Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2008 with funding from Microsoft Corporation http://www.archive.org/details/commentaryongospOOmillrich COMMENTARY The Gospel of St. John PRINTED BY MORRISON AND Gll'i; LIMITED, FOR T. & T. CLARK, EDINBURGH. London: simpkin, Marshall, Hamilton, hint, and i new york! charles scribner*s sons, Toronto: the wiixard tract depositor! COMMENTARY The Gospel of St. John BY THE LATE Prof. VVM. MILLIGAN, D.D. and Rev. WM. F. MOULTON, D.D UNIVERSITY OK ABERDEEN THE LEYS SCHOOL, CAMBRIDGE EDINBURGH: T. & T. CLARK, 38 GEORGE STREET LONDON: SIMPKIN, MARSHALL, HAMILTON, KENT, & CO. LTD. 1898 INTRODUCTORY NOTE THE following Commentary on St. John's Gospel formed part of the Popular Commentary on the Neiv Testament, edited by Dr. Philip Schaff, and is now- reprinted by the kindness of the publishers, Messrs. T. & T. Clark. It is believed that many will be glad to possess, in a separate form, a work whose value has been so generally recognised, and which may further prove a not unfitting memorial of the two friends and writers. Abundant evidence still remains, in the form of letters and papers, of the anxious care which was bestowed upon it, and from these can also be gathered what was the authors' general mode of procedure. The Introduction was mainly, if not altogether, the work of Dr. Milligan ; while Dr. Moulton was principally responsible for questions of Textual Criticism. The first draft of the exposition was undertaken by Dr. Milligan ; this was afterwards revised and condensed by Dr. Moulton ; and each difficult point of interpretation, as it arose, was afterwards discussed between them. The whole Commentary was thus ' a joint work, in the fullest sense of the word, a fusion of results of separate labour, a fusion made possible by repeated conference, and most of all by union in sympathy and principles of study, and a common relation of reverence and love towards the Fourth Gospel itself.' v To this anxious revision and re-revision may also probably be traced one of the peculiar excellences of the Commentary, namely, its close attention to the exact language of St. John. Each slight variation, every new turn of expression, was closely marked for the light it threw upon the Apostle's teaching. And to both writers it was a continual source of devout wonder and joy that the patient and humble following of the letter seemed ever to lead to a clearer revelation of the Spirit. GEORGE MILLIGAN. JAMES HOPE MOULTON. 1 From Dr. Monlton's Memorial Sketch of Dr. Milligan in the Expository T!me< for March 18 238963 INTRODUCTION TO THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN. IT is obviously impossible, within the limits to which we must here confine our- selves, to treat with adequate fulness the many important and difficult questions relating to the Gospel of John ; nor can we attempt to do more than indicate the leading points of inquiry, together with the grounds upon which we may rest in the confident assurance that that Gospel is really the production of ' the disciple whom Jesus loved.' In endeavouring to do this, we shall approach the subject from its positive rather than its negative side, not dealing directly in the first instance with difficulties, but tracing the history of the Gospel downwards from the time when it was composed to the date at which it enjoyed the unquestioning recognition of the universal Church. Afterwards, turning to the contents of the Gospel, we shall speak of the purpose which its author had in view, and of the general characteristics of the method pursued by him in order to attain it. Such a mode of treatment seems best adapted to the object of an Introduction like the present. It will be as little as possible polemical ; it will enable us to meet by anticipation most, certainly the most formidable, of the objections made to the authenticity of the Gospel ; and it will put the reader in possession of those considerations as to its general character without which he cannot hope to understand it. At the close of the Gospel (chap. xxi. 24) we read, 'This is the disciple which beareth witness of these things, and wrote these things.' These words (which are in all probability from the pen of John ; see the Commentary) contain a distinct intimation on the part of the writer (comp. ver. 20) that he was ' the disciple whom Jesus loved ;' and although that disciple is nowhere expressly named, we shall here- after see that the Gospel itself leaves no room for doubt that he was the Apostle John. I. Personality of the Writer. — This Apostle was the son of Zebedee and Salome, and younger, as there seems every reason to think, than his brother James. Of Zebedee we know little. He was a fisherman upon the Sea of Galilee, who pursued his occupation in common with his sons, and who continued it even after they had obeyed the summons of their Lord to follow Him (Matt. iv. 21). Of Salome we for- tunately know more. From John xix. 25 it would seem probable that she was a sister of the Virgin Mary (see the Commentary) ; but the fact need not be dwelt upon at present. It would not help us to understand better the ties that bound Jesus to her son ; for these depended on spiritual sympathy rather than relationship by blood (Matt. xii. 4S-50). But whether this bond of kindred existed or not, Salome manifested her devotion to Jesus by constant waiting upon her Lord, and by ministering to Him of her substance (Mark xv. 40, xvi. 1). Nor can we fail to recognise her exhibition of the same spirit, mixed though it was in this instance with earthly elements, when she came xiii xiv INTRODUCTION TO THE GOSl J EL ACCORDING TO JOHN. to Jesus with the request that her two sons might sit, the one at His right hand, the other at His left, in His kingdom (Matt. xx. 21). That was not an act of proud ambition, or the request would have been made in private. 1 The zeal of a mother for her children's highest good was there, as well as an enthusiasm, not chilled even after- wards by the events at the cross and at the tomb (Mark xv. 40, xvi. 1 ), for the cause of One whom she felt to be so worthy of her trust and love. The family of John does not seem to have been poor. Zebedee possessed hired servants (Mark i. 20). Salome had substance of which to minister to our Lord during His life (Mark xv. 40 ; comp. Luke viii. 3), and with which to procure the materials for embalming Him after His death (Mark xvi. 1). John was acquainted with the high priest (John xviii. 15), — a fact at least harmonizing well with the idea that he did not belong to the lowest rank of the people ; and at one time of his life, whatever may have been the case at other times, he possessed property of his own (John xix. 27). It was in circumstances such as these that John received his training in the faith of his fathers ; and, as that receptivity which in after life formed one of the most marked features of his character must have shown itself in the child and in the boy, we cannot doubt that, from his earliest years, he would imbibe in a greater than ordinary degree the sublime recollections and aspirations of Israel. We know, indeed, from his ready reference upon one occasion to the fire which the prophet Elijah commanded to come down from heaven, that the sterner histories of the Old Testa- ment had taken deep possession of his mind ; while his enthusiastic expectations of the coming glory of his people equally reveal themselves in his connection with that request of Salome of which we have already spoken. Apart from such specific instances, however, of John's acquaintance with the Old Testament (which, did they stand alone, might not prove much), it is worthy of notice that the books of the New Testament most thoroughly pervaded by the spirit of the older dispensation are two that we owe to the son of Salome, — the Fourth Gospel and the Apocalypse. This remark is not to be confined to the latter of the two. A careful study of the former will show that it displays not only a much more intimate acquaintance with the Old Testament, but also a much larger appropriation of its spirit, than even that first Gospel by Matthew which was confessedly designed for Jewish Christians. Amidst all the acknowledged universalism of the Fourth Gospel, its thorough appreciation of the fact that the distinction between Jew and Gentile has for ever passed away, and that lofty idealism by which it is distinguished, and which lifts its author far above every limita- tion of the favour of God to nation or class, the book is penetrated to the core by the noblest and most enduring elements of the Jewish faith. The writer has sunk himself into all that is most characteristic of what that faith reveals in regard to God, to man, to the world, to the meaning and end of religious life. In addition to this, the figures of the Fourth Gospel are more Jewish than those of any book of the New Testament, except the Apocalypse. Its very language and style display a similar origin. No Gentile writer, either of the Apostolic or of the sub-Apostolic age, no Jewish writer even who had not long and lovingly appropriated the oracles of God given to his fathers, could have written as John has done. These remarks have an important bearing on what is said of the apostle in Acts iv. 13. We there read that when the Sanhedrin beheld his boldness they marvelled, perceiving that he was an ' unlearned and common man ;' and it has often been maintained that one to whom this description is applicable cannot have been the author of the fourth Gospel. The true inference lies in the opposite direction. The words quoted mean only that he had not passed through the discipline of the 1 Comp. Niemcycr, Charakterislik, p. 44. INTRODUCTION TO THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN. xv Rabbinical schools ; and certainly of such discipline the Fourth Gospel affords no trace. His education had been of a purer kind. He had grown up amidst the influ- ences of home, of nature, of a trying occupation, of brave and manly toil. Therefore it was that, when, with an unfettered spirit, he came into contact with the great prin- ciples and germinal seeds which underlay the Old Testament dispensation, — above all, when he came into contact with the Word of Life, with Him of whom Moses in the law and the prophets had spoken, he was able to receive Him, to apprehend Him, and to present Him to the world as he did. It is in connection with the Baptist that we first hear of John. If Salome and Elizabeth were kinswomen (see above, and comp. Luke i. 36), John would naturally become acquainted with the remarkable circumstances attending the birth and training of the Baptist. At all events, the stern teaching of the prophet, his loud awakening calls which rang from the wilderness of Judea and penetrated to the whole surround- ing country and to all classes of its society, his glorious proclamation that the long waited for kingdom was at hand, must have at once kindled into a flame thoughts long nourished in secret. John became one of his disciples (John i. 35), and the impression produced upon him by the Baptist was peculiarly deep. More truly than any of the earlier Evangelists he apprehends the evangelical ends to which, amidst all its sternness, the Baptist's mission really pointed. If the three bring before us with greater force the prophet of repentance reproving the sins of Israel, he on the other hand shows in a clearer light the forerunner of Jesus in his immediate relation to his Lord, and in his apprehension of the spiritual power and glory of His coming (comp. John i. 26, 27, iii. 29, 30, with Matt. iii. 11, 12 ; Mark i. 7, 8 ; Luke iii. 15-17). The Baptist was the first to direct his disciple to Jesus (chap. i. 36). In company with Andrew, Simon Peter's brother, he immediately followed Him, inquired of Him where He stayed, accompanied Him to His house, and remained with Him that day. What the subject of conversation was we are not informed, but the divine Sower had scattered His seed in the young ingenuous heart ; and when shortly afterwards Jesus called him to the apostleship he immediately obeyed the summons (Matt. iv. 21, 22). From this time onward to the close of his Master's earthly career John was His con- stant follower, entering we cannot doubt into a closer union of spirit with Him than was attained by any other disciple. Not only was he one of the chosen three who were present at the raising of the daughter of Jairus, at the Transfiguration, and at the agony in Gethsemane (Luke viii. 51, ix. 28; Mark xiv. 33); even of that small election he was, to use the language of the fathers, the most elect. He leaned upon the breast of Jesus at the Last Supper, not accidentally, — but as the disciple whom He loved (John xiii. 23) ; he pressed after Him into the court of Caiaphas at His trial (chap, xviii. 15) ; he alone seems to have accompanied Him to Calvary (chap. xix. 26) ; to him Jesus committed the care of His mother at the cross (chap. xix. 26, 27) ; he was the first on the Resurrection morning, after hearing the tidings of Mary Magdalene, to reach the sepulchre (chap. xx. 4) ; and, when Jesus appeared after His Resurrection to the disciples by the Sea of Galilee, he first recognised the Lord (chap. xxi. 7). Little is related of John in the earlier Gospels. The chief incidents, in addition to those already mentioned, are his coming to Jesus and saying, ' Master, we saw one casting out devils in Thy name ; and we forbade him, because he followeth not with us ' (Luke ix. 49), and his receiving from Jesus, along with his brother James, the title of 'Son of Thunder' (Mark iii. 17), — a title given to denote not any possession of startling eloquence, but the power and vehemence of his character. It has indeed been urged by foes, and even admitted by friends, that such is not the character of the Apostle as it appears in the Fourth Gospel. But this is a superficial view. No doubt xvi INTRODUCTION TO THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN. in chaps, xiii.-xvii., when the conflict is over and Jesus is alone with His disciples, we breathe the atmosphere of nothing but the most perfect love and peace. The other chapters of the Gospel, however, both before and after these, leave a different impression upon the mind. The ' Son of Thunder ' appears in every incident, in every discourse which he records. To draw a contrast between the fire of youth as it appears in the John of the first three Evangelists and the mellowed gentleness of old age in the John of the fourth is altogether misleading. The vehement, keen, impetuous temperament is not less observable in the latter than in the former. We seem to trace at every step, while the conflict of Jesus with His enemies is described, the burning zeal of one who would call down fire from heaven upon the guilty 'Jews.' The continued possession of the same character is at least entirely consistent with what is told us of John in the Acts of the Apostles ; and it bursts forth again in all its early ardour in the traditions of the Church. John was present with Peter at the healing of the lame man (Acts iii. i-ii), and, although the address of the latter is alone recorded, he does not seem to have been silent on the occasion (chap. iv. i). He exhibited the same boldness as his fellow-apostle in the presence of the Council (chap. iv. 13) ; joined him in the expression of his determination to speak what he had seen and heard (chap. iv. 19, 20) ; was probably at a later point committed with him to prison (chap. v. 18), and miraculously delivered (chap. v. 19); was brought again before the Sanhedrin (chap. v. 27), and, through the influence of Gamaliel, once more set free to resume his labours (chap. v. 41, 42). After Samaria had been evangelized by Philip, he was sent to that city with Peter that they might complete the work begun (chap. viii. 14-17); and, this mission accomplished, he returned with him to Jeru- salem, preaching the gospel at the same time in many villages of the Samaritans (chap, viii. 25). From this time we hear nothing of him until the first great Council at Jerusalem (Acts xv. ; Gal. ii.). Then Paul found him in the holy city, regarded by the Christian community as one of the ' pillars ' of the Church, — a circumstance which, combined with Paul's private explanations to those so named (Gal. ii. 2, 9), may justly lead to the inference that he still belonged to that portion of the Christian community which had not risen to the full conception of the independence and freedom of the Christian faith. Scripture says nothing more of John's apostolic labours. It was now a.d. 50; and we have no further information regarding him until he appears, in the traditions of the Church, as Bishop of Ephesus in the latter part of the first century. An attempt has indeed been recently made to cast doubt on John's residence at Ephesus, but there are few points in the history of early Christianity upon which tradition is so unanimous, and there need be no hesitation in accepting the statement. We do not know the exact date at which he went to this city. It can hardly have been during the life of Paul, or that Apostle would not, in accordance with his own principles of action, have connected himself so closely with the district (Rom. xv. 20; 2 Cor. x. 16). The probability is that, deeply attached to Jerusalem, clinging to the memories asso- ciated with the labours and death of Jesus, he lingered in the sacred city until its destruction approached. Then he may have wandered forth from a place upon which the judgment of God had set its seal, and found his way to Ephesus. The traditions of the Church regarding him while he continued there possess singular interest, partly from the light thrown by them upon the times, partly from the touching pathos by which some of them are marked, mainly because they enable us so thoroughly to identify the aged Apostle with the youthful follower of Jesus in the Synoptic Gospels. Such is the story of his meeting with Cerinthus. It is said that the Apostle once entered the bath-house at Ephesus, and, discovering Cerinthus the heretic within, sprang INTRODUCTION TO THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN. x-.-ii forth exclaiming, ' Let us flee, lest even the bath-house fall in, since there is within it Cerinthus, the enemy of the truth.' Such also is the story of John and the young robber, one of the most beautiful stories of Christian antiquity, which we have no room to relate ; and such the tradition that the Apostle, when too old to walk, was carried by his disciples into the midst of the congregation at Ephesus, only to repeat over and over again to his fellow-believers, ' Little children, love one another.' Other stories are told of him which may be omitted as less characteristic than these ; but the general impression left by them all is not only that the early Church possessed a remarkably distinct conception of the personality of the apostle, but that its concep- tion corresponded in the closest manner to the mingled vehemence and tenderness which come out so strongly in the picture of him presented by the earlier Gospels and by his own writings. From Ephesus, according to a tolerably unanimous, if rather indefinite tradition, which seems to be confirmed by Rev. i. 9, John was banished for a time to the island of Patmos, a wretched rock in the yEgean Sea, but was afterwards permitted to return to the scene of his labours in Ephesus. It was under Nerva, it is said, that his return took place (a.d. 96-98), although he is also spoken of as having been alive after the accession of Trajan (a.d. 98). The days of the aged Apostle were now, however, drawing to a close. The companions of his earlier years, those whose eyes had seen and whose ears had heard Him who was the Word of Life, had been long since gathered to their rest. His time, too, was come. He had waited for more than threescore years to rejoin the Master whom he loved. He died and was buried at Ephesus ; and with him closes the apostolic age. II. Authorship of the Gospel. — It is the almost unanimous tradition of the Church that the Apostle John wrote this Gospel. Our earliest authorities for the fact are Theophilus of Antioch (a.d. 175), Irenaeus (a.d. 130-200), the Muratorian Fragment (a.d. 170-180), and Clement of Alexandria (a.d. 160-220). The accounts of these writers differ slightly from each other, but all agree in distinctly attributing our present Gospel to John ; while the fourth, who is clearly independent of the other three, draws a remarkable distinction between it and the earlier Gospels, the latter being spoken of as containing ' the bodily things,' the former as ' a spiritual Gospel.' To the distinction thus drawn we shall presently return. If, as the above-mentioned authorities lead us to infer, the Fourth Gospel was made public towards the close of the first century (and it is unnecessary to discuss here the question of an interval between the writing and the publication), we naturally look for quotations from or allusions to it in the writings that have come down to us from the period immediately following that date. These prove fewer than we might expect. Not indeed that they are wholly wanting. The acknowledged Epistles of Ignatius and the ' Shepherd ' of Hernias, belonging respectively to the first twenty and the first forty years of the second century, exhibit a style of thought, sometimes even of language, closely connected with that of the Gospel. The Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians, again, a little later than the ' Shepherd,' and the writings of Papias before the middle of the second century, in bearing witness to the first Epistle as the work of John, lead us directly to the same conclusion in regard to the Gospel, for few will doubt that the two books are from the same hand. The account of the martyr- dom of Polycarp, moreover, written in the middle of the same century, is so obviously modelled upon John's narrative of the death of Jesus, that that narrative must have been in possession of the Church before the ' Martyrdom ' was penned. Finally, the Epistle to Diognetus (a.d. 120), the address of Tatian to the Greeks (a.d. 160-180), the writings of Justin Martyr (a.d. 147-160), and the letter of the Churches of Vienne and Lyons (a.d. 177), all of which seem with more or less clearness to quote vol, 11. * xviii INTRODUCTION TO THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN. from the Fourth Gospel, bring us down to the distinct statements of Theophilus, Irenseus, the Muratorian Fragment, and Clement, alluded to above, and to a date at which the testimonies to the Johannine authorship of the Gospel are as clear and full as can be desired. The stream of allusion we have been following has flowed through the writings of the orthodox Church. But it is a remarkable fact, that allusions to our Gospel are still earlier and clearer in the heretical writings of the first half of the second century. This is especially the rase with Basilides and his followers, as early as a.d. 125 ; and they are followed by the Valentinians, who can hardly be separated from their Master, Valentinus (a.d. 140), and by Ptolemreus and Heracleon (about a.d. 170-180), the last mentioned having even written a commentary upon the Gospel. To these facts may be added several important considerations. Thus, to quote the words of Bishop Lightfoot, 'when soon after the middle of the second century divergent readings of a striking kind occur in John's Gospel, we are led to the conclusion that the text has already a history, and that the Gospel therefore cannot have been very recent.' 1 Again, in the early year.-, of the second half of the second century the Gospel formed a part of the Syriac and old Latin translations of the New Testament, and as such was read in the public assemblies of the churches of Syria and Africa. Lastly, in the Paschal Controversies (about a.d. 160) there is hardly reason to doubt that the apparent discrepancy between this and the earlier Gospels, as to the date of the Last Supper of Jesus, played no small part in the dispute by which the whole Church was rent. All these circumstances go far towards answering the allegation often made, that the paucity of allusions to the Fourth Gospel in the first seventy or eighty years after its publication is inconsistent with its authenticity. To present them thus, however, as an argument that the Gospel is authentic is not only greatly to under- state the case ; it is even to put the reader upon a wrong track for arriving at a positive conclusion. The real ground of conviction is the consistent belief of the Church. It is not for those who accept the Gospel to account for its admission into the canon of the last quarter of the second century, on the supposition that it is true ; it is for those who reject it to account for this, on the supposition that it is false. The early Church was not a mass of individual units believing in Jesus, each in his own way nourishing in secrecy and independence his own form of faith. It was an organized community, conscious of a common foundation, a common faith, and common ordin- ances of spiritual nourishment for all persons in all lands who held the one Head, Christ Jesus. It was a body, every one of whose members sympathized with the other members : to every one of them the welfare of the whole was dear, and was moreover the most powerful earthly means of securing his own spiritual progress. The various generations of the Church overlapped one another ; her various parts were united by the most loving relation and the most active intercourse ; and all together guarded the common faith with a keenness of interest which has not been surpassed in any subsequent age of the Church's history. Even if we had not one probable reference to the Fourth Gospel previous to a.d. 170, we should be entitled to ask with hardly less confidence than we may ask now, How did this book find its way into the canon as the Gospel of John ? How is it that the moment we hear of it we hear of it every- where, in Fiance, Italy, North Africa, Egypt, Syria? No sooner do the sacred docu- ments of any local church come to light than the Fourth Gospel is among them, is publicly read in the congregations of the faithful, is used as a means for nourishing the spiritual life, is quoted in controversies of doctrine, is referred to in disputes a; 1 On a Fresh Revision of the New Testament, p. 20. INTRODUCTION TO THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN. xix to practice. It is simply an impossibility that this could have taken place within ten or twenty or thirty years after some single congregation of the widespread Church had accepted it from the hands of an unknown individual as (whether claiming to be so or not) the production of John the Apostle. In the controversies of later years it seems to us that the defenders of the Gospel have failed to do justice to their own position. They have not indeed paid too much attention to objectors, for many of these have been men of almost unrivalled learning and of a noble zeal for truth ; but, by occupying themselves almost entirely with answers to objections, they have led men to regard the authenticity of the Gospel as an opinion to be more or less plausibly defended, rather than as a fact which rests upon that unvarying conviction of the Church which is the strongest of all evidence, and the falsehood of which no opponent has yet been able to demonstrate. Let the faith, the life, the controversies, the worship of the Church about a.d. 170 be first accounted for without the Fourth Gospel, and it will then be more reasonable to ask us to admit that the small number of allusions to it in the literature of the preceding part of the century is a proof that the book had at that time no existence. Many considerations, however, may be mentioned to explain that paucity of quota- tion and allusion upon which so great stress is laid. We notice only two. (1) The Fourth Gospel is considerably later in date than the other three. By the time it appeared the latter were everywhere circulated and appealed to in the Church. They had come to be regarded as the authoritative exposition of the life of the Redeemer. It could not be easy for a Gospel so diffe ent from them as is the fourth at once to take a familiar place beside; hem in the minds of men. Writers would naturally depend upon autho- rities to which they had been accustomed, and to which they knew that their readers had been in the habit of deferring. (2) A still more important consideration is the character of the book itself. May there not be good reason to doubt whether the Fourth Gospel, when first issued, would not be regarded as a theological treatise on the life of Jesus rather than as a simple narrative of what He said and did ? It is at least observable that when Irenajus ( omes to speak of it he describes it as written to oppose Cerinthus and the Nicolaitanes {Adv. Haer. iii. ir, 1) ; and that when Clement of Alexandria gives his account of its origin he describes it as 'a spiritual gospel' written in contrast with those containing ' the bodily things' (in Fuseb. H. E. vi. 14). It may be difficult to determine the exact meaning of 'spiritual' 1 ere, but it cannot be understood to express the divine as contrasted with the human in Jesus; and it appears more natural to think that it refers to the inner spirit in its contrast with the outward facts of His life as a whole. If so, the statement seems to justify the inference that the earlier gospels had been considered the chief storehouse of informa- tion with regard to the actual events of the Saviour's history. What bears even more upon this conclusion is the manner in which Justin speaks. We have already quoted him as one oft ose to whom the Fourth Gospel was known, yet his description of the Saviour's method of address is founded upon the discourses in the Synoptic Gospels, quite inapplicable to those of the Fourth {Apol. i. 14). Phenomena such as these make it probable that the Fourth Gospel was at first regarded as a presentation of spiritual truth respecting Jesus rather than as a simple narration similar to those already existing in the Church : and if so, the paucity of references to it, until it came to be better understood, is at once explained. The suggestion now offered finds some confirmation in a fact formerly mentioned, that the Gospel was a favourite one with the early heretics. Containing the truth, as it did, in a form in some degree affected by the speculations of the time and the country of its birth, it presented a larger number of points of contact for their peculiar systems than the earlier gospels. xx INTRODUCTION TO THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN. In it they found many a hint which they could easily develope and misuse. It? pro- foundly metaphysical character was exactly suited to their taste ; and they welcomed the opportunity, as we see from the Refutations of Hippolytus (Clark's translation, i. p. 276), of appealing to so important and authoritative a document in favour of their own modes of thought. But this very circumstance must have operated against its quick and general reception by the Church. The tendency, if there was room for it at all, would be to doubt a writing in which systems destructive of the most essen- tial elements of Christianity claimed to have support ; and it helps to deepen our sense of the strength of the Church's conviction of the divine origin of our Gospel, that, in spite of the use thus made of it, she clung to it without the slightest hesitation and with unyielding tenacity. In reviewing the first seventy years of the second century, a period at the end of which it must not be forgotten that the Fourth Gospel is generally and unhesitatingly acknowledged to be the work of John, we can trace no phenomena inconsistent with such a conclusion. No other theory gives an adequate explanation of the facts. Unless, therefore, the structure and contents of the Gospel can be shown to be incon- sistent with this view, we are manifestly bound to accept the testimony of the early Church as worthy of our confidence. According to that testimony the Gospel was written, or at least given to the Church at Ephesus, towards the close of the apostle's life. There is nothing to determine with certainty the particular date. The pro- babilities are in favour of fixing it about a.d. 90. Turning now to the internal character of the Gospel, we shall find that, if carefully examined, it is not only consistent with, but strongly confirmatory of, the Johannine authorship. 1. The author teas unquestionably a Jeiv. Some most marked peculiarities of the Gospel, such as its artificial arrangement and its teaching by symbolic action (points of which we have yet to speak more fully), not only are strictly Jewish, but have nothing corresponding to them in any Gentile writer of the age. Nor does this book contain one word to suggest the inference that its author, originally a Gentile, might have acquired his Jewish thoughts and style by having become, before his con- version to Christianity, a proselyte to Judaism. To such an extent do these features permeate the Gospel, that they cannot be the result of later and acquired habits of thought. They are the soul of the writing. They are interwoven in the most intimate manner with the personality of the writer. They must have grown with his growth and strengthened with his strength before he could be so entirely moulded by them. Nothing shows this more than the relation which exists in the Gospel between Christianity and Judaism. The use of the expression ' the Jews,' when properly under- stood, implies the very contrary of what it is so often adduced to establish. It would be simply a waste of time to argue that our Lord's conflict with ' the Jews ' was not a conflict with Judaism. But, this being so, the use of the expression becomes really a measure of the writer's indignation against those who, having been appointed the guardians of a lofty faith, had dimmed, defaced, and caricatured it. Such expressions as ' A feast of the Jews,' ' The Passover of the Jews,' ' The manner of the purifying of the Jews,' ' The Jews' feast of Tabernacles,' and so on, not only could well be used by a writer of Jewish birth, but are even consistent with true admiration of the things themselves when conformed to their ideal. He has in view institutions as perverted by man, not as appointed by the Almighty. He sees them observed and urged by their defenders for the sake of their own selfish interests, made instruments of defeating the very end for which they had been originally given, used to deepen the darkness rather than to lead to the coming light. He sees that that stage in the history of a faith has been INTRODUCTION TO THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN. xxi reached when the form has so completely taken the place of the substance, the letter of the spirit, that to revivify the former is impossible : it must perish if the latter is to be saved. He sees the spirituality of religion crushed, extinguished, in the very moulds which had for a time preserved it. Therefore he might well say, Their work is done : God's plan is accomplished : they must perish. In all this there is no antagonism to true Judaism. No Gentile authorship is before us. The thought belongs to a different training and a different race ; and that, too, at a time when Judaism must, have possessed much of its former interest, when the echoes of its greatness had not yet passed away. The same thing appears in the relation of the writer to the Old Testament Scrip- tures. They are quoted with great frequency, and it is well worthy of notice that the quotations are not simply taken from the Septuagint. They are at times from the Hebrew where it differs from the Septuagint : at times the translation is original (co'mp. chaps, ii. 17, xii. 40, xix. 37, xiii. 18). Nothing leads more directly than this to the thought not only of Jewish birth, but also of long familiarity with Jewish worship in Palestine. In all the provinces at least of the Western Diaspora the service of the synagogue was conducted not in Hebrew but in Greek, by means of the Septuagint. To Gentiles of all conditions of life, and similarly to Jews of the Dispersion, with the exception of a very few, the Hebrew Scriptures were even in the apostolic age, and certainly at a later date, utterly unknown. To think of a Gentile Christian of the first half of the second century, whether a native of Alexandria or of Asia Minor, as able to translate for himself, is to suppose a state of things of which no other illustration can be adduced, and which is at variance with all our knowledge of the time. The same conclusion is to be deduced from the Hebraic style of the book. This character of its style is now generally recognised. But the fact is of such interest and importance, yet at the same time so dependent upon a skilled and delicate acquaintance with both Hebrew and Greek, that instead of quoting examples which the English reader would hardly understand, we shall refer to two, out of many, statements from writers whose authority on such a point none will question. It is thus that Keim speaks : ' The style of the book is a remarkable combination of a facility and skill essentially Greek, with a form of expression that is truly Hebrew in its com- plete simplicity, childlikeness, picturesqueness, and in some sense guilelessness.' 1 To a similar effect Ewald : ' It is well worthy of our observation that the Greek language of our author bears the clearest and strongest marks of a genuine Hebrew who, born among Jews in the Holy Land, and having grown up among them, had learned the Greek language in later life, but still exhibits in the midst of it the whole spirit and air of his mother tongue. He has constructed a Greek tongue to which nothing corre- sponds in the other writings that have come down to us marked by a Hellenistic tinge.' 2 2. The author belonged to Palestine. He is alive to all the geographical, eccle- siastical, and political relations of the land. He speaks of its provinces — Judea, Samaria, and Galilee. He is familiar with its towns — Jerusalem, Bethany, Sychar, Cana, Nazareth, Capernaum, Bethsaida, Tiberias, Ephraim ; and not less so with its river Jordan and its winter-torrent Kedron. The general character of the country is known to him, the different routes from Judea into Galilee (chap. iv. 4), the breadth of the sea of Galilee (chap. vi. 19, comp. Mark vi. 47), the lie of the road from Cana to Capernaum (chap. ii. 12), the exact distance between Jerusalem and Bethany (chap, xi. 18). The situation of particular spots is even fixed with great distinctness, such as of Jacob's well in chap, iv., of Bethesda in chap, v., and of Cana in chap. ii. Similar remarks apply to his acquaintance with the ecclesiastical and political 1 Jesus von Nazara, i. p. 157. " Die Jokann. Schri/ten, i. p. 44. xxii INTRODUCTION TO THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN. circumstances of the time. It is not possible to illustrate this by details. We add only that all his allusions to such points as we have now noticed are made, not with the laboured care of one who has mastered the subject by study, but with the simplicity and ease of one to whom it is so familiar that what he says is uttered in the most incidental manner. Where did he obtain his information ' Not from the Old Testament, for it is not there. Not from the earlier Gospels, for they afford but little of it. Surely not from that second century which, according to the state- ment of objectors, left him in the belief that appointment to the high-priesthood was an annual thing ! One source of knowledge alone meets the demands of the case. The writer was not only a Jew, but a Jew of Palestine. 3. The author was an eye-witness of 70/10/ he relates. We have his own explicit statement upon the point in chap. i. 14 and chap. xix. 35 (see the Commentary). Upon this last verse we only call attention now to the distinction, so often over- looked, between the two adjectives of the original, both translated 'true' in the Authorised Version, but wholly different in meaning. The first does not express the truth of the fact at all, but sets forth the fact as one in regard to which the witness was not, and cannot have been, mistaken : his testimony is all that testimony can be. The moment we give its due weight to this consideration, we are compelled to admit that ' he that hath seen hath borne witness, and his witness is true,' can refer to no other than the writer of the words. He could not have thus alleged of another that his testimony was thoroughly true and perfect — that it was the exact expression of the incident which had taken place. What he himself has seen is the only foundation of such a ' witness ' as that which he would give. The statements thus made are confirmed by the general nature of the work. There is a graphic power throughout the whole, a liveliness and picturesqueness of description, which constrain us to believe that we are listening to the narrative of an eye-witness. There is a delicacy in the bringing out of individual character (as in the case of Martha and Mary in chap, xi.) which even the literary art of the present day could hardly equal. And there is a minuteness of detail, different from that of the earlier Gospels, for whose presence it is altogether impossible to account unless it was suggested by the facts. If the trial before Pilate is an imaginary scene, there is nothing in all the remains of Greek antiquity to compare with it. 4. The author, if an eye-witness and a disciple of Jesus, could he no other thou the Apostle John. We have already seen that he calls himself ' the disciple whom Jesus loved.' But from such passages as chaps, xiii. 23, xix. 26, we infer that the disciple so peculiarly favoured must have been one of those admitted to the most intimate com- munion with Jesus. These were only three, Peter, James, and John. One of these three, therefore, he must have been. He was not Peter, for that apostle is frequently mentioned in the Gospel by his own name, and is on several occasions expressly distinguished from ' the disciple whom Jesus loved ' (chaps, xiii. 24, xxi. 7, 20). Neither was he James, for that apostle was put to death by Herod at a date long anterior to any at which our Gospel can have been composed (Acts xii. 2). He could therefore only be John. Internal evidence thus lends its force to the external fur the conclusion that we advocate. That there are no difficulties in the matter, or that they are slight, it would be foolish to allege. They are both numerous and weighty. But it seems to us that they are connected less with the actual state of the evidence, than witli the fact that the true character of the Fourth Gospel lias usually been overlooked by those who, in this country at least, have defended its authenticity. In this respect we owe much to the very continental scholars who have been most unfriendly to its INTRODUCTION TO THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN. xxiii apostolic origin. None have contributed so greatly to unfold its true character ; and, in doing so, they have helped most powerfully, however unconsciously, to answer their own objections to the Johannine authorship. That authorship there is no reasonable ground to doubt III. Object of the Gospel. — The Gospel of John is in our hands, the production of that apostle who, of all the apostolic band, had been most closely and tenderly associated with their common Master. Why was it written ? We have already had occasion to mention some of the early testimonies bearing upon this point. We must now refer to them again. Eusebius quotes Clement of Alexandria as saying that 'John, the last of the Apostles, perceiving that the bodily things (of Jesus) had been made known in the Gospels, and being at the same time urged by his friends, and borne along by the Spirit, wrote a spiritual Gospel.' And a still earlier authority (the Muratorian Frag- ment) so far agrees with this as to tell us that ' when John's fellow-disciples and bishops exhorted him he said, Fast along with me three days from to-day, and let us relate the one to the other whatever has been revealed to us. The same night it was revealed to Andrew the Apostle that John should in his own name write down the whole, and that they all should revise (what he wrote).' The two accounts, while obviously independent, bear witness to the same view of the origin of our Gospel. The friends of the Apostle — how impossible that it should be otherwise ! — had often heard him relate much that was not found in the Gospels already in existence. They urged him to put it in writing, and he complied with their request In other words, the Fourth Gospel was written as a supplement to its predecessors. Up to a certain point the idea may be accepted ; but that John wrote mainly for the purpose of supplying things wanting in the Synoptic narrative is a theory inconsistent with the whole tone of his composition. His work is from first to last an original conception, distinguished from previous Gospels alike in the form and in the substance of its delineation, proceeding upon a plan of its own clearly laid down and consistently followed out, and presenting an aspect of the person and teaching of Jesus which, if not entirely new, is set before us with a fulness which really makes it so. It is one burst of sustained and deep appreciation of what its writer would unfold, the picture of one who paints not because others have failed to catch the ideal he would represent, but because his heart is full and he must speak. On the other hand, it was the opinion of Irenseus that John wrote to controvert the errors of the Nicolaitanes and of Cerinthus ; in other words, that his aim was not so much supplementary as polemical. Up to a certain point, again, the idea may be accepted ; but it is impossible to believe that it affords us the whole, or even the main explanation of his work. His presentation of Jesus might no doubt be moulded by the tone of thought around him, because he had himself been moulded by it. Yet he starts from a positive, not from a controversial point of view. Filled with his subject, he is impelled to set it forth without turning aside to show, as a contro- versialist would have done, that it met the deficiencies or errors of his age. Upon these he makes no direct attack. It may be in the light of the present that the truth shapes itself to his mind ; yet he writes as one whose main business is not to controvert the present but to revivify the past. Neither of these statements, then, explains the Apostle's aim. He has himself given the explanation, and that so clearly that it is difficult to account for the differ- ences of opinion that have been entertained. His statement is, ' 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 xxiv INTRODUCTION TO THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN. of God, and that believing ye may have life in His name' (chap. xx. 30, 31). Almost every word of this statement is of the utmost importance for the point before us. But, referring for fuller exposition to the Commentary, we now only remark that John is not to be understood as meaning that the Gospel was written in order that its readers might be led to acknowledge the Divine mission of Jesus, when they beheld the works wrought by Him in more than human power. These readers were already believers, disciples, friends. What was wanted was not the first formation but the deepening of faith within them, so that they might reach a profounder appreciation of the true character of Jesus, a more intimate communion with Him and in Him with the Father, and thus also a richer and more abundant spiritual life (comp. chap. x. 10). The conclusion now reached will be strengthened if we observe that, with a characteristically firm grasp of his materials, and with that remarkable unity of plan which distinguishes the Gospel, John manifests the same intention at the first ap- pearance of the Redeemer in his history. In his first chapter we read of three, Andrew, Philip, and Nathanael, who, having been brought face to face with Jesus, make confession of their faith. It is impossible to overlook the parallelism between this paragraph and chap. xx. 30, 31. The three disciples bear witness to the three aspects of the Saviour brought before us in the Evangelist's own summary of his work — ' Jesus,' ' the Christ,' ' the Son of God.' The similarity is an important testi- mony to the fact that that summary is not one for which he might have substituted another, but that it is the calm, self-possessed utterance of a writer who had from the first a clear perception of the end which he kept in view throughout. To the question, therefore, Why did John write? we may now reply: He wrote in order to present to believing men a revelation of the Divine Son which might deepen, enlarge, perfect their faith, and which, by bringing them into closer spiritual com- munion with the Son, might make them also in Him spiritually sons of God. He wrote to exhibit, in the actual facts of the life of the ' Word become flesh,' the glory of that union which had been established in His person between the Divine and the human. He wrote to be a witness to the heart of One who is in His people, ana in whom the Father abides (chaps, xiv. 10, xvii. 23). IV. Characteristics of the Gospel. — Having thus ascertained the purpose with which the Fourth Gospel was written, we shall now be better able to appreciate some of those characteristics which have furnished opponents with many plausible objections, and have occasioned no small perplexity to friends. Of these the following seem to deserve notice, either as being in themselves the most important, or as being frequently made use of in this Commentary : — (1.) The selective principle upon which the evangelist proceeds. No historian can mention all the particulars of any whole life, or even of any single event, that he records. To a certain extent he is bound to select those which, from whatever cause, strike him most or seem to bear most closely on his purpose. But the writer of the Fourth Gospel gives many proofs that he not only carries this principle to an unusual extent, but does it deliberately and on purpose. The incidents looked at as a whole will in part illustrate what we say. That these should constitute a group so different from what we have in the earlier Gospels is often urged as an objection to the authenticity of the Fourth. Those indeed who make the objection lose sight of the fact that there is selection of incidents as truly in the former as in the latter. The difference between the two cases lies less in the extent to which selection is carried, than in the degree of consciousness with which the principle is applied. In the Synoptic Gospels it is less easy to trace the hand of the writer as he puts aside what does not appear to him to bear upon his subject, or as he brings into prominence what INTRODUCTION TO THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN. xxv has direct relation to his aim. Abstaining, however, from any comparison between our two groups of authorities, and confining ourselves to the Fourth Gospel, we rather notice that the selection of its incidents in general is determined by the ideas to which expression is given in the Prologue. It is not through forgetfulness or ignorance of other incidents that the writer confines our attention to a selected few (comp. chap. xxi. 25), but through his conviction that no others will as well subserve the end that he has in view. Hence, accordingly, the space devoted to the discourses with ' the Jews,' which are not those of a mild and gentle teacher, but of one who is in conflict with bitter and determined foes, of one whose business it is to confute, to con- vict, and to condemn. No one, giving heed to the state of Jewish feeling at the time, can doubt that these discourses in their general strain have all the verisimilitude that outward evidence can lend to them, — that the teaching of Jesus must have been a struggle, and in precisely this direction. The conflict between light and darkness became thus to John a leading idea of the history of his Master. The thought finds expression in the Prologue (chap. i. 5—1 1 ), and the discourses which illustrate it naturally follow. It is not otherwise with the miracles. He invariably styles these ' signs,' a word in itself showing that they are outward acts expressive of a hidden meaning from which they derive their chief importance. Why, then, does he give them as he does? Because, looking over the whole manifestation of Jesus, he had been taught to find in Him the fulfilment of ' grace and truth ' which had not been given in the law, — the perfect Light, the present and eternal Life, of men. He presents these ideas in the Prologue (chap. i. 4, 5, 9, 17), and the selection given of the miracles naturally follows. The point now before us may be illustrated, not only by the incidents of the Gospel looked at thus generally, but by smaller and more minute particulars. Many of these, however, will be noticed in the Commentary (see, for example, the note on chap. ix. 6), and we shall not occupy time with them now. The point to be borne in mind by the reader is, that in the Gospel of John there is no attempt to give the historical facts of the life of Jesus in all their particulars. There is throughout conscious and intentional selection. From what he has seen, the writer has attained a particular idea of the Person, the Life, the Work of his Divine Master. He will present that idea to the world; and knowing that, if all the things that Jesus did were to be written down, ' the world itself would not contain the books that should be written,' he makes choice of that which will most fitly answer the appointed end. (2.) The symbolic method of treatment which the evangelist exhibits. This is so pecu- liarly characteristic of John, and has at the same time been so much disregarded by most modern commentators, that one or two general remarks upon teaching by symbols seem to be required. The Old Testament is full of it. All the arrangements of the tabernacle, for example ; its courts, the furniture of its courts, the ceremonial observ- ances performed in it, the very dyes and colours used in the construction of its wrappings, have an appropriate meaning only when we behold in them the expression of spiritual truths relating to God and to His worship. More especially it would seem to have been a part of the prophets task thus to present truth to those whom he was commissioned to instruct ; and the higher the prophetic influence which moved him, the more powerful his impression of the message given him to proclaim, the more entirely he was borne along by the divine afflatus, the more did he resort to it. As simple illustrations of this we may refer to the cases of Zedekiah, Elisha, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel (1 Kings xxii. n ; 2 Kings xiii. 17 ; Jer. xxvii. 1-18 ; Ezek. iv. 1-6). If it was thus under the Old Testament dispensation, there is not only no reason why we ought not to expect symbolism in the New Testament, but every reason to xxvi INTRODUCTION TO THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN. the contrary. The narrative of Agabus shows that in the apostolic age symbolic action was still a part of the prophetic functions appreciated by the Jews (Acts xxi. 1 1). What wonder, then, if our Lord should teach by symbolism as well as by direct instruction ? He was the fulfilment not only of Israel's priestly, but also of its pro- phetic line. He was the true and great Prophet in whom the idea and mission ot prophecy culminated ; in whom all that marked the prophet as known and honoured in Israel attained it; highest development and reached perfect ripeness. Besides this, His eye saw, as no merely human eye ever did, the unity that lies at the bottom of all existence, the principles of harmony that bind together the world of nature and of man, so that the former becomes the type and shadow of the latter. When, accord- ingly, He appeared as the great Prophet of Israel, there is nothing unreasonable in the supposition that He would teach by symbol as well as word, that not only His words but His acts should be designed by Him to be lessons to the people, illustrations of the nature of I lis kingdom and His work. Still further, we cannot forget the general character of all the words and actions of our Lord. As coming from Him, they possess a fulness of meaning which we should not have been justified in ascribing to them had they come from another teacher. It is impossible to doubt that He saw all the truths which find a legiti- mate expression in what He said or did, however various the sphere of life to which they apply. And it is equally impossible to doubt that He intended to titter what He saw. But if Jesus might thus teach, a disciple and historian of His life might appre- hend this characteristic of His teaching, — nay, would apprehend it, the more he entered into the spirit of his Master. There are clear indications of this, accordingly, even in the earlier Gospels. The account of the miraculous draught of fishes, at the time when Simon and Andrew were called to the apostleship (Luke v. 3-10), the cursing of the barren fig-tree (Matt. xxi. 18-20; Mark xi. 12-14), the double miracle of the multi- plying of the bread (Matt. xiv. 15-21, xv. 32-3S ; Mark vi. 34-44, viii. 1-9), afford clear illustrations of this principle. It is in the Fourth Gospel, however, that the symbolic spirit particularly appears ; and that not merely in the miracles, but in lengthened narratives, and in many separate figures supplied by the Old Testament, by nature, or by incidents occurring at the moment. To the eye of the Evangelist the whole of creation waits for redemption ; the whole of history reaches forth to Him ' that was to come ; ' the heart of man in all its stirrings seeks to grasp a reality to be found nowhere but in the revelation of the Father given in the Son. Everything, in short, has stamped upon it a shadowy outline of what is to be filled up when redemption is complete. The Logos, the Word, is the source of all that exists (chap, i. 3), and to the source from which it came will all that exists return. Every chapter of the Gospel would furnish illustration of what has been said. It is impossible, however, to rest here ; for this power of perceiving in outward things symbols of inner truths may be so strong as to appear in the mode of presenting not only the larger but also the smaller circumstances of any scene in which Jesus moves. The greater may draw along with it a symbolic interpretation of the less. Nay, out of numerous little details the mind which is quick to discern symbolic teaching may really select some in preference to others, because in them the impress of the symbolism may be more clearly traced. A writer may thus act without any thought of art or special design, even to a great degree unconscious of what he does, and simply because the higher object with which he has been engaged has a natural power to attract to itself, and to involve in its sweep the lower objects within its range. Illustrations of this will be found in the Commentary. IX PRODUCTION TO THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN. xxvii (3.) The peculiar nature of the plan adopted by the Evangelist. The Gospel appears to us mist naturally to divide itself into seven sections, as follows : — 1. The Prologue: chap. i. 1-18. These verses contain a summary of the great facts of the whole Gospel, grouped in accordance with the Evangelist's purpose, and presented in the light in which he would have them viewed. 2. The presentation of Jesus upon the field of human history: chap. i. 19-ii. n. Here Jesus appears before us as He is in Himself, the Son of God, and as He manifests Himself to His disciples before He begins His conflict in the world. 3. General sketch of the work of Jesus in the world: chap. ii. 12-iv. 54. Jesus passes beyond the circle of the disciples, and is rejected by the Jews when He would cleanse the house of His Father at Jerusalem. This leads to His revelation of Himself as the true temple which, destroyed by 'tie Jews' in their persecution of Him even unto death, shall be raised again in His resurrection. Thus rejected by the representatives of the theocracy, He reveals Himself by His word to individuals who, whether of Judea, or Samaria, or Galilee of the nations, are — not by signs but by His word — subdued to faith. 4. The conflict of Jesus with the world : chap. v. i-xii. 50. This section contains the main body of the Gospel, setting Jesus forth in the height of His conflict with dark- ness, error, and sin. He comes before us throughout in all the aspects in which we have in the Prologue been taught to behold Him, and He carries on the work there spoken of as given Him to do. He is Son of God, and Son of man, the Fulfiller of the greatest ordinances of the law, the Life and the Light of men. As He contends with the world, now in one and now in another of these manifestations of Himself, faith or unbelief is gradually developed and deepened in those who listen to Him. The believing and obedient are more and more attracted, the disobedient and unbelieving are more and more repelled, by His words and actions, until at last we hear, in the closing verses of chap, xii., the mournful echo of ' He came unto His own, and His own received Him not.' He has gathered His disciples to Himself. The darkness has not overcome Him (comp. chap. i. 5). He passes victorious through its opposi- tion ; but His victory is not yet complete. 5. The revelation of Jesus to His own, together with the rest and peace and joy of faith : chap. xiii. i-xvii. 26. The conflict of the previous section has divided men into the two great companies of faith and unbelief. These two com- panies are now to be followed, the one to its blessed rest in Him whom it has received, the other to those last steps in sin which, in the hour of apparent victory, really secure its final and ignominious defeat. The rest of faith is traced in the section now before us. The world is shut out from the sacred and tender fellowship of Jesus with His own. Judas leaves the company of the disciples (chap. xiii. 30). The rest of the disciples are 'clean;' not only bathed, but with their feet afterwards washed, so that they are 'clean every whit' (chap. xiii. 10), and Jesus is alone with them. Therefore He pours forth upon them all the fulness of His love. His glory — the glory of ' grace and truth ' — shines forth in all the inexpressible tenderness of the foot-washing, of the last discourse, and of the intercessory prayer. 6. The apparent victory but real defeat of unbelief : chap, xviii. i-xx. 31. At first sight it may be thought that chap, xx., as containing the account of the Resurrec- tion, ought to constitute a separate section ; but it is of the utmost importance for a proper comprehension of the plan of the Evangelist to observe that this cannot be. The Death and Resurrection of Jesus are in this Gospel always united, and cannot be separated in our thought ; the Redeemer with whom we have to do is One who rises through suffering to victory, through death to life (comp. remarks on the contents xxviii INTRODUCTION TO THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN. of chap. xx.). Even the prominent thought of chap. xix. is not Jesus in humiliation, but Jesus : lifted on high,' rising triumphant above the humiliation to which He is subjected, with a glory which appears the brighter the thicker the darkness that surrounds it. But this is exactly the thought of chap. xx. ; and the two chapters cannot be kept distinct. Thus viewed, we see in the section as a whole the apparent victory, but the real defeat of unbelief. The enemies of Jesus seem to prevail. They seize Him ; they bind Him ; they lead Him before Annas and Caiaphas and Pilate ; they nail Him to the cross ; He dies and is buried. But their victory is only on the surface. Jesus Himself gives Himself up to the traitor and his band; offers no resist- ance to the binding; shows the infinite superiority of His spirit to that of the high priest; compels the homage of Pilate; voluntarily surrenders His life upon the cross; has the mocking of His enemies turned, under the providence of God, to their dis- comfiture and shame ; and at last, rising from the grave, establishes the completeness of His victory when His enemies have done their worst. In short, throughout this section we are continually reminded that the triumphing of the wicked is but for a moment, and that God judgeth in the earth. 7. The Epilogue: chap. xxi. In this section we see the spread of the Church; the successful ministry of the Apostles when, at the word of Jesus, they cast their net into the great sea of the nations ; the satisfaction and joy experienced by them in the results of protracted toil. Finally, we see in it the reinstitution in the person of Peter of Christian witness-bearing to Jesus, together with the intimation of the certain approach of that glorious time when the need of such testimony, with all its labours and sufferings, shall be superseded by the Second Coming of the Lord. Such appears to be the plan of the Fourth Gospel, — a plan vindicated by the narrative itself, and having each of its sections marked off from the others by lines too distinct to be mistaken. When, accordingly, we recall what has been already said as to the leading aim of the Fourth Gospel, we can have little difficulty in understanding the influence which that aim exerts upon the selection of particulars and upon the structure of the narrative as a whole. If in this Gospel pre-eminently Jesus reveals Himself with so much frequency and fulness, we have seen that this is the very truth which the Evangelist has set himself to unfold. Its prominence can throw no suspicion upon the historical reality of the representation. We are prepared to find in this Gospel a revelation of Jesus and His own glory different both in manner and degree from that presented in the earlier Gospels. The considerations that have now been adduced with regard to the history of the Fourth Gospel, the external and internal evidence bearing upon its Johannine authorship, and the striking peculiarity of the characteristics by which it is marked, seem sufficient to satisfy every reasonable inquirer that the uniform tradition of the Church, pointing to the Apostle John as its author, is correct. It is not to be denied, however, that there remain difficulties, some of a general nature, others arising out of special details contained in the Gospel itself. Our readers will readily acknowledge that it is wholly impossible within our limits to treat these with a fulness worthy of their importance. Of the second class of difficulties, too, it is less necessary to speak, for they will naturally present themselves as we comment on the text of the Gospel. Perhaps the only points that require notice in an Introduction are two belonging to the first class, — the relations in which the Fourth Gospel stands (1) to the Apocalypse, (2) to the earlier Gospels. The first of these must be deferred until the Apocalypse comes under our notice in this work. Upon the second we say a few words in bringing this Introduction to a close. INTRODUCTION TO THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN. xxix V. Relation of the Fourth to the earlier Gospels. — This relation is often supposed to be one of irreconcilable divergence, and the divergence is found not only in particular statements in which the Fourth Gospel touches the others, but in the history as a whole. Alleged differences of the first kind will be noticed when we meet them in the course of exposition. Looking, therefore, only at the history as a whole, the reader will easily observe that the apparent divergence runs in two main lines, one having reference to the outward framework, the other to the portraiture of Jesus, in Himself and in His discourses. As to the first of these, in its two branches, the scene and the duration of the ministry, little need be said. It is true that in the earlier Gospels the scene, up to the Passion week, appears to be Galilee alone, while in the Fourth it is even more Jerusalem and Judea; that in the former the duration seems less than one year, in the latter more than two. Yet it is to be borne in mind that no one of our narratives professes to give a complete history of the life of our Lord upon earth. Their fragmentariness is one of their essential characteristics, admitted by all in the case of the Synoptists, distinctly declared by John in his own case (chap. xx. 30, xxi. 25). All, therefore, that we are entitled to ask is, that the earlier Gospels shall leave room for the larger area and the longer time borne witness to by the latter ; and this they do. There is more, however, to be said ; for our different groups of authorities mutu- ally imply the labours of Jesus in those portions of the land of Palestine which occupy a subordinate position in their own narratives. It is unnecessary to prove this with regard to John, so frequent is the mention made by him of the ministry in Galilee. The notices of the others with regard to the Judean ministry are not so plain ; but even in them there occur passages which are unintelligible, except on the supposition that such a ministry had existed. Such passages are Matt, xxiii. 37 (comp. Luke xiii. 34), where the words ' how often ' are almost conclusive upon the point ; Matt. xxi. 8, indicating a previous acquaintance to account for the enthusiasm ; Luke x. 38-42, referring most probably to Bethany ; while, if in Luke iv. 44 we accept the reading, ' And He preached in the synagogues of Judea,' — and the evidence in its favour seems to be overwhelming, — the whole controversy is set at rest. It may be added that the words of Peter in Acts x. 37-39 have an important bearing upon the point ; and that all the probabilities of the case are opposed to the supposition either that Jesus would confine Himself to Galilee, or that the great drama of His life and death could have been enacted in less than a single year. More important than the outward framework of the history is the portraiture of Jesus presented in the Fourth Gospel ; and this again may be naturally divided into two branches, the Person and the discourses. As to the first of these, it is no doubt in John alone that we meet with the conception of Jesus as the Logos, or Word of God. Yet there is ample ground to justify the conclusion that it is not the object of the writer so to delineate Jesus as to make the Logos conception the dominating conception of His personality. The remark has often been made, that in the whole course of the Gospel Jesus does not once apply the designation of Logos to Himself, — neither in the three aspects of Jesus already spoken of as prominent in chap. i. (comp. p. xxiv.), nor in the closing summary of chap. xx. 31, is the Logos mentioned; and no passage can be quoted in which the fact that Jesus is the Logos is associated with 'witness' borne to Him. This last fact has not been sufficiently noticed, but its importance appears to us to be great. If there is one characteristic of the Fourth Gospel more marked than another, it is the perfect and absolute simplicity with which the writer, whether speaking of himself, of Jesus, or of the Baptist, resolves the proclamation of what is uttered into 'witness' or 'bearing witness.' That term includes in it the xxx INTRODUCTION TO THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN. whole burden of the commission given to each of them to fulfil. Whatever else they may be, they are first and most of all ' witnesses.' But if so, and if to enforce the Logos idea be the main purpose of the Gospel so far as it refers to the Person of Christ, we may well ask why that idea and 'witness' borne to it are never brought together? Jesus is witnessed to as 'the Messiah, which is, being interpreted, the Christ,' as the one ' of whom Moses in the law and the prophets did speak,' as ' the Son of God, the King of Israel :' he is not witnessed to as the Logos, although he is the Logos ; and that single fact is sufficient to prove that the fourth Evangelist has no thought of presenting his Master in a light different from that in which He is presented by his predecessors. In addition to this it may be observed that we have, in our two groups of Gospels, the very same interchange of allusions with regard to the Person of Christ that we have already observed when speaking of the scene of the ministry. If in the Fourth Gospel Jesus is pre-eminently Son of God, He is not less distinctly Son of man. If, again, in the earlier Gospels He is pre-eminently Son of man, He at the same time performs acts and claims authority not human but Divine. He forgives sins (Matt. ix. 6), is Lord of the Sabbath (Matt. xii. 8), rises from the dead (Matt, xvii. 9), conies in His kingdom (Matt. xvi. 28), sits upon the throne of His glory (Matt. xix. 28) ; nay, in one passage He speaks of Himself as Son of man at the very time when He appropriates as true the confession of Peter, that He is 'the Christ, the Son of the living God' (Matt. xvi. 13-2S). Many other passages in the earlier Gospels lead to the same conclusion ; so that, although the teaching of the Fourth as to the Divine nature of Jesus is richer than theirs, the truth itself, so far from being excluded from our minds, must be taken along with us in reading them before they can be properly understood. Without it, it would be difficult, if not impossible, to combine their expressions into a consistent whole. If now we turn from the Person to the discourses of Christ, as these are presented in the Fourth Gospel, it is impossible to deny that they differ widely from those of the earlier Gospels, both in form and in substance. In the earlier Gospels the truths taught by our Lord are for the most part set before us in a manner simple and easily understood, in parables, in short pithy sayings, in sentences partaking largely of the proverbial and not difficult to remember, in a style adapted to the popular mind. In the Fourth Gospel not only is there no parable properly so called, but aphorisms are much more rarely met with, and the teaching of Jesus takes a shape adapted to enlightened and spiritually-minded disciples rather than an unenlightened multitude. Nor is the difference in substance less marked. In the earlier Gospels the instructions and sayings of Jesus have mainly reference to the more outward aspects of His kingdom, to His own fulfilling of the law, to the moral reformation He was to effect, to the practical righteousness required of His disciples. In the other they have reference to the profound, the mystical, relations existing between the Father and Himself, between Himself and His people, and among the various members of His flock. Again, however, it is to be noticed that the very same interchange of allusions which we have already found existing in our two classes of authorities with regard to the outward framework of the history and the nature of Christ's Person, exists also in their accounts of His discourses. Passages may be quoted from John partaking at least largely of the aphoristic character of the teaching generally found in the first three Evangelists. Thus chap. iv. 44 may be compared with Mark \i. 4; chap. xii. 8 with Mark xiv. 7; chap. xii. 25 with Matt. x. 39, xvi. 25; chap. xiii. 16 with Matt. x. 24, Luke vi. 40; chap. xiii. 20 with Matt. n. 40 j chap. xv. 20 INTRODUCTION TO THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN. xxxi with Matt. x. 25; chap, xv. 21 with Matt. x. 22; chap, xviii. 11 with Matt. xxvi. 52; chap. xx. 23 with Matt. xvi. 19. Although, too, there are no parables in the Fourth Gospel, many of its figures so much resemble parables, could be so easily drawn out into parables, that they have been appropriately described as ' parables transformed.' 1 Such are the passages relating to the blowing of the wind, the fields white unto the harvest, the corn of wheat which must die in the ground before it springs up, the sorrow and subsequent joy of the woman in travail, the good shepherd, the true vine (chap. iii. 8, iv. 35, xii. 24, x. 1-16, xv. 1-8). Nor can we forget that, in the Fourth Gospel, it is for the most part a different audience to which Jesus speaks. He addresses not so much the mass of the people as ' the Jews ; ' and as those so designated undoubtedly comprised a large number of the most highly educated of the day, we may expect that they will be spoken to in a tone different from that adopted towards others. The words of chap. vi. 41 (see the Commentary) are in this respect peculiarly important; for it appears from them that the ' hard sayings ' found in the remaining portion of the discourse given in that chapter were intended, not for the ' multitude,' but for the ruling class. The words of ver. 59 might at first sight lead to a different impression. On the other hand, there are clear indications in the earlier Gospels that Jesus did not always speak in that sententious and parabolic style which they mainly represent him as employing. In this respect the words of Matt. xi. 25-27 cannot be too frequently referred to, fur the argument founded upon them is perfectly incontro- vertible. They show that a style of teaching precisely similar to that which meets us in the Fourth Gospel was known to the first. Keim, indeed, has attempted to weaken the force of the argument by the allegation that the words are not found in ' the ordinary every-day intercourse' of Jesus, but at an 'isolated and exalted moment of his life.' 2 Such moments, however, are precisely those which John has undertaken to record ; or, if this ought not to be said, it is Jesus in the frame of mind peculiar to such moments that he especially presents to us. If, therefore, the words given by Matthew are appro- priate to the time when they were spoken, the words given by John, though on many different occasions of a like kind, are not less so. Nor is this the only passage of the earlier Gospels that may be quoted as possessing the isolated and exalted character referred to. The words at the institution of the Last Supper are not less marked: 'Take, eat, this is my body. . . . Drink ye all of it; for this is my blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom' (Matt. xxvi. 26-29). Such words exhibit the very same lofty mystical spirit that meets us in the Gospel of John. They are as much out of keeping with the practical sententious character of the teaching of Jesus in the other parts of these Gospels (if indeed such an expression is to be used at all) as anything contained in the Gospel with which we are now dealing. A similar remark may be made with regard to the eschatological discourses of Jesus in the earlier Gospels (comp. Matt, xxiv.), and to His answer to the high priest (Matt. xxvi. 64), the difference between them and the Sermon on the Mount being quite as great as that between His general teaching in the Fourth Gospel and in the Gospels which preceded it. It is in this thought, indeed, as it seems to us, that the explanation of the point now before us is to be found. The utterances of Jesus in John belong to the tragic aspect of His work. No one will deny that, taking the facts even of the first three 1 Wcstcott, /////-. to Study of the Gospels, p. 26S. -' Keim, Engl, transl., i. p. 176. xxxii INTRODUCTION TO THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN. Gospels alone, the life of the Redeemer upon earth was marked by all the elements of the most powerful and pathetic tragedy. His perpetual struggle with evil, H'is love and self-sacrifice, met with opposition and contempt ; His bearing the sorrows and the sins of men, His unshaken confidence in God, His sufferings and death, the constant pre- sence of His Father with Him, and the glorious vindication given Him at last in the Resurrection and Ascension, supply particulars possessed of a power to move us such as no other life has known. In this point of view John looks at them. His Gospel is not the record of ordinary life. It is the record of a life which passes through all the most solemn and touching experiences of man, and which makes its appeal to the most powerful emotions of the heart. This is very strikingly exhibited in the light in which Jesus is set before us at the first moment when he passes beyond the circle of His disciples to the larger field of the world (chap. ii. 12, see Commen- tary) ; and it is not less apparent in the pathos that so often marks the language of the writer (chap. i. 11, xii. 37). Hence the almost exclusive presentation of tragic scenes, of ' exalted moments,' and the preservation of discourses suitable to them. The remarks now made, though applying mainly to the form, may be applied also to the substance of the discourses of the Fourth Gospel. It must be felt, too, that the profound instructions of Jesus contained in it are not out of keeping with the person- ality or character of the Speaker. Was He truly the Son of God ? Did He come to meet every necessity of our nature ? not only to enforce that practical morality to which conscience bears witness, but to reveal those deeper truths on the relation of man to God, and in Him to his brother man, for which a revelation was especially needed ; then there is nothing strange in the fact that He should have spoken so mucli of matters lying far beyond mortal ken. Rather, surely, should we expect that, with His own heart filled with the deep things of God, He would speak out of its abundance ; that, dwelling Himself amidst the great realities of the unseen and spiritual world, He would many a time lead into them the disciples whom He loved, and whom He would guide into all the truth. Or, if it be said that these profound teachings were spoken not to friends, but to determined enemies, the principle of reply is the same. Here also there is the same elevation above the level of common life. These ' Jews,' so constantly addressed, are not the nation, but those in whom the outward, carnal, selfish spirit of a degenerate Judaism was concentrated (see Commentary). As to the existence of this class there can be no doubt. The title, indeed, is peculiar to John, but the class itself meets us in the earlier Evangelists. If, then, it existed, we may well ask whether it is not represented in the Fourth Gospel as addressed in the very manner in which such an audience must be spoken to. Let us suppose any Church of our own day become as carnal as the Jewish Church in the days of Christ. What other course could a reformer pursue, what other language could he use, but the course and the language of Jesus here ? A worldly church cannot be spoken to like the world ; self-chosen darkness cannot be treated like the darkness of a naturally unfortunate condition. What has been said goes far to explain the peculiar character of the discourses of Jesus in the Fourth Gospel. But there are other questions in connection with them to which it is necessary to allude. Are they purely objective? Are they a record <>i the exact words used in the circumstances referred to ? Are they free from any trace of the mind through which they passed in their transmission to us? It has been urged that these questions must be answered in the negative, partly because such long and profound discourses could not have been remembered at a distance of fifty years from the time when they were spoken, partly because their resemblance to the First Epistle INTRODUCTION TO THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN. xxxiii of John is a proof that in these discourses it is John who speaks rather than his Master. Neither consideration has much weight. It cannot be imagined that only at the end of fifty years would the Evangelist endeavour to remember them. Rather throughout all that time must they have been the theme of his constant and loving meditation ; day after day and night after night he must have brought up before him the sight of that much-loved form and the sound of that well-remembered voice ; and every word of his Master, even many a word which he has not recorded, must have been ever flowing gently through his heart. John too had the promise of the Spirit to ' bring to his remembrance all things that Jesus said to him ' (chap. xiv. 26) ; and, to whatever extent we admit his own human agency in the composition of his Gospel, we cannot forget that the fulfilment of this promise must have secured him from the errors of ordinary writers, and enabled him, as they could not have done, to present to his readers the perfect truth. Nor, further, is the supposition with which we are now dealing needed to explain the fact that the tone of much of our Lord's teaching in this Gospel bears a striking resemblance to that of the First Epistle of John. Why should not the Gospel explain the Epistle rather than the Epistle the Gospel ? Why should not John have been formed upon the model of Jesus rather than the Jesus of this Gospel be the reflected image of himself? Surely it may be left to all candid minds to say whether, to adopt only the lowest supposition, the creative intellect of Jesus was not far more likely to mould His disciple to a conformity with itself, than the receptive spirit of the disciple to give birth by its own efforts to that conception of a Redeemer which so infinitely surpasses the loftiest image of man's own creation. While, however, this may be said, it may at the same time be allowed that up to a certain point the form in which the discourses are presented, sometimes even their very language, has been affected by the individuality of the writer. Lengthy as they not infrequently are, they are obviously compressed statements of what must have occupied a still longer time in delivery, with much of the questioning and answering that must have occurred in a protracted controversy suppressed. Occa- sionally the very language of the original (as in the use of an imperfect tense) indicates this ; while the reference at the feast of Tabernacles (chap. vii. 23) to the healing of the impotent man (chap, v.), which must have taken place at least months before, is a proof that that miracle done on the Sabbath had been kept fresh in the minds of those addressed by many incidents and words not mentioned. Links may often be thus awanting which it is difficult for us to supply, and compression could hardly fail to give additional sharpness to what is said. Besides this, the tragic spirit of the Gospel, of which we have already spoken, may be expected to exercise an influence over the manner in which discourses are presented in it. Keeping these considera- tions in view, we shall look, in the scenes of the Fourth Gospel, for such details as may best embody the essential characteristics of any narrative which the Evangelist is desirous to present to us, rather than for all the particulars with which he was acquainted. We shall understand, too, the artificial structure, the double pictures and parallelisms which meet us in the longer discourses, such as those of chaps, v., x., xiv., xv., xvi. (see the Commentary). The sayings and discourses of Jesus in the Fourth Gospel are not, therefore, to be regarded as in every respect simple reproductions of the precise words spoken by Him. The true conclusion seems to be that we have here a procedure on the part of the Evangelist precisely parallel to that which marks his method of dealing with the historical incidents of the life of Jesus. These are selected, grouped, presented under the dominating power of the idea which he knows that they express. So also xxxiv INTRODUCTION TO THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN. with the words of Christ. They also are selected, grouped, presented under the power of the fundamental idea which prevails throughout them. By frankly admitting this, much is gained. On the one hand, historical accuracy, in its deepest and truest sense, is not impaired : the result produced in the mind of the reader is exactly that which was produced by our Lord Himself upon those who witnessed His actions or heard His words. On the other hand, the facts of the case receive a natural explanation. Above all, the whole procedure on the part of John is in harmony with the principles of Him who would have us always rise through His words to that Divine ideal which they reveal. One other remark ought to be made before we close. In so far as the difference between John and the Synoptists affords ground for an argument, its bearing is favourable, not unfavourable, to the authenticity of our Gospel. Let us assume for a moment the earliest date assigned to it by the opponents of its apostolical authority, and what is the phenomenon presented to us ? That about a.d. i io a writer, obviously setting before himself the purpose of giving a delineation of the life of Jesus and of impressing it on the Church, departed entirely from the traditional records that had now taken a settled form ; that he transferred the Messiah's labours to scenes previously unheard of; gave to His ministry a duration previously unknown ; repre- sented both His person and His work in a light wholly new ; and then expected the Church, which had by this time spread abroad into all regions, through three generations of men, to accept his account as correct. In the very statement of the case its incredibility appears. Only on the supposition that the writer of the Fourth Gospel felt that the Church for which he wrote would recognise essential harmony, not contradiction, between his representation and that of his predecessors, that men would see in it that enlarging of the picture of a loved personality which faithful memories supply, can we explain his having written as he has done. We have spoken, as far as our limited space will allow, of some of those points connected with the Gospel of John which seem likely to be of most interest to the readers of a Commentary like the present, or which may prepare them to under- stand better the following exposition. It remains only that we indicate in a sentence or two the principles upon which that exposition is founded. Our main, it may almost be said our single, effort has been to ascertain the meaning of the words before us, and to trace the thought alike of the writer himself and of the great Master whom he sets forth. In doing this we have endeavoured to bestow more than ordinary care upon every turn of expression in the original, upon every change of construction, however slight, effected by prepositions, tenses, cases, or even order of words. Many such changes have no doubt escaped our notice, and some have been left without remark because we felt unable to supply a satisfactory explanation of them. Even as it is, however, it is probable that not a few will think that we have been too minute ; and that, in spending time upon what they will regard as trifling particulars, we have paid too little attention to those larger state- ments of truth which might have been better adapted to the readers for whom we write. From such an opinion we venture entirely to dissent. No trustworthy statements of general truth can be at any time gained without the most complete induction of particulars ; and if this be true of any book of Scripture, it is even peculiarly true of the Fourth Gospel. The care bestowed upon it by its writer is one of its most remarkable characteristics. Whatever be the sublimity to which it rises, however impassioned its language, or however deep the flow of its emotion, every phrase or word or construction contained in it is fitted into its place as if the calmest and most deliberate purpose had presided over the selection. It is the skill INTRODUCTION TO THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN. xxxv of the loftiest feeling, though unconsciously exercised, that has made the Gospel what it is. The truth contained in it has woven for itself a garb corresponding in the most minute particulars to its nature, and every change in the direction even of one of its threads is a testimony to some change in the aspects of the truth by whose living energy the whole was fashioned. If, therefore, we have erred in connection with this point, we have erred not by excess but by defect. A rich harvest still awaits those who will be more faithful to the principle or more successful in carrying it out than we have been. It seems unnecessary to add much more as to the principles by which we have been guided in our work. Innumerable references might easily have been made to the extensive literature connected with this Gospel, and to the opinions of those who have commented upon it before us. We have thought it best, except in one or two instances, to refrain from giving them. In addition to the Commentaries of Luthardt, Godet, Lange, Meyer, and others, which it would have been presumption to neglect, we have endeavoured to use all other helps within our reach. Unfortunately, the noble Commentary of Dr. Westcott did not appear until almost the last of the following pages had been printed off. It was thus impossible to take advantage of it ; but to the personal communications of that eminent scholar, and to the discussions which have taken place in the New Testament Revision Company, in regard alike to the Fourth Gospel and the other books of the New Testament, we probably owe more than we are ourselves aware of. At the same time, we are not conscious of having yielded in any instance to authority however great. Under a deep sense at once of the difficulty and responsibility of our task, we have submitted every question to independent investigation ; and the results, very often different from those of our predecessors, must be left to speak for themselves. It would be too much to expect that our readers will find every difficulty discussed which meets them in their own study of this Gospel. One of the most marked peculiarities of such a book is that, in the fulness of its life and meaning, it strikes every attentive student in a different light, and suggests to each thoughts and problems which do not occur to others. All that we can say is, that in no single instance have we consciously passed by a difficulty that we ourselves felt ; and we may perhaps venture to hope that the principles upon which these have been treated may be applicable to others of which we had not thought. The principles upon which the Text of the Gospel has been determined were explained by one of the authors of this Commentary in the second part of a small work on ' The Words of the New Testament,' published some years ago, and now out of print. In the translation of the text, we have aimed at correctness rather than ease of continuous expression ; and if (in this respect differing from the first volume of this Commentary) we have almost always given a full translation at the head of the notes, the reason is easily explained. It seemed desirable, where not only every word, but even the order of all the words is important, that the reader should have the complete sentence directly under his eye. It may be well to say that, owing to various circumstances on which it is unneces- sary to dwell, the appearance of our Commentary has been most unexpectedly delayed. Nearly three years have passed since the earlier portions of it were printed. It is the more possible, therefore, that there may be occasional inconsistencies between the earlier and the later pages. We say this without knowing that it is so, and with the hope that, if such inconsistencies do exist, they are not of an important character. In conclusion, we may be permitted to say that both the authors of the following Commentary hold themselves responsible for the whole. No part of it is the work of xxxvi INTRODUCTION TO THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN. either by himself; and they have wrought together with a harmony which, through all the time it has occupied them, has been to both a source of constant thankfulness and joy. But they desire to forget themselves, and they ask their readers to forget them, in the one common aim to discover the true meaning of a Gospel which the eloquent Herder long ago described as ' the heart of Jesus.' July 1880. THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN. Chapter I. 1-1S. The Prologue. I "TN the beginning was the * Word, and the Word was with a c3!'i!"iV: J- God, and c the Word was God. ii. 13° '&;« 2, 3 The same was in the beginning with God. rf All things were ^ v ," 4 !' I7 ' made 1 by 2 him; and without him was not any thing made 3 iuv.!&L 13. 4 that was made. ' In him was life ; 4 and the life was the flight c ^*l\ \$; c. of men.' 1 And the light shineth in" darkness; and the dark- ic£r!rai.6; , , , . Col. i. 16 ; ness comprehended' it not. Heb.i.a; 6 "There was 9 a man sent from God, whose name tvas John. ^seechap. v. 7 The same came for a 9 witness, to 10 bear h witness of 11 the/VeV. 9. s« 8 Light, that all men through him might believe." He was not m. .9. ° f Ver. 33 : that " Light, but was sent to " bear witness of that lb Light. Matt. ui. 1, & . AVer. 15, 32; 9 That 16 was the ' true Light, which lighteth every man that chap. iii. 26, 10 cometh 17 into the world. He was in the world, and the x. 4 i' ; Acts xix. 4. 11 world was made by him, 18 and k the world knew him not. He {ijohnii.8. J k See chap. 12 came unto his own, 19 and his own 'received 20 him not. But *™-3- /Chap. v. 43. as many as received him, to them gave he power to become '"Seechap.xi. '" the sons 2I of God, even to them that believe on ! - his " name :" "^ cha P-»- l% "Which were born, 24 not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, "Seechap.m. nor of the will of man, but of God. yiweWvL 14 And -''the Word was made ? flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his " glory, the glory as of the s only begotten of the Father,) full of ' grace and truth. 2 ^ iil 1 John i- 1 came into being - through tVer. 16; 3 and apart from him not even one thing came into being. x ii. 9 .' 4 That which hath come into being was life in him 6 ; c in the 7 overcame 8 arose 9 omit a 10 that he might n concerning 12 that all might believe through him 13 the 14 but he was that he might I5 concerning the 16 There 17 man, coming ls came into being through him 19 own home -° accepted 21 right to become children 22 in 23 ; 24 begotten 25 And the Word became flesh ; and he set his tabernacle among us, and \vc beheld his glory (glory as of an only-begotten from a father), — full of grace and truth. s chap. 2 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN. [Chap. I. 1-1S 15 John bare witness of 26 him, and cried, 27 saying, This was he *^£ * er -. 2 ? of whom I spake, " He that cometh after me is preferred before a j££$£ a me : for 28 he was before me. 16 Eph. And of his " fulness have all we" received, and grace for ...seVchap. 17 grace. For 30 the law was given by Moses, but "'grace 3 ' and _,.chap.'vi. . iS 'truth came by 31 Jesus Christ. ^No man 33 hath seen God at ImmI^.'s any time; the z only begotten Son, which is 34 in the bosom of 2 6* p ' xv the Father, "he hath 35 declared him. Heb.i.i.2, 26 beareth witness concerning 2 " hath cried 23 is become before me, because 2;l Because out of his fulness we all 30 Because 31 through Moses : grace 3 - through 33 No one 34 One who is only-begotten God, he that is " omit hath Contents. The Prologue of the Gospel of John stands in the most intimate connection with the plan and purpose of the Gospel as a whole. It is not to be regarded as a philosophical specu- lation to which the historical life of the Redeemer shall be afterwards conformed. It contains rather a short summary of that life in the light in which the Evangelist had been divinely taught to regard it, and of the impressions which he had gathered from it as the manifestation, the revelation, of God Himself to men. It is to illustrate and unfold this conception, which is at once metaphysical, theo- logical, and historical, tliat the fourth Evangelist writes. Hence he begins with a description of what Jesus was in Himself, in the profoundest depths of His being ; passing from that to what He ' be- came ' in order that in Him men might so behold the glory of the Father as to be transfigured into the same glory, reaching onward to the fulfilment of their own destiny, to be children of God. The Prologue is usually divided into three parts, ending with ver. 5, ver. 13, ver. 18, respectively. Of these divisions, the first brings before us the thought of the Eternal Word, — in Himself (ver. 1), and as the source of created being, of life, of light (vers. 2-5). The subject of the next thirteen verses is the Word as revealed to men, first generally (vers. 6-13), and secondly by the Incarnation (vers. 14-18). These two sections (in accordance with an important principle of structure, characterizing both this Gospel and the Apocalypse), though apparently successive, are really parallel : the thought is thus presented under two aspects, the second fuller and more definite than the first. In the former section we read of the Baptist, sent to bear witness concerning the manifestation of the Word as the Light (vers. 6-8) ; then of the two- fold results of this manifestation, but especially of the blessedness of those who received the Word (vers. 9-13). The next section records the Incar- nation of the Word (ver. 14) ; the testimony borne by the Baptist to the glory of the Incarnate Word (ver. 15) ; and, as before (but with greater clear- ness and definiteness, and from the point of view of human experience), the results of this crowning manifestation of the Word. This analysis, whilst showing the general parallelism of the thoughts in theseveraldivisionsofthe Prologue, shows also that the division as hitherto indicated is insufficient. Ver. 14 clearly commences a new section, and yet ver. 15 (relating to the Baptist) immediately recalls the commencement of the former section (ver. 6). If, however, ver. 14 be carefully ex- amined, it will be seen that it stands in a definite relation to the first section, the opening words ('And the Word became flesh ') being antithetical to ver. 1, and the remainder of the verse (which sets forth generally the manifestation of the Incar- nate Word) corresponding to vers. 2-5. Hence the structure of the Prologue as a whole may be pre- sented in the following tabular form : — Section I. The Word. (a) In Himself (ver. 1). (b) In His general manifestations (vers. 2-5). Section II. The Word appearing in the world. (<;) The Baptist's general witness concerning the Word, as the Light (vers. 6-8). (b) The general results of the manifestation of the Word (vers. 9-13). Section III. The Word fully revealed in the Incarnation. A. (1) The Incarnate Word Himself (ver. 1412; parallel to ver. 1). (2) The Incarnate Word in His general manifestation of Himself (ver. 14 b: parallel to vers. 2-5). B. The Baptist's witness, now definite and personal (ver. 15 : parallel to vers. 6-S). C. The complete results of this manifes- tation of the Word in the case of all who receive Him (vers. 16-1S : parallel tn vers. 9-13). Ver. 1. In the beginning was the Word. This sublime opening of the Gospel carries our thoughts at once to the no less sublime opening of the Book of Genesis, whose first words the Evan- gelist certainly had present to his mind. He too will tell of a creation, and a creation has a ' be- ginning.' The words ' in the beginning,' taken by themselves, do not express the idea of eternal pre- existence ; but they leave room for it, and in this respect they stand contrasted with the phrase 'from the beginning,' which often meets us in the writings of John (viii. 44 ; 1 John i. 1, ii. 7, 24, iii. 8). They denote simply the point of time ; and the difference of thought with which they are connected, as compared with Gen. i. I, is to be found not in the meaning of ' beginning,' but in the different direction which the writer takes, and in the verb which he employs. In Gen. i. 1 the sacred historian starts from the be- ginning and comes downwards, thus keeping us in the course of time. Here he starts from the same point, but goes upwards, thus taking us into the Chap. I. 1-18.] THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN. eternity preceding time. In Gen. i. 1 we are told that God ' in the beginning created,'' — an act done in time. Here we are told that 'in the beginning the Word was,' a verb strongly antithetical to ' came into being ' (vers. 3, 14, comp. viii. 5S), and implying an absolute existence preceding the point referred to. As that which is absolute, self-exis- tent, not created — that which is — is eternal, so the predication of eternity is involved in the clause before us taken as a whole. He who thus ' was in the beginning,' who, as we afterwards read, ' was with God, ' and ' was God, ' here bears the name of ' the Word ' (Logos). In one other verse of the Prologue this name is repeated (ver. 14) ; but it does not occur again in the Gospel. Nor shall we find the term (used, as here, simply and without qualification) in any other passage of the New Testament. The nearest approach is found in Rev. xix. 13, where the name of the righteous Conqueror and King is given as ' The Word of God. ' Two or more other passages may be said rather to recall to our thought the name we are considering than to present ex- amples of its use; see especially 1 John i. 1 ('the word of life,' followed by ' the life was manifested,' ver. 2), and Heb. iv. 12. Though, however, this term is not really adopted by any New Testament writer except John, it is not peculiar to him in any other sense. When he wrote, it was a familiar and current term of theology. It has sometimes, indeed, been maintained that John's usage must be taken by itself, since with very much of the theological speculation in which this term so freely occurs he can have had no sympathy. We shall see that John's usage certainly does in an impor- tant sense stand alone ; but as it is absolutely impossible that he, living at Ephesus (to say nothing of his long residence in Palestine), should have been unacquainted with the current doctrines respecting the Logos, it is inconceivable that he can have taken up the term without reference to these doctrines. Hence it is with the history of the term that we first have to do. Every careful reader of the Old Testament is struck by the prominence given in certain passages to ' the word of the Lord,' language which almost implies personal action being sometimes connected with this 'word.' See, for example, Ps. xxxiii. 6, cv. 19, cvii. 20 ; I Sam. iii. 21. The root of this usage (at all events in very many instances) is to be found in the first chapter of Genesis, where the successive acts of creation are associated with divine words (see Ps. xxxiii. 6). Such passages as these, with their partial personification of the word of God, seem to have powerfully impressed early Jewish teaching. There was much besides in the Old Testament to strengthen this impres- sion, — as the frequent references in the Pentateuch to the Angel of Jehovah, and the language used of Wisdom in the Book of Proverbs (chap, viii.; com- pare also chaps, i., Hi., ix., and Job xxviii.). Thusa minute study of Scripture language was the means of leading Jewish teachers to connect divine acts with some personified attribute of God rather than with God Himself, or to seek for some medium of communication between God and man where the Scriptures themselves had spoken of direct reve- lation or fellowship. What other influences aided this tendency of thought, we cannot here inquire. The results are patent, especially in the Targums or Chaldee paraphrases of Scripture. The dates of the several Tar£ums which are extant have been a matter of controversy : for our purpose, however, this is not of consequence, as it is acknowledged on all hands that every one of these paraphrases contains early materials. We cannot within our limits quote at length ; but a reference to the following passages in Etheridge's translation of the Targums on the Pentateuch will show how far the writers went in substituting ' the Word ' (Maura) for the name of God Himself. In the Targum of Onkelos, see Gen. iii. 8, xxviii. 20 ; Num. xxiii. 4, 21 ; Deut. ix. 3 : in that of Pseudo-Jonathan, Gen. iii. S ; Num. xxiii. 4, 21 : in the Jerusalem Targum, besides the three last mentioned, Gen. xviii. I, xvi. 13, xix. 24. From the Targum of Jonathan Ben Uzziel may be quoted Isa. lxiii. 7 ; Mai. iii. 1. An examination of these passages will show how familiar to Jews had become the conception of the Word of God, through whom God made Himself known to men. Very little light is thrown upon the subject by the several Apocryphal books, and hence it will not be neces- sary to refer to them here. It is otherwise with the writings of the great Alexandrian philosopher Philo. In these the doctrine of the Divine Word holds a prominence which it would be hard to exaggerate. Vet from the multitude of passages in which Philo speaks of the attributes and actions of the Word, it is impossible to deduce with any certainty a clear statement of doctrine. Now the Word seems distinctly personal, now an attribute of God personified. In some passages the idea can be traced back to the thought of ' spoken word ; ' in many others Philo takes up the other meaning of the Greek word Logos, viz. reason. Hence, though Philo speaks of the universe as created through the Logos, yet in other passages the Logos is the design or the idea of creation in the mind of God. It is not necessary to carry this inquiry farther, since our only object is to collect the chief elements of thought associated with this term when John wrote. As has been said, he could not be ignor- ant of these various forms of teaching ; if not ignorant, he could not be indifferent on the one hand to the good, or on the other to the evil, which they contained. He recognised the various teachings as a providential preparation for the tru^- theology. In these introductory verses he adopts the term, but so defines it as to fix its meaning for all Christians. There is One by whom the Eter- nal and Invisible God reveals Himself : the Re- vealer is a Person : the Revealer is Himself God. Not only in outward manifestation, but also in inward fellowship with the heart, God reveals Himself by the Word of God, who is God. In one instance John appears to take up and ratify the wider application of the term which we have noticed above. This first verse takes us be- yond the region of revelation to man : when ' in the beginning,' beyond the limits of time, ' the Logos was,' the thought of 'speech' ceases to give us any help towards grasping the meaning ; and, if we may venture to interpret the term at all in this application, we can only think of the human analogy by which we pass from the uttered word to the thought or reason of the speaker. To all that John teaches respecting the Logos, the Lord's own teaching directly led. The doc- trine of these verses is identical with that of chaps. v. 19, vi. 57, x. 30, xvii. 5, etc. The personal application of the term is not found in our Lord's THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN. [Chap. I. 1-18. discourses ; but many of those recorded in this Gospel contain remarkable examples of that ex- alted use of ' the word ' of God to which, as we have seen, the history of this sublime name may ultimately be traced. And the Word was with God : the second of the three statements made in this verse regarding the Word, and obviously higher than the first. It is impossible to convey in English the full force of the preposition ' with ' in the Greek, for it denotes not merely being beside, but maintaining com- munion and intercourse with (comp. Mark vi. 3 ; 1 John i. 2, ii. 1). And the Word was God: the third and highest statement respecting the Word. The Word is possessed of divine essence ; in that being in which He 'was,' He so possesses the divine attributes that He is God. There is difference of person- ality, but unity of nature. In this last clause the climax of the three clauses is complete. Ver. 2. The same was in the beginning with God. ' The same ' — He who has just been spoken of as God — was in the beginning ' with God ' : i.e., ' He of whom I have spoken as God, was in the beginning in active, eternal communion with God, — not simply the Word with God, but God with God.' The elements of the thought have been given in ver. 1, but in their combination they acquire new force. The special object of these words seems to be to prepare for the next verse ; it is only when we have been taught concerning ' God with God ' that we are prepared to hear of the creation of all things 'through' the Divine Word. He with whom the Divine Word ' was in the beginning' created all through Him. Ver. 3. All things came into being through him, and apart from him not even one thing came into being. Such a combination of two clauses, the first positive, the second negative (see note on ver. 20), is characteristic of John's style. The two together assert the truth contained in them with a universality and force not otherwise attainable. This truth is, that 'all things' — not all as a whole, but all things in the individuality which precedes their combination into a whole — came into being through this Word, who is God. The preposition ' through ' is that by which the relation of the Second Person of the Trinity to creation is usually expressed (1 Cor. viii. 6; Col. i. 16 ; Heb. i. 2) ; as, indeed, this is the concep- tion which belongs to the doctrine of the Logos, the Divine Word. Occasionally, however, the same language is used of the Father : see Heb. ii. 10, and comp. Rom. xi. 36. Vers. 3, 4. That which hath come into being was life in him. We are led by various con- siderations to take this view of the passage rather than that which is presented in the Authorised Version. The Greek admits of either punctua- tion (and rendering), but the absence of the article before the word ' life ' suggests that it is here a predicate, not the subject of the sentence. l!y almost all (if not all) the Greek Fathers of the first three centuries the words were thus under- stood ; and we may reasonably, in such a case as this, attach great importance to the conclusions attained by that linguistic tact which is often most sure where it is least able to assign distinct reasons for its verdict. Further, this division of the words corresponds best with the rhythmical mode in which the earlier sentences of the Prologue are connected with one another. It is characteristic of them to make the voice dwell mainly, in each line of the rhythm, upon a word taken from the preceding line ; and this characteristic is not pre- served in the case before us unless we adhere to the ancient construction. We have seen what the Word is in Himself; we are now to see Him in His relation to His creatures. Created being was ' life in Him.' He was life, life absolutely, and therefore the life that can com- municate itself, — the infinitely productive life, from whom alone came to every creature, as He called it into being, the measure of life that it possesses. In Him was the fountain of all life ; and every form of life, known or unknown, was only a drop of water from the stream which, gathered up in Him before, flowed forth at His creative word to people the universe of being with the endlessly multiplied and diversified existences that play their part in it. It is not of the life of man only that John speaks, still less is it only of that spiriiual and eternal life which constitutes man's true being. If the word ' life ' is often used in this more limited sense in the Gospel, it is because other kinds and developments of life pass out of view in the pre- sence of that life on which the writer especially loves to dwell. The word itself has no such limitation of meaning, and when used, as here, without anything to suggest limitation, it must be taken in its most comprehensive sense. It was in the Word, then, that all things that have life lived ; the very phy- sical world, if we can say of its movements that they are life, the vegetable world, the world of the lower animals, the world of men and angels, up to the highest angel that is before the throne. Ere yet they came into being, their life was in the Word who, as God, was life, and from the Word they received it when their actual being began. The lesson is the same as that of Col. i. 16, 17, ' In Him were all things created,' and 'in Him all things subsist;' or, still more, of Rev. iv. 11, ' Thou didst create all things, and because of 1 hy pleasure they were' (not 'are,' as in the Author- ised Version), 'and they were created.' And the life was the light of men. From the wide thought of all created existences, the Evan- gelist passes in these words to the last and greatest of the works of God, man, whose crea- tion is recorded in the first chapter of Genesis. All creatures had ' life ' in the Word ; but this life was to man something more than it could be to others, because he had been created after a fashion, and placed in a sphere, peculiar to himself amidst the different orders of animated being. God said, ' Let us make man in our image, after our like- ness ' (Gen. i. 26). Man was thus capable of re- ceiving God, and of knowing that he had received Him ; he had a sphere and a capacity belonging to none of the lower creatures spoken of in the great record of creation ; his nature was fitted to be the conscious-abode, not of the human only, but of the divine. Hence the Word could be in him as in no other creature. But the Word is God (ver. 1), and 'God is light' (I John i. 5). Thus the Word is 'light' (comp. ver. 7) ; and as man was essentially fitted to receive the Word, that Word giving life to all found in him a fitness for the highest and fullest life, — for 'light,' therefore, in its highest and fullest sense ; anil ' the life was the light of men.' The idea of human nature thus set forth in these words is peculiarly remarkable, and worthy of our observation, not only as a complete answer to Chap. I. 1-18.3 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN. 5 those who bring a charge of Manichaean dualism against the Fourth Gospel, but also to enable us to comprehend its teaching as to human responsi- bility in the presence of Jesus. 'The life, it is said, ' was the light of men ;' not of a class, not of some, but of all the members of the human family as such. Man's true nature, it is said, is divine ; divine in this respect also, as distinguished from the divine in all creation, that man is capable of recognising, acknowledging, string the divine in himself. The 'life' becomes 'light' in him, and it does not become so in lower creatures. Man's true life is the life of the Word ; it was so origin- ally, and he knew it to be so. If, therefore, he listens to the tempter and yields to sin (whose existence is admitted simply as a fact, no attempt being made to account for it), man corrupts his true nature, and is responsible for doing so. But his fall cannot destroy his nature, which still testi- fies to what his first condition was, to what his normal condition is, to what he ought to be. Man, therefore, only fulfils his original nature by again receiving that Word who is to offer Himself to him as the ' Word become flesh.' But if man's receiving of the Word be thus the fulfilling of his nature, it is his duty to receive Him ; and this duty is impressed upon him by his nature, not by mere external authority. Hence the constant appeal of Jesus in this Gospel, not to external evidence only, but to that remaining life of the Word within us, which ought to receive the Word completely, and to hasten to the Light (comp. ver. 9). Ver. 5. And the light shineth in the dark- ness. The darkness here spoken of is not an original darkness coexistent with created being (ver. 3). It belongs to the development of thought begun at ver. 4, and is coexistent only with the moral process of rejecting the Word, im- plied, though not expressly stated, in that verse. The Word through whom all come into being offers Himself at the same time to all as their light. Let them acknowledge and accept Him, they have life (chap. viii. 12); let them reject Him, they are in a darkness for which they are responsible, because they have chosen it. It is a fact, however, that many always did, and still do, reject the light ; and thus the darkness has been and is a positively existing thing. Yet the Light has not forsaken the world. No merely present point of time is indicated ; in that case John could not have immediately added the past tense, overcame. The idea is general. The Light, as it had existed, had shone ; as it exists, it shines, always seeking to draw men into the full bright- ness of its beams. And the darkness overcame it not. Such is the most probable meaning of these words, and so were they understood by the most ancient Christian writers. The verb which we have rendered ' over- came' occurs not unfrequently in the New Testa- ment ; but (when used, as here, in the active voice) it has not, and cannot have, the meaning comprehend (i.e. understand), which is given to it in the Autho- rised Version. The most important guide to the meaning is chap. xii. 35, where the same word is used, and where also the metaphor is similar : ' Walk . . . lest darkness overtake you,' — come over you, seize you. In the verse before us we read of light shining in the darkness ; the dark- ness, ever antagonistic to the light, yet does not oz ertake or come over the light. The idea of seizing, in connection with this figure, is equivalent to overcoming or intercepting the light. Even if ' comprehend ' vt ere possible as a translation, it would be nothing to tell us that the darkness did not comprehend the light. That is implied in the fact that the darkness is self-chosen (comp. on ver. 4). But it is much to tell us that, in the con- flict between the darkness and the light, the dark- ness failed to overcome (or eclipse) the light. The light, though sometimes apparently overcome, was really victorious ; it withstood every assault, and shone on triumphantly in a darkened world. So far, therefore, from our finding here a ' wail ' (as some have said), we have a note of exultation, a token of that victory which throughout the whole Gospel rises to our view through sorrow. We thus close what is obviously the first para- graph of the Gospel ; and although it relates to the Pre-incarnate Word, and expresses the principles of His dealings in their most general form, the development of thought is precisely the same as that which the history of the Incarnate Word will be found to present. Through the Word all things have come into being To all He offers Himself, that He may make them not only exist in Him, but, in the free appropriation of what He offers, live in Him. Some receive Him, and He becomes their light ; others reject Him, and are immersed in the darkness which they choose. The darkness opposes and seeks to destroy the light, but the light shines on to victory. Ver. 6. There arose a man, sent from God, whoBe name was John. With this verse we pass forward into the times of the Incarnate Word. The section upon which we first enter is, as com- pared with the second, general ; hence the Incar- nation is only implied, not expressly mentioned. The immediate preparation for this new period is the testimony of the Baptist ; and the words with which he is introduced to us stand in striking con- trast to what we have been told of the Word in ver. I. He 'arose,' — literally, he 'came into being,' as distinguished from the 'was' of that verse. He was a man 'sent from God,' as dis- tinguished from the Word who was 'with God.' In adding, 'his name was John,' the Evangelist (we may perhaps say) does more than identify him as the great prophet who had so powerfully im- pressed all classes of the people. If we remember the deep significance attached to ' name ' in this Gospel, it will seem possible that the antithesis to ver. 1 is still continued. The personal name needed for identification amongst men is placed in contrast with that name by which the eternal attributes of the Son are expressed, ' the Word ' (comp. ver. 12). Ver. 7. The same came for witness, that he might bear witness concerning the Light, that all might believe through him. The impression produced by the Baptist had been great, but he had come to bear witness to One higher than himself. Here we meet for the first time with this word ' witness,' one of the characteristic words of the writings of John, occurring in various forms nearly fifty times in his Gospel, and thirty or forty times in his Epistles and the Apocalypse. The importance of the thought lies in its simplicity. The true witness declares what he has seen and heard (1 John i. 2, 3) ; his testimony reflects 'the truth ' so far as he has received it, just as the faith- ful mirror reflects the light that has come upon it. John came to bear such witness concerning the Light, that through him all might be led to THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN. [Chap. I. 1-1S 'believe ' — trustfully to accept that Light, and yield themselves up to its influence. The introduction of the word ' all ' is very remarkable. More clearly than any other passage this verse teaches us how great were the results which the Baptist's mission was intended to produce, immeasurably greater than those which were actually realised. Had Is- rael been faithfully and obediently wailing for the fulfilment of the divine promise, John's witness respecting Jesus would have turned ' all ' Israel (and, through Israel, 'all' men) to the Saviour. In immediate effects the work of John, like that of One higher than John, would be pronounced by men a failure. In the light of this verse we can better understand such passages as Mai. iv. ; Matt. xi. 9-14 ; Luke vii. 29, 30. Ver. 8. He was not the Light, but he was that he might bear witness concerning the Light. The thought of the greatness of the witness borne by John underlies the words of this verse. Great as the Baptist was, he was not the Light. What he was is not expressed, but only the purpose which he was to fulfil (comp. ver. 23). It is very possible that the words may have had a special application to the opinions which (as we learn from Acts xviii. 25, xix. 3) existed at Ephesus with regard to the mission of John. Ver. 9. There was the true Light, which lighteth every man, coming into the world. This almost literal rendering of the Greek will show how it is that these simple words have been so variously explained. As in the English, so in the Greek, the word 'coming' might be joined either with ' light ' or with ' man. ' The punctua- tion we have adopted (it will be remembered that in ancient manuscripts of the original there is little or no punctuation) will show that, in our view, the last clause is to be joined, not with the second, but with the first clause of the verse. What has been said above of the general structure of the Prologue has shown that, as yet, the full presence of the Word personally come is not before us. The manifestation is in its initial stage, not yet complete. To this thought the word 'coming' exactly corresponds. But still more important in guiding to the right interpretation of the verse is the Evangelist's use of the last phrase elsewhere. The expression ' come into the world ' occurs in as many as seven other passages of this Gospel (chap, iii. 19, vi. 14, ix. 39, xi. 27, xii. 46, xvi. 2S, xviii. 37). In every one of these passages the words relate to the Lord Himself: sometimes they are used by the multitude (vi. 14), or by a disciple (xi. 27), as a designation of the Messiah, ' He that should come ; ' sometimes they are the words of Jesus or of the Evangelist, in passages which speak of the purpose of His 'coming.' In chaps, iii. 19 and xii. 46 the phrase stands in close con- nection with the figure which is now before us. The latter verse (chap. xii. 46) is especially noteworthy ; for Jesus Himself says, ' I am come a light into the world.' If, then, we would allow the Evangelist to be his own interpreter, we seem bound to believe that he here speaks of the light as 'coming into the world.' If the words are joined with ' man,' they add little or nothing to the thought. ' Every man ' is really as full and inclusive an expression as ' every man that cometh into the world.' Fami- liarity with the common rendering may prevent the reader from at once perceiving that this is true ; but we are persuaded that reflection will show that by the change much is gained, nothing lost. In the previous verse we have read that John was not 'the Light.' When he 'arose' as a witness, the true Light was in existence ; it had been shining in the darkness ; it was now ' coming into the world,' — about to manifest itself with a clear- ness and in a manner hitherto unknown. Two more of the special terms of the Gospel meet us here, ' true ' and 'world.' It is unfortunate that two different words must be represented by the same English word, 'true.' The one (used in chaps, iii. 33, v. 31, and eleven other verses of the Gospel) denotes truth in contrast with falsehood ; the other, which we have before us here, expresses the real as contrasted with the phenomenal, that which is perfect and substantial as opposed to what is im- perfect and shadowy, or that which is fully accom- plished in contrast with the type which prefigured it. This word is, in the New Testament, almost confined to the writings of John. Of twenty- eight passages in which it occurs, nine are found in this Gospel, four in the First Epistle, ten in the Revelation. Three of the remainingfivepassagesare (as might almost have been foreseen) in the Epistle to the Hebrews. The other examples of the word in this Gospel will be found in chaps, iv. 23, 37, vi. 32, vii. 28, viii. 16, xv. 1, xvii. 3, xix. 35, and in most of these the reader will easily trace the idea. The ' true worshippers ' are those whose worship is real, not imperfect and undeserving of the name ; the bread which came down from heaven is ' the true bread, ' that of which the manna was a type, that which ministers real and abiding nourishment. So here we read of the archetypal source of light, the light which alone is real and perfect. — This true Light was coming into the ' world.' Originally signifying the universe created and ordered by the hand of God, ' the world ' came successively to mean the world of men, and the world of men as opposed to God. In this Gospel especially, we read of the world as an antagonistic power, unbelieving, evil in its works, hating and persecuting Jesus and His people, — a power over which He will be victorious, and which shall be convicted of sin and judged ; but we also read of God's love to the world (chap. iii. 16), and of the gift of His Son that the world may be saved through Him. If the thought of evil and aliena- tion is brought out in the following verse, it is most important to observe that this verse speaks of the illumination of every man. No man belongs to the world that is given up to darkness and im- penitence, unless he, through resistance and choice of evil, have made the light that was in him to become darkness (comp. Eph. iv. 18). — We can- not doubt that in the words ' every man ' there is an allusion to John ('a man sent from God') as himself illumined by this Light. Ver. 10. He was in the world, and the world came into being through him, and the world knew him not. The subject is still the Light, which (ver. 9) was existent, and was 'coming into the world.' In the world, indeed, it was already (though the complete manifestation was yet to come), and — here (he figure passes imperceptibly away, giving place to the thought of the Person— the world, though brought into being through Him, recognised not His presence. Note the simplicity of John's style, in which the three thoughts of the verse, though very various in their mutual rela- tions, are, so to speak, placed side by side. These words relate both to the Pre-incarnate and to the Incarnate Word. The development is rather of Chap. I. 1-18.] THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN. thought than of time. Alike before His manifesta- tion in the flesh and after it, the Word was ' in the world.' The statement must not be limited to the manifestation of Christ in Israel. This verse is a repetition, in a more concrete form, of vers. 3-5 (in part). Ver. 1 1. He came unto his own home, and his own accepted him not. Is this verse practically a repetition of ver. 10, in language more solemn and emphatic? Or do we here pass from the thought of the world in general to that of the Jewish people. The question is one of some diffi- culty. As ver. 12 is certainly quite general in its meaning, it may seem hazardous to introduce a limitation here. But the weight of argument seems on the whole to be on the other side. There is a manifest advance of thought as we pass from the last verse to this. Instead of ' He was in,' we find ' He came unto;' for 'the world,' we have 'His own home ;' for ' knew' (perceived or recog- nised), we have 'accepted.' Every change seems to point to a more intimate relationship, a clearer manifestation, and a rejection that is still more without excuse. The Word, who was in the world (comp. Prov. viii. 31), had His home with the chosen people (Ex. xix. 5 ; Ps. Ixxvi. 2), to which had been given the revelation of the truth of God (Rom. ix. 4). It is still mainly of the Pre-incar- nate Word that John speaks. In the whole history of Israel had been illustrated unfaithfulness to the truth (comp. Luke xi. 49, 50; Acts vii. 51-53); and the tender pathos of this verse recalls the words in which Jesus speaks of the rejection of Himself (Matt, xxiii. 37). Ver. 1 2. But as many as received him, to them gave he right to become children of God, even to them that believe in his name. We have beheld the light shining in the darkness (vers. 10, 11); the thought of this verse is, that the darkness overcame it not ! As we have already seen (see note on ver. II), the language again becomes altogether general. Whosoever 'received Him,' to whatever period of time or nation they might belong, won the gift here spoken of. There is a perceptible difference between ' accepted ' (ver. n)and ' received, 'ashereused. Whilst the former lays emphasis on the will that consented (or refused) to receive, the latter brings before us the possession gained ; so that the full meaning is, As many as by accepting Him received Him. The gift is not directly stated as 'sonship,' perhaps because the full manifestation of this blessing belongs to the latter days alone (comp. on chaps, iii. 5, vii. 39 ; Rom. viii. 15), whereas the Evangelist would here include the time of incomplete revelation which came before the Incarnation. Then, as now, men acceptedor refused Him ; but for those who accepted was reserved 'some better thing' (Heb. xi. 40) than had yet been clearly made known to man. — We must not fail to note (for in these wonderful verses everything is significant) that there is spe- cial fitness in the expression ' children ' rather than ' sons of God ; ' for, whereas ' sonship ' is often spoken of in connection with mere adoption, stress is here laid on an actual (though spiritual) pater- nity. The right or authority thus to become chil- dren of God is given by the Word ' to them that believe in His name.' It is very important to dis- criminate between the different phrases which John uses in relation to belief or faith. On the one hand we have the simple expression ' to believe Him ' (as in chaps, viii. 31, v. 38, etc.), usually de- noting the acceptance of something said as true. On the other hand, we find very frequently in the New Testament, but especially in the writings of John, a remarkable combination of ' believe ' with a preposition literally meaning 'into,' by which is denoted not merely an acceptance of words or professions, but such an acceptance of the Person trusted, such an approach of the heart towards Him, as leads to union with Him. This peculiarly Christian formula is by some rendered 'believe in,' by others 'believe on.' Both ren- derings are found in the Authorised Version. We have uniformly adopted the former, because it most clearly indicates the union towards which the faith tends. — There are a few passages (see the marginal references) in which, as here, this phrase ' believe in ' is followed by 'the name.' We have already seen with what fulness of meaning John uses the word 'name.' As in many passages of the Old Testament, the ' name ' expresses the sum of the qualities which mark the nature or character of a person (comp. Ex. xxxiv. 5, 6). It is hard to fix the precise distinction between ' believing in Him ' and ' believing in His name.' Perhaps we may say that, in the former case, the believer trustfully yields himself up to the Person, in the latter, to the revelation of the Person. Those who in chap. ii. 23 are spoken of as believing ' in the name ' of Jesus, had not reached the per- sonal union which believing in Jesus implies; but through their trustful acceptance of His revelation of Himself, the higher gift, the closer knowledge, might soon be gained. Here the ' name ' cannot but recall ver. I : the ' name ' Word expressed the nature of the Person (comp. ver. 6). Ver. 13. Which were begotten, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. The spiritual history of those who are spoken of in ver. 1 2 is here continued, and the nature of their sonship more fully defined. It is easy to see that in the three clauses there is a distinct progress of thought, the second (contain- ing the thought of ' will ') being more definite than the first, the third (in which ' man ' is substituted for ' flesh,' — a person for human nature in general) being again more definite than the second. The three clauses, however, really express but one main idea ; what that is must be learnt from the contrast in the closing words, — ' but (they were begotten) of God.' These believers have received the right to become ' children of God ' by virtue of a true spiritual filiation, being begotten of God. The contrast to such a sonship is the very claim which is so strongly made by the Jews in chap. viii. , and the validity of which our Lord altogether denies. The recollection of that chapter, which only brings into bold relief the habitual assumption of the Judaism of that day, will be sufficient to explain the remarkable emphasis of this verse, the threefold denial that men become children of God by virtue of any natural hereditary descent. — Al- though it is the claim of the Jews that is here in the writer's thought, yet, as often elsewhere, the Jews are the type of the world at large ; by others besides Jews like presumptuous claims have been made, others have rested in the ' divinity ' of their race. It is very possible that the peculiarity of the first clause (literally ' not of bloods ') may be thus explained. Ver. 14. And the Word became flesh. With this verse we enter upon the fuller and more con- crete aspect of the Word appearing among men. THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN. [Chap. I. l-ii As personally come in the flesh, however, the Word contrasts with what He was in His pre- existent state ; and hence, before we have the Baptist introduced to us, we have statements ex- actly parallel to those of vers. 1-5. That now before us corresponds to ver. I, for the Incarnate Word in Himself is here spoken of. He who was in the beginning, who was with God, who was God, ' became flesh ; ' did not merely take to Him a human body, did not merely become an in- dividual man, but assumed human nature in its en- tireness (see chaps, xii. 27, 'soul;' xiii. 21, 'spirit'), identified Himself with the race, entered into such a condition that He could have perfect communion and fellowship with us, and we with Him. The word ' became ' does not denote that His divine nature was laid aside, and that His mode of being was simply human until, in the accomplishment of His work, He gradually transformed His human mode of being and regained for it all the glory of the divine. Were such a view correct, it would follow that when the divine was regained the human was , laid aside, and that the humanity of the exalted Redeemer is not now as real as it was during His earthly course. No such thought is suggested by ' became ; ' for this word does not imply that the former state of being exists no longer. What is really indicated is the passing into a new state, — a transition rather than a transformation. The Word remains, with all His essential proper- ties ; there is added a new mode of being, the assumption of a new nature, denoted by 'flesh.' The most important parallels to this verse are 1 John iv. 2 and 2 John 7 ; these passages differ from the present in that the historical name 'Jesus Christ ' is substituted for the Word, and that for i he mysterious words 'became flesh' we read ' hath come ' (or ' cometh ') ' in flesh.' And he set his tabernacle among ns, and we beheld his glory (glory as of an only begotten from a father), — full of grace and truth. As the first clause of this verse corresponded to ver. 1, so these clauses correspond to vers. 2-5 ; only that, whereas there we had those properties of the Word in virtue of which He gives life and light in their most general form to all, here we have those in virtue of which, as the now completed revelation of the Father, He carries this life and light onward to perfection in such as truly receive Him. Still, however, it is the glory of the Word in Himself that is before us ; if men are introduced in the words which follow as beholders of His glory, it is that our thought may rest, not on the blessing man thus receives (that is expressed below, vers. 16-18), but on the witness borne to the glory of the Incarnate Word. The figure of this verse is taken from the Old Testament (Lev. xxvi. 1 1 ; Ezek. xxxvii. 27, etc.) ; the Tabernacle was the meeting-place of God and Israel, the house in which Jehovah dwelt in the midst of his people. With the image of a tent or tabernacle is often associated the thought of transitoriness ; but that the word used here does not necessarily carry with it this thought is sufficiently proved by the lan- guage of the final promise, ' The tabernacle of God is with men, and He shall set His tabernacle with them' (Rev. xxi. 3). As the Shechinah dwelt in the Tabernacle, in the midst of the camp of Israel, so ' the Word become flesh ' dwelt ' among us.' Some have taken the last words to mean 'in us,' and to contain a new reference to the assumption of human nature ; but this view seems plainly inconsistent with the words which follow, 'we beheld His glory,' the meaning of which is fixed by the opening passage in the First Epistle (I John i. 1-3). The glory was like that of an only son sent from a father ; no image but this, it has been well said, ' can express the two- fold character of the glory, as at once derivative and on a level with its source.' In the only son are concentrated all the characteristics of the father ; on him all the father's love is poured ; to him belongs the whole inheritance ; on him the father, when he sends him forth on an embassy, bestows all the plenitude of his power. The translation we have given is, we believe, that which the Greek words absolutely demand ; it ap- pears to us, moreover, to be the only rendering that gives meaning to the word of comparison 'as,' or preserves the progress of the Evangelist's thought. As yet there has been no word bringing in the thought of Divine Sonship. The attributes and working of the Divine Word have been continu- ally before us ; here the gh ry of the Word become flesh is compared with that of an only son sent < from a father ; but it is not until ver. 1 8 that these elements are combined into one supreme utterance of truth. The last words of the verse must be connected with the subject of the sentence: ' He (the Word) set His tabernacle among us, full of grace and truth.' They go far towards explaining the 'glory' which the disciples 'beheld.' That the Word has been from the beginning of the world's history the bestower of 'grace and truth,' is implied in the imagery of the earlier verses (vers. 4, 9) ; that which has been involved in the teach- ing respecting the Pre-incarnate Word is clearly stated here of the Word become flesh. But this ful- ness of grace and truthdoes not exhaust the meaning of the 'glory.' In the glory of the Incarnate Word there are two elements, as His one Person unites two natures : in part the glory is unique (in kind and not only in degree), belonging to the God-man and not to the perfect Man ; in part it is communicable to men, as Jesus Himself says, ' The glory which Thou gavest me I have given them.' Ver. 15. John beareth witness concerning him, and hath cried, saying, This was he of whom I spake, He that cometh after me has become before me, because he was before me. We have seen that ver. 14 is parallel to vers. 1-5. In like manner this verse is parallel to vers. 6-8 ; but it is also an advance upon those verses, con- taining the Baptist's witness to the Personal Word become flesh, not to the Word as the general Light of men. — ' Beareth witness,' — not ' bare witness ' (ver. 32). It is as if the Evangelist would say, Of this John is the witness ; his testimony abides, unchanging, always present. The same thought comes out more distinctly still in the verb which follows, 'hath cried.' (The usual translation ' crieth ' seems on various grounds less probable. ) The loud cry of the faithful witness has come down through all the years ; we seem to hear its echoes still. The Baptist clearly refers to wit- ness which he had borne after Jesus appeared ; hence the words, 'This -was he.' — It is un- usually difficult to find a rendering that will fully convey the meaning of this verse. As the word ' before ' occurs in two members of the verse, the English reader inevitably considers the contrast to be between ' is preferred ' (or ' is become ') and ' he was.' In reality, 'before' here answers to Chap. I. 1-18.J THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN. two different words. A literal translation will show at once the meaning and the difficulty of finding an easy expression of the meaning : ' He that Cometh behind me has become in front of me, because He was before me.' Jesus came 'after' or ' behind ' John, as coming later in His manifes- tation to the world. As the later in time, it might have been expected that He would take rank after him who was His predecessor ; but He has been advanced before John ; the reason of this is given in John's declaration, ' He was before me.' That which these words directly affirm is priority of time ; but, as in respect of human birth this could not be affirmed of Jesus, the words bring into view a pre-existence so transcendent as of itself to assert an infinite superiority to every other man. This anterior dignity explains why He that followed John has come to be before him. The herald came first, to prepare the way for the King ; when the King arrives, the herald retires from view. — The last words of the verse require further notice. They are not fully represented by ' before me,' as if they contained nothing beyond a com- parison of Jesus with the Baptist. The former word is absolute, ' He was first ; ' the other word is added because a comparison is needed, ' first in regard of me.' We might almost paraphrase the very remarkable combination thus : First, and (by consequence) before me. Ver. [6. Because out of his fulness we all received, and grace for grace. In order to understand this verse, and especially the very difficult word ' because,' with which the true read- ing of the verse begins, we must look at the struc- ture of the whole passage. Along with vers. 17 and iS, this verse is parallel to vers. 9-13 : and ver. 14, as we have seen, answers to vers. 1-5. The last verse in like manner stands related to vers. 6-8 ; and, as these verses are introduced between ver. 5 and ver. 9, — which might be read continuously, the subject remaining the same, — so is ver. 15 almost parenthetical, bringing in (as in the earlier verses) the witness of John before the statement of the results following the manifestation of the Word. The words ' we all received ' and ' His fulness ' are sufficient to show that the verse is a continuation of the thought of ver. 14, and belongs to the Evangelist, not to the Baptist. If, then, ver. 15 is parenthetical, the present verse is naturally introduced by the word 'because.' We have here an illustration of the extreme importance which John attaches to Christian experience. In ver. 9 we have had the fact of what the Word bestows. Here we have more. We have the answer of Christian experience to the fact. We have not merely the light lightening, but the light appropriated, its value appreciated, its power felt. Verse 14 had not described Chris- tian experience. The word ' beheld ' there used had only assumed it (see the comment), and had mentioned the witness which it gave. Now we have the description itself: hence the 'because.' We beheld the glory of the Word become flesh, and are able to speak of that glory, ' because out of His fulness,' etc. The last stage of the Pro- logue is thus reached, because the highest point of thought is attained. No more can be said when the appropriation of the Word is complete. The fulness spoken of is that of grace and truth, which so reside in the Incarnate Word that nothing more can be added. It is an absolute, not a com- parative fulness, — a proof again that no part of that fulness is to be won back in the progress of the Messianic work. That fulness resides in the ' Word become flesh,' as such. ' Out of ' it ' we all' — believers, who beheld His glory, among whom He set His tabernacle — received. The thing is past. We received Him (ver. 12). When we received Him, He communicated Himself to us. His fulness, so far as we could receive it, was made ours. Hence it is not said what we received ; because it was not a gift bestowed by His fulness, but the measure of that fulness itself which we were capable of receiving. We are thus led also to the clear meaning of the last clause of the verse, 'and grace for grace.' Not exactly 'grace upon grace,' as if the meaning were successive measures of grace, one added to another ; but grace given in fresh measure as each preceding measure has been improved, the 'ful- ness ' constantly more and more made ours until we ' are fulfilled unto all the fulness of God ' (Eph. iii. 19). It is Christian experience again. Ver. 17. Because the law was given through Moses : grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. It is very possible that this verse should be taken as directly parallel to ver. 1 1 ; hence the definite reference to the pre-Christian revelation here (see note on ver. II). The thought of Chris- tian experience again explains the connection of this verse with the preceding. The law is not undervalued. It was divine. It was a gift of God. It was a gift through the great Lawgiver of whom Israel was proud. But it was a fixed unalterable thing, with definite lioundaries, not stretching out into the illimitable and eternal. It could not express unbounded grace and truth, un- bounded love, because in its very nature law has limits which it cannot pass. Now, however, there has ' come ' (a far higher word than ' was given') a fulness of grace and truth, within which we stand, and which we are to appropriate more and more, — vast, illimitable, as is that God who is love. Hence, therefore, the experience of ver. 16 is possible. — It will be noted that the two thoughts of this verse are placed side by side (see ver. 10), though in reality the first is subordinate to the second. And now comes in the great Name as yet unnamed, but named now in all the universality of its application, the Name which embraces historical Christianity in its whole extent as the religion both of Jew and Gentile, the religion of man, — the name which, in its one half (' lesus, Joshua, Jehoshua, ' Jehovah is Salvation ') ex- presses the purpose of all God's dealings with man, and in its other half ('Christ') the Divine con- secration of the Redeemer to His work. — The verbs of this verse are used with great propriety, — 'was given ' of what was incidental in origin and tempor- ary induration; 'came' (literally, 'became') of what, though revealed in time, was an eternal reality. One reflection alone remains, and then the Prologue may close. Ver. 18. No one hath seen God at any time ; One who is only begotten God, he that is in the bosom of the Father, he declared him. It is not possible in a commentary such as this to defend the reading which we here adopt, ' God ' instead of ' Son.' But the passage is so extremely important that we may be permitted for once to depart from our usual practice of not referring to other writers, and to commend to our readers one of the finest critical Dissertations ever published THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN. [Chap. I. 19-34. in any language upon a reading of the New Testament. We refer to that by Dr. Hort of Cambridge upon this text (Macmillan, 1S76). We add only that by thus reading we preserve an important characteristic of the structural prin- ciples of our Evangelist, that which leads him at the close of a section or a period to return to its beginning. The word ' God ' here corresponds to * God ' in ver. 1. ' No one hath seen God at any time.' The contrast is to ' we beheld ' in ver. 14, and the words describe God in His nature as God ; He dwelleth in light that is inacessible. The soul longs to see Him, but this cannot be. Is then its longing vain, its cry unheard ? The Evangelist answers, No. One has ' declared ' Him, has, as the Word, unfolded and explained Him. And the glorious fitness of the Word to do this is pointed out in three particulars, all showing how fitly He could do that which none other could do. (1) He is 'only begotten,' Son among all other sons in His own peculiar sense, who is fully able to represent the Father, to whom all the perfec- tions of the Father flow. (2) He is God — not only Son, but, as Son, God, — Himself divine, not in a metaphorical sense, but possessing all the attributes of true and real divinity. (3) It is He who 'is in the bosom of the Father.' The climax of thought, and the consideration that here are mentioned the conditions which make it possible for Jesus to be the complete Interpreter of the Father, preclude our taking these words as referring to the state which succeeded the resur- rection and ascension, — in the sense, ' He that hath returned to the bosom of the Father.' He of whom the Evangelist speaks is more than ' only begotten,' more than 'God.' He is 'in the bosom of the Father.' In Him God is revealed as a Father ; without Him He can be revealed only as God. The words thus include more than ' with God ' in ver. I, more than the Divine self- communion, the communion of God with God. The fatherly element, the element of love, is here. >_ut of that element of love, or of grace and truth, the Son comes ; into it He returns. It is of the very essence of His being so to do. He did so from eternity. He did so in time. He shall do it in the eternity to come. Not less does it belong to the profoundest depths of His nature to do so, than to be 'only begotten,' to be 'God.' Therefore is He fully qualified to declare the Father, whom to know as thus made known in Jesus Christ (ver. 17) is that 'eternal life' after which the heart of man feels, and in the possession of which alone is it completely blessed (comp. xvii. 3, xx. 31). One remark has still to be made upon a point which may seem at first sight to interfere with the correctness of that view of the structure of the Prologue which (as we have seen) is not only a matter of interest, but also a guide in the inter- pretation. There is no mention of the rejection of the Word in vers. 14-18. But this fact when rightly considered rather confirms what has been said. It illustrates that progress which in this Gospel always accompanies parallelism. In vers. 1-5, the first section of the Prologue, we have seen that rejection is implied. In vers. 6-13, the second section, it is fully brought out. In vers. 14-18, the third section, it is over- come. Thus also, taking the Gospel as a whole, it is implied in the section Unmediately preceding the Conflict (chaps, ii. 12-iv. 54V It is fully brought out in the section of Conflict (chaps, v. i-xii. 50). It is overcome in the section following (chaps, xiii. i-xvii. 26). How unique, how wonderful is the plan of the Gospel ! How much light does the whole cast upon each part, how much each part upon the whole ! Chapter I. 19-34. The Witness of the Baptist to Jesus. A 1 priests and Levites from Jerusalem 3 to ask him, Who 20 art thou ? And he * confessed, and denied not ; but 4 confessed, 21 I am not the Christ. And they asked him, What then? Art thou 'Elias? 6 And he saith, I am not. Art thou ^that 6 22 prophet? And he answered, No. Then said they 7 unto him, Who art thou ? that we may give an answer to them that sent 23 us. What sayest thou of thyself? ' He said, I am the 8 voice of one crying in the wilderness, Make straight the way of the 24 Lord, as S said the prophet Esaias. 9 And they which were sent a Ver. 7 : chap. v. 3j b M.itt.iii. 11 ; chap. iii. 28 ; 1 witness 3 omit from Jerusalem 'the 2 sent unto him from Jerusalem 4 And he 5 Elijah 7 Thev said therefore 8 a ■*•»"• »'• '?■ 1 a ' ° See ver. 49. 34 which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost. 30 And I saw, and bare record 31 that this is the r Son of God. 10 And some from among the Pharisees had been sent 11 art not the 12 nor the 13 in water : in the midst of you standeth one whom ye know not, 14 omit He it is who ls omit is preferred before me. 10 the latchet of whose sandal l7 Bethany is h e 19 Behold, 20 is become before me, because 21 may 2a therefore came I - 3 in 24 witness 25 I have beheld 20 descending as a dove out of heaven 27 he said 2S whomsoever 29 abiding upon 30 the Holy Spirit 31 And I have seen and have borne witness Contents. We enter here upon the second word of the present verse (with which the regular great division of the Gospel, extending from i. 19 narrative commences) shows that this section must to ii. 11, and containing the presentation of Jesus, be connected with what goes before. It is as He takes His place in the field of human his- possible that this connection is really very close, tory and, alike in the witness borne to Him by The words 'this is the witness of John ' do not the Baptist and in His manifestation of Himself necessarily mean ' this witness which follows is the to His disciples, shows us what He is. When we witness of John ; ' the Evangelist's ordinary usage know Him we shall be prepared to follow Him, in similar cases suggests that the sense intended as He enters upon and accomplishes His work in is rather, 'And of this kind — -confirmatory of the world. That work in the proper sense of the the preceding statements — is the witness,' etc. word does not yet begin. The first section of Such an interpretation best accounts for the use of this division extends from i. 19 to i. 34, and con- the present tense, 'this is' (comp. ver. 15), tains the witness of the Baptist. The subordinate standing in striking contrast to the past tenses parts of this section are — (1) vers. 19-28, the which immediately follow ; it also throws light on witness by the Baptist on the first day spoken of; the remarkably emphatic words which form the (2) vers. 29-34, His witness on the second day. first half of ver. 20. Thus viewed, the present Ver. 19. And this is the witness of John, section attaches itself to ver. 15 ; what is there when the Jews sent unto him from Jerusalem given in a general form is now related with greater priests and Levites to ask him, Who art thou 1 fulness, in connection with the circumstances of The preceding verses (1-1S) are so strongly marked the history. The 'witness' directly intended is in character, and so distinctly constitute one that of vers. 19-27; but we must also include the coherent whole, that we cannot but place them in very important testimony borne on the following a section by themselves. And yet they do not day, especially that of vers. 33, 34, which presents form a distinct preface to the book (such, for ex- (in a different form) some of the leading truths of ample, as we find in Luke i. 1-4), for the first the Prologue. — As in the earlier Gospels, the THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN. [Chap. I. 19-34. mission of Jesus is introduced by the Baptist ; the peculiarity of John's narrative consists in this, that the Baptist's testimony is obtained in answer to a question asked by ' the Jews,' who send a deputation to him 'from Jerusalem,' the centre of the theocracy. In this mention of ' the Jews ' we meet for the first time with one of the most characteristic terms of the Fourth Gospel. In the other Gospels the expression jccurs only fifteen or sixteen times, and twelve of these instances are examples of a single phrase, ' King of the Jews,' and that phrase used by Gentiles. The remaining pas- sages are Mark vii. 3 ; Luke vii. 3, xxiii. 51 ; and Matt, xxviii. 15 (slightly different from the rest in the absence of the article). In this Gospel — in addition to six examples of the title ' King of the Jews,' used as in the other Gospels — we find more than fifty passages in which the Evangelist himself (not quoting from any Gen- tile) speaks of ' the Jews. ' Had the author of this Gospel been a Gentile, this usage might have seemed very natural ; but it is no less natural in the case of a writer who, though a Jew by birth, has long been severed from his countrymen through their rejection of his Lord. The leaders and representatives of the nation in this rejec- tion of Jesus are those whom John usually desig- nates as 'the Jews.' When the other Gospels speak of opposition on the part of Pharisees, chief priests, elders, scribes, Sadducees, or lawyers, John (who mentions none of these classes except Phari- sees and chief priests, and these not very frequently) is wont to use this general term. The mass of the people, the led as contrasted with the leaders, he speaks of as ' the multitude ' or 'the multitudes.' Hence in most of the passages in which we meet with ' the Jews,' we must understand the party possessed of greatest influence in the nation, the representatives of Judaism, the leaders in opposi- tion to Jesus. Even where the term is used in a wider sense, it does not simply designate the nation ; when employed by the Evangelist himself, it almost always bears with it the impress of one thought — that of general unfaithfulness, of a national depravation which culminated in the crucifixion of the Lord Jesus. There is nothing to indicate that the deputation here spoken of was sent by the Sanhedrin ; but it appears to have been formal and important, com- posed as it was of persons belonging to the two classes which, in the Old Testament, represent the service of the Temple (Josh. iii. 3 ; 2 Chron. xxx. 27; Ezek. xliv. 15). If we add to this the fact that, as appears from ver. 24, Pharisees also were present, the striking character of the scene before us will be manifest. On the one side is the Baptist, standing alone in the startling strangeness of his prophetic mission ; on the other are all who either possessed or had assumed religious authority in Israel — the Jews, the priests, the Levites, and the Pharisees. The question, ' Who art thou ? ' has reference to the supposed personal claims of the Baptist. Might it not be that one who had so suddenly appeared in the wilderness, and who had produced so profound an effect upon all classes, was the very Messiah anxiously waited for at this time? Compare Luke iii. 15. Ver. 20. And he confessed and denied not. And he confessed, I am not the Christ. The answer of the Baptist is reported with great solemnity. The effect of the double statement, ' he confessed and denied not ' (comp. ver. 3 ; 1 John ii. 4, 27) is to give peculiar impressiveness to the words : St. John thus brings into relief the single-minded faithfulness of the Baptist, and at the same time corrects mistaken opinions as to the character of his mission (see note on ver. S). In the reply itself the first word is strongly emphatic, ' II is in it I who am the Christ.' The Baptist thus prepares the way for the further statements which he is to make with the view of guiding his hearers to that Christ who is come, and whom with gradually increasing clearness he is to proclaim. Ver. 21. And they asked him, What then ! Art thou Elijah ? And he saith, I am not. The question was a natural one, for the thought of the coming of Elijah was intimately associated with that of the coming of Messiah (Mai. iv. 5). The answer seems less natural, lor our Lord, when He spoke of the Baptist, described him as ' Elijah which was for to come' (Matt. xi. 14). It is possible that even the Baptist himself did not know that he was ' Elijah ' in this latter sense, and hence could reply without hesitation that he is not that prophet. Art thou the prophet? And he answered, No. A third supposition is tried. Is he ' the prophet ' ? A comparison of i. 25 and vii. 40, 41, with vi. 14, 15, seems to lead to the conclusion that there were at tliis time two currents of opinion with regard to the coming prophet (Deut. xviii. 15), the one dis- tinguishing him from the Messiah, the other main- taining that the two characters would be united in ' him that should come.' But that a prophet would certainly appear at the opening of the Messianic age was expected by all. Hence the question, as now put, covered the only other supposition that could explain the important position which the Baptist had assumed, and which appeared to indi- cate that he was introducing a new era. But the main point with the Baptist is to show that, strictly- speaking, he is simply the herald of that era. He is only to prepare the way for Him in whom it both begins and is completed (comp. Matt. xi. 1 1- 13). The new supposition is accordingly repudi- ated in terms as emphatic as before. Ver. 22. They said therefore unto him, Who art thou ? that we may give an answer to them that sent us. What sayest thou of thyself? The Baptist has disowned the three suppositions that have been made. He is not ' the Christ,' not ' Elijah,' not 'the prophet.' The deputation now appeal directly to himself to state who he is. Ver. 23. He said, I am a voice of one cry- ing in the wilderness. Make straight the way of the Lord, as said the prophet Isaiah. The words are from Isa. xl. 3, and, though slightly modified in form, they completely express the sense of the original passage. To captive Israel, whose warfare is now accomplished, whose iniquity is pardoned, the glorious approach of her 1 leliverer is proclaimed. He comes to lead back his people through the desert to their own land. The herald's voice sounds in the desert, announcing the coming of the King, commanding that all obstacles In- removed from the course of His triumphal march, and that through the wilderness there be made a highway for the Deliverer and for the people whom He has set free. The Baptist takes the words in their true application to the Messianic deliverance and kingdom. He speaks of him- self as the herald, or rather as the herald's voice ; as in ver. 8, his personality, so to speak, is Chap. I. 19-34. J THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN. swallowed up in the message which he came to bring. Ver. 24. And some from among the Pharisees had been sent. We cannot doubt that these words are introduced to lead on to the following statement, rather than to give completeness to the account of the preceding Verses. It is not neces- sary, however, to think of a second and entirely new deputation. The persons now introduced may have formed part of the first body of ques- tioners. But the point of special interest to them is that which meets us in ver. 25, rather than that already spoken of. They were Pharisees, and the Pharisees considered themselves the guardians of the ordinances of religious worship amongst their countrymen. Hence the significance of the state- ments in iv. 1, ix. 13-15, xii. 42 ; and also of the question which is now addressed to the Baptist. That question does not necessarily indicate a hostile bearing towards him ; nor during the earlier part of the life of Jesus do the Pharisees in general appear to have opposed the Saviour in the same manner as the 'Jews' (comp. on iii. I, vii. 32). Ver. 25. And they asked him, and said unto him, Why baptizes! thou then, if thou art not the Christ, nor Elijah, nor the prophet? The 'Jews,' the representatives of the theocratic spirit of the people, had been mainly concerned about the position of the Baptist in relation to the national hopes. Could it be that he was about to assume the government of the nation, and to lead it to victory ? The Pharisees concern themselves more about the rite administered by the Baptist. It is the baptism of persons belonging to the chosen people that startles them. They might have viewed his baptism without surprise had he invited to it those only who were beyond the pale of Israel. But that one who, by his own confession, was neither the Christ, nor Elijah, nor the prophet, should thus administer a rite symbolical of cleans- ing to those who, as Jews, were already clean, this it was that threw them into perplexity. — On the significance of John's baptism, see notes on chap, iii. 5 and Matt. iii. 6. Vers. 26, 27. John answered them, saying, I baptize in water. The meaning ol the Baptist's answer has been greatly obscured by the inser- tion of ' but ' after these words. It has thus been supposed that the object of the Baptist is to de- preciate his baptism by bringing it into comparison with the baptism in the Spirit administered by Jesus. The two baptisms, however, are not as yet compared with one another. What John depre- ciated was himself, not the rite which he adminis- tered ; and at ver. 31 he expressly magnifies his baptism, and points out its high prophetic signi- ficance. From this last-mentioned verse the im- port of the present clause must be determined. Even now John means, I baptize in water that I may call attention to Him whose way I am com- missioned to prepare. For this purpose I am ' a voice of one that crieth ; ' for this purpose also ' I baptize in water. ' — In the midst of you standeth one whom ye know not, coming after me, the latchet of whose sandal I am not worthy to unloose. Now follows the great fact explanatory of all this divine work of preparation, that the One waited for is come. Three stages of His manifestation, however, are to be marked ; and as yet we have only reached the first, ' He standeth in the midst of you.' So standing, He is distinguished by three characteristics: (1) 'Ye '3 know' Him 'not,' — the 'ye' being emphatic, ye to whom He would gladly reveal Himself: (2) He cometh ' after me ' (see ver. 15): (3) His glory is so great that the Baptist is not worthy to unloose the latchet of His sandal. On the last words see note on Mark i. 7. Such is the first testimony of the Baptist to Jesus. The fuller testimonies have yet to come. At this point, therefore, the narrative pauses to tell us that this testimony was given at the very place where the Baptist was at the moment making so profound an impression upon the people. Ver. 2S. These things were done in Bethany beyond Jordan. There can be no doubt that Bethabara is not the true reading in this verse. Origen, writing in the third century, states that he found Bethany in almost all copies of the Gospel. This statement is decisive. It cannot be set aside, nor indeed is it even lessened in weight, by the fact that Origen himself, owing to his in- ability to identify Bethany, believed Bethabara to be the place intended. The existence of another Bethany, near Jerusalem, presents no difficulty, as it was not uncommon for two places to bear the same name. The instances of Bethsaida (Luke ix. 10; Mark vi. 45), Carmel, Ca:sarea, etc., are well known. It is even possible that the two names, though alike written Bethania in Greek, may in their original Hebrew form have been different words ; just as, for instance, the ' Abel ' of Gen. iv. 2 is altogether different in actual form from the ' Abel ' of 2 Sam. xx. 14. This Bethany may have been small and unimportant ; Bethabara, on the other hand, seems to have been so well known, that the addition of the words ' beyond Jordan ' would have been less natural. Of the situation of Bethany we know no more than we are told in this verse (comp. chap. ii. 1). It has been variously placed, — near Jericho, near Scythopolis (a feu miles south of the Sea of Galilee), and by ore recent writer, Caspari, a little to the north of that sea. The last opinion seems the least probable of the three. The second testimony of the Baptist is now pre- sented to us. Ver. 29. The next day he seeth Jesus coming unto him. The ' day ' is that immediately follow- ing the day of the first testimony, and the climactic arrangement of the narrative is already perceptible. Already Jesus is in a different position. On the previous day He was spoken of as ' coming after ' John ; now He is 'coming unto' him. Then He stood unknown, unrecognised, amidst the throng ; now He is expressly pointed out by His fore- runner. Then it was His elevation above John that was expressed ; now it is the greatness of His work in itself. — And saith. Behold, the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world. The translation of this clause has been disputed (see the margin of the Authorised Ver- sion), but without good reason. The idea of ' taking ' or ' bearing ' sin is indeed of very common occurrence in the Old Testament ; but it is not expressed by the word here used, which denotes taking away, removal. In meaning, however, the two renderings would almost coincide, since the metaphor of the verse is sacrificial : in the thought of bearing; sin as an atoning sacrifice is involved the removal of the punishment deserved and of the sin itself. There is only one other passage of the New Testament in which this expression is found, I Jnhn iii. 5, and there the meaning is very clear. THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN. [Chap. I. 19-34. H A much more difficult question remains : What is the Baptist's meaning when he speaks of ' the Lamb of God ' ? The answer which perhaps now finds most favour with commentators is, that this parti- cular image was directly suggested to his mind by the memorable prophecy of Isa. liii., in one verse of which (ver. 7) there is an allusion to ' a lamb.' But there are serious difficulties in the way of this explanation. A reference to the chapter will show that in that verse the prophet speaks of the ' lamb ' as an example of uncomplaining patience, and not in connection with taking away sin. ' He was oppressed, although he submitted himself, and opened not his mouth ; as a lamb that is led to the slaughter, and as a sheep dumb before her shearers ; and he opened not his mouth.' Again, had the prophecy of this chapter been definitely the source of the Baptist's words, we might surely have looked for some close resemblances of language. But such coincidences are not to be found in any part of the chapter : the ideas of taking and bearing sin are prominent, but they are expressed by words alto- gether different from that here used. If we are thus obliged to look away from Isaiah's great prophecy of Messiah, we naturally turn to the Mosaic ritual of sacrifice. Again we are met by difficulties. It would seem impossible to bring in here the thought of any other than the sin-offering, and yet it was only occasionally, and almost as an exception, that a sin-offering consisted of a lamb (Lev. iv. 32). The lamb of the morning and even- ing sacrifices was a bumt-offering. There remain only two other explanations of the phrase. It is just possible that ' the lamb' merely indicates a sacrificial victim, the gentleness and harmlessness of this animal making it especially suitable as a type. It is, however, much more probable that the Baptist spoke of the paschal lamb. The pecu- liar definiteness of the expression ('the Lamb of God ') will in this case need no explanation : no thought was more familiar to the Israelite than that of the lamb for the Passover ; and, we may add, few thoughts are brought out in this Gospel with greater distinctness than the relation of the Lord Jesus to the paschal sacrifice and feast (see notes on chaps, vi. and xix. ). As the institution of the Passover preceded the general Mosaic legisla- tion, its laws and arrangements lie without the circle of the ordinary ritual of sacrifices, and com- bine ideas which were otherwise kept distinct. The paschal supper resembles the peace-offerings, the characteristic of which was the sacred feast that succeeded the presentation of the victim (Lev. vii. 15), — an emblem of the fellowship between the accepted worshipper and his God. But the sin-offering also is included, as a reference to the original institution of the Passover will at once show. The careful sprinkling of the blood upon the door-posts was intended to be more than a sign to the destroying angel whom to spare. The lamb was slain and the blood sprinkled that atonement might be made for sin : when Israel is consecrated anew to God, the sin and the deserved punishment removed, the sacred feast is celebrated. It has been suggested that the nearness of the Passover (see chap. ii. 13) may have presented these thoughts to the Baptist's mind. It is still more likely that one who was enabled so clearly to discern the meaning of the Old Testament as to recognise the removal of ' the sin of the world^ as the object of Messiah's coming, would see from the first how fitly that ordinance, in which Israel's redemption began, associated itself with the approaching redemption of the world. It is the world's Passover, both the sacrifice and the feast, that John sees to be at hand. With this verse compare especially I Pet. i. 18, 19 ; Rev. v. 6, 9. The marginal references will show to what an extent this Gospel is pervaded by the thought of ' the world ' as the object of Christ's saving work. Ver. 30. See the note upon ver. 15. Here, as there, the words refer to testimony given by the Baptist to Jesus at some point of time and on some occasion not recorded. Ver. 31. And I knew him not: but that he may be made manifest to Israel, therefore came I, baptizing in water. The explanation of the first clause of this verse mil be best given when we come to ver. 33. The object which the Baptist here assigns for his work of baptizing may at first sight seem to be different from that mentioned in the earlier Gospels, where he is spoken of as sent to prepare the way of the Lord. Attention to the words used by John will remove all difficulty. ' Israel ' is not tc be limited to the Jewish nation. It embraces the true theocracy of God, — neither Jews nor Gentiles as such, but all who will "believe (comp. on vers. 47, 49). ' Made mani- fest,' again, is not a mere outward manifestation, but a revelation of Jesus as He is. Thus the mean- ing of the words is not, ' I baptize in water in order that Jesus may come to my baptism, and may there receive a testimony from on high ;' but, ' I baptize that I may declare the necessity of that forsaking of sin without which no true manifesta- tion of Jesus can be made to the heart.' The words in their real meaning, therefore, are in per- fect harmony with the accounts of the Synoptists. The advance of thought from the unrecognised Jesus of ver. 26 to the 'made manifest' of ver. 31 is obvious. It corresponds with the 'standeth' of ver. 26, and the ' coming unto ' him of ver. 29 ; with the fact, also, that the one is the first, the other the second, testimony of the Baptist. Ver. 32. And John bare witness, saying, I have beheld the Spirit descending. The effect of what the Baptist had seen had remained, and still remains, with him in all its power : ' I have beheld.' — And it abode upon him. John had not merely seen the Spirit descend with dove-like motion upon Jesus ; he had also seen that it 'abode' upon Him, — the symbol of an abiding and permanent possession. Ver. 33. And I knew him not. The first clause of this verse, like that of ver. 31, is attended with peculiar difficulty, for it is hardly possible to imagine that, intimately connected as the families of Jesus and of the Baptist were, the former should have been for thirty years personally unknown to the latter. Moreover, Matt. iii. 14 seems distinctly to imply not only that such personal acquaintance- ship existed before the baptism, but that the Bap- tist even then knew Jesus as greater than himself. Here, however, he says that until after the descent of the Spirit he 'knew Him not.' Without noticing the other explanations which have been given, we may observe that the solution of the difficulty is to be found in keeping distinctly before us the official and not personal light in which both Jesus and the Baptist are presented to us here. No denial of personal knowledge of Jesus has any bearing upon the point which the Baptist would establish. He is himself an official messenger of God, intrusted with a commission which he is to Chap. I. 35-5 i.J THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN. continue to discharge until such time as he is super- seded by the actual arrival of Him whose way he prepares. But this latter is also the ' Sent ' of God, and has particular credentials to produce. Until these are produced, the herald of His approach cannot ' know ' Him in the only character in which he has to do with Him. No private acquaintance- ship with Him — and, we may even say, no private convictions as to His Messianic character — will justify that recognition of Him before which alone the herald may give way. The great King from whom the herald and the Ambassador are alike sent has named a particular sign which shall attest the position of the latter, and close the labours of the former. That sign must be exhibited before the herald of the Ambassador's approach will be warranted to withdraw. Until then the one ' knows ' not the other. But he that sent me to baptize in water, he said unto me, Upon whomsoever thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and abiding upon hiin, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Spirit. As to the sign, comp. ver. 32. It is the token that in Jesus are fulfilled the prophecies of the Old Testament with regard to the pouring out of the Spirit in the Messianic age, and especially to the impartation of the Spirit to the Messiah Him- self (Isa. Ixi. 1; Luke iv. iS), — prophecies which describe the crowning glory of the latter days. John's baptism could only point to the laying aside of sin ; that of Jesus brought with it the quicken- ing into spiritual life (comp. on iii. 5). It is to be noticed that the words ' Holy Spirit ' are here used without the article. The object is to fix our atten- tion, not upon the Spirit in His personality, but upon the power of that spiritual influence which He exerts. It would be better to translate, 'the power of the Holy Spirit,' were it not difficult to use such an expression, in conformity with the idiom of the English tongue, in the many passages where this particular form of the original is em- ployed. Ver. 34. And I have seen, and have borne witness that this is the Son of God. ' I have seen,' for the result of the seeing abides un- changed and ever present : ' I have borne wit- ness, for the Baptist has entered on that one witness-bearing for which he was sent (ver. 7), and which it will henceforth be his office simply to repeat. It is particularly to be noticed that the '5 ' witness ' referred to is not that Jesus baptizes with the Spirit, but that He is ' the Son of God,' — a designation which expresses the divine nature and character of Jesus, and with this the relation in which He stands to the Father. In one aspect He is God ; in another He is the Son of God, the Son distinct from the Father. The link of connection between the transcendent conclusion of the Baptist and the fact upon which it rests is probably to be found in the thought that He who baptizes with the Holy Spirit, who therefore has the power to impart the gifts and influence of the Spirit of God, must be Divine. The special form which this confession of our Lord's divinity takes was, we cannot doubt, determined by the words spoken from heaven : ' This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased ' (Matt. iii. 17). It has been sometimes maintained that ' Son of God ' must be understood as a mere designation of 'the Messiah.' For this opinion we believe that no evidence can be found, either in Scripture or in early Jewish writings. There are, indeed, passages in the Old Testament, acknowledged to be pro- phecies of the Messiah, in which a Divine Sonship is attributed to Him (see especially Ps. ii. 7) ; but the name seems to be always indicative of nature, and not merely of office. How the name was understood by the Jews of our Lord's day may be seen from chap. v. 18, 19, x. 29, 30, ^j. It is important to compare this section with the corresponding portions of the other Gospels. The omissions are very remarkable. We say nothing of the Evangelist's silence as to the circumstances of our Lord's birth and early years ; this belongs to the general plan of the Gospel, which here agrees with that of Mark. But it is noteworthy that nothing is said of the baptism of Jesus, or of the temptation which followed. To the bap- tism, however, there is a clear allusion in vers. 33, 34 ; hence its place in the order of events is before ver. 19. The temptation also was at an end before John ' saw Jesus coming unto him ' (ver. 29). On the other hand, these verses contain many coincidences in language with the Synoptic Gospels. John's application of Isa. xl. 3, and the contrast which he draws between himself, baptizing in water, and Him who shall baptize with the Holy Ghost, are related by every Evan- gelist. In all the Gospels, also, we find words similar to those of ver. 27. Chapter I. 35-51. Jesus manifests Himself to hearts open to receive Him. 35 A GAIN the next day after 1 John stood, 8 and two of his 36 ±~\. disciples ; And looking upon Jesus as he walked, he 37 saith, a Behold 3 the Lamb of God! And the two disciples 38 heard him speak, and they followed Jesus. Then 4 Jesus turned, and saw 5 them following, and saith unto them, What seek ye ? 1 omit after 'And 2 was standing 6 beheld 3 Behold. '6 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN. [Chap. I. 35-51. They 6 said unto him, b Rabbi, (which is to say, being inter- 6 &£,<%l a 39 preted, c Master, 7 ) where dwellest 8 thou ? He saith unto them, ^7'^ Come and see. 9 They came 10 and saw where he dwelt," and c chip'iii ' abode with him that day: for 12 it was about the tenth hour. *; fills' 40 One of the two which heard John speak, 13 and followed him, d ^tJU.t, 41 was ''Andrew, Simon Peter's brother. He first findeth his own , C ha P 2 'iv. 2 ' 5 . brother Simon, and saith unto him, We have found the f ^[ X * L 42 ' Messias, which is, being interpreted, the Christ. 14 And 15 he 'Jt a,t- xvi " brought him to Jesus. And when 16 Jesus beheld him, he 17 *k C £; u.'s, said, Thou art Simon ■'the son of Jona : la thou ^shalt be called cSi. 5 ;! .?, h Cephas, which is by interpretation, A stone. 19 ic&pVtit 43 The day following Jesus would 80 go forth into Galilee, and *Chkp!' A A £.*A~*-U l T>U:i:„ 121 _ "l_l- . _ !• T^ IT T.T T^, ... 2I : 44 findeth « Philip, and 21 saith unto him, Follow me. Now Philip Mitt. xi. 45 was of * Bethsaida, the 22 city of Andrew and Peter. Philip ma™?. ™ findeth l Nathanael, and saith unto him, We have found him, "seeuike of whom '"Moses in the law, and the "prophets, did write, "Chap."; 46 Jesus "of Nazareth, ^the son of Joseph. And Nathanael said ^f^^ 42 . unto him, Can there any good thing come out of Nazareth ? ^f"-";' 1 -' 47 Philip saith unto him, Come and see. Jesus saw Nathanael cha P- 4 18 > coming to him, and saith of him, Behold 21 an Israelite indeed, fj^jg ! ' 8 48 in whom is g no guile! Nathanael saith unto him, Whence s^'Matt. knowest thou me? Jesus answered and said unto him, Before /c h v ap 33 ^. I5 that Philip called thee, when thou wast under the fig tree, I saw ^iii.% ^ 49 thee. Nathanael answered and saith unto 2 ' him, b Rabbi, thou a"; 50 art "the Son of God; thou art 'the 2 '' King of Israel. Jesus , c^nfievfri. answered and said unto him, Because I said unto thee, I saw „ cha P/ m. , 3 , thee under the fig tree, believest thou? thou shalt see greater Itt,™- 51 things than these. And he saith unto him, Verily, verily, I say xfi'^/S. unto you, Hereafter 2G ye shall see ' heaven open, and the angels % Matt. of God ascending and descending upon the " Son of man. c And they ~ Teacher 8 abidest ° ye shall see 10 came therefore n abode 12 omit for 13 heard from John I4 Messiah (which is, being interpreted, Christ), 15 omit And "'■ omit And when 17 Jesus looking upon him said 19 J°hn 1! > (which is by interpretation Peter, or Rock). 20 The next day he would 21 Galilee. And he findeth Philip ; and Jesus 22 out of the *» Behold, -'< omit and saith unto 20 omit the '-'' ; omit Hereafter _ Contexts. The same general subject is con- Vers. 35, 36. In these verses we have a new tes- tinued in this section— Jesus taking His place on timony borne by the Baptist to Jesus. In ver. 29 the stage of history. We pass now, however, we were simply told that John 'seeth Testis coming from the witness of the Baptist, given on two sue- unto him and saith;' to whom the words were spoken cess'v- days, to the manifestation of Himself by we know not. There is therefore great importance Jesus to hearts open to receive and welcome Him. in the definite statement of ver. 35, that John now This manifestation takes place upon two succes- spoke in the presence of disciples. The Baptist sive days. Th° subordinate parts of the present came to deliver a general witness respecting Jesus ; section are— (I) vers. 35-42, witness borne on the but he also came to direct to Jesus all over whom first of the two new days (the third day from that he had gained influence. The words which he of ver. 19) ; (2) vers. 43-51, witness borne on the utters are few, so that the second testimony may second day (the fourth day). seem inferior to the first. We may perhaps say Chap. I. 35-51.] THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN. that it is not really inferior. When the earlier words (ver. 29) had once made clear what was signified by the announcement of ' the Lamb of God,' this title by itself, in its own simplicity, really conveyed a fuller meaning. ' The Lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the world ' brought to mind the paschal sacrifice; but in pointing to Jesus as ' the Lamb of God,' the Bap- tist, implying all that he had expressed before, presents to the thought all the symbolism of the words, — with the true paschal sacrifice joining the true paschal feast. Ver. 37. And the two disciples heard him speak, and they followed Jesus. The witness of the Baptist has its proper effect, — an effect, we can- not doubt, foreseen and designed by himself (chap. iii. 27-30). Those who listen to it turn from him, and follow Jesus. Ver. 3S. And Jesus turned and beheld them following, and saith unto them, What seek ye? They who thus follow Jesus shall not do so in vain. As in the sense of their own unworthiness they walked after Him, He turned, and inquired what they sought. — And they said unto him, Rabbi, which is to say, being interpreted, Teacher, where abidest thou? 'Where is Thy permanent resting-place and home, that as pupils we may seek Thee there, and may abide with Thee till we have seen the glory of which we have heard ? ' By the title Rabbi (which strictly meant my master or lord, but which in the time of Jesus had already come to be applied to teachers)' they had been wont to address their own master (chap. iii. 26) ; and they naturally give the same name of honour to Jesus. When they have done with 'seeking,' when they have found Him, they will say more (comp. xiii. 13). Ver. 39. He saith unto them, Come, and ye shall see. They came therefore and saw where he abode, and abode with him that day. The seeker shall not seek in vain. They had asked where He abode ; and that the answer of Jesus was a direct meeting of their request is proved by the statement immediately made by the Evangelist, that ' they came and saw where He abode.' The nature of the intercourse is not described. We are left only to imagine from the confession of Andrew in ver. 41 what must have been the solemn teach- ings, the gracious communications of Himself by Jesus, the patient instructing of ignorance, the tender removal of doubts, until, in all the joy of their new discovery, they could say, ' We have found.' This much, however, we seem entitled to infer from the thrice-repeated ' abide ' or ' abode,' — a word characteristic of the Fourth Gospel, and always full of deep and solemn import, — that the Evangelist designs to convey to us something more than the thought of mere outward presence with J esus. — It was about the tenth hour. There are four passages in which the Evangelist directly refers to the hour of the day at which an event occurred (see chap. iv. 6, 52, xix. 14). But for the last of these passages it might be natural to suppose that John, like the other Evangelists, reckons time from sunrise, an hour being the twelfth part of the (varying) interval between sunrise and sunset. As, however, Mark records (chap. xv. 25) that Jesus was crucified at the 'third hour' (between S and 9 a.m.), and John expressly states that His condemnation was later than the ' sixth hour,' the probability that the latter writer follows a different reckoning is very strong. vol. 11. 2 >7 Further investigation has shown that at the very time when this book was written a mode of computation substantially agreeing with our own was known in Asia Minor (where John wrote) and elsewhere. It is easy to see that in such a matter as this a writer naturally follows the custom of those amongst whom he lives, and whom he has immediately in view as his readers. We shall assume, therefore, in each case that the hour (of fixed length, not variable) is reckoned from mid- night or noon. Here the tenth hour will no doubt be the hour between 9 and 10 a.m. Ver. 40. One of the two which beard from John and followed him, was Andrew, Simon Peter's brother. Andrew belonged to Bethsaida (ver. 44), and is again referred to in vi. 8, xii. 22. That he is now spoken of as the brother of Peter is an interesting indication of the importance attached by the Evangelist to the latter. There is little reason to doubt that the second of the two was the Evangelist himself. Simon Peter, who has not yet been mentioned, is introduced to us here as if he were well known to the reader — an illustration of the writer's tendency to anticipate what is hereafter to be fully explained : we have an equally striking instance in the mention of Mary in chap. xi. 2. Ver. 41. He first findeth his own brother Simon, and saith unto him, We have found the Messiah (which is, being interpreted, Christ). The peculiar language of this verse leads directly to the conclusion that each of the two disciples mentioned in the previous verse had gone in search of his brother, and the fact is not without interest as confirming the supposition that the second of the two disciples was John. Andrew and his brother, John and his brother, seem to have been the only two pairs of brothers in the apostolic band. The finding was not accidental. Andrew had gone in search of Peter, John of James. When Andrew found the object of his search, his joyful announcement was, ' We have found the Messiah.' This Hebrew term — occurring only twice in the New Testament, here and at iv. 25, in the mouth of the woman of Samaria — denotes 'the Anointed One ;' and is immediately interpreted by the Evangelist, the Greek word ' Christ ' having the same meaning. One of the great hopes of Israel was fulfilled. Ver. 42. He brought him to Jesus. There can be little doubt that Peter had shared the ex- pectations and longings of his brother Andrew, as well as of all those more earnest spirits of the time who were waiting for ' the consolation of Israel.' He too had been 'seeking,' and he too finds. — Jesus looking upon him said, Thou art Simon the son of John : thou shalt be called Cephas. Jesus looked upon him with that divine glance which read the heart (comp. ii. 25) ; and, following the custom of which so many illustrations are afforded in the Old Testament, marked the great crisis in his life which had now arrived by giving him a new name, ' Cephas,' with which corresponds the Greek word Petros (a ' stone ' or ' piece of rock '). How much importance was attached by the Evangelist to this name given to his brother apostle will appear on other occasions in the course of his Gospel. The name Johannes, or John, corresponds to the Hebrew Jochanan ; in Matt. xvi. 17 the same name is represented in a slightly different form (Jona). Ver. 43. The next day he would go forth into THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN. [Chap. I. 35-51. a place unconnected with the great promise ol God seemed to him a place from which no good could come. Such considerations go far towards explaining his disparaging remark ; though thev do not completely remove the impression which we receive from the words, that Nazareth was a place held in very low esteem. We have, how- ever, no other information that such prejudice (whether well or ill founded) existed ; and the only notices in Scripture which can throw light on the subject are the records of the obstinate un- belief of the Nazarenes (Matt. xiii. 5S) and their attempt upon the life of Jesus (Luke iv. 29). Ver. 47. Jesus saw Nathanael coming to him, and saith of him, Behold, an Israelite indeed, in whom is no guile. Again, as at Vl -'r. 43, we are left to infer that the call thus addressed to Nathanael was obeyed ; and in his obedience to it he illustrates the frame of mind for which he is immediately commended by Jesus. He is ingenuous, willing to be taught, ready to receive what is shown to him to be truth, however strongly it may conflict with his prepossessions. Jesus saw him as he drew near, and commended him as a genuine Israelite in whom there was no guile. The last words have been sometimes under- stood as if they were explanatory of the term Israelite, that term, again, being supposed, to- gether with the word 'guile,' to allude to the history of Jacob. As the name of Jacob ('sup- planter') was changed to Israel ('prince of God '), the characteristic of this patriarch's true descendants will be absence of guile. The sug- gestion is ingenious, but for several reasons hardly tenable. (1) It is guile of an entirely different kind that is here referred to ; (2) There is no special connection between the qualities displayed by Jacob on the occasion when he received the name Israel and those that here distinguish Natha- nael ; (3) The part of Jacob's history present to the mind of Jesus, in ver. 51, was the vision at Bethel, which belongs to a period much earlier than that in which his name was changed ; (4) It is difficult to believe that ' Israelite ' is intended to convey no meaning beyond absence of guile. It is rather to be taken as denoting one who belongs to the true people of God (comp. ver. 31) ; and the words that follow are then added to bring out its special meaning upon this occasion. Nathanael, in short, is 'of God,' is 'of the truth,' has no selfish impure aims, and therefore he shall be fully taught. Ver. 4S. Nathanael saith unto him, Whence knowest thou me ? The words of Jesus had been spoken while Nathanael was drawing near, the latter heard them. He does not deny the truth of the commendation, and yet it can hardly be on the other hand, that he accepts it. It isei for him that he sees that he is discerned by one whom he had not previously met, and what he asks is, Whence gettest Thou Thy knowledge of me? Who has told Thee anything about me? — Jesus answered and said unto him. Before that Philip called thee, when thou wast under the fig tree, I saw thee. Jesus replies by referring to a previous, probably recent, incident in his history. The heart of the guileless man had been so moved by the great thoughts stirring at that time with respect to the Saviour at hand, that he had retired under a fig tree to study the Scriptures, 01 meditate, or pray. It is this that (as the Greek implies) is now brought to his recollection — not his Galilee. On this day begins the journey consum- mated at chap. ii. 1 (see note).— And he findeth Philip ; and Jesus saith unto him, Follow me. The first two disciples had ' sought ' and ' followed ' Jesus ; then they had found Him. Now Tesus (seeks and) ' finds ' Philip, and bids him follow Him (compare the two parables in Matt. xiii. 44, 46). We are left to infer that the command was immediately obeyed. The calling of Philip and of Nathanael is recorded by John alone ; both Matthew and Mark relate that Jesus called to Him Andrew and Peter, James and John (Matt, iv. iS-ja ; Mark i. 16-20; compare Luke v. I-Il) ; but it will be remembered that this was a second summons, later (by some months, probably) than the events of which we are reading here. Ver. 44. Now Philip was of Bethsaida, out of the city of Andrew and Peter. This verse ap- pears to be inserted for the purpose of clearly showing that these three disciples were Galileans. The next verse would lead to a similar inference in regard to Nathanael, and this inference is con- firmed by chap. xxi. 2. It is thus an undesigned (but not the less striking) proof of the Johannine authorship of this Gospel that a similar "statement is not made with regard to the two disciples of vers. 37-40. John is aware that he was him- self well known to be a Galilean. In simple consciousness that he was so, and that no one would doubt it, he omits notice of the fact in his own case and that of his brother. But he felt it of importance to bring out the Galilean birth of the others. We might have supposed them to be Judeans ; but Judas is the only Judean of the apostolic circle. The importance of the fact in the mind of the Evangelist is connected with the opinion entertained by him of ' the lews ' and of 'Judas.' Ver. 45. Philip findeth Nathanael, and saith unto him. We have found him of whom Moses in the law and the prophets did write, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph. It was in all proba- bility on the journey from Bethany beyond Jordan to Cana of Galilee that Jesus had ' found ' Philip. As on the journey recorded in Luke xxiv. 13, the conversation turned on the things concerning the promised Saviour which were contained in ' Moses and all the prophets ; ' and to this conversation the particular form of conviction impressed upon the mind of Philip was due. He does not speak of Jesus simply as the Messiah (ver. 41), but as the fulfilment of the law and the prophets. There is an advance in fulness on the confession of ver. 41, and the special character of the advance is import- ant ; it helps to explain the words of the following verse. There is nothing accidental in the finding of Nathanael. Philip had gone in search of him in particular. Can we doubt that it was because he knew him to be specially fitted and ready to be a follower of lesus? Ver. 46. And Nathanael said unto Mm, Can there any good thing come out of Nazareth? Philip saith unto him, Come and see. The mind of Nathanael (who, from his close association with Philip, is probably to be identified with the Bar- tholomew of the earlier Gospels) is, as we shall more fully see below (vers. 47, 48), full at the moment of that prophetic hope the fulfilment of which was associated, not with Nazareth, but with Bethlehem or Jerusalem. To him all good was summed up in the thought of the coming King ; and it may have been that at the moment Chap. I. 35-51. THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN. *9 being under the fig tree, but his having gone under it ; and we are thus rather invited than forbidden to suppose that the emotions filling his heart at the moment, and impelling him to seek solitude, had been peculiarly strong. Then Jesus had seen him, and had recognised in him one of His sheep, just as His sheep recognise Him (x. 16). If the incident had taken place in Nathanael's own Cana, it must have been all the more striking to him that it should thus be known. But, however this may have been, these wonderful words of Jesus, coming suddenly upon him after long preparation for them and after the instructions just given him by Philip, at once set his heart on fire, and drew from him the memorable confession which follows. Ver. ;o. Nathanael answered him. Rabbi, Thou art the Son of God; Thou art King of Israel. The confession is the highest that has yet been made, fir it is impossible to understand ' Son of God' as the simple equivalent of Messiah (see note on ver. 34). Vet it is a confession coming out of the very heart of Old Testament prophecy, and to be accounted for by those circumstances of Nathanael's past history and present position that have been already noticed. It was not merely of a great Deliverer that the prophets had spoken. They had spoken not less of Jehovah Himself as coming, and as coming to be their I deliverer and their King. In the second Psalm, in particular, we find the two ideas of the Son of God and of Zion's King closely conjoined ; and in the seventy- second Psalm the psalmist had described in glow- ing language that kingdom of peace and righteous- ness, extending over the whole earth, of which a shadow and type were afforded by the reign of Solomon. But if it be undeniable that these ideas were imbedded in the Old Testament, there is nothing inconceivable in their being gathered from it and enunciated by those who in meditation and prayer had caught its spirit. Add to this the self- evidencing power of the Person of Jesus, which must have been so much more to Nathanael than the mere record can be to us, and we need not wonder that he should thus acknowledge Jesus. Nor is there any warrant for describing his feelings as vague. What he did was to rise to the height of Old Testament prophecy ; what he saw was that this must be J ehovah that was to come, the universal King. The three confessions have risen as they have succeeded one another. Higher than the last they cannot rise. The Lord Himself is come ; His kingdom is without limit and without end. Ver. 50. Jesus answered and said unto him, Because I said unto thee, I saw thee under the fig tree, believest thou ? Thou shaltsee greater things than these. An intimation of that growth of divine revelation which this Gospel teaches us shall be made the portion of all, — of some to an ever-increasing fulness of blessing, of others to an ever-increasing fulness of judgment. For the one, see chap. xiv. 12; for the other, chap. v. 20. These ' greater things ' are more particularly men- tioned in the next verse. Ver. 5 1 . And he saith unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto you. This is the first occasion on which we find the repeated ' Verily,' so charac- teristic of the discourses related in this Gospel. The formula is always employed to mark some important step in a discourse, where the words of Jesus either take some new start, or rise to some higher stage. Both these conditions are fulfilled in the verse before us. As to the first, it will be observed that Jesus no longer addresses Nathanael alone : the plural instead of the singular is used, and we must understand that He is speaking to all the disciples. As to the second, again, the words of themselves suggest the higher revelation promised. — Ye shall see Leaven open, and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of man. The figure is taken from Jacob's dream (Gen. xxviii. 12). A wanderer from his father's house and country, he is encou- raged by a vision which teaches him that earth is united with heaven, and that God's messengers descend to minister to those who are the ob- jects of God's care. If the ascent of the angels is mentioned (in Gen. xxviii.) before the this is because to Jacob is shown an intercourse that already exists, not one that now begins. Some- angels are already returning from earth, their ministries accomplished. What Jacob saw in vision is now in the highest sense fulfilled. There is real and unceasing intercourse between earth and heaven. It is to Jesus that the angels descend ; it is from Him that they return to heaven ; through His presence on earth this union between earth and heaven exists. Even though He is in His state of humiliation, it is His bidding that the angels do. Perhaps it is this thought that accounts for the mention (in this verse) of the ascending angels first. These words have no direct reference to the angelic visits received by Jesus at different points of His earthly ministry; still less can we refer them to miracles to be hereafter performed, great than that displayed to Nathanael, miracles of which the next chapter will furnish the first example. We have simply a symbolical repre- sentation of the fact that through the Incarnation and sufferings of Jesus heaven is opened, is brought into the closest and most constant communion with earth, so that the latter is itself transfigured with the glory of God's special abode. This inter- pretation is confirmed by two circumstances men- tioned in the verse: (i) Nathanael is 'heaven standing open,' — not 'opened' as if it might again be closed, but opened so as to continue open. It is the complete withdrawal of the inner veil of the Tabernacle, so that all the children of God, now made priests and high priests unto God, even the Father, may pass freely into the innermost sanctuary and out of it again without interruption and without end. (2) Jesus speaks of Himself as the 'Son of man.' This important designation, often used by Jesus of Himself, once only used of Him by another (Acts vii. 56), is not, as some maintain, a simple equivalent of 'Messiah.' It expresses rather One in whom all that truly belongs to humanity is realised, and by whom it is repre- sented. Jesus is the Son of man, connected with no special race, or class, or condition, equally associated with all, equally near to all, in whom all are equally interested, and may be equally blessed. The designation is not a fourth confes- sion, additional to the three that have been already- made, for it comes from the lips of Jesus Him- self. It is rather that in which all the confessions meet, the expression of the Personality to which they all belong. Jesus is the Incarnate Word, and as such He is the ' Messiah,' the One 'of whom Moses in the law and the prophets did write,' the ' Son of God and King of Israel.' Every child of humanity, realising his true humanity in Him, has as his own the blessings associated with these three aspects of the Redeemer. He is anointed with the -° THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN. [Chap. II. i-n. Holy Ghost, lives in that love which is the fulfilling deed ' shall see in the new creation introduced by of the law, is a son in the house of the Heavenly the ' Word become flesh,' and enlightened by the Father.^ himself a king. These are the ' greater full brightness of that Light in whose presence old things ' which every one who is an ' Israelite in- things pass away, and all things are made new. Chapter II. i-n. The Miracle at Cana of Galilee. chap. 1 A ^^ t ^ le t k' rc ' ^ a y tnere was a marriage in "Cana of- 2 ^*- Galilee; and the 'mother of Jesus was there : And both - -» T 1 111 ii-i'-i i * Chap. vi. 42, 3 Jesus was called, and his disciples, to the marriage. And xix. 2 6, 27 . 1,1 , . „ , _ c Chap, xix.26; wiien tney wanted wine," the mother of Jesus saith unto him, com P th; >p 4 They have no wine. Jesus 3 saith unto her, 'Woman, d what d 2 Sam - *»• 5 have I to do with thee? ''mine hour is not yet come. His ' Co'mp-chap. mother saith unto the servants, Whatsoever he saith unto you, ™i-*>|.«i» c J • A chap. xu. 23, o do it. And there were set 4 there six waterpots of stone, ^after 5 *".'■ '• the manner of the purifying of the Jews, containing- two or ^Mark™^; ***■»«' o Luke xl 38 ; 7 three firkins apiece. Jesus saith unto them, Fill the water- chap - '"■ * 5 - 8 pots with water. And they filled them up to the brim. And he saith unto them, Draw out 6 now, and bear unto the 9 governor 7 of the feast. And they bare it. When 8 the ruler of the feast had tasted *the water that was made wine, and^^p '"• * 6 knew not whence it was: (but the servants which drew 9 the water knew;) the governor 7 of the feast called 10 the bride- 10 groom, And saith unto him, Every man at the beginning doth set forth good wine ; u and when men have well drunk,' 2 then that which is worse : but" thou hast kept the good wine 11 until now. This beginning of miracles did Jesus 14 in Cana * ch ap . i. , 4 , of Galilee, and manifested forth 15 his ''glory ; and his disciples *™«Vi* 7 '; believed on 16 him. STJi. ap ' 1 And Jesus also 2 And when wine was wanting 3 And Jesus 4 omit set 5 placed after G omit out 7 ruler s But when 9 had drawn 10 calleth 11 Everyman first setteth on the good wine lL ' men are drunken 13 omit but l4 This did Jesus as the beginning of his signs 15 omit forth ,i; in 1 ONTENTS. The general subject of the second chapters. The first is the day of the Baptist's in- great division of the Gospel is continued in this terview, at Bethany, with the priests and Levites section. It contains an account of the miracle sent from ferusalem (i. 19-2S). On the second at Cana of Galilee, in which, as we arc told at (i. 29-34), John bears testimony to Jesus as the ver. 11, Jesus 'manifested His glory.' The Re- Lamb of God. The third is the day on which deemer is still in the circle of His disciples and the two disciples follow Jesus (i. 35-42). On the friends, and there aie no traces of His approach- next day Jesus sets out for Galilee (i. 43). That ing conflict with the world. Our thoughts are day, the next, and part of the third day may have directed solely to Himself, and to the glorious been spent in travelling ; for, if Bethany was in nature of that dispensation which He is to intro- the neighbourhood of Bethabara, and if tiic latter ''"!->'• may be identified with the modern Beit-nimrim, \ er. 1. And the third day. The third day, as the distance traversed even to Vi areth must have reckoned from the day last mentioned (chap, been more than eighty English miles. Very pos- 1. 43-5') ; die sixth day referred to in these sibly, however, Bethany may have lain farther Chap. II. i-ii.] THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN. north (see note on chap. i. 21). — There was a marriage, or marriage-feast. The feast, which was the chief constituent in the ceremonies attend- ing marriage, extended over several days, — as seven (Gen. xxix. 27 ; Judg. xiv. 12), or even fourteen (Tobit viii. 19). — In Cana of Galilee. There is a Kanah mentioned in the book of Joshua (xix. 28) as one of the towns in the territory of Asher, situated near Zidon. This cannot be the place referred to here. No other town of the same name is mentioned by any sacred writer except John (see references), who in every instance marks the place as Cana of Galilee. From this many have hastily inferred that ' of Galilee ' was part of the name, distinguishing this village from some other Cana, — perhaps from that mentioned above, which (though really within the limits of Galilee) lay near to Phoenicia. Two villages of Galilee claim to be the Cana of this chapter, — Kefr- Kenna, four or five miles north-east of Nazareth ; and Khurbet-Kana, about eleven miles north of the same place. The latter village is usually said to bear the name Kana-el-Jelil (i.e. Cana of Galilee) ; if so, and if the antiquity of the name could be established, this might be decisive, although even then it would be hard to under- stand how Christian tradition could so long regard Kefr-Kenna as the scene of our Lord's first miracle, tt hen within a few miles there existed a place bear- ing the very name found in the Gospel. The question cannot be further discussed here : we will only express a strong conviction that Kefr- Kenna is the Cana of our narrative. It seems probable that John himself has added the words 'of Galilee,' that he may lay stress upon the province, not the town. To him the point of main interest is, that this manifestation of the Saviour's glory took place in Galilee. — And the mother of Jesus was there, — already present as a friend, possibly a relative. Mary comes before us twice in this Gospel, at the commencement and at the close of our Lord's public life (ii. I-II, and xix. 25-27), and is also referred to in another passage (vi. 42) ; but she is never mentioned by name. As for his own name the Evangelist always substitutes words expressive of relationship to Jesus ('the disciple whom Jesus loved'), so with him Mary's name gives place to ' the mother of Jesus. ' Both here and in chap. xix. this de- signation has special significance. It expresses not only the light in which she appeared to John, but that in which he knew that she appeared to Jesus. It is essential to the spirit of the narrative to behold in Jesus one who, with the warmest filial affection, acknowledged Mary as His mother. Thus only do we see the yielding of the very closest earthly relationship to yet higher claims. The word of Jesus, ' He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me,' must in its spirit be exemplified in His own case. Most fitting, there- fore, is the use of the tenderest designation here. All that is dear and sacred in the name of mother was felt by Him in its deepest reality at the very time when He showed that every earthly tie must give way at the call of His Father in heaven. Ver. 2. And Jesus also was called, and his disciples, to the marriage. The form of the sentence shows that our chief attention is to be fixed on Jesus, not on the disciples. They were invited as His disciples. Those who came were probably the live or six mentioned in chap, i., viz. Andrew, Simon Peter, Philip, Nathanael, and John himself (and probably James). Ver. 3. And when wine was wanting. The failure (which must be understood as complete) may have been occasioned by the long continuance of the festivities, but more probably arose from the presence of several unexpected guests. — The mother of Jesus saith unto him, They have no wine. Nothing was more natural than that Mary should be the one to point out to her Son the per- plexity of the family ; but the whole tenor of the narrative compels attention to one thought alone. The absolute singleness with which Jesus listens to the voice of His heavenly Father is the point to be brought out. Had it been consistent with His mission to lend help at the summons of any human authority, no bidding would have been so power- ful as that of His mother. Many conjectures as to Mary's object in these words are at once set aside by the nature of His answer. There may have been in her mind no definite idea of the kind of help that might be afforded, but she felt that help was needed, and that what was needed could be given by her Son. The reply of Jesus, however, shows that, besides perplexity and faith, there was also presumption in Mary's words : she spoke as one who still had the right to suggest and to influ- ence His action. Ver. 4. And Jesus saith unto her, Woman, what have I to do with thee? The English words convey an impression of disrespect and harshness which is absent from the original. This use of the Greek word for 'woman' is consistent with the utmost respect. In Homer, for example (Iliad, xxiv. 300), Priam thus addresses Hecuba, his queen, and other examples of the same kind might easily be given. This Gospel itself shows that the word is not out of place where the deepest love and compassion are expressed : see chap. xix. 26, xx. 13, 15. Vet the contrast of 'woman' and ' mother ' must strike every one who reads with attention. The relation of mother, how- ever precious in its own sphere, cannot be allowed to enter into that in which Jesus now stands. John does not relate the incident recorded in Matt. xii. 46-50; Mark iii. 31-35; Luke viii. 19-21 ; but the same thought is present here. Still more distinctly is this lesson taught in the words that follow, ' What have I to do with thee ? ' The rendering defended by some Roman Catholic writers (though not found in the Vulgate, or in the Rhemish Testament of 1582), 'What is that to thee and me?' — that is, 'Why should we concern ourselves with this failure of the wine?' — is altogether impossible. The phrase is a com- mon one, occurring in Judg. xi. 12; 2 Sam. xvi. 10, xix. 22 ; I Kings xvii. iS ; 2 Kings iii. 13; 2 Chron. xxxv. 21 ; Matt. viii. 29; Mark i. 24, v. 7 ; Luke iv. 34, viii. 28 : comp. also Josh. xxii. 24; 2 Kings ix. iS; Ezra iv. 3; Matt, xxvii. 19. These passages show beyond doubt the meaning of the words : whoever makes use of the phrase rejects the interference of another, declines association with him on the matter spoken of. Hence the words reprove, — though mildly. They do more ; in them Jesus warns even His mother against attempting henceforth to prescribe or suggest what He is to do. Thus understood, the words are an irresistible argument against the Mariolatry of Rome. — Mine hour is not yet come. In two other places in this Gospel Jesus refers to the coming of ' the hour ' (xii. 25, THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN. [Chap. II. i-i i. wii. I ) ; and three times John speaks of His hour as not yet come (vii. 30, viii. 20) or as now come (xiii. 1). The other passages throw light on this, showing the peculiar solemnity which belongs to the words before us. In every instance ' the hour ' is fraught with momentous issues: — 'the hour' when the restraint put upon His foes shall continue no longer ; when He shall pass away from the world to His Father ; when He shall be glorified. So here the hour is that of the manifestation of His glory. The language used in chap. xiii. I and xvii. I, together with the general leaching of the Gospel, shows that the hour is not self-chosen, but i, thai appointed t>y the bather. lie came to do the will of Ilim that sent Him, the appointed work at the appointed time. That time none may hasten or delay by a single instant. If, then, the miracle quickly followed upon these words, which would seem to have been thecase, this can present no difficulty ; the Son waited for the very moment chosen by the Father's will. Ver. 5. His mother saith unto the servants, Whatsoever he saith unto you, do it. The answer of Jesus (ver. 4) plainly implied that His hour would come. Mary, therefore, turns to the servants, and bids them be ready. The words are indefinite, and we have no right to suppose either that she now looked for miraculous help, or that she had received some private intimation of her Son's purpose. She waits for the 'hour:' what- soever the hour may bring, let the servants be prepared to do His bidding. Mary here retires from the scene. Ver. 6. And there were there six waterpots of stone, placed after the manner of the purify- ing of the Jews, containing two or three firkins apiece 1 he waterpi its were near at hand, — in the court or at the entrance to the house, not in the house itself. Considering the many washings and purifyings of the Jews, there is nothing to surprise us in the number or in the size of the waterpots. Even a small family might easily possess six, and when the number of guests was large, each of them v> ould naturally be in use. There is much uncertainty as to the value of Hebrew measures, whether of length or of capacity. Most probably the measure here mentioned was equivalent to between eight and nine of our imperial gallons, 50 that the ' firkin ' of our version is not far wrong. If each waterpot contained two ' firkins ' and a half, the whole quantity of water would be about 130 gallons. — On the words, 'of the Jews,' see the note on chap. i. 19. Even here the phrase is not without significance. When we have set 11: Ives free from our prevailing habit of using this term simply as a national designation, we cannot but feel that the Evangelist is writing of that with which he has entirely broken, and is characterizing the ordinary religion of his day as one that consisted in ceremonies and external purifications. Ver. 7. Jesus saith unto them, Fill the waterpots with water. Probably they were now empty, perhaps in consequence of the ablutions before the feast. — And they filled them up to the brim. And when they are thus filled, nothing more can be done to fit them for their original design. They are able to furnish all that can be supplied for 'the puri- fying of the Jews.' Ver. 8. And he saith unto them, Draw now, and bear unto the ruler of the feast. As the words are commonly understood, the servants are bidden to bring to the table (in smaller jars or bowls) part of the contents of the larger vessels, which were themselves too unwieldy to be moved without difficulty. If this be the meaning, we must still ask, What was it that was drawn, water or wine? Many will answer wine, believing that the point at which the miracle is effected comes in between the seventh and eighth verses, and that all the water in the vessels was then made wine. The strong argument in favour of this interpreta- tion is the exactness with which the number and size of the vessels are specified ; and no diffi- culty need be found in the abundance of the supply. 'He, a King, gave as became a king' (Trench). Still there is nothing in the text that leads necessarily to this interpretation ; while the language of ver. 9, ' the servants which had drawn the water,' distinctly suggests that what they drew was water, which, either as soon as drawn, or as soon as presented to the guests, became wine. But there is yet another explana- tion (suggested in Dr. Weslcott's Characteristics of the Gospel Miracles, p. 15), having much in its favour. The Authorised Version (ver. 8) gives the command to the servants as ' Draw out now,' etc., plainly implying that it was out of the waterpots that they were bidden to draw. But the original word is simply 'draw,' or 'draw water.' This would seem to suggest that the servants were sent again to the spring or fountain from which they had drawn the water to fill the waterpots. First, the vessels set for the purifying of the Jews are completely filled. Nothing is neglected that can be needed to prepare for all ceremonial require- ments. There the water rests, and rests unchanged. Not till now is the water drawn for the thirsty guests, in bowls filled, not from vessels of purifica- tion, but at the spring itself; it is borne to the ruler of 1 he feast, and it is wine I The decision between the last two interpretations must be left with the reader ; it will probably rest less on the word of the narrative than on the view which is taken of the significance and meaning of the miracle. See below on ver. 11. — By 'the ruler of the feast' is meant either an upper servant, to whom was intrusted the duty of tasting the different drinks and articles of food, and, in general, of superin- tending all the arrangements of the feast ; or one of the guests acting as president of the feast, at the request of the bridegroom or by election of the The latter view is favoured by our know- ledge of Jewish usages (comp. Ecclus. xxxii. 1, 2), and by the fact that the ruler is spoken of as distinct from the servants, and, as the next verse shows, was ignorant of the source from which the wine was supplied. Vers. 9, 10. In these verses we have the testi- mony borne to the completeness of the miracle. The ruler of the feast, a guest speaking as the re- presentative of the guests, calling the bridegroom (who supplied the feast, and in whose house they were), emphatically recognises the excellence of the wine, not knowing 'whence h was.' ' From whatever source this may have come, it is wine, ami good wine :' this is his witness. ' Whatever it may be, it has but now (lowed from the spring as water,' is the unexpressed but implied testi of the servants. The simplicity of the double witness gives it its force ; the guests as yet know nothing of the miracle, and thus afford the strongest evidence of its truth. An attempt is sometimes Chap. II. 12-22.] THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN. made to soften down an expression used by the ruler of the feast, ' when men are drunken.' There need, however, be no scruple as to giving the word its ordinary' meaning. The remark docs but express his surprise at the bridegroom's departure from the ordinary custom, in bringing in so late wine of such excellence as this. The common maxim was that the best wine should be given first, when it could be appreciated by the guests ; the weak and poorer when they had drunk more than enough, and the edge of their taste was blunted. No answer is recorded, — a plain proof, were any needed, that the Evangelist values the incident not so much for its own sake as for the lesson it conveys. Ver. 11. This did Jesus as the beginning of his signs, in Cana of Galilee, and manifested his glory ; and his disciples believed in him. This, I lis first sign, was wrought in Galilee, where Isaiah 1 ix. 1, 21 prophesied that Messiah's work should begin. The threefold comment of the Evangelist is of the utmost importance. This was a sign, and His first sign ; in it He manifested His glory ; His disciples believed in Him. ' Sign ' is one of John's favourite words. Of the three words used m the New Testament to denote a miracle, the first (literally meaning 'power') is not once found in his Gospel ; the second ('prodigy,' 'wonder') occurs once only (iv. 4S) ; the third, 'sign,' as many as seventeen times. The earliest use of 'sign' in connection with a miracle is in Ex. iv. 8, and the context makes the meaning very clear : the miracle was the sign of an invisible Divine Presence with Moses, and hence it at- tested his words. Thus also, when the manna was given, the miracle manifested the glory of the Lord (Ex. xvi. 7). The miracles of Jesus, and all His works, manifested not only God's glory (viii. 50), but His own : they were signs of what He is. This gives a new starting-point. Each miracle is a sign of what He is, not only in regard of the power by which it is wrought, but also by its own nature and character, — in other words, it is a symbol of His work. The words which John 23 adds here once for all are to be understood with every mention of a 'sign,' for in every miracle Jesus made manifest (removed the veil from) His glory, revealed Himself. Two other passages com- plete the view which John gives us of his mean- ing. Of the 'signs' he says himself: 'These (signs) are written that ye may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that bclievii g ye may have life in His name.' Of the glory he says : ' We beheld His glory, glory as of an only- begotten from a father.' First, then, this miracle attested the mission of Jesus as the Chr^t ; the miracle established, as for Moses so for Him, the divine commission, and ratified His words. Next, it revealed His own glory as Son of God, mani- festing His power, in a work as sudden and as inexplicable as a new creation ; and not only His power but His grace, as He sympathizes alike with the joys and with the difficulties of life. Further, the miracle brought into light what He is in His work. The waterpots filled full for the purifying of the Jews stand as an emblem of the religion of the day, nay, even of the ordinances of the Jewish religion itself, ' carnal ordinances imposed until a time of reformation.' At Christ's word (on one view of the miracle) the water for purifying is changed into wine of gladness : this would point to Judaism made instinct with new life. On the other view, nothing is withdrawn from the use to which Jewish ritual applies it, but the element which could only minister to oirtward cleansing is transmuted by a new creative word. ' The law was given through Moses : grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.' The object of all the signs (xx. 31) was answered here in the disciples. They had believed already that He was Christ, the Son of God (i. 41, 49) ; they now believed in Him, — each one ' throws himself with absolute trust upon a living Lord,' recognising the manifestation of His glory. The miracles in this Gospel, like the parables in the other Gospels, are a test of faith. They lead onward the believer to a deeper and a firmer trust ; they repel those who refuse to believe. Chapter 1 1. The Transition to the Public Ministry, and the Cleansing of the Temple. 12 A FTER this he went down to "Capernaum, he, and his ■£*- mother, and ^his brethren, 1 and his disciples : and they continued 2 there not many days. 13 And 'the Jews' ^passover 3 was at hand, and Jesus went 14 up to Jerusalem/ 'And 5 found in the temple 6 those that sold oxen and sheep and doves, and the changers of money sitting : 1 5 And when he had made a scourge of small cords, 7 he drove them all out of the temple, 6 and the sheep, and the oxen ; and poured out the changers' money, and overthrew the tables ; 1 his mother and brethren 7 abode 3 passover of the Jews 4 . 1 And he 6 temple-courts ? And making a scourge of cords a Chap. iv. 46, vi. 17,24,59- bee chap vii. 3 c Chap. v. 1, vii a, xi. ss, XIX 42. » Ver. 23; chap. vi. 1, xi. 55. xyiii '28, 39,' xix. 14. e Comp. Matt. 24 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN. [Chap. 1 6 And said unto them that sold doves, 8 Take these things hence ; 17 make not ^my Father's house an house of merchandise. And 9 f s his disciples * remembered that it was written, *The zeal of thine 18 house hath eaten 10 me up. Then answered the Jews 11 and h said unto him, 'What sign shewest thou unto us, seeing that 12 ' 19 thou doest these things? Jesus answered and said unto them, * Destroy this temple, and 'in three days I will raise it up.' 20 Then said the Jews, 13 Forty and six years was this temple in 21 building, and wilt thou rear" it up in three days? But he 22 spake of m the temple of his body. When therefore he was »• risen 15 from the dead, his disciples " remembered that he had lt « said this unto them; 17 and they believed "the scripture, and " the word which Jesus had said. 8 the doves a omit And 10 shall eat u The Jews therefore answered 12 because 13 The Jews therefore said H raise 16 raised 16 omit had 17 omit unto them Luke ii. V j Luke xxiv. Ps. lxix. 9. See chap, v 30. Mark xiv. 58, xv. 29. Matt. xii. 4 Comp. Col See chap. Contents. In the passage before us we have the first section of the third great division of our Gospel. Jesus leaves the circle of His disciples, and begins His public work. This is done at Jerusalem, after a few days spent in Capernaum. In the metropolis of Israel He appears as the Son in His Father's house ; and in the cleansing of the old temple and the promise of the raising up of a new one He illustrates the nature of the work He is to do. The first symptoms of opposition accord- ingly appear in this passage. Jesus is rejected by the theocracy of Israel, and the foundation is laid for His entering upon wider fields of labour. The subordinate parts of this section are — (1) ver. 12 ; (2) vers. 13-22. Ver. 12. After this he went down to Caper- naum. Nazareth, not Cana, would appear to be the place from which Jesus 'went down' (from the hill-country of Galilee, — comp. chap. iv. 47, 49, 51) to Capernaum, for His brethren, who are not said to have been with Him in Cana, are now of the company. All that can be said with cer- tainty as to the position of Capernaum is, that it was situated on the western coast of the Lake ot Gennesaret, not far from the northern end of the lake ; whether the present Tell Hum or (less prob- ably) Khan Minyeh be the site, we cannot here inquire (see note on Matt. iv. 13). We have here the earliest appearance of this busy and thriving Galilean town in the history of our Lord's life. The visit related in Matt. iv. 13 and Luke iv. 31 belongs to a later period than this, a period subse- quent to the imprisonment of John the Baptist (see chap. iii. 22). Luke's narrative, however (chap. iv. 23), contains an allusion to earlier miracles in Capernaum. Whether reference is made to this particular visit (which, through the nearness of the passover, was of short duration) or not, it is interesting to note that the two Evangelists agree in recording a residence of Jesus in this town earlier than that brought into prominence in Matt. iv. 13. In the Fourth Gospel Capernaum occupies a very subordinate place ; the centre of the jiu/ian ministry was Jerusalem. — He, and his mother and brethren, and his disciples. In his usual manner John divides the company into three groups, naming separately Jesus, Flis relations by natural kindred, His disciples. The brethren of Jesus were James, Joses(orjoseph), Simon, and Judas (Matt. xiii. 55; Mark vi. 3). In what sense they are called 'brethren,' whether as the sons of Joseph and Mary, as sons of Joseph by an earlier marriage, or as sons of Mary's sister ('brother' taking the meaning of near kinsman), has been a subject of controversy from the third century to the present day. It is impossible to discuss the question within our limits, though something further must be said when we come to later chapters (vii., xix.). Here we can only express a very decided convic- tion that the last mentioned of the three opinions is without foundation, and that the ' brethren ' were sons of Joseph, their mother being either Mary herself or, more probably, an earlier wife of Joseph (comp. note on Matt. xiii. 5S). This verse alone might suggest that the brethren were not disciples, and from chap. vii. 5 we know that they were not. Ver. 13. And the passover of the Jews was at hand, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem. The expression, 'passover 0] the Jews,' is very remark- able, and can be explained only by the usage already noticed in ver. 6. To John's mind the nation cannot but present itself habitually as in opposition to his Master. As yet, indeed, Jesus is not confronted by an organized band of adversaries representing the ruling body of the nation ; but we are on the verge of the conflict, and the conflict itself was only the outcome of ungodliness and worldliness existing before their manifestation in the persecution of Jesus. The light was come, but it was shining in dark- ness : this darkness rested on what had been the temple, the city, the festivals, of tiie Lord. The feast now at hand is not 'the Lord's passover' (Ex. xii. 11), but 'the passover of the Jews.' The prevailing spirit of the time has severed the feast from the sacred associations which belonged to it, so that Jesus must go up rather as Prophet than as worshipper, — not to sanction by His presence, but powerfully to protest against the degenerate wor- ship of that day. The word of prophecy must be fulfilled : ' And the Lord whom ye seek shall sud- Chap. II. 12-22.! THE GOSI'EL ACCORDING TO JOHN. 25 denly come to His temple, . . . but who may abide the day of His coming?' (Mai. iii. I, 2). Ver. 14. And he found in the temple-courts those that sold oxen and sheep and doves. The scene of tiiis traffic was the outer court, commonly spoken of as the court of the Gentiles, but known to the Jews as ' the mountain of the house.' This court (which was on a lower level than the inner courts and the house or sanctuary itself) occupied not less than two-thirds of the space inclosed by the outer walls. Along its sides ran cloisters or colonnades, two of which, ' Solomon's porch ' on the east, and the ' Royal porch ' on the south, were especially admired : to these cloisters many of the devout resorted for worship or instruction, and here, no doubt, our Lord often taught (chap. x. 23). In strange contrast, however, with the sacredness of the place was what He now ' found in the temple-courts.' At all times, and espe- cially at the passover, the temple was frequented by numerous worshippers, who required animals that might be offered in sacrifice. The law pre- scribed the nature of each sacrifice, and enjoined that all animals presented to the Lord should be 'without blemish' (Lev. xxii. 19, 20), — a require- ment which ' the tradition of the elders ' expanded into minute detail. Hence sacrifice would have been well-nigh impossible, had not facilities been afforded for the purchase of animals that satisfied all the conditions imposed. The neighbouring quarter of the city naturally became a bazaar for the purpose ; but unhappily the priests, yielding to temptations of gain, had suffered such traffic to be carried on within the precincts of the temple itself. At what period this abuse took its rise we do not know. Some have supposed that the last words of Zechariah (chap. xiv. 21) refer to similar prac- tices, the verse being rendered : ' In that day there shall be no more the trafficker in the house of the Lord of hosts.' The book of Nehemiah shows examples of the spirit of disorder and irreverence from which such usages naturally spring ; and the representations of Malachi make it easy to under- stand that the priests would be only too readily accessible to the allurements of a gainful traffic. In the court of the Gentiles, then, stood those wdio offered for sale oxen and sheep, — also doves (for the poor, Lev. xiv. 22, and for women, Lev. xii. 6). The wording of this verse ('those that sold,' etc.) shows that the trade was now an established custom. The discordance between a cattle-mart and a place for sacred worship and converse need not be drawn out in detail. But this was not all. — And the changers of money sitting — at their tables in the sacred place. The annual tribute which every man of Israel was bound to pay to the temple treasury could be paid only in the half-shekel 'of the sanctuary' (see Matt. xvii. 24-26). All who came from other lands, there- fore, or who had not with them the precise coin, must resort to the exchangers, who (as we learn from the Talmud) were permitted to do their business in the temple during the three weeks preceding the passover. Their profits (at a rate of interest amounting to ten or twelve per cent.) were very great. Ver. 15. And making a scourge of cords, he drove them all out of the temple-courts, and the sheep and the oxen. The scourge was made for the expulsion of the animals, but by it Jesus also declared His purpose to the traders themselves. The words show distinctly that it is with the men that He is dealing; but He drives them from the sacred place by banishing the instruments and means of their unholy traffic. In a figurative sense Messiah was said to come armed with a scourge. ' Rabbi Eliezer was asked by his dis- ciples : How should a man live to escape the scourge of the Messiah? He answered : Let him live according to the law and in love towards men.' — And poured out the changers' money, and overthrew the tables — the counters on which the bankers placed their heaps of change. Ver. 16. And said unto them that sold the doves, Take these things hence ; make not my Father's house an house of merchandise. We must not suppose that the sellers of doves were more leniently dealt with. The oxen might be driven away, the tables overturned, but the cages of birds must be carried out by their owners : hence it is to these alone that Jesus directly addresses words which were really spoken to all, and which explained his action. Any zealous reformer, who understood the faith of Israel, might have done as much : indeed, the first treatise in the Talmud contains regulations for the due reverence of the temple which utterly condemn such profanations as are related here. But though the action of Jesus might imply no more, His words declare that He vindicates the honour of His Father's house. Thus He at once honours His Father and declares Himself. He offers Himself to Israel as the Son of God. In this deed, as in all His acts and words (comp. Matt. xiii. 11-15), there is a mingling of revelation and reserve : the declara- tion of Sonship is combined with an act which no true Israelite could fail to approve. Those who, yielding to the impulse of right, and listening to the voice of conscience, accepted the act, would be led to ponder the words ; in them would be fulfilled the promise, 'To him that hath shall more be given.' Those who hardened their heart against the act lost the revelation which was given with it, and were in danger of losing all. — John does not speak of the cleansing of the temple as miracu- lous, but the Saviour's words themselves mark it as a ' sign ; ' and it is only by thinking of a divine awe attending the words (comp. chap, xviii. 6) that we can explain the immediate submission of the traffickers. The following verses describe the twofold effect of the act of Jesus on the disciples and on 'the Jews. ' Ver. 17. His disciples remembered that it was written, The zeal of thine house shall eat me up. Clearly (from the contrast with ver. 22) they remembered this scripture at that time. The quotation is from Ps. lxix. , a psalm which is several times referred to in the New Testament. See Rom. xv. 3, xi. 9, 10; Acts i. 20 (perhaps John xv. 25) ; and comp. Ps. lxix. 21 with the accounts of the crucifixion. We have no record of the interpretation of this psalm by Jewish writers in a Messianic sense, but New Testament usage can leave no doubt that such an application of many verses is both allowable and necessary. What was true of the devout and afflicted Israelite who wrote the words was true in the fullest sense of the Servant of Jehovah, of whom all such faith- ful servants were imperfect types. The exact meaning of the words here quoted will best appear if we take the whole verse : ' The zeal of Thine house consumed me : and the reproaches of them that reproached Thee fell on me.' The parallelism of the lines shows that the chief antithesis lies in THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN. [Chap. II. 12-22. 26 the pronouns. Dishonour shown to God has been felt by the psalmist as a cruel wrong to himself. ' Zealous indignation for Thine house, inspired by the sight or news of unworthy treatment of Thine house, consumed me, — so to say, destroyed my very life.' The quotation is not exact ; what in the psalm is past is here future : ' shall eat me up. ' An examination of other passages will show that, where John uses tin words 'it is written,' he does not necessarily imply that the quotation is made with literal exactness. Had we the past, 'consumed,' we might be led to think of the inward consuming of holy zeal from which resulted this act of indig- nation ; the future, 'will eat me up,' brings us nearer to what we have seen to be the meaning of the passage in the psalm. His zeal for His Father's house will devour His very life — will bring destruction in its train. Ver. 18. The Jews therefore answered. The effect on the disciples has been related ; what will be the response of the rulers to the self-revela- tion 01" Jesus ? The word 'therefore' answers to ihe Evangelist's knowledge of the fact. Their position of inward antagonism is present to his thought, though it has not yet found expression in their deeds. And said unto him, What sign shewest thou unto us because thou doest these things?— This answer (replying to the act rather than the words) is in the tone of indignation, not of sincere inquiry : ' Because Thou doest these things Thou art bound to show a sign, a sign that shall justify such actions.' The effectual cleansing was the 'sign,' but as such they would net receive it. Their question is a token of the failure (so far as the nation was concerned) of the manifestation which Jesus had given of Himself as Hon of God. Both in the question and in the response of our Lord we have a clear parallel in the earlier Gospels : see Matt. xii. 38-40. Ver. 19. Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple. The most important point for the understanding of this verse is the distinc- tion between the two words which the English Bible renders 'temple.' The word used in vers. 14 and 15 denotes generally the whole area within the walls, and here especially the outermost space in the sacred enclosure; while the latter signifies the holy place, and the holy of holies. The sanctity of the temple-court has been vindicated ; the true temple, the sanctuary, the dwelling-place of Jehovah, has not been mentioned in the narrative until now. But even this very signi- ficant change of expression would not render the meaning plain, for the words were intended to lie enigmatical — to be understood after, and not before, the event which fulfilled them. If we would understand them, we must take them in connection with ver. 21, 'But He spake of the 'emple of His body.' To the English reader they seem merely to convey a warning that, if the lews go on with such profanation as that which lesus had checked, they will bring the temple to ruin. But it is of the sanctuary that He speaks, not of the temple-court which had sustained the desecration. When therefore He says, ' Go on in your present way, and by so doing destroy this temple,' He means that their rejection of Him- self shall culminate in their consigning to destruc- tion the temple of 1 1 is body. The essence of the temple is, that it is the dwelling-place of God : His body is God's temple, for in Him ' dwelleth all th.e fulness of the Godhead bodily.' The material temple had been for ages the type of His body, in which God first truly manifested Himself to man. The continuance of the temple was no longer needed when the living temple was reared ; but it was by the destruction of the latter that the destruction of the former was brought about, — its destruction, that is, as the dwelling-place of God. In the holiest place, behind the veil, • Jehovah had dwelt : when the Lord Jesus was crucified, the veil was rent, the holy of holies was thrown open, and by being thrown open was mi to be God's habitation no longer. Our Lord therefore might well use words which relate at once to His body and to the temple, such being the connection between the two. And in three days I will raise it up. — His crucifixion in- volved the total destruction of the Jewish temple and polity. No longer will there be a special place in which God's glory will be revealed, to which God's worshippers will come, — a place in which are national distinctions, a court of the 1 lentiles, a court of Israel, a court of the priests. His resurrection vi ill establish a new temple, a new order of spiritual worship. He Himself, as raised and glorified Messiah, will be the Corner-stone of a spiritual temple, holy in the Lord. This is one of the many passages in the Gospel which show to us how perfectly all the future of His history was anticipated by our Lord (see chap. iii. 14, etc.). There is no real difficulty in the words, ' 1 will raise it up;' chap. x. 17, 18, furnishes a complete explanation. Ver. 20. The Jews therefore said, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou raise it up in three days? They answei only by another question,— not an inquiry, but really an indignant and scornful rejection of His words. It was at the close of the year 20 B.C. or the beginning of 19 B.C. that Herod the Great began the rebuilding of the temple. The temple itself was completed in eighteen months ; the ex- tensive buildings round it required eight years more. So many additions, however, proved neces- sary before the work could be regarded as finished, that the final completion is assigned by Josephus to the year 50 A.D., seventy years after the com- mencement of the undertaking, and but twenty years before Jerusalem was destroyed. The ' forty and six years ' bring us to the year 28 a.d. It is perhaps strange that the Jews should associate the long term of years with the rebuilding of the sanc- tuary and not the temple as a whole ; it is, how- ever, very likely that, at all events, the ornamenta- tion of this building might still be incomplete. Moreover, in their indignant rejoinder to the say- ing of Jesus, they not unnaturally take up the very term which He had used, even though it applied in strictness only to the most sacred portion of the structure. Ver. 21. See above on ver. 19. Ver. 22. When therefore he was raised from the dead, his disciples remembered that he said this. Again (as in ver. 10) we are struck by the suddenness with which the narrative breaks off. It has been related mainly to bring out the rejec- tion of Jesus by the Jews ; the Evangelist pauses upon it only for a moment to speak of the effect on the disciples, as after the former miracle he records that the ' disciples believed in ' Jesus (ver. 1 1). We do not find the same statement here, but are told (comp. chap. xii. 16) that the words which battled the Jews were mysterious to the disciples Chap. II. 12-22.] THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN. likewise. Whilst, however, the Jews rejected the 'hard saying,' the disciples 'kept all these things and pondered them in' their 'heart,' not under- standing them until the prophecy was fulfilled. This record of words not understood at the time, even by the inner circle of the followers of Jesus, is a striking indication of the simple truthfulness of the narration (comp. ver. n). And they believed the Scripture and the word which Jesus had said. — The recollection of the words after the resurrection led the disciples (we cannot doubt that John is speaking chiefly of his own experience) to a fuller and richer faith in ' the scripture ' and ' the word ' of Jesus. The ' word ' must be that of ver. 19 ; but it is not so easy to explain 'the scripture.' It cannot mean the ( >M Testament as a whole, for in this sense John always uses the plural, 'the Scriptures.' It would be easier to suppose that the Evangelist has in mind some passages of the Old Testament predictive of the resurrection [e.g., from Ps. xvi.; Isa. liii.; Hos. vi.), or the rebuilding of the true temple (Zech. vi. 12-15). "- however, we include several passages, the difficulty in the use of the singular remains as before; and if we seek for a single prediction, we cannot meet with any one that agrees so closely with our Lord's saying as to be thus definitely pointed out as ' the scripture.' We seem bound to refer the word to the only ' scripture ' that (ver. 17) has been quoted in the context, Ps. Ixix. 9. This verse, speaking of the consuming and of its cause, formed the groundwork of the first part of our Lord's saying (' Destroy this temple'). Hence this passage of the psalm and ' the word which Jesus had said ' form one whole, and as such are men- tioned here. The disciples, guided to deeper faith by that which was at the time wholly mysterious (and which was a 'stone of stumbling' to those who believed not), recognised the fulfilment of Old Testament prophecy and of the prediction of Jesus Himself in the death and resurrection of their Lord. Thus in the first scene of His public ministry, we have Jesus before us in the light in which the whole Gospel is to present Him, at once the cruci- fied and the risen Lord. The whole narrative lias been subjected to keen scrutiny both by friends and foes, but its import- ance has hardly yet been properly acknowledged. A few words must still be said as to its relation to the other Gospels, and as to its place in this. Each of the earlier Gospels records a cleansing of the temple, accomplished, however, not at the outset but at the close of our Lord's public mini- stry, on the Monday (probably) preceding the crucifixion. To some it has seemed altogether improbable that there should have been two acts of precisely similar character at the extreme points of the official life of our Lord. But is the character of the two the same ? We would not lay too much stress on some of the differences of detail, for appa- rent divergences sometimes present themselves in connection with narratives which no one would be inclined to explain as relating to different events. There are, however, not a few touches in the account before us which show the hand of an eye- witness ; — such as the making of the scourge of cords, the scattering of the money of exchange, 27 the words addressed to the sellers of doves alone, the form of the rebuke, the conversation with the Jews, the incidental notice of the forty-six years (a statement which only elaborate calculation shows to be in harmony with independent statements of another Evangelist). Finally, there is the remarkable perversion before Caiaphas of the words regarding the rebuilding of the temple, on which nothing contained in the earlier Gospels throws any light, and which (especially as given in Mark xiv. 58) bears all the marks of having been exaggerated in the popular mind through lapse of time. Such considerations as these seem to show that, if the cleansing can have occurred once only, its place in the history is that assigned by John. But is it really at all improbable that two cleansings should have taken place, sepa- rated by such an interval of time as the Gospel narrative presupposes? No one will think that the action of our Lord, as here related, would put an end to the traffic, when this very narrative brings before us an official challenge of His authority so to act. At the last Passover Jesus would find the temple-court as much the scene of worldly trading as it was at the first. Did He then, it will be asked, condone the evil when in intervening years He went up to the same feast ? This question must be met by another : Have we reason to believe that Jesus attended any other Passover than these two ? The least of chap. v. I was in all probability not a Passover, and at the Passover mentioned in vi. 4 He certainly was not present. If then he attended two Pass- overs only, is it at all improbable that on the second occasion, as on the first, He would vindi- cate the purity and sanctity of the temple ? The purpose, too, of the two cleansings is different. At the close of His ministry He is hailed as King of Israel, and He indignantly expels from God's house those who practically denied to Gentiles any share in that place of prayer. Now He acts as the Son of God, offer- ing Himself in this character to rulers and to people, that they may acknowledge His Sonship and obey His word. ' He came unto His own home,' His home as Son, 'and they that were His own received Him not.' This is the turning- point of His ministry : henceforth He is the re- jected of the Jews. This is the significance of the narrative before us. The cleansing and the mysterious words spoken by Jesus (ver. 19) are alike 'signs.' The first was a sign of His Son- ship, a sign which they refused to accept. That refused, He gives the second ; just as, when the Pharisees asked of Him a sign from heaven, He refused to give any save the sign of the prophet Jonah. If they will not listen to the former, the latter alone remains. He would have renewed the life of the temple, but they would not have it so. Let them, then, go on in their ways, and destroy the temple ; let them go on in their re- jection of Him, and destroy His life. The result will be the raising of a spiritual temple which shall be none of theirs — a temple in which God Himself shall dwell, manifested to all men in the Son. 2 S THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN. [Chap. II. 23-III. 21. Chapter II. 23— III. 21. The Conversation with Nicodcmits. 23 "N T OW when he was in Jerusalem at the " passover, in the«Ver. 13. IN feast day, 1 many b believed in his name, when they 2 saw JSeechap. 24 the miracles 3 which he did. But Jesus did not commit 4 him- 'John v. 13. 25 self unto them, because 5 he 'knew all 6 men, And 7 needed c< ^*%-%--£ 3 not that any should testify of man : for he knew what was in S^.*' 1 * 27 ' man. 8 r.v.T^ : 1 There' 1 was a man of the Pharisees, named d Nicodemus, a Luke vS'.' 39! 2 '' ruler of the Jews: The same came to Jesus 10 by night, and fsam.°xn! said unto him, f Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come ,/ cLp C vi!'. 24 ' from God :" for s no man 12 can do these miracles 13 that thou t .[i] 3 doest, except /: God be with him. Jesus answered and said %', 4 see"' unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be /chap. j. 38.' 4 ' born again, 14 he cannot see the * kingdom of God. Nicodemus * 16,^3".™" - 1 1 ■ T T 11 1 1 • 1 1 1 ^' A CtS X. 38. saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old ? can iChap.i. ,-,■. he enter the 15 second time into his mother's womb, and be Tit.'m.'s:' las. i. iS 5 born? Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except iPet.i.3,*3; a man be 16 born of water and of the Spirit, 17 he cannot enter iii. 9, iv. 7 , ' 6 into the * kingdom of God. That which is ' is flesh ; and that which is ls born of the Spirit 19 is spirit. 7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again. 2 " 8 The wind bloweth 21 where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound 22 thereof, but canst not tell 23 whence it cometh, and whither it goeth : so is every one that is !i born of the Spirit." ' 9 Nicodemus answered and said unto him, How can these things 10 be ? 2fl Jesus answered and said unto him, Art thou a master 87 1 1 of Israel, and knowest 28 not these things ? Verily, verily, I say unto thee, We speak that we do know, and testify that 2 ' we 12 have seen ; and 'ye receive not our witness. If I have 30 told iver.32. you earthly 31 things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, i. iSjProv. 13 if I tell you of heavenly things? 32 And "''no man hath « Chap. 'vi. 38 ascended up to 33 heaven, but " he that came down from 34 heaven, 3' ; tph. i» 9, 10. 1 at the feast - omit when they 3 beholding his signs 4 trust s on account of u his discerning all 7 And because he 8 should bear witness concerning a man ; for he himself discerned what was in the man 9 And there 10 to him n thou art come from God, a teacher 12 no one 1S signs 14 any one have been born anew Ks a 10 any one have been '" of water and spirit ls hath been 10 or spirit 20 anew 21 breatheth 22 voice 23 but knowest not 24 hath been - >5 or spirit 26 come to pass 27 Thou art the teacher 28 perceivest thou '-"■' that which we know and bear witness of that which 30 omit have 31 the earthly "- if I tell you the heavenly things 33 And no one hath ascended up into heaven r ' A out of. Chap. II. 23-III. 21.] THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN. 29 14 even 3 " the " Son of man which is in heaven. 36 And 'as Moses ; ^m.' ixl' ? . lifted up 37 the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son tvers.'X-t' 15 of man be q lifted up: 37 That r whosoever believeth s in him lV£vl should not perish, but 3 " have 'eternal life. j£L'.";. 2S ' 16 For "God so loved "the world, that he gave his ""only * s e K &,'*t.4, begotten Son, that whosoever 3 ' J believeth in him should" not ^jihn'v. h. 17 * perish, but have everlasting 41 Life. 'For God sent not his 42 ch" P : w! V, Son into the world to condemn 43 the world; but that the "■'^.^'•47! 18 world through him might 44 be saved. * He that believeth on " j&»* s°T ' him is not condemned: 40 but 47 " he that believeth not is con- J^ 1 ™' 1 -' 2 - demned 48 already, because he hath not believed in the name « Rom. v. 8, 19 of™ the only begotten Son of God. And this is the condem- f*jJM; nation, * that " light is come into the world, and men loved ^* , » : ' darkness rather than light, 50 because their deeds were evil." 1 ■§£$,)£* 20 For every one that doeth 52 evil hateth the light, neither ^w-^g 21 cometh 53 to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. 64 But 'g^*^' he that doeth truth 55 cometh to the light, that his deeds 50 " <£**■ xvi - may be made manifest, that they are 57 wrought in God. i uS&"w chap. i. 5, 35 omit even. 96 omit which is in heaven ™- "• ™; s 37 lifted on high 33 that every one that believeth may in him xx ' v i. is ; 30 every one that t0 may " eternal 42 the ROT.jdii.12; 43 that he may judge "may ls in 40 judged , ThJs.V. 47 omit but 48 hath been judged 4:l is the judgment, because the 4, 5 ; 1 Pet. 50 the darkness rather than the light 51 for their works were wicked 52 committeth 63 and he cometh not 54 works should be convicted chap. ix. 5. 55 the truth 56 works " because they have been Contents. It is of much importance to keep sought to purify himself and his house for the great the closing verses of chap. ii. in close connection festival that was now approaching. The words with the opening verses of chap. iii. (see the com- would also point to our Lord's observing the feast mentary on iii. 1). Rejected by the theocracy of Himself. It is noticeable that we do not here read Israel Jesus turns to individuals, but these are not ' the Passover of the Jews : ' the desecration of the confined to Israel. The woman of Samaria and festival has been condemned in one of its manifes- the king's officer of Galilee are beyond the theo- tations, but the festival itself is honoured. John cratic pale. Nicodemus, however, who is first gives us no particulars of the ' signs ' which Jesus introduced to us, does belong to the chosen people ; did ; comp. chaps, xxi. 25, vi. 4, and several and the conversation of Jesus with him, as it leads passages in the earlier Gospels (e.g. Mark i. 34, him from an imperfect to a perfect faith, illustrates vi. 55, 56). The signs attested His words, which the power which Jesus, though rejected by Israel were the description of His 'name' (see chap. 1. 12.1, and doomed to die, shall exercise over the hearts and, beholding the signs, many became believers of men. The subordinate parts of this section in His name, accepting Him as being in truth what aro _(i) ii. 23-25; (2) iii. 1-15; (3) iii. 16- He declared Himself to be. The faith was real but 21. not mature ; its imperfection is illustrated in the Ver. 23. Now when he was in Jerusalem at next verse. the passover, at the feast, many believed in his Vers. 24, 25. But Jesus did not trust himself name, beholding his signs which he did. In unto them on account of his discerning all men, this verse we pass from the public presentation of and because he needed not that any should bear lesus to the people and ' the 1 e« s ' in the house of witness concerning a man ; for he himself dis- His Father to His more private ministry in Jerusa- cerned what was in the man. The effect pro- lem : rejected as the Son of God, He continues His duced upon Jesus Himself by this imperfection of work as a Prophet, doing many 'signs,' and by faith is described in very remarkable language, these leading many to faith in His mission. The Many ' believed in His name,' and so took the first time spoken of is still the season of the Passover, step towards that surrender of the heart to Him The remarkable repetition, ' at the Passover, at the which in ver. 1 1 we read of as made by His dis- feast,' may probably be intended to direct our ciples. Had hey thus fully trusted themselves to thoughts especially to the very night of the paschal Him, then would He have trusted Himself to them. supper. If so, the purification of the temple may This is one of the illustrations of the teaching, so have fallen at the very time when every Israelite characteristic of the Fourth Gospel, with regard to 5° THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN. [Chap. II. 23-III. 21. the union and communion of Jesus with His people ; if they abide in Him, He abides in them. That these ]« lievers have not reached such maturity of faith Jesus Him ell ■>< cems. No witness from am ither is needed by Him, for the thoughts of every man with whom He speaks are 'naked and opened' unto Him. The words of John do not in their literal sense go beyond this ; but, in declaring that Jesus read the heart of all who came to Him, they imply that other truth with which the rendering in our Bibles has made us familiar : ' He knew what was in man. 1 Ver. 1. And there was a man of the Phari- sees, named Nicodenius, a ruler of the Jews. That this verse does not begin a new section is clearly shown by the first word ' And,' which links it with the last chapter; another indication of the same kind is seen when the true leading is restored in ver. 2 (' to Him ' for ' to Jesus '). A closer examination will show that the connection thus suggested is really very close and important. In chap. ii. 24, 25, a very marked emphasis is laid on ' man ; ' the same word and thought are taken up in this verse. Ver. 2 of this chapter brings before us a belief agreeing in nature and ground with that spoken of in chap. ii. 23, 24. The last thought of chap. ii. is powerfully illustrated by the answers which Jesus returns to the thoughts of Nicodemus. Clearly, then, John means us to understand that out of the many who ' believed in the name ' of Jesus was one deserving of special attention, not merely as representing a higher class and special culture, but chiefly because, brought by the signs to a degree of faith, he was desirous of knowing more; and our Lord's deal- ings with Nicodemus show how He sought to lead all who were so prepared to a deeper knowledge and higher faith. The name Nicodemus is found in the Talmud, as a Hebrew surname borne by a Jew, a disciple of Jesus, whose true name was Bonai. There is nothing to show that the persons are identical, and on the whole it is more probable that they are not. It is most natural to regard the name Nicodemus as Greek, not Hebrew ; compare ' Philip ' (chap. i. 43). Nicodemus is described as a Pharisee (see notes on chaps, i. 24, vii. 32), and as ' a ruler of the Jews,' — i.e., a member of the San- hedrin (comp. chap. vii. 50), the great council of seventy-one which held supreme power over the whole nation. In other passages John uses 'ruler ' in this sense (see vii. 26, 48, xii. 42) ; here only does he join with it the words 'of the Jews.' The added words (see chap. i. 19) show that Nicodemus stood connected with that body which was ever present to John's thought as the assemblage >l those who represented the self-seeking and formal- ism which Jesus came to subvert. The elements of hostility already existed, though the open con- flict had in it yet begun (see chap. ii. iS). It is not easy always to define the relation between ' the Pharisees ' and ' the Jews,' as the two terms are used by John ; for under the latter designa- tion the leaders of the Pharisees would certainly be included. The former perhaps usually brings into prominence teaching and principles ; the latter points rather to external action. The Phari- sees took alarm at the new doctrine, the Jews resented the new authority. Nicodemus is not free from the externalism and prejudices of his class, but his candour and his faith stand out in wonder- ful contrast to the general spirit evinced by the and the Jews. Ver. 2. The same came to him by night. Chap. xix. 38, 39, seems clearly to show that the motive of Nicodemus in thus coming by night was the same as the cause of Joseph's secret disciple- ship — the 'fear of the Jews.' That he himself was one of ' the Jews ' only makes this explanation more probable. We cannot doubt that he came alone; whether Jesus also was alone, or whether John or other disciples were present at the inter- view, we cannot tell. And said unto him, Eabbi, we know that thou art come from God, a teacher. Every word here is 1 if importance. On Rabbi see the note, chap. i. 38. We may be sure that a member of the sect that carefully scrutinised the Baptist's credentials (chap. i. 19-24) would not lightly address Jesus by this title of honour, or acknow- ledge him as Teacher. But the words ' Thou art come from Cod' will appear even mote significant, if we keep in mind that the most familiar designa- tion ui tlie Messiah was ' the coming One,' 'He that should come.' The appearing of the Baptist quickened in the minds of ' all men ' (Luke iii. 15) the recollection of God's great promise ; and the signs lately wrought by Jesus in Jerusalem may well have excited in the mind of this Pharisee hopes which find a hesitating expression in his words. No ordinary prophet would have been thus acknowledged as one 'come from God.' At the very least, the confession assigns tojesus a supreme authority as Teacher. The confession of Nico- demus was made in the name of others besides himself. ' We know ; ' — others amongst the Pharisees, perhaps already others amongst the rulers (chap. xii. 42), had reached the same point. No doubt the number was but small, too small to make confession easy, or to banish the very natural fear of the Jews which brought Nicodemu by night. For no one can do these signs that thou doest except God be with him. Nicodemus acknowledges the works to be 'signs ' (rrot so the Jews, chap. ii. iS), and he shows that in him the signs had precisely answered the designed end. The faith indeed which rested on these alone was imperfect, but it was faith ; more could be gained ; the faith could be educated, raised higher, and made more complete. How truly this faith has been educated will be shown when (chap. xix. 39) it shall come forth in honour of that cruci- fied Redeemer who is here to be proclaimed (ver. 14). Such education, however, can be effected only by tire word of Je^is, leading to fellowship with Himself. For this word Nicodemus now comes. In reading the following verses we must bear in mind that, as Jesus would train and strengthen the faith of Nicodemus, it is the weak side of this faith that is kept in view ; but the Saviour's acceptance of the faith as real is plainly 1 in the openness and unreservedness of the teaching He vouchsafes. Many have pointed out the contrast between this discourse and those related in the other Gospels; but had there been no difference between discourses delivered In the half-instructed excitable multitudes of Galilee and those intended fur a 'teacher of Israel,' the apparent agreement would have been a discord which no argument could explain away (see Introduction). Ver. 3. Jesus; answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except any one have been horn anew, he cannot see the Icing- CHAP. II. 23-III. 21.] THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN. domofGod. Jesus answers his thoughts rather than his words, but the connection between the address ami the answer is not hard to find. John the Baptist had familiarised all with the thought that tin- kingdom of God was at hand, that the reign of the Messiah, so long expected, would soon begin. Whatever meaning may be assigned to the words of ver. 2, we may certainly say that every thoughtful Jew who believed what Nico- demus believed was ' waiting for the kingdom of God.' But the Pharisee's conception of the Messianic promise was false. In great measure, at least, his ' kingdom of God ' was outward and carnal, not inward and spiritual, — a privilege of birth, belonging of right to Israel. This false con- ception Jesus would at once correct, and the gravity of the error is reflected in the solemnity of the lan- guage, 'Verily, verily, I say unto thee.' — 'Any one. ' This more literal rendering is necessary here because of the next verse. Our Lord says simply anyone. Nicodemus brings in the word 'man,' to give more expressiveness to his reply. ' Have been born anew.' It has been, and still is, a much controverted question whether the Greek word here used should be rendered again, or anew, \bove. 'Again' is certainly inadequate ; for, tin lugh the word may denote beginning over again, commencing tlie action afresh, it cannot express mere repetition. Much may be said in favour of the third rendering, 'from above.' This is the undoubted meaning of the same word as used below (ver. 31); and a similar idea is expressed in the passages of the Gospel (chap. i. 13) and First Epistle of John (chap. ii. 29, v. 1, etc.) which speak of those who are begotten of God. It may also be urged that, as Christ is 'He that cometh from above' (ver. 31), those who through faith are one with Christ must derive their being from the same source, and may well be spoken of as ' born from above.' Notwithstanding these arguments, it is probable that anew is the true rendering. Had the other thought been intended, we might surely have expected 'of God' instead of 'from above.' The correspondence between the two members of the sentence would then have been complete ; only those who have been bom of Cod can see the king- dom of God. Further, born (or begotten) of God is a very' easy and natural expression, but this can hardly be said of born (or begotten) from above: ' coming from above ' is perfectly clear ; ' born from above ' is not so The chief argument, how- ever, is afforded by the next verse, which clearly shows that Nicodemus understood a second birth to be intended. But the words 'except any one have been born from above' would not necessarily imply a second birth. The Jews maintained that they were born of God (see chap. viii. 41), and would have had no difficulty whatever in believing that those only who received their being from above could inherit the blessings of Messiah's kingdom. Our Lord's words, then, teach the fundamental truth, that not natural birth, descent from the stock of Israel, but a second birth, the being begotten anew, a complete spiritual change (see ver. 5), admits into the kingdom of God. On the general expectation of a king and a kingdom, see chap. i. 49. It is remarkable that the kingdom of God is expressly mentioned by John in this chapter only (compare, however, chap, xviii. 36). — ' Cannot ' is by no means the same as 'shall not.' It expresses an impossibility in the very nature of things. To a state of outward earthly 3' privilege rights of natural birth might give admit- tance. In declaring that without a complete inward change none can possibly see (have a true percep- tion of) ' the kingdom of God,' Jesus declares the spiritual character of His kingdom. In it none but the spiritual can have any part. Ver. 4. Nicodemus saith unto him. How can a man be born when he is old ? can he enter a second time into his mother's womb, and be born ? These are the words of a man amazed beyond measure. Jesus has read his thoughts, and the answer to his unspoken question has come with the suddenness and surprise of a thunderbolt. The solemn emphasis laid on the words ' born anew forbids his thinking of a mere figure of speech, and apparently banishes from his mind the Old Testament expressions which approach the same truth (see ver. 5). The privilege which he attached to natural birth within the bounds of Israel is torn away by a in in 1 ; the ' an)' 1 me ' of our Lord's answei makes all men equal ; and the prize which seemed almost within his grasp is given to every one who has been born anew. In his bewilderment he sees no meaning in the words of Jesus, except they be understood physically of a second natural birth ; and the evident impossibility of this he expresses in the very strongest terms. Ver. 5. Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except any one have been born ot water and spirit, he cannot enter into the king- dom of God. The answer is a stronger affirmation of the same truth, with some changes of expressioc which made the words no easier of acceptance, save as the new terms might awaken echoes of Old Testament language, and lead the hearer from the external to an inward and spiritual interpretation. The first words have given rise to warm and continued controversy. Many have held that the birth ' of water and spirit ' can only refer to Chris- tian baptism ; others have denied that Christian baptism is alluded to at all. The subject is very important and very difficult. Our only safety lies in making the Evangelist his own interpreter. We shall repeatedly find, when a difficulty occurs, that some word of his own in the context or in some parallel passage brings us light. (1) First, then as to the very peculiar expression, ' of water and spirit.' We cannot doubt that this is the true ren- dering ; no direct reference is made as yet to the personal Holy Spirit. The words ' water and spirit ' are most closely joined, and placed under the government of the same preposition. A little earlier in the Gospel (chap. i. 33) we find the same words — not, indeed, joined together a' here, but yet placed in exact parallelism, each word, too, receiving emphasis from the context. Three times between chap. i. 19 and chap. i. ^ John speaks of his baptism with water ; twice there is a reference to the Spirit (i. 32, 33) ; and in ver. 33 John's baptizing with water and our Lord's baptizing with ' holy spirit ' (see the note) stand explicitly contrasted. It is very possible that this testimony was well known to others besides John's disciples, to all indeed in Judea who were roused to inquiry respecting the Baptist and his relation to Jesus. (2) It is possible that the Jews of that age may have been familiar with the figure of a new birth in connection with baptism. It is con- fessedly difficult accurately to ascertain Jewish usages and modes of thought in the time of our Lord. The Talmud indeed contains copious stores of information, but it is not easy to distinguish THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN. [Chap. II. 23-III. 21 32 between what belongs to an earlier and what to a later age. We know that converts to the Jewish religion were admitted by baptism to fellowship with the sacred people. The whole terror of the law would suggest such a washing when the un- cleanness of heathenism was put off, and hence no rite could be mure natural. Vet we have no cer- tain knowledge that this was practised so early as the time of our Lord. There is no doubt that, at a later date, the proselyte thus washed or bap- tized was spoken of as bom again. Here again, therefore, we have some confirmation of the view that in the words before us there is in some soil a reference to baptism, — at all events, to the bap- tism of John. (3) But what was John's baptism? We see from chap. i. 25 how peculiar his action appeared to the rulers of the people. Even if proselytes were in that age baptized, a baptism that invited all, publican and Pharisee alike, would but seem the more strange. John's action was new and startling ; and from chap. i. 21-25 i' appears that the leaders of Jewish thought beheld in it an im- mediate reference to the time of Messiah. It seems very probable that John's baptism was directly symbolic, a translation into visible symbol of such promises as Ezek. xxxvi. 25, which looked forward to the new spiritual order of which he was the herald. To the sprinkling with clean water, the cleansing from all filthiness, of which Ezekiel speaks, answers closely John's ' baptism of repent- ance for the remission of sins ' (compare also Ezek. xxxvi. 31). To the promise which follows, 'A new spirit will I put within you. ... I will put my spirit within you,' answers just as closely John's testimony to Jesus, ' He it is that baptizeth with holy spirit.' (4) The two contrasted elements in the baptisms of chap. i. ^ are — (a) the covering and removal of past sin ; and (/') the inbreathing of a new life. In that verse ' holy spirit ' is the gift and not the Giver. The Giver is the Holy Spirit ; but the gift, that which is the essential element in the new baptism, is the bestowal of 'holy spirit,' the seed and the principle of a holy spiritual life. (5) These two elements were con- joined in the Christian baptism instituted after- wards : the cleansing of forgiveness through Christ's death and the holiness of the new life in Christ are alike symbolized in it. Here, therefore, our Lord says that no man can enter into the kingdom of God unless he have been born anew, the elements of the new birth being the removal by cleansing of the old sinful life, and the impartation by the Holy Spirit of a new holy principle of life. — If this view of the words is correct, there is error in both ex- tremes of which mention has been made. There is no direct reference here to Christian baptism ; but the reference to the truths which that baptism expresses is distinct and clear. Ver. 6. That which hath been horn of the flesh re flesh, and that which hath been born of the Spirit is spirit. In the last verse was implied the law that like is produced from like, since the pure and spiritual members of God's kingdom must be born of water and spirit. Here this law is ex- pressly stated. Flesh produces flesh. Spirit pro- duces spirit. Thus the necessity of a new birth is enforced, and the ' cannot ' of ver. 3 explained. It is not easy to say whether ' flesh,' as here used, definitely indicates the sinful principles of human nature, or only that which is outward, material, not spiritual but merely natural. The latter seems more likely, both from the context (where the con- trast is between the natural and the spiritual birth) and lrom John's usage elsewhere. Though the word occurs as many as thirteen times in this Gospel (chap. i. 13, 14, vi. 51, 52, etc., viii. 15, xvii. 2), in no passage does it express the thought of sinfulness, as it does in Paul's Epistles and in 1 John ii. 16. Another difficulty meets us in the second clause. Are we to read ' born of the Spirit ' or ' of the spirit ' ? Is the reference to the Holy Spirit Himself, who imparts the principle of the new life, or to the principle which He im- parts, — the principle just spoken of in ver. 5, ' of water ami spirit ' ; It is hard to say, and the dif- ference in meaning is extremely small ; but when we consider the analogy of the two clauses, the latter seems more likely. — There is no reference here to ' water ; ' but, as we have seen, the water has reference to the past alone, — the state which gives place to the new life. To speak of this would be beside the point of the verse now before us, which teaches that the spiritual life of the kingdom of God can only come from the new spiritual principle. Ver. 7. Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born anew. Nicodemus had no doubt shown by look or exclamation his astonishment at hearing such words, containing so strange a view of the kingdom of God and the conditions on which it could be entered. The use of ' marvel ' in other passages would seem to show that in this Gospel the word indicates much more than amaze- ment. It is certainly not the astonishment of admiration, but incredulous and sometimes angry surprise. Our Lord's teaching had set at nought the accepted teaching of Israel, thoughts and hopes to which Nicodemus had long and firmly clung, and his heart rebels. Our Lord, according to His wont, does but the more emphatically affirm the truth at which Nicodemus stumbled. ' Ye must be born again : the necessity is absolute. Before, He had spoken of ' any one, ' leaving the application to His hearer ; now, as Nicodemus had said ' We know, ' Jesus says 'Ye must, ' — even ye who possess the treasures of Israel's learning, and whom the signs are guiding to the King of Israel, ' ye must be born again : ' ' Marvel not at this.' Ver. 8. The words of this verse point out to Nicodemus wliy he must not thus ' marvel ' at the new teaching, — must not cast it away with in- credulous surprise. Nature itself may teach him. In nature there is an agent whose working is experienced and acknowledged by all, while at the same time it is full of mystery ; yet the mystery makes no man doubt the reality of the working. The wind breatheth where it listeth, and thou hearest the voice thereof, but knowest not whence it cometh and whither it goeth. From the beginning the wind seems to have been the divinely-intended witness and emblem in the natural world of the Spirit of God. Evei present, it bore a constant witness. A commentator (Tholuck) has conjectured that, whilst Jesus spoke, there was heard the sound of the wind as it swept through the narrow street of the city, thus furnish- ing an occasion for the comparison here. Ii may well have been so ; every reader of the Gospels may see how willingly our Lord drew lessons from natural objects around Him, Such a conjecture might help to explain the abruptness with which the meaning of the word is changed, the very same word which in vers. 5 and 6 was rendered spirit being now used in the sense of wind. but the abruptness of this transition needs any Chap. II. 23-III. 21.] THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN. 33 explanation. The appointed emblem teaches the lesson for which it was appointed. The choice of terms (breatheth, iisteth, voice) shows that the wind is personified. It is perhaps of the gentle breeze rather than of the violent blast that the words speak (for the word pnenma is used with much more latitude in the Greek Bible than in classical Greek) ; in the breath of wind there is even more mystery than in the blast. Thou hearest its voice, it is present though invisible ; thou feelest its power, for thou art in its course ; but where the course begins, what produces the breath, — whither the course is tending, what is the object of the breath, — thou knowest not. Nicodemus, unable to question this, would remember Old Testament words which spoke of man's not knowing ' the way of the wind ' as illustrating man's ignorance of the Creator's works (Eccles. xi. 5). So is every one that hath been born of the Spirit. As in the natural, so is it in the spiritual world. The wind breatheth where it Iisteth ; the Spirit breatheth where He will. Thou hearest the sound of the wind, but canst not fix the limits of its course, experiencing only that thou thyself art in that course : every one that hath been born of the Spirit knows that His influence is real, ex- periencing that influence in himself, but can trace His working no farther, — knows not the beginning or the end of His course. Our Lord does not speak of the birth itself, but of the resulting state. The birth itself belongs to a region beyond the outward and the sensible, just as none can tell whence the breath of wind has come. It ought perhaps to be noted before leaving this verse, that many take the first part of the verse as having reference to the Spirit, not the wind : ' The Spirit breatheth where He will, and thou hearest His voice, but knowest not whence He cometh and whither He goeth ; so is every one that hath been born of the Spirit.' The chief arguments in favour of this translation are the following: — (i) It does not involve a sudden tran- sition from one meaning to another of the same Greek word. (2) On the ordinary view there is some confusion in the comparison : the words are not, ' The wind breatheth where ... so is the Spirit;' but, ' The wind breatheth where . . . so is every one that hath been born of the Spirit? These two arguments have substantially been dealt with above. As to the first point — the sudden transition from the thought of spirit to that of its emblem in nature — perhaps no more need be said. The second argument has not much real weight. The language is condensed, it is true, and the words cor- responding to the first clause (' The wind bloweth where it Iisteth') are not directly expressed, but have to be supplied in thought. The chief com- parison, however, is between the 'thou' of the first member and the ' every one ' of the second, as we have already seen. On the other hand, the diffi- culties presented by the new translation are serious, but we cannot here follow them in detail. Ver. 9. Nicodemus answered and said unto him, How can these things come to pass ? The tone of this answer is very different from that of verse 4. Here, as there, the question is, How can . . . ? But there the added words show that the meaning is, ' It is impossible ' (comp. Luke i. 18) ; whereas in this verse the chief stress lies on the first word ' How ' (comp. Luke i. 34). The offended astonishment of Nicodemus (ver. 7) has yielded to the words of Jesus. He now under- vol. 11. x stands that Jesus really means that there is such a thing as a new spiritual birth, in contrast with that natural birth which had ever seemed to him the only necessary condition of entrance into the kingdom of Messiah. Still, as ver. 12 shows, the victory over unbelief is not yet complete. Ver. 10. Jesus answered and said unto him, Thou art the teacher of Israel ; and perceivest thou not these things ? The question which ex- pressed the bewilderment of Nicodemus is answered by another question. He has assumed the office of teacher, teacher of God's people Israel, and yet he does not recognise these truths. ' Israel ' is a word used only four times in this Gospel, and never without special meaning. We have seen its significance in i. 31 and 49; and chap. xii. 13 is similar. The only remaining passage is that before us. No word so clearly brings into view the nation of God's special choice. The name carries us back from a time of degeneracy and decadence to past days of hope and promise. It was to Israel that God showed His statutes and His judgments (Ps. cxlvii. 19), and this thought is very prominent here. Of Israel thus possessed of the very truths to which Jesus had made reference (see above, on ver. 5) Nicodemus is ' the teacher.' It is not simply ' a teacher,' though it is not very easy to say what the presence of the article denotes. It is possible that Nicodemus occupied a superior position, or was held in especial honour amongst the doctors of the law ; or the words may merely imply that he magnified his office and was proud to be teacher of God's people. Surely from him might have been expected such knowledge of the Scriptures and insight into their meaning that the truth of the words just spoken by Jesus would at once be recognised. For our Lord does not say ' and knowest not ; ' Nicodemus is not blamed for any want of previous knowdedge of these things, but because he does not perceive the truth of the teaching when presented to him, — and presented, moreover, by One whose right to teach with authority he had himself confessed. It will be observed that Jesus does not answer the ' How ' of the preceding question ; that had been answered by anticipation. In ver. 8 Jesus had declared that the manner must be a mystery to man, whereas the fact was beyond all doubt. The fact was known to every one that had been born of the Spirit, but to such only. Hence in the following verse we have a renewed and more emphatic affirmation of the truth and certainty of what has been said. If Nicodemus would really know the fact, it must be by the knowledge of experience. — He appears no further in this narrative. The last words have reduced him to silence, — thoughtful silence, we cannot doubt, — but have not brought him to complete belief. Ver. n. Verily, verily, I say unto thee. These words form the solemn introduction to a new division, a higher stage, of the discourse. The connecting link between vers. 10 and II is reproof. The last verse laid stress on the know- ledge which should have prepared the teacher of Israel for the reception of the word of Jesus ; in this the emphasis lies on the dignity of the Teacher whose word he had been so slow to receive. We speak that which we know, and bear wit- ness of that which we have seen. The sudden transition to the plural ' we know ' is remarkable. We cannot suppose that our Lord here joins with Himself the prophets of the Old Covenant, ur THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN. [CHAP. II. 23-III. 21. 34 John the Baptist, or that He is speaking of the testimony of the Father and the Holy Spirit. The key to the plural is found in ver. 8. Every one who dwells in the spiritual world of which Jesus has been speaking is a witness to its reality and its wonders. Here then Jesus associates with Him- self in this emphatic testimony all who have been born of the Spirit. It is further to be observed that the change of expression is peculiarly appropriate, since he is about to pass away from the direct address to Nicodemus himself, and to speak through him to the class to which he belonged. Nicodemus had at first said ' we know ' (ver. 2), as representative of others like-minded with him- self, who by the signs had been led to faith in the name of Jesus, but were ignorant of His spiritual work, [csus now contrasts with these another class, consisting of all who from their own experi- ence could join Him in His testimony to the reality of the spiritual kingdom. The words of Jesus in chap. ix. 4 are equally remarkable in their association of His people with Himself. — The two parallel members of this verse bring the truth expressed into bold relief. The words closely correspond (knowing to sneaking, seeing to bearing witness), while there is at the same time an ad- vance in the thought, since bearing witness rises above speaking, and we have seen is more expres- sive than we know. In ver. 8, where the wind was taken as the emblem of the Spirit, the sense which bore witness was that of hearing. This verse speaks of something more convincing still, the sense of sight. And ye receive not our witness. To such say- ings of his Master we may trace the mournful reflections which are again and again made by the Evangelist (see i. 11, iii. 32, xii. 37). Though the reference is to a class ('ye receive '), yet the words seem to imply that some unbelief still lingered in the heart of Nicodemus himself. Ver. 12. If I told you the earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe if I tell you the heavenly things ? Here our Lord returns to the singular, ' I told ; ' for He is not now speaking of the witness of experience, but of instruction which He Himself had personally given. It seems hardly possible, however, that our Lord simply refers to words just spoken. In saying ' If I told you the earthly things, and ye believe not, ' He plainly refers to unbelief after instruction, — unbelief which in- struction failed to remove. But if Nicodemus came alone (and there is no doubt that he did), he alone had received this last instruction. Others might be described as unbelievers, but not as re- maining in unbelief after having heard the teach- ing concerning the new birth. We are compelled, therefore, to suppose that our Lord spoke generally of previous discourses to the Jews, and not specifi- cally of these His latest words. But what are the earthly and the heavenly things? Many answers have been given which are little more than arbitrary conjectures. Again the Evangelist must be his own interpreter. As in the next verse 'heaven' is not used figuratively, it cannot be maintained that ' heavenly ' is figura- tive here. The words ' earthly ' and ' heavenly ' must have their simple meaning, ' what is upon earth,' 'what is in heaven.' The things that are in heaven can only be made known by Him who has been in heaven ; this is suggested by the connection between this verse and the next. When we come to the last section of the chapter, we shall find that it contains (in some degree) a comment upon these verses. Now there (in ver. 32) we read of Him ' that cometh out of heaven,' who ' bears witness of what He has seen and heard,' — who being sent from God ' speaketh the words of God ' (ver. 34). But this same comment takes note of the converse also. Contrasted with Him who comes from heaven is ' he that is out of the earth' and 'speaketh out of the earth ' (ver. 31). Combining these explanatory words, we may surely say that ' the heavenly things ' are those truths which He who cometh from heaven, and He alone, can reveal, which are the words of God revealing His counsels by the Divine Son now come. The things on earth, in like manner, are the truths whose home is earth, so to speak, which were known before God revealed Himself by Him who is in the bosom of the Father (chap. i. iS). They are 'earthly,' not as belonging to the world of sin or the world of sense, but as being things which the prophet or teacher who has never as- cended into heaven, but whose origin and home are the earth, can reach, though not necessarily by his own unaided powers. In His former discourses to the Jews, Jesus would seem not to have gone beyond the circle of truth already revealed. Even in His words to Nicodemus He mainly dwells on that which the Scriptures of the Old Testament had taught ; and He reproves the teacher of Israel who did not at once recognise His words, thus founded on the Old Testament, as truth. The kingdom of God, the necessity of repentance and faith, the new heart, the holy life, the need at once of cleansing and of quickening — these and other truths, once indeed inhabitants of heaven, had long been naturalised on earth. Having been revealed, they belonged to men, whereas the secret things belong unto the Lord (Deut. xxix. 29). Those of whom our Lord spoke had yielded a partial belief, but the ' believing ' of which He here speaks is a perfect faith. Nicodemus was a believer, and yet not a believer. If some of the truths hitherto declared had been so imperfectly received, though those who were mighty in the Scriptures ought to have recognised them as already taught, almost as part of the law that was given through Moses (chap. i. 17), how would it be when He spoke of the things hitherto secret, coming directly out of the heaven which He opens (comp. chap. i. 5:), and for the first time revealed in Him, — part of the 'truth' that 'came through Jesus Christ'? (chap. i. 17). — It will be seen, then, that the truth of ver. 5 would seem to be placed by Jesus rather amongst the ' earthly ' than amongst the ' heavenly ' things. Of some of the heavenly things He proceeds to speak (vers. 14, 15). Ver. 13. And no one hath ascended up into heaven, but he that came down out of heaven, the Sou of man. The connection is this : ' How will v believe if I tell you the heavenly things? And it is from me alone that ye can learn them. No one can tell the heavenly things unless he has been in heaven, and no one has been in heaven and come down to earth save myself.' Repeatedly does our Lord in this Gospel speak of His coming down out of heaven (vi. 33, 3S, etc.), using the very word that we meet with here ; and hence it is impossible to give the phrase a merely figurative sense. He came forth from the Father, and came into the world (xvi. 2S), that He might declare the Father (chap. i. iS) and speak unto the world what He had heard from Him (chap. viii. 26). Chap. II. 23-1 1 1. 2i.] THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN. But this requires that we take the other verb ' hath ascended up ' in its literal sense, and then the words seem to imply that Jesus had already ascended into heaven. ' Hath ascended up ' cannot refer to His future ascension ; and there is no foundation for the view held by some, that within the limits of Mis ministry on earth He was ever literally taken up into heaven. What, then, is the meaning? There are several passages in which the words ' save ' or ' except ' present the same difficulty. One of the most familiar is Luke iv. 27, where it seems at first strange to read, ' Many lepers were in Israel in the time of Elisha the prophet, anil none of them was cleansed saving Naaman the Syrian,' — no leper of Israel cleansed except a leper who was not of Israel ! The mind is so fixed on the lepers and their cleansing, that the other words ' of them ' are not carried on in thought to the last clause : ' none of them was cleansed, — indeed, no leper was cleansed save ' Naaman the .Syrian.' So also in the preceding verse (Luke iv. 26). In other passages (such as Gal. ii. 16 ; Rev. xxi. 27) the same peculiarity exists, but it is not apparent in the Authorised Version. The verse before us is exactly similar. The special thought is not the having gone up into heaven, but the having been m heaven. This was the qualifica- tion for revealing the truths which are here spoken of as heavenly things, lint none (none, that is, of the sons of men ; for this is a general maxim, the exception is not brought in till afterwards) could be in heaven without ascending from earth to heaven. No one has gone up into heaven, and by thus being in heaven obtained the knowledge of heavenly things ; and, indeed, no one has been in heaven save He that came down out of heaven, the Son of man. Observe how insensibly our Lord has passed into the revelation of the heavenly things themselves. He could not speak of His power to reveal without speaking of that which is first and chief of all the heavenly things, viz. that He Himself came down out of heaven to be the Son of man (on the name ' Son of man ' see chap. i. 51)- The reference to our Lord's humanity is here strikingly in place. He came down from heaven and became the Son of man to reveal these heavenly truths and (vers. 14, 15) to give the heavenly blessings unto man. The weight of evidence compels us to believe that the concluding words of this verse, as it stands in the Authorised Version, were not written by John. We can only suppose that they were a very early comment on, or addition to, the text, first written in the margin, then by mistake joined to the text. Were they genuine, they would probably refer to the abiding presence of the Son with the Father ; but in such a sense it is very improbable that ' Son of man ' would have been the name chosen. At all events, we have no other example of the same kind. Vers. 14, 15. And as Moses lifted on high the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted on high, that every one that be- lieveth may in him have eternal life. These verses continue the revelation of the heavenly things. The first truth is, that He who was in heaven came down to earth to be the Son of man. The next is, that the Son of man must be exalted, but in no such manner as the eager hopes of Nicodemus imagined. The secret counsel of heaven was, that He who was with God should as Son of man be lifted on high, as the serpent was lifted on high by 35 Moses in the wilderness. Thus, indeed, it 'must, be, that He may become the Giver of eternal life. — The word rendered ' lifted on high ' occurs fifteen times in other parts of the New Testament, some- times in such proverbial sayings as Matt, xxiii. 12, sometimes in reference to the exaltation of our Lord (Acts ii. 33, v. 31). In this Gospel we End it in three verses besides the present. The general usage of the word in the New Testament and the Old is sufficient to show that it cannot here signify merely raising or lifting up. And yet John's own explanation forbids us to exclude this thought. All the passages in his Gospel which connect the word with the Son of man must clearly be taken together ; and chap. xii. 33 (see note there) declares that the word contains a reference to the mode of the Saviour's death — the elevation on the cross. Nicodemus looked for the exaltation of the King in the coming kingdom of God. Exalted He shall be, not like the monarch sitting on a throne, high and lifted up, amid pomp and splendour, but receiv- ing His true power and glory at the time when 1 1 e hangs upon a tree an object of shame. The brazen serpent, made in the likeness of the destroyer, placed on a standard and held up to the gaze of all, might seem fitted only to call forth execration from those who were reminded of their peril, scorn and contempt from those who saw but a powerless symbol; but the dying Israelite looked thereon and lived. The looking was a type of faith — nay, it was itself an act of faith in the promise of God. The serpent was raised on high that all might look on it ; the exaltation of the Son of man, which begins with the shame of the cross, has for its object the giving of life to all (compare chap. xii. 32, and also Heb. ii. 9). — 'That every one that believeth.' At first our Lord closely follows the words spoken in ver. 12. As there we read, 'Ye believe not,' so here, ' He that believeth :' as yet no qualifying word is added to deepen the signi- ficance of the 'belief.' What is before us is the general thought of receiving the word of Jesus. In that all is in truth included ; for he that truly receives His word finds that its first and chief requirement is faith in Jesus Himself. So here, the trust is first general, but the thought of fellow- ship and union, so characteristic of this Gospel, comes in immediately, ' that every one that be- lieveth may in Him have eternal life.' These verses which reveal the heavenly truths contain tlie very first mention of ' eternal life,' the blessing of which John, echoing his Master's words, is ever speaking. ' Eternal life ' is a present posses- sion for the believer (comp. ver. 36) ; its essence is union with God in Christ. See especially chap, xvii. 3 ; I John i. 2, v. 11. The result of the interview with Nicodemus is not recorded, but the subsequent mention of him in the Gospel can leave no doubt upon our mind that, whether at this moment or not, he eventually embraced the truth. It would seem that, as the humiliation of Jesus deepened, he yielded the more to that truth against which at the beginning of this conversation he would most have rebelled. It is the persecution of Jesus that draws him for- ward in His defence (vii. 51) ; it is when Jesus has been lifted up on the cross that he comes to pay Him honour (xix. 39). He is thus a trophy, not of the power of signs alone, but of the power of the heavenly things taught by Jesus. At this point an important question arises. Are the next five verses a continuation of the preceding 36 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN. [CHAP. II. 23-III. 21. discourse ? Are they words of Jesus or a reflection by the Evangelist himself upon his Master's words? Most commentators have taken the former view. The latter was first suggested by Erasmus, and has found favour with many thoughtful writers on this Gospel. And with reason. The first suggestion of a sudden break in the discourse may be startling, but a close examination of the verses will show that they present distinct traces of belonging to John: — (1) Their general style and character remind us of the Prologue. (2) The past tenses 'loved' and 'were' in ver. 19 at once recall chap. i. 10, II ; and are generally more in har- mony with the tone of the Evangelist's later reflections than with that of the Redeemer's dis- course. (3) In ver. 11 Jesus says, 'ye receive not our testimony : ' in ver. 19 the impression pro- duced is not that of a present refusal, but rather of a past and continued rejection. (4) In no other place is the appellation ' only begotten ' used by Jesus Himself in regard to the Son, though it is used by the Evangelist in chap. i. 14, i. 18, and 1 John iv. 9. It cannot be fairly said that there is anything really strange in the introduction of these reflections. It is altogether in the manner of this writer to comment on what he has related (see especially xii. 37-41) ; and in at least one instance he passes suddenly, without any mark of transition, from the words of another to his own, — for very few will suppose chap. i. 16 to be a continuation of the Baptist's testimony (ver. 15). The view now advocated will receive strong confirmation if we convince the reader that there is a similar break after ver. 30 in this chapter, the last six verses belonging to the author of the Gospel and not to the Baptist. Ver. 16. For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that every one that believeth in him may not perish, but have eter- nal life. In the preceding verses is recorded the first announcement of the Gospel by our Lord, the revelation of the mystery made manifest by Him who came out of heaven. John pauses to set his Master's words in the light in which he him- self had afterwards beheld them. Jesus had said ' must be lifted on high,' but had given no reason. His disciple, whose message to the church was 'God is love' (I John iv. 16), refers back the necessity to this truth. Whatever remains still hidden, so much as this is certain, that the humilia- tion and exaltation of Him who came down out of heaven were the expression of God's love to the whole world. The Son of man is the Son of God, the only begotten Son ; the one term expresses His fitness for the work, the other points to His dignity and to the greatness of the Father's love. In this love the Father gave the Son : to w/mtHe surrendered Him is not here said ; our Lord's own words (ver. 14) fill up the meaning. The uni- versality of the blessing is marked with twofold emphasis; designed, not for Israel only, but for the whole world, it is the actual possession of every believer. The words relating to faith are more definite than in ver. 14; foresee chap. ii. 11) to ' believe in Him ' points to a trust which casts itself on Him and presses into union with Him. — The Divine purpose is presented under two aspects, not one only (as in ver. 15) ; it is that the believer may be saved from perdition, and may now possess eternal life. — This verse contains most of the lead- ing terms of John's theology. One only of these requires further comment, on account of the vari- ous senses in which it is employed by the Evan- gelist. The ' world ' does not in this verse designate those who had received and rejected the offer of salvation. It is thought of as at an earlier stage of its history ; the light is not yet presented by the acceptance or rejection of which the final state of the world shall be determined. Ver. 17. For God sent not the Son into the world that he may judge the world; but that the world through him may be saved. The thought of the last verse is expanded. There it was the gift of God's love that was brought before us ; now it is the mission of the Son. To ' may perish ' (ver. 16) here corresponds 'may judge the world,' to ' have eternal life ' answers ' may be saved.' This alone is sufficient to show that the word 'judge,' though not in itself equivalent to 'con- demn,' has reference to a judgment which tends to condemnation. The Jews believed that Messiah would come to glorify Israel, but to judge the Gentiles ; the solemn and emphatic repetition of ' the world ' rebukes all such limitations, as effec- tually as the words of ver. 3 set aside the dis tinctions which were present to the thought of Nicodemus. — It may seem hard to reconcile the first part of this verse with v. 22, 27, ix. 39, xii. 48. We must, however, recognise a twofold pur- pose in Christ's coming. He came to save, not to judge the world. He came to judge the world in so far as it will not allow itself to be saved ; and this judgment is one that takes place even now (because even now there is wilful unbelief), though it will only be consummated hereafter. Ver. iS. He that believeth in him is not judged : he that believeth not hath been judged already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. The two prei -ding verses express the Divine purpose in itself, and that purpose passing into accomplish- ment ; this verse speaks of the actual result. Two of the terms of these verses, the believing in Jesus of ver. 10 and the judging of ver. 17, are here brought together. He that abides in faith in Christ abides in a state to which judging belongs not ; whilst the faith remains, the idea of judgment is excluded, for the believer is one with the Lord in whom he has placed his trust. Not so with the unbeliever ; on him the sentence of judgment is already pronounced. As long as the unbelief is persisted in, so long does the sentence which the rejection of Jesus brings with it remain in force against him. The great idea of the Gospel, the division of all men into two classes severed from each other, is ver) - clearly presented here ; but no unchangeable division is thought of. The separa- tion is the result of deliberate choice ; and whilst the choice is adhered to, the severance abides. — As the faith of the believer is faith ' in Him,' faith that brings personal union, the unbelief is the rejection of His Person revealed in all its dignity, the only begotten Son of God. Ver. 19. And this is the judgment, — the judg- ment is of this kind, takes place thus, — because the light is come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the light, for their works were wicked. These words bring out clearly that the ' not believing' spoken of in the last verse- signifies an active rejection, and not the mere ab- sence of belief — a rejection of the true light which in the person of Jesus came into the world, and henceforth ever is in the world. Men loved the darkness, for their works — not single deeds, but Chap. III. 22-36.] THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN the whole expression and manifestation of their life — were wicked. The word used (' wicked ') is that which elsewhere expresses the character of the arch-enemy as ' the wicked one ' (John xvii. 15 ; I John iii. 12). It denotes active evil, positive and pronounced wickedness. Ver. 20. For every one that committeth evil hateth the light, and he cometh not to the light lest his works should be convicted. This verse explains the last, and refers the action there described to a general principle. The universal /aw is, that he who committeth evil hateth the light. Not ' he that hath committed,' 1 for what is spoken of is the bent and the spirit of the man's life. The word ' evil ' here is not the same as that rendered ' wicked ' in ver. 19, but is more general. The one word means evil in active manifestation ; the other what is worthless, good for nothing. No doubt the second word is used in this verse partly for the sake of vivid contrast with the real and abiding ' truth ' of ver. 21, partly because what is worthless and unsubstantial will not stand the test of coming to that very light which shows in all its reality whatever is sub- stantial and true. Every one whose life is thus evil knows that in the presence of the light he must stand self-condemned. The experience is. painful, and he endeavours to avoid it by turning from the light, till, as conscience still asserts its power, lie seeks defence against himself by hating the light (compare 1 Kings xxii. 8). We must not forget the application that is in John's mind. The light that is come is Jesus Himself. He is come ; but men also must come to Him. If they came not, the cause was a moral one. Before He came, some light had been in the world (i. 5) ; those who, living a life of evil (whether open wickedness or a worthless self-righteousness), hated this light, were thus prepared to reject the Light Himself. — The last word of the verse is remark- able, as it is more naturally applied to the doer than to his deed. Not only will the works be 37 shown by the light — be exposed in their true character : the works are looked on as of them- selves the criminals — they will be self-convicted, self-condemned. The thought of self-conviction has in this Gospel an importance that can hardly be over-estimated. Ver. 21. But he that doeth the truth cometh to the light, that his works may be made mani. test, because they have been wrought in God. In contrast with those who cor. mit evil is another class— those who do the truth. The words ex- pressing action in vers. 20, 21, are different : that in ver. 20 ('committeth') refers directly to the particular acts, that which is used here (which properly denotes to make, to produce) brings into view rather the result. The man here spoken of is (so to speak) at work in raising the abiding structure of ' the truth. ' So far as the truth has been revealed to him, his life is faithful to it ; his works are an expression of the truth that is in his heart. As Jesus says (chap, xviii. 37), ' Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice ; ' so here we read, ' He that doeth the truth cometh to the light.' There is a natural affinity between truth and light ; he who is faithful to truth received is, through the very nature of the truth within him, impelled towards Him who is the Truth. He does not come to the light that his works may be made known to others ; there is no self-seeking, — perhaps even it is not the conscious purpose of the man himself that is spoken of, but rather the instinctive aim of the truth within him, and thus in reality the purpose of God, that all the works of God be made manifest. The works of this doer of truth have been wrought in God. The disci- pline by which he is led to the Son is of the Father (see chap. vi. especially). For this cause he comes, and must needs come, at the bidding of the truth, that the works of God in him may be brought out of all concealment and made manifest. His coming to Christ is itself a manifestation of the preceding work of God in him. Chapter III. 22-36. The Passing aivay of the Baptist in the presence of the True Bridegroom of the Church. 22 A FTER these things came Jesus and his disciples into the ±\. land of Judca ; and there he tarried with them, a and aChap.iv, 23 baptized. And John also was baptizing in yEnon near to Salim, because there was much water 1 there: 'and they came, b Ma «- '■'• 24 and were baptized. For 'John was not yet cast into prison. rMatt. xb 25 Then there arose 8 a question between some of John's disciples 26 and the Jews 3 about d purifying. And they came unto John, and said unto him, * Rabbi, he that was with thee f beyond Jordan, ^to whom thou barest 4 witness, behold, h the same ,/Chap. e Chap. /Chap. A' Chap. /SChap. ii. 6. i. 38. i. 2S. 1 were many waters - There arose therefore 3 a questioning on the part of John's disciples with a Jew ' hast borne 3 s THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN. [Chap. II 27 baptizeth, and ' all men come to him. John answered and said, k A man can receive nothing, except it be 5 given him from 6 28 heaven. Ye yourselves bear me witness, that I said, ' I am 29 not the Christ, but '"that I 7 am sent before him. He that hath the bride is the bridegroom : but " the friend of the bride- groom, which standeth and heareth him, rejoiceth greatly be- cause of the bridegroom's voice: this my joy therefore is 8 30 fulfilled. " He must increase, but I must decrease. 31 * He that cometh from above q is above all : he that is of 9 the earth is earthly, 10 and speaketh of the earth : " 'he that cometh 32 from 9 heaven is above all. 18 And what he hath seen and heard, r that he testifieth ; 13 and s no man receiveth his testi- 33 mony. 14 He that hath 15 received his testimony 14 'hath set 34 to his seal 16 that God is true. " For he whom God hath ls sent speaketh the " words of God : for God giveth not the Spirit by 35 measure unto Mm." w The Father loveth the Son, and *hath 36 given all things into his hand. y He that believeth on 18 the Son hath everlasting 19 life : and he that * believeth 20 not the Son shall not see life ; but "the wrath of God abideth on him. 6 have been 6 out of 7 but, I 8 hath been 9 ut f 10 out of the earth n out of the earth he speaketh 12 omit is above all 13 beareth witness of what he hath seen and heard u witness ls omit hath 16 for hath . . . seal read set his seal to this, 17 for not by measure giveth he the Spirit is m 19 eternal 20 but he that obeyeth I. 22-36. Comp. chap. k 1 Cor. iv. 7, Heb. v. 4 ; Jas. i. 17. Comp. chap. m Chap. i. 6, 7, n Comp. Matt. o Chap. i. 15. pVer. 13; chap. viii. 23. q Comp. chap. i. 15; Rom. ix. 5 ; Eph. i. 21 ; Phil. ii. 9. r Vers. 11, 13 ; chap. viii. 26, 38, xv. 15. iVer. 11 J chap. i. II. t Rom. iii. 4 ; 1 John v. 10. it Ver. 17. See chap. xii. 49. v Chap. viii. 47. Comp. chap. xvii. 8. w See chap. xvii. 24, and Contents. This section affords us our last view of the great Forerunner when, at the moment of his disappearance, he utters his highest testi- mony to Jesus as the true Bridegroom of the Church, alone to be welcomed by all waiting hearts. Hence it immediately precedes Christ's proclamation of His truth beyond Judea. The subordinate parts are— (1) vers. 22-30; (2) vers. 31-36. Ver. 2 >. After these things came Jesus and his disciples into the land of Judea ; and there he tarried with them, and baptized. The intro- ductory words ' After these things ' may possibly include a considerable period. Apparently several months intervened between the Passover of chap, ii. 13 and the visit to Samaria (chap, iv.) ; but only two events belonging to this period are related. The words of this verse, however [lurried and bap- tized), show that after leaving Jerusalem Jesus re- mained for some length of time in the country parts of Judea. In no other passage than this is there any mention of the Saviour's baptizing, and chap, iv. 2 explains that this baptism was only indirectly His. Still, however, it is clear that the baptism was by the authority of Jesus, the disciples acting only as His ministers. Yet they did not baptize with Christian baptism in the full sense of the term. They were engaged in preparatory work like that of the Baptist, just as the Twelve were sent forth by Jesus to declare the very message which John had preached (Matt. x. 7). The baptism of the Spirit was still future (chap. vii. 39). The next verse shows the main design of this section. When Jesus baptized in Judea, He came into direct and necessary comparison with John. Ver. 23. And John also was baptizing in zEnon near to Salim, because there were many waters there : and they came and were baptized. Where .^Enon and Salim were situated it is not easy to determine. The position assigned them by Eusebius and Jerome, near the northern boun- dary of Samaria, does not agree well with ver. 22. It is more probable that Salim is the Shilhim (trans- lated Salem in the LXX.) of Josh. xv. 32, a town not far from the southern limit of Judea. In this verse of foshua (in the Hebrew) Shilhim is directly followed by Ain, from which .-Enon differs only in being an intensive form — Ain denoting a spring, and jEnon, springs. The objection to this identi- fication is that, as John was clearly in the neigh- bourhood of Jesus, it takes the latter from the route leading to Samaria and Galilee. But the history of the events of the period is so brief and fragmentary that this objection has not much weight. John no doubt alludes to the meaning of .-Enon when he acids that there were ' many waters' there. Ver. 24. For John was not yet cast into prison. Words in which the Evangelist vindicates the accuracy of his narrative, and corrects a mistake apparently prevailing in the Church when he wrote. The earlier Gospels, dealing mainly with the Galilean work of Jesus, do not mention His entering upon His public ministry until after the Chap. III. 22-36.] THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN. Baptist had been delivered up. This seems to have led to an impression that the Baptist was im- prisoned before our Lord entered on His public work. The false inference is here corrected. Ver. 25. There arose therefore a questioning on the part of John's disciples with a Jew about purifying. In the circumstances just described, discussion would inevitably arise as to the relative position and value of the two baptisms. A 'Jew ' (see note on chap. i. 19) had placed the baptism of Jesus above that of John in regard to its purifying power. Although the Jews in general were hos- tile to Jesus, this man may have shared the convic- tions of Nicodemus (vers. I, 2). The disciples of John refused to regard their master's baptism as less efficacious than that of another, who had been himself baptized by him. Unable either to set the question at rest, or to ignore the opposition of the Jew, they brought the matter of contention before John. On the symbolic character of John's bap- tism, see the note on ver. 5 ; on ' purification,' see ii. 6, xiii. 10, xv. 3, and 1 John i. 7, 9. Ver. 26. And they came unto John, and said unto him, Rabbi, he that was with thee beyond Jordan, to whom thou hast borne witness, behold, the same baptizeth, and all men come to him. Their description of Jesus (whom they do not name) shows their feelings. This man came to thee beyond Jordan, it has been thy great object to magnify his fame ; and yet he is now thy rival, he baptizes, and all are flocking to him rather than to thee. Their last words are in their lips but a natural exaggeration ; to the Evangelist, however, they are an unconscious prophecy (see an exactly similar instance in xii. 19, 20). This is the last trial of the Baptist's fidelity to his mission, and nobly is it sustained. Ver. 27. John answered and said, A man can receive nothing, except it have been given him out of heaven. Not for a moment does he enter into their jealous advocacy of his claims. Under- standing the true force of their hasty words, ' AH men come to him,' he tells them that such honour, such position, Jesus cannot receive unless it have been given Him from heaven. He says this in words so general that they seem certainly intended to point to himself also. ' Each of us, in accom- plishing God's work, will receive the place ap- pointed to him from heaven.' Ver. 2S. Ye yourselves bear me witness, that I said, I am not the Christ, but, I am sent before him. The acceptance of the lower place was no new thing to John. ' Ve remind me that I have bome witness to Him ; ye yourselves bear witness to me, that my testimony to Him con- tained in it all that now offends you.' Of the two sayings here quoted, one ('I am not the Christ') is to be found in i. 20 : the other is not given in this Gospel in the very words, but is implied in i. 30, 31, and no doubt had been expressly uttered by John to his disciples. Ver. 29. He that hath the bride is the bride- groom : but the friend of the bridegroom, which staudeth and heareth him, rejoiceth greatly because of the bridegroo i's voice : this my joy therefore hath been fulfilled. He that hath the bride,' he and no ether, 'is the bridegroom. The Lord is taking home His bride — His people. To the name of bridegroom I have no claim, nor can I have the bridegroom's joy. But in his joy his friends must needs share. The friend of the bridegroom that standeth and heareth his voice, 39 catching the first sound as he draws near, listening to the words and tones in which his joy breaks forth throughout the marriage feast, he too has his joy, a retlection of the rejoicing of the bridegroom : this joy is mine, and it is now filled to the full.' In these exquisitely tender and beautiful words does the Baptist at once reprove the natural but petty jealousies of his disciples and set forth his own relation to Jesus. The image employed is common in the Old Testament (Isa. liv. ; Jer. hi., xxxi. ; Hos. ii. ; Ezek. xvi., xxiii. ), even if nothing be said of the Song of Solomon, and is taken up in the New (Matt. ix. 15, xxv. ; 2 Cor. xi. ; Eph. v.; Rev. xix., xxi.). By the 'friend' John does not mean the particular friend who presided over the marriage ceremonies (the Shoshben), for the words ' standeth and heareth ' are unsuitable to a func- tionary whose duties were those of action. But these words exactly correspond to the position of the Baptist as one who stood apart and listened. Once only does the Forerunner seem to have met with Jesus: afterwards he watched His course and rejoiced, and pointed his disciples to his Lord. Ver. 30. He must increase, but I must de- crease. What the disciples now see is but the beginning of a process that must continue. The necessity spoken of here is another statement of the heavenly gift of ver. 27. John must become less and less, whilst the glory of his Lord will increase without limit or end ; and thus his ' decreasing ' is not the failure but the accomplish- ment of his work. It is quite impossible to read carefully the following verses without perceiving that they bear a remarkable resemblance to the early part of the chapter, and that the general style and language are those of the Evangelist himself. In ver. 31 we read of Him ' that cometh out of heaven ; ' in ver. 13 of Him 'that came down out of heaven. ' That He who is from heaven beareth witness of what He hath seen, and that His witness is not received, we read both in ver. 32 and in ver. 1 1. The 35th verse might perhaps seem to contain Christ's own words, but not such as the Baptist would be likely to employ. So also in ver. 36 all the terms used, 'he that believeth in,' 'the Son' (standing absolutely), ' eternal life,' ' hath eternal life,' remind us of the language of the Evangelist himself and of Christ's discourses as related in this Gospel, especially in this chapter (vers. 15, 16, 17), but it is hardly possible to suppose them used by John the Baptist. Those writers who cannot admit that there is a break after ver. 30 are con- strained to confess that the Baptist's subsequent words are expressed in the Evangelist's own language and style. It is a far simpler and more probable theory that the Evangelist (as in i. 16 and iii. 16 — see notes there) passes from his narrative into a meditation which it suggests, gathering together the main thoughts of the two sections which precede. Ver. 31. He that cometh from above is above all: he that is out of the earth is out of the earth, and out of the earth he speaketh. The claim of the Baptist's disciples that to their master should be accorded a higher place than to Jesus, and John's emphatic testimony to his own lower station, lead the Evangelist to reflect upon the words of Jesus to Nicodemus as decisive of all such questions. ' He that cometh from above ' and ' He that cometh out of heaven ' are clearly the same as THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN. [Chap. IV. 1-42. 40 ' He that came down out of heaven' (ver. 13), and all three expressions are designations of Jesus. There is but One who thus ' cometh from above ' (though many others have received their mission from above), and He therefore is above all. In comparison with Him, every other prophet or teacher has his origin out of the earth ; and as is his origin, so is his nature, so is his utterance. Ver. 32. He that cometh out of heaven beareth witness of what he hath seen and heard ; and no man receiveth his witness. In ver. 12 we have seen that heaven is spoken of as the place of immediate divine knowledge and light. Jesus alone belongs to this sphere : all the prophets before His coming, though divinely commissioned, had ' the earth ' as the starting-point of their utter- ances, spoke of what they had received on earth, spoke truly but not perfectly. The Divine light was reflected from the prophets to the world around. In Jesus the heavenly light itself came into the world. Jesus alone, then, beareth witness to that which He hath seen and which He heard, and (here again b the mournful cadence of this Gospel) no one receiveth His witness. So few receive, that they seem as nothing in comparison with those who reject. That the rejection is not in strictness universal the next verse declares. Ver. 33. He that received his witness set his seal to this, that God is true. Every man who accepts His witness and thus declares that Jesus is true, in that very act attests, sets his seal to, the declaration that God is true. (For the opposite, see 1 John v. 10.) A mere prophet might be unfaithful or might err. Jesus ' comes out of heaven,' declares ' what He has seen,' and ' what He heard' from God: to disbelieve Him is to disbelieve God, to declare Him true is to declare God true. This is further explained and con- | firmed by the next verse. Ver. 34. For he whom God sent speaketh the words of God. The last verse rests on the thought that the words of Jesus are the words of God. Here it is shown that this is involved in the very proposition that Jesus is the Sent of God. Strictly, there have been many whom God has sent, — for example, John the Baptist (chap. i. 6) : his words were true, and were words of God. But where one is thus isolated as sent by God (and this is repeatedly done in this Gospel), he is the Sent in a peculiar and pre-eminent sense. He speaketh not ' words of God ' only, but ' the words of God,' giving all the revelation that God gives. The enabling power thus to speak is the gift of the Spirit. Every one whom God sends is enabled to speak God's words — words that, for the portion of the revelation he is commissioned to give, are truly God's words. — For not by measure giveth he the Spirit. He gives the Spirit not partially, but completely, for the purpose of enabling him who is sent to speak words of God. Rising from the partial and incomplete to that which is full and perfect, we find but One who has thus been sent by God, and but One who receives the Spirit in unmeasured fulness, enabling not for the complete declaration of a part only, but for the perfect revelation of the whole of the words of God. Ver. 35. The Father loveth the Son. There is a continual heightening of the thought and expres- sion. We read of Him ' that cometh from above,' Him 'that cometh out of heaven,' Him 'whom God sent,' — 'the Son,' whom 'the Father loveth.' In ver. 17 we read that the Father sent the Son to save the world, because He ' so loved the world' (ver. 16): here we read of the love of the Father towards the Son who thus gave Him- self for the accomplishment of the purpose of the Father. From chap. x. 17 it seems probable that it is of this love that we must understand the verse — of a love, therefore, referring to the work of re- demption, not to the essential relation of the Son to the Father (comp. note on v. 20). — And hath given all things into his hand. From perfect love follows perfect communication not of ' the words of God' only (ver. 34), but of all things pos- sessed. The Father has given all things into the Son's hand. Whatsoever the Son speaks or gives or does, is spoken, given, done, by the Father. Ver. 36. He that believeth in the Son hath eternal life. As all things are in the Son's hand by the gift of the Father, the destiny of all men depends on their relation to the Son. He that believeth in the Son has in Him the highest of all blessings, life eternal ; has this in present posses- sion — involved in the communion of faith in which he lives. — But he that obeyeth not the Son shall not see life ; but the WTath of God abideth on him. Over against the believer is here set, not the man who does not believe, but he that dis- obeys. The change from believing to obedience results from the thought of the last verse : supreme power is given to the Son ; therefore he that re- ceives Him not by faith is guilty of disobeying His authority ; not faith only, but the obedience of faith, is His due. From the eyes of all such life is hidden whilst the unbelief and disobedience shall last. The rejection of the Son brings with it the wrath of God, by whom all things were given into the Son's hand : this is the present and the abiding heritage of him that obeyeth not the Son. Chapter IV. 1-42. Jesus and the Samaritans. 1 "\ ~\ THEN therefore "the Lord knew how 1 the Pharisees had aChap. vi. VV heard that Jesus made* and i baptized ' more dis- i8,*>, 25 1 xn. 7, la 2 ciples than John, (Though Jesus himself baptized not, but his *Cha P . Hi. 1 oerceived that - had heard, Jesus maketh 3 baptizeth Chap. IV. 1-42.] THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN. 4' 3 disciples,) He left Judea, and departed again into Galilee. 4 And he must needs go through Samaria. 5 Then cometh he ' to a city of Samaria, which is called Sychar, near to the parcel of ground c that Jacob gave to his son Joseph, c c»m P . Get.. 6 Now Jacob's well was there. 5 Jesus therefore, bein" wearied *ivin. 22;' J jo Josh. xxiv. with his journey, sat thus on the well : 6 and'' it was about the 3*- 7 sixth hour. There cometh a woman of Samaria to draw water : 8 Jesus saith unto her, Give me to drink. (For his disciples were 9 gone away unto the city to buy meat. 8 ) Then saith the woman of Samaria 9 unto him, How is it that thou, being a Jew, askest drink of me, which am a woman of Samaria? 10 for "'the 11 Jews rfa Kings xyii. 24 ; Lzr.i iv. 10 have no dealings with the 11 Samaritans. Jesus answered and '°.<=tc. ; & J Neh. iv 1,2. said unto her, If thou knewest the srift of God, and who it is pomp. Luke => ix. 53, xvii. that saith to thee, Give me to drink ; thou wouldest have asked jS; chap. 11 of him, and he would have given thee 'living water. The *J« woman 1 ' saith unto him, Sir, thou hast nothing to draw with, and Zcch. »v.8; the well is deep : from whence then hast thou that living water ? £°"J. p, xIvii . 12 -^ Art thou greater than our father Jacob, which gave us the well, ^6™' I7, and drank thereof himself, and his children, 13 and his cattle ? /comp.'chkp. 13 Jesus answered and said unto her, ^Whosoever 14 drinketh of^""^f' chap 14 this water shall thirst again : But '' whosoever drinketh lb of the ka*l'.$: 3S , water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water vL\ ?6,'xxi. v ' that I shall give him 'shall be 16 in him a well 17 of water chap-vI'V 15 springing up into k everlasting life. 19 l The woman saith unto ^s^cha'p. 3 ' him, Sir, give me this water, that I thirst not, neither come ,? chap.' vi. 34 . 16 hither 19 to draw. Jesus 20 saith unto her. Go, call thy husband, 17 and come hither. The woman answered and said, I have no husband. Jesus said 21 unto her, Thou hast well said, I have iS no husband : For thou hast had five husbands ; and he whom thou now hast is not thy husband : in 22 that saidst thou truly. 23 19 The woman saith unto him, Sir, I perceive that thou art w 'a » all the way hither 'cxT" 20 He 21 saith 22 omit in 23 this thou hast said truly 24 must worship 25 Believe me, woman 26 an 27 emit ye shall 29 omit yet 29 in 30 shall ye worship 31 Ye worship that which ye know not 3? we worship that which we know 33 because the Salvation cxlvii. _io, : Rom ill. : 42 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN. [Chap. IV. i 42. 23 the Jews. But the 3 ' hour cometh, and "now is, when the true »Cha P .v. !5 worshippers shall worship the Father in " spirit and in 35 "'truth : uRom.™. 24 for the Father 36 "* seeketh such to worship him. 37 God is a 39 vi.'i8. 1 • in • Comp. Phil. Spirit: 39 and they that worship him must worship htm in Hi- 3- 25 spirit and in 35 truth. The woman saith unto him, I know that *Com P . chap 'Messias cometh, which is called Christ: 41 when he is come, ^chap. i. „■. 26 *he will tell us all things. Jesus saith unto her, " I that speak zVer. 29 ° J Comp. Dent unto thee am he. *™>- *s, 1.8. (i Matt. xxvi. 27 And upon this came his disciples, and 42 marvelled that he 64; Mark talked with the 43 woman : yet no man said, What seekest thou ? chap. ix. 37 . 28 or, Why talkest thou with her ? The woman then 44 left her waterpot, and went her way into the b city, and saith to the JVers. 5 , s 29 men, Come, see a man, e which told me all things that ever I c Vers. 18, 2S . 30 did : is not this the Christ ? 45 Then 46 they went out of the city, and came 47 unto him. 31 In the mean while his 48 disciples prayed him, saying, ''Master, 49 rfChap. i. 38. 32 eat. But he said unto them, I have meat to eat that ye know 33 not of. 50 Therefore said the disciples one to another, Hath any 34 man brought him ought to eat? Jesus saith unto them, 'My «Comp. job meat is to ^do M the will of him that sent me, and to 58 ^finish 53 /Cr,a P . v. 3 o, vi. 38. 35 his work. Say not ye, There are yet four months, and then e ch ?i>- v - 3". cometh harvest? 54 behold, 55 I say unto you, Lift up your eyes, and look on the fields; 56 /: for they are white already to har- /SMatt. ix. 37 36 vest. 57 And 58 he that reapeth receiveth wages, 59 and gathereth fruit unto ' life eternal : that both 60 he that soweth and he that i Ver. i 4 . 37 reapeth may ^'rejoice together. And 61 herein is that saying 68 ^comp. p s . 38 true, One soweth, and another reapeth. I sent you to reap Amos' ix. 13. that whereon ye bestowed no labour: 03 other men laboured, and ye are entered into their labours. 64 39 And many of the Samaritans of that city 65 believed on 66 him ' for the saying " of the woman, which testified, 68 He told /\'a. »g. 40 me all 69 that ever I did. So when 70 the Samaritans were come unto him, they besought him that he would tarry 71 with them : 41 and he abode there two days. And many more believed 42 because of his own " word ; And 73 said unto the woman, Now we 34 an 3S omit in 3e add also 37 is seeking such, them that worship him 38 omit a S9 spirit 40 omit him 41 Messiah cometh (which is called Christ) 4 - and they 43 a 44 therefore 45 Can this be the Christ ? * 6 omit then 47 were on their way 48 the 49 Rabbi 60 omit of 51 that I should do 62 omit to 63 accomplish 54 the harvest 6S lo 56 behold the fields 67 that they are white for harvesting 68 Already 59 reward 60 omit both G1 For C2 the word 63 ye have not toiled " 4 others have toiled, and ye have entered into their toil 65 And from that city many of the Samaritans 66 in 67 because of the word f,s bearing witness S9 all things 7« When therefore 71 abide 72 omit own 73 And they Chap. IV. 1-42.] THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN. for '" we have heard him '' believe, not because of thy sayinsr: 74 for '"we have heard him i «Chap ; *™. ' J J a 8 ; 1 John ourselves, 76 and 77 know that this is indeed the Christ, 78 " the S '* ' « bee chap, u Saviour of " the world. 74 No longer because of thy speaking do we believe lh omit him 70 for ourselves 77 and we 78 omit the Christ o See chap. Contents. The general object aimed at in the relation of the story of Nicodemus in chap. iii. is pursued in the account given us in this section of the interview of Jesus, first with the Samaritan woman, and then with the inhabitants of Sychar, who are brought by her to listen to His teaching. The subordinate parts are — (i) vers. 1-4, introduc- tory, after the manner of the introduction to the story of Nicodemus in ii. 23-25 ; (2) vers. 5-26, interview with the Samaritan woman ; (3) vers. 27-30, the mission of the woman to her fellow- townsmen ; (4) vers. 31-38, the conversation of Jesus with His disciples, in regard to the nature and success of their work ; (5) vers. 39-42, the work of Jesus among the inhabitants of Sychar. Vers. 1-3. When therefore the Lord perceived that the Pharisees had heard, Jesus maketh and baptizeth more disciples than John, (though Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples,) he left Judea, and departed again into Galilee. The object of these verses is to explain the reason why Jesus now left Judea for Galilee. How long He had remained in Judea we are not informed (see the note on chap. iii. 22), being only told that in the country districts the success of His ministry had excited the notice of the Pharisees (of Jerusa- lem), and had led to comparisons between the two teachers who had so suddenly appeared in the land. It will be observed that the circumstances described in this verse are substantially the same as those brought before us in the words of the dis- ciples of John after their disputation with the Jew (chap. iii. 26). They said to their master that to Jesus all were coming, — that is, by plain inference, more were flocking to Jesus than to the Baptist. It is only necessary to allow a short interval of time for the diffusion of the news, and we are brought to the state of things presented here. If, then, there is this close connection between chap, iii. 25, 26, and the opening of the present chapter, it seems impossible to believe that the imprison- ment of the Baptist can have taken place in the interval, when in chap. iii. 24 the Evangelist ex- pressly refers to the fact that John was as yet at liberty. The imprisonment is nowhere expressly mentioned by him ; but while it is very easy to understand such an omission if the event fell in one of those intervals which separate so markedly the successive narratives of his Gospel, it would be strange if, in a closely connected paragraph, he should first record that the imprisonment had not yet taken place, and then, although the event took place at the very time, pass over it in silence. It seems, then, much more natural to interpret the words heard by the Pharisees as meaning that Jesus is making and baptizing more disciples than John is making and baptizing, than to suppose the contrast to be between the present action of the one and \he past ministry of the other, — as if the words were, ' Jesus maketh more disciples than John used to make.' Hence we regard the ministry of John as still enduring at the period to which this verse relates. The journey into Galilee now alluded to is not, therefore, that recorded in Matt, iv. 12, which was taken after the imprisonment of John. (See further the note on chap. vi. 1.) On the determination of this question rests the ex- planation of our Lord's departure from Judea. If John had now been delivered up to his foes, the Evangelist's meaning might be that Jesus withdrew from a persecution which those who had success- fully opposed the Baptist would surely raise against One whose success was even greater. But such a meaning is beset with difficulties, for there would be something strange and unlike the style of this Gospel in so brief an allusion to the avoidance by our Lord of open hostility at this early period of His ministry ; and it would not be easy to see why the Pharisees should be expressly mentioned and not 'the Jews.' If, however, we take the view de- fended above, that the Baptist was still pursuing his course, these difficulties disappear. Not to escape from persecution, but to put an end to com- parisons which (however true in fact) were mis- chievously used, Jesus retired from the land in which John was teaching and baptizing. True, He must increase and John must decrease ; but the hour for the close of John's preparatory labours had not yet come, and "the purposes of Jesus Him- self would be best furthered by the complete ac- complishment of the Baptist's mission. Individuals might be removed from the circle of John's dis- ciples and be received by Jesus (see chap. i. 37) ; but a general impression of this kind could not be made until a certain work of preparation had taken place. For His own sake, therefore, it was not desirable that this preparation - work should prematurely close. Again, we shall thus better understand the mention of the Pharisees. That class had rigidly and suspiciously inquired into John's right to assume the position of a prophet, and the report which they now heard might well rouse them to renewed action in their character of defenders of the faith and religious practice of their nation. Any such action on their part could hardly fail at this stage to be injurious, even if it were directed against John and not against Jesus Him- self. But there was no reas n to think that their opposition would be limited to the Baptist. Jesus, too, would have His work interrupted by their embittered feeling. Not, therefore, to avoid His enemies, but to transfer H is labours to freer and more open fields, did our Lord withdraw from Judea at this time. The remarkable indirectness of the language of this verse is explained by the writer's wish to seize the very moment at which the withdrawal from Judea became necessary. The sojourn of Jesus in the neighbourhood of John's sphere of action brought out John's distinct confes- sion of the relation in which he stood to his Lord. That was for the present enough ; and the sojourn terminated at the very moment when it threatened to be the means of injuring the Baptist's work, and of precipitating the open conflict between Jesus and the Jews. — It seems most natural to take the word ' knew ' or ' perceived ' as referring, not to infor- THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN. 44 mation obtained, but to supernatural knowledge (compare chap. ii. 24, 25). Most seemly, there- fore, is the designation of Jesus here as 'the Lord ' — a rare usage with John, who commonly employs the personal name Jesus. Because He was the Lord, not man only, He discerned the first stirrings of hostility in the minds of the Pharisees and the occasion which gave them birth. Afterwards the name Jesus occurs, because the Evangelist quotes the very words of the report, — a report indeed containing an incorrect statement, set right in the parenthesis which follows. But there was nothing unnatural in the error. Jesus might easily be represented as baptizing (compare chap. iii. 22), because His disciples could only have acted in His name and by His authority. The Pharisees could not know why He should abstain from performing the act Himself: we know that His baptism was not with water but with the Holy Ghost, and ' the Holy Ghost was not yet given ' (chap. vii. 39). Such, then, were the circum- stances amidst which Jesus 'left' Judea and re- tired into Galilee. The word used for ' left ' is interesting, and confirms our interpretation. It means literally 'let go,' 'let alone; 'and it is hardly possible not to feel that by his use of it the Evan- gelist would direct our attention to the fact that Israel's rejection of God's mercy was, in the wis- dom of the Divine arrangements, the cause why it was itself rejected, and the other nations of the world called. — It should be added that we have assumed throughout that ^Enon and Salim were situated in Judea, so that both Jesus and the Bap- tist were at this time in the same region of the country. If Salim was near Scythopolis, in Samaria (which seems very unlikely), the argu- ment is not seriously affected. In any case, it is clear that for the time Jesus wished to remove His sphere of labour from the immediate view of the Pharisees by a retirement into Galilee. Ver. 4. And he must needs go through Samaria. The natural route from Judea to Galilee lay through Samaria. The other route, through the country on the east of Jordan, was so much longer that no one would choose it unless desirous of avoiding Samaria. The necessity here spoken of, therefore, may simply have reference to geographica 1 position, and to the present urgent motive for reaching Galilee without delay. Still the use of ' must' in this Gospel compels us to lay an emphasis on the word, and to interpret it as denoting more than merely usage or convenience. If the Evangelist's thought is that the hostility of the Pharisees (partly actually existing, partly fore- seen) made it necessary for the Saviour to hasten into Galilee, then he would have us understand that the Jews themselves brought about this visit to the hated nation of the Samaritans. But above and beyond all this, there seems a clear intimation of the truth brought before us in ver. 34, chap. ix. 4, etc. : here, as always, Jesus acts according to His knowledge of His Father's will. Ver. 5. He Cometh therefore to a city of Samaria which is called Sychar. ' From the hills through which the main route of Palestine must always have run the traveller descends into a wide plain, the widest and the most beautiful of the plains of the Ephraimite mountains, one mass of com unbroken by boundary or hedge, from the midst of which start up olive trees, themselves unenclosed as the fields in which they stand. Over the hills which close the northern end of this [Chap. IV. 1-42 plain, far away in the distance, is caught the first glimpse of the snowy ridge of Hermon. Its western side is bounded by the abutments of two mountain ranges, running from west to east. These ranges are Gerizim and Ebal ; and up the opening between them, not seen from the plain, lies the modern town of Nablus . . . the most beautiful, perhaps it might be said the only very beautiful spot in central Palestine.' 1 Nablus is a corruption of Neapolis, the name given by the Romans to the 'new city' built nearly on the site of the ancient Shechem. The city which gave its name to this district of the Holy Land, Samaria, distant about six miles, had recently been rebuilt in a style of great magnificence by llerod the Great, who gave it the name of Sebaste. But, partly through the prestige of its antiquity and famous history, and partly through the power of religious associations, Shechem was pre-eminently the city of Samaria. It lay, as has been said, at the foot of Mount Gerizim, on the summit of which was the temple ol the Samaritans, the stronghold of their worship for nearly three hundred years. It is impossible here to do more than trace the main outlines of the history of the Samaritan people. Their origin has in modern times been a subject of warm contro- versy. The narrative of 2 Kings xxv. 12 certainly seems to imply that all the inhabitants of the country were carried away to ' Halab and Habor and the cities of the Medes ' (2 Kings xvii. 6) : Josephus also speaks of the transplanting of all the people. But, apart from the improbability that such a wholesale deportation would be made, we find both in Scripture (2 Chron. xxxiv. 9, and perhaps xxx. I, 5, 10) and also in Josephus inti- mations that some few at least of the inhabitants remained, after the land had been colonised by settlers from Cuthah and other cities of Assyria. In the manner related in 2 Kings xvii. these colonists were led to mingle a worship of Jehovah as the tutelary Deity of their new country with the idolatry brought with them from their native cities. What we read of their history at a later date is in exact accord with the mixed character of their race and their worship. They referred their own origin only to Assyria (Ezra iv. 2), yet they were desirous of fraternising with the Jews in their work of rebuilding the temple of Jerusalem ; and, when finally repulsed by the Jews and defeated in their attempts to injure and frustrate their work, they built (B.C. 409) a rival temple on Mount Gerizim after the model of that in Jerusalem, tak- ing as their first high priest one whom Nehemiah had expelled (Neh. xiii. 28). From this time they seem to have maintained a system of worship modelled on that of the Jews, their older idolatry being, as far as we can judge, entirely renounced. Of the Scriptures the Samaritans received one portion only, the Pentateuch ; but for this they professed peculiar reverence. A comparison of the Samaritan Pentateuch with that of the Hebrew Bible shows that many alterations had been intro- duced into the text by the Samaritans, but at the same time that these had only been made for the purpose of authenticating their own mode of wor- ship and of maintaining the honour of their sacred places. This partial agreement, however, between the religious beliefs of the two peoples, so far from preventing, had really led to the most determined hostility between them. To the Jew, a man of purely Gentile descent and a man of mixed race 1 Stanley, Sinai and Palestine^ pp. 233, 234. Chap. IV. 1-42.] THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN. were equally Gentiles ; and an approximation to Jewish belief and modes of worship gave no claim of brotherhood with Jews. Hebrew literature is full of strangely varying statements in regard to the Cuthim (as they are called), — statements which probably reflect the relations subsisting between the nations at different periods (see Smith's Dic- tionary of the Bible, iii. 1117, 1 1 18). In the time of our Lord the temple on Mount Gerizim had long been in ruins, but both the mount and the city at its foot had retained their sacred character; and it was here that the true Samaritan practices and traditions had their strongest hold on the people. The slight sketch which we have been able to give of the history of this people will be sufficient to show how singular was their situation. The ancient writings of the Jews themselves deal with Samaritans now as with heathen, now as with men belonging to the stock of Israel ; and the narrative of this chapter places them in the same position — a position not wholly Gentile, but inter- mediate between the Jewish and the Gentile world. — It has been commonly assumed that the 'city called Sychar ' is identical with Shechem, and the chief subject of controversy has been the motive for the change of name. Whilst some have regarded the alteration as a mere error of pronunciation, most have ascribed it to Jewish prejudice, inter- preting Sychar as ' drunkard ' or ' falsehood : ' others, again, have considered the word identical with a well Sokhar mentioned in the Talmud. It seems more probable, however, that Sychar is a village still known by a name substantially the same (El-Askar), situated about two miles to the east of the present town of Nablus. This village is nearer than Shechem can have been to the well which bore the name of Jacob ; and it is much more likely that the Evangelist would pause to describe the position of such a place than that of the ancient city of Shechem. — Near to the parcel of ground that Jacob gave to his sou Joseph. There can be no doubt that, in speaking of Jacob's gift to his son Joseph, John refers to Gen. xlviii. 22, I have given thee one portion above thy brethren,' — whatever meaning may be attached to the last words of that verse. The Hebrew word here rendered 'portion' is identical with the name Shechem. At Shechem, therefore, were the bones of Joseph buried (Josh. xxiv. 32), and the city and surrounding country 'became the inheritance of the children of Joseph.' Ver. 6. Now there was a fountain there, Jacob's fountain. The distinction between the natural spring and the artificial well is usually maintained with great care in the language of Scrip- ture. Now and then, however (as is very natural), a well, fed as it is by springs, is itself called a spring or fountain. Thus ' the angel of the Lord found ' Hagar ' by a fountain of water in the wilderness ' (Gen. xvi. 7), and ' the well was called Beer-lahai-roi ' (ver. 14); and in the narrative of Gen. xxiv., where in the Authorised Version we find 'well' three times (in vers. 11, 13, 16), the original has first well, then spring or fountain twice. The country round Shechem was a place of ' fountains and depths that spring out in valley and hill ' (Deut. viii. 7) ; but it is not of such natural springs that we must here think. What in this verse is called a fountain is a ' well ' in vers. II and 12. Vet it may be worth noticing that the latter name is used by the woman of Samaria : to the Evangelist the well is a ' fountain,' and his 45 name implies far deeper and richer thoughts than hers. An almost continuous tradition fixes beyond doubt the position of this well, which lies very near the road by which our Lord would be travel- ling from Judea to Galilee ; and amongst the in- habitants of the adjoining towns it is still known as the well of Jacob or the fountain of Jacob. When visited by Maundrell two hundred years ago the well was more than 100 feet deep, but the accumulation of rubbish has diminished the depth to 75 feet : the bore is 9 or 10 feet wide. That Jacob (if indeed this patriarch's name was rightly given to the well, and there is no reason lor ques- tioning the tradition) should have sunk this well, excavated out of the solid rock, in the immediate neighbourhood of abundant springs, is a striking proof of the insecurity of his position in the 'land of promise,' and of his precarious relations with the people of the country. — Jesus therefore, being wearied with his journey, sat thus by the fountain. Shechem was one of the main halting-places on the route from Jerusalem to Galilee. Turning off a little from the road, Jesus reached the well, and (now alone, because His disciples had gone into Sychar to buy pro- visions) wearied with a long day's travel He 'sat thus' — sat, wearied as He was — 'by the fountain,' or on the low wall built round the well. — It was about the sixth hour. As in the other passages in which John mentions the ' hour,' there has been great difference of opinion respecting the time intended. If the ordinary reckoning be adopted, as in the other Gospels, the sixth hour would fall in the morning, a little before noon. But for the reasons assigned in the note on chap, i. 39, it seems much more probable that a different computation is followed here, in which, as among ourselves, the hour is ol fixed length (not a twelfth part of the variable interval between sunrise and sunset), and the time is reckoned from midnight and noon. By 'sixth hour,' therefore, according to the usage of the ancients, we must understand either the hour between 5 and 6 A.M. or the hour between 5 and 6 P.M. Gn the whole, the latter seems more probable. If our Lord's journey through Samaria took place in the middle of De- cember (see the note on ver. 35), 5 P.M. would be about the time of sunset, and the evening twilight would last until about half-past 6. This hour was the ordinary time at which women came forth tc draw water at the public wells. No difficulty need be felt on account of the lateness of the hour, for very little time is really required for all that is here related up to the 3Sth verse (comp. Mark i. 32 ; Luke iv. 40). Ver. 7. There cometh a woman of Samaria to draw water. By Samaria here we are of course to understand the country not the city of Samaria. The woman belonged to Sychar ; by race and re- ligion she was a Samaritan, and it is to this fact, as is shown by the preposition employed in the ori- ginal, that the Evangelist would direct our special attention. It was very natural that she should come at this time to draw water at the well ; but from the narrative that follows it seems probable that something more than the excellence of the water drew her to it day by day. One so strongly imbued with the ancient traditions of her country- men could not but turn with deepest interest to 'Jacob's well.' Vers. 7, 8. Jesus saith unto her, Give me to drink. (For his disciples were gone away unto 4 6 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN. [Chap. [V. 1-42. the city to buy food. ) The departure of the dis- ciples had left Jesus thus dependent on the woman's kindness ; for they had left no vessel by which the water could be drawn from the deep well. It has been conjectured that the recorder of this narrative had not gone on to Sychar with his fellow- disciples, but himself heard the Saviour's conversation with the Samaritan woman. The conjecture is most improbable, if not altogether contrary to the statement of the Evangelist. We cannot doubt that it was from our Lord's own lips that the beloved disciple received the whole ac- count. Ver. 9. The Samaritan woman therefore saith unto him. How is it that thou, being a Jew, askest drink of me, which am a Samaritan woman ? for Jews have no dealings with Sama- ritans. It is evident that Jesus was at once recog- nised as a Jew, probably through some difference of accent, or language, or dress. We can hardly suppose that the woman was really surprised at the request preferred, so natural from the lips of a weary traveller (comp. Gen. xxiv. 17). We may rather imagine her as hastening to procure what was asked for, whilst not failing to point out how inconsistent with Jewish principles it was to ask even for such a favour as this. As has been said above, the maxims of the Jews respecting in- tercourse with the Samaritan people varied much at different times, and it is not easy to say what rules prevailed at the period with which we are here concerned. One precept of the Talmud (quoted in the Diet, of the Bible, iii. 1 1 17) approves their mode of preparing the flesh of animals ; others commend their unleavened bread, their cheese, and finally all their food. Elsewhere, however, we find restrictions ; and the wine, vine- gar, etc., of the Samaritans are forbidden to every Israelite, their country only with its roads and its other products being regarded as clean. This narrative shows that it was held lawful to buy food in a Samaritan town, so that the words of this & verse must probably be understood to mean that Jews avoided allfaniiliar intercourse with the alien people, sought and expected no favours at their hands. It is usually assumed that the last sen- tence is inserted by the Evangelist in the interest of Gentile readers. It may be so, as such short parenthetical explanations are certainly to be found elsewhere in this Gospel. There seems, however, no sufficient reason for removing the clause from the woman's answer. The repetition of the well-known maxim gives a piquant em- phasis to her words, bringing out with sharp dis- tinctness the contrast between the principles of the countrymen of Jesus and the request which necessity had extorted. The use of the present tense ('have no dealings') adds some support to this view ; and one can hardly avoid the conviction that, had John himself given such an explanation, he would have so expressed himself as to avoid all appearance of discordance with his statement in ver. S. Ver. 10. Jesus answered and said unto her, If thou knewest the gift of God, and who it is that saith to thee, Give me to drink; thou wonkiest have asked of him, and he would have given thee living water. We may well believe that there was something in the manner ol Jesus, when uttering His first words, that invited conversation, and was intended to lead the woman to inquiry. This point gained, His next words could but cause surprise and excite remark. Her answer had told of her recognition of Him as a few : His reply declares her ignorance of Him and of what lie was able to give. The 'gift of God' is probably not different from the 'living water' afterwards mentioned. John himself gives an explanation of the latter in chap. vii. 39, and his interpretation must be applied here also ' Living water,' then, denotes the gift of the Holy Spirit. This was pre-eminently the promised gift of the Father (see especially Isa. xliv. ; Joel ii.), beautifully and most aptly symbolized by the fresh Chap. IV. 1-42.] THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN. springing waver, which wherever it comes makes the desert rejoice, and everything live (Ezek. xlvii. 9). This was also the especial gift of the Son (see chap. i. 33), in whom the promises of the Father are fulfilled (2 Cor. i. 20). Had the woman known God's gift, known also that the Dispenser of this gift stood before her, she would have been the petitioner, and He, with no delay and without upbraiding, would have given her living water. Ver. 11. She saith unto him, Sir, thou hast nothing to draw with, and the well is deep: from whence then hast thou that living water? In the answer of Jesus there was much to cause surprise, especially in the emphatic reference to Himself; but there was nothing in the actual terms used that compelled the hearer to seek for a figurative meaning. * Living water ' was a phrase in ordinary use in speaking of the fresh bubbling spring or the flowing brook. ' Isaac's servants digged in the valley and found there a spring of living water' (Gen. xxvi. 19, margin). Wherever running water is spoken of in the cere- monial law, the same expression is used. Hence nothing more than the fresh spring that supplied the well might at first be presented to the woman's mind, and that this precious gift came of the Divine bounty would be no unfamiliar thought. Though, as a Samaritan, she might know little or nothing of God's promise of His Spirit under this very emblem, or of Jeremiah's comparison of God Himself to a fountain of living waters (Jer. ii. 13), yet reflection would suggest some such meaning. At present, however, she answers without reflec- tion, and perceives no higher promise than that of the Creator's bounty, attained without the use of ordinary means. Ver. 12. Art thou greater than our father Jacob, which gave us the well, and drank thereof himself, and his sons, and his cattle? It was from Joseph that the Samaritans were wont to claim descent ; all the district around be- longed to his children. But Jacob here receives special mention as the giver of the well. The well was his ; he drank of it himself. Again the thought is forced upon us, that the Samaritan woman had sought this well partly on account of its conned ion with the fathers of her people. The feeling may have been tinged with superstition, but it was honourable in itself. The first part of her answer (ver. II) showed how limited the range of the woman's thoughts still was: in the words of this verse we see her dawning conviction of the Stranger's greatness, and the impression made upon her by His manner and His words. Ver. 13. Jesus answered and said unto her, Every one that drinketh of this water 6hall thirst again. The question receives no direct reply : the greatness of the Giver must be learnt from the quality of the gift. Even the living water from Jacob's well has no power to prevent the return of thirst. Ver. 14. But whosoever hath drunk of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall become in him a fountain of springing water, unto eternal life. The living water of which Jesus speaks becomes in him who hath drunk of it a perennial fountain, — a fountain of water that is ever springing up in freshness and life, of water that not only is itself living, but that brings and gives eternal life. As before, this ' water ' is the 47 Holy Spirit. The whole thought closely ap- proaches that of chap. vii. 38. There the pro- mise is, that out of the heart of him who comes unto Jesus that he may drink, who believes in Jesus, there shall flow rivers of living water ; 'And this spake He of the Spirit.' The Holy Spirit is the special gift of Jesus ; and, recipro- cally, it is through the Holy Spirit that the be- liever remains united to his Lord in an abiding fellowship (chap. xvi. 14, 15), and that Jesus lives in him (chap. xvii. 23). These truths of the later discourses are really present here: Jesus, who first gives the living water, becomes in him that hath received it the fountain which supplies the same stream of life for ever. The end is life eter- nal, not attained in the remote future, but begun and actually present in every one who has received the water that Jesus gives ; for all those to whom the Spirit is given experience that union with God which is eternal life (see the note on chap. iii. 14). Ver. 15. The woman saith unto him, Sir, give me this water, that I thirst not, neither come all the way hither to draw. These are words of simple earnestness. In the mysterious words of the Jewish traveller one thing was plain, — instead of the water she came to draw, water was offered that would satisfy thirst now and for ever. Could she gain this gift, she would no longer need to traverse the distance from Sychar to Jacob's well. Though much nearer than Shechem, El-Askar is perhaps three-quarters of a mile from the well. The later narrative makes it impossible for us to regard this answer as one either of flippancy or of dulness of spiritual perception. It is in every way more probable and true to nature to consider it as the expression of a bewildered mind eager to receive such a gift as has been offered, little as she could comprehend of what nature the gift could be. If we are right in the conjecture that other than common motives brought her to the well (see the note on ver. 12), it is still easier to under- stand her reply. With this verse comp. chap. vi. 34. Ver. 16. He saith unto her, Go, call thy hus- band, and come hither. The promise Jesus has given is one of satisfaction, — a promise, "therefore, which cannot be understood or fulfilled till the want has been clearly apprehended and felt. These sudden words are designed to produce this effect. He who ever ' discerned what was in the man ' with whom He spoke, well knew what answer His words would call forth. Her past life and her present state proclaimed guilt and disap- pointment, carnality and wretchedness ; all this she must recognise and feel before His gift can be hers. Ver. I". The woman answered and said, I have no husband. The effect is produced. The woman's words are a genuine confession, — an ac- knowledgment, perhaps of wretchedness, certainly of guilt. — Jesus saith unto her, Thou hast well said, I have no husband. He accepts the truth- fulness of her statement, but shows her how fully her life is known to Him. In this answer the emphasis lies on 'husband;' the woman's words are repeated with their order changed. ' I have no husband : ' ' Well saidst thou, Husband I have not.' Ver. iS. For thou hast had five husbands. The ' five ' were no doubt lawful husbands, from whom she had been separated either by death or by divorce. — And he whom thou now hast is not 48 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN. [Chap. IV. 1-42. thy husband : this thou hast said truly. In con- trast with the lawful marriages is set the present unlawful union with one who was no husband. Her life was sinful : in what degree we cannot learn from this brief statement. An age in which divorce was freely allowed cannot be judged by the same rules as one of stricter principles. What- ever may have led her to an evil life, it is plain that her heart was not yet hardened. Ver. 19. The woman saith unto him, Sir, I perceive that thou art a prophet. Nothing can be more misleading than the idea that she is seek- ing to turn the conversation from an unwelcome subject, or to lead it to other topics than herself. Her answer is rather a fresh illustration of her in- quiring and earnest character, notwithstanding all the sinfulness of her life. When her delighted wonder has found expression in her immediate acknowledgment, ' Sir, I behold that thou art a prophet, 'she eagerly lays before Him a question which to her was of all questions the most im- portant. Ver. 20. Our fathers worshipped in this moun- tain ; and ye say, that in Jerusalem is the place where men must worship. ' This mountain ' is of course Gerizim, near the foot of which they were standing. With this mountain was connected, as she believed, all the religious history of her nation ; for in the very Scriptures which the Sama- ritans possessed (the Pentateuch) the name of Gerizim had been inserted in the place of the holy city of the lews. She could point to the sacred spot on which their temple had stood, then and in all succeeding ages up to our own time pre-eminently 'holy ground.' Her question was not prompted by mere curiosity or an interest in the settlement of an ancient controversy. It was a question of life and death to her. The claim of the Jews was exclusive. Not only ' ought ' men to worship in Jerusalem, but that was the place where men must worship, — the only true holy place. One cannot but think that their confident and consistent main- tenance of this first principle had long disturbed her mind ; and when she saw in the Stranger one who could declare God's will, she eagerly sought for the resolution of her doubt. As long as she knew not with certainty where was God's true altar, she had no means of satisfying her reli- gious wants. That her national pride had not stifled every hesitation on such a point as this plainly attests her earnestness : it is no ordinary candour that can look on the supremacy of Gerizim or Jerusalem as an open question. Her words imply a willingness to accept the revelation of the truth, whatever it may be, if only she can learn where with acceptance she may appear before God. Ver. 21. Jesus saith unto her, Believe me, woman, an hour cometh, when neither in this mountain, nor in Jerusalem, shall ye worship the Father. The woman can hardly have doubted that the decision of a Jewish prophet would be in favour of Jerusalem, but the answer of Jesus sets aside all ideas of sanctity of place. With neither of these two most hallowed spot- shall the thought of true worship be bound up. In saying ' an hour cometh,' Jesus shows that He is not repeating a truth belonging to the revelation of the past, but is proclaiming a new order of things. Yet the chief characteristic of the new order is, after all, not the equality of places where men worship, but the clear knowledge of the Being to whom worship is paid : from this the former flows. Samari- tans shall offer worship in spite of Jewish exclu- siveness, for they shall worship the Father. ' Israel is my son, even my first-born,' were God's words to Pharaoh ; but now He offers the name to all, and the words of Jesus imply the abolition of every distinction, not of place only but of nation, in the presence of God, and for the pur- pose of true worship. Ver. 22. Ye worship that which ye know not: we worship that which we know. The two questions at issue between Jews and Samaritans were those of holy place and holy Scripture. The former, though of far inferior importance (as the Jews themselves were by their ' dispersion ' being gradually trained to know), was the more easily seized upon by national prejudice and zeal. Of this question Jesus has spoken. He passes on immediately to the other, which the woman had not raised, but which was of vital moment. The Samaritans did really worship God, — there is no slur cast on the intention and aim of their worship ; their error consisted in clinging to an imperfect revelation of Him, receiving Moses but rejecting the prophets. Hating and avoiding Jews, they cut themselves off from the training given by God to that people through whom His final purposes were to be made known to the world. It was the essential characteristic of the whole of Jewish history and prophecy that it gradually led up to the Messiah ; that the successive prophets made known with increasing clearness the nature of His kingdom ; and that every one who could under- stand their word saw that the Divine purpose to save the world was to be accomplished through One arising out of Israel. He who knew not God as thus revealing and giving salvation did not really know Him. Every Jew who truly received and understood the oracles of God committed to his trust (Rom. iii. 2) might be said to 'know ' the object of his worship ; and it is because our Lord is speaking of such knowledge, — knowledge respect- ing God given by the Scriptures which the Jews possessed, — that He says 'that which we know,' not ' Him whom we know.' The Samaritans then worshipped that which they knew not, — in this more enlightened than the Athenians who built an altar to an unknown God, but inferior even to those of Israel who had ' a zeal of God but not according to knowledge, ' and standing far below those meant by our Lord when He says 'we worship,' — we, namely, who have really appropriated Israel's inheritance of truth and hope. — Because the Salvation is of the Jews. ' The Salvation ' is that foretold in Scripture, and long waited for. The words are those of Jesus ; but, remembered and quoted as they are by the Evangelist, they show how unfounded is the charge sometimes laid against this Gospel, that it is marked by enmity to the Jewish people. It is only when 'the Jews' have apostatized and rejected Jesus that the term becomes one of condemnation, designating the enemies of all goodness and truth. Ver. 23. But an hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and truth. This verse links itself with both the preceding verses 21 and 22. To no place of special sanctity shall worship belong : though 'the salvation is of the Jews,' this involves no limitation of it to the Jewish nation : on the contrary, an hour cometh when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and Lhap. IV. 1-42.] THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN. ttuth. 'An hour comet h ' had been said before by Jesus (ver. 21), but He could not then add 'and now is;' for, till the truth set forth in ver. 22 had been received, Samaritans could not truly worship 'the Father.' Now, however, they and all may do so. But the added words 'and now is ' imply still more than this. Following the declaration that the Messianic salvation comes from among the Jews, they are no obscure inti- mation that, in Himself, the hour so long waited for has arrived, and thus they at least prepare for the direct announcement to be made in ver. 26. 1 he word ' true ' here is that which has been already spoken of (see note on chap. i. 9, the only place before this in which it has as yet occurred) as so common and so important in this Gospel. The worshippers denoted by it are not merely sincere, free from all falsehood and dishonesty ; they offer a worship that deserves the name, that fully answers to the lofty, noble, pure idea that the word ' worship ' brings before the mind. In the day now dawning on the world such worshippers as these will worship the Father in spirit and truth. It is difficult to exhaust the meaning of these words, but we must start from the t\\<> thoughts of the verses which immediately precede : the first and chief points in the interpretation are, — not in sacred place but in spirit (ver. 21), not in imperfection of knowledge but in truth (ver. 22). The very name by which Jesus indicates the object of all worship, 'the Father' (a name no longe. used of a chosen nation, but offering to each man a personal relation to God), had prepared the way for the abolition of all limitations of place : the teaching is completed here, when man's spirit is declared to be the 'hallowed ground' where he may approach his Father and his God. Again, in the past all knowledge of God had been imper- fect, — not merely as our knowledge of the Infinite must be limited, but also in comparison with what may be known by man. Even Jews who held the oracles of truth saw in them as ' in a glass darkly;' Samaritans who rejected the words of the prophets were far more ignorant. The law had been but a shadow of the good things to come, and not the very image of the things (Heb. x. 1); type and figure concealed whilst they revealed the future blessing. But 'the hour now is' when the truth of God is revealed, — ' truth ' as well as 'grace' has come (chap. i. 17); and (in the full knowledge of it) worship may now be offered to the Father. Read in connection with other parts of our Lord's teaching, the words ' spirit and truth' express much that could not be apparent at the moment when they were spoken. The Son appearing as the revealer of the Father, Himself the Truth, Him- self giving to men the Holy Spirit who alone can hallow man's spirit as the sanctuary of worship, — all these are thoughts which cannot but press on us as we read this verse. — For the Father also is seeking such, them that worship him. The hour of this real worship is already come, for the Father also is seeking such real worshippers. They are offering Him real homage, for He on His part is seeking them : His seeking — through His Son, come to save (ver. 23), and to seek that He may save (Luke xix. 10) — explains and renders possible this worship. There is much difficulty in determining the true meaning of the original in this clause. It is usually explained to mean either, 'The Father seeketh that His worshippers be such' (i.e., that they should worship in spirit and vol. 11. 4 49 truth), or, ' For such the Father seeketh to be His worshippers.' Both interpretations involve serious difficulties, partly of language, partly of meaning. On the whole, the translation given above seems most probable, but its force is not at once apparent. There is a curious variation in the Greek words, which is often considered accidental, or at all events too minute to be significant, but which we must regard as intentional and important. In ver. 21 and in the first part of 23 the word 'worship ' has its usual construction, but in this clause the case which follows the verb is suddenly changed, and a very unusual construction is introduced. We may represent the force of the word as it is commonly used by ' offer worship to ; ' but as used in the clause before us and in ver. 24, the connec- tion of the verb with its object becomes more direct and close. An English reader can feel the force of a sudden transition from ' offering worship to the Father' to 'worshipping the Father.' The former may or may not be real and successful, and may be used of a lower as well as of the highest homage ; the latter implies actual attainment of the end desired, — reaching Him in worship, if we may so speak ; and thus it may almost be said to contain in itself the qualifying words of the pre- ceding clause, for the ' real ' offering of worship to God is equivalent to worshipping Him. If this view is correct, and we are persuaded that such a writer as John could not so vary the language without design, the meaning of the clause is : For also the Father is now seeking such men, — those, namely, who actually worship Him. There is thus a mutual seeking and meeting on the part of the Father and Flis children. Ver. 24. God is spirit : and they that worship hirn must worship in spirit and truth. Such worship as is described in the last verse is the only real worship that can be conceived. This verse does not say what men must do, in the sense of what men ought to do. It is the nature of worship in itself that is described. No other worship than that which is offered in spirit and truth can possibly be actual worship of God (the same idea is here expressed as in the last clause of ver. 23), because 'God is spirit.' We must not render these words ' God is a spirit,' for it is not person- ality that is spoken of, but abstract being, the nature of the Divine essence. Since the spiritual presence of God is everywhere, Gerizim and Jerusalem lose all claim to be the special places for His worship. Not the outward action of the worshipper, not the forms he uses or the gifts he brings, but his spirit alone can be brought to meet the spiritual presence of God. Where this is done, God Himself meets the spirit which He has sought and prepared, and to which He has made known the truth lying at the foundation of all worship, the truth which reveals Himself. In this wonderful passage are concentrated many of the most essential truths of New Testament teaching. The historical development of God's plan, the preparation for Christianity made by Judaism, the idea of progress from the outward to the inward, from the sensuous to the spiritual (comp. 1 Cor. xv. 46), the independence of forms which marks the essence of religion, and yet its freedom to clothe itself in form so long as the spirit is not lost, — these are the lessons taught here ; and how- ever special the form in which they are presented, they are in perfect accord with the whole course of New Testament doctrine. — The main principles of THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN. [Chap. IV. 1-42 50 these verses would be understood by the woman to whom our Lord was speaking. But a day in which such principles should be realised must surely be that for which Samaria as well as Judea w.s 'waiting, —the 'latter days' of Messiah's advent? Ver. 25. The woman saith unto him, I know that Messiah cometh (which is called Christ). There is nothing surprising in her avowal that a Deliverer was looked fur. We know from other sources that this was, and still is, an article of the Samaritan as of the Jewish faith ; from age b i age this people had waited in expectation of ' the Converter' or 'the Guide.' But the use of the Jewish name ' Messiah ' is more remarkable. We "might suppose that it pointed to an approach towards Jewish faith and thought effected in this woman's heait by the teaching of Jesus, were it not that ver. 29 seems to show that the name was understood by Samaritans in general. Yet it could hardly be otherwise. Separated as the nations were, the famous name which the Jews universally applied to the Deliverer, for whose coming both peoples alike were waiting, would naturally be known far beyond the limits of Judea. The explanatory parenthesis, 'which is called Christ,' was no doubt added by the Evangelist, who alter wards (ver. 29) translates the word without any mention of the Hebrew form. — When he is come, he will tell us all things. There can be little doubt that the Samaritan hope was mainly founded on the great passage in the Pentateuch, Deut. xviii. 15-18 (see note on chap. i. 21). The language here used, ' He will tell us all things,' at once reminds us of Deut. xviii. 18, ' He shall speak unti 1 them all that I shall command him.' The depend- ence of the Samaritans on the Pentateuch alone would naturally lead to their giving prominence to the prophetic aspect of the Coming One, so emphatically presented in this passage of the Law, rather than to the aspects under which the Deliverer is viewed in the later books of the Old Testament. The woman's wi -rds, indeed, may not convey her whole conception of Messiah, for the context has pointed only to revelation and teach- ing ; but it is more than probable that many elements of the Jewish faith on this subject would be unknown in Samaria. If, however, the Samaritans expected less than the fuller revelation warranted, they at least escaped the prevalent Jewish error of looking for a Conqueror rather than a Prophet, for a temporal rather than a spiritual King. Ver. 26. Jesus saith unto her, I that speak unto thee am he. She lias sought and found the truth. The hope rising in her heart receives lull confirmation; and a revelation not yet so clearly and expressly given by Jesus to Israel is granted to this alien, whose heart is prepared for its recep- tion. Ver. 27. And upon this came his disciples; and they marvelled that he talked with a woman: yet no man said, What seekest thou? or, Why talkest thou with her? To talk with a woman in public was one of six things forbidden to a Rabbi. As the disciples were returning from the village, they wonderingly descry their Mash r thus engaged. Their surprise, no doubt, found expression in these very questions (asked among themselves) which the Evangelist speaks of as not 1 Iressed to their Lord. 'What seeketh He? what can He be in quest of that we cannot fur- nish? or, if He is not seeking anything, why is lie talking with a woman?' The questions uttered to one another they would have at once addressed to Jesus, but awe checked their impulse to speak. Something in His look may have restrained them ; or the eager wondering attitude of the one, and the solemn earnestness of the Other, proclaiming the willing hearer and the earnest Teacher, may have forbidden them to interrupt such inter- course. Ver. 28. The woman therefore left her water- pot, and went her way into the city. ' There- fore,' — because, the conversation being interrupted, there was nothing to restrain her impulse to make known the marvels she had heard. In her eager- ness she leaves her waterpot behind: the 'living water' has banished the thought of that which came from Jacob's well. — And saith to the men, whom she would naturally meet on the roads and in the streets. Ver. 29. Come, see a man, which told me all things that ever I did. She fixes on the wonder- ful knowledge which the Stranger had displayed : what had impressed her must also convince them. Let them come for themselves, not rest on her testimony; and let them draw their own conclu- sions. — Can this he the Christ? Her own beliel she expresses in the form of doubt, or problem to be solved ; and ever)' reader must feel how natural and wise was her procedure. To have declared herself convinced that the Stranger was the Christ would have done little towards persuading the men "f her own village : even to have quoted the declaration which Jesus made might have been without effect upon those who had seen or heard nothing to authenticate such words. Ver. 30. They went out of the city, and were on their way unto him. This verse is here in- troduced partly to show the immediate success of the woman's message (no slight evidence of the preparedness of Samaria for the gospel), and partly to make plain the words of Jesus in a later verse (ver. 35). Ver. 31. in the mean while the disciples prayed him, saying, Rabbi, eat. Remembering His ex- haustion with the journey (ver. 6), they begged Him thus to take advantage of this interval of rest. Ver. 32. But he said unto them, I have meat to eat that ye know not. Literally, I have an ' eating ' to eat. The word for ' meat ' in ver. 34 is different from that used here, which rather denotes the meal, the partaking of the food, than the food itself. This 'eating' the disciples 'knew not.' The common rendering entirely obscures the meaning: our Lord does not say 'know not of,' but 'know not,' — ye have no experience of it. As yet, they had not learned the power of such work as His (the complete fulfilment of His Father's will, vet. 34) to satisfy every want. Ver. 33. Therefore said the disciples one to another, Hath any man brought him ought to eat? Their perplexity is like that of the won in of Samaria in regard to the living water (ver. its Vi r. ; |. Jestis saith unto them, My meat is that I should do the will of him that sent me, and accomplish his work. This is the first of many similar sayings in this Gospel (v. 30, \i. 38, vii. iS, viii. 50, ix. 4, xii. 40, 50, xiv. ;i, xv. to, xvii. 4), expressing our Lord's pel 1 t loyalty to His Father's will, and complete devo- tion to the accomplishment of His lather's work. Chap. IV. 1-42.] THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN. Si The pursuit of this is not His joy, His purpose, His refreshment only, but His very food, that without which He cannot live. The 'will' to be ' done ' may perhaps remind us of the action of the hour or the moment; the 'work' to be 'ac- complished,' of the complete expression and fulfil- ment of the ' will.' Ver. 35. Say not ye, — Has not your language this day been, — There are yet four months, and then cometh the harvest? As harvest began in the middle of April it was now the middle of December. — Lo! I say unto you, Lift up your eyes, and behold the fields, that they are white for harvesting. As in this chapter we have heard of a natural and a spiritual eating or drinking, — water (ver. 10), food (ver. 32), — so here, introduced with equal suddenness, we have the thought of a spiri- tual harvest. Yet, distant as must have seemed the harvest to the disciples when they looked upon the fields, far more distant would seem the day when Samaritans could be gathered in to the garner of the Lord. But, lo ! they are bid see, the fields are already white for harvesting. These words, we cannot doubt, were spoken by Jesus in sight of the Samaritans flocking towards Him (ver. 30) : He saw the preparation of their hearts, the impression made by the woman's message, the faith which His own words would immediately bring forth; nay, He saw a harvest far more glorious than that of this day's labours, even that of the salvation of the world (comp. note on ver. 42). Ver. 36. Already he that reapeth receiveth reward, and gathereth fruit unto life eternal: that he that soweth and he that reapeth may rejoice together. The figure is continued and amplified. Not only are the fields ready for har- vesting, but the reaper is even now at work, and receiving his reward ; and how glorious a reward ! Not a lifeless store, but (as in the case of the spring- ing water, ver. 14, and the eating that abideth, chap. vi. 27) fruit gathered for life eternal, — fruit that shall endure for ever in the fruition of the new life which Jesus brings. And all this takes place ' already ' (the v.-jrd even standing emphati- cally at the head of the sentence), that in the spiritual field — so quickly docs the harvest follow the sowing of the seed — sower and reaper may rejoice together. Ver. 37. For herein is the word true, One soweth, and another reapeth. For, in the spiri- tual field of which Jesus speaks, the familiar saying is true, has full reality (the word used signifying 'true,' as opposed not merely to what is false, but to all that is partial and imperfect), — that one has the labour of the sower, another the joy of the reaper. Ver. 3S. I sent you to reap that whereon ye have not toiled: others have toiled, and ye have entered into their toil. The disciples are the reapers of this harvesi ; their commission — in- cluding, however, that of the disciples of Jesus throughout all time — was to reap a harvest which had not been prepared by their own toil. What- ever toil may be theirs, it is toil in reaping, — in joy- fully gathering the results of earlier toil. The surprise and gladness with which they would shortly witness the faith of the men of Sychar was an emblem of what should repeat itself con- tinually in the history of the Church. While the disciples are reapers, this harvesting in Samaria shows clearly who is the sower, whose has been the earlier toil. The words point to Jesus Him- self. From beginning to end of the narrative His ' word,' first in the conversation with the woman, and then as spoken to the Samaritans (ver. 39), is the instrument by which the joyful result is gained. Nor must we limit our thought of His 'toil' to what is related of the work of this evening by Jacob's well. The ' toil ' that has made any har- vest possible is that of His whole mission. All that was necessary that He might be able to say ' I am the Christ, 'the self-renunciation and sorrow and pain of His atoning and redeeming work, — virtually included in His one act of acceptance of that work, and present to His thought from the beginning, — is involved in His 'toil.' He says, indeed, ' Others have toiled? and neither here nor in chap. iii. 1 1 can we take the plural as simply standing for the singular. He Himself is chiefly intended, but others are joined as having shared in the preparatory work. He had been alone in conversing with the woman of Samaria; but He had taken up and made use of all that she had received from the teaching of Moses (ver. 25), and all that the Jews had learnt from the prophets. Thus He includes with Himself those who had prepared the way for His coming. For Him, and therefore with Him, they too had 'toiled;' but all His servants who come after Him find the field pre- pared, the toil past, the harvest of that toil ready to be reaped. Ver. 39. And from that city many of the Samaritans believed in him because of the word of the woman, bearing witness, He told me all things that ever I did. The arrangement of the words shows the prominence which John would give to the thought that many Samaritans be- lieved in Jesus. Their faith, too, was only medi- ately called forth by the woman's word, for the Evangelist describes her by his favourite and most expressive term, as one ' bearing witness ' concerning Jesus. Ver. 40. When therefore the Samaritans were come unto him, they besought him that he would abide with them: and he abode there two days. Mark the contrast between Judea repelling and Samaria inviting : a dead and petrified ortho- doxy may be more proof against the word of life than heresy. Vers. 41, 42. And many more believed because of his word; and they said unto the woman, No longer because of thy speaking do we believe : for we have heard for ourselves, and we know that this is indeed the Saviour of the world. Among those that heard the Saviour were evi- dently some who had first believed because of the woman's testimony {'No longer ...'): hearing for themselves, they were led into a deeper faith. — There is nothing disparaging, as some have sup- posed, in the use of the word 'speech ' or 'speak- ing ' in regard to the woman's message : the expression is simply equivalent to because then spakest, and relates to the fact of speaking, in con- trast with the substance of the teaching, — the 'word' of Jesus Himself. — The last words in the confession of the Samaritans (this is indeed the Saviour of the vorld) contain no real difficulty. The teaching of vers. 21-24 directly led to the recognition of this truth. It was much to realise that Jesus, as Messiah, was a Saviour, not merely a Prophet who would bring a revelation from God. But when the thought of a Saviour of Jew s alone is once overpassed, there is no intermediate posi- 52 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN. [Chap. IV. 43-54. tion between this and the conception contained in to point out to us the special significance of the the words before us — a Saviour of the world. whole narrative: the conversion of Samaritans The Evangelist, in recording them, plainly intends was a promise of the conversion of the world. Chapter IV. 43-54. Jesus in Galilee. 43 TV TOW after "two 1 days he departed 2 thence, and went 3 « v "- 4°- 44 IN into Galilee. For * Jesus himself testified, 4, that a «o,»p. .\i..tt. ' ' J Xllt. 57 ; 45 prophet hath no honour in his own country. Then when' he Markvi. 4 ; was come into Galilee, the Galileans received him, c having a !*> Luk = a x>»- 33. 34- seen all the things that 6 he did at Jerusalem at the feast : for r chap. u. 23 : they also went unto the feast. 46 So Jesus came again 7 into "* Cana of Galilee, where he made ./chap, n. 1. the water wine. And there was a certain nobleman, 8 whose son 47 was sick at ' Capernaum. When he heard that Jesus was -^corne e cha P . ii. i 2 . out of Judea into Galilee, he went unto him, and besought him that he would come down, and heal his son : for he was at the 48 point of death. Then said Jesus 9 unto him, ^Except ye see ^chap.ii. is, 49 /: signs and * wonders, ye will not believe. The nobleman 10 L^' -22, 50 saith unto him, Sir, 11 come down ere my child die. Jesus saith 4 «j*j. unto him, Go thy way; thy son liveth. And 12 the man be- ^ : e f c ctsii - lieved the word that Jesus had spoken 13 unto him, and he went 51 his way. And as he was now going down, his servants met 52 him, and told Aim, 1 * saying, Thy son liveth. 15 Then enquired he of them 1B the hour when he began to amend. And they said 17 unto him, Yesterday at the seventh hour the fever left 53 him. So the father knew 18 that it waszt the same hour, in the which Jesus said unto him, Thy son liveth : and himself believed, 54 'and his whole house. This is again * the second miracle that ■' Acts xvi. 34. Jesus did, 1 " when he was come 20 'out of Judea into Galilee. *Chap. a 1 And after the two - went forth 3 omit and went 4 bare witness 5 When therefore 6 all things whatsoever 7 He came therefore again a king's officer '' Jesus therefore said 10 king's officer u Lord 12 omit And I3 spake 14 omit and told him 15 that his son lived IC He enquired of them therefore 17 They said therefore 13 perceived 19 This Jesus again did, as a second sign, 20 having come Contents. This section of the Gospel brings (i) vers. 43-45, introductory, after the manner of Jesus before us in Galilee, in His intercourse with the introduction to the story of Nicodemus in ii. the Galileans, and in particular with the king's 23-25, and of that to the visit to Samaria in iv. officer, who may be regarded as in a certain sense 1-4; (2) vers. 46-54, the account of the inter- their representative. The object is still the same course of Jesus with the king's officer, as that which we have traced from chap. ii. 12. Vers. 1.3,44. And after the two days he went have been given of the manner in which forth thence into Galilee. For Jesus himself Judea and Samaria submit to the word of Jesus, hare witness, that a prophet hath no honour in and these are now crowned by an instance of his own country. The connection between similar submission on the part of Galilee. The two verses is a question on which the most differ- section divides itself into two subordinate parts— ent opinions have been held. The latter verse Chap. IV. 43-54-] THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN. evidently assigns a reason why Jesus went into Galilee; and (we may add) ver. 45, which begins with ' When therefore,' must be understood as stating that the welcome He received in Galilee was in full accordance with the motive of His action as stated in ver. 44. These two conditions of interpretation must evidently be observed, and yet in several solutions of the difficulty one or other of them is plainly set aside. Were we to judge only from what is before us, we should say that the words must mean: Jesus went into Gali- lee and not into His own country, for there He would be a prophet without honour ; and so, when He came into Galilee, He was welcomed by the people. If such be the true sense, 'His own country ' must be Judea. This is certainly not the meaning of these words in the earlier Gospels, and hence the difficulty. A similar say- ing is recorded by every one of the three earlier Evangelists, and in each case it is introduced to explain the neglect of the claims of Jesus on the part of the inhabitants of Nazareth, the city of Galilee in which His early years were spent (Matt. xiii. 57; Mark vi. 4; Luke iv. 24). In one case, Mark vi. 4, the saying is enlarged so as to apply especially to kindred, and not to country alone. If then we have rightly given the sense of these verses of John, it must follow that, though the saying quoted is nearly the same here as else- where, the application is wholly different, ' His own country ' being in the one case Galilee (or rather Nazareth), and in the other Judea. This is by many held to be impossible. But is it really so? Would not such a difference be in exact accord with the varied aims of the first three Evan- gelists and the fourth, as they respectively relate the Galilean and the Judean ministry of our Lord? The saying is one that may be used with various shades of meaning. Used in relation to Nazareth, the proverb brings before us the unwillingness with which the claims of a prophet are listened to by those who have grown up with him, have fami- liarly known him, have regarded him as one of themselves. Used in relation to Judea, the true home and fatherland of the prophets, the land which contained the city of Messiah's birth, the city associated with Him alike in ancient pro- phecy and in popular expectation (see chap. vii. 41, 42), the words surely signify that a prophet is unhonoured by those te> whom he is especially sent : Jesus came unto His own country, and ' His own received Him not.' This interpretation then (which is that of Origen, in the third century) seems completely to meet the requirements of the passage. In Samaria Jesus had not intended to remain, and He must therefore either return to Judea or go into Galilee; to Judea He will not go, for the reason given; He departs therefore into Galilee. There is only one objection of any weight to the view we have taken — viz., that in vers. 1-3 of this chapter a somewhat different motive for leaving Judea is assigned ; yet even there, though success in winning disciples is im- plied, it is said that He left the land because of the Pharisees. If this last consideration does not entirely remove the difficulty, it is to be borne in mind that our knowledge of the circumstances is imperfect, and that, even in its utmost force, the objection is much smaller and less important than those which lie in the way of the other interpreta- tion of 'His own country.' For such as think that Galilee must be intended there are but two 53 explanations possible : these we give, only ex- pressing our belief that they involve difficulties much greater than those presented by the other view. (1) Jesus went into Galilee, for there He would not meet with the honour of a true faith; and there, consequently, He had a work to do, a mission to prosecute : when therefore He came into Galilee, although He was welcomed, it was from unworthy not worthy motives. (2) Jesus now at length went into Galilee, for (He had avoided Galilee in the belief that) a prophet has no honour in his own country : such honour, how- ever, He has now- won in Judea, outside His own country ; when therefore He was come into Gali- lee, the Galileans received Him. Ver. 45. When therefore he was come into Galilee, the Galileans received him, having seen all things whatsoever he did at Jeru- salem at the feast : for they also went unto the feast. The ' feast ' is no doubt the Passover of which we read in chap. ii. ; and the faith of these Galileans is precisely similar to that of the 'many' spoken of in ver. 23 of that chapter, — real, but not of the highest kind. Ver. 46. He came therefore again into Cana of Galilee, where he made the water wine. His coming revives the fame of that first miracle, and the report of His arrival quickly spreads.— And there was a certain king's officer, whose son was sick at Capernaum. This officer was probably in the (civil or militan ) service of Herod Antipas, a Tetrarch, but often styled a king (see Matt. xiv. 1, 9; Mark vi. 14, etc.). The officer himself may have been in attendance on the court in Tiberias, but his son (probably an only son, as the Greek literally means 'of whom the son . . . ') was lying ill at Capernaum. Ver. 47. When he heard that Jesus was come out of Judea into Galilee, he went unto him, and besought hint that he would come down, and heal his son: for he was at the point ol death. The faith of this father rested on the miracles of which he had heard. Would Jesus but come down from Cana to Capernaum, his son also might be healed. But Jesus must alv. a\ - reprove the spirit which requires ' signs and wonders' before yielding faith; and He does it now. Ver. 48. Jesus therefore said unto him, Except ye see signs and wonders, ye will not believe. The charge against the father is that his apparent faith is only thinly-veiled unbelief. — The words seem most suitably addressed to a Jew (comp. Matt. xii. 39, xvi. 1 ; I Cor. i. 22) : on the other hand, the officer's connection with the court leads rather to belief that he was a Gentile. As to 'signs,' see the notes on chap. ii. II, 23. As a ' sign ' is the highest, so a ' wonder ' is the least noble name for a miracle. In so far as the miracle is a prodigy and excites amazement, it is a ' wonder. ' Ver. 49. The king's officer saith unto him. Lord, come down ere my child die. The answer of Jesus, which had seemed perhaps to imply cold neglect, calls forth an impassioned appeal for pity and help ; there were no moments to be lost, — even now the help may come too late. Jesus was but educating — refining and deepening — his faith. Ver. 50. Jesus saith unto him, Go thy way ; thy son liveth. The man believed the word that Jesus spake unto him, and he went his way. Jesus does not need the passionate appeal : THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN. [Chap. V. 1-18 54 the prayer has been already granted. ' Thy son liveth ' does not mean, ' is made to live now after thy second petition' ; but, 'even while the word is in thy mouth, or before it was so, thy son liveth.' The meaning, in short, is not, I perform the cure at this instant ; but rather, I have performed it, the work is done, thy son is recovered. He will not come to heal the child ; there is no need that He should do so, the child is already whole. Will the father believe the word? He will, for his faith is purified and changed : it is now faith in the word of Jesus, though no sign or wonder has been seen. Ver. 51. And as he was now going down, his servants met him, saying that his son lived. The word ' now ' (or ' already ') may appear super- fluous, but it may possibly imply that some time had elapsed since the words of ver. 50 were spoken, — 'when he had now begun the journey.' Business may have detained him for a lew hours in Cana; and if it did so, it would be a testimony to the firmness of that faith with which he had now believed in Jesus. 'Going down,' — because Cana is situated in the hilly district, several hundred feet above the level of the Sea of Galilee. Ver. 52. He enquired of them therefore the hour when he began to amend. They said there- fore unto him, Yesterday at the seventh hour the fever left him. As the distance between Cana and Capernaum is not above five-and-twenty miles, it may seem strange that the officer should not have reached his home the same day. If the * seventh hour ' were reckoned from sunrise, the time of the cure would be a little later than noon ; in that case it would be necessary to suppose that the servants were following the familiar Jewish reckoning of time, and regarding sunset as the commencement of a new day. It seems, however, much more probable (see the note on ver. 6) that by the ' seventh hour ' we must understand 6 to 7 P.M. Even without the supposition that the father had been detained in Cana, this will suit all the circumstances of the narrative. — The words 'began to amend ' do not suggest any hesitation on the father's part as to the completeness of the cure. He had believed the word ' thy son liveth ' (ver. 50), and what he asks now is as to the hour at which his child had been stopped upon the road to death, and turned back upon that to full health and strength. Ver. 53. So the father perceived that it was at the same hour in the which Jesus said unto him, Thy sou liveth : and himself believed, and his whole house. Believed — that is, with a faith increased and confirmed : true faith he had mani- fested before. Many have supposed that this king's officer may have been Chuza, ' Herod's steward' (Luke viii. 3), whose wife Joanna was amongst those women who ministered of their substance to the wants of Jesus and His disciples. Ver. 54. This Jesus again did, as a second sign, having come out of Judea into Galilee. The order of the original is remarkable, and we endeavour to represent it by a translation which, if literal, is yet sufficiently idiomatical. 'This' stands alone ; ' a second sign ' is in apposition with it. There is thus by means of ' again ' and 'second' a double statement as to the position of the miracle ; and as we know that other miracles, not numbered, were wrought in Galilee (chap. vi. ), and that there had already been 'signs' also in Judea (chap. ii. 23), the two points upon which our attention is fixed seem to be — (I) that this miracle was wrought in Galilee; (2) that it was a second miracle there. The first of these points receives importance from the fact that the ' sign ' now related was done after Jesus had left ' His own country,' rejected by 'His own' to be accepted by Galileans : the second magnifies the sign itself, for the mention of it as a 'second' appears to flow from the tendency of the Evan- gelist to give double pictures of any truth which possesses in his eyes peculiar weight. This is the case here. From the first Jesus showed that His mission was not confined to Judea. It included Galilee, a province representative not of Jews only but of Gentiles, out of which the Tews thought that no prophet could come (vii. 52) : it was not a local but a universal mission. It is not necessary to discuss the question whether this miracle is identical with that related in Matt. viii. 5-13 ; Luke vii. 2-10. We may wonder that such a question was ever raised. One point of similarity exists, in that in each case the cure was performed at a distance : in all other respects the narratives are wholly different, — agreeing neither in time, nor in place, nor in the station of the persons concerned, nor in the cha- racter of the faith evinced. Chapter V. 1-1S. Jesus at the Pool of Bethesda, 1 A FTER this 1 there was a "feast of the Jews; and Jesus "Comp. chap. 2 1\. went up to Jerusalem. Now there is at Jerusalem by the sheep market' a pool, which is called 3 in the * Hebrew *Chap.»x. 13, 17, -o, 3 tongue Bethesda, having five porches. 4 In these lay a great 5 »• l6 - multitude of impotent" folk, of blind, halt, 'Withered, waiting rMatt.ai.io. 4 for the moving of the water. For an angel went down at a surnamed 1 these things 4 porticos 2 by the sheep- pool h omit great the pool which is sick Chap. V. 1-1S.] THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN. 55 certain season into the pool, and troubled the water : whoso- ever then first after the troubling of the water stepped in was 5 made whole of whatsoever disease he had. 7 And a certain man was there, which had an infirmity thirty and eight years. 8 6 When Jesus saw him lie, 9 and knew 10 that he had " been now a long time in that case, he 12 saith unto him, Wilt thou be made 7 whole ? The impotent 13 man answered him, Sir, I have no man, when the water is u 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. *. sabbath. 15 10 The Jews therefore said unto him that was cured, It is the sabbath day: 16 it is ^not lawful for thee to carry thy bed. 17 /Neh. xiii. 1 t He 18 answered them, He that made me whole, the same said xvL^i) 12 unto me, Take up thy bed, and walk. Then asked they him, 19 chap. vii. 23,' What man is that 20 which said unto thee, Take up thy bed, 21 13 and walk? And 23 he that was healed wist not who it was: for Jesus had conveyed himself away, 23 a multitude being in 14 that place. Afterward M Jesus findeth him in the temple, 25 and said unto him, Behold, thou art ' 7 made whole : sin no more, 15 lest a worse thing come unto thee." The man departed, 29 and told the Jews that it was Jesus, which had made him whole. 16 And therefore 30 did the Jews persecute Jesus, and sought to slay him, 31 because he had done 38 these things on the sabbath day. 17 But Jesus 33 answered them, s My Father worketh hitherto, 34 j-Ver. 19, iS and I work. 3 '' Therefore 36 the Jews * sought the more to kill AChap.vii. him, because he not only had broken " the sabbath, but said also that God was ' his Father, 33 making himself * equal with /Rom - «»• God. AChap. i. iS, x. .30, 33. 7 omit from waiting in third verse to end of fourth verse s which had been thirty and eight years in his sickness 9 Jesus seeing him lying there 10 perceiving n hath 12 omit he 13 s j c j. 14 ^(jj been 15 and it was the sabbath on that day 16 It is the sabbatli day, and l; to take up the bed 18 But he 19 They asked him 20 Who is the man 2I omit thy bed 22 But 23 withdrew himself 24 After these things - h temple-courts 27 hast been 2S sin no longer, that some worse thing come not unto thee 20 went away 30 And for this cause 31 omit and sought to slay him 32 did 33 he 34 until now 35 I also work se For this cause therefore 3r broke 38 but also called God his own Father. Contents. With the beginning of this chapter sented in the Prologue, as the culminating-point we enter upon the fourth and leading division of and fulfilment of all previous revelations of God, the Gospel, extending to the close of chap. xii. whether in the Old Testament or in nature. In Its object is to set Jesus forth in the height of His chap. v. He is the fulfilment of the Sabbath, the conflict with ignorance and error and sin. More greatest of all the institutions given through Moses, particularly, the Redeemer appears throughout it The subordinate parts of the first section of the in the light in which He had already been pre- chap, are — (i)vers. 1-9, the account of the miracle 56 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN. [Chap. V. 1-18. at the pool of Bethesda ; (2) vers. 10-1S, tlie opposition of the Jews, leading to the proclamation of the great truths contained in the second section. Ver. 1. After these things there was a feast of the Jews ; and Jesus went up to Jerusalem. No more is said as to the visit to Galilee than what we find in iv. 43-54. We are taken at once to the close of the visit, when Jesus went up again to Jerusalem. The occasion 01 His going up was the occurrence of a festival. Contrary to his wont, the Evangelist says nothing of the nature of the festival, merely adding (as in ii. 13, vii. 2, etc.) the words 'of the Jews.' It is quite impossible here to examine the attempts which have been made to give more precision to this statement. Not a few Greek manuscripts and other authori- ties endeavour to remove the difficulty by inserting the article, and reading ' the feast of the Jews,' an expression usually thought to mean the Passover. The weight of evidence, however, is distinctly in favour of reading ' a feast ; ' and we may safely say that with this reading the Passover cannot be intended. Were it possible to believe that the great national festival is spoken of, the conse- quences would be important. In that case four Passovers would be mentioned in this Gospel (ii. 13, v. 1, vi. 4, xviii. 28); and of one whole year of our Lord's public ministry the only record pre- served would be that contained in the chapter before us. The critical evidence, however, sets the discussion at rest so far as the Passover is concerned, and we have only to inquire which of the remaining festivals best suits the few state- ments of the Evangelist bearing on this part of the history. Our two landmarks are iv. 35 and vi. 4. The former verse assigns the journey through Samaria to the month of December, the latter shows that the events recorded in chap. vi. took place in March or April; hence, in all probability, the festival of chap. v. 1 falls within the three or four months between these limits. If so, the feasts of Pentecost (about May), Tabernacles (September or October), and the Dedication of the Temple (December) are at once excluded ; and no other feast remains except that of Purim, which fell about a month earlier than the Passover. This feast, therefore, is now generally believed to lie the one referred to here. The objections are perhaps not insurmountable. It is said that our I ,ord would hardly go up to Jerusalem for Purim. As to this, however, we are clearly unable to judge ; in many ways unknown to us, that feast may have furnished a fitting occasion for His visit. Its human origin would not be an obstacle (comp. chap. x. 22), nor would its national and patriotic character. It is true that there were abuses in the celebration of Purim, and that excess and licence seem to have been common. Still we cannot doubt that many devout Israelites would be occu- pied with thankful recollection of the wonderful deliverance of their nation commemorated by the feast, rather than with revelry and boisterous mirth. line other objection maybe noticed. The feast oi Purim was not allowed to fall on a Sabbath, and hence, it is argued, cannot be thought of here. But nothing in the chapter leads necessarily to the supposition that the Sabbath on which the miracle was wrought was the day of the feast. The feast was the occasion of our Lord's going tip to Jeru- salem : the .Sabbath may have fallen soon after His arrival in the city ; more than this we have no right to say. If therefore we look at the historical course of the narrative, it would seem that, of the solutions hitherto offered, that which fixes upon Purim as the feast referred to in the text is the most probable. But there is anotherquestion of great importance, which must not be overlooked. Why did John, whose custom it is to mark very clearly the festivals of which he speaks (see ii. 13, 23, vi. 4, vii. 2, x. 22, xi. 55, xii. 1, xiii. 1, xviii. 39, xix. 14), write so indefinitely here? The feast before us is the only one in the whole Gospel on which a doubt can rest. We may well ask the reason of this, and the only reply which it seems possible to give is that the indefiniteness is the result of design. The Evangelist omits the name of the feast, that the reader may not attach to it a significance which was not intended. To John, — through clearness of insight, not from power of fancy, — every action of his Master was fraught with deep significance ; and no one who receives the Lord Jesus as he received Him can hesitate to admit in all His words and deeds a fulness of meaning, a perfection of fitness, immeasurably beyond what can be attributed to the highest of human prophets. Our Lord's relation to the whole Jewish economy is never absent from John's thought. Jesus enters the Jewish temple (chap, ii. 14) : His own words can be understood by those only who recognise that He Himself is the true Temple of God. The ordained festivals of the nation find their fulfilment in Him. Never, we may say, is any festival named in this Gospel in connection with our Lord, without an intention on the writer's part that we should see the truth which he saw, and behold in it a type of his Master or His work. If this be true, the indefiniteness of the language here is designed to prevent our rest- ing on the thought of this particular festival as fulfilled in Jesus, and to lead to the concentration of our attention on the Sabbath shortly to be mentioned, which in this chapter has an importance altogether exceptional. Were it possible to think that the ' feast ' referred to was the Sabbath itself, all difficulties would be at once removed. Ver. 2. Now there is at Jerusalem by the sheeppool the pool which is surnamed in the Hebrew tongue Bethesda, having five porticos. The use of the present tense, there is, may seem to indicate that the pool still remained after the destruction of Jerusalem ; unless indeed we adopt the opinion that, as John in all probability com- mitted to writing very early his recollections of his Lord's discourses and works, an incidental mark of his practice is left us in this verse. — The translation of the words that follow is much dis- puted. The ( deck word for ' pool ' may be written in two ways. That which is usually adopted gives the meaning, ' there is by the sheep .... a pool, that which is surnamed,' etc.; and the question is how the ellipsis is to be filled up. There is no authority for supplying 'market,' as is done in the Authorised Version; and that method of supplying the blank is now generally abandoned. The idea of most writers on the Gospel is that the 'sheep- gate' (Neh. iii. I, 32, xii. 39) is intended, but we have found no example of a similar omission of the word 'gate.' We are thus led to examine the other mode of writing the Greek word 'pool,' from which results the translation, 'there is by the sheep-pool the fool that is surnamed ; ' and to this tendering ol the sentence there appears to be no valid objection. It may, indeed, seem strange that the situation of the pool called Bethesda should be defined by its Chap. V. i-iS.] THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN. proximity to another pool about which no informa- tion is preserved ; but it must be remembered that in questions relating to the topography of Jerusalem arguments from the silence of historians are not worth much. Early Christian writers also (Euse- bius and Jerome) do actually speak of a sheep-pool in Jerusalem in connection with this passage. Ammonius tells us that the pool was so called from the habit of gathering together there the sheep that were to be sacrificed for the feast : similarly Theodore of Mopsuestia. And it is very interesting to notice that an early traveller in the Holy Land (about the first half of the fourth century) speaks of ' twin pooh in Jerusalem, having five porticos.' We conclude therefore that John defines the position of the pool with which the following narrative is connected by its nearness to another pool, probably of larger size, 57 and at that time well known as the 'sheep-pool.' It is remarkable that of the other pool the proper name is not mentioned, but only a Hebrew or Syro- Chaldaic second name or surname. What this name is and what it signifies can hardly be deter- mined with certainty, as several forms of the name are given in Greek manuscripts and other authori- ties. If we assume that Bethesda is the true form, the most probable explanation is ' House of grace.' It is easy to see that such a name might naturally ari-e, and might indeed become the common appellation amongst those who associated a bene- ficent healing power with the waters of the pool ; and it is also easy to understand how it was the second name that lingered in John's thought, — a name which to him bore a high significance, recalling the 'grace' which came through Jesus ( hrist (i. 17), and of which a wonderful manifesta- al Pool of Betheida tion was made at this very spot. The p">ol called Bethesda had five porticos; probably it was five- sided, and surrounded by an arched verandah or colonnade, closed in on the outward side. The hot springs of Tiberias are so surrounded at this day, and it is at least possible that the style of architecture may be traditional. Ver. 3. In these lay a multitude of sick folk,' of blind, halt, withered. Under the shelter of these porticos many such were laid day after day. The general term ' sick folk ' receives its explana- tion afterwards as consisting of those who were blind, or lame, or whose bodies or limbs were wasted. — The omission of the remaining words of ver. 3 and of the whole of ver. 4 is supported by a weight of authority which it is impossible to set aside. The addition belongs, however, to a very early date, for its contents are clearly referred to by Tertullian early in the third century. It is evidently an explanatory comment first written in the margin by those who saw that the words ol ver. 7 imply incidents or opinions of which the narrative as it stands gives no account. The well- intentioned gloss was not long in finding its way into the text ; and, once there, it gave the weight of the apostle's sanction to a statement which really represents only the popular belief. It will be seen that, when the unauthorised addition is removed, there is nothing in the text to support the impression that wonderful cures were actually wrought. The phenomena are those of an inter- mittent spring ; and the various circumstances described, the concourse of sick, the eager ex- pectation, the implicit faith in the healing virtue of the waters and in the recurring supernatural agency, find too many parallels in history to make it necessary to suppose that there was any super- natural virtue in the pool. It may be observed 58 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN. [Chap. V. 1-1S. that the ordinary translation of the added words is not quite correct. The angel's visit was not looked for ' at a certain season ' (as if after some fixed and regular interval), but 'at seasons,' lrom time to time. Ver. 5. And a certain man was there, which had been thirty and eight yearB in his sickness. This sufferer (apparently one of the 'withered,' though not altogether destitute of the power of motion) had endured thirty-eight years of weak- ness. How long he had been wont to resort to Bethesda we cannot tell : it may have been only for days or even hours. Ver. 6. Jesus seeing him lying there, and perceiving that he hath been now a long time in that case, saith unto him, Wilt thou be made whole ? The first movement is altogether on the side of Jesus: comp. ver. 21 ('whom He will '). His knowledge of the case is by direct intuition (comp. ii. 25), not, as we believe, the result of inquiry. In Matt. viii. 2 the leper's words to Jesus were, ' Lord, if Thou wilt, Thou canst make me clean,' and the answer was, 'I will.' Here the address of Jesus contains His 'I will,' for His question to the man is 'Dost thou will ? if thou dost I do also. ' Jesus has the will to heal him : does he answer this with a correspond- ing will, or is he like those to whom Jesus would have given life, but who ' would ' not come to Him? (ver. 40). It will be observed that there is no broad separation made between bodily and spiritual healing. The man certainly understood the former, but we cannot limit the meaning of Christ's words by the apprehension of those to whom He speaks, and the subsequent narrative seems to imply more than the restoration of bodily health. Ver. 7. The sick man answered him, fir, I have no man, when the water hath been troubled, to put me into the pool : but while I am coming, another steppeth down before me. The man does not give a direct answer to the question ' Wilt thou ? ' but the answer sought is implied. He had the will, but he had not the power to do what he believed must be done before healing could be obtained. The very extremity of his need rendered unavailing his repeated efforts to be the first to reach the waters when the mys- terious troubling had taken place. He had no friend to help, to hurry him to the pool at the moment when the waters were thought to have received their healing power. Ver. 8. Jesus saith unto liim, Rise, take vtp thy bed, aud walk. The cure is performed in the most simple and direct manner. It is not said that Jesus laid His hands on him (Luke xiii. 13), or that He touched him. He speaks : the man hears the voice of the Son of God and lives (vers. 25, 28, 29). Ver. 9. And immediately the man was made whole, and took up his bed, and walked. The result is described in words which are a simple echo of the command. Whilst they testify the power of the healing word, they also bring into view the man's ' will ' and ' faith,' as shown in his immediate readiness to obey the command of Jesus. Immediately he was made whole, and took up his bed (the mattress which, laid upon the ground, had formed his bed), and walked. — Aud it was the sabbath on that day. The verses which follow show how important is this notice. As Jesus chose out this one sick man to be the object of His grace, so He of set purpose chose the sabbath day for the performance of the miracle. Ver. to. The Jews therefore said unto him that was cured, It is the sabbath day, and it is not lawful for thee to take up the bed. The Jews — some of the rulers of the people (see note on i. 19) — who had not been present at the miracle met the man as he departed carrying his bed. As guardians of the law they challenge him, and condemn the bearing of burdens on the sabbath. It is very important for us to determine whether in so doing they were right or wrong. Were they faithfully carrying cut the letter of the law of Moses, or were they enforcing one of those tradi- tions by which they destroyed its spirit ? We have no hesitation in adopting the former view. The question must be decided apart from the miracle, of which at this moment the Jews seem to have had no knowledge. It is true that, even had it been known by them, their judgment would not have been altered ; they would have equally condemned the healing on the sabbath (see Luke xiii. 14), since there had been no question of life and death. When, too, they afterwards hear what has been done (ver. 11) there is no change in their tone and spirit ; and our Lord's own reference to this miracle (chap. vii. 23) seems to show that, so far from convincing them, it had roused their special indignation. But at the point of time now before us the lawfulness of healing on the sabbath was not in question. They met a man carrying his bed in the streets of Jerusalem on the sacred clay. The law of Moses forbade any work on that day ; and the special enactments in the Pentateuch (the command to kindle no fire, Ex. xxxv. 3, and the judgment on the man who gathered sticks, Num. xv. 35) show how this law was to be interpreted. Injer. xvii. 21-23, moreover (comp. Neh. xiii. mi, this very act, the bearing of bur- dens, is explicitly condemned. What could they do but condemn it? Would the same act be regarded otherwise in England at the present hour? One other consideration remains, and it is decisive. Our Lord's answer to the Jews (ver. 17) makes no reference to their casuistical distinctions or to traditions by which the law was overlaid. It diners altogether in tone and spirit from the reproofs which we read in Luke xiii. 15, xiv. 5. Had their objection lain against the healing, we cannot doubt that they would have brought on themselves the like rebuke : here however they were right in holding the man's action, so far as they understood it at the moment, to be an infrac- tion of their law. Ver. 1 1. But he answered them, He that made me whole, the same said unto me, Take up thy bed, and waBk. Whether the man knew the Rabbinical saying that a prophet's command to transgress the letter of the law was to be obeyed, save in the case of idolatry, may be doubted ; but the impression made on him by the majesty of Jesus was sufficient to guide his answer. Divine power had healed him : a command from One who wielded such power could not transgress the law of God. Ver. 12. They asked him, Who is the man which said unto thee, Take up, and, walk ? The mention of the cure has no effect in lead- ing them to suspend their judgment. It would indeed present to them a new transgression of the law ; but they content themselves with passing Chap. V. r-18.] THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN. 59 it by, and laying stress on what they consider an undeniable breach of the very letter of the commandment. This complete indifference to the work of mercy plainly illustrates the hard-hearted malice of ' the Jews.' Ver. 13. But he that was healed wist not who it was. We need not wonder that this man, unable to move from place to place, perhaps only recently come to Jerusalem, had no previous knowledge of Jesus! — For Jesus withdrew him- self, a multitude being in that place. After his cure, too, he could hear nothing of his benefai tor, for, to avoid the recognition and enthusiasm of the multitude (comp. chap. vi. 15), Jesus with- drew, — literally 'slipped aside, ' became suddenly lost to sight. — Here, as always, the 'multitude' or mass of the people is to be carefully distin- guished from 'the Jews.' The conflict between Jesus and the Jews has begun : all His actions deepen their hatred against Him. The 'multi- tude,' on the other hand, is the object of His compassion : from time to time they follow Him eagerly, however slight may be their knowledge of His true teaching and aims (vi. 2, 15). In subsequent chapters we shall often have to call attention to the contrast between ' the Jews ' and the 'multitude;' and it will be seen that some passages are almost inexplicable unless this most important distinction is kept clearly in view. Ver. 14. After these things Jesus findeth him in the temple courts. Some time afterwards, probably not on the same day, the man is found in the temple courts. There is no reason to doubt that he had gone there for purposes of devotion, having recognised the Divinedcliverance. Through- out the narrative he stands in strong contrast with the Jews, resembling in this the blind man of whom we read in chap. ix. — And said unto him, Behold, thou hast been made whole: sin no longer, that some worse thing come not unto thee. The words of Jesus imply much more than the general connection of sin and suffering ; they show that in this case the sickness had in some way been the result and the punishment of sin. Yet sorer judgment will follow a return to the life of sin (Matt. xii. 45). Ver. 15. The man went away, and told the Jews that it was Jesus which had made him whole. The Jews asked who had commanded him to take tip his bed. The man's reply, given as soon as he had learnt the name of his Deliverer, was that Jesus had made him whole. The careful variation in the expression seems to repel the supposition that, he gave the information through ingratitude or in treachery. Probably his motive was a sense of duty to those who, whatever might be their spirit, were constituted authorities who had a right to be»satisfied as to all breaches of the law, with whom also would rest the decision whether he must bring a sin-offering to atone for his violation of the sabbath. Whilst, however, this may have been the man's motive, we can hardly doubt that John (who here uses a word, 'declared,' which with him often has a solemn significance) sees in the act a Divine mission. In his eyes the man is for the moment a prophet of the Most High, a messenger of warning, to the guilty Jews. Ver. 16. And for this cause did the Jews per- secute Jesus, because he did these things on the sabbath day. The man whose cure had been the occasion of the action taken by the Jews now passes from view. For the second time Jesus and 'the Jews' are brought face to face. He had appeared in the temple (ii. 14) to put an end to the abuses they had permitted or fostered, and to vindicate the holiness of His Father's house. Then He offered Himself to Israel as the Son of God ; He declared Himself the antitype of their temple, the idea of which (as God's dwelling-place) had its fulfilment in Himself alone. As by supernatural influence on those who trafficked in the Holy Place He had then challenged the attention of the riders of Israel, so now by a wonderful sign He fixed on Himself the eyes of all (vii. 21). This lime it is not on the temple that He lays His hand, but on the law, the cherished commandment of the sabbath. It is not as one who with autho- rity checks abuses which none could defend, though from them many derived gain, that our Lord now appears in Jerusalem : He comes as one who claims to be above the law, having the right, as Lawgiver, to set aside its letter. As the temple hail its idea fulfilled in Himself, so was it with the sabbath. As to the Son of God God's house belonged, so to the Son of God belonged that Rest of God of which the sabbath was a type ; and the sabbath cannot be broken by the Son of God. This is the light in which the following verses teach us to regard the whole narrative. The choice of the sabbath day for the miracle is the kernel of the paragraph. Had the Jews been teachable and free from prejudice, had they taken the miracle as the starting-point of their reason- ings, they would have been prepared for hearing the ground of the claims of Jesus thus to regulate their law. ' How can a man that is a sinner do such miracles?' (ix. 16) was in truth a convincing argu- ment, and by yielding to its force they would have been led to Jesus as humble seekers after truth. But because He 'did these things,' wrought such works and showed that He would persevere with them, they became and continued to be His per- secutors. Ver. 17. But he answered them, My Father worketh until now: I also work. In three different ways does our Lord rebut the charge which His foes so often brought against Him, that He broke the sabbath. At one time Pie showed that it was not the law but the vain tradition that He set aside (Matt. xii. 11 ; Luke xiii. 15, xiv. 5); at another He declared Himself as the Son of man Lord of the sabbath, and taught that the law of the sabbath must be determined from its aim and object (Mark ii. 27, 2S) ; here only does He take even higher ground. God rested from His works of creation on the seventh day ; this day was hallowed and set apart for man's rest from labour, — a rest which was the shadow of the rest of God, and which was designed to remove from man everything that might hinder him from entering in spirit into that fellowship with God which is perfect rest. From the creation to this very moment the Father hath been working; in His very rest upholding all things by the word of His power, providing all things for His creatures, working out the purpose of His love in their redemption. 'My Father worketh until now,' with no pause or intermission : ' I also work.' He who can thus call God His Father finds in the works of His Father the law of His own works. No works of the Father can interrupt the sabbath rest : no works of the Son on earth can break the sabbath law. The 19th and 20th 6o THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN. [Chap. V. 19-47. verses more fully explain what is expressed in these majestic words. Ver. 18. For this cause therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only broke the sabbath, but also called God his own Father, making himself equal with God. The Jews do not fail to see that the argument rested on the first words, 'My Father.' He who could thus speak, and who justified His works by the works of God, was calling God His own Father in the highest sense which these words can bear, and was claiming equality with God. It has been objected that, though the brief assertion of ver. 17 does really imply all this, it is not pro- bable that so momentous an inference would have been drawn from words so few. But it is sufficient to reply that, whilst John gives to us the exact substance of the words of Jesus and the impression which they made upon the hearers, we have no reason to suppose that all the words spoken are recorded. The meaning which we gather from those that stand written before us probably could not be conveyed by spoken words without repetition and enlargement. The thought of the condensation which must have taken place in the record of these discourses of our Lord is that which fully justifies the devout reader's effort to catch every shade of meaning and follow every turn of expression. — The answer Jesus has given does but repel the Jews. We are told what the persecution of ver. 16 meant, — even then they had sought His life, for now they sought the more to kill Him. F'rora this point onwards we have the conflict that nothing could reconcile, the enmity of the Jews which would not and could not rest until they had compassed the death of Him who had come to save them. The Disc Chapter V. 19-47. rse of Jesus at the Pool of Bethesda. 19 '~P*HEN answered Jesus' and said unto them, Verily, verily, J- I say unto you, "The Son can do nothing of himself, but 2 what he seeth the Father do : 3 for what things soever he 20 doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise. 4 For b the Father loveth the Son, and sheweth him all things that himself doeth : and he will shew him greater works than these, that ye may 2 1 marvel. For 5 as the Father c raiseth up the dead, and d quickeneth them ; 6 ' even 7 so the Son quickeneth 8 whom he 22 will. For the Father judgeth no man, 1 ' but S hath committed 10 23 all judgment unto the Son: That all men should" honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. s He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath 12 sent him. 24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, ; ' He that heareth my word, and believeth on 13 him that sent me, ' hath everlasting H life, and k shall not come into condemnation ; l5 but ' is '" passed from " 25 death unto '* life. Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, 19 and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the 26 Son of God: and they that hear 20 shall live. For 21 as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given 22 to the Son 23 to 27 '"have life in himself; And hath given 21 him authority to execute judgment also, 25 because he is the Son" of man. c Chap. xi. 2 /Ver. 27 : Actsx. 4?, xvii. 31; Rom. xiv. g See chap. xv. 23. // Chap viii. / See chap. iii. .5, 36. /i- Chap. iii. i i 1 John iii. 1 Jesus therefore answered - can of himself do nothing save 4 these things the Son also in like manner doeth 5 For even 3 and maketh to live 7 omit even 9 For moreover the Father judgeth no one 11 That all may l2 omit hath 15 and cometh not into judgment lc hath 19 An hour cometh 20 have heard 22 so gave he 2S Son also "* And he gave doing 8 also maketh to live given 3 omit on 7 out of 1 For even ' omit also 14 eternal 18 into a son Chap. V. 19-47.] THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN. 61 28 Marvel not at this : for the hour is coming, 27 in the which all 29 that are in the graves shall hear his voice, "And shall come « pan. xii. a ; ' ° Matt. xxv. forth ; they that have done good, 2 * unto the " resurrection of <<>;■ Acts J ° XXIV. IS. life ; and 30 they that have done 31 evil, unto the resurrection of damnation. 32 30 "I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: »v«. 19. ■''and my judgment is just; because g l seek not mine own > c „ ha P- vm. will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me. 33 ? "?cha£lv. 31 'If I bear witness of 31 myself, my witness is not true. ,. c ^mp. 3 ch ap . 32 'There 35 is another that beareth witness of 31 me; and I ,vw.3*; 14 ' know that 'the witness which he witnesseth of 34 me is t^lh^l'X 33 true. "Ye sent 3 " unto John, and he bare 37 witness unto the „cha P . i. 19. 34 truth. But I receive not testimony from man: 39 but 39 these 35 things I say, that ye might 40 be saved. He was a burning and a shining light: 41 and ye were willing' 12 for a season to 36 rejoice 43 in his light. But I have greater witness 44 than that of John: for "the works which 45 the Father hath given »Cha P . x. 35, J ° 38, xv. 24. me to ' finish, 4 " the same 4, works that I do, bear witness ™cha P . .v. 34 37 of 48 me, that the Father hath sent me. x And the Father * Ver ' 3*- ^' Comp. chap himself, 49 which hath 50 sent me, hath 51 borne witness of 4 ' vi - 2 ?- $S me. Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape. 53 And ye have not -Mil's word abiding in you : y 1 John ii. 14. 30 for 53 whom z he hath 50 sent, him ye believe not. "Search 54 *Cha P . vi.so. -^ ' J a Acts xvn. 11. the Scriptures; for 55 in them ye think 56 ye have b eternaM Ver - 2 4- 40 life: and c they are they which testify of me. 57 d And ye will C Luke 4 fxiv 41 not come to me, that ye might 58 have life. 'I receive not 27 : A h c ^ - x '' 42 honour from men. 59 But -^ I know you, that ye have not the rf JJ; ap ; ,, 43 love of God in you. I am come in my Father's name, and ye '^"^f p- receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him / Cha P-"- 2 * 44 ye will receive. s How can ye believe, which receive honour e chap. xii. one of another, 60 and seek not ; ' the honour that comctli from t Rom. ii. 29. 45 'God only? 61 Do not think that I will accuse you to the » Chap. xvii. Father : there is one that accuseth you, even Moses, in whom 46 ye trust.' 8 For had 63 ye believed Moses, ye would have be- 27 because an hour cometh - s And they that have done good shall go forth -° a 30 but 31 committed 32 a resurrection of judgment 33 of him that sent me ?A concerning 35 It 3G have sent 37 hath borne 38 But not from a man do I receive the witness 30 howbeit 40 may 41 He was the lamp that burnetii and shineth 42 and ye desired 43 exult 44 But the witness that I have is greater 46 that 40 accomplish 4 " very 48 concerning 40 omit himself ''" omit hath ■''' he hath 52 Never have ye either heard a voice of him or seen a form of him 6:1 because 54 Ye search s5 because s(! ye think that in them 67 and it is they which bear witness concerning me 58 may 50 Glory from men I receive not G0 receiving glory one of another 01 and the glory that is from the only God ye seek not 62 ye have placed your hope 63 if 62 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN. [Chap. V. 19-47. 47 lieved 64 me : * for he wrote of" me. But 'if ve believe not his *v e r. 3 ?-. writings, how shall 66 ye believe my words? would believe concerning Con rENTS. The performance of the miracle of healing on the sabbath had roused the active opposition of the Jews to Jesus, and that again had led to the great declaration contained in ver. 17, in which Jesus announces His equality with God. This announcement only excites the Jews to greater rage ; and Jesus is thus led, according to llis custom in this Gospel, to present in still fuller and more forcible terms the truth by which their anger and opposition had been aroused. The discourse may be divided into three subor- dinate parts — (1) vers. 19-29, where, with a thrice repeated ' Verily, verily ' (the progressof the thought is pointed out in the Exposition), Jesus speaks of Himself as the Worker of the Father's works, the Revealer of the Father's glory ; (2) ver. 30, a verse at once summing up what has preceded from ver. 19, and introducing the remainder of the dis- course ; (3) vers. 31-17, where Jesus passes from the ' greater works ' that He does to the witness borne to Him by the Father, pointing out at the same time the true nature of the evil principles within the Jews which prevented their receiving that witness. Ver. 19. Jesus therefore answered and said unto them. We have already found Jesus reply- ing to those who did not receive His utterance of a truth by a repeated and more emphatic declara- tion of the very truth which they rejected (see iii. 5). So it is here. He had been accused of blasphemy in calling God ' His own Father ' ami making Himself equal with God. He solemnly reiterates His claim, and expresses with greater force the unity of His working with the working of God His Father.— Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can of himself do nothing save what he seeth the Father doing: for what things soever he doeth, these things the Sou also in like manner doeth. The connection of this verse with the preceding is of itself sufficient to preclude the interpretation which some have given, — that it has reference to the perfect obe- dience of the Son of man rather than to the essen- tial oneness of the Son of God with the 1 The last words of the verse express the general positive truth that all the Father's works are done by the Son, and done by Him in like manner, while the mystery contained in them is not greater than that which is inherent in every statement relating to the Trinity. Anticipating for a moment what will meet us in later parts of the discourse, and remembering that human words can only be approximations to the truth, we may say that it is the Son's part to make the Father's works take the shape < •( actual realities among men. The Father's working and the Son's working are thus not two different workings, and theyare not a word- ing of the same thing twice. They are related to each other as the ideal to the pi.- nomi nal, as the thought to the word. The Father does not work actually; He works always through the Son. The Son does not w irl Iways from the Father. But God is always working; therefore the Son is always working : and the works of the Father are the works ol the Son,— distinct, yet one and the same. From this positive truth follows the denial which comes earlier in the verse. The Jews had denounced Jesus as a blas- phemer, had thought that He was placing Himself in awful opposition to God. This is impossible, for the Son can do nothing of Himself; severance from the Father in action is impossible, how much more contrariety of action ! The Son can do nothing of Himself, — can indeed do nothing save what He seeth the Father doing. (The remarks on 'save' made above, see chap. iii. 13, are ex- actly applicable here. See also chap. xv. 4, which closely resembles this verse in mode of expression.) The subordination of the Son, which subsists together with perfect unity, is expressed in the former half of the verse by the 'seeing,' in the latter by the order of the clauses. The whole verse is a translation of the truth expressed in the Prologue (vers. I, IS). Ver. 20. For the Father loveth the Son, and sheweth him all things that himself doeth. The relation of the Son's acts to those of the Father has been connected with the figure cf ' seeing :' the converse is here presented, as 'show- ing.' The Father ' showeth ' what Himself doeth; the Son 'seeth.' The principle of the relation between the Father and the Son, out of which this communion springs, is ' love,' — an eternal and continuous and infinite love, the source of an eternal and continuous and perfect communion. The same English words have occurred before, in chap. iii. 35 ; but the original expression is not the same. We shall have occasion in several passages to notice the two Greek words in ques- tion, which, as a rule, must be rendered by the same English word, 'love.' Starting from the use of the words between man and man, we may say that the one (ifii-iu) denotes rather the tender emotional affection, that the other (xya.Tx&) is never dissociated from intellectual preference, esteem, choice. The one term is not necessarily stronger than the other. The latter may be more exalted, as implying the result of intelligence and knowledge ; the former may be more expressive, as implying a closer bond and a warmer feeling. The first word is most in place when the two who are united by love stand more nearly on the same level, the second is commonly used when there is disparity. The former occurs thirteen times only in this Gospel ; once of the bather's love towards the Son (here), and once of His consequent love to those who love the Son (xvi. 27) ; three times of the love of Jesus towards His disciples, and six times of their love to Him ; the other two passages are \ii. 25 ('he that loveth his life') and xv. 19 ('the world would love its own'). It does not occur in John's Epistles, and twice only in the Apocalypse (iii. 19, xxii. 15). On the other hand, the latter word occurs no fewer than thirty-seven times in John's Gospel and thirty times in his Epistles. In the Gospel it is used seven times of the love bi Fath :r end th - of the love of God to the world (iii. 16), times of the Father's love to those who are Christ's; eleven times of the love oi 1 ■ rd; His own, Chap. V. i g-47-] THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN. nine times of their love towards Him, and four times of the mutual love of the disciples. In the remaining passages (iii. 19 and xii. 43) it denotes preference or choice. The fitness of the employ- ment of the two words is very clear in almost all these instances. The first class is that with which we are now concerned, both words being used to denote the love existing between the Father and the Son. The particular passages will be noticed as they occur, but the verse before us and chap. iii. 35 are sufficient to show clearly the general principle ruling this whole class. Here, as the context brings into relief the essential relation between the Son and the Father, that word is chosen which most befits the unity of their Being. In iii. 35, again, the context fixes our attention on Him whom God hath 'sent :' not the essence but the work of the Son is the leading thought, — not the Word ' in the beginning with God, but the Only-begotten Son given that the world might be saved : the other word, therefore, is there used. — And he will shew him greater works than these. The word ' showeth ' in the first part of the verse includes all time : here the future tense is used, not as pointing to a change in the relation of the Son to the Father, as if the 'showing' and the 'seeing ' would in the future grow in completeness and intensity, but only because the eternal purpose of the Father for mankind is fulfilled in time, and because the Saviour is looking at successive stages of His work, as developed in human history. — The 'greater works' must not be understood to mean simply greater acts, more wonderful miracles, all that we commonly understand by the miracles of Jesus being rather comprehended under the word 'these.' Further, our Lord does not say 'greater works than this ' miracle, but greater works than 'these: ' and lastly, to compare one of the Saviour's miraculous deeds with another, to divide them into greater and less, is altogether foreign to the spirit of the Gospels. The key to the meaning of the 'greater works ' is given by the following verses ; they include the raising of the dead, the giving of life, the judgment.— That ye may marvel. The a of these greater works, of this higher and more complete manifestation of Jesus, is ' that ye may marvel.' 'Ye,' as throughout this dis- course, is an address to those who opposed Him, who 'would not come 'to Him, who refused to believe Flis words. The meaning of 'marvel,' therefore, does not differ from that which we observed in chap. iii. 7 : it is not the wonder of admiration and faith, but the marvelling of aston- ishment and awe. Ver. 21. For even as the Father raiseth tip the dead and maketh to live, so the Son also niaketh to live whom he will. This verse begins the explanation of the ' greater works ' which the Father ' will show ' unto the Son. In speaking of these, however, the present not the future tense is used, for some of them are even now present in their beginnings, though future in their complete manifestation. The first example of these works of the Father, which ' the Son also doeth in like- manner,' is raising up the dead and making to live. Are the words to be understood in their ordinary sense, or are they figurative ? This ques- tion can only be answered from the context. On one side ver. 25 is decisive, death being there used of a spiritual state, and not with a physical refer- ence only. On the other hand, ver. 28 unques- tionably speaks of the raising of the dead out of 63 their graves. As, therefore, the verses which follow ver. 21 certainly contain an expansion and exposition of the first words of the discourse (vers. 17, 19-21), the general terms of ver. 21 must be employed in their widest sense, including both a physical and a spiritual resurrection and gift of life. This is the more natural, as the miracle of healing has been the fountain of the discourse, and we have seen that in such miracles of oui Lord the physical and spiritual worlds are in a remarkable way brought together. — The work spoken of is divided into two parts, the raising and the giving of life. The former word 'raising' is that used in ver. S (' Rise '), and is the first part of the command which then gave life. It is the word rendered 'awake' in Eph. v. 14, a passage which the verse before us at once recalls. Whether used literally or in reference to a spiritual resur- rection, it denotes the first step in the process of ' making to live.' Either word might stand by itself to indicate the work : neither in 2 Cor. i. 9, 'God which raiseth the dead,' nor in Rom. iv. 17, 'God who maketh the dead to live,' is an imper- fect act described. But the description is more vivid here, as we see first the transition and then the completed gift. In the language of this Gospel, ' life ' has so deep a significance that ' maketh to live ' must not be limited to the initial 'quickening,' — it is the whole communication of the fulness of life. If this view be correct, we can find no difficulty in the omission of the word ' raiseth ' in the second half of the verse. Once mentioned, it presents the work of giving life so vividly, that afterwards the one word 'maketh-to- live ' is sufficient to bear all the meaning. So in ver. 8 and ver. II. The command to the sick man had been, 'Rise and . . . walk:' when the result is described and the command related by him who has been healed, nothing is said of the arising, for it is included in the gift of life. God 'maketh alive' (Deut. xxxii. 39; I Sam. ii. 6) : ' God hath given to us eternal life ' (1 John v. 11). However understood, whether physically or spiritually, this is the work of the Father ; both in the physical and in the spiritual sense, it is also, we now learn, the work of the Son. In one respect the later part of the verse is not less but more detailed than the earlier. No one can doubt that 'whom He will ' lies implicitly in the first words, but the thought is expressed in regard to the Son only ; and the best illustration of it as applied to Ilim is given by the narrative itself. Amongst the crowd of sick Jesus chose out one especially wretched and consciously helpless, and bestowed on him the free gift of life. So (Matt. xi. 25) the wise and prudent are passed by, and babes a objects of the Fathers merciful will. The Son's will is the manifestation of the Father's purpose. There is no suggestion of an absolute decree. The cure of the sick man was to a certain extent de- pendent on his own will : ' Hast thou a will to be made whole?' (ver. 6). The same will to be quickened is necessary to all to whom the will to quicken on the part of the Son extends. What is the source of the will in them is a question not raised : enough that the light appears, and they are attracted to the light and open their hearts to receive it. Ver. 22. For moreover the Father judgeth no one, but hath given all judgment unto the Son. This verse must be taken in connection with the 19th, 'The Son can of Himself do 64 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN. [Chap. V. 19-47 nothing save what He seelh the Father doing.' By thus connecting the two verses, it becomes plain that our Lord does not assert that judgment is not in a certain sense exercised by the Father, but that the Father lias not reserved judgment to Himself, — that with all other things, it too is given unto the Son. The Father showeth the Son all things that Himself doeth : from this com- plete manifestation nothing is excepted, — not even that final arbitrament which is the prerogative of the Supreme. Hence there is no contradiction between this verse and ver. 30 below, where Jesus says, ' 1 can of mine own sell do nothing ; as 1 hear, 1 judge ; ' nor will viii. 50 present any diffi- culty. By 'judgment,' as in chap. iii. 17, [8, iu, we must certainly understand a judgment that issues in condemnation : the parallelism between iii. iS, 'He that believeth in Him is not judged,' and ver. 24, 'He that hcareth my word and be- lieveth Him that sent me hath eternal life, and cometh not into judgment,' is remarkably close. All judgment future and present, the final award with all that foreshadows it, the Father hath given, by a bestowal which can never be revoked, unto the Son. The connection between the 22d and the 21st verses is now plain. The Son maketh to live whom He will ; but there are some on whom He does not bestow life (compare ver. 40) ; them therefore He judges, Fie con- demns, — for not even is this Divine prerogative withholden from Him ; nay, all judgment hath been given unto the Son. Ver. 23. That all may honour the Son even as they honour the Father. These words ex- press the purpose of the Father in giving all judg- ment to the Son. They remind us of the closing words of ver. 20, which also express His purpose, but there is a significant difference between the two verses. There we read ' that ye may marvel,' here 'that all may honour:' there it is the con- fusion and amazement of foes, here it is the honour rendered by all whether foes or friends. It is true, indeed, that the 'judgment 'of ver. 22 im- plies condemnation, and that, by consequence, this verse might seem to relate to foes only and not obedient subjects in the kingdom of God. Hut the 'all' is rightly introduced, for when judgment has compelled the honour of unwilling adoration, much more may it be expected that willing hearts will see the unity of the Father and the Son, and will honour the Son even as they honour the Father. — He that honoureth not the Son, honoureth not the Father which sent him. It was in their zeal for the honour of the F'ather, as they supposed, that the Jews refused to honour Him who was God's Son. But so truly one are the Father and the Son, that all who dishonour the Son dishonour the Father. The Father orders all tilings as He does that He whom He sent into the world may receive equal honour with Himself; and all who refuse honour to the Son resist the Father's purpose. Similar words are found in one of the earlier Gospels (Luke x. 16), yet no teach- ing is more characteristic of the fourth. Ver. 24. Verily, verily, I say unto you. The second 'Verily, verily,' introducing the second step in the argument. — He that heareth my word, and believeth Him that sent me, hath eternal life, and cometh not into judgment, but hath passed out of death into life. This verse 1 close connection with the last, the word ' Him that sent me' taking up the similar words in ver. 23 ; and those who by hearing Christ's words give honour to the Father being set over against those who were there spoken of as dishonouring the F'ather. But the verse has also a very im- portant connection with the three preceding verses. They have stated the work of the Son as it has been given Hi in by the Falher; this states the same work in its effeet upon believers. The comparison of the terms employed in the several verses is very instructive, and the advance from a principle asserted of the Son to the same principle viewed in its application to men is most perceptible. The Son maketh to live the dead, even those whom He will (ver. 21) : he that heareth His word hath eternal life, and hath passed out of his state of death into life (ver. 24). All judgment is given unto the Son (ver. 22) : into this judg- ment he that believeth does not come (ver. 24). There is special significance in the words ' be- lieveth Him that sent me :' our Lord does not say 'believeth in Him,' for that which Fie has in view is the acceptance of God's testimony con- cerning the Son (1 John v. 10). Such hearing and believing imply the full acceptance of Christ, and thus lead directly to that ' believing in the Son ' which (chap. iii. 36) gives the present pos- session of eternal life. The believer has passed into a state to which judgment does not apply ; he has received into himself that word which (chap. xii. 4S) will at the last day judge all who reject it. Believing in Christ, he has life in Him, and to all that are in Christ Jesus there is no condemnation (Rom. viii. 1). Ver. 25. Verily, verily, I say unto you. The third 'Verily, verily,' introducing the third step in the argument. — An hour cometh, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that have heard shall live. What was said of ver. 24 applies here also ; for this verse has a direct connection with that which precedes it ('heareth my word ' rises into 'shall hear the voice of the Son of God ') ; and yet a still more important link unites it with the open- ing words of the discourse, especially with ver. 20, ' He will show Him greater works.' In the 21st ami 22! verses, these works are looked at in their own nature as done by the Son ; in the 24th verse, they are looked at in their effect on the believer. Now, the ' will show ' is brought into prominence, for it is of the historical fulfilment of those words that the verse before us speaks. ' An hour cometh ' when the Son's power to give life to the dead (ver. 21) shall be manifested. Of the two spheres in which this power is exercised this verse has in view one only ; the ' dead ' are those who are spiritually dead. In regard to these alone could it be said that the hour has already begun ('an hour cometh, and 11020 is'), or would the limitation in the last words be in place, ' they that have heard shall live.' The general meaning therefore is the same as that of the last verse ; but, as it is to ' the dead ' that the Son speaks, we here read of 'the voice' and not 'the word,' In say- ing ' the voice of the Son of God,' Jesus recalls to our thought all the majesty of His first words (vers. 11,' 17, 19). \ er. jo. For even as the Father hath life in himself; so gave he to the Son also to have life in himself. The dead shall hear the voice of the Son and live, for the Son hath life and can impart life. This is the ci ection between verses 25 and 20. The Father win- is the primal fountain Chap. V. 19-47.] THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN. of life gave to the Son to have life in Himself. As in verses 19, 20, 21, that which belongs to the Father and that which belongs to the Son are designated by the same words, while the subordi- nation expressed in verses 19, 20, by the figurative words 'showing' and 'seeing,' is here (as in ver. 22) expressed by the word 'gave.' It is therefore the essential nature of the Son that is spoken of, and not His work in redemption. — ' To have life in Himself is the loftiest expression that can be used : the unchangeable possession of life exactly similar and parallel to that of the Father, such possession as enables Him to be the Giver of life to others, belongs to the Son. Ver. 27. And he gave him author ity to execute judgment, because he is a son of man. The Son 'maketh to live,' but Hemaketh tu live ' whom He will ' (ver. 21), or (as we read in ver. 25), Hegiveth life to those who have heard His voice, and not to all. Where, then, He is not the Giver of life, He is necessarily the Judge. The one thought involves the other, both in verses 21, 22, and here. The Father who gave to the Son the possession of life gave Him judgment also. This we read in the 22d verse, but the truth now wears a new form ; for, although the word ' gave ' is repeated in ver. 27, it is in relation to a gift and a sphere altogether different from those of which the 26th verse speaks. There the essential attributes of the Son are before us, including the prerogatives of the Word made flesh : here we read of a gift which belongs to time and not eternity, a gift which the Son receives 'because He is a son of man.' The former verses that speak of giving life and of judging (21, 22) may have an extent of application of which we know nothing ; this verse relates to the judgment of men by One who is very man. Such is the force of the words 'a son of man.' In every other passage of this Gospel it is ' the Son of man' of whom we read : here only, and in Rev. i. 13, xiv. 14, is the definite article wanting. No expression brings out so strongly the possession of actual human nature, and for this purpose it is employed. God's will is to judge the world by ' a man whom He ordained ' (Acts xvii. 31) ; and the verse before us, though comprehending much more than the last judgment, seems, as may be inferred from the peculiarity of the expression ' execute ' or ' perform judgment ' (literally ' do judgment '), and from the presence of this thought in the immediate context (vers. 28, 29), to look especially towards the final scene. But the judg- ment is one that issues in condemnation, and it is the Father's will that ' a son of man ' shall pro- nounce the sentence, as one who has taken on Himself human nature in all its reality and com- pleteness, in all its faculties, affections, and feel- ings. Because He has done so, He is fitted to be a Judge of men, and to draw from the consciences of the guilty an acknowledgment of the righteous- ness of their doom. As the Son of God having life in Himself, He gives life, and those who are united to Him by faith have possession of a life that is divine. But as a son of man He judges; as One who has been in the same position with those standing at His bar, as One who has fought the same battle and endured the same trials as they. Thus they behold in their Judge One who entirely knows them ; His s< ntence finds an echo in their heart ; and they are speechless. Thus it is that judgment becomes really judgment, and not merely the infliction of punishment by resistless power. vol. 11. 5 Ver. 2S. Marvel not at this. Jesus has been speaking of works at which they may well marvel (ver. 20) ; but great as these may be, there is yet a gTeater. — Because an hourcometh, in the which all that are in the gTaves shall hear his voice. That the future alone is spoken of is clear from the omission of the words ' and now is ' found in ver. 25. The resurrection is not spiritual and figurative, for the words are ' all that are in the graves, ' not ' all that have heard, ' — ' shall go forth, ' not 'shall live.' The consummation of the work of Jesus is the general resurrection both of the righteous and the wicked. Now all shall hear His voice, to which before (ver. 25) some only had given heed. All shall go forth, but not all to a resurrection of life. Ver. 29. And they that have done good shall go forth unto a resurrection of life; but they that have committed evil unto a resurrection of judgment. Those who have committed evil, whose deeds have not been the abiding fruit and work of the truih, but merely the repeated mani- festation of evil in its vanity and worthlessness (see iii. 20), shall go forth to a resurrection to which belongs abiding judgment. And these alone come into judgment (compare ver. 24). As in iii. 18 it is said that 'he that believeth in Him is not judged,' so here, ' they that have done good shall go forth unto a resurrection of life.' The difference between the two passages is, that in the one the faith is named ; in the other, the works which are the expression of the life that follows faith, the abiding fruit of faith. It will be observed that the expressions ' resurrection of life ' and ' resurrection of judgment ' denote states, not acts, of resurrection. No general judgment, therefore, is here mentioned : all that is spoken of is a general resurrection, on the part of some to a con- tinuing life, of others to a continuing judgment. Ver. 30. I can of mine own self do nothing : as I hear, I judge : and my judgment is just. This verse is the dividing line of the discourse, belonging at once to both parts, summing up (to a certain extent) what has gone before, leading on to the new subject which occupies the remainder of the chapter. The last word spoken was 'judg- ment.' Jesus now returns to it, and it is not strange that He should do so. He is speaking in the presence of the Jews, His determined foes, who refuse life, whom He judges and cannot but judge. Hence this lingering on judgment, and the recurrence to the first thought of the discourse (ver. 19), so as to show that this judgment is not of Himself, but belongs both to the Father and to the Son. — The figure of ver. 19 is changed. There ' seeing ' was the word chosen, as most in harmony with the general thought of works done ; here it is of judging that Jesus speaks, and hence the same thought of communion with the Father is best expressed by 'hearing.' One characteristic of this verse is so marked as of itself to prove that the verse is closely related to those which follow. From the beginning of the discourse (ver. 19) Jesus has spoken of the Father and the Son. Now He directly fixes the eyes of His hearers upon Him- self (' I can,' ' I hear,' ' I judge ') ; and this mode of speech is retained to the very end of the chapter. — Because I seek not mine own will, but the will of him that sent me. That His works have not been and cannot be against the authority and will of God, Jesus has shown by pointing out their essential unity with those of the THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN. [Chap. V. 19-47. 66 Father (ver. 19). That the judgment He must pass is just, He has shown by the same proof, — 'as I hear I judge.' But a second proof is now given, or rather (perhaps) a second aspect of the same truth is brought into relief, that thus His words of rebuke and warning may be more effectually addressed to the Jews. His action is never sepa- rate from that of the Father, — there can be no variance: His will is ever the will of His Father, — there can be no self-seeking. It was because the opposite spirit dwelt and reigned in the Jews that they were rejecting Him, and bringing judg- ment on themselves. — The transition to the first person, ' I,' ' my,' suggests an objection that would arise in the minds of the Jews. This is met in the verse that follows. Ver. 31. If I bear witness concerning myself, my witness is not true. The word ' I ' is em- phatic, — ' if it is I that bear witness.' The words plainly mean 'I and I alone,' for no one is dis- credited because he testifies to himself, although he is not credited if no other witness appears on his behalf. The Jews may have understood Jesus to mean: If I have no other witness to testify con- cerning me, my testimony cannot claim to be received. But there is more in His words. In the consciousness of oneness with the Father, He would say that if it were possible that His own witness should stand alone, unaccompanied by that of the Father, it would be self-convicted, would not be true : He, in making the assertion, would be false, for He is one with the Father, and His statement, as that of one win 1 was false, would be false also. He must therefore show that the witness He bore to Himself was really borne to Him by the Father : the Father's witness even the Jews will acknowledge to be true. To this, there- fore, He proceeds. Ver. 32. It is another that beareth witness concerning me. Not ' There is another,' as if He would merely cite an additional witness. He would lay the whole stress ot the witnessing upon this ' other witness. ' This witness is the Father, —not John the Baptist, who is mentioned in the next verse only that it may be shown that his testimony is not that on which Jesus relies. — And I know that the witness which he witnesseth concerning me is true. These words are not said in attestation of the Father's truth, a point admitted by all : they are the utterance of the Son's profound consciousness of His own dignity and union with the Father. Ver. 33. Ye have sent unto John, and he hath borne witness unto the truth. As if He said : Had I not this all-sufficient witness, — were it possible for me to appeal to any human witness, I might rest on your own act. Ye yourselves have made appeal to John, and he hath borne witness to the truth (chap. i. 19-27). Your mission and his answer are unalterable and abiding facts, which press upon you still and cannot be set aside. What he attested is the truth. Jesus does not say 'hath borne witness to me,' perhaps be- cause that to which John bore witness was only a revelation from God (compare chap. i. 34), a declaration of the truth which he had received from God ; perhaps because the whole lesson of this passage is that there is only one real witness to Jesus, even the Father speaking in the Son and drawing out the answer of the heart to Him. Ver. 34. But not from a man do I receive the witness. Great as was the witness of this greatest of prophets, yet John was only a man, and his witness therefore is not the real testimony to Jesus; it is a higher which is given Him, and which He receives (comp. ver. 36). Hence the definite article before 'witness.' — Howbeit these things I say that ye may be saved. Insufficient as was John's testimony for the production of faith in its deepest and truest sense, yet Jesus had referred to it, recognising its value as part of the Divine arrangements for leading men to Himself. It ought to have brought them to Jesus : and then, as they listened to His own word, the true and complete witness would have been given. The following words set forth more fully the true position of the Baptist, in his value and in his imperfection. Ver. 35. He was the lamp that burneth and shineth. John's great work had been to bear witness of Jesus, to point to Him. By a sudden transition this is expressed very beautifully in a figure. As the Psalmist said of God's word that it was a lamp unto his feet and a light unto his path (I's. cxix. 105), showing him the right path, preserving his feet from wandering, so does Jesus represent John's mission here. The lamp has been supplied with oil and has been lighted for a special purpose ; it is not self-luminous, shining because it is its nature to give light. The lamp too burns as it shines ; its light is transitory, and may well be so, because in proportion as its purpose is accomplished may the light diminish : when its end is answered, the lamp may be ex- tinguished (comp. iii. 30). — And ye desired for a season to exult in his light. Alas ! for them the lamp failed to fulfil its purpose. Instead of learn- ing the way to Jesus by its means, they thought only of the light itself. No doubt this light was beautiful and attractive, but it had been designed only to guide to Him who would prove 'the true light' unto all that followed Him (chap. i. 9, viii. 12). The Jews are evidently censured, but not (as some maintain) because they had exulted in- stead of mourning. There had been no call to mourning. The very exhortation to repentance, to prepare for the coming of Him for whom Israel had long waited, contained in it ' glad tidings of great joy.' The transient acceptance of John him- self, instead of the acceptance of his message in its true and permanent significance, is the fault for which the Jews are here condemned. Ver. 36. But the witness that I have is greater than that of John. Our Lord does not say ' I have greater witness than that of John,' as if He was about to specify additional testimony of greater weight than the Baptist's. No, that testimony to the truth was good, was useful (vers. 33, 34!, but ' the witness ' which He has — the only witness to which He appeals — belongs altogether to another order, not human, but Divine. Other witness may prepare the heart, external testimony may point the way, but there is only one evidence offered by Jesus Himself.— For the works that the Father hath given me to accomplish, the very works that I do, bear witness concerning me, that the Father hath sent me. The evidence is works that the Father hath given Him to accom- plish ; and these works are His evidence, not as external evidence merely, but because, as expressive of the Father in Him, they appeal to that inner light in men which ought to have led men to recognise the Father in the Son. ( >f these ' works' miracles are one part, but not the whole. In two Chap. V. 19-47.] THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN. 67 other passages our Lord uses similar language to this, speaking of the 'accomplishment' of the work of the Father (chap. iv. 34) or of the work which the Father hath given Him to do (chap, xvii. 4) ; and in both the work is more than mira- cles. True, we read in these of 'the work,' not 'the works,' but the difference is not essential : the many works are the many portions of the one work. Nor need we go beyond this discourse itself to see that the very widest meaning must be assigned to 'works.' The keynote is struck by ver. 17, which speaks of the 'working' of the Father and the Son ; and in ver. 20 we read of the ' greater works ' which the Father will show unto the Son. The ' works ' then here denote all that has been referred to in earlier verses (20-30), whether present or future, the works of quickening, raising, judging, all that the Son does and will do until the purpose of the Father is accomplished and the redemptive work complete. These works, being manifestations of His own nature, are essen- tially different from all external testimony what- ever. — Such as they are, they have been 'given' Him by the Father to accomplish : they are de- scribed not as a charge but as a gift (as in verses 22, 26, 27) : and they are the very works which He is now doing and habitually does. Special significance attaches to these added words, ' the very works that I do,' for they show that the witness given by the Father to the Son is given in ' works ' now presented to their view. Every word and every deed of Jesus is, as a work, blar- ing testimony to the truth that the Father hath sent Him ; for, where the heart of the beholder is prepared, every work reveals the presence of the Father, and is manifestly a work of God. Ver. 37. And the Father which sent me, lie hath borne witness concerning me. As if Jesus said : And thus, in the abiding gift of the 'works,' it is the Father that sent me that hath borne wit- ness of me. — 'Hath borne witness' corresponds with 'hath given ;' each points to the continued possession of a gift bestowed, the Father's abiding presence with Him whom He 'sent' and 'sealed ' (chap. vi. 27). Hence we must not suppose that a new witness of the Father — ' direct ' (as some say), in contrast with the ' mediate ' testimony of the works— is here intended. If the 'works' in- clude the whole manifestation of the Son, the whole of the tokens of the Father's presence in Him and with Him, they are no 'mediate' testi- mony ; no testimony can be more direct.— Never have ye either heard a voice of him or seen a form of him. The lather has borne witness, but they have not known His presence. In the words of Jesus He has spoken, and the ear not closed through wilfulness and unbelief would have recog- nised the voice of God. In the actions ami the whole life of Jesus He has manifested Himself, and the spiritual eye, the man 'pure in heart,' would have 'seen God.' It had been otherwise with ' the Jews.' Whilst our Lord had been work- ing in their midst they had heard no voice of the Father, they had seen no form of Him. This was a proof that they had never received in their hearts God's revelation of Himself. Had they done so, had they (to use our Lord's figurative language, — no doubt suggested by the thought of the words which He had spoken and the miracles which He had shown to them) ever been ac- quainted with the Father's voice, they would have tecognised it when Jesus spoke: had the eyes of their understanding ever been enlightened so as to see God, they would have seen the Father mani- fested in their very presence in His Son. What is in these two clauses couched in figurative terms the next clause expresses clearly. Ver. 38. And ye have not his word abiding in you ; because whom he sent, him ye believe not. ' Word ' here must not be understood as directly signifying the Scriptures of the Old Testa- ment : it is rather the substance of God's whole revelation of Himself, however and wherever made. This revelation received into a believing heart becomes God's word in the man, and to this word answers The Word, in whom God has per- fectly revealed Himself (compare Heb. i. I, 2). By all previous teaching concerning Himself God has prepared the way for man's reception of Hi, Son. He who did not recognise the Son as the Sent of God, showed by this very sign that the preparatory work had not been effected in him, — that he had not God's word abiding in his heart. So in the next chapter Jesus teaches that ' every one that hath heard from the Father, and hath learned, cometh unto Him' (chap. vi. 45). The refusal therefore of the Jews to believe Him, that is, to accept His claims, is of itself a proof that they have had no spiritual aptitude for discerning the presence and the revelation of God. It will be seen that, as in the first clause of ver. 37 we cannot accept the view that a new witness is in- troduced, different from the works, so here we cannot believe that the ' voice,' ' form,' and ' word ' are to be limited to the manifestation of God in the Scriptures of the Old Testament. No doubt this is the most prominent and important part of our Lord's meaning, but we must not exclude God's revelation of Himself in providence and in the heart of man, for in all things He had pointed to His Son. It should be mentioned that some have sup- posed the clause ' never have ye heard a voice of Him ' to refer to the voice of God at the Baptism of our Lord. But such an interpretation is surely impossible. The tone of the two verses here is one of reproach ; but that voice was not intended for the ears of the Jews, and their failure to hear it was no matter of rebuke. This explanation, too, would not diminish but increase the difficulty of the words 'or seen a form of Him,' words startling to every Israelite (compare Deut. iv. 12), and, we believe, only to be accounted for when regarded as closely connected with and suggested by the words and deeds of Jesus. Ver. 39. Te search the Scriptures. The link connecting this verse with the last is the mention of God's 'word.' We have seen that our Lord had referred in a marked though not an exclusive manner to the Scriptures. To the Jews indeed it might seem that He intended to speak of these alone ; and that He should deny Jews the glory which they esteemed most highly, by declaring that they had not God's 'word' abiding in them, would arouse their wonder and their wrath. Now, therefore, Jesus allows them the praise that was their due, but shows also that the very possession of which they boasted had been so used by them as to increase their condemnation. — Because ye think that in them ye have eternal life : and it is they which bear witness concerning me. Ver. 40. And ye will not come to me, that ye may have life. The Jews did search the sacred writings, — to do so was their honour and their THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN. [Chap. V. 19-47 06' pride. Their own belief was that in possessing them they possessed eternal life ; as one of their greatest teachers said, ' He who has gotten to himself words of the Law has gotten to himself the life of the world to come.' But these very Scriptures were the writings that bore witness concerning Jesus (see the note on ver. 38). Had they entered into their spirit, they would havejoy- fully welcomed Him ; yet they refused to come (it was not their will to come, — see ver. 6) to Him P ir life. Such is the general meaning of the verses. The Jews had used the witness of the Scriptures as they had dealt with that given by the Baptist (ver. 35). What was designed as a means had been made by them an end ; what should have led them to Christ detained them from Him. In a certain sense the Scriptures did contain eternal life, in that they bore witness of Him who was the true bestower of this gift ; but as long as men busied themselves with the words of Scripture to the neglect of its purpose, believing that the former would give all they needed and sought, the Scrip- tures themselves kept them back from life. — It is a little difficult to decide what is the reason for the emphasis which in the original is laid on ' ye ' ('ye think that,' etc.). The meaning may be : ye yourselves set such honour on the Scriptures that ye think eternal life is found in them. In this case an argument is founded on their own ad- missions. Or our Lord may intend to refer to this doctrine respecting the Scripture as their belief only, not the truth, not His teaching ; ye think that in the Scriptures ye have eternal life, but it is not truly so, — eternal life is given by me alone. The latter meaning seems most in harmony with the context. So understood, the words do indeed rebuke that view of Scripture which rests every- thing on the letter, and also the inconsistency be- tween the reverence which the Jews paid to the sacred writings and their neglect of the purpose they were designed to serve ; but to the Scriptures the highest honour is assigned, for Jesus says, 'it is they which bear witness concerning me.' When thus interpreted in the sense in which it appears necessary to understand them, the words of ver. 39 supply a lesson almost the opposite of that usually drawn from them. While they exalt instead of depreciating the Scriptures, their main object is to warn us against putting them into an undue position, or supposing that they are more than a guide to Him in whom alone life is to be gained (comp. vi. 63). The ordinary rendering of the first word ('Search' for 'Ye search') seems alto- gether inconsistent with the course of thought in these verses. Ver. 41. Glory from men I receive not. The last nine verses have been an expansion of ver. 31; this verse goes back to the 30th, in which Jesus first contrasts His spirit with theirs, His devotion to the Father's will with their self-seeking. The rest of the chapter is a development of this thought. Yet there is no abrupt break at ver. 40. Jesus has been speaking of the refusal of the Jews to 'believe' Him and 'come to' Him as the sufficient and certain evidence of the evil of their hearts. Hut in so speaking He is not aiming at His own honour, or seeking fame from men. In every claim for Himself He seeks His Father's glory ; and the possession of that spirit is the test of the truth and righteousness which are well-pleasing to the Father: see chap. vii. IS, xii. 4;. Ver. 42. But I know you, that ye have not the love of God in you. I know, — that is, I have discerned you, I have read your hearts. Love to God is the foundation of the spirit of self-sacrifice, through which a man seeks not his own but the Father's will. When love to God rules, therefore, the guiding principle is not the desire alter glory from men. The Jews whom our Lord was ad- dressing believed themselves zealous for God ; but in the very service which they offered Him they were guilty of self-seeking. They valued them- selves on what they presented to Him, and yet they presented net that which most of all He sought, — the love in which self is lost. What striking words are those of this verse to address to men who spent their days in searching the Scriptures and in honouring the divinely-appointed institu- tions of the Law ! Their error was that they had not entered into the spirit of these things, had not seen why God had given them, had not therefore understood that glorious righteousness of God in the presence of which man feels himself to be nothing. They had thought that to God these things were an object in themselves. They had brought God down to the level of caring for that in caring for which as his highest good a man feels himself exalted and glorified. Ver. 4j. I am come in my Father's name, and ye receive me not. Referring everything to His Father's power and presence, in everything doing His Father's will and not His own, at all times seeking His Father's glory, Jesus came 'in His Father's name.' Because that was His spirit, they did not receive Him. — If another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive. So far has self-seeking gone with them, that they can under- stand no other course of action than that which is animated by this principle. If a man come in the opposite spirit to that displayed by Jesus, — setting forth himself alone, seeking his own ends, and guided by no will but his own, though all under the guise of promoting the glory of God, — such a man they will be able to understand. They will sympathize with his motives, will even enthusias- tically embrace his cause. The other course they cannot comprehend ; so far as they do understand it, it is a constant reproach to them. This is a terrible description of those who were then the rulers of 'God's people Israel:' but, alas! the words apply with perfect fitness to the spirit which in every age of the history of Christ's Church has contended against God whilst professing to do Him service ; which in every age has tried to stop the progress of truth, — sometimes without, at other times within, the Church, — as truth has striven to pierce through forms that, once good, have with the course of time stiffened into the rigidity of death. Nothing can save from that spirit but the higher and nobler spirit breathing in the words, 'glory from man I receive ii"t.' Ver. 44. How can ye believe, receiving glory one of another? As in the preceding verses, the word receive is to be understood as implying a desire and a 'seeking' on their part. Such love of honour from men is altogether inconsistent with the ' believing ' of which our Lord speaks. He is not referring to a merely intellectual act, but to an act which is also moral, — not to believing an assertion, but to believing in Him. Where there is self-seeking there can be no true faith. — And the glory that is from the only God ye seek not. They who thus sought glory from men sou glory from 'the only God.' The Jews were the Chap. VI. i-2i.] THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN. 69 champions of the doctrine of the unity of God, and, in the very pursuits and aims which our Lord condemns, persuaded themselves that they sought the glory of Gud and merited reward. But with such aims it was impossible to please Him, and thus they missed the recompense which comes from ' the only God,' who is the ' only ' dispenser of true glory. Ver. 45. Do not think that I will accuse yon to the Father : there is one that accuseth you, even Moses, in whom ye have placed your hope. These words do not diminish, but increase the severity of our Lord's condemning words. Their objects of trust have been successively taken away. They have the Scriptures, but they have so used them as to miss their whole design ; they are rejecting Him of whom they witness, and are offering to God a labour and a zeal which have no value in His sight. The chief tenet in their faith is that 'God is one' (Deut. vi. 4; Jas. ii. 19); but, in the absence of the 'love of God' from their hearts, their zeal for orthodox faith has not gained for them the 'glory that is from the only God.' There has been more, however, than mis- use and loss. Their very lawgiver Moses, in whom they had set their hope, is already their accuser before God. No further accusation is needed. No more crushing blow could be given to their pride. Moses their accuser before God ! Yet it was so. When we refuse to enter into all the parts of God's plan, the very parts of it for whose sake our refusal is given, and whose honour we imagine we are maintaining, turn round upon us and disown our aid. Ver. 46. For if ye believed Moses, ye would believe me : for he wrote concerning me. Our Lord, no doubt, refers in part to special predict! ins (such as that of Deut. xviii. 15, 18) ; but mure especially He refers to the whole revelation con- tained in the books of Moses, and by parity of reasoning to the whole Old Testament — the Scriptures of ver. 39. In all the revelation given through him Moses wrote concerning Jesus. His great purpose was to prepare the way for the true Prophet and Priest and King of Israel. Christ was 'the end of the law.' Had, therefore, the Jews 'believed Moses,' — that is, accepted his witness in its true character, and entered into its spirit, — they would have been led by that pre- paratory prophetic teaching to believe the Christ of whom Moses wrote. Ver. 47. But if ye believe not his writings, how will ye believe my words? If however they did not truly believe the written word, which was constantly in their hands, which was the object of so much reverence, which, as written, could be studied again and again for the removal of every difficulty and the investigation of every claim, then might it well be expected that they would refuse to receive the words which Jesus spoke. Chapter VI. a Ver. 23 ;_ b Matt. iv. : The Feeding of the Five Thousand. 1 A FTER these things Jesus went over 1 the sea of Galilee, 2 1~\ which is the sea of ° Tiberias. And * a great multi- tude followed him, because they saw his miracles 2 which he 3 did on them that were diseased. 3 And Jesus went up into 4 a 4 mountain, and there he sat with his disciples. c And s e Chap. ii. 13. 5 the passover, a 6 feast of the Jews, was nigh. d When <*Matt. xiv. Jesus then 7 lifted up his eyes, and saw a great company Mark'™. come 8 unto him, he 9 saith unto 'Philip, Whence shall we 10 i-ukelx. 6 buy bread, that these may eat? And" this he said to «tW.i. 43. 7 prove 13 him : for he himself knew what he would 13 do. Philip answered him, Two hundred pennyworth of bread is not suffi- cient for them, that every one of them u may take a little. 8 One of his disciples, / Andrew, Simon Peter's brother, saith /Chap. ;. ■ &■ 26 hither ? Jesus answered them and said, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Ye seek me, not because ye saw the miracles, 10 but 27 because ye did eat of the loaves, and were filled. 11 Labour' 2 not for the meat' 3 which ' perisheth, but for that meat which >•• '5 b £ cha P- '• S«- shall ; 'G"ive unto you : ' for him hath God the Father sealed. *Chap.x.a8. o J 1 Chap. v. 37, 28 Then said they " unto him, What shall 19 we do, that we *■ j6 - 29 might 19 work the* works of God? Jesus answered and said i ^c£ll*\£j : unto them, This is the * work of God, that ye / believe on 20 /chap";f#. 30 him whom he hath 21 sent. They said therefore unto him, ', jX, iii. '" What sign shewest thou then, 22 that we may see, and believe „,cha P . a. ,8. 31 thee? what dost thou work? "Our fathers did eat manna 23 Jdlfja 1 *"" in the desert ; 21 as it is written, * He gave them bread from 2: ' Lu'klxxiii.s. 32 heaven to eat. Then Jesus 2 ' 5 said unto them, Verily, verily, I "ex^xvl'iV say unto you, Moses gave you not that* 7 bread from 25 heaven ; p s .'ixxvm.' but my Father giveth you the true 2S bread from " heaven. 29 33 For the bread of God is -''he 30 which cometh down from 25 ^Jg™- 5 °< 5I - 34 heaven, and giveth life unto q the world. r Then said they 31 J chap.' iv.% 35 unto him, Lord, evermore give us this bread. And 32 Jesus said unto them, s I am the bread of life: 'he that cometh 33 to me *-," 4 ?- ' t Chap. iv. 14. shall never 34 hunger; and he that believeth on 35 me shall 36 never 36 thirst. " But I said unto you, That ye also have 37 seen " Ver - 26 - 37 me, and believe not. All "that 88 the Father giveth me shall "Slip. 3 * 29, come to me; and him that cometh 3 ' to me I will in no wise o™ 4 . 2 ' 6,7 ' 38 cast out. For I w came 40 down from heaven, x not to do mine £°™?' vers ' 39 own will, but the will of him that sent me. And this is the "chap. ™ '30.' Father's will which hath sent me, 41 that -''of 42 all 43 which he y See cha P- hath "given me 1 44 should lose nothing, but should raise it up 40 again 45 at z the last day. And 46 this is the will of him that ■ y" s d 4 °' 44, sent me, 47 that every one which seeth 48 the Son, and believeth "J 24 ' xiL on 49 him, may 50 have "everlasting 51 life: and I will 52 raise him " ^ h e a r p 2 7 ;i : 6 up at z the last day. 9 they themselves got into the little boats 10 ye saw signs n satisfied 12 Work 13 eating 14 the eating which abideth 15 eternal 16 for him the Father, God, did seal ,7 They said therefore 18 must 19 may 20 in 21 omit hath !2 What then doest thou as a sign 23 the manna - 1 wilderness !s out of 26 Jesus therefore 2 " the 2S omit true 20 add, the true bread. 30 that 31 They said therefore 32 omit And 33 is coming 34 shall in no wise 35 in 3e shall in no wise ever 37 that ye have indeed 3S All that which 39 is coming 40 Because I have come 41 is the will of him that sent me 42 omit of 43 all that 44 me, of it I 4 - 5 omit again 4S For 47 will of my Father 4S beholdeth 49 in 50 should M eternal 52 and that I should 7 6 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN. [Chap. VI. 22-71. 41 The Jews then" murmured at" him, because he said, I am 42 the bread which came down from " heaven. And they said, 6 Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother *^ u - " !1 we know? how is it then that he saitly" 5 I came 57 down from" 43 heaven? Jesus therefore 58 answered and said unto them, 44 Murmur not among yourselves. c No man 59 can come to me, ' Cm>P- ™. except the Father which hath" sent me draw 61 him: and I 45 will raise him up at " the last day. ''It is written in the dl ^ |^* Ji prophets, And they shall be all 62 taught of God. 'Every f« : 2 Micah man therefore that 63 hath heard,'' 1 and hath learned of the'' Ver - 37 - 46 Father, 65 cometh unto me. /Not that any man 66 hath seen /{ £* v ^l' the Father, save he which is of 67 God, he hath seen the '° s \ ^jj£ 47 Father. Verily, verily, I say unto you, 4 ~ He that believeth on ',' j„hn'iv! ; 48 me'' 8 hath everlasting 6 ' life. *I am that 70 bread of life. gimp. chap. 49 ''Your fathers did eat manna 71 in the wilderness, and are "^'i'Ju.' 50 dead. 72 * This is the bread which cometh down from 73 heaven, e v' e ^ m ' 27l 40 . 51 that a man 6G may eat thereof, and not die. *I am the living iVa.lt bread which came down from 73 heaven : if any man Mj eat '* of 3 s. e ve ' this bread, he shall live for ever: and 75 the bread that I will give is my 'flesh, which I will give 76 for the life of '"the world. 'l" m ^ c l'^_ 52 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How j; "J viu.°™' 53 can this man give us his flesh to eat? Then Jesus" said unto "xfm. iii. them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye cat 73 the ' flesh \ 6 4 \ fjobn of the "Son of man, and drink 79 his blood, ye have no 80 life in ")li a7 , 54 you. 81 Whoso 92 eateth my l flesh, and drinketh my blood, "cha£. : ." ]t. "hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at f the last day. » v«s. »7, 40. 1 ' p Vcr. 39. 55 For my ' flesh is meat 83 indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. 56 He that eateth my l flesh, and drinketh my blood, "dwelleth" » ^■ I "]i hll 57 in me, and I in him. r As the living Father hath 85 sent me, "v." 15' 16. and I live by 86 the Father: so he that eateth me, s even 8; he 88 '"*"jf mi 58 shall live by 86 me. 'This is that bread which came down t g e "' v '°; s , 33i from 8a heaven : not as " your fathers did eat manna, 90 and are B ver. 31. dead: 91 he 'that eateth of 92 this bread shall live for ever. 59 These things said he in the synagogue," 3 as he taught 94 in "Capernaum. »cha P ii. i* 60 ''' Man}' therefore of his disciples, when they had 95 heard this, ,, , 53 therefore 54 concerning ss out of 5G how doth he now say 57 have come 5S omit therefore 50 No one 60 omit hath 61 shall have drawn c - all be 63 Every one that r ' 4 add from the Father ''"' omit ai the Father 06 any one 67 from e8 w»//onnie 69 eternal ro the rl the manna '•- and died 73 out of 74 shall have eaten 7S and moreover 76 omit which I will give 77 Jesus therefore 7S have eaten 79 drunk sn not sl in yourselves 82 He that 83 food 84 abideth / hath 80 because of 87 omit even 88 he also 8a out of 90 omit manna 91 and died 92 omit of ' ,! omit in the synagogue 94 was teaching in a synagogue BS omit had ' Chap. VI. 22-71.] THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN. 77 61 said, This is an hard saying ; who can hear it ? 96 When * Jesus *Chap. ii. u,. knew" in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said 98 62 unto them, Doth this y offend you? 99 What and 1 if ye shall '^^Jjj- , - 63 see 2 the Son of man ascend up 3 where z he was before? "It t %*-. is the spirit that quickeneth ; * the flesh profiteth nothing: the a fc%i}~*i; words that I speak 5 unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. 64 But b there are some of you that believe not. For x Jesus knew 'Vers. 36, 71. from the beginning who they were that believed not, and 'who cVer.71. 65 should" betray him. And he said, Therefore ''said I 7 unto <*Vers. 44 , 45- you, that no man 8 can come unto me, except it were 9 given 66 unto him of my 10 Father. 'From that time 11 many of his »Ver.6o disciples went back, and walked no more' 2 with him. 6j Then said Jesus 13 unto the twelve, Will ye also go away? 14 68 Then 15 Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we 69 go? 16 thou hast /the" words of eternal life. s And we be- /Ver. 63; lieve 18 and are sure 19 that thou art that Christ, h the Son of the Seever. 27. 70 living God. 80 Jesus answered them, Have not I chosen 21 you *'<■ 27V. 71 twelve 22 and one of you is a devil? He 23 spake of 'Judas -s. ' k Mark i. 24 ; Iscariot 2 * the son of Simon: for he it was that should * be- .Ly k tray 20 him, being 27 one of the twelve. »8 him 97 But Jesus knowing 98 concerning this, said xiiifVetc?' 93 Ooth this make you to stumble ' What then 2 if ye behold 3 ascending 4 maketh to live 5 have spoken c who it was that would 7 For this cause have I said 8 no one 9 have been 10 the n Upon this 12 no longer 13 Jesus therefore said '* Would ye also go ? Is omit Then 10 go away 17 omit the 18 have believed 19 and we know 20 that thou art the Holy One of God 21 Did not I choose 22 the twelve 23 Now he 24 omit Iscariot 25 add Iscariot 26 was about to betray 2r omit being CONTENTS. In the miracle of the multiplying Jesus, and Peter in their name makes confession of the bread Jesus has symbolically presented of his faith. Himself as the true bread of life. This thought Yer. 22. The day following, the multitude is now unfolded in the various discourses with which stood on the other side of the sea saw which the remainder of the chapter is occupied, that there was none other little bnat there, save while at the same time the effect of these discourses one, and that Jesus went not with his disciples is traced upon the different classes of hearers in- into the boat, but that his disciples went away troduccd to us. The subordinate parts of this alone. During the night of the storm the multi- section are determined by the mention of ihese tude remained near the scene of the miracle. In classes — (1) vers. 22-40, a discourse addressed to the morning they are gathered on the north-eastern the ' multitude,' which must here, as elsewhere, be coast, deliberating how Jesus might be found, carefully distinguished from the 'Jews;' (2) vers. They saw no boat on the shore save one little 41-51, a discourse to the 'Jews' who had 'mux- boat too small to hold the twelve disciples, who mured' at the words spoken to the multitude, could not therefore have returned in it to take The discourse contains the same great truths as away their Master : yet it was certain that when those previously dwelt upon, but in a sharper and the disciples set sail the evening before Jesus more pointed form ; (3) vers. 52-59, a discourse did not go with them. The natural inference was by which the 'Jews' are still further irritated. that He was still on the eastern shore, but that His Formerly they murmured ; now they strive among disciples were at Capernaum or some neighbour- themselves, and the discourse becomes still sharper ing place on the other side of the sea. and more pointed than before ; (4) vers. 60-66, Ver. 23. Howbeit there came boats from in which the effect of the truths spoken by Jesus Tiberias nigh unto the place where they did shows itself even upon the disciples, many of eat the bread, after that the Lord had given whom are so offended that they walk no more thanks. Whilst they were still in wonder and with Him; (5) vers. 67-71, — while many of the doubt, other boats came across the sea near to the disciples are thus offended, the Twelve, with the scene of the miracle of the preceding day. These exception of Judas, are drawn more closely to boats were from Tiberias, and from the boatmen who 7S THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN. [Chap. VI. 22-71. brought them the multitude would learn at once that neither Jesus nor II isdisciples had gone thither. Ver. 24. When the multitude therefore saw (hat Jesus was not there, neither his disciples, they themselves got into the little boats, and came to Capernaum, seeking for Jesus. If Jesus was neither on the eastern shore nor at Tiberias, He might be sought near Capernaum, in the direction of which town the disciples had sailed. John's words clearly imply that there was an eager and diligent search fir Jesus on the part of the multitude before they left the spot where they had witnessed His power. The prominence given to the thought of Jesus in these verses is very marked. What is said of the disciples has no independent value : their movements are described solely that light may be thrown upon those of their Waster. \\ lien convinced that it was vain further to prose- cute the search in that region, the multitude obtained possession of the smaller boats, and came to Capernaum seeking Jesus. Ver. 25. And when they had found him on the other side of the sea, they said unto him. Rabbi, when earnest thou hither ? The ' other side ' denotes the western cast. Their question on finding Jesus in Capernaum but partly ex- presses their thoughts, which would rest as much on the limn as on the ' when ' of His coming to this place. He had not left the eastern shore with His disciples ; the storm of the night must have forbidden any attempt to make the passage then ; and, as they well knew, He had not come to the western shore in their company. The question is not answered, but the eager search which it implied is made to lead the way to deeper instruction as to the miracle which had drawn them to follow Him. Ver. 26. Jesus answered them and said, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Ye seek me, not because ye saw signs, but because ye did eat of the loaves, and were satisfied. This solemn declaration is only seemingly discordant with ver. 2 or ver. 14. Those who witnessed a miracle of Jesus, and did not understand its significance, might be said to see the sign and yet not to see it. ver. 14 seems to imply a third condition of mind, intermediate between these. Those who had eaten of the loaves saw in the miracle the proof that Jesus was the Prophet wdio should come : they saw that the wonder was significant, but the words before us show that even this stood below the true perception of the 'sign.' The miracle had led the thoughts of the multitude to the power and dignity of the miracle-worker, but had suggested nothing of a higher and a spiritual work, symbolized by the materia] bounty that had been bestowed. The design of the work in its relation to the Saviour was to manifest His glory as the Giver of the highest blessings ; in its relation to the people, to fix their eyes on Him and to awaken their desire for that of which the bread had been the sign. Part of this purpose has been attained, — they hove sought Him eagerly, with toil mmpm^ ' and trouble: — He must now so complete their training that they may be led to leave the carnal and ;ei :k the spiritual, that they may be brought to behold in His deeds not merely the tokens of His ] lower to satisfy every earthly desire of His followers, but the impress of His Divine character and work. Ver. 27. Work not for the eating which perisheth. The rendering ' work ' is required to bring out the connection with the following verse, in which the same word is used. The language of the original is very expressive : — 'Work,' use all the energies of your nature, not unto partaking of perishable but of imperishable food. It is not an act of life but the active life itself that is re- ferred to, and the object of this whole life. When we bring together this verse and that which pre- cedes, we cannot doubt that our Lord, in speak- ing of working for perishable food, alludes to the labour which the multitude had undergone in their persistent search for Him. As their object Chap. VI. 22-71.] THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN. in thus seeking Him had been carnal, not spiritual, this act of theirs (good and wise in itself, — most blessed, had the aim been higher and more true) was a fitting type of their life, a life occupied with the search after material good and the satis- faction of lower wants and desires. — But for the eating which abideth, unto eternal life which the Son of man shall give unto you. In contrast with what they had sought in thus toiling to dis- cover Him, Jesus sets the feast which it is His glory to offer and of which they should be eager to partake. As in iv. 14 He had spoken of the gift of water which had power to quench for ever the recipient's thirst, so here He speaks of an eat- ing that abides and never perishes. That verse and this are closely parallel, and each helps to ex- plain the other. In the one Jesus says what the water that He giveth shall become in him that rcceiveth it : here in like manner it is not of meat that He speaks, but of 'eating,' — not of food itself, but of food appropriated. In both pass 1 ;i 5 thi words ' unto eternal life ' occur ; and in ea< li case there is some difficulty in determining wh phrase belongs to the word preceding or to the whole ■ the 1 ! hi e yet, as in the first it is pro- bable that 'life eternal ' is the end attained when the fountain is opened in the soul, so in this verse 'unto' does not seem to belong to 'abideth,' but to express the object of that 'eating' for which they may and ought to work. Not the eating that perisheth, but the eating that abideth, must absorb their labour, that they may thus win eternal life. If this is the connection intended by [ohn, we must certainly join the second relative 'which' (not with 'eating,' but) with the words that im- mediately precede, viz. 'eternal life.' There is nothing difficult in such a connection of the words: on the contrary, it is easier than any other, and best agrees with the following verses and with other passages in the Gospel. Almost uniformly in this chapter Jesus speaks of Himself as the bread of life, and of the Father as the Giver of the bread, while 'eternal life' is the result of re- ceiving Him as the living bread (vers. 33, 51, 54). A close parallel is found in chap. x. 28, ' I give unto them eternal life, ' as also in chap. xvii. 2 \ and the connection of the 'Son of man' with this gift re- minds us at once of chap. iii. 14. How this gift will become theirs the later verses explain : the two points here are that this life is obtained from tiie Son of man — from the God-man alone, and that it is a free gift from Him. This is not incon- sistent with the 'working' of which Jesus has spoken. The multitudes had toiled, in' that they had put aside all obstacles to come to Him : having come to Him they may receive His free gift. The reception of the gift is opposed to labouring for wages or for merit, but not to earnest effort. The gift can be bestowed in its fulness on those only whose one thought and one effort are bent on receiving it : were there no such activity on our part, we could not be in a position to receive the gift without destroying the nature we possess. — For him the Father, God, did seal. For this very purpose that He might be the Giver of eternal life, was He made the Son of man, was He sent by the Father into the world. (Compare chap. x. 36, xvii. 2.) He came commissioned by the Father : on Him the Father's seal was set. The reference is not to the miracle just related, as if Jesus would say that what they had themselves seen was the Father's attestation of Him, the 79 evidence which should have led them to believe in Him. This is but a small part of the truth, as what is said in chap. v. on the witness of the Father very plainly shows. There, however, the thought is made to rest on the continued and abiding testimony of the Father : here the whole attestation is looked upon as concentrated in one past act of the Father, as included and implied in the act of ' sending ' the Son : and this Father is 'God,' that God whom they themselves allowed to be the supreme source and end of all things. The special reference to the Father in tin vei , where Jesus speaks of the gift of eternal life, re- ceives its explanation from ver. 57 (which see). Ver. 2S. They said therefore unto him, What must we do, that we may work the works of God? Our Lord's answer seems to have been but little comprehended by 'the multitude.' They reply with an earnest inquiry, talc ig up all that they have understood, but missing the central point of His words. He had first bidden them work, His last word had spoken of the Divine authority He bore: thetr answer deals with 'works of God,' but contains no reference to eternal life or to the promise of a free gift from the Son of man. The works of the law were to them a familiar thought, and they understood that God through His new prophet was commandii to do some new work. Their question, 'What must we do,' shows a teachable disposition, and a willingness to learn from Him what was the will of God, But what did they mean by 'the works of God ' ? The expression is used in various senses in the Old Testament. The works of the Lord may be the works done by Him, or they may be the works which He commands and which are according to His mind. In this verse we cannot think of miracles, nor is it easy to believe that the people can have had in their thoughts the works which God produces in those who are His. In its connection here, the expression recalls such passages as Jer. xlviii. 10 ; I Cor. xv. 5S ; Rev. ii. 26. The whole phrase (with slight alteration) occurs in Num. viii. 11, in the Septuagint : 'Aaron shall offer the Levites before the Lord . . that they may work the works of the Lord.' As the meaning in these passages is the works which the Lord would have them do, as the works of the law are those which the law prescribes, so here the works of God signify those wdiich He com- mands, and which therefore are pleasing to Him. Ver. 29. Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe in him whom he sent. The one work which God would have them do is believing in Him whom He sent. The people had spoken of 'works,' thinking of outward deeds ; but that which God commands is one work, faith in Jesus. This faith leads to union with Him and participation of His Spirit, and thus includes in itself all works that are pleasing to God. We must not suppose that our Lord intends to rebuke their question, ' What must we do,' as if He would say, It is not doing, but believing. The act of believing in Jesus, the soul's casting itself on Him with perfect trust, is here spoken of as a work, as something which requires the exercise of man's will and calls forth determination and effort. It is very noticeable that these words of Jesus directly touch that thought in ver. 27, which their answer (ver. 2S) neglected. The work of theirs of which He had spoken was their toil to come to Him : He had prescribed no THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN. [Chap. VI. 22-71 So other work, but had sought to lead them to the higher object, — the attainment of the abiding nourishment, unto eternal life offered by the Son of man. So here : every disturbing or extraneous thought is put aside ; and, with even unusual directness, force, and simplicity, Jesus shows that the one cardinal requirement of the Father is the reception of the Son by faith. Ver. 30. They said therefore unto him, What then doest thou as a sign, that we may see, and believe thee? What dost thou work? '1 lie words of Jesus had now become too plain to be misunderstood. It was clear that He would turn them away from such works as they had had in view, and fix all thought upon Himself; while at the same time His words breathed no spirit of mere self-assertion, but claimed to be an expres i< m of the Divine will. Such a claim no other prophet had ever made ; such a claim can only be justified by some special sign which no one can challenge or mistake ; and the sign must correspond with the claim. The day before Jesus had been with them as a Teacher only : the miracle had con- strained them to acknowledge Him as 'the Pro- phet who should coiiie.' But the words He has just used can only suit One who i, higher even than Moses. Before they can believe Him when He thus speaks (note the significant change from 'believe in Him,' ver. 29, to 'believe thee,' i.e. accept thy claims) some sign equal to the greatest wrought by Moses, or even some greater sign, must be displayed. Ver. 31. Our fathers did eat the manna in the wilderness. Amongst the miracles wrought by Moses the Jews seem (and with reason) to have assigned to the manna a foremost place. In a Hebrew commentary on Ecclesiastes there is pre- served a saying of great interest in connection with this passage : ' As the first Redeemer made the manna to descend, as it is written, Behold I will rain bread from heaven for you ; so the later Re- deemer also shall make the manna to descend, as it is written, May there be abundance of corn in the earth' (Ps. lxxii. 19).— As it is written, He give them bread out of heaven to eat. Of the many characteristics distinguishing the miracle of the manna, one is here dwelt upon, — neither the abundance of its supply nor its continuance, but its source: it was 'bread out of heaven.' The bread with which they themselves had just been fed, though marvellously increased in quantity, was still natural bread, the bread of earth : 'bread out of heaven ' was the proof received by their fathers that their Benefactor was the God of heaven. What similar evidence could Jesus offer? The words here quoted from Scripture do not exactly agree with any passage of the Old Testament. In Ps. lxxviii. 24 we read (following the Greek version), ' And He rained for them manna to eat, and gave them bread of heaven;' and in Ex. xvi. 4, ' Behold I rain for you bread out of heaven.' The words in the verse before us are therefore substantially a quotation from the psalm, with one important change introduced from the narrative of Exodus, 'out of heaven ' for 'of heaven.' The change is important, because it points more dis- tinctly to the source of the supply and not its quality only, and because the expression 'out of heaven ' is taken up by our Lord and used by Him with marked empha i .. Ver. 32. Jesus therefore said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you. The gravity of the truth declared in this verse is indicated by the solemn ' Verily, verily,' which now occurs for the second time in this discourse. — Moses gave you not the bread out of heaven : but my Father giveth you the bread out of heaven, the true breadL If we compare these words with ver. 26, in which the formula ' Verily, verily ' is first used, we easily trace the advance in the thought. There, in general terms, the people are enjoined not to set their thought on the perishable food ; here Jesus declares that the true bread given out of heaven is not the manna, but that which His Father is at this moment offering them. In the words of ver. 31, 'he gave them bread,' the multitude may have had Moses in their thoughts ; but that is not the meaning of the psalmist, the context having the clearest reference to God. It is probable that our Lord here mentions Moses only to point out more distinctly the past and inferior gift of the manna by the servant of God, in contrast with the true bread now offered to them by the Father. It was not Moses who gave the manna ; still less had their fathers received from him the true bread of heaven. The Father, who gave to their fathers the symbol, offers the reality now. 'My Father,' Jesus says, because He is leading His hearers onwards to the truth declared in the next two verses, that the ' true bread ' given out of heaven is Himself, the Son. Ver. 33. For the bread of God is that which cometh down out of heaven, and giveth life unto the world. The ' bread of God ' is the bread which God gives (ver. 32). It is not easy to decide on the translation of this verse. The Greek equally admits of two renderings, either 'he that cometh,' or 'that (bread) which cometh.' If the former is correct, our Lord begins here to identify Himself with the 'true bread;' if the latter, the figure is retained unexplained until ver. 35. The expressions in vers. 50 and 58 do not decide the point ; for after ver. 35 the descent from heaven might with equal propriety be con- nected either with the bread or with Him whom the bread symbolized. Nor does the present tcn?e ' cometh down ' compel us to refer the word to the bread ; for Jesus might be designated ' He that cometh from heaven' (comp. chap. iii. 31) as correctly as ' He that came from heaven ; ' one description relates to nature and origin, the other to a past fact of history. On the whole, however, it seems best to carry on the thought of the bread in this verse. The very word ' come down ' is used (Ex. xvi.) in the account of the manna; and the answer of the multitude in ver. 34 seems to show that no new and (to them) strange thought has come in since the mention of the Father's gift. But if the figure is still continued in this verse, it is only a thin veil that conceals the truth. In ver. 27 the Son of man is He who gives eternal life ; here it is the bread of God that giveth life unto the world. — The last word is very significant. The manna had been for 'the fathers;' the true bread is for the world. We are remind d at once of chap. iii. 16, f God so loved the world,' and of chap. iv. 42, 'the Saviour of the world.' The unlimited offer also recalls chap. iv. 14, ' Whoso- ever hath drunk of the water that I will give him ;' and in both cases the result is the same. Ver. 34. They said therefore unto hirn, Lord, evermore give us this bread. We cannot see in these words the mere expression of a desire that earthly wants may be satisfied (comp. iv. 15). This would have incurred rebuke (comp. ver. 20), CHAP. VI. 22-71.] THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN. 81 and not led to clearer teaching, such as is found in the coming verses. Jesus, moreover, is not dealing with ' the Jews ' (who meet us at ver. 41), Inn v. nil the multitude, — people who were indeed ihan half enlightened, but whose minds were not shut against the truth. His words in the following verses are altogether such as lie was wont to address to men who truly sought the light, ; ot fully conscious of wh.n the) Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life, — the bread, that is, that contains life in itself, and thus is able to give life unto the world. The Father giveth 'the true bread' (ver. 32) in giving His Son; the Son of man giveth eternal life (ver. 27) in imparting Himself. To 1 cry thing has been leading, — the bread of the miracle, the manna, every reproof (ver. 26), every encouragement (ver. 27). — He that is coming to me shall in no wise hunger. The original words are chosen with exquisite deli- cacy. The figure is not that ol one who has 1 toils ■ and lengthened journey (as if the words ran, ' he that at length has reached me '). but that of one whose resolve is taken, and who sets out in the right way, — he that ' is coming ' unto Jesus shall cease to hunger. Other passages may speak of the disciple as one who has come to Jesus ; this with equal truth represents him as one who is coming towards Jesus, whose aim and I constant thoughts are towards his Lord. The hunger of the spirit ceases, the rest- less want and search for satisfaction are at an end; the 'true bread,' that which gives real . is received. — And he that believeth in me shall in no wise ever thirst. In these have an image similar to the last, but not the same. The quenching of thirst is even a ;nie than the satisfaction of hunger, and thus (as usually in the poetry of the Old I the thought of the second member is an advance upon that of the first. It may seem remarkable that ' ever ' is not joined with both members of ; but (as the other words also show) the first simply expresses once for all the cessation of hunger is at an end ; whilst the second the continuous presence of that which banishes thirst. Faith is really set forth in both clauses. The first presents it in the simplicity r of the act of will, — the will turned towards Jesus ; the second brings it into pro- 1 the continuous movement of the soul union with Him. It is not right there- fore to interpret the 'coming' as part of the 'believing,' or to take either as denoting a momentary act belonging to the beginning only of the Christian life. Each figure, with a force peculiarly its own, expresses the abiding relation of the true disciple to his Lord ; but only by a combination such as is here given could we have vividly presented to us both the immediate and the continuous satisfaction of spirit which Jesus imparts. There is probably another reason for itiction of the figure of 'thirst.' It is not with the manna alone that Jesus is now dealing. He had fed the multitudes with bread, but the meal at which He entertained them as His guests was designed to be the symbol of the Paschal feast (see the note on ver. 4). It was natural therefore thus to enlarge the symbols, that this feast may be kept in mind, and the way prepared for the words of later verses (53-56). Ver. 36. But I said unto you, that ye have vol. 11. 6 indeed seen me, and believe not. When had such words been uttered? Certainly the ret. is not to chap. v. 37, spoken in Jerusalem to the I- h . not to the multitude in Galilee. It is not likely that Jesus is speaking ol won Is of censure not recorded in this Gospel ; and it is hardly possible to understand the sim] n ' I said unto you ' in the sense, ' I would have you know,' 'this i- what I would say.' We must take the as referring to the substance, to the spirit if not the letter, of something previously said in this chapter, and we can do this without any violence of interpretation. It is remarkable that the people themselves have used words almost identical (ver. 30) : ' What doest Thou as a sign, that we may see an J believe Thee?' — that is, may see Thee in Thy working, and believe Thee. This is a conl on their part that as yet they had seen no that had led them to see and believe Him. I a words of Jesus in ver. 26 imply that in truth they had not seen 'signs:' they had seen His miracles, but these had not so proved themselves to be ' as to lead the people to see and believe Him. Th charge, therefore, that ' they seeing saw not ' is perfectly equivalent to what is said in that versi : they had indeed seen Him in the works which were the manifestation of Himself, but they had not been led to faith. The charge is very grave, but it is not made in anger, nor does it leave the accused in hopelessness : not judgment, but encouragement, is the spirit that pervades this part of the discourse. Perhaps it is for th that the word is ' I said,' not ' I say.' The fact was so ; it may be so still ; but the state is one that need not last, — even now it may pass away. Ver. 37. All that which the Father giveth me shall come to me ; and him that is coming to me I will in no wise cast out. These words have been understood by some as a reproach : ' 1 1 different are ye from those whom my Lather giveth me!' but such an interpretation is inconsistent with the context. At present, indeed, those to whom Jesus speaks are not believers ; but even in their case His mission may not be a failure, — they may be given to Him, and He will not cast them out. Up to this point the only gift spoken of has been a gift to men (vers. 27, 31, 32, ;,3, ;4), especially the Father's gift of the Son to be the bread of life. Here the converse is sud- denly introduced — the Father's gift to the What Jesus brings to men is the Father's gift to them : what Jesus receives in the homage an and love of men is the Father's gift to Him. The form of expression is remarkable, 'all that which the Father giveth me.' A passage closely akin to this we find in chap. xvii. (which has many points of contact with this chapter), ami in close connection with the gift which (ver. 27) the Son bestows, the gift of eternal life. The passage is xvii. 2 : ' As Thou hast given Him power over all flesh, in order that all that which Thou hast given Him, He may give to them eternal life.' In both these verses the totality of the Father's gift is presented first, and then the individuals who com- pose this gift and who themselves receive the gift which the Son bestows. The gift of the Father must not be understood by us in the sense of a predestinating decree. Both here and in the other passages of this Gospel where we read of the Feather as giving to the Son His people (chaps, vi. 37, 39, x. 29, xvii. 2, 6, 9, 24, xviii. 9), it is the moral and spiritual state of the THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN. [Chap. VI. 22-71. 82 heart that is thought of under the word. This state of heart by which they are prepared to listen to the voice of Jesus is due to God alone. The truth expressed here by ' giving ' is expressed in ver. 44 by the ' drawing ' of the Father, and in ver. 45 by ' learning ' and ' hearing ' from Him. Such preparation of heart is necessary: as Chrysostom expresses it, faith in Jesus is ' no chance matter, but cne that needs an impulse from above,' — from Him who worketh in us both to will and to work (Phil. ii. 13). The test, then, of this work in the heart is the coming to Christ. The two words 'come' in this verse are different : in the first instance the meaning is ' shall reach me ;' in the second we might almost render the words 'he that is coming towards me.' What was said on the 35th verse is fully applicable here, for the expression is the same. We cannot read the words without being reminded of the most touching of the Saviour's parables : the prodigal arose and came towards his father, but when he was yet a great way off his father ran to meet him. Ver. 38. Because I have come down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me. The previous verse was full of the power and energy of love ; but even then Jesus expresses no feeling or purpose of His own as the motive of His acts. He will cast out none, because such is the Father's will, and to do this will He has come down from heaven (comp. ver. 33). — It may be well, however, to observe that a different preposition from that in ver. 33 is here used: here 'from,' for it is the work of Jesus ; there 'out of,' for it is the heavenliness of His origin that is the prominent thought. Ver. 39. And this is the will of Mm that sent me, that all that wluch he hath given me, of it I should lose nothing. Here, as in ver. 37, the gift of the Father is represented in its totality, 'all that which.' As no part of the precious gift to the multitude, the gift which symbolized Himself, must be left to perish (ver. 12), so no part of the still more precious gift of the Father may be lost by the Son. — But should raise it up at the last day. Should raise ' it,' the whole, all that is com- prehended in the gift. The ' last day ' can denote only one great period of resurrection for the whole Church of God, — again a proof, as in v. 28, 29, that the teaching of our Lord in this Gospel is not confined to the spiritual aspect of death and resur- rection. It is not the gift of eternal life that belongs to the last day. Whosoever receives the Son at once receives in Him life eternal (iii. 36, vi. 33-35) ; but the day of the resurrection of the body witnesses the completion of that gift of eternal life which is now bestowed. In the next verse the present and the future gifts are combined. Ver. 40. For this is the will of my Father, that every one which beholdeth the Son and believeth in him shoidd have eternal life, and that I should raise him up at the last day. This verse is no mere repetition of the last, but differs from it in two important points. As in ver. 37, we pass from the thought of the genera] body of the Church to that of the individual members : in the Father's will every member is embraced. Secondly, the bond of connection with Jesus is viewed from its human rather than from its Divine side. In the last verse Jesus spoke of 'all that which' the Father had given Him; here He speaks of 'every one which beholdeth the Son and believeth in Him.' The word 'beholdeth ' is especially noteworthy, clearly including as it does an act of the will. ' Seeing ' may be accidental, may be transient : he who ' beholds ' is willing to stand and gaze on the object presented to his view. The word is full of instruction (comp. viii. 51, xii. 45, xiv. 17, xvii. 24). At this point our Lord's discourse is interrupted. Hitherto He has been addressing the multitude : now, for the first time in this chapter, we are to read of ' the Jews,' i.e. (as we have observed in earlier chapters) adherents of the ruling party which was violently hostile to Jesus. Whether these Jews were amongst the multitude hitherto addressed in this discourse we cannot tell. If so, they had occupied no prominent place, but were lost in the crowd. But, as there is nothing to show that the paragraph which follows this verse relates to the same day, it is very possible that the Jews were not present at the miracle or when Jesus spoke of the bread of life, but were afterwards informed of His words. This latter supposition becomes more probable as we look into the circumstances. We know that on the day of the feeding of the multi- tude the Passover was at hand (ver. 4) ; and we cannot doubt that, however anxious the enemies of our Lord might be to linger near Him that they might catch Him iu His talk, they would scrupu- lously observe the ritual of the feast. If we turn to Mark, we find two passages that distinctly speak of scribes who came down from Jerusalem to Galilee : one of these passages (iii. 22) belongs to a date somewhat earlier than that of the events related in this chapter, the other (vii. 1) comes in shortly after the narrative of Christ's walking on the sea of Galilee. The same remarks apply to the Gospel of Matthew. It seems probable, there- fore, that these agents of the hostile and influential party in Jerusalem hastened back to Galilee after the Passover, to resume their machinations against the prophet whom they both hated and feared. Ver. 41. The Jews therefore murmured con- cerning him, because he said, I am the bread which came down out of heaven. The 'mur- muring ' denotes more than that indistinct com- plaining to which we generally apply the word. The frequent and indignant expressions of dis- content by the Israelites when journeying in the desert are expressed by the same word in the Septuagint, and this (comp. I Cor. .x. 10) seems to have fixed its meaning in the New Testament. The Jews did not complain in the presence of Jesus, but sought to foment discontent and ill- feeling amongst those who at the time had been willing hearers of His words. It is characteristic of the spirit and motives of these enemies of our Lord that their charge against Him is put in the most captious form. As in the very similar case related in chap. v. 12, the words of nobler mean- ing are as far as possible left out : nothing is said about 'the bread of life ' or 'the bread of God.' Indeed the bread is a mere link of connection, dropped as soon as it has served to introduce the words joined with it, to which they can (as they think) attach a charge of falsehood. On the offer of life, eternal life, they will not dwell. Ver. 42. And they said, Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? how doth he now say, I have come down out of heaven? At this time, then, it is clear that Jesus was generally regarded as Joseph's son : the calumnies which at a later period were current amongst the Jews had not yet been resorted CHAP. VI. 22-71.] THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN. 83 to. The words of the Jews do not imply that Joseph was still living, as the word rendered ' know ' may simply deride their being acquainted with a fact, — they knew that Joseph and Mary were I lis parents. We need not wonder that they are ignorant of the miraculous conception. Ver. 43. Jesus answered and said unto them, Murmur not among yourselves. For such mur- murers Jesus has only reproof. It is very strange that in our day some writers on this Gospel should have had difficulty in understanding why Jesus did not refute the objection raised by declaring the truth of the miraculous conception. Men who could so mutilate His words as practically to per- vert their meaning would have been brought no nearer to conviction by such a statement, however made, but would have gathered from it material for still more malicious accusation. At first the reply of Jesus deals only with the spirit His opponents manifest. Ver. 44. No one can come to me except the Father which sent me shall have drawn him. In these words He would tell them that (as their unbelief and resistance show) they have not that special divine teaching without which they cannot understand Him. Hence He speaks not of the 'drawing' of God, but of that of the 'Father which sent ' Him. Only like can understand like. It is as the Father of the Son that God works in us that spirit in which the Son can be received by us. The ' drawing ' is not precisely the same as the 'giving' of ver. 37, but describes, so to speak, the first stage of the 'giving;' he that 'hath been drawn' by the Father is he that is given to the Son.— And I will raise him up at the last day. As the initiative of salvation belongs to the Father, the completion is the work of the Son. The Father draws and entrusts ; the Son receives, keeps, imparts life, until the glorious consumma- tion, the final resurrection. Between these two extreme terms 'draw 'and 'raise up' is included all the development of the spiritual life (Godet). Ver. 45. It is written in the prophets, And they shall all be taught of God. Jesus confirms His word by a testimony from the Old Testament, not now taken from the Law (comp. ver. 31), but from the Prophets. The use of the plural 'pro- phets ' has been thought to prove that the refer- ence does not belong to any one passage ; and we may certainly say that an inclusive expression like this may have been used designedly, as implying that there are many such promises, and that this tone of promise is characteristic of the book of the Prophets. Still the word which introduces the quotation, ' And,' a word quite needless for the Speaker's purpose, shows conclusively that the quotation is direct. There can be no doubt that the words are taken from Isa. liv. 13, with one or two slight alterations. They describe the great and general privilege of Messianic times. The retention of the words ' thy children ' (addressed to Jerusalem in Isa. liv. 13) might have seemed to limit the promise, which, belonging to the ' latter days,' is really free from all such limitations. It has been suggested (by Godet) that the synagogue lesson for the day (see ver. 59) may have included these very words (comp. Luke iv. 17-21). Be this as it may (and there is no improbability in the conjecture), the quotation was well known, and carries out and illustrates the words of ver. 44. The truth of that verse is set in a new light, — presented on its human rather than on its Divine side. The 'drawing' is a 'teaching:' he that hath been drawn by the Father, is he that hath truly received the teaching of the Father. —Every one that hath heard from the Father, and hath learned, cometh unto me. Such true reception of the teaching is emphatically described in these words. Two stages in human experience, implied in the successful result of teaching, are separated from each other. All who hear may also learn, but many hear who will not heed, and therefore cannot learn ; just as there are many who see the Son but will not remain to ' behold the Son ' and to 'believe in Him' (ver. 40). These varied ex- pressions illustrate one another with wonderful beauty and power. Not one allows us to think of compulsion or the forcing of man's will : all with one voice give glory to the Father as the source of every impulse towards the light and the life. The variety of expressions used by Jesus in the incul- cation of this truth, so characteristic of the present chapter, may well remind us of the variety of the means employed by the Father in the prosecution of the work. Thus the 'drawing' may present to our thought especially an inward influence ; the ' teaching ' may suggest the application of Scrip- ture truth; whilst the 'giving' brings into view the final act of the Father when the design of His love has been fulfilled. But while each term may lead us to think most of one aspect of the Father's work, every term really includes all its aspects and denotes the whole work. Ver. 46. Not that any one hath seen the Father, save he which is from God, he hath seen the Father. The words just spoken, 'he that hath heard from the Father,' might be under- stood to point to a direct communication : this however would imply a close relation to the Father such as is possessed by One alone, who hath ' seen the Father.' His saying that all who come to Him have first 'heard from the Father' might lead His hearers to infer that the descent out of heaven likewise implied nothing more than could be said of all. Such an inference this verse is intended to preclude. If they would really be ' taught' of the Father it can only be through Him. Ver. 47. Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth hath eternal life. In the preced- ing verses Jesus has rebuked the murmuring of the Jews. They had not opened their hearts to the Father's teaching, or their difficulty would have disappeared. He now returns to the truths out of which His foes had drawn their indictment against His truthfulness. First, however, He brings into relief those sayings which they had passed over entirely. The solemn formula, 'Verily, verily, I say unto you,' to be followed by a higher at ver. 53, at once marks the transition and shows the importance of the truth declared. In speaking to the multitude (ver. 26) His first words had related to eternal life, and to the paramount necessity of faith (ver. 29). So here also ; but the assertion is made in the briefest possible form. Even the object of the faith is left unexpressed, that the thought may entirely rest on the state of faith itself : the believer in the very act and condition of faith has eternal life. It is not often that Jesus speaks thus, omitting the words ' in me 'or 'in the Son ; ' but there could be no real ambiguity in the present instance, and He desires to express in the most forcible manner the state of mind which formed the strongest possible contrast to that of the Jews. THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN. [Chap. VI. 22-71 Ver. 48. I am the bread of life. Having pre- pared the way by the declaration of the necessity of faith, He reaffirms what (in ver. 35) He had said of Himself. He is the bread which contains life in itself, and which therefore can give and does give life to all who receive ami assimilate it. — It is interesting to observe, at a point where the discourse is really higher than it was before, a shortening of the formula employed, similar to that already met by us in i. 29 and 36 (see note on i. 35, 30). Ver. 40. Your fathers did eat the manna in the wilderness, and died. No other bread has given life eternal. Even the manna, the bread given out of heaven, did not bestow life on their fathers, who (as the people themselves had said) ate the manna in the wilderness. It seems very probable that the addition ' in the wilderness ' is more than a mere repetition of the words of ver. 31. It re- call, Num. xiv. 35, l's. xcv. S-II, and other passages in which 'the wilderness' is specially mentioned as the scene of disobedience and of death; and thus the fathers, who (Deut. i. 32) 'did not believe the Lord ' and died, are contrasted with the believer who 'hath eternal life '(ver. 47). Ver. 50. This is the bread which corneth down out of heaven, that any one may eat thereof, and not die. The 'bread that cometh down out of heaven ' (repeated from ver. 33) is of such a nature, and has such an object, that one may eat of it and not die. We are not to press too much our Lord's use of ' one ' or ' any one ' in this verse; but we may at least say that His studious avoid- ance of every word of limitation points once more to the unbounded offer of life, the offer to ' the world ' (ver. 33). When verses 49 and 50 are compared, a difficulty presents itself. It may be said that the antithesis is not complete, for is not death used in two different senses? The fathers died in the wilderness : he that eateth of the true bread shall not die. There is exactly the same twofold use of the word in chap. xi. 20 (see the note on that verse). It is sufficient here to say that in neither verse is the meaning as simple as the objection supposes. In ver. 49 we must cer- tainly recognise a partial reference to death as a punishment of sin, and by consequence to that moral death which even in this world must ever accompany sin. In ver. 50 again physical death may seem to be excluded, but we shall see that John elsewhere regards the believer as freed (in a certain sense) even from this, so entirely has death for him changed its character, — so complete is the deliverance granted by his Lord. Ver. 51. I am the living bread which came down out of heaven. Once more Jesus declares that the bread of which He has spoken is Himself; but the assertion is expressed in words that differ significantly from those before employed. For ' the bread of life' He says now ' the living bread:' for 'cometh down,' an expression which might seem a mere figure denoting heavenly origin, He says 'came down,' speaking of an actual historical descent out of heaven. The former change espe- cially is important. He has been speaking of the bread as given, but is about to declare Himself to be the Giver : therefore He says that He is the living bread, that can give itself, and with itself its inherent life. There was nothing in the 'bread of life ' that would necessarily suggest more than means and instrument. If the tree of life in Para- ge bestowed immortality on man, it was but by instrumental efficacy. 'The living bread' is a thought absolutely unique, and the words compel the minds of the hearers to rest on the person of the -Speaker, who in the possession of this life, and not as the precious but lifeless manna, de- scended out of heaven. — If any one shall have eaten of this bread, he shall live for ever. These words partly repeat and partly extend those of the preceding verse. There the nature and object of the bread are given ; here the assurance that every one who makes trial of the promise shall certainly find it fulfilled to him in the gift of a life that lasts for ever. — And moreover the bread that I will give is my flesh, for the life of the world. The personal significance of the pre- ceding words is now made even more direct, and the meaning intended cannot probably be mistaken. He gives; the bread He gives is His flesh; the gift is for the life of the world. The questions which these words have raised will be best con- sidered in connection with our Lord's own com- ment in the following verses. Ver. 52. The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us bis ilesh to eat? As before, the Jews take hold of those words which are most susceptible of a merely material sense. Ever)' word that points to a spiritual meaning they ignore ; but in doing so they themselves give evidence of the clearness with which our Lord had now shown that His in- tention had been to fix the wdiole thought of His hearers on Himself, and not on His gifts. The contention of the Jews became violent as they talked of the words of Jesus : the Evan pression, literally taken, points to 'lighting' rather than strife (comp. Acts vii. 20 ; 2 Tim. ii. 24 ; Jas. iv. 2). Vers. 53, 54, 55. Jesus therefore said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye have eaten the flesh of the Son of man, and drunk his blood, ye have not life in yourselves. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life ; and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. As to the general mean- ing of this important passage there can be little or no doubt. There are some new expressions, but on the whole the imagery agrees with that employed in the earlier part of the chapter, and the blessings offered by Jesus are described again in identical language. Here, as before, life, eternal life, is promised ; again 'eating' is the figure which de- scribes the mode of receiving life ; as in vers. 35, 4S, and 51, Jesus identifies Himself with that which when eaten gives life ; and. as in ver. 44 (ci impare vers. 39 and 40), He promises that He will raise- up at the last day every "ne who has thus received eternal life. The agreement then between these verses antl the earlier part of the discourse is so marked that there can be no change in the general sense : all the expressions in previous . rsi which figure is wholly or partially set aside may be brought in here also to elucidate the meaning. Our Lord therefore still teaches in regard to all who come to Him, who believe in Him, who are intimately joined to Him in the union ol faith and, receiving all from Him, may be said to a. 1] to themselves Himself, and to feed on Him, — that these and these alone have eternal life. There is nothing here that alters this foundation truth. The phraseology of these verses (and ver. 51) is new in the following respects : (1) Instead of the Chap. VI. 22-71.] THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN. one metaphor of eating \vc have two, ' eating ' and 'drinking;' (2) The figure of bread is dropped, giving place to 'flesh,' 'the flesh of the Son of man,' which flesh is given by Him for the life of the world. (3) For the lir-t tunc Jesus makes mention of His 'blood,' — the drinking of this blood gives life. The introduction of the second metaphor, 'drinking,' at once recalls ver. 35, where ' thirst ' is as suddenly brought in. As in that verse, so here, one purpose answered is the more complete realisation of a feast : the Paschal meal is always present in the symbols of this chapter. Whether this is to be taken as the only purpose will depend on the answer given to other questions which must now be asked. Does Jesus, in speaking of His flesh given for the life of the world, expressly refer to His death, His atoning death? Is it in order to point more clearly to that truth that He here brings in the mention of His blood ? Arc we to understand that there is a strict and real difference between the things signi- fied by eating His flesh and drinking His blood? The last question may easily be answered : there is certainly no such difference. In ver. 35 there is a very beautiful and rapid change of aspect, but no substantial change of thought : coming to Christ is believing in Him, and the result is the satisfac- tion of every want, whether represented as hunger or as thirst. When the ' flesh ' is first mentioned (ver. 51) it stands alone, as the Saviour's gift for the life of the world ; and below (ver. 57) 'eating' alone is spoken of, yet the result is life. As a rule, indeed, flesh is contrasted with blood in biblical language, and the two are joined together to ex- press the physical being of man ; but it is not uncommon to find flesh used by itself in this sense. Thus in the first chapter of this Gospel we read that ' the Word was made flesh,' whereas in Ileb. ii. 14 we are taught that the Son took part in flesh and blood. It is therefore quite in accord- ance with the usage of Scripture that the same idea should be expressed now by the one term and now by the two combined ; and the context (as we have seen) shows that this is the case here. The two expressions of these verses are thus sub- stantially equivalent to the one expression of ver. 57. But it does not follow from this that our Lord had no special motive for thus varying His lan- guage. The cardinal thought is most simply ex- pressed in ver. 57. "he that eateth me;' and we may well believe that He would have so spoken in these verses also had He not intended to sug- gest special thoughts by the use of other words. In asking now what these special thoughts are, it is scarcely possible for us, in the light of events that followed, to dissociate the last clause of ver. 51 from the thought of death, or the mention of ' the blood ' of the Son of man from the thought of the blood shed upon the cross. The words, indeed, would not at that time suggest such thoughts: they were rather a secret prophecy, like the mysterious sayings of chap. ii. 19 ('Destroy this Temple') and chap. iii. 14 ('even so must the Son of man be lifted up '), and that saying so often repeated in the earlier Gospels, the command to 'take up' and to 'bear' 'the cross.' But this Gospel shows most plainly that the end was ever present to Jesus from the very beginning ; and many of His words can only receive their proper interpretation by the application of this principle. There is another consideration which removes all doubt in this place, if the general view which has been taken of the chapter is correct. The figui.-.- tive acts and language have been suggest Paschal meal which has just been (or is just about to be) celebrated in Jerusalem. The later chapters of the Gospel set forth Jesus as the fulfilment of the Passover, Jesus on the cross as the antitype and reality of the Paschal meal. This chapter in pointing to the type points continually to the ful- filment ; but the Paschal lamb died, and the death of Jesus must therefore be regarded as part of the thought before us. Nor would it be safe to deny that mention of the blood here may even be con- nected, as some have supposed, with the command that the blood of the Paschal Iamb should be sprinkled on the dwellings of the Israelites. So many are the links between symbol and reality which the Evangelist apprehends both in his own teaching and in the discourses recorded by him, that it is less hazardous to admit than to deny the possibility of such a connection. But even then the thought of blood shed upon the cross must not be kept separate and distinct from all else that Jesus was and did. The central thought of the chapter is undoubtedly that of a meal, a feast, an experimental reception of a living Christ which is symbolized by 'eating' and 'drinking;' and to that the whole interpretation must be subordinated. It cannot therefore be Jesus in His death, looked at as a distinct and separate act, that is before us in the mention of the blood. It must still be Jesus in the whole of HU manifestation of Himself, living, dying, glorified ; so that, if we may so speak, the death is to be viewed only as a pervading element of the life, only as one of the characteris- tics of that Christ who, not as divided but in all the combined elements of His humiliation and His glory, is from first to last the object of our faith and the satisfaction of our need. The main point, in short, to be kept in view is this, that we are here dealing with the actual nourishment, with the sustenance, with the life of the soul ; with the believer, not as having only certain relations altered in which he stands to God, but as in fellowship and communion of spirit with Him in whom he believes. To maintain by faith that fellowship with Jesus in all that He was, is to eat His flesh and to drink His blood. It may be accepted as an additional proof of the correctness of what has been said, if we observe that the very same blessings now connected with eating the flesh and drinking the blood of Jesus have been already connected with 'coming to Him,' with 'believing in Him,' and with 'be- holding Him.' Thus, for the first of these, comp. vers. 35 and 55 ; for the second, vers. 47 and 54 ; for the third, vers. 40 and 54. It is clear, there- fore, that the spiritual appropriation of the life ami death of Jesus is described under all the different figures of this passage. All tell us of communion, of fellowship, of a feast, — of the Lamb of God not only as the Paschal sacrifice, but as the Paschal feast. The question now considered leads at once to another. What is the relation of these verses and this whole discourse to the sacrament of the Lord's Supper ? Many have held that the doctrine of the sacrament (not yet instituted, but present to the Redeemer's mind) is the very substance of this chapter ; whilst others have denied that there is any connection wdiatever between the two. We can adopt neither of these extreme views. On the one hand, the words of Jesus in this discourse can belong to no rite or ordinance, however exalted 86 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN. [Chap. VI. 22-71 nnd however precious to His people. The act of which He speaks is continuous, not occasional, — spiritual, not external ; every term that He employs is a symbol of trust in Him. But on the other hand, if alike in this chapter and in the records of the Last Supper the Paschal meal is presented to our thought, and if John specially connects this feast with the death of Christ, whilst all the other Evangelists bring into relief the relation of the Last Supper to the same death, it is impossible to say that the sacrament is altogether alien to this discourse. The relation of the Lord's Supper to the teaching of this chapter is very nearly the same as the relation of Christian bap- tism to our Lord's discourse to Nicodemus (see note on chap. iii. 5). In neither case is the sacrament as such brought before us ; in both we must certainly recognise the presence of its funda- mental idea. This discourse is occupied with that lasting, continuous act of which afterwards the sacrament of the Lord's Supper was made a symbol ; and the sacrament is still a symbol of the unchanging truth so fully set forth in this discourse, — the believer's union with his Lord, his complete dependence upon Him for life, his continued appropriation by faith of His very self, his feeding on Him, living on Him, his experience that Jesus in giving Himself satisfies every want of the soul. There is not much in the particular expressions of these three verses that calls for further remark. It will be observed that there are two links con- necting them with our Lord's first address to the multitude (ver. 26) : He again speaks of the ' Son of man,' and the words 'food indeed' (literally ' true eating ') at once recall ' the eating that abideth.' One expression in ver. 53 is very forcible, 'Ye have not life in yourselves,' im- plying, as it does, that they .who have so eaten and drunk have life in themselves. These are words which our Lord could not use without intending a special emphasis (comp. chap. v. 26) : so complete is the believer's appropriation of the Son, who hath life in Himself, that the same exalted language may be used of the believer also, whilst lie abides in fellowship with his Lord. Then he has life in himself, but not of himself. This fellowship is the substance of the next verse. Ver. 56. He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood abideth in rne, and I in him. The fellowship consists in this, that the believer abides in the Life, and that He who is the Life abides in the believer. Note that here it is not ' hath eaten ; ' the ' abiding ' is dependent on the continuance of the appropriating art. Ver. 57. As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father; so he that eateth me, he also shall live because of me. He that sent the Son into the world is the living Father, — the Being who is eternally and absolutely the Living One. The Son lives because the Father lives. This reception of life (see chap. v. 26) is the characteristic of the Son. So, with a relation to the Son similar to the Son's relation to the Father, the believer who receives and appropriates the Son lives because the Son, who is Life, abides in him. This is the climax of the whole dis- course : for even more exalted language expressive of the same truth, that the relation between Jesus and His own has its pattern in the relation between the Father and the Son, see chap. xvii. 21, 23. Ver. 58. This is that bread which came down out of heaven. Here Jesus returns to the first theme. Since He has now set forth all that the true bread gives, the contrast with the manna is complete. ' This ' — of this nature, such as I have described it to you — ' is the bread that came down out of heaven.' These last words illustrate the first clause of ver. 57, ' the living Father sent me.' — Not as your fathers did eat and died: he that eateth this bread shall live for ever. The rest of the verse is in the main a forcible repeti- tion of vers. 49, 50. Ver. 59. These things said he, as he was teaching in a synagogue in Capernaum. These words not only give information as to the place in which the discourse (probably vers. 41-58 ; see note on ver. 40) was delivered, but also show the boldness with which Jesus declared truths so new and so surprising to His hearers. He spoke thus in public teaching (comp. chap, xviii. 20), and that too in the presence of His powerful enemies, and in the place where their influence was greatest. Ver. 60. Many therefore of his disciples when they heard this said. This is an hard saying ; who can hear him ? The word ' disciples ' is here used in a wide sense, in- cluding many more than the Twelve, and many who had never risen to a high and pure faith. The ' saying ' can only be that of the preceding verses (53—57), and its hardness consisted in the fact that it pointed out one only way to life,- — eating the flesh and drinking the blood of the Son of man. These words the disciples did not spiritually comprehend, and therefore they were repelled by them. Ver. 61. But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples murmured concerning this, said unto them, Doth this make you to stumble ? He knew their thoughts, and because they are dis- ciples, not Jews bent on opposing Him, He seeks to help them. Ver. 62. What then if ye behold the Son of man ascending where he was before? The meaning of this ascent is surely clear in itself; but if it were not, the mention of a past descent (vers. 41, 51, 5S) would remove all doubt. Our Lord certainly refers to His ascension into heaven. He would say: ' Is the word that speaks of the descent from heaven, of the living bread that alone can give life, of the Son's descent from heaven to give His flesh and His blood that the world may eat and drink and live, a stumbling-block to you? If, when I am here before you, you cannot understand what is meant by eating my flesh and drinking my blood, — cannot apprehend the spiri- tual meaning which such words must bear, — how much more will you, in this your carnal appre- hension of what I say, be made to stumble if you should see me ascending where I was before, to be no longer upon earth at all ! ' As the neces- sity of eating His flesh must continue, what will they think then ? Then the sense they have put upon His words will indeed wholly break down : then at last they may come to sec that the words can only be spiritually understood. Ver. 63. It is the spirit that maketh to live; the flesh protiteth nothing. Jesus has spoken of 'giving life,' of the 'eating of His flesh,' as the means of gaining eternal life. In all this He has not the flesh but the spirit in view,— not the material reception of the flesh by the flesh, but CHAP. VI. 22-71.] THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN. 87 the appropriation of His spirit by the spirit of man. Such spiritual union of the believer with Him alone 'maketh to live:' the flesh in itself is profitless for such an end.— The words that I have spoken unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. The word ' I ' is emphatic, as it repeatedly has been in this discourse. The emphasis which Jesus here and elsewhere lays upon His sayings is very remarkable. He is the Word, the expression of the Father's nature and will ; His sayings are to man the expression of Himself. The words or sayings just spoken to these disciples are spirit and are life. This is their essential nature. They may be carnalised, wrongly understood, wilfully perverted ; but wher- ever they find an entrance they manifest their true nature. They bring into the receptive heart not the flesh but the spirit of the Son of man, and tints the man, in the true sense eating the flesh of the Son of man, has life. His words received by faith bring Himself. Thus He can in two verse? almost consecutive (chap. xv. 4, 7) say, ' Abide in me, and / in you,' and ' If ye abide in me, and 5) abide in you.' Ver. 64. But there are some of you that be- lieve not. Even of these who had heard the last words, so mercifully spoken for the removal of their difficulties, there were some who continued in unbelief. — For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who it was that would betray him. Another remarkable declaration by the Evangelist of the Saviour's penetrating discernment of all hearts (compare chap. ii. 24, 25), and of His knowledge from the very beginning what would be the end of His earthly course. The words seem to imply that the germ of the traitor-spirit was already in the heart of Judas, who, like many others, loved rather the glory and honour which Jesus set aside (vers. 14, 15) than the spirit ami the life of His words. Ver. 65. And he said, For this cause have I said unto you, that no one can come unto me, except it have been given unto him of the Father. They had seemed genuine disciples, but His words had been to them a stumbling-block and had not brought life. They had not really come to Him : they had not received from the Father the gift of ' coming unto' Jesus, but the failure had been by their own fault. Having re- sisted the drawing of the Father, they had lacked the due preparation of heart for receiving the words of Jesus (see the notes on vers. 37 and 44). Ver. 66. Upon this many of his disciples went back, and walked no longer with him. Another sad reflection, as in ver. 04 : the Evangelist can- not but record the repelling influence which the light exerted on those who were not of the light. These disciples seemed to have left all that they might be followers of Christ, but now they return to the homes and the occupations they had for- saken. (The usual rendering ' walked no more ' is in itself perfectly correct, but may be possibly understood in the sense of ' never more,' a sense certainly not designed.) Ver. 67. Jesus therefore said unto the twelve, Would ye also go? In contrast with the desertion of many is the strengthened faith of those who, being of the light, are attracted by the light. The ' Twelve ' are here mentioned by John for the first time. Vers. 68, 69. Simon Peter answered him. In accordance with the earlier records Peter stands forth as the spokesman of the Twelve, and in answer to the question of Jesus makes a confession of theii faith. — Lord, to whom shall we go away ? thou hast words of eternal life. (Ver. 69) And we have believed, and we know that thou art the Holy One of God. The confession consists of three parts — (1) ' Thou hast words of eternal life' (see ver. 63) ; (2) 'And we have believed' (in contrast with ver. 64, ' there are of you some that believe not'); (3) 'And we know,' etc. These disciples have answered the revelation of Jesus by the faith which it demands; and now they ' know ' with the practical knowle 'gc of experience that Jesus is the Sent of God. The expression which Peter uses is ' the Holy One of God.' A similar phrase occurs in Ps. cvi. 16 in regard to Aaron, who is called ' the holy one of Jehovah.' In the case of the human priest and in that of his antitype our Lord, the general meaning is the same, — the consecrated one of God, or, in other words, He whom the Father sealed, He whom God has sent. The meaning of the word used here, 'holy,' must receive special considera- tion in other passages : see the notes on x. 36, xvii. 17. It is hardly necessary to say that the confession of Peter does not seem to be the same as that related in Matt. xvi. Ver. 70. Jesus answered them, Did not I choose you the twelve? and one of you is a devil. Alas ! even in this small circle there is an element that the light attracts not but repels. In good faith Peter had spoken of all his brethren, when he said, 'we have believed.' He knew not, and probably Judas himself knew not, to whom Jesus referred. The germ of the future crime and that alone as yet existed. But from the beginning Jesus knew all. Amongst the disciples He knew who would desert Him : in this inner circle He knew who would show himself a traitor — 'a devil.' Many weaker interpretations, but all baseless, have been given of this word. The traitor will do his work at the instigation of the Evil One, and animated by his spirit : his work will be the work of the devil : he himself in doing it will be the associate of Satan : nay, as we shall see, he will be more. Ver. 71. Now he spake cf Judas the son of Simon Iscariot. Here we meet for the first time in this Gospel with the name Iscariot ; and it will be observed that (as in xiii. 26) it is connected not with the name of Judas (as in xii. 4, xiii. 2, xiv. 22) but with that of his father. In all probability the word signifies 'man of Kerioth,' a town in the tribe of Judah (see Josh. xv. 25). Apparently Judas was the only apostle not of Galilee, and the peculiarity of his name (identical with Judah and ' the Jews ') is certainly not overlooked by the Evangelist. Nay, more, not only is Judas of Kerioth, that town of Judah and the Jews, his father is so too. The double link of connection seems to deepen the thought. — For he it waB that was about to betray him — one of the twelve. Judas was not yet the traitor ; ' was about to' expresses only the futurity of the event ; but how much is the criminality of the germ already springing up in his heart heightened by the closing remark, in which we see at once the anger and the pathos of the Evangelist, — 'being one of the Twelve ' ! THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN. [Chap. VII. 1-13 Chapter VII. 1-13. Jesus at the Feast of Tabernacles. 'A 1 d V< 1 See Matt. / See chap. ii 4. g Chap. xv. would not walk in Jewry, 8 " because the Jews sought to «Chap. v. ;6. 2 kill him. Now b the Jews' feast of 'tabernacles 3 was at hand. A( r ' h * lp ''■•••' 3 J c Lev. xxiu. 3 d His brethren therefore said unto him, Depart hence, and go into Judea, that thy disciples also may see the 4 works that 4 thou doest. For there is 6 no man 1, that' doeth anything in secret, and he 8 himself seeketh to be known openly. 9 If thou 5 do 10 these things, shew" tin-self to the world. For ''neither 12 6 did his brethren believe in him. Then Jesus said 13 unto them, -^ My time is not yet come: 14 but your time is ahvay ready. 7 s The world cannot hate you ; but me it hateth, because I 8 testify of it, 15 that ; ' the works thereof are evil. 16 Go ye up unto this " feast : I go not up yet unto this feast ; for 18 my 9 S time is not yet full come. 19 When 20 he had said these words 21 unto them, he abode still in Galilee. 10 Hut 22 when his brethren were gone up, 23 then went he also up unto the feast, 14 not openly, 2 '' but as it were 26 in secret. 11 ' Then the Jews 27 sought him at the feast, and said, Where is 12 he? And there was much murmuring among the people 28 concerning him : 'Tor 29 some said, He is a good man : others 3 " 13 said, Nay; but he deceiveth the people. 31 Howbeit no man spake openly of 32 him ' for 33 fear of the Jews. 1 And after 2 Judea 3 And the feast of the Jews, the feast of tabernacles, 4 may behold thy 6 omit there is 6 one 7 omit that 8 omit he 9 to be in boldness 10 doest u manifest 12 not even I3 Jesus therefore saith u present 13 I bear witness concerning it lc that its work? are wicked '" the 18 because 19 not yet fulfilled -° And when 2I things 22 And 23 had gone up unto the feast 24 omit unto the feast - ' manifestly 2C omit it were 21 The Jews therefore 28 multitudes 29 omit for 30 but others 31 leadeth astray the multitude 32 boldly concerning 33 because of the Contents. The same line of thought as that which we have found in the two previous chapters is continued in that before us. He who is the Fulfiller of the Sabbath and of the Passover is the Fulfiller also of the great feast in which the festivals of the Jewish year culminated, — that of Tabernacles. The first section of the chapter gives an account of the circum- stances in which Jesus went up to this feast, the subordinate parts being— (1) vers. 1-9, Jesus de- clines to go up to it at the request of His brethren, for He can act only at the suggestion of His heavenly Father's will j (2) vers. 10-13, He goes up when He sees that the hour for doing so is come. Ver. 1. And after these things Jesus walked in Galilee: for he would not walk in Judea, because the Jews sought to kill him. The events of chap. vi. belonged to the period of the Passover; chap. vii. is occupied with the least of Tabernacles. The interval covered by the brief description of this verse, therefore, is about six months. During that time Jesus 'was walking in Galilee, ' for in Judea His enemies 'were seeking to kill Him.' As it is John himself who gives the notes of time from which we learn il of this period, we have here another illustration of the selective principle on which his Gospel is composed. The ministry in Galilee is in the main passed over, partly, no doubt, because the Evangelist well knew that the types of Gospel teaching that were most widely current chiefly Chap. VII. i-13-l THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN. presented the Saviour's work in Galilee : partly, because this work was less closely connected with his purpose to bring out with clearness the pro- gress and development of the conflict between Jesus and the representatives of the Jewish people. The period before us receives a lengthened notice in two of the earlier Gospels. We may, with great probability, refer to it four chapters in Matthew (xv.-xviii.), three in Mark (vii.-ix.), besides half of the ninth chapter in Luke. To it, therefore, belong our Lord's visits to the borders ..I I'm and Sidon, the miracles wrought for the Syrophcenician woman and for the deaf and dumb man in Decapolis, the feeding of the four thousand, Peter's second confession fallowed by our Lord's announcement of His approaching sufferings and death, the Transfiguration, together with other miracles and discourses. The principal outward characteristics of this portion of our Lord's public ministry are the wider range of His travels and the comparative privacy which Pie seems usually to have maintained : the progress in the training ol the Twelve, which is most observable, we may also in gnat measure connect with the retirement thus sought by their Master. Ver. 2. And the feast of the Jews, the feast of tabernacles, was at hand. This annual fes- tival, the last of the three at which the men of Israel were required to present themselves before the Lord in Jerusalem, began on the 15th of Tizri, that is, either late in September or early in October. 1 1 had a twofold significance, being at once a harvest festival and a historical memorial of the earliest days of the nation. At the ' feast of Ingathering ' (Ex. xxiii. 16) the people gave thanks for the harvest, now safely gathered in : the ' feast of Tabernacles,' during the seven days of which they dwelt in booths or huts, recalled the years which their fathers spent in the desert (Lev. xxiii. 39-43). The mode in which the feast was celebrated must be noticed in connection with later verses (see note on ver. 38) : here we need only add that this festival, spoken of by Josephus as ' the holiest and greatest ' of all, was a season of the most lively rejoicing (see Neh. viii. 16-18), and was associated at once with the most precious recol- lections of the past and the most sacred hopes for the future of the nation. In particular, as we shall see more fully hereafter, the feast had come to be regarded as the type and emblem of the glory of the latter day, when the Spirit of God should be poured out like floods upon the ground (Isa. xxxv.). On the expression 'feast of the Jews,' see the notes on chap. ii. 13, vi. 4. To what extent the joyous and holy feast of the Lord could be perverted by the malice and hatred of ' the Jews ' this chapter will clearly show. Ver. 3. His brethren therefore said unto him, Depart hence, and go into Judea, that thy disciples also may behold thy works that thou doest. His brothers, in thus urging Him to depart into Judea, have distinctly in mind (as appears from ver. 8) the approaching feast and the concourse of people which would soon be assembling in Jerusalem. It is important to keep this in mind if we would understand the position occupied by the brothers of Jesus. They were not believers in Him (ver. 5), that is, they did not accept Him as the Messiah; in their own words they separated themselves from the number of His disciples (ver. 3) ; and as yet they were accounted by Him as belonging to ' the world ' (ver. 7). On the other hand, there is no trace ol disbelief or disparagement of His works ; for the words, ' Thy works that Thou doest,' were not spoken in irony; and 'if Thou doest' (ver. 4) need not express the slightest doubt. To these 'brethren,' then, brought up in the prevalent Messianic belief, there appeared an inconsistency between the loftiness of His claims and the com- paratively limited display of what He offered as His credentials ; the reserve with which He mani- fested His powers went far with them towards destroying the impression made by His miracles. But one of the chief festivals was now at hand. Neither at the Passover of this year nor at the feast of Weeks (Pentecost) had He gone up to Jerusalem : why should He avoid publicity, and appear to shun that decisive testing of His claims which was possible in Jerusalem alone. By ' Thy disciples,' the brethren of Jesus do not simply mean 'Thy disciples in Judea.' In this case the word ' there ' must have been inserted, as bearing the chief emphasis of the sentence. As we have just seen, the recent labours of Jesus in northern Galilee had been marked by privacy. For the most part the Twelve only had witnessed His works ; at times some even of these had been excluded. At the feast the whole body of His disciples would be gathered together, and what might be done in Jerusalem would be conspicuous to all. — On the 'brothers' of the Lord see the note on chap. ii. 12; after this paragraph (vers. 3, 5, 10), they are not mentioned again in this Gospel ; in chap. xx. 17 the words have a different meaning. Ver. 4. For no one doeth any thing in secret, and himself seeketh to be in boldness. ' To be in boldness ' may seem a singular expression ; the Greek words, however, will not admit of the rendering ' to be known openly ; ' and it is clear that the form of the phrase is chosen so as to be in correspondence with what precedes, ' doeth anything in secret.' The Greek word rendered 'boldness' occurs nine times in this Gospel, four times in John's First Epistle, and eighteen times in the rest of the New Testament. In every case it denotes either boldness, as opposed to fear or caution (see vers. 13, 26, xi. 54, xviii. 20), or plainness of language as opposed to reserve (chap. x. 24, xi. 14, xvi. 25, 29) ; here the meaning is 'to take a bold position.' Working miracles in secret and a bold claim of personal dignity ami office are, in the view of these men, things incom- patible with one another.— If thou doest these things, manifest thyself to the world. These words are very remarkable. The brothers would use them as meaning 'to all men,' i.e. 'to all Israel ' gathered together at the feast (comp. chap, xii. 19) ; but we cannot doubt that the Evangelist sees here the language of unconscious prophecy, such as appears in many other places of this Gospel, and in one case at least (chap. xi. 51) is expressly noted by himself. The words are now uttered with a true instinct ; they will be fulfilled in their widest sense. Ver. 5. For not even did his brethren believe in him. This verse seems to afford an unanswerable argument against those who hold that amongst these ' brothers ' of our Lord were included two or three of the twelve apostles. How long this unbelief lasted we cannot tell : the words of Paul in I Cor. xv. 7, 'Then He appeared to James,' make it very probable that it was by our Lord's resurrec- 9° THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN. [Chap. VII. 1-13 tion from the dead that the brothers were led to a true belief in that Divine mission which, in spite of the earlier miracles they had witnessed, they had refused to accept. Ver. 6. Jesus therefore saith unto them, My time is not yet present, but your time is alway ready. The answer is remarkably akin to that addressed to His mother in chap. ii. 4. Very different, probably, were the mother and the brethren in their measure of faith and in the motive of their words ; but in each case there betrayed itself a conviction that Jesus might be influenced by human counsel in the manifestations of Himself. Here as there His time was at hand, but not yet ' present;' and until the moment appointed by the Father He whose will is one with that of the Father can do nothing. Such limitation did not apply to His brethren ; they were not separated from the 'world,' and with that world they might at any time associate. Ver. 7. The world cannot hate you ; but me it. hateth, because I bear witness concerning it, that its works are wicked. Jesus takes up the word which they had used ; but in His mouth it has a depth of solemn meaning of which they knew nothing. With them the world was the whole body of Israelites, with whom lay the acceptance or rejection of His claims ; with Him the world was a hostile power, to which indeed He will manifest Himself, but which He has come to subdue. Jesus and His brothers stand in opposite relations to the world, — they at one with it, He the Reprover of its wicked works. This difference of relation makes necessary a difference of action : they cannot understand, much less can they guide, His course. Ver. 8. Go ye up unto the feast : I go not up yet unto this feast, because my time is not yet fulfilled. The words ' not yet ' imply an inten- tion of attending the festival, though as yet the appointed time had not come. The interval before it comes may be of the shortest, but the ' not yet ' lasts till the ' now ' comes, and then the obedience must be instant and complete. It is well known that this verse furnished Porphyry, the assailant of Christianity in the third century, with one of his arguments. In his Greek text of the Gospel the reading was, ' I go not up unto ' (the word 'yet' being absent), and upon this Porphyry founded an accusation of fickleness and change of purpose. Ver. 9. And when he had said these things unto them he abode still in Galilee. How long, we are not informed. As, however, it would seem that His brothers were on the point of setting out for Jerusalem, to be present at the beginning of the festival, and as He Himself was teaching in the temple when the sacred week had half expired (ver. 14), the interval spent in Galilee can hardly have been more than two or three days. Ver. 10. And when his brethren had gone up unto the feast, then went he also up, not mani- festly but as in secret. We must not sever 'manifestly' from 'manifest tin self,' in ver. 4. Had Jesus joined any festal band, it would have been impossible (without an express miracle) to restrain the impetuous zeal of Galilean pilgrims, of whom very many had witnessed His 'signs ' and listened to His words. To have gone up publicly would have been to ' manifest Himself to the world.' At the next great fc.st, the Passover of the following year, He did enter the holy city in triumph, thus proclaimed King of Israel by the rejoicing multitudes. For this, however, the time was not yet come. It is very probable that this journey must be identified with that related in Luke ix. 51 sqq. The privacy here spoken of has been thought inconsistent with Luke's state- ment that Jesus at that time travelled through Samaria with His disciples, 'sending messengers before him ' (Luke ix. 52). But the divergence is only apparent. Jesus went up 'in secret,' in that He avoided the train of Galilean pilgrims, who may have reached Jerusalem before He set out from Galilee ; besides, it is probable that the route through Samaria, though not altogether avoided by the festal companies (as we know from Josephus), would be more rarely taken. The sending of messengers implies no publicity ; for such a company as this, composed of Jesus and His disciples, such a precaution might well be essential. Ver. II. The Jews therefore sought him at the feast, and said, Where is he I Their expec- tation that He would be present at this festival may have rested on no other ground than the national usage, to which Jesus had occasionally conformed even during His public ministry. Pos- sibly His words (ver. 8) ' I go not up yet' may have become known to the Galilean multitude, and hence to the Jews. Verses 1 and 13 seem to leave very little doubt that the ' seeking ' was of a hostile character. Py 'the Jews,' the Evangelist still means the ruling class, those whom worldli- ness and self-seeking had long since turned into the declared enemies of Jesus. Ver. 12. And there was much murmuring among the multitudes concerning him. Some said, He is a good man : but others said, Nay, but he leadeth astray the multitude. From the 'Jews' the Evangelist turns to the 'multitudes.' Amongst these is eager discussion concerning Jesus ; the speculation, the hesitation, the inquiry, were general, but all outward expression was sup- pressed. The use of the plural ' multitudes ' seems to point to crowds rather than individuals as the disputants. The word 'multitude,' however, at the close of the verse is not without a contemptu- ous force,— it is the common crowd that He leads astray : possibly the multitudes of Jerusalem may be the speakers. Ver. 13, Howbeit no man spake boldly con- cerning him, because of the fear of the Jews. Both sides, through their fear of the Jews, shrank from speaking out their thoughts. So complete was the ascendancy of these rulers over the people that no one ventured on any open discussion of the claims of Jesus. There was no doubt a belief that ' the Jews ' were hostile to Him, but no public condemnation had been pronounced, — possibly no decision had been arrived at : till the leaders spole out the people could only mutter their opinions. — Thus, then, the picture of what Jerusalem was at this moment is completed. Met together at the feast are Galileans, already half believers in Jesus, ready to be roused into enthusiastic activity by a display of His power ; hostile Jews, the eccle- siastical authorities and those who shared their spirit, determined to crush out all inquiry as to His claims ; and multitudes discussing these in secret, and revealing the utmost discordance of opinion. Everywhere we see movement, uncer- tainty, hope, or fear. CHAP. VII. 14-52.J THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN. 9' Chapter VII. 14-52. Discourses of Jesus at the Feast of Tabernacles. 14 \T OW about the midst ' of the feast Jesus went up into the 15 IN temple, 2 and taught. "And the Jews 3 marvelled, say- "^™p- a « ing, How knoweth this man letters, having never learned ? 16 Jesus 4 answered them, and said, * My doctrine 5 is not mine. 17 but his that sent me. ' If any man will do 6 his will, he shall g^J*,. know of the doctrine, 7 whether it be 8 of God, or whether I c ^*_ chap IS speak of 9 myself. rf He that speaketh of 9 himself seeketh his ™ft«J*f. : own glory: but he that seeketh his glory 10 that sent him, the ./gUp.. v. 4 i, 19 same is true, and 11 no unrighteousness is 18 in him. e Did not £}f.™: s °' Moses give you the law, and yet none of you keepeth the law ? 13 ,'. 20 -'"Why go ye about " to kill me ? The people li answered and ' Aea^i 38.' said, 10 Thou s hast a devil: 17 who goeth about 19 to kill thee ? r cha" P !'viii. 21 Jesus answered and said unto them, ''I have done 19 one work, Man J . , , . Mark iii. 22 22 and ye all marvel. ' Moses therefore gave unto you circum- AChap.v.9. cision; 20 (not because 21 it is of Moses, but k of the fathers;) iGen.xvii." 23 and ye on the sabbath day circumcise a man. If a man !! on the sabbath day receive circumcision, 23 that the law of Moses should 24 not be broken ; 'are ye angry at 2i me, because I have 26 /chap. v..i6 ; J & J Luke xm. 24 made a man every whit whole on the sabbath day? '" Judge ^^"-^ not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment. ™- 's- 25 Then said some of them of Jerusalem, 27 Is not this he, whom 26 they seek to kill? But, 88 lo, he speaketh boldly, and they say nothing unto him. "Do 89 the "rulers know indeed 30 that this "Xf-* 8 .-. 1:5 o Chap. 111. 1 27 is the very 31 Christ? ^Howbeit we know this man whence he *$*£■ *■:■**■ is : but when Christ 32 cometh, no man knoweth 33 whence he is. ss. 28 Then cried Jesus in the temple as he taught, saying, 34 Ye g both ?Com P . chap, know me, and ye know whence I am: and r I am" not come r S^" v " 43 ' ' 1 jrui. 42. of myself, but he that sent me *is true, 'whom ye know not. s ^%- 32 - 29 ' But 36 I know him : for 37 I am from him, and r he hath 39 sent '^fe^ 30 me. Then they sought to take him: "but 39 no man laid „% r . 44; chap. viii. 1 And when it was already the middle 2 temple-courts 3 The Jews therefore * Jesus therefore 3 teaching 6 to do 7 he will perceive of the teaching s is 9 from 10 the glory of him n and there is 12 omit is 13 and no one of you doeth the law u Why seek ye 18 multitude 16 omit and said 17 demon 18 who seeketh 19 I did 20 For this cause hath Moses given you the circumcision 21 that -'-' If a man receiveth circumcision 2S omit receive circumcision -' may 25 with 2C omit have 27 Some therefore of them of Jerusalem said 2S And 29 Can it be that 30 omit indeed 31 omit very 32 the Christ 33 no one perceiveth 34 Jesus therefore cried in the temple-courts teaching and saying 35 have 36 omit But 37 because ss omit hath 39 They sought therefore to seize him. and 92 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN. [Chap. VII. 14-52. 31 hands 40 on him, because ''his hour was not yet come. And »Ver. 6. "'"many of the people 41 believed on '- him, and said, When *"<-'ha P . .. ;-,. Christ 43 cometh, will he do more miracles 44 than these which this man hath done ? 32 The Pharisees heard that the people murmured 45 such 4l ' things concerning him ; and the Pharisees and the chief 33 priests 47 sent officers to take 4 " him. Then said Jesus 49 unto them, 50 Yet * a little while am I with you, and t/ien* 1 I y so .rSeechap. *'"■ 35- 34 unto him that sent me. " Ye shall seek me, and shall not find y chap, xvi. 5. See chap. 35 vie: and where I am, thither" ye cannot come. "Then said *»■• ■• . J J t ' J z Chap. vm. the Jews" among themselves, Whither will he go, 54 that we "> 3tiii -33- J & & a Lhap. vm. shall not find him ? will he go unto b the dispersed among 55 the , 2 . 2 " • 36 Gentiles, 56 and teach the Gentiles ? 56 ' What manner of saying i/ et - '■ '.■ *> ' J J & c Chap. Jrvi. is this that he said,'' 7 Ye shall seek me, and shall not find ' 7 ' l8 - me: and where I am, thither 1 '- ye cannot come? 37 ''In 58 the last day, that 59 great day of the feast, Jesus stood dl * v - Jodi! - and cried, saying', e If any man 60 thirst, let him come unto me, cI ? a - lv - l: ' J -J J ' chap. vi. 35 ; 38 and drink. He that believeth on 61 me, as •''the scripture ^ ev - xxn - hath 1,2 said, ^out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water. -^""Eip" 7 . 39 ( ; 'But 63 this spake he of 64 the Spirit, which they that believe "ii.*^™ on 65 him should 1,6 receive: for the Holy Ghost 67 was not yet ™ s \ *£'£,' given; because that Jesus was not yet 'glorified.) ?seechap. 40 Many of the people 68 therefore, when they heard this say- //i^'xii'v 4 ^; 41 ing, 69 said, Of a truth this is * the Prophet. Others said, ' This chap.'xi^' is the Christ. But 70 some said, Shall Christ 71 come '"out of Acts. T ii. 7 ' 42 Galilee? Hath not -''the scripture said, That Christ 72 cometh 'xH?i6. p " "of the seed of David, and "out of the town of Bethlehem, 73 vri 4 . ap ' 43 * where David was? So q there was a division among the vi. 6 9 .' 44 people 74 because of him. And r some of them would have chap. i.' 46. ' r . 11 Sre Matt. taken 75 him ; but no man laid hands on him. xxn. 4;. o See Matt. 45 Then came the officers 7 to the chief priests and Pharisees ; u-s. and they said unto them, Why have ye not brought him? 1.4. q Ver. 12. 46 The officers answered, 'Never man spake like this man. 77 r Y, er - 3 °- ~ m s ^ er - ;2 - 47 Then answered them the Pharisees, Are ye also deceived? 78 ' M " ! ■ ■• 10 his hand 41 But of the multitude many 42 in 43 the Christ 44 signs 4 - r> heard the multitude murmuring 4li these 47 the chief priests and the Pharisees 43 seize 40 Jesus therefore said 50 omit unto them 61 omit then ■'- omit thither 68 The Jews therefore said 54 Whither is this man about to go 55 Is he about to go to the Dispersion of 66 Greeks 57 What is this word which he spake hi And in 61 in ea omit hath 65 believed in 88 Some of the multitude 71 What, doth the Christ 73 and from Bethlehem the village 74 There arose therefore a division among the multitude 75 seized 70 The officers therefore came 7r Never did a man so speak 78 The Pharisees therefore answered them, Have ye also been led astray? ''■' the co one • 3 And 04 concei >6 were to 67 for the Spirit 19 these words 70 omit But - the Christ Chap. VII. 14-52. J THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN. 48 Have any 7 '' of the "rulers or of the Pharisees believed on 49 him? 00 But this people"' who knoweth" not the law are 50 cursed. Nicodemus saith unto them, ("he that came to Jesus 51 by night, 83 being one of them,) '"Doth our law judge any** 52 man, before it hear him, and know 95 what lie doeth ? They answered and said unto him, Art thou also x oi Galilee? Search, and look : for Bli out of Galilee ariseth no prophet. 79 Hath any one 80 believed in him, or of the Pharisees 81 multitude 82 which understandeth 83 to him before 84 a 85 except it have first heard from himself and learned 80 Search and see that Content,-,. In this section Jesus appears at the feast to which He went up when I lis Father's, and therefore His own, hour was come. The opportunity afforded by it of teaching is embraced, and we are presented with the teaching and its effect. In the successive discourses recorded, the same general line of thought is to be traced as in chaps, v. and vi. But a particular direction is given them by the circumstances amidst which they are spoken. Jesus comes again before us as the Fulfiller of the law, of the last and greatest of the annual feasts of Israel. — that feast which, in the language of the prophets, shadowed forth the gift of the Spirit and the highest glory of Messianic times. The effect is, as usual, twofold : some are attracted, others are repelled. The subordinate parts are — (I) vers. 14-2) ; 25-31 ; ( : ) ^rs. 32-36 ; (4) vers. 37-39 ; (5) vei . 40-44 ; (o) vers. 45-52. Ver. 14. And when it was already the middle of the feast, Jesus went up into the temple- courts, and taught. It is evident that the Evangelist means to impress us with the sudden- ness of this appearance of Jesus in the temple- courts. The Lord suddenly comes to His temple, and, at this feast of peculiar joy and hope, He brings with Him a special message and promise of the new covenant (ver. 38; Mai. iii. I). His teaching during the latter half of the sacred week is to prepare lor His words on the last day of the feast. Ver. 15. The Jews therefore marvelled, saying, How knoweth this man letters, having never learned? The marvelling on the part of the 'Jews' (see note on chap. v. 20) is not an astonishment that compels further inquiry and leads towards belief. They are baffled, and forced to acknowledge against themselves what they would fain have denied. It was only after a long series of years spent in study that the Jewish scholar was permitted to become a teacher, and was solemnly ordained a member of the com- munity of doctors of the law. Jesus, it was known, had not been taught in the rabbinical schools, nevertheless He was proving Himself, in such a manner that His enemies could not gainsay the fact, a skilled and powerful teacher. Jewish learning dealt chiefly with the letter of the written Word (especially the Law), and with the body of unwritten tradition. The words which crown our Lord's teaching at this feast enter into the very heart and express the inmost spirit of the whole- Old Testament revelation (vers. 38, 39). Ver. 16. Jesus therefore answered them, and said, My teaching is not mine, but his that sent me. It was the practice of Jewish Rabbis to pro- claim from whom they 'received' their teaching, and to quote the sayings of the wise men who preceded them. What they proclaimed of them- the leaching of Jesus proclaims of itseli to all worthy listeners. His teaching, though He had never ' learned ' it in the sense in which they use the term, is yet not His own ; neither in its substance nor in its authority must they count it His. As His works were those which the Father gave Him to accomplish (chap. v. 36), so His words were the expression of the truth which He has heard from God (viii. 40), and the Father hath given Him commandment what He shall say (xii. 49). Hence His words are God's word the teaching comes with the authority of God. Such teaching is self-evidential, where man really wishes to hear the voice of God : for — Ver. 17. If any one will to do his will, he will perceive of the teaching, whether it is of God, or whether I speak from myself. Many a time did the Jews refuse to recognise the teaching of Jesus unless He could prove by a miracle that God was working with Him. Here He tells them that, had they the will to do God's will, they would need no miracle in evidence that in His teaching they heard the words of God : as the child at once recognises his father's voice, so would they, if living in harmony with God's will and purpose, recognise in His voice the voice of God. Such recognition of the words of Jesus is the test, there- fore, of a will bent on doing the will of God. and every such effort of will is consciously strengthened by His words ; while, on the other hand, the heart which seeks its own glory and not the glory of God is repelled by them (chap. v. 44). No words can more clearly show that the very end of the teaching of Jesus as set forth in this Gospel is not empty speculation but practical righteousness. It may be asked, Is our lord merely stating a truth ('he will perceive'), Ot- is He also giving a promise ('he shall perceive, — shall come to know ') ? Both thoughts are implied. Jesus does not say that the clear conception comes at once, — but come it will, come it shall. The last words must be carefully distinguished from those of chap. v. 31, etc., 'bearing witness concerning Myself. 1 Here the word used refers to the origin, the source, of the speaking ; and the meaning exactly agrees with chap. v. 30, — there 'doing,' here 'speaking,' from or of Himself. The words of ver. 17 are especially remarkable when we call to mind that they were addressed to persons all whose thoughts of revelation as a thing demonstrated to man were connected with tokens 94 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN. [CHAP. VII. 14 -52 of the Divine presence appealing to the senses. What a new world did it open up to tell them that perception of the Divine origin of any teaching depends upon our seeing that it strengthens and perfects that moral nature which is within us the counterpart of the Divine nature ! Ver. iS. He that speaketh from himself seeketh his own glory. If a man speaks from himself, giving out all that he says as coming from himself, it is clear that he is seeking the glory of no one but himself. If one who so acts is a messenger from another (and here the thought in the later words, ' him that sent him,' seems intended to apply to the whole verse), it is plain that his attitude is altogether false : he represents as ' from himself ' that which really is 'from him that sent him.' — But he that seeketh the glory of him that sent him, the same is true, and there is no unrighteousness in him. From the maxim con- tained in the first clause ol this verse it follows at once that whoever is not seeking his own glory does not speak from himself. But every word of Jesus shows that He seeks His Father's glory : hence it cannot be that He is speaking from Him- self. — But as a messenger speaking from himself and aiming at his own glory is false to his position and work, so he that seeks the glory of the sender only is true to them, and there is no unrighteousness in him, — his work and duty as messenger are fully accomplished. These last words, like the first clause of the verse, are per- fectly general, though absolutely realised in Christ alone. By Him the condition is completely ful- filled : of Him the freedom from unrighteousness is absolutely true. This verse connects itself with what precedes and with what follows: (1) A will to do God's will will lead to right judgment respecting Christ (ver. 17), because he who has such a will can discern the complete submission of Jesus to the will of God, His complete freedom from self-seeking (ver. iS) ; (2) Is it thus proved to every one who is seeking to do God's will that Jesus is the real messenger of God, accurately teaching His will, then the accusation which is in the minds of His enemies (vers. 21, 22), that He has contradicted God's will in the matter of the Sabbath (chap. v. iS), must fall to the ground of itself. Ver. 19. Did not Moses give you the law, and no one of you doeth the law? Why seek ye to kill me ? There are two ways in which this verse may be taken, and between them it is not easy to decide. They turn on the interpretation of ' no one of you doeth the law ; ' for this may find its explanation either in the words that imme- diately follow or in vers. 21-25. I' ma . v ' )e best to give the connection of thought according to each of these views. In both cases the ' law' chiefly de- notes the Ten Commandments. ( 1 ) The accusation of the Jews against Jesus, of having transgressed God's will, must fall to the ground (ver. 18), but not so His accusation against them. Moses, whom all accepted as God's true messenger, gave them the law, which therefore expressed God's will, and yet every one of them was breaking the law, for they were seeking to kill Jesus. They were there- fore self-convicted by their own works of opposing the revealed will of God : no wonder therefore that they had rejected Jesus. In favour of this explanation we may say that the words are (vers. 15, 16) addressed to 'the Jews,' whose murderous mention Jesus well knew not to have been in- spired by true zeal for the law, — that the words so understood aptly follow vers. 17, iS, — and that we thus secure for the solemn expression 'doeth the law' a natural and worthy sense. (2) The other explanation connects this verse less strictly with ver. 18. In Jesus, as a true messenger, there is no unrighteousness. What they have called unrighteousness h altogether righteous, — nay, it is what they themselves habitually do, and rightly do. Moses gave them the law, the whole law, and yet there is no one of them that keeps the whole law. Every one of them (as the example afterwards given proves) sets aside one of two conflicting laws, breaks one commandment when there is no other way of keeping a higher com- mand inviolate ; and this is all that Jesus did in the act for which they seek to kill Him. This second explanation agrees well with what follows ; and, although at first sight it seems almost ton mild to be spoken to 'the Jews,' it has really great sharpness. It must have at once penetrated then hearts and thrown a light upon the guilt and folly of their conduct which they could only evade by again deliberately turning their eyes from the light. ' No one of you doeth the law ' is alsi 1 a very heavy charge. On the whole, the second interpretation seems preferable to the first. Ver. 20. The multitude answered, Thou hast a demon; who seeketh to kill thee? It is im- portant to observe that this answer is returned by the multitude, not by those to whom ver. 19 is addressed, and the multitude is apparently in entire ignorance of the designs of 'the Jews.' That the people should have thought possession by a demon the only possible explanation of the presence of such a thought in the mind of Jesus places in boldest relief the guilt of 'the Jews.' To bring this out is probably the explanation of the insertion of a remark for which it is otherwise difficult to account. Ver. 21. Jesus answered and said unto them, I did one work, and ye all marvel. This answer seems lo have been addressed to the multitude, 01 rather to the whole body of those present includ- ing 'the Jews,' not to 'the Jews' alone (as is supposed by some who make ver. 20 a paren- thesis) : hence the calmness of the tone. 'One work,' viz. that recorded in chap. v. 1-8, — the miracle, with all its attendant circumstances. Many other miracles had Jesus wrought in Jeru- salem (chap. ii. 25), but this one had caused all the amazement and repulsion of feeling of which He is here speaking. Ver. 22. For this cause hath Moses given you the circumcision (not that it is of Moses but of the fathers), and ye on the sabbath day circum- cise a man. The very law was intended to teach them the fundamental principle upon which Jesus rested His defence, to look beyond the letter to the spirit, and to see that sometimes an ordinance is most honoured when its letter is broken. 'For this cause ' — to teach this lesson — Moses, who gave the Ten Commandments (ver. 19), one of which enjoined the sabbath rest, took up into the law which he gave (see ver, 23, 'the law of Moses') the far earlier ordinance of circumcision, laying down or rather repeating the strict rule that the rite must be performed on the eighth day (Lev. xii. 3). When this eighth day fell on tin- sabbath, the Jews, however inconsistent the rite might seem with the rigid sabbath rest, yet. with a true instinct, never hesitated to circumcise a child. They felt that to receive the sign of God's cove- Chap. VII. 14-52.] THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN nant, the token of consecration and of the removal of uncleanness (and — may we add? — the token of the promise which was before and above the law, Gal. iii. 17), could never be really inconsistent with any command of God. In acting as they did, therefore, they proved that in this matter the lesson which the lawgiver designed to teach hail been truly learned by them ; yet it was a lesson essentially the same as that which the healing by Jesus on the sabbath day had taught. This passage is of great interest as showing that in many respects the law, even whilst seeming to deal in positive precepts only, was intended to become, and in some measure actually was, a discipline, preparing for the 'dispensation of the Spirit.' Ver. 23. If a man receiveth circumcision on the sabbath day, that the law of Moses may not be broken, are ye angry with me, because I made a man every whit whole on the sabbath day? Their reverence for the law and their deter- mination that it should not be broken led them to break the letter of the Fourth Commandment, or rather to do that which they would otherwise have thought inconsistent with its precept. How then can they be indignant at Jesus for the deed which He had done on the sabbath ? He had performed a far more healing work than circum- cision. He had given not merely a token of the removal of uncleanness, but complete freedom from the blight and woe which sin had brought (see chap. v. 14) on the 'whole man.' It may be thought that in this last expression our Lord refers only to the cure of a disease by which the entire body had been prostrated ; but the verse just quoted (chap. v. 14), and the recollection of the figurative and spiritual application of the rite of circumcision with which the prophets had made the Jews familiar, warn us against limiting the miracle at the pool of Bethesda to the restoration of physical health. Ver. 24. Judge not according to the appear- ance, but judge righteous judgment. Righteously had they judged in regard to themselves. So let them judge His work, and they will see that, where they had suspected only the presence of iniquity, there was the highest righteousness. Ver. 25. Some therefore of them of Jerusalem said, Is not- this he whom they seek to kill ? The speakers are a different class from those hitherto introduced, — 'they of Jerusalem: ' these seem to have more knowledge of the designs of ' the Jews ' than was possessed by ' the multitude ' (ver. 20). Ver. 26. And, lo, he speaketh boldly, and they say nothing unto hint. Can it be that the rulers know that this is the Christ ? No opinion as to these designs is expressed ; there is neither sympathy nor blame ; there is only bewilderment, occasioned by the inconsistency between the sup- posed wishes of the rulers and the boldness and freedom with which Jesus is allowed to speak. Can it be that there is some secret reason for this, — that the rulers have really made a discovery, which they will not allow — , that this is the Christ ? The question is no sooner asked than it is answered by themselves : — Ver. 27. Howbeit we know this man whence he is ; but when the Christ cometh, no one per- ceiveth whence he is. In ver. 42 we read of the expectation that the Christ would come from Bethlehem (see also Matt. ii. 5). But there is no inconsistency between this verse and that, for it seems to have been the belief of the Jews that the Redeemer would indeed first appear in Bethlehem, but would then be snatched away and hidden, and finally would afterwards suddenly manifest Him- self, — from what place and at what time no one could tell. So Jesus warns His disciples that the cry will be heard, ' Lo, here is the Christ: 1 r, Lo, he is there ' (Mark xiii. 21). Vers. 28, 29. Jesus therefore cried in the temple-courts teaching and saying. Knowing that such words were in the mouths of the people of Jerusalem, Jesus cried aloud in the hearing of all. The word 'teaching' may seem unneces- sary : it appears to be added in order to link what is here said to the teaching of vers. 14 and 16 : what He says is no chance utterance, but forms part of the teaching designed for this festival. — Ye both know me, and ye know whence I am. Jesus allows that they had a certain knowledge of Him, but He does this for the purpose of showing immediately thereafter that it was altogether in- adequate and at fault. It was indeed important in one respect, for it involved the acknowledgment of His true humanity ; but, denying all else, re- fusing to recognise Him in His highet aspect, scouting His claims to be the Sent of God, the expression of the eternal Father, it was really no more than an outward and carnal knowledge of Him. There seems to be a distinction between 'whence I am' and 'whence I come ' (viii. 14). The latter includes more directly the idea of the Divine mission of Jesus. — And I have not come of myself, hut he that sent me is true, whom ye know not. I know him, because I am from him, and he sent me. Words containing that true knowledge of Jesus which these men 'of Jerusalem' had not. It consists in recognising in Him the ' Sent ' of Him who is ' true,' not merely veracious or faithful, but real, who is the ground and essence of all reality, the only living and true God. In this respect those to whom Jesus was now speak- ing did not know Him ; they beheld the outward man ; they did not behold the manifestation of the eternal God. This ignorance, too, arose from the fact that they did not know God Himself. They thought that they knew Him ; but they did not, for they had not penetrated to the right con- ception of His spiritual, righteous nature, — a nature corresponding only to eternal realities, to what is 'true.' Not knowing God, how could they know Jesus who ' manifested ' the true God, who was ' from ' the true God, and whom the true God ' sent ' ? Had they known the One they would have recognised the Other (chap. v. 37, viii. 19). The words of vers. 2S, 29 are thus words of sharp reproof. Ver. 30. They sought therefore to Beize him. Jesus had not mentioned the name of God, but those with whom He spoke (familiar with modes of speech in which the Divine Name was left un- spoken and replaced by a pronoun, as here, or by some attribute) did not miss His meaning. lie had denied to them the knowledge of God, and at the same time had claimed for Himself the closest fellowship with Him, to be indeed the very ex- pression of what He was. — And no man laid his hand on him, because his hour was not yet come. Their zeal and enmity were at once aroused ; the ' men of Jerusalem ' followed in the steps of ' the Jews ' (ver. I). Yet they could not touch Him, for it was not yet God's time. Ver. 31. But of the multitude many believed THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN. [Chap. VII. 14-52. in Mm, and said, When the Christ conieth, will he do more signs than these which this man hath done? The last verse showed how the hostility to Jesus was glowing ; this verse presents the brighter side. The division of the people goes on continually increasing : they who are of the light are attracted towards Jesus, they who are of darkness are repelled. The faith of these believers is real ('they believed in JJim'), though not so firm and sure as that which rests less on ' signs ' than on His own word. Ver. 32. The Pharisees heard the multitude murmuring these things concerning him, and the chief priests and the Pharisees sent officers to seize him. To the various parties already mentioned in this chapter, the Jews (vers. 11, 13, 15), the multitudes (ver. 12), or the multitude (vers. 20, 31), and them of Jerusalem (ver. 25), are here added the Pharisees and also the chief priests, now mentioned for the first time in this Gospel. In three earlier passages (chap. i. 24, iii. 1, iv. 1) John has spoken of the Pharisees, and in the last of these only (chap. iv. 1) has there been any in- timation of either secret or open hostility on the part of this sect toward our Lord. It is otherwise with the other Gospels. In the course of that Galilean ministry which is not distinctly recorded by John the Pharisees occupy a very distinct position as foes of Jesus. To the period between John's last mention of the Pharisees and the pre- sent verse belong His controversies with them respecting fasting, His association with sinners (Matt. ix.; Mark ii.; Luke v. — compare Luke vii. 49), the sabbath (Matt. xii.; Mark ii.; Luke vi.), the tradition of the elders (Matt. xv. ; Mark vii.), and the forgiveness of sins (Luke v.; Matt, i.x.; Mark ii. — compare Luke vii. 39). The Phari 1 have attempted to persuade the multitude that He wrought His miracles through the prince of the devils (Matt, i.x.; Matt. xii. ; Mark iii.). He has refused their request that they might see a sign from heaven (Matt, xvi.; Mark viii.), and has warned the disciples against their teaching (Matt. xvi.; Mark viii.) and their 'righteousness' (Matt. v. 20). In .Matt. xii. 14 we read that the I harisees (Mark iii. 6, the Pharisees and the Herodians) held a consultation how they might destroy Him. Up to this point, however, in the narrative of the Fourth Gospel it would seem most probable that, as a body, they had not assumed a position of dis- tinct hostility to our Lord. It was not in Galilee, of which the earlier Gospels speak, but in Jeru- salem, where were their chief members and in- fluence, that an organized opposition could best be formed by them ; and in many passages at all events we gather that those of their number who assailed Jesus were no more than emissaries sent down from the capital by the rulers. Things now take a different turn in John's Gospel. The Phari- sees come more prominently forward, act more as a party than as individuals, and begin to constitute a distinctly hostile power to Jesus. The events which had passed in Galilee, though not noted by John, may explain the change. — The chief prii arc, as has been said, first mentioned here by John. In the other Gospels also they are scarcely referred to up to this period of the history, for Matt. xvi. 21 (Mark viii. 31 ; Luke ix. 22) is a prophecy, and the only remaining passage in the first three Gospels is Matt. ii. 4, where it is said that Herod convened 'all the high priests and scribes of the people.' It has been supposed that this expression denotes the Sanhedrin, but the great court of the nation did not include ' all the scribes.' With much more certainty may the words of Matt. -xvi. 21, 'the elders and the high priests and the scribes,' be taken as an enumera- tion of the three elements of the supreme council. What is the exact meaning of chief priests or high priests, thus spoken of in the plural, it is perhaps impossible to say. The usual view is that the chiefs of the twenty-four classes of priests are in- tended ; but there seems little or no evidence in support of this explanation. The only point on which we can speak with certainty is that the ex- pression must include all living who had been high priests. In those unsettled times the tenure of office was occasionally very short, and always precarious. Annas the father-in-law of Caiaphas (chap, xviii. 13) was deposed by the Roman Pro- curator about fourteen years before the time of which we now speak : within three or four years of his deposition as many as four were appointed to the high-priesthood, the last of whom, Caiaphas, retained office until A. D. 36. At this time, there- fore, besides the actual high priest, three or four may have been living who had once borne this name, and their former dignity would give them weight in a council which, consisted of Jews alone. Whether prominent members of families to which present or former high priests belonged (compare Acts iv. 6) were also included under this name, or whether it denoted other priests who stood high in influence as members of the Sanhedrin, is very doubtful. — The multitude talked among them- selves in the temple of the grounds of the faith in Jesus which was growing in their hearts. Their ■ret ('murmuring'), but not so secret that the Pharisees did not overhear their words. Convinced that the teaching which so powerfully impresses the people must be heard no longer, they seek therefore the aid of the chief priests, whose attendants are immediately despatched with orders to seize Jesus. Ver. 33. Jesus therefore said, Yet a little while am I with you, and I go unto him that, sent me. In the action now taken by His foes Jesus sees a token of the rapidity with which His hour is approaching. These words, which (ver. 35) were spoken in the presence of 'the Jews,' declare His perfect knowledge of their designs. But they are also words of judgment, taking from His enemies their last hope. Ver. 34. Ye shall seek me, and shall not find me. The frequent occurrence of the 'seeking' in this chapter suggests as the first meaning of these words, Ye will seek to lay hands on me, but shall not find me. That was the only 'seel which the Jews wished to think. But tl Jesus rested on the calamities from which at a future time they would se< k to be delivered by the Christ, but would seek in vain. His enemies hue refused to recognise in His words the teaching of 'Him that sent' Him (ver. 16): when He has returned to His Fattier their eves will be opened to their madness and folly. — And where I am. ye cannot come. ' Where I am,' He says, not ' n lie: e I shall be:' here-, as elsewhere, the simple ex- pression of continuous existence is most befitting for Him who is one with the Father. Into that Fellowship, that Presence, no enemies of the Son shall come. Ver. 35. The Jews therefore said among them- selves, Whither is this man about to go, that we Chap. VII. 14-52.] THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN. 97 shall not find hi in 'I Our Lord's words were mysterious, but yet were so closely linked with His earlier teaching, as related in this very chapter, that their general meaning would be clear to every patient listener. Vers. 16 and 17 were alone sufficient to show that 'to Him that sent me' could only mean 'to God.' But this impression ' the Jews ' must at all hazards avert : chap. viii. 22 shows how eagerly they sought to blunt the edge of such words as Jesus has now spoken. There they suggest that only by seeking death can He escape their search : here that it is on exile amongst Gentiles that He has now resolved. His teaching has seemed to them a complete reversal of Jewish modes of thought. No learning of the schools prepared Him for His self-chosen office (ver. 15): He accuses all Israel of having broken the law of Moses (ver. 19) : He sets at nought the most rigid rules of Sabbath observance : all things show that He has no sympathy with, no tolerance for, the most firmly established laws and usages of the Jewish people. And now He is going, not to return. Where?— Is he about to go to the Dispersion of the Greeks, and teach the Greeks 1 Can it be that He has cast off Jews altogether and is going to Gentiles? This is said in bitter scorn, but it may have been suggested by words of Jesus not expressly recorded. In answering His brethren just before the feast (ver. 7) He had spoken of ' the world ; ' before the end of the same feast (viii. 12) He says, 'I am the light of the world.' Even if we were not to accept the Jewish tradition which records that in the offering of the seventy bullocks at the feast of Tabernacles there was distinct reference to the ('seventy') nations of the Gentile world — a tradition deeply interesting and probably true — we can have no difficulty in sup- posing that in His teaching during the festival Jesus had repeatedly used words regarding 'the world' which enemies might readily pervert. His interest, they say in effect, is not with Jews but with the 'world :' is he leaving us? — then surely He is going to the world, to the heathen whom He loves. — The great difficulty of this verse is the use of such a phrase as 'the Dispersion of the Greeks.' An explanation is furnished by the thought already suggested, — that the Jews, with irony and scorn, would show forth Jesus as re- versing all their cherished instincts, beliefs, and usages. If a true Israelite must depart from the Holy Land, he resorts to the Dispersion of his brethren. Not so with this man : He too is departing from us, but it is a Dispersion of Gen- tiles, not of Israelites, that He will seek, — it is Gentiles whom He will teach. As in the case of Caiaphas (chap. xi. 50, 51), so here : words spoken in hate and scorn are an unconscious prophecy, lie will teach and gather together the children of God that are scattered abroad, — this is the very purpose of His coming. The book which is the companion to this Gospel, the Apocalypse, con- tains many examples of this new and (so to speak) converse application of familiar words. Thus in Rev. i. 7, we find mankind designated as ' tribes of the earth.' It is right to say that the explanation of ' Dispersion of the Greeks ' which we have given is not that generally received. The common view is that the Jews represent Jesus as going to 'the Dispersion amongst the Gentiles,' and, from this as a point of departure (like the apostles of Jesrrs afterwards), becoming a teacher of the Gentiles. We can onlv briefly give our reasons vol. It. 7 for dissenting from this view. (1) The meaning can hardly be obtained without straining the original words. (2) As probably many of 'the multitude' themselves belonged to 'the Disper- sion,' the added words 'of the Greeks' would be useless if intended as explanatory, insulting if used for depreciation. (3) The first clause becomes almost superfluous : why should they not say at once, Is He about to go amongst the Greeks? (4) The introduction of a ' point of departure ' or connecting link is most unsuitable to the present state of feeling of our Lord's enemies, ' the Jews.' Ver. 36. What is this word which he spake, Ye shall seek me, and shall not find me: and where I am, ye cannot come? This verse contains little more than a repetition of the Saviour's former statement, but is useful in reminding us that the Jews, whose bitter words we have just been con- sidering, were themselves perplexed by wh it they heard. We must not suppose that they pondered and then rejected the teaching of Jesus : their enmity rendered impossible that patient thought which w >uld have found the key to His mysterious language ; they understood enough to have been attrai ted, had they only been willing listeners, by the light and the life of His words. Their ignorance resulted from the absence of the will to harn and do God's will (ver. 17). Ver. 37. And in the last day, the great day, of the feast. The feast of Tabernacles properly so called continued seven days. During (a pari of) each day all the men of Israel dwelt in booths made with boughs of palm, willow, pine, and other trees. Day by day burnt-offerings and other sacrifices were presented in unusual profusion. Every morning, whilst the Israelites assembled in the temple-courts, one of the priests brought water drawn in a golden urn from the pool of Siloam, and amidst the sounding of trumpets and other demonstrations of joy poured the water upon the altar. This rite is not mentioned in the Old THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN. [Chap. VII. 14-52- Testament ; but, as a commemoration of the miraculous supply of water in the wilderness, it was altogether in harmony with the general spirit of the festival. The chanting of the great Hallel (Ps. cxiii.-cxviii.) celebrated the past ; but (as we learn from the Talmud) the Jews also connected with the ceremony the words of Isaiah (xii. 3), ' Therefore with joy shall ye draw water out of the wells of salvation,' and saw in it a type of the effusion of the Holy Spirit. On the evening of the first and (probably) of each following day the ' rejoicing of the drawing of the water' was cele- brated in the court of the women, with dancing, singing, and music ; and lamps raised on four immense candelabra placed in the middle of the same court illumined both the temple and the city. On the seventh day the ordinary ceremonies of the feast came to an end. There was added, however, an eighth day (Num. xxix. 35), a day of holy con- vocation on which no work might be done. This day did not strictly belong to the feast, but was ' a feast by itself,' perhaps as closing (not only the feast of Tabernacles, but also) the whole series of festivals for the year : naturally, however, it became attached to the feast of Tabernacles in ordinary speech. Whether the ' great day ' so emphatically mentioned here was this eighth day or the seventh day of the feast is a point which has been much discussed, and on which we cannot arrive at certainty. On the whole it is most pro- bable that the eighth day is referred to, the day of holy rest in which the feasts seemed to reach their culmination, and which retained the sacred associa- tions of the festival just past, though the marks of special rejoicing had come to an end. This last day lie to whom all the festivals of Israel pointed chose for the proclamation which showed the joy and hope of the feast of Tabernacles fulfilled in Himself. — Jesus stood and cried, saying, If any one thirst, let hiin come xmto me and drink. The words 'stood and cried' bring into relief the solemn earnestness of this declaration, which com- pleted and perfected the teaching of Jesus at this feast. The occasion was given (if we are right in regarding the eighth as 'the great day'), not by the ceremony observed, but by the blank left through the cessation of the familiar custom. The water had been poured upon the altar for seven days, reminding of past miracles of God's mercy and promises of yet richer grace : hopes had been raised, but not yet satisfied. When the ceremonies had reached their close, Jesus ' stood and cried ' to the multitudes that what they had hitherto looked for in vain they shall receive in Him. As in the synagogue of Nazareth He read from the book of Isaiah, and declared that the Scripture was that day fulfilled in their eats, so here He takes up familiar words of the same prophet (Isa. Iv. 1), calling everyone that thirsteth to come unto Him. Ver. 3S. He that believeth hi me, as the scripture said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water. The words of ver. 37 remind us of the people who drank of the spiritual rock that followed them (I Cor. x. 4), the miracle commemorated in the pouring of the water from Siloam ; the last words ('shall flow rivers') resemble more the promise of Isa. xii. 3, amplified in all its parts. There is nothing incongruous in this union of promises : Isa. xliv. 3 includes both, ' I will pour water upon him that is thirsty and floods upon the dry ground.' This is not the first time that we have found ' coming to Jesus ' and ' believing in Him ' thus brought together ; see the note on chap. vi. 35. Out of the heart of him that thus cometh, thus believeth in Jesus, shall flow rivers of living water. Not only shall he receive what his thirst demands and be satisfied, but he himself shall become the source of a stream — nay rivers — of living waters. The water shall bring life to him : the water flowing out of his heart shall bring life wherever it comes. All this is the gift of Jesus, who is set forth as the One Source of the water of Life. But what is meant by 'as the Scripture said '? Many passages of the Old Testa- ment contain similar imagery, and some of these have been already quoted ; but one only appears really to accord with the figure of this verse, viz. the vision of Ezek. xlvii. The prophet saw a stream of living water issuing from the temple, and expanding into a river whose waters brought life wherever they flowed. The temple prefigured Christ (chap. ii. 21) ; the water of life is the gift of the Holy Ghost, pre-eminently Christ's gift (chap. iv. 14). The Lord Himself received into the believer's heart brings the gift of the living water ; and from Him, thus abiding in the heart, flows the river of the water of life. Ver. 39. And this spake he concerning the Spirit, which they that believed in him were to receive: for the Spirit was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified. To this authoritative explanation of the ' living water' we have more than once referred (see chap. iv. to, 14). The word is a promise still, speaking of a future not a present gift ('were to receive'). The verse before us is one which it is impossible to express in English without a paraphrase. In the first clause we find 'the Spirit,' but in the second the article is absent, and the words liter- ally mean ' for spirit was not yet,' — the word ' spirit ' meaning, not the Holy Spirit as a Person, but a bestowal or reception of I lis influence and power. Only when Jesus was glorified, — that is, only when He had died, had risen, had ascended on high, had been invested with the glory which was His own at the right hand of the Father, would man receive that spiritual power which is the condition of all spiritual life. When Jesus Himself, the God-man, is perfected, then and not till then does He receive power to bestow the Holy Spirit on mankind. This mysterious subject mainly belongs, however, to later chapters of this Gospel (see especially chap. xvi. 7). Here our Lord's revelation of Himself as the fulfilment of the Old Testament culminates. The feast of Tabernacles was the last great feast of the year. It was also the feast which raised sacred rejoicing to its highest point ; which shadowed forth the full bestowal of Messianic blessings (comp. Zech. xiv. 16) ; and which spoke most of the Holy Spirit, the supreme gift of Jesus to His people. With its fulfilment all the brightest anticipations of ancient prophecy are realised. The effect of this revelation of Jesus by Himself is now traced. Ver. 40. Some of the multitude therefore, when they heard these words, said, Of a truth this is the prophet. On 'the prophet,' and the distinction between this appellation and ' the Christ,' see the note on chap. i. 21. Vers. 41, 42. Others said. This is the Christ Some said, What, doth the Christ come out of Galilee ? Hath not the scripture said, That tho Chap. VIII. 1 2-59] THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN. 99 Christ cometh of the seed of David, and from claims of Jesus? The foolish multitude may have Bethlehem, the village where David was ? See done so, in this showing an ignorance which, in Matt. ii. 6. This explanation of the prophecy of the mind of the Pharisees, deserves and brill I Micah (chap. v. 2) is found in the Targum, and with it a curse.— Of such contemptuous treatment seems to have been commonly received by the Jews, of the common people, as distinguished from ' the Vers. 43, 44. There arose therefore a division disciples of the wise,' many examples may be pro among the multitude because of him. And J some of them would have seized him ; but no man laid hands on him. Compare ver. 30. Here, as there, the result of the division of opinion is a more eager attempt to apprehend Him about whom the dispute has arisen. The last words of ver. 30 may be again supplied in thought : ' his hour was not yet come.' Ver. 45. The officers therefore came to the chief priests and Pharisees ; and they said unto them, Why have ye not brought him? The sending of the officers is mentioned in ver. 32. From ver. 37 we may gather that they had been lingering near Him for a day or more : I lis last words seem to have deprived them of all power to lay hands en Him. There is a minute difference between the senders as described in ver. 32 ('the And duced from the sayings of Jewish Rabbins. — Once more it may be noted, our Lord's enemi nounce their own condemnation in proclaiming their unbelief. Vers. 50, 51. Nicodemus saith unto them (he that came to him before, being one of them). Doth our law judge a man, except it have first heard from himself and learned what he doeth ! Twice already in this section have we read of the restraint placed on the enemies of Jesus. Those amongst the multitude who were ill affected towards Him were kept back from doing Him harm (ver. 44) ; the officers likewise were re- strained (ver. 46) ; now the Sanhedrists them- selves are to be foiled, and this through one of themselves. Nicodemus has so far overcome his fear that he defends Jesus against the glaring chief priests and the Pharisees ') and here, where injustice of his fellow-rulers, undeterred by the the second article is dropped. The slight change expression of their scorn just uttered. He appeals 1 1 emphasize the union of the two elements to the law, all knowledge of which they have (so to speak) into one for the purpose in hand, proudly arrogated to themselves, and shows that but is not sufficient to suggest that here reference of this very law they are themselves transgressors. i, made to the Sanhedrin as a body. It does not Ver. 52. They answered and said unto him, appear that there is formal action of the Sanhedrin Art thou also of Galilee ? Search and see that earlier than the record in chap. xi. 47. out of Galilee ariseth no prophet. No answer Ver. 46. The officers answered, Never did a to the argument was possible : they can but turn man so speak. A new testimony to Jesus, borne on Nicodemus himself. They assume that no_one by men who, awed by the majesty of His words instead of attempting a deed oi violence, declare to their very masters that He is more than man. Vers. 47, 48, 49. The Pharisees therefore answered them, Have ye also been led astray ? Hath any one of the rulers believed in him, or of the Pharisees? But this multitude which understandeth not the law are cursed. In such natter as the acceptance of any man as Messiah but a Galilean can take the side of Jesus. The last words are difficult, because at least one of the ancient prophets (Jonah) was of Galilee. But the words do not seem to be intended to include all the past, so much as to express what Jews held to be, and to have long been, a stated rule of Divine Providence : in their scorn of Galilee, and their arrogant assumption of complete knowledge of 'the law,' they regard it as impossible that out of the judgment of the rulers (members of the that land any prophet should arise ; least of all Sanhedrin) must surely be decisive; but what can it be the birthplace of the Messiah, ruler or (to take a wider range, and include all For remarks on the following verses, extending who accurately interpret the Law and uphold its from vii. 53 to viii. II, see the close of this Corn- majesty) who of the Pharisees has sanctioned the mentary. Chapter VIII. 12-59. Jesus the Son of the Father, the Giver of Souship and, therewith, of Light. 12 nr^HEN spake Jesus again 1 unto them, saying, "\ am the aSeechap.iii -L light of *the world: he that c followeth me shall not 8 *cha P . i. 29. c Chap. x. 27, 13 walk in "darkness, 3 but shall have the light of ^ life. The *"•*«■ ^ Pharisees therefore said unto him, 'Thou bearest record °f * fchT'v'T 14 thyself ; thy record 5 is not true. Jesus answered and said unto them, Though 6 I bear record of 4 myself, yet 1 my record 4 is true: ^for 8 I know whence I came, and whither I go; but /% cha P- 15 ^ye cannot tell 9 whence I come, and 10 whither I go. *Ye 4-Chap.vii.28 J J ' ° A Chap. vu. 24 1 Again therefore Jesus spake 2 in no wise 3 the darkness 4 witness concerning 6 witness 6 Even if 7 omit yet 8 because ° know not 10 or ioo THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN. [Chap. VIII. 12-59. 16 judge after the flesh; '" I judge no man. 11 And yet 12 if I 'Sl'S.*' 17 ' judge, *my judgment is true: for ' I ' am not alone, but I and *^*^ -3 °- 17 the Father that sent me. '"It is also written in your law, 13 td?' 3 ™\™' 18 that the testimony 14 of two men is true. I am one 15 that '"£'£.%" bear 16 witness of 17 myself, and "the Father that sent me "Chap. v - 37 19 beareth witness of " me. Then said they 18 unto him, Where is thy Father? Jesus answered, "Ye neither know me, 19 nor " ch;l P- xvi - 3 p my Father : q if ye had known °° me, ye should have known 21 ^p. 5 ™. =s 20 my Father also. These words spake Jesus 28 in r the treasury, ?£, h a a £ *■*;,; as he taught 23 in the temple: 24 and 'no man laid hands on *Cha P .™. 3 o. him ; 25 ' for 8 his hour was not yet come. /See chap. 21 Then said Jesus 26 again unto them, I go my way, and ye u ^^ p - shall seek me, and "'shall die in your sins: 28 whither I go, ye * v "- 2 4- 22 cannot come. '"Then said the Jews, 29 Will he kill himself ? »Comp.cha P 23 because he saith, Whither I go, ye cannot come. And he said unto them, Ye are from beneath; x I am from above: ye are x Cha P- "'• J 1 - 24 'of this world ; I am not of this world. 2 I said therefore unto * S'j&jj^. you, that ye shall die in your sins : for " if ye believe not 30 that j£^F J v ° h 5 n 25 * I am he" ye shall die in your sins. Then said they 32 unto aSmp.'Mark him, Who art thou ? And 33 Jesus saith 34 unto them, Even the ,vT re . l6 2 8, 5 s. 26 same that I said unto you from the beginning. 35 I have many cha P- xm " things to say 36 and to judge of 37 you : but 35 he "that sent me cChap.vii.28. is true ; and •' I speak to the world those things which I have <*▼«■ 40. ' r o chap. 111. 32, 27 heard of him. 3 ' 1 They understood <0 not that he spake to them vii - l6 - xii - ' J '49. xv - "5- 28 of the Father. Then said Jesus 41 unto them, 42 When ye have "lifted up 43 the /Son of man, then shall ye know that * I am "^p^"-'*- he, 1 * and s that I do nothing of myself; 45 but ""as my Father £°™ p ' Acts 29 hath taught me, 46 I speak these things. And h he that sent me {chapiv.V, is with me: the Father hath not left me alone; '"for 47 I do *c£,J* 30 30 always those things that please him. 48 * As he spake these * Chap. vii. words, 49 many believed on 50 him. «■'«• 31 Then said Jesus 51 to those 52 Jews which believed M on 5I him, If ye 'continue 55 in my word, then are ye my disciples in- 'Comp. g chap 32 deed; 66 And ye shall know the truth, and '"the truth shall m *& a ± ."■ ia 11 one 12 But even 13 But in your own law also it is written jjjj' £'»-.' 14 witness 15 he "'beareth '"concerning Is They said therefore 19 Ye know neither me 20 ye knew 21 ye would know -• he 23 teaching " i temple-courts "'" seized him 2G He said therefore 27 omit my way 2S and in your sin ye shall die 2U The Jews therefore said 30 shall not believe 31 omit he 32 They said therefore 33 omit And 3t said 36 How is it that I even speak to you at all ? 3li speak 3r concerning 3S nevertheless 33 and the things which I heard from him these I speak unto the world 40 perceived 41 Jesus therefore said 42 omit unto them 41 lifted on high ** omit he 45 of myself I do nothing ■"'• but even as the Father taught me 4r he left me not alone, because 4S the things that are pleasing to him 4 ' J things 50 in 51 Jesus said therefore y - the 53 had believed '* omit on 5S shall abide 56 ye are truly my disciples Chap. VIII. 12-59.] THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN. 101 Si make you free. They answered him, "We be Abrahams seed, »v. ~. 19; and were never in bondage to any man : " how sayest thou, 34 Ye shall be made 58 free? Jesus answered them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, "Whosoever committeth sin 69 is the servant 60 'ff^&g 35 of sin. And 'the servant 61 abideth not in the house for ever: *Gai.iv. 3 c. 36 but™ the Son" abideth ever. 64 " : If the Son therefore shall 37 make you free, ye shall be free indeed. I know that ye are "Abraham's seed; but q ye seek to kill me, because my word ? ^ap. 4 5i.T. 38 hath no place ss in you. r I speak that " which I have seen rS ^ 6 v \ „. with my 67 Father: and ye do that which ye have seen with 39 your father. 68 They answered and said unto him, "Abraham is our father. Jesus saith unto them, ' If ye were 69 Abraham's 'g ™:^ 8 ' 40 children, ye would 70 do the works of Abraham. But now ? ye m -^^- seek to kill me, a man that hath told 71 you 'the truth, "which '^p--- '4. 41 I have heard of God: 72 this did not Abraham. Ye do the " Vcr - 26 - deeds 73 of your father. Then 74 said they 75 to him, We be 76 not born of fornication; "we have one Father, even God. "f^.'s." 1 ' 6 ' 42 Jesus said unto them, ''" If God were your Father, ye would wtJoho love me : for x I proceeded forth and came from God ; 77 neither • rVer - "•• 43 -''came 1 78 of myself, but he sent me. * Why do ye not under- y ^%J'*^ stand 79 my speech? even 60 because ye cannot hear my word. '^^ 44 Ye are " of your father the devil, 81 and the lusts S2 of your father "^"'john ye will do. 83 He * was a murderer 84 from the beginning, and jxjoimiii. abode 85 not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. ' When he speaketh a lie, 86 he speaketh of his own : for he is a 45 liar, and the father of it. 87 And 88 because I tell you the truth, 89 46 ye believe me not. Which of you c convinceth 90 me of sin? c j-J»|- ."'• 2 °> 47 And 91 if I say the 92 truth, why do ye not believe me? d He IgJ;™.', 3 ,' that is of God heareth God's words: 93 ye therefore hear them rft ?=>p^.*- «'; 48 not, 94 because ye are not of God. Then answered the Jews, 95 ' J h " IVi ' and said unto him, Say we not well that thou art a Samaritan, 49 and 'hast a devil? 96 Jesus answered, I have not a devil; 96 ^«<-hap. 50 but I honour my Father, and ye do dishonour me. And " I ■^seek not mine own glory: 98 s there is one that seeketh and^'jf ap " 51 judgeth. Verily, verily, I say unto you, ; ' If a man ' keep 99 my "^Aal'iii. 13 '; 1 Pet. i'. sr and have never yet been slaves to any one 5S become a chap v. 24, 59 Every one that doeth sin 60 a slave 61 slave C2 omit but ,vi. 50, xi.26. 68 son 64 for ever cs maketh no way CG the things 67 the ' J^[ 5*> |* es do ye also therefore the things which ye heard from the Father ° 9 are 24, x-V 20, 7 " omit ye would 71 spoken to "- which I heard from God xv ," h 6 '- 75 works " 4 omit Then "■"' They said 7G were leechap. ' 77 for from God I came forth, and am here 7S for also I have not come »▼■ is- '•'•' know 80 omit even 81 Ye are of the father who is the devil S2 desires 83 it is your will to do 84 man-killer " ' stood sc Whensoever one speaketh the lie 87 for for . . . it read because his father also is a liar 8S But 1 iay the truth 90 convicteth 91 omit And 92 omit the ' the words of God 94 for this cause ye hear not 95 The Jews answered ° 6 demon 9 " But 98 my glory 99 have kept 102 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN. [Chap. \ 52 saying, 1 he shall never see 8 death. Then said the Jews 3 unto him, Now we know that ' thou hast a devil." 8 Abraham * is dead,* and the prophets ; and thou sayest, If a man ' keep my 53 saying,'" 1 he shall never taste of death. ' Art thou greater than our father Abraham, which is dead ? 6 and the prophets are 54 dead: 4 whom makest thou thyself? Jesus answered, '"If I honour 7 myself, my honour 8 is nothing: ^it is my Father that 55 honoureth 9 me; of whom ye say, that he is your God: Yet "ye have not known him ; 10 but * I know him : and if I should say, I know him not, I shall be a liar like unto you:" but I 56 know him, ^and ' keep his saying.' 2 'Your father Abraham rejoiced to see 13 my day : and he saw it, and was glad. 11 57 Then said the Jews ,5 unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years 58 old, and hast thou seen Abraham ? Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, 16 r I am. 59 Then s took they up stones to cast at him: 17 but Jesus 'hid himself, and went out of the temple, 18 going through the midst of them, and so passed by. 13 'III. 12-59. *Zech i. 5. / Chap. iv. 12 ».'Ver. 5 t, chap. v. 31. »Ver. 19. Chap vii- 23 p Chap. q Luke : Heb. > rVer. 2S, chap. L 1. s Chap. x. 31 1 my word 5 have kept my word 9 glorifieth 11 like unto you, a liar 14 and rejoiced 2 behold 3 The Jews said 4 died G who died 7 glorify 8 glory 10 And have not got knowledge of him 12 word 13 exulted that he should see 15 The Jews therefore said lc add born lr They took up stones therefore that they might cast them upon him 13 and went forth from the temple-courts 10 omit going . . . by Contents. — The feast of Tabernacles is closed, and with it the great illumination of the temple- courts, of which the Jews were wont to boast in lofty terms. Starting from this, and from the fact that He is the true light of the world, Jesus reveals more clearly than He had yet done what He Himself is, and by contrast what His opponents are. Everything that He utters assumes its sharpest, most peremptory, most decisive tone. The rage of His adversaries is roused to its highest intensity. The darkness becomes thickest, while the light shines in the midst of it with its greatest brightness. Nothing more can be done to change the darkness into light ; henceforward the children of light can only be withdrawn from it. At the close of the chapter Jesus goes out of the temple, leaving the darkness to itself but not overcome by it. The subordinate parts are — (1) vers. 12-20; (2) vers. 21-30; (3) vers. 31-59. Ver. 12. Again therefore Jesns spake unto them, saying, I am the light of the world. The last thirteen verses (chap. vii. 49-52) have been occupied with an account of the impression made by our Lord's words of promise (chap. vii. 37, 3S). This verse really follows chap. vii. 38, containing a second manifestation of Jesus, in a form and manner still connected with the feast which had just ended. As the pouring out of the water had furnished occasion for the promise of the living water, so the imagery of this verse was probably suggested by the illumination of the -temple-courts on the evenings of the festival. This illumina- tion proceeded from four great candelabra erected in the court of the women, and of its brilliancy the Rabbins speak in the highest strains. It formed indeed so marked a feature of the week's rejoicings, that no one can be surprised to find a reference to it in our Lord's words. Like the water poured on the altar, the light may well have had a twofold symbolism, commemorating the mighty guidance of Israel by the pillar of fire, and also prefiguring the light which was to spring up in the times of Messiah (Isa. ix. 2, xlii. 6, etc.). What the pillar of fire had been to Israel in the >, that would Messiah be to His people in the latter days. — He that followeth me shall in no wise walk iu the darkness, hut shall have the light of life. The words ' he that followeth me ' are in all probability closely connected with the figure of the first clause of the verse. Around is 'the darkness' of night: only where the pillar of fire moves light shines on all that follow its course, — on all, not on Israel only, for Jesus is 'the light of the world.' The language of both promises is free from every limitation saw that which is expressed in 'coming to' Him, 'believ- ing in' Him (chap. vii. 37, 3S), and 'following' Him. The special condition mentioned in this verse (when we pass from the associations of the original figure to the practical application of the words) brings out the idea of discipleship and imitation. This includes 'coming' and 'be- lieving.' No true disciple shall walk in the darkness, but shall have as his own inward posses- sion (comp. chap. vii. 3S) the light of life,— the licht which life gives, living in Christ, he shall CHAP. VIII. 12-59.] THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN. have the light of Christ (see chap. i. 4). Dark- ness bears with it the ideas of ignorance, danger, and sin : light implies knowledge, guidance, safety, and holy purity (chap. xii. 35 ; 1 Thess. v. 4 ; I John i. 5, etc.). Ver. 13. The Pharisees therefore said unto him, Thou bearest witness concerning thyself; thy witness is not true. It seems impossible not to believe that we have here a reminiscence of Christ's own words (chap. v. 31), of which His enemies now take hold, that they may turn them against Himself. Since the discourse of chap, v., the Pharisees of Jerusalem have never possessed so favourable an opportunity of thus seeking to repel the claims which Jesus asserts. As used by our Lord (in chap, v.), the words signify that, if His testimony concerning Himself stood alone, not only would it (according to all laws of evi- dence) be invalid, but it would be untrue, — as the very thought of such unsupported witness would conflict with the fundamental truth of chap. v. 19. Here the words, as applied by His foes, are inteii'li'l to have the Name meaning: His solitary testimony has no validity, and, by His own con- fession, is untrue. Ver. 14. Jesus answered and said unto them, Even if I bear witness concerning myself, my witness is true : because I know whence I came, and whither I go; but ye know not whence I come, or whither I go. A little later (ver. 17), Jesus gives an answer similar to the purport of His words in chap. v. His Father beareth witness of Him, and His Father's testi- mony is ever present. But here He rebukes their judgment of Him. In a sense (ver. 17), their requirement of other testimony is valid ; but first He must reject their application to Him of a principle of judgment which is valid in regard to men like themselves. Amongst men of like nature — those who are but men — such judgment is true : when applied to Jesus it fads. Men who know but in part may be self-deceivers, even if they are true men ; hence their word needs sup- port. He who knows with unerring certainty that He comes from the Father and is going to the Father may bear witness of Himself, and His testimony is valid and true. He who thus comes from God cannot but speak with a self-evidencing power, — self-evidencing to all who are willing to see and hear. This willingness the Pharisees had not, and hence He adds, ' Ye know not whence I come, or whither I go.' The change from 'I came ' to ' I come ' is remarkable, but is easily explained. The past fact ('I came') is not one which the Pharisees could know, except by infer- ence : His present mission from the Father ('I come') should have been discerned by all who saw His works and heard His words ; and every one who recognised that He cometh from the Father must understand His meaning when He says ' I go to Him that sent me. On ' I come ' comp. vii. 2S. Ver. 15. Ye judge after the flesh. They had judged Him by mere outward appearance, and according to their own merely human thoughts and wishes. Having formed for themselves with- out patient study of the Scriptures, and thus without the guidance of the Spirit of God, their conception of Messiah and of His kingdom, they rejected Jesus because He did not answer their expectation. But for this, the Divine witness in Him would have reached their hearts. — I judge 103 no one. They judged according to their own nature, — standing alone, without the guidance of the Father, not taking the Father along with them in judging, and thus not judging 'righteous judgment ' (vii. 241. Jesus judgeth no man. The fifth chapter has prepared us for such words as these. Here, as there, they do not exclude all judgment, but all sole judgment (see ver. 16) : it is not He that judgeth, but rather the Father who judgeth in Him. Chap. v. 22 and this verse are not discordant : between the Father, the ultimate source of judgment, and those who are judged is the Son, to whom the Father hath given authority to do judgment, but who doeth nothing save in and with the Father. The ' I ' is thus emphatic, equivalent to ' I by myself or 'I without the Father.' Ver. 16. But even if I judge, my judgment is true: because I am not alone, but I and the Father that sent me. Because in no action is He alone, even if He judges His judgment is true ; it is a real judgment, a judgment corre- sponding, not to outward appearance, but to the eternal reality of things, because according to the Father's will. The assertion of this verse, that the Father is ever with Him, corresponds to the words, 'I know whence I came,' in ver. 14: the link which binds together all these verses is His constant and perfect knowledge that the Father is with Him and in Him. In this lies the validity of His witness : in this is involved the condemnation of His foes. Ver. 1 7. But in your own law also it is written that the witness of two men is true. In the very law which they magnified, on which they take their stand, as they accuse Him of breaking the law, and declare that all who follow him are ignorant of the law (chap. vii. 49, etc.), this principle is laid down (Deut. xvii. 6, xix. 15). An emphasis is made to rest on ' men ' to prepare for the next v r The words ' your own law ' have been understood as a proof that Jesus feels that He is not a Jew. but without reason. The words flow from the fact that it is His purpose to show that the principle upon which He proceeded was founded in the law which they themselves so highly honoured, and the rules of which they were not entitled to neglect. They thus at once magnify the law and are an argumentum ad hominem. Ver. iS. I am he that beareth witness con- cerning myself, and the Father that sent me beareth witness concerning me. In all the S m's witness concerning Himself, it is the Father that beareth witness concerning Him. This is the teaching of chap, v., and it is easy to see that the witness may with equal truth be spoken of as that of Two, or as that borne by One (the Father). In thus speaking to His enemies of a twofold witness, He may mean either (1) that they should them- selves have discerned in Him, over and above that which in a holy human prophet they would have accepted as ' witness,' a higher presence which could only be Divine ; and that, had they done this, they could never have thought of His word as standing alone:— or (2) that in the witness which He had borne they had dreamed of unsupported words only because they could not attain to that perfect knowledge which He alone possessed. They heard and saw one witness only : to His consciousness there were two. The first of these two views is by much the more probable. Jesus appeals to two facts which they ought to have io4 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN. [Chap. VIII. 12-59 plain (chap. vii. 33), but they wilfully blind them- selves. Hence only one answer is possible now. Vers. 23, 24. And he said unto them, Ye are from beneath ; I am from above : ye are of this world ; I am not of this world. I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins ; for if ye shall not believe that I am, ye shall die in your sins. The second of these verses is im- portant as fixing the meaning of the first. The words, 'I said that ye shall die in your sins,' are so connected both with what precedes (by means of ' therefore ') and with what follows (by means of ' for ;, that the ground of this sentence of death is brought under our notice by each of these particles, — it is to be found in the unbelief of which the following clause speaks, and in the fact stated in the preceding verse. As then this ground of condemnation is distinctly mora! (ver. 24), the expressions in ver. 23 must also have a moral and not a fatalistic meaning. The condemnation results from something in the men themselves, not from any original necessity; should they believe, no longer would Jesus say to them, Ye are from beneath. The origin of their spirit and action, dominated by unbelief, is to be sought, not above, but beneath, — not in heaven, but in earth : nay rather (for the thought distinctly expressed in ver. 44 is implicitly present here also), whereas He whom they are in thought consigning to the lowest depths of woe and punishment is of God, they are of the devil. It is at first sight difficult to believe that the sense does not sink but really rises in the second half of ver. 23, and yet the whole structure of this Gospel teaches us that it must lie so. If, however, we remember the moral reference of the terms of the verse, an explanation soon suggests itself : for the latter clause expresses much more distinctly than the former the element of deliberate choice. The first might be thought to point to origin only, did not the second show that it implies an evil nature retained by evil choice. From this second clause we see clearly that Jesus speaks of a voluntary association, — of the depend- passed into a higher stage. It is no longer with ence of their spirit on the evil principles belonging the Pharisees merely (ver. 13), but with the Jews to ' this world.' Because such is their self-chosen (ver. 22). The witness, too, which Jesus now state, Jesus has told them that their sins— the sins known, that He was the expression of the Father, and that what He was the Bather was. These were two wholly separate and independent things, although the validity of each depended upon that consciousness of the Divine in them which they had silenced. There is thus here no pctitio prin- cipii as has been thought even by distinguished commentators. Ver. 19. They said therefore unto him, Where is thy Father? If He is to add Flis witness to Thine, let Him appear and bear His testimony. The words are those of men who will not seek to enter into the meaning of the Speaker. As they judge men 'according to the flesh,' they will go no farther than the literal import of the words. But after what they have heard and seen in Jesus, such action cannot consist with sincerity : it is not only to enemies but to hypocrites that He speaks.- — Jesus answered, Ye know neither me, nor my Father: if ye knew me, ye would know my Father also. They professed not to know who is His Father. In truth they were without any real knowledge, not of the Father only, but of Jesus Himself. Hadthey, through receiving and believing His words, attained such knowledge of Him, they would have attained in Him the levelation of the Father also. Ver. 20. These words spake he in the trea- sury, teaching in the temple-courts: and no man seized him, because his hour was not yet come. Again His adversaries were overawed : though He was teaching within the precincts of the temple, in the very place of their power, no one laid hands on Him. The Treasury was in the court of the women, the very place in which the rejoicings we have described (see chap. vii. 37) took place. This gives some confirmation to the view we have taken of ver. 12, as referring to the illumination in this court. Ver. 21. He said therefore again unto them, I go, and ye shall seek me, and in your sin ye shall die : whither I go, ye cannot come. The conflict of Jesus with His opponents has now bears regarding Himself has reference to the last things, both for Himself and for them. It is vain however to inquire when the discourse was thus continued : the bond is one rather of thought than of date. The main object of these words is judgment : hence Jesus does not linger on the thought of His own departure, but on that of the fate awaiting them. The time will come when they will seek Him, but in vain. He is not speak- ing of the seeking of faith or of repentance, but (as before in chap. vii. 34) of the awakening (too late) to need and danger, — an awakening not accom- panied by the forsaking of sin, for He adds, ' in your sin ' (i.e. your state of sin, comp. ver. 24) 'ye shall die.' Ver. 22. The Jews therefore said, Will he kill himself? because he saith, Whither I go ye cannot come. Before (chap. vii. 35) their answer had been, Will He go to Gentiles? The change here shows how much farther the conflict has advanced. Will He go to the realms of the dead, they ask, — to that darkest and most dreadful region reserved for those who take their own life, a region where true Israelites cannot come ? Their ignorance of themselves is as profound as their ignorance of Jesus. Jesus had made His meaning which manifest the nature of every one who is of this world — shall bring them ruin : for nothing but belief in Him who is from above can save them from dying in their sins. His words, it will be seen, grow more and more distinct in their awful import, and yet they are words of mercy : for the meaning is not, Except ye are noio believers, the sentence is passed, — but, Except ye shall believe (most literally 'shall have believed'): even now they may receive Him, and the sentence will have no existence for them.— But [he most striking point in this verse is the mode in which our Lord expresses the object of belief, — 'Except ye shall believe that / am.' Something apparently like this has occurred before in chap. iv. 26 ; but the two cases are really widely different. There the word 'Messiah' has just been spoken, and the answer, 'It is I,' is perfectly plain in i Here there is no such word in the ion,-- 1 ; and to assume an ellipsis, and then supply the very ward on which all the emphasis must rest, is surely a most dangerous step: to act thus is not to bring out the meaning of the passage, but to bring our own meaning into it. Besides, as we have already seen, our Lord is wont elsewhere to use the expression ' I am ' in a very emphatic sense (see CHAP. VIII. 12-59.] THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN. chap. vii. 34, etc.), with distinct reference to that continuous, unchanging existence which only He who is Divine can claim. The most remarkable example of these exalted words is found in the 58th verse of this chapter (comp. also ver. 2S). Without forestalling this, however (but referring to the note on that verse for some points connected with the full explanation), we may safely say that it is of His Divine Being that Jesus here speaks. The thought of existence is clearly present in the verse. 'Ye shall die,' He says, 'unless ye shall have been brought to see in me — not what the impious words of ver. 22 imply, but — One who is, — who, belonging to the realms above, possesses life — who, being of God, has life as His own and as His own gift.' So understood, our Lord's words speak of belief, not directly in His Messiahship, but in that other nature of His, that Divine nature, on 1 lis possession of which He makes all His other claims to rest. Observe in ver. 24 as compared with ver. 21 not only the mention of 'sins ' instead of 'sin' (comp. on ver. 21), but also the change of place given to 'ye shall die' in ver. 21 what led ii fate, here their fate itself, being the pro- minent thought. Ver. 25. They said therefore unto him, Who art thou ? Had they been patient, willing listeners, they would have seen His meaning ; but now He seems to them to have left out the one essential word, in thus saying, ' Except ye shall believe that I am.' What is that word? 'Who art thou?' The tone of the preceding words makes it certain that the question is one of impatience and scorn, not of a spirit eager and ready to learn. This is a point of importance, as throwing light on our I rd's reply. — Jesus said unto them, Howls it that I even speak to you at all? The true nature and meaning of this reply are points on which the greatest difference of opinion has existed and still exists. The question is one of translation, not interpretation merely; and a discussion on a matter > i Greek philology would be out of place here. 1 .t words of the sentence are 'The begin- ning;' and many have endeavoured to retain these words in translation, bnt in very different ways. Some have taken ''the beginning' as a name applied by our Lord to Himself; others under- stand the words adverbially, as meaning 'in the beginning,' 'from the very first,' 'before all things.' Hut none of these explanations can be obtained without doing violence to the Greek; and we are therefore bound to consider them all untenable. Even if they were possible renderings, tiny would present a serious difficulty to an attentive student of the words of Jesus, especially as contained in this Gospel. Our Lord is not wont directly to answer a question so presented. His whole treatment of ' the Jews ' is based on the fact that lie had given them abundant evidence regard- ing Himself and His work. They who will not see must rest in their blindness (chap. ix. 39). No ■sign from heaven shall be wrought at the bidding of those to whom no former signs have brought instruction (Matt. xvi. 1, 2) : certainly no direct answer will be vouchsafed to men wdio, having heard all that He has said before, have just shown themselves able awfully to pervert His simplest sayings. One line of translation only seems to be allowed by the Greek, — that which takes the words as a question (or exclamation), and gives to the first words (' the beginning') a meaning which in such sentences they often bear, viz. ' at all ' (as 105 'Does he act at all?' is equivalent to 'Docs he even make a beginning of action?'). This is the interpretation which trfe early Greek writers Cyril of Alexandria and Chrysostom gave to the words ; and we cannot but lay stress on the fact that such men, who habitually spoke Greek, seem not to have thought of any other meaning. Whether the sentence is an exclamation or a question, the general sense is the same, viz. Why am 1 even speaking to you at all? Much has He to say concerning them (ver. 26) and to judge ; but why does He any longer speak to men who will not understand His word? The words remind us of Matt. xvii. 17, 'O faithless and perverse genera- tion! How long shall I lie with you? How long shall I suffer you?' And yet those words were said to slow-minded Galileans, not to the hostile 'Jews.' Ver. 26. I have many things to speak and to judge concerning you. It is unavailing to speak to them, for they will not believe. Many things lias He to speak concerning them, and (since every word regarding them in the condition they had chosen must be one of judgment) to judge also. — Nevertheless he that sent me is true ; aud the things which I heard from him, these I speak unto the world. To all that He says they may turn a deaf ear; ' Nevertheless,' Jesus adds, ' He that sent me is true, and the words which 1 have heard from Him, these and no others do 1 speak unto the world, — the world, to which you belong ' (ver. 23). The Jews may disbelieve ; His judgment may seem severe ; but the words are God's words, and they are true. This seems the simplest view of this difficult verse ; for the prominence which the second clause {'Nevertheless . . . true ') gives to the thought of truth seems to imply that the contrast is with the preceding thought of unbelief (vers. 24, 25). Three other explanations are worthy of consideration — (1) I have many things . . . but, many as they are, they are true. (2) I have many things . . . lut I will not keep them back, for I faithfully declare the words which . . . (3) I have many things .... but I will not say them now: the things which I have heard from Him that sent me must be first declared. The first of these seems to miss the sharp emphasis of the ' Never- theless ;' the second and third to miss (though in different degrees) the force of the middle clause, ' Nevertheless He that sent me is true.' Ver. 27. They perceived not that he spake to them of the Father. This statement of the Evangelist is very remarkable ; and, as it is so different from anything we might have expected, its importance as a guide and correction is the greater. In this section (beginning at ver. 21) He has not made mention of 'the Father.' In the section which precedes, however (vers. 12-20), the word occurs several times. First Jesus speaks of ' the Father which sent me ' (vers. 16, iS) : in their answer the Jews show how they had under- stood His words, by saying, 'Where is and in replying to their question Jesus also speaks, not of 'the Father,' but of 'my Father.' So far as these two sections are concerned, therefore, there is nothing to show that His hearers had understood Him to make distinct mention of ' the Father,' in the absolute sense, — a name which, probably, every Israelite would have received as belonging to God alone. (If we look back at earlier chapters, we shall find that the passages THE. GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN. [Chap. VIII. 12-59. 106 have been few in which ' the Father ' is spoken of. The fifth chapter must be left out of considera- tion, for the whole discourse is dominated by the thought of personal Sonship. The same may be said of chap. iii. 35. There remain only the words addressed to the woman of Samaria, chap, iv. 21, and the discourses in Galilee related in chap. vi. ) Hence — though we might have over- looked the fact but for the Evangelist's timely words — we cannot feel great surprise that these hearers had not yet perceived that Jesus was making mention of 'the Father.' The words, ' I am from above,' 'He that sent me,' must have suggested to those who heard that He claimed a Divine mission ; but men familiar with the mission of a prophet might concede so much without understanding that the last words of Jesus (' the things which I heard from Him I speak unto the world') implied an infinitely higher and closer relation to Him whom they worshipped, whom Jesus revealed as 'the Father.' In this Name and in the words just spoken is contained the whole economy of grace. Ver. 28. Jesus therefore said, When ye have lifted on high the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am, and that of myself I do nothing; but even as the Father taught me, I speak these things. They know not the truth now : when through their own deed the Son of man has been raised on high, their eyes will be opened, they will see what they have done, and will then know that His words were true, that the claims which they resisted the Father Himself has ratified. The ' lifting on high ' includes both the death and the glorification of Jesus, though the latter meaning only would be understood as yet (see the note on chap. iii. 14). Some prefer to place a stop at the word am, and to take the clauses that follow as independent. This view, however, seems much less natural than the other. The three parallel clauses — containing the thoughts of (1) pure existence (as to what is implied in this, see ver. 24), (2) continued dependence on the Father in all action (see chap. v. 19, 20), and (3), as a part of such action, speaking in constant harmony with the Father's will and teaching (chap. v. 30, ver. 26)— express the claims made by Jesus, the truth of which (of each and of all) will be established when He is 'lifted up on high.' Ver. 29. And he that sent me is with me : he left me not alone, because I do always the things that are pleasing to him. The words, ' I heard ' (ver. 26), ' taught ' (ver. 2S), point back to the past, laying stress on the Divine commis- sion received : they must not be so understood as to exclude a present fellowship with the Father, 'IK- that sent me is with me.' When He sent the Son, He sent Him not away from Himself, — not for a moment did He leave Him alone. The abiding presence of the Father is the consequence and the sign of the Son's habitual performance of the Father's will. In all this Jesus is speaking as the Son of man, as the Sent of the Father. It is most interesting to compare the corresponding words of chap, v., where the subject throughout is the Son of God. It will be seen how prominent are two thoughts in this chapter, — the association of Jesus with the Father who sent Him (vers. 16, iS, 23, 26, 28, 29, 38, 40, 42, 47, 54, 55), and the strong moral contrast between Jesus and the Jews (vers. 15, 21,23, 24, 37, 38, 40, etc.). The observance of this will make clearer the links con- necting the several parts. Ver. 30. As he spake these things, many believed in hint. We are not told to what class these belonged. The latter part of the chapter shows how completely 'the Jews' had hardened themselves : probably therefore these believers mainly belonged to the general body of the hearers, and not (in any large proportion) to ' the Jews.' Once more then we have an illustration of that twofold effect of our Lord's teaching which John so frequently portrays. Ver. 31. Jesus said therefore to the Jews which had believed him. The word ' therefore ' closely joins this section with the last. Are we then to regard the Jews of this verse as included in the ' many ' of the last? Certainly not, because of the essential difference between the expressions used in the two verses, — 'believed in him' and ' believed him.' The former denotes a true faith in Jesus, such an acceptance of Him as includes a surrender of the heart, the 'self,' to Him; the latter, an acceptance of His words as true. Those who ' believed Him ' were in the way towards the higher faith, but yet might be very far from the attainment of that goal. The impression pro- duced by the last words spoken by Jesus appears to have been very great, bringing many to the position of full discipleship, and even convincing some of the hostile Jews themselves that they had been opposing one whose words were true, and whose claims on their obedience were just and right. These men stand between the two com- panies, — the Jews with whom they had been associated, and the believers who had joined themselves to the Lord. Will they draw nearer to Him and ' believe in Him,' or will they return to His enemies? The words which Jesus now speaks, to instruct and to encourage, prove to be the test of their faith.— If ye shall abide in my word, ye are truly my disciples. They believed His word ; if they abide in this word of His, — clinging to it, continuing under its influence, the word will be to them a revelation of Jesus, and will assert its power. Note the significance ever attached in this Gospel to the word of Jesus. As He, the Word, reveals the Father, and leads to the Father, so His own word reveals Himself, and rlraws men to Himself through (so teaches the fuller revelation) the power of the Spirit of Truth. Ver. 32. And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free. If they shall abide in the word of Jesus, it will be shown that they have begun a true discipleship, and the word in which they abide shall make known to them the truth. So far, there is nothing that these imperfect disciples will not gladly hear. But Jesus read in their hearts a false interpretation of His work and their own needs. He came as Saviour (chap. iii. 16, 36, iv. 42, v. 40), not as Teacher only ; in this very chapter He has spoken of faith in Himself as delivering from death in sins (ver. 24). Here the figure is changed from that of future death to that of present and con- tinued bondage : ' the truth ' shall be the means of giving freedom. There is no difficulty in these words : such appropriation of the truth found in the words of Jesus is but another representation of faith in Him who is the Giver of freedom. Ver. 33. They answered him. We be Abra- ham's seed, and have never yet been slaves to Chap. VIII. 1 2-59-] THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN. 107 any one: how sayest thon, Ye shall become tree 1 The promise ' shall make you free ' cannot but imply that now they have no freedom, but are slaves. This thought they indignantly repel, for they are Abraham's seed 1 What is the true meaning of the next words is a question much disputed. It is hardly possible that they refer directly to national freedom, for the first words of the Decalogue speak of their deliverance from the house of bondage, and this history had often been repeated. Nor can we think that the Jews are simply appealing to the law which made it impos- sible for an Israelite to be kept in (continued) bondage. The former supposition involves too bold a falsehood ; the latter, too prosaic and strained an interpretation in a context which contains no hint of civil rights. And yet there is truth in both. To be of Abraham's seed and to be a slave were discordant ideas. To Abraham was given the promise that he should be ' heir of the world ' (Rom. iv. 13) : the Divine nobility of his descendants was only brought out more clearly by their frequent adverse fortune. Theirs was a religious pre-eminence above all nations of the world,— a freedom which no external circum- stances could affect. National independence was natural (though not always enjoyed), because of this Divinely-given honour : in the same gift of God lay the principle of the Israelite's civil free- dom. Least of all (they thought) could they, who e boast was that the truth was theirs, be held in a slavery from which the truth should free them. Ver. 34. Jesus answered them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Every one that doeth sin is a slave of sin. Jesus directs them to a slavery of which they have not thought, — slavery to sin. Every one who is living a life of sin is a slave ; each act of sin is no mere accident of his life, but a token of its nature, a mark of a bondage in which he is continually held. The word ' doeth ' is not the same as that which is used in chap. iii. 20, v. 29 in connection with evil : that had reference to the commission of particular acts, this to the general course of life, when sin is chosen, — 'Evil be thou my good.' The thought is best illustrated by Rom. vi. and (especially! vii Ver. 35. And the slave abideth not in the house for ever : the son abideth for ever. The Jews believed that they were free, the sons of God ; and that, as such, they were permanent possessors of His house, and thus permanent re- cipients of His favour and love, inheritors of eternal life. Not so. In all this they deceive themselves. They are not God's sons, but slaves of sin. As such they have no more real hold of the house of God, with its present and eternal privileges, than a slave has of the privileges of the house in which he is a slave. A son only can claim a place in the house and the possession of what belongs to the house, as a right permanent, uninterrupted, as long as he is a son. In all this, no doubt, there lies a reference to their own his- i 'iy. As the son of the bondwoman Hagar in the house of Abraham, so were they in the house of God : as Ishmael (though Abraham's seed) was driven forth, having no place beside the son who was free, so must they who claimed to be Abraham's seed be cast out, if they are slaves of sin. Ver. 36. If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed. It is manifestly a special freedom that is here thought of, — freedom gained by becoming sons, and thus gaining all that belongs to the position of a son, retaining for ever a connection with the Father's house. One only can give this freedom, for One only can give this Sonship, — He who is the Son (see chap. i. 12). 'Free indeed,' not in appearance only, as a favoured slave might seem for a time to hold the place of a son in the house: 'free indeed,' because receiving the freedom and sonship from One who 'remains in the house for ever,' and never loses the rights of the Son. Ver. 33 speaks of the means ('the truth'), this verse of the Giver of freedom ('the Son'). The word here rendered ' indeed ' is a very remarkable one : it is used nowhere else in the writings of John. Closely connected with the verb ' I am ' of ver. 28, it is hardly possible to avoid the impression that it is designedly employed in order to bring out that closeness of relation between the sons of God and the Sun which is so striking a part of the teaching of this chapter. Ver. 37. I know that ye are Abraham's seed; but ye seek to kill me, because my word maketh no way in you. Again our Lord takes up their assertion that they are Abraham's seed. He has answered it by a parable: He speaks now in plainer words, repeating their familiar boast, that He may place in strongest contrast the spirit they had shown themselves to possess. ' Ye seek to kill me,' He says, uniting them with the whole body from which a little before they seemed to be severed; for too clearly did He see that the severance was but partial and altogether transient. His word had entered their hearts, and for a moment they had moved towards Him; but it made no way there, its progress was immediately stayed, and they were numbered again with ' the Jews,' His foes. Hence the increasing severity of what is imme- diately to follow. Ver. 38. I speak the things which I have seen with the Father: do ye also therefore the things which ye heard from the Father. One last ex- hortation Jesus will offer before entirely giving up these 'Jews who had believed Him.' His word had entered their heart but had made no way: let them give it free course now. He, the Son, who alone can give them freedom and sonship by the truth revealed in His word (vers. 32, 36), has in that word spoken to them the things which He saw with the Father (another mode of expressing the same truth as is declared in chap. iii. 13). With design He says 'the Father,' not 'my Father ;' for the word has been spoken to them in order that God who is His Father may become their Father, — in other words, that the Son may give them sonship. For this very purpose the Father sent Him to declare the word: this He has done, so that what they had heard from Jesus they had heard from the Father. Let them do that which they have heard and the blessing of sonship shall be theirs. (It is interesting to compare the ' knowing ' which gives freedom (ver. 32) with this command to 'do' what they had heard. In effect the same result is promised, so that the spoken of must be such as involves doing, — no barren knowledge, but one that grasps and moulds the life.) But we must not overlook the 'there- fore ' which binds together the two parts of the verse. In the execution of the design of God, to make men His sons and thus become sons of ' the Father,' two things are necessary : the Son (the THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN. [Chap. VIII. 1 08 ' Word ') declares the truth of God ; men receive the word of the .Son, know it — with that know- ledge which implies both faith and action — and become the sons of God. The Son has been faith- ful to His mission, — this the first clause declares : let them therefore be faithful to their part, and the blessing will be theirs. — The more common view of this verse assumes that in the second clause Jesus speaks of another father. This is very un- likely, as the pronoun your is not inserted until a later verse (ver. 41). There are also two other reasons for preferring the interpretation given above : (1) It is hard to believe that Jesus, so tender in His dealing with even the germs of true faith, has already passed into His severest con- demnation of ' the Jews who had believed Him.' No word has been spoken by them since that recorded in ver. 35, and it had shown blindness and self-deception, but not hopeless antagonism. True, He sees that in their hearts they are relaps- ing into their former state ; but may we not well believe that He will make one other effort to in- struct and save ? (2) As we have already seen (ver. 27), in our Lord's words ' the Father' is a Name used with great significance and fulness of meaning, especially in this chapter. This is duly recognised in the explanation we are now seeking to defend, and in that alone. — It is remarkable thnt in this verse Jesus describes Himself as speak- ing what He has seen with the Father, while He exhorts them to do what they have heard from the Father. But the words are deliberately chosen, and they confirm the interpretation now given. As the Eternal Son, Jesus alone could have the first words spoken of Him. The second appro- priately describe the state of those who had not 'seen,' who had only 'heard.' The difference, in short, flows from that difference between the Son and all other sons which abides even in the midst of similarity of position : the One has an eternal, the others have only a derived, Sonship. Ver. 39. They answered and said unto him, Abraham is our father. This answer shows how their minds are closing against the word of Jesus. Had they been willing to recognise the true mean- ing of ' the Father ' in the first clause (1 if ver. 38), they might have seen what the same Name im- plied for them in the later words. But whilst He spoke of God and sought to lead them upwards, they, proud of their ancestry and content with Jewish privilege, will think of no other father than Abraham. Yet plainer words therefore must lie used to make them understand the truth. — Jesus saith unto them, If ye are Abraham's children, do the works of Abraham. There is no true s< m- ship (in the sense in which Jesus is dwelling on the idea) where there is not likeness. Descent from Abraham cannot be a source of present honour and blessing to those who do not Abra- ham's works. They are Abraham's 'seed' (ver. 37), not his 'children' (comp. i. 12). Ver. 40. But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath spoken to you the truth, which I heard from God : this (lid not Abraham. The assertions of vers. 37, 38 are reiterated, but now with a simple directness that cannot be misunder- stood (thus Jesus no longer speaks of 'the Father' but of God), and with a distinct expression of the contrast ('this did not Abraham') which in ver. 37 has been merely implied. True kindred to Abraham is therefore impossible in their case. Ver. 41. Ye do the works of your father. Yet 59- the principle of ver. 39 cannot but be true: cer- tainly they are doing the works of their father. — They said to him, We were not born of forni- cation; we have one Father, even God. The words of Jesus have made two things clear : — (1) He is not referring to national origin, but to spiritual descent ; and (2) the father whose sons Jesus declares them to be is not good but evil. In answer to this they indignantly assert that they are sons of God. Their spiritual is as undoubted as their natural descent. ' Whatever may be the case with others (the word " we " is strongly emphatic), there is no stain on our origin. ' We cannot but think that some antithesis is distinctly present to the thought of the Jews as they use the words 'we' and 'one.' And if we bear in mind the regular meaning which the word 'fornication' bears in Old Testament prophecy, when used in such a connection as this, viz. the unholy alliance with idols instead of Jehovah (Jer. iii. 1, etc.), it will appear very probable that ver. 48 gives the clue to the meaning here. Jesus was called a Samaritan. Samaritans were taunted with their descent from men who 'feared Jehovah and served their own gods ' (2 Kings xvii. 33). This thought, not yet plainly expressed, but exist- ing in their minds, explains at once the emphatic ' we,' the reference to ' fornication,' and the stress laid on ' one Father.' Ver. 42. Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for from God I came forth, and am here, for also I have not come of myself, but he sent me. Again Jesus applies the same principle to test their claim. Were they true children of God, then they would love whomsoever God loves. But this they do not, for they love not Him who came forth from God and whom God sent. The words in which Jesus speaks of His relation to God are remarkable. Alike in His Incarnation, in His whole manifesta- tion to the world, and in His mission, lie sustains the same relation to the Father: all is from and of I he Father. This intimate relation implies the love on which the argument is made to rest. Ver. 43. Why do ye not know my speech? Because ye cannot hear my word. There is a subtle difference between 'word' and 'speech,' the former properly referring to substance, the latter to the form. (Thus in Matt. xxvi. 73, when the same word is used, it is said that Peter's Galilean 'speech ' bewrayed him.) Did they hear His will, were they really sons of God, they would recognise his speech, and the indications (if we may so speak) contained in it of the speech of that heavenly realm from which He came. But they could not bear to hear His word : what He taught was hateful to them, though it was the truth which He heard from God (ver. 40). This antipathy to the substance of what He said made any recognition of the teaching as bearing on itself manifest tokens of Divine origin impossible. Ver. 44. Ye are of the father who is the devil, and the desires of your father it is your will to do. It seems desirable to preserve in translation the expression ' the father ' (for ' your ' is not found in the Greek), because it seems to be our Lord's design to set this in strongest contrast to the name which He has used with most significant emphasis, ' the Father ' (see the notes on vers. 27 and 38). All the desires of this their father it was their will to do. Their works, deliberately chosen, answered to their parentage : hence their seeking Chap. VIII. 12-59.] THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN. to kill Jesus (vers. 37, 40), and their inability to listen to His word (ver. 43). — He was a rnan-killer from the beginning, and stood not in the truth. Well may they seek to kill Jesus, for their father, the devil, was a man-killer from the beginning of his dealings with mankind. His seduction of mankind Was itself a murder, severing man from the life of God, and bringing in the evil that has been the cause of every crime, 'thus he is the sheddei 'of all the righteous blood shed upon the earth.' Not only was he a man-killer, but he 'stood not in the truth.' 1 It does not seem likely that these words refer to the fall of the 'angels who kept not their first estate,' for then surely the order of the clauses would have been reversed. Throughout all past human history the devil shunned 'the truth,' took his stand without the borders of ' the truth,' because this action alone 1. suitable to his essential (though not original) nature.— Because there is no truth in him. 1 1 is haired of ' the truth ' springs from this, that he is not true; 'truth' (now used without the ni: hi is not in him; and his own hatred of the truth is transmitted to his children, who cannot hear the word of Jesus (ver. 43). — Whensoever one speaketh the lie, he speaketh of Ms own, because his father also is a liar. Whensoever a man who is a child of the devil uttereth falsehood, he is giving forth what by very nature belongs to him, what is his peculiar property by right of kindred and inheritance, — because his father also, the devil, is a liar. Ver. 45. But because I say the truth, ye believe me not. They loved the lie, because their father was a liar, and his desires it was their will to do. Such was their love for falsehood (even as their father 'stood not in the truth'), that, because Jesus said the truth, they believed Him not. The word ' 1 ' is emphatic, marking again the contrast between them and Him. \ er. 46. Which of you convicteth me of sin? No charge of sin could any one of them bring home to Hiin, no responsive consciousness of sin could any one awaken in His breast. These words are implicitly an assertion of His perfect sinlessness; and His enemies are silent. — If I say truth, why do ye not believe me? Their knowledge of His sinless life took from them all pretext for their disbelief. We know that His words brought their own evidence to those who loved the truth. The true answer to this question then must be that they loved falsehood. But this answer they would never give. The tone of this verse clearly shows that what has been said of their father the devil related not to necessity of nature, but to deliberate choice (see note on ver. 23), for such an appeal was intended, and would be understood, to imply condemnation of those who thus wilfully refused to believe. The same thought is present in the following verse. Ver. 47. He that is of God heareth the words of God : for this cause ye hear not, because ye are not of God. As in ver. 43, the word hear has the meaning listen to, so that the thought of receiving and believing is implied. He that is of God, and he alone, thus listens to the words of God : recognising their origin, willing to receive their teaching, he takes them into his heart. Ver. 48. The Jews answered and said unto him, Say we not well that thou art a Samaritan, 1 Not ' standeth : ' the word is probably an imperfect (of and hast a demon? To say that Jews were children of the devil seemed an insult, not to themselves only, but to God, whose children they believed themselves to be. No one but a Samari- tan, filled with jealous hatred of the people of God, or one in whom dwelt a demon, one of the spirits whose sole aim was the subversion of God's kingdom, could utter such words as these. It is possible that the Jews may have heard something of our Lord's short sojourn in Samaria, and of the favour which He had then shown to that despised people: such a parable as that of the Good Samaritan (which was spoken at a time not far distant from that to which this chapter relates) may have been so used by enemies as to give- colour to an accusation of favouring Samaria and slighting Judea. At all events it is clear that the name 'Samaritan' was now frequently given to our Lord as a term of reproach. — We must not overlook the fact that those who are now address- ing Jesus are 'the Jews,' — not a part (ver. 31), but the Jews as a body. Ver. 49. Jesus answered, I have not a demon; but I honour my Father, and ye do dishonour me. His answer is a simple denial of the graver accusation of the two, and also such an assertion regarding His thought and purpose as was equiva- lent to a denial of all such charges. He honours His Father, — even in the very words which had seemed to them an insult to God Himself. ' It is ye,' lie adds, 'that are dishonouring me:' it is not I who (like Samaritans) dishonour you. Ver. 50. But I seek not my glory; there is one that seeketh and judgeth. He will not protest against the dishonour they offer Him : His cause is in the Father's hand. That glory which He seeks not for Himself, the Father seeks to give Him. The Father is deciding, and will decide between His enemies and Himself. Ver. 51. Verily, verily, I say unto you, If a man have kept my word, he shall never behold death. The solemn introductory words indicate that the discourse is taking a higher strain : once before they have been used in this chapter, in ver. 34 (but to a part only of 'the Jews'), and once again we shall meet with them (ver. 5S). In ver. 34 Jesus is speaking of slavery from which He frees ; here of death which He abolishes (2 Tim. i. 10). In the former case the means of deliver- ance is continuing in the word of Jesus and knowing the truth (see ver. 32) ; here He gives the promise to him that has 'kept His word,' — has received it, hidden it in his heart, and observed it in his life (see ver. 37, also chap. xiv. 15, etc.). The thought here is substantially the same as in chap. vi. 50 (compare also chap. iv. 14, v. 24, vi. 51), where we read of the living bread given that a man may eat of it and not die. That passage presents one side of the condition, the close fellowship of the believer with Jesus Him- self, of which eating is the symbol ; this presents another side, the believing reception of His word (which reveals Himself), and the practical and continued observance of the precepts therein con- tained. In chap. vi. 50, the words 'may not die ' do not seem to have been misunderstood, — pos- sibly because so near the promise of ' eternal life, which suggested a figurative meaning, possibly because of a difference in the mood and disposi- tion of the hearers. In neither place did Jesus promise that they who are His shall not pass through the grave, but that to them death shall THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN. [Chap. VIII. 12-59. not be death, — in death itself they shall live (see chap. xi. 26). Vers. 52, 53. The Jews said unto him, Now we know that thou hast a demon. Abraham died, and the prophets ; and thou sayest, If a man have kept my word, he shall never taste of death. Art thou greater than our father Abraham, who died ? and the prophets died : whom makest thou thyself ? The word ' now ' looks back to ver. 4S. ' Even if we were too hasty then, noiu we have learnt from thine own words that our charge is true.' In attributing to His word a power to preserve His followers from that which had come upon the prophets, and even on Abra- ham himself, He is clearly placing Himself above Abraham and the prophets. Whom then is He making Himself? — The Jews do not quote the words of Jesus with exactness. He had said, 'shall never behold death,' — for ever shall be spared the sight of death ; they vary the metaphor a little, passing to a still more familiar phrase, 'taste death;' perhaps because it seemed more direct and clear, less susceptible of a figurative meaning. Vers. 54, 55A. Jesus answered, If I glorify myself, my glory is nothing: it is my Father that gloriiieth me, of whom ye say that he is your God, and have not got knowledge of him. First, Jesus answers the direct question, ' Whom makest Thou Thyself?' and the general charge of self-exaltation which those words contain. The specific reference to Abraham He speaks of after- wards (ver. 56). The tenor of His reply resembles that of ver. 50 ; but, as elsewhere, the second statement has the greater force and clearness. The reality of the glory of Jesus consists in this, that it comes from His Father, whom they called their God, but of whom they had gained no know- ledge. Ver. 551!. But I know him; and if I should say. I know him not, I shall be like unto you, a liar: but I know him, and keep his word. Jesus can say, 'I know God,' by direct, intuitive, perfect knowledge. The word which He uses in reference to Himself ('I know') is different from that used in the preceding clause, this latter ('ye have got knowledge ') referring to the result of experience, to knowledge gained by many acts of perception. Were Jesus to deny His immediate knowledge, He would be as false as they have been in professing to know God. The last words are interesting as bringing out once more the truth which we have seen presented in earlier verses : His own work in the execution of the Father's will is the model of the work which He requires from man. His people 'keep His word' (ver. 51) : He Himself keeps the Father's word. So, in chap. xx. 21, He says to the apostles, ' As my Father hath sent me, I also send you.' Ver. 56. Your father Abraham exulted that he should see my day ; and he saw it and re- joiced. This translation, though more exact than that of the Authorised Version, does not fully bring out the meaning of the original. All English renderings of the words (unless they are para- phrases) must be more or less ambiguous. ' Re- joiced to see' conveys the meaning of 'rejoiced because (or when) he saw;' 'exulted that he should see ' means strictly, ' exulted in the knowledge that he should see.' Nor is the difficulty removed if we take the ordinary rendering of the Greek construc- tion, 'that he might;' for exulted that he might see is ambiguous still, though not in the same way. Perhaps the Greek words (which are very peculiar) are best represented by the paraphrase, ' Your father Abraham exulted in desire that he might see my day ; and he saw (it) and rejoiced.' The interpretation, which is as difficult as the transla- tion, turns mainly on the meaning of the words ' my day.' The nearest approach to this expression in the New Testament is found in Luke xvii. 22, 'one of the days of the Son of man,' where the meaning must be ' one of the days connected with the manifestation of the Son of man upon the earth.' Here the form is more definite, 'my day,' and it seems exceedingly difficult to give any other meaning than either the whole period of the life of Jesus on earth, or, more precisely, the epoch of the Incarnation, in this case the past tense ' he saw it ' is conclusive for the latter, if actual sight is intended. The patriarch received the promise in which was contained the coming of the day of Christ. By faith he saw this day in the far distance, but — more than this — exulting in the prospect he longed to see the day itself : in joyful hope he waited for this. In the fulness of time the day dawned ; the heavenly host sang praises to God for its advent ; and (none who remember the appearance of Moses and Elias on the Mount of Transfiguration can feel any difficulty in the wortls of this verse) Abraham too saw it and rejoiced. By those who d) not accept this explanation it is urged — (I) That Jesus would probably not tin:, refer the Jews to that which no Scripture records. But the truth spoken of is so general and so simple — Abraham's knowledge of the fulfilment of God's promises to him — that no Jew who believed in Jesus could refuse it credence. (2) That 'sees' and 'rejoices' would be more natural than 'saw' and 'rejoiced.' Not so, if the Incarnation is the event before the mind. (3) That this view is not in harmony with the reply of the Jews in the next verse. That point will be considered in the note on the verse. The only other possible interpreta- tion is that which refers the words to two distinct periods in the earthly life of Abraham ; one at which, after receiving the promises, he exulted in eager desire for a clearer sight, and another at which this clearer sight was gained. But it is very hard to think of two epochs in the patriarch's life at which these conditions were satisfied ; and it is still more difficult to believe that ' my day ' is the expression that Jesus would have used had this been the sense designed. Verily, if Abraham thus exulted in the thought of the coming of his son and his Lord, the Jews who are despising and re- jecting Him do not Abraham's works, are no true seed of Abraham, Ver. 57. The Jews therefore said unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham ? The Jews understand ' my day ' to mean the time of His life; and His knowing that Abraham has witnessed this with joy must certainly imply that He has seen Abraham. How can this be, since He is not yet fifty years of age ? It seems most probable that 'fifty' is chosen as a round number, as a number certainly beyond that of our Lord's years of life. Some have supposed from this verse that sorrow had given to Him the appearance of premature age. Ver. 5S. Jesus said unto them. Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was born, I am. The third occurrence of the solemn formula Chap. IX. i-i2.] THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN. m 'Verily, verily,' marks the highest point reached are two considerations which make it very difficult by the words of Jesus at this time. The substance to assert positively that that verse is necessarily of the words is in completest harmony with the referred to here : (i) The doubt which rests on the form. In the clearest possible manner Jesus de- translation. ' I will be ' is at least as natural as a clares, not only His existence before Abraham, translation as ' I am.' (2) The Greek translation but also the essential distinction between His of the Divine Name there used differs materially being and that of any man. Man is born, man from the words of this verse, and agrees rather passes through successive periods of time : of Him- with the original of Rev. i. 4. If our version does self, in regard alike to past, present, and future, really express the meaning of Ex. iii. 14, it is im- Jesus says 'I am.' He claims for Himself that possible not to associate that verse with the one absolute, unchanging existence which is the attri- before us. bute of God alone. If any argument be needed Ver. 59. They took up stones therefore that to enforce that which the words themselves supply, they might cast them upon him ; but Jesus hid it is furnished in the conduct of the Jews (ver. 59), himself, aud went forth from the temple-courts, who clearly understood them to be a distinct (and The Jews were enraged at what they considered in their mind a blasphemous) claim of that which blasphemy, and in their rage they would have belonged to God alone. The thought is distinctly stoned Him (compare chap. x. 31). But His hour present in the Old Testament: see Ps. cii. 27, was not yet come. He hid Himself (whether but especially Ps. xc. 2. The English reader miraculously or not we cannot tell) and went forth naturally recurs in thought to Ex. iii. 14, but there from the temple. A Chapter IX. 1-12. The Opening of the Eyes of the Blind Man. ND as fesus 1 passed by, he saw a man which was blind from his birth. And his disciples asked him, saying, " Master, 8 who i did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was 3 «Chap. i. 3 s 3 born blind ? Jesus answered, Neither hath 1 this man sinned, 1 nor his parents: "but that the works of God should be made <-Cha P .». 4 . 4 manifest in him. "'I 6 must work the works of him that sent rfChap. xi. 9l me, while it is day : the night cometh, when no man 7 can work. 5 As long as 8 I am in the world, ' I am the light of /the world. »Ch ?P . i.4,9, 6 When he had thus spoken, he ^spat on the eround, and made 46. " s. ha ?- '.. 2 9- £"Mark vu. 33, 7 with the clay, 3 And said unto him, Go, wash in ; ' the pool of , ™'; 2 *- ' r h Neh. m. 15 Siloam, (which is by interpretation, Sent.) He went his way 10 Isa - V »>- 6 - 8 therefore, and washed, and came seeing. The neighbours therefore, and they which before had seen him " that he was 9 blind, 12 said, Is not this he that sat and begged ? Some 13 said, This " is he : others said, He 15 is like him : but™ he said, I am 10 lie. Therefore said they 17 unto him, How 18 were thine eyes 11 opened? He answered and said, 19 A 20 man 'that is called «'Ve». 6,7 Jesus made clay, and anointed mine eyes, and said unto me, Go to the pool of 21 Siloam, and wash: and 22 I went 23 and 1 he 2 Rabbi 3 should be 4 did 5 sin 6 We 7 one s Whensoever 9 and with his clay anointed his eyes 10 went away » and they which beheld him aforetime 12 was a beggar 13 Others 14 It IS others said, No, but he 16 omit but 17 They said therefore ls How then 19 omit and said 20 The =1 omit the pool of 22 omit and 2S I went away therefore ii2 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN. [Chap. IX. 1-12. 12 washed, and I received sight. Then said they sl unto him. Where is lie ? He said, 25 I know not. 24 And they said saith Contents. — The conflict of Jesus with the Jews begins to draw to a close. At the last verse of the preceding chapter Jesus had hidden Himself and gone out of the temple, leaving it in possession of those who had wilfully blinded themselves against His claims, who must now therefore be left to the darkness which they have chosen, and from whom such as will behold in Him the Light of Life must be withdrawn. This great truth is illustrated by the story of the man born blind, upon whom a miracle of healing is performed. The enmity of the Jews is roused ; but in the pro- cess raised by them they are defeated, and the blind man, cast out by his former co-religionists, becomes a trophy of the power and grace of the persecuted Redeemer. Ver. 1. And as he passed by, he saw a man which was blind from his birth. There is nothing to connect this chapter with the last, in regard to time or place. The closing words of the eighth chapter as they stand in the ordinary text, ' and so passed by,' would indeed suggest a very intimate connection with the verse before us ; but those words are certainly not genuine. The light, too, which the present chapter casts on the accessories of the event related in it is very scanty. The day to which the narrative refers was a sabbath (ver. 14): the blind man (who was of Jewish birth ; see ver. 34) had been wont to sit and beg from passers-by (ver. 8). We naturally think, perhaps, of the lame man who was brought from day to day and laid by the gates of the temple (Acts hi.), and are ready to assume that the same neighbourhood must be thought of here ; but there is nothing in the text either for or against such an opinion. The two points which John brings before us are simply that the case of the afflicted man was (in itself) hope- less, and that the Saviour saw him as He passed by. The obvious purpose of this latter statement is to direct our thoughts to the spontaneous com- passion of Jesus. The man said nothing, did nothing, to awaken His pity, nor did the question of the disciples in ver. 2 first call His attention to the case. He feels and acts Himself ; and the interest of the disciples does not precede but follow that shown by their Master. Ver. 2. And his disciples asked him, saying, Eabbi, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he should be born blind? It is not said that the disciples were moved to pity, but it is not right to assume the contrary. That Jesus had looked on the blind man would be enough to raise their expectation of a cure ; but expressly to relate this might well seem needless. Whatever feeling, however, the sight may have stirred in them, it recalled a problem which was very familiar to the thought of the Jews, and which repeatedly meets us in the Scriptures of the Old Testament, — the connection between personal sin and bodily suffer- ing or defect. Here was a signal example of physical infirmity: what was its cause? The question seems to show a conviction on their part that the cause was sin; but the conviction may have been less firm than the words themselves would imply. In assuming that the blindness was the consequence of sin they were following the current theology of their time : but how was this dogma to be applied in the case before them ? Who had sinned? Was it the man himself? Or had his parents committed some offence which was now visited upon their child ? (comp. Ex. xx. 5, xxxiv. 7 ; Num. xiv. 18, 33 ; Jer. xxxii. 18). The passages to which we have re- ferred throw light on the latter alternative ; but what is the meaning of the former, as the man was bom blind ? It is not necessary to discuss the various explanations that have been given, some of which seem wholly improbable. Three only need be mentioned, as having apparently some sanction from what we know of Jewish thought in the apostolic age. (1) We are told byjosephus that the Pharisees held the belief that, whereas the souls of the wicked are eternally punished, the souls of the righteous pass into other bodies. Hence it has been maintained that the Pharisees held the doctrine of the transmigration of souls ; and the passage before us is frequently explained accordingly. If, however, we compare all the passages in which Josephus refers to tenets of the Pharisees respecting the state of man after death, it will at least appear very uncertain that such a meaning should be attached to his words as quoted above. It is very possible that the historian is there referring entirely to a state of being beyond the limits of this world's history; or that, in the attempt to present the belief of his countrymen in a form familiar to the Roman conquerors, he has used language which conveys an erroneous im- pression. At all events we cannot assume that the transmigration of souls was a tenet widely embraced by the Jewish people of that age, without far stronger evidence than we now possess. (2) The philosophic doctrine of the pre-existence of souls was certainly held by many Jews at the time of which we are speaking. As early as the book of Wisdom we find a reference to this doctrine (see chap. viii. 19, 20), and passages of similar tendency may easily be quoted from Philo. Yet it seems improbable that an opinion which was essentially a speculation of philosophy, and was perhaps attractive to none but philosophic minds, should manifest itself in such a question as this, asked by plain men unacquainted with the refinements of Greek thought. (3) It seems certainly to have been an ancient Jewish opinion that sin could be committed by the unborn child ; and that the narrative of Gen. xxv., appearing to teach that the odious character of a supplanter belonged to Jacob even before birth, gave the authority of Scripture to such a belief. On the whole this seems to afford the best explanation of the ques- tion of the disciples : Was the sin so severely punished committed by this man himself, in the earliest period of his existence, or have the iniquities of his parents been visited upon him? (On the word Rabbi, see chap. i. 38.) Ver. 3. Jesus answered, Neither did this man sin, nor his parents: but that the works of God should be made manifest in him. It is obvious at once that Jesus does not deny the presence of sin in the man himself or in his parents : His words must be read in close connection with the Chap. IX. 1-12.] THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN. question to which they form a reply. The meaning Of the whole verse (which is unusually elliptical) may be given thus : ' Neither did this man sin nor his parents that he should be born blind, but (he was born blind, - he is as he is) that the works of God may be manifested in him.' Not to suggest or unravel speculative questions, but to present a sphere for the manifestation of the works of God, hath this man borne this infirmity. The last clause of the veise does not simply mean that a miracle is to be wrought on him : ' in him ' — alike in his physical (vers. 6, 7) and in his spiritual healing (vers. 36-3S)— the love and grace of God are to be made manifest. Ver. 4. We mu»t work the works of him that sent me, while it is day: the night conieth, when no one can work. The substitution of ' we ' for ' I ' (a change supported by the best evidence) lends peculiar force and beauty to the verse. Jesus associates His disciples with Him- self : like Himself they have a calling which must not be disobeyed, to work the works of God ; for them, as for Himself, the period of such action will not always last. He does not say 'Him that sent us,' for it is the Son who sends His disciples, even as the Father sends the Son (chap. xx. 21). 'Day' seems to be used here simply to denote the time during which the working assigned to Jesus and His people in this world can be per- formed : ' night,' the time when the working is impossible. In a pro- verbial saying of this kind the must not be pressed too far. It is true that the Lord Jesus con- tinues to work by His Spirit, and through His servants, though the ' day' of which He here speaks soon reached its close. But the work He intends is such work as is ap- pointed for the 'day,' whether to Himself or to His people. — As joined with the verses which pre- cede, this saying could not but come to the disciples as a reminder that not idle speculation but work for God was the duty they must fulfil. Ver. 5. Whensoever I am in the world, I am the light of the world. The work of Jesus in the world is to be the world's light. This thought, expressed in words in the '_ '■• last chapter (chap. viii. 12), and in this by deeds, binds together the different portions in this section of he Gospel, 'I am the light,' Jesus says, but even in this figure the ' we ' of the last verse may be re- membered, for his disciples also ' are the light of the world ' (Matt. v. 14). The first word of the verse is worthy of all attention, pointing as it does to all periods at which ' the light ' hath shined amid the darkness of this world (chap. i. 5). Vers. 6, 7. When he had thus spoken, he spat on the ground, and made clay of the spittle, and with his clay anointed his eyes, And said unto him, Go, wash in the pool of Siloam (which is, by interpretation, Sent). He went away there- vol. 11. 8 '•3 fore, and washed, and came seeing. In the case of no miracle which Jesus wrought is His pro- cedure as remarkable as it is here. We may at once dismiss the thought that such a mode of cure was in itself necessary: whatever may have been the design of Jesus in making use of it, He needed no instrument or means of cure. There is probably truth in the suggestion that the means of healing chosen by our Lord had in most cases some refer- ence to the mental condition of the sufferer, and that here His procedure was well fitted to awaken and make trial of faith ; but it is impossible to rest satisfied with any such explanation. The language of the Evangelist compels us to look upon the whole action as symbolical. The introductory- words link these verses to those in which Jesus speaks of the manifestation of Himself to the world (vers. 4, 5) : the interpretation of the name Siloam leads us back to the thought of Him who every- where in this Gospel is solemnly brought before us as 'the Sent of God.' These indications teach us to see in the whole action of Jesus symbolical reference to Himself and His work. The means chosen are very remarkable. It is said indeed, and with truth, that the anointing of the eyes with spittle was a common practice. THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN. [Chap. IX. 13-X. 21 114 adopted for medicinal effect : but no such usage has any connection with this passage, for the eyes were anointed, not with the spittle hut with the clay. In two other records of works of healing (both given by Mark, whose Gospel presents many points of contact with that of John) Jesus makes use of spittle (Mark vii. 33, viii. 23), and we can hardly help supposing that this means was chosen as a symbol of that which was in closest connection with Himself: thus in Ecclus. xxviii. 12 the breath of the mouth and its moisture are brought together as alike in source, though differing in effects. Having made the clay, He anointed 'with His clay' the blind man's eyes. The original words do not seem easily to bear any other meaning, and we fail to do justice to them unless we suppose that their object is to lay emphasis on the clay made by yesus, and thus again to bring Him- self, not merely the clay that He has made, but ' His clay,' into prominence, — the clay in which something of His personality is expressed. (Some of the Fathers imagine that there is a reference to Gen. ii. 7, but this seems too remote.) Again the word ' anointed ' no doubt contains an allusion to Jesus the Christ, the anointed One. The name of the pool Siloam or (according to the Hebrew form) Siloah is the last point to be noted, and here the meaning is supplied by John himself. As origin- ally given to the pool, it is supposed to mean 'sent forth,' i.e. issuing forth, said of the waters that issue from the springs that feed the pool, or of the waters which issue from the pool to the fields around. From this pool water had been drawn to pour upon the altar during the feast just past (see chap. vii. 38) : it was associated with the wells of salvation of which Isaiah speaks (chap. xii. 3), and the pouring out of its water symbolized the effusion of spiritual blessing in the days of the Messiah. With most natural interest, therefore, the Evangelist observes that its very name corre- sponds to the Messiah ; and by pointing out this fact indicates to us what was the object of Jesus in sending the man to these waters. In this even more distinctly than in the other particulars that we have noted, Jesus, whilst sending the man away from Him, is keeping Himself before him in everything connected with his cure. Thus throughout the whole narrative all attention is concentrated on Jesus Himself, who is ' the Light of the world ; ' who was ' sent of God ' to ' open blind eyes : ' every particular is fraught with instruction to the disciples, who are to continue His work after His departure, and who must be taught that they can bring sight to the blind only by directing them to Jesus their Lord. As has been said above, we must not reject the thought that in our Lord's procedure lay a discipline for the man himself. The use of means may naturally have been a help to his faith ; but this faith could not fail to be put to the test when the means proved to be such as might have taken away vision from one who was not blind (comp. ver. 39). Neither of this, however, nor of the discipline contained in the delay of the cure does the Evan- gelist speak ; for he would fix our attention on Jesus alone. That the obedience of faith was rewarded we are told in the fewest words possible : the man 'went and washed and came seeing.' The pool of Siloam, which still retains its name (Silwan), is situated near the opening of the valley of Tyropoeon. All works on the topography of Jerusalem give a description of the site. Ver. 8. The neighbours therefore, and they which beheld him aforetime, that he was a beggar, said, Is not this he that sat and begged ? The fact that he was a beggar has not been men- tioned before. Stress is laid on it here rather than on his blindness, because it was from his frequent- ing the spot for the purpose of begging that he had become well known. Ver. 9. Others said, It is he: others said, No, but he is like him. He said, I am he. The object of this verse and the last is to show how notorious the cure became, and how firmly the fact had been established. Ver. 10. They said therefore unto him, How then were thine eyes opened? It does not appear that this was more than a simple inquiry. As yet no element of malice against Jesus is introduced. Ver. 11. He answered. The man that is called Jesus made clay, and anointed mine eyes, and said unto me, Go to Siloam, and wash. I went away therefore and washed, and I received sight. This man, then, knew his Deliverer, though not His true nature (ver. 36). The word- ing of the phrase would seem to imply that he had in his thoughts the meaning of the name 'Jesus,' so wonderfully illustrated in his own case. Ver. 12. And they said unto him, Where is he? He saith, I know not. Comp. chap, v. Chapter IX. 13-X. 21. Jesus the Light separating between the light and the darkness. 13 npHEY brought 1 to 14 1 blind. " And 3 it to the Pharisees him that aforetime 2 was was the sabbath day i when Jesus made " 15 the clay, and opened his eyes. Then again 5 the Pharisees also asked him how he had received his sight. He" said unto them, He 16 put clay upon mine eyes, and I washed, and do see. Therefore said some of the Pharisees, This man is not of 7 God, because * he >> 1 bring 2 once Again therefore ; Now and he 4 on the day 7 from I.ukexiii 14 : chap ■ i'i. vii. 23. Chap. IX. 1 3-X. 2i.] THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN. n keepeth not the sabbath day. Others said, c How can a man that c Ver. 33; r J chap. 111. }, is a sinner do such miracles ? 9 And d there was a division among *■ «. a See chap. 17 them. They say 9 unto the blind man again, What sayest thou vii - »• of him, that 10 he hath " opened thine eyes ? He 1! said, ' He is c cha P . iv. i<; 18 a prophet. But the Jews 13 did not believe concerning him, that he had been blind, and received his sight, until they called the 19 parents of him that had received his sight. And they asked 11 them, saying, Is this your son, who ye say was born blind ? 20 how then doth he now see ? His parents 15 answered them 16 and said, We know that this is our son, and that he was born 21 blind: But by what means 17 he now seeth, we know not; or who hath 11 opened his eyes, we know not: he is of age; ask 22 him: 18 he shall speak for himself. These words spake 19 his parents, because they feared the Jews : for the Jews had -''agreed already, 80 that if any man did 21 confess that he was /Luke xxii. 5 23 Christ, he e should be put out of 22 the synagogue. Therefore g ver. 34 : chap. xii. 4: 24 said his parents, He is of age; ask him. 23 Then again called *«. *• they* 4 the man that was blind, and said unto him, A Give God AJosh. vii.15. 25 the praise : " we know that this man is a sinner. He answered and said, 26 Whether he be a sinner or no" I know not : one 26 thing I know, that, whereas I was blind, now I see. Then said they 29 to him again, 29 What did he to thee? how opened he 27 thine eyes ? He answered them, I have told you already, and ye did not hear: wherefore would ye hear it again? will 30 ye 28 also be 31 his disciples? Then 32 they reviled him, and said, 29 Thou art his disciple ; but ' we are Moses' disciples. We know >cha P . v. 45 that God spake 33 unto Moses : as for this felloiv™ we * know *cha P viii... 30 not from whence he is. The man answered and said unto them, ' Why, herein is a 35 marvellous thing, that ye know not /chap. iii. « 31 from whence he is, and yet he hath " opened mine eyes. Now 36 we know that '"God heareth not sinners : but if any man be a >«jobxxy;i. c worshipper of God, and doeth 37 his will, " him he heareth. Pr ° v >• »8, 32 Since the world began was it not heard that any man 38 opened 9: isa.i. 15 33 the eyes of one 39 that was born blind. * If this man were not "Jobxiji.8; JJ J Ps. cxlv. 15 34 of 40 God, he could do nothing. They answered and said unto J?s.v.i4,i; ^~ ° J o Ver. 10. him, -^Thou wast altogether born in sins, and dost thou teach pVa. 2. us? And they q cast 41 him out. ?Ver.«; 35 Jesus heard that they had 'cast 41 him out ; and when he had 8 signs 9 say therefore 10 because n omit hath 12 And he 13 The Jews therefore I4 and asked 13 add therefore 16 omit them 17 But how 18 ask himself; he is of asje 19 These things said 20 had already covenanted 21 should -- put away from 23 himself 24 They called therefore a second time 26 Give glory to God 20 He therefore answered 2 " omit or no 28 They said therefore 29 omit again 30 would 31 become S2 And 33 hath spoken 34 but as for this man 3S the 3S omit Now 3 " do 3S one ; ' a man 40 from 41 put n6 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN. [Chap. IX. 13-X. 21. found him, he said unto him, 48 Dost thou believe on 43 r the Son >-cha P . i. 5I . 36 of God ? 44 He answered and said, Who 45 is he, Lord, that I 37 might 46 believe on 43 him ? And " Jesus said unto him, Thou 38 hast both seen him, and s it is he that talketh with thee. 48 And iChap.iv.26. 39 he said, Lord, 49 I believe. 50 And he worshipped him. And Jesus said, ' For judgment sl I am come 5S into this world, " that t chap. v. «. » Mark iv 12. they which see not might 46 see ; and that they which see might 40 be made blind. 53 And 54 some'''' of the Pharisees which were with him heard these words, 56 and "said unto him, Are we blind j ver. 1 the Jewish Church is intended by ' the fold of the sheep.' Not that all who are found within the pale of Judaism belong to ' the sheep ' of which Jesus speaks. The sheep are those who hear a true shepherd's voice ; and we may so far forestall ver. 1 1 as to say that none are included under this designation who refuse to hear the voice of Jesus Himself. ' The sheep ' are therefore those who in other passages are described as ' of God ' (see chap, viii. 4.7), and ' of the truth ' (chap, xviii. 37), and the ' fold ' is the Jewish Church in so far as that Church has sheltered these until the fulness of time has come. Then, and not till then, shall the sheep be led out of the fold into the free open pastures : then, too, the ' other sheep ' will be brought, and there shall be, not two flocks but one, under one Shepherd. It will be seen that in no part of this parable are the sheep said to return to the fold ; the shepherds only are spoken of as entering in, and that for the purpose of leading out their flocks. In saying, ' I am the door of the sheep,' therefore, Jesus says in effect — (1) that through Him alone has any true guardian and guide of the sheep entered into the fold ; (2) that through Him alone will the sheep within the ' fold ' be led out into the open pastures. The latter thought is easily understood ; it presents the same promise of the gladness and freedom and life of Messianic times as was set forth by the symbols of the feast of Tabernacles in the seventh and eighth chapters. Then the figures were the pouring out of water and the lighting of the golden lamps : the figure now is very dilterent, but (as we have seen) equally familiar in Old Testament prophecy. Not until Messiah shall come will the night of patient waiting cease, and the fold be seen to have been only a temporary shelter, not a lasting home. The application of the words before us to the shepherds is more difficult ; for when we consider how this chapter is connected with the last, it is plain that Jesus adverts to the presence within the fold of some who are not true shepherds. They have climbed up from some other quarter, and are in the fold to gratify their own selfishness and greed, not to benefit the flock. How then can it be said of them that they did not enter through the Door, — i.e., through our Lord Himself? In answering this question it seems plain that we have here a saying akin to that of chap. viii. 56, or xii. 41, or to that of Heb. xi. 26, in which Moses is said to have esteemed ' the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures in Egypt.' The leading charac- teristic of preceding ages had been that they were a time of preparation for the Christ, that during them the promise and hope of the Christ had stood in the place of His personal presence. The object of every ruler in the Jewish Church, and of every teacher of the Jewish people, should have been to point forward to the coming of the Messiah ; and each should have used all his power and influence, not for himself, but to prepare for the event in which the Jewish Church was to culminate and (in an important sense) come to an end, giving place to the Church Universal. The rulers brought before us in the last chapter had done the reverse ; in no true sense had they pre- pared for the Christ : and, when the Christ appeared, so far from receiving Him, they had combined together to put away from the Church in which they bore rule every one who acknow- ledged that Jesus was He. Hence, accordingly,. Chap. IX. 13-X. 21.] THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN. 123 the strong language of ver. I. These teachers had 'climbed up from another quarter,' instead of entering by the Door. They had been marked by a spirit of self-exaltation, of earthly Satanic pride ; they had appeared as the enemies of God, had refused to submit themselves to His plans, had sought not Ilis glory but their own; their aims had been thoroughly selfish, devilish ; they were of their father the devil (viii. 44). Thus, also, we see that the term 'a thief and a robber,' applied to such teachers in ver. 1, is not too strong, for they had perverted the whole object of the theocracy ; they had made that an end which was only designed to be a means, and had done this as men who had blinded themselves to the true light, and were using the flock of God as instruments for their own aggrandisement. They were in the fold, but they had not entered through the door. Such then being the meaning of the ' Door, the 'fold,' the 'sheep,' the true and false shep- herds, the rest of the description is easily under- stood. The true sheep know the voice of every rightful shepherd (vers. 3, 4) ; in all past ages there has been this mutual recognition between teachers sent by God and those who have desired to be taught of God. But the full accomplishment of the work described in these verses awaits the coming of Him who is the true Shepherd, through whom the sheep are to be led forth from the fold. To Him alone apply the words in their completeness, but in measure they most truly belong to every shepherd whose mission conies through Him. Ver. 8. All that came before rue are thieves and robbers : but the sheep did not hear them. In the similitude of the door, Jesus had declared that it was through Him alone that the flocks could come out of the Jewish fold into the pastures into which they had longed to enter ; and this was a truth not depending only upon His proclamation of it, but lying in the very essence of the Old Testament dispensation. The prophecies had fixed the thoughts of all true Israelites on ' Him that cometh,' and had shown them that until His coming their hopes could not be fulfilled. But some had forgotten this, and had falsely claimed the place that belonged to Jesus, each deceiver pretending that he himself was the medium through which God's people were to be led to the satisfaction of their hopes. But those who trusted in God and waited patiently for Him were kept by Him from these deceivers : ' the sheep did not hear them.' Such is the general sense of this verse ; it is less easy to fill up the outline it presents. We may well wonder that any should have thought that the words 'all that came before me' might include the prophets of the former dispensation ; for the context most clearly proves that Jesus is speaking of those who 'came before Him,' pro- fessing to be ' the door of the sheep.' 1 The word 'came,' indeed, can hardly be interpreted without the thought of that designation so peculiarly be- longing to Jesus in the Fourth Gospel, ' He that cometh.' No one else has a right thus to say ' I come,' 'I have come,' 'I came.' The idea of taking the work of Jesus in hand lies in 'came.' When, accordingly, setting aside the thought of all true prophets, we ask who they are to whom this description applies, we naturally think, in the first instance, of false Messiahs, of whom many appeared in Jewish history. It may be said that we have no record of a claim to Messiahship earlier than the time when these words were spoken. This answer contains too positive an assertion. There is reason for believing that Judas of Galilee (mentioned in Acts v. .-,7) was regarded by some as the Christ ; and Gamaliel's words respecting Theudas (Acts v. 36) may very possibly cover a similar assumption. The Gospels reveal a state of Messianic hope out of which such deception might easily arise. That popular insur- rections were continually occurring is a notorious fact ; and if Josephus, our chief authority for the history of this period, fails to give us a careful account of the religious hopes that were fostered by the leaders of revolt, his character and aims as a historian are a sufficient explanation of his silence. But whether the thought of false Messiahs is admissible or not, the meaning of the words must extend much farther, and must embrace all who had sought to turn the people from waiting for the promise which God had given, or had substituted other principles of national life for the hope of the Messiah. Such had long been the practical effect of the rule and teaching of Pharisees and Sadducees. These men had sat in the seat of Moses to make void the law and to extinguish the promise by their vain traditions, and for their selfish ends ; and they are certainly, perhaps mainly, thought of here. Ver. 9. I am the door : by me if any one have entered in, he shall be saved, and shall enter in, and shall go out and find pasture. From the thought of the 'thieves and robbers,' Jesus turns to that of 'a shepherd of the sheep.' And as entering by the door has been mentioned (ver. 1) as the first mark of a true shepherd, He emphatically repeats His former saying, ' I am the door.' In ver. 7, however, as ver. 8 shows, it is of the release of the flock from the fold that we must chiefly think (and therefore the words ' of the sheep ' were naturally added). The repe- tition here introduces the other application of the thought. Whoever has entered through this Door (Christ) shall be saved, and shall enter in (to the fold), and shall go out and find pasture (for the flock over which he is placed in charge). The repetition of 'enter,' it will be seen, involves no tautology : first the shepherd passes through the door, then goes into the heart of the enclosure to call to him his sheep. He goes in for the purpose of coming out to find pasturage for the flock that follows him from the fold. The chief difficulty lies in the interpretation of the words 'he shall be saved.' The sudden introduction of this thought in the very midst of figurative language most consistently preserved (the door, enter in, go out and find pasture) at first appears strange. But the very place which the words hold supplies a key to their interpretation. We cannot content ourselves with saying that the whole parable is instinct with the thought of salvation in its general sense, and that what is present in every part may surely be expressed in one. It is true that in our Lord's parables we sometimes find a rapid transition from the sign to the thing signified ; but such an intermixture of fact and figure as (on that supposition) is found here, we meet with nowhere else. Whatever difficulty may arise, the words must connect them- selves with the imagery of the parable. The chapters of Ezekiel and Zechariah, referred to in THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN. [Chap. IX. 13-X. 21. 124 the note on ver. 1, show at once how this is pos- sible. We have before seen (see chap. iii. 3, vii. 39, viii. 33, etc.) how suddenly our Lord sometimes removes His hearers into a familiar region of Old Testament history or prophecy. To the teachers of the law, who were the hearers of most of the discourses related by John, the letter of the Old Testament was well known ; and, moreover, it is very probable that in the discourses as delivered other words may have been added, not necessary to the completeness of the thought, but helpful to the understanding of the hearers. One of the connecting links between this chapter and the last is the evil wrought by unworthy and false shepherds ; in this word suddenly introduced in the portraiture of a true shepherd we have vividly brought before us all that the prophets had said of the fate of the unworthy. Those shepherds who had no pity on the flock, but said, 'Blessed be the Lord, for I am rich,' the soul of the prophet 'loathed,' and he gave them to destruc- tion (Zech. xi. 5, S, 17). From all such penalty of unfaithfulness shall the true shepherd be 'saved.' That He whose love to His flock assigns this punishment to the unworthy will reward the faith- ful, may not be expressed in the figure, but in the interpretation it holds the chief place : to such a shepherd of souls will Jesus give salvation. — It should perhaps be said that (probably in conse- quence of the difficulty which the words 'he shall be saved ' seem to present) this verse is usually understood as relating to the sheep and not to the shepherds. It seems impossible, however, to compare the language here used with that of vers. I, 2 without coming to the conclusion that all the three are identical in subject. Ver. 10. The thief cometli not but that he may steal, and kill, and destroy. This verse forms a link of connection between ver. 9 and ver. 1 1 , presenting first the contrast between a true shepherd and 'the thief,' and then preparing the way for the highest contrast of all, that between the thief and the Good Shepherd. The rightful Shepherd has entered (ver. 9) that He may lead out His flock to the pastures; the thief cometh only to steal and kill, feeding himself and not the flock, even seeking its destruction. — I came that they may have life, and that they may have abundance. To this point the figure contained in ' I am the door ' has been more or less clearly preserved, for the shepherd has, and the thief has not, entered the fold by the door. The language now before us does not really depart from this con- ception (for in opposition to those who 'came before' Him professing to be 'the door of the sheep,' Jesus here says ' I came'), although it agrees still better with the thought of ver. H. In fact the words 'I came' stand in double contrast, — with the words of ver. S, and with the first words of this verse ' the thief cometh.' By whatever- figure Jesu, is represented, the object of His appearing is the same, that His sheep may live. The life and abundance are the reality of which the pasturage (ver. y) has been the symbol. As in chap. vii. the blessings of Messiah's kingdom are represented by abundant streams of living water, so here the regions into which Jesus is lead- ing His flock are regions of life and of abundance. To His people He gives eternal life ; there shall be no want to them for maintaining their life in all its freedom and joy; their ' cup runneth over.' Ver. 11. I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd layeth down his life for the sheep. The aspect of the preamble here changes : in the following verses, until the 16th, there is no men- tion of the fold or of the door, but of the shepherd only and his relation to the flock. The word rendered 'good' occurs but seldom in this Gospel: it differs from the word ordinarily so translated (which however John uses still less frequently) in that it is never used to express the idea of kind- ness, but always signifies what is (outwardly or inwardly) beautiful, noble, excellent of its kind. Both words may be used to denote moral excel- lence, and with but slight difference of meaning. Here then the epithet has no reference to kindness but to excellence as a Shepherd. Is there a shepherd whose work is not only faithful but all fair, without spot or defect, such a Shepherd of the flock is the Lord Jesus. The highest point which the Shepherd's faithfulness can reach is His laying down His life for the sheep : when the wolf assaults the flock, the Good Shepherd repels him, although He die in the attempt. Strictly taken these words are general, and may be said of every noble shepherd; but, connected with the first clause, they in effect declare what is done by Jesus Himself. Our Lord's hearers at the time would understand no more than this, that at the peril of His life He would defend His flock ; but it is im- possible to read chap. xi. 51 without seeing in the words a reference to the truth declared in chap, iii. 14, 15, xii. 32, — the atoning death of the Redeemer which brings life to the world. Vers. 12, 13. He that is an hireling and not a shepherd, whose own the sheep are not, beholdeth the wolf coming, and leaveth the sheep and ileeth (and the wolf catcheth them and scattereth), because he is an hireling and careth not for the sheep. A true shepherd will purchase the life of his sheep by the sacrifice of his own life. The man who has taken the work of a shepherd for hire, who is only a hireling and careth not for the sheep, abandons them as soon as danger approaches, and gains his own life at the cost of the life of his sheep. Since the sheep are not to him as ' his own ' the very name of shepherd is denied him. It may seem that the climax which usually shows itself in the narratives and discourses of this Gospel is here wanting, 'thief and ' robber ' being far stronger terms of reprobation than 'hireling.' But it is not really so : the thief at all events has betrayed no trust, and is less guilty than the hireling who in the hour of need forsakes the duty he had pledged himself to fulfil. Whom then does the hireling represent? If ' the thief who comes under the guise of shepherd stands for all who force themselves into the place of rulers and guides, for the sake of private gain, ' the hireling ' seems to represent those who held such place by lawful right, but when faithfulness was needed most deserted duty through fear. Godet points to chap. xii. 42 as ex- emplifying the description here given. The lawful rulers dare not avow their own convictions and thus guard the people who trust in them; the Pharisaic spirit is too strong for them ; they save themselves by silence and give up those for whom they should care to the persecution of the enemy. Some of these will yield to the foe and deny that Jesus is the Christ; many will be scattered. It is possible therefore that ' the wolf may here repre- sent this spirit of Judaism, but we should rather say that it is the enemy (Luke x. 19) of God and Chap. IX. 13-X. 21.] THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN. 125 man who is represented under the symbol of the natural foe of the sheep and of the Shepherd. Whatever agency may be used, the ultimate source of the murderous design is the spirit of evil, the Devil, he who was 'a murderer from the begin- ning.' Vers. 14, 15. lam the good shepherd, and I know mine own, and mine own know me, even a3 the Father knoweth me, and I know the Father. And I lay down my life for the sheep. As the figure of ver. 7 was repeated in ver. 9, that it might receive a new and blessed application, so here we have a repetition of the figure presented in the nth verse. The repetition removes from view the unworthy : we are brought once more into the presence of Jesus and His own. First and last in these two verses stand the two clauses of the former verse, altered only in so far that what there was said of the Good Shepherd is here said of Jesus Himself ('/ lay down ). Between these two clauses are placed two other sayings, the first suggested at once by the figure used, the second rising higher than any earlier words of the parable. Since Jesus is the good Shepherd, His sheep hear His voice and He calleth His own sheep by name (ver. 3) : hence He says that He Ver. 16. And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must lead, and they shall hear my voice. Not in the Jewish Church only was there a work of preparation foi His coming : the light had been shining in the darkness (chap. i. 5), — the light which enlighleneth every man (i. 9). Many in the Gentile world were waiting only to hear His voice : they will recog- nise their Shepherd, and He will know His own sheep. He regards them as His own even now ('other sheep I have'') ; they are not shunning the light and seeking darkness; He receives them now as His Father's gift to Him. It is not easy to answer a question which the words immediately suggest : Does our Lord speak of these ' other sheep' of the Gentile world as abiding in a fold? It might be so. We cannot see that there would be difficulty in regarding that dispensation of which we know so little, the dealings of the One Father with the heathen world (to which had been given no such revelation as the Jews possessed, but in which He had never left Himself without witness), as symbolized by a ' fold.' But there does seem to be an intentional avoidance of any word that would necessarily suggest this image here. No mention is made of ' entering in ' to the place knows (recognises) His own sheep and His own where these sheep abide, or of the door through know (recognise) Him. But once more (see chap, which they pass. The word 'lead' is used again, viii. 38) He places in parallelism His own relation but, whereas in ver. 3 we read that the Shepherd to the Father and the relation of His own to Him. leadeth out His own sheep from the Jewish fold, He looks on the sheep and sees at once that they here He says only 'them also I must lead? We are His : they see Him and hear His voice and conclude therefore that it was not without design know that He is their Shepherd. So the Father that Jesus said — not 'I have sheep of another fold,' looks on Him and sees in Him the Good Shepherd but — 'I have other sheep, not of this fold.' The whom He sent : He looks on the Father, and con- language of chap. xi. 52 suggests rather that these stantly recognises His presence as the Father with 'other sheep' have been comparatively shelterless, Him. There is wonderful beauty and elevation in not drawn together by any shepherd's care, but the comparison; no saying of our Lord goes 'scattered abroad.' Their fast has been altogether beyond this in unfolding the intimacy of com- different from that of the devout Israelite ; but the munion between Himself and His people which it future of Jew and Gentile shall be the same. As reveals and promises. They are His, as He is the in the case of Israel, so here the whole work of Father's. It seems very probable that in these words there lies a reference to ver. 2, where we read that he who stands at the gate admits the true shepherd within the fold, recognising him, dis- tinguishing him at once from those who falsely bringing liberty and life is accomplished by Jesus Himself: it is a work that He must do (comp. chap. iv. 34, ix. 4, etc.), for it is His Father's will. He seeks the scattered sheep ; they come together to Him ; He places Himself at the head claim the name, just as the shepherd distinguishes of this other flock ; His voice keeps them near to his own sheep from those that are not of his flock. — Him. Passing for a moment from the figure, we These two verses are remarkable for simplicity of recognise once more how Jesus includes all the structure. As in the simplest examples of Hebrew poetry, thought is attached to thought, one member is placed in parallelism with another. Yet, as in the Hebrew poetry of which this reminds us, a dependence of thought upon thought may be in- ferred, though it is not expressed. Thus we have seen that, if Jesus is the Good Shepherd, it must be true that He recognises His own sheep. So work of faith and discipleship in ' hearing Him ' (see chap. viii. 31, 40, 47): all that had been wanting to these heirs of a lower dispensation is supplied when they hear His voice. —And they shall become one flock, one shepherd. Then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, One flock, One Shepherd (Ezek. xxxiv. 23, xxxvii. 22-24). As written by the prophet indeed the words have also (and it is to point out this that we call atten- express reference to the reuniting of scattered and tion to the structure of the verse) the Father's divided Israel ; but, as in countless other instances, recognition of Him closely connects itself with His the history of Israel is a parable of the history of laying down His life, as the Shepherd for the the world. The apostolic comment on the verse is sheep. In this the Father sees the highest proof found in Ephesians, chap. ii. It is very unfortunate of His devotion to the work He has accepted : in that in the Authorised Version the rendering ' one the spirit of constant readiness for this crowning act of love He recognises the Father's constant presence and love (ver. 17). And, as the words of the verse bear witness to the Father's care for man (not less truly and powerfully because this meaning does not lie on the surface of the words), it is easy to see once more with what fitness we here read 'the Father,' and not simply 'my Father' (see chap. viii. 27, 38). fold ' should have found a place, instead of ' one flock.' The whole thought of the parable is thrown into confusion by this error, which is the less excusable inasmuch as the word which actually does mean ' fold ' (a word altogether dissimilar) occurs in the first part of the verse. Our first and greatest translator, William Tyndale, rightly under- stood the words : the influence of the Vulgate and of Erasmus was in this case prejudicial, and led THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN. [Chap. X. 22-42. Coverdale (who in his own Bible of 1535 had followed Tyndale) to introduce the wrong transla- tion into the Great Bible of 1539. We may well wonder that the Vulgate should contain so strange a mistake ; the older Latin version was here correct, but was changed by Jerome. Ver. 17. Therefore doth the Father love me, because I lay down iny life that I may take it again. In ver. 15 we have read of the Father's recognition of the Good Shepherd, who gives the highest proof of His devotion to the shepherd's work and possession of the shepherd's character in laying down His life for the sheep. These verses take up and expand that thought, speaking not of recognition only but of love. But it is with ver. 16 that ver. 17 is immediately connected. 'I must ' had expressed complete union with His Father's will : the prophecy that follows brought into view the full and certain accomplishment of the Father's purpose. On this account, because of this union of will and this devotion to His pur- pose, ' the Father ' (note once more how perfect is the fitness of this name here) Ioveth Him, — namely, because He layeth down His life that He may take it again. The two parts of this state- ment must be closely joined together. The perfect conformity to the Father's will is shown not in laying down the life only, but also in taking it again. The duty of the Shepherd, as set forth in vers. 15, 16, can only in this way be accomplished. He gives His life to purchase life for His sheep, but besides this He must continue to lead the flock of which He is the Only Shepherd. In the exe- cution of His work, therefore, He could not give Himself to death without the purpose of taking His life again : He died that His own may ever live in His life. — But, if the Father's love can rest on the Son who is obedient even unto death, and unto life through death, it is essential that the obedience be entirely free. Hence the words of the next verse. Ver. iS. No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. He lays down His life of Himself. He has the right to do this, and the right to take the life again. — This commandment I received of my Father. By His Father's express commission He has this right of free decision. For the first time Jesus here speaks of the ' commandment ' which He has received, and the use of this term is in full har- mony with the position He has assumed throughout the parable, the Shepherd of God's flock, the Servant of Jehovah. On the word 'love' (ver. 17) see note on chap. v. 20: the word found in that' verse is not used here, for the reason there ex- plained. A question is often asked in relation tc the words of these verses : if the teaching of Scripture is that the Father raised the Son from the dead, how can Jesus speak as He here does about His resumption of life? But, if the words 'this commandment' be interpreted as above, to refer to the Father's will that the death and resurrection should rest on the free choice of Jesus, the answer is plain : Jesus took His life again in voluntarily accepting the exercise of His Father's power. If we understand the ' commandment ' to relate — not to the possession of right or power, but — to the actual death and resurrection, the answer isdifferent, but not less easy: Jesus in rising from the dead freely obeys the Father's will, — the Father's will is still the ultimate source of the action of the Son. Ver. 19. There arose a division again among the Jews because of these words. The effect related in chap. vii. 43, ix. 16, is again produced. This time however (as in chap. viii. 31) ' the Jews' themselves are divided. The preceding parable therefore must have been spoken in the hearing of many who were hostile to Jesus, as well as of Pharisees (chap. ix. 40) who may have been half convinced. Vers. 20, 21. And many of them said, He hath a demon, and is mad ; why hear ye him ? Others said, These are not the sayings of one that is possessed by a demon. Can a demon open the eyes of the blind ? In the other instances quoted above the division of feeling had been between ' some ' and ' others : ' here, where ' the Jews' are in question, many are driven by the words of Jesus to more bitter hostility, repeating and extending the charge of which we read in chap. vii. 20, viii. 4S. But there are others whom the miracle related in chap. ix. had impressed, though at the time they did not stand up against the action of their party (chap. ix. 34). The effect produced on them by the miracle which Jesus wrought is now deepened by His teaching : as in the case of Nicodemus the ' sign ' prepared the way for the instruction of the 'words.' In the question asked we have the same association of teaching and miracle. A man possessed by a spirit of evil could not say such things as these : a demon (though he might be supposed able to cast out another demon) could not restore to the blind their sight. It is interesting to observe in these last words the tendency of the Evangelist to close a section with words that recall its opening, thus binding all the parts of a narrative into one whole. Chapter X. 22-42. Jesus at tlie Feast of the Dedication. — The increasing contrasts of Faith and Unbelief. 22 A ND it was at Jerusalem the feast of the dedication, 1 and 2 23 1 a. it was winter. And Jesus walked in the temple 3 in 24 "Solomon's porch. Then came the Jews round about him, 4 aAasEi.™, 1 There came to pass at that time the feast of the dedication at Jerusalem 2 omit and 3 temple-courts 4 The Jews therefore surrounded him Chap. X. 22-42.] THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN. 127 and said unto him, How long dost thou make us to doubt ? 5 25 If thou be 6 the Christ, tell us plainly. Jesus answered them, I told you, and ye believed 7 not : k the works that I do in my i> v ". 38, 26 Father's name, they bear witness of 8 me. But c ye believe not, « Chap. toT 27 because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you. 9 d My d v«s. 4. 14. sheep 'hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: «Cha P . xviii. 28 And I give unto them -^ eternal life; and they shall never /chap.iii. 15. * perish, neither shall any man 10 pluck them out of my hand, e Chap. m. ,6. 29 h My Father, 'which gave" them me, is greater than all; and Matt.xviii. 30 no man I0 is able to pluck them™ out of my 13 Father's hand. k I -s.' Com P .' 31 and mj>™ Father are one. 'Then 14 the Jews took up stones xviitV h Chap. xiv. 32 again to stone him. Jesus answered them, Many good works = 8 - / Chap. vi. 37. have I shewed you from my 13 Father; for which of those n * Cha P* vii - 33 works do ye stone me ? The Jews answered him, saying, 10 For 'Chap.viii. a good work we stone thee not; but '"for blasphemy; and >«Cha P .xix. 7 . 34 because that thou, being a man, " makest thyself God. Jesus »cha P . v is. answered them, Is it not written in your law, " I said, Ye are Ps. lxxxii. 6. 35 gods? If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God 36 came, and ■''the scripture cannot be broken; Say ye of him, ;>% chap, 'whom the Father hath 17 sanctified, 18 and sent into the world, fChap'vi.*/. Thou blasphemest ; because I said, I am the 19 Son of God ? 37 r If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not. rChap.xv.24 38 But if I do, though 2 ' ye believe not me, ' believe the works : s v er . 25. that ye may know, and believe, 51 that 'the Father is in me, and |f'Matt. xvi. 25. j Matt. xvi. 7 at that time indeed he abode 8 in the place where he was two days ll\ , job""' 9 he saith to the lu The iv/15. 11 Rabbi 12 but now the Jews were seeking 13 of 14 a ,' ^ p- j^ 4 * 15 because the light is not 10 hath fallen asleep 17 The disciples therefore said unto him 18 he shall be saved 19 had spoken 20 he spake 21 Then therefore Jesus said 22 to the intent ye may believe, that I was not there 23 Thomas therefore 24 add said - >5 When therefore 2G tomb 27 is 28 had come 29 Martha there/ore when so Martha therefore said 31 And even now I know that 32 add things 33 shalt 34 omit it 35 said 3li have died 37 And every one that 3S have believed 39 he that cometh 40 went away 4I omit secretly 132 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN. [Chap. XI. 1-44. 29 saying, 42 "The Master 43 is come, and calleth for 41 thee. As wSeechap. soon as she heard that, she arose 45 quickly, and came 46 unto Comp. chap 30 him. Now Jesus was not yet come into the town, 47 but was 43 31 in that place where Martha met him. ** The Jews then " which mVa. .9. were with her in the house, and comforted 50 her, when they saw Mary, that she rose up hastily 51 and went out, followed her, saying, 53 She goeth unto the grave 53 to weep 54 there. 12 Then when Mary was come 55 where Jesus was, and saw him, she fell down at his feet, 56 saying unto him, * Lord, if thou -r v «- ». 33 hadst been here, my brother had not died. When Jesus there- fore saw her weeping, 57 and the Jews also 53 weeping " which came with her, he groaned 2 in the spirit, and was troubled, 59 yVer.38. _ ' o 1 . Mark vrn. 34 And 60 said, Where have ye laid him ? They said cl unto him, '?.; chap. 35,36 Lord, come and see. "Jesus wept. Then said the Jews, 6 * «Lukexix. 4 i. 37 Behold how he loved him ! And 63 some of them said, Could not this man, ^ which opened the eyes of the blind, 64 have i chap, u e. 35 caused that even this man should not have died ? G6 Jesus therefore again c groaning in himself, 66 cometh to the grave. 67 ever. 33. 39 It °- was a cave, and d a stone lay upon 69 it. Jesus said, 70 Take rfSee chap, ye away the stone. Martha, 71 the sister of him that was dead, 72 saith unto him, Lord, by this time he stinketh : for ''he hath <■ Ver. , 7 . 40 been dead 13 four days. 74 Jesus saith unto her, -''Said I not/ v « -5. unto thee, that, if thou wouldest believe, 75 thou shouldest see 41 s the glory of God? Then they took away the stone 76 from r v <>r.4- the place where the dead was laid. 77 And Jesus ; ' lifted up his AChap.xvii.1. eyes, and said, 'Father, I thank thee that thou hast heard 78 » Matt, xi. *$■ 42 me. And 1 7B knew that thou hearest me always : but k because ^chap.xii.jo of the people 80 which stand by 81 I said it. that they may l be- 'Chap, xvi 43 lieve that thou hast sent 82 me. And when he thus had spoken, xv,i - 8 . "■ 44 he cried with a loud voice, Lazarus, come forth. And he that was dead came forth, bound hand and foot with graveclothes : K3 and '"his face was bound about with a napkin. Jesus saith »f His friend. Ver. 12. The disciples therefore said unto him, Lord, if he hath fallen asleep, he shall be saved. We can hardly escape the thought that they have in their mind some tidings brought at the same time with the message of ver. 3, descrip- tive of the nature of the illness. Was it some raging fever that threatened the life of Lazarus, then, if calm slumber has come upon him, he is safe ! Surely therefore it is no longer necessary for their Lord to expose Himself to peril by returning to Judea. Ver. 13. Howbeit Jesus had spoken of his death : but they thought that he spake of taking of rest in sleep. The figure can hardly have been here used by Jesus for the first time. The mis- conception of His meaning would seem to have arisen from His words in ver. 4, and from His delay in setting out for Bethany. Vers. 14, 15. Then therefore Jesus said unto them plainly, Lazarus is dead. And I am glad for your sakes, to the intent ye may believe, that I was not there; nevertheless let us go unto him. The words ' for your sakes ' are explained by the clause which follows, ' that ye may believe.' Already they believed in Him; but 'every new flight of faith is in its degree a new beginning of faith, comp. chap. ii. 11 ' (Meyer). Had he come to Bethany while Lazarus lay sick, He would have healed his sickness ; but great as might have been the miracle if He had done so, or if, arriving when Lazarus had just breathed his last, He had called back the departing spirit, in neither case would the disciples have seen the crowning 'mani- festation' of their Lord, or have believed in Him as ' the Resurrection and the Life.' The disciples are now awakened to the fact that they are moving into the presence of death. Ver. 16. Thomas therefore (which is called Didymus) said unto his fellow-disciples. Let us also go, that we may die with him. That is, with Jesus (not with Lazarus). It is plain that Jesus cannot be turned aside by their counsels or prayers; He is certainly about to return to Judea, at the peril of His life. As they cannot save Him they may at least share His fate. This is the ex- hortation of Thomas to his fellow-disciples ; and it would seem that they shared his feelings, for the word ' fellow-disciples ' (not found elsewhere in the New Testament), as compared with ' the other disciples' of xx. 25, binds all the disciples into one. The language is undoubtedly that of fervent love to Jesus, but it is also the language of despair and vanished hope. This is the end of all, — death ; not the Messianic kingdom, not life. Whether we are right in thinking that this feeling was shared by the other disciples, or not, it is very natural that Thomas should be the one to give ex- pression to it. From chap. xiv. 5, xx. 24, 25, we clearly perceive that sight is what he wants : when he sees not he gives himself up to despondency. It is remarkable that at every mention of this apostle John adds the Greek interpretation (Didy- mus