
 
 ad the 
 
 passover 
 
 Of 
 
 Ihe 
 
 Jews 
 
 was 
 
 at band 
 
 and 
 
 
 
 
 a Ex 
 
 12: 14 
 
 Deui. 16: 1, l(i 
 
 ;ver 
 
 2a: 
 
 ch. 5: 1 
 
 ; 11 : 55. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Robinson supposed that it was situated at 
 Kahn Minyeh, near the lake, and just on the 
 northern border of the phiin of Gennesaret, 
 while Dr. Thompson believes that it was situ- 
 ated at Tell Hiim, about three miles north of 
 Khan Minyeh (eomp. Robinson, " Biblical 
 Researches" etc., II. 403 sq. 406 aq. ; Merrill, 
 "East of the Jordan," p. 457; Thompson, 
 ^'The Land and the Book," I., pp. 542-548; 
 "Warren, "Recovery of Jerusalem," pp. 342 
 sq. ; Tristram, " Land of Israel," pp. 428 sq., 
 ed. 3). 
 
 In respect to the brethren, or brothers, of 
 Jesus, it has been conjectured (l)that they 
 were in reality his cousins, tlie children of a 
 sister of Mary, his mother, or of a brother of 
 Joseph, his reputed father — an interpretation 
 which was first proposed by Jerome, in the 
 interest, probably, of the perpetual virginity 
 of Mary. (2) That they were children of 
 Joseph by a former marriage, and therefore, 
 nominally, half brothers of Jesus ; an inter- 
 pretation which was proposed b}' Epiphanius, 
 also designed to save the perpetual virginity 
 of Mary. (B) That they were children of 
 Joseph and Mary, younger than Jesus, and 
 therefore his brotliers, as born of the same 
 mother. The question of their relationship 
 to Jesus is a diflBeult one to answer; but the 
 reasons for taking the word brothers in its 
 most natural sense, as denoting sons of Joseph 
 and Mary, seem to outweigh those for any 
 other view. This we say: (1) Because the 
 word nephews or kindred is never used by 
 the sacred writers instead of brothers, to de- 
 note the persons referred to, viz. : James, and 
 Joseph, and Simon, and Judas (Matt, is : 55); also 
 because sisters are mentioned, without any 
 hint that they were more distant relatives. 
 (2) Because Luke (2=7) says of Mary, that 
 "she brought forth her first-born son," when 
 she gave birth to Jesus; and this language 
 implies that she had other sons, born after the 
 birth of Jesus. His brothers seem to have 
 gone no farther than Capernaum with Jesus. 
 
 The Evangelist gives no account of what 
 Jesus did in the not many days of his present 
 sojourn in Capernaum. This silence may be 
 accounted for, if needful, by assuming that 
 John took the opportunity of spending a few 
 
 days at his own home, and so was not an e3'e- 
 witness of the Saviour's ministry. But the 
 works of Jesus at this time were probably' re- 
 ferred to by himself, when he addressed the 
 people of Nazareth, on his next visit to that 
 place: "Ye will surely say unto me this 
 proverb, Phj'sician, heal thyself: whatsoever 
 we have heard done in Capernaum, do also 
 here in thy country." (Luke 4: 231. 
 
 13-2.5. Journey to Jerusalem, and 
 Purification of the Temple. First Pass- 
 over 171 Christ' s ministry, April 11, A. D. 27. 
 
 13. And the Jews' passover was at 
 hand. For an account of the Jewish passr 
 over, see E.X. 12: 1-49; Deut. 16: 1-8. That 
 it is called the Jews' passover has been 
 supposed to imply the existence of a recog- 
 nized "Christian Passover" at the time when 
 the Gospel was written (Westcott). But is 
 not the expression fairly explained by the 
 circumstance that the writer had in mind 
 Gentile readers? Or by the fact that he had 
 lived so long out of Palestine, and with Gen- 
 tile Christians, as to have appropriated their 
 manner of referring to the chosen people? — 
 And Jesus went up to Jerusalem. The 
 site of Jeru.salem was elevated above that of 
 most places in Palestine, and ther-^fore it was 
 natural to speak of going up to it (comp. 5:1; 
 7: 8, 10; 11: 55; 12: 20; Luke 2: 42, sq.). 
 Whether the political and religious eminence 
 of the city contributed any influence in favor 
 of this phraseology, is uncertain. The road 
 by which Jesus in all j^robability went to the 
 holy city, is thus described by Merrill: "This 
 road crossed thu Jordan immediately below 
 the Liike of Tiberias, and followed down the 
 east side until just below the Jabbok, where 
 it recrossed and followed down the west side 
 to Jericho. There are, just below the mouth 
 of the Jabbok, the remains of an ancient 
 bridge which there is reason to believe 
 existed in Christ's time. Along this road the 
 Christians fled to Pella, their place of refuge 
 during the destruction of Jerusalem ; and 
 along this road, also, a portion of the army of 
 Titus marched, on its way to besiege the 
 holy cit3\ So little has been known of this 
 region, that the Christian has, no doubt, 
 thought of Christ as passing along a lonely 
 
Ch. 
 
 II.] 
 
 
 
 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 89 
 
 14 "And found in the teiiii) 
 and sheep and doves, and the 
 ting: 
 
 le those that 
 changers of 
 
 sold oxen 14 .Tesus 
 money sit- temp 
 
 went u 
 e those 
 
 p to Jerusalem, 
 tl^at sold oxen 
 
 An 
 
 and 
 
 d he found 
 sheep and 
 
 in the 
 doves, 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 a. Matt. 21 : 12 ; Mark 11 : 15 ; Luke 19 : 45. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 road when ho went from Galilee to Jerusalem 
 b^' this valley route; but there could be no 
 greater mistake. In some of the towns that I 
 have indicated as existing here, our Saviour 
 would pass the night; and as Pella was one of 
 
 Jericho.' The place derives its hostile cliar- 
 acter from its terrible wildness and desolation. 
 If we might conceive of the ocean as being 
 suddenly congealed and petrified when its 
 waves are tossed mountain high, and dash- 
 
 KOAD FROM JERICHO TO JEKl'SALEM. 
 
 them, it is pleasant to reflect that the good I 
 seed sown bj' him in person, took root and | 
 brought forth such abundant fruit, that when, i 
 thirty or more years after his death, the storm 
 of war swept over the land, his followers and , 
 disciples found an asylum in this very I 
 city." From Jericho the road passes by a 
 steep and wild ascent up to Jerusalem. Ofi 
 the region through which it winds upward, 
 Hackett says; "Hardly a season passes in 
 which some luckless wayfarer is not killed or 
 robbed in 'going down from Jerusalem to' 
 
 ing in wild confusion against each other, we 
 should then have some idea of the aspect of 
 the desert in which the Saviour has placed so 
 truthfully the parable of the Good Samaritan. 
 The ravines, the almost inaccessible cliffs, the 
 caverns, furnish admirable lurking places for 
 robbers ; they can rush forth unexpectedly 
 upon their victims, and escape as soon almost 
 beyond the possibility of pursuit" ("Illustra- 
 tions of Scripture," p. 207). 
 
 14. And found in the temple, etc. The 
 word translated temple {'upov) signifies not 
 
90 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 [Cii. II. 
 
 15 And wheu he had made a scoui'ge of small c irds, 
 hedrove them all out of the temple, and the sheep, 
 and the oxen ; and poured out the changers' money, 
 and overthrew the tables ; 
 
 16 And said unto them that sold doves, Take these 
 things hence; make not "my Father's house a house 
 of merchandise. 
 
 17 And his disciples remembered that it was written, 
 *The zeal of thine house hath eaten me up. 
 
 15 and the changers of money sitting: and he made a 
 scourge of cords, and cast all out of the temple, both 
 the sheep and the oxen ; and he poured out the 
 changers' money, and overthrew their tables ; and 
 
 16 to them that sold the doves he said. Take these 
 things hence; make not my Father's house a house 
 
 17 of mercliandise. His disciples remembered that it 
 was written, Zeal for thy house shall eat me up. 
 
 1 Lu!:e2:49....6 Ps. 69: 9. 
 
 merely the central edifice, wherein were the 
 holj' place and the holy of holies, but that 
 edifice with all its surrounding courts, includ- 
 ing the Court of the Gentiles, in which the 
 noisy and irreverent traders were now btisj'. 
 Yet it has been well said by Schatf (in Lange) 
 that the traflSc here described " was no doubt 
 justified or excused, as a convenience to for- 
 eign Jews for the purchase of sacrificial 
 beasts, incense, oil, and the sacred shekel or 
 double drachma, in which the temple-tax 
 had to be paid" (ex.30;13). Men who dese- 
 crate holy things are commonly able to oifer 
 some plausible reason for their course. 
 
 15. And when he had made a scourge 
 of small cords, etc. It need not be sup- 
 posed that Jesus used the scourge upon any of 
 the men, even if he did upon the animals 
 ■which they had brought into the sacred en- 
 closure. But there is, strictly speaking, no 
 evidence that he used it on the latter. The 
 scourge may have been only a sign of the in- 
 dignation which glowed with holy fervor in 
 the soul of Jesus, and of the punishment 
 which was justly deserved bj' men thus dese- 
 crating the temple; while it was the divine 
 authority, revealed by his look and bearing, 
 which overawed the traders, and the dumb 
 beasts as well. For once the second Adam 
 took the place of authority over sheep and 
 cattle that was given to the first Adam before 
 till! fall. Instead of and read (as in Kev. 
 
 ■ Yvr.) both the sheep and the oxen. And 
 poured out, etc. This, too, must have been 
 done under the impulse of a commanding in- 
 dignation, more divine than human; other- 
 wise the strange intruder would siirelj' have 
 been interrupted in his work. With what 
 surprise and awe must the disciples have 
 watched the movements of their Master! 
 
 16. And said unto them that sold doves. 
 Literally, that sold the doves — namely, the 
 doves that were referred to in the preceding 
 verse. Take these things hence ; because 
 they were such as could not be driven out of 
 
 the sacred precincts, but must be carried 
 thence. Tlie doves were doubtless kept in 
 baskets or cages; and at the command of 
 Jesus, their owners bore them reluctantly 
 away. Then the Son stood in the court of 
 his Father's house, which had been reclaimed, 
 for the time, from the desecrations of avarice, 
 and hushed to silence, as became the place of 
 prayer. 
 
 The Synoptical Gospels describe a very 
 similar expulsion of traders from the temple 
 b^' Jesus a few days before his crucifixion 
 
 (Matt. 21: 12, 13; Mark II: 15-17; Luke 19: 46-47). Some 
 
 therefore insist that there was but one expul- 
 sion, either John or the Synoptists being in 
 error as to the time when it occurred. 
 Against this view it may, however, be re- 
 marked : (1) That the act was one that might 
 properly be repeated ; (2) That the particu- 
 lars diifer as much as could be expected if a 
 second expulsion took place ; (3) That the 
 language of Jesus is naturally much severer 
 in the second instance than in the first, for 
 "a den of thieves" is a worse place than a 
 house of merchandise ; and (4) That the 
 date of each expulsion is virtually given, sep- 
 arating them from each other by almost the 
 whole public ministry of Christ. There can 
 be no reasonable doubt of the repetition of 
 the great lesson taught by Christ so near the 
 beginning of his ministry. 
 
 17. And his disciples remembered. 
 And does not belong to the true text, ac- 
 cording to Tisch, Treg, Westcott and Hurt, 
 (with N B L T*> X etc.). The zeal of thine 
 house hath eaten me up. The evidence 
 of early manuscripts (X A B L p T^ X r a A n) 
 shows that the verb should be in the future 
 tense, and the Revised Version expresses 
 therefore the sense of the original : The zeal 
 of thy house shall eat me up. This passage of 
 the Psalins (69:9) came into the minds of 
 the disciples as they gazed with astonish- 
 ment upon Jesus during this remarkable 
 scene. The only deviation from the sense of 
 
Ch. II.] 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 91 
 
 18 Then answered the Jews and said unto him, 
 "What sign shewest thou unto us, seeing that thou 
 doest these tilings? 
 
 19 Jesus answered and said unto tlieui, 'Destroy 
 this temple, and in three days I will raise it up. 
 
 21) TliLMi said the Jews, Forty and six years was this 
 temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three 
 days? 
 
 18 The .Tews therefore answered and said unto hira, 
 What sign shewest thou unto us, seeing that thou 
 
 19 doest these things? Jesus answered and said nnto 
 them. Destroy this Hemple, and in three days I will 
 
 20 raise it up. The Jews therefore said, Forty and s.x 
 years was this ^ temple iu building, and will thou 
 
 a Matt. 12 : 38 ; ch. 6 : 30 6 Malt. '26 : 61 ; 27 : 40 ; Mark U : 58 ; 15 : 29. 1 Or, sanctuary. 
 
 the Hebrew passage, is in the sense of the 
 verb. Perrowne translates the pas.sage thus: 
 " Zeal for thine house hath consumed me"; 
 while the Evangelist, regarding the sufferer 
 of the Psalm as a type of Christ, and his bm- 
 guage as really prophetic, may have used the 
 future tense as expressive of its deepest mean- 
 ing. Says Perowne: "Similar expressions 
 concerning the prophets will be found, Jer. 6: 
 11; 15: 17; 20: 9; 23: 9; fizek 3: 14. This 
 which was true in various imperfect degrees 
 of these .servants of God, was, in a far higher 
 sense, true of the only-begotten Son, who 
 could say: 'I seek not mine own glory.' 
 Hence, when he purged the temple, the disci- 
 ples could not help thinking of these words of 
 tiie Psalm as finding their best application in 
 him." Lange supposed that "here for the 
 first time met and struck them the conflict of 
 the Spirit of Christ with the spirit of the 
 people, the terrible, life-staking earnestne.ss 
 in the appearance of Christ, which threatened 
 to bring incalculable dangers after it" ; while 
 Alford says that the eating up (Kara^xiyeLv) 
 "spoken of in that, passion P.salm, was the 
 marring and wasting of the Saviour's frame, 
 by his zeal for God and God's church, which 
 resulted in the buflTeting, the scourging, the 
 cross." It is quite possible that the zeal 
 spoken of both consumed and imperiled 
 the life of its po.ssessor; both devoured his 
 strength by its own fervor, and provoked the 
 wrath of his enemies. 
 
 18. Then answered the Jbavs, etc. Bet- 
 ter: The Jews ansivered therefore, etc. By 
 the Jews must be understood some of the 
 leaders or rulers of the people in religious 
 affairs. They were probably displeased by 
 his claim of special Sonship to God, involved 
 in the words, Make not my Father's house 
 a house of merchandise ; and they plainly 
 intimated that his conduct could only be jus- 
 tified to their minds by a sign from heaven. 
 Moreover, such was their character, that their 
 language was a natural result of his act and 
 word ; hence the connective therefore. The ' 
 
 word answered is sometimes used by the Evan- 
 gelists, when the saying that follows has ref- 
 erence to something done, or to something in 
 the mind of the person addressed (c. g., Matt. 
 11: 25; 17: 4; 28: 5; Mark 10: 51; 12: 35; 
 Luke 1: 60; 13: 14). 
 
 19. . . . Destroy this temple. Here the 
 word translated temple (i/aos, not Upof), re- 
 fer.s to the central building, exclusive of the 
 surrounding courts. The destroy (Axaare) is 
 neither permissive nor provocative, but either 
 prophetic, destroy (as you will), or subjunct- 
 ive, if you destroy. I prefer the latter (comp. 
 Winer ^ 44, 2; Buttman ^ . 139, p. 227). In 
 three days means within that period of time. 
 The expression, perhaps because of its enig- 
 matical character, was remembered by the 
 Jews, and, by a malignant perversion, intro- 
 duced as testimony against Jesus: "This fel- 
 low said, I am able to destroy the temple 
 of God, and build it in three days." (Matt. 
 26; 61; Mark u. 58). Fi)r the interpretation, see 
 verse 21, below. It is, however, noteworthy 
 that the resurrection is hero represented by 
 Christ as his own work. 
 
 20. Forty and six years, etc. A more 
 exact rendering would read: In forty and 
 six years loas this temple built; and wilt 
 thou in three days raise it up ? The em- 
 phatic words of the first clause are, forty and 
 six years ; those of the second, thou (uttered 
 with a tone of incredulity and perhaps mock- 
 ery) and three days. Thus: In forty and 
 six years was this temple built; and wilt 
 thou, in three days, raise it up? The order of 
 the Greek words is very significant. 
 
 "Thero <an be no doubt that this refers to 
 the rebuilding of the temple by Herod ; it 
 cannot mean the second temple, built after 
 the captivity; for this was finished in twenty 
 years (B. c. 535 to b. c. 515). Herod, in the 
 eighteenth year of his reign (Joseph. "Ant." 
 XV. 11. 1), began to reconstruct the temple 
 on a larger and more splendid scale (A. IT. 
 C. 734). The work was not finished till long 
 after his death, till A. U. C. 818. It is in- 
 
92 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 [Ch. II. 
 
 21 But he spake "of the temple of his body. 
 
 22 Wheu therefore he was liseu I'rom the dead, 'his 
 disciples reiueiuheied tliut he bad said tliis unto tbciu ; 
 and ihey believed the Scripture, and the word which 
 Jej>iis had said. 
 
 21 raise it up in three days? But he spake of the 
 
 22 1 temple ot his bcidy. Wlieu tlierefore he was raised 
 from tlie dead, his disciples rcuieiubered llial he 
 spake this; and they believed the scripture, and the 
 word which Jesus had said. 
 
 I Col. 2:9; Hel). 8:2; So 1 Cor. 3 : 16 ; 6 : 19 ; 2 Cor. 6 : 16 6 Luke 24 : 8.- 
 
 Or, sanctuary. 
 
 ferred from Josephus ("Ant" XV. 11.5-6) 
 that it WHS begun in the month Chisleu, A. U. 
 C. 734. And if the passover at which this 
 remark was madp was that of A. U. C. TWO, 
 tiieu forty-five years and some months have 
 ehipsfed, whicli, according to the Jewish mode 
 of reckoning (p. 1381), would be spoken of as 
 'forty and six years.' " (vSniith's Diet, of the 
 Bible, Jesus Christ, p. 1383). 
 
 21. But he spake of the temple of his 
 body. As might have been expected, this 
 interpretation of Christ's words is pro- 
 nounced erroneous hy many liberal exposi- 
 tors. Even Lticke, who holds the writer of 
 this Gospel to have been tiie Apostle John, 
 and who appreciates very higlily his work, 
 rejects this statement as incorrect; for he is 
 unable to believe that Jesus referred to his 
 own death at so early a day, and in terms so 
 enigmatical. But we have already seen, in 
 the cases of Peter and Nathanael (i : «. *7), 
 that Jesus could read the hearts of men with 
 marvelous accuracy, and, therefore, it is vain 
 to say that he could not have detected in 
 these Jews the germs of deadly hatred. In- 
 deed, there may have been something in their 
 look and tone which foreboded evil, which 
 reminded him of the hour when he would be 
 " led as a lamb to the slaughter,"' and which 
 occasioned his profound but enigmatical 
 response. They belonged to a class of men 
 to whom no sign was to be given, save the 
 sign of the prophet Jonah (Matt. 12 : 39, w). 
 
 Yet the answer of Christ must have ar- 
 rested their attention by its very strangeness 
 and apparent extravagance ; for nothing 
 could have seemed to them more absurd than 
 the hypothesis of their destroying the temple, 
 u less it were the assumption of Jesus that 
 he would raise it up in three days. It was 
 an answer therefore which would stick in 
 their memory; and if it bad an.y occult sense, 
 to be revealed by later events, that sense 
 nught at last be jierceived by them and rec- 
 ognized by them as a sign from heaven. 
 
 Such a sense it had. and such a prophecy it 
 was. For as the temple was God's house, in 
 which he dwelt among the people and mani- 
 
 fested his glory, so was the body of Christ 
 God's house, in which he dwelt and mani- 
 fested his glory. The temple on Moriah was, 
 in fact, but a symbol or shadow of the true 
 temple. For Christ could say, "I am in 
 the Father and the Father in me" (io:38;U: 
 n), and "he that hath seen me hath seen the 
 Father" (u:9). "In him dwelleth all the 
 fulness of the Godhead bodily" (Coi2:9). 
 His reference, therefore, was to the substance 
 by means of the shadow. He knew that, by 
 and by, they would destroy the substance, 
 and thereby bring to an end the shadow also; 
 and he jiurposed to raise up the true temple 
 in less than three days from the time of its 
 dissolution. 
 
 If it be urged against this interpretation 
 that, not Jesus himself, but the Father, raised 
 the body of our Lord from the dead, it may 
 be answered that we need not suppose that 
 Christ intended by this expression to separate 
 his own action fnmi the Father's (comp. 5: 19 
 sq.). The Father as well as the Spirit may 
 properlj"^ be regarded as acting wit 1 the Son 
 and in behalf of the Son. Their action is in- 
 separable (see 10: 18). 
 
 It may be added that the pronoun he 
 (eiceri/o?) is one that tends to separate Jesus 
 from the writer, or from some other party. 
 In this case, the separation was due to the 
 fact that neither John nor the Jews shared 
 with Jesus this knowledge of the reference of 
 his words. "St. John seems to look back 
 again upon the far distant scene, as inter- 
 preted by his later knowledge, and to realize 
 how the Master foresaw that which was 
 whollj'^ hidden from the disciples." — (West- 
 cott). 
 
 22. When therefore he was risen from 
 the dead, etc. The deep and prophetic im- 
 port of this saying was not understood by the 
 disciples of Christ at the time. They did not 
 reflect much upon it, or question their Lord 
 as to its meaning. But after his resurrection, 
 it was remembered by them, and interpret d 
 as .John interprets it. Then, too, it increased 
 their faith, even as it was recalled in faith. 
 A great light was reflected upon it from his 
 
Ch. II.] 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 93 
 
 23 Now when he was in Jerusalem at the passover, 
 in the feast-Aiy, many believed in his name, when they 
 saw the miracles which he did. 
 
 24 But Jesus did not commit himself unto them, be- 
 cause he knew all 7)icn, 
 
 2.5 And needed not that any should testify of man ; 
 for " he knew what was in man. 
 
 23 Now when he was in Jerusalem at the passover, 
 during the feast, many believed on his name, be- 
 
 24 holding his signs which he did. But Jesus did not 
 trust himself unto them, for that he knew all men, 
 
 25 and because he needed not that any should bi/ar 
 witness concerning ^ man ; for he himself knew 
 what wiis in man. 
 
 a 1 Sam. 16 : 7 ; 1 CbroD. 28 : 9 ; Matt. 9:4; Maik 2:8; ch. 6 : 61 ; 16 : 30 ; Acts 1 : 2i ; Rev. 2 : 
 
 -I Or, a vum ; for . . . the i 
 
 raised body, as he communed with them dur- 
 ing forty days. Then also, as never before, 
 they believed the Scripture. 
 
 But what is meant by the Scripture? 
 Either some part or passage of the Old Tes- 
 tament which foreshadowed the death and 
 resurrection of the Messiah (Ps. i6;]o), or 
 the entire Old Testament, regarded as a con- 
 nected whole, which was proved to be true 
 by the fulfillment of an important part of it. 
 The latter is, probably, the Evangelist's 
 thought. 
 
 While Christ was with his disciples in the 
 flesh, the latter appear to have been singu- 
 larly dull or incredulous when he referred 
 to his approaching death and resurrection. 
 For many reasons the meaning of the Scrip- 
 ture, when it foretold the sufferings of Christ 
 and the glory that should follow, was hidden 
 from their sight. But when Jesus had been 
 crucified and raised from the dead, the mean- 
 ing of the Scripture flashed upon their souls 
 with surprising clearness. They saw at once 
 that the language of Isaiah (ch. 53^, and of 
 many other prophets, had described both the 
 suffering and the triumph of the Messiah — 
 the latter being indeed a consequence of the 
 former. But they saw the fulfillment of 
 Scripture in the former, as well as in the lat- 
 ter respect, yet they saw it in neither till they 
 saw it in both. Not till Christ had risen 
 from the dead, were they able to perceive the 
 necessity of his dying at all. And when he 
 had risen from the dead, they perceived that 
 his resurrection and eternal glory were as 
 fully implied in the Old Testament, as were 
 his sufferings and death. His disciples, 
 etc. According to the best editors and manu- 
 scripts, the second clause should read: his 
 disciples remembered that he spake this — 
 unto them being no part of the original text. 
 The tense also of the Greek verb (i\ey(v) sug- 
 gests a repetition or dwelling upon the words 
 (comp. 5: 18; 6: 6, 65; 8: 27, 31; 12 33), which 
 John distinctly recalls in giving his account 
 of the scene. 
 
 23-25. Christ's Mighty Works in Je- 
 rusalem, AND THEIR EfI'ECT ON MaNY OF 
 
 THE People. 
 
 23. Now when he was in Jerusalem , 
 
 etc. Meyer holds that the words in Jeru- 
 salem denote place, at the passover, time?, 
 and in the feast, occupation. Though Jesus 
 declined to do any miracle as a sign to the 
 Jews who questioned him as to his authority, 
 it appears from this verse that he wrought 
 several miracles during this passover, in 
 Jerusalem. We say " several, "^/-s^, because 
 the plural miracles, (or signs) is used, and, 
 secondly, because the imperfect tense (not did 
 butwffls doing, eTroiei) suggests continued action 
 of that kind. The.se signs led many to believe 
 that Jesus was the promised Chrisi. But 
 their faith was mere belief on the ground of 
 evidence, implying no radical change of 
 character. It might lead to further inquiry, 
 as in the case of Nicodemus, but it was not in 
 itself a proof of willingness to serve GoJ by 
 forsaking all to follow Jesus. To believe on 
 one's name is to believe on what that name 
 represents, whether of character or of office. 
 
 24, 25. But Jesus did not commit him- 
 self unto them. The contrast is stronger in 
 the original: But Jestis him.self ; i. e., Jesus 
 on his part. The verb which, with the nega- 
 tive particle, is translated did not commit, 
 i. e., trust, is in the imperfect tense, tind, 
 therefore, denotes continued action. The 
 same is true of the verb knew in verse 25. 
 And these verses afford proof, first, that 
 the Evangelist did not mean to ascribe 
 saving faith to the many spoken of in verse 
 23; and, secondly, that Christ knew both men 
 and man, both the hearts of all men, and the 
 inmost nature of man. His knowledge w.^s 
 perfect, independent, and, therefore, divine 
 (comp. John 1: 48 sq. ; 4: 19, 29; 6: 61, 64; 
 11: 4, 15; 13: 11; 16, 19; 21: 17); for such 
 knowledge points to a divine nature (ps. 7:9; 
 139:2; Acts 15: 8). See also "Bib. Sac." 1882, p. 
 182. It is however possible that the expres- 
 sion all (wavTas) means, in this connection, all 
 
94 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 [Ch. III. 
 
 CHAPTEK III. 
 
 THERE was. a man of the Pharisees, named Nico- 
 demus, a ruler of the Jews: 
 2 " The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto 
 him. Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from 
 Ciod: for * no man can do these miracles that thou 
 doest, except 'God be with him. 
 
 1 Now there was a man of the Pharisees, named 
 
 2 Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews : the same cauie 
 unto him by night, and said to him. Rabbi, we 
 know that thou art a teacher come Irom God: for 
 no man can do these signs that thou doest, except 
 
 ell. 7: 50; 19: 39 6 ch. 9: 16, 33; Acts 2 : Ti c Acts 10: 38. 
 
 with whom the Lord had to do— all whom he 
 met or attempted to influence. 
 
 The expression, did not commit (or trust) 
 himself unto them, has been supposed to 
 mean that he did not associate with them 
 confidentially, as he did with his disciples 
 (Meyer); or that he did not frankly announce 
 himself to them as the Messiah (Lange); or, 
 simply, that he did not hold them to be his 
 true disciples, because he knew the weakness 
 of their faith (Liicke). Does it not rather 
 mean that he did not give them his confi- 
 dence as genuine disciples, but kept himself 
 aloof from them as persons who could not 
 3'et be fully trusted in that way, as men wlm, 
 though professing to be friends and believers, 
 might, at any moment, become foes? 
 
 Ch. 3 : 1-31. Christ's Conversation 
 WITH Nicodemus. 
 
 1. There was a man of the Pharisees, 
 named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews. 
 
 The Evangelist now describes a remarkable 
 interview which Jesus had with a believer of 
 the class just mentioned (2:23). This believer 
 was a Pharisee, and the Pharisees were dis- 
 tinguished for their orthodox creed and 
 punctilious observance of the Jewish ritual. 
 Paul speaks of them as " thestraitest sect of 
 our religion" (Acts 26: 5, Rev. ver.), and Christ 
 frequently denounces their sanctimonious hy- 
 pocrisy. Yet many of them were, no doubt, 
 earnest and sincere, as well as scrupulous. 
 Saul of Tarsus was such a man before his 
 conversion. And Nicodemus, though timid, 
 was probably another. 
 
 He was, moreover, a ruler of the Jews, 
 and "the teacher of Israel" (ver. 10, Rev. ver.); 
 and, as the former title "is given in some pas- 
 sages (JohQ7:26; Acts 3 : 17, etc.), to members of the 
 Sanhedr.in, it has been inferred that he was a 
 member of that body. He was, probably, 
 also a scribe or teacher of the law ( Jouii 3 : lo) ; 
 and hence belonged to that branch of the 
 council which represented the learned class 
 
 of the nation" (Hackett). The name Nico- 
 demus was current among the Greeks, as well 
 as among the Jews. 
 
 Meyer remarks very justly, that there is no 
 objection to supposing that the disciples, and 
 especially John, were present at this conver- 
 sation. For it was not from fear of the disci- 
 ples, but from fear of the Jews, that he came 
 to Jesus by night; and the vivid and consist- 
 ent characterization of the interview favors 
 the idea that the Evangelist was present. If 
 not, he probably received an account of it 
 from the Lord. 
 
 2. The same came to Jesus (rather, imto 
 him) by night. Various conjectures have 
 been offered as to the reason which led Nico- 
 demus to visit Jesus by night, rather than by 
 day. His engagements during the day may 
 have left him no time for such a visit, so that 
 he must make it by night, or not at all. The 
 nature of Christ's ministry at this time may 
 have rendered a quiet conversation, such as 
 Nicodemus sought, impossible by day, and, 
 therefore, he was constrained to come at 
 night. But when we bear in mind the con- 
 nection of Nicodemus with the chief council 
 of the Jews, the spirit which animated that 
 council in its subsequent dealings with Christ 
 and his disciples, and the caution which ap- 
 pears in the later acts of Nicodemus, it seems 
 just to suppose that he was influenced by fear 
 of the Jews, to select the night for his inter- 
 view with Christ (see Edersheim I. p. 381 sq. ; 
 Weiss "Leben Jesu," I. 400 sq). Convinced 
 that Jesus was at least a prophet, and sus- 
 pecting that he might be the Messiah, he had 
 not "the courage of his convictions," but was 
 influenced by fear of God and fear of man at 
 the same time — a not unfrequent state of 
 mind. For many persons strive to serve both 
 God and self in the same act. Yet. in reality, 
 they consent to serve God only so far as may 
 be consistent, in their view, with a supreme 
 regard to self. Rabbi, we know that thou 
 art a teacher come from God: for no 
 
Ch. III.] 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 95 
 
 3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, 
 I say unto thee, " Except a man be born again, he 
 cannot see the kingdom of (iod. 
 
 4 Nicodenuis saith unto him. How can a man be 
 born when he is old ? can he enter the second time 
 into his mother's womb, and be born ? 
 
 3 God be with him. Jesus answered and said unto 
 him. Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a niaa 
 be born 'anew, he cannot see the kiugdoiu of (iod. 
 
 4 Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be b<irn 
 when he is old? can he enter a second time into his 
 
 o oh. 1 : 13 ; Gal. 6 i 15 ; Tit. 3 : 5 ; James 1 : 18 ; 1 Pet. 1 : 2.) ; 1 J5hn 3 : 9. 1 Or, Jrt 
 
 man can do these miracles (signs) that 
 thou doest, except God be with him. 
 
 This language of Nicodemus appears to ex- 
 press very exactlj' the extent of his faith in 
 Jesus. For (1) he addresses Jesus as Rabbi, 
 and this, in the circumstances, was a recogni- 
 tion of his right to be heard as a religious 
 teacher; (2) joining others with himself, he 
 declares that they knew Jesus to be One who 
 had come from God as a teacher; and (3) 
 he specifies the source of their knowledge on 
 this point, viz., the signs which Jesus was 
 working; for these signs were such as showed 
 the presence of God with him who wrought 
 them It will be observed that he empha- 
 sizes the divine mission of Jesus, that be was 
 certainlj' a prophet ; for this is the force of 
 the Greek words in their order: ''from God, 
 hast thou come, a teacher." 
 
 3. . . . Verily, verily, I say unto thee, 
 Except a man be born again, he cannot 
 see the kingdom of God. This answer 
 seems abrupt, but it is unnecessary to suppose 
 the omission of any connecting thought. 
 For Jesus, being recognized as a teacher from 
 God, and reading for himself at a glance the 
 character of Nicodemus, as well as the ques- 
 tion that was in his heart, viz. : "What must 
 a man do in order to enter the Messiah's 
 kingdom?" (Mej-er), does not wait for this 
 question to be put in words, but declares at 
 once that a new birth, a new life, is indispen- 
 sable, in order to any real knowledge of the 
 kingdom of God. "No one," he says, 
 'whether Jew or Gentile, can grow up, or 
 glide over, from nature into grace; every one 
 must begin his life altogether anew, in order 
 to share in my kingdom." 
 
 Many interpreters insist on the primary 
 sense of the word translated again (iviaiev). 
 That sense is local, "from above," and is the 
 prevailing meaning of the word. (See John 
 3: 31; 19: 11; James 1 : 17; B: 15). It also 
 agrees with the teaching of this Evangelist 
 
 (.lohn l:13;lJohn2: 29; 3:9; 4: 7; 5: 1;4, 18). But the 
 
 word has also a temporal sense, "from the 
 first" (Luke 1:3; Acts 26: 5). And, derived from 
 
 this, it has a meaning suggested by the answer 
 of Nicodemus, viz., "anew," or "afresh." 
 (See Gal. 4:9; Wisdom of Sirach 19: 6). 
 Against the first sense, "from above," Godet 
 remarks: If it (avwSei/) "had this signification, 
 the emphasis would certainly fall on this 
 word, since Jesus would have in view the 
 antithesis between terrestrial birth and birth 
 from above. And, in this case, the adverb 
 would have preceded the verb. Placed after 
 the verb, it merely reinforces the idea of 
 birth; and with this agrees the meaning 
 "anew." In Gal. 4: 9 this word, with the 
 addition of "again" (n-iAii/), is taken in the 
 same sense. The bondage into which the Ga- 
 latians replunge themselves, is described by 
 the word "again," as the second (numeri- 
 cally), and by "anew" or "afresh," as the 
 moral reproduction of the "first." 
 
 By the kingdom of God is meant the 
 kingdom of Christ, which embraces all who 
 truly believe in him, and are therefore obe- 
 dient to his commands. And the commands 
 of Christ have respect, first, to the inward 
 life of faith, love, joy, hope; and, secotidly, 
 to the outward life, which manifests and 
 strengthens the inward. The reign of Christ 
 begins, no doubt, in the soul; but by his com- 
 mand it passes at once into ritual and practi- 
 cal expression, and the blessed order of church 
 life. It is first invisible, personal, and then 
 social, corporate. The ritual and order of 
 his kingdom were not fully declared in his 
 early ministry ; but they were to be observed 
 as soon as they were made known. 
 
 To see the kingdom of God (comp. Mark 
 9:1; Luke 2: 26, 30), is to perceive and ap- 
 preciate its character ; and to appreciate its 
 character, one needs to enter into it with the 
 whole heart (ver. 5). We do not therefore find 
 any important difference between the two ex- 
 pressions used by Christ. 
 
 4. . , . How can a man be born when 
 he is old? etc. The precise meaning of this 
 reply is doubtful. It may be that Nicode- 
 mus understood the words of Jesus correctly 
 (comp. Jer. 31: 33; Ezek. 11: 19, 20; 36: 26;; 
 
96 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 [Ch. hi. 
 
 5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, 
 "Except a man be born of water aud of the Spirit, he 
 ■cannot enter into the kingdom of Uod. 
 
 5 mother's womb, and be born ? Jesus answered. 
 Verily, verily, I say unto thee. Except a man be 
 born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into 
 
 : Mnrl( 16: 16; Acts 2 : 38. 
 
 for the metaphor of a new birth appears to 
 have been used by the Rabbins to describe 
 the religious change in a Gentile who became 
 a proselyte to the Jewish faith ; and the im- 
 port of baptism, as administered by John, 
 implied the same view of repentance, namely, 
 that it was a burial of the old life, and en- 
 trance upon a new life. But, if he under- 
 stood these words, he doubtless felt them to 
 be "ahard saying" when applied to orthodox 
 Jews, and especially when applifed to good 
 men of advanced age, whose habits of think- 
 ing, of feeling, and of action have been long 
 fixed. So radical a change, so utter a renun- 
 ciation of the old and appropriation of the 
 new in religious life, may have seemed to 
 him as difficult a matter as for one to enter a 
 second time into his mother's womb and be 
 born. Yet there is perhaps a touch of irony 
 and exaggeration in the latter question, which 
 was certainly meant to suggest the impossi- 
 bility of the change demanded by Christ. 
 But whether we can ascertain the precise 
 thought of Nicodemus in this response or not 
 is of comparatively little consequence, since 
 it is not noticed in the further teaching of 
 Jesus, and therefore our interpretation of the 
 Saviour's language does not depend upon our 
 knowing the purport of the Pharisee's reply 
 to his first declaration. 
 
 5. . . . Verily, verily, I say unto thee, 
 Except a man be born of water and of 
 the Spirit, he cannot enter into the king- 
 dom of God. Jesus makes no reply to the 
 words of Nicodemus, unless it be by re-as- 
 serting, in the most impressive language, the 
 necessity of another birth or generation for 
 every man who would enter the kingdom of 
 God, and by describing this new birth as one 
 that is of water, and of the Spirit. But 
 this description, though brief, includes a pe- 
 culiar expression. Had it simply character- 
 ized the new birth as one of {or from) the 
 Spirit, the interpretation would have been 
 comparatively obvious; the reference to a 
 change of character, purpose, and life, eifected 
 by the Spirit of God working in the soul, 
 would have been clear and forcible. But it 
 characterizes the new birth asone//'om water 
 
 and Spirit, as if it had both a ritual origin 
 and a spiritual, an outward side and an in- 
 ward, a visible expression and an invisible 
 reality. This at least is one explanation of 
 the words. 
 
 According to this view, Nicodemus prob- 
 ably came to Jesus by night, because he was 
 subject to the fear of man. Half-persuaded 
 that Jesus was the promised Messiah, and 
 half-inclined to become his disciple, the fear 
 of man made him seek to be so in secret. 
 "With the Pharisees generally (see Luke 
 7: 30) he had rejected the baptism of John, 
 who did no miracle (Johnio:«); and now, 
 though looking wistfully toward Jesus, who 
 was working miracles that must be ascribed 
 to the presence and power of God, he was in- 
 wardly resolved not to break with the Phari- 
 sees bj' submitting to baptism, and thus openly 
 professing his allegiance to Christ. With this 
 view of his character and state of mind, Jesus 
 might tell the prudent Pharisee now before 
 hiin, that no one could be a member of the 
 Messiah's kingdom without entering it in the 
 prescribed way, without submitting to the 
 rite which had been appointed to symbolize 
 and declare the spiritual change involved in 
 becoming a Christian. And surely it would 
 be natural for Jesus, when speaking of birth 
 from Spirit, to call the rite, whi(!h symbolizes 
 this, birth from water. One stands at the 
 beginning of the inward life, and the other at 
 the beginning of the corresponding outward 
 life. And therefore Jesus could say, with the 
 utmost propriety: "You must confess me 
 openly in the prescribed way — which you are 
 unwilling to do — and you must also be the 
 subject of a great spiritual change, which is 
 represented by that confession, or you cannot 
 enter my kingdom." For tne order of ex- 
 pression, which is rhetorical rather than logi- 
 cal, compare Rom. 10: 9: "If thou shalt con- 
 fess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and 
 shalt believe in thy heart that God raised 
 him from the dead, thou shalt be saved." 
 
 But another interpretation is sometimes 
 given to the words /row water (e'f u5aTo?), viz., 
 that they denote "a pure source of a new 
 spiritual life in man," while the next words, 
 
Ch.III.] 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 97 
 
 6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that 
 which is born of the vSpirit is spirit. 
 
 7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born 
 again. 
 
 8 » The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou 
 hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it 
 Cometh, and whither it goeth ; so is every one that ib 
 bora of the Spirit. 
 
 6 the kingdom of God. That which is born of the 
 flesh is flesh ; and that which is born of the Spirit is 
 
 7 spirit. Marvel not that I said untotbee. Ye must be 
 
 8 born 'anew, ^xiie wind bloweth where it listeth, 
 and thou hearest the voice thereof, but kuowesl not 
 whence it cometh, and whither it goeth : so is every 
 
 a Eccl. 11 : 5; 1 Cor. 2: II. 1 Ov. from above 2 Or, The Spirit breatheth. 
 
 from Spirit {e| . . . 7rvevix.aLT0i), "mention in 
 plain language the author of this new birth." 
 — (Ripley.) In other words, "water is a fig- 
 urative term for the purifying power of the 
 Spirit" (comp. 1: 13). But this interpretation 
 wa.s probably suggested bj^ a strong re-action 
 of the mind against the error of baptismal 
 regeneration, and it seems to have much less 
 in its favor than the one first given. Yet it 
 must be conceded that the use of the words 
 from water, instead of from baptis7n, renders 
 this a possible interpretation. 
 
 The word spirit should perhaps be written 
 without the article in English as well as in 
 Greek, in order that it may denote in the 
 simplest way the kind of source from which 
 the new birth springs, though it is perfectly 
 evident that no spirit save the divine could be 
 thought of as that source. (See ver. 6-8 ) 
 Weiss holds that "the omission of the article 
 before 'water' and 'spirit' shows' that water 
 and spirit are contemplated generically ; . . . 
 that the two factors are simply co-ordinated, 
 the water being thought of as, by its nature, 
 a purifying factor, and the spirit as an effi- 
 cient principle of new life; while the essen- 
 tial doctrine is that, without a putting off of 
 the old, sinful nature, and the generation of 
 a wholly new nature from u powerful new 
 principle, the birth intended in verse 3 is not 
 realized." For a further discussion of this 
 passage, and of others that are sometimes sup- 
 posed to teach the doctrine of baptismal re- 
 generation, see Appendix. 
 
 6. That which is (or, has been) born of 
 the flesh is flesh, and that which is {has 
 been) born of the Spirit is spirit. In these 
 words Jesus assumes that the kingdom of 
 Grod is primarily spiritual, consisting of 
 "righteousness, and peace, and joy in the 
 Holy Ghost" (Rom. 14:17). Hcncc, that which 
 is carnal cannot enter it. But those who 
 have been begotten and born of sinful men, 
 resemble their parents in character — they are 
 carnal, sinful. Natural birth does not qualify 
 one to be s» member of a spiritual kingdom. 
 
 Accordingly, the word flesh seems to be used 
 here in the same sense as in Gen. 6: 3, and in 
 many passages of Paul ; and, if so, the new 
 birth is here represented as being, at once, a 
 cleansing and a creation. It raises one from 
 a life of unbelief and condemnation, into a 
 life of faith and justification. It translates 
 one from a kingdom of darkness into a king- 
 dom of light. It makes one who is an enemy 
 of God his friend and his child. And this 
 change is wrought by the Holy Spirit. This 
 delight in God and communion with him, 
 which may be called the only true life of the 
 soul, must be ascribed to the grace of God as 
 its fountain. For this reason the change is 
 wonderful, and, at the same time, credible; a 
 change beyond the power of man, and wor- 
 thy of the nature of God. 
 
 7. Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye 
 must be born again. The pronoun ye is 
 emphatic ; and the reference of the assertion 
 to Nicodemus and his friends is, thereby, 
 strongly affirmed, while its application to 
 Jesus is, perhaps, virtually denied. In truth, 
 he alone of all the sons of men, was holy 
 and well pleasing to God, from the first mo- 
 ment of his earthly existence to the last. 
 And his generation was supernatural. " The 
 H0I3' Spirit shall come upon thee, and the 
 power of the Highest shall overshadow thee! 
 Therefore, also, that holj' thing (child) which 
 shall be bom of tliee, shall be called the Son 
 
 of God" (Lukel: 3ff). 
 
 8. The wind bloweth Avhere it listeth 
 
 (or, will), etc. The independence, the mys- 
 terioixsness, and the power of the wind, are 
 here used by the Saviour to illustrate the 
 secret and mighty agencj* of the Holy Spirit 
 in regeneration. But the carrying out of the 
 simile in the last clause is disappointing. 
 For the reader naturally expects the compari- 
 son to be finished by a direct reference to the 
 Spirit. As the wind acts, the Spirit acts — 
 secretly, mightily, unaccountably; in the one 
 case apparently, and in the other case really, 
 self- moved. Instead of this expected appli- 
 
98 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 [Ch. III. 
 
 9 Nicodemus answered and said unto him, « How can 
 these thiugs be? 
 
 10 Jesus answered and said unto him, Art thou a 
 master of Israel, and knowest not these tilings? 
 
 11 ' Verily, verily, 1 say unto thee, We spealc that we 
 do know, and testiiy that we have seen; and "j'e re- 
 ceive not our witness. 
 
 9 one that is born of the Spirit. Nicodemus answered 
 
 10 and said unto him. How can these things l)e? Jesus 
 answered and said unto him. Art thou the teacher 
 of Israel, and uuderstandest not these things? 
 
 11 Verily, verily, I say unto thee. We speak that we do 
 know, and bear witness of that we have seen ; and 
 
 ach. 6: 52, 60 b Matt. 11 : 27 ; ch. 1 : 18; 7 : 16 ; 8: M ; li: 49; U: 24 c ver. 32. 
 
 cation of the figure, we have a reference to ' 
 him who experiences this mysterious influ- 
 ence of the Spirit. But the difBculty is 
 merely formal. For, either the second mem- 
 ber of the comparison is a popular, but 
 slightly ungrammatical substitute for the 
 expression: "So is it with every one that 
 has been born of the Spirit" ; or else the 
 experience of one who perceives the effect of 
 the wind in nature, is compared with the ex- 
 perience of one who feels the effect of the 
 Spirit acting on his soul, thus: "As thou 
 hearest the sound of the free, mysterious 
 wind, knowing only its effect and not its 
 source or end, so is every one that has been 
 born of the Spirit, conscious of the Spirit's 
 action by its effects, though the Spirit comes 
 and goes mysteriously, and as he will." 
 "The night is quiet around you, not a sound 
 of bending branch or rustling leaf comes 
 from the neighboring wood; but now the air 
 is stirred as by an invisible hand ; the sigh 
 of the night-breeze comes through the bend- 
 ing branches and nestling leaves; you hear 
 the sound; but who can take you to that 
 breeze's birth-place, and show you where and 
 how it was begotten; who can carry you to 
 its place of sepulchre, and show you where 
 and how it died?"— (Hanna.) Chadwick 
 supposes that the action of the new-born soul 
 is here compared with that of the wind. 
 "The mysterious movements of the wind, 
 heard but not comprehended, are like the 
 man born of the Spirit, who is, therefore, not 
 indeed lawless, but obedient to finer and 
 more subtle laws, which a natural man can- 
 not understand, even when their eflfects are 
 palpable." But this view is f^^reign to the 
 context, and must therefore be rejected. 
 
 lO. . . . Art thou a master (rather, the 
 teacher) of Israel, and knowest not these 
 things? Namely, that these things are so, 
 are realities in the moral government of God ? 
 There was much in the Old Testament which 
 ought to have led a true Israelite to believe 
 in the power of God's Spirit to renew the 
 
 hearts of men, and much which ought to 
 have led a teacher of religicm to expect a 
 wonderful increase of spiritual power at the 
 coming of Christ. The definite article before 
 teacher has perplexed many interpreters, 
 since there is no evidence that Nicodemus 
 was pre-eminently the teacher of Israel at 
 this time. But he was probably a learned 
 and prudent man, well known as a teacher of 
 the law ; and Winer is, perhaps, correct in 
 supposing tiiat the article is here employed in 
 a rhetorical way, to contrast the teacher wita 
 the doubter, the instructor of God's people 
 with the man who knows nothing of the new 
 birth and of the life in God. Compare such 
 an expression as this: "Are you the theo- 
 logical professor, and cannot understand this 
 passage? " Also Luke 18: 13. 
 
 11. Verily, verily, I say unto thee. We 
 speak that we do know, and testify that 
 we have seen. By these words Jesus as- 
 sures Nicodemus, in the most solemn manner, 
 that his knov/ledge of what he is teaching is 
 certain and direct, that his word is equivalent 
 to that of an eye-witness, and can only be 
 doubted by doubting his integrity. At the 
 same time he charges the Pharisee before 
 him, and, without doubt, the large body of 
 men with which Nicodemus was associated, 
 with not receiving his testimony. 
 
 But what distinguished this part of Christ's 
 answer from that which follows, and from his 
 well-nigh uniform manner, is the use of the 
 pronoun ive, instead of "I." Is it possible 
 to account for this deviation from his usual 
 style? Some believe that he associates with 
 himself, by means of this exceptional Ave, 
 John the Baptist, who is represented in this 
 Gospel as distinctively a "witness of the 
 light" (i:t), both because he was divinelj' 
 inspired to announce the great characteristic 
 of the Messiah's reign, to wit, baptism in the 
 Spirit, which presupposes regeneration, and 
 because he saw the descending dove, and 
 heard the voice from heaven by which the 
 Messiah was pointed out to him. For thug 
 
Cxi. Ill] 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 99 
 
 V2 If I have told you eartlily tliinj^s, and ye believe 
 not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heaveuly 
 things? 
 
 i;j And " no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he 
 that came down from heaven, even the Son of man 
 which is in heaven. 
 
 12 ye receive not our witness. If I told you earthly 
 things, and ye helieve not, how shall ye l)elieve, if I 
 
 13 tell you heavenly things? And no man hath as- 
 cended into heaven, but he that descended out of 
 heaven, even the Son of man i who is in heaven. 
 
 . 30: 4; ch. 6: 33, 38, 51,62; 16: 28; Acts 2 : .34; 1 Cor. 15: 4T ; Eph. 4: 9, 10. 1 Many ancient authorities omii. who i 
 
 far, it is said, Jesus has been speal<ing with 
 Nicodemus of the work of tlie Spirit, having 
 made, at most, but a single reference to bap- 
 tism, which is a rite associated with, and 
 representative of, the work of the Spirit in 
 regeneration. This view would seem to be 
 very reasonable, if we knew that Nicodemus 
 himself had rejected the baptism and testi- 
 mony of John — which is certainly probable — 
 and if we knew that Jesus had referred (how- 
 ever indicated) to this fact in speaking of the 
 neces.sity of birth from water and Spirit (ver. 5.) 
 
 Weiss remarks that "Jesus joins himself 
 with those sent from God . . . whose word 
 must be received in faith, if any would come 
 to the same experience; but, in the historical 
 situation, the only one besides himself, was 
 John the Baptist; who, by his preaching of 
 the baptism of water, and of the baptism of 
 the Spirit through the Messiah (i:33), had 
 already pointed men to the necessity of a 
 new birth from water and Spirit, even as he 
 himself was doing. 
 
 But if this explanation is rejected, Christ's 
 use of the plural must be understood as either 
 rhetorical (Mej-er), or proverbial (Alford), the 
 reference being strictly and onlj' to himself; 
 for it can hardly be supposed that any of his 
 attendant disciples were already associated 
 with him as able to testify of the things to 
 which he refers. But the former view, viz., 
 that in this instance he associates the testimony 
 of John the Baptist with his own : We, (i. e., 
 I myself and John the Baptist whom you 
 have rejected), speak that we do know, and 
 testify that we have seen, need not be re- 
 jected. The pronoun ye in the last clause, re- 
 fers to Nicodemus and those whom he repre- 
 sented. Neither he nor they would give full 
 credence to the words of Jesus or of his 
 harbinger; for these words were inconsistent 
 with their deeply-rooted prejudices. 
 
 12. If I have told you {the) earthly 
 things and ye believe not, how shall 
 ye believe if I tell you of (the) heavenly 
 things? By the earthly things Jesus means 
 the things of which he has been speaking, 
 and, especially, the regenerating work of the 
 
 Spirit; for this, however secret and powerful, 
 is experienced by men here on earth, and 
 may be known in its effects with a reason- 
 able degree of certainty. There were many 
 in Israel who had already entered upon the 
 new life of repentance toward God, and faith 
 in the Lord Jesu.s, and who could testify of 
 a new peace and joy mysteriously originated 
 in their souls. On the other hand, by the 
 heavenly things, ho means those which 
 they could only know by his testimonj^ — the 
 counsels of eternal love which were finding 
 their accomplishment in the incarnation of 
 the Son of God, in his atoning death, and 
 in the glory of his spiritual reign. Of these, 
 he proceeds -to speak in the remainder of his 
 conversation with Nicodemus. The article 
 before earthly things and also before heav- 
 enly things, limits the things in question to 
 those of the Messiah's kingdom. 
 
 13. And no man hath ascended up to 
 heaven, but he that came down from 
 heaven, even the Son of man Avhich is 
 in heaven. If this difBcult verse be inter- 
 preted strictly according to the context, Jesus 
 appears to teach : 1. That no person on earth 
 has ascended into heaven and had direct 
 knowledge of the mind and action of God, 
 to whom "the heavenly things" ju.st men- 
 tioned belong as their first cause. But this 
 denial has no respect to the state of departed 
 spirits, who have gone from this life not to 
 return. 2. That he himself who came down 
 from heaven at his incarnation, has thus as- 
 cended into heaven, and can therefore testify 
 of "the heavenly things," the counsels of the 
 Father as to the redemption of men. Even 
 since the incarnation, his intercourse with 
 the Father has been direct, his access to 
 heaven unimpeded (comp. notes on 1 : 5; 5: 
 19 sq. ). 3. That the Son of man, though now 
 on earth, is at the same time in heaven — an 
 assertion which implies, without doubt, the 
 ubiquity of the Incarnate "Word, and refutea 
 the opinion of those who insist that he did 
 not have the use of his divine attributes, 
 while he was in the flesh. 
 
 To this natural interpretation of his Ian- 
 
100 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 [Ch. hi. 
 
 14 « And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilder- 
 ness, even so 'must the !Son of man be lifted up: 
 
 15 That whosoever believeth iu him should not 
 perish, but <^have eternal life. 
 
 14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilder- 
 
 15 ness, even so must the .Son of man be lifted up : that 
 whosoever i believeth may in him have eternal life. 
 
 a Num. 21: 9 b ch. 8 : 28 ; 12 : 32 c ver. 36; ch. 6:47. 1 Or, beUeveth in Mm may have. 
 
 guage, there seems to be no conclusive ob- 
 jection. Thus understood, it was, indeed, 
 wonderful language to be uttered to a cau- 
 tious Pharisee; but it may have been adapted 
 to till his mind with wholesome awe as, in the 
 night, he listened to it, tailing with a mysteri- 
 ous solemnity from the lips of Jesus. "Who 
 knows the character and feeling of Nico- 
 denius at this time well enough to say that 
 such discourse would have been less impres- 
 sive or less useful than any other? 
 
 The only interpretation, besides the above, 
 which deserves attention is this: that Jesus, 
 instead of saying, No one hath been in heaven, 
 etc., says. No one hath ascended up to heaven, 
 etc., because in case of every other person 
 but himself, being in heaven must depend 
 on ascending into heaven. Hence, the word 
 save or "except' (ei m"?', refers to the idea of 
 being in heaven, as implied in that of ascend- 
 ing into heaven. This is Meyer's view. * 
 
 14, 15. And as Moses lifted up the ser- 
 pent in the wilderness, etc. According to 
 Num. 21 : 6-8, when many of the Israelites 
 had been bitten by venomous serpents, Moses, 
 at the command of God, made a seri)ent of 
 brass, and put it on a pole, that any one who 
 had been bitten might look upon the serpent 
 and live. In no other way could the deadly 
 operation of the poison be overcome and life 
 be saved. Jesus now uses this remarkable 
 narrative to illustrate the necessity of his own 
 death, and the certainty of eternal life to 
 
 'The closing words, which is in heaven, are 
 
 omitted by X B L Tb, 33, Memphitic (best codices, ac- 
 cording to Hort), jEthiopic. There is no known pa- 
 tristic quotation of ver. 13 and 14 together. Several 
 Fathers, Cyril of Alexandria many times, quote ver. 
 13 without including these closing words; but we can- 
 not be sure they did not have them in their copies. 
 There is a superficial appearance of contradiction be- 
 tween the clauses ho that came fl<»wii from 
 heaven and he which is in heaven. That 
 this was felt is shown by the fact that it omits he 
 which is. leaving simply, the Son of man in 
 heaven, and two cursives make it, "he that is from 
 heaven," answering to he that came diiwn from 
 heaven. Now this superficial difficulty will account 
 for the omission of the words in the aliove-mentioned 
 MSS. and versions, and also for their omission by cer- 
 
 those who should believe. He affirms that, 
 according to the merciful plan of God, he 
 himself, the Son of man, must be lifted up on 
 the cross for the salvation of all who will trust 
 in him. It is perfectly evident that he now 
 refers to his death for sinners ; and hence that, 
 in the beginning of his ministry, the mystery 
 of his sacrificial death was distinctly present 
 to his mind. He felt himself to be the Lamb 
 of God, and foresaw his pathway through 
 suffering to glory. And surely he who was 
 at home in the plans of heaven might be ex- 
 l)ected to speak, with even greater clearness 
 than John the Baptist, of his atoning death; 
 and it is evident that in this quiet hour he 
 did thus speak to the "ruler of the Jews," 
 who came to him for light. The words of 
 the common text, should not perish, but, 
 should be omitted, because they are probably 
 an interpolation, which was first made acci- 
 dentally hy some copyist whose eye fell on 
 the next verse. The highest authorities omit. 
 It will be observed that, besides omitting the 
 words, should not perish, in verse 15, the 
 Rev. Ver. connects in him with may have 
 eternal life, rather than with believeth. The 
 Greek admits of either construction. When 
 the text is carefully studied, the construction 
 of the revisers appears preferable to the other. 
 According to Erasmus, and many interpret- 
 ers since his day (c. g., Westcott, Milligan 
 and Moulton in Schaft's "Popular Commen- 
 tary," etc.), the conversation of Jesus with 
 
 tain Fathers in citing the passages. Chap. 1 : 18 has a 
 somewhat similar expression, but not presenting the 
 same difficulty. On the other hand, uo reason occurs 
 to the mind for the insertion of the words in nearly all 
 the early versions, as well as in most MSS. and many 
 Fathers, if they were not originally present. Hort 
 thinks "they may have been inserted to correct any 
 misunderstanding arising out of the position of ' has 
 ascended,' as coming before 'descended;'" but this 
 would be correcting a slight difficulty by introducing 
 one apparently more serious. The words may there- 
 fore be confidently retained, and they occasion no real 
 difficulty to one who takes thoughtful and Scriptural 
 views of the Incarnation and of heaven. If attested 
 only by X L> Memphitic, iEthiopic, the omission would 
 be readily regarded by Hort as au "Alexandrian' 
 correction. — B. 
 
Ch. III.] 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 101 
 
 16 "For God so loveil tlic world, that he gave his 
 only l)egotteii Son, that whosoever believeth in him 
 should not perish, (nit have everlasting life. 
 
 17 '' For God sent not his Son into the world to 
 
 16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only 
 begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on him 
 
 17 should not perish, but have eternal life. For God 
 sent not the Son into the world to judge the world; 
 
 a Kom. 5: 8; 1 JoIju 4: U h Luke 9 ; 56; ch. 5 : 45 ; 8: 15 ; 12 : 47 ; 1 Johu 4: 14. 
 
 Nicodemus ends with the fifteenth verse, and 
 the words that follow, to the twenty-fir.st 
 verse, belong to the Evangelist only. In 
 favor of tliis view it is urged (1) that the word 
 translated only begotten is never elsewiiere 
 applied by Christ to himself as the Son of 
 God, while it is a characteristic expression of 
 John. There is considerable weight in this 
 argument, especially when we bear in mind 
 how early yi Christ's ministry this interview 
 with Nicodeinus took place, and how habit- 
 ually Jesus called himself the Son of man, 
 avoiding in the first months of his ministry 
 any direct assertion of his Sonship to God. 
 But, on the other ha'id, it may be said that, 
 apart from these verses (16-21), the authorship 
 of which is in question, John applies this 
 epithet to Christ only three times (i:ui8; 
 ijotin4:9), and it may be asked: May not 
 Jesus have used it twice and John thrice, 
 rather than John five times? Is it not more 
 reasonable to suppose that John borrowed 
 this word from the lips of Jesus, tiian to sup- 
 pose that he first apjtlied it to the Son of God? 
 (2) That there is no reference in what follows 
 to Nicodemus. But may it not be fairly as- 
 sumed tluit Nicodemus was now a deeply' in- 
 terested listener, while Jesus continued for a 
 short time to lay before his mind, in words of 
 heavenly wisdom, the origin and nature of 
 his kingdom ? Other arguments for the Eras- 
 mian theory are, that believed in the name of 
 (v. 18) is an expression used by the Evangelist 
 (e. 5f., 1: 12; 2: 23; 1 John 5: 13), but not 
 elsewhere by Jesus; that such an addition 
 finds a parallel in 1 : 16-18, and probably in 
 3:31-36, and almost certainly in 12:37-41; 
 and that the past tense of the verbs in verse 
 19 agree with those in 1:11, 12, and with the 
 position of the Evangelist better than with 
 that of Jesus when conversing with Nico- 
 demus. It must be granted, we think, that 
 these arguments are weighty, though they do 
 not seem to be wholly decisive. 
 
 In favor of regarding the following to verse 
 21 as the words of Jesus, may be urged two 
 circumstances: (1) That the Evangelist has 
 given the reader no hint of passing from the 
 
 words of Jesus to his own words at this point; 
 and (2) that he has made no reference in tliis 
 place to a close of the Lord's interview with 
 Nicodemus, while he has used in verse 22 an 
 expression which implies that close. Yet, on 
 the whole, the more one studies the Fourth 
 Gospel the more probable will it seem to him 
 that these five verses (i6-n) give the testimony 
 of John, rather than the very words of Christ. 
 16. For God so loved the world, etc. 
 This verse has been called an epitome of the 
 whole gospel, and no single statement of the 
 New Testament is better entitled, to this 
 designation. (1) It goes back of the whole 
 work of redemption, and reveals the motive 
 in which that work had its origin. (2) It de- 
 scribes that motive as love or good-will, not 
 merely to the chosen people, or to the elect 
 from every nation, but to all mankind ; for 
 this is the only tenable meaning of the world, 
 as here used. (3) It pronounces the gift of 
 Christ, with the work implied in that gift, a 
 sufficient reason for the salvation of every 
 man who will believe in him. And (4) it 
 presents that salvation to the mind as eternal 
 life, or, in other words, a blessed state of 
 being begun on earth and continued forever. 
 On the other hand, it ma3^ be said to imply 
 (a.) that, without the work of Christ, men 
 could not have had eternal life, and (b) that, 
 without faith in him, they cannot now have 
 eternal life, although he has been lifted up on 
 the cross. The adverb so means, with so 
 great a love, and the verb gave has respect 
 to all the humiliation and suffering which he 
 endured for men, and which culminated on 
 Calvary. (See Kom. 8: 32.) 
 
 17. For God sent not his Son into the 
 world to condemn the world, etc. The 
 word translated condemn, literallv signifies 
 to judge; but generally, in this Gospel, with 
 an implication that the decision is unfavor- 
 able. Hence it is not improperly rendered 
 condemn. The Jews are said to have ex- 
 pected a Messiah who should judge and pun- 
 ish the Gentile world, and the language here 
 used may be directed against this error. But 
 it can hardly be supposed that this was the 
 
102 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 [Ch. III. 
 
 condemn the world ; but that the world through him 
 might be saved. 
 
 IS "He that bclieveth on him is not condemned: but 
 he that believeth not is condemned already, because he 
 hatli not l)elieved in the name of the only begotten 
 Sou of (iod. 
 
 19 And this is the condemnation, ''that light is come 
 into the world, and ;uen loved darkness rather than 
 light, because their deeds were evil. 
 
 20 For «every one that doeth evil hateth the light, 
 neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be 
 reproved. 
 
 but that the world should be saved through him. 
 
 18 He that believeth on him is not judged : he that be- 
 lieveth not hath been judged already, because he 
 hath not believed on the name of the only begottea 
 
 19 Son of God. And this is the judgment, that the 
 light is come into the world, and men loved the 
 darkness rather than the light; for their works 
 
 20 were evil. For every one that 'doeth evil hateth 
 the light, and cometh not to the light, lest his works 
 
 ich. 5:24; 6: 40, 47; 20: 31....!>ch. 1 : 4, 9, 10, 11; 8 : 12....C Job 24 : 13, 17; Eph. 5: 13. 1 Or , practUeth. 
 
 principal reason for these words. They have 
 a larger scope. They apply to all men — Jews 
 as well as Gentiles. In so far as men are con- 
 cerned, the ohject of the Father in sending 
 the Son was to furnish them the means of 
 salvation. They were already judged and 
 condemned as sinners; but the Father had 
 purposes of mercy, and sent his Son to open 
 a way of escape to those under condemnation. 
 Yet it was a provision which recognized the 
 moral agency of man. The sending of the 
 Son did not, in and of itself, save the world ; 
 hut it was necessary, in order that the world 
 might be saved, if it would. These two verses 
 (16 anil 17) give the motive and purpose of the 
 incarnation. The result of it is next pointed 
 out. 
 
 18. He that believeth on him is not 
 condemned : but he that believeth not 
 is condemned already, because he hath 
 not believed in the name of the only be- 
 gotten Son of God. No reader can fail to 
 see the harmony of this saying with' the go.s- 
 pel as preached by the Apostle Paul. He 
 who is a believer in Christ as the Son of God 
 and Saviour of men, is no longer under law, 
 but is under grace. He is no longer "being 
 judged" (KpiVerai), but is forgiven, and recog- 
 nized as an heir of life eternal. On the other 
 hand, he who does not believe, has been al- 
 ready judged (i. e., condemned. See above 
 for the meaning of the word in this connec- 
 tion), because he has not believed — the judg- 
 ment or condemnation covering the same 
 period as the want cf faith, and indeed de- 
 pending on that want of faith. Observe the 
 tense of the verbs, literally hath been con- 
 demned (iceicptTai), and hath (not) believed 
 (n-eTTiVTeuicef). The doctrine here taught is not 
 that unbelief is the only sin for which man is 
 accountable, but that it is a rejection of par- 
 don through Christ, a rejection of Christ, the 
 Bringer of life; and is therefore the reason 
 
 why, as a matter of fact, he is still condemned 
 for sin of whatever kind. " God has pro- 
 vided 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." — (Alford.) 
 Notice that, in speaking of the actual rela- 
 tion of men to Christ and eternal life, "every 
 one" is referred to as believing for himself. 
 It is not the family, the nation, or the world, 
 but every one who is represented as either 
 believing or not believing in him. 
 
 19. And this is the condemnation (or 
 jiidffynent), etc. The nature and reasonable- 
 ness of the judgment in question are set forth 
 by these words. Jesus is declared to be the 
 Light of men, the clearest revelation of God's 
 holiness and love. In rejecting him, there- 
 fore, they reject the true Light; and they do 
 this because they prefer the darlcness of sin 
 to the light of God; and this preference has 
 its source in their sinful conduct, their prac- 
 tical evil. Reversing the order, and proceed- 
 ing from cause to effect, we have (1) personal 
 sinning; (2) preference or love of moral dark- 
 ness and evil, rather than of "light and 
 truth" as revealed in Christ; and (3) con- 
 demnation unremoved. 
 
 20. For every one that doeth evil hateth 
 the light, etc. Not only may the evil doer 
 be said to love the darkness of sin rather than 
 the light of God, he may also be truly said 
 to hate the light, and to refuse to approach 
 the highest source of blessing to his soul. 
 For he is conscious of personal sin, and is un- 
 willing to see it in the light of infinite purity ; 
 he is conscious of finding pleasure in moral 
 evil, and is opposed to everj'thing which tends 
 to reveal its true nature and subdue the heart 
 to penitence. The word here translated 
 "evil" {<{>av\a) represents bad deeds as those 
 out of which no real gain can ever come. Sin 
 is profitless as well as wrong. 
 
Ch. III.] 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 103 
 
 21 But he that doeth truth coineth to the light, that 
 his deeds may be made mauifest, that they are wrought 
 in God. 
 
 22 After these things came Jesus and liis disciples 
 into the land of .ludea; and there he tarried with 
 them, "and baptized. 
 
 21 should be 'reproved. But he that doeth tlie truth 
 Cometh to the light, that his works may be made 
 mauifest, ^that lliey liave been wrought in G(;(l. 
 
 22 After these things came Jesus and his disciples 
 iuto the laud of Judaea; and there he tarried with 
 
 a ch. 4 : 2. 1 Or, convicted 2 O^, becaute. 
 
 21. But he that doeth truth cometh to 
 the light, etd Here are clcsoribed a clitirac- 
 ter and life just the opposite of those described 
 in the twentieth verse. For he that doeth 
 truth, is one who is habitually doing what 
 the truth requires, even as a doer of the law 
 is cue who constantly does what the law re- 
 quires. But the truth comprehends more 
 than " the law ; " for " the law " was given 
 by Moses, while truth came by Jesus Christ 
 (1:17). It has special reference, therefore, to 
 the gospel of the grace of God ; and whoever 
 doeth truth accepts that grace, or, in other 
 words, comes to the light. Indeed, the two 
 things are inseparable, being difierent phases 
 of the same life. Moreover, this response to 
 the grace of God in Christ, which is here 
 called doing the truth, will be open and 
 manly, involving a frank confession of sinful- 
 ness and a loyal adhesion to Christ, together 
 with a desire to have all men know that even 
 repentance and faith have their .source in 
 God. Not in a spirit of self-righteousness, 
 but ill one of gratitude and love, will the 
 grace of God through Christ be openly ac- 
 knowledged, and this acknowledgment itself 
 ■will be ascribed to the Spirit of God breath- 
 ing upon the soul. 
 
 If Jesus uttered all these words to Nicode- 
 mus, we may say that "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 
 Alford). But if the last five verses are merely 
 the words of the Evangelist, it is still true 
 that the record bears every mark of simplicity 
 and genuineness, that the teaching of Jesus 
 was adapted to the spiritual state of the in- 
 quirer, and that it proved in the end to be 
 good seed cast into good soil (see 7 : 50 ; 19 : 39^ 
 
 22-24. Contemporaneous Ministry of 
 Jesus and of John. 
 
 22. After these things. Namely, the 
 events which have been narrated as taking 
 place in Jerusalem, i. e., the cleansing of 
 the temple, the signs wrought by Jesus, and 
 
 the conversation with Nicodemus; but how 
 long after these events the Evangelist does 
 not mention. It is, however, commonly sup- 
 posed, that Jesus left the city soon after the 
 close of the passover, or about the end of 
 April, A. D. 27. Came Jesus and his dis- 
 ciples. By his disciples may be under- 
 stood Andrew and Peter, James and John, 
 Philip and Nathanael, the six who had f(jl- 
 lowed him from the Jordan to Cana of Galilee, 
 and perhaps from Cana of Galilee to Jerusti- 
 leni. We cannot, indeed, be perfectly certain 
 that all these were with him, or that others 
 were not now called disciples ; but the narra- 
 tive of John leads us to think especially of 
 these, and we may be reasonablj' certtiin tiiat 
 John was one of those who attended Jesus at 
 this time. Perhaps Andrew and Simon Peter 
 had returned to Galilee. Into the land of 
 Judea. That is, into the province or coun- 
 try of Judea, as distinguished from Jerusa- 
 lem. But the Evangelist does not specify 
 iinj' particular ])art of the province, probably 
 because Jesus went from place to place, visit- 
 ing manj' villages of Judea. And there he 
 tarried with them and baptized. As 
 both verbs are in the imperfect tense, which 
 denotes continuous action, this clause may be 
 translated. And there he was remaining with 
 them and baptizing. (1) This Judean minis- 
 try occupied, it is thought, about seven 
 months, from the first of May to the first of 
 December (see note on 4 : 35). (2) It is not 
 mentioned by the other Evangelists, who 
 limit their narratives of the ministry of Christ 
 before his last passover, to what he did in 
 Galilee. (3) Yet it serves to account for sev- 
 eral facts mentioned by the other Evangelists 
 (see Matt. 26 : 6-13 ; Mark 14 : 3-7 ; Matt. 23 : 
 37-39; Luke 13: 34, 35). (4) It brings the 
 ministry of Christ himself into accord with 
 that of his servants, inasmuch as the gospel is 
 first oflTered to those who are pre-eminently 
 "the Jews," the chosen people of God. (5) 
 Jesus himself acted as a teacher. He abo 
 administered baptism^ but only by the hands 
 of his disciples (see 4: 2). This baptism could 
 
104 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 [Ch. III. 
 
 23 And John also was baptizintr in Enon near to | 23 them and baptized. And John also was baptizing 
 «Saliui, because there was much water there: ''and in jEnon near to Salim, because there i was much 
 
 they came, and were baptized. I 
 
 a 1 Sam. 9 : 4 h Matt. 3 : 5. 6. 1 Gr. were many waters. 
 
 not have differed essentially from that of I 
 John. It must have been a sign of true re- 
 pentance and faith in Jesus as the promised 
 Messiah. It must have been a symbol of en- 
 trance upon a new life of service to God and 
 his Christ. Compare Edersheim (" The Life 
 and Times of Jesus the Messiah," I., p. 398). 
 "It was only on this occasion that the rite 
 was administered under his sanction. But 
 the circumstances were exceptional. It was 
 John's last testimony to Jesus, and it was 
 preceded by the testimony of Jesus to John. 
 For divergent, almost opposite, as from the 
 first their paths had been, this practical sanc- 
 tion on the part of Jesus of John's baptism, 
 when the Baptist was about to be forsaken, 
 betrayed, and murdered, was Christ's highest 
 testimony to him. Jesus adopted his bap- 
 tism, ere its waters forever ceased to flow, 
 and thus he blessed and consecrated them. 
 He took up the work of his forerunner, and 
 continued it. The baptismal rite of John ad- 
 ministered with the sanctitm of Jesus, was 
 the highest witness that could be borne to it." 
 But had not Jesus sanctioned the baptism of 
 John by submitting to it himself? Or, is it 
 reasonable to suppose that he would have 
 caused his own disciples to be baptized sim- 
 ply to endorse the baptism of John ? Weiss 
 ("Leben Jesu," I. S. 40G sq.) observes that 
 "the people, especially the inhabitants of the 
 capital and southern province, were not yet 
 ripe for his properly Messianic activity. Jesus 
 must become his own harbinger. In these 
 experiences [with Nicodemus, etc.], he saw 
 an intimation of his God, that he should now 
 turn back to a more preparatory work. What 
 other form could this take than that which 
 had been assigned by God himself to his fore- 
 runner?" 
 
 23. And John also Avas baptizing:. Sur- 
 prise has been expressed at the separate min- 
 istry of John after he knew that Jesus was 
 the Christ, and had entered on his work. 
 But there is no occasion for surprise, any 
 more than there was when Jesus afterwar is 
 gent out the twelve, or the seventy. For the 
 office of John was still the same — to prepare 
 men for the reception of Christ ; not to follow 
 
 in the footsteps of Christ, but to go before 
 and make ready a people for the Lord. In 
 reply to Bruno Bauer's question: "Why did 
 not the Ba|)tist lay down his herald's office 
 after so distinctly recognizing the pre-emi- 
 nence of Christ?" Ebrard says: "Because 
 the teachers in a gymnasium do not lay down 
 their office as soon as a new university is 
 founded." In Enon near to Salim. The 
 site of Salim has not been identified in a 
 manner wholly satisfactory to scholars. It 
 seems to have been west of the Jordan (ver.2B). 
 Jerome testifies that it was shown in his day 
 eiglit miles south of Scythopolis, the ancient 
 Bethshean and modern Beisan. Dr. Thomson 
 says that the Jordan Vallej', south of Beisau, 
 " once teemed with inhabitants, as is evident 
 from ruined sites, and tells too old for ruins, 
 which are scattered over the plain. Of Salim 
 and Enon, which must have been in the 
 Ghor, at no great distance, I could hear 
 nothing." This plain he represents as "wa- 
 tered in every part by fertilizing streams." 
 In such a plain there may have been a place 
 answering to the description of "Enon, near 
 to Salim." Dr. Barclay believes that he lias 
 discovered the site of Enon at Wady Farah, 
 a valley about five miles northeast of Jeru- 
 salem. This Wady abounds with very co- 
 pious springs and large pools, while another 
 Wady, quite near, is called Selam, or Seleim. 
 ("City of the Great King," pp. 558-570.) 
 This identification has not been accepted by 
 Biblical scholars, though it has several points 
 in its favor. There is nothing in the narra- 
 tive of John that requires one to place Enon 
 in the neighborhood of the Jordan, and the 
 testimony of Jerome is too remote from the 
 time of Christ to be at all decisive. 
 
 Yet another site has been proposed. In 
 his "Biblical Researches " (III., p. 333) Dr. 
 Robinson remarks "that so far as the lan- 
 guage of Scripture is concerned, the place 
 near which John was baptizing may just as 
 well have been the Salim over against Nab- 
 ulus; where, as we have seen, there are two 
 large fountains." C. R. Conder, author of 
 " Tent Work in Palestine" (I., p. 91 sq.), re- 
 marks that the Shalem near Shechem "pes- 
 
Ch. Ill] 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 105 
 
 sesses a yet higher interest as the probable 
 site of the Enon near to Salim, where John 
 was baptizing, because there was much water 
 there. Tiie head springs are found in an 
 open valley, surrounded by desolate and 
 shapeless hills. The water gushes out over 
 a stony bed, and flows rapidly down in a 
 fine stream surrounded by bushes of oleander. 
 The supply is perennial, and a continual suc- 
 cession of little springs occurs along the bed 
 of the valley, so that the current becomes the 
 principal western affluent of Jordan, south 
 of the Vale of Jezreel. The valley is open 
 in most parts of its course, and we find the 
 two requisites for the scene of baptism of a 
 liuge multitude — an open space, and abund- 
 ance of water. Not only does the name Salem 
 occur in the village three miles south of 
 the valley, but the name JEnon, signifying 
 'springs,' is recognizable at the village of 
 'Ainiin, four miles north of the stream. 
 There is one other place of the latter name 
 in Palestine, Beit 'Ainun near Hebron, but 
 this is a place which has no very fine supply 
 of water, and no Salem near it. On the other 
 hand, there are many other Salems all over 
 Palestine, but none of them have an ^Enon 
 near them." The place where John is said 
 to have been baptizing, "because there was 
 much water there," is so wild and inaccess- 
 ible, and so off the usual lines of travel, that 
 comparatively few tourists attempt to visit it. 
 Prof McGarvey thus tells the story of his 
 visit: 
 
 "Salim, near to which Enon was located 
 (John 3: 23), is a village on the slope of the 
 hills east of the plain of Moreh, and nearly 
 opposite to Jacob's well. Our nearest route 
 would have been to pass by it ; but we pre- 
 ferred tracing the waters from near their 
 fountain head; so we turned to the left near 
 Joseph's tomb, and went northward a few 
 miles along the Damascus road. 
 
 "This brought us to the head waters of 
 Wady Bedan, a tributary of the Wady on 
 which Enon is located, called Wadj^ Farra. 
 "We struck Wady Bedan at a point vvhere 
 four mills, propelled by its water, are situated 
 in sight of one another. We followed its 
 course to its junction with Wady Farra, and 
 in doing so passed twelve mills, the last sit- 
 uated in the fork of the two streams, and 
 propelled by water drawn from W^ady Farra. 
 
 The rapid descent of the principal stream 
 makes it practicable to draw off these side 
 channels at short intervals, and to build the 
 mills close together. In some instances the 
 mill-race is so high above the principal stream 
 that it runs through and propels two mills in 
 making its way down. From the junction of 
 the two streams we continued down Wady 
 Farra in search of a place answering to Enon. 
 The ' much water' we found all the way ; and, 
 although the season was exceptionally dry, 
 pools well suited for baptizing were abundant. 
 We rode into a number of these to try their 
 depth. But we wanted to find, in addition to 
 the ' much water,' an open space on the bank 
 of the stream suitable for the assembling of 
 the great multitudes who flocked to Joiin's 
 place of baptizing; and for several miles we 
 found no sucii place. We pursued our path- 
 less way on the slopes of a narrow ravine, 
 with high and precipitous hills on each side. 
 We had to ford the stream frequeaitly, and 
 its banks were everywhere so thickly crowded 
 with a jungle of oleandi-rs in full bloom that 
 we could not always pass where we would. 
 Never, in a single day, have I seen so many 
 oleanders. For as many as five miles their 
 line of mingled pink and green was as con- 
 tinuous as the current of the stream which 
 nourished them. Finally, after a fatiguing 
 ride, during which both our dragomen and 
 our escort became discouraged and fell behind, 
 there suddenly oj^ened before us a, beautiful 
 valley among the rrcoiintains, about one mile 
 wide and three miles long. Bedouin tents 
 v;ere joitched in groups here and there; herds 
 of camels, to the number of three or four 
 liundred, were grazing, or drinking, or mov- 
 ing about; and swarms of brown-skinned hoys, 
 both large and small, were bathing at differ- 
 ent places in the stream. Here, then, was the 
 open space required, and a more suitable place 
 for the gathering of a multitude could not be 
 found on the banks of any stream in Pales- 
 tine."— (Quoted by the "Journal and Mes- 
 senger," Sept. 10. 1879.) Because there 
 was much water there. The expression, 
 translated much water (uSara n-oAAo), is plu- 
 ral, and is somtimes rendered "many wa- 
 ters. ' But by use it seems to denote a large 
 body, or large bodies of water, rather than 
 numerous small streams. Dr. Hackett under- 
 stands it to signify "deep waters." (Smith's 
 
106 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 [Ch. III. 
 
 24 For "John was not yet cast into prison. 
 
 25 Then there arose a question between soine of 
 John's disciples and the Jews about purifying. 
 
 26 And they came unto John, and said unto him, 
 Rabbi, he that was with thee beyond Jordan, 'to 
 whom tliou barest witness, behold, the same baptizeth, 
 and all men come to him. 
 
 27 John answered and said, "A man can receive 
 nothing, except it be given him from heaven. 
 
 24 water there : and they came and were baptized. For 
 
 25 John was not yet cast into prison. There arose 
 therefore a questioning on the part of John's disci- 
 
 26 pies with a Jew about purilying. And they came 
 unto John, and said to him, Kabiii, he that was with 
 thee beyond Jordan, lo whom thou hast borne wit- 
 ness, behold, the same baptizeth, and all men come 
 
 27 to hiiu. John answered and said, A man can re- 
 ceive nothing, except it have been given him from 
 
 a Matt. 14: 3 b ch. 1 : 7, 15, 27. 34 c I Cor. 4:7: Heb. 5:4; James 1: 17. 
 
 Diet, of the Bible, s. v. ^non.) The only- 
 other places where the words occur in the 
 New Testament are Kev. 1 : 15; 14: 2; 17 : 1 ; 
 and 19 : 6. The corresponding Hebrew ex- 
 pression is found in the following passages: 
 Num. 20: 11; 24: 7; 2 Sam. 22: 17; 2 Chron. 
 32 : 4 ; Ps. 18 : 16 ; 29 : 3 ; 32 : 6 ; 77 : 19 ; 
 9:3:4; 107:23; 144:7; Isa. 17:13; 23:3; 
 Jer. 51: 13, 55; Ezek. 1: 24; 17: 5, 8; 19: 10; 
 26:19; 27:26; 31: 5,7,15; 32:13; 43:2; 
 Hab 3 : 15. And they came, and Avere 
 baptized, that is, were immersed ; for that 
 is the meaning of the word. A literal trans- 
 lation of the verse renders its meaning per- 
 fectly plain: "And John also was immersing 
 in ^non near Salim, because there was much 
 water there; and they were coming, and be- 
 ing immersed." The process was continuous; 
 hence the imperfect tense of the verbs. This 
 passage virtually affirms that baptism could 
 not be conveniently administered without a 
 considerable body of water. The plea that 
 the water was needed for other purposes than 
 baptizing is set aside by the language of the 
 sacred writer. For the reason why John was 
 baptizing there (not why he was preaching 
 there), was because there was much water in 
 the place. 
 
 24. For John was not yet cast into 
 prison. A seemingly incidental remark, 
 occasioned perhaps by the circumstance that 
 the first three Evangelists had given no ac- 
 count of the contemporaneous ministry of 
 Jesus and of .John. The definite article might 
 be inserted before prison, making the form of 
 the translation agree with the original ; for 
 the reference is to the well-known prison or 
 imprisonment of John. 
 
 25, 26. OcPAsiON OF John's Further 
 Testimony for .Tesus. The account just 
 given was probably inserted with a view to 
 what now follows. 
 
 25. Then there arose. (Better, as in Rev. 
 Ver., there arose therefore a questioning on 
 'the part of John s disciples with a Jew about 
 
 purifying). "Therefore" {ivv) represents 
 this dispute as a consequence of the adminis- 
 tration of baptism by Jesus and hj John at 
 the same time; and the words of the Evan- 
 gelist seem to indicate that it was begun hy 
 tlie disciples of John. The Jew, whether ;i 
 friend or an enemy of .Jesus, had doubtless re- 
 ])orted that multitudes were receiving baptism 
 from the Lord; and this report led to a dis- 
 cussion on the origin and meaning of the rite 
 as a s^mibol of purification. Had Jesus as 
 well as John a right to administer it? If so, 
 was its meaning the same when administered 
 by John and b^' Jesus? Or, was its value 
 greater in the latter case than in the former? 
 Were the ministrj' and baptism of John to be 
 superseded by those of Jesus ? Such may 
 have been the questions discussed, as we infer 
 from the terms of this verse and of those that 
 follow. 
 
 26. Rabbi, he that Avas Avith thee be- 
 yond (tlie) Jordan, to Avhom thou barest 
 (hast borne) AA'itness, behold, the same 
 baptizeth, and all men come to him. 
 Wisely do the followers of John repair to 
 him for instruction. But their language be- 
 trays a feeling of jealousy for the honor of 
 their Master, a fear lest the growing influence 
 of Christ should weaken that of John. Yet 
 they do not go so far as to criticise the minis- 
 try of Jesus ; they merely suggest their per- 
 plexity and their feeling, by a brief statement 
 of the case. It is probable that, with their 
 jealousy for the honor of John, there was 
 mingled a desire to know more exactly his 
 relation, and their own, likewise, to Jesus. 
 They were not left in doubt, as the narrative 
 of the Evangelist shows. 
 
 27-30. Last Recorbed Testimony of 
 John the Baptist. 
 
 27. A man can receive nothing, except 
 it be (or, have been) given him from heaven. 
 A universal truth which .J(jhn enunciates with 
 reference either to himself, or to Jesus, or to 
 both. No man has any claim to oflBce, honor. 
 
Ch. III.] 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 107 
 
 28 Ye yourselves bear me witness, that I said, "I am 
 not the Christ, but *tiiat I am sent before him. 
 
 29 •'He that hath the bride is the bridegroom : hut 
 ''(he friend of the bridejirooni, whieh staudelh and 
 Leareth him, rejoiceth greatly because of the bride- 
 groom's voice : this my joy therefore is fulfilled. 
 
 28 heaven. Ye yourselves bear me witness, that I 
 said, 1 am not the Christ, but that I am sent beloro 
 
 29 him. lie that hath the bride is the bridegroom: 
 but the friend of the bridegroom, who staudelh and 
 heareth him, rejoiceth greatly because of the bride- 
 groom's voice : this my joy therefore is made full. 
 
 oeli. 1: 20, 27....6 M;il. 3 : 1 ; Murk 1:2; Luke 1 : 17 e Matt. 22:2; 2 Cor. U: 2; Eph. 5 : 25, 27 ; Rev. 21 : 9.... d Cant. 5 : 1. 
 
 or success. These are all gifts from God, and 
 may be increased or diminishtsd tis he plea.ses. 
 The principle is applied to the priestly office 
 in Heb. 5: 4. Forgetfulness of it has filled 
 many a heart with pain; remembrance of it 
 has filled many a heart with peace. It is, 
 however, impossible to determine whether 
 John announced this principle because it was 
 applicable to himself, or because it was ap- 
 plicable to Jesus, or because it was applicable 
 to both. But, in view of the whole context, 
 we believe it safe to adopt the last hypothesis. 
 The change which was taking place in public 
 sentiment, by which Jesus was increasing and 
 John decreasing in importance, had its source 
 in the counsels of heaven. 
 
 28. Ye yourselves bear me witness. 
 The very men who were now troubled at the 
 waning influence of John, and the growing 
 influence of Jesus, ought to have anticipated 
 this; for they themselves had heard from the 
 lips of their powerful teacher words which 
 foreshadowed what was now coming to pass. 
 He had done what he could to prepare them 
 for it. That I said, I (myself) am not the 
 Christ, but that I am (or, have been) sent 
 before him. Referring probably to his an- 
 swer to the deputation from the Pharisees 
 (i:i9--'8). An answer the substance of which 
 had been repeated more than once. It ap- 
 pears therefore that some of those who came 
 to John from the dispute with a Jew had 
 been his disciples for a considerable time; 
 yet it is by no means certain that they were 
 present when he cried : " Behold, the Lamb 
 of God, that taketh away the sin of the 
 world! " 
 
 But why had not John sent his disciples to 
 Jesus from the hour when he knew him to be 
 the Christ? Or why had he baptized men 
 who were not yet ready to follow Jesus? 
 Doubtless because this was his mission ; be- 
 cause he was sent to lead men to repentance 
 as the best preparation for the Messiah, rather 
 than to convince them that Jesus was the 
 Messiah. Christ himself proposed to furnish 
 the evidence of his Messiahship, and it was to 
 
 be better evidence than even John could give 
 (5:36,37). It is not therefore surprising that 
 John's ministry continued essentially un- 
 changed to the last, whether he taught that 
 the Christ was now coming, or that he had 
 already appeared. 
 
 The pronoun "him" {Uilvov) is supposed 
 to refer, not to the Christ of the preced- 
 ing clause, but to Jesu.s, as described in 
 ver.se 26. It means "that one" of whom 
 you have spoken. (So Bengel, Liicke, De 
 Wette, Meyer, Lange, Alford.) 
 
 29, He that hath the bride is the 
 bridegroom. By the bride is here meant 
 the true people of God; and the language 
 of John is to this efl^ect : From the fact that 
 multitudes are flocking to Jesus, and becom- 
 ing his disciples, j'ou ought to infer that he is 
 their Lord; for he who has the bride is the 
 bridegroom. There is no article before bride- 
 groom in the Greek original ; it is therefore 
 the predicate, and the interpretation now 
 ■given is required by the language. But the 
 friend of the bridegroom, which (or, wAo) 
 standeth and heareth him, rejoiceth 
 greatly (or, with joy) because of the 
 bridegroom's voice. According to Jew- 
 ish custom, the business of negotiating and 
 completing a marriage was entrusted to a 
 friend of the bridegroom; and therefore, 
 when at the wedding he heard the voice of 
 the bridegroom conversing with the bride, 
 he rejoiced at the successful accomplishment 
 of the task committed to him. "To rejoice 
 with joy is to rejoice greatly, with joy, and 
 joy only."— (Schafl\) The beautiful figure 
 which John here uses to set forth the rela- 
 tion of Christ to his people is found in the 
 Old Testament as well as in the New (isa. 54:5; 
 
 Hos. 2:19,20: Ps.45; Eph.5:.S2; Rev. 19:7; 21:2.9); but, 
 
 in using this figure, he alone assigns a place 
 to the friend of the bridegroom. Yet the 
 
 place which he assigns to himself, as "the 
 friend of the bridegroom," is one that he 
 nobly and truly filled; and the addition of 
 this feature to the comparison does not mar 
 in the least its dignity or beauty. This my 
 
108 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 [Ch. III. 
 
 30 He must increase, but I nmst decrease. 
 
 31 "He that coiiieth from al)ove 'is above all: "he 
 that is of the earth is earthly, and speaketh of the 
 earth: <'he that coiueth from heaven is above all. 
 
 :V2 And «what he hath seen and heard, that he 
 testifieth; and no man receiveth his testimony. 
 
 30 He must increase, but I must decrease. 
 
 31 He that cometh from above is above all : he that is 
 of the earth is of the earth, and of the earth he 
 speaketh: i he that cometh from heaven is above 
 
 32 all. What he hath seen and heard, of that he bear- 
 eth witness ; aud no man receiveth his witness. 
 
 a ver. 13 ; ch. 8: 23 6 Matt. 2S : 18: ch. 1 : 15. 27; Rnn 
 
 • wt. II; eh. B : 26 ; 15 : lo. 1 Some aucieut auihoiiti 
 
 9:5....c 1 Cor. 15: 47 d ch. 6: 33: 1 Cor. 15 : 47 ; Eph. 1 : 21 ; Phil 2:9.... 
 
 ! read, he that cometh from heaven beareth witness of what he hath seen and 
 heard. 
 
 joy therefore is fulfilled. Or, to copy I 
 more closely the form of the Greek expres- | 
 sion : This joy which is mine has therefore 
 been madefuU, i. e., complete. Not a ripple j 
 of envy pus.ses over the mighty prophet's j 
 soul ; hut lie is glad, with a pure and perfect j 
 gladness, that the eyes of the people are turn- I 
 ing to tlie King in his beauty. He is satisfied 
 with the joy which belongs to himself, as the 
 friend of the bridegroom. 
 
 30. He must increase, but I must de- 
 crease. By a holy necessity, grounded in 
 the ))urpose of God, in the nature of . the 
 Messiah, and in the work which he does for 
 the world (i:29), must the power, the influ- 
 ence, and the glory of Jesus become greater 
 and greater forever. "Of the increase of his 
 government and peace there shall be no 
 end" (isa. 9:7). But by a divine necessity, 
 no less profound and reasonable, the import- 
 ance of John's work will decrease, and the 
 end of his mis.sion soon come. 
 
 Are the remaining words of this chapter 
 (ver. 31-36) thosc of John the Bajitist, or those 
 of the Evangelist? Many affirm that neither 
 the sentiment nor the style belongs to the 
 Baptist, while both direct us to the Evan- 
 gelist. Says Westcott: "The verses 27-30 
 are in form clear and sharp, with echoes of 
 the abrupt prophetic speech. These ( 3i-:« ) 
 have a subtle undertone of thought, which 
 binds them together closelj', and carries them 
 forward to the climax in ver. 36." He al-so 
 insists that ver. 31 and 32 refer to words of 
 the Lord in ver. 11 ff., and ver. 35 to 10: 28, 
 29; a reference which would have been ob- 
 vious in case of the Evangelist, but impossible 
 in case of the Baptist; moreover, that it 
 would have been unnatural for the Baptist to 
 have used the words of ver. 29 in connection 
 with the report made to him in ver. 26, and 
 his own language in ver. 27-30; still further, 
 that "the use of the title 'Son' absolutely 
 (ver. 35. 36) appears to be alien from the posi- 
 tion of the Baptist" ; and finallj', that "the 
 aori.sts in ver. 83 describe the later experience 
 
 of Christian life (cf. 1: 16)." These reasons 
 are sufficient to overcome the improbability 
 that the Evangelist would have passed with- 
 out notice from the record of the Baptist's 
 wt)rds to his own testimony concerning Jesus. 
 Indeed, the words of the Baptist were a text 
 which might easily suggest to him his own 
 brief, but profound discourse. 
 
 31. He that cometh from above, is 
 above all. This language describe* Jesus as 
 one wlio, from the heavenly world where he 
 was from eternit3', comes down and draws 
 near to men in his ever-present and continu- 
 ous work. The word all in the expression 
 is above all, though probably masculine, 
 does not refer, as has been supposed, to a 
 single class of men, viz., the authorized in- 
 terpreters of God's will, but to all men with- 
 out exception. He that is of the earth is 
 earthly, aud speaketh of the earth (better, 
 is of the earth, and of the earth he speaketh. 
 Rev. Ver. ) Of, or/rom, the earth, is emphatic 
 in the second and third clauses. He that is 
 of the earth — let it be remembered — of the 
 earth is he, and therefore from the earth he 
 s])eaks, i. e., from an earthly stand-point and 
 experience. Such a man cannot speak as one 
 from heaven ; for he has never been there, 
 and is a stranger to the experience of that 
 higher world. The Evangelist does not here 
 deny his own inspiration, or affirm that his 
 teaching is confined to earthlj' things; but he 
 confesses that he cannot bear witness of heav- 
 enlj' things, or teach more than is given him 
 by another. He that cometh from heaven 
 is above all. An emphatic repetition to ])re- 
 pare the minds of his hearers for the next 
 statement. 
 
 32. And Avhat he hath seen and heard, 
 i. e., in heaven, before his appearance among 
 men. This interpretation is required hy the 
 context. By the use of the perfect tense, 
 "hath seen and heard," the past is closely 
 connected with the present. That he tes- 
 tifieth. For one who has seen and heard, is 
 competent to bear witness. His knowledge is 
 
Ch. III.] 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 109 
 
 33 He that hath received his testimony " hath set 
 to his seal that (iod is true. 
 
 34 'For he wliom (_>(xl hath sent speaketh the words 
 of God: for God giveth uot the Spirit =by measure 
 unto him. 
 
 35 "^The Father loveth the Son, and hath given all 
 things into his hand. 
 
 36 ^He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting 
 life: and he that believetli not the Son shall not see 
 life; but the wrath of God abideth on him. 
 
 33 He that hath received his witness hath set his seal 
 
 34 to this, that God is true. For lie whom (iod hath 
 sent .speaketli tlie words of (iod: for lie givetli not 
 
 3-5 the Spirit by measure. The Fallier loveth the Son, 
 
 3G and bath given all things into his hand. He that. 
 
 bolievfth on the Son hath eternal life; but he that 
 
 'obeyeth not the Son shall not see life, but the 
 
 wrath of God abideth on him. 
 
 a Rom. 3 : 4 ; 1 John : 
 
 : 10 h cli. 7: 16 c ch. 1 : 16 d Matt. 11 : 27; 2K : 18; Liike 10: 2;; cli. 5 : 20. 22 ; i:i: 3; 17: 2; Heb. 
 
 e Hiib. 2:4; ch. 1 : 12 ; 6 : 47 ; ver. 15. 16 ; Rom. 1 : 17 ; 1 John 5 ; 10. 1 Or, belieoetit not. 
 
 original and positive. And no man re- 
 ceiveth his testimony. A hyperbole, re- 
 vealing deep sadness on tlie part of the 
 Evangelist because so few had received the 
 Lord in faith. "The close of the apostolic 
 age, was a period of singular darkness and 
 hopelessness." — Westcott. So few, as com- 
 pared with the world of mankind, had ac- 
 cepted the gospel, that it seemed as if no one 
 was willing to believe. 
 
 33. He that hath received his testi- 
 mony. By this expression the Evangelist 
 qualities the exaggeration of his previous 
 statement. There were indeed some, yet 
 very few in comparison with the whole 
 world, who had welcomed Jesus as the Mes- 
 siah, and had accepted his word as divine. 
 Hath set to his seal that God is true 
 (better, hnth set his seal to this, that God is 
 true). "To set a seal," or "to seal," is here 
 used in a figurative sense, and means to ratify, 
 confirm, or solemnly declare. The substance 
 of what is ratified or declared is this : that 
 God is true. (See John 6: 27 ; Koin. 4:11; 
 15: 28; 1 Cor. 9: 2; 2 Cor. 1: 22; Eph.l: l-S.) 
 
 34. For he whom God hath sent (rather, 
 sent) speaketh the words of God. Since 
 Jesus is the interpreter of God to men, to re- 
 ceive his testimony as true, is to acknowledge 
 the supreme veracity of God. For God giv- 
 eth not the Spirit by measure. This state- 
 ment assigns a reason for the preceding one. 
 It must therefore show why the Sent of God 
 is to be regarded as speaking the words of 
 God. Hence the giving of the Spirit here 
 mentioned inust be a giving of the Spirit 
 to Jesus, the Sent of God. Even the Bap- 
 tist had witnessed the descent of the Spirit, 
 in the form of a dove, to remain upon Christ. 
 (See note on 1: 34.) Meyer holds that this 
 is a general proposition, meaning that God 
 does not give his Spirit in the same measure 
 to all, but rather to one more of the Spirit, 
 and to another less, as he pleased (i Cor. 12: 7 sq ). 
 
 But Jesus, in view of his origin and work, 
 must have received the fullness of the Spirit. 
 
 35. The Father loveth the Son. Even 
 John the Baptist had heard the voice from 
 heaven: "This is my beloved Son, in whom 
 I am well pleased" (Matt. .3: 17). But it would 
 perhaps have been more natural for him to 
 say, loveth his Son, than to say, loveth the 
 Son. And hath given all things into his 
 hand. "We need not be surprised," says 
 Tholuck, "that, with the absolute love of the 
 Father to the Son, he imparts to him, not 
 only the Spirit, but absolutely all things." 
 This statement, if made by the Evangelist, 
 was probably founded on the words of Jesus 
 
 himself (Matt. 11:27; 28:18; John 13: 3; 17: 1,2). 
 
 36. He that believeth on the Son hath 
 everlasting (or, eternal) life. Observe, then, 
 that eternal life begins here, and is condi- 
 tioned on faith in the Son of God. It is 
 therefore something above and beyond mere 
 conscious existence; it is a normal and blessed 
 fellowship with God, as well as with men. 
 And he that believeth not the Son. It has 
 been asserted that the word translated, be- 
 lieveth not(d7reiJuv), should be rendered "dis- 
 obej^eth," or "disbelieveth," on the ground 
 that a more hostile attitude to Christ than 
 one of mere unbelief is referred to. But un- 
 belief implies disobedience as certainly as dis- 
 belief To neglect the Saviour is to reject 
 him. For it is the duty of men to believe 
 in him. Shall not see life. Either here 
 or hereafter. Men who flatter themselves 
 that the world to come will bring some kind 
 of change in this respect, so that sin will be 
 consistent with true peace, disregard the plain 
 language- of Scripture. But the wrath of 
 God abideth on him. He has been already 
 judged (ver. \^,supra), and the displeasure of 
 God is even now coming down and resting 
 upon him. Thus we are plainly taught the 
 necessity of believing in Christ. Faith in 
 him is the only means of deliverance from 
 
110 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 [Ch. IV. 
 
 CHAPTEE IV. 
 
 WHEN therefore the Lord knew how the Pharisees 
 had heard lliat Jesus made and "baptized more 
 disciples than John, 
 
 2 (Though Jesus himself baptized not, but his dis- 
 ciples,) 
 
 1 When therefore the Lord knew how that the 
 Pharisees had heard that Jesus was making and 
 
 2 baptizing more disciples than John (although Jesus 
 
 the "wrath of God," that arises from his 
 steadfast and holy opposition to sin, revealed 
 in the moral nature of man, and in the uni- 
 form testimony of Scripture. 
 
 Ch. IV. 1-4. Jesus Keturns Through 
 Samaria into Galilee, Dec, a. d. 27. 
 1. When therefore the Lord knew how 
 
 (or, tliat) the Pharisees had heard. How 
 
 the Lord came to know this, whether by 
 supernatural or by natural means, the Evan- 
 gelist does not state. But the word there- 
 lore implies that there was a connection 
 between something already referred to, and 
 this knowledge of Jesus. That something 
 may have been no more than the facts re- 
 corded in 3: 22, 23; for on these facts de- 
 pended the report which tlie Pharisees had 
 heard, and the Saviour's knowledge that they 
 had heard it. If this is all to which the 
 therefore points back, the knowledge of Jesus 
 may have been strictly supernatural in origin. 
 But the something referred to may embrace 
 all the facts of the narrative from 3 : 22 to 3 : 
 30, or to the end of the chapter. And if so, 
 as seems quite probable, the Jew spoken of 
 (3:25) may have been a Pharisee, and his 
 words may have revealed to the disciples of 
 John what the Pharisees had heard, and with 
 what feelings thej' had heard it ; while some 
 of these disciples of John, moved by the last 
 great testimony' of their master, may have 
 repaired to Jesus and reported all they had 
 leiirned. In this case the knowledge of Jesus 
 would have been natural in its origin. B3' 
 the word Pharisees, in this verse, must be 
 meant the leaders of that sect in Jerusalem ; 
 for no doubt some of tlie Pharisees resided in 
 the country', and were direct witnesses of 
 the success of Jesus. Several of the early 
 manuscripts, versions, and Fathers, have 
 "Jesus," instead of the Lord, in the first 
 clause of this verse ; but a preponderance of 
 evidence favors the common reading. That 
 Jesus made and baptized more disciples 
 than John (more exactly, was making and 
 
 baptizingl It will be observed that making 
 disciples is here distinguished from baptiz- 
 ing them — a distinction which would be un- 
 necessary and unnatural if they were made 
 disciples by means of baptism. Hence this 
 language does not agree with the doctrine of 
 baptismal regeneration. Notice, also, the 
 present tense of the Greek verbs, reproducing 
 the report as it came to the Pharisees.^ 
 
 2. Though Jesus himself baptized not, 
 but his disciples. This is not, strictly speak- 
 ing, a correction of the report heard by the 
 Pharisees, for it is a maxim that "what one 
 does by another, he does himself" ; but it is 
 rather an explanation of the manner in which 
 Jesus baptized (cf 3 : 22). But why is this 
 explanation made? Doubtless because Jesus 
 refrained on principle from baptizing with 
 his own hands; either (1) because baptizing 
 in water is a ministerial act, as compared with 
 baptizing in the Spirit, and should there- 
 fore be performed by the servants, rather 
 
 > [A singular various reading here occurs. The word 
 " than " (jj), is omitted by a B (first hand) i. g r, a few 
 cursives, once by Origen, and by Epiphanius. The 
 Greek could then only mean " heard that Jesus was 
 making quite a number of disciples, and John was bap- 
 tizing tliem." This would seem intrinsically inadmis- 
 sible, as stating what cannot possibly be true, especially 
 as it would make ver. 2 utterly meaningless. Yet let it 
 be remembered that intrinsic probabilities must always 
 l>e cautiously handled, for an idea at first very startling 
 might nevertheless be irue, and might, by degrees, 
 come to appear quite possible, and even probable. It is 
 easy to account, on transcriptional grounds, for the in- 
 sertion of " than " (ij). On the other hand, how can we 
 account for its omission? Hort thinks of nothing but 
 a slip in copying, from thesimilarity of the Greek parti- 
 cle to the closing sound of the foregoing word, and 
 justly reckons it strange that such a slip should pass 
 into so many good documents. But in Mark 4: 21, an 
 evident, error in copying, "under the stand" (a "me- 
 chanical repetition" of the "under," which twice 
 occurs just before), is found in N B (first hand) in the 
 old uncial represented by 13, 09, and 34G, in 3.S, and, we 
 may now add, in the newly discovered 2 — the Codex 
 Rossaneusis — making a case nearly as remarkable as 
 that before ns. One cannot here feel quite satisfied, 
 but we seem compelled to retain "than." — B.] 
 
Ch. IV.] 
 
 JOHK 
 
 111 
 
 3 He left .Tudoa, and departed aRain into Galilee. 
 
 4 And he niiust needs go tUrougli .Samaria. 
 
 .5 Then conieth he to a city of Saiuaria, which is 
 called Sychar, near to the parcel of ground " that Jacob 
 gave to his sou Joseph. 
 
 3 himself baptized not, but his disciples), he left Ju- 
 
 4 da;a, and departed again into Uulilee. And he 
 
 5 must needs pass through Samaria. So he Cometh to 
 a city ot Samaria, called Sychar, near to the parcel 
 of ground that Jacob gave to his son Joseph : and 
 
 a Gen. 33 : 19 ; 48 : 22 ; Jo>b. 24 : 32. 
 
 than by the Lord, or (2) because any persons 
 baptized by the hands of Jesus would have 
 been in danger of attacliing undue import- 
 ance to that circumstance, and of falling 
 thereby into the sin of spiritual pride. The 
 former reason commends itself to Bengel, 
 Meyer, Lange, Godet, and others ; but the 
 latter is more likely to have influenced the 
 Saviour. For to him decorum was less than 
 the spiritual safety and brotherly love of his 
 disciples. Weiss supposes that he could not 
 himself baptize with water without appearing 
 to renounce an.y claim to being the Great, r 
 One, who was to baptize in the Spirit. Doubt- 
 ful. 
 
 3. He left Judea, and departed again 
 into Galilee. The occasion for his departure 
 is given in the first verse. And from the fact 
 that the Lord left Judea because the Phari- 
 sees had heard, as he knew, of his success in 
 making disciples, it may be certainly inferred 
 that he saw in their hearts or conduct signs 
 of hostility to himself. The centre of their 
 power was at Jerusalem, and the territory in 
 which their influence was controlling was 
 Judea. Inasmuch therefore as the hour of 
 his death was still distant, he withdrew for a 
 time from this part of the land. It has been 
 conjectured that he also discontinued the ])rac- 
 tice of baptizing his disciples — either through 
 fear of arousing opposition, or from some 
 other cause. But there is no evidence of 
 the fact, and therefore no reason to seek for 
 a cause. "That he gave up baptizing when 
 he left Judea, because the imprisonment of 
 John had brought a ban of uncleanness upon 
 Israel" fLange), is a capricious fancy. "That 
 those who were converted (as ver. 53) should 
 be baptized, was a matter of course (comp. 
 3: 5)." — (Mej-er.) Yet, if the disciples 
 of Jesus continued until the end of his min- 
 istry the practice of baptizing those who 
 professed to receive him as the Messiah, it 
 is surprising that the Evangelists nowhere al- 
 lude to this fact. It is therefore probable 
 that for some reason the practice was inter- 
 rupted for a time, to be resumed after the 
 Lord's death and resurrection, when its full 
 
 significance could be more readily perceived. 
 Whether the impri.«onment of John, which 
 seems to have taken place about this time 
 
 (Matl. 4:12; Maikl: Hj Luke4: 14), had anything tO 
 
 do with the Saviour's departure into Galilee, 
 is uncertain. 
 
 4. And he must needs go through Sa- 
 maria. Was this necessity geographical or 
 moral? If geographical, as interpreters gen- 
 erally assume, Jesus could not have been 
 near the Jordan when he started on his way 
 to Galilee, but must have been in the central, 
 southern, or western part of Judea. And 
 there is no reason to deny that he was thus 
 remote from the Jordan, so that the nearest 
 way to Galilee was through Samaria. But 
 there is, on the other hand, no special indi- 
 cation of haste in his journey (see ver. 40), 
 while the result of his labors in Sychar was 
 such as to justify the belief that a divine 
 necessity led him to select that way, that 
 the plan and purpose of his ministry moved 
 him to go through Samaria to Galilee. It 
 was probably safer, or, at least, less annoying 
 to go from Judea, through Samaria, to Gali- 
 lee, than to go from Galilee through Samaria, 
 to the temple in Jerusalem (Luke9:52). Tor a 
 bitter hostility, springing from ditFerences of 
 religious belief and worship, separated the 
 Jews from the Samaritans; and the latter 
 would be more likely to manifest their hos- 
 tility when they encountered the former go- 
 ing up to the temple, than when they saw 
 them going northward to Galilee. 
 
 5-20. Conversation With a Samari- 
 tan Woman at Jacob's Well. 
 
 5. Then (so, or therefore) cometh he to a 
 city of Samaria, which is called Sychar. 
 Many Biblical scholars, including Dr. Ed- 
 ward Eobinson, believe that Sj^char was, in 
 the time of Christ, the name of the ancient 
 Shechem ; and they generally propose to 
 account for the change of name by assuming 
 (1) that Sychar was "a provincial mispronun- 
 ciation of Shechem," or, (2) that it was "a 
 term of reproach," meaning "a lie," with 
 reference to the Samaritan faith. Others, 
 with greater reason, hold that it was a small 
 
112 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 [Ch. IV. 
 
 6 Now Jacob's well was there. Jesus therefore, being 
 wearied with /*(.? journey, sat thus ou the well ; and it 
 was about the sixth hour. 
 
 7 There conieth a woman of Samaria to draw water: 
 Jesus saith uuto her, (jive me to drink. 
 
 6 Jacob's 1 well was there. Jesus therefore, being 
 wearied with his journey, sat 2 thus by the i well. 
 
 7 It was about the sixth hour. There conieth a 
 woman of Samaria to draw water: Jesus saith unto 
 
 1 Gr. ipring : aud so in ver. 14 ; but not in ver. 11, 12. . . .2 Or. a> he was. 
 
 city situated farther east than Shechem, and 
 nearer to Jacob's well. For beautiful de- 
 scriptions of Shechem and its environs, the 
 reader is referred to Hackett's "Illustrations 
 of Scripture," p. 192 sq., and "Smith's Dic- 
 tionary of the Bible,'' under "Shechem." 
 Near to the parcel of ground that Jacob 
 gave to his son Joseph. With this state- 
 ment may be compared Gen. 33: 19; and 
 Josh. 24: 32. From the former, it appears, 
 that Jacob bought a parcel of ground near 
 Shechem for a hundred pieces of silver; and 
 from the latter, that the bones of Joseph, 
 when brought up from Egypt, were buried in 
 that piece of ground, which had become the 
 possession of the children of Joseph. These 
 two facts agree with the tradition that Joseph 
 received this land by gift from his father. 
 6. Now Jacob's well (or spring) was 
 there. Says Dr. Hackett: "The well is near 
 the western edge of the plain, just in front of 
 the opening between the hills where Nablous, 
 the site of Shechem, is situated. Before me, 
 therefore, as I sat there, was the town from 
 which the people came forth, on the report of 
 the woman, to see and hear the prophet for 
 themselves. Behind me were the fields, then 
 waving with grain; but at the earlier season 
 of the year, when Christ was there, recentlj'^ 
 ploughed and sowed. There is Gerizim just 
 at hand, at which the woman pointed at the 
 moment, o"r glanced with the eye, as she ut- 
 tered these words: 'In this mountain our 
 fathers worshiped.' In short, John's narra- 
 tive of the occurrence at the well forms a pic- 
 ture, for which one sees that the perfect 
 frame-work is provided, as he looks around 
 him, in front of the hills which enclose the 
 modern Nablous. . . . The original mouth of 
 the well is no longer visible on the outside ; a 
 vaulted roof having been built over it, 
 through which it is necessary to descend, in 
 order to reach the proper entrance of the 
 excavation. The aperture is barely large 
 enough to allow a person to crowd his body 
 through. I have no doubt whatever of the 
 identification of this well ; the various local 
 proofs which point to that spot, and the uni- 
 
 formity of the tradition, furnish an amount 
 of testimony respecting the question, too 
 strong to be set aside." (111. of Scrip., p. 
 199 sq. ) "The well," remarks Porter, "is 
 deep — seventy-five feet when last measured — 
 and there was, probably, a considerable ac- 
 cumulation of rubbish at the bottom. It is 
 entirely excavated in the solid rock, per- 
 fectly round, nine feet in diameter, with the 
 sides hewn smooth and regular. Sometimes 
 it contains a few feet of water but at others, 
 it is quite dry." (Handbook, p. 840.) But 
 this statement as to the "solid rock" is con- 
 troverted. " Lieut. Anderson, who descended 
 to the bottom in Ma}', 18G6, found it then 
 seventy-five feet deep, and quite dry. 'It is,' 
 he says, 'lined throughout with rough ma- 
 sonry, as it is dug in alluvial soil.' " (War- 
 ren's "Recovery of Jerusalem," pp. 464 sq. ) 
 Jesus therefore, being wearied Avith his 
 (or the) journey, sat thus on the Avell. 
 He had become very weary by the toilsome 
 way, and was now, as the perfect participle 
 (KCKOTTiaKios) indicates, feeling the eflTect of his 
 long-continued exertion. His weariness is 
 also brought to mind again b}' the adverb 
 thus. It was about the sixth hour. 
 That is, probably, about 6 p. M. ; a note of 
 time, which is partly due to the interest 
 which the Evangelist felt in the events of that 
 day ; and perhaps still more, to his recollec- 
 ti<m of the physical exhaustion of Christ, 
 occasioned by a long journey from morning 
 till near evening. How clearly is the human 
 nature of the Lord revealed by his weariness! 
 For soiTie reason the disciples appear to have 
 been less exhausted than their Lord. 
 
 7. There conieth a woman of Samaria 
 to draw water. By a woman of Samaria 
 is meant a native of the province, not of the 
 city of that name. Where this woman re- 
 sided, whether in S3'char itself, or in some 
 hamlet near the well, is not known. Nablous 
 is said to be about a mile and a half from 
 Jacob's well ; and if it occupies the site of 
 Sj'char, no one, except for a special reason, 
 would come so far to obtain water. Porter 
 says, however: "The mere fact of the well 
 
Ch. IV.] 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 113 
 
 8 (For his disciples were gone away unto the city to 
 buy meat.) 
 
 9 Then saith the woman of Samaria unto him, How 
 is it that thou, being a .Jew, askest drink of me, which 
 am a woman of Samaria? "for the Jews have no deal- 
 ings with the Samaritans. 
 
 10 .Ifsus answered and said unto her. If thou knewest 
 the gift of God, and who it is that saith to thee, (jive 
 me to drink ; thou wouldest have asked of him, and he 
 would have given thee 'living water. 
 
 8 her, Give me to drink. For his disciples were gone 
 
 9 away into the city to buy food. The Samaritan 
 woman therefore saith unto him. How is it that 
 thou, being a Jew, askest drink of me, wlio am a 
 Samaritan woman? ('For Jews have no dealings 
 
 10 with Samaritans). Jesus answered and said unto 
 her. If thou knewest the gift of God, and who it is 
 that saith to thee. Give me to drink; thou wouldest 
 have asked of him, and he would have given thee 
 
 1:3; Jer. 2 : 1.) ; Zech. 13 : 1 ; 14 : 8.- 
 alings with Samaritans. 
 
 eut authorities ouiit. 
 
 having been Jacob's, would have brought 
 numbers to it, had the distance been twice as 
 great. And even independent of its history, 
 some little superiority' in the quality of the 
 water, such as we might expect in a deep 
 well, would have attracted the Orientals, who 
 are, and have always been, epicures in this 
 element." But it does not appear that many 
 resorted to this well ; and it is unnecessary to 
 assume that the woman, though acquainted 
 with some of the people of Sychar, had her 
 residence in that city ; much less is it neces- 
 sary to identify Sychar with Shechem. It was 
 a nearer village. Jesus saith unto her : Give 
 me to drink. A request occasioned partly by 
 physical thirst, and partly, we may believe, 
 by an ever-present desire to communicate 
 spiritual good. It illustrates the Saviour's 
 wisdom in making even the wants of his own 
 humanity a means of approach to the souls of 
 men (comp. Mark 11: 12-14). To ask of one 
 a small favor, in fitting circumstances, is at 
 least to express confidence in his kindness, 
 and thus to open the way for friendly inter- 
 course. For no man wishes any expression 
 of goodness from a person whom he is re- 
 solved to treat as an enemy ; much less does 
 any one wish to be under obligation to a per- 
 son whom he hates. 
 
 8. For his disciples were gone aAvay 
 into the city to buy meat {or, food). The 
 absence of his disciples is here assigned as a 
 reason (for ydi) why Christ made the request 
 of the preceding verse ; possibly because they 
 had taken with them some apparatus of 
 their own for drawing water. This reason 
 does not, however, exclude the deeper ones 
 mentioned under verse 7. It appears, from 
 the words of the Evangelist, that, notwith- 
 standing their enmity, Jews and Samaritans 
 were accustomed to trade with one another for 
 the necessaries of life, and that even the 
 former would eat that which was purchased 
 from the latter. 
 
 9. How is it that thou, being a Jew, 
 askest drink of me, which am a woman 
 of Samaria? (Lit., Who am a Samaritan 
 woman?) The woman inferred, probably 
 from his dialect, that Jesus was a Jew ; 
 and Alford thinks there is a sort of play- 
 ful triumph in her question, as if she had 
 said: "Even a Jew, when weary and athirst, 
 can humble himself to ask drink of a Samari- 
 tan woman." In like manner Meyer detects 
 a vein of badinage in her question. Perhaps 
 it was rather a question of serious surprise at 
 the kind and respectful tone with which the 
 Saviour preferred his request to a Samaritan 
 woman. With this view the answer of Jesus 
 well agrees. For the Jews have no deal- 
 ings Avith the Samaritans. Many exposi- 
 tors consider this to bo a remark of the Evan- 
 gelist, accounting for the woman's answer, 
 and inserted for the benefit of persons not 
 familiar with Jewish history. It may be so, 
 yet there is no conclusive reason for thinking 
 that the woman herself might not have ut- 
 tered these words. "Would it have been un- 
 natural for her, in the circumstances, to trace 
 the non-intercourse to the Jews rather than 
 to the Samaritans, since she was expressing 
 her surprise that a Jew had forgotten it? On 
 the other hand, the explanation is one that 
 the Evangelist himself might naturally make 
 —perhaps, a little more naturally than the 
 woman. It is omitted by Tischendorf (8th 
 Ed.), and may, possibly, be an interpolation; 
 but the weight of evidence is strongly in its 
 favor. 
 
 10. If thou knewest (or, hodst known), 
 i. e., when I was asking you, a moment ago, 
 for water. The common translation, "if 
 thou knewest," though formally correct, is 
 liable to be misunderstood, as if it referred 
 to the present, the moment when Jesus made 
 the response. The gift of God. This is 
 called in the last clause of the verse living 
 water, and is described by Calvin as iota 
 
114 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 [Ch. IV. 
 
 11 The woman saith unto him, Sir, thou hast notliirig 
 to draw with, and the well is deep: from whence then 
 hast thou that living water? 
 
 12 Art thou greater thaa our father Jacob, wliich 
 gave us the well, and drank thereof himself, and his 
 children, and his cattle ? 
 
 11 living water. The woman saith unto him, iSir, 
 thou hast nothing to draw with, and the well is 
 deep: from whence then hast thou that living 
 
 12 water? Art thou greater than our father Jacob, 
 who gave us the well, and drank thereof himself, 
 
 renovationis gratia, or, "the whole blessing 
 of renewing grace." And who it is that 
 saith to thee, Give me to drink, that is, 
 One by whom the grace of God is revealed 
 and imparted to men. Thou {thyself, for 
 the pronoun is emphatic) wouldest have 
 asked of him. In other words, not he, 
 but thou wouldest have been the petitioner. 
 Notice the insertion of the pronoun thou 
 (cru) in the Greek, which does not, in such a 
 case, require the pronoun, except for em- 
 phasis. And he Avould have given thee 
 living water. By living water is here 
 meant the grace of God in Christ, which is 
 renewing, sanctifying, peace-giving, unfail- 
 ing. " By the gift he means the life, emana- 
 ting from him ; and the point of comparison 
 is its freshness and perennial character." — 
 (Tholuck. ) Living water is rather a figura- 
 tive designation of the source of that life, 
 and is therefore very nearly equivalent to 
 "grace and truth," by the united influence 
 of which the spiritual life is originated and 
 sustained. 
 
 11. Sir, thou hast nothing to draAV 
 with, and the well is deep. Not per- 
 ceiving the spiritual sense of Christ's lan- 
 guage, the woman takes him to mean by liv- 
 ing Avater, water welling up from its source 
 in the heart of the earth — fresh, sweet, spring 
 water. Such water might be found at the 
 very bottom of Jacob's Well; for this was 
 not a cistern, a reservoir, fed by water from 
 the surface of the ground, but a true foun- 
 tain (n-^yij, ver. 6), fed. by water from the 
 depths of the earth, which had been readied 
 by sinking the shaft {<i>peap) nearly, or quite, a 
 hundred feet. In Maundrell's time (March, 
 1697) it was one hundred and five feet deep, 
 and had fifteen feet of water in it. Dr. 
 Tristram ("Land of Israel," p 143, Ed. 3), 
 found in it only "wet mud" in December, 
 but towards the end of February it was 
 "full of water." (Ibid, p. 401.) From this 
 source she sees that Jesus cannot draw, for 
 want of the necessary apparatus, and there- 
 fore, reminding him of this, she asks : From 
 
 Avhence then hast thou that (or, the) living 
 water? "If thou canst not draw it from the 
 bottom of the well below, from what source 
 canst thou obtain it?" A pretty distinct in- 
 timation of her want of confidence in the 
 stranger's power to do what he said, or at 
 least of her feeling that his words had been 
 somewhat extravagant. 
 
 12. Art thou greater than our father 
 Jacob? That is, greater in power, so that, 
 without drawing it from the well, thou canst 
 furnish "living water" — perhaps by miracle, 
 as Moses did from the rock. Notice the em- 
 phatic thou, (<rv), and the interrogative par- 
 ticle (fiij), which assumes that the answer 
 should be in the negative. The woman says, 
 our father Jacob, because the Samaritans 
 claimed to be descendants of Jacob, through 
 Joseph. (Josephus "Ant.," VII. 7, 3; VIII. 
 4, 3; IX. 8, 6.) Which (or, ivho) gave us the 
 Avell, and drank thereof himself, and his 
 children (or, sons}, and his cattle ? The pith 
 of these clauses is contained in the statement 
 that Jacob drank from the well, and not at 
 all in the circumstance that he gave it to the 
 Samaritans. Deep as it is, Jacob drank from 
 this well, but only by drawing water there- 
 from; thou canst not then pretend to have 
 "living water" without the labor of drawing 
 it, unless thou art greater than our father 
 Jacob. It is, however, a touch of nature, 
 that the woman dwells on the use which 
 Jacob made of the well, by mentioning his 
 sons, with his flocks and herds, and especially 
 that she recalls the (traditional) gift of the 
 well to the Samaritans; for she was herself 
 a Samaritan by birth, sympathy, and prej- 
 udice. 
 
 Many interpreters suppose that, after utter- 
 ing the words: "Whence then hast thou that 
 living water?" the woman's mind turned 
 rather to the idea of some better kind of 
 water, and that she intended to say: "If 
 thou canst give better water than this, thou 
 must be greater than Jacob our father. This 
 was good enough for him ; and thou canst 
 not pretend to be of greater dignity or worth 
 
Ch. IV.] 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 115 
 
 13 Jesus answered and said unto her, Whosoever 
 driiiketh of tliis water shall thirst again : 
 
 14 Bat " whosoever drinkcth of the water that I shall 
 give hiiu shall never thirst ; but the water that I shall 
 give him 'shall he in hiiu a well of water springing up 
 into everlasting life. 
 
 15 =The woman ;saith unto him, Sir, give nte this 
 water, that I thirst not, neither come hither to draw. 
 
 13 and bis sons, and his cattle? Jesus answered and 
 said unto her. Every one that drinketh of this water 
 
 14 shall thirst again: but whosoever driuketh of the 
 water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but 
 the water that I shall give him shall become in him 
 
 15 a well of water springing up unto eternal life. The 
 woman saith unto hiiu, 'Sir, give me this water, 
 that I thirst not, neither come all the way hither to 
 
 a ch. 6: 35, 58 b ch. 7 ; 88 c See ch. 6:3*; 17: '2, 3 ; Rom. 6 : 23 ; 1 John 5: 20.- 
 
 than he." But this reference to the quality 
 of the water does not spring so naturally out 
 of the preceding question as does the view 
 given above. 
 
 13. Whosoever (or, every one ivho) drink- 
 eth of this water shall thirst again. 
 Jesus does not suffer himself to be drawn into 
 a discussion of his own greatness or power as 
 compared with that of Jacob. No side issue 
 diverts him from the end sought by this con- 
 verssition. He fixes the woman's mind on a 
 single point— the difference between the water 
 of the well, and the water which he is ready 
 to give— with the evident purpose of leading 
 her from the transient good to the permanent, 
 from the natural to the spiritual. This water, 
 referring to the well, brings temporary but 
 not lasting relief from thirst. Its effect soon 
 passes away, and leaves him who drinks of it 
 in the same state as before. Ever returning 
 thirst, with no progress towards a condition 
 without thirst ! — this must be expected, though 
 you drink of this well. 
 
 14. But whosoever drinketh of the 
 water that I shall give him shall never 
 thirst. The effect of my grace is enduring. 
 It does not pass away, and leave him who 
 receives it in the same condition as before. 
 The old thirst of the soul, raging and painful, 
 will not return. Faintness of spirit, in view 
 o"f sins unforgiven, will no more be felt. The 
 desire for peace, which only God can satisfy, 
 will no longer rage unsatisfied as before. 
 "God entered into my mind." says Augus- 
 tine, "sweeter than all pleasure, brighter 
 than all light, higher than all honor." "Cer- 
 tainly," remarks Bengel, "that water, so far 
 as its own nature is concerned, has perennial 
 virtue; and whenever thirst returns, it is 
 from a defect in the man, not in the water." 
 "It is no common water ; but water of which 
 a man should constantly be drinking; and if 
 ho did so, would constant!}' be satisfied, so 
 that there would be no recurring intervals of 
 desire and gratification " — (Hanna.) "The 
 Christian must continue to drink of the water 
 
 of life to the end "— (Schaff). It is, however, 
 to be remarked that, according to the re- 
 ceived text, the word drinketh, in this 
 clause, represents a Greek verb in the aorist 
 subjunctive, and therefore denotes a com- 
 pleted, not a continuous act. And there is a 
 sense in which a man receives Christ, or his 
 grace, once for all. His condition is thereby 
 permanently changed, and his thirst will 
 thenceforth be different from what it was be- 
 fore. (Compare Isa 12: 3; Kev. 7: 16, 17; 
 21. 6; 22: 1, 2.) Butthe Avatcr that I shall 
 give him will be (or, become) in him a 
 well {i. e., fountain) of water, springing 
 up into eternal life. The true believer 
 need not look abroad for the fountain of 
 God's grace; it has been opened in his own 
 heart, fresh and pure and sweet. In other 
 words, the Spirit and the truth of God have 
 entered into the life of his soul, and are felt 
 to be an abiding, indwelling, unfailing source 
 of spiritual peace, strength, and hope. He 
 can drink from a fountain which Christ has 
 opened within, the refreshing waters of which 
 he will never be able to exhaust in time or in 
 eternity. From the grace and truth of 
 Christ, which he has already experienced, 
 he will derive joy forevermore. The blessed 
 life now begun will rise into life eternal. 
 
 15. Sir, give me this water, that I 
 thirst not (or, may not thirst), neither 
 come hither (or, all the way hither) to 
 draw. From the last part of this verse it 
 appears that the woman did not yet perceive 
 the meaning of Christ. She knew too little 
 of spiritual good to discover it at once under 
 images of natural good. But she was moved 
 by the strange and serious, language of Christ ; 
 she was convinced that he had a great bless- 
 ing to impart; and, conscious of her toil in 
 bearing water from the well, she asked for 
 that which seemed to promise relief from this 
 toil. There is no indication of levity or 
 irony in her words. On the other hand, she 
 was so far convinced of the greatness and 
 goodness of Christ, as to be prepared for a 
 
116 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 [Ch. IV. 
 
 16 Jesus saith uuto her, Go, call thy husband, and 
 come hither. 
 
 17 The woman answered and said, I have no hus- 
 band. Jesus said uuto her. Thou hast well said, I have 
 no husband . 
 
 18 Fur thou hast had five husbands; and he whom 
 thou now hast is not thy husband : in that saidst thou 
 truly. 
 
 19 The woman saith unto him. Sir, "I perceive that 
 thou art a prophet. 
 
 16 draw. Jesus saith unto her. Go, call thy husband, 
 
 17 and come hither. The woman answered and said 
 unto him, I have no husband. Jesus saith unto 
 
 18 her. Thou saidst well, I have no husband: for thou 
 hast had five husbands; and he whom thou now 
 hast is not thy husband: this hast thou said truly. 
 
 19 The woman saith unto him, iSir, I perceive that 
 
 a Luke 7 : 16 ; 24 : 19 ; oh. 6 : 14 ; 7 : 40. 1 Or, Lord. 
 
 clear exposure of her sin, and a distinct 
 assertion of his Messiahship. Christ there- 
 fore gives to the conversation a more search- 
 ing and plainly religious turn. 
 
 16. Go, call thy husband, and come 
 hither. It is evident, from what follows, 
 that Jesus knew her manner of life from her 
 youth up ; why then did he say this? Proba- 
 bly to awaken in her a sense of sin, and to 
 give her an opportunity of confessing it. 
 " The first work of the Spirit of God, and of 
 him who here spoke in the fullness of that 
 Spirit, is, io convince of sin." — (Alford). It is 
 unnecessary' to seek for any further reason 
 for the Lord's word. 
 
 17. I have no husband. Tiie tone of 
 voice with which these words were uttered 
 may have been such as to betray a desire to 
 expose a mistake in the Saviour's language, 
 or it may have been such as to reveal a sense 
 of sin and shame. The latter is perhaps more 
 likely to have been its character than the 
 former. At any rate, what she said was true, 
 though it was not the whole truth. Thou 
 hast well said, I have no husband. By 
 the emphasis wliich Jesus gave to the word 
 husband (notice the change in the order of 
 the Greek words: " //?<s/;rmrf I have not, in- 
 stead of, / have not a husband), he prepared 
 the woman for his statement of her relation 
 to tlie man with whom she was living. The 
 whole truth must be uttered, if not in humble 
 sorrow by the woman herself, then in tender 
 severity by the Lord, to produce repentance. 
 
 18. For thou hast had five husbands. 
 These five were lawful husbands, and, what- 
 ever may be conjectured, there is certainly 
 nothing in the words of Jesus to show that 
 she had been unfaithful to any of them, or 
 had been divorced from any of them. And 
 he whom thou now hast is not thy hus- 
 band. Godet remarks that the position of 
 the pronoun thy (o-ou) before husband (avijp) 
 seems to imply an antithesis not expressed: 
 
 " not thine, hut another^ s husband." Yet he 
 adds very justly, as we think, that "it is not 
 necessary thus to press the sense of the pro- 
 noun." All that can be certainly known, is, 
 that she had been married five times, and 
 was now living in open vice. In that saidst 
 thou truly. Better, This hast thou said truly. 
 (Kev. Ver. ) A recognition of the literal truth 
 of her words, but not of their moral suffi- 
 ciency. Yet no such woman would have 
 been likely to say more on that point until 
 she had been brought to genuine repentance 
 before God. For her to have said: "The 
 man with whom I am now living is not my 
 husband," would have been out of harmony 
 with the preceding conversation; but what 
 she does say is extremely natural. The pic- 
 ture is life-like, and therefore credible. Meyer 
 is also justified in affirming that "the knowl- 
 edge of Jesu.s, in respect to the woman's re- 
 lations, is immediate and siqiematural. To 
 assume that he had learned the events of her 
 life from others, is contrary to the view of 
 the Evangelist; and there is no psychological 
 foundation for the opinion that his disciples 
 introduced into the conversation what they 
 afterwards learned, when once we are unable 
 to confine the knowledge of Jesus concerning 
 the moral state of others within ordinary hu- 
 man limits. Strangelj' and needlessly does 
 Lange imagine that the psychical influence 
 of the five men upon the woman had left 
 on her countenance traces which Jesus per- 
 ceived." 
 
 19. Sir, I perceive that thou art a 
 prophet. By this response the woman ad- 
 mits the perfect truth of his statement, inas- 
 much as she virtually traces it back to God 
 as its author; for a prophet was one who 
 spoke for Go<i, delivering to men truth 
 received from him. The woman, there- 
 fore, perceiving that Jesus had superhuman 
 knowledge, ascribes that knowledge to God, 
 and calls him a prophet. 
 
Ch. IV.] 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 117 
 
 20 Our fathers worshipped in "this mountain; and 
 ye saj', that in 'Jerusalem is the place where men 
 ought to worsliip. 
 
 21 Jesus saith unto her, Woman, believe me, the hour 
 Cometh, "when ye shall neither in this mouutaiu, nor 
 yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father. 
 
 22 Ye worship ''ye know not what: we know what 
 we worship; for "salvation is of the Jews. 
 
 20 thou art a prophet. Our fathers worshipped in this 
 mountain ; and ye say, that in .lerusalem is the 
 
 21 pl.ace where men ought to worship. Jesus saith 
 unto her. Woman, believe me, tlie hour coiueth, 
 when ueither in this mountain, nor in Jerusalem, 
 
 22 shall ye worship the Father. Ve worship that 
 which ye know not: we worship that which we 
 
 20. Our fathers worshipped in this 
 mountain. Subtle and often inexplicuble 
 are the movements of the human spirit. But 
 it is not surprising that the woman should 
 wish to introduce a topic less personal and 
 painful, for she was not so hardened as to 
 glory in her shame. Nor is it surprising 
 that she should select a religious topic, for 
 her heart was yet open to religious influences, 
 and she felt herself to be in conversation with 
 one who was a true prophet. Moreover, it 
 was extremely natural for her to refer to the 
 controversy between her own people and the 
 Jews concerning the holiest place for wor- 
 ship, for Jacob's Well was at the foot of 
 Gerizim, and her eyes were probably often 
 directed to this mountain. It may be also 
 that a certain indescribable candor, purity, 
 and gracit)usness in the Saviour's counte- 
 nance and tones of voice made her desire his 
 opinion on the question so long debated be- 
 tween the two peoples. On the whole, it is 
 difficult to imagine anj'thing more natural 
 in conversation than the introduction of pre- 
 cisely this topic, at this point, by the Samari- 
 tan woman. By our fathers she probably 
 meant, not Jacob and his sons, but the an- 
 cestors of the Samaritans of her own day. 
 Though the temple built by Sanballat on 
 Gerizim, in the time of Nehemiah (Josephus, 
 "Ant.," XI. 8, 2-4), had been destroyed, two 
 hundred years after, by John Hyrcanus (Jo- 
 sephus "Ant.," XIII. 9, 1), the Samaritans 
 still resorted to the place where it stood for 
 prayer and sacrifice. The few who still live 
 ill Nablous turn their faces to this mount in 
 praj-er, and kill the passover on it once a 
 year. And ye say, that in Jerusalem is 
 the place \vhere men ought to Avorship. 
 The question which seems to have been in 
 the woman's mind is rather suggested than 
 proposed. The answer, however, came as 
 promptly as if she had solicited it by a for- 
 mal question. 
 21. Woman, believe me, the (or, an) 
 
 hour Cometh, when ye shall neither in 
 this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, 
 worship the Father. Notice the introduc- 
 tory words, calling attention to that which 
 was to follow. They may may be compared 
 to the "verily, verily," with which, accord- 
 ing to this Evangelist, Jesus sometimes called 
 upon his hearers to believe an important 
 truth. Observe, also, that he lifts the wo- 
 man's thoughts above the controversy in 
 respect to Moriah and Gerizim, by remind- 
 ing her, with the authority of a prophet, that 
 a time was at hand when neither of these 
 would have any claim to exclusive, or even 
 special consideration, as a place of worship. 
 If the pronoun ye refers particularly to the 
 Samaritans, as the same pronoun in the pre- 
 ceding verse refers to the Jews, the words of 
 Christ predict the conversion of the Samari- 
 tans — a conversion which would lead them to 
 abandon their worship on Gerizim, without 
 leading them to resort to Jerusalem. " The 
 divine order of the temple worship is peda- 
 gogical. Christ is its object and end, its 
 fulfilling; the modern doctrine of the resto- 
 ration of the glory of Jerusalem is a Chiliastic 
 dream." — (Meyer). By the word Father, 
 says Grotius, "he tacitly hints the sweetness 
 of the new covenant. ( Tacita novi fcederis 
 suavitatem inmiit).'' 
 
 22. Ye worship ye know not Avhat. 
 (Better, Ve worship that ivhich ye know 
 not. — Rev. Ver.) This language is meant to 
 affirm not absolute, but comparative ignor- 
 ance on the part of the Samaritans as to the 
 object of their worship. They accepted the 
 Pentateuch, but rejected all the rest of tbe 
 Old Testament. Hence they knew much less 
 in respect to Jebovah and his purpose of 
 mercy, than had been revealed to the devout 
 Israelites. By rejecting a large part of the 
 truth which God had made known by sacred 
 history and holy song and manifold predic- 
 tion, they had put themselves in the condi- 
 tion of those who worship an unknown God. 
 
118 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 [Ch. IV. 
 
 23 But the hour conieth, and now is, when the true 
 worshippers shall worship the Father in "spirit 'aud 
 in truth ; for the Father seeketh such to worship him. 
 
 24 <:God is a Spirit: and they that worship him 
 must worship hint iu spirit and in truth. 
 
 23 know: for salvation is from the Jews. But the 
 hour comelh, and now is, when the true worshippers 
 shall worship the Father in spirit and iu truth: 
 1 lor such doth the Father seek to be his worship- 
 
 24 pers. • God is a spirit : and they that worship him 
 
 a Pliil. 3:3 6 ch. 1 : 17 c 2 Cor. 3: 17. 1 Or, for such the Father also seeketh 2 Or, God is spirit. 
 
 — We know Avhat (or, that ivhich) we wor- 
 ship. Jesus was addressed by the woman as 
 a Jew, and in accommodation to her use of 
 language, he associates himself with the 
 Jews, and saj-s : " We know that which we 
 worship." Hence it is comparative, rather 
 than absolute knowledge, which Christ here 
 claims. Speaking not for himself, but for 
 the Jews as a people, he could only mean to 
 say. We have a knowledge of God which is 
 worthy to be called knowledge, when con- 
 trasted with the light possessed by the Sa- 
 maritans. Farther than this his words do 
 not go. — For sahation is of {or, from) the 
 Jews. It was God's plan to have the salva- j 
 tion which he had provided for mankind 
 come to them from the Jews. Not only were 
 his clearest revelations made first to the cho- 
 sen people, but the Messiah liimself was to be 
 of the seed of David according to the flesh. 
 And if the Messiah was to be from the Jews, 
 God would not leave them without a knowl- 
 edge of himself. 
 
 23. But the (or, an) hour cometh, and 
 noAV is. In other words, the period referred 
 to is mainly future, yet it is already begun. 
 When the true Avorshippers — to wit, those 
 whose worship, being at once sincere and 
 intelligent, realizes the proper idea of wor- 
 ship—shall Avorship the Father in spirit 
 and in truth. The preposition in before 
 truth, should be omitted. The statement is 
 both a prediction and a description of true 
 worship. For, to worship the Father in 
 spirit, is to worship him in the innermost 
 soul, to pay unto him the homage of reverent 
 thought and feeling, of filial trust and love. 
 And this spiritual worship is better than any 
 formal service, depending on place and 
 ritual ; for it is inspired by the Spirit of God, 
 dwelling in a human spirit, and sanctifying 
 its service. Not a worship in flesh, sensuous, 
 ritual, confined to particular places, seasons, 
 forms, but a worship in spirit, ofl["ered wher- 
 ever there is a human soul quickened by the 
 Spirit of the Most High, is henceforth to 
 prevail among men. This rational worship 
 
 will not indeed reject outward rites, but it will 
 use them only as helps and expressions of 
 spiritual service (Rom. i: s; 12: i). To worship 
 the Father in truth, is to worship him 
 within the sphere of truth, or in fellowship 
 and conformity with truth. It is to render 
 him the honor and service which his own 
 nature, or the truth which reveals that nature, 
 prescrfbes. "Otherwise," as Meyer says, 
 "the worship belongs in the sphere of con- 
 scious or unconscious falsehood." The Sa- 
 maritans were to welcome the full and final 
 revelation of God in the person of his Son, 
 and to serve him in the light of that revela- 
 tion. Superstition, however sincere and 
 devout, is not acceptable worship. For the 
 Father seeketh such to Avorship him. 
 The Kevised Version is preferable : For such 
 doth the Father seek to be his worshippers. 
 Not only are the genuine worshipers of God 
 about to render him intelligent homage in 
 the sanctuary of their spirit, without feeling 
 it necessary to appear in Jerusalem or in 
 Gerizim ; but the Father also is even now 
 seeking to have those who worship him be 
 such as do this. This more spiritual economy 
 springs from the heart, plan, and action of 
 Jehovah himself, who will be a Father to all 
 who thus honor him. 
 
 24. God is a Spirit (or, God is spirit), 
 i. e., in essence; and therefore confined to no 
 mountain-tops, inclosed by no temple-walls. 
 Immaterial, imperceptible to sense, he is 
 everywhere in the fullness of his being; and 
 that being is personal, knowing, feeling, and 
 willing, with a knowledge that is infinite, 
 a love that is perfect, and a power that 
 is boundless. Hence the Psalmist cries: 
 "Whither shall I go from thy Spirit, or 
 whither shall I flee from thy presence? If 
 I ascend into heaven, thou art there; if I 
 make my bed in hell (or, make Sheol my bed), 
 behold thou art there. If I take the wings of 
 the morning and dwell in the uttermost parts 
 of the sea, even there shall thy hand lead 
 me, and thy right hand shall hold me" 
 (ps. 139:7-12). The translation, God is spirit, 
 
Ch. IV.] 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 119 
 
 25 The woman saith unto him, I know that Messias 
 Cometh, which is called Christ: when he is come, "he 
 will tell us all things. 
 
 26 Jesus saith unto her, ' I that speak unto thee am 
 he. 
 
 27 And upon this came his disciples, and marvelled 
 that he talked with the woman: yet no man said. 
 What seekest thou? or, Why talkest thou with her? 
 
 25 must worship him in spirit and truth. The woman 
 saith unto him, I know that Me.ssiah Cometh (who 
 is called <Jhrist) : when he is come, he will declare 
 
 26 unto us all things. Jesus saith unto her, I that 
 speak unto thee am he. 
 
 27 And upon this came his disciples; and they mar- 
 velled that he was speaking with a woman; yet no 
 man said, What seekest thou ? or. Why speakest 
 
 a ver. M: 39 b Matt. 26: 6;{. 64; Mark U: 61, 62; ch. 9 : 37. 
 
 appears to be the only correct one; for there 
 is no more reason for inserting the indefinite 
 article before the word spirit, in this phice, 
 than there is for inserting it before the word 
 "light," in the sentence, "God is light" 
 (ijohni:5). And they that worship him 
 must worship him in spirit and in truth. 
 Only such worship corresponds with his na- 
 ture. As he is present, though unseen, in 
 every place, and even in the innermost spirit 
 of man, nothing save the filial homage of that 
 spirit, illumined by truth, can be acceptable 
 worship in his sight. Two other interpreta- 
 tions of the expression, "in spirit and truth," 
 ought perhaps to be mentioned. According 
 to one of them, the word "spirit" here means 
 God's Spirit, as gracious influence, which, in 
 union with his truth, is represented as the 
 atmosphere or element of all true worship. 
 Worship that lives and moves, and has its 
 being in the grace and truth of God, is the 
 worship which he requires. It may, how- 
 ever, be questioned whether this interpreta- 
 tion of the word "spirit" is not imported 
 into the text rather than suggested by it, 
 while the doctrine which it finds is really 
 implied in the view given above. Accord- 
 ing to the other interpretation, the word 
 "spirit" is here used as the opposite of 
 "form," and the word "truth" as the op- 
 posite of "pretense" — Jesus teaching merely 
 that worship must be hereafter informal and 
 sincere. This is too euperficial. 
 
 25. I know that Messias cometh, which 
 is called Christ. Although the Samaritans 
 did not receive the later boolts of the Old 
 Testament as having divine authority, they 
 did expect a Messiah, and probably connected 
 the language of Deut. 18 : 18, with him. The 
 woman uses Messiah as a proper name, with- 
 out the article, doubtless because it was a 
 designation current in Samaria, as well as in 
 Judea, and because she was conversing with 
 a Jew. The explanation, which is called 
 Christ, may be ascribed either to the Evan- 
 gelist or to the woman. The latter appears 
 
 to have employed the Greek name in speak- 
 ing to the men of Sychar (ver. 2»). When 
 he is come, he will tell us (or, announce to 
 us) all things. These words may have been 
 due to a feeling that she did not understand 
 the wonderful language of Jesus, and must 
 therefore wait for instruction, which could 
 only be given by the Christ; or they may 
 have been due to a suspicion that Christ was 
 perhaps now conversing with her. Trench 
 sees in these words of the woman a cry of 
 helplessness, connected with a timid presenti- 
 ment, such as she hardly dares own, much 
 less ventures to utter: "Thou perhaps art he 
 whom we look for." — (Schaff.) The latter 
 account of her language is probably correct; 
 though it is also reasonable to presume that 
 she was conscious of something in his words 
 that she did not fully comprehend. 
 
 26. I that speak unto thee am he. (Or, 
 / that talk to thee; 6 AoAwk, of familiar con- 
 versation). Wh}' did Jesus, speaking with 
 this woman, declare himself to be the Mes- 
 siah, while he avoided making this declara- 
 tion among the Jews? Several reasons may 
 be suggested, e. g., (1) he may have discerned 
 in the woman's heart a desire to know the 
 truth ; (2) he doubtless foresaw that he should 
 remain but a short time in the place; and (3) 
 he knew that an avowal of his Messiahship 
 in that place would lead to no political ex- 
 citement. "The Jews looked upon the Mes- 
 siah as the king of Israel, and expected from 
 him, first of all, political changes (comp. John 
 6: 15); while the Samaritans, deriving their 
 Messianic expectations chiefly from Deut. 18: 
 15-19, regarded him simply as a prophet or 
 teacher, and were less liable to abuse this 
 revelation for disturbing political purposes." 
 {Schaff.) 
 
 27. And upon this came his disciples; 
 ?'. e., as Jesus was making this last remark to 
 the woman, his disciples arrived at the well, 
 on their return from the city. And they 
 marvelled (or, were wondering ; eSau/oia^ov is 
 substituted for l^autiaaav by Lach., Tisch., 
 
120 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 [Ch. IV. 
 
 28 The woinan then left her waterpot, and went her 
 way into the city, and saith to tlie lueu, 
 
 29 Come, see a man, "which told me all things that 
 ever I did : is not this the Christ? 
 
 28 thou with her? So the woman left her waterpot, 
 and went away into the city, and saith to the men, 
 
 29 Come, see a man, who told me all things that ever I 
 
 Treg., and West, and Hort, according to the 
 best evidence). While they were drawing 
 near to the well, from some distance, they were 
 observing and wondering that he talked 
 with the woman (or, rather, was talking 
 with a woman.) The tense of these verbs is 
 one that represents action in progress, action 
 which is continuous rather than momentary. 
 The wonder of the disciples was not occa- 
 sioned by anything which they knew of this 
 particular woman, but by the simple circum- 
 stance that he was talking with a woman. 
 They now saw, perhaps for the first time, 
 how far the holy independence and divine 
 compassion of Jesus lifted him above the 
 Oriental and Rabbinic contempt for woman, 
 in which they had been educated. (See 
 Lightfoot, Tholuck). For it was said by 
 some of the Jewish doctors that "a man 
 should not salute a woman in a public place, 
 not even his own wife," and that it was "bet- 
 ter that the words of the law should be burnt 
 than delivered to women." Yet no man 
 said : What seekest thou? or, Why talk- 
 est thou with her? They did not presume 
 to call in question his action, by asking what 
 he desired from the woman, or why he con- 
 versed with her. A feeling of awe restrained 
 them. Is it not probable that the face of 
 Jesus was lighted up at the moment with 
 divine joy, because he saw that a lost soul 
 was beginning to drink of the water of life? 
 They wondered in silence. Would that some 
 others were as reverent as they ! Criticism is 
 often foolish, though it is sharp; and si- 
 lence is often wise, because it is humble and 
 trustful. 
 
 28. Then=Mer<;/ore— either because the 
 arrival of the disciples interrupted the con- 
 versation, or because the final declaration of 
 Jesus made so deep an impression upon her 
 mind: the latter is to be preferred —the 
 woman left her waterpot — forgetful, it 
 may be, of the object for which ^he had come 
 to the well, or else purposing to return at 
 once, after reporting to others what she had 
 learned— and went her way (or, away) into 
 the city— which was a mile and a half from 
 
 the well, if Sychar was not nearer than the 
 itiodern Nablous. AVe assume, however, that 
 it was much nearer. Yet this walk would 
 furnish time for reflection on the words of 
 Jesus, and for resolving what she would say 
 to the people. And saith to the men : 
 whom she met as she entered the city ; for 
 she appears to have told her wonderful story 
 to the people whom she first saw. 
 
 29. Come, see a man which told me 
 all things that ever I did. An invitation, 
 and a reason for complying with it. Nothing 
 which Jesus said made a deeper impression 
 on the woman than his exact account of her 
 past life. It seemed to her as if he had told 
 the whole sad story of it, though his words 
 were few; and she was so moved, that no 
 feeling of personal shame prevented her 
 from appealing to this proof of the stranger's 
 knowledge. And of all that Jesus had said 
 to her, this was probably just the part which 
 was most likely to arrest the attention, and 
 secure beforehand the confidence of the 
 people. It was something which they could 
 appreciate without difficult^', and which 
 gave evidence of prophetic, if not of Messi- 
 anic power. Is not this the Christ? The 
 Common Version, by introducing not, sup- 
 poses that the woman intimated that she re- 
 garded an aflirmative answer as correct. But 
 the form of her question, as recorded by John : 
 Can this be the Christ? intimates just the 
 opposite — that she wished to be regarded as 
 inclining to a negative answer. Thus : "This 
 cannot be the Christ, I suppose; do you 
 think he can? " Is there not in this form of 
 the question a trait of originality and reality 
 too delicate for any falsarius of the second 
 century? The woman, according to the 
 narrative, believed that Jesus was the Christ ; 
 would not a writer of fiction have suffered 
 her to intimate this in her question ? But in 
 fact she did not. For some reason she saw fit 
 to speak as if she were in doubt herself, and 
 a little inclined to think that Jesus could not 
 be the Christ, though she was anxious to have 
 the judgment of men on that point; and so 
 the Evangelist records her question as she 
 
C^H. IV.J 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 121 
 
 30 Then they went out of the city, and came unto 
 bim. 
 
 31 In the mean while his disciples prayed him, say- 
 ing, Master, eat. 
 
 32 But he said uuto them, I have meat to eat that ye 
 know not of. 
 
 33 Therefore said the disciples one to another. Hath 
 any man brought him aught to eat ? 
 
 34 Jesus saitli unto them, " My meat is to do the will 
 of him that sent me, and to finish his work. 
 
 35 Say not ye, There are yet four months, and then 
 cometh harvest ? behold, I say unto you, Lift up your 
 eyes, and look on the fields; ''for they are white al- 
 ready to harvest. 
 
 30 did : can this be the Christ? They went out of the 
 
 31 city, and were coming to him. In the mean while 
 
 32 the disciples prayed him, saying. Rabbi, eat. Hut 
 he said unto them, I have meat to eat that ye know 
 
 33 not. The disciples therefore said one to another, 
 
 34 Hath any man brought him (inr/hl to eat? Jesus 
 saith unto them. My meat is to do the will of him 
 
 35 that sent me, and to accomplish his work. Say not 
 ye, There are yet four mouths, and then cometb the 
 harvest ? behold, 1 say unto you. Lift up your eyes, 
 and look on the fields, that they are '- while already 
 
 oJob23:I'2; ch.6;.'i8; 17:4; 19:30 5 Matt. 9 : 37 ; Luke 10:2. ] Or, white vnlo harvest. Already he lliul leajieth. etc. 
 
 uttered it. "She believes more than she 
 says; but she does not venture to assume, 
 even as probable, so great news. Nothing 
 could be more natural than this little trait." 
 — ( Godet. ) 
 
 30. Then they went out of the city, 
 and came (or, wer'e coming) to him. The 
 oldest manuscripts and latest editors omit 
 Then. The tense of the last verb, v^ere 
 coming (^pxoito), represents action in prog- 
 ress, and thus prepares the mind of the reader 
 for a narrative of wliat took place at the well 
 while the people were coming. 
 
 31. In the mean while, i. c, in the time 
 which passed between the departure of the 
 woman for the city and the arrival of the 
 people from the city, his (rather, the) dis- 
 ciples prayed (or, asked) him, saying, 
 JMaster, eat. They had left him weary 
 and faint, and t\\&y naturally imagined that 
 he must be so still. How great then must 
 have been their surprise at his answer: 
 
 32. I have meat {food) to eat that ye 
 know not of. As Jesus had spoken to tlie 
 woman of spiritual refreshment under the 
 figure of "living water," so now he testifies 
 of spiritual nourishment under tlie figure of 
 food. Tlie aptness of his emblems is only 
 rivaled by their obviousness. He is at home 
 in the realm of nature, and his use of figura- 
 tive speech is perfect. Yet his words are not, 
 in this case, altogether figurative. For soul 
 and body are mj'steriously united, and the 
 joyful activity of the former is often a literal 
 refreshment to the latter. Spiritual satisfac- 
 tion seems to nullify bodily want. Hunger 
 ceases when the soul exults. It was after 
 fort3' daj's that Christ hungered (Matt. 4:2). 
 Observe the contra.st between the pronouns 
 1 and ye ; for the fact that these pronouns are 
 expressed in the Greek makes them in some 
 degree emphatic. Jesus knew, as the dis- 
 
 ciples did not, the refreshing influence of 
 spiritual service on the whole being, espe- 
 cially when that service springs from holy 
 love, and bears fruit to the glory of God 
 
 33. Therefore said (or, were saying) the 
 disciples one to another. The Evangelist 
 recollects how this question was passing from 
 one to another: Hath any man brought 
 him aught to eat ? The form of the ques- 
 tion (fi^ Tis) anticipates a negative answer; 
 but the fact that it passed from one to another 
 shows that the disciples did not comprehend 
 his deep and spiritual saying. In this re- 
 spect they were like the Samaritan woman. 
 Yet how frankly the Evangelist records their 
 dullness, even as if he were not one of them 
 himself. And how promptly Jesus proceeds 
 to express his meaning in words that the dull- 
 est must understand. 
 
 34. My meat {food) is to do (or, that I 
 may do) the will of him that sent me, and 
 to finish his Avork. Thus Jesus solemnly 
 afiSrms that the privilege of doing the will of 
 his Father, and of completing at last his 
 Father's work on earth, is his highest satis- 
 faction and refreshment. 'To carry on that 
 work, step by step, according to the Father's 
 will, and to have in prospect its completion 
 on the cross, is my food; and by this I have 
 been nourished and quickened while you were 
 gone to the city.' The original expression 
 here translated, to do . . . and to finish {'iva 
 n-otu), "emphasizes the end and not the pro- 
 cess, not the doing . . . and finishing, but 
 that I may do . . . and Jinish. (Compare 
 6:29; 15: 8; 17: 3; 1 John 8: 11 ; 5:3.)" — 
 (Westcott. ) "We are not sure of this distinc- 
 tion. The Greek expression seems to be fairly 
 represented in English by the infinitive. 
 
 35. Say not ye. There are yet four 
 months, and then cometh {the) harvest? 
 This question may be relied ..pon with rea- 
 
122 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 [Ch. IV. 
 
 36 "And he that reapeth receiveth wages, and gath- | 36 unto harvest. He that reapeth receiveth wages, 
 ereth fruit unto life eterual: tliat both he that soweth and gathereth fruit unto life eternal ; that he that 
 
 and he that reapeth may rejoice together. | soweth and he that reapeth may rejoice together. 
 
 sonable confidence as indicating the season 
 of the year when Jesus passed through Sa- 
 maria, and sat by Jacob's Well. It was 
 about four months previous to the beginning 
 of harvest. And as harvest began about the 
 middle of Nisan (April), at Easter, and lasted 
 till Pentecost, by counting back four months, 
 December is reached. Seed-time was about 
 the first of November, and therefore the fields 
 were now, it is probable, green with the spring- 
 ing grain. Says Dr. Hackett: "Of course 
 there is some doubt whether, in speaking of 
 the interval between sowing and reaping as 
 'four months,' he employed the language 
 of a proveb merely, or meant that this was 
 the actual time to elapse before the fields 
 around them just sown wouldyield a harvest. 
 Even if such a proverb was in use (which 
 has not been shown), his availing himself 
 of it would be more significant if the four 
 months of the proverb happened on this oc- 
 casion to coincide with the season of the 
 year." (Smith's "Diet, of the Bible,"' Am. 
 Ed., p. 1,861.) This is certainly a verj' mod- 
 erate estimate of the probability that Christ's 
 question determines the season of the year 
 when it was asked. Four points may be 
 made against the idea that this is a proverb. 
 (1) That no starting point for the period is 
 given; (2^ that the adverb yet is inserted; 
 
 (3) that the pronoun ye is emphatic; and 
 
 (4) that there is no other trace of the ex- 
 istence of such a proverb. Behold, I say 
 unto you, Lift up your eyes, and look on 
 the fields; for they are white already 
 to harvest. The conjunction translated for 
 should here be rendered that, as in the Rev. 
 Ver. The people from the citj', it may be 
 presumed, were now visible at no great dis- 
 tance, hastening through the fields towards 
 the well ; and by turning his eye upon them, 
 or stretching forth his hand towards them, 
 Jesus interpreted his words to his disciples. 
 More precious than the waving harvests of 
 Mukhna — a valley or plain unsurpassed in 
 point of fertility by any other region of Pa- 
 lestine (Hackett), were these approaching Sa- 
 maritans, who could now be gathered into 
 the garner of the Lord. These were to be 
 
 the first-fruits of the Gentiles, brought in by 
 the labor of Christ himself, assisted, it may 
 be, in some way by the presence of his dis- 
 ciples. For the Samaritans, who appear to 
 have expected the Christ as a teacher, rather 
 than as a king, received the truth at this 
 time with great readiness of mind. The 
 Pharisees, with more light, rejected Jesus, 
 the Samaritans, with less self-sutficiency, wel- 
 comed him. "Blessed are the poor in spirit " 
 It seems probable that the word already be- 
 longs to the next verse, rather than to the 
 clause before us. This change is required 
 by some of the early manuscripts, and is ap- 
 proved by Westcott, Schaff, Tischendorf, and 
 others. 
 
 36. And {already) he that reapeth receiv- 
 eth wages, and srathereth fruit unto life 
 eternal. This language announces both a 
 reward and a result of labor for the salvation 
 of men. Several interpreters, however, sup- 
 pose that the reward is found in the result, 
 "in having gathered many into eternal life." 
 — (Alford). But it is better to regard the 
 two as, in some measure, distinct; and, if 
 both may be thought of as reward, to look 
 upon that reward as twofold, present and 
 future, involved in the very nature of the 
 service, as well as in its result. The language 
 of Jesus also implies that the reaper, if not 
 the sower, is a servant, and, therefore, re- 
 minds one of the saying recorded bj' Mat- 
 thew: "The harvest truly is great, but the 
 laborers are few ; pray ye therefore the Lord 
 of the harvest, that he will send forth labor- 
 ers into his harvest" (9:37, as). (In order) 
 that both he that soweth and he that 
 reapeth may rejoice together. It seems 
 on the whole probable that Jesus means by 
 he that soweth, himself, or himself princi- 
 pally. "He that soweth the good seed is the 
 Son of man" (Man. i3:37) ; and in the present 
 instance, the gospel comes first to the Sa- 
 maritans from the lips of Jesus. Afterwards, 
 when Philip went down to Samaria, there 
 was a gi'eat ingathering; and, if it was in 
 Sychar, it may be presumed that the sowing 
 of Jesus at this time prepared the way for the 
 reaping by Philip a few j-ears later. At any 
 
Ch. IV.] 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 123 
 
 37 And herein ia that saying true, One soweth, and 
 another reapeth. 
 
 38 I sent you to reap that whereon ye bestowed no 
 labour: other men laboured, and ye are entered into 
 their labours. 
 
 39 And many of the Samaritans of that city believed 
 on him " for the saying of tlie woman, which testified, 
 He told me all that ever I did. 
 
 37 For herein is the saying true, One soweth, and 
 
 38 another reapeth. 1 sent you to reap that whereon 
 ye have not laboured: others have laboured, and ye 
 are entered into their labour. 
 
 39 And from that city many of the Samaritans be- 
 lieved on him because of the word of the woman, 
 who testified. He told me all things that ever 1 did. 
 
 rate, the sower and the reaper will rejoice to- 
 gether hereafter, when the result of both 
 sowing and reaping is fully revealed. The 
 work of Jesus resembled that of a sower 
 much more than it did that of a reaper. 
 
 37. And herein is that saying true : One 
 soweth and another reapeth. As to the 
 purpose of this language, nearly all interpret- 
 ers are agreed. Christ intends to aflBrm that 
 in the work of saving men through the gos- 
 pel, the idea which is expressed by the prov- 
 erb : One soweth and another reapeth, is 
 fully realized. But there is some difference of 
 judgment in respect to the proper rendering 
 and construction of the first clause. It might 
 be rendered very literally : For herein the 
 saying is the true [one] : One is he that sow- 
 eth, and another he that reapeth. This trans- 
 lation follows the order of the Greek words, 
 and accords with the interpretation of Liicke 
 and Meyer. "In this case (in this our com- 
 mon work) the proverb : 0?ie soweth and 
 another reapeth, finds its full application." — 
 (Liicke). The Bible Union translates : "For 
 herein is the true saying," etc. ; and Alford : 
 "For herein is [fulfilled] that true saying," 
 etc. I prefer the translation first given, 
 and the interpretation defended by Liicke, 
 IVIej^er, and others. The article before true 
 is doubtful. 
 
 38. I sent you to reap that whereon ye 
 bestowed no labor (or, whereon ye have not 
 labored) ; other men {have) labored, and 
 ye are (or, have) entered into their labors. 
 These words were intended to encourage the 
 disciples by a view of the work to which they 
 had been virtually appointed. The possi- 
 bility, the success, and the joy of that work 
 had been secured by wearisome toil on the 
 part of some who had gone before. But two 
 difficulties present themselves to an inter- 
 preter, (a) in the use of past tenses, while, so 
 far at least as the disciples were concerned, the 
 reference must be mainly to the future; and, 
 (b) in the use of the plural others (aAAot), 
 while the reference must be chiefly to Christ 
 
 himself In respect to the former, Alford 
 remarks that "here, as often, our Lord 
 speaks of the office and its work as accom- 
 plished, which is but beginning"; and 
 Meyer, that "the sending of the disciples 
 and the fulfillment of their mission, were 
 essentially involved in their being received 
 into the apostleship." It may as well be 
 said, that, to the eye of Jesus, the future 
 seems to have been already present, and the 
 work of his disciples already past. Not 
 only could he foresee the oak in the acorn, 
 the fruit in the germ, the future in the pres- 
 ent, but, if we may judge by his own words, 
 his point of observation was divine as well as 
 human, and he could survey that which was 
 to be, as if it had already been. In respect 
 to the latter difficulty, it is not unreasonable 
 to suppose that Jesus used the word others 
 (aWoi), because he wished to associate with 
 himself John the Baptist; for he was address- 
 ing a band of men who had been, mo.st of 
 them at least, recently disciples of John. 
 Meyer supposes that it is a plural of category, 
 and Alford, that it is purely rhetorical, to 
 correspond with the plural ye. Godet imag- 
 ines that Christ has in mind the Samaritan 
 woman also, who had gone into the city to 
 speak of him. "In respect to the whole 
 extent of the apostolic work, he thinks, no 
 doubt, of his precursor and of himself But, 
 with reference to the case before him, he 
 thinks assuredly of himself and of his agile 
 messenger. For he is pleased to recognize 
 the co-operation of the feeblest agent who 
 consents to be associated with him" (3:ii). 
 It is, however, exceedingly improbable that 
 he thought of the Samaritan woman in this 
 expression. Her relation to the work was 
 wholly different from that of Christ, of John 
 the Baptist, or of the apostles. The aorist 
 tense of the first verb "sent," is better suj)- 
 ported than the perfect. 
 
 39-42. Many Samaritans Believe in 
 Jesus. 
 
 39. From this verse it appears that many 
 
124 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 [Ch. IV. 
 
 40 So when the Samaritans were come unto him, 
 they besought him that he would tarry with them: 
 auJ he abode there two days. 
 
 41 And many more believed because of his own 
 word ; 
 
 42 And said unto the woman, Now we believe, not 
 because of thy saying: for "we have heard him our- 
 selves, and know that this is indeed the Christ, the 
 Saviour ol the world. 
 
 43 Now after two days he departed thence, and went 
 into Galilee. 
 
 44 For 'Jesus himself testified, that a prophet hath 
 no honour in his own country. 
 
 40 So when the Samaritans came unto hiiu, they be- 
 sought him to abide with them: and he abode there 
 
 41 two days. And luauy more believed because of his 
 
 42 word: and they said to the woman, Now we be- 
 lieve, not because of thy spealciug: for we have 
 heard for ourselves, and know that this is indeed 
 the Saviour of the world. 
 
 43 And after the two days, he went forth from 
 
 44 thence into Galilee. For Jesus himself testified, 
 that a prophet hath no honour in his own couutiy. 
 
 ach. 17: 8; I John 4. 14 h Matt. 13 : 57 ; Mark 6:4: Luke 4 : 24. 
 
 of the people belonging to Sycliar gave full 
 credit to the word of the woman, and, there- 
 fore, without asking for any miracle, be- 
 lieved in Jesus as the Messiah. "Whenever 
 Jesus found his word sufficient, he omitted, 
 on principle; the working of miracles." — 
 (Meyer. Y 
 
 40. A wise request and a gracious answer. 
 This simple incident may be studied as an 
 illustration of the nature of true prayer, and 
 of the readiness of God to bestow on his 
 people the greatest conceivable good — his 
 own presence; his own presence, not merely 
 for two days, but for all time and all eter- 
 nity ! 
 
 41. The sowing of Jesus was sometimes 
 reaping. In the present instance, more were 
 led to faith in him by his own word, than by 
 that of the woman. "What holy and quick- 
 ening truths fell from his lips during these 
 two December daj"s in the heart of Samaria! 
 Plainly enough, the Evangelist could not put 
 on record all that he said (21:2dj. 
 
 42. And said (or, were saying) unto the 
 woman. The remark was often made dur- 
 ing those days of profound excitement and 
 joy; but not, we may be certain, with any 
 feeling of contempt for the woman's testi- 
 mony. She had been too highly honored 
 by Jesus for them to despise her at that time. 
 Some, indeed, suppose that the word trans- 
 lated saying (AoAii), is here used by the Sa- 
 maritans in its classical sense of " mere talk " 
 — i. c, as compared with the powerful and 
 convincing discourse of Jesus; but against 
 this it may be objected, (1) that the word has 
 
 ' On the position of the word "Samaritans," in the 
 original, see the remark of Buttmann ("Grammar of 
 the N. T. Greek," p. 387) : " In Greek as in Latin, there 
 is a predilection for separating the PartilUe Genitive 
 in this way from its governing word, sometimes to 
 such an extent, that the two words belonging together 
 occupy the first place in the clause and the last." 
 
 this meaning nowhere else in the New Testa- 
 ment; (21 that Christ applies it to his own 
 teaching: "Why do ye not understand my 
 speech?" (John 8: 43); (3) that the Corresponding 
 verb is nowhere in the New Testament used 
 of mere talk; (4) that the Samaritans in this 
 very sentence admit that her words had pro- 
 duced in them. a belief in Jesus: "Now we 
 believe, not because of thy saj'ing" ; and (5) 
 that the circumstances do not render a con- 
 temptuous reference to her words probable. 
 It is noteworthy that thej- use very strong 
 language in expressing their present faith, 
 viz., Ave know, (oihaixtv) and that they recog- 
 nize in Jesus the Saviour of the Avorld. 
 Having accepted him as the Messiali, they 
 were prepared to learn that his mission was 
 to the world, rather than to the chosen 
 people only. In this respect they were more 
 docile than the Jews, and, though Jesus tar- 
 ried with them but two days, he was able to 
 convince them that he was the Son of man 
 appearing in the world for the salvation of 
 mankind. Nothing is more remarkable in 
 the ministry of the Lord than his wi.sdom in 
 adapting his instruction to the spiritual state 
 of those whom he taught. 
 
 43-45. Departuke into Galilee — 
 Keason for It— Reception There. 
 
 43. After (the) two days— namely, the two 
 days mentioned in verse 40. Galilee — i. e., 
 the province of that name. This is the most 
 obvious meaning of the word, and, if it is 
 used in any restricted sense, the fact must 
 be learned from the context. 
 
 44. Taken in its onlj' natural sense, this 
 verse assigns a reason for the Lord's going 
 into Galilee at this time, namely, that he 
 knew (for he bore witness to the fact) that a 
 prophet is not likely to be honored in his own 
 country. "Familiarity breeds contempt." 
 But why was this a reason for his going into 
 Galilee? A^arious answers have been given 
 
Ch. IV.] 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 125 
 
 45 Then when he was come into Galilee, the Galile- 
 ans received him, "having seen all the things that he 
 did at Jerusalem at the feast : ' for they also went unto 
 the feast. 
 
 46 So Jesus came again into Cana of Galilee, ''where 
 he made the water wine. And there was a certain no- 
 bleman, whose son was sick at Capernaum. 
 
 45 So when he came into Galilee, the Galiljeans re- 
 ceived him, having seen all the things that he did 
 in Jerusalem at the feast: for they also went unto 
 the feast. 
 
 46 He came therefore again unto Cana of Galilee, 
 where he made the water wine. And tliere was a 
 certain i nobleman, whose sou was sick at Cai)er- 
 
 3:2 b Deut. 16 : 16 c ch. '2 : 1, 11. 1 Or, king'a off 
 
 to this question. Thus (1) Alford says that he 
 wished to avoid fame at this time. "What he 
 desired was quiet and comparative seclusion ; 
 and these he would be most lii<ely to find in 
 the region where he had been known from 
 childhood. But this interpretation hardly 
 accords with the result, or with the so — or, 
 therefore (ovv) — i n verse 46. (2) Biickner 
 thinks that he anticipated special opposition 
 in Galilee, and therefore resolved to meet it 
 promptly. But this view does not agree with 
 the sequel. From this time onward his re- 
 ception in Galilee was more favorable than 
 his reception in Judea. (3) Wiesler supposes 
 that by his own country Judea was meant 
 as the place of his birth. But in the sense of 
 the proverb, Galilee, rather than Judea, was 
 his own country. For he was brought up 
 in Nazareth, and was considered a Nazarene. 
 Besides, he had on the whole been well re- 
 ceived in Judea. (4) Hengstenberg believes 
 that Nazareth is meant by his own country 
 (comp. Luke 4 : 24), while Lange believes 
 that Lower Galilee, including Nazareth, must 
 be meant. But the word Galilee seems to be 
 used in distinction from Judea and Samaria, 
 and not in distinction from the lower part of 
 the province. (5) Meyer thinks that Galilee 
 is referred to as his own country, and that 
 the reason for his return is rather suggested 
 than expressed by this designation. "If a 
 prophet, as Jesus himself testified, is without 
 honor in his own country, he must earn it in 
 another. And this Jesus had done in Jeru- 
 salem. He now brought with him the honor 
 of a prophet from a distance. Hence too 
 lie found acceptance with the Galileans, be- 
 cause they had seen his miracles in Jerusa- 
 lem (3:23)." This last view may be accepted 
 as the best j'et proposed. But the connection 
 of thought in the passage is obscure; though 
 the obscurity is not such as to shake in any 
 degree our confidence in the narrative. 
 
 45. Acting as the general law of society 
 recognized by his testimony required, Jesus 
 went into Galilee, and was received favorably 
 
 by the Galileans, because they had seen all 
 things that he did in the feast at Jeru.salem. 
 Observe that it was what he did, and not 
 what he said — his mighty works, and r.ot his 
 gracious words — which won their respect. 
 How unlike the Samaritans! And it wis 
 also what he did in Jerusalem, rather than 
 what he did in Cana or in Capernaum, which 
 made him now welcome as a prophet in his 
 own country. From the circumstance that 
 the Evangelist refers to the feast simply, 
 it is unsafe to infer with Westcott that no 
 "great feast" had occurred since the one here 
 referred to. John probably calls it simply 
 the feast because it is the only one that he 
 had yet mentioned, the one at Vv^hich Jesus 
 had wrought the signs here meant by the 
 things that he did. At this point may be 
 placed the work of Jesus described in general 
 terms in Matt. 4: 17; Mark 1: 14, 15; and 
 Luke 4 : 14, 15. 
 
 46-54. Healing of the Nobleman's 
 Son. 
 
 46. For some reason Jesus appears to have 
 passed by Nazareth, going at once to Cana 
 in Galilee. He may have done this, because 
 he wished to abide for a few days with Na- 
 thanael, one of his disciples (21:2), or with the 
 family in which the marriage, previously 
 described, took place. Or he may have re- 
 paired to this town, because he knew that the 
 inhabitants of it had been more deeply im- 
 pressed than others by his miracles in Jeru- 
 salem — with which some of them may have 
 associated the wonderful supply of wine at 
 the wedding a short time before. At all 
 events, whether for one reason or for many, 
 the Saviour returned to Cana, the scene of his 
 first miracle. Jesus came. The word Jesus 
 does not belong to the text, according to L. T. 
 Tisch., W. and H. It should read, he came. 
 And there was at (or, in) Capernaum. 
 Capernaum is connected by the preposition 
 in, with the principal verb was, though it 
 stands in the Greek original at the close of 
 the verse. A certain nobleman. The word 
 
126 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 [Ch. IV. 
 
 47 When he heard that Jesus was come out of .Tudea 
 into Galilee, he went uuto hiiu, and besought him that 
 he would come down, and heal his son: tor he was at 
 the point of death. 
 
 48 Then said Jesus unto him, "Except ye see signs 
 and wonders, ye will not believe. 
 
 49 The nobleman saith unto him, Sir, come down ere 
 my child die. 
 
 50 Jesus saith unto him. Go thy way ; thy son livetb. 
 And the man believed the word that Jesus had spoken 
 unto him, and he went his way. 
 
 47 naum. When he heard that Jesus was come out 
 of Judaea into Galilee, he went unto him, and be- 
 sought him that he would come down, aud heal his 
 
 48 sou ; for he was at the point of death. Jesus there- 
 fore said unto him. Except ye see signs and won- 
 
 49 ders, ye will in no wise believe. The i uoi)leman 
 saith unto him, ^Sir, come down ere my child die. 
 
 50 Jesus saitli unto liim. Go thy way; thy son liveth. 
 The man believed the word that Jesus spake uuto 
 
 a 1 Cor. 1 ; 2^. 1 Or, king's officer 2 Or, Lord. 
 
 (BaCTiAiKos), translated nobleman, is used by 
 Josephus to denote a royal officer or ser- 
 vant, whether civil, military, or domestic. 
 This nobleman is generally supposed to have 
 been an officer in the court or household of 
 Herod Antipas — possibly Chusa his steward 
 (Luke8:8), though of this there is no evidence. 
 Whose son was sick. Literally, the son 
 of whom. And Meyer suggests that the ar- 
 ticle may be used because he was an only 
 son. On Capernaum, see note at 2: 12. 
 
 47. That Jesus was (or, is) come, etc. 
 What the nobleman heard is repeated in the 
 very form in which he heard it; for the re- 
 port, as it passed from lip to lip, was this: 
 Jesus is come from Judea into Galilee. Hear- 
 ing this, and learning where he was, the no- 
 bleman went {away), i. e., from Capernaum, 
 unto him, in Cana of Galilee. Aud be- 
 sought (or, asked) him — the word ask {ipuiriat) 
 is here as often tised in the sense of request — 
 that he would come down and heal his 
 son. The tense of these verbs calls for ac- 
 tion prompt and complete. The father wished 
 to have it done at once ; he asked for a mirac- 
 ulous cure.^ For he was at the point of 
 death. As his son was at the point of death, 
 he felt that help must come very soon, or it 
 would be too late. How brief, yet distinct 
 and graphic is this account ! 
 
 48. Then (or, therefore) said Jesus unto 
 him. The conjunction therefore {ow), em- 
 ployed by John, proves that the saj'ing of 
 Jesus was occasioned by the nobleman's re- 
 quest, and the words unto him prove that it 
 was addressed to the nobleman. It will not 
 then do to affirm that this sas'ing refers to 
 others onlj', and implies no criticism on the 
 nobleman's attitude of mind towards the 
 Lord Jesus. It reads thus : Except ye see 
 
 ' 4va instead of on, because the reason why the re- 
 quest was made, or the end of making it, was identical 
 with the thing i-equested. — {Meyer.) 
 
 signs and wonders, ye will not believe. 
 
 At first sight this response appears to be un- 
 natural and severe. But it should be borne 
 in mind (1) that the nobleman may not have 
 come to Jesus because he had full confidence 
 in his power to heal the sick, but simply* as a 
 last resort, to see if peradventure this reputed 
 wonder-worker might not save the life of his 
 dear child; (2) that Jesus, reading his heart, 
 may have perceived that he would reject his 
 claim to be the Messiah, unless it was sup- 
 ])orted by evident miracles; and (3) that he 
 had no deep sense of spiritual need, preparing 
 him to appreciate, in ordinary circumstances, 
 Jesus as a holj'^ teacher and representative of 
 God. If so, this roj'al officer was but a fair 
 specimen of Galileans in general, so far as 
 belief in Christ was concerned, though de- 
 spair of help from any other source impelled 
 him to make trial of the Saviour's power and 
 grace. This view of his state of mind and 
 character accounts for the response of Jesus. 
 He was like the people, and the people like 
 him; and Jesus felt the difference between 
 the Galileans and the Samaritans. Yet the 
 answer of Christ was not a refusal to do what 
 the father asked. Nay, it was adapted to 
 strengthen his hope that Jesus could save the 
 life of his boy. Hence the urgency of his 
 position. 
 
 49. Sir, come down ere my child die. 
 My little child would be a more exact ren- 
 dering of the Greek words here used bj' the 
 father. He does not seem to have thought it 
 possible for Jesus to heal his child without 
 going down to Capernaum. But the urgency 
 and tenderness of his appeal show that his 
 confidence in the power of Jesus was in- 
 creased. A father's heart cries out for help 
 without delay. 
 
 50. Go thy Avay ; thy son liveth. These 
 words must have been spoken with divine 
 authority; for the man believed the word 
 that Jesus had spoken uuto him, aud he 
 
Ch. IV.] 
 
 JOHN". 
 
 127 
 
 51 And as he was now goins clown, his servants met 
 him, anil told him, say\w^,'V\\\ sou liveth. 
 
 o2 Tlien inquired he of tlicni Mie hour when he 
 began to aiueud. Aud tliey said unto hiiu. Yesterday 
 at the seventh hour the lever lel't him. 
 
 .5:i So the father knew that ii was at the same hour, 
 in the wliich Jesus said unto him. Thy sou liveth: and 
 himself believed, and his whole house. 
 
 54 This is again the second miracle Ihaf. Jesus did, 
 •when he was come out of Judea into Galilee. 
 
 51 hira, and he went his way. And as he was now 
 goinj; down, his i servants met him, saying, that his 
 
 52 son lived. So he inquired of them the hour when 
 he began to amend. They said therefore unto hiui. 
 Yesterday at the seventh hour the fever left him. 
 
 53 So the father knew that ilwax at that hour in which 
 Jesus said unto him, Tlty son liveth: and himself 
 
 54 believed, and his whole house. This is again the 
 second sign t! at Jesus did, having come out of 
 Judiea into Galilee. 
 
 I Or, bond'Sirvants. 
 
 went his Avay. Hence the remark of Al- 
 ford : "The bringing out iind strengthening 
 of the man's faith by these words was almost 
 as great a spiritual miracle as the material 
 one which they indicated." The healing was 
 wrought by the will of Christ acting directly, 
 without the intervention of any angelic or 
 magnetic influence. This certainly was the 
 view of the Evangelist. 
 
 51. And as he was now going down — 
 probably near the end of the way, but before 
 he entered Capernaum — his servants met 
 him, and told him, saying, Thy son liv- 
 eth. The true reading may be rendered, 
 literally, saying, that his boy liveth. Doubt- 
 less, they had been sent with the glad news 
 to cheer the father's heart, and to inform him 
 that the presence of Jesus was no longer 
 needed. For the word liveth evidently sig- 
 nifies "is alive, and likely to live"; is con- 
 valescent and out of danger. 
 
 52. Then inquired he of them the hour 
 when he began to amend. For he now 
 wished to trace the recovery of his son to the 
 word of Jesus on which he had believed. 
 True gratitude longs to know the giver of its 
 blessings, while an unthankful heart is will- 
 ing to be ignorant of its benefactor. Yester- 
 day at the seventh hour the fever left 
 him. During the seventh hour, would better 
 represent the meaning of the Greek original. 
 At some time during that hour, or graduallj', 
 as that hour was passing, the fever subsided 
 and disappeared. According to Jewish reck- 
 oning, the seventh hour was one o'clock p. m., 
 and the period here referred to from twelve 
 to one. But according to the reckoning of 
 Asia Minor and Kome, which was probablj^ 
 followed by John, it was seven o'clock a. m., 
 or p. M., and doubtless the latter. (Compare 
 Edersheim, the "Life and Times of the Mes- 
 siah," Vol. I., p. 428, 429.) At the present 
 time, as well as in the time of Christ, the in- 
 habitants of the Jordan Valley are exposed 
 to severe attacks of fever. 
 
 53. So the father knew that it was at 
 the same hour, in the which Jesus said 
 unto him, Thy son liveth. If we assume 
 that the Evangelist follows the Hebrew mode 
 of denoting the hours of the day, it is neces- 
 sary to account for the length of time con- 
 sumed by the nobleman in returning to 
 Capernaum. The distance between the two 
 places could not have been more than about 
 fifteen miles; and at a very moderate pace 
 the nobleman could have reached home be- 
 fore sunset— i. e., by a journey of four or five 
 hours. But his servants met him on his way 
 homeward, and reported that the change in 
 the condition of his child had occurred the 
 day before. Would this language have been 
 natural if used in the early evening of what 
 had taken place in the previous afternoon? 
 We cannot pronounce it impossible ; nor can 
 we be absolutely sure that the nobleman was 
 not detained by some unknown circumstance 
 on his way homeward, so that he failed to 
 reach Capernaum that evening. But the nar- 
 rative suggests no delay ; and, on the whole, 
 it seems improbable that he left Cana at one 
 o'clock p. M., and did not meet his servants 
 until the next day. But if John, as we be- 
 lieve, follows the other mode of reckoning 
 the hours of the day, this difficulty at once 
 vanishes away. For, starting from Cana of 
 G-alilee at seven o'clock p. m., the father 
 would be unable, even if he picked his way 
 slowly downward through the darkness of 
 the night, to arrive in the vicinity of Caper- 
 naum before the midnight hour had passed, 
 and another day begun. And himself be- 
 lieved— i. e., in Jesus as the Messiah ; became 
 a true di.sciple of Christ. And his whole 
 house. This perhaps was the first instance 
 of household conversion, and possibly of 
 household baptism. See notes on verse 3. 
 54. This is again the second miracle 
 (or sign) that Jesus did when he was 
 come out of Judea into Galilee. That 
 is, when Jesus had come from Judea into 
 
128 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 [Ch. V. 
 
 CHAPTEK V. 
 
 AFTER "this there was a feast of the Jews; and 
 Jesus went up to Jerusalem. 
 
 After these things there was ' a feast of the Jews ; 
 and Jesus went up to Jerusalem. 
 
 a Lev. -23 : 2; Deut. 16 : 1 ; ch. 2 : 13. 1 Man; ancient authorities read, the feaet. 
 
 Galilee, he again wrought a sign — a second 
 one for that region. Many had been wrought 
 by him in Jerusalem, but this was the second 
 one performed in Galilee. Notice the style 
 of this narrative ; for it bears all the marks 
 of truth. It is simple, minute, graphic, ob- 
 jective. It says nothing of the motives of 
 Christ, or of the nobleman; it eulogizes 
 neither, criticises neither ; it confines itself 
 to a bare recital of events as they occurred. 
 We are unable to detect the slightest effort to 
 do more than this or less than this. 
 
 The healing of the nobleman's son is not to 
 be confounded with the healing of the cen- 
 turion's servant (Matt. S: S-IS; Luke ?: I-IO). For, 
 
 while there are but two points of coincidence, 
 namely, that in both instances the person 
 cured was in Capernaum, and the miracle 
 described was wrought from a distance, there I 
 are many points of difference— e. g., in this, i 
 Christ is said to have been at Cana, in that, at 
 Capernaum ; in this, he is said to have j 
 wrought the miracle just after his return to j 
 Galilee through Samaria, in that, just after j 
 his coming down from the place of his Ser- 
 mon on the Mount; in this, the person healed 
 is called a son of the petitioner, in that, a 
 servant of the petitioner; in this, the petitioner 
 is called a king's servant (Bao-tXneos), in that, 
 he is called a centurion ; in this, he appears 
 to be a Jew, in that, he is a Gentile ; in this, 
 he is represented as a man of weak faith, 
 in that, as a man of great faith ; in this, 
 Christ virtually refuses to go with him to his 
 home, in that he offers to go thither with him. 
 These differences are so many and important, 
 that the miracles cannot be regarded as one 
 and the same. 
 
 Ch. 5 : 1-9. Cure of an Infirm Man 
 ON THE Sabbath. Second Passover, 
 March 30, a. d 28, or Pentecost, May 19, 
 A. D. 28. 
 
 1. After this. How long after, the phrase 
 does not determine. But there is reason to 
 believe that, after healing the nobleman's son 
 (John 4: 46-54), he tarried a little while in that 
 neighborhood, visiting together with other 
 
 places Nazareth, where, in the synagogue, 
 he expounded the Scripture in relation to 
 himself, and was rejected with wrath by the 
 people (Luke 4: 16-30) ; that thus rejected he went 
 down again to Capernaum (see John 2: 12, 
 and Luke 4: 31), and made it his residence, 
 finding there Andrew and Peter, James and 
 John, who had returned to their emploj'- 
 ment, and whom he called to be his regular 
 
 attendants and pupils (Matt. 4: 18-22; Luke 5: i-u). 
 
 There, also, he healed a demoniac in the 
 synagogue (Mark 1:21-28; Luke 4: 31-37), and Petcr's 
 wife's mother who was sick of a fever (Matt, s: 
 14-17; Luke 1:38, 39), and wrought Other cures. 
 Moreover, he preached throughout Galilee, 
 healing many, and especially a leper (Mark i: 
 35-45; Luke 4: 42-64; 5: 12-15), after which circuit he 
 healed a paralytic in Capernaum (Mark 2: 1-12; 
 Luke5: 17-26), Called Lcvi (or Matthew) to disci- 
 pleship, and attended a feast in his house 
 (Mark 2; 13-17; Luke 5: 27-32), and probably gave in- 
 struction in respect to fasting (Mark2: i6-20). 
 All this, at least, occurred between what is 
 recorded by John in the preceding chapter, 
 and the visit to Jerusalem here described. 
 There was a feast of the Jews. What 
 feast of the Jews is here meant, has long been 
 a matter of doubt, [a) Westcott supposes 
 that it maj' have been the Feast of Trumpets 
 or Trumpet-blowing at the beginning of the 
 seventh month (September-October), the first 
 month of the civil year (see Lev. 23: 24; 
 Numb. 29: 1-6). But this is forbidden by a 
 correct interpretation of 4: 35 — an interpret- 
 ation which he admits to be more natural 
 than any other, and which proves that it was 
 already as late as December when Jesus came 
 through Samaria to Galilee, (b) Meyer sup- 
 poses that it must be the Feast of Purim, 
 which occurred about the middle of March, 
 and which might have been called simply " a 
 feast of the Jews," because it was one of 
 minor importance. But there are objections 
 of some weight to this reference. (1) The 
 feast seems to be mentioned for no reason 
 but that of accounting for Christ's going up 
 to Jerusalem, while Purim was not a feast at 
 which the Galileans were accustomed to visit 
 
Ch. v.] 
 
 JOHK 
 
 129 
 
 2 Now there is at Jerusalem " by the sheep market a 
 pool, which is culled in the Hebrew tongue Bethesda, 
 having five porches. 
 
 2 Now there is in Jerusalem by the sheep gate a 
 pool, which is called in Hebrew > Bethesda, liaving 
 
 s Neh. 3:1; 12 : 39. 1 Some ancient authorities read, Bethsaida ; others, Bethzatha. 
 
 the holy city. (2) The usages connected with 
 it were such as the Lord would not have 
 been likely to honor by his presence. (3) 
 The theory that this feast was Purini, and 
 that the feast mentioned in 6 : 4 was the Pass- 
 over, occurring one month later, limits the 
 ministry of Christ to about two and a quarter 
 years, instead of about three and a quarter 
 years, which latter appears to us its probable 
 duration. (4) It crowds too many events 
 into the three weeks that may be assigned to 
 Galilee between Purim and the Passover. 
 (5) It does not account so well for the early 
 textual variation {the feast for a feast) as does 
 the view that it was the Passover, or some 
 important religious festival; for that variant 
 reading shows at least an early interpretation. 
 (c) Kobinson supposes that it was the Pass- 
 over. In favor of this view it has been,urged 
 (1) that, unless something prevented, Jesus 
 would be very likel3' to visit Jerusalem at 
 this great festival. (2) That, if this feast was 
 the Passover, an early tradition to this effect 
 might account for the insertion of the article 
 in some ancient manuscripts before the word 
 "feast." (3) That it leads us to believe that 
 the ministry of Jesus continued more than 
 three years, giving suitable timefor his mani- 
 fold works ; for the instruction of the eleven, 
 and for the gathering storm of opposition to 
 reach its height. But against it has been 
 pressed the fact that John elsewhere gives the 
 name of this feast, as well as of other import- 
 ant feasts (see 2 : 13, 23; 6:4; 11: 55; 12: 1; 
 13: 1; 18: 28, 39; 19: 14). {d) McClellan be- 
 lieves that it was the Pentecost following the 
 second Passover of Christ's ministry. And 
 it may be more probable that John would 
 refer to the Pentecost— a kind of appendix to 
 the Passover — as a feast of the Jews, without 
 naming it, than that he would thus refer to 
 the Passover. On the whole we see less ob- 
 jection to this view than to any other, but 
 hesitate between it and the Passover. And 
 Jesus went up to Jerusalem. Doubtless 
 attended by his disciples, now including 
 Matthew, or at least by some of them. For, 
 during the four, or five and a half, months 
 which Jesus had spent in Galilee, since his 
 
 return from Judea through Samaria, must 
 have occurred his rejection at Nazareth (Luke 
 4:16-30), his selection of Capernaum as an 
 abode (Luke4:3i; Matt. 4: 13-16), the Call of Peter 
 and Andrew, James and John, to special dis- 
 
 cipleship (Luke 5: l-U ; Matt. 4 : 18-22; Mark 1:16-20), with 
 
 the miraculous draught of fishes, the healing 
 of a demoniac in the synagogue (Mark i: 21-28; 
 Luke4:3i-37), the curc of Peter' s wifc's mother 
 
 and many others (Matt. S: U-n; Mark 1:29-34; Luke 4: 
 
 38-41), a circuit of Jesus throughout Galilee 
 
 (Mark 1 : 35-39; Luke 4 : 42-44; Miitl. 4: 23-25), the healing 
 of a leper (Matl. 8:2-4; Mark 1 : 40-45 ; Luke 5 : 12-16), the 
 
 healing of a paralytic (Mark 2: 1-12; Luke 5: 17-26; 
 Matt. 9:2-8), and the call of Matthew (Mau.9:9; 
 
 Mark 2 : 13, 14 ; Luke 5 : 27, 28). 
 
 2. Now there is at Jerusalem. The ex- 
 pression there is, has been supposed to prove 
 that this Gospel was written by one not fa- 
 miliar with the history of Jerusalem. But 
 the evidence which it gives is of little value; 
 for, not to insist that some remains of the 
 pool probably existed after the overthrow of 
 the city, the present tense of the verb may 
 be explained as due to the writer's vivid re- 
 collection. — By the sheep-market a pool. 
 The Greek word translated sheep-market, 
 is simply an adjective, meaning, "belonging 
 to sheep" (irpo/SaTticn), and if any noun is sup- 
 plied after it, that noun should be "gate" 
 rather than " market." For there appears to 
 have been a sheep-gate (Neh. 3:1,32; 12:39) in the 
 wall of the city, not far from the temple. 
 But Meyer, "Weiss, Milligan and Moulton, 
 and other.s, suppose that the word for pool 
 (xoAuMlSij-Va) was originally in the dative case 
 (icoAun^^Jpa), so that John wrote, There is in 
 Jerusalem, near the sheep-j)ool, the (one) 
 natned (or surnamed) Bethesda. Weiss sup- 
 poses the surname Bethesda, "house of 
 mercy," was applied to the porches and 
 building, rather than to the pool with which 
 they were connected. Thus understood, the 
 language of John may be rendered : There is 
 in Jerusalem, by the sheep-pool, the house 
 surnamed House of Mercy. "Early writers 
 also (Eusebius and Jerome) do actually s^.<eak 
 of a sheep-pool in Jerusalem in connection 
 with this passage. Ammonius tells us that 
 
130 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 [Ch. V. 
 
 3 In these lay a great multitude of impotent folk, of 
 blind, halt, withered, waiting for the moving of the 
 water. 
 
 4 For an angel went down at a certain season into 
 the pool, and troubled the water: whosoever then first 
 after the troubling of the water stepped in was made 
 whole of whatsoever disease he had. 
 
 3 five porches. In these lay a multitude of them that 
 
 the pool was so called from the habit of gath- 
 ering together l^ere the theep that were to be 
 sacrificed for the feast; similarly Theodore 
 of Mopsuestia."— (Milligan and Moulton.) 
 These expositors suppose that there are two 
 pools referred to, the location of the one 
 being described by its nearness to the other, 
 which may have been larger and better 
 known. But Weiss appears to think there 
 may have been only one pool, with a kind of 
 infirmary attached. Having five porches— 
 i. e., small buildings or porticos, for the con- 
 venience of the sick who waited for the mov- 
 ing of the water. 
 
 The site of Bethesda has not been satisfac- 
 torily identified. The Birket Israel, north of 
 the temple area, the Fountain of the Virgin, 
 and the Pool of Siloam, have been suggested 
 
 1 The words, " waiting for the moving of the water" 
 in ver. 3, and the whole of ver. 4, must, beyond ques- 
 tion, be omitted from the text. The clause of ver. 3 is 
 wanting in N A (first hand) B C (first hand) L, 18, 157, 
 314, one copy of the Old Latin, the Old Syriac (Cure- 
 tonian), Meraphitic (in at least fifteen of the best 
 codices, according to Bishop Lightfoot), Thebaic. The 
 whole of ver. 4 is wanting in J< B C (first hand) P, 33, 
 157, 314, two or three copies of the Old Latin, several 
 copies of the Latin Vul^jate, the Old Syriac, Memphitic, 
 (nearly as above). Thebaic, many codices of the Ar- 
 menian. Chrysostom is the first Greek Father giving 
 either passage. Here the internal evidence (transcrip- 
 tional) is clear and conclusive. Ver. 7 shows that at 
 intervals the water was " troubled," and that people 
 believed that the first infirm person who then entered 
 the pool received the only, or by far the principal 
 benefit. The Evangelist does not say that this was 
 true. But it was a notion highly acceptable to many 
 minds among the early Christians, who would easily 
 ascribe this beneficent troubling of the pool to an 
 angel. Accordingly, TertuUian, in his treatise on Bap- 
 tism (written about a. d. 200), says that an angel used 
 to come and disturb the Pool of Bethsaida (so B, and 
 many versions), etc. It has not been pointed out, but 
 this seems to be Tertullian's own explanation of John 
 5: 7, even as he speaks elsewhere in the same treatise 
 of an angel superintending baptism, and in other trea- 
 tises of an angel of prayer, an angel of marriage, etc. 
 He says: "An angel used to interfere and trouble the 
 water of Bethsaida ; it was observed by those who 
 complained of ill-health: /or whoever was first to de- 
 scend thither, ceased after the bath to complain." 
 The clause beginning with " for " is drawn from ver. 7 ; 
 
 by different scholars as the scene of the follow- 
 ing miracle. For arguments supposed to favor 
 the Fountain of the Virgin, see Robinson's 
 "Biblical Researches," etc.. Vol. I., pp.337 
 sq., (Am. Ed.); and for those which are 
 brought for the Pool of Siloam, see note at 
 the close of Alford's Greek Testament, Vol. I. 
 
 3. In these lay a great multitude. The 
 word great before multitude is rejected 
 from tile common text by the best editors 
 and scholars. Of impotent folk, of blind, 
 halt, Avithered. The last three words are 
 probably specifications of the classes of sick 
 folk that resorted to the "House of Mercy." 
 They seem to have been, for the most part, 
 those who were afflicted beyond the reach of 
 medicine as administered by physicians.^ 
 
 5. Which had an infirmity thirty and 
 
 and the rest he seems to be inferring from this fact, 
 and establishing by it. Similar statements are made 
 by the Greek Fathers Didymus (fourth cent.), and Cyril 
 of Alexandria (fifth cent.). This notion, grown into a 
 tradition, would very naturally be put by some per- 
 sons on the margin of the Gospel, to account for ver. 7, 
 and being supposed by later copyists to be a part of the 
 text accidentally omitted, would be introduced after 
 ver. 3, seeming to fit exactly. Even without the tra- 
 ditioa the mere contemplation of ver. 7 might lead 
 some one to make the other explanatory marginal 
 note, " waiting for the moving of the water," which 
 would then creep into the text. So we notice that D 
 has this clause, but has not ver. 4 ; while A has ver. 4, 
 but not the preceding clause. The tradition would 
 naturally be written on the margin by difi'erent per- 
 sons in different terms, and accordingly we find much 
 variety of expression in the documents which give 
 ver. 4. Thus the entrance of these two clauses into 
 the text of many documents is readily accounted for, 
 and all the minor differences explained. On the other 
 hand, we cannot in any wise account for the omission 
 of these statements, if originally present in the text. 
 They agree with ver. 7, and with the whole connection. 
 Some devout persons of the present day might prefer 
 to be rid of the miraculous healing and the angel ; but 
 there was no such feeling in the early centuries. Since 
 then the two passages are wanting in so many of the 
 earliest and best documents, and their subsequent in- 
 sertion can be very easily explained, while their omis- 
 sion would be unaccountable, there can be no question 
 that they are spurious; and they are so regarded by 
 nearly all recent critics, even of the more conservative 
 school. — B. 
 
Ch. v.] 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 131 
 
 5 And a certain nian was there, which had an in- 
 firmity thirty and eight years. 
 
 6 When Jesus saw hiiu lie, and knew that he had 
 been now a long time in thai caan, he saitli unto hiiu. 
 Wilt thou be made whole? 
 
 7 The impotent man answered him, Sir, I have no 
 man, when the water is troubled, to put me into the 
 pool; but while I am coming, another steppeth down 
 before me. 
 
 8 Jesus saith unto him, <■ Rise, take up thy bed, and 
 walk. 
 
 5 were sick, blind, halt, withered.^ And a certain 
 man was there, who had been thirty and eight years 
 
 6 in his infirmity. When Jesus saw him lying, and 
 knew that he had been now a long time in. lluit cu.s';, 
 he saith unto him, Wouldest thou be made whole? 
 
 7 The sick man answered him, 2, sir, 1 have no man, 
 when the water is troubled, to put me into the poid: 
 but while I am coming, another steppeth down be- 
 
 8 tore me. Jesus saith unto him. Arise, take up thy 
 
 a M:itt. 9:6; Xfark 2:11; Luke 5 : 24. 1 Many jiDcient aiithnrilies inseit, wholly or in part, waiting for the. moning of the vmter: \ for 
 
 an angel of the Lord ivent down at certain seasons into the pool, and trouhled the water : whosoever then first after the troubling of the 
 water stepped in was made whole, with whatsoever disease he was liolden. . . .2 Or, Lord. 
 
 eight years. It is to be observed that the | merit of the water at irregular times. And 
 text does not mention the time whicli had there may have been such a movement, with- 
 been spent by this man at the pool, vvliether out any miracle. For it is well-known that 
 a week, a month, or a year, but it does refer I certain intermittent springs flow at irregular 
 
 to the duration of his infirmity — he had been 
 an invalid thirt^'-eight years, and, therefore, 
 recovery by any ordinary means was hope- 
 less. Perhaps he made his way to the pool 
 day by day with much effort. 
 
 6. And knew that he had been noAV a 
 long time. Tiie knowledge of Jesus was 
 evidently superhuman, as in the case of the 
 woman of Samaria (*: n-ig), of those who be- 
 lieved in Jerusalem (2:23.25), and of Na- 
 thanael (i:<8). To suppose that he had ob- 
 tained a knowledge of this cripple by natural 
 means, is inconsistent with the manifest tenor 
 of this narrative, and of the whole Gospel. 
 The long time here noted appears to refer to 
 the thirty-eight j'ears of infirmity, and not to 
 the lying in one of the porches at the pool. 
 Wilt thou (or, dost thou wish to)he made 
 
 intervals, and that the water of others is 
 increased in the same way. This is said to be 
 true of the Fountain of the Virgin, east of 
 Jerusalem. But a sudden commotion and 
 increase of the waters, taking place after 
 unequal intervals, would be very naturally 
 ascribed to divine interposition. But while 
 I am coming, another steppeth down 
 before me. Hence it appears that the troub- 
 ling of the water was of short duration, and 
 confined to only a small part of the pool, so 
 that but one could test its healing virtue on a 
 single occasion. These circumstances fully 
 account for the marginal gloss which has 
 found its way into the text in ver. 4, and a 
 part of ver. 3. 
 
 8. Rise, take up thy bed, and walk. 
 
 Meyer saj's: "The command presupposes 
 
 Avhole ? An ab.surd or impertinent question, | that the man had faith, which was recognized 
 
 unless it were meant to intimate a power and 
 disposition on the part of Jesus to heal the 
 sufl'erer. For why was he there, if not to be 
 healed? 
 
 7. I have no man, etc. The impotent 
 man failed to catch the meaning of our Sa- 
 viour's question, and to feel the power of his 
 presence. He may have been penitent; but 
 he was losing all hope. Neglected, and per- 
 haps despised by men, his quickness of obser- 
 vation had suffered with his body. His 
 thoughts flowed on in their wonted course; 
 to enter the pool at the proper moment was 
 his last hope; but he was poor and friendless, 
 unable to move quickly without help, and 
 yet looking in vain for help. His infirmity 
 was, doubtless, the fruit of sinful indulgence 
 (ver. 14), and his character had, probably, been 
 lost with his hea'lth. When the water is 
 troubled. This expression implies a move- 
 
 by Christ." But the narrative aflx)rds no 
 trace of this faith prior to the word of com- 
 mand. If one is guided, not by theory, but 
 by the language of John, he will conclude 
 that faith was born in the poor man's heart 
 when the triple command, uttered with di- 
 vine authoritj% and accompanied with heal- 
 ing energy, fell upon his ear— and not a 
 moment before. The grace of Christ was in 
 this case prevenient. The Greek student will 
 notice the difl^erence between the tense of the 
 verb translated take up, and that of the verb 
 translated walk— the former denoting an act 
 completed, and the latter picturing an act in 
 progress. He will also observe that the word 
 rendered bed («po/3^aTos or Kpa|3aTTo«), means a 
 small couch, mattress, or pallet, which the 
 cripple could easily bear awa^'. It may in- 
 deed be presumed that he himself, though 
 slowly and painfully, had brought this bed 
 
132 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 [Ch. V. 
 
 9 And immediately the man was made whole, and 
 took up his bed, and walked: and "on the same day 
 was the sabbath. 
 
 10 The Jews therefore said unto him that was cured. 
 It is the sabbath day: 'it is not lawl'ul for thee to 
 carry Ihy bed. 
 
 11 He answered them, He that made me whole, the 
 same said unto me. Take ujithy bed, and walk. 
 
 12 Then asked they him. What man is that which 
 said unto thee, Take up thy bed, and walk? 
 
 9 1 bed, and walk. And straightway the man was 
 made whole, and took up his i bed and walked. 
 
 10 Now it was the sabbath on that day. So the Jews 
 said unto him that was cured, It is the sabbath, and 
 and it is not lawful for thee to take up thy i bed. 
 
 11 But he answered them, He that made me whole, the 
 same said uuto me. Take up thy ibed, and walk. 
 
 12 They asked him, Who is the man that said uuto 
 
 cli.9: U....6 Ex. 20: 10; N.eh. 13: 19; Jer. 17:21,eto.; Matt.l2:2; Mark2:24; 3:4; Luke6:2; 13:14. 10r,pa«e«. 
 
 to the House of Mercy. "With what ease he 
 now bore it away ! 
 
 9. Immediately the man was made 
 whole. The cure was instantaneous and 
 perfect, preceding the act of obedience. 
 Took up his bed — aorist of completed 
 action — and walked, or, began walking; 
 imperfect tense, used of incomplete action. 
 Feeling his strengtli restored, the man yielded 
 to the command of Jesus; but apparently 
 without exultation, and certainly without 
 asking the name of his benefactor (comp. 
 Acts 3: 8). He appears to have been in this 
 respect like the nine lepers who did not 
 return to give thanks to Jesus (Lute i;: n). 
 
 9-16. The Jews Offexded Because 
 This was Done on the Sabbath. 
 
 And on the same day, — more correctly, 
 as in Rev. Ver., — Now it was the Sabbath on 
 that day. A circumstance mentioned by the 
 Evangelist to prepare the mind of the reader 
 for what is now to be related. 
 
 10. The Jews therefore. Not the com- 
 mon people, but those in authority. Me^'er 
 limits the reference to members of the San- 
 hedrin ; but there seems to be no sufficient 
 reason for supposing that leading scribes and 
 priests, not belonging to the Sanhedrin, were 
 not included. Said unto him that was 
 cured. Said = were saying — because the 
 reproof was repeated by one and another as 
 the man bore along his couch. It is the 
 sabbath-day ; it is not lawful for thee 
 to carry thy bed — or, the bed, which they 
 saw liim bearing. Godet remarks that "the 
 Rabbins distinguished thirty kinds of labor 
 as prohibited by the Fourth Commandment. 
 The act of bearing a couch, and that of heal- 
 ing, are expressly forbidden by their tradi- 
 tion. Hence the reproach addressed to this 
 man bj' the Jews, who identified the Rab- 
 binic explanation of the command with its 
 re:il meaning." Alford alleges Neh. 13: 
 15-19; Ex. 31 : 13-17; Jer. 17 : 21, 22, as proof 
 
 that the bearing of such a burden "was for- 
 bidden by the law itself." But the passages 
 are scarcely definite enough to prove the 
 statement. Yet SchafF agrees with Alford in 
 maintaining that this act of the restored man 
 was, in itself, a transgression of the Mosaic 
 law. 
 
 11. This response was both natural and 
 sufficient. Whatever might be the import of 
 the Fourth Commandment, the man who had 
 been healed felt that the authority of One, at 
 whose word so great a cure had been wrought, 
 must be divine. This is evident from his 
 use of the pronoun translated the same 
 {Uf.lvo%) ; for this pronoun would have been 
 superfluous, had he not wished to emphasize 
 the identity of the one by whose direction he 
 was bearing his couch with the one who had 
 made him whole. "The person who made 
 me whole, that one, and no other, said unto 
 me: Take up thy bed, and walk." On the 
 least favorable hypothesis of the infirm man's 
 character, he urges this as a good excuse for 
 bearing his couch on the Sabbath. 
 
 12. The restored cripple may have laid 
 down his bed at their reproof, so that they 
 had no occasion to remonstrate further with 
 him; or the mention of one who had made 
 him whole, and commanded him to bear his 
 couch, may have turned away their thoughts 
 from the healed to the healer, or, as they looked 
 at the matter, from the secondary transgressor 
 to the primary. For they do not ask : " Who 
 is the man that made thee whole?" but: 
 What man is that, etc. Better, Who is the 
 man that said unto thee : Take up thy bed 
 and ivalk 9 Plainly' they were in a critical 
 mood. The law of the Sabbath, as they in- 
 terpreted it, had been broken, and they 
 wished to get at the principal offender. 
 Some of them probably' recollected the signs 
 wrought by Jesus at the preceding passover, 
 the success which he had had in the province 
 of Judea for months after, and perhaps the 
 
Ch. v.] 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 133 
 
 13 And he that was healed wist not who it was: for 
 Jesus had conveyed himself away, a multitude being 
 in thai place. 
 
 14 Afterward Jesus findeth him in the temple, and 
 said unto him. Behold, tliou art made whole; "sin no 
 more, lest a worse thing come unto thee. 
 
 15 The man departed, and told the Jews that it was 
 Jesus, which had made him whole 
 
 16 And therefore did the Jews persecute Jesus, and 
 sought to slay him, because he had done these things 
 on the sabbath day. 
 
 13 thee. Take up thy ' bed, and walk ? But he that was 
 healed knew not who it wa.-s: for .lesus had con- 
 veyed himself away, a multitude being in the place. 
 
 14 Afterward Jesus findeth him in the temple, and said 
 unto him. Behold, thou art made whole; sin no 
 
 15 more, lest a worse thing befall thee. The man went 
 away, an<] told the Jews that it was Jesus who had 
 
 16 made him whole. And for this cause did the Jews 
 persecute Jesus, because he did these things on the 
 
 i Matt. 12 : 45 ; ch. 8 : 11. 1 Or, pallet. 
 
 reports which had reached them of his work 
 in Galilee. If so, they must have suspected 
 that the same Jesus had returned to Jerusa- 
 lem again. Meyer thinks that their reference 
 to him as ihe man was slightly contemptuous, 
 and the same view may be taken of their ab- 
 breviated repetition of his command to the 
 cripple; for, according to the best authori- 
 ties, they made it as curt as possible: Take 
 up, and walk; instead of: Take up thy bed 
 and walk. 
 
 13. But the man who had been healed 
 knew not his benefactor; for Jesus had 
 quietly withdrawn. "He spoke the healing 
 word, and passed on unobserved" — (Schaff.) 
 A multitude being in that place. This 
 clause maj' have been added to explain wh}' 
 Jesus wished to withdraw unrecognized, or 
 why he was able to do so. The former is 
 probably' the reason in the mind of the Evan- 
 gelist. He knew that Jesus did not wish to 
 attract the attention of the people to him as 
 a miracle-woi'ker at that time and place. 
 Doubtless, there were many sick persons there ; 
 but the Saviour saw no sufficient reason for 
 restoring others to health bj' a word. This, 
 then, ma^' be regarded as an instance of per- 
 sonal election, not arbitrary, but for reasons 
 unrevealed. 
 
 14. Though the infirm man had been 
 afflicted thirtj'-eight years, Jesus seems to 
 have known his past life as perfectly as he 
 knew that of the Samaritan woman ; and so, 
 finding him soon after in the sacred enclos- 
 ure, he said to him: Behold thou art (hast 
 been) made whole: sin no more, lest a 
 Avorse thing come unto thee. This admo- 
 nition implies that his thirty-eight years of 
 suffering were the result of some particular 
 kind of sin (Chrys., Mey., Lange, Alf , and 
 others). But "neither the special sin nor the 
 special disease is known." — (Lange.) The 
 "something worse" ix^ipov n), says Trench, 
 
 "gives us an awful glimpse of the severity of 
 God's judgments." 
 
 15. Various motives for this act have been 
 conjectured — e. g., (1) gratitude to Christ, 
 whom he would have the rulers know and 
 honor; (2) desire to assert the authority 
 under which he had acted in bearing his 
 couch on the Sabbath ; (3) deference to the 
 rulers who had asked him to point out the 
 man who told him to bear his couch ; (4) fear 
 of the rulers, whose malice against Jesus he 
 was too dull to perceive. It seems to us that 
 both his quickness of perception and manli- 
 ness of character had suffered with his body. 
 He reminds us of " Mr. Feeblemind," in the 
 allegory of Bunyan. When told that it was 
 unlawful for him to carry his bed on the 
 Sabbath, he put the responsibility of the act 
 on his restorer, but without distinctly saying 
 that one who could thus heal mu.st be from 
 God. When the Jews wished to know who 
 had said to him, Take up and walk, he but 
 half perceived their malice; and when he 
 had learned the name of his benefactor, re- 
 ported it forthwith to them. Not a word of 
 faith or courage falls from his lips. Thus a 
 singular self-consistency characterizes the 
 bearing of the infirm man throughout ; a self- 
 consistency so unobtrusive in its character, 
 and simple in its manifestation as to prove it 
 undesigned, and the narrative itself truthful. 
 
 16. And therefore did the Jews perse- 
 cute Jesus, and sought to slay him. The 
 latter clause of the received text is rejected 
 \>y the best editors. According to John, they 
 persecuted Jesus, because he had done 
 these things on the sabbath. By the 
 Jews must be understood the leaders of the 
 nation, and especially the members of the 
 Sanhedrin (see ver. 10), and by the expression, 
 did persecute (lit., were persecuting, iSCmKov), 
 their persistent effort to malign his character, 
 destroy his influence, and imperil his life. 
 
134 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 [Ch. V. 
 
 17 But Jesus answered them, "My Father worketh 
 hitherto, aud 1 work. 
 
 18 Therefore the Jews ''sought the more to kill him, 
 because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said 
 also that God was his Father, <: making himself equal 
 with God. 
 
 17 sabbath. But Jesus answered them. My Father 
 
 18 worketh even until now, aud I work. For this 
 cause therefore the Jews sought the more to kill 
 him, because he not only brake the sabbath, but 
 also called God his own Father, making himself 
 equal with God. 
 
 ach. 9:4; 14: 10.... 6 ch. 7 ; ia....cch. 10:30, 33; Phil. 2 : 6. 
 
 "Whether this was done by a form of legal 
 prosecution ; whetlier Jesus was brought be- 
 fore the Sanliedrin, or any smaller court, and 
 required to answer to the charge of Sabbath- 
 breaking, does not appear. But the original 
 word is not often used in the New Testament 
 of a legal prosecution. It is almost always 
 fairly represented by the word jyerseciited. 
 
 The last clause seems to describe the action 
 of Jesus as it was represented by his per.^e- 
 cutors. His healing the intinn man, and 
 commanding him to bear his couch, are made 
 separate otieiices (these things), and wiiat 
 he had done in a single instance is repre- 
 sented as going on still, as if it were habitual — 
 (had done='' was doing"). Less probable is 
 the assumption that the miracle related was 
 oue of u series, the rest of which are not dis 
 tinctly mentioned. (See the following verse.) 
 
 17, 18. Jesus Justifies His Action, 
 AND Provokes the Jews by Claiming 
 TO BE the Son of God. 
 
 17. But Jesus answered them. The 
 word answered is best accounted for in this 
 case b3' supposing that the last clause of ver. 
 16 represents the accusation of "the Jews." 
 To this accusation, which charged him with 
 breaking the Sabbath on principle, he re- 
 plies: My Father worketh hitherto (=--nn- 
 iil now), and I Avork. By this remarkable 
 language Jesus represents, or implies, (1) that 
 God is his Father, in a true and real sense 
 of the expression; (2) that his Father is dis- 
 tinguishable, in a personal respect, from him- 
 self; (3) that his Father, though resting from 
 creation, has been working in that rest until 
 now; (4) that he, as Son, is working in the 
 same way, and to the same end, on a human 
 Sabbath, which is but a shadow of the Sab- 
 bath-rest of God; and (5) that his Father's 
 action is therefore the model and justification 
 of his own action. This saying of Jesus 
 appears to assume that the seventh day, or 
 God's rest (Gen.2:2, a), is the period which 
 succeeded the creation of the heavens and 
 the earth, and which is not yet completed. 
 Whether this assumption of Christ has any 
 
 bearing upon the length of the six days of 
 creation, need not be discussed; it certainly 
 has some bearing upon the manner in which 
 the Sabbath ought to have been kept by the 
 Jews; it proves that the rest of the Sabbath 
 was not intended to be inaction — was not 
 meant to interfere with moral and religious 
 etibrt, or with works of mercy. 
 
 18. This answer of Jesus increased the en- 
 mity of "the Jews," so that the Evangelist 
 could say of theui, tliat tliey sought or (were 
 ! seeking) the more to kill him. And it is 
 noticeable that this statement assumes the 
 deadly aim of the persecution mentioned in 
 ver. 16, though greater bitterness and, per- 
 haps, openness (Lange) were put into it in 
 consequence of the answer preserved in ver. 
 17. For they interpreted that answer as an 
 assertion by Jesus that God was his {own) 
 Father. Nor is there any reason to sup- 
 pose that they misunderstood or perverted 
 his meaning. Says John Owen: "There is 
 not the shadow of a doubt that Jesus did 
 here claim, and intended to claim, absolute 
 equality with the Fatlier." Alford remarks: 
 "The Jews understood his words to mean 
 nothing short of & peculiar 2iersonal Sonship, 
 and thus equality of nature with God. And 
 that their understanding was the i-ight one, 
 the discourse testifies." The same is Mej'er's 
 I view: "They interpreted the expression, 'my 
 [ Father,' correctly, of a peculiar Fatherhood 
 i not true of God in relation to others." The 
 I last clause : making himself equal with 
 God, has been interpreted in three ways, as 
 though it were (a) inferential, (6) causal, (c) 
 co-ordinate, (a) It is said to be an inference 
 of the Jews from the claim of proper Sonship 
 to the claim of equality in nature. "Since 
 this Jesus claims to be Hie own Son of God, 
 he claims to be equal in nature with God ; 
 which is blasphemy." (b) It is said to be a 
 justification of their view of his words, my 
 Father, as being an assertion that God was 
 his own Father. By saying, "my Father," 
 he must have meant that God was his own 
 Father {narepa iStofj, for he made himself equal 
 
Ch. v.] 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 135 
 
 19 Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Veiily, 
 Terily, I say unto you, « The Son can do nothing of 
 himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for wliat 
 things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son like- 
 wise. 
 
 20 For *the Father loveth the Son, and sheweth him 
 all things that himself doeth: and he will shew him 
 greater works thaa these, that ye may marvel. 
 
 19 Jesus therefore answered and said unto them, 
 Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do 
 
 nothing of himself, but what' he seeth the Father 
 doing: for what things soever he doeth, these the 
 
 20 Son also doeth in like manner. For the Father lov- 
 eth the Son, and sheweth him all things tliat him- 
 self doeth: and greater works than these will he 
 
 aver. 30; ch. 8:28; 9:4; 12: 40; U: 10 & Matt. :< : 17 ; ch. 3:35; 2 Pet. 1 : 17. 
 
 with God when lie added: "and I work." 
 (c) It is said to be co-ordinate with what is 
 before affirmed of the Fatherhood of God. 
 "Along with that which Jesus says of God's 
 relation to hini, is stated also what he makes 
 out of himself in his relation to God." This 
 is Meyer's view ; and he would translate the 
 clause: While he 2)laces himself on the same 
 level with God — i. «., as to freedom of action. 
 The first of these interpretations appears to 
 be correct. It is certainly more obvious than 
 either of the others, and therefore more likely 
 to be correct, unless there is something in the 
 context, or in the thought, which forbids us 
 to adopt it. 
 
 19-30. Office, or Work of the Son. 
 
 19, In consequence {ovv) of this accusation, 
 which was their pretext for seeking his life, 
 Jesus answers for himself (in-eicptVaTo, middle 
 voice), in a discourse of extraordinary depth 
 and power. His prime object is to convince 
 his foes, if they will suffer themselves to be 
 convinced, that his action has been in har- 
 mony with the will of God. In doing this, 
 he is not called upon to emphasize his per- 
 si)nal distinction from the Father (for that was 
 admitted by his accusers), or to insist directly 
 on his equality with the Father (for to do that 
 would be to C(Mifirm their impression that he 
 was a blasphemer), but rather, without deny- 
 ing either of these, to convince them, if possi- 
 ble, of his absolute unity with the Father in 
 action. Hence he begins by saying: The Son 
 can do nothing of himself. Such is the 
 union between the Father and the Son that it 
 is impossible for anv act of the Son to spring 
 from self, from his own will, irrespective of 
 the Father's will. But this inability was a 
 glory and perfection, and the Jews must have 
 felt that Jesus could not have affirmed in 
 stronger language his union with the Father, 
 or the Father's approbation of what he had 
 done. Yet he does not deny that this act of 
 liealing the impotent man was performed bj' 
 himself; he does not say that no act can 
 spring from the Son's will as the iinmediate 
 
 and efficient cause, but only that the Son can 
 do nothing from self as the spring and motive 
 of action— nothing but what he seeth the 
 Father do. Meyer says: '' But what (iaf ij.^ n) 
 refers to do nothing (iroielv oiiSiu) merely, and 
 not also to frotn himself {a.<t>' iavroi)," appeal- 
 ing to Matt. 12: 4 and Gal. 2: 1«. Our inter- 
 pretation agrees with his. But these jiassages 
 only show that his interpretation is possible; 
 they do not establish it. If anything does 
 that, it must be the connection of thought 
 here, and the exact sense of the words from 
 himself {i<t>' Uvtov). We understand Christ to 
 affirm that (see 14) only what is divine can be 
 done by himself. The Son of God can per- 
 form no act which differs in character from 
 the action of the Father. If he performs 
 works of mercy on the Sabbath, it is only 
 what he sees the Father doing on that day. 
 God's action is the pattern for his action. 
 This is now positively affirined. For what 
 things soever he doeth, these also doeth 
 the Son likewise (in like m,anner). Alford 
 remarks: "For it is the very nature of the 
 Son to do whatever the Father doeth. Also, 
 to do these works after the same plan and 
 proceeding (d^xoiuis), so that there can be no 
 discord, but unity." And SchafF says that 
 this " points to the equality of the Son with 
 the Father. The Son does the same things 
 with the same power and in the same man- 
 ner." "In this word," writes Godet, "one 
 knows not which is more astounding, the 
 naivet^ of the form or the sublimity of the 
 idea. Jesus speaks of this intimate relation 
 with the Being of beings, as if he were treat- 
 ing of the simplest thing in the world. It is 
 the word of the child of twelve years: 'Wot 
 ye not that I must be about my Father's 
 business?' raised to the highest power." 
 
 20. Two facts have been stated: first, that 
 in a true and deep sense the Son is unable to 
 do anything save what he sees the Father 
 doing, and second, that he does whatever the 
 Father does. But the latter statement sup- 
 poses that he sees all that the Father is 
 
136 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 J 
 
 ro] 
 
 El 
 
 f. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 [Ch. 
 
 V. 
 
 21 For as 
 eneth them 
 will. 
 
 the Father 
 • "even so 
 
 raiseth up the dead, and qiilck- 
 tbe Sou quickeiieth whom he 
 
 21 
 
 shew hira, that ye may marvel, 
 raiseth the dead and quickeneth 
 
 For as the Father 
 them, even so tlie 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 a Luke 7: 14 
 
 8: 
 
 54; 
 
 ch. 11 
 
 ■lb, 43 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 doing, and this stivtement he now explains 
 and justifies. For the Father loveth the 
 Son. The word here transUited loveth {<j>iKfl) 
 denotes tender, personal affection. And 
 shevvethhim all things that himself 
 doeth. While these words presii])pose a per- 
 sonal distinction between the Fatlier and the 
 Son, and assign a logical precedence to the 
 action of the Father, tliey claim for the Son a 
 perfect "knowledge" of the Father's action. 
 And by the Son, Jesus Christ must have 
 meant himself, the Incarnate Word. (See 1 : 
 18,51; 3:13; 5:27). This iiiterir.-etation may 
 require us to restrict the expression all things 
 to such as were connected with the worlc of 
 redemption, because the human faculties of 
 Christ jiut limits to his strictly thenntkropic 
 knowledge, though not perhaps to the knowl- 
 edge which he was conscious of having in the 
 faculties of his divine nature, and certainly 
 not to that which was needed at any mo- 
 ment for the Messianic woriv committed to 
 him. And he will shew him greater 
 works than these. Does this mean that the 
 Father will show greater works to the Son by 
 doing them first himself, that the Son may 
 do them afterward? Or is the doing of them 
 by the Father subjective and synonymous 
 with willing? So that the works are to be 
 performed by the Son according to the will 
 of the Father? (See ver. 20, 2i3). The latter 
 view agrees with the various representations 
 of the Bible concerning the creation — (com- 
 pare John 1:3; Heb. 1:2; Col. 1 : 16 sq. with 
 1 Cor 8:6; Heb. 2: 10; Acts 4: 24). "With 
 the Father," says Alford, ''^ doing is willing ; 
 it is only the Son who acts in time." Jesus 
 here represents the Father as taking the initi- 
 ative in the works performed by the Son, but 
 it is not probable that this precedence implies 
 any separate doing of the works, so that they 
 are twice performed (comp. John 14: 9-11). 
 That ye may marvel. In the original, the 
 pronoun ye is expressed, and therefore slight- 
 ly emphatic, and the end contemplated by 
 God in these greater works is not faith, but 
 wonder, on the part of those addressed. What 
 a portentous warning is contained in this say- 
 ing, if it implies that merely wonder, and 
 
 nothing more, was contemplated as the fruit 
 of such signs in their case! But it is possible 
 that Jesus thought of wonder as a natural pre- 
 liminary to faith, though it might not reach 
 this end in their case; as if he had begun to 
 Siky, that ye may wonder and believe, but was 
 constrained to pause with the first effect, be- 
 cause it was all that he foresaw would be pro- 
 duced in the minds of his hearers, and all that 
 Wiis necessary to condemn their course and to 
 justify the greater works. But Jesus does 
 not say that tlieir wonder is the only or the 
 principal end that God would reach by the 
 greater works predicted. If these works are 
 described in the following verses, another rea- 
 son for their performance is the honor which 
 they bring to Christ, and the blessedness of 
 those saved by him. Biittman("Gr ofN. T. 
 Greek," p. 239) supposes that the word trans- 
 lated that should be translated in this place 
 "so that." 
 
 In the next verses («i-.J9), Jesus illustrates 
 and confirms the statement just made, by de- 
 claring that the work of spiritual and cor- 
 poreal resurrection is committed to the Son. 
 
 21. For as the Father raiseth up the 
 dead and quickeneth them (or, maketh 
 them, alive). This statement may naturally 
 be understood to embrace a revivifying of 
 both soul and body ; the present tense being 
 used because it is the Father's work to do rhis. 
 
 (Deut.32: .-iS; 1 Sam. 2 : 6, Rom. 4: 17; 8: 11). According 
 
 to Tholuck, the word raiseth (cV'/>e») points to 
 the negative, and maketh alive (^wowoicl) to the 
 positive side of the same act. According to 
 Meyer, the "making alive" is the principal 
 thing, and is represented, in a popular way, 
 as beginning with the raising up. Per- 
 haps the thought is this: "As the Father 
 raiseth the dead, and by so doing gives them 
 life." Even so the Son quickeneth whom 
 he will. Alford appears to be correct in say- 
 ing that the words whom he will mean 
 "that in every instance where his will is to 
 vivify, the result invariably follows." And 
 what greater power, what power more strictly 
 divine, could Jesus have claimed for himself? 
 The expression quickeneth, or, maketh alive, 
 embraces in this clause also, (against MeyerX 
 
Ch. v.] 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 137 
 
 22 For the Father jiulgeth no man, but " hath com- 
 mitted all judgniunt unto the Sou : 
 
 23 That all iiifii should honour the Son, even as they 
 honour the Father. 'He that honoureth not the Son 
 hoiioureth not the Father which hath sent him. 
 
 24 Verily, verily, 1 say unto you, "He that heareth 
 my word, and helieveth on him that sent me, hath 
 everlasting lite, and shall not come into condemna- 
 tion; ''hut is passed from death unto life. 
 
 22 Son also quickeneth whom he will. For neither 
 doth the Father judge any man, l^ul he hath given 
 
 23 all judgment unto the Sou; that all nuiy honour the 
 Son, even as they honour the Father. He that 
 honoureth not the S(m honoureth not the Father 
 
 24 that sent him. Verily, verily, I say unto you. He 
 that heareth my word, and believelh him that sent 
 me, hath eternal life, and cometh not into judgment 
 
 a Matt. 11 : 27 ; 28 : 18 ; ver. 27 ; ch. 3 : 35 ; 17:2; 
 
 .1 1 Joho 2 : 23. . . .c ch. 3 : 16, 18 ; 6 : 40, 47 ; 8 : 5) • 
 
 both spiritual and corporeal quickening, or 
 resurrection. 
 22. For the Father judgeth no man. 
 
 (Better : For not enen the Father judgeth any 
 ftian). The conjunction for (yap) introduces 
 tliis statement as a reason for the foregoing, 
 viz., "quici<eneth whom he will"; and the 
 adverb "neither," or, "not even" (oitSe), inti- 
 mates that the work of judging, which is 
 higher than that of quickening, is not to be 
 performed, even by the Father, apart from the 
 Son. All is to be done through the Son. 
 "When it is denied that the Father judges, it 
 is done in the same way in which (o: i9; 8: 28) 
 it is denied that the Son can do anything of 
 himself — to wit: in isolation from the Fatlier." 
 — (Tholuck). But hath committed (given) 
 all [the) judgment unto the Son. The en- 
 tire work of judging mankind is committed 
 to the Son, that is, to Jesus Christ, the divine- 
 hunlan Mediator. (Compare Acts 17: 31; 2 
 Cor. 5: 10; 2 Tim. 4: 1; Matt. 25: 31-46). 
 
 23. {In order) that all men should hon- 
 our the Son, even as they honour the 
 Father. For what end does the Father give 
 to Jesus the two supreme attributes of Deity, 
 vivifying and judging? He desires to have 
 tfie adoration which humanity pays to himself 
 rendered also to the Son. The Father loveth 
 the Son (s: 35), and therefore wishes to see the 
 world at the feet of the Son, as at his own feet. 
 The word honour (Ti/naf) does not, indeed, 
 directly express the act of worship (npoa-Kwelv). 
 But in the context it evidently expresses that 
 feeling of religious veneration of which. wor- 
 ship is the expression. And by boldly claiin- 
 ing for his own person this feeling, in the same 
 sense in which it is due to the Father (icawo)?), 
 Jesus certainly authorizes inen to render to 
 him worship properly so called. Compare 20: 
 28; Phil. 2: 10— (Godet). He that honour- 
 eth not the Son, honoureth not the Fa- 
 ther which hath sent him. Significant 
 words, as addressed to men who were seeking 
 the life of Jesus! it would have been much 
 
 to say, that persecution of the Son must be 
 displeasing to the Father who had sent him 
 (Malt. 21: 37 sq.) ; but it was more to say to men 
 who prided themselves on being special assert- 
 ers of God's honor, that they could not honor 
 the Father unless they honored the Son who 
 was now addressing them, and, indeed (see 
 the previous clause), unless they honored him 
 even as they honored the Father. For it must 
 be borne in mind that Jesus was really speak- 
 ing of himself, the God-man, and saying, 
 "The Son represents and reveals the Father; 
 therefore, to withhold divine honor from him 
 is to withhold it from the Father." "As 
 Christ claims precisely the same honor as is. 
 due to the Father (/caSibs), he puts himself 
 on such a footing of equality with him as 
 implies unity of essence; since Monotheism 
 is very jealous of the honor of Jehovah, as 
 the only being entitled to the worship of the 
 creature. There can be no two rival Gods." — 
 (Schaff). (On the negative particles in this 
 verse, compare Winer ^59, 1.) 
 
 24. He that heareth my word, and be- 
 lieveth on him that sent me. The word 
 heareth, in the first clause, may, perhaps, as 
 Meyer says, have its simplest meaning, that 
 of mere hearing; while the next clause reveals 
 the action consequent upon this hearing. But 
 it is more natural to understand the word, as 
 it is often used, in the deeper sense of heark- 
 ening to, by which the mind is prepared for 
 the next term, believing on. And the belief 
 which is here described is belief in God as the 
 One who sent Jesus Christ, his Son, into the 
 world. The verb to believe (n-to-rcvetv), with 
 the following dative, expresses the "belief in 
 the testimony of God, that he hath sent his 
 Son, which is dwelt on so much, (i John a : 9-12)." 
 — (Alford). SeeButtman's " Grammar of the 
 N^. T. Greek," p. 173 sq. Hath everlasting 
 life. Faith is at once the condition and the 
 beginning of eternal life. By it, the soul en- 
 joys that blessed union with God for which it 
 was originally designed. And the possession 
 
138 
 
 JOHK 
 
 [Ch. V. 
 
 25 Verily, veriiy, I say unto you, The hour is com- 
 ing, and now is, when "the deail shall hear the voice 
 of the Sou of God; and they that hear shall live. 
 
 26 For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath 
 he given to the Son to have life in himself; 
 
 25 but hath passed out of death into life. Verily, 
 verily, I say unto you, The hour coiueth, and now 
 is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of 
 
 26 God ; and they that hear shall live. For as the 
 Father hath life in himself, even so gave he to the 
 
 o ver. 28 : Eph. 2:1,5; 5 : 14 ; Col. 2 : 13. 
 
 of that life in its germ is a pledge of its pos- 
 session forever. And shall not come into 
 condemnation. Tlie noun translated con- 
 demnation, and the verb from which it is 
 formed (xpio-ts, Kpivai), have this meaning very 
 often in the writings of John. (See ver. 2'.), and 
 3: 17,18). But is passed from death unto 
 life. Into life is a more exact rendering of 
 the words. In the believer, this transition 
 has been already effected. He is in the realm 
 and possession of eternal life, instead of being 
 still, as before, in the realm and power of sin 
 and death. A marvelous change ! The defi- 
 nite article before the word life, in the Greek 
 text, might be represented by the word " this " 
 in English ; for it shows that the life referred 
 to is the "everlasting life" just mentioned. 
 Observe how clearly this language proves that 
 life, as this term is used by Christ, is more 
 than conscious existence, and death more than 
 extinction of conscious being. 
 
 25. Notice (1) the repeated verily, by which 
 the importance of what follows is forcibly ex- 
 pressed (compare also ver. 24). (2) The an- 
 nouncement of a new religious period that 
 had even now begun. The (or, a7i) hour is 
 coming and now is. Jesus tells "the Jews" 
 very plainly that a revolution has been com- 
 menced, and that it will go on. (3) Men, in 
 their natural condition, are, in a tnost import- 
 ant sense, dead ; for they are destitute of the 
 only true and blessed life. (See ver. 21, and 
 Matt. 8: 22). (4) What they are said to hear 
 is, therefore, not the "wo7'rf" (Ter. 24) of instruc- 
 tion, but the voice of authority, even the voice 
 of him who is here called the Son of God, 
 to indicate the divine authority and efficiency 
 of his word. (5) The expression, they that 
 hear (or, heard, oi oxouo-ai'Tes) shall live, still 
 retains the figure of a resurrection of the dead, 
 and, therefore, directs attention to the first act 
 of hearing, as that on which the origin and 
 existence of the new life depend. Otherwise, 
 the present participle might have been used 
 in the Greek, and not the aorist. (See 1 : 12). 
 (6) Meyer supposes that the word hear, in 
 the expression they that hear, means "give 
 ear to." All the dead "hear the voice," but 
 
 all do not "give ear" to it; those who do, will 
 live. There seems to be no sufficient ground 
 for this distinction ; and it does not agree very 
 well with the figure of a resurrection of the 
 dead carried through the verse. According 
 to the best authorities, the Greek words trans- 
 lated "shall hear" and "shall live," are in 
 the active voice, and not (as in the textus re- 
 ceptus) in the middle. 
 
 26. This verse assigns a reason (yap) f(jr 
 what has just been said, viz. : Those who hear 
 the voice of the Son of God will live, because, 
 in accordance with the Father's will and ac- 
 tion, the Son is the Giver of life and the Judge 
 of all. For as the Father hath life in 
 himself. To have life in one's self, is to have 
 it as an independent possession, and as a foun- 
 tain of life for others. The former idea is 
 contained in the expression itself, and the lat- 
 ter is illustrated by the use of the expression 
 by John. — So hath he given to the Son to 
 have life in himself. So gave he, also, etc., 
 reproduces more exactly the tense of the 
 Greek. According to the best editors of the 
 Greek text, the order of words in this clause 
 renders the expression, the Son, emphatic, 
 while, in the nature of the case, the thing 
 predicated, viz. : having life in himself, is 
 also emphatic in both clauses. The Son, as 
 well as the Father, has life as an independent 
 possession, from which he can impart life to 
 others. (Compare 11: 25; 14: 6-19). But he 
 has it by gift from the Father. When and 
 how did he receive it? In eternity, and by 
 an eternal act of self-communication to the 
 Word? We think not; but at the time when 
 the Word became flesh (i: u: Lukei: .-io), and by 
 means of the incarnation. Jesus Christ had 
 life in himself, and was a source of life to 
 men, because he had, in his theanthropic per- 
 son, "the Word" that "was God," "that 
 eternal Life which was with the Father." 
 (joiini: 1; iJohn 1: 2). For, by the term Son, 
 here, as in the previous context, Jesus means 
 himself, as he stands before the wrathful j-et 
 over-awed Jews. He is vindicating his own 
 authority and action, by connecting them in- 
 separably with the Father's will and action. 
 
Ch. v.] 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 139 
 
 27 And " hath given him autliority to execute judg- 
 ment also, ' Ix'cause lie is the Son of man. 
 
 28 JIarvi'l not at this: for the hour is coming, in the 
 which all that are iu the graves shall hear his voice, 
 
 29 ''And sliall come forth; ''they that have done 
 good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have 
 done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation. 
 
 30 «I can of mine own self do nothing; as I hear, I 
 judge: and my judgment is just; because/I seek not 
 mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath 
 sent uie. 
 
 27 Son also to have life in himself: and he gave him 
 authority to execute judgment, because he is a son 
 
 28 of num. Marvel not at this: for the hour cometh, 
 in which all that are in the tombs shall hear his 
 
 29 voice, and shall come forth; they that have done 
 good, unto the resurrection of life; and tliey that 
 nave ' done evil, unto the resurrection of juilguienf. 
 
 30 I can of myself do nothing: as I liear, I judge: 
 and my judgment is righteous; because I seek not 
 
 ver. 22; Acts 10; 42: 1T:31....6 Dan 
 
 U c Isa. 2fi: 19; 
 
 ./ Matt. -21) : :« ; oh. 
 
 I Cor. 15: 52; 
 4: 34; 6: 38.- 
 
 1 Thess. 4 : 16. . . .<* Dan. 12 : 2 ; Matt. 25 : 32, 33. 46. 
 — 1 Or. practised. 
 
 And he was not, as he stood before the Jews, 
 simply the Eternal Word, but, rather, the 
 God-mfin. 
 
 27. And hath given (gave) him authority 
 to execute judgment also, because he is 
 the (or, a) Son of man. He who is the Son 
 of God, by virtue of his divine nature, is, at 
 the same time, Son of man, by virtue of his 
 human nature. He is, therefore, qualified to 
 be the one Mediator between God and man 
 (iTim. 2: 5), representing both. Hence, the Fa- 
 ther performs the whole work of redemption 
 and judgment by him. Hence, too, in a cer- 
 tain sense, humanitj^ judges itself by the con- 
 demnation which Jesus pronounces upon the 
 unbelieving. The fact that he is a veritable 
 Son of man, able to share the interests, appre- 
 ciate the trials, and sympathize with the woes 
 of mankind, is here a.ssigned as a reason why 
 the work of judgment is committed to him. 
 No true man has a tenderer heart than he, and 
 those whom he condemns, all good men will 
 condemn likewise, in the light of the final 
 day. (See 1 Cor. 6: 2). Observe that Jesus 
 refers to himself, in this passage, as Son of 
 man or a Son of man {via-: av^pi^irov), and not 
 as the Son of mtm (o uibs toO aviptoTtov) ; for the 
 object of the clause is to assert his true hu- 
 manity, the fact that he was a born man, and 
 not his Messianic dignity among men. That 
 is asserted in the preceding statement. 
 
 28, 29. 3IarveI not at this, viz. : at what 
 I have said of my work in vivifying and judg- 
 ing mankind; for — the greatest and last sta- 
 dium of this work is yet in the future — the 
 (or, an) hour is coming, in (omit the) which 
 all that are in the graves shall hear his 
 voice, and shall come forth. (Compare Acts 
 24: 15; Dan. 12: 2; 1 Thess. 4: 16; 1 Cor. 15: 
 52). This language must refer to a bodily 
 rather than to a spiritual resurrection, (1) be- 
 cause those who are to be raised are said to be 
 in their graves, a form of statement which 
 is not elsewhere applied to those who are 
 
 spirituallj' dead ; (2) because all that are in 
 their graves are to be raised, while the good 
 have spiritual life already, and the bad are 
 only raised to be judged; (3) because this 
 resurrection is assigned to the future, with no 
 hint, like that in ver. 25, of its occurrence now. 
 Hence, the language of Jesus agrees with that 
 of Paul in tlie passages referred to above. 
 They that have done (or those who did the) 
 I good unto the (or, a) resurrection of life, 
 I and they that have done (or, those who 
 ivrought the) evil unto the (or, n) resurrec- 
 tion of damnation (?'. e., condemnntio7i). The 
 expressions, did the good, and wrought the evil, 
 point to actions completed in the past, and, 
 doubtless, to what Paul characterizes as "the 
 deeds done in his body." (2Cor. 5:io). Hence, 
 thej^ are unfavorable to the notion that the 
 conduct of men after death will determine 
 their relation to Christ and the resurrection. 
 A resurrection of life is a resurrection which 
 brings perfect life, or eternal and blessed fel- 
 lowship with God; while a resurrection of 
 condemnntion is one which involves final con- 
 demnation and woe. AVhether the resurrec- 
 tion of the two classes here mentioned will 
 take place at the same time, or at different 
 times, is not made perfectly certain by this 
 language; but if there is nothing elsewhere in 
 the New Testament inconsistent with the view 
 that the resurrection of both will be at the 
 same time, this is, certainly, the most obvious 
 interpretation of the language here used. 
 "The definite article before the words good 
 ana e>rii. gives to these terms, in tUe original, 
 an absolute sense." — Godet. 
 
 Jesus has thus asserted most clearly what 
 he is doing, and what he will do. He now 
 returns to the thought and assertion of his in- 
 separable unity with the Father in all his 
 work. 
 
 30. I can of mine own self do nothing. 
 "No act of mine can spring from self. To 
 do anj-thing against or without the Father's 
 
140 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 [Ch. V. 
 
 31 "If I bear witness of myself, my wituess is not 
 true. 
 
 32 'There is and her that beareth witness of me; 
 and I know that the wituess which he witnesselh of 
 me is true. 
 
 33 Ye sent unto John, "and he bare witness unto the 
 truth. 
 
 34 But I receive not testimony from man: but these 
 things I say, that ye might be saved. 
 
 31 mine own will, but the will of him that sent me. If 
 
 32 I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true. It 
 is another that beareth witness of me; and I know 
 that the witness which he witnesseth of me is true. 
 
 33 Ye have sent unto John, and he hath borne witness 
 
 34 unto the truth. But the witness which I receive is 
 not from man: howbeit I say these things, that ye 
 
 a Seech. 8: 14; Rey. 3: 14 6 Matt. 3: 17 ; 17 : 5 ; ch. 8: 18; IJohn 5: 6, 7 9 c ch. 1: 15, 19, 27.32. 
 
 will is contradictory to my very nature. It 
 is the deepest law of my being and the 
 supreme end of my life to reveal the Father 
 and his will." (Comp. ver. 19). As I hear, 
 I judge. By this expression Jesus reminds 
 the Jews that he is even now acting as judge, 
 and passing sentence of condemnation on 
 tlio.se who reject his word. And this sentence 
 involves and expresses the judgment of 
 another, even God. Observe how the word 
 hear in this verse takes the place of "see" 
 in ver. 19; for in this place he is speaking of 
 a sentence pronounced; in that, of miracles 
 wrouglit; in this, hearing represents imme- 
 diate knowledge of the Father's will; in that, 
 seeing represents the same kind of knowledge. 
 Observe also that this expression assumes on 
 the part of Jesus direct and uninterrupted 
 converse with the Father. And my judg- 
 ment is just. The Greek expression trans- 
 lated my judgment (^ icp.o-is 17 tfiJj), has a cer- 
 tain fullness and force which miglit naturally 
 strike "the Jews" as a reflection upon their 
 manner of judging. Because I seek not 
 mine own will. Nothing is surer to jiervert 
 judgment than selfish ends in the judge. 
 "When his own will comes in, equity goes out. 
 One reas<»n why God cannot be unjust is 
 because he is self-suflicient and needs the ser- 
 vice of no one. Jesus Christ, through his 
 perfect communion with God, was absolutely 
 above the influence of human fear or favor. 
 But the will of the Father which hath 
 sent me. "My judgment, because not in- 
 dividual, but divine, mu.tt be righteous." 
 — (Meyer). To seek what God seeks, to do his 
 will, is always right. The word "Father" is 
 omitted by tlie best editors. 
 
 31-47. Confirmation of His Claims. 
 
 31. If I bear witness of myself, my 
 witness is not true. An almost startling 
 concession, which is, however, at the same 
 time the strongest possible implied affirma- 
 tion of his inseparable unity in action with 
 the Father. For the pronoun I (eyul), being 
 
 emphatic, appears to mean, "I alone," or I 
 in separation from the Father. "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 Logos speaks, not of himself, but of the 
 Father." — (Alford). Properly understood, 
 therefore, this passage is not inconsistent with 
 John 8: 13-16. 
 
 33. There is another that beareth wit- 
 ness of me. The word another (5aAos) 
 means, without doubt, the Father, and is 
 a clear recognition of personal distinction 
 between the Father and the Son. Indeed, 
 such a distinction is assumed in every part of 
 this wonderful apology, and without it the 
 language of Jesus in this particular verse, as 
 contrasted with the preceding verse, would 
 be, not only inexplicable, but certain to mis- 
 lead. Some have thought that the word 
 another points to John the Baptist; but this 
 is rendered improbable by the whole context, 
 before and after. And I know that the 
 witness which he witnesseth of me is 
 true. (Comparre 7: 28, 29; 8: 26-55). The 
 reading, "ye know," adopted by Tischen- 
 dorf, is not as well supported as the common 
 text, nor does it agree as well with the tone of 
 this discourse. 
 
 33-34. Ye (have) sent unto John— as re- 
 corded by the Evangelist in 1 : 19 sq. And 
 he bare (or hath borne) witness to the 
 truth. Jesus does not undervalue the fidelity 
 of John, or his knowledge of "the truth." 
 But I receive not testimony from man — 
 i. e., the testimony of which I speak — the 
 testimony of another. But these things I 
 say that ye might (or may) be saved. 
 "Not for 7ny benefit, for I do not need this 
 human testimony, having a divine one, which 
 is all sufficient, but for your salvation," 
 (SchaflT), do j refer to the testimony of John. 
 To you it should be valid, though it be need- 
 less to me. 
 
Ch. v.] 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 141 
 
 35 He was a burning and « a shining light: and *ye 
 were willing for a season to rejoice in nis light. 
 
 3() But <= I have greater witness than Ihnl. of John : 
 for ''Ihc works wliich the Father hath given uie to 
 finish, the same works that 1 do, bear witness of me, 
 that Ihe Father hath sent me. 
 
 'Al And the Father himself, which hath sent me, 
 «hath borne witness of me. Ye have neither lieard 
 his voice at any time, /nor seen his shape. 
 
 35 may be saved. He was the lamp that burneth and 
 shineth : and ye were willing to rejoice for a sea.son 
 
 .36 in his light. But the witness which I have is greater 
 than Ihat of John: for the works which the Father 
 liath given me to accomi)lish, the very works that I 
 do, hear witness of uie, that the Father hath sent me. 
 
 37 And the Father that sent me, he hath borne witness 
 of me. Ye have neither heard his voice at any time. 
 
 a 2 Pet. 1 : 19....6 See Mate. 13 : 20 ; 21: 26, Mark 6: 20.... c 1 John."): 9....<f ch. 3: 2; 10: 25; 15: 24.... e Matt. 3 : 17 ; 17:5; oh. 6: 27; 
 8: 18..../ Deut. 4: 12; ch. 1 : 18 ; 1 Tim. 1 : 17 ; 1 John*: 12. 
 
 35. lie was a burning and a shining 
 light — or, the lamp that barneth and shineth. 
 (Rev. Ver. ) The article characterizes him as 
 tlie definite lamp which, according to the 
 Old Testament, was to appear and give a 
 knowledge of salvation to the people (Luke 
 ]:76sq.). He is called the lamp (6 A"x>">s) 
 and not the light (to <i>a)s), because, as SchafF 
 remarks, he "was a. light, but only in a sub- 
 
 . ordinate sense, a derived light, a light lighted, 
 not lighting; and hence 'in his light' is 
 spoken of in the next clause in the sense of 
 the predicate, not the noun." "He was the 
 lamp that was burning and shining. The 
 English Version here doubly errs both in the 
 way of disparagement and of exaltation. 
 Exaltation, because it elevates to an original 
 light him whom the Saviour designates as 
 only a lamp, shining with borrowed bright- 
 ness. Of disparagement, in that it omits the 
 emphatically repeated article by which Christ 
 exalts John to a single and sole conspicuous- 
 ness. He himself was 'the light' ('JohDi:4), 
 the fountain of all illumination. John was 
 but a 'lamp,' shining as being shone upon; 
 but still the lamp, that was lighted and shin- 
 ing." — (A. C. Kendrick, D. c.) The verb was 
 points to the circumstance that John's min- 
 istry was already past; he was either dead, or 
 in prison. And ye were Avilling for a 
 season (literally, hour) to rejoice in his 
 light. At first and for a time all Jeru.salem 
 went after John. Curiosity led even the 
 Scribes and Pharisees to go out into the wil- 
 derness to see him. He was the novelty of the 
 hour. But the rulers of the people soon be- 
 came weary of his earnest calls to repentance, 
 and when they found that he would minister 
 neither to their national pride nor to their 
 personal self-righteousness, they turned away 
 from him, without having received -dwy 
 spiritual benefit. 
 
 36. But I have greater w^itness than 
 that of John. Literally : But the witness 
 
 which I have is greater than ihat of John. 
 The word witness here means " testimony " 
 {y-apTvpiav), and the whole is a compendious 
 expression for: "But I, on my part, have the 
 witness (referred to, ver. 32) which is greater 
 than that of John." For the works Avhich 
 the Father hath given me. These works 
 embrace miracles, but do not exclude other 
 manifestations of his divine or Messianic 
 authority. To finish (or, that I should finish 
 them). The Greek expression is fairly 
 enough represented by the ordinary English 
 Version, to finish. The same works (or, 
 the works themselves), etc. Thus Jesus affirms 
 that he is doing the precise works which the 
 Father has sent him to finish, and also that 
 these works are of such a nature as to prove 
 that he has been sent by the Father. That 
 I do, bear witness of me, that the Father 
 hath sent me. A full, deliberate, unam- 
 biguous, powerful assertion of the divine 
 character of his works. 
 
 37. And the Father himself. (Better, as 
 in Revised Version, And the Father that 
 sent me, he hath borne witness of me). The 
 word translated he (eKeii-os, not avToq, according 
 to the best editoi-s), represents the Father 
 with a certain dignity and force which belong 
 to no other pronoun, as used by this Evangel- 
 ist. But to what testimony of the Father 
 does Christ refer? Plainly, not to "the 
 works" spoken of in the preceding verse ; for 
 both the change of tense in the verb and the 
 personal emphasis implied in the pronoun 
 point to a distinct testimony. Possibly, he 
 refers to the voice from heaven at his baptism ; 
 yet this appears to have been heard by no one 
 save himself and John the Baptist, and it is 
 more likelj', on the whole, that he has in mind 
 the witness of prophecy in the Old Testament ; 
 for on this he dwells below. Ye have neither 
 heard his voice at anytime, nor seen his 
 shape (or, for7n). By this language, Jesus 
 reminds "the Jews" that their knowledge of 
 
142 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 [Ch. V. 
 
 38 And ye have not his word abiding in you : for 
 •whom he hath sent, liim ye believe not. 
 
 39 "Search the Scriptures; tor in them ye think ye 
 have eternal lite : and '' they are they which testify of 
 me. 
 
 40 'And ye will not come to me, that ye might have 
 life. 
 
 38 nor seen his form. And ye have not his word abid- 
 ing in you: for whom he sent, him ye believe not. 
 
 39 1 Ye search the scriptures, because ye thiulv that in 
 them ye have eternal life ; and these are they which 
 
 40 bear witness of me; and ye will not come to me, 
 
 ilsa. 8: 20; 34: 16; Luke 16: 29; ver. 46; Acts 17 : 11 b Deut. 18: 15. 18; Luke 5 
 
 the scriptures. 
 
 1 : 27 ; ch. 1 : 45. . . .c ch. 1 : 11 ; 3 : 19. 1 Or, Search 
 
 God was not direct, like his own. (See ver. 
 19, 20, 30; and 6 : 46). "The true relation of 
 ver. 36-38 is this : In passing from the testi- 
 mony of works, ver. 36, to the personal testi- 
 mony of God, ver. 37, Jesus mentions the two 
 forms which the latter may take: that of a 
 direct apjiearing, or that of his word in the 
 Old Testament. The first of these was denied 
 them \>y the nature of things; the second was 
 rendered useless by their own fault."~(Godet. ) 
 But it is more natural to suppose that both 
 e.xpressions, "Ye have neither heard his vcjice 
 nor seen his form," are employed for the same 
 purpose, namely, to emphasize the fact that 
 they had no direct knowledge of God. Their 
 only source of knowledge respecting him was 
 "his word." 
 
 38. And ye have not his word abiding 
 in you. "The Jews" might admit their 
 want of the direct knowledge of God, which 
 Jesus claimed to po.ssess, yet thej- surely con- 
 sidered themselves to be scribes, well instruct- 
 ed in tlie law. But Jesus denies even this — 
 denies that they have the substantial truth of 
 the Old Testament in their hearts. This cruth, 
 he affirms, has no permanent influence on 
 them. It is not the rule of their faith or con- 
 duct. What teaching was ever more search- 
 ing than this? It was like Nathan's word to 
 David: "Thou art the man"! But what 
 reason does the Lord assign for this statement? 
 For whom he hath sent, him ye be- 
 lieve not. That they do not receive the 
 Messiah, of whom Moses and the prophets 
 wrote, is brought forward as certain proof that 
 the word of God, in the Old Testament, is not 
 a living power in their souls. Jesus, there- 
 fore, assumes that a devout Jew, familiar with 
 the Old Testament, must recognize him as 
 the Sent of God, and Saviour of the world. 
 
 39. Search the Scriptures, i Better: Ye 
 search the Scriptures)— i. e.^nfti^v a Rabbinic 
 fashion, with a certain acuteness and dili- 
 gence, seeking to know the letter of Scripture, 
 yeady to multiply' external observances, and 
 to bind heavy burdens on the people, willing 
 
 to pay tithes of mint, anise, and cummin, 
 but forgetting the weightier matters of the 
 law. For in them ye think ye have eter- 
 nal life. They supposed that a knowledge 
 of the Scriptures was enough to ensure their 
 salvation. The Rabbies said: "He who ac- 
 quires the words of the law, acquires for him- 
 self eternal life." They were hearers of the 
 law, but not doers of it. They gloried in their 
 learning and formal service, but were unspir- 
 itual, envious, jealous, and eager to destroy 
 the brightest example of goodness that ever 
 appeared among men. How could they read 
 the law, and still dream of obtaining eternal 
 life bj' a mere knowledge of the Scriptures? 
 Yet, in another way, as witnesses for Jesus, 
 those Scriptures might have led them to the 
 Source of life everlasting. And they (or, 
 those) are they which testify of me. It is 
 their very nature and office to bear witness of 
 Jesus. How abundant, then, must be the 
 light which they shed upon his person and 
 work ! From this statement alone, it may be 
 inferred that a Messianic element pervades 
 the Old Testament; and Augustine is justified 
 in saj'ing: Novum Testamentuni inVetere la- 
 tet, Vetus, Testamentum in Novo patet. The 
 New Testament is hidden in the Old ; the Old 
 Testament lies open in the Nciv. 
 
 40. And ye will not come to me, that 
 ye might (or, may) have life. To come to 
 Jesus is to apply to him for life, to believe in 
 him as the Messiah and Saviour of men. 
 Notice the simplicity, power, and pungency 
 of the Lord's words to these leaders of the 
 Jewish people. "Ye search the Scriptures, 
 because you imagine it possible to obtain 
 through them eternal life, vvhich I alone can 
 give; and those very Scriptures are bearing 
 witness of me, the Giver of spiritual and 
 eternal life; and ye are nevertheless unwill- 
 ing to come and put your trust in me as the 
 true Messiah, that ye may have life, and may 
 have it even now ; for, as I have said, ' the Son 
 maketh alive whom he will.' " (See ver. 21). 
 Well does Schaff remark on this verse : "The 
 
Ch. v.] 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 143 
 
 41 "I receive not honour from men. 
 
 42 But I know you, that ye have not the love of God 
 in you. 
 
 43 I aiu come in my Fatlier's name, and ye receive 
 me not; if another shall come in his own name, him 
 ye will receive. 
 
 44 ' How can ye believe, which receive honour one 
 of another, and seek not ''the honour that cuiutth from 
 God only ? 
 
 45 Do'uot think that I will accuse you to the Father: 
 ■'there is one that accuseth you, eueu Moses, in whom 
 ye trust. 
 
 41 that ye may have life. I receive not glory from men. 
 4'.! lUit 1 know you, that ye have not the love of God in 
 4;5 yourselves. I am come in my 'Father's name, and 
 
 ye receive me not : if another shall come in his own 
 44 name, him ye will receive. How can yc believe, who 
 
 receive glory one of anotlier, and the glory that 
 4") cijinel/i from ' the only God ye seek not? Think not 
 
 that 1 will accuse you to the Father: there is one 
 
 that accuseth you, even Moses, on whom ye have set 
 
 over. 34; 1 Thess. 2:6 6 oil. 12 : 43 c Rom. 2; 29 d Rom 2: 12. 1 Some ancient authoiiiles rtart. the only one. 
 
 springs of belief and unbelief are in the 
 heart rather than in the head." Men are 
 sometltnes said to be perishing for lack of 
 knowledge: how much oftener do they perish 
 for lack of willingness to use the knowledge 
 within their reach 1 By a short digression 
 (ver. 41-44) Jesus now points out the reason 
 why "the Jews" would not accept the testi- 
 mony of the Scriptures, believe in him, and 
 have true life. 
 
 41. 1 receive not honour from men ; or, 
 glory from men I do not receive. Jesus first 
 rei>els the reproach which might be rising to 
 the lips of his hearers, that he was himself 
 seeking glory from men by calling upon them 
 to believe in him. 
 
 43. But I know (or, have knoum) you. 
 The verb is in the perfect tense, signifying a 
 knowledge of them which had come down 
 from the past into the present. That ye 
 have not the love of God in you. Says 
 Grotius: "The emjjhasis fiiUs on the ^jronoun 
 'you.' Such as you suppose me to be, j'ou 
 3'ourselves reallj' are." And Hengstenberg 
 remarks: "Christ does not utter the charge 
 as a conjecture, but on the ground of clear 
 and certain knowledge ; he utters it as the 
 One who knows all men, knows what is in 
 man, and before whom, as before God, the 
 hearts of all men are naked and opened." 
 The love of God is the love to God which is 
 required by the law, which is spiritual and 
 supreme, and which is essentially the same in 
 all who possess it. Hence the definite article. 
 
 42. I am come in my Father's name, 
 and ye receive me not. Christ was the 
 image of the Father; he came to do the 
 Father's will ; he affirmed thtit he could do 
 nothing apart from the Father; there was no 
 self-seeking in his heart; he valued the favor 
 of God and not human praise; and, therefore, 
 "the .Jews" rejected him and sought his life. 
 Just the reverse of this would have been true 
 
 had the love of God been truly in their, 
 hearts. If another shall come in his own 
 name, him ye will receive. A piercing 
 glance into the future I "Sixty-four such 
 deceivers have been counted since the time of 
 Christ."— (Schudt in Bengel.) And "the 
 Jews" who were ready to imbrue their hands 
 in the blood of Christ, were just the men to 
 be blinded by the flatteries and taken by the 
 schemes of audacious pretenders to Messianic 
 dignity. For worldl3^ men can enter into the 
 plans of the worldly (compare John 12: 43). 
 This is more distinctly taught in the next 
 verse, or, if not taught, implied. 
 
 44. How can ye believe, Avhich receive 
 honour one of another, and seek not the 
 honour that cometh from God only (or, 
 the only God). The word which is here trans- 
 lated honour is commonly rendered "glory." 
 A selfish spirit, quaffing the cup of human 
 applauseandlonging forever deeper draughts, 
 ic not likely to bow before Christ and accept 
 of true life from him. " The fear of man 
 bringeth a snare" (Prov. 29:25), and love of 
 human praise does the same. " Not many 
 wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, 
 not many noble are called" (1 Cor. i: 26). "How 
 weighty this declaration is for our time, may 
 be clearly seen. Receiving honor from man 
 has a deep place in our theology. This 
 theology is extremely anxious, not to break 
 with the spirit of the age, but to be (n accord 
 with it. This is the worm which is gnawing 
 it, the curse which is resting upon it.''— (Heng- 
 stenberg.) 
 
 Resuming his appeal to the witness of God 
 in the Old Testament, Jesus affirms that un- 
 belief in him presupposes unbelief of Moses. 
 
 (Ver. 45-47). 
 
 45. Do not think that I Avill accuse 
 
 you to the Father— either now or hereafter; 
 a statement quite in harmony with ver. 22, 
 23, 30 ; for the office of a judge is distinct from 
 
144 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 [Ch. VI. 
 
 4G For bad ye believed Moses, ye would have believed 
 me: <■ lor he wmte of me. 
 
 47 But if ye believe uot bis wriliugs, bow shall ye 
 believe my words? 
 
 40 your hope. For if ye believed Moses, ye would be- 
 47 lieve me ; for be wrote of me. But if ye believe not 
 his wriliugs, how shall ye believe my words? 
 
 CHAPTER VI. 
 
 AFTER '' these things Jesus went over the sea of Gali- 
 lee, which is llie sea of Tiberias. 
 
 1 After these things .Tesus went away to the other 
 side ol the sea of Galilee, which is the sea of Tiberias. 
 
 a Geu. 3: 15; 12:3; 18: 18; 22: 18; 49: 10; Deut. 18 : 15, 18; ch. 1 : 45; Acts 26: 22 h Matt. 14 : 15 ; Mark 6: 35; Luke 9: 10, 12. 
 
 tliat of an accuser. There is one that ac- 
 cuseth you— constantly ; for the present par- 
 ticiple used substantively with the article (o 
 Ko-Trrfopiiv) signifies one who is doing habitually 
 wh.^t the participle expresses. Hence, you 
 have an accuser— Moses— the representative 
 
 of the law (Deut. 31 : 26; John 7. 19; Rom. 3: 20; 5: 20; Gal. 
 
 3:19, 21), ill whom ye trust (or, have hoped, 
 or, set your hope). (See Rom. 2: 17). Meyer 
 calls attention to the "tragic emphasis" which 
 is given to the pronoun ye (uf-tl^) by the Sa- 
 viour. These Jews had hoped and were still 
 hojnng to merit salvation by works of the 
 law. 
 
 46. For had ye believed Moses, ye 
 would have believed me. A more exact 
 rendering is given in the Rev. Version. (See 
 above). Notice (1) the conjunction for, which 
 shows that this verse confirms the second 
 clause of ver 4-5. Moses, in the law, is your 
 accuser, because ye do not believe his words, 
 "for had ye believed," etc. Notice (2) that 
 the verbs are both in the imperfect tense, and 
 refer, in a descriptive way, to the near past, 
 or present. The translation of the Rev. Ver. is 
 the best representation of their meaning prac- 
 ticable in our language. (Comp. Kiihner, "6r. 
 Gram.," ^3-50, 2 (2) («); Ctosby, "Gr Gram.," 
 g 603J. For he wrote of me. The words of 
 me are rendered emphatic in the original by 
 their position. This is a perfectly clesir testi- 
 mony, on the part of Christ, to a Messianic 
 element in the Pentateuch, as well as to the 
 Mosaic authorship of the same. (Comp. Gen. 
 12: 3; 22: 18; Num. 21: 9; Deut. 18: 15 
 sq.; Matt. 5: 17 sq. ; Luke 24: 44; Rom. 
 10: 5). 
 
 47. But if ye believe not his writings, 
 how shall ye believe my words ? De Wette 
 remarks: "This conclusion assumes th;it, on 
 account of their reverence for Mo.ses, and 
 their attachment to the written word, the Jews 
 could believe him more easily than they could 
 believe the spoken words of Jesus." The 
 contrast, however, is between his and iny, 
 
 not between writings and words. But this 
 is not all, as Alford and Meyer correctly add: 
 ^'Moses leads to Christ: is one of the wit- 
 nesses by which the Father hath testified of 
 him." — (Alford). " Belief in Moses is neces- 
 sary in order to belief in Christ." — (Meyer, 
 substantially;. This discourse is truly won- 
 derful for depth, simplicity, and boldness. 
 As uttered by the holy Son, it must have 
 astounded "the Jews," holding them spell- 
 bound with awe. It is "so characteristic, 
 grand, pointed, and telling, that the idea 
 of an invention is utterly preposterous." — 
 (Schaffl. After quoting the words of Strauss : 
 "If the form of this discourse must be at- 
 tributed to the Evangelist, it may be that the 
 substance belongs to Jesus." Godet proceeds 
 thus: "If a partial understanding of the dis- 
 course has wrested this avowal from such a 
 critic, a fuller understanding of it would give 
 one the right to sa,y : Jesus really spoke in this 
 wa}^ The principal theme is exactly perti- , 
 nent to the occasion. The secondary ideas 
 subordin;ite themselves logically' to this theme. 
 Not a detail is inconsistent with the whole. 
 And the application is solemn and impressive, 
 as it ought to be, in such a situation. It 
 stamps the whole discourse with the seal of 
 reality." 
 
 Ch. 6. According to the interpretation of 
 5: 1, given above, the Evangelist now pa.«ses 
 over in silence one of the longest and busiest 
 periods in the ministry' of Christ — a period of 
 either a whole year, or of at least ten months 
 — the events of which are detailed with un- 
 usual fullness by the fir.st three Evangelists. 
 These events are set down in the following 
 order by Dr. Robinson : The plucking of ears 
 of grain on the Sabbath (Matt. 12: i-s), the heal- 
 ing of a withered hand on the Sabbath 
 (Matt. 12: 9-14), Christ's arrival at the Sea of Ti- 
 berias followed by multitudes (Matt. 12: 15-21), 
 his withdrawal to a mountain and choice of 
 the Twelve (Mark 3: 1319), his Sermon on the 
 
Ch. VI.] 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 145 
 
 2 And a great multituile followed liini, because they 
 saw his miracles which he did on them that were dis- 
 eased. 
 
 2 And a great multitude followed him, because they 
 beheld the signs which he did on them that were 
 
 Mount (Matt. 5: 1; 8: i), healing of the centuri- 
 on's servant (Matt. 8: 5-13), raising to life of the 
 widow's son (Luke?: 11-17), deputation from the 
 imprisoned Baptist to Jesus (Matt, u: 2-19), Je- 
 sus anointed by a woman who had been a 
 sinner (Luke7: 36-oo), second circuit in Galilee 
 with his disciples (LuteS: i-a), healing of a de- 
 moniac (MarkS: 19-30), the ScHbes and Pharisees 
 seeking a sign (Matt. 12: 38-45), Christ declaring 
 his disciples to be his nearest kindred (Matt. 12: 
 46-50J, denouncing woes against the Pharisees 
 and others (Luke 11 : 37-54), discoursing to his di.s- 
 ciples and the multitude (Luke 12: 1-59), slaugh- 
 ter of certain Galileans and parable of the 
 barren fig-tree (Luke 13 : 1-9), parable of the sower 
 (Matt. 13: 1-23), parable of the tares, and other 
 parables (Jiatt. is: 24-53), stilling the tempest on 
 the lake (Matt, s: 18-27), the demoniacs of Gadara 
 healed (Matt. 8: 28-34), Levi's feast (Matt. 9: 1017), 
 raising of Jairus' daughter, etc. (Matt. «: 18-26), 
 healing of two blind men, etc. (Matt. 9: 27-34), 
 Jesus rejected a second time at Nazareth 
 (.Matt. 13: 54-58), third circuitin Galilee, the twelve 
 sent forth (Matt. 9: 35 38), Herod thinks Jesus to 
 be John the Baptist, risen from the dead 
 (Matt. 14; 1, J, 6-12). A large part, if not all, of 
 these events may be allotted to the ten months 
 or year of Christ's ministry which John has 
 passed in silence. 
 
 1-15. Feeding the Five Thousand. 
 (Compare Matt. U: 13-21; Mark 6: 30-44; 
 Luke 9: 10-17). 
 
 1. After these things. How long after, 
 the words do not determine. (Comp. 5:1; 
 3: 22). The same expression could be used, 
 whether the interval between the events re- 
 ferred to was a week, a month, a year, or even 
 a still longer period ; for the Greek phrase 
 (/ncTd TttCra) appears to be perfectly represented 
 by the English Version. Jesus went (or, 
 went away). From what place ? from Jerusa- 
 lem? or from Capernaum? Probably from 
 Capernaum, as indicated by the parallel ac- 
 counts in the first three Gospels. Besides, the 
 disciples return from the other side to this 
 place (ver. 17), and the multitudes repair to it, 
 as if it were the ordinary home of Jesus 
 (ver 24). From Matt. 4: 13, we learn that Je- 
 sus had left Nazareth, and settled in Caper- 
 naum ; and from Matt. 9: 1, that it was prob- 
 
 ably called "his own city." Hence, the 
 Evangelist pa.sses in thought from Jerusalem 
 to Capernaum, and from one feast to the ap- 
 proach of another; but whatever events he 
 describes at all, are described with a distinct- 
 ness which is admirable. Over (or, beyond) 
 the sea of Galilee, which is the sea of 
 Tiberias. The explanatory words, which 
 is the sea of Tiberias, are added because, 
 when this Gospel was written, the Sea of Gal- 
 ilee was, probabl.y, known to the people of 
 Asia Minor, and of the Koinan Empire gen- 
 erally, as the Sea of Tiberias. It took this 
 name from a city on its southwestern shore, 
 built by Herod Antipas, and named Tiberias, 
 in honor of the Emperor Tiberius. There is 
 no evidence that Jesus ever visited this cit^', 
 though his home for some time was within a 
 few miles of it. This Evangelist does not 
 speak of the manner by which Jesus went 
 away to the other side of the sea, unless some- 
 thing on this point is presupposed by " the 
 ship" spoken of in ver. 17. But Matthew 
 says that he went "in a ship," and Mark, 
 that. they went "by the ship." The word 
 employed by Luke (ujrfx<ipi)<T€) is quite consist- 
 ent with these statem.ents. 
 
 2. And a great multitude. Matthew 
 and Luke omit the adjective, but make the 
 noun plural, "the multitudes." According 
 to paramount critical authority, Mark uses 
 the expression "many" without anj' noun. 
 Followed him — or, were following him; for 
 the word pictures the scene, being in the 
 imperfect tense. From the testimony of 
 Matthew and Mark it appears that they were 
 "on foot." While Jesus passed over with 
 his disciples in a small ship to the northeast 
 shore of the lake, the people were hastening 
 on foot around the head of the lake, receiving 
 accessions to their number from the villages 
 near which they passed (Matt, u: is ; Mark 6: 32). 
 Thus Hanna describes the scene: "The 
 wind blows fresh from the northwest; for 
 shelter thej' hug the shore. Their departure 
 had been watched by the crowd, and now, 
 when they see how close to the land they 
 keep, and how slow the progress is they make, 
 a great multitude out of all the cities — em- 
 bracing, in all likelihood, many of those com- 
 
146 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 [Ch. VL 
 
 3 And Jesus went up into a mountain, and there he 
 sat with his disciples. 
 
 4 "And the passover, a feast of the Jews, was nigh. 
 
 3 sick. And Jesus went up into the mountain, and 
 
 4 there he sat with his disciples. Now the passover. 
 
 a Lev. 23 : 5, 7 ; Deut. 16 : 1 ; ch. 2 : 13 ; 5:1. 
 
 panics which had gathered to go up to the 
 passover — run on foot along the shore." 
 Because they saw — more exactly — because 
 they loere beholding ; for here also the verb is 
 imperfect, and carries the mind back to 
 the attentive on-looking of the people, as the 
 wonders referred to were performed, one after 
 another. His miracles which he did on 
 them that were diseased: or, the signs 
 which he was working on the sick. When 
 John the Baptist from his prison sent two of 
 his disciples to Jesus, who was then probably 
 in Capernaum, saying, "Art thou he that 
 should come, or should we look for another?" 
 the answer of Christ was an appeal to his 
 works: "Go and show John those things 
 which ye do hear and see: The blind receive 
 their sight, and the lame walk, the lepers are 
 cleansed, and the deaf hear, the dead are 
 raised, and the poor have the gospel preached 
 to them " (Matt.n:5). Works of mercy and 
 of power, which were continued in that re- 
 gion for a considerable time. 
 
 3. And Jesus went up into a (rather, the) 
 mountain. The definite article before 
 mountain may be due to the circumstance 
 that it was remembered by the Evangelist as 
 the scene of the miracle to be related, or to the 
 cirumstance that it was the one nearest "a 
 desert place belonging to Bethsaida." (Comp. 
 Luke 9: 10.) This Bethsaida was situated on 
 the east side of the Jordan, a short distance 
 above its entrance into the Sea of Galilee. 
 See Art. Bethsaida in Smith's "Diet, of the 
 Bible." Says Thomson: "This bold head- 
 land marks the spot, according to my typog- 
 raphy, where the five thousand were fed with 
 five barley loaves and two small fishes. From 
 the four narratives of this stupendous miracle, 
 we gather, 1st, that the place belonged to 
 Bethsaida; 2d, that it was a desert place; 3d, 
 that it was near the shore of the lake, for they 
 came to it by boat; 4th, that there was a 
 mountain close at hand; 5th, that it was a 
 smooth, grassy spot, capable of seating many 
 thousand people. Now all these requisites 
 are found in this exact locality, and nowhere 
 else, so far as I can discover. This Butaiha 
 
 belonged to Bethsaida. At this extreme 
 southeast corner of it, the mountain shuts 
 down upon the lake bleak and barren. It 
 was, doubtless, desert then as now; for it is 
 not capable of cultivation. In this little cove 
 the ships (boats) were anchored. On this 
 beautiful sward, at the base of the rocky hill, 
 the people were seated to receive from the 
 hands of the Son of God the miraculous 
 bread, emblematic of his body, which is the 
 true bread from heaven." — ("The Land and 
 the Book," II. p. 29.) And there he sat 
 with his disciples. From the narratives 
 of Mark and Luke it appears that some of 
 the people reached the landing place before 
 the boat itself, and that Jesus, after landing, 
 spent a considerable part of the day in teach- 
 ing them many things, or in speaking to 
 them of the Kingdom of God, and in healing 
 those that had need of healing. Perhaps he 
 was seated with his disciples, according to 
 Jewish custom, while thus teaching the peo- 
 ple. But his teaching was interrupted, ever 
 and anon, by the presence of those who had 
 need of healing; and, as the day wore on, and 
 the disciples mingled with the throngs who 
 showed no signs of departing, they began to 
 feel serious anxiety in respect to food. 
 
 4. The passover (the thii-d in Chj-isfs min- 
 istry, April 18, A. D. 29) is here called a 
 (rather, the) feast of the Jews, showing 
 that it was the most important, in some re- 
 spects, of their feasts. Others have suggested 
 that this description is added because "the 
 Jews" were now so hostile to Jesus that he 
 could not safely attend the passover in Jeru- 
 salem. It was theirs, under their control; 
 and thereupon he absented himself from it. 
 But the suggestion is unnecessary' and by no 
 means obvious. From the fact that this pass- 
 over was nigh, may be inferred the season of 
 the year, about the middle of April. It has also 
 been correctly inferred from this statement 
 respecting the passover, that some, at least, of 
 the multitude who followed Jesus were per- 
 sons on their way to Jerusalem to celebrate 
 this feast. Others have supposed that it had 
 some connection in the Evangelist's mind 
 
Ch. VI.] 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 147 
 
 5 "When Jesus then lifted up his eys, and saw a great 
 company come iiiito him, he saith unto Philip, Whence 
 shall we buy bread, that these may eat? 
 
 G And this he said to prove him: for he himself knew 
 what he would do. 
 
 5 the feast of the .Tews, was at hand. Jesus therefore 
 lilting up his eyes, and seeing that a great multi- 
 tude eometh unto him, sailh unto I'hilip, Whence 
 
 6 are we to buy 'bread, that these may eat? And 
 this he said to prove him : for he himself knew 
 
 a Matt. 14 : 14 ; Mark 6 : 35 ; Lulce 9 : 12. 1 Gr., loaves. 
 
 with Christ's discourse respecting himself as 
 the bread from heaven — which is very doubt- 
 ful, i 
 
 5. When Jesus then, etc. ; or Jesus there- 
 fore lifting np his eyes, and seeing that a 
 great multitude eometh unto him, saith unto 
 Philip : Whence are we to buy bread, that 
 these may eat? It appears froin this that at 
 the time which the Evangelist has in mind, 
 people were still coming to Jesus, though the 
 day was far spent. The word therefore may 
 point to a connection between this verse and 
 the preceding. As the passover was near, the 
 multitudes came, and, therefore, Jesus saw 
 them coming. Or, it may point to something 
 in the mind of the Evangelist, and not ex- 
 
 1 [Here " the passover," though found in all known 
 manuscripts and versions, is omitted by several im- 
 portant Fathers, and the omission is apparently 
 implied in several other patristic statements and 
 chronological arguments. Pr. Hort (Westcott not con- 
 curring) states this adverse evidence at length and with 
 favor, though not venturing to propose excision without 
 any support from manuscripts or versions. It is well 
 known that many early Christians (see list of passages 
 in Hort) regarded "the acceptable year of the Lord " 
 (Luke 4 : 19, from Isa. 61 : 2) as showing that the minis- 
 try of Jesus lasted but one year; and they would 
 suppose this notion to be confirmed by the fact that 
 Matthew, Mark, and Luke mention no passover during 
 his ministry but that of the crucifixion. Now it seems 
 to us that all the patristic arguments and allusions may 
 be accounted for by the hypothesis of an early " West- 
 ern " omission of " the passover," made in order to 
 bring the Fourth Gospel into harmony with the sup- 
 posed teaching of the others and with the popular 
 opinion. The direct patristic proofs given by Hort are 
 from Irenaius, who regularly uses a " Western " text; 
 from Origen, who has not a few " Western" readings; 
 from Cyril, who seems in this as in many cases to have 
 closely followed Origen; and from the so-called Alogi 
 (replied to by Epiphanius), who may also have used a 
 " Western " text, as we know that Epiphanius himself 
 has many readings of that type. This hypothetical 
 reason for omission will at least counterbalance Dr. 
 Hort's supposition that " the passover " was inserted to 
 suit late chronological theories founded on Phlegon's 
 account of an eclipse ; especially as the eclipse was 
 really not three, but four years after the 1.5th of Tibe- 
 rius, and would thus have suggested a similar insertion 
 in John 5: 1. The reading of the manuscripts and 
 versions seems therefore to stand quite unshaken.— B.J 
 
 pressed. According to the other Evangelists, 
 the disciples first suggested the difficulty 
 about food, and the course of events may be 
 represented as follows : Late in the afternoon, 
 some of the disciples who had been passing 
 among the throngs of people, came to Jesus, 
 saying: "The place is a desert, and it is now 
 late; send the people away, that they may go 
 into the fields and villages round about and 
 buy food for themselves; for they have noth- 
 ing to eat."' (Matt. U: 15; Mark 6: 35, 36; Luke 9: 1-2). 
 
 Jesus therefore, without replying at once to 
 this suggestion, lifted up his eyes and thought- 
 fully surveyed the crowds still pressing to- 
 wards him. Then turning to Philip, he said: 
 Whence shall we buy bread that these 
 may eat? — which was at least an intimation 
 of his desire to feed them rather than to send 
 them away. Why the question was addressed 
 to Philip, and not to all the disciples, can 
 only be conjectured. 
 
 6. And this he said to prove him (lit., 
 trying him) — i. e., testing his faith ; for it does 
 not seem to have occurred to the mind of 
 Philip that he who had changed the water into 
 wine might be able to feed the hungry. For 
 he himself knew what he would (or, was 
 about to) do. He needed not to take counsel 
 with Philip, that the latter might assist him 
 in devising means to supply the wants of the 
 people. His purpose was formed, and his 
 question was only asked to test, and, in the 
 end, strengthen, the faith of Philip. Personal 
 questions take hold of men, and are remem- 
 bered. "I hear you cry, in bewilderment: 
 'I do not know. I have been to everj^body, 
 and I do not know what I shall do.' That is 
 a chronic state with us when we puzzle our 
 own poor brains. Jesus knew what he would 
 do. This is sweet comfort: Jesus knows. He 
 always knows all about it. He knew how 
 many people there were there. He knew how 
 much bread it would take; he knew how 
 many fish he would want, and how he meant 
 to feed the crowd, and send them all away re- 
 freshed. He knew all before it happened. 
 He perceived, long before Andrew told him, 
 that there was a lad somewhere in the crowd 
 
148 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 [Ch. VI. 
 
 7 Philip answered hini, "Two hundred pennyworth 
 of bread is not sufficient for them, that every one of 
 them may take a little. 
 
 8 One of his disciples, Andrew, Simon Peter's brother, 
 saith unto him, 
 
 9 There is a lad here, which hath five barley loaves, 
 and two small fishes: 'but what are they among so 
 many? 
 
 10 And Jesus said. Make the men sit down. Now 
 there was much grass in the place. So the men sat 
 down, in number about five thousand. 
 
 7 what he would do. Philip answered him, Two 
 hundred i shillings' worth of 2 bread is not sufficient 
 
 8 for them, that every one may take a little. One of 
 his disciples, Andrew, Simon Peter's brother, saith 
 
 9 unto him. There is a lad here, who hath five barley 
 loaves, and two fishes: but what are these among 
 
 10 so many? Jesussaid, Make the people sit down. Now 
 there was much grass in the place. So the men sat 
 
 I See Num. 11: 21, 22 b 2 Kings 4: «. 1 See marginal note on Matt. 18: 28.... 2 Gr., loaves. 
 
 with five barley cakes. When the lad set out 
 in the morning, I cannot make out what made 
 him bring five barley loaves and fishes into 
 that crowd, except the Master had whispered 
 in his heart: 'Young man, take with you a 
 good lunch. Put those barley cakes into the 
 basket, and do not forget the fishes. You 
 do not know how long you may be from 
 home.' Nature bade him provide for contin- 
 gencies; but, then, nature is God's voice, when 
 he chooses to make it so. . . Where is the 
 man that is to be the universal provider? 
 Where is the chief of the commissariat? It 
 is that 3'outh, and that is the whole of his 
 store-house. . . The Saviour knew that. And 
 he knows exactly, dear friend, where j^our 
 help is to come from in your hour of trou- 
 ble." — Spurgenn. 
 
 7. Two hundred penni^^vorth of bread 
 is not sufficient for them, that every one 
 (omit of them) may take a little. A penny 
 (or, denarius) of the time of Christ was worth 
 about fifteen cents of our money, and is sup- 
 posed to have been the usual compensation for 
 a day's labor in the field. (Matt. 20:2). The sum 
 mentioned by Philip was, therefore, about 
 thirty dollars, or as much as two hundred 
 men could earn by the labor of a day. At 
 this point may be inserted the words of Jesus 
 preserved by the other Evangelists: ^^They 
 need not depart (Matt.); '■''give ye them to eat 
 (Matt., Marl!, Lnke) ; and the Tcsponse of the disci- 
 ples : Shall we go and buy two hundred penny- 
 worth of bread, and give them to eat? with 
 the Saviour's further remark: '''^ How m,any 
 loaves have ye? Go and see." And now, 
 either after inquiry', or because he already 
 knew, comes the word of Andrew. 
 
 8. One of his disciples, Andrew, Simon 
 Peter's brother. Notice the graphic and 
 personal character of the narrative. Observe, 
 also, the implied concession of Peter's emi- 
 nence, in a Gospel which has been ascribed 
 to the second century, because it aims to de- 
 
 preciate him. But why so full a description 
 of one who made so unimportant a remark? 
 The Evangelist did not look upon Andrew's 
 report as unimportant. It was remembered 
 by him as first directing attention to the little 
 store with which Jesus, the Son of God, had 
 wrought a stupendous miracle; and the disci- 
 ple who had done this had enjoj'ed a privi- 
 lege never to be forgotten — even as it has 
 never ceased to be a privilege to be employed 
 in the humblest way as a friend of Christ. 
 And the greater the work with which one's 
 service is connected, the more delightful a re- 
 membrance of it will be. There is a lad (or, 
 little lad) here, which hath five barley 
 loayes, and two small fishes. The ex- 
 pression translated a lad {naiSdpiov tv), maj' sig- 
 nify a single lad; for the numeral one (eV), 
 though not specially emphatic, may have been 
 chosen by Andrew in order to show that there 
 was but one who had any food, and that he 
 was a small boy, or servant, who had only u 
 very small amount of provisions. Hence, the 
 question, or exclamation : But what are 
 these among (or, /or) so many? They bore 
 no appreciable relation to the wants of such a 
 multitude. It may, also, be observed that the 
 food was plain, such as was commonly used 
 by the poorer classes, especially the barley 
 bread. Yet suitable; for what the people now 
 required was food, to satisfy hunger; not lux- 
 uries, to gratify appetite. 
 
 10, Alake the men sit down (or, recline). 
 Now there was much grass in the place. 
 The grass is mentioned because it rendered 
 the reclining posture agreeable. But the no- 
 tice of it shows the accuracy of the Evangelist 
 in little things ; for just at this season of the 
 year would the grass be green and abundant. 
 So (or, therefore) the men sat down, in 
 number about five thousand. Mark testi- 
 fies that they "sat down in ranks, by hun- 
 dreds and bj' fifties." The number of women 
 and children must have been considerable, 
 
Ca. VI.] 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 149 
 
 11 And Jesus took the loaves; and when he had 
 given thanks, he distributed to the disciples, and the 
 disciples to them tliat were set down ; and likewise of 
 the fishes as much as they would. 
 
 12 When they were tilled, he said unto his disciples. 
 Gather up the fragments that remain, that nothing be 
 lost. 
 
 13 Therefore they gathered (hem together, and filled 
 twelve liaskets with the fragments of the five barley 
 loaves, which remained over and above unto them that 
 had eaten. 
 
 14 Then those men, when they had seen the miracle 
 that Jesus did, said, This is of a truth "that Prophet 
 that should come into the world. 
 
 11 down, in nuniher about five thousand. Jesus there- 
 fore took the loaves; and having given thanks, be 
 distributed to them that were set down; likewise 
 
 12 also of the fishes as mucli as Ihey would. And when 
 they were tilled, he saith unto his disciples, Gather 
 up the broken pieces which remain over, that noth- 
 
 13 ing be lost. So they gathered them up, and filled 
 twelve baskets with broken pieces from the five 
 barley loaves, which remained over unto them that 
 had eaten. When therefore the people saw the 'sign 
 
 14 which he did, they said. This is of a truth the pro- 
 phet that Cometh into the world. 
 
 a Gen. 49: 10; Deut. 18: 15, 18; Matt. U : 3 ; ch. 1 : 21 ; 4 : 19, 25; 7 : 40. 1 Some ancient authorities read, signs. 
 
 though they were not counted. "The mar- 
 shaling of five thousand men, besides women 
 and children, into such an orderly array, 
 must have taken some time. The people, 
 however, quietly consented to be so arranged, 
 and company after company sat down, till the 
 whole were seated in the presence of the Lord, 
 who all the while has stood in silence, watch- 
 ing the operation, with that scanty stock of 
 provisions at hand." — Hanna. 
 
 11. And Jesus (or, Jesus therefore) took 
 the loaves ; and when he had given 
 thanks, he distributed to them that were 
 set down. This is all that was written by 
 the Evangelist; the words, the disciples, 
 and the disciples to, being transferred to 
 this place from Matthew. Yet the distribu- 
 tion was, undoubtedly, made through the dis- 
 ciples, as the Synoptical Gospels relate; and 
 this may, possibly, be intimated by the com- 
 pound verb emploj'ed (SieSw/cei/). The other 
 Gospels state, also, that Jesus broke the bread. 
 And likewise of the fishes, as much as 
 they would. But when was the miracle 
 wrought? When the food was in the hands 
 of Jesus? or in those of his disciples? or in 
 those of the multitude? Meyer says: "The 
 Lord blessed and gave the loaves and fishes, 
 as they were, to the disciples ; and then, dur- 
 ing their distribution of them, the miraculous 
 increase took place, so that they broke and 
 distributed enough for all." Wfc may sup- 
 pose that Jesus broke the bread partially, and 
 that the disciples carried on the process, as 
 they gave to each one his portion — the bread 
 meanwhile increasing as they continued to 
 break and distribute it. 
 
 12. When they were filled, he said unto 
 his disciples. Gather up the fragments 
 that remain, that nothing be lost. The 
 repast was plain, wholesome, bountiful. None 
 went from that supper hungry, unless it was 
 
 for spiritual food. Indeed, there was more 
 than enough for all. "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 /or their 
 own use[?], each in his basket (^k6^ivo<:), the 
 ordinary furniture of the traveling Jew, to 
 carry his food, lest he should be polluted by 
 that of the people through whose territory he 
 passed. ' ' — Alford. 
 
 13. Of the size of these baskets, nothing 
 very definite is known. They are called by a 
 name (K6(f>ii'ot), different from that given to the 
 baskets (o-TrupiSes), used when the four thousand 
 were fed. (See Mark 8: 19, 20). According 
 to the Art. in Smith's "Dictionary of the Bi- 
 ble," the former' were generally larger than 
 the latter. They must, then, have been of 
 considerable size, for Paul is said to have been 
 let down in one of the latter when he escaped 
 from Damascus. (Acts 9: 25). The "Et3'molog- 
 icum Magnum" defines a cophinus, the bas- 
 ket used in this case, as a "deep and hollow 
 vessel." As used by Roman gardeners, it 
 held manure enough to make a hot-bed. (Col- 
 umella xi. 3). Westcott says: "The stout 
 wicker baskets (ko(^iVous), as distinguished from 
 the soft, flexible 'frails' (<rrrupi5es)." From the 
 language of this Gospel, it might be inferred 
 that the fragments were those of the barley 
 bread only, while Mark appears to include 
 remnants of the fishes. Perhaps the pieces of 
 fish were a very small part of the whole, and 
 therefore passed without notice, except by 
 Mark. 
 
 14, 15. Effect of the Miracle on the 
 People. 
 
 14. Then those men, etc. More exactly: 
 The tnen, therefore, when they saw the sign 
 which he did, were saying. The Evangelist 
 uses the descriptive ten.sc, because the remark 
 
150 
 
 JOHK 
 
 [Ch. VI. 
 
 15 'Wlien Jesiis therefore perceived that they would 
 come and take him by force, to make him a king, he de- 
 parted again into a mountain himself alone. 
 
 Iti "And when even was now come, his disciples went 
 down unto the sea, 
 
 17 And entered into a ship, and went over the sea to- 
 ward Capernaum. And it was now dark, and Jesus 
 was not come to them. 
 
 15 Jesus therefore perceiving that they were about to 
 come and take him by force, to make him king, with- 
 drew again into the mountain himself alone. 
 
 16 And when evening came, his disciples went down 
 unto the sea; and they entered into a boat, and were 
 
 17 going over the sea unto Capernaum. And it was 
 now dark, and Jesus had not yet come to them. 
 
 oMait. 14:23; Mark 6; 47. 
 
 passed from one to another, and was often 
 repeated. This is of a truth that (rather 
 the) Prophet that should come (literally, 
 that Cometh) into the world. I^rom the 
 next verse it appears that they meant the 
 Messiah. If so, some of the people probably 
 interpreted Deut. 18: 15 of the Messiah to 
 come. Compare 1 : 21. 
 
 15. When Jesus therefore perceived (or, 
 knew, yvoOs) : not by what he had overheard 
 them saying, nor by his power to look into 
 their hearts and perceive the hopes which his 
 act had kindled, but by his foresight of what- 
 ever concerned his own work. That they 
 vrould (or, were about to) come — i. e., unless 
 prevented by himself— and take him by 
 force, to make (or, that they might make) 
 him a king. The pronoun him is not ex- 
 pressed in the original. We are astonished 
 that the people, after beholding such a sign 
 of Christ's power with God, should have 
 thought it possible to carry him by force to 
 Jerusalem for such a purpose, or, indeed, for 
 any other. But their enthusiasm was evi- 
 dently unreasoning — a sudden popular im- 
 pulse that would soon die out of their hearts. 
 He departed again into a (rather, the) 
 mountain himself alone. The word again 
 is probably genuine, and refers to what is said 
 in ver. 3. As the multitude increased, Jesus 
 had c(mie down to the edge of the plain, where 
 he taught and healed the sick, and at last fed 
 the people with the five loaves and two small 
 fishes. Now he withdrew once more into the 
 mountain, not taking even his disciples with 
 him. 
 
 16-21. Miracle of "Walking on the 
 Sea. 
 
 "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." — 
 (Alford.) It is possible, though by no means 
 probable, that this miracle was performed to 
 give to the twelve a view of the truth respect- 
 ing his body, of which he was about to speak 
 in his discourse at Capernaum, but it is not 
 credible that John inserted this narrative to 
 give them such a view; for they must have 
 been all, or nearly all, dead when he wrote 
 his Gospel. Alford seems to have been influ- 
 enced by his own view of the nature of 
 Christ's body as related to the holy supper 
 and the salvation of the bodies of believers; 
 but his statement, as it reads, is phtinly in- 
 correct. 
 
 16. And when evening was (omit now) 
 come. Matthew distinguishes an early even- 
 ing, before the miracle (u: is), from a later 
 evening, after it (h:23). The evening here 
 referred to is, of course, the later one. His 
 disciples went down unto the sea — liter- 
 ally, npon the sea, that is, the sea-shore. And 
 this they were constrained to do, as Matthew 
 (14:22) and Mark (6:45) testify, by Jesus him- 
 self, before he sent away the people and re- 
 tired into the mountain. 
 
 17. And (they) entered into a ship (or, 
 boat), and went (or, toere going) over the 
 sea toward (unto) Capernaum. It is doubt- 
 ful whether the true text has a ship or the 
 ship in this place; but Matthew and Mark 
 have "the ship," and we maj', therefore, 
 assume that the disciples entered the same 
 ship, or boat, in which they had come over to 
 the desert place. Notice also the tense of the 
 verb were going, not ^vent, for the passage 
 was, for the present, attempted, rather than 
 accomplished. Again, John marks their des- 
 tination as Capernaum, while Mark gives 
 their direction as "towards Bethsaida." Both 
 may be correct ; for in order to reach Caper- 
 naum, they might have to go for some time 
 in the direction of the western Bethsaida. 
 
 I Moreover, it is possible that they kept near 
 
Ch. VI.] 
 
 JOHK 
 
 151 
 
 18 And the sea arose by reasou of a great wind that 
 blew. 
 
 19 So when they had rowed about five and twenty or 
 thirty furlongs, they see Jesus walking on the sea, and 
 drawing nigh unto the ship: and they were afraid. 
 
 2U But he saith unto them, It is I ; be not afraid. 
 
 18 And the sea was rising by reason of a great wind 
 
 19 that blew. When therefore they had rowed about 
 five and twenty or thirty furlongs, they bfheld Jesus 
 walking on the sea, and drawing nigh unto the boat: 
 
 20 and they were afraid. But he saith unto tbeui, It 
 
 the northern shore, in the hope of recei%'ing 
 Jesus on board. And it was now dark (or, 
 darkness had now coyne on), and Jesus was 
 not (or, had not yet) come to them. "It 
 
 would appear," says Alford, "as if the dis- 
 ciples were lingering along shore with the 
 expectation of taking in Jesus, but night had 
 fallen, and he had not come to them." In 
 some secluded place on the mountain he was 
 engaged in prayer to God (Matt, u: 23). The 
 darkness troubled him not. He had come 
 into the world to dispel a thicker darkness 
 than now covered hill-top or sea; and he saw 
 in the hearts of men a love of that darkness 
 in preference to light. Hence he praj'ed. 
 
 18. And the sea arose (lit., tvas rising) 
 by reason of a great wind that blew. In 
 other words, the sea was becoming thoroughly 
 waked up, aroused, agitated, by a strong 
 wind blowing upon it. Matthew says that 
 the ship was "tossed with the waves" (or, for- 
 mented by the waves), "for the wind was con- 
 trary " (u:2i); and Mark, that Jesus "saw 
 them toiling (or, tonnented) in rowing, for 
 the wind was contrary." "Two or three 
 hours' hearty labor at the oar might have car- 
 ried them over to Capernaum. But the ad- 
 verse tempest is too strong for them. The 
 whole night long they toil among the waves, 
 against the wind." — (Hanna). "After sunset, 
 I strolled down to the lake, and, seating my- 
 self upon a mass of broken wall, enjoyed the 
 freshness of the evening. All the day there 
 had not been a breath of air; the sultry heat 
 had been that of a furnace; but now a cool 
 breeze came off the table-land, and, rushing 
 down the ravines that descend to the lake, be- 
 gan to ruffle its bosom. As it grew darker, 
 the breeze increased to a gale, the lake became 
 a sheet of foam, and the white-headed break- 
 ers dashed proudly on the rugged beach ; its 
 gentle murmur was now changed into the 
 wild and mournful sound of the whistling 
 wind, and the agitated waters. Afar off, was 
 dimly seen a little barque struggling with the 
 waves, and then lost sight of amidst the misty 
 rack. To have thus seen so striking an exem- 
 plification of the Scripture narrative, was as 
 
 interesting as it was unexpected." — W. H. 
 Bartlett, quoted from Hackett's "Illustra- 
 tions of Scripture"). 
 
 19. So when (or, when, therefore) they 
 had (lit., have) rowed about five and 
 twenty or thirty furlongs. That is, about 
 three and a half miles, which agrees with the 
 testimony of Matthew and Mark, that the 
 ship was now in the midst of tlie sea. They 
 see Jesus walking on the sea, and draw- 
 ing nigh unto the ship: and they were 
 afraid. This occurred in the fourth watch 
 of the night (Matt, and Mark), a little before the 
 dawn of day, or in the early morning twi- 
 light. Gazing through the dusky atmosphere 
 at the human form, which could be indis- 
 tinctly seen moving towards them over the 
 agitated sea, they imagined it to be a phantom 
 or spectre, and wore terrified. The scene is 
 thus pictured by Hanna: "They were rather 
 more than half across the lake, when, tread- 
 ing on the troubled waves, as on a level, solid 
 pavement, a figure is seen approaching, draw- 
 ing nearer and nearer to the boat. Their toil 
 is changetl to terror — the vigorous hand re- 
 laxes its grasp — the oars stand still in the air, 
 or are but feebly plied — the boat rocks heavily 
 — a cry of terror comes from the frightened 
 crew — they think it is a spirit." The word 
 used by the Evangelists Matthew and Mark 
 {<t)'xvTa(xtJ.a) signifies a phantom, or ap2)n7'ition, 
 not a spirit. From the narrative of Mark, 
 it appears that Jesus was pleased to go by 
 them ; that is, he did not attempt or desire to 
 enter the ship for his own sake, but only at 
 their request. Yet he was there as a friend, 
 and was prompt in dispelling their illusion 
 and their fear. 
 
 20. It is I ; be not afraid. There was 
 no mistaking that voice. The form might be 
 spectral, but the voice was their Master's. 
 Matthew and Mark preserve another word: 
 " Have courage ; it is I; be not afraid." The 
 Greek expressions are briefer than their En- 
 glish equivalents: "Courage! it is I; fear 
 not" — five strong, clear words, putting heart 
 into the disciples instantl3'. Matthew adds an 
 incident, showing their wonderful effect upoa 
 
152 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 [Ch. VI. 
 
 21 Then they willingly received him into the ship: 
 and immediiitely the ship was at the laud whither they 
 went. 
 
 22 The day following, when the people, which stood 
 on the other side of the sea, saw that there was none 
 other boat there, save that one whereinto his disciples 
 were entered, and that Jesus went not with his disciples 
 into the boat, but l/iat his disciples were gone away alone: 
 
 21 is I ; be not afraid. They were willing therefore to 
 receive him into the boat: and straightway the 
 boat was at the laud whithtr they were going. 
 
 22 On the morrow the multitude that stood on the 
 other side of the sea saw that there was none other 
 iboat there, save one, and that Jesus entered not 
 with his disciples into the boat, but thai his disciples 
 
 1 6r. little boat. 
 
 Peter, the most impulsive and daring of the 
 twelve, (li: 28-32). The omission of this inci- 
 dent by John accords with the general brev- 
 ity of his narrative, and does not, therefore, 
 point to any undervaluing of Peter. The in- 
 cident is not, indeed, as recorded by Matthew, 
 altogether creditable to Peter; for it illus- 
 trates the weakness as well as the strengtii of 
 his faith— the instability as well as the energy 
 of his character. 
 
 21. Then they Avillingly received him 
 into the ship. The Kevised Version is 
 better: They were willing therefore to re- 
 ceive him into the boat. Willing, becau.se 
 their fear was now gone, since they recog- 
 nized the One who had come to them 
 in so wonderful a manner as their Lord. 
 Jesus came into the ship, and, according to 
 Matthew, they that were in the ship came 
 and worshiped him, saying: "Of u truth 
 thou art the Son of God." On the other 
 hand, John's language is tliought by some to 
 imply that Jesus did not enter tlie siiip: they 
 wished to take him into the ship, but did not. 
 This, however, introduces, without any neces- 
 sity, a contradiction between this Gospel and 
 the first two. Alford's note is correct: 
 "They were afraid: — but being re-assured by 
 his voice, they were willing to take him into 
 the ship; and upon their doing so, the ship. 
 in a comparatively short time, was at the land 
 to which they had been going." Against this 
 interpretation, Godet remarks that the verb 
 "were willing" (jjecXov), is in the imperfect 
 tense, and denotes an incomplete action." 
 He would explain the words thus: ".4< the 
 moment when they were wishing to receive 
 him, the ship came to land. Jesus indeed 
 entered the barque, but had no time to seat 
 himself there; for, simultaneously with his 
 stepping on board, it reached the shore." 
 But the objection from the imperfect tense is 
 not well taken. No tense could be so suitable 
 to express a feeling which continued from the 
 moment when the.v heard the voice of Jesus 
 until he was in the boat. "With rare and 
 
 vivid recollection of the scene, John repro- 
 duces, as in a picture, the feeling of the dis- 
 ciples, while the impulsive Peter was walking 
 and sinking and being saved, and while their 
 Master was making his way, with Peter, into 
 their storm-tossed boat. 
 
 22-24. Why the Multitude Remained 
 ON THE Eastern Shore Till the Next 
 Day, and Then Came Over to the West 
 Side to Capernaum. 
 
 The structure of these verses is involved, 
 and the narrative very compressed, but the 
 meaning of the Evangelist is tolerably evi- 
 dent. 
 
 22. The day following— i. c, after the 
 feeding of the five thousand. When the 
 people, which stood on the other side 
 of the sea. Omit when and substitute imd- 
 titude for people, with the Revised Version. 
 The other side means the eastern, as con- 
 trasted with the western side. Stood — ivere 
 standing, or remaining : "For this verb often 
 means to stand, not as opposed to other atti- 
 tudes, but to be fixed, stationary, as opposed to 
 the idea of motion." — (Hackett on Acts 9: 7). 
 Saw that there was none other boat there 
 save one. For the words that whereinto 
 his disciples were entered, are rejected 
 by the best editors. And that Jesus went 
 not with his disciples into the boat, but 
 that his disciples Avere gone (better, went) 
 away alone. So that Jesus was supposed 
 by them to be still on the eastern side, where 
 he might, perhaps, soon show himself again. 
 
 The critical editors (Lach, Tisch, Treg, W. 
 & H.) substitute the verb saw (elSov) for the 
 participle having seen (\&tov) in the second 
 clause of this verse. But the verbal form 
 ma.y have come from the feeling of a tran- 
 scriber that the word here must have been 
 exactly repeated in ver. 24. The reference, 
 however, of the verl) or participle in this 
 verse, is to the state of affairs at the close of 
 the day of the miracle, and possibly at the 
 beginning of the next day, while the reference 
 of saw in ver, 24, is to the state of affairs farther 
 
Ch. VI.] 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 153 
 
 23 Howbeit there came other boats fnmi Tiberias 
 nigh unto the [lUice where they did eat bread, after 
 that the Lord had given thanks: 
 
 24 When the people theretbre saw that Jesus was not 
 there, neither his disciples, they also took shipping, and 
 came to Capernaum, seeking for Jesus. 
 
 25 And when they had found him on tlie other side 
 of tlie sea, they said unto him, Kabbi, when earnest 
 thou hither? 
 
 20 Jesus answered them and said. Verily, verily, I 
 say unto you. Ye seek me, not because ye saw the 
 miracles, but because ye did eat of the loaves, and were 
 filled. 
 
 23 went away alone (howbeit there came 'boats from 
 Tiberias nigh unto the place where they ate the 
 
 24 bread after the Lord had given thanks): when the 
 multitude therefore saw that Jesus was not Iheie, 
 neither his disciiiles, they themselves got into the 
 
 25 1 boats, and came to Capernaum, seeking Jesus. And 
 when they found him on the other side of the sea, 
 they said unto liim, Kabbi, when camest thou hither? 
 
 26 Jesus answered them and said, Verily, verily, 1 say 
 
 1 Gr. little boats. 
 
 on in the day following. Hence the parti- 
 ciple affords the easier reading, and this may 
 be considered an argument against it. We 
 have supposed the more difficult or verbal 
 form original, but it is a case where certainty- 
 is out of the question. And the meaning of 
 the writer must have been essentially the 
 same, whichever form was written by him. 
 
 33. Howbeit there came other boats — 
 the word other should be omitted — from 
 Tiberias, nigh unto the place where they 
 did eat bread (or, where they ate the bread)., 
 after that the Lord had given thanks. 
 This parenthetic remark appears to have been 
 inserted to account for the boats which were 
 available for the people who remained on the 
 eastern shore after the disciples had gone 
 away in the only boat whicli was there on the 
 day of the miracle (see ver. 22). When the 
 people (multitude) therefore saw. That 
 is, on the morrow, (ver. 22:) the mind of the 
 writer going back to the time specified before. 
 That Jesus was not there, neither his 
 disciples. For, down to this time they had 
 imagined that Jesus was near them and that 
 his disciples might return for him.. They 
 also, or, they themselves, took shipping, 
 (literally, got into the boats), namely, those 
 which had come near the place where they 
 were from the southwestern shore at Tiberias. 
 And came to Capernaum, seeking for 
 Jesus. It need not be assumed that the 
 number who came by these boats was very 
 great. Many had repaired to their homes, 
 when dismissed by Jesus, the evening before 
 (Matt. 14:23). That the people directed their 
 way to Capernaum, is evidence that Caper- 
 naum was regarded by them as the residence 
 of Jesus — an instance in which the author of 
 this Gospel silently confirms what is related 
 by others. Such incidental harmonies go 
 very far towards establishing the truth of all 
 the Gospels. The people are said to have 
 
 come over to Capernaum seeking for Jesus ; 
 
 but all seeking is not the same: everything 
 in the end depends on tlie character of the 
 seeking, on the motive which leads to it. 
 There is a seeking of Jesus which is self- 
 seeking only. 
 25-41. PiRST Dialogue, i 
 
 25. And Avhen they had found him on 
 the other side of the sea. That is, on the 
 western side of the lake, and indeed in the syn- 
 agogue of Capernaum (ver. 59). Meanwhile, Je- 
 sus had not been idle, but had healed many of 
 the sick in "the land of Gennesaret." (Mati. 
 14: 34-36; Mark 6: sr,. 36). Rabbi, When camcst 
 thou hither? "The question in respect to 
 time includes the question in respect to man- 
 ner." — (Bengel). When and how hast thou 
 got here? The Greek verb is in the perfect 
 tense. The question may have been one of 
 simple perplexity and surprise. There is no 
 evidence that they were thinking of a miracle 
 in the case. 
 
 26. Our attention is arrested, /irsj!, by the 
 great earnestness of the Lord's reply : Verily, 
 verily, I say unto you. This reiterated word 
 reveals the infinite importance of what he 
 is to saj'. Secondly, by the utter want of 
 any appreciation of his spiritual work on the 
 part of those who had found him. They were 
 not awed and elevated and made reverent to- 
 ward God by the miracles which they had 
 seen. Thirdly, by the completely selfish na- 
 ture of their motives If they longed for the 
 Messiah at all, it was because they expected 
 glory and advantage to themselves from him. 
 The kingdom of God, in their estimation, was 
 "meat and drink," not "righteousness and 
 peace, and. joy in the Holy Ghost" (Rom. i4: n). 
 Fourthly, by the perfect knowledge which 
 Jesus had of the hearts of these men. In this 
 
 1 See an interesting and instructive paper on the fol- 
 lowing discourse in Bib. Sac. for 1854 (vol xi.), p. 693 sq. 
 
154 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 [Cpi. VI. 
 
 27 Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but " for 
 that meat which endureth unto everlasting life, which 
 the Son of man shall give unto you : ' for him hath God 
 the Father sealed. 
 
 28 Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that 
 we might work the works of (iod? 
 
 29 Jesus answered and said unto them, i^This is the 
 work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath 
 sent. 
 
 30 They said therefore unto him, <* What sign shew- 
 est thou then, that we may see, and believe thee ? what 
 dost thou work ? 
 
 unto you. Ye seek me, not because ye saw signs, but 
 
 27 because ye ate of the loaves, and were filled. Work 
 not for the meat which perisheth, but for the meat 
 which abideth unto eternal life, which thu Son of 
 man shall give unto you: for him the Father, ecew 
 
 28 God, hath sealed. They said therefore unto him. 
 What must we do, that we may work the works of 
 
 29 God? Jesus answered and said unto them. This is 
 the work of God, that ye believe ou him whom i he 
 
 30 hath sent. They said therefore unto him. What 
 then doest thou for a sign, that we may see, and be- 
 
 : 37 ; 8 : 18 ; Acts 2 : 
 -1 Or, he sent. 
 
 22; 2 Pet. 1: 17 
 
 instance, as in every other, he appears to be 
 able to look into the souls of those whom he 
 addresses, and speak to every one, with abso- 
 lute certainty, the appropriate word. 
 
 It may also be observed that Jesus refers 
 to the miracles of healing which he had 
 ■wrought, as well as to the feeding of the mul- 
 titude, using for this purpose the plural, 
 miracles, or signs, not the singular, as would 
 be suitable in referring to one. 
 
 27. Labour (lit., work) not for the meat 
 (lit., food) which perisheth. Many inter- 
 preters suppose that rebuke is implied as well 
 as exhortation expressed by the term work 
 (epyi^eaJc); as if Jesus had Said : "You wish to 
 be fed without labor on your part; but I say 
 unto you, Work; obtain food by labor; yet not 
 the food which you desire, food for the body, 
 which satisfies for a time and then perishes, 
 but food for the soul, food that will never lose 
 its power to nourish him who obtains it ; food 
 which the Son of man shall (or, u)ilU) give 
 unto you : for him hath God the Father 
 sealed." This sealing, or acknowledgment 
 of Jesus was made at his baptism, and by 
 every miracle. Alford remarks, that "the 
 future, will give, is u.sed because the great sac- 
 rifice was not yet offered." But this isscarcelj' 
 correct ; for the benefit of the Saviour's death 
 had been experienced by multitudes before 
 he expired on the cross. The future tense of 
 the verb is more naturally explained by the 
 circumstance that Jesus was thinking of those 
 who had not yet sought the spiritual food in 
 question. To such persons his language was 
 addressed and adapted. And it is to be ob- 
 served that he distinctly presents himself, the 
 Son of man, as the giver of this spiritual food. 
 This is, perhaps, the most important feature 
 of his reply. 
 
 28. What shall (or, must) we do, that 
 we might (rather, may) work the works of 
 God? The men are Jews, trained to the ob- 
 
 servance of Rabbinical traditions. By the 
 works of God, tliey mean works required by 
 God, and, therefore, pleasing to him in par- 
 ticular; those to which they imagine them- 
 selves to be summoned by Christ. They per- 
 ceive that Jesus has in mind a religious or 
 spiritual good, and they conclude that it must 
 be obtained by the performance of certain 
 new but unnamed works of righteousnes'. 
 These they are willing at least to consider; for 
 they are anxious to stand well in the new 
 kingdom of God. But they quite overlook 
 the most significant part of Christ's response, 
 the declaration that he will give them the 
 food which will ensure eternal life. To this 
 point, he therefore directs their attention by 
 words so plain that their meaning cannot be 
 overlooked. 
 
 29. This is the Avork of God— the one 
 new and special thing required by God, on 
 which everything else depends — that ye be- 
 lieve on (or, in) him whom he hath sent. 
 The expression in him, etc. (eU oi-), represents 
 Jesus as the one towards whom belief must be 
 directed, and in whom it must rest. "As ser- 
 vants of God, they must yield themselves 
 with entire confidence to the messenger of 
 God." — (SchaflT). This answer of Jesus has 
 been cited as a brief statement of Paul's great 
 doctrine, that justification depends on faith in 
 Christ, and as a proof that saving faith in- 
 cludes trust in Chri-st. To believe in Christ is 
 more than to believe Christ, though the latter 
 should lead to the former. The tense of the 
 verb translated hath sent (lit., sent), shows 
 that Christ looked at the act of sending as ac- 
 complished. 
 
 30. What sign shewest (lit., doest) thou 
 then, that we may see, and believe thee? 
 What dost thou work? It seems very sur- 
 prising that this multitude, some of them fresh 
 from the scene of yesterda3''s miracle, should 
 now ask for additional evidence of the Messi- 
 
Ch. VI.] 
 
 JOHK 
 
 155 
 
 31 " Our fathers did eat manna in the desert : as it is 
 •written, ' He gave them bread from heaven to eat. 
 
 32 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say 
 unto you, Moses gave you not that bread from heaven ; 
 but my P'atlier giveth you the true bread from heaven. 
 
 33 For the bread of God is he which cometh down 
 from heaven, and giveth life unto the world. 
 
 34 «Then said they unto him. Lord, evermore give us 
 this bread. 
 
 35 And Jesus said unto them, <* I am the bread of life: 
 «he that cometh to me shall never hunger: and he 
 that believeth on me shall never thirst. 
 
 31 lieve thee? what workest thou ? Our fathers ate the 
 manna in the wilderness ; as it is written. He gave 
 
 32 them bread out of heaven to eat. Jesus therefore 
 said unto them. Verily, verily, I say unto you, It was 
 not Moses that gave you the bread out of heaven ; 
 but my Father giveth you the true bread out ot 
 
 33 heaven. For the bread of God is that which cometh 
 down out of heaven, and giveth life unto the world. 
 
 34 They said therefore unto him, Lord, evermore give 
 
 35 us this bread. Jesus said unto them, 1 a:n the bread 
 of life: he that cometh tome shall not hunger, and 
 
 (Ex.16: 15; Num. 11 : 7 J Neh. 9: 15; 1 Cor. 10 : 3 b Ps. 78: 24, 25 c Seech. 4: 15 d ver. 48: 58 ech. 4: 14; 7: 37. 
 
 ahship of Jesus. But it is clear, from the 
 whole narrative, that they were carnal, won- 
 der-loving, and ready to ask for miracle upon 
 miracle. They demand a greater sign before 
 they will believe Jesus (Trio-TeucrujjiAei' croi), to say 
 nothing of believing in him. 
 
 31. Our fathers did eat {the) manna in 
 the desert ; as it is written, He gave 
 them bread from heaven to eat. The 
 mention of food that does not perish, but en- 
 dureth unto eternal life, reminds them of the 
 manna that was given to their fathers, when 
 under the leadership of Moses, and they at 
 once intimate the propriety of a similar bless- 
 ing from Jesus. If he will give them, by 
 miracle, not barley bread and fishes only, but 
 the food of angels, they may receive him as 
 the Messiah, greater than Moses. (Comp. Ps. 
 78 : 24). 
 
 33. "With an earnest Verily, verily, show- 
 ing the importance of his words, Jesus an- 
 swers: Moses gave you not that bread 
 from heaven. Better, Rev. Ver. : It was 
 not Moses that gave you the bread out of 
 heaven. As this is a response to the words 
 just used by the people, the bread from 
 heaven must refer to the manna. Christ, 
 therefore, says : It is not Moses, as you sup- 
 pose, who has given to you, the chosen people, 
 the bread from heaven. For, though it was 
 but a type of the true bread from heaven, it 
 was of supernatural origin, and not a gift 
 from Moses. But my Father giveth (or, is 
 giiniig) you the true bread from heaven. 
 By the true bread from heaven, is meant 
 that which answers perfectly to the idea of 
 bread from heaven. 
 
 33. For the bread of God is he (or, that) 
 which cometh doAvn from heaven, and 
 giveth life unto the world. In other words, 
 the genuine bread of God, the bread which 
 he gives, is distinguished by these two quali- 
 ties: (1) it is heaven-descending, coming down 
 
 from God to men ; and (2) it is life-giving, 
 even to every man, whether Jew or Greek, 
 who partakes of it. Hence, the world of 
 mankind are dead until thoy receive this food. 
 The Common Version, He which cometh 
 down from heaven, etc., is grammatically 
 possible, and is defended by Godet ; but it does 
 not agree with the next verse. The people 
 certainly supposed that Jesus referred to some 
 celestial food, not himself, as giving life to the 
 world ; for then said they unto him : 
 
 34. liord, evermore give us this bread. 
 This was said, probabh', without bitterness or 
 contempt. For the people, doubtless, assumed 
 that bread from heaven must be a good, and, 
 indeed, a miraculous good, though its cliar- 
 acter was not clearly apprehended by them. 
 Certainly, they supposed it was something 
 distinct from Christ himself. 
 
 35. From this point onward Jesus speaks 
 of himself plainly and directly. His lan- 
 guage is extremely bold and figurative, but 
 for the most part quite intelligible. I am 
 the bread of life. The pronoun I is em- 
 phatic; and by the bread of life is meant 
 the bread which gives and sustains spiritual 
 life — the life mentioned in ver. 33. For the 
 Greek word meaning life, has the definite 
 article before it. He that cometh to me 
 shall never (or rather, not) hunger, and he 
 that believeth on me shall never thirst. 
 (Comp. 5: 40). Coming to Christ is here 
 equivalent to believing in Christ. He that 
 cometh to me, he that believeth on me — i. e., 
 any person who can be thus characterized, 
 shall have the satisfaction promised. Yet 
 Schaff attempts to distinguish between the 
 faith by which one comes to Christ, and 
 subsequent fsiith. ^^Coming to Christ is fjiith 
 indeed, j'et not in repose as mere trust and 
 confidence, or as a state of mind, but in active 
 exercise and motion from the service of sin to 
 the service of Christ. Comp. 37; 44, 45, 65; 
 
156 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 [Ch. VI. 
 
 36 "But I said unto you, that ye also have seen me, 
 and believe not. 
 
 37 'AH that the Father giveth me shall come to me; 
 and ' him that cometh to me I will in iio wise cast out. 
 
 38 For I came down from heaven, "^ not to do mine 
 ow u will, « but the will of him that sent me. 
 
 39 Ami this is the Father's will which hath sent me, 
 /that of all which he hath given me I should lose noth- 
 ing, but should raise it up again at the last day. 
 
 36 he that believeth on me shall never thirst. But I 
 said unto you, that ye have seen me, and yet be- 
 
 37 lieve not. All that the Father giveth me shall come 
 unto me; and him that cometh to me I will in no 
 
 38 wise cast out. For 1 am come down from heaven, 
 not to do mine own will, but the will of him that 
 
 39 sent me. And this is the will of him that sent me, 
 that of all that which he hath given me I should 
 
 lose nothing, but should raise it up at the last day. 
 
 o ver. 26, 64 h ver. 45 c Mau. 24: 24; ch. 10: 2S. 29; 2 Tim. 2 : 19 ; 1 Jolin 2: 19. 
 
 10: 28; 17: 12; 18: 9. 
 
 .d Malt. 26: 39; ch. 5: 30 e ch. 4 : 34..../ch. 
 
 7: 37, 38." Does not this describe one aspect 
 of faith through all the conflict of this 
 earthly life? Meyer, Godet, and others, agree 
 with the interpretation given above. "Where 
 is there an earthly food which quiets hunger 
 and thirst forever? Only faith in Christ 
 quiets all longings and satifies all real needs in 
 life, in proportion as it increases and becomes 
 pure in the longing, needy soul." — [Lucke.)^ 
 
 36. But I said unto you — in the words 
 of ver. 26 — that ye also have seen me 
 
 (better, that ye have even seen ine) — i. e., acting 
 as the Messiah, doing wonders of grace, heal- 
 ing the sick, feeding the multitude — and 
 believe not. A marvelous contrast! Clear 
 evidence — and no faith ! Compare the words 
 of Christ to Thomas, 20: 29. 
 
 37. All that the Father giveth me 
 shall (or, will) come to me. While Christ 
 perceives that most of the people who encom- 
 pass him in the synagogue are earthly, selfish, 
 unbelieving, and ready to reject him as soon 
 as he disappoints their hopes, he is sure that 
 all whom the Father giveth him bj^ the in- 
 ward working of his grace, will, of their own 
 accord come to him in faith, and receive him 
 as their life. The holy purpose of God will 
 not therefore be defeated by the sinful in- 
 credulity of men. All whom the Father 
 gives will be the Son's at last. For the word 
 all (irai/) expresses totality in the strongest 
 manner, viz., as a complete whole, as one body 
 of which no smallest part or most insignifi- 
 cant member will be wanting. Saj^s Bengel 
 of this word: '''' Vocabida monientosissim.n. 
 Words of the greatest importance. The 
 Father hath given to the Son the whole mass, 
 as it were, that all whom he has given may 
 be a unit; but, in execution of the divine plan, 
 the Son evolves that whole, one by one." 
 
 1 For the use of the aorist subjunctive with oO (iJ), in 
 a future sense. See Winer § 60. 3. Butmaun's " Gram, 
 of the N. T. Greek," p. 212. 
 
 And him that cometh to me I will in no 
 wise cast out— i. e., out of my kingdom, 
 presence, fellowship; for all these are in- 
 cluded. " Every one who comes is welcome." 
 Previous sin does not prevent acceptance. 
 "The negative expression," says Meyer, "is 
 a loving Litotes; but I will receive him with 
 a joyful mind, adds Nonnus." 
 
 38. By the words of this verse, and the 
 two following, Jesus assigns the reason why 
 he will thus welcome and save every one who 
 believes. His own will is one with the 
 Father's will, and it is the Father's will that 
 he should receive, and keep, and ssive eter- 
 nally all that the Father has given him. For 
 I came (or, a?w come) down from heaven, 
 not to do mine own Avill, but the will of 
 him that sent me. Compare his very 
 similar words to the Pharisees in Jerusalem 
 (5:30). Notice, also, how clearly the con- 
 sciousness of Jesus connects his present with 
 his original life. He is distinctly aware of 
 having come down from (otto) heaven to 
 earth, when he entered into his theanthropic 
 state, and of having a definite purpose to ac- 
 complish in doing this. That purpose, what- 
 ever else may be said of it, was to do the will 
 of him by whom he was sent. But in what 
 did that will consist? How could the Sent 
 accomplish the will of the Sender? A partial, 
 if not a full, answer to this question is given 
 by the next words of Jesus himself. 
 
 39. And this is the Father's will which 
 hath sent me, that of all which he hath 
 given me I should lose nothing, but 
 should raise it up again at the last day. 
 The word Father is not sufficiently authenti- 
 cated. We should, therefore, read, as in the 
 Rev. Ver., the will of him. Note (1) that 
 the word translated all is the same as in ver. 
 37, and its meaning unchanged. (2) That 
 the verb hath given unites the past with the 
 present. The act of giving is conceived of as 
 in progress from eternity, or as abiding in its 
 
Ch. VI.] 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 157 
 
 • 40 And this is the will of hiiu that sent me, "that 
 every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, 
 may have everlasting life : and I will raise him up at 
 the last day. 
 
 41 The Jews then murmured at him, because he said, 
 I am the bread which came down from heaven. 
 
 40 For this is the will of my Father, that every one 
 that belioldeth the Son, and believeth on him.siiould 
 have eternal life; and 'I will raise him up at the 
 last day. 
 
 41 The .Jews therefore murmured concerning him, be- 
 cause he said, I am the bread that came down out of 
 
 a ver. 27, 47, 54 j oh. .3 : 15, 16 ; 4 : 14. 1 Or, That I ehould raise him up. 
 
 force and effect down to the present time. 
 (3) That Jesus makes it the will of the Sender 
 that no part or member of the whole given to 
 liim should be lost. Here is the preservation 
 of the saints by the grace of God in Christ. 
 Infinite grace ! But he who makes it an ex- 
 cuse for spiritual sloth, has reason to fear that 
 he has no part in Christ. (4) "Whoever is 
 ke[)t by the Saviour, will, also, be raised up 
 from the dead by him at the last day. 
 There is, then, a last day, when Christ will re- 
 tiH'n in glory to judge the world. Till that 
 day, the bodies of the saints will sleep in the 
 dust of the earth. (Comp. 5 : 29). But then 
 they will be raised incorruptible, glorious, 
 and adapted to the wants of the spirit. Christ 
 will thus effect the salvation of the whole man. 
 "Note the recurrence of this blessed refrain 
 in ver. 40, 44, 54, which Scholten, in spite of 
 this solemn recurrence, considers a gloss." — 
 Mei/er. 
 
 40. Instead of, And this is the Avill of 
 him that sent me, read. For this is the will 
 of my Father. The best editors give the text 
 we have translated, substituting for for and, 
 and my Father for him that sent me. Hence, 
 the statement of this verse is co-ordinate with 
 that of ver. 39, showing why Jesus will save 
 those who believe in him, as the preceding 
 statement showed why he would save those 
 given him. In both cases, it is the Father's 
 will which is fulfilled by his action. That 
 every one which (who) seeth the Son. 
 The word rendered seeth (Seupii') means to 
 look at, to behold, implying a voluntary direc- 
 tion of the eye, or mind (or of both), to the 
 object seen. Earnest consideration precedes 
 faith. And believeth on him. Belief in- 
 cludes trust. (See the note on ver. 29). May 
 (or, should) have everlasting life. 'That is, 
 should have it even here, and not merely 
 in some other and future state of being. 
 Eternal life begins with trust in Christ, and 
 culminates in the blessedness of union with 
 him in the life to come. The soul and body 
 will be glorified together, and forever. (Comp. 
 John 17: 3). Notice, also, the refrain of the 
 
 last clause. There will be a resurrection of 
 the body, as there is a resurrection of the 
 spirit; the resurrection of the body will be at 
 the last day; and this resurrection will be 
 effected by "the Son," Jesus Christ our Lord. 
 Jesus did not leave his hearers in doubt re- 
 specting his personal distinction from the Fa- 
 ther, his absolute unity of will and action 
 with the Father, or their dependence on him- 
 self for true life, here and hereafter. The 
 miracle which he had wrought the day before, 
 and the reference which the people had made 
 to the manna, furnished an occasion for this 
 most wonderful unfolding of his office and 
 work; and he was prompt in making use of 
 the occasion. Yet how few were jjrepared to 
 welcome the truth! For the effect of his 
 words on a part of his hearers is described in 
 ver. 41, by which the Evangelist passes on 
 to another dialogue. 
 
 41-44. Second Dialogue in the Syna- 
 gogue AT Capernaum. 
 
 41. The Jews then (or, therefore) mur- 
 mured at (or, concerning) him, because he 
 said, I am the bread which came down 
 from heaven. By the Jews, may be meant 
 the Pharisaic part of the multitude — those who 
 were specially zealous for the law, and sus- 
 picious of innovation — people of note and in- 
 fluence, representing the Jewish spirit of the 
 day. For the expression has this meaning in 
 many passages of the Fourth Gospel. These 
 Jews were now speaking with one another in 
 a low voice, without intending their words fur 
 the ear of Christ. To bring the scene, as he 
 recalls it, to the mind of his readers, the Evan- 
 gelist employs the imperfect, or descriptive, 
 tense of the verb. And from what they were 
 saying, rather than from the import of the 
 verb, to murmur, it appears that they were 
 displeased with the utterances of Jesus, and, 
 in particular, with his assertion : I am the 
 bread which came down from heaven. 
 For they understood him to claim, by this 
 assertion, an origin different from that of 
 other men. 
 
158 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 [Ch. VI. 
 
 42 And they said, "Is not this Jesus, tlie son of 
 Joseph, whose fatlier and mother we know? how is it 
 then that he saith, I came down from heaven ? 
 
 43 Je-iLis therefore answered and said unto them, 
 Murmur not among yourselves. 
 
 44 'No man can come to me, except the Father which 
 hatli sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the 
 last day. 
 
 42 down out of heaven. And they said, Is not this 
 Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother 
 we know? how doth he now say, I am come down 
 
 43 out of heaven ? Jesus answered and said unto them, 
 
 44 Murmur not among yourselves. No man can come 
 to me except the Father that sent me draw him : 
 
 ; Matt. 13 : 55 ; Mark 6:3; Luke 4 : 22 b Cant. 1:4; ver. 65. 
 
 42. And they said (or, we7'e saying) — sotto 
 voce — Is not this Jesus, the son of Jo- 
 seph, whose father and mother we know ? 
 
 This language might have been used honestly 
 by excited and captious men, though their 
 knowledge depended on nothing but common 
 report. They were iti a state of mind to put 
 the case strongly, and could not be e.vpected 
 to hesitate in claiming knowledge of that 
 which they wished to believe, and which was 
 affirmed without contradiction by the people 
 of that region. It cannot, therefore, be safely 
 inferred that they were personally acquainted 
 with the reputed parents of Jesus, or that Jo- 
 seph, as well as Mary, was still alive. — (Meyer). 
 HoAV is it then that he saith, I came down 
 from heaven ? Important earl^' manuscripts 
 read now (vvv), instead of then (ouv), and still 
 moreof them omit the pronoun (oCtos), which is 
 translated he, but should have been translated 
 this man. The Eevised Version may be fol- 
 lowed safely : How doth he now say, lam com,e 
 down outof heaven ? Now, that is, after he has 
 been so long known as the son of Joseph and 
 Mary. How can he, at this late hour, make 
 such a claim ? The question is expressive of 
 unbelief, rather than of perplexitj'. In his 
 reply, Jesus recognizes this spirit of unbelief, 
 though he does not refer to the point on which 
 the Jews had fixed their attention. The words 
 from heaven are a correct rendering of the 
 Greek expression (an-b toO olpavov) found in ver. 
 38; but the Greek expression here employed 
 (« ToO oCpavoO) would be represented more ex- 
 actly by the words out of heaven. 
 
 43, 44. The MSS. are about equally di- 
 vided for and against the connective {ovv) 
 then of the Common Version. It should, 
 probably, be omitted. But the meaning is 
 nearly the same, whether the word is retained 
 or rejected. No man can come to me, ex- 
 cept the Father which hath sent me 
 (rather, who sent me) draw him. The ina- 
 bility to come to Christ, which is here affirmed 
 of every man, left to himself, is intrinsically 
 moral, and may be identified with unwilling- 
 
 ness or disinclination. The sinner cannot, 
 because he will not. The very strength and 
 freedom of his will are his weakness, because 
 they keep him away from Christ. Hence, the 
 Father's drawing is a condition of his willing 
 to come. Says Augustine: "No one comes 
 unless drawn. . . But some man may say: If 
 one is drawn, he comes unwillingly. . . (An- 
 swer): If he comes unwillingly, he does not 
 believe; and if he does not believe, he does 
 not come. For we approach Christ, not by 
 walking, but by believing; not by motion of 
 body, but by choice of heart. . . . Do not 
 think that you are drawn against your will ; 
 the soul is drawn, and by love." As to the 
 mode of the Father's drawing, Calvin remarks 
 that " it is not a violent drawing, which com- 
 pels man by an external force, but an effica- 
 cious motion of the Holy Spirit, which ren- 
 ders unwilling persons willing." Meyer de- 
 scribes this drawing as "«« inward pressing 
 and guiding to Christ, by the loorking of God's 
 grace," and as "the whole divine influence 
 by which the hearts of men are won to the 
 Son." But he is careful to say that this di- 
 vine influence "does not destroy human free- 
 dom" ; while he concedes that " it appears to 
 the consciousness of those who have been won 
 as a holy necessity, which they have followed." 
 SchaflT seems to distinguish between this draw- 
 ing of the Father and the work of the Holy 
 Spirit in regeneration; for he says: "No 
 change of mental organization, no new faculty 
 is required, but a radical change of the heart 
 and will. This is effected by the Holy Ghost; 
 but the providential drawing of the Father 
 prepares the way for it." Yet he declares 
 that the latter "expresses the mighty moral 
 power of the infinite love of the Father, who 
 so orders and overrules the aft'airs of life, and 
 so acts upon our hearts, that we give up at 
 last our natural aversion to holiness, and 
 willingly, cheerfully, and thankfully embrace 
 the Saviour as the gift of gifts for our salva- 
 tion." When this is done, is not the man al- 
 ready "a new creature," already born of the 
 
Ch. VI.] 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 159 
 
 45 « It is written in the prophets. And they shall be 
 all taught of God. ' Every man tlierefore that hath 
 heard, and hath learned of the Father, couieth unto 
 uie. 
 
 46 ''Not that any man hath seen the Father, ■'save 
 he which is of God, he hath seen the Father. 
 
 45 and I will raise him up in the last day. It is written 
 in the prophets. And they shall all he taught of God. 
 Every one that hath heaiil from the Father, and hath 
 
 46 learned, cometh uuto me. Not that any man hath 
 seen the Father, save he that is from God, he hath 
 
 Isa. 54 : 13 ; Jer. 31 : 34 ; Mio. 4 : 2 ; Heb. 8 : 10 j 10 : 16 6 
 
 Spirit? It is better, then, to understand the 
 Father's drawing in the most comprehensive 
 sense, as embracing the influence of divine 
 providence, religious truth, and the Holy 
 Spirit, working on the heart; but especially- 
 and pre-eminently the influence of the Holy 
 Spirit ; for, doubtless, the attractive power of 
 all these precedes and conditions the exercise 
 of true faith. For the use of the word trans- 
 lated draw (cAicuw) in the New Testament, see 
 John 12: 32; 21: 6, 11; Acts 16: 19; Jas. 2: 6. 
 Notice, also, how Jesus affirms, in the last 
 clause, that he will raise up, at the last day, 
 the man who comes to him through the Fa- 
 ther's drawing. The beginning is declared to 
 be the beginning of a glorious end. He that 
 is justified will also be glorified. (Rom. 8:3o). In- 
 ference: It is sometimes wise to preach the 
 doctrine of the actual dependence of sinners 
 on the grace of God to those who are still in 
 sin, and especially to those who are conceited 
 and self-sufficient in spiritual things. 
 
 45. It is written in the prophets. The 
 perfect tense of the Greek verb is used because, 
 while the act of writing was finished in the 
 past, the result of the act is thought of as 
 present in the written word. And this present 
 result, existing in the sacred record, is doubt- 
 less the most prominent fact. Hence the 
 Common Version, It is written, may be re- 
 ceived as measurably satisfactor3^ In the 
 prophets, probably because the passage is 
 commended to the people as one that may be 
 found in the collection of sacred writings 
 called by them "the prophets" (comp. Matt. 
 5 : 17 ; Luke 24 : 44) ; yet, possibly because 
 the substance of it may be found in several 
 
 places (Isa. 54: 13; Jer. 31:33; Joel 3:1). Anil they 
 
 shall be all taught of God — or, Andallivill 
 be taught of God. (See Isa. 54: 13.) The 
 original prophecy is descriptive of the true 
 people of God in the Messianic day. It is 
 translated by Alexander: "And all thj' 
 children disciples of Jehovah." He observes : 
 "The promise is not one of occasional in- 
 struction, but of permanent connection with 
 
 Jehovah as his followers, and partakers of his 
 constant teaching. That the words are ap- 
 plicable to the highest teaching of which any 
 rational being is susceptible, to wit : that of 
 the Holy Spirit, making known the Father 
 and the Son, we have our Saviour's own au- 
 thority for stating." The original passage, 
 as well as the present context, limits the 
 word all to those who come in fact to Christ 
 and are his genuine disciples. And the word 
 taught, which is the principal and emphatic 
 word, is broad enough to comprehend all 
 experience of divine grace, whether that grace 
 is imparted by the direct influence of the 
 Spirit on the soul, or by the operation of 
 divine truth. "The children of the Messi- 
 anic time are the 'all,' from the fact that an 
 inward, immediate divine illumination gives 
 them faith in the word spoken by Christ." — 
 (Lange). To what extent, if at all, the draw- 
 ing of the Father, or the teaching of God, 
 may be predicated of those who never come to 
 Christ, cannot be learned from this passage. 
 Every man (or, one) that hath heard and 
 hath learned of the Father, cometh unto 
 me. An expression which seems to prove that 
 Christ has in mind none but his true fol- 
 lowers, while, at the same time, it brings to 
 view the reciprocal agency of man. For no 
 one can hear and learn without action of his 
 own. And the instant any man apprehends 
 divine truth aright, he will believe in Christ, 
 or, in other words, will come to him. 
 
 46. Not that any man (or, one) hath seen 
 the Father, save he Avhich is of (z. e., 
 from) God ; he (or, this one) hath seen the 
 Father. The object of these words must be 
 sought, not in the general negation, but in 
 the exceptional affirmation. For the Jews 
 were in no danger of supposing that every 
 one who had heard and learned from God 
 had seen the Father, but they were, perhaps, 
 in great danger of imagining that Jesus could 
 add little or nothing to the knowledge of men 
 who had been "taught of God." He, there- 
 fore, reminds them of the world-wide distinc- 
 
160 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 [Ch. VI. 
 
 47 Verily, verily, I say unto you, "He that believeth 
 on me tiath everlasting life. 
 
 48 * I am that bread of life. 
 
 49 "Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, 
 and are dead. 
 
 50 ''This is the bread which couieth down from 
 heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die. 
 
 51 I am the living bread "which came down from 
 heaven : if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for 
 ever: and /the bread that I will give is my flesh, which 
 I will give for the life of the world. 
 
 47 seen the Father. Verily, verily, I say unto you, He 
 
 48 that believeth hath eternal life. I am the bread of 
 
 49 life. Your fathers did eat the manna in the wilder- 
 
 50 ness, and they died. This is the bread that cometh 
 dowu out of heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and 
 
 51 not die. I am the living bread that came down 
 out of heaven : if any man eat of this bread, lie shall 
 live for ever : yea and the bread that I will give is 
 my flesh, for the life of the world. 
 
 ach. 3: 1«, 18, 36; ver. 40 6 ver. 33, 35 c ver. 31 d ver. 51, 58 e ch. 3: 13 /Heb. 10: 5, 10. 
 
 tion between the knowledge of one who has 
 never seen the Father, and of one who has 
 been with him in the upper-world and has 
 known him by direct and perfect vision. 
 (Comp. 1 : 18 ; 7 : 29 ; Matt. 11 : 27). Thus, by 
 way of contrast, he brings back to their 
 minds the amazing fact that he is truly and 
 literally from heaven, from with the Father 
 (comp. Note on 1 : 14), while at the same time 
 he cautions them against a gross, earthly in- 
 terpretation of his claim to be "the bread 
 which came down from heaven." (ver. «). 
 He is bread to the soul rather than to the 
 body — a source of light and life, of knowl- 
 edge concerning God and communion with 
 God, rather than of any material blessing. 
 Hence the next verse. 
 
 47. Verily, verily, I say unto you: He 
 that believeth on me hath everlasting 
 (or, eternal) life. Notice (1) the absolute 
 authority and earnestness given to the prin- 
 cipal sentence b^' the prefatory words ; (2) the 
 supreme importance of faith in Christ, and (3) 
 the assertion that the possession of faith pre- 
 supposes or involves the new life. One does 
 not truly believe in Christ in order to regen- 
 eration, but in and by regeneration ; so that 
 when he believes he has eternal life in posses- 
 sion, and not merely in prospect. As a matter 
 of fact, the supreme drawing of the Father, 
 by the regenerating influence of the Spirit, 
 conditions the exercise of saving fivith. (See 
 ver. 44). It must be added, that some critical 
 editors omit the words on me, after be- 
 lieveth. The words were probably a part of 
 the original text; but if not, they appear to 
 interpret correctly the meaning of Christ; 
 for, according to the context, the faith whicli 
 he refers to must be a faith looking towards 
 and resting in himself 
 
 48. I am that (or, the) bread of life— 
 literally, of the life—i. e., the life just named, 
 eternal life, which is life in the highest sense 
 — moral, religious, blessed, everlasting. This 
 
 life, which is one of conscious peace, liberty, 
 love, and fellowship with God, begins with 
 trust in Christ, with a true and hearty recep- 
 tion of him as the Saviour of men. By thus 
 receiving him the soul feeds on bread that is 
 a source of spiritual joy and strength, on 
 bread that gives, nourishes, and sustains, the 
 highest and holiest activity. (Comp. ver. 33, 
 35). The genitive of life (t^s ^w^s) is that of 
 attribute or quality. 
 
 49. The manna, though a gift from God, 
 was but corruptible food for a corrujitible 
 body : your fathers ate of it in the wilderness 
 and died. And this is what you extol ! How 
 diflerent from the bread of which I speak ! 
 See the Revised Version above for an exact 
 rendering of this verse. 
 
 50. This is the bread which cometh 
 down from heaven,that a man (or, one) may 
 eat thereof and not die. And, therefore, 
 utterly diflerent in its design and effect from 
 the manna. To eat of it is to be delivered 
 from death ; otherwise the very end for which it 
 comes must fail. " This bread from heaven is 
 life-giving and death-destroying "^(Hanna). 
 " To be sure it does not do away with earthly 
 death, but, as it secures eternal life, earthly 
 death becomes only a transition to a life with- 
 out death." — Liicke. 
 
 51. I am the living bread which came 
 down from heaven. After examination, 
 Liicke concludes that the word " living," in 
 such expressions as "the living Father," "the 
 living water," "the living bread," is meant 
 tosignif}^ that which is spiritual, ever-during, 
 imperishable, and heavenly, in contrast with 
 that which is earthly, perishable, and unsub- 
 stantial." But we do not think he has touched 
 the precise thought of the Saviour. By liv- 
 ing bread, the Lord here means bread that 
 has life in itself (comp. 5: 26), and may, 
 therefore, impart life. For only the living 
 can be an original source of life. A being 
 cannot give what it does not possess. It may 
 
Ch. VL] 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 161 
 
 52 The Jews therefore "strove among themselves, 
 saying, * How can this man give us his flesh to eat '! 
 
 53 Tlien Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say 
 uoto you, Except "ye eat the flesh of the Sou of man, 
 and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. 
 
 52 The Jews therefore strove one with another, say- 
 
 53 ing. How can this man give us his flesh to eat ? Jesus 
 therefore said unto them, Verily, verily, 1 say unto 
 you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Sou of man and 
 
 tcb. 7: 43; 9; 16; 10; 19 6 oh. 3:9 c Matt. 26: 26, 28. 
 
 also be observed tbat Jesus refers to his com- 
 ing down from heaven as a definite event of 
 the past, meaning, no doubt, his incarnation. 
 If any man (or, otie) eat of this bread, he 
 shall live forever. For the principle of true 
 life is in it, and, therefore, by receiving it, he 
 will pass from a state of spiritual death into a 
 state of spiritual life. And this life-state, or 
 blessed communion with God in Christ, will 
 have no end. "Observe the threefold prog- 
 ress : (1) 'the bread of life'(ver. 48), and the 'liv- 
 ing bread' (ver. 51); (2) the general 'is coming 
 down' (ver. 50), and the historical concrete, 
 'came down' (ver. 51); (3) the negative 'may 
 not die' (ver. 50), and the positive 'shall live 
 forever' (ver. 51)." — (Meyer). And the bread, 
 etc. The last part of the verse is given more 
 clearly by the Revised Version: Vea, and 
 the bread which I will give is my flesh, for 
 the life of the world. The paragraph begin- 
 ning with this clause, and ending with ver. 
 58, is one of the most difficult in the whole 
 Gospel, partly on account of its connection 
 with the foregoing, partly on account of the 
 figurative e.Ypression of the thoughts, and 
 partly on account of the relationship of these 
 thoughts to the principal ideas symbolized by 
 the Lord's Supper. What, then, are we to 
 understand by the words my flesh? That 
 they might have been used by the Saviour in 
 certain connections to denote his human na- 
 ture and manifestation, without any reference 
 to his death, is freely conceded. (See 1 : 14 ; 
 17: 2; Matt. 24: 22; Rom. 1: 3; 9: 5). But 
 there are two insuperable objections to this in- 
 terpretation of the words here : (1) The dis- 
 tinction which is made between flesh and 
 blood in ver. 53, a distinction which evidently 
 presupposes a separation of the flesh and blood 
 by death ; and (2) the connected words will 
 give — for the life of the world, for the us2is 
 loquendi of the writers of the New Testament 
 shows that this phraseology refers to the aton- 
 ing death of Christ. (See Matt. 20: 28; Luke 
 22: 19; 1 Cor. 13: 3; Gal. 1: 4; 2: 20; Eph. 
 5: 2, 25; 1 Tim. 2: 6.) It is, therefore, evi- 
 dent that Jesus speaks of giving up his human 
 
 nature to death for the life of the world. 
 (Comp. Eph. 2: 15; Col. 1 : 22; Heb. 10: 2,); 
 1 Pet. 2: 24; 4: 1). Hence, the lesson of this 
 clause is, that the true life of man depends on 
 faith in the Saviour crucified, on spiritual 
 union with "<Ae Lamb of God that taketh 
 away the sin of the world." (i: '^9). Such a 
 truth was not likely to be welcomed by the 
 self-righteous hearers of Jesus.^ 
 52-59. Hence, the Third Conver.sa- 
 
 TION. 
 
 52. The Jews therefore strove among 
 themselves (or, were debating with one anoth- 
 er), saying. How can this man give us his 
 (or, the) flesh to eat? Namely, the flesh 
 which he speaks of— his own flesh? Liicke 
 remarks that the circumstance of the Jews 
 contending with one another how Jesus could 
 give them his flesh to eat, shows that his lan- 
 guage was not altogether unintelligible. It 
 doubtless perplexed them by suggesting that 
 his death was in some way indispensable to 
 their highest life; a view utterly foreign to 
 their Messianic aspirations. 
 
 53. Except ye eat the flesh of the 
 Son of man, and drink his blood, ye 
 have no life in you. Instead of under- 
 taking to remove their difficulty by explaining 
 the figurative language which he had used, 
 Jesus solemnly repeats it, with a startling 
 addition. Startling, if they understood his 
 language to be literal ; but only bold and im- 
 pressive if they understood it to be figurative. 
 He may have taken this course because he 
 saw that their spirit was not serious but cap- 
 tious, or because he saw that no explanation 
 was really needed. For the added statement, 
 and drink his blood, must have strongly 
 tended to convince "the Jews" that his lan- 
 guage was figurative. While it presupposes, 
 even more certainly than his previous decla- 
 ration, that his death was the condition of 
 life to men, it is a warning against a literal 
 
 1 With the critical editors, Lach., Tisch., Treg., West- 
 cott, and Hort., we omit riv iyta SJxrio, wblcb I will 
 give, after crapf /nou, my flesli. 
 
162 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 [Ch. VI. 
 
 54 "Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, 
 hath eternal life : and I will raise him up at the last day. 
 
 55 For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink 
 indeed. 
 
 56 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, 
 *dwelleth in me, and I in him. 
 
 57 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by 
 the Father ; so he that eateth me, even he shall live by 
 me. 
 
 54 drink his blood, ye have not life in yourselves. He 
 that eateth my flesh and drinketh "my blood hath 
 
 53 eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. 
 For my flesh is - meat indeed, and my blood is - drink 
 
 56 indeed. He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my 
 
 57 blood abideth in me, and I in him. As the living 
 Father sent me, and I live because of the Feather ; so 
 he that eateth me, he also shall live because of 
 
 ver. 27, 40, 63; ch. 4 : 14.... 6 1 John 3 : 24 ; 4: 15, 10. Gr. true meat -J Gr. true drink. 
 
 interpretation of the words employed. For 
 the Jews were sometimes required to eat the 
 flesh of animals slain for sacrifice, but they 
 were never allowe<i to drink their blood. 
 Much less, then, could they imagine that 
 Jesus meant to enjoin a literal eating of his 
 own human flesh, and a literal drinking of 
 his own blood. The very boldness of Christ's 
 language admonished them not to interpret it 
 literally. If eating his flesh would naturally 
 suggest faith in him as one who was to die for 
 tlie life of the world, still more must drinking 
 his blood suggest the same thing. For the 
 life was conceived to be in the blood, and 
 shed blood was the well-known emblem of 
 life surrendered in death. On the whole, 
 then, it is probable that the Jews were better 
 able to understand, than they were to receive, 
 the teaching of Jesus. 
 
 54. Whoso (or, he that) eateth my flesh 
 and drinketh my bIood,i hath eternal 
 life. Having said in ver. 53 that there is no 
 true life for man without doing this, he now 
 says that eternal life is the present possession 
 of him who does this. No man can be saved 
 in any other way; no man can be lost who 
 takes this way. These statements comple- 
 ment each other and cover the whole ground. 
 And I will raise him up at the last day. 
 The life which begins by a renewal of the 
 spirit shall be perfected by a renewal of the 
 body, so that the whole man will be saved 
 and glorified. (Compare ver. 40, 44). 
 
 55. For my flesh is meat indeed (better, 
 is true food), and my blood is drink 
 indeed (or, true drink). 
 
 The reading (aXrjSi)?) true, instead of (aAjiJi?) 
 truly or indeed, is given by the best editors, 
 and is doubtless correct. True food is food 
 which performs what it promises. It is, 
 according to Meyer, "the opposite of merely 
 
 1 " The tense (6 rpuyiov) (whoso eateth) or, contrast 
 ver. 45 (o oKoiicras) {he that hath heard), marks an action 
 which must be continuous and not completed once for 
 &n."—{Wcstcott.) 
 
 seeming or nominal food, hence real food." 
 And for this reason {ydp), he that eats the 
 same, etc., hath eternal life. Of course it 
 is food for the inner man, not for the body ; 
 the latter will die, but be raised in glory at 
 the last day. 
 
 56. He that eateth my flesh and 
 drinketh my blood dwelleth (or, abideth) 
 in me, and I in him. Meyer appeals to 
 the language of this verse as proof that " the 
 eating and drinking in question are uninter- 
 rupted," continuous, and infers from this, 
 "that Jesus could not have had in mind the 
 Holy Supper." The last part of the verse, 
 abideth in me and I in him, manifestly 
 refers to spiritual fellowship or intercom- 
 munion (Comp. 15: 4 sq. ; 17; 23; 1 John 
 3: 24; 4: 16), and aflTords, therefore, clear 
 evidence that the terms eateth and drinketh 
 are used figuratively, to denote the exercise 
 of faith ; while the terms flesh and blood, 
 refer to Christ as the "propitiation" (iAoa/nos) 
 for the sins of mankind (i John 2 : 2). 
 
 57. As the living Father hath sent me, 
 and I live by (rather, because of) the Fa- 
 ther; so he that eateth me, even he shall 
 live by (or, because of) me. (1) Jesus here 
 speaks of himself as the Son of man, the Mes- 
 siah, and not as the Word that was with God. 
 (1:1). (2) The life which he ascribes to the 
 Father, to himself, and to the believer, is not 
 mere conscious existence, but life in the very 
 highest sense of the word, the true and blessed 
 life of amoral being. (3) His own life, in this 
 highest sense, is represented as due to perfect 
 fellowship with the Father who sent him, and 
 who shows him all that he himself doeth. 
 (5: i9sq.\. "It is becau.«e of the holy and ever 
 blessed Father," says Christ, "that I am al- 
 ways joyful in Ti\y work, and certain that it 
 cannot fail." (4) A similar life will be the 
 portion of every one who receives Christ into 
 his heart bj' true fiiith. According to the 
 measure of his faith, will Christ be to him 
 what the Father is to Christ — aground of con- 
 
Ch. VI.] 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 163 
 
 58 "This is that bread which came down from 
 heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are 
 dead : he that eateth of this l)r('ad shall live for ever. 
 
 ,')9 These things said he in the synagogue, as he 
 taught in Capernaum. 
 
 60 ' Many therefore of his disciples, when they had 
 heard this, said. This is a hard saying ; who can hear it ? 
 
 61 When Jesus knew in himself that liis disciples 
 murmured at it, he said unto them, Dotli this ottend 
 you ? 
 
 58 me. This is the bread that came down out of 
 heaven: not as the fathers did eat, and died: he that 
 
 59 eateth this bread shall live for ever. These things 
 said he in ifhe synagogue, as he taught in Caper- 
 naum. 
 
 GO Many therefore of his disciples, when they heard 
 this, said, This is a hard saying; who can hear 2 it? 
 
 61 But Jesus knowing in himself that his disciples 
 murmured at this, said unto them. Doth this cause 
 
 I vcr. 49, 50, 51 6 Matt. 11:6; ver. 66. 1 Or, a synagogue 2 Or, 7j!ot. 
 
 fidence, a source of light, a fountain of joy. 
 These are the principal points. But Meyer 
 has two remarks worthy of note : " {a} that (6 
 rpiuyuv ixe) 'he that eateth me,' expresses a con- 
 stant, uninterrupted relation, not one that 
 comes in from time to time, as at the Lord's 
 8upper"; and (b) that, "if Jesus had been 
 thinking of the Holy Supper, he would not 
 have said, 'he that eateth me,' but, rather, 'he 
 that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood.' " 
 58. Not as your fathers did eat manna, 
 and are dead. This is a final re-affirmation 
 of what Jesus has been saying in all this won- 
 derful conversation, or series of discourses. 
 But, according to the best critics, the words 
 translated your {viiCiv) and manna (t6 iniwa.) 
 do not belong to the original text, which reads : 
 Not as the Fathers ate and died. This briefer 
 form is no less pertinent and forcible, as a 
 summary, than the fuller statement of the re- 
 ceived text. From the last clause, we learn 
 that the multitude from the other side of the 
 lake found Jesus in a synagogue of Caperna- 
 um, and that he said these things while teach- 
 ing in that place. Some have supposed that, 
 not only the site of Capernaum, at Tell Huin, 
 but even the synagogue where Jesus taught, 
 have been discovered. But the evidence for 
 neither of these identifications is entirely sat- 
 isfi\ctory. 
 
 Had the language of Christ at this time any 
 reference to the Holy Supper which he insti- 
 tuted later? There is no evidence that it had, 
 no hint that he expected to embody this teach- 
 ing in a sacred rite, no expression at all sug- 
 gestive of the idea that the eating and drink- 
 ing here pronounced indispensable to salva- 
 tion were to be performed sacramentally. 
 Everything shows that his language was sim- 
 ply figurative, requiring an acceptance of him- 
 self, or his flesh and blood, in order to eternal 
 life, but saying nothing of an ordinance by 
 which this appropriation was to be accom- 
 plished, or, rather, represented. Yet the 
 
 Christian truths taught by this discourse, and 
 by the Holy Supper, are essentially the same. 
 In neither case, does Jesus say anything of 
 an appropriation of his glorified body. That 
 will not consist of flesh and blood. In both 
 instances, he refers to his natural humanity 
 subjected to natural death. 
 
 60. Many therefore of his disciples, 
 when they (omit had) heard this, said. 
 The word disciples is here applied, not to 
 "the twelve" (ve.-.67), but to persons less 
 closely connected with Jesus, though believ- 
 ing him to be the Messiah. Such persons 
 must have been quite numerous at this time 
 in Capernaum, and many of them were, 
 doubtless, in the synagogue. This is a hard 
 saying; who can hear it? This word 
 hard, or rough (<r<cAr;pds), is here used in an 
 ethical sense, to denote the disagreeable im- 
 pression which the last part of Christ's dis- 
 course had made on the minds of these dis- 
 ciples. "Who can listen to it?" In other 
 words: "This doctrine is so ofl^ensive that no 
 one can be expected to hearken to it or re- 
 ceive it." But in what did the offensiveness 
 of Christ's words consist? Not in this, that 
 it was supposed to require a literal eating of 
 his flesh and drinking of his blood in order to 
 eternal life (an eating and drinking some- 
 times called Capernaitic, because these dis- 
 ciples were of Capernaum and were thought 
 to have understood Christ's language to be 
 literal), for there is no good reason to charge 
 them with so gross a misconception ; but 
 rather in this, that it presupposed the death 
 of Christ, and represented the Messiah as the 
 Lamb of God. This was utterly distasteful 
 to the disciples, as well as to the Jew.s. 
 (Comp. Matt. 16: 21, sq. ; John 12.: 34; 1 Cor. 
 1: 23; Gal. 5; 11). We need not go beyond 
 this for thei cause of their dissatisfaction with 
 the saying of Jesus. 
 
 61. When Jesus knew in himself— 
 i. e., without hearing the words which these 
 
164 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 [Ch. VI. 
 
 62 « What and if ye shall, see the Son of man ascend [ 62 you to stumble? IVhat then if ye should behold the 
 up where he was before ? 63 Son of mau ascending where he was before ? It is 
 
 63 ' It is the Spirit that quickeneth ; the flesh profit- the spirit that quickeneth ; the flesh protiteth noth- 
 eth nothing: the words that 1 speak unto you, /Asy are ing: the words that I have spoken unto you are 
 gpirit, and they are life. i 
 
 a Mark 16: 19; ch. 3: 13; Acts 1:9; Eph. 4: &....b 2 Cor. 3 : 6. 
 
 offended disciples were speaking with bated 
 breath, and without being informed by any 
 one of their dissatisfaction. The words indi- 
 cate perfect, independent, superhuman Icnowl- 
 edge. That his disciples murmured (or, 
 were inurmnring) at it (or, this), he said 
 UHto them: Doth this oflTend you? — i. e., 
 " Is this a rock of offence over which you are 
 beginning to stumble and fall? Do my 
 words disappoint your hopes and shake your 
 contideuce in me? " 
 
 63. What and if, etc. This may be trans- 
 lated : If then ye should behold the Son of 
 man ascending up where he was before? The 
 thought is not fully expressed, and therefore 
 many prefix the word what. "What then 
 if ye should behold" this? — i. e., What 
 would be the effect on your minds, if you 
 should see this, and not merely be told of it? 
 The event named was one which would dis- 
 appoint all their expectations in regard to the 
 Ciirist and his reign. For they were longing 
 and praying for a Messianic kingdom on 
 the earth, with Jerusalem for its capital, and 
 the children of Israel for its princes and 
 priests. Should Jesus return to heaven, he 
 could not be the king and conqueror whom 
 they looked ft)r as the Messiah. 
 
 63. It is the Spirit that quickeneth (or, 
 maketh alive) ; the flesh profiteth nothing. 
 What is meant by the Spirit? Certainly 
 not the human spirit of Jesus; for in no other 
 passage is such virtue ascribed to his human 
 spirit; and had this been meant he would 
 doubtless have said, "My spirit." But the 
 expression may refer to spirit in distinction 
 from flesh ; that is, it may denote the spirit in 
 a generic sense, wherever it may exist, in 
 connnection with flesh. It is that which 
 makes alive, and not the flesh — the implica- 
 tion being that this grand truth is applicable 
 to Christ as the source of eternal life. Yet it 
 is, perhaps, more probable that Jesus means 
 the Holy Spirit, which had been.given him 
 without measure (3:34). For it is this Spirit 
 who is the author of the new and eternal life 
 in man (3:6; Rom. 8:2; 2Cor. s: 6). Strangely 
 
 enough, Alford seems to suppose that the word 
 flesh cannot here refer to the flesh of Christ, 
 on account of ver. 51. But he maintains in 
 his note on that verse, the view, that "in his 
 resurrection form only can his flesh be eaten, 
 and be living food for the living man," that 
 "his flesh is the glorified substance of his 
 resurrection body, now at the right hand of 
 God" — a view quite foreign to the obvious 
 meaning of the Saviour's words. The words 
 that I speak (or, have spoken) unto you, 
 they are spirit and they are life. Jesus 
 here affirms that his language has been figura- 
 tive, since his flesh and his blood — the words 
 which serve as a stumbling block to his dis- 
 ciples — mean spirit and mean life. (Conip. 
 Matt. 26: 26, 27; Mark 14: 22, 24; 1 Cor. 11: 
 24, 25). To receive his Spirit, and thus to 
 receive spiritual life, is to eat his flesh and 
 drink his blood. For that Spirit is given in 
 consequence of the Saviour's death, and any 
 one who is regenerated by the Spirit accepts 
 the death of Christ as the foundation and 
 reason for all the grace that has been im- 
 parted to him. He believes in Christ through 
 the life-giving action of the Spirit in his soul ; 
 and he continues a believer because the Sjtirit 
 abides in him. Says Prof. Stuart ("Bib. Sac." 
 I. p. 113): "When the Son of man has as- 
 cended up to heaven, where he was before his 
 incarnation, and his bodily presence is wholly 
 withdrawn from you, then it will be very 
 plain, that my words are not to have a literal 
 sense given to them. . . . When I speak of 
 eating tny flesh and drinking my blood, I 
 mean that a spiritual communion with me, 
 and a spiritual and life-giving participation 
 of the graces which I bestow, are absolutely 
 necessary to future and eternal happiness." 
 
 Many interpreters look upon Jesus as 
 declaring by this clause that his words are to 
 be taken in a spiritual sense. But it is doubt- 
 ful whether the noun spirit is ever used by 
 the sacred writers in that way: and, if it is, 
 how (!an the words and are life, be made to 
 agree with this view? For to sav that his 
 words must be understood in a living sense, is 
 
Cu. VI.] 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 1G5 
 
 64 But "there are some of you tliat believe not. P'or 
 *Jesus knew from the begiiminj^ who they were that 
 believed not, ami who should betray him. 
 
 65 And he said, Therefore '^^aid"I unto you, that no 
 man can come uuto me, except it were giveu unto him 
 of my Father. 
 
 6G "^From that lime luany of his disciples went back, 
 and walked no more with him. 
 
 67 Then said Jesus unto the twelve. Will ye also go 
 awa,y ? 
 
 64 spirit, and are life. But there are some of you that 
 believe not. For .Tesus knew from the beginning 
 who they were that believed not, and who it w;is 
 
 65 that should betray him. And he said. For this cause 
 have I said unto you, that no man can come unto 
 me, except it be given unto him of the Father. 
 
 6r, Upon this many of his discijiles went back, and 
 67 walked no more with him. Jesus said therefore 
 
 a ver. 36 6 ch. 2: 24, 25; 13: 11 c ver. 44, 45 d ver. 60. 
 
 scarcely intellrgible. Others look upon Christ 
 as affirming "the power of his words to pro- 
 duce life andspirit in man" — (Hengstenberg), 
 or, "to lead man into another world and 
 nature, to give him another heart and mind " 
 — (Luther), or, "to bear and reveal the Di- 
 vine Spirit which is in him and the Messianic 
 life which is originated by him" — (Meyer). 
 But this view appears to lose sight of the pre- 
 ceding discourse, and especially of the first 
 part of this verse. Have spoken is required 
 by the early copies, instead of speak in the 
 common text. 
 
 64. But there are some of you that be- 
 lieve not. By this remark he reminds his 
 now wavering and dissatisfied followers that, 
 not his teaching, but their own spirit, is 
 wrong. With all their profession of loyalty 
 to him as the Messiah, with all their admira- 
 tion of his character and wonder at his mira- 
 cles, thej' were destitute of true faith in him ; 
 were strangers to the self-forgetful devotion 
 and deep religious life which alone could bind 
 them to him when his words crossed their 
 hopes of a temporal kingdom. For Jesus 
 kfiew from the beginning who they were 
 that believed not, and who should betray 
 him. The expression from the beginning 
 must always be interpreted in harmony with 
 the context, and generally by the aid of that 
 context. Here it may signify from the com- 
 mencement of the Lord's ministry (Meyer), 
 or from the time when these professed disci- 
 ples began to follow him (De Wette). In 
 either case, the Evangelist intends to ascribe 
 to him divine knowledge; in the former case, 
 a knowledge which foresaw the action of his 
 transient followers, even before they met him, 
 or listened to his teachings ; ttnd, in the latter, 
 a knowledge which foresaw that action from 
 the hour when they severally met him first. 
 We regard the latter view as preferable to the 
 former. 
 
 6ii. Therefore (or, for this cause), viz. : 
 
 because he knew the u,nbelief of many whom 
 he was now specitilly addressing. They were 
 outwardly his disciples, they followed him 
 from place to place, and professed to honor 
 him as the Messiah, but they had never been 
 drawn to him by the Father. Said I unto you 
 (see ver. 37, 44), that no man can come unto 
 me, except it were (or, be) given unto him 
 of my Father. These disciples had attached 
 themselves to Jesus without any deep sense of 
 spiritual need. The grace of God had not 
 prepared their hearts to receive his teaching. 
 This is the solemn truth which Jesus now 
 presses upon their attention. And there are 
 times when no other truth is so pertinent tis 
 this. There are men, self-righteous and self- 
 confident, who need to be reminded that with- 
 out the grace of God they will surely perish. 
 
 66. From that time (rather, for this ren-. 
 son) many of his disciples — so called, be-< 
 cause they had professed to be such — went 
 back, and walked no more with him, 
 (Comp. 1 John 2 : 19). They had attended him 
 from time to time, as he went about the coun-^ 
 try, teaching and preaching and healing the 
 sick; but now they forsook him, and went 
 back each one to his former state and business. 
 He was not the Messiah of their expectations. 
 As the light became clearer, they turned from 
 it, because they loved darkness rather than 
 light. 
 
 67. Then said Jesus (better: Jesus there- 
 fore said) unto the twelve. Will ye also go 
 away? By the form of his question, the Sav- 
 iour intimates his expectation of a negative 
 answer. This fact cannot, however, be repre- 
 sented in the English, though it is fairly sug- 
 gested by an idiom modeled after the Greek, 
 and uttered as a question, viz. : " Ve will not 
 go away " ? Observe that the pronoun ye is 
 emphatic, in contrast with the disciples who 
 had just forsaken him. Ob-erve, also, that 
 the Evangelist speaks of the twelve for the 
 first time in this phice, as if they were a well- 
 
1G6 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 [Cii. VI. 
 
 68 Then Simon Peter answere(i him, Lord, to whom 
 ihall we go? thou hast " the words of eternal life. 
 
 69 'And we believe and are sure that thou art that 
 Christ, the Sou of the living God. 
 
 7U Jesus answered them, <^Have not I chosen you 
 twelve, ■* and one of you is a devil ? 
 
 71 He spake of Judas Iscariot the son of Simon: for 
 he it was that should betray him, being one of th. 
 twelve. 
 
 68 unto the twelve. Would ye also go away? Simon 
 Peter answered him. Lord, to whom shall we go? 
 
 69 thou ihast the words of eternal life. And we have 
 believed and know that thou an the Holy One of 
 
 70 (iod. Jesus answered them. Did not I choose you 
 
 71 the twelve, and one of you is a devil? Now he spake 
 of Judas, the son of Simon Iscariot, for he it was 
 that should betray him, bt:Lny one of the twelve. 
 
 o Acts 5; W....b Matt. 16 : 16 ; Mark 8 : 29; Luke 9: 20; ch. 1:40; 11 : 2T....C Luke : i:!....dch. 13:27. 1 Or, hast wordi. 
 
 known company of disciples, though he has 
 nowhere referred to their being culled. Thus 
 he assumes a knowledge of many things on 
 the part of his readers. 
 
 68, 69. Peter, ever proinpt and decided, 
 answers for the group : Lord, to whom shall 
 we go [aivay)? Thou hast the words of 
 eternal life. (There is no article before 
 words in the original text). And we be- 
 lieve and are sure that thou art that 
 Christ, etc. (Better: And we have believed 
 and know that thou art the Holy One of God). 
 This presents an exact version of Peter's lan- 
 guage, according to the earliest copies of the 
 Gospel and the best textual critics. The re- 
 ceived text appears to have been conformed 
 to the words of Peter on another occasion. 
 (Matt. 16:16). Possibly soinc superstitious tran- 
 scriber shrank from representing Peter as 
 bearing testimony to Christ in the very words 
 employed by demons. (See Mark 1: 24; 
 Luke 4: 34). The respon.se of Peter dis- 
 tinctly assumes: (1) That the twelve feel their 
 need of a Saviour; (2) that no Saviour but 
 Christ is known to them ; and (3) that he is 
 an adequate Saviour, both because his words 
 reveal the way to eternal life, and because he 
 himself is the Holy One of God. It may 
 be well to observe once more the leading part 
 which this Evangelist assigns to Peter, agree- 
 ing, in this respect, with the earlier Evangel- 
 ists. 
 
 70. Very grateful to the heart of Jesus at 
 that moment must have been the answer of 
 Peter. It was a beam of sunlight breaking 
 through the cloud of unbelief, which seemed 
 to be settling down on the minds of the peo- 
 ple. Doubtless, it was welcomed with deep 
 joy Yet not without pain. For in that fa- 
 vored group there was one whose soul was not 
 represented by the loj-al response of Peter. 
 And as the e^^e of Christ looked into that soul, 
 and perceived its hidden working, his lips ut- 
 tered the startling sentence: Have not I 
 chosen you twelve, and one of you is a 
 
 devil? In the original, particular stress falls 
 on the pronoun I, of the first clause, and on 
 the words of you, in the second. I, and no 
 one else, selected j-ou, and j'et of you, who 
 were thus selected, one is a devil. Jesus did 
 not point out the fiend at this time; it was 
 enough to remind them, by a single terrific 
 word, that thej^ were not, all of them, what 
 they professed to be. Whether Judas had 
 any suspicion that he was intended by the 
 Lord, can only be conjectured. 
 
 According to ver. 64, Jesus must have 
 known, when he selected Judas to be one of 
 the twelve, that he wtis an unbeliever; that 
 he would remain so, in spite of the best influ- 
 ences, and that he would at last di^liver up his 
 Master to his foes. But many interpreters 
 feel constrained to reject this view, as incom- 
 patible with moral perfection in Christ. (Com- 
 pare Ullmann's classic work on " The Sinless- 
 ness of Jesus," p. 187 sq., and Meyer's 1. Re- 
 mark on this verse). Yet it is not easy to see 
 how the Saviour's treatment of Judas was 
 either unjust to him or to any other man. If 
 the sight of perfect goodness onlj' served to 
 harden his heart, the same is true of all who 
 reject the gospel. How could it be wrong for 
 Jesus to make use of the voluntary service of 
 a traitor in a sphere of action which gave 
 the traitor every opportunity to repent, even 
 though Christ foresaw that he would not r.'- 
 pent? 
 
 71. He spake of Judas Iscariot, etc. — 
 Better: Noiv {or, bid) he sjwke of Jiidns, the 
 son of Simon Iscnriot~for he it was that 
 should (or. was about to) betraj' him, be- 
 ing one of the twelve. The critical editors 
 connect the word Iscariot with Simon, and not 
 with Judas. It is probably an adjective, like 
 the word Nazarene, formed from the name of 
 the place to which Judas and his fatherSimon 
 belonged. The name of the town appears to 
 have been Kerioth. It was )>ri>bably situated 
 in Judea. (Josii. u: 25). But Westeott remarks 
 that the common rendering of Josh. 15: 25 ap- 
 
Ch. VII.] 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 167 
 
 CHAPTEK VII. 
 
 AFTER these things Jesus walked in Galilee: for he 
 would not walk in Jewi-y, " because the Jews 
 sought to kill him. 
 2 'Now the Jews' feast of tabernacles was at hand. 
 
 1 And after these things Jesus walked in Galilee : for 
 he would not walk in J udcea, because the Jews sought 
 
 2 to kill him. Now the feast of the Jews, the feast of 
 
 a eh. 5 : 16, 18 b Ler. 23 : 34. 
 
 pears to be incorrect, for Kerioth ought to be 
 joined with Hezron (Kerioth-Hezron) ; and 
 adds: "May not the town be identified with 
 the Kerioth of Moab, mentioned in Jer. 48: 
 24?" 
 
 Ch. 7 : 1-13. Visit to the Feast of 
 Tabernacles, Oct. 11-18. a. d. 29. 
 
 The Evangelist now refers in passing (ver. 
 1) to a period of about six and a half months, 
 from the Passover (6:4) to the Feast of Tab- 
 ernacles (7:2), which Jesus spent in Northern 
 Palestine, but without relating any of the 
 events belonging to that period, perhaps 
 because they had been described in the earlier 
 Gospels. 
 
 1. And after these things — namely, the 
 things recorded in chapter sixth. Jesus 
 walked in Galilee. The word which is 
 translated walked, means, literally, was 
 walking about, and may have been chosen in 
 preference to any other, because Jesus spent 
 much of his time in itinerant preaching. In 
 Galilee, points out the region where most of 
 his time was passed ; but we need not infer 
 from it that he did not visit, meanwhile, the 
 coasts of Tyre and Sidon, and the region 
 called Decapolis. 
 
 The events which Robinson assigns to this 
 period of Christ's ministry, are these: Christ's 
 replj' to the criticisms of the Scribes and 
 Pharisees from Jerusalem on his disciples for 
 eating with unwashen hands (M.itt. 15 : 1-20; Mark?: 
 1-23) ; his healing the daughter of a Syrophe- 
 nician woman (iiati. 15:21-28; Mark 7: 24-30); his 
 healing a deaf and dumb man, with others, 
 
 (Matt. 15:29-31; Mark 7: 31-37); his feeding the four 
 
 thousand (Matt. 15:32-38; Marks: 1.9); his answer to 
 the Pharisees who required a sign (M^at. 16: 1-4; 
 Mark 8: 11, 12) ; his caution to his disciples to 
 beware of the leaven of the Pharisees, etc. 
 (Matt. 16 : 5-12 ; Mark 8 : u-21); his healing a blind man 
 (Mark 8: 22-26); the confcssiou of PetCT and the 
 other disciples, that he was the Christ, the 
 
 Son of God (Miitt. 16: 13-20; Mark 8: 27-30; Luke 9: 18-21) 
 
 his prediction of his own death and resurrec- 
 
 tion, with the trials of his disciples (Matt. i6: 21.28; 
 Mark 8:. 31-38; Luke 9: 22-27); his transfiguration and 
 subsequent discourse with three disciples (Matt. 
 
 17: 1-13; Mark 9: 2-13; Luk&9: 28-36) ; his healing of a 
 lunatic boy (Matt, n : 14.21 ; Mark 9: 14-29; Luke 9 : 37-43) ; 
 
 his renewed prediction'of his own death and 
 
 resurrection (Matt, n : 22-23 ; Mark 9 : 30-32 ; Luke 9 : 43-45) ; 
 
 his provision for the temple tax by miracle 
 (Matt. 17:24-27; Mark 9; 33); the Contention of his 
 disciples as to who should be greatest (Matt, is 
 
 1-35 ; Mark 9 : 3:i-50; Luke 9:46-50); the SCVCntj' in- 
 structed and sent out (Lute lO: i-ie). But An- 
 drews, in his "Life of Our Lord," assigns 
 the sending out of the seventy to a later 
 period in the ministry of Jesus, and offers 
 strong reasons for this. (See "Life of Our 
 Lord," p. 355 sq.). For he would not 
 walk in Jewry: literally, he did not wish 
 (or, will) to walk in Judea, that is, to do the 
 work of his ministry' there, by going about 
 from place to place and preaching the gospel. 
 Because the Jews sought (or, toere seek- 
 ing) to kill him. By the Jews are meant 
 the representative men of the nation, espe- 
 cially members of the Sanhedrin. Most of 
 them lived in Judea, and of these a consider- 
 able part dwelt in Jerusalem. Their attempt 
 to kill Jesus has been referred to in 5: 18. It 
 was not the effect of sudden and passing 
 hatred, but of deep-seated and enduring hos- 
 tility, which threatened his life, should he 
 sojourn for any length of time in Judea. So 
 he wisely remained in Galilee, as his earthly 
 ministry was not yet accomplished. 
 
 2. Now the Jews' feast of tabernacles 
 was at hand. For an account of this festi- 
 val, see Lev. 23: 34-36, 39-43; and Deut. 16: 
 13-1-5. It was one of the three great festivals 
 at which all the males in Israel were required 
 to appear before God at Jerusalem, (oeut. i6: le). 
 It began on the fifteenth day of the seventh 
 month, or Tisri, answering to our October, 
 and was celebrated a full week. It was fol- 
 lowed, on the eighth da^', by a holj' convoca- 
 tion. "Ye shall dwell in booths seven daj's; 
 all that are Israelites born shall dwell in 
 
168 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 [Ch. VII. 
 
 3 "His brethren therefore said unto him, Depart 
 hence, and go into Judea, that thy disciples also may 
 see the works that thou doest. 
 
 4 For there is no man that doeth any thing in secret, 
 and he himself seelceth to be known openly. If thou 
 do these things, shew thyselt to the world. 
 
 5 For ' neither did his brethren believe in him. 
 
 3 tabernacles, was at hand. His brethren therefore 
 said unto him. Depart hence, and go into Jud8ea,that 
 thy disciples also may behold thy works which thou 
 
 4 doest. } or no man doeth anything in secret, i and 
 himself seeketh to be known openly. If thou doest 
 
 5 these things, manifest thyself to the world. For 
 
 a Matt. 12 : 46 : Mark 3 : 31 ; Acts 1 : 11 h Mark 3 : 21. 1 Some ancient autlioriiies read, and eeeketh it to 6 known openly. 
 
 booths : that your generations may know that 
 I made the children of Israel to dwell in 
 booths, when I brought them out of the land 
 of Egypt." (Lev. 23:42, 43j. It was also- called 
 "the feast of ingathering" (ex.23:16); and wtis 
 a season of joy, commemorating the deliver- 
 ance of the people from bondage by their 
 journey through the wilderness, and the 
 bringing in of the fruits of the field at the 
 end of the year. Special sacrifices were of- 
 fered, and parts of the law were publicly read. 
 
 (Deul. 31:10sq. ; Neh. 8: 18; Joseph. ■' Ant." 4, 8, 12). JoSC- 
 
 phus calls it "a holiest and greatest feast." 
 
 3. His brethren {brothers) therefore 
 said unto him. The word therefore shows 
 that the proximity of the Feast of Tabernacles 
 was the occasion of his brothers' words. Ac- 
 cording to the best supported text of Matt. 
 13 : 55, the names of his four' brothers were 
 "James and Joseph and Simon and Judas." 
 They were probably either sons of Joseph 
 and Mary, and so younger brothers of Jesus, 
 or sons of Joseph b3'^ a former marriage. But 
 the view that they were sons of Joseph and 
 Mary seems to have been the earliest opinion, 
 and to deserve the preference. (See Note on 
 2: 12). Depart heuce, and go into Ju- 
 dea, that thy disciples also may see the 
 works that thou doest (or, may behold thy 
 works which thou doest. — Eev. Ver.). Nearly 
 all the disciples of Jesus might be expected to 
 visit Jerusalem at this feast. Many of them 
 resided in Judea, and even those of Northern 
 Palestine would be likely to keep the ap- 
 proaching festival in the holy city. Hence, 
 the brothers, who were doubtless expecting 
 that the Messiah would be a great temporal 
 prince, seem to have felt that it was high time 
 for his mighty works to be wrought in the 
 presence of the whole body of his adherents, 
 and for his Messiahship, if genuine, to be 
 proclaimed in the capital of the nation. Their 
 language has sometimes been thought to be- 
 token envy, or ambition — i. e., a wish to have 
 him fall into the hands of his enemies, or a 
 
 desire to share in his advancement ; but neither 
 of these feelings is expressed, or necessarily 
 implied. They evidently desired to have the 
 question as to what he was fintilly settled ; but 
 their words do not reveal the particular mo- 
 tives which led them to speak as they did. 
 Yet it is to be freely admitted that they had 
 failed to appreciate the elevation of his char- 
 acter, and to yield to the evidence of his Mes- 
 siahship. 
 
 4. For no man doeth (omit there is and 
 that) any thing in secret, and he himself 
 seeketh to be known openly. Thus the 
 brothers justify their counsel, assuming that 
 Jesus is seeking to be known and received by 
 the wliole people, while his conduct is incon- 
 sistent with such an aim. The more concealed 
 one's works, the less known will he be; the 
 more public his works, the more known will 
 he himself be. They now proceed to apply 
 this principle to Jesus. If thou do (or, do- 
 est) these things, shew (or, manifest) thy- 
 self to the world. By the former clause, 
 the brothers may not have intended to express 
 any actual doubt in respect to his doing the 
 works referred to ; they may have used the 
 hypothetical form simply as a premise to the 
 inference expressed in the latter clause. Thus, 
 "the works which thou art doing from time 
 to time, in comparative secrecj', ought to be 
 performed in the most public manner possible, 
 or before the world." 
 
 5. For neither did his brethren believe 
 in him (or, more exactly. For even his broth- 
 ers were not believing in him). Notice (1) that 
 in this verse the Evangelist represents the 
 brothers as being in a state of unbelief. He 
 does not refer to a momentary act, but to a 
 continuous state. (2) That in verse 3, the 
 brothers speak of thy disciples, as though 
 they did not regard themselves as belonging 
 to that class of the people. (3) That Jesus 
 plainly separates them from himself in verse 
 6. Bearing in mind these facts, we cannot 
 suppose that three out of the four wore of the 
 twelve. (See 6 : 68 sq. ). The meaning is, that 
 
Ch. VIL] 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 169 
 
 6 Then Jesus said unto them, « My time is not yet 
 come: l)ut your time is always ready. 
 
 7 'Tlie world cauuot liiitt; you; but me it hatetli, 
 ' because I testify of it, that tlie works thereof are evil. 
 
 8 Go ye up unto this feast: I go not up yet uuto this 
 feast; ''for my time is not yet full come. 
 
 6 even his brethren did not believe on him. Jesus 
 therefore sailh unto them, My tiuie is not yet come; 
 
 7 but your time is alway ready. The world cannot 
 liate you; but me it hatetli, because 1 testify ol it, 
 
 8 that its works are evil, (jo ye up uuto the feast : 1 
 go not upi unto this feast; because my time is not 
 
 ..&ch. 15: 19....ech. 3: 19....(i ch. 8: 20; ver. 6. 1 Hauy ancient aiiihorities ndd, yet. 
 
 at this time the brothers of Jesus were with- 
 out faith in him as the Messiah. They had 
 not, perhaps, definitely rejected his chiims; 
 they were wnbelievers, rather than c?tsbeliev- 
 ers. And the Scriptures afturd no evidence 
 of a thorough change in tiieir conviction until 
 after his resurrection. To one of them, he 
 appeared in his raised body (icor. i5:7), and it 
 is possible that then, for the first time, he fully 
 believed in Jesus. 
 
 6. Then Jesus said unto them. (More 
 exactly, Jesus therefore saith to them). The 
 word therefore makes the following words a 
 response to what the brothers had said. My 
 time is not yet come. That is, "the oppor- 
 tune and appointed moment for me to go up to 
 Jerusalem, for the purpose which you have in 
 mind, has not yet arrived." For Jesus knew 
 that there was more for him to do, especially 
 in teaching and training his twelve disciples, 
 before he should bring on the crisis of his final 
 rejection. But your time is always ready. 
 The time of their going up to the feast was a 
 matter of indifference. There was no special 
 reason why thej' should not freely choose the 
 day and hour for their journey. Ordinary 
 considerations were enough to direct them in 
 ordinary circumstances. As Jews, and noth- 
 ing more, they could appear in Jerusalem 
 whenever they pleased. It may, perhaps, be 
 inferred from this saj'ing of Christ, that, in 
 the common work of life, God does not reveal 
 to us a definite time for each particular act; 
 that the hour of doing inany things is left to 
 the judgment or preference of man; and 
 hence, that we are scarcely to expect, even in 
 answer to prayer, any special intimation of 
 God's will as to our duties, moment by mo- 
 ment — any divine impression that may super- 
 sede the use of reason. Inspired illumination 
 is unnecessary to a right performance of or- 
 dinary Christian work. 
 
 7. The world cannot hate yon. By 
 the world is here meant the people in gen- 
 eral, who were still strangers to the new 
 "kingdom of God" that Christ was establish- 
 
 ing. It was morally impossible for this world 
 to hate the brothers of Jesus, because, as the 
 rest of the verse shows, they had taken no 
 stand against the religious belief or conduct 
 of the world. There was no radical o]»posi- 
 tion between them and the people. Hence 
 this expression proves that none of these 
 brothers belonged to the circle of the twelve 
 whom Christ had selected to be his intimate 
 friends. But me it hateth — already and 
 bitterly — because I testify of it — habitually, 
 by word and deed — that the works thereof 
 are evil ; that is, sinful. Though this lan- 
 guage expresses distinctly the estimate which 
 Jesus put on his every day work as a teacher, 
 he may have recalled at this time his words 
 to the Pharisees in Jerusalem (see 5 : 42, 44, 
 47); for he had declared with great plainness 
 of speech their profound sinfulness. 
 
 8. Go ye up unto this feast : I go not 
 up yet unto this feast; for my time is 
 not yet full come. The word yet, in the 
 second clause of the Common Version, should 
 probably be omitted. Westcott and Hort, 
 however, retain it, with some of the best MSS. 
 The words, I go not (or, am not going) up 
 unto this feast, are a pregnsuu expres- 
 sion, to be interpreted in the light of the 
 demand which had been made. That demand 
 did not have in view a going up to Jerusalem 
 merely to observe the festival, but a going up 
 to the feast for the purpose of manifesting 
 himself to the whole body of his disciples by 
 such mighty works as would settle the ques- 
 tion of his Messiahship. Jesus knew that 
 such a course would naturally lead to his 
 death — an event which belonged to a future 
 time and another feast. The interpretation 
 which we have given accords with the style 
 of this Gospel, in which there is a deep, un- 
 derlying continuilj' of thought, so that very 
 often single clauses can only bo understood 
 by means of the context; and, if it is correct, 
 all appearance of contradiction between this 
 verse and the tenth disappe;irs. Jesus did not 
 mislead his brothers, or change his purpose; 
 
170 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 [Ch. VIL 
 
 9 When he had said these words unto them, he abode 
 still in Galilee. 
 
 10 But when his brethren were gone up, then went 
 he also up unto the feast, not openly, but as it were in 
 secret. 
 
 11 Then "the Jews sought him at the feast, and said, 
 Where is he? 
 
 9 yet fulfilled. And liavingsaid these thing unto them, 
 he abode slill in Galilee. 
 
 10 But when his brethren were gone up unto the 
 feast, then went he also up, not publicly, but as it 
 
 11 were iu secret. The Jews therefore sought him at 
 
 for he did not go up to this feast in the way, 
 or for the purpose, contemplated by them. 
 "His first public entrance into Jerusalem was 
 the entrance in the procession with palms; 
 by that he showed himself publicly to the 
 world, and by that, also, he brought on his 
 own death" — (Lange). Godet insi.sts that the 
 Greek for "my time is not yet full come," is 
 "too solemn an expression (jrcTrA^puTai) to bo 
 applied to the interval of a few days which 
 separated this response from the sudden ap- 
 pearance of Christ in Jerusalem," and inter- 
 prets the language of Jesus as we have done 
 above. Westcott remarks: "The Feast of 
 Tabernacles was a festival of peculiar joj' for 
 work accomplished. At such a feast Christ 
 had now no place." This able scholar accepts 
 the reading not yet (outtu), as genuine. The 
 same is true likewise of Dr. Hort. But "Weiss 
 strenuously opposes this reading, interpreting 
 Christ's language as "a categorical refusal, 
 equivalent to the words, "I, for my part, go 
 not up to tins feast, because, not until a later 
 day will the right point of time come, when, 
 with my full self-revelation, the unavoidable 
 decision will take place.'" He also thinks 
 that Jesus was waiting for a divine intimation 
 when to go up, and that this intimation, when 
 it came, "did not direct him to go up to Jeru- 
 salem, in order to bring on the final decision, 
 but for the purpose of taking up, under the 
 divine protection, once more, and for a con- 
 siderable time, his work of refutation and in- 
 struction in the principal seat of the theoc- 
 racy." We prefer to say that the di'vine will 
 was constantly known to Jesus, and that his 
 not going up with his brothers publicly at this 
 time, together with his open refusal to do this, 
 was in as perfect accord with the divine will 
 as his going up at a later day, and in a private 
 manner. He did not wait in darkness for a 
 " wink" that he should go, but he waited in 
 light until the fitting moment came, knowing 
 when to remain where he was, and when to 
 visit again the holy city. Every hour had its 
 
 appropriate work, and that work he recog- 
 nized and performed. ^ 
 
 9. When he had said (literally, saying) 
 these words unto them, he abode still in 
 Galilee. Or, according to another reading 
 of nearly equal authority: "Saying these 
 things, he himself remained in Galilee" ; the 
 implication being, that his brothers went up 
 with the rest of the people to the feast. 
 
 10. But when his brethren — (brothers) 
 Avere gone up, then Avent he also up unto 
 the feast. According to the best editors of 
 the Greek text, the words unto the feast, 
 are a part of the first clause, not of the 
 second. Hence it is possible that the Evan- 
 gelist did not intend to say that Jesus went 
 up to observe the feast, but only that he went 
 up, though for some other purpose. As he 
 appeared in the temple about the middle of the 
 feast (ver. 14), he probably remained in Gali- 
 lee three or four daj's after the departure of 
 his brothers. Not openly, but as it Avere 
 in secret. Thus in a very different way 
 from that which his brothers had proposed. 
 Yet the harmonists suppose that he went up 
 with his disciples, that on his way a certain 
 village of Samaria declined to receive hitn 
 (Luke 9. 51-56), and that he also cleansed ten 
 lepers as he was about to enter another village 
 (Luke 17: 11-19). Other events, as the sending out 
 of the seventy (Luke 10: 1-16), are connected by 
 some with this journey. But he did not go 
 up with the multitude. 
 
 11. Then the Jcavs, etc. (Better, the Jews 
 
 1 [Instead of I go not nj> .yetc it seems necessary 
 to read / go not vp, as the American Com. propose in 
 Appendix. The authority for not (ovk) is XD K M IT. 
 (A is defective here), three cursives, several copies of 
 the Old Latin, the Latin A'ulgate (except some codices,) 
 Memphitic, Old Syriac (Curetonian), Armenian, -Elhi- 
 opic; .Terome mentions that Porphyry accused Jestis 
 of fickleness, in saying he would not go, and then 
 going; Cyril, of Alexandria, Chrysostoni, and Kpipha- 
 nius speak of the difficulty, and try to explain it. The 
 authority for not yet (ovitu>) is B L T and eleven 
 
Ch. VII.] 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 171 
 
 12 And "there was much imirnuiriiig ainon^ the peo- 
 ple coacerning hiiu : for ' some said, He is a ^ood man : 
 others said, Nay ; but he deceiveth the people. 
 
 13 Howbeit no man spake openly of him "lor fear of 
 the Jews. 
 
 14 Now about the midst of the feast Jesus went up 
 into the temple, and taught. 
 
 12 the feast, and said, Where is he? And there was 
 much murmuring among the multitudes concerning 
 him: some said, He is a good man; others said. Not 
 
 13 so, but he leadetli the multitude astray. Howbeit 
 no man spake openly of him for fear of the Jews. 
 
 14 But when it was now the midst of the feast Jesus 
 
 dch. 9: 16; 10: 19 & Matt. 21:46; Luke 7: 16; cb. 6: U; ver. 40....C ch. 9: 22; 12:42; 19:38. 
 
 therefore) sought him at the feast, and 
 said, Where is he? or, Where is that one? 
 They sought, (or, v^eve seeking — Ai>w note the 
 imperfect tense). Of course, with hostile in- 
 tent. Their desire to take his life had not 
 become any weaker. The period, whether of 
 seven months or of eighteen, whether from 
 the Feast of Purim to the Feast of Tabernacles 
 in the same year, or from the festival of the 
 Passover, or of Pentecost, in one year to that 
 of Tabernacles in the next year, had not 
 changed their temper or purpose. Probably 
 they had kept themselves informed of the 
 movements of Jesus during his absence from 
 Jerusalem, and had nursed their enmity by 
 thoughts of their waning influence. For if 
 he should be received as the Messiah, their 
 power would be broken. 
 
 12. And there was much murmuring 
 (or, muttering) among the people (lit., mul- 
 titudes) concerning him. For tlie sense of 
 the word murmuring, see Notes on 6 : 41 and 
 61. Plainly, there was no lack of interest in 
 respect to Jesus ; but the people spoke to one 
 another in low tones of voice, as if a crisis 
 were at hand. Some said (or, were saying), 
 He is a good man : others said (or, were 
 saying). Nay; but he deceiveth the people 
 (lit., tnultitude). Thus they were looking at 
 his character ; and this is always a matter of 
 
 other uncials, most cursives (many have not been ex- 
 amined on this passage), three copies of the Old Latin 
 and some of the Vulgate, Thebaic, the Peshito, Hark- 
 lean and Jerusalem Syriac, the Gothic, and a quotation 
 in Basil. Transcriptional probabilty is overwhelmingly 
 in favor of not, as a very difficult reading, readily 
 changed into not yet, which at once removes the 
 difficulty; while we cannot Imagine any reason for 
 changing the not yet into not. And intrinsic 
 probability cannot be arrayed on the other side, except 
 by claiming that the reading not is practically impos- 
 sible, wholly inconsistent with the character of our 
 Lord. But it may be variously explained. (1) As sug- 
 gested by Chrysostom and Cyril, it may mean that he 
 was not going with the Jews— to share their festivities 
 — or, (Plumpti'e) in the regular caravan, as a pilgrim 
 (.5 : 1). (2) They urged him to go as Messiah ; but 
 when he did that, it would be the signal for his death : 
 
 the highest moment. It was not now the 
 miracles or the teaching of .Jesus which formed 
 the subject of debate, but himself; whether 
 he was good or bad, truthful or deceptive. 
 And that is, in some sense, the question still. 
 We must now believe that Jesus was the Mes- 
 siah, the Son of the Holy, or that he was an 
 impostor, deceiving the people. Strange that 
 there should still be doubt in any mind ! 
 
 13. Howbeit (or, yet) no man spake 
 openly of him, for fear of the Jews. 13y 
 the JeAVs, must be meant, in this place, as so 
 often in this Gospel, tiie chief men of the na- 
 tion, and especially those belonging to the 
 Sanhedrin. Their judgment had not yet been 
 announced, and therefore the people were 
 afraid to speak out boldly for or against him. 
 It was tlieir judgment which, in all proba- 
 bility, his brothers wislied to secure, by ad- 
 vising him to show himself openly to the 
 world, (ver. 3, 4). But many of the people 
 must have known something of their enmity 
 to Jesus, and therefore those who believed 
 him to be good had special reason to fear the 
 Jews. This was the state of atfairs during the 
 first part of the festival. 
 
 14-36. Discussions at the Feast. 
 
 14. Now about the midst of the feast 
 Jesus went up into the temple, and 
 taught. Whether Jesus repaired to the tem- 
 
 so he is not going up (in that capacity) to this feast. 
 (Comp. Godet). The answer was enigmatical, because 
 he could not explain himself to them. (3) It is even 
 possible to say (with Meyer), that Jesus changed his 
 mind (ver. 10), as he did with the Syrophenician 
 mother. Since the difficult reading is intrinsically 
 not at all impossible, the transcriptional probability 
 must carry the day, and the reading not must be ac- 
 cepted. Westcott and Hort would, no doubt, say that 
 it is a " Western " reading, being given by N D, Old 
 Latin, and Old Syriac. But apaitTrom the evidence of 
 the Memphitic, and .ffithiopic Versions and Greek 
 Fathers, it may be remembered that Westcott and Hort 
 incline strongly to accept various exclusively "AVest- 
 ern" readings in the latter part of Luke and Matthew, 
 on internal grounds; and internal evidence is ex- 
 tremely clear and strong in this case ; indeed, is orer- 
 whelming. — B.] 
 
172 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 [Ch. VII. 
 
 15 "And the Jews marvelled, saying, How knoweth 
 this man letters, having never learned? 
 
 IG Jesus answered them, and said, >> My doctrine is 
 not mine, but his that sent me. 
 
 17 «If any man will do is will, he shall know of the 
 doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of 
 myself. 
 
 18 <<He that speaketh of himself seeketh his own 
 
 15 went up into the temple, and taught. The Jews 
 therefore marvelled, saying. How knoweth this iiiau 
 
 16 letters, having never learned? Jesus therefore an- 
 swered them, and said, My teaching is not mine, 
 
 17 but his that sent me. If any man willeth to do his 
 will, he shall know of the teaching, whether it is of 
 
 18 God, or whether I speak from myself. He that 
 speaketh from himself seeketh his own glory, but 
 
 o Matt. 13:54; Murk 6: 2; Luke 4: 22; Acls 2 : 7....6 ch. 3: 11 ; 8: 28 ; 12: 49; U: 10, 24....C ch. 8: 43....d ch. 5 : 41 ; 8:50. 
 
 pie as soon as he reached the city, is not stated ; 
 but it may be presumed that the two events 
 were not far apart. Plainly, however, he did 
 not repair to the holy city, or to the temple, 
 at this time, in order to observe the Feast of 
 Tabernacles in the manner prescribed by the 
 Mosaic law (see on ver. 2), but in order to in- 
 struct the people in respect to the things of 
 his kingdom. And, apart from supernatural 
 protection, he could do this most safely when 
 surrounded by multitudes of the common peo- 
 ple; for many of these heard him gladly. By 
 using the imperfect tense of the verb, to teach, 
 the Evangelist represents the teaching of Je- 
 sus as in progress, or continuous ; and, <m this 
 account, the translation, "was teaching," 
 would, perhaps, be more exact than the trans- 
 lation, taught. 
 15-24. With "the Jews." 
 15. And the Jews marvelled. By the 
 tense of the verb, we learn that their aston- 
 ishment, as well as his teaching, was continu- 
 ous. The language is that of an observer who 
 recalls the scene. Saying, How knoweth 
 this man letters, having never learned? 
 To know letters, means to have literary cul- 
 ture or knowledge— to be trained in the schools 
 and familiar with books. But the learning of 
 the Jews was chiefly religious, founded on the 
 Old Testament Scriptures, or relating to 
 them; and, by the way in which he was now 
 teaching, Jesus proved himself to be a master 
 of language, of interpretation, and, perhaps, 
 of Rabbinic lore. At this, the Jewish leaders 
 were astonished ; for they knew that he had 
 been taught by none of their famous masters. 
 Yet it was the form of his teaching, and not 
 its substance, which attracted their attention 
 and excited their wonder. For they were too 
 unspiritual to be moved by its greatest excel- 
 lence—the sublime and saving truth which it 
 made known. 
 
 16. Jesus answered them, and said. 
 The language in which their astonishment 
 found a somewhat incautious expression was 
 not addressed to Jesus, but it was known to 
 
 him, and was answered in the following words : 
 My doctrine (or, teaching) is not mine, 
 but his that sent me. This expression must 
 have recalled to the minds of some what he 
 had said to them during his last previous visit 
 to Jerusalem (see 5: 19-30 sq. ), when they ac- 
 cused him of blasphemy, and sought his life. 
 (5:18). He declares once more his insepara- 
 ble union with God. His teaching is in no 
 sense or degree from himself, considered apart 
 from the Father. His message, rather, is 
 God's message; his learning, the wisdom of 
 God. He is not dependent on human masters 
 for instruction; for he knows intuitively, and 
 reveals perfectly, the mind of the invisible 
 Father. 
 
 17. If any man will do his will, he shall 
 know of the doctrine (or, teaching), 
 whether it be of God, or whether I 
 speak of myself. The first clause should be 
 translated : If any man loilleth (or, is willing) 
 to do his will. These words reveal a great 
 spiritual law, namely, that the moral attitude 
 of a person will affect his view of the character 
 and teaching of Christ. One who is prepared 
 to obey the will of God from the heart, will 
 see the purity of Christ's character, and the 
 divine certainty of what he teaches But one 
 who is in spirit thoroughly Sv3lf-seeking, and 
 unprepared to do the will of God, will look 
 upon Christ, the holj\ through the atmosphere 
 of his own selfish character, and will therefore 
 hear his teaching witliout perceiving that it 
 bears the unmistakable impress of heaven. 
 It is the pure in heart who see God ; it is t e 
 childlike tt) whom he reveals the things of his 
 kingdom. (Matt, ii: 25). A right will tends to 
 just judgment and knowledge of truth; a 
 perver.se will darkens the understanding, and 
 leads to error. Hence, an obedient spirit is 
 indispensable, in order to a proper estimate of 
 the evidence on which divine truth rests, or 
 by which it is commended to rational confi- 
 dence. 
 
 18. He that speaketh of (or, /rom) him- 
 self. The emphasis belongs to the words 
 
Ch. VIL] 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 173 
 
 glory: but he that seeketh his glory that sent him, the 
 same is true, and no unrighteousness is in him. 
 
 19 "Did not Moses give you the law, and yet none of 
 you Iceepeth the law ? '' Why go ye about to kill me? 
 
 20 The people answered and suid, "Thou hast a devil: 
 whogoeth about to kill thee? 
 
 21 Jesus answered and said unto them, I have done 
 one work, and ye all marvel. 
 
 'il ''Moses therefore gave unto you circumcision; 
 (not because it is of Moses, «but of the fathers;) and ye 
 on the sabbath day circumcise a man. 
 
 a Ex. 2i: 3; Deut. 33: .; oh. 1 : 17 ; Acts 7 : 38 b Matt. 12: 14; Mark 3:6; cb. 5: 16, 18; 10: 31, 39; 11 : 53 cch.8: 48, 52; 10- 20 
 
 d Lev. 12 ; 3 e Geu. 17 : 10. 
 
 he that seeketh the glory of him that sent him, the 
 
 19 same is true, and no unrighteousness is in him. Did 
 not Moses give you the law, and yet none of you 
 
 20 doeth the law ? Why seek ye to kill me? The mul- 
 titude answered, thou hast a demon; who seeketh 
 
 21 to kill thee? Jesus answered aud said unto them, 
 I did one work, and ye all marvel because thereof. 
 
 22 Moses hath given you circumcision (not that it is of 
 Moses, but of the fathers) ; aud on the sabbath ye 
 
 from himself^ as their position in the original 
 sentence shows. He whose teaching has no 
 other source than himself— the man whose 
 words are prompted by his own wisdom and 
 will, and by nothing else— seeketh his own 
 glory. And a self-seeking teacher cannot be 
 trusted; his doctrine is likely to be false. 
 This, manifestly, is the unexpressed thought 
 of Jesus; and it was unexpressed because it 
 was certain to be supplied by the minds of 
 those to whom he was speaking. Moreover, 
 this is one of the sayings of Christ which sug- 
 gest the doctrine that selfishness is the root of 
 sin. But he that seeketh his glory that 
 sent him, the same is true, and no un- 
 righteousness is in him. The last clause 
 might be translated : ''^ And unrighteousness in 
 him there is not'^ — the emphasis being on the 
 words unrighteousness in him.. Thus Jesus 
 claims to be seeking without selfishness the 
 glory of the Father who sent him, to be abso- 
 luteh' truthful in his teaching, and, indeed, to 
 be without sin. If one of these claims be ad- 
 mitted, all must be admitted. They stand or 
 fall together. He that seeks not his own glory, 
 but that of God only, has no motive to speak 
 anything untrue, or to do anything wrong. 
 
 19. Did not Moses give you the law, 
 and yet none of you keepeth the law? 
 Why go ye about (lit., seek ve) to kill me? 
 Tliese words were evidently addressed to "the 
 Jews," and not to the multitude of common 
 people. "The Jews'' had received through 
 Moses the law of God, but they were not obey- 
 ing it, were unwilling to obey it; and hence, 
 according' to verse 17, they could not justly 
 expect to know whether Christ's teaching 
 was, or was not, from God. They were not 
 in sympathy with the law of God given to 
 them by their honored deliverer, Moses; how, 
 til en, could they recognize the words of Jesus 
 as divine? The word law appears to be used 
 in a general sense of the whole Mosaic code ; 
 
 but one of its precepts they were now planning 
 to break by killing Jesus. 
 
 20. The people (lit., multitude) answered 
 and. said. Thou hast a devil (or, demon) : 
 who goeth about (or, seeketh) to kill thee? 
 This multitude was probably composed, for 
 the most part, of people from Galilee, who 
 knew nothing of the deadly purpose of "the 
 Jews" at Jerusalem. They were surprised at 
 the charge which appeared to be made against 
 them. It seemed to them a dark suspicion, 
 like that which was supposed to be injected 
 into the soul by a demon. But those who 
 were specially addressed bj- Jesus maintained 
 a prudent silence; for they understood very 
 well that the multitude would not tolerate any 
 violence against him. 
 
 21. Jesus answered and said unto them. 
 That is, his words were still open, and ad- 
 dressed apparently to all, though they were 
 intended chiefly for "the Jews," who had 
 charged him with breaking the Sabbath by a 
 work of healing. I have done (did) one 
 Avork, and ye all marvel. The work re- 
 ferred to was the healing of the impotent man. 
 (5: 1-15). Jesus does not hesitate to call it a 
 work, though he had done it on the Sabbath. 
 And his language proves that they were still 
 wondering, or pretending to wonder, that he 
 had ventured to do that great and merciful 
 work on the Sabbath. Many interpreters con- 
 nect with this clause the words therefore (on 
 account of this, or, for this cnuse, Sia. toOto), 
 which generally stand at the beginning, and 
 rarely, if ever, in John, at the end of a clause. 
 It appears safest, therefore, to connect them 
 with the next verse. 
 
 22. The exact meaning of this verse is a 
 matter of doubt, though the general object of 
 it is manifest. If the words translated there- 
 fore, /o?* this cause, are genuine, and do not 
 belong to the preceding sentence, Clirist may 
 be understood to teach (1) that one reason for 
 
174 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 [Ch. VIL 
 
 23 If a man on the sabbath day receive circnuacision, 
 that the law of Moses should hot be broken; are ye 
 angry at me, because " I have made a man every whit 
 whole on the sabbath day? 
 
 21 'Judge not according to the appearance, but judge 
 righteous judgment. 
 
 23 circumcise a man. If a man receiveth circuiucisiou 
 on the sabbath, that the law of Moses may not be 
 broken; are ye wroth with me, because I made' a 
 
 24 man every whit whole on the sabbath? ,Tude not 
 according to appearance, but judge righteous judg- 
 ment. 
 
 o oh. 5: 8, 9, 16.. .b Deut. 1 : 16, 17 ; Prov. 'U: 23; ch. 8 : 15 ; James 2 : 1. 1 Gr. a whole man sound. 
 
 giving to circumcision the place which it had 
 in the Mosaic economj', as a work tliat ought 
 to be performed on the eighth day after birth, 
 even if that day should be a Sabbath, was to 
 guard the people against the precise error into 
 which "the Jews" had now fallen. God, in 
 his deep counsel, had warned his people, by 
 the rite of circumcision, against an outward 
 and over-scrupulous observance of the Sab- 
 bath. If this be a correct view of the mean- 
 ing, the idea of Jesus as to the aim of the law 
 may be compared with that of Paul, in 1 Cor. 
 9:9; and the verse may be translated thus: 
 Fo7- this cause hath Moses given you circum- 
 cisioJi {not that it is from Moses, but from the 
 fathers), and on the Sabbath ye circu^ncise a 
 man. The connection of thought is very 
 natural with this interpretation; but it may 
 seem improbable to those who see very little 
 that is deep and spiritual in the ritual of Mo- 
 saism. Again, Christ may be understood to 
 teach (2) that the law of circumcision super- 
 sedes that of the Jewish Sabbath, because it 
 is more ancient, having been first given to the 
 patriarchs, while that of the Jewish Sabbath 
 was first given to Moses. Underneath this 
 representation may lie the postulate that the 
 religious rites or duties first revealed are the 
 most fundamental and controlling. "With this 
 view of the Lord's meaning, his words may 
 be properly translated: For this cause hath 
 Mo.ses given to you circumcision, not because 
 it is from Moses, but (because it is) from the 
 fathers; and on the Sabbath ye circumcise a 
 man. In other words : Moses has given you 
 circumcision for this reason, namely, because 
 it is from the fathers. The previous negation, 
 not because it is from Moses, is only inserted 
 for the purpose of contrasting the later law 
 with the earlier. This interpretation is sus- 
 tained by Meyer, and deserves respectful con- 
 sideration, though we prefer the one first 
 given. 
 
 But if Jesus here assumes that the Jewish 
 law of the Sabbath was unknown to the fa- 
 thers, can we safely teach that the Sabbath 
 was instituted in Eden? (ceu. 2:2,3), Not the 
 
 Sabbath of the Mosaic law, with its rigid ces- 
 sation from labor, and its immediate jienalty 
 for transgression ; but a Sabbath, or holy da3% 
 consecrated to spiritual service and iinjirove- 
 ment. It is easy to suppose that Jesus referred 
 exclusively to the post-Mosaic Sabbath of the 
 Jews ; for of this, and of this onlj', would his 
 hearers be likely to think ; while the pre-Mo- 
 saic Sabbath must be establisiied by other 
 evidence. This expression is, therefore, con- 
 sistent with the supposition that the seventh 
 day was consecrated and set apart in a general 
 way to religious service from the beginning. 
 
 23. If a man on the Sabbath day re- 
 ceive circumcision, that the law of Moses 
 should not be broken, are ye angry at 
 me, because I made a man every whit 
 whole on the Sabbath day? In order to 
 a proper observance of the Mosaic law, the 
 prohibition of work on the Sabbath must give 
 way to the requirement of circumcision on 
 the eighth day after birth ; much more then 
 must that prohibition give way to the great 
 requirement of love to one's neighbor, ful- 
 filled in restoring a whole man to hcaltli. 
 (Compare Mark 2:27; 3:4; Luke 6: 9; 18: 
 15, 16). Where there is an apparent conflict 
 in the precepts of the law, the less important 
 rule must yield to the more important rule. 
 In this way only can the law be obeyed. 
 And one who considers the highest object of 
 the Sabbath to be, not bodily rest, but re- ' 
 ligiousand beneficent service, will not hesitate 
 in deciding which must yield— the require- 
 ment of love or the requirement of rest. 
 
 34. Judge not according to the ap- 
 pearance, but judge righteous judgment. 
 The before appearance is witiiout au- 
 thority, and should be omitted. To judge 
 according to appearance, or according to what 
 is seen, is rarely just. But to go back of the 
 merely external act to the motive which 
 prompts it, and beneath the letter of the law 
 to its aim and spirit, is the judgment which is 
 righteous. Thus Christ said that "on love to 
 God and love to man, hang all tlie law and the 
 prophets" (Matt. 22:40;, and that "whosoever 
 
Ch. VIL] 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 175 
 
 25 Then said some of them of Jerusalem, Is not this 
 he, whom they seek to kill ? 
 
 26 But, lo, he spoaketh boldly, and they say nothing 
 unto him. " Do the rulers know indeed that this is the 
 very Christ ? 
 
 27 'Howbeit we know this man whence he is: but 
 when Christ Cometh, no man knoweth whence he is. 
 
 28 Then cried .lesus in the temple as he taught, say- 
 ing, = Ye both know me, and ye know whence 1 am: 
 and "^I am not come of myself, but he that sent me ' is 
 true, /whom ye know not. 
 
 25 Some therefore of them of Jerusalem said, Is not 
 
 26 this he whom they seek to kill? And lo, he speaketh 
 openly, and they say nothing unto him. ( an it be 
 that the rulers indeed know that this is the Christ? 
 
 27 Ilowbeit we know this man whence he is: but when 
 the Christ cometh, no one knoweth whence he is. 
 
 28 Jesus therefore cried in the temjjle, teaching and 
 saying, Ve t)oth know me, and know whence lam; 
 and I am not come of myself, but he that sent uie 
 
 . ./ ch 1 : 18- 
 
 looketh on a woman, to lust after her, hath 
 committed adultery with her already in his 
 heart" (M;itt.5:28). Moreover, he clearly taught 
 that some matters required by the law were 
 weightier than others (Matt. 23: 23). So in the 
 present instance, the act of healing, by which 
 he was charged with breaking the law of 
 Moses, was in harmony with one of its 
 broadest and most spiritual commands. Those 
 who judged otherwise judged according to 
 appearance, and their judgment was really 
 unrighteous. 
 25-31. Second Scene in the Temple. 
 
 25. Then said some of them of Jeru- 
 salem, Is not this he whom they seek 
 to kill? The people of Jerusalem, in dis- 
 tinction from those of other parts of the land 
 (see note on ver. 20), were aware of the mur- 
 derous design of "the Jews," or leaders of 
 the nation, and they were, on that account, 
 surprised at the freedom with which Jesus 
 wa? now speaking in public. 
 
 26. But (and) lo, he speaketh boldly, 
 and they say nothing unto him. Do the 
 rulers knoAV indeed [in truth) that this is 
 the very Christ? Very before Christ is to 
 be omitted. This question may be ironical ; 
 implying that the conduct of "the Jews" 
 was such as would be natural if they had as- 
 certained in truth that Jesus was the Messiah. 
 But the speakers themselves were too well 
 informed to entertain such a belief. Or, 
 noticing the force of the words "in truth" 
 (oA))5(is), the question may be understood as 
 suggesting, and at the same time rejeci:ing, 
 what seemed to the speakers the only natural 
 reason for the rulers' course. "The rulers 
 have not at any time come really to know 
 that this is the Christ?" They may suppose 
 that they have come to know this ; but it can- 
 not be that they have really ascertained it. 
 
 27. Howbeit— whatever they may think — 
 ure know this man whence he is : but 
 
 when {the) Christ cometh, no man know- 
 eth whence he is. This is their sufflcient 
 reason for holding it impossible that Jesus is 
 the Christ. Though it was understood that 
 the Messiah was to be of the seed of David, 
 and from the town of Bethleliem, where 
 David was (ver. 42), it was also believed that 
 his origin and manifestation were to be mys- 
 terious and supernatural. Was he not to be 
 Wonderful, Counsellor, Mighty God, Ever- 
 lasting Father, Prince of Peace? Was he 
 not to come in the clouds of heaven ? to 
 come suddenly to his temple? (tsa.oie; Dan. 7: 
 13; Mai. 3: 1). How Were these predictions to be 
 reconciled with his being the son of Joseph 
 and Mary, whom they supposed that they 
 knew to be his parents? Could the son of a 
 common carpenter; could a man whose 
 parents and brothers and sisters were well 
 known, be the expected Christ of God? Im- 
 possible. The expression "whence he is" 
 does not therefore refer to the birth-place, so 
 much as to the particular fitmily and circum- 
 stances of Jesus, or of the Christ. 
 
 28. Then cried Jesus (better : Jesus 
 therefore cried) in the temple as he taught, 
 saying. The word cried indicates a force of 
 utterance that was occasioned by strong feel- 
 ing. (Compare 1: 15; 7: 37; 12: 44; Rom. 9: 
 27). No wonder that he was moved at the 
 persistence of the people in judging according 
 to appearance. (See on ver. 24). The Evan- 
 gelist also calls attention to the circumstance 
 that the following words were uttered by Je- 
 sus while he was still in the temple teaching; 
 and this particularity is a mark of truth. Ye 
 both know me, and ye know whence I 
 am. "We must guard against seeing, with 
 Mej'er, a concession in these two propositions. 
 It is true : you know me up to a certain point, 
 but not completely. The tone of the two 
 conjunctions (translated ' both,' ' and ' ) has evi- 
 dently a touch of irony, and the two proposi- 
 
176 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 [Ch. VII. 
 
 29 But "I know him: for I am from him, aud he hath 
 sent me. 
 
 30 Then 'they sought to take him : but «no man laid 
 hands on him, because his hour was not yet cume. 
 
 31 And ''many ol the peoijle believed on him, and 
 said, When Christ cometh, will he do more miracles 
 than these which this man hath done? 
 
 29 is true, whom ye know not. I know him ; because 
 
 30 1 am Irom him, and he sent me. They sought there- 
 fore to take him : and no man Uiicl his hand <iu 
 
 31 hiui, because his hour was not yet cume. But of the 
 multitude many believed on him; and they said, 
 When the Christ shall come, will he do more siiius 
 
 a Matt. II: 27; ch. 10: 15 6 Mark 11: 18; Luke 19: 47; 20: 19; ver. 19; ch. 8: 37 c ver.«; ch. 8: 20 dMutt. 12; 23; ch.3: 2;R: 30. 
 
 tions have therefore an interrogative force." — 
 {G-odoi). The meaning, however, is almost 
 etfrfally good, if these words be regarded as a 
 concession that liis hearers have a certain 
 amount of knowledge as to his human person 
 and history, but a knowledge which is, never- 
 theless, at best, supei'licial, not reaching back 
 to his true origin, nor explaining the super- 
 natural character of his ministry. And I am 
 not come of myself. Though you infer, 
 from your knowledge of my earthly home 
 and life, that I am a mere man, self-sent, I 
 am not this. You know not "whence I am," 
 for you suppose me to have set myself, unau- 
 thorized, to this work. (See on the woi-ds "of 
 myself," 5 : 19, 30; 7: 17, 18, with Notes). But 
 he that sent me is true. On the word 
 translated true, which does not mean truth- 
 ful, but, rather, tliat which realizes the higliest 
 idea of the object in question, see Notes on 
 1:9; 4: 23; 6: 32. Whether Jesus means to 
 say tliat the One by whom he has been sent 
 realizes in himself tlie true and perfect idea of 
 a Sender (Meyer), or, rather, the true and 
 perfect idea of Being — of the very God — is 
 not material to the course of thought; yet we 
 are inclined to the latter view, because the 
 people must have been already aware of his 
 claim to be the Sent of God, and would there- 
 fore be likely to think that the word true was 
 used of him in a comprehensive sense. Whom 
 ye know not — i. e., in any spiritual sense of 
 the word. They knew about God, but they 
 did not k:-;ow God. They had no appreciation 
 of his character. How, then, could they 
 know "whence Jesus was"? And if they 
 did not, in the highest respect, know "whence 
 he was," their argument against his being the 
 Christ fell to the ground. Observe, also, that 
 the pronoun ye is slightlj' emphatic, preparing 
 their minds for the next sentence. 
 
 29. But I know him, etc. This verse is 
 well translated in the Revised Version: / 
 /enow him; because lam from him, and he sent 
 me. That is: My knowledge of the absolutely 
 real Being is certain, real, immediate; for I 
 
 am from his immediate presence and fellow- 
 ship, and he is the One who sent me. (Com- 
 pare Notes on 1: 1, 14, 19; 6: 46). These 
 words are even more emphatic by reason of 
 the independent position which they hold 
 without the conjunction but, which is omitted 
 by the best critical authorities. Thus Jesus 
 declares, in terms of wonderful simplicity and 
 force, his divine knowledge, origin, and mis- 
 sion—in a word, "whence he was." 
 
 30. Then they sought (or, they sought, 
 therefore) to take him. His claim to a 
 strictly divine origin and mission rekindled 
 the deadly animosity of "the Jews," or mem- 
 bers of the Sanhedrin, and led to a resump- 
 tion and continuance of their plotting to take 
 Jesus by violence, that they might put liim to 
 death. But (rather, and) no man laid 
 hands (or, his hand) on him, because his 
 hour was not yet come. The plots of his 
 enemies were not carried into effect at once, 
 because the time appointed by God for the 
 termination of his ministry was still in the fu- 
 ture. The Evangelist looks at the course of 
 events from the highest religious point of view. 
 What is brought about by the agency of sec- 
 ond causes he regards as a fultillment of the 
 will and purpose of the First Cause. The mo- 
 tive which restrained "the Jews" may have 
 been fear of the people, who were friend!3- to 
 Jesus; but the divine purpt)se was none the 
 less real and controlling. (Compare 8: 20). 
 
 31. And many of the people, etc. See 
 Revised Version : But of the multitude tnnny 
 believed on him ; and they said. Observe the 
 emphasis which is given to the expression the 
 ynultitnde by its position at the beginning of 
 the sentence, and which shows that those re- 
 ferred to in the preceding verse as "seeking 
 to seize Jesus," were not "of the multitude." 
 Observe, also, that the words believed on him 
 must, in agreement witli what follows, signifj', 
 were convinced that Jesus was the Christ. 
 For this is the import of " what they were say- 
 ing to one another" : When Christ cometh 
 — an expression not intended to rei)resent their 
 
Ch. VII.] 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 177 
 
 32 The Pharisees heard that the people murmured 
 such things concerning liini : and tlie Tliarisees and 
 the chief priests si'iit othcers to take him. 
 
 ;{3 Then said .resus unto them, " Yet a little while am 
 I with you, and llifti 1 go unto him that sent me. 
 
 ;i4 Ye * shall seek me, and shall not find me: and 
 where I am, thither ye cannot come. 
 
 32 than those which this man hath done? The Phari- 
 sees heard the multitude murmuring these things 
 concerning him ; and the chief priests and the Phari- 
 
 33 sees sent otlicers to take him. Jesus therefore said, 
 Yet a little while am I with you, and I go unto him 
 
 34 that sent me. Ye shall seek me, and shall not tiud 
 
 a ch. 13:33; 16: 16 5 Uo3.5:6; cb. 8: -21; 13: 33. 
 
 own view, but, rather, that of the persons 
 spoken of in ver. 30. It was a timid reply, 
 uttered in low tones of voice, to the enemies 
 of Jesus: You say that this is a blasphemer, 
 and not the Christ; but, if this be so, wheii 
 {the') Christ cometh, will he do more 
 miracles {signs) than these which this 
 man hath done? that is, here, in Jerusalem 
 {5; 3sq.), and, more recently, in Galilee. This 
 interpretation agrees with the obvious force of 
 the words believed on him much better than 
 the interpretation which supposes that the 
 many here spoken of uttered them doubt- 
 ingly. — Lnnge. It is also clear from this ques- 
 tion of the people, that miracles were looked 
 upon as proper credentials of the Messiah. 
 He was expected to perform them. And it 
 nuiy be added that the form of the question, 
 in the original, is one that anticipates a nega- 
 tive answer. The Christ will not do more 
 signs than this man has done. 
 
 32-36. Third Scene in the Contro- 
 versy. 
 
 33. The Pharisees heard that the peo- 
 ple murmured, etc. We translate as follows : 
 The Pharisees heard the multitude 'inurmur- 
 ing these things concerning him. Tiiough 
 the multitude, many of them, believed in Je- 
 sus as the Christ, their belief did not render 
 them bold and decided in action. Their com- 
 ments in reply to the enemies of Jesus were 
 made to one another in a low voice, and were 
 not specially intended for the ear of those 
 enemies. Yet they were heard, and were the 
 occasion of an ineffectual attempt to seize 
 Jesus. And the Pharisees and the chief 
 priests sent officers to take him. It ap- 
 pears that the Pharisees instigated this attempt 
 to take Jesus, but they easily secured the co- 
 operation of th*e chief priests, who at that time 
 were, for the most part, Sadducecs. Perhaps 
 the Sanhedrin was called together that the 
 officers, or beadles^ might be clothed with its 
 authority. 
 
 33. Then said Jesus. (Better: Jesus 
 therefore said). That is, in consequence of 
 
 M 
 
 the events related in ver. 82. The first appear- 
 ance of officers sent to take Jesus was a token 
 of coming events, and led him to speak of 
 these events somewhat plainly. The words 
 unto them (avrois), are omitted by the best 
 editors. Yet a little while am I with you, 
 and then I go unto him that sent me. 
 Omit the word then as needless. His mission 
 is not yet accomplished, and therefore he is 
 to remain with them, friend and foe, a while 
 longer. By you, he means principally those 
 who are anxious to compass his death. They 
 must wait a little. The time of his departure 
 is near, but it is not fully come. When it 
 comes, he is to go to that niost real of all be- 
 ings, tlieOne who had sent him into the world, 
 but of whom they had no true knowledge. 
 
 34. Ye shall seek me, and shall not 
 find. To what does this refer? To the de- 
 struction of Jerusalem, according to Meyer. 
 (See Luke 20: 16 sq. ; 19: 43.) "Then will 
 the tables be turned. After they have perse- 
 cuted and killed him when present, they will 
 earnestly but vainly desire to have him with 
 them again, as the miraculous Helper who 
 alone can rescue them from the direst evil." 
 But this interpretation is too narrow. The 
 language of Christ probably denotes that 
 their longing and looking for the Messiah will 
 continue after having rejected him and cruci- 
 fied him. Vainly will they expect the great 
 Prince foretold in their Scriptures, and bitter 
 will be their disappointment, from age to age, 
 because he does not appear. But clinging to 
 their fiilse view of what the Messiah should 
 be, and hardening themselves against the evi- 
 dence that he has already appeared in the 
 person of Jesus of Nazareth, they will never 
 find the deliverer whom they seek. Though 
 eager to welcome folse Christs, they will look 
 in vain for a real Saviour, whether for this 
 life or for the future. And Avhere I am, 
 thither ye cannot come. Into the blessed 
 and holy presence of the Father they could 
 never come, while rejecting his Son. Jesus 
 himself was the way, and, disbelieving him, 
 
178 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 [Ch. VII. 
 
 35 Then said the Jews among themselves, Whither 
 ■will he go, that we shall not find him ? will he go unto 
 "the dispersed among the Gentiles, and teach the Gen- 
 tiles? 
 
 3G What manner of saying is this that he said, Ye shall 
 seek me, and shall not find me : and where I am, thither 
 ye cannot come? 
 
 37 ' In the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus 
 stood and cried, saying, ''If any man thirst, let him come 
 unto me, and drink. 
 
 35 me : and where I am, ye cannot come. The Jews 
 therefore said among themselves, Whither will this 
 man go that we shall not find him? will he go unto 
 the Dispersion i among the Greeks, and teach the 
 
 36 Greeks? What is this word that he said. Ye shall 
 seek me, and shall not find me: and where I am, ye 
 cannot come? 
 
 37 Now ou the last day, the great day of the feast, 
 Jesus stood and cried, saying, If any man thirst, let 
 
 ;Isii. 11: 12; James 1 : 1; 1 Pet. 1:1 b Lev. 23: 36 c Isa. 55 : 1 ; ch. 6 : 35; Rev. 22: 17. 1 Gr. of. 
 
 they would never find tlie Father, to whom 
 he would have led them gladly. The present, 
 am, is u-sed in vivid delineation for the fu- 
 ture, "shall be." 
 
 35. Then {therefore) said the Jews 
 amon^ themselves: literally, to themselves. 
 They did not address their words to Jesus, but 
 to one another, and jjrobably in a mocking 
 tone. Whither will he go, that Ave shall 
 not find him? will he go unto the dis- 
 persed among the Gentiles (Greeks), and 
 teach the Gentiles (Greeks) i Thus they 
 pay no attention to the saying of Jesus : I go 
 to him that sent me, but in a tone of levity 
 and contempt, not unmingled with perplexity, 
 comment on his other statements. But the 
 form of the question : " Will he go unto the 
 dispersed?" etc., shows that it offered to 
 their own minds no probable explanation of 
 his words; for it is the form which looks to a 
 negative answer. (See on ver. 31.) Yet the 
 apostles of Christ afterwards did just what is 
 here suggested. 
 
 36. What manner of saying is this (or, 
 what is this) that he said. Notice the use of 
 the verb is, instead of "means,"' or "signi- 
 fies," and compare with it the same word in the 
 controverted expression, "This is my body." 
 Ye shall seek me, and shall not find me : 
 and where I am, thither ye cannot come. 
 These words betray anxious perplexity. The 
 language of Jesus has struck into their souls, 
 and awakened a suspicion that it deserves 
 more attention than they are willing to give 
 it. The tone of banter passes into one of so- 
 briety. And with this remark John closes his 
 narrative of Christ's first appearance in the 
 temple, about the middle of the festival. 
 
 37-53. Last Day of the Feast. 
 
 37. In the last day, that great (day) of 
 the feast. Two or three days must have 
 passed since the events related in ver. 14-36 
 took place. How Jesus was employed during 
 those days, the Evangelist does not mention. 
 
 But it is probable that, wherever he was, the 
 officers of the Sanhedrin were on the watch 
 for a favorable opportunity to seize him and 
 deliver him to their masters, (ver. 32-45, sq.). 
 Whether this great day was, strictlj' speak- 
 ing, the last day of the feast, or the day which 
 followed the feast, but was regarded in some 
 sense as its close, is a question the answer to 
 which is difficult and not very important. 
 (See Lev. 23: 35-39; Num. 29: 35; Neh. 8: 
 18; 2 Mace. 10: 6; Jo.sephus' "Ant." 3: 10, 4.) 
 John certainly regarded it as practically the 
 closing day of this feast, which was the last of 
 the three great j-early festivals. It was in 
 character a Sabbath, and was on this account, 
 also, peculiarly sacred. Jesus stood and 
 cried, saying. Thus John recollects the 
 very attitude of his Lord on this occasion, and 
 the special solemnity and force of his utter- 
 ance. Says Westcott: "The original is sin- 
 gularly vivid : Jesiis Avas standing, watch- 
 ing, as it might be, the procession of the 
 people from their booths to the temple, atid 
 then, moved by some occasion, he cried.' ^ If 
 any man thirst — that is, longs for spiritual 
 refreshment — let him come unto me, and 
 drink. (4: 10, u; 6:35; Rev. 22: 17). Schaff remarks 
 that "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 Si- 
 loam, with a jubilant procession, to the tem- 
 ple, standing on the altar, and pouring it out 
 there, together with wine, while meantime the 
 Hallel (Ps. cxiii-cxviii) was sung" ; and some ref- 
 erence to this ceremony is assumed by a ma- 
 jority of interpreters. But tljere is no very 
 obvious connection between that ceremony 
 and the words of Jesus. The water brought 
 from Siloam was poured out on the west side 
 of the altar, while wine was poured gut on the 
 east side. There was no drmking of either; 
 nor is it certain that the water poured out was 
 regarded as an emblem of water used for 
 
Ch. VII.] 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 179 
 
 3S « He that bclieveth on me, as the Scripture hath 
 said, 6 out of his belly shall How rivers of living water. 
 
 :V.) {" But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that 
 believe on hiiu sliouUl receive: for the Holy Ghost was 
 not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet ''glori- 
 fied.) 
 
 38 hiiu come unto me, and drink. He that believcth 
 on me, as the scripture hath said, i trom within him 
 
 39 shall flow rivers of living water. But this spake he 
 of the Spirit, which they that believed ou him were 
 to receive: - for the Spirit was not yet given; because 
 
 aDeut. 18: 15.... ft Prov. 18:4; Isa. 12 : 3 ; 44 : 3 ; ch. 4: 14. .. .c Isa. 44 : 3: Joel 2: 28; ch. 16: 7; Acts 2 : 17; 33, .38....dch. 12: 16; 
 16: 7. 1 ttr. out of his belly 2 Some ancient auihorities read, /or the Holy Spirit was nut yet given. 
 
 quenching thirst, as, e. g., the water that flowed 
 from the rock smitten by Moses. A strong 
 desire for divine grace, occasioned by a deep 
 sense of sin, is forcibly expressed by the word 
 thirst. "As the hart panteth after the water- 
 brooks, so panteth my soul after thee, O 
 God." (Ps.42:i.) "The Lord, Jehovah, is my 
 strength and my song; he also is become my 
 salvation. Therefore with joy shall ye draw 
 water out of the wells of salvation." (isa. 12: 2,3.) 
 Hence, there is no particular need of assuming 
 that Jesus referred to the ceremony of pour- 
 ing out water by the altar — a ceremony which 
 is not known to have been observed on the 
 eighth day. But if he did allude to this prac- 
 tice, it was probably because the water was 
 considered a memorial of the water from the 
 rock in the desert, the real source of which 
 was Christ. (1 Cor. 10 : 4.) See, also, 1 Sam. 7 : 6, 
 with Note in "The Speaker's Commentary." 
 Accepting this reference as correct, it would 
 have been extremely natural for Jesus to avail 
 hims«lf of the water brought in solemn cere- 
 mony from Siloara as a figure of the "living 
 water " which he would give to receptive souls. 
 38. He that believeth on me. This ex- 
 plains the figurative term "drink." (Ver. 37.) 
 By believing on Christ, one receives him, as it 
 were, with all that he has, into his soul. In 
 other words, he receives the Spirit, who keeps 
 alive in his soul a sense of pardon, peace, hope, 
 joy, and union with Christ; for it is by the 
 Spirit that Christ imparts himself to those 
 who believe.^ As the Scripture hath said. 
 The following words, to which this statement 
 refers, are not found in any one place of the 
 Old Testament ; but they represent the thought 
 of several passages. Out of his belly shall 
 flow rivers of living water. By this bold 
 figure of speech the Saviour assures his hear- 
 ers that, believing on him, they will become 
 fountains of spiritual good, sending forth 
 streams of holy influence. The issues of their 
 life will be new and wonderful. By all the 
 
 1 On the grammatical structure of this verse, see Butt- 
 man's " Grammar of the N. T. Greek," p. 379 a. 
 
 channels of expression ; by spiritual utter- 
 ance, revealing new insight, courage, patience, 
 zeal, and joy ; by apologetic wisdom before 
 kings and magistrates; by holy steadfastness 
 in suflering and death; by voice, and hand, 
 and e3'e, and every outward note of inward 
 life; by prophecj" and miracle and tongues — 
 will the new spirit within them be manifested 
 and made a blessing to mankind. Branches of 
 the true Vine, thej' will bear much fruit. The 
 word belly, remarks Liicke, "signifies, in the 
 figurative language of the Hebrew, the inner 
 man, and is synonomous with heart. See 
 Prov. 20 : 27 ; Isa. 16 : 11 ; Sirach 51 : 21." For 
 Biblical expressions that may have prepared 
 the way for the figure of speech used by 
 Christ, reference may be made to Ex. 17: 6; 
 Num. 20: 11; Ps. 114: 8; Isa. 44: 3; 55: 1; 
 58: 11 ; Joel 3: 18; Ezek. 47: 1, 12; Zech. 13: 
 1 ; 14 : 8. 
 
 39. But this spake he of the Spirit, 
 which they that believe on him should 
 receive : for the Holy Ghost (or, the Spirit) 
 w^as not yet given; because that Jesus 
 Avas not yet glorified. This translation, 
 omitting given after yet, represents probably 
 all that was in the original text. And it 
 means that the Spirit was not yet in the souls 
 of believers after such a manner as to produce 
 the eflTects suggested by the language of Je- 
 sus ; for these effects were first to be realized 
 in their fullness after his glorification, on the 
 Day of Pentecost, and thenceforward.^ Hence 
 
 1 [The reading, the Spirit ivas not yet, has here the great 
 advantage that it accounts for the rise of all the others, 
 as "the Holy Spirit was not yet," "the Holy Spirit was 
 not yet upon them," " the Spirit was not yet given," 
 "the Holy Spirit was not yet given " ; while it is diffi- 
 cult to see why any one of these should have been re- 
 duced to a simpler form, since they are all perspicuous 
 and unobjectionable. The simple reading would easily 
 suggest such additions as "Holy," " given," by way of 
 supposed explanation. West, and Hort here agree with 
 Tisch. and others, in adopting the simplest form, which 
 is given by X T K n. Old Syriac, Memphitic, Thebaic 
 (it has a form growing out of this), Armenian, with Ori- 
 gen, Cyril, etc. Observe that b has here a "conflate" 
 reading, " the Holy Spirit was not yet given. — B.] 
 
180 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 [Ch. VII. 
 
 40 Many of the people therefore, when they heard 
 this sayiug, said, Of a truth this is " the Prophet. 
 
 41 Others said, >> This is the Christ. But toiue said, 
 Shall Christ come ' out of (iaiilee? 
 
 42 '' Hath not tlie Scripture said, That Christ cometh 
 of the seed of David, and out of the town of Bethlehem, 
 « where David was? 
 
 43 t^o /there was a division among the people because 
 of him. 
 
 44 And » some of them would have taken him; but no 
 man laid hands on him. 
 
 45 Then came the officers to the chief priests and 
 Pharisees; and they said unto them, Why have ye not 
 brought him? 
 
 40 Jesus was not yet glorified. Some of the multitude 
 therefore, when they heard these words, said. This 
 
 41 is of a truth the prophet. Others said. This is the 
 Christ. But some said, What, doth the Christ come 
 
 42 out of Galilee? Hath not the scripti^re said that the 
 Christ cometh of the seed of David, and from Beth- 
 
 43 lehem, the village where David was? So there arose 
 
 44 a division in the multitude because of him. And 
 some of them would have taken him ; but no man 
 laid bands on him. 
 
 45 The officers therefore came to the chief priests and 
 Pharisees; and they said unto them. Why did ye not 
 
 o Deut. 18: 15, 18; ch. 1 : 21 ; 6: 14....J> ch. 4: 42; 6: 69.... c ch. 1 : 4fi: ver. 52 d Ps. 132: 11; Jer. 23:5; Mic. 5:2; ; 
 
 2: 4....e 1 Sam. 16: 1,4.... /ver. 12; ch. 9 : 16; 10: 19.... g ver. 30. 
 
 the insertion of the word given is perfectly 
 consistent witli the meaning of Jesus. It is to 
 be observed that the word Spirit has no arti- 
 cle before it in tlie original, and when it is 
 thus used it generally marks an operation, or 
 gift of the Spirit, rather than the Spirit as a 
 person. (Compare 1: 33; 20: 22; Matt. 1: 
 18, 20; 3: 11; 12: 28; Luke 1 : 15, 35, 41, 67 ; 
 2: 25; 4: 1.) 
 
 40. Many of the people therefore. The 
 Kev. Ver. presents a better text, viz. : Some 
 of the mnltitude therefore. By the order of 
 the words in the original, v;e perceive that the 
 Evangelist wished to direct attention to the 
 fact that the persons referred to belonged to 
 the common people, the multitude, and not to 
 the leaders of the nation, "the Jews," or 
 members of the Sanhedrin. " Of the tnulti- 
 tude, therefore, some,^' is the Greek form, ac- 
 cording to the best editors. When they 
 heard this saying (lit., these ivords)— just 
 spoken— said, Of a truth this is the Pro- 
 phet. (See Note on 1 : 21). That is, the pro- 
 phet foretold by Moses (Deut. is: 15, is), and 
 distinguished by some of the people from the 
 Messiah. 
 
 41. Others said (or, were saying), This 
 is the Christ. Others said (or, loere say- 
 ing), Shall (the) Christ come out of Gali- 
 lee? Their question implies a negative an- 
 swer. The Christ does not come from Galilee, 
 and therefore this man cannot be the Christ. 
 They are represented as .speaking, not accord- 
 ing to the knowledge of the Evangelist — for 
 the Evangelist knew that Jesus was born in 
 Bethlehem — but according to common report; 
 for Jesus was generally supposed and reported 
 to be a native of Galilee, born in Nazareth. 
 (See 1: 4'5.) It is scarcely possible that a 
 writer in th ? middle of the second century 
 
 could have been so uniformly true to the cir- 
 cumstances of the case as is this Evangelist. 
 
 42. Hath not the Scripture said. That 
 Christ cometh of the seed of David, and 
 out of the town of Bethlehem, ^vhere 
 David was? Compare Rev. Ver. To this 
 question an affirmative answer is expected; 
 and it is therefore equivalent to an assertion 
 that, according to the Scripture, the Messiah 
 must be from the family and birthplace of 
 David. By a little inquiry, which surely the 
 miracles and teaching of .Jesus called upon 
 them to make, they might have learned that 
 he was a native of Bethlehem. But they were 
 not in a mood to investigate the matter fairly. 
 
 43. So there was a division among the 
 people [ill the multitude) because of him. 
 That is, he was the occasion of a schism in the 
 multitude; it arose because of him. 
 
 44. And some of them would have 
 taken him ; but no man laid hands on 
 him. The class of persons in tlie multitude 
 that was ready in heart to seize him may be 
 the same as tliat spoken of in ver. 25-27 — 
 citizens of .Jerusalem who were under the 
 immediate influence of the hierarchy', though 
 others may have been in accord with them. 
 But it was not the will of God that they 
 should now do what they wished to do. They 
 were in some way restrained — perhaps by the 
 manifest sympathy of a majority of the peo- 
 ple with him. 
 
 43-53. Report of the Officers to the 
 Sanhedrin, and Discussion Thereupon. 
 
 45. Then came the officers to the chief 
 priests and Pharisees. (See Note on ver. 
 32.) And they — to whom they came — said 
 unto them. Why have ye not brought 
 him ? Literally, Why did ye not bri7ig him ? 
 This calling of their servants to account was 
 
Ch. VII.] 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 181 
 
 46 The officers answered, o Never man spake like this 
 man. 
 
 47 Then answered theiu the Pharisees, Are ye also 
 deceived? 
 
 48 i> Have any gf the rulers or of the Pharisees be- 
 lieved on him? 
 
 49 But this people who knoweth not the law are 
 cursed. 
 
 50 Nicodemus saith unto them, (= he that came to 
 Jesus by night, being one of them,) 
 
 51 <* Doth our law judge any man before it hear him, 
 and know what he doeth ? 
 
 46 bring him? The officers answered, Never man so 
 
 47 spake. The Phari.sees therefore answered them, Are 
 
 48 ye also led astray ? Hath any of the rulers believed 
 
 49 on him, or of the Pharisees? But this multitude 
 
 50 who knoweth not the law are accursed. Nicodemus 
 saith ULto them (he that came to him before, being one 
 
 51 of them), L>oth our law judge a man, except it first 
 
 a Matt. 7: 29 i ch. 12; 4'2; Acts 6 : 7; 1 Cor. 1: 20, 26; 2:8 c ch. 3 : 2 d Deut. 1 : 17 ; 17 : 8 ; 19: 15. 
 
 natural, and it may be assumed that their 
 servants were men not very likely to disregard 
 tlie will of their superiors, or to be balked in 
 their purpose. 
 
 4G. The officers answered, Never man 
 spake like this man. Some authorities 
 have the text : Never -inan so spake. Tischen- 
 dorf gives this reading: '"'' Never man sjoake as 
 this man sj^eaks.'^ The import of their reply 
 is not affected by these uncertainties as to the 
 text. There was something in the teaching of 
 Jesus which astonished and awed these officers 
 of the Sanhedrin. Augustine is quoted by 
 Lange : Ejus vita est fulgor, ejtis verba toni- 
 trua — "his life is lightning; his words thun- 
 ders." Jesus probably said much more than 
 John has recorded. 
 
 47. Then answered them the Phari- 
 sees — who had instigated this attempt to seize 
 Jesus, and who were chagrined and angered 
 by its fiiilure— Are ye also deceived? The 
 emphatic word is ye, and the form of the 
 question assumes that a negative answer must 
 be given. "Ye, the officers of this learned 
 and sacred council, ye certainly have not 
 been deceived?" There is a touch of scorn 
 in the question, and an assumption that all 
 who believed in Jesus were deceived. They 
 do not consider it necessary to hear what Je- 
 sus has said, even though it has made such an 
 impression on their servants. 
 
 48. Have any of the rulers or of the 
 Pharisees believed on him ? The matter 
 is to be settled by authority, and not by look- 
 ing at the evidence. If no one of the San- 
 hedrin has believed on him, he must be a 
 deceiver. Perhaps they did not know that 
 one of their own number, a Pharisee, had 
 been convinced that he was a teacher come 
 from God, and had been to see him by night. 
 Or of the Pharisees? For their self-con- 
 ceit must come out. The Pharisees were the 
 orthodox Jews. "What they believed, the 
 
 people might believe; but it was absurd for 
 the people to trust in one whom they re- 
 jected. These questions also presuppose a 
 negative answer, and are equivalent to an 
 assertion that no one of the rulers, or of the 
 Pharisees, had believed in Jesus. 
 
 49. But this people (\\t.,7nidtitude) — this 
 throng in which you have been — a contemptu- 
 ous expression — who {that) knoweth not the 
 law are cursed. The expression that know- 
 eth not the law implies that, if they knew the 
 law, they would not believe in Christ. By 
 their conduct now, as always, thej' prove 
 their ignorance of God's law; and those who 
 do not know the law are accursed. Bitter, in- 
 deed, was this outbreak of religious contempt 
 and wrath. But it does not seem to have 
 been a formal decree or proposition to exclude 
 all adherents of Jesus from the synagogue. 
 (Comp. 9: 22.) 
 
 The language of the Pharisees was in accord 
 with their attempt to get Jesus into their 
 hands, that they might kill him. The.y did 
 not regard his guilt or innocence as an open 
 question. Thej' virtuallj'^ pronounced a curse 
 on all the people who adhered to him. But 
 there was one of their number who could not 
 keep silence any longer, and would not con- 
 sent to the condemnation of Jesus without a 
 fair trial, allowing him to be heard for him- 
 self. 
 
 50. Nicodemus saith unto them — that is, 
 to the Pharisees, but probably in hearing of the 
 whole Sanhedrin. He that came to Jesus 
 by night (or, to him before) — recalling the 
 narrative of 3 : 1-21, and showing that Christ's 
 words at that time had not been altogether 
 fruitless. The words by night are not so well 
 supported as before, and the rest of the clause ; 
 but the whole clause is wanting in a few man- 
 uscripts. Being one of them. For he was 
 a Pharisee, as well as a ruler of the Jews. 
 
 51. Doth our law judge any (lit., the) 
 
182 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 [Ch. VIII. 
 
 52 They answered and said unto him, Art thou also 
 of Galilee? Search, ajid look: for "out of Galilee aris- 
 eth no prophet. 
 
 52 hear from himself and know what he doeth? They 
 
 answered'aud said uuto him, Art thou also of Gali- 
 lee? Search, and i see that out of Galilee arisetb no 
 prophet. 
 
 CHAPTER VIII. 
 
 53 And every man went unto his owji house. 
 
 JESUS went unto the mount of Olives. 
 2 And early in the mdruing he came again into the 
 temple and all "the people came unto him ; and he sat 
 down, and taught them. 
 
 53 * [And they went every man unto his own house: 
 
 1 but Jesus went uuto the mount of Olives. And 
 
 2 early in the morning he came again into the temple, 
 and all the people came uuto him ; and he sat down. 
 
 a Isa. 9:1,2 Matt. 4 : 15 ; cb. 1 : 46 ; 
 
 T. 41. 1 Or. see : for out of Galilee, etc 2 Most of the ancient authorities omit John T : 53-8 : 
 
 11. Those which contaiu it vary much from each other. 
 
 man — who in any particular instance is ac- 
 cused — before, etc.— (lit., except it first hear 
 from him, and know what he doeth ?) The 
 question assumes that the answer must be 
 negative ; and, in favor of such an answer, 
 appeal is made to Deut. 1: 16; 19: 15-19. 
 Modern jurisprudence is recognizing more 
 and more the justice of allowing an accused 
 person to testify in regard to himself. Of 
 course, the fact will not be overlooked that he 
 is an interested witness. In respect to the 
 claims of a religious teacher, there is double 
 reason for letting him speak for himself, 
 namely, because religious prejudice is often 
 strong, and because it is easy to misrepresent 
 another's teaching. 
 
 52. Art thou also of (or, /row) Galilee? 
 By this question they assume (1) that no one 
 but a native of Galilee could be expected to 
 suggest that Jesus ought even to be heard in 
 his own defence; and (2) that Nicodemus was 
 not from Galilee, and therefore had spoken 
 very absurdly, unaccountabh\ Search, and 
 look (see) : for out of Galilee ariseth no 
 prophet. And if no prophet ariseth out of 
 Galilee, Jesus cannot be even a prophet; much 
 less can he be the Messiah. It has been 
 thought incredible that the Sanhedrists should 
 have made this statement. But it is not un- 
 common for persons under the influence of 
 passion to pass beyond the truth. A few only 
 of the prophets, two or three, at most, as Jo- 
 nah, Hosea, Nahum, had sprung from Galilee; 
 and these were either forgotten or overlooked 
 in their eagerness to make a case against Jesus. 
 
 53. This verse, together with the first eleven 
 verses of chapter 8, must be rejected, as form- 
 ing no part of the original text. But the 
 grounds of this rejection deserve to be stated 
 at some length.' 
 
 Ch. 8. The last verse of chapter 7 belongs 
 with the first eleven verses of chapter 8, and 
 this whole paragraph, containing the narrative 
 of the Saviour's interview with the adultei'ess 
 and her accusers appears, as we have seen, to 
 have formed no part of the Gospel as it was 
 first written by John. Yet the narrative bears 
 every mark of truthfulness. It is evidently 
 no myth, but the simple story of a real occur- 
 rence. "In any case," says Lange, "it is an 
 apostolic relic." And Meyer calls it "a piece 
 of writing from the apostolic age," and "an 
 ancient relic of evangelical history." 
 
 7: 53. And every man went unto his 
 own house. More strictly : And they went 
 every man unto his own house. If this verse 
 stands in its proper place, and the following 
 narrative describes events which belong to 
 this point of time in the Saviour's ministry, 
 the expression every man refers naturally to 
 the members of the Sanhedrin. These had 
 failed in their attempt to seize Jesus, and had 
 learned that one of their number was not his 
 foe. It was time for them to separate; and it 
 may be presumed that many of them repaired 
 to their homes in bitterness of soul, disap- 
 pointed at their failure, angry with their 
 officers, disturbed by the words of Nicodemus, 
 and eager to devise some new plot by which 
 they might ensnare the prophet of Galilee. 
 
 8 : 1. Jesus went unto the Mount of 
 Olives. Whether to the house of Mary and 
 Martha and Lazarus, no one can say. Six 
 months later he was accustomed to spend the 
 night in Bethany, or some other place on the 
 Mount of Olives, while he passed the day in 
 Jerusalem. (Luke 21:37.) 
 
 2. And early in the morning he came 
 again into the temple. For he was intent 
 upon his ministry, and sure that the hour was 
 
 i[This remarkable passage can no longer be consid- fail to be reckoned a true story of Jesus. It is wanting 
 ered a part of the Fourth Gospel, and yet can hardly iinNABCLTXA, and at least seventy cursives, and 
 
Ch. VIIL] 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 183 
 
 3 And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a I 
 woman takeu iu adultery ; and when they liad set her 
 in the midst, I 
 
 3 and taught them. And the scribes and the Phari- 
 sees bring a woman taken iu adultery ; and having 
 
 not yet cotne for him to be delivered into the 
 hands of his enemies. And all the people 
 
 came (or, were coming) unto him. Observe 
 the imperfect tense of the verb, denoting con- 
 tinued action. The rest of this verse : And 
 he sat down, and taught them, is not found 
 in the Cambridge manuscript, the oldest au- 
 thority for this section (Watkins), and should 
 not be considered a part of the text, though it 
 is doubtless true that Jesus was teaching the 
 people as they resorted to him. The Greek 
 word (opSpou), here used to signify early in 
 
 numerous Evangelistaiia ; and is marked as of doubtful 
 genuineness (with asterisks, or obeli) in many other 
 manuscripts. Also wanting in Old Syriac, Peshito, and 
 Harklean, in some copies of the Old Latin, in Mem- 
 phitic (best codices), Thebaic, Armenian, and Gothic. 
 Origen, Chrysostom, Cyril, and several other Greek 
 Fathers, iu commentaries on John, pass at once from 
 7: 52 to 8: 12, without allusion to anything be*ween. 
 Tertullian and Cyprian, in copious discussions of the 
 question whether an adulterous person could be restored 
 to fellowship, make no mention of this story. No Greek 
 manuscript earlier than the eighth century contains 
 the passage except d, which has very many unwarranted 
 additions to the text. ■ No Greek patristic writing ear- 
 lier than the tenth century, except the so-called "Apos- 
 tolical Constitutions," refers to such a passage. Of 
 eight early Greek commentators on John whose works 
 remain, only Euthymius (twelfth century) mentions the 
 passage, and he says it is wanting, or marked with an 
 obelisk in the accurate copies, and must be an interpola- 
 tion. Tatian's "Diatessaron " seems not to have included 
 it, to judge from the absence of reference to it in the 
 recently found commentary of Ephrem (Zahn, p. 190). 
 No early version has it but the ^'Ethiopic, the Jerusalem 
 Syriac lesson book, and the Latin Vulgate, with many 
 copies of the Old Latin. Thus the early documentary 
 authority for the passage is almost entirely Latin, in- 
 cluding Ambrose, Jerome, and Augustine, with d and 
 the -Ethiopic. It is a familiar fact that d, Latin ver- 
 sions and Fathers, and often the ..Ethiopic, are con- 
 stantly giving "Western" alterations and interpola- 
 tions. It must be added that the documents containing 
 this pa-ssage exhibit a great number of variations in- 
 detail, which is always a suspicious circumstance. 
 
 No adequate reason has been suggested for the omis- 
 sion of this passage, if originally present. Augustine, 
 in using the passage as a proof-text in an argument, 
 says that some have removed it from their copies, fear- 
 ing, he supposes, that it may give theirwives impunity. 
 But Hort has pointed out that there is no parallel case of 
 a wide-spread omission of an extended passage, because I 
 unacceptable; that while Montanists and Novatians I 
 might have found this story astumbling-block, the early ' 
 
 the morning, is not the one used elsewhere 
 by John. 
 
 3. And the scribes and Pharisees 
 brought (rather, bring) unto him a woman 
 taken in adultery, and Avhenthey had set 
 her in the midst, etc. It is natural to con- 
 jecture that the woman dwelt in Jerusalem, 
 and that her sin was committed there; but 
 nothing can be certainly known on these 
 points. Nor is the place of her residence or of 
 her sin of the slightest consequence. Sin is 
 the same everywhere. But those who brought 
 
 Christians in general would not at all ; and that, if any- 
 where thus objected to, it would have been in Latin 
 Christendom, while yet the three great Latin Fathers 
 are its chief defenders. Another theory, that it was 
 omitted from lesson books, and then from copies of the 
 Gospel, quite fails to establish itself. (See Hort.) On 
 the other hand, we can easily imagine how so striking 
 and beautiful a story may have been placed on the mar- 
 gin of the Gospel, perhaps (Ewald, Lightfoot) to illus- 
 trate our Lord's statement (8: 15): " I judge no man"; 
 and that then it crept into the text of many copies, 
 being usually inserted after 7 : 52, but in the cursive 
 225 after 7: 36. So in the lost uncial, represented by 
 the kindred cursives 1.3, 69, 124, .346, it is given at the 
 end of Luke, ch. 21, where 21 : 37 corresponds to the be- 
 ginning of the slory; and in about a dozen cursives 
 and some codices of the Armenian it is transferred to 
 the end of the Fourth Gospel. 
 
 The story is eminently characteristic of Jesus, and is 
 not at all likely to have been invented by any of the 
 early Christians ; it is, therefore, in all probability, an 
 early account of a real occurrence. The style is so far 
 unlike that of John (though some critics have over- 
 stated and misstated the differenees), that we cannot 
 suppose it to have come from him, and the narrator 
 cannot be known. Eusobius (" History," 3, 39) tells of 
 Papias, who wrote, about a. d. 130, a work entitled 
 "Expositions of the Lord's Discourses" (or. History), in 
 which he proposed (as Eusebius quotes from his Pre- 
 face) to put with the Expositions matters derived by him 
 from persons who had conversed with the apostles, 
 thereby confirming his explanations. After quoting 
 from this work certain stories as to the origin of the Gos- 
 pels of Mark and Matthew, Eusebius says that Papias 
 " has also put forth another story, concerning a woman 
 accused before the Lord touching many sins, which is 
 contained in the Gospel according to the Hebrews." 
 From the collection of Papias, or from the often men- 
 tioned Apocryphal Gospel according to the Hebrews, the 
 story very likely came to the margin of John and of 
 Luke. Various other sayings ascribed to Jesus bv n, 
 or by early Fathers, are also, probably real sayings of 
 his, though not a part of the Scriptures. — B.] 
 
184 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 [Ch. VIII. 
 
 4 They say unto hiiu, Master, this woman was taken 
 in adultery, iu the very act. 
 
 5 « Now Moses iu the law commanded us, that such 
 should be stoned: but what sayest thou? 
 
 6 This they said, tempting him, that they might have 
 to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with hu 
 finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not. 
 
 7 So when they continued asking him, he lifted up 
 himself, and said unto them, ' He that is without sin 
 among you, let him first cast a stone at her. 
 
 4 set her in the midst, they say unto him, i Master, 
 this woman hath been taken in adultery, in the very 
 
 5 act. Now in the law Moses commanded us to stone 
 
 6 such: what then sayest thou of her? And this they 
 said, trying him, that they might have whereof to 
 accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with liis 
 
 7 finger wrote on the ground. But when they con- 
 tinued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said 
 unto them. He that is without sin among you, let 
 
 a Lev. 20 : 10 ; Deal. 22 : 22 4 Deut. 17:7; Rom. 2 : 1.— 1 Or, Teaclier. 
 
 her to Jesus had, no doubt, some kind of au- 
 thority in the case. They are called scribes 
 and Pharisees — an expression frequently 
 occurring in the first three Gospels, but no- 
 where else in the Fourth. Instead of it, John 
 employs the expression "the Jews," meaning 
 by it the religious leaders of the people, espe- 
 cially members of the Sanhedrin. Instead of 
 the words taken in adultery, the Cambridge 
 manuscript reads "taken in sin." It also 
 omits "unto him" in the first clause, reading 
 thus : And the Scribes and Pharisees bring a 
 woman taken in sin. 
 
 4. Master, this woman Avas taken in 
 adultery, in the very act. Meyer remarks 
 that "the adulterer, who was likewise guilty 
 of death (Lev. 20: lO; Deut. 22: 24) may have escaped.'' 
 
 5. Now, Moses in the law commanded 
 us, that such should be stoned. If the pas- 
 sage of the law referred to is Deut. 22: 23, 24, 
 and if the law was strictly applicable to the 
 case in hand, the woman brought before Jesus 
 was betrothed, but not married. Yet her sin 
 was reckoned as great as if she were already 
 married. Butif Lev. 20: 10 be compared with 
 Ex. 31 : 14 and 35: 2, as inter;ireted by Num. 
 15: 32-35, it will seem ver^- probable that 
 stoning was understood to be the way in which 
 adulterers and adulteresses were to be punished 
 with death. But what sayest thou ? Bet- 
 ter: What sayest thou? This question was 
 doubtless asked with a bearing and' tone of 
 affected candor and respect; but the hearts 
 of the Scribes and Phari-sees who proposed 
 it were full of enmity to Jesus. 
 
 6. This they said, tempting him, that 
 they might have to accuse him. Their 
 object was to lead him into a snare, as when 
 he was asked whether it was lawful to pay 
 tribute to Cesar, or not. For if, in the present 
 case, he had answered: "Let her be stoned, 
 according to the Mosaic law," it would have 
 been easy to accuse him to Pilate as teaching 
 the Jews to do what was contrary to Roman 
 
 law; for Roman law did not allow subject 
 peoples to inflict the punishment of death (see 
 18 : 31), nor did it punish with death the crime 
 committed by this woman. Moreover, it is 
 probable that many of the people who loved 
 Jesus for his gentleness and sympathy would 
 have been offended by this answer; for the 
 law of Moses had ceased to be executed upon 
 adulterers hy the Jews. But if, on the other 
 hand, he had said, "Let her not be stoned," 
 they would probably have accused him of 
 attempting to make void their law, and sub- 
 vert their religion, thus increasing the hostility 
 of a certain part of the Jews to himself. The 
 snare was skillfully laid, and it needed super- 
 human wisdom in Jesus to escape it. Yet he 
 escaped without apparent diflSculty. But 
 Jesus stooped down and with his finger 
 wrote (or, v}ns writing) on the ground. 
 Observe the descriptive imperfect. The writer 
 depicts the scene as if he had been an eye- 
 witness. But what did this action of Jesus 
 signify? According to the best light now 
 accessible, it seems to have been a silent but 
 intelligible intimation that he would think 
 of something else rather than their question. 
 Hence that, for some reason, their question 
 was unworthy of attention or response. What 
 he wrote was, therefore, of no consequence ; it 
 was the stooping down and writing that was a 
 silent reproof to his questioners, giving them 
 time to reflect and come to a better mind. 
 
 7. So (or, but) when they continued 
 asking him — for they were resolved to ac- 
 complish their purpose^he lifted up him« 
 self and said unto them : He that is 
 Avithout sin among you, let him first cast 
 a stone at (or, upon) her. These words were 
 so uttered — with such holy insight and au- 
 thority — that they could not be parried or 
 resisted. They did not condemn the Mosaic 
 law; they rather authorized obedience to it; 
 but on such terms as awakened conscience and 
 prevented any violation of Roman law. He 
 
Ch. VIIL] 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 185 
 
 8 And again he stooped down, and wrote on the 
 ground. 
 
 9 And they which hoard //, " being convicted by Ihe.lr 
 own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the 
 eldest, even unto tlie last: and Jesus was left alone, and 
 the woman standing in the midst. 
 
 10 When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none 
 but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are 
 those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee? 
 . 11 She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, 
 * Neither do 1 condemn thee: go, and <■' sin no more. 
 
 12 Then spake Jesus again unto them, saying, "^I am 
 the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not 
 walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life. 
 
 8 him first east a stone at her. And again he stooped 
 
 9 down, and willi his linger wrote on the ground. And 
 they, when they beam it, went out one by one, l)e- 
 ginniug from the eldest, ecen unto the last: and Je- 
 sus was left alone, and the woman, where she was, 
 
 10 in the midst. And Jesus lifted up himself, and said 
 unto her. Woman, where are they ? did no man con- 
 
 11 demn thee? And she said, No man, Lord. And 
 Jesus said. Neither do I condemn thee: go thy way; 
 from henceforth sin no more.] 
 
 12 Again therefore Jesus spake unto them, saying, 
 I am the light of the world : he that followeth uie shall 
 
 . not walk in the darkness, but shall have the light 
 
 ; Rom. 2: 22 6 Luke 9 : 56 ; 12 ; 14; oh. .S : 17 c ch. 5 : 14. .. .d ch. 1 : 4, 5, 9 ; 3 : 19-; 9 : 5 ; 12 : 35, 36, 46. 
 
 wrought in the domain of spirit, and his only 
 weapon was truth. His foes were discomfited, 
 the spirituality of tlie divine law was revealed, 
 and mercy was shown to the lost "The skill of 
 this reply consists in disarming the extempo- 
 rized judges of this woman, without showing 
 the least disrespect to the ordinance of Moses. 
 The code remains, only there is no one to exe- 
 cute it." — Godet. The expression, without 
 sin, may have been used by Jesus in an abso- 
 lute sense; but it is perhaps more natural to 
 suppose a reference to unchastity, though not 
 simply to the outward act. (See Matt. 5: 28.) 
 Desire is sin; and the Saviour may have 
 uttered his words with such a look and tone 
 as led his foes to feel that he was reading the 
 secrets of their spiritual history. At any rate, 
 the eifectof his brief response was remarkable. 
 
 8. And again he stooped down and 
 Avrote {with his finger) on the ground. 
 Intimating by this act that he had nothing 
 further to say, and had no wish to hear more 
 from them. In so far as they were concerned 
 the case was finished. 
 
 9. And they which heard it, etc. They, 
 when they heard, were convicted by their con- 
 science, and went out one by one, beginning 
 from the older unto the last ; and Jesus was 
 left alone, a7id the woman standing in the 
 midst. This is a literal rendering of the ordi- 
 nary text ; and it makes a very graphic and 
 life-like picture. The hearing is represented 
 as a completed act, but the being convicted 
 by conscience as a process going on in the 
 minds of the scribes and Phari-sees. In the 
 older persons it was more rapid. They saw 
 the position in which they were placed, the 
 unanswerable wisdom of Clirist's response, 
 the utter failure of their .scheme, and one by 
 one they silently withdrew. The younger 
 men soon followed, and the woman, filled with 
 shame and sorrow, was left alone with the 
 
 Holy One, in tlie very place where she had 
 been put by her accusers. 
 
 10. When Jesus had lifted up, himself 
 and saw none but the Avoman, he said 
 unto her. Woman, where are those thine 
 accusers? hath no man condemned thee? 
 The Cambridge mtinuscript has only the fol- 
 lowing: '''' And when Jesus had lifted himself 
 up, he said unto the woman. Where are they 9 
 did no one condemn thee ? " The shorter form 
 implies all that is expressed in the longer 
 form, and is perhaps more likely to be original. 
 
 11. And she said. No man, Lord. And 
 Jesus said unto her. Neither do I condemn 
 thee ; go and sin no more. The bearing of 
 the woman, so ftir as it can be inferred from 
 the narrative, and especially from the words of 
 Jesus, render it probable that she was truly 
 penitent. If so, the words, neither do I 
 condemn thee, imply forgiveness, and, taken 
 with the words that follow, justify the saying 
 of Augustine that Jesus "forgives the sinner, 
 but condemns the sin." Yet Godet' s com- 
 ment is worthy of consideration: "We need 
 not confound the words of Jesus to this woman 
 with a positive declaration of forgiveness, like 
 that of Luke 7 : 48, 50. The woman had not 
 come to Jesus by an impulse of faith, as the 
 woman who was a sinner, but penitent, came. 
 Jesus simply grants her time to repent and 
 believe." 
 
 12-19. Subsequent Colloquy with the 
 Pharisees. 
 
 12. Then (or, therefore) spake Jesus 
 again unto them. If, as we suppose, the 
 paragraph relating to the adulteress did not 
 belong to the original text, this verse followed 
 7: 52; but in all probability some length of 
 time, a day perhaps, passed between the dia- 
 logue ending with that verse, and the dialogue 
 beginning here. The pronoun them must 
 be supposed to mean the people generally at 
 
186 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 [Ch. VIII. 
 
 13 The Pharisees therefore said unto him, "Thou 
 bearest record of thyself; thy record is not true. 
 
 14 Jesus answered and said unto them, Though I bear 
 record of myself, yH my record is true; for I linow 
 whence I came, and whither I go; but * ye cannot tell 
 whence I come, and whither I go. 
 
 13 of life. The Pharisees said unto him. Thou bearest 
 witness of thyself; therefore thy witness is not true. 
 
 14 Jesus answered and said unto them, Even if I bear 
 witness of myself, my witness is true; for I know 
 whence I came, and whither I go ; but ye know not 
 
 och. 5: 31.... 6 Seech. 7:28j 9:29. 
 
 the feast. The conjunction then (or, there- 
 fore) points to something not mentioned, 
 which was the occasion of the saying of Jesus 
 preserved in this verse. "Whatever that occa- 
 sion may have been, a knowledge of it would 
 not probably add anything to the force of 
 Christ's language as addressed to the readers 
 of the Gospel. I am the light of the world. 
 This may have been the basis in John's thought 
 for his declaration in the prologue, (i:*) 
 Light is the means of seeing, and seeing is 
 knowing. Jesus here claims to be the one 
 medium of divine knowledge — the original 
 light, which is in fact the source of all other 
 light and life wliich reveal God. By the 
 worUI he evidently means "the world of 
 mankind," as naturally in darkness by reason 
 of sin. (See Maclaren, " Weekday Evening 
 Addresses," for an interesting discourse on 
 this saying of Christ). He that followeth 
 me — as a disciple follows his teacher and 
 guide; he who follows mo habitually, so that 
 this following is characteristic of him — shall 
 not walk in darkness (or, in the darkness). 
 The double negative (ov nM) may be regarded 
 as emphatic, and might be represented by the 
 phrase by no means, which is slightly stronger 
 than the simple not. Neither the reality (ou) 
 nor the possibility (»*>)) of walking in darkness 
 is to be feared. The darkness referred to is 
 occasioned by sin, and consists in a want of 
 divine knowledge, that is, of a true knowledge 
 of God. But shall have the light of (f/te) 
 life. The light which has its source in the tru© 
 life (i:*), that knowledge of God through 
 Christ, which is the highest blessedness of man. 
 This is one of the clearest and most solemn 
 sayings of Jesus. No mere man, who was not 
 thoroughly insane or inexpressibly arrogant, 
 could have uttered these words. Either Jesus 
 was the Son of God and truly divine, or the 
 Jews were right in rejecting his doctrine and 
 authority. If he was the light of the world, 
 he was "in the beginning with God," and 
 "was God"; if he was not the light of the 
 world, he deserved punishinent as a blas- 
 phemer, or pity as a man bereft of reason. No 
 
 middle ground is tenable. And to one who con- 
 siders the calmness, the moral purity, the deep 
 wisdom, the mighty works, and the inri^erish- 
 able influence of Jesus Christ, the hypothesis 
 of mental or religious insanity is absurd. He 
 was therefore all that his most devout fol- 
 lowers have believed — the God-man and only 
 meditator between God and man. 
 
 13. The Pharisees therefore said unto 
 him : Thou bearest record of thyself; 
 thy record is not true. That is to say: It 
 was long a principle of law that no one could 
 be allowed to testify in his own behalf; for as 
 he was a party interested, his testimony could 
 not, therefore, be accepted as true. Probably 
 they did not intend to say more than this. But 
 the legal practice of refusing tohear any man's 
 testimony respecting himself, is a human and 
 clumsy expedient to guard against error by 
 rejecting one source of truth. For, in many 
 cases, tlie testimony of a person concerning 
 himself is the only evidence possible, while in 
 many other cases such testimony is entitled to 
 more confidence than that of witnesses who 
 are supposed to be disinterested. In the last 
 analysis everything depends upon the knowl- 
 edge and character of the witness. 
 
 14. Though (or, even if) I bear record 
 (or, witness) of (or, concerning) myself — as 
 he had just done, and as he was about to do 
 with great positiveness — my record (or, wit- 
 ness) is true. That is to say: Truthful, in 
 harmon\' with fact, and worthy of all confi- 
 dence. For I know whence I came and 
 whither I go ; but ye cannot tell (lit., 
 know not) whence I come, and w^hither I 
 go. Thus Jesus overrules the merely formal 
 or technical objection to his testimony by de- 
 liberately claiming a knowledge which the 
 Pharisees did not possess. They knew some- 
 thing indeed of his earthly parentage ('=28), 
 and home in Nazareth ; but of his heavenly 
 parentage and "glory with the Father before 
 the world was" (17:5)' they were entirely 
 ignorant. Of the latter, he only, of all the 
 sons of men, had any direct knowledge; and 
 such were his character (7:i6 8q.) and con- 
 
Ch. VIII.] 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 187 
 
 15 « Ye judge after the flesh ; ' I judge no man. 
 
 16 And yet if I judge, my judgujeiit is true : for « I am 
 not alone, but I and tlie Father that sent uie. 
 
 17 <i It is also written in your law, that the testimony 
 of two men is true. 
 
 15 whence I come, or whither I go. Ye judge after the 
 
 16 flesh ; I judge no man. Yea and if I judge, my 
 judgment is true; for I am not alone, but I and the 
 
 17 Father that sent me. Yea and in your law it is writ- 
 
 anh. 7: 24 h ch. 3: 17; 12 : 47 : 18 : 36 c ver. 29; ch. 16: 32 d Deut. 17: 6; 19: 15; Matt. 18: 16; 2 Cor. 13: 1 ; Heb. 10: 
 
 iiection with the Father (see ver. 16-18 below), 
 tliat his testimony ought to be received as 
 perfect and conclusive. The reader will ob- 
 serve that Jesus says: I knoAV whence I 
 came, using the past tense because he had in 
 mind his incarnation and yQ cannot tell, etc. 
 (or, know not), using tlie present tense come 
 because he had in mind his present and fre- 
 quent manifestation of himself to them as the 
 Messiah. They could not be expected to 
 know whence he came at his birth ; but they 
 might have known that his coming to them, 
 in his public ministry, was with divine power 
 and wisdom, indicative of a heavenly origin. 
 15. Ye judge after the flesh. Ye is em- 
 phatic in contrast with I of the next clause. 
 To judge, as here used, is to condemn; and 
 this is a very frequent use of the word in the 
 Fourth Gospel. To condemn after the flesh 
 is to make the outward appearance, the visible 
 form and state, of any person, the reason for 
 an unfavorable decision respecting him. The 
 Pharisees were doing precisely this. And 
 they were acting as if to judge in such a man- 
 ner were their business, their office, and the 
 object of their lives. They saw in Jesus a 
 mere man, of humble origin and no visible 
 authority, and therefore they refused to be- 
 lieve that he was the Son of God, the Bread of 
 Life, or the Light of the world. I judge no 
 man. This statement is not to be qualified by 
 adding the words, "after the flesh," for such 
 an addition cannot be made to the next clause. 
 The denial of Jesus should ratberbe traced to 
 his consciousness of having come into the 
 world, not to condemn, but to save. (See 12: 
 47.) "My true business is not to judge, but 
 to save; and if, by way of exception, I judge, 
 it is only those who will not suff'er themselves 
 to be saved." — Meyer. But Godet insists that 
 the expression no one cannot be limited by 
 what follows. It is better, he saj'S, to under- 
 stand the emphatic pronoun I, as equivalent 
 io I alone, or "apart from the Father," and 
 meaning the same as 5: 30: "I can of mine 
 own self do nothing," etc. But the interpre- 
 tation first given is preferable to this. 
 
 16. And yet (or, even) if I judge, my 
 judgment is true. This language concedes 
 that, though judging is not the object of his 
 mission to mankind, he does, nevertheless, at 
 times, judge those with whom he meets, and, 
 indeed, is doing this now; yet it affirms that 
 whenever he judges, his judgment is perfect. 
 It is not "after the flesh," or "according to 
 appearance," but according to truth and right- 
 eousness—a divine judgment. This inter- 
 pretation supposes that John wrote a Greek 
 word {aKriiivq), whicli means true, as satisfying 
 our conception of what judgment ought to be, 
 and not the word (oAr,?^?), which means simply 
 truthful, or veracious. Both of these words, 
 owing to the poverty of our language, must be 
 translated by the term true. Lach., Tisch., 
 Treg., West, and Hort unite in the former 
 Greek adjective for this sentence. For I am 
 not alone, but I and the Father that sent 
 me. Therefore, my judgment is not merely 
 human, as you suppose, but also divine: it is 
 God's judgment; for such is my relation to 
 the Father that whatever I say, he says, and 
 whatever I do, he does. In judging we are 
 one. 
 
 17. It is also Avritten in your laAV (or, 
 and even in your law it is written). Compare 
 10: 34; 15: 25. Why does Jesus say your 
 law? Perhaps because the Pharisess were 
 extreme legalists, joined with the circum- 
 stance that they had virtually appealed to the 
 law as a reason for rejecting his testimony. 
 Yet he may mean to suggest that he liimself 
 is superior to the technical rules of the Mosaic 
 code, being truly united with God. That 
 the testimony of two men is true (Deut.n: 
 6; 19: 15). This is a free, rather than a literal 
 quotation, giving the substance, rather than 
 the words of the law. Instead of speaking of 
 the testimony of two witnesses, it speaks of 
 the testimony of tAVO men, perhaps in order 
 to direct attention to the fact that the law was 
 applicable to ordinary men, rather than to 
 the Messiah. The order of the Greek words 
 favors this view by making the words two 
 men emphatic, thus : that of tivo men the tes- 
 
188 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 [Ch. VIII. 
 
 IS I am one that bear witness of myself, and « the 
 Father that sent me beareth witness of me. 
 
 19 Then said they iiuto him, Where is thy Father? 
 Jesus auswereU, * Ye neither know me, nor my Father: 
 «if ye had known me, ye should have known my Fa- 
 ther also. 
 
 2U These words sjiake Jesus in "* the treasury, as he 
 taught iu the temple : and « no man laid hands on him ; 
 for / his hour was not yet come. 
 
 18 ten, that the witness of two men is true. lam he that 
 beareth witness of myself, and the Father that seut 
 
 19 nie beareth witness of me. They said therefore un- 
 to him, Where is thy Father? Jesus answered. Ye 
 know neithi-r me, nor my Father: if ye knew me, 
 
 20 ye would know my Father also. These words spake 
 he in the treasury, as he taught in the temple: and 
 no man took him; because his hour was not yet come. 
 
 ach. 5: 37 b ver. 55; ch. 16: 3 cch. U: 7 d Mark 12: 41 e cU. 7 : 30..../ch. 7 : «. 
 
 timonyis true. If not subject to the formal 
 rules of Jewish law, Jesus asserts that his tes- 
 timony fulfills, in a very real and deep sense, 
 the requirement of that law. 
 
 18. I am one (rather, I am he) that bear 
 witness of myself, and the Father that 
 sent me beareth witness of me. (See 5: 
 10-30). By this language, Josus intends to 
 affirm, not that by any act separate from his 
 own the Father bears witness of him, but that 
 his own testimony is tlie testimony of the Fa- 
 ther as well. So profound and complete is 
 the union between them, that the word of the 
 theanthropic Christ is the word of his Father 
 also. 
 
 19. Then (or, therefore) said they unto 
 him. Where is thy Father? Well does 
 Me^'er pronounce this question of the Phari- 
 sees '^^ frivolous mockery.'^ For they could 
 not have been in doubt as to his meaning. 
 They must have been fully convinced that he 
 spoke of God as his Father. But thej- rejected 
 his claim to be the Son of God, and de- 
 manded of him, in derision, where his Father 
 might be. Ye neither know me, nor my 
 Father. Ignorance of Christ and ignorance 
 of God go together. Nay, since Christ is the 
 light of the world, to be ignorant of him is to 
 be ignorant of true knowledge— the knowl- 
 edge of God. If ye had knoAvn me, etc. 
 The Revised Version is here correct : If ye 
 knew me, ye would know my Father also. For 
 the meaning, compare the words of Jesus in 
 14: 7-9; 16: 3; and Matt. 11: 27. To know 
 Christ is to know God ; for at the very root of 
 being they are one. The Father is in the 
 Son, and whatsoever the Father doeth, the 
 Son doeth in like manner. The reverseof this 
 is also true, that whatsoever the Son doeth, 
 the same doth the Father likewise. 
 
 20. These words spake Jesus (rather, 
 he) in the treasury, as he taught in the 
 temple. This exact specification of the place 
 in which Jesus spoke thus to the Pharisees is 
 natural, if the writer was John, and if he was 
 
 present at the time; but it is by no means 
 natural, if the Fourth Gospel was written, as 
 ?onie aver, by an unknown Christian, living 
 far down in the second century. The treas- 
 ury appears to have been located in the Wo- 
 men's Court. (Compare Mark 12: 41; and 
 Luke 21 : 1). According to the Mishna, there 
 were, in the temple, thirteen treasure-chests, 
 for the reception of gifts of money, to be de- 
 voted to so many special purposes, designated 
 by the inscriptions upon them. These were 
 called "trumpets, " either from their shape, or 
 from the shape of the opening into which the 
 contributions were dropped. They are gen- 
 erally identified with the "treasuries" men- 
 tioned by Josephus ('B. j." v. 5, 2), who speaks 
 of the cloisters which surrounded the Court 
 of the Women, on the inside of its wall, as 
 placed before them ; and they may, perhaps, 
 have been collectively called "the treasury'" 
 in the passages of Mark and Luke above re- 
 ferred to. In John 8: 20, it would seem 
 probable that the Court of the Women is it- 
 self called "the treasurj'," "because it con- 
 tained these repositories." — Abbott, in Smith's 
 "Diet, of the Bible." And no man laid 
 hands on him (i. e., took him); for his hour 
 was not yet come. Doubtless, the Evan- 
 gelist, who was present, saw many indications 
 of deadly hostility to Jesus on the part of the 
 Jews. They desired to seize him by violence, 
 and put him to death. But the hour which 
 had been fixed in the councils of God for such 
 violence was not yet come. Yet we are not 
 informed of the obstacles which prevented 
 the enemies of Christ from laying hands on 
 him at this time. The Evangelist is satisfied 
 with tracing his escape to the purpose and 
 providence of God. But this is an evidence 
 that the hatred of the Jews seemed to him 
 deadly. 
 
 21-30. Colloquy Respecting His 
 Death. 
 
 Verse 20 suggests that the conversation with 
 the Pharisees ended with the saying of Jesus 
 
Ch. VIII.] 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 189 
 
 21 Then said Jesus again unto them, I go my way, and 
 
 ye shall seek lue, and 'shall die in your sins: whither 
 
 1 go, ye cannot come. 
 
 tl Then said the Jews, Will he kill himself? because 
 he saith, Whither I go, ye cannot come. 
 
 23 And he said unto them, "^ Ye are from beneath ; I 
 am from above : "^ ye are of this world, I am not of this 
 world. 
 
 24 e I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in 
 your sins: /for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall 
 die in your sins. 
 
 21 He said therefore again unto them, I go away, and 
 ye shall seek me, and shall die iu your sin: whither I 
 
 22 go, ye cannot cume. The Jews therefore said, Will 
 he kill himself, that he saith, Whither I go, ye 
 
 2.3 cannot come? And he said unto them, Ye are from 
 beneath ; I am from above : ye are of this world ; I 
 
 24 am not of this world. I said therefore unto you, 
 that ye shall die in your sins: for except ye believe 
 
 och. 7:34; 13:33 6 ver. 24....coh. 3:31 <2cb. 15: 19; 17 : 16 ; 1 John 4: 5....e ver. •-!1..../Mark 16: 16. 
 
 recorded in verse 19. The particular persons 
 who had undertaken to answer him and judge 
 him were silenced, and honce they seem to 
 have passed on their way. But Jesus re- 
 mained in the Court of the Women, ready to 
 declare the truth to all who would hear. 
 
 21. Then said Jesus again unto them. 
 Better: He said therefore again unto them. 
 By them must be meant, not the Pharisees 
 spoken of in the foregoing paragraph, but the 
 people who were now in the Court, most of 
 whom were in nearly the same moral state as 
 the Pharisees. I go my Avay (or, away). 
 (Compare 7: 33, 34; 13: 33). By these words 
 Jesus predicts his approaching separation from 
 this world, and from those to whom he was 
 speaking. As the end of his earthly life 
 draws near, he often refers to it. And ye 
 shall (or, will) seek me. You will long for 
 deliverance from impending evil; you will 
 wish for the Messiah to rescue you from de- 
 struction; iDUt in vain. The evil will come 
 upon you. And shall (or, will) die in 
 your sins (or, sin). That is, encompassed by 
 it, oppressed by it, condemned on account of 
 it. You will die unforgiven. The sin here 
 meant is sin in general — all the sin of wViich 
 the people addressed had been guilty, and not 
 specially the sin of unbelief; though their 
 unbelief in Jesus was certainly the reason 
 why they would find no forgiveness, but die 
 in their sin. Whither I go, ye cannot 
 come. The pronouns I and ye are emphatic. 
 The contrast between the two parties is clear 
 and pronounced. His destination is mani- 
 festly assumed to be heaven ; but to that 
 blessed place they are unable to come. It is 
 a place without sin, and only those who have 
 been delivered from sin can enter it. The 
 language of Jesus is fearfully direct and posi- 
 tive. But it makes no deep impression on the 
 self-righteous persons addressed. 
 
 22. Then said the Jews (or, therefore, 
 the Jews were saying). The words passed 
 
 from one to another, and were uttered with a 
 tone of levity and contempt. Will he kill 
 himself? or, " he will not kill himself, will 
 Ae.?" As if that were the only way in which 
 he could go to a place, nanielj', Gehenna, where 
 they could not follow. For suicide was re- 
 garded as the greatest sin, dooming one to the 
 lowesthell. "The mockery, which also Hengs- 
 tenberg denies without reason, is similar to 
 that in 7: 35, but more malignant." — Meyer. 
 For the Jewish idea of suicide, see Josephus' 
 " Wars of the Jews," III., viii., 5. No won- 
 der his response was plain, and even severe. 
 
 23. Ye are from beneath; I am from 
 above: ye are of (from) this ^vorld, etc. 
 There seems to be no sufficient reason for 
 translating the same preposition from in the 
 first two clauses, and of in the last two. In 
 both instances it means from, pointing to the 
 origin or source. From beneath and from 
 this "world are equivalent expressions, denot- 
 ing the merely earthly origin of the Jews, 
 while from above and not from this world 
 manifestly point to the heavenly origin of 
 Jesus. (See 3: 31; 1 Cor. 15: 47, 48; 1 John, 
 4:5.) That the character of the .Jews, and the 
 character of Christ, correspond with their 
 origin respectively, is clearly implied. The 
 stream is like the fountain. That which is 
 born of flesh is flesh, and that which is born 
 of the Spirit is spirit. An evil tree cannot 
 bring forth good fruit, neither can a good tree 
 bring forth evil fruit. 
 
 24. I said therefore unto you, that ye 
 shall {will) die in your sins. Jesus asserts 
 that their origin from a sinful race, with their 
 character agreeing with their origin, renders 
 it certain that, remaining as they are, they will 
 die without being delivered from either the 
 power or the guilt of their sins. For to die in 
 one's sins, is to die unrenewed and unforgiven. 
 By using the plural sins instead of the singu- 
 lar sin as in (ver. 21), Jesus may have in- 
 tended to fix special attention on the latter 
 
190 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 [Ch. VIII. 
 
 25 Then said they unto him, Who art thou ? And 
 Jesus saith unto them, liven the same that I said unto 
 you from the begiuuiug. 
 
 26 I have mauy things to say and to judge of you ; but 
 « he that sent me is true ; and ' I speak to thie world 
 those things which I have heard of liim. 
 
 25 that I am he, ye shall die in your sins. They said 
 therefore unto him. Who art thou? Jesus said unto 
 them, 1 Even that which I have also spoken unto 
 
 26 you from the beginning. I have mauy things to 
 speak and to judge concerning you: howbeit he 
 that sent me is true; and the things which I heard 
 
 a ch. 7 : 28... .5 cb. 3 : 32 ; 15 : 15. 1 Or, Altogether that which I also speak unto you. 
 
 fact, that they would die unforgiven; for, 
 while the New Testament often uses the word 
 sin to denote the moral condition of the natural 
 man, it always uses the plural form, sins, 
 when it speaks of forgiveness. For if ye be- 
 lieve not that I am (he), ye shall die in 
 your sins. " There is a possibility of escape, 
 but only through faith in me." The implica- 
 tion being, that they are unprepared to yield 
 this confidence to him, and that they will die 
 under condemnation. We sujiply the predi- 
 cate "he," meaning the Messiah, though 
 numy excellent interpreters believe that the 
 words I am denote the self-existent and divine 
 nature of Jesus. Thus Westcott remarks 
 "that the phrase I am" {iyu> el/nt) occurs three 
 times in this chapter (ver. 24, 28, 58; compare 
 13: 19), and on each occasion, as it seems, 
 with this pregnant meaning. (Compare Deut. 
 32: 30; Isa. 43 : 10. ) But he admits that "else- 
 where, in cases where the predicate is directly 
 suggested by the context, this predicate simply 
 is to be supplied: (9:9; 18:5; 6: 8; compare 
 6: 20; Matt. 14: 27; Mark 6: 50; 14:62; 
 Luke 22: 70). And so it is used of the Mes- 
 siah : (Mark 13: 6; Luke 21:8)." Either 
 interpretation is certainly possible, but we be- 
 lieve that the question between Christ and 
 these Jews related to his Messiahship. 
 
 35. Who art thou? This question was 
 probably asked in a tone of incredulity and 
 contempt. " Your claim is very extraordinary ; 
 who then are you, pray?" Perhaps the verbal 
 indefiniteness of his words recorded in ver. 
 24— "I am," instead of "I am the Messiah," 
 —led them to ask this question, though they 
 understood well enough what he meant. 
 Even the same that I said unto you from 
 the beginnina;. The meaning of the original 
 sentence is uncommonly obscure. In trans- 
 lating it, the Revised Version, the Revised 
 Bible, the Bible Union Revision, and a num- 
 ber of commentators agree substantially with 
 the Common Version. Yet it is doubtful 
 whether the Greek phrase -ntvapxvv) translated 
 from the beginning ever has that meaning. 
 John expresses that thought by a different 
 
 phrase (viz: an opx»)s or e^ apxhs), and one 
 which is entirely' clear. Moreover, the origi- 
 nal of the verb translated said, is in the 
 present tense, and means, properly, / speak 
 or say. But the perfect tense would more 
 naturally have been used if the adverbial 
 phrase was understood to signify from the 
 beginning. Hence we are not satisfied with 
 this version. But the Revised Bible gives 
 another in the margin, viz. : Altogether that 
 vjhlch I am also telling you. And it seems to 
 be pretty well established that the expression 
 (t))v apxvv) may signify altogether, wholly, or 
 entirely {=omnino'). The sentence then means, 
 according to Grimm, "Winer and many others, 
 I a')n wholly that ivhich I also say to you; or 
 " not only I am, but I am also saying to you 
 what I am : there is then no reason why you 
 should ask me." There is a touch of dis- 
 pleasure and reproof in his reply, thus inter- 
 preted. But there is still more of these accord- 
 ing to a third view of his words, namely, that 
 they are to be understood as a question. This 
 view is given in the margin of the Rev. Ver., 
 Eng. Ed. : How is it that I even speak to you at 
 all ? or, ivherefore do I even speak to you at 
 all? "Your spirit is such as to render you 
 unworthy of any word from me. It is vain to 
 testify to you the truth concerning myself or 
 my mission." This appears to have been the 
 interpretation given to the sentence by the 
 Greek Fathers, and it is adopted by Meyer, 
 Weiss, Watkins, Milligan and Moulton. 
 Westcott wavers between this and the pre- 
 ceding view. Either of them agrees with the 
 context, but the one last named is more forci- 
 ble, and besides has in its favor the judgment 
 of those to whom the Grdek was their native 
 language. 
 
 26. I have many things to say and to 
 judge of you. According to the order of 
 the Greek words, the term signifying many 
 things is emphatic, and the same is true in 
 a lower degree of the expression of you. 
 Whether these many things of a condemna- 
 torj' character were actualh' said by Jesus, or 
 were merely alluded to and passed by ia si- 
 
Ch. VIIL] 
 
 JOHK 
 
 191 
 
 27 They understood not that he spake to them of the 
 Father. 
 
 •28 Then said Jesus unto thciii, When ye have " lifted 
 up the Sou of man 'thon shall ye know that I am he, 
 SLwi'lhat I do nothing of myself; but ''as my Father 
 hath taught me, I speak these tilings. 
 
 29 Aud«he that sent me is witn me: /the Father 
 hath not left me alone ; e for I do always those thiugs 
 that please him. 
 
 27 from him, these speak I unto the world. They per- 
 ceived not that he spake to them of the Father. 
 
 28 Jesus therefore said, When ye have lifted up the 
 Son of man, then shall ye know that i I am Jie, and 
 thai I do nothing of myself, but as the Father taught 
 
 29 me, I speak these things. And he that sent me is 
 with lue; he hath not left me alone; for I do always 
 
 a ch. 3: 15: 12: 32.... i Rom. 1 : 4....C ch. 5 : 19, 30....dch. 3: ll....<;ch. U: 10, ll..../ver. 16....pcli. 4: 34; 5: 30; 
 
 am be : and I do. 
 
 -1 Or, / 
 
 lence, depends upon the relivtion of this clause 
 to the foHovving. But he that sent me is 
 true ; and I speak to the world those 
 things which I have heard of him (lit., the 
 
 things wldch I heard from him). The word 
 but nitty indicate that what he speaks is what 
 he heard from the Father, who is true, and 
 that it is .something different from the many 
 things which lie has it in his power to say of 
 the Jews before him ; or it maj' indicate that 
 these many things are not simjily judgments 
 of his own, formed independently of the Fa- 
 ther, but, rather, what he had heard from the 
 Source of truth, by whom he was sent into 
 the world. The latter view is preferable to 
 the former. 
 
 27. They understood (or, knew) not that 
 he spake to them of the Father. This 
 statement has been pronounced inconsistent 
 with the context, and therefore incredible. 
 But we are to bear in mind (1) that the multi- 
 tudes whom Jesus addressed in the temple 
 were, in all probability, constantly changing; 
 (2) that the failure of the Jews whom he was 
 now addressing to perceive that he referred to 
 the Father as the One who had sent him, is 
 mentioned just because it was surprising; (3) 
 that this failure to understand the Lord was, 
 in reality, no more unaccountable than many 
 instances of similar failure on the part of the 
 disciples, when things were said which they 
 did not wish to believe; and (4) that the 
 blinding influence of prejudice and passion is 
 often trulj' amazing and unaccountable. There 
 is, therefore, no sufficient reason for calling in 
 question this plain assertion of the Evangelist. 
 
 28. Omit the words unto them, in the first 
 clause; for, according to the best editors, it 
 did not belong to the earliest text. When ye 
 have lifted up the Son of man. These 
 words refer to his death on the cross, which 
 was to be eflTected by the enmity of the Jews, 
 through the agency of Roman soldiers (com- 
 pare 3: 14; 6: 62). Then shall ye know 
 that I am [he]. On the question whether 
 
 "he" should be supplied after am, see Note 
 on verse 21. The crucifixion of Christ was to 
 be the source of his power. By it he was to 
 draw all men to himself. (12:32.) In conse- 
 quence of it he was to be glorified with the 
 Father, and to give the Holy Spirit. (Acts 2: 32, 
 sq.; Phil. 2:9, sq.) Aud that I do uothing of 
 (/?-om) myself. In other words: " You look 
 upon me as a man, speaking and acting for 
 my-self, like other men. But this is not the 
 case. No word or act of mine springs from 
 myself alone, apart from God." But as my 
 Father hath taught me, I speak these 
 things. Or, as in the Rev. Ver. : But as the 
 Father taught m,e, I speak these things. The 
 tense of the verb taught carries the mind 
 back to the pre-existent state of Jesus, who, 
 in his higher nature, the Word, was with God 
 before the world was. Hence the Saviour 
 claims not only that his teaching is truly di- 
 vine, but also that it was in the mind of God 
 before the incarnation. And this statement 
 accords with the view that even the details of 
 redemption were all known and fixed in the 
 counsels of heaven from eternity. The pro- 
 noun my, before Father, in the Common Ver- 
 sion, must bo considered an addition to the 
 original text. 
 
 29. And he that sent me is with me. 
 This clause may be connected with the fore- 
 going statements back to ye shall knoAv; 
 thus : " Then shall ye know that I am he, and 
 that I do nothing from myself, but as the 
 Father taught me I speak these things, and 
 that he that sent me is with me." The la.st 
 assertion is then repeated negatively : He (the 
 true reading, instead of the Father) hath 
 not left me alone — at any moment or in any 
 act of my career; and for an all-sufficient 
 reason: because I do always the (not 
 those) things that please him. This claim 
 is absolute, unqualified. Jesus declares him- 
 self consciousof doing his Father's will always 
 and in all respects. He is certain of being 
 positively holy in conduct; and, according to 
 
192 
 
 JOHK 
 
 [Ch. VIII. 
 
 30 As he spake these words, « many believed on him. 
 
 31 Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on 
 him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disci- 
 ples indeed; 
 
 32 And ye shall know the truth, and ^ the truth shall 
 make you free. 
 
 83 They answered him, <; We be Abraham's seed, and 
 were never in bondage to any man : how sayest thou. 
 Ye shall be made free ? 
 
 34 Jesus answered them. Verily, verily, I say unto 
 you, <"■ Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin. 
 
 30 the things that are pleasing to him. As he spake 
 these things, many believed on him. 
 
 31 Jesus therefore said to those Jews who had be- 
 lieved him. If ye abide in my word, thtn are ye truly 
 
 32 my disciples ; and ye shall know the truth, and the 
 
 33 truth shall make you free. They answered unto 
 him. We are Abraham's seed, and have never yet 
 been in bondage to any man : how sayest thou. Ye 
 
 34 shall be made free? Jesus answered them. Verily, 
 verily, I say unto you, Every one that committeth 
 
 a oh. 7: 31; 10: 42; II: 45 5 Rom. 6 : 14, 18, 22 ; 8: 2 ; James 1 : 25; 2: 12 c Lev. 25: 42; Matt. 3:9; ver. 39 d Rom. 6: 16, 20; 
 
 2 Pet. 2 : 19. 
 
 his own view of conduct, this includes all the 
 movements of the heart. («»". 5: 28.) Well may 
 Paul say that "he knew no sin." (acor. 5:21.) 
 
 30. As lie spake these words, many 
 believed ou him. Such dignity and au- 
 thority were in the look and tone and teaching 
 of Jesus, that many were convinced of his 
 truthfulness, and accepted him in their hearts 
 as the Christ. But, if they are the persons 
 addressed in the next verse, their belief was 
 no more trustworthy than that of the Jews, 
 mentioned in 2: 23 sq. It was a belief to be 
 proved, and not one to be accepted as genuine 
 and suiRcient without trial. But it is possible 
 that the many, here spoken of, are not identi- 
 cal with "the Jews whohad believ.'d," in ver. 
 31, but were persons who had truly confided 
 in him (els aiToi/), and patiently waited for a 
 complete revelation of his reign. For the ex- 
 pression here used denotes faijh in a person, 
 which is often times a very different thing from 
 mere acceptance of a person's language as 
 true. 
 
 31-59. Conversation on Spiritual 
 Freedom and Sonship to God. 
 
 31. I'hen said Jesus, etc. — or better, as in 
 Kev. Ver. : Jesus therefore said to those Jews 
 who had believed him, etc. It seems that 
 some of the men who were convinced by his 
 word and led to manifest in some way their 
 belief of it — not their belief in Aim— were per- 
 sons of influence, perhaps members of the 
 Sanhedrin, certainly adherents of the Jewish 
 view concerning the Messiah. Jesus perceived 
 in them a lack of spiritual trust, and foresaw 
 that they would not, all of them, continue in 
 his word. He therefore proceeded to test their 
 faith by asserting the necessity and the result 
 of continuing in his word. If belief be deep 
 and genuine, it will be permanent; if it be 
 shallow, without root or substance, it will soon 
 vanish away. Its character may therefore be 
 
 inferred from its endurance and its fruit. If 
 ye continue, etc. 
 
 32. And ye shall know the truth, and 
 the truth shall make you free. Blessed 
 prospect! By living in the element and 
 atmosphere of Christ's word, they would 
 learn the supreme truth, the .secret of peace 
 with God ; and this would set them free from 
 bondage and sin. (ver. 34.) But, alas! their 
 minds were intent on earthly things. The 
 Messiah expected by them was one who would 
 make Israel the head of the nations. And 
 therefore, though the tenor of Chri«t's pre- 
 vious remarks should have led them to think 
 of him as pre-eminently the Kevealer of God 
 to men, they missed the sense of his words 
 and were offended. Hence their answer. 
 
 33. We be (arc) Abraham's seed, and 
 were never in bondage to any man : how 
 sayest thou, Ye shall be made free? 
 Abraham was to be a father of many nations 
 and a blessing to all the families of mankind, 
 and these Jews consider themselves his off- 
 spring, and heirs to his position and destiny. 
 With such a position they deem civil bondage 
 incompatible, and promptly resent the impu- 
 tation that thej' have ever been in such 
 bondage, either to the Emperor of Rome or to 
 any one else. Probably, in their zeal, they 
 think only of themselves and their contempo- 
 raries, forgetting the captivity in Babylon and 
 the earlier bondage in Egypt. How different 
 were their thoughts from those of Jesus I 
 
 34. Whosoever (or, every one who) com- 
 mitteth (doeth) sin is a (not the) servant of 
 sin. The expression who doeth sin implies a 
 certain continuance in sin on the part of the 
 person thus characterized. But one need not 
 continue long in the practice of sin, in order to 
 find himself in bondage to a hard master. 
 For the worst tj'rant a man can serve is his 
 own selfish heart. By rejecting the authority 
 
Ch. VIIL] 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 193 
 
 35 And « the servant abideth not in the house for 
 ever: bat the Son abiJeth ever. 
 
 3U ' If the Sou therefore shall make you free, ye shall 
 be free indeed. 
 
 37 I know that ye are Abraham's seed; but "ye seek 
 to kill me, because my word hath no place in you. 
 
 38 ■* I speak that u hich 1 have seen with my Father : 
 and ye do that which ye have seen with your father. 
 
 35 sin is the bondservant of sin. And the bondservant 
 
 abideth not in the house forevei : the sou abideth 
 
 3() for ever. If therefore the Son shall make you free, 
 
 37 ye shall be free indeed. I know that ye are Abra- 
 ham's seed; yet ye seek to kill me, because my 
 
 38 word 1 hath not free course in you. I speak tlie 
 things whicli I have seen with - my Father: and ye 
 also do the things which ye heard from your father. 
 
 a Gal. 4: 30 6 Bom. 8:2; Gal. 5:1 c ch. 7 : 19 ; ver. 40 d ch. .3: 32 j 5 : 19, 30; U: 10, 24. 1 Or, hath no pla 
 
 the Father : do ye also therefore the things which ye heard from the Father. 
 
 ! in you. .. .2 Or 
 
 of God in the interest of self-will or .supposed 
 freedom, one sinks into the most hopeless 
 slavery. Jesus made no mistake in assuming 
 that the Jews in his presence were slaves of 
 sin, and in need of the true freedom which he 
 alone could give. (See liom. 6: 17, sq. ; 7: 
 14, sq.) 
 
 35. And the servant (or, bond-servant) 
 abideth not in the house for ever: but 
 the Son abideth ever. A double statement, 
 founded on the customs of civil society. For, 
 according to the law of Moses and the usages 
 of the people, the relation of a bondman to 
 the family was but temporary, while that of a 
 son was permanent. But sonship in the house 
 of God depends, not upon natural, but upon 
 spiritual, descent from Abraham — upon hav- 
 ing the faith of Abraham. He, therefore, who 
 is a bond-servant of sin, has not the place and 
 privilege of a son in the house of God. He 
 belongs to the world, and in the world there 
 is no true freedom. Though connected with 
 the theocracy in a temporary and external 
 manner, he is not really at home with the 
 children of God; and when the new and spir- 
 itual kingdom is set up, he will be cast out. 
 But it is wholly different with the son— that 
 is, with him who realizes the idea and position 
 of son — he continues in the house forever; it 
 is his home and heritage ; all that the father 
 hath is his, and he administers the affairs of 
 the house as heir and ruler. It appears, there- 
 fore, that Jesus has in mind himself as the 
 One who is, in a high and full sense, the Son. 
 On this passage Sanday remarks: "The con- 
 nection between the first two clauses (ver. 34, 35) 
 is distant and subtle. The qualification under 
 which the figure of servitude is introduced is 
 dropped entirely. The servitude (of sin) sug- 
 gests the idea of servitude in the abstract; 
 and to this the idea of sonship in the abstract 
 is opposed. Then there is a further transition 
 from the abstraction of sonship to the Son in 
 the concrete — the Messiah. And in the infer- 
 ence there is a gap. It is assumed that the 
 
 Son must communicate his own attributes to 
 those whom he emancipated. The thougiit is, 
 indeed, throughout, profound and instructive; 
 and to a Jew, always ready to picture to liim- 
 self the theocracy, or the kingdom of heaven, 
 under the form of a 'household,' it would be 
 easily intelligible." (See Maclaren, Third 
 Series, 2d Sermon, for a different interpreta- 
 tion of this verse.) 
 
 36. If the Son therefore shall make 
 you free, ye shall be free indeed (or, truly 
 free). Only that freedom which Christ, the 
 Son of God, gives to him who has been in 
 bondage to sin, can make him truly free. 
 (Compare 1 Cor. 3 : 22 ; Kom. 8 : 35, sq.; 2 Cor. 
 6: 4, sq. ) A similar thought is expressed in 
 15: 15: "Henceforth I call you not servants; 
 for the servant knoweth not what his lord 
 doeth ; but I have called you friends; for all 
 things that I have heard of my Father I have 
 made known to you." 
 
 37. I know that ye are Abraham's seed. 
 Their claim to be the offspring of Abraham 
 by natural descent is thus fully admitted, but 
 only, as it were, in order to exhibit in a more 
 striking manner their moral unlikeness to 
 him. But ye seek to kill me. How incon- 
 ceivable that Abraham should have done this ! 
 But why do they engage in so nefarious an 
 attempt ? Because my word hath no place 
 (better, maketh no progres.s) in you. That 
 word had been received by them with a de- 
 gree of faith (var. 30), but it was making no 
 advance in their hearts. On the contrary, as 
 it was more clearly explained, it met with 
 more and more opposition, and their moment- 
 ary good will toward him was changed to 
 deadly antagonism. 
 
 38. I speak that which (or, the things 
 which) I have seen with my Father (or, 
 with the Father). The original has the Fa- 
 ther, instead of my Father. And Jesus re- 
 affirms by these words that his knowledge is 
 a result of personal communion with the Fa- 
 ther before coming into, the world (compare 
 
194 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 [Ch. VIIL 
 
 39 They answered and said imto hiin, "Abraham is 
 our father. Jesus sailli uuto Iheiu, 'it ye were Abra- 
 ham's childreu, ye would do tlie worlis ol Abraliam. 
 
 40 « But uow ye seek to liill me, a mau that hath told 
 you the truth, ''■ which I have heard of God : this did 
 not Abraham. 
 
 41 Ye do the deeds of your father. Then said they 
 to him, We be not born of foruicaiion ; « we have one 
 Father, even God. 
 
 39 They answered and said unto him. Our father is 
 Abraham. Jesus sailh unto them. If ye i were Abra- 
 ham's childreu, ^ ye would do the works of Abra- 
 
 40 ham. But uow ye seek to kill me, a mau that 
 hath told you the truth, which I heard from God : 
 
 41 this did not Abraham. Ye do the works of your 
 father. They said uuto him, We were not born of 
 
 a Matt. 3:9; ver. 33 6 Rom. 2 : 28; 9:7; Gal. 3: 7, 29 c ver. ■-il d ver. 26 e Isa. 63: 16; 6+ : 
 
 2 Some aucient autboriiitjs read, ye do the works o/ Abraham. 
 
 -1 Gr. are 
 
 ver. 28). The perfect tense, have seen, shows 
 tluit his present consciousness is linked with 
 the past, his knowledge on earth being a di- 
 rect fruit of his life in heaven. The next 
 clause is difficult. The Common Version : 
 Aud ye do that which ye have seen with 
 your father, follows a text which is less ap- 
 proved than the one represented by the Re- 
 vised Version, viz. : And ye also do the things 
 which ye heard from your father. But even 
 this does not quite reproduce the original, 
 which may be translated literally, either: 
 And ye therefore do the things which ye heard 
 from the Father, or, and do ye therefore the 
 things which ye heard from the Father. If 
 the last construction be adopted, Jesus makes 
 another appeal to the Jews to do whatever 
 they had heard from God, whom they es- 
 teemed their Father; though he character- 
 ized their knowledge as received through 
 others, while his own was due to his immedi- 
 ate vision. This is a possible interpretation, 
 and is, perhaps, slightly f\ivored by the use of 
 the article the, instead of the pronoun your, 
 before father. Had the Greek been my Fa- 
 ther and your father, the contrast would have 
 been more marked. (See ver. 41.) But, on the 
 whole, the sense expressed by the Rev. Ver. 
 is probably correct. The Saviour recognizes 
 the mortal enmity springing up in their hearts, 
 and tells them plainly that they are doing 
 what "the father" has told them to do. Yet 
 he does not name that father, but refers to 
 him, in the first instance, obscurelJ^ "We 
 may add, that the varieties of reading in this 
 verse are very ntimerous, and the difficulty of 
 ascertaining the original text great, if not in- 
 superable. Yot the readings agree to such an 
 extent as to warrant the statement that one of 
 the two interpretations given above must be 
 correct. 
 
 39. Abraham is our father (or, more em- 
 phatically. Our father is Abraham.) There 
 seems to have been enough in the language of 
 Jesus — in the contrast implied by the con- 
 
 junction "but," of ver. 37, and in the anti- 
 thetical clauses or tone of ver. 38— to make 
 the Jews understand that he did not have in 
 mind Abraham as their father. Hence they 
 promptly reply : Abraham is our father. 
 And therefore he, in turn, justifies their inter- 
 pretation of his moaning, by saying: If ye 
 were Abraham's childreu — that is, in a 
 moral and religious sense (see Rom 9: 8) — ye 
 would do the Avorks of Abraham — or, such 
 works as Abraham did — works of fiiith. It 
 was the great sin of these Jews that they 
 longed for a visible and earthly kingdom, aud 
 because Jesus did not propose to set up such a 
 kingdom, disbelieved, rejected, and opposed 
 him, though they knew the high character of 
 his teaching. Some of the principal editors 
 give are (eo-re), instead of were (^re), in the 
 first clause, urging in favor of this change the 
 fact, that an irregular form would be less likely 
 to be changed to a regular form by a tran- 
 scriber than the reverse. We abide by the 
 Common Text, though the meaning would 
 not be perceptibly changed by accepting the 
 proposed reading. 
 
 40. But now ye seek to kill me, a man 
 that hath told you (or, spoken to you) the 
 truth, which I have heard of {from) God : 
 this did not Abraham. It will be observed 
 that Jesus here speaks of himself as a man. 
 More frequently he calls himself the Son of 
 man. He was, indeed, a true man, a man 
 from men, while at the same time, in virtue 
 of his higher nature, he was truly God. But 
 it was as a man, coming to them with mes- 
 sages from God, that they rejected him. Such 
 an act Abraham never performed ; he never 
 rejected a well-approved messenger from God, 
 because that messenger spoke the truth. 
 
 41. Ye do the deeds {roorks) of your fa- 
 ther. Thus Jesus affirms that there is one 
 whose character these Jews possess and ex- 
 hibit — one in whose ways they walk, as a son 
 walks in the waj's of his father — one who is 
 the typical enemy of Christ and of truth, and 
 
Ch. VIII.] 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 195 
 
 42 Jesus said unto them, <• If God were your Father, 
 ye would love uie : * for I proceeded forth and came 
 from God ; ' neither came I of myself, but he sent me. 
 
 43 "^ Why do ye not understand my speech? even 
 because ye cannot hear my word. 
 
 44 ' Ye are of yoiir father the devil, and the lusts of 
 your father ye will do: he was a murderer from the 
 beginning, and /abode not in the truth, because there 
 
 42 fornication ; we have one Father, even God. Jesus 
 said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would 
 lovenie: for I came forth and am come from God ; 
 for neither have I come of myself, but he sent me. 
 
 43 Why do ye not ' undei'stand my speech? Even be- 
 
 44 cause ye cannot hear my word. Ye are of your 
 father the devil, and the lusts of your father it is 
 your will to do. He was a murderer from the be- 
 
 o I John 5: I 5 ch. 16: 27; 17: 8, 25 ccb. 5: 43; 7: 28, 29 d ch. 7: 17 e Malt. 13: 38; 1 John 3:8 / Jnile 6. 1 Or, 
 
 of whom all may be called children who reject 
 Christ and his word. Whether these Jews 
 had any suspicion of the exact meaning of 
 Jesus, cannot be known ; but they evidently 
 perceived that his words were against them. 
 For they responded: We be (rather, were) 
 not born of fornication ; Ave have one 
 Father, even God. When the children of 
 Israel worshiped idols, they were often repre- 
 sented as committing fornication with the 
 idols. (See Isa. 1 : 21 ; Jer. 2:20; 3: 8, 9; 
 Ezek. 16: 15, sq.) And these Jews, perceiving 
 that Jesus was not speaking of natural son- 
 ship, but rather of spiritual or religious, deny 
 that the}- have any fellowship in spirit or life 
 with idolaters. The}' deny that any one could 
 discover in them evidence that they were born 
 of idolaters — that Baal or any other heathen 
 god was their father. "IFe," they proudly 
 say, "have not many fathers, as might be 
 affirmed in a religious sense, if we had been 
 born of Israelites who were given up to idol- 
 atry, and were, like them, worshipers of 
 ' gods many ' ; but we have one Father — God : 
 we are true Israelites, serving Jehovah, and 
 him alone." Thus, as the question before 
 them was in respect to religious paternity and 
 sonship, they claim for themselves the rela- 
 tion of sons. 
 
 42. Jesus said unto them. Here, as in 
 the preceding verse, the conjunction "there- 
 fore" (o^v) is omitted by the principal editors, 
 as not belonging to the earliest text. If God 
 were your Father, ye would love me. 
 Those who are truly children of God, loving 
 him supremely, must love the Son of God ; 
 by him the character of the Father is fully 
 revealed. If what Jesus had so often affirmed 
 in these colloquies was true — if his teaching 
 and his working were also the teaching and 
 the working of the Father — it was, of course, 
 strictly impossible for them to have a filial 
 spirit towards God without loving him who 
 was, in the highest sense, the Son of God— the 
 brightness of the Father's glory, and the ex- 
 
 press image of his person. (Heb. i : 3.) For I 
 proceeded forth and came from (or, out 
 of, U) God. The pronoun I is emphatic; 
 and the expression proceeded, or, came forth 
 from God, presupposes an original and per- 
 fect union with the Father, while it asserts a 
 voluntary personal entrance into a new con- 
 dition, effected b}'' the incarnation. The ex- 
 pression here used, says Westcott, "is most 
 remarkable, and occurs only in one other 
 place, 16 : 28. . . . The words can only be in- 
 terpreted of the true divinity of the Son, of 
 which the Father is the source and fountain. 
 The connection described is internal and es- 
 sential, and not that of presence, or external 
 fellowship." The second verb, came, or, am 
 coine, represents his advent as already accom- 
 plished, so that he is now present among men 
 to declare the will of God. Neither came I 
 of myself, but he sent me. He has come 
 by the will of the Father, and not by any act 
 of his own will, irrespective of, or separate 
 from, the will of the Father. Father and 
 Son have the same object, the same purpose, 
 the same spirit, the same message. He that 
 loves the Father must needs love the Son also. 
 
 43. Why do ye not understand my 
 speech? even because ye cannot hear my 
 Avord. The term translated speech denotes 
 the expression of thought by the voice, and 
 the term translated Avord denotes the thought 
 as expressed. Thus, speech refers to the 
 manner, and Avord to the matter of the com- 
 munication. If their hearts had been pre- 
 pared to hear and receive the essential truth 
 which he uttered, they would have understood 
 his speech without difficulty. And it is still 
 true that multitudes fail to understand the 
 language of Scripture in manj' places, be- 
 cause they dislike the substance of what it 
 teaches. An evil heart darkens the under- 
 standing. For the use of the word hear, see 
 6: 60. 
 
 44. Ye are of your (lit., the) father, the 
 devil. This is a literal version of the best 
 
196 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 [Ch. VIII. 
 
 is no truth in hiui. When he speaketh a lie, he speak- 
 etli of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it. 
 
 ginning, and standeth not in the truth, because 
 there is no truth in him. i When lie speaketh a lie, 
 he speaketh of his owu: for he is a liar, and the 
 
 1 Or, When oue speaketh a lie, lie tpeaketh of Ma own : for his father also is a liar. 
 
 supported text. The father means the father 
 spoken of in verses 38 and 41, but now for the 
 first time distinctly named. Jesus dechires 
 that by moral resemblance and affinity they 
 are not children of Abraham, or of God, but 
 of the devil, the adversary of all good. And 
 the lusts of your father ye will do (lit., 
 wish to do). The particular lusts, if any, 
 which the Saviour had in mind, are probably 
 indicated by the rest of the verse. It is also 
 worthy of remark that this clause is not 
 strictly predictive, as the Common Version, 
 ye will do, may suggest; for the term will is 
 not a simple auxiliary, marking the future 
 tense, but an independent verb, signifying to 
 wish. The meaning is happily expressed in 
 the Rev. Ver. : It is your will to do. He Avas 
 a murderer from the beginning. The 
 spirit of the Jews before him probably led 
 Jesus to characterize Satan in this way. Some 
 have found in the words a special reference to 
 the death of Abel by the hand of Cain ; but 
 the use of the expression from the begin- 
 ning, and the prominence assigned to the 
 falsehood of Satan in the rest of the verse, 
 show that Jesus had in mind the temptation 
 by which our first parents were led to apos- 
 tatize. That was an act which "brought 
 death into the world, and all our woe." It 
 was the murder of mankind. The fratricide 
 that followed was a result of that act, but it is 
 not specially attributed to Satan in the narra- 
 tive of Moses. And abode (rather, standeth) 
 not in the truth. These words refer to the 
 present and permanent attitude of Satan as a 
 moral being. He is one who lives not in the 
 sphere and element of the truth. He has no 
 fellowship with God. His standing is not in 
 the realm of what is Godlike, but in the realm 
 of what is dark, inane, malignant. Because 
 there is no truth in him. When one is in 
 the truth, it is because the truth is in him. 
 He stands and lives, as a moral being, in that 
 which his soul loves — in that which it may be 
 said to inhale as the breath of its inner life. 
 When he speaketh a (!!Ae) lie, he speaketh 
 of his own. That is, out of the depths of 
 his own nature, the storehouse of his own be- 
 
 ing, the lusts or desires which belong to him- 
 self. For the word meaning his own is 
 plural, and a (the) lie is but one out of many 
 evil things that are his. All his ''lusts" are 
 evil. "A good man, out of the good treasure 
 of the heart, bringeth forth good things ; and 
 an evil man, out of the evil treasure, bringeth 
 forth evil things." (Matt. 12:35.) The lie is gen- 
 eric, and more significant than a lie. For 
 he is a liar, and the father of it (or, there- 
 of). That is, of the liar. This is regarded as 
 the best interpretation of the somewhat ob- 
 scure original by Bengel, Me3'er, Alford, 
 Godet, Lange, Sehaff, Watkins. and others. 
 Whoever, then, is a liar, may justl}' be called 
 a child of Satan. Weiss, however, adheres to 
 the view which makes the pronoun it refer to 
 the lie involved in the id^a of the word liar. 
 " While the lie is characterized as "proceeding 
 from his own, and while a reason for this is to 
 be given, the reference of the pronoun it to 
 the object of Avhen he speaketh is free from 
 difficulty." Winer and Buttmann favor the 
 same reference. Milligan and Moulton trans- 
 late as follows : ' ' Whensoever one speaketh the 
 lie, he speaketh of his own, because his father 
 also is a liar. Whensoever a man who is a 
 child of the devil uttereth falsehood, he is 
 giving forth what by very nature belongs to 
 him — what is his peculiar property by right 
 of kindred and inheritance — because his fa- 
 ther also, the devil, is a liar." But is it 
 Christ's manner to generalize in this way? Is 
 it not more like him to keep close to the per- 
 sons before him, and point out directly their 
 relation to the evil one? Besides, whence do 
 Milligan and Moulton obtain the indefinite 
 "one" which they introduce as the subject of 
 speaketh ? Interesting as their interpretation 
 is, we cannot believe it correct. On this pas- 
 sage, Godet remarks that it "contains the 
 most conclusive declaration that fell from the 
 lips of Jesus Christ respecting the existence, 
 the personality, and the activity of Satan. It 
 is impossible to applj' here the theory of ac- 
 commodation, by means of which some have 
 sought to weaken the force of the words of 
 Jesus in his interviews with demoniacs. Of 
 
Ch. VIIL] 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 197 
 
 45 Aud because I tell you the truth, ye believe me 
 not. 
 
 46 Which of you convinccth me of sin? And if I say 
 the truth, why do ye not believe me? 
 
 47 " He that is of God heareth God's words: ye there- 
 fore hear them not, because ye are not of God. 
 
 48 Then answered the .lews, and said unto him. Say 
 we not well that thou art a Samaritan, aud ' hast a 
 devil? 
 
 49 Jesus answered, I have not a devil ; but I honour 
 my Father, and ye do dishonour me. 
 
 45 father thereof. But because I say the truth, ye be- 
 
 46 lieve me not. Which of you convicteth me of sin? 
 
 47 If I say truth, why do ye not believe me? He that 
 is of God, heareth the words of God: for this cause 
 
 48 ye hear them not, because ye are not of God. The 
 Jews answered and said unto him, Say we not well 
 that thou art a Samaritan, aud hast a demon? 
 
 49 Jesus answered, I have not a demou ; but I honour 
 
 a oh. 10: 26, 27; 1 John 4:6 6 oh. 7 : 20 ; 10: 20; 
 
 his own accord, and plainly, he gives in this 
 place positive instruction on this mysterious 
 subject." 
 
 45. And because I tell you I'or, say) the 
 truth, ye believe me not. According to the 
 nature of things, and the design of God, one 
 should be believed just because he speaks the 
 truth ; but here are men so wedded to false 
 views of God and his kingdom, that they re- 
 ject the teaching of Christ because it is true. 
 In order to be believed by then., you must 
 teach that which is untrue concerning the 
 reign of God through his Anointed. They 
 are at one with Satan; and, therefore, they 
 disbelieve him who has come to destroy the 
 works of Satan. 
 
 46. Which of you convinceth (rather, 
 convicteth) me of sin? Not of error, nor 
 of falsehood, but of sin. "To justify their 
 want of faith in what he said, they must, at 
 least, be able to accuse him of some fault in 
 what he did ; for holiness and truth are sis- 
 ters.'' — Godet. But he challenges them to 
 discover the slightest sin in him ; a challenge 
 which is certainly an indirect but decisive 
 claim to holiness. And if I say the truth 
 (rather, truth), why do ye not believe me? 
 No one responded to his challenge. Their 
 silence was, therefore, a tacit admission that 
 his claim could not be refuted by them. But 
 if he was without sin, his teaching must be 
 true; and, whatever men may do, they admit 
 tiiat truth ought to be believed. Jesus, there- 
 fore, appeals to this native conviction of the 
 soul. "I am without sin; if I am without 
 sin, I speak only truth ; and if I speak truth, 
 why do ye not believe me? Ye would be- 
 lieve me if ye were of God, instead of being 
 of the wicked one." The critical editors 
 omit the word and (or, b%it), in this clause. 
 
 47. He that is of God, heareth God's 
 words. The word heareth means, as in 
 verse 43, to hear and accept. And to be of 
 God, is to be morally a child of God, loving 
 
 what he loves, and hating what he hates. 
 One who is thus of God, hearkens to his 
 words, obeys them. Ye therefore hear 
 them not, because ye are not of God. 
 
 The Jews must be taught that their unbelief 
 in the words of Jesus was rooted in their re- 
 ligious character and condition. They must 
 be made to feel, if possible, that a great 
 change in the state of their hearts was indis- 
 pensable, if they were to appreciate divine 
 truth. But it was impossible to make them 
 feel this. The light did not find a place in 
 their minds. They still took it for granted 
 that they were pre-eminently the children of 
 Abraham, and of God. Hence their reply. 
 
 48. Say we not well, that thou art a Sa- 
 maritan, and hast a devil (or, demon)? To 
 call one a Samaritan, was to pronounce him a 
 misbeliever, and a bitter enemy of the people 
 of God. To call him a demoniac, was to 
 represent him as a man controlled by a spirit 
 of evil from the unseen world. The reply of 
 the JcAV.s was one of anger and contempt. 
 They rejected the words of Jesus as com- 
 pletely false, and avowed their passionate 
 hostility to him. Their language, on this 
 occasion, may have been in the mind of Peter 
 when he wrote, testifying of Christ, that 
 "when he was reviled, he reviled not again," 
 etc. (1 Pet. 2 : 23.) His answer is a firm and abso- 
 lute denial of their accusation. 
 
 49. I have not a devil (or, demon), but I 
 honour my father, and ye do dishonour 
 me. Making no reply to the first part of their 
 charge, he calmly denies the second. ' It is 
 not true that an unclean spirit from the other 
 world possesses me and speaks through my 
 lips. It is not true that what I am saying is 
 against God, or the real people of God. For 
 God is my Father, and my word honors him; 
 it is the language of the true Son of God, 
 who speaks that, and that only, which is 
 worthy of his Father. ' But he does not stop 
 with a re-assertion of his own holiness and 
 
198 
 
 JOHK 
 
 [Ch. VIII. 
 
 50 And « I seek not mine own glory : there is one that 
 seeketh and judgeth. 
 
 51 Verily, verily, I say unto you, 'If a man keep my 
 saving, he shall never see death. 
 
 52 Then said the Jews unto him. Now we know that 
 thou hast a devil. <; Abraham is dead, and the prophets; 
 and thou sayest. If a mau keep my saying, he shall 
 never taste of death. 
 
 53 Art thou greater than our father Abraham, which 
 is dead? and the prophets are dead : whom makest thou 
 thyself? 
 
 50 my Father, and ye dishonour me. But I seek 
 nut mine own glory : there is one that seeketh 
 
 51 and judgeth. Verily, verily, I say unto you, If a 
 
 52 man keep my word, he shall never see death. The 
 Jews said unto him. Now we know that thou hast 
 a demon. Abraham died, and the prophets; and 
 thou sayest. If a man keep my word, he shall 
 
 53 never taste of death. Art tliou greater than 
 our father Abraham, who died? and the pro- 
 
 a ch.5: 41; 7: 18....6ch. 5 : '24 ; H: 26.... c Zech. 1:5; Heb. 11: 13. 
 
 union with the Father: he declares once 
 more, their opposition to God, by saying that 
 they dishonor the Son of God. He was be- 
 fore them, honoring God by the sinless words, 
 the divine truth, which he spoke; but they 
 were dishonoring, scorning, and falsely accus- 
 ing himself. 
 
 50. And I seek not mine OAvn glory. 
 And, therefore, though ye dishonor, ye do 
 not disturb me. (Compare 5:41; 7: 18.) 
 Indeed, my honor is not in peril, /or there 
 is one that seeketh and judgeth. God 
 will provide for the glory of his Son, and 
 will judge between him and those who dis- 
 honor his name. "He that has God for his 
 friend need not fear to speak the truth, though 
 men should be enraged at his words and be 
 ready to defame his character. All true glory 
 is from God." 
 
 51. Verily, verily, I say unto you. The 
 repeated verily indicates the great importance 
 of what is to be said. If a man keep my 
 saying (see verses 24 and 31), he shall never 
 see death. Some would translate the last 
 clause: "he shall not see death forever," 
 that is, he shall not suffer eternal death. 
 Though he will die, and be without life for a 
 time, death will be terminated by resurrec- 
 tion. But the Greek expression here used, 
 justifies and requires the customary transla- 
 tion, he shall never see death; that is, he 
 who keeps the word of Christ has already 
 passed from death into life (5: 24,) and death, 
 in its deep and full sense, as the penaltj' of 
 sin, will never be experienced by him. He is 
 alive, spiritually, and is assured of life for- 
 evermore. "Death has been swallowed up 
 of life, and physical death is thought of, in 
 its true sense, as an entering into life " ( Wnt- 
 kbis) ; or, more exactly, as a passage from 
 one stage of true life to another. 
 
 52. The Jews said unto him. Notice 
 that it is all along, the Jews, who criticise 
 and defame the Holy One. Now we know 
 
 (lit., have known) that thou hast a devil 
 
 (or, demon.) The exact force of the Greek 
 perfect in the New Testament is not easilj' re- 
 produced in English. Alford supposes that 
 the idea of past time is nearly or quite lost in 
 that of present time, and this view is some- 
 times favored, as in the passage before us, by 
 the addition of the adverb now. But the 
 perfect ten.se always differs in some degi-ee 
 from the present. It affirms something to be 
 true now which had its beginning at some 
 previous time. So, here, the Jews mean to 
 say that their present knowledge, though 
 clearer now than ever before, is not an abso-- 
 lutely new thing. They have been coming 
 to this knowledge for some time, and are now 
 in full and absolute possession of it. Abra- 
 ham is dead (or, died,) and the prophets — 
 the greatest and best men the world ever saw 
 — "the friend of God," and the most eminent 
 servants of God — and thou sayest, If a 
 man keep my saying, he shall never taste 
 of death.' To "see death '' and to taste of 
 death are synonymous, or nearly synony- 
 mous expressions, so that there is no reason to 
 accuse the Jews of any misrepresentation of 
 Christ's language. (Cf. Matt. 16: 28; Heb. 
 2:9.) Whether they honestly or perversely 
 assumed that he was speaking of natural 
 death, is not .so clear. 
 
 53. Art thou greater than our father 
 Abraham, which is dead? and the pro- 
 phets are dead ; whom makest thou thy- 
 self? The first question is ver^- similar to that 
 of the Samaritan woman : " Art thou greater 
 than our father Jacob?" (4; 12.) But the feel- 
 ing with which it was uttered was doubtless 
 more intense. The Jews here a.ssume the ab- 
 surdity of any but a negative answer. " Thou 
 art not greater, surely, than our father Abra- 
 ham?" Their last question, whom makest 
 thou thyself? was probably uttered with a 
 tone and gesture indicative of pious hoi-ror at 
 his arrogance and blasphemy. For to affirm 
 
Ch. VIIL] 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 199 
 
 54 Jesus answered, « If I honour myself, my honour 
 is nothing: 'it is my Father that hououreth me; of 
 whom ye say, that he is your (iod : 
 
 55 Yet " ye have not known him; hut I know him: 
 and if I should say, I know him not, I shall be a liar 
 like unto you: but I know him, and keep his saying. 
 
 56 Your father Abraham <>■ rejoiced to see my day : 
 e and he saw it, and was glad. 
 
 54phets died: whom makest thou thyself? Jesus 
 answered, If I glorify myself, my glory is nothing: 
 it is my Father that gloritielh me ; of whom ye 
 
 55 say, that he is your God; and ye have not knowa 
 hiiu : but I know him; and if I should say I know 
 him not, I shall be like unto you, a liar: but I know 
 
 56 him, and keep his word. Your father Abraham 
 rejoiced i to see my day ; and he saw it, and was 
 
 och. 5: 31 5 5: 41; 16: 14; 17: 1 ; Acts 3 : 13 c ch. 7; 28, 29 d Luke 10: 24 e Heb. 11 : 13. 1 Or, that he thoxUd see. 
 
 that those who kept his word should not die, 
 while those who had kept the word of God in 
 ancient times had died, was surely to put 
 himself on a level, at lea.st, with the Most 
 High. Such self-exaltation they rebuke, de- 
 claring that it must be a result of demoniacal 
 possession. 
 
 54. If I honour (or, glorify ; fur honour 
 is too weak a term) myself, my honour 
 {glory) is nothing. The emphasis is on 
 the pronoun I. If /, ynyself, in distinction 
 from the Father, glorify myself, etc. It is 
 my Father that honoureth (glorifieth) me. 
 The Father's love of the Son is equal to the 
 Son's love of the Father. And as the Son 
 delights to honor the Father, so does the 
 Father delight to honor the Son. (See 5 : 20, 
 22, 26, 36. ) Jesus did not pass through his 
 earthly ministrj'' without glory, though its 
 source was divine rather than human. Of 
 Avhom ye say that he is your (or, our) God. 
 By these words Jesus identifies his Father 
 with the God of Israel. The reading our 
 God, is somewhat better supported than the 
 common text, your God ; but the change is 
 one that does not alfect the meaning. "Je- 
 hovah our God" is a form of expression 
 used in the Old Testament; and the phrase 
 our God, was, doubtless, frequently on the 
 lips of Israelites in the time of Christ. 
 
 55. Yet ye have not knoAvn him. Their 
 professions of knowledge were loud and un- 
 hesitating; but the Searcher of hearts, who 
 stood before them, perceived that they had 
 never possessed any true knowledge of his 
 Father. For no one can know the Father but 
 by the Son, who is the Light of the world. 
 Whoever, therefore, rejects the Son, has no 
 love to the Father; and there can be no true 
 knowledge of God without love to him. But 
 I know him — by an iinmediate, eternal, and 
 perfect fellowship of thought, feeling, and 
 will ; and this may be called absolute knowl- 
 edge. (See Matt. 11 : 27 ; John 1:18; 3 : 13 ; 
 5: 20, 22, 26, 36.) And if I should say, I 
 know him not, I shall be a liar like 
 
 unto you. " It would be as false for nie to 
 say that I do not know him, as it is for you to 
 affirm that you do know him." How direct 
 and personal was this language! Plain, sol- 
 emn, searching, but manifestly calm, and 
 without any bitterness of spirit. But I know 
 him, and keep his saying (or, word). As 
 no one can have a true knowle.lge of God 
 without having love to him, it is certain that 
 no one can have this knowledge without 
 keeping his word. Profoundly conscious of 
 his personal communion with the Father, Je- 
 sus asserts, also, once more, his supreme re- 
 gard to the Father's will. (4:34: 5:30; 7:18; 8:29.) 
 
 His claim of moral perfection is just as unqual- 
 ified as his claim of divine knowledge. 
 
 56. Your father Abraham rejoiced to 
 see my day : and he saw it, and was glad. 
 
 The Greek may also be translated : Rejoiced 
 that he should see my day. (See Biittmann's 
 "Gr. of N. T. Greek," Thayer's Transl., p. 
 239.) The passage is one of acknowledged 
 difficulty, and the interpretation of it depends 
 very greatly on the meaning which is given 
 to the words my day. Nearly all the best in- 
 terpreters suppose that these words refer to 
 the earthly ministry of Jesus, or, at least, 
 that his day did not antedate his birth, how- 
 ever long it may have continued afterwards. 
 Hence, many of them conclude that his words 
 in this passage imply the continued life of 
 Abraham after death, and his knowledge, in 
 some way, of the earthly manifestation and 
 ministry of Christ. Others conclude that he 
 saw the day of Christ in symbol, and by faith, 
 at the birth or offering up of Isaac. But we 
 see no sufficient reason for the opinion that 
 the words my day refer to the earthly min- 
 istry and manifestation of Christ only. The 
 period embraced by them must be determined 
 by the connection, and there is nothing in the 
 context to limit that period to the earthly 
 ministry of Christ. On the other hand, the 
 tense of the verbs he saw it and was glad 
 points to something accomplished in a definite 
 past time. The interpretation which the Jews 
 
200 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 [Ch. VIII. 
 
 57 Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet 
 fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham? 
 
 58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto 
 you, Belore Abraham was, " I am. 
 
 59 Then ''took they up stones to east at him: but 
 Jesus hid himself, aud weut out of the temple, "'going 
 through the midst of them, and so passed by. 
 
 57 glad. The Jews therefore said unto him, Thou art 
 not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abra- 
 
 58 ham? Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say 
 unto you. Before Abraham was born, I am. They 
 
 59 took up stones therefore to cast at him : but Jesus 
 1 hid himself, and went out of the temple K 
 
 oEx. 3: U; Isa. 43 : 13 ; oli. 17 : 5, 24; Col. 1 : 17 ; Rev. l:8....6ch. 10: 31, 39; 11: 8....C Luke 4: 30. 1 Or, was hidden, and went, 
 
 etc 2 Many ancient authorities add, and going through the midst of them went his way, and bo passed by. 
 
 gave to his words (ver. 57) implies the same 
 thing; and the response of Jesus to their lan- 
 guage (ver. 58) justifies tliis view. This pas- 
 sage may therefore be relied on to prove the 
 pre-existence of Christ in his higher nature, 
 and the fact of salvation by him in the time 
 of Abraham. The promise antedates the law 
 of Moses; Christianity is older than Judaism. 
 (Gal. 3:15, sq.) The work of Christ as Mediator 
 began immediately after the fall. The bloody 
 sacrifices typified the Lamb of God. The 
 promises led to faith in a coming Messiah. 
 Mercy was shown in anticipation of his aton- 
 ing death. And Abraham saw the dawning 
 of the day of Christ. 
 
 57. Then said the Jews unto him. 
 Therefore instead of then, because their 
 words were occasioned by his last statement, 
 and rested on a certain intepretation of it. 
 Thou art not yet fifty years old. Some 
 have inferred from this remark that Jesus 
 must have been more than thirty-three 3'ears 
 old at this time. But there was no occasion 
 for exactness in their reference to his age. It 
 was enough for them to say : "Thou art still 
 a young man : thou hast not reached the me- 
 ridian of life, the age when men begin to lay 
 aside their heavj' tasks." (Num. i:.-!, 39; 8: 24.) And 
 hast thou seen Abraham? Though in the 
 form of a question, these words were meant 
 to be a positive rejection of his statement. 
 They were an avowal of disbelief, not of 
 doubt. But they prepared the way for one of 
 the clearest and most remarkable declarations 
 of Jesus in respect to himself. 
 
 58. Verily, verily, I say unto you: Be- 
 fore Abraham Avas, I am. This verse is 
 much more exact and forcible in the Greek 
 original than in the translation. For the verb 
 which is used of Abraham, is not the same as 
 the one which is used of Christ. The former 
 signifies an existence which has an origin, 
 and might be rendered in this case, came to 
 be; the latter denotes existence simply and 
 
 absolutely, without any reference to origin. 
 It is called by some, as here used, the timeless 
 present; and by it Jesus claims for himself 
 the same eternal, unsuccessive, absolute be- 
 ing, which was claimed by Jehovah, when he 
 said to Moses: "I am that I am." The reader 
 is therefore to observe, (1) the repeated verily, 
 which calls attention to the great importance 
 of what is said ; (2) the difference between the 
 moaning of the verb translated was ; and the 
 meaning of the verb translated am; and (3) 
 the tense of the latter verb, which suggests 
 the idea of existence independent of time. 
 (Compare, also, 1: 1-18: 6: 62; 17: 5; Col. 
 1: 17; Heb. 1: 2; 1 John 1: 2.) 
 
 59. Then {therefore) took they up 
 stones to cast at him. To the Jews, this 
 last declaration of Jesus appeared blasphe- 
 mous; and so, in their furious zeal, they laid 
 hold of such stones as happened to be within 
 their reach, in the court of the temple, where 
 they were, that they might hurl them upon 
 him, and kill him on the spot. (Compare 10: 31 ; 
 and Josephus "Ant.," 17: 9, 3.) But Jesus 
 hid himself. Whether by miracle, or not, the 
 Evangelist fails to say. It is possible that, at 
 the moment when his infuriated enemies 
 stooped with one impulse of wrath to seek for 
 stones, which lay scattered about, or rushed 
 to some part of the court where fragments of 
 building-stone were accumulated, he passed 
 quietly but quickly into the crowd, and out 
 of sight; for there were, doubtless, many of 
 his friends in the crowd. Yet, on the other 
 hand, it is equalh' possible that his divine 
 power was exercised on this occasion to ren- 
 der himself, for the moment, invisible. And 
 went out of the temple. The word here 
 translated temple, means the whole sacred 
 inclosure, with its courts open above, and ac- 
 cessible to the people; and not the temple 
 proper, which the common people never en- 
 tered. (See "Temple," in Smith's "Diet, of 
 the Bible.") 
 
Ch. IX.] 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 201 
 
 CHAPTEK IX. 
 
 AND as Jesus passed by, he saw a man which was 
 bliud from hU birth. 
 
 2 And his disciples aslced him, saying, Master, " who 
 did sin, this man, or his jiarents, that he was born 
 blind? 
 
 3 Jesus answered. Neither hath this man sinned, nor 
 his parents : ' but that the works of Uod should be made 
 manifest in him. 
 
 1 And as he passed by, he saw a blind man from his 
 
 2 birth. And his disciples asked him, saying, Kabbi. 
 who did sin, this man, or his parents, thai he should 
 
 3 be born blind? Jesus answered. Neither did this 
 man sin, nor his parents : but that tke works of God 
 
 r. 34....6ch. U: 4. 
 
 Ch. 9: 1-7. Healing of a Man Blind 
 FROM Birth. 
 
 1. And as Jesus (he) passed by, he saw 
 a man which was blind from his birth. 
 
 According to critical evidence the last clause 
 of (8: 59j as given ill the Textus Receptus, viz. : 
 "going through the midst of them, and thus 
 passed by " — did not belong to the autograph 
 of John. Hence there is no reason to assume 
 that the events narrated in this chapter took 
 place immediately after those recounted in 
 the foregoing chapter. And it does seem 
 improbable that the disciples would have 
 thought of such a question as that in verse 
 second, just after their Master had escaped 
 the violence of the infuriated Jews. It is 
 better, therefore, to suppose that the giving 
 of sight to the blind man occurred some days, 
 or at least hours later, when the excitement 
 produced by the scene in the temple had 
 passed from the minds of the disciples. The 
 narrative furnislies no information concern- 
 ing the part of the city in which the blind 
 man was, when seen by Jesus. He may have 
 been near the temple, and so not very far 
 from the Pool of Siloam; but this is only a 
 conjecture. The word saw appears to denote 
 an earnest looking at the blind beggar — so 
 earnest as to attract the attention of the dis- 
 ciples, and lead them to propose the follow- 
 ing question : 
 
 2. Master (Rabbi,) who did sin, this 
 man, or his parents, that he was (should 
 be) born blind? It may be that the disciples 
 had seen this man or his friends before, and 
 had thus learned that his blindness was con- 
 genital; or, it may be, that he mentioned this 
 fact in his plea for alms, as they were passing 
 by. At all events, the disciples knew that he 
 had been born blind, and they were perplexed 
 in attempting to account to their own reason 
 for such a calainity. Sharing with others the 
 opinion that all misfortune is due to sin, and 
 that special misfortune must be the penalty 
 
 of some special sin, they ask for an explana- 
 tion of the present case, ment.ouing tlie only 
 alternatives which at the moment occurred to 
 them as possible. That they thouglit of the 
 pre-existence, or transmigration, of souls, is 
 not very probable. That they believed it pos- 
 sible for a child to sin before its birth, need 
 not be assumed. They were perplexed, and 
 presented the only alternative that entered 
 their minds, asking for light from One who 
 had claimed to be "the Light of the world," 
 and in whose word they had full confidence. 
 They were, no doubt, familiar with Ex. 20: 5, 
 and simiiar passages, which speak of the great 
 and terrible law of sinful and penal heredity, 
 and they knew, perhaps, that some of their 
 teachers believed in the theory of ante-natal 
 sinning; but as these doctrines were, both of 
 them, very perplexing to human reason, they 
 desired to know which of these, if either, was 
 true. Perhaps they were not without some 
 hope that Jesus would offer them a better ex- 
 planation than either of them, though their 
 question does not imply this. (For the use of 
 that (iW), see Buttmann's "Gram, of N. T. 
 Greek," Thayer's Transl. p 239. "It des- 
 ignates the internal causal connection, or- 
 dained by a higher power, between sin and 
 malady.") 
 
 3. Neither hath this man sinned, (rather, 
 did this man sin,) nor his parents ; viz. : to 
 the end that he should be born blind. For 
 Jesus manifestlj' did not intend to say, with- 
 out qualification, that this man and his par- 
 ents were sinless; but only that no special sin 
 of his own, or of his parents, was with God 
 Civa) the reason why he should be born blind. 
 (Compare Notes on Luke 13: 1-5.) In the Old 
 Testament, the Book of Job teaches the same 
 doctrine as this answer of Jesus. But that 
 the works of God should be made mani- 
 fest in him. The works of God are the 
 works which he performs; and the condition 
 of this blind man was a fit occasion for show- 
 
202 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 [Ch. IX. 
 
 4 « I must work the works of him that sent me, while 
 it is day: the uight cometh, when uo man can work. 
 
 5 As long as I am in the world, ' 1 am the light ol' the 
 world. 
 
 G When he had thus spoken, "'he spat on the ground, 
 and made clay of the spittle, and he anointed the eyes 
 of the blind man with the clay. 
 
 4 should be made manifest in him. We must work 
 the works of him that sent me, while it is day: the 
 
 5 night cometh, when uo man can work. When I ;im 
 
 6 in the world, 1 am the light of the world. When he 
 had thus spoken, he spat on the ground, aud made 
 clay of the spittle, i aud anointed his eyes with the 
 
 a ch. 4: 34; 5: 19, 36; 11: 9 
 
 12:36; 17: 4.... 6 ch. 1 : 5, 9 ; 3: 19; 8: 12; 12 : 35. 46. 
 thereof anointed his eyes. 
 
 ..c Mark 7: 33; 8:23. 1 Or. and with the clay 
 
 ing to the world a specimen of his works ; for 
 manifesting openlj' the Icind of deeds he is 
 able and willing to do. And it was according 
 to the holy purpose of God that this very man 
 was born blind, that he lived at this precise 
 time in Jerusalem, that he attracted the at- 
 tention of Jesus at this particular moment, 
 and that he should be a bold and grateful 
 recipient of sight from the Lord. Doubtless, 
 he was ever after thankful to God for his 
 long blindness, since it was to be so graciously 
 and wondrously removed. Born of a sinful 
 race, and himself a sinful man, he was not 
 wronged by being born blind. He had re- 
 ceived in his darkness far more of good than he 
 had deserved. And now it appeared that 
 God had turned misfortune into a blessing- 
 giving him sight in such a way as to save, at 
 the same time, his soul. All this was far 
 from' accidental. It was embraced in the plan 
 and will of God, which Jesus had come into 
 the world to fulfill. 
 
 4. I (or, i/vi) must work the works of 
 him that sent me, while it is day. The 
 term day is here used figuratively, to denote 
 life as the period in which Christ was to do 
 
 [1 This is an interesting example of various readings, 
 though there can be no doubt as to which gives the true 
 text. (1) "We must work the works of him that sent 
 nie," is given by b d, Thebaic, Syriac of Jerusalem. (2) 
 "We must work the works of him that sent us," by X 
 (first hand) l, Memphitic, .Ethiopic (one edition), and 
 Cyril of Alexandria. (3) "I must work the works 
 of him that sent me," by all other documents. Now it 
 is plain that no one would ever have wished to change 
 (3) into either of the others, as its sense is obvious, and 
 it presents nothing ol>ject ion able to any class of read- 
 ers. But (1) accounts for both the other readings. The 
 apparent incongruity between "we" and "me," in- 
 duced the ".\lexandrian " to change to " we " and " us," 
 and the " Syrian " to change to " I " and " me." And 
 the incongruity is, in fact, only superficial. That Jesus 
 should associate his followers with him in accomplishing 
 the objects of his mission, is a profound and impressive 
 thought, and in harmony with the general spirit of his 
 teachings. Thus, transcriptional and intrinsic evi- 
 dence tend to the same result. Notice that b and d 
 liere share the honor of giving the true text.— b.] 
 
 certain works — works of God — and works that, 
 according to the plan of God, must be termi- 
 nated by his death on the cross. These works 
 were inexpressibly important for the disci- 
 ples themselves, and for the world that was to 
 be enlightened by their ministry. The night 
 cometh when no man can work. That is 
 to say, for every one ; and so for me, the night 
 of death cometh, when no one can do the work 
 of this life. 
 
 5. As long as (rather, when) I am in the 
 world, I am the light of the world. "My 
 being in the world, and my being the light of 
 the world, are contemporaneous and insepa- 
 rable." It can scarcely' be doubted that the 
 Saviour here designates himself, as in 8: 12, 
 the Light of the world, because he Avas in the 
 highest and most comprehensive sense the 
 Revealer of tiie Father. The natural, and 
 especially the moral perfections of God, were 
 manifested bj^ him in the clearest manner. 
 Every miracle that he wrought, every word 
 that he spoke, every scoff that he bore, every 
 wrong that he forgave, was a r«y of light 
 from the unseen God, revealing his nature to 
 men. 
 
 6. He spat on the ground, etc. Tlie de- 
 tails here given are simple, precise, unex- 
 plained, just as they might naturally be if 
 coming from the pen of an attentive but rev- 
 erential eye-\vitn!'ss. If we ask, Why this 
 process? Why did the Lord in this instance 
 transmit his restorative energy through a 
 physical medium? or, at least, give the peo- 
 ple occasion to suppose that he did so? It is 
 difficult to answer. Of this, however, we may 
 be confident, that neither the Jews, nor any 
 thoughtful reader of this narrative, will imag- 
 ine that the healing virtue was inherent in the 
 material clay, in the spittle, or in both these, 
 united. It was not by the efficacy of medi- 
 cine that this congenital blindness was re- 
 moved. Jesus selected such means, or per- 
 haps symbols, as could be proved, by a thou- 
 sand experiments, to be incapable of producing 
 the eflect which was then wrought. It is pos- 
 
Ch. IX.] 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 203 
 
 7 And said unto him, Go, wash "in the pool of Si- 
 loam, (wliich is hy iuterpretatiou. Sent.) * lie went 
 his way therelore, and washed, and came seeing. 
 
 7 dav, and said unio him, lio, wasli in the pool of 
 Siloam (which is by iuterpretatiou, Seut). lie went 
 
 (Neb. 3: 15....ft See2 Kings b: 14. 
 
 sible that he resorted to the process described, | attained by the power of God. According to 
 in order to prove, or to strengthen, or to man- I the best accredited text, the pronoun hin sliould 
 
 POOL OF SILOAM. 
 
 ifest the faith of the blind man. It is, per- 
 haps, possible, though we have no reason to 
 think it, in the least degree, probable— that 
 the moist clay softened the coating of the 
 eyes, and, in a certain measure, prepared 
 them for the miracle ; for natural means may 
 be employed and honored, even though they go 
 but a little way towards the effect which is to be 
 
 be inserted, and the words, of the blind 
 man, dropped. This change does not affect 
 the meaning of the verse. 
 
 7. Go, wash in the pool of Siloam 
 (Avhich is by interpretation, Sent.) A 
 more literal rendering would be, Go, wash 
 into the pool of Siloam; meaning, as many 
 have thought, "Go into the pool of Siloam 
 
204 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 [Ch. IX. 
 
 8 The neighbours therefore, and they which before 
 had seen hiui that he was blind, said, Is not this he 
 that sat and begged? 
 
 y Some said, This is he: others said. He is like him: 
 but he said, I am ke. 
 
 8 away therefore, and washed, and came seeing. The 
 neighbours therefore, and they who saw him afore- 
 time, that he was a beggar, said. Is not this he that 
 
 9 sat and begged ? Others said, It is he : others said. 
 
 and wash," or, as others have supposed, "Go, 
 wash (the clay from thine eyes) into the pool," 
 etc. In either case the expression is pregnant, 
 and something must he supplied in thought to 
 complete the sense. The latter view is ingeni- 
 ous, and perhaps preferable to the former. 
 
 "The name Siloah, or Siloam, which has 
 obtained such celebrity in the Christian world, 
 is found only three times in the Scriptures, as 
 applied to waters: once in the prophet Isaiah, 
 who speaks of it as running water (isa. 8:6) ; 
 again, as a pool, in Nehemiah (3:id); and, 
 lastly, also as a pool, in the account of our 
 Lord's miracle of healing the man who had 
 been born blind. (John9:7, u.) None of these 
 passages afford any clue as to the situation of 
 Siloam. But this silence is amply supplied 
 by the historian Josephus, who makes fre- 
 quent mention of Siloam as a fountain, and 
 says expressly, that the valley of the Tyro- 
 pceon extended down to Siloam ; or, in other 
 words, Siloam was situated in the mouth of 
 the Tyropoeon, on the southeast part of the 
 ancient citj', as we find it at the present day. 
 Its waters, he says, were sweet and abundant. 
 There can also be no room for doubt that the 
 Siloam of Josephus is identical with that of 
 the Scriptures." It is "a small, deep reser- 
 voir in the mouth of the Tyropoeon, into which 
 the water flows from a smaller basin excavated 
 in the solid rock a few feet higher up ; and 
 then the little channel by which the stream is 
 led oft' along the base of the steep, rocky point 
 of Ophel, to irrigate the terraces and gardens 
 extending into the Valley of Jehoshaphat be- 
 low. The distance from the eastern point of 
 Ophel nearest this latter valley to the said 
 reservoir, is 255 feet. The reservoir is 53 feet 
 long, 18 feet broad, and 19 feet deep ; but the 
 western end is in part broken down. Several 
 columns are built into the side walls, perhaps 
 belonging to a former chapel, or intended to 
 support a roof; but there is now no other ap- 
 pearance of important ruins in the vicinity. 
 No water was standing in the reservoir as we 
 saw it; the stream from the fountain only 
 passed through, and flowed off to the gar- 
 dens." ("RobinFon's Researches," I., 335-6.) 
 When Dr. Hackett saw it, in the spring of 
 
 1852, "it contained two feet of water." Bar- 
 clay gives a more minute measurement, "four- 
 teen and a half at the lower (eastern) end, and 
 seventeen at the upper; its western end being 
 somewhat bent; it is eighteen and a half in 
 depth, but never filled, the water either pass- 
 ing directh' through, or being maintained at 
 a depth of three or four feet ; this is effected 
 by leaving open or closing ... an aperture at 
 the bottom." (Smith's "Diet, of the Bible," 
 Art. Siloam.) 
 
 John gives to his readers an interpretation 
 of the name Siloam, probably because he 
 wished to associate it with tlie Sent of God, 
 the Saviour, by whom in reality the blind 
 man was healed. 
 
 What a new world was revealed to the blind 
 man as he returned seeing ! With what lively 
 interest and wonder must he have looked for 
 the first time upon the mountains round about 
 Jerusalem, the sky, the sun, and the number- 
 less objects that encircled him on every side, 
 as he returned into the city, to his home and 
 friends! For there is no evidence that Jesus 
 tarried at the place where he saw the blind 
 man, or that the man sought him on his re- 
 turn. 
 
 8-12. Reception by His Neighbors. 
 
 8. The neighbours therefore, etc. The 
 Rev. Ver. represents the true text: The 7ieigh- 
 bors therefore, and they which saw him afore- 
 time, that he was a. beggar, etc. It is certainly 
 noticeable, and not a little remarkable, that, 
 according to the true text, the neighbors de- 
 scribed the man, not as blind, or, "blind 
 from his birth," but as he that "was accus- 
 tomed to sit and beg." Hence, as Alford re- 
 marks, "the reading blind Wixs, most likelj', 
 a correction of some one who thought beggar 
 did not express plainly enough the change in 
 him." For the same reason, a fa/sarius of the 
 second century, intent on glorifying the di- 
 vine power of Jesus, would surely have made 
 them speak of him as blind, rather than as beg- 
 ging. Yet the narrative is manifestly true to 
 nature. For the begging was quite as obtru- 
 sive a circumstance to these neighbors as the 
 blindness. 
 
 9. Some said. This is he, etc. This 
 
Ch. IX.] 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 205 
 
 10 Therefore said they unto him, How were thine 
 eyes opened ' 
 
 11 He answered and said, "A man that is called Jesus 
 made clay, and anointed mine eyes, and said unto me. 
 Go to the pool of iSiloam, and wash: and 1 went and 
 washed, and I received sight. 
 
 12 Then said they unto him, Where is he? He said, 
 1 know not. 
 
 13 They brought to the Pharisees him that aforetime 
 was blind. 
 
 14 And it was the sabbath day when Jesus made the 
 clay, and opened his eyes. 
 
 15 Then again the Pharisees al.so aslced him how he 
 had received his sight. He said unto them, He put 
 clay upon mine eyes, and I washed, and do see. 
 
 10 No, but he is like him. He said, I am he. They said 
 therefore unto him. How then were thine eyes 
 
 11 opened ? He answered. The man tliat is called Jesus 
 made clay, and anointed mine eyes, and said unto 
 me, Go to Siloani, and wash : so I went away and 
 
 12 washed, and I received sight. And they said unto 
 him. Where is he? He saith, I know not. 
 
 13 They bring to the Pharisees him that aforetime 
 
 14 was blind. Now it was the sabbath on the day 
 when Jesus made the clay, and opened his eyes. 
 
 15 Again therefore the Pharisees also asked him liow 
 he received his sight. And he said unto them. He 
 put clay upon mine eyes, and 1 washed, and do see. 
 
 may be liteniUy rendered: Others said: This 
 is he ; others, No, but he is like him ; but 
 he said : I am he. Observe the rapidity 
 and naturalness of the recital. The look and 
 bearing of the man may have been somewhat 
 changed bj' the new and glorious power of 
 vision, so that there was, perhaps, some little 
 reason for the answer — He is like him, es- 
 pecially on the part of Jews, who could 
 not easily believe that so stupendous a miracle 
 had been wrought almost before their eyes. 
 
 10. Naturally, they answer the man him- 
 self by the question : How were thine eyes 
 opened? In other words: "How were they 
 made to see?" For the language is figura- 
 tive, and, as usual, all the more expressive 
 and beautiful for being so. Ordinarily' it is 
 the closed eye that does not see, and the open 
 eye that sees. Hence to open blind eyes is 
 the same thing as to cause them to see. 
 
 11. He answered and said, etc. (Or, he 
 answered : The man that is called Jesus, 
 m.ade clay, and anointed mine eyes, and 
 said unto me : Go to Siloam, and vjash : 
 So I went and washed, and I received 
 sight.) This is a translation of the best 
 supported text. It will be observed that 
 it differs from the Common Version by omit- 
 ting and said after answered, by substituting 
 the for a. before m,an, by omitting the words 
 the 2^001 of before Siloam,, and by substituting 
 so for and, in the last sentence. But none of 
 these changes affect the substance of thought 
 in the verse. Whether the blind man, now 
 restored to sight, spoke of Christ as a man that 
 is called Jesus, or, as the man called Jesus, 
 would only differ in this, that the latter form 
 of expression would imply some previous 
 knowledge concerning Jesus in the speaker 
 and those addressed, while the former would 
 not. 
 
 12. Then said they unto him : Where i 
 
 is he? He said: I know not. The 
 omission of then at the beginning of this 
 verse is required by critical authorities, but 
 does not change the meaning. 
 
 13-17. First Examination of the Ke- 
 STORED Man by the Pharisees. 
 
 13. They brought (rather, bring) to the 
 Pharisees him that aforetime was blind. 
 The general brevity of the Gospel narrative 
 forbids one to assume that this was done 
 before the close of the day on which the 
 miracle was wrought. It may have been done 
 on the next day as well, and from what fol- 
 lows it is natural to suppose that the Sabbath 
 was already past. Hence the fact that the 
 Sanhedrin was not accustomed to meet on the 
 Sabbath, fails to prove that the man who had 
 been made to see was not brought before that 
 court. But, if the Sanhedrin is meant, it 
 must have been so referred to by the Evan- 
 gelist, because, in this instance, the most 
 active and influential members of it were 
 Pharisees. Yet there is no real necessity for 
 the assumption that the examination was 
 made by the Sanhedrin. The Pharisees, 
 probably, had an association of their own in 
 Jerusalem, whose action determined their 
 course in the Sanhedrin, and, therefore, prac- 
 tically, the decisions of that body. To this 
 association of leading Pharisees the man that 
 was blind may have been brought by those 
 who doubted, or wished to doubt, the miracle. 
 For it was probably this part of his neighbors 
 that brought him to the Pharisees. 
 
 14. Audit was the (a) Sabbath, etc. This 
 remark anticipates the scene that follows. 
 Jesus had done work — had made the clay, 
 and spread it on the eyes of the blind man, on 
 the Sabbath ; and this was regarded by the 
 Pharisees as a violation of the law of rest on 
 that day. (See Note on 5 : 10. ) 
 
 15. Then (or,) again, etc. The word a^^ai?! 
 
206 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 [Ch. IX. 
 
 16 Therefore said some of the Pharisees, This man is 
 not of (iod, because he keepeth not the sabbath day. 
 Others said, " How can a man that is a sinner do such 
 miracles ? And * there was a division among them. 
 
 17 Thev say unto the blind man again. What sayest 
 thou ol him, that he hath opened thine eyes? He said, 
 "He is a prophet. 
 
 13 "But the Jews did not believe concerning him, that 
 he had been blind, and received his sight, until they 
 called the parents of him that had received his sight. 
 
 19 And they asked them, saying. Is this your son, 
 ■who ye say was born blind? how then doth he now 
 see? 
 
 16 Some therefore of the Pharisees said, This man is 
 not from God, because he keepeth not the sabbath. 
 But others said. How can a man that is a sinner do 
 such signs? And there was a division among them. 
 
 17 They say therefore unto the blind man again. What 
 sayest thou of him, in that he opened thine eyes? 
 
 18 And he said. He is a projihet. 'the Jews therefore 
 did not believe concerning him, that he had been 
 
 19 blind, and had received his sight, until they called 
 the parents of him that had received his sight, and 
 asked them, saying. Is this j-our son, who ye say 
 
 a ver. 33 ; ch. 3 : 2. . . .i ch. 7 : 12, 43 ; 10 : 19. . . .0 ch. 4 : 19 ; 6 : li. 
 
 assumes correctly that the same question had 
 been asked before, though not by the same 
 persons, (ver. lo.) He said unto them, He 
 put clay upon mine eyes, and I washed, 
 and do see. A briefer answer than the one 
 made to his neighbors (ver. u), perhaps because 
 he saw the purpose of his questioners, and there- 
 fore chose to use as few words as possible. 
 For in all that follows, he proves himself to 
 be a clear-headed and true-hearted man. 
 
 16. Therefore said (or, were saying) 
 some of the Pharisees, This man is not 
 oi(from) GotI, because he keepeth not the 
 sabbath day. From his disregard of the Sab- 
 bath law, as interpreted by the scribes, they 
 infer that he must be a sinner, and not a mes- 
 senger from God. But their premise was 
 false, and their conclusion equally so. Others 
 said, (or, were saying), How can a man that 
 is a sinner do such miracles? (or, signs.) 
 From the miracle which he had wrought, 
 these infer the impossibility of his being a 
 transgressor of the law. "To press the Sab- 
 bath-breaking, was to admit the miracle ; and 
 to admit the miracle, was to establish the fact 
 that he who performed it could not be the 
 criminal whom the others described." (Far- 
 rar, "The Life of Christ.") Andtherewasa 
 division among them. If this examination 
 was made by the Sanhedrin, there were many 
 besides Nicodemus in that court who reasoned 
 soundly respecting Jesus. (8:2.) 
 
 17. They say unto the blind man 
 again : What sayest thou of him that he 
 hath opened thine eyes I Thoii is emphatic. 
 " We make our appeal to fAee." This ques- 
 tion may be regarded as coming from both 
 parties. Divided among themselves, the Phar- 
 isees turn to the man whose sight had been 
 restored, in order to learn his opinion— a ma- 
 jority of them certainly hoping to find in it 
 something which they could use against Jesus. 
 Andy he said, He is a prophet. A very 
 
 clear, sensible, and decided answer. If any 
 of the dominant party supposed that, having 
 heard their words (i6:a), and seen their hos- 
 tility to Christ, he would hesitate about avow- 
 ing his trust in Jesus as a ines.senger from' 
 God, they were quickly undeceived. The 
 man with whom they now had to deal was a 
 different person from the one who had waited 
 at the Pool of Bethesda. (See 5: 10-15.) This 
 man was shrewd and firm; that man, appar- 
 ently', weak and simple. 
 
 18-23. Examination of the Blind 
 Man's Parents. 
 
 18. But the Jews (therefore) did not be- 
 lieve concerning him, that he had been 
 blind, and received his sight, until they 
 called the parents of him that had re- 
 ceived his sight. But, and his, in two 
 places, are wanting in the original, and need- 
 less in English. Therefore is inserted because 
 the true text requires it. Observe (1) chat the 
 persons spoken of are called the Jews, mean- 
 ing that part of the Pharisees most hostile to 
 Jesus. (2) That their unbelief is voluntary ; 
 for it varies in form with the supposed neces- 
 sities of their cause. The man is firm, and 
 avows his confidence in Jesus as a prophet; 
 therefore, they do not believe that he was once 
 blind, and has been made to see. (3) That their 
 unbelief onlj' yielded when it must ; that is, 
 when the positive testiinonj'of the blind man's 
 parents took from them every pretext or ex- 
 cuse for doubt. A large part of the unbelief 
 of mankind is voluntary. As long as they 
 can find any plausible excuse for distrusting 
 the word of God, they will reject it as un- 
 worthy of confidence. 
 
 19. Is this your son, who ye say was 
 born blind? how then doth he now see? 
 In other words, (1) Is this your son? (2) 
 Was he born blind? (3) How then doth he 
 now see? These questions were appropriate, 
 if there was any need of asking them ; but 
 
Ch. IX.] 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 207 
 
 20 His parents answered them and said, We know 
 that this is our son, imd tluit he was l)oni blind : 
 
 21 But l>y what means he now seelh, we know not; 
 or who hath opened his eyes, we know not: he is of 
 age; ask him: he shall speak for himself. 
 
 22 These uvrdts spake his parents, because "they 
 feared the Jews : for the Jews had agreed alre;uly, that 
 if any man did confess that he was Christ, he ''should 
 be put out of the synagogue. 
 
 20 was born blind? how then doth he now see? His 
 
 21 parents answered and said. We know that this is 
 our son, and that he was born blind: but how he 
 now seeth, we know not; or who upeued his eyes, 
 we know not: ask him: he is of age; he shall speak 
 
 22 for himself. These things said his parents, be- 
 cause they feared the .lews: for the Jews had 
 agreed already, that if any man should confess 
 him to 6e Christ, he should be put out of the syna- 
 
 ach. 7: 13; 12:42; 19: 38; Acts 5 : 13.... 6 ver. 34; ch. 16: 2. 
 
 they may have been proposed with a look and 
 tone which clearly revealed the animus of the 
 speakers (inquisitors?), and boded no good to 
 any friend of Jesus ; and we cannot avoid 
 suspecting that they were proposed with such 
 a look and tone. 
 
 20. We know that this is our son, and 
 that he Avas born blind. Thus two of the 
 questions were answered plainly, and without 
 evasion. 
 
 21. But by Avhat means (?wiv) he now 
 seeth, we knoAV not ; or who hath opened 
 his eyes, we knoAvnot. In a certain sense, 
 this also was true; they had no direct personal 
 knowledge of the miracle; they were not 
 present when Jesus anointed the eyes of their 
 son, and commanded him to go to the Pool of 
 Siloam and wash ; and they only knew by re- 
 port that it was Jesus who had wrought "the 
 sign." Yet thej^ must have heard their son's 
 story ; and it is evident from what follows that, 
 however joyful they were, because their son 
 had received sight by miracle, they wished to 
 avoid saying anj'thing favorable to Jesus. He 
 is of age ; ask him : he shall speak for 
 himself. Thus, through fear, they cast the 
 whole burden of responsibility as to Jesus 
 upon their son. In view of the recent and 
 astonishing miracle wrought for his benefit, 
 their words seem pusillanimous; but they 
 may have reasoned with themselves that any 
 reference which they could make to Jesus 
 would not assist their son, while it would call 
 down on themselves the displeasure of the 
 Pharisees. But evidently their hearts were 
 not deeply touched with gratitude to Jesus; 
 nor did they believe him to be the Messiah. 
 There is reason to suppose that the position of 
 the first and second clauses given above ought 
 to be reversed; thus: Ask him; he is of age. 
 And the last clause might be translated : He 
 himself will nnsiver, etc., emphasizing the 
 thought that he, and not his parents; he, in 
 distinction from any one else, would answer. 
 They had reason to trust his judgment and 
 
 courage — more reason, perhaps, than they 
 had to trust their own. 
 
 22. Because they feared the Jews : for 
 the Jews had agreed already, that if any 
 man did confess that he was Christ, he 
 should be put out of the synagogue. Com- 
 pare the Kevised Version. At what time this 
 agreement was made by the Jews, does not 
 appear. (See Note on 7: 49.) Whether it 
 was ratified by a formal act of the Sanhedrin, 
 or by that of some inferior court, cannot be 
 certainly known. It was, however, a definite 
 agreement made by those who controlled re- 
 ligious affairs, and it was known to the parents 
 of the man who had received sight. "The 
 Jewish system of excommunication was three- 
 fold." According to the first kind, "the ex- 
 communicated person was prohibited the use 
 of the bath, orof the razor, or of the convivial 
 table; and all who had to do with him were 
 commanded to keep him at four cubits' dis- 
 tance. He was allowed to go to the temple, 
 but not to make the circuit in the ordinary 
 manner. The term of this punishment was 
 thirty days ; and it was extended to a second, 
 and to a third thirty days, when necessary. If, 
 at the end of that time, the offender was still 
 contumacious, he was subjected to the second 
 excommunication. Severer penalties were 
 now attached. The offender was not allowed 
 to teach or to be taught in companj' with others, 
 to hire or to be hired, nor to perform any 
 commercitil transactions beyond purchasing 
 the necessaries of life. The sentence was de- 
 livered by a court of ten, and was accompa- 
 nied by a solemn malediction." . . The last 
 excommunication "was an entire cutting oflf' 
 from the congregation. It has been supposed 
 by some that these two latter forms of excom- 
 munication were undistinguishable from each 
 other."— (Smith's "Diet, of the Bible," Ex- 
 communication.) Whether the expulsion 
 from the synagogue here spoken of as deter- 
 mined upon by the Jews was the first or the sec- 
 ond kind of excommunication, is a matter of 
 
208 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 [Ch. IX. 
 
 23 Therefore said his parents, He is of age ; ask him. 
 
 24 Theu again called they the man that was blind, 
 and said unto him, » Give God the praise: 'we know 
 that this man is a sinner. 
 
 2.5 He answered and said. Whether he be a sinner or 
 no, I know not : one thing I know, that, whereas I was 
 blind, now I see. 
 
 20 Then said they to him again. What did he to thee? 
 how opened he thine eyes ? 
 
 27 He answered them, I have told yon already, and 
 ye did not hear: wherefore would ye hear it again? 
 will ye also be his disciples ? 
 
 28 Then they reviled him, and said. Thou art his dis- 
 ciple ; but we are Moses' disciples. 
 
 23 gogue. Therefore said his parents. He is of age; 
 
 24 ask him. ^o they called a second time the man 
 that was blind, and said unto him, Give glory to 
 
 25 God : we know that this man is a sinner. He there- 
 fore answered, Whether he is a sinner, I know not: 
 one thing I know, that, whereas I was blind, now I 
 
 26 see. They said therefore unto him. What did he to 
 
 27 thee? how opened he thine eyes? He answered 
 them, I told you even now, and ye did not hear: 
 wherefore would ye hear it again? would ye also 
 
 28 become his disciples? And they reviled him, and 
 said, Thou art his disciple ; but we are disciples of 
 
 a Josh. 7: 19; 1 Sam. 6:5 b ver. 16. 
 
 some doubt. In either case, however, it was a | 
 serious evil and disgrace, from a Jewish point 
 of view, and no one would be ready to incur 
 it for a slight reason. 
 
 23. Therefore (or, for this cause), said 
 his parents. He is of age; ask him. 
 Having stated the precise ground for the fear 
 which the parents had, the Evangelist reite- 
 rates his declaration that this fear was their 
 motive for declining to speak of Jesus them- 
 selves, and referring their questioners to their 
 son. 
 
 24-34. Second Examination of the 
 Man who was Blind. 
 
 25. Give God the praise : {or, glory); we 
 know that this man is a sinner. It is the 
 party hostile to Jesus that recalls the man, 
 and undertakes to make him confess that 
 Jesus had wrought no miraole in his case. 
 Their exhortation, Give God, assumes that 
 by ascribing, in any way, a miracle to Jesus, 
 and calling him a prophet (ver. 17), he had dis- 
 honored God, while, by accepting their view 
 and denouncing Jesus as a sinner, because he 
 liad done work on the Sabbath, he would be 
 giving glory to God. And, as if they had per- 
 fect knowledge in religious matters, they go 
 on to say: We— who are the religious judges, 
 leaders, and teachers of the people — know 
 that this man is a sinner. Thus they at- 
 tempt to overawe the man, and constrain him 
 to say what they put in his mouth. But, for- 
 tunately, he is not the man to be overawed. 
 He can see; he can reason; he is true; he 
 knows what to say; and, after these eighteen 
 hundred years, we read and rejoice that he 
 said it. 
 
 25. Whether he be a sinner or no, I 
 knoAV not: one thing I knoAV, that, 
 whereas I was blind, now I see. A 
 cautious, but decisive answer. Of one thing 
 he is certain, and this one thing is really of 
 
 pre-eminent importance (comp. Mark 10: 21; 
 Luke 10 : 42) in considering the claims of 
 Jesus. Though naturally blind, the man 
 now sees; and no pressure of Jewish authority 
 or of Pharisaic dogmatism can lead him to 
 hesitate about this marvelous change. Yet 
 he forbears to express his belief that Jesus is 
 not, as they affirm, a sinner. He takes a 
 position which is unassailable. 
 
 26. What did he to thee? Hoav 
 opened he thine eyes? Unable, as they 
 perceive, to make him deny or conceal the 
 principal fact, they proceed to question him 
 again about the process— hoping, perhaps, to 
 detect some inconsistency between his several 
 statements, or something in the conduct of 
 Jesus which they can criticise as wrong. 
 
 27. I have told you already, and ye 
 did not hear (or, and did ye not hear?) 
 wherefore would ye hear it again? 
 will ye also be his disciples? The prin- 
 cipal reason for making the second clause of 
 this answer a question, is that, so understood, 
 the word hear has the same sense in both 
 clauses; while if the second clause is not 
 made a question, the word hear must signify 
 the mental act of hearkening, in the former 
 instance, and the mere physical act of hearing 
 in the latter. T'^e last question is slightly 
 ironical but the form of it in Greek antici- 
 pates a negative answer. " Ye do not wish to 
 become his disciples? " 
 
 28. Then (strictly. a7id'\ they reviled him, 
 and said. Thou art his disciple; but Ave 
 are Moses' disciples. This language of 
 the Jews may have been regarded by them as 
 strictly true, and in the sight of God it was, 
 doubtless, highlj' honorable to the man ad- 
 dressed. Yet, it was uttered in a bitter, rail- 
 ing, contemptuous tone, and it is properly 
 characterized by the Evangelist, when he 
 says : They reviled him. The pronoun his 
 
Ch. IX.] 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 209 
 
 29 We kuow that God spake unto Moses : as for this 
 fellow, " we know not from whence he is. 
 
 30 The man answered and said unto them, ^Why 
 herein is a marvellous thing, that ye kuow not from 
 whence he is, and yet he hath opened mine eyes. 
 
 31 Now we know that <^God hearelh not sinners: but 
 if any man be a worsliipper of (iod, and doeth his will, 
 him he heareth. 
 
 32 Since the world began was it not heard that any 
 man opened the eyes of one that was born blind. 
 
 33 ■* If this man were not of Uod, he could do nothing. 
 
 29 Moses. We know that God hath spoken unto 
 Mo.->es: but as for this man, we kuow not whence 
 
 30 he is. The man answered and said unto them. 
 Why, herein is the marvel, that ye know not 
 
 31 whence he is, and ycl he opened mine eyes. We 
 kuow that God heareth not sinners: but if any man 
 be a worshipper of God, and do his will, him he 
 
 32 heareth. Since the world began it was never heard 
 that any one opened the eyes of a man born blind. 
 
 33 If this man were not from God, he could do nothing. 
 
 (eKciVov) indicates very clearly that they sep- 
 arated themselves from Jesus. The conjunc- 
 tion then, or therefore, at the beginning of 
 this verse, is not found in the best manu- 
 scripts, but several of them have the connec- 
 tive and. 
 
 29. We knowthatGod spake (or, has spo- 
 ken) unto Moses : as for this fellow {inan,) 
 we know not from whence he is. Hath 
 spoken unto Moses, because God was still 
 speaking, through the inspired writings of 
 Moses, to them. The perfect tense of the verb 
 brings over the act of speaking from the past 
 into the present, and represents God as still 
 teaching the people through their great law- 
 giver. The pronoun this, {tovtou), meaning 
 this man, or, this one, is used contempt- 
 uously. (Comp. 6: 42.) Whence he is — 
 that is, from whom he has come, or by 
 whose authority he speaks. They mean to 
 affirm that he has given t'hem no credentials 
 proving himself to be from God. He may be 
 from beneath, as well as from above. 
 
 30. Why, herein is a marvellous thing, 
 that ye knoAV not from Avhence he is, and 
 yet he hath opened (rather, opens) mine 
 eyes. The precise connection of this re- 
 sponse with the words of the Jews, is doubt- 
 ful. The Greek term, here translated why, 
 usually signifies for, and makes the sentence 
 in which it stands a reason for something 
 said before. If that is its meaning here, the 
 reply of the man under examination was 
 slightly elliptical, and may be completed 
 thus: "Say not so; for in this is a marvellous 
 thing," etc. It should also be observed that 
 the pronoun ye is emphatic; "that ye" — who 
 are instructed in religious matters, and able 
 to teach others — " do not know whence he is." 
 The word yet is inserted in the last clause — 
 and yet he hath opened mine eyes — though 
 there is nothing equivalent to it in the orig- 
 inal, and though the sense does not ali)60~ 
 
 lutely require it. The undoubted meaning of 
 the original is, however, more clearly ex- 
 pressed by inserting this word. 
 
 31. Now we know that God heareth not 
 sinners ; but if any man be a worshipper 
 of God, and doeth his will, him he hear- 
 eth. For the first proposition, see Ps. G6: 18; 
 Prov. 15: 9-29; Lsa. 1 : 11-15. The second prop- 
 osition is but the converse of the first, and is 
 sustained by many passages of the Old Testa- 
 ment. See 1 Kings 18: 36 sq. ; 2 Kings 4: 33 
 sq. ; Ps. 25 : 3. The word sinners is here 
 used of those who do do not truly worship 
 God, (comp. ver. 16, 24), but disobey openly 
 his commands. There is a sense in which all 
 men are sinners — the best, as well as the 
 worst— the disciple that leaned on Jesus' 
 breast, as well as the disciple that betrayed 
 him for thirty pieces of silver; the man that 
 hungers and thirsts after righteousness, as 
 well as the man that tramples deliberately on 
 the authority of his Maker. (Rom.3:9, sq.) But 
 the word is here used in another and more 
 restricted sense. 
 
 32. Since the world began was it not 
 heard that any man opened the eyes of 
 one that was born blind. The man appre- 
 ciates the greatness of the miracle that has 
 been wrought for his benefit. It is unparal- 
 leled. There is no record of such a miracle 
 in the Holy Scriptures — no tradition of such a 
 miracle known to the people of God. Since 
 time began such a sign has never been given. 
 
 33. If this man were not of (rather, 
 from) God, he could do nothing. The 
 argument is complete. Miracles are wrought 
 by God in answer to the prayer, not of his 
 foes, but of his servants. A great and unpar- 
 alleled miracle has been wrought at the word 
 of this man. But unless he were from God, 
 unless he were God's servant and messenger, 
 he could do nothing of the kind. The conclu- 
 sion was one that need not be stated. 
 
 
 
210 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 [Ch. IX. 
 
 34 They answered and said unto him, "Thou wast, 
 altogetlier born in sins, and dost thou teach us? And 
 they cast hiiu out. 
 
 35 Jesus heard that they had cast him out; and when 
 he had found him, he said unto him, Dost thou believe 
 on ' the Son of God? 
 
 34 They answered and said unto him, Thou wast alto- 
 gether born in sins, and dost thou teach us? And 
 they cast him out. 
 
 35 Jesus heard thai they had cast him out; and find- 
 ing him, he said, Dost thou believe on i the Son of 
 
 a ver. 2 .. .6 M:itt. 14 : 33: 16:16; Mark 1 : 1 ; ch. 10 : 36 ; 1 John 5: 13. 1 Many ancient auihotitie-i read, t/ie So?i o/ man. 
 
 34. Thou wast altogether born in sins, 
 and dost thou teach us? This translation 
 dofes not give the exact sense of the original. 
 For the word altogether represents an ad- 
 jective meaning "whole" (oAos), and agree- 
 ing with thou. Hence the meaning is: "TAom, 
 as to thy whole being, body and soul, wast 
 born in sins." And this taunt appears to rest 
 on the assumption that he was born blind, and 
 that his blindness was due to his utter sinful- 
 ness at birth. (Comp. ver. 2.) Thus, in their 
 wrath and confusion, they virtually concede 
 that the man has received sight by a miracle; 
 and the principle on which they condemn 
 him, as loaded with sins at birth, should lead 
 them to believe in Jesus as a true messenger 
 from God. And they cast him out. That 
 is, as is commonly supposed, out of the place 
 where they were — a rude and passionate ex- 
 pulsion from their presence. The words maj' 
 signify that they excluded him from the .sj-n- 
 agogue (ver. 22); but he had not yet confessed 
 Jesus to be the Chri.st, and could not, there- 
 fore, be eicommunieated in pursuance of the 
 agreement which the Pharisees had made. 
 Yet, in their fury, they may have driven him 
 from their presence, and may have followed 
 up their persecution by a formal excommuni- 
 cation. The subsequent narrative renders this 
 probable. 
 
 "If the narrative of this chapter is not thus 
 far true to human nature, we may despair of 
 finding anything in history that is. The bear- 
 ing of the Pharisees is of a piece throughout 
 — consistently hostile to Jesus, arrogant, and 
 bitter. So, too. is that of the blind man ; for, 
 from first to last, he is modest, resolute, faith- 
 ful." This comment, made by the writer 
 fifteen years ago, agrees with that of Godet in 
 the last edition of his work on John: "If 
 there is anj' narrative whose truth is guaran- 
 teed by its simple and dramatic character, it 
 is this. The fact has not been invented to 
 serve as the basis for a discourse ; for the dis- 
 course does not exist. This whole scene is so 
 little -ideal in its nature, that, on the contrary, 
 
 it rests from beginning to end on the reality 
 of/act . . This whole chapter otfers to mod- 
 ern criticism a portrait of itself. The defend- 
 ers of the Sabbatic institute reasoned thus: 
 God cannot lend his power to one who violates 
 the Sabbath; hence the miracle ascribed to 
 Jesus did Tio^occur. . . The adversaries of mir- 
 acles in the Evangelical history reason in 
 precisely the same waj', merely substituting 
 a scientific axiom for a religious statute : The 
 supernatural cannot be; and, therefore, how- 
 ever well attested the healing of the blind man 
 may be, it did not take place." 
 
 35-38. The Blind Man Worships Je- 
 sus AS THE Christ. 
 
 35. Jesus heard that they had cast him 
 out; and when he had found him, he 
 said unto him, Dost thou believe on the 
 Son of God? It may be assumed that Jesus 
 was aware of the character and spirit which 
 this man had shown in his examination by 
 the Pharisees, and that he perceived in him a 
 heart ready to welcome the truth. On this 
 account — though how long after the occur- 
 rences related in ver. 13-34, we do not know — 
 he sought for him, and giive him an oppor- 
 tunity to honor his benefactor as the Christ. 
 Some of the earliest and best manuscripts 
 read the Son of man, instead of the Son of 
 God, in the last clause. Indeed, the external 
 evidence for the one reading is about equal to 
 that for the other. But two considerations 
 favor the received text: (1) That Jesus called 
 himself the. Son of man much oftener than he 
 called himself the Son of God, and a tran- 
 scriber would be more likely to substitute a 
 frequent for an infrequent designation than 
 the reverse. And (2) that the connection 
 seems to make the title Son of God more 
 natural and pertinent than the title Son of 
 man. But, in either case, we must suppose 
 that Jesus used a designation that would be 
 understood by the blind man as referring to 
 the Messiah. And, in either case, the ex- 
 pression believe on signifies a confidence or 
 trust which terminates in a personal object. 
 
Ch. IX.] 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 211 
 
 3(> He answered and said, Who is he, Lord, that I 
 might believe on hiiu? 
 
 37 And Jesus said unto him. Thou hast both seen 
 hiiu, and " it is he that talkelh with thee. 
 
 38 And he said. Lord, I believe. And he worshipped 
 him. 
 
 31) And Jesus said, *For judgment I am come into 
 this world, "that they which see not might see; and 
 that tliey which see might be made blind. 
 
 40 And some of the Pharisees which were with him 
 heard these words, ''and said unto him, Are we blind 
 also ? 
 
 3G God '! He answered and said. And who is he. Lord, 
 
 37 that I may believe on him? Jesus said unto him. 
 Thou hast both seen him, and he it is that speaketh 
 
 38 with thee. And he said. Lord, I believe. .Vud he 
 
 39 worshipped him. And .lesus said, For judgment 
 came I into this world, that they who see not mav 
 
 40 see; and that they who see n'lay become blind. 
 Tliose of the I^harLsees that were with him heard 
 these things, and said unto hiui. Are we also blind? 
 
 ach. 4: 26....&ch. 5:22, 27; seech. 3: 17; 12: 47 c Mutt. 13: 13 d Rom. 2: 19. 
 
 36, 37. Who is he, Lord, that I might 
 believe on him ? . . . Thou hast both seen 
 him, and it is he that talkcth with thee. 
 The words thou hast seen him, are to be 
 
 understood of natural sight, not of spiritual 
 discernment; and the time referred to is that 
 of the present interview. "Thou hast already 
 seen him, and the one who is now talking 
 with thee is he." But how could he recog- 
 nize Jesus as the man who had anointed his 
 eyes with clay, and had sent him to wash in 
 Siloam ? How, if he had not seen him since 
 his sight was restored? Doubtless by tones 
 of voice — unlike those of any other man. 
 For the sense of hearing is generally very 
 exquisite and highly cultivated in the blind. 
 And even with those who see, recognition by 
 voice is quite as certain as recognition by 
 sight. Besides, there must have been a sin- 
 cerity, purity, authority, and love in the tones 
 of the Saviour's voice, which inspired rever- 
 ence and trust. Hence the effect on this true 
 and grateful man was instant. That voice, 
 heard by such a man, would never be for- 
 gotten. 
 
 38. And he said, Lord, I believe. And 
 he worshipped him. In other words, he 
 affirmed his belief in Jesus as the Messiah, 
 the Son of God, and paid to him religious 
 homage. Whether he comprehended the 
 real import of the title "Son of God," it is 
 impossible to say; but he knew enough of 
 its meaning to bring him to his knees before 
 Jesus. And it is to be remembered that 
 Jesus, neither in this instance, nor in any 
 other, refuses any degree of worship that is 
 paid to him. He is worthy to receive all 
 honor and praise on earth and in heaven. 
 
 39. For judgment I am come (or, ca7ne) 
 into this world, that they which see not 
 might (or, may) see, and that they which 
 see might (or, may) be made blind. The 
 ultimate and supreme end of Christ's coming 
 
 into the world was to save the lost. (12: «; 3: 
 16, 17.) But, in accomplishing that end, many 
 would be hardened, and fall under greater 
 condemnation. (Luke 2: 34; 2 Cor. 2: 16; juim 12: 40.) 
 This double effect of Christ's mission to the 
 world was foreseen and embraced in the pur- 
 pose of God. Hence it is here declared that 
 one object and result of the Saviour's coming 
 was judicial ; to wit, that those who felt them- 
 selves to be spiritually poor and blind, like 
 babes in their knowledge of divine things, 
 might be made to see the truth, while those 
 who felt themselves to be wise and prudent, 
 masters in Israel, and needing no instruction 
 as to the will of God, might sink, through 
 their rejection of offered light, into ever 
 deeper spiritual darkness. (Matt. 5: 3-6; 11 : 25; 13 : 
 13-15.) The language of Jesus is figurative, 
 having no reference to physical blindness or 
 sight, but using these as emblems of states of 
 the soul in the presence of divine truth. His 
 words may have been addressed to the man 
 whose phj'sical and spiritual vision had both 
 been restored, but they were not intended for 
 him only. Others were listening, and others 
 responded. 
 
 40. And some (or, those) of the Phari- 
 sees Avhich Avere with him heard these 
 words, and said unto him. Are we blind 
 also? Their question is so framed in the 
 Greek as to show that they deemed an affirma- 
 tive answer absurd or impossible. And their 
 tone was probably one that indicated their 
 feeling quite as clearly as the words they 
 uttered: "You do not mean to say that we, 
 also, as well as the people that know not the 
 law (': 19.) are blind and in need of religious 
 instruction?" Thus, in spite of Christ's warn- 
 ing, they place themselves with "the wise 
 and prudent," with "those that see"; and 
 Jesus accepts their view of themselves as in a 
 measure correct. They have knowledge, they 
 do see; and they ought to perceive that their 
 
212 
 
 JOHK 
 
 [Ch. X 
 
 41 Jesus said unto them, "If ye were blind, ye should I 41 Jesus said unto them. If ye were blind, ye would 
 have no sin : but now ye say, We see ; therefore your have no sin ; but now ye say, We see : your sin re- 
 sin remaineth. { luaineth. 
 
 CHAPTER X. 
 
 VERILY, verily, I say unto you. He that entereth not 
 by the door into the sheepfold, but climbeth up 
 some other way, the same is a thief and a robber. 
 
 1 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that entereth 
 not by the door into the fold of the sheep, but 
 climbeth up some other way, the same is a thief and 
 
 a ch. 15 : 22, 24. 
 
 knowledge and sight are very imperfect. But 
 of this, in their pride, they are profoundly 
 unconscious. 
 
 41. If ye were blind, ye should have 
 no sin : but now ye say. We see ; there- 
 fore your sin remaineth. Therefore, in 
 the last clause of the Common Version, must 
 be omitted. Thus the Lord adapts his answer 
 to their own view of the case. He admits 
 that they have some knowledge of the truth. 
 But they are satisfied with what they now 
 have, refusing to accept of Christ as the 
 Light of the world. Their knowledge which 
 should lead them to him, leads them to reject 
 him, and so their sin remaineth. For the 
 sin referred to is the sin of unbelief in Christ. 
 Others understand if ye were blind, as 
 meaning, if ye were of those who see not 
 — i. e., who feel themselves to be blind, ye 
 would come to the true Light, and your sin 
 would be forgiven. But as ye are not of this 
 class, as ye rather claim to see, ye refuse to 
 come to me, the true Light, and your sin re- 
 mains unforgiven. 
 
 Ch. 10: 1-5. False axd True Shep- 
 herds — i. e., Religious Teachers. 
 
 1. Verily, verily, I say unto yon. He 
 that entereth not by (or, through) the 
 door into the sheepfold (or, the fold of the 
 shee})), but climbeth up some other way, 
 the same is a thief and a robber. The 
 paragraph beginning 'vith this verse is a con- 
 tinuation of the discourse with which the 
 preceding chapter closed; for there are no 
 sufficient indications of any change in time or 
 place. The Pharisees to whom he was there 
 speaking were, in reality, false teachers, en- 
 deavoring to lead the people astray ; and the 
 words verily, verily, are never elsewhere 
 used at the opening of a discourse, but rather 
 in the progress of a conversation, debate, or 
 discourse, in order to fix attention on some- 
 thing specially important. 
 
 It has been supposed by many that the im- 
 
 agery here employed was suggested by the 
 sight of some shepherd with his flock, drawing 
 near, perhaps, to the fold; but there is little 
 need of supposing this to have been the case. 
 For the imagery was natural, expressive, and 
 familiar to the Jews. It appears more than 
 once in the Old Testament. (See Ps. 23 ; Ezek. 
 34; and Zech. 11). 
 
 "A fold is not, in the East, a covered struc- 
 ture, like our stables; it is a simple enclosure, 
 surrounded by a palisade, or wall. Into it the 
 flocks are brought for the night. Several 
 flocks are, ordinarily, united in one such en- 
 closure. The shepherds, after committing 
 them for the night to the care of a common 
 guard, the porter, or gate-keeper, go to their 
 own homes. In the morning, thej- return, 
 and knocking at the firmly closed door of the 
 fold, the guard opens it. Then every one sep- 
 arates his own flock by calling them, and 
 when he has brought nil together, leads them 
 forth to pasture." — Godet. In his work enti- 
 tled "The Land and the Book," I., 299, Dr. 
 Thomson says: "Those low, flat buildings, 
 out on the sheltered side of the valley, are 
 sheepfolds. They are called marah ; and 
 when the nights are cold, the flocks are shut 
 up in them ; but in ordinarj' weather they are 
 merely kept within the yard. This, you ob- 
 serve, is defended by a wide stone wall, 
 crowned all around with sharp thorns, which 
 the prowling wolf will rarely attempt to scale." 
 
 The principal object of this first paragraph 
 (ver. 1-5) is to Contrast false and true shepherds 
 — religious teachers that would serve them- 
 selves by means of the flock, and religious 
 teachers that would serve the flt)ck without 
 regard to personal advantage. The former 
 do not enter the fold hy the door, but from 
 some other point, and are similar to thieves 
 and robbers. The latter seek the sheep in the 
 appointed way, and conduct them into "green 
 pastures," and "beside the still waters." By 
 the sheep, must be meant the servants of 
 God — ordinarily, it means the true servants 
 
Ch. X.] 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 213 
 
 2 But he that enterethin by the door is the shepherd 
 of the sheep. 
 
 3 To hhu the porter openeth ; and the sheep bear his 
 voice: and he ealleth his own sheep by name, and lead- 
 etli them out. 
 
 4 And when heputteth forth his own sheep, he goeth 
 before them, and the sheep follow him : for they know 
 his voice. 
 
 5 And a stranger will th«y not follow, but will flee 
 from hiru ; for they know not the voice of strangers. 
 
 G This parable spake Jesus unto them; but they un- 
 derstood not what things they were which he spake 
 unto them. 
 
 2 a robber. But he that entereth in by tlie door is 
 3 Mile shepherd of the sheep. To him the porter 
 openeth: and the sheep hear his voice: and he 
 calleth his own slieep by name, and leadeth tlieiu 
 
 4 out. When he hath put forth all bis own, be gnelh 
 before them, and the sheep follow him: for tbey 
 
 5 know his voice. And a stranger will they not follow, 
 but will flee (rom him: for they know not the voice 
 
 6 of strangers. This - parable spake .lesus unto them : 
 but they understood not what things they were 
 which lie spake unto them. 
 
 1 Or, a thepherd 't Or, proverb. 
 
 of God, not including those who are merely 
 nominal .servants. Whether the fold repre- 
 sents the Theocracy, or the Christian Church, 
 or the (invisible) kingdom of God, is less 
 evident ; and it is by no means necessary to 
 suppose that every part of the allegory is sig- 
 nificant of something definite in the kingdom 
 of Christ. 
 
 2. But he that entereth in by the door 
 is the (rt) shepherd of the sheep. There 
 is usually but one door or gate into an Ori- 
 ental fold, and all the shepherds as well "as 
 flocks go in and out through that door. A 
 shepherd would never think, for he would 
 never have occasion to think, of entering at 
 any other place ; and therefore it is character- 
 istic of a shepherd to enter by the door. 
 
 3. To him the porter openeth, etc. The 
 Holy Spirit is thought by some to be repre- 
 sented by the porter ; but this interpretation 
 is doubtful. When it is said that the sheep 
 hear his voice — that is, the shepherd's voice 
 — it means that they hearken to it, and respond 
 to the call made by it. In illustration of the 
 next clause, he calleth his Own sheep by 
 name, the following words of Thomson may 
 be cited: "Some sheep always keep near the 
 shepherd, and are his special favorites. Each 
 of them has a name, to which it answers joy- 
 fully, and the kind shepherd is ever distrib- 
 uting to such choice portions which he gathers 
 for that purpose. They are the contented 
 and happy ones." In this ideal flock, with 
 its ideal shepherd, all the sheep are repre- 
 sented as objects of special care — all are con- 
 tented and happy, for all have names. Hence 
 the Saviour had in mind none but true be- 
 lievers ; for the Lord knoweth them that are 
 his, and their names are all written in the 
 
 book of life. (2Tim. 2: 19; Rev. 3:5.) 
 
 4. When he pntteth forth his own 
 sheep (better, as in Kev. Ver., hathput forth 
 all his own), he goeth before them, and 
 
 the sheep follow him : for they know his 
 voice. "They are so tame and so trained, 
 that they folloio tlieir keeper with the utmost 
 docility. He le;ids them ft>rth from the fold 
 . . . just where he pleases. As there are 
 many flocks in such a place as this, each one 
 takes a diff'erent path, and it is his business to 
 find pasture for them." — Thomsoti. Instead 
 of his own sheep, (ri ZSia npo^aTa}, in the first 
 clause, the best critical authtirities give all his 
 ovin (rd iiSta TracTa), and this was probably the 
 original text. 
 
 5. And a stranger, etc. "If a stranger 
 call, they stop short, lift up their heads in 
 alarm ; and, if it is repeated, they turn and 
 flee. . . . This is not the fanciful costume of 
 a parable; it is simple fact. I have made the 
 experiment repeatedly." — Thomson. If Dr. 
 Thomson intends to suggest (we do not sup- 
 pose he does) that "the costume" of the Sav- 
 iour's "parables" is ever "fitnciful," we 
 must dissent from his view. It would be dif- 
 ficult to name an instance in which an^' part of 
 the costume of his parables is not true to nature. 
 
 The man who was born blind (ch. 9) recog- 
 nized the voice of Jesus as that of his shep- 
 herd, and had refused to listen to the voice of 
 the Pharisees. In him, therefore, Jesus had 
 seen, as in a glass, the great multitude which 
 no man can number that would, in the ages 
 to come, acknowledge him to be their true 
 shepherd, by hearing his voice ; tmd with this 
 vision of the future in his mind, he tells the 
 Pharisees plainly that the sheep of God. che 
 true Israel, will not follow them. 
 
 G. This parable spake Jesus unto them, 
 etc. The word parable does not reproduce 
 exactly the Greek word (Trapoi/mai used by the 
 Evangelist. That word might, perhaps, be 
 translated in this place, "similitude," or, 
 "illustration." It does not differ, essentially, 
 from an extended metaphor, or a brief alle- 
 gory. 
 
214 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 [Ch. X. 
 
 7 Then said Jesus unto them again, Verily, verily, I 
 say unto you, I am the door of the sheep. 
 
 8 All that ever came before me are thieves and rob- 
 bers: but the sheep did not hear them. 
 
 9 "I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he 
 shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture. 
 
 7 Jesus therefore said unto them again, Verily, 
 verily, I say unto you, I am the door of the sheep. 
 
 8 All that came i before me are thieves and robbers; 
 
 9 but the sheep did not hear them. I am the door: 
 by me if any man enter iu, he shall be saved, and 
 
 a cb. 14:6; Eph. 2 : 18. 1 Some aucient authoiitie^ omit, before me. 
 
 The language of Jesus was not understood. 
 It was, no doubt, perceived to be metaphor- 
 ical ; but the real meaning of it was not seen. 
 He, therefore, proceeds with his discourse, 
 drawing attention to himself and his man- 
 ifold relations to the flock. His method of 
 teaching was full of wisdom ; for, b" thus 
 clothing his doctrine in a simple allegory, the 
 underlying sense of which was not clearly 
 discerned by his foes, he was enabled to go on 
 with his discourse, and give them a large 
 amount of food for reflection. 
 
 7-10. Jesus the Door to the Sheep. 
 
 7. Verity, verily, I say unto you, I am 
 the door of the sheep. The fold is the place 
 of safety, and Jesus declares himself to be the 
 door to that place of safety, where the sheep 
 are, and into which the shepherds also must 
 enter. Only through him can the sheep be 
 found, or sheltered, or fed. This may have 
 been spoken after an interval of time. 
 
 8. All that (ever should be omitted) came 
 before me are thieves and robbers. It 
 seems possible and best to understand, that 
 the words, all that came before me, refer 
 to those, and to those only, who had come 
 representing themselves virtually as the 
 door, or as those through whom the people 
 could be saved. In this sense i.he Pharisees, 
 ■who insisted with so much confidence on their 
 knowledge of the law, were embraced in the 
 class referred to. For they professed to teach 
 inen how to be saved without reference to the 
 Messiah; they virtually pronounced them- 
 selves sufficient, and his coming unnecessary. 
 The language of Christ need not be supposed 
 to affirm that any one had already appeared 
 claiming, in so many words, to be the Mes- 
 siah. What they had done virtually, they 
 had done really. Jesus was "the coming 
 One" ; but they had pitted their authority' 
 and teaching against him, making themselves 
 the coming ones. Thus, they came. Yet, 
 the really humble and spiritual did not hear 
 their voice; but that of Jesus. Hence, no ar- 
 gument can be drawn from it in support of 
 a post-apostolic origin of this Gospel, as if the 
 
 author of it, living in the second century, had 
 put into the mouth of Jesus words that could 
 only have been spoken by him if he had lived 
 fifty years later than he did. B3' the sheep, 
 in the last clause, was evidently meant the 
 true children of God. 
 
 9. By me if any man enter in, he shall 
 be saved, and shall go in and out, and 
 find pasture. These words are, doubtless, 
 supposed by most readers to refer to the sheep, 
 and not to shepherds. But there are strong 
 reasons for thinking that Jesus had in mind 
 shepherds. (1) The general object of the al- 
 legory is to distinguish between false and true 
 religious teachers. It relates to the shepherds, 
 and not to the sheep. It assumes that all the 
 sheep are sheep, and not wolves; and of course 
 they go in and out through the door. But it 
 speaks of^3?'q/ie.s-.se(i? shepherds, who donot make 
 use of the do(;r, because they are, in reality, 
 "thieves and robbers." (2) The eighth verse 
 prepares the way for the ninth, if the latter is 
 understood to refer to shepherds; for, b3' pro- 
 nouncing those who tauglit salvation without 
 Christ to be "thieves and robbers," he has led 
 us, \>y the law of contrast, to expect a reference 
 to genuine shepherds, and their relation to him 
 who is the door and the way. (3) The sin- 
 gular number and the pronoun (tW) point to 
 a shepherd more naturally than to one of the 
 sheep. (4) The finding of pasture is the work 
 of the shepherd, rather than of the sheep; 
 while the going in and out is at least as true 
 of the shepherd as it is of the sheep. Indeed, 
 the allegory' represents the sheep as being led 
 in and out, rather than as going in and out of 
 their own motion, while it represents the 
 shepherd as going in and out of his own choice. 
 Hence, in so far as consistency of figurative 
 speech is concerned, a reference of this verse 
 to shepherds is more natural than a reference 
 of it to the sheep. (See Zech. 11 : 5, 8, 17.) 
 
 The declaration that the shetjherd who en- 
 ters by the door will be saved, suggests that 
 false teachers, that thieves and robbers, not 
 onlj' imperil the sheep, but also rush into 
 danger themselves. (Comp. 1 Cor. 3: 15.) 
 
Ch. X.] 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 215 
 
 10 The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, 
 aud to destroy : I aui couiu that tliey might have life, 
 and that they might have it more abundantly. 
 
 11 " I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giv- 
 eth his life for the sheep. 
 
 12 But he that is an hireling, and not the shepherd, 
 whose own the sheep are not, seeth the wolf coming, 
 aud * leaveth the sheep, and tteeth ; aud the wolf catch- 
 eth them, and scattereth the sheep. 
 
 IS The hireling fleeth, because he is an hireling, and 
 careth not for the sheep. 
 
 10 shall go in and go out, and shall find pasture. The 
 thief Cometh not, but that he may steal, and kill, 
 and destroy : I came that they may have life, and 
 
 11 may ' have il abundantly. I am the good shepherd : 
 the good shepherd layeth down his lite for the sheep. 
 
 12 He that is a hireling, aud not a shepherd, whose own 
 the sheep are not, beholdeth the wolf coming, and 
 leaveth the sheep, and fleeth, aud the wolf snatcheth 
 
 13 them, aud scattereth them : he jleeth, because he is a 
 
 olsa. 40: It; Ex. 34: 12, 23; 37 : 24; Heb. 13 : 20; 1 Pet. 2: 25; 5: 4 6 Zcch. 11 ; 16, 17. 1 Or, have abundance. 
 
 This, too, is true ; and we may, therefore, per- 
 ceive in tliis verse a warning addressed to the 
 Pharisees— and indeed, to all religious teach- 
 ers who do not recognize Christ as the only- 
 door and way to spiritual safety. 
 
 10. The thief (or, robber) cometh not, 
 etc. The object of the robber is his own ad- 
 vantage, at whatever harm to the flock, and 
 the result of his success is destruction to the 
 sheep. So the result of success on the part of 
 religious pastors who do not trust in Christ, is 
 the ruin of those who follow them. But the 
 object of Christ's coming is the life of the 
 sheep. He came into the world that men 
 might have the true and eternal life — a life 
 that consists in knowing and loving God — and 
 that they might have an abundance of this 
 higher life — might indeed be filled with all 
 
 the fullness of God. (l7: 3; lCor.3: 22; Eph. 3: 16-19.) 
 
 11-18. Christ the Good Shepherd. 
 
 11. I am the good shepherd. The 
 
 pronoun I is emphatic — /, in distinction from 
 all others. By claiming to be the good 
 shepherd, Jesus claims to have, in a pre- 
 eminent degree, ever^' quality that belongs to 
 a shepherd's interest in his flock — watchful- 
 ness, tenderness, courage, love; so that he is 
 the ideal and perfect shepherd. And he 
 makes this claim in the presence of those 
 who were accustomed to sing: "The Lord is 
 my shepherd." How naturally would they 
 be reminded, by his claim, of the words of 
 their Scriptures, which speak of Jehovah as 
 the Shepherd of Israel, and be led to reject 
 his claim as arrogant, if not blasphetnous ! 
 Without sympathy with his character, or 
 some clear perception of the sweet and rever- 
 ent, though divine spirit, which breathed in 
 every tone of his voice, they would certainly 
 be startled and repelled by so high a claim. 
 Yet there is, perhaps, no saying of Jesus that 
 has been dearer to the hearts of Christians 
 than this. It appears very often in the writ- 
 ings of the Fathers, and the fact which it as- 
 
 serts is represented many times in the early 
 works of Christian art. A shepherd with his 
 crook, or with a lamb upon his shoulders or 
 in his bosom, is found depicted more fre- 
 quently than any other emblem. The good 
 shepherd giveth {layeth down) his life for 
 the sheep. This is the supreme evidence of 
 a shepherd's fidelity to his flock, and interest 
 in its preservation. To protect the sheep, he 
 will meet the lion or the bear at the risk of 
 his own life, (i sam. u: 34-:;6.) So Christ was 
 willing to save his followers from destruction 
 at the price of his own life; and he foresaw 
 that this price must be paid. "The Son of 
 man came not to be ministered unto, but to 
 minister, and to give his life a. ransom for 
 many." (Matt. 20: 28.) The Greek preposition 
 translated for (in-ep), signifies, generally, "in 
 behalf of," "for the benefit of," though, 
 sometimes, it means "in place of" Here, 
 the death of the sliepherd is supposed to save 
 the sheep from death, so that, in a certain 
 general sense, his death takes the place of 
 theirs. Yet no reference is made to the fact 
 of penal substitution; and we can only say 
 that the Good Shepherd lays down his life for 
 the benefit of the sheep — that is, to save them 
 from destruction. 
 
 12, 13. But he that is an (a) hireling, 
 and not the {a) shepherd, whose own the 
 sheep are not, seeth the wolf coming, 
 and leaveth the sheep, and fleeth ; and 
 the wolf catcheth them, and scattereth 
 the sheep. The hireling fleeth, because 
 he is a hireling, and careth not for the 
 sheep. The owner of a fiock does not always 
 tend it himself, but sometimes hires another 
 man to do this for him. And in many in- 
 stances this hired servant cares only for him- 
 self, and not at all for the good of the flock. 
 And of such a hireling Jesus speaks in this 
 verse; that is, of one who has the spirit of a 
 hireling, and not of a shepherd ; of one who 
 feels that the flock belongs to another, and 
 
216 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 [Ch. X. 
 
 14 I am the good shepherd, and "» know my sheep, and 
 am known of mine. 
 
 15 <> As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the 
 Father ; = and I lay down my life for the sheep. 
 
 16 And ''other sheep I have, which are nut of this 
 fold: them also 1 must bring, and they shall hear my 
 voice ; « and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd. 
 
 14 hireling, and careth not for the sheep. I am the 
 good shepherd ; and I know mine own, and mine 
 
 15 own know me, even as the Father knoweth me, and 
 I know the Father ; and I lay down my life for the 
 
 16 sheep. And other sheep I have, that are not of this 
 fold: them also 1 must ' bring, and they shall hear 
 my voice; and 2 they shall become one flock, one 
 
 a 2 Tim. 2: 19 6 M:itt. 11 : 27 c ch. 13: 13 dl«a. 56: 8. 
 
 . .e Ezek.37: 22; Eph. 2: 14; I Pet. 2: 25. 1 Or, lead. 
 
 be one flock. 
 
 .2 Or, there thall 
 
 not to himself. When such a keeper of the 
 flock beholds a wolf coming, he makes haste 
 to secure his own safety, leaving the flock to 
 be scattered, and the sheep to perish. Alas, 
 there are many religious teachers that are in 
 spirit hirelings. Many have undertaken the 
 care of churches, the cure of souls, who seek 
 their own, and not the things of Christ; who 
 are almost indifferent to the spiritual good of 
 those under their instruction, but ever ready 
 to welcome personal comfort or advancement. 
 Such pastors are sure to prove faithless in the 
 presence of spiritual foes. Manj' a church 
 has been scattered and lost by reason of selfish 
 leaders. 
 
 It will be observed that the Kevised Version 
 has omitted two words, viz. : the sheep, at 
 the close of ver. 12, and three words, the 
 hireling fleeth, at the beginning of ver. 13. 
 These omissions seem to be required by the 
 best manuscripts, but they do not affect the 
 meaning of Christ's language. 
 
 14, 15. I am the good shepherd, etc. 
 The Kev. Ver. of the remainder is better: 
 And I know mine own, and mine own know 
 me, even as the Father knoweth me, and I 
 know the Father. The knowledge here spoken 
 of is mutual, springing from personal ac- 
 quaintance and love. The point of similarity 
 is not to be found in the degree of knowledge 
 possessed by the shepherd on the one hand 
 and the sheep on the other, as compared with 
 that possessed by the Father on the one hand 
 and the Son on the other ; but it is to be found 
 in the kind or qualitj' of the knowledge pos- 
 sessed by all — a knowledge founded on mu- 
 tual recognition and love. Meyer remarks 
 that the comparison refers to "the kind and 
 m.anner — to the holy nature of this mutual 
 acquaintanceship. (Comp. 14: 20; 15: 10; 
 17: 8, 21.) As between God and Christ, so 
 likewise between Christ and 'them that are 
 his,' the mutual knowledge is that of inner- 
 most fellowship of life and love, in which 
 fellowship the knowledge is implied." And 
 Lange says that "this knowledge does not 
 
 mean loving ; but still it is an emphatic ex- 
 pression by which a loving knowledge is im- 
 plied." And I lay down my life for the 
 sheep. The present tense of the verb points 
 to the near future, when Christ would die for 
 the salvation of his own "rational flock." 
 
 It will be noticed that we have adopted the 
 Kev. Ver., founded on a text and punctuation 
 diflTering slightly from those of the Common 
 Version, and that the reading adopted adds 
 somewhat to the clearness and force of Christ's 
 language. But it is adopted on no other 
 ground than that of superior manuscript au- 
 thority. 
 
 16, And other sheep I have, which are 
 not of this fold. This fold is the Jewish 
 nation ; and these words furnish a reply — 
 whether intended or not — to the scornful ques- 
 tion of his foes: "Will he go unto the dis- 
 persed among the Gentiles, and teach the 
 Gentiles?" (7:35.) For he claims to have 
 sheep among the Gentiles. Knowing that 
 there are many outside of Israel who will be- 
 come bis disciples when the3' hear the gospel; 
 knowing that the ancient prophets had fore- 
 told the conversion of numerous Gentiles 
 (e. g., Isa. 53: 10, sq., 55: 5; Micah4: 2); 
 knowing that the plan of God is well ordered 
 and sure, and that the names of all his elect 
 are even now in the book of life — he antici- 
 pates the future, and speaks of them as if they 
 were already his own in reality, as well as in 
 prospect and purpose. Them also must I 
 bring— not, indeed, by his personal ministry 
 while in the flesh, but by that of Paul and 
 other messengers of life, whose work will not 
 cease till the end of time. The word bring 
 points to the attractive and guiding power of 
 Christ, drawing all his followers together, as 
 the next words declare. And they shall (or, 
 loill) hear my voice. "He that receiveth 
 3'ou, receiveth me." To hear the voice of 
 Christ's ambassadors, is to hear his voice; for 
 their message is his message, in substance and 
 spirit. Let no one who rejects the call of Je- 
 sus by the ministry of his servants imagine 
 
Ch. X.] 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 217 
 
 17 Therefore doth my Father love me, " because I lay 
 down my life, that I might take it again. 
 
 18 No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down 
 of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I ' have 
 power to take it again. »This commandment have I 
 received of my Father. 
 
 17 shepherd. Therefore doth the Father love me, be- 
 cause I lay down my life, that I may take it again. 
 
 18 No one i taketh it away from me, but I lay it down 
 of myself. I have - power to Lay it down, and I have 
 2 power to take it again. This commandment re- 
 ceived I from my Fattier. 
 
 a Isa. 53 : 7, 8, 12 ; Heb. '2 : 9. 
 
 ..b ch. 2: 19 c ch. 6 : 38 ; 15: 10; Acts 2 : 24, 32.- 
 
 right. 
 
 -1 Some ancient uutborities read, took it away. . . .2 Or, 
 
 that he would have listened to it with a differ- 
 ent spirit, if it had come to him from the lips 
 of the Good Shepherd hiinsolf. And there 
 shall be one fold, and one shepherd. The 
 Kev. Ver. is better. In other words : "There 
 shall come to be one fiock with one shepherd." 
 Observe that the words of Jesus are one flock, 
 not one fold. For the idea of the fold is 
 subordinate to that of the flock. It is the flock 
 which belongs to the shepherd, and sheep 
 from many folds are to become one flock — in- 
 stead of flocks that belong to many shepherds 
 being sheltered in one fold, as is often the case 
 in Palestine. The unity contemplated is one 
 springing out of a common relation to Christ, 
 and that relation is primarily spiritual. Only 
 in a secondary sense can it be one of outward 
 or formal organization. In Christ, Jew and 
 Gentile will pos«ess the same inward temper 
 — the same trust and love and hope. By him, 
 the middle wall of partition is to be broken 
 down, and every man who recognizes him as 
 the Good Shepherd will be recognized by him 
 as a member of "the rational flock" which he 
 has bought with his own blood. 
 
 17. Therefore (or, /o?* this reason) doth 
 my Father love me, because I lay down 
 my life, that I might (mny) take it again. 
 The expression for this reason is generally 
 supposed to look backward to what has been 
 said in verses 14-16, and forward to a re-state- 
 ment of the same thought in another form, 
 viz. : because I lay down my life, etc. It 
 will be noticed that the words of Jesus in this 
 verse are no longer figurative, allegorical, but 
 plain and direct; also, that his approaching 
 death is represented as voluntary, and as about 
 to be followed by his voluntary resurrection ; 
 and, again, that this voluntary death and res- 
 urrection are well pleasing to the Father. The 
 words that I mny take it again, are to be 
 closely connected with the preceding expres- 
 sion, I lay down my life. The Father's love 
 to the Son has one of its sources in the redeem- 
 ing work of the Son. But that redeeming work 
 depends on his resurrection as well as on his 
 death. "The ground of the love of God lies 
 
 not merely in the sacrifice, considered by it- 
 self, but in the fact that the Good Shepherd, 
 when he gives up his life, is resolved to take it 
 again, in order that he may continue to fulfill 
 his pastoral oflfice till the final goal is reached, 
 when all mankind shall constitute his flock." 
 — Meyer. Watkins remarks that "the key to 
 the meaning is in the truth that for Christ the 
 taking again of human life is itself a fur- 
 ther sacrifice, and that this is necessary for the 
 completion of the Great Shepherd's work." 
 But if the reunion of the eternal Word with 
 his human bod3' glorified is of itself a sac- 
 rifice, it follows that the humiliation of the 
 Word is eternal ; for there is no reason to sup- 
 pose that he will ever sunder his connection 
 with his glorified human nature. We do not 
 see that the view of Watkins is neces.sarily 
 implied in the words of Christ, yet it is a view 
 which would perfectly account for his words, 
 and which, if clearly established, might pow- 
 erfully move the Christian heart. 
 
 18. No man taketh it from me, but I 
 lay it down of myself. It is better to fol- 
 low the Greek exactly, and translate no one, 
 instead of no man ; for Jesus may have in- 
 tended to exclude the idea that any being in 
 the universe took from him his life, without 
 his own absolutely free consent. This cer- 
 tainly was true; and the Greek term (o^Scl?) is 
 comprehensive enougli to mean this. (Sinicli 
 18: 6, 7, 8; Luke 23: 46.) As freely as the 
 Father gave the Son, so freely did the Son give 
 himself — a ransom for many. But it is none 
 the less true that he suffered a violent death by 
 the hands of sinful men. To this death he 
 submitted of his own accord, and thus, in a 
 true and important sense, laid down lis life; 
 but this death was suffered by himself, not in- 
 flicted by himself. Had he been pleased to 
 exercise his theanthropic power in retaining 
 his own life, as he employed it in raising Laz- 
 arus, the power of man v;ould have failed to 
 effect his death. But himself he would not 
 save, for he came into the world to be cruci- 
 fied and slain. I have power to lay it 
 down, and I have power to take ft again. 
 
218 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 [Ch. . X. 
 
 19 "There was a division therefore again among the 
 Jews for these sayings. 
 
 20 And many of them said, *■ He hatli a devil, and is 
 mad; why hear ye liim? 
 
 21 Others said. These are not tlie words of him that 
 hath a devil. "Can a devil "^open the eyes of the blind? | 
 
 19 There arose a division again among the Jews 
 
 20 because of those words. And many of them said, 
 He hath a demon, and is mad; why hear ye hiui. 
 
 21 Otliers said. These are not the sayings of one pos- 
 sessed with a demon. Can a demon open the eyes 
 of the blind? 
 
 och. 7: 43 ; 9 : 16 i ch. 7: 20; 8 : 48, 52 c Ex. 4: 11 ; Ps. 94 : 9 ; 146: 8 d cli. 
 
 It is difficult to define the word power, in 
 this pliice. Grimm understands it to signify 
 "power of choice, liberty to do what one 
 pleases." That is to say, Jesus claims that 
 he acts in this matter with perfect freedom; 
 that it depends on himself whether he lays 
 down his life or takes it again. If this view 
 of the word is correct, tlie next clause: 
 This commandment I have (omit have) 
 received of {from) my Father, must be 
 interpreted, with Godet, to mean a permis- 
 sion or commission, "to die or not to die, 
 to rise again or not to rise again, according 
 to the free inspirations of his own love." 
 Others understand the word power (i^ovuiav), 
 to signify, in this place, "full and rightful 
 authority"; in which case the language of 
 Jesus itnplies his perfect freedom in dying 
 and rising again. Yet this freedom is to be 
 used in accordance with the Father's will; 
 and that will or commandment was received 
 at the time of the incarnation. All that he is 
 to do or to suffer will be strictly voluntary on 
 his part ; but it will be, at the same time, in 
 pursuance of the Father's will. This inter- 
 pretation assigns a more usual meaning to the 
 word translated power, and is, therefore, 
 preferable to the one first named. According 
 to Cremer, the original word combines the 
 two ideas of right and tnight. Sometimes 
 the one is prominent by virtue of the context, 
 and som times the other. 
 
 The resurrection of Christ from the dead is 
 frequently ascribed to the power and agency 
 of the Father; but in this passage Jesus ap- 
 pears to teach that he will not only lay down 
 his own life, but, also, take it again. How 
 is this language to be reconciled to that? 
 Meyer says, that "the taking again of his 
 life. . . implies the giving it again — i. e., the 
 re-awakening activity of the Father." In 
 other words, the life was restored by the act 
 of the Father, but received by the act of the 
 Son. But he does not explain what he means 
 by the two acts. AVatkins says that "the 
 taking again was under the Father's au- 
 thority, and was, therefore, itself the Father's 
 
 gift." Compare ch. 5: 19 sq., with the Notes. 
 Christ seems to be intent on affirming two 
 things: (1) The absolute voluntariness of his 
 death and resurrection, and (2) the absolute 
 harmony of his conduct in this matter with 
 the plan and will of the Father. Whether 
 he himself put forth energy in bringing to 
 pass his own death, or his own resurrection, is 
 not affirmed. It was the Father's plan that 
 Christ should die and rise again for the salva- 
 tion of the people; but that he should do this 
 of his own accord, of his own choice, with no 
 constraint but that of love. And it was be- 
 cause Christ freel}' gave himself to dying and 
 rising again for this end, that the Father 
 loved him with a special and inexpressible 
 love. 
 19-21. Effect of this Discourse. 
 
 19. There was a division, etc. Or, as in 
 the Rev. Ver. : There arose a division again 
 among the Jews, because of these words. 
 Comp. 9: 16; 9: 8, 9; 7: 12, 30, 31, 40, 41. If 
 the writer means, bj* the Jews, the leaders of 
 the people, who were conspicuous for their 
 bigoted attachment to the ritual of the old 
 religion, it is plain that a considerable num- 
 ber of this class were favorably impressed by 
 tlie sayings of Jesus. Nicodenms was not the 
 only Pharisee who was touched by his wis- 
 dom. Therefore, (oOv), of the Com. Ver., is 
 omitted by the highest authorities. 
 
 20. And many of them said, (or, were 
 saying,) He hath a devil, (or, demon,) and 
 is mad: Avhy hear ye him? The word 
 many points to a majoritj' of the Jews pres- 
 ent. These clung to the opinion which they 
 had before expressed. (8:48.) But they were 
 evidently disturbed by the attention and re- 
 spect with which some were listening to the 
 Saviour. Hence they were tempted to repeat 
 their wild and bitter accusation. But their 
 scorn did not silence those who had another 
 temper. 
 
 21. Others said, (or, were sayirig) — that is, 
 in response to this bitter accusation — These 
 are not the words of him that hath a 
 devil (or, demon.) Can a devil {demon) 
 
Ch. X.] 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 219 
 
 22 And it was at Jerusalem the feast of the dedica- 
 tion, and it was winter. 
 
 23 And Jesus walked in the temple "iu Solomon's 
 porch. 
 
 24 Then came the Jews round about him, and said 
 unto him. How long dost thou make us to doubt? If 
 thou be the Christ, tell us plainly. 
 
 22 1 And it was the feast of the dedication at Jeru- 
 
 23saleui; it was winter; and Jesus was walking in 
 
 24 the temple in Solomon's porch. The Jews iherel'ore 
 
 came round about him, and said unto him, How 
 
 long dost thou hold us in suspense? If thou art 
 
 a Acts 3:11; 5 : 12. 1 Some ancieut auihoritit^s read, At that time was the/east. 
 
 open the eyes of the blind? They repel 
 the accusation by appealing to the words and 
 the works of Jesus. His language was not 
 that of a demoniac— fierce, raving, incohe- 
 rent — nor was the power possessed by a de- 
 mon, such as Christ exercised when he re- 
 stored sight to the blind. Two convincing 
 facts briefly and clearly stated. 
 
 22, sq. Jesus in Jerusalem at the 
 Peast of Debication. (Dec. 20-27, a. d. 
 29.) 
 
 The Evangelist now passes over, in silence, 
 a period of about two months from the Feast 
 of Tabernacles to the Feast of Dedication. 
 Where was Jesus during those two months — 
 from the second week of October to the third 
 week of December? Meyer, Hengstenberg, 
 and others answer, In Jerusalem, or its sub- 
 urbs; for nothing is said of any departure 
 thence, or return thither. But, against this 
 view, it has been forcibly urged: (1) That 
 he could not have remained there in peace, 
 on account of the bitter enmity of "the Jews." 
 (2) That the references which appear in the 
 following discourse, to what he had said at 
 the Feast of Tabernacles, are far more natural 
 if we suppose that he had been absent from 
 Jerusalem two months, than they are if we 
 suppose that he had remained there and 
 taught, meanwhile; for by the former suppo- 
 sition, these references were to his last dis- 
 course in that place. And (3) that events are 
 related in the other Gospels which appear to 
 belong to just this period of the Lord's min- 
 istry. Between the Feast of Tabernacles (Oct. 
 11-18, A. D. 29,) and the Feast of Dedication, 
 (Dec. 20-27, A. D. 29,) Dr. Robinson places 
 the following events: A lawyer instructed by 
 parable ( Luke lo: 25-37) ; Jesus in the house of 
 Martha and Mary (Lune 10 : 38-42) ; the disciples 
 again taught how to pray (Luke 11 : 1-12) ; the re- 
 turn of the seventy (Luke 10 : 17-24) ; the giving of 
 sight to a man born blind, etc. (John 9: 1-41 ; 10 : 1-21). 
 Gardiner assigns to this period of about two 
 months several events and parables not em- 
 braced in Robinson's list; but it is not im- 
 
 portant for us to examine his reasons for so 
 doing. 
 
 22. And it was at Jerusalem the feast 
 of the dedication. This feast was estab- 
 lished by Judas Maccabaeus, to commemorate 
 the cleansing and re-consecration of the tem- 
 ple after its destruction by Antiochus Epiph- 
 
 aneS (J Mace. 4 : 50, .>q.; 2 Mace. 1 : lo ; 10 ; 6, sq.; Josepbus "Ant.* 
 
 i2;T, 7.) It was celebrated eight days every 
 year, beginning with the 25th of Kisleu, not 
 only in Jerusalem, but in any part of the 
 land, and was an occasion of much joy and 
 festivity. The writer of 2 Maccabaeus says that 
 "they kept eight days with gladness"; that 
 "they bore branches and fair boughs, and 
 palms also, and sung psalms unto him who 
 had given them good success in cleansing his 
 place." (10:6.7.) Josephus remarks that this 
 festival was called "Lights," and that he 
 supposes the name was given to it from the 
 joy of the nation at their unexpected liberty. 
 In the temple at Jerusalem, the "Hallel" 
 was sung every day of the feast. (Smith's 
 "Diet, of the Bible," Art. Dedication). And 
 it Avas winter. The and is to be omitted, 
 and this statement connected with the fol- 
 lowing. 
 
 23. And Jesus walked (was walking) in 
 the temple, in Solomon's porch. The 
 descriptive tense, was walking, shows that the 
 scene was vividly present to the Evangelist's 
 mind ; and the fact that Christ was walking in 
 a covered porch, or arcade, is accounted for 
 by the season of the j-ear. This arcade was 
 on the side of the temple towards the east, 
 nearest the wall that overhangs the Valley of 
 Kedron, and is said to have been a relic of 
 Solomon's days. — ./o.sf^sAj/s, "Antiq.," 20: 9, 7. 
 There is a reference to the same porch in Acts 
 3: 11. "The mention of this particular part 
 of the temple is one of the traces of the writer 
 having himself been an ej'e-witness; events 
 like this no doubt impressed themselves on the 
 mcmorj', so as never to be forgotten. (Comp. 
 8: 20.)"— Meyer. 
 
 24. Then (rather, therefore) came the 
 
220 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 [Ch. X. 
 
 25 Jesus answered them, I told you, and ye believed 
 not: « the works that I do in my Father's name, they 
 bear witness of me. 
 
 26 But ' ye believe not, because ye are not of my 
 sheep, as I said unto you. 
 
 27 "My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and 
 they follow me : 
 
 28 And I give unto them eternal life; and "ithey 
 shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them 
 out of my hand. 
 
 25 the Christ, tell us plainly. Jesus answered them, 
 I told you, and ye believe not : the works that I 
 do in my Father's name, these bear witness of me. 
 
 26 But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep. 
 
 27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and 
 
 28 they follow me: and I give unto them eternal life; 
 and they shall never perish, and no one shall 
 
 aver. 38; cli. 3 : 2 ; 5: 36 I ch. 8 : 47 ; 1 John 4:6 c vtr. 4: 14 d ch. 6 : 37 ; 17: 11, 12; 18: 
 
 Jews round about him. Many of the 
 prominent men, who were, for the most part, 
 opposed to Christ, gathered around — literally, 
 encircled — him, as he was walking to and fro 
 in the porch. And said unto him, How 
 long dost thou make us to doubt (or, hold 
 us in susjjense. — Eev. Ver. ) ? If thou be (art) 
 the Christ, tell us plainly. TheGreek words 
 which are translated hold us in suspense liter- 
 ally signify, lift up our soul, or mind — that 
 is, in the present case, keep our souls in a 
 state of excitement, by leaving a question 
 of the highest interest unsettled. But why 
 did the Jews gather round Jesus and broach 
 this question ? It is probable that during the 
 two months of his absence they had remained 
 divided in sentiment, a majority of them re- 
 jecting the claims of Jesus, but some of them 
 feeling that both his words and his works 
 proved him to be from God. (See ver. 20, 21.) 
 The former might ask the question with the 
 purpose of making his answer the basis of ac- 
 cusation, and the latter with the desire to have 
 all doubt removed from their minds. At any 
 rate, they seek the interview and propose the 
 question, which is evidence enough that the 
 absence of Jesus had not diminished their in- 
 terest in him. 
 
 25. I told you, and ye believed (believe) 
 not. That is, "I declared myself to be the 
 Christ, and though I did this, ye do not be- 
 lieve." That he had done this more than 
 once is very evident from the preceding nar- 
 rative. His answer is therefore equivalent to 
 a plain assertion of his Messiahship, and a 
 plain assertion of their unbelief, together with 
 a pretty obvious allusion to either malice or 
 dullness on their part, in making such a de- 
 mand. The works that I do in my Fa- 
 ther's name, they (or, these) bear wit- 
 ness of me. To do works in the Father's 
 name, is to appeal to the Father in doing 
 them, or to recognize them in some way as 
 the Father's works, revealing his will. This 
 
 agrees with the representation of 5: 19, sq. 
 What the Father does, the Son does in like 
 manner, and the works of the Father are 
 wrought by the Son. 
 
 26. But ye believe not, because ye are 
 not of my sheep. The last words of the 
 Common Version : As I said unto you, are 
 not adequately supported. If they were genu- 
 ine, they would contain a distinct reference to 
 his discourse, at the Feast of Tabernacles, 
 two months before. He had then virtually 
 declared that they were not his sheep (see ver. 
 4, 14), and it was not too much to expect that 
 they would at once recall to mind his words 
 at that time. At all events, the expression 
 my sheep recalls that discourse. "The cir- 
 cumstance that Jesus should refer to this alle- 
 gorj-, about two months after the date of ver. 
 1-21, has been used as an argument against 
 the originality of this discourse (Strauss Baur); 
 but it may be simply accounted for by the as- 
 sumption that during the interval he had had 
 no further discussions with his hierarchical op- 
 ponents. — Meyer, freelj'. Some of those who 
 then listened to him were now present, with 
 undiminished hostility. 
 
 27, 28. My sheep hear my voice, and I 
 know them, and they follow nie : and I 
 give unto them eternal life. The first 
 three statements are almost verbal repetitions 
 of what he had s^id at the Feast of Taberna- 
 cles (see ver. 14-16), and the last statement 
 was implied in what he then said. For if the 
 Good Shepherd laj-s down his life for the 
 sheep, it is that they may not perish, but may 
 have eternal life. (Comp. 3: 16.) And they 
 shall never perish, etc. That is, those who 
 are true disciples of Christ — being guided and 
 nourished by him, will never be suffered to 
 perish. The blessed life which they have be- 
 gun to enjo3'^ will be preserved from this time 
 forward forever. And no one, etc. They 
 are in the hands of the Chief Shepherd, and 
 no one, however powerful or fierce, can wrest 
 
Cii. X.] 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 221 
 
 29 <» My Father, ' which gave them me, is greater than 
 all ; and no man is able to pluclc the,)n out of my Fa- 
 ther's hand. 
 
 'M " i and my Father are one. 
 
 29 snatch them out of my hand. 'My Father, who 
 hath given them unto me, is greater than all ; and 
 no one is able to snatch -them out of the t'ather's 
 
 30 hand. I and the Father are one. The Jews took 
 
 a oh. \i: 28. 
 
 . .6 ch. 17 : 2, 6, etc c ch. 17 : 11, 22. 1 Sniiie ancient authorities read, That which my Path r hath gi\ 
 
 2 Or, aught. 
 
 them out of that hand. The first clause of 
 this verse appears to mean that believers in 
 Christ will never, by their own carelessness 
 or ignorance, lose that union with him which 
 makes existence a blessing; and the latter, 
 that no enemy, however crafty or strong, 
 will succeed in destroying their life in Christ. 
 (See Koin. 8: 81, sq. ) The preservation of the 
 saints is distinctly taught by the Lord in this 
 passage. 
 
 The word perish is used by Christ and by 
 Paul to denote an utter loss of true life, or 
 blessed communion with God, and not to de- 
 note an utter loss of being. Annihilation is 
 nowhere taught by the sacred writers. For 
 a fuller con.ment on the Greek expression 
 translated never (oi iJ.r} — eis rbv aldva), see Note 
 on 11 : 26. 
 
 29, 30. My Father, which gave (rather, 
 hath given) them me, is greater than 
 all; and no man (one) is able to pluck 
 them out of my Father's hand. I and 
 my Father are one. This is added in con- 
 firmation of the last statement: "No man 
 is able to pluck them out of my hand." For 
 by identifying his own power with his 
 Father's, he pronounces it absolute. In this 
 remarkable passage Jesus claims: (1) That 
 his Father is the greatest of all beings— i. e., 
 God ; (2) that the sheep of which he is speak- 
 ing have been given him by his Father; (3) 
 that no one can pluck them out of his Father's 
 hand ; and (4) that in keeping them lue and 
 his Father are one — i. e., one in action, in 
 power, and therefore in essence. To be one 
 thing, (eV), in the sense demanded by the ar- 
 gument, is to be one in keeping the sheep 
 against all destroj^ers. The action of the Son 
 is, therefore, declared to be inseparable from 
 that of the Father, and one with it. But if 
 their action is one, their power must be one; 
 for action is but the movement of power. 
 And if their power is one, their being or es- 
 sence must be one; for power belongs to 
 being. The language of this verse may, 
 therefore, be said to agree with the common 
 doctrine of the Trinity; that the Father, the 
 'Son, and the Holy Spirit are in essence one 
 
 and the same, but distinguishable in a per- 
 sonal respect. 
 
 In the expression greater than all, Meyer 
 supposes that the word all refers to persons, 
 and includes even the Son. But, as the ob- 
 vious scope of the passage is to affirm the 
 oneness of the Son's preserving agency with 
 that of the Father, it is unnatural to suppose 
 that Jesus meant to separate himself from the 
 Father in this clause, and associate himself, as 
 to greatness, with the inferior all. The only 
 evidence of his subordination to be found in 
 this place is in the words my Father, since 
 sonship implies a certain subordination ; and 
 in the words who has given them to me, 
 since the receiver of a kingdom is, in a certain 
 respect, subordinate to the giver. 
 
 According to the highest textual authority, 
 the word greater has a neuter form (fiei^oi/), 
 showing that the Saviour's thought was this : 
 "My Father. . is something greater than all," 
 that is, a power greater than all. For a 
 similar use of the neuter adjective, see Matt. 
 12: 6. Some editors make the relative pro- 
 noun neuter also: "My Father which gave 
 them to me, is greater than all"; but the 
 pronoun, as Meyer and Schaff suggest, may 
 have been changed by transcribers, who 
 could not understand how a neuter adjective 
 could agree with the masculine term Father. 
 But another construction is certainly possible, 
 viz: " That which my Fatlier hath given to 
 me, is greater than all." (So N B* L. Tisch, 
 Tregel., West, and Hort, Alford, Eevisers, 
 margin). The meaning then would be, that 
 the power given to him by the Father was> 
 greater than all. Some MSS. read : "The 
 Father," instead of "My Father," an unim- 
 portant variation. 
 
 "The doctrine of the saint's perseverance 
 in holiness is here most expressly taught. 
 (ver.27-29.) If One of the elcct should finally 
 perish, it would not only falsify the declara- 
 tion here made by Christ, but would be a viola- 
 tion of the compact between the Father and the 
 Son (see 6: 37), and contrary to the expressly 
 declared will of the Father. (6: 39.40.) Yet 
 this great truth, which so illustrates the sov- 
 
^22 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 [Ch. X. 
 
 • 31 Then " the Jews took up stones again to stone him. 
 
 32 Jesus answered theru, Many good works have I 
 shewed you from my Father ; lor which of those works 
 do ye stone me? 
 
 33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work 
 we stone thee not; but for blasphemy ; and because that 
 thou, being a man, '' makest thyself God. 
 
 31 up stones again to stone him. Jesus answered them, 
 
 32 Many good works I have shewed you from the 
 Father; for which of those works do ye stone me? 
 
 33 The Jews answered him, For a good work we stone 
 thee not, but for blasphemy ; and because that thou, 
 
 o ch. 8: 59 6 ch. 5; 18. 
 
 ereign mercy of God through Jesus Christ, 
 and which is the only sure foundation upon 
 which the believer rests his hope of eternal 
 life, must not be abused to justify any la.xity 
 of effort on his part to make his calling and 
 election sure, by a life of prayer and hol3' 
 living, such as becometh the disciples of 
 Christ." — Oweriy ad. loc. 
 
 31. Then the Jews (or, the Jews there- 
 fore) took up stones again to stone him 
 (or, that they might stone him). If the word 
 therefore belongs to the genuine text,— of 
 which there is come doubt, — the act of the 
 Jews is expressly declared to be a consequence 
 of what Jesus had just said; but if it does 
 not belong to the text, there is no reason to 
 suppose that it misrepresents the connection 
 between the act of the Jews and the words of 
 Jesus. The manner in which he associated 
 himself with the Father, filled their hearts 
 with wrath, if not with horror. And what 
 they did was to lift up stones from the ground, 
 with the intention of hurling them at Jesus, 
 and thus killing him upon the spot, without 
 even the form of trial and judgment. (Comp. 
 Levit. 24: 10 sq.). The word again, refers 
 without doubt to the scene described in 8: 59. 
 
 But as they were in the act of stoning him, 
 they were arrested by a remark of infinite 
 sagacity, and, it may be, authority, compel- 
 ing them to turn their thoughts to what he 
 had done. 
 
 32. Jesus answered them, Many good 
 works have I sheAved you from my 
 Father. The action of the Jews was most 
 expressive; it was accusation and condemna- 
 tion and execution in a breath. Hence the 
 language of Jesus is called an answer to them. 
 By the term works, he means "might3' 
 works," or miracles; by the term translated 
 §;ood (icaAo) he characterizes these miracles as 
 divinely "fair and fit," worthy of the highest 
 regard; by the expression, from my Father, 
 he reminds them that his works are from the 
 Father, even as he himself is from the Father, 
 and that his own action is inseparable from 
 
 the Father's; and by the words, have I 
 shewed you, he aflBrms that these miracles 
 were meant for "signs" to them: they were 
 significant of the Saviour's authority as well 
 as goodness. For Avhich of those works 
 do ye stone me? There is deep and holy 
 irony in this question. For the Lord knew 
 that it was his words that had provoked their 
 wrath ; but he also knew that his works and 
 his words signified one and the same thing, 
 brought one and the same message, asserted 
 one and the same authority, and that in con- 
 demning hiin for his words they were also 
 condemning him for his works. He, there- 
 fore, assumes that they are intelligent and 
 self-consistent, enraged at his works, which 
 speak the same language as his words. If 
 there was, as we concede, a species of irony or 
 mockery in this, it was profoundly just, fitted 
 to open their ej'es and deter them from the 
 awful crime they were at the point of com- 
 mitting. 
 
 The word rendered which (-nhiov) cannot be 
 casilj* reproduced in English, without resort- 
 ing to paraphrase: for it suggests quality as 
 well as distinction. Thus: "What is the 
 character of that one of those works on ac- 
 count of which ye are about to stone me?" 
 or, "Of those works what is the character of 
 the one for which ye are about stoning me?" 
 This was a question that might well make 
 them pause. 
 
 33. For a good work Ave stone thee 
 not; but for blasphemy; and because 
 that thou, being a man, makest thyself 
 God. Are two oflTences here charged against 
 Jesus, or only one? Lange says, two: "They 
 reproach him with two things: first, that he 
 places God on a par with himself — and this 
 they call blasphemy ; secondly, that he makes 
 himself God — and in this they think they 
 recognize the false prophet." But it is diffi- 
 cult to discriminate between these two things, 
 and better to suppose, with Meyer, that but 
 one oflfence is charged. According to this 
 view, "And connects with the general charge 
 
Ch. X.] 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 223 
 
 34 Jesus answered (hem, " Is it not written in your 
 law, I said, Ye are f?(wls? 
 
 35 If he calle<l them gods, * unto wliom the word of 
 God came, and tlie scripture cannot lie liroken ; 
 
 36 Say ye of him, i; whom the Father liath sanctified, 
 and <i sent into the world, Tliou bla-sphemest ; « because 
 I said, I am /the Sou of God? 
 
 34 being a man, makest thyself (iod. Jesus answered 
 them. Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are 
 
 35 gods? If he called them gods, unto whom the word 
 of tjod came (and the scripture cannot be broken), 
 
 36 say ye of him, whom the Father 'sanctified and 
 sent into Ihc world. Thou blaspheniest ; because I 
 
 aPs. 8-2:6 I Rom. 13: 1 c ch. 6: 27 d ch. 3: 17 , 
 
 a more exact definition of that on whicli it is 
 based." Tlius: "We stone thee for blas- 
 phemy, and indeed because thou, being man, 
 makest thyself God." Whether they under- 
 stood him to claim essential, or only dynami- 
 cal unity with the Father, is of little moment ; 
 for they were certainly in a mood to pro- 
 nounce either claim blasphemous, and to re- 
 gard either as a claim to being God. But 
 when he said, "I and my Father are one" 
 (thing), it is probable that they supposed him 
 to assert his essential oneness with the Father. 
 "The word rendered for (before blas- 
 phemy), is not the causal, 'on account of,' 
 which we have in the last (preceding) verse, 
 but 'concerning,' the technical form for an 
 indictment. For the Mosaic law concerning 
 blasphemy, see Lev. 24: 10-16." — Watkins. 
 
 It is clear that the Jews were determined 
 not to consider the words of Jesus in the light 
 of his works, which proved that God was with 
 him, but to consider them alone, and on the 
 basis of the assumption that he was merely 
 human — a man, and nothing more. It is also 
 plain that Jesus adapted his answer to their 
 state of mind and habits of reasoning, meet- 
 ing them on their own ground, without yield- 
 ing a particle of his own claim. Only by 
 bearing in mind these points, can one perceive 
 the wisdom of Christ's response. They had 
 formulated, as it were, their legal accusation, 
 and he tests it by an argument founded on the 
 language of their law. 
 
 34. Is it not Avritten in your law, I said, 
 Ye are gods? By your law, is meant the 
 Old Testament (comp. 12: 34; 15: 25; Rom. 8: 
 19 ; 1 Cor. 14 : 21) ; and the passage here cited 
 is in Ps. 82: 6. The Psalm is addressed to 
 unjust judges and rulers of Israel. Accord- 
 ing to the original idea of the theocratic na- 
 tion, these judges were to be representatives 
 of God, acting for him, and doing his will. 
 (Comp. Ex.21: 6; 22: 8, 28; 2Chron.l9: 5-7.) 
 In the Psalm, God refers to his language, by 
 Moses, as having been virtually addressed to 
 the unjust rulers of the Psalmist's day. "I 
 
 myself have said. Ye are gods, and sons of the 
 Most High, all of you ; yet surelj^ as men, ye 
 shall die," etc. 
 
 35. If he — or the Scripture — called them 
 gods, unto whom the \vord of God came. 
 The phrase unto whom the word of God 
 came, does not assign a reason why they were 
 called gods, but mentions a circumstance, not- 
 withstanding which they were so called. 
 Though they were persons to whom God's 
 message was sent, instead of being persons en- 
 trusted with his message to others, they were 
 called gods. And the Scripture cannot be 
 broken. Meyer connects this with the pre- 
 ceding clause, and makes it depend upon if 
 (ei). "If— as is true — it called them gods to 
 whom the word of God came, and [if] the 
 Scripture cannot be broken." But most in- 
 terpreters regard this statement as parenthetic, 
 calling to mind an admitted truth on which 
 the validity of his argument rested. And the 
 more common view is probably correct. Je- 
 sus here affirms the permanent authority and 
 divine truth of the Scripture in question — 
 that is, the passage from the Psalms. Can- 
 not be broken (or, loosened) — i. c, cannot be 
 deprived of its validity. And if this Scrip- 
 ture cannot be annulled, there is much reason 
 to believe that the same is true of all other 
 Scriptures; especially when we call to mind 
 the circumstance that Jesus always speaks 
 with reverence of the Old Testament. In- 
 deed, it is possible that the Scripture here 
 means the Old Testament as a whole. 
 
 36. Say ye of him, Avhom the Father 
 (omit hath) sanctified, and sent into the 
 world. Thou blasphemest, because I 
 said, I am the Son of God? "How could 
 they charge him with blasphemj' in claim- 
 ing to be the Son of God, when their own 
 judges had been styled gods. . . . Their office 
 was but for a time ; they were mortal men, j'et 
 wearing, by divine permission, a divine name. 
 He had been with the Father before he came 
 into the world, was by him sealed and set 
 apart ('sanctified'), andsenttobe, notajudge, 
 
224 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 [Ch. X. 
 
 37 " If I do not the works of my Father, belive me not. 
 
 38 But if I do, though ye believe not me, *■ believe the 
 works; that ye may know, and believe, <^that the Father 
 is in me, and I in him. 
 
 39 d Therefore they sought again to take him ; but he 
 escaped out of their hand, 
 
 40 And went away again beyond Jordan into the 
 place « where John at first baptized ; and there he 
 abode. 
 
 37 said, I am the Son of God? If I do not the works 
 
 38 of my Father, believe me not. But if I do them, 
 though ye believe not me, believe the works; that 
 ye may know and understand that the Father is in 
 
 39 me, and I in the Father. They sought again to 
 take him: and he went forth out of their hand. 
 
 40 And he went away again beyond Jordan into the 
 place where John was at the first baptizing ; and there 
 
 och. 15: 24 b oh. 5: 36; 14 : 10, 11 c oh. 14: 10, 11 ; 17: 21.. .d ch. 7 : 30,44 ; 8 : 59 e oh. 1: 28. 
 
 but the Christ; not one of many sons, but 
 emphatically the Son of God— the King of an 
 everlasting kingdom. Both in his office and 
 j 1 his person he has far more right to the title, 
 'Son of God,' than they have to that of 
 'gods.'" — Perowne, on Ps. 82: 6. The inter- 
 rogative form characterizes their charge as one 
 that needs only to be stated in order to be re- 
 jected. 
 
 37. If I do not the works of my Father, 
 believe me not. A remarkable word, show- 
 ing that divine works, or miracles, were just 
 what might naturally be expected of the Son 
 of God, and that they were, in their place, a 
 necessary part of the evidence on which Je- 
 sus rested his claim to be received as the Son 
 of God. By it he authorized and commanded 
 the Pharisees to reject him if he failed to do 
 such works as only God could do. If any 
 evidence were necessary to prove that Jesus 
 did not intend to lower, by his criticism of 
 their charge, the claim which he had made by 
 calling himself the Son of God, and by say- 
 ing I and my Father are one, it is furnished 
 by this verse and the next following. 
 
 38. But if I do [them), though ye believe 
 not me, believe the works.— That is, 
 though 1113' words do not come to you with a 
 self-evidencing power, nor my spirit and life 
 by themselves win your confidence and con- 
 vince j'ou that I am all that I profess to be, 
 yet believe at least what my works proclaim 
 — that ye may know and believe (or, un- 
 derstand.) Understand is a translation of the 
 best supported text. The former verb (know) 
 denotes a single, accomplished act; the latter 
 a continuous exercise. That the Father is 
 in me, and I in him (or, the Father.) For 
 this is no more than could be certainly con. 
 eluded and known from the works of Christ, 
 when fairly interpreted by the light eman- 
 ating from them, and from all the circum- 
 stances of the case. But, as Jesus here as- 
 sumes, this inter-penetration and mutual 
 indwelling of Father and Son is not all that 
 his words have taught. Something more 
 
 than this was meant by the declaration, "I 
 and my Father are one," to wit: that in their 
 power, in their action, and in that which is 
 the seat of power and the source of action, 
 their mysterious and divine essence, they are 
 one. This could only be learned from the 
 testimony of Christ himself. 
 
 In translating the last clause, we follow the 
 best authorities by giving, instead of in him, 
 in the Father ; though it is one of a multi- 
 tude of instances where the meaning is very 
 slightly affected, if at all, by the change of 
 text. 
 
 39. Therefore they sought (or, were 
 seeking) again to take him. Not now for 
 the purpose of stoning him on the spot, but 
 rather to have him in their power with a 
 view to his destruction either with or without 
 a regular trial. More than this cannot cer- 
 tainlj' be inferred from the Evangelist's re- 
 mark; but this he depicts as if he were an 
 eye-witness, and were keenlj- watching their 
 movements, as they were trying to lay hold 
 of him. Tischendorf omits the word mean- 
 ing again, from the Greek text, but without 
 sufficient reason. It refers, probably, to the 
 scenes described in 7: 30, 32,44. But (and) 
 he escaped out of their hand. Literally, he 
 went forth out of their hand. Meyer says: 
 "oM< of their hands, which are conceived as 
 already stretched out after him." But is it 
 not an objection to this that the sacred writer 
 uses the singular, hand, instead of the plural, 
 "hands"? And is it not better to take the 
 word hand as a figurative designation of 
 their power? How Jesus escaped, the writer 
 does not relate, and an3' conjecture of ours 
 would be worthless. 
 
 40-42. Temporary Sojourn in Perea. 
 
 Jesus had probably' been traveling and 
 preaching and working miracles in Perea, 
 before his appearance at the Feast of Dedica- 
 tion in Jerusalem. This would account for 
 again, in ver. 40. 
 
 40. And went away again beyond Jor- 
 I dan, into the place where John at first 
 
Ch. XL] 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 225 
 
 41 And many resorted unto hiiu, and said, John did i 41 he abode. And many came unto him; and they said, 
 no miracle; "but all things that John spake of this ! John indeed did no sign: but all things whatsoever 
 man were true. 42 John spake of this man were true. And many be- 
 
 42 ' And many believed on him there. 1 lieved on him there. 
 
 N 
 
 OW a certain man was sick, named Lazarus, of Beth- 
 any, the town of <^ Mary and her sister Martha. 
 
 CHAPTEK XI. 
 
 1 Now a certain man was sick, Lazarus of Bethany, 
 
 ach.3:30....ich. 8: 30; 11: 45.... c Luke 10: 38, .S9. 
 
 baptized ; and there he abode. The Jews 
 had rejected him in a conclusive manner, and 
 it was tlierefi)re wor.se than useless to remain 
 in the capital. But, "his hour" to be lifted 
 up on the cross was not yet come. So he 
 withdrew from Jerusalem to a region where 
 the people would be benefited by his presence 
 and ministry It is commonly assumed that 
 the particular place to which he repaired was 
 the Bethubara, or Bethany, spoken of by the 
 Evangelist in 1; 28. But this is not perfectly 
 certain ; for the place where the deputation of 
 Pharisees from Jerusalem met John may not 
 have been the place where he at first bap- 
 tized. Bethany and Enon are, indeed, the 
 only two places named by the Evangelist in 
 connection with the administration of bap- 
 tism by John, and it is evident that Enon was 
 visited after Bethany; but the narrative of 
 this Evangelist is so fragmentary that we can- 
 not regard it as complete in itself, with no 
 references to events not particularly described. 
 Yet the place to which he now repaired may 
 have been the Bethany of 1 : 28, and there is 
 at least some probability that it was. 
 
 41. And many resorted {came) unto him, 
 and said (or, were saying). The last verb is 
 in the descriptive tense, betokening either the 
 writer's presence, or the frequent recurrence 
 of this remark. John {indeed) did no mir- 
 acle (or, sign). "A characteristic feature of 
 the history of John, which, in this respect 
 also, has remained free from fanciful addi- 
 tions." — Meyer. It was natural for the peo- 
 ple of this region to contrast the ministry of 
 John with that of Jesus. They had been 
 greatly moved by the preaching of the mighty 
 harbinger of Christ, and they now compared 
 his words respecting the Messiah with what 
 they had seen and heard. But all things 
 that John spake of this man were true. 
 The Baptist had distinctly asserted the supe- 
 rior greatness of the Messiah. And as they 
 heard of the miracles of Jesus, or witnessed 
 them, the fulfillment by him of John's word 
 
 became a ground of faith — an additional rea- 
 son why they should trust in Jesus as the 
 Messiah. 
 42. And many believed on him there. 
 
 "Jesus was reaping," as Bengel says, "the 
 posthumous fruit of the Baptist's work." 
 
 Ch. 11 : 1-44. Lazakus Kaised from 
 THE Dead. 
 
 1-16. Preliminary Narrative. 
 
 1. Now a certain man. The connective 
 now, or hut (5e), is used because the sickness 
 and death of Lazarus led to an interruption 
 of the Lord's sojourn in Perea. The name 
 Lazarus is supposed to be a Greek modifica- 
 tion of the Hebrew Eleazar. It is applied in 
 this chapter to the (probably) younger brother 
 of Martha and Mary; and in the Saviour's 
 parable preserved by Luke (16:20-25), to the 
 beggar who was laid at the rich man's door. 
 The parable is thought by many to have been 
 spoken by Christ about this time in Perea ; 
 and an attempt has been made to connect the 
 poor man of the parable with the one who 
 was now sick. But there is no evidence of 
 any connection between the two. Nor is 
 there any sufficient reason for conjecturing 
 that he was the young man who came eagerly 
 to Jesus, and was loved by him, but went 
 away sorrowful, because he was very rich. 
 (Luke 18: 18-27.) Morc plausiblc, but at the same 
 time wholly incapable of verification, is the 
 hypothesis that the young man who followed 
 Jesus, having "a linen cloth cast about his 
 naked body" (Mark u: 51), was Lazarus. The 
 best interpreters now agree that the two Greek 
 prepositions {airh and «), the one before Beth- 
 any, and the other before the village, etc., 
 denote the same relation; so that the latter 
 clause is merely explanatory of the former, 
 distinguishing this Bethany from another 
 Bethany, on the east side of the Jordan. 
 Bethany, the village of Mary and Martha, 
 was the home and native place of Lazarus. 
 It was afterwards kniown among Christians 
 
226 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 Ch. XT.] 
 
 2 ("It was that Mary which anointed the Lord with 
 ointment, and wiped" his feet with her hair, whose 
 brother Lazarus was sick.) 
 
 3 Therefore his sisters sent unto him, saying, Lord, 
 behold, he whom thou lovest is sick. 
 
 4. When Jesus heard that, he said. This sickness is 
 not unto death, >> but for the glory of God, that the Son 
 of God might be gloriiied thereby. 
 
 5 Now Jesus loved Martha, and her sister, and Laz- 
 arus. 
 
 2 of the village of Mary and her sister Martha. And 
 it was that Mary who anointed the Lord with oint- 
 ment, and wiped his feet with her hair, whose 
 
 3 brother Lazarus was sick. The sisters therefore 
 sent unto him, saying. Lord, behold, he whom thou 
 
 4 lovest is sick. But when Jesus heard it, he said, 
 This sickness is not unto death, but for the glory 
 of God, that the son of God may be gjorified there- 
 
 5 by. Now Jesus loved Martha, and her sister, and 
 
 a Matt. 26 : 7 ; Mark 14 ; 3 ; ch. 12 : 3. . . .6 cli. 9 : 3 ; 
 
 as the village of Mary and Martha, at least 
 down to the time when this Gospel went into 
 circulation ; at some later period it took the 
 name of Lazarus, and is now called El-Azi- 
 rieh, or El-Lazirieh, from El-Azir, the Arabic 
 form of Lazarus. 
 
 2. It Avas that (or, ike) 3Iary which 
 anointed the Lord Avith ointment, etc. 
 Tliis explanation distinguishes the Mary in 
 question from others, and at the same time 
 accounts for iter being named, in this connec- 
 tion, before Martha (ver.i), her elder sister. 
 (See ver. 5.) By reason of her act of love, 
 referred to in this verse, and related more 
 fully in chap. 12: 1-8, this Mary was well 
 known and highly honored by the early dis- 
 ciples. But there is no valid reason for the 
 somewhat current belief that she was the 
 woman who is mentioned by Luke (Tise.sq.) as 
 a sinner, though the act of the one was so 
 similar to that of the other, for the act was 
 one that might not unnaturally be repeated; 
 or for the opinion that either of these was iden- 
 tical with Mary Magdalene. (See Articles 
 on Lazarus, and on the several Marys, in 
 Smith's "Diet, of the Bible," Am. ed.) 
 
 3. Therefore his sisters sent unto him, 
 saying. Lord, etc. Therefore represents 
 this act as a consequence of the facts just 
 stated, namely, the sickness of Lazarus, and 
 the affectionate confidence which the sisters 
 had in Christ, as illustrated by the well known 
 incident referred to. Their message was a 
 beautiful expression of this confidence. Their 
 request was delicately conveyed by the sim- 
 ple statement of their brother's sickness, and 
 their plea as finely chosen and expressed — 
 whom thou lovest. "We can readily believe 
 that this message was the language of Mary. 
 Perhaps they hesitated to ask the Lord to visit 
 Bethany, because they were aware of the pur- 
 pose of the Pharisees, to laj' hold of him and 
 put him to death. At all events, they said 
 jnst enough to show their unreserved confi- 
 dence in him. 
 
 4. When (or, but when) Jesus heard 
 that (better, it), he said — in the presence of 
 the messenger and of his disciples — this 
 sickness is not unto death. An expres- 
 sion which might be easily misunderstood at 
 the moment, but which really affirmed, as the 
 event proved, that in the divine plan the final 
 issue of this sickness would not be death. 
 But for the glory of God. In some definite 
 and remarkable manner the glory of God was 
 to be revealed by nietins of this sickness. 
 This, instead of death, was the ultimate pur- 
 pose of it. (Comp. 9: 3, 4.) But with this 
 was embraced another end, viz: that the 
 Son of God might (or, v^ay) be glorified 
 thereby. The glorifying of God is in order 
 to the glorifying of the Son of God ; for when 
 the one is glorified, so also is the other. 
 Thereby means by this sickness. 
 
 5. Now Jesus loved 3Iartha, and her 
 sister, and Lazarus. "Happy family,"' 
 says Bengel. But the reason for the insertion 
 of this remark in this place is not perfectly 
 certain. Mej-er supposes that it is introduced 
 to account for the consolator3^ declaration of 
 ver. 4. Jesus loved them, and therefore sug- 
 gested to them enigmatically the blessed issue 
 of this sickness. When this remark (ver. 4) 
 was reported to the sisters, Lazarus was prob- 
 ably dead ; but it may have been pondered in 
 
 i their hearts, and by its gracious purport they 
 I may have been comforted in some degree. 
 i Godet, and others, however, suppose that this 
 I remark of the Evangelist is anticipatorj' of 
 i ver. 7, explaining why, though he tarried for 
 I a time in Perea, he said: "Let us go into 
 I Judea again." The latter is, on the whole, 
 I more probable than the former, especially in 
 1 view of the Greek words, (5e) noAV, ver. 5, and 
 . {iniv) indeed, ver. 6. The word loved (iyaTra) 
 ! is not the same in this verse as in ver. 3. ((^lAei?). 
 j It denotes a high moral and religious affec- 
 tion, and is used to express the love of God 
 [ to men and the love of Christians to God 
 ' and to one another. The word used by the 
 
Ch. XI.] 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 227 
 
 6 When he had heard therefore that he was sick, " he 
 abiiide two days still in the same i>lace where he was. 
 
 7 Then alter that saith he to hU disciples, Let us go 
 into Judea again. 
 
 8 His disciples say unto him. Master, 'the .lews of 
 late sought to stone thee ; and goest thou thither again ? 
 
 9 Jesus answered, Are there not twelve hours in the 
 
 6 Lazarus. When therefore he beard that he was 
 sick, he abode at that time two days in the place 
 
 7 where he was. Then after this he saith to the 
 
 8 disciples. Let us go into Judiea again. The disci- 
 ples say unto him. Rabbi, the Jews were but now 
 seeking to stone thee; and goest thou thither 
 
 9 again? Jesus answered, Are there not twelve 
 
 a ah. 10: 40 6 cb. 10:31. 
 
 sisters (ver. 3) denotes warm personal attach- 
 ment. 
 
 6. When he had heard therefore that 
 he was sick, etc. — literally, when therefore 
 he heard., etc. This part of Christ's conduct 
 has been pronounced unnatural, unaccount- 
 able, and a clear proof that the whole narra- 
 tive is worthless in a historical respect. 
 "Why," it is asked, "must Lazarus die, in 
 order that Jesus might have some one to raise 
 from the dead? Why did he not from a dis- 
 tance rebuke the disease and prevent the 
 death of Lazarus, selecting some other person 
 already dead to be raised?" In answer to 
 such objections, we may refer, with Meyer, 
 to verse 4, "according to which Jesus was 
 conscious of its being the divine xvill that the 
 miracle should be performed precisely under 
 the circumstances and at the fime at which 
 it actual!}' was performed. (Comp. 2: 4)." 
 Further, it iiiay have been already, when the 
 message reached Jesus, too late for him to 
 save the life of his friend by a cure of the 
 disease. For Lazarus was probably now 
 dead, and, indeed, by the custom of the East, 
 laid in the tomb. For Lazarus had been dead 
 four days when he was recalled to life. (ver. 39.) 
 He must, therefore, have died soon after the 
 messenger of the sisters left them to go to 
 Jesus beyond the Jordan. The journey must 
 have occupied about one clay, then Jesus re- 
 mained where he was two days, and the fourth 
 day was spent in returning to Bethany. Ac- 
 cordingly, it is not surprising that Christ 
 abode yet two days in the place where he 
 was; for, as he purposed to raise Lazarus 
 from the dead, it was important to defer this 
 act till there could be no possible doubt of his 
 death. Besides, miracles were not wrought 
 by Christ irrespective of moral conditions; 
 and fit opportunities for doing such a work as 
 it was God's will that he should now do, may 
 not have been so numerous as some imagine. 
 Again, he may have had important spiritual 
 work to do in Perea — work which he could 
 not leave unfinished for the sake of repairing 
 to Bethany sooner than he did. 
 
 7. Then after that (or, this) saith he to 
 his disciples, Let us go into Judea again. 
 
 This was doubtless said to prepare the way for 
 a more definite explanation. Hence .Judea is 
 mentioned instead of Bethany. And by Ju- 
 dea, the disciples probably understood Jeru- 
 salem and the surrounding villages, where 
 Christ had been accustomed to preach the 
 gospel of the kingdom, and to do mighty 
 works. It was not long since he had gone 
 thither at the Feast of Dedication, and had 
 encountered deadly hostility ; yet now he 
 proposes to visit the same region again, with 
 his disciples. But they remonstrate. 
 
 8. Master, the Jews of late, etc. ; or, 
 Rabbi., the Jews were but noxo seeking to stone 
 thee, etc. The scene of peril from which he 
 had escaped, that he might depart to the other 
 side of the Jordan, is brought vividly to mind 
 by his proposal ; and they wonder at his pur- 
 pose to venture once more into the jaws of 
 destruction — into the stronghold of his im- 
 placable foes. Their principal anxiety is, 
 doubtless, for his safety, but they are not 
 wholly free from solicitude cuncerning them- 
 selves (ver. 16); for they know enough of hu- 
 man nature to suspect that the life of their 
 Master would not be taken without some risk 
 to their own. The adverb of time, of late 
 (I'vi'), is commonly translated nov), but by rea- 
 son of its position, it is emphatic in this verse, 
 and is fairly represented by even now; or just 
 now. Interpreters have sometimes inferred 
 from it that only a very short time had elapsed 
 since Jesus came to Perea; but the inference 
 is by no means necessary. For as the disci- 
 ples recalled the peril of their Lord in Jeru- 
 salem, at the Feast of Dedication, it might 
 naturally have seemed to them nearer than it 
 was. The days had passed swiftly since they 
 had reached a place of safetj', and probably 
 a period of several weeks had passed since 
 their return to Perea. (See 10: 41.) 
 
 9, 10. Are there not twelve hours in 
 (or, of) the day? That is, of the day, as 
 contrasted with the night. The form of the 
 question in Greek presupposes an aflSrmative 
 
228 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 [Ch. XI. 
 
 day? « If any man walk in the day, he stunibleth not, 
 because he seeth the light of this world. 
 
 10 But <■ if a man walk in the night, he stumbleth, 
 because there is no light in him. 
 
 11 These things said he: and after that he saith unto 
 them, Our friend Lazarus ■'sleepeth; but I go, that I 
 may awake him out of sleep. 
 
 12 Then saia his disciples. Lord, if he sleep, he shall 
 do well. 
 
 hours in the day? If a man walk in the day, ha 
 stumbleth not, because he seeth the light of this 
 
 10 world. But if a man walk in the night, he 
 
 11 stumbleth, because the light is not in him. These 
 things spake he: and after this he saith unto 
 them, Our friend Lazarus is fallen asleep; but I go, 
 
 12 that I may awake him out of sleep. The disciples 
 therefore said unto him, Lord, if he is fallen asleep, 
 
 a oh. 9: i 5 ch. 12: 35.... c So Dent. 31 : 16; Dan. 12:2; Matt. 9:24; Acts 7: 
 
 1 Cor. 15:18, 51. 
 
 answer. If any man walk in the day, etc. 
 By this illustration, Jesus reminds his disci- 
 ples of a great law of life and action which he 
 is observing. He reminds them that he is walk- 
 ing in the light; that the day of his Messianic 
 work is not yet closed ; that he sees clearly, as 
 by the light of the sun, all the perils and ob- 
 stacles in the way of his proposed return to 
 Judea ; and that he can go without harm. He 
 also reminds them that he is perfectly aware 
 of the perils of darkness— of the dangers into 
 which one falls when his walk is untimely, 
 and his hours of service are passed. Meyer 
 explains the allegory thus: "The time ap- 
 pointed to me by God for working is not yet 
 elapsed ; as long as it lasts, no one can do any- 
 thing to me; but when it shall have come to 
 an end, I shall Ml into the hands of my ene- 
 mies, like him who walketh in the night, and 
 stumbleth, because he is without light." We 
 doubt whether Jesus meant to apply the latter 
 part of the illustration. He did not go blindly 
 or darkly to the cross. He "laid down his 
 life" as truly as he submitted to hunger and 
 thirst and weariness. (Comp. 10: 17, 18.) To 
 see the li^ht of this world, is equivalent 
 to seeing by the light of the world — i. e., of 
 the sun. Whether the expression, there is 
 no lij^ht in him, means any more than "the 
 light is not in his eyes or possession," is doubt- 
 ful ; it may possibly mean, "he is not con- 
 scious of the light"— i. e., of the effect of it, 
 so that he may be guided by it. 
 
 11. Our friend Lazarus sleepeth (lit., 
 perhaps, is asleep), etc. An interval had 
 passed after the remark of verses 9, 10, and 
 this is an explanation of his reason for going 
 again into Judea. Meyer assumes that Laz- 
 arus had just now died, as Jesus knew by di- 
 vine vision. This is certainly possible, not- 
 withstanding what has been said under verse 
 6, and is, in fact, probable, if the place of 
 Christ's retirement was north of the Sea of 
 Galilee and east of the Upper Jordan, as Von 
 Raumer and Caspari suppose, or onlj' a few 
 
 miles south of the Sea of Galilee, and east of 
 the Jordan, as others have recently conjec- 
 tured. For in either case the journey of Je- 
 sus to Bethany, on the eastern slope of Olivet, 
 might naturally have occupied three or four 
 days, and could not have been made in one. 
 Yet the expression is asleep (perfect tense), 
 does not require us to suppose that he hud just 
 now fallen asleep. The same word might 
 have been used with equal propriety, if Jesus 
 thought of him as now continuing in a sleep 
 into which he had fallen two days before. 
 "In all verbs," remarks Dr. J. A. Broadus, 
 "the perfect denotes an action standing in a 
 completed state. In many verbs, this will 
 suggest to the mind a foregoing process which 
 has led to this completed state, but not in all 
 cases, and not at all necessarily." The words 
 our friend, show that Lazarus had mani- 
 fested good will to the disciples, as well as to 
 Jesus, and are in special harmony with the 
 exhortation. Let us go into Judea again. 
 (ver. 7.) The further statement, I go, that I 
 may aAvake him out of sleep, was fitted to 
 make the disciples understand that Lazarus 
 was in no ordinary sleep; for there could 
 surely be no occasion for Jesus to make a long 
 journey to rouse him from a peaceful, restful, 
 recuperative sleep. But a misunderstanding 
 of his remark when first informed of the sick- 
 ness of Lazarus ("••.4), may have prevented 
 their apprehending all that was implied in the 
 declaration, I go, that I may awake him 
 out of sleep. The word sleep appears 
 to be used by the sacred writers in place of 
 "death," first, because the physical phenom- 
 ena of the two are somewhat similar; and, 
 secondly, because death is to be followed by 
 resurrection. For the same reasons, Jesus 
 spoke of Lazarus in this place, and of the 
 daughter of Jairus, in Matt. 9: 24, as being 
 asleep. 
 
 12. Then (or, therefore) said his dis- 
 ciples, etc. . . he shall do well ; or, ^vill be 
 saved — that is, from death, as threatened by 
 
Ch. XL] 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 229 
 
 13 Howbeit Jesus spake of his death: but they thought 
 that he had spoken of taking of rest in sleep. 
 
 14 Then said Jesus unto theui plainly, Lazarus is 
 dead. 
 
 15 Andl amglad foryoiirsakesthat I wasnotthere, to 
 the intent ye may believe; nevertheless let us go unto 
 biui. 
 
 16 Then said Thomas, which is called Didymus, unto 
 his fellow disciples, Let us also go, that we may die with 
 him. 
 
 13 he will 1 recover. Now Jesus had spoken of his 
 death ; but they thought that he spake of taking 
 
 14 rest in sleep. Then Jesus therefore said unto them 
 
 15 plainly, Lazarus is dead. And I am glad for 
 your sakes that I was not there, to the intent ye 
 may believe; nevertheless let us go unto him. 
 
 16 Thomas therefore, who is called 2 Didymus, said un- 
 to his fellow-disciples, Let us also go, that we may 
 die with him. 
 
 1 Gr. be saved 2 That is, Twin. 
 
 the disease It is sufficiently accurate to render 
 the word (o-Mflijo-eTo-t) he loilL recover (Alford, 
 Noyes), or, he will be restored (Bible Union 
 Revision). Sleep was considered a favorable 
 symptom in many diseases. It often marked 
 and followed the turn of a fever. Hence the 
 disciples seize upon this fact as a reason why 
 Jesus need not repair to Bethany. But in 
 their eagerness they misunderstood the Lord, 
 as the Evangelist proceeds to say. 
 
 13. Howbeit Jesus spake (better, but 
 Jesus had spoken) of his death. This verse 
 makes it certain that the disciples did not sus- 
 pect the real meaning of Christ. And in par- 
 tial explanation of their failure to divine his 
 meaning, it has been suggested that the three 
 select disciples, Peter, James, and John, who 
 were permitted to enter the house of Jairus 
 with him and to hear him speak of the damsel 
 who was dead as being asleep, were now ab- 
 sent. This is plausible, and might account for 
 the prominence of Thomas, instead of Peter; 
 but it is only a conjecture, and the style of 
 John goes to show that in almost every in- 
 stance he was a personal witness of what he 
 relates. 
 
 14. Then (or, therefore) said Jesus unto 
 them plainly, Lazarus is dead (or, died). 
 The death of Lazarus is here distinctly set 
 forth as a past event, though without any hint 
 of the precise time when it took place. Yet 
 it does not seem perfectly natural for Jesus to 
 employ the aorist tense of the verb {Laza7'us 
 died), if the death of Lazarus had just 
 occurred. 
 
 15. And I am glad for your sakes that 
 I Avas not there, etc. This language im- 
 plies, (1) that had Jesus been present in 
 Bethany, he would not have suffered Lazarus 
 to die; his miraculous power would have 
 been used in restoring the sick to health, and 
 not in raising the dead to life. The Saviour 
 always paid due regard to all the circum- 
 stances of life in his conduct. His miracles 
 were never extravagant, but always adapted 
 
 to person and place with divine wisdom. (2) 
 That Christ desired to increase the faith of his 
 disciples, and had that end distinctly in view 
 when doing mighty works. Me^'er beauti- 
 fully explains the words to the intent (or, 
 that) ye may believe, by remarking, "that 
 every new flight of faith is in its degree a 
 progress towards faith." (3) That all miracles 
 are not equally impressive and convincing as 
 revelations of divine power. Raising the 
 dead is a greater work than healing the sick, 
 a more signal and glorious exhibition of the 
 might of him who is over all. ' ' If we cannot 
 say with certainty that no miracle he ever 
 wrought occupied beforehand so much of our 
 Saviour's thoughts, we can say that no other 
 miracle was predicted and prepared for as 
 this one wdS.'^^Hanna. 
 
 16. Then said Thomas, which [who) is 
 called Didymus, etc. The word then, or 
 therefore, represents the saying of Thomas as 
 occasioned by Christ's renewed expression of 
 his purpose to visit Bethany, and of his desire 
 to be accompanied by his disciples, (ver. is.) 
 But so vivid was the apprehension which 
 Thomas had of the power and enmity of the 
 Jews, and of the almost certain death which 
 awaited Jesus at their hands, that he failed to 
 take in the import of his Master's language. 
 (ver.15.) "I {am glad) rejoice for 3'our sakes 
 that I was not there, to the intent ye may be- 
 lieve." For this language certainly fore- 
 shadowed a glorious display of the Saviour's 
 power, and forbade the thought of immediate 
 death. But though Thomas could think of 
 nothing but the danger which threatened the 
 life of his Lord, his loyalty and love were 
 deep, and he was ready to follow him into 
 danger and death. Such at least was his feel- 
 ing at this time. The name Thomas is de- 
 rived from the Hebrew, and signifies tivin ; 
 Didymus is from the Greek, and means the 
 same. Only a few notices of this apostle 
 occur in the New Testament. He is coupled 
 with Matthew, in Matt. 10: 3; Mark 3: 18; 
 
230 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 [Ch. XL 
 
 17 Then when Jesus came, he found that he had lain 
 in the grave for four days already. 
 
 IS Now Bethany was nigh unto Jerusalem, about fif- 
 teen furlongs off: 
 
 19 And mciuy of the Jews came to Martha and Mary, 
 to comfort them concerning their brother. 
 
 17 So when Jesus came, he found that he had been 
 
 18 in the tomb four days already. Now Bethany was 
 
 19 nigh unto Jerusalem, about titteen furlongs off; and 
 many of the Jews had come to Martha and Mary, to 
 
 Luke 6: 15; and with Philip, in Acts 1 : 13. 
 " All that we know of him is derived from the 
 Gospel of St. John ; and this amounts to three 
 traits, which, however, so exactly agree to- 
 gether, that, slight as they are, they place his 
 character before us with a precision which 
 
 verse, see comments on verses 6 and 11. As 
 it was the custom of the Jews to bury their 
 dead on the day of tlieir decease, and with 
 very little delay, it would be unsafe to make 
 much allowance for the time which may have 
 elapsed between the death and the burial of 
 
 ul.lUA^\. 
 
 belongs to no other of the twelve apostles, ex- 
 cept Peter, John, and Judas Iscariot. This 
 character is that of a man slow to believe, 
 seeing all the difficulties of a case, subject to 
 despondency, viewing things on the darker 
 side, and yet full of ardent love for his Mas- 
 ter." (Smith's "Diet, of the Bible," Art. 
 Thomas). 
 
 17-44. Thk Mir.^cle Performed. 
 
 17. Then Avhen Jesus came, he found 
 that he had lain (been) in the grave (tomb) 
 four days already. This statement is joined 
 to the preceding by then, or therefore, because 
 the action which it relates resulted from the 
 purpose there spoken of. For the different 
 inferences which have been drawn from this 
 
 Lazarus. It is proper to insist only upon the 
 fact that he had been dead four days. From 
 the remark, he found that he had been in 
 the tomb four days already, it cannot be 
 inferred, with any certaint\', that Jesus was 
 ignorant of the time of Lazarus' death and 
 burial, until he arrived in Bethany. Doubt- 
 less, this fact was reported to him by those 
 whom he met, and was then first known by 
 the Evangelist. There is reason to believe 
 that Jesus knew all this, while he was still on 
 the other side of the Jordan, and that the tes- 
 timony now given was to him only the veri- 
 fication of his divine knowledge. 
 
 18. Now Bethany was nish unto Jeru- 
 salem, about fifteen furlongs off. The 
 
Ch. XL] 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 231 
 
 20 Then Martha, as soon as she heard that Jesus was 
 coming, went and luet hiui : but Mary sat still in the 
 house. 
 
 21 Then said Martha unto Jesus, Lord, if thou hadst 
 been here, my brother had not died. 
 
 22 But I kuow, that even now, " whatsoever thou will 
 ask of God, God will give il thee. 
 
 20 console them concerning their brother. Martha 
 therefore, when she heard that Jesus was coming, 
 went and met him: but Mary still sat in the house. 
 
 21 Martha therefore said unto Jesus, Lord, if thou hadst 
 
 22 been here, my brother had not died. And even now 
 1 know that, whatsoever thou shall ask of God, God 
 
 short distance of Bethany from Jerusalem — a 
 little less than two English miles — is men- 
 tioned because of the number of Jews who 
 visited Martha and Mary in that village, to 
 comfort them for the loss of their brother. 
 
 19. And many of the Jews came (had 
 come) to Martha and Mary, etc. The Jews 
 most probably refer, in this place, to the lead- 
 ing men of the nation who resided in Jerusa- 
 lem. The family of Martha, Mary, and Laz- 
 arus was so respectable, that many of the lead- 
 ing Jews continued their intercourse and 
 friendship with it, even after its members 
 were known to be disciples of Jesus. Some 
 of these Jews were not so full of prejudice 
 and hatred to Christ as others (see ver. 45, 46) ; 
 and none of them wore ringleaders in the at- 
 tempts to destroy him. The Greek expression 
 translated to Martha and Mary, means prop- 
 erly to Martha and Mary, with the women 
 about them. "According to later Greek usage, 
 it might be indicative simply of the two sis- 
 ters. But the New Testament, says Meyer, 
 contains no instaiice of its use in this sense, 
 and there is here an especial decorum in the 
 expression, since those who came to them 
 were men. It reveals, moreover, an estab- 
 lishment of the better class" (From Lange.) 
 Seven days was the customary period for such 
 manifestations of s^nnpathy. (Comp. 1 Sam. 
 31: 13; 1 Chron. 10: 12. )i 
 
 20. Then Martha, as soon as (lit., when) 
 she heard that Jesus was coming, went 
 to meet him, etc. The conduct of the two 
 sisters agrees perfectly with their characters 
 as revealed on another occasion. (See Luke 
 10: 38-42.) The older sister is prompt, active, 
 practical ; the younger quiet, spiritual, con- 
 
 1 It should, however, be remarked that Lach., Treg., 
 W. and H., adopt a reading, supported by J< b c* l x. 
 33. Pesch., Memp., and other versions Ir'rfv Moip^a ical 
 Mapta/ii), which agrees with the English version, to 
 Martha and Mary. But though the evidence for 
 this text is so strong, it is difficult to account for the 
 change to the common text from this easier reading; 
 and therefore, it is safer to abide by the text explained 
 above. 
 
 fiding. Martha went to meet Jesus, partly 
 because it was her nature to act and not to wait, 
 and partly, we imagine, because she preferred 
 to speak with him first in the presence of his 
 friends, rather than in the presence of his foes. 
 "Mary, whether she hears or not, sees her 
 sister rise and go, yet stays still in the house — 
 the two sisters, one in her eager movement, 
 the other in her quiet rest — here, as elsewhere, 
 showing forth the difference of their charac- 
 ters." — Hnnna. "Mary speaks less, but feels 
 more." — Schaff. The word still in the Com- 
 mon Version is not the adjective meaning 
 "silent," but the adverb after that, or after 
 Martha went out. 
 
 21. Then said Martha unto Jesus, Lord, 
 if thou (this pronoun is not emphatic) hadst 
 been here, my brother had not {would not 
 have) died. A sentiment in perfect accord 
 with the most natural interpretation of 
 Christ's language in ver. 15. From the cir- 
 cumstance that both sisters meet the Lord 
 with the same words, it may be safely inferred 
 that they had communed together on this 
 point, and had, perhaps, expressed the same 
 thought to each other many times since their 
 brother's death. "Why they felt this assur- 
 ance, we cannot tell. It may have been the 
 fruit of love trusting in love. But at all 
 events it appears to havo been well-founded, 
 though it was no part of the Saviour's plan 
 or work to heal all his friends who were sick. 
 More remarkable are the next words of 
 Martha. 
 
 22. But (rather, and) I know, that even 
 now, whatsover thou wilt ask of God, 
 God will give it thee. There is certainly 
 to be discovered in these words a hope that 
 Lazarus might be restored to life. Probably 
 two things contributed to produce this hope 
 and to lead her to express it, though but indi- 
 rectly: (1) The declaration of Jesus pre- 
 served in ver. 4: "This sickness is not unto 
 death, but for the glory of God, that the Son 
 of God might be glorified" ; for this declara- 
 tion was, doubtless, reported to the sisters 
 by their messenger; and, (2) The restoration 
 
232 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 [Ch. XI. 
 
 23 Jesus saith unto her, Thy brother shall rise again. I 23 will give thee. Jesus sailh unto her, Thy brother 
 
 24 Martha saith unto him, <• I know that he shall rise 24 shall rise again. Martha saith unto hiiu, I know 
 
 again in the i-esurreetiou at the last day. 
 
 25 Jesus said unto her, I am * the resurrection, and 
 the <^life; ''he that believeth in me, though he were 
 dead, yet shall he live : 
 
 that he shall rise again in the resurrection at the 
 25 last day. Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrec- 
 tion, and the lite ; he that believeth on me, though 
 
 a Luke U: li; cb. 5: 
 
 : 6; Col. 3: 4; 1 John I: 1, 2; 5: 11 d ch. 3 : 36; 1 John 5: 
 
 of life to the son of the widow of Nain and 
 to the daughter of Jairus, of which she must 
 surely have heard. But the modesty and re- 
 serve of Martha are also noticeable. She 
 does not expressly mention what seems to 
 have been in her heart, but merely suggests it 
 by a comprehensive word— whatsoever thou 
 wilt ask. It will also be observed that she 
 does not ascribe to Jesus himself any super- 
 natural power. That power, according to her 
 language, belongs to God, but will be exer- 
 cised, as she knows^ in response to the en- 
 treaty of Jesus. That this is her view is 
 manifest from the prominence given to God — 
 "whatsoever thou wilt ask of God, God will 
 give it thee." Some have inferred the same 
 thing, and even more, from the verb which 
 she employs to express the idea of asking or 
 entreating (airtai)— a verb which is supposed to 
 be used only by inferiors to superiors, while 
 another (epiordu) is used by equals to equals. 
 But this distinction is not well-founded. (See 
 an article in the North American by Dr. 
 Ezra Abbott, entitled Trench's Synonyms)^ 
 23. Jesus saith unto her, Thy brother 
 shall rise again. Her comprehensive 
 whatsover is perfectly understood by the 
 Lord, and his re.eponse has respect to its real 
 import. But this response is itself indefinite. 
 It may refer to the resurrection of the just at 
 some future time called "the last day," or it 
 may refer to an immediate re-animation of 
 Lazarus. The latter meaning is doubted by 
 some eminent scholars, but, as it seems to us, 
 without sufficient reason. For in itself the 
 verb appears to signify a rising again to 
 physical life quite as naturally as it does any 
 different rising; and there is no conclusive 
 evidence that it had already become a techni- 
 cal term, even if it became one at a later day. 
 Moreover, the whole previous narrative leads 
 one to expect at this point some reference, 
 either plain or obscure, to the miracle in pros- 
 
 1 Probably (airea) is a stronger term than («p<oto«o), 
 the former corresponding to the English " beg" or 
 " entreat," and the latter to the English "ask." 
 
 pect. And still further, Martha, as we learn 
 from her response, had no doubt of a final 
 resurrection in the case of her brother, and it 
 was, therefore, needless to assure her of it. 
 "We believe that Jesus wished to bind together 
 in the mind of Martha, the final resurrection 
 and the re-animation of her brother, and on 
 this account used a term that was applicable 
 to both, and might signify either. Martha 
 perceived the indefiniteness of liis declara- 
 tion, but did not venture to speak out clearl3' 
 the desire of her heart. She only hinted her 
 hope of something else, by saying that she 
 was already aware of the truth of his decla- 
 ration, if it had respect to the final resurrec- 
 tion only. 
 
 24. I know that he shall (or, will) rise 
 again in the resurrection at the last day. 
 If this was uttered with a slightly rising in- 
 flection, indicative of a desire for something 
 more definite in respect to her brother — as if 
 she almost hoped for something in his case 
 that would not be true of every one, the 
 thought has been correctly explained in the 
 comment on ver. 23. "Her words are ex- 
 pressive, not merely of a sad resignation, but 
 of an indirect query — she is feeling her way." 
 — Lange, De Wette. It is not necessary to 
 suppose that Martha's knowledge of a future 
 resurrection was derived wholly from the Old 
 Testament, or from the scribes of her people. 
 She may have been taught the truth by Christ 
 himself, who had been often welcomed to her 
 house. Yet there is ample evidence that the 
 Pharisees believed in a future life, and in a 
 resurrection of the just. (See Article Kesur- 
 rection, in Smith's "Diet, of the Bible," Am. 
 ed.) 
 
 25. I am the resurrection, and the life. 
 "I am their source, their ground, their au- 
 thor." " /, no other than I . . am the \>eT- 
 ?:or\?t\ power of both — the one who raises again, 
 and who makes alive." — Meyer. "Without 
 me they would be unattainable. Behold in 
 me the being on whose will and work the res- 
 urrection of the dead and the blessed life in 
 God absolutely depend." This is the central 
 
Ch. XL] 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 233 
 
 26 And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall I 26 he die, yet shall he live: and whosoever liveth and 
 never die. Belie vest thou this? 1 believeth on me shall never die. Belie vest thou 
 
 point in the narrative, and the one great truth 
 which it illustrates. This truth Christ pro- 
 ceeds to paraphrase and explain. He that 
 believeth iii me — that is, he who is a be- 
 liever in me — he of whom trust in me is a 
 characteristic. Though he were dead. The 
 Rev. Ver. gives: Though he die. It is, per- 
 haps, doubtful whether this translation is 
 preferable to another of which the Greek is 
 capable, viz. : Though he have died. If Jesus 
 had Lazarus in mind when uttering this 
 clause, the latter version is to be preferred, 
 for Lazarus vvas now dead ; but if not, the 
 Kev. Version is better, because it agrees with 
 the prevailing New Testament signification of 
 verbs, in the mood and tense here used. Per- 
 haps there was sufficient reference to Lazarus 
 to justify the latter rendering, which is ap- 
 proved by Meyer, SchafF, Noyes, and Wat- 
 kins. Yet shall he live, or, more briefly, 
 shall live. That is, death will not retain him 
 in its power, but he will be raised by Christ to 
 a true and blessed life — he "will come forth 
 . . . to the resurrection of life." (5:29.) Thus 
 Christ declares himself to be the resurrection 
 unto life to all who believe in him. They 
 may sutler physical death, but they will be 
 brought into a perfect life of body and spirit. 
 26. And whosoever — (i. e., every one who) 
 liveth and believeth in me shall never 
 die. The believer who is still in possession of 
 physical life will never suffer true death — that 
 death which is the antithesis of true life. In 
 ver. 25, the death spoken of is physical, and 
 the life spiritual ; in this verse, the life spoken 
 of is physical, and the death spiritual. The 
 last clause is sometimes translated, will not 
 die forever — i. e., though he may die for a 
 time. Schaff remarks that "the phrase is in 
 itself ambiguous, and may mean either not 
 forever, or never. The first and literal ren- 
 dering would give a very plain sense : He that 
 liveth (physically) and believeth in me., will 
 no^rfie (physically )/orevc? — i. e., will be raised 
 again. But in all other passages in which the 
 
 same phrase occurs (4: U; 8: 51,52; 10:28; 13: 8; l 
 
 Cor. 8:13), it is equivalent to never . . . with an 
 emphasis on the negation. "We must, then, 
 suppose that Christ, in verse 26, either spoke of 
 spiritual death, or overlooked physical death 
 as a vanishing transition to real and eternal 
 
 life." Meyer adopts the former interiireta- 
 tion : " will assuredly not die forever — i. e., he 
 will not lose his life in eternity'"; but it is 
 difficult to see how this adds anj'thing to what 
 has been before said. To assert that a be- 
 liever in Christ, though he die, or have died, 
 will live — i. e., by virtue of the resurrection, 
 is the same as to say that a living believer will 
 not die forever, because he will be raised again 
 to life. But the great objection to this view 
 is, that the phrase has a different meaning in 
 every other passage of the New Testament, 
 and that meaning one perfectly adapted to 
 this place. To the woman of Samaria, Jesus 
 said : " Whosoever drinketh of this water will 
 thirst again; but whosoever drinketh of the 
 water that I shall give him, will never thirst," 
 etc. In contrast with thirsting again, is here 
 put never thirsting again — a natural and per- 
 fect contrast. It was so understood by the 
 woman, and so explained by the added meta- 
 phor of a living and upspringing fountain in 
 the soul. In 8 : 51 stand recorded the words 
 of Jesus: "If a man keep my saying, he 
 shall never see death," and in the next verse, 
 the interpretation of the Jews : "Abraham is 
 dead, and the prophets; and thou sayest. If a 
 man keep my saying, he shall never taste 
 death." Here there is no question about the 
 resurrection. As the Jews understood him to 
 say, even so Christ really said, that one who 
 should keep his word would never die. The 
 Jews themselves did not believe that Abraham 
 and the prophets had lost their lives in eter- 
 nity. Christ intended to say that the true life 
 possessed by one who keeps his word will 
 never come to an end, but flow on forever. 
 Again, the Lord says of his true sheep, "I 
 give unto them eternal life; and they shall 
 never perish, neither shall any man (or, one) 
 pluck them out of my hand." (lo: 28.) This 
 does not mean "They shall not jierish for- 
 ever," though they may perish for a time; 
 death may pluck them out of my hands for 
 ages, but I will recover them at last, by the 
 resurrection; but, as the connection requires, 
 "they shall never perish: in my protection, 
 they are safe for time and eternity. In John 
 13: 8, Peter uses the same expression, "Thou 
 shalt never wash my feet," and of course he 
 does not mean, "thou shalt not wash my feet 
 
234 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 [Ch. XI. 
 
 27 She saith unto him, Yea, Lord: "I believe that 
 thou art the Christ, the Son of God, which should come 
 into the world. 
 
 28 And when she had so said, she went her way, and 
 called Mary her sister secretly, saying. The Master is 
 come, and callefh tor thee. 
 
 29 As soon as she heard that, she arose quickly, and 
 came unto him. 
 
 30 Now Jesus was not yet come into the town, but 
 was in that place where Martha met him. 
 
 27 this? She saith unto him, Yea, Lord: I have be- 
 lieved that thou art the C hrist, the Son of God, even 
 
 28 he that cometh into the world. And when she had 
 said this, she went away, and called Mary iher sis- 
 ter secretly, saying, The - Master is here, and call- 
 
 29 eth thee. And she, when she heard it, arose quickly, 
 
 30 and went unto him. (Now Jesus was not yet conie 
 into the village, but was still in the place where 
 
 a Matt. 16 : 16 ; ch. 4 : 42 ; 6 : 14, 69. 1 Or, her sister, saying secretly 2 Or, Teacher. 
 
 forever., or in eternity.^' The meaning of the 
 phrase is unambiguous. Paul avails himself 
 of the same expression (icor. 8:i3): "If meat 
 make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh 
 while the world stands, or, never eat flesh," 
 not, "I will not eat flesh forever, or in eter- 
 nity." (See, also, Matt. 21 : 19; Mark 11 : 14; 
 3: -29; Luke 1 : 54, 55; John 6: 51, 58; 8: 35; 
 12 : 34, for a similar phraseology.) Believest 
 thou this? "A personal appeal, or appli- 
 cation, very pungent by its suddenness." — 
 Bengel. 
 
 27. Yea, Lord: I believe (lit., have be- 
 lieved) that thou art the Christ, the 
 Son of God, etc. It is best to understand 
 Martha's Yea, Lord, as her full and aflirma- 
 tive answer to the Saviour's question, Be- 
 lievest thou this ? and the rest of her words 
 as giving her reason for this answer. "Yea, 
 Lord; for I have myself believed and do be- 
 lieve that thou art the Christ," etc. This 
 interpretation agrees with that of Meyer, 
 Godot, Watkins, and others. How fully she 
 apprehended the designation — the Son of 
 God — can only be conjectured; but she mu.st 
 have seen in him One who could raise the 
 dead and impart true life, because he was in a 
 wholly peculiar sense from with God. The 
 present tense of which should come, (or. 
 Cometh (6. . . . epxaixevo^), \s a kind of ideal 
 present, meaning one who is known in the 
 promises of God as "the Coming One." 
 
 28. And Avhen she had so said, she 
 went her Avay (better, away), and called 
 Mary her sister secretly, saying. The 
 Master is come, and calleth for thee. 
 Martha's second statement, and calleth for 
 thee, is to be received with the same confi- 
 dence as her first statement, the Master 
 (Teacher) is come. For it is quite in accord 
 with the Evangelical narratives to omit cer- 
 tain facts that are presupposed by what is 
 written. Every powerful writing does the 
 same. A full record of what Jesus said and 
 
 did in one busy day of his mini.«try would, 
 with all the related circumstances, make a 
 large volume. Martha spoke to her sister 
 secretly — i. c, in a whisper, in order that the 
 Jews about them might not hear what was 
 said; for it was thought by Martha, if not by 
 Jesus also, that Mary would prefer to meet 
 the Master, or, Teacher, without the pres- 
 ence of unbelieving friends. Indeed, it is 
 natural to suppose that Christ's reason for 
 calling Mary to himself, instead of going to 
 the house where she was, was his desire that 
 their meeting might be as quiet and informal 
 as possible. It may be inferred from Martha's 
 language that the sisters were accustomed to 
 speak of Jesus as The Teacher. No other 
 teacher was, in their minds, comparable to- 
 him.i 
 
 29. As soon as she heard that, etc. 
 Better, And she, when she heard it. An in- 
 stant response to the call of her Lord ! 
 There is nearly equal authority for the more 
 vivacious and descriptive reading: She riseth 
 and goeth unto him. Godet remarks, with 
 too much confidence, that this "certain!}- is 
 the true reading." 
 
 30. Now Jesus Avas not yet come into 
 the town (village^, but was (or, was still) 
 in that place where Martha met him. 
 He appears to have remained for a while out- 
 side the village— ^/irsf, bectiuse he was met 
 there by Martha, and was led to pause in 
 his journej' during the conversation which 
 had been related (21:27); and, secondly, he- 
 cause, having learned that there were many 
 Jewish friends at the time in the house of 
 Martha and Mary, he preferred to meet Marj' 
 also before entering Bethanj', and to say to 
 her what he wished to say in the simplest and 
 quietest manner possible. It is also probable 
 
 1 The doubtful readings of this verse (toOto or ravra 
 
 MapioM or Mapiav, €'iTrov(Ta or flnaa-a) do not atfect the 
 meaning in any important respect. 
 
Ch. XL] 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 235 
 
 31 » The Jews then which were with her iu the house, 
 and coiuforted her, when they saw Mary, that she rose 
 up hastily and went out, followed her, saying. She goeth 
 unto the grave to weep there. 
 
 32 Theu when Mary was come where Jesus was, and 
 saw him, she fell down at his feet, saying unto him, 
 i Lord, if thou hadst been here, my brother had not 
 died. 
 
 33 When Jesus therefore saw her weeping, and the 
 Jews also weeping which came with her, he groaned in 
 the spirit, and was troubled, 
 
 34 And said. Where have ye laid him ? They say unto 
 him. Lord, come and see. 
 
 31 Martha met him.) The Jews then who were with 
 her in the house, and were comforting her, when they 
 saw Mary, that she rose upquicklyaiid went out, fol- 
 lowed her, sui)posiug that she was going unto the 
 
 32 tomb to 1 weep there. Mary therefore, when she came 
 where Jesus was, and saw him, fell down at his feet, 
 saying unto him. Lord, if thou hadst been here, my 
 
 33 brother had not died. When Jesus therefore saw 
 her - weeping, and the Jews also ^ weeping who came 
 with her. he ^groaned in the si)irit, and -i was trou- 
 
 34 bled, and said, Where have ye laid him? They say 
 
 I vcr. 19 b ver. 21. 1 Gr. wait 2 Gr. wailing 3 Or, was moved with indignation in the spirit 4 Gr. troubled himself. 
 
 that the buriul place of Bethany was outside 
 the viUage, not far from the phioe where 
 Jesus rested. To this, Meyer's objection that 
 he did not even know where Lazarus was 
 laid (ver. 34) is without force; for in a burial 
 place there are usually many graves. It also 
 appears that Mary took such a direction in 
 going to meet Jesus as led the Jews to suppose 
 that she might be going to the grave of her 
 brother. 
 
 31. The Jews then which (who) were 
 with her in the house, etc. Trustworthy 
 observers testify that it is still the custom of 
 Oriental women to visit often the tombs of 
 their deceased kindred and weep there; and 
 not alone, but with many who join them. 
 These friendly Jews were, no doubt, anxious 
 to do all in their power to express their sym- 
 pathy with the afflicted sisters, and especially 
 with Mary, whose sorrow was overwhelming. 
 Whether the original text had a word that 
 means saying (Ae'vofTcs), or a word that means 
 thinking (SoiavTe^), is uncertain and unim- 
 portant. There is, perhaps, a slight prepon- 
 derance of testimony in favor of the latter, 
 which is, therefore, adopted by the Eevised 
 Version (supposijig). 
 
 32. Then when Mary was come, (or, 
 Mary therefore, when she come,) etc. In 
 two respects the conduct of Mar^' differs from 
 that of Martha — she falls at the feet of Jesus, 
 evidently with a deeper feeling of grief than 
 was experienced by her elder sister, when she 
 met the Lord ; and she utters only one sen- 
 tence, relating wholly to the past, while her 
 sister glanced with at least a ray of hope into 
 the future. This sentence (compare ver. 21) 
 "had unquestionably been the oft-repeated re- 
 frain of their mutual communications on the 
 subject of their sorrow." — Meyer. That Mary 
 had less confidence than Martha in Jesus, as 
 one through whom her brother's life might 
 
 even now be restored, there is no reason to 
 suppose; but grief choked her utterance. 
 There is also a slight difference in the order 
 which she gave to the words of the sentence 
 uttered by her sister and herself, by which 
 the pronoun my has been supposed to gain a 
 slight emphasis, as if she had said in English : 
 "My own brother would not have died." 
 
 33. When Jesus therefore saw her 
 weeping, (or, weep,) etc. In explaining this 
 very difficult verse, it must be remarked that 
 there is no sufficient ground for the Common 
 Version, he groaned in spirit. For the pri- 
 mary and physical sense of the verb here used, 
 is to snort, and its derived sense, to be angry, 
 or, indignant. The second meaning is not in- 
 appropriate here. For anger and grief are 
 compatible feelings; certainly they may suc- 
 ceed each other in an instant. And on this 
 occasion there was a reason for the one as well 
 as for the other. Jesus saw before him not 
 only Mary, whom he loved with a holy ten- 
 derness and compassion, but some of his im- 
 placable foes, who would on'y be hardened 
 and infuriated by the miracle he was about to 
 perform. And these self-righteous men were 
 now weeping and groaning in professional 
 sorrow with Mary ! Men who would soon be 
 plotting to kill, not only Jesus, but the re- 
 stored Lazarus (12: 10), were there in his pres- 
 ence, professing their sj'mpathy and friend- 
 ship for the sisters. No wonder the spirit of 
 the Holy One was hot within him. The next 
 verb is yet more difficult to translate. It 
 probably means, he shook himself, or shud- 
 dered a kind of voluntary shudder, express- 
 ing his indignation by an almost convulsive 
 movement of his whole frame. The former 
 verb describes the inward feeling, and the lat- 
 ter its visible expression. But this indignation 
 was only for a moment. 
 
 34. Where have ye laid him? They 
 
236 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 [Ch. XI. 
 
 35 "Jesus wept. 
 
 36 Thea said the Jews, Behold how he loved him ! 
 
 37 And some of them said. Could not this man, * which 
 opened the eyes of the blind, have caused that even this 
 man should not have died? 
 
 38 Jesus therefore again groaning in liimself cometh 
 to the grave. It was a cave, and a stone lay upon it. 
 
 35 unto him. Lord, come and see. Jesus wept. The 
 
 36 Jews therefore said, Behold how he loved him ! But 
 
 37 some of them said. Could not this man, who opened 
 the eyes of him that was blind, have caused that 
 
 38 this man also should not die? Jesus therefore 
 again i groauing in himself cometh to the tomb. 
 
 a Luke 19 ; 41. . . .6 ch. 9 : 6. 1 Or, being moved with indignation in himself. 
 
 say unto him. Lord, come and see. It is 
 
 a moment of unspeakable emotion, and tlie 
 fewest words possible are uttered. Jesus speaks 
 to the sisters, and is answered by them. 
 
 35. Jesus wept. Not aloud, as some of the 
 Jews were doubtless weeping or wailing, but 
 tears fell from his eyes. His grief was silent, 
 but deep and tearful. This brief sentence 
 teaches the perfect human sympathy of Christ. 
 He was man, as well as God; perfectly hu- 
 man, as well as perfectly divine. This is the 
 mystery of mysteries, and this is the pervad- 
 ing thought of the Fourth Gospel. "The 
 "Word became flesh and dwelt among us," 
 and the genuineness of his human nature is 
 beautifully revealed in the event commem- 
 orated by this verse. The divine-human Re- 
 deemer can be touched with the feeling of our 
 infirmities (Heb. 2: i7; 4: 15.) 
 
 36. Then said the Jews (or, the Jews 
 therefore were saying).^ Behold how he 
 loved him ! Some of the Jews, in view of 
 the sorrow of Jesus, that was manifesting it- 
 self in tears, as he passed along towards the 
 sepulchre, remarked more than once: "See 
 how deep an affection he must have had for 
 Lazarus!" There was something so natural, 
 so human, so profound, in the grief of Jesus, 
 that the less prejudiced Jews saw in it an evi- 
 dence of extraordinary love. But not all "the 
 Jews" — and what a part they play in this pa- 
 thetic scene! — were open to the sacred influ- 
 ence of sorrow. The thoughts of a part of 
 them were taking a sinister direction ; for the 
 Evangelist adds: 
 
 37. And s<ime of them said. Could not 
 this man, which (who) opened the eyes 
 of the blind (or, of him that was blind), 
 have caused that even this man (also) 
 should not have died? That this was asked 
 in a tone of ironj^ malice, and unbelief in 
 Jesus, which assumed a negative answer, may 
 be inferred (1) from the obvious contrast be- 
 tween the Jews, and some of them, ex- 
 pressed by the conjunction but (Sk) (compare 
 the same word and expression in verse 46) ; 
 
 and (2) from the feeling of indignation which 
 at once arises in the soul of Jesus, (ver. ss.) 
 This feeling is naturally occasioned by such 
 an expression, at such a moment. Our inter- 
 pretation is essentially the same as that of 
 Meyer, Godet, Alford, SchaflT, Lange, Wat- 
 kins. And if the spirit and aim of their 
 question were thus malicious, it is probable 
 that they intended to insinuate doubt as to the 
 truth of the report that he had opened the 
 eyes of the blind man. " If he opened the eyes 
 of the blind man, as some of you profess to 
 believe, could he not have prevented tiie death 
 of this friend, for whom he is now weeping? 
 But this he could not do; what, then, must 
 we think of his doing that?" Ah, these were 
 men who would not be persuaded, though one 
 should rise from the dead. They were men 
 who coidd not be convinced, because they 
 would not believe. 
 
 38. Jesus therefore again groaning (or, 
 being again indignant), cometh to the grave 
 (or, tomb). His indignation was renewed by 
 the sneering question of the Jews just re- 
 corded. But as this feeling of holy, though 
 unexpressed, wrath was kindled afresh in his 
 soul, the sepulchre was reached. It was a 
 cave, and a stone lay upon it. That is, 
 upon, or against, the entrance into it. "The 
 sepulchres of the Hebrews," says Dr. Hackett, 
 "were generally cut out of the solid rock; 
 sometimes below the level of the ground, but 
 oftener above the ground, and on the sides of 
 mountains. The natural caves with which 
 the country abounds were also used for this 
 purpose." "At the bottom of a ledge, in the 
 rear of the Maronite Church at Nazareth, I 
 noticed a sepulchre cut in the rock, which 
 excited my interest the more, because it had a 
 large stone rolled against the mouth of it." 
 "The grave of Lazarus was closed with a 
 stone." "On the contrary, most of the tombs 
 which I examined near Jerusalem must have 
 had doors. The grooves and perforations for 
 the hinges that still remain, show that they 
 werefurnished with that convenience." — ("II- 
 
Ch. XL] 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 237 
 
 39 Jesus said, Take ye away the stone. Martha, the 39 Now it was a cave, and a stone lay i against It. Je- 
 sister of him that was dead, saith unto him. Lord, by sus saith, Take ye away the stone. Martha, the 
 this time he stiuketh: lor he hath been deud lour days. sister of liim that was dead, saith unto him, Lord, 
 
 40 Jesus saith unto her, Said I not unto thee, that, if by this time he stiuketh: for he hath been dead 
 thou wouldest believe, thou shouldest « see the glory of 40 four days. Jesus saith unto her. Said I not unto 
 (i(^> I thee, that, if thou believedst, thou shouldest see 
 
 a ver. 4, 23. 1 Or, upon. 
 
 lustrations of Scripture," pp. 97, 100.) "A 
 doorway in the perpendicular face of the 
 rock, usually small, and without ornament, 
 leads to one or more small chambers excavated 
 from the rock, and commonly upon the same 
 level with the door. Very rarely are the 
 chambers lower than the doors. The walls in 
 general are plainly hewn; and there are, oc- 
 casionally, though not always, niches, or rest- 
 ing-places, forthe dead bodies."— (Robinson's 
 "Researches," vol. I., p. 352.) In describing 
 a visit to Bethany, he says : "The monks, as 
 a matter of course, show the house of Mary 
 and Martha, that of Simon the leper, and the 
 sepulchre of Lazarus. The latter is a deep 
 vault, excavated in the limestone rock, in the 
 middle of the village; to which there is a 
 descent by twenty-six steps. It is hardly 
 necessary to remark that there is not the 
 slightest probability of its ever having been 
 the tomb of Lazarus. The form is not that of 
 the ancient sepulchres; nor does its position 
 accord with the narrative of the New Testa- 
 ment, which implies that the tomb was not in 
 the town." — ("111.," p. 432.) In confirmation 
 of this inference from the narrative, it may be 
 added that Jewish sepulchres were regularlj' 
 located out of town. The place where Laza- 
 rus was entombed is therefore undiscovered, 
 and there is no reason to expect that it will 
 ever be identified. But the fact that he ap- 
 pears to have been placed in a tomb is gener- 
 ally supposed to indicate the easy circum- 
 stances of the family. 
 
 39. Jesus said (saith), Take ye away 
 the stone. This command was probably ad- 
 dressed to his disciples, though it might have 
 been addressed to any of the Jews present. It 
 has been often used to illustrate the truth that 
 God does not do, by miracle or otherwise, the 
 work which properly belongs to men, and can 
 be performed by them. The verb used seems 
 to imply that the stone would be lifted up in 
 removing it (ipare) ; and, if so, it favors the 
 view that the entrance to the sepulchre was by 
 a descent, so that the floor of the sepulchre was 
 lower than the surface of the ground. This, 
 
 however, is by no means certain. Martha, 
 the sister of him that was dead, etc. 
 Whether Martha knew, by her frequent visits 
 to the sepulchre, that the smell of putrefaction 
 was already in the place, or whether she 
 merely inferred that it must be so, from the cir- 
 cumstance that this was the fourth day since 
 he was placed in the tomb, is uncertain ; yet 
 the latter view is more obviously suggested by 
 her language than the former. For, in the one- 
 case, she says: "Decomposition has already 
 begun, as I am certain, for this is his fourth 
 day in the tomb" ; and, in the other: "De- 
 composition has already begun, as I know, 
 and as was to be expected, for this is his fourth 
 day in the tomb." But whether she declared 
 what she knew to be the case, or what she was 
 satisfied must be the case, there is no reason to 
 doubt the correctness of her statement. There 
 is no evidence that even the wealthy Jews 
 were accustomed to embalm their dead in such 
 a manner as to preserve them from corrup- 
 tion. " It is a proverb in the Talmud and the 
 Targum, that corruption sets in on the third 
 day." — Tholvck. Martha is here described as 
 the sister of him that was dead, not to 
 account for her boldness in thus speaking, but 
 rather to account for her peculiar shrinking 
 at what was proposed. She shudders at the 
 thought of having the putrefying form of her 
 brother exposed. Hence, she did not say this 
 for the purpose of intimating to Jesus the 
 greatness of the work which he seemed about 
 to attempt, or her doubt of his power to per- 
 form it. 
 
 40. Said I not unto thee, that, if thou 
 wouldest believe (or, believedst), thoa 
 shouldest see the glory of God? This 
 question is, on the one hand, a gentle rebuke 
 of her weakness of faith ; and, on the other 
 hand, taken with what follows, an evidence 
 of the sufficiency of her faith. There is no 
 previous record of the utterance of just these 
 words by the Saviour to Martha, but the sub- 
 stance of what they express had been said to 
 her, both indirectly and directly. '(See verses 
 4, 23, sq., 
 
238 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 [Ch. XI. 
 
 41 Then they took away the stone from the place 
 where the dead was laid. And Jesus lifted up his eyes, 
 and said, Father, 1 thauli thee that thou hast heard 
 me. 
 
 42 And I knew that thou he.arest me always: but 
 " because of the people which stand by I said it, that 
 they may believe that thou hast sent me. 
 
 41 the glory of God? So they took away the stone. 
 And Jesus lifted up his eyes, and said, Father, I 
 
 42 thank thee that thou heardest me. And I knew 
 that thou hearest me always: but because of the 
 multitude which standeth around I said it, that they 
 
 41. Then (or, so) they took away the 
 stone. In consequence of this answer to 
 Martha, which removed her objection, and in 
 obedience to his previous command, some of 
 those present, perhaps the disciples of Jesus, 
 removed the stone which closed the opening 
 into the sepulchre. The words, from the 
 place where the dead was laid, are omit- 
 ted by the best editors as an interpolation ; 
 and it is clear that they are not necessary to 
 a proper understanding of the act; for the 
 stone would, of course, be removed from the 
 opening of the cave in which the dead was 
 laid. And Jesus lifted up his eyes and 
 said. The mention of the uplifting of his 
 eyes indicates the pen of an eye-witness. The 
 disciple whom Jesus loved, was, no doubt, 
 one of those who accompanied him to Beth- 
 any, and followed him to the sepulchre. 
 Father, I thank thee that thou hast heard 
 (or, didst hear) me. The hearing referred to 
 was evidently at some definite time in the past 
 (aorist), as early, at least, as the moment when 
 the message from the sisters reached him in 
 Perea; for he then said (ver. <): "This sick- 
 ness is not unto death, but for the glory of 
 God, that the Son of God might be glorified." 
 And, when these words were uttered, he must 
 have known that, according to his Father's 
 will, Lazarus would die, and be restored to 
 life; or, was dead, and would be restored to 
 life. For all his miracles were wrought in 
 absolute concurrence with the Father. (5; i9, sq.) 
 In them the Son glorified the Father, and the 
 Father glorified the Son. Never did the Sav- 
 iour perform them in pursuance of an im- 
 pulse originating in himself, without com- 
 munion with the Father. As the divine- 
 human Mediator, every desire of his heart 
 was laid before his Father for his approval, 
 before it was carried into effect. 
 
 42. And I knew that thou hearest me 
 always. The pronoun I is emphatic in the 
 Greek — "I, for inj' part, knew" — though this 
 might not be true of others. Thus, Jesus, 
 while recognizing a certain subordination to 
 
 the Father in the work which he is accomplish- 
 ing, claims to have no desire which the Father 
 does not approve; no purpose which the Fa- 
 ther does not endorse and sustain. Their one- 
 ness of aim and action is perfect. But be- 
 cause of the people (multitude) which 
 stand by (or, standeth around) I said it, that 
 they may believe that thou hast sent (didst 
 send) me. These words, then, addressed to 
 God, were spoken aloud, that the people might 
 hear them. Jesus was in perpetual inward 
 communion with the Father; but he saw fit, 
 on this occasion, to utter words to his Father 
 aloud, that the people might perceive the holy 
 familiarity of his intercouse with God. With 
 a love and confidence, and divine simplicity, 
 which could not innocently be misunderstood, 
 he talked for a moment with the Father in 
 the hearing of men. " Bauer calls the prayer 
 a scheingebet; Weisse, a schaugebet; conceived 
 by the Evangelist in the apologetic interest 
 for the divinity of Ciirist. Such impious non- 
 sense arises from utter ignorance of the singu- 
 lar intimacy between Christ and the Father, 
 which is so often asserted in this Gospel, and 
 illustrated on this occasion. By virtue of this 
 intimacy, he, the Only Begotten, never ad- 
 dressed God as our Father; but, as My Fa- 
 ther; or. Father, simply; and stood in con- 
 stant communication with him, so that his 
 prayers assumed, as it were, the character of 
 reflection and mutual consultation, and were 
 always answered." — Schaff. From the cir- 
 cumstance that this praj'er was made audible, 
 for the purpose of producing faith in the 
 minds of the people, it has been inferred that 
 public praj'er, though offered directly to God, 
 may properly be put in words intended to 
 persuade men to repent and believe. But 
 there is certainly some danger that this sec- 
 ondary reference will diminish the earnest- 
 ness and simplicity of the primary reference. 
 Besides, Christ does not seem to have aimed 
 to produce faith by his prayer, in and by it- 
 self; but to establish a ground for faith in 
 view of the miracle to be wrought. 
 
Ch. XL] 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 239 
 
 43 And when he thus had spoken, he cried with a 43 may believe that thou didst send me. And when he 
 loud voice, Lazarus, come I'ortli. j had thus spoken, he crii-d witli a loud voice, Laza- 
 
 44 And he that was dead caiue forth, bound hand I 44 riis, come lortli. He tiiat was dead came forth, 
 and foot with graveclothes; and "his face was bound j bound hand and foot with ' grave-clothes ; and hia 
 about with a napkin. Jesus saith unto them. Loose lace was liound about with a napkin. Jesus saith 
 him, and let him go. | unto them, Loose him, and let him g(j. 
 
 a ch. 20 : 7. 1 Or, grave-bands. 
 
 43. He cried with a loud voice, Laza- 
 rus, come forth! More literally, Hither! 
 forth! A great voice, corresponds with the 
 idea of death a? a profound sleep, from which 
 one can only be aroused by an extraordinary 
 call, and at the same time with the exercise 
 of an authority and power which belong only 
 to God. In brevity and sublimity this cry 
 has been likened to the creative fiat: "Let 
 there be light!" Cyril calls it "a divine 
 and roj'al command." The power of God 
 accompanied this summons; for the dead 
 body was instantly filled with life. The re- 
 animation did not precede the call, as some 
 interpreters have supposed, but followed it in 
 an instant, as if the great voice had carried in 
 itself the awakening energy to the dead. 
 (Comp. 5: 28, 29; 1 Thess. 4: 16; 1 Cor. 15: 
 52). Moreover the words used by Jesus were 
 in agreement with the circumstances. "He 
 did not here call out, Arise! (as in the case of 
 the daughter of Jairus, and of the son of the 
 widow of Nain, Luke 8: 54; 7: 14), because 
 the words "Hither, out!" seemed the most 
 natural to employ in the case of a dead man 
 already lying in the tomb." — Meyer. 
 
 44. And he that was dead came forth, 
 bound, etc. Whether the limbs of Lazarus 
 had been bound separately, as was the Egyp- 
 tian custom, or the grave-clothes had been 
 wrapped about him somewhat loosely, cannot 
 be determined; though the latter hypothesis 
 is more probable than the former; but there 
 is no necessity for supposing that his walking 
 was in itself miraculous. With the new life 
 pulsating through his body, he was able, in 
 obedience to the word of Jesus, to come forth 
 slowly from the sepulchre, and to stand there 
 in the vigor of health, though in the garments 
 of death, before the wonder-stricken com- 
 pan\'. The napkin, or handkerchief, did 
 not probably cover the whole face, but was so 
 bound about the head as to support the chin 
 and cover the face in part. Loose him, and 
 let him go. The "loosing" consisted, of 
 course, in so arranging or removing his grave- 
 clothes, that he could walk freely. Thus 
 
 simply does the narrative of this astonishing 
 miracle close, and the Evangelist pass on to 
 describe the eflfect which it had upon the Jews, 
 and, through them, upon the tragic, though 
 glorious, end of our Lord's ministry. 
 
 But the truth of this narrative has been 
 often assailed by unbelieving critics. (1) On 
 the ground that a person actually dead, can- 
 not be brought to life again. This ground 
 however, is solid for none but atheists or pan- 
 theists; for all others it is merely "sinking 
 sand." (2) On the ground that Jesus could 
 not have suffered Lazarus to die, if his life 
 was to be prolonged. As he knew of his 
 friend's sickness, he must have chosen to heal 
 him, rather than to let him die, and then to 
 revivify him. How much of suff'ering and 
 of sorrow would thus have been spared to the 
 family in Bethany 1 And surely, if he could 
 have healed him at all, he could have healed 
 him from a distance, sparing himself the toil 
 and peril of the journey. But this criticism 
 is worthless, because it assumes that the plan 
 and object of the Saviour's life are certainly 
 understood by the critic, and that the resur- 
 rection of Lazarus at this juncture was no 
 more subservient to the mission of Christ than 
 would have been the healing of Lazarus from 
 a distance. The whole tenor of the Gospels 
 refutes the former assumption, and the pres- 
 ent narrative, with the history that follows, 
 refutes the latter. (8) On the ground that 
 the other Evangelists knew nothing of this 
 stupendous miracle; for if the}' had known 
 of it, they would surely have described it. 
 No other miracle was so important in itself 
 or in its consequences; and it is therefore in- 
 credible that they should have been ignorant 
 of it, or should have passed it by in silence, 
 if it had been really performed. In reply to 
 this objection it may be said, in the first 
 place, that there is no sufficient ground for 
 the opinion that any one of the Evangelists 
 related all the important discourses and deeds 
 of Christ with which he was familiar. Under 
 the guiding influence of the Holy Spirit, each 
 one of them prepared a written account of 
 
240 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 [Ch. XI. 
 
 45 Then many of the Jews which came to Mary, "and 145 Many therefore of the Jews, who came to Mary 
 had seen the things which Jesus did, believed ou him. | and beheld i that which he did, believed on him. 
 
 a sh. 2 : 23 : 10 : 42 ; 12:11, 18. 1 Many ancieut autborities read, the things which he did. 
 
 certain events, parables, and sayings of the 
 Lord, which would fairly represent his 
 ministry, but he was kept at the same time 
 from the folly of attempting to put on record 
 all that he knew. In the selection of par- 
 ticulars to be recorded, the character and ob- 
 ject of each Evangelist may have been influ- 
 ential, but in every instance there must have 
 been a selection. It may be said, in the 
 second place, that the Synoptical Gospels 
 omit nearly all the ministry of Jesus in Jeru- 
 salem and Judea, with the single exception 
 of what he said and did at the last passover. 
 But they do this for some other reason than 
 ignorance, since they were aware that Christ 
 was acquainted in Jerusalem. (Matt. 23 : 37 ; Luke 
 10:38.) "Cyril remarks that the resurrection of 
 Lazarus furnishes the true explanation'of the 
 plaudits and hosannas of our Lord's tri- 
 umphal entry into Jerusalem, as described by 
 the Synoptist?."— .S'c/m^. It is by no means 
 necessary for us to show why the earlier Gos- 
 pels were limited geographically, or to the 
 ministry of Jesus in Galilee and the regions 
 round about; the mere fact accounts for their 
 silence concerning this miracle. This is the 
 view also of Mej^er. 
 
 Little need be said in support of this most 
 wonderful story to those whose hearts are 
 open to the divine sweetness and greatness of 
 the Saviour's character. But it may be well 
 to notice a few points. The truthfulness of 
 this narrative is involved in the character of 
 the Fourth Gospel. For in spirit and style, 
 it is of a piece with the narrative parts of the 
 Gospel, and it is trustworthy, if they are trust- 
 worthy. But, as we have had frequent occa- 
 sion to observe, they afford evidence of being 
 written by an appreciative eye-witness Again, 
 the events which follow in the Fourth Gospel 
 presuppose the truthfulness of this narrative. 
 They must be fictitious, if this is fictitious.' 
 "How could the writer have assigned to a 
 purely fictitious event so decisive a part in the 
 organism of the life of Jesus?" — Godet. Still 
 further, the recital is so life-like and graphic 
 as to forbid the thought of invention. "No 
 narrative of this apostle is pervaded by so in- 
 tense a glow and rapid liveliness of description 
 as this, in which he undertakes to set forth in 
 
 one great picture the trembling of Jesus for 
 the life of his friend, the attendant struggle 
 with the darkness of the world, and the calm- 
 ness and joy of victory, prominent over all, 
 and undisturbed from first to last ; while min- 
 gled with these are the still higher tones of 
 his consciousness of Messianic glory, and of 
 its powerful confirmation." — Ewald. "The 
 recital of the resurrection of Lazarus is dis- 
 tinguished among all the narratives of the 
 Fourth Gospel by its special vivacity and dra- 
 matic movement. The personages are sketched 
 by a hand at once firm and delicate. Nowhere 
 is the relation of Christ with his disciples set 
 forth in a manner so life-like. We are initi- 
 ated hy this recital to this intimate commu- 
 nion, this atfeetionate exchange of thoughts 
 and feelings which took place between the 
 Master and his own. The disciples are pre- 
 sented in the most attractive manner, with 
 their simple freedom, and their noble devo- 
 tion. The Jews themselves, of whom we 
 know little by our Evangelist save their opin- 
 ionated resistance to the efforts of Jesus, here 
 appear under an aspect less displeasing, as 
 friends of the two afflicted sisters; and in the 
 Jew is discovered the man. But, above all, 
 how clear and delicate is the study of the 
 character of the two women ; with what fine- 
 ness of touch and psychological depth is the 
 difference of their conduct depicted." — Deut- 
 inger, in Godet. And Meyer expresses the 
 judgment of every ingenuous student when 
 he declares that "the narrative is distinguished 
 for its thoughtful tenderness, certainty, and 
 truthfulness." 
 
 45-57. Effect of the Miracle. 
 
 45. Then many of the Jews which 
 (luho) came to 3Iary, etc. If a rigid con- 
 struction of the Greek be insisted on, the rel- 
 ative who does not represent the Jews, but 
 many of the Jews ; and John does not say 
 that "of the Jews who came to Mary and be- 
 held what Jesus did, many believed on him; 
 but, rather, that "manj' of the Jews came to 
 Mary, beheld what Jesus did, and believed 
 on him." This interpretation is now given to 
 the verse by Meyer, Alford, Watkins. The 
 objection to it will be considered below. But 
 according to any tenable interpretation of the 
 
Ch. XI.] 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 241 
 
 46 But some of theni went their ways to the Phar- 
 isees, and told them what things Jesus had done. 
 
 47 " Then gathered the chief priests and the Pharisees 
 a council, and said, ' What do we? for this man doeth 
 many miracles. 
 
 46 But some of them wcTit away to the Pharisees, 
 and told them the thiuj^s which Jesus had done. 
 
 47 The chief priests therefore and the I'harisees 
 gathered a council, and said, What do we? for this 
 
 a Ps. 2: 2; Matt. 26: 3; Mark 14: 1 ; Luke 22: 2 b ch. 12 : 19 ; Acts 4: 16. 
 
 verse, it plainly affirms that many of the Jews 
 were led to believe in Jesus by the resurrec- 
 tion of Lazarus. This was a miracle that 
 convinced some who were by no means will- 
 ing to yield. 
 
 46. But some of them went their Avays 
 (better, away) to the Pharisees, and told 
 them what things Jesus had done. If all 
 the Jews who came to Mary and beheld what 
 Jesus did, believed in him, it follows (we are 
 told) that those who went away and told the 
 Piiarisees what he had done, were believers in 
 him at the time, and made their report to his 
 bitter enemies with no unfriendliness to him. 
 This is possible, without doubt, but it seems 
 to be very improbable. And if this had been 
 the Evangelist's meaning, he would, I think, 
 have coupled this verse with the 45th by 
 "and," instead of but. Thus: "Many of the 
 Jews believed in Jesus, and some of them 
 went away to the Pharisees and told them 
 what he had done" — "with well-ineaning in- 
 tent, in order to put them in possession of a 
 correct account of the act, and to bear wit- 
 ness to them of the miracle." — Meyer. As, 
 however, the Evangelist, by means of but, 
 contrasts some of them who went away with 
 others who did not go away, we believe that 
 the former were hardened instead of con- 
 vinced by the miracle, and that they made 
 their report with the expectation that it would 
 hasten action against Jesus. But if this was 
 the case, it will be necessary to adopt one of 
 two alternatives. Either the writer was not 
 formally accurate in his use of the Greek, but 
 admitted an anacoluthon in this place (a sup- 
 position which could not be refuted by the 
 style of the Book of Revelation), or the word 
 them, in the expression some of them, re- 
 fers to the Jews in general, (ver. 45.) The lat- 
 ter view is maintained by Godet, who re- 
 marks: "I think it unnecessary to include 
 the 'some' (ni/es) of this verse in the category' 
 of the numerous visitors of Mary and Martha 
 who became believers (ver. 45), but that the ex- 
 pression 'of them' (ver. 26) refers to the Jews 
 in general ('lovSaiuiv, ver. 45.) There were cer- 
 
 tainly other Jews than those of ver. 45, who 
 came to visit the sisters — Jews whose sympa- 
 thy with the sisters did not predispose them in 
 favor of Jesus. These were the persons who, 
 faithful to their role as Jeix}s, carried without 
 delay the great news to the Pharisees, who 
 were the bitterest enemies of Jesus." It 
 seems to me that either of these solutions of 
 the difficulty is preferable to that of Meyer. 
 
 47. Then (better, therefore) gathered the 
 chief priests and the Pharisees a council. 
 By reason of the account thus brought to 
 them of the resurrection of Lazarus, the 
 Pharisees communicated with the chief 
 priests, some of whom were Sadducees, and 
 they at once called a meeting of the Sanhe- 
 drin. Matters, as they felt, were approaching 
 a crisis. The great Pretender, as they would 
 prove him to be, was at their doors again, 
 and, according to this new report, had per- 
 formed, or seemed to perform, a miracle of 
 surpassing interest. Indeed, a considerable 
 number of their own party had been led by 
 it to look upon him as the expected Messiah. 
 What less could they do than suminon an 
 extra meeting of the Sanhedrin to consider 
 the course to betaken in such an emergency? 
 The Sanhedrin Cs.witpi.ov') was the highest tri- 
 bunal of the Jews, having its seat at Jerusa- 
 lem, and being composed of seventy-one 
 members — chief priests, elders, and scribes. 
 In the time of Christ a majority of the mem- 
 bers were Pharisees, but an influential mi- 
 nority, Sadducees. The high priest was gen- 
 erally president. It was accustomed to meet 
 daily, except on the Sabbath, or a great feast 
 day. Its sessions were commonly held in a 
 hall which was "supposed by Lightfoottohave 
 been situated in the southeast corner of one of 
 the courts near the temple." "In special 
 exigencies it seems to have met in the resi- 
 dence of the high priest." The cases that 
 could be brought before it in the first instance 
 were such as related to a whole tribe, to a 
 false prophet, to the high priest, to an arbi- 
 trary war, or to blasphemy. And said. 
 What do we? (or, What are we doing?) A 
 
242 
 
 JOHK 
 
 [Ch. XI. 
 
 48 If we let him thus alone, all men will believe on 
 hiin ; and the Romans shall come and take away boiii 
 our place and nation. 
 
 49 Andoneotthem, raoTwed o Caiaphas, being the high 
 priest that same year, said unto them, Ye know noth- 
 ing at all, 
 
 5U ' Nor consider that it is expedient for us, that one 
 man should die for the people, and that the whole na- 
 tion perish not. 
 
 48 man doeth many signs. If we let him thus alone, 
 all men will believe on him: and the Romans will 
 come and take away both our place and our nation. 
 
 49 But a certain one of them, (aiaphas, being high 
 priest that year, said unto them. Ye know nothing 
 
 50 at all, nor do ye take account that it is expedient 
 for you that one man should die for the people, and 
 
 a Luke 3: 2; ch. 18: U: Acts-t: 6 h ch. 18: 14. 
 
 question of censure, designed to make them 
 do otherwise, and finding its support in the 
 next clause. For this man doeth many 
 miracles (lit., signs). Watkins would unite 
 the two clauses in a single question, thus: 
 "What do we, seeing that this man doeth 
 many miracles?" But the sense is nearly 
 the same with this, as with the common punc- 
 tuation. Their words show that they regard 
 immediate action on their part as indispen- 
 sable. The ground is giving way under their 
 feet. Bnt what they say appears inconsistent 
 in itself; for while they refer to Jesus con- 
 temptuously as this man, they seem to 
 admit the reality of his many signs. Prob- 
 ably, however, their words were merelj' an 
 accommodation, for brevity's sake, to com- 
 mon speech, while their looks and tones and 
 gestures revealed their disbelief in Jesus. It 
 is indeed possible that they mean to concede 
 the extraordinary character of his works, but 
 without conceding that they are wrought by 
 divine power. 
 
 48. If we let him thus alone, all men 
 will believe on him, etc. In this expression 
 of fear the Sanhedrists are, no doubt, per- 
 fectly honest. They believe that any great 
 increase of the followers of Jesus will arouse 
 the suspicions of Kome and lead to severe 
 measures. By our place, Jerusalem is com- 
 monly suppo.«ed to be meant; for it was the 
 seat of the Sanhedrin and the centre of its 
 powerful influence. The members of this 
 court claim it, therefore, as in a special sense 
 their own. In like manner, filled with ego- 
 ti-sm, they think of the Jewish nation as 
 theirs, and of any process by which the na- 
 tion would be withdrawn from their religious 
 control as a taking away of their nation. But 
 the question has been raised whether the San- 
 hedrists would be apt to speak of the Romans 
 as taking away their place, if they meant by 
 their place Jerusalem. Probably not, unless 
 it were in the sense of taking it from the7n — 
 from their control, so that they could no 
 
 longer think or speak of it as their place. 
 And the same may be said of the nation. It 
 is scarcely probable that the Sanhedrists 
 feared the transportation of Jerusalem and 
 the whole nation to some distant land by the 
 Romans. "The Sanhedrists apprehend that 
 the Romans . . . would enter Jerusalem and 
 remove the city as well as the people . . from 
 the rule of the Sanhedrin, because it knew 
 so badly how to maintain order." — Meyer. 
 This interpretation does not differ in result 
 from that of Watkins, who supposes that by 
 our place is meant our standing or position 
 as leaders of the people, while it agrees better 
 with the expression both our place and 
 nation; for this exp-ression blends together 
 the ideas of place and nation, which are more 
 homegeneous, if the words refer to the people 
 of Jerusalem and the nation at large, than if 
 they refer to the religious position of the 
 speakers and to the nation at large. 
 
 49, 50. But one of them, named Caia- 
 phas (omit named), being the high priest 
 (omit the) that year. According to Jo- 
 sephus, Joseph Caiaphas was high priest 
 eleven years, from A. T>. 25 to a. d. 36, and 
 so during the whole administration of Pontius 
 Pilate. His father-in-law was Annas. The 
 Evangelist says that he was high priest that 
 same year, not because the high priests were 
 then frequently changed, but because that was 
 a memorable year — the year in which the Lord 
 was crucified. Said unto them, Ye know 
 nothing at all. This language is not want- 
 ing in force, whatever may be thought of its 
 courtes3'. Caiaphas sees no ground for hesi- 
 tation. He is absolutely selfish, and the way 
 to personal safety seems to him plain. 
 
 50. Nor consider— (wor do ye take ac- 
 count. — Rev. Ver. ) — for a moment's reckoning 
 would show what is prudent for us— that it 
 is expedient for us — there is here no con- 
 science, no inquiry as to what is right or 
 wrong in the case; self-interest is supreme — 
 that one man should die for the people — 
 
Ch. XL] 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 243 
 
 51 And this spake he not of himself: but being high 
 priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die 
 for tliat nation ; 
 
 52 And « not for that nation only, 'but that also he 
 should gatlier together in oue the children of God that 
 were scattered abroad. 
 
 51 that the whole nation perish not. Now this he said 
 not of himself: but being high priest that year, he 
 prophesied that Jesus should die for the nation ; 
 
 52 and not for the nation only, but that he might also 
 gather together into oue the children of (iod that 
 
 ; Isa. 49 : 6 ; 1 John 2:2 6 ch. 10 : 16 ; Eph. 2 : U, 15, 16, 17. 
 
 considered here as a theocratic coninnmity 
 (Aad?) — and that the whole nation perish 
 
 not — or the national existence of the Jews 
 come to an end. "This judgment," says 
 Godet, "is made the more remarkable by the 
 contrast between the divine truth of its con- 
 tent, and the diabolical purpose of him who 
 utters it." There is nothing in the language 
 of the high priest which tends to a favorable 
 view of his character. 
 
 51. And (rather, now, or, but] this he 
 spake not of (better, /row) himself) — i. e., 
 not from himself alone. (Comp. Notes on 5: 
 19, 30; 8 : 28.) It had a source back of him- 
 self, in the Divine Mind. He prophesied, 
 etc. In other words, his language was virtu- 
 ally a prophecy to this effect. And, there- 
 fore, if the testimony of the inspired Evan- 
 gelist is to be accepted without qualification, 
 the manifestly selfish spirit of Caiaphas was 
 under the directing influence of God to such 
 an extent that his judgment expressed a great 
 truth, and foreshadowed a great event of the 
 divine administration. But we are not told 
 that he was conscious of any divine illumina- 
 tion or influence, like that which enabled 
 Balaam to foresee the future prosperity of 
 Israel ; and we do not imagine that he thought 
 himself to be uttering a prophecy. For his 
 language has not the form of prophecy. This 
 was rather a case of unconscious prediction — 
 a case in which God "disposes," and man 
 "proposes" accordingly — a case in which God 
 "makes the wrath of man to praise him" 
 (ps.76: 10) — a case included in the apostle's 
 declaration: "Him, being delivered ac- 
 cording to the determinate counsel and fore- 
 knowledge of God, ye have taken, and by 
 wicked hands have crucified and slain." 
 (Acts2:23.) (Comp. Gcn. 50: 20.) There is no 
 valid objection to this view. Indeed, it is 
 justified by the proper idea of God. For a 
 being who did not and could not thus direct 
 the actions of men without destroying their 
 freedom, and who could not thereby bring 
 good out of evil, would not be recognized by 
 any servant of Jehovah as his God, and would 
 
 not be able to assure our hearts of the ultimate 
 victory of right over wrong, in a universe 
 which sin has entered. But the Evangelist 
 manifestly connects the prophetic character 
 of Caiaphas' language with the fact that he 
 was high priest that year. How is this to 
 be understood ? Does the expression that 
 year simply mean, at that time, so that the 
 whole emphasis rests on the fact of his being 
 high priest when he spoke ? Or does it mean, 
 during that memorable year, so that the ^ar- 
 ticular year is also emphasized as having 
 something to do with the prophetic character 
 of his words? I am inclined to the latter in- 
 terpretation, especially because it gives to 
 that year the sense which it has in verse 49. 
 Accordingly, both the oflSce of Caiaphas, and 
 the year in which he was now holding it, were 
 reasons why, through the guidance of God, 
 his opinion should be prophetic of the trans- 
 cendent reality which was soon to be wit- 
 nessed. "In the Old Testament," remarks 
 Godet, "the normal centre of the theocratic 
 people is not the royal house, but the priest- 
 hood. In all 'moments decisive for the life of 
 the people, it is the high priest who receives, 
 by virtue of a prophetic gift which is im- 
 parted to him for the moment, the decision of 
 God for the deliverance of his people. (Num.27: 
 21; isam. 30: 7, sq.) John does not pretend that, 
 speaking generally, all that the high priest 
 might say was prophetic. He only judges 
 that at this decisive moment, Caiaphas, as an 
 accredited organ of God with his people, per- 
 formed the part that was assigned him for 
 emergencies of this kind." 
 
 52. And not for that (lit., the) nation 
 only, but that also, etc. This wider and 
 higher aim of the Saviour's death is added 
 by the Evangelist. It was not implied in 
 the words of Caiaphas, but it was important 
 in itself, and specially important in the apos- 
 tolic age. "When this Gospel was written, 
 there was still reason to seize every oppor- 
 tunitj^ to proclaim that the new religion was 
 intended for all mankind, and that there were 
 some of the elect in every nation. The one. 
 
244 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 [Ch. XI. 
 
 53 Then from that day forth they took counsel to- 
 gether for to put him to death. 
 
 54 Jesus "theretore walked no more openly among 
 the Jews; but went tlience unto a country near to 
 the wilderness, into a city called *Ephraim, and there 
 continued with his disciples. 
 
 55 =And the Jews' passover was nigh at hand: and 
 many went out of the country up to Jerusalem before 
 the passover, to purify themselves. 
 
 53 are scattered abroad. So from that day forth 
 they took counsel that they might put him to 
 death. 
 
 54 Jesus therefore walked no more openly among 
 the Jews, but departed thence into the country near 
 to the wilderness, into a city called Ephraim; and 
 
 55 there he tarried with the disciples. >;ow the pass- 
 over of the Jews was at hand : and many went up 
 to Jerusalem out of the country before the passover. 
 
 ach. 4: 1, 3 : 7:1 h See •.! Chion. 13 : 19 c ch. 2 : 13 ; 5: 1 ; 6 : 4. 
 
 or one thing {tv), into which he would gather 
 them together is the unity of faith, or a spir- 
 itual unity. There is here no reference to the 
 kingdom of Christ, as organized into visible 
 churches, or a visible church. 
 
 53. Then (or, therefore,) from that day 
 forth they took counsel, etc. Therefore, — 
 i. e, in consequence of the words of Cuiaphas, 
 and of the resolution that was reached at this 
 sudden meeting of the Sanhedrin. They had 
 long cherished a deadly hostility to Christ ; 
 they had often consulted together how they 
 should put him out of the way ; but from 
 tliis time onward their purpose was more set- 
 tled and their planning more open. John 
 often uses the same word to denote a feeling 
 or course of conduct, which varies in degree, 
 though it is the same in kind. The persecut- 
 ing spirit is not always equally lirm. There 
 is progress in mortal hatred. 
 
 54. Jesus therefore Avalked no more 
 openly among the JeAvs. Observe the use 
 of the familiar designation, the Jews. It 
 still means the dominant party resident in 
 Jerusalem and the suburbs of that city, and 
 represented by the Sanhedrin. Notice, also, 
 the tense of the verb Avalked, which might 
 be translated was rvalking. His sphere of 
 itinerant labor was no longer among the 
 Jews. He did not continue to go about 
 among them and do the work of his ministrj'. 
 But went thence (lit., away from there) 
 into a (the) country near to the wilder- 
 ness, into a city called Ephraim, etc. 
 The locality of Ephraim has not been satis- 
 factorily ascertained. Dr. Kobinson is in 
 favor of regarding the Ephraim of this verse, 
 the Ephraim of 2 Chron. 13: 19, the Ophrah 
 of Josh. 18: 23 and 1 Sam. 13: 17, and the 
 Ephron of Eusebius and .Jerome, as the same 
 place. " According to John 11 : 54, the place 
 in question was situated near the desert; ac- 
 cording to the Old Testament and .Tosephus, 
 it was not far from Bethel ; acccording to 
 Eusebius and Jerome, it lay five Koman 
 
 miles from Bethel, in the eastern quar- 
 ter, and nearly twenty Roman miles . . . 
 north of Jerusalem. Now, taking all these 
 specifications together, they apply with great 
 exactness to the lofty site of the modern 
 Taiyibeh, two hours northeast of Bethel, and 
 six hours and twenty minutes north-northeast 
 of Jerusalem (reckoning three Roman miles 
 to the hour), adjacent to and overlooking the 
 broad tract of desert country lying between it 
 and the valley of the Jordan, and also along 
 the western side of the Dead Sea ; a position 
 so remarkable, that one cannot suppose it to 
 have been left unoccupied in ancient times. . 
 According to Matt. 19: 1 and Mark 10: 1, our 
 Lord's last approach to Jerusalem was by 
 way of Perea and Jericho. At Ephraim he 
 could overlook the whole of Perea, as well as 
 all the valley of the Jordan ; and nothing 
 would be more natural for him than to pass 
 over into that region, and there preach the 
 gospel on his way back to Jerusalem for the 
 last time. Here, then, John harmonizes with 
 Matthew and Mark; according to whom 
 great multitudes followed Jesus on this jour- 
 ney." ("Bib. Sac," vol. IL, p. 399.) The 
 period of Christ's sojourn at this time in 
 Ephraim cannot have been very many weeks. 
 55. And (or, now) the Jews' passover 
 was nigh ... to purify themselves. 
 They were not required by anj' special law to 
 make these purifications at Jerusalem (see 
 Gen. 35: 2; Ex. 19: 10, 11; Num. 9: 10, sq. ; 
 2 Chron. 30: 17, 18), but it is easy to suggest 
 many reasons for their preferring to make 
 them there. Especially would their li- 
 ability to encounter things common or 
 unclean on their way to the holy city 
 through places more or less contaminated 
 by the presence of foreigners, lead them 
 to defer their ceremonial purifications till 
 thej' reach Jerusalem. How little did thej' 
 imagine their need of a higher purifica- 
 tion, of cleansing by the blood of Jesus ! By 
 the country is probably meant, not that part 
 
Ch. XII.] 
 
 JOHK 
 
 245 
 
 56 "Then souglit tlicy for Jesus, and spake among 
 themselves, as they stood iu the temple, What think 
 ye, that he will not come to the least? 
 
 57 Now both the chief priests and the Pharisees had 
 given a commandment, that, if any man knew where 
 ne were, he should shew it, that they might take him. 
 
 56 to purify themselves. They sought therefore for 
 Jesus, and spake one with anotlier, as they stood in 
 the temple. What tliink ye? That he will not come 
 
 57 to the feast? Now the chief priests and the Phari- 
 sees had given commandment, that, if any maa 
 knew where he was, he should shew it, that they 
 might take him. 
 
 CHAPTER XII. 
 
 THEN Jesus six days before the passover came to 
 Bethany, ' where Lazarus was which had been 
 dead, whom he raised from the dead. 
 
 1 Jesus therefore six days before the passover came 
 to Bethany, where Lazarus was, whom Jesus raised 
 
 och. 7: ll....ftch. 11 : 1, 43. 
 
 of the country to which Jesus had gone, but 
 the country in general as opposed to the city. 
 
 56. Then (or, therefore) sought they 
 {were seeking) for Jesus, and spake (or, 
 were speaking) among themselves, etc. As 
 a result of the recent miracle in Bethany, and 
 of its well known effect on the rulers, the 
 people from the country were more thtin ever 
 excited about Jesus, and were seeking him 
 day b3' day in every new arrival of pilgrims. 
 But they were extremely doubtful whether 
 he would make his appearance at the festival, 
 and were often saying to one another : 
 "What is your opinion? Is it that he cer- 
 tainly will not come to the feast?" They 
 regard it as barely possible that he will come, 
 but as far enough from probable. 
 
 57. Now both the chief priests, etc. It is 
 reasonably supposed that this commandment 
 had been given in the name and authority of 
 the Sanhedrin, and in pursuance of a decision 
 reached at the meeting described in verses 
 47-50, or by the consultations that followed, 
 (ver. 53.) These it was which rendered the 
 people so very doubtful whether Jesus would 
 come to the feast. 
 
 Ch. 12: 1-8. Supper in Bethany. 
 
 1. Then Jesus, six days before the 
 passover, came to Bethany, Avhere Laz- 
 arus was, whom he (Jesus) raised from 
 the dead. From Ephraim, the place where 
 Jesus had been residing a few weeks, he may 
 have gone northward through Samaria, and 
 then eastward through a part of Galilee into 
 Perea (comp. Luke 17: 11 ; Matt. 19: 1 ; Mark 
 10: 1), or he may have gone into Perea di- 
 rectly, without making at this time the circuit 
 referred to. Harmonists are not yet agreed 
 on this point. But it is considered certain 
 that he visited Jericho, if not also Perea, and 
 
 that he returned by way of Jericho to Beth- 
 any. If we assume that he made the circuit 
 through Samaria, Galilee, and Perea, to Jeri- 
 cho, and that he began this journey about the 
 middle of March, the following events may 
 be assigned (see Clark's "Harmony of the 
 Gospels") to the journey, which occupied 
 not far from two weeks, viz. : The cleansing 
 often lepers (Luke 17: 11-19) ; how the kingdom 
 of God would come (Lukei7:2J-37) ; parables of 
 the importunate widow, and of the Pharisee 
 and publican (Luke 18: i-u) ; answer concerning 
 divorce (iiaa.ia: 1-12; Mark lo: 1-12) ; blcssing the 
 
 little children (Matt. 19: 13-15; Mark lO: I3-I6; Luke IS: 
 15-17) ; the rich young ruler (Matt. 19: 16-30; MarklO; 
 
 17-31 ; Luke 18 : 18-30) ; parable of the laborers in 
 the vineyard (Matt. 20: 1-16) ; prediction of his 
 own death and resurrection (Matt. 20: 17-19; Markio: 
 32-34; Luke 18: 31-34); ambitious request of James 
 and John (Matt. 20:20-28; Mark 10:35-45) ; two blind 
 men healed near Jericho (Matt. 20:29-34; Mark 10 : 
 46-52; Luke 18: 35-43); yisit to the house of Zac- 
 chseus, and parable of the pounds (Luke 19:1-27); 
 Jesus sought at Jerusalem (Joim 11 : 55-57) ; his 
 journey from Jericho to Bethany (Luke 19 : 28; 
 
 John 12: 1.) 
 
 It is probable that Jesus, in company with 
 his disciples and other pilgrims to the Pass- 
 over, left Jericho on Friday, at the dawn of 
 day, and reached Bethany in the early even- 
 ing, after the Sabbath had begun. For it was 
 lawful to go a short distance on the Sabbath ; 
 and travelers from Jericho to Jerusalem might 
 occasionally find themselves, at the close of 
 the sixth day of the week, so near to Bethany 
 that they could finish their journey thither 
 without breaking the law of rest for the 
 seventh day. In this reckoning we assume 
 that the Passover occurred on Friday; so that 
 the six days here mentioned reach back from 
 the beginning of the Friday on which Jesus 
 suffered to the beginning of the previous Sat- 
 
246 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 [Oh. XII. 
 
 2 "There they made him a supper; and Martha 
 served; but Lazarus was one of them that sal at the 
 table with him. 
 
 3 Theu looli <> Mary a pound of ointment of spikenard, 
 very costly, and anointed the feet of Jesus, and wiped 
 his feet with her hair: and the house was tilled with 
 the odour of the ointment. 
 
 2 from the dead. So they made him a supper there: 
 and Martha served ; but Lazarus was one of them 
 
 3 that sat at meat with him. Mary therefore took a 
 pound of ointment of -pure uard, very precious, 
 and anointed the feet of Jesus, and wiped his feet 
 with her hair: and the house was tilled with the 
 
 a Matt. 26:6; Mark 11: 3 b Luke 10: 38,39; ch. 11 : 2. 1 Or, liquid nard. 
 
 urda\'. Jesus remained over the Sabbath in 
 Bethany, and on the first day of the week 
 made his triumphal entrance into Jerusalem. 
 Thus, even before his resurrection, was special 
 honor put upon the first day of the week. 
 
 The words, where Lazarus was, whom 
 he raised from the dead, were added, not 
 because they were necessary to distinguish 
 this Bethany from another east of the Jordan 
 (see Note on 1 : 28), but because the writer's 
 mind was full of tlie great event to which he 
 refers, and because Liizarus and his sisters 
 were prominent in the "supper" which he is 
 about to describe. The words of the Com. 
 Ver., which had been dead (oTe^vrtKm), may 
 belong to the genuine text; but the evidence 
 of early manuscripts and versions /or them is 
 overbalanced by that against them, and they 
 may therefore be safeh' omitted. 
 
 2. There they made, etc., {or, therefore 
 they made him a snpper there, etc.) The ref- 
 erence is to the principal meal of the day 
 i&eWvov), which, though it was served at a late 
 hour in the afternoon, answered to our din- 
 ner, rather than to our supper. The Evan- 
 gelist does not mention the persons by whom 
 this dinner was given, but from the circum- 
 stance that Martha served, or, was serving, 
 it has been inferred that it was given by the 
 sisters and Lazarus. Yet this inference is ex- 
 tremely precarious; for Martha might have 
 served at the house of a friend, even as the 
 mother of .Jesus appears to have served thus 
 at the wedding in Cana of Galilee. (See 2 : 3, 
 sq.) And since the anointing of Jesus by a 
 woman, in the house of Simon "the leper" 
 (see Matt. 26: 6-16; Mark 14: 3-11), took 
 place near this time in Bethany, and strikingly 
 resembled, in most of its circumstances, the 
 anointing here described, it is reasonable to 
 believe that the three narratives describe the 
 same event— that the dinner was held at the 
 house of Simon, and, perhaps (though this is 
 hardly the best view), that John anticipates 
 the time of it by three or four days, because it 
 was the most important event which he asso- 
 
 ciated with this visit of the Lord to Bethany. 
 Says Dr. Hackett: "This fea.«t being the 
 principal event which John associates with 
 Bethany, during these last days, he not un- 
 naturally inserts the account of the feast im- 
 riiediately after speaking of the arrival in 
 Bethany. But having (so to speak) discharged 
 his mind of that recollection, he then turns 
 back and resumes the historical order, namely, 
 that on the next day after coming to Bethany 
 (12: 12, £[.;, Jesus made his public entry into Je- 
 rusalem."— (Smith's "Diet, of the Bible," 
 Am. ed., IL, p. 1372, Note a.) But "there is 
 nothing whatever in Matthew's account to fix 
 the time of the feast; and both the structure 
 of his Gospel and the apparent links of con- 
 nection, in this particular narrative, are con- 
 sistent with the view ordinarilj^ taken, that at 
 ver. 6, he (Matthew) goes back to an earlier 
 event, which furnished occasion to Judas for 
 furthering the design of the rulers, as recorded 
 in the first verses of the chapter." — Schaff. 
 This Simon was known as "the leper," doubt- 
 less because, he had sufl^"ered from that terrible 
 disease, but had, perhaps, been healed by the 
 Saviour. Hence his desire to receive Jesus 
 into his house, and to pay him honor, even 
 though he must have been well aware of the 
 deadly animosity which now threatened his 
 life. 
 
 3. Then took Mary (or, Mary therefore 
 took) a pound of ointment of spikenard, 
 very costly (or, precious.) If, as we suppose, 
 the narratives of Matthew and Mark refer to 
 the same event, they difler from this in not 
 giving the name of the woinan who anointed 
 Jesus. This, however, is not surprising; for 
 the reasons which led them to pass over in 
 silence the raising of Lazarus, may have led 
 them to speak of "a woman," instead of giv- 
 ing her name. The Greek (AiVpa) litrn, and 
 the Latin libra, are generally translated pound, 
 and are supposed to denote a weight of twelve 
 ounces. This cannot be far from the truth, 
 though it is difficult to ascertain the exact 
 value of ancient weights and measures. The 
 
Cu. XII.] 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 247 
 
 4 Then saith one of his disciples, Judas Iscariot, Si- 
 a>on's .10)1, which should betray hiui, 
 
 5 Why was uot tliis oiutiueiit sold for three hundred 
 pence, and given to the poor? 
 
 6 This he said, not that he cared for the poor; but 
 because he was a thief, and « had the bag, and bare 
 what was put therein. 
 
 4 odour of the ointment. But Judas Iscariot, one of 
 
 5 his disciples, who should betray him, saith, Why 
 was not this ointment sold for. three hundred ' shil- 
 
 6 lings, and given to the poor? Now this he said, 
 not because he cared for the poor; but because lie 
 was a thief, and having the^bag ^took away what 
 
 a oh. 13 : 29. 1 See marginal note on Matt. 18: 28. ...2 Or, box 3 Or, carried what wa) put therein. 
 
 spikenard is described as very costly — the 
 Greek word meaning, probably, "genuine," 
 unadulterated (though the meaning is not per- 
 fectly certain) ; and, therefore, very costly, 
 or precious; for then, as now, articles were 
 cheapened by adulteration. Anointed the 
 feet of Jesus, and wiped his feet with 
 her hair. Matthew and Mark speak of an 
 "alabaster box," which contained the oint- 
 ment. Matthew says that she "poured it on 
 his head, as he sat at meat" ; and Mark, that 
 "she broke the box, and poured it on his 
 head." These different particulars are con- 
 sistent with one another; but, at the same 
 time, sufficiently marked to prove the inde- 
 pendence of the witnesses. No writer of a 
 spurious Gospel, in the middle of the second 
 century, would have been Jikely to omit all 
 notice of the well-attested pouring of the oint- 
 ment on Jesus' head, and to affirm an anoint- 
 ing of his feet — the latter being a mere con- 
 jecture of his own. But the anointing of 
 Jesus' feet, if it was performed in addition to 
 the anointing of his head, would naturally 
 enough make a deep impression on the 
 thoughtful and loving spirit of John, who 
 was, perhaps, reclining next his Lord; and it 
 might, therefore, of all others, be the one 
 feature of the anointing that he would remem- 
 ber and record. And the house was filled 
 with the odour. A fact not unworthy of 
 commemoration, as it probably drew the at- 
 tention of all to the act of anointing. Com- 
 pare Cant. 1: 12; 4: 13; and "spikenard," in 
 Smith's "Diet, of the Bible," Vol. IV., p. 
 3103, Am. ed. 
 
 4. Then saith, etc., or, But Judas Iscariot, 
 one of his disci2)les, which should (was about 
 to) betray him, saith (Rev. Ver. ) Here again 
 the narrative of John designates, by name, 
 the person who takes the lead in censuring 
 Mary's act, though others appear to have 
 joined in the censure. For Matthew says that 
 " when his disciples saw it, they had indigna- 
 tion, saying" ; and Mark relates that "there 
 were some that had indignation in themselves, 
 
 and said." Possibly Matthew, who once sat 
 at the receipt of custom, and understood well 
 the value of money, was one of the twelve 
 who at first sympathized with the criticism of 
 Judas. If so, it was specially natural for him 
 to record the fact that Christ's disciples (with- 
 out meaning to say, every one of them) "had 
 indignation." But John is wont to take his 
 readers at once to the fountain-head of good 
 or evil. Here, therefore, he names the very 
 man with whoita the censure of Mary's act 
 began, and at whose suggestion the thought 
 of censure came into other minds. The best 
 textual authorities omit the words, Simon's 
 son. 
 
 5. Why was not this ointment sold for 
 three hundred pence (lit., denarii), and 
 given to the poor? The translation, three 
 hundred pence, gives an English reader no 
 proper idea of the value here assigned to the 
 ointment. For a denarius was worth from fif- 
 teen to seventeen cents of American money ; 
 and three hundred denarii from forty-five to 
 fifty dollars — a sum which is proof, on the one 
 hand, of the comfortable circumstances of the 
 family; and, on the other, of the great love 
 and devotion of Mary to Christ. 
 
 6. This he said, etc. (Better, btit this he 
 said), not that (rather, not because) he cared 
 for the poor; — which would have been a 
 Christian motive — but because he was a 
 thief— the first and only statement of this fact in 
 the Gospels — and had the bag, and bare 
 what was put therein. Being the treasurer, 
 or purse-bearer, of the disciples, he was in the 
 habit of secretly appropriating a part of the 
 common treasure to his private use. And 
 now he thought, "If only the value of this 
 ointment were in the common purse, a good 
 percentage of it would find its way into my 
 own pocket, and none of my companions 
 would be the wiser for it." From whom did 
 the Evangelist learn that Judas was a thief? 
 Perhaps, from Jesus himself, after the work 
 of Judas was accomplished. It is natural to 
 suppose that the conversation of Jesus with 
 
248 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 [Ch. XII. 
 
 7 Then said Jesus, Let her alone: against the day of 
 my burying hath she kept this. 
 
 8 For "the poor always ye have with you; but me ye 
 have not always. 
 
 7 was put therein. Jesus therefore said, i Suffer her 
 
 8 to keep it against the day of my burying. For the 
 poor ye have always with you ; but me ye have not 
 always. 
 
 o Mat.. 26 : 11 ; Mark H : 7. 1 Or, Let her alone : it was that she might ke p it. 
 
 the disciples, after his resurrection, may, at 
 some time, have turned upon Judas, and that 
 he may have revealed to them a little of the 
 unsuspected history of the traitor. But why 
 did Jesus permit a thief to be the treasurer 
 of his disciples? Did he not thereby suffer 
 them to be wronged, and Judas to be tempted 
 beyond what he was able to bear? Perhaps 
 Jesus left the secular affairs of the company 
 to his disciples, judging it best that they 
 should be exposed to the ordinary risks of 
 financial management, from the first. And 
 as to the temptation of Judas, it was only 
 what must happen to men of like spirit, in all 
 times. Their moral strength is tested at its 
 weakest point; if it fails there, it fails every- 
 where. Moral character is a unit, and it is no 
 stronger than its weakest part. The word 
 translated bare, is supposed by De Wette, 
 Meyer, Godet, and some others, to signify, in 
 this place, "bore away." Doubtful. (Com- 
 pare 20: 15.) 
 
 7. Let her alone, etc. Eead: Suffer her 
 to keep it for the day of my burial. This 
 was said before the act of anointing was 
 finished, and it means: "Let her keep the 
 ointment, according to her purpose, instead 
 of selling it ; let her retain and use it, without 
 annoyance, for the day of my burial." 
 "Thus Jesus gives this occurrence atypical 
 importance for his burial." — Lnthardt. It 
 was in harmony with a divine purpose, not 
 understood, perhaps, by Mary, but clearly 
 perceived by Christ, that this anointing was 
 now taking place. His body was not anointed, 
 according to custom at the time of his death, 
 but this part of the funeral honors was antici- 
 pated by the act of Mary. Having made 
 this remark, checking the criticism of Judas 
 and of his fellow disciples, who appear to 
 have seconded it in some degree, Jesus maj' 
 have paused a few moments before adding 
 the words preserved hy the other Evangelists. 
 So that his words may have succeeded each 
 other in the following order: " Why trouble 
 ye the woman ? Suffer her to keep it for the 
 day of my burial." (Pause.) "For she hath 
 wrought a good work upon me. For the 
 
 poor ye have always with you, but me ye 
 have not alwaj's. For in that she poured this 
 ointment on my body, she did it for my 
 burial. Verily I say unto you, wheresover 
 this gospel shall be preached in the whole 
 world, what this woman did will also be told 
 for a memorial of her." (Matt. 26: lo-i.i.) 
 
 We have followed in this passage a reading 
 which is much better supported than that of 
 the common text, but which makes the inter- 
 pretation of the passage more difficult. 
 
 8. For the poor ye have always with 
 you ; but me ye have not always. The 
 Saviour assents to the propriety of giving to 
 the poor; but he assumes that this is not the 
 whole duty of his disciples; they are also to 
 express their reverence and love to their 
 Lord. Worship is no less a duty than alms- 
 giving. Direct, and even public, expressions 
 of loyalty and devotion to God are a part of 
 Christian duty. But the opportunity for such 
 an expression of love as Mary was now 
 making, woulU soon be past; while the op- 
 portunitj' to bestow alms on the poor would 
 be alwaj's present. "Mary, as if .she knew I 
 was soon to die, has chosen the strongest way 
 she could of showing how much she loved 
 me. She has done for me, as her Teacher, 
 Messiah, and Friend, while I live, what she 
 would soon have had to do to my dead body — 
 she has embalmed me for the grave." — 
 Geikie. According to Matthew, Jesus added 
 the words: "For in that she poured this 
 ointment on my body, she did it for my 
 burial. Verily I say unto you, wheresoever 
 this gospel shall be preached in the whole 
 world, there shall also this that this woman 
 hath done, be told for a memorial of her." 
 (26 : 12, 13.) And according to Mark, another ex- 
 pression still: "She hath done what she 
 could." (Mark u: 8.) The three narratives 
 agree as to the principal circumstances. Yet 
 only the Synoptical Gospels record the inter- 
 esting prophecj^ that the act of Marj- should 
 be told wherever the gospel should be 
 preached; while John's narrative is the only 
 one that gives the name of the woman who 
 performed this act of love, or mentions the 
 
Ch. XII.] 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 249 
 
 9 Much people of the Jews therefore knew that he 
 was tliire : and they came not for Jesus' sake only, but 
 that they might see Lazarus also," whom he had raised 
 from tlie dead. 
 
 10 * But the chief priests consulted that they might 
 put Lazarus also to death ; 
 
 11 "liecause that by reason of him many of the Jews 
 went away, and believed on Jesus. 
 
 12 •'On the ne.^t day much people that were come 
 to the feast, when they heard that Jesus was coming to 
 Jerusalem, 
 
 9 The common people thercfure of the Jews learned 
 that he was there : aud tliey came, not for Jesu.s' sake 
 only, but that they might see Lazarus also, whom 
 
 10 he had raised from the dead. But the chief priests 
 took counsel that they might put Lazarus also to 
 
 11 death ; because that by reason of hiiu many of the 
 Jews went away, and believed on Jesus. 
 
 12 On the morrow » a great multitude that had come 
 to the feast, when they heard that Jesus was com- 
 
 a cb. 11 : 43, 44. 
 
 ..6 Luke 16: 31 cch. 11: 45; ver. 18 d Matt. 21 : 8; Mark 11: 8; Luke 19: 35, 36. etc- 
 
 read, tlie common people. 
 
 ~l Some aucient authorities 
 
 presence of Lazarus at the feast, or traces the 
 criticism of the disciples to the selfish heart 
 of Judas. 
 9-11. Jewish Sentiment at This Time. 
 
 9. Much people — the common people — 
 of the Jews therefore knew that he was 
 there. This verse is probably to be con- 
 nected with verse first. The coming of Jesus 
 and his disciples to Bethany on Friday even- 
 ing, became generally known before the Jew- 
 ish Sabbath was over. Indeed, he was now 
 an object of such deep and varied interest 
 that his approach to Jerusalem was sure to be 
 noised abroad. And they came not for 
 Jesus' sake only, bnt that they might 
 see Lazarus also, whom he had raised 
 from the dead. From the circumstance 
 that the much (or, comvion) people is de- 
 scribed as of— i. e., fro7n — the Jews, it may 
 be inferred that they were, for the most part, 
 hostile to Jesus. Yet they were not, perhaps, 
 of the most unyielding temper, but were will- 
 ing at least to see if Lazarus were actually 
 alive, and to examine on the spot the evi- 
 dence of his resurrection. Some of them 
 were doubtless convinced by what they saw 
 and heard, and were ready, in the excitement 
 of their new conviction, to join those who, on 
 the first day of the week, spread their garments 
 in the way, and shouted, "Hosanna!" But 
 there was a party very differently employed. 
 
 10, But the chief priests consulted (or, 
 took counsel) that they might put Lazarus 
 also to death. In this consultation, we are 
 not to suppose the whole Sanhedrin engaged; 
 but the hierarchical members, the heads of 
 the twenty-four classes into which the oflSciat- 
 ing priests were divided, together with the 
 high priest, and his kindred. This influential 
 part of the Sanhedrin was ready to resort to 
 any measure, however desperate, in order to 
 bring about the destruction of Jesus. But the 
 presence and testimony of Lazarus, as the 
 
 Evangelist proceeds to indicate, were doing 
 something every day to defeat their cherished 
 purpose. 
 
 11. Because that by reason of him 
 many of the Jews went (or, viere going) 
 a\yay, and believed {were believing) on 
 Jesus. The expression, were going away, 
 shows that they were, one by one, separating 
 themselves from the extreme adversaries of 
 Jesus; the leading faction, which would hes- 
 itate at nothing, and which was, in fact, the 
 nucleus and centre of the Sanhedrin. And 
 those who were thus separating themselves 
 from this centre of hostility to Christ, and 
 making inquiry as to the truth, were also one 
 by one coming to believe in Jesus, on account 
 of Lazarus. With Lazarus before them, they 
 could not deny his resurrection, at the word 
 of Christ; and, convinced of his resurrection, 
 at the word of Jesus, they could not withhold 
 their confidence from Jesus. 
 
 13-19. Christs Triumphal Entrance 
 into Jerusalem. 
 
 13. On the next day much people (lit., 
 (a great multitude) that were come to the 
 feast. It is impossible to arrive at absolute 
 certainty in respect to the day of the week 
 meant by the next day ; but there is a strong 
 probability that it was the first, or Sunday — 
 hence called Palm Sunday. (See Note on 
 ver. 1.) The multitude here referred to was 
 composed, for the most part, of people who 
 had come up to the holy city from various 
 parts of the land, to keep the passover. They 
 were, therefore, less prejudiced than the in- 
 habitants of Jerusalem, and especially "the 
 Jews." When they heard (lit., having 
 heard) that Jesus was coming to (or, hito) 
 Jerusalem. By what means they heard, the 
 Evangelist does not state; perhaps, by the re- 
 port of some of "the Jews," who had visited 
 him at Bethany, during the Sabbath, had 
 been convinced of his divine mission (ver. u), 
 
250 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 [Ch. XII. 
 
 13 Took branches of palm trees, and went forth to 
 meet him, and cried, "Hosanna: Blessed is the King 
 of Israel that cometh in the name of the Lord. 
 
 14 ''And Jesus, when he had found a young ass, sat 
 thereon ; as it is written, 
 
 15 "Fear not, daughter of Sion: behold, thy King 
 cometh, sitting on an ass's colt. 
 
 13 ing to Jerusalem, took the branches of the palm 
 trees, and went forth to meet him, and cried out, 
 Hosanna: Blessed is he that cumeth in the name of 
 
 14 the Lord, even the King of Israel. And Jesus, 
 having found a young ass, sat thereon : as it is writ- 
 
 15 ten. Fear not, daughter of Zion: behold, thy King 
 
 aPs. 118: 25, 26 b Malt. 21: 7 c Zech. 9: 9. 
 
 and had learned of his purpose to enter the 
 city on the morrow ; or, by the report of per- 
 sons who had visited Bethany on the morning 
 of the first day of the week, and liad returned 
 to Jerusalem, with a knowledge of Christ's 
 purpose. At such a time, the intercourse be- 
 tween the two places would be constant; and 
 now, more than ever before, the movements 
 of Jesus were a matter of universal interest. 
 13. Took branches of palm trees (that 
 is, of the palm trees, that were standing near. ) 
 These branches were symbols of victory and 
 peace. Dr. Robinson describes them as the 
 "pendulous twigs and boughs of the palm 
 tree." The word Bethany signifies "house of 
 dates"; and it is, therefore, reasonable to 
 suppose that date-palms were abundant on 
 the sides of the Mount of Olives. The tree 
 "was regarded by the ancients as peculiarly 
 characteristic of Palestine and the neighbor- 
 ing regions." (Smith's "Diet, of the Bible." 
 Art. Palm-tree.) And Avent forth to meet 
 him, and cried, Hosanna: Blessed is 
 the Kin£^ of Israel that cometh in the 
 name of the Lord. The Revised Version 
 makes the King of Israel the last clause, 
 the King of Israel, being in apposition 
 with he that cometh, and added for the pur- 
 pose of setting forth the office of this person- 
 age. The people are represented by Matthew 
 (21:9) as crying: "Hosanna to the Son of 
 David ; blessed be he that cometh in the name 
 of the Lord. Hosanna in the highest," where 
 the expression, "the Son of David," is equiva- 
 lent to "the King of Israel," in this passage; 
 but, as the verb translated cried (i. e., were cry- 
 ing',) denotes con tinned action, both expressions 
 may have been used. The word " Hosanna," 
 means, "save, I entreat"; or, "bring salva- 
 tion, I entreat" ; and the language of the peo- 
 ple was bfirrowed, with slight additions, from 
 Ps. 118: 25, 26, which is thus translated by 
 Perowne: ^^ We beseech thee, O Jehovah, save 
 now ; we beseech thee, O Jehovah, send noiv 
 prosperity. Blessed be he that cometh in the 
 name of Jehovah.^' And he remarks as fol- 
 
 lows, on the word "hosanna"; '\Save now; 
 or, rather, 'Save, I pray.' The particle of 
 entreaty is repeated in each member of this 
 (2dth) verse, so that, altogether, it occurs four 
 times, as if to mark the earnestness of the pe- 
 tition. The English word 'now,' is not, there- 
 fore, a particle of time, but a particle of en- 
 treaty, as in Eccl. 12: 1 : ' Remember now thy 
 Creator' — i. e., 'Remember, I beseech thee, 
 thy Creator.' " 
 
 14. And Jesus, Avhen he had found a 
 young ass. John omits the details in respect 
 to the procuring of the young ass, which had 
 been recorded by the other Evangelists; but 
 we are not to infer from this that he was ig- 
 norant of them, or that he deemed them of 
 no importance. (Comp. 20: 30, 31; 21: '25.) 
 He sat thereon ; as it is written : 
 
 15. Fear not, daughter of Sion : behold, 
 thy king cometh, sitting on an ass's colt. 
 This is a free quotation of Zechariah 9: 9, a 
 considerable part of the original text being 
 omitted, but enough being given to prove that 
 the prophecj' was fulfilled. The words of 
 Zechariah may be thus tran.slated: "Rejoice 
 greatl3', daughter of Zion ! shout, daughter 
 of Jerusalem ! Behold, thy king cometh unto 
 thee; just and having salvation is he; meek, 
 and riding upon an ass, and upon a colt, the 
 foal of an ass." The freedom with which the 
 inspired writers of the New Testament treat 
 the text of the Old Testament — sometimes 
 quoting it with verbal accuracy, sometimes 
 condensing two clauses into one, sometimes 
 changing the tense of a verb to bring out more 
 clearly its prophetic pertinencj', and some- 
 times giving an implied thought for the one 
 expressed — is by no means inconsistent with 
 the highest reverence for the divine authority 
 of that volume. This they uniformly show 
 by the manner in which they refer to the an- 
 cient Scriptures. And so far as we can judge, 
 they never attribute to an Old Testament 
 v;riter any thought foreign to his language, 
 or, indeed, any thought that is not fairl\' im- 
 plied in his language. In this passage, a part 
 
Ch. XII.] 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 251 
 
 16 These thiiiRs <" understood not his disciples at the 
 first: 'but when Jesus was glorified, "then remem- 
 bered they tliat these things were written of him, and 
 that they had done these things unto him. 
 
 17 The people therefore that was with him when he 
 called Lazarus out of his grave, and raised him from 
 the dead, bare record. 
 
 18 ■'For this cause the people also met him, for that 
 they heard that he had done this miracle. 
 
 19 The Pharisees therefore said among themselves, 
 •Perceive ye how ye prevail nothing? behold, the 
 world is gone after him. 
 
 16 cometh, sitting on an ass's colt. These things un- 
 derstood not his disciides at the first: but when 
 .lesus was glorified, then remembered they that these 
 things were written of him, and that they had done 
 
 17 these things unto him. The multitude therefore 
 that was with him when he called Lazarus out of 
 the tomb, and raised him from the dead, bare wit- 
 
 18 ness. For this cause also the multitude went and 
 met him, for that they heard that he had done this 
 
 19 sign. The Phari.sees therefore said among them- 
 selves, 1 Behold, how ye prevail nothing: lo, the 
 world has gone alter him. 
 
 a Luke 18: 31 6 cli. 7: 30 c cb. 11: 26 d ver. 11 ech. 11: 47, 48. 1 Or, Ye behold. 
 
 of the original word is omitted, and the ex- 
 pression, "Fear not," is substituted for "Re- 
 joice." But joy banishes fear, and an exhor- 
 tation to rejoice is virtually an exhortation to 
 banish fear; as an exhortation to banish fear 
 is, in many circumstances, an exhortation to 
 rejoice. 
 
 16. These things understood not his 
 disciples at the first, etc. The homage paid 
 to Jesus at this time was so enthusiastic and 
 spontaneous, and the interest of the disciples 
 in the events of the hour was so absorbing, 
 that they did not observe how exactly the an- 
 cient prophecy was being fulfilled. This was 
 perfectly natural ; and it was equally natural 
 that, in reflecting upon these events after the 
 resurrection of Jesus, they should have re- 
 called the words- of prophecy that were ful- 
 filled bj^ them. So, too, we can readily un- 
 derstand how one of the twelve, and especially 
 one so meditative, introspective, and spiritual 
 as John, should have put on record these facts 
 about the disciples; but we are unable to see 
 liow a falsarius of the second century would 
 have been likely to attribute to the disciples 
 this lack of understanding. It is a stroke too 
 delicate for a deceiver. Compare the similar 
 statements in 2 : 22 ; 7 : 39. 
 
 17. The people (multitude) therefore 
 that was with him when he called Laza- 
 rus out of his grave, and raised him from 
 the dead, bare record (or, witness). This 
 language is retrospective, and applies to the 
 whole period since the resurrection of Laza- 
 rus. The verb translated bare witness rep- 
 resents an act as being in progress, and might 
 be rendered was bearing witness — i. e., re- 
 peatedly, from time to time, so that their tes- 
 timonj'^ was not silenced by the authority of 
 the priesthood, but continued to make itself 
 heard until the public entrance of Jesus into 
 Jerusalem. According to another reading 
 (which gives on, instead of ore), this verse i 
 
 should be translated : "The multitude there- 
 fore that was with him bare witness that he 
 called Lazarus out of the tomb, and raised 
 him from the dead" — that is, bore witness to 
 what they had seen and heard at that time. 
 As to sense, the two retidings do not differ. 
 But the weight of manuscript authority favors 
 when, rather than that. 
 
 18. For this cause the people (or, 7nui- 
 titude) also met him, for that they heard 
 that he had done this miracle (or, sign). 
 The report wiiicii hstd gone abroad as the tes- 
 timonj'of alarge number of witnesses, namely, 
 that Jesus had raised Lazarus from the dead, 
 led a multitude of the people who had come 
 up to the Passover to go out towards Bethany, 
 to meet the Lord. (See on ver. 12.) 
 
 19. The Pharisees therefore said 
 among themselves— that is, when the mul- 
 titude had fairly left the citj', on their way to 
 meet Jesus, and the Pharisees, who headed 
 the opposition to him, were left by them- 
 selves, to meditate on the course which events 
 seemed to be taking. Perceive ye how ye 
 prevail nothing? Words spoken, without 
 doubt, in a querelous and bitter tone; every 
 one being ready to charge the blame of their 
 ill success in the plot against Jesus upon 
 others. "Thus far," they say, "your efforts 
 amount to nothing; they are bootless, un- 
 profitable, vain." The structure of this 
 clause in the Greek permits us to translate it 
 as a question: "Do ye see ye that j^e pre- 
 vail nothing?" but does not require this. 
 "Whether it was a question, or not. depended 
 on the inflection of the voice with which the 
 clause was uttered. But the meaning of 
 these words, if they were a question, would 
 be the same as that given above. Behold, 
 the world is gone after him. As if the 
 act were fully accomplished in the past, and 
 they were looking back upon it as finished 
 already. For they had observed that the 
 
252 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 [Ch. XIL 
 
 20 And there »were certain Greeks among theui 
 ' that came up to worship at the feast: 
 
 21 The same came therefore to Philip, ' which was of 
 Bethsaida of Galilee, and desired him, saying, Sir, we 
 would see Jesus. 
 
 ■12 Philp Cometh and telleth Andrew: and again An- 
 drew and Philip tell Jesus. 
 
 20 Now there were certain Greeks among those who 
 
 21 weul up to worship at the feast: these therefore 
 came to Philip, who was of Bethsaida of Galilee, 
 and asked him, saying. Sir, we would see Jesus. 
 
 22 Philp Cometh and telleth Andrew ; Andrew com- 
 
 ; Acts 17: 4 6 1 KiugsS: 41,42; Acts 8: 27 c cU. 1 : 44. 
 
 multitude had gone to meet Jesus, with a 
 friendly feeling towards him, and in face of 
 the known hostility of the Pharisees. This 
 act seemed, therefore, to be an abandonment 
 of the Pnarisaic party for the purpose of at- 
 taching themselves to Christ. And by an 
 exaggeration natural to their bitter and dis- 
 appointed spirit, they speak of the multitude 
 as the world ! As if almost none were left. 
 Would that it had been literally so ! 
 
 20-33. Certain Greeks Ask to See 
 Jesus. 
 
 30. And (or, now) there were certain 
 Greeks among them that came to wor- 
 ship at the feast. The word Greeks signi- 
 fies persons of the Greek race or nation, not 
 Hellenists, or Jews who made use of the 
 Greek language. The present participle, 
 which might be translated coming up, de- 
 scribes the class of persons referred to as 
 those who were in the habit of coming up to 
 worship at the feast. They were proselytes to 
 Judaism, believers in the true God, like Cor- 
 nelius, and they now manifested a greater 
 interest in Jesus than did a majority of the 
 chosen people, who had been long desiring 
 the advent of their Messiah. The Evangelist 
 does not mention the place where these 
 Greeks were when they expressed their wish 
 to see Jesus, but it is natural to suppose that 
 they were in the Court of the Gentiles. The 
 same silence is observed as to the time when 
 this occurred: but there seems to be good 
 reason, in the language of verse 36, to suppose 
 that it was as late in the week as about the 
 close of Tuesday. This is the time which 
 best agrees with the series of events and dis- 
 courses narrated by the other Evangelists, 
 but which the purpose of John did not re- 
 quire him to repeat. 
 
 21. The same came therefore to Philip, 
 which was of Bethsaida of Galilee, etc. 
 Their desire, modestly expressed, was to be 
 introduced to Jesus; doubtless for the purpose 
 of forming a personal judgment as to his 
 
 character and claims. The assistance of one 
 of his disciples would scarcely have been 
 needed, if their wish had been simply to look 
 upon the face and note the bearing of the 
 Teacher about whom so much was said. 
 Why they came to Philip cannot be known, 
 and why John takes occasion to say tliat he 
 was from Bethsaida of Galilee is equally a 
 matter of conjecture. Such particularity is, 
 however, characteristic of this Evangelist, 
 and it reminds us continually of his inde- 
 pendent and minute knowledge of the dis- 
 ciples as well as their Master. On the address 
 Sir, or. Lord (icupte), Meyer remarks: "Not 
 without the tender of honor, which they 
 naturally paid, even to the disciples of a 
 Master so admired, who truly appeared to be 
 the very Messiah." 
 
 22. Philip Cometh and telleth Andrew. 
 Whether there was any special reason for 
 hesitation about complying with their request 
 that led Philip to tell Andrew, is uncertain. 
 Perhaps the extreme sensitiveness of the Jews 
 to intercourse with Gentiles, might render it 
 specially' dangerous for Jesus to receive the 
 Greeks at this time, when the Pharisees were 
 so eager to find occasions to accuse him, and to 
 kindle the fanaticism of their followers against 
 him. But it is also possible that Philip would 
 have been diflBdent about introducing any 
 strangers to his Master, without consulting 
 some one of his associates, especially when 
 that Master was surrounded by people in the 
 court of the temple. And again Andrew 
 and Philip tell Jesus. Or, as in Rev. Ver. : 
 Andrew cometh, and Philip, and they tell Je- 
 sus. Probably taking the Greeks with them 
 until they were near the place where Jesus 
 was standing, and then approaching him 
 alone, and making known to him the request 
 of the Greeks. In that case, whether the 
 Gentile strangers were introduced to Christ or 
 not, they were near enough to hear the words 
 which their request led him to utter, and which 
 were, doubtless, a suflScient answer to the 
 thoughts of their hearts. 
 
Ch. XII.] 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 253 
 
 23 And Jesus answered them, saying, "The hour is 
 come, that the Son of man should be glorified. 
 
 24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, ' E-iceepl a corn of 
 wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone: 
 but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit. 
 
 25 'He that loveth his life shall lose it; and he that 
 hateth his life in this world shall keep it unto life 
 eternal. 
 
 23 eth, and Philip, and they tell Jesus. And Jesus 
 answereth them, saying. The hour is come, that the 
 
 24 Son of man should be glorified. Verily, verily, I 
 say unto you, lO.'ccept a grain of wheat fall into 
 the earth and die, it abideth by itself alone; but 
 
 25 if it die, it l)eareth much fruit. He that loveth 
 his life loseth it ; and he that hateth his life iu 
 
 ch. 13:32; 17 : 1 i 1 Cor. 15: 30.... c Mutt. 10: 39; 16: 25; Mark 8. 35; Luke!): 24; 17: 33. 
 
 23-28. Glory Through Death. 
 
 23. And Jesus answered (or, answereth) 
 them, saying, The hour is come, that the 
 Son of man should be glorified. The 
 hour referred to is that of his propitiatory 
 death, by which his work of humiliation and 
 suffering would be completed, and his return 
 to the right hand of power virtually accom- 
 plished. For with his sacrificial death was 
 bound up his resurrection, his exaltation, and 
 his kingship as the Son of man, together with 
 the renovation and eternal life of his people. 
 The hour appointed by God from eternity, 
 that in it the Son of man might be glorified, 
 is perhaps the exact thought expressed by the 
 Saviour. Knowing that he was the Son of 
 man, in a far more important sense than he 
 was "the Son of David," the desire of these 
 Greeks to see him appears to have brought to 
 his mind the "great multitude, which no man 
 can number, out of every tribe and tongue 
 and people and nation," that were to be "re- 
 deemed by his blood," and to be made " kings 
 (or, a kingdom) and priests unto God" ; and, 
 with them, the final, the crucial, and the all 
 important moment and act of his ministrj' on 
 earth. Of course, the word hour i=! used in 
 the sense of time. Critical authorities favor 
 the present tense of the verb in the first clause 
 — ansivereth, instead of answered. 
 
 24. Verily, verily, I say unto you. Ex- 
 cept a (or, the) corn (or, grain) of wheat 
 fall into the ground (or, earth) and die, 
 it abideth alone : but if it die, it bring- 
 eth forth much fruit. Nature and spirit 
 are made for each other. The law of life for 
 the one resembles in many a particular the 
 law of life for the other. And no religious 
 teacher has equaled Jesus Christ in setting 
 forth spiritual truth by the aid of facts taken 
 from the realm of nature. In the saying be- 
 fore us, John has preserved a sample of the 
 Lord's power to prepare the minds of men for 
 a great law of the kingdom of grace, by re- 
 minding them of a similar law in nature. In 
 the latter realm, life springs out of decay and 
 
 death ; for death is not annihilation of being, 
 but, normally, a process by which the very 
 life of the seed is renewed and multiplied. 
 Death is a process of glorification, or a process 
 by which new glory is attained. For the viUil 
 principle is never more active than when it is 
 casting off its worn integuments, and clothing 
 itself anew. Instead of remaining simply 
 what it was, it clothes itself with root and 
 stalk and ear, multiplying itself thirty, sixty, 
 or even a hundred fold. And Jesus sees in 
 this law of the vegetable world a faint emblem 
 of what he is to experience as hemsikesto him- 
 self a spiritual body, or becomes the principle 
 of spiritual life in a multitude who are to be 
 redeemed from sin and woe. But this law 
 seen in the vegetable world is applicable, not 
 only to Christ himself, but to all men, as re- 
 lated to him, and to salvation through him. 
 
 25. He that loveth his life shall Iosg 
 {loseth) it; and he that hateth his life in 
 this world shall keep it unto life eternal. 
 The word translated life, in the expression, 
 his life, (not in the phrase "eternal life,") is 
 translated by some, soul — a meaning which it 
 often has. But this rendering is scarcely suit- 
 able in the present case, unless we under.-tand 
 by "soul" the spirit in its selfish, earthward 
 tendencies. It is better to regard it as a more 
 einphatic term for the word self, a meaning 
 which it often has in the Old Testainent. 
 Selfishness is ruin to the highest interests of 
 him who is ruled by it, while self-denial in 
 this world, and with reference to this world, 
 leads to the eternal good of him who practices 
 it. He that loves God with all the heart, and 
 his neighbor as himself, will be called to suffer 
 much ; but it will be but for a moment, and 
 will issue in "a far more exceeding and eter- 
 nal weight of glory." (2Cor4:i7.) He that 
 forgets self, in his love to God and man, will 
 be assailed, and stripped, and wounded, 
 and left half dead by the forces of moral 
 evil ; but he will be re-animated, and 
 crowned by the infinite grace of God, and the 
 uplifting power of a good conscience and a 
 
254 
 
 JOHK 
 
 [Ch. XII. 
 
 26 If any man serve me, let him fol'iow me ; and 
 « where I am, there shall also mj' servant be : if any 
 man serve me, him will my Father honour. 
 
 27 'Now is my soul troubled; and what shall I say? 
 Father, save me iroin this hour : « but for this cause 
 came I unto this hour. 
 
 26 this world shall keep it unto life eternal. If any 
 man serve me, let him follow me ; and where I 
 am, there shall also my servant be; if any man 
 
 27 serve me, him will the Father honour. Now is my 
 soul troubled; and what shall 1 say? Father, save 
 me from this i hour. But for this cause came I unto 
 
 ach.U-.i; 17 : 2i ; 1 Thess. 4: 17 6 Matt. 26: 38, 39; Luke 12 : 50 ; ch. 13: 21 c Luke 22 : 53; ch. 13:37. 1 Or. hourt 
 
 true heart. (Compare 2 Tim. 2: 12; Matt. 10: 
 39.) 
 
 26. If any man serve me, let him fol- 
 low me, etc. Observe, first, that the word 
 me is emphatic in the first part of this verse: 
 ''If any man serve >we, let him follow me"; 
 secondly, that Jesus here claims service from 
 his disciples — he does not teach them to serve 
 the Father only, but he expects them to serve 
 himself; tidrdly, that true service to Christ 
 implies following him in the way of self-denial 
 and suflfering— it is enough for the disciple to 
 imitate his Lord, and he cannot do his Mas- 
 ter's will without following in his steps; and, 
 fourthly, tliat such service will issue in his 
 being forever with the Lord, than which a 
 greater good cannot be imagined. To be with 
 Christ, and to reign with him '.—this is full- 
 ness of joy to the Christian heart. In the last 
 part of the verse, the emphatic words are 
 serve, and will honour. Service to Christ 
 will be recompensed by honor from his Fa- 
 ther. The genuine disciple of Christ will be 
 an heir of God, a joint-heir with Christ 
 (Rom. 8:17); having Suffered with him, he will 
 also be glorified with him. But now the Sav- 
 iour returns to his own cross. 
 
 27. Now is my soul troubled. The pros- 
 pect of his dreadful suflTering, from which he 
 had turned his thought for a moment, to 
 speak of the law of true life for his followers, 
 now re-asserts its power over his soul, and 
 with \\o\y simplicity and wisdom he gives ex- 
 pression to his dialogue with himself, in the 
 hearing of his disciples. Observe that the 
 perfect tense of the verb is employed, indi- 
 I'ating that his trouble of soul had comedown 
 from a previous moment to the present. And 
 bear in mind, also, that his human nature was 
 never suppressed by the divine. Its appeals 
 ■were ever3' whit as strong as they would have 
 been if his divine nature had been torpid, or 
 unconscious. And, finally, learn that a 
 knowledge of the blessed ministry and issue 
 of suffering does not make it for the time be- 
 ing unreal. The good are far more troubled 
 by some forms of evil than the bad. And 
 
 what shall I say? Father, save me from 
 this hour. That is, from the suffering of this 
 hour — from the terrible death into whose shad- 
 ow I am now entering. The words, Father, 
 save me from this hour, may be under- 
 stood as a question embodying the petition 
 which human nature prompted, but which 
 was not offered ; or as an actual prayer ad- 
 dressed to the Father. The former interpre- 
 tation makes the passage less dramatic and 
 impassioned than the latter. But we prefer 
 it (1) because it agrees better with the doubt 
 expressed by the previous question, and (2) 
 because it agrees better with the idea that 
 Christ was conscious at the instant of the pres- 
 ence of his disciples. " Liicke, Meyer, and 
 Hengstenberg suppose this to be an actual 
 praj'er: 'Deliver me from the necessity of 
 dying.' But how, then, is the following word 
 to be understood? It would be an in.stant re- 
 calling of this request. So sudden a revulsion 
 of feeling is impossible. They appeal to the 
 prayer in Gethsemane. But Jesus there be- 
 gan by saj'ing: If it be possible ; and then he 
 marked impressiveh' the contrast between the 
 two cries by the word nevertheless (ttA^x.) 
 Here the contradiction would be absolute, and 
 would remain unexplained." — Godet. "West- 
 cott supposes that all objection to the latter 
 view, namely, that this is a prayer, may be 
 removed by noticing "the exact form in which 
 it is expressed. The petition is for deliver- 
 ance out of (<Tw<rov €(c. .), and not for deliver- 
 ance from (ijTo), the crisis of trial. So that 
 the sense appears to be, 'bring me safely out 
 of the conflict' (Heb.s:?), and not simply, 'keep 
 me from entering into it.' " But we doubt 
 whether this would be suggested by the Greek 
 expression to any one who was not looking for 
 a way of escape from an interpretation which 
 did not please him. But for this cause 
 came I unto this hour. That is, "unto 
 this hour of suffering and death I came, just 
 because it was such an hour. If, then, I am 
 saved from it, I shall fiiil of accomplishing 
 that for which I came into the world. Every 
 step of my course has looked to this now im- 
 
Ch. XII. ] 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 255 
 
 28 Father, glorify thy name. "Then came there a 
 voice from heaven, saying, I have both glorified it, and 
 will glorify U again. 
 
 '£i The people therefore that stood by, and heard U, 
 said that it tliundered: others said, An angel spake to 
 him. 
 
 30 Jesus answered and said, * This voice came not be- 
 cause of me, but for your sakes. 
 
 28 this hour. Father, glorify thy name. There came 
 therefore a voice out of heaven, xHijinii, I have both 
 
 29 glorified it, and will glorify it again. The multitude 
 therefore, that stood by, and heard it, said, that 
 
 30 it had thundered; others said. An angel hath 
 spoken to him. .Tesus answered and said. This 
 voice hath not come for my sake, but for your sakes. 
 
 oMait. 3: 17....6ch. 11: «. 
 
 pending atoning death, and deliverance from 
 this must be fatal to the highest purpose of 
 my incarnation and ministry." This saying 
 of Jesus perfectly agrees with another recorded 
 bj' Matthew (iO: 2s) ; " Even as tlie Son of man 
 came, not to be ministered unto, but to min- 
 ister, and to give his life (t>ji' i^v^nv ainov) a ran- 
 som for many"; and these expressions from 
 his own lips account for the central place 
 which was given to the doctrine of the cross 
 by the apostles. (See 1 Cor. 1 : 17, sq. ; Gal. 
 3: 1.) 
 
 28. Father, glorify thy name. This is 
 the actual prayer. One might have antici- 
 pated from the foregoing a pra3'er having 
 special relation to himself, and perhaps to his 
 own glorification. But self was forgotten. 
 For the Father's glory, the Son of God "be- 
 came obedient unto death, even the death of 
 the cross." (pim. 2:8.) Though he linew that 
 his death was the way to his own glory, and 
 that his own glory was one with his Father's, 
 it was regard for liis Father's glory that filled 
 his soul. Love conquered — a love in which 
 there was no selfishness. What a lesson for 
 his followers! If they desire to be victorious 
 in trial, let them think of God, and permit 
 the flame of love to him to rise in their 
 hearts! It will consume fear, and generate 
 power. Then came there (better, came 
 therefore) a voice from (out of) heaven. 
 That is, in response to the prayer of Jesus. 
 Hence the connecting particle {ouv) is best rep- 
 resented by the word therefore. Out of heaven 
 here means out of the slvy, from which, ac- 
 cording to the natural symbolism of Scripture, 
 God's voice comes down to men. I have 
 both glorified it, and will glorify it again. 
 Hence the voice was intelligible, certainly to 
 Jesus, probably to the disciples, and among 
 them, to the writer of this Gospel, and possi- 
 bly, to some of the people. For the Evan- 
 gelist declares its meaning, without any hint 
 that it had been interpreted to him by his 
 Master. But to what does the first part of the 
 expression refer? Probably to the whole 
 
 woric of Christ hitherto, which is now looked 
 upon as completed in the past; hence the 
 Greek form which expresses completed ac- 
 tion : "I both glorified" ; though the English 
 idiom requires us to translate as above: "I 
 have both glorified." Christ had glorified 
 God by his ministry among the Jews, and he 
 was now to glorify him by his death for all 
 men, and by the gradual spread of the gospel 
 among all nations. 
 
 29. The people therefore that stood by 
 and heard it, said that it (had) thun- 
 dered: others said. An angel spake to 
 him. " We must abide by the interpretation 
 that a voice actually issued from heaven, which 
 John relates, and Jesus confirms as an ob- 
 jective occurrence." — Meyer. But such was 
 the nature of this voice that it was recognized 
 by the unsusceptible multitude as a sound 
 like that of thunder, while to others it was 
 like speech, and was ascribed to an angel, 
 though the words were not understood. With 
 this voice may be compared that which Paul 
 heard on the way to Damascus (Acts 9: 7; 22: g) ; 
 for it appears that the companions of Saul 
 heard the voice, but did not recognize the 
 words that were uttered. — Lucke, Hackett. 
 
 30. Jesus answered and said. This 
 voice came not because of me, but for 
 your sakes (hath not come for my sake, hut 
 for yours). His language is called an anstver, 
 because it was occasioned by the words of the 
 people, and was intended to explain to them 
 the true significance of the miraculous event 
 which had arrested their attention. Some of 
 the multitude were susceptible of holy im- 
 pressions, and might be led to full trust in 
 him ; while others were already believing, but 
 with a faith so weak that it would soon be 
 shaken and apparently destroyed by his death 
 on the cross. Hence he sa3's to them : " This 
 voice has not come to convince me that my 
 prayer is heard and answered, for I have no 
 need of such evidence; but it has come to 
 conquer your unbelief, or to strengthen your 
 faith." 
 
256 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 [Ch. XII. 
 
 31 Now is the judgment of this world: now shall 
 "the prince of this world be cast out. 
 
 32 And I, 'if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw 
 «all men unto me. 
 
 33 "i This he said, signifying what death he should die. 
 
 31 Now is 1 the judgment of this world: now shall the 
 
 32 prince of this world be cast out. And I, if I be 
 lifted up 2 from the earth, will draw all men unto 
 
 33 myself. But this he said, signifying by what man- 
 
 a M:itt 12 ■ 29; Luke 10 : 18 ; ch. 14: 30; 16: 11; Acts 26: 18; 2 Cor. 4:4; Eph. 2: 2; 6: 12 Job. 3: 14; 8: 28 c Rom. 5: 18; Heb. 
 
 2:9 d ch. 18: 32. 1 Or, a judgment 2 Or, out of . 
 
 31. NoAV is the judgment of this world. 
 
 The whole sinful world, heathen as well as 
 Jewish, is brought before the mind of Christ. 
 All Israel and all the Gentiles are represented 
 by the people around ; and all are pronounced 
 guilty by his death, which is for all. For 
 this world is an evil world, subject to Satan, 
 "the spirit that now worketh in the children 
 of disobedience." (Eph. 2:2.) The Jews, in- 
 deed, regarded the Gentiles as under the con- 
 trol of the prince of darkness, but supposed 
 themselves to be servants of God ; the Sav- 
 iour, however, counted all who rejected the 
 truth as belonging to this world— a world 
 which he was about to condemn ; wiiile he fell 
 by its malice, and died for its redemption. 
 Ni»w shall the prince of this world be 
 cast out. That is, out of his throne and 
 kingdom, the hearts of men. He shall no 
 longer be the ruler of mankind. His expul- 
 sion from the seat of power shall begin from 
 the time of my death, which has now come. 
 
 32. And I, if I be lifted up from the 
 earth, will draw all men unto me {my- 
 self). That the conditional clause, if I be 
 lifted up from the earth, refers to the cru- 
 cifixion of Jesus, is made certain by the 
 explanation of the Evangelist (ver. 33)— an ex- 
 planation which fully agrees with the pre- 
 ceding context. (See ver. 24-27.) But it 
 may, at the same time, be true that Jesus 
 thought of the cross as his pathway to glory, 
 and associated his ignominious but atoning 
 death with his consequent exaltation at the 
 right hand of power. By using a conditional 
 form, if I be lifted up, he does not intimate 
 any doubt as to the certainty of his death, but 
 he adopts this form in order to say, in the 
 briefest manner, that he will draw all men to 
 himself, and that his crucifixion is prerequisite 
 to his doing this. His triumph and reign are 
 certain, but they are conditioned on his death. 
 
 The drawing spoken of must be understood 
 to embrace all the moral and spiritual influ- 
 ences by which men are led to put their trust 
 in Christ, and to serve him with a true heart. 
 Especially does it include the preaching of 
 Christ, and the work of the Holy Spirit, who 
 
 is given by Christ. It is an effectual draw- 
 ing, by means of which the servants of Satan 
 are led to become the servants of Christ ; not 
 an attempt to draw men to himself, which is 
 resisted, and rendered unavailing. A victory 
 is here predicted, and not simply an eflFort to 
 secure victory. But the victory may not be 
 gained at once. Divine processes seem to men 
 very slow. Eve probably thought that her 
 first-born son was the promised "seed" ; but 
 thousands of years passed before the Messiah 
 was born in Bethlehem. Then, however, 
 "when the fulness of the time was come, God 
 sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made 
 under the law, to redeem them that were un- 
 der the law." (Gal. 4: 4.) In like manner, the 
 casting out of the ruler of this world, and the 
 drawing of all men to himself, have not yet 
 been accomplished, though nearly two thou- 
 san 1 years have passed since the words of Je- 
 sus were spoken. But the circle of the Ke- 
 deemer's influence is ever enlarging, and the 
 time will surely come when a great majority 
 of the living will be subject to Christ— so large 
 a part, indeed, that it will seem as if all were 
 his friends. Then the world will be full of 
 light. Then the broadest and deepest cur- 
 rents of human thought and action will be 
 Christian. Then the heathen will be given to 
 the Son for his inheritance, and the uttermost 
 parts of the earth for his possession, (ps-2 : 8.) 
 
 But in this language, properly understood, 
 there i.s no reference to the generations that 
 had passed from the earth before the death of 
 Christ, or to the heathen, who have, since that 
 great event, lived without God and without 
 hope in the world, or to the multitudes who 
 have known and rejected the gospel of peace. 
 It does not, therefore, teach the doctrine of 
 universal salvation, but it foretells a reversal 
 of the present religious condition of the 
 world — a period when the reign of Christ will 
 take the place of Satan's reign, and the 
 spiritual forces of the world will be mainly 
 on the side of righteousness and truth. Be- 
 yond this, the general scope of the passage 
 does not warrant us in going. 
 
 33. This he said, signifying what death 
 
Ch. XII.] 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 257 
 
 34 The people answered him, "We have heard out of 
 the law that Christ abiduth forever : and how sayest 
 thou, The Son of man must be lifted up? who is this 
 Son of man ? 
 
 35 Then Jesus said unto them. Yet a little while ''is 
 the light with you. ■'Walk while ye have thL' li},'ht, 
 lest darkness come upon you: for<'he that wulketli in 
 darkness knoweth not whither he goeth. 
 
 34 ner of death he should die. The multitude there- 
 fore answered him, We liave heard out of the law 
 that the Christ aliidetli forever: and how sayest 
 thou, The Son of man must be lifted up? who is 
 
 35 this Son of man? Jesus therefore said unto them, 
 Yet a little while is the light i among you. AValk 
 while ye have the light, tliai darkness overtake you 
 not: and he that walketh in the darkness kuoweth 
 
 aPs. 89: 36,37; 110: 4; Isa. 9: 7; 53:8; Ezek.37: 25; Dim. 2 : 44; 7: 14, 27; Mic. 4 : 7....6cli. 1:9; 8: 12; 9: 5: ver. 46....C Jer. 13: 16; 
 Eph.5: 8 d ch. 11 : 10; 1 John 2: 11. 1 Or, in. 
 
 (or, by what manner of death) he should 
 die. Tliat is, by crucifixion. No doubt, this 
 kind of death was felt to be peculiarly igno- 
 minious and painful. Hence this allusion to 
 it beforehand by the Saviour was recalled 
 with deep emotion by "the disciple whom 
 Jesus loved." See also 3: 14, where there is 
 a similar prediction of the manner of Christ's 
 death. 
 
 34. We have heard out of the law 
 that (the) Christ abideth forever. Ob- 
 viously the multitude failed to understand 
 the meaning of Christ's language, as a pre- 
 diction concerning the manner of his death, 
 but gathered from it, either that he was ex- 
 pecting to be taken up from earth to heaven 
 by the power of God, as v/as Elijah — a 
 thought which might naturallj' be sug- 
 gested by his words here, and by those 
 recorded in verse 23 — or that he was 
 expecting to be removed from earth by 
 death, according to an alleged Rabbinic 
 use of the expression. But they were unable 
 to reconcile any removal from the earth with 
 the predictions of their Scriptures concerning 
 the Messiah's reign ; for they understood 
 their Scriptures to teach that the Messiah 
 would have his throne in Jerusalem, and 
 would bring all the nations into subjection to 
 himself as the King of Israel. (See Ps. 89: 
 36, 37 ; 110 : 2-4 ; Isa. 9 : 6, 7 ; Ezek. 37 : 24, 25 ; 
 and perhaps Dan. 7: 14.) The law is here 
 used for the whole collection of the Jewish 
 Scriptures, whose authority was recognized 
 by the people as divine. (See Note on 10: 
 24.) For there is nothing in the Pentateuch 
 which could have led the multitude to speak 
 as they did; while the passages from the 
 Psalms and Prophets, quoted above, suf- 
 f.cently account for their language. And 
 how sayest thou — with some emphasis on 
 the pronoun thou, as if it were at least very 
 strange that Jesus should array himself, while 
 claiming to be the Messiah, against the word 
 of Grod concerning the Messiah. The Son 
 
 of man must be lifted up? They evi- 
 dently borrow from the lips of Jesus (see ver. 
 23) his title, "the Son of man," which they 
 had supposed him to appropriate as the 
 Messiah, though now they hesitate whether 
 he can have intended to do this. For if "the 
 Son of man" is to be lifted up from the earth, 
 he cannot surely be the Christ! Who is 
 this Son of man? Meaning, "Whatsortof 
 a personage is he ? What is his mission, his 
 office, his relation to the Messiah?" This 
 appears to be the fairest interpretation of 
 their question; for they must have been cer- 
 tain that Jesus had just applied the title to 
 himself, (ver. 23.) Yet, Meyer may be right in 
 saying that "the inquiry has in it something 
 pert, saucy; as if they said: 'A fine Son of 
 man art thou, who art not to remain forever 
 in life, but as thou dost express it, art to be 
 exalted!'" According to the former view, 
 they are perplexed as to what Jesus can mean, 
 and wish to be courteous in their response; 
 according to the latter, they reject him and 
 his word as unworthj' of respectful notice. 
 One thing is evident; that they have not the 
 faintest idea of a suffering Messiah, or of a 
 spiritual kingdom. 
 
 35. Then Jesus (Jesus therefore) said 
 unto them. By therefore we learn that the 
 following words were occasioned by the 
 language of the people. Yet, Jesus does not 
 enter into an argument with them, or attempt 
 an explanation of what he had before said, 
 for their satisfaction. But, as he was wont to 
 do, he spoke with divine authoritj', and gave 
 to his discourse a thoroughly practical aim. 
 Yet a little while is the light with you. 
 Spoken, of course, with reference to himself, 
 (see 1: 4, 5, 7, 8; 7: 33; 8: 12; 9: 4, 5,) and 
 calling their attention, in the boldest manner, 
 to himself, as the highest, if not the only, 
 source of religious truth. And at the same 
 time he intimates that he, the true Light, is 
 not to remain for any considerable period 
 with them. The blessed privilege of learning 
 
258 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 [Ch. XIL 
 
 36 While ye have light, believe in the light, that ye I 36 not whither he goeth. While ye have the light, be- 
 may be "tbe children of light. These things spake lieve on the light, that ye may become sons of light. 
 Jesus, and departed, and 'did hide himself from them. | These things spake Jesus, and he departed and 
 
 a Luke 16: 8; Epta. 5:8; 1 Thess. 5: 5; 1 Johu 2: 9, 10, 11.... 6 cb. 8: 50; 11: 51. 
 
 the ways of God from the Holy One, who is 
 "the brightness of his glory and the express 
 image of his person" (Heb. i:3). will soon 
 be withdrawn. Alas, that so many of them 
 had closed their eyes to the light! Walk 
 Avhile ye have the light. Not while ye 
 have the light, in the sense of "as long as," 
 for this meaning is not well established; but, 
 "as "ye have the light; that is, in harmony 
 with the fact that ye have the light; walk as 
 ye should walk, seeing ye have among you 
 the perfect Teacher of divine truth. Ke- 
 ceive his instruction; let his words enter 
 into your hearts. "Walk according to 
 your present state of privilege in pos- 
 sessing the light; which indeed can only 
 be done while it is with you." — Alford. Lest 
 darkness come upon you (or, as in Re- 
 vised Version, that darkness overtake you not). 
 Darkness is here represented as an evil ready 
 to come down upon and take the persons ad- 
 dressed. (Com p. 1 Thess. 5:4.) Light re- 
 jected is certain to be followed by thicker 
 darkness. To refuse truth is to choose error. 
 To turn away from the Holy One is to turn 
 towards the wicked one. This was so in the 
 time of Christ, and it is no less so now. For 
 {and) he that walketh in (the) darkness 
 knoweth not whither he goeth. For the 
 meaning of the last verb, see 3: 8; 1 John 
 2: 11, and John 16: 5. "Thus," says 
 Meyer, ... "he goes away, without know- 
 ing the unhappy end, into everlasting destruc- 
 tion." Compare especially the words of this 
 Evangelist: "He that hateth his brother is 
 in the darkness, and walketh in the darkness, 
 and knoweth not whither he goeth, because 
 the darkness hath blinded his eyes." (iJohn2:ii.) 
 Rev. Ver. 
 
 36. While {as) ye have {the) light. See 
 explanation under ver. 35. Believe in the 
 light — i. fi., "in me, who am the light of the 
 world." To believe in the light is very much 
 the same as to walk in the light, though in so 
 far as the verb is concerned, this expression is 
 more literal than that. That ye may be the 
 children {become sons) of light. That is 
 to say, truly enlightened. For as sons are 
 naturally supposed to inherit the character, 
 
 receive the instruction, and obej- the will of 
 their father, so, in figurative language, do men 
 become sons of light when they experience the 
 transforming influence of divine truth, and are 
 purified and controlled by it. Observe that be- 
 lieving in the light is the same thing as believ- 
 ing in Christ, and that to believe in Christ, is to 
 think his thoughts and to share his purposes — 
 it is to love what he loves, and to seek what 
 he seeks — to be identified as fully as possible 
 with him, in feeling and motive and aim and 
 effort. In this way men become "sons of 
 light," pervaded and transfigured by the light 
 which is life, and b}' the life which is light. 
 For the rational and religious nature of man 
 lives when it loves what God loves, and is in 
 fellowship with him. This is the normal 
 movement of reason, of conscience, of rever- 
 ence, of devotion, out of which come peace, 
 joy, and strength unspeakable; and none but 
 those who become sons of light can be said to 
 live the full and true life of the soul. The 
 sons of darkness are the sons of death. To be 
 ignorant of God, is to be without spiritual life 
 or light — it is to be in "the outer darkness." 
 These things spake Jesus, and departed, 
 and did hide himself from them. These 
 may have been, therefore, the last words of 
 instruction and counsel which Jesus uttered in 
 the hearing of the people. There were many 
 who were thirsting for his blood. His lofty 
 claims exasperated them; for the3' had closed 
 their e3'es to the light, and saw in Jesus noth- 
 ing but an impostor and blasphemer, though 
 he was the " Light of Light," the Word that 
 was with God and that was God. And so he 
 did hide himself from them. A most 
 suggestive statement! From how many of 
 "the wise and prudent" does the Christ hide 
 himself still, because they treat his message 
 with contempt! And is it not possible that 
 he has hid himself from large portions of man- 
 kind, because he knew that Vney would reject 
 him with scorn? Perhaps the writing of these 
 words brought to the Evangelist's mind the 
 language of Isaiah quoted below, and led him, 
 under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, who 
 certainly honors and uses, as far as possible, 
 the laws of mental association, to present the 
 
Ch. XIL] 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 259 
 
 37 But though he had done so many miracles be- 
 fore them, yet Ihey believed not on him. 
 
 as That the saying of Esaias the prophet might be 
 fulfilled, which he spake, "Lord, who hath believed our 
 report? and to whom hath the arm of the Lord been 
 revealed ? 
 
 371 hid himself from them. But though he had done 
 so many signs before them, yet they believed not on 
 38 him: that the word of Isaiah the prophet might be 
 fulfilled, which ne spake. 
 Lord, who hath believed our report? 
 And to whom hath the arm of the Lord been 
 revealed ? 
 
 a Isa. 53 : I ; Rom. 10 : 16. 1 Or, was hidden from them. 
 
 solemn and startling truth of the next para- 
 graph. (Ver. 37-43.) 
 
 37-43. Reflections of the Evangel- 
 ist. 
 
 37. But though he had done so many 
 miracles (or, signs) before them, yet they 
 believed not on him. Plowever important 
 miracles may be as evidences that Grod is with 
 liim who works them, they do not convince 
 those whose eyes are closed. For what is lack- 
 ing to such persons is not clear evidence, but 
 a willingness to consider and receive evidence. 
 It will be noticed that John here speaks of so 
 many signs, as if the number thp.t had been 
 wrought by Jesus in their presence had been 
 very considerable — indeed, far greater than 
 might be inferred from the instances specified 
 by this Evangelist. For he mentions only six 
 up to this time, viz. : The changing of water 
 into wine, at Cana of Galilee (2:i-ii); the 
 healing of the nobleman's son from a distance — 
 Cana-Capernaum (*: 47-5i); the healing of the 
 man at the Pool of Bethesda (0:6-15); the 
 feeding of the five thousand, east of Genes- 
 areth (6: s-is); the giving of sight to the man 
 who had been born blind, in Jerusalem (9: i-7) ; 
 and the raising of Lazarus from the dead. 
 (II : 1-16.) Of course, then, he knew of many 
 others, but did not deem it best to describe 
 them separately, either because the^' were suf- 
 ficiently known through the other Gospels, or 
 because they would add to the extent but not 
 to the value of his narrative. (See 2: 23; 3: 
 2; 4: 45; 5: 36; 6: 2; 7: 31; 20: 30.) 
 
 The persons referred to as those before whom 
 Christ had wrought so many signs, and who, 
 in spite of them, were still refusing to trust 
 in him as the Son of God and the Saviour of 
 men, were the mass of the people, led on in 
 unbelief by the influential scribes and Phar- 
 isees. All had expected the Messiah to be a 
 Jewish prince, at the head of an earthly 
 kingdom; and few of them could relinquish 
 that expectation, or satisfy themselves that 
 Jesus would fulfill it. But a general state- 
 ment of this kind is not inconsistent with the 
 
 evidence which all the Gospels afford, that for 
 a time many of the people heard him gladly, 
 and that a considerable number of them be- 
 came his true disciples. The Evangelist, 
 however, is now, at the close of Christ's pub- 
 lic ministry, looking at the attitude of the 
 great body of the Jews, and he perceives it to 
 be one of persistent unbelief in him. He had 
 proved to be "a root out of a dry ground," 
 with no "form or comeliness," to the sinful 
 nation in which he appeared. (isa.o3:2.) He 
 had come unto his own, and his own had re- 
 ceived him not. (i:ii-) Was the providence 
 of God in this? or was the plan of God de- 
 feated by it ? 
 
 38. That the saying of Esaias the pro- 
 phet might be fulfilled. The plan of God 
 was not defeated. For this very unbelief was 
 predicted by Isaiah the prophet, and must 
 therefore be freely indulged, in order that the 
 word of God revealing a section of his plan 
 might be fulfilled. For every part of that 
 plan, even to the permission of unbelief, is 
 regarded as holy and good by the Evangelist: 
 and in the midst of his wonder and sadness at 
 the rejection of Christ by the mass of the peo- 
 ple, he can but notice the fiict that their unbe- 
 lief is involved, so to speak, in the omniscience 
 and veracitj' of God. For God had chosen to 
 make that unbelief serve the purpose of re- 
 vealing his omniscience and supren.acy, by 
 predicting it ages before it was cherished ia 
 the hearts of Christ's contemporaries; and, 
 therefore, when this prediction was fulfilled 
 by their unbelief, the Evangelist could well 
 say that, from a divine point of view, they 
 were thus unbelieving in order that the word 
 of God might be fulfilled. Nothing is acci- 
 dental; even a particular course of sin may 
 do something for the confirmation of faith, 
 when it is so embraced in the plan of God 
 that it is made to fulfill his word. But this is 
 not, of course, a full account of the matter. 
 The unbelief of the Jews might be contem- 
 plated from many points of view, though only 
 one is here taken. For further remarks oa 
 
260 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 [Ch. XII. 
 
 39 Therefore they could not believe, because that I 39 For this cause they could not believe, for that Isaiah 
 Esaias said again, said again, 
 
 40 "He hath blinded their eyes and hardened their 40 He hath blinded their eyes, and he hardened their 
 
 1 hearts ; 
 
 alsa. 6: 9, 10; Matt. 13; 14. 
 
 the phrase, "that it might be fulfilled," see 
 Note on Matt. 1 : 22. 
 
 The saying of the prophet is now quoted 
 from Isa. 53: 1: Who hath believed our 
 report? and to whom is the arm of the 
 Lord revealed? The word translated re- 
 port, means, literally, "hearing," and then, 
 "that which is heard." As used by the pro- 
 phet in the passage cited, it denotes, not what 
 he had heard from God, but what the people 
 had heard from him, though the message 
 ■which the people had heard from him he had 
 previously received from God. It is plain 
 that John regards this "saying" as a predic- 
 tion of the unbelief of the Jews in the time 
 of Christ. But whether the prophecy is typ- 
 ical, or, rather, direct, he does not intimate; 
 it may be either, and yet have its supreme 
 fulfillment in the time of Christ. The writers 
 of the New Testament almost never distin- 
 guish between direct and typical prophecies. 
 The one thing which may be learned from 
 them in such a case as this is, that the lan- 
 guage of the prophet had respect in the mind 
 of God to events taking place at the Messiah's 
 coming. "The lament of the prophet over 
 the unbelief of his time towards his preach- 
 ing (and that of his fellows, our), and to- 
 wards the might.y working of God announced 
 by him, has, according to the Messianic char- 
 acter of the whole grand oracle, its reference 
 and fulfillment in the unbelief of the Jews to- 
 wards Jesus; so that in the sense of this ful- 
 fillment, the speaking subject . . is Jesus, not 
 the Evangelist, and those of like mind with 
 hxm.''— Meyer. The arm of the Lord is a 
 figurative term, denoting his power; and that 
 power had been signally revealed in the mir- 
 acles wrought by Jesus, whether we consider 
 their number or their character. The our 
 report of th.^ prophet is here fulfilled by the 
 teaching of Christ. 
 
 39. Therefore (or, /or this reason) they 
 could not believe, because that Esaias 
 said again. That is, because of another or- 
 acle of that prophet. But interpreters are not 
 agreed as to the reference of the words there- 
 fore {for this reason, SidToOro). Do they refer 
 
 to that which precedes, or to that which fol- 
 lows ? Does the Evangelist intend to say that 
 the inability of the Jews to believe is ac- 
 counted for by the fact that the prophecy just 
 quoted must be fulfilled in the history of 
 Christ ? Or does he mean to say that this ina- 
 bility is accounted for by another passage in 
 the writings of the same prophet, which re- 
 veals the method of God's providence? The 
 expression may certainly be nnticipntive of 
 the next clause, because that Esaias said 
 again, and this affords the best meaning. (See 
 5: 16, 18; 8: 47; 10: 17; 1 John 3: 1, and ver. 
 18, above, for examples of this use of "there- 
 fore," or, rather, of the Greek words frequently 
 represented by this conjunction.) With this 
 view of the connection, the Evangelist may 
 be understood to declare, first, that the unbe- 
 lief of the Jews was a fulfillment of prophecj', 
 assuring men once more of the truth and 
 foreknowledge of God ; and, secondlj', by 
 another passage, that their inability to believe 
 was a result of their own rejection of light — 
 and a result brought about by the innermost 
 laws of their moral nature, which alwaj's, in 
 the waj' of blessing or judgment, accomplish 
 the holy will of God. This interpretation is 
 suggested by the original passage, (isa. 6:9, sq.), 
 where the prophet is commanded, among 
 other things, to "make the heart of this 
 people fat, and make their ears heav^', and 
 shut their eyes." For surely the prophet 
 was expected to do this, not by moving upon 
 their souls through any supernatural influ- 
 ence, but by declaring to them the word of 
 Jehovah, which it was foreseen they would 
 reject, while by the process of rejection and 
 disobedience they would become more and 
 more insensible and unspiritual. This, which 
 the prophet had been commanded to effect in 
 his day, had been efl^ected by the preaching of 
 Christ in a more signal manner; and there- 
 fore the Evangelist, adapting the language of 
 the passage quoted to the circumstances of his 
 own daj', uses the jiast tense of the verbs, and 
 says, as from Isaiah : 
 
 40. He hath blinded their eyes, and 
 hardened their heart; that they should 
 
Ch. XII.] 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 2G1 
 
 heart; thai they should not see with their eyes, nor 
 understand with their heart, aud be converted, and I 
 should heal them. 
 
 41 "These things said Esaias, when he saw his glory, 
 and spake of him. 
 
 Lest they should see with their eyes, and perceive 
 
 witb their heart, 
 And should turn, 
 And I should heal them. 
 41 These things said Isaiah, because he saw his glory ; 
 
 not see Avith their eyes, nor understand 
 with their heart, and be converted, and 
 I should heal them. The pronoun he, 
 the subject of the verbs blinded und har- 
 dened, must be God; but ucoording to the 
 import of the original pas.sage and the connec- 
 tion here, he has done this blinding and har- 
 dening through a marvelously clear presenta- 
 tion of truth by his Son ; so that, from another 
 point of view, the blinding and hardening are 
 wholly due to the sinful action of the people 
 in rejecting Christ. And thus it is always. 
 Hence Paul could sa}^ : " We are unto God a 
 sweet savour of Christ in them that are saved, 
 and in them that perish ; to the one we are 
 the savour of death unto death, and to the 
 other the savour of life unto life " (2 Cor. 2 : 15, le) ; 
 for he knew that the offer of divine grace to 
 sinners was sincere, and honorable to God, 
 even though their guilt was increased by re- 
 fusing to accept it. • Compare the commentary 
 on Matt. 13: 10-15, and Acts 28: 26-28, where 
 the same passage from Isaiah is quoted, and 
 Romans 9: 6-33. 
 
 But wtiile emphasizing the sinful action of 
 men in the process by which the3' are blinded 
 and hardened, there may be danger of forget- 
 ting the relation of God to this process. For 
 this ever diminishing susceptibility to the 
 power of truth on the part of those who will- 
 fully reject it, which becomes at last a sort of 
 moral inability to receive it, may be looked 
 upon as being, in a certain deep and true sense, 
 God's judgment upon sin. For, in the first 
 place, man's spiritual nature was originated 
 by God, and the dreadful effect of sin in ren- 
 dering that nature unresponsive to divine 
 truth, was really provided for in the qualities 
 of it; and, in the second place, the special en- 
 vironment of every human being is fixed, in a 
 great measure, by the providence of God, and 
 this environment has much to do with moral 
 conduct. The signs by which God appealed 
 to Pharaoh to let the Israelites go from the 
 land, may have been selected and arranged 
 with a view to bringing out the evil that was 
 in the king's heart. The signs were such that 
 he could nerve himself to resist them, one 
 
 after another, until he was at last constrained 
 by sudden terror to yield. Divine providence 
 may be said to have co-operated with his own 
 proud and selfish will in hardening his heart. 
 The King of kings made the wickedness of 
 this cruel monarch an occasion for revealing 
 his own power to the nations, and especially 
 to the chosen people, who had become dis- 
 heartened by oppression. If there was any- 
 thing which they specially needed, it was this 
 — to be convinced that there was no mercy in 
 Pharaoh, and all power in Jehovah. 
 
 41. These things said Esaias, when 
 (rather, because) he saw his glory, and 
 spake of him. His glory — i. e., the glory 
 of Christ in his higher nature, as he was in 
 the beginning with God. (Johni: 1, 2.) This is 
 evident from the whole context, and espe- 
 cially from ver.ses 37 and 42, and is affirmed 
 by the best interpreters — e. g., De Wette, 
 Liicke, Meyer, Alford, Godet, Lange, and 
 many others. Enlightened by the Holy 
 Spirit, the Evangelist knew that Isaiah was 
 instructed by the same Spirit (Acts 28: 25), and 
 that the theophany which he saw was a mani- 
 festation of the Eternal and Divine "Word. 
 (Comp. 1 Cor. 10: 4; 1 Pet. 3: 15.) Indeed, 
 there is reason to believe that the theophanies 
 of the Old Testament were, all of them, 
 manifestations of the pre-incarnate Word. 
 "John held the passage of Isaiah to be in 
 such a sense Messianic, that, according to 
 the method of interpretation which referred 
 all the theophanies in the Old Testament to 
 Christ, ... he could only understand by the 
 divine glory, which the prophet saw, the 
 glory of Christ." — Lucke. 
 
 The earliest copies (X a b l mx. 1. 33, etc.,) 
 read because (on,) instead of when (ore,) and 
 according to a strict interpretation of this, the 
 best supported text, the Evangelist states that 
 Isaiah delivered this severe oracle about the 
 disbelieving and judicially hardened people, 
 because he saw the glory of Christ and spoke 
 concerning him. If then the oracle was ful- 
 filled in Isaiah's time, that fulfillment was 
 typical of a more striking and important ful- 
 fillment "in the fulness of the time," when 
 
262 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 [Ch. XIL 
 
 42 Nevertheless among the chief rulers also many 
 believed on him ; but " because of the Pharisees they 
 did not confess him, lest they should be put out of the 
 synagogue: 
 
 43 ' For they loved the praise of men more than the 
 praise of God. 
 
 44 Jesus cried and said, "He that believeth on me, 
 believeth not on me, but on him that sent me. 
 
 45 And * he that seeth me seeth him that sent me. 
 
 42 and he spake of him. Nevertheless even of the 
 rulers many believed on him ; but because of the 
 Pharisees they did not confess i i<, lest they should 
 
 43 be put out of the synagogue: for they loved the 
 glory thai is of men more than the glory that is of 
 God. 
 
 44 And Jesus cried and said, He that believeth on me, 
 believeth not on me, but on him that sent me. 
 
 45 And he that beholdeth me beholdeth him that 
 
 och. 7: 13; 9: 22 6 ch. 5: 44 o Mailc9: 37; 1 Pel. 1: 21 d ch. 14: 
 
 "the Word was made flesh" and dwelt 
 among men. 
 
 Having thus referred to the unbelief of the 
 great body of the people, the writer now re- 
 marks, that there was a considerable number 
 who were convinced that Christ was the true 
 Messiah, though they were too timid to con- 
 fess their faith. 
 
 42. Nevertheless among (better, even of) 
 the chief rulers also many believed on 
 him. The word rulers probably refers to 
 the members of the Sanhedrin, who were re- 
 garded by the Jews as pre-eminently their 
 rulers in religious matters. The expression, 
 believed on him, must be interpreted by 
 the connection as denoting a rational convic- 
 tion that he was what he claimed to be, but 
 not a profound and saving trust in him. 
 John uses the word "believe" to denote 
 many different degrees of f:\ith. Whether he 
 refers in this place to men whose belief was 
 as strong and practical as that of Nicodemus 
 and Joseph of Arimathea, is doubtful; prob- 
 ably he has in mind persons who never took 
 so decided a stand as these men afterwards 
 took. (Com p. 2:2^, 24; 3:2; 7:48.) But 
 because of the Pharisees— who were scru- 
 pulous, yea sanctimonious, in their observance 
 of religious rites, but at the same time, bitter 
 and powerful adversaries of Christ— they 
 did not confess him (or, it,) lest they 
 should be put out of the synagogue. 
 See the words of Christ in Matt. 10: 32, 33; 
 12: 30; but compare Mark 9: 38, 40. 
 
 43. For they loved the praise {glory) 
 of men more than the praise (glory) of 
 God. By the glory of men is meant the 
 glory that is from men, and by the glory of 
 God, the glory that is from God. Hence 
 these Sanhedrists were not men who had been 
 renewed by the Spirit of God; their religion 
 was not of the heart, but of the head ; they 
 had very little sense of the awful nature of 
 sin, and no experience of the true peace 
 which God imparts to those who delight in 
 
 him. For whoever cares more for human 
 applause than for the approbation of God, is 
 radically unlike the Saviour. (Comp. 5: 41, 
 44.) The heart can have but one object of 
 supreme affection. It will be found impos- 
 sible to give men the first place and God the 
 second. Whoever attempts to do this will 
 soon find that he is making a vain and absurd 
 attempt, working against reason and con- 
 science, and that he must give God the first 
 place in his heart, or no place at all. 
 
 44-50, Summary of Christ's Preach- 
 ing, AS Kecorded by John. 
 
 Having thus described, in ver. 37-43, the 
 attitude of the Jews towards Christ during 
 his ministry, and having shown that tlieir 
 course had been foreseen and predicted by 
 God, the Evangelist now gives a resume of 
 what Jesus had preached, in order, it may be, 
 to set in clearer light their hardness of heart. 
 
 44. Jesus cried and said. Not at any 
 one time, but in his public preaching, and 
 especially in his discourses to the Jews in 
 Jerusalem, as preserved by John. While 
 the people had been dull of hearing, Jesus 
 had openly and plainly declared to them the 
 way of life; and in such a manner that they 
 had no excuse for rejecting him, who was that 
 way. He that believeth on me, be- 
 lieveth not on me, but on him that sent 
 me. That is to say, "I am the perfect rep- 
 resentative of him that sent me, and he that 
 believes in me believes in him. As the Re- 
 vealer, as the Messiah, as the Light of the 
 world, as the Saviour of men, I am insepa- 
 rable in spirit and in action from the Father, 
 and he who hears my voice, hears his voice; 
 he who accepts mj' grace, accepts his grace. 
 It is impossible for any man to trust in me 
 without trusting in him: and every one who 
 properly trusts in me, trusts in me because I 
 am a revelation of the Father's love and 
 power." (Comp. 7: 16; Mark 9: 37.) A 
 paradox, suggestive of the deepest truth ! 
 45. And he that seeth (beholdeth) me, 
 
Ch. XIL] 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 263 
 
 46 » I am come a light into Ihe world, that whosoever 
 believeth on me should not abide in darkness. 
 
 47 And if any man hear my words, and believe not, 
 ' I judge him not : for ' 1 came not to judge the world, 
 but to save the world. 
 
 48 "^ He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my 
 ■words, hath one that judgeth him: « the word that I 
 have spoken, the same shall judge him iu the last day. 
 
 o h. 3: 19; 8: 12: 9:5. 39; ver. 35, 36....6 ch. 5; 45; 8 : 15, ! 
 
 46 sent me. I am come a light into the world, that 
 whosoever believeth on me may not abide in ibe 
 
 47 darkness. And if any man hear my sayings, and 
 keep them not, I judge him not: for I came not to 
 
 48 judge the world, but to save the world. He that 
 rejecteth me, and receiveth not my sayings, hath 
 one that judgeth him: the word that I spake, the 
 
 .c ch. 3: 17.... <2 Luke 10: 16....eDeut. 18: 19; Murk 16: 16. 
 
 seeth (beholdeth) him that sent me. Who- 
 ever looks upon Christ in such a way as to 
 discern his true character and glory, beholds 
 the divine character and glory. "In his 
 working and administration, the believing eye 
 beholds that of the sender; in the glory of the 
 Son that of the Father, 1: 14; Heb. 1: 3.— 
 Meyer. The language of this and of the pre- 
 ceding verse is in agreement with that of 
 verse 41, in which the Evangelist represents 
 the theophany which Isaiah saw (ch. 6) as a 
 manifestation of Christ's glory. (See also 5 : 
 24; 8: 19, 42; 10: 30, 38; 14; 10.) But it is 
 surely difficult to vindicate either of these 
 expressions (ver. *i, 44, 45) unless Jesus Christ 
 was, in his higher nature, strictly divine. If 
 the Word was God (i;i), but not otherwise, he 
 could be a perfect revelation of God. 
 
 46. I am come a light into the world. 
 The word I and light are emphatic by virtue 
 of their position ; and, perhaps, the exact 
 force of the original would be more ade- 
 quately represented by omitting the indefinite 
 a before light. There is nothing equivalent 
 to it in the Greek. The meaning is, "/, and 
 no other, have come as in a pre-eminent 
 sense, light, into the world of mankind, sunk 
 in the darkness of sin." The expression is, 
 therefore, substantially equivalent to 8: 12: 
 "I am the light of the world." "Through 
 me alone is it possible for men to have a true 
 and saving knowledge of God." That who- 
 soever believeth on me should {may) not 
 abide in {the) darkness. That is, "my 
 purpose in coming into the world is this, that 
 every one who believes in me may pass out of 
 spiritual darkness into spiritual light — out of 
 death into life, out of error and sin into truth 
 and holiness." (Comp. 5:24.) 
 
 47. And if any man hear my (sayings) 
 words, and believe (keep them) not. Or, 
 it might be tran.slated : "7/" a7iy one shall 
 have heard my words, and kept them not" — 
 the speaker taking his place in thought at the 
 last day, when the heariiig und keeping not 
 are already past. But the meaning would be 
 
 essentially the same with this rendering, as 
 with the common one. The term hear de- 
 notes in this case the mental act of hearing, 
 without the moral act of hearkening to or 
 obeying, which is often implied in the use of 
 this word. The term translated believe, or, 
 keep, when used of doctrines, precepts, and 
 the like, denotes keeping by fulflllment, and 
 not merely guarding or holding fast in 
 the mind. — Meyer. Hence, to hear the 
 words of Christ and not keep them, is just 
 the opposite of believing in him ; for the 
 words of Christ require belief in himself as 
 the very root and source of acceptable service 
 to God. " This is the work of God, that ye 
 believe on him whom he hath sent." (6:29,) 
 "This is the will of him that sent me, that 
 every one which seeth the Son, and believeth 
 on him, may have everlasting life." (6: 40.) I 
 judge him not : for I came not to judge 
 the world, but to save the world. The 
 word judge is here used in a condemnatory 
 sense, as very often by the Lord, in his dis- 
 courses recorded Vjy John. Jesus here asserts 
 that his object in coming into the world was 
 to save it, not to condemn it; and that he is 
 engaged in doing the former, not the latter — 
 a statement which clearly proves that the ful- 
 fillment of prophecy, referred to by the Evan- 
 gelist in the preceding paragraph, was not 
 sought as an end by Christ, but was brought 
 about by the sinfulness of the people, while 
 he was offering them life and peace. 
 
 48. He that rejecteth me, and receiv- 
 eth not my words. These two thingi 
 always go together; for no one can truly re- 
 ceive and keep the words of Christ, without 
 receiving him ; and no one can hear the 
 words of Christ, and receive them not, without 
 rejecting him. For he is himself the very 
 substance of his message. He declares him- 
 self to be the Good Shepherd, the Door of the 
 Sheep, the True Bread from heaven. To ac- 
 cept his word is, therefore, to believe in him 
 as the Way, and the Truth, and the Life. 
 Hath one that judgeth him. The word 
 
264 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 [Ch. XII. 
 
 49 For "I have uot spoken of myself; but the Father 
 ■which sent me, he gave lue a commandment, * what I 
 should say, and what I should speak. 
 
 50 And 1 know that his commandment is life ever- 
 lasting: whatsoever I speak therefore, even as the 
 Father said unto me, so I speak. 
 
 49 same shall judge him in the last day. For I spake 
 not from myself; but the Father wlio sent uie, he 
 hath given me a commandment, what 1 should say, 
 
 50 and what I should speak. And 1 know that his 
 commandment is life eternal: the things therefore 
 which I speak, even as the Father hath said unto me, 
 so I speak. 
 
 ach. 8: 38; 14: 10 b Deul. 18: 18. 
 
 hath seems to be emphatic. Such a one has 
 even now his judge, and his trial has begun 
 in the present life. For he is already con- 
 demned by the word wliich he rejects. It is a 
 discriminating word, separating the wheat 
 from the chatf. The word that I have 
 spoken, the same shall judge him in the 
 last day. For the voice of truth never 
 changes; it will be the same at the last as 
 now. He that believeth not is condemned 
 already, and his present condemnation is sure 
 proof of his final rejection : for the same 
 truth which judges him now will be his judge 
 when the heavens are rolled together as a 
 scroll, and the elements melt with fervent 
 heat. The last day, as used in this Gospel 
 (see 6: 39, 40, 44, 54; 11: 24; and conip. "the 
 last trumpet," 1 Cor. 15: 52), means the time 
 of the resurrection of the dead, and of the 
 final judgment— the time when "all that are 
 in their graves shall hear his voice and shall 
 come forth, they that have done good unto 
 the resurrection of life; and they that have 
 done evil untothe resurrection of damnation." 
 (5:29.) There are many last things, but "the 
 last day" is of all others the one which men 
 should be prepared to meet. And the last 
 day of one's earthly life brings him judicially 
 face to face with the last day of human his- 
 tory, when the Mediatorial reign will cease, 
 and he that is unjust will be unjust still. (Rev. 
 
 S2: 11.) 
 
 49. For I have not spoken (spake not) 
 of {from) myself— i. e., "not from myself, 
 as a person acting apart from the Father." 
 (See Notes on 5 : 30; 7: 16-28; 8: 26, 28, 38.) 
 Every word that he uttered was in harmony 
 with the Father's will. He came to reveal the 
 Father, but in doing this he revealed himself 
 likewise. Of the latter fact, that he spake out 
 of his own mind and heart, the Jews had no 
 need of being reminded. They were all along 
 disposed to insist upon this as the whole truth, 
 and to deny that his message was the Father's 
 also. Hence his continual and emphatic iter- 
 ation of this thought, that his word must be 
 
 traced back to a divine source — to the very 
 mind and will of God the Father. But the 
 Father which sent me, he gave me a 
 commandment, what I should say, and 
 what I should speak. The former expres- 
 sion, what I should say, may denote the 
 .s?<6steHce of his teaching, and the latter, what 
 I should speak, the tnatiner of communi- 
 cating it. Tlie word commandment answers 
 to the fact that Jesus was a theanthropic be- 
 ing, human as well as divine, and tiiat he 
 came to reveal, in his life and teaching, the 
 Father's will. The statement does not dilfer 
 in substance from that which Jesus made in 
 Jerusalem, when "the Jews" asked in sur- 
 prise: "How knoweth this man letters, not 
 having learned?" viz.: "My teaching is not 
 mine, but his that sent me. . . He thatspeaketh 
 from himself, seeketh his own glory; but he 
 that seeketh the glory of him that sent him, 
 ihe same is true." (7: 16, 18;,Rev. Ver. See 
 commentary there.) 
 
 50. And I know that his commandment 
 is life everlasting. In other words, obedi- 
 ence to his commandment insures eternal life. 
 Or it may be still better to say that the word 
 commandment here stands for the whole 
 doctrine which, by the Father's will, Jesus 
 taught — that is, for the truth which is called 
 the gospel. This truth is a means of eternal 
 life; this gospel, when received, is heavenly 
 manna and living water to the spirit. Divine 
 truth, in a soul prepared by the Holy Spirit to 
 welcome it, is a source of holy affections — 
 a fountain of love, joy, peace, and hope. 
 Whatsoever I speak therefore, even as 
 the Father said unto me, so I speak. In 
 the preceding verse, Jesus is represented as 
 declaring that God the Father had command- 
 ed him what he should say, and in this, as 
 affirming that he speaks precisely as he has 
 been told or commissioned to speak. (See on 
 ver. 49.) 
 
 "With these words the Evangelist closes his 
 recapitulation of what Jesus had testified con- 
 cerning himself and his teaching to the Jews 
 
Cii. XIII.] 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 265 
 
 CHAPTER XIII. 
 
 NOW "before the feast of the passover, when .Testis 
 knew that '' his hour was coiue that he should de- 
 Eart out of this woild uuto the I'atlK'r, having loved 
 is own which were in the world, he loved them unto 
 the end. 
 
 1 Now l)eff)re the feast of the passover, .Tesus know- 
 ing that his hour was coiue tliat lie should depart out 
 of this world unto the Father, having loved his own 
 who were in the world, he loved them > uuto the 
 
 a Matt. 26 : 2 b ch. 12 : 23 | 17 : 
 
 -1 Or, to the uttermost. 
 
 in Jerusalem. His effort to reach the people, 
 and lead them to accept him as the Messiah, 
 has failed. The members of the Sanhedrin, 
 and a great part of the Jews following them 
 as leaders, were now resolved to compass the 
 death of Christ; amd he, having taught them 
 and wept over them, now leaves them to their 
 doom, and speaks his last words before death 
 to the little company of his disciples. 
 
 Ch. 13. The last appearance of Jesus in the 
 courts of the temple, as a teacher of the people 
 was on Tuesday, or, at the latest, on Wednes- 
 day. Then going away, as John relates, 
 he was concealed from all but his intimate 
 friends and disciples. (12: 36.) The place of his 
 retirement seems to have been Bethany ; and 
 on his way thither he is supposed by Robin- 
 son (see "Harmony of the Gospels") to have 
 foretold the destruction of the temple and the 
 persecution of his disciples (Matt. -.;*: i-u; Mark 13 : 
 14-37 ; Luke 21 : 5-19) ; to have described the signs of 
 his coming to destroy Jerusalem, and to put 
 an end to the Jewish State (Matt. 24: 15-42; Markis: 
 14-37; Luke 21: 20-36); to havc predicted his final 
 coming, at the Day of Judgment (Matt. 24: 43-51) ; 
 to have spoken the parables of the ten vir- 
 gins, and of the talents (Matt. 25: i-.io) ; and to 
 have pictured the scenes of the Judgment 
 Day. (Matt. 25: 31-46.) The supper at the house of 
 Simon the leper, of which John has spoken 
 already, may have taken place in the after- 
 noon of "Wednesday, or, as John's narrative 
 suggests, in the afternoon, towards evening, 
 of the preceding Saturday. (Matt. 26: e-ie; Mark 14 : 
 3-11; John 12: 2-8.) During Wednesday, the rulcrs 
 cons]iired to take Jesus by craft, that they 
 
 migVlt kill him (Matt. 26: 3-5; Mark 14: 1-2; Liike22:2) ; 
 
 and from the hour of that supper, whether on 
 Saturday or Wednesday, Judas began to seek 
 a fsivorable opportunity to betray him into 
 
 their hands. (Matt. 26: I6; MarkU; II; Luke 22: 6.) In 
 
 the afternoon of Thursday, Jesus sent two of 
 his disciples into the city, to make ready the 
 Paschal Supper, that he might eat it with the 
 
 twelve. (Matt. 26: 17-19; Mark 14: 12-16; Luke 22: 7-12.) All 
 
 these events are omitted in the narrative, 
 partly because they were well known through 
 the other Gospels, and partly because they 
 were not necessary to John's purpose in set- 
 ting forth the divine-human personality of 
 Christ. 
 
 1-11. Jesus Washes His Disciples' 
 Feet. {Fourth Passover, April 7, A. u. 30). 
 
 1. Now before the feast of the pass- 
 over. This note of time is indefinite. Consid- 
 ered by itself, it might refer to a period ante- 
 dating the festival named, by the space of a 
 moment, an hour, a daj', or a month ; but it 
 might just as well refer to a period preceding 
 and introducing the Paschal Supper. If it is 
 to be connected with thr- la-st and principal 
 clause of the verse, and if that clau.se, loved 
 them unto the end, refers to the wonderful 
 act of condescending love which the Evangel- 
 ist goes on to describe, the hour intended must 
 have been early on Thursday evening; for 
 the supper which John proceeds to speak of 
 took place at that time — soon after this illu-s- 
 trative act of condescending love. Thus far 
 interpreters agree. But some believe that 
 John supposed this Thursday evening to be at 
 the close of the 1.3th and the beginning of the 
 14th day of the month — that is, one day pre- 
 vious to the appointed time for eating the 
 Passover; while others believe that he si:p- 
 posed it to be at the close of the 14th and tiie 
 beginning or' the l-5th day of the month — that 
 is, at the regular time for eating the Paschal 
 Supper. According to the former view, his 
 narrative disagrees with the testimony of the 
 Synoptical Gospels; according to the latter, 
 it agrees with that testimony. For an able 
 vindication of the latter view, see Robinson's 
 Greek "Harmony of the Gospels," pp. 211- 
 224. He says : " It has been the object of this 
 Note to show that, upon all grounds, both of 
 philology and history, the conclusion is valid 
 and irrefragable, that the testimonj' of John 
 in respect to the Passover need not be, and is 
 not to be, understood as conflicting with that 
 of Matthew, Mark, and Luke." When Je- 
 
266 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 [Ch. XIIL 
 
 2 And supper being ended, "the devil having now 
 put into the heart of Judas Iscariot, Simon's son, to be- 
 tray him; 
 
 2 end. And during supper, the devil having already 
 put into the heart of Judas Iscariot, Simon's son, to 
 
 a Luke 22 : 3 ; ver. 27. 
 
 sus knew (or, Jesus knowing) that his hour 
 was come that he should depart out of 
 this world unto the Father, having loved 
 his own which were in the world, he 
 loved them unto the end. Every clause 
 of this verse requires explanation. But the 
 principal statement is found in the last : loved 
 them unto the end. It was the love of Je- 
 sus to his own that John saw in the signifi- 
 cant act which he was about to describe. For 
 the word loved is here used of that "singular 
 proof of love which Jesus gave to his disci- 
 ples by washing their feet." — Orinun. The 
 Evangelist saw in this act perfect love, per- 
 fectly expressed — as, indeed, it was no unusual 
 thing for him to see love itself in an act of 
 love. (Comp. 1 John 4: 10, and 5:3.) 
 
 The persons to whom this love was now 
 manifested are described as his own which 
 Avere in the world ; the words his own 
 referring especially to the little group of 
 trusted followers whom he had selected from 
 the larger number given him by the Father — 
 to the eleven with whom he was about to ob- 
 serve the Passover, and to institute the Holy 
 Supper; and the words, which were in 
 the world, referring to the sphere of trial 
 and service in which he had been with them, 
 and in which they were still to be after his 
 departure. But while these were, doubtless, 
 especially in the mind of John, as those to 
 whom the Saviour's love was at this time so 
 tenderly expressed, there is no reason to sup- 
 pose that he thought of that love as restricted 
 to them. It embraced all who were at that 
 time "his own." and, indeed, all who were to 
 become his own in after ages. (Comp. 17: 20.) 
 
 The Greek words translated unto the end, 
 sometimes signify "to the highest degree"; 
 but this meaning, though preferred by some 
 interpreters, does not agree with the clause, 
 having loved his own, as well as does the 
 one given by our translation. (Comp. Matt. 
 10: 22, and 24: 13.) John saw in the act of 
 Jesus which he was about to describe the clear- 
 est evidence that the Saviour's love to his dis- 
 ciples continued to the last hour of his minis- 
 try on earth ; he saw that in the immediate 
 prospect of his agonj-, and of his consequent 
 
 glory, Christ's deep and self- forgetful affec- 
 tion was signally revealed. 
 
 The first participial clause: Knowing that 
 his hour was come that he should depart out 
 of this world unto the Father — Eev. Ver. — 
 has sometimes been understood to mean: 
 Though he knew that his hour was C07ne, etc. , — 
 as if this knowledge might have been expected 
 to turn away his mind from his disciples, and 
 to render such an expression of love to them 
 more imj)robable than it would have been at 
 any previous moment. But it is, perhaps, 
 more natural to find in this clause a reason for 
 the act remembered by John. The prospect 
 of at once leaving his own moved him to the 
 wonderful act of love and condescension which 
 the Evangelist relates. "Because he knew 
 that his hour was come that he sliould depart 
 out of this world unto the Father, he loved 
 his own to the end." The second participial 
 clause, in like manner, serves to account for 
 the singular proof which he gave of his love. 
 The fact that he had all along loved his own. 
 helped to explain the depth and tenderness of 
 his aflfection at the last moment. Love never 
 faileth. It is crescent and immortal. 
 
 2. And supper being ended (rather, as 
 supper v)as taking place.) This latter is a 
 literal rendering of the first clause, according 
 to the now accepted text. By it the writer 
 points out more exacth' the time when Jesus 
 rose from his place to wash his disciples' feet. 
 According to the preceding verse it was "be- 
 fore the feast of the passover" had actually 
 begun ; and according to this it was while the 
 supper was, in some sense, taking place — per- 
 haps, soon after the preliminary cup of wine 
 had been drunk, and while the principal 
 course of food was brought on for the guests 
 who had already taken their places at the 
 table. Then, instead of beginning the meal, 
 Jesus "riseth," etc. (ver.4.) The clause before 
 us has been variously translated : by Noyes, 
 "And supper being served"; by Alford, 
 "And when supper was begun"; by David- 
 son, "And when supper was ready"; by 
 Meyer, "And whilst it is becoming supper 
 time"; by "Watkins, "And it now becoming 
 supper time" ; in the Bible Union Revision, 
 
Ch. XIII.] 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 267 
 
 3 Jesus knowing "that the Father had given all things 
 into his haTids, and 'that he was come from God, and 
 went to God; 
 
 4 = He risetli from supper, and laid aside his gar- 
 ments; and took a towel, and girded himself. 
 
 3 betray him, Jesus, knowing that the Father had 
 given all things into his liands, and that he caiue 
 
 4 forth from God, and goctli unto God, riseth Ironi 
 supper, and layeth aside his garments ; and he took 
 
 a Matt. 11: 21; 28: 18: cb. 3: 35; 17: 2; Acts 2 : 36; 1 Cor. 15: 27; Heb. 2:8 6 ch. 8 : 42 ; 16: 28 c Luke 22: 27; Pbil. 2: 7,8. 
 
 " And supper being served" ; in the Revised 
 English Version, "And at supper time." 
 The Common Version, "And supper being 
 ended," represents a different reading, which 
 liad the participle in the past tense instead of 
 the present (yevofiiuov, instead of ytuo/u.ei'ou. ) The 
 devil havin§^ now (already) put into the 
 heart of Judas Iscariot, Simon's son, 
 to betray him. This remark is inserted by 
 the Evangelist, in order to show the wonder- 
 ful depth of Jesus' love; for the traitor was 
 one of those whose feet the Saviour stooped to 
 wash, and a knowledge of the dreadful crime 
 which darkened the soul of this man, did not 
 quench the ardor or modify the expression of 
 Christ's love. Meyer remarks that the full 
 name of the traitor "contains a shuddering 
 emphasis." This Evangelist does not tell us 
 when Satan first put into the heart of Judas 
 Iscariot the purpose to deliver .Tesus into 
 the hands of his enemies; but from the words 
 of Mark (i*; lo) it is natural to conclude that 
 this Satanic purpose was formed soon after, 
 if not during, the supper at Bethany, in the 
 house of Simon, when Mary anointed Jesus, 
 and the money for which the ointment might 
 have been sold was coveted in vain by the 
 traitor. If so, the heart of Judas had been 
 filled with the purpose to betray his Master 
 for at least a full day, probably five days, and 
 Jesus was perfectly aware of that purpose, 
 together with all that had been done to ac- 
 complish it. 
 
 3. The word Jesus is to be omitted at the 
 beginning of tliis verse. Knowing that the 
 Father had given all things into his 
 hands, and that he Avas come (or, came 
 forth) from God, and went (or, goeth) to 
 God. Here the knowledge of Jesus is so 
 described as to exhibit in a clearer light his 
 condescension and love in washing the dis- 
 ciples' feet, and the sense would be given by 
 translating the verse: "Though he knows 
 that the Father gave all things into his 
 hands," etc. The Lord of all, stooping to 
 menial service, out of love to his own! This 
 is the point of view from which John here 
 looks at the scene which he is about to de- 
 
 scribe. And it is certainly well chosen. 
 From no other point can the amazing wisdom 
 and love of the Saviour be more clearly seen. 
 4. He riseth from supper. For they 
 had already taken their places around the 
 table, though the sup])er had not yet begun. 
 In what spirit the disciples had coine to the 
 table, may perhaps be inferred from the lan- 
 guage of Luke 22: 24: "Then arose a strife 
 among them, which of them should be ac- 
 counted greatest." If so, the rising from the 
 supper, here mentioned, probably took place, 
 as noted above, soon after the preliminary 
 cup of wine had been drunk (Luke 22: 17,) which 
 was followed by ablutions, by bringing on 
 the bitter herbs, the unleavened bread, the 
 roasted lamb, etc. Whether the strife among 
 the disciples was occasioned by the necessity 
 that some one of them should wash his com- 
 panions' feet, because there was no servant 
 provided, cannot be known; but their con- 
 tention n)ay have been one of the occasions 
 for the Saviour's act. And laid aside his 
 {outer) garments. For the word here used 
 signifies properly the outer garments, as do 
 the words coat and cloak in English. And 
 took, etc. ; or, rather, taking a towel, he 
 girded himself. With what feelings did the 
 disciples observe this? Why did they not all 
 spring to their feet to take tlieir Lord's place 
 in the service which he was preparing to ren- 
 der? Was therein his countenance and b."~,r- 
 ing a holy purpose and authority that over- 
 awed them, and made it impossible for then 
 to do aught but wonder and wait? i'v, were 
 they so filled with the spirit of rivalry that 
 no one was willing at the moment, even for 
 his Lord's sake, to waive his own claims an'', 
 take the place of a servant? It is diflScult to 
 account for their remaining unmoved, unless 
 we suppose that reverence or ambition pre- 
 vented them from asking to do the menial 
 service which they saw their Master under- 
 taking. Possibly, in their surprise and con- 
 fusion, they knew not what to say, or to do; 
 but there is some reason to suspect that they 
 may have been, one and all, unwilling to 
 take the lowest place. 
 
268 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 [Ch. XIII. 
 
 5 After that he poureth water into a bason, and began 
 to wash the disciples' feet, and to wipe them with the 
 towel wherewith he was girded. 
 
 6 Then coiueth he to Simon Peter: and Peter saith 
 unto him, Ixird, "dost thou wash my feet? 
 
 7 Jesus answered and said unto him, What I do thou 
 knowest not now ; * but thou shalt know hereafter. 
 
 8 Peter saith unto him, Thou shah never wash my 
 feet. Jesus answered him, ■; If I wash thee not, thou 
 hast no part with me. 
 
 5 a towel, and girded himself. Then he poureth water 
 into the bason, and began to wash the disciples' feet, 
 and to wipe them with tlie towel wherewith he was 
 
 6 girded. So he cometh to Simon Peter. He saiih 
 
 7 unto him. Lord, dost thou wash my feet? Jesus 
 answered and said unto him, What I do thou know- 
 est not now; but thou shalt understand herealter. 
 
 8 Peter saith unto him. Thou shalt never wash my 
 feet. Jesus answered him, If 1 wash thee not, thou 
 
 aSeeMatt. 3:14....i ver. 12.... c ch. 3 : 5 ; 1 Cor. 6 : 11; Eph. 5:26; Tit. 3:5; Heb. 10: 22. 
 
 5. After that (or, then) he poureth water 
 into a [the) bason. That is, the bason that 
 had been provided for such a purpose, and 
 was, therefore, at hand. Hence the article. 
 How distinctly is the scene portra^-ed! The 
 narrative bears upon its face the clearest evi- 
 dence that it was written by an eye-witness. 
 And began to wash the disciples' feet, 
 and to wipe them with the towel where- 
 with he was girded. From this language 
 it appears that Jesus made an actual begin- 
 ning in washing his disciples' feet, and, prob- 
 ably, with no remonstrance from them. With 
 whom ho began, the Evangelist does not say; 
 but certainly not with Peter. 
 
 6. Then cometh he (or, so he cometh, 
 or, lit., he cometh therefore) to Simon 
 Peter. Therefore, (or, so)—i. e., in pursu- 
 ance of the task which he had undertaken to 
 perform. This task brought him naturally 
 to Simon Poter. And Peter (A<;i saith unto 
 him. The words and, and Peter, do not be- 
 long to the true text, and are omitted in the 
 Revised Version; but the question itself 
 shows that it was addressed by Peter to Jesus. 
 liOrd, dost thou wash my feet? This was 
 evidently spoken in a tone of remonstrance. 
 Peter means to say that the manifest inten- 
 tion of Jesus is surprising to him. The em- 
 phatic words of his question are thou and 
 my. He wondered that such a one as Jesus, 
 the Lord, should purpose to wash the feet of 
 such a one as Peter, the disciple. His ques- 
 tion, therefore, with whatever feeling it may 
 have been asked, contains a virtual affirma- 
 tion that it would be far more suitable for the 
 di.sciple to wash the Master's feet than for the 
 Master to wash the disciple's feet. But it 
 does not imply that even this disciple was 
 ready to take his Master's place and finish the 
 humble service that he was performing. 
 
 7. What I do thou knowest not noAv; 
 but thou shalt know (or, understand) here- 
 after. Peter could not have been ignorant of 
 the outward service which Jesus had been 
 
 rendering to some of the disciples, and was 
 now about to render to him ; but the spiritual 
 significance of that service — what it was mor- 
 ally and religiously — he failed to perceive. 
 There was in it a depth of meaning, a lesson 
 of condescending love for the sanctification of 
 believers, which Peter did not now appre- 
 hend, but which was to be made plain to him 
 afterwards. This promise may refer to the 
 explanation recorded in verses 12-17, below ; 
 but it may also refer to the Holy Spirit, who, 
 by his work in the souls of the disciples, was 
 to reveal to them the full significance of the 
 Saviour's life. The latter was, at least, in- 
 cluded in the Redeemer's thought. 
 
 8. Thou shalt never wash my feet. 
 Tliis is the correct version of Peter's reply; 
 "Neither now, nor ever, to eternity, shalt 
 thou wash my feet." The negation is abso- 
 lute ; and, according to the true text, a second- 
 ary emphasis falls on the pronoun my. Is 
 not this Peter our old acquaintance of the first 
 three Gospels? Here, as there, his respect for 
 Jesus is clouded by assumption. His intended 
 confession of inferioritj- is dictatorial. Good 
 is mingled with evil in his character, and we 
 are pleased and oflfended by the same act. Are 
 there not Peters in every age? If I wash 
 thee not, thou hast no part with me. 
 This is a second intimation (see ver. 7) that 
 there was a deeper meaning in his act than 
 Peter imagined. It signified more than a re- 
 moval of dust from the feet; it was emblem- 
 atic of the continued renewal (2Cor. 4:i6) by 
 which the believer is made meet for an inher- 
 itance with the saints in light. (Coi.i:i2.) For, 
 though a persistent refusal to yield to his 
 Lord's will in any matter, however-external 
 or trivial it might appear, would have sepa- 
 rated Peter from the Saviour's kingdom and 
 fellowship, it is far more natural to suppose 
 that Jesus here referred to a spiritual cleans- 
 ing, represented by the act of feet-washing, 
 than to suppose that he referred to the mere 
 physical act in question. For the former sup- 
 
Ch. XIII.] 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 269 
 
 9 Simon Peter saith unto him, Lord, not my feet | 
 only, but also my hands and my head. 
 
 10 Jesus saith to him, He that is washed needeth not 
 save to wash his feet, but is clean every whit: and "ye 
 are clean, but not all. | 
 
 9 hast no part with me. Simon Peter saith unto him, 
 Lord, not my feet only, but also my hands and my 
 
 10 head. Jesus saith to him. He that is bathed need- 
 eth not ' save to wash his feet, but he is clean every 
 
 a ch. 15 : 3. 1 Some aucieni autboritica umit, save, and bit feet. 
 
 position best agrees with his language in verse 
 10, and well accords with the profound and 
 suggestive, and, sometimes, enigmatical char- 
 acter of his teaching. (Comp. 2 : 19-21 ; 4 : 10, 
 13; 7 : 37, 39.) To have part withChrist, is to 
 share in his reign and glory and love (conip. 
 Matt. 24: 51; Luke 12: 46; Rom. 8: 17; John 
 14: 3); to have no part with him, is to be 
 forever separated from all that is capable of 
 satisfj-ing the soul. This threatening word of 
 Christ, revealing to Peter the possible loss of 
 all that he anticipated and longed for in the 
 kingdom of his Master, caused an instant re- 
 vulsion of feeling. 
 
 9. Lord, not my feet only, but also my 
 hands and my head. That is, all the ex- 
 posed parts of his body. The reaction of feel- 
 ing carries Peter too far. He asks for some- 
 thing that Jesus had not done or proposed to 
 do. His frank, bold, impulsive nature is not 
 easily trained to obey the will of another. But 
 the wisdom and love of Jesus are equal to the 
 tusk of guiding this honest, though impulsive 
 and powerful man. 
 
 10. He that is Avashed (rather, bathed). 
 It may mean : He that hath bathed himself, 
 as was probably true of the disciples, before 
 coming into the city to eat the Paschal Sup- 
 per. For bathing the whole body was cus- 
 tomary in preparing for special religious ser- 
 vices. Needeth not save to Avash his feet, 
 which must naturally have been soiled with 
 dust in passing through the streets to the 
 house where they had met to eat the Paschal 
 Supper. Observe that the word translated 
 bathe (Aou'u) is different from the one translated 
 wash (viTTTo) ; the former denoting an ablution 
 of the whole body, and the latter an ablution { 
 of a part of the body, as the hands or the feet. 
 By rendering both the words Avash, the Com- 
 mon English Version has obscured the mean- 
 ing of the passage. "A symbolical signifi- 
 cance is attached, in John 13 : 10, to washing 
 the feet, as compared with bathing the whole 
 body, the former being partial (kiVto)), the lat- 
 ter complete (\ovu) ; the former oft-repeated 
 in the course of the daj^ the latter done once 
 for all. "—(Smith's "Diet, of the Bible," Art., 
 
 Washing the Hands and Feet.) But is 
 clean every whit. That is, in his entire 
 
 body — a statement of the disciples' case at the 
 moment when these words were spoken. For 
 having bathed, as we may assume, before 
 coming into the city, they needed but the 
 washing of their feet to be virtually clean. 
 And ye are clean — save as to the feet — but 
 not all. This is added with reference to Ju- 
 das ; and, no doubt, as Meyer says, with deep 
 grief. Moreover it shows that Jesus is not 
 speaking of ritual purity merely, but also of 
 the spiritual state which it represents. For 
 the outward symbolizes the inward; and in 
 speaking of ceremonial or bodily cleansing, 
 he thinks of the purification of soul which it 
 signifies. With one awful exception, the dis- 
 ciples had been renewed in heart. They had 
 passed from death into life. They had been 
 "saved by the washing (or, bath) of regener- 
 ation" (Titus3:a), and their sins had been for- 
 given. But they were not yet delivered from 
 all evil. It was still necessary for them to 
 contend with sinful inclinations, and to mor- 
 tify the deeds of the body. (Rom. s: is.) Every 
 day they had reason to offer the petition: 
 "Forgive us our debts, as we forgive our 
 debtors." (Matt. 6:12.) And this process of 
 daily sanctification, by which believers are 
 continued in fellowship with Christ, is here 
 symbolized by washing the feet. Says 
 Godet: " Peter is clean, for he has sincerely 
 believed in Christ. What Jesus now does 
 with him has not, then, for its end to reconcile 
 him with God, but, by the example of humil- 
 ity which he would give him, to remove a par- 
 ticular stain which Jesus observed at this time 
 in his own— the desire for greatness and earthly 
 dominion. W^ith this vicious tendency, Pe- 
 ter would not know how to do the work of 
 God, or ever to have place at the table of 
 Christ. Every Christian ought, therefore, to 
 apply this saying to his own daily purifica- 
 tion from the evil desires whose presence he 
 detects in his heart. The word, the example, 
 and the spirit of Jesus are the means of this 
 growing purification, which is a necessary 
 complement of the initial justification." 
 
270 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 [Ch. XIII. 
 
 11 For "he knew who should betray him; therefore 
 said he, Ye are not all clean. 
 
 12 So after he had washed their feet, and had taken 
 his garments, and was set down again, he said unto 
 theiu. Know ye what I have done to you ? 
 
 13 * Ye call me Master and Lord : and ye say well ; 
 for so I am. 
 
 14 <=l{ I then, yoMj- Lord and Master, have washed 
 your feet; '^ye also ought to wash one another's feet. 
 
 15 For «I have given you an example, that ye should 
 do as 1 have done to you. 
 
 11 whit : and ye are clean, but not all. For he knew 
 him that should betray him; therefore said he. Ye 
 are not all clean. 
 
 12 So when he had washed their feet, and taken his 
 garments, and ' sat down again, he said unto them, 
 
 13 Know ye what I have done to you ? Ye call me 
 2 Master, and, Lord: and ye say well; for so I am. 
 
 14 If I then, the Lord and the ^ Master, have washed 
 your feet, ye also ought to wash one another's feet. 
 
 15 For I have given you an example, that ye also sh >uld 
 
 ch. 6:64....ft Matt. 23 ; 8, 10; Luke 6: 46; 1 Cor 8:6; 12:3; 12: 3; Phil. 2: 11.... c Luke 22 : 27.... d Ri.ui. 12: 10; Gal. 6: i, 2; 
 1 Pet. 5:5 e Matt. 11: 29; Phil. 2:5; 1 Pet. 2: 21 ; 1 John 2: 6. 1 Gr. recLned 2 Or, Teacher. 
 
 11. For he knew who should betray 
 
 him (lit., him that teas delivering him tq?) ; 
 therefore said he, Ye are not all clean. 
 
 Judas had already agreed with the chief 
 priests to deliver Jesus up to them for a cer- 
 tain sum of money, and was waiting for a 
 safe opportunity to fulfill his engagement. It 
 came sooner than he expected. It is to be 
 observed that John regards him as one who 
 was already engaged in his traitorous under- 
 taking. 
 
 12-20. Christ's Application of this 
 Symbolical Lesson. 
 
 12. So after (or, when therefore) he had 
 washed their feet, and had taken his 
 (outer) garments, and was set down (re- 
 clined) again, he said nnto them. Notice 
 tiie enumeration of particulars, every one of 
 which would be interesting to the disciple 
 whom Jesus loved, but which would be likely 
 to have no interest to one who was not present 
 as a personal friend of the Lord. The several 
 verbs, had washed, had taken, had re- 
 clined, and said, are in the same Greek tense, 
 and they might be translated (with Davidson) 
 "waslied,"' "took,"' "reclined," and "said"; 
 but the act of speaking referred to, certainly 
 followed the other acts named, and, therefore, 
 the sense of the narrative is best given by 
 translating the first three verbs as if they 
 were in the pluperfect tense, and the last 
 verb, in the past, or aorist. Know ye what 
 I have done to you? That is, the true 
 meaning and intent of what I have done. 
 This question is asked for the purpose of call- 
 ing their attention to what he is about to say. 
 For Jesus waits for no answer, but proceeds 
 at once to speak of his act in such a way as to 
 reveal its deeper sense. And no teacher ever 
 availed himself more skillfully of all proper 
 means of gaining the attention of his hearers, 
 than did Jesus Christ. " He that hath an ear, 
 let him hear." "Take heed how ye hear." 
 "Verily, verily, I say unto you," etc. 
 
 13. Ye call me Master (lit., the Teacher) 
 and Lord (or, the Lord), and ye say well ; 
 
 for so I am. Though Christ was "meek 
 and lowly in heart" (Matt, ii : 29), having no 
 love of human applause, no vain desire for 
 the glory that cometh from men, he never re- 
 proved any one for ascribing to him the 
 highest, even divine, wisdom or authority. 
 (See Matt. 16: 16, 17; John 1: 50; 6: 69; 20: 
 28; 21: 27.) On the contrary, for the truth's 
 sake, and for the glory of the Father, whom 
 he represented, he sometimes directed the 
 minds of his disciples, or hearers, to his 
 divine prerogatives. The reference which he 
 makes in this place to his Messiahship adds 
 greatly to the force of his example and ap- 
 peal. 
 
 14. If I then, (the Lord and the Teacher) 
 havewashed (or, washed) your feet, ye also 
 ought to wash one another's feet. That 
 is to say, in similar circumstances and for like 
 ends, ye ought to render to one another such a 
 service. For a service that is not too humble 
 for the Lord to perform, cannot be too humble 
 for the servant to perform. Moreover, it is 
 the end sought by an act of service which de- 
 termines the moral character and dignity of 
 that act, and therefore if the end sought by 
 an act which is servile in form and appear- 
 ance is worthy of God, the act itself must be 
 noble and divine. 
 
 15. For I have given you an example, 
 that ye should do as I have done to you. 
 There is no reason to suppose that Jesus in- 
 tends by these words to make feet-washing a 
 Christian ordinance, like baptism and the 
 Lord's Supper. Had this been his purpose, 
 the other Evangelists would have been almost 
 certain to mention the Saviour's act of wash- 
 ing his disciples' feet at the Paschal Supper, 
 and there would have been some traces of the 
 practice as a solemn rite, in the Acts of the 
 Apostles and in the Epistles of Paul. But 
 there is no mention of this act by the other 
 
Ch. XIII.] 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 271 
 
 16 ■■ Verily, verily, I say unto you. The servant is not 
 greater than his lord: neither he that is sent greater 
 than he that sent him. 
 
 17 'If ye know these things, happy are ye if ye do 
 them. 
 
 16 do as I have done to you. Verily, verily, I say unto 
 you, A 'servant is not greater than his lord; neither 
 
 17 -one that is sent greater than he that sent him. If ye 
 know those things, blessed are ye if ye do them. 
 
 a Miitt. U: as; Phil. 2; 5; I Pet. 2 : 21 ; 1 John 2:6 6 M.itt. 10 : 24; Luke 6: 40; ch. 15: 20. 1 Gr. hondservant 2 Gr. an apoalle. 
 
 Evangelists, and no trace of such a rite among 
 Christians of the apostolic age. The refer- 
 ence to "washing the saint's feet," in 1 Tim. 
 5: 10, is to an act of hospitality, and not to an 
 ecclesiastical rite. "To abase one's self in 
 order to serve, and to serve in order to save, is 
 the moral essence of the act." — Godet. "It 
 is the inward spirit of Christ, not the mere 
 outward act, that is an example for us to fol- 
 low; the cleansing love, not the girded gar- 
 ment and the washing of feet, that is our pat- 
 tern. For the spiritual significance of this 
 declaration, see ch. 17: 18; 1 John 3: 16." — 
 Abbott. "The unwillingness to perform the 
 act of feet-washing had been on the side of 
 the disciples an 'example' of selfishness; the 
 action of Jesus was an 'example' of conde- 
 scending love. ... It is clear that the idea 
 that a sacrament is instituted here, is entirely 
 out of the question ; nor, furthermore, is the 
 action linked with a promise." — Tholuck. It 
 may also be added, that baptism and the 
 Lord's Supper are expressly represented by 
 the Saviour as rites to be observed till the end 
 of the gospel age: "Baptizing them . . . . 
 teaching them . . . and lo, I am with you 
 ahvay, even unto the end of the world — or, 
 until the end of the age.'' (Matt. 28: i», 20.) The 
 commission to make disciples, and baptize 
 and teach them, was given with reference to 
 all the nations and to the whole Christian 
 period — till the coming of the Son of man to 
 judge the world. In like manner, the Lord's 
 Supper was made a permanent ordinance: 
 "For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink 
 this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death, till he 
 come." (iCor.ii:26.) But nothing of this kind 
 is said in respect to feet-washing. Besides, it 
 may be worthy of consideration, that immer- 
 sion and the Lord's Supper are natural and 
 self-interpreting rites, the world over; while 
 feet-washing is only natural and necessary, as 
 a frequent act, in hot climates, and with such 
 methods of clothing the feet as prevail in 
 such climates. 
 
 16. Verily, verily, I say unto you, The 
 servant is not greater than his lord, 
 neither he that is sent greater than he that 
 
 sent him. A most solemn affirmation of the 
 fact that they ought to perform the humblest 
 service to their brethren, if by so doing they 
 can promote their sanctification ; for such a 
 service their Lord had just performed. They 
 were to be his apostles, sent forth by him to 
 preach the good news of salvation, and direct 
 men in the way of life: how unnatural and 
 inconsistent for them to decline such a service 
 as he was willing to render! Yet they had, 
 within an hour, given evidence of a spirit 
 which would lead them to do this. They had 
 striven together as to who should be greatest, 
 and were not yet prepared to be esteemed 
 less than nothing for Christ's sake. 
 
 17. If ye know these things, happy 
 (blessed) are ye if ye do them. With this 
 saying may be compared the words of Jesus, 
 in response to the exclamation, "Blessed is 
 the womb that bare thee, and the paps which 
 thou hast sucked!" "Yea, rather, blessed 
 are they that hear the word of God and keep 
 it." (Luke 11:27, 28.) But this Saying, which 
 speaks only of good, has a tone of sorrow in 
 it. For had not the disciples been unwilling 
 to do these things? Could they fail to per- 
 ceive that the love which their Lord had 
 just revealed by his words and conduct was 
 wanting, or very weak, in their hearts? Must 
 not his assurance of blessedness, in case they 
 should do these things, have awakened 
 more of fear than of hope, at that moment? 
 Perhaps they recalled his words on a former 
 occasion : " Not everj' one that saith unto me. 
 Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of 
 heaven; but he that doeth the will of my 
 Father which is in heaven " (Matt. 7:21), or his 
 declaration that the "servant which knew his 
 Lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither 
 did according to his will, shall be beaten 
 with many stripes " (Luke 12: 47) ; and so, were 
 alarmed, rather than comforted, by what he 
 now said. " To him that knoweth to do good, 
 and doeth it not, to him it is sin." (James 4: 17.) 
 There are some who hear but to obey, and 
 they are blessed; but there are many who 
 hear without being willing to obey, and their 
 condemnation is just. God's pleasure in the 
 
272 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 [Ch. XIII. 
 
 18 I speak not of you all: I know whom I have 
 chosen: but that the scripture may be fulfilled, "He 
 that eateth bread with me hath lifted up his heel 
 against me. 
 
 19 » Now I tell you before it come, that, when it is 
 come to pass, ye may believe that I am he. 
 
 18 I speak not of you all: I know whom I ^have cho- 
 sen : but that the scripture may be lultilled. He that 
 eateth 2 my bread, lilted up his heel against me. 
 
 19 From henceforth I tell you before it come to pass, 
 that when it is come to pass, ye may believe that I 
 
 aPs.41r9; Matt. 26: '23; ver. 21 &cb. 14:29; 16:4. 1 Or, cAose.. .'2 Manv ancient authorities read, Ais &rea(2 unCA me. 
 
 former is matched by his displeasure with the 
 latter. From the blessedness which follows 
 those who obey, may be inferred the misery 
 of those who disobey. And these results of 
 conduct are not chiefly rewards, or inflictions 
 from without, having no natural connection 
 with the conduct itself, but they are rather, 
 for the most part, the proper fruits of that 
 conduct, flowing out of the moral condition 
 of the soul as unavoidably as the qualities of 
 a particular fruit flow out of the qualities of 
 the seed from which it derives its life. 
 
 18. I speak not of you all. The mind 
 of Jesus turns to the traitor, and he feels 
 keenly his presence. But these words, at the 
 same time, imply his confidence that the rest 
 of the disciples would prove, on the whole, 
 faithful. He knows them to be sincere, and 
 foresees that, though they may be weak, and 
 fail "to do these things," uniformly they de- 
 sire and endeavor to do them. But he also 
 knows that one of the twelve is radically' and 
 thoroughly untrue to his Master. I know 
 whom I have chosen (rather, chose\ The 
 I is emphatic. "Though you may not under- 
 stand it, I for my i>art know whom I chose. 
 And Judas is one of them." But— I chose 
 them, Judas included— that the scripture 
 may be fulfilled, He that eateth bread 
 Avith me hath lifted up his heel against 
 me. (p«. 41:9.) That is, Jesus gave to Judas a 
 place among the twelve with a view to the ful- 
 fillment of the "determinate counsel" of 
 God, revealed in the Scriptures. The charac- 
 ter of Judas was known from the first; and 
 he was numbered with the twelve — not, how- 
 ever, against his own will, or for the purpose 
 of hardening his heart — but because God 
 could use the wickedness of a hypocrite and a 
 thief in accomplishing a holy and gracious 
 work. Christ knew that he must die ; for he 
 came into the world, "not to be ministered 
 unto, but to minister, and to give his life a 
 ransom for many." He knew, also, that one 
 of his professed friends, who had received 
 from him nothing but good, would betray 
 him. He therefore chose one who was a hyp- 
 
 ocrite and a thief to be an apostle, oflTering 
 him all good, and never tempting him to evil ; 
 but aware from the beginning that he was un- 
 true in his professions of trust, and fit for 
 villainous deeds, like that of delivering up his 
 Master to those who were seeking his life. 
 (6:64.) This appears to be the most natural 
 meaning of the language here used, and the 
 course of action which it ascribes to Jesus 
 agrees with manj^ statements of Scripture as 
 to the use which God sometimes makes of 
 men whose hearts are bent upon evil. (Ex. 7: -2-5; 
 
 Isa. 10: 5-15; Ps. 76: 10.) 
 
 The words. He that eateth bread Avith 
 with me hath lifted up his heel against 
 
 me, are quoted from Ps. 41 : 9, in which Da- 
 vid is supposed to have described the treachery 
 of Ahithophel, or of some other pretended 
 friend, though David's experience was meant 
 by the Spirit of God to be tj'pical of the ex- 
 perience of his greater Son, Hence Jesus 
 quotes but a part of the verse, namely, that 
 which was, in a pre-eminent sense, fulfilled in 
 his own experience; while he omits the words: 
 "Yea, mine own familiar friend, in whom I 
 trusted," because, if our interpretation is cor- 
 rect, those were not, strictly' speaking, ful- 
 filled in his own experience, since Judas was 
 never one in whom he irusted. Bj' quoting 
 these words from the Forty-first Psalm, Jesus 
 reveals his sense of the baseness and treach- 
 ery of Judas, in the course he was taking. 
 "Judas, so near to an act of treason, is like 
 him who has already lifted up his heel in or- 
 der to kick another." — Meyer. 
 
 19. Now (rather, from henceforth) I tell 
 you before it come (to pass), that, when 
 it is come to pass, ye may believe that I 
 am he. Thus he takes every proper measure 
 to confirm the fitith of his disciples in himself, 
 as being all that he had claimed to be, the true 
 i Messiah^ the Son of God, and the Light of the 
 world. By calling attention to his reason for 
 predicting the treachery of one of his own 
 disciples, he made it more certain that they 
 would recollect this prediction when it was 
 ! fulfilled, and see in it fresh evidence that he 
 
Ch. XIII.] 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 273 
 
 20 "Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that receivelli [ 20 am he. Verily, verily, I say unto you, He 
 whomsoever I seud receivelh me ; aud he tliatreceiveth that receiveth whomsoever I send nceiveth me; 
 me receiveth him that seut me. and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent 
 
 21 'When Jesus had thus said, "^ he was troubled in me. 
 
 spirit, and testified, and .said. Verily, verily, I say unto 21 When Jesus had thus said, he was troubled in the 
 you, that "^ one of you shall betray me. | spirit, and testified, and said, Verily, verily, 1 say 
 
 a Matt. 10: 40; 25: 40; Luke 10:16 6 Matt. 26: 21 ; Mai k 14 : 18; Luke 22 : 21 cch. 12; 27 d Aetn 1 : 17 ; I John 2 : IS). 
 
 was the Messiah. From this time, is the only 
 correct reading of the Greek expression (in-' 
 apri) here used, though it has sometimes been 
 translated in this place now, or even now. It 
 will be seen that he repeated the prediction a 
 few moments later (^er. 21), thus taking away 
 all objection to the view that the expression 
 which he employs has its customary sense in 
 this verse. 
 
 20. Verily, verily, I say unto you. He 
 that receiveth whomsoever I send, re- 
 ceiveth me; and he that receiveth me, 
 receiveth him that sent me. The connec- 
 tion of this saying with what precedes is not 
 perfectly obvious; but it may be stated as fol- 
 lows : In predicting openly the crime that was 
 soon to be perpetrated by one of the twelve, 
 Jesus had in mind the future needs of his dis- 
 ciples, who were to be witnesses for hiiri in peril- 
 ous circumstances, first among the Jews, and 
 then among the Gentiles. He desired to lay 
 the foundations of their faith in himself as 
 deeply as possible, for they were to be his 
 representatives in teaching; and, if his repre- 
 sentatives, then the representatives of his 
 Father. In other words, Jesus wishes them 
 to have strong faith in him(ver. 19), because 
 they are to be his ambassadors, and so the am- 
 bassadors of his Fathi'r. (ver. 20.) The mean- 
 ing would not have been changed, if he had 
 said: ''^For verily, verilj', I say unto you," 
 etc. This appears to me a better view of the 
 connection than that proposed by Lticke, viz.: 
 "Jesus wishes to encourage his disciples, who 
 were disheartened, either by the thought of 
 treachery originating among themselves, or 
 yet more, perhaps, by the prospect of their 
 Master's departure from them (comp. 14: 1); 
 and he does this by setting before their minds 
 in whose name and with what dignity they 
 were to be sent out. (Comp. Matt. 10: 40-42; 
 Luke 9: 48.)" Equally unsatisfactory is that 
 of Godet: "If we consider verses 18 and 19 
 to be a simple parenthesis, occasioned by the 
 contrast between the lot of Judas and the 
 blessedness of the faithful disciples (ver. 17), we 
 cannot easily- doubt that a prominent trait of 
 
 this blessedness is promised, in verse 17, to the 
 disciple who is humble and devoted, like his 
 Master. Jesus had said : ' The servant is not 
 greater than his lord' ; he now seems to say r 
 ' The servant is not inferior in greatness to his 
 Master.' To receive him, is to receive Jesus, 
 and the Lord himself. (Comp. Matt. 18: 
 4, 5.)" Alford presents yet another view of 
 the connection: "I believe that the saying 
 sets forth ithe dignity of that office from which 
 Judas was about to fall — q. d., 'not only was 
 he in close intercourse with me (ver. is), but in- 
 vested with an ambassadorship for me, and in 
 me, for the Father; and yet he will lift up 
 his heel against me.' " But this, again, is less 
 natural and forcible, after verse 19, than the 
 connection first stated. 
 
 21-30. Announcement of His Betray- 
 al BY JlTDAS. 
 
 21. When Jesus had thus said, he was 
 troubled in (the) spirit. These words im- 
 ply a sudden accession of sorrow, a great dis- 
 turbance of soul, as his mind turned again to 
 the faithless one who was about to betray him. 
 The human nature of Jesus was subject to 
 agitation, conflict, and grief; for it was a real 
 human nature— one that made him liable to 
 temptation. The sight of Judas, unmoved by 
 his act of condescending love, the washing 
 the disciples' feet; unmoved bj' his reference 
 to the betrayal, in verse 18; and wearing still 
 a mask of hypocrisy which deceived his fel- 
 low disciples, filled the spirit of Jesus with 
 grief and indignation. And testified, and 
 said, Verily, verily, I say unto you, that 
 one of you shall betray me. On these 
 words, Lange remarks: "The inmost life of 
 his human spirit was invaded by horror at the 
 unprecedented fact of his approaching and 
 imminent betrayal; the sight of the crafty 
 one, and of his connection with the circle of 
 disciples . . . tempted him to despise the 
 whole race of mankind (?), and tended to 
 produce in him an exasperation of spirit 
 which he must summon all his energies to re- 
 sist." It may be doubted whether just this is 
 suggested by the expression, troubled in 
 
274 
 
 JOHIs. 
 
 [Ch. XIII. 
 
 22 Then the disciples looked one on another, doubt- 
 ing of whom he spake. 
 
 23 Now o there was leaning on Jesus' bosom one of 
 his disciples, whom Jesus loved. 
 
 24 Simon Peter therefore beckoned to him, that he 
 should ask who it should be of wliom he spake. 
 
 25 He then lying on Jesus' breast sailh unto him, 
 Lord, who is if! 
 
 22 unto you, that one of you shall betray me. The 
 disciples looked one on another, doubting of whom 
 
 23 he spake. Tliere was at the table reclining in Jesus' 
 
 24 bosom one of his di.-ciides, whom Jesus loved. Si- 
 mon Peter therefore beckoneth to him, and saith un- 
 
 25 to him, Tell us who it is of whom he speaketh. He 
 leaning back, as be was, on Jesus' breast saith unto 
 
 a ch. 19 : 26; M : 2 ; 21 : 7, 20. 24. 
 
 spirit. The feeling of Jesus was probably 
 one of mingled indignation and sorrow; and 
 the moment had now come when he could 
 properly reveal tlie cause of that feeling, as 
 well as the feeling itself. By the order of 
 words in the Greek, the emphasis falls on one 
 of you, rather than on shall betray me. 
 It was the circumstance that one of his own 
 followers, v/ho had so often eaten with him, 
 and listened to his words of love, was to de- 
 liver him up, that made his sorrow so deep. 
 
 22. Omit then, and read: The disciples 
 looked (or, were looking) one on another, 
 doubting of whom he spake. This, again, 
 is one of the graphic touches which distin- 
 guish the Fourth Gospel, and prove that it 
 was written by a most sensitive and apprecia- 
 tive eye-witness. According to Matthew, the 
 disciples " were exceeding sorrj-, and began 
 each one of them to say unto him, Lord, is 
 it I?"; according to Mark, "they began to 
 he sorry, and to say unto him, one by one, Is 
 it I?"; and according to Luke, "they began 
 to inquire among themselves which of them it 
 might be that was about to do this thing." 
 
 (Matt. 26: 22; Mark 14: 19; Luke 22: 2.1. Davidson's Transl.) 
 
 But John remembers the look of surprise, of 
 doubt, and of painful inquiry', with which 
 the disciples turned one to another. The 
 expression which was seen in their counte- 
 nances was more significant to him than any 
 words which tliey addressed to one another, 
 or to Jesus. Yet he deems it proper to men- 
 tion Peter's special appeal to himself, and the 
 manner in whi(;h Christ answered the ques- 
 tion which was asked in response to that ap- 
 peal. 
 
 23. Omit now, and read: There was {at 
 the table) leaning on Jesus' bosom one of 
 his disciples, whom Jesus loved. "The 
 custom was to lie with the left arm supported 
 on the cushion, and the feet stretched out be- 
 hind, so that the right hand remained free for 
 eating. The one who lay next, reached, with 
 the back of his head, to the sinus of the girdle 
 of tbeifirst, and had the feet of the first at his 
 
 back; in like manner, the third in the bosom 
 of the second." —Meye): The pronoun whom 
 refers only to the one who was reclining in 
 Jesus' bosom, and the clause denotes that this 
 disciple was loved by the Saviour with a spe- 
 cial love. The repetition of the word Jesus, 
 in this clause, is singularly natural and ex- 
 pressive, showing how the grateful disciple 
 appreciates the personal affection of his Mas- 
 ter, and loves to repeat his name in speaking 
 of his affection. It is not the fact that he is 
 loved, but the fact that ha is loved by Jesus, 
 which fills the heart of the Evangelist with a 
 joy and gratitude that, with all his modest}', he 
 canncjt repress. He is constrained to say, with- 
 out mentioning his own name, that there is a 
 disciple who will wonder and rejoice forever 
 that he was loved b}' Jesus with a great and spe- 
 cial love; and this disciple was reclining in 
 the bosom of Jesus when the latter said : "One 
 of you shall betray me." 
 
 24. Simon Peter therefore beckoned, 
 etc. (Better, as in Kev. Ver., beckoneth to him, 
 and saith unto hitn, Tell who it is of whom he 
 speaketh). That is, tell us who it is, etc. "Pe- 
 ter was unable to restrain his sorrow and im- 
 patience. Eager to know and to prevent the 
 treachery — unseen bj' Jesus, whose back was 
 turned to him as he reclined at the meal — he 
 made a signal to John to ask 'who it was.' " 
 — Farrar. According to the best authorized 
 reading, Peter expected that John could tell 
 him which of the disciples was meant, either 
 because he supposed that Jesus had alreadj- 
 pointed out the person to the disciple whom 
 he loved, or because he supposed that Jesus 
 would do this privately at John's request. Bj' 
 beckoning to John, Peter gains his attention, 
 and is able to address him in a whisper. 
 
 25. He then lying, etc., (or, he leatiing 
 hack thus, or, as he v-as) on Jesus' breast, 
 saith unto him. Lord, Avho is it? The 
 first clause presents a very exact picture of the 
 scene. John, leaning his head backward so as 
 to touch the breast of Jesus, is able, unobserved 
 by others except Peter, to whisper in his ear 
 
Ch. XIIL] 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 275 
 
 26 Jesus answered, He it is, to whom I shall Rive a 
 sop, when I have dipped it. And when he had dipped 
 the sop, he gave it to Judas Iscariot, t,h« son of Siniou. 
 
 27 " And attgr the sop Satau entered into him. Then 
 said Jesus unto him, That thou doest, do quickly. 
 
 26 him, Lord, who is it? Jesus therefore answereth, 
 He it is, for whom I shall dip the soj), and give it 
 him. So when he had dijjped the sop, he taketh and 
 
 27 giveth it to Judas, the sun of Simon Iscariot. And 
 after the sop, then entered Satan into him. Jesus 
 therefore saith unto him, That thou doest, do quick- 
 
 a Luke 22 : 3 ; ch. 6 : 70. 
 
 the question whicli had been asked by his fel- 
 low disciple. With some of the best editors, 
 I have recognized an adverb, meaning thus, 
 as belonging to the text after the words lean- 
 ing back. For though the manuscripts and 
 versions are nearly equally divided in respect 
 to it, the omission of this adverb by a copyist 
 is more easily accounted for than its inser- 
 tion. Its effect on the sense is only to hold 
 the attention a little longer on the scene as it 
 was present to the mind of the writer. Lean- 
 ing back THUS — i. e., as he was, in a reclining 
 posture, and as he would naturally do, being 
 in such a posture. A copyist would not per- 
 ceive that anything was lacking to the sense, 
 if he accidentally omitted this word ; and the 
 same fact would make it improbable that he 
 supplied it by a natural law of mental action. 
 It is a word that might be added by an eye- 
 witness of the scene (comp. 4: 6), but by no 
 other. I am, therefore, persuaded that it is 
 genuine, and that it affords another evidence 
 of the apostolic origin of this Gospel. 
 
 26. Jesus answered, etc. The Rev. Ver. 
 is better : Jesus therefore answereth, He it is 
 for whom I shall dip the sop, and give it to 
 him. Both the question of John and the an- 
 swer of Jesus were probably uttered in a low 
 voice, not distinctly heard by the other disci- 
 ples. The sop was a morsel, or small piece of 
 bread, probably of the thin, flexible, unleav- 
 ened loaf eaten at the Passover. Westcott 
 says: " It is an Eastern custom, at present, for 
 the host to give a small ball of meat to the 
 guest whom he wishes to honor. The refer- 
 ence here may be to this custom." But there 
 is little reason to suppose that Jesus meant to 
 put any special honor on Judas. The most 
 that can be said in this direction is, that his 
 act wa.s friendly, making one more appeal to 
 the traitor's heart. It was an act of "sorrow- 
 ful good will." — Meyer. The translation given 
 in the Revised Version is made from the best 
 authorized text, which differs slightly from 
 that on which the Common Version is based. 
 And (so) when he had dipped the sop, he 
 gave it (taketh and giveth it) to Judas, the 
 
 son of Simon {Iscariot). From this lan- 
 guage, it may be inferred that Judas was re- 
 clining so near iiis Master that, without rising 
 or leaving his place, he could receive the mor- 
 sel directly from the Saviour's hand; but it 
 does not follow that he must have been next 
 to Jesus on the left. That, which would have 
 been the place of honor, as related to Jesus 
 the Master, was probably filled by Peter- 
 "Jesus first declares that one of the twelve 
 shall betray him. (Ver. 21; comp. Matt. 26: 
 21; Luke 22: 21; Mark 14: 18.) They, in 
 amazement, inquire : 'Lord, is it I? is it I?' 
 
 (Matt. 26:22; Mark 14: 18; Luke 22: 23), and Peter makeS 
 
 a sign to John, leaning on Jesus' bosom, that he 
 should ask who it was. (ver. 24.) John does so ; 
 and Jesus gives him privately a sign by which 
 he may know the traitor, viz.: the sop. (ver. 
 25, 26.) The amazement and inquiry still con- 
 tinuing, Jesus gives the sop to Judas (ver. 26); 
 who, then conscience-smitten, but desiring to 
 conceal his confusion, asks, as the others had 
 done: 'Lord, is it I?' (Matt. 26:25.) Jesus an- 
 swers him (Matt. 26:25; John 13: 27), and he imme- 
 diately goes out." — (Robinson's " Harmony," 
 §135.) We have inserted in parentheses the 
 references not given by Robinson. 
 
 27. And after the sop Satan entered 
 into him. That is, after Jesus had given 
 him the morsel, his spirit, under the influence 
 of Satan, was turned against the Lord with a 
 flnal and unalterable purpose to deliver him 
 up. But this was not an instance of demoniacal 
 possession. Judas was as free, and as truly 
 responsible, as ever. Then said Jesus (or, 
 Jesus therefore saith) unto him. That (or, 
 what)thoii doest, do ignore) quickly. There- 
 fore, namely, because of Satan's entering into 
 him, and of his purpose to go on in the work 
 of betrayal. Perceiving this, Jesus saith unto 
 him. That thou doest— i. e., "What thou art 
 doing already, in spirit and purpose"; for, in 
 the deepest sense, Judas was now engaged in 
 betraying his Master. More quickly, or, 
 quicker, may be understood as a comparative 
 adverb, meaning "more quickly than thou 
 art planning to do it"; for Judas was "linger- 
 
276 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 [Ch. XIII. 
 
 28 Now no man at the table knew for what intent he 
 spake this unto him. 
 
 29 P'or some o/ Ihem thought, because " Judas had the 
 bag, tliat Jesus had said unlo him, Buy th/tse things that 
 we have need of against the feast; or, that he should 
 give something to the poor. 
 
 30 He then, having received the sop, went imme- 
 diately out; and it was night. 
 
 31 Therefore, when he was gone out, Jesus said. ' Now 
 is the Son of man glorified, and =God is glorified in 
 him. 
 
 28 ly. Now no man at the table knew for what intent 
 
 29 he spake this unto him. For some thought, because 
 Judas had the 'bag, that Jesus said unto him. Buy 
 what things we have need of for the least; or, that 
 
 30 he should give something to the poor. He then hav- 
 ing received the sop went out straightway: audit 
 was night. 
 
 31 When therefore he was gone out, Jesus saitb. 
 Now 2 is the Son of man glorified, and God ^is 
 
 ocb. 12: 6 6 oh. 12: 23 c ch. 14: 13; 1 Pet. 4: 11. 1 Or, box 2 Or, i 
 
 ing, and pretending (Matt. 26:25) to share in the 
 general doubt." — Alford. 
 
 The command is, not to do a deed about 
 which Judas hesitated, but to do, in a certain 
 way, a deed which was fully resolved upon 
 by the traitor. Jesus knew that delay was 
 useless — that his hour was come ; and he 
 now wished to be alone with his true disci- 
 ples. Hence it appears that he was Lord over 
 t\\Q mayiner of his betrayal and death. 
 
 28. Now no man at the table knew for 
 what intent he spake this unto him. 
 The Evangelist includes himself in this re- 
 mark. And it is no way surprising that neither 
 he nor any of his fellow disciples suspected 
 the. mission on which Judas was sent. How 
 could they imagine that Jesus should hasten 
 a tniitor in his work? But Judas understood 
 the meaning of Christ's language, for his soul 
 was full of the dark purpose referred to. 
 
 29. For some of them thought, be- 
 cause Judas had the bag, that Jesus had 
 said unto him. Buy those things that we 
 have need of against (or, for) the feast ; 
 or, that he should give something to the 
 poor. The word for is used because the 
 actual thoughts of some show that they, at 
 least, did not know what Jesus had in view 
 when he said: "What thou doest, do (more) 
 quickly." The words, Buy those things 
 that we have need of against (or, for) 
 the feast, have been supposed to prove that 
 the meal which they were now observing was 
 not the Paschal Supper, or, if it was, that the 
 regular time of eating it was anticipated by 
 Jesus. But in reply to this. Dr. Robinson re- 
 marks: "Tlie disciples thought that Judas 
 was to buy the things necessarj' for the festi- 
 val on the fifteenth and following days. If 
 now our Lord's words were spoken on the 
 evening preceding and introducing the 
 fifteenth of Nisan, they were appropriate; 
 for some haste was necessary, since it was 
 already quite late to make purchases for the 
 
 next day. But if they were uttered on 
 the evening preceding and introducing the 
 fourteenth of Nisan, they were not thus ap- 
 propriate ; for then a whole day was yet to 
 intervene before the festival." 
 
 30. He then having received the sop, 
 went immediately out : and it was night. 
 One cannot help feeling that the Evangelist 
 added the last clause, partly at least, because 
 of the harmony between the darkness without 
 and the person who went forth into it. "This 
 concbision of the narrative respecting Judas 
 presents, unsought, something /«W of horror, 
 and precisely in this simplest brevity of ex- 
 pression something that profoundly lays hold 
 of the imagination." — Meyer. The words of 
 Christ after Judas had gone out may be said 
 to form three groups: (1) His words to the 
 eleven in the upper room (i3:3i; u:3i;) (2) His 
 words to them on the way to Gethsemane 
 (15-16;) and (3) His words of prayer to the 
 Father for himself and his flock, (i"-) 
 
 13: 31—14: 31. His Words to the 
 Elkven in the Upper Room. 
 
 31. Therefore when he Avas gone out. 
 Davidson translates this clause: "When 
 therefore he went out" ; but this translation 
 introduces a Greek idiom into a language to 
 which it is foreign. "Had gone out" is the 
 proper English equivalent for the Greek ex- 
 pression. Jesus said, Now is the Son of 
 man glorified. By sending forth Judas to 
 his traitorous work, Jesus consented afresh to 
 encounter the awful death by which he was 
 to be glorified; he made this death a certain, 
 and, as it were, an accomplished fact. And 
 it was by this death that the perfect moral 
 excellence of his character and mission was 
 to be revealed. And God is glorified in 
 him. In and by the Son of man, becoming 
 obedient unto death, was also revealed the 
 love, the holiness — indeed, the entire moral 
 perfection of God. And this truth the Son 
 of man declares in the plainest terms. As 
 
 AM 
 
Ch. XIIL] 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 277 
 
 32 » If God be glorified in him, God shall also glorify 
 him in himself, and 'shall straightway glorify him. 
 
 33 Little childen, yet a little while I am with you. 
 Ye shall seek me; ■: and as I said unto the Jews, 
 Whither I go, ye cannot come; so now I say to you. 
 
 3-t A ■* new commandment I give unto you. That ye 
 love one another ; as 1 have loved you, that ye also love 
 one another. 
 
 32 glorified in him ; and God shall glorify him in 
 himself, and straightway slial! he gl(jrity him. 
 
 33 Little children, yet a little while 1 am with you. 
 Ye shall seek me: and as I said unto the .lews, 
 Whither I go, ye cannot come; so now I say unto 
 
 34 you. A new commandment I give unto you, that 
 ye love one another; 'even as I have loved you, 
 
 och. 17: 1, 4, 5,6 5 ch. 12: 23 c oh. 7 : 34 ; 8 : 21 d Lev. 19: 18; ch. 15; 12, 17: Eph. 5:2; 1 Thess. 4:9; James?: 8; 1 Pet. 1; 22; 
 
 1 John 2 : 7, 8; 3: 11, 23; 4: 21. 1 Or, even as I loved you, that ye al&o may love one another. 
 
 death drew near, the reason for it filled his 
 soul with light and strength. 
 
 33. If God be glorified in him, God 
 shall also glorify him in himself, and 
 shall straightway glorify him. The first 
 clause of this verse is wanting in most of the 
 very early manuscripts, and may, therefore, 
 be no part of tlie inspired text. But, whether 
 it be retained or omitted, the meaning of the 
 verse is the same. Westcott (after Lachmann 
 and Tregelles) omits this clause and gives the 
 following as "a literal rendering" of the 
 Saviour's words in verses 31 and 32: "Now 
 was glorified the Son of man. And God was 
 glorified in him: And God shall glorify him 
 in himself. And straightway shall he glorify 
 him." And he thus expounds the thought: 
 " Even as God was glorified in the Son of 
 man, as man, when he took to himself will- 
 ingly the death which the traitor was prepar- 
 ing, so also it followed that God would glorify 
 the Son of man in his own divine being, by 
 taking up his glorified humanity to fellowship 
 with himself." (Aots7:55.) 
 
 Having spoken of his death as it was to af- 
 fect himself, he next refers to the same event 
 as it must affect his disciples. Notes of 
 triumph are quickly followed by notes of sad- 
 ness,'which are at the same time notes of love. 
 
 33. Little children. A form of address 
 peculiarly tender and affectionate, found 
 nowhere else in the Gospels — and now, per- 
 haps used for the first time by the Saviour. 
 John employ's the designation frequently in 
 
 his FirstEpistle, e. p^.(2:l,12,18,28;3:7,lS;4:4;5:21,) 
 
 and it is possible that the memory of this 
 scene endeared the word to his heart. Yet it 
 is a very appropriate word, in perfect accord 
 with the theology of John ; for by derivation 
 it points to a vital or spiritual sonship rather 
 than to legal adoption. Yet a little while I 
 am with you. As if he had said : "Only a 
 little while am I with you," the moment of 
 separation is at hand. Ye shall seek me — 
 referring to their desire for personal union 
 
 and communion with him — a desire which 
 seems to have remained in their hearts to the 
 end of life, and to have given a remarkable 
 glow to their language in respect to his future 
 appearing. And as I said unto the Jews, 
 Whither I go, ye cannot come — see 8: 21, 
 and compare also 7 : 34 — so now I say to you. 
 For the departure of Christ would separate 
 him temporarily from his disciples, as it 
 would separate him eternally (7:34) from his 
 foes. In going to his Father, through the 
 dreadful pathway of death, he would enter 
 upon a life distinct from the present, and inac- 
 cessible to "his own" in their earthly state. 
 In view of this impending separation, he pro- 
 ceeds to enjoin upon them love to one another, 
 making his own love to them the example and 
 motive and standard of that love. 
 
 34. A new commandment I give unto 
 you. That ye love one another; as I have 
 loved you, that ye also love one another. 
 
 Lange, with whom Schaff seems to agree, holds 
 that the new commandment here spoken of 
 was the institution of the Lord's Supper. 
 Accordingly, he translates the verse as fol- 
 lows: "A new commandment give I unto 
 you, in order that ye may love one another — 
 even as I loved you, in order that ye maj' love 
 one another." If this were a correct inter- 
 pretation, it would follow that the object for 
 which the Lord's Supper was established was 
 to increase brotherl3' love among Christians. 
 A noble object, indeed, but one that is no- 
 where else declared to be the purpose of this 
 ordinance. Besides, it will be remembered 
 that John (2: si speaks of a "new command- 
 ment," having in mind, probablj', this saying 
 of Christ, but without alluding to the Lord's 
 Supper at all. And still further, it will be felt 
 hj every reader that, if the words, a new 
 commandment, in our passage, refer to the 
 Lord's Supper, the reference is exceedingly 
 obscure. This interpretation must, therefore, 
 be rejected. But if the new commandment 
 is explained by the following vvords, that ye 
 
278 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 [Ch. XIIL 
 
 35 "By this shall all men know that ye are my dis- 
 ciples, if ye have love one to another. 
 
 36 Simon Peter said unto hiiu, Lord, whither goest 
 thou ? Jesus answered him, Whither 1 go, thou canst 
 not follow me now; but 'thou shalt follow me after- 
 wards. 
 
 37 Peter said unto him, Lord, why cannot I follow 
 thee now ? I will " lay down my life for thy sake. 
 
 35 that ye also love one another. By this shall all 
 men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love 
 one to unother. 
 
 36 Simon Peter saith unto him. Lord, whither goest 
 thou? Jesus answered. Whither 1 go, thou canst not 
 follow me now ; but thou shalt follow afterwards. 
 
 37 Peter saith unto him, Lord, why cannot I follow 
 thee even uow? I will lay down my life for thee. 
 
 olJolm2: 5; 4: 20....5ch. 21: 18; 2 Pet. 1: 14. ...c Matt. 26: 33, 34,35; Mark 14 : 29, 30, 31; Luke 22: 33, 34. 
 
 love one another, why is it called a new 
 commandment ? Is it not simply the old com- 
 mandment: "Thou shalt love thy neighbor 
 as thyself?" (Levit. i9: is; Lukeio: 27.) We think 
 not. It is rather a command to love those 
 wlio are in Christ, because they are in him, 
 and with a love which springs from devotion 
 to him. As the Saviour himself had a love 
 for "his own," distinguishable from his love 
 to the ungodly, so "his own" should have a 
 love for one another distinguishable from their 
 love to mankind in general. It is a love ren- 
 dered peculiar by a sense of union in Christ, 
 and of supreme devotion to his will. 
 
 35. By this (or, in this) shall all men 
 know that ye are my disciples, if ye have 
 love one to another. This prediction was 
 signally fulfilled in the early church. Noth- 
 ing was more surprising to the heathen world, 
 in the second century, than the love of Chris- 
 tians to one another. "Behold, they say, how 
 they love one another! For they themselves 
 hate one another; and how they are ready to 
 die for each other! because they themselves 
 are more ready to kill each other. And they 
 defame us because we call each other brethren, 
 for no other reason, I suppose, than this: that 
 among themselves every expression of kin- 
 ship is merely feigned. Yet we also call 
 you brethren, in virtue of the nature which 
 is our one mother, though ye are scarcely 
 men, because ye are evil brethren. But 
 how much more worthily are they called 
 and considered brethren who recognize one 
 Father, God, who have received the one Spirit 
 of holiness, and who have awaked from one 
 womb of the same darkness into one light of 
 truth ! "—(Tertullian, "ApoL," c. 39.) The 
 last clause might be translated more literally, 
 and perhaps more exactly, thus : If ye have 
 love among one another, or, if among one 
 another ye have love — the reference being to 
 the love which they have within the limits of 
 Christian brotherhood, or of those who are 
 servants of Christ. 
 
 36. Simon Peter said (saith) unto him, 
 
 Lord, whither goest thon ? Peter was 
 more deeply moved by the Saviour's assertion, 
 that he was about to leave them, going where 
 they could not come, than he was by the 
 "new commandment," or by the eifect which 
 obedience to that commandment would have 
 upon mankind. His love was now so warm, 
 and his ardor so kindled, that he was pre- 
 paring to deny the existence of any obsta- 
 cle that he would not surmount in following 
 his Lord. Probably he imagined that Jesus 
 was about to assert by force his Messianic au- 
 thority as King of Israel, and that his words 
 were meant to remind the eleven of their lack 
 of military prowess and courage to meet death 
 on the battle field for him. Jesus ansAvered 
 him. Whither I go, thou canst not follow 
 me now; but thou shalt follow me af- 
 terwards. Thus the Master answered the 
 thought of the disciple, though not his ques- 
 tion. For Peter's question was asked because 
 he thought his Master could name no place 
 nor danger into which he was not ready to 
 follow him. And Jesus, perceiving this un- 
 derlying thought, the real motive to his ques- 
 tion, made his reply to it, reiterating his state- 
 ment, that Peter could not follow him now; 
 and then graciously adding that he would 
 follow afterwards. The separation was, there- 
 fore, to be only temporary. 
 
 37. Lord, why cannot I follow thee 
 now? I will lay down my life for thy 
 sake (or, lit., for thee). Hence he has no 
 suspicion that there is a divine plan which re- 
 quires the separation of his Lord, by means 
 of death, from the circle of his disciples. He 
 imagines that their inability to follow him 
 must be, perhaps, a want of courage to face 
 death, or of fortitude to endure sufferings; 
 and, if that be all, he makes bold, in the 
 warmth of his affection, to assure his Master 
 that one, at least, of his disciples is ready to 
 die for him. This is Peter, as we have learned 
 his character from the other Gospels — impul- 
 sive, self-confident, and a little apt to over- 
 estimate his own strength. 
 
Ch. XIV.] 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 279 
 
 38 Jesus answered hiui. Wilt thou lay down thy life 
 for luy sake/ Verily, verily, 1 say unto thee, The cock 
 shall not crow, till tUou hast denied me thrice. 
 
 .Jesus answcreth, Wilt thou lay down thy life for 
 me? Veril}-. verily, I say unto thee. The cock shall 
 not crow, till thou hast denied me thrice. 
 
 LET "not your heart be troubled: ye believe in God, 
 believe also in me. 
 
 CHAPTER XIV. 
 
 1 Let not your heart be troubled : ' believe in God, 
 
 aver. 27; ch. 16: 2'J, 23. 1 Or, ye believe in God. 
 
 38. Jesus answered. Wilt thou lay 
 down thy life for my sake (or, me) ? The 
 Master repeats the very words of his over- 
 confident disciple, so that the contrast between 
 them and his prediction of this disciples' con- 
 duct in the hour of trial may be felt. Verily, 
 verily, I say unto thee, the cock shall not 
 crow, till thou hast denied me thrice. 
 Far from laying down his life for Jesus, Peter 
 would even disown him again and again before 
 to-morrow' s dawn. Doubtless, the spirit of Pe- 
 ter was such as to render this emphatic dec- 
 laration necessary ; for it is very noticeable, 
 in all the Gospels, how perfectly the words of 
 Christ are adapted to the moral state of those 
 addressed. 
 
 Luke adds some particulars to this account. 
 (SeeLuke22: 31-38) Matthew and Mark speak 
 of a dialogue resembling this, as occurring 
 after the company had left the upper room, 
 and were on their way to Gethsemane; but 
 the substance of the conversation may have 
 been repeated under slightly diiferent circum- 
 stances. Mark represents Jesus as saying: 
 "Verily, I say unto thee, that thou, to-day, 
 this night, before a cock crow twice, will 
 deny me thrice." And it will be observed 
 that, as the day began at sunset, Mark gives 
 first the longest period, "to-day"; then a 
 shorter one, "this night," and then the short- 
 est, "before a cock crow twice" — i. e., first 
 at midnight, and then at three in the morning. 
 The other Evangelists refer only to the cock- 
 crowing at the hour of three a. m., for this 
 was the oftenest heard, and the best known. 
 There is no real discrepancy, therefore, be- 
 tween the four Evangelists as to the import of 
 Christ's language to Peter. 
 
 At this point, probablj', the Lord's Supper 
 was instituted; and after it Jesus uttered the 
 words of ch. 14. 
 
 Ch. 14. 1-6. Jesus Comforts His Dis- 
 ciples IN View of Their Future Life 
 WITH God. 
 
 1. Let not, etc. "Whether the Lord's Sup- 
 
 per was instituted before Jesus uttered the 
 words recorded in 13: 36-38, or not till after 
 his prediction of Peter's fall, in the last verse 
 of that paragraph (ver. 38.) cannot be certainly 
 ascertained. Andrews and Gardner assign it 
 to the former position, Robinson and Clark to 
 the latter: and the latter seems to us slightly 
 more probable than the former. But, accord- 
 ing to either hypothesis, it is easy to see that 
 the hearts of the disciples must have been 
 troubled ; in the one case, because the death of 
 their Lord had been distinctly announced and 
 set apart as an event to be commemorated by 
 a solemn rite to the end of time; and in the 
 other, because his immediate departure, amid 
 circumstances that would lead the foremost 
 disciple to a cowardly denial of his Master 
 before another sun should rise, had been 
 plainly foretold. How sweetly, then, must 
 these words of comfort and of promise have 
 found their way into the soul of the Evan- 
 gelist who was reclining by the side of Jesus! 
 Let not your heart be troubled. The 
 word heart is frequently employed to denote 
 the spirit when affected by joy or sorrow, 
 hope or fear, peace or trouble, exultation or 
 contrition. (Comp. John 16: 22; Acts 2: 26; 
 John 14: 27; 16: 6; Rom. 9: 2; 2 Cor. 2: 4.) 
 A little knowledge of human nature, assisted 
 by a vigorous effort of imagination to repro- 
 duce in thought the scene, will enable one 
 to realize, in some degree, the agitation and 
 sorrow which the eleven felt at the words 
 of Jesus declaring the crisis to have come, 
 and the gracious influence of his assurance 
 that, nevertheless they had ample grounds 
 for peace, and trust, and hope. Ye (?) 
 believe in God, believe also in me. 
 The Greek original is here ambiguous. 
 For the word believe may be impera- 
 tive in both clauses, as we would translate 
 it; or, indicative in the first clause, and 
 imperative in the second, as the Common 
 Version has it; or, indicative in both clauses, 
 reading thus: "Ye believe in God; in me 
 also ye believe." And any one of these three 
 
280 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 [Ch. XIV. 
 
 2 In my Father's house are many mansions: if it 
 were not so, I would have told you. " 1 go to prepare a 
 place for you. 
 
 3 And if I go and prepare a place for you, 'I will 
 come again, and receive you unto myself; "that "^ where 
 I am, there ye may be also. 
 
 2 believe also in me. In my Father's house are many 
 1 mansions; if it were not so, I would have told you; 
 
 3 for I go to prepare a place for you. And if I go 
 and prepare a place for you, I come again, and will 
 receive you unto myself; that where 1 am, <Aere ye 
 
 .6 ver. 18. 28; Acts 1 : 11 c ch. 12: 26; 17 : 24 ; 1 Theas. 4: 17. 1 Or. ahiding-place.. 
 
 translatibns gives a meaning pertinent to the 
 circumstances and occasion. According to 
 the first, which we prefer, Jesus exhorts his 
 disciples to peace, to trust in God, and to trust 
 in himself, also. According to the second, he 
 exhorts them to peace, recognizes their trust 
 in God, and calls upon them to trust in him- 
 self, also. And according to the third, he 
 exhorts them to peace, recognizes their faith 
 in God, and their faith in himself, also. In 
 favor of the second view, it is said that the 
 disciples certainly had faith in God, but they 
 were still deficient in faith in Christ. "VVe 
 think, rather, that they had a certain degree 
 of faith in Christ as well as in God, but that 
 in both cases it needed to be strengthened. 
 
 2. In my Father's house, etc. God is 
 here spoken of by Jesus Christ as being, in 
 some peculiar sense, his Father, but also by 
 implication as being, in another sense, the 
 Father of his disciples. (Comp. 8: 35, and 
 especially 20: 17.) Moreover, the heavenly 
 home of his Father is represented as spacious, 
 having many dwelling places. Many is the 
 word emphasized. The family of God's re- 
 deemed ones will be large, but there will be 
 no lack of abodes for them. And those 
 abodes will be abiding place.*, places where 
 they will remain (iiovai,) homes. When these 
 are reached, the time of pilgrimage will be 
 over. But the word many does not, as has 
 been conjectured by some, implj' variety in 
 the mansions, and so point to gradations of 
 happiness among the saved. That thought, 
 however true it may be, is not contained in 
 the words used by Christ. If it were not 
 so, etc. Jesus thus claims to be, and to have 
 been, absolutely frank with his disciples; so 
 open and sincere that he would not have al- 
 lowed them to entertain false expectations; 
 much less, then, would he excite expectations 
 which would not be fulfilled. This was said 
 with the utmost simplicity and tenderness, as 
 if to children, for the purpose of creating in 
 their hearts the deepest confidence in his 
 words. 
 
 For, (as in Kev. Ver.), I go to prepare a 
 
 place for you. A reason for the preceding 
 statement. If there had been no room for 
 them in his Father's house, he would have 
 told them, for he was going to prepare a place 
 for them. If heaven, his Father's house and 
 his own blessed home, could not be theirs 
 also, he who was now leaving them to prepare 
 a place for them would have notified them of 
 that fact, lest "his own" might suffer disap- 
 pointment at last. This appears to be the 
 most obvious interpretation of the clause. 
 Yet it may possibly refer to the exhortation 
 to peace and trust: "Let not your heart be 
 troubled," etc. — the clause "If it were not so, 
 I would have told you," being virtually a 
 parenthesis. The doctrine of the sentence is, 
 that Jesus, by going to the Father in the way 
 he was about to go, and by presenting him- 
 self before his Father in heaven, would make 
 heaven a blessed home for all his disciples. 
 All heaven would be ready to receive them, 
 when "the Lamb of God that taketh away 
 the sin of the world" should be exalted to the 
 right hand of power. It would be "a pre- 
 pared place for a prepared people." The 
 word translated for, seems to have been a 
 part of the original text, and has, therefore, 
 been taken into account in explaining the 
 verse. 
 
 3. And if I go and prepare, etc. Not 
 as if there were any doubt about his doing 
 this. The words only assume that his going 
 and doing what he had promised, would be 
 no more than a natural prelude and prepara- 
 tion for something that was to follow. The 
 prepared place must not remain without the 
 people for whom it is prepared. I will 
 come again. When and how? Many hold 
 that this points to a single event, to take place 
 at one and the same time for all the disciples, 
 that is, to the Second Advent of Christ at the 
 end of the present age, or dispensation. But 
 it may be observed that the Greek original of 
 will come is in the present tense, and may, 
 therefore, denote a process as well as a single 
 act. Indeed, this is the proper tense of the 
 Greek verb to express the continuance of a 
 
Ch. XIV.] 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 281 
 
 4 And whither I go ye know, and the way ye 
 know. 
 
 ^ Thomas saith unto him, Lord, we know not 
 whither thou goest ; and how can we know the way ? 
 
 4 may be also, i And whither I go, ye know the way. 
 
 5 Thomas saith unto him, Lord, we know not whilher 
 
 1 Many aucient authorities read, And whither I go ye know, and the way ye know. 
 
 given act or process, and, in the present in- 
 stance, might be represented by the literal 
 version, / am coming again. Says West- 
 cott: " Christ is, in fact, from the moment of 
 his resurrection ever coming to the world and 
 to the church, and to men, as the risen Lord." 
 (Comp. 1:9.) Yet it may doubtless be said 
 also, with Clark: "The promise of his com- 
 ing again will only be realized in its fullness 
 at his second advent at the end of the world; 
 for not until then do Christ's people enjoy all 
 the fruits of his completed redemption." 
 And receive you unto myself. The 
 Greek verb is here in the future tense, and 
 mny, therefore, refer to some particular event, 
 as that of death, by which the believer is 
 taken to the home of his Lord. (Comp. Phil. 
 1 : 23.) On this and the foregoing clause, Al- 
 ford says : "The com,ing 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 com.plex of all these, the result 
 of which shall be, his taking his people to 
 himself to be where he is. This "coming" 
 is begun (ver. is) in his resurrection — carried 
 on (ver. 23) in the spiritual life (see also ch. 16: 
 22 If, ) the making them ready for the place 
 prepared; further advanced when each, by 
 death, is fetched away to be with him (pmi. i:23:) 
 fully completed at his coming in glory, when 
 they shall forever be with him (iTiiess. 4: u) in 
 the perfected resurrection state." That 
 where I am ye may be also. The word 
 there maj' be supplied (as in the Common 
 Version and the Revised Version,) before ye, 
 but it is scarcely necessary. With this lan- 
 guage may be compared the words of his in- 
 tercessory prayer, 17 : 24, and the language of 
 Paul quoted above. (Phii. i:23; aiso2Cor.D:8.) The 
 comment of Godet on this verse deserves to 
 be repeated: "With what touching sim- 
 plicity and dramatic life are here expressed 
 the ideas, so profound and so new, of the 
 celestial glory of the believer and of the 
 spiritual union with Christ here below, which 
 is its indispensable condition! The house of 
 my Father, the preparation of abodes, the re- 
 
 turn, the 'I will receive you to myself — this 
 familiar and almost infantile language is like 
 a sweet music with which Jesus seeks to calm 
 the anguish of separation." If anything 
 could have brought peace into the perturbed 
 and sorrowful hearts of the eleven, it mu^-t 
 have been such words as these, assuring them 
 of reunion with himself, their gracious and 
 loving Master. 
 
 4. And whither I go ye know, and the 
 way ye know. Rather, a7id lohither (lit., 
 wltere) I go, ye kyiow the way — or, in custom- 
 ary English : "Ye know the way where /am 
 going." The pronoun I is emphatic. What 
 he had just said was, virtually: "I am going 
 to my Father's house; you cannot follow me 
 now, but the time will come when you shall 
 follow me thither. For, as I have shown 
 you, my body and blood are to be given for 
 you in death (icor. ii: 26), and the way I am 
 going must therefore be known to you." It 
 is not, then, necessary to suppose that Jesus 
 was mistaken as to their knowledge. He only 
 used the language of common life, ascribing 
 to them a knowledge of that which he had 
 told them, and which they must have under- 
 stood, if they had been willing to receive his 
 word. The disciples could have known, and 
 ought to have known, that which Jesus as- 
 sumes that they knew. Thus, we may say 
 that he held them responsible for a knowledge 
 of the way that he was going — that is, the 
 way through death to the Father. And there 
 is a deep truth in such language. Many are the 
 men who know and who do not know at the 
 same moment— many are the men to whose 
 minds truth has been brought, but who have 
 refused to look at it, and accept it. (Comp. 
 3 : 19-21.) This is oftenest done because their 
 deeds are evil ; and always because, for some 
 reason, they are unwilling to receive the per- 
 fect truth. 
 
 5. Lord, Ave know not whither thou go- 
 est ; and how can we know the way? 
 Unable to accept, in their natural sense, the 
 Saviour's words concerning his approaching 
 death, Thomas had missed the import of his 
 language respectingthe Father's house.(ver.2, 3-) 
 
282 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 [Ch. XIV. 
 
 6 Jesus saith unto him, I am "the way, 'the truth, 
 and ^the life: ''no man cometh unto the Father, but 
 by me. 
 
 6 thou goest; how liuow we the way? Jesus saitl> 
 unto him, 1 am the way, and the truth, aud the liie. 
 
 ! Heb. 9: 8 ioh. 1: 17; 8: 32 c oh. 1 : 4; 11: 25 d ch. 10: 9. 
 
 Unable to comprehend his Lord's words con- 
 cerning his Father's house, Thomas very nat- 
 urally feels that he knows nothing of the way 
 thither. For, ordinarily, a knowledge of the 
 way to any place, implies some knowledge of 
 the place to which the way leads. But Thomas 
 feels himself to be ignorant of both place and 
 way. His Master's words are very dark and 
 enigmatical to him. Their obvious meaning is 
 one that he will not and cannot receive ; and re- 
 jecting that as impossible, his mind is full of 
 perplexity and doubt. Indeed, the one great 
 misapprehension which he will not surrender 
 —that Jesus is to be a temporal prince, and 
 therefore cannot literally suffer death, ren- 
 ders it quite impossible for him, or for his fel- 
 low disciples, to understand the mind of Je- 
 sus. Peter and the other disciples may have 
 caught a passing glimpse of it (comp. 13: 37 ; 
 Mark 14: 31), but no more than a glimpse; 
 for they did not give up their vain expectation 
 of a temporal reign till they were compelled 
 to do so. 
 
 6. I am the way, the truth, and the life. 
 Here, again, we have the emphatic ego. Je- 
 sus summons his disciples to look upon him- 
 self slb the beginning and end of their salva- 
 tion. Westcott quotes the paraphrase of 
 Thomas a Kempis: "'Sine via non itur, sine 
 veritate non cognoscitur, sine vita non vivitur. 
 Ego sum via qiinm sequi debes ; Veritas cui cre- 
 dere debes : vita quam, sperare debes.^' — (" De 
 Imit.," III. 56) ; which may be rendered, 
 with much loss of flavor : " Without the way, 
 we cannot go; without the truth, we cannot 
 know; without the life, we cannot live. I 
 am the way which you ought to follow — the 
 truth which you ought to believe — the life 
 which you ought to hope for." 
 
 Because of sin, men are separated from 
 God ; and only through Jesus Christ, who is 
 giving his life for their life, can they draw 
 near to God, and obtain pardon, purity, and 
 peace. He is the way — i. e , the one and 
 only way — to fellowship with God. B3' his 
 mediation, if at all, will they be saved. 
 Through him, if at all, will they enter the 
 house of many mansions. 
 
 Again ; because of sin, men are ignorant of 
 
 the highest truth ; they know not God ; hi? 
 wisdom, holiness, goodness, compassion, are 
 hidden from them; and no light of nature 
 is clear enough to reveal to their souls these 
 perfections of his being. But Christ, and 
 especially Christ "the Lamb of God, that 
 taketh away the sin of the world," is a per- 
 fect revelation of Jehovah. Christ Jesus, as 
 he passes through suffering to glory, is the 
 holy and the whole substance of truth, bring- 
 ing to light the very heart of God. He is, so 
 to speak, the sole and sufficient Word of God 
 concerning himself, as merciful to sinners; 
 and therefore he who receives this truth will 
 never walk in darkness. 
 
 Still further; according to this profound 
 saying of Jesus, he is himself the life — i. e., 
 the source, or fountain-head, of spiritual life 
 for sinful men. And so the apostle who 
 wrote this Gospel says, in his First Epistle 
 (5: 12): "He that hath the Son, hath (the) life; 
 and he that hath not the Son of God, hath not 
 (the) life." Of course, the "life" is here 
 more than conscious existence — it is "right- 
 eousness and peace and joy in the Holy 
 Ghost," (Rom. u: 17.), it IS the sum and sub- 
 stance of all good to a moral and religious be- 
 ing — perfect communion with the "Father of 
 lights." For this is what Clirist enjoyed; and 
 those who derive their life from him will be 
 partakers of his joy. 
 
 The whole saying of Jesus declares what 
 men may have in him, namely, the only way 
 to God; the only perfect revelation of God; 
 the only source of life with God. As soon as 
 they accept the way, they accept the truth 
 and the life. As soon as they begin to follow 
 the way, they besrin to know the truth, and to 
 share the life. The consummate blessing is 
 future; theincipientblessingispresent. Th-jse 
 who believe in Christ have passed from death 
 into life. The I am is therefore no mere pre- 
 diction ; it describes a relation that is present 
 and permanent. Communion with God, 
 through Christ, begins, but never ends. No 
 man (or, no one) cometh unto the Father 
 but by (through) me. If there were any 
 reason to doubt the view which we have given 
 of the way, the truth, and the life, namely. 
 
Ch. XIV.] 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 28^ 
 
 7 « If ye had known me, ye should have known my 
 Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and 
 have soen him. 
 
 8 I'hilip saith unto him, Lord, shew us the Father, 
 and it sufficeth lis. 
 
 9 Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time 
 with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? ' lie 
 that hath seen "me hath seen the Father; and how say- 
 est thou then. Shew us the Father? 
 
 7 no one cometh unto the Father, hut ' by uie. If ye 
 liad known me, ye would have known my Father 
 also: fr(jm heucoforlh ye know hini, and have seen 
 <S him. I'hilip saicli uuio him, l..i»rd, shew us the 
 9 Father, and it sutriceth us. Jesus saiih unto him, 
 Have 1 lieen so long time with you, and dost thou 
 not know me, I'hiliiJi' he that haili seen mo hath 
 seen the Father; how sayest thou, Shew us the 
 
 a cb. 8: 19 &cli. 12: 45; Col. 1 : 15 ; Ueb. 1: 3. 1 Or, through. 
 
 that Jesus claims to be the only way and truth 
 and life for sinful men, it would be removed 
 by this clause. For here it is explicitly taught 
 that no one comes to the Father, unless he 
 comes through Christ. No wonder, therefore, 
 that when Peter, filled with the Holy Ghost, 
 stood before the rulers of Israel, he said unto 
 them: "Neither is there salvation in any 
 other: for there is none other name under 
 heaven, given among men, whereby we must 
 
 be saved." (Acts*: Vi.) 
 
 In this expression Jesus passes also from the 
 thought of a heavenly home to that of a heav- 
 enlyFather. He represents the "life" of men 
 as attained by coming to the Father. A knowl- 
 edge of God as their Heavenly Father — a sight 
 of his gloiy in peace, is evidently regarded as 
 the supreme good — as the " life " for which 
 human souls were made; and he affirms that 
 through himself alone is this filial access to 
 God, and this real knowlege of God, to be 
 gained — a thought which forms the nucleus of 
 the next paragraph, (ver. 7-11.^ 
 
 7-11. God the Father, Present and 
 Revealed in Christ. 
 
 7. If ye had known me, etc. That is, had 
 come to know me. Jesus had been living a 
 truly divine life for many months in the pres- 
 ence of his disciples. The holiness and love 
 of the Father had appeared in all his words 
 and deeds. ('=■ 19-21.) But the eleven true disci- 
 ples had not clearly perceived this. In spite 
 of their intimate association with Jesus, they 
 had seen but little of his divine perfection. 
 For their e3-es had been holden by prejudice 
 and sin. Endeavoring to recognize in him 
 the Messiah of their early hopes, and of the 
 national expectation, they had apprehended 
 very imperfectly the true glory of his charac- 
 ter, the profound unity of his life with the life 
 of God. But if thej' had truly known him, 
 they would have known his Father also; and 
 in so far as they had known him, they had 
 known his Father. And from henceforth 
 ye know him, and have seen him. So 
 
 I near was the time of their true illumination, 
 that Jesus speaks of it as already present. The 
 great event of his own death and resurrection 
 and ascension, together with the outpouring 
 of the Spirit, was so near, so vividly present to 
 the mind of Christ, that he uses the present 
 tense in describing the effect of it all on the 
 spiritual view of his disciples. We should 
 omit the connective and, as probably an ad- 
 dition to the original text — principally because 
 the sentence is more fluent and natural with 
 than without it, and therefore it was more like- 
 ly to be inserted by a transcriber, if absent 
 from the text, than to be omitted, if present in 
 the text. The evidence in early manuscripts 
 and versions for insertion and for omission is 
 pretty evenly balanced. 
 
 8. Lord, show us the Father, etc. Just 
 what Philip meant by this expression, we do 
 not know. Perhaps he desired some visible 
 manifestation of the divine glory, such as was 
 made at times to the ancient prophets. He 
 may have imagined that, at the Saviour's re- 
 quest, the Father would appear in the Sheki- 
 nah, and by his supernatural presence expel 
 every doubt from their minds. But whatever 
 he may have wished, it is plain that he did not 
 understand the language of Jesus; and it is 
 probable that the words, "from henceforth ye 
 . . . have seen him," suggested the thought 
 of a supernatural manifestation of the Father. 
 How tender and loving, but, at the same time, 
 how solemn and mysterious, must have seemed 
 these sayings of the Lord to minds not yet 
 open to the whole truth ! We may wonder 
 at their dullness; but, in their time and place, 
 we should have been, without doubt, as dull 
 as the3'. 
 
 9. Have I been so long time with you, 
 and yet hast thou not known me, Philip ? 
 This may have been uttered either in a tone 
 of gentle reproof or in one of sorrowful sur- 
 prise. It is always difficult to penetrate the 
 soul of a human being by the light of a single 
 brief expression ; how much more difficult is 
 
284 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 [Ch. XIV. 
 
 10 Believest thou uot that " I aiu in the Father, and 
 the father iu me? the words that I speak unto you ' I 
 speak uot of myself: but the Father that dvvelleth in 
 iiie, he doeth the works. 
 
 11 Believe me that I am in the Father, and the 
 Father in me: "or else believe me for the very works' 
 sake. 
 
 10 Father? Believest thou not that I am iu the Father, 
 and the Father in me? the words that I say unto 
 you I speak not from myself: hut the Father abid- 
 
 11 ing in me doeth his works. Believe me that I am 
 in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe 
 
 ooh. 10:38; 17:21,23; ver. 20....6 ch. 5: 19; 7 : 16; 8: 28; 12 : 49....0 ch. 5: • 6 ; 10 : 38. 
 
 it to penetrate that of a being at once human 
 and divine ! Perhaps, then, the Lord's ques- 
 tion was equivalent to the words: "As I have 
 been so long with you, Philip, you ought 
 surely to have known me ; but you do not." [ 
 Yet, when we bear in mind the true humanity 
 of Christ, it is not improper to suppose that a 
 feeling of sorrow mingled with surprise filled 
 his heart at the words of Philip. Let us ever 
 speak with cautious reverence in respect to 
 that mysterious world — the divine-human 
 consciousness of our Lord ! Of this, how- 
 ever, we are certain, that Philip had not j'et 
 seen the full glory of Christ's character, nor 
 perceived how near he himself had been to 
 the Father. Ah, if but the eyes of his spirit 
 had been opened! as the eyes of the pro- 
 phet's servant were opened. (See 2 Kings G: 
 17.) " Blessed are the pure in heart, for they 
 shall see God." (Matt. 5:8.) A prejudiced and 
 sinful soul cannot see the presence of God, 
 even in the holy person of Jesus. He that 
 hath seen me hath seen the Father. 
 Meaning, of course, not the essential nature 
 of God, nor the Father as personally distinct 
 from the Son, but the Father's mind and 
 will, the Father's moral glory and grace, the 
 Father's abhorrence of sin and purpose to 
 save the lost — in a word, all the Father's per- 
 fection. For Jesus Christ, even while here 
 in the flesh, was "the brightness of his 
 (Father's) glory and the express image of 
 his person," (Heb.i:3.) — i.e., the true and 
 adequate manifestatation of the invisible 
 Godhead. And being this, we conclude that 
 he was divine as well as human. For if such 
 a claim were put forth by any other being who 
 ever trod the earth in human form, he would 
 surely be pronounced insane, or blasphemous. 
 That we do not and cannot think of Jesus 
 save as the greatest and holiest being that has 
 appeared among men, is proof of his deity as 
 well as of his humanity. Observe, too, that 
 this claim does not stand by itself; it is the 
 basis of an appeal, the premise, as it were, of 
 a reproof : How sayest thou then. Shew us 
 
 the Father? "Why ask for what you have 
 received? Why seek to see what ye have 
 already seen, and what you now behold? In 
 me you look upon the brightest possible 
 image and revelation of the Father ; his 
 whole heart, and life, and power are in me; 
 why then do you say, 'Show us the Father, 
 and it sufficeth us?' " 
 
 10. Believest thou not, etc. The mutual 
 indwelling of the Father and the Son had 
 been previously as.serted hy the Lord (see 
 10: 38), and Philip miglit, therefore, be pre- 
 sumed to believe it. Moreover, the Saviour 
 had used language, on several occasions, 
 which pointed to a perfect unity of will and 
 action in the Father and himself, and whicli 
 would naturally lead to the thought of mutual 
 interpenetration and perfect communion of 
 
 life— e. 5^., (5. 19, 20, 30; 8: 16. IS; 10:ao-30.) But tllC 
 
 disciples had failed to apprehend the full 
 meaning of his words, and, therefore, he was 
 now compelled to repeat them. The words 
 that I speak, etc. This, too, is but a repetition 
 of what he had often said before. (See 7: 16, 
 17 ; 8: 16, 18, 26, 28, 29.) Not from himself, as 
 one separate from the Father, had Jesus 
 spoken, but always in perfect union with the 
 Fatlier, and as one doing his will. But the 
 Father that clwelleth (or, abiding) in me, 
 he doeth the Avorks. This transition from 
 words to works is peculiar and characteristic. 
 No one can read the Gospels without perceiv- 
 ing that the words and the works of Jesus are 
 in perfect accord. Thej' seem to flow from 
 the same will and to reveal the same spirit. 
 No shock is felt by the reader in passing from 
 one to the other. Everj' sentence in his Ser- 
 mon on the Mount is as full of authority as 
 is his command to the winds sweeping over 
 the Sea of Tiberias, or his words at the grave 
 of Lazarus, in Bethany. And so, in a very 
 important sense, his words were deeds, and it 
 wa? perfectly natural for him to glide from 
 the former to the latter, in such a case as the 
 one before us. 
 
 11. Believe me, etc. How often does the 
 
Ch. XIV.] 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 285 
 
 12 "Verily, veril}', I say unto you, He that believeth 
 on me, the works that I do shall he do also ; and greater 
 U'ork.i than these shall he do ; because I go unto luy 
 Father. 
 
 12 me for the very works' sake. Verily, verily, I say 
 unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I 
 do shall he do also ; and greater works than these 
 
 a Matt. 21 : 21 ; Mark 16 : 17 ; Luke 10 : 17. 
 
 word believe fall from the lips of Jesus in 
 
 this Gospel ! A hundred times does it appear 
 in the record, and generally in the sayings of 
 Christ. How strongly, then, must he have 
 set his heart upon producing belief in the 
 hearts of men, and upon strengthening it in 
 the hearts of his disciples! " Believe in God, 
 believe also in me," is the key-note of his 
 preaching. But how often, too, was he 
 obliged to admit a lack of proper belief, even 
 in his most trusted followers! in the sifted 
 wheat of the eleven who had been with him 
 constantly for three years ! Especially was 
 tbis the case when he referred to his peculiar 
 relations with the Father, or to the spiritual 
 nature of his reign. It was so now. "With 
 the deepest love and sincerity, with tones of 
 voice that were as impossible to fanaticism as 
 they were to vanity or conscious deception, he 
 said: "Believe me, accept my solemn and 
 repeated testimony, that I am in the Father 
 and the Father in me; but if you find this 
 impossible — if, after all you have seen of me, 
 my word is not enough, consider the mighty 
 works, the signs and wonders which I have 
 wrought, and, in view of these, believe me 
 when I say, that ' I am in the Father, and 
 the Father in me,' for these are manifestly 
 works which none but God could do." To 
 think that he must appeal to miracles once 
 more! that he must array the evidence, as it 
 were, before the minds of his disciples, prov- 
 ing, as well as asserting the truth ! But we 
 must not forget how stupendous a truth it 
 was; how difficult for a few to receive; how 
 seemingly incompatible with what Jesus had 
 just now been saying as to his own death. 
 All the contrasts involved in the being and 
 the work of Christ were reflected in this pro- 
 found discourse with his disciples, as the 
 earlj' evening was deepening into the night. 
 Never were his infinite love and tenderness to 
 his chosen more needed or more clearly re- 
 vealed. He was all care for them, though the 
 garden and the cross were just before him. 
 
 12-24. The Faith and Love of the 
 Disciples Encouraged by Three Great 
 Promises. 
 
 Faith and love are inseparable Christian 
 virtues, and their fruit is obedience. For faith 
 cannot live without love, or love without obe- 
 dience. We do not saj', without perfect obe- 
 dience ; for neither faith nor love is perfect in 
 this life, and therefore obedience remains im- 
 perfect. But obedience will keep pace with 
 faith and love, improving as they improve; 
 and when, in a better state, they become per- 
 fect, it will become perfect also. 
 
 12-14. Faith Encouraged by the Prom- 
 ise OF Divine Help and Success. 
 
 12. Verily, verily, etc. 'By the repeated 
 verily, Christ seeks to give his disciples the 
 utmost assurance of the truth of what he is 
 about to say — partly, perhaps, because of its 
 intrinsic importance to the full establishment 
 of his reign over men, and partly, perhaps, 
 because of its surprising character, rendering 
 it a saying difficult to believe or receive. He 
 that believeth on me. Observe, it is not 
 believeth me — that is, believeth my word — the 
 truth of what I say, but, definitely, believ- 
 eth on me, or, in tne — that is, trusts in me as 
 the true Messiah and Son of God — makes me 
 the personal object to which his faith is di- 
 rected, and in which it terminates and rests. 
 "Belief on hin),," says Weiss, "includes the 
 full conviction of bis specific relation to the 
 Father, and with this, of his Messianic calling 
 in the highest sense." The Avorks that I 
 do, etc. The term works has just been used 
 with special niference to miracles, and on this 
 account we must not exclude mirncles from 
 its meaning here. But it should not be for- 
 gotten that Jesus appears to have regarded his 
 miracles as secondary and subsidiary to his 
 teaching. Their evidential value was, indeed, 
 great to the Jews, and their significance, as 
 acts of divine compassion, was clear; but they 
 were mere sporadic flashes of light, and not 
 the steady beams of the sun. They were in- 
 tended to prepare the minds of men for his spir- 
 itual teaching, and not to hold an equal place 
 with that teaching. And therefore, interpret- 
 ing his words here by what he .says in other 
 places, and by the history of his people, we 
 understand by works, all that he did in draw- 
 
286 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 [Ch. XIV. 
 
 13 "And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, 
 that will I do, that the Father may be glorified iu 
 the Son. 
 
 14 If ye shall ask anything in my name, I will 
 do it. 
 
 13 shall he do; because I go unto the Father. And 
 whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, 
 
 14 that the Father may be glorified iu the Sou. If 
 ye shall > ask anything iu my name, that will I do. 
 
 ! Matt. 1 : 1 ; n : 22 ; Mark U : 24 ; Luke 11 : 9 ; ch. 15 : 
 
 I 1 : 5 ; 1 John 3 : 22 
 
 t^Dt authorities 
 
 ing men to himself, and implanting in their 
 hearts true faith. These works were to be 
 continued by his disciples, and, indeed, not 
 merely by those who were listening to him at 
 that moment, but by believers iu him in every 
 age and every land. And greater than 
 these shall (or, will) he do — i. «., "he that 
 believeth on me will do greater works than 
 those which I have done." A very wonder- 
 ful promise! But has it been fulfilled? We 
 think it has. For if we look at the wonders 
 of the Day of Pentecost, together with the 
 events that followed in the rapid spread of the 
 gospel during the apostolic age, it does not 
 seem extravagant to regard them as greater 
 than any which took place during the minis- 
 try of Christ. And if we compare the spirit- 
 ual results of the three most fruitful 3'ears 
 of the ministry of Paul, of Luther, of White- 
 field, orof Spurgeon, with the spiritual results 
 of Christ's preaching and miracles for three 
 years, we shall not deem his promise vain. 
 And if it be urged against the latter instances 
 that miracles are wanting, it may be replied 
 that supernatural works in the realm of spirit 
 are superior, rather than inferior, to those in the 
 world of sense— that to raise a soul from death 
 unto life is really a greater act than to raise a 
 dead body from the grave. Because 1 go 
 unto my (lit., the) Father, This clause is to 
 be connected with the following verse, and 
 the whole must be understood as depending 
 on the word because, and as furnishing the 
 reason why the believer in Jesus will do 
 greater works than were done by his Lord in 
 the flesh— of course, not including his sacri- 
 ficial death. The presence of Christ with his 
 Father will be the reason and pledge of extra- 
 ordinary grace to his followers. 
 
 13, 14. And whatsoever ye shall ask in 
 my name, that will I do, etc. These verses 
 present several things worthy of note. (1) 
 Their connection witli the first part of verse 
 12 is important. The works to be done by be- 
 lievers in Christ, are to be done by divine help, 
 in answer to their prayers. More definitelj% 
 they are to be done by help coming from 
 
 Christ— that will I do. (2) This help is in 
 some way dependent on his going to the 
 Father — that is, on his glorification through 
 death. In other words, the manner in which he 
 is about to finish his earthly mission and go to 
 the Father, is to make him a perfect Advocate 
 with the Father. (See 1 John 2: 1.) Thus 
 these verses are closely connected with the 
 last part of verse 12, and should be separated 
 from it by a comma only. (3) Their effectual 
 prayers are to be offered in the name of Jesus 
 Ciirist. This is clearly expressed : Whatso- 
 ever ye shall ask in my name. And this 
 seems to have been the first occasion on which 
 it was mentioned. (Comp. 16: 24.) What, 
 then, is it to ask in the name of Christ ? Some 
 expositors take the name of Christ to be the 
 element in which the prayer is offered, and 
 regard in the najne of Christ as substantially 
 equivalent to in Christ. But an examination 
 of the passages where the former expression 
 occurs (namely, John 5: 43; 10: 25; 14: 26; 
 15: 16; 16: 23, 24, 26; and Mark 9: 38; 16: 
 17; Luke 10: 17; Acts 3:6; 4: 10; comp. 2: 
 28), leads to the following view : (1) To ask in 
 the name of Christ, is to ask as a servant of 
 Christ, honoring his authority, trusting in his 
 grace, and seeking to do his will. (2) Wiiatever 
 a true believer in Christ — who rests not on his 
 own authority, but on the authority of his 
 Lord, and who seeks not his own glor^-, but 
 the glory of his Lord — shall ask God to do, 
 he maj' expect will be done. (3) Hence, asking 
 in the name of Christ presupposes being in 
 Christ; but the two expressions, asking in the 
 name of Christ, and asking in Christ, are not 
 precisely equivalent to each other. (4) The 
 end contemplated by Christ in answering the 
 prayers of his own is, that the Father may 
 be glorified in the Son. The things which 
 he will therefore do at their request will be 
 those, and it may be those onh', which tend 
 to manifest the grace and glorj'of the Father. 
 This furnishes another limit to the meaning of 
 whatsoever ye shall ask. Only that which 
 is asked in Christ's own name, and which, if 
 done by him, will tend to reveal the glorious 
 
Cji. XIV.] 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 287 
 
 1!/ "If ye love me, keep luy conimandiuoiits. 
 
 16 And I will ]iray tiie Fallier, and 'he shall give 
 you another Coiul'oriur, that he may abide with you 
 lor ever ; 
 
 17 £'i'eu "the Spirit of truth ; <^wliom tlie world can- 
 not receive, because it sueth him nut, neither knowcth 
 him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, 
 eaud shall be in you. 
 
 15 If ye love me, ye will keep my commandments. 
 
 16 And I will 'pray the Father, and he ; hall give 
 you another ^Comforter, that he may be with you 
 
 17 lor ever, even the Spirit of truth : whom the world 
 cannot receive; for it beholdeth him not, neither 
 kuoweth him: ye know him; for he abideth 
 
 a ver. 21, 23; cli. 15 
 
 ..b ch. 15:26; 16: 7; Kom. 8: 15, 26.... c ch. 15: 26; 16: 13: 1 John 4: 6.. 
 -I Cir. niuke request of 2 Or, Advoeate; or. Helper. Gr. Paraclete. 
 
 .d 1 Cor. 2: 14. 
 
 character of his Father, does the Saviour here 
 protiiise to do. But these are limits which 
 every true Christian will approve. To sup- 
 pose one dissatisfied with them, is to suppose 
 him either thoughtless or self-willed, and so a 
 stranger to the ver^' spirit and reign of Christ. 
 
 According to the reading of verse 14, 
 adopted in the Revised Version, and probably 
 correct, it should be translated : If ye shall 
 ask me anything in tny name, that I will do. 
 An emphatic repetition of the promise just 
 given in verse 13. Yet with one modification ; 
 for the prayer is here represented as not only 
 offered in the name of Christ, but also as ad- 
 dressed to Christ. This may seem at first 
 sight inconsistent with another statement of 
 Jesus in the same interview (i6: 23,) but it is 
 not (see Note on that verse), and it is quite 
 certain that the apostles and early Christians 
 did pray to their ascended Lord, (see Acts 
 7: 59; 9: 14, 21; 22: 16; 1 Cor. 1: 2), as well 
 as quite certain that his own claims of unity 
 with the Father in the work of human salva- 
 tion, and of special headship over his people, 
 were sufficient warrant for this. Notice also, 
 that the pronoun I, (evui, ) is expressed, and 
 therefore, in some degree, emphatic. "It i^ 
 I, myself, who, after my departure, will do 
 this great work for you and with you." But 
 the special waj'' in which he will do this is not 
 yet stated ; only that it is to be done by him- 
 self \\\ answer to praj'er. 
 
 15-17. The Holy Spirit Promised to 
 Those who Love the Saviour. 
 
 15. If ye love rae, keep, etc. According 
 to the true text, the Revised Version gives— 
 If ye love me, ye will keep my cornmandmetits. 
 Love produces obedience. Indeed, it is itself 
 the truest and deepest part of obedience, and 
 the spring from which all other obedience 
 flows. This inward movement of the soul to 
 Christ in heaVtfelt appreciation and devotion, 
 is the practical source of all outward action 
 in accordance with his will. " The subject of 
 the love of the disciples for Christ (comp. 8: 
 
 42), is peculiar to this and the following sec- 
 tion. (15-31.)" — IVestcott. Yet there is no true 
 faith without love, and, therefore, whenever 
 Jesus speaks of faith in himself he implies 
 love to himself. Hence this section is closely 
 connected with the {^receding. By my com- 
 mandments, must be meant all the precepts 
 and directions which the Saviour gave to his 
 followers, thus, not merely the "new com- 
 mandment," but all his demands upon heart 
 and life in their relations to God, to himself, 
 to their fellow Christians, and to their fellow 
 men, including all that he said of Christian 
 ordinances and of church life. 
 
 16, 17. And I will pray (or, ask) the 
 Father. The word {ipurav) which we would 
 translate ask, is not the word {alTelv) so trans- 
 lated in verses 13 and 14. In the Revised 
 Version it is rendered pray, and by this 
 change the reader is at least reminded that 
 there are two words in the original. But 
 scholars are not yet agreed as to the precise 
 distinction between the two. Westcott (see 
 his Note on 16: 29) holds that ipurav has a 
 peculiar sense in John, "expressing a request 
 made on the basis of fellowship, and is used 
 in the Gospel only of the petitions of the 
 Lord. (Contrast ai^r./ 11: 22, Note.)" The 
 same distinction is affirmed by Trench ("New 
 Testament Synonyms," under the word aWiui.) 
 But there is reason to que.stion the correct- 
 ness of it. Dr. Ezra Abbot, in an article of the 
 "North American" for Jan uar3', 1872, comes 
 to the following result: ^' Aited (Airew) is, in 
 general, to ask for something which one desires 
 to receive, something to be given, rarely for 
 something to be done; it is therefore used when 
 the object sought is prominent in the mind of 
 the writer; hence, also, it is very rarely em- 
 ployed as exhortation. Erotno (EpwTaw), on 
 the other hand, is to request or beseech a per- 
 son to do something, rarely to give some- 
 thing; it refers more directly to the person of 
 whom the favor is sought, and is, therefore, 
 naturally used in exhortation and entreaty," 
 
288 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 [Ch. XIV. 
 
 It may be said with some confidence, that 
 erotan (cpwrav) is fairly represented by the word 
 "ask," with its two meanings of putting a 
 question and of making a request, while aitein 
 {airfiv) is often used in the more urgent sense of 
 seeking by earnest entreaty or petition for 
 some good. And he shall (or, will) give you 
 another Comforter {Advocate or Helper). 
 The word Comforter is retained in the 
 Eevised Version, but it does not represent 
 adequately, in this passage, the Greek term 
 Paraclete ( napi/cArjTos. ) For, notice (1) that 
 Christ speaks of the Spirit whom the Father 
 was about to give them, at his request, as 
 another (akkov) Paraclete, but not as a differ- 
 ent sort of (cTepoi-) Paraclete. This implies 
 that Jesus had been a Paraclete to his dis- 
 ciples, and that the Spirit would do for them 
 substantially the same thing which he had 
 been doing. But Jesus had not been chieflj' 
 a Consoler of his disciples, but the Father's 
 Representative and Advocate with them, even 
 as he was now to be their Representative and 
 Advocate with the Father. (2) The Para- 
 clete is here described as the Spirit of it he) 
 truth, as if a principal part at least, of his 
 service to the disciples would consist in im- 
 parting to them the truth of God, or, the 
 truth as it is in Jesus; and this agrees with 
 the account which Christ gives of that service 
 in other parts of this discourse. (See 14: 26; 
 15: 26; 16: 8-15.) But the end for which 
 Christian truth was revealed to the disciples 
 was not simply, or even chiefl}', to console 
 them. Comfort was but a secondary object; 
 the primary object was to make them true 
 servants of Christ, lovers of righteousness 
 and haters of evil, able to endure hardness as 
 good soldiers of Jesus Christ, "steadfast, un- 
 movable, alwa5's abounding in the work of 
 the Lord." (3) The word Paraclete, as used 
 by John in his first Epistle (2: i,) evidently 
 signifies Advocate — i. c, one who acts, pleads, 
 intercedes with the Father for his own, who 
 have sinned. And there a;>pears to be no 
 suflScient reason why the term should be sup- 
 posed to have a different meaning here. For, 
 certainly, the Holy Spirit may be said to act 
 or plead for Christ with his people, and with 
 mankind in general. He recalls and reveals 
 the truth pertaining to Christ and to the 
 Father, that men may be convicted, con- 
 verted, enlightened, sanctified, and made 
 
 strong in the Lord. He acts as the represen- 
 tative of Christ, inducing and enabling men 
 to receive him as their Saviour and to obey 
 him as their Lord. And there is, perhaps, no 
 better term with which to express this than 
 Advocate. If we were to select any other, it 
 would be the more general term Helper; but 
 we prefer to abide hy that used in 1 John 2: 1. 
 That he may abide (be) with you forever. 
 By these words is described the fellowship of 
 the Spirit. For with (nera, properly mnong) 
 is used with the genitive "in reference to per- 
 sonal association (John S: 22; IS: 2; Acts 9: 39), and 
 
 alternate action (John 4:27; 6:43; Matt, is: 23), espe- 
 cially of intellectual or moral (Matt. 20 : 2; 2:3; 
 1 John 1 :6.'') (See also, Thayer's " Winer," Rov. 
 Ed., p. 376.) Thus the Spirit would be asso- 
 ciated with them in holy intercourse, as 
 Christ had been. Really, though invisibly, 
 he would be their Mentor and Guide, b^- re- 
 minding them, as their Lord's Advocate and 
 Representative, of his works and words, char- 
 acter and claims, even to the end of time. 
 Yet, observe that this is not promised as a 
 fellowship of the Spirit with the church, or 
 with the churches, but rather as his fellow- 
 ship with individual disciples; primarily, 
 with the eleven to whom he was speaking, but 
 constructively, with all who should believe 
 through their word. Whom the world 
 cannot receive, because it seeth him 
 not (for it beholdeth him not — Rev. Ver. ), 
 neither knoweth him. The unbelieving 
 world cannot receive the "Spirit of truth," 
 because it has no direct perception or mediate 
 knowledge of him. The former is meant by 
 beholdeth, and the latter by knoAveth. The 
 world has neither that knowledge of the 
 Spirit which comes by inward experience, 
 nor that which is gained by a candid weigh- 
 ing of testimonj', or other evidence from 
 without. And so, through culpable igno- 
 rance, it refuses to welcome his presence, 
 even as his own people refused to welcome 
 the Lord of life, when he came to them. (i:ii.) 
 But ye know him.' A blessed privilege 
 and distinction, separating them forever from 
 the unbelieving world ! The present tense of 
 
 'The conjunction bnt, is probably to be rejected as 
 forming no part of the original text. It is wanting in 
 X B Q, and it is much easier to account for its insertion 
 than for its omission. 
 
Ch. XIV.] 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 289 
 
 18 "I will not leave you comfortless : ' I will come to 
 you. 
 
 19 Yet a little while, and the world seeth nie no 
 more; but "ye see me: ■'because I live, ye shall live 
 also. 
 
 18 with you, and shall be in you. I will not leave 
 
 19 you 1 desolate: I come unto you. Vet a little 
 while, and the world bclioldeth lue no more ; but 
 ye behold me : because I live, ^ ye shall live also. 
 
 a Matt. 28: 20 b ver. 3 : 28 c ch. 16 : 16 d 1 Cor. 15: 20. 1 Or, Orfihant Or, and ye shall live. 
 
 the verb is not, in the opinion of Weiss, to be 
 understood as anticipating the future, but as 
 "denoting a characteristic relation of the 
 disciples to the Spirit, without regard to a 
 definite time." And nearly the same view is 
 expressed by Westcott. But whatever tiie 
 Spirit may have been to the disciples, up to 
 this moment (and we do not question his 
 presence in their hearts), Jesus appears to 
 have had in mind a greater manifestation of 
 his presence and power in the future. The 
 wliole context favors a proleptical, or antici- 
 patory, use of the present tense. In a very 
 important sense, the characteristic relation of 
 the disciples to the Spirit, was to begin after 
 the Saviour's departure. (Comp. ver. 25, 26; 
 15: 26; 16: 7). For he dvvelleth (or, and he 
 abideth) with you, and shall be in you. 
 The expression with you (Trap' vfilv, literally', 
 beside you), though different from the one 
 used in verse 16, has nearly the same mean- 
 ing. It may possibly suggest the personality 
 of the Spirit a little more distinctly than that, 
 but both of them point to intimate connection 
 and association. The Spirit was to remain 
 with them permanently, and by his presence 
 qualify them for all their work. (Comp. Ex. 
 3: 12.) Nay, he was to be in them — a Spirit 
 in their spirits, illuminating, quickening, en- 
 couraging, by a most immediate, though 
 mysterious, action on mind, heart, and will, 
 taking and presenting to them the things of 
 Christ with such clearness, that Christ's glory 
 would be seen by them more perfectly than it 
 had ever been seen while he was walking be- 
 side them in bodily form. 
 
 18-24. Jksus Himself and the Father 
 "Will be Present "With Them by the 
 Spirit. 
 
 18. I will not leave you comfortless {or- 
 phans). Jesus had already, in this discourse, 
 called his disciples "little children." (i3:33.) 
 His love for them at this moment was like a 
 father's love to his children. But he was able 
 to say to them words which no dying father 
 can say to his little ones: "I will not leave 
 you in the condition of orphans, alone, un- 
 protected, comfortless." I will come (lit., 
 
 come=am coming) to you. "The presence 
 of the Advocate will be my presence. He 
 will come with all my power, grace, and 
 truth, and so, in a spiritual sense, I shall be 
 with you. To your minds and hearts, I shall 
 be nearer by his agency than I am now by my 
 bodily presence and words of love. My per- 
 son and my work, as the Son of God and 
 Saviour of men, will be presented to your 
 souls as never before; and my power will be 
 with you in every time of need." Some in- 
 terpreters hold that tills promise of coming to 
 his disciples was fulfilled when Jesus "showed 
 himself to them alive, after his passion, by 
 many infallible proofs, being seen of them 
 forty days." (Acts i: 3.) But, not to insist on 
 the brief and sporadic character of those man- 
 ifestations, the following verses, especially 21 
 and 23, do not agree with this view. (Comp. 
 Matt. 28: 20.) Others hold that the promise 
 refers to the second coming of Christ. But 
 against their interpretation may be urged the 
 prediction that, at his second coming, "every 
 eye shall see him" (Kev. i:7), while verse 19 
 shows that "the world" will not behold him 
 at the return to his disciples which is here pre- 
 dicted. 
 
 19. Yet a little while, etc. "The world 
 can now see me in bodily form, but after a 
 few hours I shall be withdrawn from its 
 sight." The hostile world will not behold 
 him, for it has no spiritual vision— it cannot 
 behold, or know, or receive the promised Ad- 
 vocate, the Spirit of truth, in and by whom 
 the Saviour is coming back, with richer bless- 
 ing, to his own. But ye see (behold) me. 
 Again the present in the sense of the future : 
 "Ye will behold me at my coming, through 
 the Spirit." The Day of Pentecost witnessed 
 the fulfillment of these words. Because I 
 live, ye shall live also. The words may also 
 be translated, /or / live, and ye shall live. This 
 construction is defended by Watkins and 
 "Weiss, but is rejected by most interpreters. 
 It gives a feebler sense than the usual con- 
 struction, and it is not required by the con- 
 text. As to the life promised to the disciples, 
 it can be no other than the new and blessed 
 
290 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 [Ch. XIV. 
 
 20 At that day ye shall know that "I am in my 
 Father, and ye in me, and I in you. 
 
 21 ''He that hath my commandments, and keepeth 
 them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me 
 shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and 
 will manifest myself to him. 
 
 20 In that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, 
 
 21 and ye in me, and I in you. He that hath my 
 commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that 
 loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of 
 my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest 
 
 over. 10; ch. 10: 38; 17: 21,23, 26 h ver. 15: 23; IJcilin 2:5; 5:3. 
 
 life of fellowship with God, which begins 
 here, and reaches perfection hereafter. But 
 this life of the disciples is represented as de- 
 pendent on the life of Jesus: Because I 
 live, etc. Is there any objection to the view 
 that Jesus claims for himself, at this point, 
 just such a life of fellowship with God? Of 
 the rightfulness of this claim, his resurrection 
 from the dead would soon furnish overwhelm- 
 ing evidence. And because this life had been, 
 and would continue to be, perfect in himself; 
 because his union with the Father was per- 
 fect, and his doing tl>e Father's will, even to 
 the suffering of death, perfect— he could be the 
 Author of life to every one that believeth. 
 And this spiritual life was the necessary con- 
 dition of beholding Christ in and through the 
 Paraclete. The sense, therefore, is : "Ye will 
 behold me again when the Paraclete is given ; 
 for, though I go from you to the Father, by 
 way of the cross, I shall have uninterrupted 
 fellowship with him, accomplishing his pur- 
 pose of redemption ; and through me, you will 
 also be in fellowship with the Father and the 
 Son." 
 
 20. At (or, in) that day, ye shall know, 
 etc. A profound description of the life just 
 promised to the disciples! AVhen the Spirit 
 should be given, they, in contrast with the 
 unbelieving world, and perhaps in distinction 
 from their present selves, should know by his 
 illumination the perfect fellowship uniting the 
 Son of God with his Father, and with his true 
 followers. Notice the double expression of 
 the fellowship between himself and his cho- 
 sen— ye in me, and I in you; ye sharing 
 my purposes, and seeking my lionor, and 
 I sympathizing with your infirmity', and 
 strengthening your hope. 
 
 21. He that hath my commandments, 
 and keepeth them, he it is that loveth 
 me. Christ here assumes that he has given 
 commandments to men. He therefore virtu- 
 ally claims to be their Lord. Moreover, he 
 declares that true obedience to these com- 
 mands is proof of love to himself. Hence 
 such obedience can spring from no other af- 
 
 fection; for if it could spring from any other 
 ailection, or be rendered without any affection, 
 it would be no certain evidence of love. 
 (Comp. ver. 15 and Note.) And may we not 
 infer from the emphatic he it is that loveth 
 nie, tliat one who fails to obey Christ's com- 
 mandments is destitute of love to liim ? Does 
 it not imply that he, and only he, who keeps 
 his Lord's commandments, can be said to love 
 him? And he that loveth me shall be 
 loved of my Father. The Father's love to 
 the Son renders it certain that his love will 
 flow forth to all who love and honor the Son. 
 The same thing had been said, in other words, 
 months before, to the Jews (5: 20-23.) And it 
 agrees with all that is written about the char- 
 acter of Christ. For as the Son is "the bright- 
 ness of his (the Father's) glorj', and the express 
 image of his person" (neb. i: 3), as Jesus could 
 say, "he that hath seen me, hath seen the 
 Father" (ver. 9, above); it follows that love to the 
 Son, in his true character, is identical in moral 
 quality with love to the Father, and must, 
 therefore, call forth responsive love from him. 
 And I will love him. For whom the Father 
 loves, the Son will love, not only because he 
 is always and absolutely of one mind with the 
 Father; and because, loving the Father with 
 a perfect love, he delights in all who honor 
 and obey him — but also because he appreciates 
 the love of his own to himself, and wishes to 
 assure them again and again of his own love 
 to them — a love which, as they will soon 
 know, is stronger than death. And will 
 manifest myself to him. The word trans- 
 lated manifest (efi^aviiiiv), is found also in 
 Matt. 27: 53, and Heb. 9: 24; while the cor- 
 responding adjective (e/n^or^s) occurs in Acts 
 10 : 40, and Rom. 10: 20. " The exact force of 
 the word," remarks Westcott, "is that of pre- 
 sentation in a clear, conspicuous form." Yet 
 Jesus does not here refer (see ver. 23) to any 
 visible manifestation of himself in bodily form 
 after his resurrection, but rather to the very 
 distinct view of himself which he would give 
 to the disciples by the Spirit. Through the 
 Spirit's agency, he himself, in all the glory of 
 
Ch. XIV.] 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 291 
 
 22 « Judas saitli unto him, not Iscariot, Lord, how is 
 it that thou wilt manifest thyself unto us, and not unto 
 the world? 
 
 23 Jesus answered and said unto him, ' If a man love 
 me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love 
 him, and <=we will come unto him, and make our abode 
 with him. 
 
 24 He that loveth me not keepcth not my sayings: 
 and <<the word which ye hear is not mine, but the 
 Father's which sent me. 
 
 22 myself unto him. Judas (not Iscariot) saith unto 
 him. Lord, what is come to pass that thou wilt mani- 
 
 23 fesl thyself unto us, and not unto the world? Jesus 
 answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he 
 will keep my word: at;d my Father will love him, 
 and we will come unto him, and make our abode 
 
 24 with him. He that loveth me not keepeth uot my 
 words : and the word which ye hear is not mine, 
 but the Father's who sent me. 
 
 iLuke6:I6....iver. 15... .c IJohn a : 24 ; Eev. 3 : 20....d ch. 5 : 19,38; 7:16; 8:28; 12: 49; ver. 10. 
 
 his character and work, would be presented to 
 their minds. (Comp. Gal. 3: 1.) And this 
 higher manifestation of Christ, though spirit- 
 ual, would "more than supply the place of 
 his presence under the conditions of earthly 
 life." (See Westcott's excellent Note.) 
 
 22. Judas saith unto him, not Iscariot. 
 Except in the catalogues of the apostles (see 
 Matt. 10: 2-4; Mark 3: 16-19; Luke 6: 14-16), 
 this is the only place in the Gospels where this 
 apostle is mentioned. In the catalogues, his 
 name always stands as one of the four which 
 compose the last group. He seems to have 
 had two additional names, Lebbeus and Thad- 
 deus; and to have been the son (or brother) of 
 James, though it is not certain of what James. 
 (See Art. Judas, Lebbeus, in Smith's "Diet, 
 of the Bible.") Lord, how is it that, etc., 
 (or, what is come to pass that, etc. ) Evi- 
 dently Judas has not understood the words of 
 his Master. What he has gathered from 
 them is that Jesus purposes to withdraw from 
 public life, and cease his efforts to win the 
 people to his cause, while he still associates 
 with his little band of disciples, and reveals to 
 them his will. In a word, he is tr^nng to bring 
 his Lord's language into harmony with his 
 own Jewish idea of the Messiah's reign. And 
 the best he can do is to suppose that something 
 of which he is ignorant has occurred, which 
 has led Jesus to decide against presenting him- 
 self any more to the people. His question is 
 probably an index of the degree of under- 
 standing which the other apostles had at this 
 moment, though it would doubtless be unjust 
 to Peter, James, and John, to place them on 
 just the same spiritual plane as that occupied 
 by Judas Thaddeus. 
 
 23. If a man love me. The same pre- 
 supposition as in ver. 15 and 21. My Father 
 ■will love him. A repetition of his .statement 
 in ver. 21. And we will come unto him. 
 How could any words prove more clearly that 
 the coming spoken of was spiritual? For One 
 
 of those about to come was the invisible God, 
 the Father of Spirits; and not even Judas 
 could expect to see him and live. And make 
 our abode with him. The plural form of 
 the Greek word which is here translated 
 abode, is translated "mansions" in ver. 2. 
 Its literal meaning is "an abiding-place" — i.e., 
 a place where one remains, or dwells. Jesus 
 therefore says that he and his Father will 
 make for themselves (as is indicated by the 
 middle voice of the verb) permanent homes, 
 or dwelling-places, with every loving and obe- 
 dient disciple. But this abiding of the Father 
 and the Son with Christians was to be accom- 
 plished by the coming and agency of the 
 Spirit. For the Advocate, the Paraclete, was 
 to be the representative of Christ, and so, of 
 the Father. As Christ, in his earthly life, 
 presented the Father to the hearts of his disci- 
 ples, so was "the Spirit of truth" to present 
 Christ, and with him, the Father, to their 
 hearts. And we know that in Christian ex- 
 perience the presence of the Father and the 
 Son is as real and distinct, to the eye of the 
 believing soul, as is that of the Spirit — so that 
 the promise of Jesus has been fulfilled. The 
 Advocate has presented, not himself, but the 
 Saviour, and with him, the Father; and there- 
 fore many Christians have far clearer views 
 of the Father and the Son than they have of 
 the Holy Spirit. 
 
 24. He that loveth me not keepeth not 
 my sayings (or, words). An explicit state- 
 ment that without love to Christ there is no 
 obedience to his commands (see Note on ver. 
 21) ; for, plainly, the words of Christ include 
 his commands. And the word which ye 
 hear, etc. A truth often before expressed, 
 but aptly repeated in this place; for it rests 
 on the same principle as that which supports 
 the language of ver. 23. The work of the 
 Spirit is said to present the Father and the 
 Son to believers, on the same principle, or 
 from the same point of view, as the word of 
 
292 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 [Ch. XIV. 
 
 25 Thesft things have I spoken unto you, being yet 
 present with you. 
 
 26 But "the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, 
 whom the Father will send in my name, ' he shall 
 teach you all things, and bring all things to your re- 
 membrance, whatsoever I have said unto you. 
 
 27 <: Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto 
 you: not as the world giveth, give I unto you. "^Let 
 not your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid. 
 
 25 These things have I spoken unto you, while yet 
 
 26 abiding with you. But the i< oniforler, even the 
 Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my 
 name, he shall teach you all things, and bring to 
 
 27 your remembrance all that J said unto you. Peace 
 I leave with you; my peace 1 give unto you: not 
 as the world giveth, give 1 unto you. Let not your 
 
 a Luke U: 49; ver. 16; cb. 15: 26; 16: 7. 
 
 ...fc ch. 2: 22; 12: 16; 16: 13; 1 John 2 : 20,27.. 
 Advocate, Or, Helper. Gr. Paraclete. 
 
 .cPhU, 4:7; Col. 3 : 15 d ver. 1. 1 Or, 
 
 Christ is said to present, not his own will, in 
 distinction from the Father's, but the Father's 
 -will, with which his own is in perfect accord; 
 and therefore a statement of the former leads, 
 by a natural law of association, to a restate- 
 ment of the latter. "Thus," says Godet, 
 "have been gradually set forth the motives 
 for encouragement offered by the Lord : You 
 will be received with me into my Father's 
 house. . . You have already in me seen the 
 Father. . . You will continue my work here 
 below. . . Another divine Helper will give 
 you power. . . In this inward Helper, I my- 
 self will return to be in you. . . And with 
 me, the Father himself will be with you." 
 
 25, sq. Keasons for Encouragement 
 Eepeated and Enforced. 
 
 25. These things have I spoken unto 
 you, being yet present (better, while abid- 
 ing) with you. Thus he reminds them, in 
 the principal clause, of the precious truths 
 which he had uttered during the evening, and 
 leads them, by the subordinate clause, to infer 
 that he is expecting to leave them soon. 
 
 26. But the Comforter (or, Advocate), 
 etc. Observe that in repeating his promise of 
 the Paraclete, he applies to him the full des- 
 ignation, Holy Spirit — a name which points 
 to his special work of implanting and nour- 
 i.«hing a holy disposition in the hearts of men. 
 Here only, in this Gospel, is this name given 
 to the Divine Spirit. Observe, also, that the 
 Advocate is to be sent by the Father in the 
 name of Christ— that is, to speak of Christ and 
 for Christ — to reveal the fullness of his nature 
 and the greatness of his sacrifice — to manifest 
 his glory, and lead men to trust in his grace. 
 Observe lastl.v, that the Advocate is (1) to 
 teach the disciples all things— i. e.. all things 
 pertaining to the Son of God, and salvation 
 through him— all the truths of the Christian 
 religion which are to be revealed to men in 
 their present state ; and (2) to bring to their 
 remembrance all that Christ had said to them 
 during the years of their special discipleship. 
 
 This work of the Spirit, commonly called in- 
 spiration, was unspeakably important to the 
 eleven ; for they were to give authoritative 
 expression to the principles of Christianity, 
 and the sayings of their Lord, for the benefit 
 of all generations, till the end of time. And 
 it is not going too far to suppose that the same 
 Spirit who should enable them to recall the 
 sayings of Jesus, would enable them to recall 
 his deeds of power — the signs which he wrought, 
 especially as those signs were revelations of 
 divine grace, as well as of power. 
 
 27. Peace I leave Avith you. "These 
 are last words, as of one who is about to go 
 away, and gives his good-night, or blessing." 
 — Luther. We may compare 1 Sam. 1: 17; 
 20: 42; 29: 7; Mark 5: 34; Luke 7: 50; 8: 
 48; Acts 16: 36; James 2: 10; Eph. 6: 23; 1 
 Pet. 5: 14; 3 John 14. But we feel at the 
 same time that these words are no mere 
 friendly adieu, expressive of ordinary hope 
 or desire; they assert a fact and furnish as- 
 surance of what is to be done. And, there- 
 fore, Jesus proceeds to define this j)eace as his 
 own peace. My peace I give unto yon. 
 The legacy which he thus bequeaths to his 
 disciples is the calmness, the quietness, the 
 repose of spirit, which he himself possesses, 
 and which is characteristic of the true life in 
 God. This subjective sense of the expression 
 my peace, is to be preferred, because it pre- 
 sents itself first and most naturally to the 
 reader's mind, because it is suggested by the 
 exhortation which follows in the last part of 
 the verse, and because it is in perfect har- 
 mony with the occasion. Jesus would have 
 "the high blessed peace" (Weiss) which 
 filled his own soul in prospect of death, fill 
 the souls of his loved disciples in times of 
 peril and suffering, and this greatest gift he, 
 therefore, solemnly afiBrms to be theirs when 
 he leaves them. A foretaste of it may have 
 gladdened their hearts as he uttered these 
 words; but the blessing in its fullness was not; 
 received before the Day of Pentecost. Not 
 
Ch. XIV.] 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 293 
 
 28 Ye have heard how "I said unto you, I go. away, 
 and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would 
 rejoice, because I said, ''1 go unto the Father: for ' my 
 Father is greater than I. 
 
 28 heart be troubled, neither let it be fearful. Ye 
 heard how I said to you, I go away, and 1 come 
 unto you. If ye loved me, ye would have rc'joice<l, 
 because I go unto the Father : for the Father is 
 
 a ver. 3: IS h vet. 12; oh. 16: 16; 20: 17 c Seech. 5 : 18 ; 10: 30; Phil. 2: 6. 
 
 as the Avorld giveth, give I unto you. 
 
 The precise difference between tlie giving of 
 the world, and the giving of Jesus, is not 
 specified, but the disciples were able to feel or 
 imagine it with sufficient clearness. Perhaps 
 it was revealed by the tones of his voice more 
 impressively than it could have been by the 
 strongest words. For they were not ignorant 
 of the world, of its formal and professional, 
 but reluctant, niggardly, and self-interested, 
 giving; and as they listened to the deep and 
 loving words of their Master — words coming 
 up from the infinite heart of the Holy One, 
 in tones of perfect aflPection, they would feel 
 the contrast between the world's giving and 
 his giving. And this was enough. And so, 
 in view of such a bequest he exhorts to peace, 
 and rebukes their fear. Let not your 
 heart be troubled, neither let it be 
 afraid. With these words he returns to the 
 beginning of his discourse after instituting 
 the Holy Supper. But how much had been 
 said, meanwhile, to prepare their hearts to re- 
 ceive this exhortation ! It is, therefore, no 
 idle repetition that we meet here, or else- 
 where in the Fourth Gospel, but repetition in 
 altered circumstances and with augmented 
 force, and repetition where the expression 
 already used is better than any that can be 
 substituted for it. 
 
 28. Ye have heard (strictly, heard) how 
 I said unto you, I go away, and come 
 again (or, I come) unto you. See ver. 2-4. 
 This form of recalling to their minds what he 
 had said, is somewhat deliberate and em- 
 phatic. "Ye heard, indeed, what I said to 
 you a few minutes ago, of my going away 
 and coming to you, and it filled your hearts 
 with sadness; but it should have had an oppo- 
 site eifect ; for. If ye loved me, ye would 
 rejoice (or, have rejoiced. — Rev. Ver.), be- 
 cause (omit I said) I go unto the Father: 
 for my (the) Father is greater than I. 
 The principal object of this language is not, 
 we suppose, to reprove the disciples for their 
 sorrow because it was selfish, though it ap- 
 pears to have been so, but to remind them of 
 a brighter side of the event which he had 
 
 pressed upon their attention, of the fact tliat 
 his going away from them was a returri to 
 the divine state, a resumption of his seat at 
 the right hand of power. If, therefore, they 
 understood the case, love to himself would 
 lead them to rejoice in his departure, since 
 by that departure alone could he be glori- 
 fied again with the Father, who, because 
 remaining in the divine state, was greater 
 than he. (Comp. 17:5). The implication of 
 the passage seems to be that, by his exalta- 
 tion, the Son would resume a condition of 
 being essentially the same as that of the 
 Father. (See Phil. 2: 6 sq). And if this be 
 a correct view, the contrast is not really be- 
 tween the intrinsic and essential nature of the 
 Father and the Word, who became incarnate 
 in the Son, but between the Father in his 
 divine state and the Word in his state of hu- 
 miliation. This seems to us the most obvious 
 interpretation of the Lord's words. Weiss 
 remarks: "While the going to the Father 
 does not of itself involve a participation in 
 his power, but only a participation in his 
 heavenly life, withdrawn from all the limits 
 and imperfections of this earthly existence, 
 this alone can be meant. On this hypothesis 
 only should their joy have respect to his per- 
 sonal departure, and that there would be 
 something selfish in demanding such a joy 
 (Meyer) is certainly no objection, inasmuch 
 as a friend can desire that his friend should 
 rejoice in his joy." Again, in a Note at the 
 bottom of the page, he saj's, very justly : 
 "The superiority (Mei^coTijs) of the Father is 
 not to be found in the superiority of the Un- 
 begotten to the Begotten (Afhnn., Faustin., 
 Gregor., Naz., Hilar., Enth., Zig., and n.anj^ 
 others, also Olsh), to which special view the 
 text gives absolutely no occasion, nor again 
 in the essential subordination of the Eternal 
 Word as the exalted Christ to the Father, on 
 the ground of the absolute monothei.«m of 
 Jesus, 17: 3 (Meyer), also, not certainly upon 
 the distinction of the human and the divine 
 nature of Christ (Gerhard). For, without 
 doubt, Jesus is not speaking here of the rela- 
 tion of the Father and the Son in themselves, 
 
294 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 [Ch. XIV. 
 
 29 And "now I have told you before it come to 
 pass, that, when it is come to pass, ye might be- 
 lieve. 
 
 30 Hereafter I will not talk much with you: 'for the 
 prince of this world cometh, and hath nothing in 
 me. 
 
 31 But that the world may know that I love the 
 Father; and ''as the Father gave me commandment, 
 even so I do. Arise, let us go hence. 
 
 29 greater than I. And now I have told you before 
 it come to pass, that, when it is come to pass, ye 
 
 30 may believe. I will no more speak much wilh 
 you, for the prince of the world cometh : and 
 
 31 he hath nothing in me; but that the world may 
 know that I love the Father, and as the Father 
 gave me commandment, even so I do. Arise, let 
 us go hence. 
 
 ach. 13: 19; 16: 4 J ch. 12: 31 ; 16: 11 c ch. 10: 18; Phil. 2:8; Heb. 5: 8. 
 
 but of the relation of God to Cnrist in his 
 temporal humiliation {CyrilL, August, Am- 
 nion., Luther, Melancthon, Calvin, Beza, and 
 many others, also, De Wette, Thol. ), and Heng- 
 stenberg is perfectly correct, when he says 
 that only such a superiority of the Father 
 can be meant as would 'come to an end' by 
 the going of the Son to the Father. But that 
 the eternal, God-like nature of the Son is pre- 
 supposed by the statement, appears clearly 
 from this, that such a comparison of himself 
 with God by any created being would be 
 folly, bordering on blasphemy." 
 
 29. And now I have told you before, 
 etc. How wise and loving this foresight of 
 Jesus ! How perfectly were the means adapted 
 to secure the end! For the time would soon 
 come when the disciples' recollection of this 
 hour, and of the words now spoken and pres- 
 ently fulfilled, would strengthen their faith. 
 And what they needed more than all else, to 
 qualify them for their great mission, was an 
 increase of faith. '■'Relieve in God; believe 
 also in me." (ver. i.) That, when it is come 
 to pass, ye might (or, may) believe. The 
 belief here contemplated is belief in God, and 
 in Jesus Christ, the Sent of God, or belief as 
 comprehensive as the gospel requires— though 
 its proximate object would naturally be Christ 
 himself. 
 
 30. I will not talk (or, no more speak) 
 much Avith you. A few last words only can 
 be said before the dreadful conflict begins; 
 and by reminding them of this fact, he rivets 
 their attention more closely to what he says. 
 It is a more emphatic "verily, verily, I say 
 unto you." For the prince of this (or, 
 the^) world cometh. The Avorld is here 
 put for the unbelieving and far greater part 
 of mankind— the part which seems to outward 
 observation well-nigh the whole; and the 
 prince of the world is the same ungodly be- 
 
 1 We omit this, before world, in deference to the 
 oldest manuscripts. 
 
 ing who is described by Paul as "the prince 
 of the power of the air — ^the spirit that now 
 worketh in the children of disobedience." 
 (Eph. 2:2.) Jesus therefore intends to repre- 
 sent Judas Iscariot (comp. 13: 2, 27), and all 
 who are seeking his life, as being influenced 
 in their course by the worst of beings. In them 
 and by them, Satan renews his assiiult upon the 
 Son of man. The words of Jesus have also 
 been thought to afford some intimation of a 
 more inward and terrible approach of the 
 wicked one, accompanying this outward as- 
 sault, and serving to explain the agony of the 
 garden; but on the method of Satan's com- 
 ing we are left to conjecture, except so far sis 
 it may be indicated by the language concern- 
 ing Judas, and by what is said of the suff'er- 
 ing of soul endured by Christ. And hath 
 nothing in me — i. e., nothing that pertains 
 to him as prince of the world. Josus is, in no 
 respect, in no degree, subject to him. This is 
 probably the most obvious and satisfactory in- 
 terpretation of the words. But they imply, 
 if they do not formally express, the sinless- 
 ness of Jesus. The fact that nothing in Jesus 
 belongs to the prince of the world, sliows that 
 he has never been under the moral contr; 1 of 
 that evil being. As the reign of that prince is 
 the reign of a rebel against God, over a world 
 in rebellion against God, Christ is independ- 
 ent of the prince, because he is morally' sepa- 
 rate from the world. The words in me are 
 emphatic, and antithetical to the world. Je- 
 sus thus intimates that what he is about to 
 suffer he will not suffer because Satan has any 
 authority over him, or power to bring this evil 
 upon him, against his own will. 
 
 31. But that the Avorld may know, etc. 
 There are three possible ways of con.?truing 
 this verse, viz.: (1) " But that the world may 
 know that I love the Father, and [that] as the 
 Father gave me commandment, even so I do : 
 Arise, let us go hence" — to encounter death ; 
 the apodosis beginning with "Arise," (2) 
 "But that the world may know that I love 
 
Ch. XV.] 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 295 
 
 CHAPTER XV. 
 
 AM the true viuc, and my Father is the husband- | 1 I am the true vine, and my Father is the hus- 
 
 2 "Every branch in me that beareth not fruit he 
 
 2 bandnian. Every branch in me that beareth nor 
 fruit, he taketh it away : and every branch that 
 
 I Matt. 15 : 13. 
 
 the Father, even as the Father gave me com- 
 iiiandment, so I do. Arise, let us go hence" 
 — the apodisis beginning with "even as" (ical 
 KaȣK), and being expressed by the words so I 
 do. (3) " But [I suffer what I suffer through 
 the coming of the prince of the world] that 
 the world may know that I love the Father, 
 and [that] as the Father gave me command- 
 ment, even so I do. Arise, let us go hence." 
 The simplicity of style .which characterizes 
 this Gospel is an objection to the first two con- 
 structions, while the third has been exempli- 
 fied more than once already — {e. g., at 13: 18.) 
 We therefore accept this as probably correct. 
 Yet the meaning of the verse will remain very 
 nearlj' the same, whatever view may betaken 
 of the construction. Christ declares his pur- 
 pose to meet the conflict before him, in order 
 that the world may know his love and obedi- 
 ence to the Father. It is a free act of his own ; 
 he has power to lay down his life, and to take 
 it again ; but at the same time it is the will of 
 his Father that he should give his life for the 
 world; and in no other way can he so clearly 
 reveal to the world his love to the Father, as 
 by making his soul an offering for sinners. 
 Arise, let us go hence. These words were 
 doubtless followed by corresponding action. 
 Yet it has been said: "They do not, indeed, 
 rise. An interesting fact [?], to be acoounted 
 for only by the deep, vivid effect produced 
 upontheir minds by the Lord's previous words 
 and deeds, and by his whole bearing, (Comp. 
 Luke 24: 29.) They were riveted to the spot, 
 and seemed unable to move — as if they would 
 hear more. To this silent invitation, the 
 Lord yields, and proves that he had not yet 
 said the best he could s^ay — more of heaven 
 now drops from his lips than his followers had 
 ever tasted before."— ("The Gospels from the 
 Babbinical Point of View," by Rev. G. Wil- 
 don Pierttz, m. a., p. 23.) Only there is no 
 satisfactory evidence of the alleged fact — it is 
 rather an inference from the writer's neglect 
 to state where they went upon leaving the 
 room. 
 
 Ch. 15. If we suppose that the word arise 
 (11:31), was followed by the act of rising up 
 from a sitting posture, we must, for the same 
 reason, suppose that the words, let us go 
 hence, were followed by the act of leaving 
 the room where the Lord's Supper had been 
 instituted. Hence the following discourse 
 and prayer were not, we think, uttered in the 
 "guest chamber," or "large upper room" 
 
 (Mi.rkit: 15; Luke22: 12). But it is impossible tO 
 
 ascertain where they were uttered. On their 
 way to Gethsemane, Jesus and his disciples 
 may have turned aside into the temple courts, 
 and there, in the late and silent evening 
 hour, the sacred words of the three following 
 chapters may have been spoken ; and, if so, 
 the golden vine upon the gates (see Jos. 
 "Ant." XV. IL 3; "B. J." v. .5. 4) may have 
 suggested the parable or illustration used 
 (15:1-8) by the Lord. But it is also barely 
 2iossible (see on 18: 1) that the words of these 
 chapters were spoken outside the city and 
 temple, as Jesus paused, with his disciples, in 
 sight of some noble vine on the hill-side 
 sloping down to the Kedron. This, however, 
 is far from probable. ^ 
 
 1-3. The Union Between Christ and 
 Christians Similar to That Between a 
 Vine and its Branches. 
 
 1. I am the true vine. The true vine (i 
 anTreAo? i) aKriBivri) is One that realizes perfectly 
 the idea of a vine. (Comp. Notes on 1 : 9; 4: 
 23; 6: 32). In this brief statement, the word 
 vine does not mean the mere vine stock, but 
 the stock with its branches. And my Father 
 is the husbandman. That is, the vine 
 planter and vine dresser. "He it is," says 
 Godet, "who attends to the preservation of 
 this divine organism, and guides its develop- 
 ment on earth. While Jesus is the inner life 
 of it, the Father gives it providential care 
 and culture. . . What is here said is not in- 
 consistent with the view that this work, 
 ascribed to the Father, is accomplished 
 through the agency of Christ. Only the 
 figure employed forbids a reference to this 
 aspect of the truth." 
 
 2. Every branch. Jesus here refers to 
 
296 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 [Ch. XV. 
 
 taketh away: and every branch that beareth fruit, he 
 purgeth it, that it way bring forth more fruit. 
 
 3 "Now ye are clean through the word which I have 
 spoken unto you. 
 
 4 ''Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch can- 
 
 beareth fruit, he cleanseth it, that it may bear more 
 
 3 fruit. Already ye are clean because of the word 
 
 4 which I have spoken unto you. Abide in me, and 
 
 ach. 13: 10; 17 : 17 ; Eph. 5: 26; 1 Pet. 1 : 22 b Col. 1: 23; 1 John 2 : 6. 
 
 processes well known to his disciples. For 
 two operations are included in the proper cul- 
 ture of the vine — (1) that of removing sterile 
 branches, and (2) that of cleaning fruitful 
 branches. The latter is accomplished by tak- 
 ing from the fruitful branches useless shoots, 
 in order that the sap may concentrate in the 
 shoots which are loaded with clusters. Thus, 
 "to him that hath is given, and from him 
 that hath not is taken away even that which 
 he hath." In like manner, two classes of 
 persons are connected with Christ — (1) those 
 who are united with him by intellect and pro- 
 fession merely, and (2) those who are united 
 with him in heart also. Those of the first 
 class may exhibit the form of godliness, but 
 they know nothing of its power. They 
 promise, but do not perform; they bear 
 leaves, but not fruit; they are like the fig tree 
 which the Lord cursed. At death, if not 
 before, the tie which unites such persons with 
 Christ will be sundered. It is frequently 
 broken in this life, by tribulation or persecu- 
 tion, which the nominal Christian finds it 
 difiicult to bear; or by the cares of this world 
 and the deceitfulness of riches, which turn 
 away the mere professor from even thoughts 
 of God. It is sure to be severed, first 
 or last. But those of the second class, being 
 united with Christ by love, are to be disci- 
 plined with a view to abundant fruitfulness 
 in the divine life. For by fruit, is here 
 meant spiritual life and action ; or, in the 
 words of Paul, "love, joy, peace, long- 
 suflfering, gentleness; kindness, goodness, 
 faith, meekness, temperance." (Gai.5:22,) 
 To secure this blessed fruit, they may be 
 stripped of worldlj' possessions, subjected 
 to heavy burdens, exposed to severe trials, 
 made to drink the cup of their Master, so 
 that it may be truly said of them, "They 
 that are Christ's have crucified the flesh, with 
 the affections (or, passions) and lusts." (Gai. s. 
 24.) The eleven were soon to know a great 
 deal about this cleansing process, and, puri- 
 fied by it, were to become zealous of good 
 works. Yet it is not by means of sufiiering 
 
 or burden-bearing only, that the fruitful 
 branches, the true friends of Clirist, are pre- 
 pared for their work. The knife bj' which 
 they are pruned of useless leaves and shoots, 
 is often the pure word of God. 
 
 3. NoAV (already) ye are clean through 
 {because of) the word, etc. This is a timely 
 word of encouragement, assuring the disciples 
 that they were recognized by their Lord, not 
 as sterile, but as fruitful branches. The 
 Greek adjective translated clean (ica?apoO, is a 
 kin to the verb "cleanseth" (icaJaipei) in ver. 2, 
 which, however, is translated purgeth, in the 
 Common Version ; and it means in this place, 
 those who are prepared to bear fruit, like vine 
 branches made clean by pruning. Yet, Jesus 
 does not intend to pronounce the eleven 
 morally perfect, or, indeed, perfectly quali- 
 fied for their work. Their ambition and 
 worldliness had been too recently manifested 
 to allow of this interpretation of his language. 
 But he does mean to say that they were in 
 spiritual union with himself; that they were 
 connected with him, not merely by intellec- 
 tual conviction, but also by faith and love, as 
 aflfections of the heart; and that by the influ- 
 ence of his word, manj' of their errors, preju- 
 dices, and selfish aims had been removed, so 
 that there was i;e*i^on to expect from them 
 spiritual fruit. More than this the word 
 clean, as here used, cannot be said to imply. 
 But this recognition was enough to cheer tlie 
 hearts of the disciples. 
 
 It is also noticeable that they are said to be 
 clean through, or because of the word which 
 Christ had spoken to them. Christian truth 
 is therefore employed by the Most High in 
 qualifying his people for service, and Jesus 
 Christ is not only the inward source of life to 
 his own, but, in his Father's name and behalf, 
 he teaches, disciplines, and purifies them for 
 holy conduct and usefulness among men. 
 (Comp. 8: 31, 32; Eph. 5: 26; James 1 : 18.) 
 
 4, 5. Continuance and Application of 
 THE Pakable. 
 
 4. Abide in me, and I in you. Jesus as- 
 sumes the existence of a most intimate fellow- 
 
Ch. XV.] 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 297 
 
 not bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; no 
 more can ye, except ye abide iu me. 
 
 5 I aiu the vine, ye are the branches. He that 
 abidetli in uie, and I in liiui, the same l)riu^etb 
 forth much "fruit; for without me ye can do noth- 
 ing. 
 
 I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of it- 
 self, except it abide in the vine; so neither can ye, 
 5 except ye abide in me. I am the vine, ye are 
 the branches: He that abitlclb in me, and I 
 iu him, the same beareth much fruit: for apart 
 
 s Uos. 14: 8; Phil. 1 : 11 ; 4: 13. 
 
 ship between himself and his disciples. He 
 implies that its continuance is dependent on 
 their action, as well as his own. And he ex- 
 horts them to cherish and preserve this fel- 
 lowship, with the promise, if they do, of 
 maintaining it himself. (Weiss interprets the 
 clause, "and I in you," as a promise equiva- 
 lent to, "and I will abide in you." Westcott 
 says that "both parts are imperative in con- 
 ception: Do ye abide in me . . . and let me 
 abide in you." Improbable. Godet, bet- 
 ter: "Jesus suppresses the verb in the clause, 
 'and I in you,' because the second act is con- 
 ceived of as the immediate and necessary 
 consequence of the first ; if the first is accom- 
 plished, the second cannot fiiil to be realized.") 
 Thus he recognizes the moral freedom of his 
 disciples in matters pertaining to their salva- 
 tion — a point which could not be represented 
 in his similitude. So it must often be. For 
 no metaphor, simile, parable, or allegory, bor- 
 rowed from the realm of nature, can be per- 
 fect in relation to spiritual beings. It would 
 be absurd to exhort the branches to abide in 
 the vine. But the union between Christ and 
 his disciples, the members af his spiritual 
 body, is voluntary', reciprocal, progressive. 
 It is therefore natural for Jesus to urge his 
 followers to avoid everything that might tend 
 to separate them in spirit from him, and to do 
 everything in their power to preserve and in- 
 crease their fellowship with him. As the 
 branch, etc. Every one knows that the 
 branch cannot bear fruit from itself alone, or 
 "by any power of its own which it may have 
 apart from the vine." — Grotius. It can bear 
 fruit only by abiding in the vine, and draw- 
 ing vital force from the stock. Godet consid- 
 ers the clause, except it abide in the vine, 
 as an explanation of the words from itself— 
 thus: "As the branch cannot bear fruit from 
 itself" — i. e., "if it abide not in the vine." 
 That is to say, bearing fruit from itself, and 
 bearing fruit when not in the vine, are equiv- 
 alent expressions. No more (or, so neither) 
 can ye, except ye abide in me. Though 
 the connection between Christ and his own is 
 
 voluntary, and spiritual, consisting in mutual 
 love, their dependence upon him to whom 
 they are thus united, and therefore upon the 
 conservation of the union, is every whit as 
 absolute as is that of the vine branch upon the 
 vine. A good reason, surely, for the exhorta- 
 tion in the former part of the verse! Union 
 with Christ is indispensable to usefulness in 
 his service. The stream must draw from the 
 fountain, or it will become dry. How closely 
 would Jesus bind the disciples to his heart! 
 How sweetly does he urge them to drink of 
 the fountain of his love! He is more tlian 
 ready to take these poor, weak, unworthy, 
 trembling followers to himself, and fill their 
 entire being with light and peace. Could such 
 a man as John ever forget such an appeal as 
 this? 
 
 5. I am the vine, ye are the branches. 
 According to this Gospel, Jesus often repeats 
 the cardinal words or sentences of a discourse, 
 thus fixing them more deeply in the minds of 
 his hearers. Yet he almost always repeats 
 with some variation or addition. So here 
 the words used are a resumption of the theme 
 (ver. i), with an express statement, not given 
 there, that his disciples are represented by 
 the branches. He that abideth in me, 
 and I in him. Observe that Christ does not 
 restrict his view to the eleven. For he that 
 abideth in me is equivalent to "everyone 
 that abideth in me." The language of Jesus 
 refers to Christians of every age and nation. 
 Notice, also, that he speaks of the individual, 
 not of the church. Notice, again, that the in- 
 dwelling is mutual, like that of verse 4. The 
 same (or, this one) brin^jeth forth (lit., bear- 
 eth) much fruit. By the present tense of the 
 verb, the fruit-bearing is described, not as a 
 single act, performed once for all, but as a 
 process no less enduring than the union on 
 which it depends. Note, also, the expression, 
 much fruit. The man who abides in Christ, 
 and in whom Christ abides by his Spirit, he it 
 is who bears, not a little fruit — a small cluster, 
 scarce discernible amid the leaves — but much 
 fruit — grapes of Eschol, in heavy clusters; 
 
298 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 [Ch. XV. 
 
 6 If a man abide not in me, « he is cast forth as 
 a branch, and is withered ; and men gather them, 
 and cast Ihem into the tire, and they are burned. 
 
 6 from me ye can do nothing. If a man abide not 
 in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered ; 
 and they gather them, and cast them into the 
 
 a Matt. 3: 10; 7: 19. 
 
 he it is, and he alone,_ whose life is a great 
 blessing to the world. But do all who abide 
 in Clirist fulfill this saying? Do not some of 
 this class bear very little fruit, and .some very 
 poor fruit? Does not Paul teach that there 
 are believers whose work will not stand the 
 test of fire, even though they themselves will 
 be saved, yet so as by fire? (icor. s: is.) First, 
 it is certain that not all true Christians are 
 Peters, or Johns, or Pauls, or Luthers, or Cal- 
 vins, orJudsons, in ability and devotion com- 
 bined. But ability may be left out of the 
 account in speaking of fruitfulness in Chris- 
 tian life. For the poor widow who cast into 
 the treasury of the Lord but two mites, is said 
 to have cast in more than all the rich, because 
 they gave out of their abundance, and she gave 
 out of her deep poverty. By this rule of 
 judging, many Christians who seem to men 
 weak and comparatively useless, bear much 
 fruit. Secondly, it is certain that not all Chris- 
 tians are equally devout. There are some who 
 make very slow progress in ever3'thing tliat 
 pertains to godliness. So weak is their faith, 
 so languid their aflTection, and so irresolute 
 their conduct, that they seem to be in constant 
 danger of falling away from Christ. These, 
 surely, cannot be said to bear much fruit. 
 Even the gracious judgment of the Lord will 
 condemn their slothfulness and inefficiency, 
 because they do not use the talent entrusted 
 to them. Thirdly, there are degrees of union 
 with Christ, and spiritual fruit increases as 
 union with him becomes more intimate. 
 When the believer and his Saviour are one in 
 feeling, desire, and aim, in so far at least as 
 the disciple is let into the counsels of his Mas- 
 ter, then will the fruits of holiness abound in 
 his life. Only as one is united with Christ, 
 does he bear fruit; and in proportion to the 
 completeness of the union, will be the abund- 
 ance of fruit. Being in Christ, is the condition 
 of bearing much fruit. This is the principal 
 thought, and Jesus does not pause to explain 
 the qualifications or limitations of it. For 
 ■without {apart from) me ye can do noth- 
 ing. An explicit statement of the negative 
 implied in the previous clause, by giving the 
 reason for that implied negative. "This, and 
 
 no other, beareth much fruit," "because apart 
 from me ye can do nothing " — i. e., no Chris- 
 tian work, no deed acceptable to God. Hence 
 this saying has no direct reference to the abil- 
 ity or inability of unrenewed men to obey the 
 moral law, or to believe in Christ. Its primary 
 application is to those who are in Christ. Yet 
 it is difficult to resist the conviction that it is 
 equally true of all men ; and therefore that 
 nothing acceptable to God can be done by any 
 person who is still out of Christ. " I hear a 
 voice of song and sweet content within my 
 text: 'Without nie ye can do nothing.' I 
 pick up my text and hold it to my ear, as 
 many a child has held a shell; and as within 
 tlie shell the child hears the rolling of the sea 
 . . . so within my text I hear a sweet, sweet 
 sound. Put it to your ears and try it : ' With- 
 out me ye can do nothing.' Lord, what is 
 there that I want to do without thee? Lord, 
 thou hast tied and tethered metothj-self by this 
 blessed text, which is so sweetly bitter, so in- 
 tensely precious to my heart, when I come to 
 get into its depths. What could I want to do 
 without thee ? Suppose there were something 
 I could do without thee ! then there would be 
 a little crown for my head ; but now I can do 
 nothing withoirt thee. Then there is one great 
 crown for thy brow, and thou shalt have all 
 the glory. . . . Oh, God, we thank thee that 
 we can do nothing witiiout Christ, for of all 
 things, I should dread success apart from 
 Christ." — C. H. Spurgeon. 
 
 6. Consequence of Not Abiding in 
 Christ. 
 
 6. If a man abide not in me, etc. Does 
 this refer to one who has been in vital, fruit- 
 bearing union with Christ? Or to one who, 
 like the sterile branch of ver. 2, is only united 
 to Christ by a public profession, resting on a 
 merely intellectual belief? Even if the 
 former is taken to be the correct view of 
 Christ's language here, the premise is hypo- 
 thetical, and may have been assumed, not as 
 actual, or even probable, butsimply as^ossiA/e. 
 For, if so deplorable an act is possible, it 
 ought to be prevented by a revelation of the 
 dreadful result that must follow its becoming 
 actual. But the latter view may be correct. 
 
Ch. XV.] JOHN. 299 
 
 7 If ye abide in me, and my words abide in you, 
 « ye sliall ask wiiat ye will, and it siiall be done unto 
 you. 
 
 7 fire, and they are burned. If ye abide in me, 
 and my words abide in you, ask wliatsoever ye 
 
 a ver. 16 ; ch. 14 : 13, 14 ; 16 : 23. 
 
 Says Weiss: " Since fruit-bearing, according 
 to ver. 4, 5, depends on abiding in Jesus, the 
 Lord here speaks of the doom of the unfruit- 
 ful branch, which, according to ver. 2, the 
 vine-dresser cuts off. If Luther insists against 
 Lampe, that one can, therefore, have been 
 actually (spiritually) in Christ, and yet have 
 fallen away, it is very doubtful, according to 
 1 John 2: 19, wiiether this Evangelist would 
 have regarded a 'being in Christ,' which 
 was not followed by an 'abiding in hirn,' as 
 real." He is cast forth as a (or, the) 
 branch, and is withered. By a branch, 
 must be understood the unfruitful bianch, 
 which is here represented as being cast out of 
 the vinej^ard (ef«o, outside — i. e., of the vine- 
 3'ard), where it withers away and becomes 
 dry. But why are the Greek verbs (e/3A>i?7) 
 and i^rjpaveri) in the past tense (aorist), though 
 translated as if they were in the present? 
 Meyer, Alford, Godet (last ed.), Watkins, 
 "Weiss, Abbott, account for it by supposing 
 that the point of view assumed by Jesus is 
 that of the gathering together and casting 
 into the fire of unbelievers at the last judg- 
 ment. "Jesus places himself at the point of 
 time when the last judgment is being carried 
 ijito effect, when those who fell away from 
 him are gathered together and cast into the 
 fire, after having been previously cast out of 
 his community, and become withered." — 
 Meyer. This is, perhaps, the best explana- 
 tion of the tense of the verbs, which might 
 be translated ^''was cast out," and ^^ became 
 withered." But others hold that the past 
 tense is here used to express an efl'ect that fol- 
 lows instantly upon its cause. Thus West- 
 cott: "This happens simultaneously with the 
 cessation of the vital union with Christ. . . It 
 is an inevitable accompaniment of the separa- 
 tion." Similarly, "Winer (Thayer's Transl., 
 ? 40, 5, 6, p. 277 : " The not abiding in Christ 
 has this as its instantaneous consequence: 
 whoever has severed himself from Christ, re- 
 sembles a branch broken off and thrown 
 away." (See also, Buttmann's " Grammar of 
 the N. T. Greek," Thayer's Transl., on the 
 Proleptic, and the Gnomic Aorist, ^ 137, 4, 8). 
 And men (or, they), gather them, and cast 
 
 them into the fire, and they are burned. 
 
 This imagery is borrowed from the course 
 taken with fruitless branches, and is not to be 
 pressed as literally applicable to unspiritual 
 men. But without insisting on the literal 
 sense of these words, it is to be maintained 
 without wavering, and on the authority of 
 such teaching, that the doom of all who are 
 found out of Christ at the last day will be 
 very dreadful. "The Lord leaves the image, 
 just as it is, to work its proper effect."— IFes^- 
 cott. And the reality which calls for the u>e 
 of such an image, must be something from 
 which a rational being ought to shrink with 
 horror; something more terrible than aught 
 else in the universe, save the sin which merits 
 this awful doom. A reader of Scripture can- 
 not too seriousl3' bear in mind that, for every 
 figurative expression of God's word, there 
 must be a corresponding reality. 
 
 7, 8. The Eesult of Union with Christ 
 Ke-affirmed. 
 
 7. The condition here stated diflTers in form, 
 but scarcely in substance, from that recog- 
 nized in verse 5. For it is said there: "He 
 that abideth in nie, and lin him," while it is 
 said here: If ye abide in me, and my 
 words abide in you. But Christ and bis 
 vi^ords are inseparable in the believer's heart. 
 By his words Christ presents himself to his 
 people. As he, the Eternal "Word, is the 
 revelation of the Father, presenting the 
 Father to us, so his word, the sum of his 
 sayings, is a revelation of himself— a reve- 
 lation by which he presents to us his in- 
 most nature ; and, therefore, by retaining his 
 word, and meditating upon it, we retain him 
 in our minds and hearts. And this is pre- 
 supposed in acceptable, prayer. "When this 
 condition is fulfilled, prayer will be accord- 
 ing to the will of Christ, and will be surely 
 answered. As Godet remarks: "A prayer 
 so inspired is a daughter of heaven ; it is the 
 promise of God transformed into a supplica- 
 tion; and upon this condition the answer is 
 certain." It may be remarked also, (1) that 
 what ye will, is by position emphatic, in- 
 dicating the freedom of the believer's choice 
 as long as it accords with the teaching of 
 
300 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 [Ch. XV 
 
 8 « Herein is my Father glorified, that ye bear much 
 fruit; 'so shall ye be uiy disciples. 
 
 9 As the Father hath loved me, so have I loved you : 
 continue ye in my love. 
 
 10 <: If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in 
 my love ; even as I have kept my Father's command- 
 ments, and abide in his love. 
 
 8 will, anJ it shall be done unto you. Herein lis uiy 
 Fatlier glorified, 2 that ye bear much Iruit; aud t,o 
 
 9 shall ye be my disciples. Even as the Father hath 
 loved me, I also have loved you: abide ye in my 
 
 10 love. If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide 
 in my love; even as I have kept my Father's com- 
 
 aMa.u. 5: 16; Phil. 1: 11 i cb. 8 : 31 ; 
 
 13: 35 c cb.14: 15, 21,23. 1 Or, was 
 
 muchfrv.it, and be my disciples. 
 
 ...2 Mauy aucieut authorities re:Ld, that y hear 
 
 Christ. (2) That the best text reads : ask, in 
 the imperative, instead of ye shall ask, in 
 the future — what (or, whatsoever) ye will ask, 
 etc. (3) That the words, and it shall be 
 done unto you, represents an expression 
 meaning, literally, and it shall come to pass 
 to you, or, become yours. 
 
 8. Herein {in this) is my Father glori- 
 fied, that, etc. If the word that, {'iva) at 
 the beginning of the second clause, has its 
 usual signification, viz., in order that, the 
 word this {in this), must refer to what is said 
 in verse 7 — i- e., to God's answering the pray- 
 ers of tho.se who abide in Christ. The Father 
 is glorified in answering their prayers, for he 
 gives these answers in order that they may 
 bear spiritual fruit; and such fruit is always 
 to the glorj' of his name. This fruit is in 
 reality the life which men ought to live — a 
 life of righteousness and peace and joy in the 
 Holy Spirit, a life of devout love to God, and 
 of beneficent love to men. But it is possible 
 that the word this looks forward to the latter 
 part of the verse, beginning with that, (iW) ; 
 and, if we assume this to be the case, we do 
 not change the general meaning of the pas- 
 sage, though we fail to connect this verse as 
 closely as before with the seventh, and give a 
 less usual meaning to the Greek word trans- 
 lated that. The tense of the verb which is 
 here rendered is glorified, must be either the 
 proleptical or the gnomic aorist; if prolep- 
 tical, it denotes what is to be true henceforth, 
 when the process described in verse 7 is re- 
 alized; \f gnomic, it denotes a result which al- 
 ways accompanies or follows that process. So 
 shall ye be my disciples. Or, and ye shall 
 become disciples to me. The latter rendering is 
 more exact, and is on that account to be pre- 
 ferred. Discipleship is never complete, any 
 more than knowledge. It is alwaj-s becom- 
 ing truer, deeper, more intimate. Paul, 
 speaking of himself, says: "The inward man 
 is renewed day by day" (2Cor. 4:i6), and, 
 speaking of "the new man" in the Colos- 
 sians, declares that it "is being renewed unto 
 
 knowledge after the image of him that created 
 him." (3: 10, Eev. ver.). Disciples to me — i.e., 
 belonging to me, is a more forcible expression 
 in the original than "disciples of me," com- 
 monly translated "my disciples." 
 
 9-17. Christ's Love to His Own, and 
 How It IS TO BE Ketaiked. 
 
 9. As (or, even as) the Father hath loved 
 me, so have I loved you. Stronger lan- 
 guage could not have been used. Jesus com- 
 pares his love with that of the infinite God to 
 his only begotten Son, and assures his disci- 
 ples that they are now in the possession of his 
 love — living under its influence. The tense of 
 the verbs suggests that the act of loving them 
 is looked upon as one that became complete 
 and perfect in the past. He loved them with 
 a divine love when he called them to be his 
 own. Continue ye in my love. That is, 
 abide in it; so live that the sunshine of my 
 love will surround you as an atmosphere. 
 " The exact form of the phrase, which is found 
 here only (^ aYan-)} ^ £>>)), as distinguished from 
 that used in the next verse (i) iydnri liov), em- 
 phasizes the character of the love as Christ's: 
 the love that is mine — the love that answers to 
 my nature and my work."- Westcott. Is it pos- 
 sible to over-estimate the privilege of abiding 
 in such love? — a love divine, unchangeable, 
 and stronger than death ? Must not the hearts 
 of the eleven have thrilled with joy at these 
 words? As they stood there, a listening 
 group, about their Master, with the mighty 
 sky above their heads, the Valley of Kedron 
 at their feet, and the Garden of Gethsemane 
 at the base of Olivet beyond, must they not 
 have felt, as never before, the spiritual glory, 
 the unutterable love of Jesus? Must they 
 not have deemed his love "the pearl of great 
 price?" 
 
 10. If ye keep my commandments, ye 
 shall abide in my love. Westcott considers 
 this promise "the e.xact converse of that in 14: 
 15": "If j'e love me, keep (or, ye will keep) 
 my commandments.'' It would be so, if my 
 love here meant "love to me" — i. e., if the 
 
Ch. XV.] 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 301 
 
 11 These things have I spoken unto you, that my 
 joy might remaiu in you, and " that your joy might be 
 full. 
 
 VI 'This is my commandment, That ye love one 
 another, as I have loved you. 
 
 11 mandments, and abide in his love. These things 
 have I .spolcen unto you, tliut my joy luay be in 
 
 12 you, and that your joy uiay be made full. This is 
 my commandment, that ye love one another, eveu 
 
 a ch. 16: 24; 17 : 13 ; 1 John 1:4 6 ch. 13 : 24 ; I Thess. 4 : 9; 1 Pet. 4: 8; 1 John 3 : 11 j 4: 21. 
 
 love of the disciples to Christ, and not his love 
 to them, were intended by the expression, 
 "my love." But we think it signifies his love 
 to tliem. Accordingly Jesus atfirms that, by 
 cheerful obedience to him, his disciples will 
 continue to enjoy the blessing of his love. If 
 they bear fruit, they will abide in the vine; 
 if they are willing and obedient, they will 
 live in the light of their Lord's countenance. 
 Even as I have kept my Father's com- 
 mandments, and abide in his love. " The 
 perfect love of complete devotion to God is 
 the highest conceivable good." — Westcott. 
 Possibly; but it is not, we think, the good 
 here described; for his love, is the Father's 
 love to the Son, not the Son's love to the 
 Father. The perfect obedience of the Son 
 rejoices with exceeding joy in the absolute 
 approval and love of the Father. At the same 
 time it is to bb understood that obedience 
 springs from love, and is perfected by love. 
 "He that dwelleth in love" is the one who 
 "dwelleth in God, and God in him." But 
 love expresses itself in acts of obedience, 
 and so obedience is here made the condi- 
 tion of abiding in the enjoyment of Christ's 
 love. 
 
 11. These things . . . that my joy might 
 (or, may) remain in you. Jiy the expression 
 my joy, Jesus means "the joy which I have" 
 — "the joy which fills my heart." A joy 
 identical in kind vvitli this he would have his 
 disciples possess; and for this reason he has 
 spoken to them so tenderly and sweetly, lay- 
 ing open to them the depths of his own heart. 
 But is the joy of which he speaks as my joy, 
 that of loving obedience to the Father's will, 
 or that of knowing his Father's love to him- 
 self? If the former, the Christian's peculiar 
 and chief joy should spring directly from con- 
 scious love and obedience to the Saviour ; if 
 the latter, the Christian's peculiar and highest 
 joy should spring from a grateful appreciation 
 of the Saviour's love to him. The latter 
 seems to us the true interpretation of Christ's 
 language, and of Christian experience. The 
 joy of Christ arises from his consciousness of 
 
 his infinite Father's love, and the J03' of the 
 Christian from his assurance of his divine Re- 
 deemer's love. And that your joy might 
 (or, may) be full, or complete. The joy of 
 Christ was complete, but that of his disciples 
 was yet imperfect; and his words had been 
 spoken for the purpose of laying a foun- 
 dation for the purest and highest joy which it 
 was possible for them to experience. Whether 
 these things include all that Jesus had spo- 
 ken since the Supper, or all that he had said 
 for their comfort in this chapter (ver. 1-10), or 
 only what is recorded in verses 9 and 10, is 
 doubtful. Perhaps the last supposition is 
 more probable than either of the others, 
 though there seems to be no decisive objection 
 to the second. 
 
 12. This is my commandment, etc. That 
 is, the commandment "that answers to my 
 nature and my mission." — Westcott. See 
 the exposition of 13: 34, where precisely the 
 same commandment is characterized as "a 
 new commandment." Here, as there, the 
 clause, that ye love one another, etc., is a 
 statement of what the command is, rather 
 than a statement of the end to be reached by it. 
 Yet the end to be reached bj^ a command is 
 often expressed, as here, in and b^' the com- 
 mand itself — a fact which accounts for the use 
 of a conjunction i'iva) whose primary import 
 \s final, rather than expository. "The con- 
 tent of the command is represented as the pur- 
 pose of giving \t."— Weiss. " The predicates 
 after <vhich it i'iva) stands are still, in the main, 
 of such a nature that the dependent clause 
 can be regarded as a statement akin to a speci- 
 fication of purpose.'^ — (Buttmann's " Gr. of 
 the N. T. Greek," p. 2.37.) As I have loved 
 you. Thus Christ makes his own love to his 
 followers the model and standard of their love 
 to one another ; for a proper view of his love 
 to them would give them the clearest concep- 
 tion possible of the fraternal love which they 
 ought to cherish, and the best incentive to a 
 constant exercise of it. And the degree of 
 his own love to them he now proceeds to sug- 
 gest. 
 
302 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 [Ch. XV. 
 
 13 "Greater love hath no man than this, that a man 
 lay down his lite lor his Iriends. 
 
 14 ' Ye are my t'rieuds, if ye do whatsoever I com- 
 niaud you. 
 
 15 Henceforth I call you not servants ; for the 
 servant knoweth not what his lord doeth: but 1 
 have called you friends; ''for all things that I have 
 heard of my Father 1 have made known unto you. 
 
 13 as I have loved you. Greater love hath no man 
 than this, that a man lay down his life for his 
 
 14 friends. Ye are my friends, if ye do the things 
 
 15 which I command you. No longer do I call you 
 1 servants : for the 'servant knowelh not what his 
 lord doeth: but I have called you Iriends; lor all 
 things that I heard from my Father I have made 
 
 ch. 17: 26; Acts 20 : 27 
 
 13. Greater love hath no man than this, 
 that, etc., — i. e., there is no love gresiter than 
 that which leads one to give up his life for 
 those whom he loves. "All that a man hath 
 will he give for his life" (Job 2: 4); and an af- 
 fection which freely surrenders life for the 
 good of others cannot be surpassed. Of course, 
 such love commonly presupposes intimate 
 friendship; and as Jesus recognizes his disci- 
 ples as friends, his language naturally takes 
 the form here given. " Love is contemplated 
 on the side of him who feels it, so that the ob- 
 jects of it are spoi<en of as friends — that is, 
 'loved by him.' " — Westcott. "According to 
 Rom. 5: 6-8, there is a j'et greater love of 
 Christ — his sacrifice of himself for sinners — 
 for enemies. And, in fact, the work of Christ's 
 love appears in its full greatness only under 
 this point of view. But the love wherewith 
 Christ, according to Paul, dies for sinners, is 
 at the same time the love whereby, according 
 to John, he makes the disciples his friends. 
 Only because, full of love, he thinks of sin- 
 ners as his friends, does he die for them." — 
 Lucke. Dying love for enemies is more sur- 
 prising, but is it stronger than dying love for 
 friends? Godet finds an expression of end or 
 purpose in the clause, that a man lay down 
 his life for his friends — thus : We say that 
 the Greek word for thatCii-o) "retains the no- 
 tion of end — the highest point to which love 
 can aspire in this relation, is that," etc. But 
 this is changing the expression, and I prefer 
 the interpretation of Weiss: ''This (rauTris) 
 does not point back to the love expressed by 
 'even as I have loved you'' (ver. 12), but it looks 
 forward, and is explained by the words, 
 'that a man lay down his life,' etc." (Comp. 
 Buttmann' " Gr. of the N. T. Greek," p. 
 239.) 
 
 14. Ye are my friends, if ye do what- 
 soever (^=the things which) I command 
 you. The pronoun ye is emphatic; and the 
 meaning is: "I regard you and treat you as 
 my friends." But there is added a condition: 
 
 " If you are obedient to me." It is the Mas- 
 ter who speaks, though he speaks in love. 
 "What more affecting in domestic life than 
 that a master, finding a servant truly faithful, 
 should give him in the house the rank and 
 title of friend?" — Godet. Abraham is called 
 the "friend of God" (James 2: 23), because God 
 treated him as a friend, and admitted him to 
 the intimacy of friendship. So to be counted 
 a friend by Christ, is to be honored with his 
 friendship. The following verse illustrates 
 the method of friendship, as distinguished 
 from that of lordship. 
 
 15. Henceforth (no longer) I call you not 
 servants, or, bond-servants, as in the margin 
 of the Revised Version. That they were his 
 servants is true — purchased, as would soon 
 appear, with his blood (comp. 1 Cor. 6: 20; 
 7: '23; 1 Pet. 1: 18; Rev. 5:9); and that he 
 had spoken of them as servants that very 
 evening, they knew (see 13: 14, IG); but a 
 faithful servant may be treated as a friend or 
 a brother, and such recognition and treatment 
 would the Saviour accord to his disciples in 
 time to come. For the servant knuweth 
 not what his Lord doeth. A glimpse is 
 afforded by this saying of the ordinary rela- 
 tion of bond-servants to their masters. The 
 former were usually ignorant of the thoughts, 
 plans, or cares of the latter; and their service 
 was therefore constrained, not willing. Their 
 life was separated from that of their masters 
 by a wide chasm. Love, friendship, fellow- 
 ship, were almost whollj' wanting. All this 
 is implied in the saying of Jesus. And though 
 his disciples must be his servants, under in- 
 finite obligation to do his will, he was ready 
 to give them, if faithful, all the blessing and 
 honor of his friendship, letting them into his 
 counsels, and communicating to them the 
 plans of his love. But I have called you 
 friends. The you is emphatic: "but you 
 have I called friends" — you, my disciples, I 
 have treated as friends, and not as servants, 
 unworthy of confidence. For all things, 
 
Ch. XV.] 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 303 
 
 16 « Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, 
 and 'ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth 
 fruit, and that your fruit should remain ; that •= whatso- 
 ever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may 
 give it you. 
 
 16 known unto you. Ye did not choose me, but I chose 
 you, and appointed you, that ye should go and bear 
 fruit, aud timt your fruit should ai)idc : that whatso- 
 ever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may 
 
 och. 6: 70; 13: 18: IJohn 4 : 10, 19... .6 Mati. 28: 19; Mark 16: 15; Col. 1 : 6. ...c ch. U: i:j ; ver. 7. 
 
 etc. Or, as in Rev. Ver.: '^'^For all things that I 
 heard from my Father I made known to you." 
 If this be understood as relating to the past, 
 it must be talceu with the limitation suggested 
 by 16 : 12. Nothing had been kept back from 
 them on the principle and in the spirit with 
 which the mere servant is denied a knowledge 
 of his master's plans and reasons, but all 
 things which they could receive without being 
 oifended had been freely imparted. The lim- 
 itation was in them, not in their Lord. But 
 the language may be understood as antici- 
 patory, descriptive of what would be done 
 through the Spirit. Yet even with this inter- 
 pretation it would still be extravagant to sup- 
 pose that the words all things are to be taken 
 with no restriction whatever. Jesus might 
 surely assume that his disciples would under- 
 stand him to mean all things which it was de- 
 sirable and possible for them to know. Taking 
 this view of his meaning, he had already 
 taught them, by pregnant sayings, or para- 
 bles, all the essential principles of the gospel; 
 but his teaching was to be explained and con- 
 firmed by his death and resurrection, as well 
 as by the illumination of the Spirit. "It was 
 the work of the Spirit to interpret afterwards, 
 little by little, what he had revealed in word 
 and life, implicitly, once forall. (u:26: i7:26.)" 
 — Westcott. 
 
 16. Ye have not chosen (or, did not 
 choose) me, but I have chosen (or, chose) 
 you, etc. The object of what is said in this 
 verse is to increase the confidence of the dis- 
 ciples in the love of Christ, and so to bind 
 them to him by a trust that would never die 
 out of their hearts. The "choosing" here 
 spoken of is generally referred to his selec- 
 tion of them for apostles. (See Luke 6: 13). 
 But this does not agree with the first clause, 
 Ye did not choose me. What pertinence has 
 this, if he had in mind their selection to be 
 apostles? How could they choose him with 
 reference to the apostolate? But they might 
 choose him as a teacher, even as Jewish pupils 
 sometimes selected their teachers; and, on the 
 other hand, he might choose them "out of the 
 world" (ver. 19), to be his followers, or out of a 
 
 larger company of adherents, to be his con- 
 stant attendants. Hence we do not think that 
 Jesus has special reference to the apostolic 
 office in the words, but I chose you. That 
 special reference may lie in the next clause, 
 and ordained (or, appointed) you; but we 
 are not perfectly certain that it does, since all 
 the followers of Christ receive an appoint- 
 ment from him to bear spiritual fruit, in this 
 way or in that. Yet it is natural, on the 
 whole, to suppose that Jesus has some regard 
 to their apostolic mission in this clause. For 
 he is speaking directly to the eleven, and their 
 Christian service, their fruit bearing, consisted 
 largely in their apostolic work. That ye 
 should go — i. e., go away from immediate 
 personal connection with me to a service com- 
 paratively distinct. And bring forth fruit — 
 resuming the figure of the vine and its 
 branches, and therefore implying their con- 
 tinued union with him in their more distinct 
 work after the Day of Pentecost. And that 
 your fruit should remain. The result of 
 their service is to be permanent. A distinct 
 service, productive of good that will endure! 
 This is the promise which cheers their hope 
 in a trjMng hour. "They were to go into all 
 the world and bring forth fruit, by their godly 
 lives and earnest teaching winning souls to 
 Christ, founding churches, instructing and 
 confirming believers in the faith. The fruit 
 they thus gathered in their personal ministry 
 was unto 'eternal life,' but the fruit of their 
 labor.s, as apostles, remains for us in the Scrip- 
 tures of the New Testament." — G. ]V. Clark. 
 That whatsoever ye shall ask of the 
 Father in my name, etc. See Notes on 14: 
 13, and 15: 7. The passages are very similar 
 to one another. In the first, Jesus declares 
 that he himself will do for his disciples what 
 they ask. In the second, he says that the 
 thing which they ask shall come to pass for 
 them. And in this, the third, he represents 
 the Father as about to give that which is 
 asked of him. Again, in the first and third 
 passages, the prayer is said to be offered in the 
 name of Christ, while in the second, it is said 
 to be offered by those who abide in Christ, 
 
304 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 [Ch. XV. 
 
 17 « These things I command you, that ye love one 
 another. 
 
 18 'If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me 
 before it haled you. 
 
 17 give it you. These things I command you, that ye 
 
 18 love one another. If the world hateth you, i ye know 
 
 a ver. 12.... 6 1 John 3:1, 13. 1 Or, know ye. 
 
 and have his words abiding in them. It may 
 then be inferred from these representations, 
 (1) That both the Father and the Son (as well 
 as the Spirit) may be looked upon as con- 
 cerned in answering true prayer. What is 
 heard by the Father is heard by the Son, and 
 what is answered by the Father is answered 
 by the Son. This instance comes, therefore, 
 under the more general law that, "whatso- 
 ever things he {the Father) doeth, these also 
 doeth the Son likewise (in like -manner.) 
 (5:19). And (2) that there is no promise of 
 answers to prayer, unless those who offer it 
 are in union with Christ and ask according to 
 his will. Hence the need of divine grace in 
 prayer, and the preciousness of the apostle's 
 testimony : "Likewise the Spirit also helpeth 
 our infirmities: for we know not what we 
 should pray for as we ought; but the Spirit 
 itself maketh intercession for us, with groan- 
 ingsvvhich cannot be uttered" (Rom.8:26); that 
 is to say, the Spirit moves believers in Christ 
 to pray for what is pleasing to God, and, 
 through their acceptable praying, interposes 
 in their behalf. A Christian, then, need not 
 be troubled by the thought that he assumes, 
 in prayer, to enlighten and direct the All- 
 wise. His prayers will never be answered by 
 the gift of what he asks, unless that gift can 
 be conferred in harmony with the principles 
 of the holiest and best moral government. 
 Acceptable prayer is not, therefore, dictato- 
 rial, but humble, trustful, and ready to bow 
 to the divine will. This, however, is no 
 denial of the efficacy of prayer. Admitting 
 all this, it is still true that prayer is a real 
 antecedent and occasion of blessing from God, 
 a, reason for the bestowment of gifts that 
 would otherwise be withheld. Prayer is not 
 omnipotent, but it is an appeal of weakness 
 to omnipotence, of a dependent child to an 
 independent and Almighty Father, and its 
 request will be granted, if love permits. 
 For what are men better than sheep or goats, 
 That nourish a blind life within the brain. 
 If, knowing God, they lift not hands of prayer 
 Both for themselves and those who call them friends? 
 For so the whole round earth is every way 
 Bound by gold chains about the feet of God. 
 
 Observe, also, the two ends or purposes for 
 which Jesus chose and appointed his dis- 
 ciples — (1 ) " That ye should go and bring forth 
 fruit," etc., and (2) "That whatsover ye shall 
 ask of the Father in my name, he may give it 
 you." Are these ends — bearing spiritual 
 fruit and obtaining answers to prayer — repre- 
 sented by Christ as co-ordinate? or, as de- 
 pendent, the former upon the latter, or, the 
 latter upon the former? or, as closely con- 
 nected and mutually dependent? There is 
 no grammatical objection to any one of 
 these views, but the last seems to us prefer- 
 able to either of the others. So interde- 
 pendent are Christian life and Christian 
 prayer, so necessary- is fruit bearing to prayer, 
 and prayer to fruit bearing, that the mind 
 naturally associates them together as things 
 inseparable and equally important. 
 
 17. These things I command you, etc. 
 The expression, these things, cannot refer 
 to the single precept that follows ; but it may 
 naturally refer to the precepts directly or in- 
 directly given in ver. 0-16, such as: "abide 
 in my love," "keep my , commandments," 
 "love one another, even as I have loved 
 you," 'bear fruit," and "offer prayer in \^^y 
 name." And, if this be the correct interpret- 
 ation, Jesus declares that his purpose in giv- 
 ing these precepts is, that ye [may) love one 
 another. So important is brotherly' love in 
 the mind of Christ, that he devotes a consid- 
 erable part of these last moments with his 
 disciples to an explanation of the duty and 
 privilege of such love. This verse is a re- 
 sumption of what has been said before, and 
 an introduction to what follows. 
 
 18-25. Hatred of the World to the 
 Disciples of Christ, Because of its 
 Hatred to Christ, axd to His Father. 
 
 18. If the world hate you. A supposi- 
 tion according to fact, though the disciples 
 themselves had as yet experienced very little 
 of that hatred. But the time was soon to 
 come when, in the absence of their Master, 
 that hatred would be turned fiercely against 
 them. Of course, the world, is the unbe- 
 lieving, un.spiritual mass of mankind, so des- 
 
Ch. XV.] 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 305 
 
 19 " If' ye were of the world, the world would love his 
 own; but ' because ye are not of the world, but I have 
 chosen you out of the world, therefore the world 
 hateth you. 
 
 20 Remember the word that I said unto you, "The 
 servant is not greater than his lord. If they have 
 persecuted nie, they will also persecute you; ''if 
 they have kept my saying, they will keep yours 
 also. 
 
 19 that it hath hated me before il haled you. If ye were 
 of the world, the world would love its own: but be- 
 cause ye are not of the world, but 1 clio.se you out 
 
 20 of the world, therefore the world hateth you. Ke- 
 niember tlie word that I said unto you, A 'servant 
 is not greater than his lord. If they persecuted me, 
 they will also persecute you ; if they kept my word. 
 
 a 1 John 4:5 b eh. 17: 14 e Matt. 10: 24; Luke 6 : 40; ch. 13: 16 d Ezek. 3: 7. 1 Gr. bondservant. 
 
 ignated from the majority. Ye know (or, 
 knoiv) that it hated (rather, hath hated) me 
 before it hated you. The Greek word 
 transhited know (ytuwcr/cere), has the same 
 form in the present indicative and impera- 
 tive; but in this place it is probable impera- 
 tive. (Conip. "Kemember," in ver. 20). The 
 disciples were not yet fully aware of the 
 deadly hate that was even now seeking the 
 life of their Lord. Hath hated— perfect 
 tense, to denote enduring enmity. It was no 
 sudden, effervescent passion, but a deep-seated, 
 inveterate jealousy and bitterness of spirit 
 against the Holy One of God that he saw in 
 the hearts of men, and that was so soon to 
 find expression in their conduct. Before it 
 hated you — WteraUy , Jirst of you. Compare 
 1 : 15, where the same idiom occurs. It may 
 imply that he was "first" hated, and that 
 they were related to him in the matter spoken 
 of, that he was temporally and causally head 
 of the series to which they also belonged. 
 Weiss rejects this view, and says that "after 
 this example the hatred of the world should 
 be nothing new, surprising, or stumbling to 
 them." We incline to the view first men- 
 tioned. 
 
 19. If ye were of the world. To be of 
 the Avorld, is to belong to it in character and 
 conduct, to partake of its spirit, and yield to 
 its influence. (Comp. 17: 14, 16; 1 John 4: 5; 
 John 8: 44; 1 John 3: 8, 10, and Grimm " IST. 
 T. Lexicon," s. v. ei/oti, 3. d). The AVorld 
 would love his (its) own. Not merely be- 
 cause everywhere "like rejoices in like" 
 (Euth., Zig. ), but also, because in sinful men, 
 selfishness reigns, and leads them to favor 
 those who are on their side. As Weiss re- 
 marks, the language of Jesus presupposes 
 that self-love is characteristic of the world. 
 Hence there is said to be a kind of honor 
 among thieves. They will befriend those 
 whom it is their interest to befriend. Even 
 the most self-seeking will speak well of men 
 who strengthen their hands or flatter their 
 
 vanity. But because ye are not of the 
 world — in the sense explained above, but I 
 have chosen (chose) you out of the Avorld. 
 
 Here, certainly', whatever may be thouglit 
 of the expression, "but I chose you," 
 in verse 16, the choice spoken of is not the 
 election to the apostolic office, but the election 
 to discipleship and salvation, to spiritual and 
 eternal life ; for the choice, or election, is one 
 by which they were separated from the 
 world, and not from the general body of 
 disciples. "It is dogmatic artifice," says 
 Weiss, "if Luthardt, and Ebrard after Hof- 
 mann, assert that there is no reference in this 
 language to others who are not chosen, but 
 only to the collection of a holy band, since 
 the expression, 'out of the world,' points di- 
 rectly to the community to which they had 
 belonged, and the rest of whose members 
 remain what they were, because not chosen, 
 as these. But it by no means follows that 
 this choice was made according to a decretum 
 absolutum, and not in view of something 
 which made them suitable for his purposes." 
 It may be added, that the word chose, both 
 here and in verse 16, represents a Greek verb 
 in the middle voice, and may be translated, 
 strictly, "chose for myself." Therefore the 
 Avorld hateth you. Therefore — i. e., on 
 account of this. The disciples must not be 
 surprised at the world's hatred ; for it is due 
 to the great fact that they are no longer at 
 one with it in aim or spirit, in creed or con- 
 duct; they have been called out of it, and 
 now belong to a kingdom "not of this world." 
 In union with Christ, they must of necessity 
 share his destiny as one rejected by the world. 
 And surely this thought will be a comfort to 
 them whenever they are made to suffer by 
 the world's hatred. 
 
 20. Remember the word, etc. Probably 
 he intends to recall what he had said to them 
 earlier in the evening, for another purpose 
 (see 13: 16); for the same truth maj' be per- 
 tinent in more than one connection. The fact 
 
 U 
 
306 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 [Ch. XV. 
 
 21 But ".tH these things will they do unto you for | 21 they will keep yours also. But all these things will 
 my name's sake, because they know not him that sent they do unto you for my name's sake, because they 
 me. I 
 
 aMatt. 10:22;24:9;ch. 16: 3. 
 
 that the servant is not greater than his Master, I 
 is a good reason why he ought cheerfully to 
 perform any task, however lowly, which his 
 Master is willing to perform ; and the same 
 fact is an equally' good reason why he should 
 expect that men who will maltreat his Master, 
 will not hesitate to maltreat him, if faithful 
 to that Master. But the words of Christ on 
 another occasion, when lie sent forth the 
 twelve on a brief mission to the lost sheep of 
 the house of Israel, are not only identical 
 with these, but were employed to teach the 
 same lesson. (See Matt. 10: 24, sq.). If they 
 have persecuted me, they will also per- 
 secute you. Have is to be omitted before 
 persecuted. This is only another and 
 stronger statement of the case presented in 
 the foregoing verse ; for whom the world 
 hates it will find means to persecute. But it 
 is interesting to observe that Jesus here speaks 
 of his disciples as truly devoted to him, and 
 as distinct from the world, by virtue of their 
 moral affinity to him. For merely nominal 
 disciples are in little danger of persecution. 
 Only those who are true to their Lord are 
 likely to suffer from the malignity of his foes. 
 If they have (omit have) kept my saying, 
 they will keep yours also. A plain as- 
 sumption that their word would be substan- 
 tially the same as his— a word giving the 
 same view of him and of his spiritual reign 
 which he had so patiently endeavored to in- 
 still into their minds, but which they had 
 proved so incapable of receiving until this 
 hour. Yet they were to receive it, as the 
 Saviour knew, with the gift of the Spirit at 
 the first Pentecost after his resurrection, and 
 were to preach it so purely that God would 
 confirm their message by signs following. 
 Moreover, this saying of Jesus has been veri- 
 fied by the entire history of the Christian re- 
 ligion. Those who have reverenced the word 
 of Christ as holy and true, have also, with few 
 exceptions, reverenced the word of the 
 apostles as holy and true. And those who 
 have rejected the divine authority of the 
 apostles' teaching, have also, sooner or later, 
 rejected that of Christ's teaching in the 
 Gospels. 
 
 21. But all these things will they do 
 unto you for my name's sake. Notice (1) 
 that Jesus takes for granted the truth of the 
 former of the two alternatives mentioned by 
 him in the last part of verse 20, and means by 
 the expression, all these things, persecution 
 and other manifestations of hatred. (2) That 
 he points out the deepest reason for this hatred 
 and persecution of his disciples. Because the 
 world hates the name of Jesus Christ — i. e., the 
 character and work represented by that name, 
 it will seek to vex and destroy those who honor 
 and worship it. (See Acts 4: 17; 9 : 14; 26: 9.) 
 That Jesus claimed to be "the Son of God" 
 was counted blasphemy bj' the Sanhedrin, 
 and was the ostensible reason for his condem- 
 nation ; but, in reality-, his holy and unworldly 
 spirit, together with the aim and character of 
 his work, was a disappointment to their ex- 
 pectations, a rebuke to their pride, and a con- 
 demnation ot their life, which filled them 
 with wrath. (3) That this is no new doctrine 
 of Jesus. He had suggested the same thing 
 in his Sermon on the Mount: "Blessed are 
 ye when men shall revile you, and persecute 
 you, and shall say all manner of evil against 
 you fiilsely, for my sake." (Matt. 5: ii.) Ar.d it 
 is certainly safe to presume that Jesus, by 
 suggesting this, intended not only to show his 
 disciples the ineviiableness of persecution, but 
 to furnish them also with comfort in bearing 
 it. "Kejoice, and be exceeding glad: for 
 great is your reward in heaven : for so perse- 
 cuted they the prophets which were before 
 3'ou." (Matt. 5:12.) The assurance that they 
 were suflTering for the name of Christ, whom 
 they adored as their Saviour, and that they 
 were but drinking the cup which he had 
 drained before (Matt. 20 : 22), v/ould be their great- 
 est consolation in the dungeon, or on the 
 cross. Because they know not him that 
 sent me. Thus Jesus attributes the hostility 
 which was seeking his life, and which would 
 seek that of his friends, to ignorance of God. 
 And by ignorance of God is meant want of 
 love to his character. For to know God, in 
 the highest and only adequate sense, is to love 
 him. Not to love him, is to be ignorant of 
 him. If the Jews had understood and ap- 
 
Ch. XV.] 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 307 
 
 22 "If I had not come and spoken unto them, they 
 had not had sin: 'but now they have no cloke for their 
 sin. 
 
 23 ' He that hateth nie hateth my Father also. 
 
 24 If I had not done among theiu ''tlie works which 
 none other man did, tliey had not had sin : but now 
 have they both seen and hated both me and my 
 Father. 
 
 22 know not him that sent me. If I had not come and 
 
 spoken unto them, they had not had sin: but now 
 
 2:5 they liave no excuse for tlieir sin. He that hateth 
 
 24 me hateth my Father also. If I had not done among 
 
 them the works which none other did, they had 
 
 not had sin : but now have they both seen and 
 
 ach. 9: 41 ft Rom. 1:20; James 4 : 16 elJobn2: 23 d cb. 3: 2; 7:31; 9: 32. 
 
 preciated the God of their fathers, they would 
 have been won to Christ, and would have seen 
 in him the Son of the Highest, the image of 
 the invisible God. The same is true of those 
 to whom the gospel is preached. A rejection 
 of Christ, is a rejection of the Father who 
 sent him ; and a rejection of the Father is due 
 to a want of love. 
 
 23. If I had not come and spoken unto 
 them, they had not had sin. The coming 
 here referred to, is the coming from heaven, 
 by way of the incarnation. It was the condi- 
 tion of Christ's speaking to men, and reveal- 
 ing to them the Father with unprecedented 
 clearness. Jesus here affirms that the sin of 
 the world i.s without excuse, because of his 
 teaching and miracles, (ver. 22. 24.) AH previ- 
 ous revelations were starlight when compared 
 with the noonday brightness of the one made 
 by Christ, and therefore, without this, the 
 Jews would have been comparatively innocent. 
 For the guilt of rejecting God is always in 
 proportion to the means of knowledge fur- 
 nished. To have sin, means to be a sinner; 
 in other words, it is to have sinned, and hence 
 to be guilty of sin. Sin is conceived of as be- 
 longing to the sinner, just as truly as a wound, 
 or a sense of pain belongs to one who has it. 
 (Comp. 19: 11; 1 John 1:8.) Bearing sin is 
 a similar expression ; for the guilt of it is con- 
 ceived of as resting upon the wrong-doer, and 
 exposing him to just punishment. (Num.9: vi; u: 
 34; 18: 22.) Of course, the second clause, they 
 had not had sin, must be taken in a quali- 
 fied, not an absolute sense. Their sin would, 
 in that case, have been as nothing compared 
 with what it now is. But now they have no 
 cloke (/)r, excuse) for their sin. As knowl- 
 edge, and, indeed, knowledge in its purest 
 form and greatest spiritual beauty, has been 
 placed within their reach, and they have re- 
 fused to welcome it, their sin is without excuse. 
 "To him that knoweth to do good, and doeth 
 it not, to him it is sin." (James4:i7.) Observe 
 (1) that ignorance may sometimes be a plausi- 
 ble or partial excuse for evil conduct, though 
 
 it is never, perhaps, a perfectly sufficient one. 
 (Comp. 1 Tim. 1 : 13; Acts 17: 80; 1 Pet. 1: 
 14.) (2) That this ignorance must be due to a 
 lack of the means of knowledge, as well as of 
 knowledge itself, or it will be of no avail as an 
 apology for wrong-doing. Only in ca.se it 
 were absolute, involuntary, and wholly due 
 to the providence of God, would it be a valid 
 excuse for evil conduct. And such ignorance 
 of duty does not probably anywhere exist 
 (comp. Rom. 1: 19, sq.; 2: 12-15); certainly 
 it did not prevail among the Jews in Christ's 
 day. 
 
 23. He that hateth me hateth my 
 Father also. The Son is one with the 
 Father, is the image of the Father, is the 
 clearest possible revelation of the Father, and, 
 indeed, as clear a revelation of the Father as 
 of himself^the Son. And he is this down 
 to the present hour, by his teaching and per- 
 sonal bearing; by the divine purit3' and au- 
 thority; by the soul-awakening and soul- 
 illuminating power of his words and life. 
 But he knows himself to be hated— steadily, 
 deeply, and even bitterly hated — by many of 
 the people, and in this hour of most solemn 
 and hol^' feeling, he deliberatelj- affirms that 
 hatred of himself is hatred of his Father — 
 that hatred of the Son of God is hatred of 
 God. And if it was so then, is it not so now? 
 
 24. If I had not done among them the 
 works which none other man did. The 
 mighty works of Jesus, viewed in all their 
 circumstances and characteristics, were more 
 evidently and indisputably divine than any 
 works ever performed among men. They 
 were "signs" which ought to have convinced 
 the most cautious and conservative that God 
 was with him. (Comp. 3: 2; 9: 30-33.) Judged 
 by them, as well as by his teaching, Jesus 
 ought to have been welcomed as the long ex- 
 pected Messiah and Holy One of God («: 69), 
 instead of being accused of serving Beelze- 
 bub, and blaspheming Jehovah. Profoundly 
 as they were disappointed in their expecta- 
 tions of a civil ruler, and shocked as they 
 
808 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 [Ch. XV. 
 
 25 But this Cometh to pass, that the word might be | 25 hated both me and my Father. But this eometh to 
 
 fultilled that is written in their law, " They hated me 
 without a cause. 
 
 2t) ' But when the Comforter is come, whom I will 
 send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, 
 ■which proceedeth from the Father, «he shall testify of 
 me: 
 
 pass, that the word may be lultilled that is writteo 
 26 in their law. They hated me without a cause. But 
 when the i Comforter is come, whom I will send 
 unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, 
 who -proceedeth from the Father, he shall bear 
 
 a Ps. 35 : 19 ; 
 
 .6 Luke 24: 49; ch. 14: 17, 26; 16: 7, 13; Acta 2: 33 c 1 John 5: 
 
 dete .... 2 Or. goeth forth /rotn. 
 
 6. 1 Oi-, Advocate. Or, Helper. Gr. fara- 
 
 were by his disregard of their Sabbath 
 scruples, and provoked as they were by his 
 outspoken condemnation of their hypocrisy, 
 they ougiit to have received the holy and self- 
 evidencing truth which he proclaimed with 
 divine authority, and to have been convinced 
 by the miracles which he wrought. But they 
 were filled with a deep moral enmity to God, 
 which evidence could not overcome. Their 
 unbelief was a matter of the heart, and was, 
 therefore, proof against reason. How many 
 in every age have been like them ! The 
 world did not come to an end with the de- 
 struction of Jerusalem. But noAV have 
 they both seen and hated both me and 
 my Father. Seen — i. e., in and by the 
 works of which he is speaking. These works 
 were no less a revelation of his Father than 
 of himself. They "revealed outwardly the 
 maj'^sty and will of God, and of Christ, as 
 the representative of God." — Westcott. "With 
 this language may be compared that of 14: 9: 
 " He that hath seen me hath seen the Father " 
 25. But this Cometh to pass, that the 
 word mi&rht (or, ?nny) be fulfilled that is 
 written in their law, They hated me 
 Avithout a cause. The ellipsis after but, is 
 properly filled, we believe, with the words, 
 this Cometh to pass. But why an ellipsis 
 here, and in 13: 18? Weis^s suggests that we 
 "may assume a painful nposiopesis, in which 
 Jesus forbears to declare what it was that 
 took place, in order that the prophecy might 
 be fulfilled." Of course Jesus does not mean 
 that the world hated him with a view to ful- 
 filling a prediction of the Scripture, or that 
 God had either moved or permitted the world 
 to hate him in order to thus fulfill a pro- 
 phecy of Scripture. But God made the pre- 
 diction because he foresaw the events which it 
 described, and because he would have his peo- 
 ple know that he foresaw these events, and so 
 was not taken with surprise by them. There 
 was, therefore, a good end accomplished by 
 the fulfillment of these predictions — an end 
 which God had in view when he made them, 
 
 an end which the Saviour recognized as ac- 
 complished by them. And by calling atten- 
 tion to the fact that, in a comprehensive 
 sense, God's knowledge and plan of govern- 
 ment took into account from the beginning 
 all these dark and perplexing events, Jesus 
 removes doubt from the mind of his disciples. 
 The emphatic words of the quotation are, 
 probably, the last, without a cause. (Comp. 
 vor. 22, 24). Their enmity to Christ was 
 gratuitous, undeserved, unprovoked. The 
 quotation is thought to be from Ps. 69: 4. 
 (Comp. Ps. 35: 19). In his introduction to 
 this Psalm, Perowne says: " Enough, how- 
 ever, remains to justify the Messianic sense 
 of the Psalm, provided our interpretation be 
 fair and sober. The broa-.l principle laid 
 down in the introduction to the Seventy- 
 second Psalm applies here. The history of 
 prophets and holy men of old is a typical 
 history. They were, it may be said, repre- 
 sentative men, suflfering and hoping, not for 
 themselves only, but for the nation whom 
 thej' represented. In their sufferings they 
 were feeble and transient images of the Great 
 Sufllorer, who by his suflTerings accomplished 
 man's redemption." And on the fourth 
 verse, as cited in part hy Jesus, he remarks: 
 "The manner of citation plainly shows how 
 we are to understand that it might be fulfilled 
 {'iva TrAi/piiSj;) ; what was true, in some sense, 
 even of the sufl^ering Israelite under the law, 
 was still more true of Him in whom was no 
 sin, and whom, therefore, his enemies did 
 indeed hate without cause." And the Spirit 
 of God foresaw the antitype in the type. 
 Observe that the Psalms are evidently em- 
 braced in their law, as the words aye here 
 used. The whole Old Testament was, in fact, 
 regarded by the Jews as their law, in so for 
 as it was their rule of duty towards God and 
 man. Jesus does not seem to call it their 
 laAV by way of contrast with a different law 
 now binding on his followers, but simply as a 
 law which they recognized as divine. 
 26. But when the Comforter {Advocate) 
 
Ch. XV.] 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 309 
 
 27 And "ye also shall bear witness, because 'ye have 1 27 witness of me: ' and ye also bear witness, because 
 been with liie from the beginning. | ye have been with me from the beginning. 
 
 a Luke 24 : 48 ; Acts 1 : S, n, 22 ; 2 : 32 ; 3 : 15 ; 4 : 20, 33 ; 5 : 32 ; 10 : 3!» ; 13 : 31 ; 1 Pet. 5 : I ; 2 Pet. 1 : 16. . 
 
 1 Oi', and bear ye also witneta. 
 
 .b Luke 1:2; 1 Jubu I: 1, 2.- 
 
 is come, etc. The word but should prob- 
 ably be omitted. Notice (1) that the pur- 
 pose for which the Spirit of truth is here said 
 to come to the disciples, is to bear witness con- 
 cerning Christ. The hatred of the world is 
 not to prevail against Jesus and his followers, 
 by putting them to silence after putting him 
 to death, but his honor and cause are to be 
 maintained by the Divine Advocate, who is to 
 take his own place with the disciples. (2) That 
 Jesus himself engages to send this Advocate 
 and Witness from the Father; for the pro- 
 noun I is emphatic, as if he had said in 
 English, "Whom I myself will send to you," 
 etc. Twice before he has claimed a part in 
 this sending of the Paraclete, first, by saying, 
 "I — i. e., I myself will pray the Father, and 
 he shall give you another Comforter, (Advo- 
 cate)"' (14:16); and, secondly, by speaking of 
 the Spirit as One "whom the Father will 
 send in my name" (i*: 26); but here he makes 
 his own authority more prominent, though in 
 perfect harmony with his claim to be one 
 with the Father in all action for the salvation 
 of men. (Comp. 5: 19sq. ; 6: 44; 12: 32; 10: 
 28-30). (3) That the Advocate is to come 
 from the Father — i. e., from with the 
 Father, even as he is characterized as One 
 "who proceedeth from with the Father." 
 Westcott remarks: "The preposition (n-apa) 
 which is used in both clauses, expresses, prop- 
 erly, position ('from the side of), and not 
 source (««, 'out of')." There is, therefore, no 
 sufficient basis in the expression, "which pro- 
 ceedeth from the Father," for the doctrine of 
 the eternal Procession of the Spirit from the 
 Father. Especially important is it, as West- 
 cott has noted, "that the Greek Fathers who 
 apply this passage to the eternal Procession 
 instinctively substitute 'out of («"«) for 'from' 
 (irapa) in their application of it." Why then 
 is the present tense employed in this clause? 
 or why is this clause added to the promise, 
 I will send, etc. ? We answer, to connect 
 the working of the Spirit in every age or dis- 
 pensation with the Father's will. And 
 this appears to be the view of Weiss (in 
 Meyer). He says that the word "proceedeth" 
 (eicjropeueTai), "expressing action in a general 
 
 way, without temporal limits, does not refer 
 to the essence of the Spirit (Lucke), or to the 
 imminent relation of the divine subsistences 
 (Stier, Godet) . . but, according to the con- 
 text, to the eft'ective communication from the 
 Father ad extra, through which, in every 
 case that occurs, the Spirit is received." And 
 Westcott says again : "The use of the present 
 (proceedeth), in contrast with the future (/ 
 will send), brings out the truth that the mis- 
 sion of the Spirit consequent on the exalta- 
 tion of the Son, was the consummation of his 
 earlier working in the world." It is certainly 
 rash to affirm that this language has any 
 direct reference to the inner and essential re- 
 lations of the Godhead. It shows, however, 
 that in the economy of grace, the work of the 
 Son and of the Spirit cannot be regarded as 
 separate from that of the Father. (4) That 
 the work of the Paraclete in bearing witness 
 respecting Christ, is to be effected in and 
 through his disciples — unless, perhaps, the 
 testimony of miracles be regarded as external 
 to them, though connected with their faith 
 and confirmatory of their mission and word. 
 In support of this statement, we appeal to the 
 words, "whom I will send imto 2/o?<," and 
 to the fact that the Spirit was not only to 
 quicken the memory of the disciples as to 
 what Jesus had taught them, but was also to 
 teach them himself, and guide them into all 
 the truth (i4:26; i6:i6sq). Besides, as a matter 
 of history, it appears that the Spirit's witness 
 concerning Christ has always been closely 
 connected with that of the apostles in preach- 
 ing, or the written word. The experience of 
 Christian men under the influence of the 
 Spirit is dependent on the testimony of Scrip- 
 ture as to the life of Christ. Hence the im- 
 portance of the next verse. 
 
 27. And .ye also shall bear witness. 
 Bear witness, instead of shall bear wit- 
 ness, appears to be the true reading in this 
 place. But to translate it as an imperative 
 (though the form allows this) breaks the con- 
 nection and mars the harmony of the passage. 
 It is better to account for the present indica- 
 tive by supposing that Jesus would recognize, 
 with all possible honor, their actual relation 
 
310 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 [Ch. XVI. 
 
 CHAPTEK XVI. 
 
 THESE things have I spoken unto you, that ye " should 
 not be oilendefl. 
 2 'They shall put you out of the synagogues: yea, 
 the time cometh, =lhat whosoever killeth you will think 
 that he doeth God service. 
 
 1 These things have I spoken unto you, that ye 
 
 2 should not be made to stumble. They shall put 
 you out of the synagogues: yea, the hour cometh, 
 that whosoever killeth you shall think that he 
 
 o Malt. 11: 6; 24: 10; 26: 31 b ch. 9 : 22, 34; 12: 42 c Acls 8:1; 9:1; 26: 9, 10. 11. 
 
 to him. For the eleven were loyal, though 
 weak. They had often testified of the wisdom 
 and power of their Master, and they were 
 now ready to repeat their testimony. Jesus 
 therefore describes them as doing what they 
 have done, are prepared to do, and will spend 
 their lives in doing. "Ye, too, are my wit- 
 nesses," is the purport of his language. Be- 
 cause ye have been (rather, are) with me 
 from the beginning. A case of brevilo- 
 quence, meaning, "Ye are now, and have 
 been, from the beginning of my public work, 
 with me." (Comp. Lukel:2; Acts 1:22; 
 and John 8: 44; Acts 26: 4). Godet remarks: 
 "The apostles will not be mere passive in- 
 struments of the Spirit. They will continue 
 to be free and personal agents. Along with 
 the action of the Spirit they will have their 
 special part to do in bearing testimony. For 
 they possess a treasure which is their own, 
 and which the Spirit could not have commu- 
 nicated to them — their historical knowledge 
 of the ministry of Jesus from its origin even 
 to its end. The apostles were to be the wit- 
 nesses of the historic Christ. But the Spirit 
 does not teach the facts of history ; he unfolds 
 its true meaning. The apostolic testimony, 
 and the testimony of the Spirit, form, there- 
 fore, a single act, but they contribute each a 
 different element — one the historic narrative, 
 the other its internal evidence and victorious 
 force." If Godet means to deny the agency 
 of the Spirit in quickening the memory of 
 the apostles, his denial is nullified by the ex- 
 press declaration of Christ (u: 26) ; but if he 
 only means that the Holy Spirit did not 
 reveal to them historic facts in the life of 
 Christ which they had never learned by 
 natural means, by sight or hearing, his state- 
 ment may be correct. At all events, it directs 
 us to what may be called the distinctive ele- 
 ments of the double testimony of the Spirit 
 and the apostles. 
 
 Ch. 16 : 1-4. Keligious Persecution 
 Because of the World's Hatred, Gra- 
 ciously Foretold. 
 
 1. These things have I spoken nnto 
 you. These things, may compri.se all that 
 is recorded in the preceding chapter, but 
 especially in the last part of it. (ver. 16-27). 
 That ye should not be offended, (better, 
 as in Rev. Ver., that ye may not be made to 
 stumble). By forewarning them of the inex- 
 cusable ho.stilty of "the world" — a hostility' 
 directed against Jehov&h and his Anointed 
 (Ps. 2: 2), even when it is aimed at them — Jesus 
 seeks to prepare them for what is to come, and 
 so to prevent them from falling into doubt or 
 despair. For the rejection of the gospel by 
 the bulk of the Jewish nation, was sure to 
 prove one of the sorest trials of their faith. 
 If the confidence of the elect in him could be 
 broken by anything, it would be broken by 
 the utter foilureof the chosen people to recog- 
 nize their King, and by their bitter enmity to 
 him as an alleged impostor and blasphemer. 
 For the use of the word (o-KafSaXt^eiv), to cause 
 to stumble, see Matt. 5: 29, 30; 11: 6; John 
 6: 61 ; and Matt. 13: 21, compared with Luke 
 8: 13. In the New Testament it never de- 
 notes causing one to stumble or fall, physi- 
 cally, but always morally; in other words, it 
 is always used in a tropical sense, meaning, to 
 cause one to fall into sin, apostasy, or the like. 
 
 2. They shall (better, tvill), put you out 
 of the synagogue. See Note on this form 
 of excommunication at 9: 22. "And this, 
 which you might naturally anticipate, if the 
 people reject the gospel, is not the worst; 
 '^ but on hour cometh." This gives the sense 
 more exactly than the version, Yea, tlie 
 time, etc. For but (aXAo) "introduces the 
 contrast of a much worse, a bloody issue." — 
 Weiss. If no attempt is made to supply (as 
 above) the unexpressed thought which ac- 
 counts for the contrast expressed by this con- 
 nective, the customary version, yea, is the 
 best approximate rendering of the original. 
 (See Winer, p. 451). That whosoever 
 killeth you, etc. What must be said of the 
 conjunction that (IVa)? Does it retain in this 
 place the idea of purpose or end? So Winer 
 believes (p. 830:) "<Ae time is come in order 
 
Ch. XVI.] 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 311 
 
 3 Aud "these things will they do. unto you, because 
 they have not known the Father, nor uie. 
 
 4 But 'these things have I told you, that when the 
 time shall come, ye luay remember that I told you of 
 them. And "these things I said not uuto you at the 
 beginning, because I was with you. 
 
 3 offereth service unto God. And these things will 
 they do, because they have not known the Father, 
 
 4 nor me. But these things have I .'^ixikeri unto you, 
 that when their hour is come, ye may remember 
 them, how that I told you. And 'these things 1 said 
 not unto you from thi; beginning, because I was with 
 
 : 21; Rom. 10: 2 ; 1 Cor. 2: 8; 1 Tim. 1: 13 b ch. i:) : 19; U: 29 c See Malt. 9: 15. 
 
 ^o— that is, the time appointed for the pur- 
 pcse, that, etc." So, also, Mej'er and Weiss. 
 "Wliat will happen in the ' hour,' is regarded 
 as the object of its coming." In other words, 
 this dreadful violence in persecuting the dis- 
 ciples of Christ will have its day and hour, a 
 period provided for it in the holy plan of 
 God.i 
 
 By saj'ing 'whosoever — every one, etc., 
 Jesus declares that the deadly- persecutions to 
 be anticipated by his followers would be 
 animated by religious fanaticism, by an 
 opinion on the part of those who should con- 
 duct them, that killing the servants of Christ 
 is rendering a strictly religious service to God, 
 (like offering an appointed sacrifice). So, 
 then, an impure and ignorant zeal of God 
 would embitter the hearts of men against his 
 most faithful servants. (Comp. Acts 26: 9; 
 Gal. 1: 13 sq). Many commentators refer, in 
 illustration of Christ's saying, to the Midrash 
 on Num. 20: 12, (where Phinehas is said to 
 have made an atonement for the children of 
 Israel): "Was this said because he offered 
 an offering (Korban) ? No; but to teach them 
 that every one who sheds the blood of the 
 wicked is as he that offereth an offering." See 
 also, the view of heathen writers, in Tacitus, 
 "Ann." XV. 44; and Suetoniu.s, "Nero," 16. 
 Alas, the day has not yet dawned, when re- 
 ligious persecution, even unto death, is seen 
 by all to be evil. 
 
 3. And these things will they do unto 
 you (omit unto you), because they have 
 not known the Father, nor me. Perhaps 
 
 1 The writer is indebted to Dr. Broadus for the fol- 
 lowing Note: "An hour is coming, and has come, 
 for you to be scattered, etc. I think this is a pretty 
 exact rendering. It does not luean that an hour 
 has come for that purpose, but that an hour suited and 
 appointed for that has arrived. There are in tliis Gos- 
 pel many delicate non-final uses of ['i-va). Meyer insists 
 on making them all strictly final, which is often ex- 
 tremely awkward and forced, and Winer only half 
 extricated himself from that notion. It is frequently 
 very ditiicult to render, or to determine, the exact 
 shade of meaning in such cases, but that the (iVa) is 
 very often not final is certain." 
 
 the stricter rendering, becau&e they knew not, 
 would be justified in this case by supposing 
 that the mind of Jesus passes forward to the 
 time of persecution (will they do), and from 
 that point views the failure to recognize the 
 Father and Christ as something already- com- 
 plete in the past. But with either translation 
 the principal thought of this clause remains 
 the same. The knew not; or, have not 
 known, is not mentioned by way of e.xcu.se 
 for their conduct. It is rather a part of their 
 sin, but a part which accounts for the rest. 
 That when light came into the world, they 
 loved darkness rather than light (s: i9), was in 
 a high degree sinful, and was the occasion of 
 other sin, even the unrelenting severity with 
 which they tried to exterminate those who 
 were willing to walk in the light. How evi- 
 dent it is that one who supposes God to be 
 pleased with religious persecution, has no 
 correct view of his character! How clear 
 that one who imagines Jesus Christ to be 
 pleased with such a use of force and violence, 
 is a stranger to his love ! Yet how uniformly 
 and fiercely have the persecutors of good men 
 claimed that the3'- were doing their terrible 
 work for the Lord's sake! Is there not 
 danger of palliating their sin, by the plea 
 that they were doing what they supposed to 
 be right? Was not the light offered to their 
 minds? And did they not reject it? With 
 the knowledge which had been brought to 
 mankind by the Saviour, they had no excuse 
 for being ignorant of the true God, or for per- 
 secuting his servants. 
 
 4. But these things have I told you (or, 
 spoken unto you). TJie word but is most 
 naturally explained as denoting a sharp in- 
 terruption of the account of what the v;orld 
 would do, and a recurrence to the thought of 
 verse 1 : But— to say no more of this— these 
 things, etc. That when the time shall 
 come (lit., their hour is co7ne). Their hour 
 is the hour of these events, the time when 
 they will come to pass. Ye may remember 
 that I told you of them. The best sup- 
 ported text reads : Ye may remember them, 
 
312 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 [Ch. XVI. 
 
 that I myself told you. Few things would be 
 more comforting to the disciples in times of 
 distress, produced \>y the hatred of men, than 
 a remembrance of Christ's own prediction of 
 the events by which they were distressed — a 
 prediction uttered in the immediate presence 
 of his agony in the garden ! That he foresaw 
 it all, that he told them of it in love, that 
 their suffering was for him, and that he had 
 suffered far more for them — all this would 
 give them patience and strength. And these 
 things I said not unto you at (rather, from) 
 the beginning, because I Avas with you. 
 Observe, (1) that Jesus does not deny having 
 spoken of these things before the present 
 hour; he simply denies having spoken of 
 them to his disciples from the beginning of 
 his public ministry. This denial is not incon- 
 sistent with an occasional reference in the 
 course of his ministry to the sufferings which 
 they would be called to bear. "The future 
 fate of the disciples had not been unfolded 
 little by little in unbroken order as a neces- 
 sary consequence of their relation to Christ. 
 Here and there it had been indicated before, 
 but now it was shown in its essential relation 
 to their faith."— Westcott. (2) That while 
 the S3'noptists appear to affirm that Jesus 
 spoke previously on one occasion with much 
 fullness of the sufferings which would over- 
 take the disciples, of the hatred of the world 
 as the source of those sufferings, and of the 
 name of Christ as the occasion of that hatred, 
 they do not say that he spoke with the same 
 fullness (as here) of the Holy Spirit as their 
 Teacher and Helper in time to come. (See 
 Matt. 5: 10; 10: 16, sq. ; Luke 6: 22, .«q.) 
 " 'These things,' in this verse," says Watkins 
 (comp. ver. 3 and 1, and chap. 15: 21), " refers 
 to the full account he has given them of the 
 world's hatred and the principles lying at the 
 foot of it, and the manner in which it was 
 to be met by the Spirit's witness and their 
 witness of him." On the other hand, Weiss 
 maintains (1) that Matthew inserts in Christ's 
 address to the twelve (Matt, lo), predictions as 
 to their future sufferings through persecution 
 which, as Luke 12 proves, were not uttered, 
 at that time, the Evangelist bringing together 
 in that address the substance of what Jesus 
 had said at different times on the matter re- 
 ferred to. (2) That John also appears to have 
 brought together in this section, either con- 
 
 sciously or unconsciously, whatever according 
 to his recollection Jesus had foretold concern- 
 ing the destiny of his disciples in the world. 
 In proof of this he remarks: "Therefore in 
 this place occur such sayings as 15: 20, sq., 
 which are undoubtedly the same as Matt. 10: 
 
 24, 25, sq. ; therefore the being hated for my 
 name's sake 15: 21, comp. Matt. 10: 22; there- 
 fore above all the somewhat mechanically 
 (and here surely by the writer's combination 
 of materials] introduced 26, 27, which are 
 certainly nothing else than a genuine Jo- 
 hannic reproduction of Matt. 10: 19, sq." 
 But this criticism of John's record seems to 
 me to overlook the circumstance that every 
 great teacher is wont to repeat the same truth 
 again and again with slight variations of lan- 
 guage, gathering up the results in some final 
 lesson which is more complete or impressive 
 than any one that preceded it. In this way, 
 I would account for the similarity of thought 
 and language in the first two instances (viz., 
 John 15: 20, sq., compared with Matt. 10: 24, 
 
 25, sq., and John 15: 21, compared with Matt. 
 10: 22). And as to the insertion of 15: 26, 27, 
 where they stand, it seems to me far more 
 probable that Jesus put them there in a free, 
 tender, spontaneous address to his disciples — 
 an address adapting itself moment by moment 
 to the varying emotions reflected from the 
 countenances of the little circle of friends 
 about him — than that the reflective skill of 
 the writer put them there, though out of their 
 true place. But whatever may be thought of 
 the probability that the apostle John has un- 
 consciously brought into this address some- 
 thing that belongs elsewhere, it is manifestly 
 very improbable that a Falsarius, writing in 
 the third, fourth, or fifth decade of the second 
 century, when the Synoptical Gospels were 
 already well known and highly esteemed, 
 would have ventured upon even a seeming 
 contradiction of what they teach, such as we 
 are supposed to have in the words: "These 
 things I said not unto you from the begin- 
 ning." "Would not such a writer have been 
 extremely solicitous to avoid every appear- 
 ance of inconsistency with the earlier testi- 
 mony' ? Besides, what conceivable motive 
 could have led him to make this statement, 
 with no evidence of its truth in his possession, 
 and to expose his narrative thereby to criti- 
 cism? 
 
Ch. XVI.] 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 313 
 
 5 But now " I go my way to him that sent me; and 
 none of you asketh uie, Whithor goest thou? 
 
 6 But because 1 have said these things unto you, 
 'sorri(\v hath tilled your heart. 
 
 7 Nevertheless I tell you the truth; Tt is expedient 
 for you that 1 go away: for if I go not away, <^the Com- 
 forter will not come uuto you ; but i* if 1 depart, I will 
 send him uuto you. 
 
 5 you. But now I go unto him that sent me; and none 
 
 6 of you asketh me, Whither goest thou? Bui be- 
 cau.se I have spoken these things unto you, sorrow 
 
 7 hath filled your lieart. Nevertheless I tell you the 
 truth ; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if 
 I go not away, the i Comforter will not come uuto 
 
 a ch. 7 : 33 ; 13 : 3 ; U : 28 ; ver. 10 : 16. 
 
 ..6 ch. 14: 1; ver. 22 c ch. 7: 39: U: 16. 26; 15: 26. ...d Acts 2: 3); Epii. 4 : 
 
 vacate. Or. Helper. Gr. Paraclete. 
 
 5-15. Promise of the Paraclete's 
 Coming and Work. 
 
 5. But now I go my way {better, go avmy, 
 or depart) to him that sent nie. The idea 
 of withdrawal or retirement from the com- 
 pany of his disciples, if not from the world, 
 is expressed by the word {iiiraym) here used, 
 while the words, to him that sent me, de- 
 scribe the goal to be reached by that with- 
 drawal. And none of you asketh me. 
 Whither goest ^or, w it hd rawest) thou ? 
 They hud given some attention to the thought 
 of his leaving them, and had been troubled 
 by it. But they seem to have considered its 
 effect upon themselves, not upon him. In 
 other words, they had not asked whither he 
 was going, or what would be the home that 
 be would reach. Their concern for them- 
 selves had filled their hearts, and prevented 
 any interest in respect to his glory and joy 
 with the Father. 
 
 6. But because I have said (or, spoken) 
 these things unto you, sorrow hath filled 
 your heart. They should have rejoiced. 
 Love to him should have filled their hearts 
 with exceeding gladness, because he was 
 about to resume his divine estate (comp. 14: 
 28). But instead of this they were sad. The 
 shadow of a great disappi)intment was gather- 
 ing about them. While they still clung with 
 desperate tenacity to the hope that he would 
 in some way escape the malice of his foes and 
 restore the kingdom to Israel, every sentence 
 which he uttered pointed to a different issue, 
 and tended to increase their sorrow. Doubt- 
 less this was very manifest in their looks and 
 gestures, if it was not also expressed by audi- 
 ble sighs. A sorrowful company they were 
 at this moment. 
 
 7. Nevertheless I tell you the truth. 
 Purely as a matter of taste in reproducing the 
 simplicitj' of John's style, we should prefer 
 yet to nevertheless, as a translation of the 
 Greek word {aWa) in this place; and the same 
 rendering would be better than the almost 
 obsolete howbeit, in John 7 : 27, and Acts 7 : 
 
 48. It is also noteworthy lat the I is em- 
 phatic in the original; probably to contrast 
 his own correct view with their false view. 
 Thus: "You have a wrong view of my de- 
 parture, deeming it your greatest calamity, 
 and, therefore, sorrow fills your hearts. But 
 I, on the contrary, tell you the truth, in re- 
 spect to this event," etc. It is expedient 
 for you that I go away. Thus Jesus de- 
 clares that if they were to disregard his con- 
 dition and look only at their own good, they 
 had more to gain than to lose by his de- 
 parture. Their intense self-care was, there- 
 fore, unwise as well as ungenerous, though he 
 only says this by implication. What he does 
 say directly, after gently reminding them of 
 their disregard of his interest in the case, is, 
 that henceforth his presence was not the 
 highest blessing they could have. Not that 
 his presence was anj'thing less than gracious, 
 uplifting, and sanctifying, but that his going 
 awaj^ would bring to them light and help 
 more powerful, more spiritual, and better 
 adapted to their condition in days to come. 
 This he proceeds to explain : for if I go not 
 away, the Comforter (or. Advocate) will 
 not come unto you. What is to be under- 
 stood by this? Could not the Holy Spirit 
 work in the hearts of men, to renew and 
 sanctify them, while Christ was in the flesh? 
 We believe that he could, and did. But for 
 two reasons, at least, he could not, without 
 violence to the principles of human nature, 
 do for them all that he did after the return of 
 Jesus to his Father. (1) The visible and 
 natural presence of Christ was an obstacle to 
 the fullest influence of the Spirit in certain 
 directions. For, while Jesus was there in 
 bodily form, a true man, it was extremely 
 difficult for them to think of his reign as 
 purely spiritual. As we have seen all along, 
 thej' shared, with the bulk of their nation, the 
 expectation that the Messiah would be a tem- 
 poral prince, whatever else he might be. And 
 obviouslj' nothing short of his departure from 
 earth by death, would thoroughly destroy 
 
314 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 [Ch. XVL 
 
 8 And when he is come, he will reprove the world of I 
 sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment : 
 
 8 you ; but if I go, I will send him unto you. And 
 he, when he is come, will convict the world in re- 
 spect of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment : 
 
 that expectation. Moreover, the visible pres- 
 ence of Christ, as a teacher, to whom they 
 could resort for answers to every question, 
 would tend to prevent their gathering up and 
 pondering, with suitable care and prayer for 
 divine help, all that he had said to them. It 
 was time for the young eagles to be left alone. 
 (2) The departure of Christ by crucifixion, 
 burial, resurrection, and ascension, were parts 
 of his work, as Mediator between God and 
 men, which the Holy Spirit was to use, and 
 which could not be used with full eifect, until 
 they had been accomplished. Hence the new 
 and mightier work of the Spirit after the de- 
 parture of Jesus, is described as his coming 
 from the Father, sent by the Son ; and as that 
 greater work could not be performed until 
 Christ had been crucified and glorified, thus 
 furnishing the truth to be employed, the 
 coming of the Spirit for that work is repre- 
 sented as dependent on the previous de- 
 parture of Christ. But if I depart (better, 
 go), I will send him unto you. Observe 
 that Christ here employs a word which sig- 
 nifies merely to go, to make a journey, not to 
 go away. Observe also, that he says again 
 (see 15: 26), I will send him unto you. 
 
 8. And when he is come, etc. A more 
 formally exact translation would read : And, 
 having come, he will convict the world con- 
 cerning, etc. The questions to be answered 
 by th') interpreter of this verse relate solely 
 to the meaning of the words. (1) The 
 Greek word (eAe'vfet), is translated in the Com. 
 Ver. reprove, in the Rev. Ver. convict, and 
 by many scholars, convince. Does it here 
 signifj' ivill reprove, or loill convince, or vnll 
 convict? The first definition may be given 
 to the verb in Luke 3: 19; 1 Tim. 5: 20; Titus 
 1 : 13 ; Rev. 3 : 19. But it does not satisfy the 
 demands of this passage. For, while it is 
 natural to speak of reproving one in respect 
 of sin, it is less natural to speak of reproving 
 one in respect of righteousness, and unnatu- 
 ral to speak of reproving one in respect of 
 judgment. Besides, mere reproof expresses 
 but a small part of the Holy Spirit's work in 
 relation to the world, especially if that work 
 is performed in great measure through the 
 inspired teaching of the apostles. (Comp. 
 Notes on 15: 26, 27). This definition of the 
 
 word is, therefore, unsatisfactory. The second 
 meaning is given to the verb in 1 Cor. 14: 24: 
 "If all prophesy, and there come in one that 
 believeth not, or one unlearned, he is con- 
 vinced of all," etc. But against this mean- 
 ing, it has been urged that "the chief part of 
 the world is still without the pale of the 
 church, and that, even within the church, the 
 number of those in whom a living spiritual 
 conviction of sin and righteousness and judg- 
 ment has been wrought, is by no means the 
 largest." (Hare, in "Mission of the Com- 
 forter"). There is weight in this considera- 
 tion. Moreover, this rendering carries the 
 mind of the reader directly to the effect of 
 the Paraclete's work in the hearts of men — 
 that is, to the subjective influence of the 
 Spirit, while the Greek term gives quite as 
 much prominence to the intrinsic force of the 
 argument or evidence employed. Thus the 
 word reprove, directs attention almost ex- 
 clusively to tlie objective side of the action, 
 and the word convince, to the subjective, 
 while the Greek original seems to embrace 
 both. The third definition is supported by the 
 use of the word inch. 8: 46: "Which of you 
 convicteth me of sin?" and in James 2:9: 
 " But if ye have respect of persons, ye commit 
 sin, and are convicted by the law as transgres- 
 sors." Rev. Ver. Yet the legal use of this 
 English word has a tendency to restrict its 
 meaning, and on this account, Noj'es's trans- 
 lation, namely: "Shall bring conviction to 
 the world, etc.," is, perhaps, as free from ob- 
 jection as any. Liicke remarks that, "In the 
 Greek verb used by Christ is always implied 
 the refutation, the overcoming of an error, or 
 wrong, by the truth and the right. And 
 when, by means of the conviction (eXryx<»s), 
 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. And hence this oflSce has 
 been called the Punitive Office of the Spirit. 
 The effect of conviction wrought by the 
 Divine Spirit in the world, may be to 
 harden ; but its aim is the deliverance of the 
 world." "With the last statement of Liicke 
 may be compared the words of Paul in 2 Cor. 
 2: 15, 16. 
 (2) By the world, must be understood 
 
Ch. XVI.] 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 315 
 
 9 "Of sin, because they believe not on me ; 
 
 I 9 of sin, because tliey believe not on me ; of righteous- 
 
 a Acts 2 : 22-37. 
 
 the yet unbelieving part of mankind, so de- 
 nominated because it was the far hirger part, 
 when these words were spoken, as it still is. 
 Only a few of the Jews, and a still smaller 
 number of the Gentiles, gave any evidence of 
 saving faith in God. "If Luthardt and 
 Hengsteiiberg maintain that the Jewish world 
 is primarily meant, this is certainly correct 
 as to the mind of Jesus, but not as to that of 
 the Evangelist."— Weiss. We enter our pro- 
 test against this oracular style of criticism. 
 How any one can know what was intended 
 by Jesus, in distinction from what the Evan- 
 gelist understood liim to mean, is left without 
 explanation by Weiss, and is incomprehen- 
 sible to us. That Jesus did not restrict his 
 own kingdom, or the work of the Spirit, ab- 
 solutely and forever, to the seed of Abraham 
 after tlie flesh, is clear from many passages; 
 and if he looked beyond the Israelites at all, 
 there seems to be no reason why he should 
 not have done this in his last protracted inter- 
 view with his disciples, and especially when 
 speaking to them of the work of the Spirit. 
 
 (3) The words sin, righteousness, and 
 judgment, are used in a general sense, and 
 therefore without the article ; but a conspicu- 
 ous example of each is made use of by the 
 Spirit, according to the next verse, in demon- 
 strating to the world the nature of sin, of 
 righteousness, and of judgment. The Note 
 of Westcott is very suggestive : "The three 
 conceptions, sin, righteousness, and judg- 
 ment, are given first in their most abstract 
 and general form. These are the cardinal 
 elements in the determination of man's spir- 
 itual state. In these, his past and present and 
 future are severally summed up. Then, 
 when the mind has seized the broad divisions 
 of the spiritual analysis, the central fact in 
 regard to each is stated, from which the pro- 
 cess of testing, of revelation, of condemna- 
 tion, proceeds. In each case the world was in 
 danger of fatal error, and this error is laid 
 open in view of the decisive criterion to 
 which it is brought." Again: "The three 
 subjects are placed in a natural and signifi- 
 cant order. The position of man is deter- 
 mined first; he is shown to have fallen. And 
 then the positicn of the two spiritual powers 
 
 which strive for the mastery over him is 
 made known ; Christ has risen to the throne' 
 of glory ; the prince of the world has been 
 judged." 
 
 (4) The preposition translated of, signifies, 
 in this place, concerning, or, in respect of. 
 The conviction of the world will have respect 
 to the nature of sin, as well as to the fact of 
 its own sinfulness, etc. 
 
 9. Of sin, because they believe not on 
 me. This does not mean that the Holy 
 Spirit, through the preaching of the apostles, 
 or otherwise, will demonstrate to men that 
 their sin remains unforgiven, because they do 
 not believe in Christ — that, like the venom of 
 the fiery flying serpent, it will continue in 
 them, working deatii, because they reject the 
 only cure, the Saviour lifted up on the cross. 
 Such a truth is plainly taught by the Lord 
 himself (ch. 3:u, lo^, but it is hardly found in 
 the most natural interpretation of this verse. 
 
 Nor does it mean that nothing but unbelief 
 in Christ is now reckoned as sin, so that the 
 only way in which the Holy Spirit can bring 
 conviction of sin to the mind of man, since 
 the death of Christ, is by proving to him that 
 he does not believe in the Lamb of God that 
 taketh away the sin of the world. The words 
 of Jesus assume that unbelief in him is sin, 
 and therefore proof of sin in all those who 
 entertain it; but the^' do not saj- or imply that 
 it is the only sin of which men are guilty. 
 This is self-evident. If a devout father were 
 to hear his son blaspheme the name of God, 
 he might attempt to bring conviction to that 
 son concerning the presence and nature of 
 sin in his heart, by directing his attention to 
 the particular and awful sin of blasphemy ; 
 for all blasphemj' is sin, and illustrates the 
 nature and power of sin ; but the father 
 would not be likely to think that proving his 
 son a sinner because a blasphemer, was 
 equivalent to proving, or assuming, that he 
 was a sinner in no other way. 
 
 And this leads to the true interpretation of 
 Christ's language in this clause. The Holy 
 Spirit will bring conviction to mankind con- 
 cerning sin, because they believe not in 
 Christ, which is a great and fatal sin. In 
 other words, the reason or argument which 
 
316 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 [Ch. XVI, 
 
 10 "Of righteousness, 'because I go to my Father, 
 and ye see me no more ; 
 
 11 = Of judgment, because "^the prince of this world 
 is judged. 
 
 10 ness, because I go to the Father, and ye behold me 
 
 11 no more; of judgment, because the piiuce of this 
 
 a Acte2:32 6 ch. 3: U; 5:32....c Acts 26 : IS d Luke 10: 18; ch. 12 : 31 ; Eph. 2:2; Col. 2 : 15 ; Heb. 
 
 the Spirit will use in convicting them of sin, 
 will be their unbelief in Jesus. For unbelief 
 in him is unbelief in God; since he is the per- 
 fect manifestation of God, and especially of 
 the love of God. And unbelief in God is the 
 central principle of alienation from him. 
 Now that Christ has come and revealed the 
 moral perfection of the Father, a rejection of 
 him is a rejection of the only true God, and 
 an exaltation of self to the throne. "The 
 Spirit, tlierefore, working through the written 
 and spoken word, starts from the fact of un- 
 belief in the Son of man, and through that, 
 laj's open what sin is." — Westcott. AVhether 
 Jesus intends by this language to predict any 
 direct work of the Spirit in the hearts of un- 
 godly men, leading them to receive the truth, 
 it is, perhaps, impossible to know; but there 
 is nothing in his words incompatible with 
 such a view. Yet it cannot be rightly infer- 
 red from the expression "will convict the 
 world,'^ that ever^^ person who was then liv- 
 ing, or who has since lived, was to be shown 
 that he had sinned b\- rejecting Christ. "The 
 world" is a general expression, denoting the 
 sphere of the Spirit's direct or mediate opera- 
 tion. (Comp. 12:32.) 
 
 lO. Of righteousness, etc. {'L\t., And of 
 righteousness, becaitse I go to the Father.) 
 The work of the Spirit here described, though 
 separable in thought, is inseparable in fact from 
 the work which is spoken of in the previous 
 verse. For unbelief in Christ cannot be a sin, 
 or an illustration of all sin, unless he is what 
 he claims to be — the Holj'^ One of God. His 
 righteousness is therefore presupposed in the 
 sinfulness of rejecting him. And in order to 
 bring home to conscience and heart the sin of 
 not trusting in him and not obeying him, his 
 moral perfection, his sinless character as the 
 Son of God, must be clearly established. 
 Moreover, in exhibiting and proving his 
 moral perfection, the clearest possible light 
 is cast upon the nature and beautj' of righte- 
 ousness itself. He was ever at one with his 
 Father, ever ready to do his Father's will, 
 ever illustrating divine truth, goodness, and 
 mercy, in his conduct. He was holj', harm- 
 
 less, undefiled, proving himself to be abso- 
 lutely righteous, whether regarded as the Son 
 of God, or as the Son of man. 
 
 But what was the ultimate verification of 
 all his claims, the invincible proof that he 
 was the "only begotten of the Father, full of 
 grace and truth?" It was his going to the 
 Father. And observe that to the Father are 
 the emphatic words, made so by their position 
 in the Greek sentence, — and to the Father I 
 go." This fact will be used by the Spirit in 
 demonstrating the righteousness of Christ. 
 By his voluntary and sacrificial death in 
 obedience to the Father's will, b^- his glorious 
 resurrection from the dead and his manifesta- 
 tion of himself to his disciples at sundry times 
 during forty daj's, by his separation from 
 them on the Mount of Olives, and his ascen- 
 sion towards heaven, till a cloud received him 
 out of their sight, and b^' the coming of the 
 Spirit with might3' power on the Day of Pen- 
 tecost, according to his promise, will that 
 Spirit, speaking through the apostles, convict 
 the unbelieving world of the righteousness of 
 him who had been slain its a malefactor, con- 
 vict the unbelieving people that they had 
 "denied the Holy One and the Just One," 
 asking for "a murderer to be granted" them. 
 (Acts2: 36; 3: u.) The words, and ye see (or, 
 behold) me no more, are probablj- added for 
 the purpose of showing that his departure to 
 the Father would be a permanent withdrawal 
 from his earthly and visible connection with 
 them, and a permanent return to a higher 
 state of being. Is it too much to say that he 
 did not wish them to expect any renewal of 
 this sensible communion with him on earth? 
 and that he would have them welcome com- 
 munion with him by the Spirit as a greater 
 blessing? It was "expedient" for them that 
 he should go away, and the Advocate come 
 in his place; for, be it said with all reverence, 
 the Advocate could hereafter give them more 
 of Christ than could Jesus himself by his 
 bodily presence. 
 
 11. Of judgment, etc. (Lit., and of jtidg- 
 ment, because the prince of this irorld hath 
 been judged.) By reason of the perfect tense, 
 
Ch. XVI.] 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 317 
 
 12 I have yet many things to say unto you, "but ye 
 cannot bear them now. 
 
 13 Howbeit wlien he, 'the Spirit of truth, is come, 
 «he will guide you into all truth: I'or he shall not 
 speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, 
 that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to 
 come. 
 
 12 world hath been judged. I have yet many things 
 to say unto you, but ye caunot bear theiu now. 
 
 13 Howbeit when he, the .Spirit of truih, is come, he 
 shall guide you into all the truth: for he shall 
 not speak from himself; hut what things soever 
 he sball hear, these shall he speak: and he shall 
 declare unto you the things that are to come. 
 
 (Mark 4: 33; 1 Cor. 3:2; Heb. 5: 12....i ch. 14: 17; 15: 26....cch. 14: 
 
 1 Jotao i : 20, 27. 
 
 this language signifies that the prince of this 
 world has been and is condemned. The point 
 of view is naturally that of the Spirit's agency 
 after the Pentecost in convicting the world. 
 Then Christ's work on earth will have been 
 completed; and that work, all along a perfect 
 expression of divine holiness and grace, but 
 culminating at last in the gift of his life as a 
 ransom for sinners, and approved by God 
 through his resurrection from the dead and 
 enthronement at the right hand of the Father, 
 •will be made by the Spirit to appear in its 
 true character, as a permanent, irreversible 
 condemnatit)n of Satan, the prince of this 
 world. "This passage differs in form only 
 from 12: 31, 32; the three actors mentioned 
 the world, Satan, and Jesus, are the same, as 
 well as the parts which are assigned to them. 
 Our passage adds only this idea: that it is the 
 Holy Spirit who will unfold to men the 
 grandeur of the invisible drama accomplished 
 on the cross. Thenceforth some remain in 
 the sin of unbelief, and share the judgment of 
 the prince of this world. Others take their 
 stand on the side of the righteousness of Christ, 
 and are withdrawn from the judgment pro- 
 nounced upon Satan." — Godet. 
 
 Observe, also, (1) The world has a prince. 
 Men who are not the servants of Christ are 
 the servants of Satan, whose personality is 
 clearly assumed in this language. (2) The 
 fact that their prince has been condemned is 
 evidence that those who follow him will be 
 condemned likewise, unless they repent. The 
 decision against the prince will pro\e to be a 
 decision against all who maintain his cause. 
 (3) The act expressed by the word translated 
 judged (icpcVw), is always, in the Gospel of 
 John, the premise to a judicial punitive act. — 
 Cremer. In other words, judgment looks 
 forward to punishment. Those who persist in 
 rejecting Christ will at last hear the sentence: 
 " Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting 
 fire, prepared for the devil and his angels." 
 
 (Matt. 25: 41). 
 
 12-15» The Inspiration of the Spirit 
 Promised to the Eleven. 
 
 12. I have yet many things, etc. A 
 
 natural introduction to the following promise, 
 which assures them of all needed instruction 
 through the Holy Spirit. Much as Jesus has 
 taught them in public with others, and in 
 private for their special benefit, there is much 
 more which he has forborne to teach, because 
 of their prejudice and lack of spiritual dis- 
 cernment. There is a fullness of truth in 
 Christ which he cannot even now impart to 
 them. Just what these many things are, 
 the Saviour does not of course specify, but 
 they all pertained, no doubt, to his spiritual 
 reign over mankind; and many of them were 
 revealed to the apostles by the Paraclete. 
 Some of them may be, redemption by the 
 sacrifice of Christ, the relation of the Mosaic 
 law to grace, the acceptance of the heathen 
 upon repentance and fiiith without submission 
 to the Levitical law, the ultimate turning of 
 the Jews to Christ, and the great apostasy 
 before the end of the Christian Dispensation. 
 Germs of nearly all these doctrines may, in- 
 deed, be found in the sayings of Christ, but 
 they were more fully developed by the apos- 
 tles under the teaching of the Spirit. 
 
 13. Howbeit when he, the Spirit of 
 truth, is come, etc. But is a simpler and 
 more intelligible rendering of the Greek con- 
 nective here employed (5e), than howbeit. 
 So Noyes, Am. Bible Union, Kevised Eng- 
 lish Bible, and others. Here again, for the 
 third time, is the Advocate described as the 
 Spirit of truth. Wherefore? In the first 
 instance (»:i7), there is nothing but the ex- 
 pression itself to suggest its meaning. In the 
 second (i5-26), the accompanying statement, 
 shall testify (or, he will bear witness of me), 
 points to his office as the Kevealer of truth in 
 respect to Christ. And in the present con- 
 nection, all that is said represents him as the 
 Kevealer of Christian truth to the apostles. 
 With these passages, compare 1 John 5 : 6, 
 Avhich says: ''It is the Spirit that beareth 
 witness, because the Spirit is truths Com- 
 pare also the language of John in his First 
 Epistle (iJohii4:6), where *' the spirit of truth" 
 
318 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 [Ch. XVI. 
 
 is contrasted with ''the spirit of error," 
 though some do not admit that the Holy 
 Spirit is referred to; and his language in 
 Kev. 19: 10, "/o/* the testunony of Jesus is the 
 spirit of prophecy," where again it is doubtful 
 whether "i/te spirit of prophecy" refers to 
 the Holy Spirit. It is, however, certain that 
 the gift of prophecj' is represented by the 
 sacred writers as a gift imparted by the Spirit 
 
 (e.g.. Acts 1: 16; 'J ; 4, 17 ; 19: 6; 21: U; 2S : '25 ; 1 Cor. 12: 8, 10; 
 
 u:ij. We understand, therefore, that the 
 revelation of Christian truth is here set forth 
 as a characteristic attribute or function of the 
 Holy Spirit; indeed, as so characteristic of 
 him, that it is represented as a qualitj' of his 
 nature. Revealing the truth may be re- 
 garded as a part of his normal action. So 
 important is a correct view of this matter, 
 that we subjoin the explanations of a few emi- 
 nent commentators. " The Spirit of truth — 
 i. e., the Spirit of God, and the principle of 
 truth, who teaches it (i6:i3), and by its power 
 imparts self-reliance, decision, and firmness 
 (Matt. 10:19, sq.), who, therefore, takes the place 
 of Christ as Helper."— i)eTre!!<e. " The Holy 
 Spirit, who is po.ssessor, bearer, and dispenser 
 of the divine truth. He is the divine Prin- 
 ciple of revelation, by whose action in human 
 hearts the redemptive truth given by God in 
 Christ — that is, the truth by way of pre- 
 eminence—is transformed into knowledge, is 
 vitally appropriated, and is brought tc power- 
 ful expression.— Meyer. "This expression 
 certainlj' implies, not merely that the Spirit 
 communicates the truth (Luth., Godet), or 
 possesses and communicates it {Hengst.), but 
 the genitive {of truth) is one of quality, only 
 the truth is not a subjective attribute, which 
 the Spirit has, but the objective divine truth 
 which [so to speak] constitutes his nature, be- 
 cause it belongs to that nature to possess the 
 knowledge of the truth, and so to be the 
 bearer of the revelation of God." — Weiss. 
 "The Spirit by whom the truth finds expres- 
 sion, and is brought to man's spirit." — Ife.s^- 
 cott. "He is called the Spirit of truth, be- 
 cause part of his special office is to bring truth 
 home to the hearts of ir:en, to carry it from 
 the material to the moral sphere, to make it 
 something more than a collection of signs 
 seen or heard — a living power in living men." 
 — Watkins. He will guide you into all 
 truth. A very significant promise! For, 
 
 First — the domain into which apostles are to 
 be guided is the whole truth; that is, Christian 
 truth in its totality. The Spirit will lead 
 them into the truth as it is summed up in 
 Jesus Christ; he will open to them the mystery 
 of God, and of Christ, in whom are hid all the 
 treasures of loisdo in and knowledge (Coi. 2: 2,3). 
 From the promise of Jesus, as well as from 
 the nature of the case, it may be inferred that 
 the various truths of the Christian religion 
 are self-consistent, and that, if clearly appre- 
 hended, they will be seen to form a single, 
 harmonious sj'stem. From this promise it 
 may also be inferred that, sooner or later, the 
 Eleven were brought into such a state of mind 
 and heart as to profit by a knowledge of Chris- 
 tian truth in its completeness. For the Spirit 
 would not show them the way to this before 
 thej' were prepared in the temper of their 
 hearts to follow that way. 
 
 Secondly — in accord with what has now been 
 said, the verb will guide, suggests a gradual 
 and progressive work — a work that presup- 
 poses a teachable spirit in the disciples, and 
 that adapts itself, with absolute wisdom, to 
 their inward condition. And this condition 
 must, in the nature of the case, be aff'ected by 
 the ever changing demands of their ministry'. 
 Hence we conclude that the Spirit was not to 
 bring the whole sum of Christian truth to the 
 minds of the apostles in a moment, and, as it 
 were, without effort or inquiry on their part. 
 No doubt that a great light shone into their 
 minds on the Day of Pentecost — a light which 
 revealed to them very clearl3' the meaning of 
 Christ's death and resurrection ; but there 
 was much truth to be revealed when that day 
 of wonders closed. The central truth of their 
 Lord's redemptive victor^' was enough to fill 
 their minds and hearts. If they could think 
 of more than this, the fulfillment of prophecy 
 in the miracle before their ej-es was likely to 
 absorb their attention. How the Gentiles 
 were to be made partakers of the great salva- 
 tioft, whether with or without submitting to 
 the Mosaic ritual, was a question which did 
 not, perhaps, enter their minds. And the 
 same might be said of many other questions 
 not unimportant to the puritj' and progress of 
 the new religion. 
 
 Thirdly — if the work of the Spirit in show- 
 ing the apostles the way into the whole truth, 
 as it is in Jesus, was thus gradual and pro- 
 
Ch. XVI.] 
 
 JOHK 
 
 319 
 
 gressive, adapting itself evermore to their 
 spiritual capacity and need, it is more tlian 
 probable tbat some of them were outstripped 
 by others in the attainment of knowledge, 
 and, indeed, that some died without reaching 
 the same heights and depths of spiritual un- 
 derstanding as others. Can it be reasonably 
 assumed that James the Less, who suffered 
 martyrdom at Jerusalem, in A. D. 44, was as 
 profoundly versed in the whole system of 
 Christian truth, as was Paul at his death, in 
 A. D. 66, or John at his death, in A. D. 98? If 
 not, it is easy to account for the apparently 
 different degrees of doctrinal development at- 
 tained by the writers of the New Testament, 
 even without insisting upon the obvious fact 
 that several of them have not written enough 
 to give us anything more than fragments of 
 their belief. It is sufficient to find that every 
 one appears to hold the truth, as far as his 
 knowledge extends, and that together they 
 present to us the facts and principles of a 
 great system. For he shall not speak of 
 himself. (Rather, for he will not speak from 
 himself); and the meaning is, not that the 
 Spirit will refrain from saying anything 
 about himself— e. g., as to his own knowledge 
 
 (lCor.2:10), or power (l Cor. 2 : 4 ; Heb. '2 : 4), or di- 
 vinity (i Cor. 12:8-11) — but that he will not speak 
 from his own impulse or will, apart from the 
 will of God. (Comp. 5: 19,80). Godet re- 
 marks: "The infallibility of this guide springs 
 from the same cause as that of Jesus himself 
 (7:17,18), namely, from the absence of all 
 egoistic and therefore evil productivity. All 
 his revelations will be drawn from the trea- 
 sure of objective divinity ; and so his teaching 
 will be only an initiation into the divine 
 reality of things. Satan is a liar just because 
 he proceeds according to a wholly different 
 method, drawing that which he speaks from 
 his own source. (8:44)," But whatsoever 
 he shall hear, that shall he speak. Or, 
 more strictly, but whatsoever he shall hear 
 will he speak. The insertion of that or these^ 
 before will he speak, seems to be unneces- 
 sary ; as is also the insertion of things, unless 
 it be to indicate that the word represented by 
 whatsoever is plural (oo-a). Shall hear; 
 from whom ? Probably from the Father, or 
 the Son ; for he comes as the Representative 
 of both, and all things that are the Father's 
 are the Son's also. Both have the same 
 
 thoughts, plans, affections, desires. In nature, 
 in power, and in aim, they are one. The 
 commentators call attention to the fact that 
 the hearing and speaking here predicted do 
 not refer to single acts, accomplished once 
 for all, but to a series of acts, or, rather, to 
 continuous action of the kinds specified. This 
 agrees with the interpretation given above to 
 the verb will guide. Of course, hearing and 
 speaking are used in a figurative sense, to 
 denote that wiiat the Spirit imparts to the 
 minds of the apostles by a process inscrutable, 
 but equivalent in ett'ect to speaking, is from 
 the Father's mind as really as it would be if 
 heard by the Spirit in words uttered by the 
 Father or the Son. And he will show you 
 things to come. More exactly, loill declare 
 unto you the things that are to come. None 
 but God sees the end of all things from the 
 beginning. The Omniscient alone can fore- 
 know the course which will be taken in every 
 particular emergency by beings truly free. 
 Hence, the prediction of future events which 
 are contingent on human action is impossible 
 to any but those who are divinely taught. But 
 Jesus here promises his disciples that the Spirit 
 of truth will announce to them the things 
 that are to come, and thus enable them to 
 preach the same things to other men. What, 
 then, is to be understood by the things that 
 are to come? Certainly not all future events 
 in time and eternity ; for it would never occur 
 to the Eleven to give the words so comprehen- 
 sive a meaning. Nor can they signify all the 
 events connected with the reign of Christ or 
 the last judgment; for this interpretation 
 would be equally absurd. Westcott, how- 
 ever, goes too far by way of limitation, when 
 he says : " The reference is, no doubt, mainly 
 to the constitution of the Christian church, as 
 representing hereafter the divine order, in 
 place of the Jewish economy." It is far 
 more natural to find the fulfillment of this 
 promise in the revelations made to the apostle 
 John in Patmos, together with such as were 
 
 made to Paul — e. g., ^l Thess. 4: ISsq. ; 2Thess. 2: l-I.'; 
 ICor. 15:23-28, 52; Rom. 10:11-25), and Other apOStlcs. 
 
 Godet remarks that "the words of 14: 26 con- 
 tain the formula of the inspiration of our 
 Gospels, while this verse, the 13th, gives that 
 of the inspiration of the Epistles and the 
 Apocalj'pse." 
 
320 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 [Ch. XVI. 
 
 14 He shall glorify me; for he shall receive of mine, 
 and shall shew it unto you. 
 
 15 "All thinKs that the Father hath are mine: there- 
 fore said 1, that he shall take of mine, and shall shew it 
 unto you. 
 
 14 He shall glorify me: for he shall take of mine, 
 
 15 and shall declare it unto you. All things what- 
 soever the Father hath are mine: therefore said 
 I, that he taketh of miue, and shall declare it 
 
 a Matt. 11 : 27 ; ch. 3 : 35 ; 13 : 3 ; 17 : 10. 
 
 14. He shall (or, will) glorify me. The 
 
 me is empliatic. Bengel says: "The Son 
 glorifies the Father, and the Holy Spirit the 
 Son." This is true, but it is also true that the 
 Father glorifies the Son (see 8: 54; 13:32; 17: 
 
 1, 5; Acts 3: 13); and that the Son glorifies 
 the Spirit (see ver. 7 and 14: 18 sq. ). It is 
 evident from these words, especially when 
 they are compared with 17 : 1, 5 and Heb. 12: 
 
 2, 3, that Jesus Christ, though he was the 
 most unselfish being that ever walked the 
 earth, was keenly alive to the reproaches 
 heaped upon him, and painfully conscious of 
 his name being cast out as evil. And now, as 
 he draws near the conflict in Gethsemane and 
 the mocking and bufleting that followed, as 
 he feels more deeply, perhaps, than ever be- 
 fore, the ignominy of being "despised and 
 rejected of men," as he sees himself assailed 
 by the treachery of Judas, the denials of 
 Petor, and the implacable hatred of the 
 rulers, he appears to welcome the certainty 
 that his character will be loved, his work ap- 
 preciated, and his name honored by an ever- 
 increasing multitude of disciples, as the ages 
 come and go. He foresees, not without joy, 
 that through the Spirit's work in the apostles, 
 his name will at last be exalted above every 
 name. But how would such words sound, if 
 they fell from the lips of Peter, or John, or 
 Paul? What should we think of any mere 
 man, however great his abilitj', or high his 
 office, or remarkable his services, who should 
 predict that the Spirit of God would be sent 
 into the world to glorify him? Should we 
 not be filled with pity, or horror? Should 
 we not pronounce him either insane or pro- 
 fane, either a madman or a blasphemer? 
 "Why then do we not think this of Jesus, the 
 Christ? Why does every candid reader of 
 the Gospels refuse to accept either of these 
 alternatives? Is it not because the whole 
 record of Christ's life proves that he was 
 more than simply man? — that he was divine 
 as well as human, and therefore entitled to 
 glory and praise without limit? 
 
 But how will the work of the Spirit glorify 
 Jesus? The reason is given in the next clause: 
 
 for he shall (or, will) receive of mine, 
 and shall (or, will) declare it unto you. 
 The word mine need not b;; restricted. The 
 term itself and the compass of the apostolic 
 message concerning Christ justify the broadest 
 sense. Jesus might have unfolded its mean- 
 ing by saying: "My existence as the Eternal 
 Word with the Father, my birth into human 
 nature, my perfect communion with God, my 
 perfect sympathy with men, my works and 
 words of power and wisdom, of love and com- 
 passion, my propitiatory suft'erings and death, 
 my resurrection and ascension, my priestly 
 intercession and regal authority, my second 
 coming to raise tlie dead, and judge the living 
 and the dead." These things, and such as 
 these, are comprehended in the single word 
 miue. Says Luthardt: "The Spirit, there- 
 fore, which proceeds from the Father, has 
 Christ for the substance and aim of all his 
 activity. And all progress of the church in 
 knowledge will only consist in greater study 
 of Christ, in deeper, more comprehensive un- 
 derstanding of Christ, as all growth in holi- 
 ness will consist only in the more thorough, 
 more manifold representation of the image of 
 Christ." 
 
 15. All things that (whatsoever) the 
 Father hath are mine. "This verse," it 
 has been remarked, "solves the contradiction, 
 that in ver. 13, the speaking of the Spirit was 
 traced back to his hearing from the Father, 
 and in ver. 14, to his taking of what belongs 
 to Christ." But there is no contradiction to 
 solve; for the thirteenth verse merely affirms 
 that " whatsoever {things) he shall hear, (not, 
 hear from the Father), that shall, or will he 
 speak." It is never wise to make a contradic- 
 tion, in order to solve it. Whether, as some 
 suppose, "all things that the Father hath," 
 refers only to the treasures of the Father's 
 knowledge, may be doubtful ; it seems to em- 
 brace at least all the great facts, as well as the 
 spiritual principles, or doctrines, involved in 
 the salvation of men. These all centre in 
 Christ — and Christ, in his person and work, js 
 a revelation of the Father's mind and will. 
 Moreover, if the knowledge of Christ is the 
 
Ch. XV L] 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 321 
 
 same as that of the Father, so is his will, and 
 so is his love. It is better, therefore, to un- 
 derstand by all things that the Father 
 
 hath, all the Father's purposes and deeds of 
 grace, accomplished, or yet to be accom- 
 plished, by the Saviour in his mediatorial 
 office. These belong to the Son, as well as to 
 the Father, and of these the Spirit taketh 
 (the present denoting a constant relation) and 
 will declare unto the disciples. 
 
 "In this section, (ver. 5-i5),'' remarks Weiss, 
 "everything is brought together which Jesus 
 had said in respect to the sending of the Para- 
 clete, and in ver. 5-7 is preserved the recollec- 
 tion that this belonged to the farewell dis- 
 course of Jesus to his disciples. We have 
 already seen, in the remark on 14: 24, that 
 Jesus must have said more than is preserved 
 in the Synoptical tradition Matt. 10: 19, sq., 
 (=John 15: 25 sq. Comp. the remark on 16: 
 4), concerning the sending of the Spirit. 
 What the Evangelist has inserted by way of 
 anticipation from these communications in 
 14: 15-17, is only the reverse side of ver. 8-11. 
 The Spirit has no immediate relation to the 
 world ; but on the ground of the definite exal- 
 tation of Jesus, he will convict the world, 
 through the testimony of the apostles, of its 
 sin of unbelief, in such a way as must win 
 from it whatever is to be won. The highly 
 original manner in which this is drawn out in I 
 ver. 8-11, argues for the essential genuineness 
 of this saying of Christ, which has its sub- 
 stantial analogon in the word respecting the 
 
 sign of Jonah. (Mutt. 12:39 sq. ; compare John 8: 28.) 
 
 Even so is 14: 26 only an anticipation of 
 16: 12-15, where the relation of the Para- 
 clete to the progressive knowledge of the dis- 
 ciples is developed. But, however certain it 
 is that Jesus must have spoken also on this 
 matter, it is equally certain that precisely 
 these sayings of his were only reproduced as 
 the apostle's own experience had taught him 
 to understand them. Under the guidance of 
 the Spirit he was conscious of having gained 
 a fuller and deeper understanding of the per- 
 son and work of Christ, and that this was 
 nothing else than what the testimony of 
 Christ himself already contained, although in 
 a form (for pedagogic reasons), more obscure 
 and limited. On this very account he must 
 reproduce the same, as the Spirit, who was his 
 guide into all truth, had taught him to under- 
 
 stand it. This reproduction of the Para- 
 clete's promise is the key to his peculiar treat- 
 ment and reproduction of the discourse of 
 Jesus in his gospel." 
 
 We are ready to grant that the aged Evan- 
 gelist was conscious of having gained by ex- 
 perience a fuller and deeper knowledge of the 
 person and work of Christ, than he had when 
 listening to his words in the evening before 
 his betrayal. We are also ready to grant 
 that he was conscious of having heard from 
 Christ testimonies concerning the Spirit 
 which seemed to him to predict and account 
 for this increase of knowledge which he had 
 gained. But we do not discover the proof 
 that he enlarged or clarified the promise of 
 Jesus into conformity with his own experi- 
 ence, that he laid hold of some dark saying 
 of Jesus, and, clothing it in a garb furnished 
 by his own spiritual experience, presented it 
 transfigured to his readers. Much less do we 
 perceive that Matt. 12: 39 sq., is any proper 
 analogon of John 16 : 8-11, or that there is 
 any improbability in supposing that Jesus 
 anticipated in a brief saying (u:26) what at a 
 later moment he repeated and expanded. 
 That John would not have consciously modi- 
 fied the teaching of Jesus in such a way as to 
 make it agree with his own experience, may 
 be safely inferred from all that i« known of 
 his character, and especially of his reverence 
 for Christ, and also from his habit of record- 
 ing and explaining dark sayings — (6.3.2:21,22; 7: 
 38,39; 12:32, a,')). And further, if some great 
 promise of the Spirit's mission was really 
 made to the disciples on their way to the gar- 
 den, as Weiss admits, what reason is there for 
 the assumption that it was very brief or ob- 
 scure? What ground for thinking that it 
 was given in a single saying, instead of being 
 presented at three diflTerent points in the 
 Lord's conversation with his troubled friends? 
 Our judgment is, that if the Evangelist has 
 unconsciou.sly transformed the discourse of 
 Jesu.s, the fact cannot be learned from his 
 record of the Saviour's words in respect to 
 the coming and ministry of the Paraclete, 
 but must be discovered somewhere else. 
 
 Combining now the statements respecting 
 the Paraclete in the record of John (1*: 16, 17, 
 26; 13:28,27; 16:7-15), we learn that he was to be 
 (i) a messenger from the Father and the Son, 
 — *. e., sent by the Father and the Son, (ii) at 
 
322 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 [Ch. XVI. 
 
 16 "Alittle while, and ye shall not see me: and again, 
 a. little while, and ye shall see me, <> because I go to the 
 Father. 
 
 17 Then said some of his disciples among them- 
 selves, What is this that he saith unto us, A little 
 while, and ye shall not see me: and again, a little 
 while, and ye shall see me : and, Because 1 go to the 
 Father '! 
 
 16 unto you. A little while, and ye behold me no 
 more; and again a little while, and ye shall see 
 
 17 me. Some of his disciples therefore said one to 
 another, What is this that he saith unto us, A little 
 while, and ye behold me not ; and again a little 
 while, and ye shall see me: and. Because 1 go to 
 
 o ch. 7 : 33 ; 13 : 33 ; 14 : 19 ; ver. 10 6 ch. 13 : 3 ; ver. 28. 
 
 the request of the Son, Jesus Christ, and (iii) 
 for the purpose of taking the Son's place with 
 the disciples, as an Advocate or Helper. Ful- 
 filling this office he was (1) to bring to their 
 remembrance all the teachings of Christ, (2) 
 to show unto them the things that were to 
 come, and (3) to guide them into all Christian 
 truth, some part of which the3' were not yet 
 able to bear. By the help of the Paniclete 
 they were (A) to bear witness in respect to 
 Christ, both as to his works and as to his 
 words, (B) to receive from him, through the 
 Spirit, other truth, nay, the whole truth, to 
 be used in their ministry, and (C) to convict 
 the world by their preaching, (a) in respect 
 to sin, as illustrated by the world's rejection 
 of Christ, (b) in respect to righteousness, as 
 illustrated by Christ's character and work, 
 and (c) in respect to judgment, as illustrated 
 by the condemnation of the Prince of this 
 •world. 
 
 16-24. Christ's Withdrawal axd Ke- 
 rrtiRN ; the Disciples' Sorrow and Joy. 
 
 16. A little Avhile, and ye shall not see 
 me. (Better, and ye behold me no more). That 
 is— "after a little while ye will no longer 
 behold me, as ye now do, with the eye of 
 sense" — a saying which refers to his ap- 
 proaching death and return to the Father. 
 But does not this saying contradict 14: 19: 
 "Yet a little while, and the world seeth (be- 
 holdeth) me no more, but ye see (behold) 
 me"? The same verb, indeed, is found in 
 both passages; but words must be interpreted 
 in the light of the connection in which they 
 stand. There are different kinds of behold- 
 ing, as there are of seeing. In 14: 19, the 
 word behold is applied to an act purely spir- 
 itual ; in this verse, to an act dependent on 
 the sense. In comparison with the world, 
 the disciples never ceased to behold Jesus ; for 
 the wondering gaze of their s'^uls was directed 
 to him by the Spirit, who brought his words 
 and deeds to their remembrance. But here 
 they are said to behold him ino more— i. e., 
 
 with their bodily senses. They are no longer 
 to watch with admiration the changing ex- 
 pression of his countenance, or to listen with 
 rapt attention to the familiar tones of his 
 voice. Such beholding was presently to 
 cease. And again a little Avhile, and ye 
 shall (or, will) see me ; for it is difficult to 
 ascertain whether the force of the Greek 
 future is better represented in this case by 
 shall see, or by will see. Again a little 
 while. This second brief period, though 
 longer than the first, only extended from his 
 death to the Day of Pentecost. The seeing 
 here predicted or promised is not the same as 
 that referred to in 14: 19, where the word 
 translated in Rev. Ver behold (flewpet) is used. 
 The interpretation of Grimm is as follows : 
 "The apostles are said to see (oi/feo-flai) Christ, 
 because they were about to perceive his invis- 
 ible presence through his action in their hearts 
 by the Holy Spirit." In support of this view 
 Godet remarks: "If the seeing promised 
 refers directly to the manifestations of Jesus 
 after the resurrection, to his disciples, there is 
 no connection between ver. 15 and IG. But 
 the omission, of any connective suggests a tie 
 of profound sentiment binding together the 
 two verses. This proves it necessary to apply 
 the 'seeing' [promised] to the illumination of 
 the Pentecost; thus the relation to the pre- 
 ceding presents no more difficulty. Filled 
 with the idea of his glorification by the Spirit, 
 in the hearts of the disciples (ver. u), Jesus 
 calls this return a mutual 'seeing again.' ' 
 The last clause of the Common Version, be- 
 cause I go to the Father, is probably an 
 interpolation occasioned b3' ver. 17, where it 
 is undoubtedh' genuine. It is omitted in this 
 place by Tischendorf, Tregelles, "Westcott 
 and Hort, and bracketed by Lachmann. Sev- 
 eral of the earliest 3ISS.— r .7.. X R D L, and 
 some of the earliest versions, do not have it. 
 17. Then said some of his disciples 
 among themselves. The Revised Version 
 — Some of his disciples therefore said one to 
 
Ch. XVI.] 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 323 
 
 18 They said therefore, Wliat is this that he saith, A | 18 the Father ? They said therefore, What is this that 
 little while? we caunot tell what he saith. | hesaith, A little while? We know not what he saith. 
 
 another, is a more exact translation of the 
 Greek text. We may reasonably inier from 
 this statement that the perplexity which is 
 described in the following words was not ex- 
 pressed, if it was felt, by all the disciples. 
 Moreover, those who felt it did not go to 
 Jesus with it, but spoke of their difficulty to 
 one another, aside and in a low voice, prob- 
 ably at a pause in the discourse of their Mas- 
 ter, flow distinctly does the Evangelist re- 
 call the scene, and how precisely does he 
 describe it! What is this that he saith 
 unto us, etc. That is, "What does this 
 mean?" They hear his words, but^they do 
 not really understand them. Nor is this 
 very strange; for surely there was something 
 contradictory in his language, if all of it was 
 taken in a literal sense. How could he depart 
 to the Father, so that they should see him no 
 more, if, after a little while, they were again 
 to see him. (ver. loandver. 16) ? We Sympathize 
 with their perplexity, and can readily under- 
 stand their questioning. But no great teacher 
 always employs words in their primary, lit- 
 eral, and semi-phj'sical sense. That which is 
 natural is first; afterwards that which is spir- 
 itual. The lower form of knowledge is a type 
 and shadow of the higher; the common sig- 
 nification of words is but the vestibule to 
 their higher and holier signification. Thus, 
 seeing by means of the bodily eye is analo- 
 gous to seeing with the mind's eye — i. e., with 
 the mind itself. And probably no teacher 
 ever employed language in a figurative and 
 spiritual sense more frequently than Jesus 
 Christ. Many of his sayings were, therefore, 
 misunderstood, or very imperfectly compre- 
 hended, at first. This he knew; but he was 
 not deterred from uttering them by his knowl- 
 edge of the way they would be received. 
 
 The remainder of the verse is translated in 
 the Revised Version somewhat more exactly 
 than in the Common Version ; for the former 
 substitutes behold me not, for shall not see 
 me — a manifest improvement, since the verb 
 is in the present tense, and is a different 
 word (SewpetTe) from the one translated shall 
 see [oifiefTde), in the next clause. Yet neither 
 version gives the exact meaning of the last 
 clause. For the verb in that clause (inrayco) 
 signifies to depart, or, go away, rather than 
 
 simply to go. The disciples repeat the very 
 terms used by Jesus (see ver. 5, 6, 10), and if 
 the several verbs employed by him were each 
 represented by a diti'erent English verb, this 
 fact would be more obvious. Thus: What is 
 this that he saith unto us, A little while and ye 
 bcholdme not; and again a little while, and ye 
 shall (or, will) see me ; and because I depart 
 to the Father ? 
 
 18. They said therefore, (or, they were 
 saying.) The scene rises before the mind of 
 the writer, and he repeats, more briefly, the 
 substance of the comment which some of the 
 disciples were making in a low tone to one 
 another; but adding to what he had before 
 noted, their explicit confession of inability to 
 understand their Lord's words: We cannot 
 tell (or, know wo^)what he saith — i. e., the 
 meaning of what he saith. From what fol- 
 lows it is clear that these whispered question- 
 ings and confessions of perplexity were not 
 the mutterings of a querulous spirit. Why, 
 then, did not the disciples, who were thus 
 commenting to one another on their Master's 
 words, turn rather at once, and at first, to him 
 for an explanation? Because he was felt by 
 them to be their Lord and Teacher; one to 
 whom they looked up with peculiar rever- 
 ence, and not infrequently with awe. None 
 of them, save Peter, who was naturally bold, 
 even to rashness, in personal intercourse, had 
 been wont to approach him without a sense of 
 his mysterious greatness. The sweetness and 
 lowliness of his spirit must have been mingled 
 with a divine authority and dignity, which 
 rendered easy familiarity impossible. And, 
 doubtless, the spiritual glory of Jesus had 
 been very conspicuous during the last few 
 hours, and while he was uttering the sayings 
 which perplexed them. A careful student of 
 the Apostolic Epistles will perceive that no 
 one of their writers, not even Peter, was accus- 
 tomed to place himself on such a level of per- 
 sonal intimacy and familiarity with the Lord 
 Jesus, as has been assumed in prayer and 
 conversation by some Christians of the present 
 day. And this fact, if it be a fact, suggests a 
 grave doubt whether the tone of modern 
 piety is in as perfect accord as it should be 
 with the whole nature of Christ, whether the 
 element of reverence is not wanting, or, at 
 
824 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 [Ch. XVI. 
 
 19 Now Jesus knew that they were desirous to 
 ask him, and said unto them, Do ye inquire among 
 yourselves of that I said, A little whPie, and ye shall 
 not see me: and again, a little while, and ye shall see 
 me? 
 
 20 Verily, verily, I say unto you. That ye shall 
 ■weep and lament, but the world shall rejoice: and ye 
 shall be sorrowlul, but your sorrow shall be turned into 
 joy. 
 
 19 Jesus perceived that they were desirous to ask him, 
 and he said unto them, Do ye inquire among your- 
 selves concerning this, that I said, A little while, 
 and ye behold me not, and again a little while, and 
 
 20 ye shall see me? Verily, verily, I say unto you, 
 that ye shall weep and lament, but the world shall 
 rejoice : ye shall be sorrowful, but your sorrow 
 
 least, feeble, to the serious injury of religious 
 life. 
 
 19. Now Jesus knew. The word trans- 
 lated now {ovf), is omitted by Tischendorf, 
 Tregelles, Westcott and Hort, in agreement 
 with the oldest MSS. X B D L, 1, 33, 157. 
 Knew — i. e., perceived by the power which 
 he had to read the hearts of men (comp. 2 : 
 25) ; though it is quite possible that their looks 
 and tones of voice may have been observed 
 by him, while their words were too indistinct 
 to be heard. That they were desirous to 
 ask him. See the remarks on ver. 18, for 
 the probable reason why they refrained from 
 doing what they desired to do. Observe, also, 
 that "he knew, not only the whisperings of 
 the disciples, and their inquiries among them- 
 selves, about the sense of his words, but, also, 
 their secret desires to ask him concerning it." 
 — GUI. It was not because of "a dark pre- 
 sentiment" ( Weiss), but because of their rev- 
 erence for the Lord; and they spoke of their 
 perplexity to one another, rather than to him, 
 with such a spirit that he was willing to re- 
 move that perplexity, as far as possible. "Yet, 
 as usual, he gives in the following no exposi- 
 tion of his meaning, but describes the succes- 
 sion of pain and joy which the 'not-seeing' 
 and the 'seeing-again' will bring, for the 
 purpose of preparing them practically for 
 that which was ready to take place." — Weiss. 
 
 20. Verily, verily, I say unto you. This 
 emphasis of expression is, as we have before 
 remarked, peculiar to the Fourth Gospel, and 
 to the sayings of Christ in this Gospel. It is 
 a solemn call to the disciples to give heed to 
 what he is about to say, by notifying them 
 beforehand of its great practical importance. 
 By such turns of expression, as well as by its 
 wonderful dignity and simplicity, does the 
 record of John reflect, as from the surface of 
 a polished mirror, the theanthropic life of the 
 Lord. That ye shall weep and lament. 
 The words weep and lament, refer to the 
 unrestrained expression of grief by means of 
 tears and wailing, "bj' mournful gestures 
 and doleful voice," which has always been 
 
 customary in the East upon the death of kin- 
 dred or friends. (Comp. Gen. 50: 10,11; 
 Luke 23 : 27 ; John 11 : 31-33 ; Mark 5 : 38, 39. 
 "How exactly, at the moment of the Sa- 
 viour's arrival, did the house of Jairus cor- 
 respond with the condition of one, at the 
 present time, in which a death has just taken 
 place ! It resounded with the same boisterous 
 expressions of grief, for which the nations of 
 the East are still noted." — Hackett. Of 
 course, these open manifestations of grief are, 
 in this case, revelations of the heart The ye 
 is emphatic, in contrast with the world. 
 But the world shall rejoice. Better, ^vill 
 rejoice; for this is simply a prediction of 
 what will be the feeling of unbelieving men, 
 the foes of Jesus Christ, at his crucifixion. 
 (Comp. Matt. 27: 28-31, 39-44; Mark 15: 29- 
 32 ; Luke 23: 35-39). " Not only the common 
 people, but the chief priests, with the scribes 
 and elders, mocked at him, insulted him, and 
 triumphed over him, when on the cross, being 
 glad at heart they had got him there; im- 
 agining now, that it was all over, the day was 
 their own, and they should be no more dis- 
 turbed by Christ and his followers." — Gill. 
 Yes, "the world will rejoice" at the cruci- 
 fixion of Jesus of Nazareth. The leaders of 
 the people will exult, for a brief period, in 
 the accomplishment of their purpose. "With 
 hearts full of religious pride, bent upon re- 
 taining power, angry at reproof, and blind to 
 the transcendent purity and loveliness of 
 the Saviour's character, they will cry: His 
 blood be upon us and upon our children, and 
 will glory in his bitter death as in victory 
 over a relentless foe. Alas, there have been 
 some in every age who have walked in the 
 footsteps of these leaders of the people— some, 
 who, in the name of God and religion, have 
 persecuted the saints of the Most High, some 
 who have thought that in killing men of 
 whom the world was not worthy, they were 
 presenting an acceptable offering to God 
 (ver. 2), as well as confirming their own power. 
 And ye shall be sorrowful. Omit and, 
 with the Revised Version, the critical editors, 
 
Ch. XVI.] 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 )2o 
 
 21 "A woman when she is in travail hath sor- 
 row, because her hour is couie : but us soon as she 
 is delivered of the child, she renienibereth no more 
 the anguish, for joy that a man ia born into the 
 world. 
 
 22 'And ye now therefore have sorrow : but I will see 
 you again, and i^your heart shall rejoice, and your joy 
 DO man taketh from you. 
 
 21 shall be turned into joy. A woman when she is in 
 travail hath sorrow, because her hour i.s come: but 
 when she is delivered of the child, she remeuiberelh 
 no more the anguish, for the joy that a luan is boru 
 
 22 into the world. And ye therefore now have sor- 
 row: but 1 will see you again, and your heart shall 
 rejoice, and your joy no one takeili away from you 
 
 alsa. 26: 17 b ver. 6 e Luke 24 : 41, 52; ch. 14: 1, 27; 20 : 20 ; Acts 2: 46; 13: 52; 1 Pet. 1: 
 
 L., T., Treg., W. & H., and the early MSS. 
 N* B D A, etc. The sense is not affected by 
 the omission. Being sorrowful diflers from 
 weeping and lamenting, as heart-grief diflers 
 from the cry of sorrow or the funeral dirge 
 by which it is expressed. Weak as the dis- 
 ciples might prove to be in the first great trial 
 of their faith, their love was genuine, and the 
 Saviour knew that he would have in them 
 real mourners. Their lamentation would be 
 no formal act, no perfunctory wailing for 
 custom's sake, but a cry as of children be- 
 reaved of their father, and left orphans in 
 the world — a bitter cry of disappointed hope 
 and wounded affection. But your sorrow 
 shall be turned into joy. That is, not 
 merely succeeded by joy, but turned into joy. 
 The very fountain of their sorrow will become 
 a fountain of joy. The very ground of their 
 lamentation will become a ground of re- 
 joicing. They will, ere long, glory in the 
 cross of Christ. (Gai. 6:i4.) What they have 
 deprecated as the greatest possible calamity, 
 and what they will mourn over for a little 
 while, as the end of all their hopes, namely, 
 their Lord's voluntary submission to death, 
 will become their inspiration and strength ; 
 and, as the central act of redemption, the key- 
 note of their sweetest song; nay, the very 
 heart of their message to a world Ij'ing in the 
 wicked one. This change of grief into joy, 
 is next set forth bj' a striking illustration. 
 
 21. A woman, when she is in travail. 
 Literally, the tvotnan, whoever she may be, 
 because the experience is universal. But the 
 English idiom for generic nouns calls for the 
 indefinite article, or for none at all. Hence, 
 in the present case, a woman, when she is 
 in travail (present tense, tUtji), refers to the 
 protracted anguish of child-birth, when great 
 physical pain and mental anxiety must be 
 borne. Her hour — the hour of parturition, 
 which is so decisive and important to the 
 mother. For joy that a man is born into 
 the world. She forgets the anguish of child- 
 birth in the joy of maternity. The same 
 
 illustration is employed by the prophets. (See 
 Isa. 21: 3; 26: 17, 18; 66: 7,8; Jer. 4:31; 22: 
 23 ; 30 : 6 ; Hos. 13 : 13, 14 ; Mic. 4 : 9, 10). 
 The child, (lit., the little child, t6 watSioc), 
 to whom she has given birth is a human 
 being, possessing already, in the mother's eye, 
 all the mental and moral qualities which will 
 be unfolded by years of discipline and expe- 
 rience; a human being worthy of a place in 
 the great world-order, and certain to continue 
 in existence forever. "As the pains of a 
 woman in travail are very sharp and severe, 
 and the distress of her mind about the issue 
 of things respecting herself and her oflspring 
 is very great, so would be the grief and 
 trouble of the disciples on account of the 
 death of their Lord and Master; but, as when 
 a woman is safely delivered of a child, she is 
 so filled with joy that her sorrow is remem- 
 bered no more; so should it be with them, 
 when Christ should appear to them." — Gill. 
 22. And ye now therefore have sorrow. 
 Therefore — that is, in harmony with this 
 illustration, which shows that great sorrow is 
 often changed into great joy. According to 
 Lachmann, supported by some of the early 
 MSS.— (6. g., H' AD L, 33), we ought to read 
 will have, instead of have ; but Tischendorf, 
 Tregelles, Westcott and Hort, with the Anglo- 
 American Revisers, supported by better man- 
 uscript authority — (e. 5^., K* B C Y T a a n, 
 etc.), retain have as the original text. Prob- 
 ably the future tense was substituted for the 
 present by some transcriber who thought it a 
 more exact expression of the fact. But this 
 was a mistake; for the sorrow of the disciples 
 at the prospect of their Lord's withdrawal 
 from them, had already begun to weigh them 
 down ; and its greatest pressure, at the actual 
 death of .Jesus in the near future, was as dis- 
 tinctly present to his mind, as if they were 
 now sinking to the earth under it. Some in- 
 terpreters endeavor to find a distinction be- 
 tween having sorrow and being sorrovful, but 
 without much success. The two forms of 
 expression are equivalent each to the other. 
 
326 JOHK 
 
 [Ch. XVI. 
 
 23 And in that day ye shall ask me nothing. 23 And in that 
 ''Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall verily, I say 
 ask the Father in my name, he will give it you. the Father, 
 
 day ye shall lask me nothing. Verily, 
 unto you, If ye sliali ask anything of 
 he will give it you in my name. 
 
 a Matt. 7 : 7 ; ch. 14 : 13 ; 15 : 16. 1 Or, ask me «o 
 
 question. 
 
 Bnt I will see you again. Implying, 
 doubtless, that in some true sense of the 
 words, they also should see him again. But 
 liow ? In his resurrection body, during the 
 forty days before he was taken up? Such a 
 view does not agree with the following con- 
 text. At his parousla, or second advent, in 
 visible form ? Neither does the context favor 
 this. It remains for us, then, to suppose that 
 he had in mind his return through the Holy 
 Spirit from the Day of Pentecost, onward. 
 Westcott remarks on the promise, I will 
 see you again, as distinguished from the 
 promise, "Ye shall see me" (ver. 19), that "the 
 highest blessing lies, not in the thought that 
 God is the object of our regard, but that 
 we are objects of God's regard. (Comp. Gal. 
 4:9; 1 Cor. 8: 3; John 10: 14, 15)." There 
 may be psychological truth in this remark, 
 but there is certainly no evidence that Jesus 
 had any such distinction in mind when he 
 uttered the words, I will see you again. 
 And your heart shall rejoice. Joy of 
 heart is real, inward joy; and this form of 
 expression is just as full of meaning as the 
 form "your heart will have joy." It signi- 
 fies the full realization of joy. And your joy 
 no man taketh from you. "Your sorrow 
 will be brief, your joy permanent and secure. 
 Enemies may assail you, and even put j'ou to 
 death ; but they cannot rob you of that "joy 
 in the Holy Spirit which I will impart to you." 
 There is considerable manuscript authority 
 for the future ivUl take, instead of the present 
 taketh; (viz., for the future, B* D T, Vulg., 
 Cop., Arm., Aeth., and for the present X A C 
 D" L Y A A n, Early Latin, Syr.); but the 
 predominance of testimony favors the com- 
 mon text, and a copyist would be more likely 
 to substitute the future for the present, than 
 the present for the future; not because the 
 future is the stronger form of statement, but 
 because it is more exact to a prosaic mind. 
 
 23. And in that day ye shall ask me 
 nothing. Or, icill ask — the sentence being, 
 not a prohibition, but a prediction. The 
 word me is emphatic, in contrast with the 
 Father, in the next clause. That day was 
 to begin with the outpouring of the Spirit at 
 
 the next Pentecost. From that time forward 
 they were to be taught by the Paraclete, and 
 would no more come to Jesus, personally, 
 with their questions and perplexities. The 
 word ask (iptuTav), seems to be used in the 
 same sense as in ver. 19, viz., to ask for infor- 
 mation, explanation, instruction, to propose u 
 question. His seeing them again will not, 
 then, be of such a nature as to restore their 
 present relations to him as a Teacher. This 
 change in their relations may be due to the 
 circumstance that Jesus will be no longer 
 visibly- present with them, and to the circum- 
 stance that the Holy Spirit will then be, in a 
 special sense, their Teacher. The discourse 
 of Peter, Acts 2: 14 sq., illustrates the change 
 which took place in the disciples when the 
 Spirit came upon them with power. Their 
 views of the kingdom of Christ were thence- 
 forth clear and consistent. Verily, verily, I 
 say unto you — thus calling their attention 
 to the importance of what he was to say. 
 Whatsoever ye shall ask the Father in 
 my name, he will give it you. According 
 to Tisch., Treg., W. & H., and the Anglo- 
 American Revisers, the true text requires the 
 following translation : If ye shall ask the 
 Father anything, he will give it you in my 
 name. Two reasons justify the position here 
 given to the words, in my name : (1) A pre- 
 ponderance of early manuscript evidence 
 (N* B C T., etc., requiring the change, and 
 A C' D T, etc., forbiding it) ; and (2) the prob- 
 ability of a transposition, by which this clause 
 would be connected with praying to God, as 
 in 14: 13; 15: 16, and the improbability' of a 
 transposition, by which it would be connected 
 (in this case only) with God's act in answer- 
 ing prayer. But if the Revised Version rep- 
 resents the original text, how is the expres- 
 sion, he will give it you in my name, to be 
 understood ? When a believer prays in the 
 name of Christ, he prays with a full recogni- 
 tion and acknowledgment of the mediatorship 
 of Christ, or in living fellowship with Christ. 
 (Comp. on 14: 13). So, when the Father, in 
 the name of Christ, answers prayer, he gives 
 the blessing which is asked, in recognition of 
 the mediatorship of Christ. The Saviour and 
 
Ch. XVL] 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 327 
 
 24 Ilitherlo have ye asked nothing in my name: 
 ask, aud ye shall receive, "that your joy may be lull. 
 
 Hitherto have ye asked nothing in my name: a-sk, 
 aud ye shall receive, that your joy may be wade 
 lull. 
 
 acb. 16: 11. 
 
 his work are, so to speak, the moral sphere in 
 which all is done, and so the condition on 
 which all depends. If this be correct, the 
 doctrinal significance of Christ's language in 
 this passage is very great, amounting to no 
 less than this ; that by every answer to prayer, 
 the Father honors the Son, or that the inter- 
 position of Christ in behalf of sinners is 
 recognized in ever3' answer to prayer. This 
 interpretation of tlie clause is supported by 
 Grimm: "God is said to do something 'in 
 the name of Christ' — i. e., mindful of the 
 name of Christ, moved by the name of 
 Christ, on account of Christ" (s. v. hvoiJLa, 2) e). 
 The same view is probably intended by 
 Winer: "Something takes place 'in a per- 
 son's name,' when it is comprehended or em- 
 braced in his name, is to be set down to his 
 personal activitj'," even though he is not the 
 nearest or immediate subject of the action. 
 (See p. 390). 
 
 24. Hitherto have ye asked nothing in 
 my name. This language is important as a 
 clue to the precise import of the last clause, 
 in my name. For these eleven disciples 
 were certainly men of prayer. Imperfect as 
 they were in Christian knowledge and faith, 
 they must have been renewed and devout 
 men, who are never prayerless men. More- 
 over, they had said to Jesus: "Lord, teach 
 us to pray, as John also taught his disciples," 
 and in response to their request, he had given 
 them a model of prayer, very nearly identical 
 with that contained in the Sermon on the 
 Mount. (Comp. Luke 11: 1-4 with Matt. 6: 
 9-13). But this model had in it no allusion to 
 himself, and there is reason to believe, apart 
 from this statement of Christ, that they had 
 not heretofore offered prayer to God in the 
 name of Christ. 
 
 These disciples were true followers of 
 Christ. He counted them his friends. He 
 was assured of their love. They were in him, 
 by virtue of a living fellowship, as truly as 
 the branch is in the vine. Therefore, during 
 the two years or more of their special disciple- 
 ship, they had prayed in spiritual union with 
 him. To have a Christ-like spirit in prayer, 
 is not, then, what is meant by praying in the 
 
 name of Christ. Such a temper had been 
 possessed, in some measure, by the Eleven, for 
 months, as, indeed, it had been possessed by 
 the saints of earlier ages. These disciples 
 had known Jesus as a Divine Teacher, the 
 true Messiah, the Holy One of God, the Son 
 of the living God, but thej' had not known 
 him as their high priest and sin-ottering, as 
 "the Lamb of God which taketh away the sin 
 of the world." (i:29). They had not seen in him 
 "a projjitiation for our sins, and not for ours 
 only, but also for the sins of the wiiole world." 
 (iJoim2:2). They had not yet comprehended 
 his words affirming that he "came, not to be 
 ministered unto, but to minister, and to give 
 his life a ransom for many." (Matt. 20: 28). This 
 was one of the "many things" which they 
 had been unable to bear (ver. 12), and which 
 could not be taught them effectually, save by 
 his death and resurrection, and the illumina- 
 tion of the Spirit. 
 
 From that time forward, to ask in the 
 name of Christ, would be to recognize and 
 honor him as One who had purchased them 
 with his blood (Acts20:28), who was their 
 "Advocate with the Father" (iJoiiu2: 1), and 
 whose mediation through sacrifice was the 
 great reason why their petitions for pardon 
 and life should be heard. And now all who 
 knovr Jesus Christ as the "one Mediator be- 
 twee:^. God and men," who "gave himself" 
 for them (iTim. 2: 5), must gratefully acknowl- 
 edge his sacrifice in their behalf, in order to 
 find favor with his Father. Every prayer 
 should have upon it the name of the Lord 
 Jesus. This seems to be a just conclusion 
 from the statement under consideration, and 
 this statement is, therefore, of much doctrinal 
 importance. Ask, and ye shall receive, 
 that your joy may be full. That is, ask 
 in my name, ask continuously in mj'^ name 
 (present tense), and ye shall receive, to the 
 end that your joy may be made full. "The 
 fullness of joy," remarks Westcott, "is the 
 divine end of Christ's work, according to the 
 Father's will." Consider, then, the goodness 
 of God in the perfect joy which is provided 
 for his people. Consider, also, the connection 
 between frequent prayer and the attainment 
 
328 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 [Ch. XVI. 
 
 25 These things have I spoken unto you in proverbs: 
 but the time cometh, when I shall no more speak unto 
 you in proverbs, but I shall shew you plainly of the 
 Father. 
 
 26 " At that day ye shall ask in my name : and 
 I say not unto you, that I will pray the Father for 
 you: 
 
 25 These things have I spoken unto you in i dark 
 sayings: the hour cometh, when I shall no more 
 speak unto you in 'dark sayings, but shall tell 
 
 26 you plainly of the Father. In that day ye shall 
 ask in my name: and I say not unto you, that I 
 
 a ver. 23. 1 Or, parables^ 
 
 of that joy. And consider, finally, that this 
 joy comes through Christ, and by a constant 
 recognition of his perfect work. 
 
 25-33. Summary of His Words to the 
 Eleven; or, Eeason for "Dark Say- 
 ings" ; The Eleven Understand His 
 Meaning; Last "Warning and An- 
 nouncement. 
 
 25. These things have I spoken unto 
 you in proverbs (or, parables). These 
 things, must comprehend all that he had 
 said to them since leaving the room where 
 the holy Supper was instituted. A glance 
 back will show the reader that a considerable 
 part of all this had been clothed in figurative 
 speech. On the word translated parables 
 (Trapoi^iavs), See the Note to 10: 6. The Revised 
 Version renders it parable in the text, and 
 proverb in the margin of 10: 6, while here it 
 is rendered by the American Revision dark 
 sayings in the text, and parables in the 
 margin. It is applied to language which is 
 highly figurative or allegorical, and, there- 
 fore, obscure. Sometimes the figurative char- 
 acter of the language is principally referred 
 to, and at others, the obscurity resulting from 
 that character. The former reference seems 
 to prevail in 10: 6, and the latter in the 
 passage before us. It is, therefore, diflBcult to 
 find a single word that will reproduce in 
 English the force of the Greek term in diflfer- 
 ent connections. But it is here applied to 
 figurative expressions as obscure, and is fairly 
 represented by dark sayings. But the time 
 cometh. But is omitted by Tisch., Treg., 
 "West, and Hort., and Anglo- Am. Revisers, 
 according to N A B C* D* L X Y n, 1, 33. More- 
 over, there appears to be no sufl!icient reason 
 for the insertion of the definite article before 
 time (lit., hour), as there is no good reason for 
 translating hora (upa), time, instead of hour. 
 A literal translation would be, an hour 
 cometh. The period referred to began with 
 the outpouring of the Spirit on the Daj' of 
 Pentecost, and will continue until the return 
 of Christ at the last day. When I shall no 
 
 more speak unto you in proverbs (or, 
 dark sayings). Everything may be good in 
 its time, but dawn should be followed bj- the 
 clear shining of tlie sun. Having done their 
 work, t^'pes and shadows must give way to 
 realities. Dark sayings, are not the best for 
 all periods of religious life. The face of truth 
 need not always be covered by a veil. But I 
 shall show you plainly of the Father. 
 To show, means in this place to declare 
 (a-nayyiKi> Lach., Tisch., Treg., "West. & Hort., 
 after X A B C* L, etc.), " marking the origin, 
 rather than the destination, of the message." 
 — Westcott. Plainly — i. e., clearly, openly, 
 without concealment. Observe that the 
 teaching of the Holy Spirit is claimed by the 
 Saviour as his own teaching. Jesus expected 
 to speak unto his people in and by the Spirit 
 of truth. In taking from the things of 
 Christ, the Spirit was to take his words, his 
 will, and make them known to the church. 
 Thus Jesus would continue to be the Divine 
 "Word, or, Revealer, though he should speak 
 through the Spirit, his Advocate with men. 
 
 26. At that day. Rather, in that day, 
 is the meaning of Christ's language. And 
 that day, is the period mentioned above, ver. 
 25, the word day, in this verse standing for 
 the same idea as the word hour, in that. 
 Both signify, as here used, a long period of 
 time, a Dispensation, or aeon. Yet these two 
 words should be literally translated, since 
 their English use corresponds with their New 
 Testament use, and since much would be lost 
 by substituting for them the utterly indefinite, 
 unlimited word time. Ye shall (or, loill) 
 ask in my name — i.e., oflTer your petitions 
 {airri<Tfaee) in my name. For the expression, 
 in my name, see Notes on 14: 18, 14, and on 
 verses 23, 24, above. That I will pray the 
 Father for you. Better, will ask the Father 
 about you; for the word rendered pray 
 (ipiarav), mcans to ask, either for information, 
 instruction, or for a blessing, privilege, favor 
 of some kind, while the words for you, do 
 not precisely represent the Greek (nepX vfimv), 
 
Ch. XVI.] 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 329 
 
 27 "For the Father himself loveth you, because ye 
 have loved me, and 'have believed that I came out 
 from God. 
 
 28 "I came forth from the Father, and am come 
 into the world: again, I leave the world, and go to the 
 Father. 
 
 27 will 1 pray the Father for you ; for the Father him- 
 self loveth you, because ye have loved uie, and 
 
 28 have believed that 1 came forth from the Father. I 
 came out from the Father, and am come into the 
 world: again, I leave the world, and go unto the 
 
 a ch. 14: 21, 23 b ob. 3: 13; 17 : 8 ; ver. 30 c oh. 13 : 3. 1 Gr. make request of. 
 
 which means, about you, or, concerning you. 
 To ask abo^t them when they pray, would be 
 to inquire after the Father's will in respect to 
 them, and in so doing, to lay their case before 
 him. Three things are noticeable in this say- 
 ing of Jesus: (1) It betrays no thought of 
 diminished interest on his part in the welfare 
 of his followers. See the reason for it in the 
 sequel. (2) It does not predict a closing up 
 of his personal interposition in their behalf. 
 That interposition will cease only so far as it 
 is needless. In certain cases it may be relied 
 upon — (e. flr., iJohn2: 2). (3) It assumcs the Con- 
 tinued virtue of his influence in their behalf, 
 by the words, ye will ask in my name. For 
 prayer in the name of Christ is, in reality, 
 prayer endorsed by him, and it will be heard 
 as if it were offered by him. 
 
 27. For the Father himself loveth you. 
 And he will surely answer the petitions of 
 those whom he loves. The Father himself, 
 is the Father, as personally distinguishable 
 from the Son. And the love here spoken of, 
 is like that which springs from natural rela- 
 tionship ((^lAe'i) ; it is a spontaneous aft'ection, 
 going out to those who are, as it were, his 
 
 children in Christ. (Rom. 8: IS; comp. Kev. S: 19.) 
 
 Because ye have loved me. The perfect 
 tense represents the love of the disciples to 
 Christ as an affection which began in the past 
 and had continued into the present. And the 
 verb is the same as that used in the previous 
 verse to denote the Father's affection for 
 them. Only here in the Gospels is it chosen 
 to characterize the affection of the disciples 
 for Christ, unless Peter's language in 21 : 15- 
 17, be counted another instance. Probably 
 its selection may be partly owing to the use 
 of the same verb in speaking of Grod; for 
 Jesus evidently desired to associate his 
 Father's love to them with their love to him- 
 self, the Son. Moreover, the affection which 
 they felt for him was not purely religious, but 
 to some extent natural and personal. Yet 
 their consciousness of it would do much to 
 make the Father's love to them intelligible. 
 That I came out from God. Better, that \ 
 
 I came forth from the Father. This reading 
 is adopted by Tisch., Treg., West. & Hort., 
 Anglo-Am. Kevisers, after N" 13 C* D L X, etc. 
 From, the Father, means from with the Fa- 
 ther, or, from, a position by the Father's side. 
 It would not have been enough for the dis- 
 ciples to have felt a warm personal attach- 
 ment to Jesus, as a noble and sincere man ; 
 they must also recognize his relation to the 
 Father before his appearance among men, 
 and his mission from the Father, as the prom- 
 ised Messiah. 
 
 28. I came forth from the Father. 
 More precisely, I catne out from the Father; 
 not from the Father's side (i-apij, but, as it 
 were, out from (ex) the inner being, the very 
 life and love of the Father. The language is 
 exact, and strong enough to be appealed to in 
 proof of the essential unity of the Father and 
 the Son, or at least of the Father and the 
 Word. But it does not suggest the doctrine 
 of eternal generation ; for the coming out 
 from the inner sphere of the Father's life, is 
 represented as an act of Christ (not of the 
 Father), performed at a definite moment in 
 the past. "This, his coming forth from the 
 Father, is to be understood, not of his eternal 
 filiation ; nor of his coming forth in a way of 
 grace, towards his own people in the council 
 and covenant of grace and peace ; nor of his 
 constitution, as Mediator, from everlasting; 
 but of his coming in the flesh, in the fullness 
 of time ; which supposes that he was, that he 
 existed as a divine person before; that he was 
 with the Father before; that he came forth 
 from him with his knowledge, mind, and 
 will," etc. — GUI. And am come into the 
 world. Would it not be still better English 
 to translate: and have coyne into the world? 
 This language does not refer exclusively to 
 his incarnation in the womb of Mar}-, and so 
 to his incorporation into the world of man- 
 kind ; but rather, to the whole process by 
 which he entered into human life and society, 
 to be a teacher of the divine will, and to give 
 his life a ransom for many. It refers to his 
 manifestation in human history. (Comp. 1: 
 
330 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 [Cn. XIV. 
 
 29 His disciples said unto him, Lo, now speakest thou 
 plainly, and speakest no proverb. 
 
 30 Now are we sure that «thou knowest all things, 
 and needest not that any luan should ask thee : by this 
 ' we believe that thou earnest forth from God. 
 
 29 Father. His di.sciples say, Lo, now speakest thou 
 
 30 plainly, and speakest no idark saying. Now know 
 we that thou knowest all things, and needest not 
 that any man should ask thee : by this we believe 
 
 a ch. 21: 17 6 ver. 27 ; cb. 17 : 8. 1 Or, parable. 
 
 9-11; 3: 19; 9: 39; 12: 46). Again, I leave 
 
 the world. The original vevh (i.<j>iriiJ.i.), signi- 
 fies to send from, to dismiss, to relinquish, to 
 leave, and does not, therefore, differ, essen- 
 tially, from the word withdraw {iinayia), (ver. 
 5, Note). The suggestion of Westcott (on 
 4: 3), that "the general idea which it conveys 
 seems to be that of leaving anything to itself, 
 to its own wishes, ways, fate ; of withdrawing 
 whatever controlling power was exercised 
 before,'" is not sustained by its use in this 
 passage. For, in leaving the world to go 
 unto the Father, Jesus did not desert it, did 
 not leave it to itself; he continued to care for 
 it, and to draw it unto himself. (Comp. 12: 
 32). And go to the Father. "As surely 
 as this is to be understood of his exaltation to 
 the heavenly existence, so surely is the 'came 
 out from' to be understood of his leaving an 
 existence with God in the heavenly life." — 
 Weiss. Meyer speaks of this verse as "a 
 simple and grand summary of his entire per- 
 sonal life." It is so worded as to aifirm di- 
 rectly, or by assumption, his pre-existence 
 with God, his incarnation and life among 
 men, and his return to the divine state with 
 the Father. And this language is so plain 
 that his disciples seemed to themselves to com 
 prehend it. His words had answered the 
 question of their hearts, and convinced them 
 afresh of his divine knowledge. Hence their 
 language in the following verses, 29, 30. 
 
 29. His disciples said unto him, etc. 
 According to the best editors this should read : 
 His disciples say. Lo, now speakest th«»u 
 plainly, and speakest no proverb (or, 
 parable). For the meaning of the words 
 plainly and parable, see Notes on ver. 25. 
 The interjection Lo (iSe), which appears twice 
 in this connection, is characteristic of the 
 Fourth Gospel, being found in it a greater 
 number of times than in all the other books 
 of the New Testament. Now is emphatic; as 
 if the Lord's promise of clearer light in the 
 future had been found true in the present. 
 Of course they had no thought of claiming 
 that what they now perceived was all the 
 truth which he had promised to give them 
 
 through the ministry of the Spirit, but the 
 " rays and beams of light which were darted 
 into their minds," awaken surprise and joy. 
 "In responding directly to the thoughts 
 which profoundly agitated their hearts, Jesus 
 gave them a standard by which thej' could 
 measure the truth of all his words, and the 
 certainty of all his promises." — Godet. 
 
 30. Now we are sure. More precisel3' : 
 Now we know (oifia/iej'). The evidence seems 
 to them complete. Not a doubt remains. 
 Belief has risen to certainty, and is spoken of 
 as knowledge. But how stupendous the fact 
 which they profess to know ! That thou 
 knowest all things. Do they mean this in 
 an absolute sense? Or is it a case of bold ex- 
 aggeration, without much regard to the 
 proper use of words? The occasion was not 
 likely to beget extravagant speech in that di- 
 rection. Moreover, the disciples must have 
 been impressed by the mysterious penetration 
 of their Lord, and they probably felt at this 
 moment that nothing, however secret, was 
 hidden from him; nay, that his knowledge 
 was divine. And needest not that any 
 man should ask thee. Their special ground 
 for confidence in his supernatural knowledge, 
 was the answer which he had given to the 
 unexpressed desire of their hearts for an ex- 
 planation of his woi'ds (ver. 19). To this in- 
 stance of his discernment, therefore, thej' 
 specially refer, as a proof or illustration of 
 their general statement. By (or, in) this we 
 believe that thou earnest forth from God 
 — i.e., "Our belief tlitit thou camest forth 
 from God, is grounded in the knowledge 
 which thou hast manifested of the secret feel- 
 ings of our hearts," or, "we believe that thou 
 camest forth from God with a belief that has 
 its source and support in the knowledge of 
 our hearts which thou hast shown." Not 
 that they now first believed this truth, but 
 that they now believed it with fresh assur- 
 ance, in the light of his heart-searching dis- 
 cernment. "For their present faith in the 
 divine origin of Chri.st they confess that they 
 have found a new and special ground of cer- 
 tainty in that which they have just men- 
 
Ch. XVI.] 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 331 
 
 31 Jesus answered them, Do ye now believe? 
 
 32 "Behold, the hour coiiieth, yea, is u(jw come, that 
 ye shall be scattered, 'every luau to his owu, and shall 
 leave me alone: and "yet I am not alone, because the 
 Father is with me. 
 
 31 that thou earnest forth from God. .lesus answered 
 
 32 them, L)o ye now believe? Behold, the hour cometh, 
 yea, is come, that ye shall be .scattered, every man 
 to his own, and shall leave me alone: and yet I 
 am not alone, because the Father is with me. 
 
 iMaU. 26:31; Mark U: '27....icb. 20: 10....C ch. 8: 29; 14: 10, 11. 
 
 tionefl." — Weiss. It is characteristic of this 
 Gospel to treat woids as elastic, and especially 
 the word believe. Tims a lower and a liigher 
 degree of confidence is expressed by the same 
 term, and any fresh sense of trust is spoken 
 of, as if the feeling were now experienced for 
 the first time. Moreover, though the dis- 
 ciples merely avow their belief that their 
 Master had come to them from God, we may 
 assume that they also accepted the correspond- 
 ing statement, "Again, I leave the world, and 
 go to the Father." (ver. 28.) Yet their re- 
 luctant lips failed to utter what they knew. 
 And it is not, perhaps, amiss to suppose that 
 Jesus had respect to that reluctance in the re- 
 sponse which follows. Rejoicing that he 
 had brought them on so far in their spiritual 
 course, he yet perceives with natural sadness 
 the practical weakness of their faith. 
 
 31. Do ye now believe? Words which 
 imply doubt as to the steadfastness or perma- 
 nence of their faith, but not as to its reality. 
 For the exact bearing of these words must be 
 inferred from what follows. Rightly under- 
 stood, they are a hearty recognition of present 
 belief on the part of his disciples, and at the 
 same time a hint that more should be said, 
 that there is another aspect of the case, since 
 to-morrow may not be with them as to-day. 
 Thus the question is a natural preface to the 
 prediction that follows. 
 
 32. Behold, the hour cometh, yea, is 
 now come. More exactly : Behold, an Jiour 
 cometh, and has come. For the definite 
 article, which is not in the original, need not 
 be inserted before the word hour, and the 
 latest editors (Lach., Tisch., Treg., Anglo- 
 Am. Rev., West. & Hort, after X A B C* D* L 
 X 33), omit the adverb now. And has come, 
 is added, because it was so near! The very 
 day had arrived. Before the night should 
 pass, their weakness would appear. Nay, it 
 is possible, though not probable, that the 
 literal hour which was to witness their disper- 
 sion had begun. Westcott remarks, that 
 "this clause, as contrasted with 'and now is' 
 (4: 23), presents rather the fulfillment of con- 
 dition than the beginning of a period," but 
 
 we cannot discover any solid ground for his 
 opinion. That ye shall be scattered, 
 every man to his own. Yet Jesus himself 
 secured for his disciples the opportunity of 
 separating and retiring to their homes (see 
 18: 8), but they would not have seized it as 
 promptly as they did, if they had possessed a 
 martyr spirit. His course was marked by 
 condescension to the weakness of their faitii. 
 Westcott translates: "that ye maybe scat- 
 tered," etc., because the conjunction ren- 
 dered "that" {'iva), introduces a final clause — 
 i. e., a clause whicii states an end for which 
 something is done or occurs. Hence he adds: 
 "Even this was part of the divine counsel." 
 The doctrine is true, but it is difficult to de- 
 termine the exact force of this conjunction in 
 many passages of our Gospel. Certainly 
 Jesus intended to predict the scattering of his 
 disciples in the hour referred to, but we are 
 not sure that he intended to represent the 
 hour as coming, and as already come, for the 
 purpose of their being scattered. Every one 
 to his own — i. e., to his own possessions and 
 pursuits. Thus Peter and some of his com- 
 panions returned to their employment as fish- 
 ermen on the Sea of Galilee. (21 : 3-) And 
 shall leave me alone. A pathetic word, 
 surcharged with human sweetness and sorrow, 
 revealing, on the one hand, how precious was 
 their presence and love to him, and, on the 
 other, how weak their love would prove to be 
 in the hour of trial. If Westcott's view of 
 the introductory conjunction, as meaning "in 
 order that," be correct, this clause should be 
 translated, "and leave me alone," for it is in 
 the same construction as the preceding one, 
 "may be scattered." And yet I am not 
 alone, because the Father is Avith me. 
 Yet is supplied by the translators, but it rep- 
 resents fairly well what must have been the 
 meaning of Christ — a meaning that may have 
 been conveyed by uttering the word and, 
 pausing for a moment, and then pronouncing, 
 with suitable intonation, the words that fol- 
 low. Thus: and — I am not alone, because 
 the Father is with me. Such brevilo- 
 quence is often the most effective speech. The 
 
332 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 [Ch. XVL 
 
 33 These things I have spokeu unto you, that <■ in me 
 ye might have peace. ' In the world ye shall have 
 tribulation: =but be of good cheer; "^ I have overcome 
 the world. 
 
 33 These things have I spoken unto you, that in me 
 ye may- have peace. In the world ye have tribu- 
 lation : but be of good cheer ; 1 have overcome the 
 world. 
 
 o Isa. 9 : 6; cU. U: 27; Kom. 5 : 1 ; Eph. 2 : 14 : Col. 1 : 20 5 ch. 15: 19, 20, 21; 2 Tim. 3: 12 c ch. 14 : 1 d Eom. 8 : 37 ; 1 John 4: 
 
 4; 5:4. 
 
 look, the pause, the tone, are more impressive 
 than words. So now the satisfaction of Jesus 
 is too deep for any but the simplest expres- 
 sion. The presence of the Father is a source 
 of joy too sacred and precious for description 
 in the language of men. Alone — and not 
 alone ! Deserted by men — supported by God ! 
 Meyer speaks of the feeling here expressed as 
 "the calm, clear consciousness of the Father's 
 protection, raised above all human desertion." 
 Never, perhaps, was there a person on earth 
 who felt so keenly the loss of human sym- 
 pathy; never, surely, was there one who 
 prized so highly the continuance of divine 
 fellowship. Yet, for a moment, he seemed to 
 be left without the latter. (Matt. 27: 46.) Paul 
 was permitted to follow, at a distance, no 
 doubt, in the footsteps of his Lord. "At my 
 fir.«t defence no one took my part, but all for- 
 sook me: may it not be laid to their account! 
 But the Lord stood by me and strengthened 
 me." (2Tim. 4: 16, Rev. ver.) But neither had the 
 apostle to the Gentiles such claims on the 
 fidelity of his companions as Jesus had on the 
 love of his disciples, nor did he ever have 
 such perfect intercourse with the Lord, as 
 Jesus now had with his Father. 
 
 33. These things, etc. Namely, all that 
 he had said to the Eleven since Judas, the 
 betrayer, had left the upper room. One gen- 
 eral purpose had been in the mind of Christ 
 in all that he had spoken — that in me ye 
 might have peace. Better, may have peace. 
 Compare the comments on 14: 27; 15: 11; 16: 
 1, 4. True peace, re.st of soul, has its source 
 in Christ; and those who are in him, as the 
 living branches are in the vine, will have this 
 true peace. Out of him, men are tormented 
 with discord and strife and unrest of soul ; in 
 him they have love, hope, and ]oy. In the 
 world ye shall have tribulation. Notice, 
 first, that the text approved bj' the best 
 editors (Tisch., Treg., West. & Hort, Anglo- 
 Am. Revisers), and supported by the principal 
 early MSS. (x A B C L X Y T ah), requires 
 the translation : In the world ye have tribu- 
 lation — showing that the hostility of the 
 world had already begun to assail them, or, 
 
 better, perhaps, that in their relations with 
 the world, tribulation would be their perma- 
 nent lot. They were to meet with contradic- 
 tion, reproach, persecution, .so that an apostle 
 would say, nearly forty years later, "Yea, 
 and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus, 
 shall suffer persecution." (2 Tim. 3:12.) But 
 persecution and spiritual peace are perfectly 
 consistent. Of course, in the world, does 
 not mean in harmony with the world, but the 
 world in which they live is regarded as the 
 source in which their tribulation takes its 
 rise. But be of good cheer. " Take heart, 
 be encouraged." I have overcome the 
 world. The pronoun I is emphatic. "He 
 does not say, ' Be of good cheer, you have 
 overcome the world' ; but this is your conso- 
 lation, that I, I have overcome the world; 
 my victory is your salvation." — Luther. 
 But, in what did the victory of Jesus consist? 
 In what way had he overcome the world? 
 Weiss replies, that "he neither has suffered, 
 nor does suffer himself to be led Into sin by 
 the world, nor to be disturbed in his peace." 
 Meyer holds that the perfect, have over- 
 come, "states the victory immediately im- 
 pending, which is to be gained through his 
 glorification, by means of death, as already 
 completed. (Comp. 12: 31; 13: 31)." Itseems 
 to me that the perfect is best explained by 
 supposing a reference to the victory which 
 Christ had been gaining, and was now gain- 
 ing, and was certain of making perfect in the 
 garden and on the cross; a victory which 
 consisted of an inward triumph over tempta- 
 tion, and a giving of his life a ransom for 
 many. It was subjective and objective at the 
 same time. It began as early as the day 
 when he was led bj' the Spirit into the wilder- 
 ness, to be tempted by the devil, and was 
 completed on the cross, when he cried, "It Is 
 finished," and gave up the ghost, or, at the 
 latest, when he rose from the dead, and took 
 his place at the right hand of God. From 
 first to last he was victorious. At every 
 point, even the darkest, he conquered. And, 
 through him, his followers will overcome as 
 well. 
 
Ch. XVII.] 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 333 
 
 CHAPTER XVII. 
 
 THESE words spake .Tesus, and lifted up his eyes 
 to heaveu, and said, Fatlier, « the hour is come; 
 glorify tliy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee: 
 
 1 These things spake Jesus ; and lifting up his eyes 
 to heaven, he said, Father, the hour is come ; glori- 
 
 ach. 12: 23; 13: 32. 
 
 Ch. 17. The prayer which the Evangelist 
 now records, was offered in the presence and 
 hearing of the disciples with whom Jesus had 
 been conversing; and there is no sufficient 
 reason for calling in question the substantial 
 accuracy of the Evangelist's record. A more 
 suitable or sublime ending of his personal 
 work for the Eleven, by way of teaching and 
 encouragement, cannot be imagined. Such 
 an ending was not likely to be forgotten by the 
 beloved disciple. For his spirit was one that 
 would be deepl}' impressed by it; that would 
 cherish with affectionate interest through all 
 his ministry the memory of it; and that, 
 assisted by the Spirit of truth, would put it 
 on record, with holy reverence, for the people 
 of God. "It is impossible," says Alford, "to 
 regard the following prayer otherwise than 
 as the very words of our Lord himself, faith- 
 fully rendered by the beloved apostle, in the 
 power of the Holy Spirit. The Greek form 
 of them only can be regarded as bearing evi- 
 dence of the style and manner of John." 
 
 This prayer may be fitly called the Lord's 
 Prayer — (1) for himself (i-s), (2) for the 
 Eleven (s-is), and fS) for all believers, to the 
 end of time (20-26). "But," according to 
 Godet, "when Jesus prays for himself, it is 
 not merely his own person which he has in 
 view, it is the work of God (ver. 1 and 2) ; when 
 he prays for his apostles, it is for the organs 
 and continuers of the same work; and when 
 he commends to God, believers, present and 
 future, it is as objects of this work, and be- 
 cause these souls are the theatre wherein the 
 glory of his Father ought to shine." 
 
 As to the place where the little group, of 
 which Jesus was the centre, was now stand- 
 ing — whether it was a court of the temple, or 
 a more secluded spot on the western slope of 
 the Kidron vallej' — we are in doubt. The 
 words of 14 : 31 suggest that they had left the 
 upper room ; and the words of 18: 1 suggest 
 that they had not passed over the Kidron ; 
 but they do not, separately, or together, fur- 
 nish any clue to the precise locality. Per- 
 haps they favor the view that he was still in 
 
 the city, and if so, probably in the precincts 
 of the temple. 
 
 1-8. Jesus Prays for His Approach- 
 ing Glorification. 
 
 1. These words spake Jesus. By these 
 words (or, these things, as the Greek word is 
 usually rendered), the Evangelist may mean 
 all that had been said by the Lord during the 
 evening, or, possibly, the last sentences uttered 
 by him. (16:32,33.) The former is a more 
 probable view than the latter. And lifted 
 up his eyes to heaven, and said. Better, 
 and lifting up his eyes to heaven, he said; for 
 this more exact reproduction of the Greek 
 idiom (since it translates the participle by a 
 participle), is even better English than the 
 Common Version. Lifting up the eyes to 
 heaven, is a natural act in prayer, especially 
 when filial confidence is strong; for God is 
 conceived of as dwelling in heaven, and the 
 eyes of a trustful Son spontaneously turn 
 towards the Father, who is addressed. Fa- 
 ther, the hour is come. Has come, would 
 be a still more exact representation of the 
 original word. By the hour, is meant the 
 time when the Son was to be glorified. This 
 is evident from the request that follows. It 
 was a time fixed in the eternal purpose of 
 God, and was, therefore, called by Jesus, 
 simply and sublimely, the hour. Glorify 
 thy Son. That is, by receiving him into the 
 heavenly glory. (Comp. 7: 39 ; 12 : 16). This 
 glory was to be reached through suffering, by 
 way of the cross; but the eye of Christ seems 
 to be directed, for the moment, to the goal 
 itself, rather than to the way that must be 
 trodden in coming to it. The pronoun thy, 
 maj' be considered as in itself a plea for what 
 is asked. " Thy Son it is who?n thou art re- 
 quested to exalt into glory;" or "Glorify me, 
 for I am thy Son." That thy Son also 
 may glorify thee. Omit thy (with Tisch., 
 Treg., West. & Hort, Anglo- Am. lievisers, 
 after X B C*, etc.), and also (with Tisch., 
 Treg., West. & Hort., Anglo-Am. Revisers, 
 after X A B C* D, etc.), leaving the clause, 
 that the Son may glorify thee. Which 
 
334 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 [Ch. XVII. 
 
 2 "As thou hast given him power over all flesh, 
 that he should give eternal life to as many *as thou 
 hast given him. 
 
 a And 'this is life eternal, that they might know 
 thee <i the only true God, and Jesus Christ, « whom thou 
 hast sent. 
 
 2 fy thy Son, that the Son may glorify thee: even as 
 thou gavest him authority over all tlesh, that what- 
 soever thou hast given him, to them he should give 
 
 3 eternal life. And this is life eternal, that they 
 should know thee the only true God, and him 
 
 7- 14 • Matt. 11: -27; 28: 18; ch. 3: 35; 5 : 27 ; 1 Cor. 15: 25. 27; Phil. 2 : 10 ; Heb. 2:8 5 cb. 6 37; ver. 6: 9. 24. 
 
 Jer. 9: 24.... d 1 Cor. 8: 4; 1 TUess. 1:9 e oh. 3 : 34; 5: 36, 37 ; 6: 29,57; 7 ; 29 ; 10: 36; 11 : 42. 
 
 means, "that the Son may reveal, with 
 greater clearness than heretofore, thy perfec- 
 tion or glory."' More than this cannot be 
 intended; for Christ had been revealing the 
 Father during all his earthly ministrv. Ob- 
 serve that Jesus desires his own glorification 
 in order that he may make manifest his 
 Father's glory. Confident of his Father's 
 love to him, he is conscious of supreme love 
 to the Father. 
 
 2. As thou hast given him power, etc. 
 The Revised Version is better: Even as thou 
 gavest him authority over all flesh, that what- 
 soever thou hfist given him, to them he should 
 give eternal life. Even as, marks the corre- 
 spondence between what is now asked (ver. i), 
 and what the Father had given the Son when 
 he sent him into the world. (Comp. 13: 3). 
 The authority which the Father then gave 
 the Son, and the end for which it was given, 
 harmonize with the glorification of the Son 
 at this time. For only by that glorification 
 can the end proposed be accomplished. Ob- 
 serve (1) that by all flesh, is meant all man- 
 kind, in their natural state, as coming short 
 of the glory of God. (Rom. 3:23.) And au- 
 thority over all mankind would scarcely 
 have been given to the Son, unless many out- 
 side the Jewish nation were to receive the gift 
 of eternal life from him. But while in the 
 flesh, his work was chiefly with the Jews. 
 That he might approach all men with the 
 same blessing, it was necessary that he should 
 be glorified. (2) That the word whatsoever, 
 or. all which (nav a), represents the whole 
 body of believers, given to Christ by the 
 Father, as a unity, while the clause, to them 
 he should give eternal life, represents the 
 spiritual life of these believers as Christ's gift 
 to them as individuals. He expects to save 
 those, and those only, whom the Father has 
 given him. (3) That by giving to them eter- 
 nal life he will glorify the Father, who has 
 given them to him. Godet points out the 
 connection of thought as follows: "The 
 second proposition of verse 2, that he should 
 
 give eternal life, is parallel to the second of 
 verse 1 ; that he may glorify thee. Tlie true 
 means of glorifj'ing God, is that of communi- 
 cating eternal life. For life eternal consists in 
 knowing God. (ver. 3.) By presenting his re- 
 quest in this new form, Jesus urges it in a man- 
 ner the most pressing: 'Glorify me, in order 
 that, in accordance with the trust committed 
 to me, I may be able to give eternal life to all 
 that believe.' That is to say : ' Grant me the 
 ascension, that I may effect the Pentecost.' " 
 It is worth while to notice also the expansion 
 of the second clause of this verse by Gill. 
 "Eternal life is a gift, and not owing to the 
 merits of men. . . (It) is Christ's gift; . . it is 
 put into his hands, and he came into this 
 world that his people might have it; he has 
 procured it, and has removed what lay in the 
 way of their enjoyment of it; he has a right 
 to bestow it, and their right unto it conies by 
 him, through his blood and righteousness; 
 the persons on whom he confers this gift are 
 not all men, but such as the Father, in the 
 everlasting covenant, has given to him as his 
 people and portion. . . . his jewels and his 
 treasure, to be saved and enjoj'ed \>y him ; . . 
 to these, and evcrj^ one of them, Christ gives 
 this great blessing; nor shall anj' of them 
 come short of it ; and 'tis for the sake of this, 
 that all creatures and things, all power in 
 heaven and earth, are given to him." 
 
 3. And this is life eternal, that they 
 might know, etc. We regard this as a defini- 
 tion of the eternal life referred to in the pre- 
 ceding verse as Christ's gift. It is a state- 
 ment, at once brief and profound, of that in 
 which eternal life consists. But the know- 
 ing spoken of is more than intellectual, it is 
 spiritual ; comprehending in itself love, ap- 
 preciation, communion. "Every one that 
 loveth is begotten of God, and knoweth God. 
 He that loveth not, knoweth not God, for 
 God is love." (i John, 4: 7, 8.) Godet says: 
 "The Scripture always (?) emploj's the word 
 I knou} in a sense most profound. When 
 I speaking of the connection between two 
 
Ch. XVII.] 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 335 
 
 persons, this word denotes the perfect view 
 whi(!h each one hiis of the moral being of the 
 other, their close spiritual contact in the same 
 luminous medium." Weiss remarks: "The 
 knowledge here meant is not to be regarded 
 as a purely theoretical function of the under- 
 standing, but, as ever with John, a spiritual 
 intuition, a sinking one's self into the supreme 
 object of knowledge, by means of which that 
 object is inwardly appropriated and made the 
 central and controlling principle of the whole 
 spiritual life." It may be noticed, also, that 
 the verb to know conveys a slightly difter- 
 ent meaning from that which would be con- 
 ve^'Cd by the noun knowledge. For the 
 one represents eternal life as the highest form 
 of present and continuous spiritual action, 
 while the other represents it as a spiritual 
 possession. Moreover, it is characteristic of 
 this Gospel to make use of verbs rather than 
 of nouns — e. g., to speak of believing rather 
 than of faith or belief, the verb occurring 
 ninety-eight times and the corresponding 
 noun not once; of knowing rather than of 
 knowledge, the verb occurring fifty-five times 
 and the corresponding noun not once ; and of 
 loving rather than of love, the verb (ayan-ai/) 
 occurring thirty-six times, and the corre- 
 sponding noun {ayinn) Only seven times. Such 
 a choice of words flows naturally from the 
 conception of true religion as a life — a con- 
 ception which pervades the Fourth Gospel 
 and the First Epistle of John. 
 
 With this view of the first part of the verse, 
 the translation might know, is incongruous. 
 Hence, instead of might know, the Revised 
 Version reads, should knoiv, Westcott and 
 McCiellan fnay knoiv, the Bible Union and 
 Davidson, knoiv, Alford and Noyes, to know. 
 (Tisch. and Treg. give the Greek verb in the 
 indicative present, after A D G L Y A A, 33. 
 West. & Hort, with Anglo-Am. Revisers, give 
 it in the subjunctive present, after X B C X n, 
 etc). If the conjunction that, ('iva) here re- 
 tains its ordinary sense, in order that, we 
 must adopt the version of Westcott and Mc- 
 Ciellan, may know. But the language is 
 then dark. For to say, "This is the eternal 
 life," namely, "in order that they may 
 know," etc., is, by no means, a natural or 
 clear expression of thought. It begins to state 
 what eternal life is, but ends by stating what 
 it is in order to, or what is the end contem- 
 
 plated by it. We are satisfied that the con- 
 junction, as here usihI, is ernployed to intro- 
 duce a definite clause, explanatory of this ; 
 and if so, the best English translation is by 
 the infinitive, to know. Thee, the only 
 true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou 
 hast sent. This rendering is less exact than 
 that of the Revised Version: Thee, the only 
 true God, and hbn whom thou didst send, even 
 Jesus Christ. Here the Father is described 
 as the only true God— i. e., as the only 
 being in whoni the idea of God is perfectly 
 realized. This language has been considered 
 by many incompatible with the proper deity 
 of Christ; and, if taken altogether by itself, 
 it has an appearance of being so. But it 
 should be observed, (1) that the association of 
 himself with the Father, as one of the two 
 personal objects of that knowledge which is 
 life eternal, does not accord with any view 
 which denies his own deity. It seems well 
 nigh incredible that Jesus should have said 
 that it is eternal life to know the only true 
 God, and an inferior being, sent by him as a 
 messenger to men. If it be said, that know- 
 ing the messenger sent, is the only means of 
 knowing the true God who sent him, it is im- 
 possible to see how the messenger could be an 
 adequate revealer of One whose nature he 
 did not share. "He that hath seen me hath 
 seen the Father." Jesus was then a perfect 
 manifestation of the Father. "Glorify thy 
 Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee." In 
 such language there is the plain assumption 
 of some real, though mysterious, alliance of 
 the Son with the Father, which seems incon- 
 sistent with the exclusive deity of the Father, 
 in contrast with the Son. Indeed, Cyril of 
 Alexandria remarks, that "the knowledge of 
 God as the Father really involves a knowl- 
 edge of the Son as God" (from Westcott.) (2) 
 That Jesus intended to represent the deitj' of 
 the Father as exclusive of his own deitj% is an 
 idea foreign to the context, and, therefore, 
 improbable. Liicke, certainly an impartial 
 scholar, says: "The passage is neither trini- 
 tarian nor anti-trinitarian, because its stand- 
 point is not that of the Logos (i: I'^q.), but of 
 the historical appearance and revelation of 
 Christ. It is the combined anti-polytheistic 
 and anti-Judaistic expression of Christian 
 truth." Westcott has in mind the same view 
 when he writes : "The primary reference is, 
 
336 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 [Ch. XVII. 
 
 no doubt, to the respective trials of Gentile 
 and Jew; but these include in themselves the 
 typical trials of all ages." On the other 
 hand, Weiss holds that "Jesus designates the 
 Father (see ver. 1) as the One who alone is 
 truly God, because God is only truth, if he is 
 known as the Father of Christ." So, also, 
 Lange: "It is the God of revelation in 
 Christ, the God and Father of our Lord 
 Jesus Christ, Eph. 1:3; not in antithesis to 
 the Old Testament idea of God, or to the idea 
 of Christ, but in antithesis to all false and 
 obscure belief in God; hence God, as he re- 
 veals himself in Christ, distinct as to his divine 
 consciousness, and distinguished from Christ." 
 (3) If it were distinctly taught in this passage 
 that the being and position of the Father 
 alone fulfill, in every respect, the complete 
 idea of God, it would not follow that the 
 Eternal Word or the Divine Spirit must be 
 separate in essence from the Father, or infe- 
 rior to him in any natural or moral perfection. 
 The ditference might be one of position, 
 rather than one of nature ; it might be owing 
 to the humiliation of the Son, and to the mis- 
 sion of the Spirit, rather than to derivation 
 of being or inferiority of knowledge. And 
 there can be no doubt of the fact that both 
 Jesus and his apostles do assign a certain pre- 
 cedence in order and rank to the Father, 
 while at the same time they teach the true 
 divinity of the Son and Spirit, together with 
 the unity of the Godhead. 
 
 But another question presents itself. Is it 
 reasonable to believe that the Saviour actually 
 called himself, in this connection, Jesus 
 Christ? Must we not rather suppose that 
 the beloved disciple has, by mistake, put these 
 words into his mouth ? Or, at least, has added 
 them by way of explanation as the personal 
 and oificial names of the Sent of God ? Many 
 interpreters, including Westcott, feel con- 
 strained to adopt this view. The Note of Mr. 
 Westcott deserves to be copied without abbre- 
 viation: "The complex name, 'Jesus Christ,' 
 appears to answer exactly to the correspond- 
 ing clause, 'the only true God.' These two 
 clauses are thus, most naturally, taken to de- 
 fine the persons indicated before, (viz.), 'Thee' 
 and 'Him whom thou didst send.' If we 
 accept this construction, we hav.e then to con- 
 sider whether the definitions are to be treated 
 as literally parts of the prayer, or as words 
 
 used by the Evangelist in hjs record of the 
 prayer, as best fitted, in this connection, to 
 convey the full meaning of the original lan- 
 guage. In favor of the latter view it may be 
 urged (1) that the use of the name 'Jesus 
 Christ' by the Lord himself, at this time, is, 
 in the highest degree, unlikely, while the 
 compound title, expressing, as it did at a 
 later time, the combination of the ideas of 
 humanity and of divine oiBce, may reason- 
 ably be supposed to give the exact sense of 
 the Lord's thought; (2) that the phrase, 'the 
 only true God,' recalls the phrase of St. John, 
 'the true God' (uohns-. 20), and is not like any 
 other phrase used by the Lord; (3) that the 
 clauses, while perfectly natural as explana- 
 tions, are most strange if they are taken as 
 substantial parts of the prayer. It is no dero- 
 gation from the truthfulness of the record 
 that St. John has thus given parenthetically 
 and in conventional language (so to speak) 
 the substance of what the Lord said probablj^ 
 at greater length." 
 
 Every one will see the force of these consid- 
 erations. But the^' seem to me to over-state 
 the objections to the assumption that John's 
 record is faithful to the exj^ression, as well as 
 to the thought of Jesus. It may be unlikely-, 
 but is it "in the highest degree unlikely," 
 that the compound name "Jesus Christ" was 
 used by the Lord himself? Do we know all 
 the circumstances of the case, all the motives, 
 all the spiritual conditions of this prayer, well 
 enough to affirm this? Jesus was oflTering a 
 praj'er in the presence of his disciples. It was 
 proper for them to hear and remember it. 
 For it was adapted to give them a just con- 
 ception of his relations to the Father, as well 
 as to them. Moreover, he was referring to 
 himself in the third person, as being, along 
 with the Father, the object of that knowledge 
 which is eternal life. Still further, the com- 
 pound name applied to himself was signifi- 
 cant, in both its parts, of that for which he 
 was sent into the world. Jesus — Saviour, and 
 Christ — Anointed One, pointing to his me- 
 diatorial work (comp. 1 Tim. 2: 5. 6), which 
 might naturally be referred to in this connec- 
 tion. In this solemn hour, it is by no means 
 clear that he might not have applied to him- 
 relf, once for all, the great compound name, 
 which the apostles were to use so often. Nor 
 is it altogether probable that the Holy Spirit 
 
Ch. XVII.] 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 337 
 
 401 have glorified thee on the earth: * I have fin- 
 ished the work "which thou gavust me to do. 
 
 5 And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine 
 own self with the glory '' which I had with thee before 
 the world was. 
 
 4 whom thou didst send, even Jesus Christ. I klori- 
 fied thee on the earth, having accomplished the 
 
 5 work which thou hast given mc to do. And now, 
 O l''ather, glorify thou me with thine own self 
 with the glory which 1 had with thee before the 
 
 .d cb. 1 : 1, 2 ; 10 : 30 ; li : 9 ; Pbll. 2:6; Col. 1 : 15, 17 ; 
 
 would have left the Evangelist to inject his 
 own explanations into this extraordinary ap- 
 peal of Jesus to his Father. It may also be 
 mentioned, that only a few hours later, Jesus 
 publicly declared himself the Messiah. We 
 adhere, therefore, to the view that this is the 
 language of Christ himself. 
 
 4. I have g:lorified thee on the earth. 
 Better: / glorified thee, etc. ; for Jesus places 
 himself, in thought, at the end of his earthly 
 ministry-, including his voluntary sacrificial 
 death, and looks back upon it as a completed 
 service. In and by it he has already revealed 
 the character of the Father, thus glorifying 
 him in the only possible way. Looking at 
 his worli on earth as virtually accomplished, 
 he perceives in it no defect, as the next clause 
 expressly affirms. I have finished the 
 work, etc. Here, too, the form of the Ke- 
 vised Version is more exact, viz. : having 
 accoinjill'-ihed the work lohich thou hast given 
 me to do. The participle having accom- 
 piiihed, etc. (Substituting the aorist parti- 
 ciple for the personal verb, with Lach., Tisch., 
 Treg., West. & Hort, Anglo-Am. Revisers, 
 after N A B C L n, 1, 33, etc.), states the way 
 in wliich he had glorified the Father — i. e., by 
 completing the work committed to him. 
 Having accomplished expresses more pre- 
 cisely the force of the Greek term than having 
 finished, for the term (TcAetuJo-as) means to 
 make perfect, complete, to bring to a true 
 end, rather than simply to finish, to bring to 
 an end. (Comp. 4:34; 5:36; 17:23; 1 John 
 2: 5; 4: 12, 17; Heb. 2: 10; 5: 9; 7: 28.) 
 Weiss remarks: ''''Having accomplished; be- 
 cause Jesus stands at the goal of his earthly 
 course ; he has accomplished his life-work, in 
 so far as it could be accomplished in the call- 
 ing of his earthly life,- but this does not pre- 
 vent its being still further accomplished in 
 his death, though we must not here include 
 that further accomplishment." The expres- 
 sion used by Jesus might, very naturally, 
 refer to his work in preaching the gospel of 
 the kingdom, in gaining disciples from the 
 people, and in training a select company of 
 
 W 
 
 these by special instruction to carry forward 
 his work after his return to glory; but the 
 analogy of certain passages already consid- 
 ered, leads rather to the view stated above, 
 that he anticipates the moment of his death, 
 and looks back upon his work as brought to a 
 perfect end by that propitiatory sacrifice. 
 (Comp. 13: 31; 16: 11.) 
 
 5. And now. Since the appointed hour 
 has come. Glorify thou me. The corre- 
 spondence between I . . thee, verse 4, and 
 thou me, in this verse, is much more striking 
 in the Greek than in the English; for the 
 Greek pronouns are emphatic in both cases, 
 and they follow each other with no interven- 
 ing word (eyio o-€ . . (iie trv). The language is, 
 therefore, in form and spirit, a plea for re- 
 ciprocity : "I glorified thee on the earth — 
 glorify thou me in heaven." With thine 
 own self. The sense of the preposition, in 
 such a construction as this, is said to be 
 always, in the Fourth Gospel, local, either 
 literally (i:39; 4: m; u:25; 19:25), or figuratively 
 (8:38; 14:17,23.) In the latter case, it expresses 
 a direct spiritual connection ( Westcott). This 
 expression points to life in the immediate 
 presence of God in heaven as contrasted with 
 life among men on earth. With the glory, 
 etc. Jesus here refers to what has been called 
 his threefold state— to a state of glory, in 
 which he lived with the Father, before the 
 creation of the world, to a state of humilia- 
 tion among men, into which he entered at 
 birth, and in which he was still living, and to 
 a state of re-assumed glory with the Father, 
 to which he was now looking forward as his 
 just reward. Hence, this language is a full 
 warrant for the Evangelist's testimony' in 1 : 1, 
 as to the pre-existence of the Word, and in 
 1 : 14, as to his incarnation. For Jesus seems 
 to speak, in this place, of his pre-existence 
 with the Father, in possession of divine glory, 
 as if it were a matter of personal conscious- 
 ness. His kenosis, or, humiliation, did not, 
 therefore, interrupt the continuity of his 
 his higher life as the Divine Word ; did not 
 extinguish, in his higher nature, the light of 
 
338 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 [Ch. XVII. 
 
 6 "I have manifested thy name unto the men 
 * which thou gavesl me out of the world: thine they 
 were, and thou gavest them me ; and they }iave kept 
 thy word. 
 
 6 world was. I manifested thy name unto the men 
 whom thou gavest me out ol the world: thine they 
 were, and thou gavest them to me; and they have 
 
 a Ps. 22: 22; ver. 26 d ch. 6, 37, 39; 10: 29; 15: 19; ver. 2, 9, 11. 
 
 memory, as to the past. In the spiritual 
 centre of his being he was one and the same 
 before and after his incarnation. 
 
 But what is meant by the glory which I 
 had? The same thing, perhaps, which is 
 called in Phil. 2:6, "the form of God,"— 
 i. c, a mode of existence corresponding with 
 the proper idea of God, one in which the attri- 
 butes of the Godhead are exercised and re- 
 vealed in the highest and freest manner pos- 
 sible. To such a state of existence or life, 
 Jesus now asks to be restored. Yet the Eter- 
 nal Word was not to be reinstated in glory 
 without his human nature. He was to be 
 exalted to the right hand of power, not as a 
 divine being merely, or as a human being 
 merely, but as a theanthropic Prince and 
 Saviour. Clothed in humanity, the Word 
 was to ascend into heaven. ( Acts i:. 1,9.) And 
 »<) at the resurrection of the just, he will 
 "fashion anew the body of our humiliation, 
 that it may be conformed to the body of his 
 
 glory." (Phil. 3:11, 22. Rev. Ver.) 
 
 6-8. Transition to His Prayer for 
 THE Eleven. These verses may be regarded, 
 with Wei.ss, as an expansion of what is record- 
 ed in the fourth verse, or as an introduction to 
 the intercessory prayer which follows, {ver.919.) 
 The latter is commonly supposed to be their 
 object. But we see no reason why they may 
 not be regarded as serving both purposes. 
 
 6. I have manifested thy name. It 
 would be safer to translate, as in the Revised 
 Version: Imnyiifested thy name ; for Jesus is, 
 doubtless, thinking of this manifestation as 
 something completed in the past. By thy 
 name, is meant "all that thy name signifies 
 to those who believe on thy Son, and have 
 learned from him thy character." Hence, 
 that name must be far more significant to 
 Christians than it was to the ancient Israelites 
 —than it can be to any who know not God as 
 the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. Unto 
 the men which thou gavest me out of the 
 world. Which, ought to be w/iow. Whether 
 the giving here mentioned is merelj' another 
 expression for the drawing of 6: 44 (comp. 6 : 
 87, 39), or is an act of the Father in the coun- 
 
 sels of heaven, has been considered doubtful. 
 The latter view must not be rejected as incon- 
 sistent with free moral agency on the part of 
 man. For if God could know in eternity 
 that any persons would believe in Christ 
 (whether with or without the influence of 
 special grace), he could give these persons to 
 his Son. And such a giving in purpose and 
 promise, would naturally be followed in time 
 by influence tending to bring them to faith in 
 Jesus. Jesus now has in mind his immediate 
 disciples, whom God, the Father, had given 
 to him in the latter sense, as well as in the 
 former, in time, as well as in eternity. The 
 words, out of the world, show the moral 
 character of the people from whom the 
 Father had taken these disciples. They had 
 been part of a sinful multitude, and from that 
 multitude they had been separated and given 
 to Christ. Thine they were, and thou 
 gavest them me. In what sense were they 
 the Father's before they were Christ's? (1) 
 Scarcely in the sense of their having been 
 members of the chosen people, Israelites, be- 
 fore they were Christians. For they were 
 taken out of the Avorld, and given to Christ; 
 nothing is said of their Jewish descent or 
 nationality; this thought seems to be wholly 
 foreign to the context. (2) Perhaps, in the 
 sense that, even before they believed in 
 Christ, they were true servants of God — "Is- 
 raelites in whom there was no guile." In 
 favor of this view may be urged two consid- 
 erations: first, that the Eleven seem to have 
 been alreadj^ devout men, "waiting for the 
 consolation of Israel," when they first saw 
 Jesus; and, secondly, that, if so regarded in 
 this passage, they belonged to the Father in 
 the same full, spiritual sense in which they 
 afterwards belonged to Christ. But we can- 
 not go as far as a writer who says: "Evi- 
 dently the gift in this case is that which turns 
 them over to Christ as his actual disciples, and 
 the meaning of the thine they were, then, 
 is, that in the act of conversion, the funda- 
 mental relation aff"ected is that to the Father, 
 and that they therefore become his children ; 
 and that he then, having acquired a right to 
 
Cn. XVII.] 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 339 
 
 7 Now they have knowu that all things whatsoever 
 thou hast given me are of thee. 
 
 8 For I have given unto them the words "which 
 thou gavest lue: and they have received tfiein, 'and 
 have known surely that 1 came out from thee, and 
 they have believed "that thou didst send me. 
 
 7 kept thy word. Now they know that all things 
 
 8 whatsoever thou hast given me are from thee: for 
 the words which thou gavest me 1 have given unto 
 them: and they received l/iem, and knew of a truth 
 that 1 came forth from thee, and they believed that 
 
 I ch. 8:28; 12: 49; 14: 10 b ch. 16: 27, 30; ver. 25. 
 
 them that he did not have before, gives them 
 to Christ." The idea that conversion afteets, 
 primarily and directly the sinner's relation to 
 the Father, and only through the Father his 
 relation to Christ, is not, we think, contained 
 in these words; but it may be probable that 
 the Eleven were actually converted before 
 they knew Jesus the Christ, and, therefore, 
 probable that their conscious relation to God 
 was changed at conversion, while their con- 
 scious relation to Jesus began with their later- 
 gained knowledge of him, and faith in him. 
 (3) In the sense that they were the Father's, 
 by virtue of his eternal purpose of creation 
 and redemption, in which things that are not 
 are counted as though they were. Having 
 been given to the Son, in consideration of his 
 death for them, they were in due time drawn 
 to him, and made, in a practical sense, "his 
 own," so that it was possible for them to sing: 
 
 From everlasting we are his, 
 In love's eternal counsel given; 
 
 And he himself our portion is, 
 The glory of our promised heaven. 
 
 This broader view of the Father's ownership 
 of his people agrees with the doctrine of the 
 Fourth Gospel (lO: 15.16,26, 27: 11:52; 12:32; 17:20,2*; 
 cnmp. Acts 18: 10), with the Statement of Paul, that 
 believers were chosen in Christ before the 
 foundation of the world (Eph. i:4), and with 
 the apostolic preaching of repentance toward 
 God, and faith in the Lord Jesus (Acts 20:21) as 
 necessary to salvation. Hence, we may sup- 
 pose that the fundamental relation to the 
 Saviour, as well as to the Father, is imme- 
 diately determined by conversion. And they 
 have kept thy word. That is, "the word 
 which I have spoken to them, and by means 
 of which I have made known to them thy 
 name. This word they have heard and 
 obeyed My giving it to them has, therefore, 
 been for thy glory." Like Paul, Jesus was 
 most generous in commending whatever was 
 worthy of approval. 
 
 7. Now they have known. Noav, is an 
 adverb of time. The perfect, have known, 
 is probably correct, being retained by Lach., 
 
 Tisch., Treg., West. & Hort, after N B C D 
 L Y, etc. The sense is, they have now 
 learned, or come to know. For the verb used 
 may signify the process of acquiring knowl- 
 edge, as well as the result of that process; 
 and it seems to be used here in the former 
 sense. That all things whatsover thou 
 hast given me. Jesus appears to be think- 
 ing of his entire ministry on earth as given to 
 him; not as a succession of actions, which, 
 though intended to manifest the Father's will, 
 have nevertheless sprung from himself alone, 
 but as words and deeds, which he has been 
 commissioned by his Father to accomplish. In 
 this clause, the perfect, hast given, is support- 
 ed by Tisch., Treg., West. & Hort, though 
 there is some authority (A B) for the simple 
 past, gavest. Are from thee. In all things 
 Christ is conscious of having done the very 
 things which have been given him, as it were, 
 from the presence and mind of the Father; 
 and this the disciples have now learned to 
 know. In no saying or miracle had he acted 
 independently of the Father's plan and com- 
 mission, but always in perfect harmony with 
 the same. 
 
 8. For I have given unto them the 
 words which thou gavest me. In this in- 
 stance it would be well to preserve the order 
 of the Greek words in translation, (as is 
 done in the Kevised Version) ; for that 
 order corresponds with the order of events, 
 and is, at the same time, consistent with the 
 genius of our language, thus: ^' For the 
 words which thou gavest me I have given unto 
 them.^^ By this verse, Jesus may be said to 
 justify and explain ver. 7, or, to give the 
 reasons why his disciples have learned that 
 his ministry is from God. The first of these 
 was the faithfulness of his own teaching. The 
 second, that his teaching was the Father's 
 teaching. His words, from first to last, had 
 been his Father's words, fresh from the mint 
 of heaven. They could, therefore, be recog- 
 nized as divine. "On the truth of this saying 
 stands the whole fabric of creeds and doc- 
 trines. It is the ground of authority to the 
 
340 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 [Ch. XVII. 
 
 9 I pray for them : " I pray not for the world, but 
 for them which thou hast given me; lor they aie 
 thine. 
 
 lU And all mine are thine, and ''thine are mine; and 
 I am glorified in them. 
 
 9 thou didst send me. I ^ pray for them : I i pray not 
 
 for the world, but for those whom thou ha.st given 
 
 10 me; for they are thine: and all things that are 
 
 mine are thine, and thine are mine: and 1 am 
 
 a 1 John 5 : 19 6 ch. 16 : 15. 1 Gr. make request. 
 
 preacher, of assurance to the believer, of ex- 
 istence to the church. It is the source from 
 which the perpetual stream of Christian 
 teaching flows. All our testimonies, instruc- 
 tions, exhortations, derive their first origin, 
 and continuous power, from the fact that the 
 Father has given to the Son, the Son has 
 given to his servants, the words of truth and 
 life." — Bernard. And they have received 
 them. More strictly: And they received 
 them; that is, when I gave to them these 
 words, from time to time. And have known 
 surely. Again, the simple past would be a 
 better rendering of the Greek: and knew 
 surely — i. e., truly, or of a truth, as in Re- 
 vised Version. By receiving in faith the words 
 of Jesus, they gained a true knowledge of 
 this fact, adds the Lord, that I came out 
 from thee — i. e., from with thee. For the 
 Greek prepositions (« in composition and 
 xopa), do not signify "out of," but "from the 
 presence of," or, "from companionship with.'' 
 Of this, his coming from his divine condition 
 with the Father, he had oft-^n testified ; and it 
 now appears that the Eleven had received his 
 testimony as true. And, believing that he 
 had come from his place with God, they 
 naturally believed that he was God's messen- 
 ger to men. Hence, the words: and they 
 have believed that thou didst send me. 
 Accordingly, the words of Jesus were be- 
 lieved to be God's message to them, and 
 whenever the Saviour bore witness to his 
 being sent from the Father, they received his 
 testimony. Have, ought to be omitted, as in 
 the Revised Version ; for the original verb is 
 not in the perfect tense. 
 
 9-19. Prayer FOR THE Eleven (1) That 
 They May be Divinely Kept (9-16), and 
 (2) That They' May be Sanctified (17- 
 19.) 
 
 9. I pray for them. The pronoun I is 
 emphatic. The verb translated pray, would 
 be adequately' represented hy the English 
 term ask, and the preposition translated for, 
 signifies, properly, in respect to. The sense, 
 then, is: "I myself present a request in re- 
 spect to my disciples, who have thus believed 
 
 my words, and recognized my mission from 
 thee." I pray not for the world. By the 
 world, is meant the unbelieving part of 
 mankind. And the clause brings into bold 
 relief the special object of the Saviour in the 
 petition here offered. It shows the concen- 
 tration of his thoughts upon the welfiire of 
 his disciples. His request is not general, but 
 specific ; offered for a particular class of per- 
 sons, and supported by reasons drawn from 
 their relations to his Father and himself. But 
 it cannot safelj' be inferred from this, that he 
 never prayed for the world at large, or for 
 persons who would finally perish in their sins. 
 That he could not pray for them in the same 
 terms as for his own, is natural ; that the 
 blessings which he would ask for his enemies, 
 must be different, in some respects, from those 
 which he would ask for his friends, is certain; 
 but this passage does not warrant the assertion 
 that he forbore on all occasions to pray for 
 makind as ruined \i\ sin and needing salva- 
 tion. But for them which thou hast 
 given me, for they are thine. The fact 
 that the3' are Christ's is itself a reason why 
 he should pray for them, and why his Father 
 should listen to his request. The fact that 
 they had been given him by the Father, adds 
 force to that reason. And the fact that they 
 are still the Father's, though given to Christ, 
 completes the appeal. This appeal could not 
 have been made, in this form, for the ungodly' 
 world. 
 
 10. And all mine are thine. Literally, 
 with the Revised Version : and all things that 
 are mine are thine. The pronouns are not in 
 the masculine, but in the neuter form, and 
 their meaning is as comprehensive as possible ; 
 it allows no exception. "Whatever belongs to 
 Christ belongs to God also; whatever belongs 
 to the Son belongs to the Father as well. The 
 two have no separate possessions or interests; 
 they have, so to speak, all things common. 
 More than once, according to this Evangelist, 
 had Jesus affirmed the inseparable unity of 
 his knowledge, will, and action, Avith the 
 Father's ; now he affirms that he has nothing 
 which does not belong to the Father also. 
 
Ch. XVII.] 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 341 
 
 11 " And now I am no more in tlie world, but these I 11 glorified in them. And I am no more in the world, 
 are in the world, und I come to thee. Holy Father, and these are in the world, and I come to thee, 
 (•keep through thine own name those whom thou Holy Father, keep them lu thy name, whom thou 
 
 hast given me, nhat they may he one, ■'as we are. | hast given me, that they may be one even as we 
 
 ocb. 13: 1; 16: 28....M Pet. 1:5; Jude 1....C ver.21, etc....<i ch. 10: 30. 
 
 And thine are mine. Or, and that are 
 thine are mine. An expression just as com- 
 prehensive as tiie preceding. The possessions 
 of the Lord Jesus are identical and co-exten- 
 sive with those of the infinite Father. "The 
 words are all-inclusive, and assert absolute 
 community in all things between the Father 
 and the 'Son:'—Watkins. The feelings of 
 Christ are therefore certain to be in perfect 
 harmony with those of his Father. Hence, it 
 is impossible for him to overlook any part of 
 the universe, in his prayer for a special 
 blessing on his disciples. The bearing of this 
 language upon the question concerning the 
 divinity of Christ, is too obvious to escape 
 notice, and whoever comprehends its real sig- 
 nificance will perceive how well it agrees with 
 many other passages in this Gospel, (c- g- 1 : i-i; 
 5:19,20.) And I am glorified in them. 
 Them, may refer to all things that are 7nine, 
 and all that are tliine, in the preceding clauses 
 of this verse, or to the pronoun they, in the 
 last clause of verse 9. If the latter reference 
 be intended, as I suppose, the intervening 
 words " and all mine are thine and thine are 
 mine," are a sort of parenthetic expansion of 
 tlie thought, "for they are thine'' — i. e., a 
 further thought in the same direction, but not 
 essential to what precedes and follows. Again, 
 the verb, whicli is in the perfect tense, may 
 be translated have been glorified, instead of 
 am glorified ; for it binds together the past 
 and the present, and represents the spirit of 
 trust, of love, and of obedience, which had 
 been for months in the disciples, as abiding in 
 them still, and doing honor to their Lord. 
 For the glory of Christ is revealed in the 
 character and life of "his own." Weiss ap- 
 pears to restrict the verb to a conscious recog- 
 nition and appreciation of Christ's divine 
 origin and mission by the disciples, saying: 
 "They recognized him in his glory (ver. :, 8), 
 and, therefore, he was glorified in their hearts 
 (11:4; 12:28; i:i:3i.)" But the widcr reference 
 spoken of above, agrees better with the gen- 
 eral tenor of Scripture as to the waj' in which 
 the Saviour is glorified by his followers, and 
 is equally suited to the context here. 
 
 11. And now I am no more in the 
 world. "The declaration of the grounds on 
 whicli the prayer is urged is followed by the 
 statement of the circumstances which made 
 the prayer necessary." — Westcott. Now, 
 must be stricken from the Common Version, 
 because it represents nothing in the original. 
 The simple words are: and I am no more 
 in the world — where I have been the Teacher 
 and Guide of the Eleven for nearly three 
 years. But these are in the Avorld. 
 These— not they ; these who are by mj' side, 
 and are my own,i these are in the world, 
 a "world that lieth in wickedness," or, "in 
 the wicked one" (iJohn5:i9.) Whether the 
 world is here thought of as hostile or as 
 seductive, as persecuting the disciples of 
 Christ because of their union with him (t5: is, 
 19; 16:2), or as cuticing them to forsake him for 
 the pleasures of sin, may not be certain; pos- 
 sibly it is contemplated as both seductive and 
 cruel, though the former characteristic seems, 
 by the sequel, to be more in the mind of 
 Jesus. And I come to thee. Notice the 
 present tense of the verbs in this verse. The 
 future is so near and so real to the mind of 
 Jesus, that he speaks of it as present. "I am 
 no more in the world; these are in the world. 
 I am coming to thee." How vivid and in- 
 tense, yet calm and simple and tender is this 
 language ! No merely human teacher ever so 
 talked and prayed with his pupils. Heaven 
 and earth were brought together by this high 
 priestly intercession. Holy Father. A 
 most reverent and significant form of address! 
 The epithet holy, seems to anticipate the 
 great petition for the sanctification of his dis- 
 ciples, by recognizing as supremely excellent 
 the moral purity of God. Weiss accounts for 
 this epithet by saying that " it belongs to the 
 holj' God, in his separation from the world, 
 with its impurity, to preserve the disciples 
 also, in a like separation, from its polluting 
 
 1 Yet the text is nncert.iin. Tisch., West. & Hort, 
 after X. B, and a few cursives, substitute aurol, Ihey, 
 for ouToi, these, which is retained by Lach., Treg., and 
 Anglo-Am. Revisers, after C Dgr L X Y, and many 
 cursives. 
 
342 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 [Ch. XVII. 
 
 12 While I was with them in the world, <• I kept them 
 iu thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, 
 and ' none of them is lost, ' but the sou of perdition ; 
 "ithat the Scripture might be fulfilled. 
 
 12 are. While I was with them, I kept them in thy 
 name whom thou hast given me : and 1 guarded 
 them, and not one of them perished, but the son of 
 perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled. 
 
 ich. 6: 39; 10: 28; Heb. 2: 13 6 ch. 18: 9; 1 John 2 : 19 c oh. 6: 70; 13: 18 d Ps. 109: 8; Acts 1 : 20. 
 
 influence." The word Father appeals to all 
 that is benignant, tender, and loving in the 
 divine nature; but, as used by Jesus, it cannot 
 be aflirmed to have any greater significance 
 here than in other places. Keep through 
 thine own name those whom thou hast 
 given me. The best accredited text (Lach., 
 Tisch., Treg., West. & Hurt, after N B C L Y 
 r A A n, etc.), requires a different version, 
 viz. : keep them in thy name which thou hast 
 given me. The expression is remarkable, but 
 nevertheless intelligible and profound. It is 
 thus explained by Weiss: " The name itself, 
 ■which has been manifested to them (ver. e), in 
 so far as it denotes the nature of God revealed 
 in Christ, has become, in consequence of 
 faith (ver. s), their life-element, from which, as 
 long as they are kept in it, they draw all the 
 incentives* and powers for their new life and 
 work, and so, that name separates the holy 
 S))here in which they move from the world 
 around them." Just as the lame man was 
 healed " in the name of Jesus Christ of Naza- 
 reth " (Aots4:iol, and just as there is no "other 
 name under heaven, that is given among men, 
 in which we must be saved" (Acts 4: 12. Bit. cn. 
 Vers.), so God, the Father, is asked to keep in 
 his own name, which he had given to Jesus, 
 his own servants, who were also Christ's. 
 The name stands for the whole character, for 
 the purity and power, the love and grace of 
 the Being denoted by it. And the name of 
 the Father had been given to Christ, in this 
 sense at least, that ho was to make known, 
 and had made known, by his life and teach- 
 ing, the true character of God. Hence, the 
 name of God was in him. Hence, too, he 
 could say : " He that hath seen me hath seen 
 the Father." And so the prayer of Jesus is, 
 that the disciples niaj^ be kept in union with 
 God, as revealed by himself, that their "life," 
 as an apostle afterwards wrote, may be "hid 
 with Christ in God." (Coi.3:3.)i That they 
 
 1 There is no doubt that ver. 11 must read " in thy 
 name which (01) thou hast given me," as found in }< A 
 B C L, eleven other uncials, most cursives, Peshito, 
 Harklean and Jerusalem Syriac, Thebaic, Armenian, 
 some Fathers; and with a merely formal difference (o) 
 
 may be one, as we are. Or, more exactly, 
 even as we. This is the end sought, viz., the 
 unity of all the disciples. But, wliat kind of 
 oneness is here meant? "The unity," re- 
 marks Westcott, "is not only of will and 
 love, but of nature, perfectly realized in ab- 
 solute harmony in Christ." If by "nature," 
 Westcott means inward disposition, or charac- 
 ter, his language is evidently correct; but, if 
 he means by it something more, namelj-, an 
 essential oneness of being, there is reason to 
 doubt its correctness. 
 
 12. While I was with them in the 
 world. Jesus, therefore, now looks back 
 upon his earthly ministry as finished. He 
 has reached the end. He thinks of himself 
 as no longer with his disciples, preserving 
 them from apostasy by his wisdom, watchful- 
 ness, and care. In the world, is probably an 
 addition to the text, repeated from the pre- 
 ceding verse; for it is omitted by the best 
 editors, in agreement with the earliest manu- 
 scripts. (N B C* D L, etc.). I kept them in 
 thy name. The I is emphatic. It was by 
 his own personal care and influence that they 
 had been preserved during his intercourse 
 with them. And it may be noticed that the 
 tense of the verb translated kept, describes a 
 continuous process, not an act performed once 
 for all. Moreover, according to the best sup- 
 ported text, there should be no pause after 
 name, but the sentence should be completed, 
 as in the preceding verse: which thou hast 
 given me. See interpretation of this expres- 
 sion in ver. 11. McClellan adopts a slightly 
 diflerent reading here, and in ver. 11, (namely, 
 6, instead of i), and supposes that the pro- 
 noun represents the disciples (them) in their 
 '■''corporate unity." He saj's: "Now, with 
 the reading 'that which' (o), how affectingly 
 does the intercession ri.se in fervor and power! 
 How tenderly it pleads ! How earnestly it 
 wrestles! Yes, much more so even than with 
 
 in D (first hand) X U, several cursives. The other 
 reading, "whom thou hast given nie" (06s), is here 
 supported by no uncial but D (second hand), by only a 
 few cursives, and Old Latin (some copies), Vulgate, 
 Memphitic, .£thiopic, Gothic. It is obvious that 
 
Ch. XVII.] 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 343 
 
 13 And now come I to thee; and these things I speak I 13 But now I come to thee; and these things I speak 
 in the world, that they might have my joy fulfilled in in the world, that they may have my joy made full 
 themselves. 
 
 the whom of the Authorized Version, which 
 yet happily retained the correct personal ap- 
 plication : Ho/i/ Father, preserve them in thy 
 nnme—thetn, that gift of thine to me — that 
 body, that little flock, which thou hast given 
 me — that they tnay be one as we are." But 
 the preponderance of testimony in favor of 
 the other reading, forbids us to accept this 
 view. The best authenticated reading re- 
 quires another change, thus: and I guarded 
 them,. Grodet suggests that the verb kept, 
 refers to the result gained, and the verb 
 guarded, to the means employed. But Weiss 
 holds, with greater reason, that "preserving 
 them in the right element of life was accom- 
 panied by guarding them from hostile influ- 
 ences, which might draw them away from 
 that element" — (a free translation.) And 
 none of them is lost, but the son of per- 
 dition. Better: was lost. The word per- 
 dition (iirioAeia?), is from the same root as the 
 word loas lost (aTrioAeTo), and this fact may be 
 imperfectly' represented by translating as fol- 
 lows : and no one of them went to perdition, 
 except the son of perdition. Was Judas, 
 then, one of those given to Jesus, and kept by 
 him? This is the most obvious sense of the 
 words, and is distinctly affirmed by many in- 
 terpreters. Thus, Watkins: "He, then, was 
 included in 'them which thou gavest me.' 
 For him there was the same preservation, and 
 the same guardianship as for those who re- 
 mained in the fold. The sheep wandered 
 from the flock, and was lost by his own act." 
 On the other hand, Westcott remarks, that 
 " the excepting phrase {el /xq), does not, neces- 
 sarily, imply that Judas is reckoned among 
 those whom the Lord guarded. The excep- 
 
 " which " is the difficult reading, likely to have been 
 changed to ' whom," and yet, upon reflection, yielding 
 a good sense. So in ver. 11, the case is clear. But the 
 evidence stands far otherwise in ver. 12, Here" which" 
 (i) is found in B C (first hand) L, 33, 64, Cyril of Alex- 
 andria, and (o) in S (third corrector), Meraphitic, The- 
 baic, Jerusalem Syriac. Armenian, while " whom" (o&s) 
 is read by A D X Y r A A n, and eight other uncials, 
 most cursives, and Old Latin, Vulgate, Peshito, and 
 Harklean, Syriac .T'.thiopic, Gothic. Now it would be 
 easy to call this a " Western and Syrian " reading. But 
 how explain the fact that so very many authorities 
 
 tion may refer simply to the statement, not 
 one perished. Compare Matt. 12: 4; Luke 
 4: 26,27; Gal. 1: 19; 2: 16; Rev. 21: 27. 
 Contrast 18: 9." Winer also says (? 67, 1. e) : 
 "Of two parallel members of a sentence, the 
 first is sometimes expressed in such terms as 
 to appear to comprehend the second, though, 
 from the nature of the case, that is impos- 
 sible" ; and he cites under this remark. Acts 
 27: 22; Gal. 1: 19; Rev. 21 : 27. If the words 
 kept and guarded, describe what was done 
 eflectually by Jesus, and this seems to be the 
 only natural interpretation of thein, then, 
 "from the nature of the case it is impossible" 
 that Judas was meant to be included, and this 
 expression is, therefore, in a grammatical re- 
 spect, parallel to Luke 4: 26, 27, and Gal. 1: 
 19. By a son of perdition, is to be under- 
 stood one who is subject to, or an heir of per- 
 dition, (comp. 2 Thess. 2: 3; Matt. 23: 15; 
 Luke 10: 6; Matt. 8: 12; 13: 38), one that is 
 about to perish. Such a man was Judas. 
 That the scriptnre might be fulfilled. 
 See Notes on 12: 38; 13: 18. The reference 
 may be to Ps. 41: 9, or to 109: 8. At all 
 events, the sin of Judas was included in the 
 wise and holy plan of God, and had been 
 foreseen and foretold long before by the pro- 
 phetic Spirit. But the sin of Judas was with- 
 out excuse, drawing after it the dreadful 
 doom which is signified by the Wf)rd perdi- 
 tion. It was none the less his own free act 
 because it was embraced in the foreknowledge 
 and plan of God. 
 
 13. And now come I to thee. But 
 would represent, in this place, the original 
 c(mjunction (hi) much better than and. For 
 Winer sa3'S of this particle {§ 53, 7) that it 
 
 have " whom " here, and " which " in the immediately 
 preceding and exactly similar sentence? Are not the 
 phenomena best accounted for by supposing that in 
 ver. 12 the Saviour's language returns to the expression 
 of ver. 6 and 9, and that so the true reading is " which " 
 in ver. 11 and " whom" in ver. 12? Then " which" in 
 the latter case would be an " Alexandrian " correction^ 
 sustained by the well-known group of C L, Egyptian 
 versions, Cyril, with the addition of B, which is not 
 wholly a stranger either to "Alexandrian" or to 
 " Western " readings.— B. 
 
344 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 [Ch. XVII. 
 
 14 "I have given them thy word; 'and the world hath 
 hated them, because they are not of the world, "even as 
 I am not of the world. 
 
 15 1 pray not that thou shouldest take them out of 
 the world, but "^ that thou shouldest keep them from the 
 evil. 
 
 14 in themselves. I have given them thy word : and 
 the world hated them, because they are not of the 
 
 15 world, even as I am not of the world. I i pray not 
 that thou shouldest , take them ^from the world, 
 but that thou shouldest keep them 2 from * the evil 
 
 a ver. 8 6 ch. 15: 18, 19; 1 John 3 : 13 c ch. 8: 23; ver. 16 d M:itt. 6: 13; G:il. 1 : 4 ; 2 Thess. 3: 3; 1 John 5 : 18. 1 Gr.make 
 
 request 2 Gr. out of 3 Or, eviZ. 
 
 "connects while it contrasts — i. e., adds 
 another particular different from what pre- 
 cedes;" and Grimm describes it as "an adver- 
 sative, distinctive, discretive particle." In 
 most cases, then, itshould be translated "but," 
 w"hile it may sometimes be rendered, approxi- 
 mately, by the conjunction "and." Jesus 
 represents himself as now going to the Father, 
 yet he has not quite left the scenes of earth. 
 His point of view seems to fluctuate between 
 a work that has been closed, and one that is 
 about to be closed. Here, it is the latter, a 
 work at the point of being closed. That 
 they might have my joy fulfilled in them- 
 selves. This clause should be read as in the 
 Kevised Version : that they may have my joy 
 made full in themselves. And the joy of 
 Christ was perfect; it was the joy of perfect 
 purity, perfect love, and perfect communion 
 with the Father. Inward peace, trust, hope, 
 were associated with wise, far-seeing, fruitful 
 activity for the honor of God, and the wel- 
 fare of men, and the result was joy unspeak- 
 able. 
 
 14. I have given them thy word. Ob- 
 serve, (1) that the pronoun I receives a cer- 
 tain emphasis in the original which it is 
 difficult to reproduce in English. "I have 
 not failed in my mission ; in accordance with 
 thy will, I have myself, by my life and 
 teaching, delivered unto them thy word. B\' 
 a process, begun long ago and continued 
 down to the present hour, this has been ac- 
 complished by me." (2) That the expression 
 thy word, represents all the teachings or saj'- 
 ings of Jesus as an organic unity, as one 
 message. Informal, unsystematic, and sponta- 
 neous as they are, they are nevertheless self- 
 consistent, harmonious, and interdependent, 
 to a most wonderful degree. One spirit per- 
 vades them all. In like manner, Christians 
 now speak of the sacred Scriptures as "the 
 word of God," and are justified in so doing 
 by the example of Jesus. And the Avorld 
 hath hated them. More exactly : the world 
 hated them. As if the hatred of the world 
 
 broke out decisively and at once against them. 
 Instruction is a process ; the manifestation of 
 hatred may be concentrated into an act, 
 which is, as it were, complete in itself, though 
 it may be repeated again and again. For a 
 different repre.sentation, see 15: 18, 24. Be- 
 cause they are not of the world. To be 
 of the Avorld, is to draw one's life and spirit, 
 aims and motives, from the world. And this 
 had ceased to be the case with the Eleven. 
 They had broken with the unbelieving world, 
 and had become allied to Christ. Their truest 
 life, their ruling motives, were drawn from a 
 divine source. Even as I am not of the 
 world. Thus graciouslj' and lovingly does 
 he associate them with himself, presenting 
 them, imperfect as they were, to his Father, 
 as standing on the same plane of life with 
 himself, and drawing their inspirations from 
 above. 
 
 15. I pray not that thou shouldest take 
 them out of the world. This might have 
 seemed the readiest way to deliver them from 
 evil, and to render perfect their joy. To take 
 them with himself into glory, would be to re- 
 move them from trial and conflict ; but with 
 them, as with him, the conflict must precede 
 the victory, the cross must come before the 
 crown. If the Captain of their Salvation 
 must be made perfect through suffering, so, 
 also, must his followers. Therefore, they 
 must be in the world for a season, but not of 
 it; must live as strangers and pilgrims among 
 those whose spirit they do not share, whose 
 way of life thej' condemn, and who, by reason 
 of this, hate them and persecute them. But 
 that thou shouldest keep them from the 
 evil. Are we to consider the evil (toO 
 nofKijpoC), as neuter, or as masculine ? In sup- 
 port of the former view, Godet urges the 
 meaning of the preposition, which signifies, 
 he says, out of^ and refers to a domain rather 
 than to a person. But to this Westcott fur- 
 nishes a reply, by saying: "Just as Jesus 
 Christ is himself the medium or sphere in 
 which the believer lives and moves {iv Xpmttw"), 
 
Ch. XVII.] 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 345 
 
 16 "They are not of the world, even as I am not of 
 the world. 
 
 17 'Sanctify them through thy truth: 'thy word is 
 truth. 
 
 18 <* As thou hast sent me into the world, even so have 
 I also sent them into the world. 
 
 10 one. They are not of the world, even as I am 
 
 17 not of the" world. ' Sanctify them in the truth ; thy 
 
 18 word is truth. As thou didst send me into the 
 
 28; Ps. 119,142, 151; ch.8: 40.... d ch. 20: 21. 1 Or, con- 
 
 SO the prince of the world, the evil one, is the 
 medium or sphere in which thc-y live and 
 move, who are given up to him (Ivtw irovripii)." 
 Others have urged that it would have "been 
 unfitting for Jesus to have thought of the 
 devil in this prayer."' To this, Luthardt re- 
 plies: "It would be much more correct to 
 say that, considering the decided and per- 
 sistent manner in which Jesus places himself 
 and his work, and tlje Fourth Gospel places 
 both, in opposition to the devil, it would 
 necessarily have been most striking if there 
 had been no mention of the devil, either in 
 the summation of all Christian prayer, in the 
 Lord's Prayer, or in the summation of all 
 Christ's prayer in the high-priestly praj'er." 
 On the whole, it seems to me probable that 
 Je«us here refers to the adversary' of good, 
 and that the Revised Version is correct. 
 (Comp. 1 John 5 : 18, 19 ; 2 Thess. 3:3; 1 John 
 2: 13, 14; 3: 12.) If, however, the expression 
 be neuter, the article should be omitted in 
 translation. 
 
 16. They are not of the world, etc. A 
 repetition of the last part of the 14th verse. 
 Thus the Lord associates his disciples once 
 more with himself; but now, as an argument 
 for the reque.«t he is about to make. Empha- 
 sis is given to the Avorld, by the position 
 which is assigned to it in the Greek te.xt: Of 
 the ivorld they are not, even as I myself nm 
 not of the ivorld. I myself because the inser- 
 tion of the Greek pronoun involves a certain 
 degree of emphasis not suggested by the 
 simple pronoun in English. 
 
 17. Sanctify them through thy truth. 
 Rather, with the Revised Version : Sanctify 
 them in the truth. For the critical editors omit 
 the pronoun thy (with N* B C* D L, etc.), and 
 the leading interpreters give to the preposi- 
 tion iiv) its primary sense of in. The truth 
 — i. e., Christian truth, as embodied in Jesus 
 Christ, and revealed by him, is the element 
 or atmosphere in which sanctification is ac- 
 complished. But what is the blessing ex- 
 pressed by the word sanctify? It may mean 
 
 either to devote or consecrate one to a holy 
 service, or to make one holy in character, 
 and thus fit for a holy service. The former 
 meaning prevails in the 19th verse, but the 
 latter here. What the Eleven needed above 
 all things was a profounder apprehension of 
 Christian truth, and a holier character; "the 
 equipment with divine illumination, power, 
 courage, joyfulness, love, inspiration, etc., 
 for their official activity (ver. i8) which 
 should ensue, and did ensue, by means of 
 the Holy Spirit— 14: 17; 15: 26; 16: 7 sq." 
 — Meyer. "By saying, ''sanctify them,'' 
 Jesus asks for them a will wholly devoted 
 to the task which thej' would have to ac- 
 complish in the world. It was necessary 
 that all their powers, all their talents, 
 all their life, should be consecrated to this 
 great work— the salvation of men. ... It 
 is the sublime idea of Christian holiness, but 
 envisaged here, where the apostles are re- 
 ferred to, as fulfilling itself under the special 
 form of the Christian ministry.''' — Godet. 
 Thy word is truth. Thy word— whatever 
 thou hast spoken is truth ; and truth is the 
 proper element for a believing soul. "The 
 word which is thine" must partake of thy 
 character, must be holy, divine, and su- 
 premely important. If we have the word of 
 Christ, we have the word of the Father; and 
 if we have the word of the Father, we have 
 truth, without any mixture of error. Such 
 truth Christ had communicated to bis dis- 
 ciples; such truth wore they to receive from 
 the Holy Spirit; hy such truth were thej' to 
 be qualified for their work; and with such 
 truth they were to testify of Christ. 
 
 18. As thou hast sent me, etc. The Re- 
 vised Version gives the tense of the verbs 
 more correctly than the Common Version; 
 but Davidson's translation represents still 
 better the original. It reads as follows : Even 
 as thou didst send me into the world, I also 
 sent them into the world. The precise time 
 when Jesus was sent into the world was that 
 of his incarnation, though thirty years elapsed 
 
346 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 [Ch. XVII. 
 
 19 And <• for their sakes I sanctify myself, that they 
 alsotuight be sanctified through the truth. 
 
 20 Neither pray I for these alone, but for them 
 also which shall believe on me through their word ; 
 
 19 world, even so sent I them into the world. And for 
 their sakes I i sauctify myself, that they themselves 
 
 20 also may be sanctified in truth. Neither lor these 
 only do 1 2 pray, but for them also that believe on 
 
 1 1 Cor. 1 : 2, 30 ; I Thess. 4:7; Heb. 10 : 10. 1 Or, com crate 2 Gr. make request. 
 
 before he entered on his public ministry. So 
 the definite time when the apostles were sent 
 into the world was that of their temporary 
 
 mission fMatt. 10:5; MarkS: 7; Luke9:2) tO the lost 
 
 sheep of the house of Israel. (Mait.io:6.) Many 
 of his instructions and predictions at that 
 time had reference, without doubt, to their 
 later life-work. The world, as referred to in 
 this verse, is the unbelieving world — men 
 alienated from the love and service of God, 
 men who knew not the Father and the Son. 
 
 (Ter. 3.) 
 
 19. And for their sakes. The entire 
 mission of Clirist was for the benefit of man- 
 kind, and especially for the good of his true 
 disciples, represented at this moment hy the 
 Eleven. I sanctify myself. This seems to 
 refer, above all, to his sacrificial death, which 
 now remained to be accomplished. "A wav 
 stands before him from which nature shrinks 
 back — the way of sacrifice. The word is not, 
 therefore, to be understood of Jesus' entrance 
 into the divine manner of being. . . but cer- 
 tainly of the sacrificial consecration of Jesus; 
 only that this is to be viewed as the acme of 
 his entire consecration of his life to the ser- 
 vice of God." — Ltithardt. Yet Godet, (in 
 his valuable work, "Defence of the Christian 
 Faith," p. 251), apjjears to regard the words of 
 Jesus as referring equally to every part of his 
 life, from the cradle to the cross. "Holy is 
 not [here] to be contrasted with impure, but 
 with profane, ordinary, unconsecrated, natu- 
 ral. Jesus sanctified himself by offering to 
 God, step by step, all the elements of his 
 being, as the^' successively unfolded them- 
 selves; all the faculties of his body and of his 
 soul, as they came into plaj^ ; every domain 
 of his existence, as soon as he set his foot in 
 it." This is all true; but it is at the same 
 time natural to suppose that the consecration 
 of Jesus for and in that supreme event, his 
 propitiatory death, was especially in his mind. 
 For the shadows of Gethsemane were already 
 darkening his pathway ; and his words at this 
 moment would forever be connected in the 
 minds of his disciples with the scene that fol- 
 lowed. That they also might be sancti- 
 
 fied through the truth. That they also 
 themselves may be sanctified in truth, is a 
 more exact rendering than that of the Com- 
 mon Version. The purpose for which Jesus 
 consecrates himself to his last and crowning 
 act of love is this, that "his own" may be- 
 come like unto himself, consecrated to the 
 holy work which he has given them to do. 
 And this was rendered possible by his self- 
 consecration in their behalf Onlj' thus could 
 they be united to him as a perfect Saviour, be 
 filled with his spirit, and live in the domain 
 and service of truth instead of error. Many 
 interpreters understand in truth as equivalent 
 to the adverb truly; but this is a doubtful 
 meaning of the words. 
 
 20-26. Prayer For All Believers in 
 His Name. 
 
 20. Neither pray I for these alone. 
 The expression is like that in the ninth verse, 
 and maj', therefore be translated : Yet not in 
 respect to these only do I ask. By these, is 
 meant the apo.stolic group, standing around 
 him in silent reverence, and listenins; to the 
 words which he poured out, with filial trust, 
 into the Father's ear. But for them also 
 which shall believe on me through their 
 word. According to the earliest manuscripts 
 and versions, the word believe is here in the 
 present, not the future tense; so that the 
 clause may be properly translated : Bxt in 
 respect to them, also that believe on me throvgh 
 their tvoi'd. Whether the present is used as a 
 timeless expression, including the future, or 
 whether all who are to believe in ages to 
 come stand, as it were, in spirit, before him, 
 may be uncertain ; but several things are 
 clear — e. g.: (1) That Jesus does not limit his 
 asking to blessings for those only who are 
 listening to his words, and who may, there- 
 fore, be helped by those words; but he prays 
 for the absent and the unborn, and thus shows 
 that prayer is a means of reaching God, and 
 securing a blessing from him. (2) That Jesus 
 represents himself as the object of faith — on 
 me. And believing in or on Christ is more 
 than giving full credit to the truth of his 
 words ; it is accepting him as Saviour, honor- 
 
Ch. XVIL] 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 347 
 
 21 "That they all may be one; as 'thou, Father, 
 art in me, and I iu tliue, that they also may be one 
 in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent 
 me. 
 
 22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have 
 given them; "that they may be one, even as we are 
 cue: 
 
 21 me through their word ; that they may all be one ; 
 even as thou. Father, ar< in me, and 1 in thee, that 
 
 they also may be in us : that the world may believe 
 
 22 that thou didst send me. And the glory which 
 thou hast given me I have given unto them; that 
 
 ch. 10: 16; ver. 11, M, 2S ; Eom. 12: 5; Gal. 3: 28 i ch. 10: 38; 14: 11 c ch. 14: 20; 1 John 1:3; 3:2*. 
 
 ing him as Son of God, and drawing from 
 hiin spiritual life. (3) That this belief is to 
 he produced by means of the apostles' word. 
 The gospel preached by them is to be tlie 
 power of God and the wisdom of God unto 
 salvation. 
 
 21. That they all may be one. Of 
 course, one in character and spirit, one by 
 virtue of a common faith, a mutual love, and 
 a tender s^'mpathy. Gill remarks that a 
 "unity in affection may be here designed — a 
 being knit together in love to each other, 
 which is the bond of perfectness, the evidence 
 of regeneration, the badge of the Christian 
 profession, the beauty of church communion, 
 and the barrier and security' from the com- 
 mon enemy." But even more than this 
 seems to be intended, namely — a unity like 
 that which the branches have with one 
 another by virtue of their connection with 
 the vine — a unity which depends as much upon 
 the indwelling Spirit as it does upon the im- 
 planted word. For, as Lange says: "Unity 
 in the one Holy Spirit, who is the same in all,, 
 is indeed more than moral unity." (Comp. 
 ICor. 6: 16, 19; 12:12,13; Rom! 8: 9-11; 15: 
 5, 6; Eph. 2: 14-22.) As thou, Father, art 
 in me, and I in thee, that they also may 
 be one in us. According to the judgment 
 of the soundest scholars, one should be 
 dropped in the last clause, so that it would 
 read, that they also may be in us. But 
 the practical end of this unity, as respects the 
 world, must not be overlooked in judging of 
 its character, namely, that the world may 
 believe that thou hast sent me. Rather: 
 that thou didst send tne. And such a result 
 presupposes a certain degree of unity in the 
 visible life of Christians, while this unity of 
 outward life must spring from unity of in- 
 ward life, from unity of conviction, spirit, 
 aim, and hope. Hence, a perfect agreement 
 in views of Christian doctrine and duty, 
 manifesting itself without disturbance in 
 worship, business, and social life, would seem 
 necessary, in order to a perfect visible unity 
 
 of believers; yet less than this will convince 
 the world that Christians are in Christ and 
 for Christ ; that the current of their faith, 
 hope, and love is bearing them all in the same 
 direction; that with many points of diversity, 
 they are not only servants of the same Mas- 
 ter, but animated by the same hopes, and 
 seeking the same end. Divided as Protestant 
 Christians are into many bands, tiiey are, 
 nevertheless, in a most profound and novel 
 sense, one. "This unity," saj's Alford, "has 
 its true and only ground in faith in Christ, 
 through the word of God, as delivered by the 
 apostles; and is, therefore, not the mere out- 
 ward 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." 
 
 22. And the glory which thou gavest 
 me I have given them. According to the 
 best copies (X B C L, etc.), the first, as well 
 as the second verb, is in the perfect tense; 
 hence, the Revised Version is correct : And the 
 glory which thou hast given me I have given 
 unto them. The pronoun I is emphatic, and 
 signifies "I on my part," or, "I in turn." But 
 what is the glory here spoken of? A satis- 
 factory answer to this question is not readily 
 found. Meyer, and others, suppose it to be 
 the heavenly glory. "This, once already 
 possessed by him before the incarnation, the 
 Father has given to him, not yet, indeed, ob- 
 jectively, but as a secure possession of the 
 immediate future. . . In like manner has he 
 given this, his glory, in which the eternal life, 
 ver. 2, 3, is consummated, to his believing ones 
 (them), who will enter on the real possession 
 at the Parousia." (Rom. 8: so.) But the words 
 used, have given, naturally suggest that this 
 glory had been already imparted to them, so 
 that thej' were now possessors of it, to some 
 degree, at least. 
 
 Weiss, and others, assert that it must be the 
 power of working miracles. "In behalf of 
 the conversion of the world, he has given to 
 them the power to confirm the message which 
 
348 
 
 JOHK 
 
 [Ch. XVII. 
 
 23 I in them, and thou in me, "that they may be 
 made perfect in one; and that the world may know 
 that Iliou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou 
 Last loved me. 
 
 24 * Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast 
 given lue, be with me where I am ; that they may 
 behold my glory, which thou hast given me; "^for thou 
 lovedest me belore the loundalion of the world. 
 
 23 they may be one, even as we are one ; I in them 
 and thou in me, that they may he perfected into 
 one ; that the world may know that thou didst send 
 me, and lovedst them, even as thou lovedst me. 
 
 24 Father, i that which thou hast given me, I desire 
 that, where I am, they also may be with me ; that 
 they may heboid my glory, which thou bast given 
 me: for thou lovedst me before the foundation of 
 
 a Col. 3: 14 6 ch. 12: '^6; U: 3; 1 Thess. 4: 17 ever. 
 
 -1 Many aucieat authorities read, those whom. 
 
 they bring to the world by miracles and signs, 
 as he did." But this view is unsatisfactory, 
 because it makes them mean the Eleven, and 
 nut all believers. 
 
 Alford, and others, hold that the glory here 
 meant is that of Sonship to God. " The glory 
 is . . . the glory of Christ as the only begot- 
 ten Son (ch. 1:14), full of grace and truth . . . 
 which, by the virtue of his exaltation and 
 the unity of all believers in him through the 
 Spirit, has become (nut, shall be) theirs (kpi>. 
 
 1: 18;. 2:6; Rom. 8:30), not yet full^', UOr US it is 
 
 his; but as each can receive and show it 
 forth." And Godet remarks: "The end of 
 verse 23 guides us to a little different sense 
 (from one that he had been explaining). As 
 the essence of the glory of Jesus consists in 
 his dignity as Son, as well-beloved Son, so the 
 glory of believers, which be has communi- 
 cated to them, is the filial dignity, the state of 
 adoption (1 = 12) by which they have become 
 what the Son is eternally — children of God, 
 objects of his perfect love." But Jesus 
 speaks of a glory which the Father has given 
 him. If, then, it is the glory of Sonship, it 
 is that of his Sonship as the theanthropic 
 Christ Jesus, rather than of his Sonship as 
 the eternal Word. (Comp. Luke 1 : 35.) With 
 this explanation, we are better satisfied with 
 the view than with any other. That they 
 may be one, even as we are one. See 
 Notes on the first clause of verse 21. This 
 repetition of the thought is deeply impressive. 
 The Saviour returns to it again and again, 
 showing how much he had at heart the unity 
 of his followers. 
 
 23. [ in them, and thou in me, that 
 they may be made perfect in one. Better: 
 that they may be perfected into one; that is, 
 "into one thing," though in what respects 
 one, must be determined by the nature of the 
 case. (See under verse 21.) In other words, 
 the Saviour has given them the glorj' in ques- 
 tion with a view to making them perfect by 
 means of a process which issues in spiritual 
 oneness, in a life springing from himself, and 
 
 the same in all. Moreover, the words, I in 
 them and thou in me, do not begin a new 
 sentence, but rather intimate by the wa3', as 
 it were, the means by which this perfection 
 into one must be accomplished. Hence, the 
 meaning would be expressed by saying: "I 
 being in them and thou in me, that," etc. 
 With what importunate love does Jesus 
 plead for this unity of his followers! "See 
 how his mouth overflows with one kind of 
 words." — Luther in Luthardt. 
 
 Omitting the and, which did not belong to 
 the original text, the next clause corresponds 
 with the last part of verse 21 : that the world 
 may know that ' thou hast sent me. 
 Rather: didst send me. But here there is an 
 important addition, namel3' : and hast lovtd 
 them, as thou hast loved me. Better: 
 lovedst them cen as thou lovedst me. Thus 
 the love of the Father to believers in Christ 
 is virtually afiirmed to be like his love to 
 Christ himself, And the prayer of Jesus is, 
 that this wonderful love maj^ be made known 
 to the world through the oneness of believers 
 in character and life — a onene.*s which could 
 only spring from the workings of divine love 
 in their hearts. (Comp. Rom. 5: 5.) 
 
 24-26. Final Request, That His Dis- 
 ciples Be Ultimately Joixed With Him 
 IN Heaven — and Reasons Therefor. 
 
 24. Father,! Avill . . . where I am. 
 The Revised Version (see above) follows the 
 Greek more closely than is consistent with 
 the best English style. I therefore prefer 
 the translation of Alford and Davidson : 
 Father, I will that it hat thou hast given me, 
 even they may be with me where I am. For 
 the pronoun ivhat, must, in deference to 
 manuscript evidence, be substituted for they 
 whom, especially as it is a more difficult 
 reading, and as a transcriber would be very 
 likely to change the neuter singular to the 
 masculine plural, but not at all likely to 
 change the masculine plural to a neuter 
 singular. Yet the neuter form is very sig- 
 nificant; for it represents all the disciples as a 
 
Ch. XVIL] 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 349 
 
 25 O righteous Father, "the world hath not known 
 thee; but ' I have known thee, and "these have known 
 that thou hast sent nie. 
 
 26 ''And I have declared unto them thy name, and 
 will declare it; that the love "wherewith thou hast 
 loved me may be iu them, and I in them. 
 
 25 the world. O righteous Father, the world knew 
 thee not, but I knew thee; and these knew that 
 
 26 thou didst seed me; and I made known unto them 
 thy name, and will make it known ; tluit the love 
 wherewith thou lovedst me may be iu them, and I 
 in them. 
 
 ach. 15: 21; 16; 3....6ch. 7 : 29 : 8; 55 ; 10; 15.. .cch. Ifi : 27; 
 
 r.6 ech. 15:9. 
 
 single body, or flock, a collective whole; and 
 then the plural, even they, recognizes the 
 same body as made up of individual saints, 
 whom he would have with him where he 
 should be. For the expression, where I am, 
 refers, without doubt, to his place in glory. 
 Hence, though he leaves his disciples for a 
 little time in the world, to carry forward his 
 work, he asks to have them ultimately with 
 himself in heaven. That they may behold 
 my glory, which thou hast given me. The 
 glory referred to is that of the Incarnate Son, 
 and not that of the divine Logos. Yet, in a 
 very important sense it is the glory which the 
 divine Logos had with the Father, before the 
 world was. (See ver. 5, and comp. 1 : 1, and 
 Phil. 2: 6-9.) For, in personal union with 
 the Word, human nature is now to be exalted 
 to the right hand of God, and he who is the 
 Servant of Jehovah is to be made Head over 
 all things to the church. (Eph. 1:22.) To be 
 with him, and to behold his glory, must, then, 
 be the highest joy of believers. (Comp. Rev. 
 5: 6-14; 22: 1-5.) Paul was certain of this 
 when he was in a strait betwixt the two, hav- 
 ing the desire to depart, that he might be with 
 Christ, which would be for him very far bet- 
 ter, but knowing that to abide in the flesh 
 was more neeedful for the disciples (Phii. 1:23); 
 and he was equally certain of it when he 
 wrote, saying, that "our light affliction, 
 which is but for a moment, worketh for us a 
 far more exceeding and eternal weight of 
 glory." (2Cor.4: 17.) It is impossible to imagine 
 just what will be the nature of the vision of 
 Christ, but it will surely be a source of un- 
 speakable delight; and, while giving such 
 delight, it will also transform his disciples 
 more and more into his own likeness, and im- 
 part to them some of his glory. (1 John 3: 2, and 
 Eom. 8:17; 2 Tim. 2: 11,12.) FoF thoU lOVedst me 
 
 before the foundation of the world. The 
 
 glory of the exalted Jesus is, therefore, the 
 gift of eternal love. For, Jesus who is now 
 about to be glorified as the God-man, is con- 
 sc'ous of having enjoyed the Father's love, 
 before the world was. It is possible, more- 
 
 over, though not certain, that he intends to 
 represent that love as resting upon him, in 
 view of his foreseen incarnation and death, 
 for the redemption of man. For the whole 
 work of redemption was embraced in the 
 holy purpose of the triune God, that ante- 
 dated the first act of creation. The words of 
 this passage naturally suggest a covenant of 
 redemption between the Father and the Son. 
 
 25. O righteous Father. It is commonly 
 supposed that the expression, I will, in verse 
 24, signifies more than simple desire; that it 
 presents a rightful claim (comp. ]\Iark6: 25j; 
 and, if this is a correct view, that expression 
 is in special harmony with the plea involved 
 in the epithet righteous, here employed. 
 But, this epithet is also perfectly suited to 
 what follows, which refers to the sinful ig- 
 norance of the world and to the fidelity of 
 Jesus, together with his disciples. The 
 world hath not known thee, etc. The 
 Revised Version is an improvement on the 
 Common Version, thus : The world knew thee 
 not, but I knew thee; and these kneiv that 
 thou didst send me. The conjunction and, 
 precedes the world, in the original, but can- 
 not be represented properly in English. Ac- 
 cording to Westcott, " it serves to co-ordinato 
 the two main clauses, which bring out the 
 contrast between the world and the disciples. 
 The force of it is as if we were to say : Two 
 facts are equally true; it is true that the 
 world knew thee not; it is true that these 
 knew that thou didst send me" And yet, 
 would be the best rendering, if the word (icai) 
 is reproduced at all. 
 
 26. And I have declared unto them 
 thy name. More exactly : And I made 
 knotvn unto them thy 7iame. As if he had 
 given them, in the past, a knowledge of the 
 Father; which was, indeed, true; for nothing 
 could well be clearer than the revelation 
 which he had made of the character and will 
 of God. Yet this was a work that must be 
 continued, directly or indirectly, until the 
 end of time; and, therefore, he adds the as- 
 surance : and will declare it, or, tnake it 
 
350 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 [Ch. XVIII. 
 
 CHAPTER XVIII. 
 
 TT7"HEN Jesus had spoken these words, « he went forth 
 VV with his disciples over 'the brook Cedron, where 
 was a garden, into the which he entered, and his disci- 
 ples. 
 
 1 When Jesus had spoken these words, he went 
 forth with his disciples over the i brook ^Kldron, 
 where was a garden, into the which he entered, 
 
 a Matt. 26: 36; Mark U:32; Luke 22 : 39 62 Sam. 15: 23. 1 Or, ravine. Gr. winter-torrent 2 Or, oftheeeda 
 
 known. That is, probably, through the 
 agency of the Holy Spirit, and (if the pro- 
 noun them embraces all future converts to 
 the truth), through the subordinate agency of 
 the apostles and of all other Christian teach- 
 ers. This revelation of the Father is finally 
 said to have its end or purpose in this: that 
 the love wherewith thou hast loved me 
 may be in them, and I in them. In other 
 words, that the love which tlie Father has to 
 the Son may be shed abroad in their hearts, 
 or experienced by them, as a fountain of joy, 
 and purity, and strength. Going from them, 
 he would still be with them and in them. 
 
 Such is the prayer which Jesus is said to 
 have offered, in the evening after the institu- 
 tion of the Holy Supper — a prayer of match- 
 less dignity, simplicity, depth, and love. The 
 words of Luther respecting it, have been 
 often quoted: "So plainly and simply it 
 .sounds, so deep and rich and wide it is, that 
 none can fathom it" — (taken from Meyer). 
 Yet, several objections have been pressed 
 against its genuineness, and two or three of 
 them deserve notice. (1) It is said to be in- 
 credible that John could have remembered 
 the words of so long a prayer through so 
 many years. What he has given, must, 
 tlierefore, be at best the fruit of his own 
 meditation on a prayer mostly forgotten. 
 This objection is certainly plausible, but be- 
 fore accepting it as conclusive, it will be wise 
 to consider, (a) That the "Spirit of truth" 
 had been promised to the Eleven for the ex- 
 press purpose of enabling them to recall the 
 words of their Lord, (b) That such words as 
 are found in this prayer would sink down 
 into the mind and heart of "the disciple 
 whom Jesus loved" with peculiar sweetness 
 and power; (c) That the order of thought in 
 the prayer is extremely natural and logical, 
 while the different words to be remembered 
 are not numerous; (d) That the whole prayer 
 is singularly adapted to the occasion, as well 
 as singularly rich and spiritual : forbidding 
 the assumption that it was not believed to be 
 genuine by the Evangelist; and (e) that, 
 
 even when the style of a translation reminds 
 one of that of the translator, the record may 
 be trustworthy, giving correctly the thoughts 
 of the original. 
 
 (2) It is said that the tone of this prayer is 
 inconsistent with the dreadful sorrow which 
 soon after filled the soul of Jesus, and found 
 utterance in the cry, "If it be possible, let 
 this cup pass from me." (Matt. 26:39.) Such 
 alternations of joy and sorrow are held to 
 be incredible in the case of Jesus. But to 
 this it may be replied, (a) that the human 
 nature of Christ was like that of other men, 
 sinfulness excepted. Accordingly it is said 
 of him at one time, that he rejoiced in spirit, 
 and at another time, that he groaned in spirit. 
 And why should not one who was capable of 
 joy and of grief, be susceptible, at times, of 
 sudden alternations of feeling? (b) That the 
 adversary of all good appears to have renewed 
 his assaults in the garden, bringing on a sud- 
 den revulsion of feeling. Having tempted 
 the Lord in the wilderness, without success, 
 he had departed from him for a season (Luke 
 *: 13); but there is reason to suppose that he 
 repeated his attacks when Jesus entered the 
 garden, soon after this prayer (see 14: 31; 
 comp. 13: 2, 27), perhaps in a very different 
 and more terrible form. That John does not 
 refer to the agony of Jesus may be accounted 
 for by the purpose of his Gospel, which al- 
 lowed him to omit many things that were 
 were well known to Christians by other testi- 
 monj'. 
 
 Chap. 18 : 1-11. The Arrest of Jestjs 
 Through the Treachery of Judas. 
 (Parallel passages, Matt. 26: 30, 47-56; Mark 
 14: 26, 43-52; Luke 22: 47-53.) 
 
 1. When Jesus had spoken these words. 
 That is, the words of his praj'er, and, more 
 generally, of chapters 14-16. He went 
 forth Avith his disciples over the brook 
 Cedron. The expression, went forth (e'f^Aee), 
 naturally presupposes a definite place, like the 
 city, or the upper room— from which he went 
 out; and as there is no conclusive argument 
 
Ch. XVIIL] 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 351 
 
 against the view tliat the oommunications of 
 Christ to his disciples, recorded in chapters 15, 
 16, and his prayer, preserved in chapter 17, 
 were made in the outer court of tlie temple, 
 we may fix upon this as the probable point 
 of departure. The word rendered brook, 
 signifies a "winter torrent," and properly 
 characterizes the Kidron, which is thus de- 
 scribed by Dr. Robinson ("Researches," I. p. 
 273): "The channel of the valley of Je- 
 hoshaphat, the brook Kidron of the Scrip- 
 tures, is nothing more than the dry bed of a 
 wintry torrent, bearing marks of being occa- 
 sionally swept over by a large volume of 
 water. No stream flows here now, except 
 during the heav3'^ rains of winter, when the 
 waters descend into it from the neighboring 
 hills. . . . Like the wadys of the desert, the 
 valley probably served of old, as now, only 
 to drain off the waters of the rainy season." 
 The reader will certainly be pleased to trace 
 as accurately as possible the way that was fol- 
 lowed by the little company which now left 
 the city by the gate of St. Steplien, as we 
 suppose. " A path winds down from the gate 
 on a course southeast by east, and crosses the 
 water-bed of the valley by a bridge; beyond 
 which are the church with the tomb of the 
 Virgin, Gethsemane, and other plantations of 
 olive trees. . . Tlie path and bridge are on a 
 causeway, or rather, terrace, built up across 
 the valley, perpendicular on the south side; 
 the earth being filled in on the northern side 
 up to the level of the bridge. The bridge 
 itself consists of an arch, open on the south 
 side, and seventeen feet high from the bed of 
 the channel below ; but the north side is 
 built up, with two subterranean drains enter- 
 ing it from above; one of which comes from 
 the sunken court of the Virgin's tomb, and 
 the other from the fields further in the north- 
 west. The breadth of the valley at this 
 point, will appear from the measurements 
 which I took from St. Stephen's gate to Geth- 
 semane, along the path, viz. : (1) From St. 
 Stephen's gate to the brow of the descent, 
 level, 135 English feet; (2) [to] bottom of the 
 slope, the angle of descent being 16i°, 415 
 feet; (3) [across] bridge, level, 140 feet; (4) 
 [to] northwest corner of Gethsemane, slight 
 rise, 145 feet; (5) [to] northeast corner of the 
 same, 150. The last three numbers give the 
 breadth of the proper bottom of the valley at 
 
 this spot, viz. : 435 feet, or 145 yards." (Rob- 
 inson's "Researches," etc., I. p, 270 sq. )l 
 Where was a garden, into the which he 
 entered, and his disciples. Better, as in 
 the Revised Version: hitnself and his dis- 
 ciples. John simply afBrins that this garden, 
 or orchard, was beyond the Kidron, as one 
 goes from the city. Luke (2i;3») shows that 
 in going to it, Jesus went to the Mount of 
 Olives. But neither of them informs us 
 whether it was at the foot, or on the side, or 
 on the summit, of this mount. The small 
 farm to which the orchard belonged, or, per- 
 haps, the orchard itself, is called Gethsemane, 
 
 [1 We cannot think the Greek should here read riav 
 KiSpmv, as in Tex. Rec. and W. & H., hut rather, toO 
 KcSpwi'. The former is supported by N (third corrector) 
 B C L X, ten other uncials, and most cursives, and sev- 
 eral Fathers; but 7io ancient version translates "of the 
 cedars." It is also found in the Septuagint of 2 Sam. 15 : 
 23 (twice); 1 Kings 2: 37; 15: 13, /. e. — the article riov 
 is inserted by some manuscripts, in two cases by B. and 
 two by A., while omitted by others. (See Hort.) The 
 other, Tou KeSpiui/ is read by A S A, 123, several import- 
 ant copies of the Old Latin, the Vulgate, Gothic, Arme- 
 nian (apparently), and some Latin Fathers; while too 
 KeSpov is given by N (first hand) D, some copies of the 
 Old Latin, the Memphitic, Thebaic, ^thiopic. And 
 Josephus (see Grimm, s. v.) three times uses the geni- 
 tive KeSpMi/os, showing a nomative KeSpuJi/, and once 
 has the nomative KeSpcuf itself. The word is Hebrew, 
 Kidron (see the Old Testament passages), and there is 
 a familiar Greek word KeSpo<;, cedar. Now how easily 
 would scribes unacquainted with Hebrew suppose that 
 the ravine toO KiSpiov was a mistake for either riov 
 KeSpuiv, '-of the cedars," or, tou Ke&pov, "of the cedar" 
 (the Greek word being apparently sometimes masculine, 
 see L. and S.) Thus the reading tou KcSpoir, accounts 
 for both the others, and answers to the Hebrew 
 form, which is commonly understood to mean dirty, 
 turbid, said of a torrent. And the introduction of riov 
 by some MSS. in some passages of the Septuagint would 
 be explained in the same way ; it is not said to appear at 
 all in 2 Kings 23: 4, 6; Jer. 31 : 40. Dr. Hort thinks it 
 likely that the Greek word <cc6pos, cedar, was of Phe- 
 nician origin, and perhaps from the same root as the 
 Hebrew kidron, meaning " dark," said of the tree, and 
 that so the ravine Kidron, meant " ravine of the 
 cedars," being so called frem possible surviving clumps 
 of that tree. But the theory will suppose that the 
 Evangelist knew this to be the etymology of Kidron, 
 and gave twi- KeSpmv, as a translation ; and it would then 
 be surprising that Josephus did not know it. The 
 *<rore<7 transcriptional probability, and the, at least, tacit 
 support of all the early versions, require us to follow 
 NAD, etc., rather than B C L, etc., the later group here 
 giving a correction of the " Alexandrian " sort. — B.] 
 
352 
 
 JOHK 
 
 [Ch. XVIII. 
 
 2 And Judas also, which betrayed him, knew the 
 place : " for Jesus ofttiiues resorted thither with his 
 disciples. 
 
 3 'Judas then, having received a band of men and 
 otiicers from the chief priests and Pliarisees, comelh 
 thither with lanterns and torches and weapons. 
 
 2 himself and hin disciples. Now Judas also, who 
 betrayed him, knew the place; for Jesus ott-times 
 
 3 resoried thither with his disciples. Judas then, 
 haviug received the i band of soldiers, and officers 
 from the chief priests and the Pharisees, cometh 
 thither with lanterns and torches and weapons. 
 
 ; Luke 21 : 37 ; 22 ; 30 6 SUui. 26 : 47 ; Mark U : 43 ; Luke 22 : 47 ; Aet3 1 : 16. 1 Or, cohort. 
 
 i. e. — "Oil-press" (Matt. 26:36; Mark U.-Vi), doubt- 
 
 less because there was, some time, suc-li a press 
 connected with it. Speaking of the tradi- 
 tional site of this garden, Dr. Hackett says : 
 "The original garden may have been more or 
 less extensive than the present site, or have 
 stood a few hundred rods furtlier to the north 
 or the south ; but far, certainly, from that 
 spot it need not be supposed to have been. 
 We may sit down there and read the narra- 
 tive of what the Saviour endured for our re- 
 demption, and feel assured that we are near 
 the place where he prayed, saying, ' Father, 
 not my will, but thine be done,' and where, 
 'being in an agony, he sweat, as it were, great 
 drops of blood, falling down to the ground.' 
 It is altogether probable that the disciples, in 
 going back to Jerusalem from Bethany, after 
 having seen the Lord taken up into heaven, 
 passed Getbsemane on the waj'. What new 
 thoughts must have arisen in their mind.*, 
 what deeper insight into the mystery of the 
 agony must have flashed upon them, as they 
 looked once more upon that scene of the suf- 
 ferings and humiliation of the crucified and 
 ascendedOne." (Smith's "Diet, of the Bible," 
 p. 908. ) 
 
 Passing over, without notice, the agony of 
 Jesus and his threefold prayer, which are so 
 fully described in the S3'noptical Gospels ("see 
 Matt. 2f): 36-46; Mark 14: 32-?.9 ; Luke 22: 
 40-46), John now relates the principal circum- 
 stances of his apprehension, showing that he 
 permitted himself to be taken and led away 
 to judgment. Doubtless the Evangelist was 
 convinced that no Christian would forget. 
 when reading this record, the momentous and 
 tragic scene in the garden, with which he 
 w»s familiar in the well known writings of 
 Matthew, Mark, and Luke. And if anything 
 might safely be omitted, it would certainly 
 be a scene which had been so deeply im- 
 printed on the hearts of all who knew the 
 Gospel. In the account which follows, he 
 mentions several particulars not found in the 
 earlier Gospels. 
 
 2. And Judas also, which betrayed 
 
 him, knew the place. The meaning may 
 be more exactly given as follows: Now (Se) 
 Judas also, who was betraying him, knew the 
 place. For the present participle used as an 
 imperfect with the article (6 napa.&i&ov';), describes 
 Judas as one who was then engaged in the 
 work of delivering Jesus over into the hands 
 of his foes, and not as one whom the Evan- 
 gelist remembers and characterizes as the 
 man who once perpetrated this crime. In 
 other words, Judas is set before us, graphi- 
 cally, after the manner of John, as one who 
 was then carrying into eflTect his treacherous 
 plan. (See N(;te on 13: 11). And the cir- 
 cumstance that Judas knew the place proves 
 that Jesus did not go there with his disciples 
 for the purpose of concealment from his 
 enemies. If there can be any doubt about 
 this, it must disappear before the next state- 
 ment: for Jesus ofttimes resorted thither 
 with his disciples. Judas knew the place, 
 because it was one where Jesus had often met 
 with his disciples. Such a jilace would not 
 have been selected by the Lord, if he had 
 wished to elude the search of foes, that 
 were to be led on, as he knew, by one of his 
 own followers. For how long a time, or for 
 what sufficient reasons, Jesus had been ac- 
 customed to meet with his disciples in this 
 garden, is nowhere stated. Yet some of those 
 visits to the place were probably made before 
 the present passover, and the owner of the 
 estate was, doubtless, friendh' to him. It 
 was evidently a quiet, retired spot, where he 
 could commune with "his own," and seek 
 the blessing of his Father. 
 
 3. Judas then, having received a band 
 of men. Mi>re exactly : having received the 
 band — i. e., the cohort of Roman soldiers, sta- 
 tioned as a garrison in Antonia. (See Matt. 
 27:27; Mark 15: 16; Acts 21 : 31 sq. ; Joseph.' 
 "Ant." 21:4,3; 'B. J.:5, 8.) The Greek 
 term here used (o-n-eipa), properly denotes a 
 "cohort," numbering 600 soldiers, though it 
 is used bj' Polybius to denote a manipulus, 
 numbering about 200. The band, or cohort, 
 was probably, in this case, represented by a 
 
Ch. XVIIL] 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 353 
 
 4 Jesus therefore, knowing all things that should 
 come upon him, went forth, and said unto them, Whom 
 seek ye? 
 
 4 Jesus therefore, knowing all the things that were 
 coming upon him, went forth, and sailh unto 
 
 detachment, led by their commander. And 
 officers from the chief priests and Phari- 
 sees. Better: the Pharisees, since important 
 manuscripts have the definite article before 
 the word Pharisees, as well as before the 
 word chief priests. Some of these officers 
 from tlie chief priests, who were at the head 
 of the Sadducean party, and from the Phari- 
 sees, who were powerful in religious altairs, 
 may have been sent once before on a similar 
 errand. (7:46.) Observe that Gentiles and Jews 
 were united in this movement against Christ. 
 Observe, also, that both wings of the religious 
 army, the rationalistic and the ritualistic, 
 joined hands in the effort to destroy Jesus. 
 Cometh thither with lanterns and torches 
 and weapons. Better: loith torches and 
 lamps and weapons. As the moon was full 
 at this time, it has been supposed that no 
 oilier light could have been necessary. But, 
 not to insist on the remark of John, that it 
 w:n "night,'' — i.e., dark, when Judas went 
 out of the upper room (i3: so), because that 
 was an earlier hour of the night, nor to insist 
 that the light of the moon is sometimes ob- 
 scured by clouds, it is obvious that torches 
 an i lamps may have been taken with a view 
 to the possible necessity of exploring shady 
 recesses or rock-caverns and tombs, where the 
 supposed fugitive might have concealed him- 
 self. 
 
 Tlie other Evangelists do not mention the 
 Roman cohort, which may have been present 
 as a reserve, in case of need, and may, there- 
 fore, have taken no active part at the outset 
 in seizing Jesus, and leading him away; but 
 they speak of the people who went out after 
 Jesus as a " great multitude" (Matt, and 
 Mark), or as "a multitude" (Luke), and they 
 specify "swords and staves" (or, "clubs"), 
 as the weapons which they bore. 
 
 4. Jesus therefore. Therefore — i.e., in 
 consideration of the approach, or arrival of, 
 this hostile company. For the multitude 
 must have been already near the entrance to 
 the garden. Knowing all things that 
 should come upon him. More exactlj' : AU 
 the things coming Kjion him. The things, are 
 represented as already coming upon him, 
 although they were mostly in the- immediate 
 
 future, and had not yet reached him in the 
 way of physical violence. This testimony to 
 the perfect foreknowledge of Jesus is in deep- 
 est harmony with the wiioie tenor of our Gos- 
 pel. Went forth ; either from the garden, 
 as an enclosed space, or from a secluded spot 
 in the garden; possibly, even, from the group 
 of disciples. This act of coming forth, is 
 naturally to be placed directly after the say- 
 ing: "Arise, let us be going: lo, he is at 
 hand that betrayeth me." (Maw. m: «; Mark u: «.) 
 "While they pause, perchance, and stand 
 consulting how they may best provide against 
 any possibility of escape, he whom they were 
 seeking, with all the holy calm of pres- 
 cience, comes forth from the enclosure, and 
 stands face to face with the apostate and his 
 company." — EUicott. The suggestion of 
 Hackett would require us to suppose that a 
 period of perhaps ten or fifteen minutes 
 elapsed between the summons: " Arise, let us 
 be going," etc., and the simultaneous arrival 
 of Judas, with his company, and of Jesus 
 with his disciples, near the entrance to the 
 garden, where they encountered each other. 
 "As I sat beneath the olives, and observed 
 how very near the city was, with what perfect 
 ease a person there could survey, at a glance, 
 the entire length of the eastern wall, and the 
 slope of the hill towards the valley, I could 
 not divest myself of the impression that this 
 local peculiarity should be allowed to explain 
 a passage in the account of the Saviour's ap- 
 prehension. Every one must have noticed 
 something abrupt in his summons to his dis- 
 ciples — 'Arise, let us be going:, see, he is at 
 hand that doeth betray me.' (Mau.26:46.) It is 
 not improbable that his watchful eye, at that 
 moment, caught sight of Judas and his ac- 
 complices, as they issued from one of the 
 eastern gates, or turned round the northern 
 or southern cornerof the walls, in order to de- 
 scend into the valley." — (" Illus." p. 257.) 
 
 It is difficult to fix the precise order of the 
 events wbich, are mentioned by the different 
 Evangelists, in connection with the arrest of 
 Jesus. But it seems probable that Judas, 
 seeing the Lord, left the multitude a little be- 
 hind, and approaching Jesus, saluted him 
 with; ai traitorous kiss; that Jesus siud, in 
 
354 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 [Ch. XVIII. 
 
 5 They answered him, Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus saith 
 unto theiu, I am he. And Judas also, which betrayed 
 him, stood with them. 
 
 6 As soon then as he had said unto them, I am he, 
 they went backward, and fell to the ground. 
 
 7 Th(n asked he them again, Whom seek ye? And 
 they said, Jesus of Nazareth. 
 
 them, Whom seek ye? They answered him, 
 Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus saith unto them, I 
 am he. And Judas also, who betrayed him, 
 
 6 was standing with them. When therefore he 
 said unto them, I am he, they went backward, 
 
 7 and fell to the ground. Again therefore he 
 asked them, Whom seek ye? And they said, Jesus 
 
 response to this cruel and hypocritical act : 
 "Friend, wherefore art thou come?" (M;iu. 26:5o.) 
 " Betrayest thou the Son of man with a kiss?" 
 (Luke 22: 48); and that, awed by the tone and 
 look of Christ, he drew quickly back and 
 ^tood with his own company. Jesus then, 
 advancing before his disciples, may have 
 asked the question preserved by Jolin. Ob- 
 serve the change to the present tense in the 
 verb ("saith'') according to the best text. 
 And said (saith) unto them. Whom seek 
 ye? This question was probably asked for 
 the purpose of shielding his disciples, by 
 drawing the attention of all upon himself; 
 but there is no reason to imagine anything 
 very unusual or authoritative in the manner 
 of Jesus. This may be inferred from the 
 answer which he received. 
 
 5. . . . Jesus of Nazareth. Pre.sumably 
 with a tone which would be suggested, in 
 some degree, to an English reader, by the 
 literal translation: Jesus the Nazarene. 
 (Comp. 19: 19; Matt. 26: 71.) This quality 
 of the answer is probable, in view of what 
 follows, and of the known temper of the 
 Jewish leaders, provided there was nothing 
 extraordinary in the manner with whicli 
 Jesus proposed the question, nothing which 
 inspired awe in the minds of those who re- 
 plied to it. But if, as we believe, there was a 
 certain tone of assurance, and even contempt, 
 in the answer of those priest-sent constable-s 
 who, with Judas, headed the company — 
 (there being nothing to prevent this in the 
 question of Jesus, nothing but the self-poise 
 and serenity which bespeak a soul at peace 
 with God and itself, and which might scarcely 
 be noticed' by a crowd of men who knew not 
 the speaker) — the relation of the parties was 
 instantly reversed by the next utterance of 
 the Lord. For it was an utterance which, for 
 the moment, proved him Lord. I am he ! 
 (Comp. 6: 20; 8: 24, 28, 58; 13: 19.) This 
 brief avowal must have been made in a tone 
 of moral dignity and assurance which none 
 but Jesus could use. But before describing 
 its effect upon those addressed, the Evangelist 
 interjects a remark which serves to heighten 
 
 our interest in the scene, and, perhaps, to 
 render it more intelligible. And Judas 
 also, Avhich betrayed him, stood Avith 
 them. In this case, again, Judas is described 
 as engaged in the awful business of betraying 
 the Lord Jesus; for the relative clause signi- 
 fies properly, who was betraying him. So, 
 too, the sense of the last clause would be rep- 
 resented more clearly by the expression, was 
 standing with them. 
 
 6. As soon, etc. The Eevised Version is 
 better : When therefore he snid unto them, I 
 am he, they ivent backward and fell to the 
 groimd. The effect was immediate, as well as 
 powerful. It is, of course, impossible for 
 any one to be certain as to all the causes of 
 the consternation which fell suddenly upon 
 this crowd of armed men. Judas may have 
 spoken with some of them, as they were com- 
 ing from the city, of the miracles of Jesus, 
 and maj' thus have unintentionalh' prepared 
 them to shrink with terror from his word of 
 power. Or, Judas may have been himself 
 overcome with fear at a tone of his Master's 
 voice wliich he recognized as the tone of di- 
 vine authority, and liis sudden fear ma3' have 
 communicated itself toothers. At all events, 
 the words of Jesus, enforced by his bearing 
 and tone, in connection with the circum- 
 stances of the hour, filled the hearts of Judas 
 and his accomplices with irresistible conster- 
 nation, so that those in front pressed suddenly 
 back, and many fell to the ground. And this 
 effect was intended by the Lord. He would 
 have his assailants understand that only by 
 his free consent could they accomplish their 
 purpose. (Comp. Matt. 26: 53.) This was a 
 remarkable scene, which, as we can easily 
 believe, John could never forget. It was, 
 also, one of the incidents in the life of Jesus 
 which would contribute to the xQvy end for 
 which his Gospel was written. (20:3i.) 
 
 7. Then asked he them a§:ain. The 
 word translated then, means, generally, and 
 in this place certainly, therefore, and the pre- 
 cise effect of the Greek expression is given in 
 the Kevised Version: Again therefore he 
 asked them. The object of Jesus was not to 
 
Ch. XVIIL] 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 355 
 
 8 Jesus answered, I have tuld you that I am he : if 
 thuret'ore ye seek me, let these go their way: 
 
 y That the saying iiiiglit be tultilleil, which he spake, 
 «Of them which thou gavest me have I lost none. 
 
 8 of Nazareth. Jesus answered, I told you that I 
 am he : it therefore ye seek me, let these go 
 
 9 their way: that the word might be fultilled 
 which he spake, Of those whom thou hast given 
 
 save himself from the hands of his enemies, 
 but to save his disciples. But the tone of the 
 first answer to his question made it necessary 
 for him to reveal his ascendency over them. 
 For their answer disclosed a temper which 
 was not likely to spare, at his request, the dis- 
 ciples whom they were not specially charged 
 to seize. Now, therefore, having established 
 his moral ascendency over them, he repeats 
 his inquiry. Whom seek ye? In other 
 words, the state of mind into which they 
 have been brought, leads him to ask the same 
 question once more ; and though they answer 
 it in the same words as before: Jesus the 
 Nazarene, perhaps because they were wont to 
 speak of him thus, their answer was changed 
 in tone, showing that they were prepared to 
 listen with respect, if not reverence, to what 
 he might say. Admitting in such a spirit 
 til at they were sent to arrest Jesus the Naza- 
 rene (the commission from their superiors 
 may have designated him thus), they would 
 be ready to admit that they had no right to 
 arrest any others, and the object of Jesus 
 would be gained. Observe, too, that it was 
 gained by just as brief and slight a display of 
 his divine ascendency as would accomplish 
 his gracious purpose. 
 
 8. ... I have told you. Or, / told you 
 — i. e., a moment ago. This was more effect- 
 ive than a mere repetition of the words, I 
 am he, without any reference to the awe-in- 
 spiring manner in which he had uttered them 
 before, could have been. If therefore ye 
 seek me. Therefore — i. e., in accordance 
 with your own declaration. He founds his 
 claim upon their statement. Observe, too, 
 that the pronoun me, is emphatic. If ye are 
 seeking tne, in distinction from others, let 
 these go their way. In other words: "Let 
 these withdraw" without molestation. It 
 seems, therefore, that the disciples had fol- 
 lowed their Master to the entrance of the 
 garden, and were now gathered about him. 
 But whatever they had said about cleaving to 
 him, and however ready they may have been 
 at this moment to encounter peril for his sake, 
 they were still unstable, their courage was 
 
 still fitful, and the Lord, in kindness, pro- 
 vided for their safety. In this, John per- 
 ceives a fulfillment of Christ's own words, in 
 the prayer which is recorded above. (i7: i-'.) 
 
 9. That the saying might be fulfilled, 
 which he spake. Saying, is here a trans- 
 lation of the Greek term logos, which might 
 be rendered, as in so many other places, word. 
 A regard to English idiom would lead us to 
 write, that the word which he spake might 
 be fulfilled, and this version would fairly 
 represent the meaning of the original. Of 
 them which thou gavest me have I lost 
 none. (Comp. 17: 12.) Language which 
 was used by Jesus with direct reference to the 
 past, but which may be said to have contained 
 in itself implicitly an assurance as to the 
 future. This assurance, the Evangelist per- 
 ceived, was fulfilled by the action of his 
 Master at this time; for by it the escape of 
 the disciples was brought about. In this case, 
 the Kevised Version is more exact than the 
 one to which we have been long accustomed. 
 The former reads: Of those whom thou hast 
 given me / lost not one. The improvement 
 is in a more correct reproduction of the 
 tenses of the Greek verbs, and in substituting 
 whom for which, the reference being to 
 persons. The verbal changes are certainly 
 important. 
 
 It is worthy of notice that John does not 
 here quote from his own record with literal 
 exactness. For, according to that record, 
 Jesus said ; " / guarded them, and not one of 
 them perished.''^ — Rev. Ver. The quotation is 
 made ad sensum, and not ad literam. and in 
 this respect it agrees with many quotations 
 from the Old Testament, by the apostles, and 
 their associates, who wrote the books of the 
 New Testament. But such a method was 
 safer in the hands of inspired men than it is 
 in those of ordinary teachers of truth. 
 
 Jesus now, by his own word, stood revealed 
 to his pursuers, and virtually pledged to 
 make no resistance to his arrest. So they 
 began to press upon him, in order to fulfill 
 their commission. But the disciples were 
 about him, and the impetuous spirit of one 
 
356 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 [Ch. XVIII. 
 
 10 "TheD Simon Peter having a sword drew it, and 
 smote the high priest's servant, and cut ott' his right 
 ear. The servants name was Maluhus. 
 
 11 Then said Jesus unto Peter, Put up thy sword into 
 the sheath: ''tlie cup which my Father hulh given me, 
 shall I not drink if.' 
 
 12 Then the hand and the captain and officers of the 
 Jews toot: Jesus, and bound him. 
 
 10 me I lost not one. Simon Peter therefore hav- 
 ing a sword drew it, and struck the high priest's 
 1 servant, and cut otl' his riglit ear. Now the ^ ser- 
 
 11 vaut's name was Malchus. Jesus therefore said 
 unto Peter, Put up tlie sword into the sheath: the 
 cup which the Father hath given me, shall I not 
 driuk it? 
 
 12 So the 2 band and the s chief captain, and the offl- 
 
 : 51 ; Mark 14 : 47 ; Luke 22 : 49, 50 b Matt. 
 
 I. 1 Gr. bondservant 2 Or, ci>ft<M-t....3 0r, military tribvne. 
 
 of them manifested itself in a rash attempt to 
 repel, by force, his assailants. 
 
 10. Then Simon Peter. (Or, Simon Petej- 
 therefore. ) Therefore — i. e. , because Peter was 
 influenced by the purpose of Christ not to pro- 
 tect himself (ver. 8), and by the movement of his 
 pursuers to effect his capture. The incident is 
 related by the other Evangelists also, (M:.tt. 26: 
 
 51-53; Mark 14; 47; Luke 22: 49-51), OIIC of whoin men- 
 tions a question: "Lord, shall we smite with 
 the sword?" (Luke22:49,) which immediately 
 preceded the act of Peter, and indicated that 
 he was not, in his own opinion, the only one of 
 the Eleven who thought of forcible resistance. 
 Peter, however, did not wait for an answer 
 from his Lord, but, having a sword, drew 
 it, and smote the high priest's servant, 
 and cut oflT his right ear. It must be re- 
 garded as probable that this servant was one 
 of the foremost of tho.se who rushed towards 
 Jesus to seize him, and that he narrowly es- 
 caped losing his life. For the suggestion that 
 Peter judiciously avoided a fatal stroke, is 
 absurd. The next remark of John shows his 
 familiarity with the scene, and his knowledge 
 of the persons aifected. The servant's 
 name was Malchus. The earlier Evangel- 
 ists do not mention the names of Peter and of 
 Malchus, though the3' must have known that 
 it was Peter who used the sword on this occa- 
 sion, even if they did not know the name of 
 the man whom he wounded. There may 
 have been good reasons for not giving the 
 name of either in the early preaching of the 
 gospel. 
 
 11. Then said Jesus unto Peter. (Or, 
 Jesus therefore said unto Peter.) For the 
 words of Jesus were occasioned by the act of 
 his impatient disciple, and prompt rebuke 
 and restraint were necessary if the Eleven 
 were to escape seizure. Put up thy SAVord 
 into the sheath. The best text reads, the 
 sword, instead of thy sword. The cnp 
 Avhich my Father hath given me, shall I 
 not drink it ? Though John omits any ac- 
 
 count of the Saviour's agony and prayer in 
 the garden, he inserts here a saying which 
 proves that prayer to have been answered, 
 and proves it in language repeated from the 
 prayer itself. (Comp. Matt. 26: 39, 42; Mark 
 14: 36; Luke 22: 42.) The cup did not pass 
 away from him, but he received strength to 
 drink it freely. This undesigned coincidence 
 is highly favorable to the truth of the several 
 narratives. Matthew reports some other ex- 
 pressions of the Saviour, thus: "Put up 
 again thy sword into his place: for all they 
 that take the sword shall perish with the 
 sword ; thinkest thou that I cannot now pray 
 to my Father, and he shall presently give me 
 more than twelve legions of angels? But 
 how then shall the Scripture be fulfilled, 
 that thus it must be?" Luke adds the inter- 
 esting circumstance concerning Malchus, that 
 Jesus "touched his ear and healed him," and, 
 in almost verbal agreement with Matthew 
 and Mark, makes this record: "Then Jesus 
 said unto the chief priests and captains of the 
 temple, and the elders which were come to 
 him : Be ye come out as against a thief, with 
 swords and staves? When I was daily with 
 you in the temple, ye stretched forth no 
 hands against me: but this is 3'our hour and 
 the power of darkness." Mark relates that 
 at this point "they all forsook him and fled," 
 and Matthew testifies that it was "all the dis- 
 ciples" who forsook him and fled. But for 
 an account of "a certain young man" who 
 followed with him for a little way, .see Mark 
 14: 51-52, with the Notes of Dr. Clarke. 
 
 12-23. Private Examination of Jesus. 
 Denials of Peter. 
 
 12. Then the band, etc. Observe the 
 emphatic enumeration of the several parties 
 concerned in the action. The word chiliarch, 
 translated captain, or, chief captain (Kev. 
 Ver. ), signifies, literally, "leader of a thou- 
 sand," — i. €., a prefect or tribune of a Koman 
 cohort. (See on ver. 3.) Yet, as was there 
 remarked, it is not necessary to assume that 
 
Ch. XVIIL] 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 857 
 
 13 And "led him away to 'Annas first; for he was 
 father in law to Caiaphas, which was the high priest 
 that same year. 
 
 14 i^Now Caiaphas was he, which gave counsel to the 
 Jews, that it was expedient that one man should die 
 for 'the people. 
 
 13 cers of the Jews, seized Jesus and bound him, and 
 led him to Annas first; for he was lather in law to 
 
 14 Caiaphas, who was high priest that year. Now 
 Caiaphas was he who gave counsel to the Jews, 
 that it was expedient that one mau should die lor 
 the people. 
 
 o See Ma:l. 26: 57 6 Luke 3 : 2 c ch. 11 : 50. 
 
 the whole cohort was present on this occasion. 
 Took Jesus. Perhaps the stronger term, 
 seized, represents the original verb better; 
 for, according to its composition and primary 
 sense, it refers to the act of bringing the 
 hands together in seizing or clutching an 
 object. And bound him. A very natural, 
 though needless precaution against escape. 
 Is it possible that their momentary terror and 
 confusion (ver. 6) made them anxious to see the 
 manacles on their prisoner's hands? Or, was 
 it the customary way of securing persons ar- 
 rested for alleged crime? The other Evan- 
 gelists do not mention this binding of Jesus— 
 (from which he may have been released to 
 appear before Annas and the Sanhedrin), but 
 they speak of his being bound, in order to be 
 sent by the Sanhedrin to Pilate. (Matt. 27:2; Mark 
 15:1.) "Perhaps this later binding was a 
 special binding, in token of condemnation; so 
 early tradition represents, affirming that he 
 was led to Pilate with a cord around his 
 neck." — Clarke. If this was the case, it need 
 not be supposed that he was released before 
 Annas or the Sanhedrin. 
 
 13. And led him aAvay to Annas first. 
 The word first, assumes the fact that he was 
 led elsewhere afterwards, but it is unneces- 
 sary to regard it as a "tacit correction" of 
 previous narratives that had failed to notice 
 this part of the histt>ry. For he Avas fa- 
 ther-in-law to Caiaphas. This circum- 
 stance is mentioned to account for the fact 
 related. "The relationship of Caiaphas is 
 not mentioned by any writer except St. 
 John, and yet this relationship alone explains 
 how Caiaphas was able to retain his office by 
 the side of Annas and his sons." — Wesfcott. 
 For Annas appears to have been a politic 
 and powerful man. Josephus says ("Ant." 
 20. 9. ? 1), "that he had five sons who had all 
 performed the office of high priest to God, 
 and he had himself enjoj'ed that dignity a 
 long time formerly," etc. Annas was high 
 priest seven j'ears (a. d. 7 to a. d. 14); 
 Joseph Caiaphas was high priest twelve years 
 (A. D. 25 to A. D. 37) ; and during the long 
 
 period in which the office was filled by him- 
 self, his sons, and his son-in-law, he was prob- 
 ably a ruler de facto, if not de jure. Luke 
 speaks of the high priesthood of Annas and 
 Caiaphas (s: 2), doubtless because Annas was 
 recognized by the people as virtually sharing 
 the liigh priesthood with his son-in-law. 
 It is therefore probable that he had an 
 office in the palace of the high priest, and 
 that his personal influence and control were 
 greater than those of Caiaphas. To him, 
 then, was Jesus first led and subjected to an 
 informal examination, with the purpose, no 
 doubt, of ascertaining what would be the best 
 method of procedure in the legal, or at least, 
 formal, process before the Sanhedrin. Who 
 was the high priest that same year, 
 Caiaphas was high priest twelve years, and it 
 is therefore necessary to suppose that the 
 Evangelist had some reason for adding the 
 words, that same year; otherwise it would 
 have been more natural to sa^'', simply, who 
 was high priest. Why does he add the 
 expression, that same year? Evidently be- 
 cause that was a most memorable j'ear to the 
 Evangelist, and to his readers. It was the 
 year of all years to "the disciple whom 
 Jesus loved." (Comp. 11: 49.) 
 
 14. Now Caiaphas Avas he, etc. Why 
 this reniini-scence and identification? To pre- 
 pare the reader's mind for what was to follow, 
 or at least, to put what was to follow in 
 its proper relation to the spirit and princi- 
 ples of one of the chief actors. Jesus was 
 to be judged by Caiaphas and his father-in- 
 law, Annas, together with others, who would 
 be more or less subject to their influence ; and 
 there could be no prospect of a fair trial and 
 just decision when the high priest was pre- 
 pared to sacrifice the life of one man (though 
 innocent) for the people, when the judge had 
 already decided the case, without legal ex- 
 amination, against the accused. Lange re- 
 marks somewhat sharply, but in probable 
 harmony with truth: "It is also character- 
 istic of the enmity of old Annas that Jesus 
 was led to him even before he was brought to 
 
358 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 [Ch. XVIII. 
 
 15 "And Simon Peter followed Jesus, and so did an- 
 other disciple : that disciple was known unto the high 
 priest, and went in with Jesus into the palace of the 
 high priest. 
 
 16 ' But Peter stood at the door without. Then went 
 out that other disciple, whicli was known unto the high 
 priest, and spake unto her that kept the door, and 
 brouglit in Peter. 
 
 17 Then saith the damsel that kept the door unto 
 Peter, Art not thou also one of this man's disciples? 
 He saith, I am not. 
 
 15 And Simon Peter followed Jesus, and so did an- 
 other disciple. Now that disciple was known unto 
 the high priest, and entered in with Jesus into the 
 
 16 court of the high priest; but Peter was standing at 
 the door without. So the other disciple, who was 
 known unto the high priest, went out and spake 
 unto her that kept the door, and brought in Peter. 
 
 17 The maid therefore that kept the door saith unto 
 Peter, Art thou also one of this man's disciples? 
 
 a Matt 26: 58; Mark 14: 51; Luke 2'2 : 54 b Matt. 26 : 
 
 Caiaphas; the announcement of this fact is 
 appropriately afcompanied by the statement 
 that he was the father-in-law of that murder- 
 ous Caiaphas." 
 
 15-18. Side View. Introduction and 
 First Denial of Peter. 
 
 15. Ani Simon Peter followed Jesus. 
 
 The verb, in the imperfect tense, describes the 
 action in progress. The writer recalls the scene, 
 and therefore paints it as it rises before his 
 mental vision out of the fountain of memory. 
 Though all the disciples had fled at the arrest 
 of Jesus, Peter soon regained courage to re- 
 turn and follow the Lord, as the latter was 
 taken to the pilace of the high priest, in 
 the city. And so did another disciple. 
 Modestly added, and meaning, without doubt, 
 the writer of this Gospel. (20:2.) That disci- 
 ple was known unto the high priest. This 
 remark prepares the way for what follows, 
 namely, first, the statement that he went into 
 the court of the high priest with .Jesus; and, 
 secondly, the statement that be obtained the 
 admission of Peter. His acquaintance with the 
 high priest was such as to account for his doing 
 these things. Hence, it implies some degree of 
 personal respect or regard on the part of the 
 high priest. For the sense of the word trans- 
 lated known, in such a connection as this, 
 see Luke 2 : 44, and 23 : 49. By the term high 
 priest, we are probably to understand Caia- 
 phas, of whom the Evangelist has just re- 
 marked that he was "high priest that same 
 year." (ver. la.) The circumstance that Annas, 
 though an ex-high priest, was sometimes 
 
 called high priest fe. ^..inLuke 2: 3 and Acts 4: 6), is no 
 
 sufficient reason for supposing that he can be 
 meant by that title here, so soon after the 
 statement that Caiaphas was high priest. 
 Went in with Jesus — i. e., with the com- 
 pany that brought in Jesus, being admitted 
 as an acquaintance of the high priest. 
 
 16. But Peter stood at the door with- 
 out. The verb has the force of an imperfect 
 — was standing. Evidently John, looking 
 back, saw Peter through the open door, or 
 noticed his absence and went back to find 
 him, easily conjecturing where he might be. 
 What were the feelings that led Peter to re- 
 main at the door when he was not suffered to 
 enter, no man knows ; or how long he waited 
 there before John came to bring him, can 
 only be conjectured; but the period must 
 have been short. Then (oCi'=so, or there- 
 fore) — i. e., because Peter was standing thus^ 
 went out that other disciple, which was 
 known unto the high priest — and, natu- 
 rally, also to his servants — and spake unto 
 her that kept the door (comp. Acts 12: 13), 
 asking her, no doubt, to admit his friend, 
 who was standing without — and — with the 
 consent of the door-keeper — brought in 
 Peter. But the maid who had charge of the 
 door was aware of the reason why Jesus had 
 been seized and taken to her master's court; 
 she therefore scrutinized Peter as he entered, 
 and either because he was a friend of John, 
 whom she knew to be a disciple of Jesus, or 
 because of something in his looks or bearing, 
 she suspected him to be a disciple, and ques- 
 tioned him on the point. 
 
 17. Art not thou also — as well as John — 
 one of this man's disciples? Either from 
 a feeling of courte.s3', or because she was quite 
 uncertain as to the fitct, the damsel's question 
 was so framed as to show that she looked for 
 a negative answer; as if she had said in Eng- 
 lish : "Thou art not, I suppose, one of this 
 man's disciples?" And, alas, Peter answer- 
 ed, I am not. This was his first denial, made 
 to the door-keeper as he was passing by her, 
 into the court. What did Peter think of 
 himself when he uttered these words? And 
 what did the true-hearted John think of his 
 friend when he heard this denial ? 
 
Cii. XVIIL] 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 359 
 
 18 And the servants and officers stood there, who had 
 made a ftre of coals; for it was coM: and ihey warmed 
 themselves: and Peter stood with them, and warmed 
 himself. 
 
 19 The high priest then asked Jesus of his disciples, 
 and of his doctrine. 
 
 2iJ Jesus answered him, " I spake openly to the world ; 
 I ever taught in the synagotrue, and in the temple, 
 whither tlie Jews always resort; and iu secret have 1 
 said nothing. 
 
 18 He saith, I am not. Now the 'servants and the 
 officers were standing there, having made -a fire of 
 coals; for it was cold; and they were warming 
 themselves: and Peter also was with them, stand- 
 ing and warming himself. 
 
 19 The high priest therelore asked Jesus of his dis- 
 
 20 ciples, and of his teaching. Jesus answered him, I 
 have spoken openly to the world; I ever taught iu 
 i* synagogues, and iu the temple, where all the Jews 
 
 a Matt. 28: 55; Luke 4 : 15 ; ch. 7 : 14, 26, 28; 8: 2. 1 Gr. bondservants 2 Gr. afire of charcoal 3 synagogue. 
 
 18. And the servants and officers stood 
 there. More e.vactly : And the servants and 
 officers were standing there, in the open court, 
 which Peter hud now entered with John. 
 Who had made a fire of coals — literally, 
 having made a charcoal fire — for it was cold. 
 Note that the Roman soldiers are not men- 
 tioned; perhaps they had returned to Anto- 
 nia; the bond-servants of the high priest and 
 the officers of the Sanhedrin, or temple- 
 police, are the persons meant. The coldness 
 appears to have been unusual for the time of 
 the passover. For it is said that the nights 
 are generally warm in Palestine at this season 
 of the year. That the Evangelist saw any- 
 thing sjMTibolic of Peter's condition or con- 
 duct, is by no means certain, though it has 
 been supposed. And Peter stood Avith 
 them, and warmed himself. This is best 
 rendered in the Revised Version : And Peter 
 also was with them, standing and warming 
 himself. Tiie picture is clearly drawn. In 
 the dim court is the charcoal fire, with dark- 
 browed men surrounding it. The light of 
 the coals is just sufficient to reveal the features 
 of the men when they turn to look upon the 
 fire. Peter is there, seemingly indifferent to 
 the trial taking place within sight. John, 
 too, is there, probably on the side of the fire 
 toward the place where his Master stands, 
 glancing now and then at Peter, but listen- 
 ing chiefly to the examination of Jesus by 
 the high priest. And to this he now directs 
 our attention. 
 
 19-24. The High Priest Questions 
 Jesus Before Annas. 
 
 19. The high priest then, etc. Better: 
 therefore, {oiv) the high priest. Therefore — 
 t. e., because he was such a man as could 
 utter the saying recalled in verse 14; for the 
 Evangelist now returns in thought to what 
 was said in that verse. Standing, as John 
 probably did, between the group about Peter 
 and the group about Jesus, he turns from one 
 
 party to the other in his narrative, presenting 
 the scene in a remarkably simple and vivid 
 manner. Here the character and spirit of 
 the question are supposed to flow out of the 
 character and spirit of the man. Asked 
 Jesus of his disciples — i. e., concerning 
 them. Just what he asked concerning them, 
 is not said; perhaps, who they were, or how 
 numerous they were, or what was their clnir- 
 acter, or what they had done, or wliat they 
 proposed to do. And of his doctrine, or 
 teaching — i. e., what it had been. The object 
 of this preliminary examination was, doubt- 
 less, to obtain materials for the more public 
 trial to follow. But the wisdom of Clirist 
 was more than a match for the craft of his 
 foes. 
 
 20. I spake openly to the world. The 
 pronoun I is emphatic, and may imply a con- 
 trast between himse f and his adversaries, who 
 had secretly plotted his destruction. The 
 Greek verb should be translated have spoken, 
 instead of spake. To the Avorld, because his 
 teaching had been intended for mankind gen- 
 erally. It had not been delivered cautiously 
 to a few, who were at the same time charged 
 to keep and transfer it as an esoteric doctrine; 
 but it had been proclaimed openly to the 
 people, so that whoever would might know it. 
 Even the parables were the best form of 
 teaching to those to whom they were ad- 
 dressed. Spiritual sympathy with the truth 
 would have made them intelligible to the 
 people. I ever (or, always) taught in the 
 synagogue. There is no article before 
 synagogue, in the Greek text, and the ex- 
 pression in synagogue, may be understood 
 as we would understand in church, or, in 
 meeting, at the present time. And in the 
 temple. There were many synagogues and 
 but one temple — the temple at Jerusalem ; and 
 to this Jesus resorted on the great festivals, 
 teaching boldly in its courts. Of course, 
 Jesus does not mean to say that he never 
 
360 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 [Ch. XVIII. 
 
 21 Why askest thou me? ask them which heard me, 
 what I have said unto them : behold, they know what 
 I said. 
 
 22 And when he had thus spoken, one of the officers 
 which stood by "struck Jesus with the palm of bis hand, 
 Saying, Answerest thou the high priest so? 
 
 23 Jesus answered hiiu. If i have spoken evil, bear 
 witness of the evil: but if well, why s:iiiiest thou me? 
 
 21 come together; and in secret spake I nothing. Why 
 askest thou me? ask them that have heard me, 
 what 1 spake unto tbeui : behold, these know the 
 
 22 things which 1 said. And when lie had said this, 
 oue of the otiicers standing by struck Jesus i with 
 his right hand, saying, Answert/sl thou the high priest 
 
 23 so? Jesus answered him. If I have spoken evil, 
 bear witness of the evil: but if well, why smitest 
 
 a Jer. 20 : 2 ; Acts 23 . 2. 1 Or, with a rod. I 
 
 taught in a private house,- or by the wayside; 
 but, rather, that constantly, luibitually, and, 
 as far as circumstances might permit, he 
 taught in public assemblies. His teaching 
 was characteristically unreserved and public. 
 Whither the Jews always resort, should 
 be, according to the best supported text (X A 
 B C* L X n, vulg. Syr. Copt.), where all the 
 Jews come together. That is, in the openest 
 manner possible, in the place of all others 
 where the devout Jews and the ecclesiastical 
 rulers of the people are wont to assemble. 
 And in secret have I said nothing. More 
 literally, And in secret spnke InotJiing. That 
 is, with the purpose of concealment. What 
 he had sometimes spoken to the twelve in 
 private, had been spoken to them alone, be- 
 cause others were not yet prepared to receive 
 it. Moreover, the disciples were expected to 
 proclaim what they thus heard to all the peo- 
 ple, or on "the house tops." (Matt. 10:27.) 
 
 21. Why askest thou me ? It is a case 
 ■which offers no apology for questioning the 
 accused, and Jesus perceives very clearly, 
 that the only object of the high priest is to 
 draw from him some expression that can be 
 turned against him in the approaching trial. 
 Ask them which heard me, etc. The Re- 
 vised Version is more accurate: A-nk them 
 that have heard nie, what I spake nnto them. 
 The Saviour would have the trial conducted 
 in a regular and proper manner, by hearing 
 the testimony of competent witnesses. Be- 
 hold, they (or, these) know Avhat (or, the 
 things which) I said. The pronoun these, 
 indicates the presence of suitable witnesses; 
 for it refers to those near, as contrasted with 
 those at a distance. The same fact is, per- 
 haps, suggested by the use of the perfect 
 tense, have heard, in the preceding clause. 
 This language of Jesus is a dignified remon- 
 strance against the method adopted by the 
 high priest; perhaps it was felt by Jesus to 
 imply a degree of hypocrisy on his (the high 
 priest's) part. At anj' rate it was interpreted 
 by some as disrespectful to the high priest. 
 
 22. Neither the Common version, One of 
 the officers Avhich stood by, nor the Re- 
 vised Version, One of the officers standing by, 
 represents decisively the meaning of the 
 Greek; for neither version shows that stood 
 by (in the former), or, standing by (in the 
 latter), refers, not to the body of oflicers, but 
 merely to that one of them who struck Jesus. 
 The ambiguity may be removed by transla- 
 ting as follows: One of the officers who was 
 standing by ; the sense being, that this oflScer 
 was standing beside Jesus. Struck Jesus 
 with the palm of his hand. The Greek 
 expression used by the Evangelist, may sig- 
 nify, either that the soldier gave the face of 
 Jesus a rude slap with his hand, or, that he 
 struck him with a rod. In either case, the 
 blow was an insult, and it was probably given 
 with such force as to occasion severe pain. 
 But it did not disturb the holy serenity and 
 patience of Christ, as his response clearly 
 shows. 
 
 23. If I have spoken (rather, spake) evil, 
 bear witness of the evil. Does Jesus here 
 refer to his answer to the high priest, which 
 had provoked the oflicer, or to the teaching 
 of his ministry, which the high priest had 
 asked him to explain? Some interpreters 
 have supposed him to mean the latter, be- 
 cause lie calls upon the officer to bear wit- 
 ness of the evil — an expression which is be- 
 lieved to suit the latter reference better than 
 the former. There is force in this reasoning, 
 but it seems to be overcome by the cir- 
 cumstance that the officers blow was given 
 because of the Lord's answer to the high 
 priest; while the reproof of .lesus was called 
 out by that blow. Accordingly, the words of 
 Jesus mean: "If what I just spake to the 
 high priest was wrong, bear solemn testimony 
 againt it as wrong; that would be right and 
 fitting." But if well, why smitest thou 
 me ? The primary sense of the word trans- 
 lated smite, is, to skin, to flay ; "in the X. 
 T.," says Dr. Robinson, " ^o beat, to smite, to 
 scourge, properly, so as to take off the skin." 
 
Ch. XVIIL] 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 361 
 
 24 "Now Annas had sent him bound unto the high ] 24 thou me? Annas theix-t'ore sent hiui buuud uuio 
 
 Caiaphus the liigli prifsl. 
 25 Now ?iiuuu Pelur \va.-s standing and warming him- 
 self. Tliuy said tlierelore uiilo hiui, Art tliuu also 
 one of his disciples/ lie denied, and said, 1 am not. 
 
 priest. 
 25 And Simon Peter stood and warmed himself. 
 
 'They said llierefore unto him, Art not tliou also one 
 of his disciples? He denied /7, and said, I am not. 
 
 2() One of the servants of the high priest, lieing his l 26 One of the 'servants of the high priest, heiug a kin 
 kinsman whose ear Peter cut off, saith, Did not 1 see 1 man of him whose ear Peter cut oU, sailh, iJid n< 
 thee in the garden with him '! \ 
 
 a MAtl. 26 : 57 h Malt. 26 : 6!), 71 ; Mark 14 : 69 ; Luke 22 : 58. — 1 Gr. hondaeTvantt. 
 
 It is perhaps safe to infer from the Saviour's 
 use of this word that the officer's -blow was a 
 severe one; and it is perfectly certain that 
 Jesus here chiims to have spoken well in his 
 answer to the high priest. It is interesting to 
 compare his hearing on this occasion with his 
 words as preserved in Matt. 5: 39, and with 
 the bearing of Paul under similar provoca- 
 tion. (Acts 23: 2-5.) 
 
 24. Now Annas had sent him, etc. The 
 Kevised Version is here probably correct: 
 Annas therefore sent him bound unto Caia- 
 phas. Thus far the investigation had been 
 unofficial, or private, and tiie result of it was 
 scarcely favorable to the design of the accus- 
 ers. Meantime, th? prisoner had been relieved 
 of his fetters. But now Annas sends him 
 probably across the inner court, where the 
 charcoal fire was burning, to another room in 
 the same edifice, wiiere Caiaphas, with the 
 Sanhedrin, would subject him to a formal 
 trial. For it has been well said, in the 
 "Popular Commentar3%" that "Annas and 
 Caiaphas may have occupied apartments in 
 the same house, surrounding the 'court' of 
 our narrative. The structure of higher-class 
 houses in Palestine, the relationship of the 
 persons themselves, and the customs of the 
 East, lead, not unnaturally, to such a view; 
 and it was very early entertained. But if so, 
 though Jesus was really taken to Annas, Caia- 
 phas would, in all probability, be present at 
 the examination ; and, thus present, his more 
 youthful years, and the passionateness of his 
 rage against Jesus, would lead him to act the 
 prominent part which is assigned to him." 
 
 25-27. Another Sidk View. Second 
 AND Third Denials of Peter. 
 
 25. The Evangelist now returns to Peter. 
 And Simon Peter stood and warmed 
 himself. Literally, was standing and -warm- 
 ing him,Helf. By these words he recalls to 
 the reader's mind the precise situation of this 
 disciple when last referred to (ver.is), a situa- 
 tion which he retained for some time. Mean- 
 while, the members of the Sanhedrin were 
 
 probably coming together, that they might 
 take part in the more formal trial of Jesus. 
 They said therefore unto him. This may 
 have occurred while Jesus was being led 
 across the open court to another apartment of 
 the building. The plural form of the verb 
 translated said, is best explained by suppos- 
 ing that several persons expressed, more or 
 less positively, their suspicion that Peter (as 
 well as John) was one of Christ's followers. 
 It suggests, therefore, a very obvious expla- 
 nation of certain difierences between the nar- 
 rations of the several Evangelists at this 
 point. For Matthew relates, that another 
 maid (dAATj) said. . . This man was also with 
 Jesus of Nazareth; Mark relates, that The 
 m.aid (>} TratSto-Kr/) began to say. . . This is one 
 of them; while Luke relates, that another 
 man (eVepos) said., Thou also art one of them. 
 According to Matthew and Mark, Peter 
 went, at this time, toward the gate by which 
 he had entered. This change of place would 
 have been very natural in the excited state of 
 his mind, and could have required but a few 
 steps. The substance of what they said to 
 Peter, as heard by this Evangelist, could be 
 summed up in the questicm : Art not thou 
 also one of this man's disciples? The 
 form of the question is like that in verse 17: 
 "It cannot be, can it? that thou also art one 
 of his disciples! " The word also, may im- 
 ply that the questioners were aware of the 
 presence of .John, and knew him to be a dis- 
 ciple of Jesus. He denied it, and said, I 
 am not. The it, after denied, represents 
 nothing in the Greek text, and is unnecessary 
 to the proper expression of the writer's 
 thought in English. For this reason, it is 
 omitted in the Revised Version. Matthew 
 saj^s that Peter denied again, with an oath 
 (saying), / do not know the m,an. Of course, 
 the stronger form includes the weaker, while 
 the weaker does not exclude the stronger. 
 Indeed, it is very probable that both were 
 used. 
 26. One of the servants of the high. 
 
362 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 [Ch. XVIII. 
 
 27 Peter then denied again; and "immediately the 1 27 I see thee in the garden with him? Peter therefore 
 
 28 'Then led they Jesus from Caiaphas unto the hall 
 of judgment: ami it was early; "and they themselves 
 went not into the judgment hall, lest they should be 
 detiled: but that they might eat the passover. 
 
 denied again : and straightway the cock crew. 
 
 28 They led Jesus therefore from C'aiaphus into the 
 
 1 Prictorium : and it was early ; and they themselves 
 
 entered not into the i Prsetorium, that they might 
 
 a Matt. 26: 74; Mark 14: 72; Luke 22 ; 60; cU. 13 : 38 6 Matt. 27: 2: Mark 15 : 1 ; Luke 23 : 1 ; Acts 3 : 13 c Acts 10:28; 11 : 3.- 
 
 1 Or. palace. 
 
 priest. Ill the open court, about the fire, 
 were servants and officers (seever. 18), that is, 
 servants of the high priest, and officers of the 
 Sanhedrin. It is one of the former who is 
 now referred to. Being his kinsman, etc. 
 Better: Being a kinsman of him whose ear 
 Feter cut off. (ver. lo.) This description of the 
 questioner prepares the reader for the sharper 
 form of tlie question, and, at the same time, 
 shows that the writer had an accurate knowl- 
 edge of the high priest's household. Ft)r the 
 form of the question in Greelc is one that an- 
 ticipates an affirmative answer, while the 
 words. Did not I see tliee in the garden 
 with him? implies that a denial will be 
 against the personal knowledge of the ques- 
 tioner. Note the truth to nature in this ques- 
 tion, and the life-like particularity of the 
 narrative. 
 
 27. Peter then denied again. The Ke- 
 vised Version substitutes therefore for then, 
 as a translation of the Greek conjunction (oSv.) 
 The repeated temptation is represented as ac- 
 counting for the repeated sin. The charge of 
 discipleship was made anew, and therefore, as 
 Peter had entered the way of disloyalty and 
 falsehood, his denial of Chri.«t was renewed. 
 The second step in sin is easier to take than 
 the fir.st, and the third still easier than the 
 second. And immediately the cock crew. 
 There is no article in the Greek te.vt before 
 the noun, and, perhaps, the exact meaning of 
 the Evangeli-st would be given by omitting it 
 in English — and immediately a cock crew. 
 Thus .John has recorded the fulfillment of his 
 Master's word, spoken the evening before, in 
 the upper room. (See 13:38.) But he does 
 not here speak of the repentance of Peter, 
 though that repentance is presupposed by his 
 subsequent narrative. (See 20: 3-10, and es- 
 pecially 21 : 7, 15-17.) Nor does he speak of 
 the later and more public trial of Jesus before 
 the Sanhedrin, which is described in the 
 Synoptic Gospels. (See Matt. 26: 59-68; 
 Mark 14 : 55-65 ; Luke 22 : 63-71. ) His reasons 
 for this omission may have been, on the one 
 hand, the circumstance that the preliminary 
 
 examination had iHustrated sufficiently both 
 the spirit of Christ and the animus of the 
 hierachy toward him, and, on the other, the 
 circumstance that the later trial had been suf- 
 ficiently described hy the earlier Evangelists. 
 28-40; 19: 1-16. The Civil Trial. 
 Westcott remarks, that "the narrative falls 
 into several distinct sections, corresponding to 
 scenes without and within the prietorium : 1. 
 Without the praetorium. The Jews claim 
 the execution of their sentence. (18:28-32.) 2. 
 Within the prsetorium. 'The good confes- 
 sion.' Christ a King. (3:i-37.) 3. Without the 
 prsetorium. First declaration of innocence. 
 Barabbas. (38-40.) 4. Within the prajtorium. 
 Scourging; mockery. (i9:i-3.) 5. AVithout 
 the praetorium. Second and third declara- 
 tions of innocence. 'Ecce homo,' 'Son of 
 God.' (<-7.) 6. Within the prajtorium. The 
 source of authority, and from this the measure 
 of guilt. (8-11.) 7. Without the praetorium. 
 Conviction overpowered; the king abjured; 
 the last sentence. (12-16.)" 
 
 28-32. The Claim of the Jewish 
 EuLEKS Refused by Pilate. 
 
 28. Then led they Jesus, etc. The Re- 
 vised Version is more exact : They lead Jesus 
 therefore from Caiaphas into tJie palace. Bet- 
 ter, unto the praetorium. Who aie the per- 
 sons represented by the word they? It had 
 been decided by the highest ecclesiastical 
 court of the Jews that Jesus was worthy of 
 death. (Matt. 26:65-67.) But the members of that 
 court had no authority, at that time, to inflict 
 capital punishment. Tliis authority had been 
 taken from them by the Roman government. 
 Hence, they lead Jesus to Pilate, hoping that 
 the latter, a somewhat unscrupulous magis- 
 trate, would confirm and execute the sentence 
 which they had passed. Wiiether the prseto- 
 rium, or official residence of Pilate, was the 
 palace built by Herod, on the western hill of 
 .Jerusalem, or a part of the Castle of Antonia, 
 at tne northwest corner of the temple area, is 
 not certainly known ; but the latter view is. 
 on the whole, more probable than the former. 
 And it was early. The word translated 
 
Ch. XVIII.] 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 363 
 
 early (n-ptoi'a, sc. oipa, lit., an early hour), is 
 used in a lechnicul sense to denote the fourth 
 Wiltch, from 3-6 a. M. (Markl3:35.) Pihitc, wlu) 
 was acquainted with the intense religious pre- 
 judice of the Jews, and by whose permission 
 tlie Roman cohort iiad been employed in 
 seizing Jesus and taking him bound to the 
 house of Annas and Caiaphas, had probably 
 kept himself informed of the general course 
 of events during the night, and was there- 
 fore prepared for the accusation that was to 
 be made against the prisoner. And they 
 themselves — in contrast with Jesus, who was 
 doubtless delivered into the hands of soldiers, 
 and led into the prietorium — went not into 
 the judgment hall (or, proetorium), lest 
 they should be defiled (or, that they might 
 not be defiled) ; but that they might eat the 
 passover. What light does this cast upon 
 the day when the Lord ate the passover with 
 his disciples? The Evangelist's words imply 
 that these conspirators against the life of 
 Jesus supposed that, by entering the court of 
 Pilate, they would be so defiled as to be un- 
 able to cleanse themselves, ritually, in time 
 to eat the passover. But if we assume that 
 Jesus anticipated the regular time of eating 
 the paschal lamb by one day, thesr conspira- 
 tors were afraid of being so polluted by enter- 
 ing the proetorium that they could not purify 
 themselves before the next evening, and then 
 eat the paschal lamb. Yet such a fear is un- 
 accountable. Fur the hour of sunset was 
 between them and the time when they, on 
 this hypothesis, would wish to eat the pass- 
 over, and at the time of sunset "uncleanness 
 of a much more serious kind than that pro- 
 duced bj' entering into the house of a Gentile 
 was removed by the simple process of wash- 
 ing with water." (Lev. is :o.u, i6-i8; 22:5-7.) The 
 language of the Evangelist cannot, therefore, 
 be safely used as an argument for the some- 
 what popular view, that the supper described 
 in chapter 13 of this Gospel, occurred twenty- 
 four hours before the regular time for eating 
 the paschal lamb. But in what other way 
 can this language be explained? Many 
 scholars answer : By the fact that the pass- 
 over may denote the whole festival, as well as 
 the paschal supper, and that eating the pass- 
 over, may refer to partaking of food during 
 any part of the festival. The Note of Dr. 
 Gardiner is brief, and may be copied : " The 
 
 phrase to eat the passover, occurs five times in 
 the New Testament (muu. 26; n-, Mark u-. 12, u; Luke 
 22: 11, 15), and once in the Old Testament (2 Cbron. 
 30:18), and in all these places it means to eat 
 the Paschal Supper, strictly. As all the in- 
 stances in the New Testament, however, refer 
 to one and the same occasion, this recurrence 
 does not go very far to prove that the expre-s- 
 sion must be limited to this. Now the word 
 passover (n-acrxa), is used in the New Testa- 
 ment in a variety of significations: (1) For 
 the paschal lamb— Mark 14: 12; Luke 22: 7; 
 and fmetaph.) 1 Cor. 6: 7. (2) For the pas- 
 chal supper— Matt. 20: 18, 19; Luke 22: 8, 13; 
 Heb. 11: 28, etc. (3) For the whole paschal 
 festival of the seven days of unleavened 
 bread— Luke 22: 1; 2: 41-43; Matt. 26: 2; 
 John 2: 23. (4) Indefinitely, in such a way 
 that it may be understood either as in (2) or 
 as in (3), and yet, the latter meaning having 
 been established, more naturally in that — 
 John 2:13; 6:4; 11: 55; 12: 1; 13:1. In 
 John 18 : 28, 29; 19: 14, the meaning is in dis- 
 pute. It will be observed that all the instan- 
 ces in (4) are from St. John, and that all. the 
 passages in St. John in which tlie word occurs, 
 fall under this head, or under (3.) It is ap- 
 parent that he uses the word in its most gen- 
 eral sense. The phrase, therefore, that they 
 might eat the passover, as used by him, would 
 seem naturally to refer to the feast during the 
 seven days, or any of them, and not specially 
 to the paschal lamb." Some of these would 
 occur during the day just dawning, and it is 
 not surprising that the ecclesia.stical rulers 
 were "unwilling to defile themselves by en- 
 tering beneath the roof of the Gentile pro- 
 curator." 
 
 But this is not the only substitute for the 
 first interpretation. (See Edersheim, "The 
 Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah," II. pp. 
 565, 6.) It is possible that the Jewish rulers 
 had been too much absorbed by their success 
 in capturing Jesus and their eflforts to secure 
 his condemnation, to partake of the paschal 
 supper at the usual time in the evening be- 
 fore, and were hoping to partake of it at the 
 last moment possible. This is Prof. Milli- 
 gan's view. "They were scrupulous, because 
 they desired to eat without an hour's delay. 
 They had lost time already; the night was 
 flying fast; the morning light would soon ap- 
 pear ; it would be too late then ; no interrup- 
 
364 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 [Ch. XVIII. 
 
 29 Pilate then went out unto them, and said, What 
 acciisaliou bring ye against this man? 
 
 30 Tliey answered and said unto him, If he were not 
 a mulelaiCtor, we would not have delivered him up unto 
 thee. 
 
 ill Then said Pilate unto them, Take ye him, and 
 judge him according to your law. The Jews therefore 
 said unto him. It is not lawful for us to put any man 
 to death : 
 
 29 not be defiled, but might eat the passover. Pilate 
 therefore went out unto them, and saith. What accu- 
 
 30 sation bring ye against this. man? They answered 
 and said unto him, If this man were not an evil- 
 doer, we should not have delivered him up unto 
 
 31 thee. Pila'e therefore said unto them, Take him 
 yourselves, and judge him according to your law. 
 The Jews said unto him. It is not lawful for us to 
 
 tion that can be escaped must be allowed; 
 they would not go into the palace, 'that they 
 might not be defiled, but might eat the pass- 
 over.' It may, perhaps, be said in repl^', 
 that if this was their intention, it failed. 
 Morning broke before they left Pilate, and 
 they lost the opportunity of eating. Pre- 
 cisely so. It is probably one of the very 
 thoughts that John wishes us to carry from 
 his story, as he tells it. Instead of welcoming 
 the true Pasclial Lamb, these Jews rejected 
 him. What thought more in the manner of 
 our Evangelist than to let us see that, seeking 
 to retain the shadow, and sacrificing the sub- 
 stance for its sake, they lost not only the sub- 
 stance, but the shadow too (comp. 11 : 48)?" 
 I see no insuperable obstacle to this exposi- 
 tion, and either this or the preceding one is 
 preferable to any view which makes the nar- 
 rative of John inconsistent with that of the 
 Synoptic Gospels. 
 
 29. Pilate then (or therefore) — that is, be- 
 cause the Jews were unwilling to enter the 
 prtetorium, went out unto them. The text 
 might be translated literally, went forth with- 
 out unto them, the circumstance that Pilate 
 went quite outside the pnetorium being stated 
 with eitiphasis. What accusation brins; ye 
 against this man ? Whatever he may have 
 known of their proceedings in the Sanhedrin, 
 or of the grounds of their enmity to Christ, 
 he properly demanded a formal statement of 
 their charge, that he might judge the accused 
 in a legal manner. Perhaps the message of 
 his wife had been received, awakening in his 
 heart a desire to avoid any decision against 
 Jesus. But it is by no means necessary to j 
 suppose this in order to account for his de- 
 mand. He was a ruler, and it was his duty 
 to condemn no man without definite accusa- 
 tion and proof of crime. 
 
 30. If he were not a malefactor. Bet- 
 ter, If this ■)nnn were not an evil doer. A 
 wholly indefinite charge, affording evidence 
 that they knew of no civil offence which he 
 had committed. But they hoped, by putting 
 
 on a bold face and persisting in their demand, 
 to obtain the condemnation of Jesus. We 
 would not have delivered him up unto 
 thee. "Of course not. Are we not honora- 
 ble men, rulers of the people, incapable of 
 uttering a false accusation? You may take 
 our word for it, that this man is an evil-doer. 
 What need of further proof?" But Pilate, 
 perceiving their inability to bring any proper 
 charge against Jesus, and discovering, per- 
 haps, the cause of their hatred of him ; at all 
 events influenced bj' their reply, said unto 
 them : 
 
 31. Take ye him, (or, Take him yourselves), 
 and judge him according to your law. 
 From these words of the Roman j)rocurator, 
 two things may be inferred : (1) that he did 
 not believe Jesus to have committed any crime 
 against the laws of the State, and (2) that he 
 did not believe him to have done anything 
 worthy of death, even if he had broken some 
 Jewish law. For he would not have delivered 
 a man guiltj' of a civil offence into the hands 
 of the Sanhedrists for trial and punishment, 
 nor would he have comitiitted an3' man whom 
 he thought worthy of deatii to a court which 
 had no right to inflict capital punishment. 
 There maj' have been a touch of irony in the 
 language of Pilate, especiallj' if he knew 
 already, or suspected, that they were seeking 
 the life of Jesus. At all events, his words 
 constrained them to avow their purpose, and 
 to confess their dependence on him for its 
 accomplishment. It is not lawful for us to 
 put any man to death. This language is 
 unqualified. And, according to the Talmud, 
 the Jews had been deprived of the right to 
 inflict capital punishment forty j'ears before 
 the destruction of Jerusalem. Whether this 
 statement is correct as to the matter of time 
 or not, the language of the Jews in this pas- 
 sage proves that they could not in their own 
 right inflict the punishment of death. The 
 passages which are sometimes alleged to prove 
 that they had this power (viz., Johns : 3, 59; 7: 25. 
 
 Acts 5: 33; 7: 57, sq. ; 21: 27, sq.j, merely shoW that the 
 
Ch. XVIIL] 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 365 
 
 32 " That the saying of Jesus might be fulfilled, which 
 he spake, siguiiying what death he should die. 
 
 3:5 'Then Pilate uut<red iuto the judguieut hall again, 
 and said unto him, Art thou the king of the Jews' 
 
 34 Jesus answered him, Sayest thou this thing of 
 thyself, or did others tell it thee of me? 
 
 35 Pilate answered. Am I a Jew? Thine own nation 
 and the chief priests have delivered thee unto me ; 
 what hast thou done? 
 
 32 put any man to death : tliat the word of Jesus niiuht 
 be fulfilled, which he spake, signifying l)y what man- 
 ner of death he should die. 
 
 33 Pilate therefore entered again into the iPraitori- 
 um, and called Jesu.s, and said unto him. Art tliuu 
 
 .34 the King of the Jews? Jesus answered, Sayest thou 
 this of tliyself, or did others tell it thee concerning 
 
 35 me? Pilate answered. Am I a Jew? Thine owa 
 nation and the cnief priests delivered thee unto me : 
 
 oMatt. 20: 19; ch. 12: 32, 33 6 Matt. 27 : 11. 1 Or, pala 
 
 Roman governors sometimes winked at acts of 
 violence. 
 
 32. That the saying of Jesus might be 
 fulfilled, etc. Tiie Greek term, translated 
 saying, maj' be rendered word, and the word 
 of Jesus, to which the Evangelist refers, may 
 probably be seen in 12: 32 f., or, possibly, in 
 Matt. 20: 19. Note how careful the Evan- 
 gelist is to remind his readers of the infalli- 
 ble truth of all that Jesus had said. Eders- 
 heim remarks that this statement "seems to 
 imply that the Sanhedrin might have found 
 a mode of putting Jesus to death in the same 
 informal manner in which Stephen was killed, 
 and they sought to destroy Paul. The Jewish 
 law recognized a form of procedure, or rather 
 a want of procedure, when a person who was 
 caught in flagrante delicto of blasphemy, 
 might be doomed to death without further in- 
 quiry." But in such a case the process was 
 not crucifixion, but stoning. Hence the an- 
 swer of the Jews to Pilate was an important 
 link in the chain of events by which the pre- 
 diction of Jesus as to the manner of his death 
 was fulfilled. 
 
 33-37. Ik the Pr^torium. 
 
 33. Then Pilate (or, Pilate, therefore), 
 entered into the judgment hall again. 
 His doing this was a result of the persistency 
 of the Jews, and of their confession that they 
 could not legally punish Jesus as they affirmed 
 he ought to be punished. Jesus was already 
 in theprsetorium, but Pilate, taking his official 
 seat, called him near and asked this question, 
 Art thou the king of the Jews? The order 
 of the Greek words is striking. " Thou — so 
 humble, modest, gentle, peaceable, unarmed 
 — art the king of the Jews? The emphasis 
 falls on the first word, thou ; but whether the 
 tone was one of wonder simply, or of surprise, 
 mingled with contempt, it is impossible to say. 
 
 34. Sayest thou this thing of thyself, 
 or did others tell it thee of me ? By these 
 words Jesus calls Pilate's attention to the 
 source from which the charge which he had 
 
 virtually made (ver. 33,) had come to him, that 
 is, not from his own knowledge and judgment, 
 but from the Jews ; and for this reason it 
 should be .suspected by him. As if he had 
 said to Pilate: "Am I to consider this que.s- 
 tion, (and accusation), as one that has sprung 
 from your own mind, in view of my conduct, 
 or as something which would not have occur- 
 red to yourself, but has been put in your lips 
 by others?" Thus interpreted, there seems 
 to be in the question of Jesus a courteous sug- 
 gestion that Pilate was already allowing him- 
 self to be made a tool of by the Jews, and at 
 the same time a virtual appeal to his self-re- 
 spect and sense of justice as a magistrate. 
 Meyer says that " Jesus merely insists on his 
 right to know the author of the accusation 
 which lay in the words of Pilate" ; but this 
 he already knew, and it is not easy to see what 
 object would be gained by having Pilate for- 
 mally admit the fact. Other interpreters, 
 mindful of the following context, think that 
 Jesus sought by his response to direct the gov- 
 ernor's mind to the ambiguity of the charge, 
 to the possibility of a double sense in the title, 
 the king of the Jews, which he had borrowed 
 from others — thus preparing the way for the 
 distinction which Jesus himself was about to 
 make between civil and spiritual kingship. 
 This, however, does not seem to be the most 
 obvious sense of the Lord's answer, and there 
 is no suflScient reason for departing from that 
 sense, 
 
 35. Am I a Jew? "With a measure of 
 contempt; as if the idea that he, the Eoman 
 procurator, had the character or spirit of a 
 Jev), were absurd; and as if none but a Jew 
 could feel any concern about a vain aspirant, 
 an unarmed pretender to the throne of Israel. 
 Thus Pilate virtually admits that Jesus had 
 done nothing which a Roman governor would 
 be likely to fear or punish ; had raised no 
 sedition, created no disturbance, broken no 
 law. And, as if he, the haughty Roman, 
 would make some excuse for even repeating. 
 
366 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 [Ch. XVIII. 
 
 36 "Jesus answered, 'My kingdom is not of this 
 world: if uiy kingdom were of this world, then would 
 my servants tight, that I should not be delivered to the 
 Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence. 
 
 37 Pilate therefore said unto him, Art thou a king 
 then? Jesus answered, Thou sayest tliat I am a king. 
 To this end was I born, and for this cause came 1 into 
 the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. 
 Every one that ''is of the truth heareth my voice. 
 
 36 what hast thou done ? Jesus answered, My king- 
 dom is not of this world : if my kingdom were of 
 this world, then would my i servants tight, that I 
 should not be delivered to the Jews : but now is my 
 
 37 kingdom not from hence. Pilate therefore said unlo 
 him. Art thou a king then ? Jesus answered, i Thou 
 sayest it, for I am a king. To this end have I been 
 born, and to this end am I come into the world, that 
 I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one 
 
 a 1 Tim. 6: 13. ...6 Dan. 2 : 44 ; 7: 
 
 14; Luke 12: 14; ch. 6: 15; 8: 15.... c ch. 8: 47; 1 John 3 : 19; 
 18, 22 2 Or, J%ou sayest that I am a king. 
 
 .3,12, 
 
 such an accusation, he reminds Jesus that it 
 originated witli his own people. Thine own 
 nation — who may certainly be supposed un- 
 willing to injure one of their race, and the 
 chief priests — who are the leaders of the 
 people and men of high repute among you — 
 have delivered thee unto me. This, 
 assuredly, was a plausible justification of his 
 course ; but it was far enough from being even 
 a hint that he supposed Jesus to be guilty of 
 any crime against the State. Yet, there must 
 be some exjjlanation of the charge; Jesus 
 must have done something which had moved 
 the chief priests to conspire against him 
 and deliver him up as a criminal to the civil 
 power. And, therefore, Pilate again ques- 
 tions the prisoner before him. What hast 
 thou done? "That is, to turn those who 
 would naturally favor thee, into relentless 
 enemies?" — Westcott. There seems to have 
 been nothing unjust or overbearing in this 
 question, and it gave to Jesus a favorable 
 opportunity to set forth briefly the nature of 
 his mission, his claims, and his authority. Of 
 course, the form of his answer was determined 
 by the accusation which had been made. 
 
 36. My kingdom is not of this world. 
 This is equivalent to saj'ing : " I have a king- 
 dom, one that is emphatically and distinctly 
 mine (observe the Greek, ^ pao-iAeia ii e/utrj), but 
 it is not of this world — its source and charac- 
 ter are unlike those of any earthly kingdom." 
 By this language Jesus sought to accomplish 
 two things : .;??-s^, to suggest to Pilate a rea- 
 sonable explanation of the enmity which led 
 the chief priests to seek his life, and also of 
 the form which they had at last given to their 
 accusation; and, second, to convince Pilate 
 that he had made no claim to civil authority. 
 And we maj' be certain that the simplicity, 
 sincerity, and holy dignity of Jesus, gave 
 peculiar force to his testimony. Yet, having 
 in mind the character of Pilate, and especially 
 his lack of spiritual insight, Jesus proceeded 
 
 to show that his words in disclaiming political 
 aims must be true, because they were con- 
 firmed by the conduct of his followers. If 
 my kingdom were of this world, then 
 would my servants fight. "Therefore, it 
 cannot, as I have said, be of this world." 
 The expression, translated, Avould — fight, 
 describes a continuous and violent struggle 
 for superiority {iiy<aviinvTo) : thej' "would be 
 striving," (comp. Luke 13: 24; 1 Cor. 9: 25; 
 1 Tim. 6: 12; 2 Tim. 4:7); that is, acting the 
 part of soldiers in a fierce conflict. "The}' 
 would have resisted my arrest at the outset, 
 and would have continued their resistance 
 until now." This was a simple appeal to 
 facts, such as Pilate ought to have compre- 
 hended, and probably did comprehend. For 
 he knew that the servants of Jesus had not 
 used force or violence to prevent bis arrest, 
 and were not using force to rescue him from 
 the Jews. And this ought of itself to have 
 satisfied the procurator that Jesus was not 
 seeking to establish an earthly kingdom. 
 This, too, is what Jesus solemnly re-af8rms in 
 the last clause of the verse : but now is my 
 kingdom not from hence. After remind- 
 ing Pilate of what his servants would have 
 done if his kingdom had been of an earthly na- 
 ture, he denies again that it has such an origin 
 or nature: "but in reality, as the case stands, 
 my kingdom is not from this earthly source." 
 This, indeed, is wholly negative in form; but 
 if we bear in mind all the circumstances 
 known to Pilate and the transparent sincerity 
 of Christ, it will be impossible to doubt that 
 it had also a positive significance, that it sug- 
 gested an authority whose origin was divine — 
 a kingdom which was religious, instead of 
 secular. But, how little appreciation of such 
 a kingdom had the Roman givernor! For, 
 in consequence (ovv) of what Jesus had said, 
 he addressed him with these words, contain- 
 ing a spice of ironj' : 
 37. Art thou a king, then? Meaning: 
 
Ch. XVIII.] 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 367 
 
 "Thou considerest thyself a king, then, dost 
 thou?" For Jesus had evidently assented to 
 the charge so far as to assume that he had 
 some sort of kingly position, though it was 
 "not of this world." And, looking at the 
 man before him, unarmed, unsupported, de- 
 serted, the proud officer could not, or did not, 
 repress the feeling of contempt which such a 
 claim excited. For there is reason to infer 
 from the position of the pronouii thou, at the 
 end of the Greek sentence, that it was added 
 contemptuously: "Thou, a helple«s prisoner, 
 a poor Jew, without friends, even among 
 thine own people — thou, a king!" How 
 little, then, could Pilate have seen in the 
 prisoner before him ! How faint an impres- 
 sion of that divine love and life which dwelt 
 in the Son of God, was made on his worldly 
 nature! How impossibe for this representa- 
 tive of Caesar to conceive of moral supremacy ! 
 The world in which he lived was almost infi- 
 nitely distant from the wcrld in which Christ 
 lived. But, though with a tone of contempt, 
 he had nevertheless uttered the truth, and 
 Jesus had but to assert this in order to assert 
 his kingship. Thou sayest that I am a 
 king. Thus Jesus adopts the language of 
 Pilate as an expression of the truth. Paying 
 no attention to the sarcastic tone of the gov- 
 ernor's remark, he promptly and calmly 
 assents to it as correct. But several interpret- 
 ers — ie. g., Meyer, Alford, Luthardt) — main- 
 tain that the last part of this sentence is con- 
 firmatory of the first, thus: Thou sayest 
 — (i. e., rightly), because I am a king — inter- 
 preting the Greek particle (on) as meaning 
 because, ratlier than that. We regard this 
 interpretation as improbable; nay, the words 
 of Westcott concerning it are scarcely too 
 positive, that it "seems to be both unnatural 
 as a rendering of the original phrase, and 
 alien from the context." With either version, 
 however, (viz., the common or the one pro- 
 posed), the meaning of Jesus is substantially 
 the same; for, with either version, he claims 
 to be a king, and repeating his claim, pro- 
 ceeds to explain the real nature of his regal 
 authority and control over men. To this 
 end — that is, for this very purpose, namely, 
 that I might be a king — was I born, or, have 
 I been born. (Rev. Ver. ) Jesus evidently 
 means to say, that his birth as a man was 
 ■with a distinct view in the divine mind to 
 
 his kinglj"^ office, that he was a pre.lestinod 
 ruler, and that, should he fail of exercising 
 regal authority over men, he would fail of 
 accomplishing the end of his being. This 
 clause is, therefore, as we understand it, an 
 emphatic, though brief, confirmation of his 
 previous statement. " Ciirist not only affirms 
 the fact of his kingship, but also bases the 
 fact upon the essential law of his being." — 
 Westcott. And for this cause : the same 
 Greek expression as before (eis toDto), and 
 meaning, for this end, pur])Ose, object; more' 
 briefly, for this : came I into the world. 
 In this clause, also, the verb is in the perfect 
 tense, and should be translated (as in the Rev. 
 Ver.), am I cone into the world. The expres- 
 sion ditfers from the foregoing, in that it as- 
 sumes the fact of Christ's pre-existence and 
 the fact of his superhuman nature as well. 
 That I should bear witness to the 
 truth. This clause is also declarative of the 
 purpose for which he had come into the 
 world, and is, therefore, equivalent to his 
 reigning as king. He came into the world in 
 order to reign as king: he came into the 
 world to bear witness to the truth. And these 
 two purposes are one. The latter specifies the 
 way in which the former is to be done. "He 
 has indeed a kingdom; but . . . his kingdom 
 is to be established by his witness of the eter- 
 nal truth, which he had known with his 
 Father, and which he alone could declare to 
 men." — Watkins. In other words, Christ 
 came to reign over men by the power of truth. 
 Hence, all those who are willing to be gov- 
 erned by the highest truth, submit joyfully 
 to him. Every one that is of the truth 
 heareth my voice. To be of the truth is to 
 draw one's inspiration from it, just as to be of 
 God, is to be controlled by influences coming 
 from him. But the truth is precisely that 
 part of all truth which reveals God and his 
 salvation ; that part of all truth which is of 
 supreme interest to man, as a moral and re- 
 ligious being, capable of knowing and loving 
 the Most High. And to hear the voice of 
 Jesus is, of course, to hearken to his words 
 and obey his will. Over every one who thus 
 hears his voice he reigns as king, in a far 
 higher and more absolute sense than any 
 earthly monarch rules over his subjects. "The 
 nature of Christ's kingdom may be expressed 
 in a word, by calling it spiritual. It embraces 
 
368 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 [Ch. XVIII. 
 
 38 Pilate saith unto him, What is truth ? And when 
 he had said this, he went out again unto the Jews, and 
 saith unto them, "I find in hiiu no fault at all. 
 
 39 ' But ye have a custom, that I should release unto 
 you one at the passover: will ye therefore that I release 
 unto you the King of the Jews ? 
 
 38 that is of the truth heareth my voice. Pilate saith 
 unto him, What is truth? 
 
 And when he had said this, he went out again 
 unto the Jews, and saith unto them, I find no crime 
 
 39 in him. But ye have a custom, that I should release 
 unto you one at the passover : will ye therefore that 
 
 o Matt. 27 : 24 ; Luke 2:i : 4 ; ch. 19 : 4, 6 b Matt. 27 : 15 ; Mark 15 : 6 ; Luke 23 : 17. 
 
 those, and only those, who are poor in spirit, 
 who have been born of the Spirit, . . . and 
 who worship God in spirit and in truth. (Matt. 
 
 5: 3; Joha3: 3,5; 4:24; Rom.8:9.) The Ivillgdom of 
 
 God is not eating and drinking, but righteous- 
 ness and peace and joy in the Holy Ghost. 
 (Rom. 14:17.) It is not of this world. (Ver. se.) It 
 is related to heaven, rather than to earth, in 
 its principles and spirit, and its consumma- 
 tion here would make the society of earth as 
 loyal to God and as blessed in his service, as 
 that of heaven." (Matt. 6:io.) 
 
 38. What is truth? The motive and spirit 
 of this question can only be conjectured. But 
 from all that is known of Pilate's character, 
 as well as from the circumstance that he 
 waited for no answer, it may be regarded as 
 probable that he now thought of Jesus as a 
 harmless enthusiast, whom he could dismiss 
 with an impatient intimation of his own skep- 
 ticism as to the possibility of any man's know- 
 ing truth from falsehood, or as to the import- 
 ance of truth, if it could be known. Of 
 course, he referred to truth in itself, to truth 
 as an objective reality, and not to veracity in 
 the intercourse of man with man ; for of the 
 importance of the latter, no practical Koman 
 could well speak with contempt. "Some 
 critics have asserted that the writer of this 
 Gospel must have drawn upon his imagina- 
 tion for the colloquy between Pilate and Jesus 
 in the prjetorium. But there is no sufficient 
 reason for this assertion. John may not have 
 shared the scruples of the Sanhedrists about 
 entering the judgment-hall of Pilate, but, in- 
 fluenced bj' his great love for Chrjst, may 
 have followed him quietly into the hall, and 
 have listened there to all that was said. Or, 
 he may have learned the substance of the 
 governor's questions, and of his Master's an- 
 swers, from some of Pilate's attendants. 
 Hence, there is no special reason for denying 
 the accuracy of his narrative in this place." 
 
 Outside the prc^torium. Having thus ter- 
 minated his examination of Jesus, he went 
 out again unto the Jews, who had re- 
 mained near the prgetorium, awaiting im- 
 
 patiently the result of his interview with the 
 object of their hatred. And saith unto 
 them, I find in him no fault. The Kevised 
 Version translates this clause, I find no crim,e 
 in him. And the word crime represents the 
 original word more accuratelj^ than the word 
 fault, (conip. Matt. 27: 37; Ma'rk 15: 26; 
 Acts 13: 28; 28: 18, with 19: 4, bebjw). It 
 is also noticeable that the pronoun, I, is em- 
 phatic, so that Pilate contrasts his own judg- 
 ment with that of the Jews. " You have ac- 
 cused him of evil-doing worthy of death, but 
 I, upon examination, find in him no ground 
 for your accusation, no crime deserving pun- 
 ishment." 
 
 At this point, as is generally supposed, took 
 place tiie sending to Herod, related by Luke 
 (23: 4-12). "The sending to Herod, which 
 Luke adds to this declaration of innocence, 
 and by which Pilate tries to withdraw himself 
 from the business which is so annoying to 
 him, is passed over by John, because it was 
 only an episode, which had no significance for 
 the real progress of the case, and which pro- 
 duced no change in Pilate's mood. Hence, 
 John could proceed without interruption to 
 the offer Pilate made." — Luthardt. 
 
 39. But ye have a custom — though this 
 custom is not mentioned by profane histori- 
 ans. Yet, the passover was certainly a very 
 appropriate time for showing mercy and let- 
 ting the prisoner go free; and the uncontra- 
 dicted testimony of the Evangelists is ample 
 proof of its existence, during the governor- 
 ship of Pilate. According to the narrative of 
 Mark, the people first applied to the procura- 
 tor for the release of a prisoner to them, "as 
 he had ever done unto them," (Marki5:8), and 
 it has been thought that some of them, as well 
 as Pilate himself, may have hoped that Jesus 
 would be .selected, and his life saved. Vain 
 hope ! As to this expedient for saving the life 
 of Jesus, Alford says, none too sharply : "His 
 conduct presents a pitiable specimen of the 
 moral weakness of that spirit of wordly power 
 which reached its culminating point in the 
 Roman Empire." Alas, there is reason to 
 
Ch. XIX.] 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 369 
 
 40 "Then cried they all again, saying, Not this man, l 43 I release unto you the King of the Jews? They 
 but Barabbas. 'Now Barabbas was a robber. cried out therefore again, saying. Not this man, but 
 
 I Barabbas. Now Barabbas was a robber. 
 
 CHAPTER XIX. 
 
 THEN = Pilate therefore took Jesus, and scourged I 1 Then Pilate therefore took Jesus, and scourged 
 him. I 
 
 a Acts S : 14. ... 6 Luke 23 : 19. . . .e Matt. 20 : 19 ; 27 : 26 ; Mark 15 : 15 ; Lake 18 : 33. 
 
 believe that many a ruler in modern times 
 has just as little firmness in maintaining the 
 right as was exliibited by this pagan magis- 
 trate in dealing with the Jews. He was ready 
 to do justice, if it would not cost him too 
 much ; but he was not ready to do justice at 
 a very great personal sacrifice. Will ye 
 therefore that I release unto you the 
 king of the Jews? There is certainly con- 
 tempt in calling Jesus " the king of the Jews." 
 And probably the contempt was for the Jews, 
 who had undertaken to treat as a serious mat- 
 ter the claims of so upright and harmless an 
 enthusiast for truth, as Jesus had appeared to 
 be in the eyes of Pilate. According to Mat- 
 thew, Pilate himself suggested the name of 
 Barabbas, a notorious criminal, as an alterna- 
 tive to that of Jesus — in the hope, no doubt, 
 that the people would be ashamed to ask favor 
 for such a man, rather than .Jesus. (Matt. 27: 17.) 
 There, also, we are inforined that "the chief 
 priests and the elders persuaded" the people 
 to ask Barabbas instead of the Christ. It is, 
 therefore, plain that "the multitudes" were 
 not all of one mind at first, and that the nar- 
 rative of John is extremely condensed. 
 
 40. Then cried they all again : or. They 
 C7-ied out therefore again. — Rev. Ver. The 
 word all is not found in the earliest manu- 
 scripts, and is probably an addition to the text. 
 The word again implies that this was not the 
 first time thej' had shouted forth their answer 
 to nearl}'^ the same question ; and, as this is the 
 first instance mentioned by .John, it implies 
 also the condensation of his narrative referred 
 to under verse 39. Many particulars, evi- 
 dently known to the writer, were omitted for 
 the sake of brevity, some of them, perhaps, 
 because they were familiar to Christians 
 through the other Gospels. For this portion 
 of the trial of .Jesus, see also Matt. 27 : 15-26; 
 Mark 15: 6-15; Luke 23: 13-25. Now 
 Barabbas was a robber. Mej'er calls this 
 "a tragic comment. " 
 nificant. 
 
 this notorious criminal was a Jewish zealot, 
 whose lawless violence was half atoned for in 
 the eyes of his countrymen by his bitter hatred 
 of foreign domination. From Mark 15: 7, 
 we learn that he had been joined with others 
 in sedition and murder; yet, this may have 
 been, in the circumstances, what seemed to 
 his brethren ail apology for his conduct. In 
 reality, however, he was a robber and a mur- 
 derer; for not only Mark in his Gospel, but 
 Peter in his address to the people in tiie temple 
 (Aots3: 14), aflSrms this: "Ye denied the Holy 
 and Righteous One, and asked for a murderer 
 to be granted unto you." — Rev. Ver. And 
 here John, with crushing simplicity, says, 
 "Now Barabbas was a robber" — a case of 
 meiosis, in which the writer says less than 
 he might, knowing that his readers will fill 
 out the meaning. 
 
 Ch. 19 : 1-3. Scourging and Mocking 
 OF Jesus. 
 
 1. Then Pilate therefore took Jesus, 
 and scourged him. The word therefore, 
 represents the action of Pilate as a conse- 
 quence of his failure to induce the .Jews to 
 make choice of .Jesus, instead of Barabbas. as 
 the object of their passover clemency. By 
 selecting Barabbas, they virtually insisted on 
 the condemnation and death of Jesus. And, 
 according to the first three Evangelists, they 
 did this in express terms, calling out passion- 
 ately for the crucifixion of Jesus. (See Matt. 
 27 : 22, 23; Mark 15: 13, 14; Luke 23: 21, 23.) 
 But the procurator did not yield to them so 
 far as to sentence .Jesus at once to the death of 
 the cross, yet he did yield to them so far as to 
 order the scourging preliminary to cruci- 
 fixion, as if he intended to comply with their 
 demand for the latter. As the sequel shows, 
 he hoped that "the horrors of the scourging 
 might still move the people to desist froin the 
 ferocious cry for the cross." — Edersheim,. 
 Its very brevity is sig- I But his consent to injustice demonstrated his 
 How, then, could he have been moral weakness; and, however heart-rending 
 selected by tiie people? It is possible that I might be the suffering caused by scourging, 
 
370 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 [Ch. XIX. 
 
 2 And the soldiers platted a crown of thorns, and 
 put it ou his head, and they put on him a purple robe, 
 
 3 And said, Hail, ICiug of the Jews! and they smote 
 him with their hauds. 
 
 2 him. And the soldiers plaited a crown of thorns, 
 and put it on his head, and arrayed him in a purple 
 
 3 garment; and they came unio him, and said, Hail, 
 King of the Jews ! and they struck him ^ with their 
 
 there was no good reason to expect that it 
 would satisfy the infuriated populace. Spur- 
 red on by the priests, they had cried out 
 again and again for the most ignominious 
 and terrible punishment, and nothing less 
 than this would now meet their demands. As 
 to the position for being scourged, we are told 
 by Edersheim that, "stripped of his clothes, 
 his hands tied and back bent, the victim 
 would be bound to a column or a stake, in 
 front of the praetorium." Wescott says, that 
 "recent investigations at Jerusalem have 
 disclosed what may have been the scene 
 of the punishment. In a subterranean 
 chamber, discovered by Captain Warren, on 
 what Mr. Ferguson holds to be the site of 
 Antonia — Pilate's prsetorium — stands a trun- 
 cated column, no part of the construction ; for 
 the chamber is vaulted above the pillar, but 
 just such a pillar as criminals would be tied 
 to to be scourged." Is it well to associate the 
 Bufferings of Christ with such material ob- 
 jects, when we can only say that those objects 
 may have been connected with him? 
 
 2. However dreadful may have been the 
 phj'sical pain endured by Jesus, at this time, 
 it did not probably exhaust his strength, or 
 disturb the equanimity of his spirit. With 
 holy patience and submission to his Father's 
 will, "he was wounded for our transgressions, 
 he was bruised for our iniquities." (isa.53:5.) 
 He was a silent sufferer ; and when released 
 from the pillar of scourging, was doubtless 
 able to stand without supi)ort from others. 
 The soldiers platted a crown of thorns. 
 The Greek word signifying, thorn, or thorn- 
 bush {oLKavia), is not sufficiently definite to 
 authorize any positive statement as to the 
 kind of shrub or tree from which fhe crown 
 was made. But, most scholars have fixed on 
 the Zizyphns Spina Christi, culled in Pales- 
 tine the Nebk or Nubk, as the plant emjjloj^- 
 ed. Geike says, that "One of them, running 
 to the nearest open space, heightened the 
 coarse and shameful merriment by bringing 
 in some of the tough twigs of the thorny 
 Nubk, which he twisted into a mock laurel 
 wreath, .like that worn at times by the Caesars, 
 
 and forced down, with its close, sharp thorns, 
 on our Saviour's temples." And Watkins 
 remarks, that "the shrub was likely enough 
 to be found in the garden of the prsetorium." 
 They put on him a purple robe. Compare 
 Matt. 27: 28. Plumptre says, that the "pur- 
 ple" of the ancients was "crimson," and the 
 same color might easily be called by either 
 name. He also conjectures, rather strangely, 
 that this robe "was probably some cast-off 
 cloak of Pilate's own," while Geike assumes, 
 that "instead of his plain abba of linen, they 
 threw over his shoulders a scarlet sagum, or 
 soldier's cloak^as a rough burlesque of the 
 long and fine purple one, worn only by the 
 Emperor." Matthew adds another feature, 
 saying, that thej' put "a reed in his hand," 
 evidently as a mock sceptre. 
 
 3. And said. According to the best manu- 
 scripts (N B L U X A n), and the Eevised 
 Version, this should read: And they came 
 unto him, and said. Probably the first clause 
 was omitted from some of the early manu- 
 scripts, because it was understood to affirm 
 that the soldiers now came to Jesus from some 
 remoter point, whereas, the meaning is, that 
 they approached Jesus one after another, or, 
 kept coming to Jesus, though they were all 
 present in, or near, the prKtorium. As they 
 approached Jesus, they bowed the knee, in 
 mock reverence, and said, Hail, king of the 
 JeAVs! 3Iatthew saj's, expressly, that they 
 mocked him, with these words. He also re- 
 lates, as further indignities, that they spit 
 upon him,, and took the reed, which they had 
 put in his hand, and smote him on the head. 
 But the language of John, and they smote 
 him with their hands, may mean the same 
 as that of Matthew : for the expression 
 translated, smote him, with their hands, 
 signifies, literally, were giving him, blows 
 (poTrio-naTa), either with the hand, or with a 
 stick. (See Note on 18: 26.) Notice also the 
 ten.se of the verb, which justifies the transla- 
 tion, "were giving," or "kept giving" him 
 blows, as they continued their insulting hom- 
 age. As usual, the narrative of John, though 
 brief, is very vivid and powerful. 
 
Ch. XIX.] 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 371 
 
 4 Pilate therefore went forth again, and saith unto 
 them, Behold, I bring him iVirlh to you, "that ye may 
 know that I tiud no fault in him. 
 
 5 Then cime Jesus forth, wearing the crown of 
 thorns, and the purple robe. Aud Pilaie saith unto 
 them, Behold the mau ! 
 
 4 hands. And Pilate went out again, and saith unto 
 them, Behold, I bring liiiii out to you, that ye may 
 
 5 know that I find no crime in him. Jesus therefore 
 came out, wearing the crown of thorns and the pur. 
 pie garment. And Pilate saith uulo them, Behold^ 
 
 4-7. Pilate's Third Attempt to Avoid 
 Condemning Jesus. 
 
 As a ruler, Pilate doubtless felt himself 
 bound to deal justly with the people, sentenc- 
 ing criminals to punishment, and absolving 
 the innocent. Convinced that Jesus was 
 guilty of no civil offence, he was, therefore, 
 reluctant to sentence him to the terrible death 
 of the cross. But there is 'no reason to sup- 
 pose that he was moved by humane feelings. 
 He had probably witnessed the scourging, 
 and had not interposed to prevent the mock- 
 ery and insult that followed. Yet, it is pos- 
 sible, that he permitted the latter, as well as 
 ordered the former, with a view to satisfying 
 the vengeance of the Jews, and thus escaping 
 further importunitj' to condemn the prisoner, 
 whom he felt to be innocent. 
 
 4. Pilate therefore went forth a§rain. 
 According to the text followed in the Revised 
 Version, the word and should be substituted 
 for therefore, reading, And Pilate went out 
 again. This reading is probably correct, 
 being supported by A B K L X n, and nine 
 other uncial manuscripts. The word again, 
 refers to what is related in the preceding 
 chapter, verse 29. Many of the Jews had 
 remained without, while Jesus had been with 
 Pilate in the prsetorium. The^' had not, 
 therefore, witnessed the mocking of Christ by 
 the soldiers, and, indeed, it is by no means 
 certain, though perhaps probable, that they 
 had been spectators of the scourging. Be- 
 hold, I bring him forth to you, that ye 
 may know that I find no fault in him. 
 The word crime (Revised Version), repro- 
 duces more exactly the sense of the original, 
 than the word fault (Common Version.) By 
 scourging Jesus, Pilate had given the people 
 to understand that he considered him guilty, 
 and was about to crucify him. But by bring- 
 ing him before them once more, instead ot 
 letting the execution go forward, he virtu- 
 ally said that the case was not yet finally 
 settled; that he himself had not found the 
 accused worthy of death, or guilty of any 
 crime. Thus he confesses before all the peo- 
 
 ple that, influenced by their demand, he had 
 inflicted a dreadful punishment on one whom 
 he believes innocent. It was a shameless 
 confession. And it was not fitted to accom- 
 plish his purpose, to pacify the people, or to 
 make them desist from their efforts to destroy 
 Jesus. Nothing but the rock-like firmness of 
 an upright ruler is of any avail against such 
 hatred as then burned in the hearts of the 
 Jews. 
 
 5. Then came Jesus forth, Avearing the 
 criiwn of thorns, and the purple robe. 
 At the call of Pilate, Jesus came out of the 
 castle into the open court before the people. 
 No ignominy was too great for him to bear. 
 The crown of thorns and the purple gar- 
 ment testified plainly of the mockery to 
 which he had been subjected Were there 
 any that beheld him with reverence and love? 
 We may presume that "the disciple whom 
 Jesus loved" was within sight of his Master. 
 But how many others were there, whose love 
 to the Christ was true and steadfast, we can- 
 not even conjecture. Nor is it possible for 
 any one to say, that, if there were any true 
 hearts in that agitated throng, they were com- 
 forted or moved by a glance of recognition 
 from the patient sufferer. But, as Jesus ap- 
 peared, with the badges of mock royalty 
 upon him, and signs of terrible suffering in 
 his countenance and bearing, Pilate saith 
 unto them. Behold the man! Behold, is 
 not a verb, but an interjection — Ecce Homo! 
 Lo, the man! "The man, whom you have 
 asked me to crucify; the man, scourged, 
 mocked, abused, yet gentle, silent, enduring! 
 Lo, there he stands, an object of pity, rather 
 than of fear." "These words of half-con- 
 temptuous pity were designed to change the 
 fierceness of the spectators into compassion."'— 
 Westcott. " A man who allows himself to be 
 treated thus, is surely a harmless fanatic, 
 whom there is no reason for killing." — Meyer. 
 "See this man who submits to and has suf- 
 fered these indignities — how can he ever stir 
 up the people, or set himself up for king? 
 Now cease to persecute him : your malice 
 
372 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 [Ch. XIX. 
 
 6 "When the chief priests therefore and officers saw 
 him, they cried out, saying, Crucify Atwi, crucify him. 
 Pilate saith unto them. Take ye him, and crucily him: 
 for I find no fault in him. 
 
 7 The Jews answered him, * We have a law, and by 
 our law he ought to die, because <^he made himseli the 
 Son of God. 
 
 6 the man ! When therefore the chief priests and 
 the oiiicers saw him, they cried out, saying, Crucify 
 hin\, crucify him. Pilate saith unto them, Take 
 him yourselves, and crucify him; for I tind no 
 
 7 crime in him. The Jews answered him. We have a 
 law, and by that law he ouglit to die, because he 
 
 a Acts 3: 13.... 6 Lev. 24: 16....C Matt. 26:65; ch. 5:18; 10:33. 
 
 surely ought to be satisfied. ' ' — Alford. Geikie' s 
 description of the scene is graphic: "Then 
 (Pilate) turning to the figure at his side, 
 drawn together with mortal agony, and look- 
 ing at the pale, worn, and bleeding face, 
 through which there yet shone a calm dignity 
 and more than human beauty, that had 
 touched his heart, and might touch even the 
 heart of Jews, he added, 'Behold the man!' 
 Would they let the scourging and mockery 
 suffice after all?" But the effect was not 
 -what the governor had hoped. He did not 
 succeeed in ridding himself of further re- 
 sponsibility by causing Jesus to be scourged, 
 by permitting him to be mocked, and by pre- 
 senting him to the people as an object of com- 
 passion rather than of dread. For religious 
 animosity is bitter and unrelenting, and there 
 -were still in the crowd many whom Christ's 
 gentleness and patience under the crudest 
 suffering could not mollify. They had sworn 
 to compass his death, and they were deter- 
 mined to make it as painful and ignominious 
 as possible. 
 
 6. When the chief priests therefore and 
 (the) officers saw him. The officers here 
 mentioned were not those of the governor, 
 but those of the chief priests, or of the San- 
 hedrin, and they were naturally of one mind 
 with their superiors. They cried out, say- 
 ing, Crucify him, crucify him. Accord- 
 ing to the highest critical authorities, Tisch- 
 endorf, Tregelles, Westcott and Hort, the Ke- 
 vised Version, and the Common Text, there is 
 no pronoun after the word crucify, though as 
 to sense, it is correctly supplied in translation. 
 But in fact, the cry was compressed into one 
 word, crucify, crucify ! And there is good 
 reason to believe that intense and concentrated 
 passion was put into that terrible word. These 
 ring-leaders of the hostile party, were bent 
 upon the accomplishment of their object, and 
 their angry shout must have convinced Pilate 
 that his movement was a failure. His next 
 word, therefore, was: Take ye him, and 
 crucify him ; for I find no fault in him : 
 
 or, as in the Kevised Version : Take him 
 yourselves, and crucify him ; for I find no 
 crime in him. This may have been uttered in 
 such a tone as to imply that they would do it 
 at their peril. At any rate, it was a manifest 
 refusal, on the governor's part, to do their 
 will, and a distinct declaration that they had 
 not yet made out a case against Jesus. "Weiss 
 maintains that "the procurator could have 
 given them the right to inflict capital punish- 
 ment (Ewald), but crucifixion was no legal 
 capital punishment, and they had sought it 
 merely in order to cast the odium of the exe- 
 cution upon the Komans. He, therefore, gives 
 the permission in a form in which they could 
 not accept it, and the more, because he assigns 
 as his motive the fact that he regards Jesus as 
 innocent, and so, must give into their hands 
 the act of slaying a guiltless man." This 
 answer of Pilate led them to bring forward a 
 new charge against the Saviour. 
 
 7. The Jews answered him. That is, 
 probably, the leaders of the people, who had 
 just cried vehemently, crucify! crucify! 
 For, as has been frequently observed, this 
 Evangelist comrnonlj' means by the Jews, 
 those leaders of the people who were parti- 
 zans of Judaism and enemies of Christ. We 
 have a law. The pronoun we, is slightly 
 empliasized, because they know and feel that 
 the law to which they refer is purely Jewish, 
 and in no sense binding on a Koman. Yet, 
 as the governor had pronounced their former 
 accusation vain, they venture to bring for- 
 ward a law of their own religion, in the hope 
 that it will be regarded as a justification of 
 their urgency in calling for the crucifixion of 
 Jesus, and as a prudpntis>l reason, if no more, 
 for yielding to their demand. For they must 
 have noted his half measures and vacillating 
 course, both in referring the case to Herod, 
 and in causing Jesus to be scourged ; and thej' 
 were determined to leave no stone unturned 
 in their effort to secure the death of Jesus by 
 his authority. And by our law he ought to 
 die, because he made himself the Son of 
 
Ch. XIX.] 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 373 
 
 8 When Pilate therefore heard that saying, he was 
 the more al'raid ; 
 
 9 And went again into the judgment liall, and saith 
 unto Jesus, Whence art thou? "But Jesus gave him 
 no answer. 
 
 8 made himself the Son of God. When Pilate there- 
 lore heard this saying, he was the mure alraid: 
 
 9 and he entered into the • Pra;lorium again, and 
 saith unto Jesus, Whence art thou? But Jesus 
 
 a Isa. 53 : 7 ; Matt. 27 : I'i, 14. 1 Or, palace. 
 
 God. The law to which they referred may 
 be seen in Lev. 24: 16: " He tiiat bhispheinetii 
 the name of the Lord, he shall surely be put 
 to death." For they held that any one who 
 claimed for him.^elf divine prerogatives, dis- 
 honored and reproached thereby the name of 
 God. Compare Matt. 26: 63-66; Mark 14: 61- 
 64. The principal editors omit our, before 
 law, so that the clause reads: And by that 
 law, or, more literally, according to the law 
 — in question. But the meaning is not much 
 affected by this slight change in the text. 
 Again, there is no article before Son, in the 
 Greek original, and, therefore, the last clause 
 may be rendered: because he made himself 
 God's Son. Or, Son of God, or, even, a Son 
 of God. But there is no probability that 
 either Jesus himself or the Jews meant by it 
 the last. They used the expression to signify 
 a special divine Sonship, based upon a special 
 union of Christ with God. Weiss supposes 
 that the Jews intended by this reply "simply 
 to defend themselves against the reproach of 
 desiring the death of an innocent person.'' 
 Westcott thinks that they took up Pilate's 
 challenge in an unexpected manner. "He 
 had said. Take him yourselves. The^- answer. 
 If you appeal to us, we have a power which 
 we have not yet invoked. We have a law — 
 to which you are bound to give effect, what- 
 ever you may think of it, and according to 
 the law he ought to die. The emphatic ' we,' 
 answers at once to the emphatic 'ye,' and to 
 the emphatic 'I,' of the governor." It would 
 have been more satisfactory if Dr. Westcott 
 had produced some evidence that a Roman 
 governor was "bound to give effect" to every 
 religious law of a subject people, or that the 
 Jews would have asserted this in so high a 
 tone, if he was not bound to do it by some 
 Roman law or imperial decree. 
 
 8-12. Pilate Questions Jesus Again, 
 AND Tries to Release Him. 
 
 8. When Pilate therefore heard that 
 (or, this) saying, he was the more afraid. 
 That he was the more afraid, itnplies some 
 degree of fear previous to his hearing this 
 
 saying. Evidently the words and bearing of 
 the accused had made an unusual impression 
 on his mind — an impression of incipient fear. 
 He had perceived something extraordinary 
 and mysterious in the prisoner by his side, 
 and living in an age of superstition as well as 
 of skepticism, the procurator was doubtless 
 more or less influenced by both. He had be- 
 fore recognized in Jesus a spirit unlike that 
 of other men, and now, learning that he 
 claimed to be God's Son, he was the more 
 afraid, thinking that there might be some- 
 thing real back of this claim. Periiaps the 
 message from his wife: "Have thou notliing 
 to do with that just man; for I have suffered 
 many things this day in a dream because of 
 him" (Matt. 27: 19), had contributed sometliing 
 to his first impresssion of fear; for dreams 
 were often supposed to be frotii the gods. 
 That his fear "was not a fear of the Jews, nor 
 of acting unjustly, but of the person of Jesus, 
 is evident from what follows." — Alford. 
 
 9. Whence art thou ? Having returned 
 with Jesus into the judgment hall, Pilate 
 asked him this question, expecting to hear 
 from his lips a statement concerning his ori- 
 gin. For the accusation, that he made him- 
 self Son of God, suggested to the governor the 
 thought, that Jesus might claim to be of heav- 
 enly origin, or, rather, perhaps, of divine 
 origin, the reference being not to place, but to 
 source. But Jesus gave him no answer. 
 Why this silence? Only a conjectural reply 
 can be given. Perhaps it was, because the 
 true answer to this question would be misun- 
 derstood by Pilate. Perhaps it was, because 
 the true answer to this question had no proper 
 relation to the governor's duty at the time. 
 Perhaps it was, because the true answer would 
 have tended to strengthen Pilate's supersti- 
 tious feelings, without serving any good pur- 
 pose. Perhaps it was, because the Saviour 
 knew that his Father's will would be accom- 
 plished by silence, since Pilate was to be the 
 instrument of his crucifixion. Weiss thinks 
 the silence of Jesus is most simply explained, 
 by supposing "that an afiirmative answer 
 
374 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 [Ch. XIX. 
 
 10 Then saith Pilate unto him, Speakest thou not 
 uuto nie? knowest thou not that I have power to cni- 
 cily thee, and have power to release theeV 
 
 11 Jesus answered, "Thou couldest have no power 
 at all against me, except it were given thee from above: 
 therefore he that delivered me unto thee hath the 
 greater sin. 
 
 10 gave him no answer. Pilate therefore saith unto 
 him, Speakest tliou not unto me? knowest thou 
 not that I have i power to release thee, and l:ave 
 
 111 power to cruelly thee? Jesus answered him, 
 Thou wouldest have no i power against me, ex- 
 cept it were given thee from above: therefore he 
 that delivered me uuto thee hath greater siu 
 
 : Luke i'i : 53 ; cb. 7 : 30. 1 Or, authority. 
 
 would have been understood by Pilate in a 
 superstitious way only, and that all the pre- 
 requisites to further explanations were want- 
 ing." 
 
 10. The silence of Jesus was surprising to 
 Pilate, and was construed as disrespectful. 
 Fully conscious of his authority as a magis- 
 trate representing the emperor, Pilate re- 
 minded Jesus without delay of that authority, 
 as if its very extent must show him the 
 temerity of his silence when questioned. 
 Speakest thou not unto me? Observe 
 that the word me is emphatic, aiiticijiating 
 the account of his autliority which follows. 
 Knowest thou not that I have poAver to 
 crucify thee, and have power to release 
 thee? "Reason enough why I should be 
 treated with respect! Hope of life and fear 
 of death, should certainly lead a subject, and 
 especially a subject accused of wrong-doing, 
 to answer every question of his judge with the 
 utmost deference." The word power signifies 
 authority, legal authority, as well as ability, 
 and here refers to the legitimate authority of 
 the procurator to release or condemn the ac- 
 cused. Of courise, the clear and sharp antith- 
 esis by which he described the extent of his 
 power was suggested by the case in hand, 
 and he doubtless imagined that the prisoner 
 would be touched deeply hy this particular 
 description of his power. How true to nature 
 is this language of the procurator! Though 
 vacillating in purpose, and moved with some 
 degree of fear at the extraordinary claims 
 and bearing of Jesus, he was a proud Roman 
 governor, read^' to assert the greatness of his 
 authority, and surprised that a prisoner should 
 seem indifferent to it. 
 
 11. To this boastful, if not threatening, 
 language, Jesus saw fit to reply. Yet not in 
 a strain of apology or entreaty, not in words 
 expressive of either fear or hope, but in terms 
 that refer to others rather than to himself, and 
 that do not yield their full sense with readi- 
 ness to the interpreter. Thou couldest (or, 
 wouldest) have no power at all against me, 
 
 except it were given thee from above: 
 therefore he that delivered me unto thee 
 hath the greater sin. There should be no 
 article before greater sin, in the English, as 
 there is none in the Greek original. And as 
 to the meaning, we find less diflSculty in com- 
 prehending the object of the first part of this 
 a:".swer than in seeing how the last part is a 
 natural inference from the first. Pilate had 
 claimed the power of life and death over 
 Jesus, and in such language as intimated that 
 any disrespect to himself might bring evil on 
 the prisoner, even though he were innocent. 
 Christ implicitly concedes the governor's 
 official power to crucify him, but explicitly 
 reminds him that his power was not self-origi- 
 nated and absolute — a power that he might 
 use according to his own will or caprice — but, 
 on the contrary, that his legal right to pro- 
 ceed against his prisoner, being involved in 
 the office which he providentially held, had 
 been given him from above— even from God, 
 the source of all rightful authority. Onlj' 
 under the Divine Ruler was he a legitimate 
 judge, entitled to act in the case against Jesus 
 — a view which certainly implied that he 
 would have sin if he should punish the guilt- 
 less by crucifixion. But, how is the next 
 statement an inference from this? From what 
 point of view did Jesus regard this as a rea- 
 son for that? For he added : therefore (that 
 is, on account of this fact, which I have now 
 stated), he that delivered me unto thee 
 hath the greater sin. The comparison in- 
 volved in the word greater, may be with the 
 .sin of Pilate, or with the sin that would have 
 been involved in the high priest's action, if 
 Pilate's authority had not been from above. 
 Let us suppose that the comparison intended 
 was with the sin of Pilate; for this is the 
 opinion of most interpreters. On this hj'poth- 
 esis Jesus virtually said to Pilate: "Because 
 you have no official power against me, save 
 that which has been given y(^u as a sacred 
 trust from above, (the misuse of which is sin- 
 ful), the high priest who, with perfect indif- 
 
Ch. XIX.] 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 375 
 
 12 And from thenceforth Pilate sought to release 12 Upon this Pilate sought to release hiiu: but the 
 hiui: but the ,levvs cried out, saying, " 11' thou let this I Jews cried out, saying. If thou release this man, 
 man go. thou art not c esar's friuud : ' whosoever mak- thou are not Caesar's Irieud: every one that maketh 
 eth hiiusell a kiug spoakelh aguiust Cesar. | 
 
 a Luke 13: 2 b Acta 17: T. 
 
 ference to your abuse of that sacred trust, has 
 delivered me up to you, demanding without 
 cause, my crucitixion, is guilty of greater sin 
 than you commit by yielding to his demand. 
 I recognize him as the leader in this desecra- 
 tion of God-given authority, and his sin as 
 even greater than yours, though yours must 
 be great." This interpretation supposes that 
 the expression, delivered me unto thee, 
 covers, and includes all the implacable enmity 
 and recklessness with which the chief priests, 
 (Caiaphas at their head), handed over Jesus 
 to the Roman governor, and called for his 
 crucifixion, even though the governor found 
 no crime in him. They urgently and persist- 
 ently tempted the governor to misuse his 
 power; he slowly and reluctantly yielded to 
 their temptation. Both sinned; but, the di- 
 vine sufferer, who is to be the final Judge of 
 men, did not' hesitate to tell the vacillating 
 Pilate that, in the present transaction, some 
 of the Jews were mort guilty than he. Yet, 
 Pilate had, without cause, inflicted on him 
 the awful punishment of scourging! Surely 
 the words of Jesus must have appeared to 
 him a most impartial Judgment, at once fear- 
 less and true. For the governor well knew 
 that no crime had been proved against Jesus, 
 and that he, himself, had no right to punish 
 an innocent man ; but he also knew that he 
 had been sorely pressed by the Jews to do 
 worse than he had yet done, and that he had 
 attempted to withstand their importunity, 
 though with too little moral firmness. Such, 
 we believe, is the true sense of this difficult 
 passage. It does not assume that Jesus 
 charged his Jewish enemies with greater sin, 
 because they had greater knowledge of God 
 and righteousness; for this would have liad 
 little meaning to Pilate; but, calling atten- 
 tion to the divine origin and function of civil 
 power — which the Roman, as well as the Jew, 
 could understand — he charged upon Caiaphas 
 (and his associates), greater sin, because they 
 were the primary, the moving, the determined 
 party in bringing about the desecration of a 
 power from God, intended for the good of 
 man. And this reference to the nature of 
 
 civil authority, and its abuse, was specially 
 appropriate as a reply to the words of Pilate, 
 who had intimated that he could use his judi- 
 cial power as he pleased. Indeed, their ap- 
 propriateness may be inferred from their effect 
 on the governor's mind. 
 
 13. And from thenceforth. Literally-, 
 from this {U toutou), meaning either, from this 
 time, marking a date, or, from Has response, 
 regarded as a source or reason. The Revised 
 Version has upon this, which reproduces, in 
 English, the ambiguity of the Greek. We 
 incline to the view that John uses the phrase 
 here to point out the reason or occasion of 
 Pilate's conduct, and thus the influence of 
 Christ's remark upon his mind. Sought to 
 release him. By what means, the Evan- 
 gelist does not state, or how strenuous he was 
 in his attempt. Perhaps, the tense of the verb 
 (imperfect) was meant to characterize his 
 seeking as a "mere attempt, that came to 
 nothing, because of the peculiar form which 
 the Jews gave to their protest against it." — 
 Weiss. If so, he must have expressed in 
 words, to the people without, his purpose or 
 desire to release Jesus. But the Jews cried 
 out, saying, If thou release this man, 
 thou art not Csesar's friend: whosoever 
 maketh himself a king, speaketh against 
 Caesar. Nothing in the life of Jesus gave 
 the slightest occasion for this language. He 
 had scrupulously avoided intermeddling with 
 civil affairs. (Luke 12: u.) He had gone away 
 into a mountain alone, when the people 
 sought to take him, and make him king. 
 (joiin6:i5.) He had expressly sanctioned the 
 payment of tribute to Csesar. (m^u. 22: 21.) In- 
 deed, one of their chief reasons for rejecting 
 his Messianic claims, was the certainty that 
 he would not head a rebellion against Rome, 
 and re-establish the Kingdom of Israel. But 
 false as was the purport of their language, it 
 served their end as well as if it had been true. 
 Pilate knew something already of the temper 
 of Jews, and he feared that thej^ would make 
 what they were now saying heard in Rome, if 
 he did not comply with their demand. With 
 him, selfishness was stronger than duty, and 
 
376 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 [Ch. XIX. 
 
 13 Wben Pilate therefore heard that saying, he i 13 himself a king 'speaketh against Caisar. When 
 
 brought Jesus forth, and sat down in the judgment 
 seat iu a place that is called the Pavement, but in the 
 Hebrew, (jabbatha. 
 
 14 And "it was the preparation of the passover, and 
 abont the sixth hour: and he saith unto the Jews, Be- 
 hold your King ! 
 
 Pihite thereiore heard these words, he brought Je- 
 sus out, and sat down on the judgment seat at a 
 place called The Pasemeut, but in Hebrew, Gabba- 
 14 tha. Now it was the l^reparation of the passover: 
 it was about the sixth hour. And he saith unto the 
 
 a Matt. 27: Gi. 1 Or, opposeth Cceaar. 
 
 it did not take him long to decide upon his 
 course. By no means over-anxious to please 
 the Jews, he was exceedingly desirous of 
 standing well with the Emperor, and reluctant 
 to do anything that would look like inditfer- 
 ence to his supremacy. At last, the enemies 
 of Christ have carried their point — but only 
 by arousing the selfish fear of the procurator, 
 through a false charge that might be repeated 
 where it would work his recall to Eome in 
 disgrace. 
 
 13-16. Condemnation of Jesus by 
 Pilate. 
 
 13. When Pilate therefore heard that 
 saying. Or, according to the earliest manu- 
 scripts and the best editors, these words: 
 "Every word was for Pilate an arrow." — 
 Hengstenberg. He brought Jesus forth— 
 that is, out of the prietorium— and sat down 
 in (rather, on) the judgment seat, in a 
 place called the Pavement, but in 
 Hebrew, Gabbatha. It was customary 
 (see Josephus "De Bell. Jud.," 2, 9, 3; 2, 
 14, 8,) to pronounce formal judgment in the 
 open air. Hence the action of Pilate, when 
 he had made up his mind what to do. The 
 particular spot outside the prsetorium, where 
 the governor's seat, or tribunal, was placed, 
 was somewhat elevated, and on that account 
 bore the Aramaic name, Gabbatha; it was 
 also paved with stones, and for that reason 
 bore the Greek name, Lithostroton, a pave- 
 ment. The mention of these names is in har- 
 mony with the general minuteness and evi- 
 dent accuracy of the narrative, proving that it 
 must have been written by an ej^e-witness of 
 the events recorded. But so long as the ques- 
 tion. Where was the praetorium of Pilate? in 
 Herod's palace, or in the castle of Antonia? 
 remains unanswered, we cannot point to any 
 spot in modern Jerusalem and say: Here 
 was the tribunal of Pilate when he delivered 
 Jesus to be crucified. 
 
 14. And it was the preparation of the 
 passover. The Revised Version is prefer- 
 able : Now it was the preparation of the pass- 
 
 over. The word translated preparation, 
 being virtually a proper name for Fridaj', as 
 the day of preparation for the Sabbath ; and 
 as this was the Friday of the passover week, 
 it was the preparation day belonging to the 
 passover, regarded as a weeklj' festival. (See 
 Robinson, "Greek Harmony of the Gospels," 
 p. 219 sq. ; McClellan, "The Four Gospels," 
 p. 485, and context; "Wieseler, "A Chrono- 
 logical Synopsis of the Four Gospels," p. 325 
 sq. of Bohn's transl.) And about the sixth 
 hour. Since, according to the best manu- 
 script authority (N ABDLMUXAn) the 
 original Greek text had the verb was (V) in- 
 stead of the conjunction and ifie), the Revised 
 Version, it teas about the sixth hour, must be 
 accepted as correct, though it mars the 
 smoothness of the verse in English. But, 
 how can John's notation of time be reconciled 
 with the statement of Mark (i5: 25), that the 
 crucifixion took place at the third hour? 
 Alford says, that "there is an insuperable 
 difficultA' in the text as it now stands." And 
 if we assume that both the Evangelists used 
 the same starting point in reckoning the hours 
 of the da^', the diflerence between their 
 records is ver^' marked, and seems at first an 
 obvious contradiction. It was the third hour 
 when thej' crucified him; it Wiis about the 
 sixth hour when Pilate delivered him up to 
 be crucified. It was nine o'clock in the 
 morning when they nailed him to the cross; 
 it was about twelve o'clock when he was 
 handed over to the soldiers to be led to Cal- 
 vary. Is there, as thus stated, a more glaring 
 contradiction in the records of any event ? 
 Much depends upon the habits of the people 
 in referring to time. After a cautious state- 
 ment of the case, Andrews, in his "Life of 
 our Lord," p. 533, says: "We conclude, 
 then, that the sixth hour of John was the 
 twelfth hour with us, or midday. But it is to 
 be noted that he says, 'about the sixth hour,' 
 (cos €<£")), which implies that he gives no exact 
 note of the time. It is rendered by Norton: 
 'it was toward noon,' and this very well ex- 
 
Ch. XIX.] 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 377 
 
 presses the meaning. Mark's words, 'it was 
 tlie tliird hour, and they crucified him,' need 
 not be taken as a specific designation of tlie 
 hour when he was nailed to the cross, but as 
 marking the time when, the sentence having 
 been pronounced, he was given up to the sol- 
 diers, and the preparatory steps to the cruci- 
 fixion began. Our exact divisions of time 
 were wholly unknown to the ancients." 
 
 Dr. Kobinson (with Alford, and others) 
 supposes a corruption of the text. "The 
 third hour of Mark, as the hour of cruci- 
 fixion, is sustained by the whole course of the 
 transaction and circumstances; as also by the 
 fact stated by Matthew, Mark, and Luke, that 
 the darkness commenced at the sixth hour, 
 after Jesus had already for some time hung 
 upon the cross. . . . The reading sixth in 
 John is, therefore, probably an early error of 
 transcription for third ^F for V. ) Indeed, this 
 last rendering is found in Codex Bezae and 
 Codex Regius 62, as well as in several other 
 authorities; so that its external weight is 
 marked by Griesbach as nearly or quite 
 equal to that of the common reading; wliile 
 the internal evidence in its favor is certainly 
 far greater." It may certainly be conceded 
 that, if the numerals were denoted by letters, 
 a gamma ma^^ easily have been mistaken for 
 a digamma, and thus the word sixth may 
 liave been substituted for the word third. 
 But against this explanation it may be re- 
 marked: (1) That no critical editors have 
 ventured to substitute third for sixth in this 
 passage; (2) that the external testimony for 
 third is greatly inferior to that for sixth — it 
 being only five uncials of second rate import- 
 ance, four cursives of no special value, and a 
 reported statement of Eusebius, that third is 
 the reading of the "accurate copies," and of 
 the Evangelists' autograph, preserved in 
 "Ephesus (!), against more than fourteen un- 
 cials (including N* A B), all cursives except 
 four, and all the early versions; and (3) that 
 transcribers, noting the discrepancy between 
 til is statement and that of Mark, would have 
 been more likely to seek harmony by chang- 
 ing sixth to third than to introduce discord 
 by changing third to sixths 
 
 1 Allowing my own statement to remain, I will add 
 that of Dr. Broadus, who has given special study to 
 textual criticism, and of whose learning and judgment 
 
 Still another explanation of the diflference 
 between John and Mark, has been defended by 
 such scholars as Wieseler, Tholuck, McClel- 
 lan, and Westcott. It is, that the llomans 
 reckoned their civil day from midnight to 
 midnight, and that John, writing for Chris- 
 tians in Asia Minor, followed that usage. A 
 careful study of ihe other passages in which 
 John mentions the hour of the day when any 
 event took place (viz., i: 39; 4:6,52), is favorable 
 to the view that he counted the hours from 
 midnight to midnight. "It must, however, 
 be admitted," says Westcott, "that this mode 
 of reckoning hours was unusual in ancient 
 times. The llomans (Mart. IV. 8) and Greeks, 
 no less than the Jews, reckoned their hours 
 from sunrise. But the Romans reckoned their 
 civil days from midnight (Aul. Gell. III. 2; 
 comp. Matt. 27: 19, 'this day') and not from 
 sunrise, or from sunset (as the Jews.) And 
 there are also traces of reckoning the hours 
 from midnight in Asia Minor. Polycarp is 
 said (Mart. Pol. c. 21) to have been martyred 
 at Smyrna 'at the eighth hour.' This, from 
 the circumstances, must have been at 8 A. m. 
 Pionius again is said to have been mart^^red 
 (at Smyrna, also) 'at tlie tentli hour,' which 
 can hardly have been 4 p. m., since such exhi- 
 bitions usually took place before. These two 
 passages furnish a suflScient presumption that 
 St. John, in using what is the modern reckon- 
 ing, followed a practice of the ])rovince in 
 which he was living, and for which he was 
 writing." — Westcott. 
 
 But, was there time between the sending of 
 Jesus to Pilate and the hour of 6 or 6.30 a. m. 
 for all the events related by the Evangelists? 
 The terininus a quo may, perhaps, be put as 
 early as 3.30 a. m. For we are told by John 
 that is was "morning" (n-puia, 18: 28; see also 
 Matt. 27: 1; Mark 1-5: 1). The Jews were 
 naturally anxious to secure the death of Jesus 
 at the earliest moment possible, for it was a 
 feast day, and they wished to take part in the 
 religious services of the day. We may, there- 
 fore, presume that the Sanhedrin met at the 
 earliest practicable hour. But the word used 
 in the passages cited, is applied specifically to 
 "the fourth watch of the night, that is, to the 
 
 I have been permitted to avail myself often, as the 
 reader must have observed. 
 [Instead of eicnj " sixth," we find Tptri) " third, in \\ 
 
378 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 [Ch. XIX. 
 
 15 But they cried out, Away with him, away with 
 him, cruciiy him. Pilate saith unto them, Shall I cru- 
 cify your King? The chief priests answered, "We 
 have 110 king but Cesar. 
 
 15 Jews, Behold, your King ! They therefore cried 
 out, Away with him, away with him, crucify hiiu. 
 Pilate saith iiuto them, .shall I crucify your Kiug? 
 Tlie cliief priests answered, We have no king but 
 
 time from three to six a. m., in our way of 
 reckoning." — Grimm. Let it then be assumed 
 that Jesus was sent to Pilate at 3.30 a. m. A 
 half hour would be ample time for the public 
 charges made by the Jews and their subse- 
 quent examination of Christ in the prsetorium 
 
 by Pilate. (Matt. 27: l, 2, tl-l*; Miirk 15: 1-5; Luke 23: 1-5; 
 
 johu 18: 28-3S.) Again, the residence of Herod 
 may have been very near the praetorium, so 
 that half an hour would have been sufficient 
 for the episode of sending Jesus to Herod, in- 
 cluding the questions and mocking there, and 
 the return to Pilate; for Herod could not 
 have spent a long time in questioning a pris- 
 oner who would make no answer at all to his 
 inquiries. (Luiie23:9.) At half-past four, Jesus 
 would therefore have been with Pilate again. 
 The governor, therefore, repeats his declara- 
 tion that he finds no cause of death in Jesus 
 (even as Herod had found none), and offers 
 them the alternative of saving Jesus or Barab- 
 bas. During this process, the message from 
 his wife is delivered to him. Half an hour, 
 reaching to five o'clock, would be more than 
 enough for all that was done before the scourg- 
 ing. (Matt. 27: 15-26; Mark 15: 615; Luke 23 : 13-25; John 18 : 
 
 :9. ■lo.) For the .scourging and mocking, three- 
 quarters of an hour may be allowed (Matt. 27: 
 
 26-30; Mark 15: 15-19; John 19: 1-3), bringing US tO a 
 
 quarter before six. Less than a quarter of an 
 hour would be needed for the presentation of 
 "the man" to the people and their cries for 
 his crucifixion (Johni9: 4-81, and not more than 
 another quarter for the return into the prae- 
 torium, the brief conversation there, and the 
 re-appearance of Pilate on his tribunal in the 
 
 (third corrector) D (matter supplied to fill gaps, as late 
 as the tentli century. — Tisch.) L X A, four cursives. 
 Eusebius and several late Fathers propose to solve the 
 apparent striking contradiction between this passage 
 and Mark 15: 25, by the supposition that the Greek F. 
 three, third, has been here accidentally changed into F, 
 six, sixth. This suggestion much more readily ex- 
 plains the occurrence of rpirq in the above MSS. of 
 John ; and also that of " sixth," in one cursive, margin 
 of Harklean Syriac, and ilSthiopic of Mark 15: 25; both 
 being obvious attempts to explain a discrepancy, and 
 thus entitled to no serious attention. We might well 
 leave the apparent contradiction between the two Gos- 
 
 open air. (John i9: 9-14.) Thus, all these events 
 might surely have taken place before the hour 
 of 6.30 A. M. 
 
 Pilate had now resolved to yield to the clam- 
 ors of the Jews for the blood of an innocent 
 man, rather than incur the risk of being ac- 
 cused of disloysilty to Tiberius. But he was 
 irritated by their fierce persistency, and with 
 bitter sarcasm called their attention to the 
 prisoner — still wearing the purple robe and 
 crown of thorns — by the words, Behold, 
 your king ! The view which Weiss takes of 
 this expression, is ingenious: "It was meant 
 to show that, owing to the pressure of their 
 demands, he will recognize the crime alleged 
 against Jesus as actual; but, intentionally, he 
 does this, not in the form of an ordinary judi- 
 citil sentence, which would have asserted the 
 fact that Jesus had endeavored to secure regal 
 authority in Israel, because he does not believe 
 this now any more than before, but with a 
 mocking turn of expression, which, on the 
 one hand, would set forth very clearly the 
 absurdity of such an assertion, and on the 
 other would leave open the interpretation that 
 he recognized not only his guilt, but also his 
 guilty claim." There can be little doubt of 
 Pilate's mingled displeasure and scorn at this 
 moment, and they were probabl}' manifest 
 enough in his countentince and tone of voice. 
 
 15. But they cried out. Following a 
 slightly different, but well supported text, the 
 Revised Version, reads: Thei/, therefore, cried 
 out. This Version represents the Greek as 
 given in the critical editions of the New Testa- 
 ment: see Treg., Tisch., Westcott and Hort, 
 
 pels unsolved, as we still have to do in some cases. But 
 the suggestion of Ewald, and many others, that the 
 Fourth Gospel, written in Asia Minor, long after the 
 destruction of the Jewish State, counts the hours in the 
 Gieek and Roman method, from midnight and noon, 
 removes all the difficulty: for John's time will then be 
 G .\. M., and the "third hour" of Mark, clearly a good 
 while later, will be 9 a. m. This mode of reckoning 
 seems necessary in John 20: 19, compared with Luke 
 24:29,33; and in every other passage of John giving 
 the hour of the day, it is entirely suitable. Whatever 
 may be thought of this explanation, the text «r>7, must 
 stand fast, beyond all question. — B.] 
 
Ch. XIX.] 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 379 
 
 16 "Theu delivered he him therefore unto them to be 
 crucified. And they took .Jesus, aud led him away. 
 
 17 'And he bearing his cross <^went lorth into a place 
 called the place of a skull, which is called iu the He- 
 brew Golgotha: 
 
 16 Caesar. Then therefore he delivered hiui unto them 
 to be crucified. 
 
 17 Tlity took .lesus therefore: and he went out, 
 bearing; the cross for himself, unto the place calJcd 
 The place of a skull, which is called in Hebrew 
 
 a Matt. 27 : 26, 31: M:.rk 15: 15; Luke 23 : 24 b Matt. 27: 31, 33; MarK 15; 21, 2^; Luke 23 : 26, 
 
 .c Num. 15:36; Heb. 13 : 12. 
 
 Away with him! Away with him I cru- 
 cify him ! Away with him, is but a single 
 word in the original, so thiit the cry was brief, 
 intense, showing that the sarcasm of Pilate 
 had struck deep; the whole crowd felt it. 
 Hence, he repeats it; fur if he must yield, he 
 will not conceal his contempt for the Jews 
 who had compelled him to do so. Shall I 
 crucify your king? Here, again, the sting 
 of the original is not fully preserved in trans- 
 lating. For by the order of words in the 
 Greek sentence, your king, is thrust forward 
 as the emphatic part: '''Your ^iw^', shall I 
 crucify?" "For it is only on the ground that 
 he claims to be your king, that I consent to 
 crucify him." It was for the chief priests to 
 answer this ; perhaps the people did not join 
 in their words: We have no king but 
 Caesar: words well fitted to accomplish their 
 immediate purpose, but singularly alien to 
 the ordinary Jewish temper and hope. 
 "They, who gloried in the Theocracy, and 
 hoped for a temporal Messianic reign, which 
 should free them from Roman bondage; they 
 who boasted that the3' ' were never in bond- 
 age to any man' (s: 33); they, who were 
 'chief priests' of the Jews, confess that 
 Caesar is their only king! " One cannot help 
 being thankful that it was not the whole mul- 
 titude that made this profession, but only 
 the chief priests. And it may be well to bear 
 in mind, that the family of the high priest, 
 and, doubtless, many of the chief priests, were 
 of the Sadducfean party. 
 
 16. Then delivereil he him therefore 
 unto them to be crucified. With what 
 words, the Evangelist does not say ; but, the 
 end contemplated was crucifixion, and the 
 persons to whom Jesus was delivered were the 
 chief priests, under whose direction Roman 
 soldiers were to perform the dreadful act. 
 Westcott remarks, positively, that "Pilate 
 pronounced no sentence himself. He simply let 
 the chief priests have their way (comp. Matt. 
 27: 26; Mark 15: 15; Luke 23: 25). He had 
 conceded a little against justice in false policy 
 (ver. 1), and he was driven to concede all 
 against his will. From St. Matthew it appears 
 
 that he typically abjured the responsibility 
 for the act, while the Jews took Christ's blood 
 upon themselves. (Matt. 27: 24, 25.)" In all these 
 scenes there is but one perfect man concerned 
 — namely, the prisoner, mocked, scourged, 
 and delivered up to be crucified. In all this 
 raging sea of human passions, there is but one 
 pure and steadfast soul. The holy sufferer 
 does not change, or fail in the dread emer- 
 genc3^ And only because he is there, do we 
 feel any interest in the Jewish priests and 
 Roman governor. But for his sake every 
 movement of theirs, on this tragic morn, has 
 been studied by millions, and will continue to 
 be studied until the end of time. 
 16-22. The Crucieixion of Jesus. 
 
 16. The last part of this verse should be 
 connected with what follows, beginning a new 
 paragraph. And they took Jesus : better, 
 they took Jesus, therefore. The word trans- 
 lated took, is the same as that translated 
 "received," in 1: 11: "He came unto his 
 own, and his own received him not." In 
 itself it does not point to any particular way 
 of taking or receiving. Here it means that 
 the chief priests received Jesus from Pilate's 
 charge into their own charge; so that the 
 soldiers who guarded him and might crucify 
 him were under their command. The words, 
 and led him away, are now supposed to be 
 an interpolation. 
 
 17. And he bearing his cross, etc. The 
 Revised Version is an improvement: And he 
 went out— t\\At is, from the place where he was 
 in the city — bearing the cross for hitnself, unto 
 the place called, The place of a skull, which is 
 called in Hebrew, Golgotha. Though .Jesus, as 
 was customary, bore his cross at first, and per- 
 haps, the larger part of the way, the first three 
 Evangelists (Matt. 27: 32; Mark 15 : 21 ; Luke 2-!: 26), re- 
 late that those who led him f)ut of the city 
 compelled a man of C3'rene, Simon by name, 
 who was coming out of the country, to bear 
 the cross of Jesus after him, doubtless because 
 the latter had become so weak and faint, 
 through agonj"^ of soul and pain of body, that 
 he was no longer able to sustain the burden. 
 
 The author of " Ben Hur," thus describes 
 
580 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 [Ch. XIX. 
 
 tlie scene: "He was nearly dead. Every 
 few steps he staggered, as if he would fall. 
 A stained gown, badly torn, hung from his 
 shoulders over a seamless uiider-tunic. His 
 bare feet left red splotches upon the stones. An 
 inscription on a board, was tied to his neck. A 
 crown of thorns had been crushed hard down 
 upon his head, making cruel wounds, from 
 which streams of blood, now dry and black- 
 ened, had run over his face and neck. The 
 long hair, tangled in the thorns, was clotted 
 thick. The skin, where it could be seen, was 
 
 was the multitude that went out to witness 
 the spectacle? how many were the women 
 who bewailed and lamented him (Luke23:27)? 
 how much time was consumed on the way? 
 are questions that cannot be answered. But 
 Luke informs us that two malefactors were 
 led with him to be put to death. These crimi- 
 nals may, perhaps, have been tried and con- 
 demned after the more difficult case of Jesus 
 had been settled ; if so, we can understand 
 why, on the hypothesis that we have supposed 
 to be correct as to the sixth hour ^ver. u), so 
 
 SUPPOSED SITE OF CALVARY. 
 
 ghastly white. His hands were tied before 
 him. Back somewhere in the citj', he had 
 fallen exhausted, under the transverse of his 
 cross, which, as a condemned person, custom 
 required him to bear to the place of execu- 
 tion ; now, a countrj'man carried the burden 
 in his stead. Four soldiers went with him as 
 a guard against the mob, who sometimes, 
 nevertheless, broke through, and struck him 
 with sticks, and spit upon him. Yet, no sound 
 escaped him, neither remonstrance nor groan." 
 A sad and slow procession! How long 
 it was in forming, after Pilate delivered 
 Christ to the chief priests? how numerous 
 
 long a time elapsed between the condemna- 
 tion of Christ and his crucifixion. The sol- 
 diers, with their victims, did not start for the 
 place of crucifixion, until everything was 
 completed by way of preparation. And that 
 place, Golgotha, was outside the city walls, 
 though the site of it is not certainlj' known. 
 Its name is thought to have been suggested 
 by its resemblance, in contour, to a human 
 skull. But, Capt. C. E. Conder, says: "It 
 may reasonably, however, be supposed that 
 Golgotha ('the skull') was the ordinary place 
 of execution for criminals, which is men- 
 tioned in the Mishna, under the name Beth- 
 
Ch. XIX.] 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 381 
 
 18 Where they crucified him, and two others with 18 Golgotha: where they crucified him, and with him 
 him, on either side one, and Jesus in the midst. | two others, on either side one, and Jesus in the 
 
 has-Sekilah — 'The House of Stoning:' for 
 theM is no reason to tiiini< that the Roman 
 procurator would have made use of a differ- 
 ent place of execution to that established by 
 the Jewish Sanhedrin, although that assembly 
 had been debarred by the Romans from the 
 power of inflicting capitaF punishment only a 
 little before the date of the crucifixion." 
 After showing that the "House of Stoning" 
 was also a recognized place of crucifixion, 
 he proceeds thus: "A tradition is current 
 amongst the Jews of Jerusalem, which places 
 this ' House of Stoning' at the present knoll 
 north of the Damascus Grate, in which is a 
 cave, known since the fifteenth century as the 
 ' Grotto of Jeremiah,' with a cliff, the maxi- 
 mum height of which is about 50 feet, facing 
 southwards towards the city.'' "The site is 
 one well-fitted for a place of public execution. 
 The top of the knoll is 2,550 feet above the 
 sea, or 110 feet above the top of the Sakhrah 
 rock in the Haram. It commands a view 
 over the city walls to the temple enclosure, 
 and the H0I3' Sepulchre Church. A sort of 
 amphitheatre is formed by the gentle slopes on 
 the east ; and the whole population of the city 
 might easily witness from the vicinity any 
 thing taking place on the top of the cliff. The 
 knoll is just beside the maJn north road. It 
 is occupied by a cemetery' of Moslem tombs, 
 which existed as early as the fifteenth century, 
 at least; and the modern slaughter-house of 
 Jerusalem is on the north slope. The hill is 
 quite bare, with scanty grass coveringthe rocky 
 soil, and a few irises and wild flowers grow- 
 ing among the graves. Not a tree or shrub is 
 visible on it, though fine olive groves stretch 
 northward from its vicinity." (''Survey of 
 Western Palestine — Jerusalem," p. 430, sq. ). 
 We regard the "House of Stoning" as meet- 
 ing thfc, conditions found in the New Testa- 
 ment for Golgotha far better than they are 
 met by the traditional site at the Church of 
 the Holy Sepulchre. Of it, Edersheim, says: 
 "It is a weird, drearj' place, two or three 
 minutes aside from the high road, with a 
 high, rounded, skull-like, rocky plateau, and 
 a sudden depression or hollow beneath, as if 
 tht, jaws of that skull had opened. Whether 
 or not the tomb of the Herodian period in the 
 rocky knoll to the west 01 Jeremiah's Grotto, 
 
 was the most sacred spot upon earth — the 
 'Sepulchre in the Garden' — we dare not posi- 
 tively assert, though every probability at- 
 taches to it." ' 
 
 18. Where they crucified him. These 
 few words signify a most cruel infliction, a 
 punishment that was invented to make death 
 as painful and protracted as possible. Eder- 
 sheim describes it thus: "First, the upright 
 wood was planted in the ground. It was not 
 high, and probably the feet of the sufferer 
 were not above one or two feet from the 
 ground. Thus could the communication, 
 described in the Gospels, take place between 
 him and others; thus, also, might his sacred 
 lips be moistened with the sponge attached to 
 a short stalk of hyssop. Next, the transverse 
 wood (antenna) was placed on the ground, 
 and the sufferer laid on it, and his arms were 
 extended, drawn up, and bound to it. Then 
 (this, not in Egypt, but in Carthage and 
 Rome), a strong, sharp nail was driven, first 
 into the right, then into the left hand (the 
 clavi trabales). Next, the sufferer was drawn 
 up by means of ropes, perhaps ladders; the 
 transverse either bound or nailed to the up- 
 right, and a rest or support for the body fas- 
 tened on it — (the cornu or sedile). Lastly, the 
 feet were extended, and either one nail ham- 
 mered into each, or a larger piece of iron 
 through the two. We have already expressed 
 our belief that the indignity of exposure was 
 not offered at such a Jewish execution. And 
 so might the crucified hang for hours, even 
 days, in the unutterable anguish of suffering, 
 till consciousness at last failed." And with 
 him two others, on either side one, and 
 Jesus in the midst. Matthew (27:3k)^ and 
 Mark (15: 27), call these two in en robbers (kricrai) 
 
 'The last ivord on the "Site of Calvary," is from the 
 pen of Dr. Selah Merrill, American Consul at Jerusa- 
 lem, in the Andover Review, for November, 1885, p. 484: 
 " If a person, wholly ignorant of any question in con- 
 nection with the Site of Calvary, were asked to select 
 a spot, without the walls of the city for the public exp- 
 cution of criminals, the only two conditions being that 
 the place should be a sightly one and convenient to the 
 Castle of Antonia, he would not hesitate a moment in 
 choosing tliis hill for that purpose." Again, on p. 488. 
 "The strong probabilities are in favor of regarding the 
 hill above Jeremiah's Grotto, as the place of the cruci- 
 fi&ioa of our Lord." 
 
382 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 [Ch. XIX. 
 
 19 ' And Pilate wrote a title, and put it on the cross. 
 And the writing was, JESUS OF NAZARETH THE 
 KING OF THE JEWS. 
 
 20 This title then read many of the Jews: for the 
 place where Jesus was crucitied was nigh to the city: 
 and it was written iu Hebrew, and Greek, and Latin. 
 
 19 midst. And Pilate wrote a title aI.so, and put it on 
 the cross. And there was written, JESUS OF NAZA- 
 
 20 KETH, THE KING OF THE JEWS. This title there- 
 lore read many of the Jews: ifor the place where 
 Jesus was crucified was nigh to the city : and it was 
 written in Hebrew, and iu Latin, and in Greek 
 
 a Matt, a? : 37 : Mark 15 : '26 ; Lulte ti : 38. 1 Or, /or the place of the eity where Jeau 
 
 cifled was nigh at hand. 
 
 — not thieves— {oT thieves take that which be- 
 longs to others, secretly, while robbers do the 
 same thing by open violence and murder. 
 The Evangelists have given us no informa- 
 tion, beyond the meaning of this designation, 
 concerning the previous life or criminal con- 
 duct of the "malefactors" (Luke) crucified 
 with the Saviour. But, Matthew and Mark 
 testify that the robbers joined with the chief 
 priests in reproaching Christ, while Luke as- 
 serts that one of them relented, confessed the 
 justice of his punishment and the blameless- 
 ness of Christ, and entreated the latter to re- 
 member him when he should come in bis 
 
 kingdom. (Matt. 27:44; Mark 15:32; Luke 23: 39-43.) ThuS 
 
 these two dying criminals were equally near 
 the Saviour; but one of them rejected him 
 bitterly, while the other sought his favor with 
 penitence. 
 
 19. And Pilate wrote a title. Add the 
 word also, with the Revised Version, to make 
 the English represent exactly the Greek. 
 The word title is said to have been the techni- 
 cal name for such a statement as was placed 
 on the cross. Matthew and Mark call it his 
 accusation. It was "the bill, or placard, 
 showing who the condemned person was, and 
 why he was punished." — Plnmptre. And put 
 it on the cross : probably, above the head 
 of Jesus, on the upright shaft. And the 
 writing was : more literally, and there tons 
 written. — {Rev. Ver.), but the meaning is the 
 same. Jesus of Nazareth, the King of 
 the JCAVs. It is easy to imagine several rea- 
 sons whj' Pilate put just this title on the cross. 
 It would be, in some sense, an adequate rea- 
 son for capital punishment, at least, in Roman 
 eyes. It would keep before the Jews the 
 charge on which Pilate acted; and the more 
 of reality there was back of the claim of 
 Jesus, the more disgraceful was the transac- 
 tion on the part of the Jews, and the less 
 culpable on the part of the governor. It 
 would, perhaps, suggest that Jesus had im- 
 pressed Pilate as one who had some sort of 
 religious pre-eminence which the Jews were 
 bound to honor. Says Plumptre: "There 
 
 was, apparently, a kind of rough tenderness 
 towards the man whom he had condemned in 
 the form which Pilate had ordered. He 
 would, at least, recognize his claims to be in 
 some sense a king. The priests obviously felt 
 it to imply such a recognition, a declaration, 
 as it were, to them and to the people that One 
 who had a right to be their king, who was the 
 only kind of a king they were ever likely to 
 have, had died the death of a malefactor." 
 
 Attention has been called by writers on in- 
 spiration to the difference between the super- 
 cription over Jesus given by one Evangelist 
 and that given by another. No two of them 
 arealike. Matthew says it was: Thin is Jesus, 
 THE King OF THE Jews; Mark; The King 
 OF THE Jews; Luke: This is — the King 
 OF THE Jews; and John: Jesus of Nazareth, 
 the King of the Jews. It is admi.ssible 
 to suppose that the title in full, read : This is 
 Jesus of Nazareth, THE King of the Jews. 
 In copying it, Mark thought it sufficient to 
 give only the essential part, the accusation, 
 omitting the introductory words; Luke also 
 thought it unnecessary to give the name, and 
 therefore copied the accusation, with the in- 
 troductory words, this is; Matthew gave all 
 but the adjective signifying of Nazareth; and 
 John omitted the less important this is, giv- 
 ing the name in full and the accusation. No 
 one of them added anything to what was 
 written; no one omitted anj' word of the ac- 
 cusation. Historians of perfect veracity are 
 doing the same thing continually. To say 
 that this or that was said, is not, ordinarily, to 
 affirm that this or that is all that was said. If 
 nothing is omitted which changes the mean- 
 ing of what is repeated, there is often no 
 reason for saying that anything is omitted. 
 We regard, therefore, such differences as ap- 
 pear in the several copies of this title made by 
 the Evangelists as entirely consistent with the 
 doctrine of plenary inspiration. 
 
 20. This title then (therefore) (oiv) read 
 many of the Jews. The reading of it was a 
 natural consequence of its being placed on the 
 cross, and also, of its being placed there by au- 
 
Ch. XIX.] 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 883 
 
 21 Thon said the cliiuf priests of the Jews to Pilate, 
 Write uot, TiieKiiigot the Jews; but that he said, I 
 aui King of the Jews. 
 
 22 l^ilate answered, VVliat I have writteu I have writ- 
 ten. 
 
 23 "Then the soldiers, when tliey had crucified Jesus, 
 took his garments, and made four [larls, to every soldier 
 apart; and also his coat: now the coat was without 
 seam, woven from the top throughout. 
 
 21 The chief priests of the Jews therefore said to Pilate, 
 Write not, The Kinj.' of the Jews; but, that he said, 
 
 22 I am King of the Jews. I'ilate answered, What I 
 have written I have written. 
 
 23 The soldiers therefore, when they had crucified 
 Jesus, took his garments, and mado four parts, to 
 every soldier a part; and also the 'coat: now the 
 icoat was without seam, woveu from the top 
 
 a Matt. 27 : 35 ; Mark 15 : 24 ; Luke 23 : 34. 1 Or. tunic. 
 
 thority, and not le.ss, perhaps, of its character, 
 so di.<pleasing to the Jews. For the first priest 
 that read it, would be likely to speak of it to 
 his companions with keen dissatisfaction, and 
 so the knowledge of it would spread. For 
 the place where Jesus was crucified was 
 nigh to the cityr and, therefore, many vis- 
 ited Golgotha, and when there, read the super- 
 scription. The nearness of the place was a 
 reason why so many read the offensive title. 
 And it was written in Hebrew, and 
 Greek, n?id Latin. So that all who passed 
 by could read it for themselves, if they could 
 read at all. The natives of Palestine were, of 
 course, familiar with their mother tongue — 
 the Aramaic, here called the Hebrew. Jews 
 born in foreign lands, but sojourning at this 
 time in Jerusalem (see Acts 2: 8-11), would 
 be likely to know the Greek, as would many 
 of other nations. And some of the Romans 
 connected with Pilate's army would probably 
 know how to read the Latin only. It is pos- 
 sible that the full superscription was written 
 in but one of these languages, wliile only the 
 more important part of it was written in the 
 others. But there is no evidence of this in 
 the Gospel narratives. 
 
 21. Then said the chief priests of the 
 Jews. The Revised Version is probably 
 correct in rendering the conjunction (ovv), 
 therefore, instead of then; for the sequence is 
 logical rather than temporal. John conceives 
 of the remonstrance of these Jewish priests as 
 occasioned by the ease with which all who 
 passed that way could read the title over 
 Jesus, as it was written in three languages. 
 The expression, "chief priests of the Jews,''' 
 is not found elsewhere in the New Testament, 
 but may be accounted for by the writer's de- 
 sire to emphasize the fact that they belonged 
 to the leading Jewish part}' that had com- 
 passed the death of Christ. Write not, The 
 King of the Jews ; but that he said, I 
 am King of the Jews. This request of 
 the priests was natural, and indeed, plausible. 
 
 But it did not fairly represent what Jesus had 
 said of himself, either to them or to the gov- 
 ernor. When conjured by the high priest, in 
 answer to the question, " Art thou the Christ, 
 the Son of God?" he had said, "I am; and 
 ye shall see the Son of man sitting at the 
 right hand of power, and coming with the 
 clouds of heaven." Upon this, the high 
 priest had rent his clothes and accused him of 
 blasphemy. (See Matt. 26: 63-66; Mark 14: 
 61-64; Luke 22: 67-71 ; John 19: 7.) Taking 
 this answer of Jesus as it was understood by 
 the Sanhedrin, we must deny that it was a 
 claim to being king of the Jews, in any ordi- 
 nary sense of that expression. In answer to 
 Pilate's question, "Art thou a king, then?" 
 he affirmed that he was; but proceoded to ex- 
 plain his kingship, not as placing him over 
 the Jews, as a people, but as clothing him 
 with authority as a witness to the truth over 
 all genuine lovers of the truth (John is: as, 37). It 
 is clear, then, that these "chief priests of the 
 Jews" wished to have the title changed, not 
 for truth's sake, but to escape the sting that 
 was felt to be in it. 
 
 22. Pilate answered. What I have 
 Avritten I have written. In other words: 
 "The thing is done and cannot be changed ; 
 the word is spoken and cannot be revoked: 
 I have written once for all, and the matter 
 is settled." For the procurator has no de- 
 sire to grotify these Jewish zealots. On the 
 contrary, he is pleased to show them his inde- 
 pendence. 
 
 23, 24. The Soldiers Divide His Gar- 
 ments Among Themselves. 
 
 23. This verse resumes the narrative of the 
 crucifixion by the soldiers at the point reached 
 in verse 18 — the narrative concerning the title 
 over Christ having taken the writer along to 
 a somewhat later point. The connecting par- 
 ticle {ovv) should be rendered therefore, instead 
 of then. For, as a consequence of their 
 having crucified Jesus, the soldiers took 
 his garments— " the head-gear, the outer 
 
384 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 [Ch. XIX. 
 
 24 They said therefore among themselves, Let us not ! 24 throughout. They said therefore one to another, 
 
 reud it, but cast lots for it, whose it shall be: that the 
 Scripture might be fultilled, which saith, "They parted 
 my raiment among them, and fur my vesture they did 
 cast lots. These things therefore the soldiers did. 
 
 Let us not rend it, but cast lots for it, whose it shall 
 be: that the scripture might be fulfilled, wliich sailh. 
 They parted my gaimenls among them. 
 And upon my vesture did they cast lots. 
 
 o Ps. 22 : 18. 
 
 cloak-like garment, the girdle, and the sun- 
 dais." —Edershcim. And made four parts, 
 to every soldier a part : from which it ap- 
 pears that they were but four in number— a qua- 
 ternion. (Acts 12: 4.) If, as many infer from 
 Matt. 27: 54; Mark 15: 39; Luke 23: 47, there 
 was a centurion over the four, he did not 
 share in the division of raiment. "It is gen- 
 erally stated, that this [division of the crimi- 
 nal's raiment among the executioners,] was 
 the common Roman custom. But of this 
 there is no evidence, and in later times it was 
 expressly forbidden (Ulpianus 'Digest,' 48, 
 20, 6). I cannot see how Keim, and, after 
 him, Nebe, infers from this as certain, that the 
 law had formerly been the opposite." — Eder- 
 sheim. But a prohibitory law implies a more 
 or less prevalent custom, against which it was 
 aimed, and this custom explains the word 
 therefore, by which John connects the divi- 
 sion of the garments with the act of crucifix- 
 ion. And also his coat, or tunic (x'twi-), the 
 garment worn next the skin, and covering the 
 whole body from shoulder to ankle. Noav 
 the coat was Avithout seam, woven from 
 the top throughout. " Besides these four 
 articles of dress, there was the seamless^ 
 woven, inner garment, b\' fiir the most valua- 
 ble of all, and for which, as it could not 
 be partitioned without being destroyed, 
 they would specially cast \ois.'' —Edersheim. 
 "Specially "—because, as Edersheim thinks, 
 they had previously cast lots for their several 
 portions in the four less important garments. 
 But this is by no means certain. Matthew, 
 says, that they parted hin garments, casting 
 lots; and Mark, they parted his garments, 
 casting lots upon them, what every man should 
 take; and even the words of Mark might be 
 used, we think, by one who intended to char- 
 acterize the division, briefly, as one in which 
 lots were used, though not, perhaps, for every 
 article. Edersheim remarks, still further: 
 " It is deeply significant, that the dress of the 
 priests was not sewed, but woven (Sebach. 
 85a), and especially so, that of the high 
 priest." Having quoted so freely from Eder- 
 alieim, "The Life and Times of Jesus, the 
 
 Messiah" — a work of great value — it may not 
 be out of place to add, that we see no reason 
 for his statement regarding the time when this 
 division of the Saviour's garments was eflFected, 
 viz.: "Before nailing him to the cross, the 
 soldiers parted among themselves the poor, 
 worldly inheritance of his raiment." It was 
 after, rather than before, according to the 
 obvious meaning of all the narratives. 
 
 24. Note the particularity of this descrip- 
 tion, as if the writer had been present, seeing 
 and hearing. That the Scripture might 
 be fulfilled. Nothing was unforeseen or im- 
 ])rovided for in the plan of God. "Him, be- 
 ing delivered up by the determinate counsel 
 and foreknowledge of God, ye, by the hand 
 of lawless men, did crucify and slay," (Rev. 
 Ver.,) said Peter, to the men of Israel, on the 
 Day of Pentecost. And, therefore, the apos- 
 tles were not surprised to find the events of 
 Christ's death foreshadowed or foretold in the 
 Old Testament. The Scripture quoted is the 
 eighteenth verse of the twenty-second Psalm 
 — a Psalm which must be interpreted as re- 
 ferring to Christ. Perowne believes that ref- 
 erence to be t3'pical, but adds: "Whether, 
 however, we take the Psalm as t^'pical or pre-, 
 dictive, in any case, it is a prophecy of Christ, 
 and of his suflTerings on the cross." On the 
 other hand, Weiss afiSrms that it was under- 
 stood by John as a direct prediction: ^' that 
 the Scripture, etc., namely, Ps. 22: 18, ver- 
 ballj' according to the Septuagint ; yet, not 
 understood typically, of the old theocratic 
 sufferer {Meyer), or of David (Luthardt and 
 Godet), but directly, of Christ." Westcott 
 seems to agree with Weiss: "The central 
 thought in the original context is that the 
 enemies of the Lord's Anointed treated him 
 as already dead, and so disposed of his rai- 
 ment." For other citations from Psalm 22, 
 see Matt. 27: 39, 43, 46; John 19: 28, below; 
 and Heb. 2: 12. These things therefore 
 the soldiers did. Therefore, that is, be- 
 cause they were predicted in Scripture, or, 
 looking a little more deeply, because they 
 were included in the purpose God as made 
 known in part by the Holy Scriptures. 
 
Ch. XIX.] 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 385 
 
 25 <• Now there stood by the cross of Jesus his mother, 
 and his luotlier's sister, Mary the wife of 'Cleophus, 
 and Mary Magdalene. 
 
 26 When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and "the 
 discipie standing by, whom lie loved, he sailh unto his 
 mother, ''Woman, behold thy son 1 
 
 27 Then saith he to the discii)k', Heboid thy mother! 
 And from that hour that disciple took her « unto his 
 own home. 
 
 25 These things therefore the soldiers did. But there 
 were standing by the eross of Jesus his mother, and 
 his mother's sister, Mary, X\ie ivij'e of ('lopas, and 
 
 2G Mary Magdalene. When Jesus therefore saw his 
 mother, and the disciple standing by, uhom he 
 loved, he saith unto bis mother. Woman, behold, 
 
 27 thy son ! Then saith he to the di.sciple. Behold, 
 thy mother! And from that hour the disciple took 
 her unto his own home. 
 
 I Matt. 27: 55; Mark 15 : 40 ; Luke 123 : 49 h Luke 24 : 18 c ch. 13 : 23 ; 20: 2; 21 : 7, 20, 
 
 .(2ch. 2: 4....ecb. 1 : 11 ; 16:32. 
 
 35-27. Jesus Commits His Mother to 
 THE Care of John. 
 
 25. Now there stood. Better: but there 
 were standing. See Kevised Version, above. 
 By the cross of Jesus. Mark speaks of a 
 group of three women, apparently the .same 
 as these, with the exception of the motlier of 
 Jesus, as hehohilnq from afar. (>i''"-k i5:40; Matt. 
 27:55,56.) Thishas been pronounced inconsist- 
 ent with what is here said by John. But un- 
 warrantably ; f(jr by and/ro??i nfar, are terms 
 of uncertain force. As seen from the city the 
 women might be properly described as stand- 
 ing bj' the cross, when, as seen from the cross 
 itself, they might be described as looking on 
 from a distance. Besides — and this is of spe- 
 cial importance— the women may not have 
 remained all the time at the same point. 
 After John had taken the mother of Jesus 
 away, the rest of the group may have taken 
 a position farther from the cross. His 
 mother — who is not mentioned by the other 
 Evangelists, perhaps because she had gone 
 away with John at the time they refer to — 
 and his mother's sister — probably Salome 
 (Mark) "the mother of" James and John, 
 "Zebedee's sons" (Matthew.) — Mary the 
 wife of Cleophas— identical with "Mary 
 the mother of James the less, and Joses" 
 (Mark)— and Mary Magdalene— mentioned 
 also by name in the first two Gospels. Many 
 interpreters identify Mary the wife of Cleo- 
 phas with his mother's sister; so that only 
 three women are mentioned by John. . But it 
 is improbable that there were two sisters of the 
 same name in a family; it is also improbable 
 that John has made no mention of one of the 
 three women standing with the Lord's mother. 
 On the other hand, if Salome was his mother, 
 it would be like him to designate her in- 
 directly as here, and by her relation to the 
 Lord's mother rather than by her relation to 
 himself. 
 
 26. It was reserved for John to relate this 
 beautiful and touching incident. Why the I 
 
 earlier Evangelists passed it by in silence is 
 no more perplexing than their silence in re- 
 spect to many other events in the life of 
 Ciirist. A great deal must be omitted in 
 their narratives; but only the Spirit of God 
 could guide each one of them in deciding 
 what it was best for him to insert or to omit. 
 Yet that Spirit certainly adapted his influence 
 to the mind and heart of every "writer, mak- 
 ing holy use of tender recollections and pe- 
 culiar experiences, whenever this could be 
 done in furtherance of truth. In the light of 
 this principle we can see why John would be 
 moved to put on record this incident. He re- 
 membered it perfectly. The words of his 
 suffering Master were few, and freighted with 
 kindness. No wonder he referred to himself 
 in such a connection, as "the disciple whom 
 Jesus loved." "Criticism," says Weiss- 
 Meyer, "finds in this designation of himself 
 an evidence of vayiity {Scholten), or of as- 
 sumption, offensive self-exaltation ( Weiss). 
 But a consciousness of bqing specially loved 
 by the Lord, true, clear, and still glowing 
 with inward strength in the heart of the grey 
 old inan, is inconceivable without the deepest 
 humility, and has found its fittest expression 
 and its holy right in the simple description, 
 xvhoni he Inved.^' Woman, behold thy son ! 
 The address, woman, was entirely respectful 
 (see Note on 2: 4), and no doubt true to the 
 divine-human feeling of Jesus as well as pro- 
 foundly kind to his mother. Behold thy 
 son ! " Lo, this man is to be thj' son ; show- 
 ing to thee all the care and kindness of a 
 son"; or, perhaps, " Lo, thy son," let this 
 man be regarded by thee as a son; expect 
 from him a son's care and love." But no 
 paraphrase can be so appropriate and signifi- 
 cant as the words of Jesus. 
 
 27. Behold thy mother! "Let her re- 
 ceive from thee the love and tender care 
 which thou wouldest render to a mother." 
 And from that hour that disciple took 
 her unto his own home. The disciple, not 
 
886 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 [Ch. XIX. 
 
 28 After this, Jesus knowing that all things were now 
 accomplished, "that the Scripture might be I'uliilled, 
 saith, 1 thirst. 
 
 28 After this Jesus, knowing that all things are now 
 finished, that the scripture might be accomplished. 
 
 that disciple, is the correct rendering; but 
 the disclpLe means, of course, the one just 
 mentioned by the writer, and as addressed by 
 the Saviour. From that hour, etc., may 
 signify the removal of the Lord's mother at 
 once from her phice by the cross to his own 
 residence in the city. If so, it was done in 
 order to withdraw her from a spectacle of 
 suffering which it was unwise for her longer 
 to witness. But the language does not require 
 us to believe that she was led away at once 
 from Calvary. It may only mean that 
 thenceforth John received the mother of 
 Jesus into his family ; giving her a home and 
 such care as he would have given had she 
 been his own mother. If, however, he con- 
 ducted her immediately to his abode in Jeru- 
 salem, he soon returned to Golgotha. Yet 
 absence for even an hour might account for 
 his omitting to record some of the Lord's 
 words on the cross, as preserved in the other 
 Gospels; for this Evangelist limits his narra- 
 tive, for the most part, to what he had him- 
 self seen or heard. But why did Jesus select 
 John, rather than one of "his brethren," to 
 have care of his mother? Possibly because 
 his brothers were not in circumstances to give 
 her a home. Possibly, because they did not 
 yet believe on him. But, probably, because 
 John was specially loved by the Saviour, and 
 had just those qualities of mind and heart 
 which fitted him to render the service con- 
 templated, in the most satisfactory- manner. 
 
 28-38. Circumstances of the Lord's 
 Death. 
 
 Jesus was nailed to the cross about 9 A. M. 
 (Mutt. 15:25.) From 12 M., until 3 p. M., a super- 
 natural darkness covered the land. (Matt. 27: 45.) 
 About S P. M. was heard the crj' : "My God, 
 my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" (Matt. 
 «7:46.) Then followed the events which John 
 proceeds to relate. 
 
 38. After this, does not signify "directly 
 after this," but allows of an interval between 
 the events related. In this case, several hours 
 had passed since Jesus committed his mother 
 to the care of John — at least, the three hours 
 of darkness. Jesus knowing that all 
 things were now accomplished. Better, 
 
 with the Revised Version, that all things are 
 now finished; for thus the parallelism between 
 this expression and the words of Jesus : It is 
 finished, in verse 30, is preserved. The same 
 form of the same Greek verb is used in both 
 cases, viz. : (TCTeAcarat. ) By "all things is here 
 naturallj' meant his whole life work (i":4), 
 including his giving himself up to death, 
 which was already accomplished before death 
 entered." — Weiss. The words, tliat the Scrip- 
 ture anight be accomplished, (Rev. Ver. ), 
 may be connected, either with the preceding 
 clause: that all things are noio finished; or, 
 with the following : saith, I thirst, etc. "With 
 the former connection, the words, saith, I 
 thirst, and the act consequent upon them, 
 are not here regarded as a part of the fulfill- 
 ment of Scripture; with the latter, they are 
 a final act in that fulfillment. Christ's labor 
 and suffering being finished, he completes the 
 fulfilment of prophecy by seeking an instant's 
 relief from thirst — and then expires. This 
 seems to us the true sense of the passage, 
 though the Greek formula, translated that 
 the Scripture might be fulfilled, elsewhere 
 refers to a preceding rather than to a subse- 
 quent clause. Westcott pertinently remarks: 
 "The incident loses its full significance unless 
 it be regarded as one element in the fore- 
 shadowed course of the Passion. Nor is there 
 any diflBculty in the phrase ' are now finished,' 
 as preceding it. The 'thirst' was already 
 felt, and the feeling included the confession 
 of it. The fulfillment of the Scripture (it 
 need scarcely be added) was not the object 
 which the Lord had in view in uttering the 
 word, but there was a necessary correspond- 
 ence between his acts and the divine fore- 
 shadowing of them." This word of Jesus, viz: 
 I thirst, seems to have followed ver3- closely 
 on the cry, "My God, my God, why hast thou 
 forsaken me?" so that both had an influence 
 upon the b5'standers. leading to the act which 
 is next described. For Mark, after recording 
 the great cry of Jesus, says, that "some of 
 them that stood by, when they heard it, said : 
 Beliold, he calleth Elijah. And one ran. and. 
 filling a sponge full of vinegar, put it on a 
 reed, and gave him to drink." — (Rev. Ver.) 
 
Ch. XIX.] 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 587 
 
 29 Now there was set a vessel full of vinegar: and 
 "they filled a sponge with vinegar, and put it upon 
 hyssop, and put it to his mouth. 
 
 ;iO Wlieu Jesus therefore bad received the vinegar, he 
 said, *It is finished: and he bowed his head and gave 
 up the ghost. 
 
 29 saith, I thirst. There was set there a vessel full of 
 vinegar: so they put a sponge full of the vinegar 
 
 30 upon hyssop, and brought it to his luouth. When 
 Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said. 
 It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up 
 bis spirit. 
 
 ; Matt. 27: 48 6 cU. 17 : 4. 
 
 (Mark 15: 35, 36; comp. Matt. 27: 47. 48.) It is, hoWever, 
 
 observable that neither Matthew nor Mark 
 mentions any direct connection between tlie 
 cry of Jesus and the act of offering him 
 "vinegar" to drink; nor is it obvious wliy 
 that cry, of itself alone, should have sug- 
 gested the idea of intolerable thirst. But that 
 cry revealed extreme agony, and when the 
 Saviour added presently, with a lower voice, 
 I thirst, there was some one ready to re- 
 spond. Thus the Gospel of John incidentally 
 provides a "missing link" to the narratives 
 of Matthew and Mark. 
 
 29. Now there was set a vessel full of 
 vinegar. The Revised Version omits the 
 copula now, as not supported by the earliest 
 manuscripts; but the omission leaves the 
 meaning of the clause unchanged. The 
 vinegar here spoken of, is supposed to have 
 been a kind of sour wine mingled with water, 
 used by the soldiers — not a stupefying drink, 
 like that which the Saviour had previously 
 refused. (Matt.27: 34; Mark 15:23.) So they put a 
 sponge full of the vinegar upon hyssop, 
 and brought it to his mouth. — (Kev. Ver. ) 
 Scholars are not yet agreed as to what par- 
 ticular plant was called hyssop by the Jews. 
 Alford expresses very well the prevailing 
 opinion, describing it "as 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 one 
 foot and a half long, which would, in this 
 case, be long enough ; the feet of the cruci- 
 fied person not being ordinarily raised above 
 that distance from the ground." See the 
 Bible Dictionaries under "Hyssop." The first 
 two Gospels speak of "a reed" merely, as 
 used to raise the moistened sponge to the suf- 
 ferer's lips; but John specifies the kind of 
 reed employed. It was "hyssop." 
 
 30. When Jesus therefore had re- 
 ceived the vinegar. As the words "I 
 thirst," were virtually a request for drink, to 
 relieve for a moment the intolerable thirst 
 produced by hanging on the cross, so these 
 words of the Evangelist show that he accepted 
 
 the vinegar, given for his relief and refresh- 
 ment. It is finished: and he bowed his 
 head, and gave up the ghost (or, his spirit. ] 
 All that he was to do and suffer in his eartiily 
 life, was now completed. Knowing this, he 
 appears to have uttered, strongly, the single 
 word which signifies: It is finished. "Whether 
 Matthew refers to this word, when he says, 
 that "Jesus cried again with a loud voice" 
 (2T:5o), and Mark, when he says, that "Jesus 
 uttered a loud voice (i»:37), must be considered 
 somewhat doubtful ; but Jesus undoubtedly 
 added to this cry the saying preserved by 
 Luke (23:46): "Father, into thy hands I com- 
 mend my spirit." Geikie writes: "A mo- 
 ment more, and all was over. The cloud had 
 passed as suddenly as it rose. Far and wide, 
 over the vanquished throngs of his enemies, 
 with a loud voice, as if uttering his shout of 
 eternal victory, before entering into his glory, 
 he cried. It is finished! then, more gently, 
 came the words : Father, into thy hands I com- 
 mend my spirit. A moment more, and there 
 rose a great cry, as of mortal agony : the 
 head fell. He was dead." But if the cry was 
 distinct from the word. It is finished, it must 
 have followed that word and preceded the 
 sentence, "Father, into th3' hands I commend 
 my spirit"— unless, indeed, with the marginal 
 reading of the Eevised Version, we identify 
 the "cry with a loud voice" with the saying, 
 "Father, into thy hands," etc. This seems to 
 us a less probable interpretation ; but Geikie's 
 is impossible. On the whole, we reject the 
 view that Jesus uttered any loud, inarticulate 
 cry, "as of mortal agony," before expiring. 
 His physical nature never conquered his soul, 
 either in the garden or on the cross. Gave up 
 his spirit, is clearer than gave up the ghost. 
 The word translated gave up (-napi^uiKev). sig- 
 nifies properly, delivered up, and indicates a 
 perfectly conscious, voluntary act. Says 
 Prof. Milligan : "The choice of the word 
 leaves no doubt as to the meaning of the 
 Evangelist. However true it is, that by the 
 cruelty of man the death upon the cross was 
 brought about as by its natural cause, there 
 
388 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 [Ch. XIX. 
 
 31 The Jews therefore, « because it was the preparation , 
 6that the bodies should not remain upon the cross on 
 thesabbathday, (for that sabbath day was an high day,) 
 besought Pilate that their legs might be broken, and 
 that tUey might be taken away. 
 
 32 Then came the soldiers, and brake the legs of the 
 first, and of the other which was crucified with him. 
 
 31 The Jews therefore, because it was the Preparation, 
 that the bodies should not remain on the eross 
 upon the sabbath (for the day of that sabbath was 
 a high day), asked of Pilate that their legs might 
 be broken, and that they might be taken away. 
 
 32 The soldiers therefore came, and brake the legs of 
 the first, and of the other who was. crucified with 
 
 a Mark 15: 42; ver. 42 6 Deut. 21: 23. 
 
 was something deeper and more solemn in it, 
 of which we must take account. It was his 
 own free will to die. There is in him an ever- 
 present life and power, and choice, in which 
 he, even at the very last moment, offers him- 
 self as a sacritice." (Heb. 9: u.) And the Weiss- 
 Meyer Commentary says: "The expression, 
 'he gave over (to God) his spirit,' character- 
 izes his dying as voluntary, since the separa- 
 tion of the soul (or, spirit) from the body, took 
 place by his consciously and freely entering 
 into the will of his Father, though it was 
 nevertheless accomplished in accordance with 
 natural law." That is to say, Christ at this 
 moment, in harmony with his Father's will, 
 allowed his body to succumb to the destruc- 
 tive natural forces assailing it, and delivered 
 up his spirit to God. He did not take his own 
 life; but he freely decided no longer to pre- 
 vent its being taken by sinful men. So his 
 natural life ended; but his life in the spirit 
 continued. And thus were fulfilled his own 
 words: "I lay down my life, that I may 
 take it again. No one taketh it away from 
 me, but I lay it down of myself." (Kev. Yer.) 
 (10:18.) The essential fact is this: that in the 
 supreme act of his atoning work, Jesus made 
 his Father's will his own will, and offered 
 himself in sacrifice to God. To the very last 
 moment, and in the parting of soul from 
 body, he was free, consciously and perfectly 
 free, doing all and suffering all without con- 
 straint, save that of love to God and man. 
 
 31. The Jews tlierefore — namelj', the 
 leading men Avho had sought the death of 
 Jesus. Because it Avas the preparation. 
 The word preparation has no article before 
 it in the Greek text, because it is used as a 
 proper name. Hence, the Eevised Version 
 begins the word with a CA-p\ti\\—Preparntio)i. 
 And here, certainly, it means a day of prepa- 
 tion for the Sabbath, not for the passover. 
 "Preparation" was, therefore, a name for the 
 Christian Friday. "These words, therefore, 
 so far from supporting the view of those who 
 think that the legal passover had not yet been 
 
 celebrated, tend rather in the opposite direc- 
 tion."— Sc/tq^. It was a Roman custom to 
 leave the bodies of criminals to decay on the 
 cross; but the law of Moses provided, that if 
 the body of an executed criminal were hung 
 on a tree, it should not remain aU night upon 
 the tree, but should be buried the same day, 
 lest the land be defiled, (oeut. 21:23.) This rule 
 may have been often disregarded. Indeed, 
 the Jews are not said to have been influenced 
 by it in the present case, but by the fact that a 
 specially holy Sabbath was at hand. Yet the 
 ritualistic principle determined their action. 
 For that sabbath day was a high day. 
 Literally : for great was the day of that Sab- 
 bath. Its greatness was due to the fact that it 
 was the Sabbath of the passover festival. 
 That their legs might be broken. Evi- 
 dently, in this case, for tlie purpose of hasten- 
 ing death. For persons generally survived 
 the sufferings of the cross more than one day, 
 and sometimes several days. The breaking 
 of the legs was sometimes employed by the 
 Romans as a distinct punishment (Sueton, 
 "August" 67; Seneca, " De Ira," III. 32; 
 Euseb. "H. E." V. 21.) But Lactantius 
 speaks as if the crucifragiuni were customary, 
 with a view to an early death. His words are 
 these: "Therefore, becau.se fastened to the 
 cross, he had delivered up his spirit, the exe- 
 cutioners did not think it necessary to break 
 his bones, as ivas their custom (sicut mos 
 eorum ferebat), but they on 13- pierced his 
 side" ("Inst. Div." IV. 26.) And that they 
 might be taken away: it being assumed 
 that they would soon be dead, and their re- 
 moval consistent with Roman justice. 
 
 32. Then came the soldiers — (or, Thesol- 
 diers therefore cayne. ) For Pilate had yielded 
 to the request of the Jews, and had given 
 them authority to employ the soldiers in tliis 
 way also. We understand \>y the soldiers 
 the four who had attended to the crucifixion 
 of Jesus and his two fellow-sufferers. Prob- 
 ably these soldiers were still on guard, near 
 the place of crucifixion, possibly two on either 
 
Ch. XIX.] 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 389 
 
 33 But when they came to Jesus, and saw that he was I 33 him: but when they came to Jesus, and saw that he 
 dead already, they brake not his legs: | 34 was dead already, they brake not his legs: hovy- 
 
 34 But one of the soldiers with u spear pierced his belt one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his 
 side and forthwith "came there out blood and water. | side, and straightway there came out blood and 
 
 a I Joha 5 : 6, 8. 
 
 wing of the line of crosses, though at a little 
 distance, so as not to be annoyed by the ordi- 
 nary groans of the sufferers. Naturally, then, 
 two of them would break the limbs of one 
 robber, and two of them those of the other 
 robber, when they might all draw near the 
 body of Jesus, now perfectly still ia death. 
 It was cruel and ghastly work; but they were 
 familiar with blood, and cared little for 
 human life. In the arena, and on the battle 
 field, they had learned to despise pain, and 
 almost honor ferocity. 
 
 33. But when they came to Jesus, and 
 saw that he was dead already, they 
 brake not his legs. Thus the certainty of 
 Christ's death is vouched for; in the first 
 place, by the unambiguous statement of John 
 (ver. 30), next, by his declaration that the 
 soldiers, who would not be likely to err in 
 such a case, saw that he was dead, and, 
 finally, by his account of their treatment of 
 his body. Moreover, there is no reason to 
 doubt the presence of John near the cross of 
 his Master, at this time, enabling him to bear 
 personal witness to everything which he re- 
 lates. To reject this part of his Gospel is to 
 reject it all. 
 
 34. If, as we are told, the soldiers saw that 
 he was dead, why did one of them thrust his 
 spear into the side of Jesus? Would not such 
 an act have been motiveless and absurd? "We 
 think not. The soldiers were rough men, not 
 unwilling to use their arms on slight occasion. 
 Though they considered Jesus dead, it is not 
 surprising that oneof them, to make his death 
 doubly sure, thrust a spear into his side. 
 Paulus supposes tliat the spear wounded very 
 slightly the side of Jesus. But the Commen- 
 tary of Weiss-Meyer correctly shows, that 
 "neither the word itself (since vv<ra-eiv is com- 
 monly the violent thrust or stab), nor the per- 
 son of the rude soldier, nor the weapon (a 
 lance belonging to heavy armor), nor the de- 
 sign of the thrust, nor the size of the wound, 
 as suggested by 20: 27, nor the 'pierced' 
 fefexei'Tao-i') of ver. 29, allow the view required 
 in the interest of a 'seeming death,' that the 
 
 wound inflicted was only a scratch." And 
 forthwith came there out blood and 
 water. This statement of the Evangelist 
 has been a source of perplexity to Biblical 
 scholars, chiefly because blood does not flow 
 from a wound inflicted on a dead body. 
 Hence, some have inferred that Jesus was not 
 quite dead until the spear reached his heart. 
 But this inference is contradicted by the plain 
 testimony of the Evangelist, (ver. so. m.) Others 
 have inferred that the process of change from 
 a natural to a spiritual body began at the 
 instant of death, so that "the issuing of the 
 blood and water from his side, must be re- 
 garded as a sign of life in death." — Westcott, 
 But it is certainly diflacult to believe that any 
 such thought was in the mind of the sacred 
 writer. Indeed, the death of Christ seems to 
 have been regarded by all the New Testament 
 writers as a real and complete death. And 
 he was raised on the morning of the third 
 day, not by a process going on while he was 
 in the tomb, and completed the third day. 
 Of this modern theory, the Scriptures know 
 nothing. Dr. Schaff has suggested, that the 
 spear wound may have been inflicted the in^ 
 stant after death, that the region of the heart 
 may have been penetrated by the spear, that 
 the importance of the "blood and water," in 
 the eyes of John, was wholly due to their 
 symbolical meaning, that the quantity of 
 "blood and water" having nothing to do 
 with their meaning, may have been very 
 small, and that it has never been proved that 
 a small quantity might not issue from a 
 wound thus inflicted. For the symbolical 
 import of "blood and water," in the eyes of 
 John, we must look into the writings of this 
 apostle. And doing this, we find, that hlond 
 represents life surrendered; in the case of 
 Christ, life surrendered in sacrifice for sin 
 (1:29), or, life laid down for the life of the 
 world. (6:51-56; 10: 15.) We also find that vjater 
 represents the Holy Spirit, as given by Christ, 
 for the quickening and purifying of men. 
 (4:13,14:7:38,39.) "Cleansing from sin [in the 
 sense of forgiveness] and quickening by the 
 
590 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 [Ch. XIX. 
 
 35 And he that saw it bare record, and his record is 
 true ; and he knoweth that he saiih true, that ye might 
 believe. 
 
 3i! For these things were done, "that the scripture 
 should be I'ultilled, A bone of him shall not be broken. 
 
 37 And again another scripture saith, '' They shall 
 look on him whom they pierced. 
 
 38 '^ And after this Joseph of Arimathea, being a dis- 
 ciple of Jesus, but secretly ■'for fear of the Jews, be- 
 
 So water. And he that hath seen hath borne witness, 
 and his witness is true : and he knoweth that he 
 
 36 saith true, that ye also may believe. For these 
 things came to pass that the scripture might be 
 
 37 fultilled, A bone of him shall not be i broken. And 
 again another scripture saith. They shall look on 
 him whom they pierced. 
 
 39 And aiter these tilings Joseph of Arimathea, 
 being a disciple of Jesus, but secretly for fear of 
 
 a Ex. 12: 46; Num. » : 12 ; 
 
 Matt. 27:57; Mark 1 j : 42 ; Luke 2 : 50 d ch.9: 
 
 Spirit are both consequent on Christ's death." 
 — Westcott. Wliether or not this passage is to 
 be associated with 1 John 5:5, is doubtful. 
 
 35. And he that saw it bare record, 
 etc. Better, as in the Revised Version : And 
 he that hath seen hath borne witness, and his 
 witness is true; and he knoweth that he saith 
 true, that ye also m.ay believe. In this verse, 
 Jolin speai<s of hiniself in the third person, 
 and without giving his name. See other pas- 
 sages where he evidently does the same thing, 
 (e. i.?! 40 ; 18:15 sq.) He also affirms of the wit- 
 ness he bears, that it is true (oAijAn-q), that is, 
 genuine, real, fultilliug the proper idea of 
 testimony — "all that testimony can be." The 
 word in the next clause is different in the 
 original, denoting the truthfulness or veracity 
 of the witness. In other words, the Evan- 
 gelist assures his readers that his testimony is 
 that of an eye-witness, whose circumstances 
 enabled him to know accurately that whereof 
 he has testiiied, and who is conscious of hav- 
 ing stated the exact truth. And to this he 
 adds the object which has moved him to bear 
 witness to the events of Christ's death, and to 
 assure them so positively of the trustworthy 
 character of his testimony, namely — that his 
 readers might believe — not merely in the facts 
 which he has related concerning Chri.st, but 
 also, and chiefly, through those facts, in Jesus 
 Christ himself, as the Son of God and the 
 Saviour of men. 
 
 36. For these things were done (or, 
 came to pass) that the scripture should be 
 fulfilled, A bone of him shall not be 
 broken. Evidently the Apostle John be- 
 lieved that the peculiar features of Christ's 
 death had been embraced in the purpose of 
 God, and foreshadowed by the language of 
 Scripture. The language quoted is, we sup- 
 pose, derived from Ex. 12: 46: "Neither shall 
 ye break a bone thereof," and Num. 9: 12: 
 "Thej- shall leave none of it unto the morn- 
 ing, nor break any bone of it." In the former 
 passage, the reference is to the lamb of pass- 
 
 over, slain in Egypt; in the lattter passage, it 
 is to the paschal lamb, eaten at the yearly 
 passover. But John could not have found in 
 the circumstance that the legs of Jesus were 
 not broken, a fulfillment of either of these 
 passages, unless he had seen in the paschal 
 lamb a type of the Messiah. (Comp. Ps. 
 34 : 20. ) 
 
 37. They shall look on him whom they 
 pierced. See Zech. 12: 10, which Hender- 
 son translates: "They shall look unto me 
 whom they have pierced." In the original 
 passage, me refers to Jehovah. Hence, 
 probably, the reluctance of Jewish inter- 
 preters to allow that the pronoun whom, 
 stands for m.e ; hence, also, the change of 
 texts in several manuscripts from »ne to hi}n. 
 John substitutes him for me, because he is 
 speaking of the One to whom they were 
 looking. He does not change the meaning of 
 the original expression, but merely adjusts it 
 to his narrative. And he follows the Hebrew 
 rather than the Septuagint Version, because 
 the latter does not give the sense of the former. 
 The passage seems to be quoted by Jolin as 
 partly fulfilled by the thrust of the soldier's 
 spear, piercing the side of Jesus; for this act 
 he regards as the act of the Jewish people, to 
 whom Jesus had been delivered up for cruci- 
 fixion. (Comp. Acts 2: 23.) Of course, their 
 looking to him for blessing was expected in 
 the future; for the people were now piercing 
 him, and the language of Zechariah supposes 
 that the looking would be subsequent to the 
 pierci7ig. We may therefore see, in John's use 
 of this Scripture, evidence that he regarded 
 it as in some true sense Messianic, that he 
 considered Jesus the true Messiah and proper 
 representative of Jehovah, who was the sub- 
 ject of the ancient prophecy quoted, and that 
 he also, as well as Paul, expected the ultimate 
 conversion of Israel. 
 
 38-42. The Burial of Jesus by Joseph 
 OF Arimathea and Nicodemus. 
 
 3S. And after this, should be, And after 
 
Cii. XIX.] 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 391 
 
 sought Pilate that he might take away the body of 
 Jesus: and Pilate gave him leave. He came therefore, 
 and took the body of Jesus. 
 
 39 Aud there came also ° Nicodemus, (which at the 
 first came to Jesus by night,) aud brought a mixture of 
 myrrh and aloes, about an hundred pound weight. 
 
 the Jews, asked of Pilate that he might take away 
 the body of Jesus: and Pilate gave him leave. He 
 39 came therefore, and took away his body. Aud 
 there came also Nicodemus, he who at the first 
 came to him by night, bringing a 'mixture of 
 myrrh and aloes, about a hundred pound weight. 
 
 a ch. 3:1,2; 7 : 50 b Some uDcieitt authorities read, roU. 
 
 these things — referring, doubtless, to the 
 events related in the preceding paragraph, 
 though the phrase is one that may have a 
 more general reference to the whole scene of 
 the crucifixion. Joseph of Arimathea, 
 being a disciple of Jesus, but secretly, 
 for fear of the Jews. Luke speaks of Ari- 
 mathea as "a city of the Jews," meaning 
 probably a city of Judea. It is thought to 
 have been identical with Ramah, the birth- 
 place of Samuel the prophet (see 1 Samuel 
 1: 1, 19), which is called by the Seventy, Ar- 
 mathaim, andby Josephus, Armatha. ("Ant." 
 V. 10, 2.) It was situated about five miles 
 north of Jerusalem, on the way to Bethel. 
 Matthew calls Joseph a "rich man" (27:57), 
 Mark, an "honourable counsellor, which also 
 waited for the kingdom of God" {n-.a)^ and 
 Luke, "a counsellor, and he was a good man 
 and just; the same had not consented to the 
 counsel and deed of them." (23:50,5i.) From 
 John's remark, that he was a disciple of 
 Jesus, but secretly, for fear of the Jews, 
 we conclude that he considered the character 
 of Joseph very similar to that of Nicodemus. 
 Both were members of the Sanhedrin. Both 
 were drawn to Jesus by his spirit and teach- 
 ing. Both were convinced that he was from 
 God, and, perhaps, the promised Christ. Both 
 refused to take any part in persecuting him. 
 (See John 7: 50, 51, and Luke 23 : 51.) Both 
 testified their respect and perhaps reverence 
 for Jesus after his crucifixion. Yet, both 
 were afraid to make a public avowal of their 
 discipleship, because they dreaded the fierce 
 fanaticism of their associates in the Great 
 Council. Besought Pilate. The word 
 translated besought, might, with equal or 
 greater propriety, have been translated asked; 
 for there is nothing in the word itself, or in 
 the circumstances related, which points to 
 entreaty, or, indeed, to anj'thing more than a 
 simple request. There was no law or custom 
 violated by the act of Joseph ; and, if he had 
 watched the course of events during the day, 
 he had no reason to suppose that Pilate would 
 be unwilling to grant his request. If he had 
 
 any one to fear, it was not the governor, but 
 the chief priests. When, therefore, Mark 
 says, that "he boldly went in unto Pilate, 
 and asked for the b</dy of Jesus," we take the 
 word "boldly" to be expressive of his spirit 
 and bearing, in view of all the circumstances 
 of the hour, but do not regard it as implying 
 that his request was likely to provoke the 
 anger of Pilate. The governor was probably 
 at the time glad to show any possible favor to 
 the friends of Jesus, as a furtiier token of his 
 displeasure with the Jews. Accordingly, 
 having assured himself that Jesus was already 
 dead (Matt. 15:44), he gave Jcjseph leave to take 
 away his body; and Joseph, in consequence 
 of this permission, " came therefore and 
 took the body of Jesus." This is the 
 simple record : unimpassioned, unadorned, 
 natural, trustworthy, 
 
 39. But Joseph of Arimathea was not alone 
 in showing respect to his crucified Lord by 
 attending to the burial of his body. There 
 came also Nicodemus (which at the first 
 came to Jesus by night), and brought a 
 mixture of myrrh and aloes, about a 
 hundred pound weight. Thus John takes 
 occasion, in a quiet way, to recall the bearing 
 of this "teacher of Israel," when he first 
 came timidly to Jesus. Then he came by 
 night; now he testifies openly his regard for 
 the crucified One. The quantity of myrrh and 
 alo3s — about a hundred pound weight — 
 has been thought unreasonable. But there 
 seems to have been no rule, save that of affec- 
 tion or ability, by which the amount of aro- 
 matics used in burial should be determined. 
 The more exalted and beloved the person 
 whose body was to be laid away in a tojnb, 
 the greater, as a rule, would be the costliness 
 and amount of the spices used. Thus in 2 
 Chron. 16: 14, it is said of Asa the king, that 
 "they buried him in his own sepulchre, which 
 he had made for himself in the city of David ; 
 and laid him in the bed which was filled with 
 sweet odours and divers kinds of spices, pre- 
 pared by the apothecaries' art." Jesus was 
 loved and honored by Nicodemus, and we 
 
392 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 [Ch. XIX. 
 
 40 Then took they the body of Jesus, and "wound it 
 in linen clothes with the spices, as the manner of the 
 Jews is to bury. 
 
 41 Now in the place where he was crucified there was 
 a garden ; and in the garden a new sepulchre, wherein 
 was never man yet laid. 
 
 42 'There laid they Jesus therefore, = because of the 
 Jews' preparation day ; for the sepulchre was nigh at 
 hand. 
 
 40 So they took the body of Jesus, and bound it in 
 linen cloths with the spices, as the custom of the 
 
 41 Jews is to bury. Now in the place where he was 
 crucified there was a garden ; and in the garden a 
 
 42 new tomb wherein was never man yet laid. There 
 then because of the Jews' Preparation (for the tomb 
 was nigh at hand) they laid Jesus. 
 
 a Acts 5: 6 b Isa. 53 : 9 c vcr. 31. 
 
 need not hesitate to say, with Westcott: "His 
 intention wtis, without doubt, to cover the 
 body completely with the mass of aromatics; 
 for this purpose the quantity was not excessive 
 as a costly gift of devotion." 
 
 40. Then took they, etc. Better: There- 
 fore, or, so they took the body of Jesus. For 
 this act was a natural consequence of what 
 they had done before, as related in ver. 38, 
 39. The style of John is remarkable for its 
 logical coherence, and when he uses connect- 
 ives it is generally easy to account for his 
 selection of one rather than another. And 
 w^ound it in linen clothes with the spices, 
 as the manner of the Jews is to bury. 
 The verb in the last clause may be para- 
 phrased, to prepare for burial, (as Schaft'), 
 though the expression, to bury, may fairly be 
 said to include such preparation as is here de- 
 scribed. If the Jews has the same shade of 
 meaning in this passage which it commonly 
 has in the Fourth Gospel, John means to say 
 that the preparations for burial were, in this 
 case, such as were made by leading Jews at 
 the death of a friend or relative. Jesus was 
 buried as carefully and lovingly, and with as 
 free an expenditure, as custom would justify 
 when persons of wealth and distinction were 
 laid in their costly tombs. He was with the 
 rich in his death, (isa. 53: 9.) Geikie thus de- 
 scribes the scene: "The whole bodj', stained 
 as it was with blood, was tenderly washed, 
 and then wrapped in broad bands of linen, 
 within which were thicklj' strewn powdered 
 myrrh and aloes, which had been provided 
 by Nicodemus, for the imperfect embalmment 
 practiced by the Jews. The ends of the band- 
 ages were apparently secured on the inner 
 side with gum, as in the case of the Egj'ptian 
 dead. A white cloth was finally laid over the 
 face, after a last kiss, the pledge of undying 
 love." 
 
 41. Now in the place w^here he was 
 crucified there was a garden. The word 
 place is indefinite. It may denote a larger 
 
 or a smaller area, according to circumstances. 
 In the present instance, we have nothing to 
 guide us, unless it be the fact that the place 
 of crucifixion was near the city, but outside 
 its walls. In and near cities, particular places, 
 having names of their own, are relatively 
 small; and we are therefore led to think that 
 one spot would scarcely be described as near 
 another, if it were many rods distant. And 
 in the garden a new sepulchre, Avherein 
 \vas never man yet laid. Matthew de- 
 scribes this as Joseph's "new tomb, which he 
 had hewed out in the rock." (27:6o.) Mark 
 describes it as "a sepulchre which was hewn 
 out of a rock." (i5:46.) Luke describes it as 
 "a sepulchre that was hewn in stone" (as: 53), 
 adding, with John, "wherein never man be- 
 fore was laid." This last point is probably 
 mentioned, in order to call the reader's atten- 
 tion to the honor which was providentially, 
 yet most willingly paid to Jesus, in the place 
 of his burial. "It was in 'the court' of the 
 tomb that the hasty embalmment — if such it 
 may be called — took place. None of Ciirist's 
 former disciples seem to have taken part in 
 the burying. . . . Only a few faithful ones, 
 notably among them, Mar\- Magdalene, and 
 the other Mary, the mother of Jesus, stood 
 over against the tomb, watching at some dis- 
 tance where and how the body of Jesus was 
 laid. It would scarcely have been in accord- 
 ance with Jewish manners, if these women 
 had mingled more closely with the two San- 
 hedrists and their attendants. From where 
 they stood they could have had only a dim 
 view of what passed within the court; and 
 this may exjdain how, on their return, they 
 prepared 'spices and ointments' for the more 
 full honors which they hoped to pay the dead 
 after the Sabbath was past." — Edersheim. 
 
 42. There laid they Jesus therefore, 
 because of the Jews' preparation day: 
 for the sepulchre was nigh at hand. See 
 the Revised Version above. This has been 
 thought to show that they did not intend to 
 
Ch. XX.l 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 393 
 
 CHAPTER XX. 
 
 THE "first day of the week coiueth Mary Magdalene | 1 Now on the first day of tlic week conieth Mary 
 early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre, Magdalene early, while it was yet dark, unto the 
 and seetii the stone taken away from the sepulchre. | tomb, and seeth the stone taken away Irom the 
 
 a Matt. 28 : : ; Murk 16 : 1 ; Luke 24 : 1. 
 
 leave him in that tomb as his permanent 
 burial place. It seems to us rather that the 
 circumstances of the hour led to his being 
 placed in that new tomb. Two reasons are 
 brought together by John. It was the Jews' 
 preparation day; therefore the need of haste; 
 and the place was near, and could be used 
 without waste of time in going to a remote 
 burial-place. The Eevised Version follows 
 the order of the Greek text more closely 
 than the Common Version. There there- 
 fore. . . . they laid Jesus. The whole 
 sentence is more impressive when it is 
 made to close with the principal act. 
 
 was yet dark ; Mark, v)heii the sun was risen. 
 If Mark, then, contradicts John, does he not 
 also contradict himself? But the latter is not 
 to be supposed. "He must therefore have 
 employed the expression, when tlie sun was 
 risen, in a broader and less definite sense than 
 a literal interpretation of the words would 
 give." "As the sun is the source of light and 
 day, and his earliest rays produce the contrast 
 
 Ch. 20: 1-10. The Tomb of Jesus 
 Found Empty. 
 
 1. The first day of the week cometh 
 Mary Magdalene early, when it Avas 
 yet dark, unto the sepulchre. This 
 verse is introduced b3' a particle in the 
 Greek text which may be translated but 
 or now. John passes over a great many 
 particulars mentioned by some of the 
 other Evangelists. Thus, he says nothing 
 in respect to the putting of a large stone 
 at the door of the sepulchre (Matt, a:: 60; Mark 
 15:46), or the sealing of the stone and the 
 setting of a watch by the chief priests and 
 Pharisees (Man. 27: 62-66), or^the earth- 
 quake, the rolling away of the stone hy 
 an angel, and the terror of the -keepers 
 (Mate. 28: 2-4), or the purchasc of spices by the 
 women after the Sabbath, with a view to 
 anointing Jesus' body (Markie. i; comp. Luke24:i), 
 or the coming of these women, including Mary 
 Magdalene, in a group to the tomb with the 
 spices early on the first day of the week. (Matt. 
 
 28:1; Ma.k 16: 2-4; Luke 24: 1-3.) WhyheOmitS SO 
 
 much, we need not attempt to explain ; why he 
 inserts just what he does, can onlj' be a mat- 
 ter of speculation. It is noticeable that John 
 speaks of the time when Mary Magdalene 
 came to the sepulchre as early, ^vhen it was 
 yet dark. But Mark speaks of the women as 
 coming to the sepulchre very early . . . when 
 the sun was risen. — Rev. Ver. John saj's, 
 early; M-av^, very early ; John says, when it 
 
 STONE AT A JEWISH SEPULCHRE. 
 
 between night and dawn, so the term, sun- 
 rising, might easily come, in popular usage, 
 by a metonomy of cause for effect, to be put 
 for all that earlier interval when his rays, still 
 struggling with darkness, do yet usher in 
 the day. Accordingly, we find such a popu- 
 lar usage existing among the Hebrews and in 
 the Old Testament." — Robinson's "Greek 
 Harmon}- of the Gospels," p. 230 sq. "But, 
 it is also possible that Mark refers by the 
 words, 'very early,' to the time when the 
 women started from their lodgings to repair 
 to the tomb ; and by the words, ' when the sun 
 was risen,' to the time when they were all 
 
394 
 
 JOHK 
 
 [Ch. XX. 
 
 2 Then she runneth, and coiueth to Simon Peter, and 
 to the "other disciple, whom Jesus loved, and saith unto 
 them, They have taketi away the Lord out of the sep- 
 pulcbre, and we know not where they have hiid him. 
 
 3 ' Peter therefore went forth, and that other disciple, 
 aud came to the sepulchre. 
 
 2 tomb. She runneth therefore, and cometh to Simon 
 Peter, and to the other disciple, whom Jesus loved, 
 and saith unto them, They have taken away the Lord 
 out of the tomb, and we know not where they have 
 
 3 laid him. Peter therefore went forth, aud the other 
 
 ich. 13:23; 19:26; 21: 7, 20, 24....6Luk 24: 12. 
 
 assembled at the tomb. This interpretation is 
 defended at lengtli by Gilbert West, in his 
 treatise on the ' Itesurrection of Christ,' and 
 it is far more reasonable than the hypothesis 
 of a contradiction between two expressions of 
 Mark, found in one and the same verse." 
 (See the writer's treatise on the "Miracles of 
 Christ as Attested by the Evangelists," p. 
 281-2.) And seeth the stone taken away 
 from the sepulchre. This remark presup- 
 poses the placing of a stone at tlie door of the 
 sepulchre, as related by Matthew and Mark, 
 though not by John. 
 
 2. Then she runneth, and cometh to 
 Simon Peter, etc. The connective (ovv), 
 should be translated therefore, instead of ihen; 
 for the running to tell Peter and John was a 
 consequence of what she saw, and of the in- 
 ference which she drew from the sight. She 
 did not stop to examine the tomb; but con- 
 cluded from the taking away of the stone that 
 the body of Jesus had been carried away. 
 But the other women (who had come to the 
 tomb with her, Mar^' the mother of James and 
 Joses, and Salome the mother of James and 
 John), appear to have tarried awhile to ex- 
 amine the place more carefully. Indeed, 
 they went into the sepulchre, but did not find 
 the body of Jesus. Yet they were permitted 
 to see a vision of angels Matthew and Mark 
 speak of one — the former calling him "the an- 
 gel," and the latter, "a young man sitting on 
 the right side, clothed in a long white gar- 
 ment" (Matt. 28: 5; Mark 16: 5); but Lukc SayS, 
 
 that " two men stood by them in .shining gar- 
 ments." (24: 4.) Probably, one of the two was 
 prominent, saying the words that are reported. 
 
 (Matt. 28: 5-7; Mark 16: 6-7; Luke 24: 5-7.) Yct, CVen 
 
 these women did not long remain in the sep- 
 ulchre. Admonished by the angel, they quickly 
 departed from it "with fear and great joy," 
 and ran to announce the resurrection to the 
 disciples. On their way Jesus met them, cry- 
 ing, "Hail!" And dAtwing near, they held 
 him by the feet and worshiped him. (Matt.2S: 
 
 8-10; Mark 16: 8; Luke 24: 9-11.) In this grOUp there 
 
 was one woman not before named, Joanna 
 
 (Luke24:4); perhaps there were a few others. 
 Meanwhile, Mary Magdalene had doubtless 
 found Peter and John, and they were hasten- 
 ing to the tomb. For if, as we suppose, the 
 close of Mark's Gospel is genuine, the state- 
 ment that Jesus appeared^rsi; to Mary Magda- 
 lene must be regarded as relative to the other 
 appearances there related, especially to "after 
 that" in Mark 16: 12; and "afterward" 
 in Mark 16:14. (Comp. "Robinson's Har- 
 mony," p 232.) They have taken away the 
 Lord out of the sepulchre, and we know 
 not where they have laid him. This lan- 
 guage indicates very clearly that the thought 
 of Christ's resurrection had not entered her 
 mind while returning to the city, and confirms 
 the view that she had left before the other 
 women entered the tomb and saw the vision 
 of angels; for the angel had said to them: 
 "I know that ye seek Jesus, which was cruci- 
 fied. He is not here: for he is risen, as he 
 said." Possibly her words. We know not 
 where they have laid him, point to some 
 brief communication of views to one another 
 by the women, as they drew near the tomb 
 and saw that the stone was taken away — these 
 views being represented by the expression, 
 " IFe know not," etc. If so, the first impres- 
 sion on all their minds was the same. They 
 all supposed that the body of Jesus had been 
 removed from the tomb by the hands of his 
 foes. And it is certainly possible, that the 
 scenes of the trial and crucifixion had so 
 deeply impressed on their minds the wenk- 
 ness and mortality of his physical nature as 
 to make his resurrection almost incredible to 
 any of them. Death had triumphed so com- 
 pletely and terriblj', as it seemed, over his 
 lacerated and exhausted body, that they could 
 not think of that body as restored to life. 
 
 3. Peter therefore went forth, and that 
 other disciple, and came to the sepul- 
 chre. Notice the precedence given to Peter 
 in this narrative, as almost everywhere else in 
 the Gospel. For the construction is not: 
 "Peter and the other disciple went forth"; 
 but, "Peter went forth, and the other dis- 
 
Ch. XX.] 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 395 
 
 4 So they rau both together: and tlio oilier disciple 
 did outruu I'eter, and came tirst to the sepulchre. 
 
 5 And he stooping down, and loolciny in, saw "the 
 linen clothes lying; yet went he not iu. 
 
 4 disciple, and they went toward the tomb. And they 
 ran both together: and the other disciple outran 
 
 5 I'eter, and came tirst to the toujli; and stooping and 
 looking in, he seeth the linen cloths lying; yet 
 
 ciple" (Rev..Ver.), the verb being singular, as 
 if the writer thought at first of Peter only. 
 "The other examples of tliis construction in 
 the Fourth Gospel tend to show that here John 
 intends to set forth Peter as the main person 
 in the narrative : thus the whole ground is cut 
 away from those who hold that the design of 
 this section is to bring 'the other disciple' into 
 peculiar prominence." — Schaff. Perhaps the 
 words rendered, came to the sepulchre, 
 would be more exactly represented by were 
 coming toward the sepulchre, unless it would 
 be still better to say, were going toward the 
 sepulchre. For there appears to be no good 
 reason why the first verb (i^ri\e€v) should be 
 rendered "went forth," and the second verb, 
 (ripxovTo) be rendered "were coming.'^ The 
 mental stand-point of the writer probably re- 
 mained the same in writing the whole verse. 
 
 4. So they ran both together. And, 
 rather than so, is the literal meaning of the 
 connective. The verb ran, is in the imper- 
 fect tense — were running. John recalls the 
 scene perfectly and pictures it to our minds. 
 And the other disciple did outrun Peter, 
 and came first to the sepulchre. It has 
 generally been supposed that John was 
 younger than Peter, and that his greater fleet- 
 ness was due to his comparative youth. But, 
 two men of the same age would not commonly 
 be able to run with equal swiftness; and con- 
 siderable difference of age would be necessary 
 to account fur diflTerence of speed in running. 
 It seems to us, therefore, that we neither have, 
 nor need, any explanation of the fact that 
 John outran Peter. Probably, it was men- 
 tioned on account of what follows, and, espe- 
 cially because Peter, though later in reach- 
 ing the tomb, was first to enter it. 
 
 5. And he stooping down, and looking 
 in. The reader will observe that the words, 
 and looking in, are italicised in the Common 
 Version, to show that there is nothing answer- 
 ing to them in the original text. On the other 
 hand, these words appear in the Revised 
 "Version as a part of the proper translation. 
 Which, then, is more faithful to the original, 
 the Common Version, or the Revised? The 
 
 answer will illustrate a diflBculty often met 
 by tninslators. Tlie single participle of the 
 Greek text (irapaKv\^a.<;), signifies, in classic wri- 
 ters, according to Liddell and Scott: 1. ''To 
 stoop sideways ; 2. To stoop for the purpose 
 of looking at." In the New Testament, ac- 
 cording to Grimm, it signifies ''to bend towards 
 an object in order to behold it; to look at, with 
 head inclined, to look at, with body inclined," 
 that is, stooping or bending towards an object 
 for the purpose of inspecting it. In the one 
 participle, then, we have tiie two ideas of 
 stooping towards and looking at, distinctly, 
 though not separately, expressed; and noth- 
 ing is really added to the sense of the original 
 by translating, with the Revised Version, 
 stooping and looking in. At tlie same time, it 
 is evident that the words may be wholly 
 omitted in translating, without obscuring the 
 thought, because the looking is presupposed 
 by the next words: saw the linen 
 clothes lying. Cloths is preferable to 
 clothes; for the reference is to the bandages 
 in which the body was wrapped, and not to 
 any articles of raiment. Yet went he not 
 in. Language perfectly characteristic of this 
 Evangelist: certainly not the language of 
 egotism, but rather of vivid recollection. If 
 "the other disciple," is the writer, and he re- 
 members that he outran Peter, coming first to 
 the sepulchre, he also remembers that he only 
 ventured to stoop down and look into the sep- 
 ulchre. Why he paused just there, and 
 allowed his companion to go before him in the 
 more thorough examination of the vacant 
 tomb, he does not intimate. We may rea- 
 sonably conjecture that lie was arrested for the 
 time by a feeling of awe and reverence at the 
 mystery which was opening itself slowly to 
 his mind. Perhaps he felt somewhat as Closes 
 did when he heard the voice out of the flames: 
 "Put oflP thy shoes from oflf" thy feet, for the 
 place whereon thou standest is holy ground." 
 (Kx. 3: 5.) But John simply describes the events 
 as they occurred. We cannot see in this nar- 
 rative any, even the slightest, trace of rivalry 
 between himself and Peter, or of an^", even 
 the slightest desire to exalt himself. He is in- 
 
396 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 [Ch. XX. 
 
 6 Then coiueth Simon Peter following him, and went 
 into the sepulchre, and seetli the linen clothes lie, 
 
 7 And "the napkin, that was about his head, not 
 lying with the linen clothes, but wrapped together in a 
 place by itself. 
 
 8 Then went in also that other disciple, which came 
 first to the sepulchre, and he saw, and believed. 
 
 9 For as yet they knew not the 'scripture, that he 
 must rise again Irom the dead. 
 
 6 entered he not in. Simon Peter therefore also 
 conieth, following him, and entered into the tomb; 
 
 7 and he beh-oldeth the linen cloths lying, and the 
 napkin, that was upon his head, not lying with 
 the linen cloths, but rolled up in a place by it- 
 
 8 self. Then entered in therefore the other disciple 
 also, who came tirst to the tomb, and he saw, 
 
 9 and believed. For as yet they knew not the 
 scripture, that he must rise again from the dead. 
 
 ach. 11: 51 b Ps. 16: 10; Acts 2: 25-31 ; 13: U, 35. 
 
 tent upon one thing — that is, upon showing, by 
 the most certain proofs, that Jesus rose from 
 the dead. 
 
 6, 7. Then cometh Simon Peter, etc. 
 The Revised Version is, in some respects, an 
 improvement of the Common Version : Simon 
 Peter therefore also cometh, following him, 
 and entered into the tomb. Fearless and uii- 
 liesitating, Peter, observing the tomb to be 
 ojjen, entered into it without a moment's de- 
 lay, prepared to scrutinize everything there, 
 and learn the correctness or incorrectness of 
 Mary's report. And seeth the linen clothes 
 {clotli,s)\ie. Evidently the same do^/ts- which 
 John had seen, looking into the sepulchre. 
 But the verb used is not the same. To de- 
 scribe his own sight of the cloths, John uses 
 a verb (/SAeVet), which denotes simple sight as 
 distinguished from intent regard; but in de- 
 scribing Peter's sight of them, he employs a 
 verb (Sewpei), which signifies a more earnest 
 observant gaze. The change of word seems 
 to have been intentional. Peter's survey of 
 the tomb was more searching and exact than 
 that of John. He was now, as ever in his best 
 moments, the prompt, keen-sighted, practical 
 man, suffering nothing which had any bear- 
 ing on the removal of Jesus from the tomb to 
 escape his notice; while the mind of John 
 was, perhaps, already rising to higher and 
 more spiritual questions. At an3' rate, he 
 gives a certain precedence to the scrutiny of 
 the place by Peter, as if it were more inten- 
 tional and thorough than his own. Accord- 
 ingly, Peter beholds not only the cloths lying, 
 but also the napkin that Avas about his 
 head, not lying with the linen clothes 
 (cloths), but wrapped together in a place 
 by itself. "There were no traces of haste. 
 The deserted tomb bore the marks of perfect 
 calm. The grave-clothes had been carefully 
 removed, which would be a work of time and 
 difficulty, and laid in two separate places. It 
 was clear, therefore, that the body had not 
 been stolen by enemies; it was scarcely' less 
 
 clear that it had not been taken away by 
 friends."— W'es^co«. For why should either 
 enemies or friends remove the winding-sheets 
 from the body, or roll together the cloth upon 
 the head and lay it in a phtce by itself? 
 
 8. Then went in also that other dis- 
 ciple. Therefore should be inserted, as in the 
 Revised Version ; for the act of John in enter- 
 ing the tomb, was due to the example and 
 influence of Peter. Dr. Bushnell made tliis 
 verse the text of a beautiful sermon on the 
 power of unconscious influence. Peter said 
 nothing to John, probably thought nothing 
 about influencing him ; yet by his example he 
 led John to enter the tomb, and observe with 
 himself all the particulars which, sixty 3'ears 
 afterwards, that disciple would have occasion 
 to relate. Which came first to the sepul- 
 chre : and might, therefore, have entered it 
 first, thougli, for some reason, he failed to do 
 so — a failure which may possibly have been 
 tliought of by him as a neglect of duty, or of 
 privilege, especially when remembered in 
 connection with Peter's action, to the influ- 
 ence of which he had i)r()|ierly ^Melded. And 
 he saw and believed. Believed, that is to 
 say, in the resurrection of Christ as an ac- 
 compiished foct; for this interpretation is 
 required by the next verse. Were it not for 
 the context, and especially for that verse, it 
 would be natural, with many of the best in- 
 terpreters, to give the word believed a 
 broader and more spiritual sense, making it 
 signify, after the manner of John, a special 
 accession to his faith in Jesus as the Son of 
 God, and the Saviour of mankind. But, 
 while this maj' be involved as a consequence 
 in the believing here spoken of, it is not 
 directly specified. Probaby Peter did not j-et 
 believe, or at least, express his belief 
 
 9. For as yet they knew not the scrip- 
 ture, that he must rise again from the 
 dead. John was convinced by what he satr, 
 that his Master had risen from the dead, and 
 not by the testimony of Scripture; for 
 
Ch. XX.] 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 397 
 
 10 Then the disciples went away again unto their 
 own home. 
 
 11 "But Mary stood without at the sepulchre weep- 
 ing: and as she wept, she stooped <lowu,aitd luoked into 
 the sepulchre, 
 
 12 And seeth two angels in white sitting, the one at 
 the head, and the other at the feet, where the body of 
 Jesus had lain. 
 
 10 So the disciples went away again unto their own 
 home. 
 
 11 But Mary was standing without at the tomb 
 weeping: so, as she wept, she st<joped and looked 
 
 12 into the toiub; and slie beholdeth two angel.s in 
 white sitting, one at the head, and one at the feet, 
 
 a Mark 16 : 5. 
 
 neither he, nor the rest of the disciples, yet 
 knew that he must rise again. By the scrip- 
 ture, is probiibly meant some one passage of 
 the Old Testament, which was understood by 
 the Evangelist to predict the resurrection of 
 the Messiah. That passage may nave been 
 the one to which Peter appealed on the Day 
 of Pentecost (Acts 2: 27), that is, the tenth verse 
 of the sixteenth Psalm: "For thou wilt not 
 leave my soul to Sheol; neither wilt thou 
 suffer thine Holy One to see corruption." 
 (Rev. Ver. ) The event was needed to inter- 
 pret the prophecy. And to this day the same 
 is true. The predictions of Scripture are best 
 understood in the light of their accomplish- 
 ment. 
 
 10. Then the disciples, (or, the disciples 
 therefore), went away again. They had 
 seen all that remained in the tomb, with care- 
 ful observation. There was no more to be 
 learned respecting their Lord in that place; 
 therefore, they returned to their home in the 
 city; but whether in silence, each one medi- 
 tating on what he had seen, or in subdued 
 conversation, John expressing his belief in 
 the Lord's resurrection, and Peter frankly 
 avowing the doubts which still lingered in his 
 mind, we know not. They had seen no vision 
 of angels. John needed none, and before the 
 evening hour Peter was to see the Saviour 
 himself. Surely their hearts burned within 
 them by the way, whether thoy walked in 
 silence or uttered freely their rising hopes. 
 
 11-18. Jesus Appears to Mary Mag- 
 dalene. 
 
 11. But Mary stood without at the 
 sepulchre, weeping. Was standing, is a 
 better rendering of the verb than stood. It 
 appears that Peter and John did not tarry 
 long in the tomb. A careful survey of the 
 place cannot have occupied many minutes, 
 and when that was accomplished they would 
 naturally hasten away to their friends with a 
 report of what they had seen. Meanwhile, 
 Mary Magdalene was returning to the tomb, 
 having been unable to keep pace with them 
 
 as they ran thither out of the city. Whether 
 she arrived before their examination was 
 finished, is uncertain; but when the Evan- 
 gelist brings her into his narrative again she 
 had already come back to the sepulche, and 
 was standing without the same, weeping. 
 Probably the two disciples had gone into the 
 city without meeting her; certainly John had 
 not told her of his belief in the resurrection 
 of their divine Friend, for her impressions 
 were still the same as when she said to them 
 (ver.2)j "they have taken away the Lord out 
 of the sepulchre, and we know not where they 
 have laid him." And as she wept, she 
 stooped down, and looked into the 
 sepulchre. On the expression stooped 
 down and looked, see comment on ver. 5; 
 for the verb in this place is the same as 
 the participle in that, (here, napiKvtpev, there, 
 
 7rapaicv>jja<;). 
 
 12. And seeth two angels in white sit- 
 ting. Better: And she beholdeth, etc. For 
 while the Greek verb here used (Seiapei, com- 
 pare note on ver. 6) does not commonlj' 
 signify a purely mental act, independent of 
 the senses, it does appear to denote a seeing 
 in which the mind of the person who sees 
 is consciously and purposely engaged — a 
 directed and appreciative vision; it is, there- 
 fore, represented in the Revised Vr^rsion by 
 the English word, beholdeth. In tvhite — i. e., 
 garments. Luke saj's, that "two men stood 
 by them" — i. e., by the women who first en- 
 tered thetomb — "in shining garments" (2* = *), 
 and, doubtless, those "two men" were identi- 
 cal with the "two angels," whom now, at a 
 later morning hour, Mary Magdalene behold- 
 eth; for the form in which angels were mani- 
 fested aforetime was generally human. The 
 one at the head, and the other at the 
 feet, where the body of Jesus had lain. 
 More literally, one at the head, and one at 
 the feet. Not onlj' are the sitting posture and 
 the shining raiment mentioned, but the exact 
 position of the two angels is also carefully 
 stated, after the manner of this Evangelist. 
 
398 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 [Ch. XX. 
 
 13 And they say unto her, Woman, why weepest 
 thou? She saith unto them, Because they liave taken 
 away my Lord, and 1 know not where they have laid 
 biui. 
 
 14 "And when she had thus said, she turned herself 
 back, and saw Jesus standing, and 'knew not that it 
 was Jesus. 
 
 15 Jesus saith unto her, Woman, why weepest thou? 
 whom seekest thou? She, supposing him to be the gar- 
 dener, saith unto him. Sir, if thou have borne hiiu 
 hence, tell me where thou hast laid him, and I will take 
 him away. 
 
 13 where the body of Jesus had lain. And they say 
 unto her. Woman, why weepest thou? She saith 
 unto them. Because they have taken away my 
 Lord, and I know not where they have laid him. 
 
 14 When she had thus said, slie turned herself back, 
 and beholdeth Jesus standing, and knew not that 
 
 15 it was Jesus. Jesus saith unto her. Woman, why 
 weepest thou? whom seekest thou? She, supposing 
 him to be the gardener, saith unto him. Sir, if thou 
 hast borne him hence, tell me where thou hast laid 
 
 a Matt. 'J8: 9; Mark 16: » h Luke 21 : 15, 31; ch. 21 : 4. 
 
 13. The angels first speak: Woman, why 
 weepest thou ? Their question being asked, 
 as so many others arc, not for the sake of 
 gaining information, but to secure a definite 
 avowal of her sorrow, that would render their 
 testimony more natural and less abrupt to 
 her mind. For it is scarcely supposable they 
 were in any doubt as to the occasion of her 
 weeping. Her answer shows that she had no 
 idea of what had really taken place. Her 
 thoughts were not yet moving in the direction 
 of truth. Because they have taken away 
 my Lord, and I knoAV not where they 
 have laid him. It is almost the same lan- 
 guage which she used to Peter and John, 
 though slightly more personal. And, bearing 
 in mind the ardor of her love to the Saviour, 
 who had delivered her from an awful and 
 mysterious aflHiction (Luke 8: 2), we can imagine 
 this language to be an expression of the one 
 thought that filled her heart. Had a hundred 
 persons questioned her, this would have been 
 her answer to them all. But her sorrow was 
 soon to vanish away before the light of a 
 great joj'. If not the firsts then certainlj' the 
 second appearance of the risen Christ was to 
 this grateful woman. Peter and John might 
 wait a little longer, but Jesus showed himself 
 very soon after his resurrection to this de- 
 voted and weeping follower. 
 
 14. And when she had thus said, she 
 turned herself back. The more important 
 early manuscripts and versions have no and 
 at the beginning of this verse, but read 
 simply: When she had thus said, etc. The 
 mind of Mary was so completely' filled with 
 the idea of her Lord's removal to some un- 
 known place by human hands, that the spec- 
 tacle of two angels clothed in white seems 
 not to have riveted her attention for any 
 length of time. Yet, it is possible that the 
 angels perceived the presence of Jesus with- 
 out, and paused, before giving their response, 
 
 to see what he would do. It is possible, too, 
 that Mary heard the st)und of his footsteps, 
 and rose from her stooping posture to see who 
 might be drawing near. Nay, it is possible 
 that the very question which the angels asked, 
 led Mary to believe them ignorant of the one 
 thing which she longed to kn;;w. At any 
 rate, without waiting for their response, she 
 turned herself back, and saw (or, behold- 
 eth) Jesus standing. Here again the verb 
 is beholdeth, not seeth. It was not a merely 
 casual glance that she gave her risen Lord, 
 but an observant look which sought to read 
 the countenance of the man who stood near, 
 with a view to learning whether he was likely 
 to know and make known the place to which 
 the body of Jesus had been remo\'ed. And 
 knew not that it was Jesus. Her look 
 must have been earnest enough to recognize 
 the Lord, if her soul had not been intent on 
 learning one thing — the place to which his 
 body had been carried, or, it her eyes had not 
 been suffused with tears. It is unnecessary to 
 suppose that he appeared to her in "'another 
 form" (Marki6:i2j, or, that her "eyes were 
 holden that she should not know him." (Luke 
 24:16.) And, as the causes of non-recognition 
 were entirely natural, so likewise were the 
 means emploj'ed to secure recognition. As 
 none but the clearest evidence was fitted to 
 dispel the prepossession which controlled her 
 mind, that evidence was graciously furnished 
 for her sake, and for ours; and we can trace 
 its operation without difficult}'. 
 
 15. Jesus saith unto her. Woman, why 
 Aveepest thou ? whom seekest thou? The 
 first qiiestion is identical with that which the 
 angels asked (ver. 1.3), and maj' be explained in 
 the same way. For Mary was still weeping, 
 and even human sympathy would fain do 
 something to remove the cause of that weep- 
 ing. But to do this in a natural manner, the 
 cause must first be revealed by the sufferer. 
 
Ch. XX.] 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 399 
 
 16 Jesus saith unto her, Mary. She turned herself, 1 16 hiiu, and I will take him awav. .lesus saith unto 
 and saith unto hiiu, Kabboni; which is to say, Master. hei-, Mary. She turned liei stir," and saith unto hiiu 
 
 I in Hebrew, Kabboni; whicli is to say, 'Master. 
 
 1 Oi-, Teacher. 
 
 But the second question implies a certain de- 
 gree of knowledge as to that cause. Yet, no 
 more knowledge tium a man belonging to tlie 
 place and aware of the removal of the body 
 from the tomb, might well be supposed to 
 have in the circumstances. A weeping wo- 
 man, a ravished tomb, and a friendly man 
 seeing the former and cognizant of the latter, 
 are all that is needed to account for this ques- 
 tion. Jesus, indeed, knew all; but his ques- 
 tion need not have suggested to Mary a 
 knowledge on his part bej'ond that which a 
 gardener could have possessed. But if there 
 was nothing in the tenor of this question to 
 reveal the person of Jesus to Mary, is it not 
 at least \ery surprising that she did not recog- 
 nize his voice as soon as heard? For, in 
 every human voice there is some peculiarity 
 of tone or timbre, of accent or cadence; and 
 it is commonly imagined that the utterance of 
 Jesus was singularly perfect, and, therefore, 
 easily distinguishable from that of other men. 
 True ; but there is no testimony in support of 
 the latter hypothesis; and, unless it be cor- 
 rect, we are not justified in affirming that the 
 asking of the two brief questions recorded bj' 
 John, if done in a kindly, unemphatic man- 
 ner, would bring out perceptibly any peculiar 
 quality of his voice. Besides, we are to bear 
 in mind that Mary did not suppose it possible 
 for Jesus to be standing before her. She was 
 searching for his lifeless body, and was as 
 utterly unprepared as any human being could 
 have been to recognize his presence among 
 the living. So she did not catch the tone of 
 his voice; but, supposing him to be the 
 gardener, saith unto him, Sir, if thou 
 have borne him hence, tell me Avhere 
 thou hast laid him, and I will take him 
 away. The pronoun thou is slightly em- 
 phatic, probably in contrast with her prevail- 
 ing thought that he had been removed by 
 enemies. The questions of the man whom 
 she conjectures to be the gardener were 
 friendly, and it occurs to her that, for sotne 
 cause, he may have taken away the body, 
 and, if so, that he might consent to give it up 
 to the disciples. "Mary makes no answer to 
 the inquiry. Her heart is so full of the Per- 
 
 son to whom it referred that she assumes he 
 is known to her questioner. . . . The trait is 
 one of those direct reflections of life which 
 mark St. John's Gospel." — Wcstcott. 
 
 16. Jesus saith unto her, Mary. We 
 assume that Jesus threw into his utterance of 
 this name all that had been most characteristic 
 of his tone and accent in tbepast: that he 
 pronounced it with a holy tenderness and 
 authi)rity possible to no other person. West- 
 C(jtt supposes that there must have been a 
 short pause between her word- to him and his 
 utterance of her name, during which she had 
 resumed her former position, and become lost 
 in grief. But it is quite unnecessary to sup- 
 pose that she had become "lost in her grief 
 again." It was enough that she had failed to 
 recognize him. Seeing this, Jesus resorted to 
 the most natural and effective way of enabling 
 her to do this. He put into the clear and deep 
 utterance of her name all that was peculiar 
 and inimitable in his manner of speaking it. 
 And the effect was instantaneous; the recog- 
 nition perfect. Never was there a more sud- 
 den and complete revulsion of feeling. Her 
 sorrow was changed into joy: she turned 
 herself, and saith unto him {in the Hebrew 
 tongar.)"Rah\)on\\ which is to say, Mas- 
 ter. Farrar suggests that, while making her 
 appeal to the supposed gardener (ver. 15), "she 
 had turned her head aside, perhaps, that she 
 might hide her streaming tears," and that 
 now, recognizing Jesus by his voice, she turns 
 her face towards him again, every line of sad- 
 ness passing, as it were, into light and joy. 
 The word Rabboni, is explained by John 
 himself as equivalent to Master or Teacher. 
 Doubtless, it was uttered with the utmost 
 reverence and love; but expositors call atten- 
 tion to the circumstance that this appears to 
 have been the last time he was addressed or 
 denominated by any one of his disciples, 
 Master. From the hour of his resurrection 
 onward, the divine element of his being filled 
 a larger place in their souls, and they spoke 
 of him as their Lord, or the Son of God, etc. 
 In the Hebrew tongue, is accepted by the 
 highest critical authorities, as a part of the 
 original text, and the fact that Mary made 
 
400 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 [Cn. XX. 
 
 17 Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not 
 yet ascended to my Father: but go to »my brethren, 
 and say unto them, 'I ascend unto my Father, and 
 your Father; and to "my God, and your God. 
 
 17 Jesus saith to her, 'Touch me not; for I am 
 not yet ascended unto the Father: but go unto 
 my brethren, and say to them, I ascend unto 
 my Father, and your Father, and my God and 
 
 aPs. 22 : 22; Miitt. 28: 10; Boju. 8: 29; Heb. 2 : 11 6 ch. 16: iS c Eph. 1 : 17. 1 Or, Takenothold on me. 
 
 use of the Aramaic language at such a mo- 
 ment, is, perhaps, an evidence that it was 
 commonly employed by Jesus and his disci- 
 ples in their familiar intercourse. (Comp. 
 Mark 10: 51— Kev. Ver.-; Acts 22: 2; 26: 14.) 
 17. Touch me not : for I am not yet 
 ascended unto my (Rev. Ver. the) Father: 
 but go to my brethren, and say unto 
 them, I ascend unto my Father, and 
 your Father, and to (Rev. Ver. omits to) 
 my God and your God. It is not an easy 
 matter to ascertain the precise thought of this 
 verse. Grimm explains it thus: "Do not 
 seek to learn by touching me, whether I am 
 even now clothed with a body : there is no 
 need of this search, for I have not yet ascended 
 to the Father" — and am, therefore, still in the 
 flesh — "but go unto my brethren," etc. This 
 view of the passage is drawn out very satis- 
 factorilj' by Dr. Hackett, thus : "It should be 
 observed that this imperative present form 
 {ixij Slittov) implies an incipient act either actu- 
 ally begun, or one on the point of being done, 
 as indicated by some look or gesture. Mury, 
 it may well be supposed, wa« in the same per- 
 plexed state of mind on the appearance of 
 Christ to her, which was evinced in so many 
 different ways by the other disciples after the 
 resurrection. She had already, it is true, ex- 
 claimed, in the ecstacy of her joy, ' Rabboni' ; 
 but she may not yet have been certain as to 
 the precise form or nature of the body in 
 which she beheld her Lord ... In this state 
 of uncertainty she extends her hand to assure 
 herself of the truth. She would procure for 
 herself, by the criterion of the sense of touch, 
 the conviction which the eye is unable to give 
 her. The Saviour knows her thoughts and 
 arrests the act. The act is unnecessary: his 
 words are a sufficient proof of what she would 
 know. He had 'not yet ascended to the 
 Father,' as she half believed, and conse- 
 quently has not the spiritual body which she 
 supposed he might possihlj' have . . . Her 
 case was like that of Thomas, and yet unlike 
 his; she wished, like him, to touch the object 
 of her vision, but, unlike him, was not 
 prompted by unbelief." 
 
 A second interpretation is defended by 
 Weiss, Westcott, and others. Dr. Weiss as- 
 sumes that "Mary indicated her wish tore- 
 new, by hand-pressure or something of the 
 kind, the close, human fellowship which she 
 had formerly had with him. But Jesus de- 
 clined this renewal of intimate human fel- 
 lowship on the ground that, though he had 
 not yet ascended to the Father, he was about 
 to do this. Hence, his appearing to his dis- 
 ciples could not have for its object a resump- 
 tion of his earlier human intercourse with his 
 own." Weiss refers the/or to the whole sen- 
 tence that follows, and especially to the mes- 
 sage which Mary was commanded to bear to 
 the disciples, "I ascend unto mj' Father and 
 3'our Father, and my God and your God." 
 In this case, as Westcott remarks, "the im- 
 minent, though not resdized, ascension of the 
 Lord would be regarded as forbidding the old 
 forms of earthly intercourse." But this wri- 
 ter refers the for to the tirst clause only — "I 
 am not yet ascended to the Father" — and says 
 that in "this case the ascension would be pre- 
 sented as the beginning and condition of a 
 new union . . . Mary substituted a knowl- 
 edge of the humanity of Christ for a knowl- 
 edge of his whole person . . . She thought 
 that she could now enjoy his restored Pres- 
 ence as she then apprehended it. She assumed 
 that the return to the old life exhausted the 
 extent of her Master's victory over death. 
 Therefore, in his reply, Christ said : 'Do not 
 cling to me, as if in that which falls under the 
 senses you can know me as I am ; for there is 
 yet something beyond the outward restoration 
 to earth which must be realized, before that 
 fellowship towards which you reach can be 
 established as abiding." Dr. Schaff says, 
 that "the meaning has been made more diffi- 
 cult by a want of sufficient attention to the 
 force of the words, ' Touch me not' ; for these 
 words do not express the touch of a moment 
 only, but a touch that continues for a time. 
 They are equivalent to 'Keep not thy touch 
 upon me,' 'Handle me not,' 'Cling not to 
 me.' Mary would have held her Lord fast 
 with the grasp of earthly affection and love. 
 
Ch. XX.] 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 401 
 
 18 "Mary Magdalene eaiue and told the disciples 
 that she had seen the Lord, and that he had spoken 
 these things unto her. 
 
 19 'Then the same day at evening, being the first day 
 of the week, when the doors were shut where the dis- 
 ciples were assembled for fear of the Jews, came .Jesus 
 and stood in the midst, and saith unto them. Peace be 
 uuto you. 
 
 18 your God. Mary Magdalene cometh and telleth 
 the disciples, I have seen the Lord; and how that 
 he had saiil these things unto her. 
 
 19 When iherclore it was evening, on that day, the 
 first dny of tlie week, and when the doors were shut 
 where the di.sciples were, for fear of the Jews, 
 Jesus came and stood in the midst, and saith unto 
 
 a Malt. 28: 10: Luke 24 : 10 b Mark 16: 14; Luke 24: 36; 1 Cor. 15: 5. 
 
 She needed to be taught that the season for 
 such bodily touching of the Word of Life was 
 past. But, as it passed, the disciples were not 
 to be left desolate : the season for another 
 touching — deeper, because spiritual — began. 
 Jesus would return to his Father, and would 
 send foi'th his Spirit to dwell with his dis- 
 ciples." 
 
 It has been considered an objection to the 
 former view, maintained by Grimm, Hackett, 
 and others, that Christ's treatment of Mary 
 differed from his treatment of Thomas; 
 but to this it is replied, that Mary only 
 doubted ; she did not disbelieve with Thomas, 
 and therefore she did not need the same evi- 
 dence as Thomas. It has also been objected 
 to the latter view, maintained by Weiss, 
 Westcott, Plumptre, SchafF, and others, that 
 Christ's treatment of Mary Magdalene dif- 
 fered from his treatment of the other women 
 (Matt. 28:9), who Were permitted to hold his feet; 
 but to this it maybe answered, that Mary's 
 longing for the visible Christ, as a human 
 Friend and Teacher, may have been stronger 
 than that of the other women, leading the 
 Saviour to deny her a privilege that was safely 
 granted to them. Besides, their act was evi- 
 dently one of lowly homage or worship, while 
 hers would have been distinctly one of pure, 
 but human affection. From all that is said of 
 Mary in the Gospels, we think it more likely 
 that she erred by undue devotion to the hu- 
 man personality of Jesus than by doubting 
 the reality of his resurrection body. For this 
 reason, we regard the latter interpretation as 
 more likely to be correct than the former. 
 It is worthy of notice that Jesus here speaks 
 of the disciples, for the first time, as his breth- 
 ren. Before his death he had called them 
 friends as well as servants, but now he directs 
 Mary to go to his "brethren." And in what 
 sense they were his brethren, appears by the 
 message which she is to deliver : I ascend unto 
 my Father and your Father., and my God and 
 your God. Thus, he pronounces them chil- 
 dren of his Father and his God. Yet, he dis- 
 
 2A 
 
 tinguishes his Sonship to God from theirs. 
 He does not say, " I am ascending, or about to 
 a.scend, unto our Father and our God," thus, 
 putting them in precisely the same relation 
 to the Father with himself, but he says, "My 
 Father and your Father, and my God and 
 your God," leaving room for a great differ- 
 ence between the nature and origin of his own 
 Sonship and theirs. (Comp. 1 John 3:1; 
 Gal. 3: 26, 27.) 
 
 18. In obedience to the Saviour's word, 
 Mary Magdalene came and told the dis- 
 ciples. A more exact rendering is found in 
 the Kevised Version, cometh and telleth, and, 
 a yet more literal translation in the Bible 
 Union Revision, Mary the Magdalene come.'i, 
 bringing word to the disciples. Davidson 
 gives the same translation. And Westcott 
 deems it .significant that the telling is ex- 
 pressed by a participle, and thus made to be a 
 mere accompainment of the coming — the prin- 
 cipal point in the writer's mind being the 
 promptness of Mary in leaving Jesus to go to 
 his disciples. That she had seen the 
 Lord. According to the critical editors, this 
 should be, / have seen the Lord — the Evan- 
 gelist recalling and repeating the very words 
 in which Mary testified to her having .seen the 
 Lord, but passing to the indirect style of nar- 
 ration, when referring to what had already 
 been recorded in the precise language of 
 Jesus. And (that) he had spoken these 
 things unto her: namely, the things re- 
 corded in ver. 17. Touch me not, etc. 
 
 19-23. Jesus' First Appearance to 
 His Disciples Assembled in a Closed 
 Room. 
 
 19. In conformity with his plan, John 
 omits some of Christ's appearances to his fol- 
 lowers. After appearing twice in the early 
 morning — once to a group of women, who 
 had been among his faithful disciples, and 
 once to Mary Magdalene, who had been for- 
 given much and therefore loved much — he 
 also appeared twice during the daj', once to 
 Simon Peter, as we learn from Luke 24; 34, 
 
402 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 [Ch. XX. 
 
 and 1 Cor. 15: 5, and again to two disciples on 
 their way to Emmaus — one of them, Cleopas. 
 (Luke 24: 13-35.) It would be natural to conjec- 
 ture that John omitted to describe Christ's 
 manifestation of himself to Peter, and later, 
 to the two disciples, because these three were 
 present at both the interviews of Jesus with 
 his disciples, described by him in the present 
 chapter; but there is really no good reason 
 why we should trouble ourselves about the 
 Evangelist's grounds for deciding to omit this 
 and insert that. The result of his work as a 
 whole is such as to justify the conclusion that 
 he was guided by the Spirit of Truth, accord- 
 ing to the promise of his Master, and that his 
 record is perfect for the ends which it was in- 
 tended to serve. Then the same day at 
 evening, etc. — or, as in Kevised Version, 
 When therefore it was evening, on that day, 
 the first of the week. By that day, John 
 points with emphasis to the day of Christ's 
 resurrection. It was in almost every respect 
 the day of days to those who had truly 
 believed in Jesus. The narrative of Luke 
 (24:29»q.) renders it probable that this appear- 
 ance of Jesus was late in the evening, though 
 not necessarily very late. It was "toward 
 evening, and the day" was "far spent" when 
 the two disciples sat down with Jesus to a. re- 
 past in Emmaus, a village about eight miles 
 from Jerusalem. He was made known to 
 them in the breaking of bread, and they rose 
 up that very hour and returned to Jerusalein. 
 When the doors were shut where the dis- 
 diples were assembled, for fear of the 
 Jews. The word assembled, is wanting to 
 the oldest manuscripts— (e. g., X A B D L a «, 
 and others). The doors were therefore shut 
 for fear of the Jews. This circumstance is 
 mentioned, not for the purpose of showing 
 the peril to which the disciples were exposed, 
 but for the purpose of giving the reader a 
 view of the supernatural manner in which 
 Jesus revealed himself to his own. A certain 
 "air of my.stery clothed his person and move- 
 ment? after his resurrection. No man knew 
 whence he came, or whither he went, or how 
 he lived. He seemed to hover over the path- 
 way of his disciples, visible or invisible at 
 will. His body was real, yet not subject to 
 the common laws of matter. With ' new 
 properties, po^vers, and attributes' {EUicott),\t 
 was a perfect servant of the spirit. Nowhere 
 
 do the Evangelists hint at any reason for this 
 change in the bearing of Christ after his 
 resurrection, but with nice agreement do all 
 their accounts reveal the change itself." (See 
 the author's work on the " Miracles of Christ 
 as Attested by the Evangelists," p. 46). In 
 other words, the Evangelists simply state the 
 facts — facts which they knew, and of which 
 they, and they alone, in some cases, could 
 bear witness; and it seems to us that their wit- 
 ness is singularly harmonious as to the extra- 
 ordinary' character of the Lord's resurrection 
 life. Came Jesus and stood in the midst. 
 No one could tell how he came. "All that 
 is set before us is, that he was not bound by 
 the present conditions of material existence 
 which we observe." — {Westcott.) The com- 
 ment of AVeiss is more positive, though look- 
 ing in the same direction : " It is not indeed 
 said that he came through the closed doors, as 
 many Fathers, Calvin, and others, interpret 
 it (comp. agiiinst this Hcngstenberg), but the 
 representation is not therefore obscure." — (De 
 Wette.) The current representation, that the 
 bodily nature of Jesus was only on the way 
 to glorification, and, therefore, although yet 
 material, was not bound to the limitations of 
 space {Meyer) — for which view reference is 
 made to his walking on the sea (Godet, and 
 perhaps Hcngstenberg and Luthardt) — cannot 
 be carried through. From his resurrection, 
 onward, Christ was in his glorified body, as 
 this coming, in spite of closed doors, shows 
 (comp. Luke 24: 31, 36); and if he appears to 
 the disciples in a bodj' apprehensible bj' the 
 senses (ver. 20), this takes place for the very 
 purpose of making them certain of his having 
 a bodily nature, and so of bis resurrection." 
 For the opposite view of Christ's resurrection 
 bodj', see an able article in the Bib. Sac. for 
 May, 1845, by Dr. Edward Kobinson. That 
 his body was real, material, having flesh and 
 bones, as before the crucifixion, we are fully 
 assured; but whether such a bodj' may not 
 be at the same time a perfect organ of the 
 spirit, and subject to its will to a degree 
 almost incredible before it is experienced, is 
 a question not yet answered to the satisfaction 
 of all. "We are inclined to think it may be 
 such an organ, and to believe, though not 
 with absolute confidence, that the body of 
 Jesus was changed when he first left the 
 I tomb, that it was raised incorruptible (icor. is: 
 
Ch. XX] 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 403 
 
 20 And when he had so said, he shewed unto them 
 Ws hands and his side. "Then were the disciples glad, 
 when they saw tlie Lord. 
 
 21 Then said Jesus to theui again, Peace be unto you : 
 ' (W my Father hath sent me, even so send 1 you. 
 
 20 them, Peace he unto you. And when he bad said 
 this, lie sliewed unto them his hands and liis side. 
 The disciples therefore were glad, when they 
 
 21 saw the Lord. Jesus lln^retbre said to them again, 
 Peace be unto you: as the Father hath sent me, 
 
 och. 16: 22.... 6 Matt. 28: 18: ch. 17: 18, 19; 2 Tim. 2 : 2; Heb. 3:1. 
 
 20,44,52.) Peace be unto you. This was, 
 and is, a customary form of salutation. But 
 it was peculiarly appropriate at tliis moment. 
 All that the words literally mean was in 
 them as they fell from the lips of Jesus. 
 Fearful of being misled in so vital a matter, 
 astonished at what they had heard from the 
 women and from Peter, perplexed by the re- 
 port which the two disciples were bringing 
 from Einmaus, anxious, agitated, and all but 
 four of them still despondent, distrustful — into 
 what breathless silence and awe must they 
 have been hushed, as they saw One like unto 
 the Son of man taking his place visibly and 
 serenely in the midst of tiiem! And with 
 what feelings of wonder and joy must they 
 have heard the voice of him who spake as 
 never man spake, in the salutation, Peace be 
 unto you ! It was a word never to be forgot- 
 ten, full of love and authority; a word from 
 heaven as trulj' as from earth. Now, if never 
 before, they must have felt that the God-man 
 was with them. 
 
 20. And when he had so said (or, said 
 this) he shewed unto them his hands and 
 his side. To convince them beyond the 
 reach of doubt that he was with them alive, 
 in the very body that had been nailed to the 
 cross and pierced with the soldier's spear. 
 "Literall3'," says "Westcott, "according to 
 the most ancient text, both his hands and his 
 side"; but this is surely too strong a state- 
 ment. The only authority for both, cited by 
 Tischendorf, is that of A B and the Peshito, 
 while the other uncials and early versions 
 omit this word. The difference is unimport- 
 ant, except as a matter of emphasis; but that 
 is no reason why the preponderance of tes- 
 timony should be overruled in favor of a 
 pleasing text. Then, (or, ^Ae7'e/b?'e) were the 
 disciples glad when they saw the Lord. 
 This testimony agrees with that of Luke, 
 though the latter states that, at first, "they be- 
 lieved not for joy." (24: 4i.) He mentions a 
 number of particulars not referred to by 
 John. Thus, at the Saviour's salutation, 
 "they were terrified and affrighted, and sup- 
 
 posed that they had seen a spirit" (ver. 37) — 
 this being true of some in the room. "And 
 he said unto them, Why are ye troubled? 
 And why do thoughts ari.se in your hearts? 
 Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I 
 myself: handle me and see ; for a spirit hath 
 not flesh and bones, as ye see me have. And 
 when he had thus spoken, he shewed them 
 his hands and his feet. And while they yet 
 believed not for joy, and wondered, he said 
 unto them. Have ye here any meat? And 
 they gave him a piece of a broiled fish, and of 
 an honeycomb. And he took it, and did eat 
 before them." Without enumerating all 
 these items of evidence, so instructive to 
 Luke, John relates a part of them, sufficient 
 for his purpose, and then passes on to acts 
 and words of profound spiritual significance, 
 which hehad treasured upin his heart through 
 a long life of devotion to his Lord. 
 
 21. There is no indication of haste or con- 
 fusion in the action of Jesus. Every move- 
 ment and word is orderly, deliberate, re-assur- 
 ing, full of wisdom and love and authority. 
 Not until he has convinced them of his iden- 
 tity in body and spirit with their crucified 
 Master, not until their wonder and joy have 
 settled down into a fixed and rational belief, 
 founded on indubitable proof, that he is their 
 Lord— victorious over death and the grave- 
 did he renew his benediction and pronounce 
 them his missionaries and representatives to 
 mankind. Then said Jesus to them 
 again, Peace be unto you : as my Father 
 hath sent me, even so send I you. There- 
 fore, instead of then ; for the disciples were 
 now prepared for that which the Evangelist 
 relates. By the solemn renewal of the bene- 
 diction with which he first greeted them he 
 prepares them for the words and act which 
 were to follow. The words: As my Father 
 hath sent me, even so send I you, were not 
 absolutely new, though they may have been 
 unexpected. For, in his high priestly prayer 
 (17:18) Jesus had used the same language with 
 respect to his disciples, in addressing the 
 Father, which he now uses in speaking to 
 
404 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 [Ch. XX. 
 
 22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them, 
 and saith unto theiu, Receive ye the Holy Ghost: 
 
 23 " Whosesoever sins ye remit, they are remitted 
 unto theiu ; and whosesoever sins ye retain, they are 
 retained. 
 
 22 even so send I you. And when he had said this, 
 he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Ke- 
 
 23 ceive ye the Holy Spirit : whose soever sins ye 
 forgive, they are I'oregiven unto them ; whose soever 
 sins ye retain, they are retained. 
 
 I Matt. 16 : 19 ; 18 : 18. 
 
 them. Only one word, translated seiit, is 
 found in both clauses of 17: 18, while two 
 words of nearly the same meaning are used 
 in this verse {ivoariWm^ Trinirm). Schaff argues 
 tliat there is a slight distinction between the 
 two words, the former word directing atten- 
 tion to the sending as a commission, the latter 
 emphasising it as a mission. " When the firstis 
 used, our thoughts turn to a special embassy, 
 and special instructions which the ambassador 
 receives; the second brings into view rather 
 the authority of the sender and the obedience 
 of the sent." But the use of the same word 
 in both clauses in 17: 18, renders it doubtful 
 whether any distinction is intended here. 
 The passages differ in one respect, it is true; 
 fjr there the Saviour declared what he had 
 dene virtually, rather than in fact and form; 
 while here the sending is direct and complete 
 in form, though the hour of action for the 
 disciples has not yet fully come. And how 
 greatly does the comparison, even so, exalt 
 their mission ! How distinctly does the 
 clause, even so I send you, imply the di- 
 vine authority of Jesus! He is to be obeyed 
 as Head over all to the church. And if we 
 follow out the analogy between the mission of 
 .Tesus and that of his disciples, to its utmost 
 limit, both will be seen to involve self-denial 
 and suffering, as well as triumph and glorj% a 
 cross here, and a crown hereafter. 
 
 22. But to be the sent of the Anointed One, 
 they would need themselves to be anointed ; to 
 be heralds of spiritual truth, they would need 
 illumination by the Spirit of truth. "We are 
 therefore prepared for the further record of 
 John. And when he had said this, he 
 breathed on them, and saith unto them. 
 Receive ye the Holy Ghost. The act of 
 breathing upon them was intended to sym- 
 bolize the fact that the Holy Spirit was, or 
 was to be, imparted to them by him, just as 
 thegivingof life to man at first was represented 
 by the act of God, when he "breathed into 
 his nostrils the breath of life." (Gen. 2: 7.) The 
 symbolism of the act, teaches also that the 
 Holy Spirit abides in Jesus, as truly as in the 
 Father. But, whether the words, "Holy 
 
 Spirit," should have the article or not in this • 
 passage, is doubtful. There is no article in 
 the original text; but, Greek words that have 
 become, in effect, proper names, may take or 
 omit the article on grounds very difficult to 
 discover. (See Winer ^ 19, Thayer's Trans., 
 p. 119-122; Buttmann, § 124, b. p. 89.) If, 
 however, a distinction is made between Holy 
 Spirit, and the Holy Spirit, the former must 
 naturally signify the influence, and the latter, 
 the person of the Spirit. But we consider it 
 unsafe to rely upon such a distinction. 
 
 23. Whosesoever sins ye remit, they 
 are remitted unto them; and whose- 
 soever sins ye retain, they are retained. 
 The words and, and sins, in the last clause, 
 do not represent anj' thing expressed in the 
 original text, and may be omitted without 
 detriment to the sense. The Revised Version 
 reads : Whos^esoever sins ye forgive, they are 
 forgiven unto them ; whosesoever sins ye re- 
 tain, they are retained — supplying unneces- 
 sarily, the words "sins," in the second clause. 
 These words of Jesus seem to be very plain, 
 but thej' offer a serious diflScult^' to a consci- 
 entious student of the Bible. Taken in their 
 most literal sense, they signify that those ad- 
 dressed would be so enlightened by the Holy 
 Spirit as to read the hearts of men, and, acting 
 as judges in the kingdom of God, to forgive 
 or condemn with infallible wisdom those who 
 might appear before them— their decision be- 
 ing accepted in every case by the Lord as his 
 own decision. But there is very little in the 
 history of the Apostolic Church which favors 
 the view that any, even though apostles, were 
 accustomed to exercise this judicial function 
 over individuals. Only in a few instances, 
 and those of an extraordinary character, like 
 that of Ananias and Sapphira, or that of 
 Simon Magus, was such a decision pronounced. 
 The Acts of the Apostles and the Epistles of 
 Paul furnish clear evidence that unworthy 
 members were sometimes received into the 
 churches, notwithstanding the presence of 
 apostles or the possession of extraordinary 
 spiritual gifts by other members. But, may 
 not the Saviour refer to a fallible action of his 
 
Ch. XX.] 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 405 
 
 disciples, that would represent to a degree the 
 divine judgment as to individuals? Thus, 
 Alford writes: "The words, closely con- 
 sidered, amount to this: that with the gift 
 and real participation of the Holy Spirit, comes 
 the conviction, and, therefore, the knowl- 
 edge of sin, of righteousness, and judgment; 
 — and this knowledge becomes more perfect, 
 the more men are tilled 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 re- 
 pentance in otliers, and hence, by the Lord's 
 appointment, authorized to pronounce pardon 
 of sin and the contrarj'. The apostles had 
 this in an especial manner, and by the full in- 
 dwelling of the Spirit were enabled to discern 
 the hearts of men, and to give sentence on 
 that discernment. (See Acts 5: 1-11; 8: 21; 
 13: 9.; And this gift belongs to the church 
 in all ages ... in proportion as any disciple 
 shall have been filled with the Holy Spirit of 
 wisdom." Against this interpretation the fol- 
 lowing considerations may be raised : 1. That 
 the practice of giving a positive decision as 
 to the spiritual state of individuals, was infre- 
 quent with the apostles, and was apparently 
 due to some extraordinary illumination and 
 impulse, like that which led to the working 
 of miracles. 2. That any similar practice, 
 since the apostolic age, has generally been 
 associated with acts of fanaticism which soon 
 discredited it in the eyes of thoughtful Chris- 
 tians. 3. That even the Roman Catholic 
 priesthood virtually disclaims a knowledge of 
 human hearts, by conditioning the validity of 
 its remission of sins on the sincerity and peni- 
 tence of the person forgiven. Thus under- 
 stood, the Roman priesthood really does little 
 more than solemnly declare the conditions of 
 pardon, and the certainty of judgment if those 
 conditions are not fulfilled. 4. That this in- 
 terpretation represents Jesus as linking his 
 commission to the disciples, and his gift of the 
 Holy Spirit, not with their principal work — 
 the proclamation of the gospel and the per- 
 suading of men to receive it — but with a very 
 subordinate, and — may we not say? — unim- 
 portant part of their work, that of pronounc- 
 ing judgment on characters formed. Thus 
 interpreted, the drift of this promise is entirely 
 different from that of the prediction in 16: 7-15, 
 and entirely inconsistent with the best life of 
 
 the church for eighteen centuries. For these 
 reasons we do not believe that Jesus referred, 
 in these words, to any formal judicial action of 
 his disciples. To what then did he refer? To 
 the work of his disciples as qualified by the 
 Holy Spirit to declare without error the con- 
 ditions of forgiveness or condemnation under 
 the reign of Christ. Men were to learn from 
 their lips the heaven-appointed terms of life 
 and death. "What our Lord here commits to 
 his disciples, to his church, is the right au- 
 thoritatively to declare, in his name, that there 
 is forgiveness for man's sins, and on what con- 
 ditions he will be forgiven." — Schaff. The 
 language of Watkins really amounts to the 
 same thing. "Sent, as he was sent, they are 
 not sent to condemn the world, but that the 
 world through him might be saved; but in 
 their work, as in his, men are condemned be- 
 cause the light is come into the world, and 
 men love darkness rather than light. The 
 ultimate principles upon which this power 
 rests, are those stated above — the being sent by 
 Christ, and the reception of the Holy Ghost. 
 God has promised forgiveness wherever there 
 is repentance ; he has not promised repentance 
 wherever there is sin. It results from every 
 declaration of forgiveness made in the name 
 of the Father, through Jesus Christ, that the 
 hearts which, in penitence ac(;ept it, receive 
 remission of their sins, and that the hardness 
 of the hearts which willfully reject it is by 
 their rejection increased, and the very words 
 by which their sins would be remitted become 
 the words by which they are retained." 
 
 Many commentators suppose that "the dis- 
 ciples,'" referred to in this paragraph, were 
 not the apostles, but the followers of Jesus 
 then in Jerusalem, or at least, a considerable 
 portion of them. This seems to them a natu- 
 ral inference from the fact that two who were 
 not of the Eleven, were certainly admitted, 
 namely, Cleopas and his companion, to whom 
 the Lord had made himself known in 
 Emmaus. But it is more probable that John 
 had in mind the apostles, even though a few 
 others were present; for he speaks of them as 
 "the disciples," and such were the apostles in 
 a pre-eminent sense and by the prevailing use 
 of the expression in the Gospels; moreover, 
 they, beyond all others, might deem it neces- 
 sary to meet with closed doors for fear of the 
 Jews; and, lastly, the words addressed to 
 
406 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 [Ch. XX. 
 
 24 But Thomas, one of the twelve, "called Didymus, 
 was not with them when Jesus came. 
 
 2i The other disciples therefore said unto him, We 
 have seen the Lord. But he said unto them, Except I 
 shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put 
 my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my 
 baud into his side, I will not believe. 
 
 •i6 And alter eight days again his disciples were 
 within, and Thomas with them: then came Jesus, the 
 doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, 
 Peace be unto you. 
 
 25 But Thomas, one of the twelve, called iDidy- 
 
 25 mus, was not with them when Jesus came. The 
 other disciples therefore said unto him, We have 
 seen the Lord. But he said unto them, Except I 
 rhall see in his bands the print of the nails, and 
 put my finger into the print of the nails, and put 
 my band into bis side, I will not believe. 
 
 26 And after eight days again his disciples were 
 within, and Thomas with them. Jesus cometh, the 
 doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said. 
 
 I oh. 11 : IG. 1 That is, Twine. 
 
 them in ver. 21-23, suggest the idea of in- 
 spired teachers, rather than of ordinary Chris- 
 tians. Perhaps we ought to add, that the 
 only one whose absence is mentioned was an 
 apostle. 
 
 24-29. Second Appearance of Jesus 
 TO THE Assembled Disciples. 
 
 24. But Thomas, one of the twelve, 
 called Didymus, was not with them when 
 Jesus came. No reason is given for the ab- 
 sence of Thomas, but it is natural to conjec- 
 ture that he had given up the cause of his for- 
 mer Master as lost beyond recovery. Keen- 
 sighted, but despondent, he had looked upon 
 Jesus as coming to certain death when he re- 
 turned from Perea to Bethany and Jerusalem. 
 (11:16.) His worst fears had been more than 
 realized ; his Master had suffered the horrors 
 of crucifixion ; and now it was vain to think 
 of his return to life. His tomb might be 
 vacant, as some had reported, but this was no 
 solid ground for hope. Moreover, it would be 
 useless to meet and commune together; the 
 otherthrow of their Christ had been as utter 
 as death could make it; let every one mourn 
 apart, and go down in despair to the grave. 
 
 25. The other disciples therefore said 
 unto him, We have seen the Lord. His 
 absence led them to bear this testimony, and 
 doubtless they accompanied the brief state- 
 ment recorded by John with such ))articulars 
 as confirmed their own faith. But the testi- 
 mony of others did not move him. His de- 
 spondency or despair was too deep. They 
 might believe, but he could not. Except I 
 shall see in his hands the print of the 
 nails, and put my finger into the print of 
 the nails, and thrust my hand into his 
 side, I Avill not believe. It is difficult, 
 when reading these statements, to suppress a 
 feeling that the unbelief of Thomas was willful 
 as well as unreasonable. For he refuses to 
 accept the testimony of his fellow-disciples 
 who had known the Lord as long and as inti- 
 
 niateiy as he himself— even, though a number 
 of them had seen the Saviour at the same time 
 and place, and though he had shown them his 
 hands and his side, and, calling for food, had 
 eaten in their presence. He refuses also to re- 
 ceive the evidence of his own sight and hear- 
 ing, unless it is confirmed by that of touch. 
 And this evidence of touch, he insists, shall 
 be applied, not only to the body of the sup- 
 posed Christ, to verify its reality, but also to 
 the scars or wounds of that body — to identify 
 it as the body of his crucified Master. Proof 
 shall be raised to the highest possible grade 
 of personal verification before he will surren- 
 der his unbelief. Indeed, he demands a kind 
 and degree of evidence which could never be 
 given to any but the little group of disciples 
 that had followed Christ through most of his 
 public ministry. That his demand was un- 
 reasonable, must be at once perceived ; that it 
 was willful, we do not aflSrm : charity requires 
 us to withdraw the epithet. For, at heart, he 
 had been a true disciple, and the Saviour con- 
 descended to offer him everj' "jot and tittle" 
 of the evidence which he required. More- 
 over, though it would be wrong to excuse his 
 unbelief, it is right to adore the wisdom and 
 love of Christ, in overcoming that unbelief. 
 Nay, it is well that there was a Thomas among 
 the Eleven — a man who could not, or would 
 not, believe without incontestable evidence 
 that Jesus Christ had risen from the dead. 
 If all the disciples had possessed the spiritual 
 insight of John, our evidence that Jesus rose 
 on the third daj', would probably have been 
 less satisfactory than it now is. Hence, for 
 our sakes, it was needful that such a man as 
 Thomas should be one of the apostles. 
 
 26. And after eight days again his dis- 
 ciples were Avithin, and Thomas with 
 them. A full week has elapsed, or eight 
 days, reckoning from Sunday to Sunday, in- 
 clusively, as the Greek expression naturally 
 signifies. Why they were again assembled 
 
Ch. XX.] 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 407 
 
 27 Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, I 27 Peace be unto you. Then saith he to Thomas, 
 anil behold uiy hands; and " rtniuh hither thy hand. Reach hither tliy finger, and see my hands; and 
 and thrust it into my side ; and be not, faithless, but | reach /u7/(e;- thy hand, ami put it into my side: and 
 believing. i 28 be not faithless, but believing. Thomas answered 
 
 28 And Thomas answered and said unto hiiu, My 
 Lord and my God. | 
 
 a I JobD 1 : 1. 
 
 on the first day of the week, we need not in- 
 quire. Probably they had met every day 
 during the week, but Jesus had not appeared 
 to them in tliat interval. Whether Thomas 
 was with them for the first time, or not, we 
 have no means of deciding, and what had 
 been his state of mind through the week, is 
 equally unknown. But that he was with 
 them on this occasion is, perhaps, an evidence 
 tliat his heart was not at rest in unbelief. He 
 may have longed for proof that would restore 
 his confidence in Jesus as the Messiah. A 
 week's reflection may have taught him the 
 misery of skepticism as contrasted with the 
 joy of faith, especially if he met occasionally 
 an}' of his former companions in the service 
 of Christ. But his unbelief was not dispelled, 
 whatever moral preparation may have been 
 going on in his heart with a view to its re- 
 moval. It was best that he should be left to 
 himself in darkness for a full week, that on 
 the first day of the second week light might 
 break into his understanding, and adoring 
 love fill his soul. Thus at least would the 
 first day of the week become still more em- 
 phatically the Lord's Day. It has been con- 
 sidered strange that the disciples did not 
 leave Jerusalem as soon as possible after 
 Christ's message to them, appointing a meet- 
 ing in Galilee. (Matt. 28:7, 10; Mark 16: 7.) But the 
 
 unbelief of Thomas may have detained the 
 rest for a time, especially if his character was 
 one that commanded their respect, and if they 
 perceived his unbelief to be honest, though 
 obstinate. They would linger a while in the 
 hope of taking him with them to meet the 
 Lord in Galilee. Then came Jesus (or, 
 Jesus came), the doors being shut, etc. See 
 exposition of the same language in ver. 19, 
 above. The mysterious manner of his ap- 
 pearing was the same as before. His saluta- 
 tion, which was at the same time a benedic- 
 tion, was addressed, as in the previous meet- 
 ing, to all who were present — therefore to 
 Thomas with the rest. That voice! Did he 
 recognize.it? That countenance! Did he see 
 in it the lines of him whom he last saw on the 
 
 cross? But there was more to come. The 
 mysterious Twelfth in that gronp was fixing 
 his eye upon the disciple who had demanded 
 the evidence of his own senses before he 
 would believe. 
 
 27. Then saith he to Thomas, Reach 
 hither thy finger, and behold my hands. 
 Better: and sec my hands. The word see is 
 often used to denote knowledge gained by 
 hearing or touch. And be not faithless, 
 but believing. Literally, Become not un- 
 believing, but believing. " By the expression : 
 Become not, Jesus makes him see that he is at 
 a critical point, where two ways diverge, the 
 one of settled unbelief, the other of com- 
 plete faith." — Godet. "Through his doubt in 
 the resurrection of Christ, which had actually 
 taken place, Thomas was in danger of becom- 
 ing unbelieving (in Jesus), while he could 
 only become, in the full sense, believing, by 
 the certainty of his resurrection." — Weiss. 
 
 28. Thomas answered and said unto 
 him. My Lord and my God. Jesus offered to 
 Thomas the very evidence which he had de- 
 manded, and the language in which he did this 
 was in itself a proof of his knowledge, super- 
 naturally acquired, of the words which Thomas 
 had used. The form and countenance of 
 Jesus, the sound of his voice, and the evidence 
 of divine knowledge afforded by his words, ap- 
 pear to have swept awa.y, as \>y a flood, the 
 unbelief of Thomas. He did not probably 
 need the evidence of touch. He could not 
 withhold the exclamation of adoring confi- 
 dence that leaped from his heart to his lips. 
 "In the resurrection of Jesus, Thomas rightly 
 sees a pledge of his so oft^ n promised — going 
 to the Father and partaking of the divine 
 glory. The word is certainly one of deep and 
 powerful emotion, and no dogmatic formu- 
 lated confession of faith ; but not on that 
 account an exaggeration, since Jesus accepts 
 it" (ver. 29.) "The last becomes, for a mo- 
 ment the first, and the faith of the apostles, as 
 Thomas professed it, reaches finally the whole 
 height of the divine truth expressed in the 
 prologue." — Godet. Every attempt to weaken 
 
408 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 [Ch. XX. 
 
 29 Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast 
 seen me, thou hast believed : " blessed are they that 
 have not seen, and yet have believed. 
 
 29 and said unto him. My Lord and my God. Jesus 
 said unto him, Because thou hast seen me, ^thou 
 hast believed : blessed are they that have not seen, 
 aud yet have believed. 
 
 1 2 Cor. 5: 7; 1 Pet. 1 : 
 
 -1 Or, hast thou believed t 
 
 the force of this testimony to the Deity of 
 Christ is broken before the perfect clearness 
 of the words used by Thomas, the explicit 
 record that thej' were addressed to Jesus him- 
 self, and the definite recognition of their 
 truthfulness by him. Beyond question, John 
 was a witness of what he relates; and who- 
 ever rejects this part of his Gospel as un- 
 worthy of confidence, must, if consistent, 
 reject it all. 
 
 29. Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, 
 because thou hast seen me, thou hast 
 believed. The word Thomas does not be- 
 long to the text. All the important uncials 
 (including X A B C D), and early versions, 
 want it. Again, the clause translated, thou 
 hast believed, may be either declarative or 
 interrogative. Meyer, Weiss, Godet, Wat- 
 kins, prefer the interrogative form, on the 
 ground that it gives more vividness to the 
 gentle reproof involved in the Saviour's re- 
 sponse. Westcotf^aj's it is half exclamatory 
 and half interrogative. But the meaning is 
 substantially the same, whether it be consid- 
 ered a declaration, an exclamation, or an in- 
 terrogation. In either case, Jesus recognizes 
 the fiict that Thomas has passed from unbelief 
 into a state of belief; for he uses the perfect 
 tense, denoting an action that, begun in the 
 past, is continued in the present. His belief 
 is also genuine and satisfactory in character. 
 In either case, too, the proximate cause of 
 his faith was sight. Thomas had not been 
 convinced by the testimony of his fellow-dis- 
 ciples, or by their testimony with the predic- 
 tions of Jesus, or by both these with the holy 
 life and teaching of his Lord, but only by 
 sensible evidence superaaded to all he knew 
 of Christ, and all he had heard from the 
 apostles. Yet, the words of Jesus, "because 
 thou hast seen me," have been considered 
 favorable to the view, that Thomas believed 
 without putting his finger to the wounds of 
 Christ, that he was convinced as soon as he 
 saw the Saviour standing visibly before him. 
 We do not think there is much force in this 
 argument, but nevertheless admit the want of 
 
 proof that Thomas did actually touch the 
 wounds of Jesus. Blessed are they that 
 have not seen, and yet have believed. 
 
 This language is not exclusive. Jesus does 
 not intend to say that Thomas is not accepted 
 by him and will not be permitted to rejoice 
 henceforth in his love. His language is rather 
 comparative, and signifies that those who be- 
 lieve on suitable testimony, but without sensi- 
 ble evidence, are specially approved by the 
 Lord. On such evidence men are to re- 
 ceive the gospel, or perish ; on such evidence 
 the business of life must be conducted, or 
 society will dissolve. By its treatment of 
 such evidence moral character is proved. The 
 evidence ofsense is often compulsory. Bad men 
 accept it as readily as good men. It is, there- 
 fore, in most instances, no proper test of char- 
 acter. But the evidence of testimony, of the 
 inner moral consistency of religious truth, 
 and of its fitness to meet and satisfy the needs 
 of spiritual life, is not compulsory. The ac- 
 ceptance of it is a free act of the soul in view 
 of what that soul approves. These words of 
 Jesus, though addressed to Thomas, and occa- 
 sioned by his conduct, will never lose their 
 interest to Christians, till their Lord returns, 
 "without sin unto salvation." They teach 
 that the first disciples of Christ, who were 
 witnesses of his resurrection-life, have no pre- 
 eminence on that account. We who believe 
 on their testimony the facts pertaining to 
 Christ, which they believed on the evidence 
 of sense, may have as true and acceptable a 
 faith as was theirs. Nay, in so far as they 
 were disposed to insist upon a verification of 
 facts by their own senses before they would 
 believe, was their faith inferior in spiritual 
 power to that of Christians who are satisfied 
 with such evidence as apostolic testimony and 
 the nature of the gospel message afibrd. For 
 all the ends of religious life, our knowledge 
 of the gospel is even better than theirs ; our 
 knowledge of Christ is even better suited to 
 moral training than theirs. For this reason, 
 it was expedient that he should go away, pres- 
 ently, and be seen no more. (is-. 7, jo.) 
 
Ch. XX.] 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 409. 
 
 30 "And many other signs truly did Jesus in the pres- 
 ence of his disciples, which are not written in this 
 book : 
 
 31 ' But these are written, that ye iuit;ht believe that 
 Jesus is the Christ, the Son of (jod ; '^aud that believing 
 ye might have life through his name. 
 
 30 Many other signs therefore did Jesus in the 
 presence of the disciples, which are not written iu 
 
 31 this book: but tliese are written, that ye way be- 
 lieve that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of (iod; and 
 that believing ye may have life iu his name. 
 
 a cb. ■il:25....6Lukel: 4....ccb.3: 15, 16; &: :!1: 1 Pet. 1: 8, 
 
 30, 31. Purpose of the Writer in 
 Preparing this Gospel. 
 
 30. And many other signs, etc. The 
 Revised Version may be followed with ad- 
 vantage in reading these verses. Many other 
 signs therefore did Jesus in the presence of the 
 disciples, which are not Avritten in this 
 book. Tiiis Gospel, then, according to the 
 explicit testimony of its author, contains but 
 a selection of events from the life of Christ. 
 Not all his miracles are described, nor is there 
 any reason to suppose that any attempt is 
 made to preserve all his sayings or discourses. 
 Moreover from the general resemblance of 
 this Gospel to the Synoptical Gospels, as well 
 as from a study of their characteristics, we in- 
 fer that they also are selections. The mate- 
 rials were so abundant that they could be 
 used in no other way. Is it not, then, surprising 
 that critics, like Baur and Strauss, have been 
 wont to say, whenever a miracle or word of 
 Jesus is recorded by only one or two of the 
 Evangelists, that the others knew nothing of 
 it.? Just as if we might expect to find all they 
 knew about the ministry of Christ written out 
 in their narratives! "The facts which John 
 has omitted differ from those which he has put 
 into his narrative, not only in quantity [mnny), 
 but also in quality (other). Consequently, if 
 he has not given specimens of all kinds of 
 miracles; if, for instance, he has related no 
 cures of lepers or of demoniacs, it will be di- 
 rectly against his intenticm if one infers from 
 this silence that he wishes to deny them." — 
 Godet. But why are signs spoken of, and not 
 discourses also? Did John undervalue the 
 evidential, convincing power of his Master's 
 teaching as compared with his wonderful 
 works? By no means. He has given a large 
 place in his Gospel to the words of Christ, 
 and has recorded more than one saying which 
 represents the testimony of Jesus as sufficient 
 of itself to convince the honest hearer. But 
 to a very unusual extent the signs and the 
 teaching of Christ are linked together in this 
 Gospel — the sign being the text, and the dis- 
 course an exposition of the truth expressed by 
 
 the text. Observe, also, that these "signs" 
 were wrought in the presence of his disci- 
 ples ; for the disciples were chosen witnesses, 
 not merely of his resurrection, but also of his 
 whole public life, from its beginning with the 
 baptism of John until its close, when he was 
 received up into heaven, (lo: 27; a«s i: 21,22.) 
 
 31. But these are written tliat ye might 
 (or, viay) believe that Jesus is the Christ, 
 the Son of God ; and that believing ye 
 might (or, may) have life through his 
 name. The end for which the Evangelist 
 wrote this Gospel is here plainly declared ; 
 and it is in perfect accord with the structure 
 and contents of the book. But to apprehend 
 the force of this statement we need to bear in 
 mind the spiritual condition of those for whom 
 the Gospel was primarily written. They were 
 undoubtedly Christians, and particularly the 
 Christians of Asia Minor. Hence, we must 
 suppose them to have been believers in Jesus 
 as the Christ, and, indeed, as the Son of God. 
 There is no impropriety in supposing this ; for, 
 according to John's use of language, there are 
 degrees of faith. The belief of a true dis- 
 ciple is sometimes very weak — so weak that 
 when a higher degree is attained, the lower de- 
 gree seems to have been a sort of unbelief — 
 tlie increased faith being alone worthy of the 
 name. The twilight is darkness wi:en com- 
 pared with noon-day. If, through a fuller 
 knowledge and deeper apprehension of Christ, 
 a believer reaches a higher degree of trust in 
 him, he may be spoken of as now believing, 
 as if he had never done so before. But it 
 is possible that many Christians of Asia 
 Minor were becoming lukewarm and skep- 
 tical in regard to the person of Christ. It is 
 possible that Ebionites or Cerinthians were 
 undermining the fi\ith of some, so that John 
 had special occasion to write this Gospel at the 
 time when it was written. Yet this hypothesis 
 is by no means necessary to account for the 
 language here used. The explanation given 
 above is equally pertinent, and the perverse 
 doctrine of Cerinthus vnny not have been dis- 
 seminated when this Gospel was written. 
 
410 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 [Ch. XXI. 
 
 CHAPTER XXI. 
 
 AFTER these things Jesus shewed himself again to 
 the disciples at the sea of Tiberias ; and on this 
 wise shewed he himself. 
 
 2 There were together Simon Peter, and Thomas 
 called Didymiis, and " Nathauael of C'ana in Galilee, and 
 *the sons of Zebedee, and two other of his disciples. 
 
 3 Siiuon Peter saith unto them, I go a fishing. They 
 say unto him, We also go with thee. They went forth, 
 and entered into a ship immediately; and that night 
 they caught nothing. 
 
 1 After these things Jesus manifested himself again 
 to the disciples at the sea of Tiberias; and he mani- 
 
 2 tested hinise/J' on this wise. There were together 
 Simon Peter, and Thomas called i Didymus, and 
 Nathanael of C'ana in Galilee, and the smis of Zeb- 
 
 3 edee, and two othe^ of his disciples. Simon Peter 
 saith unto them, I go a tishing. They say unto 
 him. We also come with thee. They went forth, and 
 entered into the boat; and that night they took 
 
 och. 1: -to b Matt. 4: 21. 1 That is, Twin. 
 
 The last clause refers to the true life of com- 
 munion with God, begun here, and perfected 
 hereafter. Probably the expression, might 
 (or, may) have life through his name, de- 
 notes a higher degree of union with God and 
 blessedness in him, to be gained by a better 
 knowledge of Jesus as the promised Messiah 
 and the Son of God. 
 
 Ch. 21: 1-14. Jesus Appears to a 
 Company of His Disciples by the Sea 
 OF Galilee. 
 
 1. Shewed himself. Perhaps it would be 
 better to translate — manifested himself; for 
 the Greek word [i^avipuiaiv) seems to imply 
 that he now appeared, by an act of his own, 
 out of an invisible state. AVeiss asserts, pos- 
 sibly with too nmch confidence, that "he 
 came out of the sphere of the unseen, in which 
 as glorified he already dwelt, for the purpose 
 of making himself known through a self 
 assumed visible form." This is a less prob- 
 able view than one which he rejects, namely: 
 that the glorified body of Jesus was of such a 
 nature that it could be made visible by him 
 at will. Schaff remarks that the verb here 
 used "expresses more than that Jesus showed 
 himself after the resurrection. In these 
 manifestations he really revealed himself out 
 of the entirely new state which had begun at 
 the resurrection." Similarly Godet: "Hith- 
 erto Jesus had manifested his glory ; now he 
 manifests himself; for his person has entered 
 for the future into the sphere of the invisible." 
 The expression, after these things, is too 
 indefinite to be of much use in fixing the date 
 of this manifestation. But the direction 
 -which Jesus gave his disciples on the very da^' 
 of his resurrection to meet him in Galilee, 
 and the lack of any notice ()f his appearing to 
 them at Jerusalem from the eighth day after 
 his resurrection until about the *,inie of his 
 ascension, lead us to think that they repaired 
 
 to Galilee soon after the manifestation de- 
 scribed in the last chapter, (ver. ^6-29.) He is 
 said to have manifested himself to his disciples 
 at (or, upon) the sea of Tiberias; meaning 
 that there, on the shore of that sea, was the 
 place of his appearing; not that his disciples 
 were upon the sea, although this was the case 
 at first Only John calls the sea of Galilee 
 the "sea of Tiberias," from the name of a 
 city built by Herod on its western side- The 
 late date of his Gospel accounts for this desig- 
 nation, especially if taken with the persons to 
 whom it was addressed, and the writer's long 
 residence in Asia Minor before it was written. 
 
 2. There were together Simon Peter, 
 etc. Here only in this Gospel is John referred 
 to distinctly' in connection with his brother 
 James, and this reference is very unobtrusive 
 — the sons of Zebedee. Such a reference is 
 strikingly favorable to the view that the chap- 
 ter was written by John. For if it had been 
 added by any other writer, surely the names 
 of James and John vrould have been inserted, 
 and, perhaps, immediately after that of Peter, 
 instead of being placed below those of 
 Thomas the Twin, and of Nathanael of Cana 
 of Galilee — unless, indeed, we assume that 
 the writer copied the style of .John in the 
 Gospel for the purpose of deceiving the readers 
 — a most gratuitous and improbable assump- 
 tion. The two unnamed disciples did not, 
 probably, belong to the circle of the apostles, 
 and for that reason were noticed in this indefi- 
 nite manner. 
 
 3. Simon Peter saith unto them, etc. It 
 is the language of common life. This group 
 of faithful disciples had repaired to Galilee, 
 perhaps to Capernaum, where Peter seems to 
 have had a home and business. While, there 
 in waiting for the appearance of Jesus, the 
 impulse to resume for a night his former 
 occupation, led Peter to say, I go a fishing. 
 
 . And the others, very naturally, propose to 
 
Ch. XXI.] 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 411 
 
 4 But when the morning was now come, Jesus stood on 
 the shore: but the disciples" knew not that it was Jesus. 
 
 5 Then ''Jesus saitli unto theiu, Children, have ye 
 any meat? They answered him, No. 
 
 6 And he said unto them, "^Cast the net on the right 
 side of the ship, and ye shall tiud. They cast therefore, 
 and now they were not able to draw it for the multitude 
 of tishes. 
 
 4 nothing. Rut wlien day was now breaking, Jesus 
 stood on tlie beach: howbeit the diseiplLS knew 
 
 ."j not that it was Jesus. Jesus therefore sailh unto 
 them. Children, have ye aught to eat? They 
 
 C answered him. No. And he said unto them, Cast 
 the net on the right side of the boat, and ye sliall 
 lind. They cast therefore, and now they were uot 
 
 acli. 20: 14 b Luke 24 : 41 c Luke 5 4, 6, 7. 
 
 accompany him. The act needs no further 
 explanation, though the events of the morn- 
 ing may be symbolical and very instructive. 
 As once before, the disciples caught nothing 
 during the night, which was the best time for 
 fishing in that clear, inland sea. Whether 
 such want of success was very unusual, we 
 cannot tell ; perhaps not, but it was somewhat 
 dispiriting to fishermen, like Peter, James, 
 and John, resuming for a night their former 
 life. 
 
 4. But when the morning was now 
 come, Jesus stood on the shore. Liter- 
 ally : But when the morning was now becom- 
 ing, that is, dawning or breaking, before the 
 light was perfect. The word translated shore, 
 signifies beach. It "denotes a smooth shore, as 
 distinguished from one precipitous or rocky."' 
 — Haekett. Compare Matt. 13:2; Acts 21 : 5 ; 
 27: 39, and Herodotus VII. 59, 188. The 
 word stood (eVTij) indicates a sudden appear- 
 ance. (See 20: 2G. ) But the disciples 
 knew not that it was Jesus. Possibly be- 
 cause it was not yet perfectly ligiit. This, 
 however, is not the most obvious sense of the 
 Greek, for the word translated but (/neVToi), 
 signifies yet, or nevertheless, as if his standing 
 there might have been expected to secure his 
 recognition. "The clause, ■■ remarks We.st- 
 cott, "is added as something strange. It is 
 vain to give any sitnply natural explanation 
 of the failure of the disciples to recognize 
 Christ. After the resurrection he was known 
 as he pleased, and not necessarily at once." 
 But was it not natural for John to recognize 
 him sooner than any one else in the boat? 
 (ver. 7.) The ordinarj' and the extraordinary, 
 the natural and the spiritual, wereverj' closely 
 united in the intercourse of Jesus with his 
 disciples after the resurrection. 
 
 5. Then Jesus saith unto them, Chil- 
 dren, have ye any meat? They answered 
 him. No. Compare the Kevised Version 
 above. Therefore, (instead of then), implies 
 that John considered this question a conse- 
 quence of the disciple's failure to recognize 
 
 Jesus. The question itself is so constructed 
 as to anticipate a negative answer— proving 
 that Jesus either knew or suspected them to 
 have been unsuccessful in their fishing. The 
 word (itpo(T<^a.yi.ov) rendered meat in the Com- 
 mon Version, and aught to eat, in the Kevised 
 Version, signifies "anything eaten with other 
 food," as fish with bread. Here the reference 
 is certainly to fish. Westcott holds that the 
 original word for children (-naihia), "marks 
 the difference of age or position, and not the 
 tie of reliition&hip" ; but Grimm thinks it to 
 be used here as a term of endearment, like the 
 Latin Carissimi, or the English, "dearly be- 
 loved." It is difficult to decide between these 
 two tropical uses of the word. If Jesus 
 wished to be revealed by the extraordinary 
 draught of fishes, he doubtless uttered the 
 word in such a tone as to give it the former 
 meaning; but if he aimed to reveal himself 
 by his manner of addressing the disciples, he 
 doubtless uttered this word in such a tone of 
 voice as gave it the latter meaning. 
 
 6. Cast the net on the ri§;ht side of the 
 ship (or boat), and ye shall find. Their net 
 had been on the left side of the boat — of 
 course not very far from the place into which 
 they were now directed to cast it, 3-et far 
 enough to make their labor and watching 
 useless. With all their knowledge of the 
 lake, they were in need of divine guidance in 
 order to fish with any success. And this was 
 a typical lesson with reference to their future 
 work. They were to follow the beckoning 
 hand of Providence. If the Jewish S3-na- 
 gogue rejected the Christ, his gospel must be 
 preached in the Pagan school. They cast 
 therefore — not yet indeed recognizing Jesus, 
 but yielding to the word which he spoke^ 
 and now they were not able to draAV it 
 for the multitude of fishes. Literally: 
 They were no longer able — as before — to draw 
 it — i. e., to draw it up into the boat ; for it ap- 
 pears that they drew it, afterwards, in the 
 water, to the shore. Assuming, as we must, 
 the typical character of this event, it is plain 
 
412 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 [Ch. XXI. 
 
 7 Therefore "that disciple whom Jesus loved saith 
 unto Peter, It is the Lord. Now when Simon Peter 
 heard that it was the Lord, he girt his tisher's coat tm/o 
 him, (for he was naked,) and did cast himselt into the 
 sea. 
 
 8 And the other disciples came in a little ship ; (for 
 the3' were not far from laud, but as it were two hun- 
 dred citWts,) dragging the net with tishes. 
 
 9 As soon then as they were come to laud, they saw a 
 fire of coals there, aud fish laid thereon, and bread. 
 
 7 able to draw it for the multitude of fishes. That 
 disciple therelore whom Jesus loved saith unto 
 Peter, It is the Lord. So when .Simon Peter heard 
 that it was the Lord, he girt his coat about him (for 
 
 8 be 1 was naked), aud cast himself into the sea. But 
 the other disciples caixie in the little boat (for they 
 were not far from the land, but about two hundred 
 
 9 cubits ott), dragging the net full of fishes. So when 
 th<y got out upon the laud, they see -Sl fire of 
 coals there, and sflsh laid thereon, and < bread. 
 
 tell. 13: 23; 20; 2. 1 Or, had on his under garment only 2 Gr. afire of charcoal.... Z Or, a fish,... i Or, a loaf. 
 
 that the apostles were to have great success in 
 bringing men into the Ivingdom of Christ, 
 provided they should carry forward their 
 work under his direction. Nor can we sup- 
 pose that this lesson was meant for apostles 
 only. It is a lesson for all the servants of 
 Christ. The time will never come when they 
 will be able to conquer the world without 
 him ; the day will never dawn when, directed 
 by him, they will spend tlieir strength for 
 nought. Only under the great Leader can 
 they overcome; but strengthened by his pres- 
 ence thej' will go forth to complete victory. 
 
 7. How true to all other representations of 
 Peter and John are the incidentsof this verse. 
 The scene is brieflj', but vividly sketched. 
 The net full of great fishes — the disciples pull- 
 ing in vain to draw it up over the side of the 
 boat — the true-hearted John perceiving in all 
 this the hand of his Lord and making known 
 bis discovery to Peter — Peter recognizing at 
 once the truth of John's remark, girding on 
 his outer garment without delaj', and plung- 
 ing into the .sea to reach the shore and the 
 Lord as soon as possible : — all this is in perfect 
 accord with what is said of these two remarka- 
 ble men in other parts of the New Testament. 
 "When they recognized the Lord," says 
 Chrysostom, "again do the disciples display 
 the peculiarities of their individual charac- 
 ters. The one, for instance, was more ardent, 
 but the other more elevated ; the one more 
 eager, but the other endued with finer per- 
 ception. On which account John was the first 
 to recognize the Lord, but Peter to come to 
 him." The comment that Peter was naked, 
 does not signify tluit he was wholly destitute 
 of clothing, but rather that he was compara- 
 tively so, having laid aside his coat— the Greek 
 word here used (en-ei'SOnjs), meaning properly, 
 any kind of over-garment. 
 
 8. The boat in vMiich all the disciples, save 
 Peter, remained, and came to the beach, is 
 here called a ship, (or, little boot), and the 
 distance which it had to pass over to reach the 
 
 land was about two hundred cubits. The 
 writer remembers the distance, as it could be 
 measured roughly by the eye, and the time 
 occupied in rowing to the shore,'and states it 
 as exactlj' as possible. There was probably no 
 delay in starting the boat for the shore, though 
 it did not reach that point as soon as Peter. 
 Dragging the net with fishes — literally, the 
 net of fishes, that is to saj', the net full of fishes. 
 Thus those in the boat drew the net after them 
 ill the water until they came to the shore, but 
 they did not draw it out of the water. 
 
 9. John describes the scene as he saw it. 
 When Peter had girded on his coat and 
 plunged into the sea to go to Jesus, John re- 
 mained in the boat and gave his attention with 
 the rest to bringing it ashore and dragging 
 the net after it. He ma3' not have followed 
 with his eye the course of Peter, and, there- 
 fore, he says nothing as to his swimming or as 
 to-his meeting the Lord. As soon then as 
 they were come to land, (or. So when they 
 got out upon the land), they saw a fire of 
 coals there, etc. The verb saw, should 
 rather be see, to correspond in tense with the 
 original; for the present tense is more vivid 
 than the past. And fish laid thereon, and 
 bread. With equal correctness this might 
 be rendered, a?id a fish laid thereon, and a loaf. 
 Those interpreters who regard this meal as in 
 some sense analogous to the Lord's Supper, 
 prefer the latter translation. But we doubt 
 the value of their reason for this preference, 
 since other fish appear to have been added, 
 and since there is nothing said in this passage 
 which points to the food as emblematic of the 
 Lord's body. Of the word fish (6i//aptoi'), Wat- 
 kins remarks: " In this passage and in ver. 13 
 only it occurs in the singular, but it seems 
 clear that it may be collective, as our word 
 "fish." The fire here, as in 18: 18. was of 
 "charcoal" {ivOpaKCa). Grimm defines the 
 word, strues prunarum ardentium — "a pile 
 of burning coals." Observe the customarj' pre- 
 cision or definiteness of John's narrative. 
 
Ch. XXL] 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 413 
 
 10 Jesus saith unto them, Bring of the fish which 
 ye have now caught. 
 
 11 Simon I'eler went up, and drew the net to land 
 full of great fishes, an hundred and fifty and three: and 
 for all there were so many, yet was not the net broken. 
 
 12 Jesus sailh unto them, "Come and dine. And 
 none of the disciples durst ask him, Who art thou? 
 knowing that it was the Lord. 
 
 10 Jesus saith unto theui. Bring of the fish which ye 
 
 11 liave now taken. Simon I'eter tlierefore weul ' up, 
 and drew the net to land, lull of great fishes, a 
 hundred and fifty and three; and fiirall there were 
 
 12 so many, the net was not rent. Jesus saith unto 
 them. Come ami break your fast. And none of the 
 disciples durst inquire of him, Who art thou, know- 
 
 a .\cts 10: 41. 1 Or. aboard. 
 
 Weiss believes that this narrative does not in 
 the least suggest a miracle, "since Peter was 
 already with Jesus, and on the shore of a sea 
 alive with fishermen, whatever was needed for 
 the morning meal could easily have been pro- 
 cured by direction of Jesus. That the Lord 
 himself prepared it, because he wished the 
 disciples to be his guests at the meal, the nar- 
 rative does not at all intimate." But does the 
 record suggest that Peter reached the shore 
 — (a distance of about three hundred feet) — 
 very much sooner than those in the boat? Or, 
 that the coast was at that early hour alive with 
 fishermen ? Or, that the beach on which Jesus 
 stood was near a city where bread and fish 
 could be obtained at any hour of the day? 
 All this may have been, as Weiss supposes; 
 but we think it could not have been in the 
 mind of the writer of this Gospel, and that 
 an unprejudiced reader would at once ask, 
 Did not John look upon these preparations as 
 accomplish, 'd by Jesus in a supernatural way? 
 That Peter had any share in making them, is 
 quite improbable. That Jesus may liave made 
 them b^' the use of natural means, is certainly 
 credible. Tiie real question seems to be this: 
 Does the narrative of John, read in the light 
 of all that is said by the Evangelist concern- 
 ing the movements of Jesus after his resur- 
 rection, fairly imply at this point something 
 miraculous? We are half persuaded that it 
 does, but leave the matter to bt decided by 
 every one for himself — only calling attention 
 to the special awe which seems to have filled 
 the disciples' minds. 
 
 10. Bring of the fish which ye have now 
 caught (or, taken). It is an almost certain in- 
 ference, that this was to be done for the pur- 
 pose of adding some of the fish which they 
 had taken to those already broilingon the coals 
 of fire. But the fisli in the net were obtained 
 by the extraordinary intervention of Jesus, 
 by a miracle of knowledge, if not of power: 
 may not tlie same thing have been true in re- 
 spect to those on the fire? Yet Weiss judges 
 
 otherwise: "Precisely this necessary com- 
 plementing of the fish already found on the 
 fire excludes the miraculous or symbolical 
 character of the meal." At all events, the 
 materials of that morning repast were the gift 
 of Christ to the disciples as really as if they 
 had been created on the spot. And, besides, 
 it is difiicult to see how the addition of fishes 
 cauglit in the manner described, excludes the 
 "symbolical character of the meal," even 
 should it bethought to exclude its miraculous 
 character. 
 
 11. Simon Peter went up, etc. There is 
 sufficient authority for the insertion of there- 
 fore after Simon Peter, as in the Revised Ver- 
 sion, thus connecting the act of Peter formally 
 and expressly with the word of Christ. The 
 expression went up, refers to the prow of the 
 boat as rising above tlie beach on which it 
 rested. If the net, as may be supposed, was 
 fastened to the stern, Peter entered the boat 
 at the prow and going to the stern drew the 
 net along side, until it reached the shore and 
 was pulled out on the dry land. Probablj' he 
 was assisted by some of the other disciples; as 
 the direction of Christ (ver. lo) was addressed to 
 the disciples, in the plural. The fish were 
 now counted, as John remembers, and num- 
 bered one hundred and fifty-three. They 
 were also of great size, yet the net was not 
 broken. When they had been taken from the 
 net and counted, some of them were probably 
 added to those on the fire, or were broiled in 
 addition to them, and the meal was ready. 
 
 12. Come and dine. Rather: Come, 
 breakfast; that is, take breakfast, or, break 
 your fast; for the verb denotes partaking of 
 the morning meal. There is no intimation of 
 Christ eating with them, unless it be in the 
 word come (6eOt6), which can scarcely be relied 
 upon to prove that Jesus was standing by the 
 food. (See ver. 13. ) Great was the r verence 
 as well as the joy that filled the disciples' 
 hearts. They were afraid to question him 
 freely. Though they knew it was the Lord, 
 
414 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 [Ch. XXI. 
 
 13 Jesus then cometh, and taketh bread, and giveth 
 them, and fish likewise. 
 
 14 This is now "the third time that Jesus shewed 
 himself to his disciples, alter that he was risen from 
 the dead. 
 
 15 So, when they had dinec", Jesus saith to Simon 
 Peter, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou nie more than 
 these? He saith unto him. Yea, Lord: thou knowest 
 that I love thee. He saith uuto him, Feed my lambs. 
 
 13 iug that it was the Lord. Jesus cometh, and taketh 
 the 1 bread, and giveth tlieui, and the fish likewise. 
 
 14 This is uow the third time that Jesus was mani- 
 fested to the disciples, after that he was risen from 
 the dead. 
 
 15 So when they had broken their fast, Jesus saith 
 to Simon Peter, Simon, wn of -John, 'lovest thou 
 me more than these? He saith unto him. Yea, 
 Lord ; thou knowest that I * love thee. He saith 
 
 a See ch. 20: 19. 26. 1 Or, loaf 2 Gr. Joanes. Seecli. 1 : 42, margin ....3 4 Love, in these places, repre.<seDts two different Greek words. 
 
 they would doubtless have sought to have 
 inuny things explained, and perhaps con- 
 firmed, by his word, if they had not been re- 
 strained by a sense of awe which made famil- 
 iarity impossible. He only spoke; they were 
 silent. Not a word thus far, according to the 
 record of John, had any one of them ad- 
 dressed to him, except the monosyllable, 
 "No," in answer to his question, (ver. 5-) 
 
 13. Jesus then cometh, and taketh 
 bread, and giveth them, and fish like- 
 wise. Then, should be omitted from the first 
 clause, as it is wanting in the earliest manu- 
 scripts. (N B C D L X et. al.). Before bread 
 and fish, the definite article should be inserted, 
 as in the Revised Version. For thus it is writ- 
 ten in the original, and there is no reason why 
 the English Version should not here be strictly 
 conformed to the original. It was "'the bread" 
 and "the fish" already spoken of which he 
 gave to them. The expression, Jesus cometh, 
 implies that he was not standing close beside 
 the food when he invited the disciples to take 
 their breakfast. (See ver. 12.) But now he 
 acts the part of a gracious and friendly host, 
 giving probably to each one of them his por- 
 tion of the food. 
 
 14. In saying that this was the third time 
 that Jesus shewed himself (or, uas mani- 
 fested) to his disciples, John speaks of the 
 disciples as a body. For, if we include ap- 
 pearances to individuals, he has himself de- 
 scribed three, which took place in Jerusalem, 
 and therefore this would be the fourth. But, 
 one of these appearances was to Mary Mag- 
 dalene, while two of them were to the assem- 
 bled disciples. Clearly enough he associates 
 this manifestation of himself to a group of 
 his disciples with the two similar manifesta- 
 tions in Jerusalcin, and does not put in the 
 same category his appearance to Mary. 
 
 In Luke 5: 1-11 (comp. Matt. 4: 18-22; 
 Mark 1: 16-20), there is an account of a mirac- 
 ulous draught of fishes, which has been sup- 
 posed by some identical with the one before 
 
 us. But the events described in this narrative 
 are diflferent in all essential points from those 
 mentioned by Luke. "(1) Those took place 
 in the early part of Christ's ministry; these, 
 after his resurrection. (2) Luke speaks of 
 two boats; John, of but one. (3) Luke says 
 that James and John were not in the same 
 boat with Peter; John virtually says they 
 were. (4) Luke says their net broke; John 
 says the net did not break. (5) Luke declares 
 that two boats were filled with the fishes 
 taken; John asserts that the fish were not 
 taken into the boat at all. (6) Luke repre- 
 sents Peter as falling at the feet of Jesus and 
 beseeching him to depart; John represents 
 him as plunging into the sea to come to Christ 
 as quicklj' as possible. (7) Luke relates that 
 Jesus called Peter to become a fisher of men ; 
 John, that he directed him to feed his sheep. 
 (8) Luke declares that Christ was in-the boat; 
 John asserts that he was on the beach. Other 
 minor differences may be passed over in 
 silence, for these establish be3'ond a doubt the 
 distinctness of the two miracles." (See the 
 writer's work on "The Miracles of Christ," 
 etc., p. 44.) 
 
 15>23. Jesus Eestores Peter, and 
 Speaks of John. 
 
 15. The conversation between Jesus and 
 Peter was in presence of the other dis<!iples. 
 This was suitable, if not morally necessary. 
 For, having boasted in their hearing of his 
 unconquerable faithfulness — whatever others 
 might do, and having afterwards, in a public 
 and cowardly manner denied the Saviour, it 
 was fitting that his reproof and restoration 
 should be witnessed by some of them. Such 
 a reproof and restoration, so searching, and 
 yet kind; so thorough, and yet gentle; were 
 a lesson nevei* to be forgotten \>y those present, 
 and were worthy a conspicuous place in the 
 Gospel which reveals to us the very "heart of 
 Christ." Accordingly, after the disciples had 
 breakfasted (not dined), Jesus saith to 
 Simon Peter, Simon, sou of Jonas, 
 
Ch. XXI.] 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 415 
 
 16 He saith to hiiu again the second time, Simon, son 
 of JoQiis, lovest tliou me? He saith uuto Iiiiu, Yea, 
 Lord; thou liiiowest that I love tliee. " He saith untu 
 him, Feed my sheep. 
 
 16 unto him. Feed my Iambs. He saith to him again 
 a second time, Simon, so/t of '.Jolin, ^i^vest ihou 
 me? He saith unto liim, Yea, I.,ord ; thou knowest 
 that I 3 love thee. He saith uuto him. Tend my 
 
 a Acu 20 : 28 ; Heb. 13 : : 
 
 lovest thou me more than these? Instead 
 of Jonas, the Revised Version lias John and 
 is supported in niaici|jg this change by the 
 larger part of the early manuscripts. More 
 important, however, is it to remark, that 
 Jesus does not here use the new and honor- 
 able name, Peter, in addressing his most con- 
 spicuous di.sciple. There would have been 
 too deep a sarcasm in ajiplying that designa- 
 tion now. For sincerity, not sarcasm, is 
 called for when an offender is to be restored. 
 So the firm and wise and loving Master goes 
 back to the old name, and thus reminds his 
 follower, without a touch of bitterness, that 
 his recent conduct is inconsistent with his new 
 name. To call him Peter, a Rock, in the face 
 of conduct which seemed to prove him fickle 
 as the wind, would be fearful irony; to call 
 him Simon, son of John, was sincere reproof. 
 It is also noticeable that the word lovest, 
 (ayan-as), employed by Jesus in his question, 
 denotes a high moral regard and attachment, 
 in distinction from warm personal affection. 
 The latter was not counted worthless by 
 Christ, but the former was what he specially 
 sought in his followers. He expected to be 
 honored and loved in view of his divine 
 character, with an intelligent, voluntary ap- 
 preciation. Such a love springs from the very 
 source of spiritual life in the soul, and is, in 
 the language of Jesus, "a well of water, 
 springing up into everlasting life." It is an 
 expression, not of impulse or natural afi'ec- 
 tion, but of the whole moral personality in its 
 purest action. Such a love ought, then, to 
 overcome fear, and lead to the noblest self- 
 sacrifice. Clearly, then, Peter had not mani- 
 fested such love in his conduct; will he claim 
 to possess it now? Notice also the words, 
 more than these. They are charged with 
 an idlusion to the past. For Peter had said, 
 with boastful assurance, on the evening before 
 Jesus was delivered up: "If all shall be 
 offended in thee, I will never be offended," 
 and, "Even if I must die with thee, I will 
 not deny thee." (Matt. 26: 33, 35, (Rev. 
 Ver. ; comp. John 13: 37.) In other words, 
 taking exception to his Master's prediction: 
 
 .2 3 Love, ID ibeae places represents two 
 
 "All ye shall be offended in me this night," 
 he had asserted that, if all the rest should be 
 made to stumble by anything that might be 
 done or suffered by Jesus, his integrity would 
 remain firm; his fidelity to Christ would be 
 unshaken. Alas, within a few hours, he had 
 fallen lower than any of them, and hail openly 
 denied the Lord. Would he now claim to 
 have more true love for Jesus than these, his 
 fellow-disciples? Never was a more search- 
 ing reproof uttered in simple words. The 
 least was said that could be said, and yet the 
 most was said that could be said. And what 
 was the answer ? Yea, Lord, thou knowest 
 that I love thee. A truthful answer, no 
 doubt. A submission of the case to Christ's 
 own knowledge, with a virtual confession that 
 he had not known himself. But at the same 
 time he is sure that Jesus must certainly see 
 in his heart a warm personal attachment, if 
 not the high moral affection to which he had 
 referred. For, in his answer, Peter uses the 
 word {^iKiia), which denotes personal affection. 
 It was well ; and the Lord saith unto him : 
 Feed my lambs. These words assign to 
 Peter the work of a Christian shepherd, who 
 is called to lead the lambs of the flock into 
 green pa.«tures. And the word lamb, may be 
 understood to refer to the still weak and im- 
 mature members of Christ's flock. Feeding, 
 rather than controlling, is the idea of the verb. 
 16. Jesus repeats the same question a 
 .second time, omitting, however, the words, 
 more than these. For Peter's answer to 
 his first question had shown that this disciple 
 no longer thought his own love stronger than 
 that of his fellow disciples; and therefore the 
 Lord does not repeat his allusion to his great 
 disciple's spiritual egotism and vanity. The 
 second response of Peter is a simple repetition 
 of his first; and is followed by the command. 
 Feed my sheep ; or, more precisely, shepherd 
 my sheep. There is some authority for a 
 Greek word, meaning little sheep, in place of 
 the word that means sheep. But it is hardly 
 sufficient to warrant a change in the text. 
 The principal consideration in its favor is the 
 fact that it is an uncommon word, while that 
 
416 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 [Ch. XXL 
 
 17 He saith unto him the third time, Simon, son of 
 Jonas, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he 
 said unto him the tliird time, Lovest thou me? And 
 Le said unto him. Lord, « tliou kuowest all things ; thou 
 knowest that I love thee. Jesus saith unto him, Feed 
 wy sheep. 
 
 18 'Verily, verily I say unto thee. When thou wast 
 young, thou girdedst thyself, and walkedst whither thou 
 wouldest: but when thou shalt be old, thou shalt stretch 
 forth thy hands, and another shall gird thee, and carry 
 l/iee whither thou wouldest not. 
 
 17 sheep. He saith unto him the third time, Simon 
 .son of ijohn, "-lovest thou me? Peter was grieved 
 because he said unto him the third time, -Lovest 
 thou me? And he said unto him, Lord, thou 
 knowest all things; thou < kuowest that I ^love 
 
 18 thee. Jesus saith unto him, Feetl my sheep. Verily, 
 verily, I say unto thee. When thou w:ist young, 
 thou girdedst thyself, and walkedst whither thou 
 wouldest ; but when thou shalt be old, thou shalt 
 stretch forth thy hands, and another shall gird 
 ihee, and carry thee whither thou wouldest not. 
 
 «ch. 2 : 24, 25: 16:30 b ch. 13: 36; Acts 12: 
 
 See ch. 1 ; 42, margiD 2 3 Ltyve, iu these pluceij, represents two 
 
 . .4 Or, perceiveat. 
 
 for sheep is very common; and it is easier to 
 suppose a change from an uncommon to a 
 common word than the reverse. 
 
 17. Again the third time, Jesus repeats his 
 question; but now with an important varia- 
 tion. For he substitutes the verb used by 
 Peter, denoting warm personal affection, for 
 the higlier word previously employed by 
 himself. It is this change which appears to 
 have grieved Peter; for by it Christ seemed 
 to call in question the genuineness of his per- 
 sonal devotion. If Peter's grief had arisen 
 from the repetition of the question a third time, 
 John would naturally have assigned to the 
 third time an emphatic position in the sen- 
 tence, Peter was grieved because he said 
 unto hiin the third time, Lovest thou 
 me? But he did not; and we are tlierefore 
 forbidden to emphasize that expression. 
 Moreover, the change of his own word, 
 lovest, for the word persistently chosen bj' 
 Peter, is an adequate and obvious explanation 
 of the apostle's grief. His answer is now 
 strengthened- -Lord, thou kiioAvest all 
 things; thou knowest that I love thee. 
 The verb wliich is translated knowest, in 
 the last clause, is stronger than that which is 
 translated by the same word in the preceding 
 clause. To mark, if not to express, the dis- 
 tinction between them, the latter may be 
 rendered, as in the margin of the Kevised 
 Version, perceivest. By his perfect knowl- 
 edge Jesus must see, or perceive, the love 
 which his disciple now feels to him. Jesus 
 accepts the answer, and says to Peter, Feed 
 my sheep. The verb feed, is the same as 
 that used in verse 15 — Feed my lambs. 
 And if the word "lambs," in that verse re- 
 fers to weak, immature Christians, the word 
 "sheep," in this verse, must denote persons 
 who are more advanced in Christian life. 
 But there is no evidence that apostles were 
 included among them ; much less is there any 
 
 evidence that Peter was now reinstated in a 
 sort of governmental primacy over all that 
 believe in Christ. All that was said to him 
 on this occasion was said, in other words, to 
 Paul, and to the rest of the apostles. The 
 special reason, however, for saj'ing it to 
 Peter at this time, was the fact of his amazing 
 fall — after which it could Jiot have been easy 
 for him to believe that the Lord would trust 
 him as before, and allow him to resume tlie 
 leading place wliich he had held among the 
 apostles. 
 
 18. Verily, verily, I say unto thee, etc. 
 The connection of this verse with the preced- 
 ing is obvious. Having committed anew to 
 Peter his life-work, as an apostle, Jesus sol- 
 emnly refers to the personal issues of that 
 work. It would lead him in a path not chosen 
 by himself, and to an end which nature al- 
 ways dreads. In earlier days Peter had been 
 self-reliant, and perhaps self-willed. He had 
 been prompt in deciding, strenuous in action, 
 preferring always to lead rather than to be led. 
 But the future would be unlike the past. 
 What was possible then, will be impossible 
 hereafter. The time will come when he will 
 feel the need of direction — when he will in 
 old age stretch forth his hands (as a blind man) 
 for guidance, and when he will be girded by 
 another, and carried whither he would not. 
 Then he will not, as in former years, choose 
 his own way. Faithfulness to his Lord will 
 involve self-denial and martyrdom. There 
 seems to be no special obscurity in this figura- 
 tive language, unless it be found in the clauses, 
 stretch forth thy hands, and another shall 
 gird thee. But the former, when applied 
 to an old man, must naturally be understood 
 as reaching out the hands either for support 
 or for guidance. The writer admits that he 
 has seen it done so often by his blind grand- 
 father with a view to obtaining guidance, that 
 this seems the more natural meaning ; per- 
 
Ch. XXL] 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 417 
 
 19 This spake he, signifying "by what death he 
 should glorify God. Aud when he had spoken this, he 
 saith unto him, Follow lue. 
 
 20 Then Peter, turning about, seeth the disciple 
 *whoni Jesus loved following; which also leaned on his 
 breast at supper, aud said, Lord, which is he that be- 
 trayeth thee? 
 
 21 Peter seeing him saith to Jesus, Lord, and what 
 shall this man do f 
 
 22 Jesus saith unto him, If I will that he tarry «till 
 I come, what is that to thee ? follow thou me. 
 
 19 Now this he spake, signifying by what manner of 
 death he should glorify God. And when he had 
 
 20 siwkeii this, he saith unto him. Follow me. Peter, 
 turning about, seeth the disciple whom Jesus loved 
 following; who also leaned back on his breast at 
 the supper, and said. Lord, who is he that betrayeth 
 
 21 thee? Peter therefore seeing him saith to Jesus, 
 
 22 Lord, * and what shall this man do? Jesus saith 
 unto him, If I will that be tarry till I come, 
 
 o2Pet. 1: U....5 ch. 13:23, 25; 20: 2. 
 
 5: 11 : 26; Rev. 2 : 25 ; 3 : 11 ; 22 : 7 : 20. 1 Gr. and thi* 
 
 haps to one who has never had this early ex- 
 perience, the other reference may appear more 
 probable. The only other tenable sense is 
 that of stretching forth the hands to receive 
 the manacles of a prisoner; but this would 
 have seemed to require the passive, as officers 
 of the law do not usually wait for prisoners 
 to reach out their hands, but lay hold of them 
 and applj' the fetters themselves. The latter 
 expression, another shall gird thee, was 
 probably chosen for the sake of the contrast 
 which it aftbrds to, thou girdedst thyself. 
 Girding oneself, denotes voluntary preparation 
 for action ; being girded by another, denotes, 
 in this case, enforced preparation for death. 
 
 19. This spake he, signifying by what 
 death he should glorify God. The Revised 
 Version is more exact : Now this he spake, 
 signifying hy what manner of death he should 
 glorify God. There is no sufficient reason for 
 calling in question this statement of the sacred 
 writer, or indeed for asserting that he has not 
 referred to the deeper spiritual sense of the 
 Saviour's words. It must first be proved that 
 the deeper, spiritual sense spoken of is clearly 
 present in the words of Christ. But this ex- 
 planation does not require us to suppose, with 
 some of the Christian Fathers, that the 
 Saviour's language pointed to crucifixion as 
 the manner of Peter's death. It is enough to 
 see in his words a prediction of the violent 
 death of Peter ; though we do not wish to call 
 in question the tradition that he was crucified. 
 And Avhen he had spoken this, he saith 
 unto him, Follow me. The next verse 
 implies that this was spoken as Jesus be- 
 gan to move from the place, and that Peter 
 literally followed him, for a short distance, at 
 least. Whether the bodily act was or was not 
 the shadow of a spiritual act, to which the 
 words of Jesus pointed, is not wholly certain; 
 but such a reference is probable. 
 
 30, And now, as the two were going away 
 
 from the group of disciples, Peter, turning 
 about, seeth the disciple whom Jesns 
 loved, following. It might have been ex- 
 pected that John would follow Jesus whenever 
 decorum permitted. But in this instance he 
 did not intrude upon his Lord's privacy with 
 Peter, but allowed a considerable interval 
 between himself and them. Which also 
 leaned on his breast at supper, and said. 
 Lord, which is he that betrayeth theef 
 (13:25.) "In the emphatic three-fold refer- 
 ence to this disciple's intimacy with Jesus, we 
 see most naturally the reason why he con- 
 sidered himself at liberty to follow, although 
 Jesus had called upon no one but Peter to do 
 this." — Weiss. "John was sure that nothing 
 could pass between Jesos and Peter which 
 needed to be concealed from himself." — Godet. 
 This is the real ground for his referring to the 
 expressions of Christ's love to him. 
 
 21. Peter (read therefore, as in Rev. Ver.), 
 seeing him saith to Jesus, Lord, and 
 what shall this man do? More briefly: 
 Lord, and this man, what? That is, what of 
 him? Of his work, and the manner of hi§ 
 death ? Possibly the latter was specially in 
 his mind. For, as the last words of Jesus had 
 foreshadowed Peter's violent death, he may 
 have been thinking of that more than of the 
 work that would go before it. And his 
 thoughts respecting himself may have deter- 
 mined the direction of his inquiry concerning 
 John. This suggestion is favored by the 
 answer of Christ, which appears to assume 
 that Peter had in mind the death of John. 
 The idea that Peter's question sprang from 
 jealousy is unworthy of serious attention. 
 Peter and John were faithful friends, and the 
 question of the former respecting the latter, 
 needs no explanation beyond what is aiforded 
 by the circumstances of the hour. 
 
 22. If I will that he tarry till I come, 
 Avhat is that to thee? These words of 
 
418 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 [Ch. XXI. 
 
 23 Then went this saying abroad among the brethren, 
 that that disciple should not die : yet Jesus said not 
 unto hiiu, He shall not die; but, If I will that he tarry 
 till I come, what U that to thee? 
 
 24 This is the disciple which testifleth of these things, 
 
 23 what is that to thee? follow thou me. This saying 
 therefore went forth among the brethren, that that 
 disciple should not die; yet Jesus said not unto 
 him, that he should not die ; but, if I will that he 
 tarry till I come, what is that to thee? 
 
 24 This is the disciple who beareth witness of these 
 
 I 
 
 Christ certainly imply his control over the 
 duration of the apostles' lives. And if the 
 great forces of nature were subject to his will 
 in such a manner that neither pestilence nor 
 famine, neither human prejudice nor passion, 
 could defeat his purpose in regard to the apos- 
 tles, it is easy to believe that he is "Head over 
 all things to the church." The number of our 
 days is with him. Amid the great forces of 
 the universe Christ rules. Peter must have 
 been profoundly moved by this assumption of 
 authority in the realm of natural life, as well 
 as in that of spiritual things, unless he had 
 been previously convinced of his Lord's true 
 Sonship to the Father, and supremacy over 
 the world. Again, the words of Christ speak 
 of his "coming," as an event certain in the 
 future. But not in the immediate future. To 
 think of the Day of Pentecost, is wholly out 
 of the question. For Jesus had already 
 spoken of Peter in language that foreshad- 
 owed his martyrdom in old age, while this 
 passage implies that he would not remain till 
 the Lord's coming. And when, in connec- 
 tion with this, Christ suggests the possibility 
 of John's continuing in the flesh until he 
 should come, an impression that his coming is 
 somewhat remote is unavoidable. We may, 
 therefore, conclude that none of the apostles, 
 save John, expected to witness the coming of 
 their Lord, without seeing death. But if the 
 words of Jesus, though hypothetical, and not 
 to be interpreted as a declaration of his will 
 and a prediction concerning the life of John, 
 are thought to point in a certain direction, 
 and to render it probable that Jesus meant to 
 preserve the life of John until his coming — 
 that coming must be looked for betweem the 
 death of the other apostles and that of the 
 beloved disciple, and must have been fulfilled 
 in the destruction of Jerusalem, regarded as 
 the tj'pe of a greater coming and judgment 
 at the end of the world. (But see Note on ver, 
 23.) Follow thou me. The pronoun thoii 
 is emphatic. And it is difficult to avoid 
 giving a broad sense to the word follow, in 
 this command — a sense so broad as to include 
 the suffering of a cruel death, as well as a life 
 
 of true devotion to God and patient service of 
 mankind. For this broader and deeper sense 
 grows out of the context, and presents itself 
 to the reader's mind as the only sufficient 
 meaning for the place. 
 
 23. Then Avent this saying, etc. Better, 
 as in the Revised Version : This saying, thert- 
 fore, went forth among the brethren, that that 
 disciple should not die. The word therefore, 
 is preferable to then, as a translation of the 
 Greek connective. The saying that sprang 
 out of Ciirist's remark, and was diffused 
 among the brethren, was an inference; but 
 a natural one, provided Christ was to come 
 but once, and all the Christians then alive were 
 to be changed, without tasting death, as Paul 
 distinctly taught, (i Cor. is ; si, 52.) This, we may 
 assume, was the general belief of Christians ; 
 there is no ground for asserting that Paul dif- 
 fered from others on this point. Circumstan- 
 ces led him to speak of it more fully than it 
 was treated by other apostles, but all held the 
 same view. Yet the inference, that that 
 disciple should not die, is plainly regarded 
 by the sacred writer as illegitimate; but to 
 show that it was illegitimate he simply repeats 
 again the very words of .Jesus. Those words 
 were hj'pothetical, dependent on an if. 
 Again, they said nothing about not dying, 
 but only spoke of life prolonged till a certain 
 event should take place. For some reason 
 John does not tell his readers, whether he does 
 or does not expect to die— whether he does or 
 does not recognize any event in the past as the 
 coming referred to by Jesus. We feel in 
 reading this verse, that he did not regard the 
 Lord's saying as any proof that he would not 
 die ; but if he believed that the comfng re- 
 ferred to took place at the fall of Jerusalem, 
 we are surprised that he has given us no hint 
 of so important a fact. Indeed, his silence on 
 this point makes us doubt whether the fall of 
 Jerusalem was ever more than a faint tj'pe of 
 the greater coming which was principally 
 spoken of by Christ and his apostles. 
 
 34, 25. Concluding Statements About 
 THIS Gospel. 
 
 24. If we suppose this verse to have been 
 
Ch. XXI.] 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 419 
 
 aud wrote these things: and "» we know that bis testi- 
 mony is true. 
 
 25 'And there are also many other things which 
 Jesus did, tlio which, iC they should be written every 
 cue, ' I suppose that even the world itself could not 
 contain the books that should be written. Amen. 
 
 things, and wrote these things: aud we know that 
 his witness is true. 
 25 Aud there are also many other things which 
 Jesus did, the which if they should be written every 
 one, I suppose that even the world itself would not 
 coutaiu the books that should be written. 
 
 icb. 19:35: 3 Jobnl2. 
 
 .c Amos 7 : 10. 
 
 written by John, it is a strong statement that 
 the disciple just referred to (ver. 21-23) is the one 
 who is bearing witness by this Gospel, who 
 wrote these things by which he is bearing wit- 
 ness, and who is certain, from his personal 
 knowledge, of tlieir truth. With this view 
 of the passage, John speaks of himself in the 
 third person, to which there is no objection 
 worth naming. His modesty leads him thus 
 to speak. And the same feeling leads him to 
 say Ave know, in the last clause, instead of / 
 know. Meyer supposes that he speaks '^ out 
 of a consciousness of feUoivship with his read- 
 ers, no one of whom, as the gray-haired apos- 
 tle rightly assumed, would doubt the truth of 
 his testim.ony." On the other hand, Weiss 
 believes that this verse was written by some 
 one representing the Ephesian elders. "It is 
 self-evident that 'the we,' can be only such 
 persons as have lived in fellowship with John, 
 and as have authority enough with the read- 
 ers to whom the Gospel went out to secure 
 its reception through their solemn testimony 
 to its authorship and credibility: hence the 
 Ephesian elders have been thought of as the 
 writers of this verse." A third view is possi- 
 ble, namely; that the addition made by the 
 Ephesian elders is only the last clause — and 
 Ave know that his testimony is true. "In 
 this case the appended words are to be re- 
 garded as the almost involuntary expression 
 of their confidence in, and admiration of, one 
 whose Gospel differed so much from the earlier 
 Gospels, that some may have doubted how it 
 
 would be received." —Schajf. The strongest 
 reason for believing that this clause, (or, the 
 whole verse), was inserted by some one be- 
 sides the Evangelist, is the change from the 
 third person in the earlier parts of the verse, 
 to the first person in the last clause; and this 
 change is as naturally explained by supposing 
 the insertion to begin with and we know, as 
 by supposing it to begin with the verse. 
 
 35. And there are also many other 
 things which Jesus did, etc. Again, as 
 in 20: 30, the Evangelist reminds his readers 
 that his narrative is an incomplete record of 
 the Lord's ministry— a selection from a great 
 treasure-house, which seems to him inexhaust- 
 ible. The which, if they should be writ- 
 ten every one, I suppose that even the 
 world itself could not contain the books 
 that should be written. A hyperbolical 
 statement, intimating the boundless variety 
 and richness of the Saviour's teaching by 
 word and deed, and suggesting that a com- 
 plete record of the same would fill the world 
 too full of books. And surely the Evan- 
 gelist was correct in his judgment. Much as 
 we may regret the brevit3' of the Gospels, 
 when we are seeking to make a complete pic- 
 ture of the Lord's life on earth— there are 
 ample grounds for believing that for the su- 
 preme ends of religious impression we have 
 enough. Thus closes this wonderful Gospel, 
 whose depths of wisdom and love will never 
 be fathomed by the sons of earth. 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 BAPTISM AS RELATED TO REGENERATION AND FORGIVENESS. 
 
 John 3: 5 is one of a few passages on which men have founded the doctrine of baptismal 
 regeneration. Indeed, it has probably been appealed to oftener than any other text of 
 Scripture in support of that doctrine. But with it have been associated Titus 3: 5; 1 Peter 
 8: 21; Acts 2: 38; 22: 16; and Eph. 5: 26. These passages may be divided into two classes. 
 
 (1) Those in which baptism is expressly named: Acts 2: 38; 22: 16; and 1 Peter 3: 21; and 
 
 (2) those in which it is perhaps referred to: Jolin 3:5; Titus 3:5; and Epli. 5: 26. Let us 
 begin our study with the first chiss, wherein the ordinance is distinctly named. In neither of 
 these passages is baptism represented as a means of regeneration — i. e., of the work of the 
 Holy Spirit in giving a new life to the soul, (a) The first of them reads as follows: 
 " Repent, and be baptized every one of you in (or, upon) the name of Jesus Christ, unto the 
 remission (or, forgiveness) of your sins.'' (Acts 2: 38. Rev. Ver.) Here repentance and 
 baptism are represented as leading to the forgiveness of sins. We understand repentance to 
 be a voluntary turning of the soul from the exercise of unbelief to the exercise of belief, 
 and from a paramount love of self and sin to a ])aramount love of God and holiness; while 
 baptism is the prescribed symbol, sign, or expression of that inward change. Tlie two are, 
 therefore, properly united in our thought; but one as the essential, inward change, and tlie 
 other as a divinely required confession or sign of that change. This view of the relation of 
 baptism to repentance or faith is confirmed by the 41st verse below: ''They that gladly 
 received his word were baptized." But there is no hint in these verses of any connection 
 between baptism and regeneration by the Spirit of God ; no suggestion, even, that the 
 change called repentance was conditioned on the rite of baptism, (b) The second passage is 
 a part of what Ananias said unto Paul in Damascus, after the latter had received his sight, 
 and had been assured that he would be a witness for Christ unto all men, thus: '' Ai-ise, 
 and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord." (Acts 22: 16.) 
 Of course there is no such thing possible as a literal washing away of sins. A removal of 
 sins from the soul by bathing the body in water is absurd. But there is such a thing as for- 
 giveness of sins; and this may be described figuratively as washing them away, so that 
 henceforth the soul may be "clean" from the guilt or stain of sin. Dr. Hackett remarks, 
 "that this clause {and wash away thy sins) states a result of the baptism in language derived 
 from the nature of the ordinance. It answers to unto the forgiveness of sins, in 2: 38— i. e., 
 submit to the rite in order to be forgiven. In both passages, baptism is represented as 
 having this importance or eflScacy, because it is the sign of the repentance and faith which 
 are the conditions of salvation." A similar use of language appears in the Old Testament. 
 For in Lev. 4 : 20, 26, 31, 35; 5 : 10, 16, forgiveness of sin is promised as a result of the proper 
 sacrifice for sin; while in Lev. 16: 19, 30, the presenting of the sin-oflTering is said to 
 "cleanse" the people from sins. To forgive sins and to cleanse from sins were, therefore, 
 substantially equivalent expressions. And let it be observed that Ananias adds an expres- 
 sion, calling on his name, (Rev. Ver.), which agrees perfectly with the view that baptism 
 involves the idea of prayer for the forgiveness of sins. If baptism really signifies the change 
 
 420 
 
APPENDIX. 421 
 
 of inward life, called "repentance toward God and faith toward the Lord Jesus Christ," it 
 surely represents the candidate as entering for the first time upon a life of prayer for pardon 
 and peace, (c) The third passage is more difficult; yet we believe it is in perfect accord 
 with the two already considered. But we are satisfied with neither the Common nor the 
 Revised Version of the text. It may, however, be translated as follows: Which also now 
 saveth you in its antitype — baptism, {not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the earnest 
 request of a good conscience unto God), through the resurrection of Jesus Chi-ist. We 
 give to the word (eirepoiTTuno) variously translated answer, inquiry, seeking, earnest seeking, 
 requirement, the meaning request, or earnest request, because the verb (tpwroai) signifies to 
 ask a question, or to ask a favor — i. e., to question, or to request, and because the compound 
 verb appears also to have both these senses, though slightly modified in use. Hence, the 
 noun (cTTcpuiTTjua), which sometimes means a question asked, or a. demand made, may naturally 
 signify a request made. Grimm proposes to add another definition, namely, strong desire; 
 because a feeling of desire is implied in the motions of interrogating or of demanding. But 
 the form of the noun points rather to a request made than to the feeling which might lead to 
 making it. Now we have seen that "calling on his name," or prayer, is associated by 
 Ananias with baptism, while "forgiveness of sins" is represented by Peter as a result of the 
 beginning of spiritual life, signified by baptism. But in this passage, baptism itself is spoken 
 of as an embodied request or prayer unto God. And what can be truer than this, if it is a 
 symbol of repentance, that is to say, of a change of mind and heart, if it is a sign and figure 
 of entering into a new life? Is not the first motion of faith a beginning of actual trust in 
 God, through Christ, for the forgiveness of sins? And is not this trust an implicit and 
 earnest request for that forgiveness? Baptism, therefore, saves, because it stands for and 
 means genuine reliance, for the first time, upon the mercy of God in Christ, and, indeed, an 
 earnest request for pardon : it expresses the act of the soul in turning to God, committing 
 itself to God, and seeking his grace. 
 
 If now we continue our study by looking at the other class of passages cited above, 
 to-wit, those in which Baptism is not expressly named, we shall see that one of them (a) 
 Eph. 5: 26, repeats the idea of "cleansing" — (i. e., from sins) which, as has been shown, is 
 sometimes a figurative expression for forgiveness of sins. The passage is rendered as follows 
 in the Revised Version : Even as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for it ; that he 
 might sanctify it, having cleansed it by tfie washing (margin, laver,) of water with the word. 
 Let the reader observe (1.) That "cleansing" seems to be distinguished by the apostle from 
 "sanctifying." This accords with the view that it refers to the forgiveness of sins upon re- 
 pentance, rather than to the implanting of a holy principle of life and sanctification in the 
 soul. The two acts are doubtless co-incident in time, but are distinguishable in fact and 
 thought. (2.) That here, as in the passages already examined, baptism — in case that is 
 meant by "the laver of water," — is used as a sign or symbol of conversion, and is spoken of 
 as securing that which is secured by conversion — that is, by the turning of the soul to God for 
 pardon and peace. In other words, the sign is here put for the thing signified; the ritual act 
 of confession is put for the spiritual act which it represents. (3.) That an expression is added, 
 with the v)ord, or, in the word, which directs attention to the dispensation or element in which 
 this cleansing or forgiveness is accomplished. That dispensation or element is thegospel — the 
 word of divine grace in which sinners find light and peace. It is surely needless to justify 
 this meaning of the expression, but we will refer to a few passages where it is illustrated — e. g., 
 Rom. 10: 8, 17; Eph. 6: 17; Heb. 6: 5; 1 Peter 1 : 23. It is probably never used to denote 
 the formula of baptism. (4) That the "cleansing by the laver of water" may be a simple 
 figure of speech, founded on the bridal lustrations practiced in the East — the whole church 
 of Christ being thought of as his bride. We do not accept this as the interpretation most 
 likely on the whole to be correct, but it is certainly intelligible and in harmony with the con- 
 text. At all events, there is nothing in this passage to show that Paul conceived of baptism as 
 the medium in and through which divine life is conveyed by the Holy Spirit to the soul. 
 
 There remain two passages in which alone baptism seems to be connected with the work 
 
422 APPENDIX. 
 
 of the Holy Spirit in regeneration, viz. : Titus 3 : 5, and John 3:5. (b) The passage in Titus 
 is thus translated by the Revisers : But according to his viercy he saved us, through the wash-' 
 ing (or, laver) of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Ghost. As we understand the pas- 
 sage it might be literally translated, through a laver of regeneration and a renewing of the 
 Holy Ghost: — "a laver of regeneration" referring to the inception of the new life by the 
 work of the Spirit, and "a renewing of the Holy Ghost" referring to the preservation and 
 development of the life, already implanted, by the same Spirit. But whether "a laver of 
 regeneration," means a laver which belongs to regeneration, as its prescribed emblem and 
 expression, or whether regeneration itself is figuratively called a laver of regeneration be- 
 cause in and by it the soul is cleansed, is not perfectly clear. If this passage could be inter- 
 preted by itself, without regard to other statements, we should be ready to adopt the latter 
 view as correct, and say that there is here no reference to baptism. But bearing in mind the 
 other passages, we accept the former view as probably correct, and believe that Paul had in 
 mind baptism as representing and confessing the divine change called regeneration. Hence 
 he teaches that men are saved by an outworking, obedient life, given and preserved by the 
 Holy Spirit, (c) The other passage, John 3: 5, has been examined in the Commentary; but 
 we may properly add a few remarks in this place. (1) There can be no reference in this pas- 
 sage to Christian baptism in distinction from John's baptism. For neither this Gospel nor 
 any other gives us reason to think that Christ had yet administered the rite by the hands of 
 his disciples, or had imparted to it Any spiritual eiBcacy which it had not when administered 
 by John. If then he meant to speak in language intelligible to Nicodemus, he must have 
 referred either to John's baptism, or to a well-understood figurative sense of the term water 
 He could not have referred to a rite that would begin to be used after two or three years. (2) 
 As an expression, being "born of water and of Spirit" is clearly not sjaionymous with being 
 "born of the Spirit" by means of water. For by the former the relation of these two 
 sources of the new life to each other is not pointed out, while by the latter it is definitely 
 stated. Taking the two sources separately, we may saj' that being "born of water" (bap- 
 tized), must signify being cleansed from sins or forgiven; while being " born of Spirit" can- 
 not signify less than being ingenerated, if we may use the word, with a new and holy prin- 
 ciple of life by the Spirit of God. It is not, therefore, surprising that Jesus alludes to bap- 
 tism in the briefest manner, while he dwells with special emphasis upon the work of the 
 Spirit. (3) We do not hesitate to say that it is irrational to think of "water" as holding 
 the same relation to the new birth, as that held by the Holj' Spirit. A material substance 
 cannot be supposed to effect a moral change. It may naturally enough signify a moral or 
 spiritual change, but that is all. Dead matter cannot be a spring of moral power to the soul. 
 And it is almost equally difficult to conceive of it as a physicial medium of the Spirit. 
 
 Having shown that the principal texts on which men have founded the dt.ctrine that 
 the work of the Holy Spirit in regeneration is mediated by the water of baptism, need not 
 be supposed to teach that doctrine, we will now look at certain representations of Scripture 
 which are manifestly inconsistent with that doctrine. And we shall assume, for the sake of 
 brevity, that repentance towards God, and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, are just as truly 
 fruits of the Spirit, beginning with regeneration, as is genuine love to God or one's neighbor. 
 (Compare 1 John 5: 1 with 1 John 4: 7.) The representations of Scripture to which we 
 refer, are such as these: (a) John the Baptist not only considered repentance, and, indeed, 
 "fruits worthy of repentance," if not also faith in the coming Messiah, to be possible before 
 "baptism, but to be suitable prerequisites to it. (See Matt. 3: 6-8; Mark 1 : 4, 5; Luke 3: 3, 
 8, 13, 14, 18; Acts 19: 4; and compare John 4: 1.) (b) The apostles, after receiving the 
 gifts of the Spirit on the Day of Pentecost, taught the same thing as to repentance and faith 
 in Christ going before baptism. (Acts 2: 38, 41; 8: 12, 35-38; 9: 15-18; 16: 14, 15, 31-34.) 
 (c) Peter looked upon the extraordinary gift of the Spirit to Cornelius, his kinsmen, and 
 near friends, as conclusive evidence that thej" might properly be baptized. (Acts 10: 24, 44- 
 48.) (d) Paul represented the word of the cross, or the preaching of Christ crucified, in 
 distinction from the administering of baptism, as the power of God unto salvation. (1 Cor. 
 
APPENDIX. 423 
 
 1: 17, 18, 21-24.) (e) Paul affirmed that in Christ Jesus he had begotten the Corinthian 
 Christians, through the gospel, (1 Cor. 4: 15), after saying a little before that he had 
 baptized only a very few of them. (1 Cor. 1: 14-10.) These passages make it certain that, 
 according to the teaching of John, of Christ, and of his apostles, the function of baptism is 
 not to originate the new life of faith, but to represent the origin of it; to portray and con- 
 fess the entrance of a human soul, through repentance and faith, produced by the Spirit of 
 God, in the light of divine truth, upon a life of consecration and obedience. It is an 
 ordinance that takes the mind of a believer back to the moment of conversion, that he may 
 confess before men the change which then took place, by the grace of God, in his spiritual 
 state. It is the specific, the prescribed, the significant rite, by which he signifies that he has 
 ceased to live in unbelief, and has begun to live in faith and obedience. If any one thinks 
 it unimportant, because it is concerned in the manifestation rather than in the origination 
 of the new life, let him ponder the language of Paul: "If thou shalt confess with thy 
 mouth, Jesus as Lord, and shalt believe in thy heart that God raised him from the dead, thou 
 shalt be saved." (Rom. 10: 9, Rev. Ver.) ; or the words of James : "Show me thy faith apart 
 from thy works, and I by my works will show thee my faith," and "as the body apart from 
 the spirit is dead, even so faith apart from works is dead." (James 2: 18, 26, Rev. Ver.) ; or 
 the saj'ing of Christ himself: "Evf-ry one therefore who shall confess me before men, him will 
 I also confess before my Father which is in heaven." (Matt. 10: 32, Rev. Ver.) If it can be 
 said with Tertullian, that "a sound or vigorous faith is sure of salvation " {fides Integra 
 secura est de salute), it can also be affirmed, that " vigorous faith " works by love, and leads 
 to obedience. If there can be no doubt as to the salvation of the penitent robber, without 
 baptism, there can be as little doubt of his willingness to obey Christ in every practicable 
 manner. Baptism, then, is a very definite and important act of obedience to Christ, and 
 withal a very clear confession of divine truth; but it is prerequisite to salvation only as 
 obedience to the known will of Christ is prerequisite. 
 
'^^ 
 
 >" ^ 
 
Date Due 
 
 "^^^J^n^:^^^ 
 
 2?^li^S^^l^:^?^^^9 
 
I I i , I ' : ! I