CORNELL UNIVERSITY LIBRARY

Oe
All boo!

all after two weeks

DATE DUE

ry

 
 
THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO
ST. JOHN
THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO

ST. JOHN

THE AUTHORISED VERSION
WITH INTRODUCTION AND NOTES
BY

B. F. WESTCOTT, D.D., D.C.L.,

LATE LORD BISHOP OF DURHAM

LONDON
JOHN MURRAY, ALBEMARLE STREET, W.
OLIN

GS
26'S
W42-
FRIIS

First EDITION . . - 1882
Eighteenth Impression . . 1937

 

Made and Printed in Great Britain by Butler & Tanner Ltd., Frome and London
THE present volume is reprinted from The Speaker's Com-
mentary. I have corrected a few misprints, defined more
exactly a few references, and changed two or three words
and phrases which seemed liable to misapprehension. I have
not however felt at liberty to make any other alterations or
additions.

B. F. W.

CAMBRIDGE,
Dec. 6th, 1881.
CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION.
PAGE PAGE
I. THE AUTHORSHIP OF THE GOSPEL. 4, The Plan...» «© « xlii
1. Internal Evidence. v5. The Style . ts. Feo RAR Mis 1
i, Indirect evidence v 6. Historical Exactness liii
(a) The author was a Jew. v7 The Last Discourses . lxiii
(6) a Jew of Palestine . x JIL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE GOSPEL.
(c) an eye-witness xviii 1. Relation to the Old Testament Ixvi
(d) an Apostle . xxi 2, The unfolding of the Messianic idea |xix
(e) St. John xxi 3. The Characters lxxi
ii. Direct evidence , xxv 4. Symbolism lxxv
(a) i14 . xxv IV. RELATION 10 THE OTHER APO-
(b) xix. 35 XXV STOLIC WRITINGS.
(c) xxi. 24 . xxvii 1. elation to the Synoptic Gospels \xxvii
2. External Evidence . xxviii 2. To the Apocalypse 1xxxiv
II. THE CoMPOSITION OF THE GOSPEL. 3. Tothe Epistles of St. John . \xxxviii
1. The Author . ‘ . xxxii V. THe HIsTory OF THE GOSPEL.
2. The Occasion and Date , . XXXV 1. The Text . lxxxviii
3. The Object . . . «6 5 ° xl 2. The interpretation of the Gospel xciv

PAGE
ADDITIONAL NOTES:

Onchap.i. . , 2. 2. ewe 28
Onchap. ii. 11,24. ..... 45
Onchapiii,. 2. 2. 2. 2... 63
On chap. iv. 21 . et we we TD
Onchap.v.1.8. ....2.. 92
On chap. vi. . 112
On chap. vii. 39 125

On chap. vii, 58— viii. 11, and dan

viii, 25,44. 2... 2. 5. 6 140

PAGE
ADDITIONAL NOTES:

On chap, ix. 35 i 150
On chap, x. 16, 22,29. . . , 162
On chap. xiii. 18 . 199
On chap, xiv. 16, 28 211
On chap. xviii. 262
On chap. xix.. . 281
On chap. xx. 21 . 298
On chap. xxi... 2. ©. . ee ©6806
=i
sed
St. JOHN.

 

INTRODUCTION.
PAGE PAGE
I. Tue AvuTHorsHIP OF Tite Gospst. 4 The Plan, . ... 6.» ©) xh
1. Internal Evidence . 3 v 5 The Style... 1... 4s A
i. Indirect evidence . 2 v 6 Historical Exactness, . . . liii
(a) The author was a Jew . v 7 The Last Discourses . . Ixiii
(b) a Jew of Palestine. . . x IL] CraRACTERISTICS OF THE Gosprt.
(c) an eye-witness toe RVI 1. Relation to the Old Testament xvi
(d) an Apostle 5 Ce eta SRT 2 The unfolding of the Messianic .
(e) St John 2 ww ww eR idea : : Ixix
ii, Direct evidence. . . . RSV 3. The Characters Ixxi
(ajii 14... we REV 4. Symbolism lxxv
(b) xix. 35 toe ee ee ORKV IV. ReLaTION TO THE OTHER Apo-
(c) xxi, 24 oe ie oe gxvii STOLIC WRITINGS.
; 2 1. Relation to the Synoptic Gospels lxxvii
2. External Evidence . . xxvii 2. To the Apocalypse. . . « Ixxxiv
II. THe Composition of tug Gospgt. 3. To the Epistles of St ohn . Ixxxvili
1. The Author : Roe gxxii V. Tue History oF THE Gospet.
2. The Occasion and Date . ARV 1. The Text . Ixxxviii
3. The Object . . . 4 os al 2. The interpretation of the Gospel xCiv

I. THE AUTHORSHIP OF THE GosPeEt.

1. Internal Evidence.

HE Gospel itself forins the propet
starting-point for a satisfactory in-
quiry into its origin. Doubts may be

raised as to the early history of the book
owing to the nature of the available evi-
dence, but there can be no question that
it is impressed with an individual cha-
racter, and that it contains indications
of the circumstances under which it was
composed. These indications, therefore,
must first be examined. this character
must first be defined so far as it illus-
trates the relation of the writer to the
teligious and social circumstances of the
first century ; and when this is done, we
shall be in a position to consider with
a fair appreciation the value of the his
torical testimony in support of the uni-
versal tradition of the Early Church
which assigned the work to the Apostle
St. John.

What then is the evidence which the

New Test.—Vot. II.

fourth Gospel itself bears to its author-
ship, first indirectly, and next directly?
These are the two questions which we
have to answer before we can go further.

i. The indirect evidence of the Gospel
as to its authorship.

In examining the indirect evidence
which the fourth Gospel furnishes as te
its authorship, it will be most convenient,
as well as most satisfactory, to conside:
the available materials in relation to
successive questions which become more
and more definite as we proceed. How
far then can we infer from the book
itself, with more or less certainty, that
the author was, or was not, a Jew, a Jew
of Palestine, an eye-witness, an Apostle,
aud, last of all, St. John, the son of
Zebedee ?

(a) The Author of the Fourth Gospel
was a Jew. A candid examination of
the evidence appears to leave no .room

b
vi

for reasonable doubt on this point. The
whole narrative shews that the author
was a Jew. He is familiar with Jewish
opinions and customs, his composition
is impressed with Jewish characteristics,
he is penetrated with the spirit of the
Jewish dispensation. His special know-
ledge, his literary style, his religious
faith, all point to the same conclusion.
The few arguments which are urged on
the other side derive whatever force they
have from the isolation of particular
phrases which are considered without
regard to the general aspect of the life
to which they belong.

These statements must be justified in
detail.

(a) The familiarity of the author of
the fourth Gospel with Jewish opinions
is shewn most strikingly by the outline
which he gives of the contemporary Mes-
sianic expectations. This subject will be
brought before us more in detail after-
wards (iii. § 2). For the present it will be
enough to refer to the details which are
given or implied in i. 21, iv. 25, vi. 14f.,
vii, 40 ff, xii. 34, &c. In all these
cases the points are noticed without the
least effort as lying within the natural
circle of the writer’s thoughts. So again
he mentions casually the popular esti-
mate of women (iv. 27), the importance
attached to the religious schools (vii. 15),
the disparagement of ‘‘ the Dispersion ”
(vii. 35), the belief in the transmitted
punishment of sin (ix. 2), the hostility
of Jews and Samaritans (iv. 9), the su-
percilious contempt of the Pharisees for
‘*the people of the earth ’’ (vii. 49).

The details of Jewish observances are
touched upon with equal precision. Now
it is the law of the sabbath which is
shewn to be overruled by the require-
ment of circumcision (vii. 22 f.): now
the ceremonial pollution which is con-
tracted by entering a Gentile court (xviii.
28). The account of the visit to the
Feast of Tabernacles only becomes fully
intelligible when we supply the facts at
which the writer barely hints, being him-
self filled with the knowledge of them.
The pouring of water from Siloam upon
the altar of burnt sacrifice, and the
kindling of the lamps in the court of
the women, explain the imagery of the
“living water’? (vii. 38), and of ‘ the
light of the world ” (viii. 12). And here,

INTRODUCTION TO

again, a Jew only who knew the festival
would be likely to describe “ the last day
of the feast,” which was added to the
original seven, as ‘‘ the great day” (vii.
37). The same familiar and decisive
knowledge of the people is shewn in
glimpses which are opened on domestic
life at the marriage feast (ii. 1—10), and
at the burial of Lazarus (xi. 17—44).
The tumultuary stoning of Stephen (Acts
vii, 57 ff.), which could not but be a
well-known incident in the early church,
would have hindered any one who had
not clear information upon the point
from recording the answer of the Jews
“It is not lawful for us to put any one
to death” (xviii. 31) ; and so in fact these
words were afterwards misunderstood by
the Greek fathers.

But, on the other hand, it is said that
the author of the fourth Gospel was so
ignorant of Jewish affairs that he repre-
sents the high-priesthood as an annual
office when he speaks of Caiaphas as
“high-priest in that year’ (xi. 49, 51,
xviii. 13). It would be sufficient to reply
that such ignorance could not be recon-
ciled with the knowledge already indi-
cated; but a consideration of the clause
solemnly repeated three times shews that
the supposed conclusion cannot be drawn
from it. The emphatic reiteration of the
statement forces the reader to connect
the office of Caiaphas with the part
which he actually took in accomplish-
ing the death of Christ. One yearly
sacrifice for atonement it was the duty
of the high-priest to offer. In that me-
morable year, when all types were ful-
filed in the reality, it fell to Caiaphas
to bring about unconsciously the one
sacrifice of atonement for sin. He
was high-priest before and after, but
it was not enough for the Evangelist’s
purpose to mark this. He was high-
priest in that year—‘‘ the year of the
Lord” (Luke iv. 19),—and so in the
way of divine Providence did his ap-
pointed part in causing ‘‘ one man to die
for the people ” (xi. 50).

(8) From the contents of the fourth
Gospel we turn now to its form. And
it may truly be affirmed that the style of
the narrative alone is conclusive as to its
Jewish authorship. The vocabulary, the
structure of the sentences, the symmetry
and numerical symbolism of the compo-
THE GOSPEL

sition, the expression and the arrange-
ment of the thoughts, are essentially
Hebrew. These points will require to be
discussed at greater length when we
come to examine the composition of the
Gospel (11. § 5). It must suffice now to
eall attention to such terms as “ light,”
“darkness,” “flesh,” ‘‘ spirit,” ‘‘ life,’’
“this world,” ‘‘the kingdom of God,”
and the like: to such images as ‘the
shepherd,” ‘the living water,’ ‘ the
woman in travail:’? to the simplicity of
the connecting particles : to the parallel-
ism and symmetry of the clauses. The
source of the imagery of the narrative, to
sum up all briefly, is the Old Testament.
The words are Greek words, but the
spirit by which they live is Hebrew.

(y) The Old Testament is no less
certainly the source of the religious life
of the writer. His Jewish opinions and
hopes are taken up into and transfigured
by his Christian faith; but the Jewish
foundation underlies his whole narrative.
The land of Judeea was ‘‘the home” (ra
iia; comp, xvi. 32, xix. 27) of the
Incarnate Word, and the people of
Judzea were ‘‘ His own people” (i. 11).
This was the judgment of the Evangelist
when the Messiah had been rejected by
those to whom He came; and on the
other hand, Christ, when He first en-
tered the Holy City, claimed the Temple
as being “the house of His Father ”’
(ii. 16). From first to last Judaism is
treated in the Fourth Gospel as the
divine starting-point of Christianity. It
is true that the author records discourses
in which the Lord speaks to the Jews of
the Law as being ‘their Law;” and
that he uses the name ‘“‘ the Jews” to
mark an anti-Christian body; but even
these apparent exceptions really illustrate
his main position. The Pharisees as a
party strove to keep ‘‘ the Law,” in its
widest acceptation, the monument, that
is, of the various revelations to Israel (x.
34, Xv. 25, notes), for themselves alone,
and to bar the progress of the life which
it enshrined. In the process it became
“their Law.’? With the same fatal nar-
rowness they reduced the representatives
and bearers of the ancient revelation to
a national faction; and ‘‘ the Jews ” em-
bodied just that which was provisional
and evanescent in the system which they
misunderstood (comp. 111. § 1). These

OF Sr. JOHN. vii
two characteristic thoughts of the Gospel
will become clear when we consider the
general development of the history.
Meanwhile it must be noticed that the
Evangelist vindicates both for the Law
and for the people their just historical
position in the divine economy. The
Law could not but bear witness to the
truths which God had once spoken
throughit. The people could not do away
with the promises and privileges which
they had inherited. Side by side with the
words of Christ which describe the Law
as the special possession of its false in-
terpreters (viii. 17, X. 34, XV. 25), other
words of his affirm the absolute authority
of its contents. It is assumed as an
axiom that The Scripture cannot be broken
(xX. 35; see v. 18, note). That which is
written in the prophets (vi. 45; comp. vi.
31) is taken as the true expression of
what shall be. Moses wrote of Christ (v.
46. Comp. i. 45). The types of the Old
Testament, the brazen serpent (iii. 14),
the manna (vi. 32), the water from the
tock (vii. 37 f.), perhaps also the pillar
of fire (viii. 12), are applied by Christ to
Himself as of certain and acknowledged
significance. Abraham saw His day
(viii, 56), It was generally to ‘‘the
Scriptures ’’ that Christ appealed as wit-
nessing of Him. Even the choice of
Judas to be an apostle was involved in
the portraiture of the divine King (xiii.
18, note, that the Scripture might be ful-
filled; comp. xvii. 12); and the hatred
of the Jews was prefigured in the words
written in their Law, They hated me
without a cause (xv 25).

Such words of Christ must be con-
sidered both in themselves and in the
consequences which they necessarily
catry with them, if we are to understand
the relation of the fourth Gospel to the
Old Testament. They shew conclusively
that in this Gospel, no less than in the
other three, He is represented as offer-
ing Himself to Israel as the fulfiller, and
not as the destroyer, of ‘‘ the Law.”? And
it follows also, whatever view is taken
of the authorship of the Gospel, that
the Evangelist in setting down these
sayings of Christ accepts to the full the
teaching which they convey.

Nor is this all. Just as the words of
the Lord recorded in the fourth Gospel
confirm the divine authority of the Old
viii

Testament, so also the Evangelist, when
he writes in his own person, emphasizes
the same principle. The first public act
of Christ reminded the disciples, as he
relates, of a phrase in the Psalms (ii.
17). The Resurrection, he says, con-
firmed their faith in the Scripture, and
the word which Jesus spake, as if both
were of equal weight. In the light of
the same event they understood at last
what they had done unconsciously in
accordance with prophetic utterances
(xii. 14 ff.). So again at the close of his
record of Christ’s public ministry, he
points out how the apparent failure of
Christ’s mission was part of the great
scheme of Providence foreshadowed by
Isaiah. The experience, and the words
of the prophet, made such a result in-
evitable (xii. 37 ff). This fulfilment of
the wider teaching of prophecy is further
confirmed by examples of the fulfilment
of its details. Special incidents of the
Passion are connected with the language
of the Old Testament. The division of
the garments, and the casting lots for
the seamless robe (xix. 23 f.); the ex-
pression of thirst (xix. 28), the limbs left
unbroken (xix. 36), the side pierced (xix.
37)—Significant parallels with the treat-
ment of the paschal lamb—give occasion
to quotations from the Law, the Psalms,
and the Prophets; and these fulfilments
of the ancient Scriptures are brought
forward as solid grounds of faith (xix.
35):
‘‘ The Law,” in short, is treated by the
writer of the fourth Gospel, both in his
record of the Lord’s teaching, and, more
especially, in his own comments, as only
a Jew could have treated it. It was
misinterpreted by those to whom it was
given, but it was divine. So far as it
was held, not only apart from, but in
opposition to, its true fulfilment, it lost
its true character. This character the
Evangelist unfolds. The object with
which he wrote was to shew that Jesus
was not only the Son of God, but also
the Christ, the promised Messiah of the
Jews (xx. 31), just as Nathanael, the true
representative of Israel (i. 47), had re-
cognised Him at first under this double
title.

The portraiture of the people in the
fourth Gospel is no less indicative of its
Jewish authorship, whatever false deduc-

INTRODUCTION TO

tions may have been popularly drawn
from the use of the characteristic title
“the Jews ”’ forthe adversaries of Christi-
anity. Writing as a Christian the Evan-
gelist still records the central truth, true
for all ages, which Christ declared : We
—as Jews—worship that which we know,
for the salvation—the salvation promised
to the world—is from the Jews (iv. 22),
rising by a divine law out of the dispen-
sation intrusted to their keeping. No-
thing which was said at a later time
neutralised these words of the Lord in
which He identified Himself with the old
people of God, and signalised their in-
herent prerogatives. The knowledge
which the Jews had was the result of
their acceptance of the continuous reve-
lation of God from age to age; while
the Samaritans who refused to advance
beyond the first stage of His manifesta-
tion, worshipped the true Object of wor-
ship, but ignorantly. They worshipped
that which they knew not (iv. 22).

This was the rightful position of the
Jews towards Christ, which is every-
where presupposed in the Gospel, but
they failed to maintain it, and when the
Evangelist wrote their national failure
was past hope. They received Him not.
But the sources and the kinds of their
unbelief were manifold, and the narra-
tive reflects the varieties of their cha-
racter.

For the people are not, as is commonly
assumed to be the case, a uniform,
colourless mass. On the contrary, dis-
tinct bodies reveal themselves on a care-
ful examination of the record, each with
its own distinctive marks, Two great divi-
sions ate portrayéd with marked clear-
ness, ‘‘the multitude,’’ and “the Jews.”
The multitude (6 éyAos) represents the
general gathering of the Jewish inhabi-
tants of Palestine, Galilaeans for the most
part, who are easily swayed to and fro,
with no settled policy, and no firm
convictions. These, when they saw the
signs which Jesus had wrought at Jeru-
salem, received Him in Galilee (iv. 45),
and followed Him, and, at a later time,
would have made Him King (vi. .I5).
When they went up to the feasts they
gathered round Him in expectation and
doubt, ignorant of the deadly hostility
of their rulers to the new prophet (vii.
20), and inclined to believe (vii. 4o;
THE GOSPEL

compare the whole chapter). On the
eve of the Passion they brought Him
in triumph into the city (xii. 12); and, in
the last scene in which they are pre-
sented in the Gospel, listen in dull per-
plexity to Christ’s final revelation of
Himself (xii. 29, 34). In the fourth
Gospel they do not appear in the narra-
tive of the Trial and the Crucifixion.
They may have been used as instru-
ments, but the guilt of this issue did not
belong to them as a body.

In contrast with ‘the multitude ”
stand ‘‘ the Jews!.’’ Both titles are ge-
neral terms, including various elements ;
both have local centres; both express
tendencies of religious feeling. Just as
“the multitude’ reflect the spirit of
Galilee, ‘‘the Jews"’ reflect the spirit of
Jerusalem (i. 19), and this term is perhaps
used exclusively of those who lived in the
limited region of Judea. ‘‘ The multi-
tude”? have vague, fluent, opinions; ‘‘ the
Jews” hold fast by the popular expecta-
tion of a national Messiah, and a na-
tional sovereignty. From first to last
they appear as the representatives of the
narrow finality of Judaism (ii. 18, xix.
38). They begin their opposition by a
charge of the violation of the Sabbath
(v. 10 ff.; comp. xix. 31). Those of them
who are present at Capernaum give ex-
pression to ‘‘ murmurings’’ at the teach-
ing to which ‘the multitude’’ had
apparently listened with awed respect
(vi, 41, 52; comp. vi. 22—40). They
reduce the wavering multitude to silence
at Jerusalem (vii. 11-13) If they be-
lieve Christ, they do not at once believe
on Him, and while they cling to their
own prejudices yield themselves to the
perils of fatal error (viii. 31 ff. note). In
their zeal for the Law they would at
once stone Christ (viii. 59, x. 31); and
to them generally the Crucifixion is attri-
buted (xviii. 12, 14, 31, 36, 38, xix. 7,
12, 14). Yet even these are struck with
wonder (vii. 15) and doubt (vii. 35, viii
22); they are divided (x. 19), and ask
peremptorily for a clear enunciation of
Christ’s claim (x. 24); and the defection
of many from among them to Him
marks the last crisis in the history (xii.
to f.; comp. xi, 45, 48, ix. 40, xii. 42).

» The term occurs rarely in the discourses of
the Lord: iv. 22, xiii. 33, xviii. 20, 36. See
note on the last passage.

OF Sr. JOHN.

“The Jews” thus presented to a
writer who looked back from a Christian
point of sight! upon the events which he
described the aggregate of the people
whose opinions were opposed in spirit
to the work of Christ. They were not,
as they might have been, ‘‘ true Israel-
ites” (i. 47; comp. v. 31). But at the
Swme time he does not fail to notice that
there were among them two distinct
tendencies, which found their expression
in the Pharisees and Sadducees respec-
tively. The latter are not mentioned by
name in the fourth Gospel, but the
writer describes them more character-
istically, and with a more direct know-
ledge, by their social position at the
time. They were ‘‘the high priests,” the
faction of Annas and Caiaphas (Acts v.
17), the reckless hierarchy, whose policy
is sharply distinguished in one or two
life-like traits from that of the religious
zealots, the Pharisees. Several times
indeed the two parties appear as acting
together in the great Council (vii. 32, 45,
xi. 47, 57, xviii. 3; comp. vii. 26, 48,
xii. 42 the rulers), yet even in these cases
the two are only once so grouped as to
form a single body (vii. 45mpds tods dpy.
kai Pap.), and ‘‘the chief priests” always
stand first as taking the lead in the
designs of violence. This is brought
out very vividly in the fatal scene in the
Sanhedrin after the raising of Lazarus
(see Xi. 47 note).

In other places when the two parties
are mentioned separately the contrast
between them familiar to the historian
underlies the record. The Pharisees are
moved by the symptoms of religious
disorder: the high priests (Sadducees)
by the prospect of ecclesiastical danger.
The Pharisees are the true representa-
tives of ‘‘ the Jews” (i. 19 Ili. 24, ix. 13 Il
ix. 18,, ix. 22 ll xii. 42). They send to
make inquiries about the mission of
John (i, 24); they hear, evidently as of
something which deeply concerned them,
of baptism among the followers of the
Lord (iv. 1); they scornfully reject the
opinion of the illiterate multitude (vii.
47); they question the authority of
Christ (viii. 13); they condemn His
miracles as wrought on the Sabbath (ix.

1x

"The phrase ‘‘the Passover of the Jews’’
evidently implies a familiar Christian Passover :
ii, 13 note. Comp. ii. 6, v. 1, vii. 2, xix. 42.
x INTRODUCTION TO

13 ff.) ; they excommunicate His followers
(xii, 42; comp, ix. 22); but at last they
look with irresolute helplessness upon
the apparent failure of their opposition
(xii. 19). From this point they appear
no more by themselves. ‘‘ The chief
priests’ take the direction of the end
into their own hands. Five times they
ate mentioned alone, and on each oc-
casion as bent on carrying out a purpose
of death and treason to the faith of
Israel. They plotted the murder of
Lazarus because many for his sake be-
lieved on Jesus (xii. 11). Pilate sees in
them the true persecutors of Christ : Thy
nation and the chief priests delivered Thee
up to me (xviii. 35). Their voices first
raise the cry, Crucify, Crucify Him (xix.
6). They make the unbelieving con-
fession, We have no king but Cesar (xix.
15), and utter a vain protest against the
title in which their condemnation was
written (xix. 21, the chief priests of the
Jews).

This most significant fact of the de-
cisive action of the Sadduczean hierarchy
in compassing the death of the Lord,
which is strikingly illustrated by the
relative attitude of Pharisees and Sad-
ducees to the early Church as described
in the Acts, explains the prominent posi-
tion assigned to Annas in the fourth
Gospel (xviii, 13). Annas was the head
of the party. Though he had ceased to
be high-priest for many years, he swayed
the policy of his successors. St. Luke in
his Gospel significantly sets him with
Caiaphas as “‘high-priest”’ (én dpxcepéews
not ém dpxtepéwy, iii. 2), as if both were
united in one person; and in the Acts
he, and not Caiaphas (iv. 6), is alone
called ‘‘ high-priest.”” The coincidence
is just one of those which reveal the
actual as distinguished from the official
state of things.

One further remark must be made.
The general use of the term ‘‘ the Jews”
for the opponents of Christ not only
belongs necessarily to the position of an
apostle at the close of the first century,
but it is even possible to trace in the
books of the New Testament the gradual
change by which it assumed this specific
force. In the Synoptic Gospels it occurs
only four times except in the title ‘‘ king
of the Jews; Matt. xxviii, 15; Mark vii.
3; Luke vii. 03, xxiii. 51; and in the

first of these, which is probably the
latest in date, the word marks a position
of.antagonism. In the Acts the title
oscillates between the notions of privi-
lege and of opposition but the course
of the history goes far to fix its adverse
meaning. The word is comparatively
rare in the Epistles of St. Paul. It occurs
most commonly (twelve times out of
twenty-four) in contrast with ‘‘ Greek,”
both alike standing in equal contrast
with the idea of Christianity; and for
St. Paul, ‘(a Hebrew of Hebrews,” his
countrymen, ‘‘Jews by nature” (Gal.
ii. 15), are already separated from
himself. The name of a race has be-
come practically the name of a sect
(Rom. iii. 9; 1 Cor. i, 22 ff., ix. 20, x.
32; comp. Gal. ii. 13, i, 13 f.). The
word is not found in the Catholic epi-
stles, but in the Apocalypse it is used
twice (ii. 9, iii, 9), evidently to describe
those who insisted on their literal descent
and ceremonial position, and claimed
the prerogatives of Israel outside the
Church. Such false-styled Jews were
the worst enemies of the Gospel; and a
Christian writing at the close of the cen-
tury could not but speak of the people
generally by the title which characterized
them to his contemporaries.

(b) The Author of the Fourth Gospel
was a Jew of Palestine. The facts which
have just been noticed carry us beyond
the conclusion which they were alleged
toestablish. They shew that the writer of
the fourth Gospel was not only a Jew, but
a Palestine Jew of the first century. It
is inconceivable that a Gentile, living at
a distance from the scene of religious
and political controversy which he paints,
could have realised, as the Evangelist
has done, with vivid and unerring ac-
curacy the relations of parties and
interests which ceased to exist after the
fall of Jerusalem; that he could have
marked distinctly the part which the
hierarchical class—the unnamed Saddu-
cees—took in the crisis of the Passion;
that he could have caught the real
points at issue between true and false
Judaism, which in their first form had
passed away when the Christian society
was firmly established: that he could
have portrayed the growth and conflict
of opinion as to the national hopes of
THE GOSPEL

the Messiah side by side with the pro-
gress of the Lord’s ministry. All these
phases of thought and action, which
would be ineffaceably impressed upon the
memory of one who had lived through
the events which the history records,
belonged to a state of things foreign to
the experience of an Alexandrine, or an
Asiatic, in the second century.

For in estimating the value of these
conclusions which we have gained, it
must be remembered that the old land-
marks, material and moral, were de-
stroyed by the Roman war: that the
destruction of the Holy City—a true
coming of Christ—revealed the essential
differences of Judaism and Christianity,
and raised a barrier between them : that
at the beginning of the second century
the influence of Alexandria was substi-
tuted for that of the Jewish schools in
the growing Church.

(a) And these considerations which
apply to the arguments drawn from the
religious and political traits of the his-
tory, apply also in corresponding degrees
to the more special indications that the
author of the Fourth Gospel was a Jew of
Palestine. Among these, the most con-
vincing perhaps is to be found in his local
knowledge. He speaks of places with an
unaffected precision, as familiar in every
case with the scene which he wishes to
recall, There is no effort, no elaborateness
of description in his narratives : he moves
about in a country which he knows. His
mention of sites is not limited to those
which are found elsewhere in Scripture,
either in the Gospels or in the Old Testa-
ment. ‘Cana of Galilee” (Kava ris Toads
datas, ii. 1,11, iv. 46, xxi. 2), thus exactly
distinguished ,is not noticed by any earlier
writer. ‘‘ Bethany beyond Jordan ” (i.
28), a place already forgotten in the time
of Origen, is obviously distinguished from
the familiar Bethany ‘‘ near Jerusalem,”’
the situation of which is precisely fixed
as “‘ about fifteen furlongs” from the city
(xi. 18). Ephraim, again, situated ‘‘near
the wilderness” (xi. 54) may be identical
with Ophrah (x Sam. xiii. 17), but it is
not otherwise named in Scripture. Once
more, Anon (iii. 23) is not known from
other sources, but the form of the name!

* This is true whether the word be taken as
an adjectival form ‘‘abounding in springs
(comp. Ez. xlvii, 17), or as a corruption of a

OF Sr. JOHN. xi
is a sure sign of the genuineness of the
reference, and the defining clause, ‘‘ near
to Salim,” even if the identification were
as difficult now as it has been repre-
sented to be, shews that the place was
clearly present to the writer.1 Nothing
indeed but direct acquaintance with the
localities can account for the description
added in each of these cases. A writer
for whom these spots were identified with
memorable incidents which were for him
turning-points of faith, would naturally
add the details which recalled them to
his own mind: for another the exact
definition could have no interest. Other
indications of minute knowledge are
given in the implied notice of the dimen-
sions of the lake of Tiberias (vi. 19;
comp. Mark vi. 47), and of the relative
positions of Cana and Capernaum (ii. 12,
went down).

One name, however, has caused much
difficulty. The city of Samaria named
Sychar (iv. 5) has been commonly identi-
fied with Shechem (Sychem, Acts vii. 16),
and the changed form has been confi-
dently attributed by sceptical critics to
the ignorance of the Evangelist. The
importance of Shechem, a city with which
no one could have been unacquainted
who possessed the knowledge of Pales-
tine which the writer of the fourth Gospel
certainly had, might reasonably dispose
of such a charge. And more than this : the
picture with which the name is connected
is evidently drawn from life. The pros-
pect of the corn-fields (v. 35), and of the
heights of Gerizim (v. 20), are details
which belong to the knowledge of an
eye-witness. The notice of the depth
of the well (v. 11) bears equally the
stamp of authenticity. If then there
were no clue to thesolution of the prob-
lem offered by the strange name, it would
be right to acquiesce in the belief that
Sychar might be a popular distortion of
Shechem, or the name of some unknown

dual form ‘‘the two springs,” but it is doubtful
whether it can be so rendered. It is said that
Ainan and Ainaim, ‘‘the two springs,”’ are the
names of several places in Arabia. The Syriac
versions write the name as two words, ‘‘the
spring of the dove."’

1 Lieut. Conder in the Quarterly Statement

of the Palestine Exploration Fund (July, 1874,
pp. 191 f.) identifies it with ’Aynin near to
Salim, due east of Nablus. The use of the
phrase beyond Jordan (iii. 26) implies that the
country was on the West of the river.
xii

village. But the case does not stand so
absolutely without help towards a de-
cision. The earliest ancient authorities
(4th cent.) distinguish Shechem and
Sychar. Shechem could hardly have
been described as near to the plot of
ground which Jacob gave to Joseph (v. 5):
There are, moreover, several references
to Sukra, Sukar, ain-Sukar ("5D N5D)D
“DID YY) in the Talmud; and a village

*Askar still remains, which answers to
the conditions of the narrative. Some
difficulty has been felt in identifying
*Askar with Sychar, since it is written
at present with an initial ’Ain, but ina
Samaritan Chronicle of the 12th century,
the name appears in a transitional form
with an initial Yod (4D'), and the Arabic
translation of the Chronicle gives Askar
as the equivalent. The description [of
S. John], Lieut. Conder writes, ‘‘ is most
accurately applicable to ’Askar. ... It is
merely a modern mud village, with no
great indications of antiquity, but there
are remains of ancient tombs near the
road beneath it.’? (Report of the Palestine
Exploration Fund, 1877, pp. 149 f., 1876,
p- 197-)

The notices of the topography of Je-
rusalem contained in the fourth Gospel
are still more conclusive as to its author-
ship than the notices of isolated places
in Palestine. The desolation of Jeru-
salem after its capture was complete.
No creative genius can call into being
a lost site. And the writer of the fourth
Gospel is evidently at home in the city
as it was before its fall. He knows much
that we learn from independent testi-
mony, and he knows what is not to be
found elsewhere. But whether he men-
tions spots known from other sources, or
named only by himself, he speaks simply
and certainly. As he recalls a familiar
scene he lives again in the past, and for-
gets the desolation which had fallen upon
the place which rises before his eyes.
“There is,” he writes, ‘‘at Jerusalem a
pool called Bethesda” (v. 2), and by the
form of the sentence carries us back to
the time when the incident first became
history. ‘‘ Bethesda by the sheep-gate,”
“ the pool of Siloam” (ix. 7), ‘‘ the brook
Kidron ” (xviii. 1), which are not named
by the other evangelists (yet see Luke
xiii. 4), stand out naturally in his narra-
tive. What imagination could have in-

INTRODUCTION TO

vented a Bethesda (or Bethzetha) with
its five porches, and exact locality (v. 2)?
What except habitual usage would have
caused the Kidron to be described as
“ the winter torrent!” ? How long must
the name Siloam have been pondered
over before the perfectly admissible ren-
dering ‘‘ Sent” was seen to carry with it
a typical significance? The Pretorium
and Golgotha are mentioned by the other
evangelists; but even here the writer of
the fourth Gospel sees the localities, if
I may so speak, with the vividness of an
actual spectator. The Jews crowd round
the Preetorium which they will not enter,
and Pilate goes in and out before them
(xviii. 28 ff.). Golgotha is ‘‘ nigh to the
city,’ where people pass to and fro, and
“‘ there was a garden there’”’ (xix. 17, 20
41). And the fourth Evangelist alone
notices the Pavement, the raised plat-
form of judgment, with its Hebrew title,
Gabbatha (xix. 13). The places Bethesda
and Gabbatha are not, in fact, mentioned
anywhere except in the fourth Gospel,
and the perfect simplicity with which
they are introduced in the narrative, no
less than the accuracy of form in the
Aramaic titles (whatever be the true
teading of Bethesda), marks the work
of a Palestinian Jew, who had known
Jerusalem before its fall.

The allusions to the Temple shew no
less certainly the familiarity of the writer
with the localities in which he represents
Christ as teaching. The first scene, the
cleansing of the Temple, is in several
details more lifelike than the similar
passages in the Synoptists (ii. 14—16).
It is described just as it would appear to
an eye-witness in its separate parts, and
not as the similar incident is summed
up briefly in the other narratives. Each
group engaged stands out distinctly, the
sellers of oxen and sheep, the money-
changers sitting at their work, the sellers
of doves; and each group is dealt with
individually. Then follows, in the course
of the dialogue which ensues, the singu-
larly exact chronological note, ‘ Forty
and six years was this Temple in
building’ (ii. 20).

The incidents of the Feast of Taber-

* For the discussion of the reading see note
on xviii. 1. If the reading ‘‘the torrent of
the Cedars’’ be adopted, the argument is nat
affected.
THE GOSPEL

nacles (which are given in chapters vii.
and viii.) cannot be understood, as has
been already noticed, without an accu-
rate acquaintance with the Temple ritual.
The two symbolic ceremonies — com-
memorating the typical miracles of the
wilderness—the outpouring of water on
the altar of sacrifice, and the kindling
the golden lamps at night, furnish the
great topics of discourse. The Evange-
list is familiar with the-facts, but he does
not pause to dwell upon them. Only in
one short sentence does he appear to
call attention to the significance of the
events. ‘‘ These things,’ he says, “‘ Jesus
Spake in the treasury, as he taught in the
Temple” (viii, 20). The mention of the
exact spot carried with it to minds fa-
miliar with the Herodian Temple a clear
revelation of what was in the Apostle’s
mind. For the treasury was in the court
of the women where the great candelabra
were placed, looking to which Christ said,
“T am the light’’—not of one people, or
of one city, but— of the world.” And
there is still another thought suggested
by the mention of the place. The meet-
ing-hall of the Sanhedrin was in a cham-
ber adjacent to it. We can understand
therefore the hasty attempts of the chief
priests and Pharisees to seize Christ, and
the force of the words which are added,
that even there, under the very eyes of
the popular leaders, ‘‘ no man laid hands
on Him.”

The next visit to Jerusalem, at the
Feast of Dedication, brings a new place
before us. ‘‘It was winter,’ we read,
‘and Jesus was walking in Solomon’s
Porch’’ (x. 22), a part of the great eastern
cloister suiting in every way the scene
with which it is connected.

Once again, as I believe, we have a
significant allusion to the decoration of
the Temple. On the eve of the Passion,
at the close of the discourses in the upper
chamber, the Lord said, ‘‘ Arise, let us go
hence” (xiv, 31). Some time after we
read that when He had finished His
High-priestly prayer, He went forth with
His disciples over the brook Kidron. It
seems to be impossible to regard this
motice as the fulfilment of the former
command. The house, therefore, must
have been left before, as is clearly im-
plied in the narrative, and the walk to
the Mount of Olives might well include

.

OF Sr. JOHN. xiii
a visit to the Temple; and over the gate
of the Temple was spread the great vine
of gold, which was reckoned among its
noblest ornaments. Is it then a mere
fancy to suppose that the image of the
vine and its branches was suggested by
the sight of this symbolic tracery, lighted
by the Paschal moon, and that the High-
priestly prayer was offered under the
shadow of the Temple walls?

However this may be, it is inconceiv-
able that any one, still more a Greek or
Hellenist, writing when the Temple
was rased to the ground, could have
spoken of it with the unaffected certainty
which appears in the fourth Gospel. It
is monstrous to transfer to the second
century the accuracy of archzeological
research which is one of the latest ac-
quirements of modern art. The Evan-
gelist, it may be safely said, speaks of
what he had seen.

(8) The arguments which have been
already drawn from the political, social,
teligious, and local knowledge of the
author of the fourth Gospel, shew beyond
all doubt, as it appears, that he was a
Palestinian Jew. A presumption in favour
of the same conclusion may be derived
from the quotations from the Old Testa-
ment which are contained in the Gospel.
These shew at least so much that the
writer was not dependent on the LXX.;
and they suggest that he was acquainted
with the original Hebrew.

A rapid summary of the facts will en-
able the student to estimate the weight
of this additional evidence.

(1) Quotations by the Evangelist.

ii, 17. ...yeypampévov eoriv ‘O (HAos
TOU oikov cov KaTapdyeTat pe.

Ps, lxix. (Ixviii.) 9. Kxarépaye (Symm.
karnvédwoe). So Hebr, .....0......08 (r)

xii, 14, 15. KaOds éorw yeypappevov
Mi} doBoi, Ovydrnp Luv: i8ov 6 Bace-
Aebs cov epxerat, xaGjpevos emt moXov
dvov,

Zach. ix. 9. Xaipe oddpa, Obyarep
Lidy,...i8ob 6 Bartdeds cov epxerac,..émt-
BeBnxas eérl...rGrov veov. (All the
Greek versions have ériBeBnxds. Theo-
dotion has ért dvov xal rGAov vidv dvov.)

Hebr. mana wy-yy aarp.

(2)
xli. 38. 1. kpa, 6 Adyos “Hoaioy...rAnpwOy
Xiv

bv elwev Kupue, tis eriorevoey TY axon

« A XN c a - i >
qpav: kal 6 Bpaxiwv Kupiov mivt daexa-
AdPOy ;
Is, lifts (1: (exact)... cecicsewscssenas (3)
xi. 40. ...6rt efrev “Horaias Terd-

pAwxey attav tots ddbarpovs Kab éru-
pwoev aitav tiv Kopdiay, iva ph iworv
tois dpOadpois Kal vonowsw Ty Kapdig,
kal orpapactv, Kat idoopas adrovs.

Is. vi. 10. éxaxtvOn 4 KapSia Tod Aaov
Tovrov...kal tous dpOadpots éexdpprray,
py mote iWwor Tois bpOadrpois...kal TH
Ko,poug cwvare Kal erurtpepwrt kal
idoopat atro’s. (The version of Symm.
uses the same words generally as LXX.)
Comp. Matt. xiii. 13 ff.; Mark iv, 12.

(4)

xix. 24. iva 4 ypadn TrypwOn Avepe-
piravro ra ipdrid pov éavrois Kal ert Tov
ipariopdv pov €Badov KAjpov.

Ps, xxii (xxi.) 18 (exact). ......... (5)

xix. 36. iva 4 yap mAnpwby ‘Ocrovv
od curr piBjorerar aurod.

Ex. xil. 46. dorovv od ouvrpipere da
abrod 2 (al. ouvtpiperat). Num. ix. 12. 6.
od crt pipovow a, av, (al. cuvrpipera),
Cf. Ps. xxxiv. (xxxiii.) 20. 6

xix. 37. €tépa ypady A€yee "Oorrae eis
év é€exevrnoav. Hebr. yp

Zach. xii, 10. émBAcpovrar mpos pe
av0? &v Karwpxyjoavto (Theodot. «is éy
efexevtnoav. Aq. Symm. é£exevtyvay,
ére£exevTnoay.)

ndaavees diadweceentbes (7)

Comp. Rev. i. 7.
(2) Quotations in the Lord’s discourses.

vi. 45. eoTw yeypappevov év Tots Tpo-
pyrats Kai erovras wavres SiSaxrot Geov.

Is. liv. 13, kal (Ojow) mdvras tots viovs
cov S8axrovs Oeov.

The words are not connected as in
LXX. with v. 12, but treated as in the
Hebrew, independently. ............... (8)

fix SN > e . .

vil. 38. Kadws etrev 1 ypady rotapol
éx THS KotAtas atTod petoovow bdatos
(avros,

There is no exact parallel. The re-

ference is probably general.

X. 34. ovK éoTw yeypappevor... Kya
elma Qeoi éore ;

Ps. 1xxxii. (ixxxi. ) 6 (exact). 10... (20)

xiii. 18. iva 9 yappi tAnpwdy * 0 Tp

yov pov Tov dptov éwnpev er
TTEepvay auvTov.

Ps, xli. (xl) 9. TO.)
prov éueyaAuvey er ee WrEepvic pov,

eye THY

0 eodiwv a d.ptovs

(Aq.

INTRODUCTION TO

karepeyadbvon pov.)

Sistas faves (11)
Epionocav pe

Symm. Theodot.
Hebr. apy *y

xv. 25, lvamd, 6 Adyos...”
Swpedy.

Ps. xxxiv. (xxxv.) 19. of purodvTés pe
Swpedv, Ps. Ixviii. (1xix.) 5. ........- (12)

(3) Other quotations,

By John the Baptist.

i. 23. eye dov7 Bodvros év TH ephpw
EvOuvare ryv d8dv Kupiov,

Is. xl. 3. €rousdoare...cdOetas moveire
ras TpiBouvs tov Geov yuav (Aq. Theodot.

drookevacare. Symm. evrperioare)...(13)

By Galileans.

Vi. 3 Kabes orev Yeypappevov "Aprov
ek TOU ovpavod COwkev abtois payetv.

Ps. Ixxviii. (Ixxvii) 24.. (pdvve payeiv)
kal dprov ovpavod eowKev avrois. Ex. (Xvi
4, 15.. . Uw... aprovs €x TOU ovpavod sae
obTos a ‘dprey dv cdwxe Kuptos ipiv payeiv
(14)

The triumphal cry (xii. 13; Ps. cxvii.
25) can hardly be treated as a quotation.
In preserving the Hebrew form Hosanna
St, John agrees with the Synoptic Evan-
gelists and differs from the LXX.

An examination of these fourteen cita-
tions (t~7 by the Evangelist; 8—12 by
the Lord; 13, 14 by others) shews that
they fall into the following groups:

1. Some agree with the Hebrew and
LXX., where these both agree;

(3), (5), (10), (12).
2. Others agree with the
against the LXX.;
(7), (8), (tx).
3. Others differ from the Hebrew and
LXX. where these both agree;
(1).
4. Others differs from the Hebrew and
ILXX. where they do not agree;

Hebrew

(2), (4)-
5. Free adaptations ;
(6), (9), (13). (14).
But there is no case where a quotation
agrees with the LXX. against the

Hebrew.

(y) There is yet another argument to
be noticed ip support of the Palestinian
authorship of the fourth Gospel, which
appears to be of great weight, though it
THE GOSPEL

has commonly been either passed over,
or even regarded as a difficulty. The
doctrine of the Word, as it is presented
in the Prologue, when taken in connexion
with the whole Gospel, seems to shew
clearly that the writer was of Palestinian
and not of Hellenistic training.

In considering St, John’s teaching on
the Logos, ‘‘the Word,” it is obvious to
remark, though the truth is very often
neglected in practice, that it is properly
a question of doctrine and not of nomen-
clature. It constantly happens in the
history of thought that the same terms
and phrases are used by schools which
have no direct affinity, in senses which
are essentially distinct, while they have a
superficial likeness. Such terms (e.g.
tea) belong to the common dialect of
speculation ; and it is indeed by the pecu-
liar force which is assigned to them that
schools are in many cases most readily
distinguished. A new teacher neces-
sarily uses the heritage which he has
received from the past in order to make
his message readily understood.

It may then be assumed that St.
John, when he speaks of ‘‘the Word,”
“the Only-begotten,”’ and of His relations
to God and to the world, and to man,
employs a vocabulary and refers to
modes of thought which were already
current when he wrote. His teaching
would not have been intelligible unless
the general scope of the language which
he employed, without explanation or pre-
patation, had! been familiar to his readers.
When he declares with abrupt emphasis
that ‘‘the Word was in the beginning,”
and that “the Word became flesh,” it
is evident that he is speaking of ‘‘a
Word”? already known in some degree
by the title, though he lays down new
truths as to His being. He does not
speak, as in the Apocalypse (xix. 13;
comp. Heb. iv. 12) of ‘‘the Word of
God,” but of ‘the Word” absolutely.
Those whom he addressed knew of
Whom he was speaking, and were able
to understand that which it was his office
to make known about Him. In this
case, as in every other similar case, the
thoughts of men, moving in different
directions under the action of those laws
of natural growth which are the expres-
sion of the divine purpose, prepared the
medium and provided the appropriate

OF Sr. JOHN. RY
means for the revelation which was to be
conveyed in the fulness of time.

In this respect the manifold forms of
speculation, Western and Eastern, ful-
filled a function in respect to Christian
philosophy similar to that which was
fulfilled in other regions of religious ex-
perience by the LXX.; and the results
which were gained were embodied in
Greek modes of speech, which were
ready at last for the declaration of the
divine message.

It becomes then a question of pecu-
liar and yet of subordinate interest to
determine from what source St. John
derived his language. It is admitted on
all hands that his central affirmation,
“the Word became flesh,” which under-
lies all he wrote, is absolutely new and
unique. A Greek, an Alexandrine, a
Jewish doctor, would have equally re-
fused to admit such a statement as a
legitimate deduction from his principles,
or as reconcileable with them. The mes-
sage completes and crowns ‘‘ the hope of
Israel,’”’ but not as “‘ the Jews’’ expected.
It gives stability to the aspirations of
humanity after fellowship with God,
but not as philosophers had supposed,
by “unclothing” the soul. St. John had
been enabled to see what Jesus of Naza-
reth was, ‘‘ the Christ ’’ and ‘‘ the Son
of God :” it remained for him to bring
home his convictions to others (xx. 31).
The Truth was clear to himself: how
could he so present it as to shew that it
gave reality to the thoughts with which
his contemporaries were busied? The
answer is by using with necessary modi-
fications the current language of the
highest religious speculation to interpret
a fact, to reveal a Person, to illuminate
the fulness of actual life. Accordingly
he transferred to the region of history
the phrases in which men before him
had spoken of ‘“‘the Logos’’—“‘ the
Word,” “‘ the Reason ’’—in the region of
metaphysics. St, Paul had brought home
to believers the divine majesty of the
glorified Christ : St. John laid open the
unchanged majesty of ‘‘ Jesus come in
the flesh.”

But when this is laid down it still
remains to determine in which direc-
tion we are to look for the immediate
source from which St. John borrowed the
catdinal term Logos, a term which en-
xvi

shrines in itself large treasures of theo-
logical speculation.

_ The scantiness of contemporary re-
ligious literature makes the answer more
difficult than it might have been if the
great Jewish teachers had not shrunk
from committing their lessons to writing.
And, in one sense, the difficulty is in-
creased by the fact that a striking aspect
of Jewish thought has been preserved in
the copious writings of PHILo of Alex-
andria (born c. B.c. 20), who is naturally
regarded as the creator of teaching, of
which he is in part only the representa-
tive. However far this view may be
from the truth, the works of Philo fur-
nish at least a starting-point for our in-
quiry. This typical Alexandrine Jew
speaks constantly of “the divine Logos”
(6 GOeios;,, Adyos) in language which offers
striking, if partial, parallels with the
epistle to the Hebrews and St. Paul.
The divine Logos is ‘Son of God,”
“firstborn Son” (apwrdyovos, I. 414),
“image of God” (ecixkav Oeov, I. 6),
“God”? (1. 655) ‘‘ high-priest ’ (dpyze-
pets, I. 653), “‘ man of God,” “‘ archetypal
man’ (dvOpwros Oeod I. 411, 6 Kar
eixéva dvOpwiros, I. 427), ‘the head of
the body” (r. 640; comp. 1. 121),
“through whom the world was created”
(II. 225).

At first sight it might seem that we
have here beyond all doubt the source of
St. John’s language. But the ambiguity
of the Greek term Logos, which means
both Reason and Word, makes it neces-
sary to pause before adopting this con-
clusion. When Philo speaks of ‘‘ the
divine Logos’? his thought is predomi-
nantly of the divine Reason and not of
the divine Word. This fact is of deci-
sive importance. The conception of a
divine Word, that is, of a divine Will
sensibly manifested in personal action, is
not naturally derived from that of a
divine Reason, but is rather comple-
mentary to it, and characteristic of a
different school of thought. Is it then
possible to find any clear traces of a
doctrine of a divine Logos elsewhere
than at Alexandria?

The Targums furnish an instructive
answer to the question. These para-
phrases of the Hebrew Scriptures have
preserved, asit appears, the simplest and
eatliest form in which the term ‘the

INTRODUCTION TO

Word’? was employed in connexion with
God. They were most probably not
committed to writing in the shape in
which we now have them, till some time
after the Christian sera; but all evidence
goes to shew that they embody the in-
terpretations which had been orally cur-
rent from a much earlier time. In the
Targum of Onkelos on the Pentateuch,
which is the oldest in date, the action of
God is constantly though not consis-
tently referred to ‘‘ His Word” (Memra,
“DD NW). Thus it is said that ‘the
Lord protected Noah by His Word, when
he entered the ark”? (Gen. vii. 16):
that He ‘‘made a covenant between
Abraham and His word ” (Gen. xvii. 2) ;
that the word of the Lord was with
Ishmael in the wilderness (xxi. 20). At
Bethel Jacob made a covenant that ‘‘ the
Word of the Lord should be His God ”
(Gen. xxviii. 21). Moses at Sinai ‘‘brought
forth the people to meet the Word of
God” (Exod. xix. 17). And in Deutero-
nomy the Word of the Lord appears as
a consuming fire talking to His people,
and fighting for them against their ene-
mies (Deut. iii. 2, iv. 24).

Such examples might be multiplied
indefinitely ; and it may be noticed that
the term Debura (S99) occurs in this
sense as well as Memra. Thus it is said
in the Jerusalem Targum on Numb. vii.
89, the word (N39) was talking with
him; and again Gen. xxviii. 10, the
word (""}) desired to talk with him.

In connexion with this usage it must
also be observed that ‘‘a man’s word ”’ is
used as a periphrasis for ‘‘ himself.’’? So
we read Ruth iii 8 (‘ Targ. Jon.’),
‘‘ between his word (i.e. himself) and
Michal” (Buxtorf and Levy, s. v.). The
“‘word” is in fact the active expression
of the rational character, and so may
well stand for the person from whom it
issues. As applied to God, the term
was free from any rude anthropomor-
phism, while it preserved the reality of a
divine fellowship for man.

One striking difference between the
Aramaic and Greek terms will have been
remarked. Logos, as we have seen, is
ambiguous, and may signify either reason
or word, but Memra (Debura) means
word only. If now we return to Philo,
the importance of this fact becomes ob-
vious. With Philo the Palestinian sense
THE GOSPEL

of word sinks entirely into the back-
ground, if it does not wholly disappear.
He has borrowed a term which was al-
ready current in the Greek Scriptures,
and filled it with a new meaning.
Three currents of thought in fact
meet in Philo’s doctrine of ‘‘the Logos,”
the Stoic, the Platonic, and the Hebraic.
He was nothing less than a creative
genius. He felt rightly that the reve-
lation of the Old Testament contained
implicitly the harmony of the mani-
fold speculations of men, and he there-

fore adopted boldly the thoughts of:

Greek philosophy for the interpretation
of its language. He found a ‘‘ Logos”
in the Greek Bible which he accepted
as the record of revelation, and he ap-
plied to that what Greek writers had said
of the ‘‘ Logos,” without thinking it ne-
cessary to inquire into the identity of the
terms. At one time he borrows from
Plato when he speaks of the Logos as
“the archetypal idea” (‘de spec. leg.’
36, 11. p. 333 f.), or as bearing ‘“‘ the idea
of ideas” (‘de migr. Abr.’ 18, 1. p. 452 m.).
More commonly he uses the Stoic con-
ception of the Logos as the principle of
reason, which quickens and informs
matter.

At the same time, while it appears
that Philo borrowed both the title of the
Logos as Reason, and the most prominent
features of His office, from Hellenic
sources, he sought the confirmation of
his views in the Old Testament; and in
doing this he shews that he was not un-
acquainted with Jewish speculations on
the Word. But in spite of the unwaver-
ing faith with which he found in the
letter of the law the germ and the proof
of the teaching which he borrowed from
Greece, he abandoned the divine posi-
tion of the Jew. The whole scope of
the writers of the Old Testament is reli-
gious. They move in a region of life and
history. Their idea of God is that of the
Lord who rules the world and His chosen
people, not simply as the Author of ex-
istence, but as One who standsin a moral
relation to men, “speaking”? to them.
The whole scope of Philo on the other
hand is metaphysical. He moves in a
region of abstraction and thought. His
idea of God is pure being. With him
the speculative aspect of the Logos-doc-
trine overpowers the moral. He does not

OF St. JOHN. xvii
place the Logos in connexion with the
Messiah, nor even specially with Jewish
history. It is perhaps of less significance
that he speaks of it now as if it were
personal, and again as if it were imper-
sonal: now as an attribute, and now as
“a second god.”

If now we ask with which of these two
conceptions of the Logos, current respec-
tively in Palestine and Alexandria, the
teaching of St. John is organically con-
nected, the answer cannot be uncertain.

Philo occupied himself with the ab-
stract conception of the divine Intelli-
gence, and so laid the foundations of a
philosophy. The Palestinian instinct
seized upon the concrete idea of ‘‘ the
Word of God,’ as representing His
personal action, and unconsciously pre-
pared the way for a Gospel of the In-
carnation. St. John ‘started from the
conception of ‘‘ the Word ;” and by this
means in theend he gave reality to the
conception of the Reason.”

The development of the action of the
Logos, the Word, in the Prologue to the
fourth Gospel places the contrast he-
tween Philo and the Evangelist in the
broadest light. However wavering and
complex Philo’s description of the Logos
may be, itis impossible not to feel that
he has in every case moved far away from
the idea of an Incarnation. No one, it
is not too much to say, who had accepted
his teaching could without a complete
revolution of thought accept the state-
ment ‘‘the Logos became flesh.”” The
doctrine of the personality of the Logos,
even if Philo had consistently main-
tained it, would not have been in reality a
step towards such a fact. On the other
hand, in the Prologue the description of
the Logos is personal from the first (iv
mpds 7, @.), and His creative energy is at
once connected with man. ‘‘ The Life
was the light of men.” ‘“‘ The Light was
coming into the world (jv .. épy.).” And
in due time “‘the Logos became flesh.”
Thought follows thought naturally, and
the last event is seen to crown and com-
plete the history which leads up to it.

Philo and St. John, in short, found the
same term current, and used it according
to their respective apprehensions of the 5
truth. Philo, following closely in the
track of Greek philosophy, saw in the
Logos the divine Intelligence in relation
xvili

to the universe : the Evangelist, trusting
firmly to the ethical basis of Judaism,
sets forth the Logos mainly as the re-
vealer of God to man, through creation,
through theophanies, through prophets,
through the Incarnation. The Philonean
Logos, to express the same thought dif-
rently, is a later stage of a divergent
interpretation of the term common to
Hebrew and Hellenist.

It is however very probable that the
teaching of Philo gave a fresh impulse to
the study of the complementary concep-
tion of the Logos as the divine Reason,
which was shadowed forth in the Biblical
doctrine of Wisdom ( cod¢ia ), Nor is there
any difficulty in supposing that the
apostolic writers borrowed from him
either directly or indirectly forms of
language which they adapted to the
essentially new announcement of an In-
carnate Son of God. So it was that the
treasures of Greece were made contri-
butory to the full unfolding of the Gospel.
But the essence of their doctrine has no
affinity with his. The speculations of
Alexandria or Ephesus may have quick-
ened and developed elements which
otherwise would have remained latent in
Judaism. But the elements were there;
and in this respect the evangelic message
‘the Word became flesh,’’ is the com-
plete fulfilment of three distinct lines of
preparatory revelation, which were se-
verally connected with ‘‘the Angel of
the Presence” (Gen. xxxii. 24 ff.; Exod.
XXXili. 12 ff., xxiii. 20 f.; Hos. xii. 4, f.;
Isai. vi. 1 [John xii. 41], lxiii. 9; Mal. iii.
I); with ‘“‘the Word” (Gen. i. 1; Ps.
xxxiii. 6, exlvii. 15; Isai. lv. 11; comp.
Wisd. xviii. 15); and with ‘‘ Wisdom”
(Prov. viii, 22 ff, iii. 19; Ecclus. i, 1—
Io, xxiv. 9 (14); Bar. iii. 37, iv. 1;
comp. Wisd. vii. 7—11).

In short, the teaching of St. John is
characteristically Hebraic and not Alex-
andrine. It is intelligible as the final
coordination through facts of different
modes of thought asto the divine Being
and the divine action, which are con-
tained in the Old Testament. And on
the other hand it is not intelligible as an
application or continuation of the teach-
ing of Philo.

The doctrine of the Logos has been
very frequently discussed. An excellent
account of ¢he literature up to 1870 is

INTRODUCTION TO

given by Dr. Abbot in his appendix to
the article on ‘the Word” in the Ameri-
can edition of the ‘Dictionary of the
Bible.’ Several later works are included
in the list given by Soulier, ‘ La Doctrine
du Logos chez Philon d’Alexandrie.’
Turin, 1876. The works of Gfroerer,
‘Philo, u. d. Jud.-Alex. Theosophie,’
1835; Daehne, ‘Jud.-Alex. Religions-
Philosophie,’ 1854; Dorner, ‘The Person
of Christ’? (Eng. Trans.); Jowett, ‘‘ St
Paul and Philo’ (‘ Epistles of St Paul,’ 1.
363 ff.); Heinze, ‘Die Lehre v. Logos
in Griech. Philosophie,’ 1872; Siegfried,
‘Philo v. Alex.,’? 1875, may be specially
mentioned. Grossmann has given a
complete summary of the word ‘‘ Logos”
in Philo, in his ‘ Queestiones Philonez,’
1829.

(c) The Author of the fourth Gospel
was an eye-witness of what he describes.
The particularity of his knowledge, which
has been already noticed summarily,
leads at once to the next point in our
inquiry. The writer of the Gospel was
an eye-witness of the events which he
describes. His narrative is marked by
minute details of persons, and time, and
number, and place and manner, which
cannot but have come from a direct ex-
perience. And to these must be added
various notes of fact, so to speak, which
seem to have no special significance
where they stand, though they become
intelligible when referred to the impres-
sion originally made upon the memory
of the Evangelist.

(a) Persons. The portraiture of the chief
characters in the Gospel will be noticed
afterwards. In this connexion it is suffi-
cient to observe the distinctness with
which the different actors in the history
tise before the writer. There is no
purpose, no symbolism to influence his
record. The names evidently belong to
the living recollection of the incidents.
The first chapter is crowded with figures
which live and move: John with his
disciples, Andrew, Simon Peter, Philip
Nathanael. Momentous questions are
connected with definite persons. He saith
unto Philip, Whence shall we buy bread,
that these may eat?.. Philip answered
him,..(vi. 5, 7; comp. Matt. xiv. 14 ff.
and parallels). Certain Greeks said to
Philip, Sir, we would see Jesus. Philip
cometh and telleth Andrew: Andrew
THE GOSPEL

cometh and Philip and they tell Jesus
(xii. 21 f.). Thomas saith unto Him,
Lord, we know not whither thou goest;
how do we know the way? (xiv. 5). Philip
Saith, Lord, shew us the Father, and it
sufficeth us (xiv. 8). Judas saith, not
Iscariot, Lord, how is it that thou wilt
manifest thyself to us, and not unto the
world ? (xiv. 22). The disciple whom Jesus
loved,..falling back upon His breast,
saith, Lord, who is it? (xiii. 25; comp.
xxi. 20). Nicodemus (iii. 1 ff., vii. 50,
xix. 39), Lazarus (xi. 1 ff., xii, 1 ff),
Simon the father of Judas Iscariot! (vi.
71, xii. 4, xiii. 2, 26), and Malchus
(xviii. 10), are mentioned only in the
fourth Gospel. The writer of this Gospel
alone mentions the relationship of Annas
to Caiaphas (xviii. 13), and identifies one
of those who pointed to Peter as the
kinsman of him whose ear Peter cut off
(xviii, 26).

(@) Time. ‘The details of time be-
long perhaps more obviously to the plan
of the narrative than the details of
persons. The greater seasons, even
though they are not noted in the Synop-
tists, may be supposed to have been
preserved in tradition, as the first Pass-
over (ii. 13, 23), the Feast of the New
Year (v. 1),the Second Passover (vi. 4),
the Feast of Tabernacles (vii. 2), the
Feast of Dedication (x. 22); but other
specifications of date can only be referred
to the knowledge of actual experience.
Such are the indications of the two
marked weeks at the beginning and end
of Christ’s ministry (i. 29, 35, 43, ii. 1,
xii. I, 12 (xiii, 1), xix. 31, xx. 1), of the
week after the Resurrection (xx. 26), the
enumeration of the days before the rais-
ing of Lazarus (xi. 6, 17, 39), the note of
the duration of Christ’s stay in Samaria
(iv. 40, 43; compare also vi. 22, vii.
14, 37). Still more remarkable ‘is the
mention of the hour or of the time of
day which occurs under circumstances
likely to have impressed it upon the
mind of the writer, as the tenth hour (i.
40), the sixth hour (iv. 6), the seventh
hour, (iv. 52), about the sixth hour (xix.
14), it was night (xiii. 30), in the early

* In this connexion it is interesting to notice
that the writer of the fourth Gospel knew that
the title Iscariot was a local or family name.
He applies both to Judas and to his father
Simon : vi 71, xiii. 2, 26, xii. 4, xiv. 22.

»

OF Sr. JOHN. xix
morning (xviii. 28, xx. 1, xxi. 4), the
evening (vi. 16, xx. 9), by night (iii, 2).

(y) Number. The details of number,
though fewer, are hardly less significant.
It is unnatural to refer to anything ex-
cept experience such definite and, as it
appears, immaterial statements as those
in which the writer of the fourth Gospel
mentions the two disciples of the Bap-
tist (i. 35), the six waterpots (ii. 6), the
five loaves and two small fishes (vi. 9),
the five-and-twenty furlongs (vi. 19), the
four soldiers (xix. 23. Cp. Acts xii. 4),
the two hundred cubits (xxi. 8), the hun-
dred and fifty and three fishes (xxi. 11).

The number of the loaves and fishes is
preserved in the Synoptic narrative, but
this single parallel does not in any way
lessen the value of the whole group of
examples as a sign of immediate observa-
tion in the Evangelist. Other records
of number shew the clearness if not the
directness of the writer’s information, as
the five husbands (iv. 18), the thirty and
eight years sickness (v. 5), the estimate
of three hundred pence (xii. 5; comp.
Mark xiv. 5), the weight of a hundred
pounds (xix. 39).

(8) Place. Many of the local details
characteristic of the fourth Gospel have
been already noticed. Here it is only
necessary to observe that the manner in
which the scenes of the special acts and
utterances are introduced shews that
they belong to the immediate knowledge
of the writer. We cannot naturally ac-
count for the particularity except on the
supposition that the place was an integral
part of the recollection of the incidents.
Thus the scenes of John’s baptism are
given at Bethany and Anon (i. 28, iii.
23; comp. x. 40). The son of the noble-
man was sick at Capernaum while Jesus
was at Cana (iv. 46f.). Jesus found the
paralytic whom He had healed in the
Temple (v. 14). He gained many ad-
herents when He went towards the close
of His ministry beyond Jordan to the
place where John was at first baptizing
(x. 40 ff.). When Mary came to Him He
had not yet come to the village, but
was in the place where Martha met Him
(xi. 30). He spent the interval between
the raising of Lazarusand His return to
Bethany on the eve of the Passion in
the country near the wilderness, in a city
called Ephraim (xi. 54). The people as
XxX

they stood in the Temple speculated on
His reappearance (xi. 56).

So again Christ spoke certain memor-
able words in a solemn gathering (év
cuvaywyn) at Capernaum (vi. 59, note),
in the treasury (viii. 20), in Solomon’s
porch (x. 23), before crossing the Cedron
(xviii, 1).

(ce) Manner. More impressive still
are the countless small traits in the de-
scriptions which evince either the skill
of a consummate artist or the recollec-
tion of an observer. The former alter-
native is excluded alike by the literary
spirit of the first and second centuries
and by the whole character of the Gospel.
The writer evidently reflects what he had
seen. This will appear most clearly to
any one who takes the record of a special
scene and marks the several points which
seem to reveal the impressions of an
eye-witness, as (for example) the calling
of the first disciples (i. 35—51), or the
foot-washing (xiii. 1—20),or the scene
inthe high-priest’s court (xviii. 15—27),
or the draught of fishes (xxi. 1—14), In
each one of these narratives, and they
are simply samples of the nature of the
whole narrative, it is almost impossible
to overlook the vivid touches which cor-
respond with the actual experience of
one who had looked upon what he de-
scribes. Thus, to take a single illustra-
tron from the first (i. 35—51), we can-
not but feel the life (so to speak) of the
opening picture. John is shewn standing,
in patient expectation of the issue, as the
tense implies (etorjKe, comp. vii. 37,
XViii. 5, 16, 18, xix. 25, Xx. 11), with two
of his disciples. As Christ moves away,
now separate from him, he fixes his eyes
upon Him (éuBrAdpas, comp, v. 43), So
as to give the full meaning to the phrase
which he repeats, in order that his dis-
ciples may now, if they will, take the
lesson to themselves. Each word tells;
each person occupies exactly the position
which corresponds to the crisis. And
the description becomes more significant
when contrasted with the notice of the
corresponding incident on the former
day (i. 29 ff.).

Not to dwell at length on these scenes,
one or two detached phrases may be
quoted which will serve toshew the kind
of particularity on which stress is laid.
The loaves used at the feeding of the

INTRODUCTION TO

five thousand are barley loaves which
a boy has (vi. 9; comp. v. 13); when
Mary came to Jesus she fell at His feet
(xi. 32; contrast vv. 20 f.); after the
ointment was poured out the house was
filled from its fragrance (xii. 3); the
branches strewn inthe way of Jesus were
taken from the palm-trees which were by
the road-side (xii. 13); it was night when
Judas went forth (xiii. 30); Judas brings
a band of Roman soldiers as well as
officers of the priests to apprehend Jesus
(xviii. 3); Christ’s tunic was without
seam, woven from the top throughout
(xix. 23); the napkin which had been
about His head was wrapped together in
a place by itself (xx. 7); Peter was
grieved because Jesus said to him the
third time, Lovest thou me? (xxi. 17).

Compare also xiii, 24, xviii. 6, xix. 5,
xxi. 20. Each phrase is a reflection of a
definite external impression. They bring
the scenes as vividly before the reader
as they must have presented themselves
to the writer.

If it be said that we can conceive that
these traits might have been realised by
the imagination of a Defoe or a Shakes-
peare, it may be enough to reply that
the narrative is wholly removed from
this modern realism; but besides this,
there are other fragmentary notes to
which no such explanation can apply
Sometimes we find historical details
given bearing the stamp of authenticity,
which represent minute facts likely to
cling to the memory of one directly con-
cerned (i. 40), though it is in fact diffi-
cult for us now to grasp the object of
the writer in preserving them. It is
equally impossible to suppose that such
details were preserved in common tradi-
tion or supplied by the imagination of
the writer. Examples are found in the
exact account of Andrew finding first
his own brother Simon (i. 41), of the
passing visit to Capernaum (ii. 12), of
John’s baptism (iii, 23), of the boats
from Tiberias (vi. 22 f.), of the retire-
ment to Ephraim (xi. 54).

Sometimes the detail even appears to
be in conflict with the context or with
the current (Synoptic) accounts, though
the discrepancy vanishes on a fuller reali-
Sation of the facts, as when the words
Arise, let us go hence (xiv, 31) mark
the separation between the discourses in
THE GOSPEL

the upper chamber and those on the
way tothe garden (compare i. 21 with
Matt. xi, 14; iii. 24 with Matt. iv. 12).
Elsewhere a mysterious saying is left
wholly unexplained. In some cases the
obscurity lies in a reference to a previous
but unrecorded conversation, as when
the Baptist says tothe disciples who had
followed him, Behold the Lamb of God
(i. 29; comp. vi. 36, xii. 34), or, per-
haps, to unknown local circumstances
(i. 46). In others it lies in a personal
but unexpressed revelation as in the
words which carried sudden conviction
to Nathanael, Before Philip called thee,
when thou wast under the fig-tree, I saw
thee (i. 48). Apparent contradictions
are left without any comment, as v. 31
compared with viii. 14; xiii. 36 com-
pared with xvi. 5; xiv. 19 compared
with xvi. 19; and, on the other hand, an
explanation is given which, though it
might appear superfluous at a later time.
becomes at once natural in one who in
the process of narration is carried back
tothe scene itself with all its doubts and
perplexities, as when it is said in inter-
pretation of the words, ye are clean, but
not all; ‘‘ for He knew him that betrayed
(was betraying) Him; for this reason He
said, Ye are not all clean ” (xiii. 11).
(d) The Author of the fourth Gospel
was an Apostle. Such touches as those
which have been now enumerated, and
every page of the Gospel will supply
examples, shew that the writer was an
eye-witness of many at least of the scenes
which he describes. The age of minute
historical romance had not yet come
when the fourth Gospel was written,
even if such a record could possibly be
brought within the category. A further
examination of the narrative shews that
the eye-witness was also an apostle.
This follows almost necessarily from the
character of the scenes which he de-
scribes, evidently as has been shewn from
his own knowledge, the call of the first
disciples (i. 19—34), the journey through
Samaria (iv.), the feeding of the five
thousand (vi.), the successive visits to
Jerusalem (vii. ix. xi.), the Passion, the
appearances after the Resurrection. But
the fact is further indicated by the inti-
mate acquaintance which he exhibits
with the feelings of ‘‘ the disciples.” He
knows their thoughts at critical moments

New Test.—Vot. II

OF St. JOHN. xxi

(ii. 11, 17, 22, iv. 27, vi 19, 60 f., xii.
16, xiii. 22, 28, xxi. 12; comp. Luke
xxiv. 8; Matt. xxvi. 75). He recalls
their words spoken among themselves
(iv. 33, Xvi. 17, XX. 25, xxi. 3, 5) as to
their Lord (iv. 31, ix. 2, xi. 8,12, xvi. 29).

He is familiar with their places of re-
sort (xi, 54, xviii. 2, xx. 19).

He is acquainted with imperfect or
erroneous impressions received by them
at one time, and afterwards corrected
(ii. a1 f., xi. 13, xii. 16, xiii. 28, xx. 9,
Xxi. 4).

And yet more than this, the writer of
the fourth Gospel evidently stood very
near to the Lord. He was conscious of
His emotions (xi, 33, xiii. 21). He was
in a position to be well acquainted with
the grounds of His action (ii. 24 f., iv. 1,
v. 6, vi. 15, vii, I, Xvi. 19). Nor is this
all; he speaks as one to whom the mind
of the Lord was laid open. Before the
feeding of the five thousand he writes,
This He (Jesus) said trying him, for He
Himself knew what He was about to do
(vi. 6). Jesus knew in Himself the mur-
murings of the disciples (vi. 61); He
knew from the beginning who they were
that believed not, and who it was that
would betray Him (vi. 64); He knew the
hour of His Passion (xiii. 1, 3), and who
should betray Him (xiii, 11); He knew
indeed all the things that were coming
upon Him (xviii. 4); He knew when all
things were accomplished (xix. 28).

(e) The Author of the fourth Gospel
was the Apostle John. Such statements
when they are taken in connexion with
the absolute simplicity of the narrative
necessarily leave the impression that the
Evangelist was conscious of having had
the opportunity of entering, more deeply
even than others, into the conditions of
the Lord’s life. And this reflection brings
us to the last point. If the writer of the
fourth Gospel was an apostle, does the
narrative indicate any special apostle as
the writer? In the Epilogue (xxi. 24)
the authorship of the book is assigned,
as we shall see afterwards, to the disciple
whom Jesus loved (6v Hydra 6 *Inoois).
This disciple appears under the same
title twice in the narrative of the Passion
(xiii, 23, Xix. 26), as well as twice after-
wards (xxi. 7, 20), and once in connex-
ion with St. Peter under a title closely
resembling it (xx.2, dv épirer 6 'Inoois).

Cc
XX1i

He is known to the high-priest (xviii.
15), and stands in very close relationship
with St Peter (xiii. 24, xx. 2, xxi. 7;
comp. xviii. 15; Acts iii.). Though his
name is not mentioned, there is nothing
mysterious or ideal about him. He
moves about among the other apostles
quite naturally, and from the enumera-
tion (xxi. 2; comp. i. 35 ff.) of those
present at the scene described in the last
chapter, it follows that he must have
been either one of the sons of Zebedee,
or one of the two other disciples not
described more particularly.

If now we turn to the Synoptic narra-
tive we find three disciples standing in a
special sense near to Jesus, Peter and
the sons of Zebedee, James and John.
There is then a strong presumption that
the Evangelist was one of these. St. Peter
is out of the question. Of the two sons
of Zebedee, James was martyred very
early (Acts xii. 2), so that he could not
have been the author of the Gospel.
John therefore alone remains; and he
completely satisfies the conditions which
are required to be satisfied by the writer,
that he should be in close connexion
with St Peter, and also one admitted to
peculiar intimacy with the Lord.

Does then this definite supposition
that St John was the anonymous disciple
who wrote the fourth Gospel find any
subsidiary support from the contents of
the history? The answer cannot be
doubtful. St John is nowhere mentioned
by name in the Gospel; and while it
appears incredible that an apostle who
stands in the Synoptists, in the Acts (iii.
1, iv. 13 &c.), andin St Paul (Gal. ii. 9),
as a central figure among the twelve,
should find no place in the narrative, the
nameless disciple fulfils the part which
would naturally be assigned to St John.
Yet further, in the first call of the dis-
ciples one of the two followers of the
Baptist is expressly named as Andrew
(i. 40); the other is left unnamed. An-
drew, it is said, found first his own
brother Simon (i, 41)... The natural in-
terpretation of the words suggests that
the brother of some other person, and
if so, of the second disciple, was also
found. A reference to the last scene at
the sea of Galilee (xxi. 2) leads to the
cettain inference that these two brothers
were the sons of Zebedee, and so that

INTRODUCTION TO

the second disciple was St John. Another
peculiarity of the Gospel confirms the
inference.

The Evangelist is for the most part
singularly exact in defining the names in
his Gospel. He never mentions Simon
after his call (i. 42 £.) by the simple name,
as is done in the other Gospels, but al-
ways by the full name Simon Peter, or
by the new name Peter. Thomas is
three times out of four further marked
by the correlative Greek name Didymus
(xi. 16, xx, 24, xxi. 2), which is not found
in the Synoptists. Judas Iscariot is de-
scribed as the son of a Simon not else-
where noticed (vi. 71, xii. 4, xiii. 2, 26)
The second Judas is expressly distin-
guished from Iscariot even when the
latter had left the eleven (xiv. 22). Nico-
demus is identified as he that came to
Jesus by night (xix. 39 [vii. 50]). Caia-
phas on each of the two separate occa-
sions where he is introduced is qualified
by the title of his office as the high-priest
of that year (xi. 49, xviii. 13).

But in spite of this habitual particu-
larity the Evangelist never speaks of the
Baptist, like the three other Evangelists,
as ‘‘ John the Baptist,” but always simply
as ‘‘John.” It is no doubt to be no-
ticed that in most places the addition
of the title would have been awkward or
impossible; but elsewhere such an iden-
tification might have been expected (i.
15 and v. 33, 36; comp. Matt. iii, 1,
xi. 11 ff.). If however the writer of the
Gospel were himself the other John of
the Gospel history, itis perfectly natural
that he should think of the Baptist, apart
from himself, as John only.1

But it is said that it is admitted that
the Apostle John is to be identified with
the nameless disciple of the fourth
Gospel, the second of the two disciples
of the Baptist, the companion of St
Peter, the disciple whom Jesus loved;
it is still impossible, in spite of the at-
testation of the Epilogue, that he could
have written the Gospel. The Gospel,
such is the contention, must have been
written by some one else, for it is argued
that the author could not have spoken

? It is also to be observed that the writer of
the fourth Gospel does not give the name of
Salome, the wife of Zebedee (xix. 25. Comp.
Matt. xxvii. 56), or of James (xxi. 2), or of the
Mother of the Lord.
THE GOSPEL

of himself as the disciple whom Jesus
loved, claiming in this way for himself,
and not as he might reasonably have
done for another whom he took as his
hero, a pre-eminence over his fellow-
apostles ; and (it is further urged in par-
ticular) that St John would not have
“studiously elevated himself in every
way above the Apostle Peter’ as this
- writer does.

The last objection may be disposed of
first. The notion that the author of the
fourth Gospel wishes to present St John
as the victorious rival of St Peter, is
based mainly upon the incident at the
Last Supper, where St Peter beckoned
to St John to ask a question which he
did not put himself (xiii. 24 ff.) ; and it is
asserted that the same idea is supported
by the scenes in the court of the High
Priest, and by the Cross. It would be
sufficient to reply that all these incidents
belong to details of personal relationship,
and not to official position, and St John
was (as it appears) the son of the sister
of the Mother of the Lord. But if we
go into details an examination of the
narrative as a whole shews that it lends
no support whatever to the theory of
any thought of rivalry or comparison
between St Peter and St John existing
in the writer’s mind. St John stands,
just as he stands in the Acts, silent by
the side of the Apostle to whom the
office of founding the Church was as-
signed (cf. xxi. 21; Acts iii, 1). And
as for the incident at the Last Supper,
the person who occupied the third and
not the second place would be in a posi-
tion to act the part assigned to St John
(John xiii. 23, note). Here then St Peter
takes the precedence; and elsewhere he
occupies exactly the same place with
tegard to the Christian Society in the
fourth Gospel as in the other three. He
receives the promise of his significant
surname (i. 42); he gives utterance to
the critical confession of Christ’s majesty
(vi, 68); he is placed first (as it seems)
at the foot-washing during the Last Sup-
per (xiii. 6); he is conspicuous at the
betrayal in defence of his Lord (xviii.
10); he stands patiently without the high
priest’s door till he is able to obtain ad-
mission (xviii. 16); the message of the
Resurrection is brought to him and to
‘“‘the other disciple’ only as second to

OF Sr. JOHN. xxili
him (xx. 2); he first sees the certain
signs that Christ had risen (xx. 7); he
directs the action of the group of apostles
during the time of suspense (xxi. 3);
he is the first to join the Lord upon the
seashore, and the chief in carrying out
His command (xxi. 7, 11); he receives
at last the Great Commission (xxi.
15 ff.).

The representative official precedence
of St Peter thus really underlies the
whole narrative of the fourth Gospel.
The nearness of St John to the Lord is
a telation of sympathy, so to speak,
different in kind.

But this ascription of a special rela-
tion of the unnamed disciple to the
Lord as the disciple whom Jesus loved,
with a feeling at once general (jydra)
and personal (é$iAe, Xx. 2), requires in
itself careful consideration. And if it
were true,as is frequently assumed, that
St John sought to conceal himself by
the use of the various periphrases under
which his name is veiled, there might be
some difficulty in reconciling the use of
this exact title with the modest wish to
be unnoticed. But in point of fact the
writer of the fourth Gospel evidently
insists on the peculiarity of his narrative
as being that of a personal witness. He
speaks with an authority which has a
tight to be recognised. It is taken for
granted that those whom he addresses
will know who he is, and acknowledge
that he ought to be heard. In this
respect the fourth Gospel differs essen-
tially from the other three. They are
completely impersonal, with the excep-
tion of the short preface of St Luke.
We can then imagine that St John as an
eye-witness might either have written his
narrative in the first person throughout,
or he might have composed an imper-
sonal record, adding some introductory
sentences to explain the nature of the
book, or he might have indicated his
own presence obliquely at some one or
other of the scenes which he describes.
There is no question of self-concealment
in the choice between these alternatives ;
and there can be also no question as to
the method which would be most natural
to an apostle living again, as it were, in
the divine history of his youth. The
direct personal narrative and the still
more formal personal preface to an im-
XXiV

personal narrative seem to be alien from
the circumstances of the composition.
On the other hand, the oblique allusion
corresponds with the devout contempla-
tion from a distance of events seen only
after a long interval in their full signifi-
cance. The facts and the actors alike
are all separated from the Evangelist as
he recalls them once more in the centre
of a Christian Society 1.

But if it be admitted that the oblique
form of reference to the fact that the
writer of the fourth Gospel was an eye-
witness of what he describes was gene-
tally the most natural, does it appear
that this particular form of oblique refer-
ence, to which objection is made, was
itself natural? The answer must be
looked for in the circumstances under
which it is used. After the distinct but
passing claim to be an eye-witness (i.
14), the Evangelist does not appear per-
sonally in the Gospel till the scenes of
the Passion. He may be discovered in
the call of the disciples (i. 41), but only
by a method of exhaustion. So far there
was nothing to require his explicit attes-
tation. But in the review of the issue of
Christ’s work it might well be asked
whether the treachery of Judas was in-
deed foreseen by Christ. St John shews
how deeply he felt the importance of the
question (vi. 70, 71, xiii. 11; comp. xiii.
18 f.). It was then essential to his
plan that he should place on record the
direct statement of the Lord’s foreknow-
ledge on the authority of him to whom
it was made. That communication was
a special sign of affection. Can we then
be surprised that, in recalling the memor-
able fact that it was made to himself,
he should speak of himself as the disciple
whom Jesus loved (jydra) ? The words
express the grateful and devout acknow-
ledgment of something received, and

1 In illustration of this view, reference may
be made to Mr Browning’s noble realisation of
the situation in his ‘ Death in the Desert.’

*«’,.much that at the first, in deed and word

Lay simply and sufficiently exposed,

Had grown (or else my soul was grown to

match,

Fed through such years, familiar with such

light,

Giunded and guided still to see and speak)

Of new significance and fresh result ;

What first were guessed as points 1 now

knew stars.”

INTRODUCTION TO

contain no assumption of a distinction
above others. Christ loved all (xiii. 1,
34, XV. 9); St John felt, and confesses,
that Christ loved him, and shewed His
love in this signal manner. The same
thought underlies the second passage
where the phrase occurs (xix. 26). The
charge to receive the Mother of the
Lord almost necessarily calls out the
same confession. In the last chapter
(xxi. 7, 20) the title seems to be repeated
with a distinct reference to the former
passages, and no difficulty can be felt at
the repetition. :

The remaining passage (xx. 2) is
different, and ought not to have been
confounded with those already noticed.
There can be no doubt that if the words
she cometh to Simon Peter and the other
disciple whom Jesus loved, had stood
alone, the reader would have included
St Peter under the description; the
word ‘“‘ other’ has no meaning except on
this interpretation (contrast xxi. 7). But
it has been assumed that the entirely
different phrase used here (év ééAee)
must be identical with that uesd else-
where of St John alone (év sjydra), and
the passage has been accordingly mis-
understood. Yet the contrast between
the two words equally translated ‘‘ love,’’
gives theclue to the right meaning. St
Peter and St John shared alike in that
peculiar nearness of personal friendship
to Christ (if we may so speak) which is
expressed by the former word (duAciv,
see xi, 3, 36), while St John acknow-
ledges for himself the gift of love which
is implied in the latter; the first word
describes that of which others could
judge outwardly; the second that of
which the individual soul alone is con-
scious. The general conclusion is ob-
vious. Ifthat phrase (dv épiAew 6 “Incois)
had been used characteristically of St
John which is infact used in relation to
St Peter and St John, there might have
been some ground for the charge of an
apparent assumption of pre-eminence on
the part of the Evangelist; as it is, the
phrase which is used is no affectation of
honour; it is a personal thanksgiving
for a blessing which the Evangelist had
experienced, which was yet in no way
peculiar to himself.

As far therefore as indirect internal
evidence is concerned, the conclusion
THE GOSPEL

towards which all the lines of inquiry
converge remains unshaken, that the
fourth Gospel was written by a Pales-
tinian Jew, by an eye-witness, by the
disciple whom Jesus loved, by John the
son of Zebedee. We have now to con-
sider the direct evidence which the
Gospel offers upon the question.

li. The direct evidence of the Gospel as to
its authorship.

Three passages of the Gospel appear
to point directly to the position and per-
son of the author: i. 14, xix. 35, xxi. 24.
Each passage includes some difficulties
and uncertainties of interpretation which
must be noticed somewhat at length.

(a) Ch. 1. 14. The Word became flesh
and dwelt (tabernacled) among us, and
we beheld His glory...(6 Adyos caps éyé-
veTO, Kat eoKHVoTeL ev Hiv, Kal COeardpcOa
tiv S8é£av adrov...). The main question
here is as to the sense in which the
words we beheld are to be taken. Are
we to understand this ‘‘ beholding”’ of
the historical sight of Christ, so that the
writer claims to have been an eye- witness
of that which he records? or can it be
referred to a spiritual vision, common to
all believers at all times?

Our reply cannot but be affected by
the consideration of the parallel passage
in the beginning of the first Epistle of
St John, which was written, it may cer-
tainly be assumed, by the same author
as the Gospel: That which was from the
beginning, which we have heard, which
we have seen with our eyes, which we be-
held, and our hands handled, concerning
the Word of life...(1 Johni. 1, 6 fv aa
dpxis, 5 dxynxoapev, 6 éwpdxapev tois dd-
Oarpois, & efeardpeOa Kat at xeipes apov
éymrddyoay, rept Tod Adyou THs (wijs...).
Now there cannot be any doubt that the
“beholding ” here, from the connexion
in which it stands (we have seen with our
eyes, our hands handled), must be under-
stood literally. Language cannot be
plainer. The change of tense moreover
emphasizes the specific historical refe-
Tence (we beheld, and not as of that
which ideally abides, we have beheld [1
John iv. 14; John i. 32, n.J. This being
so, the same word in the same tense and
in the same general connexion cannot
reasonably, be anderstood otherwise in

OF St. JOHN.

the Gospel. It may also be added fur-
ther, that the original word (Oeac@a:) is
never used in the New Testament of
mental vision (as Oewpefy)!. The writer
then (such must be our conclusion)
claims to have beheld that glory which
his record unfolds.

But it is said that the phrase among
us cannot be confined to the apostles or
immediate disciples of Christ exclusively,
and thatit must be taken to include all
Christians (Luke i. 1), or even all men.
If however this interpretation of among
us admits the wider interpretation of the
pronoun, it does not exclude the apostles,
who are in this connexion the repre-
sentatives of the Church and of humanity,
and it does not therefore touch the
meaning of the following clause, in which
the sense of beheld is fixed independently.
The whole point of the passage is that
the Incarnation was historical, and that
the sight of the Incarnate Word was
historical. The words cannot without
violence be made to give any other testi-
mony. The objection is thus, on a view
of the context, wholly invalid; and the
natural interpretation of the phrase in
question, which has been already given,
remains unshaken. The writer professes
to have been an eye-witness of Christ’s
ministry2.

(b) Ch. xix. 35. This second pas-
sage, which, like the former one, comes
into the narrative parenthetically, is in
some respects more remarkable. After
speaking of the piercing of the Lord’s
side, the writer adds, And forthwith came
there out blood and water. And he that
hath seen hath borne witness, and his wit-
ness is true : and he knoweth that he saith
true, that ye also may believe. For these
things came to pass that...(xat 6 éwpaxas
pepaptipnkev Kal dAnOwh airod éoriy 4
poptupia, Kat éxeivos ofdev bre aAnOA A€ye
iva kal tpeis rurreinre. eyévero yap...
John xix. 35 ff.), One point in this pas-
sage, the contrast between the two words
rendered true, cannot be given ade-
quately in an English version. The wit-

XXV

? The word occurs in John i. 32, 38, iv. 35,
vi. 5, xi. 45; John i. 1, iv. 12, 14.

? The significant variation of language in v.
16 supports the view which has been given. The
Apostolic we is distinguished from the Christian
we all. The use of the direct form in these two
cases (we beheld, we received) is remarkable.
Contrast xx. 30 (évém. Tov pad.),
XXVi

ness is described as “fulfilling the true
conception of witness” (dAnO.vés), and
not simply as being correct (dAnOyjs) ; it
is true to the idea of what witness should
be, and not only true to the fact in this
special instance (comp. viii. 16, note) so
far as the statement is true. There is
therefore no repetition in the original in
the two clauses, as there appears to be
in the English version. This detail is
not without significance for the right
understanding of the whole comment.
It brings out clearly the two conditions
which testimony ought to satisfy, the first
that he who gives it should be competent
to speak with authority, and the second
that the account of his experience should
be exact. But the main question to be
decided is whether the form of the sen-
tence either suggests or admits the belief
that the eye-witness to whose testimony
appeal is made is to be identified with
the writer of the Gospel.

The answer to this question has been
commonly made to turn upon a false
issue. It has been argued, with a pro-
fusion of learning, that the use in the
second clause of the pronoun which ex-
presses a remote, or rather an isolated
personality (éxeivos), is unfavourable to
the identification of the Evangelist and
the eye-witness, or, at least, lends no
support to the identification. It has also
been asserted, as might have been ex-
pected, by less cautious scholars, that
the use of this pronoun is fatal to the
identification. On the other hand, it has
been shown by examples from classical
authors and also from St John’s Gospel
(ix. 37) that a speaker can use this pro-
noun for himself!. But in reality the
problem contained in the passage must
be solved at an earlier stage. If the
author of the Gospel could use the
first clause (he that hath seen, &c.) of
himself, there can be no reasonable
doubt that he could also use of himself
the particular pronoun which occurs in
the second clause; and to go even
further, there can be no reasonable doubt
that according to the common usage
of St John he would use this particular
pronoun to resume and emphasize the

1The most complete discussion of this part
of the problem is to be found in a set of
papers in the ‘Studien u. Kritiken,’ 1859,
1860, by Steitz on the one side, and by Ph.
Buttmann on the other.

INTRODUCTION TO

reference (i, 18, v. 39, 37). No one, in
other words, with any knowledge of St
John’s style can seriously dispute the fact
that the “he” of the second clause is
the same as the ‘‘ witness’ of the first
clause.

This being so, only two interpretations
of the passage are possible. The Evan-
gelist either makes an appeal to an eye-
witness separate from himself, but not
more definitely described, whois said to
be conscious of the truth of his own
testimony; or he makes an appeal to
his own actual experience, now solemnly
recorded for the instruction of his
readers.

We are thus brought to the right
issue. Is it the fact that the second
alternative is, as has been confidently
affirmed, excluded by the nature of the
case? Is it the fact that we cannot
suppose that St John, if he were the
writer, would have referred to his own
experience obliquely? On the contrary,
if we realise the conditions under which
the narrative was drawn up, it will be
seen that the introduction of the first
person in this single place would have
been more strange. The Evangelist has
been already presented as a historical
figure in the scene (vv. 26, 27); and it
is quite intelligible thatan Apostle who
had pondered again and again, as it may
well have been, what he had gradually
shaped, should pause at this critical
point, and, dwelling upon that which he
felt to be a crucial incident, should
separate himself as the witness from his
immediate position as a writer. In this
mental attitude he looks from without
upon himself (éxefvos) as affected at that
memorable moment by the fact which
he records, in order that it may create
in others the present faith (urredyre)
which it had created in his own soul.

‘The comment from this point is there-

fore perfectly compatible with the iden-
tification of the witness and the author.

We may however go further, The
comment is not only compatible with the
identification; it favours the identifica-
tion, not indeed by the use of the par-
ticular pronoun, which tells neither one
way nor the other, but by the whole con-
struction of the passage. The witness is
spoken of as something which abides
after it has been given; he hath borne
THE GOSPEL

witness; and, more than this, the witness
is given still; he knoweth that he saith
true; and, yet again, the giver of the
witness sets himself in contrast with his
readers ; he hath given his witness...that
ye may believe. It is not possible then
to doubt that the words taken in their
context assert that the eye-witness was
still living when the record was written! ;
and if so, it is most natural to suppose
that his present utterance, to which ap-
peal is made, is that contained in the
Gospel itself. It is difficult to appreciate
the evidential force of an appeal to the
consciousness of an undefined witness.

In this connexion another point must
be observed. If the author were appeal-
in to the testimony of a third person he
would almost necessarily have used an
aorist and not a perfect, he that saw bore
witness, and not he that hath seen hath
borne witness. For the mere narrator
the testimony centres in the moment at
which it was rendered for the witness
himself it is a continuous part of his own
life.

The conclusion to which these remarks
converge will appear still more certain if
the comment be reduced to its simplest
elements. If it had stood, He that hath
seen hath borne witness, that ye also may
believe, no ordinary reader would have
doubted that the writer was appealing to
his own experience, recorded in the his-
tory, since no other testimony is quoted.
But the intercalated clauses do not in
any way interfere with this interpretation.
They simply point out, as has been al-
ready noticed, the relation in which this
special statement stands to its attestation.
They shew that this testimony satisfies
the two conditions, which must be rati-
fied for the establishment of its authority,
that it is adequate in relation to its
source, and that it is correct in its actual
details. For a witness may give true
evidence and yet miss the essential fea-
tures of that of which he speaks. Hence
the writer affirms the competency of
the witness, while he affirms also that
the testimony itself was exact.

On the whole therefore the statement
which we have considered is not only
compatible with the identity of the eye-
witness and the writer of the Gospel,

* This conclusion holds good to whomsoever
the comment be referred,

OF Sr. JOHN. xxvii
but it also suggests, even if it does not
necessarily involve, the identification of
the two. On the other hand, the only
other possible interpretation of the pas-
sage is wholly pointless, It supposes that
an appeal is made with singular emphasis
to an unknown witness, who is said to be
conscious of the truthfulness of his own
testimony. Such a comment could find
no place in the connexion in which
the words stand.

(c) Ch. xxi 24. The third passage
which occurs in the appendix to the
Gospel (ch. xxi.) is different in character
from the other two. After the narrative
of the Lord’s saying with regard to “‘ the
disciple whom he loved,’’ the record con-
tinues : this is the disciple who.witnesseth
concerning these things, and who wrote
these things :and we know that his witness
is orate (odds cori 6 padnrijs 6 paprupov
rept TovTwv Kal 6 » ypaipas Tatra, Kal i ofSaev
Gre ddnOys adrot 4 paprupia Zerby). There
can be no doubt as to the meaning of
the words. The writing of the Gospel is
distinctly assigned by them to ‘‘ the be-
loved disciple” (v. 21). But it is not at
once obvious to whom the words are to
be assigned. Is the author of the Gospel
himself the speaker? or must the note
be referred to others who published his
Gospel, as, for example, to the Ephesian
elders? Before we attempt to answer
this question it must be observed that
whichever view be taken, the sentence
contains a declaration as to the author-
ship of the Gospel contemporaneous
with its publication, for there is not the
least evidence that the Gospel was ever
circulated in the Church without the
epilogue (ch. xxi.). And yet further, the
declaration extends both to the sub-
stantial authorship (he that witnesseth
concerning these things) and also to the
literal authorship of the record (he that
wrote these things). So much is clear;
but perhaps it is impossible to press the
present tense (he that witnesseth) as a
certain proof that the author was still
alive when the work was sent forth.
The form as it stands here by itself
may simply indicate the vital continuity of
his testimony. However this may be,
the note at least emphasizes what was felt
to be a real presence of the writer in the
society to which he belonged.

If we now proceed to fix the author-
XXVili

ship of the note, it will at once appear
that the passage (xix. 35) which has been
already considered practically decides
the question. The contrast between the
two notes is complete. In that the note
is giveninthesingular and in the third
person ; in this it is given in the plural and
in the first person. In that the witness
is regarded as isolated and remote (he
that...and he...); in this the witness is
regarded as present (this is...). If we
believe that the former is, as has been
shewn, a personal affirmation of the
writer himself, it seems almost impos-
sible to believe that this is a personal
affirmation also. No sufficient reason
can be given for the complete change of
position which he assumes towards his
own work. The plural (we know) by it-
self would be capable of explanation, but
the transition fron the historical singular
(this is...) tothe direct plural (we know..)
is so harsh and sudden as to be all but
inadmissible; and the difficulty is aggra-
vated by the occurrence of the first
person singular (I suppose) in the next
sentence. On the other hand, if we
bear in mind that the Gospel as origi-
nally composed ended with xx. 31, to
which xxi. 25 may have been attached,
and that the narratives in xxi. 1—23
were drawn up by the same author at a
later time under circumstances which
called for some authoritative interpreta-
tion of a mistaken tradition, we can
readily understand how the note was
added to the record by those who had
sought for this additional explanation of
the Lord’s words, and preserved when
the completed Gospel was issued to the
Church. At the same time, if v. 25
formed the last clause of the original
Gospel, it would naturally be transferred
to the end of the enlarged record.

The general result of the examination
of these passages is thus tolerably dis-
tinct. The fourth Gospel claims to be
written by an eye-witness, and this claim
is attested by those who put the work in
circulation.

2. External evidence as to the author-
ship.
In considering the external evidence !

* The character of the present Introduction
necessarily excludes detailed criticism of the
authorities which are quoted. But it may be

INTRODUCTION TO

for the authorship of the Fourth Gospel,
it is necessary to bear in mind the con-
ditions under which it must be sought.
It is agreed on all hands that the Gospel
was written at a late date, towards the
close of the first century, when the
Evangelic tradition, preserved in com-
plementary forms in the Synoptic Gospels,
had gained general currency, and from
its wide spread had practically deter-
mined the popular view of the life and
teaching of the Lord. And further, the
substance of the record deals with prob-
lems which belong to the life of the
Church and to a more fully developed
faith. On both grounds references to
the contents of this Gospel would natu-
rally be rarer in ordinary literature than
references to the contents of the other
Gospels. Express citations are made
from all about the same time.

Christian theological literature prac-
tically begins for us with Irenzeus, Cle-
ment of Alexandria, and Tertullian, and
these writers use the four Gospels as
fully and decisively as any modern writer.
The few letters and apostolic treatises
and fragments which represent the earlier
literature of the second century give
very little scope for the direct use of the
New Testament. But it is most signifi-
cant that Eusebius, who had access to
many works which are now lost, speaks
without reserve of the Fourth Gospel as
the unquestioned work of St John, no
less than those three great representative
Fathers who sum up the teaching of the
century. If he had known of any doubts
as to its authorship among ecclesiastical
writers, he would without question have
mentioned these, as he has quoted the
criticism of Dionysius of Alexandria on
the Apocalypse.

We start then with the undeniable fact
that about the last quarter of the second
century, when from the nature of the
case clearevidencecan first be obtained,
the Gospel was accepted as authoritative
by heretical writers like Ptolemzeus and

said, once for all, that the passages which are
set down are used after a careful examination
of all that has been urged against their validity.
The original texts have been discussed in
detail by Dr Sanday (‘ The Gospels in the
Second Century,’ 1876) and by Dr. Lightfoot
in the ‘ Contemporary Review,’ 1875, f,, who
have noticed at length the most recent litera-
ture on the subject.
THE GOSPEL

Heracleon, and used by the opponents
of Christ like Celsus, and assigned to
St John by Fathers in Gaul, Alexandria,
and North Africa, who claimed to re-
produce the ancient tradition of their
churches, and this with perfect natural-
ness, there being evidently no trace
within their knowledge of a contrary
opinion. It is true that the Gospel was
not received by Marcion, but there is no
evidence to shew that he was influenced
by anything but subjective considera-
tions in the formation of his collection
of Scriptures. Irenzeus also mentions an
earlier sect, of doubtful affinity, which,
claiming for itself the possession of pro-
phetic gifts, rejected the Gospel of St
John and its characteristic promises of
the Paraclete (Iren. ‘c. Heer.’ 111. 11, 9,
“Alii ut donum Spiritus frustrentur
quod in novissimis temporibus secundum
placitum Patris effusum est in humanum
genus, illam speciem non admittunt
que est secundum Joannis evangelium,
in qua Paracletum se missurum Dominus
promisit ; sed simul et evangelium et pro-
pheticum repellunt Spiritum’’). But the
language of Irenzeus lends no support to
the supposition that this sect questioned
the authority of the Gospel on critical
grounds. At the same time it must be
noticed that Epiphanius (‘ Her.’ Lr. 3)
and Philastrius ( Heer.’ 60) assert that
a body of men whom they call Alogi
assigned the authorship of the Gospel
and of the Apocalypse to Cerinthus.
The statement as it stands is scarcely
intelligible; and it seems to have arisen
from the mistaken extension to the
authorship of the Gospel, by way of ex-
flaining its rejection, of alate conjecture
as to the authorship of the Apocalypse.
Such an exception can have no weight
against the uniform ecclesiastical tradi-
tion with which it is contrasted. This
tradition can be carried still further back
than Irenzeus, who is its fullest exponent.
The first quotation of the Gospel by
name is made by THEOPHILUS of An-
tioch (c. 181 A.D.): ‘‘...The holy Scrip-
tures teach us,and all the inspired men
(ot mvevparopdpor), one of whom John
saith: In the beginning was the Word,
and the Word was God...Afterwards he
saith : and the Word was God :all things
were made through Him, and without
Him was not even one thing made (‘ad

OF St. JOHN. XXIx
Autol.” 11. 22). ATHENAGORAS (C. 176
A.D.) paraphrases and combines the lan-
guage of the Gospel in such a way as
to shew that it was both familiar and
authoritative, and had been carefully
weighed by him : ‘‘The Son of God is the
Word of the Fatherin idea and actually
(év ideg, kal évepyeig), For all things were
made independence on Him and through
Him (rpds adrod [Acts xxvii. 34] xal 80
avrod), the Father and the Son being One.
But since the Son is in the Father and
the Father in the Son, by unity and power
of the Spirit (€vérnte Kab Suvdper mvevpa-
tos), the Son of God is the Mind and
Word of the Father’ (‘ Leg.’ 10; comp.
John i, 3, x. 30, xvii. 21). About the
same time CLAUDIUS APOLLINARIS,
bishop of Hierapolis, speaking of the
different opinions as to the day of the
Last Supper, evidently treats ‘‘ the dis-
agreement of the Gospels” (i.e., the Sy-
noptists and St John) as something
teally out of the question (Routh, ‘ Rell.’
1, 167 ff.; comp. ‘ Hist. of N. T. Canon,’
p. 224); and he gives an explana-
tion of John xix. 34 (see note), which
shews that the incident had become a
subject of deep speculation. Still earlier
TatiaN, the scholar of Justin (c. 160
A.D.), quotes words of the Gospelas well
known: ‘‘ This isin fact,” he says, ‘‘ that
which hath been said: The darkness ap-
prehendeth not the light” (‘ Orat.’ 13,
ToUTO éoTiv apa 7d eipnyevoy [Acts ii. 16]
% oKotia 7d POs ov KataAapBaver, John
i. 5; comp. John i. 3 with ‘Orat.’ 19);
and the latest criticism confirms the old
belief that his ‘Diatessaron’ was con-
structed from the texts of the four Canon-
ical Gospels (Lightfoot, ‘ Contemporary
Review,’ May, 1877).

So far the line of testimony appears
to be absolutely beyond doubt. The
traces of the use of the fourth Gospel
in the interval between 100—160 A.D.
are necessarily less clear; but as far as
they can be observed they are not only
in perfect harmony with the belief in its
apostolic origin, but materially strengthen
this belief.

The EpistneE oF CLEMENT to the
Corinthians was probably written before
the Gospel of St John, but already this
writing shews traces of the forms of
thought which are characteristic of. the
book (cc, vil. xxxvi. ‘ Hist. of Canor of
XXX

N. T.’ pp. 25 f£.). The EpistLE oF
BARNABAS again offers some correspond-
ences and more contrasts with the teach-
ing of St John in the common region of
‘‘mystical”’ religious thought. In the
LETTERS OF IGNATIUS, which even if
they are not authentic certainly fall
within the first half of the century,
the influence of the teaching, if not de-
monstrably of the writings, of St John
is more direct. The true meat of the
Christian, for example, is said to be
the ‘“‘ bread of God, the bread of heaven,
the bread of life, which is the flesh of Jesus
Christ,’’ and his drink is ‘‘Christ’s blood,
which is love incorruptible” (‘ad Rom.’
vii.; comp. John vi. 32, 51, 53). And
again: “ The Spirit is not led astray, as
being from God. For it knoweth whence
it cometh and whither it goeth, and testeth
(éAéyxet) that which is hidden” (‘ad
Philad.’ vir.; comp. John iii. 8, xvi. 8).

It is however with Potycarr and
Parias! that the decisive testimony to
the authenticity of St John’s writings
really begins. Recent investigations,
independent of all theological interests,
have fixed the martyrdom of Polycarp
in 155—6 A.D. (See Lightfoot, ‘ Con-
temporary Review,’ 1875, p. 838.) At
the time of his death he had been a
Christian for eighty-six years (Mart.
Polyc.’ c. 1X.). He must then have been
alive during the greater part of St John’s
residence in Asia, and there is no reason
for questioning the truth of the state-
ments that he ‘associated with the
Apostles in Asia (e.g., John, Andrew,
Philip; comp. Lightfoot’s ‘ Colossians,’
pp. 45 f.), and was entrusted with the
oversight of the Church in Smyrna by
those who were eye-witnesses and
ministers of the Lord” (Euseb. ‘H. E.’
I, 36; comp. Iren. ‘c, Heer.’ m1. 3. 4).
Thus, like St John himself, he lived to
unite two ages. When already old he
used to speak to his scholars of “his
intercourse with John and the rest of
those who had seen the Lord” (Iren.
‘Ep. ad Flor.’ § 2); and Irenzeus, in his
late years, vividly recalled the teaching
which he had heard from him as a boy

* For a complete discussion of the historical
position of these two Fathers in regard to
early Christian teaching and literature, see the
articles of Dr Lightfoot in the ‘ Contemporary
Review ’ for May, August and October, 1875.

INTRODUCTION TO

(Iren l. c.; comp. ‘ce. Heer.’ M1, 3. 4)
There is no room in this brief succession
for the introduction of new writings
under the name of St John. Irenzeus
cannot with any reason be supposed te
have assigned to the fourth Gospel the
place which he gives to it unless he had
received it with the sanction of Polycarp.
The person of Polycarp, the living sign
of the unity of the faith of the first and
second centuries, is in itself a sure proof
of the apostolicity of the Gospel. Is it
conceivable that in his lifetime such a
revolution was accomplished that his
disciple Irenzeus was not only deceived
as to the authorship of the book, but
was absolutely unaware that the con-
tinuity of the tradition in which he
boasted had been completely broken?
One short letter of Polycarp, with which
Irenzeus was acquainted (Iren. 1. c.), has
been preserved. In this there is a strik-
ing coincidence with the language of
1 John: ‘‘ Every one,’ he writes, ‘‘ who
doth not confess that Jesus Christ hath
come in the flesh, is antichrist’ (‘ad
Phil.’ vur.; comp. 1 John iv. 2, 3). The
sentence is not a mere quotation, but a
reproduction of St John’s. thought in
compressed language which is all bor-
rowed from him (as, és dv, dpodoyeiv
"I. X. év capi édyAvdévar, dvtixpicros).
The words of St John have, so to speak,
been shaped into a popular formula.
And if it be said that the reference to
the Epistle shews nothing as to the
Gospel, the reply is that the authorship
of the two cannot reasonably be sepa-
rated. A testimony to one is necessarily
by inference a testimony to the other.
The testimony of Parras to the Gospel
of St John, is, like that of Polycarp,
secondary and inferential. Papias, ac-
cording to Eusebius, ‘used testimonies
from the former epistle of John” (Euseb.
‘H. E.’ ut. 39). The mention of this
fact, as the epistle was universally
received, is remarkable; but the Catholic
Epistles formed an exceptional group of
writings, and itis perhapson this account
that Eusebius goes beyond his prescribed
tule in noticing the use which was made
even of those among them which were
“acknowledged.’”” At any rate the use
of the Epistle by Papias points to his
acquaintance with the Gospel. Several
minute details in the fragment of the
THE GOSPEL

preface to his “ Exposition of Oracles of
the Lord” tend in the same direction.
And there is a remarkable tradition found
in a preface to a Latin MS. of the
Gospel which assigns to Papias an ac-
count of the composition of the Gospel
similar to that given in the Muratorian
fragment (see ‘Canon of N.T.’ p. 76, n.).

But it is said that if Papias had used
the Gospel Eusebius would not have
neglected to notice the fact. The state-
ment rests on a complete misunderstand-
ing of what Eusebius professed to do.
He did not undertake to collect refer-
ences to ‘‘the acknowledged books,”
among which he placed the four Gospels,
so that however often Papias might have
quoted St John’s Gospel, Eusebius would
not according to his plan have noticed
the fact, unless something of special
interest had been added to the reference
(comp. ‘Hist. of N. T. Canon,’ pp. 229
f.; Lightfoot, ‘Contemporary Review,’
1875, pp. 169 ff.).

The object of Papias was, as has been
shewn elsewhere, to illustrate the evan-
gelic records by such information as he
could gain from the earliest disciples ;
and it is by no means unlikely that the
“history of the woman taken in adul-
tery,’ which has found a place in the
Gospel of St John, was recorded by him
in illustration of John viii. 15 (see note
ad loc.).

In close connexion with Papias stand
“the elders ’’ quoted by Irenzeus, among
whose words is one clear reference to
St John (Iren. v. 36.2): ‘‘ for this reason
[they taught] the Lord said, there are
many mansions in my Father’s home (év
Tois TOU maTpos pov povds evar moAdds.
John xiv, 2. Comp. Luke ii. 49). The
quotation is anonymous, but it is taken
from a writing and not from tradition;
and the context makes it at least highly
probable that the passage was quoted
from Papias’ ‘ Exposition.’

Whatever may be thought of the pass-
ing references of Polycarp and Papias to
the writings of St John, the main value
of their testimony lies in the fact that
they represent what can justly be called
a school of St John. Papias like Poly-
carp may himself have heard the Apostle
(Iren. v. 33. 4). At least he studied
with Polycarp (Iren. J. c.). And he had
still another point of connexion with

OF St. JOHN. xxxi
the apostolic body. He conversed at
Hierapolis with two daughters of the
Apostle Philip (Euseb. ‘H. E.’ 1. 39;
Lightfoot, ‘Colossians,’ 45 ff.). Nor
were these two men alone. There were
many about them, like the elders quoted
by Irenzeus, who shared in the same life.
The succession was afterwards continued
at Sardis through Melito, at Ephesus
through Polycrates (comp. Euseb. ‘ H. E.’
v. 22), at Hierapolis through Claudius
Apollinaris, at Lyons through Pothinus
and Irenzeus (compare also the ‘ Epistle
of the Churches of Vienne and Lyons,’
Cc, 4, 177 A-D.); andthe concordant testi-
mony of the latest witnesses in these
different Churches is a sure proof that
they preserved the belief which had been
held from the first by the school to
which they belonged (comp. Lightfoot,
‘Contemporary Review,’ August, 1876).

The testimony to the Gospel of St
John is, as might have been expected
on the assumption of its authenticity,
most clear among the writers who stood
in the closest connexion with his teach-
ing. But it is not confined to them.
JUSTIN MARTYR certainly appears to
have been acquainted with the book.
His evidence is somewhat obscure.
All his references to the Gospels are
anonymous; but at the same time his
description of ‘‘the Memoirs” as written
“by the Apostles and those who followed
them”’ (‘ Dial.’ 103), exactly answers to
our present collection of four. And
though the coincidences of language
between Justin and St John are not
such as to establish beyond question
Justin’s dependence on the Evangelist,
this at least is the most natural explana-
tion of the similarity (‘ Hist, of N. T.
Canon,’ p. 166, n.). And more than
this, his acquaintance with the Valen-
tinians (‘ Dial.’ 35; comp. Iren. m1. 11.
7, ‘qui a Valentino sunt eo [Evangelio]
quod est secundum Iohannem plenis-
sime utentes,..”’) shews that the fourth
Gospel could not have been unknown to
him.

Justin’s teaching on the Word is per-
haps a still more important indication of
the influence of St John. This teaching
presupposes the teaching of St John,
and in many details goes beyond it.
Thoughts which are characteristically
Alexandrine, as distinguished from He-
xxxii

braic, find a place in Justin; and he
shews not only how little power there
was in the second century to fashion
such a doctrine as that of the fourth
Gospel, but also how little Christian
speculation was able to keep within the
limits laid down by the Apostles.

The SHEPHERD oF Heras offers an
instructive example of the precarious-
ness of the argument from silence. The
book contains no definite quotations from
the Old or New Testament. The allu-
sions which have been found in it to
the characteristic teaching of St. John
are I believe real, but they are not un-
questionable. Yet it is certain from an
independent testimony, that the Gospel
was accepted as one of the four Gospels
almost at the same date when the book
was written, and probably in the same
place. The Muratorian Fragment notices
that the Shepherd was written ‘‘ very
lately (c. 170 A.D.) in our times, in the
city of Rome,’ and at the same time
speaks of the Gospel according to St John
as ‘‘the fourth’ Gospel in such a way as
to mark its general recognition (‘ Hist. of
N. T, Canon,’ pp. 211 ff-; see below, 11.
§ 2). Tothe same date also must be refer-
red the two great translations of the East
and West, the Syriac and Latin, in which
the four Gospels stand without rivals.

Outside the Church the testimony to
the general use of St John’s Gospel is
both early and decisive. In the quota-
tions from early heretical writers the re-
ferences to it are comparatively frequent.
In many cases its teaching formed the
starting-point of their partial and erro-
neous conclusions. The first Commen-
tary on the Gospel was written by He-
racleon (C. 175 A-D.); and his copy of
the book had already been defaced by
false readings. At an earlier date the
Gospel was used by the author of the
Clementine Homilies, by Valentinus and
his school, by the Ophites, and by Ba-
silides (‘Hist. of N, T. Canon,’ 232 ff.,
Sanday, ‘ The Gospels in the Second
Century,’ pp. 292 ff.).

The testimony of Basilides is of singu-
Jar interest. ‘ The Refutation of Heresies,’
attributed to Hippolytus, which was first
published in 1851, contains numerous
quotations from his writings and from the
writings of his school. In one passage
at least where there can be no reason-

INTRODUCTION TO

able doubt that the author of the ‘ hem
tation’ is quoting Basilides himself (c.
130 A.D.), a phrase from the Gospel of
St John is used as the authoritative basis
for a mystical explanation (‘ Ref. Heer.,’
VII. 22).

In reviewing these traces of the use
of the Gospel in the first three-quarters
of a century after it was written, we
readily admit that they are less dis-
tinct and numerous than those might
have expected who are unacquainted
with the character of the literary re-
mains of the period. But it will be
observed that all the evidence points in
one direction. There is not, with one
questionable exception, any positive in-
dication that doubt was anywhere thrown
upon the authenticity of the book. It is
possible to explain away in detail this
piece of evidence and that, but the ac-
ceptance of the book as the work of the
Apostle adequately explains all the phe-
nomena without any violence; and hither-
to all the new evidence which has come
to light has supported this universal be-
lief of the Christian Society, while it has
seriously modified the rival theories which
have been set up against it.

II THE COMPOSITION OF THE GOSPEL.
1. The Author.

The facts bearing upon the life of
St John which are recorded in the New
Testament are soon told. He was the
son, apparently the younger son, of
Zebedee and Salome (Mark xv. 40,
xvi, I, compared with Matt. xxvii. 56).
Salome, as it appears from John xix. 25
(see note), was the sister of ‘‘ the Mother
of the Lord,’’ so that St John was the
cousin of the Lord ‘“‘according to the
flesh.” He was probably younger than
the Lord and than the other apostles.
It is therefore easily intelligible that his
near connexion by birth, combined with
the natural enthusiasm of youth, offered
the outward occasion for the peculiar
closeness in which he stood to Christ.

Of his father Zebedee, a fisherman
probably of Bethsaida or the neighbour-
hood (John i. 41 ff.), nothing is known
except that he was sufficiently prosperous
to have hired servants (Mark i. 20). At
a later time Salome appears as one of
the women who followed the Lord and
THE GOSPEL

‘‘ministered to Him of their substance ”
(Mark xv. 4o f., compared with Luke
viii. 3). And it is clear from John xix.
27 that the apostle had some means.

Like the other apostles, with the single
exception of Judas Iscariot, St John was
a Galilean. The fact has a moral value.
When the rest of the Jewish nation was
drawn partly to political intrigues, partly
to speculations of the schools, the people
of Galilee retained much of the simple
faith and stern heroism of earlier times.
It was made a reproach to them that
they were unskilled in the traditions,
and kept to the letter of the Law (comp.
vii. 52, note). The rising of Judas ‘‘ in
the days of the taxing”’ (Acts v. 37) may
have been a hopeless outburst of fanati-
cism, but at least it shewed that there
were many in Galilee who were ready to
die for the confession that they had ‘‘ no
lord or master but God.’ The same
spirit appears in the multitude who would
have ‘‘taken Jesus by force” at the lake
of Tiberias and made Him king (vi. 14f.).
They were ready to do and to suffer some-
thing for their eager if mistaken Mes-
sianic hope, It was amidst the memories
of such conflicts, and in an atmosphere
of passionate longing, that St John grew
up. And in some measure he shared
the aspirations of his countrymen if he
avoided their errors. When the Baptist
proclaimed the advent of Christ, St John
was at once ranged among his disciples.
And more than this: though “ simple
and unlettered”’ (Acts iv. 13), he appears
to have grasped with exceptional power
the spiritual import of the Baptist’s mes-
sage, who directed him immediately to
Christ as ‘‘ the Lamb of God.’’ St John
obeyed the sign, and followed without
delay the Master who was mysteriously
pointed out to him. Thus from the first
the idea of sovereignty was mingled with
that of redemption, the issue of victory
with the way of suffering, in the concep-
tion of the work of the Messiah whom
he welcomed.

The ardour of the Galilean temper
remained in the apostle. St John with
his brother St James received from the
Lord (Mark iii. 17) the remarkable sur-
name, Boanerges, ‘“‘sons of thunder.”
Thunder in the Hebrew idiom is “the
voice of God;’’ and the sons of Zebedee
appear to have given swift, startling, ve-

OF St. JOHN. xxxiii
hement utterance to the divine truth
which they felt within them. Theirs was
not characteristically the decisive action,
but the sudden moving word which wit-
nessed to the inner fire. It may have
been some stern voice which marked
St James as the first martyr among the
apostles. Certainly the sayings of St John
which are recorded by St Luke correspond
with the prophetic energy which the title
indicates (Luke ix. 49l| Mark ix. 38;
comp, Num. xi. 28; Luke ix. 54). His
zeal was undisciplined, but it was loyal
and true. He knew that to be with
Christ was life, to reject Christ was
death; and he did not shrink from ex-
pressing the thought in the spirit of the
old dispensation. He learnt from the
Lord, as time went on, a more faithful
patience, but he did not unlearn the
burning devotion which consumed him.
To the last, words of awful warning, like
the thunderings about the throne, reveal
the presence of that secret fire. Every
page of the Apocalypse is inspired with
the cry of the souls beneath the altar,
“ How long” (Rev. vi. 10); and nowhere
is error as to the Person of Christ de-
nounced more sternly than in his Epistles
(2 John 10; 1 John iv. x ff.).

The well-known incident which oc-
curred on the last journey to Jerusalem
reveals the weakness and the strength of
St John’s character. His mother, inter-
preting the desire of her sons, begged of
Christ that they might sit, the one on
His right hand and the other on His
left, in His Kingdom (Matt. xx. 20 ff,
comp. Mark x. 35 ff.). So far they mis-
understood the nature of that especial
closeness to their Lord which they sought.
But the reply shewed that they were ready
to welcome what would be only a pre-
rogative of suffering. To be near Christ,
even if it was ‘‘to be near the fire” and
“near the sword,’”’ was a priceless bless-
ing. And we can feel that the prayer
was already granted when Salome and
St John waited by the Cross (John xix.
25 ff.).

This last scene reveals St John nearest
of all the apostles to Christ, as ‘the dis-
ciple whom Jesus loved” (ch. xiii, 23,
note). Together with his brother St James
and St Peter, he was one of the three
admitted to a closer relationship with
Christ than the other apostles (Luke viii.
XXXIV

51, ix., 28; Mark xiv. 33); and of the
three his connexion was the closest. He
followed Christ to judgment and to death
(John xviii, 15, xix. 26), and received
from Him the charge of His Mother as
her own son (xix. 27, note).

After the Ascension St John remained
at Jerusalem with the other apostles.
He was with St Peter at the working of
his first miracle; and afterwards he went
with him to Samaria (Acts i. 13, iii. 1 ff.,
viii. 14). At the time of St, Paul’s first
visit to Jerusalem he seems to have been
absent from the city (Gal. i. 18); but on
a later occasion St Paul describes him as
one of those accounted to be ‘‘the pillars
of the Church”? (Gal. ii. 9). At what time
and under what circumstances he left
Jerusalem is wholly unknown. At the
opening of the Apocalypse (i. 9) he speaks
of himself as ‘‘in the isiand called Pat-
mos, for the word and the testimony of
Jesus.”? Beyond this there is no further
notice of him in the New Testament.1

When we pass beyond the limits of
Scripture, St John is still presented to
us under the same character, as the Son
of Thunder, the prophetic interpreter of
the Old Covenant. Now it is related
that he refused to,remain under the
same roof with Cerinthus (or according
to another account ‘‘ Ebion’’), who de-
nied the reality of the Incarnation : ‘‘ Let
us fly,” he said, “lest the bath fall on us,
since Cerinthus is within, the enemy of
the truth” (Iren. 111, 3. 4; comp. Epiph.
“Heer.’ xxx. 24). Nowheis described as
a ‘‘ priest wearing the plate (or diadem)”’
prescribed by the law (Ex. xxxix. 30 f.)
for the high-priest (Polycrates ap. Euseb.
‘H. E.’ m1. 31, V. 243; comp, ch. xviii. 15,
note). Now he is shewn, in one of the
most beautiful of early histories, seeking
out the lost and enforcing the obligation
of ministerial duty (Euseb. ‘H. E.’ 111. 23,
on the authority of Clement of Alex-
andria). Once again we read that ‘‘ when
he tarried at Ephesus to extreme old age,
and could only with difficulty be carried
to the church in the arms of his disci-
ples, and was unable to give utterance
to many words, he used to say no

1 This is not the place to discuss the author-
ship of the Apocalypse. Its doctrinal relation
to the Gospel of St John, which will be dis-
cussed afterwards, appears to be decisive in
support of the early date of the banishment,

INTRODUCTION TO

more at their several meetings than this,
‘Little children, love one another.’ At
length,” Jerome continues, “‘the disci-
ples and fathers who were there, wearied
with hearing always the same words, said,
‘Master, why dost thou always say this ?’
‘It is the Lord’s command,’ was his

worthy reply, ‘and if this alone be done,
it is enough.’ (Hieron. ‘Comm. in Ep.
ad Gal, vi. 10)!

These traditions are in all probability
substantially true, but it is impossible to
set them in a clear historical framework.
Nothing is better attested in early Church
history than the residence and work of
St John at Ephesus. But the dates of
its commencement and of its close are
alike unknown. It began after the final
departure of St Paul, and it lasted till
about the close of the first century
(Iren. 11. 22.5, péxps Tv Tpardvov xpdvuv,
A.D, 98 117). This may be affirmed
with confidence; but the account of his
sufferings at Rome (Tert. ‘de Preescr.
Her.’ 36,...‘cin oleum demersus nihil
passus est;’”? comp. Hieron. ‘ ad. Matt.’
xx. 23), and of the details of his death
at Ephesus, are quite untrustworthy. One
legend, which is handed down in various
forms, is too remarkable to be wholly
omitted. It was widely believed that
St John was not dead, but sleeping in his
grave; and that he would so remain till
Christ came. Meanwhile, it was said,
“he shewed that he was alive by the
movement of the dust above, which was
stirred by the breath of the saint.”” ‘I
think it needless,’’ Augustine adds, ‘‘to
contest the opinion. Those who know
the place must see whether the soil is so
affected as it is said; since I have heard
the story from men not unworthy of cre-
dence”? (‘‘revera non e levibus homini-
bus id audivimus.’”’ Aug.‘ In Joh, Tract.’
CXXIV. 2).

These words of Augustine are part of
his commentary on the mysterious saying
of the Lord which, as is seen from the
Gospel (xxi. 21 ff.), was perceived to
mark in some way the future work of
the apostle : “‘ If I will that he tarry till
I come, what is that to thee?’ St John

* These traditions are collected in a very
agreeable form in Dean Stanley’s ‘ Sermons
and Essays on the Apostolic Age.’ The later
legends are given by Mrs. Jameson, in her
‘ Sacred and Legendary Art,’ 1.
THE GOSPEL
did most truly ‘‘tarry tillthe Lord came.”
It is impossible for us to realise fully
what was involved in the destruction of
the Holy City for those who had been
trained in Judaism. It was nothing else
than the close of a divine drama, an end
of the world. The old sanctuary, ‘the
joy of the whole earth,’ was abandoned.
Henceforth the Christian Church wag the
sole appointed seat of the presence of
God. When Jerusalem fell Christ came,
and with His coming came also the work
of St John. During the period of con-
flict and fear and shaking of nations
which preceded that last catastrophe,
St John had waited patiently; and we
may believe that he had fulfilled his filial
office to the Mother of the Lord in his
own home in Galilee to the last, gaining
by that a fuller knowledge of the reve-
lation of the Son of God, and bringing
into a completer harmony the works
which he had seen, and the words which
he had heard.

In these scattered traits we can gain
a consistent if imperfect conception of
St John. The central characteristic of his
nature is intensity, intensity of thought,
word, insight, life. He regards every-
thing on its divine side. For him the
eternal is already: all is complete from
the beginning, though wrought out step
by step upon the stage of human action.
All is absolute in itself, though marred
by the weakness of believers. He sees
the past and the future gathered up in
the manifestation of the Son of God.
This was the one fact in which the hope
of the world lay. Of this he had him-
self been assured by evidence of sense
and thought. This he was constrained
to proclaim: ‘‘We have seen and do
testify.” He had no laboured process
to go through: he saw. He had no
constructive proof to develope: he bore
witness. His source of knowledge was
direct, and his mode of bringing convic-
tion was to affirm.

2. The Occasion and Date.

An early and consistent tradition re-
presents the Gospel of St John as written
at the request of those who were intimate
with the Apostle, and had, as we must
suppose, already heard from his lips that
teaching which they desired to see re-
corded for the perpetual guidance of the

OF Sr. JOHN. XXXV
Church. CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA has
preserved the tradition in its simplest
form. He states on the authority ‘‘ of
the elders of an earlier generation ”’ (7ra-
padoors T&v dvexabev mpecButépwv) that
“ St John, last [of the Evangelists], when
he saw that the outward (bodily) facts
had been set forth in the [existing] Gos-
pels, impelled by his friends, [and] di-
vinely moved by the Spirit, made a spi-
ritual Gospel’? (Clem. Alex, ap. Euseb.
‘H. E.’ vi. 14.) This general statement
is given with additional details in the
MURATORIAN FRAGMENT on the Canon.
“The fourth Gospel [was written by]
John, one of the disciples (i.e. Apostles).
When his fellow-disciples and bishops
urgently pressed (cohortantibus) him, he
said, ‘Fast with me [from] to-day, for
three days, and let us tell one another
any revelation which may be made to
us, either for or against [the plan of
writing] quid cuique fuerit revelatum al-
terutrum)’. On the same night it was
revealed to Andrew, one of the Apos-
tles, that John should relate all in his
own name, and that all should review
[his writing] see ‘Hist. of N. T.
Canon,’ p. 527). There can be no
doubt that Jerome had before him either
this fragment, or, as appears more pro-
bable, the original narrative on which it
was based, when he says that “ecclesi-
astical history records that John, when
he was constrained by his brothers to
write, replied that he would do so, if a
fast were appointed and all joined in
prayer to God; and that after this [fast]
was ended, filled to the full with reve-
lation (revelatione saturatus), he indited
the heaven-sent preface : In the beginning
was the Word...”’ (‘Comm. in Matt.’ Prol.)
Eusebius, to whom we are indebted for
the testimony of Clement, adds in an-
other place, as a current opinion, that
St John wrote after the other Evange-
lists, to the truth of whose narrative he
bore witness, in order to supply an ac-
count of the early period of the Lord’s
ministry which they omitted; and at the
same time he implies, what is otherwise
most likely, that the Apostle committed
to writing what he had long delivered in
unwritten preaching (Euseb, ‘H. B.’ i.
24).

Other writers attempt to define more
exactly the circumstances under which
XXXvi

St John was induced to compose his
Gospel. Thus in the Scholia on the
Apocalypse attributed to VicroRINuUS
of Pettau (fc. 304), it is said that ‘‘he
wrote the Gospel after the Apocalypse.
For, when Valentinus and Cerinthus and
Ebion and the others of the school of
Satan were spread throughout the world,
all the bishops from the neighbouring
provinces came together to him, and
constrained him to commit his own tes-
timony to writing”? (Migne, ‘ Patrol.’ v.
P. 333): This statement appears to be
an amplification of the Asiatic tradition
preserved by Irenzeus, which has been
already noticed; and is only so far in-
teresting as it shews the current belief
that the fourth Gospel was written as an
answer to the questionings of a com-
paratively advanced age of the Church.
So much indeed seems to be historically
certain; for, though it is impossible to
insist upon the specific details with which
the truth was gradually embellished, there
can be no reason to question the general
accuracy of a tradition which was widely
spread in the last quarter of the second
century. The evidence of Clement of
Alexandria is independent of that of the
Muratorian Canon, while both appear to
point back to some common authority,
which cannot have been far removed
from the time of the Apostle. The
fourth Gospel, we may thus conclude
from the earliest direct evidence, was
written after the other three, in Asia, at
the request of the Christian churches
there, as a summary of the oral teaching
of St John upon the life of Christ, to
meet a want which had grown up in the
Church at the close of the Apostolic
age (comp. Epiph. ‘ Heer.’ xXx1, 12).

The contents of the Gospel go far to
support this view of its relatively late
date. It assumes a knowledge of the
substance of the Synoptic narratives. It
deals with later aspects of Christian life
and opinion than these. It corresponds
with the circumstances of a new world.

(a) The first of these statements will
come under examination at a later time,
and will not be contested in its general
shape. The two others can be justified
by a few references to the Gospel, which
will repay careful study.

(b) No one can read the fourth Gos-
pel carefully without feeling that the

INTRODUCTION TO

writer occupies a position remote from
the events which he describes. How-
ever clear it is that he was an eye-wit-
ness of the Life of the Lord, it is no less
clear that he looks back upon it from a
distance.1 One plain proof of this is
found in the manner in which he records
words which point to the spread of the
Gospel beyond the limits of Judaism.
This characteristic view is distinctly
brought out in the interpretation which
he gives of the judgment of Caiaphas :
Now this he said not of himself, but being
high-priest in that year, he prophesied
that Jesus should die for the nation
(rot é@vovs, see note), and not for the
nation only, but in order that he might
gather together in one the children of
God that were scattered abroad (xi. 51 {.).
It is beyond question that when the
Evangelist wrote these words, he was
reading the fulfilment of the unconscious
prophecy of Caiaphas in the condition of
the Christian Church about him.

The same actual experience of the
spread of the Gospel explains the promi-
nent position which St John assigns to
those sayings of Christ in which He de-
clared the universality of His mission :
other sheep I have which are not of this
fold: them also must I lead...and they
shall become one flock, cne shepherd (x.
16). I,ifI be lifted up from the earth, will
draw all men unto myself (xii. 32). The
Son has authority over all flesh (xvii. 2).
All that which the Father giveth me, He
said, shall come to me; and him that
cometh to me I will in no wise cast out
(vi. 37). The knowledge of God and of
Jesus Christ is eternal life (xvii. 3); and
this knowledge, the knowledge of the
truth, conveys the freedom, of which the
freedom of the children of Abraham was
only a type (viii. 31 ff.). The final form
of worship is the worship of ‘‘the Father,”
in which all local and temporal worships,
typified by Gerizim and Jerusalem, should
pass away (iv. 21 ff.).

This teaching receives its final seal in
the answer to Pilate: Thou Sayest that I

* This is the impression which is conveyed
by the notes which he adds from time to time
in interpretation of words or facts: vii, 39,
XU. 33, XVIil, 9, 32, xix. 36, xxi. 19. These notes
offer a remarkable contrast to those in which
attention is called in the first Gospel to the
present and immediate fulfilment of prophecy,
Matt. i. 22, xxi. 4, &c. (yéyovev iva TAnpobey.
THE GOSPEL

am aking. To this end have I been born,
and to this end am I come into the world,
that I should bear witness unto the truth.
Every one that is of the truth heareth my
voice (xviii. 37). The relation of the be-
liever to Christ is thus shewn to rest on
a foundation which is of all most ab-
solute. Christ, while He fulfilled ‘‘ the
Law” which was the heritage of the
Jews, revealed and satisfied the Truth,
which is the heritage of humanity.

There are indeed traces of the an-
nouncement of this universalism of the
Gospel in the Synoptic narratives, and
especially in that of St Luke. It is
taught there that Christ came as the
salvation prepared before the face of all
the peoples, a light for revelation to Gen-
tiles, and a glory to God’s people Israel
(ii. 31, 32), Repentance unto remission of
Sins was to be preached in His name
unto all the nations beginning from Jeru-
salem (xxiv. 47). It may be possible
also to see in the fate of the Prodigal
Son an image of the restoration of the
heathen to their Father’s home. But in
these cases the truth is not traced back
to its deepest foundations; nor does it
occupy the same relative position as in
St John. The experience of an organised
Christian society lies between the two
records.

This is plainly intimated by the lan-
guage of the Evangelist himself. He
speaks in his own person of the great
crisis of the choice of Israel as over.
He came to His own home and His own
people received Him not (i. 11); and so
in some sense, the choice of the world
was also decided, the light hath come into
the world, and men loved the darkness
rather than the light (iii. 19). The mes-
sage of the Gospel had already been
proclaimed insuch a way to Jew and
Gentile that a judgment could be pro-
nounced upon the general character of
its acceptance.

This typical example serves to shew
how St John brings into their true place
in the completed Christian edifice the
facts of Christ’s teaching which were
slowly realised in the course of the
apostolic age. And while he does so,
he recalls the words in which Christ
dwelt upon that gradual apprehension
of the meaning of His Life and work,
which characterized in fact the growth

New Test.—Vot. II.

OF Str. JOHN. XXXVil
of the Catholic Church. Throughout
the last discourses of the Lord, the great
charge to the apostolate, we seem to
hear the warning addressed to St Peter
at the outset: What I do thou knowest
not now, but thou shalt come to know
(yvdoy) afterwards (xiii. 7). It is im-
plied in the recital that the words of
patient waiting had found their accom-
plishment by the mission of the new
Advocate. I have yet many things to
say unto you, but ye cannot bear them
now. Howbeit when He is come, even
the Spirit of truth, He shall guide you
into all the truth (xvi. 12; comp, xv. 26).
Even if Christ had already made known
all things (xv. 15), there was need of
the long teaching of time, that His dis-
ciples might master the lessons which
they had implicitly received.

The record of these appeals to a future
growth of knowledge can admit of only
one interpretation. In dwelling on such
aspects of Christ’s teaching, it is clear
that the Evangelist is measuring the in-
terval between the first imperfect views
of the Apostles as to the kingdom of
God, and that just ideal, which he had
been allowed to shape, under the teaching
of the Paraclete, through disappoint-
ments and disasters. Now at length, on
the threshold of a new world, he can feel
the divine force of much that was before
hard and mysterious. He had waited
till his Lord came; and he was enabled
to recognise His Presence, as once before
by the lake of Galilee, in the unexpected
victories of faith.

(c) In the last quarter of the first cen-
tury, the world relatively to the Christian
Church was a new world; and St John
presents in his view of the work and
Person of Christ the answers which he had
found to be given in Himto the problems
which were offered by the changed order
The overthrow of Jerusalem, carrying
with it the destruction of the ancient
service and the ancient people of God,
the establishment of the Gentile congre-
gations on the basis of St. Paul’s inter-
pretation of the Gospel, the rise of a
Christian philosophy (yvdéo.s) from the
contact of the historic creed with Eastern
and Western speculation, could not but
lead one who had lived with Christ to
go back once more to those days of a
divine discipleship, that he might find in

d
‘

XXXVili

them, according to the promise, the an-
ticipated replies to the questionings of
a later age. This St John has done;
and it is impossible not to feel how in
each of these cardinal directions he
points his readers to words and facts
which are still unexhausted in their ap-
plications.

(a) We have already touched upon
the treatment of the Jewish people in the
fourth Gospel. They appear as the heirs
of divine blessings who have Esau-like
despised their birthright. The preroga-
tives of the people and their misuse of
them are alike noted. But in this re-
spect there is one most striking differ-
ence between the fourth Gospel and the
other three. The Synoptic Gospels are
full of warnings of judgment. Pictures of
speedy desolation are crowded into the
record of the last days of the Lord’s min-
istry (Matt. xxiv., Mark xiii., Luke xxi.).
His coming to judgment is a central topic.
In St John all is changed. There are no
prophecies of the siege of the Holy City;
there is no reiterated promise of a Return ;
the judgment had been wrought. Christ
had come. There was no longer any need
to dwell upon the outward aspects of
teaching which had in this respect found
its accomplishment. The task of the
Evangelist was to unfold the essential
causes of the catastrophe, which were
significant for all time, and to shew that
even through apparent ruin and failure
the will of God found fulfilment. In-
exorable facts had revealed the rejection
of the Jews. It remained to shew that
this rejection was not only foreseen, but
was also morally inevitable, and that it
involved no fatal loss. This is the work
of St John. He traces step by step the
progress of unbelief in the representa-
tives of the people, and at the same time
the correlative gathering of the children
of God by Christ to Himself. There was
a divine law of inward affinity to good or
evil in the obedience and disobedience
of those whoheard. I am the good shep-
herd; and I know mine own, and mine
own know me, even as the Father knoweth
me and I know the Father (x. 14, 15).
Ye believe not, because ye are not of my
sheep. My sheep hear my voice, and I
know them, and they follonw me (x. 26, 27).
This is the judgment,that the light is come
into the world,and men loved the darkness

INTRODUCTION TO

rather than the light, for their works were
evil (iii, 19).

The fourth Gospel reveals in these
and similar passages the innermost cause
of the rejection of the Jewish people.
The fact underlies the record, and the
Evangelist lays open the spiritual neces-
sity of it. He reveals also the constitu-
tion of the Spiritual Church. The true
people of God survived the ruin of the
Jews: the ordinances of a new society
replaced in a nobler shape the typical
and transitory worship of Israel. When
this Gospel was written, the Christian
congregations, as we see from St Paul’s
Epistles, were already organized, but the
question could not but arise, how far
their organization was fitted to realise
the ideal of the kingdom which Christ
preached. The Evangelist meets the in-
quiry. He shews from the Lord’s words
what are the laws of His service, and
how they are fulfilled by the institutions
in which they were embodied. The ab-
solute worship was to be in spirit and
truth (iv. 23),as distinguished from letter
and shadow; and the discourses with
Nicodemus and at Capernaum set forth
by anticipation how the sacraments
satisfy this condition for each individual.
On the other hand, the general minis-
terial commission, which is contained
only in the fourth Gospel (xx.), gives the
foundation of the whole. In that lies the
unfailing assurance of the permanence
of the new society.

(B) So far the fourth Gospel met diffi-
culties which had not been and could
not be realised till after the fall of Jeru-
salem. In like manner it met difficulties
which had not been and could not be
felt till the preaching of St Paul had
moulded the Christian Society in ac-
cordance with the law of freedom. Then
first the great problems as to the nature
of the object of personal faith, as tothe
revelation of the Deity, as to the univer-
sality of the Gospel, were apprehended
in their true vastness; and the Evange-
list shews that these thoughts of a later
age were not unregarded by Christ Him-
self. The experience of the life of the
Church—which is nothing less than the
historic teaching of the Holy Spirit—
made clear in due time what was neces-
sarily veiled at first. Sayings became
luminous which were riddles before their
THE GOSPEL

solution was given. Christ, in relation
to humanity, was not characteristically
the Prophet or the King, but the Saviour
of the world, the Son of Man, the Son of
God. In this connexion the fact of the
Incarnation obtained its full significance.
By the Incarnation alone the words which
were pattially interpreted through the
crowning miracle of the Lord’s ministry
were brought home to all men; I am the
Resurrection and the Life (xi. 25).

Thus by the record of the more
mysterious teaching of the Lord, in con-
nexion with typical works, St John has
given a historical basis for the preaching
of St Paul. His narrative is at once the
most spiritual and the most concrete.
He shews how Faith can find a personal
object. The words He that hath seen me
hath seen the Father (xiv. 9) mark an
epoch in the development of religious
thought. By them the idea of God re-
ceives an abiding embodiment, aud the
Father is thereby brought for ever within
the reach of intelligent devotion. The
revelation itself is complete (xvii. 6, 26),
and yet the interpretation of the reve-
lation is set forth as the work of the
Holy Spirit through all ages (xiv, 26).
God in Christ is placed in a living union
with all creation (v. 17; comp. i. 3,
note). The world, humanity and God
ate presented in the words and in the
Person of Christ under new aspects of
fellowship and unity.

It will be evident how this teaching is
connected with that of St. Paul. Two
special points only may be noticed: the
doctrine of the sovereignty of the divine
will, and the doctrine of the union of
the believer with Christ. The founda-
tions of these two cardinal doctrines,
which rise supreme in the Pauline
Epistles, lie deep in the fourth Gospel.

The first, the doctrine of Providence,
Predestination, however it be called,
not only finds reiterated affirmation in
the discourses of the Lord contained in
the fourth Gospel but it is also implied
as the rule of the progress of the Lord’s
life. His ‘hour’ determines the occur-
rence of events from man’s point of
view; and the Evangelist refers to it in
connexion with each crisis of the Gospel
history, and especially with the Passion
in which all crises were consummated
(ii. 4, vii. 30, viii. 20, xii. 23, 27, xiii. 1,

OF Sr. JOHN. XXXiX
xvi, 4, Xvii. 1; comp. vii. 6—8, 6 xacpéds),
So also the will or ‘“‘the gift” of the
Father is the spring of the believer’s
power (iii, 27, vi. 37, 44, 65, xvii. 12);
and Christ fulfils and applies that will to
each one who comes to Him (xv. 16, 5,
v. 21).

Faith again assumes a new aspect in
the narrative of St John. Itis not merely
the mediative energy in material deliver-
ances, and the measure (so to speak) of
material power; it is an energy of the
whole nature, an active transference of
the whole being into another life. Faith
in a Person—in One revealed under a
new “‘ name’’—is the ground of sonship
(i. 12), of life (xi. 25), of power (xiv. 12),
of illumination (xii. 36, 46). The key-
words of two complementary views of
truth are finally combined: this is the
work of God, that ye believe—believe
with a continuous ever-present faith
(mirrevdnte not rurtevonte)—on Him whom
He sent (vi. 29; comp. viii. 30, note).

(y) Once again; when the fourth
Gospel was written Christianity occupied
a new intellectual position. In addition
to social and doctrinal developments,
there were also those still vaster ques-
tions which underlie all organization and
all special dogma, as to the function and
stability of knowledge, as to the inter-
pretation and significance of life, as to
the connexion of the seen and unseen.
The new faith had made these questions
more urgent than before, and the teach-
ing of the Lord furnished such answers
to them as man can apprehend. Know-
ledge was placed in its final position by
the declaration I am the Truth...The
Truth shall make you free (xiv. 6, viii.
31 ff.). Everything real is thus made
tributary to religious service. Again,
the eternal is revealed as present, and
life is laid open in all its possible nobi-
lity. The separation which men are
inclined to make arbitrarily between
“here”? and “there” in spiritual things
is done away. This is life eternal...
(xvii. 3); He that heareth my word hath
life eternal...(v. 24). Once more, the
essential unity and the actual divisions of
the world are alike recognised, All things
were made (éyévero) through Him [in the
Word] (i. 3);...and the Light shineth in
the darkness (i. 5); and the Word became
(éyévero) flesh. Thus in Christ there is
xl

offered the historic reconciliation of the
finite and the infinite, by which the op-
positions of thought and experience are
made capable of being reduced to har-
mony.

These internal indications of date
completely accord with the historical
tradition, and lead to the conclusion
that the composition of the Gospel must
be placed late in the generation which
followed the destruction of Jerusalem.
The shock of that momentous revolution
was over, and Christians had been
enabled to interpret it. There is no
evidence to determine the date exactly.
St John, according to the Asiatic tradi-
tion recorded by Irenaeus (II. 22. 5; III.
3. 4) lived “till the times of Trajan”’
(A.D. 98—117)), and the writing of the
Gospel must be placed at the close of
his life. It is probable therefore that it
may be referred to the last decennium
of the first century, and even to the close
of it.

Tradition is uniform in fixing St John’s

residence at Ephesus (Iren. Ill. 3. 4;
Polycr. ap. Euseb, ‘ H.E.’ 111, 31; Clem.
Alex. ‘Quis div, salv.’ c. 42; Orig. ap.
Euseb. ‘H.E.’ 1. 1, &c.), and naming
that city as the place where he wrote
his Gospel (Iren. 11. 1. 1, &c.); and no
valid objection has been brought against
the belief which was preserved on the
spot by a continuous succession of
Church teachers.1

3. The Object.

From what has been already said it will
be clear that the circumstances under
which the fourth Gospel was written
served to define its object. This is clearly
expressed by St John himself: Many
other signs did Jesus in the presence of
His disciples which have not been written
in this book; but these have been written
that ye may believe (mwrevnre, cf. vi. 29)
that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God,
and that believing ye may have life in His
name (xx. 30f.). The record is there-

* The denial of the Asiatic residence of St
John does not call for serious discussion. To
suppose that the belief grew out of Irenicus’
confusion of ‘‘John the presbyter’? with ‘John
the apostle,’’ involves the further assumption
that Polycarp himself led him into the error
(Iren, ‘ Ep. ad Flor.’). Comp. Steitz, ‘ Stud,
n, Krit.’ 1868; Hilgenfeld, ‘ Einl.’ 394 ff

.

INTRODUCTION TO

fore a selection from abundant materials
at the command of the writer, made by
him with a specific purpose, first to
create a particular conviction in his
readers,and then in virtue of that con-
viction to bring life to them. The con-
viction itself which the Evangelist aims
at producing is twofold, as corresponding
with the twofold relation of Christianity
to the chosen people and to mankind.
He makes it his purpose to shew that
Jesus, who is declared by that human
name to be truly and historically man,
is at once the Christ,in whom all types
and prophecies were fulfilled!, and also
the Son of God, who is in virtue of that
divine body, equally near to all the
children of God—His Father and their
Father (xx. 17)—Scattered throughout the
world (xi. 52; comp. i. 49). The whole
narrative must therefore be interpreted
with a continuous reference to these two
ruling truths, made clear by the expe-
rience of the first stage in the life of the
Church; and also to the consequence
which flows from them, that life is to be
found in vital union with Him who is
made known in this character (év r@ dvé-
pate avrod), Each element in the funda-
mental conviction is set forth as of equal
moment. The one (Jesus is the Christ)
bears witness to the special preparation
which God had made; the other (Jesus
is the Son of God) bears witness to the
inherent universality of Christ’s mission.
The one establishes the organic union of
Christianity with Judaism; the other

* It is not without instruction to notice that
writers of very different schools have uncon-
sciously omitted the words ‘‘ the Christ ” in
quoting this verse, and thereby obscured the
full design of the Apostle. Among others I
may quote as representatives :

Reuss, ‘ Hist. de la Théologie Chrétienne ’
ed. 2, 11. 426, “Ceci, dit-il dans ses derniares
lignes, ceci est écrit, afin que vous croyiez que
Jésus est le Fils de Dieu, et afin que vous ayez
la vie par cette croyance.”?

Weisz, ‘ Lehrbuch d. Bibl. Theol.’ Ausg. 2,
s. 636, ‘* Der Glaube, welcher die Bedingung
des Heilsaneignung bildet...ist die zuversicht.
liche Ueberzeugung davon, dasz Jesus der
Sohn Gottes ist.”

Lias, ‘ The Doctrinal System of St John,’
Pp. 2. [The purpose for which the Gospel was
written] ‘‘is stated in express language by the
author: ‘ These things have been written that
ye might believe that Jesus is the Son of God,
and that, believing ye might have life through
His name (John xx, 31).”*
THE GOSPEL

liberates Christianity from Jewish limita-
tions!. :

It will at once appear that this preg-
nant description of the object of the
Gospel coincides completely with the
view which has been given as tothe date
and occasion of its composition. To
establish that Jesus is the Christ is to
prove that Christianity is the true
spiritual heir of Judaism, through which
a divine society and a divine service have
been established for all time. To estab-
lish that Jesus is the Son of God is to
place the doctrine of St Paul upon a firm
basis, inasmuch as the Saviour is re-
vealed in His essential relation of Creator
to all the world. To establish that life is
to be had in His name, is to-raise -all
being, all thought, into a new region,
where rests the hope (at least) of the
reconciliation of the conflicts and contra-
dictions of our present order.

So far then the fourth Gospel is dis-
tinguished from the other three in that
it is shaped with a conscious design to
illustrate and establish an assumed con-
clusion. If we compare the avowed
purpose of St. John with that of St Luke
(i. I—4), it may be said with partial
truth that the inspiring impulse was in
the one case doctrinal,and in the other
case historical. But care must be taken
not to exaggerate or misinterpret this
contrast. Christian doctrine is history,
and this is above all] things the lesson
of the fourth Gospel. The Synoptic
narratives are implicit dogmas, no less
truly than St John’s dogmas are concrete
facts. The real difference is that the
earliest Gospel contained the funda-
mental facts and words which experience
afterwards interpreted, while the latest
Gospel reviews the facts in the light of
their interpretation. But in both cases
the exactness of historical truth is para-
mount. The discovery of the law of
phenomena does not make the record
of the phenomena less correct than
before in the hands of him who has
ascertained it. On the contrary, such
knowledge keeps the observer from many
possibilities of error, while it enables
him to regard facts in new relations,
and to present them in such a way that

* This definition of the object of the Gospel
must be compared with the parallel definition
of the object of the First Epistle, 1 John i. 1-4.

OF Sr. JOHN. xli
they may suggest to others the general
truth which he has gained. The historic
interest of St John in the substance of
his narrative is, in other words, purified
and made more intense by the dogmatic
significance with which he feels that each
incident is charged.

If the scope of the fourth Gospel is
thus distinctly apprehended in all its
fulness according to the Evangelist’s
own description, it becomes unnecessary
to discuss at any length the different
special purposes which have been as-
signed as the motive of his work. The
narrative is not in express design pole-
mical, or supplementary, or didactic, or
harmonizing; and yet it is all this,
because it is the mature expression of
apostolic experience perfected by the
teaching of the Holy Spiritin the writer’s
own life and in the life of the Church.

i. The Gospel is not specifically po-
lemical (Iren. ‘Adv. Heer.’ 111, 11, Hieron.
‘Comm in Matt.’ Prol.; comp. ‘De
Virr. Il.’ 9). It is quite true that many
passages in the Gospel of St John are
conclusive against particular points of
Ebionitic and Docetic error (comp.
1 John ii. 22, iv. 2), and against false
claims of the disciples of the Baptist
(comp. Acts xix. 3 f.); but it does not
follow that it was the particular object
of St John to refute these false opinions.
The full exhibition of the Truth was
necessarily their refutation; and in this
respect their existence may have called
attention to points which had been over-
looked or misunderstood before. But
the first Epistle shews with what direct-
ness the Apostle would have dealt with
adversaries if controversy had been the
purpose immediately’ present to his
mind.

ii. The same remark applies to the
“supplemental” theory (Eusebius, ‘H. E.’
III. 24; comp. Hieron. ‘De Virr. Ill.’9). As
a matter of fact the fourth Gospel does
supplement the other three, which it pre-
supposes. It supplements them in the
general chronology of the Lord’s life, as
well as in detailed incidents. But this
is because the Gospel is the vital analysis
of faith and unbelief. It traces in order
the gradual development of the popular
views of Christ among those to whom
He came. As a natural consequence
it records the successive crises in the
xlii

divine revelation which happened in
Jerusalem, the centre of the religious
activity of the Jewish theocracy. The
scope of the Gospel is from the nature
of the case supplementary to that of the
other three; and this being so, the his-
tory is also supplementary.

iii. But though the scope of the fourth
Gospel is supplementary to that of the
other three, it cannot rightly be said that
the aim of the Evangelist was essentially
didactic (comp, Clem. Alex. ap. Euseb.
‘H. E.’ vi. 14) in such a sense that he
has furnished an interpretation of the
Gospel rather than a historical record.
The substance of the narrative is dis-
tinctly affirmed to be facts (these signs
are written); and the end contemplated
is practical (that ye may have life), and
speculative only so far as right opinion
leads to right action,

iv. Once again: The conciliatory—
irenical—effect of the Gospel cannot be
questioned, but this effect is due to the
teaching on Christ’s Person which it
discloses, and not to any conscious aim
of the writer. Just as it rises above con-
troversy while it condemns error, it pre-
serves the characteristic truths which
heresy isolated and misused. The fourth
Gospel is the most complete answer to
the manifold forms of Gnosticism, and
yet it was the writing most used by
Gnostics. It contains no formal narra-
tive of the institution of sacraments, and
yet it presents most fully the idea of
sacraments. It sets forth with the
strongest emphasis the failure of the
ancient people, and yet it points out
most clearly the significance of the dis-
pensation which was committed to them.
It brings together the many oppositions
—antitheses—of life and thought, and

INTRODUCTION TO

leaves them in the light of the one
supreme fact which reconciles all, the
Word became Flesh; and we feel from
first to last that this light is shining over
the record of sorrow and triumph, of
defeat and hope.

4. The Plan.

The view which has been given of the
object of the Gospel enables us to form
a general conception of what we must
call its plan. This is, to express it as
briefly as possible, the parallel develop-
ment of faith and unbelief through the
historical Presence of Christ. The Evan-
gelist is guided in the selection, and in
the arrangement, and in the treatment
of his materials by his desire to fulfil this
purpose. He takes a few out of the vast
mass of facts at his disposal (xxi. 25,
xx. 30), which are in his judgment suited
to produce a particular effect. Every
part of his narrative is referred to one
final truth made clear by experience, that
‘Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God.”
He makes no promise to compose a life
of Christ, or to give a general view of
His teaching, or to preserve a lively pic-
ture of the general effect which He pro-
duced on average observers, or to com-
pose a chapter on the general history ot
his own times, or to add his personal
recollections to memoirs of the Tord
already current; nor have we any right
to judge his narrative by the standard
which would be applicable to any one of
such writings. He works out his own
design, and it is our first business to
consider how he works it out. When
this is done we shall be in a position
to consider fairly the historical charac-
teristics of the Gospel,

The development and details of St John’s plan are considered at length elsewhere.
Here it will be sufficient to indicate in a tabular form the outlines of the history.

THE PROLOGUE, i. I—18.

The Word in His absolute, eternal Being; and in relation to Creation.

THE NARRATIVE, i. 19—xXxXi, 23.

The Self-revelation of Christ to the world and to the Disciples.

L.—THE SELF-REVELATION OF CHRIST TO THE WORLD (i. 19—xii. 50).

1. The Proclamation (i. 19—iv. 54),
THE GOSPEL OF St. JOHN. xiii

i. The testimony to Christ (i. 19—ii. 112)
of the Baptist, i. r19—34,
disciples, i, 35—51,
signs (water turned to wine), ii, 1—11.

ii. The work of Christ (ii. 13—iv. 54)
in Judea (Nicodemus), ii. 13—iii. 36,
Samaria (the woman of Samaria), iv. 1—42,
Galilee (the nobleman’s son healed), iv. 43—54
Unbelief as yet passive

2. The Conflict (v, 1—xii. 50).
i. The Prelude (v., vi.),

(a) In Jerusalem (the impotent man healed on the Sabbath), wv.
The Son and the Father.

(b) In Galilee (the five thousand fed), vi.
Christ and men.

ii. The great Controversy (vii.—xii.).

(a) The Revelation of faithand unbelief, vii—x.
The Feast of Tabernacles, vii. viii.
The Feast of Dedication (the blind man healed or the Sab-

bath), ix., x.

(b) The decisive Judgment, xi., xii.
The final sign and its issues (the raising of Lazarus), xi.
The close of Christ’s public ministry, xii.

IIl.—THE SELF-REVELATION OF CHRIST TO THE DISCIPLES (xiii.—xxi.).
1. The last ministry of love (xiii—xvii.).
i. The last acts of love (xiii. 1—30).
ii. The last discourses (xiii. 31—xvi. 33),
In the chamber, xiii. 31—xiv.,
On the way, xv., Xvi.
iii, The prayer of consecration, xvii.

2. The Victory through death (xviii.—xx.).

i. The Betrayal (xviii. 1—11).

ii. The double Trial (xviii. 12—xix. 16).
iii. The end (xix. 17—42).

iv. The new life (xx.).

3. The Epilogue, xxi.
i. The Lord and the body of disciples (the miraculous draught of fishes),
xxi. I—14.
ii. The Lord and individual disciples (xxi. 15—23).
Concluding notes, xxi. 24, 251.

1 The data for fixing the chronology are very meagre. The following appears to be the
best arrangement of the main events.
Early spring: the calling of the first disciples, i. 19g—ii. 11.
First Passover (April), ii. 13—1ii. 21 ;
iii, 22—iv. 54.
The Feast of the New Year (September), v. See Additional Note.
Second Passover (April), vi.
The Feast of Tabernacles (October), vii., viii.
The Feast of Dedication (December), ix., x. ;
xi, xii,
Third Passover (April), xiii—xx,
xliv

Such in a rough outline appears to
be the distribution of the parts of the
Gospel. It will be felt at once how
fragmentary the record is, and yet how
complete. The incidents all contribute
to the orderly development of the truths
which it is the object of the Evangelist
to commend to his readers. In deve-
loping the plan thus broadly defined
he dwells on three pairs of ideas, wit-
ness and truth, glory and light, judg-
ment and life. There is the manifold
attestation of the divine mission: there
is the progressive manifestation of the
inherent majesty of the Son : there is the
continuous and necessary effect which
this manifestation produces on those to
whom it is made; and the narrative may
be fairly described as the simultaneous
unfolding of these three themes, into
which the great theme of faith and un-
belief is divided. A rapid survey of
their treatment will bring out many in-
structive features in the composition.

(a) The Truth and the Witness. It
is characteristic of Christianity that it
claims to be ‘‘ the Truth.”” Christ spoke
of Himself as ‘‘the Truth” (xiv. 6). God
is revealed in Christ as ‘‘ the only true
(dAnOuvds) God’? (xvii. 3), The message
of the Gospel is ‘‘the Truth.”’ This title
of the Gospel is not found inthe Synop-
tists, the Acts or the Apocalypse; but
it occurs in the Catholic Epistles (James
v. 19; 1 Pet. i. 22; 2 Pet. ii. 2), and in
the Epistles of St Paul (2 Thess. ii, 12;
2 Cor. xiii. 8; Eph. i. 13, &c.). It is
specially characteristic of the Gospel and
Epistles of St John.

According to the teaching of St John,
the fundamental fact of Christianity in-
cludes all that ‘‘is’’ in each sphere.
Christ the Incarnate Word is the per-
fect revelation of the Father: as God,
He reveals God (i. 18). He is the per-
fect pattern of life, expressing in act and
word the absolute law of love (xiii. 34).
He unites the finite and the infinite
(i. 14, xvi. 28). And the whole history
of the Christian Society is the progressive
embodiment of this revelation,

In the presence of Pilate, the repre-
sentative of earthly power, Christ re-
vealed the object of His coming, as a
permanent fact, to be that He might
“ bear witness to the truth” (yeyévvnpau,
ekjAvba, not FrAOov, Uva paptupHyrw TH

INTRODUCTION TO

addy bela, xviii. 37). This “Truth,” it is im-
plied, was already in some sense, among
men even if it was unrecognised. There
were some who “were of the Truth,”’ draw-
ing, as it were, their power of life from it
(comp. 1 John ii. 21, iii. 19). Over these
Christ claimed the supremacy of a King.

Among the chosen people this testi-
mony of conscience was supplemented
by the voice of the representative of the
prophets. The Baptist bore, and still
bears witness tothe Truth (v.33, pepap-
TupyKe).

But Christ came not only to maintain
a Truth which was present among men,
but to make known a new fulness of
Truth. The ‘‘Truth came (éyévero ‘was
realised as the right issue of things’’)
through Him ”’ (i. 17; comp. v.14 wAnpns
...dAnGeias), His teaching was ‘‘ the
Truth” (vili. 4o;comp. xvii.17, 6 Adyos
6 aés), He is Himself the Truth (xiv. 6).

And this work is carried out step by
step by the Spirit (xvi. 13 ff.) who is
sent in Christ’s name by the Father
(xiv. 26), as He also is sent by Christ
Himself (xvi. 7). Under this aspect the
Spirit, like Christ, isthe Truth which He
makes known (1 John v. 6).

And again, the whole sum of the know-
ledge of Christ and of the Spirit is ‘‘ the
Truth ” (1 John ii. 21; 2 John 1), which
can be recognised by man (John viii. 32,
yvorerbe tiv dAnGeav), and become the
object of fixed knowledge (1 John ii. 21,
oidatre tiv GXd.); though on the other
hand men can withstand and reject its
claims (viii. 44 f.; comp. Rom. i. 18).

So far the Truth is regarded as a
whole without us (objectively), working
and witnessing (3 John 8, 12). But at
the same time the Spirit, as the Spirit of
Truth, orrather of ‘‘the Truth,” brings
the Truth into direct communication
with man’s spirit (xiv. 17, xv. 26, xvi. 13;
1 John iv. 6, opposed to 73 av.  rijs
wAdvys); and ‘The Truth’? becomes an
inward power in the believer (1 Johni. 8,
li. 4; 2 John 2).

Truth therefore reaches to action. We
do or do not the Truth (iii. 21 ; 1 John i. 6)1.
It follows that the reception of the Truth

* This aspect of the Truth is brought out
specially by St Paul, who contrasts ‘ unright-
eousness’’ with ‘‘truth'’: Rom. i. 18, ii, 8;
1 Cor. xiii, 6; 2 Thess, ij. 12. Comp. Eph.
iv, 24, Vv. 9.
THE GOSPEL

brings freedom (viii. 32), because the
Truth corresponds with the law of our
being. By the Truth we are sanctified
(xvii. 17).

No one therefore can fail to see
how inconsistent it is with the apostolic
conception of Christianity to represent
the Faith as antagonistic to any form of
Truth. It is interpreted: by every frag-
ment of Truth. All experienceis a com-
mentary on it. And we must be careful
to keep ourselves open to every influence
of light.

The message which St John has to
convey in his Gospel is “‘the Truth,”
and this is commended to men by various
forms of witness (uaprupia) There is
nothing in the Synoptic Gospels to pre-
pare for the remarkable development
which he gives of this idea. It evidently
belongs to a time when men had begun
to reason about the faith, and to analyse
the grounds on which it rested. The
end of the witness is the confirmation
of the truth (xviii. 37); and the Evan-
gelist, looking back upon his own expe-
tience, is able to distinguish the several
forms which the witness assumed and
still essentially retains.

The witness to Christ which he records
is therefore manifold, and extends over
the whole range of possible attestation
of divine things. In due succession
there is, (1) the witness of the Father;
(2) the witness of Christ Himself; (3) the
witness of works ; (4) the witness of Scrip-
ture; (5) the witness of the Forerunner ;
(6) the witness of disciples; and that
which illuminates and quickens all, (7)
the witness of the Spirit.

(1) The witness of the Father is that
to which Christ appeals as the proper
witness of Himself :I (éyd) receive not my
witness from a man...the Father which
sent me, He (éxeivos) hath borne witness
concerning me (v. 34,37). If I (éyw) bear
witness concerning myself, my witness is
not true, There is another that beareth
witness of me, and I know that the wit-
ness which he beareth concerning me is
true (v. 31 £.; contrast viii.14), I am he
that beareth witness concerning myself,
and the Father that sent me beareth wit-
ness concerning me (viii. 18). This witness
then is distinguished from the witness of
- a prophet (¢.g. John the Baptist), and
from the witness of Christ standing (if

OF St. JOHN. xlv
we can so conceive) in the isolation of
His Personality. It lies in the absolute
coincidence between the will and words
and works of Christ and the will of the
Father, realised by Christ in His divine-
human Person (I know, v, 32). Such
witness carries conviction to men so far
as they have themselves been brought
into unity with God. Man can feel
what is truly divine while he reaches
after it and fails to attain to it. The
sense of his own aspirations and of his
own shortcomings enables him to ap-
preciate the perfection of Christ. Thus
the witness of the Father is (what we
speak of as) the ‘‘ character’ of Christ.
The witness is continuous, present and
abiding (paprupet, pepapripnxe), andit
teposes upon the general conception of
God as Father (the Father not my Father),
standing in this paternal relation to all
men. As soon as the thought of ‘‘ the
Fatherhood of God’ is gained, it is felt
that ‘‘the Son” expresses it absolutely.
The witness of this perfect coincidence
therefore finds its cogency in the re-
sponse which it calls out from the soul
of man. Man recognises the voice as
naturally and supremely authoritative
(1 John v. 9).

(2) The witness of the Father finds
a special expression in the witness of
the Son concerning Himself. This wit-
ness is valid because it reposes on a
conscious fellowship with God (comp.
x. 30), in which no element of selfish-
ness can find any place, and on a direct
and absolute knowledge of divine things
(iii. 11, 32 f.), and of a divine mission
seen inits totality (viii. 14; comp. v. 55).
In this sense Christ said, Evenif I bear
witness concerning myself my witness is
true, because I know whence I came and
whither I go (viii. 14). Such witness
necessarily derives power from what can
be seen of the witness of the Father
in Christ’s character. And more than
this, Christ’s claim to universal sove-
reignty layin the fact that He came into
the world in order to bear witness to the
truth (xviii. 37). Every one therefore,
He adds, that is of the truth heareth
my voice (id.). Thus it is seen that the
final power of the witness of Christ to
Himself is derived from man’s affinity
to truth which is found perfectly in
Him. His sheep, according to the fa-
xIvi

miliar image, know His voice (x. 4 £.).
And He has a special message for each :
He calleth ( dwvet) His own sheep by name
(x, 3). The end of this is that he that
believeth on Him hath the witness in him-
Self (x John v. 10).

(3) This divine witness, the internal
witness which is addressed to man’s
moral constitution, takes a special and
limited form in the witness of works.
Thus Christ said, The witness which I
have is greater than that of John; for the
works which the Father hath given me to
accomplish, the very works that I do bear
witness concerning me that the Father
hath sent me (v. 36, note). Withina nar-
tow range and ina concrete and sensible
manner, His works revealed His perfect
communion with the Father (v. 17 ff.),
Men could see in them, if not otherwise,
tokens of His real nature and authority.
The works which I do in my Father’s
name, claiming a special connexion with
Him, making Him known as my Father,
these bear witness concerning me (x. 25;
comp, Xiv. 11, xv. 24). And this kind of
witness which was given in one form by
Christ Himself during His historical pre-
sence is still continued. His disciples
are enabled to perform greater works
than those to which He appealed (xiv.
x2 ff.). The Christian Society has still
the living witness of ‘‘ signs.”

For in the record of the ‘‘ works” of
Christ St John draws no line between
those which we call natural and super-
natural, The separate ‘“‘works’’ are frag-
ments of the one ‘‘ work ”’ (iv. 34, xvii. 4).
Whether they are predominantly works
of power or of love, wrought on the
body or on the spirit, they have the
same office and end (comp. v. 20 f., 36,
ix. 3 £., xiv. 10). They are ‘‘ shewn:”
they require that is a sympathetic in-
terpretation (x. 32; comp. v. 20). The
earliest emotion which they produce may
be simply ‘‘wonder”’ (v. 20), but wonder
is the first step to knowledge. This fol-
lows both in its decisive apprehension
and in its progressive extension (x. 38,
tva yvare Kal yevdoKnte).

Works therefore according to St John
are signs (vi. 26); and their witness, from
their want of directness and from their
outwardness of form, is secondary to
that of “words” (xiv, 11, xv. 22 ff.).
The internal witness, according to our

INTRODUCTION TO

mode of speaking, is piaced above the
external. The former is an appeal to
the spiritual consciousness, the latter to
the intellect.

(4) So far we have seen that the wit-
ness to Christ is found in Himself, in
what He is, and in what He did and
does through His disciples. But He
stood also in a definite relation to the
past. Witness was borne to Him both
by the records of the ancient dispensa-
tion and by the last of the prophets.
Ye search the Scriptures, Christ said to
the Jews, because ye think that in them
ye have eternal life—that they are in
themselves the end, and not the prepa-
ration for the end—and they are they
which witness concerning me; and ye will
not come to me that ye may have life
(v. 39, 40). Without Christ the Old
Testament is an unsolved riddle. By
the writings of Moses and the prophets
(v. 46, i. 45) He was seen to be the
goal and fulfilment of immemorial hopes
which became a testimony to Him in
whom they were satisfied. The Old
Testament was to the first age and is
to all ages, if regarded in its broad
and indisputable outlines, a witness to
Christ.

(5) The witness of the Old Testament
found a final expression in the latest of
the prophets. John the Baptist occu-
pied a position which was wholly pe-
culiar. He came for witness, to bear
witness concerning the Light, that all men
might believe through him (i. 7). His
own light was borrowed and kindled
(v. 35,1.8); yet it was such asto attract
and arrest (v. 35), and served to prepare
men for that which should follow. In
this sense Christ appealed to it. Ye
have sent to John, and he hath borne
witness to the truth. ButI receive not my
witness from a man, but these things I
say that ye may be saved (v. 33 f.). The
witness was, so to speak, an accommo-.
dation to the moral condition of those
for whom it was given. It was the at-
testation of a personal conviction based
upon a specific proof. The Baptist
realised his own character and office
(i. 19 ff.); and he recognised Christ by
the sign which had been make known to
him (i. 32 ff.). He realised the sternest
form of Judaism, and at the same time
perceived the universality of that ip
THE GOSPEL

which Judaism should be crowned. In
a signal example he offered the witness
of the leader of men who sways the
thoughts of the multitude.

(6) The witness of the Baptist was to
one decisive event. By this was revealed
to him the relation of Christ to the old
covenant of which he was himself the
last representative. His was the indi-
vidual witness of an exceptional man.
To this was added the witness, so to
speak, of common life. The witness of
the disciples was in various degrees a
witness to what they had experienced in
their intercourse with Christ, a witness
to facts. Ye also, Christ said to the
eleven, bear witness, because ye are with
me from the beginning (xv. 27). He that
hath seen hath borne witness (xix. 35).
This is the disciple that witnesseth con-
cerning these things and wrote these
things (xxi. 24; comp. 1 John i, 2, iv. 14).

(7) But in all these cases there was
need of an interpreter. Neither the mis-
sion nor the Person of Christ could be
understood at once. It was necessary
that He should be withdrawn in order
that the disciples might be able to re-
ceive the full revelation of His Nature.
This was their consolation in the pros-
pect of persecution and hatred. When
the Paraclete is come whom I will send
from the Father, even the Spirit of Truth,
which proceedeth from the Father, He
Shall bear witness concerning me (xv. 26).
Inthis witness lies the continual unfold-
ing of the infinite significance of the In-
carnation. The Spirit takes of that which
is Christ’s, and declares it (xvi. 14). It
is the Spirit, as St. John himself says
elsewhere, that beareth witness, because
the Spirit is the truth (x John v. 6).

If now we look back over these seven
types of witness to which St John ap-
peals in the Gospel, it will be seen that
they cover the whole range of the pos-
sible proof of religious truth, internal
and external. The witness of the Father
and of Christ Himself is internal, and
rests on the correspondence of the Gos-
pel with that absolute idea of the divine
which isin man. The witness of works
and of Scripture is external and historical,
and draws its force from the signs which
‘he Gospel gives of fulfilling a divine pur-
pose. The witness of the prophet and
of the disciples is personal and experi-

OF Sr. JOHN. xvii
ential, and lies in the open declaration
of what men have found the Gospel to
be. Lastly, the witness of the Spirit is
for the believer the crown of assurance
and the pledge of the progress of the
Truth.

(b) Light and Glory. The second
pair of words, Light and Glory, which
characterize St John’s narrative corre-
spond to a certain extent with the Wit-
ness and the Truth. The Witness be-
comes effective through Light. The
Truth is revealed in Glory.

The description of God as Light
(x John i. 5) expresses in its final form
that idea of self-communication which
is realised in many ways. The works
of God are a revelation of Him (i. 4 f.,
note) ; and among these man‘s own con-
stitution, though this is not specially
brought out by St John (comp. Matt.
vi. 23; Luke xi, 35). The Word as
Light visited men (ix. 5, érav) before
the Incarnation (i. 9 f.; comp. v. 38;
Rom. ii. 15 f.), at the Incarnation (viii.
12, xii. 46, iii. 1921; comp. xi, 9 f.),
and He still comes (xiv. 21); even
as the Spirit who still interprets His
“name” (xiv. 26, xvi. 13 ; comp.
1 John ii, 20 ff., 27).

St John draws no distinction in essence
between these three different forms of
revelation, in nature, in conscience, in
history: all alike are natural or super-
natural, parts of the same harmonious
plan. But man has not independently
light in himself. The understanding of
the outward revelation depends upon
the abiding of the divine word within
(v. 37 £.). Love is the condition of
illumination (xiv. 22 ff). And the end
of Christ’s coming was that those who
believe in Him may move in a new
region of life (xii. 46), and themselves
become sons of light (xii. 35 f.), and so,
as the last issue of faith, have the light
of life (viii, 12).

Under the action of the Light the
Truth is seen in Christ as Glory. Christ,
‘the Light of the world,” is seen by the
believer to be the manifested glory of
God.

(1) Step by step the Gospel of St John
lays open the progress of this manifesta-
tion. The summary of its whole course
is given by the Apostle at the outset :
The Word became flesh and tabernacled
xl viii

among us, and we beheld His glory, glory
as of an only son from a father (1. 14),
absolutely representing, that is, Him
from whom He came. The beginning
of Christ’s signs was a manifestation of
His glory (ii. 11), and that it might be
so, it was shewn only when the hour was
come (ii. 4). For the glory of the Son
was not of His own seeking (viii. 50),
but was wholly the expression of His
Father’s will through Him (viii, 54).
And conversely the Son by His perfect
conformity to the Father’s will glorified
the Father upon earth inthe fulfilment of
His appointed work (xvii. 4), wherein He
was also glorified Himself (xvii. 10).

(2) The glory of Christ was therefore
in a true sense the glory of God. This
Sickness, the Lord said in regard to
Lazarus, is not unto death, as its real
issue, but for the glory of God, that the
Son of God may be glorified through
it (xi. 4). And so the restoration of
Lazarus to life was a vision of the glory
of God (xi, 40), as producing faith in
Him whom He sent (xi. 42). The glori-
fication of ‘‘the name’”’ of the Father was
the historic work of the Son (xii. 28).
When the crisis was past, Jesus saith,
Now was the Son of man glorified (éo-
édo6y), and God was glorified in Him
(xiii. 31). At the end the correlation
is not between the Son and the Father,
but between the Son of man and God.
In Him, little by little, under the con-
ditions of human existence, the absolute
idea of manhood was fulfilled.

(3) It follows that the thought of
Christ’s glory is extended beyond the
Incarnation. The glory which was con-
summated through the Incarnation he
had with the Father before the world
was (xvii. 5); and when the prophet
was allowed to look upon the Lord, sit-
ting upon a throne, high and lifted up
(Is. vi. 1 ff.), what he saw was the glory
of Christ (xii. 41).

(4) And on the other hand, as the
glory of the Son is extended backward,
so also the glory of Jesus, the Son of man,
consummated on the divine side even in
God (xiii. 32) at the Ascension (vii. 39,
xii, 16), to which the way was opened
by the Passion (xii. 23, xiii. 31), is to
be realised by men little by little in the
course of ages. The petitions of be-
lievers are granted that the Father may

INTRODUCTION TO

be glorified in the Son (xiv. 13): their
fruitfulness, already regarded as attained,
is a source of this glory (xv. 8). And
one chief office of the Spirit is to glorify
Christ by making Him more fully known
(xvi. 14).

(c) Judgment and Life. The glory of
Christ and of God in Christ, which is
thus presented as the substance of reve-
lation, belongs to a spiritual sphere. It
can therefore only be perceived by those
who have true spiritual vision. As an
inevitable consequence, the revelation of
the divine glory carries with it a judg-
ment, a separation.

The fundamental notion of this Judg-
ment lies in the authoritative and final
declaration of the state of man as he is
in relation to God and standing apart
from God. It follows as a necessary
consequence that Judgment in this sense
is contrasted with “‘ salvation,” ‘‘ life.”
He that believeth [on the Son] is not
judged (iii. 18). He hath passed out of
death into life (v. 24; comp, v. 29).
For Christ has life (i. 4, v. 26), and
His words are life (vi. 53; comp. vi. 68,
xii. 50). He came to offer life to men
(x. 28, xvii. 2), that they too may have
it (iii. 15 £., v. 40, vi. 40, x. 10). He
is indeed Himself ‘“‘the Life” (xi. 25,
xiv, 6) and the support of life (vi. 33,
35, 48, 51; comp. iv. 14). To know the
Father and Him is eternal life (xvii. 3);
and he that ‘believeth in Him,’’ he that
is united with Him by faith, hath the life
aS a present possession (iii. 36, v- 24,
vi. 47, 54; comp. viii. 12), which other-
wise he cannot have (vi, 53). The re-
lation of the believer to Christ is made
parallel with the relation of the Son to
the Father (vi. 57). BecauseI live, Christ
said to the eleven, ye shall live also (xiv.
19). Thus the believer, in virtue of the
vital connexion which he has realised
with God in His Son, is no longer
considered apart from Him. Judgment
therefore in his case is impossible.

This conception of judgment explains
the apparent contradiction in the views
which are given of the part of Christ in
tegard to it. On the one side judgment
is realised as self-fulfilled in the actual
circumstances of life. This is the judg-
ment, that the light is come into the world
and men loved the darkness rather than
the light, for their works were evil (iii. 19;
THE GOSPEL

and by this contrast the unbeliever is
convicted from within: he hath one that
judgeth him : the word that I spake,
Christ said, shall judge him at the last
day (xii. 48), Hence itis said: God sent
not the Son into the world to judge the
world, but that the world may be saved
through Him (iii. 17), I came not to judge
the world, but to save the world (xii. 47).

And yet on the other side judgment
belongs to Christ, and satisfies the ut-
most ideal of judgment because it re-
poses upon adequate knowledge. Thus
we read: the Father hath given all judg-
ment unto the Son (v. 22; comp. v. 27);
and for judgment (xpipa) came I into this
world...(ix. 39; comp, viii. 26). I judge
no man; yea, and if I (éys) judge
my judgment is true (dAnOuwy, viii. 15 f.).
As I hear I judge, and my judgment is
just (v. 30).

Striking as the contrast between these
passages appears to be, it is only neces-
sary to consider what the judgment is in
order to feel their harmony. Spiritual
judgment is a consequence involved in
the rejection of the revelation which
Christ made. His will was to unite
men to Himself, so that they might
have life and not be judged. So far
then as they rejected Him and stood
away from Him, His Presence shewed
them as they truly were. He judged
them; and judgment was equivalent to
condemnation. Thus the exhibition of
the contrast of the true and the false
became one of the means for developing
belief and unbelief according to the cha-
racter of Christ’s hearers (viii. 26), What-
ever might be the result, His message
must be delivered.

In one sense therefore judgment, like
the gift of life, is immediate. It lies
in the existence of an actual relation
(iii. 18) which carries with it its final
consequences. In another sense it is
still future, so far as it will be realised
in a spiritual order of being in the last
day (xii. 48). There is a resurrection of
life and a resurrection of judgment (v.-29),
in which the issues of both begun here
will be completely fulfilled. Meanwhile
the process is going on upon earth. The
manifestation of perfect holiness presen-
ted to the world in perfect self-sacrifice
(v. 30) has set up a standard which
cannot be put out of sight. Under this

G

OF Sr. JOHN. xlix
aspect Christ’s coming was a sentence of
judgment (xpiua, ix. 39). Thejudgment
of the sovereign power of the world in
the Passion (xii. 31) has left men no
excuse (see xvi. 11, note). In that they
can see the mind of God, and according
as they surrender themselves to it or
resist it, they find life or judgment.

So far the judgment is self-fulfilled.
It cannot but be carried out. The word
of Christ sooner or later must justify
itself (xii. 48). There is no need that
He should seek to assert and vindicate
its supremacy, There is one that seeketh
and judgeth (viii. 50), the eternal power
of righteousness symbolized in the Law
(v. 45), and expressed in the Gospel
(xii. 48 ff.).

But though this is so, the idea of
divine action is never lost in the Bible
in an abstraction, however emphatic.
And while the eternal necessity of judg-
ment is thus set forth, the historical
execution of judgment, both present and
final, is recognised as a work of the
Son; and though it was not the purpose
of His mission, yet it was committed to
Him in virtue of His mission. The
Father doth not judge any man, but hath
given all judgment to the Son (v. 22).
Even as the Father gave Him to have
life in Himself, and so to be a spring of
life to all who are united with Him, so
also He gave Him authority to execute
judgdent because He is a Son of man—
not the Son of man—(v, 27), because He
is truly man, and not only the represen-
tative of humanity. His judgment there-
fore (comp. Hebr. iv. 14 ff.) is essen-
tially united with His complete sym-
pathy with man’s nature, and extends to
the fulness of human life. It finds place
always and everywhere.

These contrasts bring out into full
relief the conflict between faith and un-
belief, which, as has been said, is the
main subject of St. John’s Gospel. In
the Synoptic Gospels faith occupies a
different position. It is in these almost
exclusively relative to a particular object
(Matt. viii. 10, ix., 2, 22, 29 &c.; Mark
ix. 23, &c.). Only once does the full
expression for faith in the Person of
Christ occur (riorederr eis, Matt. xviii. 6,
Mark ix. 42). In St. John, on the other
hand, this is the characteristic form under
which faith is. presented. The simple
! INTRODUCTION TO

noun is not found in his Gospel. Faith
is the attitude of the whole believing
man. Such faith in Christ is the con-
dition of eternal life (i. 12, vi. 40). To
produce it was the object of the Evan-
gelist (xx. 31). And the history marks
in typical crises the progress of its de-
velopment.

The first sign is followed by an access
of faith in the disciples (ii. 11). The first
entrance into Jerusalem was followed by
faith disturbed by preconceived ideas
(ii. 23, iii. 12 ff.). The preaching in
Samaria called out a complete confession
of faith (iv. 39 ff.) which stands in contrast
with the faith, resting on signs which
followed in Galilee (iv. 48 ff.).

From this point active unbelief ap-
pears side by side with faith. By claim-
ing authority over the Sabbath, and
“making Himself equal with God” (v.
17 £.), the Lord offered a test of devo-
tion to those who followed Him: He
fulfilled that to which Moses pointed
(v. 39, 45 ff.). The decisive trial in
Galilee caused a fresh division between
those who had hitherto been disciples.
It was now revealed that life was to be
gained by the personal appropriation of
the virtue of Christ’s Life and Death
(vi. 53ff.). Some turned aside, and
St Peter confessed the Apostolic faith
even in the mysterious prospect of the
Passion (vi. 66 ff.). At the Feast of
Tabernacles the antagonism of the hier-
archy was more decided (vii. 32, 47 ff.),
and the Lord traced it to its source in
an analysis of the spirit of those who
believed Him with a view to the execu-
tion of their own designs (viii. 31, note).
At the same time He revealed His pre-
existence (viii. 31 ff, 58). The separa-
tion between the old Church and the
new, which was implicitly included in
these discourses, was openly shewn in
the scenes which followed. Christ offered
Himself openly as the object of faith as
“the Son of man’”’ (ix. 35 ff.), and de-
clared the universality of His work
(x. 16). The raising of Lazarus, which
carried with it the condemnation of the
Lord, shewed him to be the conqueror
of death and through death (xi. 25f., 50,
xii. 23 ff.). So the public revelation was
completed, and with it faith and unbelief
were brought to their last issue (xii. 37 ff.).

The last discourse and the last prayer

point to the future victories of faith; and
the nariative closes with the beatitude of
the Risen Christ: Blessed are they that
have not seen, and yet have believed (xx.
z9), which crowned the loftiest confes-
sion of faith triumphant over doubt: My
Lord and my God (xx. 28).

Even from this rapid summary it will
be seen that the self-revelation of Christ
became stage by stage the occasion of
fuller personal trust and more open per-
sonal antagonism. In Him thoughts from
many hearts were revealed (Luke ii. 35).
And St John lays open the course of the
original conflict which is the pattern of
all conflicts to the end of time.

5. The Style.

The characteristic repetition and de-
velopment of the three pairs of ideas,
Witness and Truth, Glory and Light,
Judgment and Life, in the structure of
St John’s Gospel, serve to indicate the
peculiarities of the style of the book.
There is both in the vocabulary and
in the form of the sentences a surprising
simplicity, which becomes majestic by its
solemn directness.

(a) It is not necessary to dwell upon
the vocabulary. Any one who will trace
out the use of the six words already dis-
cussed will feel how the apparent mono-
tony contains a marvellous depth and
fulness. An examination of other words,
as Sign (cypeiov), and works (épya), and
name (év T@ dvopare, cis 73 dvopa), the
Father (6 warjp), and my Father (6
matTHp pov), the world (xécpos, not 6 aidv
otros and the like), to love, to know
(cidévae and ycvdcxetv), will lead to the
same conclusion (compare Additional
Notes on i. 10, iv. 21). The appa-
rent sameness of phraseology produces
throughout an impressive emphasis.

(b) This emphatic monotony is still
more observable in the form and in the
combination of the sentences. The con-
structions are habitually reduced to the
simplest elements. To speak of St John’s
Gospel as ‘‘written in very pure Greek”
is altogether misleading. It is free from
solecisms, because it avoids all idiomatic
expressions. The grammar is that which
is common to almost all language. Di-
rectness, circumstantiality, repetition,
and personality, are the characteristic
marks of the separate sentences. And
THE GOSPEL

the sentences and thoughts are grouped
together in a corresponding manner.
They are co-ordinated and not subor-
dinated. The sequence of the reasoning
is not wrought out, but left for sympa-
thetic interpretation.

The narrative is uniformly direct.
Even the words and opinions of others
are given directly and not obliquely.
Any one of the detailed incidents in
St John’s narrative will illustrate this
characteristic of his style. Thus we read
in the opening scene: This is the witness
of John when the Jews sent...toask him,
Who are thou? and he confessed...I am
not the Christ. And they asked him,
What then? Art thou Elijah? And he
saith, I am not. (i. 19 ff.). And again,
Certain of the multitude therefore, when
they heard these words, said, This is ofa
truth the Prophet. Others said, This is
the Christ. But some said, What, doth
the Christ come out of Galilee (vii. 4of.;
comp. ii. 3 ff., iv. 27 ff, v. ro ff., vi. 14,
viii, 22, ix. 2 ff., &c.)!

It is a part of the same method that
illustrative details are added parentheti-
cally or as distinct statements, and not
wrought into the texture of the narrative
(vi. 10, iv. 6, x. 22, xiii, 30, xviii. 40).

The circumstantiality of St John’s
style is a necessary result of this direct-
ness. Each element in the action is
distinguished, as a general rule, and set
out clearly. Thus while the other Evan-
gelists write habitually according to the
common Greek idiom [Jesus] answering
said (dzoxpwOels efre), St John never uses
this form, but writes instead [Jesus] an-
swered and said (dmexpiOn wal efrev), He
places the two parts of the act in equal
prominence ; and though it might appear
at first sight that the phrases are exactly
equivalent, yet the co-ordination of de-
tails brings a certain definiteness to the

1 This directness of construction is so universal
in the Gospel that the only example (so far as
I have observed) of an oblique sentence is in
iv. 51, where the true reading appears to be
met him, saying that his son liveth, in place
of met him and told him, saying, Thy son
liveth; for, on the other hand, the common
oblique reading in xiii. 24 is incorrect; and
the vivid phrase, and saith to him, Say, who
is it? must be substituted for that he should
ask who it should be of whom he spake.

This is in fact a characteristic of the New
Testament style generally ; see Winer, § Lx. 9;
but in St John it is most marked.

OF Sr. JOHN. li
picture which fixes the thought of the
reader. The same tendency is shewn in
St John’s analysis of other actions, Jesus
cried aloud and said (xii. 44). Jesus cried
aloud in the temple, teaching and saying
(vii. 28). John beareth witness of Him
and hath cried,. saying (i. 15). They
questioned him, and said...(i. 25). In
these and similar cases it will be found
that the separation of the whole into its
parts adds to the impressiveness, and to
the meaning of the description.

One remarkable illustration of this
particularity is found in the combination
of the positive and negative expression
of the same truth. All things were made
through Him, and without Him was not
any thing made (i, 3). He confessed, and
denied not (i. 20). Jesus did not trust
Himself unto them, for that He knew all
men, and because He needed not that any
one should bear witness concerning man
(ii. 24 £.). God...gave His only Son that
whosoever believeth on Him may not
perish,but have eternal life (iii. 16). Comp.
X. 5, xviii. 20; 1 John i, 6, ii. 4, 27.

The circumstantiality of St John’s style
leads to frequent repetition of the sub-
ject or of the significant word in a sen-
tence (i. 1. Word; i. 7, witness; i. 10,
world; iv, 22, worship; v. 31 £., witness ;
vi. 27, meat; Xi, 33, weeping).

Such repetitions are singularly marked
in the record of dialogues,in which the
persons are constantly brought into pro-
minence. Sentence after sentence be-
gins with words, ‘‘Jesus said,’’ ‘“‘the Jews
said’’ and the like, so that the characters
in the great conflict are kept clearly pre-
sent to the mind of the reader in sharp
contrast (ii. 18 ff., iv. 7 ff., viii. 48 ff.,
x, 23 ff.).

This usage leads to what has been
called above the personality of St John’s
narrative. This is shewn by the special
frequency with which he introduces a
demonstrative pronoun to call back the
subject, when a clause has intervened
between the subject and the verb. This
he does in two ways. Sometimes he
employs the pronoun of present refer-
ence: He that abideth in me and I in
him, this man (otros) beareth much fruit
(xv. 5; comp. vii. 18, &c.); and some-
times, which is the more characteristic
usage, the pronoun of remote isolated
reference: He that entereth not by the
hii

door...that man ( éxeivos) is a thief and a
robber (x. I; comp. i. 18, 33, Vv. II,
37, 38, xii. 48, xiv. 21, 26, xv. 26).

Another feature of the same kind is
the frequency of St John’s use of the
personal pronouns, and especially of the
pronoun of the first person. In this re-
spect much of the teaching of the Lord’s
discourses depends upon the careful re-
cognition of the emphatic reference to
His undivided Personality. Yet, and if
I (éyaé) judge—i, who am truly God, and
truly man—my judgment is true; for I
am not alone, but I and the Father that
Sent me (viii, 16). In this case, as in
most cases, the pronoun calls attention
to the nature of the Lord: elsewhere it
marks the isolation (so to speak) of His
personality; so that we read two sen-
tences which being in appearance di-
rectly contradictory, are harmonized by
giving due emphasis to the exact force
of the pronoun (v. 31, viii. 14 note).

(c) The method, of combining sen-
tences in St John corresponds com-
pletely to the method of their separate
construction. The simplicity, directness,
circumstantiality, repetition, which mark
the constituent sentences, mark also
whole sections of his work. Words, sen-
tences, paragraphs follow one another
in what must appear to an unreflecting
reader needless iteration, though in fact
it is by this means that the central
thought is placed in varied lights, so
that its fulness can’ at last be grasped.
The multiplication of simple elements in
this instance, as elsewhere, preduces in
the end an effect of commanding gran-
deur, and so the student learns to pause
in order that he may carefully consider
the parts which separately contribute to
it. (See for example, ch, xvii.)

The most obvious illustration of this
feature lies in St. John’s constant
habit of framing his record of events
and discourses without connecting par-
ticles. When the feeling is most in-
tense clause follows clause by simple
addition. No conjunction binds the
parts together. The details are given
severally, and the reader is left to seize
them in their unity (iv. 7, 10 ff., xi, 34.
35, xiv. 15 ff., xv. 1—20).

At the same time St John does in
fact insist more than the other Evan-
gelists upon the connexion of facts, even

INTRODUCTION TO

if he commonly leaves them in simple
juxtaposition. His most characteristic
particle in narrative (it is rare in the dis-
courses) is therefore (otv), and this serves
in very many cases to call attention to
a sequence which is real, ifnot obvious.
There arose therefore a question on the
part of John’s disciples with a Jew about
purifying (iii. 25). When therefore He
heard that he was sick, He abode for the
time two days in the place where he was
(xi. 6). Comp. iii, 29, iv. 46, vii. 28.
In like manner the unusual frequency
of the phrase in order that (iva), which
marks a direct object, is a sign of the
habitual tendency of St John to regard
things in their moral and providential
relations. Even where the usage departs
most widely from the classical standard,
it is possible to see how the irregular
construction springs out of a character-
istic mode of thought (e.g. iv. 34, v. 36,
vi. 29, viii. 56, xii. 23, xiii. 34, xvii. 3);
and frequently the particle suggests a
profound interpretation of the divine
counsel (v. 20, X. 17, xii. 38, xv. 8, xvi. 2).
The simple coordination of clauses is
frequently assisted by the repetition of a
marked: word or phrase such as occurs
in separate sentences. In this way a
connexion is established between two
statements, while the idea is carried for-
ward in a new direction. Sometimes
the subject is repeated: I am the good
Shepherd. The good Shepherd layeth
down his life for the sheep (x.11). Some-
times a word is taken up froma former
clause and repeated with significant em-
phasis: Greater love hath no man than
this, that a man lay down his life for
his friends Yeare my friends...No longer
do I call you servants...but I have called
you friends...(xv. 13 ff.). Sometimes a
clause is repeated which gives (so to
speak) the theme of the passage: I'am
the door of the sheep...I am the door: by
me if any man enter in, he shall be saved...
x. 7ff.). I am the good Shepherd: the
good Shepherd layeth down his life for the
sheep...I am the good Shepherd...and I
lay down my life for my sheep (x. 11, 14).
I am the true vine...I am the vine: ye
are the branches (xv, 1, 5). Sometimesa
clause is repeated which gives a closing
cadence: The world hated them because
they are not of the world, even as I am
not of the world...They are not of the
THE GOSPEL

world, even as I am not of the world...
Sanctify them in the truth.,.that they
themselves may be sanctified in truth
(xvii. 14 ff). Three times in the sixth
chapter the clause recurs: I will (may)
raise him up at the last day (39, 40, 44).
And even in the simple narrative of
St Peter’s denial the scene is impressed
upon the reader by the solemn repeti-
tion of the words: Peter was standing
and warming himself (xviii. 18, 25)1.

(d) This repetition in some cases
leads to a perfect poetic parallelism :
(xiv. 26, 27).

And in fact the spirit of parallelism,
the instinctive perception of symmetry
in thought and expression, which is the
essential and informing spirit of Hebrew
poetry, runs through the whole record,
both in its general structure and in the
structure of its parts. From first to last
the Truth is presented,so to speak, in
ever-widening circles. Each incident,
each discourse, presupposes what has
gone before, and adds something to the
result.

6. Historical Exactness.

On inquiry up to this point has estab-
lished beyond doubt that the structure
of the fourth Gospel corresponds with
the fulfilment of a profound purpose.
-It is composed both generally and in
detail with singular symmetry. There is
a growing purpose wrought out from
stage to stage in the great divisions of
the record; and there are subtle and
minute traits in each separate narrative
which reveal to careful examination the
presence of an informing idea throughout
it. The correspondences of part with
part may indeed be due as much to the
one fundamental conception of the whole
work as to special and conscious adapta-
tion of details; but none the less we
must feel that the historical elements are
means to an end; that the narrative ex-
presses distinctly (as it professes to do)
the writer’s interpretation of the events
with which he deals. We must feel that
it is not an exhaustive exposition (so far
as the Evangelist’s knowledge went) of
the incidents of the Lord’s life; that it

* So also words are repeated through con-
siderable sections of the Gospel: love, to love
(xiii—xvii.) ; life (v., vi.) ; light (viii.—xii.).

New Test.—Vot. II.

OF Sr. JOHN. litt
does not preserve some features of His
work which were unquestionably promi-
nent; that we could not put together
from it a complete picture of Jesus of
Nazareth as He went about doing good,
and healing all that were oppressed of the
devil (Acts x. 38). We allow, or rather
we press, the fact that the fourth Gospel,
so far as it is regarded as a biography,
or as a biographical sketch, is confined to
certain limited aspects of the Person and
Life and Work with which it deals. But
while we make the fullest acknowledg-
ment of these truths, weaffirm also that
the literal accuracy of the contents of the
Gospel is not in any way prejudiced by
the existence of this particular purpose.
The historical illustrations of the writer’s
theme—if we even so regard the inci-
dents which he relates—are no less his-
torical because they are illustrations : the
Evangelist’s conception of the real sig-
nificance of Christ’s Presence is not to
be set aside because it is his conception :
the special traits which are given are in
no degree open to suspicion, because
they are special traits emphasized with a
definite object.. Neither the apostolical
authorship nor the historical trustworthi-
ness of the narrative is affected by the
admission that the writer fulfils his work,
according to hisown words, with an
express purpose in view.

The first point is not before us now;
but there is one argument directly bear-
ing upon it, which underlies very much
of the popular criticism of the Gospel
though it is not very often put into a
distinct shape, which may be most con-
veniently noticed here. It is sometimes
plainly said, and more often silently as-
sumed, that an Apostle could not have
spoken of One with whom he had lived
familiarly, as the writer of the fourth
Gospel speaks of the Lord. In reply to
this argument one sentence only is ne-
cessary. In order to have any force the
argument takes for granted all that is
finally at issue, and implies that it is not
true that “the Word became flesh.” If,
on the other hand, this revelation is true,
as we believe, then the fourth Gospel
helps us to understand how the over-
whelming mystery was gradually made
known : how the divine Nature of Christ
was revealed little by little to those with
whom He had conversed as man. Un-

e
liv

less our faith be false, we may say that
we cannot conceive any way in which it
could have been historically realised ex-
cept that which is traced out in the ex-
perience reflected in the writings of St
John. The Incarnation is confessedly
a great mystery, in every sense of the
word, but no fresh difficulty is occasioned
by the fact that in due time it was laid
open to those among whom the Son of
God had moved.

Moreover, it may be added, the diffi-
culty of admitting that an Apostle came
to recognise the true divinity of One with
whom he had lived as man with man
is not done away by denying the apos-
tolic authorship of the Gospel. The most
conspicuous critics who refuse to assign
the Gospel to St John agree in assigning
the Apocalyse to him; and it is no
easier for us to understand how (not to
quote xxii. 13) an Apostle could speak of
the Master whom he had followed to the
Cross as being the Holy and the True,
who has the key of David, ‘‘ who openeth,
and no man shutteth; and shutteth, and
no man openeth ”’ (iii. 7), as joined with
“Him that sitteth on the throne,” in
being ‘‘ worthy to receive blessing, and
honour, and glory, and might, for ever
and ever’ (v. 13), than to understand
how he could look back upon His life as
the life of the Incarnate Word. The
Christology of the Gospel and the Christ-
ology of the Apocalypse are alike, we
may venture to say historically inexplica-
ble unless we take as the key to their
interpretation of the assertion of the fact,
“The Word became flesh,” apprehended
under the action of the Spirit, in the
consciousness of those who had known
Christ “from the Baptism of John to the
Resurrection.”

These considerations however carry us
away from our immediate subject; for
we ate not concerned at present with the
apostolic authorship of the Gospel. We
have toinquire how far its trustworthiness
is affected by the existence of a specific
didactic design in the writing. But before
discussing this question one other topic
must be referred to, only to be set aside,
which will be examined in detail after-
wards. The arguments against the trust-
worthiness of the Gospel drawn from the
fact that its contents do not for the most
part coincide with the contents of the

INTRODUCTION TO

Synoptic Gospels may be dismissed, or,
at least, held in suspense. For this end
it will be enough to insist on the obvious
fact that a general difference in the con-
tents of two narratives relating to a com-
plex history, which are both avowedly
incomplete, cannot be used to prejudice
the accuracy of either. And the most
cursory consideration of the fragmentari-
ness of the records of Christ’s life will
make it evident that the mere addition
of the facts related by St John to those
preserved in the other Gospels cannot
create any difficulty. They do not differ
in kind from incidents related by the
Synoptists; and we have no external
means for determining the principles by
which the choice of incidents embodied
in the Synoptic narratives was deter-
mined. There is certainly no reason for
supposing that these narratives would
have included the incidents peculiar to
St John, if they had been familiarly
known at the time when the records
were drawn up. The Synoptists indicate
summarily cycles of events which they
do not relate; and St John refers defi-
nitely to ‘‘many other signs” with which
he was personally acquainted.

Thus we are brought back to the pro-
per subject of our inquiry. Does the
author of the fourth Gospel forfeit his
claim to observe accuracy of fact because
the facts are selected with a view to a
definite purpose? He professes to write,
as we have seen, in the hope of creating
in others the faith which he holds him-
self (xix, 35, xx. 31). Now that faith is
in reality a special interpretation of all
history drawn from a special interpreta-
tion of One Life. We may therefore
modify our question and ask, Does the
Evangelist forfeit his claim to be a
truthful historian, because he turns his
eye steadily to the signs of the central
laws of being? The answer to the ques-
tion must be sought finally in the con-
ditions of the historian’s work. These
conditions include in every case choice,
compression, combination of materials.
And he fulfils his work rightly who
chooses, compresses, combines his ma-
terials according to a certain vital pro-
portion. In other words, the historian,
like the poet, cannot but interpret the
facts which he reeords. The-truth of
history is simply the truth of the inter-
THE GOSPEL

pretation of an infinitude of details con-
templated together. The simplest state-
ment of a result presents a broad gene-
talization of particulars. The generaliza-
tion may be true or false; it may be
tuled by an outward or by an inward
principle; but in any case it only repre-
sents a total impression of the particulars
seen in one way. It does not represent
either all the particulars or all the im-
pressions which they are capable of pro-
ducing. Whatiscalled pure “‘ objective”
history is a mere phantom. No one
could specify, and no one would be will-
ing to specify, all the separate details
which man’s most imperfect observation
can distinguish as elements in any one
“fact ;”? and the least reflection shews
that there are other elements not less
numerous or less important than those
open to our observation, which cannot
be observed by us, and which yet go
towards the fulness of the ‘‘ fact.” The
subjectivity of history is consequently a
mere question of degree. A writer who
looks at the outside of things, and repro-
duces the impression which this would
convey to average men, is as far from
the whole truth as the writer who brings
his whole power to bear upon an indi-
vidual realization of it. Thus every
tecord of a ‘‘ fact”? is necessarily limited
to the record of representative details
concerning it. The truthfulness of the
historian as a narrator lies therefore in
his power of selecting these details so as
to convey to others the true idea of the
fact which he has himself formed. In
this respect the literal accuracy of any
number of details is no guarantee for the
accuracy of the impression conveyed by
the sum of them regarded as a whole;
and it is no paradox to say that a “‘true”’
detail which disturbs the proportion of
the picture becomes in the connexion
false.

What has been said of separate ‘‘facts”’
is obviously true of the sequence of facts.
It is impossible not to fee] that a true
conception of the character of a life or
(if such a phrase may be used) of the
spirit of a social movement would illu-
minate the connexion and meaning of
the external details in which they are
manifested, and that many details re-
garded externally would be liable to the
gravest misapprehension if the concep-

OF Sr. JOHN. lv
tion were either false or wanting. And
further, itis no less clear that the neces-
sity for this interpretative power becomes
more urgent as the subject becomes
more complex,

There is undoubtedly at present a
strong feeling in favour of realistic, ex-
ternal, history; but it may reasonably be
questioned whether this fashion of opinion
will be permanent, and it is obviously
beset by many perils. Realistic history
often treats only of the dress and not of
the living frame, and it can never go
beyond the outward circumstances of an
organization which is inspired by one
vital power. The photographer is wholly
unable to supply the function of the
artist ;and realism must be subordinated
to the interpretation of the life, if history
is to take its true place as a science.
This is the thought which underlies the
Hebrew type of historic record. In the
Old Testament the prophet is the his-
torian. The facts which he records are
significant, if fragmentary, expressions of
an inner divine law wrought out among
men. His interest is centred in the life
which is manifested in action, but not
exhausted by it. His aim is to reveal
this life to others through the phenomena
which the life alone makes truly intelli-
gible to him.

We are not now concerned to inquire
whether the prophetic interpretation of
the life of men and nations and human-
ity be true or false. All that needs to
be insisted upon is that the historian
must have some view of the life whereby
the events which he chronicles are held
together. This view will influence him
both in the choice of incidents and in
the choice of details. And he will be
the best historian who grasps the con-
ception of the life most firmly, and who
shews the absolute and eternal in the
ordinary current of events. For him
each event will be a sign.

Now whatever debates may arise on
other points it cannot be doubted that
the writer of the fourth Gospel has a
distinct conception of a spiritual law of
the life of humanity which found its final
realisation in the Incarnation. This con-
ception is therefore his clueinthe ¢hoice
and arrangement of facts He takes
just so many events and so much of
each as will illustrate the central truth
Ivi

which he finds in a particular view of
the Person of Christ. If his view of
Christ be right, it cannot be seriously
questioned that the traits on which he
chiefly dwells are intrinsically natural ;
and no other view appears to be able
to explain the phenomena of the belief
attested by the earliest Christian litera-
ture, the letters of St Paul and the
Apocalypse, and by the existence of the
Christian Church. Thus the Gospel of
St John adds that express teaching on
the relation of Christ to God—of the
Son to the Father—which underlies the
claims to exclusive and final authority
made by Him in the Synoptists. And
the definiteness of the Evangelist’s aim
does not diminish but rather increases
his interest in the exact conditions and
circumstances under which Christ acted
and spoke; for our historic interest must
always vary directly with our sense of
the importance of the history.

Some of these points will come before
us again in great detail, but so much
at least is clear, that the ‘‘ subjectivity”
of the fourth Evangelist affords in itself
no presumption against his historical
accuracy. Every historian is necessarily
subjective. And it must be shewn that
the Evangelist’s view of the Person of
Christ, which is established indepen-
dently of his Gospel, is false, before any
argument against his trustworthiness
can be drawn from a representation of
Christ’s works and words which corres-
ponds with that view.

It is then no disparagement of the
strict historical character of the fourth
Gospel that the writer has fulfilled the
design which he set before himself, of
recording such ‘‘ signs” out of the whole
nutuber of Christ’s works as he con-
sidered likely to produce a specific effect.
But even if it is admitted that historical
exactness is generally reconcileable in
theory with the execution of a particular
design in the selection and exhibition
and combination of facts, and further
that this particular design may be the
interpretation of the innermost meaning
of the life, while it includes only a small
fraction of the outward events, yet it will
be urged that this method of explanation
does not apply to all the phenomena of
St John’s Gospel: that the discourses of
the Lord, in especial as given there,

INTRODUCTION TO

cannot be regarded otherwise than as
free compositions of the Evangelist;
that their contents are monotonous and
without progress from first to last; that
they are of the same character under diffe-
rent circumstances; that they have no
individuality of style; that, on the con-
trary, they are almost undistinguishable
in form and substance from the first
epistle in which the writer speaks in his
own person, and from the speeches which
he places in the mouth of other charac-
ters, as the Baptist. These objections,
it will be seen, are quite independent of
any supposed incompatibility of the
accounts of St John and of the Synop-
tists, and require a separate examina-
tion. They arise out of the study of the
book itself, and must be considered first.
The apparent contrasts between the
records of the teaching of the Lord given
in the first three Gospels and in the
fourth will be noticed afterwards.

1. What has been already said as to
the conditions which determine the selec-
tion of representative details and of re-
presentative incidents in a narrative of
events applies with necessary limitations
to the historical record of teaching. It
is obvious that if a record of a debate of
several hours length is to be compressed
into a few sentences, the value of the
record will depend not upon the literal
reproduction of the exact words used
here and there or in a brief episode of
the discussion, but upon the power of
the historian to enter into the spirit of
the debate and to sketch its outline in
right proportion. The thoughts of the
speakers are more important than the
style of the speakers. And it is quite
conceivable that the meaning and effect
of a long discourse, when reduced to a
brief abstract, may be conveyed most
truly by the use of a different style, and
even, to a certain extent, of different
language from that actually employed.

Again: the style of a speaker enters
in very various degrees into his teaching,
according to his subject and his circum-
stances. Atone time it is of the essence :
at another time, it is wholly subordinate
to the general drift of the exposition.
The keen, pregnant saying, the vivid
illustration must be preserved exactly,
or their character is lost The subtle
argument may be best touched suggest-
THE GOSPEL

ively, so that the sympathetic reader can
supply the links which cannot be given
in full. A many-sided speaker will thus
furnish materials for very different
studies. But it would be wholly wrong
to conclude that the sketch which pre-
serves most literally those fragments of
his words, which are capable of being
so preserved, is more true than the
sketch which gives a view of the ulti-
mate principles of his doctrine. The
former may give the manner and even
the outward characteristics: the latter
may reveal the soul.

Now to apply these principles to the
discourses contained in the fourth Gos-
pel, it is undeniable that the discourses
of the Lord which are peculiar to St
John’s Gospel are, for the most part,
very brief summaries of elaborate dis-
cussions and expositions in relation to
central topics of faith. It is wholly out
of the question that they can be literally
complete reports of what was said. From
the necessities of the case the Evangelist
has condensed his narrative. He has
not given, and he could not have given,
consistently with the nature of this work,
all the words which were actually
spoken ; and this being so, it follows that
he cannot have given the exact words
or only the words which were spoken.
Compression involves adaptation of
phraseology. And when once we realise
the inevitable conditions of condensation,
we find ourselves constrained to trust (in
this case as in others) to the insight and
power of him who selects, arranges, em-
phasizes words which are in his judg-
ment best suited to convey the propor-
tionate impression of discourses which
he apprehends in their totality.

One or two illustrations will shew how
a conversation is compressed in St John’s
narrative. A simple example is found in
xii. 34. The question of the Jews turns
upon the title ‘Son of man,’”’ which has
not been recorded in the context. But
it is easy to see how the previous refer-
ences to the sufferings of Christ in
connexion with the universality of His
mission gave a natural opportunity for
the use of it. The Evangelist however
has noticed only the fundamental facts.
The reader himself supplies what is
wanting for the explanation of the abrupt
use of names. The idea of ‘‘ elevation”

OF Sr. JOHN. Wii
is the key to the thought, and that word
St John has preserved in his record of
what had gone before (v. 32): the title
“Son of man” was already familiar, and
he passes over the particular phrase in
which it occurred.

In viii. 34 ff. there is a more complicated
and still more instructive example of the
compression of an argument. The re-
corded words do no more than give the
extreme forms: the course which the
spoken words must have followed can
only be determined by careful thought,
though it can be determined certainly.
Men are sinners, and if sinners then
slaves of sin. What, therefore, is the
essential conception of slavery? It is
an arbitrary, an unnatural, relation : the
opposite of sonship, which expresses a
permanent, an absolute connexion an-
swering to the very constitution of things.
The communication of sonship to the
slave is consequently the establishment
of his freedom. And in spiritual things
He alone can communicate the gift to
whom the dispensation of it has been
committed. If, therefore, ‘The Son ?—
the one absolute Son—give freedom,
they who receive it are free indeed. The
imagery of a whole parable lies im-
plicitly in the brief sentence.

In other cases ‘‘ answers” of the Lord
evidently point to detailed expressions of
feeling or opinion with which the Evan-
gelist was familiar, and which yet he has
not detailed: e.g. xii. 23,35. At the
close of his account of the public minis-
try of Christ he gives, without any con-
nexion of place or time, a general sum-
mary of the Lord’s judgment on His
hearers (xii. 44—50). The passage is
apparently a compendious record and
not a literal transcription of a single
speech.

And so elsewhere it is probable that
where no historical connexion is given,
words spoken at different times, but all
converging on the illumination of one
truth, may be brought together: e.g. x.
(Adyou, v. 19).

The force of these considerations is
increased if, as seems to be surely
established, most of the discourses re-
corded by St John were spoken in Ara-
maic. Whatever may have been_ the
case in some other parts of Palestine, a
large and miscellaneous crowd gathered
Iviii

at Jerusalem was able to understand
what was spoken to them “in the Hebrew
tongue” (Acts xxi. 40), and the favour
of the multitude was conciliated by the
use of it. The divine voice which St
Paul heard was articulate to him in He-
brew words (Acts xxvi. 14). St Peter
evidently spoke in an Aramaic dialect
in the, court of the high-priest, and
the bystanders not only understood him
but noticed his provincialism (Matt.
xxvi. 73; Mark xiv. 70). Aramaic, it is
said, in the Acts (i. 19), was the proper
language of ‘‘ the dwellers in Jerusalem ”’
(ry Scadexrw adrdv), And again, the title
with which Mary addressed the risen
Lord was ‘‘Hebrew” (‘PoGGovvei, John
xx. 16). The phrase which the Lord
quoted from the Psalms upon the cross
was “‘ Hebrew” (Mark xv. 34). These
indications, though they were absolutely
conclusive,are yet convergent, and lead
to the conclusion that at the Holy City
and in intercourse with the inner circle
of the disciples Christ used the ver-
nacular Aramaic dialect. As claiming
to be the fulfiller of the Law, He could
hardly have done otherwise without of-
fering violence to the religious instincts
of the nation. If then He spoke in Ara-
maic on those occasions with which St
John chiefly deals, the record of the
Evangelist contains not only a com-
pressed summary of what was said, but
that also a summary in a translation 1
It may be remarked yet further that
the providential office of St John was to
preserve the most universal aspect of
Christ’s teaching. His experience fitted
him to recall and to present in due pro-
portions thoughts which were not under-
stood at first. In this way it is probable
that his unique style was slowly fash-
ioned as he pondered the Lord’s words
through long years, and delivered them
to his disciples at Ephesus. And there
is nothing arbitrary in the supposition
that! the Evangelist’s style may have been
deeply influenced by the mode in which
Christ set forth the mysteries of His own

1 It may be sufficient to add, without enter-
ing furtherintothe subject, that the testimony
of Josephus ‘Antt.’ xx. 11 2 is explicit as to
the feeling with which Jews regarded Greek
as a foreign language, and to the fact that the
Jews of Jerusalem habitually spoke Aramaic
(‘c. Apion ’ i. 9, povos adrds cvvinr).

INTRODUCTION TO

Person. Style changes with subject, ac-
cording to the capacity of the speaker;
and St John’s affinity with his Lord,
which enabled him to reproduce the
higher teaching, may reasonably be sup-
posed to have enabled him also to pre-
serve, as far as could be done, the
characteristic form in which it was con-
veyed.

However this may have been, such a
view of St John’s record of the Lord’s
discourses as has been given derogates
in no respect from their complete au-
thority and truthfulness. A complete re-
production of the words spoken would
have been as impossible as a complete
reproduction of the details of a compli-
cated scene. Even if it had been possible
it would not have conveyed to us the right
impression. Aninspired record of words,
like an inspired record of the outward
circumstances of a life, must be an inter-
pretation. The power of the prophet
to enter into the divine thoughts is the
measure of the veracity of his account.

Thus the question finally is not whether
St John has used his own style and lan-
guage in summarising the Lord’s teach-
ing, but whether he was capable of so
entering into it as to choose the best
possible method of reproducing its sub-
stance. It may or may not be the case
that the particular words, in this sentence
or that, are his own. We are only con-
cerned to know whether, under the cir-
cumstances, these were the words fitted
to gather into a brief space and to con-
vey to us the meaning of the Lord. We
may admit then that St John has recorded
the Lord’s discourses with ‘‘ freedom.”
But freedom is exactly the reverse of
arbitrariness, and the phrase in this con-
nexion can only mean that the Evan-
gelist, standing in absolute sympathy
with the thoughts, has brought them
within the compass of his record in the
form which was truest to the idea.1

These considerations seem to be
amply sufficient to meet the objections
which are urged against the general form

* In this connexion the notes which are given
by the Evangelist in ii. 21, vii. 39, xii. 33, are
of the greatest importance. If he had not
kept strictly to the essence of what Christ
said, he might easily have brought out in the
saying itself the sense which he discovered in
it at a later time.
THE GOSPEL

of the discourses in St John. A more
particular examination will shew how
far the more special objections which are
based upon their alleged monotony are
valid.

2, St John, as we have seen, writes with
the purposebf- revealing tohis readers the
Person of the Lord, and shews Him to
be ‘‘the Christ,” and ‘‘the Son of God.”
As a natural consequence he chooses for
his record those discourses which bear
most directly upon his theme, and dwells
on that side of those discourses which is
most akin to it. It will be seen later
that the Synoptists have preserved clear
traces of this teaching, but it was not
their object to follow it out or to dwell
upon it predominantly. With St John it
was otherwise. He wished to lead others
to recognise Christ as what he had him-
self found Him to be. There is there-
fore in the teaching which he preserves
an inevitable monotony up to a certain
point. The fundamental truths of the
Gospel as an object of faith are essen-
tially simple. They do not, like questions
of practice and morals, admit of varied
illustration from life. Christ is Himself
the sum of all, and St John brings to-
gether just those words in which on
exceptional occasions (as it appears)
He revealed Himself to adversaries and
doubters and friends. For there is an
indication that the discourses recorded
by St John are not (so to speak) average
examples of the Lord’s popular teaching,
but words called out by peculiar circum-
stances. Nothing in the fourth Gospel
corresponds with the circumstances under
which the Sermon on the Mount, or the
great group of parables were spoken.
On the other hand, the private discus-
sions with Nicodemus and the woman of
Samaria find no parallels in the other
Gospels, and yet they evidently answer
to conditions which must have arisen.
The other discourses, with the exception
of those in ch. vi., which offer some pe-
culiar features, were all held at Jeru-
salem, the centre of the true and false
theocratic life. And more than this: they
were distinctively festival discourses, ad-
dressed to men whose religious feelings
and opinions were moved by the circum-
stances of their meeting. On such oc-
casions we may naturally look for special
revelations, The festivals commemorated

OF Sr. JOHN. lix
the crises of Jewish history ; and a closer
examination of the discourses shews that
they had an intimate connexion with the
ideas which the festivals represented.
As long as the Jewish system remained,
this teaching would be for the most
part unnoticed or unintelligible. When
the old was swept away, then it was pos-
sible, as the result of new conditions of
religious growth, to apprehend the full
significance of what had been said.

Yet further: while there is so far a
“monotony” in the discourses of St
John that the Lord, after the beginning
of His public ministry, turns the thoughts
of His hearers in each case to Himself,
as the one centre of hope, yet the form
in which this is done presents a large
variety of details corresponding with the
external circumstances under which the
several discourses were held, and there
is also a distinct progress in the revela-
tion. The first point will be touched
upon in the next section: the second
becomes evident at once, if account be
take1i of the order of the successive ut-
terances of the Lord, and ofthe limits of
possible change in the variable element
which they contain.

It is undoubtedly true that as we read
St John’s Gospel in the light of the Pro-
logue we transfer the full teaching which
that contains into all the later parts of
the narrative,and that they derive their
complete meaning from it. But ifthe dis-
courses are examined strictly by them-
selves, it will be seen that they offer in
succession fresh aspects of the Lord’s
Person and work: that the appearances
of repetition are superficial: that each
discourse, or rather each group of dis-
courses, deals completely with a special
topic. Thus in ch, v. the Son and the
Jews are contrasted in their relation to
God, and from this is traced the origin of
unbelief. In ch. vi. the Son is shewn to
be the Giver and the Support of life. In
cc. vii., viii. He is the Teacher and the
Deliverer : in cc, ix., x.,the Founder of
the new Society. The discourses of the
eve of the Passion have, as will be seen
afterwards, a character of their own.

3. There is, then, a clear advance
and historical development in the self-
revelation of Christ as presented by St
John. There is also an intimate cor-
respondence between the several dis-
Ix

courses and their external conditions.
For the most part the discourses grew
(so to speak) out of the circumstances
by which they were occasioned. The
festival discourses, for example, are co-
loured by the peculiar thoughts of the
season. The idea of the Passover is
conspicuous in ch. vi., that of the Feast
of Tabernacles in cc. vii., viii., that of
the Dedication in ch. x. The traits of
connexion are often subtle and unem-
phasized, but they are unmistakable.
There is a psychological harmony be-
tween the words and the hearers for the
time being. Nothing less than a com-
plete and careful analysis of the Gospel
can bring home the force of this argu-
ment, but two illustrations will indicate
the kind of details on which it rests.
The scene by the well at Sychar illus-
trates one type of teaching (iv. 4—42) :
the discourse after the healing at Beth-
esda another (v. 19—47).

There can be no question as to the
individuality of the discourse with the
woman of Samaria. The scene, the
style, the form of opinion are all charac-
teristic. The well, the mountain (v. 20),
the fertile corn-fields (v. 35), form a
picture which every traveller recognises.
The style of the conversation is equally
life-like. The woman, with ready intelli-
gence, enters into the enigmatic form of
the Lord’s sentences. She gives question
for question, and, like Nicodemus, uses
His imagery to suggest her own difficul-
ties. At the same time, her confession
keeps within the limits of her traditional
faith. For her the Christ is a prophet.
And it is easy to see how the fuller tes-
timony of her countrymen unparalleled
in the Gospels was based upon later
teaching (v, 42), which their position en-
abled them to receive as the Jews could
not have done.

The discourse in ch. v. is characteristic
in other ways. It is the recorded begin-
ning of Christ’s prophetic teaching. He
unfolds the nature of His work and of
His Person in answer to the first accu-
sations of the Jews before some authori-
tative body (see v. 19, note). It is not
a popular discourse, but the outline of a
systematic defence. It springs naturally
out of the preceding act, and it appears
to refer to the circumstances of the
Feast. It is not so much an argument

INTRODUCTION TO

as a personal revelation. At the same
time it offers an analysis of the religious
crisis of the time. It discloses the rela-
tion in which Jesus stood to the Baptist
(33—35), to Moses (46), to revelation
generally (37 £), to Judaism (39 f.). It
deals, in other words, with just those
topics which belong to the beginnings of
the great controversy at Jerusalem.1}

One other illustration may be given to
shew the inner harmony which underlies
the progress of the self-revelation of the
Lord as recorded by St John. Without
reckoning the exceptional personal reve-
lations to the woman of Samaria (iv.
26), and to the man born blind (ix. 37),
the Lord reveals Himself seven times
with the formula ‘“‘I am,” five times in
His public ministry, and twice in the
last discourses. It must be enough here
to enumerate the titles. Their general
connexion will be obvious.

(1) vi. 35 ff. I am the Bread of life.

viii. 12 I am the Light of the
world.

Xs 7. Iam the Door of the Sheep.

X. II. Iam the good Shepherd.

xi. 25. I am the Resurrection and
the Life.

(2) xiv 6 I am the Way, and the

Truth and the Life.

xv. 1 ff. I am the true Vine.

4. But it is said that the language
attributed to the Baptist and that of the
Evangelist himself are undistinguishable
from that of the discourses of the Lord.
What has been said already shews to
what extent this must be true. St John

* It may be added also that the occasion
and contents of the discourse are in complete
agreement with the Synoptic narrative. In
these no less than in St John the open hostility
of the Jews starts from the alleged violation of
the Sabbath (Matt. xii. 2; Mark ii. 27 f.); and
they offer the following correspondences ot
thought with St John’s record :

v. 14, Matt. xii 45 (Luke xvii. 19).
vv. 19 f., Matt xi. 27; Luke x. 22,

v, 20, Matt. iii, 17.

v, 22, Matt. xxviii, 18.

v. 23, Luke x. 16 (Matt. x. qo).

vv. 22, 27, Matt. xvi. 27.

29, Matt. xxv. 32, 46.

. 30, Matt. xxvi. 39.

. 39, Luke xxiv. 27 (Matt. xxvi. 52),
- 43, Matt. xxiv. 5.

. 44, Matt. xiii. 14 ff, xviii. 1 ff,

. 46, Luke xvi. 31.

esssese
THE GOSPEL

deals with one aspect of the truth, and
uses the same general forms of speech to
present the different elements which con-
tribute to its fulness. But beneath this
superficial resemblance there are still
preserved the characteristic traits of the
teaching of each speaker. There is, as
has been pointed out, a clear progress in
the Lord’s revelation of Himself. The
words of the Baptist, coming at the com-
mencement of Christ’s work, keep strictly
within the limits suggested by the Old
Testament. What he says spontaneously
of Christ is summed up in the two
figures of the ‘‘ Lamb” and the ‘“‘ Bride-
groom,” which together give a compre-
hensive view of the suffering and joy,
the redemptive and the completive work
of Messiah under the prophetic imagery.
Both figures appear again in the Apoca-
lypse; but it is very significant that they

OF St. JOHN. Ixi
do not occur in the Lord’s teaching in
the fourth Gospel or in St John’s epis-
tles. His specific testimony, again, this
is the Son of God (i. 34), is no more
than the assertion in his own person of
that which the Synoptists relate as a
divine message accompanying the Bap-
tism (Matt. iii. 17, and parallels). And
it is worthy of notice, that that which
he was before prepared to recognise in
Christ (i. 33) was the fulness of a pro-
phetic office which the other Evangelists
record him to have proclaimed as ready
to be accomplished (Matt. iii. 11)1.

Even in style too, it may be added,
the language assigned to the Baptist
has its peculiarities. The short answers,
Iamnot;No;Iam not the Christ (i. 20
f.), are unlike anything else in St John,
no less than the answer in the words of
prophecy (i. 23). Comp. iii. 29, note.

The correspondences of expression between the language attributed to the
Lord in the Gospel and the Epistles of St John are more extensive and more
important. They are given in the following table:

John iii. 11. We speak that we do
know, and testify that we have seen.

v. 32ff. There is another that beareth
witness of me; and I know that the wit-
ness which he witnesseth of me is true...
I receive not witness from man...

v. 24. He that heareth my word...is
passed from death unto life.

v. 38. ...ye have not his word abiding
in you.

vi. 56. He that eateth my flesh and
drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and
lin him. Comp. xiv. 17.

viii. 29. I do always those things
that please him.

viii. 44. He (the devil) was a mur-
derer from the beginning.

viii. 46. Which of you convinceth me
of sin?

viii. 47. He that is of God heareth
God’s words: ye therefore hear them
not, because ye are not of God.

x. 15. I lay down my life for the
Sheep.

1 John i. 1-3. That which was from
the beginning...which we have seen with
our eyes...for the life was manifested, and
we have seen it, and bear witness
(testify)...that which we have seen and
heard declare we unto you.

v. 9 ff. If we receive the witness of
men, the witness of God is greater: for
this is the witness of God which he hath
testified of his Son..,

jii.14. We know that we have passed
from death unto life, because we love the
brethren.

ti 14.
you.

iv. 15. Whosoever shall confess that
Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth
in him, and he in God. Comp. v. 16;
iii, 24.

iii, 22. ...because we...do those things
that are pleasing in his sight.

iii. 8. ...the devil sinneth from the
beginning. Comp. iii, 2, 15,

iii. 5. ...in him is no sin,

the word of God abideth in

iv. 6. Weare of God: he that know-
eth God heareth us; he that is not of
God heareth not us,

iii. 16. ...he laid down his life for us.

1 The passage, ili. 31-36, is to be attributed to the Evangelist and not to the Baptist. See note.
Ixii

John xrr. 35. He that walkethin dark-
ness knoweth not whither he goeth.

xiii. 34. A new commandment I give
unto you, That ye love one another; as I
have loved you, that ye also love one
another.

xv. 10. If ye keep my command-
ments, ye shall abide in my love.

xv. 18 If the world hate you...

xvi. 24. Ask and ye shall receive, that
your joy may be fulfilled.

xvi. 33. I have overcome the world.

Compare also the following passages :

iv, 22 f.
vi. 69 (wemior. Kk. éyvax.).
viii. 35.

In addition to these phrases there are
single terms, more or less characteristic,
which are common to the Lord’s dis-
courses and the Epistle: “‘true” (aAn-
Owds), ‘‘murderer,” “‘toask” (épwr¢v),
“to receive witness,’ ‘‘ the Son;” and
the frequent use of the final particle
(‘va)is found in both (xv. 12, xvii. 3;
compared with iii, 23).

An examination of the parallels can
leave little doubt that the passages in the
Gospel are the originals on which the
others are moulded. The phrases in the
Gospel have a definite historic con-
nexion: they belong to circumstances
which explain them. The phrases inthe
Epistle are in part generalisations, and
in part interpretations of the earlier lan-
guage in view of Christ’s completed work
and of the experience of the Christian
Church. This is true of the whole doc-
trinal relation of the two books, as will

INTRODUCTION TO

1 John ii. 11. ...he that hateth his bro-
ther...walketh in darkness, and knoweth
not whither he goeth...

iii. 23. This is his commandment, That
we should believe in the name of his Son
Jesus Christ, and love one another, as he
gave us commandment,

iv. 11. Beloved, if God sv loved us,
we ought also to love one another.
Comp. ii. 7 ff., iii. rz, 16.

iv. 16. God is love, and hethat dwell-
eth in love dwelleth in God, and God in
him,

iii. 13. Marvel not, my brethren, if
the world hate you.

i. 4. These things write we unto you,
that your joy may be fulfilled. Comp. 2.
John 12.

v. 4. This is the victory that over-
cometh ( vixjoaoa) the world, even our
faith,

v. 20,
iv. 16.
ii. 17,

be seen later on. The Epistle presup-
poses the Gospel, and if St John had
already through many years communi-
cated his account of the Lord’s teaching
orally to his circle of disciples, it is easy
to see how the allusions would be intel-
ligible to the readers of the Epistle if
it preceded the publication of the Gospel.
If the Epistle was written after the Gos-
pel was published, the use of the Lord’s
words in what is practically a com-
mentary upon them can cause no diffi-
culty.

The Prologue to the Gospel offers the
real parallel to this Epistle. In this
there is the same application of the
teaching of the Gospel from the point of
view of the advanced Christian society.
The exposition of the truth assumes the
facts and words which follow in the nar-
rative, while it deals with them freely
and in the Apostle’s own phraseology.

This will appear from the following table :

v. 1. In the beginning was the Word.

..the Word was with God (iv mpés).
Contrast xvii. 5.
..the Word was God.

i. 1. That which was from the begin-
ning...concerning the word of life...

i. 2. ... the eternal life, which was
‘vith the Father (#v mpés).

Vv. 20,
THE GOSPEL

v. 9. The true
into the world.

v. 5. The light shineth in the dark-
ness. Comp. xii, 35.

v. 12. AS many as received him, to
them gave he right to become children of
God...

light...was coming

—...to them that believe on his name.

v. 13. Which were born ... of God

(éyevv. ek),
v. 14. The Word became flesh.
— ... we beheld his glory.
v.18. No man hath seen  (&ipaxev)
God at any time. Comp. vi. 46,

These parallels, which are found in
eighteen verses only, offer, as it will be
felt, a close affinity to the Epistle not in
language only, but in formulated thought.
And further, the Prologue and the Epistle
stand in the same relation of dependence
to the discourses. In this respect it is
interesting to compare what is said in
the Prologue on ‘the Life,’? and ‘ the
Light,” and “the Truth,” with the pas-
sages in the Lord’s words from which
the Evangelist draws his teaching.

(t) The Life. Comp. v. 26, xi. 25,
xiv. 6,

(2) The Light.
xii. 46,

(3) The Truth. Comp. viii. 32, xiv. 6.

It will be remembered that the car-
dinal phrases “‘ the Word,’”’ ‘‘ born (be-
gotten) of God,” are not found in the
discourses of the Lord.1

Elsewhere in the Gospel there are in
the narrative natural echoes, so to speak,
of words of the Lord (ii. 4 compared
with vii. 30, his hour was not yet come) ;
and correspondences which belong to
the repetition of corresponding circum-
stances (iv. 12 ll viii. 53; iii. 2 llix. 33),
ot to the stress laid upon some central
truth (vii, 28 llix. 29 f. Ilxix. 9). Still
the conclusion remains unshaken that
the discourses of the Lord have a marked

Comp. viii. 12, ix. 5,

* The remarks made upon the Prologue
generally, including the brief comment on the
Baptist’s testimony (i. 16—18), apply also to
the two comments of the Evangelist upon the
conversation with ‘‘the teacher of Israel”? (iii.
16—2t), and on the Baptist’s last testimony
(iii. 3136). See notes.

OF Sr. JOHN. xiii
ii. 8. The darkness is past, and the
true light now shineth,

iii, 1. Behold, what manner of love
the Father hath given unto us, that we
Should be called children of God, and
such we are (kal éopev).

v. 13. ...you that believe on the name
of the Son of God.

v. i. Whosoever believeth that Jesus
is the Christ is born of God (yeyévv. éx),

iv. 2. Every spirit that confesseth that
Jesus Christ'is come in the flesh is of God.
ir. That which we beheld.

iv. 12. No man hath beheld (reéarat)
God at any time. Comp. v. 20.

character of their own, that they are the
source of St John’s own teaching, that
they perfectly fit in with the conditions
under which they are said to have been
delivered.

7. The Last Discourses.

But it may be said that the last dis-
courses, in which there may have been
some compression yet not such as to
alter their general form, offer peculiar
difficulties : that they are disconnected,
indefinite, and full of repetitions: that
it is most improbable that thoughts
so loosely bound together could have
been accurately preserved in the memory
for half a century: that we must there.
fore suppose that the Evangelist here at
least has allowed his own reflections to
be mingled freely with his distant recol-
lections of what the Lord said.

It may be at once admitted that these
discourses offer a unique problem. They
belong to an occasion to which there
could be no parallel, and it may be ex-
pected that at such a crisis the Lord
would speak much which ‘the disciples
understood not at the time,’’ over which
still some of them would untiringly re-
flect. Our modes of thought again
follow a logical sequence ; Hebrew modes
of thought follow a moral sequence.
With us, who trust to the instruction of
books, the power of memory is almost
untrained : a Jewish disciple was disci-
plined to retain the spoken words of his
master.

Thus we have to inquire primarily
Ixiv

whether the teaching really suits the
occasion? whether there is a discernible
coherence and progress in the discourses?
If these questions are answered in the
affirmative, it will be easy to understand
how a sympathetic hearer, trained as a
Jew would be trained, should bear them
about with him till his experience of
the life of the Church illuminated their
meaning, when the promised Paraclete
“taught him all things and brought all
things to his remembrance which Christ
had spoken.”

If the discourses are taken as a whole
it will be found that their main contents
offer several peculiarities. Three topics
are specially conspicuous: the mission
of the Paraclete, the departure and the
coming of Christ, the Church and the
world. And generally a marked stress
is laid throughout upon the moral
aspects of the Faith.

It is scarcely necessary to point out
the fitness of such topics for instruction
at such atime. If the Lord was what
the Apostles announced Him to be it is
scarcely conceivable that He should not
have prepared them by teaching of this
kind before His departure, in order that
they might be fitted to stand against the
antagonism of the Jewish Church, and
to mould the spiritual revolution which
they would have to face, The book of
the Acts—“‘the Gospel of the Holy
Spirit ’—is in part a commentary upon
these last words.

At the same time it is most important
to observe that the ideas are not made
definite by exact limitations. The teach-
ing gains its full meaning from the later
history, but the facts of the later history
have not modified it, The promises and
warnings remain in their typical forms.
At first they could not have been intelli-
gible in their full bearing. The fall of
Jerusalem at length placed them in their
proper light, and then they were re-
corded.

The moral impress of the last dis-
courses is clear throughout. They are a
serinon in the chamber to the Apostles,
completing the Sermon on the Mount to
the multitudes. In this section only
Christ speaks of His ‘‘ commandments”
(évroAai, évroAn, Xiv. 15, 21, XV. 10, xiii.
34, XV. 12; comp. xv. 14, 17), and by
the use of the word claims for them 4

INTRODUCTION TO

divine authority. Tue commandments
are summed up in one, “to love one
another.” The love of Christian for
Christian is at once the pattern and the
foundation of the true relation of man to
man. And as the doctrine of love springs
out of Christ’s self-sacrifice (xv. 13, xiii.
34), so it is peculiar to these discourses
in the Gospel. The time had come when
it could be grasped under the influence
of the events which were to follow.

The successive forms under which the
principle of love is inculcated illustrate
the kind of progress which is found
throughout the chapters (e.g. xiii. 34,
xv. 12). The three following passages
will indicate what is meant :

xiv. 15. If ye love me, ye will keep
(tnpioere) my commandments.

xiv. 21. He that hath my command-
ments, and keepeth them, he it is that
loveth me: and he that loveth me shall
be loved of my Father, and I will love
him, and will manifest myself to him.

xv. 10. If ye keep my commandments,
ye shall abide in my love; even as I
have kept my Father’s commandments,
and abide in his love.

At a first 1eading it might be easy to
miss the advance from obedience resting
on love to progressive knowledge, and
then to a divine certainty of life. When
the relation of the three connected texts
is seen, it is difficult not to feel that
what appears to be repetition is a vital
movement.

A similar progress is noticeable in the
four chief passages which describe the
work of the Paraclete :

Xiv, 16, 17.
I will ask the Father, and
he shall give you another Paraclete,
that he may be with you for ever;
even the Spirit of truth,
whom the world cannot receive...

xiv. 26.
The Paraclete, even the Holy Spirit,
whom the Father will send in my name,
he shall teach you all things, and
bring to your remembrance all
things that I said unto you.
xv. 26.
When the Paraclete is come
whom I will send unto you from the
Father
THE GOSPEL

even the Spirit of truth,

which proceedeth from the Father,
he Shall bear witness of me.
xvi. 7 ff,
If I go not away, the Paraclete will not

come to you;

but if I go, I will send him unto you.

And he, when he is come, will convict
the world...

-.when he is come, even the Spirit of
truth,

he will guide you into all the truth...

Step by step the relation of the Para-
clete to Christ is made clear: (1) I will
ask, another Paraclete; (2) the Father
will send in my name; (3) I will send;
(4) if I go I will send him. And again
His work is defined more and more
exactly : (1) be with you for ever; (2)
teach all things...that I said unto you;
(3) bear witness of me; (4) convict the
world, guide into all the truth. Such
subtle correspondences are equally far
from design and accident: they belong
to the fulness of life.

The teaching on the relation of the
Church to the world, which is peculiar
to this section, moves forward no less
plainly. In xiv, 17, 22 ff., it is shewn
that the world is destitute of that sym-
pathy with the divine Spirit which is the
necessary condition of the reception of
revelation. Afterwards the hatred of the
world is foretold as natural (xv. 18 ff.) ;
and then this hatred is followed out to
its consequences (xvi. 1. ff.), Yet, on the
other hand, it is promised that the Spirit
shall convict the world; and at last
Christ declares that He Himself has
already conquered the world (xvi. 33).

The same general law of progress ap-
plies to the notices of Christ’s departure
and return in cc. xiv., xvi. In the first
passage the central thought is ‘I come;”’
attention is concentrated on what Christ
will do (xiv, 3, 18, 23). In the second
the thought is rather of the relation of
the disciples to Him (xvi. 16, 22).

These examples indicate at least the
existence of a real coherence and de-
velopment of thought in the discourses.
It is unquestionably difficult to follow
out the development of thought in detail.
In the notes an endeavour has been
made to do this. Here it must be suffi-
cient to give a brief outline of the general

OF Sr. JOHN. Ixv
course which the addresses take. These
form two groups, the discourses in the
chamber (xiii, 31—xiv.) and on the way
(xv., Xvi.). The predominant thoughts
in the first are those of separation from
Christ as He had been hitherto known,
and of sorrow in separation: in the
second, of realised union with Christ in
some new fashion, and of victory after
conflict,

I. THE DISCOURSES IN THE CHAMBER.
(xiii. 31—xiv.).

1. Separation, its necessity and issue
(xiii. 31—38).
(a) Victory, departure, the new Society
(31—35).
(B) The discipline of separation (St.
Peter) (36—38).

2. Christ and the Father (xiv. 1—11),

(a) The goal and purpose of departure
(1-4).

(B) The way to the divine (St Tho-
mas) (5—7).

(y) The knowledge of the Father (St
Philip) (8—11).

3. Christ and the disciples (xiv, 12—21).
(a) The disciples continue Christ’s
work (12—14).
(8) He still works for them (15—17).
(y) He comes to them Himself (18--
aI).

4. The lawand the progress of revelation
(22—31).
(a) The conditions of revelation (St
Jude) (22—24).
(8) The mode of revelation (25—27).
(y) Christ’s work perfected by His
return (28—31).

The teaching springs from the facts of
the actual position, and then deals with
successive difficulties which it occasions.

II. THE Discourses ON THE Way
(Xv., Xvi.)
1. The living union (xv. 1—10).
(a) The fact of union (1,2).

(8B) The conditions of union (3—6),
(y) The blessings of union (7—10).
Ixvi

2. The issues of union: the disciple and
Christ (11—16).

(a) Christ’s joy comes from sacrifice
(12, 13).

(8) The disciple’s connexion
Christ is by love (14, 15).

(y) It is stable as resting on His
choice (v, 16).

with

3. The issues of union: the disciples
and the world (17—27).
(a) Love of Christ calls out hatred
of the world (17—21).
(8) With this inexcusable hatred the
disciples must contend (22—-27)

4. The world and the Paraclete
(xvi. 1—11).
(a) The last issues of hatred (1—4)
(B) The necessity of separation (4—7).
(y) The conviction of the world (8--
11).

5. The Paraclete and the disciples
(12—I5).

(a) Hecompletes Christ’s work (12, 13),

(GB) and glorifies Christ (14, 15).

6. Sorrow turned to joy (16—24).

(a) A new relation (16, 17).

(B) Sorrow the condition of joy (19--
22).

(y) Joy fulfilled (23, 24).

7. Victory at last (25—33).
(a) A summary (25—28).
(B) A confession of faith (29, 30).
(y) Warning and assurance (31—33).

The form of the discourse is changed.
The Lord reveals uninterruptedly the
new truths, till the close, when the dis
ciples again speak no longer separately,
but, as it were, with a general voice.
The awe of the midnight walk has fallen
upon them,

It is not of course affirmed that this
view of the development of the discourses
is exhaustive or final; but at least it is
sufficient to shew that they are bound
together naturally, and that the depend-
ence of the parts is such as could be
easily apprehended and retained by those
who listened. There is novelty under
apparent sameness : there is variety under
apparent repetition : there is a spiritual

INTRODUCTION TO

connexion underneath the apparently
fragmentary sentences. This is all that
it is necessary to shew. As far as we
can venture to judge the words befit the
occasion : they form a whole harmonious
in its separate parts: they are not
coloured by later experiences: they
might easily have been preserved by the
disciple who was in closest sympathy
with the Lord.

II]. CHARACTERISTICS OF THE GOSPEL.
1. Relation to the Old Testament.

St John recognises in his narrative the
divine preparation for the advent of
Christ which was made among the na-
tions. Such a discipline is involved in
the view which he gives of the general
action of the Word before His Incarna-
tion (i 5), and particularly in his affirma-
tion of His universal working (i. 9). Nor
was this discipline wholly without imme-
diate effect. At the time of the advent
Christ had other sheep, which were not
of the Jewish fold (x. 16). There were
children of God scattered abroad (xi. 52) :
some who had yielded themselves to the
guidance of the divine light which had
been given to them, and who were eager
to welcome its fuller manifestation (iii.
20 ff.) : citizens of a kingdom of truth
waiting for their king (xviii, 37).

But while these broader aspects of the
divine counsel find a place in the fourth
Gospel, St John brings out with especial
force that the discipline of Israel was
the true preparation for the Messiah,
though Judaism had been perverted into
a system antagonistic to Christianity, and
Christ had been rejected by His own
people. If he affirms more distinctly
than the other apostolic writers, from the
circumstances of his position, that the
Jews had proved to be ignorant of the
contents and scope of the revelation
which had been committed to them (v.
37 ff.), and of the nature of the Lorp
whom they professed to worship with
jealous reverence (xvi. 3, Vii. 28, viii. 19,
54 f., xv. 21); if he affirms that their
proud confidence in the literal interpre-
tation of the facts of their providential
lnistory was mistaken and delusive (Vv. 373
contrast Gen, xxxii. 30; Exod. xx, 18 fi.,
xXlv. 10; Deut. iv. 12, 36, v. 4, 22 :—vi.
THE GOSPEL

32, cf. Ps. lxxviii. 24); he affirms no less
distinctly that the old Scriptures did
point to Christ, and that the history was
instinct with a divine purpose. This
appears by (a) his general recognition
of the peculiar privileges of the Jews;
(b) his interpretation of types; (c) his
application of prophecies; and particu-
larly by his treatment of the Messianic
expectations of the people.

(a) The words of the Prologue, He
came to His own home (ra idia), and His
own people ( of idtor) received Him not (i.
11, note), place beyond question the
position which the Evangelist assigned
to his countrymen in the divine order.
They were in a peculiar sense the sub-
jects of the Christ. In this sense Christ
claimed their allegiance, and sovereign
authority in the centre of their religious
life. His greeting to Nathanael was:
Behold an Israelite indeed (i. 47): His
command in the temple at His first visit :
Make not my Father’s house a house of
merchandise (ii. 16). In answer to the
questionings of the Samaritan woman,
who placed the tradition of her fathers
side by side with that of the Jews,
He asserted the exceptional knowledge
and the unique office of His people: we
worship that which we know (iv. 22),
and salvation—the promised salvation
(%} cwrnpia)—is from (éx) the Jews (iv.
22), two phrases which mark at once the
progressive unfolding of the divine truth
(Heb. i. 1), and the office of the old dis-
pensation to furnish the medium out of
which the new should spring. In the
beginning of His conflict with official
Judaism, Christ assigns tothe Scriptures
their proper function towards Himself
(v. 39, 46 f.). From this point ‘the
Jews’ take upa position of antagonism,
and their privileges perish in their hands
(comp. pp. Ixxxv., Ixxxvi.).

(b) It is a significant fact that three
and three only of the old saints, Abra-
ham, Moses, and Isaiah, are mentioned
by the Lord or by the Evangelist in con-
nexion with Messiah. These three cover
and represent the three successive periods
of the training of the people: so subtle
and so complete are the harmonies which

. underlie the surface of the text. Christ
claimed for Himself testimonies from
the patriarchal, the theocratic, and the
monarchical stages of the life of Israei

OF Str. JOHN. Ixvii
viii. 56. Your father Abraham re-
joiced to see—in the effort tosee (iva iSp)
—my day: and he saw it, and was glad.
The point of the reference lies in the
view which it gives of the first typical
example of faith as reaching forward toa
distant fulfilment. It was not stationary,
but progressive. In that onward strain
lies the secret of the Old Testament.

The second reference to the patri-
archal history in the Gospel of St John
is the complement of this effort after the
remote. Abraham looked onwards to
that which was not yet revealed : Jacob
tested in his present covenant with God.
This aspect of faith also is recognised by
the Lord.

i. 51. Verily, verily, I say unto you, yé
shall see heaven opened, and the angels
of God ascending and descending upon
the Son of man.

The desire of Abraham was fulfilled
in the universal sovereignty of Christ :
the vision of Jacob was fulfilled in the
abiding presence of Christ. A greater
than Abraham brought freedom for all
through the Truth : a greater than Jacob
opened a well whose waters sprang up
within the believer unto eternal life.

The references to Moses are not less
pregnant. It is shewn that just as Christ
was the object to whom the patriarch
looked in the future and in the present,
so He was the object in regard of whom
all the discipline of the law was shaped.
Jesus said to the leaders of the Jews:
Had ye believed (Did ye believe) Moses,
ye would have believed (would believe)
me, for he wrote of me (v. 46).

This thought is brought out by refer-
ences both to details of the Law and also
to the circumstances which accompa-
nied the promulgation of the Law.

Twice the Lord defended Himself
from the charge of violating the Sabbath.
On each occasion He laid open a prin-
ciple which was involved in this institu-
tion.

v.17. My Father worketh even until
now, and I work,

The cessation from common earthly
work was not an end, but a condition for
something higher : it was nota rest from
work, but for work (see note ad loc.).

vii. 22. For this cause—by which I
have been moved in my healing—hatn
Moses given you circumcision (not that it
Ixviii

is of Moses, but of the fathers), and on
the sabbath ye circumcise a man.

The Sabbath, therefore, was subordi-
nate to the restoration of the fulness of
the divine covenant. It was made to
give way to acts by which men were
““made whole.”

The one reference to the idea of the
Passover is equally significant. These
things, the Evangelist writes in his
record of the crucifixion, were done ‘that
the Scripture should be fulfilled, A bone
of him shall not be broken (xix. 36,
note). The words come like an aftcr-
thought. They are left without definite
application, and yet in that single phrase,
by which the Lord is identified as the
true Paschal Lamb, the meaning of the
old sacrifices is made clear. ‘‘The Lamb
of God” is revealed as the one offering
to whom all offerings pointed.

The two interpretations of facts in the
history of the Exodus which St John has
given are even more remarkable than
these lights thrown upon the Mosaic
discipline and the Mosaic ritual. The
first is the interpretation of the brazen
serpent: the second the interpretation
of the manna.

Jesus said to Nicodemus: As Moses
lifted up the serpent in the wilderness,
even so muSt the Son of man be lifted up
(iii. 14). The Jews said: Our fathers
did eat the manna in the wilderness; as
it is written, He gave them bread from
heaven to eat. Jesus therefore said
unto them, Verily, verily,I say unto you,
Moses gave you not that bread from
heaven, but my Father giveth you the true
bread from heaven .,. Iam the bread of
life...(vi 31 ff.). Thus the most significant
deliverance from the effects of sin, and
the most striking gift of divine Provi-
dence recorded in the Pentateuch, are
both placed in direct connexion with
Christ. Ineach case that which was tem-
poral is treated as a figure of that which
is eternal. Great depths of thought are
opened. The life-long wanderings of the
Jews are shewn to bean image of all life.1

(c) St John’s dealing with the later
teaching of the prophets, the interpreters
of the kingdom, is of the same character.
He does not deal so much with external
details as with the inner life of prophecy.

’ Compare also the notes on vii. 37, viii. 12,
and above, p. vii.

INTRODUCTION TO

He presents Christ as being at once the
Temple (ii. 19), and the King (xii. 13).
He makes it clear that the new dispensa-
tion towards which the prophets worked
was one essentially of spiritual blessing.
The sense of complete devotion to God,
of the union of man with God in Christ,
of the gift of the Spirit through Him,
were the thoughts in which he found the
stamp of their inspiration. Thus it is
that he has preserved the words in which
the Lord gives us the prophetic descrip-
tion of the Messianic times: They shall
all be taught of God (vi. 45); and those
again in which He gathers up the whole
doctrine of Scripture on this head: If
any man thirst, let him come unto me
and drink. He that believeth on me, as
the scripture hath said, out of his belly
Shall flow rivers of living water (vii, 37 £.,
note); and those in which He shewed
that the conception of the union of God
and man was not foreign to the Old
Testament, when it was said even of un-
just judges, Ye are gods, because the
Word of God, in which was a divine
energy, came to them (x. 34 f., note).

On the other hand St John has re-
corded how the Lord recognised in the
hostile unbelief of the Jews the spirit
of their fathers, who hated the Lord’s
Anointed without a cause (xv. 25), and
pointed out how the treachery of Judas
had its counterpart in that of Ahitophel,
of whom it was written, He that eateth
bread with me hath lifted up his heel
against me (xiii. 18).

There is the same mysterious depth,
the same recognition of a spiritual under-
current incommon life,in the references
which the Evangelist himself makes to
the later books of Scripture. Once at
the beginning of the Gospel he tells how
the disciples were enabled to see ful-
filled in the Lord the words of the suffer-
ing prophet, The zeal of thine house shall
consume me (ii. 17); and at the close of
the account of the public ministry he
points out how the unbelief of the Jews,
the most tragic of all mysteries, had been
foreshadowed of old. These things, he
writes, said Isaiah, because—because, not
when (Sr not dre, see note)—he saw
Christ’s glory, and spake of Him in the
most terrible description of the unbelief
and blindness of Israel (xii. 37 ff.1),

‘ The following table of the prophecies
THE GOSPEL

{t seems to be impossible to study
such passages without feeling that the
writer of the fourth Gospel is penetrated
throughout — more penetrated perhaps
than any other writer of the New Testa-
ment—with the spirit of the Old. The
interpretations which he gives and re-
cords, naturally and without explanation
or enforcement, witness to a method of
dealing with the old Scriptures which is
of wide application. He brings them
all into connexion with Christ. He
guides his readers to their abiding mean-
ing, which cannot be broken; he warns
the student against trusting to the let-
ter, while he assures him that no frag-
ment of the teaching of the Word of God
is without its use. And in doing this he
shews also how the scope of revelation
grows with the growth of men. With-
out the basis of the Old Testament,
without the fullest acceptance of the un-
changing divinity of the Old Testament,
the Gospel of St John is an insoluble
riddle.

2. The unfolding of the Messianic idea.

The history of the Gospel of St John
is, as has been seen, the history of the
development of faith and unbelief, of
faith and unbelief in Christ’s Person. It
is therefore under another aspect the his-
tory of the gradual unfolding of the true
Messianic idea in conflict with popular
expectations. On the one side are the
hopes and the preoccupations of the

quoted in the Gospel will suggest further
illustrations :
Prophecies,
(1) Design marked (iva rAnp.Comp. xviii. 9).

(a) By the Evangelist.
xii. 38.
[xii. 40, dre efrev’Ho. )
xix. 24.
— 36.
[xix. 37, érépayp. Neyer]

(8) By Christ.
xiii. 18.
xv. 25.
(xvii. 12.]

(2) Coincidence marked (xaOus eos yeyp.,

(2) By the Evangelist
ii. 17.
xii, 14 f.

(8) By Christ.
vi. 45.

(Comp. vii. 38.,

xX. 34.
Compare also above, pp. xiii. t.

New Test.—Vot. II.

OF Sr. JOHN. Ixix
Jews : on the other side are the progres-
sive revelations of the Lord. And there
is nothing which more convincingly
marks the narrative as a transcript from
life than the clearness with which this
struggle is displayed. A summary out-
line of the Gospel from this point of
view will probably place the facts in a
distinct light.

The opening scene reveals the con-
trasted elements of expectation as they
had been called into activity by the
preaching of the Baptist (i. 19 ff.). The
Baptist’s words and testimonies (i. 29,
33, 36) were fitted to check the popular
zeal, and at the same time to quicken
the faith of those who were ready to re-
ceive and to follow that greater One who
should come after according tothe divine
promise (i. 29 f., 36). Soit came to pass
that some of his disciples found in Jesus,
to whom he mysteriously pointed, the
fulfilment of the old promises and of
their present aspirations (i. 35—42).
Others at once attached themselves to
the new Teacher (Rabbi, i. 38); and He
was acknowledged as Messiah (i. 41);
the Son of God, and King of Israel (i.
49). The “sign”? which followed con-
firmed the personal faith of these first
followers (ii, 11); but so far there was
nothing to shew how the titles which
had been at least silently accepted were
to be realised.

The cleansing of the temple was in
this respect decisive. Messiah offered
Himself in His Father’s house to His
own people, and they failed to under-
stand, or rather they misunderstood, the
signs which He gave them. As a conse-
quence, He did not commit himself unto
them, bécause He knew all men; and...
what was in man (ii. 23 ff.). The origin
of this misunderstanding is shewn in the
imperfect confession of Nicodemus (iii.
2 ff.), and in the complaint of the disci-
ples of the Baptist (iii. 26). On the
other hand, the testimony of Christ and
the testimony of the Baptist set the real
issue before men, as the Evangelist shews
in his comments on the words. The
Messiah of those whom the Evangelist
characterizes as ‘‘the Jews” had no place
in the work of Jesus; and His work as
Messiah had no place in their hearts.

Such was the situation at Jerusalem.
It was otherwise in Samaria. There Jesus

f
xx

could openly announce Himself to be
the Christ, inasmuch as the claim was
rightly though imperfectly understood
(iv. 25 f.); and the confession of the
Samaritans who had sought His fuller
teaching shewed how far they were from
resting in any exclusive or temporal
hopes (iv. 42, the Saviour of the world,
according to the true reading).

The next visit to Jerusalem (ch. v.)
gave occasion for a fundamental exposi-
tion of the nature and work of the Lord,
and of the manifold witness to Him,
side by side with an analysis of the
causes of Jewish unbelief. The later
history is the practical working out of
the principles embodied in this dis-
course,

The first decisive division between the
followers of Christ was in Galilee. There
superficial faith was more prevalent and
more eager. The ‘‘ multitude’ wished
to precipitate the issue according to their
own ideas (vi. 14 f.). In answer to this
attempt Christ turned the minds of those
who came to Him by most startling
imagery from things outward, and fore-
shadowed His own violent death as the
condition of that personal union of the
believer with Himself, to bring about
which was the end of His work. So He
drove many from Him (vi, 60), while He
called out a completer confession of faith
from the twelve (vi. 69). Words which
had been used before (ch. i.), have now
a wholly different meaning. To believe
in Christ now was to accept with utter
faith the necessity of complete self-sur-
render to Him who had finally rejected
the homage of force.

The issue at Jerusalem was brought
about more slowly. The interval be-
tween ch, v. and ch. vii. was evidently
filled with many questionings (vii. 3 f.,
11 f.); and when Jesus appeared at Jeru-
salem He created divisions among the
multitude (vii. 30 f., 43). Some thought
that He must be the Christ from His
works (vii. 31), and from His teaching
(vii. 26, 37 ff., 46 ff.). They even ques-
tioned whether possibly their leaders
had reached the same conclusion (vii. 26,
éyvwrav), But they did not see that he
satisfied the prophetic tests which they
applied to Messiah (vii. 27, 42, 52).

In the midst of this uncertainty the
rulers openly declared themselves (vii.

INTRODUCTION TO

32, 48); and under their influence the
mass of the people fell away when Christ
set aside their peculiar claims and put-
poses (viii. 33, 58 f.). He still however
continued to lay open more truths as to
Himself, and revealed Himself to the
outcast of the synagogue as ‘‘the Son of
man” (ix. 35, note). Divisions spread
further (ix. 16, x. 19); and at last the
request was plainly put: If thou art the
Christ, tell us plainly (x. 24). Again,
the result of the answer was a more bitter
hostility (x. 39), and wider faith (x, 42).

The end came with the raising of
Lazarus. This was preceded by the
confession of Martha (xi. 27), and fol-
lowed by the counsel of Caiaphas (xi.
47 ff.). There was no longer any reason
why Christ should shrink from receiving
the homage of His followers. He ac-
cepted openly the title of King when
He entered the Holy City to die there
(xii. 13 ff.); and the public ministry
closed with the questioning of the people
as to “‘ the Son of man,’’ who seemed to
have usurped the place of Him who
should reign for ever (xii, 34).

Such a history of the embodiment of
an idea, an office, carries with it its own
verification. The conflict and complexity
of opinion, the growth of character, the
decisive touches of personal and social
traits, which it reflects, stamp it not only
as a transcript from life, but also as an

interpretation of life by one who had

felt what he records. The whole history
moves along with a continuous progress.
Scene follows scene without repetition
and without anticipation. The revelation
of doctrine is intimately connected with
a natural sequence of events, and is not
given in an abstract form. Thoughts
are revealed, met, defined from point to
point. We not only see individualised
characters, but we see the characters
change under intelligible influences as
the narrative goes forward. And this
is all done in the narrowest limits and in
a writing of transparent simplicity, Art
can shew no parallel. No one, it may
be confidently affirmed, who had not
lived through the vicissitudes of feeling,
which are indicated often in the lightest
manner, could have realised by imagina-
tion transient and complicated modes of
thought which had no existence in the
second century
THE GOSPEL

It did not fall within the scope of the
Synoptists to trace out the unfolding of
the Messianic idea in the same way; but
the teaching upon the subject which
they record is perfectly harmonious
with that of St John.

The Synoptists and St John agree in
describing (qa) the universal expectation
at the time of the Advent (Matt. iii. 5,
and parallels; John i. 41, 19, 20, iii. 26,
iv. 25); (8) the signs by which the
Christ should be heralded (Matt. xvi. 1;
John vi. 30 f.); the preparation by
Elijah (Matt. xi. 14 xvii. 10; John i.
21), and (none the less) the suddenness
of His appearance (Matt. xxiv. 26 f.;
John vii. 27); (y) the readiness of some
to welcome Him even as He came (Luke
ii, 25 ff., Symeon; 36, Anna; John i. 45,
Philip; 49, Nathanael).

They agree likewise in recording that
the Lord pointed to His death under
figures from an early time (Matt. ix. 15
and parallels; John iii. 14); and that
open hostility to Him began in conse-
quence of His claims to deal authorita-
tively with the traditional law of the
Sabbath (Matt. xii. 13 ff.; John v. 16);
and of His assumption of divine attri-
butes (Mark ii. 6; John v. 18).

There is, however, one difference in
this far-reaching agreement. All the
Evangelists alike recognise the pro-
phetic, royal, and redemptive aspects of
Christ’s work; but St John passes over
the special reference to the Davidic
type, summed up in each of the two
Synoptists by the title ‘‘ Son of David”’
(yet see vii. 42; Rev. v. 5, xxii. 16)1.
The explanation is obvious. The national
aspect of Messiah’s work passed away
when ‘‘ the Jews” rejected Him, It had
no longer in itself any permanent signi-
ficance. The Kingdom of Truth (xviii.
37) was the eternal antitype of Israel.
The Gospel was a message for the world.
The fall of Jerusalem proclaimed the
fact; and that catastrophe which inter-
preted the earlier experience of the
Apostle made the recurrence of like ex-
perience impossible.

Thus the fall of Jerusalem determined
the work of St John with regard to the
conception of the Lord’s office. The

? The title occurs twice only in the Epistles,

but in important passages : Rom. i. 3; 2 Tim.
ii. 8.

OF St. JOHN. Ixxi
apprehension of the absolute office of
Messiah corresponds with the apprehen-
sion of Christianity as essentially uni-
versal. These truths St John established
from Christ’s own teaching; and so by
his record the title of ‘‘ the Son of God’’
gained its full interpretation (xx. 31; I
John iv. 15, v, 13, 20).

St John shews in a word how Christ
and the Gospel of Christ satisfied the
hopes and destinies of Israel, though both
were fatally at variance with the domi-
nant Judaism. And in doing this he
fulfilled a part which answered to his
characteristic position. The Judaism in
which the Lord lived and the early Apo-
stles worked, and the Judaism which
was consolidated after the fall of Jeru-
salem, represented two distinct princi-
ples, though the latter was, in some sense,
the natural issue of the former. The one
was the last stage in the providential pre-
paration for Christianity : the other was
the most formidable rival to Christianity.

3. The Characters,

The gradual self-revelation of Christ
which is recorded in St John’s Gospel
carries with it of necessity the revelation
of the characters of the men among
whom He moved. This Gospel is there-
fore far richer in distinct personal types
of unbelief and faith than the others.

Attention has been called already
(pp. viii. ff.) to the characteristic traits by
which the classes of people who appear
in the history are distinguished—‘ the
multitude,’’ ‘the Jews,” ‘‘the Pharisees,”
“the high-priests.”” In them the broad
outlines of the nature of unbelief are
drawn. In the events of the Passion
three chief actors offer in individual
types the blindness, and the weakness,
and the selfishness, which are the springs
of hostility to Christ. Blindness—the
blindness which will not see—is con-
summated in the high-priest : weakness
in the irresolute governor: selfishness
in the traitor apostle. The Jew, the
heathen, the disciple become apostate,
form a representative group of enemies
of the Lord.

These men form a fertile study. All
that St John records of Caiaphas is con-
tained in a single sentence; and yet in
that one short speech the whole soul of
Ixxii

the man is laid open. The Council in
timid irresolution expressed their fear
lest ‘the Romans might come and take
away both their place and nation if
Christ were let alone.’ They had petri-
fied their dispensation into a place and
a nation, and they were alarmed when
their idol was endangered. But Caiapbas
saw his occasion in their terror. For him
Jestis was a victim by whom they could
appease the suspicion of their conquer-
ors: Ye know nothing at all, nor con-
sider that it is expedient for you that one
man should die for the people, and that
the whole nation perish not (xi. 49 f.).
The victim was innocent, but the life of
one could not be weighed against the
safety of a society. Nay rather it was,
as his words imply, a happy chance that
they could seem to vindicate their loyalty
while they gratified their hatred. To this
the divine hierarchy had come at last.
Abraham offered his son to God in obedi-
ence to the Father whom he trusted :
Caiaphas gave the Christ to Cesar in
obedience to the policy which had sub-
stituted the seen for the unseen.
Caiaphas had lost the power of seeing
the Truth: Pilate had lost the power of
holding it. There is a sharp contrast
between the clear, resolute purpose of
the priest, and the doubtful, wavering
answers of the governor. The jtdge
shews his contempt for the accusers, but
the accusers are stronger than he. It is
in vain that he tries one expedient after
another to satisfy the unjust passion of
his suitors. He examines the charge of
evil-doing and pronounces it groundless ;
but he lacks courage to pronounce an
unpopular acquittal. He seeks to move
compassion by exhibiting Jesus scourged
and mocked and yet guiltless; and the
chief-priests defeat him by the cry, Cru-
cify, Cruciyy (xix. 6). He hears His
claim to be a ‘‘ King not of this world”
and ‘“‘ the Son of God,” and is ‘‘the more
afraid;’’ but his hesitation is removed
by an argument of which he feels the
present power: If thou let this man go,
thou art not Cesar’s friend (xix. 12).
The fear of disgrace prevailed over the
conviction of justice, over the impression
of awe, over the pride of the Roman.
The Jews completed their apostacy when
they cried: We have no king but Cesar
(xix. 15); and Pilate,unconvinced, baffled,

INTRODUCTION TO

overborne, delivered to them their true
King to be crucified, firm only in this,
that he would not change the title which
he had written in scorn, and yet as an
unconscious prophet.

Caiaphas misinterpreted the divine
covenant which he represented: Pilate
was faithless to the spirit of the authority
with which he was lawfully invested :
Judas perverted the very teaching of
Christ Himself. If once we regard Judas
as one who looked to Christ for selfish
ends, even his thoughts become intelli-
gible. He was bound to his Master not
for what He was, but for what he thought
that he would obtain through Him.
Others, like the sons of Zebedee, spoke
out of the fulness of their hearts, and
their mistaken ambition was purified ;
but Judas would not expose his fancies
to reproof: St Peter was called Satan—
an adversary—but Judas was a devil, a
perverter of that which is holy and true.
He set up self as his standard, and by
an easy delusion he came to forget that
there could be any other. Even at the
last he seems to have fancied that he
could force the manifestation of Christ’s
power by placing Him in the hands of
His enemies (vi. 70, xviii. 6, notes). He
obeys the command to “ do quickly what
he did,’ as if he were ministering to his
Master’s service. He stands by in the
garden when the soldiers went back and
fell to the ground, waiting, as it were,
for the revelation of Messiah in His
Majesty. Then came the end. Heknew
the sovereignty of Christ, and he saw
Him go todeath. St John says nothing
of what followed; but there can be no
situation more overwhelmingly tragic
than that in which he shews the traitor
for the last time standing (eiorrxe.) with
those who came to take Jesus.

The types of faith in the fourth Gospel
are no less distinct and representative.
It is indeed to St John that we owe
almost all that we know of the individual
character of the disciples. St Peter, it
is true, stands out with the same bold fea-
tures in allthe Evangelists. St Matthew
and St Mark have preserved one striking
anecdote of the sons of Zebedee. St
Luke gives some traits of those who
were near the Lord in His Infancy, of
Zaccheeus, of Martha and Mary. But
we learn only from St John to trace
THE GOSPEL

the workings of faith in Nathanael, and
Nicodemus, and Andrew, and Philip,
and Thomas, and ‘‘the disciple whom
Jesus loved ;” in the woman of Samaria,
and in Mary Magdalene. As in the case
of Caiaphas, Pilate and Judas, a few
words and acts lay open the souls of all
these in the light of Christ’s presence.

Of St John it is not necessary to speak
again. His whole nature, his mode of
thought, his style of speech, pass by a
continuous reflection into the nature, the
thought, the style, of the Master for
whom he waited. In the others there is
a personality more marked because more
limited. To regard them only from one
point of view, in Nicodemus and the
woman of Samaria we can trace the
beginnings of faith struggling through
the prejudice of learning and the preju-
dice of ignorance. In St Philip and
St Thomas we can see the growth of
faith overcoming the hindrances of hesi-
tation and despondency. In St Peter
and St Mary Magdalene we can see the
activity of faith chastened and elevated.

The contrast between Nicodemus and
the woman of Samaria, the twoto whom
Christ, according to the narrative of St
John, first unfolds the mysteries of His
kingdom, cannot fail to be noticed. A
rabbi stands side by side with a woman
who was not even qualified in popular
opinion to be a scholar: a Jew with a
Samaritan: a dignified member of the
Council with a fickle, impulsive, villager.
The circumstances of the discourses are
not less different. The one is held in
Jerusalem, the other almost under the
shadow of the schismatical temple in
Gerizim : the one in the house by night,
the other in the daylight by the well-
side. Christ is sought in the one case;
in the other He asks first that so He
may give afterwards. The discourses
themselves open out distinct views of
the kingdom. To Nicodemus Christ
speaks of a new birth, of spiritual in-
fluence witnessed by spiritual life, of the
elevation of the Son of man in whom
earth and heaven were united: to the
Samaritan He speaks of the water of life
which should satisfy a thirst assumed to
be real, of a worship in spirit and truth,
of Himself as the Christ who should
teach all things.

But with all this difference there was

OF Str. JOHN. Ixxiii
one thing common to the Jewish ruler
and to the Samaritan woman. In both
there was the true germ of faith, It was
quickened in the one by the miracles
which Jesus did (iii. 2); in the other by
His presence. But both were drawn to
Him and rested in Him. Both expressed
their difficulties, half seizing, half miss-
ing His figurative language. Both found
that which they needed to bring them
into a living union with God. The pre-
tensions of superior knowledge and dis-
cernment were cast down. The suspicions
of rude jealousy were dispelled, The reve-
lation of a suffering Redeemer scattered
the proud fancies of the master of Israel :
the revelation of a heavenly Father
raised the conscience-stricken woman to
new hope. Even after the Crucifixion
Nicodemus, ‘‘who came by night at
first,’’ openly testified his love for Christ ;
and the Samaritan at once, forgetful of
all else, hastened to bring her country-
men to Him whom she had found.

Here we see the beginning of faith:
in St Philip and in St Thomas we see
something of the growth of faith. It is
an old tradition (Clem, Alex. ‘ Strom.’
lr. 4, § 25) that St Philip was the
disciple who asked the Lord that he
might first go and bury his father, and
received the stern reply, ‘‘ Follow thou
me, and let the dead bury their dead.”
Whether this be true or not, it falls in
with what St John tells us of him. He
appears to hang back, to calculate, to
rest on others. ‘‘ Jesus,’’ we read, ‘ find-
eth Philip” (i. 43). He had not himself
come to Jesus, though the words imply
that he was ready to welcome, or even
waiting for,the call which was first spoken
to him. So again, when the Lord saw
the multiude in the wilderness, it was to
Philip he addressed the question, to
‘‘prove him,” ‘‘Whence shall we buy
bread, that these ‘may eat?’ (vi. 5 ff.).
And even then he could only estimate
the extent of the want. He had no sug-
gestion as to how it must be met. But
if his was a slow and cautious and hesi-
tating faith, it was diffusive. He had no
sooner been strengthened by the words
of Christ than he in turn found Nathanael.
‘“We have found,” he saith, ‘‘ Him of
whom Moses in the Law and the pro-
phets wrote” (i. 45). He appealed, as
we must believe,to the witness of their
Ixxiv

common search in the Scriptures in
times gone by, and his only answer to
his friend’s doubt—the truest answer to
doubt at all times—was simply ‘‘ Come
and see.”” Yet his own eyes were holden
too in part. Even at the last he could
say, ‘‘ Lord, shew us the Father, and it
sufficeth us’ (xiv. 8). But he said this
in such a spirit that he received the
answer which for him and for us gives
faith an object on which it can rest for
ever: “Jesus saith unto him, Have I
been so long time with you, and yet hast
thou not known me, Philip? he that
hath seen me hath seen the Father”
(xiv. 9 £.).

Philip believed without confidence.
Thomas believed without hope. The
whole character of Thomas is written in
the first sentence which we hear him
speak: ‘‘Let us also go, that we may
die with him” (xi. 16). He could love
Christ even to the last, though he saw
nothing but suffering in following Him.
He knew not whither He went; how
could he know the way? (xiv. 5). But
even so, he could keep close to Him:
one step was enough, though that was
towards the dark. No voice of others
could move him to believe that which
of all he wished most. The ten might
tell him that the Lord was risen, but he
could not lightly accept a joy beyond all
that for which he had looked. ‘‘ Except
I shall see in His hands the print of the
nails, and put my finger into the print of
the nails, and thrust my hand into His
side, I will not believe’? (xx. 24 ff.).
But when the very test which he had
laid down was offered, the thought of
proof was lost in the presence of Christ.
He saw at once what had not yet been
seen. Themost complete devotion found
the most fervent expression in those last
words of faith, ‘‘My Lord, and my
God ”’ (xx. 27 f.). .

In this way disciples were led on little
by little to know the Master in whom
they trusted. Often they failed through
want of enthusiasm or want of insight.
Some there were also who failed by
excess of zeal. Mary Magdalene, when
the blindness of sorrow was removed,
would have clung to the Lord whom she
had again found, lest again He should
be taken from her. She would have
kept Him as she had known Him. She

INTRODUCTION TO

would have set aside the lesson that it
was good that He should go away. Then
came those words which at once satisfied
and exalted her affection, ‘‘Go unto my
brethren, and say to them, I ascend unto
my Father and your Father, and my
God and your God” (xx. 15 ff.). She,
the tender, loving woman, is made the
messenger of this new Gospel: she is
first charged to declare the truth in which
her own passionate desire was trans-
figured: she who would have chained
down heaven to earth is commissioned
to proclaim that earth is raised to heaven.

Something of the same kind may be
noticed in the history of St Peter. Un-
like Philip he is confident, because he
knows the strength of his love: unlike
Thomas he is hopeful, because he knows
whom he loves. But his confidence sug-
gests the mode of his action: his hope
fashions the form of its fulfilment. Peter
saith unto Jesus, ‘‘ Thou shalt never
wash my feet,’’ and then with a swift
teaction, ‘‘ Lord, not my feet only, but
also my hands and my head” (xiii. 6 ff.)
If he hears of a necessary separation, he
asks, ‘‘ Lord, why cannot I follow thee
now? I will Jay down my life for thy
sake” (xiii. 36 ff.). He draws his sword
in the garden (xviii. ro f.).: he presses
into the courtyard of the high-priest
(xviii. 16 ff.). He dares all and doubts
nothing. But when the trial came he
was vanquished by a woman. He had
chosen his own part, and the bitterness
of utter defeat placed him for ever at
the feet of the Saviour whom he had
denied. He knew, though it was with
grief, the meaning of the last triple
charge : he knew, though it was through
falls, the meaning of the answer to his
last question : If I will that he tarry till
I come, what is that to thee? Follow thou
me (xxi, 22).

There is one other character common
to all four Evangelists which cannot be
altogether passed by. St John’s notices
of the Baptist have little externally in
common with the Synoptic narratives,
but they reveal a character which answers
to the stern figure of the preacher of
repentance. His last testimony to Christ
(iii, 27—30) completely corresponds with
the position of one who is looking for-
ward to a future dimly seen. The herald
must fulfil his herald’s work to the end
THE GOSPEL

His glory is to accept the necessity of
decline (iii. 30).

It is needless to add any comments
to this rapid enumeration of the charac-
ters who people the brief narrative of
St John. The vividness, the vigour,
the life, of their portraitures cannot be
mistaken or gainsaid. The different
persons shew themselves. They come
forward and then pass out of sight as
living men, and not like characters in a
legendary history. They have an office
not only separately but in combination.
They witness, in other words, not only to
the exactness but also to the spiritual
completeness of the record.

This fulness of characteristic life in
the fourth Gospel is practically decisive
as to its apostolic authorship. Those
who are familiar with the Christian litera-
ture of the second century will know
how inconceivable it is that any Christian
teacher could have imagined or pre-
sented as the author of the fourth Gospel
has done the generation in which the
Lord moved. The hopes, the passions,
the rivalries, the opinions, by which His
contemporaries were swayed had passed
away, or become embodied in new
shapes. A great dramatist could scarcely
have called them back in such narrow
limits as the record allows. Direct know-
ledge illuminated by experience and
insight, which are the human conditions
of the historian’s inspiration, offers the
only adequate explanation of the dra-
matic power of the Gospel.

4. Symbolism.

It will be evident from the illustrations
which have been already given that there
is a subtle and yet unmistakable har-
mony within the different parts of St
John’s Gospel; that each narrative which
it contains is to be considered not only
initself, but alsoin relation tothe others
with which it is connected : that fact is
interpreted by thought and thought by
fact: that the historical unity of the
book is completed by a moral and spirit-
ual unity. Underone aspect the lessons
of the Old Testament are illuminated by
Christ’s presence. Under another aspect
the characters which move about the
Lord offer typical representations of faith
and unbelief in their trials and issues.

OF Sr. JOHN. Ixxv
And in all this there is not the least
violence done to the outward history,
but there is simply a practical recogni-
tion of the necessary fulness which there
was in the Life, in the Words, and in the
Works of the Son of man,

St John himself is careful to explain
that all which he saw when he wrote his
Gospel was not clear to the disciples at
once. The words of the Lord to St Peter
had a wider application than to any one
detail: What I dothou knowest not now,
but thou shalt come to know (yvdoy) here-
after (xiii. 7). The Resurrection was the
first great help to this advance in know-
ledge (ii. 22, xii. 16); and the meaning
of the Resurrection itself was extended
when Christ raised a new Temple in
place of the old after the fall of Jerusa-
lem, and His Church was finally estab-
lished (ii. 19, note).

There can then be no cause for sur-
prise if St John, looking back over the
whole range of his experience, selects just
those parts of Christ’s ministry for his
record which fit together with the most
complete mutual correspondences. Such
a selection would not be so much the
result of a conscious design as of a
spiritual intuition. His Gospel was in
the truest sense of the word a “ pro-
phecy,”’ a revelation of the eternal under
the forms of time,

In this respect the miracles of the
Lord which he has related form an
instructive illustration of his method.
Taken together they are a revelation of
Christ, of ‘His glory.” A very brief
examination of them will be sufficient to
establish by this one example that prin-
ciple of a spiritual meaning in the plan
and details of the Gospel which I have
called the symbolism of St John.

The two characteristic names which
miracles bear in St John’s Gospel mark
distinctly the place which he assigns to
them in relation to the general course of
the divine government. They are signs
(ii. 11, note) and they are works (v. 20,
note). They are “signs” so far as they
lead men to look beneath the surface for
some deeper revelations of the method
and will of God, to watch for the action
of that spiritual ministry— the angels
ascending and descending upon the Son
of man ’’—which belongs to the new dis-
pensation. They are ‘‘works” so far as
Ixxvi

they take their place among the ordinary
phenomena of life (v. 17), differing from
them not because they involve any more
real manifestation of divine energy but
simply because they are suited to arrest
attention. They are “signs” in short,
for they make men feel the mysteries
which underlie the visible order. They
are ‘“‘works,’’ for they make them feel
that this spiritual value is the attribute
of all life.

St John has recorded in detail seven
miracles of Christ’s ministry and one of
the risen Christ. Their general con-
nexion with the structure of his Gospel
(see p. xlii.) will appear from the follow-
ing table:

1. The water turned to wine, ii. 1—11.
The nobleman’s son healed, iv. 46—

54.
2. The paralytic at Bethesda, v. I—15.
The feeding of the five thousand,
vi. I—I5.
The walking on the sea, vi, 16—a1.
The restoration of the man born
blind, ix. 1—12.
. The raising of Lazarus, xi. 17—44.
3. The miraculous draught of fishes,
Rxi, I—I2.

Of these the first two give the funda-
mental character of the Gospel, its nature
and its condition : the next fiveare signs
of the manifold working of Christ, as the
restoration, the support, the guidance,
the light and the life of men: the last is
the figure of all Christian labour to the
end of time.

The first two miracles, which the
Evangelist significantly connects to-
gether as wrought at Cana, seem at first
sight to have nothing in common, They
are given without any comment except
the record of their effects (ii. 11, iv. 53).
But these two brief notes give the clue
to the interpretation of the signs. They
shew from the beginning that Christian-
ity is the ennobling of alllife, and that its
blessings are appropriated only by faith.

The change of the water into wine has
always been rightly felt to be a true
symbol of Christ’s whole work. The
point of the second miracle at Cana lies
in the discipline of faith. The request
to Christ (iv. 47) was itself a confession
of faith, yet that faith was not accepted

INTRODUCTION TO

as it was. It was necessary at once to
raise faith to the unseen. Whatever
outward signs may be granted they do
but point to something beyond. At the
commencement of His ministry Christ
declared in act what He repeated after.
wards at its close: Blessed are they that
see not, and yet believe.

The four chief miracles which are con-
nected with Christ’s conflict form the
basis on each occasion of discourses in
which their lessons are enforced. Here
there can be no doubt of the symbolism :
it is declared unmistakably that the works
are “‘ signs,” charged with a divine pur-
pose. In the case of the paralytic suffer-
ing is definitely connected with sin (v.
14). Christ removes the malady spon-
taneously and on a Sabbath. Such action
is revealed to be after the pattern of
God’s action: My Father worketh even
until now, and I work (v. 17), God seeks
without ceasing to repair by tenderness
and chastisement the ravages which sin
has made in His creation, and to lead it
onward to its consummation.

In the feeding of the five thousand the
teaching is carried a step further. Man
needs not restoration only but support.
He has wants as well as defects: he has
to struggle against material difficulties.
Christ reveals Himself as sufficient to
supply every craving of man, and as
sovereign over the forces of nature: I
am the bread of life. He that cometh to
me shall never hunger; and he that be-
lieveth on me shall never thirst...(vi. 35).
What then if ye should behold the Son
of man ascending where He was before?
It is the spirit that quickeneth (vi. 62 f.).
So the works are invested with a perma-
nent prophetic power.

Man needs support and he needs en-
lightenment also; for we must go for-
ward, and in one sense we are ‘ blind
from our birth.” This is the next lesson
of the miracles’ which St John records.
Before the blind regained his sight at
Siloam Christ said: When (érav) I am
in the world, I am the light of the world
(ix, 5). Sight was given to the obedient
disciple. The Pharisees refused to read
the sign which conflicted with their pre-
judices. And He then added: For judg-
ment I came into this world, that they
which see not may see; and that they
which see may be made blind (ix. 39).
THE GOSPEL

but even if failings be remedied, if
wants be satisfied, if light be given,
there yet remains one more terrible
enemy : death, physical death, comes at
last. Here also Christ gave a sign of His
power. In the very agony of apparent
loss He said: He that believeth in me,
even though he die, shall live; and who-
Soever liveth and believeth in me shall
never die (xi. 25 f.). And so far as any
single fact offered to the senses can con-
firm the truth, the raising of Lazarus
shewed that there is a Life sovereign over
physical life, a Life victorious over death.
The sequence of these ‘‘ signs,’ these
living parables of Christ’s action, these
embodiments of truth in deed, can
hardly be mistaken. Nor is the meaning
of the one miracle of the risen Lord less
obvious. The narrative is the figure of
the history of the Church. The long night
passes in what seems to be vain effort.
Christ stands in the dawn upon the
shore, and at first His disciples know
Him not. Even so in due time He is
revealed in blessing; and men are
charged afresh to use the new gifts
which He has enabled them to gather.
It would be easy to follow out these
correspondences and connexions of the
different parts of St John’s Gospel in
other directions and in fuller detail; but
enough has been said to direct attention
to the subject. If the principle be ac-
knowledged the application will follow.

IV. RELATION OF THE GOSPEL TO THE
OTHER APOSTOLIC WRITINGS.

1. The Relation of the Fourth Gospel
to the Synoptists.

It is impossible for any one to turn
directly from the first three Gospels to
the Fourth without feeling that he has
been brought in the later record to a
new aspect of the Person and Work of
Christ, to a new phase of Christian
thought, to a new era in the history of
the Christian Church. In this there is
a halo of divine glory always about the
Saviour even in scenes of outward
humiliation: the truths of the Gospel
are presented in their relations to the
broadest speculations of men : the society
of believers, of ‘‘brethren”’ (xx. 17,
%xi. 23), stands out with a clear

OF Sr. TOHN. Ixxvil
supremacy above the world. As we
compare the pictures more carefully,
and in this view they are two and not
four, we find that the general difference
between the Gospels which is thus obvious
reaches throughout their whole com-
position. The Synoptists and St John
differ in the general impression which
they convey as to the duration, the
scene, the form, the substance of the
Lord’s teaching. They differ also in
regard to the circumstances under which
they were composed. The latter differ-
ence furnishes the final explanation of
the former. And here it may be well to
make one remark on the total effect
which these differences produce upon
the student of the New Testament. At
first they are not realised in their true
weight and value. The conception of
the Lord which is brought to the study
of any Gospel includes elements which
are derived from all. Contrasts are
already reconciled. So it was with the
early Church. No teacher found the
Fourth Gospel at variance with the other
three, though they recognised its com-
plementary character. Then follows in
many cases an exaggerated estimate of
the importance of the differences which
are apprehended upon a careful com-
parison of the books. Fresh results
impress us more in proportion as they
are unexpected, and at variance with
our preconceived opinions. Still later
perhaps that comprehensive conception
of the subject of the Gospel is re-
gained by labour and thought, from
which, as a tradition,the study began;
and it is felt that a true and intelligible
unity underlies external differences,
which are now viewed in their proper
position with regard to the records and
to the subject.

Before considering the differences of
the correspondences of the Synoptists
and St John, it is necessary to apprehend
distinctly the fragmentary character of
the documents which we have to com-
pare. The narrative of St John, and
the narratives of the Synoptists, are alike
partial, and alike recognise a large area
of facts with which they do not deal.

1. Limited range of St John’s Gospel.
The Gospel of St John forms, as we have
seen, a complete whole in relation to
“its purpose ;”’ but as an external history
Ixxviii

it is obviously most incomplete. It is
a Gospel and not a Biography, an ac-
count of facts and words which have a
permanent and decisive bearing upon
the salvation of the world, and not a
representation of a life simply from a
human point of sight. The other Gos-
pels, as based upon the popular teaching
of the Apostles, include more details of
directly human interest, but these also
are Gospels and not Biographies. All
the Gospels are alike in this: they con-
tain in different shapes what was neces-
sary to convey the message of redemp-
tion to the first age and to all ages in
the unchangeable record of facts. Their
completeness is moral and spiritual and
not historical. The striking Jewish
legend as to the Manna was fulfilled in
Christ. He was to each true believer,
from the absolute completeness of His
Person, that which each desired; and
the Evangelists have preserved for the
society typical records of apostolic expe-
rience.

The fragmentariness of St John’s
record is shewn conclusively by his
notice of periods of teaching of unde-
fined length of which he relates no
more than their occurrence :

iii. 22. Jesus and his disciples came
into the land of Judea; and there he
tarried (SverpiBev) with them and baptized
..(iv, I—3) making and baptizing more
disciples than John. Comp. iv. 54.

vii. 1. After these things Jesus walked
(wepterdres) in Galilee; for he would
not walk in Judea, because the Jews
sought to kill him.

xX. 40—42. And he went away again
beyond Jordan, into the place where John
was at first baptizing; and there he
abode (the reading is uncertain, ¢uecvev or
epevev) ...and many believed on him there.

xi. 54. Jesus therefore walked no more
openly among the Jews, but departed
thence into the country near tothe wilder-
ness, into a city called Ephraim; and
there he abode ( éuewvev ) with the disciples.

The last passage seems to describe
a period of retirement, but the others
imply action and continuous labour in
Judzea, Galilee and Persea, of which St
John has preserved no details. He pass-
ed these over (such is the obvious expla-
nation) because they did not contribute

INTRODUCTION TO

materials necessary for the fulfilment of
his special purpose. And so again the
two days teaching in Samaria, at which
he was present, is represented only by
the confession which it called out (iv. 42).

The same conclusion follows from the
frequent general notices of ‘‘signs’’ and
“ works’? which find no special recital :

ii. 23. Many believed on his name
beholding his signs which he did (éroien).
Comp. iv. 45, The Galileans received
him, having seen all the things that he did
(0a éroinrev) in Jerusalem at the feast;
and iii. 2, No man can do these signs
that thou doest, except God be with him.

vi. 2. And a great multitude followed
him, because they beheld the signs which
he did ( éroie.) on them that were sick.

vii. 3. His brethren therefore said unto
him, Depart hence and go into Judea,
that thy disciples also may behold thy
works which thou doest.

vii. 31. But of the multitude many
believed on him; and they said, When
the Christ shall come, will he do more
signs than those which this man hath
done (éroincev)?

X. 32. Jesus answered them, Many
good works have I shewed you from the
Father; for which of those works do ye
stone me?

xi. 47. The chief priests... said, What
do we? for this man doeth many signs.

xii. 37. Though he had done so many
signs before them, yet they believed not
on him.

xx. 30. Many other signs therefore
did Jesusin the presence of the disciples
which are not written in this book...

XXi, 25. And there are also many other
things which Jesus did, the which, if
they should be written every one, I sup-
pose that even the world itself would not
contain the books that should be written.

A consideration of what the Lord’s
Life was, as it has been made known to
us, shews that this last summary state-
ment is only a natural expression of the
sense of that which we must feel to be
its infinite fulness. And the other pas-
sages open glimpses of a variety and
energy of action of which St John’s
narrative itself gives no completer view.
Of “‘allthat the Lord did” at Jerusalem,
which moved the faith alike of “ the
teacher of Israel,’ and of the “‘Galilaans,”
THE GOSPEL

he has noticed only the cleansing of the
temple. Of the healings of the sick in
Galilee, he has recorded only one. He
tells us nothing of ‘‘the disciples in
Judeea’’ (vii. 3), who might desire to see
works such as Christ wrought in other
places. Of the ‘“many good works”
shewn at Jerusalem (x. 32), two only are
given at length. A fair appreciation of
these facts will leave no doubt that St
John omitted far more events than he
related out of those which he knew. The
Gospel of the Church, which it was his
Office to write, might be expected to
take shape in special festival discourses
at the centre of the Old Faith. He deals
with aspects of Christ’s Life and teach-
ing which were not clear at first, but
became clear afterwards. And in doing
this he leaves ample room for other
accounts widely differing in character
from his own.

One other point deserves notice in this
connexion. The abrupt breaks in St
John’s narrative shew that he was
guided by something different from a
purely historic aim in his work. The
simple phrase after these things (iii. 22,
v. 1, vi. 1) is used to mark a decided
interval in time and place; and if the
interpretation of x. 22 which has been
adopted be correct, the transition in ix.
1 is not less sharp.1

2. Limited range of the Synoptists.
The Synoptic Gospels, no less than St
John, imply much more than they
record. The commencement of the
Galilean ministry in their narratives
not only leaves room for, but points
to, earlier work,

Matt. iv. 12. Now when he heard
that John was delivered up, he with-
drew (dvexdpnoev) into Galilee.

Mark i. 14. Now after that John
was delivered up, Jesus came into
Galilee preaching the Gospel of God.

The words have no force unless it be
supposed that the Evangelists referred to
an earlier ministry in Judzea which is
deliberately passed over (comp. John
ii., iii.). Nor is there anything in Luke
iv. 14 f. opposed to this view. The
summary which is there given may in-

1 Tt may be added that St John nowhere

notices scribes (viii. 3 is an interpolation), tax-
gatherers (‘‘publicans”’), lepers, or demoniacs.

OF St. JOHN. Ixxix
clude any period of time, and specifies
a wide area of place (comp. v. 23).

Again, the Sermon on the Mount in-
volves some previous teaching in Judea
in which the character of the Scribes
and Pharisees had been revealed. It is
most unlikely that their ‘‘righteousness”’
would have been denounced (Matt. v. 20)
unless the Lord had met them in the
seat of their power and proved them.

Still more instructive is the great epi-
sode in St Luke (Luke ix. 51—xviii.
14, see note), which shews how much
material there was at hand of which no
use was made in the oral Gospel of the
Apostles. At the same time it is of
interest to observe that this peculiar
section has in one incident (x. 38 ff.) a
point of connexion with St John, and
the notices.of the Samaritans which it
contains (x. 33, xvii. 16, [ix. 52]) offer
in some respects a parallel to the fourth
chapter of his Gospel.

3. The differences of the Synoptists and
St John. Taking account of these cha-
racteristics of the Gospels we can form a
juster estimate of their differences. The
Synoptists and St John differ at first
sight (as has been already said) as to the
time, the scene, the form, and the sub-
stance of the Lord’s teaching,

If we had the Synoptic Gospels
alone it might be supposed that the
Lord’s ministry was completed in a
single year: that it was confined to
Galilee till the visit to Jerusalem at the
Passover by which it was terminated :
that it was directed in the main to the
simple peasantry, and found expression
in parables, and proverbs, and clear,
short discourses which reach the heart
of a multitude: that it was a lofty and
yet practical exposition of the Law, by
One who spake as man to men. But if
we look at St John all is changed. In
that we see that the public ministry of
Christ opened as well as closed with a
Paschal journey: that between these
journeys there intervened another Pass-
over and several visits to Jerusalem:
that He frequently used modes of speech
which were dark and mysterious, not
from the imagery in which they were
wrapped, but from the thoughts to which
they were applied : that at the outset He
claimed in the Holy City the highest
prerogatives of Messiah, and at later
Ixxx

times constantly provoked the anger of
His opponents by the assumption of
what they felt to be divine authority.
And beyond all these differences of
arrangement and manner, the first three
Gospels and the Fourth have very few
facts in common. They meet only once
(at the Feeding of the five thousand),
before the last scenes of the Passion and
Resurrection. And in this common
section they are distinguished by signal
differences. To mention only two of the
most conspicuous : the Synoptists do not
notice the raising of Lazarus, which
marks a crisis in the narrative of St
John; and on the other hand, St John
does not mention the Institution of the
Holy Eucharist, which is given in detail
by each of the Synoptists (see notes on
cc. xXi., xiii.).

A student of the Gospels can have
no wish to underrate the significance of
phenomena like these, which must pow-
erfully affect his view of the full meaning
both of the documents, and of their
subject. But he will interrogate them,
and not at once assume that they have
only to witness to discrepancies. From
such questioning one result is gained at
once. It is seen (to omit the question
of time for the present) that differences
of form and substance correspond to
differences of persons and place. On
the one side there is the discourse at
Nazareth, the Sermon on the Mount,
the groups of parables, words first spoken
to the Galilean multitudes with the
authority of the Great Teacher, and then
continued afterwards when they came up
to the Feast full of strange expectations,
which were stimulated by the Triumphal
Entry. On the other side there are the
personal communings with individual
souls, with ‘‘the Master of Israel’? and
the woman of Samaria, unveilings of
the thoughts of faithless cavillers, who
had been trained in the subtleties of the
Law and rested on the glories of their
worship: glimpses of a spiritual order
opened at last to loving disciples, in
which they were prepared to find, even
through sorrow, the accomplishment of
their early hopes. On the one side there
isp the Gospel of ‘‘the common people
who heard gladly:” on the other side
the Gospel of such as felt the deeper
necessities and difficulties of faith. The

INTRODUCTION TO

lessons which appealed to broad sym-
pathies are supplemented by those which
deal with varieties of personal trial and
growth. The cycle of missionary teach-
ing is completed by the cycle of internal
teaching: the first experience of the
whole band of Apostles by the mature
experience of their latest survivor.

These general remarks are supported
by numerous minute details which
indicate that the Synoptists do in fact
recognise an early Judean ministry and
teaching similar to that of St John, and
that St John recognises important work
in Galilee and teaching similar to that
of the Synoptists.

(a) The scene of the Lord’s teaching.
The general description of the Lord’s
following asincluding multitudes ‘from
Judea and Jerusalem’ (Matt, iv. 25;
comp. Mark iii. 7 f.) cannot be pressed
aS proving that He had Himself worked
there. Similar language is used in con-
nexion with the Baptist (Matt. iii. 5).
But the reading of St Luke iv. 44, he
was preaching in the synagogues of Judea
(for Galilee), which is supported by
very strong MSS. authority (.BCLOR
Memph.), taken in connexion with Luke
v. 17, may fairly be urged in favour
of such a view. Indeed the feeling of
the people of Jerusalem on the Lord’s
last visit is scarcely intelligible unless
they had grown familiar with Him on
former visits. So again the well-known
words of the lamentation over Jerusalem,
How often would I have gathered thy
children...and thou wouldest not (Matt.
Xxili. 37 ff.), scarcely admit any other
sense than that Christ had personally on
many occasions sought to attach the in-
habitants to Himself, as now when the
issue was practically decided. The visit
to Martha and Mary (Luke x. 38 ff.) sug-
gests previous acquaintance with them,
and so probably previous residences in
the neighbourhood of Jerusalem (John
xi. 1 ff.). The circumstances connected
with the preparation for the last visit
(Matt. xxi. 2f., xxvi. 17 ff, and paral-
lels), point to the same conclusion.
Compare Acts x. 37, 39. On the other
hand St John when he notices a brief
sojourn of the Lord and His first dis-
ciples at Capernaum (ii. 12), seems to
imply a longer abode there at another
time; and in a later passage he records
THE GOSPEL

words which shew that Galilee was the
ordinary scene of Christ’s ministry (vii.
3). It might indeed have been plausibly
argued from these words that when they
were spoken He had not wrought any
conspicuous works in Judea.

(8) The manner of the Lord’s teach-
ing. It has been already shewn that the
form of the Lord’s teaching could not
but depend upon the occasion on which
it was delivered; and there is no scene
in St John which answers to those under
which the Sermon on the Mount, or the
chief groups of parables were delivered ;
and conversely there are no scenes in
the Synoptists like those with Nicodemus
and the woman of Samaria. The dis-
courses at Jerusalem recorded by the
Synoptists were spoken after Christ had
openly accepted the position of Messiah
by His triumphal entry: those recorded
by St John belong to earlier times, when
He was gradually leading His hearers
to grasp the truth of faith in Him. As
the circumstances become more like in
character there is a growing resemblance
in style. In John x., xii., we have the
implicit parables of the Sheepfold, the
Good Shepherd, the Grain of Corn. In
Matt, xi. 25 ff.; Luke x. 21 ff., there is
a thanksgiving spoken in regard to the
disciples’ work which in character is not
unlike the last discourses.

(y) The duration of the Lord’s teaching.
The data for determining the length of
the Lord’s ministry are singularly few.
The time of its commencement is approxi-
mately fixed by the different elements
given by St Luke (iii. 1), as marking
the Call of the Baptist. But there is
nothing in the Gospels to connect its
close with any particular year of Pilate’s
Procuratorship. Pilate was recalled in
AD. 36, and Herod was banished in
A.D.39. They may therefore have met
at Jerusalem in any year during Pilate’s
term of office. Caiaphas retained his
office till the end of Pilate’s procurator-
ship. The date of the death of Annas
is not known, but he lived to old age.
So far there is a wide margin of uncer-
tainty; and this can only be removed
by the assumption that the Gospels sup-
ply a complete chronology of the Min-
istry, for the earliest tradition is both
late and conflicting. Here however we
are left to probability. The Synoptists

OF St. JOHN. Ixxxi
appear to include the events of their
narrative in a single year; but it is very
difficult to bring the development of
faith and unbelief to which they witness,
the missions of the Twelve and of the
Seventy, and the different circuits of the
Lord, withinso briefaspace.1 StJohn,
on the other hand, notices three Pass-
overs, but he gives no clear intimation
that he notices every Passover which
occurred in the course of the Lord’s
work. In such a case the fragmentari-
ness of the records is a conclusive
auswer to the supposed discrepancy.

4. The coincidences of the Synoptists
and St John. So far we have dwelt upon
the differences between the Synoptists
and St John. Their correspondences are
less obvious and impressive, but they are
scarcely less important.

The common incidents with which
they deal are the following:

1. The Baptism of John (St John
adds the mention of the Levites, i. 19:
the questions, 1. 20 ff.: the place
Bethany, i. 28: the abiding of the Spirit
on Christ, i. 32 f.: the after testimony
to Christ, i. 26 ff.),

2. The Feeding of the five thousand
(St John notices the time, the Passover
was near, vi. 4: the persons, Philip and
Andrew, vi. 5, 8: the command to col-
lect the fragments, v. 12: the issue of
the miracle and the retirement of Jesus,
v. 14 £.).

3. The Walking on the Sea (St John
mentions the distance, vi. 19: the feel-
ing of the disciples, v. 21 : the result, ib.).

4. The Anointing at Bethany (St John
mentions the time, xii. 1, six days before
the Passover: the persons, Mary v. 3
(comp. Matt, xxvi. 7; Mark xiv. 3), and
Judas, vv. 4, 6: the full details of the
action, v. 3).

5. The Triumphal Entry (St John
mentions the time, on the next day, xii.
12: the reference to Lazarus, v. 18: the
judgment of the Pharisees, v, 19).

6. The Last Supper (St John records
the feet-washing, xiii. 2 ff. : the question
of St John, v. 23: the ignorance of the
Apostles, v. 28: the discourses in the
chamber and on the way2).

* The reading and interpretation of Luke vi.
(Sevrepompdtw)is too uncertain to be pressed
Yet see note on Mark ii. 23.

‘On the apparent difference between the
Ixxxii

7. The Betrayal.
xviii.

8. The Trial. Ib.

9. The Crucifixion. Ib,

10. The Burial (St John notices the
action of Nicodemus, xix. 39 : the garden,
v. 41).

II.
c, Xx.

The Resurrection. See note on

Not to enter in detail upon an exami-
nation of the parallels, it may be said
that in each case St John adds details
which appear to mark his actual experi-
ence; and also that the facts in all their
completeness form a natural part of
both narratives. They do not appear
either in the Synoptists or in St John
as if they were borrowed from an alien
source.

The passages in which St John im-
plies an acquaintance with incidents
recorded by the Synoptists are more
numerous,

i. 19 ff. The general effect of John’s
preaching (Matt. iii. 5, &c.).

— 32 ff. The circumstances of the
Lord’s Baptism (Matt. iii.
16 f.).

— 40. Simon Peter is well known.

— 46. Nazareth the early home of
Christ (Matt, ii. 23, &c.).

ii. 12 Capernaum the later residence
of Christ.

— The family of Christ. Comp.

vi. 42, vii. 3, xix. 25 f.

— 19 The false accusation; Matt.
XXvi, 61.

iii. 24 The date of John’s imprison-
ment (Matt. iv. 12; comp.
John iv. 43).

vi. 3. Retirement to ‘‘the mountain.”

— 62. The Ascension.

— 67. “The twelve.’? Comp, vv. 13,

70, XX, 24 (not in cc. i.—iv.).
xi. 1, 2. Mary and Martha are well
known.
xviii. 33 The title “the King of the
Jews.”’

Synoptists and St John as to the day of the
Last Supper, see note on Matt. xxvi. The
question is of importance in regard to the
Synoptists and not in regard to St John. The
narrative of St John is perfectly definite and
consistent: it bears every mark of exact
accuracy, and is in harmony with what seems
to be the natural course of the events.

INTRODUCTION TO

See notes on c. xviii. 40 Barabbas suddenly introduced.

The ministering women (Matt.
xxvii, 55, &c.).

Xix. 25.

There are also several coincidences in
the use of imagery between St John and
the Synoptists, and not a few sayings of
which the substance is common to
them.

Common imagery.

iii. 29. The Bride and the Bride-
groom. Matt. ix. 15, and
parallels.

iv. 35 ff. The harvest. Matt. ix. 37 f.

xiii. 4 ff, Serving. Matt. x. 24; Luke
Xii. 37, XXii, 27.

xv. 1 ff. The vine. Matt. xxi. 33.

—2 The unfruitful tree. Matt. vii.

19.

Common sayings.
iv. 44. Comp. Matt. xiii. 57; Mark
vi. 4; Luke iv. 24 (used in
different connexions).
Comp. ll. cc.
Comp. Matt.
parallels
confessions).
Comp, Matt. x. 39, xvi. 25;
Luke xvii. 33 (used in dif-
ferent connexions).
Comp. Luke vi. 40; Matt. x.
24 (used in different con-
nexions).
(xiii.) 20 Comp. Matt. x. 40, (xxv. 40) ;
Luke x. 16 (used in differ-
ent connexions),
Comp. Matt, xxiv. ro f,

Vi. 42.

— 69. xvi. 16, and

(corresponding

Xil. 25

xiii. 16.

Xvi. 2 f.

In other parallels there are not a few
verbal coincidences :

i 23. Iam the voice of one crying in
the wilderness, Make straight
the way of the Lord.

— 26f. I baptize in water...He that
cometh after me, the latchet
of whose shoe I am not
worthy to unloose.

— 32 ...descending as a dove...

— 43. Follow me. Matt. viii. 22, &e.

iii. 5. to enter into the kingdom of
God,

v. 8. Arise, take up thy bed and
walk. Mark ii. 9. ..... fhe A

vi. 20. It is I: be not afraid.

viii. 52. taste of death. Mark ix. 1.
THE GOSPEL

xii. 5 to be sold for three hundred
pence and given to the poor.
Mark xiv. 5

— 13. Hosanna, blessed is he that

cometh in the name of the
Lord.
xiii. 21. One of you shall betray me,

— 38. The cock shall not crow till
thou shalt deny me thrice,

xix. 3. Hail, King of the Jews.

xx. 19. He saith unto them, Peace be

unto you.
Coincidences more or less striking are
found in the following passages.

i. 18. Matt. xi. 27.
—33- — iii. 17,

iii. 18. Mark xvi. 16,

iv. 44. — vi, 4.

v. 22. Matt. vii. 22 f.

vi. 7, 10. Mark vi. 37—39.
— 35. Matt. v 6,

= 39. — xi. 28.

— 39. — xvili. 14.
— 46. — xi. 27,

— 70. Luke vi. 13.

vii. 45 f. Matt. vii, 28.

ix. 16. — xii. 2.

xX. IS. — Xi. 27,

i. 25. — xX. 39.

xii. 8. — xxvi. IL
—I3. Mark xi, 9.
—44. Luke ix. 48.

xiii. 1. Mark xiv. 41.
= 3: Matt. xi. 27.
—16. — xX. 24.

—20. — xX. 40.

—2I. Mark xiv. 18—a1.
xiv. 18. Matt, xxviii. 20.
—28. Mark xiii. 32.

xv. 8. Matt. v. 16.
—I4. — xii. 4g f.
—20. — X. 25.

—a2i. X22)

xvi. 1 f. — x, 17ff.; xiii. a7.
xvii. 2. — xxviii. 18,
xviii. II. — XXvi. 42, 52.

— I5; 2

18, 22. Mark xiv. 64 f,

— 20. Matt. xxvi. 55.

— 39. Mark xv. 6,

xix. I1—3, 17. — — 16, 19, 22.
— 6. Luke xxiii. 21.
[— 19. — — 38, an
terpolation in St
Luke.]
XX. 14. Mark xvi. 9.

23.

Matt. xvi. 19.

OF St. JOHN. Ixxxili

The connexion between St John and
St Luke is of especial interest. From the
relation of St Luke to St Paul it is
natural to expect that the peculiarities
of his Gospel would furnish indications .
of transition to the form of the Gospel
which St John has preserved. Instances
of this relation have been already given
in the notices of Samaritans, and of
Martha and Mary (p, Ixxix.). The fol-
lowing coincidences in thought or lan-
guage may be added:

i. 19 ff. Luke iii, 15 f.
vi. 42. — iv. 22.
x. 27 ff. — xii. 32.

— ix. 51 (dvady-
yews); Xxii 53.

xiii. 1, xiv. 30.

-- 4 ff. xxii. 17.
os 17. — xi. 28,
— 22. — xxii. 23.
_— 27. eer ees
— 372 8
Xiv. 30. —iiv. 13 (dxpe
kapov ).
xvi. 7. — xxiv. 49 (éyo
eLarootéAw).
xviii. 36 f. — xvii, 20 f.
— 38. — xxiii. 4
XX. 3, 6. — XXiv. 12 (the
treading is
doubtful).
— 19 fi. — — 36 ff.

Such correspondences prove nothing
as to the direct literary connexion of
thetwo Gospels, nor do the few signifi-
cant words which are common to St
Luke and St John (e.g. rd é6vos of Jews,
povoyevys), but they do shew the cur-
rency of a form of the apostolic Gospel
with characteristic features approxi-
mating to characteristic features in St
John.

5. The relation of the Synoptists to
St John in regard to the Lord’s Person.
But it may be said that even if the
considerations which have been urged
establish the possibility of reconciling
the apparent differences of the Synoptists
and St John as to the place, the manner
and the duration of the Lord’s Teaching :
if they shew that there is theoretically
room for the events and the discourses
of both narratives: if they supply in
both cases indications of a wider field
and a more varied method than is
habitually recorded in the two histories
{xxxiv

respectively; yet the fundamental dif-
ference between the first three Gospels
and the Fourth as to the general view of
the Lord’s Person practically excludes
such a reconciliation.

This difficulty unquestionably under-
lies the other difficulties and gives force
to them. It is not possible to do more
here than to point out the main argu-
ments by which it can fairly be met.

The Person of the Lord is as truly
the centre of the teaching of the Synop-
tists as of the teaching of St John. It
is not His doctrine but Himself which is
to redeem the world (Matt. xx. 28).

The narratives of the Nativity, though
they did not form part of the apostolic
oral Gospel, are completely harmonious
with it. There is no contrast (for ex-
ample) in passing from the history of
the Nativity to that of the Baptism.

The claims of the Lord which are
recorded by the Synoptists, if followed
to their legitimate consequences, involve
the claims recorded by St John.

Matt. vii. 22.
ix. 2 fi.

in my name,

Thy sins be forgiven
thee,

(Gives power to work
signs).
he that loseth his life
for my sake...

All things are delivered
unto me...

The Son of man will
send forth his angels.
Comp, xvi. 27, XXv.
31.

Where two or three are
gathered together in
my name, there am I
..(as said of Sheki-

nah).

his life a ranson for
many.

They will reverence my
son.

— xxii. 45. If David
Lord,

When the Son of man
shall come in his
glory. Comp, xxvi.
64.

My blood of the cove-
nant,

Iam with you alwizy.

— x.I.

— 39
xi. 27.
Xili. 41.

~— Xvili. 20.

‘— xx. 28.
— xx. 37 ff.
call him

-— XXV. 31.

‘= XXvi. 28.

= XXVili. 20.

INTRODUCTION TO

I will give youa mouth
and wisdom.

I send the promise of
my Father upon you.

Luke xxi. 15.

— xxiv. 49.

A careful estimate of these passages
will make it clear that the Synoptists
recognise in the Lord the power of
judgment, of redemption, and of fellow-
ship, which are the main topics of the
teaching in St John. In one respect
only St John adds a new truth to the
doctrine of the Lord’s Person which has
no direct anticipation in the Synoptists.
These do not anywhere declare His pre-
existence. (Yet compare Luke xi. 49
with Matt. xxiii, 34 and John x. 35.)

The general conclusion however stands
firm. The Synoptists offer not only his-
torical but also spiritual points of con-
nexion between the teaching which they
record and the teaching in the Fourth
Gospel; and St John himself in the
Apocalypse completes the passage from
the one to the other.

2. The Apocalypse and the Fourth
Gospel,

The Apocalypse is doctrinally the
uniting link between the Synoptists and
the Fourth Gospel. It offers the charac-
teristic thoughts of the Fourth Gospel
in that form of development which
belongs to the earliest apostolic age. It
belongs to different historical circum-
stances, to a different phase of intel-
lectual progress, to a different theological
stage, from that of St John’s Gospel;
and yet it is not only harmonious with
it in teaching, but in the order of thought
it is the necessary germ out of which the
Gospel proceeded by a process of life.

1. Affinities of the Apocalypse with
the Gospel. The points of connexion
between the Apocalypse and the Gos-
pel of St John are far more numerous
than are suggested by a first general
comparison of the two books. The
main idea of both is the same. Both
present a view of a supreme conflict
between the powers of good and evil.
In the Gospel this is drawn mainly in
moral conceptions; in the Apocalypse
mainly in images and visions. In the
Gospel the opposing forces are regarded
under abstract and absolute forms, as
light and darkness, love and hatred; in
THE GOSPEL

the Apocalypse under concrete and
definite forms, God, Christ, and the
Church warring with the devil, the
false prophet and the beast.

But in both books alike Christ is the
central figure. His victory is the end
to which history and vision lead as their
consummation (see xvi. 33, note). His
Person and Work are the ground of
triumph, and of triumph through appar-
ent failure (Rev. i. 5, vi. 16, vii. 14, xii. 11).

It follows that in both books the
appearance of Christ is shewn to issue
in a judgment, a separation, of elements
partially confused before. The ‘‘hatred ”’
of evil gains a new intensity (Rev. ii.
6; 2 John 10). The Apocalypse gives,
so to speak, in an ideal history the
analysis of the course of unbelief which
is laid open in John viii.

On man’s part the conflict with evil
is necessarily a conflict in action. The
Apocalypse and the Gospel therefore
Jay stress on obedience and works. To
“keep the commandments” is now the
fulfilment of Christian duties (John xiv.
23, note; 1 John ii. 3 f.; v. 2 f.; 2 John
6; Rev. xii. 17, xiv. 12 [xxii. 14, a false
reading]).

The universality of the Gospel is an
immediate consequence of the proclama-
tion of its moral character. And there
is not the least trace in the Apocalypse
of the doctrine of the permanent or
general obligation of the Law or of
circumcision. The particular injunctions
which are enforced in ii. 14, 20 are
combined in the Acts (xv. 28 f., xxi. 25)
with the removal of such an obligation
from the Gentiles. External ceremo-
nies fall wholly into the background, as
symbols only of that which is universal
and spiritual (Rev. v. 8 ff., xiv. 6 f.;
comp. I John ii. 2).

At the same time the Apocalypse no
less than the Gospel recognises the pre-
paratory office of Judaism. In both it
is assumed that ‘‘Salvation is of the Jews”
(John iv. 22, 38). The Seer shews that
the sovereignty which the prophets fore-
told was established in Jesus, ‘‘the
Christ’ (xii. 5, 10, xi. 15); and the
imagery of the old Scriptures is used
from first to last to foreshadow the con-
flict, the victory and the judgment of
the divine King (e.g. Zech. xii. 10; John
xix. 37; Rev, i. 7).

New Test.—Vot. II.

OF St. JOHN. Ixxxv

In correspondence with the univer-
sality of the Gospel is the office of
personal ‘‘ witness’? on which the firmest
stress is laid in all the writings of St
John. The experience of the believer
finds expression in a testimony which is
strong in the face of death. In the
Apocalypse the characteristic form in
which this ‘’ witness’? appears is as ‘‘the
testimony of Jesus” (i. 2, 9, xii. 17, xix.
10, xx. 4). The true humanity of the
Saviour is that revelation on which faith
reposes,

This testimony to the Incarnation
leads to a final correspondence between
the Apocalypse and the Fourth Gospel
which is of the highest importance.
Both present the abiding of God with
man as the issue of Christ’s work. If any
man love me, he will keep my word, and
my Father will love him, and we will
come to him and make our abode with
him (John xiv. 23). Behold I stand at
the door and knock: If any man hear my
voice and open the door, I will come in
to him, and will sup with him and he
with me (Rev. iii. 20). Behold the
tabernacle of God is with men, and He
will dwell (oxnvdce) with them (Rev.
XXi. 3).

2. Contrasts of the Apocalypse with the
Gospel. Side by side with these coinci-
dences of thought, which reach to the
ruling conceptions of the books, there
are also important contrasts in their
subject-matter and their modes of deal-
ing with common topics.

The most striking contrast lies in the
treatment of the doctrine of Christ’s
Coming in the two books. This is the
main subject of the Apocalypse, while it
falls into the background in the Gospel
and in the Epistles of St John. In the
Apocalypse the thought is of an outward
coming for the open judgment of men:
in the Gospel of a judgment which is
spiritual and selfexecuting. In the
Apocalypse the scene of the consumma-
tion is a renovated world : in the Gospel
“the Father’s house.” In the former
the victory and the transformation are
from without, by might, and the ‘‘future”’
is painted under historic imagery: in
the latter, the victory and the transfor-
mation are from within, by a spiritual
influence, and the ‘‘future’” is present
and eternal.

&
Ixxxvi

It is part of this same contrast that
the progress of the conflict between
good and evil is presented very differ-
ently in the Apocalypse and in the
Gospel. In the Apocalypse it is por-
trayed under several distinct forms as a
conflict of Christ with false Judaism,
with idolatry, with the Roman empire
allied with false prophecy : inthe Gospel
it is conceived in its essence as a con-
tinuous conflict between light and dark-
ness. On the one side are outward
persecutors; on the other the spirit
of falsehood: on the one side, the
working of the revelation of Christ; on
the other the revelation of Christ itself.
Or, to put the facts under another
aspect, the Apocalypse gives a view of
the action of God in regard to men, in a
life full of sorrow, and partlal defeats
and cries for vengeance: the Gospel
gives a view of the action of God with
regard to Christ who establishes in the
heart of the believer a Presence of coim-
pleted joy.

In regard to Judaism this contrast
assumes a special form. In the Apocalypse
the triumph of Christianity is described
under the imagery of Judaism. The
Church is the embodied fulfilment of
Old Testament prophecy. The outlines
are drawn of the universal, ideal, Israel
(vii. 4), the ideal Jerusalem (iii. 12,
xxi. 2, 10), and the ideal worship (xx, 6,
xxii. 3; comp, viii. 3, v. 8), yet so
that there is no longer any temple (xxi.
22). In the Gospel Christianity is pro-
claimed as the absolute truth. Outward
Judaism is shewn in its opposition to
Christ’s word, not as fulfilled by it,
standing without, isolated and petrified ;
and not taken up with it, quickened and
glorified (compare Rev. ii, 9, iii. 9, with
John viii. 39 ff.).

The conception of God in the two
books shews corresponding differences
The conception of God in the Apo-
calypse follows the lines of the Old
Testament. He is ‘the Lord God, the
Almighty” (i. 8, iv. 8, &c.), ‘ which was
and is” (xi. 17, xvi, 5 Comp. i, 4, 8,
iv. 8), who executes righteous judgment
on the world (xi. 18, xiv. 10, xvi. 19,
xix. 15). Nothing is said of His love
in sending His Son; nor of the Para-
clete. In the Gospel God is revealed
characteristically by Christ as ‘“‘ the

INTRODUCTION TO

Father’ and not only as “my Father”
(see iv. 21, note); and specially in con-
nexion with the work of redemption.
In the one case it may be said that His
action is revealed in relation to the sin-
ful history of the world: and in the
other His being in relation to the pur-
pose of the world.!

Besides these differences of substance
there are also differences of language
both in vocabulary and style. The
difference in the scope of the books
accounts in part for these. The irregu-
larities of style in the Apocalypse appear
to be due not so much to ignorance of
the language as to a free treatment of it,
by one who used it as a foreign dialect.
Nor is it difficult to see that in any case
intercourse with a Greek-speaking people
would in a short time naturally reduce
the style of the author of the Apocalypse
to that of the author of the Gospel. It
is however very difficult to suppose that
the language of the writer of the Gospel
could pass at a later time in a Greek-
speaking country into the language of
the Apocalypse.

Such very briefly are the coincidences
and differences between the Apocalypse
and the Fourth Gospel. Several con-
clusions appear to follow from them.

The differences answer to differences
in situation; and are not inconsistent
with identity of authorship.

Of the two books the Apocalypse is
the earlier. It is less developed both
in thought and style. The material
imagery in which it is composed includes
the idea of progress in interpretation.
The symbols are living. On the other
hand, to go back from the teaching of
the Gospel to that of the Apocalypse, to
clothe clear thought in figures, to reduce
the full expression of truth to its rudi-
mentary beginnings, seems to involve
a moral miracle, which would introduce
confusion into life.

The Apocalypse is after the close of
St Paul’s work. It shews in its mode
of dealing with Old Testament figures a
close connexion with the Epistle to the
Hebrews (2 Peter, Jude). And on the

’ The difference between the two books as
to subordinate spiritual powers, angels and
evil spirts, follows from the differcnce in their
structure. Comp. i. 51, note,
THE GOSPEL

other hand it is before the destruction of
Jerusalem.

The crisis of the Fall of Jerusalem
explains the relation of the Apocalypse
to the Gospel. In the Apocalypse that
‘coming’? of Christ was expected, and
painted in figures: in the Gospel the
“coming” is interpreted,

Under this aspect the Gospel is the
spiritual interpretation of the Apocalypse.
The materials of the Gospel were trea-
sured up, pondered, illuminated as time
went on. Meanwhile the active and
manifold religious thought of Ephesus
furnished the intellectual assistance which
was needed to exhibit Christianity as the
absolute and historical religion in con-
trast with Judaism and Heathenism.
The final desolation of the centre of the
old Theocracy was the decisive sign of
the form which the new Faith must
take. Then first, according to the
divine law of order, the Spirit would
guide the Apostle into all the Truth.

This is not the place to work out in
detail the likeness and difference of the
Apocalypse and the Fourth Gospel on
special points of doctrine; but the
Christology of the two books illustrates
very remarkably the position which has
been assigned to the Apocalypse as con-
necting the Synoptists and St John. It
is necessary then to indicate shortly the
teaching of the Apocalypse on Christ’s
work and being.

The work of Christ is presented sum-
marily as the victory through death of
One who was truly man. Christ was the
representative of David (v. 5, xxii. 16),
pierced (i, 7), crucified (xi. 8), and again
quickened (i. 5; comp. Col. i. 18). So
He “ bought” the redeemed (v. 9. xiv.
3 £); and His blood brings to them
release (i, 5, Avoavrs dvd T. a), Cleansing
(vii. 14), and victory (xii. 11). And in
this He fulfilled the divine will for men
(i. 1 [ €wxev J, ii, 26, 5, 10, 16, iii. 10, 5,
21, v. 5, xxi. 23).

The exaltation of Christ followed on
the completion of His earthly work. The
“Lamb slain” was raised to glory (v. 9,
12). The “seven spirits of God’ are
His (v. 6, iii. 1; comp. i. 4; John xv. 26).
In the heavenly sanctuary He is revealed
as the divine High Priest (i. 12—17;
comp ii. 9, x. 5 f.) “like a son of man”
(i. 13, xiv. 14); truly man, and yet more

OF Sr. JOHN. Ixxxvii

than man, ‘‘the living One” (i. 17;
comp. John v. 26). He possesses di-
vine knowledge (ii. 2, 9, 13, 19, &c., ii.
23; comp, Jer. xi. 20, &c.); and divine
power (xi. 15, xii. 10, xvii. 14, xix. 16).
He receives divine honour (v. 8 ff., xx.
6); and is joined with God (iii. 2, v. 13,
vi. 16 f., vii. 10, xiv. 4, xxi. 22, Xxii.1, 3;
comp. John v. 20, 23), so that with God
He is spoken of as one (xi. 15, BacvAcioes,
xx, 6, per’ airod, Xxii.3, of SodAoL adrov
Aatpedcovow ait~); He shares also in
part the divine titles (i. 7, ili. 7, xix. 11;
comp. vi. 10, iii. 14; comp. Isai, Ixv.
-16, but not xxii. 13).

The full importance of these passages
is brought out by the stern denunciations
against every form ofidolatry with which
the book abounds (comp. 1 John v. 21).
Christ therefore is wholly separated from
creatures. And further, the passages
shew that the imagery which is used in
the Old Testament to describe the reve-
lation of God is transferred by the writer
to Christ (comp. John xii. 41, note).

One other point remains to be no-
ticed. In the Synoptists there is no
direct statement of the yre-existence of
Christ. Tus truth is recognised in the
Apocalypse, but relatively rather than
absolutely. Christ is spoken of as the
first and the last (i. 17, ii. 8); the begin-
ning of the creation of God (iii. 14; comp.
Prov. viii. 22; Col. i. 15); and the Word
of God (xix, 13). In these phrases we
find the earliest form of the ‘‘ Logos
doctrine,’”? which is still kept within the
lines of the Old Testament ideas. But
the later unfolding of the truth is in-
cluded in this earliest confession. If an
Apostle was enabled to see in the Master
whom he had followed the Being to
whom all creation pays homage in the
spiritual world, there is no difficulty in
apprehending how he could rise, without
doing violence to the laws of human
thought, to the enunciation of the fact
on which the Fourth Gospel is a com-
mentary, the Word became flesh and
dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory.

In a word, the study of the Synoptists,
of the Apocalypse and of the Gospel of.
St John in succession enables us to see
under what human conditions the full
majesty of Christ was perceived and de-
clared,not all at once, but step by step,and
by the help of the old prophetic teaching.
Ixxxviii

3. The Gospel and the Epistles of St
John,

The relation of the Gospel of St John
to his Epistles is that of a history to its
accompanying comment or application.
The first Epistle presupposes the Gospel
either as a writing or as oral instruc-
tion. But while there are numerous and
striking resemblances both in form and
thought between the Epistle and the
Evangelist’s record of the Lord’s dis-
courses and his own narrative, there are
still characteristic differences between
them. In the Epistle the doctrine of the
Lord’s true and perfect humanity (odp€)
is predominant : in the Gospel that of
His divine glory (8é£a), The burden of
the Epistle is “the Christ is Jesus :’’ the
writer presses his argument from the
divine to the human, from the spiritual
and ideal to the historical. The burden
of the Gospel is ‘‘ Jesus is the Christ :”
the writer presses his argument from the
human to the divine, from the historical
to the spiritual and ideal. The former
is the natural position of the preacher,
and the latter of the historian.

The difference between the Epistle
and the Gospel in their eschatological
teaching follows from this fundamental
difference. In the Gospel the doctrine
of the ‘‘ coming” of the Lord (xxi. 22,
xiv. 3), and of ‘‘the last day’”’ (vi. 40, 44),
and of “the judgment” (v. 28 f.), are
touched upon generally. In the Epistle
“the manifestation’? of Christ (ii. 28)
and His ‘‘ presence” stand out as clear
facts in the history of the world. He
comes, even as He came, ‘‘in flesh”
(2 John 7), and ‘‘ antichrists’’ precede
His coming (1 John ii. 18 ff.).

Again,in the Epistle the doctrine of pro-
pitiation is more distinct and fully ex-
pressed than in the Gospel (iAacpés, 1 John
ii. 2,iv.10;comp. Heb.ii.17; xaGapifer,
1 John i. 7, 9); and in connexion with
this the duty of the confessions of sins (1
John i. 9), and the office of the Lord as
Paraclete (Advocate) ( 1 John ii. 1; comp.
John xiv. 16, note). But it is most
worthy of notice that no use is made in
the Epistle of the language of the dis-
courses in John iii. and vi. On the
other hand, the conception of the ‘‘ unc-
tion” of Christians (1 John ii. 20, 27;
comp. Rev, i. 6) is a later interpretation

INTRODUCTION TO

of the gift of the Spirit which Christ pro-
mised.

Generally too it will be found on a
comparison of the closest parallels, that
the Apostle’s own words are more formal
in expression than the words of the Lord
which he records. The Lord’s words
have been moulded by the disciple into
aphorisms in the Epistle: their his-
toric connexion has been broken. At the
same time the language of the Epistle is
in the main direct, abstract, and un-
figurative. The Apostle’s teaching, so to
speak, is “plain” (qappycig), while
that of the Lord was ‘“‘in proverbs”
(év mapoupious, John xvi. 25).

One or two examples will illustrate
the contrast which has been indicated :

John viii. 12. I am the Light of the
world: he that followeth me shall not
walk in darkness, but shall have the
light of life.

i Johni.5, 7. This then is the mes-
sage we have heard of him, and declare
unto you, that God is light, and in him
is no darkness at all... If we walk in the
light as he is in the light, we have fellow-
ship one with another...

John xv. 23. He that hateth me hateth
my Father also.

I John ii. 23. Whosoever denieth the
Son, the same hath not the Father; but
he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the
Father also.

Compare also pp. Ixi. ff.

Generally it will be felt that there is a
decisive difference (so to speak)in the
atmosphere of the two books. In the
Epistle St John deals freely with the
truths of the Gospel in direct conflict
with the characteristic perils of his own
time : in the Gospel he lives again in the
presence of Christ and of the immediate
enemies of Christ, while he brings out
the universal significance of events and
teaching not fully understood at the
time,

V. THe History oF THE GosPEL.

1. The Text,

The materials for determining the
text of the Gospel of St John are, as in
the case of the other Gospels, and of
the books of the New Testament gene-
rally, ample and varied. It will be
THE GOSPEL

sufficient to notice the most important
authorities in which the Gospel of St
John is preserved.

I. GREEK MANUSCRIPTS.

Cod. Sinaiticus (y). The entire Gos-

pel.

Cod, Alexundrinus (A). Wants vi. 50
—viii, 52.

Cod. Vaticanus (B). The entire Gos-
pel,

Cod. Ephraemi (C). Eight consider-

able fragments. (1) i. I—4I. (2) iii.
33—v. 16. (3) vi. 38—vii. 3. (4) viii.
34—ix, 11. (5) xi. 8-46. (6) xiii. 8
—xiv.7- (7) xvi. 21—xvili. 36. (8) xx.
26—end.

Cod. Bez@ (D). Wants i, 16—iii. 26;
and xviii. 13—xx. 13 has been supplied
by a later hand, perhaps from the ori-
ginal leaves.

(L).

Cod. Paris.
end,

There are besides eight other uncial
MSS. containing the Gospel complete
or nearly complete; and thirteen which
contain more or less considerable frag-
ments.

The cursive mss., which are almost
of every degree of excellence, are more
than 600.

II. ANCIENT VERSIONS.

(1) The Old (Curetonian) Syriac
(Syr, vt.). Four fragments : (1) i, I—42.
(2) iii. 5—vii. 37. (3) _ vii. 37—Viii. 53,
omitting vii. 53—viii, 11. (4) xiv. 11—
29

Wants xxi. I5—

The Vulgate Syriac (Peshito, Syr. psh.).
The entire Gospel.

The Harclean Syriac (Syr. hcl.). The
entire Gospel.
(2) The Old Latin (Lat vt.). The

entire Gospel in several distinct types.

The Vulgate Latin (Vulg.). The
entire Gospel.

The Memphitic (Coptic, in the dialect
of Lower Egypt). The entire Gospel.

The Thebaic (Sahidic, in the dialect of
Upper Egypt). Very considerable frag-
ments have been published in the
Appendix to Woide’s ‘ Cod. Al. N. T.’ of
which a collation is given in Schwartze’s
edition of the Memphitic Gospels.

III. FATHERS,

In addition to isolated quotations

OF Sr. JOHN. Ixxxix
there remain, from early times: the
Commentaries of CyRIL of ALEXANDRIA
(nearly complete); the Explanatory
Homilies of AUGUSTINE and CHRYSOS-
tom; and large fragments of the Com-
mentaries of ORIGEN and THEODORE of
MOPSUESTIA,

This is not the place to enter in detail
upon the methods of textual criticism.
It must suffice to say that the problem
is in the first stage essentially historical.
The primary object of the critic is to
discover in the case of variations the
most ancient reading. When this has
been done it remains to take account of
any arguments which may be urged
against the authenticity of the earliest
text. Unless these are of great weight
the prerogative of age must prevail.
But this first process cannot be accom-
plished by simply taking the reading
of the most ancient copies, or giving a
fixed value, so to speak, to each copy
according to its antiquity. The most
ancient copy is ceteris paribus likely to
give the most ancient text on the whole,
and with a less degree of probability in
each particular case. But the ancient
authorities often disagree. Hence it is a
necessary condition for the determina-
tion of the most ancient text to study
the chief authorities as wholes (1) se-
parately, and (2) in their mutual rela-
tions. In this way it can be ascertained
beyond doubt that MSS. (for example)
preserve a distinctly ante-Nicene text.
When this is done the mass of evidence
can be reduced to manageable dimen-
sions. If it cannot be shewn that a
reading has any ante-Nicene authority,
it may in almost all cases be confidently
set aside.

No one of the existing MSS. of the
New Testament is older than the fourth
century; but the earliest, which have
been already enumerated, represent very
different types of text, and are, as far
as can be ascertained, of very different
origin. To speak of them all as
“ Alexandrine ” is in every way mislead-
ing.

(1) A most careful examination of
B leaves it in possession of the title to
supreme excellence. Its readings have
no specific colouring. It is not unlikely
that it represents the text preserved in
the original Greek Church of Rome.
XC

(2) The texts of & and D, which
have much in common, are of very high
antiquity, dating from the end of the
second century. Their common element
is closely akin to an element in the Old
Syriac and Old Latin versions, and
shews much license in paraphrase and
in the introduction of synonymous
phrases and words. The characteristics
of these MSS. are probably of Pales-
tinian origina.

(3) The characteristic readings of C
and I, indicate the work of a careful
grammatical revision. They seem to be
due to Alexandria.

(4) In the Gospels A gives a revised
(Antiochene) text which formed the basis
of the later Byzantine texts. These
texts were almost exclusively reproduced
from the sixth century onwards.

The characteristic readings of B, of
ND, and of C, L, have all more or less
support in the ante-Nicene age. The
characteristic readings of A, on the other
hand, cannot be traced back beyond
the fourth century, though it has also a
valuable ancient element in common
with BCL rather than with ND.

It follows therefore (speaking gene-
rally) that a reading which is found in
B and in a primary representative of
one of the other groups has very high
claims to be considered the original
reading. On the other hand a reading
which is found only in the representa-
tives of one of the three last groups is
likely to be a correction; and the same
may be said of a reading which is given
only in representatives of the third and
fourth groups. Very few readings inthe
Gospels will be found to stand the test
of a comprehensive examination which
are not supported by & or B or D.

These conclusions necessarily depend
upon an exhaustive induction of particu-
lars. No process can be more precarious
than the attempt to settle each case of
variation as it arises. A reading, which
taken alone may appear to be plausible
or even true, is often seen to be an
ingenious correction from a consideration
of the characteristics of the authorities
by which it is supported taken as a
group. No authority has an unvarying
value. No authority is ever homogene-
ous. It is only by taking a wide view
of the grouping of the authorities that

INTRODUCTION TO

a solid conclusion can be gained. And
in this respect the evidence which is
available for determining the text of the
New Testament is so copious and varied
that little final doubt can be left.

Very little has been said in detail on
various readings in the notes, except on
a few passages of unusual interest. It
will therefore be useful to give a brief
summary of the authorities for a selec-
tion of variations which have a critical
interest. This may serve as basis for
further study to those who wish to pursue
the subject; and at the same time it
will illustrate the comparative value of
the different authorities in their different
combinations.

1. Interpretative or Supplementary
Glosses.

and they were sent from the
Pharisees («at dreoradpévor),
N*A*BC*L Memph. See
note,

and they that were sent were
of the Pharisees (kai of dzre-
oraApevor), N°PA2C3X (MSS.
mss.) Latt. Syrr.

coming after me, %*B(C*LTD),
Syr. vt. Memph. He it is
who coming after me is pre-
ferred before me,AC3X (MSS.
mss.) Latt. Comp. v. 15.

may have eternal life.
may not perish but have
eternal life. See note.

a Jew NeABL (MSS. mss.)
Syr. psh.

Jews &* (MSS. mss.)
Syr. vt. Memph.
he giveth not, NBCLT> 1 33

(Lat. vt.),
God giveth not, AC2D (MSS.
mss.) Verss.
the Saviour of the world, 8B
C*Tb Latt. Syr, vt. Memph,
the Christ the Saviour of the
world, ADL (MSS. mss.).
See note.

i. 24.

27.

i. 15.

25.
Latt.

34-

iv. 42.

ve 4.

‘No attempt is made to give a complete
summary of the evidence. “MSS.” signifies
many (or the remainder of) uncial and “mss.”
many (or the remainder of) cursive manu-
scripts. Latt. and Syrr, the Latin and Syrian
versions in agreement; and verss, versions
generally, If the title of an authority is
enclosed in (), this indicates that the evidence
is modified by some circumstance or other.
THE GOSPEL

did ...persecute, SBCDL 1 33
(Latt.) Syr. vt.

did...persecute and sought to
slay him, A (MSS. mss.).
Comp. v. 18.

a boy.

a single boy. See note.

except one, R°ABL, 1 (Lait).

except that one (or one), into
which his disciples (or the
disciples of Jesus) entered,
X*D (MSS. mss.) Syrr,

my flesh for the life of the
world, BCDLT 33, Latt.
Syrr. vt. Theb. (and ® in a
changed order).

my flesh which I will give
for the life of the world,
MSS. mss, (A is defective)
(Syrr.) Memph. See note.

teaching...ona sabbath, D (Lat.
vt.).

never man so spake, S°BLT
Memph.,

never man so spake as this man
(speaketh) ,4¥*(D)X MSS. mss.
out of the temple, R*BD Latt.
Theb,

out of the temple, and going
through the midst of them
went on his way (éropevero)
and so passed by, N*CLX
33 Memph.

out of the temple, going through
the midst of them and so
passed by, A (MSS. mss.)
Syrr,

x.13, 26. See notes,

xi. qi. the stone, NBC*DLX 33 Latt.
Theb, (Syrr.).

the stone where he was, A 1.

the stone where he that was
dead was laid, C3 (MSS.
mss.).

suffer her...to keepit (tva...77-
pion), NBDLOX 33 (Latt.)
Memph, Theb.

leave her alone; she hath kept
it ( rernpnxev), A (MSS. mss.).

ye ought also,

by how much more ought ye
also, D (Lat. vt.).

And. God shall glorify, X*BC*
DLX Lat, vt.

If God was glorified in him,
God shall also glorify, N°A
(MSS. mss.) Vg. Memph,

v 16

9.

22.

51,

— $9.
vii. 46.

viii. 59.

xii. 7.

xtit. 14.

— 32.

OF St. JOHN. xci

and whither I go ye know the
way, NBC*LQX Memph.

and whither I go ye know, and
the way ye know, ADN
(MSS. mss.) Latt, Syrr.

how know we the way, BC*D
(Lat, vt.).

how can we know the way,
(N)ALNOX Vg. Syrr.

shall see me, NBDL(Lat. vt.).

shall see me, because I go to
the Father, A MSS. mss.
(Memph.) Syrr. Comp. vv.
5, 10.

that they may be in us, BC*D
(Lat. vt.) Theb.

that they may be one in us,
NAC3LX MSS. mss. Vg.
Memph., Syrr.

See also iii. 13, note.

Xiv.

4.

xvi. 16.

Xvii. 21.

In connexion with these explanatory
additions, a few passages may be noticed
in which an easy word has been substi-
tuted for a more difficult one.

i. 16. Note..
vi. 63. Note.

viii. 16. true as satisfying the idea
(dAnOu}), BDLTX 33.
true to facts (dAnO%s),

X MSS. mss.
that ye may know and may
understand (yevdboryte ),
BILLX 1 33 Theb. Memph.
that ye may know and be-
lieve, SA (MSS. mss.)
Latt

x. 38.

2. Paraphrases,

The group ND Syr vt. and Lat. vt.
are specially marked by paraphrastic
variations.

i. 4. in him is life, & D Syr. vt. Lat.
vi. See note.

— 34. the chosen one of God, ~% Syr.
vt. See note.

ii. 3 they had not wine for the wine
of the marriage was con-
sumed, &* (Lat. vt.).

iii. 5. kingdom of heaven, &*.

— 6. is spirit-because God is spirit,
and he is born of God, Syr.
vt. (Lat, vt.).

— 8. from water and the spirit,
N Lat. vi. Syr, vt.

v. 13. he that was sick, D (Lat vt.).
XCli

v. 19 the Father doeth, Syrr. Memph.

vi. 15 and declare (dvaSecxvivar) him
king, EN.

—— he fleeth again, X* (Latt.) Syr.
vt. See note.

— 17. darkness overtook ( xaréAaBev)
them, ~D.

— 51. - from my breadse (Lat. vt.).

x. 38. if ye are not willing to believe
me, D Latt.

xi.g how many hours hath the day?
D.

— 33. was troubled in spirit, as
moved with indignation (as
éuBprpwpevos), D1 Thed.

xii. 32. all: things, K*D Latt.

xiv. 7. ye will know my Father also,
ND (Lat, vt.).

XVvii. 3. didst send into this world, D.

— 10. thou didst glorify me, D.

xviii. 37. concerning the truth, &*.

Other examples of readings character-
istic of this group will be found in the
following passages :

i. 14 (wArjpy) 48.

ii. 15.

iv. 24, 42, 46, 51.

V. 9, 13, 25) 32, 42.

vi. 3, 23, 25, 27, 37, 46, 56 (note),
64, 66.

vii. 1, 6, 12, 26, 37, 47, 48, 50,
52

viii. 16, 21, 27.

ix. 35.

x. Il, 15, 25, 34, 39.

xi. 14.

xiv. 11.

XV. 20.

Xvi. 13, 19.

Xvii. 2, 7, 10, 23 (Hyarnoa), 26,

xviii. 1 (note), 35.

Rix. 4, 13, 33, 38:

XX. I, 11, 15, 24f.

xxi. 17, 18.

It is not probable that any one of
these readings will commend itself to
the student; but it must be added
that in the case of omission it appears
that the authority of this group is some-
times of greater weight, The omissions
in St John’s Gospel which they support
in the following passages are by no
means unlikely to be correct :

lil. 25, 32, note.

iv. 9, for...Samaritans.

INTRODUCTION TO

On the other hand their omissions in
vi. 23, x. 8 (before me), xxi. 23, are
not to be admitted.

The readings of j when they are un-
supported are often quite arbitrary: e.g.
iii. 36, vi. to, 23, viii. 57, xi. 31, Xiv.
16, xix. 13,

3. Passages in which the sense is
considerably affected by the variation
are not very numerous:

i. 16. Note.
—18. Note.
—28. Note.
—39 (40). and ye shall see, BC*LTD 1 33
(mss.) Syrr.
and see, ~AX MSS (mss.)
Latt Memph. Comp. v. 47.
—51 Note.
ii. 17. will eat me up, NABLPTb
(MSS. mss.).
hath eaten me up, a few mss.
iii. 15. Note.
v. I. Note.
—3f. Note.
vi. 69. Note.
vii. 8. I go not up yet, BLTX (MSS.
mss.) Theb. Syrr.
I go not up, ND (some MSS.
mss.) Lat. vt. Syr. vt.
Memph, In such a case it
is right to follow that com-
bination of ancient authori-
ty which is elsewhere most
trustworthy. For the com-
bination in favour of ‘‘nat’’
see note on vi. 15.
vii. 39. Note.
— 53—Viii. 11. Note.

viii. 38. do ve (or ye do) that which ye
heard from the father (rod
matpés) or your father,
NCBCLX 1 33 Memph.

ye do that which ye have
Seen with your father,
N*D(T) (MSS. mss.) Latt.

— 44. Note.

ix. 35. Note.

xX. 14. mine know me, NBDL Latt.
Memph, Theb.

I am known of mine,

AX MSS. mss (Syrr.).

—22. Note.

xii. 17. when he called, SABX

(MSS. mss.) Vg.
that he called, DL Lat, vt.
Theb. Memph.
THE GOSPEL

xii. 41. because he saw, RABLX 1 33
Memph, Theb.

when he saw, D (MSS. mss.)
Latt. Syrr.

and keep them not, NABDLX
I 33 Latt. Syrr. Theb.
Memph.

and believe not, (MSS. mss.).

during a supper (y.vopévov),
N*BLX.

a supper having been made
(yevopevov), NcAD (MSS.
mss.).

and saith to him, Tell us who
it is of whom he speaketh,
(N)BCLX 33 Latt.

that he should ask who it was
of whom he spake, AD
MSS. mss. Syrr.

leaning back as he was (avare-
cov ovtus), (N°) BCLX.

falling upon ( érurerdv), N*AD
(MSS. mss.).

doeth his works, NBD.

himself doeth the works, AQ
(LX) (MSS. mss.).

ye will keep, NBL Memph.

keep, ADQX MSS. mss. Latt.
Syrr.

keep them in thy name which
(@) thou hast given me,
NABCL (MSS. mss.), Syrr.
Theb. (6 D*X mss.).

keep in thy name those whom
thou hast given me, a few
mss. Vg. Memph.).

thy name that thou, BC*L 33
(No Theb..Memph.).

thy name: those that thou,
ADX (MSS mss.) Latt.
Syrr.

Note.

Note.

and they came unto him and
said, NBLX 33 (MSS, mss.)
Latt. Theb. Memph.

and said, A (MSS. mss.).

— 47.

xiii. 2.

— 24.

— 25.

xiv. Io.

— 15.

Xvii. II.

12.

Xvili. I5.
— 24.
XiX. 3.

A careful examination of these pas-
sages will shew how rarely A gives a
certain ante-Nicene reading when au-
thorities are divided. The relative late-
ness of its text compared with the texts
of NBD and C, will be further apparent
from the following passages: i, 26 (8é),
39 (Sere), 49; iv. 21 (miorevoov), 46
(6 Ingots); Vv. 3 (odd), 15 (Kat); vi. 4o

OF Sr. JOHN. xciii
(~od mepwavros pe), 45 (ov), ix. 11, 41
(ov); x4 (7a iia mpdBara), 14; xi.
31 (Aéyovres ). 2

In the case of proper names A seems
to have adopted the later corrections, as
in writing Capernaum for Capharnaum
(NBCD, &c.); and Jonas for John, as
the name of the father of St. Peter (i.
42). This remark is not without weight
in regard to the readings of A in v. 2;
xviii. 1 (see notes).

On the other hand it will be no less
evident that in the examples given the
readings of B are almost beyond ques-
tion correct; and further inquiry will
tend to prove that no reading of B
which is supported by independent au-
thority, and certainly no reading of B
which is supported by a primary uncial
(e.g- &, C, D, A), can be altogether set
aside.

The following examples will repay
study. Combination of BN:

iv. 15. dépywpar.
v. 17. om. Inoots.
ix. 20. dmexp. odv.
— 23. érepwrioare,
— 28. kat éAoi8d,
xii. 4.  Aeyer 62,
xiv. 17. om. avté sec.
Xvii.II. avdroé.
xix.24. om, déyoura,
— 35. murrevnte,
— 39. éAvypa.

Such considerations carefully checked
and followed out lead to conclusions
which can be confidently accepted even
where the most ancient evidence is un-
usually divided, e.g. i. 21, iii. 15, vii. 39,
viii. 39, x. 29.

In most cases of slight variation the
reading of the text from which A.V. was
taken has been silently corrected, and a
translation of that which seems to be
the true text substituted for A.V.

It will be convenient to add a list of
these passages in addition to those
variations which have been already
noticed.

i. 29.

ii. 4.

— wu, 17,
22.

iii. 2.

iv. 30, 35,
43. Omit departed thence and ; 50,

he (John); 42, Omit and, 43
Add And; 10, Omit then.

Omit unto them.
him (Jesus) ; 18, Omit but.
XCiv

Omit and
(and).
Add and; 11, Add But;
12, Omit Then; 27, 30, 37,
. Omit himself; add he.
the (his); 7, 10, 11, therefore
(and); 14, 17, 24, Omit
also; 35, 38, 39, 42, now
(then) ; 43, Omit therefore;
47, 55, 58, the (your); Omit
manna; 63, 65, the F. (my
F.), 68, 71.
Add And; 10, Transpose to
the feast; 15, therefore
(and); 16, Add_ therefore;
20, 26, Omit very; 29, 32,
33, Omit unto them; 4o,
certain (many), 46, 50.
or (and); 20, 21, 25, 28, Omit
unto them; 29, 41, 46, Omit
and; 48, 52
ix 4, 6, 8,9, Add No, but; 10, 12, 14,
17, Add therefore; 20, 21,
25, 26, 28, 30, 31, 36, 37,
Omit And; 4o.

K. 12, 19, 31, 32, 33) 39:

xi. 12. Add to him; 29, 41, 44, 45,

(1); 52, therefore

vill. 14.

that ... he (the things ...
Jesus); 49, you (us); 53,
Omit together; 37.

xii. 1, 4, 6, 7, 13, 22, 23, 25,

34, 35, among (with).
xiii. 2, 3, 6, 22, 23, Omit Now, 26.
xiv. 2. Add for; 7, 9, 12, 14, 16, 17,
is (shall be); 28.
Xv. 7, 10, II, 14, 26.
xvi. 3, 4, their (the); 10, 15, 19, 20, 23,
25, 27, 29, 32, 33-
xvii. 1, 4, 17, the (thy); 20, 21, 23, 24.
xviii. 4, 13, 18, Add also, 28, 30, 31, 40,
Omit all,
Add him; 13, 14, Omit
and; 15, 16, 17, 20, 24, 29,
35, Add also; 38, 309.
xx. 6, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 28, 29.
xxi. 3, 4, I1, 12, 13, 15, 21. ,

xix. 7, II,

Two general conclusions will follow
from a careful study of the different lists
of variations which include, I believe,
all the passages where the text of St
John is in any way doubtful, (1) that
the utmost extent of variation is com-
paratively whimportant ; and (2) that the
most ancient text adds in almost every
case some minute touch which increases

INTRODUCTION TO

the vigour or clearness of the language.
The criterion of apparent fitness which
is most ambiguous when applied to
separate readings becomes trustworthy
when it is applied to a considerable
group of readings.

2. The interpretation of the Gospel.

The first commentary on the Gospel
of St John of which any distinct re-
cord has been preserved was written by
HERACLEON, ‘‘the most esteemed (8oxi-
pwraros) representative of the School
of Valentinus” (Clem. Al. ‘Strom.’ Iv.
9. 73), whose friend he is said to have
been. The work must therefore pro-
bably be assigned to the first half of the
second century. The quotations pre-
served by Origen shew that Heracleon
dealt with long continuous passages of
the Gospel (e.g. c. iv.), but it is not cer-
tain that he commented on the whole.
The text which he followed had one
important various reading (iv. 18, €,
six, for weévre, five); and the manner in
which he treats the book shews that he
regarded it as of divine authority in the
minutest details, though he frequently
distorts its meaning by strange mystical
interpretations 1.

The Commentary of ORIGEN was
written at the injunction of his friend
Ambrosius (‘in Joh. Tom.’ 1. §§ 3, 6).
The work was begun and the first five
books were written at Alexandria (c. A.D.
225, Euseb. ‘H.E.’ vi. 24), before his
ordination at Caesarea (A.D. 228). The
troubles which followed this event in-
terrupted the task and it seems not to
have been completed, if indeed it ever
was completed, till more than ten years
after its commencement (comp. Tom. v1.
§ 1). Eusebius mentions that of the
whole work ‘only twenty-two books”
(réyor) had come down to his time. He
does not say how many there were
originally. Jerome, according to the
common texts, speaks of ‘‘thirty-
four” or “thirty-nine? books (‘ Preef.
Hom. in Lue.’), but these readings

2 Part of the fragments of Heracleon are
printed after Grabe and Massuet in Stieren’s
Trenzeus, 1. 938 ff. Jerome mentions a Com-
mentary on the four Gospels attributed to
Theophilus of Antioch, but questions its
authenticity (‘De Virr, Il.’ 25; ‘ Praef, ad
Matt.’ Ep. cxxr. 6) ©
THE GOSPEL

are commonly altered to “ thirty-two”
on the authority of Rufinus (Huet,
Orig. tr. 2. 7). At present there re-
main Books I. mu, (John i. 1—7 a), vi.
(John i. 19—29), x. (John ii. 12—25),
XII, John Iv. 13—44), XIX. (part John
viii. 19—24), XX. (John viii, 3752),
XXVIII (John xi. 39—57), xxxi1. (John
xiii. 2—33), with fragments of Iv. v.
At the beginning of the thirty-third
book, which deals with c. xiii., Origen
speaks with doubt as to the completion
of the whole Commentary, nor does he
at the end of the book give, as he
sometimes does, a promise of the imme-
diate continuation of the work. It is
possible therefore that his labours may
have ended at this point. Certainly
the whole Commentary would have oc-
cupied at least fifty books.

The work has Origen’s faults and ex-
cellencies in full measure. Itis lengthy,
discursive, fanciful, speculative; but it
abounds with noble thoughts and intui-
tions of the truth. As a commentator
Origen created a new form of theological
literature.

Little remains of the works of the
earlier Greek Commentators of the fourth
century, THEODORUS of Heraclea (Pe-
rinthus), (Theodor. ‘H.E.’ 11. 3, Hieron.
‘De Virr. Ill.’ 90), and Dipymus of Alex-
andrja (Hieron. ‘ De Virr. Ill.’ 105). The
‘Homilies’ of CHRysostom, composed
while he was still at Antioch (before
A.D, 398), form the foundation of a his-
torical interpretation of the Gospel.
His explanations and applications of the
text are clear, vigorous and eloquent.
The reader will probably miss the signs
of a spontaneous sympathy with the
more mysterious aspects of the Gospel.

AUGUSTINE in his ‘Lectures on St
John’ (Tractatus in Joh. cxxtv.) is
strongest where Chrysostom is weakest.
His ignorance of Greek constantly be-
trays him into the adoption of a false
sense of the words, but his genius no
less frequently enables him to enter
with the fullest insight into the thought
of a passage which may escape the ver-
bal interpreter. I have ventured not un-
frequently to quote his terse and preg-
nant comments in their original form.
No translation can do them justice.
/The Commentaries of THEODORE of
Mopsuestia were popularly considered

OF Sr. JOHN.

the best of the Antiochene school. Con-
siderable fragments of his Commentary
on St John remain.

At the opposite extreme to Theodore
is Cyrin of Alexandria, whose Com-
mentary on St John remains nearly com-
plete. In this dogmatic interests over-
power all other considerations. It was
natural that Cyril should read the Gospel
in the light of the controversies in which
he was absorbed; but under his treat-
ment the divine history seems to be dis-
solved into adoceticdrama. Atthe same
time his speculations, like those of the
other Alexandrines, abound in isolated
thoughts of great subtlety and beauty.

The two distinct ‘Catenz’ of Corderius
and Cramer contain extracts from other
Greek Commentaries, Ammonius of
Alexandria, Apollinaris of Laodicea,
Severus of Antioch, Theodore of Hera-
clea, &c., but Cyril closes the series
of the great patristic interpreters of
St John. The Greek Commentaries of
THEOPHYLACT ({ 1107), and EUTHYMIUS
(¥ c. 1118), are mainly epitomes of Chry-
sostom, but both are clear and sensible.
The Latin Commentaries of Beda and
Walafrid Strabo (Glossa ordinaria) de-
pend largely on Augustine.

RuPerT of Deutz (‘Comm. in Joh.’
Libb. xiv.) in this subject as in others
shewed original power. His Commen-
taries on St John are marked by great
fertility in subtle speculation, though he
claims to deal more with humble details
than Augustine. The fragments of the
Commentary of JOHANNES ScOTUS ERI-
GENA are not less interesting, and he
explains the text carefully.

More comprehensive however and
serviceable than these commentaries is
the ‘Golden Chain’ (Catena aurea) of
THOMAS AQUINAS, which brings toge-
ther a large selection of comments from
Greek and Latin writers. It must how-
ever be used with. great caution, for a
considerable proportion of the quota-
tions adduced from early writers are
taken from spurious books.

Of the Commentaries of the sixteenth
century it must be sufficient to mention
a few which will serve as representa-
tives. Those of Ferus (i.e., Wild, of
Mainz, 1536), Corn. a Lapide (i.e. Van
der Steen, Louvain and Rome, + 1637),
and Maldonatus (Maldonato, of Sala-

XCV
XCVvi

manca and Paris, 1596; St John is
unfinished), among Roman Catholic
scholars ; of Brentius (i.e. Brenz, ‘ Homi-
lies,’ of Stuttgart, 1528), and J. Gerhard
(of Jena, 1617), among Lutherans; of
Musculus (i.e. Meusslin of Berne, 1548),
and R. Gualther (‘ Homilies,’ of Berne,
1565), among the ‘‘ Reformed,” are all
conspicuous for thought, research and
vigour. Lampe (of Utrecht, 1724) has
given a very complete list of the Com-
mentaries down to his own time; and
his own work is a mine of learning,
which it is, however, painful to work
from the form in which he has arranged
his materials.

The spread of idealism in Germany
in the first quarter of the present century
gave a fresh impulse to the study of
St John. Fichte (1806, ‘Anw. z. sel.
Leben,’ vi.) and Schelling (1841,
‘Werke,’ 11. 4, pp. 302 f.), in different
ways and with a partial conception of the
scope of the Gospel, insisted upon its
primary importance for the apprehen-
sion of Christian truth in relation to the
present age. When Neander began his
public work (1813), he lectured on the
Gospel of St John, and on his deathbed
(1850) he announced as the subject of
his next course ‘“‘ The Gospel of St John
considered in its true historical posi-
tion.”” Meanwhile great light had been
thrown upon the composition and con-
tents of the Gospel. The commentaries
of Liicke (1st ed. 1820—24), of Tholuck
(1st ed. 1827), of Klee (1829), of Ols-
hausen (1st ed. 1832), of Meyer (1st ed.
1834), and of De Wette (1st ed. 1837),
contributed in various degrees to illus-
trate its meaning.

It does not fall within my scope to
criticise these or later books.!

For obvious reasons I have thought
it best to refrain from using modern
English Commentaries, with one partial
exception. Otherwise I have endea-
voured to take account as far as possible
of the writings of every school which
seemed likely to contribute to the under-
standing of St John. My one aim has

1 An admirable summary of the literature
dealing with the authenticity of St John’s
Gospel has been added by Dr C. R. Gregory
to the English translation of Luthardt’s ‘ St
John the Author of the Fourth Gospel,’ Edin-
burgh, 1875.

INTRODUCTION TO

been to express what seems to me the
sense and teaching of his words. With
this view I have, except in a few cases,
simply given the conclusion at which
I have arrived without reviewing rival
opinions, or citing the authorities by
which it is supported or opposed. I
have not however consciously passed
over or extenuated any difficulty which
I have been able to feel: nor again,
have I called particular attention to
details which happen to have come into
undue prominence in modern contro-
versy.

It would be an idle task to enumerate
all the names of those from whose
writings I have sought and gained help;
and I should be unable to measure the
debts which I owe to scholars who often
teach much when they do not command
assent. Yet there are some names
which cannot be passed over in silence.
When I began to work seriously at the
Gospel of St John more than twenty-five
years ago I felt that I owed most to
Origen, Neander, Olshausen, Luthardt,
and, from a very different point of view,
to E. C. Baur. In arranging my thoughts
during the last eight years I feel that I
owe most to Godet, whose Comment-
ary, except on questions of textual criti:
cism, seems to me to be unsurpassed.
And on the other hand Keim has con-
tinually offered criticisms and sugges-
tions which have opened fresh sources
of illustration for the text, But through-
out this space of Cambridge work, the
living voice of friends has been far more
helpful to me than books. The fulness
of sympathy in common labour brings
light and fresh power in vision, and not
only materials for thought.

Throughout the notes I have quoted
the renderings of the Latin Vulgate in
the hope of directing more attention to
the study of it. It seems to me that we
have lost much in every way from our
neglect ofa Version which has influenced
the Theology of the West more pro-
foundly than we know.

One department of illustration, it
must be added, still calls for systematic
study. The didactic method and not
only the language of St John is essen-
tially Hebraic; and very much has still
to be learnt especially from the Midrash-
im before the full force of his record
THE GOSPEL

can be apprehended. The collections
which Wetstein has made from Light-
foot and other early Rabbinic scholars,
Delitzsch’s ‘ Horee Hebraicze’ (in the
Ztschr. f. Luth Theol.’); the recent
work of Wiinsche (‘ Neue Beitrage zur
Erlauterung der Evangelien aus Talmud
u, Midrash,’ Gédttingen, 1878), which
is very useful, but by no means always
exact; Siegfried’s ‘Philon von Alexan-
dria’ (indirectly), and Mr. Taylor’s ex-
cellent edition of the ‘ Sayings of the
Jewish Fathers’ (Pirke Aboth), rather
point to the rich mine than exhaust it.1

There is a remarkable legend (‘ She-
moth R.’ c. v.), that when the LorD
gave the Law from Sinai He wrought
great marvels with His voice (Job xxxvii.
5). ‘ The voice soundeth from the South ;
and as the people hastened to the
South, lo! it sounded from the North.
They turned to the North, and it came
from the East. They turned to the
East, and it came from the West. They
turned thither, and it came from heaven.
They lifted up their eyes to heaven,

* The ‘ K6l Kéré’ of R. Soloweyczyk trans-
lated into French under the title ‘ La Bible, le
Talmud et 1’Evangile,’ Paris, 1875, St Matthew
and St Mark, is of little value in this respect.

OF Sr. JOHN. xcvii
and it came from the depths of the
earth. And they said one to another,
Where shall wisdom be found? (Job
XXviii, 12).

‘And the Voice went forth throughout
the world, and was divided into seventy
voices, according to the seventy tongues
of men, and each nation heard the
Voice in its own tongue, and their souls
failed them; but Israel heard and suf-
fered not.

“And each one in Israel heard it
according to his capacity; old men, and
youths, and boys, and sucklings and
women: the voice was to each one as
each one had the power to receive it.”

The student of St John will find
the parable fulfilled as he ponders
the Apostle’s words with growing expe-
rience, and unchanged patience. He
himself limits the meaning which he
finds in them.

“Omnes carnalium sordes affectuum
ab oculis cordis abstergendze sunt iis
qui in schol4 Christi venerabilibus stu-
dent litteris ; ut hanc aliquatenus valeant
Aquilam prosequi, quam cordis mundi-
tia juvit ut claritatem solis eeterni, plus
ceteris divinze visionis animalibus, irre-
verberata posset mentis acie contem-
plari’’ (RUPERTUS OF DEUTZ).
THE GOSPEL A

CCORDING TO

St. JOHN.

CHAPTER I.
» The dwinity, humanity, and office of Jesus
Christ. 15 The testimony of John. 39 The
calling of Andrew, Peter, &c.

N the beginning was the Word,
and the Word was with God,
and the Word was God,

 

Tue GosPEL accorpInc To St Joun]
The title of the Gospel, which is found in
very different forms in ancient authorities,
is no part of the book itself. The earliest
authorities, and those which represent the
earliest text, give the simplest form: Ac-
cording to John( cata’ Twavynv[-dvnv NBD;
secundum Iohannem (as the running head-
ing) Lat. vt.; and so Syr. vt.: of John).
The word Gospel which is implied in this
title is supplied by the mass of MSS.
(ebayyéAcov kata,"I. [without the article)
ACLX, &c.; and so, as the initial heading,
Lat. vt., Syr. vt.). Very many of the later
MSS. add the definite article (rd xara.’
evayy.).and very many also add an epi-
thet: The holy Gospel according to John
(7d xara’I. dyvov edayy). A few MSS. give
the remarkable title: Of the [holy] Gospel
according to John (éx Tov xara. ’I. [dyiov]
evayy.). The printed texts of the Peshito
give: The holy Gospel of the preaching of
John the preacher. There is a similar variety
in the titles given in the English Versions :
Det Godspell aefter Iohannes gerecednesse
[marration] (Anglo-Saxon). The Gospel
(Zuuangelie) of Joon [or Joon simply]
(Wycliffe). The Gospel of Saint John
(Tyndale 1526, 1534, 1535, Coverdale, Mat-
thew, Great Bible). The Gospel after 8.
John (Taverner 1539, with the running
heading The Gospel of S. John). The
Gospel by Saint Iohn (Bishops’ Bible 1568,
1572). The Holy Gospel of Jesus Christ
according to John (Geneva 1560, Rheims
1582 with the running heading The Gospel
according to 8. John, Tomson 1583). The
Gospel according to S. John (A.V. 1611).

Tue PRoocueE (i. i.—18).

Though the narrative of St. John’s Gospel
is not marked off by any very distinct line
from the introductory verses, it has been
generally acknowledged that i. 1—18 forms
an introduction to the whole work. This
conclusion appears to be completely estab-
lished by a careful analysis of the contents
of the section, which present in a summary
form the main truths that are illustrated
by the records of the history. The first |

»

i

verse appears to stand by itself: the re- ,
maining verses give an outline of the rela- |
tions of the Word to Creation. The con- ;
nexion of the different parts, and the order
of progress, will be best seen in a tabular

form :
If/Tue Worp 1n His ABsoLure, ETER-
Brine (v. 1).

1. His Existence : Beyond time.

2. His Personal Existence: In active
Communion with God.

8. His Nature: God in Essence.

II. Taz WorpD IN RELATION TO CREA-
TION (vv. 2—18).
1. The essential facts (vv. 2—5).
i. The source of creation.
In the divine counsel (v. 2).
ii. The act of creation (v. 3).
The Word the Agent (through
Him).
The Word the Quickening Pre-
sence (not apart from Him).
iii. The being of things created
(vv. 4, 5).
a. In the divine Idea (v. 4).
As to the World.
As to Man,
6. In human history (v. 5).
The continuous conflict of
Light and Darkness  fol-
lowing on a critical assault
of Darkness.
2. The historic manifestation of the
Word generally (vv. 6—18).
1. The testimony of prophecy repre-
sented by John (vv. 6—8)
a. John’s personality (v. 6).
6. The end of his mission (v. 7).
c. His nature (v. 8).
ii. The manifestations of the Word
(as Light) before the Incarnation
(vv. 9, 10).
a. By special revelations (v. 9).
6. By His immanent Presence
(v. 10).
iii. The Coming of the Word to the
Chosen People consummated at
the Incarnation (vv. 11—18).
a. National unbelief (v. 11).
6. Individual faith (vv. 12, 18).
‘

St. JOHN.

8. The Incarnation as apprehended by
personal experience (vv. 14—18).
i. The personal witness (v. 14).
a. The fact.
b. The observation of the fact.
c. The moral nature of the fact.
ii. The witness of prophecy (John)
(vw. 15).
a. The promised Christ.
6. His essential dignity.
lii. The nature of the revelation (vv.
16—18).
a. Inthe experience of believers.
b. In relation to the Law.
c. In its final source.

Other arrangements of the Prologue have
been proposed which bring out different as-
pects. It has been divided into two parts :
1—5, (the essential nature of the Word),
6—18 (the historical manifestation of the
Word); and again into three parts: 1—5,
6—13, 14—18, which have been supposed
to present the progressive revelation of the
Word, either in fuller detail from section
to section, or in historical order, as He is
essentially, as He was made known under
the Old Covenant, as He was made known
under the New; and yet again into three
parts : 1—4 (the activity of the Word be-
fore the Incarnation generally), 5—11 (the
revelation of unbelief), 12—18 (the revela-
tion of faith).

The detailed examination of the text will
shew how far these arrangements corres-
pond with the structure of the whole pas-
sage.

I. Tue Worp in HIs ABSOLUTE, ETER-
nat Berna (v. 1).

Cuap. I. 1. The first sentence of the
Gospel offers a perfect example of the
stately symmetry by which the whole nar-
rative is marked. The three clauses of
which it consists are set side by side (...and
..and...). the Subject (the Word) is three
times repeated; and the substantive verb
three times occupies the same relative posi-
tion. The symmetry of form corresponds
with the exhaustiveness of the thought.
The three clauses contain all that it is
possible for man to realise as to the essen-
tial nature of the Word in relation to time,
and mode of being, and character : He was
(1) in the beginning : He was (2) with God :
He was (3) God. At the same time these
three clauses answer to the three great
moments of the Incarnation of the Word
declared in v. 14. He who ‘“‘ was God,”
became flesh: He who ‘“‘ was with God,”
tabernacled among us (comp. 1. John i. 2) :
He who ‘“‘ was in the beginning,’’ became
(in time).

This revelation is the foundation of the
whole Gospel of St. John. It sets aside the
false notion that the Word became ‘“‘ per-
sonal’’ first at the time of Creation or at
the Incarnation. The absolute, eternal,

I

immanent relations of the Persons of the
Godhead furnish the basis for revelation.
Because the Word was personally distinct
from ‘‘God’ and yet essentially ‘‘ God,”
He could make Him known. Compare an
interesting passage of Ireneus: 11. 30, 9.

In the beginning] The phrase carries
back the thoughts of the reader to Gen. i.
1, which necessarily fixes the sense of the
beginning. Here, as there, ‘“‘the begin-
ning’’ is the initial moment of time and
creation; but there is this difference, that
Moses dwells on that which starts from
the point, and traces the record of divine
action from the beginning (comp. 1 Johni.
1, ii. 13), while St John lifts our thoughts
beyond the beginning and dwells on that
which ‘‘was’’ when time, and with time
finite being, began its course. Comp.
Prov. viii. 23. Already when ‘God
created the heaven and the earth,’’ ‘‘ the
Word was.’’ The ‘‘being’’ of the Word
is thus necessarily carried beyond the limits
of time, though the pre-existence of the
Word is not definitely stated. The simple

ffirmation of existence in this connexion
suggests a loftier conception than that of
pre-existence ; which is embarrassed by the
idea of time. Pre-existence however is
affirmed in a different connexion: ch.
xvii. 5,

This force of in the beginning is brought
out by a comparison with the correspond-
ing phrase in x John i. 1, from the begin-
ning. The latter marks the activity of the
Word in time from the initial point : the
former emphasizes the existence of the
Word at the initial point, and so before
time.

was] The verb was does not express a
completed past, but rather a continuous
state. The imperfect tense of the original
suggests in this relation, as far as human
language can do so, the notion of absolute,
supra-temporal, existence.

. the Word] This translation of the ori-

‘ginal (Adyos, Vulg. verbum, though some

early Latin authorities give sermo) ought
undoubtedly to be kept. It is probable
that there is a reference to the language
of Gen. i. 8 ff, ‘‘God said.’’ For the his-
tory and meaning of the term Logos see
Introduction p. xv. Here it will be suffi-
cient to observe :

1. The personal title Logos is used ab-
solutely only in vv. 1, 14 (Rev. xix. 13;
Heb. iv. 12—the Word of God). In 1
John i, 1 the phrase the Word of life is
not personal, but equivalent to ‘‘ the reve-
lation of the life.”

2. The term ASyos never has the sense of
reason in the New Testament.

“8. St. John introduces the term without
any explanation. He assumes that his
readers are familiar with it.

4. The theological use of the term ap-
pears to be derived directly from the
aGen.1.1.

b Col. 1. 16.

Vi. 2 8]
2 @The same was in the beginning
with God.
3 bAll things were made by him;

Sr. JOHN I.

3

and without him was not any thing
made that was made.

 

Palestinian Memra, and not from the
Alexandrine Logos.

5. Though the term is not used in the
apostolic writings in the sense of Reason,
yet the first verse deals with the divine
relations independently of the actual reve-
lation to men. The ‘‘ Word’ (Aéyos) of v.
1 includes the conception of the immanent
word (Adyos évéideros) of Greek philo-
sophy in thought though not in language.
But the idea is approached from the side
of historical revelation. He who has been
made known to us as “the Word” was
in the beginning. Thus the economic
Trinity, the Trinity of revelation, is
shewn to answer to an essential Trinity.
The Word as personal (¢vurécraros) satis-
fies every partial conception of the Logos,

_ 6. The personal titles ‘the Word’ and
‘“the Word of God” must be kept in close
connexion with the same terms as applied
to the sum of the Gospel in the New Tes-
tament, and with the phrase ‘‘the word
of the Lord’’ in the prophecies of the Old
Testament. The Word, before the Incar-
nation, was the one source of the many
divine words; and Christ, the Word In-
carnate, is Himself the Gospel.

7. The evangelist uses the title Word
and not Son here, because he wishes to
. earry his readers to the most absolute con-
* ceptions.

was with God] The phrase (jv mpds, Vulg.
erat apud) is remarkable. It is found also
Matt. xiii. 56; Mark vi. 3; Mark ix. 19;
Mark xiv. 49; Luke ix. 41; 1 John i. 2.
The idea conveyed by it is not that of
simple coexistence, as of two persons con-
templated separately in company (eZvas
perd, iii. 26, &.), or united under a com-
mon conception (efvae ovv, Luke xxii. 56),
or (so to speak) in local relation (efvas wapd,
ch. xvii. 5), but of being (in some sense)
directed towards and regulated by that
‘with which the relation is fixed (v. 19).
The personal being of the Word was
realised in active intercourse with and in
perfect communion with God. Compare
Gen. i. 26, where the same truth is ex-
pressed under distinct human imagery.
The Word “ was with God ” before He re-
vealed God. The main thought is in-
cluded in the statement that God is love (1
John iv, 16; comp. ch. xvii, 24); and it
finds expression in another form in the
description of ‘‘the life, the life eternal,
which was manifested to men.’’ This life
“was with the Father” (}v rpds Tov jwarépa,
not mpds Tov Gedy, 1 John 1. 2) : it was real-
ised in the intercommunion of the divine
Persons when time was not.

the Word was God) The predicate (God)

stands emphatically first, aa iv.24. It is neces-
sarily without the article (Peds not 6 Oeds)
inasmuch as it describes the nature of thé
Word and does not identify His Personi
It would be pure Sabellianism to say ‘‘the
Word was 6 Oeds,” No idea of inferiority of
nature is suggested by the form of ex-
pression, which simply affirms the true
deity of the Word. Compare for the con-
verse statement of the true humanity of
Christ v. 27 (67 vids avOpwmov érriv note).
On the other hand it will be noticed that
“the Word” is placed in personal relation
to “God” (6 eds) spoken of absolutely in
the second clause; while in the third
clause ‘‘the Word”’ is declared to be ‘‘God,””
and so included in the unity of the God-
head. Thus we are led to conceive that,
the divine nature is essentially in the Son,’
and at the same time that the Son can be
regarded, according to that which is His
peculiar characteristic, in relation to God
as God. He is the ‘‘ image of God’? (elkav
tov G@eod) and not simply of the Father.

II. Tue Worp IN RELATION TO CREATION
(vv, 2—18).

This main section of the Prologue falls
into three parts :

1. The essential facts (vv. 2—5).

2. The historic manifestation of

Word generally (vv, 6—13).
8. The Incarnation as apprehended by
personal experience (uv, 14—18).

The Evangelist having given in the first
verse such an idea as man can receive of
the Word in Himself, next traces out step
by step the mode in which the Word has
entered into relation with Creation.

1. The essential facts (vv. 2—5).

This sub-section lays open the source of
creation in the divine counsel (v. 2), the
act ofcreation through the Word and by
His Presence (v. 3), the being of things
created in the divine idea (v. 4), and as
manifested in history (v. 5).

2. In passing from the thought of the
Personal Being of the Word in Himself to
the revelation of the Word, the Evangelist
brings the revelation into the closest con-
nexion with the essential Nature of the
Word by the repetition in combination of
the three clauses of the Ist verse: The
same was in the beginning with God.
At the moment of creation that relation,
which was eternally, was actually effec-
tive. Creation itself was (in some sense)
the result of the eternal fellowship ex-
pressed in the relation of the Word to God.

The same] Literally, This [Word] ; He
who has just been declared to be God. The
pronoun implies and emphasizes the whole
previous definition Comp. vi. 46, vii. 18, &

B

the

4
4

Sr. JOHN.

4 In him was life; and the life was
the light of men.

I. [v. 4, 5:

5 And the light shineth in darkness ;
and the darkness comprehended it not.

 

3, All things] The exact form (ravra)

pas all things taken severally, and not

“U, x. 6; Col. i. 16, &c.) suggests the idea

all things regarded as a defined whole (7a
mdvra, Col. i. 16). The thought to be
brought out is that of the vast multiplicity
of created things (spirits, matter, &c.). Of
all these no one came into being without
the Word. For this reason the term ‘‘ the
world” (6 kdopos, vv, 9, 10) is purposely
avoided. ee Re anaes

were made] Literally, became (éyévero).
Creation itself is represented as a ‘‘ becom-
ing’’ in contrast with the ‘‘ being’”’ empha-
sized before. The same contrast recurs in
vv, 6, 9.

Three distinct words are used in the New

‘estament to convey the conception of crea-
tion, (1) to create (krifevv), and (2) to make
(wovetv), in reference to the Creator ; and (3)
to become (yéyver Oat) in reference to that
which is created. The first word (Rev. iv.

of design, plan, purpose; the second (Rev.
xiv. 7; Mark x. 6, &c.), of an actual result
or object produced (comp. Eph. ii. 10);

(tee third, of the law fulfilled in the pro-

i

duction of the object. The use of ‘‘become”’
in vv. 14, 17, brings out its force as ex-
pressive of the unfolding of a divine order.

by him] through Him. The Word is de-
scribed as the mediate Agent of Creation
(8d, through, not tro by). Comp. Col.
i. 16; Heb. i. 2. The Father is the one
spring, source (777), and end of all finite
being, as He isof the Godhead. All things
are of Him...through Jesus Christ...(1 Cor.
viii.6). Thus in different relations creation
can be attributed to the Father and to the
Son. Comp. v. 17.

without him] Literally, apart from Him
(comp. xv. 5). Creation is set forth under
a twofold aspect, as depending on the di-
vine Agency and on the divine Presence.
It is first called into being by the Word,
and then sustained in being by Him (Heb.
i, 3). Compare the use of in Him, Col. i.
16, 17; Acts xvii. 28. ‘,

was not any thing made] The true form
of the text gives not even one thing
(od8é év), for “not anything” (ovdev), St
John emphasizes the universality of the
action of the Word. The same thought is
expressed in detail by St Paul: Col. i. 16.

For the combination of a positive and
negative expression to express the fulness
of truth, see ch. iii. 16, vi. 50; 1 John i.
5, ii. 4, 27, v. 12.

was made] hath been made. The change
f tense (from éyevero to yéyovev)
istinguishes the act of creation (aor.) from
he continuance of things created (perf.).
Compare Col. i. 16 (éxtic On, exturrar).

8,4. ...that was made (hath been made).

In him was life...) The original words
admit two very distinct divisions. The last
clause of v.38 may be taken either (1) with
the words which precede, as A. V.,or (2)
with the words which follow. It would be
difficult to find a more complete consent of
ancient authorities in favour of any read-
ing, than that which supports the second
punctuation: Without Him was not any-
thing made. That which hath been made
in Him was life. See Note at the end of
the Chapter.

4. The life was the light of men) The
works of the Word supplied for a time,
from within and from without, that which
He supplied more completely by His per-
sonal manifestations (ix. 5, note), and after-
wards by His historical Presence (viii. 12,
xii. 46), and yet more completely by His
Presence through the Spirit in the Church.
He is Himself, however revealed, the
Light of men and of the world (viii. 12,
ix, 5).

the light] the one light. It must be ob-
served that the Word is not here spoken of
directly as ‘“‘the Light of men.’’ He is
“the Light’? through the medium of
“‘Life.”” In part and according to the
divine constitution of things He is made
known, and makes Himself known, in and
through the vital processes of creation.

of men] of men asa class(Tov dvOpdwv)
and not of individuals only. Comp. iii. 19,

xvii. 6. Man as made in the image of God
stood in a special relation to the Word.
“He saith not the Light of the Jews only
but of all men; for all of us, in so far as
we have received intellect and reason from
that Word which created us, are said to be
illuminated by Him’’ (Theophylact, quoted
by Thomas Aqu.).

_5. In v. 4 the divine essence and the
divine purpose of creation are declared from
the side of God; in v. 5 the Evangelist
describes the actual state of things from
the side of man. The description holds
good generally. It embraces the experi-
ence of Judaism and Heathendom, of pre-
Christian and post-Christian times. The
truth which found its most signal
fulfilment in the historical Presence of
Christ, was established in various ways
both before and after it. The conflict of
Light and Darkness which represents one
aspect of the history of the Gospel, repre-
sents also one aspect of all human history.

the light] It is probable that the word
must be taken in a somewhat wider sense
in this clause than in the last, so as to in-
clude not only the manifestations of the
Word (as “Life”) through “Nature” in
the widest sense of the term, but also the

Personal manifestations of the Word. It
is impossible for us to judge how far the
c Matt. 3.
1.

v. 6, 7.]

6 4 cThere was a man sent from
God, whose name was John.

Sr. JOHN I.

7 The same came for a_ wit-
ness, to bear witness of the Light,

 

two series of manifestations may be in fact
united. Comp. Ps, xxxvi. 9.

shineth] Comp. 1 John ii. 8. The light
does not ‘“‘appear’’ only; it ‘‘ lightens,”
Gen. i. 17; Ps. lxxvii. 18, xcvii. 4 (LXX.).
It is of the essence of light to invade the
realm of darkness. The word (paivery ) de-
cribes that which is the action of light in
itself, as distinguished from its effects as
“illuminating” men (pwrifev, v. 9). This
action of the Light is not to be limited to
any one point. It is continuous from the
creation to the consummation of things,
though there have been times when it has
flashed forth with peculiar splendour.

in darkness] in the darkness. Side by
side with the light the darkness appears
suddenly and without preparation. An ac-
quaintance with the history of the Fall is
evidently presupposed. The perfect fellow-
ship of man and God has been broken.
Man in his self-will has separated, isolated
himself. He has made for himself, so to
speak, an atmosphere of darkness, by seek-
ing to sever his life from the Source of life.
For all that is without God, apart from
Him, is darkness. Comp. 1 John i. 5.

comprehended (overcame) it not] The

- verb in the original(xaréAa@ev) has received

er

two very different renderings—overcame
and apprehended. It is found again in a
parallel passage, xii. 35, that darkness
overtake you not; and also in an old
reading of vi. 17, the darkness overtook
them. In these cases the sense cannot be
doubtful. The darkness comes down upon,
enwraps men. As applied to light this sense
includes the further notion of overwhelm-
ing, eclipsing. The relation of darkness to
light is one of essential antagonism. If
the darkness is represented as pursuing the
light it can only be to overshadow and not
to appropriate it. And this appears to be
the meaning here. The existence of the
darkness is affirmed, and at the same time
the unbroken energy of the light. But the
victory of the light is set forth as the result
of a past struggle ; and the abrupt alteration
of tense brings into prominence the change
which has passed over the world. It could
not but happen that the darkness when it
came should seek to cover all; and in this
attempt it failed : the light is shining in the
darkness, and the darkness overcame it not.
This general interpretation of the word,
which is completely established by the
usage of St John (comp. 1 Thess. v. 4), is
supported by the Greek Fathers; but the
Latin version gives the rendering compre-
henderunt, “took hold of,” ‘‘ embraced.”
‘This sense, however, and that of ‘‘ under-
tood’’ (expressed in the New Testament
y the middle voice of the verb; Acts iv.

18, x. 34, xxv. 25; Eph. iii. 18) seem to be
inconsistent with the image and foreign to
the context. The darkness, as such, could

not ‘‘seize,’’ ‘‘ appropriate,’ the light. In.
And,
yet further, the notion of the historical de-.
velopment of revelation is not at present,
pursued. The great elements of the moral;

doing this it would cease to exist.

position of the world are stated: their,
combinations and issues are outlined after
wards. In this respect v. 5 is parallel wit.

9—18, indicating the existence and continu-
ance of a conflict which is there regarded
in its contrasted issues. The whole phrase
is indeed a startling paradox. The light
does not banish the darkness: the dark-
ness does not overpower the light. Light
and darkness coexist in the world side by
side.

2. The historic manifestation of the
Word generally (vv. 6—13).

In the former section the great facts
which issue in the spiritual conflict of life
have been set forth. The Evangelist now
traces in outline the course of the conflict
which is apprehended in its essential char-
acter in the final manifestation of the
Light. This manifestation was heralded
by prophecy, of which John the Baptist
was the last representative (vv. 6—8). It
had been prepared also by continuous reve-
lations of the Word, as light, at once
through special communications (v. 9), and
by His immanent Presence (v. 10). But
when He came to His own in the fulness of
time, He found, as the Incarnate Saviour,
national unbelief (v. 11) relieved only by
individual faith (vv. 12, 18). The conflict
shadowed out before (v. 5) still continued.

6—8. The office of prophecy is shewn
through the work of the Baptist ; of whom
the Evangelist speaks in regard to his per-
sonality (v. 6), the end of his mission (v. 7),
his nature (v. 8). The abrupt introduction
of John is explained by the fact that the
review of the revelation, preparatory to the
Incarnation, starts from the last, that is
the most intelligible, stage in it. The
Baptist—a priest and a Nazarite—was the
completed type of the Prophet (Matt. xi.
9 f. and parallels) ; and it was by the Bap-
tist, an interpreter of the Old Dispensation
and herald of the New, that St John him-
self was guided to Christ (vv. 35 ff.).

6. There was...) More exactly, There
arose, became ( éyévero )...Each of the three
words in the original which describe the
advent of John is expressive. His ‘‘ becom-
ing’’ is contrasted with the ‘‘being’’ of the
Word (v.9). He is spoken of as a ‘‘ man”
with a significant reference to the mystery
realised in v. 14 And at the same time he
was charged with a divine mission.

5
Sr. JOHN. I. [v. 8, 9.

that all men through him might
believe.
8 He was not that Light, but

was sent to bear witness of that
Light. )
9 That was the true Light, which

 

sent from God] from (apa) and not sim-

ply by God (comp. xv. 26). On the word
used here for send (drrooTéAAw),see xx. 21
note. Comp. Mal. iii. 1, ch. iii, 28. The
‘two words (was, sent) are not a mere peri-
phrasis for ‘‘ was sent :’’ they fix attention
separately on the person and on the mis-
sion of the Baptist.

whose name...) Rather (in accordance
with St John’s sharp brief style ; so iii. 1),
his name was... Possibly an allusion to the
meaning of the name (Theodore, Gotthold,
God’s gracious gift) underlies the clause.
Compare Luke i. 63.

John] On the use of the simple name
without any title in the fourth Gospel, see
Introd.

7. The same] He who was of such a
nature, so commissioned, so named. Comp.
v. 2, and contrast the pronoun in v. 8.

came for a witness, to bear...that...]
came for witness, that he might bear...that
all men...John’s mission is first set forth
under its generic aspect : he came for wit-
ness (is paptupiar), not for a witness ;
and then its specific object (iva pap. mepi
tr. $.) and its final object (iva 7. mu.) are
defined co-ordinately (that...that...). This
combination of successive and related ends
under one form of construction, is charac-
teristic of St John’s style: comp. xx. 31,
xv, 16, xvii. 21, 23 f. For the phrase “ for
witness” compare the kindred phrase Matt,
viii, 4, x. 18, xxiv. 14 (es papriptoy);
Mark vi. 11. The coming of the Baptist
(Ae) in the fulfilment of his office is con-
trasted with his personal coming (éyévero
v. 6).

for witness} On the idea of “ witness”
see Introd. The office of the prophet in the
fullest sense is to make known Another.
This office had been fulfilled “in many parts
and in many fashions” by all God’s
messengers in earlier times, and at last
eminently by the Baptist (comp. iii. 30).
He came, as his predecessors, but with a
clearer charge, to bear witness concerning
the Light, to interpret to men the signs of
a divine will and guidance without them
and within them, and then to point to Him
who was Himself the Life and the Light.
In this way provision was made for leading
men in human ways to recognise the divine.
i; all men] The prophets had prepared the
way for the extension of the divine call be-
yond Israel (comp. Isai. xlix. 6). The Bap-
tist at last delivered a message which in its
essence was universal. As the last pro-
phet, the last interpreter of the Law, he
carried the preparatory discipline to its
final application. He spoke to men as men;
outward descent, national privileges, dis-

appeared from their place in the divine
order from the time of his preaching. The

basis of his preaching was ae j

inner self-renunciation—the end was fait
In this connexion it is to be noticed that”
the conception of faith is sharpened by
being left in an absolute form : that all men
might believe (contrast v. 12) through him
(John). There can be but one adequate ob-
ject of faith, even God made known in the
Son. Believe is used similarly v. 60, v. 44,
xi. 15, xiv. 29, &., iv. 41 f., 58, xix. 35,
xx. 29, 31.

The character of the Baptist’s preaching
is implied in its scope. The phrase “all
men’’ is unintelligible except on the sup-
position that the universal gospel was pre-
ceded by a call to repentance. But it is
worthy of remark that St John does not
notice explicitly his call to repentance, nor
do the terms ‘‘ repent,”’ ‘‘ repentance”’ find
a place in his Gospel or Epistles (‘‘Repent’’
occurs frequently in the Apocalypse). Thus
the correspondence between St John and
the Synoptists as to the character of the
Baptist’s work is complete without a cor-
respondence of letter.

through him] that is the Baptist, not the
Light. The message of the Baptist has an
absolute and enduring power. He still in
spirit goes before Christ.

8. He was not that (the) Light] From
this passage and other similar passages (v.
20, ili, 26 ff.) it has been plausibly argued|
that the Evangelist was familiar with som
who unduly exalted the Baptist. Comp.
Acts xix, 3f. John was “the lamp” (v. 35
and not the light. The pronoun of refer:
ence which is used (éxetvos) isolates and so
fixes attention upon the person referred
to. Comp. i. 18, note, ii, 21, note.

but was sent to...) Literally, but that...
The ellipse is best filled up from v.7: but
came that he might... Comp. ix. 3, xv. 25,
note,

9,10. The preparation of prophecy, re-
presented by John, was one part of the
education of the world. The Word Him-
self as light (v. 5) visited the world which
He had made (v. 9), and was in it still
(v. 10).

9. That was (There was) the true Tight
..that cometh (coming) into the world] The
original text is ambiguous. The participle
coming (€pxdpevor ) may agree either (1)
with man, or (2) with light. Thus there
are two distinct series of interpretations,
(1) If coming be taken with man, the sense
will be either (a) simply “ every man”
according to a common Hebrew idiom, or
(b) “every man at the moment of his birth.”
But it is scarcely possible that the words
“coming into the world” can be without
Vv. 10—13. | sr. JOHN L 7
lighteth every man that cometh into 12 But as many as received him,
the world. to them gave he llpower to become ue Or, on,

dHebr.11. 10 He was in the world, and dthe the sons of God, even to them that privilege

world was made by him, and the
world knew him not,

11 He came unto his own, and his
own received him not,

believe on his name:

13 Which were born, not of blood,
nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the
will of man, but of God.

 

distinct meaning; and, in spite of Words-
worth’s greatest ode, it is hardly true to
say that the illumination of the Light,
which comes through Life, is most com-
plete at man’s entrance into the world.
(2) If, on the other hand, coming be

taken to agree with light, it may be
directly connected either (a) with
‘“‘Tighteth,’” or (6) with ‘‘was.’’ In the

first case (a) the sense will be ‘‘lighteth
every man by coming; but the context
does not call for any statement as to the
mode of the action of the Light; and the
Light illuminates by ‘‘ being’’ as well as by
‘‘coming.”” If then (b) ‘‘ was...coming,”
be taken together, there is still some am-
biguity remaining. The phrase has been
interpreted to mean (a) ‘‘ was destined to
come,’’ and (8) ‘‘ was on the point of com-
ing,’ and (y) ‘‘was in the very act of
coming.”

But it seems best to take it more literally
and yet more generally as describing a
coming which was progressive, slowly ac-
complished, combined with a permanent
being, so that both the verb (was) and the
participle (coming) have their full force,
and do not form a periphrasis for an im-
perfect. The mission of John was one and
definite; but all along up to his time “the
Light” of which he came to witness con-
tinued to shine, being revealed in many
parts and in many ways. There was the
Light, the true Light, which lighteth every
man; that Light was, and yet more, that
Light was coming into the world. The
same idea of a constant, continuous coming
of the Word to men is found in vi. 33, 50,
where “that cometh” (6 xaraSaivwv) stands
in marked contrast with “that came”
(6 karaPds, vv. 51, 58). Taken in relation
to the context, the words declare that men
were not left alone to interpret the mani-
festations of the Light in the Life around
them and in them. The Light from whom
that Life flows made Himself known more
directly. From the first He was (so to
speak) on His way to the world, advancing
towards the Incarnation by preparatory
revelations. He came in type and prophecy
and judgment.

The identification of “the Word” with
“the Light” is natural and prepared by
v.5. But, at the same time, the titles are
not co-extensive. “The Light” (as the
other special titles, the Bread of Life, &c.)
describes “the Word” only in a special
relation towards creation and particularly

towards men.
In this relation the Light is characterized

as (1) the true (dAnO.vds) Light, and (2)

that which lighteth every man, The former “

expression (1) marks the essential nature of /
the Light as that of which all other lights

are only partial rays or reflections, as the ,

arche-typal Light (see iv. 23, vi. 32, xv. 1).
The “true light” in this sense is not
opposed to a “false light,” but to an
imperfect, incomplete, transitory light.

The latter (2) describes the universal ex-j
tent of its action. The words must be’
taken simply as they stand. No man is
wholly destitute of the illumination of ‘‘the
Light.”” In nature, and life, and con-
science it makes itself felt in various de-
grees to all. The Word is the spiritual
Sun : viii. 12 (xi. 9). This truth, it may
be added, is recognised here by St John,
but he does not (like Philo) dwell upon it.
Before the fact of the Incarnation it falls
into the background. For the Jewish idea
of ‘‘the light of Creation’’ (Is. xxx. 26),
see Taylor’s ‘Sayings of the Jewish
Fathers,’ p, 72.

lighteth] Comp. Luke xi. 35, 36. The
Light is contrasted in each particular with
the Witness to the Light He ‘‘arose”’ ( éyé-
veto) ; the Light ‘‘ was’’ (jv). He guided
his disciples away from himself; the Light
illuminated in virtue of its own nature. He
came once for all; the Light was ever
coming through the ages.

every man] The idea is distinct from that
of ‘all men’’ (v. 7). The relation is not
collective, corporate, as it is here pre-
sented, but personal, and universal while
personal. The reality of this relation fur-
nished the basis for the crowning fact of;
the Incarnation. The world was made for.
this re-gathering.

coming into the world] Comp. iii. 19, xii. 46,

10, 11. Verse 9, according to the inter.
pretation which has been given, presents a
comprehensive view of the action of the
Light. This action is now divided into two:
parts. The first part (v. 10) gathers up;
the facts and issue of the manifestation of
the Light as immanent. The second part;
(v.11) contains an account of the special”
personal manifestation of the Light to a
chosen race. The two parts are contrasted
throughout as to the mode (was, came), the
scene (the world, His own home), the
recipients (the world, His own people), the
end (not know, not receive), of the mani-
festation. The world failed to recognise
8 ST.

Him who was doubly shewn as its Creator
and as its Preserver. The people of God
failed to welcome Him whom they had
been prepared to receive,

10. He was in the world] Comp. v. 5,
note. It is impossible to refer these words
‘simply to the historical Presence of the
‘ Word in Jesus as witnessed to by the Bap-
tist. ‘he whole scope and connexion of
» the passage requires a wider sense. The
| Word acts by His Presence as well as by
His special Advent. The continuance and
progress of things, no less than their ori-
ginal constitution, are fitted to make Him

nown.

the world] the sum of created being,
which belongs to the sphere of human life
as an ordered whole considered apart from
God, and in its moral aspect represented by
humanity. See Note at the end of the
Chapter.

knew] ‘‘ recognised.’ Comp. ii. 25, note.

Avm| The personal character which has
been already implied now finds expression
(adrév, contrasted with the neuter in v. 5,
avré), The previous pronoun is ambiguous
in the original (8¢ ovrov), but it is most
natural to suppose that this also is mascu-
line (as in A.V.).

t The form of the sentence is peculiarly
characteristic, The clauses are placed simply
side by side (...and the world...and the
world...). In this way the statement of the
issue (and the world knew Him not) gains
in pathos. For a similar use of and see
viii, 20, note.

11. The Evangelist now passes from the
universal action of the Word as the Light
to His special action. Creation and man-
kind were His, and not unvisited by Him;
but in ‘‘the world’’ and in humanity one
spot and one people were in a peculiar
sense devoted to Him. The land of Israel
was “ His own home,” and the children of
Israel were ‘‘ His own people.” The Word
came to the holy land and to the holy
nation, and they “received Him not.”

came] The word forms a climax when
‘combined with those which precede: was,
was in the world, came to His own; and
n this connexion it appears to contain an

Ilusion to the teclinical sense of ‘‘ he that
ometh.’? Comp. ix. 39. The tense (7AG«,
comp. v. 7) seems necessarily to mark a
definite advent, the Incarnation which con-
summated the former revelations of the
Word to Israel. It does not seem possible
that the manifestations before the Incarna-
tion and separate from it could beso spoken
of. Nor is there anything in this inter-
pretation which detracts from the force of
v. 14. The Incarnation is regarded in the
two places under different aspects. Here
it is regarded in relation to the whole
scheme of Redemption, as the crowning
revelation in the ancient people of God ; in
v, 14, it is regarded in its distinctive char-

JOHN. I.

acter as affecting humanity. Here it is
seen from the side of national failure, there
of individual faith.

He came...received him not] He came unto
his own home and his own people received
him not. The Vulgate rightly preserves
the significant variation of the original :
in propria (sua) venit, et sui eum non
receperunt,

unto his own (neut.)] f.e. ‘‘to His own
home” (eis 7a. ('S1a). Compare xvi, 32, xix.
27; Acts xxi. 6 (Esther v. 10, vi. 12,
LXX.). There can be no reasonable doubt
that this phrase, and the corresponding
masculine which follows, ‘‘his own’’ (ot
iStoc) i.e. ‘his own people,”’ describe the
land and the people of Israel as being, in
a sense in which no other land and people
were, the home and the family of Gon, of
Jehovah. ‘The holy land’’ (Zech, ii. 12.
Comp. 2 Macc. i. 7) was ‘‘the Lorp’s land”
(Hos. ix. 3; Jer. ii. 7, xvi. 18. Comp. Lev.
xxv. 23); and Israel was His portion (Ex.
xix. 5; Deut. vii. 6, xiv. 2, xxvi. 18, xxxii.
9; Ps. cxxxiv. (cxxxv.) 4. Comp. Ecclus.
xxiv. 8 ff.). The development of the
thought of the apostle is certainly de-
stroyed by supposing that here the earth
is spoken of as the Lord’s home, and man
as His people

It must be noticed that by this appropri-
ation of the Old Testament language that
which was before applied to Jehovah is
now applied to Christ. Comp. xii. 41 note.

received] The word used here (rapéAafov)
as distinguished from that used in the next
verse (¢AaGov) suggests in this connexion
the notion of ‘‘receiving that which has
been handed down by another’ (as opposed

tomapédSwxa, comp, 1 Cor. xv. 1, 3, xi.
23), as distinct from that of ‘“‘taking.’’ The
divine teachers of Israel, through John
their representative, ‘‘offered’’ Christ to
the people as Him whom the Lord had
promised; and the leaders of the people
refused to acknowledge Him as their King.

12. The Jews as a nation did not receive
Christ as Him for whose advent they had
been disciplined ; but this national rejection
was qualified by the personal belief of
some. Those however believed as men, so
to say, and not as Jews. They became on
an equality with those who believed from
among the heathen. The Christian Church
was not, as it might have been, the cor-
porate transfiguration of the old Church,
but was built up of individuals. To these,
whether Jews or Gentiles by ancestry, as
many as received Him (Christ) gave right.
to become children of God. The privilege
of Israel (Ex. iv, 22) was extended to all
the faithful.

The irregular construction of the original
(6701 8¢ éAaBov...éSwxev adrois) gives
prominence to the act of personal faith
which distinguishes the first-fruits of the
new Israel. Thought is first fixed on the
Sr. JOHN I.

character of those who believed, and then
by a change of subject on the Word, and
what He did.

received] The word indicates the action

of him who “takes” that which is within
reach as anxious to make it his own. Comp.
v. 48, xiii, 20, xix. 6.
; pewer (right)] The word (fovea ) does
not describe mere ability, but legitimate,
rightful authority, derived from a compe-
tent source which includes the idea of
power, Comp. v. 27, x. 18, xvii. 2, xix. 10,
11; Rev. ii, 26, &c This right is not in-
herent in man, but ‘‘ given’? by God to
him. A shadow of it existed in the relation
of Israel to God. But that which was in
that case outward and independent of the
individual will was replaced in the Chris-
tion Church by a vital relationship.

As far as we can conceive of ‘‘ this right
to become children,”’ it lies in the potential
union with the Son, whereby those who re-
ceive Him are enabled to realise their di-
vine fellowship. They are adopted—placed,
if we may so speak, in the position of sons
—that so they may become children actu-
ally. Comp, 2 Pet. i. 3, 4; Gal. iv. 6. The
fruit is not given at once, but the seed. It
is of God to give, but man must use His
gift, which faith appropriates. It is thus
important to observe how throughout the
passage the divine and human sides of the
realisation of Sonship are harmoniously
united. The initial act is at once a ‘‘be-
getting” (éyevv}Onoav) and a “reception”
(cAaBov). The growth follows from the use
of a gift: The issue is complete on the
part of God, but man must bring it to pass
by continuous exertion (yevéoOat Téxva,
Tois TurTevoucty).

to become] Comp. Matt. v. 45.

the sons] children (réxva). Comp. xi. 52;
1 John iii. 1, 2, 10, v. 2; Rom. viii. 16, 17,
21, ix. 8; Phil. ii. 15. The idea of ‘‘child,”
as distinguished from ‘‘son,’’ which does
“ not occur in this connexion in St John ex-

cept Rev. xxi. 7, is that of a community of

nature (v. 13) as distinguished from that of

a dignity of heirship. It is an illustration

of this limitation of the idea of spiritual
“childship,” that in the divine relation
zéxvov is not found (as vids is) in the singu-
lar (yet see Tit. i. 4; 1 Tim. i, 2; Philem.
,10). It may be added that the divine Son-
ship with which the New Testament deals
jis always regarded in connexion with
‘Christ. Yet comp. Acts xvii. 28 f.

even to them that...) The words are in
apposition with the preceding them. The
effective reception of Christ is explained to
be the continuous energy of faith which re-
lies upon Him as being for the believer that
which He has made Himself known to be.
The faith is regarded as present and last-
ing (Trois meoTevovorr), and not simply as

triumphant in the crisis of trial ( Tots me-

oreicactv, Heb. iv. 3); and its object is
the revealed Person of the Incarnate Word.
Comp. 1 John v. 18 (Tots riorev'ovew),

believe on his name] ii. 23; 1 John v. 18.
Contrast believe the name (1 John iii. 23,
mio. THOV,). Seev. 24, note, viii. 30 f.,
note,

his name] The revealed name gathers up
and expresses for man just so much as he
can apprehend of the divine nature. Com-
pare iii, 18, xx. 31. From these passages if
is clear that the ‘‘name’’ to the believer i
that, which describes the Incarnate Wor
as ‘‘the Christ, the Son of God.’”’ For the
use of ‘‘the name”’ as applied to the Father
in St John, see v. 43, x. 8, xii. 13, 28,
xvii, 6, ll, 1, 26 ; Rev. iii. 12, xi. 18, xiii.
6, xiv. 1, xv. 4, 9, xxii. 4; as applied to
the Son, ii, 23, iii, 18, xiv. 13, 14,.26, xv.
16, xvi. 28, 24, 26, xx. 81; 1 John ii. 12,
iii. 23, v. 18; Rev. ii. 8, 13, iii, 12, xiv. 1.
Comp. 3 John 7 (the name). Comp. ii. 23 n.

18. The spring of the new life to which
the believer has ‘‘right’’ lies solely in God.’
The beginning of it cannot be found in the
combination of the material ‘elements, by
which physical life is represented, nor in
the natural instinct, in obedience to which;
beings are reproduced, nor in the will o
the rational man. This appears to be the
meaning of the three-fold negation. The
progress is from that which is lowest in our
estimate of the origin of life to that which
is highest. At the same time the three
clauses naturally admit a moral interpreta-
tion. The new birth is not brought about
by descent, by desire or by human power.

blood] Lit. bloods. The use of the plural
( aivdrwv, Vulg. ex sanguinibus) appears
to emphasize the idea of the element out of .
which in ‘various measures the body is—
framed.

flesh...man...] These two clauses differ
from the former by referring the beginning
of life to purpose; and they differ from
one another in that the first marks the
purpose which comes from the animal na-
ture and the second that which comes from
the higher human nature (avjp ).

were born] Literally, were begotten, as 1
John ii, 29, iii, 9, iv. 7, v. 1, 4, 18. The
thought is of the first origin of the new life,
and not of the introduction of the living
being a new region. The phrase ap-
pears to be parallel with as many as re-
ceived. The act of reception coincided
with the infusion of the divine principle, by
which the later growth became possible.

It is important to notice generally that
St John dwells characteristically upon the,
communication of a new life, while St Paul:
dwells upon the gift of a new dignity and:
relation (viofeoia, Rom. viii. 15; Gal. iv.
5; Eph. i. 5). When St Paul brings out
the newness of the Christian’s being he
speaks of him as a new ‘“‘creation” (krioxs,

   
  
Io

e Matt. 1.
16.

St. JOHN.

14 e¢And the Word was made flesh,
and dwelt among us, (and we beheld
his glory, the glory as of the only be-

I. [v. 14.
gotten of the Father,) full of grace
and truth.

 

Gal. vi. 15; 2 Cor. v. 17). The language
of St James (i. 18) and of St Peter (1 Pet.
i. 8, 23) corresponds with that of St John.
' The statement as to the fact of the new
birth is made quite generally, but it is
atural to see in it the contrast between
he spiritual birth which makes ‘‘a child
f Gop,”’ and the fleshly descent in which
the Jews trusted, and which had been
recognised under the old dispensation.
Comp. Matt. iii, 9.
3. The Incarnation as apprehended by
personal experience (14—18).

This section, like the former, falls into
three parts. St John gives first the sub-
stance of the apostolic witness (v. 14); and
then the witness of prophecy, repre-
sented by the Baptist (v. 15); and thirdly,
a general account of the nature of the reve-
lation (vv. 16—18).

14. The construction of the verse is
somewhat irregular. It consists of a main
clause, which describes the fact and the
character of the Incarnation (The Word
became flesh and tabernacled among us,
full of grace and truth), broken by a paren-
thesis (and we beheld His glory...from the
Father), which records the observation of
the fact, so that it presents in succession the
Incarnation, the witness to the Incarnation,
the character of the Incarnate Word.

The Incarnation, which has been touched
upon in v. 11 in its relation to the whole
course of revelation, is now presented in its
essential character. In the former place the
Advent was considered in reference to par-
ticular promises (He came) and to a chosen
people : now it is revealed in its connexion
with humanity. Thus there is no retro-
gression or repetition, but a distinct pro-
gress in the development of thought. The
special aspect of Messiah’s coming, fol-
lowed by the national failure to recognise
His coming, prepares the way for the uni-
versal aspect of it.

The general scope of the whole verse may
be briefly summed up under four heads:

1, The nature of the Incarnation. The
Word became flesh.

2. The historical life of the Incarnate
Word. He tabernacled among us.

8. The personal apostolic witness to the
character of that human-divine Life. We
beheld His glory,

4, The character of the Incarnate Word
as the Revealer of God. Full of grace and
truth.

It may be added that the fact of the
miraculous Conception, though not stated,
is necessarily implied by the Evangelist.
The coming of the Word into flesh is pre-
)sented as a Creative act in the same way
as the coming of all things into being was.

And the Word...) The conjunction carries
the reader back to v. 1, with which this
verse is closely connected by this repetition
of the title, the Word, which is now at
length resumed. All that has intervened is
in one sense parenthetical. The Incarnation
presupposes and interprets the Creation and
the later history of man, and of man’s
relation to God. Thus the thoughts run on
in perfect sequence : In the beginning was
the Word;...and the Word was God, And
the Word became flesh. This connexion is
far more natural than that which has been
supposed to exist between v. 14 and v. 9
or v. 11.

The announcement of the mystery of the
Incarnation, embracing and completing all
the mysteries of revelation, corresponds (as
has been already noticed) to the declaration
of the absolute Being of the Word in v. 1.
‘“He was God ;" and ‘‘ He became flesh :”’
eternity and time, the divine and the
human, are reconciled in Him. ‘‘ He was
with God ;’’ and ‘‘ He tabernacled among
us :”’ the divine existence is brought into a
vital and historical connexion with human
life. ‘He was in the beginning;’ and
‘we beheld His glory ;’’ He who ‘ was”
beyond time was revealed for a space to
the observation of men.

was made (became) flesh] (rdpé éyévero,
Vulg. Verbum caro factum est, Tert. Sermo
caro factus est). Owing to the inherent
imperfection of human language as applied
to the mystery of the Incarnation, both
these words are liable to misinterpretation.
The word became must not be so understood,
as to support the belief that the Word
ceased to be what He was before; and the
word flesh must not be taken to exclude the
rational soul of man. The clear apprehen-
sion of the meaning of the phrase, so far as
we can apprehend it, lies in the recognition
of the unity of the Lord’s Person, before
and after the Incarnhtion. His Personality
is divine. But at the same time we must
affirm that His humanity is real and com-
plete. He, remaining the same Person as
before, did not simply assume humanity as
something which could be laid aside: He
became flesh. He did not simply become:
“a man:” He became “man.” The mode}
of the Lord’s existence on earth was truly
human, and subject to all the conditions of
human existence; but He never ceased toi
be God. And the nature which He so.
assumed He retains in its perfection (1
John iv. 2 évoapkt éAnAvOdra, 2 John 7
€pXopevov év capki), As compared with the
corresponding phrase to come in the flesh
(1 John lc.), the phrase became flesh brings»
out especially one aspect of the Incarnation :
The former marks the unchanged continuity
Sr. JOHN I.

of the Lord’s Personality, and the latter
the complete reality of His Manhood.
How this “becoming ’’ was accomplished
we cannot clearly grasp. St Paul describes
it as an “emptying of Himself” by the Son
: of God (Phil. ii. 6 f.), a laying aside of the
| moze of divine existence (Td efvar ica
Oe); and this declaration carries us as
| far as we can go in defining the mystery.
Thus briefly the following main truths
must be held as expressed in the words
whey they are fairly interpreted :
_Ify The Lord’s humanity was complete,
s Bgainst various forms of Apollinarianism,
de to which the divine Logos sup-
plied the place of part of that which be-
longs to the perfection of Manhood. (The
Word became flesh, and not u body or the
like.)
2,4The Lord’s humanity was rea] and
potlaaisat- as opaitct Various" ToTms ot
Giiosticism, ~according-to-which He ~onty
assumed in appearatice; orf ime;
which was and remained foreign to Him-
self. (The Word became flesh, and did not

clothe Himself in flesh.)

afte Lord’s human and divine na-
tufés remained without change, each fulfill-
ing its part according to its proper laws,
aS against various forms of Eutychianism,

ccording to which the result of the Incar-
c. is a third nature, if the humanity
has any real existence. (The Word became
flesh, both terms being preserved side by

side.

The Lord’s humanity was universal
anf not individual, as eine all that
belongs to the essence of man, without re-
gard to sex or race or time. (The Word
became flesh and not a man.)

The Lord’s human and divine na-
tvffes were united in one Person, as against
various forms of Nestorianism, according
to which He has a human personality and
a divine personality, to which the acts &c.
belonging to the respective natures must
be referred. (The Word became flesh and
dwelt, &c., without any change of the sub-

ject tp the verb.)

ra Word did not acquire person-
by the Incarnation. He is spoken of

throughout, not asa principle or an energy,

but, whatever may be the inherent imper-

fection of such language, as a Person.

So far, perhaps, we can see generally a
little of the Truth, but the attempt to ex-
press the Truth with precision is beset with
difficulty and even with peril. Thus in
using the words “personality” and “imper-
sonal”’ in relation to Christ, it is obviously
necessary to maintain the greatest reserve.
For us ‘‘ personality’? implies limitation or
determination, 7.e., finiteness in some direc-
tion. As applied to the divine nature
therefore the word is not more than a
necessary accommodation required to give

 

such distinctness to our ideas as may be
attainable. The word ‘‘impersonal’’ again,
as applied to the Lord’s human nature, is
not to be so understood as to exclude in
any way the right application of the word
“man”? (d.v@pwros) to Him, as it is used
both by Himself (viii. 40) and by St Paul
(1 Tim. ii. 5).

The phrase ‘the Word became flesh is
absolutely unique. The phrases which
point towards it in St John (1 John iv. 2),
in the Epistle to the Hebrews (ii. 14), and
in St Paul (Rom. viii. 3; Phil. ii. 7; 1 Tim.
iii, 16) fall short of the majestic fulness of
this brief sentence, which affirms once for
all the reconciliation of the opposite ele-
ments of the final anthithesis of life and
thought, the finite and the infinite.

became] This term ( éyévero) forms a
link between this verse and verse 3. As
‘tall things became through the Word,’’ so
He Himself “became flesh.” ‘The first crea-
tion and the second creation alike centre
in Him. By His own will He “became”
that which first ‘‘ became’’ through and in
Him.

flesh] Humanity from the side of its
weakness and dependence and mortality is

naturally described as “‘flesh.”” In this
respect ‘‘flesh’’ expresses here human na-
ture as a whole regarded under the aspect
of its present corporeal embodiment, in-
cluding of necessity the ‘‘soul” (xii. 97),
_and the" spirit” (xi, 33,2, xix. 30),
as belonging to the totality of man (comp.
Heb. ii. 14). At the same time the word
marks the points of connexion between man
and the material world, so that it has a
further significance as presenting in a
familiar contrast the spiritual and the
material (the Word, flesh). Thus several
ante-Nicene Fathers speak of the Word,
or the Son, as Spirit with reference to
this “passage (Tertull. “de Carne Christi”
18; Hippel Tc. Noet.’? 4; Hermas, ‘Sim.’
v. 6, ix. 1; Theoph. ‘ad. Autol.’ ii. 10;
Clem. ‘ii. ad Cor.’ ix. with Lightfoot’s
note). :

dwelt (tabernacled)] The original word
éoxjvucev, Vulg. habitavit [inhabitauit])
describes properly the occupation of a
temporary habitation. The tent or taber-
nacle was easily fixed and easily removed,
and hence it furnished a natural term for
man’s bodily frame. Yet apparently the
original idea of ‘‘tent’’ (cxnvj) was lost
in the form oxnvos which expresses the
idea of ‘“‘frame” apart from any further
figurative meaning : Wisd. ix. 15; 2 Cor.
v, 1, 4; 2 Pet. i. 13 f.(oxyvwpa). And s
also the verb itself (rknvdw) is used with
out any reference to the notion of transi
toriness: Rev. vii. 15, xii. 12, xiii, 6,
xxi, 3.

Whether however the thought of the
temporariness of Christ’s sojourn upon

I]

|
12

part is indicated by the term or not,
‘there can be no doubt that it serves to
gontrast the Incarnation with the earlier

‘Christophanies,”” which were partial,
visionary, evanescent, and at the same
time to connect the Personal Presence of
the Lord with His earlier Presence in the
Tabernacle which foreshadowed it, Ex.
xxv. 8; Lev. xxvi. 11. The Lord in old
times walked in a tent and in a tabernacle
(2 §. vii. 6; cf. Ps. xxviii. 67 ff.), as now.
He dwelt among men according to the
promises expressed after that type (Joel
iii, 21; Ezek. xxxvii.). The parallelism
becomes striking if we accept the current
[view that the Tabernacle was a symbol of
the world.

Many also have found in the word itself
a distinct reference to the Shekinah; but
before any stress can be laid upon the
coincidence of form, it is necessary that
the history of the term Shekinah should
be examined far more carefully than it has
been examined at present, with a view to
determining : 1. The earliest use of the
term. 2. The comparative use of the word
in the different Targums. 3. The exact
senses in which it is used in relation to
(a) the Word, and (f) the Glory.

among us] in our midst (év 7uiv), Among
those who, like the Evangelist, were eye-
witnesses of His life. Compare Gen. xxiv.
3 (LXX.).

The supposition that the plural marks
the dwelling of the World as being realised
in the nature or in the race, as distin-
guished from the individual, is quite in-
consistent with the historical purport of
the whole phrase. Moreover this truth
has been already stated by the use of the
term “flesh.”

and we beheld...Father] The breaking
of the construction by this parenthetical
clause, marks the pause which the Evan-
gelist makes to contemplate the mystery
which he has declared. He looks, as it
were, from without upon the record and
comments upon it. The.same phenomenon
in different forms recurs v. 16, iii. 16, 31,
xix. 85; 1 John i. 2.

we beheld] 1 John i. 1. The abode of
the Word among men was only for a brief
space, but yet such that those near Him
could contemplate His glory at leisure and
calmly. His historical Presence was real
if transitory. And while the appearance
of the Lord was in humility, yet even
under the limitations of his human form,
those who looked patiently could see the
tokens of the divine revelation made
through Him. Comp. Luke ix. 32; 2 Pet.
i. 16 ff.; 1 John iv. 14 ( reOedeOa).

his glory) The word “glory”? (dd£a)
carries on the parallel between the divine
Presence in the Tabernacle and the divine
Presence by the Word Incarnate among

Sr. JOHN. I.

men. From time to time the Lord mani-
fested His glory in the wilderness (Exod.
xvi, 10, xxiv. 16, x]. 34, &c.); in the
Temple of Solomon (1 K. viii. 11); and to
the prophets (Isai. vi. 3. Comp. ch. xii.
41; Ezek. i. 28, &c.; Acts vii. 55); and
even so Christ’s glory flashed forth at
crises of His history. It is not possible
for us to define exactly in what way this
majesty was shewn, by signs, by words,
by events. Comp. Luke ix. 31 f. It is
enough that the Evangelist records his own
experience. The Son of Man had a glory
which corresponded with His filial relation
to the Father, even when He had laid
aside His divine glory (xvii. 5).

For the general idea of ‘‘glory’’ in St
John, see Introd.

the glory as of] Rather, glory as of...
This glory of the Incarnate Word is de-
scribed as being “glory as of an only son
from his father,’’ a glory, that is, of one
who represents another, being derived
from him, and of the same essence with
him. The particle of comparison and the
absence of articles in the original shew
that the thought centres in the abstract
relation of father and son; and yet in the
actual connexion this abstract relation
passes necessarily into the relation of ‘‘ the
Son” to “the Father.”

as of] Comp. Rev. v. 6, xiii. 3.

only begotten] Comp. iii. 16; 1 John
iv. 9, This rendering somewhat obscures
the exact sense of the original (uovoyerjs),
which is rather ‘‘only-born.’? That. is,
the thought in the original is centred in
the personal Being of the Son and not in
His generation. Christ is the One only
Son, the One to whom the title belongs in
a sense completely unique and singular, as
distinguished from that in which there are
many children of God. (vv. 12 f.). The
use of the word elsewhere in the New
Testament to describe an only child (Luke
vil. 12, viii. 42, ix. 88; Heb. xi. 17) brings
out this sense completely. The ideas of
the Son as “begotten” of the Father,
and as “the only Son,” are expressed
separately in the ancient Creeds (e.g,
‘Ep. Syn. Ant.’ Routh, ‘Rell.’ iii, 290,
yevvntov, povoyevy vide. ‘Symb, Nic.’
yevun6. ék r, 7. povoyevh, &c.).

In the LXX. the word occurs seven
times: Tobit iii, 15 (vi. 11), viii, 17 (of
only children); Wisd. vii. 22; and (as a
translation of 9m) Ps, xxii. (xxi.) 21,
xxxv, (xxxiv.) 17 (of the soul, the one
single, irreparable life of man), xxv.
(xxiv.) 16 (of the sufferer left alone. and
solitary). The Hebrew word thus trans-,
lated is in seven other places represented :
by dyarytés, which carries with it also}
the notion of an only child (Gen. xxii. 2
12, 16; Judges xi. 34; Jer vi. 26; Amos
viii, 10; Zech. xii. 10).
v. 15.] 5

15 4 John bare witness of him, and
cried, saying, This was he of whom I
spake, He that cometh after me is

Sr. JOHN 1.

preferred before me:
before me.

for he was

 

Christian writers from early times have
called attention to the connexion of the
two words applied in the New Testament
to Christ ‘the only Son” (povoyevys)
and “the first-born” (mpwrétoxos, Col.
i, 15), which present the idea of His Son-
ship under complementary aspects. The
first marks His relation to God as abso-
lutely without parallel, the other His rela-
tion to creation as pre-existent and sover-
eign. Comp. Lightfoot on Coloss. i, 15.

of (from) the Father] Or, from a father.
The idea conveyed is not that of sonship
only, but of mission also. Christ was a
Son, and a Son sent to execute a special
pecls (comp. v. 6, ameor. rapa Oeot, vi.
46, vii. 29, xvi. 27, xvii. 8). The converse
thought is expressed in v. 18 (6 Ov eis T.
K. 7.7.)

futl of grace and truth] The phrase is
connected with the main subject of the
sentence, the Word...dwelt among us...full
of grace. For a moment the Evangelist
had rested upon the glorious memories of
that which he had seen (comp. 1 John i.
1, 2). Now he goes on to characterize
Christ’s Presence by its inward marks.
Each of the two elements is laid open in
vv. 16, 17. The combination recalls the
description of Jehovah, Exod. xxxiv. 6
(Ps. xxv. 10); and isnot unfrequent in the
O. T.: Gen. xxiv. 27, 49, xxxii. 10; Ps.
xl 10, 11, Ixi. 7 (YN) TDM). As ap-
plied to the Lord, the phrase marks Him
as the Author of perfect Redemption and
perfect Revelation. Grace corresponds
with the idea of the revelation of God as
love (1 John iv. 8, 16) by Him who is
Life; and Truth with that of the revela-
tion of God as light (1 John i. 5) by Him
who is Himself Light.

15. The testimony of John is intro-
duced in the same manner as before, as re-
presenting the final testimony of prophecy.
John gave not only a general witness to
“the Light,” but also pointed out the
true position which Christ occupied to-
wards himself in virtue of His Nature.

bare witness...and cried...] beareth wit-
ess...and crieth (hath cried)] The wit-
ess of John is treated as present and
complete; present because his mission was
divine, complete because it was directed
o a special end which was reached (papt-
pet, Kexpayev). Comp. v. 34. :

The words of John are given here in a
form different from that in which they
appear in v. 30, and with a different scope.
This was He of whom I spake (Sv etzov,
Vulg. quem dizi), to whom my teaching

 

pointed generally; and not “in behalf of
whom (v7ép 08, all. rept od, Vulg. de quo)
I made a special statement.” The words
which follow are therefore most probably
to be taken as an independent statement :
“This is the Christ of whom I spake; and
He has now entered on His office. He that
cometh after me is come to be (become)
before me...”

crieth ( xéxpayev)] vii. 28, 87, xii. 44.
The voice of the Baptist was more than
that of a witness. It was the loud, clear
voice of the herald who boldly proclaimed
his message so that all might hear it.

was he] The Baptist throws himself
backward in thought to the time when
he looked forward to the Christ who had

not yet appeared, and proclaimed His)

coming.

He that cometh after me is preferred before
me] is come to be before me (€umpoobev
pov, Vulg.anteme). The words express
the Baptist’s witness to Christ from the mo-
ment when His Messiahship was signified.
As soon as He was manifested He took up
a position in advance of His Forerunner,
though the Forerunner had already been
long labouring. The witness of the Baptist
before Christ’s Baptism was simply in
general terms, “ He that cometh after me is
mightier than I” (Matt. iii. 11; Luke iii.
16); but St John gives his recognition of
the actual present majesty of his successor.
“ After” and “before” are both used in a
metaphorical sense from the image of pro-
gression in a line. He who comes later in
time comes “after ;” and he who advances
in front shews by that his superior power.
The supposed reference to the pre-existence
of the Word, as if the Baptist said, “He that
cometh after me in respect of my present
mission hath already been active among men
before I was born,” seems to be inconsis-
tent with the argument which points to a
present consequence (is now come to be)
of an eternal truth (He was before me).

for (because) he was before me] The
precedence in dignity (iii. 833) which Christ
at once assumed when He was manifested,
was due to His essential priority. He was
in His essence (viii. 58) before John, and
therefore at His revelation He took the
place which corresponded with His nature.

before me] The original phrase in the
second clause (zpards pov, Vulg. prior me)
is very remarkable. It expresses not only
relative, but (so to speak) absolute priority.
He was first altogether in regard to me,
and not merely former as compared with
me. Comp. xv. 18. -

13

im

ot
Col. 1. 19

14
16 And of his ffulness have all we
received, and grace for grace.
17 For the law was given by Moses,

16. And of his fulness...) According to
the true reading, Because of his fulness...
The words depend on v. 14, full of grace
and truth, so that the sense is, We have
kni “His~character as “full of
grace and truth” because... The inter-
calated witness of the Baptist, pointing to
the true nature of Christ, marks the source
of this spiritual wealth.

, These words and those which follow are
certainly words of the Evangelist and not of
ithe Baptist. This is shewn not only by their
general character, but by the phrase we all,
of his fulness] out of it (ék), as a
copious source of blessing.
fulness (Ajpwpa, Vulg. plenitudo)] the
plenitude, the fall measues of all the divine
powers and graces which were concentrated
absolutely in Christ, the Incarnate Word.
The term occurs here only in St John’s wri-
tings; but it 1s found five timés in the two
Episttes of St Paul to the Colossians and
Ephesians, which form the connecting link
between the writings of St Paul and St John
(Col. 1.19, ii. 9; Eph, i. 23, iii. 19, iv. 18).
Of these passages the two in the Epistle to
the Colossians illustrate most clearly the
meaning of St John. St Paul says that “all
the fulness dwelt” in Christ (i. 19), and
more definitely, that “all the fulness of the
Godhead dwells in Him,” “and ye,” he
continues, addressing the Christians to
whom he is writing, “are in Him, fulfilled
memAnpwpevot)...” (ii. 9 £.). Here St
Paul’s thought is evidently that the whole
sum of the divine attributes exists together
in Christ, and that each Christian in virtue
of his fellowship with Him draws from
that “fulness” whatever he needs for the
accomplishment of his own part in the great
life of the Church. And so, from another
point of sight, the Church itself, made up
of the many parts, thus severally perfected,
is “the body of Christ,” His “fulness”
realising in actual fact that which answers
to the whole divine power in its Head
(Eph. i. 23). St John’s idea in the present
passage is the same: Christians receive
from Christ, as from a spring of divine life,
whatever they severally require according to
their position and work. All is in Him,
and all in Him is available for the believer.
Comp. v. 20, xv. 15, xvii. 22. For a com-
plete discussion of the word see Lightfoot,
‘Colossians,’ pp. 323 ff.
all we] The addition of all here (as
compared with v, 14) appears to place us
in a new company. The circle of the eye.
witnesses passes into the larger fellowship
4 the Christian Church, Speaking from the

entre of the new Society the Apostle can
say “We all—whether we saw Christ’s

 

Sr. JOHN. I

[v. 16, 17.
but grace and truth came by Jesus
Christ.

Glory or not—can attest the reality of His
gifts. We all received (7, 7.éAdGopev,
not have all we received) of His fulness,
when we were admitted into His fold, an
at each succeeding crisis of our spiritual!
life.” The essential universality of th
blessing excludes the special claims of
every select body. Comp. iii. 34.

received] The verb is without any direct
object, since of his fulness is not partitive.
The conception of ‘‘the fulness” however
at once suggests one: “ we all received that
which answered to our wants.”

and grace for grace] Each blessing ap- ;
propriated became the foundation of a
greater blessing. To have realised and used
one measure of grace was to have gained a |
larger measure (as it were) in exchange for }
it (xapev dvri x). Thus this clause is not -
an explanation of that which has preceded, }
but a distinct addition to it. The phrase is‘
illustrated by a saying in ‘Aboth’ iv. 5,
“the reward of a precept is a precept.”

17. For (Because) the law...] The clause
is parallel with v. 16, and not the ground
of it.

the law was given by (through)...grace
and truth came by (through)...] The Law
is represented as an addition to the essential
scheme of redemption. Comp. Gal. iii, 19;
Rom. v. 20. It was “given” for a special
purpose. On the other hand, the Gospel
“came” (éyévero), as if, according to the
orderly and due course of the divine plan,
this was the natural issue of all that had
gone before. Judaism was designed to
meet special circumstances; Christianity
satisfies man’s essential nature,

grace and truth] Grace and Truth are now
presented under the aspect of their complete *
embodiment (7 x. kaiz) dA.; comp. v. 14, {
x. kal dA). The Gospel is spoken of as |
“grace,” so far as it is the revelation of |
God’s free love, and as “truth,” so far as it }
presents the reality and not the mere images ~
or shadows of divine things. Comp, iv, 23, '
In both respects it was contrasted with the
Law, The Law had a reward for obedience
(Gal. iii 12), and consequently brought a
knowledge of sin (Rom, iii. 20; comp. vi.
14); and on the other hand, it had only the
shadow of the good things to come (Heb. x.
1; Col. ii. 17). This exact and subtle corre-
spondence of St John’s teaching with that
of the other apostolic writings is to be
noticed. The word “grace” does not occur
elsewhere in his writings except in saluta-
tions, 2 John 3; Rev. i. 4, xxii, 22. ,

For the idea of Truth see Introd~

by (through) Jesus Christ] The Person
who has been present to the Evangelist
throughout is now at last fully named

!
g1 Tim. 6
16. 1 Johz
4. 12.

v. 18.]

18 gNo man hath seen God at any
time; the only begotten Son, which

Sr. JOHN I.

is in the bosom of the Father, he
hath declared him.

 

Comp. xvii, 8, xx. 31. The “name” thus
given includes the declaration of the true
humanity of the Saviour (Jesus), and of
His relation to the earlier dispensation
(Christ). His divine nature is set forth
in the next verse. Compare 1 John i 3.

18. This last verse justifies the claim of

the Gospel to be the Truth, while it lays
down the inherent limitations of human
knowledge: It is impossible, so far as our
experience yet goes, for man to have direct
knowledge of God as God. He can come
to know Him only through One who shares
both the human and divine natures, and
who is in vital fellowship both with God
and with man. In Christ this condition is
satisfied. He who as the Word has been
declared to be God, who as the Son is one
in essence with the Father, even He set
orth that which we need to know. It is
acitly assumed throughout, as it will be
bserved, that “the Truth” and “the
nowledge of God” are identical terms.

No man hath seen God at any time (ever
yet seen)] Comp. 1 John iv. 12. In both
places the original of “God” is without the
article (Qedv, not rdv Oedv). By this manner
of expression thought is turned to the
divine Nature rather than to the divine
Person: “God as God” (comp. i. 1, n.).
The~Pheophanies under the Old Dispensa-
tion did not fall under this category. Comp.
Exod. xxxiii. 12 ff. (xxxii. 30), Even Christ
Himself was not “seen” as God. The
perception of His true divine Nature was
not immediate, but gained by slow processes
(xiv. 9). The words set aside the false
views of Judaism and Heathenism (v. 37,
1 John v. 20f.). They do not deny the
possibility of a true knowledge of God, but
of a natural knowledge of God, such as can
be described by “sight.” The sight of
God is the final transfiguration of man (1
John iii. 2). The simple act of vision is
marked here (€wpaxev, seen), while in the
Epistle it is the calm sight of beholding
(reBearat), Comp. xiv. 9, xii, 45,

By the use of the words ever yet
(wdérore) the Evangelist perhaps points
forward to that open vision of the Divine
which shall be granted hereafter, 1 John
ili. 2; Matt. v. 8.

the only begotten Son] The remarkable
variation of reading in this place, “ one
who is God only-begotten ” (eds povoyevs)
for “the only-begotten Son” (6 povoyerys
vids) (see Additional Note), makes no differ-
ence in the sense of the passage; and, how-
ever strange the statement may appear,
does not seriously affect the form in which
it is conveyed to us. “One who is God
only-begotten,” or “God the only Son”

(povoyerts Beds), One of whom it can be
predicated that He is unique in His Being,
and God is none other than “the only-
begotten Son” (6 povoyerijs vids), The word
Son—“the only-begotten Son ”—carries with
it the idea of identity of essence. The article
in the one case declines as completely as
the predicate in the other. But the best-
attested reading (jovoyevijs Beds) has the
advantage of combining the two great pre-
dicates of the Word, which have been pre-
viously indicated (v. 1 Oeds,y.14 povoyevys.)
whichis inthe bosom] The image is used
of the closest and tenderest of human re-
lationships, of mother and child (Num. xi.
12), and of husband and wife (Deut. xiii.
6), and also of friends reclining side by side’
at a feast (comp. xiii. 23), and so describes
the ultimate fellowship of love. The exact
form of the original words is remarkable.
The phrase is not strictly “in the bosom,”
Thus there is the combination (as it were)
of rest and motion, of a continuous rela-
tion, with a realisation of it (comp. i771,
ijv mpés). The “bosom of the Father”
(like heaven) is a state and not a place.

The words, as used by the Evangelist,
may point to the exaltation of the ascended
Christ; but in connexion with “God the
only Son” (povoy. Geds) it is more natural
to take them as an absolute description of
the nature of the Son, so that the participle
will be timeless. In fact the Ascension of
Christ is essentially connected with the
divine glory which He had “before the
foundation of the world” (xvii. 5).

of the Father] The choice of this title
in place of God (Tov Oeov) serves to mark
the limits of the revelation made through
Christ. Even this was directed to one aspect
(so to speak) of the Godhead. The Son
made God known not primarily as God,
but as the Father. At the same time this
title lays the foundation of revelation in
the essential relation of the Persons of the
Godhead. Comp. 1 Johni. 2...

In this connexion the description of the
relation of the Word to God (v. 1, 6 Adyos
av mpds tov Oedv) is seen to be comple-
mentary to that of the relation of the Son
to the Father. The one marks an absolute
relation in the Godhead. The other a
relation apprehended with regard to crea-
tion. . Hence in the latter the form of ex-
pression is borrowed from human affection.

he] he pronoun (éxetvos) emphasizes the
attributes of the person already given, and
isolates Him for the distinct contemplation
of the reader. Comp. v. 33. This usage
finds an interesting illustration in the fact
that in 1 John this pronoun is used

15
16

\

distinctively for the Lord: 1 John ii, 6,
iii, 3, 5,7) 16, WIT

hath declared’ him] More exactly he
declared Him, once and for ever. The
word which occurs here (é£yyjoaro, Vulg.
énarravit [disseruit, exposuit]) is constantly

sed in classical writers of the interpretation

f divine mysteries. Cf. Gen. xli. 8, 24; Lev.
xiv. 57. The absence of the object in the
original is remarkable. Thus the literal ren.
dering is simply, he made declaration (Vulg.
ipse enarravit), Comp. Acts xv, 14.

The position of the object of the former
clause (God) at the beginning of the sen-
tence, leads naturally to the supplying of
it in thought here; or rather suggests that
which corresponds with it in connexion
with the new verb, “the truth concerning
Him, revealed as a Father, as man could
bear the revelation.” The knowledge of
God, which Christ had as God, He set forth
to men as man, Comp, Matt, xi.27. Men
hear from Him that which He saw,
Comp. vi. 45f. note.

Several important reflections follow from
the consideration of the Prologue.

1. The writer occupies a distinct his-

torical position. He speaks as one (i) who
was originally a Jew, (ii) who had been an
eye-witness, (iii) who is surrounded by a
ristjan Society.
(i)Miis Jewish descent appears to be
ed by the use of “his own home”
(rd& iva), and “his own people” (of i8z01,
v. 11); by the mode in which creation is
spoken of (év épyy); by the implied refer.
ence to the Fall (v. 5).

(ii is impossible to interpret v. 14
(€O¢ftrde0a) without violence otherwise
than as containing a direct statement of
the writer's experience, and that too given
in a form which is strikingly natural.

(iii) The phrase “we all” (v.16) can only
be an appeal to the experience of the Chris-
tian body in which the writer was living.

2. There is no effort on the part of the
writer to establish, or to enforce, or to
xplain. He sets forth what is matter of
xperience to him with complete conviction
nd knowledge. Nothing can be farther
rom the appearance of introducing any

     
 

The main subject of the Gospel which has
been prepared by the Prologue is THe Sexr-

REVELATION or CHRIST TO THE WORLD AND
To THH DiscirLEs. Under this aspect the
Gospel falls into two great divisions, Tun

ELF-REVELATION of CuRnist TO THE WoRLD
i, 19—xii. 50); and Ta Seir-Reveation
Ff CHRIsT TO THE DiscipLes (xiii, 1—xxi.
3).

The first of these two great divisions
falls also into two parts, Tae ProcnaMma-
TION (i¢ 19—iv. 54), and THE ConFLicT
(v. 1—xii 50).

Sr. JOHN. 1.

new teaching. The Evangelist takes for
granted that his readers understand per-
fectly what tie means by “the-Word,” “the
Father.” He does not expressly affirm but
assumes the identification of the Word
with Jesus Christ (v. 17).

3. There is no trace of any purely specu-
lative interest in the propositions which are
laid down. The writer at once passes to
life and history from the contemplation of ;
the divine in itself (v. 1) After the first +
verse everything is set down with a view
to the revelation of God through the Word
to men; and this revelation is’ treated
historically in its different elements, and
from the side of man. Moreover the Person
of the Revealer is one from first to last,
though He is regarded successively as the
Word, the Life, the Light, the Word made
flesh, even Jesus Christ, And the last tern.
under which God is spoken of is “the
Father,” in which the abstract idea is lost
in the personal,

4, Though the purely speculative is
absent from the Prologue, as it is from the
Gospel generally, the treatment of the sub-
ject is such that the Evangelist supplies the
clues for the prosecution of the highest
problems so far as man can pursue them.
This he does (1) By opening a momentary
vision of the Godhead itself in which can be
seen the Immanent Trinity, (2) By shewing
the relation of Creation to the Creator as
Preserver, (3) By the declaration of the fact
of the Incarnation, in which the Unity of
the Finite and the Infinite is realised. And
the more the Prologue is studied under
these aspects, the more conspicuous become
its originality and exhaustiveness.

5. The Prologue does in fact define the
scope of the Gospel and interpret it, In this
respect it corresponds with the close, xx. 31,
which expresses in other terms vv. 14, 18.

And while the phraseology is peculiar,
this section contains nothing which is not
either directly affirmed in the Lord’s dis-
courses, or directly deducible from them.

1. The Pre-existence of Christ, vi, 62,
viii. 58, xvii. 5, 24.

2. His Creative energy, v. 17.

3. The Universality of His work, viii.
12, x, 16.

Tue PRocLAMATION (i. 19—iv. 54).

The record of the beginning of the
Gospel contained in the first four chapters
presents in act and word the main elements
of the Message which Christ claimed to
bring and to be, and typical examples of
the classes of men to whom it was offered.
So far he meets with misunderstanding,
but with no active hostility. Principles
and tendencies are laid open, but they
await their development,,

The Proclamation consists of two parts,
which are marked distinctly in the con: |
Sr. JOHN I.

, struction of the narrative (nm. 11, iv. 54).
The first part deals with (i) Tae Testimony
to CuRist (i. 19—ii. 11), and the second
with (ii) THe Work or Curisr (ii. 18—
“tiv. 54).

i. Toe TEstimony To CuRist
(i. 19—ii. 11).

This section consists of three divisions,
which deal with three forms of witness,
three typical relations of Christ, three modes
of revelation. The first gives the witness of
the prophet, the relation of Christ to the
preparatory dispensation, the revelation by
direct divine communication (i. 19—34).
The second gives the witness of disciples,
the relation of Christ to individual men, the
revelation through spiritual insight (i. 35—
51). The third gives the witness of acts,
the relation of Christ to nature, the revela-
tion through signs (ii. 1—11). In each case
there is an activity of faith in recognising
the divine message, half-veiled, half-open ;
and the section closes characteristically with
the joyful confirmation of believers (ii. 11).

The period covered by the incidents is
marked as a week (i. 29, 35, 43, ii. 1),
which corresponds with the week at the
close of the Lord’s ministry.

The incidents are peculiar to St John,
and he writes as an eye-witness throughout :
i, 35, 41, ii. 2.

1, Tue Testimony or THE Baptist
(i. 19—84).

The narrative of St John starts from the
same point as the original Apostolic Gospel
(compare Acts i. 22, x. 37, xiii. 24; Mark
i. 1); but, as belonging to a later period in
the growth of the Church, it distinguishes
more exactly than that did the relation of
the Baptist both to the old Covenant and
to Christ.

The first part of the Baptist’s testimony
is concerned with the popular expectations
to which his preaching had given fresh life,
and contains the announcement of the
Christ (19—28). The second part gives his
personal recognition of the Christ who had
now entered on His work (29—34). The
verses which follow (35—37) form a transi-
tion, but belong most properly to the next
section.

The circumstances of the Baptism of
Christ are evidently presupposed as known ;
and the Baptism itself had already taken
place before the mission from Jerusalem.
This follows both from the record of time
(vv. 29, 35, &c.), and from the fact that the
Baptist already “knew ” Jesus as the Christ
(v. 26, “whom ye know not.” Comp. v.
33). See note at the end of the Section.

St John says nothing of the Baptist’s
preaching of repentance, though it is
implied in the words by which the Baptist
described his office (v. 23). This did not

fall within the scope of the Evangelist,
which was confined to the direct relations
of the Herald and the Christ. How fully
these relations are defined will appear from
the following analysis of the Baptist’s
testimony as given by the Evangelist :

The Testimony of John.
a. In answer to the mission of the Jews.
The Christ announced (i, 19—28).
«. His own position (vv, 19—23).
(1) Negatively (vv, 19—21).
Not the Christ (v. 20).
Not the promised Forerunner
of the day of the Lord
(v. 21),
Not the prophet, of unde-
fined mission (v. 21).
(2) Positively (vv, 22, 23).
“A voice.”
8. His office (vv. 24—28).
To baptize (‘v. 25)
with a preparatory baptism
of water (v 26),
before the coming of a
mightier One (v. 27).

6. Spontaneously in the presence of Christ.
The Christ revealed (vv, 29—34).

a The fulfilment of prophecy
(vv. 29—31).
The Person (v. 29).
. The work (v, 30).
The relation to the precursor
(v. 31).

8. The sign of the fulfilment
(vv. 32—34).
The sign itself (v. 32).
The sign in relation to the
promise (v.38).
The sign interpreted (v. 34).

The Christ announced in answer to the
official inquiries of the Jews (19—28).
This mission from Jerusalem, which is

not mentioned by the Synoptists, took place,

as has been seen, after the Baptism, and
was probably caused by some rumours which
arose from.that event. It may be regarded
as being, in some sense, a Temptation of

John corresponding to the (simultaneous)

Temptation of Christ. John refused the

titles in which the hierarchical party ex-

pressed their false views, even as Christ
refused to satisfy their expectations by the
assumption of external power. The position
which John occupies relatively to the Jewish
teachers on the one side, and to Christ on
the other, offers a remarkable picture of the
religious circumstances of the time. Both

negatively and positively the scene is a

living picture of a crisis of transition. The

answer of the Baptist to the people (Luke

iii. 15 ff.; Matt. iii. 11) is distinct from,

and yet perfectly harmonious with, St

John’s record.

17
18

19 § And this is the record of
John, when the Jews sent priests
and Levites from Jerusalem to ask
him, Who art thou?

20 And he confessed, and denied
not; but confessed, I am not the
Christ,

21 And they asked him, What

19. And] The conjunction takes up the
fatronces already made to John’s testi-

ony: vv. 15, 6, 7. Thus the history is
bound up with the dogmatic Prologue, the
transition lying in v. 17 (Jesus Christ) ;
and so the loftiest thoughts pass at once
and naturally into simple facts. It may be
noticed also that the narrative evidently
begins with the immediate, personal know-
ledge of the writer; and perhaps from the
fact to which he referred the beginning of
his own faith,

the record (witness)] Comp. i. 7, iii, 11,
v. 31, and notes,

John] Comp. v. 6, note.

the Jews] Specifically the Pharisees as
the representative class (v. 24). On the use
of the term generally see Introd. p. ix. a.
In this case the envoys were probably des-
patched by the Sanhedrin. Comp. ch. v. 33.

sent priests...from Jerusalem] sent unto
him from Jerusalem priests... Those who
were sent came directly from the religious
centre of the people.

priests and Levites] The two classes re-
presenting the ecclesiastical side of the
nation. The compound phrase is nowhere
else used in the New Testament; and
“Levite” occurs only in Luke x. 32 (with
“priest” in significant connexion), and
Acts iv. 86. The exact description of those
sent marks the special knowledge of the
Evangelist. It may be added that he no-
where uses the titles scribes and elders
found in the other Gospels (viii. 3 is
unauthentic). On the popular expectation
of the Messiah see vii. 41, note,

Who art thou?] The pronoun is emphatic,
“As for thyself, who art thou?”

20. he confessed, and denied not) For the
combination compare v. 8, note. The first
term (confessed) marks the readiness of the
testimony; the second (denied not) the
completeness of it. Both terms are used
absolutely. A similar phrase is quoted from
Josephus (‘ Antt.’ vi. 7.4), “Saul confessed

| that he was guilty, and denied not the sin.”

but confessed] and he confessed. The

substance of the confession is added to the
statement of the fact of the confession.

I am not] The position of the pronoun,
according to the true reading, is emphatic,
“Tam not the Christ for whom you take
me, but the Christ is indeed among you.”
Thus the answer is addressed rather to the
spirit than to the form of the question. The
emphatic insertion of the pronoun (éy«)

Sr. JOHN. I.

[v. 19—23.
then? Art thou Elias? And he
saith, Iam not. Art thou Ilthat pro-
phet? And he answered, No.

22. Then said they unto him,
Who art thou? that we may give an
answer to them that sent us. What
sayest thou of thyself?

23 hHe said, I am the voice of p Matt. 3

throughout the section is remarkable: Zam
the voice (v. 23); 7 baptize (v. 26) ; Iam not
worthy (v. 27); of whom J said (v. 30); Z
knew him not (vv. 31, 33); Z came (v. 31);
I have seen (v. 34). The relation of the
Baptist to Christ is suggested everywhere,

the Christ] As some then supposed,
Acts xiii. 25; Luke iii. 15, note.

21. Whatthen? Art thou Elias?) The
construction of the original words adopted
in A. V. is not found elsewhere in St John,
though it occurs in St Paul (Rom, vi. 15,
xi. 7). The words can also be rendered,
What then (not Who) art thouf What is
the function which thou hast to discharge?
Art thou Elias?

Elias] Mal. iv, 5, the forerunner of the
day of the Lord. Matt, xi, 14, xvii. 10—
13. In a spiritual sense John was Elias
(comp, Luke i, 17), yet not so as the Jews
literally understood the promise. Thus the
denial of the Baptist is directed to the
Jewish expectation of the bodily return of
Elijah, of which Lightfoot has collected
interesting notices on Matt. xvii. 10. And
at the same time the mission of the Baptist .
did not exhaust the promise of the coming
of Elijah; beyond that coming there was
yet another: Matt. J. c. (épxerar xal
droxatasTyoe. See Chrysostom on the
passage). Comp, Luke ix. 30.
| that prophet] the prophet, The abruptness
of the form of the question in the original
is remarkable (The prophet art thou?), The
eference is probably to Deut, xviii. 15,

terpreted not of the Christ (Acts iii, 22,
ii, 37), but in some lower sense. Comp.
ii. 40, vi. 14. The general expectation
ften took a special shape, Matt. xvi, 14.

he answered, No] The replies grow
shorter from time to time: “I am not the
Christ,” “I am not,” “No.”

22. Then said they...) They said there-
fore... This consequential (not temporal)
then (obv ) is very common in St John; and
it is necessary in most cases to give it the
full rendering therefore in order to mark
the connexion (often subtle) which the}
Evangelist indicates. The fresh question
was a consequence of the former answer,

Who art thou? that...) The same natural
ellipsis occurs ix, 36.

28. The voice] Or, a voice. The Baptist.
was simply “a voice of one crying,” not’
invested with a distinct personality (“thou
art to me No bird, but an invisible thing,
A voice, a mystery”). Moreover, the answer

|| Or, a
prophet.
v. 24—28.]

one crying in the wilderness, Make
straight the way of the Lord, as said
the prophet Esaias.

24 And they which were sent
were of the Pharisees.

25 And they asked him, and said
unto him, Why baptizest thou then,
if thou be not that Christ, nor Elias,
neither that prophet ?

26 John answered them, saying, I

Sr. JOHN I.

baptize with water: but there stand-
eth one among you, whom ye know
not;

19

27 ‘He it is, who coming after ‘Matt. 5.
me is preferred before me, whose Acts19, 4.

shoe’s latchet I am not worthy to
unloose.

28 These things were done in
Bethabara beyond Jordan, where
John was baptizing.

 

comeg wholly from Isai. xl. 3, where the
words herald the revelation of the glory of
the Lord. In the Synoptists the quotation
is applied to the Baptist: Matt. iii. 3;
Mark i, 3; Luke iii. 4.

in the wilderness] as once before in the
triumphal march from Egypt. Comp. Ps.
Ixviii. 7. In the original (Hebrew) these
words are joined with the verb which
follows, and it may be so here, make straight
in the wilderness... In either case the moral
application of the words is obvious.

24. they which were sent were of...) Ac-
cording to the oldest reading ( Kat GrecTaA-
pévot not Kal of drectaApévor) the transla.
tion is, they had been sent from...

the Pharisees] and therefore men whose
attention would be fixed on the solemn and
startling rite with which the new move-

ent was inaugurated.

25. Why...then) They wished to con-
demn him from his own admission,

, baptizest] The obvious symbolism of the
;tite—already adopted, as it seems, at the re-
jception of proselytes—as marking spiritual
‘defilement in the chosen people would make
,it distasteful to legalists. It was however
connected with the work of Messiah, Ezek.
xxxvi. 25; Isai. lii. 15; Zech. xiii, 1.
Comp, Heb. x. 22.

if thou be not that Christ...that prophet...)
if thou art not the Christ...the prophet...

26. ZI baptize with (in) water] The
answer is in two parts, and suggestive
rather than explicit. “I baptize, because
the form of this baptism shows that, how-
ever striking outwardly, it does not belong
to the work of the Christ; and still it is
designed to prepare for the recognition of
the Christ actually present in the midst of
you. My work is the work of a servant,
and the work of a herald. There is nothing
to condemn in my conduct, if you consider
what my baptism is, and what the Christ’s
baptism is, and know that He is among

ou, so that the preparatory rite has a just
place.” The order of the words in the
Greek (comp, 31) shews that the first
thought is of the baptism as such, and next
of its special character. Comp. Actsi. 5.
but there standeth one among you...) in
the midst of you standeth one...The absence
of the conjunction, according to the true
text, and the position of the adjective

 

péoos ) at the beginning of the sentence,
bring out sharply the opposition between
the Baptist (Z baptize) and his Successor.

standeth] The word(a7T?xet), as distin-}
guished from “is,” marks the dignity andj
firmness of the position which Christ was.
shewn to hold. (Mark xi. 25; 1 Thess. iii,
8, &c.)

ye know not) The ye is emphatic. St
John had at this time recognised Jesus;
he knew Him, but his questioners did not.

27, He it is...before me) The most
probable text gives simply coming after
me, which is to be taken closely with the
words which precede.

shoe’slatchet] To loose this, or to “carry,
the shoes” (Matt. iii, 11), was the business
of a slave. Compare Mark i. 7, note.

The Pharisees hear words which might
well move them to deeper questionings ;
but for this they had no heart. It is enough
to have discharged their specific duty.

28. Bethabara] This name (Judg. vii.|
247) is a mere correction, made as early as;
the end of the second century (Syr. vt.), for
Bethany, which was probably an obscure
village in Perea, and not to be confounded
with the Bethany (xi. 18) on the Mount
of Olives. According to a possible deriva-
tion Bethany may mean “the house of the
boat” as Bethabara “the house of the
passage,” both equally marking the site of
a ferfy “or ford across the Jordan,

The mention of the locality adds to the
force of the preceding recital; and inciden.
tally shews that the date of the mission
falls after the first stage of the ministry of
the Baptist, when he had left “the wilder-
ness of Judea” (Matt. iii. 1) and retired
“beyond Jordan.” Compare x. 40, iii. 23.

John was baptizing] The form of expres.
sion in the original, where the imperfect of
the verb is represented by the imperfect of
the substantive verb and the participle, is
characteristic of the New Testament writers,
and serves to emphasize the idea of con-
tinued action. Comp, viii, 18, v. 39, xi, 1.
The Christ revealed as the fulfilment of

the forerunner’s work (29—84).

The inquiries made from Jerusalem
would naturally create fresh expectation
among John’s disciples. At this crisis (the
next day) the Lord, who had retired for
a time after His baptism (Luke iv. 1),

Cc
20

29 4 The next day John seeth
Jesus coming unto him, and saith,

Sr. JOHN. I.

[v. 29.
Behold the Lamb of God, which
taketh away the sin of the world.

 

returned, and John solemnly marked Him
out, not by name but by implication, as
the promised Saviour,

29. John (he) seeth...coming unto him]
Compare v. 36. Christ was probably com-
ing directly from the Temptation. It was
fitting that His active ministry should
begin with the solemn recognition by His
herald. The omission of the Temptation
by St John can cause no difficulty except
on the irrational supposition that he was
bound to relate all he knew, and not that
only which belonged to his design.

saith] No one is directly addressed.
The words (as in v. 36) are spoken for
those who “had ears to hear them.”

Behold] Lo,here isbefore you (i6e)...”
Compare v. 47, xix. 5, 14; and contrast
Luke xxiv. 39.

the Lamb of God] It seems likely from
the abrupt definiteness of the form in which
the phrase is introduced that it refers to
some conversation of the Baptist with his
disciples, springing out of the public testi-
mony given on the day before, The refer-
ence which he had made to Isaiah might
naturally lead to further inquiries as to the
general scope of the prophet; and there can
be no doubt that the image is derived from
Isaiah liii. (comp. Acts viii. 32). But the
idea of vicarious suffering endured with
perfect gentleness and meekness, which is
conveyed by the prophetic language (comp,
Jer. xi, 19), does not exhaust the meaning
of the image. The lamb was the victim
offered at the morning and evening sacrifice
(Exod, xxix. 38ff.), and thus was the
familiar type of an offering to God. And
yet more, as the Passover was not far off
(i, 12,13), it is impossible to exclude the
thought of the Paschal Lamb, with which
the Lord was afterwards identified (xix. 36.
Comp. 1 Pet.i.19), | The deliverance from
Egypt was the most conspicuous symbol of
the Messianic deliverance (Rev. xv. 3; Heb.
iii. 8 ff.; Ezek. xx, 33 ff.); and “the lamb”
called up all its memories and its promises.
And it has been plausibly conjectured that
this thought may have been brought home
by the sight of the flocks of lambs passing
by to Jerusalem as offerings at the coming
Feast. However this may have been, the title
ag applied to Christ, under the circum-
istances of its utterance, conveys the ideas of
\vicarious suffering, of patient submission,
of sacrifice, of redemption, not separately
or clearly defined, but significant according
to the spiritual preparation and character of
those before whom the words were spoken,
A corresponding glimpse of Christ’s suffer-
ings is given by Symeon in Luke ii. 25 ff. ;
and there can be no difficulty in believing
that at this crisis the Forerunner had a
prophetic insight into # truth which was

|

afterwards hidden from the disciples (Matt.
xvi. 21 ff.).

It must be further noticed that the Lamb
which the Baptist recognises was not one
of man’s providing. Christ is the Lamb of
God, that is, the Lamb which God Himself
furnishes for sacrifice (Gen. xxii. 8), while
the accessory notions of “fitness for,”
“belonging to,” are also necessarily in-
cluded in the genitive.

The explanation which has been giten of
the definite article appears to be the most
simple; but it is possible that the article
{may represent some earlier and well-known

use of the phrase, as in ‘‘the prophet’

-(v. 21), ‘the root of David” (Rev. v. 5).

or can any stress be laid upon the fact
hat the application of the title to Christ
is strange and unprepared. The title the

Inon of the tribe of Judah (Rev. v. 5;

comp. Gen. xlix. 9) is not less singular ;

and, according to many (but see Note on

v. 51)), the title ‘‘the Son of man’’ rests

upon the single passage of Daniel (vii. 13)

in the Old Testament. The figure is
found again in Rev. v. 6 ff. (dpviov) and

jin 1 Pet. i, 19 f.

' which taketh away] It seems to be most
in accordance with St John’s usage to take
this phrase as defining the character of
‘‘the Lamb of God,’’ and not as present-
ing Christ under a new aspect, ‘“‘even He
that taketh away the sin of the world.”
The majority of the Old and Vulgate Latin
copies, the Old Syriac and other early
authorities, however, adopt the latter ren-
dering by repeating ‘‘Behold’’ (Vulg.
Hece agnus Det, Ecce qui tollit...). The
i word (aipes ) may mean either (1) taketh
upon him, or (2) taketh away. But the
usage of the LXX. and the parallel
passage 1 John iii. 5, are decisive in favour
of the second rendering (Vul. qui tollit, all.
qui aufert); and the Evangelist seems to
emphasize this meaning by substituting

another word of the LXX. (pépe,
beareth). It was however by ‘taking
upon Himself our  infirmities’’ that

Christ took them away (Matt. viii. 17);
yand this idea is distinctly presented in the
epassage of Isaiah (lili, 11). The present
Vtense marks the future result as assured
‘in the beginning of the work and also as
;continuous (comp. 1 John i. 7).
the sin of the world] The singular (as
contrasted with the plural,’ 1 John iii. 5) is
important, sofar.as.it. declares the victory
of Christ over sin regarded in its unity, as
the common corruption of humanity, which
is personally realised in the sins of separ-
ate men. The parallel passage in the
Epistle (/.c.) shews that the redemptive
efficacy of Christ’s Work is to be found ia
His whole Life (He was manifested)

{| Or,
beareth.
Vv. 30—32. |

.-30 This is he of whom I said,
After me cometh a man which is
preferred before me: for he was be-
fore me,

31 And I knew him not: but that
he should be made manifest to Israel,

Sr. JOHN I.

therefore am I come baptizing with
water,

21

32 kAnd John bare record, saying, k Matt
I saw the Spirit descending from 16

heaven like a dove, and it abode
upon him.

 

crowned by His Death. Of the two as-
pects of the Atonement, as (1) The re-
moval of the punishment of sin, and (2)
The removal of sin, St John dwells habitu-
ally on the latter. Yet see iii. 36; 1 John
li, 2,

The plural (sins), which has been trans-
ferred into our own Prayer-Book from the
early Western Service-Books (O Lamb of
God that takest away the sins of the
world), occurs in Latin quotations from the
time of Cyprian (qui tollis peccata), but it
is not found in any of the best MSS. of
the Old Latin or of the Vulgate. It oc-
curs also in the Morning Hymn of the
Alexandrian Church (Gloria in excelsis),
though not in immediate connexion with
‘“‘the Lamb of God,”’ and this is probably
the source of the liturgical use which
slightly influenced the Latin texts.

the world] Creation summed up in hu-
manity considered apart from (viii, 12, ix.
5, 1 John iv. 9), and so at last hostile to
God (xiv. 17, xv. 18). Yet potentially the
work of Christ extends to the whole world
(vi, 38; 1 John ii, 2). Compare Addi-
tional Note on v. 10.

The Synoptists have preserved a trace of
this extension of the work of Messiah from
the Jews to mankind in the teaching of
the Baptist (Matt. iii. 9). His call to con-
fession and repentance included the idea
of the universality of his message. He
addressed men as men. Comp. v. 7 note.

50. of whom] Literally, according to
the true text, in behalf of whom (imép
od), t.e. vindicating whose glorious office
as compared with my own.

I (éyo) said] The pronoun is purposely
expressed : 7, the prophetic messenger of
His advent, declared His superior majesty.

After me...which is come to be before
me] See v. 15, note.

a man] The word chosen (dip, Vulg.
vir) is emphatic, and here serves to give
dignity to the person described (contrast
avOpwros, v. 6). Elsewhere, except in
the sense of ‘“‘husband,’’ it occurs in St
John only in vi. 10, where the two terms
(avip, dvOpwros) are contrasted.

- 31. I knew him not] I (emphatic), his
‘precursor, trained for my work in the
, deserts (Luke i. 80) till the day for my
mission came, knew Him not as Messiah
; (v. 26). From the narrative in St Luke it
{appears to be doubtful whether the Baptist
‘had any personal knowledge of Jesus.

but that He should be made manifest}
but apart from such special knowledge I

had a distinct charge; and I knew that my
mission was to lead up tothe present mani-
festation of the Christ to the chosen people.

Israel] The term is always used with
the idea of the spiritual privileges attach-
ing to the race, i. (50) 49, iii, 10, xii, 13.

The popular belief that Messiah would
be unknown till He was anointed by
Elijah, is given in a very remarkable pas}
sage of Justin’s ‘ Dialogue,’ c. 8.

am I come baptizing with (in) water]
Rather, came I, fulfilling my initiatory
work. The order of the words differs from
that in vv, 26, 33, so that the subordinate
character of his baptism is here the pre-
dominant idea.

82. bare record] bare witness. It is
important to preserve the identity of lan-
guage throughout : vv. 7, 8, 15, 19, 34.

I saw] Rather, I have beheld ( TeOéapa),
‘gazed on,’’ with calm, steady, thoughtful
gaze, as fully measuring what was pre-
sented to my eyes (1 John i. 1). The per-
fect is found only 1 John iv. 12, 14. The
aorist occurs frequently, i. 14, 38, &c. The
verb in v. 84 is different (eWpaxa ).

the Spirit descending] This communica-
tion of the Spirit to Christ belongs to the
fulfilment under human conditions of His
whole work. Hitherto that work had been
accomplished in the perfection of indi-
vidual Life. Messiah now enters on His
public office, and for that receives, as true
Man, the appropriate gifts. The Spirit by
whom men are subjectively united to God
descends upon the Word made Flesh, by
whom objectively God is revealed to men,

from (out of) heaven like (as) a dove)
This definite revelation may be compared
with that of the ‘‘tongues of fire,’’ Acts ii.
8. The word used of the Spirit ‘‘ moving
on the face of the waters’? in Gen. i. 2,
describes the action of a bird hovering over
its brood, and the phrase is explained in
the Talmud, ‘‘The Spirit of God was
borne over the water as a dove which
broods over her young”’ (‘ Chag.’ 15 a). To
those who had not ‘‘eyes to see’’ the out-
ward phenomenon may not have appeared
anything extraordinary, just as the articu-
late voice of God was said by such to be
thunder (xii, 29). But Christ Himself,
who ‘‘saw’’ this visible manifestation in
its divine fulness (Matt. iii. 16; Mark i.
10), heard also the divine words as a defi-
nite message. The dove, as a symbol here,
suggests the notion of (1) Tenderness, (2)
Innocence, Matt. x. 16, (3) Gentle and
tranquil movement,
22

33 And I knew him not: but he
that sent me to baptize with water,
the same said unto me, Upon whom
thou shalt see the Spirit descending,

Sr. JOHN. I.

[v. 33, 34.

and remaining on him, the same is he
which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost.

34 And I saw, and bare record
that this is the Son of God.

 

and it abode upon him] The transition
to the finite verb gives emphasis to this
fact. The phrase occurs Isai. xi. 2. The
Spirit came to the prophets only from time
to time (comp. 2 K. iii. 15), but with
Christ it remained unchangeably.

83. And I knew him not] The phrase
is solemnly repeated from v. 31. The
mission and the sign of the fulfilment of
the mission are treated in the same way.

he that sent me.,.the same (he) said]
This detail is peculiar to St John. In what
form this revelation was conveyed to the
Baptist. we cannot tell. He was conscious
of a direct personal charge. This is brought
out prominently by the repetition of the
pronoun ‘‘ he (ékeivos) said.’? Comp. v. 18.

Upon whom] Rather, Upon whomsoever,
so that the dependence of the Baptist’s
knowledge on the divine sign is placed in
a stronger light.

remaining abiding, as v. 32. Both
elements (the descent and the resting) in
this sign are obviously significant. The
Spirit ‘“‘descended’’ for the fulfilment of a
ministry on earth; He ‘‘ abode’’ on Christ
so that henceforth that which was imma-
nent in the ‘‘ Word’’—His ‘“ glory’’—was
continuously manifested to believers. The
Son became the Giver of the Spirit who
revealed Him, even as the Spirit enabled
Him to reveal the Father. He Himself
received the Spirit, as it was His office to
baptize with the Spirit.

The “abiding” no less than the “descent”
of the Spirit was an object of ‘“‘sight’’ to
the herald of Christ. He was enabled to
discern in the Lord after His return from
the Temptation the permanence of His
divine endowment.

baptizeth with (in) the Holy Ghost] the
atmosphere, the element of the new life.
Comp. iii. 5; Matt. iii. 11, ‘‘ with the Holy
Ghost and fire.’ The inward and outward
purification are thus combined. The trans-
ference of the image of baptism to the im-
partment of the Holy Spirit was prepared
by such passages as Joel ii. 28 (Acts ii. 17).

The ‘‘descent” and “abiding” of the
Spirit upon Him ‘‘who was in the begin-
ning with God”’ illustrates the perfect order
with which the divine counsel is accom-
plished. As ‘‘the Son of Man” (comp. v.
51), Christ was thus ‘“‘ consecrated”’ to His
public Work. Such consecration is spoken
of as wrought by the Father before the In-
carnation (x. 36), and by the Son before
the Passion (xvii. 19).

34, IZ saw, and bare record] Rather, I
(emphatic) have seen as a fact, without the
accessory notion of attentive observation (v.

32), and have given my witness that...
So far .my experience and my work are
now completed. The sign for which 1
waited has been given; the Messiah whom
I was sent to herald has been revealed.
the son of God] Dan. iii. 25. The phrase
is to be interpreted according to the con-
text in which it occurs of those who are in
each case regarded as the direct represen-
tatives of God, as sometimes of kings, &c.
(Ps. lxxxii. 6): and so here it is used in
the highest sense (comp. Ps. ii. 7). Some
very early authorities (¥, Syr. vt., &c.)
read the chosen one of God. .
In comparing this section with the cor-
responding passage in the Synoptists, we

notice ;
1 Ae Baptism and Temptation must
precede v. 19. John knew Jesus as Messiah

(v. 26), of which he was first assured at
His Baptism (v. 33). And the succession
of time (29, 35) leaves no interval for the
Temptation, of which the Baptist would
naturally have no knowledge. It is prob-
able that v. 29 marks the return of the :
Lord from the Temptation.

2,.The testimony of John given in the:
Synoptists belongs to the time before the
Baptism, and is addressed to a popular au-)
dience : that in St John, to special mes-
sengers (as it seems) from the Sanhedrin,
and to the immediate disciples of the Bap-;
tist. The substance of the testimonies cor-
responds to these differences of circum-
stances. The former is general, and com-
bined with the idea of judgment; the lat-
ter is carefully defined with regard to cur-
rent belief, and stimulative to faith. More-
over, the testimony recorded by St John
distinctly refers to the earlier testimony
(v. 30).

3/The particularity and exactness of St
Jofin’s narrative, preserving the exact
marks of time, and place, and look, and
position, mark the work of an eye-witness.

4./The testimony of John, which was the
first recognition and the first manifestation
of Christ, is the natural beginning of St
John’s Gospel, whose design is to give the
historic development of faith and unbelief.
Comp. xx. 31. In this incident faith in
Christ was first shewn and first tried. The
testimony of John was a word of inspira-
tion answering to the faith which regarded
outward facts in a divine light.

5/ the descent of the Holy Spirit upon
Chtist at His baptism is presented by St;
John simply as an objective sign to the
Baptist. He does not speak of any com-
munication of the Holy Spirit to Christ.
The ‘‘abiding’”’ is part of the sign, the
V. 35, 36.]

35 (@ Again the next day after
John stood, and two of his disci-
ples ;

Sr. JOHN I.

36 And looking upon Jesus as he
walked, he saith, Behold the Lamb
of God!

 

completion of the ‘‘descent.”” By a com-
parison of the other Gospels we see that
the manifestation was a sign to Christ also
as well as to the Baptist ; just as the words
which contained the divine revelation (My
beloved Son) were heard in their twofold
application, as addressed to others, This ts
my beloved Son (Matt.), and as addressed
to the Lord, Thou art my beloved Son
(Mark, Luke). To the Baptist the sign
shewed that his work was consummated by
the open advent of Him whose way he was
himself sent to prepare: to Christ, that
the hour of His public ministry was come,
a ministry commenced by an act of self-
humiliation. At the same time we cannot
but believe (so far as we realise the per-
iect humanity of Christ) that Christ at
this crisis first became conscious as man of
a power of the Spirit within Him corres-
ponding to the new form of His work.
See v, 33, note.

For the rest it will be seen that the
narratives of this event lend no support to
the Ebionitic view that the Holy Spirit
was first imparted to Christ at His Bap-
tism; or to the Gnostic view that the
Logos was then united to the man Jesus.
And at the same time this event enables
us to apprehend the different spheres of
the Word and of the Spirit. By the Word
God is revealed to man : by the Spirit man
is subjectively brought into fellowship with
God. We could not, without destroying
the essential idea of the Christian Faith,
suppose either that the Spirit was made
flesh or that the Word descended upon

Christ.
2

Tue Testimony oF DIscIPLes.
(i. 35—51).

The work of the Baptist passed natur-
ally into the work of Christ. His testi-
mony found a true interpretation from
some of his disciples, and they first at-
tached themselves to the Lord. Christ
who had been announced and revealed was
welcomed and followed.

The whole section consists of a series of
xamples of spiritual insight. Christ re-
eals His power by shewing His knowledge
f men’s thoughts (vv. 42, 48) ; and the dis-
iples recognise their Master by their ex-
erience of what He is (vv. 39, 41, 49).
The incidents are a commentary on the

ords ‘‘Come and see’’ (vv. 46, 39), and
the promise with which the section closes
opens the prospect of a more perfect divine
vision (v. 51).

The very mixture of Hebrew (Simon,
‘Nathanael) and Greek (Andrew, Philip)
names seems to indicate the representa-
tive charactér of this first group of dis-
iciples; and there is a progress in the con-

fessions which they make: “We have found
the Messiah” (v, 41): “ We have found
him of whom Moses in the Law, and the
Prophets, did write...” (v. 45): “ Rabbi,
thou art the Son of God, thou art the
King of Israel” (v, 49).

The history falls into two parts, and
deals with two groups of disciples. First,
John’s work is crowned (35—42) ; and then
Christ’s work is begun (48—51). This will
be seen in the subjoined table.

The Testimony of Disciples.
a. The first group. John’s teaching
crowned (vv, 35—42).
John’s word understood and
obeyed (35—39).
(1) John’s disciples and John
(35—37).
(2) John’s disciples
Christ (88, 39).
8B. The new message proclaimed (40—
42).
(1) The mission (40, 41).
(2) The blessing (42).
b. The second group. Christ’s teach-
ing begun (vv. 48—51).
a. Christ’s call and its issue (out-
ward power) (48—46).
B. Christ’s knowledge of the heart
(inward power) (47—5l).
The work of the first day of Christ's Minis-
try. John’s teaching crowned (35—42).

On this first day of His teaching Christ
is recognised by those who have been al-
ready prepared to receive Him. The
disciples of John are shewn in their true
position towards him and his Successor.
Christ is not said to have called any one
to Himself. Two pairs of brothers, as it
appears, form the first group of disciples,
of whom the first pair are named, Andrew
and Simon; and the second pair, John
and James, are only faintly indicated. The
first. disciples become the first preachers.

The date is shortly before the Passover
(ii. 1, 12); and in accordance with this an
early tradition fixed the beginning of
Christ’s Ministry at the vernal equinox
(‘Clem. Hom.’ 1. 16).

85. Again the next day after John stood]
Again the next day John was standing.
The picture is one of silent waiting. The
hearts of all were full with thoughts of
some great change. Was standing : com-
pare vii. 37, xviii. 5, 16, 18, xix. 25, xx. 11.

two of his disciples] Comp. viii. 17. One
of them is identified (v. 40) as Andrew;
and the other was evidently the Evangel-
ist. This appears from the absence of all
further designation, and from the fact that
the narrative bears the marks of having
been written by an eye-witness for whom
each least detail had a living memory.

and

23
St. JOHN. I. [v. 37—4I.

37 And the two disciples heard 39 He saith unto them, Come and -
him speak, and they followed Jesus. see. They came and saw where he
38 Then Jesus turned, and saw dwelt, and abode with him that day:

24

them following, and saith unto them, for it was llabout the tenth hour. | That wer
What seek ye? They said unto him, 40 One of the two which heard fefore

Rabbi, (which is to say, being inter- John speak, and followed him, was night.

 

t Or. preted, Master,) where Iidwellest Andrew, Simon Peter’s brother.
eet ree 41 He first findeth his own brother
36. looking upon] having looked on. What seek ye? Not whom? It is of in-

The word (éuPAépas) describes one pene- terest to compare the first words of Christ
trating glance, as again in v. 42, the only recorded in the several Gospels. Suffer it
other place where it is found in St John. to be so now; for thus it becometh us to
Comp. Mark x. 21, 27; Luke xx, 17, xxii. fulfil all righteousness (Matt. iii. 15). The
61. time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of
as he walked] no longer ‘‘coming unto heaven is at hand: repent ye and believe
im’’ (v. 29), but evidently (37, 38) going the gospel (Mark i. 15). How is it that ye
way. So for the last time the Baptist and sought me? wist ye not that I must be
he Christ were together; and the Baptist about my Father's business? (Luke ii. 49).
ave by anticipation a commentary on his The first words in the text followed by
wn sublime words (iii. 30) when he Come and ye shall see, the searching ques-
ointed his scholars to their true Lord. tion and the personal invitation, are a
Behold the Lamb of God !] The wordsare parable of the message of faith.
not at this time a new revelation (as v. 29) They said (And they said)...Rabbi] The
and therefore the explanatory clause is fresh recollection of the incident seems to
omitted. They are a suggestion by the bring back the original terms which had
Baptist to those who had hitherto faith- almost grown to be foreign words (vv. 41,
fully followed him, that now they were 42). The English Master is to be taken in
called away to a greater Master. The the sense of ‘Teacher.’ Comp. iii. 2,
first disciples of Christ naturally came note.
fro the" Baptist’s disciples. So~ dwellest] Rather abidest, as v. 39 (dwelt,
the divine order was fulfilled, and the pre- abode).
paratory work had fruit. The new Church The answer implies that if they could be
grew out of the old Church, as its proper with Christ, that, and nothing less than
consummation. The revelation of Christ that, would satisfy their want. For a
as He was (v. 29) shewed to those whose thing (what? v. 88) these first disciples
souls were rightly disciplined that He substituted a Person. They were in need
would complete what the Baptist had be- of oe first and not of any special gift
of Christ.

gun. At the same time the disciples of
the Baptist could leave their teacher only
in obedience to his own guidance as he
interpreted their thoughts. And the direc-
tion came not as a command, but in a form
which tested their faith. The words spoken
answered to their inmost thoughts, and so
they could understand and obey them, But
without this spiritual correspondence the
decisive sentence could have no power of
constraint, for it does not appear that St
John even addressed them, but rather he
spoke indefinitely (v. 29), and the message
came home to them: He saith...and the two
disciples heard him speak (as he spoke,
HKovray Aadodvros, and followed Jesus.

87. followed] The word expresses the
single act as their choice was made once for
all. The circumstance has a significance
for all time. Christ’s first disciples were
made by the practical interpretation of a
phrase which might have been disregarded,

38. Then (But) Jesus turned) as He
was going away. This action hindered the
two disciples from following Him silently
and unperceived as they might have done
(they...followed...but Jesus...).

saw them) beheld them. Comp. vi. 5.

39. Come and see] According to the most
probable reading, Come and ye shall see.
The present imperative (€pyeoOe, compare
v. 47, vii. 37, xi. 34, and on the other hand
iv. 16, €A@€), describes an immediate act
contemplated as already begun. The act
of faith goes first: knowledge is placed
definitely after. The double repetition, So
they came and saw, must be noticed.

They came...day...for it was...] They came
therefore (So they came)...day...it was...

that day) that memorable day, from
which the Christian society took its rise.
Compare xx. 19 note,

the tenth hour] i.e. 10 a.m. Comp. iv. 6,
note, and Additional Note on ch. xix. An
early hour seems to suit best the fulness of
the day’s events. The mention of the time
is one of the small traits which mark St
John. He is here looking back upon the
date of his own spiritual birth.

40. One of the two...] The other being
St John; v. 35, note.

heard John speak] Literally,
John, heard the great tidings
i.e. that Jesus was the Lamb of
the construction see vi, 45.

heard from
from him,
God. For
v. 42.] St. JOHN I.

Simon, and saith unto him, We have And when Jesus beheld him, he said,
found the Messias, which is, being Thou art Simon the son of Jona:
Or, the fterpreted, lithe Christ. thou shalt be called Cephas, which is

Anointed. 42 And he brought him to Jesus. by interpretation, lA stone. — DOr

25

 

Andrew] Compare vi. 8, xii, 22; Mark
xiii, 3, where the same four disciples ap-
pear together as here. See note.

Simon Peter's brother] Thus Peter is
treated as the better known.

41. “first findeth his own brother)
findeth first his own brother. The words
imply that someone else was afterwards
found ; and from the form of the sentence
we may conclude that this was the brother
ef the second disciple, that is James the
brother_of Jahn. All this evidently took
place on the same day (vv. 35, 48).

findeth] The use of the word in this
chapter is most remarkable. It occurs again
in this verse and in 43 (44), and twice in
v. 45 (46). The search and the blessing
go together.

We have found] This was the result of
their intercourse with Christ. The verb
stands first, thus giving prominence to the
search (v. 88) now joyously ended. It is
otherwise in v. 45. The plural shews the
feympsthy but not the presence of St John.

Messias...interpreted the (omit) CArist]
The Hebrew name is found only here and
iv. 25. Compare v. 38 (Rabbt), note, v.
42 (Cephas); and contrast vv. 20, 25. On
the form (Meoodas or Meoias) as repre-
senting the Aramaic (NIT wd) see De-
litzsch, ‘ Ztschr. f. Luth. Theol.’ 1876, s.
603.

The announcement was an interpretation
of the disciples’ own experience. It does
not appear that the title was used by the
Baptist. The prerogatives of the Christ,
the works of the Christ, were laid open,
and it was the office of faith to recognise
Him in whom they were found.

The title ‘‘the Christ’’ is found in the
narrative of StJohn’s Gospel, just as in
the Synoptists. It is not unfrequently used
by the people doubting and questioning
(vii. 26 f., 31, 41 f., x. 24, xii. 34. Comp.
ix. 22); and by the Baptist in answer to
them (i. 20, 25, iii. 28); but very rarely in
a confession of faith, as here and xi. 27.
Comp. iv. 25, 29. The word is introduced
wrongly in iv. 42, vi. 69. For the usage
of St John himself see xx. 31; 1 John ii.
22, v. 1; 2 John 9; Rev, xi. 15, xii. 10, xx.
4. Comp. i. 17 note. Perhaps the Hebrew
‘form definitely preserved in order to
. connect the Lord with the Jewish hope
and to exclude Gnostic speculations on
the Aon Christ.

41, 42. findeth...saith...brought] The
change of tense gives vividness to the nar-
trative. (

42. And he brought...And when Jesus
beheld him he said) He brought...Jesus
looked on him and said.

_beheld him] Comp. v. 36 note.

Thou art] This is not necessarily a pro-
phetic declaration by divine knowledge. It
rather means simply ‘‘this is your natural
name.’” Some take the phrase interroga-
tively: Art thou...? placing the old a
the new in sharper contrast.

son of Jona] Here and in ch. xxi. the
best text gives son of John.

thou shalt be called Cephas] Hereafter
thou shalt win the name of Cephas. This
promise received its fulfilment, Matt. xvi.
18 (Thou art Peter), where the earlier
naming is implied. The title appears to
mark not so much the natural character
of the Apostle as the spiritual office to
which he was called.

Cephas) The Aramaic name (N55) is
found in the New Testament elsewhere
only in 1 Cor, i. 12, ili. 22, ix. 5, xv. 5;
Gal. i. 18, ii, 9, 11, 14.

by interpretation, A stone] The sense
would perhaps be given better by keeping
the equivalent proper name: by interpre-
tation Peter, that is a stone, or rather a
mass of rock detached from the living rock
(Vulg. Cephas quod interpretatur Petrus).

As to the relation of this meeting with :

St Peter to the call recorded in Matt. iv.
18—22; Mark i.
may be observed that
Il the features are different.
(a) Place—Judea : Galilee.
(6) Time—Close on the
Some time after.
(c) Persons—Philip and Nathanael are
not named by Synoptists.
(d) Circumstances—A simple
ing : A miracle.

Baptism :

meet-

he narrative in the Synoptists im-

plies sgme previous connexion.
3. ffhis was the establishment of a per-
I relationship : that was a call to an
official work. The former more naturally
belongs to St John’s scope, as giving the
history of the growth of faith. The latter
falls in with the record of the organization

of the Church.

he teaching in Galilee to which the;

recorded in the Synoptists belongs was
really the beginning of a new work, dis
tinct from the Lord’s first work at Jeru

salem.
ofthe occupation of the disciples with
tW@ir ordinary work after the first cal!

finds a complete parallel in John xxi.

16—20; Luke v, 1—11, it
26 Sr.

43 9 The day following Jesus
would go forth into Galilee, and
findeth Philip, and said unto him,
Follow me.

44 Now Philip was of Bethsaida,
the city of Andrew and Peter.

The work of the second day of Christ's
ministry. Christ's own work begun
(43—51).

The record of the fulfilment of John’s
work in the attachment of his disciples to
Christ is followed by the record of the be-
ginning of Christ’s work. Jesus now
‘*seeks’’? and commands (v. 43), and re-
veals both His authority and His insight.
43. The day following Jesus would go
forth...and findeth...and saith] The next
day (vv. 29, 35)) he was minded to go
forth...and he findeth...and Jesus saith...
The transposition of the subject. by the
best authorities creates no real ambiguity.
Compare xix.5. The purpose is evidently

spoken of as in accomplishment.

The coordination of the two clauses (he
was minded, and he saith), which would
commonly be placed in dependence, is
characteristic of St John’s style. Comp.
ii. 13 ff.

go forth tnto Galilee] ‘“‘His hour was
not yet come’’ for a public manifestation
at Jerusalem, and therefore He returned
for a time to His usual place of abode.

findeth] How and where ‘‘ Jesus found

hilip” must remain unknown; but the

ord implies that the meeting was not
ccidental. Compare vv. 48, 45, (46): v.
14. The Lord ‘‘found’’ those who were
‘* given’ to Him : xvii. 6 ff., vi. 37. Comp.
iv, 28.

Philip] See vi. 5, 7, xii. 21 ff., xiv. 8, 9%
These passages throw light on the charac-
ter of the disciple whom Christ sought.
The name Philip is pure Greek. Comp. xii.
20 f.

Follow me] As a disciple bound to my
service. The words are here first pro-
nounced by Christ. Comp. Matt. viii. 22,
ix, 9, xix. 21, and parallels; ch. xxi. 19,
22. The phrase in Matt. iv. 19 is different.

44. was of Bethsaida, the city...] More
exactly, was from (dé) Bethsaida of (éx)
the city... The Synoptists mention that
Simon and Andrew had a house at Caper-
naum (Mark i, 21, 29; comp. Matt. viii. 5,
14; Luke iv. 31, 38).

Bethsaida] Defined as Bethsaida of
Galilee, xii. 21; and identified by Dr.
Thomson with Abu Zany on the west of
the entrance of the Jordan into the lake,
and by Major Wilson with Khan Minyeh
(Wilson, ‘Sea of Galilee,’ in Warren’s ‘Re-
covery of Jerusalem,’ pp. 342, 387). Comp.
Matt, xiv. 22 note; Mark viii. 22 note.

The notice of the home of Philip ex-
plains how he was prepared to welcome

JOHN. I.

45 Philip findeth Nathanael, and
saith unto him, We have found him,

of whom (Moses in the law, and thezGen. 49.
10. Deut
18. 18.

m Isai. 4.2

mprophets, did write, Jesus of Naza-
reth, the son of Joseph. :
46 And Nathanael said unto him,

Christ. He knew and was in sympathy
with Andrew and Peter; and probably he
too with them had followed the Baptist.
45. Philip findeth] Probably on the
journey. Nathanael was ‘‘of Cana in
Galilee’? (xxi. 2). The first disciple who
“found Christ,’’ and the first disciple
whom Christ ‘found,’ became alike
evangelists at once.
Nathanael]=Theodore. He is probably
to be identified with Bartholomew, for the

followiag reasons :
(1 e mention of him in this place
and in xxi. 2 shews that he occupied

w prominent position among the dis-
ciples. Those with whom he is
lassed in each place are Apostles.

(2)/No_mention is made of Nathanael in
the Synoptists, or of Bartholomew in
St John; while the name Bartholo-
mew is a patronymic (Son of Tolmai)
like Barjona (Matt. xvi. 17), and
Barjesus (Acts xiii. 6).

(3) In the list of Apostles Bartholomew
is coupled with Philip by St Mat-
thew (x. 3), St Luke (vi. 14), St
Mark (iii. 18), so that the six first
are the six first called. In xxi. 2
Thomas is added, as in Acts i. 13.

We have found] Here in the original,
the verb stands last. ‘‘Him of whom
Moses wrote and the prophets, we have
found.” This form of the sentence (con-
trast v. 41) seems to imply that Philip and
Nathanael had often dwelt on the Old
Testament portraiture of Messiah. By the
use of the plural, Philip unites himself to
the little group of disciples, and his words
shew that he had been before in communi-
cation with them.

Moses in the law] By types (ch. iii. 14 f.)
and by more distinct words (Deut. xviii.
15. Comp. Acts iii, 22, vii. 37). Comp. v.
46.

Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph]
i.e. in Jesus of Nazareth. Philip describes
the Lord by the name under which He
would be commonly known. Comp. Matt.
xxi. 11; and ch, vi. 42 (vii. 42).

46. Can there any good thing come out
of Nazareth?] Literally, From Nazareth
can any good thing be? t.e., can any
blessing, much less such a blessing as the
promised Messiah, arise out of a poor vil-
lage like Nazareth, of which not even the
name can be found in the Old Testament ?
Contrast Isai. ii. 3 (Zion). There is no}
evidence, unless the conduct of the Ness]
enes to the Lord be such (Luke iv. 16 ff.)

[v. 43—46.
v. 47—49.]
Can there any good thing come out
of Nazareth? Philip saith unto him,
Come and see.

47 Jesus saw Nathanael coming to
him, and saith of him, Behold an
Israelite indeed, in whom is no guile!

48 Nathanael saith unto him,

St. JOHN I.

27
Whence knowest thou me? Jesus
answered and said unto him, Before
that Philip called thee, when thou
wast under the fig tree, I saw thee.

49 Nathanael answered and saith
unto him, Rabbi, thou art the Son of
God; thou art the King of Israel.

 

other places in Galilee (Matt. xiii, 58;
Mark vi. 6). It was proverbial, how-
ever, that “out of Galilee ariseth no pro-
phet” (vii. 52); and the candour of Nath-
anael would not hide a misgiving even
when it was to the dishonour of his own
country. The phrase be out of (eivas éx)
denotes more than the simple home. It
expresses the ideas of derivation and de-
pendence, and so of moral correspondence.
Comp. iii. 31 note, iv. 22.

Come and see} Compare v. 89. The
words contain the essence of the true solu-
tion of religious doubts. The phrase is
common in Rabbinic writers (AN) N)3)-
See Wetstein on v. 40.

47. coming] Nathanael at once ac-
cepted the challenge.

of him] not to him, but to the bystanders,
as reading the soul of the man approach-
ing Him.

It will be noticed how the Lord inter-

rets the thoughts of all whom He meets
in these opening chapters of St John: St

eter (v. 42), St Philip (v. 43), Nathanael
v. 47), the Blessed Virgin (ii. 4). Nico-

emus (iii.), the Woman of Samaria (iv.).

ompare ii. 25.

an Israelite indeed] one, that is, who an-
swers in character to the name which
marks the spiritual privileges of the chosen
nation—‘“‘ soldiers of God.’’ There is al-
ready here a reference to Jacob’s victories
of faith (v. 51), which is made yet clearer
by the second clause.

indeed} Literally, in truth (4An@0s), The
adverb is characteristic of St John : iv. 42,
vi. 14, vii. 40, viii. 81; 1 John ii. 5.

in whom is no guile] who is frank, simple,
with no selfish aims to hide, no doubts to
suppress. In whom the spirit of Jacob—
the supplanter—has been wholly trans-
formed to the type of Israel. The future
growth of St Peter had formed the main
topic of Christ’s welcome to him (v. 42),
as here the present character of Nathanael.

48. Whence knoweth thoume?] Nathanael
must have overheard the words spoken
about him, and found in them some clear
discernment of his thoughts (comp. ii. 25),
which roused him to this question of sur-
prise uttered without reserve.

Before that...] The love of Christ had an-
ticipated the love of the friend in finding
Nathanael.

when thou wast under the fig tree, I
saw thee] This sentence, like the former

fit Nazareth had a reputation worse than

 

one, points to some secret thought or
prayer, by knowing which the Lord
shewed His divine insight into the heart
of man. He saw not that which is out-
ward only, but that which was most
deeply hidden. Compare iv. 19. There
is nothing to shew whether Nathanael was
still in meditation when Philip found him
or not.

the fig tree] which would be in leaf
about this time (Matt. xxi. 10 ff., ch. ii.
13). The definite article (the fig-tree) calls
up the exact scene. Compare Mic. iv. 4;
Zech, iii. 10, &c. The form of the phrase
(bré thy cuKAv, contrasted with troxdrw
THS, TvKyS, v. 50, underneath) implies that
Nathanael had withdrawn under the fig-
tree, for thought or prayer. This medita-
tion turned (as we must suppose) upon the
ideas recognised in the Lord’s words.
Augustine’s narrative of the crisis of his
own conversion is a singular commentary
on the scene. He too had retired beneath
a fig-tree for solitary thought when the
voice ‘Tolle, lege’? decided his choice.
‘Confessiones,’ viii. 12, 28. A passage is
also quoted from the Jerusalem Talmud
(‘ Berachoth,’ ii. 8), in which R. Akiva is
described as studying the law under a fig-
tree.

49. answered and saith unto him]
answered him, according to the best text.

Rabbi] All prejudice and doubt is laid
aside, and the title is given by instinct
which before (v. 48) he had withheld.

thou art the Son of God; thou art the
King (art King) of Israel] Thus Messiah
was described in relation to (1) His divine
origin (2) His human sovereignty. Both
attributes are implied in the conception of
a kingdom of God. “ The ‘ true Israelite,’ ”
as it has been well said, “ acknowledges
his king.” Compare Peter’s confession in
Matt. xvi. 16, and in ch. vi. 68, 69, and
that of Thomas in xx. 28.

the Son of God] The words are an echo
of the testimony of the Baptist (v. 34).
Nothing can be more natural than to sup-
pose that the language of John had created
strange questionings in the hearts of some
whom it had reached, and that it was
with such thoughts Nathanael was busied
when the Lord “saw” him. If this were
so, the confession of Nathanael may be, us
it were, an answer to his own doubts.

King of Israel] As here at the begin-
ning, so once again this title is given to
Christ at the close of His ministry, xii. 13.
28

50 Jesus answered and said unto
him, Because I said unto thee, I saw
thee under the fig tree, believest
thou? thou shalt see greater things
than these.

Compare Matt. xxvii, 42; Mark xv. 32,
where the mockery is made more bitter by
the use of this theocratic phrase in place
of the civil title, “King of the Jews.” See
Xviii. 33 note.

50. believest thou?] The words can also
be taken affirmatively; but the same sense
is given more forcibly by the question
(comp. xvi. 81, xx. 29), which conveys
something of surprise that the belief was
accorded so readily, and something of
warning that even this expression of be-
lief did not exhaust the power of faith.

1 see greater things than these] actually
fasion greater proofs of my divine
ission than are shewn in these revelations
f thy thoughts. The plural (these
things) marks the class and not the special
incident. Comp, 3 John 4.

51. he saith unto him...I say unto you...
ye] The word is for Nathanael, but the
blessing is for all believers.

Verily, verily] i.e. Amen, Amen. The
phrase is found in the New Testament only
in the Gospel of St John (who never gives
the simple Amen), and (like the simple
Amen in the Synoptists) it is used only by
Christ. The word Amen is represented by
in truth or truly in Luke iv, 25, ix. 27.
In the LXX. the original word is retained
only in responsive phrases (Neh. v. 18, viii.
6). Elsewhere it is translated, “be it so”
(yévorro), Ps. xli, 18, 1xxii. 19, lxxxix. 52.
The word is properly a verbal adjective,
“firm,” “sure.” Comp, Isai. lxv. 16 (God
of the Amen. LXX. {o Beds odAnfwwes) ;
Rev. iii. 14 (the Amen). See Delitzsch,
‘Ztschr. f. Luth. Theol.’ 1856, 11. 422 ff.

Hereafter (From henceforth] This word
must be omitted according to decisive
authority. It it were genuine it would
describe the communion between earth and
heaven as established from the time when
the Lord entered on His'public ministry.

heaven open] Rather opened. The
phrase is the symbol of free intercourse
between God and man. Comp. Isai. Ixiv. 1.

angels...ascending and descending] The

Sr. JOHN. I.

[v. 50, 51

51 And he saith unto him, Verily,
verily, I say unto you, Hereafter ye
shall see heaven open, and the angels
of God ascending and descending
upon the Son of man.

order is remarkable. The divine messen-
gers are already on the earth though we
see them not; and they first bear the
prayer to God before they bring down the
answer from Him, So it was in the vision
of Jacob (Gen. xxviii. 12), which fur-
nishes the image here; and by the Incar-
nation that vision was made an abiding
reality. That which was a dream to the
representative of Israel was a fact for the
Son of Man. Thus the reference is to the
continuing presence of Christ (Matt.
xxviii. 20), in whom believers realise the
established fellowship of the seen and the
unseen, and not to the special acts of an-
gelic ministration to Christ alone during
His earthly life. There is an interesting
discussion of Jacob’s vision in Philo, ‘De
Somn.’ §§ 22 ff. pp. 640 ff.

The locality of the conversation may |.
have been near Bethel or the ford Jabbok,
so that the references to Jacob’s history
were forcibly suggested by the places made
famous through the patriarch.

angels] ch, xx. 12 (comp. xii. 29). There
are no other references (v. 4 is a gloss) to
the being and ministry of angels in the
Gospel or Epistles of St John.

the Son of man] By the use of this title :
the ompletes the revelation of His
Person, which has been unfolded step by ‘
step in the narrative of this chapter, in}
which He has been acknowledged as the
greater Successor of the Baptist (vv. 26 |
f.), the Lamb of God (vv, 29, 36), the!
Son of Gad Te. 34, 49), the Messiah (rv. }

> 45), the King of Israel (v.“49)- These |
titles had been given by others. He
chooses for Himself that one which defi-
nitely presents His work in relation to hu-
manity in itself, and not primarily in rela-
tion to God or to the chosen people, or
even to humanity as fallen. If, as appears
probable, the title was now first adopted,
it is to be noticed that it was revealed in
answer to a signal confession of faith
(Matt. xiii. 12). See Additional Note.

ADDITIONAL NOTES on Cuap. 1.

3, 4. The last words of v. 3(5 yéyovev
{that] which hath been made) can be taken
either (1) with the words which follow, or
(2) with the words which go before. In
the former case the text will run..xwpts
adrod éyévero ob8e v.85 yeyovev ev avT@ (wr

v... without Him was not anything made :
that which hath been made was life in Him
(in Him was life); in the latter case... Xwpls
adtod éyéevero oddé ev 0 yéyovev. EV avTH

(wi) Wv....without Him was not anything
made that hath been made. In Him was
life...

The former (to speak generally) was the
punctuation of the ante-Nicene age: the
latter is that of the common texts, and of
most modern versions and popular commen-
taries.

The evidence in greater detail is as fol-
lows : ,
St. JOHN I.

(1)... xopis adrod éyévero ov8é ev, 6 yeyovev

év att@ (wi) iv... This punctuation is sup-
ported by overwhelming ancient authority
of MSS., versions, and Fathers.

(a) Manuscripts. AC (firsthand) D place
a distinct point before 6 yéyovev, and no
point after it.. The remaining two (NB)
of the five most ancient MSS. make no
punctuation. Other important but later
MSS. give the same stopping, as e.g. L.

(B) Versions. One of the most important
of the Old Latin copies (6) inserts autem,
so that the connexion is unquestionable :
Quod autem factum est, in eo vita est.
Others (a, e, f, ff? &c.) give the same con-
nexion by punctuation. But in themselves
the words are ambiguous; and therefore it
is not surprising that in c and in MSS. of
the Vulgate generally (as in the editions)
the quod factum est is connected with the
words which go before.

The Old Syriac (Curetonian), like 6, in-
troduces a conjunction, so as to leave no
doubt as to the punctuation which it fol-
lows: But that which was... The Thebaic
and Athiopic versions support the same
connexion.

(y) Fathers. The same connexion is sup-
ported by Clem. Alex., Orig., (Euseb.),
Cyr. Alex., Hil., Aug., and the earliest
heretical writers quoted by Irenzus, Hip-
polytus, Clem, Alex.

Ambrose gives both readings, but he
adopts the reading quod factum est in ipso
vita est, and evidently implies that this
was known to be the oldest reading, though
it was felt to be ambiguous in sense.
Jerome’s quotations appear to recognise
both punctuations.

(2) xwpis avdrod éyevero ovdé Ev 6 yéyovev.
év att@ (wi iv. This punctuation is sup-
ported by

(a) Manuscripts. The mass of secondary
uncials and later manuscripts.

(8) Versions. The Memphitic and the
printed Latin texts. But the clause
“which hath been made” is omitted in one
MS. of the Memphitic.

(y) Fathers. The modern stopping was
due to the influence of the Antiochene
School, who avowedly adopted it to make
it clear that the former words applied only
to “things created” and not, as had been
alleged, to the Holy Spirit.

So Chrysostom (in loc.) “ Without Him
was made not even one thing which hath

A careful and repeated examination of D satisfies
me completely that this MS, has no stop after
yéeyovev. There is a slight flaw in the vellum which
extends towards ‘yéyovev from the top of the follow-
ing ¢, of which the upper boundary is above the level

of the writing, but this is certainly not the vestige of
a stop. The stops are below the level of the writ-
ing. And again there is no increased space between

yéyovey and év such as is found where a stop
occurs, as between ovdév and 6. On holding the

leaf to the light, the point of a C falls within the flaw
and gives the semblance of a stop.

- Ment,

been made,” “that is of things made (Tov)
yevnTorv ) both visible and mental (vonTav)
none has been brought to being without
the power of Christ. For we shall not
put the full point at ‘not even one thing,’
as the heretics do (kata Tovs aiperixovs);
for they say thus ‘that which hath be-
come in Him was life, wishing to speak
of the Holy Spirit as a creation (kricpa).”
At the same time he takes the next clause
év a't@ (wy) vas meaning “that in Him
all things live and are in Him providen-
tially ordered (rpovoeitar), so that that
which has been said of the Father might
properly be said also of Him, that in Him
we live and move and have our being.”

The punctuation thus recommended was
supported also by Theodorct and Theo-
dore of Mopsuestia, and prevailed in later
times.

Epiphanius in his ‘Ancoratus’ (c.
Ixxv.) written in 374 a.v., after quoting
the passage according to the old punctua-
tion (c, lxxiv.), goes on to say that the
words have been used by some to derogate
from the honour of the Holy Spirit. The
true way of reading the passage is, he
continues, All things were made through
Him, and without Him was nothing made
that hath been made in Him. Nothing
can be said for this division of the words,
and it may be fairly concluded that Hpi-
phanius is simply hazarding a hasty judg-
In ‘ Heer.’ xix. § 56 (p. 779), he
treats the words 5 yéyovev as the subject
of (w} Av, while he connects them with
the words which go before (ered?) jv Kat
iy kal Hy (v. 1) kalraévaito (wx iv).

The interpretation of the passage is un-
doubtedly most difficult, but it does not
seem that the difficulty is increased by
the ancient punctuation. The difficulty
in either case centres in the use of the
imperfect (“was life...” “was the light...”),
for which several ancient authorities read
is in the first place, a substitution which
can only be regarded as an arbitrary cor-
rection. It is indeed by no means clear
in what sense it can be said: Life was in
the Word, and the Life [thus spoken of
as in the Word] was the Light of men,
or again: That which hath been made was
Life in the Word, and the Life [thus en-
joyed by creation in the Word] was the
Light of men. Yet the second conception
will be seen upon consideration to fall in
with the scope of St John’s view of the
nature and action of the Word.

The Apostle deals with the two main as-
pects of finite being, origin and continu-
ance. As to the first, he says exhaustively
that all things became through the Word
as Agent; and Nothing, no not one thing,
became without—apart from—Him. At
this point, then, the view of the act of
creation is completed. But the continu-

29
30
ance of created things has yet to be no-
ticed. That which “became” still lasts.
And as Creation (on one side) was “in
the Word,” so too continuance is in Him.
The endurance of the universe is due to its
essential relation to the Creator. Creation
has not “ life in itself” (v. 26), but it had
and has life in the Word.

It will however be objected that the
phrase of the Apostle is “was life in
Him,” and not “has life in Him.” At
first sight the objection appears to be
strong. The latter phrase would no
doubt be far simpler than that which is
actually used, and it would express part
of the truth more clearly; but at the same
time it would fall short of the fulness of
what is written. As it is, the thought of
the reader is carried away from the pre-
sent, and raised (so to speak) to the con-
templation of the essence of things. For
a moment we are taken from phenomena—
“that which hath become”—to being, to
the divine “idea” of things. From this
point of sight the Life of the world was
included in the Word, and with the Life
also the destination of the Life. Even in
that which is fleeting there is that which
“was,” something beyond time, of which
particular issues are shewn in time. In
regard to God things “were” in their
absolute, eternal, perfection; in regard to
men “they have become.” The thought
occurs once again in the writings of St
John. There is the same contrast between
the “idex” and the temporal realisation of
the idea, in the Hymn of the Elders in
the Apocalypse (iv. 11): Thou art worthy,
our Lord and our God, to receive glory
and honour and power, for thou didst
create all things, and for thy pleasure
(OcAnpa) they were (fjoav, according to
the true reading, and were created.

Human language is necessarily inade-
quate to express distinctly such a concep-
tion as has been faintly indicated; but
at least it will be seen that the early punc-
tuation of the passage suggests a view of
the relation of the Creation to the Creator
which claims to be reverently studied,
That which was created and still con-
tinues, represents to us what was beyond
time (if we dare so speak) in the Divine
Mind. In its essence it was not only
living, but life in the Word, in virtue, that
is, of its connexion with Him (comp. ch.
v, 17, note) And through it—through the
finite—the Word made Himself known; so
that Creation was essentially a manifesta-
tion of the Word to men who were able
to observe and to interpret in part the
phenomena of life. :

According to this view the word life is
used both times in the same sense to ex-
press the divine element in creation, that
in virtue of which things “are,” each ac-
cording to the fulness of its being. It is

Sr. JOHN. I.

the sum of all that is physically, intellec-
tually, morally, spiritually in the world
and in man, This “life” is for rational
beings a manifestation of God through the
Word; and it was the Divine Will that it
should be so: the life was the light of
men. Comp. Rom. i. 19, 20, ii. 14, 15;
Acts xiv, 17, xvii. 23 ff.

It will be seen that in this explanation
the words in Him are connected with was
life, and not with that which hath been
made. The unusual but emphatic order
finds a parallel in the true reading of iii.
15. The other combination however has
very early authority (comp. Iren. 1. 8. 5).
Thus Clement of Alexandria applies the
words to the Christian reborn in Christ.
“ He that hath been baptized (6 mepwrt-
opévos) is awake unto God and such a one
lives: For that which hath been made in
Him is life” (‘Pad.’ ii. 9 § 79; comp.
‘Pad.’ i. 6 § 27).

Cyril of Alexandria, who grasps with
singular vigour the double relation of.
Creation to the Word as Creator and Pre-
server of all things, which is conveyed in
the passage, appears to invert the descrip-
tion of the continuous vital connexion of
the Word and the world. “As for that
which hath come into being”—so he para-
phrases—‘ the Life, the Word that is the
Beginning and Bond (ovoracis) of all
things, was in it”...“ The Word, as Life
by nature, was in the things which have
become, mingling Himself by participation
in the things that are” (‘ Comm.’ ad. loc.).
This construction seems to be quite im-
possible; and the meaning suffers, inas-
much as things are not referred to their
one centre of living unity, but on the con-
trary this one life is regarded as dis-
persed.

Augustine (‘Comm.’ in, loc.) has illus-
trated the meaning well. “ Quod factum
est; hic subdistingue [he has just set
aside the punctuation quod factum est in
illo, vita est] et deinde infer, in ilo vita
est. Quid est hoc?...Quomodo possum
dicam....Faber facit arcam. Primo in
arte habet arcam: si enim in arte arcam
non haberet, unde illam fabricando pro-
ferret ?...In arte invisibiliter est, in opere
visibiliter erit...Arca in opere non est vita,
arca in arte vita est; quia vivit anima
artificis, ubi sunt ista omnia antequam
proferantur: Sic ergo, fratres carissimi,
quia Sapientia Dei, per quam facta sunt
omnia, secundum artem continet omnia
antequam fabricat omnia, hinc que fiunt
per ipsam artem non continuo vita sunt,
sed quidquid factum est, vita in illo est.
Terram vides...caelum vides...foris corpora
sunt, in arte vita sunt.”

Thus the ancient division of the
clauses gives a consistent if mysterious
sense to every phrase. If however the
Sr. JOHN I.

other punctuation, that of A.V., be adop-
ted, the addition of the words “that hath
been made” adds nothing to the sense, and
the harmony of the rhythm of the original
is spoiled, especially if the true reading
(obdé év for ovdév) be taken. Then
further there is a certain abruptness in the
beginning, In Him was Life, unlike the
repetition of the subject in the adjacent
clauses (vv. 1, 2...the Word...the same was,
vv. 4, 5, the light...the light shineth...).
It is a still further objection to this ar-
rangement of the passage, that nothing is
said of the means by which the Life be-
came the Light of men. The 3rd verse
very naturally prepares the way for the
announcement of the revelation of the
Word through and in His works.

But still, even in this arrangement of
the clauses, the sense, though less clearly
expressed, will remain substantially the
same, The mention of “life” in the Word
must be made in reference to finite being
and not in reference to Himself. He was
the centre and support of all things ac-
cording to their several natures ; and the
life thus derived from Him was the light
of men. According to this view the verb
was describes what was thevhistorical rela-
tion of things at the moment after crea-
tion, and not what was the archetypal
idea of things. Still even so that which
“was” when God pronounced all things
“very good,” represents the essential law
of being.

4. In him was (}v) life] An important
and well-marked group of ancient au-
thorities, which represent a text of the
second century, | yD, MSS. of Orig., Lat.
vt., Syr. vt, read in him is ( éoriv) life.
The variant is without doubt a very early
gloss; and it may be observed, once for
all, that these authorities, both separately
and collectively, are characterized by a
tendency to introduce interpretative read-
ings. In such cases where they stand
alone against the other authorities, their
reading, though of great antiquity and
once widely current, is very rarely to be
received.

10. The world, .6 Kéopos.

1. The conception of the “world” (Ko p.0s)
is eminently characteristic of the writings
of St John. He nowhere uses aiwy (6
viv aidv, 6 aldv obros, &c.) for the moral
order; and conversely Koopos is very
rarely used with a moral sense, as the
sphere of revelation, by the Synoptists
(comp. Matt. v. 14, xiii. 38, xvill. 7, xxvi.
13; [Mk. xvi, 15]), though it occurs more
frequently in St Paul (Rom, iii, 19; 1
Cor. i. 21, &c.) : :

2. The fundamental idea of «oopos in
St John is that of the sum created being
which belongs to the sphere of human life
as an ordered whole, considered apart from

God (xvii. 5. 24). The world is relative
to man ag well as to God. So far as it
includes the material creation, this is re-
garded as the appointed medium and scene
of man’s work (comp. Wisd, ix. 2 f., x. 1).
Spiritual existences (angels, &c.) are not
included in this conception of the world :
they are “of the things above” as con-
trasted with “the things below” (viii. 28),

In this widest sense “the world was
made through (dsa)” the Word (i. 10).
Comp. Rev. xiii. 8, xvii. 8.

3. More specially the world is that sys-
tem which answers to the circumstances of
man’s present life. At birth he “comes
into the world” (vi. 14, xvi. 21), and “is
in the world” till death (xiii, 1, xvii. 11),
comp, xvii. 15. The Lord during His
earthly Life, or when He submits to its
conditions, is “in the world” (ix. 5, xvii.
11, 13) in a more definite manner than
that in which He is “in the world” from
creation (i. 10), “‘coming into the world”
(i. 9, xi, 27, xii. 46, xvi. 28, xviii. 37),
and being “sent into the world” by the
Father (x. 36, xvii. 18; 1 John iv. 9), and
again “leaving the world” (xvi. 28).
Comp. Rev. xi. 15.

4. So far “the world” represents that
which is transitory and seen as opposed
to the eternal (1 John ii. 15 ff., iii, 17).
And these particular ideas of the transi-
toriness, the externality, the corruption of
“the world” are emphasized in the phrase
“this world” (6 kéapos obTos, viii. 28, xi.
9, xii, 25, 31, xiii. 1, xviii. 36, xvi. 11; 1
John iv. 17. Comp, xiv. 30). So far as it
is regarded under this aspect the “world”
has no direct «ounexion with God (comp.
1 John v. 19).

5. It is easy to see how the thought of
an ordered whole relative to man and con-
sidered apart from God passes into that of
the ordered whole separated from God.
Man fallen impresses his character upon
the order which is the sphere of his ac-
tivity. And thus the “world” comes to
represent humanity in its present state,
alienated from its Maker, and so far de-
termining the character of the whole order
to which man belongs. The world instead
of remaining the true expression of God’s
will under the conditions of its creation,
becomes His rival (1 John ii. 15—17). St
John says little as to cause or process of
this alienation. It is referred however
to the action of a being without, who is
the source and suggestor of evil (viii. 44,
xiii, 2; 1 John ili. 8).

6. Through this interruption in its nor-
mal development, the world which was
made by the Word, recognised Him not (i.
10; comp. xvii. 25; 1 John iii. 1). It
became exposed to destruction (drwAca,
iii, 16, viii. 24; 1 John v, 19 ff., ii, 2).
Still it was the object of God’s love (iii.

31
32

Sr. JOHN. I.

16 f.), and Christ took on Him its sin (1.
29). He was “the light” (viii, 12, ix. 5,
xii 46); “the Saviour of the world” (iv.
42, xii. 47; 1 John iv, 14), giving life to
it (vi, 38, 51). He spoke not to a sect or
to a nation, but to the world (xviii. 20,
viii, 26). He is a propitiation “for the
whole world” (1 John ii. 2).

7. The coming of Christ into the world
was necessarily a judgment (ix, 39). Out
of the whole, regarded as a system con-
taining within itself the spring of a cor-
responding life (xv, 19, xvii. 14, 16; 1
John iv. 5, ii, 16), some were chosen by
(xv. 19) or “given” to Him (xvii. 6).
Thus the whole has become divided. Part
attaches itself to God in answer to His
call: part still stands aloof from Him. In
contrast with the former the latter is called
the world. In this sense the “ world”
describes the mass of men (comp, xii, 19)
distinguished from the people of God,
characterized by their peculiar feelings
(vil. 7, xiv. 27, xv. 18f., xvi. 20, xvii. 14;
1 John iii. 13, iv. 5) and powers (xiv. 17;
1 John iii. 1), hostile to believers, and in-
capable of receiving the divine spirit, The
disciples and “the world” stand over against
one another (xiv, 19, 22). On the one side
are the marks of “light” and “love” and
“life;” on the other, “darkness” and
“hatred ” and “ death.” The world has its
champions (1 John iv. 1ff.), its inspiring
power (1 John iv. 4, v. 19), its prince (xiv,
30, xvi. 11). Inthe world the disciples have
tribulation, though Christ has conquered it
(xvi. 33); and His victory is repeated by
them through the faith (1 John v. 4 f.).

8. But even this “world” is not uncared
for, though for a time it was left (xvii. 9).
The disciples are sent into it (xvii, 18).
The Paraclete’s Mission is to convict it
(xvi, 8), the self-surrender of Christ (xiv.
31), the unity (xvii. 21) and the glory of the
disciples (xvii. 23), are to the end that the
world may come to knowledge and faith.

9. From this analysis of St John’s usage
of the term it will be seen how naturally
the original conception of an order apart
from God passes into that of an order
opposed to God: how a system which is
limited and transitory becomes hostile to the
divine: how the “world” as the whole
scene of human activity is lost in humanity :
how humanity ceases to be “ of the world”
by its union with God in Christ,

13. In some of the early Latin copies
(b, Tertullian and perhaps the translator of
Irenzus) a very remarkable variation was
introduced intothis verse, by which it was
referred to the Word as subject, Who...was
born. The variation arose from the am-
biguity of the relative in Latin, which was
taken with the nearest antecedent (ejus,
qui...natus est),

15.° 0f whom I spake] The variations in
a few of the most ancient authorities here

suggest the possibility of some very early
corruption of the text, The original hand
of & gives, This was he that cometh after
me who is become before me (odros iv 6
om, p. épx. Os gu. y.). This insertion
of the relative (ds) finds some support in
one old Latin copy. The first hands of
B and C and a very early corrector of &
read who spake (6 eimuv for Ov efrov); and
this reading gives an intelligible sense by
emphasizing the reference to the Baptist’s
testimony : “this John and no other was
he who spake the memorable words.”

16. And of...) This reading, which is
supported by A, the secondary uncials,
almost all the cursives, three Syriac versions
and the Vulgate, is a good example of a
change introduced, probably by the uncon-
scious instinct of the scribe, for the sake of
smoothness and (as it was supposed) of
clearness, At a very early time (second
century) verse 16 was regarded as a con-
tinuation of the words of the Baptist, so
that the true reference of the second because
(6r«)was lost, and the repetition of the con-
junction in two consecutive clauses was felt
to be very harsh. The true reading because
of ...( dre ék...) is supported by an over.
whelming concurrence of the representa-
tives of the most ancient texts (B, ND,
CLX, 33, Lat. vt., Memph.) though it
practically disappeared from later copies.

18. the only begotten Son] Two readings
of equal antiquity, as far as our present
authorities go, though unequally supported
are found in this passage, Of these the first,
followed by A. V., the only begotten Son
(6 povoyevns vids), is found in AX, the
secondary uncials, all known  cursives
except 33, the Lt, vt, Syr. vt., Syr, Hcl.
and Hier, the Vulgate, Arm,

The second, one who is God, only begotten
(wovoyerjs Geds), is found in ~*BC*L,
Peshito Syr, Hel., mg. [D is defective.]

A third reading, the only begotten God
(5 povoyert}s Oeds), which is found inye, 33
(the reading of the Memphitic version is
ambiguous: it may express the only-
begotten of God, but it is more probable
that it expresses the only-begotten God
(6 povoyevijs Oeds) : Schwartze rejects the
former rendering, which is that of Wilkins,
too peremptorily), probably arose from a
combination of the two readings, and may
be dismissed at once. The strangely in-
accurate statement of many commentators
that 6 pov. Oeds is the reading of “SsBCL,
&c.,” shews a complete misapprehension
not only of the facts but of the significance
of the readings. The tempting reading of
one Latin copy, the only begotten, has still
less real claim to be taken into account in
the face of the facts of the case. In con-
sidering this evidence it will appear that

1, The most ancient authorities for the
St. JOHN I.

reading, the only-begotten Son, the Old
Latin and Old Syriac versions, are those
which are inclined to introduce interpreta.
tive glosses (see note on v, 4), and on this
occasion their weight is diminished by the
opposition of x.

. 2 The reading, God, only-begotten, in
the Peshito, can hardly have been a correc-
tion of the original text, because this
reading is not found in the type of text
(e.g. AX) by the help of which the version
appears to have been revised,

8. There is no ancient Greek authority
for the reading, the only-begotten Son,
while the Greek authorities for God, only-
begotten, represent three great types, B,
N, CL.

4. The universal agreement of the later
copies in the reading, the only-begotten
Son, shews that there was no tendency in
scribes to change it, while the correction of
N (the only-begotten God) shews us the
reading, God, only-begotten, modified under
the influence of the common reading.

5. The substitution, intentional or acci-

dental, of God (9s) for Son(vs) does not ex-
plain the omission of the article in the
reading, God, only-begotten; while, on the
contrary, the substitution of Son for God
would naturally carry with it the addition
of the article (ch. iii. 16, 18).

6. The*occurrence of the word “Father”
in the context would suggest the use of the
word “Son,” while the word God would
appear at first sight out of place in the
relation described.

Thus the testimony of the direct docu-
mentary evidence for the text very de-
cidedly preponderates in favour of the
reading, God, only-begotten.

The patristic testimony is complicated,
and it is impossible to discuss it at
length. It must be enough to say that

1, The phrase God only begotten(povo
yevys Oeds) is found from very early times
in Greek writers of every school. By
Clement, Ireneus and Origen it is con-
nected with this passage. [The Latin
writers, almost without exception, have
unicus or unigenitus filius.]

2. It is very unlikely that a phrase in
itself most remarkable should have obtained
universal and unquestioned currency
among Greek writers if it were not derived
from apostolic usage.

It may further be added that the Valen-
tinian writers, the earliest writers by whom
the text is quoted, could have had no
reason for introducing the reading, God,
only-begotten which they give. While on
the other hand the substitution of the
only-begotten Son for God only-begotten
is not unlike the style of “Western”
paraphrase (e.g. vv. 4, 34; Mark i. 20, vi.
36, 56, &c.; Luke xxiii, 35).

On the whole, therefore, the reading God

only-begotten must be accepted, because (1)
It is the best attested by ancient authority ;
(2) It is the more intrinsically probable from
its uniqueness; (3) It makes the origin of
the alternative reading more intelligible.

An examination of the whole structure of
the Prologue leads to the same conclusion,
The phrase, which has grown foreign to our
ears though it was familiar to early Christian
writers, gathers up the two thoughts of son-
ship and deity, which have been separately
affirmed of the Word (vv. 14, 1).

The reading has been discussed in detail
by Dr. E. Abbot (‘ Bibliotheca Sacra,’ Oct.
1861; ‘ Unitarian Review,’ June 1875) ; and
by Dr. Hort (‘Two Dissertations...,? Camb.
1875). The conclusion of Dr. Hort in favour
of povoyerns Oeds, after a full examination
of Prof. Abbot’s arguments for 6 povoyev7}s
vids, is pronounced by Prof. Harnack in
an elaborate review of his essay in ‘ Theol.
Lit. Zeit.’ 1876, pp. 541 ff., to have been
“established beyond contradiction.”

24, All the most ancient MSS. (A*A*BC*
D is defective), with Origen (and Afemph.)
read drecraApevorijoav in place of ot dreor.
qjoav This reading can be rendered either :
they had been sent from..., or, certain had
been sent from among... Origen expressly
distinguishes two missions, the first in
v, 19, and the second here.

28. Bethabara] The great preponderance
of authorities is in favour of the reading
Bethany. Origen implies that a diversity of
reading existed here in his time. ‘“ Almost
all the copies,” he says, “have Bethany,
but I am convinced that we ought to read
Bethabara,” which probably was the reading
of the minority. His reasons are simply
geographical ; and it is a striking fact that
even his authority thus boldly exerted was
unable to induce scribes to alter the reading
which they found in their. archetypes, so
that Bethabara still remains the reading
only of a small minority. The oldest
authority which gives Bethabara is Syr. vt.,
but this very early translation frequently
admits glosses (see next note).

84. For the words the Son of God a
group of authorities characteristically
“Western” (see v. 4, note), &, e, Sy7. vt.,
Ambr., read the chosen of God. The two
readings are combined curiously in several
early Latin authorities (electus Dei filius).

42. There is no doubt that’Iwdvou(NBL,
Lat. vt., Memph.) should be read for Iwva.
Comp. xxi. 15, 16, 17. Both words are

used as Greek representatives of J)’

Johanan. Comp. 2 K. xxv. 23 (LXX.).

51. The wordsaz’ apti(from henceforth)
must be omitted on the authority of the wit-
nesses which preserve the purest ancient
text (NBL., Zatt., Memph., Orig.) They
were probably added from Matt, xxvi. 64,
where the words are undisturbed.

30
34
Tue Son or Man.

1. The title “the Son of man” stands in
significant contrast with the other titles
which are assigned to the Lord, and par-
ticularly with that title which in some
respects is most akin to it, “the Son of
David.’ It was essentially a new title;
it was used, so far as we leno, with one
exception only, by the Lord and of Him-
self; it expresses a relationship not to a
ey or to a nation, but to ait humanity.

2. The title was w new one. It is com-
mon to regard it as directly derived from
the book of Daniel. But in reality the
passage (vii. 13) in which the title is
ee to be found has only a secondary
relation to it. The vision of Daniel brings
before him not “the Son of man,” but one
“like ason of man.” The phrase is general
(Ezek, ii, 1), and is introduced by a particle
of comparison. The Greek represents the
original exactly : ds vids dvOpwrov épydpe-
vos 4V, and the true parallel is found in Rev.
i. 18, xiv.14. The thought on which the seer
dwells is simply that of the human appear-
ance of the being presented to him (comp.
Dan, x. 16; Ezek, i. 26). The force of this
comparison comes out more plainly if the
context be taken into account The divine
kingdom is being contrasted with the king.
doms of the world. These are presented
under the images of beasts. The brute forces
symbolized them, just as man, to whom
originally dominion was given, symbolized
the rightful sovereignty which was to be
established. “I saw,” the seer writes, “in
my vision by night...and four great beasts
came up from the sea. ‘The first was like a
lion,...and...a second...like w bear,...and lo
another like a leopard....I saw in the night
visions, and behold one like a son of man
came with the clouds of heaven...” (vii. 2 ff.).
The dominion which had been exercised by
tyrants was henceforward to be entrusted to
“the saints of the Most High” (vii. 17 f:, 27).
The former rulers had come forth from the
sea—the symbol of all confusion and insta-
bility—the divine ruler came from heaven.

3. It is true that the image of Daniel
found fulfilment in the sovereignty of
Christ, and so the words of the seer, with
the substitution of ‘the Son of man” for
“one like a son of man” were applied by
the Lord to Himself (Matt. xvi, 27, xxiv.
30, xxvi, 64). But He was not only “like
a son of man,” He was “the Son of man.”
The less is of necessity included in the

reater; but in itself the sang age of Daniel
Puetiishos no parallel to the language of the
Gospels.

4. The same may be said of all the
other passages in which the phrases “the
sons of men” or “Son of man” occur in
the Old Testament They describe man as
dependent, limited, transitory, The singular,
except in Ezekiel as addressed to the

rophet, is of rare occurrence; and (as T
Flere it is never found with the article
(eg. Ps. viii. 5, \xxx, 17).

5. But there can be no doubt that the
image in Daniel exercised some influence
upon later apocalyptic writings. The re-
markable use of the title “Son of man” in

Sr. JOHN.

I,

reference to the Messiah in the Book of
Henoch is directly based upon it. The
sense of the title however remains equally
limited as before. The Messiah is “a Son
of man,” and not properly “the Son of
man” (c. 46, § § 1, 2, 8, 4; ¢, 48, § 2). In
these places the chosen messenger of the
Most High is described simply as a man,
and not as one who stands in any special
relation to the human race,

6. There is very little in the Gospels to
shew how far the fuller applications of the
title found in the apocalypse of Henoch
obtained currency, or how the people com-
monly understood the title. There is at
least nothing to shew that the title was
understood to be a title of Messiah. On
the contrary, ‘“‘the Son of man” and “the
Messiah” are, as it were, set one against
the other, Matt, xvi. 13, 16 (the parallels,
Mark viii, 27; Luke ix. 18, give simply
me); John xii. 34. And it is inconceivable
that the Lord should have adopted a title
which was popularly held to be synonymous
with that of Messiah, while He carefully
avoided the title of Messiah itself.

7. The title, then, as we find it in the
Gospels, the Son of man absolutely, was a
new one. It is out of the question to
suppose that the definite article simply
expressed “the prophetic Son of man.”
The manner in which the title is first used
excludes such an interpretation. The title
is new, and the limits within which its
usage is confined serve to fix attention on
its peculiarity. In the Gospels it is used
only by the Lord in speaking of Himself;
and beyond the range of His discourses it
is found only in Acts vii. 56.

8. In the Lord’s discourses the title is

distributed genarally, It is found both in
the earlier and in the later discourses in
about equal proportions. It is not however
found in the discourses after the Resurrec-
tion. The title occurs many times in St
John’s Gospel, but less frequently than in
the other three; and in the last discourses
which St John gives at length it occurs
only once, in the opening sentence, xiii, 31,
[In St Matthew 30 times; in St Mark 13;
in St Luke 25; in St John 12.)
_ 9. The passages in which the title is found
in the Synoptic Gospels may be grouped
into two great classes : (1) those which refer
to the earthly work of the Lord in the time
of His humility; and (2) those which refer
to His future coming in glory. The usage
in St John is strictly parallel, but the
occurrence of the title in his Gospel will be
considered more in detail on ix. 35,

(1) The earthly presence of the Lord aa
the Incarnate Son presented a series of
startling contrasts. f) He was to outward
eyes despised, and yet oarenaing supreme
authority; (8) He lived as men live, and
yet He was at all times busy with His

ather’s work; (y) His true nature was
veiled, and yet not wholly hidden; (8) His
mission was a mission of love, and yet it
imposed on those to whom He came heavy
responsibility ; (€) to misinterpret Him was
to incur judgment, and yet the offence was

not past forgiveness; (¢) He foresaw the
Sr. JOHN.

end from the beginning with its sorrows
and glory,

The following passages in which the title
occurs illustrate those different thoughts :

(>) Matt, viii, 20||Luke i, 58. Matt, ix.
6|[Mark ii, 10|/Luke v. 24.

(8)_ Matt. xi, 19|[Luke vii, 34. Matt. xiii.
37. Matt. xii. 8||Mark ii, 28||Luke vi. 5.

y) Matt, xvi, 13.

8) Luke xix, 10, xvii, 22,

(€) Mark viii. 38||[Luke ix. 26. Comp.
Luke xii, 8. Matt. xii. 32||Luke xii, 10.
(Mark iii. 28, Tots vi. rdv dvOp.).

(¢€) Mark viii. 31|/Luke ix, 22. Comp.

xxiv. 7. Matt. xvii. 12\|Markix.12. Matt.
xvii. ano ix, 31|[Luke ix. 44, Matt.
xx. 18\|Mark x. 33|[Luke xviii, 31. Matt.
xxvi.2. Matt. xxvi. 24||Mark xiv. 21||Luke

xxii. 22. Matt. xxvi, 45||Mark xiv. 41.
Matt. xii, 40||Luke xi, 30. Matt, xvii. 9
|[Mark ix. 9. jMatt. xx. 28||Mark x. 45.
Luke xxii, 69 ( 473 ToU viv), Matt. xxvi. 64

(dm Gpre) Mark xiv, 62. Luke xxii. 48.
(2) Side by side with these traits of the
human life of the Son of man. visions are
opened of another life of glory, sovereignty,
judgment. (a) Though He had come, yet
e still spoke of His coming as future.
(8) Meanwhile men are left on their trial,
to which an end is appointed in a swift and
unexpected cakantronia, This “presence ”
of the Son of man at “the consummation of
the age” is to be followed by « (y) judg-
ment of men and nations, and (8) by the
gathering of the elect intoa divine kingdom.
These thoughts are illustrated by the
following passages in which the title occurs :
(c) Matt, x. 23, xvi. 27 f., xxiv, 44.
Comp. Luke xii. 40.
' (8) Luke vi. 22, xvii, 30, xviii. 8, xxi. 36;
Matt. xxiv. 27, 37 (comp. Luke xvii. 24,
26), 39.
(y) Matt. xiii. 40f., xix. 28, xxv, 31ff.,
Matt. xxiv, 30||Mark xiii, 26||Luke xxi. 27.
10. A consideration of these passages will
enable us to seize the outlines of the teach-
ing which is summed up in the title. The
idea of the true humanity of Christ lies at
the foundation of it. He was not only
“like a son of man,” but He was “a Son
;’ His manhood was real and not

of man;
apparent. ButHe was not as one man

among many (yet the title 4vOpwros occurs
John viii, 40; 1 Tim. ii. 5). He was the

CHAPTER II.

1 Christ turneth water into wine, 12 depart-
eth into Capernaum, and to Jerusalem,
14 where he purgeth the temple of buyers
and sellers. 19 He foretelleth his death
and resurrection. 23 Many believed be-

I. 35

representative of the whole race; “the Son
of man” in whom all the potential powers
of humanity were gathered.

11. Thus the expression which describes
the self-humiliation of Christ raises Him at
the same time immeasurably above all
those whose nature He had assumed. Of
no one, simply man, could it be said that
he was ‘“‘the man,” or “the Son of man,”
in whom the complete conception of man-
hood was absolutely attained,

12. The teaching of St Paul supplies a
striking commentary upon the title when
he speaks of Christ as the ‘‘ second Adam”
(1 Cor. xv. 45. Comp, Rom. vy. 14), who
athers up unto Himself all humanity, and

ecomes the source of a higher life to the
race,

13. As a necessary conclusion from this
view of Christ’s humanity which is given
in the title “the Son of man,” it follows
that He is in perfect sympathy with every
man of every age, and of every nation. All
that truly belongs to humanity, all there-
fore that truly belongs to every individual
in the whole race, belongs also to Him.
Sones a noble passage in Goldwin
mith’s ‘Lectures on History,’ pp. 134 ff.)

14. The thought is carried yet further.
We are allowed to see, and it can only be as
it were “by a mirror in a riddle” (1 Cor.
xiii. 12), that the relation which exists in
the present order of things between every
man and Christ, is continued in another
order, As ‘‘theSonof man” He is revealed
to the eyes of His first martyr, that
Christians may learn that that which is
begun in weakness shall be completed in
eternal majesty (Acts vii. 56).

15. It may well be admitted that the
early disciples did not at first apprehend all -
that the later history of the race enables us
to see in the title. Perhaps it may have
been from some sense of the mysterious
meaning of the term, which had not yet
been illuminated by the light of a Catholic
Church, that they shrank themselves from
using it. But we cannot be bound to
measure the interpretation of Sepipinre by
that which is at once intelligible. The words
of the Lord are addressed to all time.
They stand written for our study, and it
is our duty to bring to their interpretation
whatever fulness of knowledge a later age
may have placed within our reach.

cause of his miracles, but he would not
trust himself with them.
ND the third day there was a
marriage in Cana of Galilee;
and the mother of Jesus was there:

 

8. Tue Testimony or Siens (ii. 1—11).
The manifestation of the glory of Christ
(ii, 11) follows naturally upon the recogni-
tion of His claims in virtue of testimony
and experience. He shews by a significant
sign, spontaneously offered in the presence
of an acknowledged want and significant

only to disciples (v. 11), the nature of the
new order which He has already described
(i. 51). He has been announced, and
followed: He is now believed in. The
scene still lies in the circle of the family,
and not among “the people” or in “the
world.” es
36
2 And both Jesus was called, and

his disciples, to the marriage.
3 And when they wanted wine,

St. JOHN. II.

[v. 2—4.
the mother of Jesus saith unto him,
They have no wine.

4 Jesus saith unto her, Woman,

 

The narrative proceeds in a simple and
exact sequence. The Evangelist describes
the time and scene (vv. 1, 2), the occasion
(vv,, 3—5), the manner (vv. 6—8), the result
(vv. 9, 10), and the effect (v, 11) of
Christ’s first sign.

Cuap. IT. 1,2. The details of time, place,
and persons contribute to the meaning of
“the beginning of signs.” It wag shewn
in close connexion with the faith of the
first disciples (the third day), at the village
where one at least of them dwelt (xxi. 2),
at a festival of the highest natural joy,

1. the third day) i.e. from the last day
mentioned, i. 48. The distance from the
place where John was baptizing to Nazareth
was about sixty miles, three days journey.
@ marriage] or a marriage feast, which

lwas frequently celebrated for several
}(seven) days, Gen. xxix, 22 ff.; Judges

xiv. 12. It is wholly unknown in whose

honour the feast was held.

Cana of Galilee] So called each time
when it is mentioned in the Gospel, to dis-
|tinguish it from a Cana in Celo-Syria
\i(fos, ‘ Antt.” xv. 5, 1, &c.). This village
‘fs mentioned in the N, T. (comp, Jos.

‘Vita, § 16) only by St John here and iv.

46, xxi. 2.) It has been traditionally

identified (from the 8th century) with

Kefr Kenna, about 44 miles north-west of

Nazareth. Recently the site has been

sought at a village about nine miles north

of Nazareth, Khurbet-Cana, which is said

(though this is doubtful) to have retained

the name Kana-el-Jelil. The Syriac versions

agree in inserting a -¢- in the name (Katna).

This may point to local knowledge; and it

has been conjectured that Kana may be
identified with Katana, a place about four

miles from Nazareth.
the mother of Jesus] In St. John alone
the name of “the mother of Jesus” is men-

tioned, even when Joseph is named (vi. 42),

Comp. xix. 26 ff., note.

_ was there] From v, 5 it is evident that
the Virgin Mary was closely connected with
the family; and so she was already at the
house when Jesus arrived at Cana with
iHis disciples. The absence of all mention

of Joseph here and elsewhere (see xix. 27)

has been reasonably supposed to imply that

he was already dead. See Mark vi. 3, note,
2, And both Jesus...and] Rather, And

Jesus also.,.and (iii. 23, xviii. 2, 5, xix, 39).

was called] i.e, on his return from the

Baptist, and not Aad been called,

his disciples] This is the first distinct
mention of the relation in which the little
group gathered from “the disciples of

John” (i, 35, 37) now stood to the greater

Teacher (“ Rabbi,” i. 49).

38—5. The depth, obscurity, and (at the
same time) naturalness of this conversation
witness to the substantial truth of the
record. The words only become intelligible
when the exact relation between the mother
of Jesus and her divine Son is apprehended.
As soon as this is grasped the implied
request, the apparent denial, the persistence
of trust, the triumph of faith, are seen to
hang harmoniously together.

8. when they wanted wine] Rather, when
the wine failed, as it might be expected to
do from the unexpected addition of seven
guests to the party already gathered. The
fact that the arrival of Jesus had brought
the difficulty, made it more natural to
apply to Him for the removal of it, There
is a Jewish saying, “ Without wine there
is no joy” (‘ Pesach.’ 109 a, Wiinsche), and
the failure of the wine at a marriage feast
would be most keenly felt. The reading
of some early authorities (\* and copies
of Lat, vt.) is a remarkable example of
the paraphrases which are characteristic
of the “Western” text: they had no
wine, for the wine of the marriage was
consumed (cuvereAéa On ).

They have no wine] It is enough to
state the want. To describe the circum-
stances is in such a case to express a
silent prayer. Compare xi. 3, and con-
trast that passage with iv. 47.

The Mother of the Lord having heard
of the testimony of the Baptist, and see-
ing the disciples gathered round her Son,
the circumstances of whose miraculous
birth she treasured in her heart (Luke ii.
19, 51), must have looked now at length
for the manifestation of His power, and
thought that an occasion only was want: '
ing. Yet even so she leaves all to His |
will. Contrast Luke ii. 48. i

4. Jesus saith] And Jesus saith.
These two clauses are joined together
closely, just as vv, 7, 8, while vv, 5 and
7 are not connected with what immedi-
ately precedes.

The order here is, What have I to do
with thee, woman? It is otherwise in
xix, 26. Here the contrast comes first ;
there the personality.

Woman] In the original there is not
the least tinge of reproof or severity in!
the term. The address is that of courte-
ous respect, even of tenderness, See xix,
26. Comp. iv. 21, xx. 18, 15, At the
same time it emphasizes the special rela-
tion which it expresses; as here the con-
trast between the divine Son and _ the
human Mother.

what have I to do with thee?) Or, what
hast thou to do with me? Literally,

y

|
v. 5—8.]
what have I to do with thee? mine
hour is not yet come,

5 His mother saith unto the ser-
vants, Whatsoever he saith unto you,
do it.

6 And there were set there six
waterpots of stone, after the man-

Sr. JOHN. II.

37
ner of the purifying of the Jews,
containing two or three firkins a-
Piece.

7 Jesus saith unto them, Fill the
waterpots with water. And they
filled fhem up to the brim.

8 And he saith unto them, Draw

 

what is there tome and thee? (Ti éuot Kat
col, ydvar; Vulg. quid mihi et tibi est,
mulier?) “Leave me to myself; let me
follow out my own course.” The phrase
occurs not unfrequently in the Old Testa.
ment, 2S, xvi. 10; 1 K. xvii. 18; 2 Chro.
xxxv, 21 (Judg. xi. 12). It is found also

exactly : Now there...there...of stone set...

there] in the court of the house as it
seems ('v, 8) and not in the guest-chamber.

siz waterpots] The large number would be
required in consequence of the many guests
assembled at the feast. They were of
stone—as our canon directs fonts to be—
since that material is less liable to im-

in the New Testament: Matt, viii. 29, and
parallels, Comp, Matt. xxvii. 19. Every-
where it marks some divergence between
the thoughts and ways of the persons so
brought together. In this passage it serves
to shew that the actions of the Son of
God, now that He has entered on His

purity. Vessels of stone or earthenware :
were prescribed by Jewish tradition for the }
washings before and after meals (‘Sota,’ 4, |
Wiinsche). The “ purifying” extended not

only to the “ washing of hands,” but also {
to “the washing of cups and brasen vessels —

divine work, are no longer dependent in
any way on the suggestion of a woman,
even though that woman be His mother.
Henceforth all He does springs from
within, and will be wrought at its proper
season. The time of silent discipline and
obedience (Luke ii. 51) was over. Comp.
Matt. xii. 46 ff,

mine hour ts not yet come] the due time
for the fulfilment of my work. The words
are here used of that part of Christ’s
work which was shewn in the first revela-
tion of His glory ; but more commonly they
refer to the consummation of it in the
Passion. See viii. 20, note, xvii, 1, note.
Mary may have believed that the first
manifestation of Christ would lead at once
to full triumph; and to that fancy the
words are a pregnant answer.

There is no inconsistency between this
declaration of Christ that “ His hour was
not yet come,” and the fulfilment of the
prayer which followed immediately. A
change of moral and spiritual conditions
is not measured by length of time. Comp.
xiii, 1, note,

5. The Lord’s reply left the faith which
‘rests absolutely in Him unshaken. Nowhere

pelse perhaps is such trust shewn, Whether
divine help was given through Him or not,
so much at least could be provided, that if
the right moment came—and it is impos-
sible to use a temporal measure for moral
changes—all should be ready for His action.
Whatsoever he saith unto you, do it; the
command is wholly unlimited : all is left to
Christ.

6—8. The manner of working the
miracle is described with singular minute-
ness and yet with singular reserve. The
wine is found to be present; the water
shews the contents of the source from
which it was drawn.

6. And there...set there...of stone] More

and couches” (Mark vii, 3, 4). For the
washing of vessels, which were immersed
and not only sprinkled, later tradition pre-
scribed a receptacle holding “forty Sata,”
about five times as large as one of these.

Dr. E. D. Clarke gives a remarkable illus- -
tration of the passage: “...walking among:
these ruins [at Cana] we saw large, massy:
stone water-pots...not preserved nor ex-
hibited as reliques, but lying about, dis-
regarded by the present inhabitants... From
their appearance and the number of them,
it was quite evident that a practice of
keeping water in large stone pots, each
holding from eighteen to twenty-seven
gallons, was once common in the country.” »
(‘ Travels,’ ii. p, 445, referred to by Van
Lennep, ‘ Bible Customs,’ p. 45, note.)

the purifying of the Jews] -See v. 13.
The words seem to contain an allusion to a
Christian purification. Comp. iii. 25; Heb.
i. 3; 2 Pet. i. 9.

two or three firkins apiece] The measure
here (metretes) probably corresponds with
the Bath, which was equivalent to three
Sata (measures, Matt, xiii. 33), about 83
gallons. It is reasonable to suppose that
the vessels provided for this extraordinary
gathering were of different sizes, but all
large.

7. unto them) The sixth verse is sub-
stantially parenthetical, and in thought v.
7 follows v. 5 directly.

they filled them up to the brim] This preli-
minary work was done completely,so that the
contents of the vessels were obvious to all.

8. Draw out] Rather, Draw. There is
considerable obscurity as to the meaning
of these words. According to the current
interpretation the water in the vessels of
purification was changed into wine, and
the servants are bidden to draw from
these. There is nothing in the text which
definitely points to such an interpretation ;
38

out now, and bear unto the governor
of the feast. And they bare it.

9 When the ruler of the feast had
tasted the water that was made wine,
and knew not whence it was: (but
the servants which drew the water
knew;) the governor of the feast
called the bridegroom,

Sr. JOHN. II.

[v. 9—II.

to And saith unto him, Every
man at the beginning doth set forth
good wine; and when men have well
drunk, then that which is worse : but
thou hast kept the good wine until
now.

11 This beginning of miracles did
Jesus in Cana of Galilee, and mani-

 

yand the original word is applied most
i naturally to drawing water from the well
(iv. 7, 15), and not from a vessel like the
waterpot. Moreover the emphatic addition
of now seems to mark the continuance of
the same action of drawing as before, but
with a different end. Hitherto they had
drawn to fill the vessels of purification :
they were charged now to “ draw and bear
to the governor of the feast.” It seems
most unlikely that water taken from vessels
of purification could have been employed
for the purpose of the miracle. On the
fother hand, the significance of the miracle
_lcomes out with infinitely greater force if
# the change is wrought through the destina-
tion of the element. That which remained
water when kept for a ceremonial use
became wine when borne in faith to
minister to the needs, even to the super-
fluous requirements, of life. This view,that
the change in the water was determined by
its destination for use at the feast, can be
held equally if the water so used and limited
to that which was used were “drawn”
from the vessels, and not from the well.
If, however, the traditional view of the
miracle be retained no real difficulty can be
felt in the magnitude of the marriage gift
with which Christ endowed the house of a
friend.
the governor (ruler, as v. 9) of the feast]
Some have supposed this “ruler” to be the

eee,

chief servant, “steward,” to whose care-

all the arrangements of the feast were
entrusted, and not one of the guests. This
is the classical usage of the term employed,
and hence Juvencus speaks of summus
minister. Buton the other hand, in Ecclus.
xxxv, 1, 2, one of the guests is described as
“ruler” (yyotpevos), and there is no
certain evidence that the Jews had any
such an officer among their servants, who
certainly would not in any case be likely to
be found in such a household as this.
9,10. The independent witness to the two
parts of the miracle establishes its reality.
The ruler of the feast declares what the
element is, the servants knew what it was.
9. When the ruler...the governor...called]
And when the ruler...the ruler...calleth
(pwvel, Vulg. vocat). See xviii, 38,
that was made] Literally, when it had
become, after it had become. The clause
is predicative and not simply descriptive.
and knew not...knew] This clause is most
probably to be taken as a parenthesis :

When the ruler tasted...(and he knew not...
but...knew) he calleth—Comp. i. 14, note,
His ignorance of the source from which
the wine came did not lead to his inquiry,
but rather gave weight to his spontaneous
testimony to its excellence.

which drew] which had drawn.
qui haurterant.

10. The words are half playful and fall
in with the character of the scene. The
form of the first part of the sentence is
proverbial, and there is nothing to a

Vulg.

in the strong term, have well drunk (comp.
Gen. xliii. 34, LXX.), “drunk freely,’’ whic
has no immediate application to the guest:
present. The last clause seems to be one
of those unconscious prophecies in which
words spoken in recognition of a present
act reveal the far deeper truth of which
it is a sign.

at the beginning doth set] first setteth on

good wine] Rather, the good wine from
his store. The definite article is made
pointed by the end of the verse.

worse] poorer. Literally, smaller. Omit
then.

kept] The idea of the verb (r7peiv ) is
that of watchful care rather than of safe
custody (pvAdcoetv). Comp. ch. xii. 7,

ll. This beginning...) Rather, accord-
ing to the true reading, This as a begin-
ning of his signs...

miracles] signs (onpeta, Vulg. signa), The
value of the work was rather in what it
indicated than in what it was. Miracles,
in this aspect which is commonest in the
New Testament, are revelations of truth
through the symbolism of the outward acts

The translation signs is always preserved
in the Synoptists except Luke xxiii. 8 (see
Matt. xvi. 8); but in St John we fre-}.
quently find the rendering miracles, even
where the point of teaching is lost by this
translation, e.g. John vi. 26, not because ye j
saw signs but..., where the motive was not
the prospect of something yet nobler to be
revealed, but acquiescence in the gross
satisfaction of earthly wants. | Whenever
the word is used of Christ’s works it is
always with distinct reference to a higher
character which they indicate. Those who
call them “signs” attach to Him divine
attributes in faith, ii, 28, iii, 2, &c., or
fear, xi. 47; and each sign gave occasion
to a growth of faith or unbelief according
to the spir*+ of those who witnessed it. ‘The
v. 12.]

fested forth his glory; and his disci-
ples believed on him.
12 7 After this he went down to

St. JOHN. IL.

39
Capernaum, he, and his mother, and
his brethren, and his disciples: and
they continued there not many days.

 

word was adopted into the Aramaic dialect
(}29"D) in the general sense of “sign.”

It may be added that the word power
(Sévapus) for miracle never occurs in St
John, while he very commonly includes
miracles under the term works, xiv. 11, &.

In this passage the twofold effect of the
ign is described by St John, first as a

anifestation of Christ’s glory, and next

a ground of faith in those who were
already disciples. The office of miracles
towards those who do not believe is wholly
left out of sight.

manifested forth] manifested. The word
(gavepovy) is frequent in St John, ch. i,
81, vii, 4, xxi. 1, &e.

his glory] The glory (comp. i. 14, note)
is truly, inherently, Christ’s glory. A
prophet would manifest the glory of God.
The manifestation of His glory in this
‘sign’? must not be sought simply in
what we call its ‘‘miraculous’’ element,
but in this taken in connexion with the
circumstances, as a revelation of the in-
sight, the sympathy, the sovereignty of
the Son of Man, who was the Word In-
carnate. See Additional Note.

his disciples believed on him] Testi-
mony (i, 36) directs those who were ready
to welcome Christ to Him. Personal in-
tercourse converts followers into disciples
(ii, 2). A manifestation of power, as a
sign of diviner grace, converts discipleship
into personal faith.

believed on him] The original phrase
(eriotevoray cis aitév, Vulg. crediderunt
in eum) is peculiarly characteristic of St
John. It is found in one place only in the
Synoptic Gospels (Matt. xviii. 6 || Mark ix.
42), and but rarely in St Paul’s Epistles
(Rom. x. 14; Gal. ii. 16; Phil. i. 29). The
idea which it conveys is that of the abso-
lute transference of trust from oneself to
another.

As the beginning of Christ’s signs this

{ miracle cannot but have a representative
Vales We may observe

1.,Its essential character. A sign of
soferei n wrought on inorganic
matter, not on a living body.

2Alts circumstantial character. The

‘ange of the simpler to the richer ele-
ment In this respect it may be con-

frasted with the first public miracle of
Moses, with whose history the record of
miracles in the Old Testament commences.
de moral character. The answer of
lo¥e to-faith, ministering to the fulness of
human joy in one of its simplest and most
natural forms. Contrast this feature with
the action of the Baptist, Matt. xi. 18, 19.

In each respect the character of the sign
answers to the general character of Christ
as a new creation, a transfiguration of the
ceremonial Law into a spiritual Gospel,
the ennobling of the whole life. It may
be added also that the scene of the “‘sign’’
—a marriage feast—is that under which
the accomplishment of Christ’s work is
most characteristically prefigured, ch. iii.
29; Matt, xxii. 2 ff., xxv. 1 ff.; Rev. xix.
7, xxi. 2.

This miracle alone of those recorded by
St John has no parallel in the Synoptists ;
and we cannot but conclude from the
minuteness of the details of the history
that the Mother of the Lord made known
some of them to the Apostle to whose care
she was entrusted. Moreover in this
miracle only does she occupy a prominent
place.

12. This verse forms a transition. As
yet the family life was not broken. Till
“His hour was come’’ in a new sense the
Lord still waited as He had hitherto lived.

Capernaum] Caphar-nahum, according
to the most ancient authorities ( Kad@ap-

vaovp, DMS “HD. Josephus gives
both Kedapraovp and Kedapviiun). This
town was on the shores of the lake, so
that Christ went down thither from
Nazareth or Cana, which were on the
table-land above. Caphar (a hamlet, cf.
Luke ix. 12, Syr.) is found in late names
of places not unfrequently, answering to
the Arabic Kefr. The site of Caper-
naum has now been identified beyond all
reasonable doubt with Tell-Him (Wilson,
‘Sea of Galilee,’ in Warreti*s"Recovery
of Jerusalem,’ pp. 342 ff.; Tristram, ‘Land
of Israel, pp. 428 ff, ed, 3). Compare
Matt. iv. 18, note.

From the mention of ‘his brethren,’’:
who are not noticed vv. 1, 2, it appears!
likely that the Lord had returned to
Nazareth from Cana. The passing refer-
ence to a sojourn at Capernaum falls in
with what is said in the Synoptists (Matt.
iv. 13) of the Lord’s subsequent removal
thither from Nazareth at the commence-
ment of His Galilean ministry, though
this fact is not expressly mentioned by
St John. Comp. vi. 24 ff.

his brethren] Most probably the sons of
Joseph by a former marriage. See an ex-
haustive essay by Dr, Lightfoot, ‘Gala-
tians,’ Essay 11.

not many days] This is perhaps men-
tioned to shew that at present Capernaum
was not made the permanent residence of
the Lord, as it became afterwards.
40

13 4 And the Jews’ passover was
at hand, and Jesus went up to Jeru-
salem,

Tar Work or Carist.

(ii. 18—iv. 54).

The formation of a small group of dis-
iples inspired by true faith (v. 11) was
ollowed by the commencement of the
Lord’s public work. This is presented in
three forms as undertaken in three dis-
tinct scenes, Judaa, Samaria, Galilee.

Hitherto the Revelation of Christ has
been given mainly through the confession
of disciples (i. 51, note). The Evangelist
now, as he traces the sequence of events,
crowns the record of the testimony ren-
dered to Christ by the record of His first
self-revelation. He shews how He satisfied
anticipations and wants; how He was
misunderstood and welcomed. Unbelief
is as yet passive, though it is seen by
Christ (ii. 25).

The narrative deals still for the most
part with representative individuals, and
not with the masses of the people.

The general contents of the section are
thus distributed :

1. The work in Judwa (ii. 13—iii. 36).

a.) erusalem in the temple (ii. 13—

22).
i. The symbolic act (183—16).
Effect on the disciples (v. 17).
ii. The promised sign (18—21).
Effect on the disciples (v, 22).
b. At Jerusalem with Jews (ii. 23—iii.
21).
i. Generally (23—25),
ii, Specially (iii, 1—21).
c. In Judea generally (iii. 22—36).
2. The work in Samaria (iv. 1—42).
. iv, 1—3, transitional.
a. Specially (4—88).
b. Generally (39—42).

“3. The work in Galilee (iv. 43—54).
a. Generally (43—45).

b. A special sign (46—54).

ii.

 

ao

1, Tue Work in Jupaa

(ii. 183—iii. 36).
« It was fitting that the Lord’s public
work should commence in Judea and in
the Holy City. The events recorded in
this section really determined the charac-
ter of His after ministry. He offered
Himself by a significant act intelligible to
faith as the Messiah: His coming was
cither not understood or misunderstood ;
and, after a more distinct revelation of
His Person in Samaria, He began his
work afresh as a prophet in Galilee.
Henceforward He appeared no more
openly as Messiah at Jerusalem till His
final entry,

St. JOHN. II.

[v. 13, 14.
14 And found in the temple those

that sold oxen and sheep and doves,

and the changers of money sitting :

Christ's work at Jerusalem in the temple
(ii, 13-22).

It is impossible not to feel the change
which at this point comes over the narra-
tive. There is a change of place, of occa-
sion, of manner of action. Jerusalem and
Gane, the passover and the marriage feast,
the stern Reformer and the sympathizing
Guest. So too the spiritual lessons which
the two signs convey are also complemen-
tary. The first represents the ennobling
of common life, the second the purifying
of divine worship. Or, to put the truth
in another light, the one is a revelation of
ithe Son of man, and the other a revelation
‘of the Christ, the Fulfiller of the hope and
{purpose of Israel.

The history falls into two parts, the
symbolic act (13—17),*the promised sign
(18—22). The contents of the section are
peculiar to St John, who was an eye-
witness, ii, 17.

18—17. The record is a commentary on
Mal. iii. 1 ff. Comp. Zech. xiv. 20 f. Th
first step in Messiah’s work was the abo
lition of the corruptions which the selfish
ness of a dominant and faithless hierarch
had introduced into the divine service.
Origen (‘in Joh.’ t. x. § 16) justly points
out the spiritual application of this first
act of Christ’s ministry to His continual
coming both to the Church and to indi-
vidual souls.

13. the Jews’ passover] ch, xi. 55. Comp.
vi. 4. The exact rendering, the passover
of the Jews, brings out the sense more
clearly. The phrase appears to imply
distinctly the existence of a recognised
‘‘Christian Passover’ at the time when
the Gospel was written. Compare v. 6.
Origen (‘in Joh.’ t. x. § 14) thinks that
the words mark how that which was “the
Lord’s Passover’? had been degraded into
a merely human ceremonial.

For the general sense in which the term
the Jews is used in St John, see Introd.
pp. ix, x.

went up] ch. v. 1, vii. 8, 10, xi. 55, xii,
20. Comp. Luke ii. 41 f.

_ 14. And found] And He found. There
1s @ pause at the end of v. 18 which must
be marked by the commencement of a new
sentence. The visit to the Holy City is
recorded first, and then the visit to the
temple. It was natural that the Lord’s
work should begin not only at Jerusalem
but also at the centre of divine worship,
the aged of the theocracy. He now
comes in due time to try the people in
His Father’s house, and a jade (oni
which He must have seen often on earlier
visits. The event is to be placed before
.

v. 15, 18.]

15 And when he had made a
scourge of small cords, he drove them
all out of the temple, and the sheep,
and the oxen; and poured out the
changers’ money, and overthrew the
tables ;

16 And said unto them that sold

the passover (v. 23), and probably on the
eve of the feast, when leaven was cleared
away, Exod. xii. 15; 1 Cor. v. 7.

in the temple] t.e. in the outer court,
the court of the Gentiles, where there was
a regular market, belonging to the house
of Hanan (Annas). See note on Mark xi.
15.

The two words translated ‘‘temple’’ in

.V. require to be distinguished carefully,
1) Hieron, the whole sacred enclosure,
ith the courts and porticoes, which is
ever used metaphorically; and (2) Naos,
he actual sacred building, used below of
he body of the Lord (v. 21), and of
hristians who form His spiritual body
1 Cor. iii. 16, 17, vi. 19; 2 Cor. vi. 16).
The distinction is often very interesting.
Contrast Matt. iv. 5, xii. 6, xxiv. 1; Luke
ii, 87, 46; John x. 23; Acts iii, 10, xxi.
28 (Hieron, the temple-courts), with Matt.
xxiii. 17, 35, xxvii. 5, note, 51; Luke i.
21; John ii. 20 (Naos, the sanctuary).

those that sold] Not simply men en-
gaged in the traffic, but those who were
habitually engaged in it.

oxen...sheep...doves| Comp. Matt. xxi.
12, note. Caspari, ‘Einl. in d. L. J.’ s.
102.

changers of money] The word used here
(keppatiorys) is different from that in v.
15 (xoAAvBioTHs). The present word indi-
cates properly the changer of large into
smaller coins; the second word is derived
from the fee paid for the exchange (KdAA-
vBos), which appears in the vernacular

‘Aramaic (Buxtorf, ‘Lex.’ s. v. pybp.

Obviously no coins bearing the image of
he Emperor or any heathen symbol could
be paid into the temple treasury, and all
offerings of money would require to be
made in Jewish coins. The yearly pay-
ment of the half-shekel, which could be
made in the country (Matt. xvii. 24), was
also received at the temple, and the ex-
change required for this abundant busi-
ness to the exchangers. Lightfoot has
collected an interesting series of illustra-
ions on Matt. xxi. 12...

15. a scourge of small cords] as a sym-
bol of authority and not as a weapon of
offence. The ‘cords’ (oxorvia, properly
of twisted rushes) would be at hand. No
corresponding detail is mentioned in the
parallel narratives. Jewish tradition
(‘Sanh.’ 98 b, Winsche) figured Messiah
as coming with a scourge for the chastise-
ment of evil-doers. On this occasion only,

Sr. JOHN. IL

41
doves, Take these things hence;
make not my Father’s house an
house of merchandise.

17 And his disciples remembered

that it was written, «The zeal ofa Fas. 69.

thine house hath eaten me up.
18 4 Then answered the Jews

when He came to claim authority by act,
did the Lord use the form of force. For
the effect compare xvili. 6.

them all] apparently the sellers as well
as the animals, though the next clause
must be translated, both the sheep and the
oxen (Ta TE mwpoBara. Kai...).

and poured...and satd...] and he poured
..and he said... Each stage in the action
is to be distinguished.

changers’] See v. 14

16. Take these things hence] Since
these could not be driven. There is no
reason to think that those who sold the
offerings of the poor were as such dealt
with more gently than other traffickers.

my Father’s house] Compare Luke ii. 49
(‘in that which belongs to my Father’’).

iali i Father’s
house, not our Father’s house) must be
“noticed. When Christ finally left the
temple (Matt. xxiv. 1) He spoke of it to
the Jews as your house (Matt. xxiii. 38);
the people had claimed and made their
own what truly belonged to God. = Iti
must be observed also that the Lord puts:
forth His relation to God as the fact from
which His Messiahship might be inferred.
This formed the trial of faith.

house of merchandise] Contrast Matt:
xxi. 18 (2 den of robbers). Here the tu-
mult and confusion of worldly business is
set over against the still devotion which
should belong to the place of worship.

merchandise] Vulg. negotiationis. Th
word (épmépiov) means the place o
traffic, the mart, and not the subject o
the art of trafficking (éyaropia). Comp
Ezek. xxvii. 3(LXX.). Thus the “ house ” i
here regarded as having become a market-
house, no longer deriving its character
from Him to whom it was dedicated, but
from the business carried on in its courts.

17. And (omit) his disciples] We notige
here on the occasion of the first public act
of Christ, as throughout St John, the
double effect of the act on those who al-
ready believed, and on those who were
resolutely unbelieving. The disciples!:
remembered at the time (contrast v. 22)
that this trait was characteristic of the
true prophet of God, who gave himself
for his people. The Jews found in it an
occasion for fresh demands of proof.

it was written] Or more exactly, it is
written, t.e. stands recorded in Scripture
(yeypoppevov éoriv). Compare vi. 31,
45, x. 84, xii. 14. St John prefers this
42
and said unto him, What sign shew-

est thou unto us, seeing that thou
doest these things?

Sr. JOHN. II.

[v. 19.

Ig Jesus answered and said unto

them, Destroy this temple, and inb Matt. 26.

three days I will raise it up.

 

resolved form to the simple verb (yéyp-
amrat ) which prevails almost exclusively
in the other books. Comp. iii. 21.

The words occur in Ps. lxix. 9. The
remainder of the verse is applied to the
Lord by St Paul, Rom. xv. 3. Other
passages from it are quoted as Messianic,
John xv. 25 (v. 4), xix. 28 and parallels
(v. 21); Rom. xi. 9, 10 (v. 22); Acts i. 20
(v. 25).

For a general view of the quotations
from the Old Testament in St John see
Introd.

The zeal of thine house] the burning
jealousy for the holiness of the people who
were bound by service to it, as well as for
the honour of God Himself. Comp. Rom.
x. 2; 2 Cor. xi. 2.

hath eaten me] According to the true
text, will eat (devour) me. The reference
is not to the future Passion of the Lord,
but to the overpowering energy and fear-
lessness of His present action. It is not
natural to suppose that the disciples had
at the time any clear apprehension of what
the issue would be. They only felt the
presence of a spirit which could not but
work.

18 ff. The act in which the Lord offered
a revelation of Himself called out no faith
in the representatives of the nation.
Thereupon in answer to their demand He
takes the temple, which He had vainly
cleansed, as a sign, having regard to the
destruction which they would bring upon
it. The end was now visible though far
off. Comp. Matt. ix. 15.

The words are an illustration of Luke
xvi. 31. To those who disregarded the
spirit of Moses, the Resurrection became
powerless.

18. Then answered the Jews] the Jews
therefore answered (and so in v. 20). See
i, 22, note. The connexion is with v. 16
directly.

answered] The term is not unfrequently
used when the word spoken is a reply to
or a criticism upon something done, or
obviously present to the mind of another :
ef. v. 17, xix. 7; Matt. xi. 25, xvii. 4,
xxvili. 5; Mark x, 51, xii. 85; Luke i.
60, xiii, 14; Acts iii. 12, v. 8; Rev. vii. 13.
And once even in reference to the signifi-
cant state of the barren fig-tree; Mark
xi, 14.

What sign shewest thou...) By what
clear and convincing token (comp, 1 Cor.
i, 22) can we be made to see that thou
hast the right to exercise high prophetic
functions, seeing that (dT, comp. ix. 17)
thou doest these things which belong to a
great prophet’s work? Comp. Matt. xxi.
23.

The same demand for fresh evidence in
the presence of that which ought to be
decisive is found ch. vi. 30; Matt. xii. 38
f., xvi. 1 ff.

doest] The work was not past only, but
evidently charged with present conse-
quences.

19. Destroy this temple...] The phrase
here placed in its true context appears
twice as the basis of an accusation, (1)
Matt. xxvi. 61, note; Mark xiv. 57, 8,
and (2) Acts vi. 14. In both cases the
point of the words is altered by assigning
to Christ the work of destruction which
he leaves to the Jews. (Z am able to (I
will) destroy as contrasted with Destroy).

In the interruption of the words two dis-
tinct ideas have to be brought into har-
mony, (1) the reference to the actual
temple which is absolutely required by
the context, and (2) the interpretation of
the Evangelist (v. 21). At the same time
the ‘‘three days’’ marks the fulfilment as
historical and definite. The point of con-
nexion lies in the conception of the temple
as the seat of God’s presence among His
people. So far the temple was a figure
of the Body of Christ. The rejection and
death of Christ, in whom dwelt the ful-
ness of God, brought with it necessarily
the destruction of the temple, first. spiritu-
ally, when the veil was rent (Matt. xxvii.|
51), and then materially (observe da’ dpre
Matt. xxvi. 64). On the other hand or
Resurrection of Christ was the raising
again of the Temple, the complete restora-
tion of the tabernacle of God’s presence to
men, perpetuated in the Church, which is
Christ’s body.

In this connexion account must be taken
of the comparison of the temple with
Christ, Matt. xii. 6. Compare ch. i, 14
(éoxjvwcer).

The Resurrection of Christ was indeed
the transfiguration of worship while it
was the transfiguration of life.

In the Synoptic Gospels Christ connects
the destruction of the temple with the
faithlessness of the people: Matt. xxiv.
2ff., xxiii, 38,

_It may be noticed that on a similar occa-
sion the Lord referred to the “ sign of the
prophet Jonah,” as that alone which
should be given (Matt, xii, 89, xvi. 4).
Life through death; construction through
dissolution ; the rise of the new from the
fall of the old; these are the main
thoughts,

The imperative destroy is used as in
Matt. xxiii, 82, fll ye up. Comp. xiii. 28.
Thus in the first clear antagonism Christ
sees its last issue. The word itself
(Avoare) is a very remarkable one. It
Vv. 20—22.]

20 Then said the Jews, Forty and
six years was this temple in build-
ing, and wilt thou rear it up in three
days?

21 But he spake of the temple of
his body.

indicates a destruction which comes from
dissolution, from the breaking of that
which binds the parts into a whole or one
thing to another. Comp. 2 Pet. iii. 10 ff.;
Acts xxvii. 41; Eph. ii, 14; and also v. 18
note; 1 John iii. 8.

I will...) The Resurrection is here
assigned to the action of the Lord, as else-
where to the Father (Gal. i. 1; see v. 22,
note).

20. Forty and siz...building] Rather,
bie forty and siz...was this temple built as
we now see it. The work is regarded as
“complete in its present state, though the
reparation of the whole structure was not
completed till 36 years afterwards. Herod
the Great began to restore the temple in
B.c, 20 (Jos. ‘B. J.’ x. 21 (16). 1: comp.
‘Antt.’ xv. 11 (14. 1), and the design was
completed by Herod Agrippa a.p. 64. The
tense of the verb (pxodou7Oy) marks a
definite point reached ; that point probably
coincided with the date of the Lord’s
visit; but the form of expression makes it

recarious to insist on the phrase as itself
defining this coincidence.

rear it up] raise it up: the same word is
used as before. That which Christ raises
(x. 18) is that which was (raise it up) and
not another. The old Church is trans-
figured and not destroyed. The continuity
of revelation is never broken.

in three days] Comp. Hos. vi. 2.

21. But he (éxeivos)...] The pronoun
(i. 18, note) is emphatic and marks a
definite contrast, not only between the
Lord and the Jews, but also between the
Lord and the apostles. St John seems to
look back again upon the far distant scene
as interpreted by his later knowledge, and
to realise how the Master foresaw that
which was wholly hidden from the disciples.

of (mepi)...] i.e. concerning... This was
the general topic of which He was speak-
ing, not the direct object which He indi-
cated, as in vi. 71 (eAeyev rov’l.), from
which usage it must be carefully distin-
guished. Compare Eph. v.32 (Aéyw «is),
where the ultimate application is marked.

the temple of his body] i.e. the temple
defined to be His body, as in the phrase
“the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah” (2
Pet. ii, 6). Compare Acts iv. 22; 2 Cor.
vy. 1; Rom. iv, 11 (v. 1). For the usage
see 1 Cor. vi. 19; Rom. viii. 11.

St John notices on other occasions the
es meaning of words of the Lord not

nderstood at first: vii, 39, xii, 33, xxi.

St. JOHN. II.

43

22 When therefore he was risen
from the dead, his disciples remem-
bered that he had said this unto
them; and they believed the scrip-
ture, and the word which Jesus had
said.

19; and in each case he speaks with com-
plete authority. This trait of progressive
knowledge is inexplicable except as a
memorial of personal experience.

22. was risen) Rather, was raised: so
also xxi. 14. The full phrase would be,
“‘was raised by God from the dead,” as in
the corresponding expression, “‘ whom God;
raised from the dead” (Acts iii. 15, iv. 10,
v. 30, x. 40, xiii. 30, 37; Rom. iv. 24, viii.
11, x. 9; 1 Cor. xv. 15, &c.). In all these
cases the resurrection is regarded as an
awakening effected by the power of the
Father. Much less frequently it is pre-
sented simply as a rising again, consequent
on the awakening, in reference to the
manifestation of the power of the Son,
Mark viii. 31, ix. 9; Luke xxiv. 7. Comp.
John xi. 23, 24; and v. 19, note.

remembered] v. 17. The repetition of
the word seems to mark the facts of
Christ’s life as a new record of revelation,
on which the disciples pondered even
before the facts were committed to writing,
Comp. xii. 16.

had said] Rather, spake (omit unto
them), The original tense (éAeyev)
implies either a repetition of or a dwelling
upon the words. Comp. v. 18, vi. 6, 65,71,
viii. 27, 31, xii. 38, iv. 33, 42, &.

believed) A different construction is used
here (€mirrevoay TH ypady) from that in v.
11: they trusted the Scripture as absolutely
true. Comp. iv. 50, v. 46, 47, xx. 8.

the scripture] The phrase “the Scripture”
occurs elsewhere ten times in St John, vii.
38, 42, x. 35, xiii. 18 (xvii. 12), xix. 24, 28,
36, 87 (xx. 9), and in every case except
xvii, 12 and xx, 9 the reference is to a
definite passage of Scripture given in the
context, according to the usage elsewhere,
Mark xii. 10 [xv. 28]; Luke iv. 21; Acts i.
16, viii. 35, &c, (though St Paul appears
also to personify Scripture), while th
plural is used for Scripture generally, v. |
Luke xxiv. 82; 1 Cor. xv. 3, 4, &c. In xvii.
12 the reference appears to be to the words
already quoted, xiii. 18, so that the present
and the similar passage, xx. 9, alone remain
without a determinate reference. Accord-
ing to the apostle’s usage, then, we must
suppose that here also a definite passage is
present to his mind, and this, from a
comparison of Acts ii. 27, 31, xiii, 35, can
hardly be any other than Ps. xvi. 10.

the word...had said (etrev)] the revelation
which St John has just recorded, not as an
isolated utterance (fn), but as a compre-
hensive message (T@ Ady).
44

23 { Now when he was in Jeru-
salem at the passover, in the feast day,

St. JOHN. IL.

[v. 23.
many believed in his name, when
they saw the miracles which he did.

 

The Synoptists narrate a cleansing of the
temple as having taken place on the day of
thé triumphal entry into Jerusalem before
the last passover (Matt. xxi, 12 ff.; Mark
xi. 15 ff.; Luke xix, 45 ff.). Of such an
incident there is no trace in St John (xii.
12 ff.), and conversely the Synoptists have
P trace of an earlier cleansing. It has

een supposed that the event has been
i transposed in the Synoptic narratives owing
ito the fact that they give no account of the
Lord’s ministry at Jerusalem before the
‘last journey; but a comparison of the two
jnarratives is against the identification.

l,, The exact connexion of the event in
oath case is given in detail.

2,/ There is a significant difference in the

rds used to justify the act, Mark xi. 17;
John ii, 16.

3,~ The character of the two acts is

iStinct. The history of St John presents
an independent assumption of authority :
the history of the Synoptists is a sequel to
the popular homage which the Lord had
accepted,
see cleansing in St John appears asa

ifigle act. The cleansing in the Synoptists
seems to be part of a continued policy
(Mark xi. 16).

5,- In the record of the later incident
there is no reference to the remarkable
words (ii. 19) which give its colour to the
narrative of St John, though the Synoptists
shew that they were not unacquainted with
the words (Matt. xxvi, 61; Mark xiv. 58).

Nor on the other hand, is there any im-
probability in the repetition of such an
incident. In each case the cleansing was

effected in immediate connexion with the
revelation of Jesus as the Messiah. This
revelation was twofold: first when He
claimed His royal power at the entrance on
His work, and then when He claimed it
again at the close of His work. In the
interval between these two manifestations
He fulfilled the office of a simple prophet.
In the first case, so to speak, the issue was
as yet doubtful; in the second, it was
already decided; and from this difference
flows the difference in the details of the
incidents themselves. For example, there
is a force in the addition “a house of
prayer for all nations,” in the immediate
prospect of the Passion and of the conse-
quent rejection of the Jews, which finds
no place at the beginning of the Lord’s
ministry, when He enters as a Son into
“His Father's house.’ And again, the
neutral phrase, “a house of merchandise,”
is in the second case represented by its
last issue “a den of robbers.”

Assuming that the two cleansings are dis-
tinct, it is easy to see why St John records

that which occurred at the beginning,
because it was the first crisis in the separa-|
tion of faith and unbelief; while the;
Synoptists necessarily, from the eee
tion of their narratives, recorded the later:
one. This, on the other hand, was virtually |.
included in the first, and there was no:
need that St John should notice it.

Christ’s work at Jerusalem with the people

(ii, 28—iii, 21).

The record of the great Messianic work
(ii. 14—16), which was the critical trial of
the representatives of the theocracy, is fol-
lowed by a summary notice of the thoughts
which it excited among the people generally,
and also in one who was fitted to express
the feelings of students and teachers. The
people imagined that they had found the
Messiah of their own hopes: the teacher
acknowledged the presence of a prophet
who should continue, and probably reform,
what already existed. In both respects the
meaning of Christ’s work was missed : the
conclusions which were drawn from His
“sions” (ii, 28, iii, 2) were false or
inadequate.

The section falls into two parts : Christ’s

ealing with the people (ii. 23—25), and
‘with “the teacher of Israel” (iii. 1—21).

The contents are peculiar to St John. It
is probable that he writes from his own
immediate knowledge throughout (comp.
iii, 11).

23—25. Christ's dealing with the people
generally. In this brief passage the false;
faith of the people is contrasted with the
perfect insight of Christ. The people were
willing to accept Him, but He knew that
it would be on their own terms. Comp,
vi. 14f. (Galilee).

The explanation which St John gives of
the reserve of Christ shews a characteristic
knowledge of the Lord’s mind. It reads
like a commentary gained from later ex-
perience on what was at the time a sur-
prise and a mystery.

23. inJerusalem] if not in the temple,
yet still in the Holy City. It may be
noticed that of the two Greek forms of the
name, that which is alone found (in a
symbolic sense) in the Apocalypse (iii, 12,
xxi. 2, 10, ‘Iepoveady}) is not found in the
Gospel, in which (as in St Mark) the other
form (‘IepordAvpa.) is used exclusively
(twelve times).

The triple definition of place (in
erusalem), time (at the passover), circum-
tance (during the feast) is remarkable.
he place was the city which God had
hosen: the time was the anniversary of
he birth of the nation: the circumstances
arked universal joy.
Vv. 24, 25.]

24 But Jesus did not commit him-
self unto them, becausé he knew all
men,

Sr. JOHN. II.

25 And needed not that any should
testify of man: for he knew what
was in man,

 

{ in the feast day] Rather, at the feast,
‘t.e, of unleavened bread, kept on the seven
{days which followed the actual passover
‘(Lev, xxiii. 5, 6). It has been conjec-
tured, not unreasonably, that the purify-
ing of the temple took place on the eve of
the passover, when the houses were
cleansed of leaven.

many] Among these there may have
been some Galilaans, who had come to the
feast, as ‘“‘the Jews’’ (v. 20) are not dis-
tinctly mentioned. Comp. viii. 30 f., iv. 45.

believed in (on) Ais name] Comp. i. 12
and viii. 30, note. In this place the phrase
seems to imply the recognition of Jesus as
the Messiah, but such a Messiah as Him
for whom they looked, without any deeper
trust (for the most part) in His Person
(v. 24). They believed not on Him (iii.
18), but on His name, as Christ (comp.
Matt. vii. 22. Orig. ‘in Joh.’ t. x. § 28).
The phrase occurs again in connexion with
the title ‘‘Son of God,’ 1 John v. 18,
where there is no limitation of the fulness
of the meaning. For the use of ‘‘believe
on” (muorevety efs) with other than a per-
sonal object, see 1 John v. 10.

when they saw] when they beheld ( Gew-
povvres ) with the secondary notion of a
regard of attention, wonder, reflection.
The word (Gewpeiv) is so used in vii. 3,
xii, 45, xiv. 19, xvi, 16 ff., &c. In this
place it connects the imperfect faith of
the people with the immediate effect of
that which arrested their attention. Con-
trast iv. 45 ( €wpaxdres).

the miracles (his sigus) which he did)
time after time (déqote.). Here the
Evangelist dwells on the works as still
going on (which He was doing): in iv. 45
he regards the same works in their his-
forical completeness (all that He did, doa
ewoingev ). The conviction was wrought

ot at once, nor on a survey of all the
works, but now by one, now by another.

he same idea is given by the present par-
iciple (when they beheld, Gewpovvres)
in combination with the aorist (believed).
The incidental notice of these ‘signs’
(comp. vii. 31, xi. 47, xx. 30) is an un-
questionable proof that St.John does not
aim at, giving an exhaustive record of all
he knew. Similar references to cycles of
unrecorded works are found in the Synop-
tists : Mark iil, 10, vi. 56.

‘24, But Jestis] The contrast is empha-

sized in the original by the preceding pro-

noun, But on His part Jesus ( avrds de

commit] The same word (’icrevev) is
used here as that rendered believe (v. 23).
Compare Luke xvi. 11. The kind of repe-
tition would be in some degree, though in-
adequately, expressed in English by ‘‘many
trusted on His name...but Jesus did not
trust Himself to them.’’ There is at the
same time a contrast of tenses. The first
verb marks a definite, completed, act : the
second a habitual course of action. <A
partial commentary on this reserve of
Christ is found in vi. 14 f., where He re-
fuses to accept the homage of the people
which is offered with false beliefs and
hopes. Comp. Matt. vii. 21 ff.

24, 25. because He knew...And needed
not...) The original is more exact and ex-
pressive : owing to the fact that—for that
—He knew (dard ywvdoxev) all men,
and because He needed not...(Vulg. eo
quod...qguia...). The ultimate reason lay
in His knowledge of all men : the immedi-
ate reason in the fact that He needed no
testimony to the character of any man.

24. he knew] The pronoun is emphatic.
Christ knew ‘‘ by Himself,”’ ‘‘in virtue of
His Own power.”

knew] It is of great importance to dis-
tinguish in the narrative of St.John the
knowledge (1) of discernment and recogni-
tion from that (2) of intuition and convic-
tion. The one word (yevdoketr) used
here, implies movement, progress: the
other (eiSévac) satisfaction, rest. For the
contrast between the words compare (1) i.
49, iii. 10, vi. 69, xiii, 12 (yiydoKety) :
(2) i, 26, 81, iii, 2, 11, ix, 29 (eidevas).
See Additional Note.

25. testify of man] bear witness con-
cerning man generically (rept tod dvOpu-
mov). The original (tot] dvOpdrov) may
mean also ‘‘the man with whom from time
to time he had to deal,” as it appears to do
in the second case. Compare vii, 51
(tov dvOpwrov); Matt. xii. 43, xv, 11.

he knew] as in v. 24, ‘‘He Himself
knew, by His Own power on each occa-
sion...” The pronoun is repeated a third
time (attés—avtév—airds ).

what was in man] This knowledge is
elsewhere attributed to Jehovah (Jer. xvii.
10, xx. 12), It was immediate (of Himself),
universal (all men), complete (what was in
man, t.e. the thoughts and feelings as yet
unexpressed).

ADDITITIONAL NOTES on Cuap. 1. 11, 24.

11. This passage brings forward very
vividly one feature of St John’s Gospel

which has been overlooked by one school
of critics and exaggerated by another. It

?

45

ee
46
represents the whole human life of Christ,
under its actual conditions of external
want and suffering and of internal conflict
and sorrow, as a continuous and conscious
manifestation of divine glory. He shews
from first to last how ‘‘the eternal life
was manifested which was with the Father”
(1 John 1. 2) in the works, and in the
words of Christ, in what He did and in
what He suffered. (Compare Introd.)
Such a view, it has been argued, is incon-
sistent with the portraiture of the Saviour
in the other Gospels, and with the teach-
ing of St Paul upon the ‘exinanition”’ of
Christ (Phil. ii. 5—11).

This objection appears to rest upon a
totally inadequate conception of human
life. If life is potentially the expression
of a divine purpose, it is evident that all
the circumstances which it includes are
capable of ministering to the divine end.
A want or a sorrow cannot be regarded in
itself. It has a relation to a whole, and is
interpretative at once and preparatory. A
perfect human life, a life lived, that is, in
absolute harmony with the divine, will
therefore in every point reveal to those
who have the eyes to see, something of
God, of His ‘‘glory.”” And further, «
buman consciousness, which has complete
jinsight into the true order of things, or so
far as it has insight, will be able to realise
at any moment the actual significance of
each detail of experience. This being so,
it is clear that all the acts and sufferings
of ‘‘the Son of Man’’ were essentially
revelations of glory, and become so to us
so far as we are enabled to apprehend
their meaning. They are at the same
time to be regarded externally, but that
external realisation is only a condition for
their spiritual understanding. From the
nature of the case each fact in the life
of Christ was the vehicle for conveying
some eternal truth. It could not be other-
wise. St John lays open in some repre-
sentative instances what this truth was,
and while he does so he shews how the
knowledge of it was present to the mind
of Christ. Humiliation, shame, death are
thus not regarded outwardly, as they may
rightly be in suitable connexions, but as
the appointed, and so the best, means for
the attainment of the highest end, and re-
cognised as such. In this light they be-
come ‘‘ glories’ (1 Pet. i. 11).

These remarks hold true in regard to
each event in the Lord’s life; but St John,
from his point of sight, regards the whole
work of Christ as one, as the complete ful-
filment of the divine counsel. All is pre-
sent at each moment, ‘‘one act at once,”
while we ‘‘as parts can see but part, now
this, now that.” The Passion is the Vic-
tory; and this not only in relation to
divine knowledge but also in relation to

 

St. JOHN. II.

perfect human knowledge, which from
point to point is in accordance with the
divine.

St John therefore, while from time to
time he dwells on Christ’s glory and on,
Christ’s assertion of His glory, is not re-
cording, as has been said, that which can
be understood only of the Eternal Word,
but that which properly belongs to the Son
of Man, who at each stage, in each frag-
ment of His life, recognised the perfect
fulfilment through Himself of the purpose
of the Father towards the world. Com-
pare i. 51, viii. 28, xi. 40 ff., xiii, 31,
xvii, 4.

24. All the Evangelists agree in repre-
senting the Lord as moving among men
with a complete and certain knowledge of
their characters and needs. Only on very
rare occasions does He ask anything, as if
all were not absolutely clear before His
eyes (e.g. Mark viii. 5; comp. Mark xi.
13; John xi, 34). But St John exhibits
this attribute of complete human know-
ledge most fully, and dwells upon it as
explaining Christ’s action at critical times.
He describes the knowledge both as rela-
tive, acquired (yivwoKev) and absolute,
possessed (eidevau), In some cases the
“‘perception”’ (yvots, éyvw, yevdorxet) is that
which might be gained ‘‘naturally’’ by the
interpretation of some intelligble sign (v. 6,
vi, 15, xvi. 19, iv. 1). At.other times it
appears to be the result of an insight
which came from a perfect spiritual sym-
pathy, found in some degree among men
(i, 42, 47, ii, 24 f., v. 42, x. 14 £, 27°
comp. xxi. 17), which reaches from the
knowledge of the heart even to the know-
ledge of God (xvii. 25). The absolute
knowledge (eiSus, eiSevas ) is shewn in
connexion with divine things (iii. 11, v. 32,
vii. 29, viii. 55, xi. 42, xii. 50), and with
the facts of the Lord’s being (vi. 6, viii.
14, xiii. 1, 38, xix. 28), and also in relation
to that which was external (vi. 61, 64, xiii. |
11, 18, xviii. 4). A careful study of these
passages seems to shew beyond doubt that
the knowledge of Christ, so far as it was
the discernment of the innermost meaning —
of that which was from time to time pre- |
sented to Him, and so far as it was an
understanding of the nature of things as
they are, has its analogues in human
powers. His knowledge appears to be
truly the knowledge of the Son of Man,
and not merely the knowledge of the divine
Word, though at each moment and in each
connexion it was, in virtue of His perfect
humanity, relatively complete. Scripture
is wholly free from that Docetism—that
teaching of an illusory Manhood of Christ
—which, both within the Church and
without it, tends to destroy the historic
character of the Gospel.

 
v.1]
CHAPTER III.

’ Christ teacheth Nicodemus the necessity
of regeneration, 14 Of faith in his death.
16 The great love of God towards the
world, 18 Condemnation for unbelief.

St. JOHN. III.

23 The baptism, witness, and doctrine of
John concerning Christ.

HERE was a man of the Phari-
sees, named Nicodemus, a ruler
of the Jews:

 

Christ's dealing with the representative
teacher (iii, 1—21).

This first conversation is, together with
the Evangelist’s comment, the personal
application of the general call to repent-
ance, with which the other Gospels open.
It is, like the public message of the
Baptist or of Christ, a proclamation of
the kingdom of heaven, but given under
new circumstances.

Under another aspect the history is com-
plementary to the passage which precedes.
Christ was unwilling to commit Himself—
His Person—to those who had false views;
and in the same spirit He laid open the
truth to one who sought it. By refusal
and by compliance alike He shewed His
knowledge of men.

The record consists of two parts. The
first part (1—15) contains a summary of
the actual conversation : the second gives
the commentary of St John (16—21).

It is interesting to notice that according
to the Sarum Use, following the old
Roman Use, the section vv. 1—15 is read as
the Gospel for Trinity Sunday. This Gospel
is retained in our Prayer Book, while the
modern Roman Use gives Matt. xxviii. 18 ff.
The fitness of the selection is obvious, The
narrative shews how the Lord deals with
the difficulties of the thoughtful man, re-
proving presumption and elevating faith.

Cuap. IIT, 1—15. The general outline
of the discourse can be marked with fair
distinctness, and places the relation in
which the new order—the kingdom of God,
established through Christ—stands to the
old in a clear light.

Nicodemus comes as a representative of
the well-instructed and thoughtful Jew who
looked for the consummation of national
hope to follow in the line along which he
had himself gone, as being a continuation
and not a new beginning (v. 2).

The Lord at once checks this anticipation.
The kingdom of God cannot, He says, be
seen—outwardly apprehended—without a
new birth. The right conception of it
depends upon the possession of correspond-
ing and therefore fresh powers (v. 3).

But the obvious answer is, Such a change
in man is impossible. He is physically,
morally, spiritually, one: the result of all
the past (v. 4).

This objection would be valid if the
change belonged to the same order as that
to which we naturally belong. But the
Lord replies that the birth which He
reveals is an entrance to a new order, and
wrought by a new power. It has an

external element, because it belongs to men
now in life; it has an internal element, be-
cause it carries men into a new world (v. 5).

No change of man in himself, so far as
the life of sense is concerned, would be
adequate (v. 6).

But none the less the change, though
wrought by a mysterious and unseen Power,
coming we know not whence, going we know
not whither in the interspace of earthly
life, is manifested by its results (7 f.).

Such ideas were strange to Nicodemus,
i : the traditional Judaism of the time

v. 9).

Yet even already there were some with
the Lord who had known and seen the
reality of the teaching and facts by which
these ideas were established (10 f.).

And, beyond these “‘earthly things” of
which sensible experience was possible, the
new kingdom included in its principles
“heavenly things,” still farther removed
from current beliefs (v. 12). :

Such was the doctrine of the Person of
the Lord; and flowing from it the doctrine
of the Redemption through His Cross
(18 ff.).

The circle of thought is thus complete.
Christianity—in consideration of the com-
pleted work of Christ, which is presupposed
—stands contrasted with Judaism both as
an organization and as a divine economy.
The entrance to the Church is through a
sacrament not outward only but spiritual
also. The facts on which it rests and
which it proclaims belong essentially to
heaven, not to earth. Viewed in these
relations the discourse expands and explains
the truth stated generally in its outward
form in the Sermon on the Mount: Except
your righteousness shall exceed the righ-
teousness of the Scribes and Pharisees, ye
shall in no case enter into the kingdom of
heaven (Matt. v, 20).

1. There was aman...) Now there was
a man... The word man is repeated to
emphasize the connexion with ii, 25.
Nicodemus offered at once an example of
the Lord’s inward knowledge of men, and
an exception to this general rule which He
observed in not trusting Himself to them.

Pharisees] i, 24 note,

Nicodemus] Comp, vii. 50, xix. 39. Tha
name was not uncommon among the Jews,
Nicodemus ben Gorion ( Bunai) who lived t:
the siege of Jerusalem, has been identifie
(falsely, v. 4 old) with this one. The tradi
tions as to Bunai, which are very vagu
and untrustworthy, have been collected b
Lightfoot on this place, and by Delitzsch,
* Zeitsch, f. Luth. Theol.’ 3854,

47
48

2 The same came to Jesus by
night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we
know that thou art a teacher come
from God: for no man can do these
miracles that thou doest, except God
be with him.

a ruler] i.e. a member of the Sanhedrin
(dpxwy, Vulg. princeps) : vii.50. Comp. vii.
26, xii, 42; Luke xxiii. 13, 35, xxiv. 20;
Acts iv. 8. The word however is used in
Rabbinic literature (NIN) generally for a

“great man” or “prince.” See Buxtorf, s. v.;
Matt. ix. 18; Luke xii. 58, xiv. 1, xviii, 18.
$. to Jesus] unto him.
by night] This detail is noticed again in
xix. 39 (but not according to the true read-
ing in vii. 50). On each occasion where
Nicodemus is mentioned we may see other
traces of the timidity to which it was due.
He defended Jesus without expressing any
personal interest in Him: he brought his
offering only after Joseph of Arimathxa
had obtained the Body from Pilate.
. Rabbi] Such a style of address in the
mouth of Nicodemus (v. 10) is significant
(comp. i, 38). The title was one of late
date, not having come into use till the time
of Herod the Great, with the Schools of
Shammai and Hillel. It is formed like
“ Master ” from a root meaning great, and
was used in three forms, Rab, Rabbi,
Rabban (Rabbun, John xx. 16). Accord-
‘ing to the Jewish saying, “Rabbi was
higher than Rab, Rabban, than Rabbi, but
greater than all was he who [like the pro-
phets) was not called by any such title.”
we know] The pronoun is not emphatic.
There is however a symptom of latent pre-
sumption in the word. Nicodemus claims
for himself and for others like him the
peculiar privilege of having read certainly
the nature of the Lord’s office in the signs
which He wrought. So much at least he
and they could do, if the common people
were at fault. Comp. ix. 24. It is natural
to connect such a recognition of the divine
mission of Jesus with the report of the
envoys sent to John: i, 19. Contrast Matt.
xii. 24; c. ix, 29.
from God] The words stand first em-
phatically: “it is from God, not from
man, thy title to teach is derived.”
jose had not studied in the schools, but

 

ossessed the right of a Rabbi from a
{higher source. Comp. vii. 15, 16.

a teacher] not different in kind from other
teachers. In this conception lay the essence
of the error of Nicodemus, The word used
here (SuSdcKados) is commonly rendered
master, after the Vulgate (magister), u ren-
dering which is apt to suggest false associa-
tions (i, 38, viii, 4, xi. 28, xiii, 13f., xxi 16).

miracles] signs, Comp. ii. 11 note. The
address of Nicodemus is incomplete, but he
evidently wishes to invite the Lord to give

Sr. JOHN. III.

[v. 2—4.
3 Jesus answered and said unto
him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee,

Except a man be born llagain, he ,,Ot,Jrom

cannot see the kingdom of God.
4 Nicodemus saith unto Him, How
can a man be born when he is old?

a fuller view of His teaching, and that, it
may reasonably be supposed, with regard
to the kingdom of God of which John had
spoken.
except...him] Comp, Acts x. 38; 1 S.
xviii. 14; ¢, ix, 31f.
3. answered] not _the words, but_the
The Lord’s answers to questions
will be found generally to reveal the true
thought of the questioner, and to be fitted
to guide him to the truth which he is
seeking. Nicodemus implied that he and
those like him were prepared to understand
and welcome the Lord’s teaching. This
appeared to him to be of the same order as
that with which he was already familiar.
He does not address the Lord as if he were
ready to welcome Him as “ the Christ” or
“the prophet.” On the other hand, the
Lord’s reply sets forth distinctly that His
work was not simply to carry on what was
already begun, but to recreate. The new

kingdom of which He was the founder could

not be comprehended till after a new birth.
Verily, verily] i. 51, note. The words by

their emphasis generally presuppose some

difficulty or misunderstanding to be over-
come; and at the same time they mark the

introduction of a new thought carrying the

divine teaching further forward, vv. 5, 11.
Comp. v. 19, vi. 47, 53.
unto thee] The address was general :

the reply is personal.

born again] See Additional Note.
he cannot see the kingdom of God] With-

out this new birth—this introduction into a

vital connexion with a new order of being,
with « corresponding endowment of facul-
ties—no man can see—can outwardly appre.
hend—the kingdom of God. Our natural
powers cannot realise that which is essen-
tially spiritual. A new vision is required
for the objects of a new order. Elsewhere
there are references to the change required
(Matt, xviii. 3; 1 Cor. ii, 14) in order that
we may observe that which though about
us is unregarded (Luke xvii. 20, 21).

cannot] The impossibility lies in the
moral characteristics of the man, and not
in any external power. Comp. vi. 44, note.

The sense which is commonly given to
“see” in this passage, as if it were equiva-
lent to “enjoy,” “have experience of”
(Luke ii, 26, see death; Acts ii. 27, see
corruption; 1 Pet. iii. 10, see good days),
entirely sacrifices the marked contrast
between “seeing” and “entering into” the
kingdom. Part of the same thought is
found in Luke xvii. 20.

the kingdom of God] The phrase occurs |
v. 5.]
can he enter the second time into his
mother’s womb, and be born?

5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I

Sr. JOHN. III.

49
say unto thee, Except a man be born

of water and of the Spirit, he cannot
enter into the kingdom of God.

 

nly here and in v. 5 in St John’s Gospel
:(yet compare xviii. 36, 37; Rev. xii. 10),
iwhile it is frequent in the Synoptists. St
Matthew alone uses, in addition, the phrase
“the kingdom of heaven,” which is found
as an early variant in v. 5 (in, &c.). The
phrase “the kingdom of God” is found in
the Acts, and in each group of St Paul’s
epistles ; but it does not occur in the Epistles
to the Hebrews or in the Catholic Epistles
(comp. 2 Pet. i.11). The words have always
a twofold application—externat-and in-
ternal ; a jate° application in
each case leads on €6°a more complete
fulfilment in” thé’ sare direction. Thus
under the old “dispensation the visible Israel
| as the kingdom of God as typical of the
:fvisible catholic church, the spiritual Israel
as typical of the true spiritual church.
And now again the visible church is the
type of the future universal reign of
zChrist, as the spiritual church of the con-
* summation of Christ’s reign in heaven,

4. Nicodemus saith] It is commonly
supposed that Nicodemus either misunder-
stood the general scope of the Lord’s
answer, or half-mockingly set it aside, But
in fact he employs the image chosen by the
Lord in sober earnest to bring out the
overwhelming difficulties with which the
idea suggested by it was encompassed. It
is one indication of the point of his argu-
ment that he substitutes for the indefinite
phrase used by the Lord (except one (tés)
be born...) the definite title (how can a
man (dvOpwros) be born...).

How can a man be born...) How is it
possible for a man whose whole nature at
any moment is the sum of all the past, to
start afresh? How can he undo, or do
away with, the result which years have
brought and which goes to form himself?
His “I” includes the whole development
through which he has passed; and how
then can it survive a new birth? Can the
accumulation of long ages be removed and
the true “self” remain?

when he is old) Nicodemus evidently
applies the Lord’s words to his own case,
The trait is full of life.

can he enter the (a) second time into his
mother’s womb, and be born?} Nicodemus
takes one part of a man’s complex per-
sonality only. Is it possible to conceive
physical birth repeated? And if uot,
Nicodemus seems to say to Christ, how
then can there be any such moral new birth
as you claim? For all life from its first
beginning has contributed to the moral
character which belongs to each person.
The result of all life is one and indivisible.

This thought is one which cannot but

occur to every one. It goes to the very
root of faith. The great mystery of religion
is not the punishment, but the forgiveness,
of sin: not the natural permanence of
character, but spiritual rgeneration. And
it is one aspect of this mystery which
Nicodemus puts forth clearly.

5. Jesus answered] Christ meets the
difficulty by an enlarged repetition of the
former statement. As before He had in-
sisted on the fact of the new birth, He now
reveals the nature of the birth. This involves
an outward and an inward element, which
are placed side by_side.

Except a man be born of water and of ;
the Spirit (or, and spirit)] The pean
used (é£) recalls the phrase “baptize—
plunge—in water, in spirit” (Matt. iii, 11),
so that the image suggested is that of
rising, reborn, out of the water and out of
that spiritual element, so to speak, to which
the water outwardly corresponds.

The combination of the words water and
spirit suggests a remote parallel and a
marked contrast. They carry back the
thoughts of hearer and reader to the narra-
tive of creation (Gen. i. 2), and to the
characteristics of natural birth, to which
St John has already emphatically referred
(i. 18). The water and the spirit suggest
the original shaping of the great Order out
of Chaos, when the Spirit of God brooded
on the face of the waters; and at the same:
time this new birth is distinctly separated
from the corruptible element (blood) whic’
symbolizes that which is perishable andy
transitory in human life,

These distant references serve in some
degree to point to the true sense of the
passage. If further we regard the specific
Biblical ideas of water and spirit, when
they are separated, it will be seen that,
water symbolizes purification (comp. i, 25,
note) and spirit quickening: the one im
plies a definite external rite, the other
indicates an energetic internal operation.
The two are co-ordinate, correlative, com-
plementary. Hence all interpretations which
treat the term water here as simply figura-
tive and descriptive of the cleansing power
of the Spirit are essentially defective,as they
are also opposed to all ancient tradition,

This being so, we must take account of
the application of these ideas of cleansing
and quickening to the circumstances under
which the words were first spoken, and of
their application to the fulness of the
Christian economy. The words had an im-
mediate, if incomplete, sense, as they were
addressed to Nicodemus : they have also a
final and complete sense for us. And yet
more, the inceptive sense must be in com-

deem eer «: 41

 
50

6 That which is born of the flesh

is flesh; and that which is born of
the Spirit is spirit.

plete harmony with the fuller sense, and

help to illustrate it.
It can, then, scarcely be questioned that
- as Nicodemus heard the words, water
, carried with it a reference to John’s
baptism, which was a divinely appointed
“vite (i, 33), gathering up into itself and
investing with a new importance all the
lustral baptisms of the Jews: the spirit, on
the other hand, marked that inward power
which John placed in contrast with his
own baptism. Thus the words, taken in
their immediate meaning as intelligible to
Nicodemus, set forth, as required before
entrance into the kingdom of God, the
acceptance of the preliminary rite divinely
sanctioned, which was the seal of repentance
and so of forgiveness, and following on this
the communication of a new life, resulting
from the direct action of the Holy Spirit
through Christ, The Pharisees rejected the
pets; and by so doing cut themselves off
from the grace which was attached to it.
They would not become as little children,
and so they could not enter into the
kingdom of heaven.

But the sense of the words cannot be
limited to this first meaning. Like the cor-
responding words in ch. vi. they look
forward to the fulness of the Christian
dispensation, when after the Resurrection
the baptism of water was no longer separa-
ted from, but united with, the baptism of
the spirit in the “laver of regeneration”
(Titus iii. 5. Comp. Eph. v. 26), even as
the outward and the inward are united
generally in a religion which is sacramental
and not only typical. Christian baptism,
the outward act of faith welcoming the
promise of God, is incorporation into the
Body of Christ, and so the birth of the
Spirit is potentially united with the birth
of water. The general inseparability of
these two is indicatéed”by ‘the form-of-the
expression, born of water and spirit ( é£ v0.
kai rv.),a8 distinguished from the-double
phrase, born of water and of spirit.

Accorditig to this view the words have a
distinct historical meaning, and yet they
have also a meaning far beyond that which
was at first capable of being apprehended.
They are in the highest sense prophetic,
even as the following words, in which the
Lord speaks of His Passion; and at the
same time they contemplate the fulness of
the organized life of the Christian society
(enter into the kingdom of heaven—not see
life, v. 36).

enter into] become a citizen of the king-
dom, as distinguished from the mere in-
telligent spectator (see v. 3) of its constitu-
sion and character. The image suggested

Sr. JOHN. III.

[v. 6—8.

7 Marvel not that I said unto thee,
Ye must be born llagain.
8 The wind bloweth where

by the words enter into is that of entering
into the promised land—the type of the
kingdom of heaven—as in Ps. xcv. 11.

A new birth is necessary to gain a true
conception of the divine kingdom: a new
birth, distinctly specified as having an out-
ward fulfilment as well as an inward, is
necessary for admission into the kingdom,
which is itself at once outward and
spiritual. This conclusion follows from a
very simple consideration. No principle
can produce results superior to itself. If
man is to enjoy a spiritual life, that by
which he enters it—his birth—must be of
a corresponding character. The flesh (i.
18, see note) can only generate flesh.
Spiritual life cannot come forth from it.

The fact which the Lord affirms is at
once more marvellous and more natural
than that by which Nicodemus typified it.
A mere repetition of the natural birth
would not bring that which man requires.

6. That which is born...] The original
tense (7d yeyevynpéwoy ) conveys an idea
which can only be reproduced by a para-
phrase, “that which hath been born, and
at present comes before us in this light.”
There is an important difference observed
in the narrative between the fact of the
birth (aorist, vv. 3, 4, 5, 7) and the state
which follows as the abiding result of the
birth (perfect, vv. 6, 8). In 1 John v. 18
the true interpretation depends upon the
contrast between the one historic Son of
God (6 yévvnOeis, opposed to the evil one)
and the sons of God, who live in virtue of
their new birth (6 yeyevynpévos). Compare
also Gal, iv. 23, 29 for a fainter representa-
tion of acorresponding difference of tenses.

The neuter (that which is born...) states
the principle in its most abstract form.
In v. 8 a transition is made to the man
(every one that is born). There is a
similar contrast in 1 John v, 4 (neuter)
and 1 John v. 1, 18 (masc.).

flesh...spirit] The words describe the
characteristic principles of two orders.
They are not related to one another as evil
and good; but as the two spheres of being
with which man is connected. By the
“spirit” our complex nature is united to
heaven, by the “ flesh,” to earth. Comp.
vi, 63, note.

flesh] This term probably includes all
that belongs to the life of sensation, al
that by which we are open to the physica
influences of pleasure and pain, whic
naturally sway our actions. Thus, though
it does not of itself include the idea o:
sinfulness (i. 14; , John iv. 2), it describes
human personality on the side which tends

|| Or, from
it above.
v. 8.] St. JOHN.

listeth, and thou hearest the sound
thereof, but canst not tell whence it

III. SI

cometh, and whither it goeth : so is
every one that is born of the Spirit.

 

‘to sin, and on which actually we have
sinned.

It must also be noticed that that which
is born of flesh and spirit is described not
as ‘“‘fleshly” and ‘‘spiritual,’? but as
“flesh”’ and “‘‘ spirit.’ In other words,
the child, so to speak, is of the same
nature with the parent, and does not only
partake in his qualities. The child also
occupies in turn the position of a parent,
from which a progeny springs like to him-
self. Compare the corresponding usage, 1
John i, 5 (light), iv. 8 (love).

of the Spirit] Or, of spirit. While the
term is essentially abstract and expresses
spirit as spirit, the quickening power is
the Spirit. The idea of nature passes
into that of Person. The water is not re-
peated, because the outward rite draws its
virtue from the action of the Spirit.

Many early authorities (Zat. vt., Syr.
vt.) add the gloss, guia Deus spiritus est
et de (ex) Deo natus est. Ambrose (‘De
spir.’ iii. § 59) accuses the Arians of hav-
ing removed the words quia Deus spiritus
est from their MSS. The charge is an
admirable illustration of the groundless-
ness of such accusations of wilful corrup-
tion of Scripture. The words in question
have no Greek authority at all, and are
obviously a comment.

7. Marvel not...] If then this is a neces-
sary law—such is the force of the Lord’s
words—that the offspring must have the
essential nature of the parent, and if the
kingdom of God is spiritual and its citi-
zens therefore spiritual, while the nature
of man, as all experience it tobe, is fleshly,
swayed by powers which belong to earth,
Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must
be born again, even ye who think that you
have penetrated to the true conception of
Messiah’s work and prepared yourselves
adequately for judging it and entering
into it.

There appears also to be the emphatic
ye an implied contrast between the Lord,
who needed no re-birth, and all other men.
He does not say, as a human teacher, ‘We
must be born again.’

The passage from the singular (Z said
unto thee) to the plural (ye must) ought
not to be overlooked, comp. i. 51; and es-
pecially Luke xxii. 31, 32.

8. The wind...the Spirit] In Hebrew,
Syriac, Latin, the words are identical (as
properly Getst and Ghost) and Wyclif and
Rhemish Version keep ‘spirit’? in both
cases, after the Latin. But at present the
retention of one word in both places could
only create confusion, since the separation
between the material emblem and _ the
power which it was used to describe is

complete. The use of the correlative verb
(wvet, ch. vi. 18; Rev. vii. 1; Matt. vii.
25, 27; Luke xii, 55; Acts xxvii. 40), and
of the word sound (voice), is quite decisive
for the literal sense of the noun (rvevpa,) ;
and still at the same time the whole of the
phraseology is inspired by the higher
meaning. Perhaps also the unusual word
(wvetpa, 1 K. xviii. 45, xix. 11; 2 K. iii.
17) is employed to suggest this. The com-
parison lies between the obvious physical
properties of the wind and the mysterious
action of that spiritual influence to which
the name ‘“‘spirit,’’ ‘‘ wind,’’ was instinc-
tively applied. The laws of both are prac-
tically unknown; both are unseen; the
presence of both is revealed in their effects.

where it listeth] The phrase is not to be
pressed physically. The wind obeys its
own proper laws, which depend on a com-
plication of phenomena which we cannot
calculate, and consequently for us it is a
natural image of freedom. For a similar
phrase applied to the Spirit, see 1 Cor.
xii. 11.

the sound] Rather, the voice. The word
commonly implies an articulate, intelligible
voice, as even in a passage like 1 Cor. xiv.
7 ff.; yet in the Apocalypse the word is
used more widely, e.g. ix. 9, xiv. 2, &c.

canst not tell] More simply, knowest not.
Comp. Eccles. xi. 5.

so is every one...] The form of the com-
parison is irregular. The action of the
spirit on the befiever is like the action of
the wind in the material world. As the
tree (for example) by waving branches and
rustling leaves witnesses to the power
which affects it; so is every one that hath
been born of the Spirit. The believer shews
by deed and word that an invisible influ-
ence has moved and inspired him. He
is himself a continual sign of the action of
the Spirit, which is freely determined, and
incomprehensible by man as to source and
end, though seen in its present results.

It is not unreasonable to suppose that
this image of the wind was suggested by
the sound of some sudden gust sweeping
through the narrow street without. Thus
the form of the Lord’s teaching corres-
ponds with the teaching by parables in the
Synoptists (Matt. xiii. 4, note).

born of the Spirit] v. 6. An important
group of ancient authorities (XN, Lat. vt.,
Syr. vt.) read born of water and the spirit.
The gloss is a good example of # natural
corruption by assimilation.

9. How can these things be? How can
these things come to pass (yeveo Oat, Vulg.
fieri)? How can this new birth, issuing in
a new life, be realised? The idea is of

E

ome
52

9 Nicodemus answered and said

unto him, How can these things be?

Io Jesus answered and said unto

him, Art thou a master of Israel, and
knowest not these things?

11 Verily, verily, I say unto thee,

We speak that we do know, and tes-

Sr. JOHN. III.

[v. 9—13.
tify that we have seen; and ye re
ceive not our witness,

12 If I have told you earthly
things, and ye believe not, how shall
ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly
things ?

13 And no man hath ascended up

 

jchange, transition, not of essence, repose.
| The emphasis lies on can (7s Svvatau, v.
4

10. Art thou a master (the teacher) of
Tsrael] the authorized teacher of the chosen
people of God. The denifite article (6 d8dc-
kaos) marks the official relation of Nico-
demus to the péople generally." ~~

knowest not] perceivest ( yeviokes ) not,
by the knowledge of progress, recognition.
Comp. ii. 24 note. Though Nicodemus
had previously been ignorant of that which
the Lord declared, he ought to have recog-
nised the teaching as true when he heard it.

these things] the reality and character of
the spiritual influence shewn in the actions
of man, which yet is not of man, but
comes from another region.

11. We speak] The plural contrasted with
the singular vv. 3, 5, 7, 12 (all are unem-
phatic) isremarkable, It has been explained
ias a simple rhetorical plural, or as contain-
(ing an allusion to John the Baptist, to
‘the Prophets, to the Holy Spirit, to the
| Father (viii. 16, 18), but all these explana-
tions appear to fail when taken in con-
nexion with the you and ye. The Lord
and those with Him, of whom some, in-
‘cluding the Evangelist, may have been
{present at the interview, appear to stand
;in contrast to the group represented by
Nicodemus. Comp. iv. 22. There were
already gathered round Christ those who
had had personal (we Aave seen) and im-
mediate (we know) knowledge of the divine
wonders which He announced. Their
witness is indeed distinguished from His
afterwards (v, 13), but so far it reached as
to meet the difficulties, and fill up the
shortcomings of the faith which Nicodemus
had attained to. The plural, it will be
noticed, is used in connexion with ‘the
things on earth,’ but the singular only
(elarw) of ‘the things in heaven.”

we do know—absolutely and immediately
(olSapev)—and testify (bear witness of)...}
The words answered to actual knowledge,
the witness declared actual experience. The
object in each stands first: ‘“‘That which
we know, we speak; and that which we
have seen, we witness.” .

and ye received not] The pronoun is un-
emphatic, as the we before. The stress
lies on our witness. ‘‘ What we have seen
we witness, and our witness ye receive
not.’’ Comp. v. 27n. Forthe use of the
simple and in this connexion of sad con-

 

contrast see i. 10, v. 32, vii. 28, 30, xiv.
24, xvi. 32.

12. If I have told] If 1 told. As, for
example, in what He had just said to Nico-
demus of the spiritual birth, though this
was but as a sample of the teaching which
He had already addressed to men (you, not
thee) such as Nicodemus. Comp. Wisd.
ix. 16.

earthly things] The word ‘‘earthly’’ is,
ambiguous, and may mean that which is’
“of the nature of earth” (cf. v. 31) o4
which ‘‘ hasits sphere and place on earth.’’
The original word expresses the second
notion distinctly (€riyezos, Vulg. terrenus) ;
and it must be so interpreted in the other
places where it occurs: 1 Cor. xv. 40
(bodies fitted for life on earth). Comp. Col.
iii. 2; 2 Cor. v. 1; Phil. ii. 10, iii. 19
(whose thoughts rest on earth); James iii.
15 (wisdom which finds its consummation
on earth, and reaches no higher). Thus the
strictly local meaning (1 Cor. xv. 40; Phil.
ii. 10 )passes insensibly into a meaning pre-
dominantly moral (Phil. iti, 19; James
iii. 15).

Here the phrase ‘‘earthly things’ will
mark those facts and phenomena of the.
higher life as a class (rd éwiyea) which
have their seat and manifestation on earth :
which belong in their realisation to our
present existence : which are seen in their
consequences, like the issues of birth:
which are sensible in their effects, like the
action of the wind : which are a beginning
and a prophecy, and not a fulfilment.

how shall ye believe] The words are
spoken with a view to the future already
realised. The question is not abstract
(How can ye?), but framed in regard of
actual circumstances.

of (omit) heavenly things] those truths;
which belong to a higher order, which are!
in heaven (ré érovpévia), and are brought!
down thence to earth as they can become
to men. Such was the full revelation of
the Son, involving the redemption of the
world and the reunion of man with God,
which is indicated in the three following
verses. The reality of these truths finds
no outward confirmation as the new birth
in its fruits. The difference thus indi-
cated between the ‘earthly’? and the
‘heavenly’’ elements of the Lord’s teach-
ing serves to shew the ground of the con-
trast between St John and the earlier
Evangelists. The teaching of the Lord was
Numb.
41. 9.

v. 14, 15.] |
to heaven, but he that came down

from heaven, even the Son of man
which is in heaven.

14 4 ¢And as Moses lifted up
the serpent in the wilderness, even

on one side, like the teaching of the Bap-
tist, a preparation for the Kingdom of
Heaven (Mark i. 15); and on the other a
revelation of the kingdom both in its em-
bodiment and in its life.

18. And no man...] The transition by
“and” is completely according to the
Hebrew idiom, which adds new thoughts
without defining the exact relation in
which they stand to what has gone before.
That must be determined by the thoughts
regarded in juxtaposition. Men might be
unprepared to receive the teaching of
heavenly things, yet side by side with this
fact were two others: that Christ alone
could teach them, and that His mission
was but for a time. While also these facts
included the two great mysteries of the
spiritual life : the truths as to the Person
and as to the Work of the Son of Man.

hath ascended up (gone up) to heaven]
Comp. Deut, xxx. 12; Prov. xxx. 4. No
man hath risen into the region of absolute
and eternal truth, so as to look upon it
face to face, and in the possession of that
knowledge declare it to men; but the Son
of Man, He in whom humanity is summed
up, has the knowledge which comes from
immediate vision. And His elevation is
yet more glorious than a mere ascent. He
did not mount up to heaven as if earth
were His home, but came down thence
out of heaven, as truly dwelling there ; and
therefore He has inherently the fulness of
heavenly knowledge. Comp. Plato’s myth
in the ‘ Phedrus.’

but...the Son of man] The particle but
ei pj) ) does not imply that Christ had as-
cended to heaven, as though He were one
of a class and contrasted with all the others
(except), but simply that He in fact en-
joyed that directness of knowledge by na-
ture which another could only attain to by
such an ascension. The exception is to
the whole statement in the preceding
clause, and not to any part of it. Comp.
Luke iv. 26 f.; Matt. xii. 4; Gal. i. 7.

came down from (out of) heaven} That is,
at the Incarnation. Comp. vi. 32, 33 ff.,
42, &c. The phrase is used of the mani-
festation of God in the Old Testament ;
Ex. xix. 11ff.; Num. xi. 17, 25, xii. 5.

The exact form of expression is very re-
markable. It preserves the continuity of
the Lord’s personality, and yet does not
confound His natures: ‘“‘He that came
down from heaven, even He who being
Incarnate is the Son of man, without
ceasing to be what He was before.”
Comp. i. 14, vi. 38.

which is in heaven] These words are

St. JOHN. III.

so must the Son of man be lifted
up:

15 That whosoever believeth in
him should not perish, but have eter-
nal life.

omitted by many very ancient authorities,
and appear to be an early gloss bringing
out the right contrast between the ascent
of a man to heaven and the abiding of the
Son of Man in heaven. See Additional
Note at the end of the Chapter.

14. as Moses...) The character of the re-
velation through the Son of Man has been
set forth in the former verse, and in this
the issue of that revelation in the Passion
is further indicated. This mystery is
shadowed forth under the image of an Old
Testament symbol (Num. xxi. 7 ff.), just
as the Resurrection had been half veiled,
half declared, under the figure of a restored
temple (ii. 19). In the last miracle of
Moses, on the borders of the promised
land, the serpent had been ‘‘lifted up,”
and made a conspicuous object to all the
stricken people; and so too was Christ to
be “‘lifted up,’’ and with the same life-
giving issue. How this ‘“‘lifting up”
should be accomplished is not yet made
clear. See Additional Note. The point of
connexion between v. 13 and v. 14 lies in
the repetition of the title ‘‘the Son of
Man.” The Incarnation, under the actual
circumstances of humanity, carried with it
the necessity of the Passion.

so must the Son of man be lifted up]
The same phrase (lifted up, tywOjvar,
Vulg. ezaltari) occurs viii. 28, xii. 32, note,
34, in reference to the Passion; and else-
where (Acts ii. 33, v. 31; [Phil. ii. 9]) in
reference to the Ascension consequent upon
it. Thus the words imply an exaltation in
appearance far different from that of the
triumphant king, and yet in its true issue
leading to a divine glory. This passage
through the elevation on the cross to the
elevation on the right hand of God was a
necessity (so must, Se?) arising out of the
laws of the divine nature. Comp. xx, 9
note, v. 30 note.

It is important to notice that similar
figurative references to the issue of the
Lord’s work in His Death are found in
the Synoptic record: Matt. ix. 14 ff., x.
38; Mark viii. 34; Luke xiv. 27.

15. believeth in him] Or, according to
another reading, every one that believeth
may have in Him eternal life, according
to the familiar formula of St Paul, in
Christ. To ‘believe’? is used absolutely
v. 12, i, 50, iv. 42, 58, vi. 86, xi, 15, xx.
29; and the exceptional order of the words
(év aire éxy) finds a justification in v. 39,
xvi. 33.

should (rather, may) not perish but have
eternal life] The words not perish but

53
54

he gave his only begotten son, that

Sr. JOHN. III.

b : John 4. 16 {| bFor God so loved the world, that

[v. 16.

whosoever believeth in him should
not perish, but have everlasting life.

 

in this verse are to be omitted on decisive
authority. See Additional Note.

eternal life] Asthe wounded who looked
on the brazen serpent were restored to
temporal health, so in this case eternal
life follows from the faith of the believer
on the crucified and exalted Lord.

The exact phrase, have eternal life, as
distinguished from live for ever, is charac-
teristic of St John. It occurs vv. 16, 36, v.
24, vi. 40, 47, 54; 1 John iii. 15, v. 12 f.
(x. 10, xx. 31, hath life). Comp. Matt. xix.
16. The use of the auxiliary verb marks
the distinct realisation of the life as a per-
sonal blessing (have life), as being more
than the act of living. Comp, xvi. 22, have
sorrow.

The record of the conversation comes to
an end without any formal close. There is
nothing surprising in this. The history is
not that of an outward incident, but of a
spiritual situation. This is fully analysed ;
and the issue is found in the later notices
of Nicodemus, so far as it has an immedi-
ate personal value.

Several observations are suggested by the
narrative, which will be illustrated by later
passages of the Gospel.

The account of the conversation is evi-
déhtly compressed. The Evangelist does
; little more than indicate the great mo-
‘ments of the discussion. The full meaning
and connexion of the parts can only be
gained by supplying what he merely indi-
cates.
; In spite of the compression there is a
\diStinct progress and completeness in the
‘record. The order of thought is real and
natural.
a. thoughts are not obvious, but
en they are understood they deal with
critical difficulties; and with difficulties
which belong to the first stage of the
preaching of the Gospel.
he form and substance of the discus-
sion keep completely within the line of
Jewish ideas. All that is said belongs to
a time before the full declaration of the
nature of Christ’s work, while the language
is fitted to move a hearer to deeper ques-
tionings, and is in perfect harmony with
later. and plainer revelations.

The occurrence of the phrase ‘‘ King-
dém of God”’ here only in St John’s Gospel
belongs to the exact circumstances of the
incident.

6,/If the narrative were a free composi-
tioh of a late date, it is inconceivable that
the obscure allusions should not have been
made clearer; and if it were composed for
a purpose, itis inconceivable that the local
colouring of opinion and method should
have.been what it is.

7, The recorded external circumstances,

the meeting with Christ at the time of His
first public appearance, of one in whom
pride of descent and pride of knowledge
were united, explains the subject and
manner of the discourse. And the essen-
tial principles involved in it explain why
this Evangelist was guided to report it.
The narrative belongs to one definite point
in the history of religious development,
and also to all time.

16—21. This section is a commentary on
the nature of the mission of the Son, which
has been indicated in Christ’s words (vv.
13, 14), and unfolds its design (16, 17), its
historic completion (18, 19), the cause of its
apparent failure (20, 21). It adds no new
thoughts, but brings out the force of the
revelation already given in outline (1—15)
by the light of Christian experience. It is
therefore likely from its secondary charac
ter, apart from all other considerations
that it contains the reflections of the Evan:
gelist, and is not a continuation of th
words of the Lord. This conclusion ap!
pears to be firmly established from details

of expression.
(jthe tenses in v. 19 (loved, were) evi-
déntly mark a crisis accomplished, and |

long to the position which St John occu-
pied but not to that in which the Lord
stood, when the revelation of His Person
and Work had not been openly presented
to the world.

2, Ahe phrase only begotten Son (vv. 16,

1$¥is used of Christ elsewhere only in i.
14, 18; 1 John iv. 9; and in each case by
the. Evangelist.
( 3.The phrase believe in the name of (v.
18) is not found in the recorded words of
Christ, while i occurs im St John’s narra-
tive, i. 12, 1) 987 T-John v. 13. :

4. To do truth occurs elsewhere in the
New Testament only in 1 John i. 6.

The addition of such « comment finds a
parallel in i, 16—18,

There is also an obvious fitness in the
apostolic exposition of the Lord’s words at
this crisis, as in that of the Baptist’s words
which follows (vv, 31—36). The question-
ings of Nicodemus and the testimony of
John give, so to speak, the last utterances
of Judaism, the last thoughts of the stu-
dent, and the last message of the prophet.
They shew the difference and the con-
nexion of the Old and New Dispensations.
This difference and this connexion ap-
peared under a changed aspect after Jeru-
salem had fallen, and it was of importance
for the Evangelist to shew that from the
vue the crisis was foreseen.

he succession of thoughts appears
be the following :— : a a

1. The divine purpose in the Incarnation
(16, 17)

—
c ohap. 12.
47.

it

v. 17.]

St. JOHN. III.
17 ¢For God sent not his Son into that the world through him might be

30

the world to condemn the world; but saved.

This is set forth negatively and posi-
tively in relation to
(a) Man himself (personal), that he may
not perish, but
have everlasting life.
(8) The Son (general)
not to judge the world, but that
the world through Him may be
saved.
2. The actual result (18, 19).
A judgment,
(a) The application of the judgment.
Those whom it reaches not,
Those whom it has reached.
(8) The nature of the judgment.
Light offered,
Darkness chosen.
8. The cause of the result in man (20, 21).
A twofold moral condition,
(a) Those who do ill
shrink from the light
in fear of testing.
(8) Those who do the Truth
come to the light
that their deeds may be made
manifest.

16 ff. The pregnant declaration of the
character and issue of the Lord’s work
given by Him to Nicodemus, as the repre-
sentative of the old wisdom, leads the
Evangelist to unfold its meaning more
fully in relation to the actual circumstances
in which he was himself placed. The issue
of the proclamation of the Gospel had not
in appearance corresponded with its
promise and its power. But this issue did
not modify its essential character.

16, 17. The divine purpose in the Incar-
nation was a purpose of universal love,
even though it was imperfectly realised by
man: a purpose of life to the believer, of
salvation to the world,

16. For God...) Short explanatory remarks
are frequently added in the same way (ydp),
ii. 25, iv. 44, vi. 6, 64, vii. 39, xiii, 11, xx, 9.

loved the world] loved all humanity con-
sidered as apart from Himself. See i. 29,
note. The love of God shewn in the sur-
render and gift of His Son for men, is
thus set forth as the spring of Redemption.
The Father gave the Son even as the Son
gave Himself.

so...that) The supreme act serves as a
measure of the love. Comp. 1 John iv. 11.

gave his only begotten Son] The word
gave, not sent, as in v. 17, brings out the
idea of sacrifice and of love shewn by a
most precious offering. The title “only
begotten ” is added to enhance this concep-
tion, and the exact form in which the title
is introduced (rdv vidyrdy povoyery,) which
is different from thatin v.18 (Tov povoye-
vois viod) further emphasizes it ; ‘‘His Son.

His only Son.” Comp. 1 John iv. 9; and
Matt. iii. 17, &c. (6 vids 6 dyamnrtés). There
is an obvious reference to Gen. xxii, 2.

should (may) not perish ( dadéAnrat) once
for all, but have (€xy) with an abiding
present enjoyment eternal (as in v. 15)
life] In this verse and in the next the
negative and positive aspects of the truth
as regards individuals and the race (every
one, the world) are definitely opposed ; and
there is striking parallelism in the related
clauses : perish, judge; have eternal life, be
saved. The addition of the clause, may
not perish, but, in this verse, as distin-
guished from v. 15, is explained naturally
by the actual state of things which St John
saw in the church and the world about him.

the world...whosoever believeth] The
love of God is without limit on His part
(v, 17, note), but to appropriate the
blessing of love, man must fulfil the neces-
sary condition of faith.

17. For God sent not his (the) Son...)
A transition is here made from the notion
of sacrifice, love, gift (v. 16), to that of
work and authority. (Yet see 1 Johniv. 9,
ameotaAKev, not daéeotetAev,) There are
two words equally translated “send,” which
have different shades of meaning. Th
one used here (droc-réA Aw ), which contain
the root of “apostle,” suggests the though
of a definite mission and a representativ
character in the envoy; the other (aéyzrw
marks the simple relation between th
sender and the sent. See xx. 21, note. I
will be observed also that the title So
(the Son, not Ais Son), which is that of
dignity, takes the place of only begotten
Son, which is the title of affection.

condemn] Rather, judge (xpivy, and so
in verses 18, 19), as in the exact parallel,
xii. 47. It is worthy of notice that St John
does not use the compound verb (karaxpivw)
commonly translated condemn, nor its de-
rivatives, though they occur in the history
of the woman taken in adultery (viii. 10, 11).

In the later Jewish Messianic anticipa-
tions the judgment of the nations by
Messiah is the most constant and the most
prominent feature,

that the world...might (may) be saved]
The divine purpose is, like the divine love,
without any limitation. The true title of
the Son is “the Saviour of the world” (ch.
iv, 42; 1 John iv. 14. Comp. ch. i. 29;
1 John ii, 2). The sad realities of present
experience cannot change the truth thus
made known, however little we may be able
to understand in what way it will be
accomplished. The thought is made mor
impressive by the threefold repetition “*\
“the world.” Comp. i. 10, xv. 19. The
general result is given here (be saved) in
56

18 4 He that believeth on him is

not condemned : but he that believeth

not is condemned already, because he

hath not believed in the name of the
only begotten Son of God,

1 John iv. 9 the individual appropriation
of the blessing (may live).

18, 19. But though the judgment was
not the object of Christ’s mission, judgment
is in fact the necessary result of it. This
judgment is self-executed, and follows
inevitably from the revealed presence of
Christ. (Comp. Luke ii. 34, 35.)

18. is not condemned (judged); but
(omit)...is condemned (hath been judged)
already] The change of tense is most sig-
nificant. In the case of the believer there
is no judgment. His whole life is in Christ.
In the case of the unbeliever, the judgment
is completed; he is separated from Christ,
because he hath not believed on the revela-
tion made in the person of Him who alone
can save. The epithet only begotten, applied
here again to the Son, brings out in rela-
tion to God (as has been seen) the idea of
the Father’s love (v. 16); in relation to
man the singleness of our hope.

hath not belteved in the name of...] hath
not acknowledged Christ as being the only
Son of God, such as He is revealed to be.
Comp, ii. 23, note, i, 12, note. The belief
in Christ under this one cardinal aspect
leads to the full faith in His Person.
Comp. 1 John v. 10, 13. The tense (hath
not believed) 1s emphatic and corresponds
with hath been judged: he is not in the
state of one who believed when it was
open to him to do so, .

19. And this...) The reality—the neces-
sity—of the judgment of the unbelieving is
involved in the recognition of the character
of Christ’s coming. Judgment is not an
arbitrary sentence, but the working out of
an absolute law.

The exact form of expression ( aitn éoriv
...07t) is characteristic of St John. Comp.
1 John i, 5, v. 11, 14.

condemnation] judgment. But more ex-
actly the process (xpiois), and not the
result (Kpipa)’: the judging rather than
the judgment. The manifestation of Christ
was in fact both a process of judgment
and also a sentence of judgment upon man.
Comp. ix. 39, note. For the idea of
“judgment,” see Introd.

that...is come...and...] The two facts
are placed simply side by side (comp. i.
10, 11, &c.), each in its independent com-
pleteness.

. light is come...) the light, not simply
light. Comp. i. 4. And so again, men
loved the darkness rather than the light.
The alternatives were offered to men in
their most absolute form; the contrast of
“the light” and “the darkness” was com.

ory

Sr. JOHN. IIL

[v. 18—20.
1g And this is the condemnation,

dthat light is come into the world, ¢chap.L

and men loved darkness rather than
light, because their deeds were evil.
20 For every one that doeth evil

plete; and so men made their choice.

and men...) This was the immediate and
general issue on which the apostle looked.
Men as a class (of dvOpw7rot, ch, xvii. 6)
passed sentence on themselves in action.
Comp. xii. 48.

loved...were] The past tenses are used
in the retrospect of the actual reception of
the revelation of Christ made to men.
Men loved (ijydrnoav) the darkness at the
time when the choice was offered, because
their works were habitually (nv) evil.

the darkness] Comp. i. 5. There are
two words thus translated. The one, which
occurs here (oxdTos), and 1 John i. 6, only
in St John’s writings, expresses darkness
absolutely as opposed to light; the other
(7xoria) which is found i. 5, viii, 12, xii,
35, 46; 1 John i. 5, ii. 8, 9, 11, darkness
realised as a state.

rather than...) i.e. choosing it in prefer-
ence to. The decision was final. Comp.
xii. 48.

because (for) their deeds (works) were
evil] The order of the original is very re-
markable. Its force might be suggested in
English by the inversion, “for evil were
their works.” It is best to keep the usual
rendering of the original (¢pya ) “ works”
not “deeds” here and in the following
verses (vv. 20, 21).

20, 21. The tragic issue of Christ’s com-
ing, the judgment which followed it, was
ue to the action of a moral law. All that
has affinity with the light comes to it, all
that is alien from it shrinks from it. Men’s
works were evil, and therefore they sought
to avoid conviction under the darkness.

20. doeth evil (ill)] The word rendered
evil here ( @avAos) is different from the
common word ( zrovnpds) used in v.19. It
occurs v. 29; Rom. ix. 11; 2 Cor. v. 10 (in
each case contrasted with good) ; Tit. ii. 8;
James iii, 16; amd corresponds to the
English bad, as expressing that which is
poor, mean, worthless, of its kind, and so
unfit for careful scrutiny,

doeth] The words translated doeth here|
and in v, 21 are different. That used her
(xpdoowv) expresses the scope and genera
character of a man’s activity : that used i
v, 21 (mwowGv) the actual result outward]
shewn. There is a similar contrast i
Rom. i. 82, ii. 3, vii, 15, 19, 20. Bad
actions have a moral weight, but no real
and permanent being like the Truth.

hateth the light...) He both hates the
light in itself and shrinks from it in con-
sideration of its effects.
Or, dis-

Vv. 21, 22.]

St. JOHN. III.

hateth the light, neither cometh to to the light, that his deeds may be

the light, lest his deeds should be
lreproved.
21 But he that doeth truth cometh

made manifest, that they are wrought
in God.
22 After these things came Je-

 

lest his deeds should...] Rather, in order
that his works may not... The particle is
the same as in the following verse,. and
marks the direct object of the evil-doer.

be reproved] Properly “sifted, tried,
tasted,” and then, if need be. ‘‘con-
victed,”” ‘‘shewn faulty and reproved,”’ as
by one having authority and aptitude to
judge. Comp. xvi. 8, note; Rev. iii. 19,
and especially Eph. v. 13.

21. But he that...] In addition to the
contrast of the verbs already noticed (v.
20) there is a further contrast in the forms
of the two expressions ‘‘doing ill’? and
‘doing the truth.’’ In the one case ac-
tion is represented by the many separate
bad works (patAa rpdoowv), in the other
by the realisation of the one Truth ( qocov
tHv dAnOeav), which includes in a supreme
unity all right deeds.

doeth truth] doeth the truth. The
phrase is a remarkable one. Right action
is true thought realised. Every fragment
of right done is so much truth made
visible. The same words occur 1 John i.
6. Comp. Neh. ix. 33; Gen. xxiv. 49,
xlvii, 29, The phrase is not unfrequent in
Rabbinic writings. St Paul gives em-
phasis to the same thought by contrasting
“the truth” with ‘unrighteousness :’’ 2
Thess. ii. 12; 1 Cor. xiii. 6; Rom. i. 18,
ii. 8. Comp. Eph. iv. 24, v. 9.

cometh to...] It is not said even of him
that ‘the loveth the light.’’ This perhaps
could not be said absolutely of man. Ac-
tion is for him the test of feeling. It must
be noticed that the words recognise in a
man striving towards the light. Comp.
vii. 37 (thirst), xi. 52, xviii. 37.

be made manifest, that...) Whatever may
be the imperfection of the deeds of the
Christian in themselves, he knows that
they were wrought in virtue of his fellow-
ship with God. He is not therefore
proudly anxious that they may be tested,
and that so the doer may have praise
since they abide the test ; but looks simply
to this that their spring may be shewn.

Hence it follows that A. V. is right in
the rendering that. The other rendering
because introduces a thought foreign to the
argument. For the construction, see 1
John ii, 19.

be made manifest] for they have a char-
acter which bears the light. Comp. Eph.
v. 13.

are wrought (have been wrought) in
God] in union with Him, and therefore by
His power. The original order lays the
emphasis on God : ‘‘ that it is in God, and
and net by the man’s own strength, they

have been wrought.’’ The perfect parti-
ciple ( éoriv eipyacpeva) has its full force.
The works of the believer are wrought in
God, and as they have been once wrought
they still abide. St John elsewhere adopts
the same resolved form. Comp. ii. 17 note.
(yeypappévov éoriv).

Christ's teaching in Judea generally (vv.

22—36).

This section forms the natural sequel] to
the visit of Christ to Jerusalem. He had
offered Himself there with a significant
sign as Messiah. The sign was generally
not interpreted or misinterpreted; and
leaving the Holy City, He began His work
(so to speak) again as a prophet, followin
in part the method of the Baptist. Thus
slowly by act and word He prepared a
body of disciples to recognise Him, and to
believe in Him, and to accept the true
conception of Messiah’s nature and work.

The section falls into three parts. There
is a summary notice of Christ’s work (22
—24). This is followed by John’s testi-
mony (25—30); which is drawn out at
greater length by the Evangelist (31—36).

The contents of the section are peculiar
to St John, who writes as a companion of
the Lord.

22—24. For a time Christ and the Bap-
tist worked side by side, preaching ‘‘re-
pentance”? (Mark i. 15), and _ baptizing.
The Messiah took up the position of a pro-
phet in Judea, as afterwards in Galilee.
(See v. 24).

22. After these things] The phrase does
not indicate immediate connexion. Comp.
v. 1, note. The first preaching of Christ
was in the temple. When He found no
welcome there He spoke in the Holy City :
then in Judea: afterwards in Galilee,
which thenceforth became the centre of
His teaching.

Jesus and his disciples] Comp. ii. 2, 12.

The phrase occurs also in Matt. ix. 10
(Mark ii. 15), 19; Mark viii. 27. In each
case there is a special force in the vivid
representation of the great Teacher and of
the accompanying disciples as two distinct
elements in the picture.

the land of Judea] as distinguished from
Jerusalem itself. The exact phrase occurs
here only in the New Testament. Com-
pare Mark i. 5; Acts xxvi. 20, where ‘‘the
country of Judea” is similarly contrasted
with the capital.

tarried| The stay was probably pro-
longed for some time. See Additional Note
on v. 1. wee

and baptized] This baptism, actually ad-
ministered by the disciples, iv, 2, would

57
58
sus and his disciples into the land of
Judeea; and there he tarried with

chap. 4.2 them, eand baptized.

23 § And John also was baptizing
in Anon near to Salim, because there
was much water there: and they
came, and were baptized.

belong to the preparation for the kingdom,
like John’s baptism. It was not and in-
deed could not be an anticipation of the
Christian Sacrament which it foreshadowed.
Comp. Matt. iv. 17; Mark i. 14, 15. At
this point then the work of Christ and of
His Forerunner met. Christ had not been
asknowledged as king in the chief seat of
the theocracy: therefore He began His
work afresh on a new field and in a new
character.

23. And John also...] The Baptist con-
tinued to fulfil his appointed work though
he had acknowledged Christ.

in Ainon near to Salim] The word
Enon is probably an adjectival form from
the familiar ain (eye, spring), meaning
simply ‘‘abounding in springs’’ (fountains).
The situation of Salim is disputed. In the
time of Eusebius Salim was identified with
a place on the confines of Galilee and
Samaria on the west of Jordan, six or
eight miles south of Scythopolis (Bethshan).
A place bearing the name of ’Aynin has
been found not far from a valley abound-
ing in springs to the north of the Salim
which lies not far to the east of Nablous
(‘ Palestine Exploration Report,’ 1874, pp.
141 f., comp., 1876, p. 99). Comp. Introd.

much water] The form of the phrase
(roAAG UdaTa) probably indicates many
fountains or streams or pools of water.
Mark ix. 22; Matt, xvii. 15. Elsewhere
the plural is used of the gathered or
troubled waters; Matt. viii. 32, xiv. 28,
29; Rev. i. 15, &c.

they came] There is no antecedent;
‘“Men continued to come to him (the
Baptist) and... Comp. xv. 6, xx. 2;
Mark x. 13; Acts iii, 2.

24. For John...] More exactly, For John
had not yet been cast... This note of time
must be taken in connexion with Matt. iv.
12, 18, 17; Mark i. 14. The public minis-
try of the Lord in Galilee did not begin till
after this time, after John was cast into
prison as the Synoptists record. The events
in Galilee, which the evangelist has already
related (ii. 1—12), were preparatory tothe
manifestation at Jerusalem which was the
real commencement of Christ’s Messianic
work. St John records the course and issue
of this manifestation: the other Evan-
gelists start with the record of the Gali-
lezan ministry which dates from the im-
prisonment of the Baptist. Comp. Mark i.
14, note.

25—30. The outward similarity of the

St. JOHN. III.

[v. 23—26.

24 For John was not yet cast into
prison.

25 4 Then there arose a question
between some of John’s disciples and
the Jews about purifying.

26 And they came unto John, and
said unto him, Rabbi, he that was

work of Christ and of the Baptist gave an
occasion (25, 26) for the last testimony of
the Baptist to Christ. In the eyes of some
Christ appeared as his rival. To these the
Baptist himself shewed what his own work
was, and then he left his hearers to recog-
nise Christ.

25. Then there arose] The particle (ody)
is one not of time but of consequence :
There arose therefore... as a consequence of
this double work of baptizing.

@ question between some of...] Rather,
“a questioning (a discussion, disputation)
on the part of (éx, Vulg. ex) John’s disci-
ples with...” For the word “‘questioning”’
(Crows) see Acts xv. 2; 1 Tim. vi. 4; 2
Tim. ii, 28; Tit, iii. 9.

the Jews] According to the most prob-
able reading, a Jew, which gives a def- |
niteness to the incident otherwise wanting.

about purifying] that is, as we may sup-
pose, about the religious value of baptism,
such as John’s. We cannot but believe
that Christ, when He administered a bap-
tism through His disciples, explained to
those who offered themselves the new birth
which John’s baptism and this preparatory
baptism typified. At the same time He
may have indicated, as to Nicodemus, the
future establishment of Christian Baptism,
the sacrament of the new birth. In this
way nothing would be more natural than
that some Jew, a direct disciple, should
be led to disparage the work of John, con-
trasting it with that of which Christ spoke ;
and that thereupon John’s disciples, jealous
for their master’s honour, should come tal
him complaining of the position which
Christ had taken.

26. Rabbi...) The title of reverence is
emphatic. The speakers first contrast the
new Teacher with their own, and then
describe his present action.. Rabbi, he
that was with thee, in thy company as one
of thy disciples, beyond Jordan, in the
most conspicuous and successful scene of
thy ministry, to whom thou (cv) hast borne
witness, as the authoritative judge, behold
he is baptizing...

to whom] i.e. in whose favour, to support
whose claims. Comp. v. 33, xviii. 37: 3
John 12; Luke iv. 22; Acts x. 43 (xiii. 22),
xiv. 3, xv. 8; Rom. x. 2; Gal. iv. 15; Col.
iv. 13. Elsewhere from the context against,
Matt. xxiii. 31. Cf. James v. 3.

thou barest witness] The original expresses
not only the fact, “barest witness,” but by
the perfect, “thou hast borne witness,”
1 v, 27—29.] St. JOHN. III.

fchap.1.7,with thee beyond Jordan, fto whom

thou barest witness, behold, the same
baptizeth, and all men come to him.

gHebr.6. 27 John answered and said, 9A

| Or, take man can llreceive nothing, except it

unio him- be given him from heaven,

a9
28 Ye yourselves bear me witness,
that I said, I am not the Christ, but 4
that I am sent before him.
29 He that hath the bride is the
bridegroom: but the friend of the
bridegroom, which standeth and hear-

 

marks the testimony as being yet effective :
ch. i, 34,
behold] The form here used (ide) is
| characteristic of St John. Comp. i. 29;
xix. 5, 14: &c.

baptizeth] This appeared to be an in-
vasion of John’s work.

all men] The natural exaggeration (v.
23) of angry zeal. Contrast v. 32.

27—30. The words of the Baptist meet
the jealous zeal of his disciples. He (1)
lays down the principle of revelation (v.
27) ; and then (2) applies it to his own work,
both as to (a) The past witness (v, 28), and
as to (8) The present fulfilment (v. 29) ; and
then (3) draws the main conclusion (v. 30).

27. Every contrast of teacher with teacher
is harmonized by the truth that each has
only that which God has given him.

answered] The answer lies in the simple
explanation of the essential relation between
the Forerunner and the Christ, drawn from
the universal truth. When this is once ap-
prehended all possibility of rivalry is gone.
The message which was brought to John by
his disciples as a complaint, in his eyes
crowns his proper joy.

A man...heaven] The principle is general,
and must not be interpreted either of
Christ, or of the Baptist, alone. It has an
application to both. The Baptist says in
fact : “I cannot claim any new authority
which has not been directly assigned to
me; He, of whom you speak, cannot
effectually exercise His power unless it be
of divine origin.”

A man...) The word has force (comp.
v. 4). It is the law of human existence as
dependent upon God, to which even
Messiah is subject,

receive] The original word (AapBdvewv)
includes the conceptions of “receiving ”
and “taking.” Comp. v. 32, note. The
thought here is that there is but one source
of spiritual power, and that opened by
God’s love, and not by man’s own will.

be given] More exactly, have been given.
The divine gift, already complete in itself,
makes the human appropriation possible.

from (ék,out of) heaven] The phrase is
not the same as “from God :” out of the
treasury, so to speak, of all true and
abiding blessings. Comp. xix. 11.

28, 29. The principle stated in v. 27 is
applied directly by the Baptist to himself,
according to his earlier definition of his
work, and, under a figure, to Christ.

28. Ye yourselves} You need no teacher

to meet your difficulty. The zeal which
you display is shewn to be mistaken if you
only recall what I said. When I announced
my mission I declared it to be provisional.
No word of mine can have given occasion
to the error whereby you claim for me the
highest place.

The exact emphatic phrase ( abrol tyeis)
occurs 1 Thess. iv. 9 (Mark vi. 381 is
different). Comp. Acts xxiv. 15.

before him] The Baptist now distinctly
identifies Him of whom he had spoken
before in general terms (i. 26, 30) as “the
Christ.” The manifestation to Israel had
taken place. The difference of language is
very significant,

29. The Baptist spoke plainly of himself,
but he speaks of Christ’s office and position
in mysterious language, answering exactly
to the situation. That position must be
recognised in order that He may be known,
as the Baptist knew Him.

the bride...the bridegroom] The image;
is commonly used in the Prophetical books,
of the Old Testament from first to last t
describe the relation between Jehovah an
His people, Hos. ii, 19; Ezek. xvi.; Ma
ii. 11. In the New Testament it is applie
to Christ and the church as here, Rev. xi
7, Xxi, 2, 9, xxii. 17 (comp. Eph, v. 32 ff.);
and also to the connexion of Christ with
any particular body of Christians, 2 Cor.
xi. 2.

Similar imagery is used in the Synoptic
Gospels; Matt, xxii. 1 ff, (the marriage
feast), xxv. 1 ff. (the ten virgins). Comp.
Matt. ix. 15.

the friend of the bridegroom] To whom
it fell to demand the hand of the bride,
and to prepare everything for the due
reception of the bride and bridegroom.
Comp. Buxtorf, ‘Lex. Rabb.,’ or Levy,
‘“Chald. Worterb.’ s. v. 99°9p/ 9p). The
Baptist had fulfilled his one Mraekaae
and bringing the representatives of the
spiritual Israel—the new divine Bride—to
Christ—the Bridegroom,

standeth] in the attitude of expectation
and ready service, and heareth him not
only as cognisant of his presence, but as
waiting to fulfil his commands. Comp.’
xil, 29 (Mark ix, 1, tov éoryxdrwr).

rejoiceth greatly] Literally, with joy
rejoiceth. In this rejoicing there is no alloy.
Comp. Luke xxii. 15 (so A. V.); Acts iv. 17,
v. 28, xxiii. 14; James v. 17. The idiom
is common in the LXX. as the representa-
tive of the Hebrew construction with the
inf, abs., but it is found also in classical
60

eth him, rejoiceth greatly because of
the bridegroom’s voice : this my joy
therefore is fulfilled.

30 He must increase, but I must
decrease.

St. JOHN. III.

[v. 30, 31.

31 He that cometh from above is
above all: he that is of the earth is
earthly, and speaketh of the earth:
he that cometh from heaven is above
all.

 

writers. It is significant that it is found
here only in St John’s writings.

because of the bridegroom’s voice] when
he has entered his new home, bringing his
bride with him, and there first spoken with
her at the marriage feast. The full, clear
voice of the bridegroom’s love is contrasted
with all the words of those who have pre-
pared for His coming.

this my joy] The form of the original is
emphatic: this joy, the joy of seeing a
work happily consummated, which is mine,
Comp. xv. 9, note.

ts fulfilled] Literally, hath been fulfilled
already, when, as you announce, the Christ
is gathering round Him the disciples who
are the beginnings of His church. Comp.
i. 34.

80. He must...) Thatlies in the divine
law of things Comp. vv. 7, 14, ix. 4, x.
16, xx. 9, note; Rev, i. 1, iv. 1, xx. 3, &.

decrease] in imprisonment, suspense,
martyrdom. These last words of St John
are the fulness of Christian sacrifice, and
fitly close his work, and with it the old
dispensation. At the same time, they have
an ever-germinant fulfilment. The progress
from the Law to the Gospel, from the
fulness of self to the fulness of Christ, is
the law of Christian life. For the later
mission from the Baptist to Christ in rela-
tion to this testimony, see Matt. xi. 3, note,

31—36. This section contains reflections
of the Evangelist on the general relation of
the Son to the Forerunner, and to the
teachers of the earlier dispensation gener-
ally. The Baptist had spoken figuratively
in the language of the Old Testament of
what Christ was, and so directed his dis-
ciples to acknowledge Him. The Evangelist
looking over the long interval of years re-
affirms in clearer words the witness of the
Herald, and shews how it has been fulfilled,

The passage is distinguished from the
answer of the Baptist by

(1) A marked contrast of style. The
verses 27—30 are in form clear and sharp,
with echoes of the abrupt prophetic speech,
These (31—36) have a subtle undertone of
thought, which binds them together closely,
and carries them forward to the climax in
v. 36.

(2) Parts of it contain clear references
to words of the Lord, e.g. vv. 81, 32, refer
to vv, 11 ff, v. 35 to x. 28, 29.

(3) The use of the title “Son” absolutely
(vv. 35, 36) appears to be alien from the
position of the Baptist,

(4) The historical position marked in

v. 32 (no man) is strikingly different from
that marked in v. 29.

(5) The aorists in v. 33 describe the later
experience of Christian life. Comp. i, 16.

On the other hand, the use of the present
tense, v. 32 (testifieth, receiveth), vv. 31,
34 (speaketh), is not inconsistent with the
position of the Evangelist.

The section falls into the following
divisions ;

1. The contrast of the earthly and the

heavenly teacher (vv. 31, 32).
2. The experience and the endowment
of the church (33—35).
(a) The experience of faith (v. 33).
(8) Christ the perfect and abiding
Teacher (v. 34).
(y) The Son the supreme King (v. 35),
3. The issues (36).
(a) Of Faith—Life.
(B) Of Disobedience—wrath.

81, 32. The earthly teacher, and such
were all who came before Christ, is con-
trasted with the One Teacher from heaven,
(1) in origin (of the earth, from above, of
heaven), (2) in being (of the earth, above
all), (3) in teaching (of the earth, what
he hath seen and heard in the kingdom of
truth). Comp. Matt. xi. 11.

81. He that cometh from above] not He
that came. The work of Christ is re-
garded not as past nor as future, but as
ever-present (vi. 33).

from above] from a higher region. The
same word occurs in the original ( dvwGev)
as that used in v, 3 (again, anew) ; see note.
It seems to be chosen from its connexion
with the above (éwdvw) which follows.

above all) that is, sovereign over all
things (v. 35), and not over all men only
(as Vulg., supra omnes), though this is the
prominent idea here, where the Son is
compared with former teachers.

of the earth...earthly (of the earth)...of
the earth] The same phrase (éx rijs y7s)
is thrice repeated. The rendering oarthiy”
in the second case obscures the thought
and introduces confusion with the “earthly”
i.e. realised on the earth, and not spring-
ing out of the earth, in v. 12 (éréyetos,
see note). The “earth,” as distinguished
from the “ world,” expresses the idea of
the particular limitations of our being,
without any accessory moral contrast with
God. Its opposite is heaven. Contrast
1 John iv, 5 (&« Tod koouov). The term
does not occur elsewhere in St John’s
writings in this sense. Comp. 1 Cor. xv. 47,

be that is of the earth] He who draws

!

|
7. 32, 33.|

32 And what he hath seen and
heard, that he testifieth ; and no man
receiveth his testimony.

his origin from the earth, a child of earth,
aman of men (comp. Matt. xi.11), is of the
earth, draws likewise the form and manner
of his life from the earth, and speaketh of
the earth. His birth, his existence, his
teaching are all of the same kind, The phrase

tebe of (elvo éx), expressing a moral
;connexion 18 characteristic 0: ¢ John. It
includés” thé ideas of derivation and de-
pendence, and therefore of a moral corre-
spondence between the offspring (issue) and
e source. Thus according to the essential
finity of their character men are said to
e of the truth, xviii, 87; 1 John ii, 21, iii.
9; or of the world, xv. 19, xvii. 14, 16,
xviii, 836; 1 John ii. 16, iv. 5; and again
with a personal relation of God, vii. 17,
viii. 47; 1 John iii, 10, iv. 1—7, v. 19; 3
John 11, and of the Father, 1 John ii. 16;
or, on the other side, of the devil, 1 John
iii, 8 (comp, John viii. 44), and of the evil
one, 1 John iii. 12. So Christ describes
Himself as being from above (éx TOV avo),
and “the Jews” as being from below
(ék TGV KdéTw), viii, 23. The phrase is
comparatively rare in the other writings of
the New Testament, but when it occurs it
is deserving of notice, Matt. i. 20, xxi. 25 f.,
and parallels; Luke ii. 4; Acts v. 38 f.;
Rom. ix. 5; 1 Cor.i. 30, xi. 12 (2 Cor. v. 18) ;
2 Cor. iv. 7; Gal. iii, 10, 20; Col, iv. 11.
The phrase to be begotten (born) of
(yeyevvjo Oa éx) has a kindred meaning.
T'o be of expresses the essential, permanent,
relation; to be begotten of refers to the
initial moment of the relation, i. 13, iii. 5,
6, 8, viii. 41; 1 John ii. 29, iii. 9, iv. 7, v. 1,
4,18. It is not said of any that “they are
born of the evil one.” Comp. iv. 22, note.
speaketh of the earth] The earth is the
source from which he draws his words.
Even divine things come to him through
earth. He has not looked on truth absolute
in the heavenly sphere. But this “speak-
ing of the earth” is not of necessity a
“speaking of the world” (1 John iv. 5).
On the contrary he that cometh from
heaven is not only supreme over all
creation, and therefore unlimited by the
earth, but v. 32, witnesseth—testifieth with
solemn authority, in this connexion perhaps
in contrast with speaketh—what he hath
seen and heard in heaven.
that cometh] as ona conspicuous mission.
In this case the thought is not of the
source of being (he that is of the earth),
but of the source of authority,
from heaven] This phrase, as contrasted
with from above, gives the exact correla-
tive to from the earth,
$1, 32. It is not improbable that the
words is above all and and should be

 

St. JOHN. III.

33 He that hath received his testi-

mony thath set to his seal that God ‘Rom. 3.4

is true.

omitted, so that the words should run on:
he that cometh from heaven testifieth what |
he hath seen and heard. See Additional
Note.

82. hath seen and heard] The change
of tense appears to mark a contrast between
that which belonged to the existence (hath
seen, édpaxev), and to the mission (heard,
qKovcev, not hath heard) of the Son.
Comp. viii. 26, 40, xv. 15 (vi. 45), and
viii. 88 with varr, lectt.

testifieth] witnesseth. Even after the
historical manifestation of Christ on earth
has ended, He still speaks through His
church. The present here is co-ordinate
with the plural in v. 11. In that passage
the Lord connects the testimony of the
disciples with His own, and so here St
John regards the testimony of the disciples
as being truly the testimony of Christ.

and no man...) The issue, as elsewhere
(v. 11, vii, 80, viii, 20), is simply added to
the description of the revelation. For the
time the testimony of Christ through His
church found no acceptance. The close of
the apostolic age was a period of singular
darkness and hopelessness. Comp. 1 John
v, 19 (2 Tim. i. 15). It was possible then
for St John to say no man recetveth
(literally is receiving) his testimony
(witness). This sad judgment stands in
sharp contrast with v, 29, and v. 26.

receiveth his testimony (witness, and so
in v. 33)] Two words are translated
receive, one used here (Aafeiv) marking j
that something is taken, the other (d¢fac Oa, ;
ch, iv, 45 only in St John), adding the |
notion of welcoming or receiving from
another (Luke xvi. 6, 7). The former
word includes also the idea of retaining
that which is taken, while the at
presents only the act of reception. Henc
St John uses the former of “ receiving the
Word ” (i, 12; comp, v. 43, xiii. 20). The
phrase “receive the witness” is peculiar
to St John: vv. 11, 33, v. 34, 1 John v. 9,
(Comp, xii. 48, xvii. 8.) The witness is
not welcomed only but kept. It becomes
an endowment, a possession,

33—35. But even so, though the current
of faith was checked, the church was in
existence. There were disciples who had
received the testimony at an earlier time,
and found that in so doing they had been
solemnly united with God; and this experi-
ence of faith is still assured by the fact
of Christ’s absolute knowledge and abso-
lute power,

38. He that hath received (that received,
6 \afdév)] The reference appears to be
directly historic, going back to the time

61

f
f
4
62 St. JOHN. III. [v. 34—36.

34 For he whom God hath sent 35 *The Father loveth the Son, k Matt. 1h
speaketh the words of God: for God and hath given all things into his “"
giveth not the Spirit by measure unto hand. pee é
him. 36 'He that believeth on the Son 49,

 

when the disciples were first gathered His words are attested by His works, in
round the Lord. that He giveth the Spirit to His disciples
hath set to his seal] hath confirmed in as dispensing in its fulness that which is
the most solemn manner the statement His own.” :
which follows, that God is true. The term _This second interpretation, which appears
seal is used here only in this sense. Else. to have been neglected in late times owing
where the word is used of marking as to the false text, has much to recommend
} reserved for a special destination: vi. 27; it (xv, 26).
Rev. vii. 3, Comp. Eph. i. 13, iv. 30. There 35, ‘The ground of what has been said
is anoble Jewish saying, quoted by Light. lies in the actual relation of God to
foot ("Hor, Hebr.’ John vi. 27), that “the Mossiah, as the Father to the Son.
seal of God is Truth.” See xviii, 37, note. 7547 given] Contrast giveth (v. 34).
that God is true] This affirmation admits all things] v, 31. The term is not to be
of two senses. (1) It may mean that in limited in any way.
accepting the teaching of Christ the believer “ge The ‘absolute supremacy of the
accepts the teaching of God, for the words Christian revelation as compared with all
of Christ are in truth the words of God. that went before is seen in its final issues
The believer therefore by receiving these of life, and incapacity for life.
really attests what is a direct: message of that. believeth] with a faith which is

God; and in so doing he feels that he continuous, not momentary (§ rurretwy).
enters into a certain fellowship with Him, hath everlasting (eternal) life] To

than which man can have no higher glory. beli :

The rejection of the testimony of Christ is, ee Ae ie Sones nae
Sceording, to this spberpratabion, spoken of ang abiding life. By that belief our whole
as “making God a liar” (1 John i. 10, v. relation to the world, to man and to God,

10). (2) The statement may also be taken . : ci as
in a wider sense. The believer finds in Christ ae clea : This is

the complete fulfilment of every promise of . bs tng Es
God. By his experience of mit Christ is coe not] br scp (o- amevBav),
and what Christ says to him he gladly —'S°°l¢ a Teeence Pei ate: Scbivity Ths
confesses that “God is true,” that He has ce SO, eae i ae LY: 7 4 ioe NM.
left nothing unsatisfied of the hope which Wit pars a? Geom oie is Sai of t ae
He has given to man. Comp. viii. 26. tue rio! oo “Chee of coming to the
The first explanation appears at first sight ‘"N° “noWledge of Christ. Comp, Mark
to fall in best with v. 34, but the second *V¥i. 16 (murretvoas, amririjcas).
in fact embraces the first ina larger thought, , S44! not see life] shall be unable to
form any true conception of life, much less
34. The proof of God's truth is found joy it. Comp. v 3. The future is con-
in the absolute fulness of Christ’s spiritual trasted with the | present (hath...shall
endowment. not...) : the simple idea of life with the full
he whom God hath sent] the one heavenly Conception eternal life. Comp, v. 24, 39 f.
messenger as contrasted with all the earthly. the wrath of God] The phrase is com-
the words...) Not “words” only (vi. only used of a distinct manifestation of
68), but the complete, manifold expression the righteous judgment of God (Rom. i. 18,
(74, pypara) of the divine message, ui, 5, ix. 22, xii. 19), and especially of
for God giveth not...by measure unto “the coming wrath (1 pédAovea opy%,
him] for he giveth not...by measure. The Matt. iii. 7; Luke iii. 7; dpy} 4 épxopevn,
words God and unto him have no place in 1 Thess. i. 10; comp, Luke xxi, 28, opyi) Tp
the original text. If these are omitted it Aa rovr@; 1 Thess, ii. 16; Rom. ii. 5
is doubtful whether the subject of the (v, 9); Eph. v. 6; Col. iii, 6).
sentence is “God,” or “ Messiah.” The In this sense it is not unfrequent in the
object in any case must be general. Apocalypse (xi, 18, xiv, 10, xvi. 19, xix. 15),
If, as in the common interpretation, God where “the wrath of God” is set side by
be taken as the subject, the sense appears side with “the wrath of the Lamb” (vi.
to be: “Christ speaks the words of God, 16 f.).
for God giveth not the Spirit by measure, The phrase is very common in the Old
only in a definite degree, to all, but He Testament. (Comp. Hebr. iii. 11.)
gives it completely.” Here ‘‘the wrath of God’’ describes the
If, on the other hand, Messiah is the general relation in which man as a sinner
subject (as Cyril takes it), the sense will stands towards the justice of God. Comp.
be: “ Christ speaks the words of God, for Enh. ii. 8. St John goes back from the
v. 36.]
hath everlasting life: and he that
believeth not the Son shall not see

Sr. JOHN. III.

63
life; but the wrath of God abideth
on him.

 

revelation of God as Father to the original
idea of God as God.

abideth on him] The natural law is inex-
orable. Only faith in the revelation

through Christ can remove the conse-
quences of sin which must otherwise bring
God’s wrath upon the sinner. Comp. 1
John iii, 14.

ADDITIONAL NOTES on Cuap. m1

8. The word translated again (dvw6ev)
properly means ‘‘from the top,’ ‘‘from the
beginning,’’ ‘‘from above.”’ Thus it is used
literally of the rending of the vail of the
temple ‘‘from the top’’ (Matt. xxvii. 51;
Mark xv. 38; compare John xix. 23), and
temporally of knowledge possessed from an
early date (Acts xxvi. 5), or traced from
the source (Luke i. 8), and locally, with a
spiritual application, of the wisdom which
cometh ‘“‘from above’’ (James iii. 15, 17;
comp. James i. 17). The word occurs in
a sense similar, to this last in John iii. 31,
xix. 1l. In Gal. iv. 9 it is combined with
the simple term for ‘‘again”’ (rdAwv dvwOev),
as implying the complete repetition of an
entire process, starting, as it were, afresh,
so as to obliterate every trace of an inter-
mediate change.

Two interpretations of the word, derived
from distinct applications of the funda-
mental idea, have found favour in the
present place from early times : (1) ‘“‘from
the beginning,’’ ‘‘over again,’’ ‘‘ anew,”
and (2) ‘‘from above,” ‘from heaven.”’
The Syriac (Peshito), Memphitic, Ethiopic,
and Latin versions give the rendering
‘anew’ (Vulgate, ‘‘renatus (natus)
denuo’’); the Greek writers (from Origen)
generally adopt the sense, ‘‘from heaven ;””
the Harclean Syriac, Armenian, and Gothic
versions translate ‘‘from above.’’ The Eng-
lish versions have vacillated strangely.
Tyndale and Coverdale, agreeing with Vul-
gate, Luther (‘‘ von neuen’’), and Erasmus,
Ed. 1., gave ‘‘anew;’’ but Coverdale, in
the Great Bible, with the Zurich version
(‘‘von oben herab’’), and Erasmus, in his
later editions (‘‘e supernis’’), gave ‘‘ from
above.”” The Bishops’ Bible of 1568 reads
“born again,’’ but this is changed back
again in 1572 to ‘‘born from above.”

It has been urged in favour of the second
rendering that St John constantly speaks
of “being born of God’ (yevy, éx rob
Oeod). i. 13; 1 John iii. 9, iv. 7, v. 1, 4,
18, while he does not speak (as St Paul) of
a “new creation.’’ But it may be ques-
tioned whether the phrase used here (yevv.
dvw6ev ) could be used to convey this idea
of being ‘‘ born of God,’ and it would be
most strange under any circumstances that
the usual mode of expressing it should be
abandoned. It is further of great import-
ance to notice that in the traditional form
of the saying (e.g. Just. M. ‘Ap.’ 1. 61) a
word is used (dvayevvac@at) as equiva-

lent to the ambiguous phrase of St John
(yevvnOjvet dvwGev), which unquestionably
can only mean ‘‘to be reborn’ (comp. 1
Pet. i. 8, 23). And, once again, the idea of
“a birth from God’’ (i, 18) does not suit
the context. The reality of the new birth
has to be laid down first, and then its
character (v. 5). The emphasis lies on ‘“‘to
be born.”’ This too was evidently the
sense in which Nicodemus understood the
sentence (a second time). If he had found
a reference to the divine action in the
Lord’s words he could not have left it un-
noticed. There seems then to be no rea-
son to doubt that the sense given by the
Vulgate and A. V. is right, though the
notion is not that of mere repetition
(again), but of an analogous process (anew).

14. The narrative of the setting up of
the brazen serpent (Num. xxi. 4 ff.) pre-
sents at first sight several difficulties. The
use of an image in spite of the general
prohibition, and that image the image of
a serpent, is mysterious. Justin Martyr
presses his Jewish opponent with this ap-
parent violation of the divine law, and
asks for an explanation. ‘‘We cannot give
one,”’ is the answer : ‘“‘I have often asked
my teachers about this, and no one could
account for it’? (Dial.’ § 94, p. 322 B).

The earliest reference to the incident is
in the Book of Wisdom. “[The murmur-
ing people] were troubled for a little while,
for warning, having a symbol (cvpPoAov
not c¥pBovrov) of salvation, to remind
them of Thy commandments; for he
that turned to it was saved, not by reason
of that which he beheld (Sua 7d Oewpovpe-
vov), but by reason of the Saviour of all’’
(Wisd. xvi. 6 f.). This explanation of the
efficacy of the symbol is commonly given
by Jewish writers. So the Targum of
Jonathan: “it shall come to pass that if
{one bitten] look upon it, he shall live, if
his heart be directed to the Name of the
Word (Memra) of the Lord.”

Philo interprets the serpent as the anti-
thesis of the serpent of the Temptation, an
idea which is found also in Rabbinic writ.
ings. “ The serpent of Eve,” he says, ‘‘ was
pleasure : the serpent of Moses was tem-
perance ( cwhpocivy ) or endurance ( Kap-
tepia), It is only by this spirit of self-
denial that the allurements of vice are over-
come” (‘de Leg. alleg.’ 11. T. i. pp. 80 ff.;
‘de Agric.’ T. i. p. 315f.),
64

This interpretation found some currency
among the Christian Fathers. Ambrose,
evidently following some earlier authority,
speaks of ‘my serpent, the good serpent
(comp. Matt, x. 16), who sheds not poison
but its antidote from his mouth...The ser-
pent which after the winter is past puts off
his fleshly dress (exuit se corporis amictu),
that he may appear in fair beauty’? (In
Ps. cxliii. ‘Serm.’ vi. § 15).

The belief that the serpent was the em-
blem of healing and life (Knobel on Num.
xxi.) according to the heathen conception,
which was developed among the Ophite
sects (comp. Tertull. ‘de Prascr. Heer.’
47), carries out this conception to a more
extravagant form.

There can however be little doubt that
the serpent in Scripture is the symbol of
the personal power of evil (Rev. xii. 9 ff.;
2 Cor. xi. 3; Gen. iii. 1 ff.); and that the
central thought in the Mosaic narrative is
that of the evil by which the people
suffered being shewn openly as overcome
(comp. Col. ii. 15). He who looking upon
the symbol recognised in it the sign of
God’s conquering power, found in himself
the effects of faith. The evil was repre-
sented as overcome in a typical form (a
brazen serpent) and not in an individual
form (a natural serpent), and therefore the
application of the image was universal.

If we now consider the immediate appli-
cation of the symbol, it is at once clear
that by transferring the image of the ele-
vation of the serpent to Himself Christ
foreshewed that He was to be presented
in some way conspicuously to men, and that
being so presented He was to be the source
of life to those who looked to Him with
faith. So much Nicodemus would be able
to gather. Can we now after the event
follow out the parallel yet further?

The elevation of the serpent on the pole,
and the serpent itself, have been supposed
to be directly significant of the circum-
stances of the death of Christ upon the
cross. As to the first point, it seems to be
reasonable to say that the mode in which
the brazen serpent was shewn to the eye
of faith aptly prefigured the mode in which
Christ was presented to men with redemp-
tive power (comp, xii. 32). The second
point presents greater difficulty, but it is
frequently pressed by early writers. Thus
the author of the Epistle of Barnabas sup-
poses Moses to address the people in these
words: ‘Whenever any one of you is bitten,
let him come to the serpent which is placed
upon the tree (ért rot £vXov), and let him
hope in faith, that he [the symbolic ser-
pent] being dead can make alive, and im-
mediately he shall be saved”? (Barn. ‘Ep.’
xii.). In this aspect the harmlessness of
the typical serpent was naturally dwelt
upon, So Origen writes: ‘‘A brazen ser-
pent was a type of the Saviour,’ for He

Sr. JOHN. III.

was not a serpent truly; but “‘ repre-
sented (imitabatur) a serpent...” (‘ Hom.
xi, in Ezech.’ § 8). Others follow out
this idea in more detail. For example,
Gregory of Nyssa, explaining the history
at some length, says: ‘The law shews us
that which is seen upon the tree (Td emt
Evdov hacvopevov), and this is the likeness
of a serpent and not a serpent, as also the
divine Paul saith, ‘in likeness of flesh of
sin’ (Rom, viii, 3). The true serpent is
sin; and he that deserts to sin puts on the
nature of the serpent. Man therefore is
freed from sin by Him who. assumed
(breOdvTos) the form ( €l5os) of sin, and
was made after our fashion (yevopévov Ka
pas) who were changed to the form of
the serpent’? (De vit. Mos.’ 1 pp. 414 f.
Migne. Comp. Chrys. and Theoph. ad
loc.).

tr iphlasia adopting the same view,
that the serpent represented Christ, ex-
plains the connexion quite differently.
“The Jews,” he writes, ‘‘ treating Christ
as a serpent, were wounded by the wiles
of the serpent, that is the devil, and then
healing came to those who were bitten, as
by the lifting up of the serpent’”’ (‘ Her.’
xxxvii, § 7, pp. 273, f.).

Tertullian, on the other hand, saw inthe

serpent the image of the devil slain, though
he implies that the figure was variously
interpreted in his time (‘de Idol.’ v. Comp.
‘adv. Jud.’ x.).
Justin Martyr dwells only upon the
figure of the cross (oypetov LXX.), on
which the serpent was raised,and not on
the serpent itself, as the emblem of the
Lord’s saving Passion (‘Apol.’ 1. 60, ‘Dial.’
94).

In the face of these and other differences
of interpretation in detail, it seems to be
far best to compare the two acts together
as wholes, the elevation of the serpent, and
the elevation of Christ on the cross, with-
out attempting to follow out the compari-
son of the parts separately. The lifting up
of the serpent, as Augustine says, is the
death of Christ, the cause being signified
by the effect (Aug. ‘De pecc. mer. et re-
miss.’ 1, 32). In Christ sin was slain, and
he who had the power of sin (Rom. vi. 6;
Col. ii. 14). Christ lifted up upon the
cross ‘‘draws all men unto Him for eter-
nal salvation’’ Ign, (interpol. ‘ad Smyrn.’
2). Looking to Him the believer finds life.
(Comp. Bas. ‘de Sp. s.’ xiv.)

In the type and the antitype the same
great ideas are conspicuous. There is in
both the open manifestation of a source of
healing to those smitten, effectual by faith,
and that under the form of a triumph over
the cause of suffering when it has been
allowed to do its worst.

The Jewish writers are singularly silent
as to the incident of the Brazen Serpent.
Sr. JOHN. III.

“The thing was done by God’s command,
and it is not for us to inquire into the why
and wherefore of the serpent form” (Aben
Ezra, quoted by Taylor, ‘The Gospel in the
Law,’ pp. 119ff.). They discuss however
the manner in which the symbol was
efficacious, and commonly agree in suppos-
ing that it was by directing men to lift up
their eyes to their Father in heaven, and
to see in Him the conqueror of their
enemy. The chief passages bearing upon
the question are collected by the younger
Buxtorf in his treatise ‘De serpente zneo’
(‘ Exercitationes,’ pp. 458 ff, Basiles, 1659).
The general interpretation of the history
has been frequently discussed at length.
Two essays may be mentioned: Menken,
‘Ueber die eherne Schlange,’ 1812 (‘Schrif-
ten’ vi. 351 ff.1858), and Erskine, ‘The
Brazen Serpent, or Life coming through
Death,’ 1831.

Nore on Reapincs 1n Cwap. III.

There are three readings of considerable
interest in ch, iii. which require to be
noticed in some detail, as they involve
important principles of textual criticism.
They are the omission of the words

(1) vu, 15, may not perish but
dréAntat dX’)

(2) v, 13, which is in heaven (6 dv év To
ovpav®).

(3) vv. 31, 82, is above all things, and
érdvw mévtwv écrit, Kat),

(1) Of these v. 15 is the simplest case, and
may be taken first.

The words in question are omitted by

(2) MSS. : SBLTD1, 33 and a few mss.

(8) Versions: (Old Lat., some), Old
Syr., Jerus. Syr., Memph., (Zth.),
(Arm.).

(y) Fathers: Cyr. Al., Cypr., Lefr.

They are found in

(a) MSS.; A 69 and nearly all other
MSS. and mss (CD are defective).
(B) Versions: (Old Lat., some), Vulg.,
Syr, P. and Hel., (Arm.), (Zth.).
(y) Chr., Theodt., Victorin.

The same words occur in v. 16, where
they are omitted by no early authority
except Old Syr.

The consideration of this evidence shews
that

1. The only ancient (anti-Nicene) evi-
dence for the words is that of some old
texts (represented among the Greek MSS.
by 69).

2. The words were adopted by the Anti-
ochene school in the fourth century, and
thence passed into the current Greek text.

3. The origin of the insertion is obvious ;
while there was no cause for omission.

The words therefore must be omitted
without doubt.

‘ In connexion with this omission, it must
be observed that the primary authorities
are greatly divided as to the preposition
and pronoun which precede. We find eis
atrov Nand mass of MSS., (Vulg.), &.,

(Ha

éx aire L, éx’ abrov A, év air@ BT, some
Latin copies. In v. 16 L reads ér’ atro.

The common phrase quot. eis adrév
evidently could not have given rise to
these variations, and it can only be regarded
as an early correction. Of the other read-
ings évatr@ is at once the best attested,
and by its difficulty explains the tendency
to change.

(2) The problem in v. 13 is more difficult.
The words are omitted by
(a) MSS. : SBLT33.
(8) Versions: (Memph.), (Hth.).
(y) Fathers: Eus., Cyr. Al. (constantly
12 times. See Pusey, Cyril vii. 1
Pref, p. xx), Orig. int.
They are found in
(a) MSS.: (A) and apparently in all
other MSS. and mss. (CD are de-
fective).

>

In A the words wv ev Tw ovvw have been
written over an erasure, and it is supposed
that the original reading was o ev Tw ovvw.
The o by the first hand is unaltered.

(B) Versions: Old Lat., Old Syr.,
Vulg., Syr. Pesh. and Hel., Arm.,
(Memph.), (Zith.).

(y) Fathers: Hippol., Dion. Alex., Did.,
(Orig. int.), Novat., Hil., Lefr.

Here it will be seen that the ancient
MSS. are on the side of omission, and the
ancient versions on the side of retention.
But it is obvious that an interpretative
gloss in a version is easier of explanation
than an omission in a copy of the original
text. Such glosses are found not unfre-
quently in the old Latin and old Syriac
copies (e.g. iii. 6, 8), though they are
commonly corrected in the revised Latin
and Syriac texts of the 4th (5th) cent.
(Vulg., Pesh.). In this case however the
words are contained in the Syrian Greek
text (A), and so, even if they were a gloss,
they would be left undisturbed (comp. v.
25). And the omission of the words by m,
which is the Greek correlative of the old
Lat. and old Syr., greatly detracts from
their weight here, In regard to the Patristic
evidence, the constant usage of Cyril
balances the quotations of Dionysius and
Didymus. On the whole, therefore, there
seems to be no reason for deserting the
Greek authorities, which have been found
unquestionably right in (1); the words
being thus regarded as a very early (2nd
cent.) insertion. There was no motive for
omission; and the thought which they
convey is given in i, 18.

(8) The third case, vv. 31, 32, is of a
different kind. Of the words in question
«al is omitted by overwhelming authority,
and may be set aside at once.

The words érdvw wdvrwy éori are
omitted by
(a) MSS.: 81D 1 and a few mss.

(B) Versions: (Old Lat.), Old Syr., Arm,
(y) Fathers: Orig., Eus., (Tert.), Hil.

65
66

They are found in
(2) MSS.: ScABLT> and all others
(C is defective).
(8) Versions: (Old Lat., some), Vulg.,
Memph., Syr, P, and Hel., Zth,
(y) Fathers: (Orig.), Chrys., (Tert.),
(Orig. inz.).

The authorities for omission represent
the most ancient element (Old Lat., Old
Syr., with & and D) of the authorities for
the insertion of the disputed words in (2).
It appears, however, from an examination
of all the cases of omission by this group
(e.g. iv. 9), that its weight is far greater

Sr. JOHN. IV.

[v. I—5.
for omission than for the addition or the
substitution of words. In this case the
motive (1) for the repetition of érdvw
mévrwv érriv, and then (2) for the addi-
tion of Kal, is sufficiently clear. The
words therefore cannot but be regarded
with great suspicion; and the sense cer-
tainly does not lose by their absence. On’
the contrary, the opposition of 6 av éx THs

As ek THs yhs AaAci to 6 éx Tod odpavod
épxopevos 6 éwpaxev Kal WKoVoEY TOUTO pa.-'
pTupet becomes far more impressive if the
words in question are omitted.

 

CHAPTER IV.

1 Christ talketh with a woman of Samaria,
and revealed himself unto her. 27 His
disciples marvel. 31 Fe declareth to them
his zeal to God’s glory. 39 Many Sama-
ritans believe on him. 43 He departeth
into Galilee, and healeth the ruler’s son
that lay sick at Capernaum.

HEN therefore the Lord knew
how the Pharisees had heard

that Jesus made and baptized more
disciples than John,

2 (Though Jesus himself baptized
not, but his disciples,)

3 He left Judea, and departed
again into Galilee,

4 And he must needs go through
Samaria.

5 Then cometh he to a city of Sa-

 

2. THe Work IN Samaria (iv. 1—42).

This section consists of three parts. The
opening verses (1—8) from the historical
transition from the notice of the teaching
in Judea (iii, 22 ff.). This is followed by
the detailed account of the Lord’s conver-
sation with the Samaritan woman (4—38),
and by a summary of His intercourse with
the people (39—42).

The whole section is peculiar to St John,
and bears evident traces of being the
record of an eye-witness. Other notices
of the Lord’s dealing with Samaritans are
found Luke ix. 52 ff., xvii. 16. Comp.
Luke x, 33,

Cuar. IV. 1 3. The Lord changes the
scene of His ministry that He may avoid
a premature collision with the Pharisaic
party. Comp. vii. 1, x. 39 f.

These verses serve as a transition pas-
sage. The Lord left Judea, as He had
left Jerusalem, and went again to Galilee,
there to carry on His prophet’s work.

1. When therefore the Lord knew...)
The word therefore carries back the reader
to the narrative, iii. 22 ff. The action
which roused controversy was necessarily
notorious. Nothing implies that the know-
ledge of the Lord was supernatural (see ii.
24, note). It could not but be that as
Christ’s work spread, He should become
acquainted with the thoughts which it
revealed outside the circle of His disciples.

the Lord] The absolute title occurs in
the narrative of St John, vi. 23, xi. 2, xx.
20. Comp. xx. 2, 18, 18, 25, xxi. 7. It is
found also not unfrequently in the narra-
tive of St Luke, x. 1, xvii. 5f., xxii. 61, &.

the Pharisees] If they heard of the
success of Christ’s teaching, and the word

perhaps implies that they continued to
observe the new Prophet who had appeared
at Jerusalem, there could be no doubt
how they would regard Him. {tis worthy
of notice that St John never notices (by
name) the Sadducees or the Herodians.
The Pharisees were the true representa-
tives of the unbelieving nation,

The direct form of the sentence repro-
duces the message which was brought to.
them: Jesus [whose name they knew] is
making and baptizing more disciples than
John.

than John] had done, as by this time he!
was probably thrown into prison. Though.;
John had more points of contact with the
Pharisees than Christ, coming as he did.
in the way of righteousness, even he had ex-
cited their apprehensions. Cf. Matt. xxi. 32.

2. Though (And yet, xairovye) Jesus...)
The words are a correction of the report
which has been just quoted. Comp, iii. 26.
Christ did not personally baptize (comp. iii.
22) because this Judaic baptism was simply
a symbolic act, the work of the servant
and not of the Lord. The sacrament of:
baptism presupposes the Death and Resur-
rection of Christ. This is very well set
forth by Tertullian, ‘de Bapt.’ 11. :

8. He left] The original word (dip)
is a very remarkable one (karaxeirw:
might have been expected, Matt. iv. 13,
Heb. xi, 27); and there is no exact paralle)
in the New Test. to this usage (yet com-
pare ch. xvi. 28). The general idea which
it conveys seems to be that of leaving any-
thing to itself to its own wishes, ways,:
fate; of withdrawing whatever controlling
power was exercised before. Christ had
claimed Jerusalem as the seat of His royal
v. 6, 7.]

maria, which is called Sychar, near

aGen.33, to the parcel of ground ¢that Jacob

2 a gave to his son Joseph.
24.32. 6 Now Jacob’s well was _ there.

St. JOHN. IV.

67

Jesus therefore, being wearied with
his journey, sat thus on the well:
and it was about the sixth hour.

7 There cometh a woman of Sa-

 

power, and Judza as His kingdom. That
claim He now in one sense gave up.

again] The reference is to i. 43. There
was a danger of confusing these two visits
to Galilee in the Synoptic accounts. St
John therefore sharply distinguishes them.

into Galilee] Where His preaching would
excite less hostility on the part of the re-
ligious heads of the people, while they
would also have less power there.

The Conversation with the Woman of
Samaria (4—38).

The record of the conversation consists
of two main parts, (1) the account of the
conversation itself (4—26), and (2) the ac-
count of its issues (27—38), both immedi-
ately (27—80), and in its spiritual lessons
(3138).

The whole passage forms a striking con-
trast and complement to iii, 1—21. The
woman, the Samaritan, the sinner, is placed
over against the Rabbi, the ruler of the
Jews, the Pharisee. The nature of wor-
ship takes the place of the necessity of the
new birth; yet so that either truth leads
up to the other. The new birth is the
condition for entrance into the Kingdom :
true worship flows from Christ’s gift.

There is at the same time a remarkable
similarity of method in Christ’s teaching in
the two cases. Immediate circumstances,
the wind and the water, furnished present
parables, through which deeper thoughts
were suggested, fitted to call out the powers
and feelings of a sympathetic listener.

The mode in which the Lord dealt with
the woman finds a parallel in the Synoptic
Gospels, Luke vii. 37 ff. Comp. Matt.
xxvi. 6 ff. The other scattered notices of
the Lord’s intercourse with women form a
fruitful subject for study, ch. xi., xx. 14
ff.; Matt. ix. 20 and parallels, xv. 22 ff.
and parallels, xxvii. 55 and parallels,
xxviii, 9 f.; Luke viii, 2 f., x. 38 ff., xi.
27 f., xiii, 11 ff.

4—26. The order of thought in the con-
versation is perfectly natural. A simple re-
quest raises the question of the difference
of Jew and Samaritan (4—9). The thought
of this difference gives occasion to the sug-
gestion of a unity springing from a gift of
love greater than that of “a cup of cold
water’ (v. 10). How can such a gift be
conceived of? how can a poor wayfarer
provide it (v. 11 f.)? The answer lies in
the description of its working (vv. 13 f.).
Then follows the personal petition (v. 15),
followed by the personal conviction (vv. 16
ff.), and confession (v.19), This leads to the
expression of a central religious difficulty
(v. 20), which Christ resolves (21—24). Here-

- New Test.—Vot. II.

upon the word of faith (v. 25) is crowned
by the self-revelation of Christ (v. 26).

4. must needs] i.e. this was the natural
route from Jerusalem to Galilee. Josephus
(‘Antiq.’ xx. 5. 1) speaks of it as that
usually adopted by Galilean pilgrims ; an
in one place uses the same phrase as §
John: ‘‘Those who wish to go awa
quickly [from Galilee to Jerusalem] mus‘
needs (éde) go through Samaria, for i
this way it is possible to reach Jerusalem
from Galilee in three days” (‘ Vita,’ § 52).
Sometimes travellers went on the other
side of Jordan. Comp. Luke ix. 52 f. This
“passing through’’ gave occasion for a pro-
phetic revelation of the future extension
of the Gospel (comp. Acts i. 8), and stands
in no opposition to the special charge to
the Apostles, Matt. x. 5.

5. Then cometh he...] So (ody he cometh...

a city...which is called Sychar...] a city
called Sychar, as xi. 54; Matt. ii. 23. The;
term ‘‘city’’ is used widely, as in the pas-
sages quoted, and does not imply any con-
siderable size, but rather one of the “little
walled villages with which every eminence
is crowned.”

Sychar] this name has been commonly
regarded as an intentional corruption of
Sichem (Acts vii. 16, Shechem, Neapolis,
Nablous) as signifying either “drunken-
town” (Isai. xxviii., 1, “2Y) or ‘‘lying-
town”’ (Hab. ii. 18, 2%). But the earlier
writers (e.g. Euseb. ‘Onom.’ s. v.) dis-
tinguish Shechem and Sychar; and the
latter is said to lie ‘in front of Neapolis.””
Moreover a place Sychar (3\9)D Yy “"5)D
»N75)D)is mentioned several times in the
Talmud; and it is scarcely possible that
so famous a place as Shechem vould be
referred to as Sychar is referred to here.
There is at present a village, ’Askar, which
corresponds admirably with the required
site. The name appears in a transitional
form in a Samaritan Chronicle of the 12th
cent, as Zskar (Conder, in ‘Palestine Ex-
plor. Report,’ 1877; p. 150). Comp. Delitzsch
‘Ztschr, f. Luth. Theol.’ 1856, pp, 240 ff.,
who has collected the Talmudic passages.

the parcel of ground (xwpiov, Vulg.
predium, comp. Matt. xxvi. 36)...Joseph]
Comp. Gen. xxxiii. 19, xlviii. 22 (xxxiv.
25); Josh. xxiv. 32. The blessing of Jacob
treated the purchase which he had made,
and the warlike act of his sons in the dis-
trict, as w pledge of the future conquests
of the sons of Joseph, to whom he gives

the region as a portion (De. The LXX.

play upon the word and introduce Shechem

(Zixiwo) as the substantial (not literal)
F

 
68

maria to draw water: Jesus saith
unto her, Give me to drink.

8 (For his disciples were gone
away unto the city to buy meat.)

rendering. In recognition of the promise
the bones of Joseph were deposited at

_|Shechem on the occupation of Palestine
Josh. xxiv, 32; Acts vii. 15, 16).

6. Jacob’s well] Jacob's spring. The word
“spring” (xyyy }Y Vulg. fons) is used
here (twice) and in 0. 14 Comp. James iii.
11 (Bpver); Rev. vii. 17, xxi. 6, and well
(Ppéap, ANA, puteus) in vv. 11, 12, Comp.
Rev. ix. 1, 2. Both names are still given
to the well, Ain Yakib and Bir-el-Yakib.
The labour of constructing the well inthe
neighbourhood of abundant natural springs,
shews that it was the work of a ‘‘stranger
in the land.’? Comp. Gen. xxvi. 19. Lieut.
Anderson, who descended to the bottom
in May, 1866, found it then seventy-five
feet deep and quite dry. ‘‘It is,’’ he says,
‘lined throughout with rough masonry, as
it ig dug in alluvial soil’? (Warren’s ‘ Re-
covery of Jerusalem,’ pp. 464 f.). The well
is now being carefully examined and re-
stored under the direction of the Palestine
Exploration Society (‘ Report,’ 1877, p.
72).

ea It is important to notice in St

John the clearest traces of the Lord’s per-
fect manhood. He alone preserves the
word ‘I thirst’? in the account of the
Passion, xix. 28.

thus] The word may mean (1) either
‘‘thus wearied as He was,’’ or (2) simply,
just as He was, without preparation or
further thought. In the former sense it
would have been natural that the adverb
should precede the verb ( ovrws éxaé{ero)
as in Acts vii. 8, xx. 11, xxvii. 17.

on the well] by the spring (éz/, ch. v. 2).

and it was...the sixth hour] The clause
stands by itself: It was... The time indi-
cated is probably six in the evening. The
night would not close so rapidly as to make
the subsequent description (v. 35) impos-
sible. Compare Additional Note on ch. xix.

7. a@ woman of Samaria] A woman, and

as such lightly regarded by the popular
doctors (comp. v. 27): a Samaritan, and
as such despised by the Jews. Thus pre-
judices of sex and nation were broken
.down ‘by this first teaching of the Lord
beyond the limit of the chosen people. Yet
more, the woman was not only an alien,
but also poor; for to draw water was no
longer, as in patriarchal times (Gen. xxiv.
15, xxix. 9 ff. ; Exod. ii.16 f.; comp. Tris-
: tram, ‘Land of Israel,’ pp. 25 f.), the
work of women of station.

The later legends give the woman the
significant name—-Photina,

Give me to drink] Thé request. must be

Sr. JOHN. IV.

[v. 8, 9.

9 Then saith the woman of Sa-
maria unto him, How is it that thou,
being a Jew, asketh drink of me,
which ain a woman of Samaria? for

taken in its literal and obvious meaning
(v, 6); but at the same time to ask was
in this case to give. The Teacher first
met His hearer on the common ground of
simple humanity, and conceded to her the
privilege of conferring a favour.

8. For his disciples] Ifthey had been
present they could have supplied the want.
“Something to draw with’ (v. 11), a
‘‘bucket”’ of skin, often found by the well,
sides, would form naturally part of the
equipment of the little travelling’ party.
There seems to be a better explanation of
the reason than to suppose that the ab-
sence of the disciples gave the opportunity i
for the conversation. : i

were gone away] Perhaps St John re-
mained with Christ. The narrative is more '
like that of an eye-witness than a secon- ;
dary account derived from the woman, or:
even from the Lord Himself. Yet it may!
be urged that v. 33 naturally suggests that
the Lord had been left alone.

meat] i.e. food, as commonly (Matt. iii.
4, vi. 25, &c.), but here only in the New
Testament in the plural. Eggs, fruit, and:
the like might be purchased from Samari-
tans, as they could not contract defilement
Compare Lightfoot on v. 4. The later;
rules however were stricter. ‘‘To eat the
bread of a Samaritan’’ it was said ‘‘ was
as eating the flesh of swine.”

9. Then saith the woman of Samaria...]
The Samaritan woman therefore saith...
The form in this verse (% y. 4) Zapapeiris)
is different from that in v. 7 (y. é« THs
2.). The stress is laid on character as
implied in national descent and not on
mere local connexion.

The strangeness of the request startles
the woman; ‘‘ What further,’’? she seems
to ask, ‘‘lies behind this request?” The
original is perfectly symmetrical (thou
which art a Jew...of me which am a
Samaritan woman...) There is force also
in the distinct addition of the word
woman (yvvatxds). That the request was
made not only of a Samaritan but of a
woman completed the wonder of the ques-
tioner.

thou, being a Jew] Some peculiarity of |
dress or dialect or accent would shew this}
(comp, Mark xiv. 70).

for the Jews have no dealings with the
Samaritans] for Jews...with Samaritans,
These words, which are omitted by an im-
portant group of ancient authorities, are,
if genuine, an explanatory note of the
Evangelist. In this relation the present

’ form (have no dealings) is remarkable,

The origin of the hostility of the twe?
v. 10, I1.]

the Jews have no dealings with the
Samaritans.

1o Jesus answered and said unto
her, If thou knewest the gift of God,
and who it is that saith to thee, Give
me to drink; thou wouldest have

Sr. JOHN. IV.

69
asked of him, and he would have
given thee living water.

11 The woman saith unto him,
Sir, thou hast nothing to draw with,
and the well is deep: from whence
then hast thou that living water?

 

eoples, which lasts to the present day,

ay be traced to the Assyrian colonisa-
ion of the land of Israel (2 K. xvii. 24).
From this followed the antagonism of the
Samaritans to the Jews at the Return (Ezra
iv. Neh. vi., which led to the erection of a
rival temple on Mount Gerizim. Comp.
Ecclus. 1. 25, 26. ‘Dict. of Bible,’ iti.
p. 1117.

have...dealings] The original word ( ovy-
xpavrat, Vulg. coutuntur) suggests the
relations of familiar intercourse and not
of business. Offices of kindness were not
expected between Jews and Samaritans.
The spirit of religious bitterness still lin-
gers on the spot. ‘‘On asking drink from
a woman [near Nablous] who was filling
her pitcher, we were angrily and churlishly
refused :—‘ The Christian dogs might get
it for themselves’”’ (Tristram, ‘Land of
Israel,’ p. 134, ed. 3).

10. If thou knewest (hadst known) the
gift of God...] These words are, as com-
monly in St John’s Gospel, an answer to
the essential idea of the foregoing ques-
tion. The woman had sought an explana-
tion of the marvel that a Jew should ask
a favour of a Samaritan woman. This
however, as she dimly guessed, was only
a part of the new mystery. The frank ap-
peal to a human charity deeper than re-
ligious antagonism did indeed indicate a
possibility of union greater than hope.
Had she known what God had now done
for men, and who that Jewish Teacher
was whom she saw, she would herself have
boldly asked of Him a favour far greater
than He had asked of her, and would have
received it at once: she would have be-
come the petitioner, and not have won-
dered at the petition: her present diffi-
culty would have been solved by her ap-
prehension of the new revelation which
had been made not to Jew or Samaritan
but to man. Had she known the gift of
God, the gift of His Son (iii. 16) in which
was included all that man could want, she

ould have felt that needs of which she

as partly conscious (v. 25)) could at
length be satisfied. Had she known who
it was that said to her, Give me to drink,
she would have laid open her prayer to
Him without reserve or doubt, assured of
His sympathy and help..

the gift] The word here used (duped)
occurs only in this place in the Gospels.
Wt carries with it something of the idea of
bounty, honour, privilege; and is used of
the gift of the Spirit (Acts ii. 38, viii. 20,

 

x. 45, xi. 17), and of the gift of redemp-
tion in Christ (Rom. v. 15; 2 Cor. ix. 15),
manifested in various ways (Eph. iii. 7, iv.
7; Hebr. vi. 4). This usage shews that
there is here a general reference to the
blessings given to men in the revelation
of the Son, and not a simple description
of what was given to the woman in the
fact of her interview with Christ. ‘‘ The
gift of God” is all that is freely offered in
the Son.

thou wouldest have asked] the pronoun
is emphatic (od dv 777.).

living water] that is perennial, springing
from an unfailing source (Gen. xxvi. 19),
ever flowing fresh (Lev. xiv. 5). The re-
quest which Christ had made furnished
the idea of w parable; the bodily want
whereby He suffered suggested an image
of the spiritual blessing which He was
ready to bestow.

The Jews were already familiar with the
application of the phrase (living water) eh
the quickening energies which. proceed —
from God (Zech. xiv. 8; Jer. ii, 13, xvii.
13. Comp. v. 14, note), though it may be
doubtful how far the prophetic language
would be known to Samaritans. Here the
words indicate that which on the divine
side answers to the spiritual thirst, the
aspirations of men for fellowship with
God. This under various aspects may be
regarded as the Revelation of the Truth,
or the gift of the Holy Spirit, individually
or socially, or whatever, according to
varying circumstances, leads to that eternal
life (v. 14) which consists in the know-
ledge of God and His Son Jesus Christ |
(xvii. 8).

11, 12. The woman’s answer is in spirit
exactly like the first. Her thoughts reach
forward to some truth which she feels to
be as yet far from her. How can she con-
ceive of the gift? The well of Jacob is,
in one sense, a well of “living water,”
yet it cannot be that which supplies the
Speaker with His gift, for ‘‘the well is
deep,’ and He has ‘nothing to draw
with.’’ He offers in word that for which
He asks. How again can she conceive of
Him who speaks to her? He is wearied
and thirsty, and yet professes to command
resources which were sealed to the patri-
archs.

11. the well is deep] The well is at pre-;
sent partially choked up with rubbish. See
v. 6, note. In Maundrell’s time (March,
1697), it was 105 feet deep and had fifteen
feet of water in it. Dr Tristram found in
70

12 Art thou greater than our father
Jacob, which gave us the well, and
drank thereof himself, and his chil-
dren, and his cattle?

13 Jesus answered and said unto
her, Whosoever drinketh of this
water shall thirst again :

Sr. JOHN. IV.

[v. 12—15.

14 But whosoever drinketh of the
water that I shall give him shall
never thirst; but the water that I
shall give him shall be in him a well
of water springing up into everlast-
ing life.

15 The woman saith unto him,

 

it only ‘“‘wet mud” in December (‘Land of
Israel,’ p. 143, ed. 3), but towards the end of
February it was “full of water” (id. p. 401).

that living water] Simply the living
water, whereof thou speakest.

12, Art thou] The pronounis emphatic :
i‘‘Art thou, a poor, wearied traveller, of
more commanding power than the patri-
arch who gained by labour what he gave
us?”

our father Jacob] The Samaritans claimed

escent from_Joseph as representing the
ancient tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh.
(Joseph. ‘Ant.’ xi. 8, 6.)

gave us] left, that is, to his descendants
as a precious heritage. The tradition is in-
dependent of the Old Testament.

children] sons, the special representa-
tives of his house.

cattle] The original word ( Opéupare.
,Vulg. pecora) may mean slaves, but the
‘sense given in A. V. is more natural. The
twell was sufficient for large wants. The
i xeed occurs here only in the New Testa-
ment, and is not found in LXX.

18, 14. The words of Christ carry on the
parable of the tenth verse, and in doing so
still answer the thought and not the words
of the woman. They imply that she had
felt rightly that it was some other water
than that for which Christ asked which
He was waiting to give: that one greater
than Jacob was there, The water
which the patriarch had drunk and given
satisfied a want for the moment : the living
water satisfied a want for ever, and in
such a way that a fresh and spontaneous
source supplied each recurrent need of re-
freshment.

The mode in which the new thought is
developed corresponds exactly with vi. 49 f.

13. Whosoever] More exactly, Every
one that... The form of expression is con-
trasted with the hypothetical whosoever in
v. 14, With this change of form follows
also a change of tense(6 aivwv = habitual ;
és dv wu = once for all).

of this water] pointing to the well.

14. that I shall give] The pronoun in
the first case is emphatic and carries the
answer to the contrast which the woman
had drawn between Jacob and Christ. The
gift, consequent in its realisation upon the
fulfilment of Christ’s work, is still future
(éy@ Sdéow).

shall never...] The phrase (ov paj...eis Tov
ai@va) is a very remarkable one, and

recurs viii. 51, 52, x. 28, xi. 26, xiii. 8.
Elsewhere it is found in the New Testa-
ment in 1 Cor. viii. 18, where the transla-
tion ‘‘I will eat no flesh while the world
standeth”’ expresses the literal force of the
words.

thirst] in the sense of feeling the pain of
an unsatisfied want, Rev. vii. 16. But the
divine life and the divine wisdom bring no
satiety, Ecclus. xxiv. 21.

shall be...a well of water...everlasting
life] shall become a spring of water...
eternal life. It shall not serve for the
moment only, but shall also preserve
power to satisfy all future wants if it be
appropriated by the receiver. The com-
munication of the divine energy, as a gift
of life, necessarily manifests itself in life.
The blessing welcomed proves a spring of
blessing, which rises towards and _ issues
in eternal life; for this is as the infinite
ocean in which all divine gifts find their
end and consummation. The life comes
from the Source of life and ascends to Him
again.

The image is developed in three stages.
Christ’s gift is as a spring of water, of
water leaping up in rich abundance, and
that not perishing or lost but going forth
to the noblest fulfilment.

springing up into] The original word ( dA-,
Aopévov eis) describes the “leaping” of aj
thing of life, and not the mere ‘ gushing;
up’’ of a fountain.

There is a Jewish saying that ‘‘ when,
the Prophets speak of water they mean ue
Law’’ (Wiinsche, ad loc.). The Incarnate
Word was what the Scribes wished to
make the Scriptures. Compare also
‘Aboth,’ i. 4; 12.

15. The relation of the persons is now
changed. A greater want supersedes the
less. The woman is no longer able to fol-
low the thoughts which lie before her in
their mysterious depth; but at least she
can ask for the gift which has already been
assured to her (v. 10). She seeks a favour
in turn before she has granted that which
wassoughtofher. Sir, give me this water,
that I thirst not, neither come. hither to
to draw. The gift appeared to her to have
two virtues, corresponding to the two-fold
description just given of it. It would
satisfy her own personal wants: and it
would also, as being a source of blessing
no less than a blessing, enable her to
satisfy the wants of those to whom she had
to minister.
v. 16—20. |

Sir, give me this water, that I thirst
not, neither come hither to draw,

16 Jesus saith unto her, Go, call
thy husband, and come hither.

17 The woman answered and said,
I have no husband. Jesus said unto
her, Thou hast well said, I have no
husband :

18 For thou hast had five hus-

St. JOHN. IV.

71
bands; and he whom thou now hast
is not thy husband: in that saidst
thou truly.

19 The woman saith unto him, Sir,
I perceive that thou art a prophet.

20 Our fathers worshipped in this

mountain; and ye say, that in bJeru- > Deut 13

salem is the place where men ought
to worship.

 

come hither] The original word accord-
ing to the best authorities (8éoxwpat)
gives the idea of ‘‘come all the way
hither” across the intervening plain.

16. Jesus (He) saith... The apparently
abrupt transition seems to be suggested by
the last words of v. 15. In those the
speaker passed beyond herself. She con-
fessed by implication that even the greatest
gift was not complete unless it was shared
by those to whom she was bound. If they
thirsted, though she might not thirst, her
toilsome labour must be fulfilled still. Ac-
cording to this interpretation Christ again
reads her thought; and bids her summon
him to whom it was her duty to minister.
The gift was for him also; and the com-
mand was at the same time a test of the
woman’s awakening faith.

17. I have no husband] The words are
half sad, half apologetic, as of one who
shrinks from the trial conscious of weak-
ness, and who seeks further assurance of
power before rendering complete obedience.
The command might disprove the know-
ledge and claims of the mysterious Teacher.
The exact form of the Lord’s answer sug-
gests that a pause for a brief space fol-
lowed. Jesus said (saith) to her, Thou
saidst well, I have no husband...in that
thou hast said truly, The plea had been
left, as it were, to be solemnly pondered
(Thou saidst, not Thou hast said), and the
transposition of the words in the repetition
of it, by which the emphasis is thrown in

the original on husband which lay before
on I have not, at once reveals how the
thoughts of the woman were laid bare.

» well said] It is possible that there is
something of a sad irony in the words, as
there is in Matt. vii. 9; 2 Cor. xi. 4.

18. five husbands] Though the facilities
or divorce are said to have been fewer
mong the Samaritans than among the
ews, there is no reason to suppose that
he woman’s former marriages were il-
tlegally dissolved. That which was true
in her statement pointed the rebuke. Her
resent position, though dishonourable, was
ot expressly forbidden by the Mosaic Law.
» The singular details which are given of
the woman’s life have led many commen-
tators to regard her as offering in her per-
sonal history a figure of the religious his-
tory of her people, which had been united

‘Antt.’ ix. 14. 3; 2 K. xvii. 29 ff.), an
was at last irregularly serving the true God‘

in that saidst thou truly] this thou hast
said truly. The formis different (elonxas)
from that used in v. 17 (edras).

19. I perceive] The word (fewpa ) marks
contemplation, continued progressive vision,
not immediate perception. See ii. 23, We;
cannot tell in what way the Lord’s words
were more significant to the woman than
to us (see i. 48, 49), but they evidently
bore with them to her a complete convic-
tion that her whole life was open to the
eyes of the speaker (v. 29).

a prophet] The emphasis lies on the title
and not on the pronoun (6r1 rpopyrns ef ov)
The first thought in the Samaritan’s mind
is that the connexion of man with God has
been authoritatively restored; and if so,
then, she argues, it may be that discrepan-
cies as to local worship will be solved.

20. Our fathers...and ye say...) To the
student of the law the exclusive establish-
ment of worship at Jerusalem must have
been a great difficulty. To a Samaritan
no question could appear more worthy of a
prophet’s decision than the settlement of
the religious centre of the world. Thus
the difficulty which is proposed is not a
diversion, but the natural thought of one
brought face to face with an interpreter
of the divine will.

Our fathers] that is, either simply our
ancestors from the time of the erection of
the Samaritan Temple after the Return,
or, more probably, the patriarchs, See
below. The Samaritan Temple was de-
stroyed by John Hyrcanus c. B.c. 129 (Jos.
‘Antt.’ xiii, 9. 1).

worshipped] For this absolute use of the
verb ( mpooxuveiv) see xii, 20; Rev. v. 14
(true reading); Acts viii. 27, xxiv. 11.

in this mountain] pointing to Mount, Geri-
zim, at the foot of which the well lies. Ac-
cording to the Samaritan tradition it was'
on this mountain that Abraham prepared
the sacrifice of Isaac, and here also that he
met Melchisedek. In Deut. xxvii. 12 f.
Gerizim is mentioned as the site on which\/
the six tribes stood who were to pronounce
the blessings for the observance of the law.
And in the Samaritan Pentateuch, Gerizim
and not_Ebal is the mountain on which the‘
altar was erected, Deut. xxvii, 4.

to and separated from ‘five gods’’ =

   
   
 
72

21 Jesus saith unto her, Woman,
believe me, the hour cometh, when
ye shall neither in this mountain, nor
yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father.

The natural reference to the unnamed
mountain is an unmistakable trait from the
life,

A striking passage is quoted from ‘Bere-
shith R.’ § 32, by Lightfoot and Wiinsche :
“R. Jochanan, going to Jerusalem to pray,
passed by [Gerizim]. A certain Samaritan
seeing him asked him, Whither goest thou?
I am, saith he, going to Jerusalem to pray.
To whom the Samaritan, Were it not
better for thee to pray in this holy moun-
tain than in that cursed house?” Com-
pare ‘Bereshith R.’ § 81.

and ye say...] ye (ipeis), on your side...
The whole problem is stated in its simplest
form. The two facts are placed side by
side (and, not but), traditional practice,
Jewish teaching.

the place] that is, the one temple.

ought to worship] must worship (vr. 24),

according to a divine obligation (de/).
; Comp. iii. 30, note.

21. The rival claims of Gerizim and
Jerusalem are not determined by the Lord,
for they vanish in the revelation of a uni-
versal religion.

Woman, believe me] The true form of the
original (iorevé por) marks the present
beginning of faith, which is to grow to
something riper. Compare x. 38, xii. 36,
xiv. 1, 11. On the other hand, the single
act of faith is marked (wicreurov) in Acts
xvi, 31. In the two parallel narratives,
Mark v. 36, Luke viii. 50 ( wiorevrov), the
two forms are used : that which is general
and continuous in the first passage is con-
centrated into a special act in the second
by the addition of, ‘‘and she shall be
saved.”” In the present connexion the

, unique phrase (believe me) corresponds to

‘the familiar “ Verily, verily,” as

‘introducing a great truth. Comp, Mal.
i, 11.

the (rather an) hour cometh] This con-
summation was still future. The temple
still claimed the reverent homage of be-
lievers (ii. 16). Contrast v. 23.

the hour] There is a divine order in ac-
cordance with which each part of the whole
scheme of salvation is duly fulfilled. Comp.
v. 25, 28, xvi. 2, 4, 25, 32. So Christ had
‘“‘ His hour,” ii. 4, note.

neither...nor yet (nor) at Jerusalem] The
two centres of worship are spoken of in the
same terms (ote... oUre) in the prospect
of the future.

worship the Father] The word worship
was used indefinitely in v. 20 : here it finds
its true complement, The object of worship

j determines its conditions. He who is

St. JOHN. IV.

[v. 21—23.

22 Ye worship ye know not what:
we know what we worship: for sal-
vation is of the Jews.

23 But the hour cometh, and now

known as the Father finds His home where
His children are. This absolute use of the,
title, ‘“‘the Father,” is characteristic of St,
John, and almost peculiar to him. Other
examples are found, Matt. xi. 27 and
parallels; Acts i. 4, 7; Rom. vi. 4; Eph.
ii. 18. See Additional Note. The revela-
tion of God as the Father sums up the new
tidings of the Gospel. In this place the
title stands in a significant relation to the
boast of a special descent (our fathers, v.
20).

oe, Ye (emphatic) worship ye know not
what (that which ye know not) (Vulg.
adoratis quod nescitis)] Your worship, that
is, is directed to One with whose character,
as He has revealed Himself through the
prophets and in the history of His people,
you are really unacquainted. You know
whom to worship, but you do not know
Him. By confining your faith to the law
you condemn yourselves to ignorance of the
God of Israel. We Jews, on the other hand
(the pronoun again is emphatic), worship
that which we know; for the promised
salvation is of the Jews. The power of
Judaism lay in the fact that it was not
simple deism, but the gradual preparation”
for the Incarnation. The Jew therefore
knew that which he worshipped, so far as
the will, and in that the nature, of God
was gradually unfolded before him. Con.
trast viii. 54.

ye...we...] The sharp contrast between
Samaritans and Jews which runs through
the narrative (vv. 9, 20, ye say), and the
pointed reference to ‘‘the Jews’ which.
follows, fix beyond all reasonable doubt the
interpretation of the pronouns.

what...] not Him whom... The abstract -
form suggests the notion of God, so far as
His attributes and purposes were made
known, rather than of God as a Person,
revealed to men at last in the Son: xiv. 9.
Compare Acts xvii. 23 (8 of).

salvation] Rather, the promised and ex-
pected salvation (1 wrnpia) to be realised
in the mission of Messiah. So Acts iv. 12.
Compare Acts xiii. 26. See also Rev. vii.
10, xii. 10, xix. 1.

is of...) that is, “proceeds from” (éoriv
éx), not ‘belongs to.” Comp. i. 46, note,
vil, 22, 52, (x. 16). The thought is ex-
pressed in a symbol in Rev. xii. 5.

23. But...) The old differences of more
and less perfect knowledge were to be done
away.

the (rather an) hour cometh, and now is]
The presence of Christ among men brought
with it this result at once, though” local
worship (v. 21) was not yet abolished. Com-
Vv. 24, 25.] St. JOHN. IV.

is, when the true worshippers shall

ie

worship the Father in spirit and in
truth: for the Father seeketh such
to worship him.

24 ¢God is a spirit: and they that « a, Gor. i

worship him must worship him in
spirit and in truth.
25 The woman saith unto him, I

 

pare v. 25 as contrasted with v. 28. In
each case the subtle contrast between the
immediate and ultimate issues which are
pointed to is most significant and charac-
teristic of the exact circumstances to which
the words belong. See also xvi. 25, 32,

the true worshippers] The original term
“true”? (dAnOuvés ) describes that which is
ot only truly but also completely what it
rofesses to be. Thus it is used in con-
nexion with those material objects under
which Christ represents Himself. See i. 9,
vi. 82, vii. 28, viii. 16, xv. 1, note, xvii. 3,
xix. 35. The popular sense of the word
“ideal’”’—fulfilling the complete conception
—comes near to this usage.

in spirit and (om. in) truth] The words
describe the characteristics of worship in one
omplex phrase (év mvetpari kal dAnOeig)
nd not in two co-ordinate phrases. Wor-
hip involves an expression of feeling and

conception of the object towards whom
the feeling is entertained. The expression
is here described as made in spirit: the
conception is formed in truth. Judaism
(speaking generally) was a worship of the
letter and not of spirit (to take examples
from the time) : Samaritanism was a wor-
ship of falsehood and not of truth. By the
Incarnation men are enabled to have im-

ediate communion with God, and thus a

orship in spirit has become possible : at
the same time the Son is a complete mani-
festation of God for men, and thus a wor-
ship of truth has been placed within their
reach. These two characteristics answer
to the higher sense of the second and third
commandments, the former of which tends
to a spiritual service, and the latter to a
devout regard for the ‘‘name’”’ of God,
that is, for every revelation of His Person
or attributes or action.

spirit] In biblical language, that part of
man’s nature which holds, or is capable of
holding, intercourse with the eternal order
is the spirit (1 Thess. v. 23). The spirit in
man responds to the Spirit of God. Comp.
vi, 63. The sphere of worship was there-
fore now to be that highest region where
the divine and human meet, and not, as in
an earlier period of discipline, matgrial or
fleshly. Comp. Rom. i. 9.

truth] Worship is necessarily limited by

also on his part, which is expressed fairly
by for in fact, for indeed. Comp. Matt.
viii. 9 and parallel, xxvi. 73 and parallels;
Mark x. 45; Luke vi. 32 ff., xi. 4, xxii.
37; Acts xix. 40; Rom. xi. 1, and not un-
frequently in St Paul.

seeketh] There is a real correspondence
between the true worshipper and God.
God. Comp. i. 48 (findeth), note. The

true (4A7Oevds) worshipper answers to the -

true (4AnOvds) God (xvii. 3).

such to worship him] such for His wor-
shippers.

24. God is a spirit] God is Spirit, ab
solutely free from all limitations of space
and time. The nature and not the per-
sonality of God is described, just as in the
phrases, God is light (1 John i. 5) or God
ts love (1 John iv, 8). This premiss is
drawn from a true interpretation of the
old revelation (Isai. xxxi. 3), but the con-
clusion which follows belongs to the new.
The declaration in its majestic simplicity
is unique; though St John implies in the
two other revelations of God’s being which
he has given (Jl. cc.) the truth which is de-
clared by it.

worship him in spirit and in truth] More
exactly, worship in Spirit and truth (v. 23).

25. The woman’s answer to the declara-
tion made to her helps us to understand
why it was made. She had acknowledged
the Lord as a prophet, but she felt that
such truths could be affirmed only by one
who was more than a prophet, and for such
a one she looked. In her hope Messia!
was the perfect lawgiver and not the con
queror. Truth and not dominion was th
blessing she connected with His mission.{
The confession, like the revelation by
which it was followed, is unique in the
gospels.

I know] Compare iii. 2, we know. The
object and the ground of knowledge are
characteristically different.

which is called Christ] The words may be
part of the speech of the woman, in which ,
case they imply that the Greek title was
that which was popularly current (cf. v.
29), At least, the different form in which
the interpretation is given in i. 41 must be
noticed. This exact form (6 Acydpevos
Xptrrés) is used as part of a title else-

the idea of the being worshipped. A true where, xi. 16, xx. 24, xxi. 2 (cf. Luke
idea of God is essential to a right service xxii. 1). '
of Him. Comp. Hebr. viii. 5, x. 1. For the Samaritan conceptions of _.

for] The phrase in the original ( kai yép,
Vulg. nam et) is remarkable. Italleges a
reason which is assumed to be conclusive
from the nature of the case ; for the Father

Messiah see ‘Introd. to Study of the Gos-
pels,’ pp. 159 f.

when he is come] when He comes. The
pronoun (éxeivos) is emphatic, and fixes
74

know that Messias cometh, which is
called Christ: when he is come, he
will tell us all things,

26 Jesus saith unto her, I that
speak unto thee am he.

27 4 And upon this came his dis-
ciples, and marvelled that he talked
with the woman: yet no man said,
What seekest thou? or, Why talkest
thou with her?

Sr. JOHN. IV.

[v. 26—31.

28 The woman then left her water-
pot, and went her way into the city,
and saith to the men,

29 Come, see a man, which told
me all things that ever I did: is not
this the Christ?

30 Then they went out of the city,
and came unto him.

31 § In the mean while his disci-
ples prayed him, saying, Master, eat.

 

the attention on Messiah as contrasted with,
and standing apart from, all other teachers.
he will tell us all things] More exactly,
He will announce all things unto us. The
word (dvayyeAei, Vulg. adnunciabit) is
used of the fresh and authoritative message
of the Advocate, xvi. 13 ff. The teaching
so given would be absolute and complete.

26. The woman was prepared to wel-
come Messiah in His prophetic dignity,
and in this He makes Himself known to
her. Compare ix. 35 ff. In each case the
revelation answers to the faith of the re-
cipient. With these acknowledgments
prompted by grace contrast the acknow-
ledgment yielded to legal authority, Matt.
xxvi, 63, 64.

I that speak] Or rather, I that talk
(6 Aaddv) : the word suggests the notion
of free, familiar conversation, which is
brought out in the next verse. It was by this
intercourse of loving and searching sym-
pathy, that Christ revealed Himself as the
hope of men. Comp, ix. 37, note.

27—80. The conversation being ended,
its immediate effects are noticed. The
disciples reverently wonder. The woman
is filled with a hope beyond hope. Her
countrymen are moved by her enthusiasm.
The whole picture is full of life.

27. And...came and marvelled...] And...
came; and they marvelled. The change of
tense, which marks the pause of wonder,
requires the insertion of the pronoun.

talked with the woman] was talking with
a woman, against the custom of the doctors

by whom it was said that ‘‘a man should
not salute a woman in a public place, not
even his own wife,” and that it was “‘better
that the words of the law should be burnt
than delivered to women.’’ Compare
‘ Aboth’ i. 5 (Taylor); and Buxtorf, ‘Lex.
Rabb.’ p. 1146; and contrast Gal. iii. 28.
One of the thanksgivings in the daily ser-
vice of the Synagogue is: ‘‘ Blessed art
Thou, O Lord...Who hast not made me a
woman.”’

A double question arose in the minds cf
the disciples. Could their master require
a service from a woman? or could He wish
to commune with her as a teacher? Yet
they were content to wait. In due time

He would :emove their doubts. Eventhus
early they had learnt to abide His time.

28. The woman then left...went her,
way...] So the woman left...went away...
This time the woman’s answer is in action.
The Lord had set aside His own want:
she set aside her own purpose. But she
shewed that her absence was to be but for
a brief space by ‘leaving her water-pot.”"|
And meanwhile the message which she bore
to the city was for all, for the men, the
inhabitants generally, and not for her;
“husband” only. ;

29. The Samaritan woman, like the first
disciples (i. 41, 45) at once tells what she
has found, and with the same appeal Come,
see (i. 46),

all things that ever I did (that I did)]
words here and v. 39 are more definite in
their reference than A. V.; and the truth
of the exaggerated phrase lies in the effect
which Christ’s words had upon the woman’s
conscience (18 ff). She was convinced that
He knew all, and in the revelation which
He had made, she seemed to feel that He
had told her all, because He had by that
called up all before her eyes.

is not this the Christ?] The original
words cannot be so rendered. The form of
the woman’s question (mrt odtds... ; Vulg.
numquid...?), suggests the great conclusion
as something even beyond hope : Can this
be the Christ? Is it possible to believe that
the highest blessing has suddenly been
given to us? The form of the sentence
grammatically suggests a negative answer
(v. 38), but hope bursts through it. Com-
pare Matt. xii. 23. The same phrase
occurs Matt. xxvi. 22, 25; John viii, 22.
xviii, 85; James iii. ll, &e.

380. Omit Then. The result of the woman’s
message is given abruptly. The trust of the
hearers is the measure of her zeal.

came unto] The tense of the original (4p-
XovTo, comp. ¢. xx. 3) is vividly descrip-
tive. The villagers started on their jour-
ney, and are seen, as it were, pursuing it.
Comp. v, 35, They went out of the city

and came on their way towards him (Vulg.
exierunt et venicbant).

 

rate

31—88. The deeper lessons of the inci-
dent are unfolded when the Lord was left
Vv. 32—35.]
32 But he said unto them, I have
meat to eat that ye know not of.
33 Therefore said the disciples one
to another, Hath any man brought
him ought to eat?

St. JOHN. IV.

i
34 Jesus saith unto them, My meat
is to do the will of him that sent me,
and to finish his work.
35 Say not ye, There are yet four
months, and then cometh harvest?

 

alone with His disciples. Their natural and
loving request leads Him to point to wants
more truly imperious than those of the
body, thus carrying on the teaching of the
act and word just given to and by the
woman (31—34). The actual, unexpected,
condition of the Samaritans, is used to
illustrate the urgency and the fruitfulness
of the work to which the apostles were
called.

81. his disciples] the disciples. The love
of the disciples overpowered their wonder.
They strive to satisfy the wants of their
Master and not their own curiosity (v.27).

prayed] begged, asked (ijpwTwv, Vulg.
rogabant) : vv. 40, 47, xii. 21, &c.

Master] The original preserves the
Hebrew form Rabbi (comp. i. 38) which
has been translated here and in ix. 2, xi. 8.
Elsewhere 2abbi has been rightly kept in
this Gospel.

_ $2. meat to eat that ye (emphatic) know
not of] that ye know not; that is meat of
which ye know not the virtue and power.
Comp. v. 22. For the image, see vi, 27.

33. one to another] not venturing to ask
more from their Lord. Comp. xvi. 17.

34. to do...and to finish...] The exact
form of the expression (iva 7.) emphasizes
the end and not the process, not the doing
..and finishing but that I may do...and
finish. Comp. vi. 29, xv. 8, xvii. 3; 1 John
ili. 11, v. 3. The distinction in tenses be-
tween the two verbs (ow, Tedewow)
which is found in the common texts is not
supported by the best authorities.

that sent me] Comp. v. 36 f.

finish] accomplish. The original word
(reAeuow) is remarkable. It expresses
not merely ‘‘finishing,” ‘‘ bringing to an
end,” ‘“‘perfecting.’’ It is characteristic
of St John, and the Epistle to the Hebrews :
ch. v. 86, xvii. 4, 28, xix. 28; 1 John ii. 5,
iv. 12, 17 f.; Hebr. ii. 10. v. 9, vii. 28, &c.

his work] Comp. v. 19, note.

34 ff. The train of thought in these
verses appears to be this. ‘‘ My true food
lies in working for the fulfilment of my
Father’s will, and the partial accomplish-
ment of this end is even now before my
eyes. You, as you traverse these corn
plains, anticipate without doubt the com-
ing harvest. And the labour of the sower
is a parable of all spiritual labour. The
issue of that labour is not less certain than
the issue of this. Nay, further: the
spiritual harvest of which that natural har-
vest is a figure is even now ready for the
sickle. In this sense, the reaper already has

his reward and the sower through him. For
the work of these two is essentially separate,
In spiritual labour the homely proverb is
fulfilled : He who reaps sows not what he
reaps, he who sows reaps not what he
sows. Still the joy of the reaper crowns
the toil of the sower ; and these first-fruits
of Samaria, the first-fruits of a spiritual
harvest, crown my joy.’’ Comp. Matt. ix.
37, 38.

Say not ye (pets)... harvest] These
words have been understood in two ways,
either (1) as a proverbial saying, marking
roughly the interval between some familiar
date (seedtime) and harvest; or (2) as a;
description of the actual state of things ati
the time. so that when the words wer
spoken there were four months to the har
vest. The emphatic ‘ye’ (say not ye)
which appears to indicate men’s clear cal-
culation of natural events, favours the first
interpretation; but the form of the sen-
tence (there are yet...) and the period
named, which is less than the interval be-
tween seedtime and harvest, favour the
second. If this latter view be adopted
we have an approximate date for the narra-
tive. The harvest began about the middle
of April, and lasted to the end of Mal
(Tristram, ‘Land of Israel,’ pp. 583 f.).
The conversation therefore might be placed
about the end of January (or early in
February). By this time the fields would
be already green. Dr Tristram found the
wheat and barley near Jerusalem, sown
just after Christmas, four inches high on
February 20th (J.c. p. 399). But on this
supposition it would follow from this pas-
sage, compared with ii. 18 and iv. 3, that
the Lord must have continued about ten
months in Judea, a supposition which seems
to be inconsistent with iv. 45. See Addi-
tional Note on v. 1.

 

Lift up your eyes] Comp. Isai. xlix, 18,
This prophetic passage offers a striking
parallel in thought and language.

the fields] At the present time the plain |
at the foot of Gerizim is fertile corn-lan
(Stanley, ‘S. and P.’ 233 ff.). The detail
has the truth of life in it. The disciples
saw the promise of rich crops : but Christ
saw the spiritual harvest of which the fields
were the image (Matt. xiii. 3 ff., &.), even
now come in its first-fruits, as the people
from the city approached.

for] Rather, that. Look on (i. 88) the
fields and observe that... The woman, we
may suppose, with the Samaritans (v. 30),
was seen returning to the well.
76

d Matt. 9,
37.

behold, I say unto you, Lift up your
eyes, and look on the fields; ¢dfor
they are white already to harvest.

36 And he that reapeth receiveth
wages, and gathereth fruit unto life
eternal: that both he that soweth
and he that reapeth may rejoice to-
getuier.

37 And herein is that saying true,
One soweth, and another reapeth.

38 I sent you to reap that whereon
ye bestowed no labour: other men

Sr. JOHN. IV.

[36—41.
laboured, and ye are entered into
their labours. .

39 § And many of the Samaritans
of that city believed on him for the
saying of the woman, which testified,
He told me all that ever I did,

40 So when the Samaritans were
come unto him, they besought him
that he would tarry with them: and
he abode there two days.

41 And many more believed be-
cause of his own word;

 

35, 36. The punctuation and reading at
the end of verse 35 are uncertain, but it
seems best to omit already at the close of
it, and to substitute it for and at the be-
ginning of v. 36: Already he that reapeth
... The harvest was strangely anticipated
in this first welcome of the word beyond
the limits of Judaism.

86. receiveth wages...that both (omit)
he...] There is even now work for him to
do, which has an immediate reward, and
he gathereth fruit which shall not perish
or be consumed, but endure unto life eter-
nal. Comp. wv, 14, vi. 27, xii, 25. There
in that higher order the sower shall ‘“‘ see
of his travail’? and be glad: the fore-
runner who has long passed away shall
meet him who has received the harvest of
his earlier work and share his joy. The
application seems to be to law-
giver and priest and prophet, and all who
“went before’? Christ’s coming in old
times and even now go before Him.
Christ Himself stands as the Lord of the
Harvest (v. 38) and not here as the Sower.

87. And herein is that saying...) For
herein is the saying... ‘‘I say this,’’ so the
words imply, ‘‘to prepare you by the
lesson of your immediate success for fu-
ture disappointment, for in this spiritual
sowing and harvesting the common pro-
verb finds its complete, ideal, fulfilment
(dAnGevds) : one soweth and another
reapeth,””

herein] i.e. in the fact that you are
reaping already (v. 36) what others sowed.
And the principle was to find application
in their labours also. ="

38. Z sent you...ye bestowed no labour
(ye have not laboured),..] The words pro-
bably point to the successful labours of
the Apostles in Judea (7, 2). At the same
time their whole mission was included in
their call.

other men laboured (have laboured)...
into their labours (labour)] The reference,
as in the case of the sower, is to all who
had in any manner prepared the way for
Christ. He was, as has been said, like
Joshua, who brought His Own people to

“‘a land for which they did not labour’’
(Josh, xxiv, 13); and it is possible that
the words may contain a reference to that
passage of the Old Testament, The ‘‘you’’
is emphatic throughout. The word ‘“la-
boured” is the same as that used for
‘‘wearied” in v. 6 (koriav), The result is
identified with the effort (labour, that
which you have not wrought by your
labour OovKexom.,  Vulg., quod non
laborastis). Comp. Ecclus, xiv. 15.

The work in Sychar (89—42).

39—42. The ready faith of the woman
was found also among her countrymen. As
she had looked for a religious teacher in
the Christ, they acknowledged in Him
“the Saviour of the world.”’

39.. believed...for the saying] Rather,
because of the word (v. 41), the narrative
(8: Tov AdSyov ); and not the simple state-
ment only, of the woman as (or while) she
(earnestly, constantly, and not once for all)
testified (THS yuvarkds papTvpovons)...

40. So when...were come (came)...]
Their belief went thus far, that they
wished to hear more of His teaching. °

that he would tarry] Rather, to abide
(i, 88, 39), as in the second clause,

41. many more] The phrase is com-
parative, far more (in reference to v. 39),
and not positive (ToAA@ wAclous), This
isolated notice is an instinctive illustra-
tion of our fragmentary knowledge of the
Lord’s whole work.

because of his (omit own) word]
v. 89,

42. Now we beliere...heard him our-
selres] More exactly, No longer is it be-
cause of thy speech that we believe, for
we have heard for ourselves. The order
is remarkable. The word speech (talking,
adic) corresponds with talk in vv. 26,
27. It occurs elsewhere in New Testament
only ch. viii, 43; Matt, xxvi, 73 (Mark
xiv, 70). It does not appear that the
Samaritans asked for signs like the Jews
(comp. v, 48), or that any outward
miracles were wrought among them.

Comp.
Vv. 42—44. |
42 And said unto the woman, Now
we believe, not because of thy say-
ing : for we have heard him ourselves,
and know that this is indeed the
Christ, the Saviour of the world.

St. JOHN. IV.

43 9 Now after two days he de-
parted thence, and went into Galilee.
44 For eJesus himself testified, that ®
a prophet hath no honour in his own
country.

 

the Christ, the Saviour of the world]
The words the Christ must be omitted, in
accordance with an overwhelming concur-
rence of ancient authorities. The simple
title, the Saviour of the world (Vulg.
Salvator mundi), is found once again in
1 John iv, 14; and it is a significant fact
hat this magnificent conception of the
work of Christ was first expressed by a
Samaritan, for whom the hope of a De-
liverer had not been shaped to suit national
ambition. So at last faith rose to the
level of the promise, v. 21. The “ salva-
tion” (v, 22) sprang from the Jews, and
was recognised by Samaritans.

38. Tue Work IN Gatiten (48—54).

This notice of Christ’s Galilean work
consists of a general account of the
welcome which He found (vv, 43—45),
followed by the narrative of a second
“sign” (vv, 46—54).

It seems probable that the earlier part
of the Synoptic narratives (Mark i. 14—
ii, 14 and parallels) must be placed in the
interval which extended from iv. 43—v.i.
So far there are no signs of the special
hostility which seems to have been called
out by the healing on the Sabbath wrought
on the next visit to Jerusalem.

The contents of the section are peculiar
to St John. It has indeed been questioned
whether “the healing of the nobleman’s
on” is not identical with “the healing

f the centurion’s servant,” recorded by

St Matthew (viii. 5 ff.) and St Luke (vii.
ff.). Both miracles were wrought at

Capernaum, and wrought in the same
anner, at a distance. But in all other
espects the incidents are characteristically
like, as to

(1) Place. The request was made here

t Cana, there at Capernaum.

(2) Time. Here immediately after the
return to Galilee, there after some time
had elapsed.

(3) Persons. Here the subject was a
son, there a slave; here the petitioner was
probably a Jew, there a heathen soldier.

(4) Character. Here the faith of the
father as interpreted by the Lord, is
weak; there the faith of the centurion is
exceptionally strong.

(5) Manner. Here the request is granted
in a way opposed to the prayer, there in
accordance with it: here the Lord refuses
to go, there He offers to go to the sufferer.

The two miracles are in fact comple-

mentary. In the one, weak faith is
disciplined and confirmed: in the other,

The fame of the former miracle may easily

77

Matt. 13
57.

strong faith is rewarded and. ny eas

have encouraged the centurion to appeal
to the Lord in his distress.

In one other case the Lord is recorded
to have exercised His power at a distance,
Matt. xv. 22 and parallels.

48. Now after two days he departed
thence and went...) After the two days
(mentioned in v, 40) Ae went forth
(eéjAGev) thence into Galilee.

44. Jesus himself] The testimony of
Christ was the same as the testimony of,
the Apostles after the fall of Jerusalem.

testified...country] The general meaning
of this clause depends upon the sense
given to his own country. This has been
understood to be (1) Galilee generally, (2)
Nazareth, (3) Lower Galilee, in which
Nazareth was situated, as distinguished
from Upper Galilee, in which was Caper-
‘naum, (4) Judea. Against the first three
lies the fatal objection, that it seems
impossible that St John should speak of
Galilee in this connexion as Christ’s “own
country ” (1) idia warpis. Compare vii. 41,
42). Both by fact and by the current
interpretation of prophecy, Judza alone

y

could receive that title (comp. Orig. ‘Tom.’ .
xiii, 54). Moreover, Judea is. naturally /
suggested by the cireurfistances. The Lord

had not been received with due honour
at Jerusalem. His Messianic claim had
not been welcomed. He did not trust
Himself to the Jews there. He was forced
to retire. If many followed Him, they
were not the representatives of the people,
and their faith reposed on miracles. No
apostle was a Jew in this narrower sense,
Nothing then can be more appropriate
than to mark this outward failure of the
appeal to Judea by an application of the
common proverb (comp, Matt. xxiii. 37;
Luke xiii. 34), followed by the notice of
the ready welcome given to Christ by
Galileans (v. 45).

If this interpretation of “his own
country” be accepted, it will be enough
simply to notice the other interpretation’
which have found favour.
have been supposed to mean, (1) Jesus
departed into Upper Galilee (or Caper-
naum), for He testified that a prophet
hath no honour in his own country (Lower
Galilee or Nazareth). (2) Jesus departed
into Galilee, ennobled by the fame which

Thus the words”
78 St. JOHN. IV. [v. 45—49.

45 Then when he was come into
Galilee, the Galilaeans received him,
having seen all the things that he
did at Jerusalem at the feast: for
they also went unto the feast.
6So Jesus came again into Cana
f chap. 2.1.of Galilee, fwhere he made the water
|, Or, cour- wine. And there was a certain Ilno-
ruler” bleman, whose son was sick at Ca-
pernaum.

47 When he heard that Jesus was
come out of Judzea into Galilee, he
went unto him, and besought him that
he would come down, and heal his
son : for he was at the point of death.

48 Then said Jesus unto him, Ex-
cept ye see signs and wonders, ye
will not believe.

49 The nobleman saith unto him,
Sir, come down ere my child die,

 

He had gained in Jerusalem, and which
He could not have gained in Galilee, for
He testified that a prophet hath no honour
in his own country, and therefore must
win it in some strange place. (3) Jesus
departed into Galilee to meet what He
knew would be a hopeless conflict; or to
seek there rest from labour.

It may be noticed that the emphatic
epithet own distinguishes the phrase used
here from that found in Matt, xiii. 54, 57
(where “own” is inserted by some copies)
and in Luke iv, 23, 24. The addition

fisicates the special force which the
{ Evangelist attached to the words.

45. Then when he was come...) So
when He came... The issue justified the
proverb. In Galilee, which was not
Messiah’s country, not even in popular
estimation a prophet’s home (vii. 52), Jesus
found a ready reception. His works at
Jerusalem, which had produced no per-
manent effect upon the spot, impressed the
Galilzans more deeply; and it is not un-
likely that Galilean pilgrims formed the
greater part of “the many” who “believed
on His name” at the Passover (ii. 23).

received) “welcomed” (€dé£avro, Vulg.
exceperunt). See iii. 27, note,

they also went...] and therefore if in one
sense they were strangers yet they were
not religious aliens,

46. So Jesus came again...) He came
therefore again... In consequence of the
welcome which He received He went on to
Cana, where he had first “manifested
forth His glory ” (ii. 11).

nobleman] Rather, officer in the service
of the king, t.e. Herod Antipas, tetrarch
of Galilee, who was popularly known as
“king :’? Matt. xiv. 9, The word (GactAckés)
is used by Josephus (e.g. ‘B. J.” 1. 13 (11).

1) for any person employed at court. The
Vales, following an early but Hake read-
‘ing (BaotAickos), gives regulus, “a petty
king,” “a chieftain.” Some have conjec-

tured that this officer was Chuza, “ Herod’s

steward” (Luke viii. 3), or Manaen, his
foster-brother (Acts xiii. 1).

Capernaum] ii. 12, note.

47. went] Literally, went away (d7)-
Oev, Vulg. adiit). The word emphasizes

the thought that the father left his son
for the time.

come down] Comp. ii. 12.

he was at the point of death] The
Vulgate rendering is worthy of notice:
incipiebat mori. Comp. Acts xxvii, 33.
Contrast xii. 33, esset moriturus.

48. Then said Jesus...) Jesus therefore
said... The Lord read the character of
the petitioner even through a petition
which might seem to shew faith,

see] Comp. xx, 29. His faith requitedf
the support of sight.

signs and wonders] The two words
(onpeto kal Tépara) are combined Matt.
xxiv, 24; Mark xiii. 22; Acts (ii. 19), li.
22, 43, iv. 30, v. 12, vi. 8, vii. 36, viii. 13,
xiv. 8, xv. 12; Rom. xv. 19; 2 Cor. xii. 12;
(2 Thess. ii. 9); Hebr. ii. 4. They severally
mark the two chief aspects of miracles :
the spiritual aspect, whereby they suggest
some deeper truth than meets the eye, of
which they are in some sense symbols and
pledges; and the external aspect, whereby
their strangeness arrests attention, “Sign”
and “work” (see v. 20) are the charac-
teristic words for miracles in St John.
The word here translated “ wonders” is
never used by itself in the New Testament

ye will not believe] ye will in no wis
believe. The plural (ye) marks the noble;
man as the representative of a class, t
whom miracles were the necessary suppor
of a faith which was not reluctant but
feeble. The negative phrase (od py
mirtevonte) does not express the simple
fact, but in some degree connects it with
the state of things of which it is the result :
“There is no likelihood—no_ possibility—
that ye should believe.” Perhaps however
the phrase is better taken as an interro-
gation: Wall ae Pi no wise believe?
Comp. ch, xviii. ; (Rev. xv. 4). Luke
xviii, 7 (ov pH a

The temper of the Galilzans is placed i in!
sharp contrast with that of the Samaritans,{

49. Siz, come down...) The faith, how-
ever imperfect, which springs out of
fatherly love is unshaken. It clings to
what it can grasp. Compare Mark ix. 24,
which offers a complete spiritual parallel.

child) The diminutive (7d masdiov)
Vv. 50—54.]

50 Jesus saith unto him, Go thy
way; thy son liveth. And the man
believed the word that Jesus had
spoken unto him, and he went his
way.

51 And as he was now going down,
his servants met him, and told him,
saying, Thy son liveth.

52 Then inquired he of them the
hour when he began to amend. And

Sr. JOHN. IV.

they said unto him, Yesterday at the
seventh hour the fever left him.

53 So the father knew that it was
at the same hour, in the which Je-
sus said unto him, Thy son liveth:
and himself believed, and his whole
house.

54 This is again the second mira-
cle that Jesus did, when he was come
out of Judzea into Galilee.

 

used significantly here; not ‘‘son’’ (v. 47)
or “boy” (v. 51). Compare Mark v. 23,
35.

50. Go thy way thy son liveth] The
assurance thus given is the final test, and
it is sustained. So far the father endured
without seeing. The crisis of life and
death was a re hence it is enough to
say “liveth” (v. 51) and not “is healed.”
Comp. Mark v. 28.

And the man...Jesus had spoken...) The
man...Jesus spake...

- 51. met him, and told him, saying, Thy
son liveth] met him, saying that his boy
(wais) liveth. Here only (according tothe
true reading) St John uses the oblique
form (‘‘that his boy liveth’), and not as
in A, V., the direct (‘‘Thy son liveth’’).

52. Then inquired he...And they said...]
He inquired therefore...So they said (elrav
oby)...

ke began to amend] The original phrase
is remarkable (Kopwdrepov éoxev, Vulg.
melius habuerit), and appears to have been
used in familiar conversation, as we might
say ‘‘he begins to do nicely,” or
‘‘bravely.’? The closest parallel is in
Arrian : ‘‘ When the doctor comes in you
must not be afraid as to whathe will say;
nor if he says ‘You are doing bravely’
(kéuipws €xers), must you give way to
excessive joy’’ (‘Dissert. Epict.’ iii, 10.
13; comp. Dissert. ii, 18. 14).

Yesterday at the seventh hour...) i.e.
7 p.m, Seenote onch. xix. Such a phrase
could scarcely be used of one o’clock in
the afternoon in the evening of the same
natural day.

at the seventh hour] The original ex-
presses duration of time (Gpav éBddunv,
“in the seventh hour’’) and not a point
of time.

538. believed] that Jesus was the Christ.
Comp. iii. 15 note. The belief in v. 50 is
simply belief in the specific promise.

54. This is again the second miracle...
when he was come...) More closely: This
did Jesus again as a second sign having
come (after He came)... The point lies in
the relation of the two miracles as mark-
ing two visits to Cana, separated by a
visit to Jerusalem. The form of the phrase
corresponds with that in ii. 11.

In looking back over this section (ii.
13—iv. 54), the signs of harmonious pro-
gress in the development of the Lord’s
work are obvious. At first He stands
before men with words and deeds of power,
and they interpret and misinterpret His
character, yet so that He cannot enter upon
His kingdom by the way of a universal
welcome from the ancient theocracy (ii. 13—
25). Then follows the beginning of the
direct revelation of a divine presence,
which is shewn at once to have a larger
significance than for Israel. Christ sets
Himself forth in two representative scenes
as satisfying the hope of men, yet other-
wise than they had expected (iii. iv.).
He acknowledges that He is the Messiah
in the sense of the woman of Samaria; but
the higher teaching which He addressed to
Nicodemus is veiled in riddles. At the
same time s new confession is added to
those of the first chapter (i. 51, note). The
Samaritans acknowledge Christ to be “ the
Saviour of the world” (iv. 42, note).

ADDITIONAL NOTE on Cuap. rv. 21.

On the titles “the Father,” “my Father,”
in St John.

Very much of the exact force of St John’s
record of the Lord’s words appears to
depend upon the different conceptions of
the two forms under which the Fatherhood
of God is described. God is spoken of as
“the Father” and as “my Father.”
‘Generally it may be said that the former
title expresses the original relation of God

to being and specially to humanity, in
virtue of man’s creation in the divine
image, and the latter more particularly
the relation of the Father to the Son In-
carnate, and so indirectly to man in virtue
of the Incarnation. The former suggests
those thoughts, which spring from the con-
sideration of the absolute moral connexion
of man with God: the latter, those which
spring from what is made known to us

79
80

through revelation of the connexion of the
Incarnate Son with God and with man.
“The Father” corresponds, under this
aspect, with the group of ideas gathered up
in the Lord’s titles, “the Son,” “the Son
of man:” and “my Father” with those
which are gathered up in the title “the
Son of God,” “the Christ.”

The two forms are not unfrequently used
in close succession. Thus for example, we
read :

v. 43. I have come in the name of my
Father.

v. 45. Do not think that I will accuse
you to the Father,

The coming of Christ was a new revela-
tion : the accusation of the unbelieving lies
already in the primal constitution of things.

vi. 27. Which the Son of man will give
you, for him the Father sealed, even God.

vi, 382. My Father giveth you the true
bread from heaven,

In the one place the Lord appears as
satisfying the wants of humanity: in the
other, the new dispensation is contrasted
with the old,

x, 17. Therefore doth the Father love
me, because I lay down my life.

x. 18. This commandment received I
from my Father.

CHAPTER V.

» Jesus on the sabbath day cureth him that
was diseased eight and thirty years. 10
The Jews therefore cavil, and persecute

Sr. JOHN. V.

The one statement rests on the concep-
tion of true self-sacrifice; the other deals
with the mission of Christ.

Other instructive examples will be found.
viii, 18 f., x. 29 ff., 36 ff., xiv. 6—10, xv. 8
—10, 15 f., 2326. In many cases it will
be seen that the absolute conception of
Fatherhood is that on which the main
teaching of a passage really depends: iv.
21 ff., vi. 45 f., xvi. 23 ff., and to such
pregnant sentences as x. 30, xx. 21, the title
“the Father” gives a singular depth of
meaning. Of the two phrases the Fathe
is by far the more common, and yet i
many places my Father has been substi
tuted for it in the later texts, to express
a more obvious sense: vi. 65, viii. 28, 38,
x, 29, 32, xv. 10, xvi, 10.

The form my Father is the true reading
in the following passages : ii. 16, v. 17, 43,
vi. 82, 40, viii. 19, 49, 54, &. 18, 25, 29, 37,
xiv, 2, 7, 20, 21, 23, xv. 1, 8,15, 23 f., xx. 17.

It may be added that St John never
uses the phrase “our Father,” which is not
unfrequent in St Paul, nor yet the phrase
“your Father,” except xx. 17. Nor does he
use TaT7p without the article by itself
(comp. 2 John 3) of God, except (of course)
in the vocative case; xi. 41, xii. 27f., xvii.
1, 5, (11), 21, 24, (25). Comp. i 14, note.

him forit. 17 He answereth for himself,
and reproveth them, shewing by the testi-
mony of his Father, 32 of John, 36 of his
works, 39 and of the scriptures, who he is.

 

Tue Conruict (v. 1—xii. 50).

Up to the present time the Lord has
offered Himself to typical representatives
of the whole Jewish race at Jerusalem, in
Judea, in Samaria, and in Galilee, in such
a way as to satisfy the elements of true
faith. Now the conflict begins which issues
in the Passion. Step by step faith and
unbelief are called out in a parallel de-
velopment. The works and words of Christ
become a power for the revelation of men’s
thoughts. The main scene of this saddest
of all conceivable tragedies is Jerusalem.
The crises of its development are the
national Festivals. And the whole con-
troversy is gathered round three miracles,

(1) The healing of the impotent man at
Bethesda (v.).

(2) The healing of the man born blind
ix.).

(8) The raising of Lazarus (xi.).

The sixth chapter is a Galilaan episode,
marking the crisis of faith and unbelief
outside Judza proper.

The unity of the record is marked by

“he symptoms of the earlier conflict which

appear at the later stages, e.g. vii. 19 ff.
compared with v, 18 ff.; x. 27 ff. compared
with x. 1 ff.; xi. 47 ff,

With the exception of parts of ch. vi.
the contents of this division of the Gospel
are peculiar to St John,

The narrative falls into two parts: Tu
PRELUDE (v., vi.), and THe creat Con-
TROVERSY (vii.—xii.).

I. Tue Prexupe (v., vi.).

_ The Prelude consists of two decisive
incidents with their immediate consequen-
ces ; one at Jerusalem (ch. v.), the other in
Galilee (ch. vi). In the first we have
Christ’s revelation of Himself in answer to
false views of His relation to God (v. 18) ;
in the other, His revelation of Himself in
answer to false views of His work for men
(vi. 15, 26), In the first case the revelation
is indirect (“the Son ;” compare vv. 24, 30
31 Bhi in oe oo case the revelation is
predominan irect (“T am,”

nL en y ( , yet see vv,

The section closes with the first division
in the circle of the disciples (vi, 66) and
the foreshadowing of the end (vi. 70 i.).
a Lev. 23.

Deut. 16. 1.

v. I—3.]
FTER ¢this there was a feast of
the Jews; and Jesus went up to
Jerusalem.
2 Now there is at Jerusalem by

Sr. JOHN. V.

the sheep llmarket a pool, which is |i Or, gate.

81

called in the Hebrew tongue Bethes-
da, having five porches.
3 In these lay a great multitude of

 

i, Tae Son anp THE Farner (ch. v,).

The record of the healing (vv. 2—9a),
and of the immediate sequel to it (vv. 9b—
18), is followed by a long discourse, ad-
dressed by “the Lord” to “the Jews,” in
answer to their charge that “He spake of
God as His own Father, as His Father in
a sense wholly unique (at7p idtos).” This
discourse consists of two main divisions.

(a) The nature and prerogatives of the
Son (vv, 19—29).

(8) The witness to the Son, and the
ground of unbelief (vv, 31—47).

v, 30 serves as a connecting link between
the two parts,

The contents of these two sections form
the foundation of all the later teaching in
the Gospel.

The discourse appears to have been
addressed to a small (official) gathering :
perhaps to the Sanhedrin, and certainly
not to the multitude (comp, vv. 33, 39).
Perhaps there is a reference to it in vii. 26
(€yverar).

The sign (vv. 2—9a).

The healing of the impotent man was a
work wrought by the Lord spontaneously.
He chose both the object of it and the
occasion. The malady of the sufferer was
not urgent in such a sense that the cure
could not have been delayed. The cure
therefore was not wrought on a Sabbath
although it was a Sabbath, but because it
was Sabbath, with the view of bringing
out a deeper truth (comp. vii. 21 ff.),

For other healings on Sabbaths see Matt.
xii, 9ff. and parallels; Luke xiii, 10 ff.,
xiv. 1 ff.

Cuap. V. 1. After this...(these things...)]
There is a slight difference between after
this (ueTa TOUTO, ii, 12, xi. 7, 11, xix. 28
(Hebr. ix. 27]), and after these things
(mera Tavra, v, 14, iii, 22, vi. 1, xiii. 7, xix.
38, xxi, 1, &c.). The former implies a
connexion of some kind (of time or de-
pendence) between the preceding and sub.
sequent events, which is not suggested by
the latter.

a feast] The evidence for the identifica-

ion of this unnamed feast is very slight.
The tradition of the early Greek Church
identified it with Pentecost. Most modern
lcommentators suppose it to be the feast of
‘Purim (March), from a comparison of iv.
35 and vi. 4. But see Additional Note.

went up to Jerusalem] If the feast were
feet of Purim, this journey was not of

bligation; but compare x. 22 (the Feast
of Dedication).

Q. there is at Jerusalem...) The use of

the present tense does not prove that the
narrative was written before the destruction
of Jerusalem. It is quite natural that St
John in recalling the event should speak
of the place as he knew it. It has indeed
been conjectured that a building used fora
benevolent purpose might have been spared
in the general ruin, but this explanation of
the phrase is improbable.

by the sheep market] by the sheep gate
(ért ry mpoBariKy, super probatica Am.),
which lay near the temple on the east of
the city (Neh. iii. 1, 32, xii. 39), though it
cannot now be certainly fixed (‘ Dict. of
Bible,’ s.v.). The ellipsis, which is most
naturally supplied by gate, is (apparently)
without parallel,

a pool] This has been identified by some
with an intermittent spring known as the
Fountain of the Virgin, in the Valley of
Kidron. The traditional site is the Birket
Israil by the modern gate of St Stephen, on
the north-east of the city. But neither spo
fully answers to the conditions of the.pool.

in the Hebrew] that is, in the language
“of those beyond the river” brought from
Babylon, and not in the classical language
of the Old Testament. Compare Lightfoot
ad loc,

Bethesda] The original reading and the
meaning of the name are both very uncer-
tain. The common interpretation of the form
Bethesda is House of Mercy (SDM M3);
but this is open to objection on the ground
of the usage of S"]HM, and it has been sup-
posed to represent the House of the portico
(YON M3, ofkos arons). See Delitzsch,
‘Ztschr. f. Luth, Theol.’ 1856, 622f. The
true reading appears to contain the element
-zatha (-saida), which suggests RP‘F M2) }
the House of the olive. The pool is not
mentioned by any Jewish writer.

five porches] Cloisters, or covered spaces
round the pool, such as are commonly
found by tanks in India.

3, 4. The words from waiting for...he
had are not part of the original text of St
John, but form a very early note added to
explain v. 7, while the Jewish tradition
with regard to the pool was still fresh.
Some authorities add the last clause of
». 3 only; others v. 4 only; others add
both, but with considerable verbal varia-
tions. See Additional Note.

3. In these lay a great multitude of
impotent folk] In these were lying a
multitude of sick folk... The healing.
properties of the pool may have been due
to its mineral elements. Eusebius (‘De situ
et nom.’ s.v.) describes the waters of the
pool identified with it in his time as
82

impotent folk, of blind, halt, withered,
waiting for the moving of the water,

4 For an angel went down at a cer-
tain season into the pool, and troubled
the water : whosoever then first after
the troubling of the water stepped in
was made whole of whatsoever disease
he had.

5 And a certain man was there,
which had an infirmity thirty and
eight years.

6 When Jesus saw him lie, and
knew that he had been now a long
time in that case, he saith unto him,
Wilt thou be made whole?

Sr. JOHN. V.

[v. 4—I0.

7 The impotent man answered
him, Sir, I have no man, when the
water is troubled, to put me into the
pool: but while Iam coming, another
steppeth down before me.

8 Jesus saith unto him, Rise, take
up thy bed, and walk.

9 And immediately the man was
made whole, and took up his bed,
and walked: and on the same day
was the sabbath.

Io § The Jews therefore said unto
him that was cured, It is the sabbath

day: bit is not lawful for thee to b Jer. 17.

carry thy bed.

 

“marvellously red,” i.e. probably from
deposits of iron on the stones. A chalybeate
spring would be efficacious generally in
cases of weakness.

A similar scene is still presented by the
hot sulphureous springs near Tiberias
(Hammath, Josh. xix. 35): Tristram,
‘Land of Israel,’ 416.

4. an angel...) Comp, Rev. xvi. 5.

5. thirty and eight years] This period
of time, corresponding with the period of
the punishment of the Israelites in the
wilderness, has led many, from a very early
date, to regard the man as a type of the
Jewish people paralysed by faithlessness at
the time of Christ’s coming. The detail
may however be added simply to mark the
inveteracy of the disease.(ix, 1, blind from
his birth),

6. saw him lie (lying) and knew (yvots)]
by the information of bystanders, or (more
probably) by His divine intuition (see p. 46).
The life of this sick man was open to Him
(v, 14), just as the life of the Samaritan
woman (iv, 18). It is to be noticed that
allthe miracles recorded by St John, except
the healing of the nobleman’s son, were
wrought spontaneously by Christ. But the
question with which this work is prefaced
is a peculiar feature,

Wilt thou]i.e. hast thou the will? desirest
thou? The word is often ambiguous, as
for example, v. 40, vi. 11, 67, vii. 17, viii.
44, ix, 27. The question was suggested by
the circumstances of the man’s case. It
might seem that he acquiesced in his con-
dition, and was unwilling to make any
vigorous effort to gain relief. If it was
so, the words were fitted to awaken atten-
tion, hope, effort, in one who had fallen
into apathy. Comp. Acts iii, 4.

7. The impotent man] The sick man
(6 do Oevav). The sufferer answers the
thought which underlay the inquiry. The
delay in his healing was due, as he explains,
not to want of will but want of means,

is troubled] The popular explanation of
the phenomenon of an intermittent spring.

put] The original word en Nei is thaty
which is commonly translated cast. In late
Greek it is used very widely (e.g. xill. 2,
xviii. 11, xx. 25, 27), but it may expres
the necessary haste of the movemen
according to the gloss in v. 4.

8. The three features of the complete
restoration are to be noticed (rise, take up
thy bed, walk), The phrase occurs Mark
ii. 9.

bed] The word(xpdParros, Vulg. grab--
batus), said to be of Macedonian origin,
which is used here, occurs Mark ii, 4 ff.
(note), vi. 55; Acts v. 15, ix. 33. It?
describes technically the bed of the poor—
“a pallet.”

The immediate sequel of the sign (9b—:
18).

In this section the various elements of’
the coming conflict are brought out dis-*
tinctly; the significance of the cure as a
work of power and judgment (v. 14), the

accusations of the Jews (vv. 10, 16, 18),

the self-vindication of Christ (v. 17),

9. And on...the sabbath] A new para.
graph begins with these words: Now on
that day was a sabbath, which prepares the
way for the subsequent discourse. The
form of the phrase is very remarkable
(comp, ix, 14, xix, 31), and suggests the
idea that the sabbath was a day of rest
other than the weekly sabbath.

10. Zhe Jews) See Introd. pp. ix, x.

unto him that was (had been) cured]
The word and tense are contrasted with
those found in v. 13.

It is the sabbath: and it is not...to
carry] Rather, to take up, as in vv, 8, 9,
11, 12. The objectors would refer to such
passages as Jer. xvii. 21f. “If any one
carries anything from a public place to a
private house on the sabbath...intentionally,.
he renders himself liable to the punishment
of premature death (F\59) and stoning ”
(‘Sabb.’ 6 a, quoted by Wunsche).

oe
v. 11—16.]

iz He answered them, He that
made me whole, the same said unto
me, Take up thy bed, and walk.

12 Then asked they him, What
man is that which said unto thee,
Take up thy bed, and walk?

13 And he that was healed wist
not who it was: for Jesus had con-

Or, from veyed himself away, lla multitude

the multi-

tude that
was.

being in that place,
14 Afterward Jesus findeth him

11. Heanswered them...) Buthe.. The

|authority of One who had wrought the

miracle seemed to him to outweigh any
legal enactment. He felt instinctively the
presence of that which was greater than
the sabbath.

the same] even he, with a marked em-
phasis on the pronoun (éxecvos), .Dhis usage
is characteristic of St John, i. 18, 33, ix.
37, xT; Sil. 48; xiv: 21; 26. Comp. also
Mark vii. 15, 20; Rom. xiv. 14; 2 Cor. x. 18.

12. Then asked they...What man...
which said...) They asked, Who is the man
that said... The introduction of the man
marks the spirit of the inquiry, and
suggests the contrast between the Divine
Law and this (assumed) human teacher,
who claimed to deal with it by his own
power. Moreover, as the sufferer had spoken
of his healing, these speak only of the
technical offence, and pass by that work of
power and mercy. Comp. v. 15.

Take up (omit thy bed) and walk] The
words are given with great naturalness in
an abrupt form.

18. And he that...in that place] But he
that...in the place.

for Jesus had conveyed himself away] for
Jesus retired—withdrew—silently and un-
perceived, from a place where He might be
exposed to embarrassment ; for this appears
to be the force of the reference to the
multitude, and not that the crowd made

fescape easier. The word (éxveverv, which

cccurs only here in New Testament) ex-
presses literally, “to bend the head aside,
to avoid a blow” (declinavit u turba,
Vulg.). Comp. Judg. iv. 18, xviii. 26; 2K.
ii, 24, xxiii, 16; 8 Macc. iii, 22 (LXX.);
Jos. ‘ Antt.’ vii. 4. 2.

14, Afterward] After these things.
Comp. v. 1, note.

findeth] The healing was incomplete till
its spiritual lesson was brought out clearly.
Though Christ had withdrawn from the
multitude He sought (comp. i. 43, ix. 35)
the object of His mercy; and so much at
iJeast the man had already learnt, that he
‘repaired to the temple, as we must suppose,
to offer thanks there for his restoration
directly after his cure.

Sr. JOHN. V.

83
in the temple, and said unto him,
Behold, thou art made whole: sin no
more, lest a worse thing come unto
thee.

15 The man departed,’ and told
the Jews that it was Jesus, which
had made him whole.

16 And therefore did the Jews
persecute Jesus, and sought to slay
him, because he had done these
things on the sabbath day.

sin no more] The original (pnKere
dpdptave, noli peccare, Vugl.) expresses
rather No longer continue to sin (comp. 1
Joh, iii, 6, 9). How his sickness was con-
nected with his sin must remain undefined 3
but the connexion is implied, yet in no such
way as to lend colour to the belief in the
direct connexion of all suffering with
personal sin, which is corrected in ix. 3.

a worse thing] even then the sickness of
thirty-eight years, by which the greater
part of his life had been saddened.

15. The man departed (went away)...]
It is difficult to understand the motive of
the man in conveying this information to
the Jews, since he knew the hostile spirit
in which they regarded the cure. He was
certainly not ungrateful, for he still speaks
of Jesus as having cured him (which had
made him whole, v. 11, and not which had
told him to take up his bed, v. 12). Hej
may have wished to leave the responsibility
of his illegal act on the sabbath with One
who had power to answer for it; or it may
be simplest to suppose that he acted in
obedience to the instructions of those whom,
as a Jew, he felt bound to obey.

16. And therefore (Sia tovro, for this
cause)...) This is the first open declara-
tion of hostility to Christ (though the words
and sought to slay him, which are wrongly
added in this verse from v, 18, must be
omitted) ; and it is based upon the alleged
violation of the letter of the Law with
regard to the sabbath, as in the other
Gospels, Matt. xii. 2 ff. and parallels. The
miracle just recorded called out the settled
enmity of the Jews, but the phrase because
he did, or rather used to do, was in the
hahit of doing, these things (acts of mercy
which involved offences against the tradi-
tional interpretations of the Law) on a
sabbath, shews that the feeling was not
due to a solitary act, but to an obvious
principle of action.

17. The answer (see v. 19, note) of Christ
contains in the briefest possible space the
exposition of His office: My Father (ii. 16,
xx, 17) worketh hitherto (éws dptr, Vulg.
usque modo, up to the present moment),
even until now, and 7 work. That is to

G
y

84

17 4 But Jesus answered them,

My Father worketh hitherto, and I
work,

18 Therefore the Jews sought the

more to kill him, because he not only

had broken the sabbath, but said also

Sr. JOHN. V.

[v. 17—19.
that God was his Father, making
himself equal with God.

19 Then answered Jesus and said
unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto
you, The Son can do nothing of him-
self, but what he seeth the Father do:

 

say, the rest of God after the creation,
jwhich the sabbath represents outwardly,
and which I am come to realise, is not a
state of inaction, but of activity, and man’s
‘true rest is not a rest from human earthly
Aabour, but a rest for divine heavenly labour.
Thus the merely negative, traditional, ob-
servance of the sabbath is placed in sharp
contrast with the positive, final, fulfilment
of spiritual service, for which it was a
preparation. The works of Christ did not
violate the Law, while they brought out
the truth to which that tended. Cf. Matt.
xii, 1 ff. and parallels. By the “ work” of
the Father we must understand at once the
maintenance of the material creation and
“the redemption and restoration of all things,
in which the Son co-operated with Him
(Hebr. i. 3; Eph. i. 9f.).

The form of the sentence is remarkable,
Christ places His work as co-ordinate with
that of the Father, and not as dependent
on it. Comp, Mark ii, 27, 28 (Zhe Son of
man is Lord also of the sabbath).

The question of the action of God upon
the Sabbath was much debated in the
Jewish schools, ‘“ Why does not God,” said
a caviller, “keep the sabbath?” “ May not

' aman,” was the answer, “ wander through

his own house on the sabbath? The house
of God is the whole. realm above and the
whole realm below” (‘Shem. R.’ xxx.).
Comp. Philo, ‘Leg. Alleg.’ 1, p. 46m.

hitherto] even until now. The work of
Christ which had excited the hostility of
the Jews was, however little they could see
it, really coincident with a working of
God which knows no interruption,

18. The Jews rightly interpreted the
words of the Lord. They saw that He
claimed the power of abrogating the law of
the Sabbath in virtue of His absolutely
special relation to God: He called God His
own Father (Rom. viii. 32)—His Father in
a peculiar sense—making Himself equal
with God, by placing His action on the
same level with the action of God. Comp.
x. 83 For this reason the more they (not
only persecuted Him, v. 16, but) sought
to kill Him. Comp. Matt. xii. 14, and
parallels, Matt, xxvi. 65, note. Comp.
viii, 59, x, 83; Mark ii, 7.

he...had broken] Literally, he was loosing
(Ave, Vulg. solvebat), ie, he declared that
the law of the sabbath was not binding.
| The word (Avw) expresses not the violation

of the sanctity of the day in a special case,
but the abrogation of the duty of observ}
ance. Comp. Matt. v. 19, xviii, 18 Aj:
prophet might absolve from the oblizationt
of the law in u particular instance, but not
generally.

The Nature and Prerogatives of the Son
(19—29).
The first part of the comprehensive
answer of the Lord to the Jews deals with
His Nature and prerogatives (1) in relation
to the Father (19—23), and (2) in relation
to men (24—29),
The fact that the discourse was addressed
to a small, trained, audience (see pre-
liminary note) explains the close brevity of
the reasoning.
vv. 19—23. The action and honour of
the Son are coincident with the action and
honour of the Father. It is through the
action of the Son that men see the action
of the Father, and it is by honouring the
Son that they honour the Father.
The exposition of these thoughts is made
in a series of statements bound together
by “for” (ydép) four times repeated.
The Son doeth nothing self-determined of
Himself, which would be impossible (19a) ;
for His action is absolutely coincident in
range with that of the Father (19); ©
and this can be;

for His Father shews Him His widening
counsels, which extend to the exhibi-
tion of greater works than healing (20) ;

for it is the prerogative of the Son to give
life (21, as is shewn to be the case;

for all judgment is given to Him, and
et can see that He exerts this power
22).

Hence it follows that men should honour
in Son even as they honour the Father

28).

19. Then answered Jesus...] Jesus there-
fore answered... He met their thoughts
and their actions (comp. ii. 18, n.) by a
justification of His own works and His
divine claims as Messiah. This “ answer ”
is not to be placed in immediate temporal
connexion with what precedes,

Verily, verily] See i, 51, note. The teach-
ing is “ with authority ” (Matt. vii. 28 f.).

The Son] iii. 85. The idea is simply
that of the absolute relation of the Divine
Persons, of the Son to the Father, and
consequently this term is used (19—28),
and not (as below vv. 30 ff.) “I"—the
Vv. 20, 21.]

for what things soever he doeth, these
also doeth the Son likewise.

20 For the Father loveth the Son,
and sheweth him all things that him-

St. JOHN. V.

85
self doeth: and he will shew him
greater works than these, that ye
may marvel.

a1 For as the Father raiseth up

 

Christ whom you reject—or “the Son of
God” (v. 25), or “Son of man” (v. 27),
which emphasize the divine or human
nature of the Lord relatively to man. At
the same time the Son is regarded as
“sent” (vv, 23 f.), and therefore as Incar-
nate. But this idea lies in the background
here, where the immediate point is the
justification of the statement in v. 17 from
the essential relation of the Son to the
Father. The argument is conducted by
the Lord without a direct personal refer-
ence to Himself in such a way as to arrest
the attention of the Jews, and not to drive
them away at once. Perfect Sonship in-
volves perfect identity of will and action
with the Father. The Son can do nothing
of Himself, self-determined without the
Father, nothing, that is, except He see the
Father doing it (but what he seeth the
Father do). Separate action on His part
is an impossibility, as being a contradiction
of His unity with the Father (comp. v. 30
and xvi. 13). The limitation (except He
see...) refers to can do nothing, and not to
the last words (of Himself); and the
coincidence of the action of the Father and
of the Son is brought out by the exact
turn of the phrase—see the Father doing,
and not do,

can do nothing] the eternal law of right
is (in human language) the definition of
divine power. The words do not convey
any limitation of the Son’s working, but
explain something as to its character.
Comp. v. 30, iii. 27; Mark vi. 5; (Gen. xix.
92). For another aspect of this “cannot”
see vii. 7, note.

of himself] v. 30, note; Num. xvi. 28
(LXX.). The truth lies in the very idea
of Sonship.

for what things soever...] The negative
statement is supplemented by a positive
one...7he Son can do nothing...for...His
action is not only coincident but coexten-
sive with the action of the Father; what
things soever He doeth these also the Son
doeth in like manner, not in imitation, but
in virtue of His sameness of nature.

20, For the Father...) The action of
the Son, as coincident and coextensive with
that of the Father, depends upon the con-
tinuous revelation which the Father makes
to Him in accordance with His eternal
love : for the Father loveth the Son;...and
this revelation, regarded under the limita-
tions of human existence, is progressive,
and signs of healing are only preparatory
to greater works; for as the Father...
quickeneth, even so the Son also quickeneth
whom He (unemphatic) will.

Thus we can see that there is a divine
coherence, a divine meaning, in all nature
and all history. The Son sees all, for the
Father shews all to Him; and we also can
see parts at least in Him, Comp. Matt. xi. 27.

loveth (the Son)] The word (d¢uAéiv)
marks personal affection based upon a
special relation (xi. 3, 36; comp. Matt. x.
37), and not the general feeling of regard,
esteem, consideration (dyarav) which comes
from reflection and knowledge: the for-
mer feeling answers to nature, the latter
to experience and judgment (iii. 35, x. 17),
and so is specially appropriate to spiritual
relations. This love expresses (so to speak)
the moral side of the essential relation of
the Father to the Son. And go it is
through the Son that the personal love of
God is extended to believers: xvi. 27;
comp. Rev, iii, 19.

The sign of love is the perfect revela-
tion of thought and feeling: xv. 15.

he will...than these] The original order is
more expressive : greater works (comp. xiv.
12) than these will He shew (comp. x. 32)
Him; and He (so it is implied, v. 19)
when He seeth them will do them in like
manner, that ye (emphatic) may marvel.
It cannot but appear strange at first sight
that wonder is given as the object of
Christ’s works. The difficulty is removed
by taking account of the pronoun : that ye
who question my authority and are blind
to my divine Sonship may marvel. Till
Christ was recognised His works could at
the most appear only to be prodigies :
their effect would be astonishment, not be-
lief. But wonder might give occasion for
faith. Under this aspect ‘‘ wonder’’ is
presented in two remarkable traditional
sayings of the Lord preserved by Clement
of Alexandria (‘Strom.’ ii. 9, 45): ‘‘He
that wonders shall reign, and he that
reigns shall rest :’”’ ‘‘Wonder at that which
is before you.” This partial object of
wonder, however, is contrasted with the
general object in v, 23. Works—outward
signs—may produce wonder, but judgment
completed enforces honour. Comp. Plat.
‘Theet.’ p. 155 D.

shew] x. 32. The divine works require
the interpretation of sympathy. Such
sympathy the Son has absolutely.

works] This is a characteristic term in St
John (comp. Matt. xi. 2) in which Christ!
includes under the same category the mani-'
fold forms of His action. His ‘‘ works”
were fragments contributing to ‘“‘the work”
which He came to finish (iv. 34, xvii. 4),)
and these He must needs work while it
86 St. JOHN. V. [v. 22, 23.

the dead, and quickeneth them; even
so the Son quickeneth whom he will.

22 For the Father judgeth no man,
but hath committed all judgment
unto the Son:

23 That all men should honour the
Son, even as they honour the Father.
He that honoureth not the Son
honoureth not the Father which hath
sent him,

 

was day (ix. 4). Miracles from this point
of view are regarded on the same level with
the other works of Christ, though ‘‘miracu-
lous”? works may in a peculiar sense move
to faith (v. 86, x. 25, 32, xiv. 10, 12, xv.
24). All works alike are designed to con-
tribute to the redemption of the world
(comp. ch. xvii. 21, note). See v. 36, n.

21. The progress in the dignity of the
works of the Son follows from the extent of
their sphere, for as the Father raiseth the
dead...even so the Son also...The restora-
tion of an impotent man is then
but a beginning of that giving of life
of which it was a sign. The vivifying
power of the Father is described in its
twofold physical aspect, He raiseth up the
dead and quickeneth: that of the Son in

Yreference to its moral law, He quickeneth
whom He will. The ‘quickening’ as it
stands in the second clause is necessarily
coextensive with the raising the dead and
quickening in the first, which is not to be
limited to any isolated ‘‘ miraculous”’ acts,
but extends to all communication of life,
natural and spiritual. The main forms of
‘‘quickening’’ are distinguished after-
wards, vv. 25, 28.

The definition whom He will marks (1)
the efficacy of Christ’s power, and (2) con-
nects this communication of higher life
with the counsels of infinite wisdom and
love, and (8) shews its independence of
outward descent (as from Abraham). There
is no emphasis on the personal will of the
Son (whom He will) as in v. 20 (which
He Himself doeth).

The full significance of this claim of
Christ to ‘‘quicken whom he will’ is
illustrated by the second of the ‘She-
moneh Esreh,’ the ‘Eighteen [Benedic-
tions],’ of the Jewish Prayer Book. It
is probable that this thanksgiving was
used in substance in the apostolic age:
“Thou O Lord, art mighty for ever : Thou
quickenest the dead: Thou art strong to
save. Thou sustainest the living by Thy
mercy : Thou quickenest the dead by Thy
great compassion. Thou...makest good
Thy faithfulness to them that sleep in the
dust... Thou art faithful to quicken the
dead. Blessed art Thou, O Lord, who
quickenest the dead.”

“22, The fact that the Son posessses and
exercises this quickening power is estab-
lished by the fact that He has a still more
awful prerogative. The quickening of
men is contrasted with the judgment of
men, which is the correlative of sin (iii. 17

ff.) And this judgment belongs to the
Son (as Son of man, v. 27), For not even
doth the Father judge any man, but hath
committed (given) all judgment (or
literally, the judgment which comes and
will come, wholly, in all tts parts, now in
its first beginning and hereafter in its
complete accomplishment) unto the Son.
the Father...no man] The exact phrase
of the original marks a climax: not even
doth the Father—to whom this office might
seem to pertain—judge any man.
committed] given (SeSwxev), the word |
which is constantly used of the privileges
and office of the Son: v. 36, iii. 35, vi. 37,
39, x. 29, xvii. 2, 4 ff, 22 ff. See v. 36, note]

23. The Son has received the preroga-
tive of judgment, and it is through the
exercise of this power that men come to
perceive His true majesty. For it was
committed to Him for this end, that all
men should honour (not future, but present)
the Son even as they honour the Father
(x. 87, 38). Sooner or later, in loss or in
sorrow, this must be. And there is also a
converse form of the Truth. It is by
honouring the Son that we can honour the
Father; and He that honoureth not the Son
honoureth not the Father which sent Him
(comp. 1 John iv. 20; ch. xv. 24).

which hath sent him] which sent Him.
These words mark the transition from the
conception of the Son essentially to that of
the Son revealed by the incarnation. The’
phrase He that sent me is peculiar to St
John (comp. Rom. viii, 3). It is used
only by the Lord absolutely of the Father,
iv. 34, vv. 24, 30, vi. 38, 39, vii. 16, 28, 33,
viii, 26, 29, ix. 4, xii. 44, 45, xiii, 20, xv.
21, xvi. 5. Elsewhere the full form, the
Father that sent me, occurs, v. 37, vi. 44,
viii, 16, 18, xii, 49, xiv. 24. Comp. i. 33
(He that sent me to baptize).

24—29. In these verses we pass from
the consideration of the relation of the Son
to the Father to that of the relation of
Christ to men. The conception of the
“greater works” of the Son, the quicken-
ing and the judgment of men, is defined
more exactly in connexion with the Son as
revealed by the Incarnation. At the same
time, though the oblique form is generally
preserved, the work and the mission of
Christ are referred to directly (my word,
Him that sent me, v. 24). In v, 24 the
general ideas of all life and all judgment
in connexion with the Son (21, 22) are
restated : in vv. 25, 26, they are applied
to the present order; in 28, 29, they are
applied to the future order.
Vv. 24—27.]

24 Verily, verily, I say unto you,
He that heareth my word, and be-
lieveth on him that sent me, hath
everlasting life, and shall not come
into condemnation; but is passed
from death unto life.

25 Verily, verily, I say unto you,
The hour is coming, and now is, when

St. JOHN. V.

the dead shall hear the voice of the Son
of God : and they that hear shall live.

26 For as the Father hath life in
himself; so hath he given to the Son
to have life in himself;

27 And hath given him authority
to execute judgment also, because he
is the Son of man.

 

24. Verily, verily] vv, 19, 25. Comp. i.
51, note.

He that...believeth on him...everlasting
life, and shall not come tnto condemna-
tion...) He that heareth my word and
believeth Him that sent me hath life eternal
and cometh not into judgment, but is
passed out of death (the death that is
truly death) into life (the life that is truly
life). (Comp. 1 John iii, 14.) The two
conditions of eternal life are (1) knowledge
of the revelation made by the Son, and (2)
belief in the truth of it, that is, belief in
the word of the Father who speaks through
the Son. Comp. xvii. 3. He who knows
the Gospel and knows that the Gospel is
true cannot but Aave life. Eternal life is
not future but present, or rather it ts, and
so is above all time. Comp. iii. 18 f. For
him who hath this life judgment is impos-
sible. He has already gone beyond it.
Comp. 1 John ii. 28, iv. 17.

believeth on him...) believeth him...
(wictevwv Tg 7.), The difference between
“believing a person or statement” (rurrevetv
he and “believing on a person” (riorevewy

is tid) is as clearly marked in Greek as
in English, though it is destroyed here in
A. V. and in viii. 31; Acts xvi. 34, xviii.
8; Tit. iii. 8; while it is preserved vv. 38,
46, viii. 45, 46; Rom. iv. 3; Acts xxvii. 25.
The two phrases are contrasted in vi. 29,
30, viii. 30, 31; 1 John v. 10. To believe
God or to believe the Lord is to acknow-
ledge as true the message which comes
from Him or the word which He speaks.
It is assumed that the message does come
from Him, and therefore to believe the
. message is to believe Him. So here Christ
refers His word to the authority of the
Father: compare v. 37.

shall not come] cometh not. The issues
of action are regarded in their potential
accomplishment in the present.

condemnation] judgment. Compare In-
trod., pp. xlviii ff.

from death unto...] out of death into...
1 John iii. 14. In his epistle St John speaks
of “love to the brethren” as the personal
proof of this transition. Such love flows
from an acceptance in faith of Christ’s
word (1 John ii, 7, iii. 11). Death and

ife are, as it were, two spheres of exist-

nce, like darkness and light : 1 John v. 19,
20, ch. viii. 31, note.

25. The present manifestation of Christ’s

vivifying power in the spiritual resurrection
(is coming and now is) is stated in contrast
with the future manifestation in the general
resurrection (is coming, v, 28). See iv. 23,
21. The hour was “coming,” so far as the
Christian dispensation truly began with the
gift of Pentecost: but it “ was” already
while Christ openly taught among men.

the dead] the spiritually dead : this is the
predominant idea, but at the same time we
cannot exclude the outward signs of it as
in the raising of Lazarus: comp. xi. 23 ff.
For this use of the word see Matt. viii. 22;
Luke xv. 24, 32; Rom. vi. 11; Eph. v. 14.
It will be observed that the voice of power
is attributed to the Son of God. Comp.
xi. 4; contrast ix. 35.

they that hear] This phrase is not co-
extensive with the dead. The voice is
addressed to the whole class: those who
receive it (of dxovoavres) shall live. As
yet the thought is of dé#fe only, and not of
judgment, except 30 far as that is expressed
in the want of life.

26, as...so...) The particles mark the
fact of the gift and not the degree of it.
Comp. v. 21; Matt. xiii. 40, &.

so hath he given...) so gave He also...
The Son has not life only as given, but life
in Himself as being a spring of life. “Nos
non habemus vitam in nobis ipsis, sed in
Deo nostro, Ile autem Pater vitam in
semetipso habet; et talem genuit Filium
qui haberet vitam in semetipso; non fieret
vite particeps, sed ipse vita esset, cujus
nos vitz participes essemus” (August.
‘Serm.’ cxxvii. 9). The tense (gave)
carries us back beyond time; and yet it has
a further application to the incarnation,
wherein the Son became also the Son of
man (v. 27). The sovereignty of life is
followed by the authority to judge, as in
vv. 21, 22. Comp. vi. 57; Rev. i. 17.

27. And hath given (gave) him...judg-
ment (om. also) because he is the Son of
man (son of man or a son of man)] The
prerogative of judgment is connected with
the true humanity of Christ (Son of man)
and not with the fact that He is the
representative of humanity (the Son of
man). The Judge, even as the Advocate
(Hebr. ii, 18), must share the nature of
those who are brought before Him. The
omission of the article concentrates atten-
tion upon the nature and not upon the
personality of Christ. Comp, i. 1; Hebr.

87
c Matt. 25.
46.

88

28 Marvel not at this: .for the
hour is coming, in the which all
that are in the graves shall hear his
voice, .

29 And shall come forth; cthey
that have done good, unto the resur-

St. JOHN. V.

[v. 28—30.

rection of life; and they that have
done evil, unto the resurrection of
damnation. 7

30 I can of mine own self do
nothing : as I hear, I judge: and my
judgment is just; because I seek not

 

i. 1, 2 (év Tols mpopirais...év vig, in One
who was a Son). The phrase (son of man)
is found here only in the Gospel, but it
occurs also Rev. i. 13, xiv. 14: the Son of
Man occurs i. 51, iii. 18, 14, vi. 27, 58, 62,
as often in the other Gospels. Comp. i.
51, additional note.

28. Marvel not at this: for...) The
partial spiritual quickening and judgment
is consummated in a universal quickening
and judgment. There is a marked contrast
between the corresponding clauses of vv.
25, 28: the dead (v. 25), all that are in the
tombs (v. 28): cometh and now is (v. 25),
cometh (v. 28). Here the quickening is
the inevitable result of the divine action
(all...shall hear); before it followed from
the concurrence of faith with the divine
message (they that hear shall live).

Marvel not...) Comp. v. 20. Wonder is
at most only a stage of transition. Each
manifestation of Christ’s power is a pre-
paration for something greater.

29. It will be observed that there is a
contrast between the one result of the
present action of the Son, shail live (v. 25),
and the complex result of His future
action : shall go forth...

they that have done (that wrought)
good...) The“ doing” of good is described
by a word which sets it forth as issuing in
a definite production (of Ta dyad
TOLTAVTES), while in the second member
the word is changed : they that have done
(did) evil...where the “ doing” is regarded
simply in the moral character of the action
(oi ta datda mpdfavres). The same
words (roveiv, tpdoceiv) are contrasted,
ch, iii. 20, 21, note; Rom. i. 32, vii. 15, 19,
xiii. 4. The distinction is well preserved
in the Vulgate, bona  fecerunt...mala
egerunt,

For the contrast of a resurrection of life
(2 Macc, vii. 14), and a resurrection of
judgment, see v, 24. In one case the
resurrection is accompanied by the full
fruition of life, judgment being past: in
the other resurrection issues in judgment.

of damnation] of judgment (kxpiews).
Comp. iii. 17 ff.

30. This verse forms a transition from
the first section of the discourse to the
second, At the same time it marks the
passage from the indirect (the Son) to the
personal (Z) revelation of Christ. The
truth of the divine Sonship, with which
the discourse opened, is first repeated in a

new form, I (ey) can of mine own self do
nothing; and then the principle of Christ’s
judgment 1s laid down (as Z hear, I judge),
which is the ground of all true judgment.

I can...do nothing] Comp. v. 19, note.

of mine own self] Comp. vii. 17 f., 28,
vili, 28, 42, (xii. 49, é€& éuj, xiv. 10, (xi.
51), xv. 4, note, xvi, 13. The very idea ofy
Sonship involves (in some sense) that of}
dependence. There is but one “ fountain”:
of Deity. But under another aspect the Son}
“Jays down His life of Himself” (x. 18).

as I hear, I judge] The judgment of
the Son is based upon the perfect know-
ledge of the thoughts of the Father, as the
action of the Son is based upon the perfect
vision of His works. The “hearing” in
this verse with regard to judgment corre-
sponds to the “seeing” in v. 19 with
regard to action.

because I seek...the will of the Father
which hath sent me} of Him that sent me
(iv. 34, vi. 38, 39). The two conditions of
absolute justice are (1) negative: absence
of all respect of self; and (2) positive:
devotion to the will of the Father. In
both these respects the just judgment of
the Son is contrasted with the false judg-
ment of the Jews, vv. 41—44.

The connexion between the obedience
rendered by the Son, and the honour
rendered to the Son (v. 23), must be
noticed.

It will be observed that the “ will” of
Christ corresponds with His one unchanged
personality (Z, ¢yw). Comp. Matt. xxvi.
39, and parallels. The thought of the verse
is partially illustrated by a noble saying
of R. Gamaliel : “Do His will as if it were
thy will, that He may do thy will as if it
were His will.” But he continues : “ Annul
thy will before his will, that He may annul
the will of others before thy will”
(‘ Aboth,’ 11. 4).

The witness to the Son and the ground of
unbeltef (31—47),

This second main division of the dis-
course consists, like the first, of two parts.
The witness to the Son is first laid open
(81—40), and then the rejection of the
witness in its cause and end (41—47).

31—40. Christ appeals to a witness
separate from His own, and yet such that
He has immediate knowledge of its truth.
Such witness is partly provisional and
partly final. Of the former kind that of
John the Baptist is the type (33—35). The
d chap. 8.
14. P

e Matt. 3.
17,

Vv. 31—35.]
mine own will, but the will of the
Father which hath sent me,

31 4If I bear witness of myself,
my witness is not true.

32 9 eThere is another that bear-
eth witness of me; and I know that
the witness which he witnesseth of
me is true.

St. JOHN. Vv.

33 Ye sent unto John, and fhe/
bare witness unto the truth.

34 But I receive not testimony
from man: but these things I say,
that ye might be saved.

35 He was a burning and shining
light : and ye were willing for a sea-
son to rejoice in his light.

 

latter lies in the witness of ‘“ works”
leading up to the witness of the Father
(36—40).

81. Zf ZI (emphatic) bear witness of
(concerning)...] The stress lies on the pro-
noun, ‘“‘If IT alone and in fellowship with
no other...’’ Comp. viii. 14.

is not true] The words anticipate an
objection, and define the amount of truth
which it contains. According to legal
usage the testimony of a witness was not
received in his own case. This principle
the Jews might urge against Christ; and
He acknowledges the deeper meaning
which lay beneath it. If He asserted His
claims self-prompted (of Himself) He
would violate the absolute trust which the
Son owed to the Father; though there
was a sense in which He could bear wit-
ness of Himself (viii. 12 ff.) when the
Father spoke through Him (viii. 18).

32. There is another] In due time and
in due manner another bears witness. The
whole scope of the statement decides that
this other is ‘“‘the Father’? and not the
Baptist. In the verses which follow the
testimony of the Baptist is treated as pro-
visional, and as being in a certain degree
an accommodation. The testimony of the
Father is that upon which the Son rests,
uv. 87, viii, 18.

that bearcth witness} The action is
present and continuous (6 papTupav... pa-
ptupet).

I know...) In the certainty of this know-
ledge Christ could repose. Such witness
could not but produce its true effect. The
absolute knowledge spoken of here (oida) is
to be distinguished from the knowledge of
experience (@yvwka) in v. 42.

the witness which he witnesseth] This
full form of expression, as distinguished
from ‘‘his witness,’ emphasizes the idea
of the continuity of the witness as a mat-
ter of actual experience.

33. Ye (emphatic) sent...and he bare...]
Ye have sent...and he hath borne... The
mission and the testimony are spoken of as
abiding in their results. The prominent
idea is not the historic fact (i. 32), but
the permanent and final value of the wit-
ness (i. 34, iii, 26, v. 37, xix. 35).

The emphatic pronoun (Ye have sent...)
marks a contrast between the standard of
authority which the Jews set up and that
which Christ admitted (v. 34). At the

same time the reference to John follows
naturally after the mysterious reference to
‘‘another” in whom some might think
that they recognised him.

84. But I receive not testimony from
man...] But though the witness of John
was decisive according to your view, J
(emphatic as distinguished from you) re-
ceive not my witness (Tv paprupiav, the
witness which characterizes the reality of
my work and answers to it) from a man
(even though he be a prophet), but these
things I say—I appeal even to this imper-
fect witness, I urge every plea which may
be expected to prevail with you—that ye
—even ye—might (may) be saved.

85. He was a burning and a shining
light...) He was—though now his work is
ended by imprisonment or death—the
lamp that burneth and shineth (giveth
light)... The phrase may also be rendered,
the lamp that is kindled and shineth, by
the analogy of Matt. v. 15; but Luke xii.
35, Rev. iv. 5, viii. 10, are strongly against,
this interpretation. John the Baptist was
the lamp, the derivative and not the self-
luminous light (i. 8). Comp. Matt. vi. 22;
2 Pet. i. 19; but the word is used also of
the Lamb, Rev. xxi, 23, where the glory of
God, as the source of light, is placed in
connexion with the Lamb, through whom
(as the lamp of this vast temple) the light
is conveyed to the city of God. The defi-
nite article (the lamp) simply marks the
familiar piece of household furniture
(comp. Mark. iv. 21; Luke xi. 36). The
epithets complete the image. The lamp is
exhausted by shining; its illuminating
power is temporary, and sensibly con-
sumed. John the Baptist necessarily
decreased (iii. 30). The title is eminently
appropriate to the Baptist in his relation
to Christ (the light); but there is no evi-
dence to shew that it was given to the
herald of Messiah by tradition, though it
was applied to several distinguished
teachers. Compare Buxtorf, ‘Lex.’ s. v.
NDS. p. 338. But while his glory
asted the Jews (ye emphatic) were willin
for a season (an hour, 2 Cor. vii. 8; Ga
ii. 5; Philem. 15) to rejoice ( dyadAvaod.
Ava) in his light. This exulting joy
however shewed their real misunderstand-
ing of his mission. They welcomed his
power, but disregarded the solemn warn-
ing of his preaching of repentance. His

89

chap. 1.7

4

|
90 St. JOHN. V. [v. 36—38.
36 | But I have greater witness hath sent me, ghath borne witness 0 Matt, »
than that of John: for the works of me.

Ye have neither heard his 5.
which the Father hath given me to

voice at any time, nor seen his h Dent. 4.
finish, the same works that I do, bear

witness of me, that the Father hath
sent me.

37 And the Father himself, which

shape.

38 And ye have not his word
abiding in you: for whom he hath
sent, him ye believe not.

 

stern presence became a mere spectacle.
Comp. Luke vii. 24 ff,

36,37 a. But I have greater witness...)
More exactly: But the witness which I
(emphatic) have is greater (more conclu-
sive) than that of John (or than John),
for...the very works that I do bear witness
of me...and the Father which sent me, He
hath borne witness. The one witness was
even then being given; the other was
complete. The revelation made in Christ,
and especially in His works of power, was
a proof developed before the eyes of men,
The historical revelation of the Old Testa-
ment consummated at the Baptism was al-
ready a finished whole, and recorded in
the preparatory Scriptures of the old
Covenant.

the works...given] ‘‘The works” of
Messiah from the divine side were a com-
plete whole (hath given); but they were
gradually wrought out on earth (that 1
should accomplish, v. 84); and this accom-
plishment was the end proposed in the
divine gift ( iva).
¢ the works] This phrase is used, as
“generally in St John’s Gospel (v. 20, n.),
ito describe the whole outward manifesta-
ion of Christ’s activity, both those acts
‘which we call supcrnatural and those
gvhich we call natural. All alike are
wrought in fulfilment of one plan and by
one power. The many ‘‘ works’ (vii. 3,
ix. 3, x, 25, 32, 37 f., xiv. 10 ff., xv, 24)
are parts of the one ‘‘ work’’ (iv. 34, xvii.
4). The phrase occurs elsewhere in Matt.
v. 16.

hath given ( Sédwxev)] The declaration
of this relation of the Father to the Son
(Incarnate) is characteristic of St John.
The Father hath given all things in Hi.
hand (iii, 35, xiii. 3); He hath given Him
all judgment (vv, 22, 27); He gave Him to
have life in Himself (v. 26); He hath given
Him a company of faithful servants (vi.
39; comp. vi. 65, xvii, 2, 6, 9, 12, 24,
xviii. 9); He hath given Him command-
ment what to say (xii. 49) and to do (xiv,
31, xvii. 4; comp. xvii. 7 f.). He gave
Him authority over all flesh (xvii. 2); He
hath given Him His name (xvii. 11 f.) and
glory (xvii. 24; comp. v, 22).

finish] accomplish. Comp. iv. 34, note.

that I do] The pronoun (€y) which is

inserted in the common text must be
\omitted. It stands in x. 25, xiv. 12, and
xiii. 7.

37. the Father (omit himself)...He (éxet-
vos) hath borne witness...) Side by side
with the continuous witness of the Father
(v. 82) there is a witness which is com-
plete. This was given, in its outward
form, in the prophetic teaching of the Old
Testament closed by the work of the Bap-
tist ; and in its spiritual form, in the con-
stitution of man whereby he recognises in
Christ the fulfilment of the providential

teaching of God. Comp. Introd. pp.
xlv._ ff.
87 6, 38. But still the double witness was

unavailing. The words and visions of the
Old Testament were fulfilled in Christ (i.
17). If He was rejected at His coming,
they were inarticulate and unreal to the
faithless. So too it was with the last
witness at the Baptism (i. 32 ff.). Since
therefore it is only through the Son that
men can hear or see God (xiv. 9), the
Jews by their disbelief of Christ failed to
hear and see Him (ye is unemphatic) ; nor
was His word, which answers from with-
in to the revelation without, abiding in
them (1 John ii. 14). This all follows from
the words which are emphasized in the
original by their position : whom He sent,
Him ye ( tpeis) believe not.

The passage is a summary of the mode
and conditions of revelation. The teach-
ing and the character of God can be dis-
covered in nature and history, but His
Word must be welcomed and kept in the
soul in order that that which is without
may be intelligible. =

his voice...shape...) Comp. Luke iii. 22
(voice, shape), ix. 835. Comp. ch. xii. 28;
Acts vii. 81, ix. 4, x., 18.

88. his word] Compare xvii. 6 ff.;
1 John i. 10, ii, 14, (Hebr. iv. 12), The
word of God is a power within man, speak-
ing to and through his conscience; not
simply the sum of the earlier revelation
under the old Covenant as an outward
power; nor yet an independent illumina-
tion; but the whole teaching of Provi-
dence felt to be w divine message.

for (because)...) This is not alleged as
the ground, but as the sign of what has
been said. Comp. Luke vii. 47; 1 John
iii, 14.

he hath sent] he sent.
note,

39, 40. From the essential elements of
revelation, external (voice, shape) and in-
ternal (word), the Lord passes to the

Comp. xx. 21,
Vv. 39—43.]

« 39 9 Search the scriptures; for in
them ye think ye have eternal life:
and they are they which testify of me.

40 And ye will not come to me,
that ye might have life.

St. JOHN. V.

gI
41 I receive not honour from men.
42 But I know you, that ye have
not the love of God in you.
43 Iam come in my Father’s name,
and ye receive me not: if another

 

record of Revelation in Scripture. This
the Jews misused.

39. Search the scriptures...) Ye search
the Scriptures... The original word may
_jbe either imperative (A.V.) or indicative.
The indicative rendering is strongly recom-
mended by the (1) immediate connexion,
ye search...and they... ; (2) the sense of for
in them ye think..., which rather explains
a practice than recommends a precept; (3)
the general form of the passage : ye have...
ye have not...ye will not; (4) the character
of the Jews who reposed in the letter of

| he Old Testament instead of interpreting
it by the help of the living Word. On the
other side the position of the verb at the
beginning of the sentence, and the omis-
sion of the pronoun, which occurs in the
second clause, are in favour of the impera-
tive rendering. But on the whole, the
former view is the most probable. The
insertion of the pronoun would weaken the
stress which is laid on the idea of search.
ing, and this is the central thought. The
intense, misplaced diligence of search is
contrasted with the futile result.

Search] ch. vii. 52; 1 Pet. i. 11. Comp.
Rom, viii. 27; 1 Cor. ii, 10; Rev. ii, 23.
The original word ( épavvgy ) describes that

inute, intense investigation of Scripture
(yyq"}) which issued in the allegorical and
mystical interpretations of the Midrash. A
single example of the stress laid upon the
written word will suffice: ‘ Hillel used to
say...more Thorah (Law), more life (Prov.
iii. 1f.).... He who has gotten to himself
words of Thorah, has gotten to himself
the life of the world to come” (‘ Aboth,’
11. 8. Compare ‘ Perek R. Meir’ through.
out; Taylor, ‘Sayings of the Fathers,’ pp.
113 ff.). The knowledge of God, it was
thought, without repentance brought for-

» giveness of sins (Just. M. ‘Dial.’ § 141).
the scripture] the book as distinguished
from the living word (v. 38).

for (because)...ye think] because you for
your part (tpeis), following your vain
fancies, think falsely and superstitiously
that in them—in their outward letter—
ye have eternal life, without penetrating to
their true, divine meaning. You repose
where you should be moved to expectation.
You set up your theory of Holy Scripture
against the divine purpose of it.

and they...and ye will not...) The words
mark a double failure. The scriptures wit-
nessed of One whom the Jews rejected;
they pointed to life which the Jews would
not seek. There is a deep pathos in the
simple co-ordination: and...and...

and they (é€keivat)...] those very scrip-
tures which you idolize. Comp. i. 18, note.

which testify] still and always. Comp.
v, 32. The teaching of the Old Testament
is never exhausted. As we know more of
Christ it reveals more to us concerning Him.

40. And] still, even with this testimony
before you, the personal act of faith fails,
ye will not (ye have no will to) come unto
me (comp, Matt. xxiii. 37, ch. ili. 19) that
ye may have life—“life” in its simplest
form, the condition of all else (iii. 36, xx.
81), not qualified even as “eternal life”
(v. 89).

ye will not] Man has that freedom of}
determination which makes him responsible}
This truth is expressed in various forms
in St John’s Gospel (comp. vii. 17, viii. 44,
vi. 67) side by side with the affirmation of
the divine action through which the will is
effective for good (vi. 44).

41—47. In this section Christ, starting
from the fact of a want of will to believe
in His hearers, unfolds the cause (41—44)
and the end (45—47) of their rejection of
Himself.

The ground of rejection (41—44) lies ina
want of divine love in the Jews (v. 42),
which is shewn by their inability to recog-
nise Christ’s self-sacrifice (v. 43), while they
themselves pursued selfish ends (v. 44).

41. The connection of thought with what
precedes appears to lie in the anticipation
of a natural objection. The condemnation
which Christ pronounced might be referred
to disappointed hope. It is, He replies,
your spiritual life and not my own glory
that I seek. I want nothing for myself,
but I see a fatal defect in you. “Glory
from men I receive not”—the order is
emphatic, and contrasted with that in
v, 34—“but I know you, that ye have not
the love of God in you.”

honour (glory) from men] The glory of
Messiah lies in His perfect fellowship with
the Father (comp. i. 14, ii. 11, xii. 41); and
men shew their sympathy with Him by
“the love of God.” This the Jews had
not, and their rejection of Christ was the
sign of the fatal defect.

42. I know] by the knowledge of ex-
perience (€yvwxa). Comp. ii. 24, note.

the love of God] The phrase occurs else-
where in the Gospels only in Luke xi, 42.
Comp. 1 John ii. 5, iii, 17, iv. 7, 9, v. 35
Rom. v. 5; 2 Cor, xiii, 14; 2 Thess. iii. 5;
Jude 21. God is at once the Author and:
the Object of this love; and it is frequently ;
difficult to determina ,whether the words:
express the quickening love of God towards
92 St. JOHN. V.
shall come in his own name, him ye
will receive,

44 tHow can ye believe, which
receive honour one of another, and
seek not the honour that cometh from
God only?

Lv. 44—47.
that accuseth you, even Moses, in
whom ye trust.

46 For had ye believed Moses, ye
would have believed me: “Afor hekGen.3.
wrote of me. Dout. 18.

47 But if ye believe not his 1.

ichap. 12.
43.

45 Do not think that I will ac-
cuse you to the Father: there is one

man, or the responsive love of man towards
God.

have...in you (ev éavrois)] Comp. v. 26,
vi, 58; 1 John v. 10; Mark iv. 17.

48. The utter want of fellowship with
God on the part of the Jews is exhibited
in its contrasted results: 7 (emphatic) am
come in the name of my Father, revealing
God to you in this character, and ye
receive me not: if another shall come in
his own name, giving expression to his own
thoughts, his own desires, which are in
harmony with your own, him ye will
receive.

in the name of my Father] ch. x. 25,
that is, resting absolutely in Him who is
my Father and whom I make known to
you as such; not simply “ as represénting ”
or “by the authority of” my Father,
though these ideas are included in that
deeper and more comprehensive one.
Comp. xiv. 13 f., xv. 16, xvi. 23 f., 26,
xvii, 11, 12, xx. 31.

44. The Jews offered a complete con-
trast to Christ (v. 30); for they made the
judgment of men their standard. Hence
the cause of their faithlessness is summed
up in the question which represents faith
as an impossibility for them: How can ye
(emphatic) believe, seeing that ye receive
glory (the highest reward of action) one of
another (comp. Matt. xxiii. 5); and the
glory that cometh from the only God (not
from God only) ye seek not? The only
God, the one source of all glory, absolutely
one in nature, stands in opposition to the
“gods many” and to the many common
dispensers of praise; to regard these in
themselves is idolatry (comp, xii, 42, 43).
The change of construction in the original
is remarkable, from a causal participle
(seeing that ye receive) to the finite verb
(ye seek not). The first clause gives the
sufficient reason of unbelief; the second an
accompanying fact. Comp. i. 32.

45--47, The rejection of Christ carries
condemnation with it. The accuser is found

(ypapai).

writings, how shall ye believe my
words?

in the supposed advocate (v. 45); and un-
belief in the vaunted belief (wv. 47).

45. Donot think] Though I lay bare the
cause and nature of your unbelief, do ae
think that I will accuse you to the Father
(not my Father) ; there is one that accuseth*
you, even Moses on whom you have set
your hope. Disbelief in me is disbelief in
him, in the record of the promises to the
patriarchs (viii. 56), in the types of the
deliverance from Egypt (iii. 14), in the
symbolic institutions of the Law, in the
promise of a prophet like to himself; for
it was of me (the order is emphatic) he
wrote. If ye were now at this very time
his faithful disciples, you would be mine
also. Christ was the essential subject of
the Law as of the Prophets; and so of the
permanent records of the earlier dispensa- {
tion. ;

in whom ye trust] on whom ye have set
your hope (eis dv iets Amikare, Vulg. in
quo vos speratis). Comp. 2 Cor. i. 10;
1 Tim, iv. 10, v, 5.

47. The converse of v. 46 also holds
true. Disbelief in Moses involved disbelief
in Christ. If ye believe not his writings,
the testimony which he has given formally,
solemnly, and which you profess to accept
as authoritative, how shall ye believe my
words, my sayings (iii. 34), which come
to you without the recommendation of use
and age? The essence of the disbelief
which the Jews shewed to Moses lay in
refusing to regard the Law as transitory.
They failed to seize the principle of life
by which it was inspired, and petrified the
form. If they thus allowed their pride to
interfere with their acceptance of the real
teaching of Moses, they could much less
admit the teaching of Christ. Outward
zeal became spiritual rebellion,

writings] The original word (ypdppara)
appears to mark the specific form rather

ADDITIONAL NOTES on Cuap. v. 1, 3.

The evidence for the identification of the
unnamed feast in v, 1 is obscure and
slight. The feast has in fact been identi-
, fied with each of the three great Jewish
/ festivals—the Passover (Irenreus, Eusebius,
Lightfoot, Neander, Greswell, &c.), Pente-
cost (Cyril; Chrysostom, Calvin, Bengel,

than the general use of the record
Comp. 2 Tim. iii. 15 £.
&c.), and the feast of Tabernacles (Ewald,

&c.). It has also been identified with the
Day of Atonement (Caspari), the feast of
Dedication (Petavius?), and more com-
monly in recent times with the feast of
Purim (Wieseler, Meyer, Godet, &e.).

The difficulty was felt at a very early
St. JOHN. V.

time. The definite article (1) éop77) was
added as soon as the second century, and
is found in a large number of copies,
among which are, C, L, and the early
Egyptian versions. It is however omitted
by ABD, Origen, and a large number of
later copies; and this combination of
authorities is of far greater weight in such
a case than the former. We may there-
fore safely conclude that the Evangelist
speaks of ‘‘a feast,’’ not of ‘‘the feast.”
If the definite article were authentic the
reference would be to the Feast of Taber-
nacles, which was emphatically ‘‘the
Feast of the Jews’’ (comp. Browne, ‘Ordo
Seclorum,’ p. 87), and not, as is commonly
said, to the Passover. One MS., it may
be added, inserts ‘‘of unleavened bread,”
and another ‘‘the Feast of Tabernacles.”’

The determination of the event, if it can
be reached, has a decisive bearing both
upon the chronology of St John’s narra-
tive, and upon the relation of St John’s
narrative to that of the Synoptists.

The fixed points between which the
Feast lies are the Passover (ii. 23) and the
Feeding of the Five Thousand; the latter
event taking place, according to the uni-
versal testimony of MSS. and versions,
‘‘when the Passover was near at hand”
vi. 4).

ihe following details in St John bear
more or less directly upon the date.

1. After leaving Jerusalem at the con-
clusion of the Passover (iii. 22), the Lord
‘‘tarried”’ in Judea. This stay was suffi-
ciently long to lead to results which at-
tracted the attention of the Baptist’s dis-
ciples (J. c.) and of the Pharisees (iv. i).

2. On the other hand, the interval be-
tween the Passover and the Lord’s return
to Galilee was such that the memory of
the events of that Feast was fresh in the
minds of those who had been present at it
(iv. 45); and from the mention of ‘“‘the
Feast’”’ it is unlikely that any other great
Feast had occurred since.

3. The ministry of the Baptist, who was
at liberty after the Passover (iii. 26 ff.) is
spoken of as already past at the unnamed
Feast. (v. 35).

4. To this it may be added that the lan-
guage in which the Lord’s action in re-
gard to the Sabbath is spoken of, implies
that His teaching on this was now familiar
to the leaders of the people (v. 18, ¢Ave).

5. The phrase used in iv. 35 has special
significance if the conversation took place
either shortly after seedtime or shortly be-
fore harvest.

6. The circumstances of,the conversation
in ch. iv. suit better with summer than
with early spring.

7. At the time when the healing took
place the sick lay in the open air, under
the shelter of the porches.

8. From vii. 21 ff. it appears that the

Lord had not visited Jerusalem between
this unnamed Feast and the Feast of
Tabernacles, and that the incident of v. 1
ff. was fresh in the minds of the people at
the later visit.

9. It is improbable that the Feast was
one of those which St John elsewhere
specifies by name (the Passover, ii. 13, vi.
4, xi. 55; the Tabernacles, vii. 2; the
Dedication, x. 22).

A consideration of these data seems to
leave the choice between Pentecost, the
Feast of Trumpets, (the Day of Atone-
ment) and Purim.

Purim (March) would fall in well with
the succession of events; but the character
of the discourse has no connexion with the
thoughts of the Festival ; and the Festival
itself was not such as to give a natural
occasion for such teaching.

Pentecost would suit well with the charac-
ter of the discourse, but the interval between
the Passover of ch. ii. and the Pentecost
of the same year would scarcely leave
sufficient time for the events implied in
ch, iii., iv.; while to regard it as the
Pentecost of the year after (McClellan)
seems to make the interval too great.

It is scarcely likely that the Day of
Atonement would be called simply ‘‘a
festival,’’ though Philo (‘de septen.’ § 23)
speaks of it as ‘‘a festival of a fast”
(vnoretas éopty}), but the Feast of Trum-
pets (the new moon of September), which
occurs shortly before, satisfies all the con-
ditions which are required. This ‘‘ begin-
ning of the year,” ‘‘the day of memorial,”
was in every way a most significant day.
It had, according to the contemporary in-
terpretation of Philo, a double significance,
national and universal: national in
memory of the miraculous giving of the
law with the sound of the trumpet; and
universal as calling men to a spiritual war-
fare in which God gives peace (J. c. § 22).
On this day, according to a very early
Jewish tradition, Gold holds a judgment of
men (Mishnah, ‘Rosh Hashanah,’ § ii. and
notes) ; as on this day He had created the
world (Suren. on Mishnah, ‘Rosh Has-
hanah,’ § 1, ii. pp. 306, 313). Thus
many of the main thoughts of the dis-
course, creation, judgment, law, find a re-
markable illustration in the thoughts of
the Festival, as is the case with the other
Festival discourses in St John. These find
expression in the ancient prayer attributed
to Rav (second century), which is still used
in the Synagogue service for the day:
‘‘This is the day of the beginning of Thy
works, a memorial of the first day... And
on the provinces is it decreed thereon,
‘This one is for the sword,’ and ‘This
for peace ;’ ‘This one is for famine,’ and
‘This for plenty.’ And thereon are men
(creatures) visited, that they be remem-
bered for life and for death. Who is not

93
94

|

visited on this day? for the remembrance
of all that hath been formed cometh be-
fore Thee...”” (‘ Additional Service for the
New Year,’ “S\~MMN). And again,
shortly after (comp. vv. 87 f.): ‘‘Thou
didst reveal Thyself in the cloud of Thy
glory unto Thy holy people, to speak with
them; from the heavens didst Thou make
them to hear Thy voice, and Thou didst
reveal Thyself to them in a dense bright
cloud. Yea the whole world trembled at
Thy presence, and the creatures of Thy
making trembled because of Thee, when
Thou, our King, didst reveal Thyself on
Mount Sinai, to teach Thy people Thy
Law and Thy commandments” (id. mo)
Mn).
Nore on THE Reavine In v. 3 ff.

The various readings in vv. 3, 4 are very
instructive. The last clause of v, 3 and
whole of v, 4 (éxdexopevwy...vorjpare)
is omitted by RBC*, Memph,, Theb., Syr.
vt., and one Latin copy (gq).

The last copy of v. 3 (éxSexopevur...
kivyotv) is omitted by A*L; while it is
contained in D, 1 88, (Zatt), (Syrr.), and
the great mass of later authorities.

The whole of v. 4 is omitted by D, 33,
and by some Latin copies, and is marked
as spurious in very many MSS.; while it is
contained in AL, (Zatt.), (Syr.), and the
great mass of later authorities: The pas-
sage is not referred to by any writer ex-
cept Tertullian (see below) earlier than

CHAPTER VI
1 Christ feedeth five thousand men with five
loaves and two fishes. 15 Thereupon the
people would have made him king. 16 But
withdrawing himself, he walked on the sea

ii. Curist AND MEN (ch. vi).

The record of a critical scene in Christ’s
work in Galilee follows the record of the
critical scene at Jerusalem. At Jerusalem
Christ revealed Himself as the Giver of
life; here He reveals Himself as the Sup-
port and Guide of life. In the former
case the central teaching was upon the
relation of the Son to the Father; in this
case it is on the relation of Christ to the
believer.

This episode contains the whole essence
of the Lord’s Galilean ministry. It places
in a decisive contrast the true and false
conceptions of the Messianic Kingship, the
one universal and spiritual, the other local
and material. 7

The record consists of three parts: the
signs (vv. 1—21); the discourses (vv. 22—
59); the issue (vv. 60—71).

The signs on the land and on the lake (1—
21).

The two signs, the Feeding of the Five

Thousand (1—15), and the Walking on the

St. JOHN. VI.

Chrysostum, Didymus and Cyril of
Alexandria.

Thus the whole passage is omitted by
the oldest representatives of each great
group of authorities. And, on the other
hand the whole passage is not contained in
any authority, exceept Latin, which gives
an ante-Nicene text. It is also to be
noticed that the passage is inserted in the
later texts of the Memph. and Arm.,
which omit it, wholly or in part, in their
earliest form.

The earliest addition to the original text
was the conclusion of v. 3. This was a
natural gloss suggested in v. 7, which is
undisturbed.

The gloss in v. 4 probably embodied an
early tradition; and Tertullian was ac-
quainted with it (‘de Bapt.’ 5).

The glosses (though longer and more im
portant) are like many which are found in
ND. Syr. vt. and Lat, vt.,and the fact that
they are not found in&, Syr, vt., and only
partly in D, shews that they were for a
time confined to North Africa.

It is obvious that there could be no mo-
tive for omitting the words, if they origin-
ally formed part of St John’s text; nor
could any hypothesis of arbitrary omission
explain the partial omissions in the earliest
authorities which omit; while all is in-
telligible if the words are regarded as two
glosses. The most ancient evidence and
internal probability perfectly agree.

to his disciples: 26 reproveth the people
flocking after him, and all the fleshly
hearers of his word: 32 declareth himself
to be the bread of life to believers, 66
Many disciples depart from him. 68
Peter confesseth him. 70 Judas is a devil.

Sea (15—21), combine to shew Christ as
the support of life and as the guide and
strengthener of the toiling. Through His’
disciples He first satisfies the multitudes, ;
and then He himself, at first unseen andj
unrecognised, brings His labouring dis-:
ciples to the haven of rest.

1—15. The sign on the land, the feed-
ing of the five thousand.

The feeding of the five thousand is the |
only incident in the Lord’s life, before His .
last. visit to Jerusalem, which is recorded |
by all four Evangelists. The variations of
detail in the four narratives are iaccfore
of the deepest interest (Matt. xiv. 183—21;,
Mark vi. 30—44; Luke ix. 10—17; John!
vi, 1—15).

Generally it may be said that the Synop-
tic narratives are given in broad outline,
as part of a prolonged ministry. St John’s
narrative is part of an isolated episode,
but at the same time individual in detail.
The actors in the former are the Lord and
“the disciples,’’ or the “‘ twelve :” ‘the
disciples say to Him,” ‘‘He saith to
‘

v. I--3.]
FTER these things Jesus went
over the sea of Galilee, which

is the sea of Tiberias.
2 And a great multitude followed

St. JOHN. VI.

him, because they saw his miracles
which he did on them that were
diseased.

3 And Jesus went up into a moun-

 

them;’” in the latter, the Lord, and
Philip, and Andrew. As a natural conse-
quence the conversation, of which St John
has preserved characteristic fragments, is
condensed into a simple form by the first
three Evangelists ; and, on the other hand,
the circumstances which led up to the
event are to be found only in the Synop-
tists, though we may detect traces of their
influence in St John’s record.

It follows that the two narratives are
derived from two distinct sources ; for it is
mot possible that the narrative of St John
could have been derived from any one of
the Synoptists, or from the common original

tom which they were finally derived.

The chronology of the event cannot be
determined with absolute certainty. Some
have supposed that the words 7d mdcoya
(v. 4) are a very early and erroneous gloss
(1); and others again have suggested that
chh. v. and vi. were transposed acciden-
tally, perhaps at the time when chh. vi.,
xxi.—episodes of the Galilean lake—were
added on the last review of the Gospel (2).

Against (1) (Browne, ‘Ordo Sxclorum,’
pp. 84 ff.) it must be urged that all direct
documentary evidence whatever supports
the disputed words. The ground for
suspecting them is derived indirectly from
patristic citations, and it is by no means
clear that there is not in the passages
quoted a confusion between vi. 4 and vii.
2. Ireneus (11. 22, § 3) appears to inter-
pret nigh (vi. 4, éeyyds) retrospectively.
Comp. Mark vi. 39, note,

The transposition (2) (Norris, ‘Journal
of Philology,’ 1871, pp. 107 ff.) would give
a simple connexion of events, but in the
absence of all external evidence it cannot
be maintained.

Our knowledge of the details of the
Lord’s life is far too fragmentary to
justify us in the endeavour to make a
complete arrangement of those which have
been recorded. The very abruptness of
the transition in vi. 1 is characteristic of
St John; comp. iii. 22, x. 22, xii. 1.

Cuap. VI. 1. After these things] See
vy. 1, note.

went] Rather, departed, went away, that
is from the scene of His ministry at the

itime, which is left undetermined, and not
(from Jerusalem, as if this verse stood in
immediate connexion with ch. v. The
abruptness with which the narrative is
introduced is most worthy of notice. All
we read is that the departure “over the
sea of Galilee” (i.e. to the east side of it)
took place at some time after the visit to
Jerusalem, which, as we have seen, prob-

ably took place at the feast of the New
Year. The Passover also was near, if the
present text in v. 4 is correct; but we
learn nothing from St John as to the facts
by which the incident was immediately pre-
ceded. This information must be sought
from the other Gospels. And it is very
significant that the Synoptists set the with-
drawal of the Lord in connexion with two
critical events. They all agree in stating
that it followed upon tidings brought from
without. St Matthew makes it consequent
upon the account of the death of the
Baptist brought by his disciples (xiv. 13).
St Luke places it immediately after the
return of the twelve from their mission,
but without any definite combination of
the two events (ix. 10). St Mark brings
out more clearly that at least one object of
the retirement was rest from exhausting
labour (vi, 30, 31). These indications of a
concurrence of motives exactly correspond
to the fulness of life. And St Luke has
preserved the link which combines them.
‘ Herod,” he says, “sought to see [Jesus],”
troubled by the thought of « new John
come to take the place of him whom he had
murdered (ix. 9). The news of the death
of the Baptist, of the designs of Herod,
of the work of the twelve, coming at the
same time, made a brief season of quiet
retirement, and that outside the dominions
of Herod, the natural counsel of wisdom
and tenderness. St Luke alone gives the
name of the place which was chosen for
this object, “a city called Bethsaida” (ix.
10), that is. the district of Bethsaida Julias
in Gaulonitis, at the N.E. of the lake (Jos.
‘Ant.’ xvii. 2. 1). This second city of
the same name was probably present to the
mind of St John when he spoke of “ Beth-
saida of Galilee” (xii. 21; but not i. 44) as
the home of Philip. Perhaps we may add,
that this withdrawal for calm devotion
would be still more necessary, for it was
intended to cover the period of the Pass-
over, which the Lord could not celebrate
at Jerusalem owing to the hostility shewn
towards Him there not long before.

the sea of Tiberias] This is the name by,
which the lake was known to classica
writers (Paus. v. 7, p. 391, Aduvn TrBeprds)
The title occurs only here and in ch. xxi.
in the New Testament; and it will be no
ticed that in xxi. 1 no second name is
given. The later incident was not cof:
tained in the common basis of the Synop-
tic accounts, and was not therefore con-
nected with the Synoptic title of the lake.
The name of Tiberias, the splendid but
unholy capital which Herod the tetrarch

95
a Ley. 23.

Deut. 16, 1,
b Matt. 14.
14,

96
tain, and there he sat with his
disciples.
4 %And the passover, a feast of
the Jews, was nigh.

5 1 6When Jesus then lifted up
his eyes, and saw a great company
come unto him, he saith unto Philip,

Sr. JOHN. VI.

[v. 4—7.
Whence shall we buy bread, that
these may eat?

6 And this he said to prove him:
for he himself knew what he
would do,

7 Philip answered him, Two hun-
dred pennyworth of bread is not suf-

 

had built for himself, is not mentioned in
the New Testament except in these two
places and in v, 23,

2. followed] not simply on this occasion
but generally (7KoAovGer), The verse de-
scribes most vividly the habitual work and
environment and influence of Christ. The
sense stands in contrast with that in Matt,
xiv. 18; Luke ix. 11.

. saw] beheld (€Gedpovr), v. 19
' 28, note,

} his miracles] the signs which he did...
! This verb (€oée, Vulg. faciebat), like
; those which precede, marks a continued
‘ ministry.

3. into a mountain] into the mountain,
and... So v. 15. The use of the definite
article implies an instinctive sense of the
familiar landscape, the mountain range
closing round the lake. This use is found
also in the Synoptic narrative, Matt. v. 1,
xiv. 28, xv. 29; Mark iii. 18, vi. 46; Luke
vi, 12, ix. 28. St Matthew adds that it
was ‘‘a desert spot’’ (xiv. 13).

sat] Literally, was sitting. The word has
a life-like distinctness when taken in con-
nexion with v. 5. Comp. Matt. xiii. 1,
xv. 29.

4. And (Now) the passover...was nigh]

bs “near at hand” (ii. 18, vii. 2, xi. 55),

See ii.

and not as Irenzus(?) and some moderns
have taken it, ‘‘lately past.’’ The notice
of the feast is probably designed to give a
clue to the understanding of the spiritual
lessons of the miracle which are set forth
in the discourse which followed (1 Cor. v.
7); and at the same time it serves to ex-
plain how trains of pilgrims on their way
to Jerusalem may have been attracted to
turn aside to the new Teacher, in addi-
tion to ‘‘the multitude’ who were already
attached to Him.

the feast of the Jews] i.e. ‘the well-
known feast.’’ The phrase when it stands
alone signifies the Feast of Tabernacles,
‘the one great national feast.’’ Compare
vii, 2 (where the order is different), and
v. 1, note,

5. When Jesus then lifted up...and saw
...come...he saith...) Jesus therefore having
liited up his eyes and seen that...cometh
... saith, Comp. iv. 35, (i. 38).

come (cometh)] Literally, is coming.
Jesus and His disciples sailed across the
lake (Matt. xiv. 13), but ‘‘ the multitudes”
observed their departure and _ reached
Bethsaida on foot (Mark vi. 33), The

point of time here is evidently the first
arrival of the people. A day of teaching
and healing must be intercalated before
the miracle of feeding was wrought (Matt.
xiv. 14; Mark vi. 84; Luke ix. 11). St
John appears to have brought together
into one scene, as we now regard it, the
first words spoken to Philip on the ap-
proach of the crowd, and the words in
which they were afterwards taken up by
Andrew, when the disciples themselves at
evening re-stated the difficulty (Matt. xiv.
15; Mark vi, 85; Luke ix. 12). If this
view be true, so that the words addressed
to Philip with his answer preceded the
whole day’s work, then the mention of
“two hundred pennyworth of bread’’
made by the disciples in St Mark (vi. 37)
gains great point, and so too the phrase
‘“‘what He was about to do” (v. 6),
which otherwise appears to be followed too
quickly by its fulfilment. It appears also
from v, 15 that the Lord came down from
the mountain before the miracle was
wrought.

Philip] i. 44 ff., xii. 21 f., xiv. 8 f.

Whence shall we...) The words are one
expression of the feeling of tender com-
passion noticed by the Synoptists (Matt.
xiv. 14, Mark vi. 34).

6. to prove] Literally, trying him, to-
see whether he could meet the difficulty.
Comp. 2 Cor, xiii. 5; Rev. ii. 2, The word}
does not necessarily carry with it (as these:
passages shew) the secondary idea of}
temptation (comp. also Matt. xxii. 35 ;}
Mark xii. 15); but practically in the case
of men such trial assumes for the most
part this form, seeing that it leads to
failure, either as designed by him who ap-
plies it (Matt. xvi. 1, xix. 3, xxii. 18, &c.),
or consequent upon the weakness of him
to whom it is applied (Hebr. xi, 17; 1 Cor.
x. 18). Comp. Deut. xiii, 3.

for he himself knew...would (was about
to) do] Throughout the Gospel the Evan-
gelist speaks as one who had an intimate
knowledge of the Lord’s mind. He re-
veals both the thoughts which belong to
His own internal, absolute knowledge
(ciSévar, vv 61, 64, xiii. 3, xviii, 4, xix,
28), and also those which answered to
actual experience and insight (ywwoxetv,
v, 15, iv. 1, v. 6, xvi. 19),

7. Two hundred pennyworth] i.e. be-
tween six and seven pounds worth. See;
Mark vi. 87. We cannot tell by what cal-—
v. 8—15.]

ficient for them, that every one of
them may take a little.

8 One of his disciples, Andrew,
Simon Peter’s brother, saith unto him,

9 There is a lad here, which hath
five barley loaves, and two small
fishes: but what are they among so
many ?

1o And Jesus said, Make the men
sit down. Now there was much grass
in the place. So the men sat down,
in number about five thousand.

iz And Jesus took the loaves;
and when he had given thanks, he
distributed to the disciples, and the
disciples to them that were set down;

Sr, JOHN. VI.

and likewise of the fishes as much as
they would,

12 When they were filled, he said
unto his disciples, Gather up the
fragments that remain, that nothing
be lost.

13 Therefore they gathered them
together, and filled twelve baskets
with the fragments of the five bar-
ley loaves, which remained over and
above unto them that had eaten.

14 Then those men, when they
had seen the miracle that Jesus did,
said, This is of a truth that prophet
that should come into the world.

15 {@ When Jesus therefore per-

 

culation this exact sum was reached. The
reference may be to some unrecorded fact.
every one of them] Omit of them.

8. Andrew] He appears elsewhere in
connexion with Philip, i. 44, xii. 22.

9. barley loaves] v. 13. The detail is
peculiar to St John, Comp. 2 K. iv. 42.
Barley bread was the food of the poor.
Wetstein (ad loc.) has collected a large
number of passages to shew the small ac-
count in which it was held. See Judg.
vii, 18 f.; Ezek. xiii. 19.

small fishes] Rather, fishes. It is
worthy of remark that the original word
\(dpdpea) is found in the New Testament
‘only in this passage and in ch. xxi. It
‘may have been a familiar Galilean word.

10. And Jesus] Omit And.
the men...the men] the people (rovs
avOpwrovus)...the men (ot avdpes )...about
five thousand. The change of word in the
latter case implies the remark added by
St Matthew (xiv, 21) beside women and
children,
much grass] See note on Mark vi. 39.
‘The difference of the form in which the
jdetail is introduced marks apparently the
‘testimony of two eye-witnesses. This de-
tail corresponds with the date, which is
‘fixed (vi. 4) in the early spring.
1l. And Jesus...] Jesus therefore, answer-
ing the obedience of faith.
when he had given thanks (v. 23)] By
this act the Lord takes the place of the
! head of the family (comp. Luke xxiv. 30).
The word itself is found elsewhere in St
John only, xi. 41. This second passage
suggests that the thanksgiving was ren-
dered in acknowledgment of the revelation
of the Father’s will in accordance with
which the miracle was wrought. In the
parallels the word is blessed (yet comp.
Matt, xv. 36; Mark viii. 6). The two
words preserve the two aspects of thie ac-
tion in relation to the source and in rela-
tion to the mode of its accomplishment.

 

Compare in this connexion Matt. xxvi. 26
f.; Mark xiv. 22 f.
he distributed to...them that...) The
words to the disciples...and the disciples
must be omitted. They are an obvious
gloss introduced from St Matthew xiv. 19.
and likewise of] likewise also of.

12. When they...said...] And when they
.. Saith...

fragments] i.e. the pieces broken for dix
tribution (Ezek. xiii. 19). The command
to collect these is preserved by St John
only.

that remain] that remain over, and so in
v, 13 (which remained over), where the
same word is used.

13. gathered...together] gathered...up.
The word is the same as in v. 12 The
simple repetition gives character to the
narrative.

twelve] The number implies that the
work was given to the apostles, though
they have not been specially mentioned.
Comp. v. 70.

baskets] The stout wicker baskets (koi?
vous) as distinguished from the soft;
flexible ‘‘frails” (o@upides, Matt. xv. 375
Mark viii. 8). Juv. ‘Sat.’ iii. 14, vi. 54

14, 15. This incident is peculiar to St
John, but St Luke has preserved a detail
which illustrates it. He notices that
Christ spoke to the multitudes ‘‘ concern-
ing the kingdom of God’? (ix. 11); and it
is natural to suppose that the excitement
consequent upon the death of the Baptist,
which in part led to the Lord’s retirement,
may have moved many to believe that He
would place Himself at the head of a popu-
lar rising to avenge the murder.

14. Then those men...Jesus did...] The
people (of dv@pwror) therefore...he did...

that prophet that should come...] the
prophet that cometh... Comp. i. 21, 25,

vii. 40. The phrase is peculiar to St
John. Yet see Matt. xxi. 11, and Acts
vii. 37.

of
c Matt. 14.
23.

98
ceived that they would come and
take him by force, to make him a
king, he departed again into a moun-
tain himself alone.

16 ¢And when even was now
come, his disciples went down unto
the sea,

17 And entered into a ship, and
went over the sea toward Capernaum.
And it was now dark, and Jesus was
not come to them.

Sr. JOHN. VI.

[v. 16—21.

18 And the sea arose by reason of
a great wind that blew.

19 So when they had rowed about
five and twenty or thirty furlongs,
they see Jesus walking on the sea,
and drawing nigh unto the ship:
and they were afraid.

20 But he saith unto them, It is I;
be not afraid.

21 Then they willingly received
him into the ship: and immediately

 

15. would (were about to)—take him
_by force (dprdfewv, Vulg. ut raperent)]
‘Comp. Acts xxiii. 10; (Judg. xxi. 21,
{i LXX.); Matt. xi. 12, The multitude wished
to use Christ to fulfil their own ends even
against His will. In this lies the fore-
shadowing of the sin of Judas, ch. xviii. 6.

make him a king] make him king.

departed] withdrew ( aveywpyoev).
Comp. Matt. ii, 12 ff., xiv. 18, 21, &.;
Acts xxiii. 19,

again] It follows (v. 3) that He had
descended towards the shore when the
miracle took place.

himself alone] to pray, as is added inthe
parallel narratives (Matt. xiv. 23; Mark
vi. 46). The dismissal of the apostles
mentioned in Matt. xiv. 22; Mark vi. 45,
is involved in these words (contrast v. 3).
The apostles were first withdrawn from
the influence of the multitude, and the
mass of the people were then sent away ;
but some (v, 22) still lingered with vain
hopes till the morning.

16—21. The sign upon the lake.

This incident is related also by St
Matthew (xiv, 22 ff.) and by St Mark (vi.
45 ff.). The change in time, scene, persons,
belongs to the significance of the sign.

16. Comp. Matt. xiv, 22 ff.; Mark vi.
45 ff,

when even was now come] The “second
evening ” from sunset till dark. Comp.
Matt. xiv. 15, 23.

17. into a ship] The definite article is
omitted n the true text, so that A. V. is
correct.

went...toward] Literally, set out on their
way to... Comp. iv. 30. This continuous
toil is contrasted by the tense with the
simple act which preceded it ( karéByoav,
HPXOVTO).

was not yet come...] at the time when
they finally started. It appears that some
incidents are here omitted. Probably Jesus
had directed the apostles to meet Him at
some point on the eastern shore on their
way to Capernaum.

18. The singular vividness of the de-
scription is to be noticed. Comp. Jonah
i. 13 (LXX,).

19. five and twenty...furlongs] The
lake is at its broadest about forty stades
(“furlongs”), or six miles. Thus they
were “in the middle” of the lake (Mark
vi. 47), having for a time kept to the shore.

see] behold. The word marks the
arrested, absorbed attention of the disciples,
Comp. v. 2.

on the sea] The words might mean (as
xxi, 1) “on the sea-shore,” but the context
and parallels determine the sense here.
Comp. Job ix, 8 (LXX.).

were afraid] Comp. Matt. xiv. 26;
Mark vi. 49; Luke xxiv. 37.

20. It is I] Comp. iv. 26, viii. 24, 28,
58, (ix. 9), xiii. 19, xviii, 5, 6, 8; Mark
xiii. 6; Luke xxi. 8.

21. willingly received] Literally, they,
were willing to take (jOeAov AaBeiv, Vulg. '
voluerunt accipere). The imperfect in the
original expresses a continuous state of
feeling as distinguished from an isolated:
wish. It is commonly used of a desire
which is not gratified (vii. 44, xvi. 19;
Mark vi. 19, 48; Gal. iv. 20, &.), but this)
secondary idea does not necessarily lie in
the word. Here the force of the tense is
adequately given by A, V., though in
Mark vi. 48 the same word is used of the
supposed purpose of the Lord to “ pass
hy” the disciples, which was not fulfilled.
Comp. Mark xii. 38; Luke xii. 46. Fear
passed into joy. Compare Luke xxiv. 37
with John xx. 20.

at the land] The original phrase (emt{
THs yj) may mean in the direction of the.
land, that is, “moving straight towards;
the land;” but it more probably means on
the land, being used of the vessel run up
on the beach. Comp, Ps, cvii. (evi.) 30.:
The Synoptists notice that the opposing
forces were removed (Matt. xiv. 32; Mark
vi. 51, the wind ceased) ; St John that the
desired end was gained. Both results
followed at once from the presence of
Christ welcomed.

went] The original word (irjyov) is
somewhat remarkable. Comp. v. 67, vii.
33, note, xii. 11, xviii. 8. The idea of
“withdrawing from,” “leaving” some-
thing, seems to underlie it,
V. 22, 23.]

the ship was at the land whither they
went.

22 4 The day following, when the
people which stood on the other side
of the sea saw that there was none
other boat there, save that one where

Sr. JOHN. VI.

99
into his disciples were entered, and
that Jesus went not with his disci-
ples into the boat, but that his disci-
ples were gone away alone;

23 (Howbeit there came other
boats from Tiberias nigh unto the

 

Tt will be obvious that these two “signs”
are introductory to the discourse which
follows. Both correct limited views spring-
ing out of our material conceptions, Effects
are produced at variance with our ideas of
quantity and quality. That which is small
becomes great. That which is heavy moves
on the surface of the water. Contrary
elements yield at a divine presence. Both
“signs,” in other words, prepare the way
for new thoughts of Christ, of His sustain-
ing, preserving, guiding power, and exclude
deductions drawn from corporeal relations
only. He can support men, though visible
means fall short. He is with His disciples
though they do not recognise or see Him.
And in both cases also the powers and
action of men are needed. They receive
and assimilate the food which is given;
they take Christ into their boat before
they reach their haven.

The remarks with which Augustine opens
his explanation of the narrative are of
permanent value. ‘“Miracula que fecit
Dominus noster Jesus Christus sunt quidem
divina opera et ad intellegendum Deum
de visibilibus admonent humanam mentem
...Nec tamen sufficit hec intueri in mira-
culis Christi. Interrogemus ipsa miracula,
quid nobis loquantur de Christo: habent
enim si intellegantur linguam suam, Nam
quia ipse Christus Verbum Dei est, etiam
factum Verbi verbum nobis est” (August,
‘in Johann. Tract,’ xxv. 1, 2).

The discourses at Capernaum (22—59).

The discourses which followed the feed-
ing of the five thousand serve in part as
an answer to the mistaken expectations of
the multitude (vv. 14, 15), while they un-
fold those views of Christ’s Person and
work which became a decisive trial for the
faith of the disciples who were already
attached to Him. The short absence had
been sufficient to remove the fear of im-
mediate violence on the part of Herod;
though it appears that the Lord withdrew
not long afterwards to “ the coasts of Tyre
and Sidon” (Matt. xv. 21 ff.).

The discourses fall into three groups:
{ov. 26—40, vv. 41—51, vv. 52—58. Each
(prone is introduced by some expression of

eeling on the part of those to whom the

words are addressed, a simple question (v.
25), a murmuring (v. 41), a contention
among themselves (v. 52). The thoughts
successively dealt with are distinct : (1) the
search after life (2) the relation of the Son
to God and man, (3) the appropriation hy

New Test.—Vot. IT.

the individual of the Incarnate Son; and
it appears that the audience and place do
not remain the same. There are evident
breaks after v. 40, and v. 51. The “Jews”
are introduced in vv, 41, 52, but not before.
The last words were spoken “in synagogue” }
(v. 59), but it is scarcely conceivable that
the conversation began there,

26—40. The first part of the discourses
consists of answers to successive questions
(vv. 25, 28, 30, 34). The conversation is
natural and rapid; and deals in succession
with the aim of religious effort (26, 27);
the method (28, 29); the assurance (30—
33) ; the fulfilment (34—40).

22—24. This long sentence is compli
cated and irregular in construction. Th
irregularity is due to the mention of two!
facts which are intercalated between the
beginning and end of the sentence. The
narrative would naturally have run: The
day following the multitude...when they
saw (v, 24) that Jesus was not there...took
shipping...; but St John has inserted two
explanatory clauses, the first to explain
why they still lingered on the eastern shore
in the hope of finding Jesus: The day
following, the multitude...saw ( «ZSov ) that
there was...save one (omit whereinto his
disciples were entered) and that Jesus...but
that his disciples went away alone; and
the second to explain how they were them-
selves able to cross over: howbeit there
came boats from Tiberias... As a conse-
quence he begins the sentence again in
v. 24, When the multitude therefore saw...,
where the saw is not a simple resumption
of the saw in v, 22, but the result of later
observation,

tude...(and so in v. 24), some, that is, who
still lingered when the rest were dismissed,
(Matt. xiv. 23), the more eager zealots, as
it seems, who wished still to make Christ
fulfil their designs. They were not more /
than could cross the lake in the boats‘
which came over (v. 23).

22. the people which stood] the tho

23. Howbeitt there came other boats]
Omit other (reading oAAG HAGev ota).
These boats, perhaps, were driven by the
“contrary wind ” (Matt, xiv. 24) across the
lake. Their coming probably explains the
reference to the “disciples” in v. 24. At
first the multitude might have supposed

H
100
place where they did eat bread, after
that the Lord had given thanks :)

24 When the people therefore saw
that Jesus was not there, neither his
disciples, they also took shipping, and
came to Capernaum, seeking for Jesus.

25 And when they had found him
on the other side of the sea, they
said unto him, Rabbi, when camest
thou hither?

26 Jesus answered them and said,
Verily, verily, I say unto you, Ye

Sr. JOHN. VI.

[v. 24—~28.

seek me, not because ye saw the
miracles, but because ye did eat of
the loaves, and were filled.
27 [Labour snot for the
which perisheth, but for that meat
which endureth unto everlasting life,
which the Son of man shall give unto

you: @for him hath God the Fatherd Matt. 3

sealed.

28 Then said they unto him,
What shall we do, that we might
work the works of God?

 

that they had returned in one of them
from some brief mission to the other side,
nigh unto the place] that is, to some
unfrequented part of the shore, as driven
by stress of weather.
the Lord] Comp. iv. 1, xi. 2, xxi. 7.

24, they also] they themselves. The
force of the word is that they also did
what they found the disciples had done.

25. when camest...| The idea suggested
by when, as contrasted with the more
natural how, is that of the separation from
Christ ; as if the people had pleaded, “ We
sought thee long and anxiously on the
other side. Could it be that even then
thou hadst left us?” If this turn is given
to the words the connexion of the answer
is obvious: “It is not me ye seek, but my
gifts.”

26. not because ye saw the miracles...]
not because ye saw signs..., not because my
works of healing and sustaining led you to
look for other manifestations of spiritual
glory. That one last miracle—a speaking
sign—was to you a gross material satisfac.
tion, and not a pledge, a parable of some-
thing higher. You failed to see in it the
lesson which it was designed to teach, that
I - waiting to relieve the hunger of the
soul.

were filled] Literally, “were satisfied
with food as animals with fodder”
(€xopracOnre, Vulg. saturati estis, and so
in v, 12). The original word is different
from that used in v. 12. It is however
used in connexion with the narrative in
the other Gospels (Matt. xiv. 20, and
parallels) without any disparaging sense;
and it is not therefore possible to press the
material idea which predominates in it
(Luke xv. 16, xvi. 21). See Matt. v. 6;
Luke vi. 21.

27. Labour not for...) Work not for...
The verb stands emphatically at the head
of the sentence. “Work, yea win by
work, not..” Thus perhaps there is a
contrast between “seeking” and “ work-
ing.” Comp Isai. lv. 1 ff.

work...give] The contrast of these verbs
is essential to the sense of the passage.

The believer’s work does not earn a recom-
pense at the last, but secures a gift.
Even common work may bring more than
its natural result, “the meat which
perisheth.” And no work brings more
than the possibility of blessings to be
used. Comp. i. 12 f., note.

the meat which perisheth] that food
(BpHors) which belongs to our material
life; which supports life only by under-
going change; for material life is truly a
process of death (comp. 1 Cor. vi. 13). It
is possible too that there may be even at
this point a reference to the manna: Exod,
xvi, 20.

that (the) meat which endureth (abideth)
unto everlasting (eternal) life] that food
which suffers no change, but remains in
the man as # principle of power issuing in
eternal life. Comp. iv. 14.

the Son of man] This title suggests the
thought which underlies the whole dis-
course. Christ is speaking of His relation
to men in virtue of His perfect humanity.
He, as the absolute representative of man-
kind, will give this food of the higher life—
the life also being His gift, v. 25—for Him
the Father (not my Father, v. 32), His
Father and the Father of men, sealed, even
God (ch, x. 36. See also v. 36 ff.).

shall give] as the issue of His work (v.
51); or perhaps as the crown of your work
of faith in Him.

God the Father] the Father...even God.
The addition of the divine name at the
close of the sentence emphasizes the identi-
fication of God with “the Father ” or “ the
“Son of man.” Comp. viii. 19.

sealed] solemnly set apart for the fulfil-
ment of this charge and authenticated by
intelligible signs. Comp. iii. 33, note.

28. Then said they...What shall we do,
that we might...) They said therefore...
What must we do, that we may... The
questioners appear to admit in word the
necessity of the higher aim of work, and
inquire as to the method of reaching it;
but the phrase work the works of God
marks the external conception of the service
of God to which they still clung. The

meat |I Or,
Work not
st. JOHN. VI. 101

31 fOur fathers did eat manna inf Exod. 10
the desert; as it is written, 7He gaveNumb. 11.
them bread from heaven to eat. o Pant -

v. 29—32.]
29 Jesus answered and said unto
them, eThis is the work of God, that

i 3.
: ye believe on him whom he hath

sent.

30 They said therefore unto him,
What sign shewest thou then, that
we may see, and believe thee? what
dost thou work ?

works of God—works which He requires—
are assumed to be the one condition of
obtaining the spiritual food.

29. The Lord deals with the error and
the truth in the question which was put to
Him. In the one work which God requires
of man and man owes to God, all fragmen-
tary and partial works are included. It is
a true work as answering to man’s will,
but it issues in that which is not a work.
This ts the work of God, that ye believe on...
Comp. 1 John iii. 23 (Ais commandment).

that ye believe (iva mictevnte)] The
phrase marks not only the simple fact of
believing (7d wioreverv), but the effort
directed to and issuing in this belief. Comp.
iv. 34,note. And again it expresses not the
single decisive act (va muorevonre, xiii, 19),
but the continuous state of faith.

This simple formula contains the com-
plete solution of the relation of faith and
works. Faith is the life of works; works
are the necessity of faith.

, 80. They said therefore.,.] as recognising
the claim which Christ preferred, and
seeking an authentication of it.
! What sign shewest thou (emphatic)
then...) Literally, What then doest thou
‘as a sign...thou, with thy commands to us,
‘peremptory as a second Moses? Christ had
charged the questioners with misunder-
standing His signs before (v. 26); they ask
therefore for some clear attestation of His
claims. And in this there is nothing in-
consistent with the effect which the feeding
of the multitude had produced on some.
Great as that work was, their history
taught them to look for greater. They
ask, as in the Synoptists, for “a sign from
heaven” (Matt. xvi. 1).
that we may see, and believe thee) In
these words faith is reduced to simple belief
in the truth of a message, and grounded
upon the testimony of the senses. The
“believing on Christ” (v. 29) is reduced
to “believing Christ.” Comp. viii. 30, 31,
note,
what dost thou work ?] The words take
up the demand made on themselves. There
is a work, they plead, for the teacher as
well as for the hearer. The question
expresses what was suggested by the
emphatic pronoun (thou) just before.
Words must be justified by works.
81. did eat mannaj the manna [Ps.
| Ixxvii, (Ixxviii.) 24]. The miracle which

}

32 Then Jesus said unto them, 2.
Verily, verily, I say unto you, Moses
gave you not that bread from heaven ;
but my Father giveth you the true
bread from heaven.

Christ had wrought suggested the greater,
miracle of Moses, by which the people were
sustained for forty years. There was a
tradition (‘Midrash Koheleth,’ p. 73, quoted
by Lightfoot and Wiinsche) that “as the:
first Redeemer caused the manna to fal

from heaven, even so should the second)

Redeemer (AN bys) cause the manna

to fall.” For this sign then, or one like
this, the people looked from Him whom
they were ready to regard as Messiah.
Compare Matt. xvi. 1; Mark viii. 11. The:
manna was a favourite subject with Jewish’
expositors. A single passage from Philo}
(‘De profugis,’ § 25, p. 566) may serve asi
an example of their interpretations
“When the people} sought what it is.
which feeds the soul, for they did not, as’
Moses says, know what it was, they dis-
covered by learning that it is the utterance
(6740) of God and the divine word (Q@ctos
Adyos) from which all forms of instruction
and wisdom flow in a perennial stream.
And this is the heavenly food which is
indicated in the sacred records under the
Person of the First Cause (Tov airiov)
saying, Behold I rain on you bread (dprovus)
out of heaven (Exod. xvi. 4). For in very
truth God distils from above the supernal
wisdom on noble and contemplative minds ;
and they when they see and taste, in great
joy, know what they experience, but do not
know the Power which dispenses the gift.
Wherefore they ask, What is this which is
sweeter than honey and whiter than snow?
But they shall be taught by the prophet
that this is the bread which the Lord gave |
them to eat” (Exod. xvi. 15). Comp.
Siegfried, ‘Philo v. Alex.’ s. 229.

from heaven] out of heaven (and so
throughout), which came out of the
heavenly treasures, and did not simply
descend from a higher region.

32. Then Jesus...) Jesus therefore...

Aloses gave...not that (the) bread) There
is a double contrast. It was not Moses but
God revealing Himself through Moses who
gave the manna; and again the manna—
the perishable bread—was not in the
highest sense “bread from heaven,” but
rather the symbol of spiritual food.

gave you] The people are identified with:
their ancestors. If the reading “ hath
given” (dedwxev ) be adopted, then the
present realisation of what Moses gave in
a symbol is assumed.
102

33 For the bread of God is he
which cometh down from heaven,
and giveth life unto the world.

34 Then said they unto him, Lord,
evermore give us this bread.

35 And Jesus said unto them, I

Sr. JOHN. VI.

[v. 33—36.
am the bread of life: he that cometh
to me shall never hunger; and he
that believeth on me shall never
thirst.

36 But I said unto you, That ye
also have seen me, and believe not.

 

but my Father giveth...) not in one
imiraculous act only, but now and at all
times.

the true bread] that which fulfils abso-
lutely, ideally, the highest conception of
sustaining food (aAn@cvds). Comp. iv.
23, note. The exact form of the original
is emphatic: the bread out of heaven, the
true bread (Tdov a. 'k T. ob . TOV GA,),

88. the bread of God] the bread which
“God gives directly ; not simply that which
He gives by the hand of His servants.
Comp. i. 29 (the Lamb of God), note.

he which cometh down...) that which
cometh down... Christ does not identify
Himself with “the bread” till the next
answer ; and the request of the Jews which
follows shews that nothing more than the
notion of heavenly bread was present to
them (comp. vv. 41,50). This new manna
was distinguished from the old in that it
was continuous in its descent and not for
a time; and again it was not confined to
one people, but was for the world.

cometh down] The phrase prepares the
way for the interpretation which follows,
vv. 38, 41.

unto the world] Without the Word,
without Christ, the world can have no life,
He makes the blessing, which was national,
universal.

84. Then said they...] They said there-
fore... The Jews see in the words of
Christ a mysterious promise which they
cannot understand; but they interpret it
according to their material hopes. ' Lord,
evermore, not on one rare occasion but
always, give us this bread. They acknow-
ledge that the gift must be constant (1
Thess. v. 15, révrore), though its effects
are lasting.

35. Jesus (omit and) said...] The Jews
asked for something from Christ : He offers
them Himself. The great gift, if only it
were rightly perceived, was already made.

I am the...] This form of expression is
not found in the Synoptists. It occurs not
unfrequently in St John’s Gospel, and the
figures with which it is connected furnish
a complete study of the Lord’s work. Com-
pare vv. 41, 48, 51, viii. 12 (the Light of
the world), x. 7, 9 (the Door), x, 11, 14 (the
good Shepherd), xi. 25 (the Resurrection
and the Life), xiv. 6 (the Way, the Truth,
and the Life), xv. 1, 5 (the true Vine).

the bread of life] the food which supplies
life : of which life is not a quality only (v.

51, the living bread), but (so to speak) an
endowment which it is capable of communi-
cating. Compare the tree of life (Gen. ii.
9, iii, 22, 24; Prov. iii. 18, xi. 30, xiii. 12,
xv. 4; Rev, ii. 7, xxii. 2, &c.); the water of
life (Rev. xxi. 6, xxii. 1, &c. Comp. Ps.
xxxvi. (xxxv.) 9; Prov. x. 11, xiii. 14, xiv.
27, xvi. 22, fountain of life). The phrases
“words (distinct utterances, sayings,
pijpara) of life” (v. 68), and “the word
(the whole revelation, Adyos) of life” (1
John i, 1) are nearly connected,

cometh...believeth] The first word pre-
sents faith in deed as active and outward;
the second presents faith in thought as
resting and inward. Each element is, it is
true, implied in the other, but they can be
contemplated apart. For coming to me see
v. 40, vv, (37), 44 £., 65, vii. 37.

shall never hunger...shall never thirst]
The double image, suggested it may be by
the thought of the Passover, extends the
conception of the heavenly food, and pre-
pares the way for the double form under
which it is finally described (v. 58). The
gift of strength corresponds with the effort
to reach to Christ; the gift of joy with the
idea of repose in Christ.

shall never thirst] The exact form of ex-
pression in the original is remarkable and
irregular (ov pr) Suyprjoet rwrote. Contrast
iv, 14, ob} py Sujoe eis Tov aidva).
Perhaps it suggests the image of Christ
present in all time and regarding the un-
failing satisfaction of those who come to
Hin, as distinguished from a simple future.

36. But...) The gift was indeed made,
but the presence of the gift was unavailing,
for the condition required of those who
should receive it was unfulfilled.

I said unto you...] The thought is con-
tained in v, 26, and the reference may be
to those words; but more probably the
reference is to other words like them
spoken at some earlier time.

That ye (omit also) have seen me, and...)
The first conjunction (kai) emphasizes the
fact: that ye have indeed seen and...
Comp. ix. 37. The Lord returns to the
words in v. 30 (see, believe), now that the
question in v. 34 has been answered. He
Himself was the sign which the Jews could
not read. No other more convincing could
be given.

87. There is a pause in the discourse
before this verse. The unbelief of the
people was not a proof that the purpose of
v. 37—40.]
37 All that the Father giveth me
shall come to me; and him that
cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.
38 For I came down from heaven,
not to do mine own will, but the will
of him that sent me.
39 And this is the Father’s will
which hath sent me, that of all which

St. JOHN. VI.

he hath given me I should lose no-
thing, but should raise it up again at
the last day.

40 And this is the will of him that
sent me, that every one which seeth
the Son, and believeth on him, may
have everlasting life : and I will raise
him up at the last day.

 

God had failed. Rather it gave occasion
for declaring more fully how certainly the
Son carried out the Father’s will.

All that (All that which) the Father...
him that cometh...) The first clause is a
general and abstract statement (wav 3);
the second gives the concrete and individual
realisation of it (Tov épxopevov). Believers
are first regarded as forming a whole
complete in its several parts, a gift of the
Father; and then each separate believer is
regarded in his personal relation to the
Son. In the first case stress is laid upon
the successful issue of the coming, the
arrival (4&0, shall reach me; comp. Rev.
iii. 3, xv. 4, xviii, 8); in the second case on
the process of the coming (TOv epxopevor,
not Tov €AOévra) and the welcome.

The same contrast between the abstract
conception and the concrete fulfilment of it
is found in vv. 39f. and xvii. 2. Comp.
also the use of the abstract form, 1 John v.
4 contrasted with v. 5, 18; and ch, iii. 6
contrasted with iii. 8.

giveth] Compare xvii. 2, 6, 9, 12, 24,
xviii. 9.

I will in no wise...] The stern words to
the Galileans might have seemed to be a
casting out, but the Lord shews that, on
the contrary, they were not truly coming to
Him.

casé out] Comp. xii. 31, ix. 34 f.

38. For...) For this is the Father's
will, as is implied in the gift (v. 39), and
I am come down...

I came down] I am come down. Comp.
iii. 13; (Eph. iv. 9 f.?). With these ex-
ceptions the word is used of Christ's
descent only in this discourse.

from heaven] In this verse the original
preposition (according to the true reading)
expresses the idea of leaving (amé), in
v. 42 (as iii. 18) of proceeding out of (€k).
In the one case the thought is that of
sacrifice; in the other that of divinity.

not...mine own will] See v. 19 ff.

39. this is the Fathers will which
hath...) According to the true reading,
this is the will of him that...

that of all...) The construction in the
original is broken: “that as for all that
which he has given me I should not lose of
st...” Comp. vii, 38, (1 John ii. 24, 27),
Luke xxi. 6.

hath given] The present used in v. 37

(giveth) is here changed into the past
when the gift is looked at in relation to
the will of the Father, and not to the
waiting of the Son.

should lose nothing, but should raise it
up) filled with a new life, transfigured and
glorified. This is the issue of the com-
munication of Christ to the Church. In
this place the effect is represented as
dependent on the Father’s will; but when
the words are repeated (vv. 40, 44, 54)—
once in each great division of the dis-
courses—the effect is referred to the will
of the Son (and I will raise him up).

at the last day} The phrase is found}.
only in St John, vv. 40, 44, 54, xi. 24, xii.
48. Comp. 1 Johnii. 18. The plural occurs
Acts ii. 17; James v. 3; 2 Tim. iii. 1.

40. And...the will of him that sent me,
that...] For...the will of my Father, that...
The general fulfilment of the will of the
Father passes into this further truth, that
the contemplation of the Son and belief on
Him brings with it eternal life.

seeth (beholdeth) the Son] Comp. xii.
45, xiv, 19, xvi. 10, 16, 19. The act of
contemplation and faith is not momentary
or past, but continuous.

have everlasting (eternal) life] not as
future, but as present already as a divine
power. Comp. v. 47, xvii. 3.

The possession of eternal life is followed
by the crowning action of the Son: and J—
I the Incarnate Son—will raise him up.
Eternal life is consummated in the restora-
tion to the believer of a transfigured
manhood. So far from the doctrine of the
Resurrection being, as has been asserted,
inconsistent with St John’s teaching on the
present reality of eternal life, it would be
rather true to say that this doctrine makes
the necessity of the Resurrection obvious.
He who feels that life is now, must feel
that after death all that belongs to the
essence of its present perfection must be
restored, however much ennobled under
new conditions of manifestation.

41—51. The second part of the dis-
courses, which deals with the relation o
Christ to God and to man, is directl
connected both with the first and with th
third part : with the first by the reiteration
of the office of the Son (v. 44), and with
the third by the reference to Christ’s
“ flesh” (v. 51). It touches on the greates

103
h Matt. 13.
65.

104

41 The Jews then murmured at
him, because he said, I am the bread
which came down from heaven,

42 And they said, AIs not this
Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose
father and mother we know? how is

Sr. JOHN. VI.

v. 4I—44.
it then that he saith, I came down
from heaven?

43 Jesus therefore answered and
said unto them, Murmur not among
yourselves.

44 No man can come to me, ex-

 

potas of Christ’s life, the Incarnation
and the Atonement (vv, 42, 51), and the
‘greatest mysteries of man’s life, the con-
urrence of the divine and human will, and
he permanence of life (vv. 44, 45, 37 ff.).

t is briefly an answer to the question,

ow can the spring and support of life be
fn Christ, who is truly man?

41. This verse seems to mark the
presence of new persons and a new scene,
as well as a new stage in the history. The
verses 387—40 were probably addressed
specially to the immediate circle of the
disciples. Thus we can understand how
the Jews dwelt on the words in which
Christ identified Himself with the true
spiritual food of the world, while they took
no notice of the loftier prerogatives which
followed from this truth, since the ex-
position of these was not directed to them.

The Jews then) The Jews therefore...,
the representatives of the dominant religious
party, full of the teaching of the schools.

murmured at (concerning) him] half in
doubt (vii. 32, [12]) and half in dissatisfac-
tion (v. 61; Luke v. 30). These murmur-
ings probably found expression for some
little time before they were answered.
There is nothing to shew that they were
first uttered in Christ’s presence.

I am the bread which came down from

eaven] The exact phrase does not occur
‘in the previous record; but it is a fair
combination of the three phrases in which
fine Lord had described Himself : the bread
of God is that which cometh down from
heaven (v. 33); I am the bread of life (v.
35) ; I have come down from heaven (v. 38).
* 42. Is not this...] There is perhaps a
tinge of contemptuous surprise in the
Jpronoun ( oBros) as in v, 52, vii. 15, iii. 26,
though it does not necessarily lie in the
word, iv. 14, ix, 38, &c.

the son of Joseph] ch. i.
Luke iv. 22.

we know] The pronoun is emphatic:

hose father we, directly in the way of our

rdinary life, know... There was (so they
argue from their point of view) no room

or mistake upon the matter. The word
know expresses simply acquaintance with

he fact that Joseph was in popular esteem

he father of Jesus (comp. vii. 27), and not
ypersonal acquaintance with him as still
living,

how is it then that he saith] how doth he
now say—now, at last, when for so long he
has lived as one of ourselves.

46. Comp.

I came down (am come down) from
heaven] See v. 38, note.

43. Jesus therefore answered...) Jesus
answered... The answer corresponds in
some way with that given to Nicodemus
(iii. 8). The false claim to knowledge, and
the assertion of unsubstantial objections,
are both met in the same manner. The
Jews were unable to understand the divine
descent of the Lord, which seemed irrecon-
cileable with His actual circumstances. He
replies that a spiritual influence is necessa:
before His true Nature can be discerned
and that such influence was promised b.
the prophets as one of the characteristi
blessings of the Messianic age.

44. No man can...draw him] Compare
v. 40, ye will not come to me. As in all
similar cases this “coming to Christ” may
be regarded from its human side, as de-
pendent on man’s will; or from its divine
side, as dependent on the power of God.
So St Bernard remarks in connexion with
these words: “nemo quippe salvatur in-
vitus”’ (‘De grat. et lib. act.’ x1.). Yet
even the will itself comes from a divine
nature, a divine gift (chh. i. 12 f£., iii. 7 ff.,
viii, 47, vi. 65). The “drawing” of the
Father is best illustrated by the “drawing”
of the Son, xii. 32. The constraining
principle is love stirred by self-sacrifice, a
love which calls out, and does not destroy,
man’s freedom and issues in self-sacrifice.
The mission of the Son by the Father
(which sent [omit hath] me), the sovereign
act of love (iii. 16), is thus brought into
close connexion with the power exerted by
the Father on men. Augustine (ad loc.)
puts the thought most forcibly : “‘Trahit
sua quemque voluptas;’ non trahit reve-
latus Christus a Patre? Quid enim fortius
desiderat anima quam veritatem?” Comp,
v. 68.

No man can come] This divine impossi-
bility is the expression of a moral law.
It is not anything arbitrary, but inherent
in the very nature of things; it does not
limit but it defines the nature of human
power. Comp. v, 19 (note), 80 (of the
Son), xii. 39, note.

come] Here and in v. 65 the “coming”
(eAGety ) is regarded as complete, and not
in progress as in v, 37, vii. 37 (€pyér Ou).

draw (€Axtow)] Comp. Jer. xxxviii.
(xxxi.) 3 (LXX.),

and I...) The Son takes up and com-
pletes what the Father has begun. The
change in the position of the prongen
iIsai. 64.
15.

Ter. 31. 34,

v. 45—50-]

cept the Father which hath sent me

draw him : and I will raise him up at
the last day.

45 ‘It is written in the prophets,
And they shall be all taught of God.
Every man therefore that hath heard,
and hath learned of the Father, com-
eth unto me.

46 Not that any man hath seen

St. JOHN. VI.

the Father, tsave he which is of God, k teins

105

he hath seen the Father.

47 Verily, verily, I say unto you,
He that believeth on me hath ever-
lasting life,

48 I am that bread of life.

49 Your fathers did eat manna in
the wilderness, and are dead.

50 This is the bread which cometh

 

slightly modifies the force of this repeated
clause. In v. 40 the believer and Christ
are placed in remarkable juxta-position
(avarrjow airdv eye, him, I); here theZ
stands first with a reference to the whole
preceding clause (kai ¢y@ avagryjow avror).

45. The “drawing” of the Father is
illustrated by a prophetic promise. And
under this new image of “teaching” the
power is seen in its twofold aspect; the
divine and human elements are combined.
The “hearing” brings out the external
communication, the learning the internal
understanding of it. ‘“ Videte quomodo
trahit Pater : docendo delectat, non necessi-
tatem imponendo” (Aug. ad loc.).

in the prophets] t.e, in the division of
the Scriptures which is so called. Compare
Acts xiii, 40, vii. 42 (the book of the
prophets); ch. i. 45, note. The phrase is
found substantially in Isai. liv. 13; and the
central idea of it is the promise of direct
divine teaching. Thus the emphasis lies
on “taught of God” and not on “all.”
This teaching lies for us in the Person and
Work of Christ interpreted by the Spirit.

taught of God (daxrtoi Oeod, Vulg.
doctbiles Det)] Comp. 1 Cor. ii, 13; TI
Thess. iv. 9 (OcoSiSaxror), The phrase de-
scribes not only one divine communication,
but a divine relationship. Believers are life-

long pupils in the school of God ("™ yp,
Isaiah, Z.c. Comp. Isai. viii. 16).

Every man therefore that hath heard, and
hath learned of the Father...] Every one
that heareth from the Father and learneth
(axovoas kal padv)... The fulfilment of
the promise is followed by its proper conse-
quence. The “hearing” and “learning”
are presented as single events correspond-
ing to a definite voice and revelation, The
call is obeyed at once, though it may be
fulfilled gradually ; the fact of the revela-
tion is grasped at once, though it may be
apprehended in detail little by little.

from the Father] the message which
comes from the Father (axovcoas Tapa T. 7.)
Compare i. 40, vii. 51, viii. 26, 40, xv. 15.

46. But though the revelation made by
the Father is direct in one sense, yet it
must not be understood to be immediate.
“Hearing” and “learning” fall short of
seeing, The Father is seen only by the Son

(i, 18 Comp. Matt. xi. 27, and parallels).
He alone who is truly God can naturally |
see God. The voice of God came to men?
under the old Covenant, but in Christ the!
believer can now see the Father (xiv. 9) in!
part, and hereafter see God as He is (li
John iii. 2).

he which is of (from, wapa)...] Comp.
vii. 29, ix. 16, 38. The phrase implies not
only mission (xvi. 27 f., came forth from),
but also a present relation of close depend-
ence,

he hath seen] when He was “ with God”
(i. 1) before He “became flesh.” The
words mark emphatically the unchanged
personality of Christ before and after the
Incarnation. The substitution God for the
Father in some early texts ("D) isa kind
of gloss which is not unfrequent in the

roup.

47. At this point the discourse takes a
fresh start. The objection of the Jews has
been met, and the Lord goes on to develope
the idea set forth in vv. 35, 36, taking up
the last word: He that believeth (omit on
me, the phrase stands absolutely) hath
eternal life. The actual existence of true
faith implies the right object of it. Comp.
c. ili. 3, note.

hath] See v. 40, note. .

48—51. There is a close parallelism and
contrast between vv. 48—50 and 51. The
bread of life: the living bread—which
cometh down...that...: which came down;
if...may...not die: shall live for ever. In
the first case the result is given as part of
the divine counsel (that cometh down, that
[:'va]...); in the second as a simple histori-
cal consequence (came down...if a man...).

48. that (the, and so in v, 58) bread of
life] See v. 35, note.

49. Your fathers did eat manna (ate the
manna)...and are dead (died)] The words}
are quoted from the argument of the Jews,
v, 31. The heavenly food under the old
Dispensation could not avert death. This
then was not bread of life, even in the’
sphere to which it belonged. Comp. iv. 13. }

50. This is the bread which cometh...
that...] This bread—the true manna—is
the bread which cometh...that... It is best
to take this [bread] as the subject jw. 48,
I am the bread of life, further defined in
v, 51), and the bread which cometh down
106

down from heaven,.that a man may
eat thereof, and not die.

51 I am the living bread which
came down from heaven : if any man
eat of this bread, he shall live for
ever: and the bread that I will give

St. JOHN. VI.

[v. 5I—53.
is my flesh, which I will give for the
life of the world.

52 The Jews therefore strove
among themselves, saying, How can
this man give us his flesh to eat ?

53 Then Jesus said unto them,

 

from heaven as the predicate; compare vv.
33, 58. The interpretation which makes
this the predicate (the bread which cometh...
ts this, that is, is of such a nature, that...)
appears to destroy the connexion.

not die] Comp. viii. 51, note.

51. Z am the living bread) able to com-
municate the life which I possess. He
therefore who receives me receives a
principle of life.

eat of this bread] Some ancient authori-
ties read eat of my bread.

and the bread...) yea and (and in fact)
the brear’ «at...62).... Comp. viii. 16 f.,
xv. 27; 1 ohn i. 3.

the bread...which I (eyd) will give] The
pronoun is emphatic, and brings out the
contrast between Christ and Moses. At the
same time a passage is made from the
thought of Christ as the living bread (Z
am...) to the thought of the participation
in Him (Z will give...). This participation
is spoken of as still future, since it followed
in its fulness on the completed work of
Christ. There is also a difference indicated
here between that which Christ is and that
which He offers. He is truly God and
truly man (ey); He offers His “ flesh,”
His perfect humanity, for the life of the
world,

my flesh] “Flesh” describes human
nature in its totality regarded from its
earthly side. Comp. i. 14. See also i. 18,
iii. 6, vi. 68, viii. 15, xvii. 2; 1 John ii. 16,
iv. 2; 2 John 7; Rom. viii. 3; 1 Tim. iii.
16; Hebr. v. 7. The thought of death lies
already in the word, but that thought is not
as yet brought out, as afterwards by the
addition of blood. Comp, Eph. ii. 14 ff.;
Col. i. 22; 1 Pet. iii, 18.

The life of the world in the highest sense
springs from the Incarnation and Resurrec.
tion of Christ. By His Incarnation and
Resurrection the ruin and death which sin
brought in are overcome. The thought
here is of support and growth, and not of
atonement (Z lay down my life for... x. 11,
15, note). The close of the earthly life,
the end of the life which is, in one aspect,
of self for self, opens wider relations of
life. Comp. xii. 24. At this point no more
than the general truth is stated. It is not
yet indicated how the “flesh” of Christ,
the virtue of His humanity, will be com-
municated to and made effectual for man-
kind or men. That part of the subject is
developed in the last division of the whole
argument.

 

my flesh, which I will give for the life...)
The true text gives simply my flesh for the
life... For this shortened form compare
1 Cor. xi. 24. The omission of the clause
which I will give turns the attention to the
general action of Christ’s gift rather than
to the actual making of it. The special
reference to the future Passion would dis-
tract the thought at this point, where it is
concentrated upon the Incarnation and its
consequences generally. See Additional
Note.

52—59. This last section of the teaching
on “the true bread from heaven” carries
forward the conceptions given in vv. 41—51
to a new result. The question before was
as to the Person of the Lord: “ Is not this
the son of Joseph?” The question now is
as to the communication of that which He
gives: “How can this man give us His
flesh to eat?” How can one truly man
impart to others his humanity, so that they
may take it to themselves and assimilate it?
The answer is in this case also not direct
but by implication. The fact, and the neces-
sity of the fact, dispense with the need for
further inquiry. The life is a reality,

52. The Jews (v. 41, note)...strove
among themselves (one with another,
mpds adArjdouvs, iv. 33, xvi. 17)] They did
not all reject at once the teaching o
Christ. There were divisions among them
and they discussed from opposite sides th
problem raised by the last mysterious words
which they heard (comp. vii. 12, 40 ff., x.
19 ff.). It is important to notice how the
Evangelist records the varying phases of
contemporary feeling. “The Jews” were
not yet all of one mind.

How can...) The old question (iii. 4, 9),
which is again left without an explicit
answer. The simple reassertion of the fact
is opposed both in a negative (v. 53) and
in a positive statement to the difficulty as
to the manner.

to eat] The Jews transfer directly to
“the flesh” what hitherto, as far as our
record goes, has been said only of “the
bread,” now identified with it. There is
no gross misunderstanding on their part,
but a clear perception of the claim in-
volved in the Lord's words. Comp. iii. 4,
iv. 15, viii. 33. See also Num. xi. 13.

58. The thought indicated in v. 51 is
now developed.in detail. The “flesh” is
presented in its twofold aspect as “ flesh ”

and “blood,” and by this separation of its

parts the idea of a violent death is pre-
Vv. 54—57-]
Verily, verily, I say unto you, Ex-
cept ye eat the flesh of the Son of
man, and drink his blood, ye have no
life in you.

54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and
drinketh my blood, hath eternal life ;
and I willraise him up at the last day.

Sr, JOHN. VI.

55 For my flesh is meat indeed,
and my blood is drink indeed.

56 He that eateth my flesh, and
drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me,
and I in him.

57 As the living Father hath sent
me, and I live by the Father: so he

 

upposed. Further “the flesh” and “the
blood” are described as “the flesh” and
‘the blood” “of the Son of man,” by

hich title the representative character of

hrist is marked in regard to that

umanity which He imparts to the believer.

nd once again both elements are to be

ppropriated individually (“eat,” “drink”).
By the “flesh” in this narrower sense we
must understand the virtue of Christ’s

umanity as living for us; by the “ blood ”
the virtue of His humanity as subject to
death. The believer must be made partaker
in both. The Son of man lived for us and
died for us, and communicates to us the
effects of His life and death as perfect
man. Without this communication of Christ
men can have “no life in themselves.” But
Christ’s gift of His flesh and His blood to
a man becomes in the recipient a spring of
life within. Comp. iv. 14.

Then Jesus said...] Jesus therefore said...
meeting the difficulty which was raised by
an appeal to what is really a fact of ex-
perience.

eat...drink] To “eat” and to “drink”
is to take to oneself by a voluntary act that
which is without, and then to assimilate it
and make it part of oneself. It is, as it
were, faith regarded in its converse action.
Faith throws the believer upon and into its
object; this spiritual eating and drinking
brings the object of faith into the believer,

drink his blood] The phrase is unique in
the New Testament. To Jewish ears it
could not but be full of startling mystery,
The thought is that of the appropriation of
“life sacrificed.” St Bernard expresses part
of it very well when he says...hoc est si
compatimini conregnabitis (‘De Dil. Deo,’

v.). Compare ‘in Psalm.’ rr. 3, “Quid

utem est manducare eius carnem et bibere
sanguinem nisi communicare passionibus

ius et eam conversationem imitari quam
abuit in carne?”

in you] Literally, in yourselves. Com-
pare v. 26; Matt. xiii. 21. Without the
Son men have no life; for in men them-
selves there is no spring of life. Even to
the last their life is “in Christ” and not
“in themselves.”

54. Whoso (He that, as in v. 56) eateth)

he verb used here (tTpwyerv) expresses
mot only the simple fact of eating but the
process as that which is dwelt upon with
pleasure (Matt, xxiv, 38. Comp. ch. xiii.
18). So also the tense (6 Tpwywv, contrast

 

v, 45, 6 dkovoas) marks an action which
must be continuous and not completed once
for all,

hath eternal life...] Compare v. 40, note.

55. For my flesh...) The possession and
the highest manifestation of life follow
necessarily from participation in Christ’s
“flesh ” and “blood :” such is their power.

is meat indeed...) My flesh is true
(aAnOys, real) meat... It stands in the same
relation to man’s whole being, as food does
to his physical being. It must first be
taken, and then it must be assimilated.

56. The truth of v. 54 is traced to its:
necessary foundation. In virtue of Christ’s,
impartment of His humanity to the be-
liever, the believer may rightly be said to
“abide in Christ” and Christ to “ abide in
the believer.” The believer has therefore
“eternal life,” and in that, the certainty of ;
a resurrection, a restoration in glory of the
fulness of his present powers,

dwelleth] abideth, as the word is com-
monly rendered. So also xiv. 10,17;1 John
iii. 17, 24, iv. 12, 18, 15, 16. The word is
singularly frequent in St John (Gospel,
Epistles), and the phrases “abide in
(Christ]” and the like are peculiar to him
(yet compare 1 Tim. ii. 15; 2 Tim. iii. 14).

in me, and I in him...) There is, so to
speak, a double personality. The believer
is quickened by Christ’s presence, and he
is himself incorporated in Christ. Compare
xv. 4, xvii. 23; 1 John iii. 24, iv. 15f.
This twofold aspect of the divine connexion
is illustrated by the two great images of
the “body ” and the “ temple.” “ Manemus
in illo cum sumus membra eius: manet
autem ipse in nobis cum sumus templum
eius” (Aug. ‘in Joh.’ xxvit. 6).

Some early authorities (D, &c.) add a
remarkable gloss at the end of the verse :
even as the Father is in me and I in the
Father, Verily, verily, I say unto you,
unless ye receive (AaBnre) the body of the
Son of man as the bread of life ye have not
life in him,

57. As...so] The same combination
occurs xiii. 15; 1 John ii 6, iv. 17.

the living Father) The title is unique.
Compare the phrase the living God, Matt.
xvi, 16; 2 Cor, vi. 16; Hebr. vii. 25, &c.

hath sent me (sent me)] The introduction
of these words marks the fact that Christ
speaks of His vital fellowship with th
Father not as the Word only, but as the
Son Incarnate, the Son of man. Comp. v.

107
108

that eateth me, even he shall live
by me.

58 This is that bread which came
down from heaven: not as your
fathers did eat manna, and are dead :

Sr. JOHN. VI.

[v. 58, 59.
he that eateth of this bread shall live
for ever,

59 These things said he in the
synagogue, as he taught in Caper-
naum.

 

23. And thus the acceptance of the divine
mission by the Son, and His dependence in
His humanity on the Father, are placed in
ome sense in correlation with the appro-
riation of the Incarnate Son (he that
ateth me) by the Christian; so that the
elation of the believer to Christ is pre-
gured in the relation of the Son to the
Father. Comyare x, 14, 15, note,

by (because of) the Father...by (because
of) me] The preposition (Sua rdv rarépa,
Vulg. propter patrem) describes the ground
or object (for, on account of), and not the
instrument or agent (by, through, Sia Tov
m.). Complete devotion to the Father is
the essence of the life of the Son; and so
complete devotion to the Son is the life of

the believer. It seems better to give this
full sense to the word than to take it as
equivalent to by reason of ; that is, “ Llive
because the Father lives.”

the Father] not “my Father.” Emphasis
is laid upon the universal relationship.
Comp. iv. 21, note.

he that eateth me] In this phrase we
reach the climax of the revelation. The
words eat of the bread (vv. 50, 51), eat the
flesh of the Son of man and drink His
blood (v, 53), rise at last to the thought of
eating Christ. The appropriation of the
food which Christ gives, of the humanity
in which he lived and died, issues in the
appropriation of Himself,

even he] he also. The insertion of the
emphatic pronoun (kaxeivos) immediately
after the subject, which it repeats and em-
phasizes, is most remarkable. It appears
to lay stress upon that relation of depend-
ence which constitutes the parallel between
the disciples and the Son. Compare xiv. 12.

shall lrve] not liveth. The fulness of the
ife was consequent upon the exaltation of

hrist. Comp. xiv. 19.

58. These concluding words carry back
the discourse to its commencement (vv. 33,
35). The fulfilment of the type of the
manna in Christ, after it has been set forth
lin its complete form, is placed in direct

onnexion with the earlier event.

This is that (the) bread which came...)
This bread, this heavenly food, which has
been shewn to be Christ Himself, and His
“flesh ” (v. 51), is the bread which came...
Contrast v. 50: This is the bread which

; cometh... Both aspects of Christ’s work
| aes be kept in mind. He came, and He
comes,

not as your fathers did eat manna, a4.
are dead] ‘not as the fathers did eat and

died. The construction is irregular.
Naturally the sentence would have run:
This is the bread...heaven: he that eateth
this bread..., but the parenthetical clause
expresses in a condensed form the contrast
between the true and the typical manna.
“The fact and the issue of the fact is not
as the fathers ate and died.” Comp. 1 John
iii, 12 (ov xaOws). The reference to the
“death ” of “the generation in the wilder.
ness” would have a fuller meaning if the
tradition were already current that this
generation” had no part in the world to
come” (quoted by Lightfoot on v, 39).
‘ the fathers] This title, as distinguished
, from the common text your fathers, recog-
nises the representative position which the
jearly generation occupied.

the fathers...he that eateth...) There ap-
pears to be significance in the passage
from the plural to the singular. Through-
out the discourses the believer is dealt with
as exercising personal faith and not only
as one of a society. Compare vv. 35, 37,
40, 45, 47, 50, 51, 54, 56,

eateth of...] eateth, as in vv. 54, 56. The
construction in vv. 26, 50, 51, is different
(payeiv ex).

59. in the synagogue] This is the only
notice of the kind in St John’s Gospel,
though the general custom is referred to,
xviii, 20. The absence of the definite
article in the original here and in xviii. 20,
which leads to a form of expression ( év
cuvaywyy) not found elsewhere in the
New Testament, seems to mark the charac-
ter of the assemblage rather than the place:
itself: “when people were gathered for
worship,” “in time of solemn assembly "
(comp. 1 Mace, xiv. 28). It is a fact of
great interest that among the ruins which
mark the probable site of Capernaum (‘Tell
Him) are the remains of a handsome
synagogue, of which Wilson says: “On
turning over a large block [of stone] we
found the pot of manna engraved on its
face” (Warren’s ‘Recovery of Jerusalem,’
pp. 344 ff.). This very symbol may have
been before the eyes of those who heard
the Lord’s words. It may be added that
the history of the manna (Exod. xvi. 4—
36) is appointed to be read in the Syna-
gogues at morning service,

as he taught] The phrase gives a marked
emphasis to the words which have gone
before. The crisis corresponds in character
with that at Nazareth, Luke iv. 16 ff.
Comp. Matt. xi. 23. Some early authori-
v. 60—65. ]

60 Many therefore of his disci-
ples, when they had heard this, said,
This is an hard saying; who can
hear it?

61 When Jesus knew in himself
that his disciples murmured at it, he

St. JOHN. VI.

109

said unto them, Doth this offend
you?

62 | What and if ye shall see the! chap. 3.

Son of man ascend up where he was
before ?
63 It is the spirit that quickeneth ;

 

ties add, what may be a true traditional
gloss, “on a sabbath.”
The Issue (60—71).

The discourses proved a trial to the faith
of the disciples. The immediate effect was
a “murmuring ” among them which led to
a clear affirmation of the divine conditions
of discipleship (60—65). And this was
followed by a separation between the
faithful and the unfaithful, both visibly
(66—69) and invisibly (70, 71).

60. Many therefore] not only of the
misunderstanding multitude (28 ff.) and of
the ill-disposed Jews (41 ff.), but of the
disciples (v. 3) who had hitherto followed
Him, when they heard (omit had) this,
found the new teaching of life through
death a burden too heavy to be borne.
hard saying] that is, difficult to receive,
cept, appropriate. The idea is not that
f obscurity. The discourse was offensive,
d not unintelligible. It made claims on
the complete submission, self-devotion,
self-surrender of the disciples. It pointed
significantly to death. The same word
(okAnpés, Vulg. durus) occurs Jude 15, in
a somewhat similar connexion. Compare
Gen. xxi. 11, xlii.7; 1K. xii. 138 (LXX.).

saying] or rather, speech, discourse (Aéyos,
Vulg. sermo). The English representative
of the original (word) is not sufficiently
elastic to give its sense in all cases.

hear it] Listen to it (@kovecv adrod) with
patience, as ready to admit it. See vii. 40,
x. 8, 16, 27, xii. 47, xviii, 37. The
pronoun (avrov) may be taken as personal :
who can hear him? but this is an unlikely
rendering.

61. When Jesus knew in himself] But
when Jesus... See ii. 24, note.

murmured] Compare v. 41, note.

offend you] Compare xvi. 1, note.

62. What and if ye shall see...) What
then if ye should behold... This incom-
plete question, which seems to leave open
in some measure the alternatives of greater

\foffence and possible victory, has been
interpreted in two very different ways, by
“Ye will not then be offended any more;
supplying in one case a negative answer :
“Ye will not then be offended any more ; 2
and in the other a positive : “ Ye will then
assuredly be still more offended.” Accord-
ing to the first interpretation the “ ascend.
ing up” is the Ascension as the final
apiritualizing of the Lord’s Person, whereby
the offence of the language as to His flesh
would be removed by the apprehension of

 
   
  

the truth as to His spiritual humanity. In
the second the “ascending up” is referred '
to the “elevation” on the Cross, and the
offence caused by the reference to the death
of Christ is regarded as increased by the -
death itself in its actual circumstances.
Each of these two interpretations appears
to contain elements of the full meaning.
The whole context shews distinctly that
the disciples were to be subject to some
severer trial. The turn of the sentence
therefore must be: “If then ye see the
Son of man ascending...ye will be, accord-
ing to your present state, more grievously
offended; for that trial you must still be
disciplined.” But, on the other hand, the
Crucifixion alone could not be described as
an “ascending up where Christ was
before ;” yet it was the first part of the
Ascension, the absolute sacrifice of self
which issued in the absolute triumph over
the limitations of earthly existence. The
Passion, the Resurrection, the Ascension,
were steps in the progress of the “ascend-
ing up” through suffering, which is the
great offence of the Gospel. The diffi.
culty of accepting this completed fact is
(though greater) of the same kind as the;
difficulty of accepting life only through!
the communicated humanity of the Incar-
nate Son.

the Son of man ascend up (ascending)
where he was before] Compare viii. 58,
xvii, 5, 24; Col. i. 17. No phrase could
shew more clearly the unchanged per-
sonality of Christ. As “the Son of man™
He speaks of His being in heaven before
the Incarnation. ‘“ Filius Dei et filius
hominis unus Christus...Filius Dei in terra
suscepta carne, filius hominis in celo in
unitate personw” (Aug. ad loc.).

63. the spirit...the flesh...) The same
contrast occurs in iii. 6 (see note), 1 Pet.
iii. 18. Just as in man the spirtt is that
part of his nature by which he holds
fellowship with the unseen eternal order,
and the flesh that part of it by which he
holds fellowship with the seen temporal
order, so the two words are applied to the
working of Christ. Nothing can carry us
beyond the limits of its ownrealm. The
new life must come from that which
belongs properly to the sphere in which
it moves. Compare 1 Cor, xv. 45 (2 Cor.
iii. 6). The truth is expressed in its most
general form, and is not to be limited to
the spiritual and carnal apprehension of
Christ’s Person; or to the spiritual and
external participation in the Holy Com-
IIo

(7a pyyara) see iii, 84, vill. 47, xvii. 8.

‘]

the flesh profiteth nothing : the words
that I speak unto you, they are
spirit, and they are life.

64 But there are some of you
that believe not. For Jesus knew
from the beginning who they were
that believed not, and who should
betray him.

65 And he said, Therefore said I

Sr. JOHN. VI.

[v. 64—68.

unto you, that no man can come
unto me, except it were given unto
him of my Father.

66 From that time many of his
disciples went back, and walked no
more with him.

67 Then said Jesus unto
twelve, Will ye also go away?

68 Then Simon Peter answered

the

 

munion; or even to the spiritual and
historical manifestation of Christ. Each
of these partial thoughts has its place in
the whole conception. Compare 2 Cor. v.
16.

the words] Here the definite utterances
(Pyare, Vulg. verba, v. 68) and not the
iwhole revelation (Adyos, Vulg, sermo, v.
*60). The reference is to the clear unfold-
ing of the complete relation of man and
humanity to the Incarnate Saviour. Hence
a marked emphasis is laid on the pronoun
I: the words that Z and no prophet, not
even Moses (v. 32) before me; and on the
tense: the words that I have spoken
(AeAdANKa, according to the true reading),
and not generally speak, though in some
sense all Christ’s words are life-giving, as
conveying something of this central truth.

For the exact sense of “the words”

a

are spirit, and they are life] that is,
belong essentially to the region of eternal
being, and so are capable of conveying
that which they essentially are. Compare
v. 68.

64. But] even so, in the closest circle of
my disciples there are some to whom they
convey no vivifying influence, because the
human condition is unfulfilled: there are
of you (c€ budy ) some who believe not.
For the order compare v. 70 (of you one).

For Jesus knew] Compare ii. 24, note.

from the beginning) Compare xvi. 4,
(xv. 27). From the first moment when
the public work of Christ began (1 John
ii, 7, 24, iii. ii; Luke i. 2). The phrase
must always be relative to the point
present to the mind of the writer or
speaker; and here that seems to be fixed
by v. 70.

who should (who it was that should)
betray him] This first allusion to the sin
of Judas evidently stands in a significant
connexion with the first unveiling of the
Lord’s' Passion). The word rendered
betray (mapadiddvat) means _ strictly
deliver up, to give into the hands of
‘another to deal with as he pleases (ch.
xviii. 80, 35£., xix. 16; Matt. v. 25, &.).
The title of “traitor” is only once applied
,to Judas in the New Testament: Luke vi.
16 (mpoddrys ). In other words his act is

and not to his sin.

freee in relation to the Lord’s Passion,

65. Therefore said I...) For this cause
have I said... The divine condition of
discipleship was clearly stated, because the
disciples would have to bear the trial of
treachery revealed in their midst, which
might seem to be inconsistent with Christ’s
claims, and with what they thought that
they had found in Him. His choice even
of Judas was not made without full know-
ledge (xiii. 18).

come unto me] Judas then, though
“chosen out” (v. 70) and called, had not
come to Christ (v. 37). He remained still
in himself; and now at this crisis he can!
keep silence,

were giyen unto him of my Father]
(or be) given unto him of the
“ Comp. iii, 27. There is a sense
ich all life is the unfolding of the
eless divine will. The Father (not my
Vather) here is looked upon as the source
(€x) from whom all flows. Comp. x. 32;
1 Cor. vii. 7; (2 Cor. ii. 2). It must be
noticed likewise how here the divine and
human elements are placed in close juxta-,
position, given, come. The mystery must
be left with the assertion of both the
concurrent parts, the will of God and the}
will of man,

66 ff. The “murmuring” issued in
separation. This separation was partly
open and partly secret. The same teaching
which led some disciples to desert Christ,
appears to have called out in Judas that
deeper antagonism of spirit which was
shewn at last in the betrayal.

66. From that time] Upon this (com-
pare xix. 12), with the notion of depend:
ence on what had now happened. The
phrase is not simply temporal (ch. ix. 1;
Luke x. 20; Acts ix. 33, xxiv. 10, xxvi. 4),
nor simply causal (Rom. i. 4; Rev. xvi. 21,
viii, 18).

went back (amjABov eis 7a drricw, Vulg. 1
abierunt retro)] They not only left Christ,
but gave up what they had gained with
Him, and, so far as they could, re
occupied their old places, Phil. iii, 13.

walked no more with him] Compare vii.
1, xi. 54. The phrase gives a vivid por-
traiture of the Lord’s life,

67. Then said Jesus...) Jesus therefore
said... The test had been applied to the
mass, and it was now necessarily applied
to the innermost circle of disciples.

the twelve] These are spoken of as

  
 
 
   
 
   
m Matt. 16.
16.

v. 69, 70.]
him, Lord, to whom shall we go?
thou hast the words of eternal life.

69 mAnd we believe and are sure

St. JOHN. VI.

that thou art that Christ, the Son of
the living God.
7o Jesus answered them, Have not

 

known, though they have not been men-
tioned before. The number is implied in
v. 18. In the earlier part of the record
(chh, i.—iv.) no such chosen company is
noticed, a fact which is a slight sign of
the distinctness with which the course of
the work of Christ was impressed on the
apostle’s mind. He does not record the
call of the twelve, yet it lies hidden and
implied in his narrative. From another
side the reference shews that St John as-
sumes that his readers are familiar with
the main facts of the history.

Will ye also...) The form of the ques-
tion (y2) OéAeTe, Vulg. numguid vultis 2)
implies that such desertion is incredible
and yet to be feared; but here the nega-
tion is virtually assumed. Compare vii.
47, 52, xviii. 17, 25.

go away...go (v. 68)...] Perhaps more
exactly, go (imdyev, v. 21)...g0 away
(areGelv, v. 22)... The first word sug-
gests the notion of the personal act in
itself; the second that of separation. See
vii. 33, note.

68. Then Simon Peter (omit Then)...]
St. Peter occupies the same representative
place in St John’s narrative as in the
others. Comp. xiii. 6 ff., 24, 36, xviii. 10,
xx. 2, xxi. 3. His reply is the strong con-
fession that the apostles have found in
Christ all that they could seek. The
thought is of what Christ has, as they
have known, and not of Himself: thou
(unemphatic) has¢ in thy spiritual treasury
ready to be brought forth according to our
powers and necessities (Matt. xiii. 52) the
words, or rather words of eternal life.
This phrase may mean either (1) words—
utterances (v. 63)—concerning eternal life
or (2) words bringing, issuing in, eternal
life (1 John i. 1). The usage of St John is
on the whole decidedly in favour of the
second interpretation. Thus we find the
>read of life (vv, 35, &e.), the light of
life (viii. 12), the water of life (Rev. xxi.
6, xxii. 1, 17), the tree of life (Rev. ii. 7,
xxii, 2, 14). St Peter does not speak of
the completed Gospel (‘tthe word’), but
of specific sayings (fypara, not ré
pyjpara) which had been felt to carry life
with them. He had recognised the truth
of what the Lord had said v. 63 (ré

jpara ).
ene. And we] The pronoun is emphatic ;
we who are nearest to Thee and have lis-
tened to Thee most devoutly.

believe and are sure] have believed and
know (or rather, have come to know). The
vital faith which grasps the new data of
the higher life precedes the conscious in-
tellectual appreciation of them. ‘‘ Non

cognovimus et credidimus... Credidimus
enim ut cognosceremus; nam si prius cog-
noscere et deinde credere vellemus, nec
cognoscere nec credere valeremus’’ (Aug.
ad loc.). Comp. ch, x. 88; 2 Pet. i. 5.

In 1 John iv. 16 the words stand in the
inverted order, but it will be noticed from
the construction there that the words have
believed qualify and explain, so to speak,
have come to know (know), but do not go
closely with the love that God hath to us,
which depends directly on know.

that Christ, the Son of the living God]
According to the true reading (see addi-
tional note), the Holy One of God. Mark
i, 24; Luke iv. 84. The knowledge of the
demoniacs reached to the essential nature
of the Lord. Comp. Rev. iii. 7; 1 John ii.
20. See also ch. x. 36, and v. 27 of this
chapter.

With this confession of St Peter that
which is recorded in Matt. xvi. 16, which
belongs to the same period but to different
circumstances, must be compared. Here
the confession points to the inward charac-
ter in which the Apostles found the assur-
ance of life; there the confession was of the
public office and theocratic Person of the
Lord. To suppose that the one confession
is simply an imperfect representation of
the other is to deny the fulness of the life
which lies behind both. This confession
must be compared with the confessions in
ch. i. Here the confession is made after
the disappointment of the popular hope,
and reaches to the recognition of that
absolute character of Christ, which the
demoniacs tried to reveal prematurely.

70. Even in ‘those who still clung to
Christ there was an element of unfaithful-
ness. Comp. xiii. 10 f. ‘
Jesus answered...] The reply is to the
confident affirmation of St Peter, who
rested his profession of the abiding faith-
fulness of the apostles upon their percep-
tion of the Lord’s nature. So far was this
from leaving no ground for doubt that the
Lord shews that even His own choice (Did
not I—even I—choose) left room for a
traitor among those whom He had chosen.

them] St Peter spoke for all, and the
Lord still speaks to the twelve and not
to their representative only.

Have not I chosen you twelve? Did not
I choose you the twelve? you the marked
representatives of the new Israel, the
patriarchs of «a divine people. The refer-
ence is not to the number of the apostles,
but to their special position ( dpas Tovs
dwdexa : comp. xx. 24).

choose: xiii. 18, xv. 16 f. Compare
Luke vi. 13; Acts i. 2, 24; 1 Cor. i. 27f.;

III
It2

I chosen you twelve, and one of you
is a devil?
71 He spake of Judas Iscariot the

Eph. i. 4. On the choice of Judas see xiii.
18, note.
f and one of you (of you one) is a devil]
Even out of this chosen body (連 tpar)
‘one is faithless. There is a tragic pathos
in the original order.
a devil] viii. 44, xiii, 2; 1 John iii. 8,
10; Rev, xii, 9, xx, 2. The fundamen-
tal idea seems to be that of turning good
into evil (SaBdAXAev). The two great
temptations are the characteristic works of
“the devil.’’ Hence Judas, by regarding
Christ in the light of his own selfish views,
and claiming to use His power for the
accomplishment of that which he had pro-
posed as Messiah’s work, partook of that
which is essential to the devil’s nature.
With this term applied to Judas we must
compare that of Satan applied at no long
ee to St Peter (Matt. xvi. 23). Judas
wished to pervert the divine power which
the saw to his own ends; St Peter strove
o avert what he feared in erring zeal for
jhis Lord.

St. JOHN. VI.

[v. 71.
son of Simon: for he it was that
should betray him, being one of the
twelve,

71. He spake...) Now he spake...
Judas Iscariot the son of Simon] Judas
the son of Simon Iscariot. The true read-|
ing here marks Iscariot as certainly a local! ;
name: a man of Kerioth (Karioth). The
place is commonly identified with Kerioth,
a town of Judah (Josh. xv. 25), according}
to the A.V., so that Judas alone was
strictly a Judmxan. But it appears that
the rendering there is incorrect, and that
Kerioth ought to be joined with Hezron
(Kerioth-Hezron). May not the town be:
identified with the Kerioth ( Kap.) of
Moab mentioned in Jer. xlviii. 24?
he it was that should] it was he that
was about to (€ueAAev apadiddvat) ...
Compare xii. 4; Luke xxii. 23. The phrase
in v, 64 is different (6 rapaducwr),
being one of the twelve] The phrase
(eis €x 7. 8.) is slightly different from that
in Matt. xxvi. 14, 47 and _ parallels
(eis 7. 6), and seems to mark the unity
of the body to which the unfaithful
member belonged. Compare xx. 24.

ADDITIONAL NOTES on Cuap. v1.

26—58. <A brief summary of the argu-
ment of the three discourses furnishes the
best clue to their general interpretation in
view of the controversies which have
attached to parts of them. Their central
subject is Christ, truly man, the source
and the support of life. They deal, as we
have seen, with three questions in succes-
sion. How can man gain fellowship with
God? How can one who is man be the
source and support of life? How can the
virtue of Christ’s humanity be imparted to
and appropriated by others? Or, putting
the two last questions in their final form :
Can the Incarnation be a fact? Can the
Incarnate Son of God communicate Him-
self to men? They are, it is evident,
questions of universal moment, which go
to the very heart of faith; and according
as they are answered bring separation or
closer union at all times between Christ
and His disciples.

1. The source of life.

Man’s effort is combined and contrasted
with God’s gift (26, 27).

The divine work of man is faith in a
Person (28, 29).

The attestation of the gift which He
brings lies in the gift itself (30—33),

He is Himself the gift; and even
through apparent failure He fulfils His
work (34—88).

Belief in the Son is life now, and will
be followed by resurrection (39, 40).

2. But how can One who is man thus unite
earth and heaven?

The answer requires a spiritual prepara-
tion in the hearer (48, 44).

But in part it is answered in the
promises of the Old Testament (45, 46).

In part too the believer must himself
co-operate (47—50).

Christ gives what He is: the fulness of
His humanity (51). .
3. How again can men partake in the

virtues of another’s being.

The answer lies deep in the perception
of the divine nature of the Son of man.

Man lives only by the participation in
the virtues of His life and death (53—55).

This participation brings with it a
personal union between the believer and
Christ (56),
ae is the fulness of divine life (57,

From first to last the gift to men on the
part of God is set forth as Christ “the
Son of man;” and the power by which
man makes the gift his own is active
“faith.” The repetition of the title “the
Son of man” three times in most signifi-
cant connexions brings out very clearly
the aspect of Christ’s Person to which the
teaching specially points (vv. 27, 58, 62).
So also the stress laid on believing
(mioreverv eis vy. 29, 85, 40, 47) keeps
in prominence the requirement from man.
In the last section (52—58) “believing ” is
not mentioned, but the same effect is
attributed to “eating the flesh and drink-
ing the blood” of Christ as before to
“believing” absolutely (vv. 47, 54, éxee
St. JOHN. VI.

wmv aidviov). Here then the activity of
faith is presented in its completest energy
in connexion with the fullest description
of the divine gift. The fundamental anti-
thesis of the human and divine, which
appears at the opening of the discourses,
is thus distinctly expressed at the close.

It must not however be concluded that
“eating the flesh of the Son of man and
drinking His blood” is simply a meta-
phorical expression for “believing on
Christ,” or more specifically for “ believing
on Christ as having lived and died for
men.” It is quite unnatural to suppose that
the earlier and plain words are involved in
dark figures by the later phrases. On the
contrary, these figures indicate the effective
action and issue of faith, while they pre-
serve and recognise the meeting together
of the human and divine in the highest
consummation of the destiny of man.

The progress which underlies the ap-
parent monotony of the discourses is most
conspicuously marked by the comparison
of the corresponding phrases “believing
on the Son of man,” and “eating” the
Son of man, and is indicated also in the
recurrent forms of expression which seem
at first sight to be identical. Thus vv. 33,
50, 58, which in their general structure
and elements are closely connected, are yet
found upon examination to be clearly
distinguished :

v. 33. The bread of God is that which
cometh down from heaven, and giveth
(SsSovs) life to the world.

», 50. This (bread) [v. 48, I am the
bread of life] is the bread which cometh
down from heaven that a man may eat of
it (€€ avrov dayy) and not die.

e ss This (heed) [t.e. I (v. 57)] is the
bread which came down from heaven: he
that eateth (Tpwywv) this bread shall live
for ever

The general divine fact is stated first;
next the divine purpose in connexion with
man; and then last the historic fact as it
is appropriated by individual men.

From what has been said it will be seen
that the discourses spring naturally out of
the position in which the Lord stood at a
critical moment towards His disciples and
the people, and are perfectly intelligible
as an answer to the questionings among
them conveyed in such a parabolic form
(Matt. xiii, 34) as was suggested partly
by the memories of the passover. That
which is outward is made the figure of
the inward, and then, when the spiritual
conception is fully developed, the outward
imagery is again adopted in order to
indicate fresh forms of the truth. The
people had “eaten of the loaves” (v. 26) ;
that which it was their highest blessing to
do was to eat the Son of man (v. 57).
This “eating ({ is essential for all, inas-
much as without it there is no life and no

resurrection (v. 58). And further, this
“eating” leads necessarily to life in the
highest sense; it has no qualification (such
as eating “worthily ”); it is operative for
good absolutely.

It follows that what is spoken of “eating
(payetv) of the bread which cometh down
from heaven” (v, 51), “eating (ayeiv)
the flesh of the Son of man” (v. 583),
“eating (tpwyev ) His flesh, and drink.
ing His blood” (vv. 54, 56), “eating
(Tpdyev) Him” (v, 57), “eating
(tTpwyerv) the bread which came down
from heaven” (v. 58)—the succession of
phrases is most remarkable—cannot refer
primarily to the Holy Communion; nor
again can it be simply prophetic of that
Sacrament. The teaching has a full and
consistent meaning in connexion with the
actual circumstances, and it treats essen-
tially of spiritual realities with which no
external act, as such, can be co-extensive.
The well-known words of Augustine, crede
et manducasti, “believe and thou hast
eaten,” give the sum of the thoughts in a
luminous and pregnant sentence.

But, on the other hand, there can be no
doubt that the truth which is presented in
its absolute form in these discourses is
presented in a specific act and in a concrete
form in the Holy Communion; and yet
further that the Holy Communion is the
divinely appointed means whereby men
may realise the truth. Nor can there be
a difficulty to any one who acknowledges
a divine fitness in the ordinances of the
Church, an eternal correspondence in the
parts of the one counsel of God, in believ-
ing that the Lord, while speaking intelli-
gibly to those who heard Him at the time,
gave by anticipation a commentary, so to
speak, on the Sacrament which He after-
wards instituted. But that which he deals
with is not the outward rite, but the
spiritual fact which underlies it. To
attempt to transfer the words of the
discourse with their consequences to the
Sacrament is not only to involve the history
in hopeless confusion but to introduce
overwhelming difficulties into their inter-
pretation, which can only be removed by
the arbitrary and untenable interpolation
of qualifying sentences.

In this connexion two points require
careful consideration. The words used
here of the Lord’s humanity are “‘flesh’’
and ‘‘blood,’’ and not as in every case
where the Sacrament is spoken of in Scrip-
ture ‘‘ body’’ and ‘‘blood.”? And again St
John nowhere refers directly to the Sacra-
ments of Baptism and Holy Communion
as outward rites.

The second point need not cause any
surprise. St John living in the centre of
Christian society does not notice the insti-
tution of services which were parts
of the settled experience of Church life.

113
114

He presupposes them; and at the same
time records the discourses in which the
ideas clothed for us and brought near to
us in the two Sacraments were set forth.
He guards the Sacraments in this way
from being regarded either as ends in
themselves or as mere symbols. He enables
us to see how they correspond with funda-
mental views of the relations of man to
God; how they are included in one sense
in the first teaching of the Gospel; how
Christianity is essentially sacramental as
Judaism is essentially typical; how,
through the Incarnation, the relations be-
tween things outward and inward, things
seen and unseen, are revealed to us as
real and eternal, and not superficial and
transitory.

The first point is evidently of critical
importance for the understanding of the
relation between the discourses and the
Sacrament. The ‘flesh’? is (so to speak)
the constituent element of the human or-
ganization ; the ‘‘ body’’ is the organization
itself. That which the believer must ap-
propriate is, as we have seen, the virtue
of Christ’s humanity ; through this, in the
unity of His Person, Christ unites him to
God. That which Christ presents to His
Church in the institution of Holy Com-
munion is His ‘‘ Body.’”’ The term ‘‘flesh”’
marks that which must be assimilated, and
suggests the due co-operation of the indi-
vidual recipient for an effect which is abso-
lute. The term ‘‘body’’ answers to the
outward rite, which is primarily social (1
Cor. x. 16 f,). Or, to put the idea in a
somewhat different light, the ‘‘flesh’’ ex-
presses that which characterizes the essen-
tial limitation of that humanity which “the
Word became,’’ capable of an indefinite
variety of manifestations, while the ‘‘body”’
is a specific manifestation. The one sug-
gests the conception of the principle of
human life; the other the unity of a
particular form of human life. (The gloss
in D on v, 56 shews how soon the distinc-
tion was neglected.)

Among early writers Augustine has ex-
pressed very clearly the relation of the
discourse to the Sacrament, though he
does not dwell on the difference of ‘‘flesh’’
and ‘‘body.’’ ‘This food and drink,”
he writes, ‘‘ Christ wishes to be under-
stood as fellowship with His Body and
members... The Sacrament of this thing,
that is, of the unity of the Body and
Blood of Christ, is prepared on the Lord’s
table (in dominica mensa) in some places
daily, in other places at stated intervals,
and is taken from the Lord’s table, for
some to life, for some to destruction (ad
exitium); the thing itself however of
which [that rite] is a sacrament, is for
every man to life, to none to destruction,
whoever partakes of it (‘Tract. in Joh.’
xxvi, 15)...This is therefore to eat that
food (escam) and to drink that blood, to

Sr. JOHN. VI.

abide in Christ and to have Him abiding
in oneself. And through this, he who
does not abide in Christ and in whom
Christ does not abide, doubtless does not
eat His flesh (procul dubio nec manducat
carnem eius, the addition spiritualiter is
a false gloss), nor drink His blood, al-
though he eats and drinks the Sacrament
of so great a thing to his own judgment”
(Id. § 18, etiamsi tante ret sacramentum
ad judicium sibi manducet et bibat ac-
cording to the MSS. The text as it is
quoted in Art. xxix. has been interpolated
from the commentary of Bede).
Norm on Raapines 1n Cawap. VI.

There are several readings of consider-
able interest in ch. vi. which require
notice as illustrating the history of the
text.

9. The common text reads zaddprov év,
This is supported by A, the mass of later
uncial and cursive MSS., some copies of
vt, Lat., Vulg., the Syriac versions (ex-
cept Syr. vt.), &e.

On the other hand, €v is omitted by

BDL and a fair number of later copies,
including some very important cursives,
the most important copies of Lat. vt., Syr.
vt., Origen, Cyril Alex., Chrysostom, &c.
(C is defective). Here it will be observed
that the oldest representatives of each
class of authorities omit the word in dis-
pute, the oldest Greek MSS., the oldest
forms of the oldest versions, and the
oldest father who quotes the passage.

There can then be no doubt that zrat-
ddptov alone should be read.

16. In this verse & has one of those
paraphrastic glosses which are characteristic
of ND, vt. Lat. and vt. Syr. In place of
iva roujowow [atrdv] BacriAéa, which is
read by all other authorities with one
questionable exception, it reads cai dvad-
exvivar Baowdéa, This phrase is followed
by gevyes for dveydpnoev. This read-
ing dedyer is supported by other authori-
ties of the same group, vé. Lat., Vulg.,
Syr. vt.; but such evidence only shews
the wide extension of the gloss at a very
early time.

Other examples of similar paraphrases
in members of the same group occur in v.
17, xaréAaBev 88 adrovs } cKoria (for Kat
oxoria 78n eyeydver) ND ; 46, Edpaxev Tov
Gedv (for é, Tov Tarépa) N*D abe...51, éx
TOU euod dptov (for éx TovTOV TOD dprov)
Nee... 57, AapPdvov (for tpdywv) D.

51. The last clause of this verse is
found in three forms :

(1)...dv ey Séow  odpé poov éorty
brep Tis TOD Kocpov (wis, BCDLT, Latt.,
Syr. vt., Theb., (Orig.), &e.

(2)... dv éyd Siow dtmép THs TOD Koopov
(wis } Ta pE pov eoriv, &, (m).

(3).. Ov éyo ddow H odp£ pov éoriv iy eyd
Sr. JOHN. VII.

ddow trep Tijs ToD Koc pou (wis. The mass
of later MSS. (A is defective), Syr. Pesh.
and Hcl., Memph., Clem. Al.

The insertion of the clause jy eyo Sucw in
(3) is evidently an attempt to remove the
harshness of the construction in (1),
which is removed in (2) by a transposi-
tion. But the addition of such a clause as
trép.t 7. x6 to a sentence already gram-
matically complete in order to bring out
a wider thought is completely in St
John’s style.

68. The common reading Aad@ is sup-
ported by the great mass of later MSS.,
but by no early evidence whatever; all the
oldest MSS., versions, and fathers reading
AcAdAnka, which at first sight seems to
limit the statement unduly.

69. The words of St Peter’s confession
offer a most instructive example of the
manner in which « (supposed) parallel in-
fluences a reading.

The words are given in different authori-
ties in the following forms: ov e?

(1) 6 dytos tod Geod SBC*DL (A andT
‘are defective),

(2) 6 xproros, 6 dytos Tou) Oeod Memph.,
Thed,

(3) 6 vids Tod Beod, 17, b, Syr. vt.

(4) 6 xpos, 6 vids Tod Oeot, Late.

(5) 6 xpiotos, 6 vids Tod Heo Tod (avTos,
the mass of MSS. and Syr. (except Syr.
vt.).

The last form (5) is identical with that

CHAPTER VII.

1 Jesus reproveth the ambition and boldness
of his kinsmen: 10 goethup from Galilee
to the feast of tabernacles: 14 teachethin

Il. Tue Great Controversy (vii.—xii.).
The record of the great controversy at
Jerusalem, during which faith and un-
belief were fully revealed, falls into two
parts. The first part (vii—x.) contains
the outline of the successive stages of the
controversy itself; the second the deci-
sive judgment (xi., xii.).
1. Tae ReEveLaTION or Faith aND Un-
BELIEF AT JERUSALEM (vii.—x.).

This central section of the whole Gospel
contains events and discourses connected
with two national festivals, the Feast of
Tabernacles and the Feast of Dedication,
which commemorated the first possession
to Canaan and the great recovery of
religious independence. Thus the festivals
had a most marked meaning in regard to
the life of the Jews, and this, as will be
seen, influenced the form of the Lord’s
teaching.

There is a clear progress in the history.
The discussions at the Feast of Tabernacles
(vii., vili.) are characterized by waverings
and questionings among the people. The

in Matt. xvi. 16, in which the authorities
(practically) do not vary. It is then
searcely to be questioned that the lan-
guage in St John has been brought into
accord with St Matthew and not changed
from it. The stages of the assimilation
are preserved in (2), (8), (4). Two changes
were made separately at a very early
time, the addition of 6 ypucros (Egyp-
tian versions) and the substitution of vids
for dyvos. These two changes were then
combined, and this is the reading pre-
served in the mass of Latin copies. And
finally the complete phrase of St Matthew
was introduced by the addition of tov

(OvTos.

71. The mass of later copies, with the
Gothic and the later copies of the Vul-
gate, give the title Iscariot (’Ioxapustnv)
to. Judas, but the earlier MSS. (}¥eBC
with some others) and the best copies of
the Vulgate connect it with Simon (’Ick-
apuirov). In D and some early Latin
copies the reading is simply  ZxapwO
(carioth), for which &* and four other
early authorities read (as D reads xii. 4,
xiii, 2, 26, xiv. 22) dad xapudrov, In xii.
4, xiv. 22, the title undoubtedly belongs
to Judas. Here and in xiii, 2, 26 it ap-
pears scarcely less certainly to belong to
his father Simon. The natural conclusion
is that it was a local name borne by
father and son alike,

the temple. 40 Divers opinions of him
among the people. 45 The Pharisees are
angry that their officers took him not, and
chide with Nicodemus for taking his part.

discussions at the Feast of Dedication shew
the separation already consummated (ix.,
x.).
(1) The Feast of Tabernacles (vii., viii.).

No section in the Gospel is more evidently
a transcript from life than this. It reflects
a complex and animated variety of charac-
ters and feelings. Jerusalem is seen crowded
at the most popular feast with men widely
differing in hope and position : some eager
in expectation, some immovable in pre-
judice. There is nothing of the calm
solemnity of the private discourse, or of
the full exposition of doctrine before a
dignified body, such ag has been given be
fore. All is direct, personal encounter.
The ‘‘brethren” of the Lord (vii. 3 ff.),
“‘the Jews” (vii, 1, 11, 18, 15, 35, viii. 22,
48, 52, 57), ‘‘the multitudes” (vii. 12 f.),
“the multitude’’ (vii. 12, 20, 31 f., 40 f,
43, 49), ‘“‘the people of Jerusalem” (vii.
25), “‘the Pharisees’’ (vii, 32, 47, viii. 13),
“the chief-priests (i.e., the Sadducean hier-
archy) and Pharisees”’ (vii. 32, 45, for the
first time), Nicodemus (vii. 50), ‘‘ the Jews

I

115
116

a Lev. 23.
34.

Aa these things Jesus walked
in Galilee: for he would not
walk in Jewry, because the Jews
sought to kill him.

2 @Now the Jews’ feast of taberna-
cles was at hand.

3 His brethren therefore said unto
him, Depart hence, and go into Ju-
deea, that thy disciples also may see
the works that thou doest.

Sr. JOHN. VII.

[v. 1—6.

4 For there is uo man that doeth
any thing in secret, and he himself
seeketh to be known openly. If
thou do these things, shew thyself
to the world.

For neither did his brethren be-
lieve in him.

6 Then Jesus said unto them, My
time is not yet come: but your time
is alway ready.

 

who believed him” (viii. 31), appear in

succession in the narrative, aud all with

clearly marked individuality. Impatent
promptings to action (vii. 3 ff.), vague in-
quiries (vii. 11), debatings (vii. 12, 40 ff.),

fear on this side and that (vii. 18, 30, 44),

wonder (vii. 15, 46), perplexity (vii. 25 ff.),

belief (vii. 31, viii. 30), open hostility (vii.

82), unfriendly criticism (vii. 23 ff., viii.

48 ff.), selfish belief in Christ’s Messianic

dignity (viii. 31 ff.), follow in rapid alter-

nation. All is full of movement, of local
colour, of vivid traits of conflicting classes
and tendencies.

The section is naturally divided into
several distinct scenes. The circumstances
of the visit (vii, 1—13). The discussions

t ‘‘the midst of the feast’? (14—36). The
iscussions on the last day (87—52). The

jafter-teaching (viii. 12—20). The trial of

rue and false faith (21—59).

1. The circumstances of the visit to the
Feast of the Tabernacles (vii, 1—18).
Cuap, VII. 1—13. In these verses there

is w lively picture of the position which

the Lord held at the time. Continued
teaching in Judea had become impossible

(v. 1). His brethren impatiently pressed

for some more decisive public manifesta-

tion of His power (vv. 3—9). The multi-
udes gathered at Jerusalem were divided

etween faith and distrust (vv. 11, 12).
‘But the dominant party kept down all
pen discussion of His claims (v. 18). The

escription brings out distinctly various

spects of a work and a Person not yet
ully revealed.

1. After these things] And after these
things, that is, the whole crisis brought
about by the miracle of feeding.

walked] ch. vi. 66, note.

would not walk in Jewry (Judea, as v.
3)] The words imply a previous work in
Judea corresponding to that now accom-
plished in Galilee.

to kill him] See v. 18.

2. the Jews feast of tabernacles] the
feast of the Jews, the feast of Tabernacles.
This feast was pre-eminent among the festi-
tvals ‘‘as the holiest and greatest’ (Jos.
‘Ant.’ vir. 4. 1). It fell on 15—22 Tisri
(September, October) and thus there is an
interval of six months after the events of
ich. vi, of which the Evangelist records

t

nothing. The record of some details of this
period is given in Matt, xii—xvii., xxi. j

8. His brethren] See Lightfoot, Excur-
sus ii, on ‘Galatians.’ Perhaps we may
conclude even from this notice, compared |
with Mark iii. 21, 81, that the brethren ¢
were elder brethren (i.e. sons of Joseph by |
a former marriage) who might from their
age seek to direct the Lord,

therefore] since Jesus had not gone up
to the last Passover.

thy diciples also may see (behold)...] not:
only those disciples who would be gathered .
from all parts to Jerusalem, but specially
those who had been gained by earlier
teaching in Judea and Jerusalem, and who:
still remained there. From this notice it
appears that miracles were wrought chiefly
among strangers to arrest attention; and
also that the word was accompanied only
by a small group of followers in His Gali-
lean circuits,

4. For there is no man that (mo man)
doeth any thing in secret] as Christ did,
for His works in Galilee and even beyond
the borders of Galilee were practically
withdrawn (such is the argument) from
the observation of those who could best
judge their worth.

and he...seeketh (and seeketh) to be
known openly) Literally, ‘‘to be in bold-
ness” (€v rappyoig efvat,, Vulg. in palam
esse), to stand forth boldly as one urging
his claims before the world without reserve
or fear. Comp. Wisd. v, 1; Coll. ii, 15.
The words refer to the position claimed
and not to the position gained (‘to be
publicly known’’), The phrase however
(NIDADD) is not unfrequent in Rabbinic
writers in the sense of ‘‘in public” as op-
posed to ‘“‘in secret,” see Buxtorf, ‘Lex.’
8.0.

If thou do (doest)...] The words do not
carry with them any definite denial of the
fact (v. 3), but simply place the fact as the
basis for the conclusion.

shew thyself] manifest thyself. The word
(pavepdw) is characteristic of St John.
Comp, xxi. 1, note, i. 81, ix. 8, xvii. 6.

to the world) viii. 26. Comp. xiv. 22°

5. For neither (not even) did his
brethren believe in him] The phrase need
not mean more than that they did not
sacrifice to absolute trust in Him all the
v.7—-12]

b chap. 8.
20.

7 The world cannot hate you; but
me it hateth, because I testify of it,
that the works thereof are evil.

8 Go ye up unto this feast: I go
not up yet unto this feast; bfor my
time is not yet full come.

9 When he had said these words
unto them, he abode still in Galilee.

1o 4 But when his brethren were

St. JOHN. VII.

117
gone up, then went he also up unto
the feast, not openly, but as it were
in secret.

ir Then the Jews sought him at
the feast, and said, Where is he?

12 And there was much murmuring
among the people concerning him : for
some said, Heis a good man: others
said, Nay ; but he deceiveth the people.

 

fancies and prejudices which they
cherished as*to Messiah’s office. Thus
their belief could not be a constant power
(ov« éxiorevov) influencing their whole
mode of thinking. They ventured to ad-
vise and urge when Faith would have
been content to wait.

believe in him] Compare viii. 30, note.

6. Then Jesus said...) Therefore Jesus
saith...

My time] the seasonable moment for the
revelation of myself (6 xacpds 6 eds). The
word (“season,” «apés) occurs in St
John’s Gospel only in this passage [v. 4 is
a gloss]. As compared with “hour” (viii
20, note) “season” appears to mark the
fitness of time in regard to the course of
human events, while “the hour” has
reference to the divine plan.

your time (xatpos) is alway - ready]
Christ’s brethren had no new thoughts to
make known. What they had to say was
in harmony with what others were feeling.

heir time was always ready. They were
n sympathy with the world; while Christ
was in antagonism with the world. They
risked nothing by joining in the festival
pilgrimage; He kept back not only from
the danger of open hostility, but also
from the violence of mistaken zeal, lest
some should “make Him a King” (vi. 15).
The thought which underlies the verse
corresponds with that in v. 17.

7. cannot hate you] This “cannot”
answers to the law of moral correspond-
ence. It is of frequent occurrence in St
John’s Gospel and in different relations.
Thus it is used of the relation of “the
Jews” to Christ (vii. 34, 36, viii. 21 f.,
48 f., xii, 39); and of “the world” to the
Paraclete (xiv. 17); and in another aspect
of the relation of the believer to Christ, in
his first approach (vi. 44, 65, iii. 8, 5), and
in his later progress (xiii. 33, 36, xvi. 12);
and yet again of the relation of the Son to
the Father (v. 19, note). In each case the
impossibility lies in the true nature of
things, and is the other side of the divine
“must ” (xx. 9, note).

8. Go ye up unto this feast (the feast)]
The pronoun is emphatic: Do ye, with

your thoughts and hopes, go up (ips
avaBnre).
I go not up yet unto this feast] The

sense may be “I go not up with the great

train of worshippers.” Nor indeed di

Christ go to the feast as one who kept it.
He appeared during the feast (v. 14), bu
then as a prophet suddenly in the temple:
Perhaps however it is better to give a
fuller force to the “going up” and to
suppose that the thought of the next
paschal journey, when “the time was
fulfilled,” already shapes the words. The
true reading “not yet ” (followed by A. V.)
and also the exact phrase “ this feast” give
force to this interpretation. The Feast of
Tabernacles was a festival of peculiar joy
for work accomplished. At such a feast
Christ had now no place.

is not yet full come] Literally, is not
yet fulfilled (ovrw werAypwrat). Comp.
Luke xxi, 24; Acts vii, 23  (€mAnpotro) ;
Eph. i. 10; Gal. iv. 4.

9. When he had said...) And having
said...

10. But when...were gone up, then went
he also up unto the feast] But when...
were gone up to the feast, then went he
also up,

but as it were in secret] hidden as one
solitary stranger and not the centre of an.
expectant band. Contrast the visit in ii.’
13 (in power), v. 1 (as a pilgrim), and.
here, when Christ was withdrawn from the _
pilgrim-company, with the final visit in !
triumph, xii. 12 f.

11. Then the Jews (The Jews therefore)
sought him] in the parties of Galilean
worshippers, asking of them Where is he?
that famous teacher ( éxeivos ) whom we
saw, and of whom we have since heard (ix,
12) The question was asked half pethap§
in ill-will and half in curiosity.

12. murmuring) Or perhaps here mutter-
ing (yoyyvopds, Vulg. murmur), as of
men who did not dare to speak plainly:
and loudly what they felt. Comp. v. 32. }

among the people] among the multitudes,
that is, among the different groups of.
strangers who had come up to the festival,
and such as consorted with them. This
confluence and separation will explain the
occurrence of the plural (év tots dyAous)
which is found here only in St John, as it
occurs also once only in St Mark.

for some said] some said. The omission’
of the particle gives vividness to the.
description. .

a good man] unselfish and teue.

Com-
pare Mark x, 17.
118

{| Or,
learning.

13 Howbeit no man spake openly
of him for fear of the Jews.

14 {| Now about the midst of the
feast Jesus went up into the temple,
and taught.

15 And the Jews marvelled, say-
ing, How knoweth this man (letters,
having never learned?

16 Jesus answered them, and said,

St. JOHN. VII.

[v. 13—18.

My doctrine is not mine, but his that
sent me.

17 If any man will do his will, he
shall know of the doctrine, whether
it be of God, or whether I speak of
myself.

18 He that speakett of himself
seeketh his own glory: but he that
seeketh his glory that sent him, the

 

deceiveth the people] leadeth the multi-
tude astray (7Aavg, Vulg. seducit). Comp.
v. 47. The thought is of practical and
not of intellectual error.

“13. no man] whether he thought well or

ill of Christ, spake openly (boldly) of him
for fear—an all-pervading fear (dia Tov
poBov)—of the Jews, the leaders of the
“national” party, who had as yet not
pronounced judgment openly though their
inclination was plain,
4 openly] boldly. The original word
(mappnce ) has a double sense. It may
jmean either without reserve or veil, giving
free utterance to every thought plainly (x.
24, xi. 14, xvi, 25, 29, xviii. 20), or without
fear (xi. 54). Here, and so probably in
v, 26, it is used in the latter sense.

The discussions at the midst of the Feast
(vv, 14—36).

14—36. The discussions at “the midst
of the feast” lay open thoughts of three
groups of men: “the Jews” (14—24),
“some of the inhabitants of Jerusalem
(25—81), the envoys of “the chief priests
and the Pharisees” (32—36). Each dis-
cussion constitutes a separate scene, “The
multitude ” is swayed to and fro by con-
flicting fears and hopes (20, 31 f.). In
dealing with the successive questioners the
Lord indicates the authority of His teach-
ing, His connexion with the old dispensa-
tion, the brief space of the people’s trial.

14—24, In the first scene in the temple
Christ shews the source and the test of
His teaching (16—18) as against the false
interpretations of the Law (v. 19), which
were against the spirit and history of the
Law itself (20—24).

14. the midst of the feast] The feast
properly lasted seven days, but to these an
eighth day was added as “the last day”
of the feast (v. 37), Lev. xxiii. 36; 2 Macc.
x. 6.

into the temple, and taught] This is the
first mention of the appearance of the Lord
as a public teacher at Jerusalem. Compare
vi, 59, vii. 28, viii, 20 (the case is different
in x, 28), xviii, 20

15. And the Jews] The Jews therefore,
v.10. Untrod, p. ix.

marvelled] Matt. xxii, 22; Luke iv, 22.

knoweth...letters] | Compare Acts xxvi.
24, The marvel was that Jesus shewed

Himself familiar with the literary methods
of the time, which were supposed to be
confined to the scholars of the popular
teachers, :

having never learned] though he has
never studied in one of the great schools
(pw pepabnxds). Christ was in the eyes
of the Jews a merely self-taught enthusiast
They marvelled at His strange success,
while they did not admit His irregular
claims.

16. Jesus answered] Jesus therefore
answered. The Lord’s reply meets the
difficulty of the questioners, His teaching
was not self-originated (My doctrine
(teaching) is not mine), but derived from a
divine Master; infinitely greater than the
popular Rabbis. And it had a twofold
attestation—an inward criterion and an
outward criterion; the first from its essen-
tial character, and the second from the
character of Him who delivered it. He
whose will was in harmony with the will
of God could not but recognise the source
of the teaching. And again, the absolute —
devotion of Christ to Him who sent Him :
was a sign of His truth.

17. If any man will do(Gén 7 OeAnpa
moteiv, Vulg. si quis voluerit voluntatem
facere)...] i.e. If it be any man’s will to do
His will. The force of the argument lies’
in the moral harmony of the man’s purpose,
with the divine law so far as this law is
known or felt. If there be no sympathy:
there can be no understanding. Religion’
is a matter of life and not of thought only,
The principle is universal in its application.
The will of God is not to be limited to the
Old Testament revelation, or to the claims
of Christ, but includes every manifestation
of the purpose of God. A fine saying is
attributed to “Rabban Gamaliel, the son
of R. Jehudah ha-Nasi :” “Do His will as
if it were thy will, that He may do thy
will as if it were His will” (‘Aboth,’ 11. 4),

speak of myself] Compare v. 30 note,
Xv. 4, note,

18. his own glory] Compare v. 30, 41 ff.

but he that seeketh...] The second part
of the sentence is changed in form so as to
take @ positive shape, wrought out both in
relation to thought absolutely (is true,
ahnOjs, Vulg. verazx) and action relating
to others (there is no unrighteousness in
him).
Vv. 19—23.] St. JOHN. VII.

same is true, and no unrighteousness
is in him.

19 eDid not Moses give you the
law, and yet none of you keepeth the
law? @Why go ye about to kill me?

20 The people answered and said,
Thou hast a devil: who goeth about
to kill thee?

21 Jesus answered and said unto

11g
them, I have done one work, and ye
all marvel,

22 eMoses therefore gave unto you e Lev. 12,3.
circumcision; (not because it is of
Moses, fbut of the fathers ;) and ye / Gen. 17.
on the sabbath day circumcise a man.

23 If a man on the sabbath day ll Or, with.
receive circumcision, Ilthat the law ne ine

1
of Moses should not be broken; are pnaee

¢ aa 24.

d chap. 5.
18.

 

For the connexion of “falsehood” and
“unrighteousness” see Rom. ii. 8; 1 Cor.
xiii. 6; 2 Thess. ii, 12. Injustice is false-
hood in deed.

19. The principle laid down is applied to
the condemnation of the Jews. They pro-
fessed unbounded devotion to Moses, and
yet they broke the Law because they
were estranged from its spirit. Their
ignorance of the Law had at last grown
so great that they were prepared to
murder Him who came to fulfil the Law.

Did not...the law, and yet none...the
law?] Did not...the law? and none...the
law. The question is an appeal to their
own proud boast. Then follows their con-
demnation by the Lord.

Why go ye about (seek ye, and so v. 20)
to kill me?) v. 1.

20. The people] The multitude, made
up chiefly of pilgrims, and therefore unac-
quainted with the full designs of the hier-
archy. Omit and said.

Thou hast a devil) Compare Matt. xi. 18;
Luke vii. 33, where the same phrase is
used of John the Baptist, as one who
sternly and, in men’s judgment, gloomily
and morosely withdrew himself from the

heerfulness of social life. So here perhaps
the words mean no more than ‘thou art
possessed with strange and melancholy
fancies; thou yieldest to idle fears.’’ In
a different context they assume a more
sinister force, viii. 48 f., 52, x. 20. Yet
even in these cases the sense does not go
beyond that of irrationality.

21. Jesus answered...) The point of the
answer lies in the indication of the ground
of the hostility which ended in murderous
designs. All alike—‘‘the Jews” and ‘“‘the
multitude’—marvelled at that which
should have been an intelligible illustra-
tion of the Law. This wonder contained
the germ of open misunderstanding and
opposition which, if followed to its legiti-
mate development, could not but end in
deadly enmity. If men failed to see the
inner significance of the Law they must
persecute Christ who came to interpret it
and offer its fulfilment in the Gospel.

I have done (did) one work] ch. v. 1 ff.
This special healing on the Sabbath is
singled out of the many which Christ
wrought (ii. 23, iv. 45) from its exceptional
circumstances.

marvel] Yet even wonder may be a first
sttep towards « truer apprehension of the
divine lesson. Compare v. 20.

22.. Moses therefore gave unto you...)
For this cause Moses hath given you, as an
abiding ordinance... The cause referred to
is the typical realisation of the lesson
which underlies the restoration of the im-
potent man, as it is brought out in v. 23.
The words for this cause certainly com-
mence a new sentence, and do not close v.
21. In this respect the usage of St John
is decisive, vi. 65, viii. 47.

not because (that) it is...but...] The
words are parenthetical. The case was not

simply a conflict of two Mosaic precepts. ’

The law of circumcision was not in origin
Mosaic; and thus in itself it carried men’s
thoughts back to the great ideas which
the Mosaic Law was designed to embody.
The Mosaic Law of the Sabbath was, on
the other hand, new.

The connexion of for this cause with not
because (that) appears to be against the
usage of the language (vi. 46); 2 Cor. i. 24,
ili, 5; Phil. iv. 17; 2 Thess, ili. 9: Z do not
mean that...but...; yet see xii. 6 (where 6Tt
is repeated) ; and against the argument, for
the point in question was not the origin of
circumcision, though this furnished a sub-
sidiary thought, but the fact of conflicting

Skee

enactments in the Law which were ad-i

justed in a particular manner.

on the (a) sabbath] if that happened to be
the eighth day. The principle is distinctly
recognised in the Mishna, ‘Sabb.’ xix. 1.
R. Akiva said: ‘‘ Every work which can
be done on the eve of the Sabbath does
not set aside the Sabbath; but circumci-
sion, which cannot be done on the eve of
the Sabbath [if the eve be the seventh
day], sets aside the Sabbath.” Compare
Lightfoot and Wetstein, ad loc.

23. should not be broken] by the viola-
tion of the commandment which enjoined
circumcision on the eighth day. Comp. x.
35, v. 18, note.

are ye angry...because I have made (I
made)...] The contrast is between the
effect. of circumcision which made (as it
were) one member sound, and that of the
miracle which made the whole paralysed
man sound. If then the Law itself rati-
fied the precedence of this act of partial
healing over the ceremonial observance of
120

o Deut. 1.
16.

ye angry at me, because I have made
a man every whit whole on the sab-
bath day?

24 9Judge not according to the
appearance, but judge righteous judg-
ment.

25 Then said some of them of Je-
tusalem, Is not this he, whom they
seek to kill?

26 But, lo, he speaketh boldly,

St. JOHN. VII.

[v. 24—28.

and they say nothing unto him. Do
the rulers know indeed that this is
the very Christ ?

27 Howbeit we know this man
whence he is: but when Christ
cometh, no man knoweth whence
he is.

28 Then cried Jesus in the tem-
ple as he taught, saying, Ye both
know me, and ye know whence I

 

the Sabbath, how much more lawful was
the complete healing.

I have made...on the sabbath...) I made
...on a sabbath,

aman every whit whole...) More exactly,
awhole sound man (édov avOpwrov tytn,
Vulg. totum hominem sanum). A whole
man regarded from the physical side, and
not with the subordinate distinction of
**soul and body.’? Comp. v. 14.

24. Judge not according to appearance]
superficially, by the external aspect, as the
matter first presents itself (Kar’ dyuw,
Vulg. secundum faciem).

righteous judgment] Or rather, the
righteous judgment; give the one true and
complete decision of which the case ad-
mits. The truth is one.

25—31. In the second scene, which is
still in the temple (v. 28), the Lord meets
the popular objection which was urged
against the belief that He was the Christ
(vv, 25—27). He had perfect authority for
His work, from Him whom the Jews
“knew not’ (v. 28 f.). So the people
were divided by His words and works
(v. 31).

25. Then said some...Jerusalem...] Some
therefore of them of Jerusalem said, who
were acquainted with the designs of the
hierarchy, and yet not committed to them.
Hence they are described by the local name
(IeporoAvpirat, Vulg. (inexactly) quidam
ex Hierosolymis), which occurs elsewhere
in New Testament only in St Mark i. 5
(Vulg. Hierosolymite). The chain of se-
quence (therefore) is that the Lerd had
taken up the position of accuser when
He was Himself accused.

26. But (And), lo, he speaketh boldly)
Comp. v. 13.

Do the...know...the very Christ?) Can
it be that the rulers indeed know (usjrore
éyvooav)...the Christ? Can it be that they
have learnt, come to know...?. The words
geem to mark some point of transition, as
if a change might have passed over the
Sanhedrin. Possibly (so the people argue)
they have examined the matter, and found
reason to decide in favour of Him whom
they before opposed. Perhaps there is a
reference to the examination in ch. v.
19 ff.

27. Howbeit (adAAd)...] The suspicion is
at once set aside as impossible: we know...
no man knoweth. The two words know,
knoweth (oidapev, yivso Ket) offer a contrast
between the knowledge which is full and
abiding, and that which comes by pro-
gress and observation. Compare xiv. 7, ii.
24, note.

whence he ts] t.e. we know His family
and His home. Yet even so they thought
of Nazareth and not of Bethlehem, David’s
city, v. 42. Compare Matt. xiii. 54 f. It
seems to have been expected that Messiah
would appear suddenly (perhaps from Dan.
vii. 18, or from Isai. liii. 8), no one knew
whence, while Christ had lived long among
His countrymen in obscurity and yet known
to them. According to a Jewish saying‘
(‘Sanhedr.’? 97 a) ‘three things come;
wholly unexpected, Messiah, a god-send
and a scorpion.’ According to another
tradition, Messiah would not even know
his own mission till he was anointed by,
Elijah. Just. M. ‘Dial.’ § 8, p. 2268. >

when Christ (the Christ) cometh] The
exact expression (drav épy7taz contrasted
with édrav €XOy, v. 31) marks the actual
moment when the coming is realised. The
appearance is a surprise.

28. Then cried Jesus...as he taught,
saying] Jesus therefore, as being ac-
quainted with their partial knowledge and
the conclusions which they drew from it,
cried aloud (éxpagev) in the temple,
teaching and saying. The testimony is
given publicly and with solemn emphasis.
Comp. v. 87, xii, 44, i, 15. The original
word (kpé(w) occurs only in these places
in the Gospel (xii. 18, xix. 12, are false
readings).

The repetition of the words in the temple
(comp. v. 14) seems to indicate a break be- |
tween this scene and the last.

Ye both know me, and ye know (and
know)...] The claim of the people of Jeru-
salem is drawn out at length (me, and
whence I am), and its superficial truth is
conceded. So far as mere outward experi-
ence goes, Christ answers, Ye do know me
and my origin; but that is not all. Zam
not come of myself, self-commissioned,de-
pendent on no other authority, but He that
sent me its true, is one who completely
v. 29—33-]
am: and I am not come of myself,
but he that sent me is true, whom ye
know not,

29 But I know him: for I am
from him, and he hath sent me.

30 Then they sought to take him:
but no man laid hands on him, be-
cause his hour was not yet come.

31 And many of the people be-

satisfies the conception of a sender (aAn-
Guvés); it is on Him I rely, and from
Him I draw my strength; and Him ye
(emphatic) know not.

and I am not...) The facts which the
people knew and the facts which they did
not know are simply set side by side.
Comp. v. 30, viii, 20, ix. 830; Mark xii. 12.

of myself] Compare v. 30, note.

is true] The word rendered true oAnOuvos,
(compare iv, 23) retains its proper mean-
ing. God is described as true not merely
in so far as He gave a true message, but as
one who really sent a messenger; a real
Father, as it were, sending a real Son. The
question was as to the authority of Christ.

ye know not] Comp. iv. 22. This fatal
want of knowledge made their boast of
knowledge vain. The words are a sad
echo of the opening words. As _ they
thought they knew Christ so they thought
they knew God.

29. Z (omit But)—as opposed to you—
know him, for (because) I am from him]
Now as always I rest upon Him, deriving
my whole being from Him, and he hath
sent (sent) me. The continuance of being
and the historic mission are set side by
side; and both are referred to God.

30. Then they sought...) They sought
therefore—because of His claim to be sent
from God—to take him. The subject is
taken from “some of them of Jerusalem”
(v. 25), those among them who are specially
called “ Jews.” Compare vv, 32, 44, (viii.
20, 59). (x. 31), x. 39, xi. 57.

but no man...) and no man...
v, 28, note.

his hour] Compare xiii. 1, note.

Compare

81. And many of the people...) But of
the multitude—in contrast with the leaders
of Jerusalem—many believed on him, not
only gave credence to what He said
(“believed Him”), but surrendered them-
selves to His guidance. It does not appear
that they yet definitely recognised Him as
Messiah, because He had not yet openly
asserted His claim to the title (x. 24),
though they were prepared to do so.

When Christ cometh, will he...] Will the
Christ when He cometh... The question
(u7,-Vulg. num quid) suggests the infer-

St. JOHN. VII.

121

lieved on him, and said, When Christ
cometh, will he do more miracles
than these which this man hath done?

32 §| The Pharisees heard that
the people murmured such things
concerning him; and the Pharisees
and the chief priests sent officers to
take him.

33 Then said Jesus unto them,

ence that Jesus must be the Christ, though
the inference is not drawn.

this man hath done] this man did. They
look back upon the “signs” which Christ
had wrought as a whole, now seen dis-
passionately far off,

82—36. These verses describe the third
scene in the controversy. The wishes of
Christ’s enemies (v. 30) soon found active
expression. The Sanhedrin sent public
officers to seize Him; and in their presence
for the first time He announces His speedy
and irrevocable departure from “the Jews”
(vv. 33 f.), to their bewilderment (vv. 35 f.).

32. The Pharisees] Comp. iv. 1.

heard that the people murmured such
things] heard the multitude murmuring
these things, as being inwardly dissatisfied
and irresolute.

the Pharisees and the chief priests] the
chief priests and Pharisees. The com-
bination occurs also in St Matthew : Matt.
xxi, 45, xxvii. 62. The phrase probably
describes the Sanhedrin under the form of
its constituent classes. Comp. v. 45, note,
xi. 47, 57, xviii. 3.

chief priests] The title appears to be
given not only to those who had held th
office of high-priest, like Annas (see ch.
Xvili. 13. note), and his son Eleazar, and
Simon the son of Kamhit, and Ishmael the
son of Phabi, who may all have been alive
at the time, but also to members of the
hierarchical families which were represen
ted by these men, alike infamous in Jewish
tradition. Comp, Derenbourg, ‘ Histoire de
Palestine,’ pp. 230 ff. Thus the title de-
scribes rather a political faction than a
definite office. Comp. Acts iv. 6 (as many
as were of the kindred of the high priest).
See v. 45, xi. 47, 57, xii. 10, xviii. 8, (35),
xix. 6, 15, 21.

Compare also Matt. xxvii. 1, note.

officers (vmnpéras)] clothed with legai
authority and obeying the instructions of
the Council. Comp. vv. 45 f., xviii. 3, 12,
18, 22, xix. 6; Acts v. 22, 26.

83. Then said Jesus unto them] Jesus |
therefore said. The words have a wider
application than to the officers.

a little while] It was about six months
to the Last Passover.
h chap. 13.

I22

Yet a little whileam I with you, and
the~ I go unto him that sent me,
34 *Ye shall seek me, and shall
not find me : and where I am, thither
ye cannot come.
35 Then said the Jews among
themselves, Whither will he go, that

Sr. JOHN. VII.

Lv. 34—36.
we shall not find him? will he go
unto the dispersed among the IIGen-} or,
tiles, and teach the Gentiles ?

36 What manner of saying is this
that he said, Ye shall seek me, and
shall not find me: and where I am,
thither ye cannot come?

 

with you) The “ multitude,” the “Jews,”
the “officers,” are all grouped together in
one body.

I go...) Three Greek words are thus
translated in St John, and two of them in
similar connexions. Each word expresses a

' distinct aspect of departure, and its special
“force must be taken into account in the
interpretation of the passage in which it is
found. The first word (irdyw), which is
used here, emphasizes the personal act of

going in itself, as a withdrawal (viii. 14,

21 f., xiii. 3, 33, 36, xiv. 4£., 28, xvi. 5, 10,

16 f.).

The second word (mopevouar) marks the
going as connected with a purpose, a
mission, an end to be gained, a work to be
done (v. 35, xiv. 8, 12, 28, xvi. 7, 28).

The third word (amépyopat) expresses
simple separation, the point left (vi, 68,
Xvi. 7, go away),

Their differences are very clearly seen in
a comparison of xvi, 10 (dmdyw) with xiv.
28 (mopevopar), and the succession of
words in xvi. 7—10 (mopevOG, dmrédOu,

trdyw),

unto him that sent me] During the dis.
courses in this chapter the reference is to
the authority of mission (him that sent me)
and not of nature (the Father). The
thought of the Father is added in ch. viii.
16, 18. These words themselves leave a
riddle unsolved.

84. Ye shall seek me...] not in penitence
nor yet in anger, but simply in distress.
You shall recall my words and works, and
wish once again to see if it might be that
in me there were deliverance. The thought
is not of the Christ generally, but of the
Lord Himself, whose power and love they
had experienced. Comp. Luke xvii, 22.
Contrast this ineffectual seeking with Matt.
vii. 7.

and where I am...) The fact of failure
is referred to the cause of failure. Christ
is essentially there whither He goes. The
stress in this place is laid upon the differ-
ence of character (Z am) which involves
separation, and not upon the simple his-
torical separation, Comp. viii, 21, xiii, 33
(Z go). The pronouns in the original are
placed in emphatic juxtaposition (eué
ey@, tyueis...).

35. Then said the Jews...) The Jews
therefore said... Those who claimed the

monopoly of religious privileges are
separated from the rest. Hence we have
among themselves (xii. 19) and not one to
another,

will he go] will this man go, this
strange pretender (odros). The pronoun
here carries an accent of surprise and
contempt. Comp, vi. 52.

that we shall not...) that we (7peis)
who stand in the closest connexion with all
the people of God.

the dispersed among the Gentiles] the:
dispersion among the Greeks (7 Siac7ropa
tov ‘EAMjvwv, Vulg. dispersio gentium),;
the Jews, that is, who are scattered among ,
the heathen Greek-speaking nations. The//
Jews who were still separated from their
own land after the Return were called by
two strikingly significant terms: the

“ Captivity” (YDS from miby, be made bare,
amroukla, peTorKeria, aixpadwoia), and the
“Dispersion” ( Stacaopé), which has no
distinct Hebréw correlative. The first
marks their relation to their own land;
the second their relation to the lands
which they occupied. Their own land
was stripped of them, and they wer|
soparated from their national privilege
On the other hand, they were so scattered
among the nations as to become the seed
of a future harvest. This thought is recog-
nised in a striking comment on Hos. ii. 24,
quoted by Winsche: R. Eliezer said the
Eternal has therefore scattered the Israel-
ites among other nations that the heathen
may attach themselves to them (‘ Pesach.
87b)...Diaspora first occurs Deut, xxviii.
25. Comp. Isai. xlix. 6; Jer. xv. 7; 2
Mace, i. 27; 1 Pet. i. 1; James i, 1. For
the genitive see 1 Pet. i. 1. This usage
seems to be quite decisive against the in-
terpretation ‘‘the dispersed Greeks.”

and teach the Gentiles (Greeks)] make
these isolated groups of Jews the starting-
point (as the apostles actually did) of
teaching among the Gentiles. This is the
climax of irrationality. No true Messiah,
no one seriously claiming the title, could
(it is agreed) entertain such a plan.

36. What manner of saying is this...)
What is this word... In spite of all, Christ’s
words cannot be shaken off. They are not
to be explained away. A vague sense re-
mains that there is in them some un-
fathomed meaning.

reeks
i Lev. 23.
36.

k Deut. 18.
16.

V. 3739. ]
37 iIn the last day, that great day
of the feast, Jesus stood and cried,
saying, If any man thirst, let him
come unto me, and drink.
38 kHe that believeth on me, as

Sr. JOHN. VIL.

123

the scripture hath said, out of his
belly shall flow rivers of living water.

39 (‘But this spake he of the Spirit, nad ad

which they that believe on him should
receive : for the Holy Ghost was not

 

8. The discussions on the last day of the
Feast (vv. 37—52).

The record of the circumstances of the
last day of the Feast consists of a frag-
mentary utterance containing a most signi-
ficant promise (87—39), together with its
effect upon the multitude (40—44); and
then more remotely upon the Sanhedrin
(45—52).

87. In the...the feast] Now on the last
day, the great day of the feast. The pecu-
liar greatness of the eighth day lay in the
fact that it was the close of the whole
festival and kept as a Sabbath (Lev. xxiii.
36). It has been conjectured that it was
observed in memory of the entrance into

Canaan. At present it is treated as a
eparate Festival. Compare Lightfoot, ad
loc.

stood] The original (eioryxet) is singu-
larly vivid : Jesus was standing, watching,
as it might be, the procession of the people
from their booths to the temple, and then,
moved by some occasion, he cried... Comp.
i. 35, note, xviii. 5, note.

If any man thirst] The image appears
to have been occasioned by the libations
of water brought in a golden vessel from
Siloam which were made at the time of
the morning sacrifice on each of the seven
days of the feast while Isai, xii. 3 was
sung. It is uncertain whether the libations
were made on the eighth day. If they
were not made, the significant cessation
of the striking rite on this one day of the
feast would give a still more fitting occa-
sion for the words.

unto me] The satisfaction lies in the
access to Christ. Comp. vi. 35.

The pouring out of the water (like the
use of the great lights, viii, 12), was a
commemoration of one conspicuous detail
of the life in the wilderness typified by
the festival. The water brought from the
rock supplied an image of future blessing
tothe prophets: Ezek. xlvii, 1, 12; Joel
iii. 18. And that gift is definitely con-
nected with the Lord by St Paul: 1 Cor.
x. 4,

Christ therefore shews how the promise
of that early miracle was completely ful-
filled in Himself in a higher form. He
who drank of that water thirsted again;
but the water which He gave became a
spring of water within. As in iv. 14 the
thought passes at once from the satisfac-
tion of personal wants to the satisfaction
of the wants of others which follows on
this.

Nothing can prove more clearly the in-

timate relation between the teaching re-
corded by St John and the Old Testament,
than the manner in which Christ is shewn
to transfer to Himself the figures of the
Exodus (the brazen serpent, the manna,
the water, the fiery pillar).

88. The connexion of the phrase he that
believeth on me, either with the words
which precede (let him that believeth on
me come to me and drink), or with those
which follow (he that believeth on me as
the Scripture hath said, t.e. truly, in accord.
ance with the divine word), is obviously
against the spirit of the whole passage.
The words are out of strict construction.
Comp. vi. 39; (Rev. ii, 26, iii, 12, 21).

The sense of thirst—personal want—
comes first; then with the satisfaction of
this, the fulness of faith; and then, the
refreshing energies of faith,

as the scripture hath said (said)] The
reference is not to any one isolated passage,
but to the general tenour of such passages
as Isai. lvili, 11; Zech. xiv. 8, taken in
connexion with the original image (Exod.
xvii, 6; Num. xx. 11).

shall flow rivers] The reception of the
blessing leads at once to the distribution
of it in fuller measure. Compare the
thought in iv. 14, vi. 57, v. 26. He who,
drinks of the Spiritual Rock becomes inj
turn himself a rock from within which th
waters flow to slake the thirst of others.

There is a fine passage in Augustine’s
Commentary on this passage as to the
character of Christ’s gifts : ‘in Joh. Tract.’
XXXII. 9.

39. But this spake he] The inspired
activity of the apostles did not commence
till after Pentecost. Comp. Luke xxiv. 49,

they that believe on him should receive}
they that believed on him were about to
receive (were to receive)...The thought of
the Evangelist goes back to the definite
group of the first disciples (reading ot
TieTevoavres not of murrevorTes).

the Holy Ghost (the Spirit) was not yet
given] The addition of the word given
expresses the true form of the original, in
which Spirit is without the article ( ovrw av
mvedpa). When the term occurs in this
form, it marks an operation, or manifesta.
tion, or gift of the Spirit, and not the
personal Spirit. Compare i. 33, xx, 22;
Matt. i. 18, 20, iii, 11, xii. 28; Luke i. 15,
35, 41, 67, Hi. 25, iv. 1.

because that] Comp. xvi. 7, note, xx.
17. The necessary limitations of Christ’s
historical presence with the disciples ex-
cluded that realisation of His abiding
m Matt, 2.
6

124
yet given; because that Jesus was not
yet glorified.)

40 | Many of the people there-
fore, when they heard this saying,
said, Of a truth this is the Pro-
phet.

41 Others said, This is the Christ.
But some said, Shall Christ come out
of Galilee?

42 mHath not the scripture said,
That Christ cometh of the seed of
David, and out of the town of Beth-
lehem, where David was?

presence which followed on the Resurrec-
tion.

It is impossible not to contrast the
mysteriousness of this utterance with the
clear teaching of St John himself on the
“unction” (xplopa) of believers (1 John
ii, 20 ff.), which forms w commentary,
gained by later experience, upon the words
of the Lord,

glorified] This is the first distinct re-
ference to the Lord’s “ glorification.” The
onception is characteristic of St John’s
Gospel (compare i, 14, ii, 11; Introd. p.
xlvii.), and includes in one complex whole
the Passion with the Triumph which
followed. Thus St John regards Christ’s
death as a Victory (compare xii, 32f. note,
xi. 4, 40), following the words of the Lord
who identified the hour of His death with
the hour of His glorification (xii, 28 f.).
In accordance with the same thought Christ
spoke of Himself as already “ glorified”
when Judas had gone forth to his work
(xiii. 31, note); and so He had already
received His glory by the faith of His
disciples before He suffered (xvii. 10,
note), In another aspect His glory followed
after His withdrawal from earth (xvii. 5,
xvi, 14). By this use of the phrase the
Evangelist brings out clearly the absolute
divine unity of the work of Christ in His
whole “manifestation ” (1 John iii, 5, 8, i.
2), which he does not (as St Paul) regard
in distinct stages as humiliation and exal-
tation,

40. Many of the people therefore... this
saying) Some therefore of the multitude...
these words (Aoyous, Vulg. sermones, dis.
courses) that is, as it appears, all the
discourses at the festival, and not those on
the last day only. Probably this judg-
ment marks the general opinion.

said] The original verb in this verse and
the next (€Aeyov, Vulg. dicebant) describes
vividly a repeated expression of opinion.

the Prophet] Comp. i. 21, (Deut, xviii.
15),
41, Shall Christ come] Why, doth the
Christ come (7) yép)...

42, That Christ] That the Christ.

out of the town of Bethlehem, where...]

 

|

Sr. JOHN. VII.

[v. 40—47.

43 So there was a division among
the people because of him.

44 And some of them would have
taken him; but no man laid hands
on him,

45 {| Then came the officers to the
chief priests and Pharisees ; and they
said unto them, Why have ye not
brought him?

46 The officers answered, Never
man spake like this man.

47 Then answered them the Pha-

risees, Are ye also deceived ?

From Bethichem the village where...
Comp. Isai. xi. 1; Jer, xxiii. 5; Mic. v. 2.
It seems strange that anyone should have
argued from this passage that the writer of
the Gospel was unacquainted with Christ’s
birth at Bethlehem. He simply relates the
words of the multitude who were unac-
quainted with it (comp. Luke iv. 28); and
there is a tragic irony in the fact that the
condition which the objectors ignorantly
assumed to be unsatisfied was actually
satisfied.

48. among the people] in the multitude.

44. some of them] of the multitude.
Part of “the common people” were now
dissatisfied with Christ, and would have
taken Him, as the people of Jerusalem
(v.80) and the Pharisees (v.32) before.

45. Then...oficers] The officers there-
fore came, because they had found no
opportunity for fulfilling their mission,

the chief priests and Pharisees] Re-
garded now as one body (mpds Tovs &. Kal
®.), the Sanhedrin, and not as the separat
classes composing it, as in v. 32 (of a
kat of ®.), The day was a Sabbath and
yet the council was gathered.

they said...Why have ye not brought?
(Why did ye not bring?)] The pronoun
(€xeivo.) used in the first clause (they
said) is that which gencrally marks the
more remote subject (comp. Acts iii. 13).
In the thought of the apostle these enemies '
of Christ fill up, as it were, the dark
background of his narrative, ever present
in the distance.

46. Never man spake like this man]
Never man 80 spake, according to the truo
reading.

47. Then...the Pharisees] The Pharisees
therefore specially standing out from the
whole body answered them. The hostility
of opinion is stronger than that of office.

Are...decetved?] Are ye also—whose ,,
simple duty it is to execute our orders—-‘
led astray (v, 12)? Their fault was in:
action (led astray) rather than in thoaght
(deceived), :

48. of the rulers] of the members-of the
Sanhedrin (cf. v, 26, iii, 1, xii, 42), whom «
you are bound to obey, or of the Pharisees |
v. 48—53. ]

48 Have any of the rulers or of
the Pharisees believed on him?

49 But this people who knoweth
not the law are cursed.

so Nicodemus saith unto them,

nchap.3. (nhe that came to Jesus by night,
¢Deut.17 being one of them,)
ae 51 oDoth our law judge any man,

St. JOHN. VII.

125
before it hear him, and know what
he doeth ?

52 They answered and said unto
him, Art thou also of Galilee? Search
and look : for out of Galilee ariseth
no prophet.

53 And every man went unto his
own house.

 

whose opinions you are bound to accept.
The original form is significant : Hath any
one (v7) Tis) of the rulers believed on him;
or, to take a wider range, of the Phartsees?

49, this people] this multitude of whom
we hear, and by whose opinion you are
influenced, are cursed. As know not the
law, they were in the opinion of the wise
“a people of the earth,” such that he who
gave them a morsel merited divine chastise-
ment. A saying is given in ‘Aboth’ rr. 6,
“No brutish man is sinfearing, nor is one
of the people of the earth pious.” Compare
Wetstein, ad loc. Men were divided into
‘people of the earth” and “‘ fellows”

=r). ie. educated men.

"50. that came to Jesus by night] that
came to him before, according to the true
reading.

being one of them] and therefore able
to speak from a position of equality. So

\ihe question of v, 48 was answered.

51. Doth our law...hear him] Those
who pleaded for the law really broke the
law. Compare Deut, i. 16; Exod, xxiii. 1.

any man] a man; literally, “the man”
(Tov a). in each case which comes before
them. Cf. ii. 25.

before it bear him] Literally, except it
first hear from himself, i.e. “hear what he
has to urge on his own side.” The Law is
personified. The true Judge is a living
law.

52. Art thou also of Galilee?) and
therefore moved by local feeling. At the
same time by the choice of this term to
characterize Christ’s followers, the ques-
tioners contrast them contemptuously with
the true Jews.

Search, and look: for...) Search, and
see that... The particle (67:) is ambiguous ;
but it seems on the whole better to give to
it the sense “that” than “for.”

ariseth (éyetperat, not éynyeprat)] The
reference appears to be not so much to the

past as to the future. Galilee is not the
true country of the prophets; we cannot
look then for Messiah to come thence.
The words have that semblance of general
truth which makes them quite natural in
this connexion, though Jonah, Hoshea,
Nahum, and perhaps Elijah, Elisha and
Amos were of Galilee. Thus it was said
by R. Jehuda in the name of Rab that
“the law was maintained by the dwellers
in Judea” (‘Eruv.’ 538, as quoted by
Wiinsche). Comp. Neubauer, ‘La Geogr.
du Talmud,’ pp. 183 f.

The episode of the woman taken in adultery
(vii. 583—viii, 11).

This account of a most characteristic in-
cident in the Lord’s life is certainly not a
part of St John’s narrative. The evidence
against its genuineness, as an original piece
of the Gospel, both external and internal,
is overwhelming (see Additional Note) ;
but on the other hand it is beyond doubt
an authentic fragment of apostolic tradi-
tion. Probably its preservation was due
to Papias. The incident seems to belong
to the last visit to Jerusalem; and it is
placed in this connexion in some MSS. of
St Luke (after Luke xxi).

The special importance of the narrative
lies in the fact that it records the single
case in which the Lord deals with a specific
sinful act. And this He does (1) by
referring the act to the inward spring of
action, and (2) by declining to treat the
legal penalty as that which corresponds to
the real guilt. So there is opened to us u
glimpse of a tribunal more searching, and

yet more tender, than the tribunals of
men.

53. every man went] More closely,
they went every man...but Jesus (viii. 1)...
Thus the contrast between the whole
gathering in the temple (not thé members
of the Sanhedrin only) and Christ is made
more complete.

ADDITIONAL NOTE on Cuap. vit. 39.

There is a singular and_ interesting
leasiety of readings in the phrase which
|describes the gift of the Holy Spirit as
tyet future, though the sense is not
materially affected by them,

(1) obrw yap hv mvedpa, BT. The
Egyptian Versions represent the same

reading, though Memph. adds the article
in its rendering.

(2) ovrw yap iv mvetpa dyov LX,
Mass of authorities. (A is defective.)

(3) ot yap Fv 7d rvetpa aytov er’
avtois, D, (f).
126

(4) odrw yap Av rvetua dytov SeSopevor,
Be.

All the readings have early authority.
But while (1) explains the others, it is not
easy to see how it could have been derived
from them. The simple addition of @y.ov

CHAPTER VIII.

Christ delivereth the woman taken in
adultery, 12 He preacheth himself the
light of the world, and justifieth his
doctrine: 33 answereth the Jews that
boasted of Abraham, 59 and conveyeth
himself from their cruelty.

ESUS went unto the mount of

Olives.

2 And early in the morning he
came again into the temple, and all
the people came unto him; and he
sat down, and taught them.

-

St. JOHN. VIII.

{v. 1—6.
in (2) was a natural assimilation with xx.
22; and the glosses (3) and (4) which
appear to be of equal antiquity express
the sense truly, which might easily appear
to be obscure in the bare (and original)
text. The ungrammatical form in D marks
the process of corruption.

3 And the scribes and Pharisees
brought unto him a woman taken in
adultery ; and when they had set het
in the midst,

4 They say unto him, Master,
this woman was taken in adultery, in
the very act.

5 2Now Moses in the law com- a
manded us, that such should be
stoned : but what sayest thou?

6 This they said, tempting him,
that they might have to accuse him.

 

Cuap. VIII. 1. the mount of Olives]
The Mount of Olives is nowhere mentioned
by name in St John’s Gospel. It is men-
tioned several times in each of the other
Gospels in connexion with the last scenes
of the Life of the Lord.

2. early in the morning (dpOpov)] Com-
pare Luke xxi. 38 ( dpOp:fev).

he sat down] assumed the position of the
authoritative teacher. Compare Matt, v.
1, xxiii. 2; Mark ix, 35.

3. the scribes and the Pharisees] This is
>a common title in the Synoptists for the
body summarily described by St John as
the Jews. Compare Luke v. 80, vi. 7, xi.
53, xv. 2. St John never names “the
: scribes.”

brought (bring) unto him] We may sup-
pose that the guilty woman had been
brought first to them as a preparatory step
to her trial.

4. was taken] hath been taken. The
original (katetAnrrat) brings the present
reality of guilt vividly before the reader
(Vulg. modo deprehensa est).

5. Now Moses in the law...that such

should be stoned (to stone such)}] Deut.
xxii, 23f. The punishment of stoning was
specified in the case of a betrothed bride.
‘The form of death in other cases was not
aid down, and according to Talmudic
radition it was strangulation. It seems
better therefore to suppose that this exact
crime had been committed than to suppose
any inaccuracy in the statement. It is
said also that a priest’s daughter was
stoned if she committed adultery; but this
was not a provision of the Law. Compare
Lightfoot, ad loc,

hme a,

en

but what] what therefore... Assuming
this enactment as explicit, what conclusion
canst thou draw for the guidance of our
action in the present case? Thou claimest
to speak with authority and to fulfil the
Law : solve our difficulty now.

6. This (And (6€) this)...tempting him)
Compare Matt. xxii. 18. The dilemma
corresponds to that in the question as to
the tribute money. To affirm the binding;
validity of the Mosaic judgment would be;
to counsel action contrary to the Romani
law. To set the Mosaic judgment aside!
would be to give up the claim to fulfil the!
Law. In either case there was material!
for accusation, practically fatal to the
assumption of the Messiahship to which
the Lord’s teaching evidently pointed. He
might be carried away into a premature
declaration of His claims, and fall under
the civil power; or he might disparage
Moses, and lose the favour of the people..
The “temptation” lay in the design to
lead the Lord to one of these two answers.

wrote] Both here (xatéypadev), and in
v. 8 (€ypadev), the tense in the original
presents the action as going on before the
witnesses. It is quite vain to conjecture
what was written, if indeed we are to
understand anything more than the mere
mechanical action of writing. The attitude
represents one who follows out his own
thoughts and is unwilling to give heed to
those who question him. The very strange-
ness of the action marks the authenticity
of the detail. The words added in italics
in A, V. represent a gloss found in many
MSS. (p1) mpoorosovpevos),

Lev. 20

e

0.
b Deut. 17.
1.

|

Vv. 7—12.]
But Jesus stooped down, and with
his finger wrote on the ground, as
though he heard them not.

7 So when they continued asking
him, he lifted up himself, and said
unto them, He that is without sin
among you, let him first cast a stone
at her.

8 And again he stooped down, and
wrote on the ground,

g And they which heard it, being
convicted by their own conscience,
went out one by one, beginning at

Sr. JOHN. VIII.

the eldest, even unto the last: and
Jesus was left alone, and the woman
standing in the midst.

Io When Jesus had lifted up him-
self, and saw none but the woman,
he said unto her, Woman, where are
those thine accusers? hath no man
condemned thee?

11 She said, No man, Lord. And
Jesus said unto her, Neither do I
condemn thee: go, and sin no more.

12 | Then spake Jesus again un-

to them, saying, ‘Iamthelight of the °phap

 

7. So when...) But when...

He that is without sin...) The colour of
the word “sinless” is caught from the
context. Though it would be unnatural to
assume that all in the group of accusers
were actually guilty of adultery, there is
nothing unnatural in supposing that each
could feel in himself the sinful inclination
which had here issued in the sinful act.
In this way the words of the Lord revealed
to the men the depths of their own
natures, and they shrank in that Presence
from claiming the prerogative of innocence.
At the same time the question as to the
woman’s offence was raised at once from
a legal to a spiritual level. The judges
were made to feel that freedom from out-
ward guilt is no claim to sinlessness. And
the offender in her turn was led to see
that flagrant guilt does not bar hope. The
Law as in a figure dealt with that which is
visible; the Gospel penetrates to the
inmost soul.

first] taking, as it were, the place of the
witness; Deut, xvii. 7. For here the guilt-
less was required to take the place of a
witness in a higher sense. There is nothing
in the words which disparages legal
punishment. These men were not the
appointed instruments of the law.

8. again he stooped down...and with his
finger wrote...) as unwilling to speak more.

9. And they which heard...conscience,
went out one by one] And they when they
heard went out one by one, as they felt the
power of Christ’s sentence. The inter-
polated clause (being convicted by their
own conscience) is a true explanation of
the sense.

beginning at the eldest...(the elders)]
whose sorrowful experience of life was the
fullest. The word is not a title of office,
but simply of age.

the woman standing (being) in the midst]
She still remained bound as it were by her
sin in the presence of Christ. “ Two persons
were left,” Augustine says (ad loc.), “the
unhappy woman and Compassion Incar-
nate” (Relicti sunt duo, misera et miseri-
cordia).

10. When Jesus had...unto her] And
Jesus lifting Aimself up said unto her.

Woman...thine accusers? hath...thee?]
Woman, where are they? Did no one
condemn thee? The question marks the
interval during which the Lord had waited
for the effect of His words.

ll. She said...And Jesus said unto her]
And she satd...And Jesus said.

Neither do I condemn thee] though I am
truly sinless. The words are not words of
forgiveness (Luke vii. 48), but simply of
one who gives no sentence (comp, Luke xii.
14). The condemnation has reference to the
outward punishment and not to the moral
guilt : that is dealt with in the words which
follow. “Ergo et Dominus damnavit, sed
peccatum non hominem ” (Aug. ad loc.).

go, and sin no more] go thy way: from
henceforth sin no more. Comp. v. 14.

4. The after teaching (viii. 12—20).

The Lord had applied to Himself one
of the typical miracles of the Exodus (vii.
37 ff.) : in this section He seems to apply
to Himself that of the fiery pillar. As
“the light of the world” He is self-
attested (v. 12f.). But for the apprehen-
sion of His nature sympathy is needed
(14, 15). At the same time even as the
Lord’s judgment was an expression of the
divine will, so His witness included that
of the Father (vv, 16—18), who could be
recognised by those who truly knew Christ
(v. 19).

12. Then spake Jesus again...] Jesus
therefore again spake... The opinions
about Jesus were divided. The rulers were
blinded by their prejudices. Jesus there-
fore traces back doubt and unbelief to
want of inner sympathy with Himself. At
the same time (again, vii. 37) the second
symbol of the festival was interpreted.

. spake] This word compared with cried
(vii, 37) suggests an occasion of less
solemnity, probably after the Feast, but
the time cannot be certainly determined.
unto them] Not to the multitude of the
pilgrims, but rather to the representatives
of the Jewish party at Jerusalem (the

127
128

world : he that followeth me shall not
walk in darkness, but shall have the
light of life.

13 The Pharisees therefore said
unto him, Thou bearest record of
thyself; thy record is not true.

St. JOHN. VIII.

[v. 13, 14.

14 Jesus answered and said unto

them, ¢Though I bear record of MY d ehap. 1
1.

self, yet my record is true : for 1 know
whence I came, and whither I go;
but ye cannot tell whence I come,
and whither I go.

 

Pharisees, v, 18; the Jews, vv. 22, 31).
The words refer back to the subject of vii.
52, The “multitude” (vii. 20, 31, 32, 40,
48, 49), which figures throughout ‘the last
chapter, does not appear again till xi, 42.

I am the light of the world] In the
court of a women, where this discourse
w:3 held (see v. 20), were great golden
candelabra which were lighted on the first
night of the Feast of Tabernacles,
perhaps on the other nights,

and
The sight of
these and the remembrance of the light
which they had cast over the otherwise
janbroken gloom of the city seems to have
suggested the figure. But the lamps them-
selves were only images of the pillar of
light which had guided the people in the
wilderness, just as the libations (vii. 38)
recalled the supply of water from the
Rock. And it is to this finally that the
words of the Lord refer. The idea of
that light of the Exodus—transitory and
partial—was now fulfilled in the living
Light of the world. Compare Isai. xlii. 6,
xlix, 6; Mal. iv, 2; Luke ii. 32. Accord-
fn to tradition “Light” was one of the
ames of Messiah. Compare Lightfoot and
Wiinsche, ad loc. The same title in all its
fulness was given by the Lord to His
disciples (Matt. v. 14); and St Paul (Phil.
ii. 15) speaks of Christians as “luminaries”
(pworhpes). God is “light” absolutely
(1 John i, 5).
light] Compare Introd, p. xlvii.
of the world] not of one nation only.
This thought went beyond the popular
hope. Buxtorf (‘Lex.’ s. v.49) quotes a
remarkable saying from Talm. Hieros,
‘Sabb.’ ch. 2, that “the first Adam was
the light of the world.”
that followeth] The thought of the pil.
grimage still remains. The light is not
for self-absorbed contemplation. It is
given for action, movement, progress.
in darkness] in the darkness, The phraso
does not simply describe an accompanying
circumstance of the movement, but the

sphere in which it takes place. “The
darkness” is opposed to “the light”
(compare i. 5, xii. 46; 1 John ii. 9, 11),

and includes the conceptions of ignorance,
limitation, death.

shall have] not only shall look upon, or
regard from a distance, but receive so that
it becomes his own, a part of his true self,
Comp. iv. 14, vi. 57. The Pauline phrase
“in Christ,” or conversely ‘Christ in me,”
expresses the fundamental thought.

the light of life] the light which both
springs from life and issues in life; of
which life is the essential principle and
the necessary result. Compare i. 4. iar
phrases are Z'he bread of life (vi. 35,
note) ; the water of life (Rev. xxi. 6) ; a
tree of life, Rev, xxii. 14; and perhaps
the crown of life, James i. 12.

13. Thou bearest record (witness) of
(concerning) thyself] This objection points
to the very characteristic of Christ’s Being.
It must be as they say because Christ is
the light. The reality, the character of
light, is attested by its shining. If men
deny that it does shine, then there is no
more room for discussion.

thy record (witness) is not true] This is
perhaps as much an independent assertion
as a consequence from the fact that the
witness to Christ was from Himself, and
so formally imperfect. The Pharisees set
their judgment against His assertion. He
affirms a truth; they, as claiming equal
right of knowledge, deny it. Lightfoot
(ad loc.) gives some interesting examples
of the application of the law of witness to
a particular case (‘Rosh Hashanah,’ 1 ff.).
“No man,” it is said, “can give witnes
for himself” (Mishnah, ‘ Ketub.’ 11, 9).

14. Though (Even if) Z bear record
(witness) of myself, my record (witness) is
true...) The reply meets the objection of
the Pharisees. The witness of Christ to
Himself was essentially complete, and they
had not that equality of knowledge on
which they presumed to rely. A strong
emphasis is thrown upon the pronoun
(Even if I...), to mark at once the pecu-
liarity in the source and in the foundation
of the witness. Compare v, 31. The “I”
in the earlier passage marked the separate
individuality ; here it marks the fulness of
the whole Person,

is true] in point of fact (aAyO%s). and
not, as in xix. 85, in formal validity
(adn Ouv7),

for (because) Z know...) True witness
even to a single fact in the spiritual life
involves a knowledge of the past and of
the future. In the past lie the manifold
elements out of which the present grew; in
the future lies the revelation of what the
present implicitly contains. He can bear,
witness to himself who has such know-
ledge of his own being. This no man has,
but the Son has it, and in virtue of it He
can reveal the Father. Comp, xvi. 28.

(ee ey
eé Deut. 17.

6.
Matt. 18.
16.

v. 15—20.]

15 Ye judge after the flesh; I
judge no man,

16 And yet if I judge, my judg-
ment is true: for I am not alone,
but I and the Father that sent me.

17 elt is also written in your law,
that the testimony of two men is true.

18 I am one that bear witness of

 

St. JOHN. VIII.

myself, and the Father that sent me
beareth witness of me.

ig Then said they unto him,
Where is thy Father? Jesus answered,
Ye neither know me, nor my Father :
if ye had known me, ye should have
known my Father also,

20 These words spake Jesus in

 

ye cannot tell...) ye know not... To such
knowledge the Pharisees could lay no
claim. They could not even discern the
immediate spiritual relationship of the
Lord to the unseen order (whence I come
and (or)...),and still less the mystery of the
Incarnation (whence I came...) which
underlay it.

15. The thought of ‘‘ knowledge’ passes
into that of ‘‘judgment.’’ The Pharisees
had not the knowledge, nor could they in
their present state gain the knowledge.
They judged after the flesh (comp. 2 Cor.
v. 16). They were content to form their
‘conclusions on an imperfect, external, super-
ficial examination. Without feeling any
necessity for deeper or wider insight, they
decided according to the appearance of
things; and so by that part of our nature
which deals with appearances. Christ, on
the other hand, though He embraced in
this knowledge all the circumstances, and
aspects, and issues of life, judged no man.
The time for this was not yet; nor was
this His work (xii. 47).

“The contrast in these words may be
compared with that below in v. 23, (267).

16. But this absence of judgment on
Christ’s part was not from any defect in
the completeness of His knowledge. For
He adds, And yet (even, vi. 51, note) if Z
judge, my judgment is true...

is true...for (because)...] Not only true
ag answering to the special facts aAnO%s,
v, 14), but true as satisfying our perfect
conception of what judgment ought to be
(aAnOivy, comp. iv. 23, note, and xix. 35),
because it is not an isolated or personal
judgment, but a judgment springing out
of a conscious union with the Author of all
Truth. A saying given in ‘Pirke Aboth’
‘(iv. 12) gives the characteristic thought
which the Lord meets: ‘‘ Judge not alone
‘y)71'), for none may judge alone save

NE.”

17. It is also written in your law, that
the testimony...) And even in your law—
the Law which is your law—it is written...
that the witness... The Pharisees had ap-
pealed to the Law; the Law then of
which they claimed absolute possession (vii.
49) is shewn to decide against them (Deut.
xix. 15). The phrase does not in any way
disparage or set aside the Law as a divine
revelation, but marks the Jewish claim (v.
56, your father).

It is...written] The exact form used here
(yéypamract) is found in St John of the old
Scriptures only in this place (compare xx.
31). It is the common form of citation in
other books. St John elsewhere uses the
resolved form (yeypappévov eativ), which
is read here by Cod. Sin.; ii. 17, note, x.
34, (xv. 25).

of two men] The word “men” (dvo
avOpamruwv) does not occur in the original
text or in the LXX. It appears to be
introduced here to indicate the superior
force of the divine witness.

18. Z am one that bear witness...beareth
witness) I am he that beareth witness
(6 paptupov)... The change in the form of
the two clauses presents the difference of
the mode in which the two witnesses give
their testimony. He that gave the witness
was one, but through Him the Father also
spake and wrought: ‘‘Z am he that beareth
witness; and, at the same time, in and
through me, the Father beareth witness of
me, so that your objection loses its point.”
The witness of the Father from whom
Christ came was given not merely in the
miracles done but in the whole ministry
of the Son,

19. Then said they...) They said there-
fore... The appeal to an absent, unseen,
witness did not satisfy the Pharisees.

Where is thy Father?] The form of the
question shews the spirit of the questioners.
They do not say ‘‘ Who is thy Father?” as
if they were in uncertainty as to the refer-
ence, but ‘‘ Where...?”? implying that a
reference to one whom they could not look
upon and interrogate was of no avail for
the purpose of the argument.

Ye neither know me, nor...) Rather, Ye
know neither me nor... The question was
futile. The mere fact that it was put
shewed that the true answer to it could
not be given or received. There must be
knowledge of what we seek before we can
profitably ask where to seek it.

With this question and answer the ques-
tion of Philip and the answer given to it
may be contrasted, xiv. 8 ff.

20. These words spake Jesus (He) in the
treasury] The Treasury was in the Court of :
the women, the most public part of the
temple (compare Mark xii. 41 ff.; Luke
xxi. 1). The mention of the locality adds
force to the notice of the Lord’s immunity -

12g
130
the treasury, as he taught in the tem-
ple: and no man laid hands on him;
for his hour was not yet come.

21 Then said Jesus again unto
them, I gomy way, and ye shall

St. JOHN. VIII.

[v. 21, 22.

seek me, and shall die in your sins:
whither I go, ye cannot come.

22 Then said the Jews, Will he
kill himself? because he saith, Whi-
ther I go, ye cannot come,

 

from violence which follows. For the
Sanhedrin held their sittings ordinarily in
the chamber Gazith, which was situated
between the Court of the women and the
‘inner Court. So Jesus continued to teach
within earshot of His enemies.

taught] Contrast Acts xxiv. 12.

ONG DO Man,..)_and yet no man... The
strange contrast is expressed by the simple
juxtaposition of the facts: v. 55, i. 10, iii.
19, 82, vi. 70, vii. 4, 30, ix, 30, xvi. 32,
xx, 19,

laid hands on him] took him, as in vii.
30, 82, 44, &.

his hour] Comp. ii. 4, vii. 30, xiii. 1,
note,

5. The trial of true and false faith

(21—59),

This section describes the spiritual crisis
in the preaching to Israel. It consists of
two parts. The first part (21—30) contains
the distinct presentation of the one object
of faith with the declaration of the conse.
quences of unbelief (v. 24). This is closed
by the notice of a large accession of
disciples (v. 30). The second part (31—58)
gives an analysis of the essential character
and issues of selfish belief and false
Judaism. This is closed by the first open
assault upon the Lord with violence (v. 59).

21—30. The subject of these verses is that
which had been already partly announced
at the feast (vii. 33 ff.). Christ shews the
momentous issues which hang upon His
brief sojourn with the Jews (v. 21), who
are essentially opposite to Him in charac-
ter (v. 28), and therefore only to be
delivered by transforming faith in Him
(v, 24). At present a plainer revelation
of Himself was impossible (v. 25 f.); but
hereafter all would be made clear (v. 28).
Meanwhile His work was His witness (v.
29). And this some were enabled to accept

v. 80).

21. Then said Jesus again...) He there-
fore—because while He was still able to
speak freely (v. 20) there was yet time
and opportunity for some at least to gain
the knowledge which they lacked—said
again to them, as He had said before, vii.
34, but now with a more distinct and tragic
warning, I go my way, and ye shall seek
me, and shall die in your sins (sin).

unto them] v, 12, note,

ye shall seek me] The emphasis lies (as
in vii, 84) upon the word seek. There is
no contrast here between “ye” and “ me.”
The search was the search of despair under
the pressure of overwhelming calamity ;
and the issue was not failure only but

’

death, and death in sin, for the search
under false motives, with false ends, was
itself sin, an open, utter abandonment of
the divine will.

your sin] The sin was one in its essence,
though its fruits were manifold (v. 24)
Hence the order here is, “in your sin shall
ye die,” while in v, 24 the emphasis is
transposed (“ye shall die in your sins”).

whither I (€y) go, ye ( duets) cannot
come] Compare vii, 34 (where I am...).
Here the contrast of persons (J, ye) is
distinctly marked, as containing the
ground of the separation. When the same
words are applied to the disciples (xiii. 33)
the impossibility of following is shewn to
be for a time only (xiii. 36).

22. Then said the Jews] The Jews,
who were the speakers also in vii. 35,
therefore said, in scornful contempt of such
an assumption of superiority. The repeti-
tion of the imperfect (€Aeyov, éAeyev
contrasted with eizev, 21, 24, 28) marks
the record as a compressed summary.

Will he (pajre, iv. 29, note) kill himself ?
because (that)...] The bitterness of the
mockery, like the sternness of the de-
nunciation, is increased (vii. 35). The
questioners assume that no way can be
open to Jesus which is not equally open to
them, unless it be the way to Gehenna
opened by self-murder. Thither indeed
they could not follow Him. By the Jews
suicide was placed on the same level with
murder, Joseph, ‘B. J.’ 11. 8(14). 5; and
the darkest regions of the world belo
were supposed to be reserved for thos
who were guilty of the crime (ddys 64
xeTat Tas Yuxds cKorusTEpos, Jos, 7. c.).

23. The Lord meets the taunt of His
opponents by developing that difference of
nature in which lay at once the cause of
their inability to follow Him, and the
cause of their inability to understand Him.
He and they belonged essentially to differ-
ent regions; the spring of their life, the
sphere of their thoughts, were separated
from the spring and the sphere of His by
an infinite chasm. The difference was
equally great whether it was regarded in
its final source or in its present manifesta-
tion. The circumstances of earthly life;
give scope for the embodiment of two
characters absolutely opposed. For earthly
life lies between and in connexion withj
two orders, and it includes in itself two
orders. It may be swayed by higher ory
lower influences; it may be fashioned on a}
fleeting or on an eternal type. Andi
Vv. 23—26. ]

23 And he said unto them, Ye
are from beneath; I am from above:
ye are of this world : I am not of this
world.

24 I said therefore unto you, that
ye shall die in your sins: for if ye
believe not that Iam he, ye shall die
in your sins.

St. JOHN. VIII.

131

25 Then. said they unto him, Who
art thou? And Jesus saith unto them,
Even the same that I said unto you
from the beginning.

26 I have many things to say and to
judge of you: but he that sent me is
true; and I speak to the world those
things which I have heard of him.

 

between these there can be no fellowship,
There can be in the way of nature no pas-
sage from the one to the other.

Ye are from beneath] Your whole being
in its deepest principles is drawn from the
powers of the lower, sensual, realm (ex TOU
kdtw, Vulg. de deorsum); you are “flesh
of flesh’’ (iii. 6). Comp. James iii, 15 ff.
For the phrase “to be of” (efvae €x)
see v. 47, xviii. 37.

I am from above] drawing every inspira-
tion, every feeling, every judgment from
heaven (€kT@odvw, Vulg. de supernis.
Comp. Col. iii. 1 f.).

ye are of this world] true children of the
fleeting order which you can see.

I am not of this world} but the bringer
in of a new and spiritual order, to which
entrance can be gained only by a new birth.

24. ZI said therefore] because this fatal
chasm separates you from my true home
and from the region of life, that ye shall
die—here the emphasis is changed and lies
upon the end “death,” and not upon the
state “sin ”—in your sins, which in their
varied form reveal the presence of the one
atal source (v. 21). For there is but one

ode of escape from death, one means of
obtaining life, one “ way” of approaching
the Father by which earth and heaven are
united, even fellowship by Faith with
Him who is, and who has become man,
and if ye believe not (unless ye believe)

\fiz I am, ye shall die in your sins.

that I am] not simply “that I am the
Messiah,”’ such as your imagination has
drawn for you; but far more than this,
that I am, that in me is the spring of life
and light and strength; that I present to
you the invisible majesty of God; that I
unite in virtue of my essential Being the
seen and the unseen, the finite and the in-
finite.

The phrase ‘“‘I am’ (éyo elt) occurs
three times in this chapter (vv. 24, 28, 58 ;
comp. xiii, 19), and on each occasion, as it
seems, with this pregnant meaning. Com-
pare Deut. xxxii. 39; Isai. xliii. 10.

Elsewhere, in cases where the predicate
is directly suggested by the context, this
predicate simply is to be supplied : ch. ix.
9, xviii. 5, 6, 8. Comp. vi. 20; Matt. xiv.
27; Mark vi. 50, xiv. 62; Luke xxii. 70.
And so it is used of the Messiah: Mark
xiii. 6; Luke xxi. 8. Cf. Acts xiii. 25.

25. Then said they...) They said there-
fore...

Who art thou?] The question corre-
sponds with the general translation ‘I
am.’’ The wish of the questioners is evi-
dently to draw from the Lord an open
declaration that He is ‘‘the Christ,’’ that
is the Deliverer such as they conceived of
him.

And Jesus saith...] Jesus saith...

Even the same...the beginning] Among
the many interpretations of this most diffi-
cult phrase two appear to have chief claim
to consideration :

(1) Altogether, essentially, I am that,
which I even speak to you. That is
say, My Person is my teaching. The
words of Christ are the revelation of the
Word Incarnate; and

(2) How is it that I even speak to you
at all? How is it that I so much as speak
with you? That is to say, The question
which you ask cannot be answered. The
very fact that it is proposed makes it clear,
as it has been clear before, that it is vain
for me to seek to lead you by my words
to a better knowledge of myself.

Of these two the second interpretation,
which was in the main that of the Greek,
fathers, seems to fall in best with th
general sense of the dialogue. See Adal
tional Note.

26. We must suppose a pause after the
last words, if they are taken interroga-
tively, and then the sad train of thought
is continued. The Jews, even if they had
misunderstood the revelation which Christ
had given of Himself, and were unworthy
of any further manifestation of His
Person—and indeed in virtue of this their
grievous fault—furnished many subjects
for teaching and judgment. In them un-
belief was embodied. So the sentence fol-
lows: I have many things to say and to
judge of (concerning) you. The utterance
of these judgments will widen the chasm
between us. But they must be spoken at
all cost; they are part of my divine
charge; he that sent me is true; in His
message there is no superfluity and no
defect, and the things which I heard from
Him, when I came on earth to do His will,
these speak I unto the world.

but he...) It seems best to find the opposi-
tion (as above) in the anticipated failure of
these further revelations. Others find it in
a contrast between these personal judg-
ments and the Father’s commission; as if
the sense were: ‘‘but these self-chosen

K
132

27 They understood not that he
spake to them of the Father.

28 Then said Jesus unto them,
When ye have lifted up the Son of
man, then shall ye know that I am
he, and that I do nothing of myself;
but as my Father hath taught me, I
speak these things.

subjects must be set aside; He that...” In
this case however the force of the affirma-
tion of the ‘‘ truth’ of the Father appears
to be lost. The general scope of the words
seems to be that the divine message must
be delivered whatever its immediate effect
may be.

| speak to] The construction is very re-
markable (AaAG eis rov k.). It is not
simply ‘‘ address to the world,’’ but ‘‘speak
into, so that the words may reach as far
as, spread through, the world.” Christ
stands, as it were, outside the world, medi-
ie between two worlds. Comp. 1 Thess.

 

i. 9 (eis dps), iv. 8; Hebr. ii. 3.
I have heard]
note, xv. 15, note.
27. They understood (perceived) not...)
preoccupied as they were with thoughts of
an earthly deliverer, and perhaps with
doubts as to the possibility that Jesus
might have come to them from some
one such as they looked for, who awaited

the favourable time for his appearance.

28. Then said Jesus unto them] Jesus
therefore said... because He read their
imaginations and knew why they were
offended by His Person and teaching,
When ye have lifted up the Son of man by
the Cross to His throne of glory, then
shall ye know—perceive at last—that I am,
and that I do nothing of myself; perceive,
that is, that my being alike and my action
are raised above all that is limited, and in
absolute union with God.

lifted up] Compare xii. 32, note.

shall ye know] Compare Ezek: vii. 4, xi.
12, xii. 20.

that I do] It is not unlikely that the
verb begins a new sentence, and does not
depend on the “that” of the previous
clause: “you shall then perceive my true
Nature, Yes, and in fact my whole work
answers to a divine guidance.”

of myself] Compare v. 30, note, xv. 4,
note.

do...speak these things] The present
teaching was part of the appointed work
of Christ. The last phrase is not general,
as if it were equivalent to “so I speak,”
but is used with a specific reference to the
revelations which the Lord was even now
making.

my Father hath taught) the Father
taught. The mission of the Son is re-
garded as the point when He received all
that was required for His work, The

I heard. Comp. v, 28,

st. JOHN. VIII.

[v. 27—3!.

29 And he that sent me is with
me: the Father hath not left me
alone; for I do always those things
that please him.

30 As he spake these words, many
believed on him,

31 Then said Jesus to those Jews
which believed on him, If ye con-

teaching is so far looked upon as com.
pressed into one supra-temporal act, and
gradually realised under the conditions of
human life, f

Compare the use of Z heard (jxovea, iii.
82, viii. 26, 40, xv. 15). On the other
hand Z hear is used in regard to special
acts (v. 30).

29. The whole being of the Son was in
absolute harmony with the being of the
Father, and the Father was personally
present with the Son. In one sense there
was a separation at the Incarnation: in
another sense there remained perfect un-
broken fellowship. There was a “sending”
and yet a “remaining together.” He that
“sent” was still with Him that “was
sent.” The pregnancy of the phrase must/
be observed.

the Father...alone] He, even He that sent
me (so the words run, omitting the Father),
at that crisis left me not alone—the new
relation was superadded to and did
not destroy the old relation—and men
themselves can see the signs of this abiding
communion, for (because) J—I (éyd), in
the complete Person on which you look—do
always—not fitfully, uncertainly, partially
—the things that please Him.

for] The word seems to be used here as
in Luke vii. 47, to indicate the sign of the
truth of the statement made, and not to
give the ground of the fact stated. The
perfect coincidence of the will of the Son‘
with the will of the Father is presented as.
the effect, and not as the reason of the
Father’s Presence. And yet here as always
the two thoughts run into one another,

those things that please him] The service
is positive, active, energetic, and not only
@ negative obedience, an abstention from
evil. Comp. 1 John iii. 22; Exod, xv, 26;
Isai. xxxviii. 83; Wisd, ix. 18.

80. believed on him] in the fullest sense;
cast themselves upon Him, putting aside ,
their own imaginations and hopes, and
waiting till He should shew Himself more
clearly. This energy of faith in a person
(rirrevetv eis, “to believe in any one”)
is to be carefully distinguished from the
simple acceptance of a person’s statements
as true (murreve tiv, “to believe any
one’), which is noticed in the next verse,
The phrase is characteristic of St Jotn'of

Gospel (ii. 11, iii. 16, 18, 36, iv. 39, vi. 29,
35, 40, 47, vii. 5, 31, 38 f., 48, ix. 35 f.,
x. 42, xi. 25 f., 45, 48, xii, 11, 36 f., 42, 44,
v.32.]
tinue in my word, then are ye my
disciples indeed ;

St. JOHN. VIII.

32 And ye shall know the truth,
and the truth shall make you free.

 

46, xiv. 1, 12, xvi. 9, xvii. 20). It occurs
once only in the Synoptic Gospels (Matt.
xviii. 6]| Mark ix. 42), and there most sig-

nificantly of the faith of ‘little ones.” The.

common phrase (ruoreverv Tevi) occurs vv.
45 f., (ii. 22), iv. 21, (50), v. 24, 38, 46 f.,
xiv. 11. With this phrase ‘‘to, believe in
1a person’? must be compared the more defi-
‘nite phrase ‘‘to believe in his name,’ that
iis, to believe in him as characterized by
ithe specific title implied (i. 12, ii, 23, iii. 18).
81—59. This conversation lays open the
essential differences between the men who
would have given permanence to the Old
Dispensation and Christ who fulfilled it.
The historical and the spiritual, the exter-
nal and the moral, the temporal and the
eternal, are placed side by side. The con-
trast is made more complete because Abra-
ham and not Moses is taken as the repre-
sentative of Judaism.
The successive pleas of the Jews give in
a natural order the objections which they
took to Christ’s claims. ‘‘ We are Abra-
ham’s seed :...how sayest thou, Ye shal] be
made free?” (v. 33). ‘‘ Abraham is our
father’’ (v. 39). ‘‘ We were not born of
fornication: we have one Father, even
God”’ (v. 41). ‘Thou art a Samaritan,
and hast a devil’’ (v. 48).  ‘‘ Art thou
greater than our father Abraham, who
died?’ (v. 58). ‘‘ Hast thou seen Abra-
ham?” (v. 57). The first three press the
claims of inheritance, of kinsmanship, of
religious privilege: the last three contain
decisive judgments on Christ’s character, on
His authority, on His implied divine nature.
With the help of the clue thus given it is
more easy to follow the course of the argu-
ment. At the outset Christ promises free-
dom to those who honestly follow out an
imperfect faith (31 f.). ‘‘ But we are free”
is the answer (v. 33). Not spiritually (vv.
33—36) ; nor does descent carry with it re-
ligious likeness (v. 37—42). Inability to hear
Christ betrays and springs from a close
affinity with the powers of evil (vv. 43—-
47). Such a judgment is sober and true
(vv. 48—50). The word which Christ
brings is life-giving (vv. 51—53); and He
Himself was before Abraham (vv. 54—58).
31. Among the body of new converts
were some Jews—men, that is, character-
ized as retaining the mistaken views of the
nation—who believed Him, who acknow-
ledged His claims to Messiahship as true,
who were convinced by what He said, but
who still interpreted His promise and words
by their own prepossessions (comp. vi. 15).
They believed Him and did not believe in
b\Him. The addition of the word ‘‘ Jews”
and the change in the construction of the
verb distinguish sharply this group from
the general company in v. 30; and the

exact form of the original makes the con-
trast more obvious (of wemirteuKoTes av-
tw "Tovdatos, not of "TovSaior of reriorev-
KOTES GUT).

Then said Jesus...) Jesus therefore said
...which had believed Him. See v. 30,
note.

Tf ye...disciples indeed] If ye—even ye
with your inveterate prejudices and most
imperfect faith—abide in my word ye are
truly my disciples. The emphasis lies on
the pronoun (ye) and not, as we are in-
clined to place it, on the verb (abide).
The sentence is a gracious recognition of
the first rude beginning of faith. Even
this, if it were cherished with absolute de-
votion, might become the foundation of
better things. It included the possibility
of a true discipleship, out of whch know-
ledge and freedom should grow; for there
is a discipleship of those who for the time
are in ignorance and in bondage.

continue (abide) in my word] The word,
the revelation of Christ, is at once the ele-
ment in which the Christian lives, and the
spring of his life. He abides in the word,
and the word abides in him (v. 38; 1 John
ii. 14, i. 10). Just so, in the language of
St Paul, the believer lives in Christ and
Christ in the believer (Gal. ii. 20). Th
phrase which is used here and in wv. 37, 4
(6 Aoyos 6 eos) expresses the word whic
is truly characteristic of Christ and no
simply that which He utters. Comp. xvJ
9 note. His word is the word of God, xvii
6, 14, 17.

82. ye shall know the truth] Comp. i,
17, v. 33. This Truth is no mere abstract
speculation. It is living and personal.
Comp. v. 36, and xiv. 6.

the truth shall make you free] The free-
dom of the individual is perfect conformity
to the absolute—to that which is. Intel-
lectually, this conformity is knowledge of
the Truth : morally, obedience to the divine
Law. This principle is that which Socrates
(for example) felt after when he spoke of *
vice as ignorance; and the Stoics when
they maintained that ‘‘the wise man alone
is free.’ The Jews also had a saying,
“Thou wilt find no freeman but him who
is occupied in learning of the Law,” and
hence they substituted mystically cheruth
(freedom) for charuth (graven) in Exod.
xxxii. 16 (‘Perek R. Meir.’ 2. See Taylor
ad loc.). These different thoughts are
summed up in the noble paradox Deo ser-
vire est libertas.

$8. They answered...] i.e. the Jews who
believed Him who have just been charac.
terized.

We be Abraham's seed] to whom the
sovereignty of the world has been assured

133
134

f Rom. 6.

33 (| They answered him, We be
Abraham’s seed, and were never in
bondage to any man: how sayest
thou, Ye shall be made free?

34 Jesus answered them, Verily,
verily, I say unto you, fWhosoever

2 Pet. 2,19, COmmitteth sin is the servant of

‘

sin.

St. JOHN. VIII.

[v. 33—37-

35 And the servant abideth not in
the house for ever: but the Son
abideth ever.

36 If the Son therefore shall make
you free, ye shall be free indeed.

37 I know that ye are Abraham’s
seed ; but ye seek to kill me, because
my word hath no place in you.

 

by an eternal and inalienable light.
Matt. ili, 9; Luke iii. 8.

and were never (have never yet been)
in bondage to any man] The episodes of

gyptian, Babylonian, Syrian and Roman
conquests were treated as mere transitory
accidents, not touching the real life of the
people, who had never accepted the
dominion of their conquerors or coalesced
with them.

how...free?] How sayest thou—thou, a
solitary if a great teacher, against the
voice of the national consciousness—ye
shall be made—become—free?

84. The answer to the national boast of
the Jews lies in the affirmation of the true
principle of freedom (Verily, verily. Comp.
vv. 51, 58).

Whosoever (Everyone that) committeth
sin] ‘To commit sin” (oveiv Thy dpap-

Comp.

‘giav) is not simply to commit single, iso-

lated, acts of sin, but to live a life of sin
(1 John iii, 4, 8). The exact contrast is
doing the Truth (iii. 21; 1 John i. 6) on one
side and doing righteousness on the other
(1 John ii, 29, iii, 7), Sin as a whole—
complete failure, missing of the mark, in
thought and deed—is set over against
Truth and Righteousness.

the servant] ‘‘the slave,’’ ‘the bond-
servant’? ( SovAos).). The same image oc-
curs in St Paul (Rom. vi. 17, 20).

35. The transition from the thought of
bondage to sin to that of freedom through
the Son is compressed. Bondage to sin is
the general type of a false relationship to
God. He who is essentially a bondman
cannot be a son of God. Whatever may
be his outward connexion with God it can
last only for a time. Permanent union with
God must rest upon an abiding and essen-
tial foundation. Even the history of
Abraham shewed this: Ishmael was cast
out; the promises centred in Isaac. Thus
there is a two-fold change in thought, (1)
from bondage to sin to the idea of bondage,
and (2) from the idea of sonship (contrasted
with the idea of bondage) to the Son.
Comp. Gal. iv. 22 ff.; Rom. vi. 16 ff.

the house] Comp. xiv. 2; Hebr. iii. 6
(otkos ).

but the Son...ever] the Son abideth for
ever.

36. This general principle, illustrated in
the origin of the Jewish people by the
parable of Isaac and Ishmael, has one abso-

lute fulfilment. The Son, the true Son, is
one. Through Him alone—in Him, in fel-
lowship with Him—can lasting freedom be
gained, seeing that He alone is free, and
abideth unchangeable for ever.

If the Son therefore] The Son and not
the Father is represented as giving free-
dom, in so far as He communicates to
others that which is His own.

free indeed) The word translated in-
deed (dvrws) occurs here only in S$
John. It appears to express reality in
essence from within, as distinguishe
from reality as seen and known (4An0o
v. 31, i. 48, iv. 42, vi. 14, vii. 40). The
conception of freedom which is given in
this whole passage presents the principle
which St Paul applied to the special case
of external ordinances.

87. The conception of freedom having
been thus illustrated, the Lord goes back
to the claim of the Jews, and admits it in
its historical sense.

I know that ye are Abraham’s seed;
but...] Outwardly ye are sons; but in fact
you seek to destroy the true Son. Your
conceptions of the Father’s will and pur-
pose are so fatally wrong that they place
you—however little the final issue may
be apparent now—in deadly hostility to
me. You believe me, but you would make
me fulfil your thoughts. When you find
that this cannot be, you too will see the
murderous spirit revealed in you.

The ground of the hostility of the Jews
was the fact that the revelation of Christ
(my word) made no way, no progress in
them. It had in some sense found an
entrance, but made no successful progress
in their hearts.

hath no place] maketh no way in you,
hath not free course in you (od ywpei,
Vulg. non capit). The sense given in A.V.
is not supported by ancient authority; and
the idea required is not that of “ abiding,”
but of growth and movement. Comp.
Wisd. vii. 28, 24.

38. And yet the word of Christ justly
claimed acceptance, for it was derived from
immediate knowledge of God. The things
which I (€y)—I myself directly, in my

own Person—have seen with (in the
presence of) the Father I speak. Compare
iii, 11, 32.

I have seen) The perfect revelation

through the Son rests upon perfect and
v. 38—41.]

38 I speak that which I have seen
with my Father: and ye do that
which ye have seen with your
father.

39 They answered and said unto
him, Abraham is our father. Jesus
saith unto them, If ye were Abra-

St. JOHN.

VIII. 135

ham’s children, ye would do the
works of Abraham.

40 But now ye seek to kill me,
a man that hath told you the truth,
which I have heard of God : this did
not Abraham.

41 Ye do the deeds of your father.

 

direct knowledge. He speaks to men in
virtue of His immediate and open vision
of God, which no man could bear (i. 18).
The appeal to this Vision of God is
peculiar to St John. Comp. ili, 32, vi. 46
(the Father) ; and though man naturally is
unable to attain to the sight of God (v. 37;
1 John iv. 20), yet in Christ the believer
does see Him now (xiv. 7, 9. Comp. iii,
11; 1 John iii. 6; 3 John 11), and shall see
Him more completely (1 John iii. 2. Comp.
Matt. v. 8; 1 Cor. xiii. 12).

and ye do that which ye have seen with
your father] Or, according to the more
probable reading, the things which ye heard
from... The verb in the original ( wovetTe)

“is ambiguous. It may be imperative do ye.
or indicative ye do. If it be taken as an
imperative the sense will be: and do ye
therefore the things which ye heard from
the Father : fulfil in very deed the message
which you have received from God, and in
which you make your boast. If it be
taken as an indicative “the father” must
receive opposite interpretations in the two
clauses (my Father, even God, and your
father, even the devil: Tod rarpés is to be
read in both places). The sense will then
be: and ye therefore, tragically consistent,
do the things which ye heard from your
father, the devil, whose spiritual offspring
ye are. This thought has not yet been
distinctly expressed, and in v, 41 your
father is distinctly written (Tov matpdgs
buay, not Tod aTpos), but on the other
thand v, 39 may be supposed to imply a
special reference.

39. If “do” be taken imperatively in
v, 38 the connexion is: “Do not speak to
us of some general relationship of the
Father, and raise a doubt as to our
obedience: our father—the one head of
our whole race and of none other—is
Abraham, whom we obey beyond question.”
If it be taken indicatively then the answer
is: ‘ What is this covert reproach as to
our obedience to our father? There can be
no doubt as to whom we obey. Our father is
Abraham.” The thought is somewhat
different from that in the words we are
Abraham's seed. This phrase we are
Abraham’s seed suggests the notion of
rightful inheritance ; Abraham is our
father that of a personal relationship.

If’ ye were...ye would do...Abrakam]
There is great variety of reading in the
Greek texts in this passage. The most
probable reading gives the sense: If ye

are children of Abraham, do ( movetre)
the works of Abraham. Or perhaps it may
be rendered: Zf ye are children of
Abraham, ye do the works of Abraham, a
supposition which is obviously false. The
emphasis is laid upon the community of
nature (children), and not upon the inherit-
ance of privilege (sons),

For the use of children see i. 12, xi. 52;
1 John iii. 1, 2, 10, v. 2; and for sons, xii.
36 (of light); xvii. 12 (of destruction).
Compare also Rom, ix. 8, and viii. 15—17
taken in connexion with Gal. iv. 6 f.

40. But now...] As things really are.

a man] The word man ( dv@pwrov)
stands in contrast with of God, and so
brings out the element of condescension in
the Lord’s teaching which exposed Him to
the hostility of the Jews; and at the same
time it suggests the idea of human sym-
pathy, which He might claim from them
(aman), as opposed to the murderous spirit
of the power of evil. The title is nowhere
else used by the Lord of Himself. Compare
Rom. v. 15; 1 Tim, ii. 5; Acts ii, 22, xvii.
31 (avyp).

the truth, which I have heard (which I
heard)] Compare v. 28 note.

this did not Abraham] who faithfully
obeyed each word of God, and paid honour
to those who spoke in His name, as to
Melchizedek and the angels (Gen. xiv.,
xviii). In the traditions of the East,
Abraham, “ the Friend,” is still spoken of
as “full of loving-kindness.”

41. Ye do the deeds] Ye are doing the
works (as v. 38). The condemnation stands
in a solemn isolation, and carries the thought
back to v. 38: Do ye...nay, ye do...

Then said they...) They said... The line
of thought seems to be this. You admit,
the Jews argue, that we are historically
descended from Abraham (v. 37), but you
deny that we are spiritually like Abraham
(v. 39). You speak of another father whose
spiritual seed we are. But we appeal to
facts. Just as we are literally Abraham’s
true seed, so are we spiritually. We, with
a proud emphasis, we be (were) not born
of fornication. We do not owe our position
to idolatrous desertion of Jehovah. We
are the offspring of the union of God with
His chosen people. Our spiritual descent
is as pure as our historical: descent.

42. The answer to the boast lies in the
natural conditions of all kinsmanship. The
true children of God in virtue of their
nature can always recognise Him however
136
Then said they to him, We be not
born of fornication; we have one
Father, even God.

42 Jesus said unto them, If God
were your Father, ye would love me:
for I proceeded forth and came from

Sr. JOHN. VIII.

God; neither came I of myself, but
he sent me.

43 Why do ye not understand my
speech ? even because ye cannot hear
my word.

44 9Ye are of your father the devi

 

He shews Himself. The Jews by their
misunderstanding destroyed the claim
which they set up. Cf. 1 John v. 1.
for I...sent me] The Person and the
Work of the Lord were both evidences of
His Sonship. This He shews by placing
His mission first in relation to His divine
nature, and then in relation to its historic
aspect. In the first clause the two points,
the actual mission (I came forth, «£7 0ov).
and the present fulfilment of the mission
Iam come, 7}kw), are contemplated in their
istinctness. In the second (have I come,
PAjAvOa, they are brought together, so that
he mission is regarded in its fulfilment.
proceeded forth and came...) came forth
from (i.e. out of) Godand amcome.,. The
first phrase (€k Tod Geod effAOv, Vulg.
ex deo processi) is most remarkable, and
occurs only in one other place, xvi. 28,
where the preposition has been variously
disturbed, some copies reading from the
side of (wapd), and others away from(azo),
but here there is no variation. The words
can only be interpreted of the true divinity
of the Son, of which the Father is the
source and fountain. The connexion de-
scribed is internal and essential, and not
that of presence or external fellowship. In
this respect the phrase must be distin-
guished from “came forth from ” (e£eA Oetv
amo) used of the separation involved in
the Incarnation under one aspect (xiii. 3,
xvi, 30); and also from “came forth from
the side of” (€£eAOeiv rapa), which em-
phasizes the personal fellowship of the
Father and the Son (xvi. 27, xvii. 8).
These differences of thought are clearly
seen in xvi, 27, 28, 30. Augustine ex-
presses the idea very well: “ Ab illo pro-
cessit ut Deus, ut equalis, ut Filius unicus,
ut Verbum Patris; et venit ad nos quia
Verbum caro factum est ut habitaret in
nobis. Adventus ejus, humanitas ejus:
mansio ejus, divinitas ejus: divinitas ejus
quo vivus, humanitas ejus qua vivus.”
and came] and I am come (ijKw).
Comp. I John v. 20. In this word the
stress is laid wholly on the present.
_ neither came I...) for neither have I
‘come (€AyAvOa)... Comp. iii, 2, 19, v. 48,
ivii. 28, xii, 46, xvi. 28, xviii, 37. Here the
‘present is connected with the past act on
' which it rests, The deeper meaning of the
. first clause explains the form of the second.
‘My Being is inherently divine in its
derivation; and so it is also in its manifes-
‘tation to the world, for neither—not even

—on this mission of infinite love have I:

come of myself... This act of supréme

sacrifice is in absolute dependence on the!

Father’s will. That which causes offence!

to you is done in obedience to Him. i
of myself] Comp. v. 30, note.

43. If the Jews had been true children
of God they would have recognised His
Son. But yet more than this. They failed
not only in instinctive feeling towards
Christ, but also in intellectual apprehen-
sion of His teaching. They had no love
for Him, and therefore they had no under-
standing of His Gospel. They could not
perceive the meaning or the source of His
speech, in which little by little He
familiarly set forth His work (comp. iv.
42), because they could not grasp the
purport of His Word, the one revelation
of the Incarnate Son in which all else was
included.

ye cannot] inasmuch as the wilful service
of another power hinders you (v. 44), The
fatal obstacle was one of their own making
Comp. vii. 7, note.

For the form of the sentence see vv. 46,
47. .

44. Ye] There is a strong emphasis on
the pronoun in answer to the we, v. 41, Ye
so-called children of Abraham, children of
God, are of your father, true children of
your true father, the devil and the lusts
(desires) of your father it is your will to do
(éAere sroveiv); you deliberately choose
as your own the feelings, passions, ends,
which belong to him. You are, so to speak,
his voluntary organs ; what he desires, that
you carry out, A strange translation, which
the original (€k tod mrarpds Tov dia.)
admits, and which has been put forward
by a few recent critics, found some sup-
port in early times, and is adopted by
Macarius Magnes without remark (II. c.
21): “ye are of the father of the devil;”
as if the Jews and the devil were alike
the offspring of another spiritual pro-
genitor. According to this view the Jews
are said to be murderers and liars like
the devil, who followed the pattern of his
(and their) father. But the interpreta:
tion finds no support elsewhere in Soerip-
ture, ff fe kh tL pe th Gg

are of] draw your being ‘from, and so re-
produce in your character. Comp. iii. 31,
viii. 23, 47, xv. 19, xvii. 14, 16, xviii. 36,
37; 1 John ii. 16, iii. 8, 10, 12, iv. 1 ff.,
v. 19.

the devil] xiii. 2; 1 John iii. 8, 10; Rev.
xii. 9,

[v.42—44.

J. g1John3
> 8

1)
|

Vv. 45—47.] ;
and the lusts of your father ye will
do. He was a murderer from the
beginning, and abode not in the truth,
because there is no truth in him.
When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh
of his own: for he is a liar, and the
father of it.

St. JOHN.

VIII. 139

45 And because I tell you the truth,
ye believe me not.

46 Which of you convinceth me
of sin? And if I say the truth, why
do ye not believe me?

47 hHe that
eth God’s words: ye therefore hear

 

He was a murderer from the beginning)
When creation was complete he brought
death upon the race of men by his false-
hood (Rom, v. 12). For even before he
had fallen through want of truth. He
stood not in the truth (€v th GA,)—
the divine Sum of all truth—because there
is no truth ( ov« €or dA.)—no fragmen-
tary truth which has affinity with the
Truth—in him.

The reference appears to be to the Fall and
not to the death of Abel (1 John iii. 12).
The death of Abel was only one manifes-
tation of the ruin wrought by selfishness
(see 1 John iii. 8 ff.). Comp. Wisd. ii. 24.

and abode not...) and stood not... See
Additional Note.

When he speaketh a lie...) Whenever
he (the devil) speaketh a lie...) (rd ev-
Sos, the falsehood as opposed to the
Truth as a whole, comp. v. 88), he
speaketh of his own; his utterances are
purely selfish, he draws them simply from
within himself (contrast v. 42; 2 Cor.
iii. 5), for (because) he is a liar, and the
father of it.

of it] The original (avrov) may be
masculine, of him, i.e. the liar; or neuter,
of tt, i.e. the lie. Comp. Orig. ‘in Joh.
T.’ vi. 3, dwarjp airs (the truth).

It is however most probable that this
very difficult sentence should be translated
quite differently: Whenever a man
speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own, for
his father also is a liar. A man, that is,
by lying reveals his parentage and acts
conformably with it. The omission of
the subject with the verb is certainly
harsh (6tav Aady), but scarcely more so
than the other renderings of the pronoun
(avrov.)

45. And because...] But because... If I
had spoken falsehood, such is the argu-
ment, you would have recognised that which
is kindred to yourselves, but... The final
opposition between Christ and the devil
lies in the opposition of Truth to False-
hood. And ths opposition repeats itself
in the children of the two spiritual heads.
There must be that which is akin to Truth
in us, if we are to believe Truth. If our
souls are given up to a lie we cannot be-
lieve the truth addressed to us. The con-
trast between 7 and ye is made as sharp
as possible. ‘‘But as for me, because I

tell you...(eya 6& érc).”

46. Falsehood in action is sin. False-
hood within must shew itself. From
words then the appeal is made to acts.
Which of you convinceth (convicteth) me
of sin? Who, that is, arraigneth me on
a just charge of sin? The word si:
(a4papria) is not to be taken for error o:
falsehood, but for ‘‘sin’’ generally, accord-|
ing to the uniform usage of the New
Testament, and here probably, from the
connexion, as measured by the Law. The
words suggest but they do not prove the
sinlessness of Christ. The appeal is to a
human standard, yet such an appeal on
such an occasion carries far more with it.

convinceth] convicteth. Compare xvi.
8, note.

And if I say the truth...] If I say trut
that which is true: truth, and not th
Truth, the part and not the whole revel
tion. The absence of sin includes neces-
sarily the absence of falsehood. Hence
the Lord takes it as proved that His
words are true.

47. We must suppose a pause after 46a,
and again after 46b. Then follows the
final sentence. The true child of God
alone can hear the words (Td pijyara),
each separate message, of God. For this
reason, because the power of hearing (v.
48) depended on inward affinity, the Jews
could not hear, because they were not of
God. Comp, xviii. 37, vii. 17, xii. 48 f.,
xiv. 28, note; 1 John iv. 6.

He that is of God] the true child of
God, who draws his life and support from
Him. Comp. (i. 18), iii. 31, viii, 23, xv.
19, xvii. 14, xviii. 36, 37; 1 John ii. 16,
iii. 10, (12), iv. 1 ff, v. 19.

ye therefore...because...) for this cause
ye...because. Thiscombination in St John
commonly refers back to « former princi-
ple, which is exemplified at the time in
the immediate circumstances. Comp. v.
16, 18, x. 17, xii, 18, 89; 1 John iii. 1.

ye are not of God) The whole scope of
the argument proves that this state does
not exclude true moral responsibility.
1 John iii, 7 ff.

48. Then answered the Jews...) The
Jews answered... The key-word (the Jews)
is introduced again in this new phase of
the argument.

Say we not well...?] The form of ex-t
pression shews that the reproach was a
current one; so that a glimpse is here
offered of the common judgment an

is of God _ hear-h1John4.
138
them not, because ye are not of God.
48 Then answered the Jews, and
said unto him, Say we not well that
thou art a Samaritan, and hast a
devil ?
49 Jesus answered, I have not a

Christ. He was in the eye of ‘‘ the Jews”
a Samaritan, a bitter foe of their nation-
‘ality, and withal a breaker of the Law,
and a frantic enthusiast, who was not
master of his own thoughts and words.
Thus the Jews turned back upon Christ
both the charges which He had brought
against them, that they were not legiti-

ate children of Abraham, and that they

ere of the devil as their spiritual father.

he pronoun is emphatic (ov x. A. Hues) :
‘Are not we at last right...?”

thou art a Samaritan] There is bitter
irony in the original words, from the posi-
tion of the pronoun at the end of the
clause, which it is difficult to reproduce.
“Thou that boastest great things of a
‘kingdom and a fulfilment of the Law,
‘after all art but a Samaritan.”

hast a devil (demon)] Comp. vii. 20,
x. 20 f.

49. The contrast is between the persons
I and you. ‘‘I(€ydé), even in these bold
mysterious utterances which move your
wonder, have not a demon, but speak only
words of soberness, which I must speak
that I may thereby fulfil my mission. By
so doing Z honour my Father, and am no
Samaritan; and ye are unable to see the
Father in the Son, and therefore ye ( tjets)
do dishonour me.”’

The Lord leaves unnoticed the first epi-
thet of reproach (thou art a Samaritan).
He would not recognise the meaning
which they attached to a difference of
race.

50. And...] But when I speak of dis-
honour it is not that I shrink from it: Z
seek not mine own glory; that quest is not
my part, but belongs to another; and there
is one that seeketh and judgeth—that
seeketh and in the very act of seeking
judgeth. For he who has failed in giving
to me what is due is thereby condemned ;
and the will of the Father is that all men
should honour the Son even as they hon-
our the Father (v. 23).

there is] v. 45, v. 54.
| that...judgeth] The phrase is superfici-

lly opposed to v, 22. But the thought
there ig of the divine law which is self-
executing in the very nature of things.

seeketh] Philo, in a paraphrase of Gen.
xlii, 22, Ais blood ig required (LXX.
ex(yteirat), writes: ‘‘He that requireth
(6 (nrGv, he that seeketh) is not man
but God, or the Word, or the divine Law”
(‘de Jog.’ 29, 11, p. 66).

St. JOHN. VIII.

[v. 48—51.
devil; but I honour my Father, and
ye do dishonour me.

50 And I seek not mine own
glory : there is one that seeketh and
judgeth.

51 Verily, verily, I say unto you,

51. Verily, verily] These words (as al-
ways) introduce a new turn of thought.
The claims of the Jews based upon their
historical descent and their spiritual son-
ship have been met and set aside; and the
Lord now returns to the declaration of
vv. 31 f., but with this difference, that
what was then regarded in relation to state
is now regarded in relation to action. For
“abiding in the word’’ we have “‘ keep-
ing the word,” and for ‘“‘freedom’’ we have
‘victory over death.’”’

keep my saying) keep my word, ‘‘ doc-
trinam credendo, promissa sperando, faci-
enda obediendo,” Bengel. The original
term for “keep” (tTypetv) is characteri
tic of St John. It expresses rather th
idea of intent watching than of safe guar
ing (vAdoccev), The opposite to
“keeping (typeiv) the word” in this
form would be to disregard it; the oppo-
site to “keeping (puAdcoesv) the word
in the other form would be to let it slip.
“Keeping the word’’ of Christ is also to
be distinguished from ‘‘ keeping His com-
mandments’”’ (1 John ii. 8, 5); the former
marks the observance of the whole revela-
tion in its organic completeness, and the
latter the observance of definite precepts.

see death] The exact phrase  (Oewpei
@dvarov) is not found elsewhere in Ne
Testament. Comp. iii. 36 (oy. (w7v)
Luke ii. 26; Hebr. xi. 5 (ua iSetv Oav,);
Acts ii. 27, 81, xiii. 35 ff. (ete SuapOopdv)
Rev. xviii. 7 (wévOos iSeiv),

The “sight’’ described here is that of.
long, steady, exhaustive vision, whereby -
we become slowly acquainted with the na-.
ture of the object to which it is directed, .
The words must be compared with Gen. }
ii, 17. There is that in the believer:
which never dies, even though he seems:
to die; and conversely, Adam died at the!
moment of his disobedience, though he.
seemed still to live. Comp. xi. 26, vi. 50. {

death} Just as “life” in St John is
present, or rather eternal (xvii, 3), so
“death” is not an event but a state, that
selfish isolation which is the negation of
life. Comp, xi. 25 f., vi, 50, v. 24; 1
John iii, 14.

52. Then said the Jews...) The Jews
said... The name is repeated here as in
v. 48 at the beginning of the answer to the
new self-revelation.

_ we know] The direct statement, made
in apparent good faith, and yet (as the
hearers thought) obviously and flagrantly
v.52—55-] *

If a man keep my saying, he shall
never see death,

52 Then said the Jews unto him,
Now we know that thou hast a
devil. Abraham is dead, and the pro-
phets; and thou sayest, If a man
keep my saying, he shall never taste
of death.

53 Art thou greater than our father
Abraham, which is dead? and the
false, could only be explained on the
supposition of evil possession.

Abraham...death] God had spoken to
Abraham and to the prophets, and they
had kept His word and yet died, who then
was this with a word more powerful? For
the objection is intensified by the fact that
the Lord did not simply claim life for
Himself, but, what was far more, claimed
to communicate eternal life.

is dead] died. The argument rests upon
the simple historic fact.

taste of death] The inaccuracy of quota-
tion is significant. The believer, even as
Christ (Hebr. ii. 9), does “taste of death,”
though he does not “see” it in the full
sense of r. 51,

The phrase (comp. Matt. xvi. 28 and
parallels) is not found in the Old Testa-
ment, but is common in Rabbinic writers
(see Buxtorf, ‘Lex.’ s. v. OY), and
seems to come from the image of the “cup”
of suffering: ch. xviii. 11; Rev. xvili. 6,
xiv. 10, xvi. 19; Matt. xx, 22f. parallels,
xxvi. 39 parallels. The “cup of death” is
an Arabian image. Comp. Gesen. ‘ Thes.’

s.v. DY. :

53. Art thou] the Galilean, the Naza-
rene. Comp. iv. 12.

Which is dead?...are dead] More exactly
seeing that he (dors) died, and the pro-
phets died. For the use of the relative see
Col. iii. 5; Phil. iv. 3; Eph. iii. 18; Hebr.
x. 35; 1 John i. 2.

whom makest thou thyself?] Comp. v.
18, x. 33, xix. 7, 12; 1 John i. 10.

54f. The Lord prefaces His answer as
to the relative dignity of Abraham and
Himself by a revelation of the principle in
obedience to which the answer is given.
It does not come from any personal striving
after glory, but in obedience to the will of
the Father which the Son knows absolutely
and obeys. The Son “ makes Himself ” to
be nothing: He is, and He declares Him-
self to be that which the Father, so to

feat makes Him.

If I honour myself, my honour...) If 7,

I in obedience to my own impulse, glorify
myself, my glory... Comp. v. 31.
“it is my Father that honoureth me] there
is my Father that glorifieth me. I glorify
not myself, nor need I to do it; there is
one that glorifieth me... The construction
is exactly parallel with v. 50.

Sr. JOHN. VIII.

prophets are dead: whom makest
thou thyself?

54 Jesus answered, If I honour
myself, my honour is nothing: it is
my Father that honoureth me; of

whom ye say, that he is your
God :

55 Yet ye have not known him;
but I know him: andif I should say,
I know him not, I shall be a liar like

your God] as claiming an exclusive con-
nexion with Him.

55. Yet ye have not known him] And,
while you make this claim (comp. v. 20,
note), ye have not come to know him
(otk éyvwxare) by the teaching of the Law
and of the Prophets, and now of the Son
Himself, but I know (oiSa) Him, essen-
tially ; and if I should dissemble my know-
ledge, if I should withhold the message
which I have to give, if I should say I
know Him not, I shall be like unto you, a
liar.

I know him] Comp. vii. 29. For the
difference between progressive and absolute
knowledge see iii. 10f. The special ignor-
ance of these Jews stands in contrast with
the knowledge which was characteristic
of the nation: iv. 22.

a liar] for to hide the truth is no less
falsehood than to spread error. Compare
1 John ii. 4, 22, iv. 20, v. 10.

but...] even in this crisis of separation,
when my words will be misunderstood and
so widen the breach between us (cf. v. 26),
I proclaim the knowledge which I have
and fulfil my mission by keeping His word.

and keep his saying (word)] The relation
of the Son to the Father is attested by the'
same active devotion as the relation of the
believer to Christ (v. 51). Comp. xv. 10.

56. This then is the answer. There is
no such comparison as you dream of
between Abraham and me. Abraham your
father, the father whom you delight to
name (v. 58) and in whom you trust (v.39),
rejoiced with the joy of exultation in his
eager desire, in his confident hope, to see
my day, and he saw it and was glad. Iam
He for whom he looked as the fulfilment of
all that was promised to him; and you,
who profess to be his children, pretend
that I do him dishonour in claiming power
which he could not have.

rejoiced (yyaAAtdoaro, exulted) to see]
The peculiar construction ('va i8y, Vulg.
ut videret) may be explained by consider-
ing that the joy of Abraham lay in the
effort to see that which was foreshadowed.
It lay not in the fact that he saw, nor was]
it in order to see; but partial vision move
him with the confident desire to gain a
fuller sight. Winer’s translation (‘Gramm.’

139
I

40
unto you : but I know him, and keep
his saying.

56 Your father Abraham rejoiced
to see my day: and he saw it, and
was glad.

57 Then said the Jews unto him,
Thou art not yet fifty years old, and
hast thou seen Abraham ?

Sr. JOHN. VIII.

[v. 56—59.

58 Jesus said unto them, Verily,
verily, I say unto you, Before Abra-
ham was, I am.

59 Then took they up stones to
cast at him: but Jesus hid himself,
and went out of the temple, going
through the midst of them, and so
passed by.

 

§ xcrv. 8,c) “that he should see ” obscures
this sense,

my day] That is probably the historic

| manifestation of the Christ (comp, Luke
xvii. 22) without any special reference to

‘vany particular point in it as the Passion.
It may be however that the historic work
of Christ is regarded in its consummation
in the day which is spoken of emphatically
as “that day,” “the day of the Son of
{man ” (Luke xvii. 30), “the day of Christ”
(Phil. i. 6, 10, ii. 16).

he saw it] The reference cannot be to
any present vision in Paradise (comp.
Hebr. xi. 13). The tense of the original is
decisive against this view. All conjecture
must be uncertain, but there is nothing
unnatural in the supposition that the faith
shewn in the offering up of Isaac may have
been followed by some deeper, if transient,
insight into the full meaning of the promises
then renewed. Such faith was in itself, in
one sense, a vision of the day of Messiah.

According to the Jewish tradition
(‘Bereshith R.’ 44 Winsche) Abraham saw
the whole history of his descendants in the
mysterious vision recorded in Gen. xv. 8 ff,
, Thus he is said to have “rejoiced with the

, Joy of the Law.”

57. Then said the Jews...) The Jews
therefore said..., still persisting in the
literal interpretation of the words.

fifty years old] This age was the crisis
_of completed manhood (Num, iv. 3). There

= an early tradition that Christ was
‘between forty and fifty years old at the
‘time of the Passion (Iren. ‘Adv. Her.’ 11.
22, 5f.). This opinion was said to be
derived from St John. However strange
it may appear, some such a view is not
inconsistent with the only fixed historic
dates which we have with regard to the

Lord’s life, the date of His birth, His
Baptism, and the banishment of Pilate.

hast thou seen...) The language of the}
Lord is again (v. 52) misquoted; and on!
this occasion the misquotation completely:
misrepresents the thought.

58. There can be no doubt as to the
meaning of the final answer which follows
as a natural climax to what had been said
before. Abraham died: Christ was the
Giver of life. Abraham was the father of
the Jews: Christ was the centre of
Abraham’s hope. Abraham came into being
as a man: Christ is essentially as God.
And this closing revelation is prefaced by
the solemn words which fix attention upon
its substance. Verily, verily, I say unto
you, Before Abraham was—was born, came
to be—I am (mplv A. yevérGareye ein,
Vulg. antequam fieret Abraham ego sum).

I am) The phrase marks a timeless
existence. In this connexion “I was”
would have expressed simple priority.
Thus there is in the phrase the contrast
between the created and the uncreated,
and the temporal and the eternal. At the
same time the ground of the assurance in
v.51 is made known. The believer lives
because Christ lives, and lives with an
absolute life (comp. xiv. 19).

59. Then took they up...) They took.
up therefore... as understanding rightly!
the claim which was advanced in the last.
words. If the sentence had been a simple;
affirmation of the claim to Messiahship, it
would have been welcomed. Comp. x. 24.
But it was the affirmation of a new inter-
pretation of Messiah’s nature and work.
Comp. x. 80 f.

going through...passed by] This clause
must be omitted in accordance with a
combination of the best authorities.

ADDITIONAL NOTES on Cuap., vir. 53—vul. 11 and Cuap. vit. 25, 44.

vu. 538—vilr. 11.

External and internal evidence combine
to shew beyond all reasonable doubt that
this remarkable narrative is not a genuine
portion of the Gospel of St, John,

A. Exrernat Evipencs,
The external evidence against its genuine-
ness may be briefly summed up:
1. It is omitted by all the oldest Greek

MSS. with one exception, and by a con-
siderable number of those later MSS.
which generally give a very ancient text;
sZAIB[C]LT XA, 88, 181, 157, Qpe, &c.
{A and C are defective, but it is certain
that they did not contain the passage from
an estimate of the contents of the missing
pages; L (eighth cent.) and A (ninth cent.)
indicate a knowledge of the existence of
the narrative, which was evidently not
St. JOHN. VIII.

found in their archetypes, by leaving a
small gap.]°

2. The passage is marked by asterisks
or obeli in many MSS. which contain it.
Euthymius Zigabenus [more correctly,
Zygadenus, +1118], the earliest Greek com-
mentator who writes upon it, observes that
it is not found in “ the accurate copies” or
is obelized in them, and that therefore it
is not to be accounted genuine.

8. It is inserted in other places :

(a) At the end of the Gospel by 1 and
about ten other MSS.

(6) After vii. 86 by 225.

(c) After Luke xxi. by 69 and three
other MSS.

4. It is omitted by important Latin
copies af, &c., by the Egyptian versions,
by the Old Syriac (the Berlin fragment),
by the Gothic version, and by the best
MSS, of the Peshito and of the Armenian
versions.

5. It was certainly not read as a part of
the Gospel by Tertullian, Origen, Theodore
of Mepsuestia, Chrysostom, Cyril of
Alexandria; nor is there any evidence that
it was known by Cyprian or Hilary.

6. The earliest Greek text (that in D)
differs very considerably from the common
text; and the variations in the section
generally are far more considerable than in
portions of the authentic text of St John.

In other words, it is omitted by the
oldest representatives of every kind of
evidence (MSS., versions, fathers) ; and the
critical character of the text is such as to
distinguish it from the rest of the book
with which it is connected.

On the other hand,

1, It is found in D and in the mass of
the later uncial and cursive manuscripts.

Jerome mentions that it was found in his
time “in many Greek and Latin MSS. in
the Gospel according to John” (‘adv.
Pelag.’ 11. 17). And Augustine suggests
that the passage was removed from the
[Latin] text by “(some who were of slight
faith, or rather hostile to the true faith,”
to avoid scandal (‘De Conj. Adult.’ 11. 7).
Several scholia which notice its omission
remark that it was found in “ancient”
or “most ancient” copies.

2. It is found in most Latin copies, bc,
&c., Vulg.; in the Jerusalem Syriac; in the
AKthiopic, and in some later versions.

3. It was read as part of the Gospel by
Augustine, Ambrose, and many later Latin
Fathers; and it is quoted in the Apostolical
Constitutions (11. 24),

4. It is found in the Calendar of Lessons
in K (ninth cent.) ; and it has been read in
the Greek Church, partially but not univer-
sally, at the Festivals of several saints
from a date earlier than the eighth century.
Tt was also read in the service at Rome in
the time of Gregory the Great

On this evidence several observations
offer themselves.

1, The text of D is conspicuous for addi-
tions similar in character to this narrative,
though less in extent (e.g. Luke vi. 5); and
some of these (e.g. Matt. xx. 28) obtained
a wide currency, though they cannot be
considered to be w part of the authentic
evangelic text.

2. The statement of Jerome is, of course,
beyond question; but even he implies that
the majority of copies was on the other
side; and it is clear from other similar
statements that he did not speak on critical
questions after a very large examination of
authorities. The general assertions of late
MSS. as to “the ancient copies” are
elas by opposite assertions in other

SS.

3. The early Latin copies are just those
which admitted interpolations most freely
(e.g. Matt, xx. 28); and it is easily intelli-
gible that if Jerome found any Greek
authority for the narrative he would not
remove the history from the text. The
fact therefore that he left it in the Latin
text (he did not insert it) proves no more
than that he did not feel bound to expunge
it.

The Jerusalem Syriac is a lectionary,
and though it abounds in very ancient
readings, the MS. is not earlier than the
eleventh century.

4, The date of the present text of the
Apostolic Constitutions is too uncertain to
admit of the conclusion being drawn that
the narrative was found by the writer in
the Greek text of St John in the third
century. He may have quoted the narra-
tive (e.g.) from St Luke or from tradition.
It is however not improbable that the
narrative may have found a place in some
Greek texts of the Gospel in the third
century, though there is no direct evidence
of the fact.

5. The evidence of the liturgical use of
the passage does not carry its existence as
a part of the Gospel beyond the date given
by direct documentary evidence.

6. Augustine's assertion as to the removal
of the passage from the text of St John, on
prudential grounds, which has been main-
tained by the modern scholars who defend
the genuineness of the passage, is wholly at
variance with the cardinal facts of the
history of the text of the New Testament.
Wilful corruptions of the apostolic writings,
however recklessly they were imputed in
controversy, are happily in fact all but
unknown. Changes, and even such a change
as the insertion of this passage, can be
accounted for without recourse to the
assumption of dishonesty.

Thus the only natural explanation of the
unquestioned facts is that the narrative
was current in the third century in a Greek

141
142 ;
but not in a Latin text, though over a
narrow range; that towards the end of the
fourth century it was introduced in various
places, but particularly where it now stands,
and was thence taken into the Latin texts ;
that from the sixth century onwards it was
found more and more frequently in the
Constantinopolitan texts and all but univer-
sally in the Latin texts, and in the course
of time was partially introduced into other
versions.

B. Inrernat EvipEnce.

The internal evidence leads forcibly to
the same conclusion.

1. The language of the narrative is
different from that of St John both in
vocabulary and in structure.

Thus St John nowhere uses the terms
Td dpos tav éedowdv, of ypappareis,
kataxpivw, which are found in all the
Synoptists; nor again 7as 6 Aaés, which is
common in St Luke, while Aads, occurs in
St John only in a special sense in xi. 50,
xviii, 14; nor dp9pov (St Luke), but rpwi
or mpwias; nor kafioas €diSackev ; nor
mopeverOain the simple sense of “to go”
without the subsidiary notion of a purpose
(even in iv. 50).

In structure the continuous connexion of
the sentences by S€ (vv. 2, 3, 6, 7, 9, 10,
11) is wholly without example in St John’s
narrative. Contrast (for example) xx. 1—9
(obv, vv, 2, 8, 6, 8; 8%, vv. 1, 4), or iv. I—
26 (odv, 1, 5, 6, 9; Se 4,6. Most of the
clauses are unconnected).

2. The general “tone” of the narrative
is alien from St John, and akin to the tone
of the common Synoptic basis.

But it may be asked how the narrative
came to be inserted where we find it? The
answer can, I believe, be given with toler-
able certainty. A narrative very similar
to this was preserved by Papias, and was
found also in the Gospel according to the
Hebrews (Euseb. ‘H. E.’ 111. 40). The
object of Papias was to collect traditions
illustrative of “the oracles of the Lord.”
It is then a most natural conjecture (Light-
foot, ‘Contemporary Review,’ Oct. 1875,
p- 847) that this incident was given by
Papias in illustration of ch. viii. 15; and so
was inserted in the text, on which it had
been originally a marginal note, in the
nearest convenient place. Comp. Ewald,
‘Joh, Schr.’ 1, p, 271,

The incident appears to belong to the
last visit to Jerusalem, so that the position
which it occupies in St Luke is perhaps
historically correct.

25. Even the same...the beginning) The
numerous interpretations of this most
obscure sentence fall into two main classes,
according as it is taken affirmatively (1), or
interrogatively (2).

St. JOHN. VIII.

(1) The affirmative interpretations again
are twofold. In some 7THv opxjvis taken
adverbially, and in others as parallel with
the relative érz (6 1).

According to the latter interpretation the
sense is: “I am the Beginning (Rev. xxi.
6), that which I am even saying to you.”
This appears to be the sense of the early
Latin translation: Initium quod et loquor
uobis. But even if rHv apxyv could be
attracted to ért in this way at the begin-
ning of the sentence, the use of AaA@ and
not Aéyw appears to be fatal to such an
interpretation, for it evidently refers to
the conversation, the general teaching, of
Christ, and not to any specific declaration.

It may be here noticed that Augustine’s
interpretation, which is based upon the
later Latin text, Principium, quia et loqguor
uobis, is obviously inconsistent with the
Greek. ‘“ Believe me to be the Beginning,
because I am even speaking with you,
because, that is, I have become humble for
your sake...” This interpretation however
was followed by many Latin fathers who
were ignorant of Greek.

If tiv dpynv be taken adverbially, it may
have the sense of “ altogether, essentially,”
or “to begin with, first of all,” or (per-
haps) “all along.”

Thus the following interpretations have
been given :

(a) “ Altogether, essentially I am what I
even speak to you. My Person is my
teaching.” The words of Christ are, to
express the idea otherwise, the revelation
of the Word Incarnate.

(8) “To begin with, first of all, I am
even that which I am saying, that is, the
Light of the world, the source of life.”

(y) “Even that which I am speaking
and have spoken to you, all along, from
the first, that I am. My words from the
beginning have made known my Person.”

Of these interpretations (2) seems to be
open to the least objection on the score of
the Greek, and to give the best sense. In
(8) 4éyw and not AaXG would be required ;
and the sense given to Tv apx7v in (y)
is very questionable, while A.V. which
gives a true sense to Tv dpyyv would re-
quire €AdAnoa.

(2) On the whole it is probably best to
treat the sentence as interrogative; or
(which gives the same sense) as a sad ex-
clamation which is half interrogative. This
is the sense which is given to the words
by the Greek fathers.

“How is it that I even speak to you at
all?’ “Why do I even so much as speak
with you?” Or, “To think that, can it
be that, I even speak with you.”

The interrogative sense of Ore is illus-
trated by Mark ix, 28 (ii. 7), ix, 11,
And for the order see Matt. xv. 16.
v.1, 2.]

The interrogative rendering: ‘‘Do you
ask that which all along I am even say-
ing to you?” leavest}v apxyv without any
real force.

(3) Others have connected Tv dpxyv with
the next clause, ‘‘To begin with...I have
many things to say...concerning you.”
But no adequate sense can be given in
this case to the intervening words.

44. The reading of the best MSS.
(NB*DLX, &c.), OYKEOTHKEN, that

is od« éoTyKev which has been disregarded

CHAPTER IX.

4 The man that was born blind restored to
sight. 8 He is brought to the Pharisees.
13 They are offended at it, and excom-
municate him: 35 but he is received of
Jesus, and confesseth him. 39 Who they
are whom Christ enlighteneth,

St. JOHN. IX.

143
by editors, and arbitrarily altered into odx
éornkev (Tischendorf prints ovx éoryxev),
is undoubtedly correct. Comp. Rev. xii.
4. The verb.is the imperfect of oryjKw
(ch. i, 26; Rom. xiv. 4; 1 Thess. iii. 8;
1 Cor, xvi. 13), The Vulgate, which
regularly renders 2xtyxa sto (Matt. xii.
47, xx. 6; Acts i. 11, xxvi. 6, &c.), here
translates rightly in veritate non stetit.
The context requires a past tense, and the
strong form of the verb (‘stand firm:"
comp, i. 26, oT7xet) is perfectly appropri-
ate to the place.

ND as Jesus passed by, he saw
a man which was blind from

his birth.
2 And his disciples asked him,
saying, Master, who did sin, this man,
or his parents, that he was born blind ?

 

(2) The Feast of Dedication (ix., x.).

The true reading in x. 22 (Then was the
Feast of Dedication) determines that ch.
ix. and x. 1—2l is connected with the
Feast of Dedication, and not, as is com-
monly supposed, with the Feast of Taber-
nacles. The latter connexion has found
support from the false gloss added to
viii. 59, which appears to have been sug-
gested by the “‘passing by” in ix. 1. As
it is ch. ix. begins abruptly like ch. vi.
The contents of ix. 1—x. 21 have a close
affinity with x. 22—39. The thought
throughout is of the formation of the new
congregation, the new spiritual Temple.

The section falls into three main divi-
sions: the sign, with the judgments which
were passed upon it (ix. 1—12, 18—34);
the beginning and characteristics of the

new society (ix. 35-41, x. 1—21);
Christ’s final testimony as to Himself
(x. 22—89).

The Sign (1—12).

The narative of the healing is marked
by the same kind of vivid details as we
have noticed before. The occasion cf
the miracle, the peculiarity of the mode
of cure, the reference to Siloam are with-
out direct parallels, and yet in perfect har-
mony with other narratives. The variety
of opinion among the people and the men-
tion of ‘‘the man called Jesus’’ belong
to the experience of an immediate wit-
ness.

Cuar. IX. 1. as Jesus passed by] per-
haps in the neighbourhood of the temple
where the man was waiting for the alms
of worshippers (Acts iii, 2). The word

(wapdywv ), whch is rarely used (Matt.
ix. 9; Mark ii. 14; Matt. ix. 27, xx. 30;
Mark xv. 21), directs notice to the atten-
dant circumstances. The narrative has
been generally connected with the events
of the preceding chapter owing to the
false reading in viii. 59. It stands really
as an independent record.

he saw] Something in the man’s con-
dition seems to haye arrested the atten-
tion of the Lord. The word is significant.
Naturally we should have expected “‘the
disciples saw and asked.”

blind from his birth] The miracles recorded
in St John’s Gospel stand out each as a
type of its class. Hence stress is laid
upon this special fact.

2. The thoughts of the controversy re-
corded in ch. viii. seem to have passed
away. At once ‘‘a great calm’’ has come.
The Lord stands in the centre of His dis-
ciples, and not of an angry crowd. Yet
the question of the disciples moves in the
same spiritual region as the speculations
on inherited religious privileges and divine
Sonship. Such a question is perhaps the
simplest and commonest form of inquiry
into our relation to those who have gone
before us.

Master] Rabbi. Comp. i. 38, 49, iii. 2,
iv. 81, vi. 25, xi. 8. The use of the
Aramaic term is characteristic of St Sohn,
though it is found Matt. xxvi. 25, 49;
Mark ix. 5, xi. 21, xiv. 45.

who did sin...that he was...) that he
should be... by the just sequence of
punishment on guilt. It is assumed that
the particular suffering was retributive.
144

3 Jesus answered, Neither hath

this man sinned, nor his parents : but

that the works of God should be
made manifest in him.

4 1 must work the works of him

Sr. JOHN. IX.

[v. 3—5.
that sent me, while it is day: the
night cometh, when no man can
work.

5 As long as I am in the world, @I4 chap. 1.9

am the light of the world.

 

; The only doubt is as to the person whose
‘sin was so punished; whether it was the
man himself either before birth or in some
‘former state of existence, or the man’s
\ parents. The latter alternative was
‘familiar to the Jews (Exod. xx. 5; Hebr.
(vii. 10); and there are traces of a belief
.in the pre-existence of souls, at least in
‘later Judaism (Wisd. viii. 20).

Perhaps it is most natural to suppose
that the question, which in itself belongs
to a Jewish mode of thought, was asked
without any distinct apprehension of the
alternatives involved in it. Lightfoot (ad
loc.) has a curious collection of Rabbinical
passages illustrating different forms of
opinion on this subject.

born blind] From the disciples’ acquaint-
ance with this fact it may be supposed
that the history of the man was popularly

{ known,

3. The Lord’s answer deals only with
the special case (comp. Luke xiii. 1 ff.,
and for the general idea towards which it
is directed, Acts xxviii. 4); and that only
so far as it is an occasion for action and
not a subject for speculation. We are
not concerned primarily with the causes
which have determined the condition or
circumstances of men, with the origin of
evil in any of its forms, but with the
remedying of that which is amiss and re-
mediable. It is. true always, in one way
or other, that for us evil is an opportunity
for the manifestation of the works of
God. But evil never ceases to be evil;
and it may be noticed that the proper
occasion the Lord indicates the connexion
between sin and suffering: v. 14, Matt.
ix, (2,

Neither hath...sinned, nor...] Neither
did...sin, mo7,..so0 as to bring down on
him, that is, this particular retribution.

but that...in him] but he was born blind
that the works of God, the works of re-
demptive love which He has sent me to

. accomplish, may be made manifest in him,
Comp. v. 36. The works themselves are
real even though we cannot see them:
they need (from this side) manifestation
only. For the emphatic but compare xv.
25, note. Underneath what we can see
and conclude there lies a truer cause of
that which perplexes us most.

in him] The man is not treated as an
instrument merely, but as a living repre-
sentative of the mercy of God. His suffer-
ing is the occasion and not the appointed
preparation for the miracle, though when
we regard things from the divine side we

are constrained to see them in their depen-
dence on the will of God.

4, I must...sent me] According to the
more probable reading : we must work the
works of Him that sent me. So the Lord
associates His disciples with Himself as
before in iii, 11. The truth is general
and holds good of the Master and of the
servants. They are sent for the manifes-
tation of the works of God. But the ob-
ligation of the servant’s charge comes
from the Master’s mission. The works
are no longer regarded as ‘“‘the works
of God” generally, but ‘‘the works of
Him that sent’ the Son.

while it is day] while the appointed

‘time for working still remains: Ps, civ.

(ciii.) 28. “Day” and “night” are
taken in their most general sense as the
seasons for labour and rest in regard to
the special end in view. After the Passion
there was no longer the opportunity for
the performance of the works characteris-
tic of the historic Life of Christ. Then
in one sense ‘‘night’’ came, and in a yet
fuller sense a new day dawned for new
works, to be followed by another night,
another close. It is not to be supposed
that the “‘ night’ here describes an abid-
ing and complete rest of Christ: it pre-
sents rest only from the works which be-
long to the corresponding ‘‘ day.”

The image partially finds place in the
‘Sayings of the Jewish Fathers:’ ‘“R.
Tarphon (Tryphon) said, The day is short,
and the task is great, and the workmen
are sluggish, and the reward is much, and
the Master of the house is urgent” (‘Pirke
Aboth,’ 1, 19).

the night cometh) night cometh...The
order is significant. The emphasis is laid
upon the certain and momentary advance
of that which ends all successful efforts
in the present order; there cometh swiftly
and inevitably night, when no man (one)
can work, The necessary cessation of la-
bour is expressed in its completest form.

5. As long as (Vulg. quamdiu)...world)
Whensoever 7 am in the world ( drav...d)
‘.» The indefinite form of the statement
‘suggests the thought of the manifold reve-
‘lations of the Word. ‘‘ Whensoever’’ and
not only during that revelation which
was then in the course of being fulfilled,
but also in the time of the Patriarchs, and
of the Law, and of the Prophets, and
through the later ages of the Church,
Christ is the light of the world. This
universality of application is further
brought out by the omission of the personal
v.6—8.] Sr. JOHN. IX. 145

6 When he had thus spoken, he
{1 Or, spat on the ground, and made clay
ate the of the spittle, and he llanointed the
the eyes of eyes of the blind man with the clay,

the blind "7 And said unto him, Go, wash

in the pool of Siloam, (which is by
interpretation, Sent.) He went his
way therefore, and washed, and came
seeing.

8 4 The neighbours therefore, and

 

pronoun in both clauses of the sentence.
he stress is thrown upon the character of
he manifestation of the Son, and not as in
he former place where the phrase occurs
(viii. 12) upon the Person of the Son.

the light of the world] The omission of
the definite article (pis tT. x, as compared
with viii. 12, 7d ¢@s 7.x.) is not without
significance ; Christ is “light to the world”
as well as “the one light of the world.”
The character is unchangeable, but the
display of the character varies with the
occasion. In this case it is shewn in
personal illumination. Bodily sight is
taken as the representation of the fulness
of human vision (vv, 39 ff.).

6. he spat on the ground...) Comp.
Mark vii, 38, viii. 23. We must suppose
that the attention of the blind man was by
this time fully roused, perhaps by the con-
versation just recorded, or by some words
addressed to him.

( The application of spittle to the eyes,

‘ which was considered very’ salutary (comp.

Tac. ‘Hist.’ rv. 81), was expressly for-
bidden by Jewish tradition, on the Sabbath.
See Wetstein or Lightfoot, ad loc. The
kneading of the clay further aggravated
the offence.

he anointed...the clay] He anointed his
eyes with the clay. At first Christ may
seem to work against the end for which
His help is sought. Here He sealed, so to
speak, the eyes which He designed to open.
It is impossible to determine why the Lord
chose this method of working the cure.
In the end the mode proved all-important.

7. wash] i.e. thine eyes (vipat), Matt.
vi. 17; ch. xiii. 6, note,

in (eis) the pool] i.e. go to the pool and
wash thine eyes there.

Siloam, which is by interpretation (which
is interpreted), Sent] The idea which
underlies this note of the Evangelist
appears to be that in vii. 87f. The stream
which issued from the heart of the rock
was an image of Christ. In the passage of
Isaiah (viii, 6) “the waters of Siloah that
go softly” are taken as the type of the
‘divine kingdom of David resting on Mount
Zion, in contrast with “the waters of the
river [Euphrates], strong and mighty, even
the king of Assyria and all his glory,” the
symbol of earthly power. (Comp, Delitzsch,
l.c.) So therefore here Christ works
through “the pool,” the “Sent,” sent, as
1t were, directly from God, that He may
lead the disciples once again to connect
Him and His working with the promises

of the prophets. Thus, in some sense, God
Himself, whose law Christ was accused of
breaking, was seen to co-operate with Him
in the miracle, At the same time the charge
tried the faith of the blind man.

Siloam] The name of the pool properl
indicates a discharge of waters 4
“sent,” in this case from a subterrane
channel. For the form see Ewald, ‘Gramm.
§ 156, 2, a. The pool, which still retains
its old name, Birket Silwan, is one of the
few undisputed sites at Jerusalem. It lies
at the mouth of the Tyropeon Valley,
south of the temple, “at the foot of Mount
Moriah,” in Jerome’s words. ‘The two
pools of Siloam were probably made for
the irrigation of the gardens below, and
seem always to have been a favourite place’
for washing purposes; besides the surface
drainage they received a supply of water
from the Fountain of the Virgin by means
of a subterranean channel, The upper pool is
small” [an oblong reservoir cut in the rock,
about fifty feet long, sixteen feet broad,
and eighteen feet deep], “and at the south-
west corner has a rude flight of steps lead-
ing to the bottom; but the whole is fast
going to ruin, and the accumulation of
rubbish around is very great; a little below
this a dam of solid masonry has been built
across the valley, forming the end of the
lower and larger pool, now nearly filled up
with rich soil and covered with a luxuriant
growth of fig trees” (Wilson, ‘ Notes on the
Ordnance Survey of Jerusalem," p.79). See
Ritter, ‘Palestine, 1v. 148 ff (Eng. Tr.), «
and ‘Dict. of Bible,’ s. v., for notices of
the site in earlier writers.

Sent] The interpretation of the name
connects the pool with Christ (xvii. 3, &c.),
and not with the man. See above.

He went his way] He went away.

came] to his own home, as it appears
from the context (the neighbours).

8. The neighbours therefore...) Nomark
of time is given. This scene may belong
to the following day, as v. 13 ff. certainly
do (v. 14).

they which...was blind] they which saw—)
used habitually to see, behold as a con-,
spicuous object (of Oewpovvres)—him before
that (or because) he was a beggar. The}
particle is capable of both meanings (that, |
because). In other passages (iv. 19, xii:
19) St John uses the phrase certainly for |
“ see...that...;” here however “because”
suits the context better; because he was a
beggar in a public spot, they were familiar
with his appearance.

ok,
146
they which before had seen him that
he was blind, said, Is not this he that
sat and begged?

9 Some said, This is he: others
Said, He is like him: but he said, I
am he.

to Therefore said they unto him,
How were thine eyes opened ?

11 He answered and said, A man
that is called Jesus made clay, and
anointed mine eyes, and said unto
me, Go to the pool of Siloam, and
wash : and I went and washed, and I
received sight.

Sr. JOHN. IX.

[v.9—16.

12 Then said they unto him, Where
is he? He said, I know not.

13 § They brought to the Pha-
risees him that aforetime was blind.

14 And it was the sabbath day
when Jesus made the clay, and open-
ed his eyes.

15 Then again the Pharisees also
asked him how he had received his
sight. He said unto them, He put
clay upon mine eyes, and I washed,
and do see.

16 Therefore said some of the
Pharisees, This man is not of God,

 

The circumstantiality of the narrative
which follows seems to shew that the man
himself related the events to the evangelist.

9. Some said...others said, He...] Others
said...others said No, but he... Two classes
of people apparently are mentioned different
from the first group.

he said] The pronoun here and in vv. 11,
12, 28, 36 is remarkable (éxeivos), It
presents the man as the chief figure in a
scene viewed from without. “He, that
signal object of the Lord’s love...” (comp.
ii, 21, v. 11, (x, 6), (xiii, 30), xix. 21),
and not “He himself,” in contrast with
the opinions of others.

10. How...] How then... It is to be
observed that all the stress is laid upon the
manner and not upon the fact. Comp.
vv. 15, 19, 26,

ll. He...and said] He answered.

A man (The man, Vulg. Zile homo) that
is called Jesus] Not “that is called the
Christ.” He had learnt the personal name
of the Lord, but says nothing of His
claims to Messiahship. The form of the
sentence, however, points to the general
attention which was directed to the Lord.
It is “ the man” not “a man;” the man of
whom report speaks often.

Go to...of Siloam] Go to Siloam.

and I went...) so I went.

I received sight) Strictly, I recovered
my sight (4déBAeWa) (Matt. xi. 5; Mark x.
51f.; Luke xviii, 41ff.), for sight by
nature belongs to a man even though he
has been born blind. This sense appears
to us better than: “I looked up” (Mark
xvi. 4),

12. Then said they (And they said)...
Where is he (€xeivos)] that strange, un-
welcome teacher, of whom we hear so
much. Comp. vii. 11, v, 10 note.

He said) He saith.

The judgments on the sign (18—34).

The examination of the man who was
healed offers a typical example of the
growth of faith and unbelief. On the one
side the Pharisees, who take their stand on

a legal preconception, grow more deter.
mined and violent: 16 (debate, division) ;
24 (judgment) ; 34 (disgraceful expulsion).
On the other side the man gains courage
and clearness in his answers: 17 (He is a
prophet. Opinion); 30 ff. (acceptance of
discipleship); and finally he openly con-
fesses Christ, v. 38.

The characters thus live and move, and
shew marked traits of individuality. There
is nothing vague, nothing conventional, in
the narrative. The record includes three
scenes, the first examination of the man
(1317); the examination of his parents
(18—23) ; the final examination and expul-
sion of the man (24—34),

13. They brought (bring) to the Pharisees}
as the recognised judges in religious
questions. There were in Jerusalem two
smaller courts, or Synagogue Councils, and
the man was probably taken to one of
these. In the later sections of the narra-
tive, vv. 18 ff., the general title the Jews
is used,

14. it was the sabbath day when...) The
original phrase, according to the oldest
text, is remarkable, It reads literally, “ It
was a sabbath on the day on which,” 1.e.
the day was a Sabbath whereon (jv caf.
év 7 9pépa). Comp. v. 9.

made the clay} The words mark the
feature in the miracle which technically
gave offence. Comp. v. 12.

15. Then again...) Again therefore the
Pharisees also...as not content with the
report of others (vv. 10, 11).

how he had received...] how he received...
The answer is more curt than before
(v. 11), and there is already something of
impatience in the tone of it, which breaks
out afterwards, v, 27. The making of th
clay and the command to go to Siloam are
passed over,

16. Therefore said...] because to the
legalist no other conclusion seemed to be
possible, .
v. 17—24.]
because he keepeth not the sabbath
day. Others said, How can a man
that is a sinner do such miracles?
And there was a division among
them.

17 They say unto the blind man
again, What sayest thou of him, that
he hath opened thine eyes? He said,
He is a prophet,

18 But the Jews did not believe
concerning him, that he had been
blind, and received his sight, until
they called the parents of him that
had received his sight.

1g And they asked them, saying,
Is this your son, who ye say was
born blind? how then doth he now
see?

Sr. JOHN.

1 14?
20 His parents answered them and
said, We know that this is our son,
and that he was born blind :

21 But by what means he now
seeth, we know not; or who hath
opened his eyes, we know not : he is
of age; ask him: he shall speak for
himself.

22 These words spake his parents,
because they feared the Jews: for
the Jews had agreed already, that if
any man did confess that he was
Christ, he should be put out of the
synagogue.

23 Therefore said his parents, He
is of age; ask him.

24 Then again called they the man
that was blind, and said unto him,

 

Others (But others) said, How can...a
sinner] It is presupposed therefore that
Christ had valid authority for the ap-
parent violation of the Sabbath.

a division] as before “in the multitude”
(vii. 48) and afterwards ‘‘in the Jews” (x.
19). One party, it will be noticed, laid stress
upon the fact, the others upon a precon-
ceived opinion by which they judged of
the fact.

17. They say...therefore...again...] as
hoping to elicit some fresh details.

What...eyes?] What dost thou (ov)
say—we appeal to your own judgment
and to the impression made upon you—
What dost thou say of him, seeing that
he opened thine eyes? For the construc-
tion, see ii, 18. °

He said (And he said), He is a prophet)
Comp. iv. 19, (vi. 14), iii. 2.

18—23. The examination of the parents
of the man follows the examination of the
man himself. They shrink with singular
naturalness from incurring the displeasure
of the dominant party.

18. But the Jews...) The Jews there-
fore...seeing that they could not reconcile
a real miracle with disregard to the Sab-
bath. They probably suspected some col-
lusion on the part of the man.

The Jews represent the incredulous sec-
tion of the Pharisees (v. 16). Comp. v. 22.

of him...sight] The original is unusual :
‘‘of the man himself that had...

19. And they asked)... And asked..
The words are closely connected with the
preceding clause.

who ye say was...) of whom ye (ipeis
say, from whom we may expect certain
information, that he was...

20. His...them and said] His parents
therefore answered and said, because they
were unwilling to incur any ‘responsibility.

21. But by what means...) But how...

ag in vv, 10, 15, 19, 26.

we know not...we (apels) know not,
The emphatic insertion of the pronoun in
the second case gives a new turn to the
phrase: ‘“‘ we directly, of our own experi-
ence, know not, as you appeal to us, who
opened his eyes.”

he is of age...himself] ask him, not us :;
he is of age, and therefore his answer wil.
be valid, and he will not:be slow to give
it: he will speak for himself. :

22. These words spake...) These things’
said.,

hea agreed...that...) had formed a com-
pact among themselves (cvveréGewwTo,
Vulg. conspiraverant) to secure this end,
that... Comp. Acts xxiii. 20. The idea is
not that they had determined on a punish-
ment, but that they had determined on an
aim,

that he was Christ] The question had
already been publicly debated, vii. 26 ff. ;
though the Lord had not so revealed
Himself in Jerusalem (x. 24) as He had
done in Samaria (iv. 26).

put out of the synagogue] xii. 42, xvi.
2. This excommunication appears to
have been exclusion from all religious fel
lowship (comp. Matt. xviii. 17) from ‘“‘the
congregation of Israel.’? In later times
there were different degrees of excom-
munication, the Curse (QM), and_ the
Isolation (NNDY))- Comp. Buxtorf, ‘Lex.’
s. v. yj}. Lightfoot and Winsche, ad
loc.

23. Therefore...) For this cause..
(Sta ToUTO) seeing that the hostility of the
Jews was now passing into action.

24—34. In the second examination the
conflict is brought to a decisive issue.
The man chooses the Saviour whom he
had experienced before the Moses of the
schools.

24. Then again...the man...) So they

L
148
Give God the praise: we know that
this man is a sinner.

25 He answered and said, Whether
he be a sinner or no, I know not : one
thing I know, that, whereas I was
blind, now I see.

26 Then they said to him again,
What did he to thee? how opened he
thine eyes ?

27 He answered them, I have told
you already, and ye did not hear:
wherefore would ye hear it again?
will ye also be his disciples?

Sr. JOHN. IX.’

[v. 25—3!.

28 Then they reviled him, and
said, Thou art his disciple; but we
are Moses’ disciples.

29 We know that God spake unto
Moses: as for this fellow, we know
not from whence he is.

30 The man answered and said
unto them, Why herein is a marvel-
lous thing, that ye know not from
whence he is, and yet he hath opened
mine eyes.

31 Now we know that God hear-
eth not sinners: but if any man bea

 

called the man a second time: we must
suppose that he was dismissed after the
confession in v. 17. As they could no
longer question the fact, they seek to put
a new construction upon it.
Give God the praise] Give glory to
od. The phrase (dds ddfav To eq) is
solemn charge to declare the whole
ruth. Compare Josh. vii. 19; 1 Esdr.
ix. 8; (1 S. vi. 5). The man by his for-
mer declaration (v. 17) had really (so they
imply) done dishonour to God. He was
now required to confess his error: to
recognise in the authoritative voice of
“the Jews’ his own condemnation, and
to admit the truth of it. At the same
time under this thought of the rendering
of glory to God by the confession of error,
lies the further idea that the cure was due
directly to God, and that to Him, and
not to ‘‘the man called Jesus,” was grati-
tude to be rendered. This, however, is
not the primary sense of the phrase,
though it is natural so to interpret A. V.
we know...) We, the guardians of the
national honour, the interpreters of the
divine will, we know (jpeis olSapev)... The
claim is to absolute knowledge, and no
reasons are alleged for the conclusion.
a sinner] by the violation of the Sab-
bath (v. 16).

25. He answered and said] He there-
fore answered.

Whether...1 know not] The order in
the original is remarkable: If he is a
sinner, as you assert, that Z know not.
The first clause is an echo of the words
of the Pharisees, and the man simply
states that his knowledge furnishes no
confirmation of it. Comp. Luke xxii. 67;
Acts iv. 19, xix. 2. In 1 John iv. 1
and elsewhere the order is different.

26. Then said they...again] They said
therefore to him.

What did he...? how...?] The questions
suggest that they were yet willing to be-
lieve, if the facts were not decisive
against belief.

QT. 1 have told you...) I told you.

will ye also...) would ye also (pa Ka
byeis OéAcre)...the words go back to the
we, v. 24: ye who make the proud claims
of which we have all heard, ye as well as
I a poor mendicant, would ye...Have you
a real desire, if only you can yield to it,
to become his disciples? The would
points the idea suggested by the fresh in-
terrogation.

28. Then (And) they reviled him] by
questioning his loyalty to the law, and
treating him as an apostate. Comp.
Acts xxiii. 4.

his disciple] Literally, that man’s dis-
ciple. Comp. vv. 12, 387. Christ is
looked upon as separated from them by |
a great chasm.

29. We know] The claim to knowledge
is repeated (v. 24) with a bitter emphasis.
“‘Moses’”’ and ‘‘this man’ stand at the
head of the two clauses to make the con- ‘
trast sharper.

spake] hath spoken familiarly, face to
fe (AcAdAnkev), and the words abide
still.

as for (but as for)...whence he is] that
is, with what commission, by whose au-
thority, he comes. Comp. Matt, xxi. 25.
The converse objection is urged, vii. 27.
Pilate at last asks the question, xix. 9;
and the Lord claims for Himself alone the
knowledge of the answer, viii. 14.

30. Why herein is a marvellous thing
(the marvellous thing, 7d dovpacrdv)|
Comp. iv. 37. The particle brings out an
affirmation drawn from the previous
words. ‘‘That being so as you say, then
assuredly...” ;

that ye (tpeis)] from whom we look for
guidance...

and yet (kat) he hath opened (he
opened)...] For the and, see viii. 20 note.

31. Now we know] We know, not you
alone, nor I, but all men alike, The simple
verb ( o(8aper ) is contrasted with the strong
personal affirmation in vv. 24. 29 (duel
ot8.), ; et

if any man be a worshipper of God, and
doeth (be devout or religious a do)...
Vv. 32—39. ]
worshipper of God, and doeth his will,
him he heareth,

32 Since the world began was it
not heard that any man opened the
eyes of one that was born blind.

-33 If this man were not of God,
he could do nothing.

34 They answered and said unto
him, Thou wast altogether born in
sins, and dost thou teach us? And

Scone they llcast him out.

35 Jesus heard that they had cast

Sr. JOHN. IX.

149
him out ; and when he had found him,
he said unto him, Dost thou believe
on the Son of God?

36 He answered and said, Who is
he Lord, that I might believe on
him ?

37 And Jesus said unto him, Thou
hast both seen him, and it is he that
talketh with thee.

38 And he said, Lord, I believe.
And he worshipped him.

39 §@ And Jesus said, For judg-

 

The word (OcoreBys) occurs here only in
New Testament (comp. 1 Tim. ii. 10). The
two phrases mark the fulfilment of duty
to God and man.

32. Since the world began] The exact
phrase (€k Tov aidvos) does not occur else-
where in New Testament. Comp. Luke i.
‘0; Acts iii, 21, xv. 18 (dz’ atwvos); Col. i.

6 (uwd TOV ai.).

34. The order is very significant: “In
sins wast thou born altogether.” So the
Jews at once interpret and apply the
question of the disciples, v. 2. Blindness
was but a sign of deeper and more prevail-
ing infirmity.

teach us] The emphasis lies on “teach.”
“Dost thou, marked out as a sinner, assume
the prerogative of instruction...”

cast him out] from the place of their
meeting, with contempt and contumely, as
unworthy of further consideration. Comp.
Mark i, 48, note. The word does not
describe the sentence of excommunication,
which such a body was not competent to
pronounce.

The beginning of the new Society (35—41).

The ejection of the blind man who had
been healed from the council of the Phari-
sees furnished the occasion for the begin-
ning of a new Society distinct from the
dominant Judaism. For the first time the
Lord offers Himself as the object of faith,
and that in His universal character in re-
lation to humanity, as “the Son of man.”
He had before called men to follow Him:
He had revealed Himself, and accepted the
spontaneous homage of believers: but now
He proposes a test of fellowship. The
universal Society is based on the confes-
sion of a new truth. The blind who ack-
nowledge their blindness are enlightened:
the seeing who are satisfied with their
sight (we know) are proved to be blind.

35. Jesus heard) The man himself may
well have spoken of his treatment.

when he had found (having found) him,
he said unto him] Omit unto him. Comp.
i, 43, v. 14. The ‘‘ work of God” was not
yet completed. Modo lavat faciem cordis
in Augustine’s words.

Dost thou believe on the Son of God
{man)?) The emphasis of the pronoun is

remarkable, and may be contrasted with
v, 34. Dost thou, the outcast, thou that
hast borne a courageous testimony, believe
on the Son of Man—cast thyself with com-
plete trust on Him who gathers up in
Himself, and who bears and who trans-
figures all that belongs to man? The
thought of ‘the Son of man” stands in
true contrast with the selfish isolation of
“the Jews.” The new Society, seen here
in its beginning, rests upon this founda-
tion, wide as humanity itself. See Addi-
tonal Note.

36. Who is he...] And who is he... The
conjunction marks the eager, urgent, won-
dering question. The thought which it
meets seems to be beyond hope. Comp.
Mark x. 26; Luke x. 29.

that I might (may)...] He asks that
faith may find its object. His trust in
Jesus is absolute.

87. And Jesus said (Jesus saith)...Thou
hast both seen him—with the eyes which
God hath even now opened—and he tha
lalketh with thee is he (€xeivos), Th
natural form of the sentence would have
been “Thou hast both seen Him and
heard him;” but the power of the imme-
diate position gives shape to the latter
clause. ‘‘He that talketh with thee
familiarly, as man with man, is He, that
sublime Person, who seems to stand far
off from thought and experience.”

88. Confession in word and deed fol-
lows at once on the revelation. In St
John “worship” (apooxvveivy) is never
used of the worship of mere respect (iv. 201
ff., xii. 20).

Lord, I believe] 1 believe, Lord. Theo
order is significant.

39. And Jesus said] not directly to any
one nor to any group of those about Him,
but as interpreting the scene before Him.
The separation between the old and the
new was now consummated, when the re-
jected of “‘the Jews” sank prostrate at
the feet of the Son of man.

For judgment I (cAd) am come (1 came)
-..] not to execute judgment (xptoxs), but
that judgment (xpiua) might issue from
His Presence, The son was not sent to
judge (iii, 17), but judgment followed from
150

|

ment I am come into this world,
that they which see not might see;
and that they which see might be
made blind.

40 And some of the Pharisees which
were with him heard these words,

Sr. JOHN. IX.

[v. 40, 41.
and said unto him, Are we blind
also?

41 Jesus said unto them, If ye
were blind, ye should have no sin:
but now ye say, We see; therefore
your sin remaineth.

 

His advent in the manifestation of faith
and unbelief (iii. 18 f.). The emphatic
pronoun carries back the reference to the
“Son of man.”

this wond] the world as made known to
us in its present state, full of conflict and
sin, and so distinguished from the world
which includes all created being. The
phrase occurs viii. 23, xi, 9, xii. 25, 31,
xiii, 1, xvi. 11, xviii. 36; 1 John iv. 17.

that they...might...might...] that they...
may...may...

they which see not] The true com-
mentary on these verses is Luke x. 21 ||
Matt. xi. 25, and Matt, xii. 31, 32. The
phrase must be taken literally to describe
those who have no intellectual knowledge,
no clear perception of the divine will and
the divine law; the simple, the little chil-
dren. These by apprehending the revela-
tion of the Son of man grasp the fulness
of the Gospel, and see. Those on the
other hand who had knowledge of the Old
Covenant, who were so far ‘‘wise and
understanding,’ and rested in what they
knew, by this very wisdom became in-
capable of further progress and unable to
retain what they had.

be made (become) blind) By wilfully
confining their vision men lose the very
power of seeing. There is a contrast be-
tween “those that see not” (of pi BAe
ovtes), and ‘‘those who are blind”
(rupAoi). The former have the power of
sight though it is unused: the latter have
not the power.

40. And (omit) some of the Pharisees
(Those of the Pharisees) which were with
him...] who still followed under the guise
of discipleship (Matt. xii. 2 f., 38; Luke
vi. 2; Mark xvi. 10, &c.), but clung to their

own views of Messiah’s work (viii. 31 ff.).
these words] these things.

Are we blind also?] Are we also blind?
we who have acknowledged Thy claims in
advance—we who in virtue of our insight
(iii. 2) have come to know Thee while
others are in doubt (x. 24)? Can it be
that we who saw then have now lost the
power of sight? The question (like the
claim of Nicodemus, iii. 2, we know) is
inspired by the pride of class. The answer
lays open the responsibility of privilege.
Better—such is the force of it—is the lack '
of knowledge, than knowledge real and
misused. The claim of the Pharisees to|
sight is conceded so far as to leave them
without excuse, when they failed to profit
by it.

41. ye should (would) have (have had)
no sin] Comp, xv. 22, 24, xix. 11; 1 Johni,
8. Sin is regarded as something cleaving
to the man himself, which has become (so
to speak) part of him, and for which he is
responsible.

but now ye say, We see] There seems
to be a pathetic pause after these words.
Then at last follows the sentence: “ You
plead the reality of your knowledge, and

the plea, in this sense, is just. You are
witnesses against yourselves. Then is
there no further illumination. Your sin

abideth (omit therefore.)”

There is a remarkable saying assigned to
R. Abuhu which expresses the thought of
this verse. A Sadducee asked him,
When cometh the Messiah? ‘Go first,”
was the answer, “and make dark this
people.” ‘‘ What sayest thou? That is a
reproach to me.” ‘I appeal’? answered
the Rabbi ‘“‘to Isai. Ix. 2.” (‘ Sanhedrin,’
99a, quoted by Wiinsche on John iii. 19.)

ADDITIONAL NOTE on Cuap. 1x. 35.

The ancient authorities are divided as to
the reading of the title under which the
Lord offers Himself as the object of faith.
Tov vidu Tov dvOpurov (the Son of man)
is read by NBD, the Thebaic version, by
copies of the Aithiopic, and by some texts
of Chrysostom. lane ts

On the other hand, Tov vidy Tov O.00
the Son of God) is read by ALX 1, 33,
and apparently all other MSS. (C is defec-
tive), by the Latin and Syriac and Mem-
phitic versions by Tertullian, Cyril of
Alexandria, &c.

Both readings

were evidently very

widely spread at the beginning of the
third century; and though undoubtedly
such a combination of MSS. as NBD is
shewn by a wide induction to be practically
irresistible, the case is one in which it is
important to take internal evidence into
account.

The titles “the Son of man” and “the
Son of God’? do not occur very frequently
in St John, and each about the same
number of times. Nor does there appear
to have been any general tendency to sub-
stitute one for the other, or to introduce
either one or the other. .In v. 19, D and
v.1, 2.]

a few kindred authorities read “the Son
of man’’ for “the Son.” It is of much
more importance that elsewhere in confes-
sions the title used is uniformly ‘‘the Son
of God” (i. 84, 50, xi. 27: comp. xx. 31);
and partly for this reason the introduction
of the Synoptic confession of St Peter in
vi. 69 became natural and easy. At first
sight indeed the demand for belief in “the
Son of man’’ is difficult to understand. It
seems certain that there could have been
no inclination on the part of scribes to
substitute this unusual phrase for the com-
mon one; and the evidence is too varied to
admit of the supposition that ‘Son of
man’? was accidentally substituted for
“Son of God.” On the other hand, the
converse change from ‘‘Son of man’’ to
“Son of God’? was very obvious, whether
the change was made mechanically or as
the correction of a supposed blunder.

All the probabilities of change are in
favour of ‘‘the Son of man” as the
original reading. A closer examination of

CHAPTER X.
Christ is the door, and the good shepherd.
19 Divers opinions of him. 24 He proveth
by his works that he is Christ the Son of
God: 39 escapeth the Jews, 40 and went
again beyond Jordan, where many be-
lieved on him.

Sr. JOHN. X.

the context shews that this title is re-
quired to bring out the full meaning of
the scene. The man had been expelled
with contumely by the religious leaders of
his people. He had in the popular sense
broken with Judaism. He was therefore
invited to accept an object of faith larger
than that which was offered by the cur-
rent conceptions of Messiah, “the Son of
God.”’ It was not necessary that he should
‘have any very distinct understanding of
the full meaning of the phrase ‘‘the Son
of man” (xii, 23, 34); but at least it must
have suggested to him one who being Man
was the hope of man. This is the elemen-
tary form of the confession of the Incarna-
tion on which the universal Church rests.

An examination of the other passages
(i, 51, ili, 13 £., vi. 27, 53, viii. 28, xii. 23,
xiii, 31) in which the title occurs shews
clearly that it is in each case (as here) an
essential part of the teaching which they
convey.

ERILY, verily, I say unto you,
He that entereth not by the door
into the sheepfold, but climbeth up
some other way, the same is a thief:
and a robber.

2 But he that entereth in by

 

nature of the new Society (x. 1—21).
The reception of the outcast of the Syna-
gogue gave occasion for an exposition
under familiar figures of the nature of the
new Society. At first this is given gener-
ally. The relation of the Shepherd to the
Fold and to the Sheep suggests the charac-
ter of the work which Christ had to do in
respect of the organization of the divine
Church, and to the completeness of His
power to claim His own true followers
(1-6). Afterwards the images are ap-
plied directly. Christ shews how He ful-
fils the offices indicated by ‘‘the Door”
(7—10), and by “the Shepherd’”’ (11—16).
He is ‘‘the Good Shepherd’’ in regard of
His devotion (11—13) and of His sym-
pathy (14—16). His work too rests on
perfect fellowship with the Father (17, 18).
Once again His words divide His hearers
(19—21).

Cuap. X. 1—6. The point of connexion
lies in the thought of the Pharisees as the
shepherds of God’s Fold in contrast with
the shepherds who may perhaps have been
seen gathering their flocks for the night’s
shelter on the hills, though the thought of
the allegory is that of the morning’s work.
On one side were self-will and selfishness ;
on the, other loyal obedience and devotion.
Comp. Ezek. xxxiv. 2 ff.: Jer. xxiii. 1 ff. ;
Zech. xi. 3 ff.

The allegory is given at first in its com-
plex form. ll the elements stand to-

gether undistinguished. Afterwards the
two chief facts are considered separately,
the fold and the flock. In relation to the
Fold Christ is the Door; in relation to the
Flock He is the Good Shepherd. But for
the present this personal application lies
in the background. The teaching is
general. Even in Old Testament times the
‘*Word” was the Door. Augustine (in
Joh.’ xlv. 9) says well: tempora variata
sunt non fides.

1. Verily, verily...) The old thought is
taken up upon a fresh stage: there is con-
tinuance at once and progress (v. 7).

the sheepfold] More exactly, the fold
of the sheep (Vulg. ovile ovium). The
two ideas of the fold and the flock are
presented distinctly. Comp. v, 7, the door
of the sheep,

climbeth up (over the fence) some other
way] not coming from the pastures or
from the shepherd’s home (aAAax00ev),
and thinkig of himself only, he makes
his own road and overleaps the barriers
which are set.

is a thief...] is a thief who seeks te
avoid detection, and a robber, who uses
open force to secure his ends. For ‘“ rob-
ber” (Ayorys) see xviii. 40; Matt. xxvi.
55, and parallel; Luke x. 30; and for
“thief (xAérrns), xii. 6; 1 Thess. v. 2 ff.

2. is the (a) shepherd of the sheep)
one, it may be, of many, but his true na-

151
152
the door is the shepherd of the
sheep.

3 To him the porter openeth; and
the sheep hear his voice: and he
calleth hig own sheep by name, and
leadeth them out,

4 And when he putteth forth his
own sheep, he goeth before them,
and the sheep follow him: for they
know his voice.

Sr. JOHN. X.

[v. 3—7.

5 And a stranger will they not
follow, but will flee from him: for
they know not the voice of strangers.

6 This parable spake Jesus unto
them : but they understood not what
things they were which he spake
unto them.

7 Then said Jesus unto them again,
Verily, verily, I say unto you, I am
the door of the sheep.

 

ture is shewn by his act. The absence
of the article fixes attention on the charac-
ter as distinct from the person.

Several flocks were often gathered into

me fold for protection during the night.
In the morning each shepherd passed into
the fold to bring out his own flock; and
he entered by the same door as they.
Hence the emphatic repetition of ‘sheep’
(vv. 2, 7). As several flocks were gathered
‘in one fold, the sheep of the One Shep-
herd might be in several folds (v. 16).

3. the porter (Vulg. ostiarius)] the
guardian to whose care the fold in each
,Jcase is committed. Comp. Mark xiii. 34.
Thus the interpretation will vary accord-
ing to the special sense attached to the
“sheep”? and the ‘‘shepherd.”” The
figure is not to be explained exclusively of
the Holy Spirit or of the Father, or of
Moses, or of John the Baptist, but of the
' Spirit acting through His appointed
_dainisters in each case.
openeth] when the shepherd returns to
seek out his sheep and lead them to pas-
ture.
the sheep] all that are gathered within
the fold, listen to his voice, as a shep-
herd’s voice, even though they are not pe-
culiarly his own sheep, But the shepherd
of each flock calleth his own sheep by
name and leadeth them out. First comes

the personal recognition, and then follows
the fulfilment of the specific office.

calleth...by name] Comp. Isai. xliii. 1,
xlv. 8, xlix. 1 (cf. Ixii. 2); Rev. iii. 5.
The phrase ‘‘to be known’? by God cor-
responds with this image: 1 Cor. viii. 3,
xiii, 12; Gal. iv. 9. Each ‘‘sheep’’ has
\its own name. The word rendered calleth
(dwvet) is that which expresses personal
address rather than general or authorita-
tive invitation (Kade).

4. And when he putteth forth] When
he hath put forth. In part an idea of
separation underlies the parable. There is
a sense in which the true shepherd not
only ‘leads forth,’’ but also ‘‘ puts forth
his own sheep” with a loving constraint,
as well as that in which the false shep-
herd ‘‘ puts forth” (ix. 34). With regard
to the old fold of Israel the time for this
separation was at hand.

his own sheep...) all his own... according

5

to the true reading. So when the shep-
herd hath put forth all his own, he places
himself at their head and goeth before
them.

5. And a stranger...) But a stranger
(dAAorpi)... Compare, for the applica-
tion of the thoughts, 1 John iii. 6, 9, v.
18 (Tpet airov).

strangers] as a class contrasted with the
sons of God. Comp. Matt. xvii, 25 f.;
(Hebr. xi. 34). These are not however,
the same as the ‘‘ thieves and robbers.” é

6. parable] The original word (rapoupia,
Vulg. proverbium) is elsewhere translated
proverb, ch. xvi. 25, 29; (2 Pet. ii. 22).
It occurs in Symmachus’ translation of

Ezek, xii, 22 £., xvi. 44, for bpsjpy (LXX.
mapof3od7). Comp. Ecclus. xlvii. 17. It
suggests the notion of a mysterious sayin,
full of compressed thought, rather tha:
that of a simple comparison.
a 08 them] that is, the Pharisees of ix.
but they understood not...) The men
whose legal self-complacency has been al-
ready noted (€xeivot), failed to perceive
the true meaning of the allegory; the
spiritual conceptions of the fold, the door,
the sheep, the shepherd, were all strange
to them (comp. v. 20).

7—10. After drawing the general picture
of the true relation of the Teacher to the
Society and the outward organization, the
Lord interprets it in relation to Himself
under two main aspects. He is “the Door
of the sheep’’ (7—10), and also ‘‘the Good
Shepherd” (11—16). The first application
determines that He is the one means of
entrance to the Church at all times.
‘Through Him” men enter, and “through
Him” they find access to the full treasures
of life.

1. Then said Jesus...) Jesus therefore...
in order to bring out the chief points of
teaching in the allegory, said to them again,
probably after an interval (viii. 12, 21).
There is at least a pause in thought.

Verily, verily...) The teaching is again
advanced another stage. That which has
been up to this time general is now set
forth in its special and most complete ful-
filment. The universal law of the divine
revelation is presented in its absolute ex-
pression. For he that entereth (v. 2) we
v. 8—10]

8 All that ever came before me
are thieves and robbers: but the
sheep did not hear them.

9 I am the door: by me if any

read Z am (vv. 7, 11). This being so,
Christ reveals Himself under two distinct
aspects. He is ‘“‘the Door’’ in regard of
the society (the Fold) to which He gives
admission ; He is ‘the Good Shepherd’’ in
regard of the individual care with which
He leads each member of His flock. The
thoughts of Ezek. xxxiv. are everywhere
present.

the door of the sheep] not the door of
the fold. Even under this aspect the
thought is connected with the life and not
simply with the organization.

of the sheep] by which sheep alike and
shepherd enter, and not simply the door
to the sheep. The phrase includes the
thought of v. 1 and of v. 9. Even the
shepherds—except the One Shepherd—are
sheep also.

8. All that ever came...are] Omit ever,
which obscures the sense. The second verb
fixes the application of the words to the
immediate crisis of national expectation.
The interpretation of the whole phrase lies
in the word came, in which we may see
the full significance of the title, he that
should come, as in v. 10. Thus the term
includes essentially the notions of false
Messiahs and self-commissioned teachers.

The omission of before me in an impor-
tant group of early authorities (N*, Theb.,
Lat. vt., Syrr., &c.; Vulg. quotquot
venerunt) points to this interpretation,
while it obscures it. They who ‘came’
(comp. 1 John v. 6), who pretended to
satisfy the national expectation inspired by
the prophets, or to mould the national ex-
pectations after the Pharisaic type, who
offered in any way that which was to be
accepted as the end of the earlier dispensa-
tion, who made themselves ‘‘doors’’ of ap-
proach to God (Matt. xxiii. 14), were es-
sentially and continued to be inspired by
selfishness, whether their designs were
manifested by craft or by violence, and
whether they were directed to gain or to
dominion. They were thieves and robbers.
With them John the Baptist may be con-
trasted. He claimed only to prepare the
way for one “coming”? (i. 30).

before me...) of time. Christ came when
‘all things were ready,” in the fulness of
time ; and therefore whoever anticipated by
however little the moment of the divine
revelation so far violated its harmony with
life. The other interpretations, ‘instead
of,” “passing by,’ ‘‘ apart from,” “before
my commission to them,” do violence to
the words, and express only fragments of
the true idea.

did not hear them] Such as were waiting
for the consolation of Israel found no

Sr. JOHN. X.

153
man enter in, he shall be saved, and
shall go in and out, and find pasture.

to The thief cometh not, but for
to steal, and to kill, and to destroy :

satisfaction in the works or designs or
promises of those who sought to substitute
another hope for that which the ‘true
Christ realised. There was no ‘“ Gospel
for the poor” (Luke vi. 20, vii. 22; Matt.
xi. 5) till the Son of man came.

9. the door] The thought is now con-
centrated upon the office (the door), and
not upon the relation (the door of the
sheep).

by me] The emphatic order brings out
the unique personal relation in which the
Lord stands to the believer, even in regard
to the society.

any man) The words are used quite
generally, and not of the shepherds only.
The one entrance once made (if any one
enter) is followed by the assurance and
the enjoyment of freedom (he shall be
saved...). These words evidently describe
the blessings of all Christians, and not of
teachers only.

he shall be saved, and shall go in and go
out, and shall find pasture] The fulness
of the Christian life is exhibited in its
three elements—safety, liberty, support.
Admission to the fold brings with it first
security (he shall be saved). But this
security is not gained by isolation. The
believer goes in and goes out without en-
dangering his position (Num. xxvii. 17;
Deut. xxxi. 2); he exercises the sum of all
his powers, claiming his share in the in-
heritance of the world, secure in his home.
And while he does so he finds pasture.
He is able to convert to the divinest uses
all the fruits of the earth. But in all this
he retains his life ‘‘in Christ,’’ and he ap-
proaches all else “through Christ,” who
brings not only redemption but the satis-
faction of man’s true wants. Comp. vii. 37.

10. The thief...) Christ presents Him-
self in His relation to others (through me
if...). His rivals stand by themselves.
And here the meaner word (thief not rob-
ber) is chosen to shew the true nature o
that which appears to be less hateful when
it is seen in its more violent forms. 5

to destroy] Whoever sets up a selfish
ideal, and falls short of the completeness
of self-sacrifice, abridges the resources of
men. He not only steals to satisfy his
own ends, but in doing thus he necessarily
kills and destroys. In the pursuit of his
object he wastes life and wastes the sus-
tenance of life, even if he does not propose
to himself such an end. This is a uni-
versal truth (cometh, not came); and con-
trasted with it is the single unparalleled
fact I came (not Z am come) that men may
have life and may have abundance. These
two aims are contrasted with dill and
154

@ Isai. 40.

h.
Ezek. 34.
23.

ue

wens

Iam come that they might have life,
and that they might have it more
abundantly.

1r 2] am the good shepherd: the
good shepherd giveth his life for the
sheep.

Sr. JOHN. X.

[v.11, 12.

x2 But he that is an hireling, and
not the shepherd, whose own the
sheep are not, seeth the wolf coming,
and leaveth the sheep, and fleeth:
and the wolf catcheth them, and scat-
tereth the sheep.

 

destroy : the contrast to “‘steal’’ lies in the
very fact of Christ’s coming. And thus
the work of Christ is presented in its two
issues, which correspond with the two fatal
issues of the selfish prophet: the gift of
ife, and the gift of abundance. Life in
itself is not all. There must be also that
which shall maintain, and strengthen, and
festena the action of life; and this also
Christ assures. His sheep “‘ find pasture.”
might have it (life)...cbundantly] Rather,
may have abundance (mepicodv  éxwory).
The repetition of have (€ywouv) points to
this parallelism. The idea that the phrase
‘points to something more than life, as the
kingdom of heaven, or the participation in
the Holy Spirit, expresses only part of the
meaitinweck is indicated in i, 16.

11—16., The last verse furnishes the
transition from the social to the personal
relation, from the door to the shepherd.
Two points are specially brought out in
the character of ‘‘ the good shepherd,” His
perfect self-sacrifice (11—138), and His per-
‘fect knowledge (14, 15), which extends be-
yond the range of man’s vision (16). The
whole portraiture of ‘the Good Shepherd”
is a commentary on Isai. liii. See Taylor,
‘The Gospel in the Law,’ pp. 107 ff.

11. Zam the good shepherd) The exact
form of the expression, J am the shepherd,
the good shepherd), carries back the
thought to others who partially and im-
perfectly discharge the office which Christ
discharges completely. The epithet itself
is remarkable (67. 6 kaAos). ‘It recalls
the phrases “‘the true bread” (vi. 32), and
“the true vine” (xv. 1), but it is some-
what different. Christ is not only the true
shepherd (6 7, 6dAnO.vds), who fulfils the
idea of the shepherd, but He is the good
shepherd who fulfils the idea in its attrac-
tive loveliness. The epithet implies the
correspondence between the nobility of the
conception and the beauty of the realisa-
tion. The “good” is not only good in-
wardly (aya@us ), but good as perceived
(xaAds ). In the fulfilment of His work
“the Good Shepherd”’ claims the admira-
tion of all that is generous in man.

the good shepherd] The character of the
Good Shepherd is first described in itself;
and then (14 ff.) the relation of Christ as
the Good Shepherd to the flock. The first
picture however is in itself general, and it
is wrong to seek any direct application of

the images of the “hireling” and of “ the
wolf,” as contrasted with one another, to
the Jews of the time. Both indeed find
their counterparts at all times.

giveth his life] layeth down his life (as
in vv, 15, 17, &c.). The A.V. comes from
Vulg., which reads here dat animam. The
phrase is peculiar to St John (in the New
Testament), vv. 15, 17, xiii. 37, 88, xv. 13»
1 John iii. 16, and is not found elsewhere,
The image has been explained from the
custom of laying down the price for which
anything is obtained (comp, Matt. xx. 28),
as here the good of the sheep. The usage
of St John (xiii, 4) rather suggests the idea
of putting off and laying aside as a robe.
The phrase ‘‘to lay down life’? must be
compared with the language in vi. 51,
which expresses another aspect of the
truth. It is possible that there may be a
reference to Isai. lili. 10 (\W53 D°p).

for (twrép, in behalf of) the sheep] It
is not said expressly for his sheep (vv. 3,
4, 26). The thought here is simply that of
the intrinsic relation of shepherd and
flock.

12. But (omit) he that is an hireling,
and not the (a) shepherd...) As the good
shepherd regards his duty, and is bound
by nature to the sheep, so his rival is de
scribed as a hireling who does his work;
for his reward, and so is not connected
essentially with the flock. The idea o
“own” here is not that of individual pos
session (1 Pet, v. 2 f.), but of peculia:
relationship (v. 8).

seeth] beholdeth. The whole soul of the
hireling is concentrated (comp. vi. 19) for
the time upon the approaching peril, and
then his choice is made. Augustine (ad
loc.) says tersely fuga animi timor est.

the wolf] The flock has its natura) ene-
mies; and when it passes, as it must,
into the world, it is open to their attacks.

catcheth...the sheep] seizeth them an
scattereth the flock. Some fall victims
to the attack, and all lose their unity.
Individuals perish: the society is broken
up. The word to be supplied after scat-
tereth is not ‘the sheep,” which is
wrongly inserted in many authorities, but
“ flock.”

catcheth] seizeth (or snatcheth). The
word (dprd{ev) describes the suddenness as
well as the violence of the assault. Comp.
v. 28 f., Matt. xili, 19; Acts xxiii, 1Q.

s
v. 13—16.]

13 The hireling fleeth, because he
is an hireling, and careth not for the
sheep.

14 I am the good shepherd, and
know my sheep, and am known of
mine,

15 As the Father knoweth me,

Sr. JOHN. X.

even so know I the Father: and I
lay down my life for the sheep.

16 And other sheep I have, which
are not of this fold : them also I must
bring, and they shall hear my voice;

155

band there shall be one fold, and one? Ezek. 37.

shepherd.

 

13. The hireling fleeth] This clause
must be omitted on the authority of
©"(A*)BDL 1, 33 e, Memph., Theb., &c.

e abruptness of the true reading places
in close contrast the fate of the false shep-
herd and of the sheep. The double issue of
cowardice and suffering comes from the
fact that he who should have been a guar-
dian thinks of himself and not of his
charge. According to the Jewish tradition
(Lightfoot, ad loc.), the shepherd for hire
was responsible for damage done by wild
beasts to his flock.

careth not for...] Contrast 1 Pet. v. 7.

14—16. The Lord applies directly to
Himself and to His flock the ideal of the
Good Shepherd.

14, 15. Z am...and know...and am known
of mine. As the Father...me, even so...]
I am...and 1 know...and mine know me,
even as the Father knoweth me and I
know the Father, according to the most
ancient authorities.

The relation of Christ to His people
corresponds with that of the Son to the
Father. Comp. vi. 57, xiv. 20, xv. 10,
xvii. 21. The words are not simply a com-
parison, but the one relation is (so to
speak) a measure of the other. Christ
first took our nature that we might after-
wards receive His. Such mutual know-
ledge as is described involves sympathy,
love, community of nature: 1 John iv. 7
f{; Gal. iv. 9; 1 Cor. viii. 3; ch. xvii. 3, 25.

15. Completeness of knowledge is con-
jsummated in completeness of sacrifice.
Perfect sympathy calls out the perfect
remedy. Christ does actually what the
Good Shepherd is prepared to do. This
thought leads to the prospect of the re-
moval of the barriers between race and
race by the death of Christ (Eph. ii. 13 ff.:
comp. Hebr. xiii. 20). But in this dis-
course, as elsewhere, the law of the
divine revelation is observed, ‘‘to the
Jew first and afterwards to the Gentile.”

16. By the anticipation of the Cross
(xii. 82) the spiritual horizon is extended.
The flock of Christ is not confined to those
enclosed in the Jewish fold, whether in
Palestine or elsewhere. Even before His
death, while the wall of partition is still
standing, He ‘“‘has” other sheep, who even
if they know Him not are truly His
(comp. x‘ J52). The words are the his-
torical aMirmation of the truth, i. 4, 9.

For the general thought compare Matt.
viii, 11 f.; Luke xiii, 28 f.

other sheep] In the case of the Gentiles
there was no outward unity. They did
not form a “‘fold’? as the Jews, whose
work was realised through an outward
organization. They were ‘‘scattered
abroad” (xi. 52); but still they were
Christ’s “sheep” in fact, and not only
potentially.

them also I must bring] in obedience to
the divine Law. Comp. xx. 9, note.

bring] Rather, lead. The idea is that
of openly assuming the guidance of the
sheep, and not that of gathering them into
one body (cuvayayeiv, xi. 52), or of con-
ducting them to one place (rpordyayeiv).
The tense points to the one act whereby
the Shepherd took up His rightful posi-
tion. This could only be by His death,
which re-unites man with God and there-
fore man (as man) with man (xii. 32).

shall hear] Acts xxviii. 28. Such obedi-
ence is the sign that we are Christ’s (vv.
4, 27).

there shall be one foid] they shall be-
come—they shall present the accomplish-
ment of the ancient prophecy—one flock,
one shepherd (Ezek. xxxiv. 28). That
which “is” in the eternal counsel and
truth of things ‘‘ becomes” in human his-
tory, and this stage by stage, and not by
one complete transformation.

The translation ‘fold’? for “flock”
(ovile for grex) has been most disastrous in
idea and in influence. See Additional:
Note. The change in the original from¢
“fold” (avAy), to “flock” (zocpvy), is’
most striking, and reveals a new thoughti
as to the future relations of Jew and Gen-¢
tile. Elsewhere stress is laid upon their
corporate union (Rom. xi. 17 ff.), and upon
the admission of the Gentiles to the Holy;
City (Isai. ii. 8); but here the bond of fel-!
lowship is shewn to lie in the common rela-
tion to One Lord. The visible eontiexion}
of God with Israel was a type and pledg
of this original and universal connexion!
The unity of the Church does not spring
out of the extension of the old kingdom,
but is the spiritual antitype of that earthly
figure. Nothing is said of one “ fold’’
under the new dispensation,

It may be added that the obliteration of
this essential distinction between the
“fold” and the ‘“‘ flock” in many of the
156

d Acts 2.
24.

c Iaai. 53.
7, 8.

17 Therefore doth my Father love
me, ¢because I lay down my life, that
I might take it again.

18 No man taketh it from me,
but I lay it down of myself. I have
power to lay it down, and I have
power to take it again. d@This com-
mandment have I received of my
Father.

Sr. JOHN. X.

[v.17—21.

19 {| There was a division there-
fore again among the Jews for these
sayings.

20 And many of them said, He
hath a devil, and is mad; why hear
ye him?

2r Others said, These are not the
words of him that hath a devil. Can
a devil open the eyes of the blind?

 

later Western versions of this passage indi-

tcates, as it appears, a tendency of Roman

\Christianity, and has served in no small

degree to confirm and extend the false

claims of the Roman see. See Additional
ote.

The fulfilment of the promise began with
the establishment of one church of Jew and
Gentile (Eph. ii. 13 ff.) and goes forward
until the consummation of all things (Rom.
xi, 36).

17. Therefore] For this reason (6a
Tovro)—namely, that the Good Shepherd
freely offers Himself for His flock, to
bring all into a true unity—doth the
Father love me. The perfect love of the
Son calls out (if we dare so speak) the love
of the Father, just as man’s love calls out
the active love of Christ.

The reason thus gathered from the for-
mer verses is summed up in the sentence
which follows: because J—the pronoun is
emphatic, I, in the exercise of my personal
will—lay down my life with this clear end
in view, that I may (not might) take it
again. The “that” (iva) marks a definite
|peew and not merely a result or a con-

dition. The sacrifice is not a casting away
of a blessing of God, but is itself made in
order to give the blessing fuller reality,
and this end is here distinctly set forth.
Christ died in order to rise to a completer
life and to raise men with Him. This pur-
pose evoked the love of the Father. Comp.
xii. 32; Phil. ii. 9; Hebr. ii. 10, xii. 2.

18. No man taketh it...] The aoristic
jreading (ypev), which is probably true, no
sone took it from me, opens a glimpse into
the eternal counsel independent of time,
linto ‘‘ being” as distinguished from “be-
coming.” Comp. Rev. iv. 11 (jo0av Kat
extioOnoav); i. 4. The work of Christ,
the Incarnate Son, was, so to speak, al-
ready accomplished when He came. And
this work was imposed by no constraining
power at first (took) but was to its last
issue fulfilled by the free-will of the
Christ Himself, in harmony with the will
of the Father (v. 30, vii. 28, vill. 28, 42,
xiv. 10). Here only does Christ claim to
to do anything “ of Himself” (a'm’ €uavrov).
Compare a like contrast in v. 81, viii. 14,
18.

taketh it] ‘“‘taketh it away” (aipe,

Vulg. tollit), Matt. xiii. 12, xxv. 28 f.

I have power...) I have right, not simple
ability, but just authority (€£ovria) to do
so. The emphasis which is laid on the per-
sonal act of sacrifice is traced back to its
ground in these words. The two parts of
the one act of Redemption are set side by
side (I have right to lay down, I have
right to...take again),

I have power (right) to lay it down] In
the case of Christ even death itself was
voluntary. His will to the last absolutely
coincided with the Father’s will, so that
He could do what no man can do.

I have power (right) to take it (AaBeiv)
again]* The words contain implicitly the
mystery of the divine-human Person of the
Lord, gathered up in His divine Personality.
In virtue of this undying Personality (v. 26),
He had power to revivify all that was dis-
solved by death, ‘‘taking” in this sense
that which was given by the Father.
Comp. ii. 19. Christ in Hig divine nature
works with the Father. Thusthe “right”
of the Son to “take” life again completely
harmonizes with the fact that the Resur-
rection is elsewhere referred to the Father,
though the Son is the Resurrection.

This commandment] which is one and
complete—to lay down life and to take it
again—is the source of eternal life: xii. 49,
f., xiv. 31. Thus the action of the Son is
finally led back to His Father (My Father,
and not simply the Father) in the sense of
the phrase of myself I do nothing.

19. There was (arose) @ division (omit
therefore) again among the Jews]as vii. 43
(in the multitude), ix. 16 (in the Pharisees).

these sayings] these words (Adyouvs, Vulg.
sermones), these discourses: not only the
last parables, but all the discourses of this
visit.

20. He hath a devil (demon)} Cf. vii.
20, viii. 48 ff.

why hear ye him?] This was said appar-
ently by those who feared the effect which
the teaching of Christ had.

21. These are not the words...) the say-
ings (p7juara, Vulg. verba)—the specific
utterances which arrested their attention,
and not the general teaching—of one pos
sessed with a demon ( Sa:povifouevov). The:
teaching itself refutes the charge of mac”
ness: the act indicates the co-operation
of a power greater than and different from
that of a demon (can a demon open... ?).
e1 Mace.

Vv. 22—25.]
22 4 And it was at Jerusalem the
efeast of the dedication, and it was
winter.
23 And Jesus walked in the temple
in Solomon’s porch.

Sr. JOHN. X.

24 Then came the Jews round
about him, and said unto him, How

157

long dost thou lIlmake us to doubt ? tt fn hold

8 in sus-

If thou be the Christ, tell us plainly, vente

25 Jesus answered them, I told

 

Christ's final public testimony to Himselt
before His passion (x. 22—88).

In this section the testimony of the
Lord to Himself reaches its climax. In
answer to a direct question put to Him in
the temple at a season suggestive of great
hope (22—24), He directs His interrogators
to His teaching and His works (25), while
He points out the ground of their unbelief
(26). At the same time He claims for
Himself a flock separate from the corrupt
theocracy, for which He has provided the
fulness of life through His absolute fellow-
ship with the Father (27—30). This claim,
which is practically an answer to the
original question, leads to an outburst of
violence (31). Christ again appeals to His
works (32); and, in answer to the charge
of blasphemy (33), shews that the Old
Testament pointed to that fellowship of
God and man which He at ler zth presented
(34—36). Finally, once again He appeals
to His works. By accepting these as real
and studying them, He shews that men
may rise to a true view of His Nature
(37, 38).

The argument evidently falls in com-
pletely with the occasion. While it reveals
to careful inquiry the essential basis of St
John’s own teaching, it is wholly free from
his peculiar language, and even superfi-
cially (35, 36) at variance with it.

22. And it was at Jerusalem the feast
of the dedication] At that time the feast
of the dedication was held (¢yévero) at
Jerusalem. See Additional Note. The
special mention of the time appears to be
made in order to connect the subject of the
Lord’s teaching with the hopes associated

‘with the last national deliverance. The
Hymn which is at present used in Jewish

\ Synagogues at the Festival records the

“ successive deliverances of Israel, and con-
tains a prayer for yet another. Christ in
fact perfectly accomplished what the Mac-

 cabees wrought in a figure, and dedicated
a new and abiding temple: ii. 18 ff.;
(Hebr. x. 20). For the history of the
Festival, which was kept about the middle
of December (Kisleu 25, and seven follow-
ing days), see 1 Mace. iv. 36 ff.; Jos. ‘Ant.’
xu. 7. 7 (xu, 11). It was known as “the
Feast of lights,” and the title chosen by
the Lord in ix. 5 may refer to their custom
of kindling the lights, no less than to the
ceremonies of the Feast of Tabernacles,

, tt was winter (omit and)] The note is

\ added, not simply as a mark of time, but

as an explanation of the fact that the Lord’

chose a sheltered spot for His teaching.

23, 24. The vividness and particularity

of the description (was walking, surrounded,
began to say, the porch of Solomon (comp,
viii, 20]) are to be noticed.

walked] was walking. The verb marks the
circumstances of the special conversation,

Solomon’s porch] Acts iii. 11, v. 12.
“The eastern cloister,” Jos. ‘ Ant.’ xx. 8.6.
Probably the vast substructions now re-
maining may belong to it.

24. Then came the Jews ...] The Jews
therefore came..., because the place was
a public resort, and offered an opportunity
for a decisive interview.

round about] Acts xiv. 20. Probably
they were resolved to bar escape.

dost thou make us to doubt?] hold our
minds in suspense.
(aipes) is used for
with various emotions as the case may be
here in doubt between hope and fear.

If thou be (art) the Christ...) The em.
phasis lies on the pronoun. Jf thou, far as
thou art from our ideal and from our
wishes, if thou art (ei ov et) the Christ,
tell us.... The words seem to betray an
unsatisfied longing which seeks rest, if it
can be gained, even from this strange
teacher. The notion that the question is
asked with a deliberate evil intention is
unsuited to the occasion. It was repeated
with terrible emphasis afterwards, Luke
xxii, 67,

tell us plainly] without reserve and with-
out fear, vii. 18, note, xi. 14. As if they
wished to add, “and we on our part will
not be wanting to carry out your purpose
and our own.”

25. The answer is a test of faith. The
Lord was the Christ of the Old Testament,
and yet not the Christ of the Pharisaic
hope. The questioners therefore are thrown
back upon their own spiritual discernment.
The words and the works of Christ reveal
Him.

I told you) not indeed directly, as the
woman of Samaria (iv. 26); that open
declaration came only when hope was past
and it could foster no false expectations
(Matt. xxvi. 64, note); but yet Christ’s
words were such that faith could not have
misunderstood their meaning. And even
if His teaching had remained a riddle, His
works might still have furnished the inter-
pretation of it. Comp, xiv. 11.

ye believed not] ye believe not.
question is of their present state,

The

The original word:
“raising” the mind}

 
158
you, and ye believed not : the works
that I do in my Father’s name, they
bear witness of me.

26 But ye believe not, because

ye are not of my sheep, as I said
unto you.

St. JOHN. X.

[v. 26—28.

27 My sheep hear my voice, and I
know them, and they follow me:

28 And I give unto them eternal
life; and they shall never perish,
neither shall any man pluck them out
of my hand.

 

which Z do] The emphatic pronoun (which
Z—I, the very person whom you see and
despise—do) at once refers back to the
thou of the Jews’ question, and forward to
the relation of the Son to the Father.

in my Father’s name] as revealing, that
is, the special connexion in which I stand
to Him, and in virtue of that connexion.
Comp. v. 438,

they] these. For the emphatic repetition
of the subject, see vi. 46, vii. 18, xv. 5.

26, But] the fault lies not in the lack
of witness. It is the power to apprehend
it which is wanting. You on your part
believe not, because...

not of my sheep...) The phrase calls
back the teaching of the earlier part of the
chapter: vv. 14 ff. The exact form of
expression “the sheep that are mine”
(ra mpdBara Ta éud) is characteristic of
St John. Comp. xv. 9, note,

as I said unto you] These words are to
be omitted in accordance with *"BL, &.,
Memph., Theb, Vulg., &c.

27—30. The connexion of this paragraph
with that which precedes is not very
obvious. It seems to lie in the affirmation
of the existence of a society of believers
though Israel was unfaithful. “ You hear
not; you fail to recognise your Messiah;
but still there are those who welcome the
blessings which I bring, and acknowledge
in me a wider office and a higher Being.”

27, 28. These verses admit of three
distinct arrangements, either into three
divisions of one, two, and three clauses
respectively ; or into three divisions of two
clauses; or into two divisions of three
clauses (as A.V.), According to the first
arrangement the general truth is stated
at the outset, and afterwards developed on
its two sides:

My sheep hear my voice,
And I know them,
and they follow me:
And I give unto them eternal life;
and they shall never perish,
and no one shall snatch them out of
my hand.

In this arrangement the thought is first
of the sheep and then of the shepherd.

According to the second arrangement
the sheep stand in each case first :

My sheep hear my voice,
and I know them;
And they follow me,
and I give unto them eternal life;
And they shall never perish,
and no one shall snatch them out of
my hand.

So the knowledge (sympathy, love) of
Christ answers to obedience; life to pro-
gress; victory to salvation.

However the symmetry of the thought is
arranged the ground of all is the same,
the unity in essence, and power, and will,
of the Father and of the Son.

27. hear...follow] Both verbs are plural
here as contrasted with the singular vv. 3,
4 (hear, follow). In one case the idea of
the flock prevails, and in the other that of
the separate sheep. The plural occurs: 4,
know; 5, follow, fly, know; 8, heard; (14,
know); 16, hear, become; 28, perish. The
singular, v. 4 (akoAovet); v, 12, are
(Corey) ; 16, are (éoruv).

I know them] v. 14,

they follow] v. 4. Life is progress
towards fuller knowledge, and not rest.

28. I give] Not simply “I will give.” |
The offer is present and continuously
appropriated.

they shall...hand] They are safe from
inward dissolution and from outward
violence,

neither shall any man pluck them] and
no one shall snatch them, as a fact dis-
tinguished from can snatch, v. 29.

out of my hand) Comp. Wisd. iii, 1;
Isai. xlix. 2, li. 16. ,

27, 28. The doctrine of “ final persever-,
ance” has been found in this passage. But }
we must carefully distinguish between the |
certainty of God’s promises and His infinite
power on the one hand, and the weakness
and variableness of man’s will on the other.
If man falls at any stage in his spiritual
life, it is not from want of divine grace,
nor from the overwhelming power of ad-
versaries, but from his neglect to use that
which he may or may not use. We cannot:
be protected against ourselves in spite of!
ourselves. He who ceases to hear and to!
follow is thereby shewn to be no true’
believer, 1 John ii. 19. The difficulty in
this case is only one form of the difficulty
involved in the relation of an infinite to
a finite being. .The sense of the divine
protection is at any moment sufficient to
v. 29—33.-]

29 My Father, which gave them
me, is greater than all; and no man
is able to pluck them out of my
Father’s hand.

30 I and my Father are one.

31 Then the Jews took up stones
again to stone him.

32 Jesus answered them, Many

St. JOHN. X.

159
good works have I shewed you from
my Father; for which of those works
do ye stone me?

33 The Jews answered him, say-
ing, For a good work we stone thee
not; but for blasphemy ; and because
that thou, being a man, makest thy-
self God. :

 

inspire confidence, but not to render effort
unnecessary. Comp. vi. 37, 39, 40, 44 f.
St Paul combines the two thoughts, Phil.
ii, 12 f.

29. My Father...all] The reading of the
original text in this place is doubtful.
See Additional Note. According to the
most probable reading the translation is,
that which the Father hath given me is
greater than all: the faithful regarded in
their unity as a complete body, are stronger
than every opposing power. This is their
essential character, and no one is able...
Comp. 1 John v, 4.

and no man...my Father's (the Father's)
hand) The thought, which is concrete in
v, 28, is here traced back to its most
absolute form as resting on the essential
power of God in his relation of universal
Fatherhood. The variations in expression
all point in the same direction. Here it is
said simply snatch, and not snatch them;
can snatch, and not shall snatch; the
Father, and not my Father.

30. Z and my Father are one) I and
{the Father are one. Every word in this
pregnant clause is full of meaning. It is
I, not the Son; the Father, not my Father;
one essence (é€v, Vulg. unum), not one
person (is, Gal. iii. 28, unus); are, not
am. The revelation is of the nature of
Christ in the fulness of His double nature,
of the incarnate Son in the fulness of His
manifested being, and that in relation to
the Father, to God as He is Father at once
of the Son and of men. The Incarnation
was the proof of the complete unity of the
Father and the Son. Through that was
shewn the true connexion of God and man.
And so it is that the union of believers
together is made dependent on the union
;of the Father and the Son (xvii. 22,
according to the true reading).

It seems clear that the unity here spoken
of cannot fall short of unity of essence.
The thought springs from the equality of
power (my hand, the Father's hand); but
infinite power is an essential attribute of
God; and it is impossible to suppose that
two beings distinct in essence could be
equal in power. Comp. Rev. xx. 6, xxii. 3.

The phrase was very commonly quoted
in controversy from the time of Tertullian.
The following passages will repay study :
Tertull. ‘adv. Prax.’ 22; Hippol. ‘c. Noet.’
7; Ambr. ‘de Spir. S.’ 1. 111, 116; August.

Coll. c, Max.’ § 14.

31. Then the Jews took up...) The Jews
took up, lifted up or bore. The word
((Bdoracav, d bajulaverunt, but Vulg.
sustulerunt) describes that which is borne} .
as a heavy weight rather than that which; —
is seized, Gal. vi. 2, 5, 17.
probably were brought from a distance by
the most eager assailants (contrast viii.
59, npav). The works which were going
on at the temple would supply them.

again] viii, 59.

82. answered] their accusation in action.
Comp. ii. 18, note. Here the Lord did not
withdraw Himself at once (viii. 59), but
further unfolded the revelation which He
had given, and held their judgment in
suspense by His word.

good works] good in the sense of morally
beautiful (Kad), so that they claimed
directly the instinctive admiration of men.

shewed] A divine work is a icra
to be studied. It is emphatically “a sign’
(ii, 18). Something is left forthe witness
to bring to the interpretation of the fact
(v. 20).

from my (the) Father] proceeding from
Him as their source (€k Tov.) and con-
nected with Him as the stream with the
spring. Comp. vi. 65, vii, 17, viii. 42, 47,
xvi. 28. See also v. 36, xv. 24. Under
this aspect it is important to observe that
the Lord speaks not of m3 Father but of
the Father; the relationship to which He
appeals is with men and not with the Son
only.

for which] The interrogation marks
quality (6:4 aovov) and not simple defini-
tion (Sia 7é), Matt. xxi. 23; Acts iv. 7.

do ye stone me?] The pronoun ( ép’) is
emphatic; do ye stone me, who truly
reveal the Father in act. The irony of the
speech becomes the expression of stern
indignation. The miracles of Christ had
in fact called out the bitterest hostility
of the Jews,

33. The Jews answered him (omit, with
the most ancient MSS., saying)...] The
second clause defines and intensifies the
charge in the first. It was not, they reply,
simple blasphemy, derogation from the
honour due to God, but the assumption by
man of the divine prerogatives, which
called for their action. Comp, xix. 7.

34. Jesus answered...) The accusation
of the Jews was grounded upon a false,
conception of the unity of God drawn from

 

The stones: _
I
f Psal. 82.
6.

60

34 Jesus answered them, fIs it not
written in your law, I said, Ye are
gods ?

35 If he called them gods, unto
whom the word of God came, and
the scripture cannot be broken ;

St. JOHN. X.

[v. 34—37-
36 Say ye of him, whom the Father
hath sanctified, and sent into the
world, Thou blasphemest ; because I
said, I am the Son of God?
37 If I do not the works of my
Father, believe me not.

 

the Old Testament. This, they argued,
was violated if Jesus, truly man, claimed
to be One with God. The Lord therefore
shews in His answer that even in the Old
Testament there was a preparation for that
union of God and man which He came to
complete.

in your law] in the code to which you
appeal, viii. 17, For the extension of the
title, “law” to the other Scriptures, see
xii. 84, xv. 25; (Rom. iii. 19; 1 Cor. xiv.
21). The same usage is found in Rabbinic
writers. Comp. Winsche, ad loc,

The reference in Ps. lxxxii. 6 is to
judges who indeed violated the laws of
their august office, yet even so their office
was no less divine.

35. The case is taken as an extreme one.
If the Scripture called them unto whom
the word of God came : if the direct divine
call to a sacred office carried with it such
a communication of the divine power au
justified the attribution of the title: do ye
(Spets) say, ye who plead the strictest ad-
herence to the law as your justification, of
him whom...

he called) The subject is not defined in
the original (ei...eZre). It may be taken
from the preceding “I said;” or “the
Scripture” may be supplied from the
second clause.

the word of God] This phrase, which is
used of the divine communication under
the old covenant, cannot be without refer-
ence to the Word before the Incarnation,
through whom God held converse with His
people and made His will known. Comp.
Luke xi. 49; Matt, xxiii, 34,

the scripture cannot be broken] The
particular sentence (i ypad7}) which has
been quoted. This appears to be always
the force of the singular in St John. See
li, 22, note, xvii. 12, xx. 9, note.

broken] The word (Av6jva1t, Vulg. solvi)

is peculiar and characteristic of St John:
ii. 19, v. 18, note, vii. 28; 1 John iii. 8
(comp. Eph, ii, 14).
. It must be noticed that St John records
the permanent significance of the Old
Testament no less than the Synoptists :
xiii. 18, xvii. 12, xix. 24, 28, 36, compared
with Matt, v. 18, &.

36. In contrast with those who derived
their title from the temporary mission of
the Word stands that One Whom the
Father Himself directly sanctified, set
apart for His work, and then sent into the
world. The two moments in the mission

of the Son are thus distinguished in their
complete complementary fulness. The
translation...co Whom the Word of God
came (and the Scripture cannot be broken),
Whom (i.e. the Word of God) the Father...
sent...is wholly alien from the style of St
John. Yet see Cyril Alex. ad loc.

hath sanctified] sanctified (consecrated).
Comp. xvii. 17, 19. This fact belongs to
the eternal order. The term (Hyiacev,
Vulg. sanctificavit) expresses the divine
destination of the Lord for His work. This
destination carries with it the further
thought of the perfect endowment of the
Incarnate Son. His divine Person, if it is
allowable so to speak, included an essential
capacity for the Incarnation, so that a
term peculiarly appropriate to the human
nature can be properly used of the un-
changeable Person. The various mani-
festations of the Spirit to Christ after His
Advent were results of this eternal conse-
cration. Comp. vi. 27; Acts iv. 27, 30.
The word is used of the divine consecra-
tion of prophets (Jer. i. 5; Ecclus. xlix. 7),
of Moses (Hcclus. xlv. 4), of the chosen
people (2 Macc. i. 25 f.; 3 Macc. vi. 3).
Comp. vi. 69; 1 John ii, 20.

the Son of God?] Son of God. The ab-
sence of the article (see xix. 7) fixes!
attention on the character and not on the
person. As the position of Christ was
higher than that of the theocratic judges,
so the title which He here assumes is lower
(Son of God, Gods). But how, it may b
asked, does this argument justify th
phrase used in v. 30? The phrases ye ar
Gods, Son of God, I and the Father ar
one, do not appear to be homogeneous. ,
The answer appears to be this :

1, Such a phrase as that in Ps, lxxxii. 6
really includes in a most significant shape
the thought which underlies the whole of
the Old Testament, that of a covenant
between God and man, which through the
reality of a personal relationship assumes
the possibility of a vital union. Judaism
was not a system of limited monotheism,
but a theism always tending to theanthro-
pism, to a real union of God and man. It
was therefore enough to shew in answer to
the accusation of the Jews that there lay
already in the Law the germ of the truth
which Christ announced, the union of God
and man. r

2. And again the words IZ and the
Father are one, exclude the confusion of

the divine Persons and so suggest the
thoucht of a San af tha sama annann- 14h
v. 38 ~42.]
38 But if I do, though ye believe
not me, believe the works: that ye
may know, and believe, that the
Father is in me, and I in him.

39 Therefore they sought again to
take him ; but he escaped out of their
hand,

40 And went away again beyond

Sr. JOHN. X.

Jordan into the place where John at
first baptized; and there he abode.

41 And many resorted unto him,
and said, John did no miracle: but
all things that John spake of this
man were true.

42 And many believed on him
there.

 

the Father. In this sense the title “ Son
of God” does completely answer to the
former revelation.

It will be observed that though ihe title
(6 Adyos) ‘the Word” is almost suggested
by the current of thought, yet St John
keeps his own phraseology apart from the
record of the Lord’s words.

87, 38. Once again (v. 32) the Lord ap-
peals to His works. The inborn power of
recognising the divine in deed is the start-
ing-point: the end is the recognition of
the absolute intercommunion of the Incar-
nate Son (Z) and the Father.

believe me not] do not accept my state-
ments as true. The question here is of the
acceptance of a testimony and not of faith
in a Person (believe in me). Comp. v. 24
(note), 46, vi. 30, viii. 81, 45 f., xiv. 11;
1 John iii, 23, v. 10; Acts xvi. 34, xviii. 8,
xxvii. 25; Rom. iv. 3.

believe the works] accept as real the
signs which testify of me, v. 25. To “ be-
lieve the works” is the first step towards
‘believing for the works’ sake’’ (xiv. 11.

The belief in the testimony of the works
is the foundation of the general knowledge
and the growing perception in allits mani.
fold revelations of the inner fellowship of
the Father and the Son (that the Father is
tn me and I in the Father). This fellow-
ship itself is first realised in works and
then in absolute Being. The fellowship of
‘being’ between the Father and the Son
must be compared with the fellowship of
“abiding”? of the believer and God de-
scribed in 1 John iv. 16, a passage which
has evidently been modified by this.

that ye may know, and believe...) That
ye may know and may understand...per-
ceive once for all, and then go on ad-
vancing in ever fuller perception (“va yv-
Gre kal yesonyre)... Comp. xvii 21, 23;
Phil. i, 9.

39. Therefore they sought again] They
sought again... vii. 30, 32, 44.

to take] to seize. Their immediate vio-
lence (v. 31) was so far checked.

he escaped (went forth) out of their
hand] The phrase (e€7AGev €x) occurs only
here. It marks the power of Christ’s per-

sonal majesty as contrasted with the im-
potence of His adversaries. Their “hand”
is contrasted in some sense with ‘‘ His
hand”’ (v. 28), and His “ going forth” with
their inability to carry away any from His
Father’s protection.

40—42. The testimony of works and
the testimony of the Baptist, which now
found no acceptance in Judza, were wel-
comed beyond Jordan.

40. And went away again...) And he
went away again... The clause commences
a new section. The reference is probably
to some recent and unrecorded visit. The
events of i, 28 are too remote.

This sojourn in Perea is noticed in the
Synoptists, Matt, xix. 1; Mark x. 1; (Luke
Xvili, 15).

at first baptized] was at first baptizing,
as recorded in i. 28, in contrast with iii.
23. So the narrative of the Lord’s minis}
try closes on the spot where it began. The!
Evangelist naturally marks the scene:
where he had himself met Christ. ;

there he abode] outside Judea. The em-
phasis lies upon the place.

41. many resorted unto him, and said...
The acceptance of Christ beyond the limits
of Judea serves to complete the picture of
the incredulity of the Jews.

The verse contains a double opposition of
the Baptist and Christ, as indicated by the
repetition of John’s name. The first con-
trast lies in the fact that John wrought no
sign, while Christ was working many
(Matt. xix. 1); and the second in fact
that John was not indeed ‘‘he that should
come,” but a true herald. The second
clause presupposes the acceptance of Jesus
as the Messiah on the testimony of the
signs which were seen.

John did no miracle] The notice shews
how little inclination there was to invest
popular teachers with miraculous powers.
The new Elijah might have seemed above
all men likely to shew signs.

42. believed on him) with the devotion
of self-surrender, and did not simply (a3
vv. 87, 38) accept His statements.

there] with a pointed reference to v. 40;
there, if not in Jerusalem. :

161
162 a

ADDITIONAL NOTES

16. The two words avAq (fold) and
moluvyn (flock) are given in this passage
without any variation in the Greek text;
and the two words are distinguished in the
Syriac (Peshito, Harclean, Hierosol.) and
Egyptian versions.

The earliest Latin note upon the passage
which I have observed is by Jerome (In
Ezek. xlvi. 22): ‘‘ Alias oves habeo que
non sunt ex hoc atrio; et illas oportet me
adducere, et vocem meam audient, et fiet
unum atrium et unus pastor. Hoc enim
Grecum adAq significat, quod Latina sim-
plicitas in ovile transtulit.” This observa-
tion is interesting for several reasons. It
shews how perfunctory Jerome’s criticism
of the Latin text was. He distinctly pre-
fers atrium to ovile as the rendering of
avAy, and yet he did not introduce it into
his revision. And again he implies that
avAy stands in the Greek text in both
places, which at least shews that he did
not verify his reference.

Elsewhere, it may be added (In Isai. 1x.
22), Jerome reads ‘‘unus grex et unus
pastor,” giving grex also as the rendering
of atAy in the former clause,

The old Latin texts (a, b, c, e) read
ovile, grex; the Latin of D reads atrium,
grez, according to Jerome’s suggestion ;
many mixed texts (f, ff?, cod aur., but
none of Bentley’s MSS.) read ovile, grex;
in the Latin of A, roipv7is represented by
the strange alternatives ovile v. pastorale,
Cyprian gives ovile, grex.

The reading in Augustine varies. In
treating of the passage he reads ovile,
ovile, without comment. Elsewhere (e.g.
‘Serm.’ 188. 5) he reads ovile, grea.

The standard text of the Vulgate (Cod.
Amiat, &c.), gives ovile, ovile, and this
reading became practically universal among
Latin medieval writers, Even Erasmus
left the rendering unchanged; and s0 also
did Beza until 1582. The phrase unum
ovile, unus pastor, had evidently become
sacred by use.

Luther truly rendered the Greek (aus
diesem Stalle, Hine Herde), and so also did
Tyndale and Coverdale (fold, flock).
Wicliff, however, following the Vulgate,
had already made ‘‘one fold” familiar in
English; and this rendering was intro-
duced into Cromwell’s Bible, 1539, and re-
tained its place down to 1611.

It would perhaps be impossible for any
correction now to do away with the effects
which a translation undeniably false has
produced on popular ecclesiastical ideas.

22. The reading in this verse is of criti-
cal importance in regard to the connexion
of the preceding discourses.

The early authorities are divided:

Sr. JOHN. X.

on CHAP. X. 16, 22, 29.

(1) €yévero rére is found in BL 33, and
in the Thebaic and Armenian versions.

(2) eyévero 8 in BADX, and the mass
of MSS., in some old Latin copies, and in
the Syriac versions. . :

(3) A small group of cursive mss., in-
cluding some of importance (1, 225, 2pe,
&c.), and the best copies of the Old Latin
(a, 6) have no connecting particle. .

(4) The Memphitic version and one Latin
copy at least (gat) represent both rdre and
8é,

There are also other slight variations in
the renderings in versions.

These phenomena may be accounted for
by supposing either that originally there
was no connecting particle, or that it was
one which caused difficulty.

The evidence in support of the first sup-
position, though considerable, appears to
be inadequate; and707Te would be an un-
likely particle to insert.

On the other hand, if rdé7e stood in the
text originally it would create superficial
difficulty from the apparent confusion of
the feasts; and again it is an unusual word
in St John, and not often found in this
position, though in fact its unusual position
is signficant (Matt. xxiv. 21, xxvii. 16, “at
that time, while these discussions as to the
old church and the new were going on”),

If &¢ had been the true reading, it is not
easy to see why it should have been
changed. The origin of the rére from the
repetition of the last syllable of ¢yévero
is very unlikely. And, though 8é has no
obvious difficulty, it is hard to suppose that
St John would have indicated in such a
way a fresh journey to Jerusalem (xiii. 1 is
not a parallel), and the statement, ‘ Now
the Feast of Dedication took place (éyévero)
at Jerusalem,” is on this supposition, as it
seems, singularly without force.

On the whole therefore it is best to
adopt the reading tTére, which has strong
external and internal authority, and which
brings the conversation in x. 1—18 into
connexion with its sequel, v. 25 ff., and
with a characteristic epoch.

29. In this verse the relative (which) and
the comparative (greater) are masculine in
some of the most important authorities and
neuter in others ; and there is a cross division
in these differences. Thus, (1) B*, Latt.,
Memph. read 6, pet Cov; (2) RL, 6, peifwr ;
(3) AB?*X., ds, pecfov; (4) D, 6 dedwxus,
pei{wv; (5) the mass of authorities, ds,
peiCwv,

The reading (2) is impossible. The
readings (4) and (5) are evidently correc-
tions : if either had been original, it would
not have been disturbed. The choice lies
between (1 and (3). Of these (1) has the
Sr. JOHN. XI.

most ancient authority, and is the most
difficult and at the same time the most
in accordance with the style of St John
(vi. 39, xvii. 2). This reading has there-
fore been adopted in the notes.

If the masculine relative be adopted
(6s)the sense is quite simple: My Father
which gave them to me is greater) per-
sonally, pet(wv, or rather, a greater power,
pecCov: comp. Matt. xii. 6) than all; and
(as a consequence) no one ts able...

Hilary (‘de Trin.’ 7, 22; 11. 12) takes
the phrase in a wholly different sense as
referring to the derivation of the Son’s
divine nature from the Father (Datio

CHAPTER XI.

Christ raiseth Lazarus, four days buried.
45 Many Jews believe. 47 The high priests

163

paterna sumpte nativitatis professio est, et
quod unum sunt, proprietas, ex nativitate
nature est: 11. 12), Ambrose (‘De Spir.
Sancto,’ 111. 116: Dedit pater per genera-
tionem non per adoptionem) and Augustine
(ad loc. Quid dedit Filio Pater majus
omnibus? Ut ipse illi esset unigenitus
Filius) take the same view. But the usage
of St John (vi. 39, all that which the
Father hath given me: comp. v. 87, xvii. 2,
all that which thou hagt given Him) seems
distinctly to point to the society of the
faithful as the Father’s gift ; and this inter-
pretation brings the clause into parallelism
with those which have gone before,

and Pharisees gather a council against
Christ. 49 Caiaphas prophesieth. 54 Jesus
hid himself. 55 At the passover they
inquire after him, and lay wait for him.

 

ii, THE DECISIVE JUDGMENT (xi. xii.).

This last section of the record of the
Lord’s public ministry, represented by His
great controversy at Jerusalem, consists of
two parts. The first part contains the
narrative of the final sign with its im-
mediate consequences (xi.); the second
part gives three typical scenes which mark
the close of the work, together with a
summary judgment upon its results (xii.).
1, The final sign and its immediate issues

xi.).

The narrative of fe raising of Lazarus is
unique in its completeness. The essential
circumstances of the fact in regard to
persons, manner, results, are given with
perfect distinctness. The history is more
complete than that in ch, ix, because the
persons stand in closer connexion with the
Lord than the blind man, and the event
itself had in many ways a ruling influence
on the end of His ministry.

Four scenes are to be distinguished :
(1) The prelude to the miracle (1—16) ;
(2) The scene at Bethany (17—32) ; (3) The
miracle (383—44) ; (4) The immediate issues
of the miracle (45—57).

In studying the history, several points
must be kept in view.

-1. The sign itself is the last of a series,
which has evidently been formed (xx.
30f.) with a view to the complete and
harmonious exhibition of the Lord’s work.
The seven miracles of the ministry, which
St John relates, form a significant whole
(ii 1 6, iv. 46 ff, v.1ff., vi. 5ff, 15 ff, ix.
1ff., xi). And in this respect it is of
interest to notice that the first and last
are wrought in the circle of family life,
and among believers to the strengthening
of faith (ii. 11, xi. 15); and both are
declared to be manifestations of “glory ”
(ii, 11, xi. 4, 40). So the natural relations
of men become the occasions of the revela-
tion of higher truth.

New Test.—Vor. II.

2. The circumstances of the miracle
ought to be minutely compared with those
of the corresponding miracles recorded by
the Synoptists (Mark v. 22 ff. and parallels;
Luke vii. 11 ff.). The omission of the
raising of Lazarus by the Synoptists is no
more remarkable in principle than the
omission of these raisings by St John. In
each case the selection of facts was deter-
mined by the purpose of the record. The
miracles wrought at Jerusalem were not
included in the cycle of apostolic preaching’
which formed the basis of the Synoptic
Gospels.

3. Numerous minute touches mark the
fulness of personal knowledge, or the
impression of an eye-witness: e.g. the
relation of the family to Jesus (v. 5); the
delay of two days (6); the exact position
of Bethany (18); the presence of Jews
(19); the secret message (28); the title
“the Master” (id.); the pause of Jesus
(30); the following of the Jews (31) and
their weeping (33); the prostration of
Mary (32); the successive phases of the
Lord’s emotion (33, 35, 38) ; the appearance
of Lazarus (44). ;

4. Not less remarkable than this definite-
ness of detail are the silences, the omis-
sions, in the narrative; e.g. as to the return
of the messenger (v. 4); the message to
Mary (27 f.); the welcome of the restored
brother (44). Under this head too may be
classed the unexpected turns of expres-
sion: e.g. “unto Judwa” (v. 7), vv. 11 f.,
v. 37,

5. That however which is most impres-
sive in the narrative, as a history, is its
dramatic vividness; and this in different
respects. There is a clear individuality in
the persons. Thomas stands out charac-
teristically from the apostles. Martha and
Mary, alike in their convictions, are dis-
tinguished in the manner of shewing them.
Then again there is a living revelation of

M
Matt. 26.

164

OW a certain man was sick,

named Lazarus, of Bethany,

the town of Mary and her sister
Martha.

2 (2It was that Mary which an-

ointed the Lord with ointment, and

Sr. JOHN. XI.

[v. I—4.
wiped his feet with her hair, whose
brother Lazarus was sick.)

3 Therefore his sisters sent unto
him, saying, Lord, behold, he whom
thou lovest is sick.

4 When Jesus heard that, he said,

 

character in the course of the narrative;
Martha reflects the influence of the Lord’s
words. The Jews are tried and separated.
And above all the Lord is seen throughout,
absolutely one in His supreme freedom,
perfectly human and perfectly divine, so
that it is felt that there is no want of
harmony between His tears and His life-
giving command.

6. With regard to the fact itself it is
important to remark that, while it was a
sign of the resurrection, the Evangelist
makes it clear throughout that this raising
to a corruptible life is essentially distinct
from the Lord’s rising again to a glorified
life.

7. Apart from the antecedent assumption
that a miracle is impossible, and that the
record of a miracle must therefore be
explained away, it is not easy to see any
ground for questioning the literal exactness
of the history. No explanation of the
origin of the narrative on the supposition
that it is unhistorical, has even a show of
plausibility. Those who deny the fact are

‘sooner or later brought to maintain either

that the scene was an imposture, or that

‘the record is a fiction. Both of these
hypotheses involve a moral miracle.

8. No overwhelming influence is assigned
to the miracle by the Evangelist. It is a
“sign,” a revelation of the divine glory, to
those who believe, or who have sympathy
with the truth. But others, apparently,
without questioning the reality of the fact,
simply find in it a call to more energetic
opposition. The work arrests attention ;
and then it becomes a touchstone of
character. In this respect it completely
answers to the function assigned to
miracles in the New Testament.

9. This last consideration helps to explain
| the omission of the miracle from the
' Synoptic narratives. For us the incident,
/ as an external fact, has naturally a relative

importance far greater than it had for the
Evangelists, For them, as for the Jews, it
was one of “ many signs” (xi. 47), and not
essentially distinguished from them. The
entry into Jerusalem was the decisive event
in which the issue of all Christ’s earlier
works was summed up. This therefore the
Synoptists record. For St John, however,
the raising of Lazarus was, as the other
miracles, a spiritual revelation. It fell in
then with his plan, as far as we can
discern it, to relate it at length, while it
did not fall in with the common plan of
the Synoptic Gospels, which excluded all

working at Jerusalem till the triumphal
entry.

(1) The prelude to the miracle (1—16).

The record of the miracle is prefaced b
an account of the external and mora
circumstances under which it was wrought.
The message as to the sickness of Lazarus
was brought to the Lord in His retirement
at Perea. He declared what the end
would be in mysterious terms, and still
remained where He was (1—6). Then
followed the announcement of His inten-
tion to return to Judea, which served to
shew the feeling of His disciples, alike in
their weakness and in their devotion (7—
16). Throughout the Lord speaks with the
authority of certain knowledge (vv. 4, 15).

Cuap. XI. 1-6. Themessage to Perea
from Bethany.

1. Now...was...] The particle  (8€)
marks the interruption to the retirement
beyond Jordan (x. 40).

Lazarus] The name is a shortened form}
of Eleazar. It occurs again in Luke xvi.
20; Jos. ‘B. J.’ v. 18. 7, and in Rabbinic

writers ("YJ"), see Lightfoot, ad loc. All
attempts to identify Lazarus with the’
person in the parable or with the rich;
young man are quite baseless. It may also
be added that the identification of Mary|
with Mary Magdalene is a mere conjecture
supported by no direct evidence, and op:
posed to the general tenour of the Gospels!

of Bethany...the town...) The contrast
of prepositions in the original text, of
(aad, Vulg. a) Bethany, sprung from (€k,
Vulg. de) the town (village, and so v.30)
of..., describes the actual residence, and
the true home of Lazarus. The “ village *
may have been Bethany, or it may have
been some other village (a certain village,
Luke x, 38).

Mary...Martha] Mary is apparently put
forward as the person best known from
the event mentioned in v. 2 and related in
ch, xii, though Martha seems to have been
the elder sister (vv. 5, 19; Luke x. 38 f.).
“This name of Martha is very frequent in
the Talmudic authors” (Lightfoot, ad loc.).

2. It was that Mary...) The original is
ambiguous. It may be either But .(8é)
Mary was she that...whose...; or, as A. V.
But it was (the) Mary which...whose...
The verse obviously presupposes (as v. 1)

a general knowledge of the Evangelic
history,

the Lord] iv. 1, note,
8. Therefore his sisters...) The sisters
v. 59:1

This sickness is not unto death, but

Sr. JOHN. XI.

165
7 Then after that saith he to his

for the glory of God, that the Son of disciples, Let us go into Judea again.

God might be glorified thereby.

5 Now Jesus loved Martha, and
her sister, and Lazarus.

6 When he had heard therefore
that he was sick, he abode two days
still in the same place where he was.

8 His disciples say unto him, Mas-
ter, the Jews of late sought to stone
thee; and goest thou thither again?

9 Jesus answered, Are there not
twelve hours in the day? If any man
walk in the day, he stumbleth not,

 

therefore, feeling sure of His love in their
sorrow.

behold] It was enough to state the fact;
they offer no plea. “Sufficit ut noveris :
non enim amas et deseris” (Augustine, ad
loc.). The interjection is characteristic of
St John. Comp. xvi. 29, note.

he whom thou lovest] with the natural
affection of personal attachment (dv ¢iAets,
Vulg. quem amas). So they point the rela-
tion. The Evangelist uses a different word
in v, 5 (yAdwa Vulg. diligebat). For the
distinction between the two words, see v.
20, note, xxi. 15, 17, notes.

4. When Jesus...he said] But when
Jesus heard it he said. The words are for
all. They are not a simple answer to the
messengers, nor yet a simple lesson for the
disciples. They contain an answer, and
hey kindle faith. And the messenger seems
ito have returned reassured by them, while
‘they were also designed to suggest hope
to the sisters when all hope was over (v. 40).

This sickness...thereby] This sickness is
not unto death as its issue and end, but
for—to serve and to advance—the glory of
God, in order that the Son of God may be
glorified thereby. The general object (the
glory of God) is made specific in the par-
ticular end. The actual occurrence of
death was in no way against this state-
ment. It rather helped to realise the
deeper fulness of the revelation.

for the glory] In every other place in St

ohn (even i. 30; 3 John 7) the preposi-
ion used here (d7rép, Vulg. pro) marks
\the notion of “sacrifice in behalf of ;”’ and
this idea lies under the narrative here.
There was some mysterious sense in which
the sick man suffered in behalf of God’s
glory, and was not merely a passive instru-
ment. Thus the sickness is regarded in
a triple relation: “unto” in respect of the
actual result; ‘‘in behalf of’ in respect of
the suffering borne; ‘in order that’’ in
respect of the divine purpose.

For the thought comp. ix. 8, x. 38.

the glory of God] the revelation of God
in His victorious majesty: v. 40, xii. 41;
Acts vii. 55 (6. @.); Rom. i. 23, (iii. 28,
v. 2), (vi. 4).

might (may) be glorified) The phrase
contains a clear allusion to the glory of
the Lord won through the Passion. The
raising of Lazarus by revealing Christ’s
power and character brought the hostility
of His enemies to a crisis (vv. 47 ff.), and

led to His final “glorifying :” xii, 28, xiii, 31.

5. Now Jesus loved] The words are a
preparation for v. 6. The Evangelist de-
scribes the Lord’s affection for this family
as that of moral choice (yda: see v. 3,
note). The passing notice of that which
must have been the result of long and inti-
mate intercourse is a striking illustration
of the fragmentariness of the Evangelic

records. Lazarus is not mentioned in Luke
x. 38 ff.
6. When he had heard therefore...)

When therefore he heard... The delay and
the return were alike consequences of the
same divine affection and of the same
divine knowledge. Because the Lord loved
the family He went at the exact moment
when His visit would be most fruitful, and
not just when He was invited.

he abode...Then after that] he abode for
the time...then after this (Tore pév...
éreira...Vulg. tune guidem...deinde post
hoc...).

two days] The journey would occupy
about a day. Thus Lazarus died at the
time when the message came (vv. 17, 39).
Christ therefore did not wait for the death,
but knew of the death. Meanwhile He.
finished the work which He had to do.
before going back to Judea. The supposi-!
tion that the interval was left in order
that the Lord might raise the dead and
not heal the sick, and so shew greater
power and win greater glory, is alien
equally from the spirit and from the letter
of the narrative, v. 15.

7—16. The decision to visit Bethany.

7. Let us go into Judea again] It is to
be noticed that the words are not let us go
to Bethany. The thought is of the hostile
land of unbelief in contrast with Perea
(x. 40).

8. Master] Rabbi, ix. 2, note.

the Jews...again?] Even now (vvv) the
Jews were seeking...and art thou going
thither again? The English idiom hardly
admits the vividness of the original.

9. The answer is exactly complemen-
tary to that in ix. 4. It is here laid down
that there is an appointed measure of.
working time given, and consequently that
as long as that lasts work can be done. {
On the other hand (ix. 4) there is only a!
limited time, and the work must be:
finished within it. ;

There is no warrant for applying the
ideas of “night” and “stumbling ” to any
166
because he seeth the light of this
world,

10 But if a man walk in the night,
he stumbleth, because there is no
light in him.

11 These things said he: and after
that he saith unto them, Our friend
Lazarus sleepeth; but I go, that I
may awake him out of sleep.

St. JOHN. XI.

[v. 10—15.

12 Then said his disciples, Lord,
if he sleep, he shall do well.

13 Howbeit Jesus spake of his
death : but they thought that he had
spoken of taking of rest in sleep.

14 Then said Jesus unto them
plainly, Lazarus is dead.

15 And I am glad for your sakes
that I was not there, to the intent

 

special aspects of the Lord’s work, as in
the case of men, xii. 35. The answer is,
as a whole, a parable of human action.
All action is subject to corresponding con-
ditions. Man does not carry within him
all that he requires. In order to move in
the world he must be illuminated by the
light of the world. This law held true
even of Christ’s work on earth. It could
be done, and at the same time it could
only be done, while the “day” yet con-
tinued. A similar idea is expressed in
Luke xiii, 32 f.

The journey to Bethany was not yet be-
gun, so that the image was probably sug-
gested by the early dawn.

10. there is...him] the light is not in
him: the light which he needs for the ful-
filment of his work.

11. These things said he: and after
that...) These things spake he, and after
this...

Our friend...sleepeth] More exactly:
Lazarus, our friend, is fallen asleep (xexot-
pytat). Even so he still is “our friend’
in that world of spirit. Comp. xv. 14 f.;
Luke xii. 4. The. Lord joins His disciples
with Himself in one bond of friendship (our
friend).

is fallen asleep] Acts vii. 60, xiii. 36;
Matt. xxvii. 52; 1 Thess. iv. 13 ff., &c.
The image is common in Rabbinic writings.

12. Then said...sleep...] The disciples
therefore said to him...if he is fallen
asleep... The misunderstanding followed

from a false view of the promise in v. 4.
The ‘‘sleep’’ seemed to the disciples to be
the crisis of recovery, as, for example, in
fever, due to the intervention of the Lord.
And if this was so, the perilous journey
was no longer necessary ; still less could it
be well to break the rest which had at
last been given.

he shall do weil} he shall be saved (Vulg.
salvus erit). It is important to notice how
the word “save” reaches through the
whole of man’s nature to every part of it.
We cannot draw the line between what we
are tempted to call the higher and the
lower. The whole narrative is a revela-
tion of life and death, vv. 25 f.

Comp. Matt. ix. 21 ff.; (Mark v, 28;
Luke viii. 48); Mark vi. 56, x. 52;
(Luke xviii, 42); Luke vii. 50, viii. 36,
(viii. 50), xvii. 19; James v. 15.

13. Howbeit Jesus spake...had spoken...)

Now Jesus had spoken...spake... The
solemn word misunderstood is contrasted
with the immediate interpretation of it
(6re... Aéyen).

14. Then said Jesus...) Then therefore
Jesus said... because the disciples had
failed to catch the meaning of the words
with which He had tried their spiritual
discernment. It is clearly implied that the
knowledge was supernatural. “ Quid
lateret eum qui creaverat?’’ (Aug.).

plainly] without reserve and without
metaphor, See vii. 13, note, x. 24, xvi. 25, 29.

Lazarus is dead] Or strictly, Lazarus
died. The thought is carried back to the
critical moment on which the disciples
rested in hope. It is interesting to con-
trast the phrase used before (v. 11), is
fallen asleep, which describes the continu-,
ous state with that used here, died, which,
marks the single point of change.

15. Z am glad...believe] I am glad for
your sakes, to the intent ye may believe,
that I was not there. The words to the
intent ye may believe are brought into the
closest connexion with for your sakes, so as
to explain the strange saying. Christ is
glad not for the death of Lazarus, but for
the circumstances and issues of the death.
It will be observed that the Lord speaks
of His own actions, as if they were in some
sense not self-determined.

I was not there] as if death would have
been impossible in the presence of Christ.

believe] The word is used absolutely.
Comp. i. 7, 50, iv. 41, 42, 48, 53, v. 44, vi.
36, 64, xi. 40, xii. 39, xiv. 29, xix. 35, xx.
29, 31 (iii. 12, 18, x. 25, xvi. 31, xx. 8, are
somewhat different). The disciples did al-
ready believe in one sense (ii. 11, vi. 69).
But each new trial offers scope for the
growth of faith. So that which is potential
becomes real, Faith can neither be sta-
tionary nor complete. ‘He who is a
Christian is no Christian” (Luther).

nevertheless...) but (@AAd) not to dwell
on present sorrow or joy to come. The
word breaks abruptly the connecting
thought. Habet Dominus horas suas et
moras.

go unto him] not thither, but unto him:
unto him, and not to the sisters who were
mourning for him. Even as Christ spoke
of Lazarus as still “a friend” (v. 11), 30
v. 16—20.] St. JOHN. XI.
ye may believe; nevertheless let us
go unto him.

16 Then said Thomas, which is
called Didymus, unto his fellowdis-

167
18 Now Bethany was nigh unto
Jerusalem, llabout fifteen furlongs off 5) rnaz is,

19 And many of the Jews came to2bout two

ciples, Let us also go, that we may
die with him.

17 Then when Jesus came, he
found that he had lain in the grave
four days already.

here He speaks of the body “sleeping” in
ie tomb as the man himself. He fixes the
thoughts of the disciples upon a real present
relationship of Lazarus to them and to
Himself. That is now the ground of hope
(xiv. 19: comp. Luke xx. 38; Matt. xxii.
32, note).

16. Then said Thomas...] Thomas there-
fore said... in answer to the invitation, as
seeing that the resolution of the Master
was fixed. There is no longer (v. 8) any
objection.

1 which is called...] not as an additional

| name, but as the interpretation of Thomas
(Pwin). Comp. iv. 25, (xix. 17), i. 38.
The same note is repeated xx. 24, xxi. 2.
It is difficult to see why special prominence
is given to this Greek equivalent of the
Aramaic name. Perhaps Thomas may have
been familiarly known in Asia Minor
among the Gentile Christians as Didymus.
The traditions as to his work in Parthia
and India are late and uncertain.

Let us also] In v. 11 Christ had spoken
of Himself alone; in v. 15 there is a general
invitation. Thomas emphasizes the volun.
tariness of the act.

that we may die with him] i.e. Jesus,
suggested by “we also.” It seems strange
that any one should have referred it to
Lazarus,

, that we may die] The words stand in

' sharp contrast with the Lord’s words, that

\ ye may believe. Thomas keeps strictly

‘ within the range of that which he knew.

There was no doubt as to the hostility of
the Jews (comp. Luke xxii. 33). He will
not go one step beyond that which is plain
and open. He will die for the love which
he has, but he will not affect the faith
which he has not.

The other passages in which St Thomas
appears shew the same character, xiv. 5
(we know not whither...), xx. 25 ff.

(2) The scene at Bethany (17—32).

After giving a general view of the circum-
stances at Bethany (17—19), the Evangelist
lays open the meaning of the miracle as a
revelation to faith, in connexion with the
hope and sorrow of Martha (20—27) and
Mary (28—82). Martha’s confession of faith
is in words (vv, 22, 24, 27); Mary’s is in
simple self-surrender (v. 32); while both

Martha and Mary, to comfort them
concerning their brother.

20 Then Martha, as soon as she
heard that Jesus was coming, went
and met him: but Mary sat still in
the house.

alike start from the expression of the same
conviction (vv. 21, 32). It has been com-
monly observed, and with justice, that
under very different circumstances the
.Sisters shew the same differences of charac-
ter as in Luke x. 38 ff. Martha is eager,
impetuous, warm; Mary is more devoted
and intense.

17—19. The position at Bethany.

17. Then when...found] So Jesus, when
he came, found... The word “found” em-
phasizes the object of the Lord’s journey.
Comp. i. 48, ii. 14, v. 14, ix. 35.

18. Bethany was...] The whole scene in
the apostle’s mind is distinct both in place
and time. He looks back on the spot (nigh
unto Jerusalem) and the company (the
Jews had come) as prepared by a divine
fitness for the work to be wrought,

fifteen furlongs off] i.e. about two miles.
The construction in the original is peculiar
(amd or, Sex...). Comp. xxi. 8; Rev. xiv.
20. The modern name of Bethany (see
‘Dict. of Bible, s. v.) (Hl-Azariyeh) is
derived from the miracle. See Wilson,
‘Lands of the Bible,’ 1. 485.

19. of the Jews] vv. 31, 36, 45. This
was the last trial. Natural human love
gave them once more the opportunity of
faith,

came...to comfort] had come...to com-
fort. During the seven days (“y)~) of
solemn mourning it is still customary for
friends to make visits of condolence. Comp.
18. xxxi. 14; 1 Chro. x. 12; Job ii. 13
(‘Jewish Daily Prayers,’ pp, xxx, f.).
Lightfoot (ad loc.) gives many illustrations
of the ancient usages.

20—27. The Lord and Martha.

20. Then Martha...) Martha therefore...
(vv. 18, 19 are parenthetical). Martha
appears to have been engaged in some
household duty, and so first heard of the
Lord’s approach; Mary was still in her
chamber, so that the tidings did not at
once come to her (v. 29). Comp, Luke x.
38 ff.

that Jesus was coming] Literally, that
Jesus cometh. He had been watched for
while hope lasted, and the watch seems to
have been still kept when hope was gone.
The words appear to be the exact message,
brought to Martha: “Jesus is coming.”
168 Sr. JOHN. XI. [v. 21—26.

21 Then said Martha unto Jesus, 24 Martha saith unto him, 6] know? Juke “4.
Lord, if thou hadst been here, my that he shall rise again in the resur-chap. 5, 29

brother had not died,

22 But I know, that even now,
whatsoever thou wilt ask of God,
God will give it thee.

23 Jesus saith unto her, Thy bro-
ther shall rise again.

rection at the last day.
25 Jesus said unto her, I am the

resurrection, and the clife: he that ¢ ch. 6.36.

believeth in me, though he were dead,
yet shall he live:
26 And whosoever liveth and be-

 

 

21. Then said Martha...Lord, if...) So * each separate life. The Resurrection is

artha said...Lord, if... The words are a
imple expression of faith and love, with-
ut any admixture of complaint. Martha
oes not say, “if thou hadst come;” she
oes not even emphasize the pronoun. She
inks only of a necessary absence. See

v, 32.

22. But...now...] And now (kat vov) I
know that... even when death seems to have
closed all. Faith reaches forth to that
which it does not grasp. The words
perhaps refer to the mysterious saying of
the Lord (v, 4) which had been reported
to her.

I know] v, 24. Contrast Z believe, v. 27.
The faith, if imperfect, is real.

The emphatic repetition of God, at the
end of both clauses in the original, serves
to bring out, as it were, the special relation
in which Christ stood to God in Martha’s

thoughts. It is to be observed that Martha
uses a word for the Lord’s prayer { airetv)
which the Lord uses of others (xiv. 13 f.,
xv. 16, xvi. 23f.), but never of Himself.
Comp. xvi. 26, note.

23. Thy brother shall rise again] The
whole history of the raising of Lazarus isa
parable of Life through death (vv. 4, 11,

}16), of life through what is called death,

of death through what is called life (v. 50).
Here then, at the beginning, the key-note
is given. Whatever death may seem to be,
there is a resurrection. Death is not the
final conqueror. As yet the idea of “ resur-
rection” is not defined. It is enough that
the idea be recognised.

24, Martha acknowledges the doctrine
of a resurrection, as an object of remote
belief : as something of general but not of
personal interest, and therefore powerless
in the present bereavement: Z know that
he shall rise again in the resurrection, in
that awful scene of universal awakening,
at the last day, when all kuman interests
cease.

the last day] vi. 39, note.

- 25. The reply of the Lord meets each
-implied difficulty. He does not set aside
, Martha’s confession, as if her idea were
| faulty. He brings the belief which she
; held into connexion with man’s nature as
, He had made and revealed it. The resur-
| rection is not a doctrine but a fact: not
“future but present : not multitudinous, but

belonging to the unbroken continuity of

one manifestation of the Life: it is in-
volved in the Life. It is a personal com-
munication of the Lord Himself, and not
a grace which He has to gain from another.
Martha had spoken of a gift to be obtained
from God and dispensed by Christ. Christ
turns her thoughts to His own Person. He
ig that which men need. He does not
procure the blessing for them. Compare
iv. 15ff., vi. 35 ff. Z am—not I shall be
hereafter—Z am, even in this crisis of!
bereavement, in this immediate prospect of
the Cross, the Resurrection and the Infe}
The word “ Resurrection ” comes first, be-
cause the teaching starts from death; but
the special term is at once absorbed in the
deeper word which includes it, Life (shall
live, not shall rise again).

I am the resurrection...] Christ in the
fulness of His Person does not simply work
the Resurrection and give life: He is both.
He does not say “I promise,” or “I
procure,” or “TI bring,” but “I am.” By
taking humanity into Himself He has
revealed the permanence of man’s indi-
viduality and being. But this permanence
can be found only in union with Him.
Thus two main thoughts are laid down ;/
Life (Resurrection) is present, and thigy
Life is in a Person.

and the life] The context in which this
revelation is given determines the sense in
which it must be interpreted. Christ is the
life of the individual believer, in Whom all
that belongs to the completeness of personal
being (v. 28, thy brother; v.11, our friend)
finds its permanence and consummation.
The same statement is made again in the
last discourses (xiv. 6 note), but in a
different connexion, and with a different
scope. Just as “the life” in combination
with “the resurrection” fixes the thought |
upon the man, so “the life” in combination‘
with “the way” and “the truth” fixes it!
upon the whole sum of existence (i. 4) » to
which every man contributes his “ indi-)
vidual difference.” Christ is the Life int
both relations, He gives unity and stability
to each man separately, and at the same
time in virtue of this to the whole creation.
St Paul expresses the same double truth
when he speaks of the believer as “ living
in Christ” (Rom. vi. 11), and of “all
things consisting in Him ” (Col. i. 17).

26. The truth is presented in its two
forms as suggested by Resurrection and
Vv. 27--31.]
lieveth in me shall never die. Believ-
est thou this?

27 She saith unto him, Yea, Lord :
I believe that thou art the Christ, the
Son of God, which should come into
the world.

28 And when she had so said, she
went her way, and called Mary her
sister secretly, saying, The Master is
come, and calleth for thee.

Sr. JOHN. XI.

169

29 As soon as she heard that,
she arose quickly, and came unto
him.

30 Now Jesus was not yet come
into the town, but was in that place
where Martha met him.

31 The Jews then which were with
her in the house, and comforted her,
when they saw Mary, that she rose
up hastily and went out, followed

 

Life. Some there were, like Lazarus, who
had believed and died, some like Martha
who yet lived and believed. Of the first it
is said that the death of earth under which
they had fallen is no real death: He that
believeth on me, though he were dead
(even if he die), shall live—shall live still,
live on even through that change, and not
resume life at some later time. And of
the second that the life of heaven shall
never be broken off: Whosoever (was)
liveth and believeth in me, he that in
that faith hath seized the true conception
of life, shall never die. To him who is in
Christ death is not what it seems to be.
The insertion of the universal term in this
clause gives amplitude to the promise.

The verse points to mysteries which have
occupied the thoughts of Eastern and also
of Western philosophers, as the famous
verses of Euripides shew, “ Who knoweth
if to live be truly death, and death be
reckoned life by those below?” (‘ Polyid.’
Fragm. vir. : comp. ‘ Phryx.’ Fragm. xiv.),
and indicates a higher form of “corporate”
life, such as St Paul expresses by the
phrase “in Christ” (Gal. ii. 20; Col. iii. 4).
Comp. xvii. 3, note,

Part of the thought is expressed in w
saying in the Talmud : “ What has man to
do that he may live? Let him die. What
has man to do that he may die? Let him
live” (‘Tamid,’ 32 a). The last words of
Edward the Confessor offer a closer
parallel: “Weep not,’ he said, “I shall
not die but live; and as I leave the land
of the dying I trust to see the blessings
of the Lord in the land of the living”
(Richard of Cirencester, 11. 292).

shall never die] According to the univer-
sal usage of St John this must be the sense
of the orignal phrase (ov juj...eis TOV
aiava), and not “shall not die for ever.”
See iv. 14, viii. 51, 52, x. 28, xiii. 8.

Believest thou this?] ie, Is this thy
belief? (miorevers rovto;) not Do you
admit my statement? (rovtw mirtevess;).

27. Martha accepts the revelation, and
then falls back upon the confession of the
faith which shehad won, She does not say
simply “TI believe,” repeating the form
given; but “I—even I—the pronoun is
emphatic—have believed”—“I have made

this belief my own.”’ And the belief which
she expresses, though it falls short techni-
cally of Christ’s declaration, being real as
far as it goes, carries all else with it. He
who holds firmly what he has gained will
find afterwards that it contains far more
than he has realised.

I have believed] Cf. iii. 18, vi. 69, xvi.
27, xx. 29; 1 John iv. 16, v. 10.

the Christ] of whom all the prophets
spake.

the Son of God] who can restore the
broken fellowship of man and His maker.

which should come (even he that cometh)
into the world] for whom in both aspects
men are ever looking. The title is
peculiar, Comp. vi, 14; Matt. xi. 3; Luke
vii. 19,

28—32. The Lord and Mary.

28. had so said] had said this: the
confession in its many parts is yet one.

she went her way (away)] Her faith an-
swering to the revelation left nothing more
to be said. She had risen above private grief,

called...secretly, saying] called, saying
secretly. In the three other places where
the adverb occurs (Matt. i. 19, ii, 7; Acts
xvi. 37) it precedes the word with which it
is connected (AdOpq eiz.). The message;
was given so that Mary might meet the
Lord alone and that the ill-feeling of the
Jews might not be called out.

The Master) used absolutely. Comp.
xx, 16, xiii. 13f.; Matt, xxvi. 18, and
parallels. The title opens « glimpse into
the private intercourse of the Lord and the
disciples : so they spoke of Him.

calleth for (calleth) thee] The conversa-
tion with Martha is evidently not related
fully. We cannot suppose (with Cyril of
Alexandria) that Martha herself framed
the message out of the general tenor of
the Lord’s words.

29. As soon (And as soon)...arose...and
came (set forth) unto him] The terms are
singularly vivid. The momentary act
(HyépOn, contrast also avertn, v, 31) is
contrasted with the continuous action
which followed (}pxXerTOo).

30. but was still in that place...) as j
though He would meet the sisters away |
from the crowd of mourners,

31. saying, She goeth...]
(Sdfavres) that she was going...

 

supposing
I

70
her, saying, She goeth unto the grave
to weep there.

32 Then when Mary was come
where Jesus was, and saw him, she

St. JOHN. XI.

[v. 32, 33.
fell down at his feet, saying unto
him, Lord, if thou hadst been here,
my brother had not died.

33 When Jesus therefore saw her

 

to weep (tvakdotop, Vulg. ut ploret))
The verb describes the continuous, almost
passionate, expression of sorrow. Comp.

 

(a 20, xx. 11 ff. So it is used especially

fl

of wailing for the dead: Matt. ii. 18;
Mark v. 38f. &c., Luke vii. 13, viii. 52;
Acts ix. 39. The word must be carefully
distinguished from that used in v. 35.

The secrecy of Martha became of no
avail, and so it came to pass that the work
was wrought in the presence of a mixed
body of spectators (Cyril),

32. Then...was come ...feet...] Mary
therefore, when she came... fell at his
\ feet with more demonstrative emotion than
Martha (v. 21), as afterwards she is repre-
sented as “ weeping,” v. 33.

Lord,...died] The words are identical
with those used by Martha save for the
significant transposition of the pronoun
(odx dy pov ar. 6 a6.), and represent without
, doubt what the sisters had said one to
| another : “If the Lord had been here. . ..”

(3) The Miracle (33—44).

The details of the working of the miracle
bring out several features not so clearly
seen elsewhere. The work is not a simple
exertion of sovereign, impassive, power.
It follows on « voluntary and deep appre-
hension of the sorrow in itself and in its
source (vv, 33—38). At the same time
the issue is absolutely known while the
present pain is fully shared (39, 40). Such
knowledge follows from the perfect sym-
pathy between the Father and the Son.
The Son’s works are the open expression
of the will of the Father which He has
recognised (41, 42).

33—40. The Lord’s grief. Faith on its
trial,

33. No conversation and no answer
follows the sister's address as_ before.
This was the climax of natural grief which
called for the act of power and not for the
word of power only.

saw her (Mary) weeping] Martha seems
to have calmly trusted to the promise of
restoration which yet she could not under-
stand (v. 39).

groaned in the spirit] The word rendered
groaned (here and in v. 38, eveBpiujoaro
TO Tvetpart, Vulg. fremuit or infremuit
spiritu), occurs in three other places in the
New Testament (Matt. ix. 30; Mark i, 43,
xtv, 5, where see notes).

In these places there is the notion of
coercion springing out of displeasure. The
feeling is called out by something seen in
another which moves to anger rather than
to sorrow, So here we may set aside those

interpretations of the word which repre-
sent the emotion as grief only. For such
a sense of the word there is no authority
at all. So much is clear that the general
notion of antagonism, or indignation, or
anger, must be taken.

But further difficulty arises as to the
construction. Is the verb absolute or not?
Is the spirit the sphere, or the instrument,
or the object of the emotion?

1. In the other passages of the New
Testament the dative of the object is
always added (and so also in Isai. xvii.
138, Symm.). If “the spirit” be the object
here, what must we then understand by
“the spirit” to which this vehement ex- /
pression of feeling is directed? (a)”Some
have supposed that “the spirit ’/here is
the seat of human feeling, which the Lord
in respect of His divine nature checked in
its intensity. But “the spirit” can hardly
describe the passionate, sympathetic side
of human nature; and this conception is
inconsistent with the words “ He troubled
Himself” which follow. (8) Others again
have taken “the spirit” fo express, ac-
cording to the common usage of the word,
that part of the Lord’s human nature
whereby He was in immediate fellowship
with His Father. And in this case two
distinct views may be taken of the sense
according as (1) the antagonism is with
that which unduly shrinks from action, or
(2) with that which unduly presses forward
to action. If we follow the first idea the
sense will be that the Lord “straitly
charged,” summoned up to vigorous con:
flict with death the spirit which might,
humanly speaking, hang back from the
terrible encounter which even through
victory would bring His own death. It
we follow the second the thought will
be that the Lord checked the momentary
impulse which arose within Him to exert
His divine power at once, and first. volun.
tarily brought Himself into complete
sympathy with the sorrow which He came
to relieve, According to the first of these
two interpretations, “vehemently moved
His spirit” would be parallel with “He
troubled Himself :” according to the
second, “He sternly checked His spirit ”
would be the complement of it. Both
interpretations fall in with the general
sense of the passage, but the second seems
to be the most natural.

2. Against this view of the construction,
which makes “‘the spirit” the object of the
verb, it may be urged that in His Spirit
(r@ wvevpart)is used elsewhere in parallé|
passages to describe the sphere of feeling
|| Gr. he
troubled
himself.

V. 34—-37-]
weeping, and the Jews also weeping
which came with her, he groaned in
the spirit, and llwas troubled,

34 And said, Where have ye laid
him? They said unto him, Lord,
come and see,

St. JOHN. XI.

171
35 Jesus wept.
36 Then said the Jews, Behold
how he loved him!
37 And some of them said, Could

not this man, dwhich opened the 2chap.9.

eyes of the blind, have caused that

 

(Mark viii. 12; Luke x. 21; John xiii. 21).
If then the verb be taken absolutely,
which appears to be justified by the use
below (€u@. é€v éavr@), what is the implied
object of the indignant antagonism? Vari-
ous answers have been given. Some have
supposed that the Lord felt indignation (a)
with the Jews as hypocritical mourners at
the scene, and soon to become traitors.
But this seems to be inconsistent with the
general tone of vv. 45 f.: and with the
parallelism of the verse (weeping, weep-
ing). Others (8) find the cause of indigna-
tion in the unbelief or misapprehension of
the Jews and even of the sisters. But
these faults have not been brought into
prominence. The emotion is stirred by the
sight of sorrow as sorrow, and not as un-
belief or distrust or disappointment.
Others again (y) think that the Lord was
indignant at the sight of the momentary
triumph of evil, as death, or personally
of Christ’s adversary the devil, who had
brought sin into the world, and death
through sin, which was here shewn under
circumstances of the deepest pathos. This
interpretation accords well with the scope
of the passage.

On the whole, therefore, the choice
seems to lie between the senses 1 (8) (2),
‘‘He sternly checked His spirit ;” and (2)
(y), ‘He groaned”—expressed, that is, in-
dignant emotion—“ in spirit.” And the
use of the word below (v. 38) leads to a
decision in favour of the second of these
renderings.

Whichever view however be taken, it
must be remembered that the miracles of
the Lord were not wrought by the simple
word of power, but that in a mysterious
way the element of sympathy entered into
them. He took away the safferings and
diseases of men in some sense by taking
them upon Himself, as is expressed in
Matt. viii. 17. So it is said (Luke viii.
46) that He knew that power “‘had gone
out from Him.’”” Compare Hebr. v. 7. It
has been suggested also that in this case
the conflict was the heavier, seeing that
Lazarus himself was called upon to undergo
a life of suffering. The reader will recall
Browning’s interpretation of his after life
in the ‘Epistle of Karshish.’

in the spirit] St John distinctly recognises
“the spirit”? (avetpa, xiii. 21, xix. 30) and
“the soul” (Yvxi, x. 11 ff., xii, 27) as
elements in the Lord’s perfect humanity,
like the other Evangelists (rvevuu, Matt.

xxvii. 50; Mark ii. 8, viii, 12; Luke x.
21, xxiii, 46; Yuya}, Matt. xx. 28, xxvi. 38,
and parallels).

was troubled] troubled Himself. It can-
not be supposed that the peculiar turn of
the phrase used here (eTdpafev éavruy,
Vulg. turbavit se ipsum), is equivalent to
was troubled (ێrapadyOn, xiii. 21, Vulg.
turbatus est). The force of it appears to
be that the Lord took to Himself freely
those feelings to which others are subject;
and this feeling of horror and indignation
He manifested outwardly. “Turbaris tu
nolens: turbatus est Christus quia voluit’’
a ad loc. Compare his note on xiii.
21).

34. Where...laid him?] The question is
remarkable as being the single place in
the Gospel where the Lord speaks as seek-
ing information. Yet see v. 17 (found).

They said (say)...) Apparently Martha
and Mary, to whom we must suppose that
the question was addressed.

come and see] The words are a strange
echo of i. 46. (Rev. vi. 1, 5, 7.)

35. wept] The exact word (éddxpucer,;
Vulg. dacrimatus est) occurs here only in,
the New Testament. It says just so much
as that “tears fell from Him.” Once it’
is recorded that Jesus “wept” with the}
sorrow of lamentation: Luke xix. 41°
(ekAavoev). This weeping was for the
death of a people, a church, and not of a
friend. Here too the death of Lazarus is‘
the type of the universal destiny of man-
hood. It must be noticed that St John
notices incidentally many traits of the
Lord’s perfect manhood : thirst (iv. 7, xix.
28), fatigue (iv. 6), love (peAeiv, xx. 2);
as in the other Gospels we find mention of
hunger (Matt. iv. 2), joy (Luke x. 21), sor- {
row (Mark iii, 5; Matt. xxvi. 38), and’
anger (Mark iii. 5).

36. Then said the Jews...] The Jews
therefore said... From vv, 45, f. it appears
that some had joined the company who
were not of Mary’s friends.

how he loved (épidAe, Vulg. amabat)
him!) Comp. xx. 2.

87. And (But)...Could not...not have
died (not die)?] It is possible that the
words are used in irony: as if the speakers
would draw the conclusion that the former
miracle must have been unreal, because no:
miracle was wrought when a deep personal }
feeling must have suggested it. Tears
shewed love, and shewed it to be power-
172
even this man should not have
died?

38 Jesus therefore again groaning
in himself cometh to the grave. It
was a cave, and a stone lay upon it.

39 Jesus said, Take ye away the
stone. Martha, the sister of him that
was dead, saith unto him, Lord, by
this time he stinketh: for he hath
been dead four days.

St. JOHN. XI.

[v. 38—42.

40 Jesus saith unto her, Said I not
unto thee, that, if thou wouldest be-
lieve, thou shouldest see the glory of
God?

41 Then they took away the stone
from the place where the dead was
laid. And Jesus lifted up his eyes,
and said, Father, I thank thee that
thou hast heard me.

42 And I knew that thou hearest

 

less. In favour of this view v. 46 (But some
of them...) may be quoted. But it is
equally possible to regard the words as
spoken in sincerity and ignorance. It can
cause no difficulty that the tidings of the
Galilean raisings from the dead had not
become current at Jerusalem (comp. Luke
viii. 56).

of the blind] of him that was blind
(Tov 7.). The phrase is a definite allusion
to the miracle recorded in ch. ix.

38. Jesus therefore] as standing in the
presence of ths conflict of grief and doubt,
and with a clear vision of the realities of
death. His emotion at this point has less
outward manifestation. If it be supposed
that the last words were spoken in
mockery, then we can see the occasion of
the new struggle.

It was (Now it was) a cave...) The caves

; used as tombs were closed by stone doors,
’ and in some cases by stones which could
{ be rolled along a ledge to the opening into
| which they were fitted: Matt. xxviii 2;
janie xxiv, 2; Mark xvi. 3, 4 (avaKexvAc-
iora.), Thus the word rendered lay upon tt
‘does not necessarily describe a pit. The
sense may be better given by laid against it.

39. Jesus said (saith) Take ye away)
Comp. xx. 1, where the other Evangelists
have rolled away or rolled hack.

Martha...saith...] Mary having once ex-
pressed her last hope remains silent.
Martha too had laid aside all present hope,
at the Lord’s bidding as she thought (vv.
93 ff.), and looked now for some future
restoration, connected it may have been
with the manifestaticn of Messiah’s glory

v. 27).

the ue of him that was dead) The
close relationship is mentioned in order to
place in a clearer light the tender solicitude
with which Martha shrinks from the dis-
closure of the ravages of death on one
nearly bound to her.

for he hath been...] It will be observed
that the Evangelist gives no support to the
exaggerated statements of later interpreters
(e.g. Augustine, ‘in Joh, Tract.’ xlix. 1,
“‘resuscitavit foetentem’”’). He simply re-
cords the natural words of the sister, who
speaks of what she believes must be, and
not of an ascertained fact.

dead four days (Terapratos, Vulg. quad-
riduanus)] The full significance of the
words appears from a passage of ‘Bereshith
R.’ (p. 1143), quoted by Lightfoot: “It is
a tradition of Ben Kaphra’s: The very}
height of mourning is not till the third |
day. For three days the spirit wanders”
about the sepulchre, expecting if it may
return into the body. But when it sees
that the form or aspect of the face is
changed [on the fourth day], then it
hovers no more, but leaves the body to it-
self.” ‘‘ After three days,”’ it is said else-!
where, ‘‘the countenance is changed.”

40. The Lord directs Martha to the
deeper meaning of His words. He does
not simply say, Thy brother shall rise
again. He answers the suggestion of cor-
ruption by the promise of ‘‘glory.’’ The
general description of the victory of faith
(v. 26) contained necessarily a special
promise. The fulfilment of that promise
was w revelation of tbe glory of God (v.
4), for which Christ had from the first en-
couraged the sisters to look. In this way
attention is called to the permanent lesson
of the sign.

41--44. The Son’s fellowship with the
Father. He quickens by His word.

41. Then (So) they took away the
stone] It was enough. No one gainsaid
the Master’s word. The remainder of the
clause (from the place...laid) must be
omitted in accordance with most ancient
authorities.

lifted up his eyes] xvii. 1.

Father] xii. 27 f.; xvii. 1, 24, 25, Matt.
xi, 25; Luke xxiii. 34, 46.

I thank thee that thou hast heard
(heardest) me] The prayer had been made
before, and the answer to the prayer had
been assured v. 4. It was nowrthe occa-
sion not for supplication but for thanks-
giving. But this thanksgiving was not for
any uncertain or unexpected gift (v, 22).
It was rather a proclamation of fellowship
with God. The sympathy in work (v. 19)
and thought between the Father and the
Son is always perfect and uninterrupted,
and now it was revealed in action. Even
in this sorrow the Son knew the end (JZ
[éy® 8€] on my part, whatever may have
been the misgivings of others, knew that
v. 43—46.]
me always: but because of the peo-
ple which stand by I said it, that
they may believe that thou hast sent
me,

43 And when he thus had spoken,

he cried with a loud voice, Lazarus,

come forth.

44 And he that was dead came
forth, bound hand and foot with grave-
clothes: and his face was bound

Sr. JOHN. XI.

173
about with a napkin. Jesus said
unto them, Loose him, and let
him go,

45 Then many of the Jews which
came to Mary, and had seen the
things which Jesus did, believed on
him.

46 But some of them went their
ways to the Pharisees, and told them
what things Jesus had done.

 

«-); but that which He knew others
denied, and by the open claim to the co-
operation of God the Lord made a last
solemn appeal to the belief of His adver-
saries.

This passage may help to an understand-
ing of the true nature of prayer in the
case of the Lord, as being the conscious
realisation of the divine will, and not a
petition for that which is contingent (comp.
1 John iii. 22). In the case of men prayer
approximates to this more and more. It
is not the setting up of the will of self,
but the apprehension and taking to self of
the divine will, which corresponds with
the highest good of the individual. Comp.
xv. 7, note.

42. At the close of v, 41 we must make
a pause. The reflection which follows is
spoken as a self-revelation to the disciples.
It will be noticed also that the Lord uses
the phrase “ because of the people (multi-
tude),” and not “because of the Jews,’
which would have been the natural phrase
of the Evangelist, if this had been, as
some have alleged, » free rendering of the
Lord’s words,

I said it] The thanksgiving for the
prayer fulfilled was the proof of the divine
mission of the Son. For by thanking God
for a work not yet seen He gave a crucial
test of His fellowship with God.

that they may believe] xvii. 21.

43. cried] xii. 18, xviii. 40, xix. 6, 12,
15.

\ with a loud voice] of intelligible com-

ah

mand (dwvz7). The contrast lies in the
muttered incantations of sorcerers.

come forth (Sevpo é€w, Vulg. veni foras))
Comp. xii. 17; Luke vii, 14, viii. 54.
Death is treated as sleep (v. 11, v. 25, 28).

44, And he...] He... The omission of
the conjunction by the best ancient
authorities increases the solemn emphasis
of the statement.

It is unnecessary to speculate how
Lazarus so bound came forth. The limbs
may have been swathed separately, as was
the Egyptian custom. :

graveclothes] or, bands ( ketpiars, Vulg.
institis) ; comp, xix. 40 (d@oviors).

napkin] xx, 7. The trait marks an eye-|
witness.

Loose...go (bmdyewv)] The simple com-
mand, made necessary by the awe of the
bystanders, corresponds with the Lord’s
action in the parallel records, Luke vii. 15
(he gave him to his mother); viii. 55
(he commanded that something be given
her to eat). The narrative leaves the
sequel untold,

(4) The immediate results of the miracle
(45—57),

The miracle was a decisive test of faith
and unbelief in those who witnessed it
(45, 46). The Jews and the Lord prepare
themselves for the end. The Council,
acting now under the influence of the
Sadducean hierarchy, decide on the death
of Christ (47—53); and Christ withdraws
from “the Jews” and waits “with His
disciples’ in retirement for the feast time,
while men anxiously look for His appear-
ance (54—57). Comp. note on Luke ix. 51,

451. Men judge of the sign according
to their nature.

45. Then... which came... had seen...)
Many therefore of the Jews, even they
that came... and beheld. ‘The Jews,”
as a general term here (comp. v. 37), seems
to include others in addition to the friends
of Mary. Curiosity may readily have led
some to join the company on their way to
the grave.

to Mary) The phrase is different from
that in v. 19 (to Martha and Mary), in
order to refer exactly to the circumstances
of v. 31.

the things which Jesus did] that which
He did. The singular, which has the best
ancient authority, as compared with the
things which (v. 46), marks the concentra-
tion of thought upon the crowning work.

46. some of them] of “the Jews,” that
is, and not as A.V, seems to express, of
“the Jews who had come to Mary.”

went their ways (away) to the Pharisees]
Comp, v. 15, ix. 13. It is not possible to |
determine their motive. It may have been ;
simple perplexity. There is no trace of {
malevolence (unless it be found in v. 37), ,
while there is, on the other hand, no trace |
I

cee

74

47 4 Then gathered the chief priests
and the Pharisees a council, and said,
What do we? for this man doeth
many miracles,

48 If we let him thus alone, all
men will believe on him: and the
Romans shall come and take away
both our place and nation.

Sr. JOHN. XI.

[v. 47—50.

49 And one of them, named Caia-
phas, being the high priest that same
year, said unto them, Ye know
nothing at all,

50 eNor consider that it is expe-¢ chap. 16,

dient for us, that one man should die 14.
for the people, and that the whole
nation perish not.

 

of faith. Want of sympathy made the
messengers the occasion of the final catas-

trophe. Comp. v. 15.
47—53. The decision of the Sanhedrin.
47. Then...chief priests] The chief
priests therefore, inasmuch as it was

evident that this last work could not but
create a popular crisis at the coming feast.

The “chief priests”—the hierarchical
Sadducean party—tske the lead. Comp.
vii. 82 (true reading). So it is through-
out: xi, 57, xii. 10, xviii. 3, 35, xix. 6, 15,
21. In the whole record after this chapter
the Pharisees are mentioned only twice (xii.
19, 42), and then in a very different aspect.

The same fact appears also in the Synoptic
narratives. The only mention of “the
Pharisees ” in the history of the Passion is
Matt. xxvii, 62 (the chief priests and
Pharisees, i.e, the Sanhedrin), while “ the
chief priests” take the place of the deadly
enemies of Christ (Matt. xxvi. 3, 14, &€.).

So also in the Acts the Pharisees never
stand out as the leading enemies of the
Christian. On the contrary, in the two
scenes where they appear they are repre-
sented as inclined to favour them: v. 34,
xxiii, 6 ff. The priests and the Sadducees
—who belonged to the same party—take
up the opposition: iv. 1, v, 17, xxii. 30,
xxiii. 14, xxv. 2. Saul, himself a Pharisee,
was their emissary (ix. 21, xxvi. 10).

a council] that is, “a meeting of the
Council.” The word (cvvédpiov, Vulg.
concilium) occurs here without the article
(Matt, x. 17 is different).

What do we?) Not simply “ What must
we do?” (Acts iv, 16, Tt roujoopev 3) as if
there were room for quiet deliberation ;
but, What are we doing? What course are
we taking? (ri wovoupev; Vulg. Quid
facimus?) The crisis for action is present
and urgent. There is no question of con-
sidering Christ’s claims, even when His
works are acknowledged. The matter is
regarded only as it affects themselves,

this man] said contemptuously : ch. ix. 16.

48. Z/ we let...] It is assumed that the
multitude will place their own interpreta-
tion upon the miracles, and set Jesus at
their head, and that He will lend Himself
to their zeal. This being so, they argue
{that the Romans will interfere with their
| power because they are unable to suppress
‘seditious risings.

take away] as something which was their
possession. They look at the hypothetical
catastrophe from its personal side as affect-
ing themselves. The two finite verbs;
(¢Xetcovras Kal dpovotv), instead of th
participle and finite verb, give distinctio

to each element in the picture. Comp. xv. 16!

both our place and our nation) the visible
seat of the theocracy, the Temple and the
City (comp. Acts vi. 18, xxi. 28; [Matt.
xxiv, 15]), and our civil organization.

49. And (But) one of them, named
Caiaphas...] Comp. xviii. 18, note; Matt.
xxvi. 3, note; Acts v. 17.

being...year] being high-priest that year.
The phrase is added not as though the]
office were annual, but to bring out that at*
this last crisis of the fate of the Jews
Caiaphas was the religious head of th
nation. So he spoke as their mouthpiece.
Nothing can be more natural than that in
the recollection of St John the year of the
death of Christ—the end and the begin-
ning—should stand out conspicuously from
all history as “the year of the Lord.”
That Caiaphas was high-priest “in that
year” (v. 51, xviii. 18) gave its character
to his pontificate. Comp. c. xx, 19 (note) ;
Mark iv. 35 (that day).

Ye know nothing] Ye (ipeis), who
dwell on these scruples and these fears, do
not even know the simplest rule of states-
manship, that one must be sacrificed to
many. The emphatic pronoun is bitterly
contemptuous. The unscrupulous Sadducee
(Acts v, 17) contrasts the timid irresolution
of mere Pharisees with his own clear policy
of death (comp, xii. 19). They could not
even see their own interest; they were
dreaming of some kind of restraint when
they might make use of a convenient
victim. This thought brings out the force
of the clause which follows: “nor consider
(Aoyifer Ge) that it is expedient for you”
(not for us).

50. the people...the...nation...) The?
former title (Aads) marks the divine red
lationship: the latter (€0vos) the civil
organization. Comp. Acts xxvi, 17, 23}
1 Pet. ii. 9f.; (Luke ii. 10).

The word “nation” is applied to the
Jews: Luke vii. 5, xxiii, 2, (John xviii.
35); Acts x. 22, xxiv, 2, 10, 17, xxvi. 4,
xxviii, 19; and so constantly in the LXX.,

 
|

v. 51—56.]

51 And this spake he not of him-
self: but being high priest that year,
he prophesied that Jesus should die
for that nation;

52 And not for that nation only,
but that also he should gather toge-
ther in one the children of God that
were scattered abroad.

53 Then from that day forth they
took counsel together for to put him
to death.

54 Jesus therefore walked no more

St. JOHN. XI.

openly among the Jews; but went
thence into a country near to the
wildeiness, into a city called Ephraim,
and there continued with his disciples.
55 | And the Jews’ passover was
nigh at hand: and many went out
of the country up to Jerusalem before
the passover, to purify themselves.
56 Then sought they for Jesus,
and spake among themselves, as they
stood in the temple, What think ye,
that he will not come to the feast ?

 

eg. Exod. xxxiii, 1. This use is wholly
distinct from that of the plural, “the
nations” (rd €6vy).

5l. And...spake...that nation] Now
this he said...the nation. The high-priest
represented the divine headship of the
Jews, and it was through him that an
inspired decision was given on questions
of doubt: Num. xxvii, 21. The true
priest is, as Philo says, a prophet (‘De
Creat. Princ.’ 8, 11. p. 367). Here, in
virtue of his office, Caiaphas so utters his
own thoughts as to pronounce a sentence
of God unconsciously. By a mysterious
irony he interpreted the results of the
death of Christ truly, though in a way
directly opposite to that which he appre-
hended. Something of the irony which
reaches its climax here is found in other
parts of the Gospel : vii. 41, 42, xix. 21.

52. that nation] the nation. St John
idoes not repeat the word “people.” The
Jews at this crisis had ceased to be “a
people.” They were a “nation ” only, as one
of the nations of the world. The elements
of the true “people” were scattered
throughout the world, as Jews, and Jews
of the Dispersion, and Gentiles.

gather together into one] Not as locally
united, but as partaking in 4 common life
and relationship through and to Him.
Comp. x. 16, xvii. 28. “The Christian at
Rome feels the Indian to be one of his
members, and the Christ the Head of all”
(Chrysostom).

the children of God ...] These “scattered
children of God” were truly “children of
God,” though they had not as yet received
the full knowledge of their Father. Comp.
x. 16. The title is not given by anticipa-
tion, but by a revelation of the true essence
of things. They were the constituents of
the new “people” (xii. 32; 1 John ii. 2),
even as they witnessed to the original filial
‘relation of man as man to God. The term
scattered abroad (Vulg. filios dei qui erant
dispersi) marks a broken unity and not
only wide dispersion (Matt. xxvi. 31; Acts
v. 37). Such is the state of mankind in
telation to its divine original.

53. Then from...took counsel together]
So from...took counsel, That which had
been a desire before (v. 18), now became
settled plan. St John marks the growtl
of the hostility step by step: v. 16 ff., (vii
1), vii. 32, 45 ff., viii, 59, ix, 22, x. 39,

54—57.
suspense,

54. Jesus therefore...) withdrawing
Himself from unnecessary perils,

walked] vii. 1,

openly] Comp. vii. 4.

went (departed)...unto a (the) country]
That is, the country as opposed to the
parts about Jerusalem, as in the next verse.

Ephraim] Apparently the place mentioned
with Beth-el in 2 Chro. xiii, 19 (Ophrah).
In this case “the wilderness” is the wild
country N.H. of Jerusalem.

continued...disciples] he abode (uecvev)
with the disciples,

55. And (Now) the Jews’ passover] ii. 13
(otherwise in vi. 4), The contrast between
the Jewish passover and “the Christian
passover ” is distinctly before the mind of
the Evangelist (1 Cor, v. 7).

to purify themselves] Acts xxi. 24 ff.;
ch, xviii. 28. For the passover absolute
ritual purity was required by the general
though not by a specific law of Moses:
Lev. vii. 21. Comp. Num, ix. 10; 2 Chro.
xxx. 17 ff. “Every man,” saith R. Isaac,
“is bound to purify himself for the feast ”
(‘Rosh Hashanah’ xvi, 2. Lightfoot).
The phrase was transferred to a spiritual
use, 1 John iii, 3.

56. Then...Jesus] They sought for Jesus
therefore...as remembering the events of
the last Feast, x. 22 ff. Comp. vii. 11 ff.

spake among themselves] spake one with
another... The phrase (éAeyov pds aAX.)
seems to describe the many knots of
questioners gathered from time to time.

as they stood in the temple] the scene of
Christ’s teaching.

What think ye? think ye that...?7] The
words appear to be spoken in mere
curiosity, without love or hatred.

A space of retirement and

175
176

57 Now both the chief priests and
the Pharisees had given a command-
ment, that, if any man knew where
he were, he should shew it, that they
might take him,

CHAPTER XII,

I Jesus excuseth Mary anointing his feet. 9
The people flock to see Lazarus. 10 The
high priests consult to killhim, 12 Christ
rideth into Jerusalem. 20 Greeks desire
to see Jesus. 23 He foretelleth his death.
37 The Jews are generally blinded: 42 yet

St. JOHN. XI. XII.

[v.57—3-
many chief rulers believe, but do not
confess him: 44 therefore Jesus calleth
earnestly for confession of faith.

HEN Jesus six days before the
passuver came to Bethany,
where Lazarus was which had been
dead, whom he raised from the dead.
2 There they made him a supper;
and Martha served : but Lazarus was
one of them that sat at the table with

him.
3 Then took Mary a pound of

 

57. Now (omit both) the chief priests...]
This was known, and hence came the
anxious questionings of the people.

given a commandment] given commands.
The plural seems to be on the whole the
most probable reading. In either case the
phrase implies that particular instructions
had been given, and not only a general
direction,

2. The close of Christ’s public ministry
(xii.),

St John’s narrative differs from that of
the Synoptists as to the close of the Lord’s
ministry, as it differs throughout, but in a
converse manner. Hitherto he has recorded
a controversy at Jerusalem which they
omit. At the last visit they record a
controversy which he omits. The omission
follows from the structure of his gospel.
He has already traced the conflict with
Judaism in its essential features, and he
has therefore no need to dwell on the
final discussion which made clear to all
what he has shewn in its successive stages.
Hence he closes his record of the public
ministry with three typical scenes in which
the relation of the Lord to the disciples, to
the multitude, and to the larger world
outside is imaged, with a dark background
of unbelief (xii, 1—36); and then he gives
two summary judgments on the whole
issue of Christ’s work (37—50).

(1) The feast of Bethany (1—11).

This narrative must be compared with
the Synoptic parallels (Matt. xxvi. 6 ff.;
Mark xiv. 3 ff.), and contrasted with Luke
vii, 36 ff. The event is transposed without
any definite mark of time in the Synoptic
narrative, in order to bring it into close
connexion with the treachery of Judas
which was called out by it. See notes on
the passages referred to. In the incident
recorded by St Luke the central fact is the
washing of the Lord’s feet “with tears.”
The sinner and the friend were equal in
their devotion, yet widely separated in the
manner in which they shewed it,

Cnap. XII. 1. Then Jesus...) Jesus
therefore... or, So Jesus... Such being the
time (xi. 55) and the general circumstances

(xi. 56 £.). The idea is suggested that!
“the hour” was now come (viii. 20). i

six days before...) That is, apparently,
on the 8th Nisan. See Matt. xxi. 1, note.
If, as has been shewn to be the case (Matt.
xxvi, additional note), the Crucifixion took
place on the 14th Nisan, and if, which
seems to be less certain, that day was a
Friday, the date given by St John falls
on the Sabbath. It must then be supposed
that the feast took place in the evening
after the close of the Sabbath. If the!
Passion fell on Thursday, for which strong
reasons can be adduced (‘Introd. to
Gospels,’ pp. 344 ff.), the arrival at Bethany
took place on Friday. In this case the
Sabbath was kept a day of rest, and
followed by the feast. On either supposi-
tion the entrance into Jerusalem was made
on the Sunday, the next (natural) day.

St John appears to mark the period as
the new Hexaemeron, a solemn period of !
“six days,” the time of the new Creation. ?
His Gospel begins and closes with a sacred;
week (comp, i. 29, 35, 48, ii. 1.).

came to Bethany] having joined the
Paschal gathering from Galilee through
Perea near Jericho: Luke xviii. 35 and
parallels. This pause at Bethany is not
mentioned in the Synoptists; but there is
nothing surprising in the omission. St
Matthew and St Mark mention that during’
the days which followed the Lord “ went}
out to Bethany” at night. (Matt. xxi. 173i
Mark xi. 11. Comp. Luke xxi 37.) ,

where Lazarus...the dead] We must read
with the best ancient authorities, where
Lazarus was whom Jesus raised from the
dead. There is a solemn emphasis in the
repetition of the Lord’s name.

2. There...supper] They (probably the
people of the village) made him therefore...
supper there. The feast was a grateful
recognition of the work done among them
(therefore). The mention of Lazarus as
one of those present hardly falls in with
the idea that he and his sisters were the‘
hosts. From Matt. xxvi. 6, Mark xiv. 4,
it appears that the feast was held in the
house of “‘Simon the leper.”
v.4—7.]
ointment of spikenard, very costly,
and anointed the feet of Jesus, and
wiped his feet with her hair : and the
house was filled with the odour of the
ointment.

4 Then saith one of his disciples,
Judas Iscariot, Simon’s son, which
should betray him,

Sr. JOHN. XII.

177
5 Why was not this ointment sold
for three hundred pence, and given
to the poor?
6 This he said, not that he cared
for the poor; but because he was a

thief, and ¢had the bag, and bare ¢ gbap, 15.

what was put therein.
7 Then said Jesus, Let her alone:

 

2, 3. Martha and Mary at this common
feast still fulfil their characteristic parts.

3. Then took Mary...) Mary therefore
took...feeling by a divine intuition the full
significance of the festival. The act of
anointing was symbolic of consecration to
a divine work. This Mary felt to be im-
minent. The name is not mentioned in
the Synoptic narrative.

a pound (Xirpav, Vulg. litram)] xix. 39,
note. St Matthew and St Mark say sim-
ply, ‘‘a flask” (aAdBacrpov). The word
(Atrpa) was current among Jewish writers.

Comp. Buxtorf, s. v. xy.

of spikenard) The original phrase which
occurs here and in St Mark (vdpdov mic-
TuKns, Vulg. nardi pistici here and nardi
spicati in St Mark) is of uncertain mean-
ing. See note on Mark xiv. 3. In later
Greek the epithet (aioTeKés) is used in the
sense of “trustworthy,” and it may mean
here ‘“‘ genuine,” ‘‘pure;” or it may mean
“liquid” (aivw). Perhaps it is best to sup-
pose that it is a local technical term.

the feet...his feet...) The repetition is
significant, and so is the order of the
original in the second clause: with her hair
his feet. The Synoptists mention only the
pouring on the head.” This was an or-
'dinary mark of honour: Ps. xxiii. 5.

the house...ointment] The detail is pecu-
liar to St John, and is one of those minute
points which belong only to a personal im-
pression at the time. The keen sense of
the fragrance belongs to experience and
not to imagination.

4. Then...Judas Iscariot] But Judas
Iscariot, one of his disctples...satth...
Omit, with the best ancient authorities,
Simon’s son. These words are practically
undisturbed in the three other places where
they occur: vi. 71, xiii. 2, 26.

which should betray him] The purpose is
represented as already present if hitherto
undefined. Now it took shape. Judas
expressed what others felt (the disciples,
Matt. xxvi. 8; some, Mark xiv. 4). With
him the thought answered to an evil spirit :
with them it was a passing suggestion. It
is natural that St John should assign to
one that which truly belonged to him only,

The parts of Mary and Judas in respect
ta the death of Christ are brought into
sharp contrast. Mary in her devotion un-
consciously provides for the honour of the

dead. Judas in his selfishness uncon-
sciously brings about the death itself.

5. three hundred pence] The same sum
is mentioned in Mark xiv. 5. (So also Let
her alone, v. 7.) Comp. Plin. ‘H. N.’ xii. 54
(25).

and given] i.e. the price of it.

the poor} The omission of the definite
article in the original gives emphasis to
the character as distinguished from the
class. Comp. Matt. xi. 5; Luke xviii. 22.

The poor were not forgotten, as may be
gathered from xiii. 29. And Christ Him-
self was the true image of the poor, as the
poor hereafter were to be of Him.

6. This he said...] Now this he said...

and had the bag, and bare...) and having
the bag took what... The word “took”
(€Bdoratev, Vulg. portabat and exporta-
bat) can from the context gain the sense
took away: ch. xx. 15; and so it appears
to be used here. If the simple meaning,
bare, be adopted the force of the addition
will be: ‘‘He was a thief, and from his
position he could indulge his avarice at
the expense of the disciples.”

the bag] _—‘ The box, or chest (yAwoos-
kopov, Vulg. loculos). The word was
adopted in Rabbinic. See Buxtorf, s, v.

xpopy>?-

The question has been asked why the
office, which was itself a temptation, was as-
signed to Judas? The answer, so far as
an answer can be given, seems to lie in the
nature of things. Temptation commonly
comes to us through that for which we
are naturally fitted. Judas had gifts of
management, we may suppose, and so also
the trial which comes through the oppor-
tunity of self-conquest.

7. Let her alone...) The general sense
of the answer is clear. This offering was
but the beginning of the work indicated
by it, and yet in itself most significant.
The anointing to the sacred office was an
anointing forthe tomb. Judas found fault
with an unfruitful expenditure. The words
of the Lord shew that there is that which is
unfruitful directly, and yet in accordance
with our instincts. No one grudges the
gifts of affection to the dead; and this
natural sacrifice of love, acknowledged by
all, Mary had made, though she knew not
the full import of the act. The anointing
was in truth the first stage in an embalm-
ing. Death would give the opportunity of
178
against the day of my burying hath
she kept this.

8 For the poor always ye have
with you; but me ye have not
always.

9 Much people of the Jews there-
fore knew that he was there: and
they came not for Jesus’ sake only,
but that they might see Lazarus also,
whom he had raised from the dead.

Sr. JOHN. XII.

[v. 8—12.

io 7 But the chief priests con-
sulted that they might put Lazarus
also to death ;

rr Because that by reason of him
many of the Jews went away, and
believed on Jesus.

12 4 &On the next day much peo- 6 Matt. 21

ple that were come to the feast, when
they heard that Jesus was coming to
Jerusalem,

 

completing what was begun; and that was
rightly done which would find its fulfilment
in the preparation for the burial.

The words as given in the Synoptists
(Matt. xxvi. 12; Mark xiv. 8) dwell on the
present import of the deed. St John recog-
nises this, but points also to some further
fulfilment which should follow.

against the day...she kept this] The read-
ing which is supported by preponderant
authority gives this sense: Suffer her to
keep it for the day of my preparation for
burial (Vulg. ut in die sepulture mee servet
illud). The interpretation of these words
is difficult. If, as appears at first sight
from the Synoptic parallels, the ointment
was poured out, in what sense could it be
said to be kept? Two explanations have
been proposed: “Let her alone: she hath
done all this, she hath preserved her trea-
sure unsold, that she might keep it formy
preparation for burial.’”’ And again:
“Suffer her to keep it—this was her pur-
pose, and let it not be disturbed—for my
preparation for burial.” Both explanations
seem to fall in with the context. The lat-
ter perhaps with its apparent paradox: is to
be preferred, and the idiom by which a
speaker throws himself into the past, and
regards what is done as still a purpose, is
common to all languages. It may, how-
ever, be questioned whether the Synoptists
describe the consumption of the whole of
the large amount of ointment mentioned by
St John (karéyeev, Matt. xxvi. 7; Mark
xiv, 3). Part may have been used for this
preliminary, unconscious, embalming, and
part reserved.

of my burying] of my preparation for
burial (€vradiacpov). This preparation,
the Lord implies, was now begun, though
it was completed afterwards (xix. 40).
Mary had done her part.

8. always ye have) Comp. Deut. xv. 11.

me ye have not always] For the other
side of this truth see Matt. xxviii. 20 (xxv.
40). The juxtaposition by Christ of Him-
self and the poor is a revelation of His
claims.

It is remarkable that the promise of the
future record of the act of love (Matt.
xxvi. 18; Mark xiv. 9) is omitted by the

one evangelist who gives the name of the
woman who shewed this devotion to her
Master.

9. Much...Jews] The common people
(6 6xAos wodts, according to the most
probable reading, in which the two words
6. 7. form a compound noun, as in v. 12)
therefore of the Jews...as contrasted here
with their leaders (v. 10).

of the Jews] The original is not a simple
genitive. A preposition is used (ex, Vulg.
ex) to mark the class out of which the
multitude was formed. Comp. vi. 60, xvi,
17, iii, 1, vii, 48.

therefore] The report of the feast was
naturally noised abroad.

knew] i.e. came to know: learnt.

came] perhaps on the evening of the
Sabbath, when the feast took place.

not for Jesus’ sake (Sia 7, '1.)...but that
(aA iva)... The Evangelist gives the
general and the specific purpose.

10. the chief priests] Here, as before,
they are prepared for decisive measures.
The sacrifice of the ‘‘one man’’ (xi. 50)
soon involved the sacrifice of more.

11. went away] withdrew from their
company (drjyov, Vulg. abibant).

(2) The triumphal entry into Jerusalem
(14—19).

In this incident again St John’s narra-
tive is parallel to that of the Synoptists,
but more exact in details. The Synoptists
say nothing of the rest at Bethany; and
it appears at first sight as if they placed
the triumphal entry on the same day as
the journey from Jericho (Matt, xx. 29 ff.
and parallels). And yet in each case there
is the sign of a break: Matt. xxi, 1;
Luke xix. 29. And the return to Bethany
noticed by St Mark (xi. 11) suggests at
least that village for the starting point.
The same passage of St Mark shews that
the expulsion of the traders took place on
the next day. So that it may be reasonably
conjectured that the entry did not take
place till the afternoon, when the Lord had
time only to regard the whole state of
things without doing any special work.

12. the next day] The day after the
feast, according to the natural reckoning,
i.e, on the morning of Sunday the 10th
« Zech. 9. 9.

v. 13—19.]

13 Took branches of palm trees,
and went forth to meet him, and
cried, Hosanna : Blessed is the King
of Israel that cometh in the name of
the Lord.

14 And Jesus, when he had found
a young ass, sat thereon; as it is
written,

15 ¢Fear not, daughter of Sion:
behold, thy King cometh, sitting on
an ass’s colt.

16 These things understood not his
disciples at the first : but when Jesus

Nisan, in which the lamb was set apart,
if the Crucifixion is placed on Thursday,
Nisan 14.

much people (the common people) that
were come...) contrasted again with the
common people of the Jews. These were
Galileans.

when they heard] from those who re-
turned from Bethany. The whole narra-
tive must be compared with Matt. xxi. 1
ff.; Mark xi. 1 ff.; Luke xix. 29 ff. in
order to gain a sense of the tumultuous
excitement of the scene. At last Christ
yielded on the eve of the Passion to the
enthusiasm of the people: vi. 15.

18. branches of palm trees] the branches
(ra Baia) of the palm-trees which grew by
the wayside. Compare 1 Mace. xiii. 51,
the triumphal entry of Simon into Jerusa-
lem. In Matt. xxi. 8; Mark xi. 8, the
language is more general: ‘“ branches
(xAa8ous)” or ‘litter (o7¢4Badas) from the
trees.”

Hosanna] Ps. cxviii. (cxvii.) 25 (LXX.
(cGcov 67). This Psalm appears to have
been written as the dedication Psalm of the
Second Temple; or, according to others, at
the laying of its foundation-stone. In
either case the significance of the reference
is obvious. It has also been supposed that
this Psalm was written for the Feast of
Tabernacles after the return (Ezra iii, 1
ff.). See note ad loc. If this were so the
use of the palm-branches would gain a new
force. The Psalm at present occupies a
conspicuous place in the Jewish service for
the New Moon.

The words Blessed...Lord in the Psalm
are spoken by the Priest and Levites as a
welcome to the worshippers at the temple.

Blessed...Lord) According to the true
orders: Blessed is He that cometh in the
name of the Lord, even the King of Israel.
The divine mission and the national work
are set side by side, as in i. 49.

14. when he had found) St John is silent
as to the method of “finding” detailed by
the Synoptists.

@ young ass] Comp. Mark xi. 2; Luke
xix, 30 (rwAov); Matt. xxi. 2 (dvov...cal
mawdoyv ).

St. JOHN. XII.

was glorified, then remembered they
that these things were written of him,
and that they had done these things
unto him,

17 The people therefore that was
with him when he called Lazarus
out of his grave, and raised him from
the dead, bare record.

18 For this cause the people also
met him, for that they heard that he
had done this miracle.

1g The Pharisees therefore said
among themselves, Perceive ye how

15. Fear not...) Zech. ix. 9. The ac-
tion is a distinct symbol of humility. The
Lord was separated indeed from the crowd,
but yet in the humblest way. The stress
must be laid not on the literal coincidence,
but upon the fulfilment of the idea which
the sign conveyed.

16. These things...] the circumstances of
the entry, the riding on the ass. The
threefold repetition of the words is to be
noticed.

understood not] Comp. ii. 22, vii. 39;
(Luke xxiv. 25f.). This entry was not ap-
prehended in its true bearing till the As-
cension had shewn the spiritual nature of
the Lord’s sovereignty.

glorified] v. 23 note.

they had done] The Evangelist assumes
as known.the part which the disciples had
taken, though he has not himself spoken of
it.

17. The people (multitude) therefore that
was with him when he...bare record (wit-
ness)] To ‘‘ bear witness’’ is used absolutely
ag in xix. 85. The phrase seems to imply
more than simple attestation, and to carry
with it some interpretation of the fact.

therefore] as stirred by the spiritual ex-
citement of this great crisis.

when he called...and raised...] The parts
of the miracle are distinguished just as
they would be in the impressions of a spec-
tator, and the speciality brings the scene
forward as it was now described by those
who had seen it.

18. For this cause the people (multi-
tude)...for that...] Comp. v. 16 note; x. 17.
19. The Pharisees therefore said...) In
kind of irresolute despair. Their own plans
had failed; and only the unscrupulous
designs of ‘‘the chief priests’ remained.
“Signs” (v. 18) are a “‘trial,” a ‘‘ tempta-
tion” in the significant language of Deu-
teronomy (MD; Deut. iv. 34, vii. 19,

xxix. 8).

among themselves] as one body, and no
longer part of a mixed assembly.

Perceive ye...) Ye behold (Oewpetre,
Vulg. videtis)... The words are a natural
example of the way in which men blame
the leaders who carry out their own coun-

N

179
180

ye prevail nothing ? behold, the world
is gone after him,

20 § And there were certain
Greeks among them that came up to
worship at the feast :

21 The same came therefore to
Philip, which was of Bethsaida of
Galilee, and desired him, saying, Sir,
we would see Jesus.

sels. Some have strangely supposed that
the words were spoken by the secret
friends of the Lord. The verb may be
imperative (as A.V.), but the indicative
appears to be more likely.

behold (lo), the world...] The confession
of the Samaritans (iv. 42) is fulfilled by
this confession at Jerusalem. Wetstein
gives Talmudic examples of the use of the
phrase.

is gone away] So “they lost what they
looked upon as their own” (Cyril).

(8) The petition of the Greeks, The
heavenly voice. The last warning
(20—36a).

This section contains the only incident
which St John has recorded from the
eventful days between the entry into
Jerusalem and the evening of the Last
Supper. The time at which it occurred is
not given distinctly, but from v. 36 it ap-
pears to have happened at the close of the
conflict. It forms indeed the conclusion of
the history. New characters appear on
the scene, and the method and extent of
the Lord’s future sovereignty are plainly

foreshewn (v. 32).

The narrative consists of three parts : the
request (20—22) ; the answer, and the voice
from heaven (23—38); the last warning (34
—36 a).

20—22. These Greeks at the close of
the Lord’s Life bring the Gentile world
into fellowship with Him as the Magi had
done at the beginning. The tradition
(Euseb. ‘H. E.’ 1, 13) of the mission of
Abgarus of Edessa has probably some
reference to their request. The locality of
the scene is not fixed. It may reasonably
be placed in the outer court of the temple
(v. 29),

20. And (Now)...certain Greeks (“EA-
Anves)] apparently proselytes of the gate;
not Greek-speaking Jews (‘EAAnvicrai),
nor yet simply heathen, seeing that they
“came up” to the feast, though whole
burnt-offerings of Gentiles were accepted,
See Lightfoot ad loc. Comp. ch. vii. 35;
Acts xvii. 4, (viii. 27, x. 1).

that came up] that went up ( avaBatvov=
twv). The Evangelist places himself out-
side the Holy City (ii. 18, v. 1, xi. 55).

21. to Philip] Philip’s Greek name may
indicate a foreign connexion. There wasa
considerable Greek population in Decapo-

Sr. JOHN. XII.

[v. 20—24.

22 Philip cometh and telleth An-
drew : and again Andrew and Philip
tell Jesus.

23 4 And Jesus answered them,
saying, The hour is come, that the
Son of man should be glorified.

24 Verily, verily, I say unto you,
Except a corn of wheat fall into
the ground and die, it abideth alone :

lis; and the mention of Philip’s place of
abode suggests some local reason for ap-
plying to him.

Sir] The glory of the Master gives hon-
our to the disciple.

we would see Jesus} They use the
human name and not the name of the
office: the Christ. With them we may
suppose that the Messianic hope passed
into the larger hope of the “ Saviour of the
world” (iv. 42), so far as it assumed any
definiteness.

see] Come into the presence of and then
lay our thoughts before him.

22. telleth Andrew] He is unwilling
without further counsel to grant or to re-
fuse the strange request to bring Gentiles
to the Lord. Comp. Matt. xv. 24.

Andrew] Andrew and Philip appear in
connexion again i. 44, vi. 7, 8. Comp.
Mark iii, 18.

and again...Jesus] Andrew cometh and
Philip; and they tell Jesus. Andrew takes
the first place. Comp. i. 41 ff. The
change from the singular to the plural seems
to mark the manner in which they gain
courage together to bear the request to
their Master.

23—36 a. The answer involves far
more than the mere admission of the Greeks
to the Lord’s Presence. The extension of
the Gospel to the world rests on the Death
of Christ, on His rejection by His own
people. This is on all sides a mystery,
partly intelligible by what we see (23—26),
yet, like a divine voice, only intelligible
to those who receive it with sympathy
(27—83), while the time of trial is short
(34—36 a).

23. Jesus answered (answereth) them]
the disciples. Probably the Greeks came
with the disciples. The Lord then in their
hearing, and in the hearing of the multi-
tude, unfolded the deepest significance of
their request in relation to the consumma-
tion of His own work. It is not easy to
suppose either that the interview with the
Greeks preceded v, 23, or that the inter-
view was refused, or that it followed after
this scene. On the other hand St John
has preserved just so much of what was
said in reply to their request as gives the
permanent interpretation of the incident
and no more.

The hour is come] The inquiry of the
Greeks heralded the proclamation of the
a Matt. 19.
39.

v. 25—27.]

but if it die, it bringeth forth much
fruit.

25 @He that loveth his life shall
lose it; and he that hateth his life
in this world shall keep it unto life
eternal.

St. JOHN. XII.

26 If any man serve me, let him
follow me; and where I am, there
shall also my servant be: if any man
serve me, him will my Father honour.

27 Now is my soul troubled; and
what shall I say? Father, save me

 

Gospel to the Gentiles. For this the
Passion and the Resurrection were the
necessary conditions. Comp. x. 15 ff.

The hour] xiii. 1, note.

that the Son of man...) The sentence
stands in contrast with xi. 4. There the
central idea is that of the Son as the
representative of the Father in power:
here that of the Son as the representative
of humanity.

that (iva) should be...) This issue was
part of the divine counsel. Comp. xiii. 1,
xvi, 2 note, 32.

be glorified] The glory of the Son of man
lay in the bringing to Himself of all men
(v. 32) by the Cross, and rising through
death above death (comp. v. 32,note). In
this victory over death there is the
complete antithesis to the Greek view of
life, in which death was hidden. Comp.
v, 16, vii. 39, xiii. 31 note, xvii. 1 note,
ii, 11.

24—27. The fact which has been an-
nounced in v. 28 (that...be glorified) is
illustrated in three successive stages. It
is shewn that fuller life comes through
death, glory through sacrifice, first by an
example from nature (v. 24), then in the
experience of discipleship (v. 25 f), and
lastly in relation to the Lord’s Own work :
He came that He might lay down His life

in order to take it again (v. 27. Comp.
x. 17).
24. Verily, verily...) The law of higher

life through death is shewn in the simplest
analogy. Every nobler form of being pre-
supposes the loss of that which precedes.

a corn of wheat] the corn..., that ele-
ment which has in it the principle of the
new growth. Comp. 1 Cor, xv. 36 f.

fall into the ground] separated, that is,
from all in which it had lived before. The
same act is on one side a sowing and on
the other a falling.

it abideth by itself alone (avtds povos)]
In this sense isolation is truly death. Comp.
vi. 51, note.

25. The general truth of v. 24 is pre-
sented in its final antithesis in relation to
human life. Sacrifice, self-surrender,
death, is the condition of the highest life :
selfishness is the destruction of life. The
language is closely parallel to words re-
corded by the Synoptists: Matt. x. 38 f.;
Luke xvii. 33.

loveth...hateth his life] The original word
(yxy) rendered ‘‘ life’ here and “soul”
in v. 27 is comprehensive, and describes
that which in each case expresses the ful-

ness of man’s continuous being. He who
seeks to gather round himself that which
is perishable, so far perishes with it: he
who divests himself of all that is of this
world only, so far prepares himself for the
higher life.

shall lose it] loseth it, or perhaps de-
stroyeth it (dmoAXver). The selfish man
works his own destruction. Comp. Matt.
x. 39, xvi. 25; Luke ix, 24,

hateth] Luke xiv. 26, note.

in this world] so far as it is bound up
with that which is outward and transitory.
“This world” is opposed to the kingdom
of Christ.

26. The truth expressed in vv, 24, 25 is
applied specially to the claims of disciple-
ship. Service is progressive (comp. xxi.
19 ff.), and the effort of “ following’ does
not fail of its issue. Even now the disciple
is with his Master (Col. iii. 3; comp. xiv.
3, xvii. 24). The ‘“‘me” is in each case
emphatic; and the repetition of the pro-
nouns in the original is remarkable (éo0é,
épol, ey, 6 €p0s). .

follow] Comp. xxi. 19 ff., xiii. 33, 36.
“Ubi bene erit sine illo? aut quando esse
male poterit cum illo?” (Aug. ad loc.)

if any man...my (the) Father honour]
There is a significant change of order in
this clause. The emphasis lies on any one,
Jew or Greek, and not on me as before.
He who honours is not described as “my
Father,”’ but as ‘‘the Father,” the Father
of the Son and of the believer. Comp.
Additional Note on iv. 21.

27. That which is true of the believer is
true also of Christ. He gains His glory
through suffering (Phil. ii. 9); and so He
turns now from the general law to its per-
sonal application to Himself.

It will be noticed that in the life of the
Lord we constantly find transitions from
joy to sorrow (comp. Luke xix. 38 ff., 41
ff.); and conversely (Matt. xi. 20 ff., 25
ff.).

my soul (vx7)] in which was gathered
up the fulness of present human life (v. 25,
note). Comp. x. 11 ff.; Matt. xx. 28,
xxvi. 38; Mark x. 45, xiv. 34; Acts ii. 27.
With this “the spirit ” is contrasted xi. 33,
note. The “soul” (Yvx7, Vulg. anima)
is the seat of the human affections: the
“spirit” (avevpa, Vulg. spiritus) is the
seat of the religious affections, by which
man holds converse with God.

is...troubled) The shock has come al-
ready, but the effects continue (terdpaxrar,
Vulg. turbata est; comp. xi. 33, note). The

181
182

from this hour: but for this cause
came I unto this hour.

28 Father, glorify thy name. Then
came there a voice from heaven, say-
ing, I have both glorified it, and will
glorify it again.

presence and the petition of the Greeks
foreshadowed the judgment on the ancient
people, and brought forward the means
by which it would be accomplished. The
prospect of this catastrophe was perhaps
the crisis of the Lord’s present conflict.

what shall I (what must 1) say?) The
conflict, as at the Temptation, is a real one.
The thought of a possible deliverance is
present though not admitted.

Father...hour] These words have been
interpreted in two very different modes.
Some have taken them as part of the in-
terrogation: “Shall I say, save me from
this hour?” and others have taken them as
a real prayer. Against the former inter-
pretation it may be urged that it does not
fall in with the parallel clause which fol-
lows: Father, glorify Thy name; nor with
the intensity of the passage; nor yet with
the kindred passages in the Synoptists
(Matt. xxvi. 39 and parallels),

If then the words be taken as a prayer
for deliverance it is important to notice
the exact form in which it is expressed.
The petition is for deliverance out
of (caoovex, Vulg. salvifica me ex hora
hac) and not for deliverance from (az)
the crisis of trial. So that the sense ap-
pears to be “bring me safely out of the
conflict” (Hebr. v. 7), and not simply
“keep me from entering it.’’ Thus the
words are the true answer to the preceding
question. ‘In whatever way it may be
Thy will to try me, save me out of the
deep of affliction.” There is complete
trust even in the depth of sorrow. Comp.
Matt. 1. ¢.

If this sense be adopted the adversative
particle which follows (but...) has the
meaning : ‘‘ Nay, this I need not say: the
end is known.” The petition might seem
to imply uncertainty, but here there was
none. If, on the other hand, the words
are taken as a prayer for deliverance from
the conflict, or interrogatively, the but is
a simple corrective: ‘‘ Nay, this I cannot
say, for I came to sustain it.”

for this cause] Christ came that He
might enter into the last conflict with sin
and death, and being saved out of it win
a triumph over death by dying. If the
failure of Israel was a chief element in the
Lord’s sorrow, this was a step towards the
universal work which He came to accom-
plish (Rom. xi. 11.) Some have supposed
that the words are anticipatory of the
prayer which follows: ‘I came that Thy
name mght be glorified.” This thought,
however, is more naturally included in the

Sr. JOHN. XIL

[v. 28—3o.

29 The people therefore, that stood by,
and heard it, said that it thundered :
others said, An angel spake to him.

30 Jesus answered and said, This
voice came not because of me, but
for your sakes.

former interpretation. The name of the
Father was glorified by the Son’s absolute
self-sacrifice,

28. Father, glorify thy name] Reveal
to men, and here to Greeks as the repre-
sentatives of the heathen world, in all its
majesty the fulness of this Thy title shewn
in the Son. How this should be is not
expressed, but the reference is clearly to
the thought of v. 82. The voice is the as-
surance and not the actual fulfilment,

Then came there...) Then came there-
fore... The expression of the prayer car-
tied with it the appropriate pledge of ful-
filment.

a voice from (out of) heaven] The
utterance was real and objective, that is,
it was not a mere thunder-clap interpreted
in this sense; yet, like all spiritual things,
this voice required preparedness in the
organ to which it was addressed. Thus in
the Bath Kol the divine message was not
the physical sound in itself but the off-
spring of it. Wiinsche on Mark i, 11
quotes an interesting tradition of a divine
voice which witnessed to the worth of
Hillel.

I have both glorified...) Or, more closely,
Z both glorified it, that is, My name as
Father, in past time, and will glorify it.
The reference is to historic facts in the
life of Christ, as, for example, to the signs
which He wrought as signs of the Father
(comp. v. 28, xi. 40); or perhaps more
especially to the great crises in His minis-
try, the Baptism (Matt. iii. 17) and the
Transfiguration (Matt. xvii. 5), in which
His Sonship, and so the Father’s charac-
ter, was revealed.

will glorify it again] The glorification
was not a mere repetition but a corres-
ponding manifestation of the Father's
glory. The glorification during the
limited, earthly ministry to Israel was fol-
lowed by a glorification answering to the
proclamation of the universal Gospel to
the world.

29. The people (multitude)...that stood
by] ili, 29; Matt. xxvi. 73. They were
probably in the outer court of the temple.

and heard] Omit it. The object is left
purposely undefined. For the mass the
voice was mere sound. The apprehension
of a divine voice depends upon man’s
capacity for hearing. This is seen spec-
ially in the narrative of St Paul’s conver.
sion: Acts ix. 7, xxii. 9, xvi. 18 f. Comp.
Acts ii. 6, 12 £

that it had thundered...4n angel spake
v. 31—34.]
31 Now is the judgment of this
world: now shall the prince of this
world be cast out.
32 And I, if I be lifted up from
the earth, will draw all men unto me.

St. JOHN. XII.

33 This he said, signifying what
death he should die.

34 The people answered him, eWe e Pse' 10

have heard out of the law that Christ
abideth for ever: and how sayest

 

(hath spoken) to him] These last felt that.
the utterance was articulate though they
could not hear the words.

80. Jesus answered) the questionings
which were rising in the hearts of the
people and of the disciples, while yet He
meets them only by pointing to the signi-
ficance of the voice for those who received it.

This voice.,.sakes) This voice hath not
come for my sake, but for your sakes.
Comp. xi. 42. It came to test their faith
and to strengthen it; and at the same
time to make clear the importance of the
crisis revealed by the Gentile request. The
order of the original text is emphatic: “It
is not for my sake this voice hath come...”

81. Now is the judgment of this world]
Or rather, a judgment, one of many if a
most solemn one. The Passion was the
judgment of the world (Luke ii. 84 f.),
which shewed both men’s thoughts towards
Christ, and the true position of the world
towards God.

this world] Jew and Gentile are alike
included in the sentence; but probably
the thought is most clearly expressed in
the condemnation of the Greek idolatry of
beauty and pleasure.

Now...now] The balanced form of the
sentence answers to solemn emotion.

the prince of this world] Comp. xiv. 30,
xvi. 11; (Eph. ii. 2, vi. 12; 2 Cor. iv. 4).
The title is common in Jewish writers

( #9). According to wu remarkable
con ieee by Lightfoot (ad loc.)
God gave the whole world except Israel
into the power of the angel of death
(comp. Hebr. ii. 14). Under this image
“the prince of the world” stands in abso-
lute contrast to the ‘author of life’ (Acts
iii. 15). It should however be added that
the angel of death was in no way con-
nected with Satan.

shall...be cast out] from the region of his
present sway. Comp. 1 John v. 19; (Luke
x, 18).

32. And I...unto me] The opposition to
the prince of this world is made as sharp
as possible (kdy® dv v.). The phrase by
which the Lord indicates His death (be
lifted up, ili. 14, viii. 28; comp. Acts ii.
83, v. 31) is characteristic of the view
under which St John represents the Pas-
sion.. He does not ever, like St Paul
(e.g. Phil. ii. 8, 9), separate it as a crisis
of humiliation from the glory which fol-
lowed. The ‘‘lifting up” includes death
and the victory over death. In this aspect
the crisis of the Passion itself is regarded

as a glorification (xiii. 31); and St John
sees the Lord’s triumph in this rather
than in the Return. Comp.1 John v. 4—6.

from the earth] The original phrase (éx
THS ys) expresses not only ‘above the
earth,” but “out of the earth,” as taken
from the sphere of earthly action. Thus
there appears to be a reference to the
Resurrection, and not only to the Cruci-
fixion. At the same time it is clear from
iii. 14 f. that it is by the elevation on the
Cross that Christ is offered as the Saviour
to the vision of believers.

will draw] vi. 44; (Hos. xi. 4, Heb.).
The Son ‘draws’ by the Spirit which
He sends, xvi. 7. And there is need of
this loving violence, for men are ‘‘ held
back by the enemy.”’

all men] The phrase must not be limited
in any way. It cannot mean merely “Gen-
tiles as well as Jews,” or “the elect,” or
‘‘all who believe.”” We must receive it as
it stands: Rom. v. 18, (viii. 32); 2 Cor. v.
15; (Eph. i. 10); 1 Tim. ii. 6; Hebr. ii.
9; 1 John ii. 2. The remarkable reading
“all things” (rdvra, Vulg. omnia) points
to a still wider application of Redemption
(Col. i, 20), though Augustine explains it
of “creature integritatem, id est, spiritum
et animam et corpus” (ad loc.).

unto me] unto myself. Emphatically as
the one centre of the Church, in whom all
find their completeness.

33. This...what death...] But this...sig-
nifying by what (row) death..., not as if
this were the primary end of the words,
but the nature of Christ’s atoning death
was indicated in the form of the reference

to it. Cp. xviii. 82, xxi. 19.
34. The people answered...) The multi-
tude therefore answered..., when they

found the claims to the prerogatives of
Messiahship put forth by one who called
himself the Son of man (v. 23), and spoke
of his removal from the people whom he
should save. The difficulty was twofold :
firstly, that the Lord assumed a universal
and not a special title (‘Son of man’ and
not ‘‘Son of David’), and also that this
sovereignty was not to be exercised on
earth.

out of the law] out of the book of the
Covenant, the Old Testament generally.
Comp. x. 34, note.

that Christ...) that the Christ... The be-
lief that the Christ abideth for ever was
probably based on Isai. ix. 7; Ps. cx. 4,
Ixxxix. 4 f.; Ezek. xxxvii. 25. Comp.
Luke i. 32 f.

how sayest thou (cv )...] in opposition to

183

4
184

thou, The Son of man must be lifted
up? who is this Son of man?

35 Then Jesus said unto them,
Yet a little while is the light with
you. Walk while ye have the light,
lest darkness come upon you : for he
that walketh in darkness knoweth
not whither he goeth.

36 While ye have light, believe in

St. JOHN. XII.

[v- 35—38.
the light, that ye may be the children
of light. These things spake Jesus, '
and departed, and did hide himself
from them.

37 7 But though he nad done so
many wiracles before them, yet they
believed not on him :

38 That the saying of Esaias the
prophet might be fulfilled, which he

 

the Law, or, at least, in language which we
cannot reconcile with it,

The Son of man...] The title is not re-
corded by St. John as having been used
here in this connexion by the Lord, but
(the teaching in v. 32 naturally led to it
(v. 23). Such a quotation from unrecorded
words is a significant illustration of the
compression of the narrative. The Evan-
gelist gives the critical elements of the
discourse only. The complete phrase
occurs iii, 14.

must...) Comp. xx. 9 note.

be lifted up] Comp. iii. 14 note.

who is...) The question clearly shews
that the title ‘“‘the Son of man’’ was not
necessarily identified with ‘‘the Christ.’
Comp. Additional Note on ch. i. § 6, p. 34.

35. Then Jesus said...) Jesus therefore
said...meeting their difficulties by charging
them to use the opportunities which they
still had for fuller knowledge. There was
yet time, though the time was short. The
words are not described as an “answer”
(v. 80), but as an independent utterance.

a little while] The words correspond
with the plea ‘‘abideth for ever.’’ Comp.
vii. 33, xiii. 33, xiv. 19, xvi. 16 ff.

with you] among you; in your midst.
Comp. i. 14; (Acts ii. 29).

Walk] Progress was both possible anda
necessary duty while the light shone, and
as the light shone. :

lest...come upon you] that darkness over-
take you not, as it will do if you do not
advance to a fuller knowledge of myself
and my work before the coming time of
trial. Then all movement will be perilous,
You will wander in a wilderness without
“the pillar of fire.’’ Comp. Jer. xiii. 16.

overtake (xataAaByn, Vulg. comprehen-
dant)] The same word is used i. 5, vi. 17
var. lect.; 1 Thess. v. 4.

fer he that...in darkness...) and he that
...in the darkness... The clause is added as
the most general form of the natural com-
pletion of the former sentence: “and ye
may not know whither ye go.”

36. While ye have the light] There was
need of progress and there was also need
of faith, which should support hereafter.
There is a change of order in the repeated
clause : Walk as ye have the light, and as
ye have the light believe on the light.

that ye...of light] that ye may become
sons of light, and so have light in your-

selves. Comp. Luke xvi. 8; 1 Thess. v.
5; (Eph. v. 8, children). This glorious
transformation is the last issue of faith.
Thus the last recorded words of Christ
to the world are an exhortation and a
promise. Comp. xvi. 33.

(4) The judgment of the Evangelist (36b
—43)

In this section the Evangelist speaks in
his own person and connects the apparent
failure of the Lord’s work with the pro-
phetic teaching of Isaiah. In form the
passage resembles xx. 30 f., xxi. 23—25;
and, in a less degree, iii. 16—21, 31—36.

These things...and did hide himself (was
hidden, éxptBn, Vulg. abscondit se)) viii.
59. The hiding was not His work but the
work of His adversaries, as being the
result of their want of faith.

87. so many] This seems to be the mean-
ing of the word (tocatra), and not se
great. Comp. vi. 9, xxi. 11. Of these
many works (comp. ii. 23, iv. 45, vii, 31, xi.
47, xx. 30) St John has recorded only
seven as types.

before them] There was no excuse for
ignorance, Acts xxvi. 26.

they believed not on him] with self.
devoted, trustful, patient faith in life;
though many did believe with the con-
cealed adhesion of conviction, v. 42.

88. That the saying (word)...] Such a
fulfilment was a part of the design of God,
and so necessary; inasmuch as the pro-
phetic word described the actual relation
of the divine message to those who heard
it. This relation, which was already
present to the divine Vision and had been
fulfilled in the type, must needs be realised
in the antitype; so that the complaint
uttered by Isaiah against his own contem-
poraries might have been uttered even
more truly by Christ,

The prophecy itself (Isai iii, 1) sets
forth the two sides of the divine testimony,
the message as to the servant of Cod
which appealed to the inward perception
of truth; the signs of the power of God
which appealed outwardly to those who
looked upon them. In both respects the
testimony failed to find acceptance. The
message was not believed; the signs were
not interpreted. There is an interesting
examination of the use of Isai. lili. in the
New Testament in Taylor’s ‘ Gospel in the
Law,’ ch. v.
FT Teai. 53
Rom. 10.
16.

9 Matt. 15.
14

Vv. 39—42.]
spake, /Lord, who hath believed our
report ? and to whom hath the arm of
the Lord been revealed ?

39 Therefore they could not be-
lieve, because that Esaias said again,
40 9He hath blinded their eyes, and
hardened their heart ; that they should

St. JOHN. XII.

185

not see with their eyes, nor under-
stand with their heart, and be con-
verted, and I should heal them,
41 These things said Esaias, when
he saw his glory, and spake of him.
42 4 Nevertheless among the chief
rulers also many believed on him;

 

who hath believed...hath...been —re-
vealed ?] More exactly as a retrospective of
failure: who believed...was...revealed?

our report?] If the words are spoken
by the prophet, according to the common
interpretation, then our report may mean
either ‘‘the message which came from us,
which we delivered,’”’ or ‘‘the message
which came to us, which we received.”
The former interpretation is the more
natural, Comp. Matt. iv, 24, xiv. 1, xxiv. 6,

the arm of the Lord] Luke i. 51; Acts
xiii. 17.

39. Therefore...] For this cause, namely,
that in order of Providence the Gospel
must be met by general unbelief, they
could not believe... The fact which has
been already noted (they did not believe)
is now traced back to its ultimate origin
which lay in the divine action. They did
not believe, and they could not believe,
for thaé Isaiah said again: He (that is
God) hath... The want of belief was in-
volved in the necessary truth of the pro-
phetic word. This fulfilment again in-
volved in the incredulous an inability to
believe consequent upon the actual working
of God according to His fixed laws.
Comp. Rom. x. 16. And yet, further,
this working of God, as we look at it in
the order of succession, was consequent
upon man’s prior unbelief. The Jews
were already in an unnatural and diseased
state when the prophet was sent to them.
Then came the punishment whereby those
who would not give glory to God by
willing faith were made to subserve to
His glory. The revelation of Christ, like
the preaching of Isaiah, was the very
power by which the existing form of un-
belief was carried to its full development.

Esaias said] The quotation differs alike
from Heb. and LXX. St John transfers
to God what is represented by Isaiah as
the mission of the prophet (Isai. vi. 10);
while the healing on the other hand is
ascribed to Christ. Comp. Matt. xiii. 14
f.; Acts xxviii. 26 f.

Augustine’s discussion of this passage
is full of interest, though he examines it
from a single and limited point of view :
“hoc propheta predixit quia Deus hoc
futurum esse prescivit...malam quippe
eorum voluntatem previdit Deus.”

40. He hath blinded...and hardened...)
The change of tense in the original is re-
markable: He hath blinded...and he
hardened (érdpwoev)... The verb trans-

lated ‘‘hardened”’ describes the formation
of a ‘callus’ (aapos ) in a part of the
body, as the eyes (Job xvii. 7). Comp.
Mark vi, 52, viii, 17; Rom. xi. 7; 2 Cor.
iii, 14.

understand] perceive (vojcwowv). The
word in Mark iv. 12 is different ( cvvia-
ow).

With regard to the general scope of the
passage it may be observed that: 1. As a
fact. disregard of impulses and motives to
rightdoing makes it more and more hard
to obey them. 2. We may regard this
law as acting mechanically ; or we may see
in it, in relation to man, the action of a
divine power. 3. The latter supposition
introduces no new difficulty; but on the
other hand places this stern law in con-
nexion with a wider scheme of action,
which makes hope possible.

In this connexion it is important to ob-
serve that a divine ‘‘cannot’’ answers to
the divine ‘‘ must’? (xx. 9, note), This
“cannot”? expresses a moral and not an
external or arbitrary impossibility. Thus
it defines while it does not limit the action
of the Son (v. 19, 30; comp. Mark vi. 5);
and so fixes the conditions of discipleship
(iii, 5, vi. 44, 65, vii, 34—86, viii, 21 f.),
of understanding (iii. 8, viii. 43 f.; xiv.
17), of faith (as here; comp. v. 44), of
fruitfulness (xv. 4 f.), of progress (xvi. 12).

41. when...glory] According to the read-
ing of the most ancient authorities : be-
cause he saw his (Christ’s) glory... The
prophecy was not only given at the time
of the celestial vision but in consequence
of it. The sight of the divine glory made
clear the vast chasm between God and the
people who bore His name.

he saw his glory, and spake of him
(Christ)] The Targum renders the original
words of Isaiah, Z saw the Lord, by I saw
the Lord’s glory. St John states the truth
to which this expression points, and identi-
fies the divine Person seen by Isaiah with
Christ. Thus what Isaiah saw was the
glory of the Word, and of Him he spoke.
His message, that is, was not merely ad-
dressed to his contemporaries only, but
reached to the time of the fuller manifesta-
tion to the world of that glory which he
himself saw in a vision. It is uncertain
whether the last clause (spake of him)
depends on the because or not; but the
position of the of him in the original points
to this connexion.

42. Nevertheless among (even of) the..
186

h chap. 5.
44,

but because of the Pharisees they did
not confess him, lest they should be
put out of the synagogue :

43 hFor they loved the praise
of men more than the praise of
God.

44 (7 Jesus cried and said, He that

Sr. JOHN. XII.

[v- 43—46.
believeth on me, believeth not on me,
but on him that sent me.

45 And he that seeth me seeth
him that sent me.

46 iI am come a light into the Wobepa,

world, that whosoever believeth on
me should not abide in darkness.

 

rulers (the members of the Sanhedrin : iii.
1, vii. 26, 48) many believed on him] This
complete intellectual faith (so to speak) is
really the climax of unbelief. The con-
viction found no expression “in life.

believed on him] It is remarkable that
St John uses of this belief the phrase
which marks the completeness of belief
(émuor. eis). The belief only lacked con-
fession, but this defect was fatal. Comp.
ii. 28, where also a belief complete in itself
is practically imperfect.

because of the Pharisees] Comp. vii. 18,
ix, 22 (the: Jews).

did not confess] did not make confession.
The verb is used absolutely. Comp. Rom.
x. 9, 10. The imperfect tense (apodd-
youv, Vulg. confitebantur) marks the
continued shrinking from the act of faith.

lest they should (that they should not)
be put out of the synagogue] ix. 22.

43. the praise (glory) of men...praise
(glory) of God] Comp, v. 44. The words
suggest a contrast with that vision of the
divine glory in which God shewed what
He had prepared for men (v. 41). Comp,
Rom. iii. 23.

(5) The judgment of the Lord (44—50).

This final judgment appears to contain a
summary of the Lord’s teaching gathered
up in the view of this crisis, and not to he
a new utterance. It falls into three parts :
the position of the believer (44—46), and
of the unbeliever (47—49), and the fruit
of the message (50). The Lord first speaks
of His Person (44—46), and then of His
words (47—50).

44. But Jesus cried...) The witness of
the Lord is set over against the witness of
the prophet and the unbelief of the people.
It expresses as completely as possible His
absolute self-sacrifice as contrasted with
the selfishness of His enemies. He is lost
(so to speak) in Him that sent Him. He
judges no man. __His teaching is simply
the expression of His Father’s command.

cried (€xpa&e, Vulg. clamabat)] vii. 28,
37. The testimony was so given as to
claim and arrest attention; and it was
given once and for all (contrast Luke xviii.
39).

believeth not on me, but...) He looks
beneath the surface and acknowledges a
divine presence realised in and through
me. As yet it was impossible for men to
know how faith could repose in the Son
Himeelf.

on him that sent me) not simply on “‘ the
Father’ as representing a general con-

nexion, but on Him who is the source of
the special revelation of Christ.

45. he that seeth (beholdeth) me seeth
(beholdeth)...] In this case the negative
clause is not found. So far as the believer
beheld Christ, he beheld Him from whom
Christ came. Belief passed through the
veil: vision apprehended outwardly God
in His relation to men. Comp. Matt. x.
40. For the sense of ‘‘ behold’’ see xvi. 16.

The form of the sentence differs in each
particular from xiv. 9: beholdeth occupies
the place of hath seen; Him that sent me
of the Father. The thought here is of the
intent, patient, progressive contemplation
of Christ leading to the fuller knowledge
of Him from whom He came; thus the
thought is of the one decisive moment, of
which the results were permanent.

The title ‘‘ Father’? emphasizes the idea
of the natural, essential relation to the Son
and to men: the phrase ‘‘ He that sent
me’’ brings out the idea of the special
mission, as involving a peculiar charge and
corresponding authority. Comp. iv. 84, v.
24, 80, vi. 38, vii. 16, (18), 28, 33, viii, 26,
29, ix. 4, xiil. 20, xv. 21, xvi. 5 (peculiar
to St John, and used only by the Lord).
The two ideas are combined, v. 23, 37, vi.
44, viii. 16, 18, xii. 49, xiv. 24; and dis-
tinguished, vi. 39, 40.

46. ZT amcome a light (or as light) into...]
This was the office of Christ, to make all
things clear. His Person when seen in
its fulness illuminates the mysteries of life.
There is darkness over the world, and
without Him it must remain. Faith
in Him brings purer vision. Comp. v. 86.
See also iii. 19, viii. 12, ix. 5, (i. 4).

There is a significant contrast between
Z am come (€AjAvda) and I came (ndOov),
v. 47. The one marks the abiding result ;
and the other the particular purpose. For
the use of the former (€AjAva) see v. 43,
vii. 28, viii. 42 (and HAGov), xvi. 28, xviii.
87, (iii. 19); and for the use of the latter
(nAGov ), viii. 14, ix. 89, x. 10, xii. 27, 47,
(xv. 22).

should (may) not abide in the darkness)
as being the normal state of men without
Christ, The exact phrase occurs only here
yet see 1 Johnii. 9,11 (is in the darknessy,
and viii. 12, xii. 35; 1 John ii, 11 (walk in
the darkness). Comp. 1 John iii, 14, abide
tn death; and the opposite 1 John ii 10,
abide in the light,

47. Christ now passes from the thought

af Hic Parenn ta that af Ui. —--3_
k chap. 3.
17.

Mark 16.
16.

v. 47—50]

47 kAnd if any man hear my words,
and believe not, I judge him not : for
I came not to judge the world, but to
save the world.

48 He that rejecteth me, and re-
ceiveth not my words, Bath one that
judgeth him: ‘the word that I have
spoken, the same shall judge him in
the last day.

me to my sayings. Faith is essentially
personal. Unbelief stops short at the out-
ward manifestations of the Person: it
deals with the teaching.

Two cases appear to be regarded, the
first that of the respectful hearer, who
listens and does not; the second, that of
the man who refuses to listen at all.
From this it appears that the reading
‘*believe’’ is foreign to the scope of v. 47.

hear my words (sayings, pyydtwv)]not
with true understanding of their full im-
port (viii. 47), but yet with attention, x.
3, 16, 27, &.).

and believe not] According to the true
reading, and keep (pvAdéy, Matt. xix.
20; Luke xi. 28) them not.

I (emphatic) judge him not) There is no
personal element in the accomplishment of
the final issue. Christ came for judgment
(ix. 39) and yet not to judge (comp. iii. 17,
viii. 15). The judgment followed naturally
(so to speak) from His manifestation. The
Law (in the fullest sense) is the one
accuser (v. 45). Men simply remain
where they are (iii. 86) if they do not come
to Christ. Their sentence lies in the
nature of things. In this case the hearers
were self-condemned.

48. He that rejecteth (6 dOecrav, Vulg.
qui spernit) me...my words (sayings)...]
Luke x. 16.

hath one that judgeth him] The word

may be refused, but it cannot be banished.

It still clings to the hearer as his judge.
Its work is even now begun as it shall
hereafter be fully revealed.

the word that I have spoken (I spake)...}
The ‘‘sayings’’ are all bound up in one
great message (Adyos ), delivered and felt
in its entirety. For the unbelieving Jews
it was now ended (spake is contrasted with
speak, v. 50). Compare xvii. 6, 8.

the word...the same (that) shall judge
him...] The resumptive, isolating pronoun
(exetvos) places in emphatic prominence
the teaching which is regarded as past and
separated from those to whom it was ad:
dressed. It stands, as it were, in the dis-
tance, as a witness and an accuser. Comp.
i. 18, v. 11 and note.

in the last day] ch, vi. 39, 40, 44, 54, xi.
24. The phrase is peculiar to St John’s
Gospel. Comp. 1 Cor. xv. 52 (the last
trumpet); 1 John ii. 18 (the last hour).

49. For...spoken...) Because I spoke

Sr. JOHN. XII.

187

49 For I have not spoken of my-
self; but the Father which sent me,
he gave me a commandment, what
I should say, and what 1 should
speak.

so And I know that his command-
ment is life everlasting : whatsoever
I speak therefore, even as the Father
said unto me, so I speak.

not... The essential inherent power of
judgment lies in the word, since there is
in it no admixture of a limited human per-
sonality. It is wholly divine.

of myself] The phrase (€£ euavrov,
Vulg. ex me) is peculiar and unique. It
describes (so to speak) the source out of
which a stream flows continuously, and
not simply the point of origin from which
movement started (am’ €u. v. 30, vii. 17,
28, viii. 28, 42, (x. 18), xiv. 10).

he gave me a commandment] himself
hath given me commandment. The pro-
noun (as in v. 48) emphasizes the refer-
ences ; and the tense of the verb (dédwxev)
marks the continuance of the action of the
command.

what I should say (eirw, Vulg. dicam),
and what I should speak (Aadyjow, Vulg.
loquar)] That is, as to the substantial
contents and the varying manner of my
message.

60. And I know (oiéa)...]) The word
may find acceptance or rejection, but this
remains sure. The commandment of the
Father, His will manifested in my com-
mission, is eternal life. The Father’s
commandment not only is directed towards
life, to quicken or to support it. Itis life,
Truth realised is that by which we live, The
commandment of God is the expression of
absolute Truth. Comp. vi. 63, 68, xvii. 17,

Life eternal is and not simply shall be.
Comp. iii. 36, v, 24, (89), vi. 54, xvii. 3
note. 1 John v. 12, 13.

whatsoever (the things which) Z speak
therefore...) The certainty of this assur-
apce furnishes the one rule of Christ’s
teaching. He in the fulness of His
divine-human Person (éy#) speaks in com-
plete agreement with the Father’s injunc-
tions, who is His Father and our Father.
In part His message was fully given (vv.
48 f.): in part it was still to be given to
the inner circle of His disciples.

Tue Se_F-REVELATION OF CHRIST TO THE
Wortp has now been completed. In
the remainder of the Gospel St John
records THe Setr-REVELATION OF CHRIST
TO THE DIscIPLEs.

This division of the Gospel, like the for-
mer, fallsinto two parts, Tae Last M1n1s-
TRY OF Love (xiii.—xvii.), and THE Vic-
TORY THROUGH Deata (xviiii—xx.); with
an EPiLocvue (xxi.).
188
CHAPTER XIII.

} Jesus washeth the disciples’ feet : exhor-
teth them to humility and charity. 18 He

Sr. JOHN. XIII.

foretelleth, and discovereth to John by a
token that Judas should betray him: 31
commandeth them to love one another,
36 and forwarneth Peter of his denial.

 

Tur Lorp’s Last MINISTRY
or Love.

This division of the Gospel, which is
entirely peculiar to St John, with the ex-
ception of the revelation of treachery
among the twelve, falls into three sec-
tions :

I. Tue Last Acts or Love anp Jupc-
MENT (xiii. 1—80).

II. Tue Last Discourses (xiii. 31—
xvi. 38).

Il. Tue
(xvii.).

XIII.—XVII.

PRAYER OF CONSECRATION

I. Tue Last Acts or Love anp JUDGMENT
(xiii. 1—30).

St. John’s account of events at the Last
Supper contains two scenes. The first is
the manifestation in act of the Master’s
self-sacrificing love (1—20): the second is
the separation of the selfish disciple (21—30).

The incidents are parallel with sections
of the Synoptic Gospels; but there are
very few points of actual correspondence
in detail between the narratives of the
Synoptists and of St John. The discussion
recorded by St Luke (xxii. 24 ff.) has a
close connexion of thought with the lesson
of the feet-washing. And the words an-
nouncing the betrayal are identical in St
Matthew (xxvi. 21; comp. Mark xiv. 18)
and St John (xiii. 21). All the Evan-
gelists record the surprise with which this
announcement was received (Matt. xxvi.
22; Mark xiv. 19; Luke xxii. 23; John
xiii, 22); and St Matthew notes that Judas
was designated as the traitor (xxvi. 25).
But the details which St John has pre-
served as to the manner of the designation
are peculiar to him.

The omission of the record of the Insti-
tution of the Lord’s Supper belongs to the
plan of the Gospel. It is impossible on
any theory to suppose that the author was
unacquainted with the facts. But it is
difficult to determine at what point in the
narrative of St John the Institution is to
be placed. It is scarcely necessary to
refer to the opinion of those who have
supposed (Lightfoot, &c.) that the supper
described in John xiii, was held at Bethany
(Matt. xxvi. 6 ff.), and that the journey to
Jerusalem follows xiv. 381; so that the
Institution took place on the following day.
This view appears to be directly opposed
to xiii. 38: to the significant parallel with
Luke xxii. 24 ff. : and to the general unity
of the discourses in xiiii—xvii.

But if it be assumed that the meal de-
scribed in ch. xiii. is identical with that
described in the Synoptists, as including
the Institution of the Lord’s Supper, where
can the Institution be intercalated? was

it before or after the departure of Judas
(xiii. 30)?

The evidence on this point is extremely
slender. In the narratives of St Matthew
and St Mark there is nothing which tends
to decide the question in one way or the
other. The prophecy of the betrayal and
the Institution are introduced by the same
general words (as they were eating, Matt.
xxvi, 26; Mark xiv. 22), and though the
former stands first there is nothing to shew
that the order is chronological. It is also
to be noticed that in these Evangelists
there is no separation of the blessing of
the Bread and of the Cup. In the narra-
tive of St Luke the arrangement is
different. A cup is first given for distribu-
tion (xxii. 17). Then follows the giving of
Bread, with the words of Institution (v.
19). Then. according to the present text,
the giving of the Cup, with the words of
Institution introduced by the clause in like
manner also the cup after supper (v. 20);
and in close connexion with this is given
the prophecy of the betrayal. There is
indeed good reason for thinking that the
second reference to the Cup is a very early
addition to the original text of St Luke
taken from 1 Cor. xi. 25; and as it stands
it may be treated parenthetically. In any
case, however, St Luke distinctly places
the prophecy of the betrayal after the dis-
tribution of the Sacramental Bread; and,
like St Paul, he places this distribution
during the supper, and the distribution of
the Sacramental Cup after the supper. The
other Synoptic narratives are perfectly
consistent with this view. Judas then, if
we adopt this interpretation of the narrative
was present at the distribution of the Sacra-
mental Bread, and not present at the dis-
tribution of the Sacramental Cup. In
other words, the distribution of the Bread
must be placed before v. 30 in St John’s
narrative, and the distribution of the Cup
after.

If now we look for a break in xiii, 1—
30, it may be found between 16 and 17,
or between 19 and 20; but hardly betwen
22 and 23. It is, however, more in ac-
cordance with St Luke’s narrative to place
the distribution of the Bread before v. 2.
The distribution of the Cup may be placed
after 30, or 38; but it seems on the whole
best to place it after 832. The teaching of
that Sacramental Act forms a bond be-
tween the thoughts of 32 and 33.

1. The self-sacrifice of love (1—20).
The central idea of this record corre-
sponds with one aspect of the Institution

of the Eucharist, that of self-sacrifice. The
incident evidently belongs to the ame
 

v. I, 2.]

OW 4before the feast of the
passover, when Jesus knew that

his hour was come that he should
depart out of this world unto the

St. JOHN. XIII.

189
Father, having loved his own which
were in the world, he loved them
unto the end,

2 And supper being ended, the

 

spiritual circumstances. The form of the
narrative is marked by extreme minute-
ness and vividness of detail (vv. 4 ff,), and
by directness of recollection (v. 11). The
portraiture of St Peter is instinct with
life: he acts and is acted upon.

The narrative consists of two parts, the
action itself (2—11), and the commentary
upon the action (12—20). The latter ap.
proaches very closely in form to the teach-
ing preserved by the Synoptists (e.g. vv.
16 f.). The former is a parable in action
(comp. Matt. xxiii. 2 ff.).

Cuap. XITI. 1—4. These verses are
differently punctuated. Some suppose that
the construction is broken, and that the
principal verb is rises in v. 4, the knowing
in v, 3, resuming the knowing in v. 1.
It seems better, however, (as A. V.),
to take v. 1 as complete in_ itself,
as it is grammatically complete, and to
regard v. 2 as a fresh beginning. On this
view v. 1 is an introduction to the whole
cycle of teaching which follows (xiii—
xvii.), while vv. 2, 3 are the introduction
to the special incident of the feet-washing,
the symbolic manifestation of love.

Now before the feast...] The disjunctive
particle (Sc, Vulg. autem) perhaps sug-
gests a contrast with the temporary retire-
ment noticed in xii. 36. Though Jesus
had thus withdrawn Himself, yet before
the crisis of His Passion He fully prepared
His disciples for the issue.

before the feast] It is impossible to take
these words either with knowing or with
having loved. The clause can only go
properly with the principal verb loved.
The note of time consequently serves to
mark the date of the manifold exhibition
of love, of the acts and discourses which
follow immediately afterwards. All these
took place ‘‘ before the feast,” that is, on
the evening (the commencement) of Nisan
14th; and in these last scenes before the
Passover at which the Jewish type found
its perfect fulfilment, the love of the Lord
was revealed in its highest form.

when Jesus knew] Jesus knowing, that
is, since He knew. This knowledge,
which is spoken of as absolute (eidds),
prompted the crowning display of love.
The thought is brought into prominence
by the repetition of the word world. In
the world the disciples were to find their
trial. and to find it when their Master had
passed out of the world. Hence came the
necessity for such encouragement as fol-
low: e.g. xvi. 33.

In His knowledge of the disciples’ suffer-
ing the Lord forgot His own suffering,

though foreknowledge intensifies sorrow.

his hour] Just as St John points out the
moral conditions of the Lord’s life in a
divine ‘“‘cannot’’ (see xii. 40 note), and a
divine ‘“ must’’ (xx. 9 note), he also marks
the divine sequence in its events. The
crises of His several manifestations are
absolutely fixed in time (ii. 4; comp. xi. 9
f., ix. 4). In each case this ‘“‘hour’’ is
appointed with a view to the issue to
which it leads (xii. 23, c'va SofacOy, and
so here ¢'va wetaBy). Compare iv. 21, 23,
v. 25, 28; 1 John ii. 18; Rev. xiv. 7, 15;
John vii. 6. 8 (xapos); Eph. i. 10 (7d
wAnpwpa Tav Kaipov); Gal, iv. 4 (7d
wAxjpwpa, Tov xpdvov). Till the hour comes
Christ’s enemies are powerless (vii. 30,
viii. 20). When it has come He recog-
nises its advent (xii. 27, xvii. 1).

that he should depart...] The purpose, as
part of the divine counsel, is marked em-
phatically (c'va),Comp. xii. 23, xvi. 2 note.

depart] The exact word (peTaBy, Vulg.
transeat) is only used here in this con-
nexion. It marks the transference from
one sphere to another: comp. v. 24; 1
John iii. 14. Death for Christ, and in
Him for the Christian, is not an interrup-
tion of being but a change of the mode
of being, a “going to the Father,” to His
Father and ours.

this world...the world] The demonstra-
tive (6 kdopos odTos, this world) seems to
lay stress upon the present aspect of the
world as transitory and unsatisfying. The
phrase occurs viii. 23, ix. 39 (xi. 9) xii. 25,
81, xvi. 11, xviii. 836; 1 John iv. 17 (and
in St Paul).

unto the Father] as describing the re-
ligious and moral relationship, and not
simply the idea of power (to God).

his own) Acts iv. 23, xxiv. 23; 1 Tim.
v. 8. Compare xvii. 6 ff. Contrast i. 11.

unto the end] to the uttermost. The
original phrase (eis téAos, Vulg. in finem)
has two common meanings, (1) at last, and
(2) utterly, completely. The first sense ap-
pears to be most natural in Luke xviii. 5,
and the second in 1 Thess. ii. 16. It oc-
curs very frequently in the LXX., and
most often in connexion with words of
destruction (utterly), or abandonment (for
ever); Ps. xii. 1, (ix. 18, al. ets Tov aiwva),
&e. It occurs, however, in other con-
nexions, Ps. xv. 11, Ixxiii. 3, xlviii. 8;
and constantly in later Greek writers,
e.g. 2 Clem. 19; Luc. ‘Somn.’ 9. There
appears to be no authority for taking it
here in the sense of to the end of His
earthly presence (yet see Matt. x. 22, xxiv.
190
devil having now put into the heart
of Judas Iscariot Simon’s son, to
betray him;

3 Jesus knowing that the Father
had given all things into his hands,
and that he was come from God, and
went to God;

4 He riseth from supper, and laid

Sr. JOHN. XIII.

[v. 3—6

aside his garments ; and took a towel,
and girded himself.

5 After that he poureth water into
a basin, and began to wash the
disciples’ feet, and to wipe them
with the towel wherewith he was
girded.

6 Then cometh he to Simon

 

13 f.), and such a translation does not suit
the connexion with before the feast. If,
however, we take the words as expressing
loved them with a perfect love, then the
thought comes out clearly, ‘‘ Christ loved
His disciples, and had before shewed His
love, so now at this crisis, before the day
of His Passion, He carried His love to
the highest point, He loved them to the
uttermost.”

2. And supper being ended...) And—as
one special manifestation of this love—
during a supper (Seérvou yevopevov)...

the devil...him] Literally, according to
the most ancient text, the devil having
already put it into his (Judas’) heart that
Judas Iscariot the son of Simon shall
betray him. The transference of the sub-
ject from the former to the latter clause
is not unnatural (...into the heart of Judas
..that he should...); and it seems to be
impossible to accept the rendering “the
devil having conceived in his heart that...’

The separation of ‘‘ Iscariot’? from Judas
in the original text, ‘Judas the Son of
Simon, Iscariot,’’ clearly marks the title as
local. Comp. vi. 71, where it is an epi-
thet of Simon.

3. Jesus (omit) knowing] That is, as
before, ‘‘since He knew.’’ The knowledge
that He was possessed of this divine
authority was the ground of His act of
service; just as in v. 1 the knowledge of
His coming departure was the ground of
His crowning display of love.

the Father] Not ‘‘ His Father.’’ The
Son of man (Jesus) is now the conqueror.

hath given...) Our idiom will not bear
in the oblique the original tense gave
(found in the oldest authorities) which,
however, marks the true idea of the com-
mission once given eternally. A similar
remark applies to the verbs below, which
are literally came forth and goeth.

all things] The sense of absolute
sovereignty is the more impressive here
in the prospect of apparent defeat. Even
through treachery and death lay the way
to the Resurrection.

into his hands] to deal with as He
pleased, even when He was given ‘into
the hands” of men: Matt, xvii. 22, xxvi,
45,

The original order is most’ emphatic :
“and that it was from God He came
forth, and unto God He is going.’’ The
title of power and glory is used in this

clause, as that of affinity (the Father) in
the former.

was come] was come forth on His mission
to the world at the Incarnation. The pre-
position used here (a76) marks a separa-
tion and not the source. Contrast viii.
42, note.

4. He riseth from the supper, and laid
(layeth) aside...] There is nothing to indi-
cate the occasion of the action. The
phrase implies that the supper was already
begun, so this feet-washing cannot have
answered to that before the meal. We
may assume that it was a parable in action
exhibited in order to illustrate some
thought of the coming kingdom which had
just found expression. Comp. Luke xxii.
24 ff.; (Matt. xviii. 1ff.). For this reason
each step in the act of service is noted
with the particularity of an eye-witness :
the rising from among the group ( y. €k),
the laying aside the upper robes (iuaria),
the taking the towel, the girding, the
pouring out of the water, the washing, the
wiping. When Christ serves, He serves
perfectly.

and he took...girded himself] The form
of expression emphasizes the preparation
by Himself. Comp. Luke xii. 37, xvii. 8,
and ch. xxi. 18, with Acts xii, 8. ‘‘ Quid
mirum si precinxit se linteo qui formam
servi accipiens habitu inventus est ut
homo?” (Aug. ad loc.)

5. After that...) Then (efra), xix. 27,
xx. 27,

poureth] The original word (BdéAXe,
Vulg. mittit), which is peculiar, is rendered
in the same connexion elsewhere putteth ;
Matt. ix. 17 and parallels.

into a (the) basin) which stood ready for
this accustomed use. Comp. 2 K. iii. 11.

began to wash] The actual scene is
broken up into its parts, just as all the
details of preparation had been separately
noticed. Comp. Gen. xviii. 4, xix. 2,
xxiv. 82, xliii, 24; Judg. xix. 21; 1 Tim.
v. 10. Rabbinic commentators dwelt on
the significance of Ezek. xvi. 9. ‘ Among
men,’’ they said, ‘‘the slave washes his
master ; but with God it is not so.’? Comp.
Lightfoot and Wetstein, ad loc.

6. Then (So) cometh he...] as He passed
round, or rather as He began to pass
round, the circle of the disciples. There
is nothing to support the old notion that the
action began with Judas, It is more natural
v. 7—I0.

Peter: and Peter saith unto him,
Lord, dost thou wash my feet?

7 Jesus answered and said unto
him, What I do thou knowest not
now; but thou shalt know hereafter.

8 Peter saith unto him, Thou
shalt never wash my feet. Jesus

Sr. JOHN. XIII.

answered him, If I wash thee not,
thou hast no part with me.

g Simon Peter saith unto him,
Lord, not my feet only, but also my
hands and my head.

io Jesus saith to him, He that is

washed needeth not save to wash his

 

to suppose that the Lord began with St
Peter. In that case his refusal to accept
the service is more intelligible than it
would be if others had already accepted
it.

and Peter saith (he saith) unto him] The
abruptness of the clause suits the vivid
narrative.

dost thou...) The position of the pro-
nouns in the original (ov pov v. T. 7.,
Vulg. tu mihi 1. p., thou my feet) brings
out the sharp contrast of the persons. The
thought of the kind of service is subordi-
nated to the fact of service rendered by
the Master to the servant.

7. What I do] The chasm between the
thoughts of the Lord and of the disciple is
marked by the emphatic pronouns (0 ¢y@ 7.
av ovK of),

The meaning of the act could not be
understood till the Lord was glorified.
The interpretation depended on a full view
of His Person and His work. Knowledge
as absolute and complete (ov« ofdas) is
contrasted with the knowledge which is
gained by slow experience (yvdoy ‘thou
shalt learn’ or ‘‘ understand’). Comp.
iii, 10, 11, note.

hereafter] Literally, after these things:
iii, 22, v. 1, 14 (afterward), vi. 1, vii. 1,
xix. 38, xxi, 1. In these places reference
is made to a group of incidents, and not
to one single scene. We must then under-
stand here by ‘‘ these things ” all the circum-
stances of the Passion which was now be-
gun. Even the interpretation given in vv.
12 ff. was only partially intelligible, until
Christ’s sacrifice of Himself was com-
pleted. Perfect knowledge began with the
day of Pentecost.

8. St Peter takes up the thought of
“hereafter.” Nothing, he would argue, can
ever alter my position in regard to my
Lord. This is fixed eternally. Thou shalt
not wash my feet while the world lasts
(od pa)...eis Tov aidva), He assumed that
he could foresee all; hence his reverence
takes the form of self-will, just as in the
corresponding incident in Matt, xvi. 22,
where also his self-willed reverence for
Christ, as He interpreted His office, brings
down a stern reproof,

If I wash thee not...] Christ meets the
confidence of the Apostle with a declara-
tion of the necessary separation which
must ensue from the want of absolute
submission. “Unless I render thee this
service, unless, that is, thou receivest that

which I offer, even when thou canst not
understand my purpose, thou hast no part
with me.” The first condition of disciple-
ship is self-surrender,

It appears to be foreign to the context
to introduce any direct reference to the
washing in Christ’s blood (see vv. 13 ff.).
Though, as Cyril says, we may see some
such thought suggested by the words.

wash thee] not thy feet. Christ Himself
chooses the manner in which He accom-
plishes the work which is effectual for the
whole and not for a part,

thou hast no part...) thou hast no share
in my kingdom, as a faithful soldier in the
conquests of his captain. Comp. Matt.
xxiv, 51; Deut, xii. 12, xiv. 27; Ps, 1. 18.

9. St Peter, with characteristic impul-
siveness, still answers in the same spirit as
before. Just as he had wished to define
what the Lord should not do, so now he
wishes to define the manner in which that
should be done which he admitted to be
necessary. He would extend in detail to
every part the action which Christ de-
signed to fulfil in one way according to
His Own will.

10. The reply of the Lord introduces a
new idea. From the thought of the act of
service as such, we are led to the thought
of the symbolic meaning of the special act
as a process of cleansing. The “ washing”
of a part of the body, feet, or hands, or
head, is contrasted with the “bathing” of
the whole. The “washing ” in itself does
not mark an essential change, but is re-
ferred to the total change already wrought.
He that is bathed (6 AcAoupevos) needeth
not save to wash (vipacOat) his feet.

Some important authorities omit save
and Ais feet. If this reading be adopted
the emphasis will lie on needeth not. The
after-cleansing may be an act of divine
love, but it is not to be required at man’s
will. The form of the verb in some degree
suggests this turn. of meaning. It is not
“to be washed,” corresponding with the
former phrase, but “to wash himself,” or
“to wash his own feet” (Matt. xv. 2;
Mark vii. 3). But it is more probable
that the omission was occasioned by the
difficulty of reconciling the phrase with
“clean every whit.”

If however the common reading be
retained, the sense will be that the limited
cleansing, as now symbolized, is all that is
needed. He who is bathed needs, so to
speak, only to remove the stains contracted

19I
192

feet, but is clean every whit : and ye
are clean, but not all,

tr For he knew who should be-
tray him; therefore said he, Ye are
not all clean.

12 So after he had washed their
feet, and had taken his garments,
and was set down again, he said

St. JOHN. XIII.

[v. 11—151

unto them, Know ye what I have
done to you?

13 Ye call me Master and Lord:
and ye say well; for so I am.

14 If I then, your Lord and Mas-
ter, have washed your feet; ye also
ought to wash one another’s feet.

15 For I have given you an ex-

 

in the walk of life; just as the guest, after
the bath, needs only to have the dust
washed from his feet when he reaches the
house of his host,

is clean every whit) The partial and
superficial defilements, of hands, or head,
or feet, do not alter the general character.
The man, as a whole, the man as man, is
clean.

and ye are clean, but not all] The
thought of the partial defilement of the
person passes into the thought of the
partial defilement of the society. The
apostles as a body were clean. The pre-
sence of one traitor, the stain-spot to be
removed, did not alter the character of the
company any more than the partial soiling
of the feet alters the essential cleanness of
the man,

Taken in this connexion the passage
throws light on the doctrine of the holiness
of the visible Church. And this the more
because it seems impossible not to see in
the word bathed, as contrasted with
washed, a foreshadowing of the idea of
Christian Baptism (Hebr. x, 22; comp.
Eph. v. 26; Titus iii. 5). There is however
no evidence to show that the apostles them-
selves were baptized unless with John’s
baptism. The “bathing” in their case
consisted in direct intercourse and union
with Christ. For them this one special
act of service was but an accessory to the
continuous love of that companionship.
(Comp, xv, 3.).

11. he knew who should betray him]
More strictly, him that was betraying him.
The act of treason was already in process,
Contrast vi. 64 (fut.), vi. 71, xiii. 4. The
rendering “betray ” adds something to the
force of the original word. The exact
word “traitor” (mpoddrns) is applied to
Judas only in Luke vi. 16. Elsewhere
the word used of him is some part of the
verb “to deliver up” (rapaéidevae), and
not of the word “to betray ” (mpodcddvat).

therefore said he...) The addition is
quite natural if the writer's vivid recollec-
tion of the scene carries him back to the
time when the words arrested the atten-
tion before they were fully intelligible.
Otherwise it is difficult to account for the
obvious explanation. No one who had al-
ways been familiar with the whole history
would have added them,

12. Know ye...) Do you apprehend,
perceive, understand the meaning of

(yewdoere...;)...? See v. 7 The word in
v. 17 is different ( oidare ).

13. Master (i.e. Teacher) and Lord}
According to the common titles Rabbi and
Mar, corresponding to which the followers
were “‘ disciples” or “servants” (v, 16).

14. If I then, your Lord (the Lord) and
the Master...) If I, the one who am by.
confession supreme, washed (év.~a) even
now your feet...

ye also ought...) The obligation is of a
debt incurred ( dfeiAete): Matt. xxiii.
16, 18. Comp. ch. xix. 7; 1 John ii. 6,
iii. 16, iv. 11; Luke xvii, 10; Rom. xv. 1,
&c. The interpretation given is thus that
of the duty of mutual subjection and
service, and specially with a view to
mutual purifying. Comp. 1 Pet. v. 5.

15. I have given you (I gave) you an
example...} Three different words are
rendered “example”? in New Testament.
That which is used here (brddevypa) is
applied to separate isolated subjects (comp.
Hebr. iv. 11, viii. 5, ix. 23; James v. 10;
2 Pet, ii. 6). Contrast 1 Cor. x. 6, 11
(rUmos); Jude 7 (Setypa)

It will be observed that the example of
Christ is always offered in connexion with
some form of self-sacrifice,

that...to you] Literally, that as I did to
you, ye also do. The parallel is between
“T” and “ye,” and hence the words “ to
one another” are not added.

The custom of “feet-washing” has been
continued in various forms in the Church.
See Bingham, xt. 4, § 10. By a decree
(Can. 3) of the xviith Council of Toledo
(694) it was made obligatory on the
Thursday in Holy Week ‘throughout the
Churches of Spain and Gaul” (pedes
unusquisque pontificum seu sacerdotum,
secundum hoc sacrosanctum exemplum,
suorum lavare studeat subditorum). In
1530 Wolsey washed, wiped and kissed
the feet of 59 poor men at Peterborough
(Cavendish, ‘Life,’ 1, p. 242). The prac-
tice was continued by English sovereigns
till the reign of James II.; and as late as
1731 the Lord High Almoner washed the
feet of the recipients of the royal gifts at
Whitehall on “Maundy Thursday.” The
present custom of “the feet-washing ” in
St. Peter’s is well known. The practice
was retained by the Mennonites; and also
by the United Brethren, among whom it
has now fallen into disuse. There is an
interesting account of Lanfranc’s rule at
b Matt. 10.

chap. 15.
20.

r Psal, 41,
9.

Vv. 16—21.]

ample, that ve should do as I have
done to you,

16 6Verily, verily, I say unto you,
The servant is not greater than his
lord; neither he that is sent greater
than he that sent him.

17 If ye know these things, happy
are ye if ye do them.

18 | I speak not of you all: I
know whom I have chosen : but that
the scripture may be fulfilled, cHe

Sr. JOHN. XIII.

that eateth bread with me hath lifted
up his heel against me.

19 |INow I tell you before it come, {,Or,
that, when it is come to pass, ye pene

may believe that I am he.

20 @Verily, verily, I say unto you, d Matt.

He that receiveth whomsoever I send
receiveth me; and he that receiveth
me receiveth him that sent me.

21 eWhen Jesus had thus said, ¢ Matt.

he was troubled in spirit, and tes-

 

Bec in Church’s ‘ Anselm,’ pp. 49 ff. The
ancient English usage is illustrated by
Chambers, ‘Divine Worship in England,

p. xxvi. The Roman Service is given by
Daniel, ‘ Cod. Lit.’ 1, 412.
16. Verily, verily...) The words, as

usual, preface the new lesson.

The servant (A servant) is not...) Comp.
Matt. x, 24; (Luke vi. 40).
he that is sent] one

(aréotoAos)—an apostle.

17. If ye knew (oi8are) these things...)
the lessons conveyed by the feet-washing.
The “knowledge” here is that which a
man has and not that which he acquires.

happy are ye...) The original word is
that used in the “beatitudes” (paxdpuos,
Vulg. beati). Knowledge is a blessing as
the help to action. There is a Jewish
saying: “If a man knows the Law but
does not do thereafter, it had been better
for him that he had not come into the
world” (‘Shemoth R.’ quoted by
Wiinsche).

18. I speak not of you all] The treachery
of Judas was as yet manifest only to
Christ ; but to Him all was clear and open.
For Judas knowledge would not issue in
the happiness of doing.

I know whom I have chosen (1 chose))
and so I know that even of these twelve
chosen one is false (vi. 70). The choice
here spoken of is the historical choice to
the apostolate. The thought of “ election
to salvation” is quite foreign to the
context. Hence the stress lies on Z (ey«)
know. There was no surprise to Christ
in the faithlessness of Judas, though there
was to others. See Additional Note.

but that...) but my choice was so made
that... or more generally, but this has so
come to pass that...(xix. 36). There is a
necessary correspondence between the for-
tunes ofthe servants of God at all times.
It was necessary that Christ should fulfil
in His own experience what David (or
perhaps Jeremiah) had felt of the falseness
of friends.

The words may also be taken: “but,
that the scripture may be fulfilled, he
that...” This construction however seems
to be less natural and obscures the con-
trast,

that is sent

He that...me] The Greek in St John
closely renders the Hebrew. See Introd.
p. xiv.

He that eateth bread with me...) <Ac-
cording to the better reading, my bread.
The phrase means simply, my friend bound
to me by the closest and most sacred ties.

hath lifted up (lifted up)...] The notion
is that of brute violence, and not of the
cunning of the wrestler.

19. Now...) From henceforth (ca dprs,
Vulg. a@ modo, Matt. xxvi, 64, note).
Hitherto the Lord had borne His sorrow
in secret. Now it was necessary to antici-
pate the bitterness of disappointment. The
crisis was reached from which silence
henceforward was impossible, Comp. Matt.
xxvi, 64; ch. xiv, 7,

before it come to pass, that...) that is,
in order that what might have seemed to
be a fatal miscarriage, should be shewn to
have been within the range of the Master’s
foresight. Thus the disciples would be
enabled to trust in Him absolutely. His
knowledge was not only of the main fact
but of the details,

believe that I am he] Comp. viii. 24,
note.

20. Verily, verily...) The verse appears
to contain the converse truth to v. 16,
arising however directly out of v.19. The
knowledge of the Master’s greatness fur-
nishes the measure of the envoy’s great-
ness, If the treachery of one shook the
confidence of the others, the assurance of
what their office truly was served to
restore it. Comp. Matt. x. 40; and
especially Luke xxii. 24—30,

2. The separation of the selfish apostle
(21—30).

The act of complete sacrifice was followed
by an act of righteous judgment. Service
rests on love. Apostacy is the fruit of
self-seeking. To the last Judas appears
to take to himself honour without mis-
giving (v. 26). The details (vv, 22, 24, 25)
continue to reflect the vivid impressions of
an eye-witness.

21. was troubled in spirit] Compare
xi, 33, xii. 27, which are however both
different. The emotion belongs’ to the

193
194
tified, and said, Verily, verily, I say
unto you, that one of you shall be-
tray me.

22 Then the disciples looked one on
another, doubting of whom he spake.

23 Now there was leaning on Jesus’
bosom one of his disciples, whom
Jesus loved.

Sr. JOHN. XIII.

[v. 22—26.

24 Simon Peter therefore beckoned
to him, that he should ask who it
should be of whom he spake.

25 He then lying on Jesus’ breast
saith unto him, Lord, who is it?

26 Jesus answered, He it is, to

whom I shall give a llsop, when I | or,
And when he had ™786h

have dipped it.

 

highest region (T@ Tvevpare), as it is called
out by the prospect of a spiritual catas-
trophe. This agony is peculiar to St John.
“Pereant argumenta philosophorum,”
Augustine exclaims, “ qui negant in sapien-
tem cadere perturbationes animorum.”

testified] Comp. iv. 44. The revelation
is here made with solemn assurance, where
the clear statement follows the general
warnings in vv. 10, 11. At the same time
the effect upon the disciples is different.
They seek now for some explanation of
the words,

22. Then (omit) the disciples looked
(eBrerov, Vulg. aspiciebant) one on
another] The words give a vivid reminis-
cence of the actual scene. The first effect
of the Lord’s words was silent amazement
and perplexity.

doubting] “ Their consciousness of inno-
cence,” as has been well said, “‘ was less
trustworthy than the declaration of Christ.”
The same word (amopeio Oat) occurs Luke
xxiv, 4; Acts xxv. 20; 2 Cor, iv. 8; Gal.
iv. 20, and expresses rather bewilderment
than simple doubt. The parallel in Luke
xxii, 23 shews that the rendering “ about
whom” and not “about what” is right.

23. Now there...bosom] There was at
table reclining on Jesus’ bosom. At this
time, and for some time before and after,
the Jews appear to have adopted the
Western mode of reclining at meals.
Lightfoot (ad loc.) quotes Talmudic glosses
which shew that the guests lay resting on
their left arms, stretched obliquely, so
that the back of the head of one guest
lay in the bosom of the dress of the guest
above him. If three reclined together the
centre was the place of honour, the second
place that above (to the left), the third
that below (to the right). If the chief
person wished to talk with the second it
was necessary for him to raise himself and
turn round, for his head was turned away
as he reclined. St Peter then, sitting in
the second place, was not in a favourable
position for hearing any whisper from the
Lord, which would fall naturally on the
ears of St John. This very incident there-
fore, in which it has been supposed that
St John claims precedence over St Peter,
shews on the contrary that he sets himself
second to him,

whom Jesus loved] xix, 26, xxi. 7, 20
(jyd7a, Vulg. diligebat). The word in

xx. 2 is different, and marks a different
relationship (see note there), The title is
first used here, and is naturally suggested
by the recollection of this special incident.
It marks an acknowledgment of love and
not an exclusive enjoyment of love. Comp.
xiii, 1, 34, xv. 12, xi. 5.

24. beckoned] beckoneth (Acts xxiv.
10), as the eyes of the disciples were
turned in surprise from one to another.

that he should...spake] According to the
true reading: and saith to him, Tell us
who it is of whom He speaketh. St Peter
thought that the Lord had already revealed
to St John in an undertone the name of
the false apostle.

25. He then...breast) He leaning back
as he was on Jesus’ breast. The phrase
marks the recollection of an eye-witness.
The sudden movement (dvamreowy émi) is
contrasted with the position (dvaxeipevos
"y) at the table (oUrws, as he was, iv. 6);
the “bosom” (€v Tw KoAmw), the full fold
of the robe, with the “breast” (ert 7d
o7HOos ), the actual body. Before this
change of posture the disciple was so
placed as to hear a whisper from the
Lord, but not so as to address Him easily.
The act rather than the place at table was
preserved in tradition, xxi, 20. Polycr.
ap. Euseb. ‘H. E” v. 24; Tren. ur. 1;
Euseb. ‘H. E’ v, 8 Hence the title
“the disciple that leant on Christ’s breast”
(6 €rurt7@10s). Comp. Routh, ‘ Rell. Sacr.’
1. 42.

26. Jesus answered) Jesus therefore
answereth... The question was not now
to be put aside, but it was answered only
for those who put it.

to whom...dipped it] for whom I shall
dip (cf. Ruth ii, 14) the sop and give it
him. The emphatic pronoun marks the
significance of the action. It is an Eastern
custom at present for the host to give a
small ball of meat to the guest whom he
wishes to honour. The reference here may
be to this custom. By this act, which is
not mentioned in the other Gospels, Christ
answered the question of St John, Matt.
xxvi. 25. Comp, Matt. xxvi. 23; Mark
xiv. 20,

And...of Simon] So having dipped the
sop he taketh it and giveth it te Judas the
son of Simon Iscariot.

27, then Satan entered into him] Comp.
Luke xxii. 3. In that passage is the
V. 27—30.]

dipped the sop, he gave it to Judas
Iscariot, the son of Simon.
27 And after the sop Satan en-

tered into him. Then said Jesus
unto him, That thou doest, do
quickly.

28 Now no man at the table
knew for what intent he spake this
unto him.

Sr. JOHN. XIII.

29 For some of them thought, be-
cause Judas had the bag, that Jesus
had said unto him, Buy those things
that we have need of against the
feast; or, that he should give some-
thing to the poor.

30 He then having received the
sop went immediately out: and it
was night.

 

beginning (comp. v, 2), in this, the con-
summation of the design. Judas in his
self-will appears to have interpreted the
mark of honour so as to confirm him in his
purpose. So St John emphasizes the
moment: after the sop then (tore)... at
that moment the conflict was decided. It
is to be noticed that the pronoun here and
in v. 30 (éketvos) isolates Judas and sets
him as it were outside the company. Satan
is mentioned here only in the Gospel.
“ Enter” of evil spirits occurs Matt. xii.
45; Mark v. 12 f.; Luke viii. 30 ff., xi. 26.
Comp. Rev, xi. 11.

Then said Jesus...) Jesus therefore
saith... knowing the final resolve of Judas.

That thou doest, do quickly] The work
was in essence already begun. Therefore
the Lord now removes the traitor from
His presence. The command is not to do the
deed as if that were any longer uncertain,
but to do in a particular way what is
actually being done. Repentance is no
longer possible; and Christ welcomes the
issue for Himself. These words were
spoken openly; those in 24—6 secretly.

28. Now no man...) not even St John,
who did not connect this injunction with
the announcement which he had just re-
ceived.

29. Forsome...) They were so far from
a suspicion of the true import of the words
that they interpreted them in different
ways.

the bag] Comp. xii. 6.

had said (said)...Buy...against (for, is)
the feast] The words shew that the meal
cannot have been the passover. Moreover
if it had been, Judas would not have left
while the meal was as yet unfinished.

to the poor] xii. 5 ff.; Gal. ii. 10.

30. He then (So he) having received...]
Rather, having taken (AaBav). The word
marks that Judas on his part appropriated
the gift, which, from the repeated mention,
was evidently significant. Comp, xx. 22,
vii, 39, i, 12, v. 43, &c.

and it was night] The words cannot but
mark the contrast of the light within with
the outer darkness into which Judas “went
forth.” Comp. Rev. xxi. 25, xxii. 5; 1
Thess, v. 5; (ch. ix. 4, xi, 10). See also
Luke xxii. 53. “Hrat autem nox: et ipse
qui exivit erat nox” (Aug. ad loc.).

II. Tue Lasr Discovursss (xiii. 31—xvi.).

The last discourses of the Lord are
divided into two portions by the change
of place at the close of ch, xiv. Thus we
have

i. Tue Discourses 1N THE UPPER
Room (xiii. 31—xiv. 31).

ii. Tue Discourses on THE Way (xv.,
Xvi.),

These two groups of revelations, while
they have much in common, are distin-
guished both by their external form and
by a pervading difference of scope. The
first group consists in a great degree of
answers to individual apostles. St Peter
(xili, 36), St Thomas (xiv. 5), St Philip
(xiv. 8), and St Jude (xiv. 22), propose
questions to which the Lord replies. In
the second group the case is far different.
After the little company had left the room
a solemn awe seems to have fallen upon
the eleven (comp. Mark x. 32). They no
longer dared to ask what they desired to
know (xvi. 17); and when they spoke it
was as a body, with an imperfect confes-
sion of grateful faith (xvi, 29f.). This
outward difference between the two groups
corresponds with an inward difference. In
the first group the thought of separation,
and of union in separation predominates. In
the second group the main thought is of the
results of realised union, and of conflict
carried on to victory. This progress in
the development of the central idea of the
discourses influences the treatment of the
subjects which are common to the two
sections. This will appear clearly when
the parallel teaching“on the “new com-
mandment” of love (xiii. 34, xiv. 15, 21,
23f. Comp. xv. 9 ff., 17), on the world
(xiv. 22 ff. Comp. xv. 18 ff.; xvi. 1 ff.),
on the Paraclete (xiv. 16 f,, 25 f.; comp.
xv. 26, xvi. 8 ff.), and on Christ’s coming
(xiv. 3, 18, 28; comp. xvi, 16, 22), is
examined in detail.

These last’ discourses in St John bear
the same relation to the fourth Gospel as
the last eschatological discourses to the
Synoptic Gospels (Matt. xxiv. ; Mark xiii. ;
Luke xxi.). The two lines of thought
which they represent are complementary,
and answer to the circumstances by which
they were called out. Speaking in full
view of the city and the temple the Lord
naturally dwelt on the revolutions which

oO

195
196

31 4] Therefore, when he was gone
out, Jesus said, Now is the Son of
man glorified, and God is glorified in
him.

Sr. JOHN. XIII.

[v. 31—33.
32 If God be glorified in him, God
shall also glorify him in himself, and
shall straightway glorify him.
33 Little children, yet a little while

 

should come in the organization of nations
and the outward consummation of His
kingdom. Speaking in the Upper Room
and on the way to Gethsemane to the
eleven, now separated from the betrayer,
He dwelt rather on the inward consum-
mation of His work and on the spiritual
revolution which was to be accomplished.
In the last case the situation no less than
the teaching was unique. See Introduc-
tion, pp. lxili. ff.

i. Tue Discourses In tHE Upper Room
(xiii. 31—xiv, 31).

This first group of discourses may be
arranged naturally in four sections.

1, Separation: its necessity and issue
(xiii. 31—38).

2. Christ and the Father (xiv. 1—11).

3. Christ and the disciples (xiv. 12—21).

4, The law and the progress of Revela-
tion (xiv. 22—81).

1. Separation: its necessity and issue
(xiii, 31—38).

This first section of the Lord’s final re-
velation of Himself and of His work
contains in germ the main thoughts which
are afterwards unfolded. He declares (vv.
31—35) His victory (vv. 31, 32), His
departure (v. 33), the characteristic of His
Society (vv. 34, 35); and then, by the
example of St Peter, He lays open the
need of long and painful discipline for the
disciples, in order that they may realise at
last fellowship with Him (vv. 36—38).
The central idea is that of separation, its
nature, its necessity, its consequences; so
that the whole current of the discourses
flows directly from the historical position
with which they are connected

In this section, as afterwards, the absence
of connecting particles is a characteristic
feature of the narrative.

31. Therefore, when (When therefore)
... Jesus said (saith)) The departure of
Judas marked the crisis of the Lord’s
victory. By this the company was finally
“cleansed ” (v. 10): and not only was the
element of evil expelled, but it was used
for the fulfilment of its appropriate part.

gone out] The departure was the free
act of Judas. Contrast ix. 34 (颢@adov)

Now is...) This “ now,” with which the
Lord turns to the faithful eleven, expresses
at once the feeling of deliverance from
the traitor’s presence and His free accept.
ance of the issues of the traitor’s work.
Judas was the representative of that spirit
of wilful self-seeking which was the exact
opposite of the spirit of Christ. By his

removal therefore the conflict with evil
which Christ had sustained in His human
nature (the Son of Man) was essentially
decided. As very Man and the representa-
tive of humanity He had finally overcome.
At the moment when Judas went out,
charged to execute his purpose, the
Passion, as the supreme act of self-sacri-
fice, was virtually accomplished,

the Son of man] This title, as has been
already implied, is the key to the interpre-
tation of the passage. The words are spoken
of the relation of “the Son of man” to
“God,” and not of that of “the Son” to
“the Father.”

glorified] Perfect self-sacrifice even to
death, issuing in the overthrow of death,
is the truest “glory ” (comp, xii, 23f., x.
17f.; comp. vii. 39, xii. 16, xvii. 5). Even
the disciple in his degree “ glorifies God ”
by his death (xxi. 19). Hence the attain-
ment of glory by the Son of Manis rightly
spoken of as past (was glorified, éSoédcOn,
Vulg. clarificatus est, not simply is glort-
fied) in relation to the spiritual order,
though it was yet future in its historical
realisation. The thought throughout these
last discourses is of the decisive act by
which the Passion had been embraced.
The redemptive work of Christ essentially
was completed (xvii, 4, &.).

and God is (was) glorified in him] The
divine counsel (if we may so speak) was
justified in Christ as man. Comp. xiv. 13,
Xvii. 4,

82. If God...in him] This clause is
omitted by the most ancient authorities,
and mars the symmetry of the structure
of vv. 31, 32, which is seen to be most
remarkable by a literal rendering :

Now was glorified the Son of Man,
And God was glorified in Him:
And God shall glorify Him in Himself,

And straightway shall He glorify Him.

God shall also...and shall straightway...]
And God shall...and straightway shall He
The “glory” realised in absolute
sacrifice must necessarily be regarded
under two aspects, subjectively and objec-
tively. The inward victory carried with
it the outward triumph. Even as God
was glorified in the Son of Man, as man,
when He took to Himself willingly the
death which the traitor was preparing, so
also it followed that God would glorify the
Son of Man in His own divine Being, by
taking up His glorified humanity to fellow-
ship with Himself (Acts vii. 55). This
second clause is the complement of the
St. JOHN. XIII. 197

34 9A new commandment I give g Lev
unto you, That ye love one another ; eh,
as I have loved you, that ye also love , uy
one another, al.

v. 34.]
I am with you. Ye shall seek me:
fand as I said unto the Jews, Whi-

i siay. 7.
: ther I go, ye cannot come; so now I

say to you.

 

first, was glorified...shall glorify, not
separable from it in the divine counsel,
though distinguished in the man’s appre-
hension. The glory of Christ is one,
whether it is seen in the Betrayal, or in
the Cross, or in the Resurrection, or in
the Ascension. Each fact contemplated
in its true character includes all. Comp.
Phil. ii, 9.

in himself] The preposition (ev éavr@)
marks unity of being, and not simply unity
of position (rapa coi, xvii. 5). The “in
him” here corresponds with ‘forth from
Him” (e€ adrov) in ch. xvi. 28.

straightway] The sufferings and the
glories (1 Pet. i, 11) henceforth followed
one another in unbroken succession. Comp.
xii. 238.

83. Christ’s revelation of the nature of
the crisis as affecting Himself, is followed
by a revelation of it as affecting His
disciples. The realisation of His heavenly
glory involved His withdrawal from earth.
The time therefore was come in which it
was necessary for Him to announce His
departure to those who were nearest to
Him, as He had done before with another
purnose to the Jews. In this His friends
and His enemies were alike, that they
could not, being what they were, follow
Him.

Little children] The exact word (Texvia,
Vulg. filioli) occurs here only in the Gos-
pels (xxi. 5, wadia); but in 1 John it is
found six (or seven) times: in Gal. iv. 19
the reading is doubtful. The word (like
Téxvoy, i, 12, note) emphasizes the idea of
kinsmanship; and the diminutive conveys
an expression at once of deep affection and
also of solicitude for those who as yet are
immature. By using it here the Lord
marks the loving spirit of the communica-
tion which He makes, and assures those
whom He leaves of His tender sympathy
with them in their bereavement. At the
same time He indicates that they stand to
Him in a relation corresponding to that in
which He stands to the Father: comp. x.
14, xiv. 20, xvii, 21, 23.

yet a little while) i.e., it is but for a
little while that I am with you: the
moment of separation is at hand. Comp.
vii. 33.

Ye shall seek me] in the coming times
of trial after the Passion, and after the
Resurrection, and after the Ascension, and
even to the consummation of the age, in
the manifold loneliness of toil. | Comp.
Luke xvii. 22. It must be noticed that
the second clause, which was addressed to
the Jews, ‘and ye shall not find me’’ (vii.

84), is not added here. The search of the
disciples, if in sorrow, would not be finally
in vain, The words recorded in Luke xxii.
35, 36 point to a similar contrast between
the position of the disciples with the Lord
and their position without Him. Augus-
tine’s epigrammatic comment is most
worthy of notice: ‘‘Quaramus invenien-
dum; queramus inventum. Ut invenien-
dus queratur, occultus est; ut inventus
quezratur, immensus est... Satiat quzren-
tem in quantum capit, et invenientum
capaciorem facit...’’

as I said] viii. 21. Comp. vii. 34.

the Jews] iv. 22, xviii, 20, 36 note.

so now] Of the two particles which are
rendered ‘‘now,’’ one (vvv) marks a point
of time absolutely; and the other (dprz,
Vulg. modo), which is used here, marks a
point of time relatively to past and to
future, and thus includes the notion of
development or progress. Comp, ix, 19, 25
(dpe), 21 (vor), and see also xiii, 7, xvi.
12, 31; Rev. xii. 10 (apre),

The exact force of the “now” here
therefore is that, in the due advance of
the divine plan, the time was come for the
disciples to learn that they must be left
behind by their Master.

34, 35. The announcement of the com-
ing separation leads to the indication of its
purpose. The season of bereavement was
to be a season of spiritual growth. To this
end Christ gave a commandment fitted to
lead His disciples to apropriate the lessons
of His life, and so, by realising their true
character, to follow and to find Him. In
giving this commandment He speaks both
as a Master and as a Father (v. 33, little
children) who gives instructions to the
various members of his household on the
point of his departure

34. A new commandment...that ye love
one another] The last ciause is commonly
taken to convey the substance or scope of
the commandment. In this case the ‘‘ new-
ness’ of the commandment (which was old
in the letter, Lev. xix. 18; Luke x. 27)
must be sought in the newness of the mo-
tive and of the scope, inasmuch as the
example of the self-sacrifice of Christ,
begun in the Incarnation and consum-
mated at dis death, revealed to men new
obligations and new powers. Comp. 1
John ii. 7 f. A man’s ‘‘neighbour’’ was
at last seen to be simply his fellow man
(Luke x. 36), while this universal love was
based upon a special love realised in the
Christian society (4AA7jAovs). Thus Christ
was recognised first as the life of the
Church, and then as the life of humanity.
198

35 By this shall all men know that

ye are my disciples, if ye have love
one to another.

In this way the full conception of His Per-
son was gradually called out, as the sense
of “brotherhood” was fulfilled in Him,
and love became active as an inward
power and not as a duty imposed, as self-
sacrifice resting on universal and not on
relative claims. Nothing in the context
suggests that the intensity of the com-
mandment was increased, as if men were
now to love their neighbours more than
themselves.

It has however been conjectured that the
“new commandment” is the ordinance of
the Holy Communion which was instituted
to the end that Christians ‘‘ might love
one another,’’ by recalling in that the
crowning act of Christ’s love. If this be
so, the words, that ye love one another,
give the purpose and not the substance of
the commandment. It is however diffi-
cult to suppose that such an Institution
would be spoken of as a “commandment ”
(e€vroAy, 1 John ii. 7, iii, 22 ff.); but even
if this definite reference be not accepted,
it seems best to preserve the force of the
final particle (iva o'yamare) as marking the
scope and not simply the form of the new
commandment,

The force of ‘“‘the new commandment”
is illustrated by the well-known answer of
Hillel: ‘‘That which is hateful to thee
thou shalt not do to thy neighbour (com-

rade, srand This is the whole Law:

the rest is only commentary ’’ (Buxtorf,
‘Lex.’ s, v. 93D). The positive and the
absolute takes the place of the negative
and the relative.

“*Mandatum novum do vobis, ut vos in-
vicem diligatis: non sicut se diligunt qui
corrumpunt, nec sicut se diligunt homines
quoniam homines sunt; sed sicut se dili-
gunt quoniam dii sunt et filii Altissimi
omnes, ut sint Filio eius unico fratres...’’
(Aug. ad loc.).

A...commandment] This one command-
ment includes the sum of the old Law.
Comp. Rom. xiii. 10. It is universal in
its scope, and universal in its application.
It belongs to common life. The transition
from the plural to the singular in 1 John
ii. 8, 7 is to be noticed.

even as I have loved you] This clause also
is ambiguous. It may express either the
character or the ground of the love of
Christians. In the former case it is sup-
posed that this clause is transposed and
placed in the front for emphasis : ‘‘ that ye
also may love one another even as I have
loved you,” that is, with absolute devo-
tion. Such a transposition however is
foreign from St. John’s manner, and in
this interpretation, ye also loses its force.
Thus it seems better to take the clause as

Sr. JOHN. XIII.

[v. 35, 36

36 | Simon Peter said unto him,
Lord, whither goest thou? Jesus an-
swered him, Whither I go, thou canst

parallel with @ new commandment give I
unto you. The commandment is thus en-
forced by the example: ‘I enjoin the
precept (or I appoint the ordinance), even
as up to this last moment I loved you, in
order that you also, inspired by me, may
imitate my love, one towards another.”
Comp. 1 John iii. 16.

I have loved you] The exact form
(jAaanoa, I loved) implies that Christ’s
work is now ideally finished. Comp. xv.
9, 12, xvii. 4,

35. By (€v) this] By the manifestation
of love in the Christian society ( v aAAnA-
ots, Mark ix. 50; Rom. xv. 5), and not
characteristically by works of power, the
Master would seem to be still present with
the disciples. Comp. 1 John iii, 10.

The well-known anecdote of St John’s
extreme old age preserved by Jerome (‘ad
Galat.’ vi. 10) is a striking comment on the
commandment. It is related that the
disciples of the apostle, wearied by his con-
stant repetition of the words “‘ Little chil-
dren, love one another,’’ which was all he
said when he was often carried into their
assembly, asked him why he always said
this. ‘‘ Because,’’ he replied, ‘it is the
Lord’s commandment; and if it only be
fulfilled it is enough.”

all men] The spectacle of love was a wit-
ness to the world (comp, xiv. 31, xvii. 21),
and so it was treated by the early apolo-
gists; as, for example, in the famous
passage of Tertullian: ‘‘The heathen are
wont to exclaim with wonder, See how
these Christians love one another ! for they
hate one another ; and how they are ready
to die for one another! for they are more
ready to kill one another...” (‘ Apol.’ 39).
This idea of the witness of Christian love
is made prominent by the fact that the
Lord says “all men shall perceive (yvéo-
ovrat) that ye are,’’ and not simply “ye
shall be.” At a later time Chrysostom
drew a remarkable picture of the divisions
of Christians as hindering the conversion
of the heathen (‘Hom. in Joh.’ 71 fin.).

my disciples] The original form of
expression (€0c paOynrai) js peculiar and
emphatic. Comp. xv. 8, iv. 34. This, it
is implied, was the loftiest title to which
they aspired.

86—38. The view of the position of the
Lord—of His victory, His departure, the
perpetuation of His work—is completed by
a view of the position of the disciples as
seen in their representative, of their
doubts, their future attainment, their
present weakness.

36. said (saith)...whither goest thou?]
St Peter feels rightly that the fact of the
Lord’s departure (v. 33) is the central point
of all that He has just said. In the pros-
h Matt. 26.
®.

V. 37, 38.] St. JOHN.

not follow me now; but thou shalt
follow me afterwards.

37 Peter said unto him, Lord, why
cannot I follow thee now? I will
Alay down my life for thy sake.

AAI. 199

38 Jesus answered him, Wilt thou
lay down thy life for my sake?
Verily, verily, I say unto thee, The
cock shall not crow, till thou hast
denied me thrice.

 

pect of this separation he cannot rest
satisfied with the implied promise of sup-
port and of the realisation by the disciples
of the character of their absent Master.
If Christ were indeed ‘‘ the King of Israel’’
(comp, xii. 15), where could His kingdom
be established if not at Jerusalem (comp.
vii, 35)? How could the King leave those
who had followed Him till He had claimed
and received His throne? The Latin ren-
dering of the words (Domine quo vadis?)
recalls the beautiful legend of St Peter’s
martyrdom (Acta Pauli, Hilgfd., ‘N. T.
extra Can.’ iv. 72). For the incomplete-
ness of St Peter’s question see xvi. 5.
His thoughts were fixed upon the material
and not upon the spiritual departure and
following.

answered him] Omit him. The question
itself is not directly answered, but rather
the thought which St Peter cherished as
he made it. ‘‘Let me only know whither
Thou goest,”’ he seems to say, ‘“‘and I will
go with Thee.’’ So the reply of the Lord
checks and yet encourages the apostle, It is
enough for him to know that he shall fol-
low his Master, though not now. It was
impossible for him to follow Christ at
once, because he was as yet unfitted. The
work which he had to accomplish would
itself prepare him for this, and the ques-
tion is mainly one of ‘‘ going’? and
“following.”’ The idea of time is sub-
ordinate here, while it is otherwise in v.
37. Comp. Matt. xx. 23. Comp. Aug.
‘Tr.’ 66, ‘Noli extolli presumendo, non
potes modo: noli dejici desperando,
sequeris postea.”’

If the original words are compared with
the parallel words in viii. 21 (and supr.

»,. 88) it will be observed that the sharp
opposition of persons (Z, ye) is not pre-
served here. In checking the disciple
the Lord simply points out the impossi-
bility of an immediate following, and does
not insist on a contrast of character which
makes the impossibility.

87. Peter said (saith)...Lord, why cannot
I follow thee even now (dpti, Vulg.
modo)?] St Peter assumes that the way is
one of peril, but he thinks that he has esti-
mated the utmost cost; and even at the
moment he claims to be ready.

lay down my life] See x. 11, note. The
apostle confidently believes that he can
lay down his life for Christ before Christ
has laid down His life for him. At a later
time he learnt that it was by Christ’s
Passion his own martyrdom became pos-
sible, xxi. 18, 19 (Follow me).

38. Jesus answered him, Wilt thou...]
Jesus answereth, Wilt thou... The exact
repetition of St Peter’s words gives a
singular pathos to the reply. It is as if
the Lord accepted their essential truth,
and looked forward to their fulfilment
across the long years of discipline and
trial : ‘“‘ Wilt thou? yea, I know thou wilt ;
yet in a way how different from that of
which thou art now thinking.’’ Comp.
Luke xxii. 31 ff. In St Matthew (xxvi.
33) and St Mark (xiv. 29) the prophecy of
St Peter’s denial is placed on the way to
Gethsemane in connexion with the pro-
phecy of the general desertion of the
apostles. This latter warning may well
have given occasion to a second expression
of St Peter’s individual zeal. Comp. xvi.
32. But in the narrative of St John, St
Peter does not appear again till xviii. 10.

ADDITIONAL NOTE on Cuap. xin. 18.

There are two groups of explanations of
the choice of Judas. The first group re-
gard the choice from the side of the divine
counsel; the second from the side of the
human call.

1. It is said that he was chosen in
obedience to God’s will in order that he
might betray Christ; or, to represent the
same conception from another point of
view, in order that the redemption might
be accomplished through his act.

2. It is said again by some that Christ in
making His choice of Judas did not read
the inmost depths and issues of his charac-
ter; and by others that seeing all distinctly
even to the end He kept him near to
Himself as one trusted equally with the
others of the twelve.

Both these terms of explanation involve
partial solutions of infinite problems.

The question raised by the first group
leads us at once to the final mystery of
divine Providence. This, as far as we can
represent it to ourselves, deals with general
results and not with individual wills.

The question raised by the second group
leads us at once to the final mystery of the
union of perfect divinity and perfect hu-
manity in the One Person of the Lord.
And here the records of the Gospel lead us
to believe that the Lord had perfect hu-
man knowledge realised in a human way,
and therefore limited in some sense, and
separable in consciousness from His per-
fect divine omniscience. He knew the
thoughts of men absolutely in their mani-
200

fold possibilities, and yet, as man, not in
their actual future manifestations.

These two final mysteries are not created
by the fact that Judas was chosen by
Christ among the twelve. They really
underlie all religious life, and indeed all
finite life. For finite being includes the

CHAPTER XIV.

* Christ comforteth his disciples with the
hope of heaven: 6 professeth himself the
way, the truth, and the life, and one
with the Father : 13 assureth their prayers
in his name to be effectual: 15 requesteth
love and obedience, 16 promiseth the Holy

Sr. JOHN. XIV.

[v. 1, 2.

possibility of sin, and the possibility of
fellowship between the Creator and the
creature.

Thus we may be content to have this
concrete mystery as an example—the most
terrible example—of the issues of the two
fundamental mysteries of human existence.

Ghost the Comforter, 27 and leaveth his
peace with them.
ET not your heart be troubled :
ye believe in God, believe also
in me.
2 In my Father’s house are many

 

2. Christ and the Father (xiv. 1—11).

This section corresponds closely in form
to that which has gone before. The Lord
first states the goal and the purpose of
His departure (vv. 1—4); and then meets
the two crucial difficulties which are ex-
pressed by St Thomas (vv. 5—7) and by St
Philip (8—11), as to the reality of man’s
knowledge of the divine end of life.

Cuar. XIV. 1—4. The succession of
thought implied in these verses is singu-
larly impressive. The ground idea is that
of departure, already stated: this depar-
ture is to the Father’s abode, with a view
to preparing « place for, and then coming
again to, those who know the direction of
the journey.

1. Let not your heart—the seat of feel-
ing and faith (Rom. x. 10)—be troubled}
Comp. v. 27. There had been already
much to cause alarm on this evening : ch.
xiii. 21 f., 38, 36; and, in particular, the
last warning (xiii. 38) might well shake the
confidence of the disciples. It is easy
therefore to imagine the sad silence which
followed that utterance, broken at last by
these words, which for the first time open
heaven to faith.

troubled] v. 27, xii. 27, xiii. 21.

ye believe in God, believe also in me]
The original words are ambiguous and can
be interpreted (as indeed they have been
interpreted) in four ways, according as the
verbs are taken severally as in the indica-
tive or imperative mood :

1. Ye believe in God, and if this be true,
as assuredly it is, ye believe also in me.

2. Ye believe in God, believe also in me.
(Vulgate, A.V.)

3. Believe in God, and (as a natural con-
sequence) ye believe in me.

4. Believe in God and believe in me.

The double imperative (4) suits the con-
text best. The changed order of the ob-
ject (Believe in God and in me believe)
marks the development of the idea. ‘‘ Be-
lieve in God, and yet more than this,
let your faith find in Mfe one on whom it
can rest.’’ In Christ belief in God gained
a present reality, The simultaneous in-
junction of faith “in God and in Christ

under the same conditions implies the
divinity of Christ (wuorevere eis), The
belief is ‘‘in Christ,’’ and not in any pro-
positions about Christ.

in God] The successive divine titles
used in the opening verses are significant :
God, my Father (v. 2), the Father (v. 6).

2. In my Father’s house] the spiritual
and eternal antitype of the transitory
temple (ii. 16) in which I have the right
of a son (comp. viii. 36). Even as the
earthly temple included in its court many
chambers (1 K. vi. 5, 6. 10; Ezek. xli. 6),
so it is to be conceived of the heavenly, as
far as earthly figures can symbolize that
which is spiritual. The Homeric descrip-
tion of Priam’s palace (‘Il.’ vi. 242 ff.)
may help to give distinctness to the image.
But it is impossible to define further what
is thus shadowed out. Heaven is where
God is seen as our Father. We dare not
add any local limitation, even in thought,
to this final conception. And so the
vision of God sums up all that we can
conceive of the future being of the re-
deemed.

many mansions] There is room enough
for all there: though you may find no
shelter among men (xvi. 1, 2), you shall
find it amply with my Father. It does
not appear that there is in this place any
idea of the variety of the resting-places, as
indicating different limitations of future
happiness. Such an idea would be foreign
to the context, though it is suggested by
other passages of Scripture, and was cur-
rent in the Church from the time of Ter-
tullian.

mansions} The rendering comes from
the Vulgate mansiones, which were resting-
places, and especially the ‘stations’? on
a great road where travellers found re-
freshment. This appears to be the true
meaning of the Greek word here; so that
the contrasted notions of repose and pro-
gress are combined in this vision of the
future. The word (ov7) occurs in N.T.
only here and in v. 23.

tf it were not so, I would have told you,
for I go...) Christ reminds His disciples
that as He has told them tidings of sorrow
Vv. 3—5.]
mansions : if it were not so, I would
have told you. I go to prepare a
place for you.

3 And if I go and prepare a place
for you, I will come again, and re-

Sr. JOHN. XIV.

ceive you unto myself; that where I
am, there ye may be also.

4 And whither I go ye know, and
the way ye know.

5 Thomas saith unto him, Lord,

 

so He would not have withheld anything
from them. But as it is, His departure in
fact carries with it the promise of their
reception. Otherwise it would only avail
partially. This connexion seems better
than to regard the words if it were not so
...you aS a mere parenthesis, and to refer
the ‘‘for,’? which must be inserted in ac-
cordance with the best authorities, to the
‘‘many mansions.’? The interrogative
construction, ‘‘if it were not so, would I
have told you that I go to prepare a place
for you?” is far less probable : there is in-
deed no difficulty in supposing that a
reference is made to words not directly
recorded (cf. xii. 26, &c., vi. 36), but the
question would be singularly abrupt. Still
less likely is the rendering “if it were
not so, I would have told you that I am
going to prepare a place for you.’’ For
Christ was in fact going to prepare a
place: v, 3.

to prepare a place) Comp. Num, x. 33.
Christ by His Death and Resurrection
opened heaven, and by the elevation of
His humanity thus made ready a place for
men, Comp. Hebr. vi. 20 (mpddpoj0s).

8. And if...) This departure is itself
the condition of the return : separation, the
cessation of the present circumstances of
fellowship, was the first step towards com-
plete union.

I will come again, and receive...) I come
again and 1 will take...) The idea of
Christ’s Presence (apoucia ) is distinctly
implied here as in xxi. 22 f. (comp, 1 John
ii. 28). This idea is less prominent in St
John’s Gospel and Epistles than in the
other writings of the New Testament, be-
cause they belong to the period after the
first great coming of Christ at the over-
throw of the Theocracy by the destruction
of Jerusalem.

But though the words refer to the last
‘‘coming’’ of Christ, the promise must
not be limited to that one ‘‘coming”’
which is the consummation of all ‘‘com-
ings.” Nor again must it be confined to
the ‘‘coming’’ to the Church on the day
of Pentecost, or to the ‘‘coming’’ to the
individual either at conversion or at death,
though these ‘‘comings’’ are included in
the thought. Christ is in fact from the
moment of His Resurrection ever coming
to the world and to the Church, and to
men as the Risen Lord (comp. i. 9).

This thought is expressed by the use of
the present Z come as distinguished from
the future Z will come, as of one isolated
future act. The ‘‘coming”’ is regarded in
its continual present, or, perhaps it may

be said, eternal reality. Comp. vv. 18, 28,
(xvii. 11, 18), (xxi. 22 f.). On the other
hand, see, for the definite historical fulfil-
ment,’ xiv. 23.

Side by side with this constant coming,
realised through the action of the Holy
Spirit in the life of the Church (v. 26), is
placed the personal, historical, reception of
each believer (Z will take you to myself)
fulfilled through death,

unto myself] the centre and spring of
your joy and glory. Christ will not fail
His disciples, though they may fail (xiii.
38).

Augustine rightly observes that these
phrases of ‘‘ going’? and ‘‘coming”’ are
not to be interpreted of local transference :
“Si bene intelligo, nec unde vadis nec
unde venis, recedis: vadis latendo, venis
apparendo.”’

The double correspondence in the lan-
guage of the two clauses, go—come, pre-
pare a place—take you to myself, gives
distinctness to the two aspects of Christ’s
work.

that where I am...) Presence with
Christ, as involving the vision of His
glory (xvii. 24), carries with it participa-
tion: in His Nature. Comp. 1 John iii. 2.
See also vii. 34, 36, viii. 21 f., xii, 26.

4. whither I go ye know, and the way
ye know] According to the true reading,
whither I go ye know the way. However
indistinct might be the conception which
the disciples had of the goal to which
the, Lord was going, they could at least
see the direction in which He went. His
life, as they looked upon it, made this
clear. Hence the pronoun is emphatic
here ‘‘whither I—I as ye know me—am
going,’ while it does not occur in the
earlier clauses of v. 3 or in St Thomas’
repetition of the words v. 5; nor is the
following ‘‘ye’’ emphatic.

5—11. The revelation which the Lord
had given of the purpose of His approach-
ing separation creates questioning among
the disciples. How can they have any
true conception of the ‘‘ way’? of which
He spoke? How can they have any
true knowledge of the Father? The first
question is proposed by St Thomas (5—7) ;
and the second by St Philip (8—11).

5. Thomas saith] xi. 16, note.

and how can we know the way ?] The true
text gives a short sentence : how know we
the way? This question of St Thomas ex-
presses a natural difficulty as to the Lord’s
statement. For us generally a clear apprehen-
sion of the end is the condition of knowing
the way. But in spiritual things faith is
content to move forward step by step.

201
202

we know not whither thou goest;
and how can we know the way?

6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the
way, the truth, and the life: no
man cometh unto the Father, but by
me.

Sr. JOHN. XIV.

[v. 6—8.

7 If ye had known me, ye should
have known my Father also: and
from henceforth ye know him, and
have seen him,

8 Philip saith unto him, Lord, shew

us the Father, and it sufficeth us.

 

There is a happiness in ‘‘ not seeing,’’ xx.

29. The ‘‘way’’ is itself the revelation,
and for man the only possible revelation,
of the end.

6f. The answer of the Lord is more
comprehensive than the question of St
Thomas. The question is answered by the
first clause: “I am the way ;”’ but such a
statement itself requires interpretation,
and this is given in the clauses which fol-
low. To know Christ is to know all, to
know both the goal and the way. He is
in the fullest sense the way, and the guide,
and the strength of men, and beside Him
there is none other.

6. JZ am...] not simply ‘‘I reveal,’’ or
“T open,” or ‘‘I make, as a prophet or a
law-giver.’’ Christ is all Himself. The
pronoun is emphatic, and at once turns the
thoughts of the apostles from a method
to a Person.

The beautiful paraphrase of the verse by
Thomas a Kempis may be quoted in his
own words: ‘‘Ego sum via, veritas et
vita. Sine via non itur, sine veritate non
cognoscitur, sine vita non vivitur. Ego
sum via quam sequi debes: veritas cui
credere debes : vita quam sperare debes.”’
(‘De imit.’ iii, 56.)

the way] by which the two worlds are
united, so that men may pass from one to
the other. Comp. Heb. ix. 8, x. 20; Eph.
ii. 18. Hence, perhaps, the Christian
faith is spoken of as ‘‘the way :’’ Acts
ix. 2, xix. 9, 28, xxii. 4, xxiv. 22, ‘The
use of the corresponding word in the
Chinese mystical system of Laotse is of
interest. ‘‘In the mysticism of Lao the
term [Tao, ‘the way,’ ‘the chief way’] is
applied to the supreme cause, the way or
passage through which everything enters
into life, and at the same time to the way
of the highest perfection’ (Tiele, ‘ Hist.
of Rel.’ p. 37).

the truth] in which is summed up all
that is eternal and absolute in the chang-
ing phenomena of finite being. Comp. viii.
32, i. 14, 17; 1 John v, 6 in connexion
with ch, xiv. 26; Eph. iv. 21. For St
John’s conception of Truth see Introduc-
tion, pp. xliv. f. See also Jer. x. 10
(Hebr.) and Maimonides, ‘Yad Hach.’ 1, 1.

the life] by which the entire sum of
being fulfils one continuous purpose, ans-
wering to the divine will (comp. i. 8, 4),
no less than that by which each individual
being is enabled to satisfy its own law of
progress and to minister to the whole of
which it is a part. Comp. xi, 25; Col.
iii, 4.

It is most instructive to notice the two
connexions in which Christ reveals Him-
self to be ‘‘the Life.’”? Comp. xi. 25, note.

no man cometh unto the Father...| Here
for the first time the end of ‘“‘the way,”
even the Father, is distinctly told.

but by (through) me] It is only through
Christ that we can, though in God (Acts
xvii. 28), apprehend God as the Father,
and so approach the Father. The preposi-
tion probably marks the agent (comp. i. 3,
10, 17; 1 John iv. 9); but it is possible
that Christ may represent Himself as the
“‘door’’ (x. 1, 9). It does not follow that
every one who is guided by Christ is
directly conscious of His guidance.

7. If ye had known me—come to know
(eyvdxerre) me in the successive revela-
tions of myself which I have made—ye
should have known—have enjoyed a cer-
tain and assured knowledge of (7SetTe) my
Father also] ‘‘ The Father” of v. 6 is now
regarded under His special relation to
Christ. The disciples, it is implied, would
have had no need to ask about Christ’s
goal and theirs, if they had really known
Him. The change of verb ( €yvwxecre,
ndevre) and the change of order (ei ¢yvaik.
pe, Tov 7. p. av 76.) are both significant.
Comp. viii. 19.

from henceforth (omit and)—from this
crisis in my self-revelation—ye know him,
and have seen him] The announcement
which Christ had made had placed the
Nature of the Father in u clear light. The
disciples could no longer doubt as to His
character or purpose. In this sense they
had ‘“‘seen the Father,” though God is
indeed invisible (i. 18). They had looked
upon Him as He is made known in His
fatherly relation, and not as He is in
Himself. From that time forward the
knowledge and the vision became part of
their spiritual being. Comp. 1 Johnii. 13.

8. St. Thomas remains silent. The
same faith, we may suppose, which after-
wards enabled him to give expression to
the great confession, xx. 28, now kept him
pondering on the meaning of Christ’s
words. St Philip, on the other hand,
takes hold on the last word and seeks to
obtain vision in a more unquestionable
form. He wishes to gain bodily sight in
place of the sight of the soul.

Philip] i. 46 (47); vi. 7, xii, 21 ff,

shew us] As the revelation was once
made to Moses (Exod. xxxiii, 17 ff.), and
as it has been promised in the prophets
(Isai. xl. 5), The new dispensation naturally
v. 9—II.]

g Jesus saith unto him, Have I
been so long time with you, and yet
hast thou not known me, Philip? he
that hath seen me hath seen the
Father; and how sayest thou then,
Shew us the Father ?

io Believest thou not that I am
in the Father, and the Father in

seemed to call for a new manifestation of
the divine glory. The request at the same
time implies the belief that Christ could
satisfy it. Comp. Matt. xi. 27.

it sufficeth us] We shall be contented
then even to be left alone; we shall ask
and we shall need no more.

9. Have I been...with you...] The thought
is primarily of the self-revelation of Christ,
and not of the power of observation in the
disciples (Have ye been...with me...).

..and yet hast thou not known...} and
dost thou not know me? hast thou not
come to know me (é€yvwkas)? The life of
Christ was the true manifestation of the
Father, whose will and nature could be
discerned in the acts and words of His Son.
A theophany—an apparition of God’s glory
—could only go a little way in shewing His
holiness and justice and love.

known me] The Lord does not say here
“the Father ;” He points out first the way
to the end. :

Philip] There is an evident pathos in this
direct personal appeal. The only partial
parallels in St John are in xx. 16 (Mary) ;
xxi, 15 (Simon son of John); the insertion
of Thomas in xx. 29 is a false reading.
See also Luke xxii, 31, x. 41; Matt. xvi.
17, xvii. 25; Mark xiv. 37.

he that hath seen me hath seen the
Father] hath seen not God in His absolute
being (i. 18), but God revealed in this
relation, Comp. xii. 45, xv. 24; Col. i. 15;
Heb. i. 3. Comp. i. 18, note. :

The words give for all time a definiteness
to the object of religious faith; and it is
impossible to mistake the claim which they
express. .

and (omit) how sayest thou (emphatic)}
thou, who from the first didst obey my
command (i. 48, 44), and recognise in me
the fulfilment of the promises of God (i.
45), and appeal to sight as the proof of my
claims (i, 46).

10. Believest thou not...] It was a ques-
tion of belief, for the Lord had expressed
the truth plainly at an earlier time, x. 38.

I am in the Father, and the Father in
me] In x. 38, the order is different, inas-
much as the notion of divine power is
there made the starting-point, The teaching
of Christ shewed how He was in closest
communion with the Father; His works
shewed how the Father wrought in Him.

the words] the special utterances (Ta f7)-
para), the parts of the one great message,
xv, 7, Xvii, 8. Comp. iii. 34, v. 47, vi. 63,
68, viii. 30, 47, x. 21, xii. 471.

St. JOHN. XIV.

me? the words that I speak unto
you I speak not of myself: but the
Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth
the works.

1r Believe me that I am in the
Father, and the Father in me? or
else believe me for the very works’
sake.

speak (say)...speak] The former verb
notes the substance (Aéyw) and the latter
the form of the teaching (AaAG). Comp.
xii. 49 f., xvi, 18; Matt. xiii. 3, xiv. 27,
xxiii, 1, xxviii, 18; Mark v. 36, vi. 50;
Luke xxiv. 6; Rom. iii. 19, &.

of myself] Comp. v. 19, note.

but the Father...) My teaching is not
self-originated, but on the contrary my
whole Life is the manifestation of the
Father’s will.

the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth
the works] According to the true reading,
the Father abiding in me doeth His works,
carrieth out actively His purpose in many
ways, and my teaching is part of this
purpose, “The works” were the elements
of “the work” (iv. 34, xvii. 4, v. 36, ix.
4), and they are said to be wrought by the
Son (x. 37) as by the Father. Comp. v.
19 f., notes,

The words and the works of Christ are
pointed out as the two proofs of His union
with the Father, the former appealing to
the spiritual consciousness, the latter to the
intellect. The former were a revelation
of character, the latter primarily of power ;
and naturally the former have the pre-
cedence. Comp. xv, 24, note.

11. Believe...) The verb is here plural,
mwurrevere contrasted with murrevets, v. 10).
Philip had expressed the thoughts of his
fellow-disciples, and now the Lord addresses
all. Believe me that...accept my own state-
ment as final.

or else] if my Person, my life, my words,
do not command faith, then follow the way
of reason, and from the divinity of my
works deduce the divinity of my nature
(cf. v. 36). Comp. x. 87 f., iii, 2.

3. Christ and the disciples (12—21).

In the last sub-section (8—11) the
thoughts of the disciples were concentrated
on the objective manifestation of God
without them; they are now turned to the
subjective manifestation of God within
them. Three aspects of this progressive
revelation are brought out in succession.
The disciples continue Christ’s work in
virtue of their relation to Him (12—14).
He still carries out His work and provides
for them “another Advocate” (15—17).
He comes to them Himself (18—21).

A comparison of xiii. 33 ff., xiv. 1 ff., xiv.
12 ff., will shew a striking progress in the
unfolding of the vision of Christ’s departure.

12—14. Christ’s departure enables the
disciples to do through His intercession

203
204 Sr. JOHN. XIV. [v. 1214,

12 Verily, verily,“ say unto you, 13 @And whatsoever ye shall ask in @ Matt. 7.
my name, that will I do, that the
Father may be glorified in the Son.

14 If ye shall ask any thing in my
name, I will do it.

He that believeth on me, the works
that I do shall he do also; and greater
works than these shall he do; because
I go unto my Father.

 

greater works than He had done, in order
that the Father may be glorified in the Son.

12. Verily, verily...] Christ had appealed
to His works as a secondary ground of
belief. He now shews that the true believer
will himself do the same works. Such
works flow from the Son and from those in
fellowship with Him; but the life and the
nature lie deeper.

believeth on me] as the result of believ-
ing me (v. 11).

shall he do also...| The emphatic pro-
noun fixes attention upon the person already
characterized. Comp. vi. 57, and vv. 21,
26; xii. 48, ix. 37; v. 39, i. 18, 33.

greater works than these (which I do in
my earthly ministry) shall he do] “greater”
that is, as including the wider spiritual
effects of their preaching which followed
after Pentecost (Acts ii, 41). “ Evangeli-
zantibus discipulis...gentes etiam credider-
unt; hee sunt sine dubitatione majora”
(Aug. ad loc.). There is no reference toe
miracles of a more extraordinary kind (e.g.
Acts xix 12), as if there were a possibility
of this material comparison (yet comp.
Matt. xxi, 21f.). Nor can “greater” be
regarded as equivalent to “more.”

These “ greater works” are also works of
Christ, being done by those who “ believe
on Him.”

because...] The elevation of Christ in His
humanity to the right hand of God carries
with it the pledge of the greater works pro-
mised. The idea is not that the disciples
will henceforward work because Christ will
be absent; but that His going increases
their power (xvi. 7; comp. Eph. iv. 8 ff.;
Phil. iv. 13), The emphatic pronoun (Z) does
not give a contrast with “ye,” but brings
out the fulness of Christ’s personality.

my Father] the Father according to the
true reading. The title gives the ground
of fellowship.

13. And whatsoever...] This clause may
be either a continuation of the former clause
and dependent on “ because ;” or a new and
independent clause carrying forward the
thought one stage further. The second
alternative appears to be preferable. The
union of Christ, perfect man, with the
Father gives the assurance of the greater
works; and yet more, Christ for the glory
of the Father will fulfil the prayer of the
disciples.

ask (of God) in my name] The phrase in
my name occurs here first, Compare in the
name of my Father, v. 43, x. 25, (xii. 13),
xvii. 6, 11, 12, 26, and the words of the
Evangelist, i, 12, ii. 23, iii, 18, xx. 21.

Now at last the Lord has revealed His
Person to the disciples, and they are enabled

to apprehend His relation to themselves and
to the Father. Thus the phrase occurs
throughout this section of the Gospel. xiv.
26, ‘“‘the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will
send in my name;” xv. 16, “that whatso-
ever ye shall ask (airnre, airjonre) the
Father in my name, He may give you;”
xvi. 23, “if ye shall ask (airjonTe anything
of the Father, He will give it you in my
name;” xvi, 24, “hitherto have ye asked
(frjoare) nothing in my name;” xvi. 26,
“in that day ye shall ask ( air7joerde)
in my name.” Comp. xv. 21.

The meaning of the phrase is “as being
one with me even as I am revealed to you.”
Its two correlatives are in me (vi, 56, xiv.
20, xv. 4ff., xvi. 33; comp. 1 John v. 20);
and the Pauline in Christ. It occurs else-
where in the New Testament in Mark ix.

°38, xvi. 17; Luke x. 17; Acts ii, 38, iii. 6,

iv. 10. The phrase in the name (év Te
évépart) must be distinguished from the
cognate phrases info the name, on the name
(cis 7d Gvopa, ert TO dvdpart, and TO
évépart), which are also found.

Augustine remarks that the prayer in
Christ’s name must be consistent with
Christ’s character, and that He fulfils it as
Saviour, and therefore just so far as it
conduces to salvation.

that (this) will I do] There is exact
conformity between the disciples’ prayer
and Christ’s will. He promises Himself to
do what they ask, and not only that they
shall receive their petition,

that the Father...) that God may be
openly revealed in majesty as Father in the
Son, for he who obtains his prayer through
Christ, who claims to act in the Father's
name (v. 48), necessarily gains a more.
living and grateful sense of the Father’s
power and love. The condition—the fur-
therance of the Father’s glory—furnishes
the true limitation of prayer. Comp, xiii.
81 (“the son of man...and God...”).

14. If ye shall ask any thing in my
name...) The most ancient authorities add
me: tf ye shall ask me anything... This
reading gives a fresh and important
thought. Prayer is to be made not only
in the name of Christ, as pleading His
office in union with Him; but also to
Christ.

I will do it] Or perhaps this (or that)
will I do (rovro roujow). The reading is
uncertain; but on the whole it seems best
to regard the personal pronoun as em-
phatic here (éy@ oujow), so that it marks
as elsewhere the action of Christ in the
fulness of His double nature.
v. I5—17.]
I5 4 If ye love me, keep my com-
mandments.
16 And I will pray the Father,
and he shall give you another Com-

St. JOHN. XIV.

forter, that he may abide with you
for ever; ;

17 Even the Spirit of truth; whom
the world cannot receive, because it

 

15—17. Christ after His departure con-
tinues His work for His disciples, and pro-
vides for them an abiding Advocate. But
the efficiency of His action for them de-
pends upon their fellowship with Him
through loving obedience.

15. Zf ye love me...] The thought of love
follows that of faith (v. 12). Faith issues
in works of power : love in works of devo-
tion. The subject of the love of the
disciples for Christ (comp. viii. 42) is
peculiar to this and the following section
(15—81).

keep] According to the true reading, ye
will keep. Obedience is the necessary con-
sequence of love. The imperative reading
gives a false turn to the thought. Love
carries with it practical devotion, and this
calls out the intercession of the Lord; or,
in other words, love for Christ finds practi-
cal expression in love for the brethren,
which is His commandment (xiii. 34).
Comp. xv. 10, xiv. 21, 23; (1 John v. 8).

my commandments] The commandments
that are mine, characteristic of me (Tas
évroAds Tas éuds, comp. xv. 9 note, xv. 12:
in v. 21, xv. 10, Tas evToAds pov). The
phrase in this connexion is nothing short
of a claim to divine authority.

It may be added that this conception of
‘“‘keeping God’s commandments given
through Christ”? is characteristic of St
John’s writings: xv. 10; 1 John ii. 3 f.,
iii, 24, v. 2 f.; 2 John 6; Rev. xii. 17.
Compare with this wider meaning Matt.
xix. 17; 1 Tim. vi. 14.

16. And I will pray (ask)...] I on my
part, when the due time has come. Active
love on the part of Christ corresponds to
active love on the part of the disciples.
The mission of the Paraclete is from the
Father who sent His Son (iii. 17). In this
lies the perfect assurance of love; so that
there is a correspondence between “I will
do” (v, 18) and “I will ask and he shall
give.” Comp. xvi. 7. On ask ( épwrdv)
see xvi. 26 note.

the Father] In this common title lies the
pledge that the prayer will be granted.

shall give] Not send simply (v. 26), but
(as it were) assign to you as your own.
Comp, iii. 16; 1 John iii. 1, 24, iv. 18;
Matt. x. 20.

another Comforter (Advocate)] See Note
at the end of the Chapter. The phrase
appears to mark distinctly the Personality
of the Paraclete, and His true Divinity.
He is ‘“‘another,” yet such that in His
coming Christ too may be said to come
(v, 18).

abide with you] be with you, according
to the true text. Three different preposi-

tions are used to describe the relation of
the Holy Spirit to believers. He is ‘‘ with
(werd) them.” He “abideth” by (apd)
them.”’ He is “in (év) them.” The first
marks the relation of fellowship : comp.
xiv. 9, xv. 27. The second that of a per-
sonal presence : comp, viii. 38, xiv. 23, 25,
xvii. 5. The third that of individual in-
dwelling : comp. xiv. 10 f.

for ever] Christ’s historical Presence was
only for a time. His spiritual Presence
was ‘‘for all the days until the consumma-
tion of the age’? (Matt. xxviii. 20). This
Presence was fulfilled through the Spirit.

17. the Spirit of truth] the Spirit by
whom the Truth finds expression and is
brought to man’s spirit (xv. 26, xvi. 13;
1 John iv. 6 [opposed to ‘‘the spirit of
error’’]. Comp. 1 John v. 6). Comp. 1
Cor. ii. 12 ff. The Truth is that which
the Spirit interprets and enforces. The
gen. after ‘‘Spirit’’ describes in some
cases (1) its characteristic, and in other
cases, (2) its source. In the first sense
we read Eph. i. 18; Hebr. x. 29. Comp.
Eph. i. 17; Luke xiii. 11; Rom. i. 4, viii.
15, xi. 8; 1 Cor. iv. 21; 2 Tim. i. 7. On
the other hand we have 1 Cor. vi, 11;
Rom. viii. 11; 1 Cor. ii. 11 f.

the world] Comp. Additional Note on 1.
10.

cannot receive] because sympathy is a
necessary condition for reception. The
soul can apprehend that only for which it
has affinity (1 Cor. ii. 14). They who
stand apart from Christ have neither the
spiritual eye to discern the Paraclete, nor
the spiritual power to acknowledge Him.
Immediate vision is the one test which the
world admits. The world beholdeth
(comp. ii. 28, note, xvi. 16) Aim not, neither
knoweth (comp. ii, 25, note) him. This
inability to receive the Spirit is emphasized
by the fact that ‘‘ His own people” re-
ceived not the Word (i. 11). Even of the
disciples it is not said that they ‘“‘see”
the Paraclete.

because...for (because)...) It is to be
noticed that the order of thought in the
two clauses is reversed. With the world
want of vision prevented possession. With
the disciples the personal presence of the
Paraclete brought knowledge, and with
that knowledge the power of more com-
plete reception. Comp. Matt. xxv. 29.

but (omit) ye know him] On the other
hand, the disciples had so far realised
their fellowship with Christ, that of them
it could be said, even as they looked with
uncertainty to the future, ‘ye know
(yvdoxere ) Him,” with a knowledge in-
choate indeed, yet real. For in Christ

205
206

f Or,
orphans.

seeth him not, neither knoweth him :
but ye know him; for he dwelleth
with you, and shall be in you.

18 I will not leave you llcomfort-
less : I will come to you.

Sr. JOHN. XIV.

[v. 18—20.

1g Yet a little while, and the
world seeth me no more; but ye
see me: because I live, ye shall live
also.

20 At that day ye shall know that

 

the Spirit was truly present already, if
not in His characteristic manifestation ;
just as Christ is present now with His
Church in the Spirit. In this sense it
could be said of the Spirit, even before
Pentecost, He abideth by you and is in
you, according to a reading which has
strong support. For the time the Spirit
was in Christ; afterwards Christ has been
for us in the Spirit. And His Presence
is twofold, in the Society and in the indi-
vidual; He ‘‘abideth beside’ us in the
Church; and He ‘‘is’ in each believer.
The common reading “shall be in you”
has considerable support, and the two
forms in the original (é€orat,éori) are
liable to confusion, but the present tense
appears to be less like a correction. Comp.
2 John 2.

18—21. A third topic of consolation on
Christ’s departure lies in the fact that He
will Himself come to the disciples, and
make His Person clearer to them than be-
fore.

18. Z will not leave (x. 12, xvi. 82, viii,
29) you comfortless) Orphans (Lam. v. 3),
bereft of your natural and loving guardian
(6ppavots, Vulg. orfanos). Christ pre-
sents Himself to the disciples as a Father
of ‘‘children”’ (xiii. 33), no less than as a
brother (xx. 17; comp. Hebr. ii, 11 f.).
‘* Tpse circa nos paternum affectum quodam-
modo demonstrat’? (Aug. ad loc.). The
very word which describes their sorrow
confirms their sonship.

I will come] I come, ever and at all
times I am coming. The positive promise
is not for the future only, but abiding.
Comp. vv. 3, 28, xxi. 22 f. The fulfilment
of the promise began at the Resurrection,
when Christ’s humanity was glorified ; and
the promise was potentially completed at
Pentecost. The life of the Church isthe
realisation of the Pentecostal coming of the
Lord, which is to be crowned by His com-
ing to Judgment. No one specific applica-
tion of the phrase exhausts its meaning.
Comp. v. 3, note.

19. Yet a little while] That is, to the
close of Christ’s earthly natural life (comp.
vii. 38, xii. 35, pw. Xp. ; xili, 38, xvi. 16 ff.,
pukp.). So long, in some sense, the world
continued to ‘‘see’’ (behold) Christ even if
they did not ‘“‘know’’ Him, through the
conditions of His transitory manifestation.
The disciples, on the other hand, in vir-
tue of the principle of spiritual life within
them, did not wholly lose the power of
‘“seeing’’ (beholding) Christ by his death.
They ‘‘beheld Him,’’ so far as they were
still able to receive His revelations of Him-

self; they “did not behold Him”’ (xvi. 16),
so far as they had not yet gained the last-
ing vision of His divine glory. The words
exclude the error of those who suppose that
Christ will ‘‘come’’ under the same con-
ditions of earthly existence as those to
which He submitted at His first coming.

because I live...also] The ground of the
power of vision in the disciples, which the
world lacked, lay in their fellowship with
Christ, and in the capacity for the higher
life involved in that fellowship. The ful-
ness of their life, as of their sight, dated
from Pentecost (shall live). Thus this first
clause contains by implication the reason
of the disciples’ continuous sight of their
Lord, while it gives also the promise of
their more complete connexion with Him
when He was raised from death. The open
sight of God is the fulness of life, 1 John
iii. 1 ff. Compare v. 26, vi. 57; and, in
another aspect, 1 Cor. xv. 21 f.

If the words are taken (as the original
allows) wholly or in part as a direct ex-
planation of the former statement (ye
behold me, because I live and ye shall live,
or ye behold me because I live, and ye
shall live) the sense is much feebler; and
the construction is not in St John’s man-
ner. Comp. xiii, 14, xiv. 3, xv. 20.

20. At that day) of realised life (comp.
xvi. 28, 26) you shall come to know by the
teaching of the Spirit, what is for the time
(v. 10) a matter of faith only, my union
with Him who is not only ‘the Father,”
but ‘‘my Father,” and then, in that
knowledge, realise the fulness of your
fellowship with me. ‘The day’ cor.
responds to “the coming,” but generally
it marks each victorious crisis of the new
apprehension of the Risen Christ.

I am in my Father] The converse truth
(my Father in me, vv, 10 £., xvii, 21) is not
brought forward here, because the thought
is predominantly that of the consummation
of life in the divine order, and not that of
the divine working in the present order.

ye in me, and Iin you] The union is re-
garded first in its spiritual completeness,
and then in its historical completeness
(comp. xvii. 21, 23, (26); 1 John iii. 24, iv.
13, 15, 16).

21. He that hath...and keepeth...] The
first verb (hath) marks the actual possession,
as of something which is clearly and firmly
apprehended (v. 38); the second (keepeth),
the personal fulfilment.

The verse is in part the converse of v. 15.
There active obedience is seen to be the
consequence of love. Here active obedience
is the sign of the presence of love. Comp.
xv. 10.
v. 2I—23.]

I am in my Father, and ye in me,
and I in you,

21 He that hath my command-
ments, and keepeth them, he it is
that loveth me: and he that loveth
me shall be loved of my Father, and
I will love him, and will manifest
myself to him.

Sr. JOHN. XIV.

22 Judas saith unto him, not Is-
cariot, Lord, how is it that thou wilt
manifest thyself unto us, and not
unto the world?

23 Jesus answered and said unto
him, If a man love me, he will
keep my words: and my Father will
love him, and we will come unto

 

The variation of construction (shall be
loved by, I will love) in the second clause
is to be noticed (see v. 23). The passive
form (shall be loved by) seems to bring out
the idea of the conscious experience of love
by the object of it. The believer loves
and feels in himself the action of the
Father through Christ (my Father).

will manifest myself] The exact force of
the word (éudavifw) is that of presentation
in a clear, conspicuous form (comp. Matt,
xxvii, 53; Hebr. ix. 24; [Acts x. 40; Rom.
x, 20]; Exod, xxxiii, 18, 18). It conveys
therefore more than the idea of the disclos-
ing of a hidden presence (éroxaAvrtw) or
the manifesting of an undiscovered one
(pavepdw). The action of the Spirit
effectuates in the believer this higher mani-
festation of Christ, which more than sup-
plies the place of His Presence under the
conditions of early life. At the same time
the revelation is Christ’s own work: “I
will manifest myself,” and not “I shall be
manifested” (comp. v. 18, note).

4. The law and the progress of Revelation
(22—81).

The description which has been given
(12—21) of the future relation of Christ
to His disciples leads to a more general
view of the nature of Revelation. This
falls into three parts. First the condition
of Revelation is laid down in answer to the
question of St Jude (22—24); then the
mode of Revelation is defined (25—27) ;
and lastly the work of Christ for His
people, fulfilled in heaven and on earth, is
recapitulated (28—31).

22—24. On the side of man love and
obedience are pre-requisites for the recep-
tion of divine communications. These
Christ calls out, and to reject His teaching
is to reject the teaching of God.

22. Judas, not Iscariot] Luke vi. 16;
Acts i. 13. Comp. Matt. x. 3; Mark iii. 18.
The distinguishing clause seems at once to
mark that Judas Iscariot was the more
conspicuous of the two bearing the name,
and also to express the instinctive shrinking
of the Evangelist from the momentary
identification of the speaker with the
betrayer, though he had distinctly marked
the departure of Iscariot (xiii. 30). If, as
appears likely, St John’s narrative took
shape in oral teaching addressed to a circle
of disciples, the addition may have met a
look of surprise from the hearers.

Lord, how is it that...) Lord, what hath

come to pass that... The question implies
that some change must have come over the
plans of the Lord. It is assumed that as
Messiah He would naturally have revealed
Himself publicly: something then must
have happened, so Judas argues, by which
the sphere of Christ’s manifestation was
limited. The thought is rather of a mani-
festation of glory than of a manifestation
of judgment.

unto us] The emphatic position of the
pronoun (“that it is to us thou wilt...”)
gives it the force of “to us, the apostles,
only.”

the world] which was the object of
God’s love (iii. 16) and Messiah’s inheritance
(Ps, ii, 8). An apostle now raises in
another form the question which was raised
by the Lord’s brethren before: vii. 4.

23. Jesus answered...] The answer lies
in the necessary conditions of revelation
which the words describe. The power of
receiving a divine Revelation depends upon
active obedience, which rests upon personal
love. Love to Christ brings the love of
His Father (my Father and not simply
the Father) to the disciple. And this is
followed by the realisation and continuance
of that fellowship through which God is
revealed to man. Love, obedience, and
knowledge are correlative. Compare v. 15,
note,

my words] my word, the Gospel message
in its total unity, and not as broken up
into separate commands (v. 15), or separate
parts (v. 24).

we will come...) This use of the plural
(we) implies necessarily the claim to true
divinity on the part of Christ; compare x.
80 (note), and contrast xx, 17 (note). For
the idea compare Rev. iii. 20.

abode] The original word (ovy, Vulg.
mansio), even in the changed connexion,
carries the thought back to v. 2 (povaé,
mansions). The two aspects of the truth
are necessary, Comp. 1 John iv, 15, ii, 24.
The Christian abides with God, and God
abides with the Christian.

with him (vv, 17, 25)] and not here in
him. The idea is that of the recognition
of the divine without (soto speak) and not
of the consciousness of the divine within,
The Christian sees God by him (map
auT¢ ); he welcomes and finds a dwelling-
place for God, and does not only feel Him
in him. Compare for the general idea
Lev. xxvi. 11 ff.

207
208
him,
him.

24 He that loveth me not keepeth
not my sayings : and the word which
ye hear is not mine, but the Father’s
which sent me.

and make our abode with

St. JOHN. XIV.

[v. 24—26.

25 These things have I spoken
unto you, being yet present with
you.

26 But the Comforter, which is
the Holy Ghost, whom the Father
will send in my name, he shall teach

 

24. The love of the disciples fitted them,
imperfect as they were, to receive Christ’s
revelation of Himself. The want of love
in the world made revelation impossible for
the world. This impossibility is indicated
and traced to its final ground in the last
clause, which corresponds in relation though
not in form to the last clause of v. 23.
Disobedience to Christ is in fact disobedi-
ence to God under the aspect of Love, To
reject His word is to reject the Father’s
word. For such then as loved not Christ
there could be no divine manifestation in
the sense here implied. Comp. vii. 16.

keepeth not my sayings] my words
(Aédyous ), the constituent parts of the one
“word.” The use of the plural here may
perhaps mark the perception of the unity of
the revelation of the Lord as characteristic
of believers and impossible for unbelievers,

which ye hear] The clause is unemphatic,
and appears simply to describe the divine
message in its fulness as actually addressed
to the apostles,

25—27. The early teaching of Christ
was dependent on the circumstances under
which it was given. His temporary
“abiding with the disciples” was but an
image of the future abiding (v. 23). So
far (these things) He had been able to
speak while those who heard could at least
partly understand Him. There could not
but be something which seemed incomplete,
and something which seemed obscure to the
hearers, But this teaching, now brought to
its close, was to be completed and laid open
by the teaching of the Spirit, which should
be universal (all things as contrasted with
these things). And meanwhile Christ gave
His peace as an endowment for the time
of waiting.

25. These things...) all that had been
spoken on this evening in contrast with the
further teaching (all things) of the Paraclete.

being yet present...] while yet abiding...
The word used (evwv , Vulg. manens) keeps
up the connexion between the transitory
fellowship of Christ with the disciples on
earth and His spiritual fellowship with
them hereafter (povijy mouodueOa, v. 23).

26. the Comforter (Advocate), which is
(even) the Holy Ghost (Spirit), whom the
Father will sendin my name] As compared
with Christ the Paraclete fulfils a double
office: He teaches and He recalls Christ’s
teachings. His work indeed is to teach by
bringing home to men the whole of Christ’s
teaching. The revelation of Christ in His
Person and work was absolute and com-

plete, but without the gradual illumimation
of the Spirit it is partly unintelligible and
partly unobserved, Comp. xvi. 13; 1 John
ii, 20, 27.

As Christ came “in His Father’s name”
(v. 43, x, 25), so the Spirit is sent “in
His name.” The purpose of Christ’s mis-
sion was to reveal God as His Father, and
through this to make known His relation
to men, and to humanity, and to the world.
The purpose of the Mission of the Holy
Spirit is to reveal Christ, to make clear to
the consciousness of the Church the full
significance of the Incarnation. Christ’s
“name,” all, that is, which can be defined
as to His nature and His work, is the
sphere in which the Spirit acts; and so
little by little through the Idng life of the
Church the meaning of the primitive con-
fession “Jesus is Lord” (Rom. x. 9;
1 Cor. xii. 3) is made more fully known.

The sense of the promise is completely
destroyed if ‘‘in my name’ is interpreted
as meaning nothing more than ‘‘as my
representative ” or “at my intercession.”

the Holy Ghost] The full emphatic title
(rd TIvedpa7d dytov) occurs here only in
the Gospel. The moral character of the
Spirit as fashioning the life of the Church
is added to the teaching power of the
Spirit (vv. 16, 17), as the Revealer of the
Truth. The title occurs in the words of
the Lord in the Synoptic Gospels: Matt.
xii, 82; Mark iii. 29; Luke xii, 10
(7 a. mv.), 12 (73 dG. wv.); Mark xiii. 11;
Matt. xxviii, 19 (7d 4, zv.).

he shall...) The emphatic masculine pro-
noun (ékeivos) brings out the personality
of the Advocate, while at the same time it
gathers up in the personality the various
attributes which have been before indi-
cated (i. 18, note).

teach...bring to remembrance...) The
former office appears to find its fulfilment
in the interpretation of the true character
of Christ, of what He was, and what He
did: the latter, in opening the minds of
the disciples to the right understanding
of Christ’s words: comp. ii. 22. So the
Gospel could be written. The ‘you’
does not limit the teaching of the Spirit to
the apostles, who were the representatives
of the Church (vv. 16, 17), though the
promise was potentially accomplished for
them (xvi. 12 f.).

all things...whatsoever I have said] all
tbings.,.that I said. The time of teaching
is now regarded as past. Comp. xvii. 6,
&c. The position of the personal pronoun
at the end of the sentence (according to
v. 27, 28.]

you all things, and bring all things to
your remembrance, whatsoever I have
said unto you.

27 Peace I leave with you, my
peace I give unto you: not as the
world giveth, give I unto you. Let

St. JOHN. XIV.

not your heart be troubled, neither
let it be afraid.

28 Ye have heard how I said unto
you, I go away, and come again unto
you. If ye loved me, ye would re-
joice, because I said, I go unto the

 

the most probable reading : elrov july
éya) is very significant.

27. Peace] The word is here a solemn
farewell, just as in xx, 21 it is a solemn

greeting. To “give peace” (oye yn)

was a customary phrase of salutation
(Buxtorf, ‘Lex.’ 2425). The Lord takes
the common words and transforms them.
“God gave to Phinehas,” Philo writes in
reference to Num. xxv. 12, ‘‘the greatest
blessing, even peace, a blessing which no
man is able to afford” (‘De vit. Mos.’ 1. §
55, ii. 129).

I leave] The thought of separation is
mingled with the thought of blessing.
Even in departing the Lord leaves peace
behind as His bequest. He will not dis-
turb that peace which the disciples had
found in Him and in part appropriated.
On the contrary, He defines and confirms
it and offers it to them as their own.
“ Peace, even my peace, I give unto you,”
that peace of which I am the absolute Lord
and source (comp. xv. 9, note), not re-
garded on its outward side as the blessed-
ness of the Messianic kingdom, but as the
Tealised confidence of faith and fellowship
with God. Comp. ch. xvi. 83; Col. iii. 15;
Phil. iv. 7. So the Lord speaks in the
immediate prospect of Death, by which
peace was finally secured, Col. i, 20;
Rom. v. 1.

I give] as an absolute possession, which
now becomes your own. Comp. 1 John
iii. 1.

not as the world giveth...) The primary
thought is of the manner of the gift, which
passes into that of the character of the
gift. The gifts of the world are so made
as to give the greatest pleasure at first
(comp. ii. 10). The gifts of Christ grow
in power and fulness of blessing. Thus
in the consciousness of the beginnings of
this divine gift of peace the disciples were
encouraged to overcome inward misgivings
and to face outward dangers. ‘‘ Let not
your heart be troubled, neither let it be
fearful.”” The opening words of the chap-
ter are repeated with a new force.

let it be afraid] be fearful (deAcéro
Comp, 2 Tim, 1. 7; Matt, viii. 26; Mark
iv, 40; Rev. xxi. 8 (where the “ fearful,”
the “cowards,” stand at the head of those
devoted to the second death).

28—31._ The last verse (v. 27) stands
closely related to both of the sub-sections
between which it stands. The peace of
Christ attends the Church during the
period of gradual revelation, and it flows

from Christ’s work accomplished in heaven
as on earth. This latter thought is brought
out in these verses under both aspects.
The departure of Christ, the great mys-
tery of His revelation, led to the more
effectual fulfilment of His work in virtue
of His perfected fellowship with the
Father (28, 29); and the mode of His de-
parture, through death, the penalty of sin,
was a proof of obedience and love fitted
to move the world (80, 81).

28. Ye have heard] Ye heard. The
addition of the word seems to mark .the
effect, of the announcement on the disciples,
The revelation was made and carefully
noted.

I said unto you] vv, 2—4.

and come again] and 1 come. The inser-
tion of ‘‘again’”’ narrows the application of
the promise. See v. 18, note.

If ye loved me] if your minds had not
been concentrated on yourselves: if you
had thought only of me and of the fulfil-
ment of my work—

ye would rejoice] have rejoiced. The
prospect of trouble is contrasted with the
feeling of joy. But the joy is spoken of
as the momentary feeling on realising the
announcement ( éydpyte) and not as a con-
tinuous state. Sorrow there must be at
separation, but it can be brightened by
the knowledge of the cause.

because I said, I go] The words I said
must be omitted in accordance with the
best authorities. Attention is fixed on the
fact itself, and not on the statement of the
fact.

for my Father (because the Father) is
greater than I am] and therefore when my
union with Him is made complete by my
elevation I shall be able to carry out my
work for all the children of the one
Father more effectually. The ground of the
disciples’ joy, as based upon their love for
Christ, must be sought primarily in the
fact of His exaltation; but this carries
with it the thought of the consequent more
complete fulfilment of His purposes. The
return of the Son to the Father was
good for Him, and this alone would have
been a sufficient cause for the disciples’
rejoicing. But His exaltation was also
essentially related to the accomplishment
of His mission. Thus the prospect of
blessing to the disciples is necessarily in-
cluded in that of Christ’s going to the
Father, though it is not put forward as
the cause of: their joy.

greater than I] It appears to be un-
questionable that the Lord here speaks in

209
210

Father: for my Father is greater
than I.

29 And now I have told you be-
fore it come to pass, that, when it is
come to pass, ye might believe.

30 Hereafter I will not talk much

Sr. JOHN. XIV.

[v.29—3I.
with you : for the prince of this world
cometh, and hath nothing in me,

31 But that the world may know
that I love the Father; and as the
Father gave me commandment, even
soIdo. Arise, let us go hence.

 

the fulness of His indivisible Personality.
The ‘‘T’’ is the same as in viii. 58, x. 80.
The superior greatness of the Father must
therefore be interpreted in regard to the
absolute relations of the Father and the
Son without violation of the one equal
Godhead. The fact that there was an
essential fitness, if we may so speak of
mysteries which transcend human lan-
guage, in the Incarnation of the Son, en-
ables us in some measure to apprehend
this distinction of greatness, and also how
the return of the Son to the Father, after
the fulfilment of His mission, would be a
source of joy to those who loved Him.
See Note at the end of the Chapter.

29. And now] at this crisis (xii. 31),
when your faith is about to be put to the
test.

I have told you] of my departure, and
yet more of what is implied in it, before it
come to pass. The mode of separation, not
yet realised, would prove the greatest trial
to the apostles’ faith. But the results
which followed such a Death would after-
wards enable them to trust for ever.
Comp, xiii. 19.

that ye might (may) believe] The abso-
lute use of the word includes all the special
manifestations of faith. Other references
to the ground of assurance to be found in
the Lord’s predictions occur, xiii. 19, xvi.
4. Comp. i. 7, 51, iv. 42, 58, vi. 64.

30. Hereafter I will not talk...) Lite-
rally, I will no more talk...

the prince of this (the) world] xii. 31,
note.

cometh] even now is coming in the per-
sons of those whom he inspires. All other
enemies are, as it were, the instruments of
the one great enemy. The Lord, it will
be observed, speaks of the chief and not
of the subordinate spirits, and contem-
plates his action through men, Comp.
Eph. vi. 10 ff.

and hath nothing in me] More exactly,
and In me he hath nothing—nothing
which falls under his power. There was
in Christ nothing which the devil could
claim as belonging to his sovereignty. In
others he finds that which is his own, and
enforces death as his due; but Christ
offered Himself voluntarily. He was not
of the world. ‘Sic ostendit non creatur-
arum sed peccatorum principem diabolum”’
(Aug. ad loc.),

Thus the words indirectly and by im-
plication affirm the sinlessness of Christ,
and His freedom from the power of death,

The two facts which shew the nature of

>

Christ’s Passion are first coordinated, and
then His free action is contrasted with
them : the prince...cometh and he hath...
but that...

The Jews had a tradition that when the
angel of death came before David he could
not hurt him because he was occupied un-
ceasingly with lofty thoughts (Winsche,
ad loc.).

81. The construction of this verse is
somewhat uncertain. The first part may
be dependent on the last clause: arise let
us go hence...that the world...and that as
..even so I do (Matt, ix. 6); but this
arrangement is too artificial, and foreign
to St John’s style. If then the last clause
is separated from what precedes, there
still remain two possible interpretations.
The first clause may be dependent on ‘so
I do:’’ i.e. I go to meet death that the
world...and even as...commandment. But
this arrangement is open to the same ob-
jection as the former one, and separates
unnaturally the even as...so... It remains
therefore to take the opening phrase but
that as elliptical (comp. ix. 3, xiii. 18, xv.
25; 1 John ii. 19) : but I surrender myself
to suffering and death—that cometh to pass
which will come to pass—that the world...
The force of the contrast is obvious: but
though the prince of the world has no
claim upon me, I freely offer myself to the
uttermost powers of evil, to death the last
punishment of sin, that in me the world
itself may see the greater power of love,
and so learn (if God will) that the kingdom
of Satan is overthrown,

the world] Comp. xvii, 21, 28.

and’ as...] It is uncertain whether this
clause depends on “ know ” or not. The sense
is the same in both cases : obedience flows
from love and manifests it. Comp. Hebr.
v. 8; 1 John v. 3,

Arise, let us go hence] The coincidence of
the phrase with Matt. xxvi, 46 is interest-
ing. The words are such as would naturally
be repeated under like circumstances. We
must suppose that after these words were
spoken the Lord, with the eleven, at once
left the house and went on the way which
finally led to Gethsemane; and conse-
quently that the discourses which follow,
xv.—xvii,, were spoken after He had gone
from the upper room and before He crossed
the Kidron (xviii. 1), La

The other supposition that the Lord after
rising still lingered in the room, as full of
the thoughts of the coming events, appears
to be wholly against the obvious interpre-
Sr. JOHN. XIV.

tation of the narrative, and to disregard
the clear distinction in character between the
earlier and later discourses. On the other
hand, the words in xviii. 1, went forth...
over the brook Kidron, cause no difficulty,
for this “ going forth ” is evidently in regard

to the sacred city and not to the house; nor
is there anything in the abruptness of the
narrative unlike St John’s method, Further,
it may be said that if the command had not
been acted upon some notice of the delay
would have been given.

ADDITIONAL NOTES on Cuap. xiv. 16, 28.

16. The word rapdkAnros, translated
Comforter in this passage, is found in the
New Testament only in the writings of St
John. It occurs four times in the Gospel
(xiv. 16, 26, xv. 26, xvi. 7), and is in these
places uniformly translated Comforter ; and
once in his first Epistle (ii, 1), where it is
translated advocate. There is no marginal
rendering in any place,

This double rendering dates from Wiclif.
Both the Wicliffite versions give Comforter
throughout the Gospel and advocate in the
Epistle. Tyndale has the same renderings ;
and the two words have been preserved in
the later English Bibles (the Great Bible,
the Bishops’ Bible, Geneva, King James’s)
with the exception of the Rhemish, which
gives Paraciete in the Gospel and advocate
in the Epistle.

This variation, which is found also in
Luther (7'réster, Gosp., Fursprecher, Ep.),
is unquestionably due to the influence of
the Latin Vulgate, which has Paracletus
(Paraclitus) in the Gospel and advocatus
in the Epistle,

The early Latin copies are divided, and
not always consistent, in the Gospel. In
xv, 26 and xvi. 7,*Pal., and in xiv. 16,
Pal, Verc, Colb., give the rendering advo.
catus. In the other cases Pal, Vere. Ver,
Colb, Corb, give paracletus (paraclitus).
This division indicates the existence of the
two renderings from the earliest times, so
that it is not possible to say that one is a
correction of the other. In the Epistle the
rendering is (I believe) uniformly advocatus.

Nearly all the other early versions, the
Syriac, Memphitic, Arabic, and Atthiopic,
keep the original word Paracletus; and it
is likely, both from this fact and from the
use of the word in Rabbinic writers, that
it found early and wide currency in the
East, The Thebaic gives different render-
ings in the Gospel and in the Epistle
(Lightfoot, ‘Revision of New Testament,’
p. 55, note).

Among the Latin Fathers in quotations
from the Gospel, Tertullian generally adopts
the rendering advocatus, though he uses
also paracletus, and gives an independent
rendering exorator (‘de Pudic.’ 19). Advo-
catus is also predominant in Novatian,
Hilary, and Lucifer. Ambrose and Jerome
on the other hand usually give Paracletus.
Consolator occurs as a rendering in Hilary,
Jerome, and Orosius. Inthe Epistle advo-
catus is found with little variation, though
Ambrose, Victor, and Vigilius read in some
places Paracletus.

* New Test.—Vot. II.

The English rendering “ Comforter” ap-
pears to have been formed directly from
the verb “to comfort,” i.e, to strengthen
(comp. Wiclif, Eph. vi. 10, be ye comforted,
evduvapotoe, confortamini), an adaptation
of confortare, The noun confortator does not
appear to be found; nor is there, asfar as I
can learn, any corresponding French word.

Passing now from the history of the word
in the translations of the New Testament,
which finally leaves us with the choice
between the retention of the original term
paracletus and the rendering advocatus, we
go on to consider the meaning of the word
independently. This ought to be decisively
determined by the form of the word and
common usage, unless there be anything in
the context which imperatively requires
some other sense.

(a) The form of the word is unquestion-
ably passive. It can properly mean only
“one called to the side of another,” and that
with the secondary notion of counselling
or supporting or aiding him. On these
points the cognate forms (kAnTés, dvdkAn-
tos, dmrdéxAnros, eykAnros, émuxAnros,
obykAnros, &c.) and the use of the verb
(wapaxadelv) are decisive. No example
of a like form with an active (middle) sense
can be brought forward.

(8) The classical use of the word is
equally clear, The word is used technically
for the “advocates” of a party in a cause,
and specially for advocates for the defence.
So Demosthenes speaks of the entreaties
and personal influence of advocates (ai Tov
mapaxAyrwv Sejores kal orovdai, ‘De Falsa
Leg.’ p. 341. Comp. ‘De Cor.’ p. 275).

(y) The word is not found in the LXX. ;
but in Job xvi, 2 wapdxAnrot occurs in
Aquila and Theodotion, for the LXX.
mapaxAjropes (Symm, rapnyopovvTes) as a
rendering of the Hebrew D's), There
is however no reason to suppose that the
two words are identical in meaning; and
it is likely that the associations which had
gathered round wapdxAnros in the second
century led to the substitution of a common
for a rare word.

Philo uses the word several times and in
characteristic senses as advocate or inter-
cessor, “ We must find,” he writes, ‘“‘ a more
powerful advocate by whom (the emperor)
Gaius will be brought to a favourable
disposition towards us (Se? rapdx)nrTov...

ec ~ £ ’ fue 2
evpeiv...bg’ 05 Tdios eLevpever Ojcerat) ;
and that advocate is the city of

P

211
212

Alexandria...and it will use its advocacy
(wapaxAntedoe)...” (‘Leg. in Flacc.’ 968 B.
Comp. p. 9678),

And in another place, speaking of the
function of the High Priest, he says, “It
was necessay that he who has been conse-
crated to the Father of the Universe should
employ as advocate (intercessor) one most
perfect in virtue, even the Son, both to
obtain forgiveness of sins and a supply of
most bountiful blessings” ( wapaKxAxry
xpho Oar TeAccordtw tiv dperiy vig mpds
Te dpvynoriay dpaptynpdtwy Kat xopyyiav
apOovertdtuv dyabGy) (‘de Vit, Mos.’
mr, § 14, ii, p. 155c. Compare ‘de
Opif. Mundi,’ p. 4f.).

(8) The word is not unfrequent in the
Rabbinical writers. Buxtorf (s. v. propre)

gives several interesting examples of its
use. “He who fulfils one precept gains
for himself one advocate (mapd«Anros);
he who commits one transgression gains for
himself one accuser” (KaT#yopos. Comp.
Rev. xii. 10). ‘In the heavenly judgment
a man’s advocates (rapdkA7nTOot) are repent-
ance and good works.” “ All the righteous-
ness (comp, Matt, vi. 1) and mercy which
an Israelite doeth in this world are great
peace and great advocates between him and
his Father in heaven.” ‘An advocate is a
good intercessor before a magistrate or
king.”

(€) There are instances of the occurrence
of the word in early Christian writers.
Barnabas (‘ Ep.’ xx.) speaks of those who
are advocates of the wealthy ( rAovoiwv
mapdkAnrot) and unjust judges of the poor.”
And in the Letter of the Churches of Vienne
and Lyons, Vettius Epagathus, who had
voluntarily pleaded the cause of his fellow
Christians, is spoken of “as the advocate of
the Christians who had the Advocate in
himself, even the Spirit’ (Euseb. ‘H. E’
v. 1). ‘Who will be our advocate
(wTapaxAnros) [at the last day],”’ we read
in the Second Epistle of Clement, “if we
be not found with works holy and just?”
(11. Clem. 6).

(€) Thus the independent usage of the
term is perfectly clear and in strict accord-
ance with the form of the word. But onthe
other hand, the Greek Fathers in interpret.
ing the passages of the New Testament
commonly give the word an active sense, as
if it were “the consoler,” “the encourager,”’
“the comforter ” (6 wapaxadGv). This sense
is given to the word as early as Origen, if
Ruffinus can be trusted. “ Paraclete,” he
says, “in the Greek has the two meanings
‘intercessor’ and ‘ coneoler’ (deprecatorem
et consolatorem)... Paraclete when used of
the Holy Spirit is generally understood
as ‘consoler’” (‘De Princ.’ 11. 7, 4), The
word is certainly so interpreted by Cyril
of Jerusalem (‘ Cat.’ xvi. 20, mapaxAnros

St. JOHN. XIV.

...da 7d mapaxadelv), Gregory of Nyssa
(‘adv. Eunom.’ 11, vol, ii. p. 582, Migne,
70 épyov Towdy rapakAHrov...7FapaKahav),
and most later Greek Fathers (see Suicer,
s.v.). This adaptation of the sense of
mwopaxadeiv is in all probability no more
than a not unnatural isolation of the func-
tion of the advocate, just indeed as “ advo-
cate” itself is regarded as the “ pleader,”
and not as the person himself “called in.”
In this way the interpretation conveys a
partial truth, but by an inaccurate method.
The advocate does “console” and “ com-
fort” when he is called to help. But this
secondary application of the term cannot be
used to confirm an original meaning which
is at fatal variance with the form of the
word, and also against undoubted use
elsewhere. It may also be added that
mapakaXdev is not found in the writings of
St John, though it is common in the other
parts of the New Testament.

The contexts in which the word occurs
in the New Testament lead to the same
conclusion as the form, and the indepen-
dent usage of the word. In 1 John ii. 1,
the sense advocate alone suits the argu-
ment, though the Greek Fathers explain
the term as applied to the Lord in the
same way as in the Gospel. In the Gospel
again the sense of advocate, counsel, one
who pleads, convinces, convicts, in a great
controversy, who strengthens on the one
hand and defends on the other, meeting
formidable attacks, is alone adequate.

Christ as the Advocate pleads the believer’s
cause with the Father against the accuser
Satan (1 John ii. 1. Compare Rom. viii.
26, and also Rev. xii. 10; Zech. iii. 1).
The Holy Spirit as the Advocate pleads
the believer’s cause against the world,
John xvi. 8 ff. (comp. Iren ut. 17. 3);
and also Christ’s cause with the believer,
John xiv. 26, xv. 26, xvi. 14.

28. The superior greatness of the Father,
which is affirmed by Christ in the words
The Father is greater than I, has been
explained mainly in two ways.

1. Some have thought that they have
reference to the essential Personality of
the Son, and correspond to the absolute
idea of the relation of Father to Son, in
which the Father has, in Pearson's lan-
guage, ‘something of eminence,” ‘some
kind of priority.’’ According to this view
the eminence of the Father lies in the fact
that the Son has the divine Essence by
communication.

2. Others again have supposed that the
words have reference to the position of
the Son at the time when they were
spoken. On this supposition the eminence
of the Father lies in His relation to the
Son as Incarnate and not yet glorified.

Both views are perfectly consistent with
the belief in the unity of the divine Nature
and therefore with the belief in the
Sr. JOHN. XIV.

equality of the Godhead of the Son with
the Godhead of the Father. And it will
probably appear that the one view really
implies the other; and that, as far as
human thought can penetrate such a mys-
tery, it is reasonable to ‘‘ ground the con-
gruity of the mission” of the Son upon the
immanent pre-emience of the Father.

Under any circumstances the opinions of
early representative writers upon the
passage offer a most instructive subject of
study.

The earliest use of the passage is of
disputed meaning. IRenmus (tc. 202) in
discussing Mark xiii, 32, says, ‘‘If any
one inquire the reason wherefore the
Father, communicating to the Son in all
things, hath been declared by the Son to
know alone the hour and the day, one
could not find at present any [reason] more
suitable or more becoming, or more free
from danger, than this (for the Lord is the
only true (verax) Master, [that it is] in
order that we may learn through Him that
the Father is over all things. For the
Father, he says, is greater than I, And
so the Father is announced by our Lord
to have the pre-eminence in regard to
knowledge, for this purpose, that we also...
...should leave perfect knowledge and such
questions to God” (‘adv. Her.’ 11, 28. 8).
It has been urged that the application of
the thought to men shews that the refer-
ence is to the Incarnate Son in His
humanity; and on the other hand, the
general context of the passage and the
teaching of Irenzus in other places (e.g.
1, 7. 4) has been pressed to prove that he
is speaking of the Son as Son.

Clement of Alexandria does not, as far
as I know, refer to the passage. The
interpretation of his successor ORIGEN
(+ 253) is free from all ambiguity, though
it needs to be guarded carefully. ‘‘I ad-
mit,’ he says, ‘“‘that there may be some
waa who maintain that the Saviour is the
High God over all 6 péyworos ért mace
Oeds), but we do not certainly hold such a
view, who believe Him when He said Him-
self: The Father who sent me is greater
than I”? (‘c. Cels.’ vir. 14); and again :
‘* Clearly we assert......that the Son isnot
mightier than the Father, but inferior
(ovx irxupdrepoy GAA’ trodeérrepov). And
this we say as we believe Him when
He said, The Father who sent me is greater
than I’? (id. c. 15. Comp. ‘In Joh. T.’
vi. 23; viir 25).

The language of TeRTULLIAN (tc. 220),
like that of Origen, is open to misconstruc-
tion, but it leaves no doubt as to the sense
in which he understood the words. “The
Father,’ he says, ‘‘is the whole substance
(tota substantia), the Son is an outflow and
portion of the whole (derivatio (c. 14) totius
et portio), as He Himself declares : because
the Father is greater than I... The very

fact that the terms Father and Son are
used shews a difference between them ; for
assuredly all things will be that which
they are called, and will be called that
which they will be; and the different
terms cannot be ever interchanged’ (c.
Prax.’ 9).

Novatian (c. 250) is scarcely less bold in
his mode of expression: “It is necessary
that [the Father] have priority (prior sit)
as Father, since He who knows no origin
must needs have precedence over (antece-
dat) Him who has an origin. At the same
time [the Son] must be less, since He
knows that He is in Him as having an
origin because He is born’”’ (‘De Trin.’ 1.

81. The words guadammodo, aliquo pacto,
found in the common texts are mere
glosses).

The words do not appear to be noticed
by Cyprian, though he quotes those which
immediately precede. At the beginning
of the Arian controversy they naturally
came into prominence; and the language
of ALEXANDER of Alexandria, in his letter
to Alexander of Constantinople (c. 322),
which is one of the fundamental docu-
ments of the Nicene controversy, bears
witness to the sense in which they were
generally accepted: ‘‘We must guard,”
he writes, ‘“‘for the Unbegotten Father
His proper dignity (oikefov d€iwua. ), affirm.
ing that He has no author of His Being
(pndevarot elvat adr@ Tov aittov A€yovras);
and we must assign the fitting honour to
the Son, according to Him the generation
from the Father without beginning ( 77)v
dvapXov papa Tov warpds yervyyncry)...hold-
ing that the being unbegotten is the sole
property (idiwpea) of the Father, seeing
that the Saviour Himself said My Father
is greater than I’’ (Ep. Alex.’ ap. Theod.
‘H. E.’ 1. 4, p. 19).

ATHANASIUS does not dwell upon the
words, but he also gives the same general
sense to them: ‘‘ Hence it is that the Son
Himself hath not said My Father is better
(kpeirtwv) than I, that no one should con-
ceive Him to be foreign to His nature, but
greater, not in size (jeyéOet) nor in time,
but because of His generation from the
Father Himself. Moreover in saying He
is greater He again shews the proper
character [the true divinity] of His
essence (THY THS otctas iSidTyTa, i.e, as
THs TOU marpds otalas isos)” (‘ Orat. c.
Ar.’ 1, 58).

In another writing which is doubtfully
attributed to him the word ‘‘greater’’ is
explained in reference to the Incarnation
(ered) dvOpwaos yéyove, ‘De Incar. et c.
Arian.’ c. 4. Compare the spurious ‘ Sermo
de Fide,’ §§ 14, 34),

The Counciz or Sarpica (a.D, 3442)
adopts the same interpretation of the

213
214

passage as universally admitted: ‘‘ We
confess that God is One; we confess that
the Godhead of the Father and of the
Son is One; nor does any one ever deny
that the Father is greater than the Son,
[greater] not because He is of another
essence (ov i dAApv trdoraciv), or for
any other difference, but because the very
name of Father is greater than that of
Son’’ (Theod. ‘H.E.’ 11. 8, p. 82).

Bast (t 3879) refers to the passage
several times, and definitely adopts the
early interpretation, though he also con-
nects the words with the Incarnation.
“Since the Son’s origin (dpx7) is from
(dé) the Father, in this respect the
Father is greater, as cause and origin (as
airtos Kal dpxy). | Wherefore also the
Lord said thus, My Father is greater than
I, clearly inasmuch as He is Father (xa0d
mwarip). Yea, what else does the word
Father signify unless the being cause and
origin of that which is begotten of Him?”
(‘c. Eunom.’ 1. 25. Comp. ‘c. Eunom.’
1. 20). This idea he expresses elsewhere
more fully : ‘‘The Son is second in order
(ré€er) to the Father, because He is from
duo) Him, and [second] in dignity
dguspatt), because the Father is the
‘origin’ and cause of His Being” (‘c.
Eunom.’ 111. 1).

But at the same time he very distinctly
maintains that superior ‘‘ greatness’’ is in
no way ‘indicative of difference of essence,
and indeed argues that the comparison
in such a case implies co-essentiality (‘ Ep.’
vir, 5); and ‘“‘there is also,’’ he adds,
‘another thought included in the phrase.
For what marvel is it if He confessed the
Father to be greater than Himself, being
the Word and having become flesh, when
He was seen to be less than angels in
glory and [less] than men in appearance

(€f8os)?”” (I.c.).

Grecory or Nazianzus (+t 390) holds
the same language as his early friend Basil.
‘Superior greatness (Td pet(ov),’’ he says,
‘“‘depends on cause (éo7! ris airias),
equality on nature’’ (‘Orat.’ 30, § 7.
Comp. ‘Orat.’ 40, § 48,00 Kata vow 7d
pel(ov thy aitlay 8¢, ovdev yap Trav dpuoov-
ciwv TH obuia peifov 7 éAarrov), And he
sets aside the interpretation of the phrase
which refers it solely to the humanity of
Christ as inadequate: “To say that [the
Father] is greater than [the Son] conceived
asman (Tov xara Tov dvOpwrov vooupévov)
is certainly true, but no great thing to say.
For what marvel is it if God is greater
than man?” (‘Orat.’ 30, § 7).

Hirary (t+ 368) maintains the same view
in the West : ‘The Father is greater than
the Son, and clearly greater (plane major),
to whom He gives to be as great as He

Sr, JOHN. XIV.

is Himself, and imparts the image of His
own birthlessness (innascibilitas) by the
mystery of birth, whom He begets of Him-
self after His own likeness (ex se in suam
formam generat)...” (‘De Trin.’ rx. 54).

And again : ‘“‘ Who will not confess that
the Father hath pre-eminence (potiorem),
as ingenerate compared with generate (in-
genitum a genito), Father with Son, the
Sender with the Sent, He who wills with
Him who obeys? and He Himself will be
our witness: The Father is greater than
I” (‘De Trin.’ 111. 12. Comp. x1. 12;
‘De Syn. c. Ar.’ 64).

Marius Vicrorinus (c. 365) gives a re-
markable expression to this opinion: “If
the Son is the whole from the whole, and
light from light, and if the Father has
ggven to the Son all that He has...[the Son]
is equal to the Father, but the Father is
greater, because He has given to Him all
things, and is the cause of the Son’s being,
and being in that particular way (causa est
tpse filio ut sit, ut isto modo sit. Ad hoc
autem major quod actio inactuosa)......
Therefore [the Son] is equal [to the Father}
and unequal’ (‘adv. Arian.’ 1. 18).

PH#zaDIvs (c. 350) combines both views :
“The Father is greater than I; rightly
greater because He alone is a cause with-
out cause (solus hic auctor sine auctore
est...), rightly greater because He did not
Himself descend into the Virgin...’’ (‘c.
Ar.’ c. 18).

EprpHaNius (t+ 403) is, as usual, vague
and unsatisfactory. ‘The Son,’’ he says,
‘says this, honouring the Father as be-
came Him, having been honoured more
greatly by the Father. For it was neces-
sary (ede) indeed that the true (yvijcvov)
Son should honour His own Father, to
shew His true nature (yvyo.dryra)...In
so far as the Father is Father, and He is
a true Son, He honours His own Father...”
(‘Ancor.’ 17. Comp. ‘Hor.’ tx1x. 53.17;
Lxit. 4. 7).

The thought of Epiphanius is more
clearly expressed by the Pseudo-Cesarius :
‘‘The Father is not greater than the Son
in extent, or mass, or time, or season, OF
worth (a@£ig), or strength, or godhead, or
greatness, or appearance; for none of these
things have place in the divine Trinity.
But inasmuch as the Father is Father, so
the Son honours the Father with true filial
respect (yvnovdtpre riya)” (* Dial.’ 1.3;
‘Resp.’ XVIII).

Towards the close of the fourth century
the opinion began to gain currency that
the superior greatness of the Father was
referred to the human life of the Son.
This was perhaps a natural consequence of
the later developments of the Nicene
Christology,

AMPHILOCHIUS (c. 880) is first of the
Greek fathers, as far as I have observed,
Sr. JOHN. XIV.

who distinctly refers the words to the
Lord’s human nature (without hesitation).
“Tf you wish to know,” he writes, as if
the Lord Himself were speaking, “‘ how my
Father is greater than I, I spake from
the flesh and not from the Person of the
Godhead (é« Tis capkds efrov kal ov éx
mpoowmou Gedrynros)” (‘ Exc.’ x11. ; Galland.
vi. 502; ap. Theodoret, ‘Dial. 1. Comp.
‘Dial’ ur. p. 151; ‘Dial’ 11, p. 248).

Curysostom (t 407) in his Commentary
gives the early interpretation: “If any
one,” he writes, “say that the Father is
greater in so far as He is the cause ( airtos)
of the Son, we will not gainsay this. But
this however does not make the Son to be
of a different essence (érépas ovcias)”
(‘Hom.’ txx. ad loc.). Elsewhere ‘ Hom.’
vit. ‘in Hebr.’ § 2) he appears to admit
the reference to the humanity of Christ.
The passage which is commonly quoted as
giving this view: “It is no marvel if [the
Son] is tess than the Father owing to the
mystery of the Incarnation (6d Tv oiKo-
vouiay),” is from a spurious writing
(‘Hom. de Christo pasch.’ 111. p. 814).

Cyrrin or ALEXANDRIA (t 444) discusses
the passage at considerable length (‘ Thes.’
x1), and offers different views. He allows
that the words can be rightly understood
of the absolute relation of the Father to the
Son as “the origin of His co-eternal off-
spring” (Gs dpy7) TOU ovvaidiou yevv7jpa-
tos.) “ While the Son,” he writes, “is equal
to the Father on the ground of essence
(iwos Kara Tov THs ovoias Adyov trdpxwr)
and like in all things, He says that the
Father is greater as being without beginning
(ds avapxov), having beginning Himself in
respect of source only (kara pdvov 7d é£ od
and not, that is, of time also, Greg. Naz.
‘Orat.’ 20, § 7), even while He has this
subsistence ( vrap£ty) coincident with Him
(the Father) ” (‘Thes.’ 7. c.).

In his commentary, on the other hand,
he lays down peremptorily the other inter-
pretation : “ The Father was greater, as the
Son was still a slave and in our condition
(év rots xa6” juas)...We affirm that the Son
was made less than the Father in so far as
He has become man, that however He was
restored to being on equality (efvar év iow)
with Him that begat Him (rp picavre)
after His leaving the earth (pera THY
évretbev drodnpiav)...” (ad loc.).

In the Latin Church this opinion found
general acceptance. AmBRose (t 397)
writes: ‘“[Christ] says in the nature of
man that about which [our adversaries] are
wont to assail us wrongfully (calumniari)
[arguing] that it is said: The Father is
yyreater than I... He is less in the nature
of man, and do you wonder if speaking
from the character of man (ex persona

hominis) He said that the Father was
greater...?” (‘De Fide,’ 11.8, Comp. v. 18).

AvcusTINE (+430) commonly refers the
superior greatness of the Father to the
Incarnate Son; but he acknowledges that
it can be understood of the Son as Son:
The words are written “partly on account
of the incarnation (admtnistratio suscepti
hominis)...partly because the Son owes to
the Father that He is; as He even owes
to the Father that He is equal (aqualis
aut par) to the Father, while the Father
owes to no one whatever He is” (‘de Fid.
et Symb.’ c. rx, (1. 8). Comp. ‘c. Maxim.’
i. 15; 11. 253 mt. 14; ‘ce. Serm. Ar.’ 5;
‘Coll. c, Max.’ 14; ‘De Trin.’ 1. 14, 22).

In later times the interpretation by which
the words are referred to the humanity of
Christ became almost universal in the West
(e.g. Leo, a.D. 449, ‘ Ep. ad Flavian.’ xxvii.
4); Fulgentius (c. 533, ‘Epist.’ vir. 16);
Alcuin (c. 802, ‘de Trin.’ 111. 7). Comp.
Thom. Aqu. ‘Summa,’ 111. 20. 1).

In the East, Joun or Damascus (t 754)
carefully reproduced the teaching of the
earlier Greek fathers: “If we say that the
Father is the origin of the Son and greater
we do not indicate that He is before the
Son (mporepevety ) in time or nature, nor
in any other point, except as being the
cause (KaTd. Td aiTvov) ; that is that the Son
was begotten of the Father, and not the
Father of the Son, and that the Father is
the cause of the Son naturally  (ai'rcos
gvotkds), as we say that the fire does not
come from the light, but rather the light
from the fire. When therefore we hear
that the Father is the origin of and greater
than the Son, we must understand it in
regard of the cause (T@ airiw vorjowpev)”
(De Fide,’ 1. 8).

The summary of opinions given by
Puotius (t c. 891) may complete this
review of ancient interpretations. ‘‘ Our
fathers,” he writes, “have variously under-
stood the phrase of the Gospel, My Father
is greater than I, without injury to the
truth. Some say that [the Father] is called
greater as being the cause, which presents
not difference of substance, but rather
identity(ov« oloias rapaAAayny ravrérynta
Se padAov Kal oupdviay).... Others have
taken the word as referring to the human
nature (kara7d dvOpdmvev)...Some have
conceded that the term greater is used in
respect of the Word, but not absolutely
and in regard of essence, but in respect
of the Incarnation,...since He who remits
nothing of His own excellence is greater
than He who has descended to the lowest
sufferings. ...One might reasonably under-
stand that the phrase was used with regard
to the understanding of the disciples, for
they still were imperfectly acquainted with
God and their Master, and supposed that

215
216

the Father was far greater (comp. Isid.
Pelus. ‘Ep.’ 334).... And perhaps there is
nothing to prevent us from supposing that
the term is used in condescension, fashioned
in a humble form to meet the weakness of
the hearers...” (‘Epist.’ 1. 47, al. 176, al.
‘Quest,’ 95),

If we turn from these comments to the text
of St John it will be seen that (1) The Lord
speaks throughout the Gospel with an
unchanged and unchangeable Personality.
The “I” (éyd) is the same in viii. 58,
x, 80, xiv. 28. (2) We must believe that

CHAPTER XV.

' The consolation and mutual love between
Christ and his members, under the parable
of the vine, 18 A comfort in the hatred and

St JOHN. XV.

there was a certain fitness in the Incarna-
tion of the Son. (3) This fitness could not
have been an accident, but must have
belonged, if we may so speak, to His true
Personal Nature. (4) So far then as it was
fit that the Son should be Incarnate and
suffer, and not the Father, it is possible for
us to understand that the Father is greater
than the Son as Son, in Person but not in
Essence. Among English writers it is suffi-
cient to refer to Bull; and to Pearson, ‘ On
the Creed,’ Art. 1, whose notes, as always,
contain a treasure of patristic learning.

persecution of the world. 26 The office
of the Holy Ghost, and of the apostles.

AM the true vine, and my Father
is the husbandman.

 

ii. Tue Discourses oN THE Way.
(xv., Xvi.)
This second group of discourses falls into
the following sections :
1. The living union (xv. 1—10).
2. The issues of union: the disciples and
Christ (xv. 11—16).
3. The issues of union: the disciples and
the world (xv. 17—27).
4. The world and the Paraclete (xvi. 1—
11).
5. The ore and the disciples (xvi.
12—15).
Sorrow turned to joy (xvi. 16—24).
After failure victory (xvi. 25—33).

ae

1. The living union (xv. 1—10),

This first section, like the corresponding
section in the first group, contains the
thought which is pursued in detail in the
following sections, the thought of corporate,
living, fruitful union between believers and
Christ, which is developed afterwards in
its manifold issues of joy and sorrow. The
succession of ideas appears to be this. The
life in union is begun but not perfected
(vv. 1, 2); and the vital relation must be
“ freely ” maintained (vv. 3, 4) in view of the
consequences which follow frém its pre-
servation and loss (vv. 5, 6). Such being
the circumstances of union, the blessings
of union (vv. 7, 8) and the absolute type of
union (vv. 9, 10) are set forth more fully,

Cuar. XV. 1, 2. The first two verses
present the elements of symbolic teaching
without any direct interpretation, the vine,
the branches, the husbandman, the dressing.
The whole usage of the Lord leads to the
belief that the image of the vine was
suggested by some external object. Those
who think that the discourses were spoken

in the chamber suppose that the symbol was
supplied by a vine growing on the walls of
the house and hanging over the window; or
by “the fruit of the vine” (Matt. xxvi. 29).

If the discourses were spoken on the way
to the Mount of Olives, the vineyards on
the hill sides, or, more specially, the fires
of the vine-prunings by Kidron, may have
furnished the image. If however the dis-
courses and High Priestly prayer (ch, xvii.)
were spoken in the court of the temple
(Xvii. 1, note), then it is most natural to
believe that the Lord interpreted the real
significance of the golden vine upon the
gates, which was at once the glory and the
type of Israel (Jos. ‘Antt.’ xv. 11. 3;
‘B, J! v, 5. 4).

1. Zam the true vine] The exact form
of the phrase marks first the identification
of Christ with the image, and then the
absolute fulfilment of the image in Him,
Christ: Z am the vine; the true vine
(comp. i. 9, vi. 32, dAnfivds, x, 11). Christ
in His Person brings to complete fulfilment
these vital relations of the parts to the whole
—of unity and multiplicity—of growth and
identity, which are shadowed forth in the
vine. But yet more than this, the vine was
the symbol of the ancient Church (Hos, x.
1; Isai. v. 1 ff.; Jer, ii, 21; Ezek, xv. 2 ff.,
xix. 10 ff.; Ps. lxxx, 8 ff.; comp. Matt. xxi.
33; Luke xiii. 6; [Rev. xiv. 18 ff.]). Com.
pare Lightfoot and Winsche, ad loc. Thus
two currents of thought are united by the
Lord when He speaks of Himself as “the
true, the ideal, vine.” Israel failed to satisfy
the spiritual truths symbolized in the
natural vine; the natural vine only imper-
fectly realises the idea which it expresses.
In both respects Christ is “the ideal vine,”
as contrasted with these defective embodi-
ments,
a Matt. 16.
13.

b chap. 13.
10.

v. 2—4. ]
2 ¢Every branch in me that bear-
eth not fruit he taketh away: and
every branch that beareth fruit, he
purgeth it, that it may bring forth
more fruit.
3 SNow ye are clean through the

St. JOHN. XV.

word which
you.

4 Abide in me, and I in you.
As the branch cannot bear fruit of
itself, except it abide in the vine; no
more can ye, except ye abide in me.

I have spoken unto

 

the husbandman] The “ husbandman”
here stands apart from the vine, because
Christ brings forward His relation with
believers in virtue of His true manhood.
In this relation He stands even as they do
to the Father (Hebr. v. 8), and (in some
mysterious sense) He, in His Body, is still
under the Father’s discipline (comp. Col. i.
24). In the Synoptic parable the word
is applied to the leaders of the people;
Matt, xxi. 38, and parallels. Compare also
Luke xiii, 7.

2. The construction in the original, “Every
branch, if it bear not...every branch that
beareth ...” is slightly irregular. The words
would have been naturally “Every branch
in me He tends carefully : if any bear no
fruit He removes it; if any bear fruit He
prunes it.” But the indefinite hypothetical
form (7av kAjua pa) Pepov) is changed in
the second clause for the definite and
positive (av 7d Kaprov fépov).

Every branch] Believers are identified
with Christ. We cannot conceive of a vine
without branches. Yet the life is inde-
pendent of any particular manifestation of
it. A similar mystery lies in the image of
the body (Eph. v. 30; Col. ii. 19).

In the old dispensation union with Israel
was the condition of life; in the new,
union with Christ.

in me] Even the unfruitful branches are
true branches. They also are “in Christ,”
though they draw their life from Him only
to bear leaves (Matt, xxi. 19). It is the
work of the Great Husbandman to remove
them. Comp. Matt. xiii. 28 f., 47ff. How
a man can be “in Christ,” and yet after-
wards separate himself from Him, is a
mystery neither greater nor less than that
involved in the fall of a creature created
innocent,

taketh it away] It is not perhaps necessary
to attempt to determine the mode of this
removal. Death breaks the connexion be-
tween the unfaithful Christian and Christ
(see Matt. J. ¢.).

he purgeth (cleanseth) it] The word
cleanseth (xa0aipe ), which is used of
lustrations, appears to be chosen with a
view to its spiritual application, Everything
is removed from the branch which tends to
divert the vital power from the production
of fruit,

bring forth (bear) more fruit} Increased
fruitfulness is the end of discipline, and to
this all care is directed. The vine especially
needs pruning, Every one who has seen a

vineyard of choice vines knows how closely
they are cut.

3, 4. The relation which has been
generally indicated in vv. 1, 2 is now applied
to the disciples. Christ’s work is accom-
plished for them; but they must themselves
appropriate it (abide in me); their will
must co-operate with His will.

3. Now ye are...) Already ye (tpels)
are... The spiritual work represented by
this ‘ cleansing” was potentially completed
for the apostles, the representatives of His
Church. It remained that it should be
realised by them (comp, Col. iii, 3, 5). They
had been purified by the divine discipline
(comp. xiii. 10), They were clean ( kaOapo/)
“because of the word.’ The word, the
whole revelation to which Christ had given
expression, was the spring and source, and
not only the instrument, of their purity
(8a rév A., and not 64 Tod X. ; comp. vi.
57). See viii. 31 f., v. 34; Eph. v. 26 (Anya) ;
James i, 18,

clean] It is possible that the word may
contain an allusion to Lev. xix. 23. For
three years the fruit of “trees planted for
food ” was counted unclean (dmepixdOapros
LXX.),

4. But the permanence of the purity to
which they had attained depended upon
the permanence of their fellowship. The
disciple must set his life in Christ, and let
Christ live inhim, The form of the sentence
is necessarily obscure ; but the second clause
is not to be taken as a future: “ Abide in
me, and I will abide in you.” Both parts
are imperative in conception : “ Do ye abide
in me, and admit me to abide in you, let
me abide in you.” “Effect, by God’s help
this perfect mutual fellowship, your abiding
in me, my abiding in you.” Both thoughts
are essential to the completeness of the
union. Comp. xiv. 10,20. In one sense the
union itself, even the abiding of Christ, is
made to depend upon the will of the
believer. The other side of the truth is
given in v, 16.

of itself] not simply “ in itself,” but “ from
itself,” as the source of its own vital energy.
Comp, v. 19, vii. 18, xi. 51, xvi, 13. The
form is peculiar to St John (2 Cor. x. 7 is
w false reading). Comp. v. 30, note.

except it abide] The phrase is compressed.
The limitation applies to the principal
thought (bear fruit), and not to the defining
addition (of itself), to which it is parallel.
Comp. v. 19; Gal. ii. 16. The branch
cannot bear fruit of itself: it cannot bear
fruit except it abide in the vine.

217
218

i Or,
severed
from me.

5 I am the vine, ye are the
branches: He that abideth in me,
and I in him, the same bringeth
forth much fruit: for llwithout me
ye can do nothing.

6 If a man abide not in me, he
is cast forth as a branch, and is

St JOHN. XV.

[v. 5—8.

withered ; and men gather them, and
cast them into the fire, and they are
burned.

7 If ye abide in me, and my words
abide in you, ye shall ask what ye
will, and it shall be done unto you.

“8 Herein is my Father glorified,

 

no more can ye) Literally, so neither
can ye bear fruit of yourselves, or bear fruit
at all, except in vital fellowship with me.

5, 6. The consequences of union and of
loss of union with Christ are set out in the
sharpest contrast.

5. The repetition of the “theme” (v. 1)
leads to the addition of the clause ye are
the branches, which sums up definitely what
has been implied in the former verses,

He that...the same (odros “he, and none
other, it is that”) bringeth forth (beareth)
much fruit] The thought is of the produc-
tiveness of the Christian life. The vine-
wood is worthless. For fruitfulness there
is need of “abiding,” continuance, patient
waiting, on the part of those already “in
Christ.”

for (because) without (apart from) me...]
The force of the argument lies in the fact
that, as the fruitfulness of the branch does
not depend upon itself but upon Christ in
whom it lives, He will fulfil His part while
the vital connexion is maintained. In other
words, he in whom Christ lives must be
abundantly fruitful, for it is His life alone
which brings forth fruit.

apart from me] not simply without my
help, but separated from me. Comp. Eph,
ii, 12; ch. i. 3.

do nothing] accomplish nothing, bring out
no permanent result. The thought is
directly of Christian action, which can only
be wrought in Christ. At the same time the
words have a wider application. Nothing
that really “is” can be done without the
Word, whose activity must not be limited
when He has not limited it: x. 16, i. 9.

6. he is cast forth] This happens simul-
taneously with the cessation of the vital
union with Christ (€8A70n). It is not a
future consequence, as at the last judgment,
but an inevitable accompaniment of the
separation. The use of the adverb “ out-
side” (€BA}On Ew not é£eBAHOn) suggests
a new aspect of the union with Christ, the
idea of a vineyard in addition to that of a
vine,

a (the) branch) the unfruitful branch by
which he is represented,

withered] inasmuch as it receives the
living sap no longer.

men (they) gather them] The indefinite.
ness of the subject corresponds with the

mysteriousness of the act symbolized.
“«They gather them (the branches and their
antitypes) to whom the office belongs.”
Comp. Luke xii. 20. The description is
directly that of the fate of the severed
branches (adrd ), out of which the applica-
tion immediately follows. “ Ligna vitis...
precisa (Ezek, xv. 5) nullis agricolarum
usibus prosunt, nullis fabrilibus operibus
deputantur. Unum de duobus palmiti con-
gruit aut vitis aut ignis...” (Aug. ad loc.).

the fire] The image is of the fires kindled
to consume the dressings of the vineyards,
Comp. Matt, xiii. 41 f. The Lord leaves
the image, just as it is, to work its proper
effect.

7, 8. In these two verses the blessings
of union are shewn in prayer fulfilled and
fruit borne,

7. If ye abide in me, and my words
(sayings) abide in you...... |] The second
clause is changed in form (not “and I in
you,” as v. 4), because the thought now is
of the communion of prayer. The words
(pjpara), the definite sayings, here speci-
fied, go to make up “the word” (6 Adyos,
v, 3). Comp. viii. 43, 47, 51, xii. 47, 48,
xvii. 6, 8, 14,

ye shall ask what ye will) According to
the true reading, ask whatsoever ye will.
The petitions of the true disciples are
echoes (so to speak) of Christ’s words. As
He has spoken so they speak. Their prayer
is only some fragment of His teaching
transformed into a supplication, and so it
will necessarily be heard. It is important
to notice how the promise of the absolute
fulfilment of prayer is connected with the
personal fellowship of the believer with
Christ, both in the Synoptists, and in St
John. Comp. Matt, xviii, 19, 20, and
below v. 16. In the original “ whatsoever
ye will” stands first, to mark the freedom
of the believer’s choice, or (in other words)
the coincidence of his will with the will of
Christ. Comp. 1 John iii. 22.

tt shall be done] More literally, “it
shall come to pass (yevyjoerat, Vulg. fiet)
for you.” The result is not due to any
external or arbitrary exertion of power,
but to the action of a law of life.

8. Herein) In this, that is, in the
necessary consequence of your abiding in
me, which carries with it the certain fulfil-
v. 9—II.]
that ye bear much fruit; so shall ye
be my disciples,

g As the Father hath loved me,
so have I loved you: continue ye in
my love.

Sr. JOHN. XV.

to If ye keep my commandments,
ye shall abide in my love; even as I
have kept my Father’s command-
ments, and abide in his love.

11 These things have I spoken

 

ment of your prayers, inasmuch as they
correspond with the divine will. The pro-
noun looks back, while at the same time
the thought already indicated is developed
in the words which follow. The end which
God regards in answering prayer is that ye
may bear much fruit (iva pepyre). Comp.
iv. 34, note.

is glorified] The tense (as in v. 6) marks
the absolute coincidence of the extension of
the Father’s glory with the realisation of
the believer’s effectual union with Christ.
In the fruitfulness of the vine lies the joy
and glory of the ‘‘husbandman”’ (v, 1).

bear much fruit] The words point to the
future activity of the apostles as founders
of the Church through which the Risen
Christ acts. Comp. v. 16.

and so shall ye be (become) my disciples]
Or, according to another reading, and ye
shall become... Something is always want-
ing to the completeness of discipleship. A
Christian never ‘‘is,’’? but always ‘‘is be-
coming’ a Christian. And it is by his
fruitfulness that he vindicates his claim to
the name.

9, 10. The sphere and the condition of
union are revealed in the absolute type of
union, the relation of the Son to the
Father.

9. This verse admits of two renderings.
The last clause may be the conclusion to
the two former : Even as the Father loved
me and I loved you, abide in my love. Or
it may be independent : Even as the Father
loved me I also loved you. Abide in my
love. Both constructions are in harmony
with St John’s style. (Comp. vi. 57, xiv.
12.) The latter perhaps brings out most
distinctly the mysterious truth that the
relation of the Father to the Son corres-
ponds with that of the Son to believers
(comp. vi. 57, x. 14, 15), which is further
applied in v. 10. The use of the aorist
(loved) in both cases may perhaps carry
the relation out of time, and make it sbso-
lute in the divine idea. Comp. xvii. 14.
But it is simpler to regard the tense as
chosen with regard to a work now looked
upon as completed, according to the usage
which is not infrequent in these discourses,
Comp. xiii, 31.

continue (abide) ye tn my love] The
love of Christ is, as it were, the atmosphere
in which the disciple lives. It is not
something realised at a momentary crisis,
but enjoyed continuously. And this en-
joyment depends, on the human side, upon
the will of man. It can be made the sub-
ject of a command.

my love] The exact form of the phrase,
which is found here only (1 dyémn 1) éuy
as distinguished from that Seed in the Hi)
verse (1% dydmn pov), emphasizes the
character of the love, as Christ’s : the love
that is mine, the love that answers to my
nature and my work. Thus the meaning
of the words cannot be limited to the idea
of Christ’s love for men, or to that of
man’s love for Christ: they describe the
absolute love which is manifested in these
two ways, the love which perfectly cor-
responds with Christ’s Being. There are
many corresponding phrases in the Gospel,
“the joy that is mine” (9 xapa y eum, v.
11, iii, 29, xvii. 18); “the judgment that
is mine” (4 Kpiows 7 éuyv. 30, viii. 16);
“‘the commandments that are mine” (xiv.
15); “‘ peace that is mine” (eipyvn 7 eur,
xiv, 27). Comp. v. 30, vi. 38, vii. 6, 8,
viii. 31, 37, 43, 51, 56, x. 26, 27, xii, 26,
xv, 12, xvii. 24, xviii, 36,

10. The promise here is the exact con-
verse of that in xiv. 15. Obedience and
love are perfectly correlative. Love
assures obedience; obedience assures love.
The love of the disciples for Christ carries
with it the purpose and the power of
obedience ; the spirit of obedience is more
than the sign of love (xiii, 35); it secures
to the disciples the enjoyment of Christ’s
love. The love of Christ as it is realised
unites and includes inseparably man’s love
for Christ, and Christ’s love for man.

even as I (éyd) have kept my (the)
Father's...) The Filial relation of the Son
to “the Father’ (not ‘‘ His Father’) is
set forth as the type of that of the disciple
for his Master (comp. viii. 29). Though
the terms in which this relation is de-
scribed belong properly to the life of the
Incarnate Son, yet the emphatic pronoun
shews that the statement is true of the
eternal being of the Son in His unchanged
personality. Comp. i. 1.

in Ais love] The pronoun stands em-
phatically first, so that there is a complete
parallel between the corresponding clauses
(rod mrarpds rds evToAds, avrod év ry dyd-
wp). The perfect love of complete devotion
to God is the highest conceivable good.

2. The issues of union: the disciples and
Christ (xv. 11—16).

The Revelation which has been made in
the first section is applied in the sections
which follow. The end of it is shewn to
be two-fold, to create joy in sacrifice (xv.
11—27), and to preserve faith unshaken
(xvi.). The first object is gained by shew-

219
220

c chap. 13.

34.
1 Thee 4.

unto you, that my joy might remain
in you, and that your joy might
be full.

12 ¢This is my commandment,
That ye love one another, as I have

fohn 3.u loved you.

St JOHN. XV.

[v. 12—15.

13 Greater love hath no man than
this, that a man lay down his life for
his friends.

14 Ye are my friends, if ye do
whatsoever I command you.

15 Henceforth I call you not ser-

 

ing the issues of union for the believer in
relation to Christ (vv. 11—16), and to the
world (vv. 17—27). True joy, Christ’s joy,
springs out of the self-sacrifice of love (vv.
12, 13). The connexion of believers with
Christ is one of love (vv. 14, 15); and it is
stable because it rests on His choice (v. 16).

ll. The love of Christ was the love of
absolute self-sacrifice. Such self-sacrifice is
the fulness of joy. Thus by enjoining con-
tinuance in His love Christ prepares His
hearers to suffer for love’s sake. These things
have I spoken unto you that my joy might
remain (may be) in you: that you may
know and share the blessedness which be-
longs to my work, the exemplar of your
own; and that so your joy might be full
(may be fulfilled).

my joy] Literally, ‘“‘the joy that is
mine,”’ characteristic of me (see v. 9, note) :
the joy of complete self-surrender in love
to love. Other interpretations of the
phrase, ‘‘the joy which I inspire,” or
“your joy in me,” fall far short of the
meaning required by. the context. The
rendering ‘‘that my joy may find its foun-
dation and support in you,’’ is even more
alien from the sense of the passage.

your joy] There appears to be a marked
contrast between ‘‘the joy that is
Christ’s,’’ and ‘‘the joy of the disciples.”
The one is absolute (may be in), the other
is progressive (may be fulfilled). The
latter may perhaps be rightly taken to in-
clude all the elements of true human joy.
This natural joy, in itself incomplete and
transitory, had been ennobled by the self-
surrender of the disciples to Christ; and
the completion of their joy in the indirect
sense was to be found in the consumma-
tion of the union thus commenced. That
consummation however was to be accom-
plished through suffering.

12, 18. The connexion of v. 12 with v,
11 lies in the thought of joy springing out
of self-sacrifice, of which Christ gives the
absolute pattern. The many ‘‘ command-
ments” (v. 10) are gathered up in the one
“‘new commandment” (xiii. 34), the com-
mandment which was emphatically Christ’s,
of which the end and purport was that
Christians should love one another after
the pattern of their Master, who gave up
His life for them. He is the model (v. 18),
the source (vv. 14, 15), and the support of
love (v. 16).

12. my commandment] Literally, ‘‘ the
commandment that is mine,’’ that answers

to my nature and my mission (v. 9, note),
Comp. 1 John iii. 16.

That ye love] The exact phrase of the
original (iva déyamare) emphasizes the pur-
pose as distinguished from the simple sub-
stance of the command.

as I have loved) More closely, even as
I loved. See v. 9.

13. The love of Christ for men was the
supreme ideal of love. Greater love than
this, which I have shewn and still shew,
no one hath or could have; a love so
framed in its divine law and last issue,
that one should lay down his life for his
friends. Comp. 1 John iii, 16,

The implied end of Christ’s love—death
for another—is regarded as the final aim
of human self-devotion. This points back.
ward to I have loved you; and that one
lay down does not seem to be a simple ex-
planation of this, but rather a declaration
of the spirit and purpose of love. Comp.
iv. 34, v. 8, xvii. 3; 1 John iv, 17; 3
John 4.

lay down] Comp. x. 11, note.

for his friends] Love is contemplated
here from the side of him who feels it, so
that the objects of it are spoken of as
‘*friends,” that is, “loved by him.” In
Rom. v. 8 the sacrifice of Christ is re-
garded from the opposite side, from the
side of those for whom it was offered, and
men are described as being in themselves
sinners.

14. Ye (tyets) are...] Christ returns
from the general case (any one) to Him-
self, and shews what is required on man’s
side to complete the conception of that
relationship which He has established with
His disciples.

friends] The true believer receives the
title which is characteristic of Abraham,
“the father of the faithful,” ‘the friend
of God’? (Isai. xli. 8; James ii. 28). The
title occurs Luke xii. 4 in connexion with
the prospect of suffering. The true dis-
ciples had been in Christ’s sight all along
what He now solemnly entitles them.

whatsoever] the things which, but pro-
bably the true reading is that ‘which, so
that the emphasis is still laid upon "the
unity of Christ’s command (v. 12).

15. The relation of the believer to
Christ, out of which springs his relation to
his fellow- believer, is essentially one not of
service but of love.

Henceforth I call you not] No longer do
I call you, as in the time when Christ had
v. 16.]

vants; for the servant knoweth not
what his lord doeth : but I have call-
ed you friends ; for all things that I
have heard of my Father I have made
known unto you.

Sr. JOHN. XV.

16 Ye have not chosen mie, but

I have chosen you, and dordained @ Maske 28,

you, that ye should go and bring
forth fruit, and that your fruit should
remain : that whatsoever ye shall ask

 

not fully revealed Himself. The relation
of God to His people under the Law had
been that of Master to servant. Comp.
Matt. x. 24f., and the imagery of the
parables: Matt, xiii, 27 £., xviii, 23 ff., xxii.
4ff, xxiv. 45 ff.; Mark xiii. 34; Luke xii,
37 ff., xiv, 17ff., xvii, 10, xix. 13 ff. See
also xiii, 16, xii, 26 (SidKovos ),

servants} The disciples however still
claimed the title for themselves. The less
was included in the greater. Comp. v. 20.

for (because)...] Comp. viii. 34 ff.

knoweth not (with the knowledge of in-
tuitive certainty) what his lord doeth (is
doing)] At the very moment of action
there is no sympathy between the lord and
the slave, by which the mind of one is
known to the other. The slave is an
instrument (€uyvyov dpyavov) and not a
person. Comp. Rom. vii, 15.

his lord] The order of the original ( adrov
6 kUptos) emphasizes the contrast of persons.

The order is changed in the second clause :
but you I have called friends, The em-
phasis is laid on the personal character of
theeleven. The title also is one finally con-
ferred (eipyxa,Z have called), and not simply
used as the cccasion arises (Aéyw, I call).

for (because)] The perfect revelation of
the Father’s will involves the relation of
friendship. To know God is to love Him.
To receive the knowledge of Him is to
experience His love. The Son therefore
called those to whom He revealed the
Father “friends” in act before He called
them so in word.

The revelation both in communication
(éyvépura, I made known) and in reception
(fxovev, I heard, comp. viii. 28, note) is
here presented as complete. This is one
side of the truth. But the complete revela-
tion given in the Lord’s Presence needed a
fuller unfolding (xvi. 12). He had not yet
died and risen. It was the work of the
Spirit to interpret afterwards little by little
what He had revealed in word and life
implicitly once for all (xiv. 26, ev TW
évépari pov, xvii, 26, 7d dvopa cov).

16. The Lord having set forth the aim of
Christian joy through self-devotion, resting
on a personal relation to Himself, shews
how it is within reach of attainment. The
stability of the connexion of “ friendship ™
between the Lord and His disciples is
assured by the fact that its origin lies with
the Lord and not with man. This manifes-
tation of love, like the divine love itself (1
John iv. 10), was not called out by anything

inman, It was of divine grace, and there.
fore essentially sure. Ye did not choose me,
or more exactly, Zt was not ye that chose me
as your master, as scholars ordinarily choose
their master—the pronoun stands emphati-
cally first—bdut I chose you as my friends.
The choice may be either generally to
discipleship, or specially to the apostolate.
The use of the word in vi. 70 and xiii. 18
(comp. Acts i, 2), no less than the context,
in which the eleven are regarded as repre-
sentatives of the Lord in relation to His
Church, favours the second interpretation.
The power of the office of the apostles lay
for them in the fact that it was not self-
chosen.

I have chosen] 1 chose. The reference is
to the historic fact of the calling, Luke vi.
13; Acts i. 2, Comp. ch. vi. 70.

and ordained (appointed, sent, ¢0nxa,
Vulg. posui) you) The word simply de-
scribes the assignment of a special post,
which here carries with it further duties
(that ye may...). Comp. Hebr. i, 2; Rom.
iv. 17; 2 Tim, i, 11.

that ye (tpets ) on your part, in virtue
of your peculiar knowledge and gifts,
should go...] The repetition of the pronoun
(dyads, iva dyels) brings out the distinctive
responsibility of the apostles. At the same
time the verb (go, twdynre) marks their
separation from their Master (Matt, xx. 4,
7, &c.), while they went into the world as
heralds of the gospel (Mark xvi. 15; Luke
x, 8). Three points are noticed in their
activity. They take up an independent
place; they are effective; the effect. which
they work is lasting. In all this lies the
promise of the foundation and perpetuity
of the Church. Moreover even in apparent
separation the strength of the disciple comes
from union with his Lord, and thus for a
moment the imagery of vv. 2 ff. is resumed
(bear fruit, frut¢ abide).

that whatsoever] This clause is in one
aspect subordinate to the former; and in
another coordinate with it. The consumma-
tion of faith grows out of fruitful obedi-
ence; and on the other hand fruitful obedi-
ence coincides with the fulfilment of prayer.

The direct personal application of vv. 15,
16, to the apostles is emphatically marked
by the ninefold repetition of the pronoun
(ye, you). At the same time the words are
to be extended in due measure to all
disciples whom the eleven represented,

whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father]
The conditions of prayer already laid down
(v. 7) are here presented in another light.

221
222

of the Father in my name, he may
give it you.

17 These things I command you,
that ye love one another.

St JOHN. XV.

[v. 17—I9.
18 If the world hate you, ye know

that it hated me before it hated you.
19 If ye were of the world, the

world would love his own: but be-

 

In the former passage prayer was regarded
as the echo of Christ’s own words. Here
it is regarded as flowing from the new
connexion (ask the Father) realised in the
revelation of the Son (in my name). Comp.
xvi, 26f. And there is another detail to
be observed, by which the promise in this
passage is further distinguished from that
in xiv. 18, 14. There it is said of the
fulfilment of prayer, Z will do it; and here,
that He may give it you. In the former
place stress is laid upon the action of
Christ; in this upon the privilege of the
believer. The work is wrought by Christ,
but through the believer. He receives that
which enables him to accomplish his Lord’s
will. Comp, xvi. 23.

in my name] See xiv. 18, note. This
clause marks the proper object of prayer
as spiritual and eternal, and not transitory.
Comp. 1 John v. 14, 15. ‘‘Hoc petimus
in nomine Salvatoris quod pertinet ad
rationem salutis” (Aug. in loc.).

3. The issues of union: the disciples and
the world (xv. 17—27).

The love of Christians for Christ and for
one another, which is the end of Christ’s
commandment, involves hatred on the part
of the world (vv. 17, 18), which springs
from an essential opposition of nature, and
finally from ignorance of the Father (vv.
19—21). But none the less such hatred is
inexcusable, for Christ fulfilling His
mission both in word and work left no
plea for those who rejected Him (vv. 22—
25); and the conflict which He had begun
the disciples are commissioned to continue
with the help of the Paraclete (vv. 26, 27).

17—21. ‘The disciples’ work, as 4 work
of love, corresponds not only in character
but also in issue with that of their Master ;
it is met by hatred which marks an opposi-
tion of natures between believers and the
world, and so witnesses in fact to the true
fellowship of Christians with Christ, and to
their knowledge of God. Comp. 1 John
iii, 1. At first sight the hatred of the
world for that which is essentially good
and beautiful could not but be a strange
trial to believers (comp. 1 Peter iv. 12 ff.).
Christ meets the temptation beforehand by
tracing the hatred to its origin. The lesson
was soon applied: Acts v. 41.

17. This verse must be taken as the
introduction of a new line of thought, and
not, according to the modern texts, as the
summing up in conclusion of what has gone
before. On this point the usage in St John
is conclusive against the received arrange-
ment. Comp. xiv. 25, xv, 11, xvi. 1, 25,

83. The love of Christ for Christians is
the antidote to and the occasion of the
world’s hatred, which is directed against
the virtues rather than against the failings
of Christians. Christ first establishes the
foundation of this love, and then lays open
the antagonism which believers must sup-
port.

These things I command} The com.
mands are involved in the teaching which
has developed the original injunction, abide
in me (v. 4). The scope of all was to
create mutual love (iva dyamare dAAjAovs,
that ye may love...).

18. If the world hate (hateth, pce?)
you] This is assumed to be the actual
fact. Compare vii. 7. The verb which
follows (ytvioKere) may be either indica-
tive, “ye know,” or imperative, “know
ye”’ (Vulg. scitote). In favour of the latter
rendering the imperative in v. 20 (remem-
ber) can be quoted; and at the same time
it is more natural to suppose that the
attention of the disciples is now definitely
called to a truth which they had but just
learnt to recognise, than that reference
should be made to a knowledge which at
any rate they had been very slow to gain.
Comp. 1 John iv. 2. Now that the issue
was at hand the past could at length be
more certainly interpreted than at an
earlier time; and yet more, the immediate
experience of the disciples interpreted the -
history of their Master.

hated (hath hated, peutonxev)] The con-
ception is of a persistent, abiding feeling,
and not of any isolated manifestation of
feeling. The ‘‘ Jews’’ are treated as part
of the ‘ world.”

hated me before it hated you] The
original phrase is very remarkable (és
TpOTov dpov, Vulg. prionem vobis), me first
of you, first in regard of you. Comp. i.
15. The force of it appears to lie in the
stress laid upon the essential union of those _
which follow with the source. The later
life is drawn from the original life. It is
not only that Christ was ‘‘before’”’ the dis-
ciples as separate from them; He was also
their Head.

19. The hatred of the world to the dis-
ciples could not but follow necessarily from
the choice of Christ, by which they were
drawn out of the world to Him. This
hatred, therefore, became to them a me-
morial of their great hopes. Comp. Matt.
v. 14, f.; Rom. viii. 17; 1 Pet. iv. 12f.

If ye were of the world, the world would
love] The love (épidex) is that of nature,
and not of moral choice (ayamdre, v. 17}.
v. 20—22. |

cause ye are not of the world, but I
have chosen you out of the world,
therefore the world hateth you.

20 Remember the word that I

eMatt.10. said unto you, eThe servant is not
chap.13, greater than his lord. If they have
16. persecuted me, they will also perse-

Sr. JOHN. XV.

cute you; if they have kept my say-
ing, they will keep yours also.

21 But all these things will they
do unto you for my name’s sake,
because they know not him that.
sent me.

22 If I had not come and spoken

 

his (its) own...you] The love of the
world is marked as selfish. It is directed
to that which specially belongs to itself : to
a quality and not to a person (Td idzov,
Vulg. quod suum erat). The fivefold repe-
tition of ‘‘the world’”’ brings out vividly
the antagonist of Christ.

I have chosen] I chose. See v. 16, note.

20. the word] The reference appears to
be not to xiii, 16, but to some earlier occa-
sion on which the words were used, with
an application like the present one, Matt.
x. 24.

If they have persecuted (they persecuted)
tf they have kept (they kept)...) The
subject is left indefinite, being naturally
supplied from ‘‘the world,’’ and the alter-
natives are simply stated. The disciples
could look back and discern what they had
to expect : some courageous followers, some
faithful hearers, out of misunderstanding,
or careless, or hostile multitudes.

kept (érypyoav)...) my word; “ ob-
‘served,’”’ ‘‘obeyed,’’ and not (as it has
been taken) watched with a malicious pur-
pose. Comp. viii. 51 ff., xiv. 23, xvii. 6;
1 John ii. 5; Rev. iii. 8, 10, xxii. 7, 9.
The phrase is peculiar to St John.

21. But...) The Lord, with an abrupt
_transition, anticipates the judgment and
deals with it. Persecution and rejection
were inevitable; but they were not really
to be feared. The disciples could bear
them, because they sprang from ignorance
of God, and so indirectly witnessed that
the disciples knew Him.

all these things] all ‘that is included in
the activity of antagonism.

do unto you) The original phrase, accord-
ing to the true text, is very remarkable
(woujrovewy eis tpas). The disciples were
to be not only in fact the victims of the
world’s hatred, but the object which the
world deliberately sought to overpower.

for my name’s sake] Comp. Acts v. 41
(for the name); 1 Pet. iv. 14. The hostility
of the Jews to the disciples was called out
by the fact that these proclaimed Christ
as being what He had revealed Himself to
be, the Christ, the Son of the living God.
This was His ‘‘name;” and it became
the ground of accusation, because the Jews
knew not God, that God whom they pro-
fessed to honour, from whom Christ came.
To emphasize this idea God is spoken of
simply as ‘‘ He that sent me,” and not as
‘*God,” or “‘the Father,” or “the Father

that sent me.’”’ Comp. iv. 34, v. 24, 30,
vi. 38, 39, vii. 16, 18, 28, 33, viii. 26, 29,
ix. 4, xii, 44 f., xiii, 20, xvi. 5. See also
xvi, 8, note.

because] The true knowledge of God
carries with it the knowledge of Christ
(viii. 42) (comp. 1 John v. 1); and con-
versely the knowledge of Christ is the
knowledge of God (xii. 44). Comp. Luke
xxiii. 34.

22—25. The Lord, having shewn the
fact and the ground of the hatred which
His disciples would experience, shews also
that the hatred is without excuse and yet
inevitable. To this end He marks the
double testimony which He had Himself
offered to His Person and to His office,
the testimony of teaching (vv, 22, 28), and
the testimony of works (24). He had made
the Father known. The parallelism be-
tween the two declarations is remarkable :

If I had not come and spoken to them,
they had not had sin:

But now they have no excuse for their
sin,

He that hateth me hateth my Father
also.

If I had not done among them the works
which none other did, they had not had
sin: ;

But now they have both seen and
hated both me and my Father.

The same two forms of witness are ap-
pealed to in the same order in xiv. 10, 11.
Compare also Matt. xiii. 16 f.; Luke x.
28 f.

22. come] The word appears to be used
in its technical sense: ‘“‘If I had not
claimed the true functions of Messiah, and
spoken in that capacity, and wrought ‘‘ the
works of the Christ,” they might then
have treated me as a mere man and re-
jected me without sin.” Comp. ix. 41.
The Jews had the power and the oppor-
tunity of discerning Christ’s real nature,
so that they were inexcusable. Compare
Deut. xviii. 18, 19, where the responsibility
of discernment is laid upon the people.

had sin] Compare ix. 41, note. The
phrase is peculiar to St John (v. 24, xix.
11; 1 John i. 8). Compare the correspon-
ding phrase “bear sin” (LXX AopGdvev
dpoaptiav), Num. ix. 13, xiv. 34, xviii, 22,
&c. In 1 John i. 8, the phrase is con-
trasted with ‘“‘we have not sinned” (ovx
HpoptyKkapev). Both mark the abiding

223
St JOHN. XV. [v. 2326.

25 But this cometh to pass, that
the word might be fulfilled that is
written in their law, /They hated me / Psal. 5.
without a cause. :

26 gBut when the Comforter is g Luke 2%.
come, whom I will send unto you chap. 14, 2

224
unto them, theyhad not had sin: but
now they have no Iicloke for their sin.

23 He that hateth me hateth my
Father also

24 If I had not done among them
the works which none other man did,

Or,
excuse

they had not had sin: but now have
they both seen and hated both me
and my Father.

from the Father, even the Spirit of
truth, which proceedeth from the
Father, he shall testify of me:

 

effects of sin. But in the latter the act
is the central point, and in the former the
responsibility for the act.

but now] as it is, they have incurred sin
and have... The words mark a sharp con-
trast. Compare Luke xix. 42, ch. viii. 40,
ix. 41, xvi. 5, xvii, 18, xviii. 86; 1 Cor.
vii. 14, xii, 20, &c.; and in St Paul in the
form vvvi 6é, Rom. iii. 21, vi. 22, &c.

cloke] excuse (rpddaciy tepi, Vulg. ex-
cusationem de). Compare Ps. cxl. 4
(LXX.).

for (wept) their sin] in the matter of,
concerning their sin. They have nothing
which they can even plead in their own
defence as in times of ignorance 1 Pet. i.
14; Acts xvii. 30; Rom. iii. 25).

23. He that hateth me hateth...} It is
assumed that ‘‘ the Jews’’ hate Christ ; and
so the necessary consequences of this feel-
ing are laid open. Hatred of the Son as
Son carries with it hatred of the Father,
in which character He had revealed God.
Here in connexion with teaching (v. 22)
the inward disposition of hatred only is
touched upon, and that in a general form
(he that hateth). In v. 24 the feeling is
marked in its historic form (have seen and
have hated). For the combination me...
my Father see 1 John ii. 23, v. 10.

24. For those who could not enter into
the witness of words Christ added the sub-
ordinate witness of works (xiv. 10 ff., note).
The works are characterized (which none
other did : comp. Matt. ix. 38); the words
are undefined (come and spoken). The
works of Christ might be compared with
other works; His words had an absolute
power (vii. 46. Comp. Matt. vii, 29).
Augustine (in loc.) has an interesting com-
parison of other miracles with the miracles
of Christ.

both seen] so far as the works revealed
outwardly the majesty and will of God,
and of Christ, as the representative of
God. Comp. xiv. 9. Contrast v. 23.

25. But this cometh to pass that...
might (may)...] Comp. i. 8, but he came
that..., ix. 3, but this hath come to pass
that..., xi. 4, xiii, 18, xiv. 31; 1 John ii.
19; Mark xiv. 49. However startling it
might be that the Jews should reject Him
whom they professed to reverence, by doing

so they fulfilled the Scripture. Comp.
Acts xiii, 27. It could not but be that the
divine type, foreshadowed in the history
of king and prophet, should be completely
realised. Comp. xii. 38 f.

in their law] The Lord separates His
society from the unfaithful synagogue (their
law). The very books which the Jews
claimed to follow condemned them, For
the extension of the term “Law” to the
Psalms see x, 34, note. The phrase occurs
in Ps, xxxv. (xxxiv.) 19, and in Ps. Ixix.
(Ixviii.) 4.

without a cause] “‘ gratuitously” (Swpedv,
Vulg. gratis). Compare 1 8. xix. 5, xxv.
81; 1 K. ii. 31; Ps. xxxv. (xxxiv.) 7
{[LXX.]. The hostility of the Jews to
Christ, who was absolutely holy and lov-
ing, could have no justification. It was
pure hatred without ground.

26, 27. There is a pause after_v. 25.
The Lord had dwelt on the hatred with
which He had been met. Yet that was
not to prevail. The hostility of the world
is therefore contrasted with the power by
which it should be overcome. In vv, 26,
27 the thought is of the vindication of the
Lord; in ch. xvi. this passes into the
thought of the support of the disciples.

26. But (omit) when the Comforter (Ad-
vocate) is come] Comp. xiv. 16, note.

I (éy®) will send] Comp, xvi. 7. The
use of this phrase, involving the claim to
divine power at this crisis of rejection, is
made most significant by the emphatic pro-
noun. d
from the Father|The preposition (apd)
which is used in both clauses expresses
properly position (‘‘from the side of’’),
and not source (é€, ‘‘out of’). The re-
markable use in Luke vi. 19 is explained
by Luke viii. 44.

the Spirit of truth] xiv. 17, xvi. 13; 2
John iv. 6. Christianity is itself ‘‘the
Truth.’ It was the office of the Spirit to
interpret and enforce it. The genitive
describes the substance of that with which
the Spirit dealt, and not a mere character-
istic of the Spirit, that His witness is
true.
proceedeth] The original term (éx7opeverat,
Vulg. procedit) may in itself either describe
proceeding from a source, or proceeding on
a mission. In the former sense the pre-
v. 27.] St. JOHN.

27 And ye also shall bear witness,
because ye have been with me from
the beginning.

CHAPTER XVI.

* Christ comforteth his disciples against tri-
bulation by the promise of the Holy Ghost,

XV. XVI.

and by his resurrection and ascension: 23
assureth their prayers made in his name
to be acceptable to his Father. 33 Peace

in Christ, and in the world affliction.
HESE things have I spoken un-
to you, that ye should not be

offended.

 

position out of (éx, e) would naturally be
required to define the source (Rev. i. 16,
&c.); on the other hand the preposition
from (from the side of, mapa, a) is that
which is habitually used with the verb to
come forth of the mission of the Son, e.g.
xvi, 27, xvii. 8. The use of the latter pre-
position (apd) in this place seems there-
fore to shew decisively that the reference
here is to the temporal mission of the Holy
Spirit, and not to the eternal Procession.
In accordance with this usage the phrase
in the Creeds is uniformly ‘‘ which pro-
seedeth out of (Td mv. dytov Td ex TOU
maTpds éxmopevdmevov); and it is most
worthy of notice that the Greek fathers
who apply this passage to the eternal Pro-
session instinctively substitute ‘‘out of”
(€x) for “from” (apd) in their applica-
tion of it: e.g. Theodore of Mopsuestia
(‘Cat.’ in loco). At the same time the
use of the present (proceedeth) in contrast
with the future (Z will send), brings out
the truth that the mission of the Spirit
consequent on the exaltation of the Son
was the consummation of His earlier
working in the world. In this respect
the revelation of the mission of the Spirit
to men (which proceedeth, I will send)
corresponds to the revelation of the eternal
relations of the Spirit (from the Father,
through the Son).

from the Father] not from My Father.
The mission is connected with the essen-
tial relation of God to man.

he (éxelvos)...tesify (bear witness)...]
Comp. xiv. 26, note.

The witness of the Spirit was not only
given through the disciples (Matt. x. 19,
20), but is also given more widely in the
continuous interpretation of the life of
Christ by the experience of men.

27. ye also shall bear witness] The verb
(Haprupeire) may be indicative (and ye also
bear witness), or imperative (and do ye also
bear witness). The imperative seems at first
sight to fall in better with the general
tenour of the passage (vv. 18, 20); but on
the other hand 8 John 12, which is evi-
dently moulded on this passage, favours
the indicative ; and yet more, in these two
verses Christ is speaking of the witness
which should maintain His cause against
the world and not enjoining duties. On the
whole, therefore, the imperative is less
appropriate, The present tense is used of
the witness of the disciples, inasmuch as
their witness was already begun in some

sense, in contrast with that of the Spirit,
which was consequent upon Christ’s ex-
altation.

have been with,..] are with me... The
relation was present and unbroken. Comp.
Luke xv. 31.

from the beginning] Comp. 1 John ii. 7,
24, iii. 11; and ce. vi. 64, xvi. 4 (€& dpxjjs).
The ‘‘ beginning’”’ is necessarily relative to
the subject (comp. Matt. xix, 4, 8; Acts
xxvi. 4; ch. viii. 44). Here it expresses
the commencement of Messiah’s public
work (Acts i. 22; Luke i. 2).

For the two-fold witness see Acts v. 32.
On the one side there is the historical wit-
ness to the facts, and on the other the in-
ternal testimony of personal experience.

4. The world and the Paraclete
(xvi. 1—1)).

In this section the manifestation of the
hatred of the world is followed out to its
last issues (I—4 a), in the prospect of that
crisis of separation, which is the condi-
tion of the mission of the Paraclete (4b—
7), who finally tries and convicts the world
(8—1l). The antagonistic forces of the
world and the Paraclete are portrayed in
the most energetic opposition. The warn-
ing is answered by the promise.

Cuap. XVI. 1ff. In the last section the
hatred of the world was exhibited in its
general character as inevitable and inex-
cusable, in contrast to the witness to
Christ; it is now shewn in its intense
activity as the expression of a false re-
ligious zeal.

1. These things] The reference appears
to be to the whole revelation of the vital
union of the believer with Christ, of the
self-sacrifice of Christians, of their power
of devotion, of their suffering as sharers
with Christ, of their witness coincident
with the witness of the Spirit; and not
only to the last section (xv. 17—27). Com-
pare xv. 11.

not be offended (sxavSadirOqre)] Comp.
vi. 61. The image of stumbling over some
obstacle in the way (oxdvdaXov, “‘offence,’”’
1 John ii. 10), which is common in the
first two Gospels (e.g. Matt. xiii. 21) and
is found more rarely in St Luke, occurs in
this form only in these two places in the
Gospel of St John. It is expressed other-
wise in xi. 9 f. (comp. Rom. ix. 32). The
offence lay in the opposition on the part
of the world to that which the disciples
were taught to regard as rightly claiming
the allegiance of all men, and especially in

225
226

2 They shall put you out of the
synagogues: yea, the time cometh,
that whosoever killeth you will think
that he doeth God service.

3 And these things will they do

St JOHN. XVI.

[v. 2—4
unto you, because they have not
known the Father, nor me.

4 But these things have I told
you, that when the time shall come,
ye may remember that I told you of

 

the opposition of Israel to that which was
the true fulfilment of their national hopes.
No trial could be greater to Jewish apostles
than the fatal unbelief of their country-
men. Comp. Rom. x.

2. out of the synagogues (or rather
synagogue)] i.e. excommunicate you, Comp.
ix, 22, xii. 42.

yea (GAAd, Vulg. sed)] The exclusion
from religious fellowship might seem the
climax of religious hostility, but there was
something more formidable still. The con-
trast is between what the disciples could
anticipate, and the real extremity of
hatred. They shall put you out of the
synagogue ; this, indeed, however grievous,
you may be prepared to bear ; but far more
than this; 7'he hour cometh that their full
malignity may be shewn, when putting you
to death will seem to be the performance of
a religious duty.

the time (hour) cometh, that...] The
issue is represented in relation to the
whole divine purpose which it fulfilled
(Luke ii, 35). This uttermost manifesta-
tion of the violence of unbelief was part
of the counsel of God. He provided for
such an end (épxeraufva). Comp. v. 32,
xii. 28, xiii, 1.

whosoever...) every one who... This will
be the universal spirit, not only among
Jews, who will be the first adversaries of
the Church, but among Gentiles, who will
accuse you of impious crimes (Tac. ‘ Ann.’
xv. 44; Suet. ‘Nero,’ 16).

doeth God service] offereth service unto
God (d, hostiam offerre Deo, Vulg. ob-
sequium prostare Deo). The phrase ex-
presses the rendering of a religious service
(Aarpeia, Rom. ix. 4; Hebr. ix. 1, 6), and
more particularly the ‘rendering of a sacri-
fice as service (tpood:pev, Hebr. v. 1 ff.,
viii. 3 f., ix. 7 ff. &c.). The slaughter of
Christians, as guilty of blasphemy (Acts
vii. 57 f., vi. 13), would necessarily be re-
garded by zealots as an act of devotion
pleasing to God, and not merely as a good
work, The Midrash on Num. xxv. 13
([Phinehas] made an atonement) may serve
asacommentary. ‘‘ Was this said because
he offered an offering (Korban)? No; but
to teach them that every one that sheds
the blood of the wicked is as he that

offereth an offering’ (‘Midrash R.’ ad
loc.). ‘
3. do unto you) Omit unto you. The

action itself, without regard to the par-
ticular objects of it, is the central thought.
because they have not known...) because

they knew not... This fatal error was the
consequence of a failure to know God. The
evil act followed upon the blinded thought.
The Jews in their crisis of trial ‘‘ did not
recognise” (ovk éyvwrav) the Father and
Christ. Their sin is not placed in the want
of knowledge in itself (ovK oi€acr, xv. 21,
viii. 19, vii. 28), but in the fact that when
the opportunity of learning was given to
them they did not gain the knowledge
which was within their reach (comp. xvii.
25, i. 10).

In this connection the change from ‘‘ Him
that sent me’”’ (xv. 21) to ‘‘the Father”
(not ‘‘my Father’’) is significant. ‘The
Father’? marks an absolute and universal
relation of God to man which Christ came
to reveal; ‘‘ Him that sent me’’ marks the
connexion of Christ with the Old Covenant,

4. But these things have I told you]
But these things have I spoken unto you.
The strong adversative (4A Ad) is difficult to
explain. The reference has been supposed
to be to the words immediately preceding ;
as though it were implied that careful re-
flection might have shewn the disciples
after Christ’s death what must be their
position. This being so, their Master
might have left them to the teaching of
experience, but for their sake He fore-
warned them. It is however perhaps more
simple to take the but as abruptly break-
ing the development of thought; ‘‘ but,
not to dwell on the details of the future...”

these things] See v. 1, note.

when the time] when their hour, the
appointed time for their accomplishment.

ye may...of them] ye may remember
them how that I (éyw) told you. Comp.
xiii. 19. The pronoun Z is emphatic.
Christ Himself had foreseen what caused
His disciples perplexity. As knowing this
they could be patient.

4 b ff. The revelation which has been
given answers to a crisis of transition. The
departure of Christ is the condition of the
coming of the Paraclete. Separation and
suffering are the preparation for victory.

And (But, 8é) these things I said not unto
you (told you not) at (from) the beginning)
The exact phrase (€€ dpxjs) occurs in the
New Testament only here and in ch. vi.
64. The preposition suggests the notion
of that which flows ‘out of’? a source in
a continuous stream, rather than of that
which first began from a certain point.
Comp. Isai, xl, 21, xli. 26, xliii, 9
(LXX.); Ecclus. xxxix. 32.

If this difference be regarded, the relation
of this statement to the warnings of future
v. 5—8.]
them. And these things I said not
unto you at the beginning, because I
was with you.

5 But now I go my way to him
that sent me; and none of you asketh
me, Whither goest thou ?

6 But because I have said these
things unto you, sorrow hath filled
your heart,

ST. JOHN. XVI.

7 Nevertheless I tell you the truth ;
It is expedient for you that I go
away: for if I go not away, the
Comforter will not come unto you;
but if I depart, I will send him un-
to you.

8 And when he is come, he will

lreprove the world of sin, and of || or,
convince

righteousness, and of judgment :

 

trials given at earlier times as recorded by
tue Synoptists (Matt. v. 10, x, 16 ff., Luke
vi. 22 £.) becomes intelligible. The future
fate of the disciples had not been unfolded
little by little in unbroken order as a neces-
sary consequence of their relation to Christ.
Here and there it had been indicated before,
but now it was shewn in its essential rela-
tion to their faith. But these things must
not be limited to the prediction of sufferings
only. Christ had spoken also of the new
relation of the disciples to Himself through
the Paraclete. This fresh revelation was
part of the vision of the future now first
unfolded,

because I was with you) Comp. Matt.
ix, 15,

5. But now I go my way to (go unto)...}
Hitherto Christ had Himself borne the
storm of hostility, and shielded the dis-
ciples : now He was to leave them, and the
wrath of His enemies would be diverted
upon them, though they would have another
Advocate. The clause is to be closely con-
nected with that which follows: “I go
my way and yet none of you...”

to him that sent me] My mission, in other
words, is completed.

and none of you...] Christ was going ; so
much the disciples realised. But their
thoughts were bent upon their own im-
mediate loss, and no one asked how this
departure affected Him; so completely had
their own sorrow absorbed them. Thus
they missed the abiding significance of
His departure for themselves. The isolated
questions of St Peter and St Thomas (xili.
36, xiv. 5) are not inconsistent with these
words, Those questions were not asked with
a view to the, Lord’s glory; and much had
been said since which might have moved
the disciples to a persistency of inquiry.

6. because I have said (spoken) these
things] Comp. vv. 1, 4. The prospect’ of
misunderstanding and suffering and separa-
tion to be faced shut out all thoughts of
consolation and strength.

7. Nevertheless...) But though you are
silent, unable to look onward to the Jater
issues of immediate separation, I (éy#),
I, on my part, fulfil to the last my ministry
of love—Z tell you the truth, it is expedient
for you that I (é\dé) go away. The
disciples were deceived by the superficial
appearance of things. To remove their

error Christ tells them the truth, revealing,
laying bare, the reality which was hidden
from eyes dimmed by sorrow.

It ts expedient] Comp. xi. 50, xviii, 14,
From opposite sides (‘‘it is expedient for
us,” xi. 50; but here “it is expedient for
you”) the divine and human judgments
coincide. Comp, vii. 39 note.

The personal pronoun in the first case
(that I go) is emphatic. Attention is fixed
upon the Person of the Lord as He was
known, in order to prepare the hearers for
the thought of ‘“‘another Advocate” (xiv, 16).

for if I go not away] Here the emphasis
is changed. The stress is laid upon the
thought of departure. To bring out this
idea still more clearly, that which is first
spoken of as a “departure” with the
predominant notion of separation (édv m1)
dréAOw) is afterwards spoken of as a
journey,” with the predominant notion
of an end to be gained (€dv wopev9G). In
v, 10 the idea is that of a “withdrawal ”
(irdyw ). Comp, vii. 33, note.

the Comforter (Advocate) will not come...
I will send him...] The absence of the pro-
noun before the verb here ( réuijw, I will
send; compare éy® méupw, xv. 26, I will
send) gives predominance to the thought of
the Mission of the Spirit as a fact, Comp.
Luke xxiv. 49; Acts i, 4. The departure
of Christ was in itself a necessary condition
for the coming of the Spirit to men. The
withdrawal of His limited bodily Presence
necessarily prepared the way for the recog.
nition of a universal Presence, Comp. vii,
39. And again the presence of Christ with
the Father, the consummation of His union
with the Father as God and Man, was the
preliminary to the Mission of the Spirit.
He sent the Spirit in virtue of His ascended
Manhood.

And yet again the mission and the recep-
tion of the Spirit alike required a completed
atonement of Man and God (Hebr. ix. 26 ff.),
and the glorifying of perfect humanity in
Christ.

8ff. The promise of the Paraclete is
followed by the description of His victory.
The synagogue has become the world; and
the world finds its conqueror,

8. And when he is come, he...] And he
(éxefvos ) when he is come... The whole
action of the Spirit during the history of
the Church is gathered up under three

Q

227
228

St JOHN. XVI.

[v.9.

9 Of sin, because they believe not on me;

 

heads. The categories of sin, righteousness
and judgment, include all that is essential
in the determination of the religious state
of man, and to these the work of the Para-
clete is referred. His office is to convict
(éyéyxev, Vulg. arguere) the world—
humanity separated from God, though not
past hope—concerning (7repé “ in the matter
of”) sin and righteousness and judgment.

The idea of “conviction” is complex.
It involves the conceptions of authoritative
examination, of unquestionable proof, of
decisive judgment, of punitive power.
Whatever the final issue may be, he who
“convicts ” another places the truth of the
case in dispute in a clear light before him,
so that it must be seen and acknowledged
as truth. He who then rejects the conclu-
sion which this exposition involves, rejects
it with his eyes open and at his peril.
Truth seen as truth carries with it con-
demnation to all who refuse to welcome it.
The different aspects of this “conviction”
are brought out in the usage of the word
in the N.T. There is first the thorough
testing of the real nature of the facts (ch.
iii, 20; Eph. v. 18); and then the applica-
tion of the truth thus ascertained to the
particular person affected (James ii, 9;
Jude 15, (22), 1 Cor. xiv. 24; 2 Tim. iv. 23
comp. Matt. xviii, 15; John viii 9); and
that in chastisement (1 Tim. v. 20; Titus
i. 9, ii. 15; comp. Eph, v, 11); or with a
distinct view to the restoration of him who
is in the wrong (Rev, iii. 19; Hebr. xii. 5;
Titus i, 18),

The effect of the conviction of the world
by the Spirit is left undecided so far as
the world is concerned ; but for the Apostles
themselves the pleading of the Advocate
was a sovereign vindication of their cause.
In the great trial they were shewn to
have the right, whether their testimony
was received or rejected. The typical
history recorded in the Book of the Acts
illustrates the decisive twofold action of
the divine testimony (2 Cor. ii. 16); for
the presentation of the Truth in its power
must always bring life or death, but it
may bring either; and in this respect the
experience of the Apostles on the Day of
Pentecost (Acts ii, 18, 41) has been the
experience of the Church in all ages. The
divine reproof is not simply a final sentence
of condemnation; it is also at the same
time a call to repentance, which may or
may not be heard. The Gospel of St John
itself, as has been well pointed out (Késtlin,
‘ Lehrbegriff, 205) is a monument of the
Spirit’s conviction of the world concerning
sin (iii, 19—21, v. 28f., 383—47, viii. 21 ff.,
34—47, ix. 41, xiv, 27, xv. 18—24); right-
eousness (v. 30, vii. 18, 24, viii. 28, 46, 50,
54, xii, 82, xiv. 81, xiv. 30, xvii, 15).

sin...righteousness...judgment] The three
conceptions, sin, righteousness, and judg-
ment, are given first in their most abstract
and general form. These are the cardinal
elements in the determination of man’s
spiritual state. In these his past and
present and future are severally summed
up. Then when the mind has seized the
broad divisions of the spiritual analysis
the central fact in regard to each is stated,
from which the process of testing, of
revelation, of condemnation, proceeds. In
each case the world was in danger of «
fatal error, and this error is laid open in
view of the decisive criterion to which it
is brought.

The three subjects are placed in a natura)
and significant order. The position of man
is determined first; he is shewn to have
fallen. And then the position of the two
spiritual powers which strive for the mastery
over him is made known; Christ has risen
to the throne of glory; the prince of the
world has been judged. The subjects may
also be regarded from another point of
sight. When the conviction concerning sin
is complete, there remains for man the
choice of two alternatives; on the one side
there is a righteousness to be obtained
from without; and on the other, a judg-
ment to be borne,

So far it may be said that in the thought
of “sin” man is the central subject, as him-
self sinful; in the thought of “righteous.
ness,” Christ, as alone righteous; in the
thought of ‘‘judgment,” the devil, as
already judged. :

Yet once again the three words, sin,
righteousness, Judgment, gain an additional
fulness of meaning when taken in connexion
with the actual circumstances under which
they were spoken. The “world,” acting
through its representatives, had charged
Christ as “a sinner” (John ix, 24). Its
leaders “trusted that they were righteous”
(Luke xviii, 9), and they were just on the
point of giving sentence against “ the prince
of life” (Acts iii, 15) as a malefactor (John
xviii. 30). At this point the threefold error
(Acts iii, 17), which the Spirit was to reveal
and reprove, had brought at last its fatal
fruit.

of...of...) The Spirit will convict the
world ‘concerning, in the matter of (zept)
sin, of righteousness, of judgment.” He
will not simply convict the world as sinful,
as without righteousness, as under judg-
ment, but He will shew beyond contradic.
tion that it is wanting in the knowledge of
what sin, righteousness, and judgment
really are; and therefore in need of a
complete change (pTdvo.a),

9ff. because...because...because] Three
distinct facts answering to the spiritual
characteristics of the world, of Christ,
v.10, 11.]

to Of righteousness, because I go
to my Father, and ye see me no more;

St: JOHN.

XVI. 229

11 Of judgment, because the prince
of this world is judged. E

 

and of the prince of the world, are stated,
which severally form the basis of the
action of the Spirit. The conjunction is
not to be taken simply as explanatory (‘‘ in
so far as’’), but as directly casual; ‘‘ be-
cause this and this and this is beyond
question, the innermost secrets of man’s
spiritual nature can be and are discovered.”
Comp. Luke ii. 34, 35.

9. Of sin, because they believe not on
me] The want of belief in Christ when He
is made known, lies at the root of all sin,
and reveals its nature, Sin is essentially the
selfishness which sets itself up apart from,
and so against God. It is not defined by
any limited rules, but expresses a general
spirit. Christ is thus the touchstone of
character. To believe in Him, is to adopt
the principle of self-surrender to God.
Not to believe in Him, is to cleave to
legal views of duty and service which in.
volve a complete misunderstanding of the
essence of sin. The Spirit therefore,
working through the written and spoken
word, starts from the fact of unbelief in
the Son of Man, and through that lays
open what sin is. In this way the condi-
tion of man standing alone is revealed, and
he is left without excuse. Comp, viii. 21,
ix, 41.

10. Of righteousness, because I go...)
The Person of Christ, offered as the object
of man’s faith, serves as a test of the
true appreciation of sin. The historical
work of Christ, completed at His Ascen-
sion, serves as a test of the true apprecia-
tion of righteousness. The Life and Death
and Resurrection of the Son of God placed
righteousness in a new light. By these
the majesty of law and the power of
obedience and the reality of a divine fel-
lowship, stronger than death, were made
known once for all. ‘For a time the
Lord had shewn in an outward form the
perfect fulfilment of the Law, and the ab-
solute conformity of a human life to the
divine ideal. He had shewn also how sin
carries with it consequences which must
be borne; and how they were potentially
abolished. In that life, closed by the re-
turn to the Father, there was a complete
exhibition of righteousness in relation to
God and man. The Son had received a
work to do, and having accomplished it
He returned not simply to heaven but to
the Father who sent Him, in token of its
absolute fulfilment. This revelation once
given was final. Because nothing could be
added to it (Z go to the Father); because
after that Christ was withdrawn from
human eyes He had passed into a new
sphere (ye see me no more), there was
fixed for all time that by which men’s esti-
mate of righteousness might be tried. On

the other hand, till Christ had been raised
to glory ‘‘righteousness’ had not been
vindicated. The condemnation of Christ
by the representatives of Israel shewed in
the extremest form how men had failed
to apprehend the nature of righteousness.
The Spirit, therefore, starting from the
fact of Christ’s life, His suffering, and His
glory, regarded as a whole, lays open the
divine aspects of human action as concen-
trated in the Son of Man. In this way
the possibilities of life are revealed in
fellowship with Him who has raised
humanity to heaven.

righteousness] The word occurs only in
this passage in St John’s Gospel. In his
first Epistle it is found in the phrase ‘‘do
righteousness” (ii. 29, iii. 7, 10; comp.
Rev. xxii. 11, [xix. 11]). ‘‘ Righteousness’
is evidently considered in its widest sense.
Each limited thought of righteousness, as
of God’s righteousness in the rejection of
the Jews, or of man’s righteousness as a
believer, or even of Christ’s righteousness,
otherwise than as the fulfilment of the
absolute idea in relation both to God and
man, is foreign to the scope of the passage.
The world is examined, convicted, con-
vinced, as to its false theories of righteous-
ness. In Christ was the one absolute
type of righteousness; from him a sinful
man must obtain righteousness. Just as
sin is revealed by the Spirit to be some-
thing far different from the breaking of
certain specific injunctions, so righteous-
ness is revealed to be something far differ.
ent from the outward fulfilment of cere-
monial or moral observances. Comp.
Matt. v. 20, vi. 38; Rom. iii. 21 f., x. 3.

I go to the Father (not my Father), and
ye see (behold) me no more] The idea of
the first clause is that of a completed
work (viii. 14, xiii, 3); that of the second
a changed mode of existence. There is no
contrast in the second clause between the
disciples and others; in the original the
pronoun is not expressed, and the emphasis
lies upon the verb, “ye behold me’
(Oewpetre). Comp. vv. 16 ff. The new
mode of existence is indicated as absolute
(ye behold), and not merely relative to the
world (they shall behold).

11. Of judgment, because the prince
(ruler) of this world is (hath been) judged)
The world hitherto had passed sentence on
success and failure according to its own
standard. At length this standard had
been overthrown. He in whom the spirit
of the world was concentrated had been
judged at the very moment and in the very
act by which he appeared to common
eyes to have triumphed. The Lord there-
fore looks forward to the consummation
of His own Passion as the final sentence
230

12 I have yet many things to say
unto you, but ye cannot bear them
now.

13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of
truth, is come, he will guide you into

Sr JOHN. XVI.

[v. 12—14.
all truth: for he shall not speak of
himself; but whatsoever he shall hear,
that shall he speak : and he will shew

you things to come.
14 He shall glorify me: for he

 

in which men could read the issues of life
and death. And the Spirit starting from
this lays open the last results of human
action in the sight of the Supreme Judge.
In this way the final victory of right is
revealed in the realisation of that which
has been indeed already done.

judgment) Comp. Introd. iii. 18 f.

hath been judged] The victory was al-
ready won: xiii, 31. Comp. xii. 31.

the prince (ruler) of this world] Ch.
xii, 31, xiv. 30.

5. The Paraclete and the disciples
(xvi. 12—15).

The office of the Paraclete is not con-
fined to the conviction of the world. He
carries forward the work which Christ had
begun for the disciples, and guides them
into all the Truth (vv. 12, 18). By this He
glorifies Christ (v. 14), to whom all things
belong (v. 15).

This section distinctly marks the position
of the apostles with regard to revelation as
-unique; and so also by implication the
office of the apostolic writings as a record
of their teaching. The same trust which
leads us to believe that the apostles were
guided into the Truth, leads us also to
believe that by the providential leading of
the Spirit they were so guided as to pre-
sent it in such a way that it might remain
in a permanent form.

12. JZ have yet...) The principles had
been fully laid down (xv. 15); yet there
was still need of a divine commentary to
apply these to individual life, and to the
formation of a universal Church. In es-
pecial the meaning of the Passion had to
be unfolded, for though the Passion was
potentially included in the Incarnation,
neither the one nor the other could be
grasped by the disciples till the Son of
man was outwardly glorified.

bear] The original word (BacrdCecv,
Vulg. portare, all. bajulare) implies that
such teaching as that of the Cross would
have been a crushing burden. Comp. ch.
xix. 17; Luke xi. 46, xiv. 27, Gal. vi. 2,
5; Acts xv. 10. The Resurrection brought
the strength which enabled believers to
support it,

now] at this point in your spiritual
growth (dpe). The word stands emphati-
cally at the end. Compare xiii. 33, note.

138. when he...] The whole verse de-
scribes an essentially personal action. The
Spirit continues under new conditions that
which Christ began.

the Spirit of truth...into all truth (the
truth)] He who gives expression to the
Truth (see xiv. 17) guides men into its
fulness. He leads them not (vaguely) “into
all truth,”’ but ‘into all‘the Truth” (eis
THY dAnGea: Tacav), into the cotaplete
understanding of arid sympathy with that
absolute Truth, whicn is Christ Himself.
The order of the original is remarkable ;
the truth in all its parts (tiv dA, pacar, ac-
cording to the true reading). Comp. v.
22; Matt. ix. 35; Acts xvi. 26; Rom. xii. 4.

Comp, Ps. xxv, (xxiv.) 5; Rev. vii. 17;
(Acts viii. 31).

guide] Christ is ‘‘the way’’ by which
men are led to ‘‘the truth.’’ By Him we
go to Him. The Spirit ‘‘ guides’? men
who follow His leading; He does not
‘tell’? His message without effort on their
part. He also guides them ‘‘into the
Truth,’’ which is the domain upon which
they enter, and not something to be gazed
upon from afar.

Philo, commenting upon Ex. xvi. 28, has
a corresponding phrase: ‘“‘The mind [of
Moses] would not have gone thus straight
to the mark unless there had been a divine
Spirit which guided it (rd rodnyerovv) to
hua (‘De Vit. Mos,’ 111. 36, 11. p.
176).

for he shall not...) The test of His true
guidance lies in the fact that His teaching
is the perfect expression of the one will of
God : it is not ‘‘of Himself’? (see xv. 4,
note). That which is affirmed of the Son
is affirmed also of the Spirit. Comp. ch.
viii. 26, 40, xv. 15. But it may be ob-
served that the message of the Son is on
each occasion spoken of as definite (Z heard,
4kovoa), while the message of the Spirit is
continuous or extended (whatsoever he shall
hear, or heareth, doa axovoet, or aKover or
doa dv dxovtocy). The message of Christ
given in His historical, human life, was
in itself complete at once. The interpre-
tation of that message by the Spirit goes
forward to the end of time.

whatsoever...) The message of the Spirit
is continuous, and it is also complete.
Nothing is kept back which is made known
to Him in the order of the divine wisdom,

shall hear] The verb is left absolute.
The fact which is declared is that the
teaching of the Spirit comes finally from
the one source of Truth. The words that
follow shew that no distinction is made in
this respect between that which is of the
Father and that which is of Christ.

and he...) A special part of the whole
v.15, 16.) ,

shall receive of mine, and shall shew
it unto you.

15 All things that the Father hath
are mine: therefore said I, that he

Sr. JOHN. XVI.

shall take of mine, and shall shew it
unto you.

16 A little while, and ye shall not
see me: and again, a little while, and

 

teaching is marked out with reference to
the work of the apostles. They lived in
a crisis of transition. For them the spirit
had a corresponding gift: He will declare
unto you the things that are coming.

shew] Rather, declare. Comp, iv, 25;
1Johni.5; 1 Pet.i.12. The triple repeti-
tion of the phrase “he will declare to you”
(dvayyeAe? tyiv) at the end of the three
verses 18, 14, 15, gives a solemn emphasis
to it.

things to come] the things that are to
come, not simply some things to come,
but the whole system of the world to be;
or still more exactly “the things that are
coming ” (Td épyopueva, Vulg. que ventura
sunt), “that future which even now is
prepared, and in the very process of fulfil-
ment.” The phrase, which occurs here
only in the N. T., corresponds with ‘“‘he
that cometh” (Luke vii. 19 f., &.), and
“the age that cometh” (Luke xviii. 30).
The reference is, no doubt, mainly to the
constitution of the Christian Church, as
representing hereafter the divine order in
place of the Jewish economy.

14. He—that divine Person to whom
we are now looking afar off (éxelvos)—
shall glorify me] The work of the Spirit
in relation to the Son is presented as parallel
with that of the Son in relation to the
Father. Comp. xiv. 26, xvii. 4. He “ glori-
fies” the Son, that is, makes Him known
in His full majesty by gradual revelation,
taking now this fragment and now that
from the whole sum of Truth. For the
manifestation of the Truth is indeed the
glorification of Christ. The pronoun (épé)
is placed emphatically before the verb. It
was Christ, and none other, who was the
subject of the Spirit’s teaching.

for (because) he shall...) To make Christ
better known is assumed to be the same
as spreading His glory.

shall receive] shall take (as in v. 15).
The original verb may be rendered either
“receive” or “take.” It suggests (as dis-
tinguished from Sé€yer@ar) the notion of
activity and effort on the part of the
recipient; and in this connexion “ take”
brings out well the personal action of the
Spirit. Comp, xx, 22, note.

of mine] All that is Christ’s is at first
contemplated in its unity (rd éudv), and
then in its manifold parts (all things).

15. All things...mine] Comp. xvii. 10.
therefore said I...) The message of the
Spirit-was a message of absolute divine
Truth; that Truth which belonged to the
Father belonged also to the Son; therefore

Christ could say that the Spirit would
take of that which was His in order to
fulfil His works,

shall take] According to the true read-
ing, taketh. The work is even now begun
(AapBdvec), and not wholly future (shall
take, Ajpwerat, v, 14.

6. Sorrow turned to joy (xvi. 16—24).

The prospect of the fulfilment of the
work of the Paraclete for the world and
for the disciples is followed by a revela-
tion of the condition in which the disciples
themselves will be. They are to stand in
a new relation to Christ (16—18). Atime
of bitter sorrow is to be followed by joy
(19, 20), by joy springing (so to speak)
naturally out of the sorrow (21, 22); and
this joy is to be carried to its complete
fulfilment (23, 24).

In this and the following section the
disciples again, though in a body and at
first indirectly, appear as speakers. The
form of the first part of the discourses is
partly resumed at the close, though under
new conditions,

16. ye shall not see me...ye shall see
me] ye behold me no more...ye shall see
me. The last clause, because I go unto
the Father, must be omitted in accordance
with a very strong combination of authori-
ties. The words have evidently been intro-
duced from v. 17; and they do not occur
in the Lord’s repetition of the sentence, v.
19. This verse offers a superficial contra-
diction to xiv. 19, which may perhaps have
arrested the attention of the disciples.
Comp. v. 12, viii, 14. In xiv. 19 the
thought is of the contrast between the
world and the disciples; here the thought
is af the contrast between two stages in
the spiritual history of the disciples them-
selves. As contrasted with the world the
disciples never lost the vision of Christ.
Their life was unbroken as His life, and
so also their direct relationto Him, Buton
the other hand, the form of their vision
was altered. The vision of wondering
contemplation, in which they observed little
by little the outward manifestation of the
Lord ( Qewpia), was changed and trans-
figured into sight (dys), in which they
seized at once intuitively all that Christ
was. As long as His earthly presence was

the object on which their eyes were fixed, -
His,

their view was necessarily imperfect.
glorified presence shewed Him in His true
nature,

ye shall see me] The fulfilment of this
promise must not be limited to any one
special event, as the Resurrection, or Pente-
cost, or the Return. The beginning of the

231

t
232

St JOHN. XVI.

[v.17—21.

ye shall see me, because I go to the were desirous to ask him, and said

Father.

17 Then said some of his disciples
among themselves, What is this that
he saith unto us, A little while, and
ye shall not see me: and again, a
little while, and ye shall see me:
and, Because I go to the Father?

18 They said therefore, What is
this that he saith, A little while? we
cannot tell what he saith.

19 Now Jesus knew that they

unto them, Do ye inquire among
yourselves of that I said, A little
while, and ye shall not see me:
and again, a little while, and ye
shall see me?

20 Verily, verily, I say unto you,
That ye shall weep and lament, but
the world shall rejoice: and ye shall
be sorrowful, but your sorrow shall
be turned into joy.

21 A woman when she is in tra-

 

new vision was at the Resurrection; the
potential fulfilment of it was at Pente-
cost, when the spiritual Presence of the
Lord was completed by the gift of the
Holy Spirit. This Presence slowly realised
will be crowned by the Return. After
each manifestation there is a corresponding
return to the Father.

17. Then said some of his disciples...)
Some of his disciples therefore said... The
particularity of the expression, as com-
pared with v. 29, iv. 38, seems to mark-a
distinct impression on the mind of the
Evangelist as to the actual scene. He, we
may suppose, was himself silent,

among themselves] Rather, one to another
(pds dAAyAovs), iv. 33, and so xix, 24.
The phrases in v. 19(perT’ GAAvAwv), and
again in xii. 19 (pds éavrovs), are different,

What 1s this...) The difficulty of the
disciples was twofold, (1) as to the fact
itself which was announced, and (2) as to
the reason which they felt to be alleged
in explanation of it. It is best to keep
the rendering because, for the conjunction
(6rt) which introduces the second clause.
It may however serve simply to introduce
the words quoted : and I go to the Father.
But v. 10 seems to shew that it was not
only the departure which was perplexing,
but also the consequences connected with
it; and it is from this verse that the
words are quoted, since they are not found
in the true text of v. 16.

ye shall not see me] ye behold me not.

18. What is this that he saith, A little
while?) What is this little while whereof
he speaketh? What are these strange
intervals, marked by separation and
change, which break the tenour of our
intercourse ?

we cannot tell] we know not.

he saith) The original marks the differ-
ence between the purport of the saying
(6 Aéyes pexpdv, Vulg. quod dicit modicum),
and the form in which the saying was
conveyed (0 Aadei, Vulg. guid loguitur).
Comp. viii. 48, xii, 49

19. Now (omit) Jesus knew (perceived,
éyvw)] ~ The word used probably indicates
an outward occasion for the Lord’s words,

though indeed He read the heart. The
anxious looks and whisperings of the dis-
ciples would alone be sufficient to reveal
their wish. Compare v. 6, vi. 15 (yvov's);
and on the other hand, v. 6 (j6e),
xiii, 1, 8, xviii, 4 (eis ). Comp. ii. 24,
note,

of that I said] concerning this, that (67+)
I said.

ye shall not see me] ye behold me not.

20. The Lord in His answer takes
for granted that which He had already
made known, and reveals the character
of the double interval (20—22), and the
new relation to the Father realised for the
disciples by His departure (23, 24).

20. ye shall...) The order in this first
clause is very remarkable ( kAavorere kat
Opnvicereipeis). Attention is at once
fixed on the sadness of the immediate
future for the disciples. It is as if the
Lord had said to them: “Sorrow and
lamentation there shall be. Do not marvel
at this. And they shall be your lot. Mean-
while the world shall rejoice. Yes: this
shall be the issue of that first ‘little while.’
Ye (omit and) shall be sorrowful; but your
sorrow, in that you think that you have
lost me, shall be turned into joy. This
shall be the issue of the second ‘little
while.’”

ye shall weep and lament] The words
mark the open expression of intense sorrow,
Such lamentation was the natural accom-
paniment of Christ’s death. Comp. Luke
xxiii. 27f., ch. xx, 11,

the world shall rejoice] as having been
freed from one who was a dangerous inno-
vator as well as a condemner of its ways,

and (omit) ye ( duets) shall be sorrow-
ful] The inward feeling is now substituted
for the outward expression of grief. The
first sharp utterance of lamentation was to
be followed by a more permanent sorrow.
The words, which had an immediate fulfil-
ment in the experience of the Apostles
before the Resurrection, and again before
Pentecost, have also a wider application.
The attitude of sorrow marks in one
aspect the state of the Church unti] the
Return. Comp. v. 16, note.
V. 22, 23.]

vail hath sorrow, because her hour is
come : but as soon as she is delivered
of the child, she remembereth no
more the anguish, for joy that a man
is born into the world.

22 And ye now therefore have

turned into ( éyévero eis)] Comp. Matt,
xxi, 42; Luke xiii, 19; Acts iv. 11, v. 36;
i Pet. ii. 7; Rom. xi. 9; 1 Cor. xv. 45;
Rev. viii. 11, xvi. 19. The sorrow itself is
transformed.

21. A woman] The exact form of ex-
pression (1) yvv7}) marks not simply asingle
case, but the universal law. The illustra-
tion is not taken from any one woman,
but from woman as such.

for joy] for the joy, the special joy
which answered to her pangs.

a man] a being endowed with all the
gifts of humanity (avOpwmos, Vulg. homo).
The potential fulness of the completed
life is regarded as present to the mother’s
mind,

born into the world] The complex
phrase marks not only the fact but the
sphere of the new life. The man is intro-
duced to a place in the great order in
which he has a part to play. Comp. viii.
26

The image of a new birth is constantly
applied to the institution of Messiah’s
kingdom. Comp. Mat. xxiv. 8; Mark
xiii, 8 (@Sives) ; Rom, viii, 22 (rvvw8iver).
And it is applied more generally to the
passage to joy through sorrow : Isai. Ixvi.
6 ff.; Hos. xiii. 13. St Paul uses the same
image to describe the relation of an apostle
to his converts, Gal. iv, 19,

22. And ye (pels) now therefore...]
Or, Ye also therefore now... The applica-
tion or the image (therefore) clearly
indicates that something more is intended
by it than the mere passage of the dis-
ciples through suffering to joy. The proper
idea of birth-throes is not that of the
transition from suffering to joy,. but of
suffering as the necessary condition and
preparation for joy. Under this aspect
the disciples in some sense occupied the
position of the mother, It was their office,
as the representatives of the Church, to
realise the Christ of the Resurrection and
present Him to the world (comp. Rev. xii.
2 ff.). The time of transition from their
present state to that future state was
necessarily a period of anguish, and that
time was even now come (now ye have).
But the image is not exhausted by this
application. It appears also to have a
reference to Christ Himself. For Him
death was as the travail-pain issuing in a
new life (Acts ii, 24)CAis passage through
the grave was as the new birth of humanity

St. JOHN. XVI.

233
sorrow : but I will see you again, and
your heart shall rejoice, and your joy
no man taketh from you.

23 And in that day ye shall ask
me nothing.
unto you, Whatsoever ye shall ask

—_——

brought about through the extremity of
sorrow.

have sorrow] The phrase is not identical
with be sorrowful, but expresses the full
realisation of sorrow. See iii. 15, note.

I will see you again] The implied refer-
ence to Christ as Himself rising through
the Passion to His glory seems to have
led to the use of the first person here, as
contrasted with the second person which
was used before (vv. 16, 19, ye shall see
me). The highest blessing lies not in the
thought that God is the object of our
regard, but that we are objects of God's
regard, Comp. Gal. iv. 9; 1 Cor. viii. 3;
(ch. x. 14, 15).

and your joy...taketh (perhaps shall
take)...] The sorrow of the disciples (v. 20)
underwent a sudden transformation, Their
joy was stable. The turn of the sentence
implies that they would have enemies, but
that their enemies would not prevail.

23. in that day] when the new relation
is realised, and you enjoy the fulness of
my glorified presence (xiv. 20). ‘That
day” begins with Pentecost and is con-
summated at the Return, The Lord now
brings before the disciples the consequen-
ces of this “ going to the Father” (v.17),
perfect knowledge, the perfect fulfilment
of prayer, perfect joy.

ye shall ask me (éue ov épwricere)
nothing] ye shall ask me no question. All
will then beclear, The mysteries which now
perplex you will have been illuminated, You
will not need to seek my guidance when
you enjoy that of the Spirit. The verb
(pwrjoere) appears to answer directly to
the same word used before in v. 19 (épwrav),
and so to be used in the same sense. The
phrase may however be rendered (as A. V.)
ye shall ask me nothing, in the sense “ye
shall make no request of me.” But the
context appears to favour the other inter-
pretation. Thus the change in the position
of the disciples as suggested in this clause
when compared with the next is twofold.
Their relation to Christ (the pronoun me
stands in a position of emphasis) is to be
fulfilled in the recognition of a relation to
the Father. The questioning of ignorance
is to be replaced by the definite prayer
which claims absolute accomplishment as
being in conformity with the will of God,
Comp. xv. 16n,

Verily, verily...] According to uniform
usage this formula introduces a new thought.
The preceding clause must therefore, as it

aVerily, verily, I say a Matt.?
234

l_ Or,
Parables.

the Father in my name, he will give
it you.

24 Hitherto have ye asked nothing
in my name: ask, and ye shall re-
ceive, that your joy may be full.

25 These things have I spoken
unto you in Ilproverbs : but the time

St JOHN. XVI.

[v. 24-27.
cometh, when I shall no more speak
unto you in Ilproverbs, but I shall
shew you plainly of the Father.

26 At that day ye shall ask in my
name: and I say not unto you, that
I will pray the Father for you :

27 For the Father himself loveth

 

seems, be taken rather with what has gone
before than with these words.

Whatsoever ye shall ask ( aitjonrte)...in
my name, he...] Rather, according to the
true reading: if ye shall ask anything of...
he shall give it you in my name.

the Father] The return of Christ to the
Father restored in its completeness the
connexion of man with God, which had
been broken,

give it you in my name] Not only is
the prayer offered in Christ’s name (v. 24,
xv. 16), but the answer is given in His
name. Every divine gift represents in
part the working of that Spirit who is
sent in His name (xiv. 26),

24. Hitherto] As yet Christ Himself was
not fully revealed. His name in its com-
plete significance was not made known;
nor had the disciples at present the power
to enter into its meaning.

ask] The end is assumed to be already
reached. The command implies a con-
tinuous prayer (aire?re, Matt, vii. 7), and
not a single petition (Mark vi. 22, aitnoov)

may be full (fulfilled)] The phrase im-
plies not only the fact (iva,,.rAnpwOy xv.
11), but the abiding state which follows
(iva...9 merAnpwpmeven, comp, xvii, 13; 1
John i. 4; 2 John 12). This fulness of
joy is the divine end of Christ’s work
according to the Father's will.

7. After fatlure, victory (xvi. 25—83).

This section forms a kind of epilogue
to the discourses. The Lord gathers up
in a brief summary His present and future
relations to the disciples (25—27), and the
character of His mission (28). This is
followed by a confession of faith on the
part of the disciples (29, 30); to which the
Lord replies with « warning, and with a
triumphant assurance (31—33).

25—27. The teaching of vv, 23f. is un-
folded more fully in these verses. There
will be hereafter no need of questioning,
because the revelation will be plain (23a,
25); the fulfilment of prayer in Christ’s
name will be absolute, because of the
relation established between believers and
the Father (23), f., 26f.).

25. These things...in proverbs] Allthat
had been said since they had left the
Upper Room. Of these revelations part
had been veiled in figures (the Vine, the
Woman in travail), and part was for the
time only half intelligible. A deeper mean-

ing lay beneath the words, which could
not yet be made plain. It seems to be
unnatural to limit the reference to the
answer to the question in v. 17. The de-
scription applies in fact to all the earthly
teaching of the Lord. The necessity which
veiled His teaching to the multitudes
(Matt, xiii. 11 ff.) influenced, in other
ways, His teaching to the disciples. He
spoke as they could bear, and under figures
of human limitation,

proverbs} Comp. x. 6, note,

but the time cometh] the hour cometh.
Omit but. Comp. iv. 21, note. From the
day of Pentecost, Christ, speaking through
the Holy Spirit, has declared plainly the
relation of the Father to men (vv. 13ff.,
xiv. 26),

shew you] tell you, or declare unto you,
vv, 13ff.; 1 John i, 2f. The original
word according to the true text ( drayyeAd)
marks the origin rather than the destination
(dvayyeAG ) of the message.

plainly] without reserve, or concealment.
Here the objective sense of the original
term (wappnoig, Vulg. palam) prevails.
See vii. 18, note,

26. At that day...) v, 28, note. The
fulness of knowledge leads to the fulness
of prayer. The clearer revelation of the
Father issues in the bolder petition “in the
Son’s name;’’ and this revelation is given
by the Paraclete after Pentecost.

I say not...that I (ey)] Your confidence
will then rest upon a direct connexion with
God. I speak not therefore of my own
intercession in support of your requests.
This intercession however is still necessary
(1 John ii, 1f.) so far as the disciples
realise imperfectly their position as sons,

pray (ask) the Father for you] not directly
“in behalf of you,” but “about you” (zepi
dudv), as inquiring what was the Father’s
will, and so laying the case before Him.
Comp, Luke iv. 38; ch. xvii. 9, 20. This
use of ask (épwrgv) in connexion with
prayer addressed to God is peculiar to St
John. It expresses a request. made on the
basis of fellowship and is used in the
Gospel only of the petitions of the Lord
(contrast airefy, xi, 22, note). This pecu-
liarity of sense explains the use of the
word in 1 John v. 16, where the circum-
stances exclude the idea of prayer for a
brother in fellowship with the common
Father.
v. 28—30. |

you, because ye have loved me, and
have believed that I came out from
God.

28 I came forth from the Father,
and am come into the world : again, I
leave the world, and go tothe Father.

29 His disciples said unto him, Lo,

St. JOHN. XVI.

now speakest thou plainly, and
speakest no liproverb.

30 Now are we sure that thou
knowest all things, and needest not
that any man should ask thee: by
this we believe that thou camest forth
from God.

 

27. the Father himself, without any
pleading on my part, Joveth you with the
love which springs from a natural relation-
ship ( @tAe?), for the disciples are also sons
(Rom. viii. 15), Comp. v. 20; Rev. iii. 19.
This assutance carries out yet further the
promise in xiv, 21, 23 (dyamqyv).

ye have loved me (ueptArjKare)] The word
is used here only in the Gospels of the
affection of the disciples for their Lord (yet
see xxi. 15, ff., note), and the juxtaposi-
tion of the pronouns (duets ue med.) gives
force to the personal relationship. Comp.
Matt. x. 37. The word is used also 1 Cor.
xvi, 22. The love of the disciples is to
be regarded no less as the sign than as
the cause of the Father’s love (xiv. 21, 23).
His love made their love possible, and
then again responded to it (1 John iv. 10;
“donum Dei est diligere Deum,” Aug. ad
loc.). Their love is regarded both in its
origin, and in its continuance (have loved,
(efidjxare) His love, in its present
operation (loveth, gud).

came out from God] According to the true
reading, came forth from the Father. The
preposition used here (zapd) denotes the
leaving a position (as it were) by the
Father’s side (comp. xv. 26); that used in
the next verse (€k) an issuing forth from
the Father as the spring of deity. The
twofold requirement of true discipleship is
laid down to be : (1) personal devotion, (2)
belief in the personal (€yd) mission of
Christ from heaven (xvii. 8). The recogni-
tion of the Son depends on a right sense
of His relation to the Father. The com-
mon reading (from God) obscures this
thought.

28. I came forth from...) I came out
from... No phrase could express more com-
pletely unity of essence than the true
original of these words (é£7\Oov ék).
Comp. viii. 42, note. Thus the Lord,
while He recognises the faith of the dis-
ciples, lays before them a revelation of
deeper mysteries. The verse is indeed a
brief summary of the whole historic work
of Christ : clause answers to clause: the
Mission, the Nativity; the Passion, the
Ascension.

again] This revelation is complementary
to the other. Comp. 1 John ii. 8.

leave the world] Comp. iv. 3, note.

go to the Father] That which was before
(vv. 10,.17) described as a withdrawal
(trdyw), is now again described as a jour-

ney for a purpose (7opevouat), Comp. xiv.
12, 28.

29 f. The Lord had interpreted the dis-
ciples’ thoughts, and they openly confess
their gratitude and faith, as satisfied with
what they can grasp already

29. satd unto him] say.

Lo, now...Now we know...) The revela-
tion seemed to the disciples to have outrun
the promise. Their Master had spoken
of some future time in which He would
give a clear declaration of the Father.
They answer, Now thou speakest plainly ;
and we need not wait in darkness any
longer. Now we know that which makes
silent patience easy.

Lo] The sharp interjection is character-
istic of St John’s narrative. It occurs
more often in his Gospel than in all the
other books of the N. T. together. Comp.
ili, 26, v. 14, xi, 86, xii. 19, xix. 4, 5,
14, &e.

plainly] “In plainness’”’ ( év tappycig) ;
the slight change of form from v. 25
(wappynoig) marks a difference between the
sphere of the revelation and the simple
manner ; ch. vii. 4; Eph. vi. 19; Col. ii. 15.

80. Now we are sure] Now we know.
The discernment of their thought (v. 19)
seemed to the disciples a sure pledge that
all was open before Christ. A human
helper needs to have the thoughts of those
whom he has to help interpreted to him.
In such a case the question is the natural
prelude to assistance. So the disciples had
hitherto gained a fresh confidence. It was
enough for the believer to feel the want.
The Lord would satisfy it as was best,
without requiring to hear it from him.

by this] Literally ‘‘in this” (év tovrq),
The proof is rather vital (so to speak) than
instrumental. Comp. 1 John ii. 3, 5, iii.
16, 19, 24, iv. 9, 10, 18, 17, v. 2. Con-
scious of the Lord’s knowledge of their
hearts, they found in this the assurance of
His divine mission (dad Qeov). The
‘that’? (drt) is to be connected with
‘believe,’ and gives the object of faith.
St John’s usage generally is against the
connexion of the particle with ‘“‘in this’’
in the sense of ‘‘ because ;’’ ch. xiii. 35; 1
John ii, 3, 5, ili, 19, 24, v. 2. In 1 John
iv. 18 the two constructions occur to-
gether.

camest forth from God] This common
confession of faith shews how’ \ittle even
yet the disciples had apprehended the na-

235

parable.
b Matt. 26.
31.

236

31 Jesus answered them, Do ye
now believe ?

32 bBehold, the hour cometh, yea,
is now come, that ye shall be scat-
tered, every man to llhis own, and
shall leave me alone: and yet I am
not alone, because the Father is
with me.

33 These things 1 have spoken

St JOHN. XVI.

[v- 31533.
unto you, that in me ye might have
peace. In the world ye shall have
tribulation : but be of good cheer; I
have overcome the world.

CHAPTER XVII.

1 Christ prayeth to his Father to glorify
him, 6 to preserve his apostles, 11 in
unity, 17 and truth, 20 to glorify them,
and all other believers with him in heaven.

 

ture of Christ. As a body they had not
advanced as far as the Baptist.

81 ff. The answer of the Lord recog-
nises the faith of the disciples, and indi-
cates its incompleteness. The last trial
had not yet come outwardly; but even
this was already surmounted. In the vic-
tory of the Master the essential peace of
the disciple was included.

81. Do ye now believe?] The words are
half question, half exclamation (xx. 29).
The power and the permanence of their
faith are brought into doubt, and not its
reality. The now (dptt) marks more than
a mere point of time (vvv, vv, 29, 30). It
snggests a particular state, a crisis; v. 12,
xii, 7, 33; Rev. xii. 10.

32. yea, is now (omit now) come] This
clause, as contrasted with ‘‘and now is’’
(iv. 23), presents rather the fulfilment of
condition than the beginning of a period.

that ye shall be scattered...and shall
leave...) that ye may be scattered...and
leave... Comp. v. 2 note. Even this was
part of the divine counsel.

be scattered] Comp. ch. x. 12; Zech.
xi, 16, xiii. 7; (Matt. xxvi. 31; 1 Macc.
vi. 54).

to his own] i.e, “to his own home”
(xix. 27; Luke xviii. 28, true reading), or
(more generally) “to his own pursuits.”
The bond which held them together in a
society was to be broken; Matt. xxvi. 56.

and yet] For the use of the conjunction
see viii, 20. It is natural to imagine a
pause after which this clause is solemnly
added.

is with me] both now and always. This
truth must be set side by side with the
mysterious reference to a moment of leav-
ing in Matt. xxvii. 46 (€yxaréAures). See
note on that passage.

338. These things...) All that has been
spoken since the departure of Judas: the
words to the faithful.

in me ye might (may) have...In the
world...] The believer lives two lives in
two: different spheres, the eternal life in
Christ, the temporal life in the world.
There is distrust, division, isolation for a
time, but Christ becomes again the centre
of a vital union,

ye shall have] ye have.
‘sonflict had begun.

be of good cheer] The word (Oapceire)

Even then their

is found here only in St John. Comp.
Matt. ix. 2, 22, xiv. 27; Mark x. 49.

I (éya) have overcome the warld] The
pronoun stands out with stronger emphasis
from the absence of the pronoun of the
second person in the parallel clause. Thus
in His last recorded words of teaching be-
fore the Passion, the Lord claims the glory
(of a conqueror). Comp, 1 John v, 4
() vexyoaca). The Christian’s victory is
in virtue of that which Christ has already
won for all time. The image of the ‘“ vic-
tory’’ of believers recurs constantly in 1
John and Rev. Elsewhere it is found
only in Rom. viii. 37, xii. 21.

XVII. Tur Prayer or CONSECRATION.

1. This chapter stands alone in the Gos-
pels. It contains what may be most
properly called ‘‘the Lord’s Prayer,” the
Prayer which He Himself used as dis-
tinguished from that which He taught to
His disciples. On other occasions we read
that the Lord ‘‘prayed” (Matt, xiv. 23 and
parallels, xix. 13; Mark i. 35; Luke iii.
21, v. 16, ix. 18, 28 f., xi. 1), but here
the complete outline of what He said is
preserved. In this respect it is noticeable
that the other Evangelists have recorded
words used shortly afterwards at Geth-
semane (Matt. xxvi. 36 ff. and parallels).
The nearest parallel to the Prayer is the
Thanksgiving in Matt. xi. 25 ff. St John,
it may be added, never speaks in his
narrative of the Lord as ‘‘ praying,’ as
the other Evangelists do, but on one occa-
sion he gives words of thanksgiving which
imply a previous prayer, xi. 41 f., and on
another occasion he gives a brief prayer :
xii, 27, note.

2. It is evident from v. 1 that the
prayer was spoken aloud (comp. Matt. xi.
25 ff.). While it was a communing of the
Son with the Father, it was at the same
time a most solemn lesson by the Master
for the disciples (v. 18). At the supreme
crisis of the Lord’s work they were al-
lowed to listen to the interpretation of its
course and issue, and to learn the nature
of the office which they had themselves to
fulfil. The words are a revelation of what
He did and willed for men, and a type of
that fellowship with the Father in which
all is accomplished. Teaching is crowned
by prayer. Such words, however little
understood at the time, were likely to be
St. JOHN. XVII.

treasured up, and to grow luminous by the
divine teaching of later experience.

8. There is no direct evidence to shew
where the Prayer was uttered. It is most
natural to suppose that it followed directly
after the close of the address to the dis-
ciples (xvi. 88); and in that case that it
followed without change of place. The dis-
courses again in cc, xv., xvi. allow no
break, and, though they may have been
spoken on the way, it seems more likely
that xiv. 31 marks the departure to some
fresh spot in which chapters xv.—xvii.
were spoken. St John’s usage admits such
a change of scene without explicit notice ;
and the second group of discourses forms
a distinct whole, which at least suggests
corresponding external conditions.

It is scarcely possible that chapters xv.,
xvi. could have been spoken in the streets
of the city. It is inconceivable that ch.
xvii. should have been spoken anywhere
except under circumstances suited to its
unapproachable solemnity. The character
of the descent to the Kidron, and of the
ground on the western side, does not afford
a suitable locality. The upper chamber
was certainly left after xiv. 31. One spot
alone, as it seems, combines all that is re-
quired to satisfy the import of these last
words, the Temple Courts. It may be true
that there is nothing in the narrative
which points immediately to a visit there ;
but much in what is recorded gains fresh
significance if regarded in connexion with
the seat of the old worship. The central
object was the great Golden Vine (comp.
Fergusson, ‘The Temples of the Jews,’ pp.
151 ff.), from which the Lord derived the
figure of His own vital relation to His
people. Everything which spoke of a
divine Presence gave force to the promise
of a new Advocate. The warning of per-
secution and rejection found a commentary
in the scenes with which the temple had
been associated in the last few days. No-
where, as it seems, could the outlines of
the future spiritual Church be more fitly
drawn than in the sanctuary of the old
Church. Nowhere, it is clear, could our
High Priest more fitly offer His work and
Himself and believers to the Father, than
in the one place in which God had chosen
to set His Name.

It may indeed have been not unusual
for Paschal pilgrims to visit the temple
during the night. At least it is recorded
that at the Passover ‘‘it was the custom
of the priests to open the gates of the
temple at midnight”? (é« péorns vuKrds) (Jos.
‘ Antt.’ xvut. 2.2), Sucha visit, therefore,
as has been supposed, is in no way im-
probable.

4. This prayer of consecration is the
complement to the Agony. There is no in-
consistency between the two parts of the
one final conflict. Viewed from the divine
side, in its essential elements, the victory

was won (xiii. 31). Viewed from the
human side, in its actual realisation, the
victory was yet future (xiv. 30). All
human experience bears witness in com-
mon life to the naturalness of abrupt tran-
sitions from joy to sadness in the contem-
plation of a supreme trial. The absolute
insight and foresight of Christ makes such
an alteration even more intelligible. He
could see, as man cannot do, both the com-
pleteness of His triumph and the suffering
through which it was to be gained. Some-
thing of the same kind is seen in the con-
flict of deep emotion joined with words of
perfect confidence at the grave of Lazarus
(xi, 11, 23, 38, 35, 88, 40 ff.); and again
on the occasion of the visit of the Greeks
(xii. 23, 27 £., 30 ff).

5. The general scope of the prayer,
which is at once a prayer and a profession
and a revelation, is the consummation of
the glory of God through Christ, the
Word Incarnate, from stage to stage, issu-
ing in a perfect unity (vv. 21 ff.). The
Son offers Himself as a perfect offering,
that so His disciples may be offered after-
wards, and through them, at the last,
the world may be won. In the perfected
work of the Saviour lies the consecration
of humanity. The Son declares the accom-
plishment of the Father’s work, and this
being accomplished expresses His own will
(v. 24).

6 The chapter falls into three main sec-
tions :

J. Taz Son anp THE Faruer (1—5);

II. Tut Son AND HIS IMMEDIATE DIS-
CIPLES (6—19) ;

III. Tue Son anp toe CuurcH (20—26).

The subordinate divisions will be seen in
the following analysis :

I. Tue Son anp THe FaTuer (1—5).
(The past as the basis for the future.)

Prayer for fresh glory as the condition
of the Father’s glory (1).
Such was Christ’s work on earth in its
aim (2),
method (3).
This had been accomplished (4).
Christ therefore claims to resume His

glory (5).

II. Tue Son anp HIS IMMEDIATE DIS-
CIPLES (6—19.)

(The Revelation of the Father by the Son.)

1. The revelation given and accepted
(6—8).

2. The disciples watched over though
left (9—11).

8. The past work and the future aim
(12, 18).

. The conflict and the strength (14, 15).

. The issue (16—19).

oy

237
238

HESE words spake Jesus, and

lifted up his eyes to heaven,

and said, Father, the hour is come;

glorify thy Son, that thy Son also
may glorify thee:

St. JOHN. XVIL

2 4As thou hast given him power ¢ Matt, 2a

[v. 1,2.

over all flesh, that he should give
eternal life to as many as thou hast
given him.

 

III. Tue Son anp tae Cuurcu (20—26).

(The Revelation of the Son to the
Church and to the world.)
1. The unity of the Church the convic-
tion of the world.
By the faith of believers to come
(20, 21).
By the glory of the disciples (22, 23).
2. The progress of revelation.
By the contemplation of the glory of
the Son (24).
By the revelation through the Son of
the Father’s name (25, 26),

I. Tue Son anp tHE FatHer (1—5).

1—5. The completion of the work given
by the Father to the Son is the ground for
His glorifying by the Father. The work
of the Son was to give eternal life to men.
This life is the knowledge of God. The
glory of the Son, resting upon His perfected
work, issues therefore in the glory of the
Father; for to know God is to give Him
honour.

Cuap, XVII. 1. These words) These
things (ratra). The reference is to that
which precedes. The Lord completed His
words of warning and hope and love with
the final assurance of victory, and then He
turned from earth to heaven, from the
disciples to the Father, from teaching to
prayer,

lifted up...and said...) St John does not
separate the two actions: lifting up...he
said... The trait marks at once the new
region to which the thoughts of the Lord
are turned, and the sense of perfect fellow-
ship with the spiritual world. Comp. ch.
xi, 41; Luke xviii, 13; Acts vii. 55.

The attitude forms a natural contrast to
Luke xxii. 41, and parallels.

Father] vv. 5, 11, 24, ch. xi. 41, xii. 27 f,
Matt, xi. 25; (Luke x, 21); Luke xxii. 42,
xxiii, 34, 46. Comp. Luke xi. 2. The form
of the petition includes the ground on
which it rests, the absolute relation of the
Father to the Son. The prayer is not re-
garded as directly personal (glorify me;
contrast xi, 41); nor is it in a universal
type (O God, glorify; see Luke xviii. 11,
13, and also Mark xv. 34). If the prayer
was (as is likely) spoken in Aramean, we
cannot but recall Mark xiv, 36; Rom. viii.
15; Gal, iv. 6 (’ABBa),

the hour] Comp. vii. 30, viii. 20, xii. 23,
xiii, 1, note. All the circumstances of re-
demption proceeded (is come, comp, ii. 4)
according to a divine law. In the accom-
plishment of this there is no delay and
no haste,

glorify thy Son, that thy (the) Son...may

(omit also)...] The “glorifying” of the
Son is the fuller manifestation of His true
nature. This manifestation, given in the
fact of His victory over death, established
by the Resurrection and Ascension, is set
forth as having for its end the fuller
manifestation of the Father. It is through
the Son that men know and see the Father,
ch. xiv. 7 ff.; and the one end of all work
and of all partial ends is the glory of the
Father. The “glorifying” of the Son
must not be limited to His support in the
Passion, nor to His wider acknowledgment,
though the revelation of His being includes
the thoughts which were suggested by
these partial interpretations. Comp. xii,
23, note. The true commentary on the
words is Phil, ii, 9 ff.

It must be observed that the prayer is
expressed in an impersonal form. It is
based upon essential relations (thy Son,
the Son, not me, I). In this respect it
corresponds to the promise in Ps, ii. 8.
Comp. viii, 50,

2. As thou hast given him power...)
Even as thou gavest him authority... The
complete elevation of the Incarnate Son to
His divine glory was necessarily presup-
posed in His mission, He received a legiti-
mate authority (€£oveia) over humanity as
its true Head, and this could only be
exercised in its fulness after the Ascension.
At the same time the exaltation of the Son
as Saviour carried with it the glorification
of the Father, as the spring of the eternal
life which Christ sent through the Spirit
from heaven.

thou gavest...] The original charge once
given (€dwxas) is treated as the ground
and measure of the prayer for its fulfil-
ment. Nothing is said or implied as to the
sovereignty of the Son over other created
beings (e.g. angels). His office is regarded
primarily in relation to man fallen.

authority] Comp. ch. v. 27; Matt. vii,
29, ix. 6, xxviii. 18. For the genitive
(a. capKés ) see Matt. x. 1; Mark vi. 7.

all flesh] The phrase is the rendering of

a Hebrew phrase ("iY bs) which describes
mankind in their weakness and transitori-
ness, as contrasted with the majesty of
God, Gen. vi. 12; Ps, Ixv. 2, exlv. 21; Isai.
xl, 5f., xlix. 26, Ixvi. 16, 28 £.; Joel ii. 28;
Ezek, xx. 48, xxi. 5; Jer, xii. 12, xxv. 81;
Job xii, 10, xxxiv, 15; and from that side
of their nature in which they are akin to,
and represent, the lower world, Gen, vi.
19, vii, 15f., 21, viii. 17, ix, 11, 15 ff.; Ps.
cxxxvi, 25; Jer. xxxii. 27, xlv, 5.

Comp. Matt. xxiv. 22; Luke iii. 6; Acts
v.37]
3 And this is life eternal, that they
might know thee the only true God,

St. JOHN. XVII.

and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast
sent.

 

li. 17; 1 Pet. i, 24; Rom. iii, 20; 1 Cor, i.
29; Gal. ii, 16.

From this point of sight the whole clause
brings out forcibly the scope of the Incar-
nation, as designed to bring a higher life
to that which in itself was incapable of
regaining fellowship with God. Comp.
Tren. ‘ Adv. her.’ v. 16. 2.

At the same time the universality of the
Gospel is laid open. Not all Israel only
(Luke ii. 10, all the people, Matt. xv. 24),
but all humanity are the subjects of
Messiah (Matt. xxviii. 19).

give...to as many as thou hast...] The
original form of expression is remarkable :
that all that (wavy 6) thou hast given him
to them he should give. The Christian
body is first presented in its unity as a
whole, and then in its individual members.
Comp. v. 24, vi. 87.

The contrast implied in all flesh and all
that has been given, marks a mystery of
the divine working which we cannot under-
stand. The sovereignty is universal, the
present blessing is partial. Comp. iii. 16.

3. And this is life eternal (the life
eternal)] The definition is not of the sphere
(in this), but of the essence of eternal life
(comp. xii. 50). The subject is taken from
the former clause: The life eternal—the
life eternal, of which Christ had just now
(as ever) spoken (i aidvors (wH)—is this,
that... Eternal life lies not so much in the
possession of a completed knowledge as in
the striving after a growing knowledge.
The that (iva) expresses an aim, an end,
and not only a fact. Comp. iv. 34, vi. 29.
So too the tense of the verb (yivdoKwor)
marks continuance, progress, and not a
perfect and past apprehension gained once
for all. Comp. v. 28, x. 38; 1 John v. 20;
ch. xiv. 31 (iva yva), xix. 4; 1 John iv.
7, 8 (ywarke, éyvw),

The construction which occurs here ((atry
éorly 1% ai. Civa...) is characteristic of St
John, ch. xv. 12; 1 John iii. 11, 23, v. 3;
2 John 6. The force of the article (1) ai. ¢)
appears in the only other passages of the
New Testament where it is found: Acts
xiii. 46; 1 Tim. vi. 12 (1 John v. 20 is a
false reading). Comp. 1 John i. 2, ii, 25
(7 ¢. @ at.)- Poser,

The knowledge which is life, the know-
ledge which from the fact that it is vital
is always advancing (ywwoxwor, see
above), is two-fold; a knowledge of God
in His sole, supreme Majesty, and a know-
Jedge of the revelation which He has made
in its final consummation in the mission of
Christ, To regard the phrase the only true
God as embracing here both thee and him
whom thou didst send, a construction
adopted by Cesarius (Cramer, ‘Cat.’ ad
loc.) and by many Latin fathers from

Augustine downwards, or to regard the
juxtaposition of thee, the only true God,
and him whom thou didst send, as in any
way impairing the true divinity of Christ,
by contrast with the Father, is totally to
misunderstand the passage. It is really
so framed as to meet the two cardinal
errors as to religious truth which arise in
all times, the error which finds expression
in various forms of polytheism, and the
error which treats that which is prepara-
tory in revelation as final. On the one
side men make for themselves objects of
worship, many and imperfect, On the other
side they fail to recognise Christ when He
comes. The primary reference is, no
doubt, to the respective trials of Gentile
and Jew, but these include in themselves
the typical trials of all ages,

Cyril of Alexandria (ad loc.) justly re-
marks that the knowledge of God as the
Father really involves « knowledge of the
Son as God. The true (dAnOivds) God is
the Father who is made known in and by
the Son (1 John v. 20). And the revela-
tion of God as Father, which is the Per-
sonal revelation of God as love in Him-
self, involves at the same time the know-
ledge of the Holy Spirit. The epigram
which expresses the teaching of St Augus-
tine, “ubi amor ibi Trinitas,” has its ful-
filment in this conception. Comp. Aug.
‘De Trin.’ vir. 14, ix. 8.

The verse finds an instructive comment
in the double command, ch. xiv. 1.

this is...) Life—eternal life—is charac-
teristically spoken of by St. John as truly
present : ili, 36, v. 24, vi. 47, 54; 1 John
v. 12; and the possession of this life may
become a matter of absolute knowledge, 1
John v. 13. At the same time this life
is regarded as future in its realisation : iv.
14, 36, vi. 27, xii. 25. The two thoughts
are united in vi. 40, see note.

might know] may know. In suchacon-
nexion ‘‘ knowledge’ expresses the appre-
hension of the truth by the whole nature
of man. It is not an acquaintance with
facts as external, nor an intellectual con-
viction of their reality, but an appropria-
tion of them (so to speak) as an influencing
power into the very being of him who
“knows” them. ‘‘ Knowledge’ is thus
faith perfected; and in turn it passes at
last into sight (1 John iii, 2; comp. 1 Cor.
xiii. 9 ff.). It is remarkable that the noun
(yvaous, ériyvwors) is not found in the
writings of St John; the verb on the con-
trary (yivwoKw) is relatively more frequent
in these than in any other section of the
Testamenc. As is the corresponding case
of ‘‘faith’’ (see ii, 23, note) St John dwells
on the active exercise of the power, and
not on the abstract idea.

239
240

41 have glorified thee on the
earth : I have finished the work which
thou gavest me to do.

5 And now, O Father, glorify

st. JOHN. XVII.

[v.4—6.
thou me with thine own self with
the glory which I had with thee be-

fore the world was.
6 I have manifested thy name un-

 

the only true God] On the word “ true”
(dAnOuvds) see iv. 23, note. There are
many to whom the name of God has been
applied (1 Cor. viii. 4 ff.), but One only
fulfils the conception which man can dimly
form of the absolute majesty of God.
Comp. Rom. xvi. 27; 1 Tim. vi, 15 f.

Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent] Him
whom thou didst send, even Jesus Christ.
The emphasis is laid on the single historic
fact of Christ’s mission (didst send,
dméoretAas), and not on the continuity of
its effects (hast sent, daeotadxas, v. 36,
xx. 21, note).

even Jesus Christ] The occurrence of
these words creates great difficulty. The
difficulty is materially lessened if Christ is
regarded as a predicate: ‘‘ that they know
-. Jesus as Christ.” The general structure
of the sentence however is unfavourable to
this view. The complex name “Jesus
Christ’’ appears to answer exactly to the
corresponding clause, “‘the only true God.”
These two clauses are thus most naturally
taken to define the persons indicated be-
fore, “Thee” and “ Him whom Thou didst
send.” If we accept this construction we
have then to consider whether the defini-
tions are to be treated as literally parts of
the prayer, or as words used by the Evan-
gelist in his record of the prayer, as best
fitted in this connexion to convey the full
meaning of the original language. In favour
of the latter view it may be urged (1) that
the use of the name ‘‘ Jesus Christ’’ by
the Lord Himself at this time is in the
highest degree unlikely, while the com-
pound title, expressing as it did at a later
time the combination of the ideas of true
humanity and divine office, may reason-
ably be supposed to give the exact sense
of the Lord’s thought; (2) that the phrase
“the only true God” recalls the phrase of
St John ‘“‘the true God’’ (1 John v. 20),
and is not like any other phrase used by
the Lord; (3) that the clauses, while per-
fectly natural as explanations, are most
strange if they are taken as substantial
parts of the actual prayer. It is no dero-
gation from the truthfulness of the record
that St John has thus given parenthetically
and in conventional language (so to speak)
the substance of what the Lord said prob-
ably at greater length.

4,6. I have glorified (I glorified)...And
now...glorify...] The prayer of v. 1 is re-
peated from the opposite point of view.
Here the glorifying of Christ is treated as
a consequence of work done, and there as
a preparation for work still remaining to
be done. There is also this further differ-

ence in expression, that in v, 1 the form
is indirect (thy Son), while here it is direct
(Z, me). The reason of this appears to be
that in v. 1 the central idea is that of the
general relation of Son and Father, while
here the attention is fixed on what Christ
had done as man. The eternal glory of
the Son is to be resumed by the Incarnate
Son.

The parallelism between v. 4 and v. 5is
very close: Z glorified thee upon earth:
Do Thou glorify me with Thine own self
(i.e. in heaven). And in each case the per-
sonal relation is made emphatic by the
juxtaposition of the pronouns (Z, Thee, v.
4; Me, Thou, v. 5).

4. I glorified...) The historical mission
of Christ is now regarded as ended; the
earthly work is accomplished. By a life
of absolute obedience and love Christ had
revealed—and therefore glorified — the
Father.

I have finished] According to the true
reading, having finished (perfected, e-
Aewoas). The participle defines the
mode in which the glory of God was se-
cured: there is but one action. For the
use of the word ‘‘ perfect’? Vulg. consum-
mavi) comp. iv. 34, note.

work...gavest (hast given)] Comp. v. 36.
Here the work is contemplated in its unity,
as accomplished, and there in its manifold
parts, as still to be done. Christ’s work
is not self-chosen, but wrought out in per-
fect obedience.

5. now] when the hour has come, and
the last sacrifice of humiliation is over.

with thine own self...with thee] The
sense of the preposition in this construc-
tion (Tapa ceavT@ mapa cof ) in St John is
always local (and not ethical), either liter-
ally (i, 40, iv. 40, xiv. 25, xix. 25; Rev. ii.
13) or figuratively, as expressing a direct
spiritual connexion (viii. 38, xiv. 17, 28).
The sense therefore here, in both cases, is
‘in fellowship with thee.’’ The rendering
“in thy sight,’ which is supported by
the usage of other writers of the New
Testament (Luke ii. 52; 2 Thess, i. 6; 1
Pet. ii, 4, &c.), is excluded alike by Sr
John’s usage and by the context.

Thus the verse presents a contrast be-
tween the state of the Incarnate Son ana
of the Eternal Word. The Person is one
(glorify me...which I had...), but by the
assumption of manhood the Son for a time
emptied Himself of that which He after-
wards received again.

which I had] in actual possession and
not as the object of the divine thought.
Comp. i. 1. The ‘‘ glory’? here spoken of
is not the predestined glory of Christ’s
v.7,8.]

to the men which thou gavest me
out of the world: thine they were,
and thou gavest them me; and they
have kept thy word.

7 Now they have known that all

st. JOHN. XVII.

things whatsoever thou hast given
me are of thee.

8 For I have given unto them
the words which thou gavest me;
and they have received them, band

 

humanity, but the glory of His divinity
which He resumed on His Ascension.

before the world was] Comp. v. 24 note.
The glory of the Eternal Word spoken of
here is distinguished from the glory of
Christ, the Incarnate Word, spoken of in
v, 22, though the two correspond to one
another. The one is supra-temporal (eOwxas,
v.24); the other is a present possession
(Sedwxas, v. 22).

For St Paul’s statement of the fulfilment
of these words see Phil, ii. 9 ff.

II. Tse Son anp tHe Discrpres (6—19).

6ff. The fulfilment by Christ of His
work among men contained the promise of
the wider work which should be accom-
plished for and through them on His exal-
tation. Thus the current of His prayer
passes naturally into a new channel. As
He had prayed for Himself, He prays for
His disciples. The petition glorify me is
represented in new relations by keep them
(v. 11), and sanctify them (v, 17). The
glory of Christ, and of the Father in
Christ, was to be realised by the continu-
ance and completion of that which He had
begun in men,

6. The prayer for the disciples is based
upon a threefold declaration of what they
were in relation to Christ (Z manifested
thy name to the men...), in relation to the

Father (thine they were...), and in them?

selves (they have kept thy word). Each
statement is a plea in favour of the peti-
tions which follow. Together they forma
portraiture of true discipleship.

I have manifested] I manifested. The
phrase is exactly parallel with “I glorified”
in v, 4, Christ made known perfectly the
name of God as Father in His life, Even
to the Jew this conception of the relation
of God to man was new. The revelation
however was not made to all, but to those
who by sympathy were fitted to receive it.

unto the men (rots dvOparots)] The full
form of the phrase as contrasted with ‘‘ to
those whom...””) seems to mark a certain
correspondence between the revelation and
the recipients of it. As men the disciples
avere enabled to receive the teaching of the
Son of man (comp. i. 4).

gavest] Comp. vv. 2, 24, vi. 37, x. 29,
xviii, 9. It is only by the influence of the
Father that men can come to Christ, vi. 44,
65. Yet the critical act admits of being
described from many sides. The Father
_is said to “draw” men (vi. 44), and Christ
also draws them (xii, 32). Christ. “chooses”

men (vi, 70, xv. 16); and men freely obey
His call,

thine] not only as creatures of God, or
as representatives by birth of Israel, the
chosen people, but as answering to the true
character of Israel (i, 47).

thy word] The revelation of Christ asa
whole (6 Adyos, Vulg. sermo) is spoken of
as the Father’s word (comp. vii. 16, xii.
48, 49). All was included implicitly in the
word by which the disciples were bidden
to seek Christ (vi, 45). As they “heard”
this at first, so they continued to hear it,
On keep (tnpetv) see viii. 51, note.

7, 8. These verses unfold the growth of
discipleship which is summarised in the pre-
ceding clause (they have kept thy word),
The disciples who followed Christ in obedi-
ence to the Father had come to know by
actual experience the nature and the source
of His mission: They trusted Him, and
then they found out little by little in
whom they had trusted.

7. Now they have known] Now they
know (éyvwxay), now they have learnt
through the teaching of discipleship. The
English present seems to express best, both
here and in v, 8, the actual result of past
experience. Comp. v. 42, vi. 69, viii, 52,
55, xiv. 9; 1 John ii, 4.

all things whatsoever thou hast given] It
might have seemed simpler to say “ all that
I have,” but by such a mode of expression
the thought of the special charge committed
to the Son would have been lost, And yet
further, the reference is to all the elements
of the Lord’s Life and Work—His words and
acts—which are severally attributed to the
Father’s love (v. 19, 30, viii. 28, xii. 49f,,
xiv, 10), and now regarded in their abiding
consequence (are, not were).

8. The fuller insight which the disciples
gained into the being of Christ came
through the gradual manifestations which
He “gave” and they “ received.”

the words...) That teaching which was
before (v. 6) regarded in its unity, is now
regarded in its component elements (7a
pypare). That which was organically one,
was made known in many parts according
to the Father’s will (the words which thou
gavest me).

The contrast between “the word” ( Adyos),
the complete message, and “the saying”
(A740), the detached utterance, is frequently
important in St John, and yet difficult to
express without a paraphrase. Comp. v. 38
(word), 47 (sayings), vi, 60 (word), 63 (say-
ings), 68 (sayings). viii, 43 (word), 47

241

b chap, 16,
27.
242
have known surely that I came out
from thee, and they have believed
that thou didst send me.

9 I pray for them: I pray not for
the world, but for them which thou
hast given me; for they are thine.

St. JOHN. XVII.

[v.g—II.

to And all mine are thine, and
thine are mine; and I am glorified
in them.

iz And now I am no more in the
world, but these are in the world,
and I come to thee. Holy Father,

 

(sayings), 51 (word), xii, 47 (sayings), 48
(word), xv, 3 (word), 7 (sayings). The
plural of ‘“‘ word” occurs x. 19, xiv, 24;
“saying ” does not occur in St John in the
singular, though it is frequent in other
parts of the New Testament.

they have received...and have known...
and they have believed...) they received...
and know...and believed... The issues of
the reception of the successive relations of
Christ are gathered under the two heads of
knowledge and faith (comp. vi. 69, note),
and both alike are directed to the recogni-
tion of Christ and His Mission. The dis-
ciples in their converse with their Master
perceived, and perceived truly, on such
evidence as to exclude all doubt, that the
source of His life was divine. This was a
matter on which they could themselves
judge. So far the voice of conscience was
authoritative as to the character of Christ.
But beyond this they believed that Christ
was directly sent by God to fulfil a speeial
office. This was no longer within the
province of knowledge ; it was a conclusion
of faith. Yet here again in due course
“faith” is transformed into knowledge, v, 25.

9 ff. The Lord has set forth the character
and the position of the disciples, what they
had received and made their own; He now
looks forward to their future. They are
watched over though left (9—11).

9. Z pray for them] The pronouns are
emphatic: “I on my part, in answer to
their devotion; I, thy Son, for those who
have been faithful to Thee.” The em-
phatic “I” occurs throughout the prayer ;
see specially vv. 4, 12, 14, 19. On the
word for “pray” (épwr@, “ask”) see xvi.
26, note.

The exclusion of “the world” from
Christ’s prayer is no limitation of the
extent of His love (comp. v. 21, note), but
a necessary result of the immediate circum-
stances of the prayer. His work is fulfilled
in ever-increasing circles of influence. At
present He is interceding for those who
have been prepared beforehand to continue
His work; and in their behalf He pleads a
request of which the fulfilment is guaran-
teed (so to speak) by a threefold claim.
The disciples for whom intercession is
made were indeed the Father’s (they are
thine: comp. v. 6), and therefore He could
not but regard His own children. And
further, in respect of their relation to
Christ, so far as ‘hey had been attached
to Him this also was a relation to the
Father equally (all things that are mine

are thine). And thirdly, this relation had
issued in Christ’s glory, and therefore in
the glory of the Father, so that by the
fulfilment of their part hitherto they called
out fresh gifts of divine love (Z have been
glorified in them).

10. all mine are thine...) all things that
are mine are thine... This general statement,
which is expressed in the most comprehen-
sive form, and does not include only per-
sons, prepares the way for the next. Service
rendered to Christ is rendered to the
Father (xiii, 20), so that those who were
from the first God’s children had become
nearer to His love by their faith in the
Son of God. The second clause (and the
things that are thine are mine) is not
required by the argument, but serves to
emphasize the assertion of the perfect
communion of the Son and the Father. The
words are not to be regarded as paren-
thetical, but as part of the exposition of
the argument, which is made by parallel
sentences,

Iam (Ihave been) glorified] To “glorify”
God (or Christ) is to make Him known or
to acknowledge Him as being what He is
(xii. 28, note). Here then Christ bears
witness to the faith of the disciples who
had been enabled to recognise and to
confess Him even in His state of self-
humiliation (vi. 69). This glory gained in
the persons of the disciples is not looked
upon as past (€Oofdc nv, xiii, 31), but as
abiding ( deddgacpa, 1 Pet, i. 8; 2 Cor, iii
10

in them] Faithful disciples are the living
monuments in which Christ’s glory is seen.
So also a church is the “glory” of its
founder. 1 Thess, ii, 20,

11. The declaration of the grounds on
which the prayer is urged is followed by
the statement of the circumstances which
make the prayer necessary. These are simply
co-ordinated (and...and...and) ; and the bare
enumeration of the facts is left without
comment. Christ leaves the world, the
disciples remain in the world; Master and
scholars must then be separated, so that
the old connexion will be broken. Christ
goes to the Father; He enters therefore
upon a new sphere of His mediatorial work,
in which His mode of action will be changed.

And now I...but these...) And I...and
they... See above.

I come to thee] The return of Christ to
the Father involves more than a_ local
separation from His people. It has a
spiritual correspondence with His ‘“com-
v.12, 13.]
keep through thine own name those
whom thou hast given me, that they
may be one, as we are.

12 While I was with them in the
world, I kept them in thy name:

St. JOHN. XVII.

those that thou gavest me I have
kept, and none of them is lost, but
the son of perdition; cthat the scrip-
ture might be fulfilled.

13 And now come I to thee; and

 

ing” into the world (viii. 14, xiii. 3), by
which the idea of separation (J am no more
in the world...) passes into that of a new
union. It typified a new relation towards
the disciples. For a time they would be
unable to ‘‘ see’? Him (xvi. 10, 16 ff.), or
to ‘follow’? Him (xiii. 33, 36 f.: comp.
vii. 33 ff., viii, 21 ff.). Yet this change
was designed to contribute to their good
(xvi. 7), and was to be followed by a
fresh ‘“‘ coming’”’ to them (xiv. 3 ff., 18, 23,
28, xxi, 22 f.).

Holy Father...) The substance of the
prayer here at length finds expression when
the pleas in support of it, and the occa-
sion which calls it out, have been set forth.
The unique phrase of address (Holy Father,
comp. Rev. vi. 10; 1 John ii. 20; v. 25,
righteous Father) suggests the main
thought. The disciples hitherto had been
kept apart from the corruption of the
world by the present influence of Christ.
The revelation of holiness which He had
made had a power at once to separate and
to unite. He asks that God, regarded
under the separate aspects of purity and
tenderness, may carry forward to its final
issue (that they may be one even as
we are) that training which He had Him-
self commenced, and that too in the same
way (keep in thy name, comp. v. 12) The
“name”? of the Father, the knowledge of
God as Father, is regarded as an ideal
region of security in which the disciples
were preserved. It is the ground of their
safety and not of Christ’s power.

keep through thine own name those whom
thou hast given me] According to the text
which is supported by overwhelming
authority, the rendering must be: keep
them in thy name which thou hast given
me. The phrase is very remarkable, and
has no exact parallel except in v. 12. Per-
haps the same thought is found in Phil. ii.
9 £.; and it is illustrated by the imagery
of the Apocalypse. Thus in Rev. ii, 17,
a promise is made to the victorious
Christian: I will give him a white stone,
and on the stone a new name written, which
no man knoweth saving he that receiveth
it; and again it is said of “the Word of
God :” he had a name written that no man
knew but he himself (xix. 12); and again
of the saints in glory, they shall see his
face, and his name shall be on their fore-
heads (xxii. 4). These passages suggest
the idea that the ‘‘ giving of the Father’s
name’? to Christ expresses the fulness of
His commission as the Incarnate Word to
reveal God. He came in His Father's

name (v. 43), and to make that name
known (comp. vv. 4 ff.). He spoke what
He had heard (viii. 26, 40, xv. 15). And
all spiritual truth is gathered up in ‘‘ the
name’’ of God, the perfect expression (for
men) of what God is, which ‘‘name’’ the
Father gave to the Son to declare when
He took man’s nature upon Him. Comp.
Exod. xxiii. 21.

one, even as we are) The unity is not
only of will and love but of nature, per-
fectly realised in absolute harmony in
Christ. As the divine Unity consists with
a variety of Persons, so too the final unity
of men does not exclude but perfectly har-
monizes the separate being of each in the
whole.

as we are] The use of the plural pro-
noun in such a connection is w distinct
assertion of sameness of essence. The
“we? which unites the Father and
Christ affirms that their nature is one.
Comp. x. 28, 29.

12 f. The Lord looks back upon the
work which He had wrought for the dis-
ciples (v. 12), now that He is passing into
the new order (v. 13). The place which
He had occupied (I [éyé] kept) must
hereafter be filled otherwise.

12. While...with them (omit in the
world) I kept...kept] While...with them I
kept—guarded. The tenses of the original
verb (éripovv, épirAagéa, Vulg. servabam,
custodivi) mark respectively the continu-
ous action of watching and its completed
issue. The difference between the verbs
themselves appears to be that ‘“‘kept’”’
(Tnpetv) expresses the careful regard and
observance of that which is looked at as
without (e.g. Matt. xxvii. 36), while
“guarded” (puvAdocecv) describes the pro-
tection of something held as it were with-
in a line of defence from external assaults.

in thy name: those that thou gavest me I
have kept...) in thy name that thou hast
given me and I guarded them... as in v. 11.

but...] The excepting phrase (ei 17) does
not necessarily imply that Judas is reck-
oned among those whom the Lord
‘‘guarded.”” The exception may refer
simply to the statement “‘not one perished.’
Comp. Matt. xii. 4; Luke iv. 26, 27; Gal.
i. 19, it, 16; Rev. xxi. 27. Contrast
xviii. 9.

the son of perdition] He whose charac-
ter was defined by this terrible mark, 2
Thess. ii, 3; (2S. xii. 5). Comp. xii. 36,
note. The solemn repetition of cognate
words in the original cannot be preserved

R

243

Psal. 109.
8.
244
these things I speak in the world,
that they might have my joy fulfilled
in themselves.

14 I have given them thy word;
and the world hath hated them, be-
cause they are not of the world, even
as I am not of the world.

15 I pray not that thou shouldest

St. JOHN. XVII. -

[v. 14—18.

take them out of the world, but
that thou shouldest keep them from
the evil.

16 They are not of the world,
even as I am not of the world.

17 Sanctify them through thy
truth : thy word is truth.

18 As thou hast sent me into the

 

(‘not one perished but the son of
perishing’’).

that the scripture...] Judas was lost, but
even the fall of Judas found a place in the
whole scheme of divine Providence, comp.
xii. 38, note. The reference is to Ps. xi.
9 (ch. xiii, 18), rather than to Ps. cix. 8
(Acts i. 20),

13. And now come I...] But now I come
... The old relation was on the point of
being broken.

Christ was, so to speak, already on His
way to the Father, but at the same time
He had not yet left the world. His prayer
therefore was offered while He was still
on the scene of human conflict, that the
disciples, conscious of His intercession,
might be able when alone to realise in
themselves (comp. xiv. 28) that joy,
characteristic of Him (comp. xv. 11, note),
which they had hitherto found in His
presence.

these things I speak.,.that they might
(may)...] The prayer was uttered aloud
that the disciples might draw strength
from the words which they heard.

14, 15. The joy of Christ must be won
through conflict. The disciples are strong
by the Word of God and by the Lord’s
intercession, but the world naturally hates
them.

14. I (éyd) have given...] The revela-
tion which the Lord had made is now re-
garded in its completeness (rdv Adyov as
compared with ra éjpara, v, 8), and in
connexion with Himself (¢A@ 8.) : Z inthe
fulness of my presence have given... The
disciples were furnished with their power,
and the crisis which decided their future
was over. When they came before the
world the world hath hated (hated) them,
shewed at once and decisively its position
of antagonism to the Gospel. The single
act (hated, epioncer ) is contrasted with
the permanent endowment (6édwxa). On
the other hand, see xv. 18, 24 ( peplonker).
These two facts, 7 have given...and the
world hated..., form the conditions which
determine the nature of the apostolic work,

thy word] Comp. rv. 6, note, 17, v. 38,
viii. 31 f.

they are not of...] Comp. v. 16, viii. 23,
note.

15, It might have seemed best that the
Lord should remove His disciples from a
scene of inevitable conflict. But for them,

as for Himself (xii. 27), the conflict was
the condition of victory. His prayer there-
fore was for their protection, and not for
their withdrawal either by isolation or by
removal.

from the evil] out of the evil one. The
parallel words in 1 John v. 18, 19, seem to
shew conclusively that the original phrase
(ék Tov wovnpov, Vulg. ex malo), which is
of doubtful gender, is here masculine (the
evil one). Just as Christ is Himself the
medium or sphere in which the believer
lives and moves (év xpio7q), so the prince
of the world, the evil one, is the medium
or sphere in which they live and move
who are given up to him (év T@ zovnpg).
The relation of man to good and evil is a
personal relation ; and the Lord prays that
His disciples may be kept out of the range
of the pervading influence of His enemy.
He does not pray only that they may be
delivered from the outward assault of the
evil one (2 Thess. iii. 3, pvAdooev awd TOU
movnpov), but that they may be preserved
from resting within his domain. St John
especially dwells on this personal character
of the evil with which man has to contend,
1 John ii. 18, 14 (vevexrjxare rov rovnpov ;
iii. 12 (@« Tod rovnpod Hv); V. 18 (6 rovnpds);
v.19 (év T@ Tovnp@ Ketrat). Comp. xii. 31,
xiv, 30, xvi, 11. [Comp. é« for é« yeupds
in LXX. : Job vi. 28; Ps. cxl. (cxxxix.)1.]

16—19. The issue of the disciples’ con-
flict is not only victory but complete
consecration. The truth for which they
are hated and by which they are strong
(v. 14) is the power by which they are
transformed.

16. The last clause of v. 14 is repeated.
as the ground of a new petition. Protec-
tion is to be followed by hallowing. The
possibility of this complete consecration,
no less than the certain prospect of hos-
tility, lies in the affinity of the disciples to
their Lord (they are not...even as I am
not...). A transposition gives emphasis to
the idea of ‘“‘the world,” which comes at
the beginning and end of the verse (of the
world they are not...1.am not of the world).

17. Sanctify] i.e. Consecrate, hallow.
Comp. x. 36, note.

The prayer is that the consecration which
is represented by admission into the Chris-
tian society may be completely realised in
fact ; that every power and faculty, offered
once for all, may in due course be effec.
sanctifie

v. I9g—21.]

world, even so have I also sent them
into the world.
1g And for their sakes I sanctify
Wy myself, that they also might be lisanc-
’ tified through the truth.

tually rendered to God (Rom. xii. 1). It
is not enough for the Christian te be
“kept”? (vv. 11, 15); he must also ad-
vance.

through thy truth] in the truth. The
“truth,” the sum of the Christian revelation,
“The word of God,” at once embodied in
Christ and spoken by Him, is (as it were)
the element into which the believer is
introduced, and by which he is changed.
The ‘‘truth” is not only a power within
him by which he is moved; it is an atmo-
sphere in which he lives. The end of the
Truth is not wisdom, which is partial, but
holiness, which is universal.

thy word] The exact form of the original
(6 Adyos 6 ods), “the word that is thine,”
emphasizes the fact that Christ’s teaching
was “not His own, but His that sent
Him” (vii, 16). And this teaching must
not be limited to His spoken Word or to
the written Word, but extended to every
utterance of God in nature and history
through the Worp,

The word of God is not only “true,” but
“truth,” and has a transforming virtue.
Comp. viii. 31. The phrase occurs in one
of the Jewish prayers for the new year in
a different connexion: “ Purify our hearts
to serve Thee in truth. Thou, O God, art
Truth (Jerem, x, 10), and Thy word is
Truth and standeth for ever.

18,19. The sanctifying of the apostles
is connected with two thoughts, firstly
with that of their own work, and secondly
with that of Christ’s work forthem, They
needed the “‘sanctifying” which He Him-
self received (x. 86) in order, that they
might fulfil their office; and He made that
sanctifying possible for them.

18. As (Even as) thou hast sent (didst
send) me...so have I also sent (did I also
send) them...] Comp. xx. 21 (7éu7w), The
Lord appears to look upon the first mission
of the apostles (Matt, x. 5; Mark vi. 7;
Luke ix, 2) as including their whole future
work. Comp, iv, 38. After His departure
they continue His work, Comp. 1 John ii. 20.

19. Z sanctify (consecrate) myself...
might (may) be sanctified (consecrated) ]
The work of the Lord is here presented
under the aspect of absolute self-sacrifice,
He shewed through His life how all that is
human may be brought wholly into the
service of God; and this He did by true
personal determination, as perfectly man,
The sacrifice of life (Hebr. x. 6f.) was now
to be consummated in death, whereby the
last offering of self was made. The fruits

Sr. JOHN. XVIL

20 Neither pray I for these alone,
but for them also which shall believe
on me through their word;

ai That they all may be one; as
thou, Father, art in me, and I in

of His victory are communicated to His
disciples, By union with Him they also are
“themselves sanctified in truth,” through
the Spirit whose mission followed on His
completed work, and who enables each
believer to appropriate what Christ has
gained (xvi, 14). Christ does for Himself
(éy@ dysa.¢w éuavréy) that which is done for
the disciples (iva Gow aytacpévor ),
through the truth] in truth (ev dAnOet),
truly, really, and not merely in name or
externally (comp, iv. 23, note). The absence
of the article distinguishes this phrase
from that in v. 17 (in the truth). Comp, 2
John 1; 3 John 1; Col. i, 6; Matt. xxii, 16.

III. Tue Son anp tHe CuurcH (20—26).

The prayer of the Lord is now extended
from the Eleven to the Church, and through
them to the world. There is to be a
progress both in the breadth of unity, and
in the apprehension of revelation. The unity
of believers is the conviction of the world
(20—23) ; and believers advance in know-
ledge of the Son and of the Father (24—
26). Christ Himself prays for all in all time.

20—23. The unity of the first disciples
(v, 11) is replaced by a larger unity (vv.
21, 23), which is regarded as influencing
the world to faith (v. 21) and knowledge
(v, 28).

20. for them also which shall believe
(which believe)] The final issue is gathered
up ina present. The Church of the future
is regarded as actually in existence (which
believe [T@v murrevévTwv] and not which
shall believe [Tv miatevodvTwy, Vulg. gui
credituri sunt]). The immediate success of
the apostles carried with it that success
which should be. Their “word” is the
appointed means for the calling out of
faith (Rom, x, 14 f.). This “word” is the
“word”? which they had received from
Christ (v, 14), the interpretation as well as
the assertion of the facts of Christ’s life.
In the arrangement of the original, through
their word is closely connected with
believe, so as to form a compound idea,
which is followed by in me,

21. That they all...that they also...that
the world...) The great end is regarded in
its growing extension. The simple and
absolute idea of unity comes first (that all
..who now and hereafter believe); this
is then definitely extended to the later
generations of believers (that they also),
and finally the effect on the world comes
within the scope of the prayer. And the
unity of believers is itself presented in a
threefold form, as a unity of all, a unity

245
246
thee, that they also may be one in
us: that the world may believe that
thou hast sent me.

similar to that of the Father and the Son,
ea a unity realised in the Father and the

on,

be one] Comp. x. 30, vv, 11, 22; (1 Cor.
iii, 8).

as (even as)...) The idea of the divine
unity, which has been given generally before
(v. 11, and v. 22), is set out in detail in its
correlative manifestation, Comp. x. 38, xiv.
10, 11, 20. There is, so to speak, an inter-
change of the energy of the divine Life
(Thou in me, and I in Thee), which finds a
counterpart in the harmonious relations of
the members of the Church. The true
unity of believers, like the Unity of
Persons in the Holy Trinity with which it
is compared, is offered as something far
more than a mere moral unity of purpose,
feeling, affection; it is, in some mysterious
mode which we cannot distinctly appre-
hend, a vital unity (Rom. xii. 5; Eph. iv. 4).
In this senseitisthe symbol of a higher
type of life, in which each constituent
being is a conscious element in the being
of a vast whole. In ‘‘the life,’ and in
“the life” only, each individual life is
able to attain to its perfection. Such a
conception, however imperfectly it may be
grasped, meets many of the difficulties
which beset the conception of an abiding

continuance of our present individual
separation,
may be...in us] Omit one. The omis-

sion of “one” emphasizes the thought of
their unity. They who are “in God and
Christ” necessarily find unity in that
fellowship. God is the essential centre of
unity,

in us] Not simply in Me or in Thee.
Elsewhere the relation is definitely con-
nected with the Son, vi. 56, xv. 4, 5; (1
John iii, 24). It is through the Son that
men are united with the Father (v. 23, Z
in them); and so they are said ‘‘to be in
God and God in them” (1 John iv. 13, 16,
6 Oeds),

It will be observed that the prayer for
anity is offered up when the Lord is look-
ing towards the widest extension of the
faith; and the full significance of the
prayer is made plainer if we bear in mind
the religious differences (eg. Jew and
Gentile) of the apostolic age, and the
struggles through which the Catholic
Church strove towards its ultimate victory.

that the world...) Two results in regard
to the world are set forth by Christ. The
first, that it may believe that thou hast
sent (didst send) me, and the second, that
it may know that thou hast sent (didst
send) me, and hast loved (didst love) them
as thou hast loved (lovedst) me (%. 23). The
first has been already given as the mark

St. JOHN. XVII.

~[v. 22.

22 And the glory which thou gav-
est me I have given them; that they
may be one, even as we are one:

of the disciples (v. 8, faith), and (in part)
the second (v. 25, knowledge) has the
same value. So also in xi. 42, the words
used by the Lord at the raising of Lazarus
are said to have been spoken for the sake
of the multitude, that they may believe
that thou didst send me. Such faith then
as is here contemplated is at least the
beginning of a true faith, and not «4 mere
unwilling acknowledgment of the fact. In
this connexion it must further be noticed
that the verbs in vv. 21, 23 are both present
(micrevy, ytvéoKy) as contrasted with the
aorists in vv. 8, 25. Thus it appears that
the end which is proposed as the last
reward of earthly work is that described
in general terms in 1 Cor. xv. 28; Phil. ii.
10, 11. This end, as here regarded, is to
be brought about by the spectacle of the
unity of the disciples (comp, xiii. 35); and
the same thought is expressed more fully
in v. 23. The unity of disciples, therefore,
while it springs out of a direct relation to
Christ, must have some external expres-
sion that it may affect those without the
Church.

the world] A comparison of Rom, xi.
25 ff. with this passage seems to indicate
that the Lord looks forward to the time
when ‘‘ Israel’ shall have become included
in ‘tthe world,’ and at last prove the
instrument of its conversion.

that thou ( oW)...] that Thou, the God of
Israel, the God of the Covenant, and none
other... Comp. rr. 8, 18, 23, 25, xi. 42.

22. The mention of the office of future
believers, to evoke faith in the world,
leads to the mention of their endowment.
In the former verse the Lord prayed for
the disciples; He now declares what He
has Himself done for them (éya Séwxa).
Hence the emphatic personal pronoun stands
in the front of the sentence (kdyo...).
He communicated to them the glory which
He had Himself received. The gift of this
glory (like the prayer in v. 21) has regard
to a threefold consequence : that they may
be one...that they may be perfected in one
..that the world may know...

the glory which thou gavest (hast given)
..] Comp. vv. 5, 24. This glory comes
from the perfect apprehension of the Father
as fulfilling His work of love (comp. v. 8).
Viewed from another point of sight it is
the revelation of the divine in man realised
in and through Christ. So to know God
as He accomplishes His will is to find all
things transfigured ; and as the Son of Man
in His own Person experienced and shewad
the Father’s purpose, so He enabled /dis
disciples to appropriate the truth which
He made clear. Comp. xiii. 31,Cnote.
Such divine glory leads to the unity of
V. 23, 24. ]

23 I in them, and thou in me,
that they may be made perfect in one;
and that the world may know that
thou hast sent me, and hast loved
them, as thou hast loved me.

St. JOHN. XVII.

24 4Father, I
also whom thou hast given me,
be with me where I am; that they
may behold my glory, which thou
hast given me: for thou lovedst

 

all being. The fulness of this glory is to
be made known hereafter in the Lord’s
presence; but meanwhile it is partially
presented in the different manifestations of
Christ’s action in believers through the
power and beauty and truth of the Chris-
tian life. But the idea of ‘‘the glory”
cannot be limited to any one of these.

them] the members of the universal
Church.

23. I in them...] This clause, standing
in apposition to that which precedes, ex-
plains the nature of the double unity of
believers in themselves and with God.
Christ in the body of believers is the
ground of their unity ; and the Father isin
Him. The unity of believers is therefore
like that of the divine Persons and with
Them. The two members of the clause
suggest the full parallel: J in them and
they in me: I in Thee and Thou in me.

that they] The possession of the divine
“glory” —the absolute harmony of life—
furnishes the sure foundation for spiritual
unity.

made perfect (perfected) in one] brought
(eis) to a final unity in which they attain
their completeness (rereAcumpévor eis ev,
Vulg. consummati in unum). For perfected
see Phil. iii. 12; Heb. ii. 10, v. 9, vii.
98, ix.9, x. 1, 14, xi. 40, xii. 23; 1 Johnii.
5, iv. 12, 17, 18. That which is completed
at once on the divine side has to be
gradually realised by man. So the essen-
tial unity is personally apprehended, and
issues in the perfection of each believer as
he fulfils his proper part.

and (omit) that the world may know...
hast sent (didst send)...] not at once (yv@),
but by slow degrees (ywwdorKy). See v.
21, note. This knowledge (like the ‘‘be-
lief’? above) cannot be taken in any other
general sense than that which is found in
the other verses of the chapter (v. 8, &c.).
It is the knowledge of grateful recognition
and not of forced conviction.

hast loved (lovedst) them, as...(lovedst)
me] The spiritual effect wrought in Chris-
tians, the visible manifestation of a power
of love among them (comp. xiii. 35), is de-
clared to be a sufficient proof of the divine
mission of Him from whom it comes, and
of the continuance in them of the divine
working. This working is not however
such as might have been anticipated. The
life of believers shews the same contrasts
of joy and apparent failure as the life of
Christ. But those contrasts are no dis-
paragement of the perfectness of the love
of God towards them.

24—26. While believers overcome the
world by their unity, they are themselves
also to advance in the fulness of know-
ledge. This progress belongs in part to a
higher order of being (v. 24); but it rests
essentially on the knowledge of Christ as
the interpreter of the Father (v. 25); and
therefore is realised on earth as Christ
makes Himself better known (v, 26).

24. The prospect of the completion of
the work of believers leads directly to the
thought of their bliss. In portraying this
the Lord places side by side Him to whom,
and the united body for whom, He speaks
(warp, 6 Sé8wxds por). He no longer
“prays,” but gives expression to His
“will.” Z will that... For the use of
the word (@éAw) by Christ, see ch. xxi.
22, 23; Matt. viii. 3, xxiii. 37, xxvi. 39
and parallels, xv. 32, (xx. 14) ; Luke xii, 49,

It is further interesting to contrast this
expression of Christ’s own will in behalf of
His disciples with His submission to His
Father’s will in His prayer for Himself,
Mark xiv. 36.

they...whom...) that which... All be-
lievers regarded as one whole. See v. 2,
note. The original runs literally : Father,
as for that which Thou hast given me, I
will that...they also...

The will of Christ for His people in-
cludes two things, first that they may be
where He is (xii. 26, xiv. 3), and so attain
in the end to the sphere for the time un-
attainable by them (xiii. 36. Comp. vii.
34); and secondly, as dependent on this,
that they may behold His glory. Each of
these two issues contains an element not
contained in the corresponding gifts al-
ready described. Presence with Christ, as
involving personal fellowship with Him in
the sphere of His glorified being, is more
than a union effected by His presence with
the Church. And the contemplation of
His glory, in its whole extent, by those
lifted beyond the limits of time, is more
than the possession of that glory accord-
ing to the measure of present human
powers.

where I am...may behold] as sharing in
the Lord’s kingdom, 2 Tim. ii. 12. The
scene of this vision is not defined. Under
one aspect it may be placed at the Lord’s
“Presence.” But no one special applica-
tion exhausts the meaning of the words.
Comp. 1 John iii, 2; 2 Cor. iii. 18.

my glory, which thou hast given...) The
full expression (literally, the glory that 1s
mine, which... See xv. 9, note) as com-
pared with the glory which...(v. 22) is

247

will that they d.shep. 12.
248
me before the foundation of the
world.

25 O righteous Father, the world
hath not known thee: but I have
known thee, and these have known
that thou hast sent me.

St. JOHN. XVII.

[v. 25, 26.

26 And I have declared unto
them thy name, and will declare
it: that the love wherewith thou
hast loved me may be in them, and
I in them.

 

to be noticed. ‘‘The glory’ is here re-
garded as belonging and answering to the
very nature of the Son. Yet it is not
simply the glory of the Word (v. 5), but
the glory of the Incarnate Son (Phil. ii. 9).
The ‘‘ glory’? of the Word, apart from the
Incarnation, is not said in the language of
the New Testament to be ‘‘given’’ to
Him, though the Father is the ‘‘ one
fountain of Godhead.’’ The “ glory’’ here
spoken of is the glory of a restored and
consummated harmony of God and man,
which is made the final object of the con-
templation of believers, even as it is al-
ready potentially given to them (v. 22).

for...] because... The love of the Father
for the Son belongs to the eternal order.
This love when outwardly realised is seen
as glory in the object of it. And since
the Father’s love continued unchanged to-
wards the Incarnate Son, this love neces-
sarily involved the fulfilment of His glory
as the Redeemer and Perfecter of hu-
manity. To be allowed to ‘‘ behold” such
glory is to be admitted to the contempla-
tion of an inexhaustible object.

before the foundation] Comp. Eph. i. 4;
1 Pet. i. 20. The corresponding phrase
‘*since the foundation of the world” (dd
k.k,) is not unfrequent: Rev. (mpd
kataBodjs kdopov; Vulg. ante constitu-
tionem mundi) xiii. 8, xvii. 8; Hebr. iv.
8, &e.

The words distinctly imply the personal
pre-existence of Christ. The thought of an
eternal love active in the depths of divine
Being presents, perhaps, as much as we
can faintly apprehend of the doctrine of
the essential Trinity.

25, 26. In these concluding verses the
justification (if we may so speak) of the
whole prayer is gathered up in a dimple
enumeration of the facts of the world’s
ignorance, Christ’s knowledge, and the
disciples’ faith ; and the substance of it in
the twofold end, that the love of the
Father for the Son, and the Son Himself,
may be in the disciples, who henceforward
represent Him.

25. righteous Father] The epithet (comp.
v. 11, Holy Father) emphasizes the nature
of the plea. It is to the righteousness of
the Father that the Son appeals, and He
had fitted them in part and would still
more completely fit them to bear the vision
of the divine beauty. Those for whom He
speaks had in part proved their faith.

the world hath not known thee (knew
Thee not) : but Z have known (knew) thee,
and these have known (knew)...] In the
original a conjunction (kat) stands before
‘*the world’’ which cannot easily be trans-
lated. It serves to co-ordinate the two
main clauses, which bring out the con-
trast between the world and the disciples.
The force of it is as if we were to say:
““Two facts are equally true; it is true
that the world knew Thee not; it is true
that these knew that Thou didst send me.” -
The first shewed that in the way of
‘nature’? men had failed ; the second that
the Son had found partial welcome in the
way of ‘‘grace’’ (comp. 1 Cor. i. 21).

but I have known (knew) thee] This
clause comes parenthetically to prepare for
the next. Even if the world failed to read
the lesson which was offered to it, there
was yet another channel by which the
knowledge could be conveyed. The Son,
as the eternal Word, had the knowledge,
and He came to men, and as man realised
the knowledge in human life, and found
some at least who admitted His mission.
Thus in virtue of the Incarnation that was
at last gained by His disciples, which the
world had not gained, even the true
knowledge of the Father.

have known] knew. That which before
(v. 8) had been described as a matter of
faith, is now presented in its final accept-
ance as a matter of knowledge.

26. The revelation of tho Father’s
name by Christ followed on the personal
acknowledgment of His mission. This reve-
lation, complete in one sense (Z made
known; comp. xv. 15), is none the less
continuous (Z will make known). It cannot
be finished while the world lasts. The end
of it is that the Father may regard the
disciples in response to their growing faith
even as He regarded the Son, and that
they may feel His love (that the love
wherewith thou lovedst...in them; comp.
Rom. v. 5). The possibility of such a con-
summation lies in the fact of the Presence
of the Son Himself in them (Z in them).

I have declared...will declare it] I
made known...and will make it known,
henceforward by the Holy Spirit, whom
Christ sent, xv. 26.

I in them] The last word of the Lord’s
prayer corresponds with the last word of
His discourses : J have overcome the world
(xvi. 33). He is Himself the source of
victory and life.
Sr. JOHN. XVIII.

CHAPTER XVIII.

1 Judas betrayeth Jesus. 6 The officers fall to
the ground. 10 Peter smiteth off Malchus’
ear, 12 Jesus is taken, and led unto Annas

and Caiaphas. 15 Peter’s denial, 19 Jesus
examined before Caiaphas. 28 His ar-
raignment before Pilate. 36 His kingdom.
40 The Jews ask Barabbas to be let loose.

 

Xvil1.—xx. Tue VicroRY THROUGH
Dats.

This last main division of the Gospel
falls naturally into four principal sections :

I. The betrayal (xviii. 1—11),

II. The double trial (xviii. 12—xix. 16).

III. The end (xix. 17—42).

IV. The new life (xx.).

The last three sections, as will appear
afterwards, require further subdivision.

1. In comparing the narrative of St
John with the parallel narratives of the
Synoptists, it must be observed generally
that here, as everywhere, St John fixes the
attention of the reader upon the ideas
which the several events bring out and
illustrate. The Passion and Resurrection
are for him revelations of the Person of
Christ. The objective fact is a “sign” of
something which lies deeper. It is asuper-
ficial and inadequate treatmest of his narra-
tive to regard it as a historical supplement
of the other narratives, or of the current
oral narrative on which they are based. It
does (it is true) become in part such a
supplement, because it is a portrayal of
the main spiritual aspects of the facts
illustrated from the fulness of immediate
knowledge, but the record is independent
and complete in itself. It is a whole, and,
like the rest of the Gospel, an interpreta-
tion of the inner meaning of the history
which it contains.

Thus in the history of the Passion three
thoughts among others rise into clear
prominence :

(1) The voluntariness of Christ’s suffer.
ings.

xviii. 4, Xviii. 36.
— 8. xix, 28.
— il. — 30

(2) The fulfilment of a divine plan in
Christ’s sufferings:

xviii. 4, xix. 11,
— 9% — 24.
— 11. — 28.

Comp. Luke xxii, 53.
(3) The majesty which shines through
Christ's sufferings:

xviii. 6, xix. 11.
— 20 ff. — 26f.
— 37. — 36f.

The narrative in this sense becomes a
commentary on earlier words which
pointed to the end,

(1) x. 17, 18. (2) xiii. 1. (3) xiii. 31.

2. In several places the full meaning
of St John’s narrative is first obtained by
the help of words or incidents preserved

by the Synoptists. His narrative assumes

facts found in them:

e.g. xviii. 11. Xviii. 40.

— 33. xix. 41.

8. The main incidents recorded by more
than one of the other evangelists which
are omitted by St John are:

The agony (Matt., Mark, Luke),

The traitor’s kiss (Matt., Mark, Luke).

The desertion by all (Matt., Mark).
Comp. John xvi, 32.

The examination before the Sanhedrin at
night; the false witness; the adjuration;
the great Confession (Matt., Mark).

The mockery as prophet (Matt., Mark,
Luke).

The council at daybreak (Matt., Mark,
Luke).

The mockery after condemnation (Matt.,
Mark),

The impressment of Simon (Matt., Mark,
Luke).

The reproaches of spectators (Matt., Mark,
Luke) and of the robbers (Matt., Mark,
[Luke)).

The darkness (Matt., Mark, Luke).

The cry from Ps, xati, (Matt., Mark).

The rending of the veil (Matt., Mark).

The confession of the centurion (Matt.,
Mark, Luke).

Other incidents omitted by St John are
recorded by single Evangelists :

St Martruew.

Power over the hosts of heaven.

Pilate’s wife's message,

Pilate’s hand-washing,

The self-condemnation of the Jews.

The earthquake.

St Marx.

The flight of the young man. :
Pilate’s question as to the death of Christ,
Sr Luxe.

The examination before Herod.

The lamentation of the women,

Three “words” from the cross (xxiii. 34,
43, 46).

The repentance of one of the robbers,

4, The main incidents peculiar to St
John are:

The words of power at the arrest (xviii.
4-9),

The examination before Annas (xviii.
13—24),

The first conference of the Jews with
Pilate, and Pilate’s private examination
(xviii, 28—37, xix. 9—11). Comp. Matt.
xxvii. 11; Mark xv. 2; Luke xxiii, 3.

The first mockery, and the Ecce Homo
(xix, 2—5).

Pilate’s maintenance of his words (xix. 21,
22).

249
250

a Matt. 26.
36.

HEN Jesus had spoken these
words, @he went forth with
his disciples over the brook Cedron,

St. JOHN. XVIII.

[v.1, 2.

where was a garden, into the which
he entered, and his disciples.
2 And Judas also, which betrayed

 

The last charge (xix. 25—27).
The thirst. “It is finished” (xix. 28—
30).
The piercing the side (xix. 31—87).
The ministry of Nicodemus (xix, 39).
5. Inthe narrative of incidents recorded
elsewhere St John constantly adds details,
often minute and yet most significant; e.g.

XViii. 1, Xviii. 15. xix. 17.
— 2. — 16, — 19.
— 10. — 26. — 23.
—11. — 28. — 41.
— 12. xix. 14.

See the notes,

6. In the midst of great differences of
detail the Synoptists and St John offer
many impressive resemblances as to the
spirit and character of the proceedings; e.g.

(1) The activity of the “ High Priests”
(i.e. the Sadducean hierarchy) as distin-
guished from the Pharisees,

(2) The course of the accusation: civil
charge: religious charge: personal influ-
ence.

(3) The silence of the Lord in His
public accusations, with the significant
exception, Matt, xxvi. 64.

(4) The tone of mockery.

(5) The character of Pilate; haughty,
contemptuous, vacillating, selfish.

7. The succession of the main events
recorded by the four Evangelists appears
to have been as follows :

Approximate
time.
lam. The agony.
53 The betrayal.
3 The conveyance to the high-

priest's house, probably adjoin-
ing ‘“‘the Booths of Hanan.”
The preliminary examination
before Annas in the presence of
Caiaphas,
The examination before Caiaphas
and the Sanhedrin at an irregu-
lar meeting at “the Booths.”
The formal sentence of the San-
hedrin in thetr own proper place
of meeting, Gazith or Beth Mid-
rash (Luke xxii, 66); Matt.
xxvii, 1 (mpwias yevopervns:
comp. Mark xv. 1; Luke xxii. 66,
ws éyévero npepa),
The first examination before
Pilate, at the palace,
6.30a.m. The examination before Herod.
The scourging and first mockery
by the soldiers at the palace.
The sentence of Pilate (John
xix, 14, dpa hv as extn),
The second mockery by the
soldiers of the condemned
«“ King.”

2a.m,

3am,

5a.m,

6.30 a.m.

7am,

Approximate
time.
9am. The crucifixion, and rejection of

the stupefying draught (Mark
xv.25, 7v dpa tpirn).

12noon, The last charge.

12—3 p.m. The darkness (Matt. xxvii. 45;
Mark xv. 33; Luke xxiii, 44, #v
aoel dpa exrn...€ws Gpas evvarns

3p.m. Theend,

I. Tue Berrayat, Jesus and the disciples ;

Judas and the adversaries (I—11),
The substance of this section is peculiar
to St John, though it presents many points
of contact with the Synoptic narratives.

The conflict which the other Evangelists

record is here presupposed and regarded in

its issues. The victory follows the battle.

The Lord acts freely and with sovereign

and protecting power towards His enemies

and His disciples at the moment when He
is given over for death.
Cuap, XVIII. 1.

spoken...) ch. xvii, 1.

he went forth] from the limits of the city

(comp. 1 K. ii. 37), probably in the direc-

tion of the present St Stephen’s Gate, by

the same route as on other days when He

went to the Mount of Olives (Luke xxi. 37,

xxii, 39; Mark xi. 19; Matt, xxi. 17); but

now Jerusalem was left. The Lord re-

turned only to die there. In the parallel
passages the same word (é¢7AGev) is used,
according to the context, of the departure
from the upper room (Luke xxii, 39; Matt.
xxvi. 30; Mark xiv. 26).
the brook Cedron (Kidron)] See Addi-
tional Note. This detail is peculiar to St

John. The parallel narratives have simply

“went to the Mount of Olives.” The

exact description is probably introduced

with significant reference to the history
of the flight of David from Absalom and

Ahithophel (2 S. xv. 23; comp. ch. xiii. 18).

The “ brook” ( x¢{uappos, compare Neh. ii.

15; 1 Mace. xii, 37), te. winter torrent or

ravine (9m)). Kidron, separating the

Mount of Olives from the Temple-mount,
is noticed several times in the Old Testa-
ment: 1 K, ii. 37, xv. 13; 2 K. xxiii. 4 ff.;
2 Chro, xxix, 16; Jer, xxxi. 40, and these
passages mark the associations which would
be called up by the mention of the name.
For a description of the ravine and the
“Wady” see ‘ Dictionary of the Bible,’ s. v.

a garden] on the Mount of Olives (Luke
xxii, 39). The name of the “small farm”
(xwpiov ) to which it belonged, Gethsemane,
is given by St, Matthew and St Mark
(Matt. xxvi. 36, note; Mark’ xiv. 32).
Josephus mentions that ‘‘ gardens’’ (7apa-
Seoo. ) were numerous in the suburbs of

When Jesus had
v.3-]
him, knew the place: for Jesus offt-
times resorted thither with his dis-
ciples.

St. JOHN.

XVITI.

band of men and officers from the
chief priests and Pharisees, cometh

 

Jerusalem (‘B. J.’ vi. 1. 1. Comp. ch.
xix. 41). There is nothing in the con-
text to indicate the exact position of the
garden. ‘The traditional site, which may
be the true one, dates from the time of
Constantine, when ‘‘the faithful were
eager to offer their prayers there’’ (Euseb.
‘Onom.’ s. v.).

Commentators from Cyril downwards
have drawn a parallel and contrast be-
tween the histories of the Fall and the
Victory connected with the two “‘gardens,”’
Eden and Gethsemane. But there is no
indication in the Gospel that such a
thought was in the mind of the Evangelist.
Yet see Mark i. 13.

entered] The garden would naturally be
enclosed by a fence which secured the
privacy of the retreat. Some time passed
(Matt. xxvi. 40) between the entry into
the garden and the arrival of Judas. In
this interval the Agony took place, of
which St John says nothing, though he
implies a knowledge of the event in v. 11.
It is evident from xii. 27 that that inci-
dent is not alien from his narrative.

and his disciples] himself and his dis-
ciples. Judas was finally excluded from
the divine company : xiii. 30.

2. Judas also...... knew the place] The
withdrawal of the Lord from the city was
not now (x. 40) for the purpose of escaping
from the assaults of His enemies. The
place to which He retired was well known.
Judas, no less than the other apostles,
was acquainted with the spot. Thus the
words meet by anticipation the scoff of
Celsus that the Lord ‘‘was taken while
trying to hide Himself and to escape in
the most disgraceful way’’ (Orig. ‘c. Cels.’
11, 9), as Origen justly argues (td. c. 10).

which betrayed] The original (as in v. 5,
5 awapasidovs) marks the process of be-
trayal as going on, and not the single past
act (6 wapadovs, Matt. xxvii. 3). Comp.
xiii. 11. Judas was already engaged in
the execution of his plan. ;

oftimes] Comp. Luke xxii, 39, (xxi,
37). The word can scarcely be limited to
the present visit to Jerusalem. It is reason-
able to suppose that the owner was an
open or secret disciple of Christ. Comp.
Matt. xxvi. 18.

resorted] The exact force of the original
is rather, ‘‘ Jesus and (with) His disciples
assembled (cvv7jxOn) there.” The idea
appears to be that of a place of gathering,
where the Lord’s followers met Him for
instructiong and not simply of a resting-
place during the night. But it is possible
that the spot was used for this latter pur-
pose also during the present visit (Luke

xxi, 87, vAi¢ero), and that Judas ex-
pected to find all sleeping at the time of
his arrival. But the Lord’s nights were
now, as at the other crises of His life,
times of prayer (Luke vi. 12, ix. 28; comp.
Luke v. 16).

8—8. A difficulty arises as to the recon-
ciliation of the incidents described in this
passage with the narrative of the betrayal
in the Synoptists. In the Synoptists the
arrest follows close upon the kiss of Judas,
which St John does not mention (Matt.
xxvi. 50; Mark xiv. 45 f., yet see Luke
xxii. 48 ff.). It is very difficult to believe
that the kiss either preceded v, 4 or came
after v. 8. Perhaps it is simplest to suppose
that the unexpected appearance of the Lord
outside the enclosure discomposed the plan
of Judas, who had expected to find the whole
party resting within the garden, and that
for the moment he failed to give the ap-
pointed sign, and remained awestricken in
the crowd (v. 5). This being so, the event
of v. 6 followed, and afterwards Judas,
taking courage, came up to Christ (Matt.
xxvi. 49 f.; Mark xiv. 45), who then re-
pelled him (Luke xxii. 48) and again ad-
dressed the hesitating multitude.

Others suppose, with somewhat less pro-
bability, as it seems (but see Matt. xxvi.
49, note), that the kiss of Judas immedi-
ately preceded the first question, Whom
seek ye? and that, touched by his Master’s
reproof (Luke xxii. 48), he fell back into
the crowd. Either view presents an in-
telligible whole; but the phrase in v. 5
(was standing) is more appropriate to the
attitude of one who hesitates to do that
which he has purposed to do, than of one
who has been already repulsed.

It may be added that, though St John
does not mention the ‘‘sign’’ of Judas,
yet he implies that he had undertaken to
do more than guide the band to the place
where Christ might be found, by noticing
that he was with them after they had
reached the spot (v. 5).

8. Judas then (therefore)...] using his
knowledge for the furtherance of his
design.

a band of men and officers from...) the
band of soldiers and officers from... The
force is clearly divided in the original into
two main parts: (1) the band of soldiers,
and (2) the ‘‘ officers” (police) despatched
by ‘‘ the chief priests and Pharisees”
(the Sanhedrin). The soldiers were part
of the well-known body of Roman soldiers
stationed as a garrison in Antonia (comp.
Matt. xxvii. 27; Mark xv. 16; Acts xxi.
31 f.; and also Jos. ‘Ant.’ xx. 4. 3; ‘BJ.’
v. 5. 8). The original word (oveipa) is

251
3 oJudas then, having received a b Matt. 26.
252

thither with lanterns and torches and
weapons.
4 Jesus therefore, knowing all

things that should come upon him,

St. JOHN. XVIII.

[v. 4, 5.
went forth, and said unto them,
Whom seek ye?

5 They answered him, Jesus of
Nazareth. Jesus saith unto them, I

 

used by Polybius as the representative of
the Latin manipulus (not cohors: see
Polyb. x1. 23, with Schweighauser’s note),
vonsisting of about 200 men, the third
part of a cohort. Whether the word is
taken here in this technical sense (v. 12,
note), or (as is more likely) in the larger
sense of ‘‘cohort,’? which it appears to
bear in the New Testament, it will natur-
ally be understood that only a detachment
of the whole body was present with their
commander (v. 12).

The “officers” (tanpérat) who came with
“the band’? were members of the temple-
police, who were under the orders of the
Sanhedrin. Comp. vii. 32, 45 ff.; Actsv.
22, 26.

In the Synoptists the whole company is
described in general terms (Matt. xxvi. 47;
Mark xiv. 43; Luke xxii. 47; comp. xxii.
52), and the soldiers are not distinctly men-
tioned. But it is difficult to suppose that
the priests would have ventured on such
an arrest as that of Christ without com-
municating with the Roman governor, or
that Pilate would have found difficulty in
granting them a detachment of men for
the purpose, especially at the feast-time.
Moreover, Pilate’s early appearance (v. 28)
at the court, no less than the dream of
his wife (Matt. xxvii. 19, that just man),
implies some knowledge of the coming
charge. Perhaps too it is not fanciful to
see a reference to the soldiers in the turn
of the phrase ‘‘twelve legions of angels”’
(Matt. xxvi. 53).

The special mention of the soldiers and
of the watch fixes attention on the com-
bination of Gentile and Jew in this first
stage of the Passion as afterwards.

the chief priests and Pharisees] and the
Pharisees. Comp. xi. 47, note.

with lanterns and torches] Although the
party had the light of the Paschal full
moon, they prepared themselves also
against the possibility of concealment on
the part of Him whom they sought. The
other Evangelists do not notice the lights.
The detail belongs to a vivid impression
of the scene received by an eye-witness.
The temple-watch, to whom the “‘ officers”’
belonged, made their rounds with torches
(‘Middoth’ 1. 2, quoted by Lightfoot on
Rev. xvi. 15; and in a most interesting
note on Luke xxii. 4), and were, for the
most part, not regularly armed (Jos.
‘B. J.’ iv. 4. 6).

4. Jesus therefore...) There was, so to
speak, a divine necessity which ruled the
Lord’s movements. By Him all was fore-
seen : and He who had before withdrawn
Himself (viii. 59, xii, 36, v. 18, vi. 15),

now that ‘‘ His hour was come’’ antici-
pated the search for which His enemies
had made provision, and went forth from
the enclosure of the garden (opposed to
entered, v. 1) to meet them (not simply
from the innermost part of the garden or
from the circle of the disciples: v. 26
proves nothing against this view). The
clause corresponds with the words in St
Matthew (xxvi. 46) and St Mark (xiv. 42),
“Rise, let us be going,’’ which are fol-
lowed by, ‘‘ Behold he is at hand that be-
trayeth me.”

that should come...] More exactly, all the
things that were coming (mdvra ra ép-
xXépeva). The Passion has already begun.
Comp, xiii. 1, note. It must further be
noticed that the Passion is spoken of in
relation to the divine order (the things that
were coming), and not as sufferings to be
borne, or evil prepared by enemies. Comp.
v. Il.

went (or came) forth, and said] ... and
saith. According to the true reading the
two acts are marked separately. Christ
left the place in which He might have
sought concealment; and then He ad-
dressed those who sought to take Him.

Whom seek ye?) The question (as in v. 8)
is designed to shield the disciples, and at
the same time to bring clearly before the
mind of the assailants the purpose for
which they had come, and who He was
whom they sought. The words fall in
completely with the circumstances. The
Lord was not recognised in the uncertain
light. The company who had come to
apprehend Him naturally supposed that
He would not Himself advance to meet
them, but that the questioner must be
some friend. The idea of early commenta-
tors, that they were miraculously blinded,
finds no support in the narrative.

5. Jesus of Nazareth] The tinge of con-
tempt (comp. Matt. ii. 23), which appears
to lie in the title here, as borrowed from
popular usage, is given better by the literal
rendering, Jesus the Nazarene (I. Tov
Nafwpatov, as distinguished from ’I. rdv
dad Nafapéer, i. 45). Comp, xix. 19; Matt,
xxvi. 71; Mark xiv. 67. ‘The title is
characteristic of the first stage of the
preaching of the Gospel, when the reproach
was turned into glory: Acts ii. 22, iii. 6,
iv. 10, vi. 14, (xxii. 8, xxvi. 9). It was
also used by disciples at an earlier date:
Mark x. 47, xvi. 6; Luke xviii. 37, xxiv.
19. Comp. Mark i. 24; Luke iv. 34.

Jesus (He) saith... am he] The same
words (éyw eijt) were used on several
memorable occasions, (iv. 26), vi. 20! viii,
24, 28, 58, and on this evening, xiii, 19.
v.6—10.]

am he. And Judas also, which be-
trayed him, stood with them.

6 As soon then as he had said un-
to them, I am he, they went back-
ward, and fell to the ground.

7 Then asked he them again,
Whom seek ye? And they said, Je-

sus of Nazareth,

Sr. JOHN.

XVIII. 2

8 Jesus answered, I have told you
that Iam he : if therefore ye seek me,
let these go their way :

9 That the saying might be ful-
filled, which he spake, cOf them
which thou gavest me have I lost
none.

1o Then Simon Peter having a

 

For Judas at least they must have been
significant, though, as they stand in the
context, they simply reveal the Person
sought, and not His nature. But the self-
revelation of Christ tries to the uttermost
and answers the thoughts which men have
of Him,

And Judas...stood...]...was standing, The
one figure is singled out, as it were, and
regarded as he stands. Comp. i. 35, note,
There is nothing in the text to support the
view that Judas was paralysed and unable
to recognise Jesus.

6. As soon then as he had said...(or,
When therefore... as obv)] Omit the had.
The incident which follows is made to
depend upon the Lord’s words. It is vain
to inquire whether the withdrawal and
prostration of the band of men was due
to “natural’’ or “supernatural” causes.
On any view it was due to the effect which
the presence of the Lord, in His serene
majesty, had upon those who had come to
take Him, Various circumstances may have
contributed to the result. It may have been
that Judas had led his company to expect
some display of power. It may have been
that he himself hoped for a decisive mani-
festation of Messiah in sovereignty now
that the crisis had come. But the prostra-
tion seems to shew, at any rate, that the
Lord proposed to declare openly to the
disciples (comp. Matt. xxvi. 53), that it
was of His own free choice that He gave
Himself up. And this is the effect which
the narrative is calculated to produce upon
a reader, The Lord’s assailants were over-
awed by Him in some way, and they
fulfilled their commission only by His
zonsent. Comp, vii. 46.

went backward, and fell...) The whole
action represents the effects of fear, awe,
veneration, self-humiliation (Job i. 20), not
of external force. Comp. Rev. i. 17. The
exaggeration which describes the men as
“falling backwards” is utterly alien from
the solemn majesty of the scene,

7. Then asked he them again] Again
therefore he asked them. This literal ren-
dering of the original brings out the con-
nexion more clearly than A. V. Those
who had come to arrest the Lord hung
back, and therefore He Himself again
roused them to their work. The spirit of
the Lord’s words, thus addressed to the
whole company, orresponds with that of

the words addressed to Judas “Js it this
for which thou art come?” (Matt. xxvi. 50,
note),

Jesus of Nazareth] Even after Christ
had made Himself known, His enemies
only repeat the name which they had been
taught, as if waiting for some further
guidance,

8. I have told you.,.let these go] told
you... In the interval which had passed
since the Lord came out from the garden
alone (v. 4), His disciples had gathered
round Him (let these go), and for them
He still intercedes. Their deliverance helped
to place His own Passion in a clearer light.
It was fitting that He should suffer alone,
though afterwards others suffered for His
sake, His death, in itself essentially unique,
was separated outwardly from the death
of His disciples. They were enabled to die
because He had died first. Comp. Isai. 1xiii.
3.

9. That the saying (word)...which thou
gavest me have I lost...) ...which thou hast
given me I lost. The Evangelist sees in
the care with which the Lord provided for
the outward safety of His disciples, a ful-
filment of His words, xvii. 12, which were
spoken of the past, and which had also a
wider spiritual application. But, at the
same time, those words spoken in absolute
knowledge looked to the end, and therefore
included all the events of the Passion
(comp. xvii, 4, note); and, further, the
deliverance of the disciples from outward
peril included the deliverance from a
temptation which they would not at present
(as appears from the history of St Peter)
have been able to support. This special
act of watchful protection was therefore
one fulfilment, but neither the only nor the
chief fulfilment, of what the Lord had
said of His effective guardianship of those
given to Him. The significant difference
in the form of the words, as spoken and
as referred to (Z lost not one, as distin-
guished from not one perished), is to be
noticed.

10. Then Simon Peter...) Simon Peter
therefore...foreseeing what was now about
to happen (comp, xiii, 37). The Jews
among the company seem to have been
foremost in the arrest. The incident is
described by all the Evangelists, but St
John alone mentions the names of St Peter
and Malchus. It is easy to see why these

53

cchap. 17.
1a
254

sword drew it, and smote the high
priest’s servant, and cut off his right
ear. The servant’s name was Mal-
chus.

1r Then said Jesus unto Peter, Put
up thy sword into the sheath: the

St. JOHN. XVIII.

[v. 11—13.

cup which my Father hath given me,
shall I not drink it?

12 Then the band and the captain
and officers of the Jews took Jesus,
and bound him,

13 And led him away to Annas

 

were not likely to be particularised in the
original oral Gospel, while both were alive
and at Jerusalem (see Matt. xxvi. 51;
Mark xiv, 47, and notes). In St. Matthew
and St Mark the incident appears to be
placed after “the multitude” had “laid
their hands on Jesus and taken” (éxpdtnoav)
Him (Matt, xxvi. 50; Mark xiv. 46); and
St Luke implies the same (xxii, 51). St
John, on the other hand, appears to place
the “binding” afterwards. If it beso, the
two accounts are easily reconcileable. It
was perfectly natural that the Lord should
be first seized by some of the more eager
of the crowd, and then afterwards bound
by the Roman guard (v. 12). St Peter’s
act fell in the brief space of confusion be-
tween these two events.

sword) It was forbidden to carry
weapons on a feast-day.

the high priest’s servant] or rather, the
servant (SovAos) of the high-priest. The
definite article(rdv Tov dpy.6.)is preserved
in all the Gospels. It is impossible to tell
what position he held, or why the Evan-
gelist records his name, which was not an
uncommon one. The servant’s prominent
action evidently marked him out for St
Peter’s attack. And further it is difficult
not to feel that the healing of the wound,
recorded only by St Luke (xxii. 51), helps
to explain the apostle’s escape from arrest.

ll. Then said Jesus...thy sword] Jesus
therefore said...the sword, The words are
given more at length in St Matthew, xxvi.
52 ff. The tone of the two records is iden-
tical, and the reference to the Scriptures,
preserved only by St Matthew, serves to
illustrate one side of the phrase ‘‘ which
my Father hath given me.”

the cup...] This clause is peculiar to St
John. The same image occurs in the
Synoptists, Matt. xx. 22 f. (note); Mark
x. 88 f.; and in connexion with this scene,
Matt. xxvi. 39 ff.; Mark xiv. 86; Luke
xxii. 42. It seems impossible not to feel
that the words include the answer to the
prayer at the Agony, not recorded by St
John (Matt. xxvi. 39, ‘‘O my Father...let
this cup pass away’’...), for now, after the
prayer, that ‘‘cup’”’ is spoken of as ‘‘the
cup which my Father hath given me.”
The cup was not taken away, but given,
and the Lord now shews that He had re-
ceived it willingly. The image is found in
several remarkable passages of the Old
Testament : Ezek. xxiii. 31 ff.; Ps, Ixxv.
8, &e.

II. Tue Dovere Triat (xviii. 12—xix. 16).
(i.) The ecclesiastical trial (xviii. 12—27).
(ii.) The civil trial (xviii, 28—xix. 16).

1. The ecclesiastical trial. Master and
disciples, Jesus and the high-priests,
Peter and the servants, xviii. 12—27.

The record of the examination before
Annas is peculiar to the narrative of St
John, The Evangelist appears to have been
present at the inquiry (vv. 15, 19). See
Additional Note.

12. Then the band...and officers ...] The
band therefore (or, So the band)...and the
officers... Seeing that there was no longer
any resistance. The enumeration—the
band, the captain, the officers—is emphatic
and impressive. All combined to take the
willing prisoner. In particular it will be
observed that the action of the Roman
guard is now noticed. They probably se-
cured the Lord and delivered Him to the
priest’s servants ‘bound’ (comp. v. 24).
The ‘‘ bonds” are not mentioned in the Sy-
noptists till afterwards (Matt. xxvii. 2,
note; Mark xv. 1); yet such a precaution
is implied in their narrative. It was the
policy of the priestly party to represent
Christ as a dangerous enemy to public
order; and perhaps they really feared a
rescue by the ‘‘ people’? (Matt. xxvi. 5).
Early Christian writers laid stress upon
the ‘binding’? as marking the parallel
with Isaac (Gen. xxii. 9; Melito, ap.
Routh, ‘ Rell. Sacr.’ 1. 123 f.).

The title of the ‘‘ captain”’ in the original
(xtAtapxos) favours the view that ‘‘the
band’’ was a ‘‘cohort,”’ and not a smaller
body (‘‘maniple’): comp. Acts xxi. 31.
The word ‘“‘chiliarch’? was used as the
equivalent of ‘‘tribune,”’ the proper title
of the commander of a “cohort ;’’ and the
other places in which a ‘‘band” (o7eipa)
is spoken of in the New Testament suggest
the same conclusion: Acts x. 1, xxvii. 1.
The rendering of ovretpa) in the Latin ver-
sions is uniformly cohort. The words
‘‘band” and ‘‘ captain’? may however be
both used in a general and not in a techni-
cal sense for a detachment of soldiers and
the officer in command of it. (Comp. Rev.
vi, 15, xix. 18, and Suidas s. v. ometpa).

13. led him (om. away) to Annas first]
Annas (or Hanan, Ananias, Ananus) is one
of the most remarkable figures in the
Jewish history of the time. His unex-
ampled fortune was celebrated in that he
himself and his five sons held the high
priesthood in succession. He was high-
v.14—16.] St. JOHN.

first; for he was father in law to
And An. C2iaphas, which was the high priest
assené = that same year.|l
a 14 4Now Caiaphas was he, which
‘aigphas_ «gave council to the Jews, that it

he high :
reste was expedient that one man should

er, 24. 50, die for the people.

priest himself from a.p. 7—14 (Jos, ‘ Ant.’
xvi. 2. 1 f.); then, after w short time
his son Eleazar held the office for a year;
and after a year’s interval, his son-in-law
Joseph Caiaphas succeeded and held the
office till a. D. 835—6 (Jos. 1. c.). Another
son of Annas succeeded Caiaphas, and
three other sons afterwards held the office,
the last. of whom, who bore his father’s
name, put to death James the brother of the
Lord (Jos. ‘ Ant.’ xx. 8. 1). This mere re-
cord reveals the skilful intriguer who exer-
cised through members of his family the
headship of his party (comp. Luke iii. 2;
Acts iv. 6). In the Talmud (‘ Pesach.’ 57 a,
quoted by Derenbourg, p. 232 n.) we find
a curse on ‘‘the family of Hanan and their
serpent-hissings’’ (comp, Matt. iii. 7). The
relationship of Caiaphas to Annas is not
mentioned by any writer except St John,
and yet this relationship alone explains
how Caiaphas was able to retain his office
by the side of Annas and his sons.

The narrative of St John lends no sup-
port to the conjecture (which, however,
may be true) that Annas held high office
at the time, as the presidency of the San-
hedrin, which gave him a constitutional
right to take the lead in the inquiry. The
reason given for the proceeding—his family
connexion with Caiaphas—lays open alike
the character of the man and the character
of the trial. See Additional Note.

first] This word conveys a tacit correc-
tion of the popular misunderstanding of
the Synoptic narratives. The Lord was
examined before Caiaphas (v. 24), but there
was also a prior examination.

which was the high priest that same
year] See ch, xi. 49, note. Comp. Taylor,
‘Sayings of the Jewish Fathers,’ 1. 19,

note, 111, 26, note (B\’) 43).

14, Now Caiaphas was he...] Ch. xi. 50.
The clause appears to be added to shew
presumptively what would be the selfish
policy of « man who had chosen such a
son. Annas exercised his power through
those who were like him.

15. followed] The imperfect (KoA 0vGex)
paints the action in progress. For the fact
comp. Matt. xxvi. 58 and parallels. After
the panic, in which all the disciples fled
(Matt. xxvi, 56, some again took courage
(Matt. xxvi. 58).

another disciple] not the other (6 dAAos).
The reader cannot fail to identify the dis-
ciple with St John. Comp, xx. 2.

XVIII. 255

15 9§ eAnd Simon Peter followed e MO 26.

Jesus, and so did another disciple :
that disciple was known unto the
high priest, and went in with Jesus
into the palace of the high priest.

16 But Peter stood at the door
without. Then went out that other

known (yvwords. Comp. Luke ii. 44,
xxiii. 49)) No tradition (so far as it ap-
pears) has preserved the nature of the con-
nexion; nor is it possible to draw any
satisfactory conclusion from the fact that
both St John (Polycr. ap Euseb. ‘H. E.’
v. 24)) and St James the Just, ‘‘ the brother
of the Lord’’ (Epiph. ‘ Her.’ Lxxvitt. 14),
are said to have worn the zéraAoy or plate
attached to the high-priest’s mitre.

unto the high priest] It is very difficult
to decide who is here spoken of under the
title. Annas is called the high-priest in
Acts iv. 6, while Caiaphas is named at the
same time without any title; and so
Josephus (‘Antt.” xvin. 5. 3; comp.
Xvi. 3 (2). 2) speaks of ‘‘ Jonathan the
son of Ananus (Annas) the high-priest’’
after the removal of Caiaphas. In Luke
ui, 2, Annas and Caiaphas bear the title
together. It is therefore at least possible
that Annas may be referred to. On the
other hand, Caiaphas has just been de-
scribed as ‘‘ the high-priest’’ (v. 18), is so
called again in +. 24, where Annas also is
mentioned. These facts make it difficult
to suppose that the title is abruptly used,
without any explanation, to describe
Annas.

the palace (court, see Matt, xxvi. 58;
Mark xiv. 54 and notes) of the high priest]
t.e. of Caiaphas. It is quite reasonable to
suppose that Annas still retained a lodg-
ing, in what appears to have been an
official residence. In this case there is no
discrepancy between St John and the
Synoptists as to the scene of St Peter’s
denials (the residence of Caiaphas). Nor
indeed would there be any difficulty in
supposing that Annas presided at an
examination in the house of Caiaphas,
though he did not live there. St Luke
(xxii. 54) says that the Lord was led ‘‘ into
the house of the high priest,’’ without
mentioning any name. By this form of
expression the Evangelist perhaps wished
to indicate that He was not brought at
once officially before Caiaphas, though He
was taken to his palace. The language of
St Matthew suggests the same idea (Matt.
xxvi. 57, ‘‘to Caiaphas...where...’’).

The idea that a change of scene from the
house of Annas to the house of Caiaphas is
marked in this verse is most unnatural.
The narrative of the whole section (vv.
13—17) implies an identity of scene.

16. Peter stood)...was standing. Comp.
v. 5, note.
256
disciple, which was known unto the
high priest, and spake unto her that
kept the door, and brought in Peter.

17 Then saith the damsel that
kept the door unto Peter, Art not
thou also one of this man’s disciples ?
He saith, I am not.

18. And the servants and officers
stood there, who had made a fire of

St. JOHN. XVIII.

[v. 17—20.

coals; for it was cold: und they
warmed themselves : and Peter stood
with them, and warmed himself.

19 { The high priest then asked
Jesus of his disciples, and of his
doctrine.

20 Jesus answered him, I spake
openly to the world; I ever taught
in the synagogue, and in the temple,

 

her that kept the door] Comp. Acts xii.
13.

17. Then saith the damsel...) The maid
therefore... The acquaintance of St Peter
with St John suggested the question. St
John meanwhile (it must be supposed) had
pressed on into the audience-chamber, so
that St Peter was alone. St John, who
remained closest to the Lord, was un-
molested : St Peter, who mingled with the
indifferent crowd, fell.

Art not thou also (Art thou...)...Jas well
as thy friend (John). The form of the
question expresses surprise, and suggests a
negative answer. See vi. 67, vii. 47, ix.
40. The contemptuous turn of the sen-
tence, ‘‘ one of the disciples of this man,”’
corresponds with the same feeling. As the
suggestion was made St Peter yielded to
it. His answer both here and in v. 25
simply reflects the temper of his ques-
tioners.

18. And the servants and officers stood
there, who had made...] Now the servants
and the officers, having made...were stand-
ing... The Roman soldiers had now gone
back, and the private servants of the high-
priest (600Aoz), and the officers—the
temple-police (irnpérat)—alone remained.

a fire of coals] A charcoal fire. There
was no bright flame, but a glow of light
sufficient to shew the features of any one
turned towards it, Luke xxii. 56 (mpds
7d pas).

for it was cold] As a general rule, the
nights in Palestine about Easter-time are
said to be warm throughout. The cold on
this occasion appears to be spoken of as
unusual,

and Peter stood with them, and warmed
himself] and Peter also was with them,
standing and warming himself. Comp.
v, 25. The two main ideas are kept dis-
tinct. Peter had joined the company of
the indifferent spectators; he was en-
gaged in a trivial act. Such outward in-
difference often veils the deepest emotion.

19. The high priest then (therefore)...}
t.e. probably Caiaphas. See v. 15, note.
The narrative is connected with v. 14. The
Master is now contrasted with the disciple.
It is probable that a better acquaintance
with the history of the time would remove

the difficulty which arises from Caiaphas
taking the lead in the examination before
Annas. Yet it is easy to imagine that ar-
rangements may have been made for a
private examination in the chamber of
Annas, at which Caiaphas was himself
present, and in which he took part. At
the close of this unofficial proceeding,
Annas, the real leader in the whole action,
sent Jesus to Caiaphas for a formal trial.

of his disciples...of his doctrine (teach-
ing)] This preliminary examination was
directed to the obtaining (if possible) of
materials for the formal accusation which
was to follow. With this view, it was
natural to inquire into the class, the
character, the number of the Lord’s dis-
ciples, and into the general substance of
His teaching.

20. The Lord leaves unnoticed the ques-
tion as to His disciples (comp. v. 8), and
fixes the attention of the questioner upon
Himself alone. Hence an emphatic pro-
noun stands at the head of each clause. 7
(éyé), whatever others may have done
with whom you wish to compare me, I
have spoken openly ... I (éyd) ever
taught... So the Lord presents His teach-
ing first as a completed whole (ZJ have
spoken, xvi. 38), and then in its historic
presentation (Z ever taught). The form of
the sentence at the same time suggests a
contrast between the openness of His con-
duct and the treachery which His enemies
had employed.

openly] Without reserve. Comp. vii. 18,
note.

to the world] Comp. viii. 26. The teach-
ing of the Lord was not addressed to any
select group of followers, even if it was
veiled in parables which required spiritual
sympathy for their interpretation, Matt.
xiii, 10 ff,

ever (always)] The word does not of
course mean that the Lord’s teaching was
confined to these public places, but that at
all times He used opportunities of speak-
ing in them.

tn the synagogue ...] Or rather, in syn-
gogue, ‘‘when people were gathered in
solemn assembly” (€y ovvaywyf, a8 dis-
tinguished from éy rats cvvaywyais, Matt.
ix. 35, &c.). Comp. vi. 59, note.

the Jews always resort] According to the
Or, with
a rod.

 

v.21—27.]

whither the Jews always resort; and
in secret have I said nothing.

21 Why askest thou me? ask them
which heard me, what I have said unto
them : behold, they know what I said.

22 And when he had thus spoken,
one of the officers which stood by
struck Jesus llwith the palm of his
hand, saying, Answerest thou the
high priest so?

23 Jesus answered him, If I have
spoken evil, bear witness of the evil :
but if well, why smitest thou me?

true reading, all the Jews resort (come to-
gether), and not a mere party or clique.
The combination ‘‘always,”’ ‘‘all’’ ( révrore,
waves), is singuiarly emphatic. Christ was
from first to last a universal teacher, and
not the founder of a sect. In manner,
time, place, audience, He sought absolute
publicity.

in sercet have I said] in secret I spake.
The words simply exclude the purpose of
concealment. What the disciples heard in
the ear they were charged to proclaim on
the housetops (Matt. x. 27).

21. Why askest...] The accusers are
bound to establish their charge indepen-
dently.

which heard me, what I have said...they
know...] which have heard me, what I
spake...these know... The tense (dKyKod-
ras,not dxovcwavras) and the pronoun (ofrot)
seem both to point directly to persons
actually present or close at hand, who were
able to speak with full knowledge if they
pleased. Thus the Lord claims that the
examination may proceed in due order by
the calling of witnesses; and, according to
the rule, the witnesses for the defence
were called first (‘ Sanh.’ f. 32, 1; f. 40. 1,
quoted by Lightfoot, ‘Hor, Hebr.,’ on v.
15).

te. with...his hand] Or, ‘‘ with a rod.”
This latter sense suits perhaps better with
the word used for “smiting’ (dép«s),
though: the sense given in the text ap-
pears to be more appropriate to the cir-
cumstances. Comp. xix. 3; Acts xxiii. 2
ff. This insult is to be distinguished from
the corresponding acts mentioned, Matt.
xxvi. 67; Luke xxii. 63, 64.

23. If I have spoken (rather spake)
evil...] The Lord addresses the servant
as one who had heard Him, and as such
He challenges him to bear just evidence as
to His words, and not to use mere vio-
lence. The reference (as it appears) is not
to the words just uttered (v. 21), but to
the teaching of the Lord which was called
in question (v. 20, Z spake; v. 21, what I
spake ; v. 23, if I spake). Theold commen-
tators saw in the calm rebuke a true in-
terpretation of the precept, Matt. v. 39.

St. JOHN.

XVIII.

bound unto Caiaphas the high priest.

25 And Simon Peter stood and
warmed himself.
fore unto him, Art not thou also one
of his disciples? He denied it, and
said, I am not.

26 One of the servants of the high
priest being his kinsman whose ear
Peter cut off, saith, Did not I see
thee in the garden with him?

27 Peter then denied again: and
immediately the cock crew.

24. Now Annas had sent him...] Annas
therefore sent him... The words cannot
be rendered otherwise. See Additional
Note. The private interrogation at which
Caiaphas had assisted led to no decisive
result, Annas therefore sent Jesus to the
high-priest officially, but as one already
stamped with a sign of condemnation
(dmérretAev, despatched; comp. note on
xx. 21). During the inquiry the Lord
would naturally be set free. This explains
the notice that He was (again) ‘‘ bound”
before going to Caiaphas.

25. And Simon Peter stood and warmed
himself] Simon Peter was standing and
warming himself. Comp. v. 18.

They said therefore...) Since St Peter
was evidently a stranger among them,
attention was necessarily turned again to
him, when the Lord was again brought
into the court at the close of the private
examination before Caiaphas, and so occa-
sion was given for the second questioning.
During this passage it would be easy for
the Lord to turn and ‘look on Peter’
(Luke xxii. 61), when He had already gone
by near him.

Art not thou also...) Art thou... The
form of question is the same as that in v.
17. Something no doubt in St Peter’s
manner, as the Lord was led by, betrayed
his love. Whereupon followed the words
of surprise: Can tt be that thou also art
one of His disciples?

26. being his kinsman (a kinsman of
him)...] A detail which marks an exact
knowledge of the household (v. 15).

in the garden] as one of His chosen dis-
ciples, who were gathered behind the Lord
when He stood outside at the entrance
facing the crowd (v. 4).

27, Peter then (therefore)...] He was
already committed to the denial. St John,
like St Luke, omits all the aggravations of
St Peter’s denials (Matt. xxvi. 70, 72, 74;
Mark xiv. 71).

the cock crew] The indefinite-form of the
phrase (a cock crew) is far more expressive
than A. V., which rather describes the
time than the incident. The silence of the

257

24 fNow Annas had sent him / Matt. 26.

gThey said there- « Matt. 26
258

4 Matt. 27. 2.

T,
Pilate’s
house.

§ Acts 10. 28.

28 J hThen led they Jesus from
Caiaphas unto "the hall of judgment:
and it was early; iand they them-

St. JOHN. XVIII.

[v. 28.

selves went not into the judgment
hall, lest they should be defiled ; but
that they might eat the passover.

 

Evangelist, as to the repentance of St
Peter, is illustrated by xxi. 15 ff., where
the fact is pre-supposed. The episode of
Peter’s fall is given as the fulfilment of
the Lord’s word (xiii, 38), who knew to
the last detail what he had to bear.

ii. The civil trial. The divine King and
the Roman governor. The divine King
and the apostate people. xviii. 28—
xix. 16.

The detailed account of the private
examinations before Pilate (xviii. 33—37,
xix, 8—11) is peculiar to St John (comp.
Matt. xxvii. 11 ff. and parallels; 1 Tim.
vi. 13). St John probably went within
the palace. He would not be deterred by
the scruple of the Jews (v. 28) under such
circumstances, and there does not appear
to have been any other obstacle to en-
trance. The apostle who had followed the
Lord to the presence of the high-priest
would not shrink from following Him to
the presence of the governor.

It will be noticed that St John’s narra-
tive explains the language of Pilate to the
Jews and to the Lord, which is abrupt
and unprepared in the Synoptic narratives.

The narrative falls into several distinct
sections corresponding to scenes without
and within the Pretorium.

1. Without the Pretorium. The Jews
claim the execution of their sentence (xviii.
28—32).

2. Within the Pretorium. ‘‘ The good
confession.’’ Christ a King (83—387).

8. Without the Pretorium. First de-
claration of innocence. Barabbas (88—40).

4. Within the Pratorium. Scourging :
mockery (xix. 1—3).

5. Without the Pretorium. Second
and third declarations of innocence. ‘‘ Ecce
homo,”’ ‘‘ Son of God’’ (4—7),

6. Within the Pratorium. The source
of authority, and from this the measure
of guilt (8—11).

7. Without the Pretorium. Conviction
overpowered : the King abjured: the last
sentence (12—16).

1, vv, 28—82. Without the Pretorium :
Pilate and the Jews: the claim and the
refusal.

28. Then led they Jesus] They lead
Jesus therefore... Comp. Matt. xxvii. 1 f.
The examination before Caiaphas (Matt.
xxvi. 59 ff, and parallels) is implied, and
also its necessary issue. The sentence was
determined, but the Sanhedrin had no
power to carry it out. The subject (they)
is not exactly defined. The principal actors
(‘‘the chief priests and Pharisees,’’ ‘‘ the

Jews’’) are everywhere present to the mind
of the Evangelist. Comp. xix. 4.

hall of judgment) the palace. The official
residence (head-quarters) of the Roman
governor (7paruwptov). This was the techni-
cal sense of pretorium in the provinces
(comp. Acts xxiii, 35). At Rome the usage
of the word was different (comp. Lightfoot,
‘Philippians,’ pp. 97ff.). The building
occupied by Pilate is commonly supposed
to have been the palace built by Herod on
the western hill of Jerusalem. This was
certainly occupied at a later time by the
Roman governors (Philo, ‘Leg. ad Cai.’
1034), but there is not any direct evidence,
as far as appears, that it was occupied by
Pilate, and on the whole it seems to be
more probable (comp. xix. 18) that Pilate
occupied quarters in Antonia, according to
the traditional view. See the Additional
Note on Matt. xxvii. 2.

it was early) Comp. Matt. xxvii. 1
parallels. The term (7pw?) is used techni-
cally for the fourth watch, 3—6 a.m. (Mark
xiii. 35). A condemnation to death at night
was technically illegal (Matt. 7. c. note),
An early meeting of the Sanhedrin appears
to have been held to confirm the decision
already made, and so to satisfy the form of
law, which however was broken by the
infliction and execution of the sentence
on the day of trial. A Roman court could
be held at any time after sunrise. On this
occasion it was probably held as early as
possible, Pilate, as we may suppose, had
been prepared for the charge when applica-
tion was made for the detachment of
soldiers.

they themselves] In contrast with the
Lord, who was now probably committed
again to the soldiers, and taken within the
Pretorium (v, 33).

lest they should be... ; but that they might
..] that they might not be...but might...

be defiled) by entering a house from
which all leaven had not been scrupulously
removed. The pretorium was placed
under the protection of tutelary deities
(Geot of Tod syepovexot zpattwpiov,
‘Journal of Philology, 1876, pp. 126 ff. ;
comp. Tac. ‘Hist.’ rr, 10), but such a
dedication is out of the question at
Jerusalem. Pilate had learnt by bitter ex-
perience with what fierceness the Jews re-
sented every semblance of a violation of
their religious feelings (Jos. ‘Bel, Jud.’ 11.
9. 2. Comp. Philo, ‘Leg. ad Cai.’ § 38).

eat the passover] See note on Matt.
XXVi.

29. Pilate then (therefore)...said (saith)]
Pilate is introduced quite abruptly, without
any title or explanation, as one perfectly
V. 29—33.] St. JOHN.

29 Pilate then went out unto them,
and said, What accusation bring ye
against this man?

30 They answered and said unto
him, If he were not a malefactor,
we would not have delivered him up
unto thee.

31 Then said Pilate unto them,
Take ye him, and judge him accord-
ing to your law. The Jews there-

XVIII. 259

fore said unto him, It is not lawful
for us to put any man to death:

32 kThat the saying of Jesus k Matt. 2

might be fulfilled, which he spake,
signifying what death he should
die.

33 ‘Then Pilate entered into the I Matt. 27

judgment hall again, and called Je-
sus, and said unto him, Art thou the
King of the Jews?

 

well known. Comp. Mark xv. 1; Luke xxiii.
1, In St Matthew he is commonly spoken
of as “the governor” (Matt, xxvii. 2, note),
a title not found in St John. The scrupu-
lousness of Pilate needs some explanation
(contrast Acts xxii, 24). The explanation
is probably supplied by St Matthew (Matt.
xxvii. 19) in the message of Pilate’s wife,
which at least indicates that the accusation
of Jesus had made an impression upon her,
and so probably in Pilate’s household.
There is a slight trace in the narrative of
St Matthew (ch. xxvii. 19,-note) of the
informal manner in which the trial was in
part conducted.

went out] The best authorities add
“without” (€£w). St John appears to
emphasize the fact that Pilate “ went forth
without” his own pretorium, as if it were
symbolic of the whole proceeding.

What accusation) The words do not
necessarily imply that Pilate was ignorant
of the character of the charge (see v. 4).
Pilate requires that the charge should be
made formally.

30f. The Jews were evidently unpre-
pared for the governor's hesitation in such
a case; and attempted to claim the fulfil-
ment of their sentence without rendering
account of the grounds on which it rested.
Pilate met this affectation of independence
by bidding them carry out their purpose to
the end by their own authority : Pilate
therefore said, Take him yourselves (tpeis).
On this they are forced to confess that
nothing less than death will satisfy them,
and this punishment they cannot, inflict.

malefactor] Literally, doing evil (kaxdv
mouov), actively engaged inevil. The word
in St Luke, xxiii. 32, is different (xaxovpyos),

81. Take ye him...) Take him yourselves
...The words have a tinge of irony (your-
selves, your law); and_ Pilate implicitly
reminds the Jews of the limits within which
their power of “judgment ”’ was confined.

The Jews said (om, therefore)...] Pilate’s
words left them no alternative. They couid
not escape from revealing their purpose ;
and probably they now brought forward
against Christ the charge of treason (Luke
xxiii. 2) in order to move Pilate the more

sily (v. 34).
sere not + mt See Additional Note.

82. the saying (word) of Jesus...signify-
what death (by what manner of death)...]
Ch. xii. 32£. Comp. Matt. xx. 19. Cruci-
fixion was not a Jewish punishment. The
clause must not be interpreted to convey
the idea that the Jews wished a particular
form of death to be inflicted, but that the
circumstances of the case led to this issue,

2. vv. 33—37. Within the Pretorium:
Pilate and Christ: the good confession
and the light question.

83. Then Pilate...) Pilate therefore...
The urgency of the Jews constrained him
to make further inquiry.

called Jesus] The Lord was already
inside the court (v.28); but Pilate sum-
moned Him to his immediate presence
(€puvncev comp, ix, 18, 24).

Art thou the King of the Jews?] The
words may mean either “ Art thou he who
has just now become notorious under this
title?” or, ‘Dost thou claim the title, as
it is said?” The title itself would be likely
to arrest Pilate’s attention, whether he
had heard it spoken of before in connexion
with the entry into Jerusalem or only now
from the Jews. And further, he would
rightly conclude that the title, when thus
put forward, would be fitted to call out
any fanaticism which there might be in a
political enthusiast. The full form which
the accusation assumed is given in St Luke
(xxiii, 2). See xix. 12. In each of the
four Gospels the first words of Pilate to
Jesus are the same: “Art thou the King
of the Jews?” (Matt. xxvii, 11; Mark xv.
2; Luke xxiii, 3). The form of the sen-
tence (ov ef...;) suggests a feeling ot
surprise in the questioner: “Art thou,
poor, and bound, and wearied, the King
of whom men have spoken?” Comp. iv. 12.

King of the Jews] v. 89, xix. 3, 19, 21.
Compare Matt. ii. 2, xxvii, 11, 29, 37;
Mark xv. 2, 9, 12, 18, 26; Luke xxiii. 3, 37,
38. The theocratic title the King of Israel
(i. 49, note) stands in marked contrast
with this civil title.

34. Jesus answered (om. him)] The short
clauses are impressive : ‘“‘ Jesus answered "—
“ Pilate answered "—‘‘ Jesus answered.”

84f. Sayest thou...tell it thee of me (or
tell thee of me)] The Lord’s question is
suited to lead Pilate to reflect on the nature

Ss
260

34 Jesus answered him, Sayest thou
this thing of thyself, or did others
tell it thee of me?

35 Pilate answered, Am I a Jew?
Thine own nation and the chief
priests have delivered thee unto me:
what hast thou done?

36 Jesus answered, My kingdom

St. JOHN. XVIII.

Lv. 34—37.
is not of this world: if my kingdom
were of this world, then would my
servants fight, that I should not be
delivered to the Jews: but now is
my kingdom not from hence.

37 Pilate therefore said unto him,
Art thou a king then? Jesus an-
swered, Thou sayest that I am a

 

of the charge which he had to judge. In
this sense it is an appeal to his conscience.
If he admits the alleged assumption of the
title to be a crime, he must ask himself
whether the title has any meaning for him?
whether he desires to learn what further it
may signify? or whether he has simply
adopted a vague accusation, an ambiguous
phrase, at random? Pilate’s reply affirms
his utter indifference to matters which only
concerned (as he assumes) a despised
people. “AmIaJew?” Is it then possible
for me to care for these things? Yet in
the words which follow he implies that
there is something strange in the case. The
Jews were ready for the most part to
favour any asserter of their national liberty.
Now they had brought one called their
King to be put to death. “Thine own
nation ” (7d €Ovos Td ov), and no Roman
informer, “and the chief priests, the natural
leaders of the people, delivered (om. have)
thee unto me: what hast thou done? or,
more exactly, what didst thou do,” that is,
to turn those who would naturally favour
such as thee into relentless enemies?

36. Without directly replying to Pilate,
the Lord indicates the real ground of the
antagonism of the people and of the rulers
to Himself, and at the same time explains
how He is a King: “his kingdom was not
of this world” («écpos). He would not
make any concessions to the false
patriotism of zealots (vi, 15), and yet He
did claim a sovereignity, a sovereignty of
which the spring and source was not of
earth but of heaven. In both respects He
was opposed to those who professed from
different sides to represent the nation
(‘the Jews”). But as a spiritual King
He was open to no accusation of hostility
to the empire. His willing surrender was
a sufficient proof that he had never con-
templated violence,

My kingdom...my kingdom.,..my servants
(drnperac officers, vv. 8, 12, &c.)] The
possessive pronoun is in each case empha-
sized: “the kingdom, the servants (te.
disciples and apostles), who truly answer
to me, to my nature and my will.” Comp.
xv. 11, note, xii, 26. There is an obvious
reference to the Jewish conceptions of a
kingdom and to the Jewish “officers.”
The use of the word tarnperns (here only
of Christians in the Gospels, comp, 1 Cor.

iv. 1; Acts xiii, 5) corresponds with the
royal dignity which Christ assumes.

is not of this world...hence] does not
derive its origin or its support from earthly
forces, Comp. viii. 23, xv. 19, xvii. 14, 16;
1 John ii. 16, iv. 5. At the same time
Christ’s kingdom is “in the world,” even
as His disciples are (xvii 11). This verse
serves aS a comment, on Matt. ii, 1ff., and
brings out the full force of St Matthew’s
characteristic term “the kingdom of
heaven,” The solemnity of the rhythmical
balance of the sentence in the original
cannot but be felt: “ My kingdom...not of
this world...if of this world...my kingdom.”
The substitution of “ hence” for “of this
world” in the last clause appears to define
the idea of the world by an immediate
reference to the representatives of it close
at hand,

fight] The original (7ywvifovro) describes
a continuous effort, and not merely one
definite conflict: “they would now be
striving” (Luke xiii, 24; 1 Cor. ix. 25;
I Tim, vi. 12; 2 Tim. iv. 7), and not
“they would have fought” at the moment
of my arrest,

the Jews] The title occurs in the record
of the Lord’s words, iv. 22, xiii. 33, and
above, v. 20 (comp. xi. 8). The colour of
the word in these places is slightly different
from that which it bears in the Evangelist’s
narrative. The simple idea of nationality
prevails over that of religious antagonism,

but now] As the case really stands, ix,
41, xv. 22, 24.

87. Art thou a king then?) The particle
(ovxovv), which occurs here only in the
New Testament, gives a tinge of irony to
the words, which are half interrogative in
form and half an exclamation: “So then,
after all, thou art a king?” This scornful
tone is further accentuated by the personal
pronoun at the end of the sentence: “thou,
a helpless prisoner.” Comp. v. 33, i. 21,
iv. 19, viii, 48.

Thou sayest...) The Lord neither de-
finitely accepts nor rejects the title. He
leaves the claim as Pilate had put it forward.
Pilate had quoted the words of others, and
the Lord had made clear in what general
sense they must be interpreted. He now
signifies further the foundation and charac-
ter of His sovereignty, and the right which
He had to the allegiance of men.
Sr. JOHN. XVIII.

king. To this end was I born, and
for this cause came I into the world,
that I should bear witness unto the

261

truth. Every one that is of the truth
heareth my voice.
38 Pilate saith unto him, What

 

thatIam...) The translation Thou sayest
(ie, rightly), because I am...seems to be
both unnatural as a rendering of the
original phrase, and alien from the context,

To this end (eis rotro)...that (iva, in
order that)} The first words (Z’o this end)
affirm generally the fact of the sovereignty
which Christ exercised: He was born for
the very purpose that He should reign;
and the last (that I may) the special appli-
cation of it: His reign was directed to
the execution of a divine purpose. Comp.
Acts ix, 21; Rom, xiv. 9; 2 Cor. ii. 9; 1 Pet.
iii, 9, iv. 6; 1 John iii, 8,

was I born...for this cause came 1...]
have I been born...to this end am I come
into the world... The two phrases appear
to correspond in part with the two in ch,
xvi, 28, “I came out from the Father, and
am come into the world.”’ The first marks
the entrance upon a new form of being,
the second defines the sphere of the Lord’s
mission (comp. ix. 39, note). Or again, the
first marks the beginning of the earthly
life, the second the pre-existence with the
Father, But as addressed to Pilate the words
declared only the human birth (comp. Luke
i, 35, 7d yevvduevov), though a deeper
Meaning lies beneath them. The emphatic
pronoun at the head of the sentence (éy@
eis ToUTo ...), and the repeated clause to
this end, fix attention upon the Speaker
and His office. Christ not only affirms the
fact of His kingship, but also bases the fact
upon the essential law of His being. He
places His own Person (éy) in contrast
with all other men, whether they disbelieve
(as Pilate) or believe. And He describes
His coming as permanent in its effects
(éA#AvOa) and not simply as a past historic
fact (jAov).

bear witness unto the truth...) Truth,
absolute reality, is the realm of Christ.
He marks out its boundaries; and every
one who has a vital connexion with the
Truth recognises His sway. He does not
only “bear witness concerning the truth”
(paprupetv repi, i. 7, 8, &c.), but “ bears wit-
ness to, maintains, the truth” (uaprupelv
tii, iii, 26), as John had done in his
place, v. 383. Comp. Acts x, 43, xv. 8, &.;
3 John 12.

that is of the truth] who draws from the
truth the inspiration of his life (comp. 1
John ii, 21, iii, 19). The phrase is parallel
to “that is of God” (viii. 47, note). Comp.
also v. 36, iii. 31, viii. 23, xv, 19, xvii. 14;
1 John ii. 16, iii. 8 ff., and in a wider sense
x, 16; Col, iv. 11. All who thus depend
on that which is Christ’s are His proper
subjects. For the whole answer comp. | Tim.

vi. 18. It is of great interest to compare
this “confession” before Pilate with the
corresponding “ confession ” before the high-
priest, Matt, xxvi. 64. The one addressed
to Jews is framed in the language of
prophecy, the other addressed to a Roman
appeals to the universal testimony of con-
science. The one speaks of a future mani-
festation of glory, the other speaks of a
present manifestation of truth. The one
looks forward to the Return, the other looks
backward to the Incarnation, Itis obvious
how completely they answer severally to
the circumstances of the two occasions,

the truth] Compare Introd, p. liv.
Lightfoot on ch. vi, 27 quotes two remark-
able passages which illustrate one idea of
the word : “When the great synagogue had
been weeping, praying, and fasting, for a
long time, a little roll fell from the firma-
ment to them in which was written Truth.
R. Chaniach saith, Hence learn that Truth
is the seal of God.” (‘Sanh. Bab.’ f. 64. 1.)
And again: ‘‘ What is the seal of the holy
blessed God? R, Bibai, in the name of R.
Reuben, saith ‘Truth’ (MYON). But what
is Truth? R. Bon saith, The living God
and King eternal. Resh Lachish saith, &
is the first letter of the alphabet, 4 the
middle, and J, the last: that is, I the
Lord am the first...and beside me there is
no God...and I am with the last” (‘Sanh.
Hieros,’ f. 18).

The Lord’s confession includes the fulfil-
ment of the double hope. He is the King
of the people of God, and the universal
Saviour. Comp. iv. 25 ff., ix, 35 ff.

38. What is truth?] The question of
Pilate does not deal with absolute Truth—
the Truth as one—of which the Lord had
spoken (7 dA70aa), but simply with truth
in any particular case (dA7Qea). There
is nothing of real reverence or seriousness
in his words, still less of awe. He does
not shape, even in passing thought, a
subject for earnest inquiry, but half sadly,
half cynically, implies that even in ordinary
matters truth is unattainable. It was so
evidently to his mind in the matter before
him; but so much at least was plain to his
Roman clearness of vision, that the prisoner
accused by His countrymen was no political
intriguer, He therefore impatiently breaks
off the examination which had (as he
fancied) shewn him enough to decide the
case, that he may obtain the release of
Jesus if possible, Corn, a Lapide gives an
interesting series of answers tothe ques-
tion, “‘ What is truth?” from classical and
patristic writers. Though they have no
direct connexion with Pilate’s thought they
will repay study.
262

m Matt. 27
15.

€*

is truth? And when he had said this,
he went out again unto the Jews, and
saith unto them, I find in him no
fault at all.

39 mBut ye have a custom, that
I should release unto you one at

St. JOHN. XVIII.

[v. 39, 40.
the passover: will ye therefore that
I release unto you the King of the
Jews?

40 "Then cried they all again,
saying, Not this man, but Barabbas,
Now Barabbas was a robber.

 

The sending to Herod (Luke xxiii. 6 ff.)
must be placed between vv, 37, 39.

3. vv, 88—40. Without the Pretorium,
The judgment of Pilate and the judg-
ment of the Jews. The sentence, the
ofler, the demand, Jesus and Barabbas.

38 ff. And when...) The incident that
follows is a complete revelation of a weak
worldly character. Pilate addressed him-
self, as it seems, not to the leading accusers
of Jesus (the high-priests and Pharisees),
but to the crowd which had now gathered
round them. He trusted that an expres-
sion of popular feeling would enable him
to follow his own judgment without in-
curring any unpopularity. He saw that
Jesus was evidently the victim of a party
(Matt. xxvii, 18), and perhaps of a small
party. Moreover the festival allowed him
to effect his purpose without absolutely
setting aside the sentence of the Sanhedrin.
He suggests therefore that Jesus should
be released according to the custom of the
Passover. From the narrative of St Mark
it appears that the demand for the fulfil-
ment of this act of grace was first made by
“the multitude” who had come up to the
governor's house (dvaBds, Mark xv. 8), and
it is not unlikely that some at least of the
people hoped in this way (like Pilate) to
deliver Jesus. The name of a notorious
criminal was coupled with that of Jesus
(Matt. xxvii, 17), that the wish of the
people might be expressed more decisively,
When the choice was put to them there
was for'a time a division of feeling, or
hesitation (Mark xv. 11, note). At length
the high-priests prevailed (comp. ch, xix,
6), and Pilate was then overpowered by the
popular cry, from which he had expected
to obtain convenient support. He had no

firmness to support him when his scheme
had failed ; and at last, by a strange irony,
he was forced to release a man guilty of
the very form of crime which the chief
priests had tried to fasten upon Christ.

I find in him no fault at all] 7 find no
charge (or crime) in him. The pronoun is
emphatic here and xix. 6 (not in xix. 4),
and contains an implied contrast between
the partizanship of the priests and the
calm judgment of the Roman governor.

39. at the passover] The custom is made
more general in St Matthew (xxvii. 15)
and St Mark (xv. 6), ‘‘at feast time’’
(xara éoptriv). Nothing is known of the
origin of the custom, nor is it (as far as
appears) noticed anywhere except in the
Gospels. Comp. Matt. xxvii. 15, note.

the King of the Jews] The title is prob-
ably used, as afterwards (xix. 15), to throw
contempt on the pretensions of the Jewish
leaders.

40. Then cried they all again...) They
cried out therefore again with the loud cry
which will make itself heard (éxpavyacav)
Comp. xi. 48, xii. 18, xix. 6, 12, 15. The
people, in spite of their late enthusiasm,
were driven by their selfish hopes to prefer
one who had at least defied the Roman
power to their divine King.

again] The word is a singular mark of
the brevity of St John’s narrative, which
assumes much as known. The previous
demands of the people have not been
noticed by him.

a robber] One of those outlaws who not
unfrequently (Acts xxi. 38) covered their
violence with a cloke of patriotism (comp.
Luke xxiii. 19; Mark xv. 7; Matt. xxvii.
16, note). There is an impressive pathos
in the brief clause. Comp. xiii. 30.

ADDITIONAL NOTES on CuHap. xvi.

12—24. It is interesting to compare the
narratives of the Lord’s trial preserved by
the Evangelists with the rules laid down
in Jewish tradition for the conduct of such
cases. It may be impossible to determine
the antiquity of the contents of the
Mishna, but the following brief summary
of the contents of the Tract ‘Sanhedrin,’
so far as they bear upon the subject, will
shew in what respects the proceedings as
to the Lord agreed with and differed from

what was received as law at u very early
date.

Capital offences were tried by an assem-
bly of twenty-three (ch. 1 § 4): a false
prophet could be tried only by the great
Sanhedrin, or assembly of seventy-oné (ch.
1 § 5).

The witnesses were strictly and separately
examined in all cases, and the agreement
of two was held to be valid (ch. 3 § 6;
ch, 5 §§ 1 ff).

n Acta,
14,
Sr. JOHN.

In capital cases the witnesses were
specially charged as to the momentous con-
sequences of their testimony, and cautioned
as to the peril of destroying life, ch. 4 § 5),
and they were to say nothing by conjecture
or hearsay.

The judges sat in a semicircle, the,presi-
dent being in the middle, so that all
might be face to face (ch. 4 § 3).

In capital cases everything was so
arranged as to give the accused the benefit
of the doubt, and with this view the votes
for acquittal were taken first (ch. 4 § 1).

In civil cases the trial might be con-
tinued and decided by night ; and a decision
either way might be given on the day of
trial. In capital cases the trial could take
place only by day; and while an acquittal
might be pronounced on the day of trial, a
sentence of condemnation could not be
given till the next day. Hence such cases
could not be tried on the eve of a Sabbath
or of a Feast (ch. 4 § 1: comp, ch. 5 § 5).

Even on the way to execution opportunity
was given to the condemned, four or five
times, if need be, to bring forward fresh
pleas (ch. 6 %§ 1); and at the last he was
urged to confession that he might not be
lost hereafter (ch. 6 § 2). Accrier preceded
the condemned, saying,, “ A. B. the son of
A. B, goes forth to be stoned for such
and such an offence: the witnesses are C.
and D. If any one can prove his innocence,
let him come forward and give his reasons ”
(ch, 6 § 1).

In cases of blasphemy the witnesses were
rigorously examined as to the exact language
used by the accused. If their evidence
was definite the judges stood and rent
their garments (ch. 7 § 5).

The blasphemer was to be stoned (ch. 7
§ 4). After stoning he was to be hung
upon a gibbet (ch. 6 § 4), and taken down
before night (id.) and buried in a common
grave provided for the purpose (ch. 6 § 5).

13. Derenbourg (‘Essai sur I’Histoire
et la Géographie de la Palestine,’ Paris,
1867) has called attention (pp. 466 ff.) to a
remarkable passage of the Talmud (‘Jer.
Taanith,’ 1v. 8), which mentions that ‘‘on
the Mount of Olives there were two cedars,
under one of which were four booths
(shops, AIT) for the sale of objects
legally pure. In one of these, pigeons
enough were sold for the sacrifices of all
Israel.” He conjectures that these booths
were [part of] ‘‘ the famous booths of the
sons of Hanan (Annas),” to which the
Sanhedrin retired when it left the chamber
“Gazith” (see Add. Note on v. 31), The
identification seems to be very plausible,
notwithstanding Keim’s peremptory con-
tradiction (111, 352, note). Yet see the
note on Matt. xxvii. 1. But whether “the
booths ” were on the Mount of Olives or
adjoining the temple, the place was the
seat of the dominant faction of Annas, the

XVIII. 263

centre of their hierarchical tyranny, The
night meeting of members of the Sanhedrin
favourable to their policy would therefore
naturally be held there. The regular
meeting in the morning of the whole body
(Matt. xxvii. 1) was, on the other hand (as
it appears, held in the old place of assembly,
“ Gazith ” (Matt. xxvii. 5, pias év To vag),
The language of St Luke points clearly to
the difference of place of the two examina-
tions (xxii. 66, driyayov eis 7d ovvedptov
atrav, as contrasted with xxii, 54, els rdv
ofkov Tov dpxtepéws). Perhaps it will be felt
that the record gains in solemnity if the
Mount of Olives was the one scene of all the
events of the night. Even the mention of
Kidron by the secondary and popular name
of the “ravine of the cedars” may contain
an allusion to a scandal felt as a grievous
burden at the time when the priests gained
wealth from the sale of victims by the
“two cedars.” ‘The booths of the sons
of Hanan,” tradition adds, “ were destroyed
three years before the destruction of the
temple” (Derenbourg, p. 468).

17, 18, 25—27. The differences in detail,
which occur in the records of the three-
fold denial of the Lord by St Peter, offer
a singularly instructive subject for study.
The fact is one of the very few related at
length by the four Evangelists, and it
offers a crucial test for determining, in
some aspects, the character of the narratives
of the Gospels.

It must be premised :—

1. That each Evangelist records the
prediction of a threefold denial :—

Matt, xxvi, 34 (“before the cock crow
thou shalt deny me thrice’),

Mark xiv. 30 (‘‘before the cock crow
twice thou shalt deny me thrice’’).

Luke xxii. 84 (‘‘ the cock shall not crow
this day until thou hast thrice denied that
thou knowest me’’).

John xiii. 38 (‘the cock shall not crow
till thou hast denied me tlrice’’).

In St Matthew and St Mark the predic-
tion occurs after the mention of the depar-
ture from the upper room; in St Luke
and St John, during the account of the
Supper. The particles of connexion in the
first two Gospels (‘‘then’ [St Matthew],
“and” [St Mark]) do not require, though
they suggest, chronological sequence.
There is no difficulty in supposing either
that the record of the words has been
transposed by St Matthew and St Mark,
or that the prediction was repeated. Such
repetitions belong naturally to a crisis of
concentrated excitement.

2. That each Evangelist records three
acts of denial :—

Matt, xxvi. 70, 72, 74.
Mark xiv. 68, 70, 71.
Luke xxii. 57, 58, 60.
John xviii. 17, 25, 27.
264

The first three Evangelists specially
notice the fulfilment of the prediction :
Matt. xxvi. 75; Mark xiv. 72; Luke xxii.
61. St John does not, though he obviously
recalls the words spoken : xviii. 27, com-
pared with xiii. 38.

It may be added that the narratives of
St Matthew and St Mark represent in the
main one original. The narratives of St
Luke and St John are independent of one
another and of the other two.

Under these circumstances the question
arises (1) Whether the four Evangelists re-
late the same three acts of denial; and
then (2) if so, whether the differences in
detail admit of being reconciled.

It will be most convenient to examine in
succession the four narratives of the first,
second, and third denials, noticing the
significant points in each.

(Table A.) Here there is an agreement
(a) as to the place of the incident, the court
of the high priest’s palace, ‘‘ outside’ and
““beneath”? the room in which the Lord
was being examined, and more particularly
by ‘‘the fire’? which had been lighted
there. St John mentions the ‘standing
by the fire’ after the fact of the denial,
but evidently in connexion with it.

(b) As to the chief actor, ‘‘a maid’’
. waidioxy), further described by St Mark
as ‘‘a maid of the high priest,’’ and de-
fined by St John as ‘‘the maid that kept
the door.’’ There is not the least indica-
tion that the “maid” of St Matthew and
St Mark could not be the portress.

(c) As to the fact of a direct address to
St Peter, and of a reply by him to the
speaker. And, further, there is a sub-
stantial agreement as to what was said.

On the other hand, the Synoptists speak
of St Peter as “sitting” St John as
“‘standing,’’ and the words recorded are
different. But there is no difference as to
time. The incident mentioned by St
Matthew and St Mark may have occurred
at any time after entrance into the court
(Matt. xxvi. 58; Mark xiv. 54).

(Table B.) Here the records are much
more complicated : (a) Two places are men-
tioned, the ‘‘fore-court’’ (St Mark), with
which the ‘“‘porch’’ of St Matthew is to
be connected, and the fire in the court
which was the scene of the former denial.

(b) Many persons take part in the accu-
sation of St Peter: ‘‘the same maid’’ as
before (St Mark), ‘‘another maid” (St
Matthew), ‘‘another man’’ (St Luke), are
specified, and St John says, gonerally,
“they said,’’ i.e. the bystanders.

But it will be noticed that St Luke alone
singles out one man who addresses St
Peter, and to whom personally St Peter
replies. The words of accusation recorded
by St Matthew and St Mark are not ad-
dressed to St Peter at all, but spoken
among the groups of servants, and St
Mark implies a repeated denial (#pvetro),

TABLE A.

Peter.
pt the

and brought in

John xviii, 16—18,
g him as he sat in the The maid therefore that ke

(John] spake unto her that kept

rt], and a certain the

door,

55—57.
g_in the midst of

and earnestly look- door

Luke xxii.
fire,

Peter was sittin
{in the cou

seein

ght of the

x

; and when she saw maid
himself, she looked li

Mark xiv. 66—68 a.
upon him and said,

As Peter was beneath in the court,
there cometh one of the maids of them

the

him, I
the high priest
Peter warming

69, 70.

Matt. xxvi,
Peter was sitting without in

court, and a damsel came unto

, said

ing upon him

Sr. JOHN. XVIII

saith to Peter,

’

saying,

Art thou also one of this man’s

disciples ?

Thou also wast with Jesus of This man alro was with him.
Nazareth,

Thou also wast with Jesus of

Galilee,

But he denied (#pvyoaro), saying, He saith,

), saying,

Hpyjcaro

>

But he denied (

But he denied before them all,

saying,

I am not,

Woman, I know him not.

I know not, neither understand I

what thou sayest,

I know not what thou sayest.

Now the servants...were standing,

g made a fire of coals...and

Peter was with them, standing and
warming himself,

havin
265

‘480
-Aes noy} yeyM you mouy T ‘uep

““ulede peluep e10jeiey} 1040q ‘pres Jojog puy

“ueeliyey) @ SI ey Joz “weyy yy
sem ose ueu SIy} YN e JO

¢meqy yy
uepies 04} Ul e9y} ees T Jou pIq

‘Burkes
‘peuie Ajjuepyuod seyjoue ‘104jze
anoy euo jo eoeds oy} qnoge puy

“qyres
‘fo $n J9y@q Iva esoyM UeUISUTy
sy uteq ‘syueares ey} Jo euCQ

“LE ‘96 “Wax uyor 09 ‘6g “TIxx en]

‘qou we J ‘fou we [ ‘ue

‘pres pue ‘(osvobadk: ) petuep ey ‘pres Jayog yng

js8e[diosip sty Jo euo osye noyy Wy “Mey} FO CUO 4ze OSTe NOT,

St. JOHN. XVIII.

“umly 0} erojor0y} pres Lou, ‘pres puy

“Fesarry
Suyuuem pue Surpueys sem sojog = (aX ods vsar/) oftym 01991] 8 10978 puy

‘g@ “THAx uyor ‘89 ‘Hxx ey]

‘uty 4s (sodst9) Ue JoyjoUe x pue

‘yeods of
uIoyA JO UVOI sIq} MOUH Jou op T

‘busing ‘reoms
0} pue esimd 0} uedeq oy ng

‘ueelyen @ ye noyy
Joy ‘u1ey} Jo euo ye noyy AToIng
‘1040q 04 (aodaya) pres fq pooys
yey} Aoy} urede optqym e 10qze puy
"TL “OL ‘ATX HaeTY

‘O GIAVL

urede (o1padk ) peruep ey puy

‘Way} JO eUO sT STYY,

‘£q pooys
yeqy wey, 07 Aes 0} uedeq puy

‘urese wiry
wes (lxogrou ) prew ey} puy

“modo 4000

*(qanoo-e103 044 ‘a0rya00dx Qt)
yorod 94} oyuT yno quem ay puy

‘0L—4 89 “AIX sre

@ ATAVL

“UeU OY} MOU You op T

‘Burhve ‘xeoms:
0} pue osino 04 ey uedeq UdT,

“eayy yyokermoq yoaods Ay} 10}.
‘mey} JO ouO 41e osTe noYyy AyTerng

‘eye OF
ples pue owes azay7 pooys yey, sou;
‘(aod pis!) opm @ Jeqye puy

"FL “EL ‘TAXX “We

‘ueUl ey} MOU 4OU Op JT

‘qyeo ue yy
(o1volzd) poruep ey urese puy

/ “yyoreze NT
JO SNSof Y}IM Sem OS[e UeUL sTyT,

‘(242 Stor) er043
orem yey}, wey} OJUN YWIes puy

ag wee (Lye)
prem seyjoue “(amyau ) yorod ey
oyu] no euod sem oY UeYyM puy

Ch ‘TL WARX “MET
166

The words recorded by St John express
apparently what was said by several. So

so the denials recorded by St Matthew,
St Mark, and St John, are not given as
addressed to any particular person, as in
the former case. They simply record the
fact of denial.

(Table C.) Here again the narratives are
complicated. There is no mention of place ;
but some time, ‘about an hour’ (St
Luke), has elapsed since the last denial.
In St Matthew and St Mark the charge
is addressed to St Peter by many (‘‘ they
that stood by”). In St Luke the question
and answer are both personal; in St John
the question is direct, but no specific answer
is recorded,

The charges in this case are all supported
by some personal identification of St Peter.

If now we endeavour to realise the scene
it will, I think, be clear that there were
three crises, three acts of denial. The
first was an isolated incident, and the
others in part arose out of it. The
portress made no remark when St John
brought in his friend. It was not likely
that she should do so. But afterwards,
noticing him by the fire-light, she spoke
directly to him. The slight differences in
detail admit of easy explanation. St
Peter’s restlessness is evident throughout
the scene.

After St Peter had made his denial and
then withdrawn, the subject was not for-
gotten. The portress, when she saw him
again, after some interval, on being called
to the door, spoke of him to others. One
and another accused him. Probably at the
time he made no answer, but went away,
and ventured to return to the fire. Here
again a definite accusation was made and
a denial followed; but the imperfect in St
Mark seems to indicate that the denial
was in some way repeated. The third
incident is similar. Conversation had been
going on. St Peter had joined in it. His
dialect shewed his origin. One of the ser-
vants recognised him. Thereupon many
brought the charge against him, and St
Peter met his assailants at once with words
fragmentarily preserved in the different
narratives.

Briefly then, let the scene be realised,
with all the excitement of the night trial
and the universal gathering of servants
and officers, and the separate details given
by the different Evangelists will be found
completely in harmony with the belief
that there were three ‘‘denials,’’ that is
three acts of denial, of which the several
writers have taken such features as seemed
to me most significant for their purpose.
Thus in the narrative of St John there is
an evident climax in the succession of
questioners : the portress, the bystanders
generally, » man who claims direct know-
ledge.

19—24. The true reading in v. 24 (Annas

St. JOHN. XVIII.

therefore sent him..., dmérretAev obv..) in-
volves the consequence that the examina-
tion noticed in vv. 19—23 is not any part
of the official examination before Caiaphas
and the Sanhedrin (Matt. xxvi. 57, 59—
68; Mark xiv. 53, 55—65), but previous to
it. The same sense is given by the simple
aorist without the conjunction (Annas sent
him ...), though less sharply. The charac-
ter of the examination itself leads to the
same result. The examination in St John
is evidently informal and private (comp.
Matt, xxvi, 57, note). The Lord Himself
is questioned, but there is no mention of
witnesses (Matt. xxvi. 60 ff.), no adjura-
tion, no sentence, no sign of any legal
process. If v, 21 implies that others were
present besides the retinue of the high-
priest, they took no part in the proceedings
(contrast Matt. xxvi. 66 ff.). On the other
hand, if Annas was really the soul of the
Sadducean faction, nothing would be more
natural than that he should provide for a
preliminary interrogation which might de-
cide the course to be taken in the Sanhe-
drin. There might still be opposition
there. As it was, the accusers were in
fact driven to seek evidence from the
Lord’s hearers, and to confess that it was
inadequate for their purpose. Thus baffled,
they called forth, under the most solemn
circumstances, His great confession as
Messiah. It may be added that some
time necessarily elapsed between the arrest
of the Lord and His appearance before the
formal session of the Sanhedrin. This
interval gave opportunity for the private
examination. The details of the various
examinations, which St John has preserved,
all bear upon the universal aspect of
Christ’s work, its openness, self-justifica-
tion, truthfulness, dependence upon the
divine will. It will further be noticed
that as St John alone gives the private
examination before Annas, so also he
alone gives the private examination before
Pilate. He was probably present at both.

$1. The words “It is not lawful for us
to put any man to death’’ have been inter-
preted to mean that the Jews could not
inflict a capital sentence at this particular
time (the Passover), or in the particular
manner which they desired (crucifixion).
But there is nothing in the context to
justify such a limitation of the sense. The
whole action of Pilate (comp. xix. 10)
shews that the question of life and death
was legally in his hands alone; and the
words must be taken as a simple and
direct statement that the Jews could not
put to death without the governor’s
authority. That this was so appears from
the terms which describe the procurator’s
power (Jos, ‘ Antt.’ xvizr. 1. 1; compare
also ‘ Antt.’ xvi. 2. 4, and xvi. 6), There
is also a remarkable tradition preserved in
different forms jin the Talmud, that the
Sanhedrin left their proper place of
’ Sr. JOHN. XIX.

assembly, Gazith, and sat in Chanjuth
(forty years before the destruction of the
temple). Now it was forbidden to con-
demn to death except in Gazith (see ‘ Avoda
Zara,’ ed. Edzard, pp. 61 ff. and notes).

The passages quoted from the New Testa-
ment (John viii. 3, 59, vii. 26; Acts v.
33, vii. 57 £., xxi. 27 ff.; [Acts xii. 4]) to
prove that the Jews could put to death,
only shew that the Roman governors were
not unwilling to tolerate exceptional acts
of violence. Compare also Jos. ‘B. J.’ vi.
2. 4, and ‘ Antt. xx. 9. 1, where it appears
that the execution of James the Just in
the interval between the departure of one
governor and the arrival of his successor
was treated as a grave usurpation of
power.

The question is discussed thoroughly and
conclusively by Langen, in a paper in
the ‘Theol, Quartal-Schrift,’ 1862 111. pp.
411 ff. Compare also the same writer’s
‘Die letzten Lebenst.’ § 256,

Notp on THe READINGS IN vv, 1, 15, 24.

1. The reading of this verse offers points
of singular interest. The great majority
both of ancient and later authorities give
x. tav KéSpov (NCBCLX, &c., most
cursives, and Origen, Cyril Al., and
Chrysostom) (1). Two representatives of a
very ancient text 4*D) give Tov Ke8pot
(2). Some few copies, which generally
represent a later text (AS, &c.), give
tov KeSpdv (3). The second and third
readings may be grouped together, for
both represent the Hebrew name Kidron,
though in different forms (Kedpdv or
Kedpds—xéSpos, cedar, is feminine—and
Kedpdv). The first, on the other hand,
substitutes for the Hebrew name a signifi-
cant Greek name (of the cedars) which is
found also in the LXX. (2 8. xv. 23; 1 K.
xv. 13). No one of the versions directly
supports (1), but the Memphitic reads of
the cedar tree, while the cedri of some
old Latin copies is uncertain. The Thebaic
and the Atthiopic give Kedros (masc.) (2).
The Vulgate, Gothic, and Armenian, give
Kedron (3).

At first sight it seems obvious to suggest

CHAPTER XIX.

1 Christ is scourged, crowned with thorns,
and beaten. 4 Pilate is desirous to release
him, but being overcome with the outrage

267
that an original reading, Tov Kedpuwyv, gave
rise to two corrections on the part of
ignorant scribes, who altered either the
article (rdv KéSpwv) or the noun (Tod
KeSpot), in what they supposed to be a
false concord.

But the division of the authorities is
most unfavourable to this view. It seems
incredible that no one of the most ancient
Greek texts should have preserved the true
reading. On the other hand, the name
Kidron was well known, and an alteration
from tov KéSpwv to tod Kedpwv would
appear as plausible to a scribe as to many
modern scholars.

It must be added that the use of the
name x. Tov Kédpwv in the LXX, (1 K,
xv. 18, and as a various reading in 2 S.
xv, 23; 1K, iii, 37; 2 K. xxiii. 6, 12),
supplies fair evidence that it was current ;
and the fact that the article is not added
to the similar forms, KiooGv (KurGy) and
*Apvav, proves conclusively that the name
was not an accidental corruption. In
Josephus the name is always declined
(keSpuv, -Gvos).

Such a paronomasia as is involved in the
change from Kidron to ‘‘of the cedars”
is perfectly natural; and the fact that
cedars were found on the Mount of Olives
at the time (see Note on v. 13) gives addi-
tional likelihood to the change. It is in-
deed possible that the name of the Wady
and of the Torrent (ya Tp=the Black) was

originally derived from the ‘‘dark’’ trees,
and not from the ‘‘dark’’ water.

15. The best authorities (yg * A B[D))
omit the article (aAAos, not 6 &dAos),
which is not expressed in A. V,

24. An overwhelming preponderance of
evidence ((BC*LX 1, 338, &c.) requires the

insertion of therefore (obdv). This reading,

which presents considerable difficulty at
first sight, was variously corrected : first
by substituting now (5€) for therefore
(S69, &c.), and then by omitting the con-
junction altogether (A and most later
MSS.); and a few authorities insert the
whole clause, Annas... Caiaphas, in v. 18,
with therefore or now.

of the Jews, he delivered him to be cruci-
fled. 23 They cast lots for his garments.
26 He commendeth his mother to John.
28 He dieth. 31 His side is pierced. 38
He is buried by Joseph and Nicodemus.

 

4, xix, 1—3. Within the Pretorium.
The governor's punishment, The soldiers’
mockery.

Cuap. XIX. 1—8. The narrative of St
John leaves no doubt that the ‘“‘scourg-
ing” (€uaoriywoev) was inflicted by Pilate
as a punishment likely to satisfy the Jews.

They had only just used the ominous word
‘erucify’? (Luke xxiii. 21), though they
pointed to it from the first (xviii. 31). The
governor therefore thought that as he had
humoured them by the release of Barab-
bas they might be contented with the
ignominy inflicted on the alleged pretender
to royalty without insisting on His death.
268

a Matt. 27,
26.

HEN Pilate therefore took Je-
sus, and scourged him,

2 And the soldiers platted a crown

of thorns, and put i¢ on his head, and
they put on him a purple robe,

Sr. JOHN. XIX.

{v. I—4.
3 And said, Hail, King of the
Jews! and they smote him with their
hands.
4 Pilate therefore went forth again,
and saith unto them, Behold, I bring

 

This is distinctly brought out in Luke
xxii. 22 (“I will therefore chastise
[wadevou], and let him go”). It is not
however to be supposed that when Christ
was condemned to be crucified the scourging
was repeated. The passing references
(ppayeAAdoas) in St Matthew (xxvii. 26)
and St Mark (xv. 15)—St Luke is silent,—
though they would convey the impression
that the scourging immediately preceded
the crucifixion, according to the common,
but not universal, custom, do not neces-
sarily beat that meaning. There is there-
fore no real discrepancy between the ac-
counts of the Synoptists and of St John.
The accounts of the mockery by the soldiers
are to be explained otherwise. From the
narrative of St John it is evident that
the Lord was insulted by the emblems of
mock royalty before His condemnation.
From the narrative of St Matthew it isno
less evident that mockery of the same
kind took place after His condemnation
(Matt. xxvii. 31, and when...they took off
..and led...). St Mark is less definite as
to the time, and St Luke is silent alto-
gether about the incident. In addition to
this difference as to the time, there are
also some minor differences in the details
of the two narratives. St Matthew and St
Mark both mention emphatically ‘‘the
gathering of the whole band’’ (Matt. xxvii.
27; Mark xv. 16); both mention the in-
sulting homage ; St Matthew mentions and
St Mark implies the reed-sceptre; the
outrages described in St Matthew and St
Mark are greater and more varied. In a
word, the scene described by St Matthew
and St Mark represents a more deliberate
and systematic mockery than that de-
scribed by St John. It is not perhaps
difficult to imagine the whole course of the
mockery. The conduct of Herod (Luke
xxiii. 11) probably suggested the idea of it.
Pilate found it fell in with his own design
to release Jesus as being too insignificant
for serious treatment. The design failed.
The crown and the robe were therefore
removed ; for it is not conceivable that any
prisoner could be brought so disguised be-
fore a judge for sentence. But after the
sentence was given, the men who had al-
ready entered into the spirit of the tra-
vesty made use of their opportunity to
carry out the contemptuous exhibition
more completely ; and ‘‘ the soldiers of the
governor” invited ‘“‘the whole band” (Matt.
xxvii. 27) to join them in their fierce
sport. There does not appear to be any-
thing artificial in this interpretation of the
recorded facts or inconsistent with the

character of the actors. St John (as in
other places) gives that which explains the
origin of the proceeding.

1. Then Pilate therefore...) Pilate’s
last appeal to the Jews (xviii. 39) had
failed, and he now endeavours to save the
life of Christ by inflicting such a punish-
ment as might move His enemies to pity.
This was his punishment (Pilate took...and
scourged ...contrasted with v. 6, Take ye...
and crucify...). Scourging was itself part
of a capital sentence, but in this case it
was inflicted arbitrarily by Pilate without
any formal judgment.

For an account of the punishment see
Matt. xxvii. 26, note. St Matthew (xxvii.
26) and St Mark (xv. 15) refer to the
scourging simply as having taken place be-
fore the Lord was given over to execution.
St Luke (xxiii, 22) records Pilate’s offer
to inflict the punishment without saying
more. St John brings the two notices
into union.

Recent investigations at Jerusalem have
disclosed what may have been the scene
of the punishment. In «a subterranean
chamber, discovered by Captain Warren,
on what Mr. Fergusson holds to be the
site of Antonia—Pilate’s Pratorium—
“stands a truncated column, no part of
the construction, for the chamber is
vaulted above the pillar, but just such a
pillar as criminals would be tied to tobe
scourged.”” The chamber ‘‘cannot be
later than the time of Herod” (Fergusson,

‘The Temples of the Jews,’ p. 176;
comp. p. 242).
2. a crown of thorns} Comp. Matt.

xxvii. 29, note. The thought is rather of
the victor’s wreath (as Tiberius’ wreath
of laurel, which was seen upon his arms:
Suet. ‘Tib.’ c, 17) than of the royal dia-
dem.

a purple robe] Comp. Matt. xxvii. 28,
note; Mark xv. 17; and also 1 Mace. viii.
14, x. 20, 62, xi. 58, xiv. 48, f. Reference
has naturally been made to Rev. xix. 13
(Isai. Ixiii. 1 ff.). This blood-stained robe
was the true dress of a kingly conqueror.

3. And said] According to the best au-
thorities, And they came unto Him and
said. This vivid detail does not occur in
the narratives of the parallel incident. The
imperfect (jpxovTo, Vulg. ventebant}
gives the picture of the separate formal
acts of homage rendered by the soldiers
in succession.

Hail, King of the Jews) The words
are evidently a mocking echo of what
they had heard. Like Pilate, they ridi-
cule the people no less than the Lord.
v.5—7-]
him forth to you, that ye may know
that I find no fault in him.

5 Then came Jesus forth, wearing
the crown of thorns, and the purple
robe. And Pilate saith unto them,
Behold the man!

6 When the chief priests there-

St. JOHN. XIX.

fore and officers saw him, they cried
out, saying, Crucify him, crucify him.
Pilate saith unto them, Take ye
him, and crucify him: for I find no
fault in him.

7 The Jews answered him, We
have a law, and by our law he ought

 

smote him ...]_ Some old versions add
“on the face.” This is probably the true
idea. The savage blow took the place of
the kiss of homage. Comp. xviii. 22.

5. vv. 4—7. Without the Pretorium.

Pilate: ‘‘ Behold, the man.” The Jews:

“ He made himself the Son of God.”

4. Pilate therefore...) And Pilate...
According to the most probable reading
the action is not so much a consequence
(therefore) as a part of what has gone
before, v. 1 (Pilate therefore...and the
soldiers ...and Pilate ...),

again] xviii. 38. Pilate had returned
within the Pretorium to order the scourg-
ing.

eae them] The chief actors (xviii. 38)
remain constantly present to the mind of
the Evangelist, though the episode vv. 1—3
has interrupted the narrative.

I bring him...that ye may know...no fault
(charge, t.e, crime)...) If the charge had
seemed reasonable the governor would
naturally have let the law take its course,
That he had not done so, but brought the
accused out again, was a clear proof that he
held the charge against Him to be ground-
less. Yet with strange inconsistency he
had treated Him as partly guilty in order
to conciliate unrighteous accusers. But to
scourge a prisoner whom he pronounced
innocent seemed nothing in his eyes if he
could by such means gain his end. His
words therefore are an appeal at once to
the sense of humanity and to the sense of
justice in Christ’s accusers. See also Acts
xxii. 24,

forth] Up to this time Christ had been
within the Pretorium, xviii. 28,

5. Then came Jesus...) Jesus therefore
came... In obedience to the governor’s will
Christ follows His judge into the presence
of the people. He knows all, and so know-
ing endures all in absolute submission.

wearing...) Each emphatic detail is re-
peated (the crown of thorns, the purple
robe). This array of mockery is presented
as the natural dress of Christ (opav.
Comp. Matt, xi, 8; James ii. 3; Rom, xiii.
4). So He was through life the suffering
King, the true Soldier.

And he (Pilate) saith unto them] Though
the name of the Lord has intervened,
Pilate is the chief actor now in the apostle’s
mind. Comp, v. 4 (them). Roman and
Jew stood face to face before Christ; and
Pilate now, as Caiaphas before (xi. 49f.),
is an unconscious prophet.

 

Behold, the man/] Contrast v. 14 “Behold,
your King!” These words of half-con-
temptuous pity were designed to change
the fierceness of the spectators into com-
passion, Fear alike and envy, Pilate argues,
must disappear at the sight of one enduring
with absolute patience such humiliation.
“Behold” ig an interjection and not a
verb: “See, here is before you the man.”
What lies behind that phrase is unspoken
and unthought. It is however natural for
us to compare the Lord’s prophecy as to
Himself with the High Priest’s appeal
(Matt. xxvi. 63 ff., “tell us whether thou
be...the Son of God”... Thou hast said:
nevertheless I say unto you: From hence-
forth (dm’ Gptt) ye shall see the Son of
man”’...),

6. the chief priests...and officers (the
officers)...] The chief priests and their
subordinates at once, when they saw him,
anticipated any possible outburst of pity.
They ‘‘ saw” not an object of compassion,
but only Him whom they had already
doomed. Therefore they give the signal
and the command to others. With “ loud
cries” (ékpatyacav) they demand death,
and the death of the vilest malefactor, For
the first time the name of the cross is
openly used. The sharp, short sentence,
Crucify, crucify, exactly reproduces the
feelings of the moment, and expresses the
answer to Pilate’s half measures. The
thought is wholly of the punishment. (Con-
trast Mark xv. 18f., “Crucify him.”)
Death, the death of a slave, nothing short
of this, is the purpose of the accusers.
All the Evangelists agree in representing
the special demand for crucifixion as being
made towards the end of the trial, after
the offer to release a prisoner according
to the custom of the feast (Matt. xxvii.
22, Mark xv. 13, Luke xxiii, 21),

Take ye him...no fault...) Take him
yourselves...no charge (crime)... Pilate met
the peremptory demand of the priests as
before (ch. xviii. 31, Take Him yourselves
and...judge...) by ironically referring the
whole case to their own action. He will
not, so he seems to say, simply ratify their
decisions. They ask for crucifixion; well,
let them crucify—a thing impossible—if
his voice is not to be heard.

7. The Jews take up Pilate’s challenge
and Pilate’s judgment in an unexpected
manner. He had said Take him yourselves
(AaB. ad. ipeis). They answer, If you
appeal to us, we have a power which we

269
270
to die, because he made himself the
Son of God.

8 { When Pilate therefore heard
that saying, he was the more afraid ;

g And went again into the judg-
ment hall, and saith unto Jesus,
Whence art thou? But Jesus gave
him no answer,

Sr. JOHN. XIX.

[v.8—11.

io Then saith Pilate unto him,
Speakest thou not unto me? knowest
thou not that I have power to cru-
cify thee, and have power to release
thee?

11 Jesus answered, Thou couldest
have no power at all against me, ex-
cept it were given thee from above:

 

have not yet invoked. We have a law
(jpels v. &.) to which you are bound to
give effect, whatever you may think of it,
and according to the law (rdv véuov) he
ought to die. Theemphatic “we” answers
at once to the emphatic “ye” and to the
emphatic “I” of the governor.

by our law] Rather (omitting judv),
according to the law. Levit. xxiv. 16.
Comp, Matt, xxvi. 63, 65 and notes.

made himself] cc, v. 18, x. 33, viii. 53 n.
The form of expression emphasizes the
heinousness of the charge. The claim was
asserted in action and not only in word.
Comp. v. 12, “ maketh himself a king.”

the Son of God] The absence of the
article (vidv cod) fixes attention upon the
general character of the nature claimed
(Son of God) as distinguished from the
special personality (comp. i, 1, note). A
Roman would have no distinct idea of One
to whom alone the title “Son of God”
truly belongs.

6. vv, 8—11, Within the Pretorium.
The origin of Christ untold: the origin
of authority revealed,

8. Pilate had already recognised some-
thing mysterious in the Person and charge
before him (see xviii. 29 note). The fact
that Christ was said to have claimed a
divine origin naturally deepened the strange
fear which His presence inspired: Pilate
not only was afraid, but he was more
afraid. Could he have ignominiously
scourged one who was in some sense sent
by the national divinity? A Roman at this
time, when Eastern religions were making
themselves felt throughout the empire,
would be able to attach a real if vague
meaning to the title ‘Son of God;” and
superstition goes with unbelief. Compare
Matt. xxvii, 54, where we have an obvious
echo of the same words,

that saying] Rather, this saying or
word ( dédyos) : i.e. the general charge now
brought against Christ, and not the exact
title itself (Anya).

9, And went...judgment hall...) And
he went,..palace (pretorium). The clause
marks a new scene,

Whence art thou?] The question is put
in w general form. Pilate looks to the
answer for the relief or the confirmation of
his misgivings. This indecision of the
questioner, who indirectly asks from the
Lord a revelation of Himself (comp, viii.

25, x. 24), explains the silence with which
he was met. That silence was fitted to
lead Pilate to reflect on what he had
already heard (ch, xviii, 36); and a direct
answer would have been either misleading
or unintelligible. Moreover, the claim of
justice, which was now in question, was
not in any way affected by the circum-
stances of the Lord’s descent. Compare
the parallel incident Matt. xxvii, 13.
See also Isai. lili, 7.

10. Then saith Pilate (Pilate therefore
saith)...Speakest thou not unto me?] The
pronoun stands with emvhasis at the head
of the sentence (éyol od A, ;) : silence before
others might have beeu intelligible, but
Pilate was supreme. His sentence was the
final voice not of a party but of the law
and the government : I have power—right-
ful authority (éfovcia)...

to crucify...to release] Better, to release
...to crucify... The alternatives are pre-
sented with the most impressive distinct-
ness. The order in the best authorities
places the motive of hope before that of
fear, which seems in itself to be more
natural,

ll. Jesus answered him, Thou couldest
(wouldest) have...] The claim of Pilate to
the absolute possession of right to act as he
pleases leads the Lord to speak again.
There was truth and error in the claim.
The two required to be distinguished in
order that the real relation of the civil
and the theocratic powers to the death of
Christ might be laid open. In the order of
the world Pilate had the authority which
he claimed to have. It had been given to
him to exercise authority. As the repre-
sentative of the Emperor his judgment was
legally decisive (Rom, xiii. 1). But still
his right to exercise authority was derived,
not inherent. Human government is only
valid as the expression of the divine will,
He therefore who exercises it is responsible,
whatever he may suppose, to a higher
power. So far however as any immediate
result, was concerned Pilate acted within
the scope of the “authority which it had
been given to him to exercise.” “For this
reason” the High-Priest, representing the
theocracy, was more guilty. Pilate was
guilty in using wrongfully his civil power.
The High-Priest was doubly guilty, both in
using wrongfully ahigher (spiritual) power
and in transgressing his legitimate rules of
action. He had failed to fulfil his duty
v. 12, 13.]

therefore he that delivered me unto
thee hath the greater sin.

12 And from thenceforth Pilate
sought to release him: but the Jews
cried out, saying, If thou let this man

Sr. JOHN. XIX.

271
go, thou art not Czesar’s friend : who-
soever maketh himself a king speak-
eth against Ceesar.

13 { When Pilate therefore heard
that saying, he brought Jesus forth,

 

and he had violated its rules. It was the
privilege of his office to recognise the
Messiah, and to preserve the true spiritual
independence of the people. By appeal-
ing to a heathen power to execute an
unjust (xi. 49 f.) sentence on Christ, he
had sinned against God by unfaithfulness,
as well as by unrighteousness.

given thee] It does not appear that there
is (as is commonly supposed) any refer-
ence to the fact that Pilate was an un-
conscious instrument of the divine will.
In this respect the Chief Priests were in
the same position; and there was nothing
in the fulfilment of the counsel of God to
modify the guilt of one or the other
(comp. Acts ii, 23).

That which “was given,’’.it must be
noticed, is not the authority itself, but
the possession and exercise of it (iv
ScSopevov not Fv SeSopevn).

from above]i.e. from God. Comp. Rom.
xiii, 1f. The words correct Pilate’s asser-
tion of independence. The notion that the
clause refers to the reference of the case
from ‘‘a higher tribunal’’ (the Sanhedrin)
to the Roman Court is wholly unnatural,
though it has the confident support of
Coleridge. In speaking of the source of
Pilate’s authority it has been rightly felt
that the Lord indicates the source of His
own being (whence...?). He spoke of that
which He knew and as One who knew
(ch. iii, 11).

therefore] for this reason, because power
is a divine trust.

he that delivered me unto thee) Caiaphas,
the personal representative of ‘‘the Jews’
(xviii, 830—35; comp. Matt, xxvii, 2 note).
The responsibility for the act is concen-
trated in him. There can be no reference
to Judas in the surrender to Pilate (to

thee).
hath...sin] xv. 22, note.
7. vv. 12—16. Without the Pretorium.

The double sentence on the Accused and
the accusers. The Christ rejected: the
Emperor chosen,

12. And from thenceforth...If thou let
this man go...] Upon this (omit and)...If
thou release this man... Upon this, i.e.
‘‘in consequence of this answer’’ (comp.
vi. 66, note), and not simply “‘ after this.”
The calm majesty of the Lord’s words
confirmed Pilate’s fears. He now actively
“sought”? himself to release Jesus: be-
fore he had endeavoured to lead the Jews
to suggest his release.

the Jews] The national title stands out
in contrast with the plea which they
urge. Pilate had refused to carry out a

sentence based upon Jewish opinion. The
official chiefs of the theocracy convert
themselves therefore into jealous guar-
dians of the rights of the empire, and
accuse Pilate of negligence. The simple
acceptance of the title of ‘‘ king’’ is, they
argue, a declaration of antagonism tothe
one emperor. The change in the tactics
of the priests is remarkable. Under or-
dinary circumstances a Roman governor
would not have scrupled to give effect to
a sentence based .on a national religious
law. Perhaps the accusers felt that their
proceedings had been irregular, and in
face of opposition judged it better to
press a political rather than a religious
offence. Compare Matt. xxvii. 1 note.

cried out) According to the most prob-
able reading (éxpavyacayv) the thought
found expression in one loud simultaneous
cry, as distinguished from the repeated
cries of a multitude (éxpavyafov xii. 18).
See vv. 6, 15, xviii. 40. On each occa-
sion St John notices the loud decisive
utterance, though this may have found
echoes. Compare Mark xv. 14 (éxpa£av)
with Matt, xxvii. 23 (éxpafov).

Cesar’s friend) The phrase was a title
of honour frequently given to provincial
governors (see Wetstein ad loc., Jos.
‘Antt.’ xiv. 10. 2; Luke ii. 1 note); but
here it is probably used in a general and
not in a technical sense: ‘‘a loyal sup-
porter of the emperor.”

whosoever (literally, every one that)
maketh ... speaketh against...) i.e. contro-
verts the emperor’s authority, and so vir-
tually sets himself against him in rebellion.
Comp. Rom. x. 21 (Isai. Ixv. 2).

It will be observed how completely the
successive charges of the Jews noticed by
St John correspond with the natural pro-
gress of the examination. They first bring
a general accusation of ‘‘evil doing.”
Pilate refuses to accept their judgment.
They then press the title ‘King of the
Jews”’ (implied in xviii. 33) as seditious.
Pilate dismisses the charge (xviii. 39).
They next bring forward a religious
offence against their own law. This in-
creases Pilate’s unwillingness to act (xix.
12). So lastly, letting drop the formal
accusations, civil and ecclesiastical, they
appeal to Pilate’s own fears. In this way
they obtained their end by personal mo-
tives (Acts xiii, 28, yrycavto. Comp.
Luke xxiii. 24). i .

138. When Pilate therefore... that
saying (these words)...] The new plea left
Pilate to choose between yielding to an
indefinite sense of reverence and right,
272
and sat down in the judgment seat in
a place that is called the Pavement,
but in the Hebrew, Gabbatha.

14 And it was the preparation of
the passover, and about the sixth

Sr. JOHN. XIX.

[v. 14, 15.
hour: and he said unto the Jews,
Behold your King!

15 But they cried out, Away with
him, away with him, crucify him.
Pilate saith unto them, Shall I crucify

 

and escaping the danger of a plausible
accusation at Rome, before such a man as
Tiberius (Tac, ‘Ann.’ 111. 38.) If a late
date be assigned to the Crucifixion,
Pilate’s fear at that time would have
been greater, for the suspicions of Tiberius
became more cruel after the fall of
Sejanus, Pilate’s patron (a.D. 31, Suet.
Tib. 61). It was natural therefore that
his fear of the emperor overcame his fear
of Christ. His misrule gave him good
cause for alarm, and he could easily per-
suade himself that there would be real
peril in neglecting the information which
was laid before him. <A popular outbreak
might follow, even against the will of the
Leader whom he believed to be innocent
of violent designs. His decision therefore
was taken without any further discussion.
these words] the imputation on _ his
loyalty, the suggestion of rebellion.
brought... forth (without)] After the
Ecce homo the Lord had been taken with-
in the Pretorium (v. 9). The formal sen-
tence was given in the open court. The
judgment-seat (tribunal) was placed upon
a conspicuous spot, which was called in
Hebrew (Aramaic) Gabbatha, and in
Greek Lithostroton, ‘‘a pavement.’’ The
courts of the temple were paved (2 Chron.
vii. 8, Jos. ‘B. J.’ vi. 1. 8), and it is not
unlikely that there was a paved platform
at the head of the steps leading from the
temple to Antonia (Acts xxi. 40), where
Pilate’s tribunal could be conveniently
placed (see however note on Matt. xxvii.
2). There can be no reference under the
Hebrew name, to such a portable mosaic
floor as Julius Caesar carried about with
him for his judgment-seat (Suet. ‘ Ces.’
46).
be down in the judgment-seat] It has
been suggested that the verb (é«dOurev)
is transitive (1 Cor. vi. 4; Eph. i. 20), and
that the sense is, ‘‘ Pilate placed Him
(Christ) on a seat,’ completing in this
way the scene of the ‘‘ Ecce Homo,” by
shewing the King on His throne. At
first sight the interpretation is attractive,
but the action does not seem to fall in
with the position of a Roman governor,
and the usage of the phrase elsewhere
(Acts xii, 21, xxv. 6, 17) appears to be
decisive against it. St John, it may be
added, never uses the verb transitively.
The absence of the article before
‘‘judgment seat,’’ in the original ( éri
Biparos, according to the true reading),
probably indicates that this was an im-
provised and not a regular tribunal. Con-
trast Acts xii. 21, xxv. 6, 17. In Matt.

xxvii, 19 the verb is different.
Jos. ‘B. J.’ tr. 14. 8 f.

in the Hebrew] in Hebrew, i.e. the
vernacular dialect. vv. 17, 20, v. 2, xx.
16; Rev. ix. 11, xvi. 16. The adverb is
found only in these places. Comp. Acts
xxi. 40, xxii. 2, xxvi. 14

Gabbatha] There can be little doubt
that this represents Gab Baitha (SF\'9) 3)),
“the ridge (back) of the House,’’ 1.e. the
temple. Comp. Talm. Jerus. ‘San.’ f.
18 d, quoted by Wansche.

14. the preparation of the passover)
The day before the ‘‘ Eve’’ of—the Pass-
over. See note on Matt. xxvii.

and about (it was about) the sixth hour]
i.e. about 6 a.m. See Additional Note.

The marking of the day and hour fixes

attention on the crisis of the history.
. Behold, your King!] The words are
spoken with bitterness. The people had re-
fused to regard the appeal to their
humanity (v. 5); and Pilate now implies
that the wounded and mocked Prisoner is
alone fit to represent them (saith to the
Jews), At the same time, too, he may
intend to remind them of the welcome
which Christ had received at His entry
into Jerusalem. This was the end ofthat
enthusiasm. The priests had overawed
the people.

‘Behold’’ is here, as in v. 5, an inter-
jection : ‘See, here is the king, of whom
you spoke, and who befits you!”

15. But they...) They therefore. The
pronoun (ékelvoz ) isolates the adversaries
of the Lord, and sets them in this last
scene apart from and over against Him.
With one loud universal cry (éxpovyaray)
they disclaim all connexion with the King
whom Pilate assigned to them: ‘‘ Away,
away with him.”

Pilate, however, still presses his re-
proaches: Shall (Must) I crucify your
King? The emphasis lies on the last
words. From the beginning to the end
the thought of kingship runs through the
whole examination before Pilate.

Comp.

The chief priests) There is singular
force in the exact definition of the
speakers here. They are not simply

described as ‘‘the Jews” (xviii, 31, xix.
7), nor yet as ‘‘the chief priests and the
officers’? (xix. 6). The official organs of
the theocracy themselves proclaim that
they have abanadoned the faith by which
the nation had lived. The sentence ‘‘ We
have no king but Cesar (the foreign
emperor) is the legitimate end of their
policy, the formal abdication of the Mes-
sianic hope. The kingdom of God, inthe
) Matt. 27.
3.

v. 16—18.]

your King? The chief priests an-
swered, We have no king but Cesar.
16 bThen delivered he him there-
fore unto them to be crucified. And
they took Jesus, and led him away.
17 And he bearing his cross went

confession of its rulers, has become the
kingdom of the world. In the place of the
Christ they have found the emperor. They
first rejected Jesus as the Christ, and then,
driven by the irony of circumstances, they
rejected the Christ altogether,

16. Then therefore he delivered...] There
was now no longer room for delay. The
end was reached. The last word had been
spoken. So the zealots for the Roman
empire were empowered to work their will.
But Pilate pronounced no sentence himself.
He simply let the chief priests have their
way (comp, Matt. xxvii. 26; Mark xv. 15;
Luke xxiii. 25). He had conceded a little
against justice in false policy (v. 1), and
he was driven to concede all against his
will. From St Matthew it appears that he
typically abjured the responsibility for the
act, while the Jews took Christ’s blood
upon themselves (Matt. xxvii. 24, 25). So
they became the real executioners, and
carried out the foreign law (he delivered
Him up to them). Yet even so their
dependence was also indicated: the last
clause runs not that they should crucify
(v, 6), but that he should be crucified.

In this last issue it will be noticed that
the Jews and Pilate were self-condemned
of a double treason: the Jews of treason
to their true king, on the plea of religion,
and Pilate of treason to his office on the
plea of loyalty.

III. Tue Enp (xix. 17—42).

The record of the last scene of the
Passion contains very much that is peculiar
to St John: the challenging of the title
(20-22), the last bequest (25—27), two
words (28—30), the piercing of the side
(31—87), the ministry of Nicodemus (39 f.).
For a time at least St John was an eye-
witness (vv. 26, 35).

The narrative falls into the following
sections :—

1. The Crucifixion (17—22).

2. The two groups of bystanders (23—27).

3. The fulfilment (28—30).

4. The two requests (31—42).

Generally it will be observed that St
John dwells on the fulfilment of the Old
Covenant, on prohphecies and types (vv.
24, 28, 36, 37), and on the Majesty of the
Lord in suffering. In all the will of God and
the will of Christ is seen to be accomplished.

In especial St John seems to insist on
details (v. 29) which tended to identify the
Lord with the Paschal Lamb, both as
offered and as consumed.

St. JOHN. XIX.

273
forth into a place called the place of a
skull, which is called in the Hebrew
Golgotha :

18 Where they crucified him, and
two other with him, on either side
one, and Jesus in the midst.

1. vv. 17—22. The Crucifixion, The two
and the King. The title challenged and
confirmed,
16b. They therefore took (received)

Jesus, and he...) Pilate “delivered up”

and the “chief priests” “received Jesus.”

The word (wapéAafov) may serve to recall

the phrase at the beginning of the Gospel :

His own received (wapéAaBov) Him not

(i, 11). The Jews received Christ from

the hands of the Roman governor for

death : they did not. receive Him from the
teaching of their own prophets for life.

They “received” Him and “ crucified”

Him (v, 18), though the Roman soldiers

were their instruments (v. 23; Matt. xxvii.

27). The act was theirs, even while they

carried it out ‘‘ by the hand of lawless men

(i.e, Gentiles) “ (Acts ii, 23; comp. iii. 15).
17. bearing his cross] Or, according to

the better reading, bearing the cross for

himself. From the Synoptists (Matt. xxvii.

32; Mark xv. 21; Luke xxiii. 26) it appears

that on the way Simon of Cyrene (see

Mark 7. c, note) was taken either to carry

or to assist in carrying the cross, This the

Lord at first bore for Himself; and the

remarkable language of St Mark (xv. 22,

époverv, see note) lends countenance to

the belief that He sank beneath the burden,

Comp. Matt, xxvii, 31f, notes,

Many writers from the time of Melito
(Routh, ‘Rell. Sacrr.’ 1, 122) have seen in
the history of Isaac (Gen. xxii, 6) a type
of this incident. Comp, xviii. 12, note.

went forth] Comp. Hebr. xiii. 12f. This

“going forth” (xviii, 1) from the city

answers to the “coming in” (ch. xii, 12) :

the ‘“ Via dolorosa” to the line of triumph.

Golgotha] See Matt. xxvii, 33, note.

18. they crucified] i.e. the Jews, not
indeed directly but acting through the
Roman soldiers (v. 23), to whom the charge
of the execution was committed. For the
nature of the punishment, see Matt, xxvii.

35, note,
two other] described as “robbers”
Ayotai, comp. ch, xviii. 40) by St

Matthew (xxvii, 38, see note) and St Mark
(xv. 27), and as “ malefactors ” (kaxovpyot,
comp. xviii, 30) by St Luke (xxiii, 32).
It may have been of design that these
criminals were put to death with the Lord,
in order to place His alleged offence of
treason on a level with theirs. Comp. ch.
Xviii. 40, note.

in the midst] as holding the position of
pre-eminence in chat scene of uttermost
274

19 7 And Pilate wrote a title,
and put ¢# on the cross. And the
writing was, JESUS OF NAZA-
RETH THE KING OF THE
JEWS.

20 This title then read many of
the Jews: for the place where Jesus
was ctucified was nigh to the city:

Sr. JOHN. XIX.

[v. 19—22.
and it was written in Hebrew, and
Greek, and Latin.

21 Then said the chief priests of
the Jews to Pilate, Write not, The
King of the Jews; but that he said,
I am the King of the Jews. j

22 Pilate answered, What I have
written I have written.

 

shame. Even in suffering Christ appears
as a King. St John by the addition of
this clause emphasizes the thought which
the other Evangelists leave to be deduced
(Matt, xxvii, 38; Mark xv, 27; Luke xxiii.
33).

M9. And Pilate...title also, and...] It was
not unusual to attach to the cross the name
and offence of the sufferer (see Matt. xxvii.
37, note). This St John calls by the
technical Roman term “titulus” (t/rAos),

And the writing was] And there was
written. It appears likely that St John
has preserved exactly one of the forms of
the “title” (the Greek), The other Evan-
gelists speak of ‘‘the inscription of his
accusation” (1) érvypady) THs aixtas atrot,
Mark xv. 26), “his accusation” (i airéa
atrov, Matt, xxvii. 37), and “an in-
scription” (érvypady, Luke xxiii, 38).

The facts that Pilate himself drew up the
inscription and caused it to be placed
(wrote...and placed it) on the cross are
mentioned only by St John, The act appears
to have been an afterthought (éypayev
&¢ cat 7.); or the form of expression may
perhaps imply that the placing of the Lord
“in the midst” was due to Pilate’s direv-
tion. The form of the sentence, which
throws the emphasis on “title” and not on
“Pilate”? is in favour of this view, in
either case the Roman governor found ex-
pression to the last for the bitterness which
had been called out in him by the opposi-
tion of the Jews (vv. 14, 15). The incidents
which have been related before explain
perfectly why the title was written, and
how the heathen governor completed the
unwilling testimony of the Jewish priest
(xi, 49f.). 3

20. in Hebrew, and Greek, and Latin)
Rather, according to the best authorities,
Hebrew, and in Latin, and in Greek. This
detail also is peculiar to St John, for the
corresponding clause in Luke xxiii. 38 is
an interpolation. Such multilingual in-
scriptions were not. uncommon in the Roman
provinces. The correspondence between
the different texts (it may be added) was
in all probability not so much verbal as
substantial,

The order of the languages, according to
the true reading, answers to the position
which they would naturally occupy: the
national dialect, the official dialect, the
common dialect, These three languages
gathered up the results of the religious,

the social, the intellectual, preparation for
Christ, and in each witness was given to
His office,

21, Then said the chief priests...) The
chief priests...said therefore... The place
was public, and the inscription was so
written as to be intelligible (perhaps) to
all the visitors at the Feast. “The chief
priests of the Jews” were consequently
anxious to make it clear that they and all
whom they represented were not com-
promised by the condemnation of “the
King.” Pilate’s shaft went home. Perhaps
we may see in the difference of form
between the title assigned by Pilate, “ The
King of the Jews” (6 BaciAeds 7. 'I.), and
that suggested by the priests as claimed by
Jesus, “King of the Jews” (BacwAeds r. "I),
an instinctive unwillingness on their part
to connect in any way the Messianic dignity
—‘‘ the Kingship "—with Him whom they
had condemned. They wished to make
Him a mere ordinary usurper (comp. v. 12).
Or it may have been that they would not
acknowledge even by implication that such
a title was possible, keeping, as pure
secularists, to their former assertion, “ We
have no king but Cesar.”

the chief priests of the Jews] This
unique title appears to be used here to
emphasize the contrast between the faith-
less priests and the true King; and also
to indicate that this priesthood had given
way to another. Comp, ii. 6, 18, notes,

22. When tnere was no longer personal
danger Pilate held to his purpose. The
trait corresponds perfectly with his charac-
ter, and the form of the answer is charac-
teristically Roman, though it is found also
in Rabbinic writings,

The account which Philo gives of the
character of Pilate (‘Leg. ad Caium,’ § 38),
“self-willed at once and implacable” (werd.
Tov avOdSous dyetArKros), illustrates St
John’s description. When the people
besought him to remove the shields, which
he had set up in Herod’s palace in honour
of the emperor, he was unwilling alike to
undo what he had done and to gratify any
popular wish. At the same time he was
greatly alarmed lest the Jews should expose
to Tiberius his various acts of “ corrup-
tion, outrage, robbery, insult, contumely ;
his indiscriminate and continuous murders;
his unceasing and most vexatious cruelty,”

2. vv, 23-27. The bystanders. Depar-
ture seen from two points of view: (a)
¢ Matt. 27.
36.

fOr,
wrought.

v. 23—25]

23 7 ‘Then the soldiers, when
they had crucified Jesus, took his
garments, and made four parts, to
every soldier a part; and also his
coat : now the coat was without seam,
llwoven from the top throughout.

24 They said therefore among
themselves, Let us not rend it, but

St. JOHN. XIX.

275
cast lots for it, whose it shall be:
that the scripture might be fulfilled,

which saith, ¢They parted my rai- @ Peal. 22

ment among them, and for my ves-
ture they did cast lots. These things
therefore the soldiers did.

25 {| Now there stood by the cross
of Jesus his mother, and his mother’s

 

The soldiers: unfeeling selfishness. The
last despoiling (23,24), (b) The friends:
waiting love. The last bequest (25—27).

23. Then the soldiers...) The soldiers
therefore... as carrying out in the customary
manner the sentence which they had to
execute (v. 18). St John describes in
minute detail what the other Evangelists
state summarily (Matt, xxvii. 35; Mark
xv, 24; Luke xxiii, 34), and explains what
they say of ‘‘casting lots.” See Matt.
xxvii, 35, note.

his garments...also the coat] The large,
loose, outer dress with girdle, &c, (7a
iudria), and the close-fitting inner tunic
or vest (xTdv). The former could be
conveniently divided, but not the latter.

four parts] Comp. Acts xii, 4 (quater-
nion of soldiers).

without seam] Such was the tunic of
the high-priest, Jos, ‘ Antt.’ 11, 6, 4.

Chrysostom, who may write from personal
knowledge, thinks that the detail is added
to shew “the poorness of the Lord’s gar-
ments, and that in dress, as in all other
things, He followed a simple fashion.”

24. They said therefore among them-
selves (one to another, xvi, 17)] Itis easy
to imagine how St John (v. 26) watched
earnestly each act, and listened as the
soldiers talked over their work.

that the scripture...] Omit which saith.
The central thought in the original context
(Ps, xxii, 18) is that the enemies of the
Lord’s Anointed treated Him as already
dead, and so disposed of His raiment.
Part was torn asunder, part was to be
worn by another. St John marks how
this double appropriation of Christ’s dress
was brought about; and he appears to
have had in mind the contrast which
exists in the original between the over-
clothing (B73) and the body-dress

wna) though this is obscured in the
LXX. translation which he quotes. Comp.

Hofmann, ‘ Weiss. u, Erf.’ 11, 144 ff.

This reference to the psalm, it may be
noticed, has been inserted from this place
in Matt, xxvii. 35. See note there.

my raiment] my garments. The same
word is used as in v 23 ( iudria).

25 ff. There were others at the Cross
besides the soldiers. The two groups are
placed in significant contrast (‘the soldiers
on the one hand [ot pév odv or .]”...“on the

New Test.—Vot. II.

other there were standing [elo TH Keray dé)”
At the very moment when His execu-
tioners fulfil the last part of their office,
Christ in calm sovereignty works for others.
The soldiers at their will dispose of His
raiment, but He Himself, even from the
Cross, determines the relationships of life.
25. Now there stood...] More exactly,
But there were standing (eiotijKeway, not
simply stood. See xviii, 5, note). This
group seems to have formed the more
courageous part of “the many beholding
from afar,” mentioned by St Matthew
(xxvii, 55f., see notes), who therefore
notices the three by name, though he does
not record that they approached the Cross.
The text leaves room for doubt as to the
number of the women mentioned. Accord-
ing to one interpretation, the name “ Mary
the wife of Clopas” is added as explana-
tory of the preceding phrase, ‘‘His mother’s
sister,” so that three women only are
specified : according to another interpreta
tion, two pairs of women are distinguished,
the first two not named but signified only,
“His mother and His mother’s sister ;”
and the second two plainly named, “ Ma:
the wife of Clopas and Mary Magdalene.”
The former interpretation would involve
the most unlikely supposition that two
sisters bore the same name, The parallelism
of the second interpretation is like St
John’s style, and is supported by other
considerations, St Mark (xv, 40) mentions
among those present “ Mary Magdalene,
and Mary the mother of James the less
and of Joses, and Salome” (comp, Matt.
xxvii. 56). There is no doubt as to the
identity of “Mary the wife of Clopas”
and “Mary the mother of James the less.”
It seems natural therefore to suppose that
when two groups of three stand out clearly
in the same connexion, in which two persons
are the same, that the third is also the
same; and so that “the sister of the Lord's
mother” is “Salome,” “ the mother of the
sons of Zebedee.” This near connexion of
St John with the mother of the Lord helps
to explain the incident which follows, as
well as the general relation in which St
John stood to the Lord. The omission of
the name of Salome, on this supposition,
falls in with St John’s usage as to his
brother and to himself. It may be added
that the Peshito (Syriac) version distinctly
adopts this view by inserting and before
“Mary the wife of Clopas.”
Mary the wife of Cleophas (Clopas)] This

T
| Or,
lopas.

276

sister, Mary the wife of |ICleophas,
and Mary Magdalene.

26 When Jesus therefore saw his
mother, and the disciple standing
by, whom he loved, he saith unto
his mother, Woman, behold thy son!

St. JOHN. XIX.

[v. 26-—28.

27 Then saith he to the disciple,
Behold thy mother! And from that
hour that disciple took her unto his
own home.

28 4 After this, Jesus knowing
that all things were now accomplish-

 

seems to be the true meaning of the ellip-
tical phrase (M. 4} rv} KAw¢a). “ Clopas””
must then be regarded as identical with
“ Alpheus” (Matt, x. 3). It is commonly
supposed that both forms represent the

Aramaic ‘59M. The form “Cleophas”
(A. V.) comes from late Latin MSS, and
has no Greek authority.

There is no direct ground for identifying
Clopas (KAwzas) with Cleopas (KA«éras),
mentioned in Luke xxiv. 18, and none
therefore for supposing that this Mary
was either his “mother ” or his “ wife” or
his “ daughter.”

It will be noticed that Mary Magdalene
is introduced abruptly, as well known,
without any explanation,

26. When Jesus therefore...) All who
were present at the scene acted according
to their true natures: priests (v. 21),
soldiers (vv, 23, 24), Jews (v, 31); and so
Christ fulfilled the last office of filial
piety. The soldiers treated Him as already
dead (v. 24, note), and He still exercised
His royal power over the souls of men.

whom he loved] See ch. xiii. 23, note.
The clause is at once an explanation of
what follows, and a word of thanksgiving ;
of humility, not of pride,

Woman] Comp. ii. 4,note. Special earthly
relationships are now at an end. For
Christ the title of parentage (‘‘ Mother”)
is exchanged for the common title of
respect (yivac), If, as appears most likely,
the “brethren” of Christ were sons of
Joseph by a former marriage, and St John
was the son of the sister of the Lord’s
mother, the difficulty which has been felt
as to the charge which he received in
preference to the brethren, who appear
among the first believers (Acts i, 14),
wholly disappears. St John was nearest
to the Virgin by ties of blood. Comp.
v. 25, note.

27, Behold, thy mother /] Here no title of
address is used. To St John the Lord
stood in the same relation as before. The
absence of a vocative in this clause (Hebr.
ii. 11) fixes attention on the meaning of
that which was used before,

The four exclamations in this chapter,
the two of Pilate, Behold, the man! (v. 5),
Behold, your King! (v, 14), and these two
of the Lord, Behold thy son! Behold, thy
mother! form a remarkable picture of what
Christ is and what He reveals men to be.
The word “Behold” is in each case an
interjection,

And from that hour] The words are to

be understood literally, but it does not
follow that St John’s “home” was at
Jerusalem (but see note on Mark i, 20).
He at once accepted and fulfilled the duties
of his new sonship. The crisis of Christ’s
Passion (“ His hour,” comp, xiii, 1) closed
finally His individual relation, as man, to
His earthly mother. The simple connexion
of the word and the deed (and, not there-
fore) is full of meaning. The act was not
so much a consequence drawn from that
which the Lord had said as something felt
to be included in it. Perhaps St John
conveyed the mother of the Lord at once to
his own lodging, and himself returned.

unto his own home] Comp. xvi, 32, note.
St John probably had some substance,
Mark i, 20, note,

Nothing is known with reasonable cer-
tainty of the later life of the mother of the
Lord. Epiphanius was evidently unac-
quainted with any accepted tradition upon
the subject (‘ Her.’ Lxxvitt. 11). He leaves
it in doubt whether she accompanied St
John to Asia Minor or not. But in the
course of time surmises were converted
into facts; and Nicaphorus Callisti (tc.
1350, ‘Hist, Eccles.’ 11, 3) relates that she
lived with St John at Jerusalem for eleven
years after the death of the Lord, and
died there in her 59th year. The site of
the “tomb of the Virgin,’’ just to the
north of the garden of Gethsemane, is not
mentioned by any traveller of the first six
centuries, and the later tradition that the
church there was built by Helena is cer-
tainly false. See Quaresmius, 11, 240 ff. ;
Williams, ‘ Holy City,’ 11. 484 ff. From a
passage in a Synodical Letter of the
Council of Ephesus (A.D. 481, ‘Cone.’ m1.
578, Labbe) it appears that, according to
another tradition, the mother of the Lord
accompanied St John to Ephesus and was
buried there.

3. vv, 28-30. The work accomplished :
the willing death,

28. After this] The phrase is not in-
definite, as ‘“‘ after these things,” see ch, v.
1. The ministry of Christ to others was
ended. Then notice is taken of His own
suffering. But all thought is concentrated
upon the Lord Himself, upon His words
and His actions; and it may be for this
reason that St John omits all mention of
the three hours’ darkness (Matt, xxvii. 45;
Mark xv. 33).

knowing] Comp. ch. xiii, 1.

were now accomplished] are now finished.
The A. V. loses the striking parallel
V. 29, 30.]

filled, saith, I thirst.
29 Now there was set a vessel full
of vinegar: and they filled a sponge

St. JOHN. XIX.

:Psal. 69. ed, ethat the scripture might be ful-

with vinegar, and put ct upon hyssop,
and put it to his mouth.

30 When Jesus therefore had re-
ceived the vinegar, he said, It is

 

between this clause “are now finished”
(48 teréAerrat) and what follows, “ It is
finished ” (rerédeorat ).

that the scripture might be fulfilled] This
clause can be connected either with the
words which precede (“were now accom-
plished that the...”) or with the words
which follow (‘‘...accomplished, that the
scripture might be fulfilled, saith...”), The
stress which the Evangelist lays upon the
fulfilment of prophetic words in each detail
of Christ’s sufferings appears to shew that
the latter interpretation is correct. The
“thirst,” the keen expression of bodily
exhaustion, was specified as part of the
agony of the Servant of God (Ps. lxix, 21),
and this Messiah endured to the uttermost.
The incident loses its full significance
unless it be regarded as one element in
the foreshadowed course of the Passion.
Nor is there any difficulty in the phrase
“are now finished” as preceding it. The
“thirst” was already felt, and the feeling
included the confession of it. The fulfil-
ment of the Scripture (it need scarcely be
added) was not the object which the Lord
had in view in uttering the word, but
there was a necessary correspondence
between His acts and the divine fore-
shadowing of them,

be fulfilled be accomplished, perfected.
The word used (reAcwOy, Vulg. consum-
maretur, for which some copies substitute
the usual word (7AnpwOy is very remark-
able. It appears to mark not the isolated
fulfilling of a particular trait in the scrip-
tural picture, but the perfect completion of
the whole prophetic image. This utterance
of physical suffering was the last thing
required that Messiah might be “made
perfect” (Hebr, ii, 10, v. 7 ff.), and so the
ideal of propheey made perfect in Him, Or,
to express the same thought otherwise, that
“work ” which Christ came to “make per-
fect” (ch. iv, 34, xvii, 4) was written in
Scripture, and by the realisation of the work
the Scripture was “perfected.” Thus under
different aspects of this word and of that
which it implies, prophecy, and the earthly
work of Christ, and Christ Himself, were
“made perfect.”

29. The act on this occasion (contrast
Luke xxiii, 36) appears to have been a
natural act of compassion, and not at all of
mockery. The emphasis is laid upon the
physical suffering of the Lord, and not
upon the manner in which it was met.

Now (omit) there was...vessel...vinegar]
It seems to be certain from Luke xxiii. 36
that the “vinegar” was thin sour wine,
the ordinary drink of the soldiers. This
may have been brought by them for their

own use during the long watch, The
mention of the “vessel set” is peculiar to
St John,

and they filled...and put it...] having
therefore placed a sponge full of the vinegar
upon hyssop they put it...St John’s narra-
tive leaves the persons undetermined,
“They” may refer to the soldiers whose
action has been described above, or “the
Jews,” who are in his mind the real agents
throughout (v. 16), The account in St.
Matthew (xxvii, 48, see note) and St Mark
(xv. 86), with equal vagueness, refers the
action to “one of them that stood by,” but
since St Luke (xxiii, 36) speaks of “the
soldiers” as having offered “vinegar ” to
the Lord at an earlier stage of His Passion,
there can be little doubt that one of these,
touched with awe by what had intervened,
now brought in compassion the draught
which had been offered in mockery before,

hyssop) In St Matthew and St Mark “a
reed” is mentioned, which is probably to be
distinguished from the hyssop; though the
“hyssop”’ has been frequently identified
with the caper-plant, which has stems three
or four feet long. Comp, Matt. xxvii. 48,
note, and the ‘Dictionary of the Bible,’ s. v.

30. received] The Lord, it will be noticed,
asked for and received this slight refresh-
ment, which restored natural forces, while
He refused the stupefying potion which
was before offered to Him, See Matt. xxvii.
34, note. He gave up life while in full
possession of the powers of life.

It is finished] Comp, v.28. The earthly
life had been carried to its issue. Every
essential point in the prophetic portraiture
of Messiah had been realized (Acts xiii.
29). The last suffering for sin had been
endured. The “‘end” of all had been gained,
Nothing was left undone or unborne, The
absence of a definite subject forces the
reader to call up each work which was now
brought to an end. Comp, Luke xviii. 31,
xxii, 37, and the phrase of St Paul, 2 Tim.
iv, 7. See Matt, xxvii. 50, note.

gave up the ghost (His spirit)) The
death itself is described as a voluntary act
(Tertull. ‘Apol.’ ch. 21, p, 58, “Suffixus
spiritum cum verbo sponte dimisit pravento
carnificis officio”). Among later writers
who dwell on this idea, Augustine (in loc.)
may be specially quoted : “ Quis ita dormit
quando voluerit, sicut Jesus mortuus est
quando voluit ? Quis ita vestem ponit quando
voluerit, sicut se carne exuit quando vult?
Quis ita cum voluerit abit, quomodo the
cum voluit obiit? Quanta speranda vel
timenda potestas est judicantis, si apparuit
tanta morientis?” In this sense the words
stand in close relation with the phrase of
St Paul, He gave up Himself ( rapéSuxev

277
278 ;
finished : and he bowed his head, and
gave up the ghost.

31 The Jews therefore, because it
was the preparation, that the bodies
should not remain upon the cross on

Sr. JOHN. XIX.

[v. 31, 32.
the sabbath day, (for that sabbath
day was an high day,) besought Pi-
late that their legs might be broken,
and that they might be taken away.
32 Then came the soldiers, and

 

éauréy, Eph. v, 2, 25; Gal, ii, 20). Comp,
1 Pet, ii, 28, and, under another aspect,
Acts vii. 59. St Luke (xxiii. 46) gives the
words which the Lord used (rapariOepat,
Ps, xxxi, 5). Such a willing surrender of
life was an exact fulfilment of what the
Lord had said of Himself, ch. x, 17 f.
Under these circumstances it may not be
fitting to speculate on the physical cause of
the Lord’s death, but it has been argued
that the symptoms agree with a rupture of
the heart, such as might be produced by
intense mental agony (Stroud, ‘The phy-
sical cause of the Death of Christ, 1847,
1871; see note on v, 34). In connexion
with St John’s language here it may be
noticed that in the Apocalypse he seems to
avoid the word ‘‘died” in speaking of the
Lord : i, 18, ii, 8 ( yevér Oa vexpds); yet
see C. xii, 33, xi. 51. The phrases in the
parallel accounts are different, Matt, xxvii.
50 (apixev 7d wyeva); and Mark xv. 37;
Luke xxiii, 46 ( é€emvevcev),

The ‘“‘seven words from the Cross”
which are preserved some by one Evangelist
and some by another, form a whole which
requires to be studied by itself. One is
given by St Matthew and St Mark only.
Three are peculiar to St Luke, and three
to St John. The following list presents
the order in which they appear to have
been uttered,

(2) Before the darkness.

1. Father, forgive them; for they know
not what they do (mototvow), Luke xxiii,
34,

2. Verily I say, To day shalt thou be
with me in paradise (Luke xxiii. 43).

8. Woman, behold, thy son/...Behold,
thy mother! (John xix. 26f.),

(8) During the darkness : towards the close.
4, My God, my God, why didst thou
forsake me? (Matt. xxvii. 46; Mark xv. 34).

(y) At the close of the darkness.

5. I thirst (John xix, 28).

6. It is finished (John xix, 30).

7. Father, into thy hands I commend
my spirit (Luke xxiii, 46),

The last word of the Lord which St John
records is a voice of triumph. Comp. xvi,
33,

4, vv, 31—42. The two requests: shame
turned to honour,

(a) The request of the Jews. The sign

of life in the crucified Lord (vv, 31—87).

31—87. The main thought of this section

is that of the Life of the Lord in Death.

The sign of life is called out by wanton

insult : the unconscious agency of enemies
effects the fulfilment of the divine purpose.

The incidents are peculiar to St John.
Yet see the early addition to St Matt.
xxvii. 49, “But another took a spear and
pierced His side, and there came out
water and blood.”

31. The Jews therefore...) The con-
nexion is not with that which immediately
precedes, for the Jews did not yet know of
Christ’s death, But the narrative goes back
to follow out the conduct of the chief
actors in the tragedy; (vv. 7,20); they had
wrought their will, and now they were eager
to satisfy the letter of the Law : Deut, xxi.
22f, Jos.‘ B. J.’ 1v. 5. 2, Comp. xviii. 28.

Under any circumstances the dead bodies
ought to have been removed before night;
but this obligation became more urgent on
the day of the Crucifixion, since that day
preceded a great Festival, ‘‘the first day
of unleavened bread” (Exod. xii.16; Lev.
xxiii. 7), which, according to the common
view, coincided on this occasion with the
weekly Sabbath (see Matt, xxvi., note), so
that the day was “a great day” in itself,
and by the concurrence of two “ Sabbaths,”

besought] Rather, asked (jpwrynoay), as
for that which they might reasonably expect
to be granted.

legs...broken] This terrible punishment

(ckeAoKoria, crurifragium) was inflicted

(like crucifixion) upon slaves (Sen. ‘ De ira,’
111, 32) and others who had incurred the
anger of irresponsible masters (Suet. ‘ Aug.’
67; ‘Tib.” 44; Sen, ‘De ira,’ m1. 18;
comp. Euseb, ‘H. E.’ v. 21). It was no
part of the punishment of crucifixion itself,
but was inflicted in this case, and perhaps
generally in Jewish crucifixions (Lact. Iv.
26), in order to hasten death. Compare
Lipsius, ‘De cruce,’ 11.14, The punishment
was abolished, together with crucifixion, by
the first Christian emperor Constantine
(Lipsius, 111, 14).

32. Then...the soldiers] The soldiers
therefore,—to whom the carrying out of
the execution had been committed—came
from their place of guard to fulfil these
new instructions.

the first...the other...) starting perhaps
from the two sides at which they had been
stationed.

84. The wantonness of the soldiers’
violence was in part checked (they brake
not his legs), but one of them, in order, no
doubt, to learn the certainty of the Lord’s
death, pierced His side. The word which
describes the wound ( évv€ev) is used both
of a light touch (Ecclus, xxii, 19) and of a
deep gash (Jos. ‘B. J.’ 111. 7, 35). Here
V- 33—35-]
brake the legs of the first, and of the
other which was crucified with him.

33 But when they came to Jesus,
and saw that he was dead already,
they brake not his legs :

St. JOHN. XIX.

34 But one of the soldiers with a
spear pierced his side, and forthwith
came there out blood and water.

35 And he that saw it bare re-
cord, and his record is true: and he

 

there is no doubt that the latter is described,
both from the weapon used (Adyxy, Vulg.
lancea, the long lance of a horseman) and
from the object of the blow. The word is
quite distinct from that used in v. 87
(eGexevtnoav, pierced through, or deeply:
1 Chro. x. 4). The reading of the Latin
Vulgate, opened (aperuit), comes from a
false reading of the Greek (jvoréev for
évugev).

blood and water] It has been argued (with
the greatest plausibility and authority by
Dr Stroud, ‘ The physical cause of the Death
of Christ,’ ed. 2, 1871) that this is a natural
phenomenon, The immediate cause of death
was (it is said) a rupture of the heart,
which was followed by a large effusion of
blood into the pericardium. This blood, it
is supposed, rapidly separated into its more
solid and liquid parts (crassamentum and
serum), which flowed forth in a mingled
stream, when the pericardium was pierced
by the spear from below. But it appears that
both this and the other naturalistic explana-
tions of the sign are not only inadequate
but also inconsistent with the real facts.
There is not sufficient evidence to shew
that such a flow of blood and water as is
described would occur under the circum-
stances supposed, and the separation of the
blood into its constituent parts is a process
of corruption, and we cannot but believe
that even from the moment of death the
Body of the Lord underwent the begin-
nings of that change which issued in the
Resurrection, The issuing of the blood and
water from His side must therefore be
regarded as a sign of life in death. It
shewed both His true humanity and (in
some mysterious sense) the permanence of
His human life. Though dead, dead in
regard to our mortal life, the Lord yet
lived; and as He hung upon the cross He
was shewn openly to be the source of a
double cleansing and vivifying power, which
followed from His death and life.

The Sign by which this revelation was
made becomes intelligible from the use of
the terms “ blood ” and “‘ water” elsewhere
in the writings of St John. 1. “Blood” is
the symbol of the natural life (comp. i. 13) ;
and so especially of life as sacrificed ; and
Christ by dying provided for the com-
munication of the virtue of His human life :
vi, 58—56, xii, 24 ff. Comp, Rev. i. 5, v.9,
vii 14. 2. “Water” is the symbol of the
spiritual life (see iv. 14, iii. 5, and vii. 38;
[Zech, xiv. 8]); and Christ by dying pro-
vided for the outpouring of the Spirit:
xvi, 7. Comp. Rev. xxi. 6, xxii, 1, 17, [vii.

17], The cleansing from sin and the quicken-
ing by the Spirit are both consequent on
Christ’s death.

Thus we are brought by this sign of
“plood and water” to the ideas which
underlie the two Sacraments and which are
brought home to faith in and through
them; and the teaching of the third and
sixth chapters is placed at once in con-
nexion with the Passion. It is through
the death of Christ, and His new Life by
Death, that the life of the Spirit and the
support of the whole complex fulness of
human life is assured to men, The symbols
of the Old Covenant (Hebr. ix. 19) found
their fulfilment in the New.

Comp. 1 John v. 6 ff. Lightfoot quotes
a remarkable tradition from ‘Shemoth R.’
122, based on the interpretation of Ps.
Ixxviii. 20 (O° |}}'}), that “ Moses
struck the rock twice, and first it gushed
out blood and then water.”

For a summary of the patristic interpre-
tations of the passage see Additional Note.

35. See Introduction, p. xxv. ff.

He that hath seen (6éwpaxds) hath
borne witness (pepaptipyxer, not émaprv-
pyoev), and his witness is true: and he
knoweth that he saith things that are true
that ye also may believe,

his witness is true (dxnO.v7)) ie. it
answers to the full conception of adequate
testimony. Comp, viii. 16, 14 and notes.

ye] ye also, even as the apostle himself,
who had had the privilege of witnessing
these signs of the truth of the Gospel. |

believe] On this absolute use of the
word see i, 7.

36. For these things were done (rather,
came to pass)...] The stress is laid upon
the correspondence of the two facts with
the details of type and prophecy. It was
wonderful, as the events fell out, that the
legs of Christ were not broken: it was
further wonderful, when He had escaped
this indignity, that His side was pierced.
Tho first fact pointed the student of Scrip-
ture to the fulfilment in Jesus of the
symbolism of the Law: the second to the
fulfilment in Him of the promises as to the
representative of Jehovah. For the two
passages quoted are not to be regarded only
as isolated quotations, but also as indicat-
ing the two great lines of preparatory
teaching to which they severally belong.

the scripture] i.e. the passage of scrip-
ture. See ii, 22, note,

A bone...) Exod. xii. 46; (Num, ix. 12).
Comp, 1 Cor. v, 7. The ordinance extended
to the burnt-offerings (Lev. i. 6, into hie

275
280

knoweth that he saith true, that ye
might believe.
36 For these things were done,

} Bxod.12. fthat the scripture should be fulfilled
Numb. 9

A bone of him shall not be broken.
37 And again another scripture

Guach. 1B saith, 9They shall look on him whom

they pierced.

Sr. JOHN. XIX.

[v. 36—39.

38 7 hAnd after this Joseph of h
Arimathzea, being a disciple of Jesus,
but secretly for fear of the Jews, be-
sought Pilate that he might take
away the body of Jesus: and Pilate
gave him leave. He came therefore,
and took the body of Jesus.

39 And there came also Nico-

 

pieces). That which was offered to God
might not be arbitrarily mutilated. It was
fitting that it should be brought to Him in
its full strength. And conversely God
preserves “the righteous” (Acts iii. 14,
&c.), so that “not one of his bones is
broken” (Ps, xxxiv. 20), even in his
uttermost distress, The spiritual corre-
spondence of the fact with the phrase in
the Psalm should not be overlooked.

87. They shall look...) Zech. xii. 10.
See note. Comp. Introduction, p. xiv.
“The Jews” are the subject of the whole
sentence. The Crucifixion was their act
(v. 16); and in unbelief and in belief they
represent the world. It is important to
notice that the prophetic vision is referred
to Christ under a twofold aspect. As
presented by the prophet himself, it is the
vision of a Saviour late recognised by a
penitent people (comp. ch. xii. 32). As
applied in the Apocalypse, it is primarily
the vision of one slain returning to Judg-
ment (Rev. i. 7). Perhaps these two
aspects of Christ’s death are reconciled in
that final Truth which lies at present be-
yond our sight.

pierced] v. 34, note.

(b) The requestof Joseph of Arimathea.
The quickening of love in disciples (vv.
38—42),

38—42. Just as the last section deals
with the unconscious ministry of enemies,
this deals with the devoted ministry of
friends. The Death of the Lord evoked in
disciples that courage which had been
Jatent during His lifetime (secretly, v. 38,
by night at the first, v. 39). From this
point of sight it is natural that the minis-
try of the women should be passed over
(Matt. xxvii. 61; Mark xv. 47; Luke xxiii.
55 f.) : their continued service revealed no
sudden growth of love or self-sacrifice.

All the Evangelists record the request of
Joseph. St John alone notices the offer-
ing and the presence of Nicodemus (vv.
39 f.).

38. after this] More exactly, after
these things (era Tatra): the phrase
marks an indefinite, general sequence, and
not a direct sequence (era ToUTO, v. 28).
Comp. vi, 1, note, The form of expression is
of importance here because it shews that the
Evangelist does not (as has been supposed)
place the request of Joseph after the inei-
dent related in vv, 32 ff., but simply after

the issue of the crucifixion: comp. Mark
xv. 44 f,

Joseph of Arimathea] Matt. xxvii, 57
ff. (a rich man) ; Mark xv. 43 f. (an honour-
able councillor, i.e. a member of the
Sanhedrin) ; Luke xxiii. 50 f. (a good man
and just...). See notes on these passages.

for fear of the Jews] xii. 42, vii. 13.
St Mark adds most significantly, with a
clear reference to this fact : Joseph...went
in boldly unto Pilate... literally, having
dared (roApyoas), having ventured on an
act foreign to his natural temper (Mark
xv. 48, note).

besought] v. 31, note.

take away] The permission given to
Joseph is in complete harmony with the
instructions given to the soldiers (v. 31 f.,
that they might be taken away). Joseph
would be able to prefer his request after
the death of the Lord (Mark xv. 44), and
before the bodies were removed in the or-
dinary course. Thus he “took down”
the Lord’s Body (Mark xv. 46; Luke
Xxlii. 53), either assisting in or directing
the act.

gave him leave] This was in accordance
with Roman law except in extreme cases.
See the passage quoted by Wetstein on
Matt. xxvii. 58. An avaricious governor
was able to sell the privilege of burial
(Cic. ‘ Verr.’ v. 45), yet Pilate did not do
this (Mark xv. 45, éSwpyjoaro) : see note
in loc. and contrast Matt. xxviii. 14. Com-
pare also the burial of the bodies of John
the Baptist (Matt. xiv. 12) and St Stephen
(Acts viii. 2) by their friends,

the body of Jesus] According to the
best authorities, his body.

39. And there came also...] Theorder
of the words, corresponding to that in the
former clause, seems to suggest the thought
that the act of Joseph gave Nicodemus
courage to join him.

which...came to Jesus (to him)) iii. 1 ff.,
vii, 50. The addition of the words “by
night”? here (not in vii. 50 according to
the true reading) is designed apparently to
contrast this open act of reverence to
Christ, done before the day had closed,
with the secrecy of his first visit. The
use of the phrase “at first’? probably
implies at the same time that Nicodemus
had come to Christ on other occasions ;
though it may indicate only the beginning
of the.Lord’s ministry (comp. ch. x. 40).

and brought (bringing) a mizture (or,

Matt. 27.
57.
Vv. 40—42.]
demus, which at the first came to
Jesus by night, and brought a mixture
of myrrh and aloes, about an hun-
dred pound weight.

40 Then took they the body of
Jesus, and wound it in linen clothes
with the spices, as the manner of
the Jews is to bury.

St. JOHN. XIX.

41 Now in the place where he
was crucified there was a garden ; and
in the garden a new Sepulchre, where-
in was never man yet laid.

42 There laid they Jesus there-
fore because of the Jews’ prepara-
tion day; for the sepulchre was nigh
at hand.

 

according to a probable reading, a roll) of
myrrh and aloes) Comp. Ps. xlv. 8, “ All
thy garments are myrrh and aloes...’’ The
compound was made of the gum of the
myrrh tree (comp. Matt. ii. 11; ‘ Dict. of
Bible,’ s. v.) and a powder of the fragrant
aloe wood.

The amount of the preparation (‘‘ about
a hundred pound weight,’’ that is, a hun-
dred Roman pounds of nearly twelve
ounces) has caused some needless difficulty.
The intention of Nicodemus was, without
doubt, to cover the Body completely with
the mass of aromatics (comp. 2 Chro. xvi.
14): for this purpose the quantity was
not excessive as a costly gift of devotion.

40. Then took they...) They took
therefore... as uniting in the pious ser-
vice.
wound (bound) it in linen clothes
(cloths)] The exact word used (66év:a)
is found also in Luke xxiv. 12, 4 verse
which appears to have been a very early
addition to St Luke’s Gospel. The dimi-
nutive form which is used in Greek medi-
cal writings for bandages, seems to dis-
tinguish these ‘‘swathes’’ in which the
Body was bound from “the linen cloth”
(vevddv) mentioned by the other Evangel-
ists, in which it was ‘“ wrapped’’ (vere
tAugev as contrasted with edyoav).

the manner of the Jews] as contrasted
with that (e.g.) of the Egyptians, who re-
moved parts of the body before embalming
(Herod. 11. 86 ff.). The phrase may, how-
ever, only mark the Jewish custom of em-
balming as contrasted with burning :
comp. Tac. ‘Hist.’ v. 3.

to bury] Or more exactly, to prepare for
burial. Comp. ch. xii. 7; Matt. xxvi. 12;
Mark xiv. 8. The same word ( évragud(etv)
is used in the LXX. for the ‘‘ embalming”

of Jacob (Gen. |. 2 f.). The process indi-
cated is the simple wrapping of the dead
body in swathes of linen cloth covered
with thick layers of the aromatic prepara-
tion. ;

41. a garden) Comp. xviii. 1. The
scene of the betrayal and the scene of the
triumphant rest answer one to the other.
The detail is peculiar to St John.

Josephus relates of Uzziah (‘ Ant.’ rx.
10. 4, x#7ots), and of Manasseh (‘ Ant. x.
3. 2, wapadeicots), that they were buried
in their ‘‘ gardens.”

a new sepulchre] St Matthew adds that
it belonged to Joseph (xxvii. 60, see note),
and all the Synoptists notice that it was
cut in the rock. The fact that ‘no one
had ever yet been laid in it’? (comp. Luke
xxiii. 53) is emphasized (as it appears) to
shew that the Lord was not brought into
contact with corruption.

42. There...because...] The embalmment
could not (according to their views) be de-
ferred, and for this ample provision was
made. But it is implied that the sepulchre
in which the Lord was laid was not chosen
as His final resting-place.

laid they] From another point of view
it is said most naturally (Acts xiii. 29) of
‘the Jews and their rulers” generally,
that ‘‘they placed” Christ in the tomb.
It was the act of both, on the one side
from the aspect of devotion and on the
other from the aspect of hatred.

Jesus] Comp. xi. 11, note.

the Jews’ preparation day] Comp. ii. 18,
xi. 55, ‘the passover of the Jews;” xix.
21, ‘‘the chief priests of the Jews.’”’ This
use of the term ‘preparation’? is un-
favourable to the view that it is used
simply for the day of the week (Friday).

 

ADDITIONAL NOTES on Cuap. xXIx.

Nore on Sr JoHN’s RECKONING oF Hours.

St John mentions a definite hour of the
day on four occasions :

(1) i. 39, about the tenth hour.

(2) iv. 6, about the sixth hour.

(3) iv. 52, at the seventh hour.

(4) xix. 14, about the sizth hour.

He also,records this saying of the Lord,
« Are there not twelve hours in the day?”
(xi. 9). . ;

The question therefore arises whether the
incidents of which the time is given fur-
nish any clue to the mode of reckoning :

whether, that is, the hours were reckoned
from 6 p.m. to 6 a.m. and from 6 a.m. to
6 p.m. according to the common ancient
mode followed by the Jews, or from mid-
night to noon, and from noon to midnight.
according to the modern Western mode.

The different passages will first be
examined separately, in order that it may
be seen how far the context helps to deter-
mine the answer.

(1) i. 39. After the mention of the
hour, it is said that the disciples
abode with Jesus ‘that day’? (riyv jpépay

281
282

éxeivnv). It appears likely also that Jesus
left the Baptist early in the day (i. 35 ff.).
Yt is then scarcely conceivable that it was
4 p.m, (4 a.m. is out of the question) be-
fore He reached the place ‘‘ where He
abode ;”’ and even less conceivable that the
short space of the day then remaining
should be called ‘‘that day,’’ which, in
fact, appears to have been full of incident.
On the other hand, 10 a.m. suits both con-
ditions. It is an hour by which a way-
farer would seek to have ended his jour-
ney; and it would leave practically ‘a
day’’ for intercourse.

(2) iv. 6. In this case the hour marks a
pause on a journey: the visit of the dis-
ciples to a town to purchase provisions ;
a coming of a woman to the well to draw
water. It can scarcely be questioned that
these things fall in better with 6 p.m.
than with noon. It is most unlikely that
# woman would come from a distance at
midday to the well, and on the other
hand, evening was the usual time: Gen.
xxiv. 11. It is more natural that the
purchases would be made when the day’s
travel was over. Sychar too was at about
the usual distance of a day’s journey from
within the borders of Judza, and arrange-
ments would probably be made to spend
the night outside the city, which was
afterwards entered by special invitation
(iv. 30, 40). If the incident fell in sum-
mer (v. 1, Additional Note) there would
be ample time for the conversation and
the return to the city.

(3) iv. 52. The uncertainty of the site
of Cana causes a little difficulty in deter-
mining the time required for the journey
from Capernaum to Cana. This may how-
ever be fairly reckoned at about four or
five hours. (Comp. Jos. ‘Vit.’ c. 17: a
night juorney from Cana to Tiberias.) It
is then possible that the father may have
planned that his journey to and from Cana
should be included in one natural day, and
that he did not meet his servants til] after

p.m, when they would perhaps speak of
1 p.m, as ‘“‘yesterday, about the seventh
hour” (comp, Luke xxiii, 54); though such
a usage of ‘‘ yesterday’ appears to be dis-
tinctly at variance with St John’s own
usage of ‘‘ day :’’ xx. 19 (comp. Luke xxiv.
29, 33). Still it is more likely that the
words of Jesus were spoken to the noble-
man at Cana in the evening at seven
o’clock, when it was already too late for
him to return home that night and that he
returned to Capernaum on the next morn-
ing, when his servants met him on the way,
In this case, of course, the sense, and not
the phrase of the servants is given,

(4) xix. 14. In this place it is admitted
that the date of noon cannot be brought
_into harmony with the dates of St Mark
(xv. 25). But if we suppose that the time
approximately described was about 6.30

Sr. JOHN. XIX.

a.m, it is not difficult to fit in all the
events of the trial: see p. 288.

So far then the examination of the pas-
sages themselves is decidedly favourable to
the supposition that the modern Western
reckoning of the hours is followed by St
John. The mention of ‘‘twelve hours in
the day’ has no bearing on the decision
one way or other; for we commonly use
the same phrase though we reckon from
midnight to noon.

It must however be admitted that this
mode of reckoning hours was unusual in
ancient times. The Romans (Mart. tv. 8)
and Greeks, no less than the Jews,
reckoned their Aours from sunrise. But
the Romans reckoned their civil days from
midnight (Aul. Gell. 111. 2; comp. Matt.
xxvii. 19, ‘‘this day,’’) and not from sun-
rise, or from sunset (as the Jews). And
there are also traces of reckoning the hours
from midnight in Asia Minor. Polycarp
is said (‘Mart. Pol.’ c. 21) to have been
martyred at Smyrna “‘at the eighth hour.”’
This, from the circumstances, must have
been 8 a.m. Pionius again is said to have
been martyred (at Smyrna also) ‘“‘at the
tenth hour,’”’ which can hardly have been
4 p.m., since such exhibitions usually took
place before noon. These two passages
furnish a sufficient presumption that St
John, in using what is the modern reckon-
ing, followed a practice of the province
in which he was living and for which he
was writing.

The subject has been discussed at length
by Dr Townson, ‘Discourses,’ pp. 215—
250; and again, quite lately, with great
exactness, by Mr. McClellan, ‘ New Testa-
ment,’ I, pp. 737 ff.

Note on “Tue Acts or Prats.”
The part which Pilate occupies in the

_history of the Passion attracted the atten-

tion of Christian writers at an early time.
He came to be regarded by many as the
representative of the better instincts of
heathendom overpowered by the relentless
malice of the Jews. A large and popular
literature grew up, consisting of ‘“ Acts,”
‘Letters’? and legends of the death of
Pilate. Of these writings, the ‘‘ Acts,’
which form the first part of what is known
as ‘‘the Gospel of Nicodemus,’’ are the
most important and the most ancient. The
‘* Acts’? were in circulation in the middle
of the second century; and the texts still
preserved have, as it appears beyond all
doubt, been formed, by successive revisions
and interpolations, from that original.
In its present shape the narrative may
probably be referred to a Greek text of
the 4th century. Much of it is unques-
tionably earlier. But even when regarded
only as a late and apocryphal commentary
on the records of the Gospels, it has great
interest. The narrative is found in Greek
and Latin copies; and a Coptic fragment
St. JOHN. XIX.

also remains as old as the Sth century.
All the MSS. give substantially the same
outline, though the variations in detail and
language are very considerable.

The narrative opens with the formal
complaint of a body of Jews, headed by
“‘Annas and Caiaphas,” and including
“‘Gamaliel’”’ and ‘“ Alexander’? (Acts iv.
6), addressed to Pilate. They accuse Jesus
of saying He is ‘Son of God and King,”
of wishing to abrogate the law, and of vio-
lating the sabbath by cures, wrought by
evil arts (yéns éori), and pray that He
may be brought before Him. Pilate
orders an officer to summon Him. The
officer, who had been present at the trium-
phal entry, spreads a robe before Him to
walk on; and when Jesus enters the court,
the standards bend before Him in the
hands of their bearers. The same act of
adoration is afterwards repeated when the
Jews depute twelve of the strongest of
their number to hold the standards. Pilate,
in amazement, is about to rise, when the
message of his wife (a proselyte, Procula)
is brought to him. ‘See,’ said the
Jews, “He is, as we told you, an en-
chanter.”” On this, Pilate asks Jesus,
““What do these witness against Thee?
Sayest Thou nothing?” Jesus answered,
“Tf they had not had authority (é£ovcia),
they would have spoken nothing: each
one has authority over his own mouth to
speak good and bad : they themselves shall
see to it.”” ‘‘ What shall we see?” is the
rejoinder. ‘‘ We have seen that Thou wast
born of fornication: that Thy Birth
brought the slaughter of the infants at
Bethlehem: that Thy father and Thy
mother fled in fear to Egypt.’ On this,
certain of the Jews attest that the mother
of the Lord was duly wedded to Joseph.
Then follows St John xviii. 29—87, tran-
scribed almost verbally; but Pilate’s last
question is not left unanswered : ‘‘ Truth,”
Jesus saith to him, ‘‘is from heaven.”

Pilate said: ‘‘Is there not truth on
earth?’ Jesus saith to Pilate: ‘‘ Seest
thou? How are they that speak the truth

judged by those that have the authority
upon earth?’ The Jews then press the
charge of blasphemy. ‘‘ What shall I do
to Thee?’ Pilate asks of Jesus. “As it
was given thee,’”’ is the answer. ‘‘ How
given?” Jesus saith to him: ‘‘ Moses and
the prophets prophesied of my Death and
Resurrection.”’ On this, when Pilate
charges the Jews to inflict the punishment
which is due, they answer, ‘‘ We wish Him
to be crucified.”” This demand leads to
the most remarkable addition to the Gospel
narrative. A number of the disciples,
Nicodemus, the paralytic of Bethesda, a
blind man, a leper, the woman who had
the issue of blood (Veronica), and others,
plead for the Saviour who had _ healed
them.

Pilate therefore again seeks to set Christ
free, but is finally met by the cry, ‘“‘ We
acknowledge Cesar for our king, not Jesus.
The Magi brought gifts to Him as a king,
but Herod sought to kill Him.” «“ Js this
He,”’ he then asks, ‘‘whom Herod sought?”
And when he hears that, He is, he washes
his hands, places the guilt upon the ac-
cusers, and gives his sentence: ‘Thy
nation hath proved Thee to be king, I
therefore pronounce that Thou be scourged
and then crucified in the garden where
Thou wast taken; and that two malefac-
tors, Dysmas and Gestas, be crucified with
Thee.”

It is needless to pursue the narrative
further, or to dwell upon the strange con-
trast which it offers to the Gospels. The
thought of Pilate as the executor of the
divine will which runs through it finds its
most remarkable expression in an account
of his execution by the order of ‘the
Emperor.’’ After he had ended a prayer
to the Lord for pardon, a voice came from
heaven, saying, ‘‘ All the generations and
the families of the Gentiles shall bless
thee, because under thee (éx! cod) were
fulfilled all these things that were spoken
by the prophets about me; and thou too
hast to appear as my witness at my second
coming, when I shall judge the twelve
tribes of Israel and those that confessed
not to my name” (Parad. Pil.’ § 10).

The texts of the different copies of the
“Acts’’ and other writings are given
most completely by Tischendorf in his
‘Evangelia Apocrypha,’ 203 ff. Thilohas
given an elaborate commentary on the
Evangelium Nicodemi in his ‘Codex
Apocryphus N. T.’ 1. 490 ff., and his ‘ Pro-
legomena,’ § 8 pp. cxviii. ff., give a very
full literary history of the book. Tischen-
dorf has published a slight essay on the
relation of the Acts to the Gospels (‘ Pilati
circa Christum judicio’...1855), and the
date and composition of the book have
been discussed by Lipsius (1871) after other
German scholars. ‘‘The Gospel of Nico-
demus’’. was translated into Anglo-Saxon ;
and it was repeatedly printed in English
in the sixteenth century.

On tHE Patristic INTERPRETATION OF
XIX. 34.

The patristic interpretation of ch. xix,
34 offers an instructive example of the
method and characteristics of ancient com-
mentators. It will therefore be worth
while to quote at some length without
further discussion the views of the Greek
and Latin fathers upon the passage. The
reader will judge how far there is any
general consent’ between the different
writers or any crear independence of judg-
ment in dealing with the original text.

283
284

I. Greex Faruers ;

The earliest writer! who distinctly refers
to the passage is CLAUDIUS APOLLINARIS
(c. 170 a.D.).

Apollinaris speaks of the Lord as Him
“‘who had His holy side pierced (éxxevrn-
@cis, John xix. 37), who poured forth from
His side the two elements that again
purify (rd, 600 aAw KoOdpo.a), water and
blood (the order is changed) word and
spirit...” (Routh, ‘Rell.’ 1. 161). The
introduction of the word ‘again’ appears
to connect the water and the blood witb
the use of water and blood under the old
Covenant. As to the deeper meaning of
the sign, Apollinaris, according to the most
probable view, interprets it of the word
of the gospel (Adyos), and of the sanctifi-
cation of the spirit (wveljma), that is of
the historic and of the inward testimony.
There may be also a further but obscure
reference to the human and divine natures
of the Lord.

Oricen in two places dwells upon the
phenomenon as a divine sign. ‘‘In the
case of all other dead bodies,’’ he writes,
“the blood is coagulated, and pure water
does not flow from them. But in the case
of Jesus the marvel in His dead body was
that even in the dead body there was
blood and water poured forth from His
sides’? (‘c. Cels.’ 11. c. 36; cf. c. 69.).

“How great,’’ he writes again, ‘ was
His mercy that for our salvation He not
only was made Flesh, but descended even
to the dead, and in death itself has the
marks of the living. For water and blood
came forth from His side’? (‘Comm. in
Thess.’ 1v. 15, quoted by Jerome ‘ Ep. ad.
Minerv. et Alex.’ § 10, if indeed the quota-
tion from Origen extends so far. In a
fragment of his commentary on the Gala-
tians [v. 268 ed. Lommatzsch] he treats
the sign as a proof of the reality of the
Lord’s body).

Evsrsius or Camsarxa (‘Dem. Ev.’ x.
8, p. 504) treats the passage as a fulfilment
of Ps, xxii. 14, ‘“‘I am poured out like
water,”’ without dwelling further upon it.

Cynrit or JERUSALEM applies the twofold
issue to the two baptisms of blood and
water (‘Cat.’ mr. 10): ‘*The Saviour re-
deeming the world through the cross, being
pierced in His side, brought forth
(eésjyayev) blood and water, in order that

1A passage quoted by Clement from a
Valentinian writer (‘ Exce, ex Theod.’ § 61)
must be excepted, in which the issuing of
the blood and water is interpreted of the
expulsion of the passions from the Body
of the Lord. JIrenwus alludes to the
“mixed cup” (v. 2. 3; [1v. 33, 2]), but
without any reference to St John. In
another early writing, the ‘Letter of the
Churches of Vienne and Lyons’ (Euseb.
‘H. E.’ v. 1), the effusion of water ap-
pears to be connected with ch. vii. 38.

St. JOHN. XIX.

some in seasons of peace may be baptized
in water, others in seasons of persecution
may be baptized in their own blood

“e oixelors aipaowv, the blood of their
eath).

Curysostom (‘ Hom.’ txxxv. in loc.) in.
terprets the fact of the two sacraments :
“Not without a purpose (d7Ad@s) or by
chance did those springs come forth, but
because the Church consisteth of these two
together (é£ dudorépwy rovTwy cvvérrnke),
And those that are initiated know it,
being regenerate by water (dvaryevvdevor)
and nourished (rpepéuevot) by the Blood
and Flesh. Hense the Sacraments (Ta
pvoryjpia) take their beginning; in order
that when thou drawest near to the awful
Cup thou mayest so approach, as drinking
from the Side.”

Cyrrin or ALEXANDRIA (ad loc.) thinks
that “God appointed the fact as an image
and firstfruits, so to speak, of the Mystic
Blessing (EvAoyia; see Suicer, s.v.) and
Holy Baptism. For Holy Baptism is
really of Christ and from Christ; and the
power of the Mystic Blessing springs
(dvepv ) for us out of the Holy Flesh.”

The recently discovered work of Maca-
rius Macngs has an interesting note on the
passage, though the text is unhappily cor-
trupt: ‘‘One of the soldiers pierced the
side...in order that when blood flowed and
water in a gushing stream, by the blood
they may be delivered who occupied the
place of captivity, and by the water they
may be washed who bear the stripes of
sins. Certainly this hath been done not
without a purpose, but of Providence, as
though the divine forethought laid down
that it should come to pass; for since
[from the side came the origin of sin] it
was necessary that from the side should
flow the source of salvation : from the side
came the sting (% rAny7), from the side
the spring (7) tyy7}) from the side the
malady, from the side the cure...”” (1. 18).

The same thoughts occur in a homily
‘On the Passion’ (§ 25), falsely attributed
to Athanasius (Iv. 186 ff., ed. Migne), as
also in Apollinarius, Euthymius, Theophy-
lact, and Tertullian, quoted below; and
more particularly in a quotation from
Antiochus of Ptolemais in Cramer’s
‘Catena,’ ad loc.

A veryremarkable note of APOLLINARIUS
[of Laodicea] is given in the ‘Catena’ of
Corderius upon the passage: ‘‘The Lord
offered a side for a side: the woman [Eve]
was a side, and the evil which came from
here is undone (Averat) by the Lord’s
Passion. For from that side proceeded
the counsel which brought ruin on man;
but from the holy side water is poured
forth and blood, through which the world,
is cleansed, as we get ourselves washed of
our sins, since the elements which were
St. JOHN. XIX.

separated in the Law come together in
Him. For there were [under the Law]
sprinklings of blood for purification ( apds
kdQaporv),and baptisms by water for sanc-
tification (apds Gy vio pov ). Since there-
fore all things were devised beforehand in
regard to Christ, the Body of the Lord
furnished both these to the world, sacred
blood and holy water, even when it was
already dead in human fashion; for He
hath in Himself great power of life.”

Joun or Damascus (‘De fide,’ 1v. 9)
gives the same interpretation: Christ
“caused to flow for us from His holy and
undefiled side a fountain of remission :
water for regeneration and washing
(érixAvons) of sin and corruption ; blood as
a drink to furnish life everlasting (ardérov
(wis di8iov mpdgevov).”’

EvurHymivs Zicasenus (ad loc.) gives
both the interpretations, that of the two
baptisms and of the two sacraments. The
latter is given in the words of Chrysostom
and may be an interpolation. The former
has some details of interest. ‘‘ The event
(he writes) is supernatural, and clearly
shews that He who was pierced was more
than man. For blood will not proceed
from a dead man, though one pierce the
body ten thousand times. Further, the
Saviour is pierced in the side by a spear
because the side of Adam was pierced by
sin, that is Eve, healing the wound of
{Adam’s) side by the wound of (His own)
side. And He causes blood and water to
issue, fashioning (katvovpy@v) two bap-
tisms, that by blood (of martyrdom), and
that by water (of regeneration), and by
the stream of these He washes away the
stream of sin.”

THEopHyLact (ad loc.) gives the inter-
pretation of Chrysostom, adding among
other things the reference to Eve, and
then connects the twofold issue with ‘‘ the
mixed chalice :’’ ‘‘Let the Armenians,’
he says, ‘‘be ashamed who do not mix
water with the wine in the Mysteries. For
they do not believe, as it seems, that water
also was poured forth from the side, which
is the more marvellous, but only blood;
and hence they do away with the greater
part of the marvel; I mean that the blood
is a mark that the Crucified was man, but
the water that He was more than man,
that He was God.’”? Compare Binterim,
‘ Denkwirdigkeiten,’ Iv. 2, p. 55, where an
opposite interpretation is quoted; and
Anselm, ‘Ep.’ cvir.

II. Latin Faruers :

TERTULLIAN regarded the twofold issue as
typical of the two baptisms of water and of
blood. ‘‘ Martyrdom,” he writes, ‘‘is
another baptism...whence also water and
blood, the elements of both washings
(utriusque lavacri paratura), flowed from
the wound in the Lord’s side’ (‘De Pudic.’
C. XXIL~sp. 435).

285

At the same time, while he fully de-
velopes this application, he appears also to
indicate a reference to the Eucharist in the
mention of ‘‘the blood.” ‘‘ We have also
a second washing (lavacrum), itself a dis-
tinct one (unum et ipsum), namely, that of
blood ; of which the Lord says, ‘I have a
baptism to be baptized with’ (Luke xii.
50), when He had been already baptized.
For He had come ‘through water and
blood,’ as John wrote (1 John v. 6), to be
baptized by water, to be glorified by blood.
Hence to make us ‘called’ by water,
‘chosen’ by blood, He sent forth these two
baptisms from the wound of His pierced
side; that so those who believed on His
blood might be washed with water, and
those who had washed with water might
also drink His blood. His [baptism of
blood] is the baptism which both stands in
place of (repreesentat) the baptism of water
(lavacrum) when it has not been received,
and restores [its blessing] when it has been
lost.”” (‘De Bapt.’ c. xvi. p. 203; comp.
c. Ix.)

In another place he compares the death
of Christ with the sleep of Adam (Gen. ii.
21 ff.,) for He so died ‘‘that from the
wound inflicted on His side the Church,
the true Mother of the living, might be
shaped.” (‘De An.’ c. xuIII. p. 304.)

There is not, as far as T am aware, any
reference to the incident in the genuine
works of Cyprian. But in the works ap-
pended to his writings the water and blood
are explained of the two baptisms (‘De
Singul. Apostt.’ p. 392 Rig.), and more
generally of thecleansing power of Christ’s
Passion both initially and through the
whole life. (‘De Pass. Chr.’ p. 339.)

Novattan (c. 10) sees in the sign a proof
of the reality of Christ’s Body.

AmsrossE starts from the main idea of
Origen, and then interprets the sign gener-
ally. “After death the blood in our
bodies coagulates ; but from that body still
incorrupt though dead the life of all flowed.
For water and blood came forth: the
former to wash, the latter to redeem”’
(Sin Luc.’ x. § 185).

And again: ‘‘ Why water? why blood?
Water to cleanse : blood to redeem. Why
from the side? Because whence came the
guilt, thence came the grace. The guilt
was through the woman: the grace was
through the Lord Jesus Christ’? (‘De
sacram.’” v. 1).

Jerome follows Tertullian in referring
the sign to the ‘‘two Baptisms.’’ (Ep.
LXIx. (ad Oceanum) § 6): ‘‘The side of
Christ is wounded by the spear, and the
sacraments of baptism and martyrdom are
poured forth together (pariter).”

Rorinvus (‘Comm. in Symb.’ § 23) also
interprets the sign of the two baptisms
with the addition of some new thoughts.
“This,” he writes, ‘“‘has a mystical mean-
286

ing, for Christ had said that out of his
belly shall proceed living waters (vii. 38).
But he caused blood to issue (produzit),
which the Jews prayed to come upon them-
selves and upon their children. Hence He
caused the water to issue to wash the be-
lieving, and blood to condemn the faithless,
It may also be understood to represent the
two-fold grace of baptism : the one which
is given by the baptism of water, the other
which is sought through martyrdom by the
shedding of blood : for both have the name
of baptism. Further, if the question is
asked why it was from the side rather
than from any other member that the Lord
is said to have caused water and blood to
issue, I think that the woman [Eve] is
indicated inthe side through the rib (Gen.
ii, 21, 22). And so because the fountain
of sin and death issued from the first
woman, who was a rib of the first Adam,
the fountain of redemption and life is made
to issue from the rib of the second Adam.”

AUGUSTINE interprets the issue of ‘‘the
two Sacraments :”’ ‘‘ The sleep of the man”
(Adam), he writes, ‘‘was the death of
Christ ; for when He hung lifeless on the
Cross, His side was pierced by the spear,
and thence flowed forth blood and water,
which we know to be the sacraments, by
which the Church [the antitype of Eve]
is built up (‘de Civ.’ xxtr. c. 17).

And again (ad loc.): ‘“‘The soldier did
not smite the wound, but opened (aperutt,
according to the false reading 7jvo.ev)
Christ’s side, that in some sense the door
of life should be laid open there, whence
the Sacraments of the Church flowed, with-
out which there is no entrance to the life
which is true life. That blood was poured
out for the remission of sins: that water
tempers the cup of salvation (salutare pocu-
lum); this gives both the laver and the
cup (potus).”

PRUDENTIUS, with a poet’s license, repre-
sents the spear-wound as piercing through
the breast of Christ from right to left, as
C. a Lapide understands him. From one
opening (the larger) flowed the blood, from
the other, the water.

*©O novum cede stupenda vulneris mira-
culum !
Hine cruoris fluxit unda, lympha parte
ex altera:
Lympha nempe dat lavacrum,
corona ex sanguine est.”
(‘ Cath.’ rx. 85 ff. Compare Areval’s note.)

tum

St. JOHN. XIX.

“‘Ipse loci (sc. cali) est dominus, laterum
cui vulnere utroque,
Hine cruor effusus fluxit et inde latex,
Ibitis hinc, ut quisque potest, per vulnera
Christi,
Evectus gladiis alter, et alter aquis.’’
(‘ Peristeph.’ viir. 15 ff.)

“Trajectus per utrumque latus laticem
atque cruorem
Christus agit : sanguis victoria, lympha
lavacrum est.”
(‘ Dittoch.’ xu11.)

Leo applies the passage to illustrate the
doctrine of Christ’s Manhood and Deity
(Ep. xxviit. ‘ad Flav.’ § 5). ‘‘ When the
side of the Crucified was opened (aperto) by
the soldier’s spear, let [the impugner of the
true doctrine of Christ’s Person] under-
stand whence flowed the blood and the
water, that the Church of God might be
refreshed (rigaretur) both by the laver and
by the cup ... ‘There are three that bear
witness, the spirit and the water and the
blood, and these three are one :’ the spirit,
that is, of sanctification, and the blood of
redemption, and the water of baptism,
which ‘three’ are ‘one’ and remain undi-
vided, and nothing in them is separated
from its connexion; for the Catholic
Church lives and advances in this faith,
that neither isthe manhood in Christ Jesus
believed without His true divinity, nor
His divinity without His true humanity.”

One later comment may be added.
Rupert or Devrz (‘Comm. in Joh.’ xuII.
pp. 365 f.) explains the sign of the whole
virtue of the Lord’s Passion transferred
to men: ‘“‘ We are redeemed by blood : we
are washed by water... The Lord was
baptized in His own Passion, and when
already dead by that issue enabled us to
share in His saving death... Therefore not
blood only, nor water only, flowed from
the Saviour’s side; because the divine
order of our salvation requires both. For
we were not redeemed for this that He
should possess us such as we were before...
In order then that there might be that by
which we could be washed from our sins,
water, which could only wash bodily im-
purities, was united to blood, which is the
price of our redemption, and from that
union obtained virtue and power to be
worthy of co-operating with the Holy
Spirit to wash away the invisible impuri-
ties of sins.”
Sr. JOHN. XX.

CHAPTER XxX.

* Mary cometh to the sepulchre: 3 so do
Peter and John, ignorant of the resurrec-

tion. 11 Jesus appeareth to Mary Mag-
dalene, 19 and to his disciples. 24 The
incredulity, and confession of Thomas.
30 The scripture is sufficient to salvation.

 

IV. Tue New Lirs. (c. xx.)

1, St John’s record of the Resurrection
corresponds with his record of the Passion.
It is not a simple history, still less an ex-
haustive history, but a revelation of
spiritual truth through outward facts.
Writing in the centre of a Christian
Church to those who were familiar with
the historic groundwork of the Gospel, the
Evangelist recounts from his own experi-
ence just those incidents which called out
in the disciples the fulness of belief trium-
phant over personal sorrow, and common
fear, and individual doubt. Each his-
torical character is also typical: each de-
tail has a permanent lesson. And as re-
lated to the whole plan of the Gospel St
John’s narrative of the Resurrection is the
counterpart and complement to his narra-
tive of the Passion. His history of the
Passion is the history of the descent of
selfishness to apostacy : his history of the
Resurrection is the history of the elevation
of love into absolute faith. It lays open
a new Life in Christ, and a new life in
men.

2. The incidents recorded by more than
one of the other Evangelists which are
omitted by St John are:

The angel’s message to the two Marys
and Salome (Matt., Mark).

The appearance to two disciples, not
apostles (Luke, Mark).

The last charge and promise (Matt.,
Mark).

8. Other incidents omitted by St John
are recorded by single Evangelists :

Sr Marraew.

The earthquake: the descent of the angel
who removes the stone: the panic of the
guards.

The report of the guards, and the device
of the high priests (xxviii. 1 ff.).

Words at the appearance on the Galilean
mount, (Comp. Mark xvi. 15 ff.)

Sr Mark.

Reproaches of the disciples for unbelief
(xvi. 14).

Sr Luxe.

An appearance to St Peter (xxiv. 34;
comp. 1 Cor. xv. 5). 7

The conversation on the way to Emmaus
(xxiv. 13 ff.; comp. Mark xvi. 12 f.).

Words at the meeting with the eleven and
others (xxiv. 36 ff.).

The appearance before the Ascension (xxiv.
44 ff.).

Den also Acts i. 1—12, ii. 24—33,

iii. 15, v. 30 ff., x. 40 ff., 1 Cor. xv. 5—8.
The enumeration of the appearances of

the Lord ‘‘raised on the third day accord-

ing to the Scriptures,” which is given by

St Paul in this last passage, is of the

deepest interest. The introduction of the
phrase ‘‘he was seen” (a@0y ) in vv. 5,
6, 7, 8, breaks them up into four groups,
separated (as it may be reasonably con-
cluded) in time and place.

(1) Zo Peter: to the ‘‘ twelve” (Jerusa-
lem).

(2) To above five hundred brethren at
once (Galilee).

(3) Zo James: to ‘all the apostles”
(Jerusalem).

(4) Lo St Paul himself.

It will be observed that St Paul says
nothing of the appearance to Mary Magda-

lene. He is silent indeed as to all the
events directly connected with the
sepulchre.

The use of the phrase he was seen (dp6n)
in no way limits the appearance to a vision
as distinguished from a real personal mani-
festation of the Risen Christ. (Acts vii.
26. Comp. Acts xiii. 31.)

4. The main incidents peculiar to St
John are:

The gift of the power of absolution.

The appearance on the second Lord’s day.
To these must be added the incidents of

ch, xxi.

That however which is most characteris-
tic of St John here, as elsewhere, is the
clear revelation of individual traits by the
course of the events; St Peter, St John,
Mary Magdalene, St Thomas, stand out
with a distinct personality in these two
last. chapters.

5. While there are very great differences
in the details of the several Evangelic nar-
ratives, there are also remarkable points
of agreement between them, and as to
its circumstances.

All the Evangelists concur in the follow-
ing main particulars :

No description is given of the act of
Resurrection.

The manifestations were made only to
believers. (Contrast the account in the
apocryphal ‘‘ Gospel of Nicodemus.”’)

The manifestations were made not only to
separate persons, but to companies.

They were determined by the Lord’s
pleasure. He shewed Himself.

They were received with hesitation at first.

No mere report was accepted.

The Revelation issued in a conviction of
of the presence of the Living Lord with
the disciples.

There is agreement also as to several
characteristic circumstances :

The visit of women to the sepulchre in the
early morning was the starting-point of
hope.

The removal of the stone first raised
questionings,

287
1.
Mark 16. 1.

288

HE afirst day of the week com-
eth Mary Magdalene early, when
it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre,

Sr. JOHN. XX.

{v.1, 2.

and seeth the stone taken away from|
the sepulchre.
2 Then she runneth, and cometh

 

The revelations of angels preceded the
manifestation of the Lord Himself.
The Lord revealed Himself to Mary

Magdalene first,

6. It is most difficult to construct with
any certainty a consecutive view of the
few unconnected incidents which have been
preserved. The following table gives a
provisional arrangement of the facts con.
nected with the first Easter-Day,
Approximate

time.
Just before

6 p.m,
Saturday.

Mary Magdalene and Mary the
[mother] of James go to view
the sepulchre (Matt. xxviii. 1).
After
6 p.m,
Saturday.

The purchase of spices by Mary
Magdalene, Mary the [mother]
of James and Salome (Mark
xvi. 1).

The Resurrection, followed by
the earthquake, the descent of
the angel, the opening of the
tomb (Matt. xxviii, 2—4).
Mary Magdalene, Mary the
[mother] of James and Salome,
probably with others, start for
the sepulchre in the twilight.
Mary Magdalene goes before the
others, and returns at once to
Peter and John (John xx. 1 ff.).
Her companions reach the sepul-
chre when the sun had risen
(Mark xvi. 2).

A vision of anangel, Message to
the disciples (Matt. xxviii. 5 ff. ;
Mark xvi. 5 ff.).

Another party, among whom is
Joanna, came a little later, but
still in the early morning (Luke
xxiv, 1ff.). Comp. Mark xvi.
1 note.

A vision of “two young men.”
Words of comfort and instruc-
tion (Luke xxiv. 4 ff.).

The visit of Peter and John
(John xx. 83—10). A vision of
two angels to Mary Magdalene
(John xx, 11—13), About the
same time the company of
women carry their tidings to
the apostles (Luke xxiv. 10f.).
The Lord reveals Himself to
Mary Magdalene (John xx. 14—-
18; Mark xvi. 9).

Not long after He reveals Him-
self, as tt appenrs, to the com-
pany of women who are return-
ing to the sepulchre. Charge
to the brethren to go to Galilee
(Matt. xxviii. 9 f.).

Very early
on Sunday.

5 a.m.

6-30 a.m.

6 a.m.

6-30 u.m.

Yam.

Approximate
time.
4—6 p.m. The appearance to the two dis-
ciples on the way to Emmaus
(Luke xxiv, 13 ff.; Mark xvi.
12).
After 4p.m. An appearance to St Peter (Luke
xxiv, 34; comp. 1 Cor. xv. 5).
8p.m. The appearance to the eleven
and others (Luke xxiv. 36 ff. ;
Mark xvi, 14; John xx, 19 ff.).

The main difficulties are due to the ex-
treme compression of St Matthew’s narra-
tive, in which there is no clear distinction
of points of time. The incidents and the
spectators are brought together in a general
picture. (Comp, Matt, xxviii, 9, note.)

7. It will strike the careful student that’
there is a remarkable order in the types of
faith in the Lord’s Resurrection which St:
John notices successively. The “ beloved’
disciple” ‘‘ believes” in consequence of a’
triple sign, without any manifestation of
the Lord Himself (xx. 8). Mary Magdalene’
believes, not through sight or even through’
sound, but through the personal voice of,
love (xx. 14—16), The‘ disciples” believe.
when they see the Lord’s wounds (xx, 20).
St Thomas believes when his own test is
offered to him (xx. 27 f.). It seems impos-
sible to regard these slowly widening vic-
tories of love without feeling the permanent
significance of their common lesson. There’
is however a faith higher than all these:
which in various degrees depended on out.
ward experience (xx, 29).

8. The main record of St John falls
into four divisions :

(1) The actual facts.
verified (xx. 1—9),

(2) The revelation to personal love, The
Lord transfigures devotion (vv. 10—18).

(8) The revelation to fearful disciples,
The Lord gives peace and authority to His'
society (vv. 19—23).

(4) The revelation to the anxious ques-|
tioner, The Lord gives conviction by sight.
and blessing to faith (vv. 24—29).

The central thought of the whole is the.
passage from sight to faith.

After the narrative of the Resurrection
is completed there follows a brief notice
of the scope of the Gospel (vv. 30 f.).

The triple sign

1, The actual facts, The triple sign
verified (vv. 1—9).

This section falls into two parts. The
evidence of Mary Magdalene (vv. 1f.), the
evidence of St Peter and St John (vv. 3—
9). Mary attests the first sign, the opened
sepulchre; St Peter and St John attest the
two other signs, the empty sepulchre, and
V-3—5.]

b ee
0.

to Simon Peter, and to the bother
disciple, whom Jesus loved, and saith
unto them, They have taken away
the Lord out of the sepulchre, and we
know not where they have laid him.
3 Peter therefore went forth, and

Sr. JOHN. XX.

that other disciple, and came to the
‘sepulchre.

4 So they ran both together; and
the other disciple did outrun Peter, ¢
and came first to the sepulchre.

5 And he stooping down, and look-

 

the carefully ordered grave-clothes, Comp.
Matt, xxviii, 1 ff.; Mark xvi, 1 ff.; Luke
xxiv. 10—12,

Cwar, XX. 1.. The first day of the
week] But on the ... Comp, Matt, xxviii.
1, note,

Mary Magdalene] Comp. xix. 25. St Luke
alone of the Evangelists mentions her be-
fore the history of the Passion, Luke viii. 2.

when it was yet dark] Mary Magdalene
appears to have reached the sepulchre
before the other women of her company.
Comp. Matt. xxviii, 1; Mark xvi, 2, and
notes, St Luke combines the varied minis-
try and testimony of all the women in one
notice, xxiii, 55 f., xxiv. 10.

the stone...from the sepulchre] All the
Evangelists mention the removal of “the
stone,’ and St Mark notices this especially
as the sight which first attracted the atten-
tion of the visitants to the sepulchre, Mark
xvi. 4. The Synoptists speak of “ rolling
away” (doxvAiev) the stone (comp.
Tristram, ‘Land of Israel,’ pp. 396 f., ed.
3). The phrase used by St John is very
peculiar, “taken, lifted out of” (}ppévov
éx), as filling up the opening of the
sepulchre.

2. Then she runneth ...]) She runneth
therefore ... Apparently Mary Magdalene
made no further search. She hastily (if
rightly) concluded that the sepulchre must
be empty from what she saw at a distance.
The stone would not have been removed
unless with the object of taking away the
body. It is clear that she had no vision of
angels before she returned, and received
no message, as those with whom she is
associated by St Mark (xvi, 1) and St
Matthew (xxviii, 1).

cometh to Simon Peter] In spite of his
fall, which was by this time probably
known, St. Peter was still regarded as one
of the natural leaders among the disciples,
comp. Luke xxii, 32.

the other dis-iple, whom Jesus loved] The
word here used for loved (épide, Vulg.
amabat) is different from that used in xiii.
93, xxi. 7, 20 (i}yéra. ), Vulg. diligebat), and
marks a personal affection (comp. Xi. 3). At
the same time the difference of this phrase
(‘the other disciple whom...”) from the
corresponding phrase (“that disciple whom
...;” Xxi. 7) leads to the conclusion that both
disciples alike are described here as objects
of the same feeling. Simon Peter was one
marked by the personal affection of the
Lord even as St John was “ the other.”

The repetition of the preposition (‘‘to
Simon Peter...,” “to the other...”) suggests
some distinction in their place of lodging.
The mother of the Lord, it cannot be
forgotten, was with St John.

They have taken] The rapid boldness of
the conclusion is characteristic of a woman’s
eager nature. The subjectis indefinite: it
may be “the Jews” (comp. xix. 4), or it
may be “those who provided the temporary
resting-place”’ (xix. 42, comp, v. 15).

the Lord] Forher the dead body is still
“the Lord.” Comp. xix, 42. For the
absolute use of the term see iv. 1, note.

we know not] By the plural Mary identi-
fies herself with those who had started on
the visit with her, though in fact she had
not waited till they came to the tomb.
Compare v. 13, “I know not,” in connexion
with “my Lord,” spoken in her solitude
to (apparent) strangers,

8. Tha form of thasentence is singularly
expressive. Peter at once takes the lead
(‘went forth,” aorist); the other disciple
attaches himself, as it were, to his decisive
guidance, then both are represented on their
way, and they went on their way toward
(not and came to) the sepulchre. Comp.
Matt. xxviii. 1, note, Compare xii. 22 for the
singular, and iv. 30for the combination of
aor, and imp. See also vi. 17. For the
incident compare Luke xxiv, 12, note, 24,

4, So they ran both together] Literally,
But they began to run (étpexov), the two
together, Mary is naturally forgotten in the
description. St John recalls that which was
most vividly impressed upon him at the time,

did outrun] Literally, ran on in front
(wpoeSpapev) more quickly than Peter, as
the younger man; starting on suddenly (so
the tense seems to imply), perhaps when
he came in sight of the sepulchre,

5. stooping down, and looking in] The
original word (wapaxtytw), which is thus
paraphrased, occurs in v, 11 and in the
parallel passage, Luke xxiv. 12, and again
in 1 Pet, i, 12; James i. 25. The idea
which it conveys is that of looking intently
with eager desire and effort (literally bend-
ing beside) at that which is partially con-
cealed. Comp, Ecclus, xiv, 23, xxi. 28;
Song of Sol. ii, 9

saw] seeth. The simple sight here
(BAére) is distinguished from the intent
regard ( Qewpe? ) of St Peter when he
entered the sepulchre ; and in this connexion
it is significant that St John does not see
“the napkin,” the small cloth, lying apart.

289
290 ,

ing in, saw the linen clothes lying;
yet went he not in.

6 Then cometh Simon Peter fol-
lowing him, and went into the sepul-
chre, and seeth the linen clothes
lie,

7 And the napkin, that was about
his head, not lying with the linen

Sr, JOHN. XX.

[v.6—9.
clothes, but wrapped together in a
place by itself.

8 Then went in also that other
disciple, which came first to the se-
pulchre, and he saw, and believed.

9 For as yet they knew not the
scripture, that he must rise again
from the dead.

 

yet went he not in] A natural feeling of
awe would arrest one of the character of
St John. He had already seen enough to
All his soul with anxious thoughts.

6. Then cometh Simon Peter] Simon Peter
therefore also cometh, while St John still
lingers outside,

went into] at once without a look or a
pause.

and seeth the linen clothes lie...) and he
beholdeth the linen cloths (and v. 7) lying.
The abrupt change of tense marks a break in
the progress of the thought. The entrance
is courageously made: then follows the
experience. The word beholdeth (Ocwpel,
see 12, 14) expresses the earnest intent gaze
of the apostle as his eye passes from point
to point.

7. the napkin) Comp, xi, 44.

about (upon) his head] The absence of
the name is noticeable. The mind of the
writer is filled with the thought of Christ,
Compare v, 15.

wrapped together in a place by itself]
Literally, apart in one place. There were
no traces of haste. The deserted tomb bore
the marks of perfect calm. The grave-
clothes had been carefully removed, which
would be a work of time and difficulty, and
laid in two separate places. It was clear
therefore that the body had not been stolen
by enemies; it was scarcely less clear that
it had not been taken away by friends,

8. Then (Therefore) went in also that (the)
other... He no longer shrank from enter-
ing the grave which had been now certainly
found empty. He went in...and saw (Se)
and believed. All is gathered in one sen-
tence without break or change of form
(contrast v.6). He “saw” what St Peter
had seen, the clear signs of the removal of
the body of the Lord, and “ believed.”

The exact interpretation of the word ‘‘ be-
lieved ” is difficult. It is not likely that it
means simply “‘ believed that the body had
been removed as Mary Magdalene reported.”
Such a conclusion was rather a matter of
natural and immediate inference from what
he saw. The use of the word absolutely ra-
ther points to the calm patient acceptance
of amystery as yet in part inexplicable with
full confidence in the divine love, The three-

fold sign of the stone removed, the empty
sepulchre, the grave-clothes leisurely ar-
ranged, indicated something still to be more
fully shewn, and the apostle waited in trust-
ful expectation for the interpretation. Per-
haps the word may have even a fuller sense,
and imply that St John believed in some
way that the Lord was alive, There is thus a
sharp contrast between “believed” and
“knew ” (comp. vi. 69, note). In such a case
there ought to have been no scope for faith ;
the fact should have been one of knowledge.
If the apostles had really entered into the
meaning of the Scriptures they would have
known that the Life, the Resurrection, of
Christ was a divine necessity for which
death was a condition. But St John, like
the other disciples (“they know not’), had
failed to read the lesson of the Old Testa-
ment, even by the help of the Lord’s teach-
ing. Now he is in some sense separated
from them (he believed...they knew not).

9. For as yet...) Comp. Luke xxiv. 21;
Mark xvi. 14, The belief in the Resurrection
was produced in spite of the most complete
unreadiness on the part of the disciples to
accept it. So far from being based on a
previous interpretation of scripture, the fact
itself first illuminated the sense of scripture,
Comp. Luke xxiv. 25,45. The chief priests
knew of the Lord’s words as to His rising
again, and in their fear took measures to
counteract them (Matt. xxvii, 63 ff., see
note), while the disciples in their love failed
to recall the same words for their consola-
tion. This contrast is a revelation of
character, and will be recognised as pro-
foundly true, if account be taken of the
different conceptions which unbelievers and
disciples had of the Person and of the
Death and of the Resurrection of Christ.

the scripture] The reference is probably to
Ps. xvi. 10. Comp. Acts ii, 24 ff., xiii, 35,
The Evangelist speaks of some express testi-
mony (4 ypady, comp, xvii, 12, note),
and not of the general contents of scripture
(kata tds ypadds, 1 Cor. xv. 3 f.).

must] This divine necessity ( Se?) is shewn
to run through the last unexpected events
of the Lord’s earthly life; Matt. xxvi. 545
Mark viii, 31; Luke ix, 22, xvii, 25, xxii,
37, xxiv, 7, 26, 44, (46); John iii, 14, xii. 34,
note; Actsi. 16, Seealsoii.4 (dpa,} note,
v. 10—15.]

1o Then the disciples went away
again unto their own home.

1x 7 But Mary stood without at
the sepulchre weeping: and as she
wept, she stooped down, and looked
into the sepulchre,

12 And seeth two angels in white
sitting, the one at the head, and the
other at the feet, where the body of
Jesus had lain.

13 And they say unto her, Wo-

St. JOHN. XX.

man, why weepest thou? She saith
unto them, Because they have taken
away my Lord, and I know not
where they have laid him.

14 And when she had thus said,
she turned herself back, and saw Je-
sus standing, and knew not that it
was Jesus.

15 Jesus saith unto her, Woman,
why weepest thou? whom seekest
thou? She, supposing him to be the

 

2. The revelation to personal love. The
Lord transfigures devotion (vv. 10—18).

The details of this section are peculiar to
St John. The bare fact is mentioned, Mark
xvi.9, It is significant that the first mani-
festation of the Risen Lord was granted to
the patient watching of love, In this sense,
Prov. viii. 17 found fulfilment. The late
tradition (Sedul. ‘Carm. Pasch.’ v. 361 ff.)
which represents the Lord as appearing first
to His mother rests on no authority.

10. Then the disciples went away...) The
disciples therefore..., as feeling that nothing
more could be learnt upon the spot.

The angels which had been seen by the
women did not appear to the apostles, Such
manifestations necessarily follow the laws
of a spiritual economy. Comp. v. 12.

11. But Mary] whose return has not been
noticed, remained when the apostles went
away: “A stronger affection riveted to the
spot one of a weaker nature” (Aug.). Yet
she did not venture to enter the sepulchre,
even after the apostles had done so. She
continued standing (eior7Ket) at the sepul-
chre without, i. 35, note.

and (so) as she wept, she stooped down,
and looked...] just as St John had done: v.5.

12. And seeth...the one (one) at the head,
and the other (one) at the feet] like the
cherubim on the mercy-seat, between which
the ‘Lord of hosts dwelt,’ Exod. xxv. 22;
1S. iv, 4; 2S. vi. 2; Ps, lxxx, 1, xcix. 1.

seeth]beholdeth. Both here and in v. 14
the word (Oewpe?) suggests the idea of
a silent contemplation for a time,

two angels] Comp. v.10, note This is the
only place where angels are mentioned in
the narrative of the Evangelist. Comp. i.
51, xii. 29 (v. 4 is an early interpolation).

in white] Matt. xxviii. 3; Mark xvi. 5;
Acts i, 10. The same elliptical phrase is
used Rev, iii. 4. Comp. Matt. xvii. 2, and
parallels, Rev, iii. 5, 18, iv. 11, vii, 9, 13,
xix. 14,

18. they say unto her] The pronoun
(éxetvot) which is inserted here, like the
name which is inserted in v. 15, marks the

New Test.—Vot. II.

pause during which Mary regarded those
before her without speaking.

Mary repeats, with two significant varia-
tions, the words which she had addressed to
the apostles (v. 2). It is easy to understand
how they were repeated in her heart again
and again as the sum of all her thoughts ; but
she now says My Lord (not the Lord), and I
know (not we know); the relation and the
loss are, in this case, regarded as personal,
and not as general, The familiar boldness of
the words, spoken without special excite-
ment or alarm, shews how the whole soul
of the speaker was absorbed in one object,

The extreme simplicity of the narrative,
it may be added, reflects something of the
solemn majesty of the scene. The sentences
follow without any connecting particles till
v.19. (Comp. c. xv.)

14. When (omit And) she had thus said,
she turned...] as unwilling to continue a
converastion which promised no help, The
vision of angels makes no impression upon
her. We can imagine also that she became
conscious of another Presence, as we often
feel the approach of a visitor without dis-
tinctly seeing or hearing him. It may be
too that the angels looking towards the
Lord shewed some sign of His coming.

and saw...) and beholdeth... Comp. vv.
6, 12,

knew not} She was pre-occupied with
her own reflections, We see that only which
we have the inward power of seeing. Till
Mary was placed in something of spiritual
harmony with the Lord she could not
recognise Him. Comp. Luke xxiv, 16;
Matt. xxviii. 17; ch, xxi, 4,

15. The first words of the Lord, His first
recorded words after the Resurrection, are
a repetition of the angel’s words, but with
an important addition. He partly inter-
prets the grief of the mourner by asking,
Whom seekest thou? She has lost some
one (not something; i. 38).

the gardener] and therefore a friend, Matt.
xxvii, 60; ch, xix. 41f. The conjecture
was natural, both from the place and from
the time.

if thou (emphatic; “if thou and not our
enemies,”) have (hast) borne Him...Him...

U

291
292

gardener, saith unto him, Sir, if thou
have borne him hence, tell me where
thou hast laid him, and I will take
him away.

16 Jesus saith unto her, Mary.

Him) Mary makes no answer to the inquiry.
Her heart is so full of the Person to whom it
referred that she assumes that He is known
to her questioner: ‘“palam omnibus esse
credit, quod a suo corde nec ad momentum
recedere potest” (Bern, ‘In Cant.’ vir. 8).
The trait is one of those direct reflections
of life which mark St John’s Gospel.

and I...) Love makes her strength appear
to be sufficient.

16. We must suppose a short pause, during
which Mary resumes her former position,
and receiving no answer, becomes lost in her
grief again. While she is thus lost Jesus
“calleth her by name,” Mary (Mapidp) ;
and in that direct personal address awakens
the true self (Luke viii.2; Mark xvi. 9).
What the word of common interest (woman)
could not do, the word of individual sym-
pathy does at once (comp. ch, x. 3).

She turned) once again (as v. 14), but this
time with a clear answer of reverent recog-
nition, and saith unto him, in Hebrew, Rab-
boni, Master (Teacher). Yet the title, while
it reveals her devotion, reveals also the
imperfection of her faith (contrast v. 28).

in Hebrew] The words must be added
to the text. The exact term in the original
text (‘EGpaiori) is found only in St John’s
Gospel and in the Apocalypse, The notice of
this detail for Greek readers seems to mark
clearly what was the language of the most
intimate intercourse of the Lord and His
disciples. Comp, Acts xxii, 2, xxvi. 14.

Rabboni(Rabbuni)] The word occurs also
in Mark x. 51. It is strictly “ my Master,”
but, as in Rabbi, the pronominal affix ceased
to have any very distinct force. Here only
is the term “ Master” applied to the Lord
after the Resurrection. The exact term
(37 or 37) is used as a title of
respect in the Targums (Gen. xxiii. 15). The
interpretation ‘‘Master” (SuddoxKaXe), which
is added by the Evangelist, fixes the mean-
ing, and excludes the higher sense of “the

divine Lord” 195 xpby which has been

sometimes given to it, as if it expressed a
recognition of the Lord’s higher Nature.
The preservation of the form is one of those
little touches which stamp the Evangelist as
a Jew of Palestine (Delitzsch, ‘Ztschr, f.
luther, Theol.’ 1878, s. 7). It is said that
the form preserved in the original text
(Rabbunt), which has been lost in the Vul-
gate and A. V. (Rabboni), is ‘“‘ Galilean”
(Béttcher, ‘Lehrb.’ § 64) : if this be so, the
trait is more significant, ;

Sr. JOHN. XX.

[v. 16, 17.

She turned herself, and saith unto
him, Rabboni; which is to say,
Master,

17 Jesus saith unto her, Touch
me not; for I am not yet ascended

17. Touch me not; for I am...) The words
imply, what a few copies here state by an
interpolated clause, that Mary started up
and ran to Christ, perhaps toclasp His feet
(comp, Matt. xxviii. 9), and the exact form
(4 Garov) implies further that she was
already clinging to Him when He spoke.
Thus she expressed in word and act the
strength and the failure of her love, which
the Lord disciplined and raised by His
answer. The reason by which the Lord
checked this expression of devotion can be
differently apprehended. The “for” may
refer (1) to the whole sentence which follows
(I am not...your God), or (2) only to the
first clause (I am not...Father). Inthe first
case the imminent, though not realised,
Ascension of the Lord would be regarded as
forbidding the old forms of earthly inter-
course. In the second case the Ascension
would be presented as the beginning and
condition of a new union. The latter seems
to be unquestionably the true view, and falls
in with the moral circumstances of the inci-
dent. Mary substituted a knowledge of the
humanity of Christ for a knowledge of His
whole Person: “ Quod vides hoc solum me
esse putas: noli me tangere” (Aug. ‘In
Joh.’ xxvi. 3). She thought that she could
now enjoy His restored Presence as she then
apprehended it. She assumed that the
return to the old life exhausted the extent
of her Master’s victory over death. There-
for in His reply Christ said : “Do not cling
to me, as if in that which falls under the
senses you can know me as I am; for there
is yet something beyond the outward res-
toration to earth which must be realised,
before that fellowship towards which you
reach can be establishéd as abiding. Z am
not yet ascended to the Father. When that
last triumph is accomplished, then you will
be able to enjoy the communion which is as
yet impossible (‘Sic tangitur ab iis a quibus
bene tangitur, ascendens ad Patrem, manens
cum Patre, equalis Patri.© Aug. l.c.).
Meanwhile, this is the reward of thy love,
that thou shalt bear the message of the
coming and more glorious change to those
to whom thou didst bear the tidings of
what seemed to he thy loss and theirs.”
Comp. Bern. ‘Serm. in Cant.’ xxvi1r. 9 f.
The spiritual temper of Mary will be seen
to be the exact opposite of that of Thomas,
She is satisfied with the earthly form
which she recognises. Thomas, having
thought that the restoration of the earthly
life was impossible, rises from the recogni-
tion of the earthly form to the fullest
acknowledgment of the divine: v. 28.
v. 18, 19.]

tomy Father : but goto my brethren,
and say unto them, I ascend unto
my Father, and your Father; and to
my God, and your God.

18 Mary Magdalene came and told

St. JOHN. XX.

the disciples that she had seen the
Lord, and that he had spoken these
things unto her.

19 7 cThen the same day
evening, being the first day of the

 

Touch] The idea appears to be that of
“holding,” in the desire to retain, and not
of “touching ” with a view to ascertain the
corporeal reality of the Presence, Under
other circumstances the Lord invited the
disciples to “handle” His Person; Luke
xxiv, 39, v. 27; comp. 1 John i, 1,

my Father] The most ancient authorities
omit the pronoun, reading the Father, The
general conception of Fatherhood is given
first, and this is afterwards defined and
distinguished.

but go to my brethren...) The new title
(Matt, xxviii, 10) follows from the use of
the words ‘‘the Father.” Spiritual relation-
ships now take the place of natural rela-
tionships. Comp. xix, 26, note; Matt. xii.
48 f. The title occurs very significantly
in the record of the first action of the
Christian society : Acts i. 15 (in the midst
of the brethren).

I ascend...) Not “I shall ascend,” but “TI
am ascending.” In one sense the change sym-
bolized by the visible Ascension was being
wrought for the apostles during the forty
days, as they gradually became familiarised
with the phenomena of Christ’s higher Life.

The message which Mary was charged to
bear was one of promise as well as of ful-
filment. Christ did not say “I have risen
again,” as though the disciples could as yet
understand the meaning of the words, but
“Tascend.” The end was not to be grasped
yet. The Resurrection was a beginning as
well as a fulfilment

unto my Father, and your Father] He
who is the Father is Father of Christ and
Father of men in different ways; of Christ
by nature, of men by grace. And just as
the Lord separated Himself from men while
He affirmed His true Humanity by taking
to Himself the title of ‘the Son of Man,”
so here, while He affirms the true divine
sonship of believers, He separates their
sonship from His own. Comp, Hebr, ii.
11; Rom. viii. 29,

my God, and your God) In His perfect
humanity Christ speaks of the Father as
His God : Matt, xxvii, 46. Comp, Rev. iii.
2, 12 (not ii. 7).

In the epistles of St Paul the compound
title “the God and Father of our Lord
Jesus Christ” is not unfrequent: Rom.
xv. 6; 2 Cor. i, 8, xi, 31; Eph, i. 83. Comp.
1 Cor. xv. 24.

18. came and told) cometh and telleth.
‘The exact form of expression is remarkable :
“cometh telling” (épxerat...dyyéAAovea)
and not “having come (or coming) telleth.”

u*

The emphasis is thrown on Mary’s im-
mediate departure on her mission. For this
purpose she was ready to leave the Lord at
once. In the best authorities her words
are partly direct and partly oblique: She...
telleth, I have seen the Lord; and how
that he suid these things unto her.

3. The revelation to fearful disciples. The
Lord gives peace and authority to His
society (vv. 19—23).

The details of this section are peculiar
to St John—the closed doors, the fear of
the Jews, the absence of St. Thomas, the
mission, the promise; but the fact of the
appearance to the assembled disciples on the
evening of the first Easter day is recorded
by St Luke, xxiv, 36, and St Mark, xvi, 14
(dvaxenpévots),

The clauses in St Luke which correspond
most closely with St John (Luke xxiv. 36 b,
40) appear to have been very early [apostolic]
additions to his original text.

19. Then the same day at evening, being
the first day...) When therefore it was even-
ing on that day, the first day... The form
of expression is singularly full and emphatic.

When therefore...) The appearance to
Mary Magdalene was (so to speak) neces-
sarily supplemented by an appearance to
the Church. The several revelations to
individuals (Luke xxiv, 31, 34) prepared
the way for this manifestation to the body;
and gave occasion for the gathering of the
disciples. It could not but be that the
tidings, which must have been spread
through the company of believers, should
cause many to come together, and
perhaps to the “upper room” where the
Last Supper was held. Comp. Acts i, 13.

on that day] that memorable day, the
birthday of Christian life. Comp. i. 39 (40),
v. 9, xi, 53, (xiv. 20, xvi, 23, 26), xix. 27,
31, xxi, 3; Mark iv. 35. The phrase corre-
sponds with that year; xi, 49, note.

evening] Comp. Luke xxiv, 29, 33, 36.
The hour was evidently late, about 8 p.m.
Time must be allowed for the return of the
disciples from Emmaus, who were not likely
to leave Jerusalem till after the evening
prayer (Acts iii, 1).

When the doors were shut] Comp. v. 26.
The clause can only have been added to mark
the miraculousness of the Lord’s appearance.
He came not in any ordinary, natural way
(comp. Luke xxiv. 31), _ It is vain to specu-
late as to the manner in which He came.
All that is set before us is that He was not

293

at c Mark 16.
14.
294
week, when the doors were shut
where the disciples were assembled
for fear of the Jews, came Jesus and
stood in the midst, and saith unto
them, Peace be unto you.

20 And when he had so said, he
shewed unto them his hands and his

St. JOHN. XX.

[v. 20—22.

side. Then were the disciples glad,
when they saw the Lord.

21 Then said Jesus to them again,
Peace be unto you: as my Father
hath sent me, even so send I you.

22 And when he had said this,
he breathed on them, and saith

 

bound by the present conditions of material
existence which we observe, The Evangelist,
it must be added, simply states the facts, He
does not, as some later commentators, repre-
sent the Lord as coming through the closed
doors, or entering in any definite manner.

where the disciples were (omit assem bled)]
“the eleven and they that were with them”
in the words of St Luke (xxiv. 33), Though
St Thomas was absent, the apostles as a
body (“the eleven”) were assembled.

for fear of the Jews] Comp. vii. 13. This
clause explains the careful closing of the
room, Rumours of the Resurrection had been
spread, and it was as yet uncertain what
policy the popular leaders would adopt.

Peace be unto you) This was the ordinary
salutation (comp. Luke x. 5), which is still in
use, but here it was employed with a peculiar
force. The disciples were troubled, alarmed,
fearful (comp, Luke xxiv. 37), and the Risen
Lord by His Presence announced confidence
and victory. Compare Gen, xliii, 23 and
ch, xiv, 27, the last words spoken (and
perhaps spoken in the same room) before
the Lord “went out” to His Passion,

20. when he had so said (said this), he
shewed unto them his hands and his side]
Literally, according to the most ancient text,
both Hig hands and His side unto them.
There is a solemn pathos in the full form of
description, St Luke notices “ His hands
and His feet” (xxiv. 40). St John had
specially recorded the piercing of the side,
and hence he naturally recalled that wound.

Then were the disciples] The disciples
therefore were glad... At first “they be-
lieved not for joy” (Luke xxiv, 41); but
the joy of kindled hope became only fuller
when it was changed into the joy of convic.
tion; when they saw (iddvres, comp, xvi.
16) the Lord, and knew beyond all doubt
(20) that it was He Himself.

the Lord] v, 2.

21. Then said Jesus (Jesus therefore
said) to themagain...] Thenecessary pre-
paration was now completed, When doubt
was overcome the new work was announced.
The first “ Peace” was the restoration of
personal confidence: the second ‘ Peace”
was the preparation for work. Both how-
ever are equally extended to all present,

as my Father (the Father) hath sent me...)
The mission of Christ is here regarded not
in the point of its historical fulfilment (sent),

but in the permanence of its effects (hath
sent), The form of the fulfilment of Christ's
mission was now to be changed, but the
mission itself was still continued and still
effective. The apostles. were commissioned
to carry on Christ’s work, and not to begin
a new one. Their office was an application
of His office according to the needs of
men, See Additional Note,

22. breathed on them] Comp. Gen. ii. 7

(LXX.). The same image which was used
to describe the communication of the natural
life, is here used to express the communica-
tion of the new, spiritual, life of re-created
humanity.
’ The “breath” ( veda) is ar emblem
of the Spirit, iii, 8; and by “ breathing,”
as Augustine observes, the Lord shewed
that the Spirit was not the Spirit of the
Father only but also His own.

The act is described as one (évepiornce)
and not repeated, The gift was once for all,
not to individuals but to the abiding body.

on them...unto them] There is nothing to
limit the pronoun to “the ten.” It appears
from Luke xxiv. 33, that there was a general
gathering of the believers in Jerusalem
(those with them: in v, 24 “the twelve”
are evidently distinguished from “ the dis-
ciples”), There is a Jewish legend that when
Moses laid his hand on Joshua, God said,
“In this world only individuals possess the
gift of prophecy, but in ‘the world to
come’ (the Messianic age) all Israelites shal]
be seers : Joel iii. 1” (‘Midrash Tanchuma,’
65 c, quoted by Wiinsche).

Receive] Literally, Take ( AdBere). The
choice of word seems to mark the personal
action of man in this reception. He is not
wholly passive even in relation to the divine
gift. The same word is used of “life”
(x. 17f.) and “words” (xii, 48). The
phrase recurs Acts viii, 15, 17, 19, (x. 47,
éX, 73 7, TOG), xix, 2, -

the Holy Ghost] Or rather, in order to
express the absence of the article, a gift of
the Holy Ghost (comp. vii, 89), even the
power of the new life proceeding from the
Person of the Risen Christ. The presence
of this new life of humanity in the disciples
communicated to them by Christ wag the
necessary condition for the descent of the
Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost. The
Spirit which the Lord imparted to them was
His Spirit, or, as it may be expressed, the
Holy Spirit as dwelling in Him, By this He
@ Matt 18.
18.

Vv. 23.]
unto them, Receive ye the Holy
Ghost :

23 2Whose soever sins ye remit,

Sr. JOHN. XX.

they are remitted unto them; and
whose soever sins ye retain, they are
retained.

 

first quickened them, and then sent, accord-
ing to His promise, the Paraclete to be with
them, and to supply all power for the exer-
cise of their different functions, The relation
of the Paschal to the Pentecostal gift is
therefore the relation of quickening to en-
dowing, The one answers to the power of the
Resurrection, and the other to the power of
the Ascension (Godet); the one to victory
and the other to sovereignty. The charac-
teristic effect of the Pentecostal gift was
shewn in the exercise of supremacy poten-
tially universal, The characteristic effect of
the Paschal gift was shewn in the new faith
by which the disciples were gathered intoa
living society (comp, Luke xxiv. 45), All
those interpretations of the words which
limit them to a particular gift, as of working
miracles, or of knowledge, or the like, fall
completely short of the meaning which points
to an endowment not occasional but per-
petual. To regard the words and act asa
promise only and a symbol of the future
gift is wholly arbitrary and unnatural.

23. The pronouns in this case are unem-
phatic, The main thought which the words
convey is that of the reality of the power of
absolution from sin granted to the Church,
and not of the particular organization
through which the power is administered.
There is nothing in the context, as has been
seen, to shew that the gift was confined to
any particular group (as the apostles) among
the whole company present, The commission
therefore must be regarded properly as the
commission of the Christian society and not
as that of the Christian ministry. (Comp.
Matt, v, 18, 14.) The great mystery of the
world, absolutely insoluble by thought, is
that of sin; the mission of Christ was to
bring salvation from sin, and the work of
His Church is to apply to all that which He
has gained. Christ risen was Himself the
zign of the completed overthrow of death,
the end of sin, and the impartment of His
Life necessarily carried with it the fruit of
His conquest. Thus the promise is in one
sense an interpretation of the gift. The
gift of the Holy Spirit finds its application
in the communication or withholding of the
powers of the new Life,

The promise, as being made not to one but
to the society, carries with it of necessity,
though this is not distinctly expressed, the
character of perpetuity; the society never
dies (comp. v.21). _In this respect the pro-
mise differs essentially from that to St Peter
‘Matt, xvi. 18f., see note), which was
distinctly personal. And the scope of the
promise differs from that formerly given to
the society (Matt, xviii, 18f., see note),
which concerns the enactment of ordinances

and not the administration of that which is
purely spiritual, At the same time this pro-
mise carries that forward to a higher region.
As that promise gave the power of laying
down the terms of fellowship, so this gives
a living and abiding power to declare the
fact and the conditions of forgiveness, The
conditions, as interpreted by the apostolic
practice, no less than by the circumstances
of the case, refer to character (comp. Luke
xxiv, 47). The gift, and the refusal of the
gift, are regarded in relation to classes and
not in relation to individuals. The use of
the plural appears in some degree to indicate
this (dv Twwv, adrois) ; and still more the
necessity of giving to “retain” an applica-
tion corresponding to that of “remit.” It
is impossible to contemplate an absolute in-
dividual exercise of the power of “ retain-
ing ;” so far it is contrary to the scope of the
passage to seek in it a direct authority for
the absolute individual exercise of the “ re-
mitting.” At the same time the exercise of
the power must be placed in the closest
connexion with the faculty of spiritual dis-
cernment consequent upon the gift of the
Holy Spirit. Comp. 1 John ii, 18 ff,
remit] This is the only place in St John’s
Gospel where the word occurs in this con-
nexion. Comp. 1 John i, 9, ii, 12. The
use is frequent in the Synoptists,
remitted...retained] The use of the perfect
in these two words (d@éwvrat, according
to the most probable reading, and
kekpaTynvra. ) expresses the absolute efficacy
of the power. No interval separates the act
from theissue. There is perfect harmony,
perfect coincidence, between the divine voice
through the society and the divine will.
retain] hold fast, so that they may not
pass away from him to whom they attach.
The word ( kpareiv) is used several times
in the Apocalypse of ‘holding fast doc-
trine” and the like (ii, 13 ff., 25, iii, 11).

4. The revelation to the anxious questioner.
The Lord gives conviction by sight and
blessing to faith (vv, 24—29).

This section is entirely peculiar to St John.

24. Thomas] Comp. xi, 16, note,

the twelve] Comp. vi. 67, note,

was not with them) The cause of the
absence of St Thomas is not expressed or
hinted at. It is easy to imagine that one of
his temperament (see xi, 16) would prefer
to wait in solitude for some light upon the
mystery of the Passion,

25. The other disciples therefore...) The
assurance of joy was of necessity conveyed
to him who had not received it; and it was
given in its completest form, We hate seen

295
296

24 4 But Thomas, one of the
twelve, called Didymus, was not with
them when Jesus came.

25 The other disciples therefore
said unto him, We have seen the
Lord. But he said unto them, Ex-
cept I shall see in his hands the print
of the nails, and put my finger into
the print of the nails, and thrust my
hand into his side, I will not believe.

St. JOHN. XX.

[v. 24—27.

26 | And after eight days again
his disciples were within, and Tho-
mas with them : then came Jesus, the
doors being shut, and stood in the
midst, and said, Peace be unto you.

27 Then saith he to Thomas,
Reach hither thy finger, and behold
my hands; and reach hither thy hand,
and thrust it into my side: and be
not faithless, but believing.

 

the Lord, where the absence of a pronoun in
the original throws the stress upon the verb,

The reply of St Thomas reveals how he
had dwelt upon the terrible details of the
Passion. The wounds of the Lord are for
him still gaping, as he had seen them. He
must be able to reconcile that reality of
death with life before he can believe. Just
as before (xi, 16) he sets the most extreme
case before himself and will face that. It
is further to be remarked that the Lord had
offered the test of touch to the disciples on
the former occasion (Luke xxiv, 39, 40).
It is likely therefore that St Thomas shaped
his words according to what they had told
him (v, 20, hands, side). The correspond-
ence is full of interest,

print,..print] The reading place for print
(rémov for TUrov) in the second instance is
nothing more than an early and natural mis-
take. The repetition of the same word is
significant; and the A, V. has obliterated
another example of the same use by substi-
tuting, here and in v. 27, thrust thy hand for
put (BddAw) thy hand in the second clause.

Iwill not believe] The emphatic denial
(od pa) riotevow, comp. vi, 37) corresponds
with the temper which hopes at once and
fears intensely. ‘Thou fool (Raca),” is a
Jewish saying, “ if thou hadst not seen thou
wouldest not have believed: thou art a
mocker” (‘Baba Bathra,’ 7a, quoted by
Wiinsche),

26. after eight days...) During this inter-
val, as far as appears, the disciples were left
to ponder over and take into their hearts the
facts of Easter Day. No fresh manifestations
seem to have been madetothem, At length
therefore they were free, as the Festival and
the Sabbath were over, to go to Galilee.
Yet it was natural for them to look for some
fresh token of hope on the first weekly return
of the day of the Resurrection, Nothing is
said of the time of their gathering. Itmay
have been in the evening (i.e. the beginning
of the Jewish day), when they were prepar-
ing for their departure from Jerusalem on
the morrow. However this may have been
Thomas, in spite of his unsatisfied misgiv-
ings, had not left theircompany, He shewed
faith in act if not in thought. On the other
hand the ten had not excluded him,
though unconvinced, from their society.

again...within...] | The words imply that
the gathering was held in the same place
and under the same circumstances as before.
Yet it is perhaps not without meaning that
the words ‘‘for fear of the Jews” (v, 19)
are not repeated. The power of the new
life had freed them from this, though their
doors were closed. The phrase “his dis-
ciples” (v. 19 “the disciples”), when the
Lord’s name has not preceded, will be
noticed. Comp, xix. 4, note,

then came Jesus] The original unconnected
phrase is far more solemn: Jesus cometh.

27. Then saith he...) By recalling St
Thomas’ own words the Lord shews that He
was present at the very time when St
Thomas was questioning His Resurrection,

behold] see (ide, v. 25). One look was
enough, :

be not...) Rather, “become not.” Belief
and unbelief both grow, St Thomas “ was”
not, but he “was on the way to be,”
faithless. And yet further the tense of the
verb (2) yivov) marks the process as con-
tinually going on. The transformation is re-
garded as present and not as a future result.

The exact correspondence of the two words
“faithless,” “believing,” in the original
(dmirros, murrdés) cannot be adequately
rendered in English: ‘‘ unbelieving”...
“believing,” and “faithless ”...“ faithful,”
both fall short of the idea,

28. Everything combines to shew that St.
Thomas did not employ the test which he
had himself proposed (e.g, hast seen, not
hast felt), The presence of the Lord enabled
him to feel at once that what he had uncon-
sciously desired was something more than
could be assured to him by mere sensible
testing. He recognised the Lord, but that
was not all. So far the criterion which he
imagined might have brought conviction.
But he knew also that his Lord was more
than man. Having set before himself dis-
tinctly the extent of his hope he was better
able than others to perceive how the revela-
tion of the Lord went beyond it. In his
example it is seen that faith is not measured
by sight, while it is the interpretation of
actual phenomena,

And (omit) Thomas...My Lord and my
God] The words are beyond question
echap. 21.
26.

v.28—31.]

28 And Thomas answered and said
unto him, My Lord and my God.

29 Jesus saith unto him, Thomas,
because thou hast seen me; thou hast
believed : blessed are they that have
not seen, and yet have believed.

30 4 eAnd many other signs truly

Sr. JOHN. XX.

did Jesus in the presence of his dis-
ciples, which are not written in this
book :

31 But these are written, that ye
might believe that Jesus is the Christ,
the Son of God; and that believing
ye might have life through his name.

 

addressed to Christ (saith unto him), and
cannot but be understood as a confession of
belief as to His Person (comp. ‘Syn. Mic.’ v.
Can. 12, De tribus capitulis) expressed in the
form of an impassioned address, The discip-
line of self-questioning, followed by the
revelation of tender compassion and divine
knowledge enabled St Thomas to rise to
the loftiest view of the Lord given in the
Gospels. His sublime, instantaneous confes-
sion, won from doubt, closes historically the
progress of faith which St John traces. At
first (ch. i, 1) the Evangelist declared his
own faith: at the end he shews that this
faith was gained in the actual intercourse
of the disciples with Christ. The record of
this confession therefore forms the appro-
priate close to his narrative; and the words
which follow shew that the Lord accepted
the declaration of His Divinity as the true
expression of faith. He never speaks of
Himself directly as God (comp, v, 18), but
the aim of His revelation was to lead men
to see God in Him.

29. Thomas, because...} Omit Thomas.
There is a powerand clearness inthe con-
fession which rests on thought and vision,
but the Lord shews a happier triumph. The
first clause of His reply is half interrogative,
half exclamatory (comp, xvi, 31). Then
follows the great promise for all ages, based
on the experience of the first week of the
proclamation of the good tidings: Blessed
are they that saw not and yet believed,
believed not simply from the word of others
but from actual experience, which told them
that Christ was risen, because He was in-
deed with them. Report, like sight, is the
occasion, and not the final stay of faith.
The change of tense in the participle
(wertorevxas ... iSévres) evidently marks
the statement as realised already in. the
Christian society. There must have been
many disciples who had only heard of the
appearances on Easter Day, and of these
some at least had believed. Their “ happi-
ness ” (paxdptot, comp. Matt, v. 3 ff.) lay
in the fact that at once they were in sym-
pathy with the facts of the unseen order.

This last and greatest of the Beatitudes
is the peculiar heritage of the later Church.
Comp. 1 Pet, i, 6 ff.

The close and purpose of the record
(vv, 30, 31).
30. The particle of connexion in this verse
is difficult to express (ToAAG pev odv ...
ravra &¢...), The Evangelist seems to say,

looking back upon the representative events
which he had related, crowned by the events
of the Resurrection: ‘‘So then (ovv), as
naturally might be expected by any reader
who has followed the course of my narrative,
many other signs did Jesus...but out of the
whole sum these are written...” (For the
construction see Mark xvi. 19 f.; Luke iii,
18 f.; Acts viii. 4 f., and often; the pev
answers to Se in v.3l,andthe odv marks
the transition.) The “signs” referred to
cannot be limited to those of the Risen
Christ, though these illuminated and inter-
preted the remainder. The clause “in the
presence of His disciples,” however, belongs
primarily to these, inasmuch as they were
confined to the experience of believers. The
statement is of primary importance in con-
nexion with the scope of the Gospel. It
was not St John’s purpose to write a
“Life” of the Lord. His work was a
Gospel and not a biography.

81. that ye might...ye might have life
through] that ye may...ye may have life in...
The object of the Gospel is described under
its two main aspects, intellectual and moral.
It was designed to produce a two-fold con-
viction, and through this the enjoyment of
a life-giving faith: these things are written
in order that readers may believe, that Jesus
—perfect man—is the Christ, the fulfiller
of the hopes and promises of Israel (comp.
Matt. i, 16), and also the Son of God (comp.
Luke iii. 23, 38), the fulfiller of the destiny
of mankind; and then, in virtue of this
belief, held as a present power, may have
life in His name, that is, in fellowship with
Him as revealed in the fulness of His double
nature. This declaration of the purpose of
the Gospel corresponds most closely with
the Apostle’s declaration of the purpose of
his Epistle, 1 John i, 3, 4. In both cases a
historic message is made the spring of the

highest blessing of “life,” of divine
“fellowship.”
have life] Comp, 1 John v. i8 The

general relation between the Christology of
the Gospel and of the first Epistle of St
John is of the highest interest and signifi-
cance. In the Gospel the Evangelist shews
step by step that the historic Jesus was the
Christ, the Son of God (opposed to mere
“flesh ”); in the Epistle he re-affirms that
the Christ, the Son of God, was true man
(opposed to mere “ spirit;” 1 John iv. 2).
The correspondences and differences are
equally striking.

297
298

St. JOHN. XX.

ADDITIONAL NOTE on Cuap. xXx. 21.

In this verse the tenses of the verbs
dréoradke [not dmeoretA€] and méurw)
(I.), and the difference of the verbs them.
selves (arrooTéAAw—aépmw), require to be
noticed (II.).

I. The mission of Christ is sometimes
(1) contemplated in the one specific fact of
the Incarnation (dréo-retA€ aor.) ; sometimes
(2) it is contemplated in its abiding issues
(drérradke, perf), Astudy of the passages
in which the two forms are severally used
will bring out their exact meaning.

1. In the following passages the aorist
(dréorerAe) is used; iii. 17, 34, viii, 42 (in
combination with the perfect éA7jAv0a), x
36, xi. 42, xvii, 8, 8 (with é¢7\Oov), 18
(with dwérrende of the disciples), 21, 23,
25. In these passages there is no variation
of reading. In the following passages
dréoretXe is unquestionably the true read-
ing, though the variant dréoraAKe occurs
in some early authorities: v, 38 (with
muorevere ), vi, 29 (with iva wurTednre),
vi. 57 (with (@), vii. 29 (with eiui); 1
John iv, 10,

In all these cases it will be found that
the exact force of the teaching lies in the
actual fact of Christ’s mission.

2. The perfect ( dwréoradke ) is far more
rare. It occurs without any variation in
1 John iv. 14 (with TeOedpeOa, and paptv-
povpev). It is also unquestionably the
true reading in v. 36, xx. 21; 1 John iv. 9,
though the variant dwéoretAe is found in
these passages,

The use of the perfect elsewhere is suffi-
ciently frequent to shew that it preserves
its proper sense, and describes a mission
which continues in its present effects.
Comp. ch, v. 33, Luke iv. 18; Acts vii, 35
(read dréoradker ov xetpt), ix, 17, x, 20,
xv, 27, xvi. 86; 2 Cor. xii, 17 (in con-
nexion with dr heoverrnora, ‘ouvaméctetAa).

The combined use of the aorist and perfect
in 1 John iv. 9 ff. is singularly instructive,

11. The contrast between the verbs
(drooTéAAw, méumw) in the two clauses is
obviously significant. Both verbs are used of
the mission of the Son, and of the mission of
believers, but with distinct meanings, The

former (d7rocréAAw ) corresponds with the
idea of our own words “‘despatch” and “en-
voy,” and conveys the accessory notions of a
special commission, and so far of a delegated
authority in the person sent. The simple verb
éu7rw marks nothing more than the imme-
diate relation of the sender to the sent.

The passages in which drocre\Aw is used
by St John of the Mission of the Son have
been already quoted.

It is used of the mission of the disciples :
iv, 38, xvii. 18. Comp. Matt. x. 5,16, xxi.
34, 36, xxili, 37; Mark vi. 7; Luke ix. 2,
xxii, 35.

The force of the word is illustrated by
the other passages in which it is found: i
6, 19, 24, ili, 28, v, 33, vii, 32, xi. 3. These
passages help to bring out the meaning of the
phrase in xviii, 24, by which it is implied
that the Lord was “despatched” to Caia-
phas as already bearing his condemnation,
and stamped with the mark of Annas.

The usage of weparw in St John as applied
to the Mission of the Son is distinguished
grammatically from that of daoore\Aw.
‘ArorréAAw is always used in finite tenses,
and repro is always used in the participial
form (e.g. 6 mepipas He, 6 warhp 6 Téuras),
though 6 dmrogreiAas is found elsewhere :
Matt. x. 40; Mark ix. 37; Luke ix, 48, x. 16.

Tléuarw is used of disciples here and in
ch, xiii, 20. Is is also used of the Spirit,
xiv, 26, xvi, 7.

The two words appear in close connexion,
i, 19, 22, 24, iv. 34, 38 (a contrast to this
passage), V. 36, 37, 38, vi. 29, 38, 44, 57, vii,
28, 29. In chapters xii—xvi, wéuarw only
is used; in ch, xvii, only drooréAdu,
and so also in Ep, 1.

The general result of the examination
of these facts seems to be that in this
charge the Lord presents His own Mission
as the one abiding Mission of the Father ;
this He fulfils through His church. His
disciples receive no new commission, but
carry out His. Comp. Matt, xxviii, 20;
Hebr. iii. 1. They are not (in this respect)
His envoys, but in a secondary degree
envoys of the Father. Comp, 2 Cor, v. 20;
Col, i, 24. Their work too begins with the
reception of the new life (I am sending,
not Z will send. Compare I ascend).

 
v.1,2.]
CHAPTER XXI.

‘ Christ appearing again to his disciples was
known of them by the great draught of
fishes, 12 He dineth with them: 18
earnestly commandeth Peter to feed his
lambs and sheep: 18 foretelleth him of
his death: 22 rebuketh his curiosity
touching John. 25 The conclusion.

Sr. JOHN. XXI.

FTER these things Jesus shewed

himself again to the disciples at

the sea of Tiberias; and on this wise
shewed he himself.

2 There were together Simon

Peter, and Thomas called Didymus,

and Nathanael of Cana in Galilee,

 

Epitocur, ch, xxi,

This chapter is evidently an appendix to
the Gospel, which is completed by ch. xx,
It is impossible to suppose that it was the
original design of the Evangelist to add the
incidents of ch. xxi, after ch. xx. 30 £., which
verses form a solemn close to his record of
the great history of the conflict of faith and
unbelief in the life of Christ. And the
general scope of the contents of this chapter
is distinct from the development of the plan
which is declared to be completed in ch. xx.
The manifestation of the Lord which is
given in detail in it is not designed to
create faith in the fact of His Resurrection,
but to illustrate His action in the Society;
He guides and supports and assigns their
parts to His disciples.

On the other hand it is equally clear that,
xxi, 1—23 was written by the author of the
Gospel, The style and the general character
of the language alike lead to this conclu-
sion ; and there is no evidence to shew that
the Gospel was published before the ap-
pendix was added to it,

The occasion of the addition is probably
to be found in the circulation of the saying
of the Lord as to St John (xxi, 23). The
clear exposition of this saying carried with
it naturally a recital of the circumstances
under which it was spoken.

The contents of the chapter are peculiar
to St John.

The narrative falls into two main divisions :

I. The Lord and the body of disciples.
Their work : His gift (xxi, 1—14).

II. The Lord and individual disciples, His
determination of their work xxi. 15—28),

The two last verses (24,25) contain an
identification of the writer of the Gospel,
and a renewed testimony (comp, xx. 30) to
the infinite multiplicity of Christ’s works,

1. Tue LoRD AND THE BODY OF DISCIPLES
(1—14). This section falls into two parts :

i, The work of the disciples first wrought
of their own pleasure (1—3), and then in
obedience to the Lord’s directions (4—11).

ii, The Lord’s gift of sustenance (12—14),

i. The Work of the Disciples (1—11).

CHap, XXI. 1. After these things]
Comp. v. 1, vi. 1. Such an indefinite mark
of time is not unsuitable to the character of
this narrative as an appendix to the original
-plan of the Gospel.

shewed himself] Rather, manifested him-
self, The same word (davepdw) is used
on the appearances of the Lord after the
Resurrection in the conclusion of St Mark’s
Gospel, xvi, 12,14. The active form, which
occurs in this verse only (contrast v, 14),
marks the appearance as depending on the
Lord’s will. He was so pleased to reveal
Himself. Comp. ii. 11, vii.4. This special
manifestation of the Risen Christ is part of
the whole “ manifestation ” through the In-
carnation (ch. i, 31; 1 John i, 2, iii, 5, 8;
comp, 1 Tim. iii, 16; 1 Pet, i. 20) which is
consummated at the Return (1 John ii, 28,
iil, 2; comp, Col. iii. 4; 1 Pet, v. 4).

again] The word does not exclude the
idea of other intervening manifestations,
but places the narrative which follows as
parallel with the former narratives in being
a manifestation to ‘“‘the disciples” (xx, 19,
24 f.), that is, in all probability, the apostles,
the disciples in the narrower sense, though
“the twelve” were not all assembled on
this occasion, but at most “seven” only.
See note on v, 2.

at the sea of Tiberias] Comp.vi.1, This
name does not occur elsewhere in the Gos-
pels. The return of the disciples to Galilee
is indicated in Matt, xxviii. 7; Mark xvi. 7.
Before the Ascension they came again to
Jerusalem and continued there. till after
Pentecost (Acts i, 4). The words in Luke
xxiv, 44 ff, appear to be asummary of teach-
ing at different times during the forty ‘days.
It is important to observe that St John takes
account of both groups of appearances of the
Risen Lord. St Matthew only notices the
appearance to “the eleven” in Galilee, and
St Luke only appearances at Jerusalem.

and on this wise shewed he himself} More
exactly, and he manifested himself on this
wise. The repetition of a prominent word
is characteristic of St John’s style. The
Evangelist states the fact first, and then, as
it were after a pause, goes back to recall
the details of it. Comp. xiii. 1 ff.

2. There were together] The enumeration
which follows seems to shew that all present
belonged to the same neighbourhood,

Thomas) In Acts i, 18, Thomas is joined
with Philip, so that he may have been of
Bethsaida (i. 44),

Nathanael] Seei. 45. The addition “of
Cana” throws light upon the connexion of
i. 45 ff. and ii, 1 ff., where the detail is not
given,

299
300
and the sons of Zebedee, and two
other of his disciples.

3 Simon Peter saith unto them, I go
a fishing. They say unto him, We
also go with thee. They went forth,
and entered into a ship immediately ;
and that night they caught nothing.

4 But when the morning was now
come, Jesus stood on the shore: but
the disciples knew not that it was
Jesus.

St. JOHN. XXI.

[v-3—7-

5 Then Jesus saith unto them,
liChildren, have ye any meat? They
answered him, No.

6 And he said unto them, Cast
the net on the right side of the ship,
and ye shall find. They cast there-
fore, and now they were not able to
draw it for the multitude of fishes.

7 Therefore that disciple whom
Jesus loved saith unto Peter, It is
the Lord. Now when Simon Peter

 

the sons of Zebedee] Matt, xx. 20, xxvi.
37, xxvii, 56.

two other] The record of the first chapter
suggests that these two may have been
Andrew (i. 41) and Philip (i, 43 ff). Yet
it is more probable that these two were “dis-
ciples ” in the wider sense, and that St John
places himself and his brother last among the
apostles, Under any circumstances the posi-
tion of ‘the sons of Zebedee” in the enu-
merationis not that which any other writer
than St John would have given to them.

3. Simon Peter] Even here St Peter
takes the lead in action. The disciples seem
to have continued their ordinary work,
waiting calmly for the sign which should
determine their future. Comp. Luke xxii.
36; 2 Thess, iii, 8; Acts xviii. 3.

We also go] Literally, come.

They went forth] from the house, prob-
ably at Capernaum or Bethsaida, in which
they were now staying.

a ship (the ship)] Omit immediately.
Comp. vi. 17 ff. In the first place where
the word occurs (vi. 17) there is no article
according to the true reading. Here “the
ship” is mentioned as part of the ordinary
equipment for the fisher’s work. It may be
naturally supposed that when St Peter
“left all” (Luke v.11) those who retained
possession of his property respected his
right when he reclaimed it. The word
“immediately” must be omitted.

in that night] The emphatic pronoun
(ev éxeévy Ty v.) perbaps implies that the
want of success was unusual with them.
The night was the most favourable time
for fishing. Comp. Luke v. 5.

4. when the morning was now come] The
true reading (yevopevns for yevouevys) gives
the more vivid picture: when the day was
now breaking. The exact time is signifi-
cant for the interpretation of the incident.

stood...on...) Came, as the phrase implies
(éorn eis), from some unknown quarter, and
stood on the beach (aiysadds), See Acts
xxvii, 39f., xxi, 5; Matt. xiii. 2,48, Comp.
xx, 19, 26. Interpreters at all times have
pointed to the significant contrast in the posi-
tions of the Lord and the disciples, He on
the firm ground, they on the restless waters,

but (rather howbeit)...4new not...) The
clause is added as something strange
(pévTot, iv. 27, xii. 42), Ibis vain to give any
simply natural explanation of the failure of
the disciples to recognise Christ, After the
Resurrection He was known as He pleased,
and not necessarily at once (ch. xx, 14 ff. ;
Luke xxiv. 31). Yet it is easiy to under-
stand that the disciples were preoccupied
with their work, as Mary Magdalene with
her sorrow (xx. 14, an exact parallel), so
that the vision of the divine was obscured,

5. Then Jesus (Jesus therefore)...] as
desiring to bring them to a knowledge of
Himself. The words might be taken as the
question of one who wished to buy what
they had.

Children] The original word (watdia)
marks the difference of age or position, and
not the tie of relationship (rexvia, ch. xiii.
33). Comp, 1 John ii. 13, 18 (masdia)
with 1 John ii, 1, 12 (true reading rexvia),
28, iii, 7, 18, iv. 4, v. 21). Here it is prob.
ably no more than a familiar address. The
form of the question in the original ( p7jre)
suggests a negative answer, See iv, 29.

meat] Probably something to eat with
bread (rpoogdytov, which answers to the
Attic dyov), This was commonly fish, so
that the synonymous word (ddprov) caine
to be used for fish (ch, vi. 9f.).

6. onthe right side] The definiteness of
the command (contrast Luke v. 4) explains
the readiness with which it was obeyed.

to draw it] up into the boat (éAKtrac), as
contrasted with the “ dragging” (ovpecv) it
after the boat. In the end it was “drawn”
up to the land (v.11). Wilson speaks of
the fish in the lake as being seen “in dense
masses ” (‘ Recovery of Jerusalem,’ p. 341),

7. Therefore that disciple...) He was able
to read ina moment by a certain sympathy
with Christ the meaning of the sign, In this
power of insight Christ’s love to him was
illustrated, so that the title becomes, as it
were, a thanksgiving. See ch, xiii, 23.

Now when Simon Peter heard...) Siman
Peter therefore having heard... The revels
tion came to him from without, and no longe-

! Or
Sirs,
v.8—11.]

«
heard that it was the Lord, he girt
his fisher’s coat unto him, (for he
was naked,) and did cast himself into
the sea.

8 And the other disciples came
in a little ship; (for they were not
far from land, but as it were two
hundred cubits,) dragging the net
with fishes.

9 As soon then as they were come

Sr. JOHN. XXI.

to land, they saw a fire of coals there,
and fish laid thereon, and bread.

10 Jesus saith unto them, Bring
of the fish which ye have now
caught.

1r Simon Peter went up, and drew
the net to land full of great fishes,
an hundred and fifty and three:
and for all there were so many, yet
was not the net broken.

 

from within (Matt. xvi, 17), but he at once
acted upon it. He could not wait for the
slow progress of the boat, but with swift
resolve “ cast himself into the sea’ (contrast
Matt. xiv. 28 ff.), having first “ girt his coat
(érevdirns, an upper garment, See LXX.
1 8. xviii, 4, “robe;” 2 8, xiii, 18; the
word was adopted in later Hebrew for the
“frock ” of labourers) about him,” with in-
stinctive reverence for the presence of his
Master. While engaged in his work he was
“naked,” that is, probably, stripped of all
but his light under-garment (comp. 1 8.
xix, 24; Isai. xx, 2; Amos ii, 16), though
at present the word applies literally to
Galilean fishermen ; but these poor men, who
have no boats, occupy a different position
from the apostles (Tristram, ‘Land of
Israel,’ pp. 425 ff. ed. 3).

8. in a little ship] in the boat (7d
mXodprov ), The change of word may point
to the use of some smaller vessel which was
attached to the “ship,” as the words are
distinguished in vi. 22; or it may be a
more exact description of the vessel.

for they...) The clause explains how they
could easily do what is described, and soon
gain the shore. The distance was about a
hundred yards,

9. As soon then as...they saw...) So when...
they see... They hasten to meet the Lord
before they have secured their prize (v. 10).
The fire of coals, i.e, of charcoal (dvOpaxid,
xviii, 18), the fish (dydprov ), and the bread
(loaf, @pros), are spoken of in such a way
as to suggest the thought that they were
provided supernaturally. The Lord provides
as He will, through human labour naturally,
or otherwise,

fish...bread...) Rather, a fish...a loaf...
Compare v. 13, the fish...the loaf... The
thought of unity seems to be distinctly
presented (1 Cor, x, 17),

10. The command was probably given in
order to mark the gifts of the Lord as gifts
to be used. Perhaps the use of oydptov
(fish as food) here as contrasted with ix Bus
(fish generally) in the next verse emphasizes
the idea,

11. Simon Peter therefore went up]
Peter at once—again first in action—enters
the vessel to which the net was fastened, and
then draws it up after him on to the land.

an hundred and fifty and three] Jerome
quotes an opinion that there were so many
kinds of fish, and adds that one of each kind
was taken to shew the universality of the
work of the apostles (‘In Ezech.’ xlvii, 9).
For other interpretations see Additional
Note. The record of the exact number
probably marks nothing more than the care
with which the disciples reckoned their
wonderful draught, The significant differ-
ences between the circumstances of the
miraculous draught of fishes at the begin-
ning of the Lord’s ministry (Luke v. 1 ff.),
and of this after the Resurrection, have
frequently been noted. Augustine draws
them out very well. The one miracle, he
says, was the symbol of the Church at
present, the other of the Church perfected ;
in the one we have good and bad, in the
other good only ; there Christ also is on the
water, here He is on the land; there the
draught is left in the boats, here it is landed
on the beach; there the nets are let down as
it might be, here in a special part; there the
nets are rending, here they are not broken ;
there the boats are onthe point of sinking
with their load, here they are not laden;
there the fish are not numbered, here the
number is exactly given (‘In Joh.’ cxxir. 7),
It seems impossible not to acknowledge
that there is a spiritual meaning in these
variations of the two narratives which con-
sistently converge to distinct ends.

ii. The Lord’s Gift (12—14).

The completion of the apostles’ work,
hallowed now by the offering of first-fruits,
is followed by the bestowal of the Lord’s
blessing. As He had made their labour
fruitful, so now He gives them of His
Own. The absence of connecting particles
in the true text of vv. 12 f. gives a
peculiar solemnity to the description.

12. dine] Rather, breakfast (dpurrijoare).
The Gpiotov was the morning meal, as con-
trasted with the afternoon meal (Seirvov)
Comp, Luke xiv, 12. In St Matthew xxii,
4 ff, the guests invited to ‘‘the breakfast ”

301
302
12 Jesus said unto them, Come
and dine. And none of the disciples
durst ask him, Who art thou? know-
ing that it was the Lord.
13 Jesus then cometh, and taketh
bread, and giveth them, and fish like-
wise.

St. JOHN. XXI.

[v. 12—15,

14 This is now the third time
that Jesus shewed himself to his dis-
ciples, after that he was risen from
the dead.

15 { So when they had dined,
Jesus saith to Simon Peter, Simon,
son of Jonas, lovest thou me more

 

refuse the invitation and go away to their
day’s work,

The Lord seems to have been still standing
at some little distance when He gave the
invitation, The disciples held back in awe.
They “knew that it was the Lord;” and
still it is evident that He was in some way
changed,

And none—ask] Omit And. The original
word for ask (éferdoac) describes precise
and careful inquiry and examination, Matt.
ii, 8, x, 11. There is a conviction of
reality which (in a sense) precludes certain
forms of investigation as unfitting.

13. Jesus then...) Omit then, As the dis-
ciples hang back ‘‘ Jesus cometh,” and gives
to them of “the bread’”’ and ‘“‘the fish” which
He had Himself provided. The articles in
the original (rdv dprov, Td dYdprov) point
back to v. 9. Nothing is said either as to
the use of the fish caught '(v, 10) or of the
Lord Himself sharing the meal. He appears
only as the Giver of the food which He
brings, and this fact probably explains the
absence of the customary “blessings” or
“thanksgiving” (vi, 11; Luke xxiv, 30).

14. This is now...) 2 Pet. iii. 1, Comp. v. 1.
The “third time” most probably refers to
manifestations to “the disciples” ina body.
St John himself relates three appearances
before this, the first being to Mary Magda-
lene, xx. 11 ff. Perhaps the form of expres-
sion (this is now [76n]...) may be chosen
with a view to distinguish this appearance,
which was not preserved in the popular
tradition, from the later appearances which
were preserved in it, It is possible also that
“the third time” may describe ‘' groups”
or “ days” of appearances; the appearances
on the first day being reckoned as one
appearance; but the exact interpretation of
the words seems to be more natural,

11. THe Lorp anp InpivipvaL DiscrPLes
(15—23).
This section also falls into two parts :
i, The work of St Peter : to act (15—19),
ii, The work of St John : to wait (20—23).
shewed himself] was manifested. See
vin,
The contents are peculiar to St John,
i. The work of St Peter. The apostolic
charge (15—17) ; the personal issue (18, 19)

15. So when they had dined (break-
fasted)...] After the common meal the
personal charge followed naturally.

saith to Simon Peter, Simon, son of Jonas
(John, and so vv. 16, 17; see i. 42, note)} The
contrast of the names is significant. The
address of the Lord, thrice repeated, recalls
the first words addressed to St Peter (i. 42),
when he received the surname Cephas
(Peter). At the same time it must be
observed that the Lord never addresses
St Peter by his new surname; nor does St
Paul speak of him by the Greek form of it
(Peter) according to the true text, but only
as Cephas. On the other hand, the surname
is commonly used either alone or with Simon
in the narrative of the Gospels, and always
in the Greek form. This varying usage,
which exactly corresponds with the circum-
stances under which the title was substituted
for the original name, is a striking indication
of the exactness of the records, and specially
of the exactness of the record of the Lord’s
words (Matt, xvi. 17, xvii. 25; Mark xiv.
37; Luke xxii. 31; comp, Acts x. 5 ff.).

son of Jonas (John)] Themention of St
Peter’s natural descent here (comp, i, 42;
Matt, xvi. 17) appears to direct attention
in the first place to the man in the fulness
of his natural character, as distinguished
from the apostle,

lovest thou me more than these?] i.e.
more than these, thy fellow-disciples, love
me. The reference is probably to St Peter’s
words (ch. xiii. 37; Matt. xxvi. 33), in which
he had claimed for himself the possession
of supreme devotion (comp, xv. 12ff.). In
the record of St Matthew (/.c.) this pro-
fession is placed in immediate connexion
with the Lord’s promise of an appearance
in Galilee after His Resurrection, which
gives peculiar force to the question. It is
unnatural to suppose that “ these ” is neuter,
and that the Lord refers to the instruments
or fruits of the fisher’s craft,

lovest (dyam¢s, Vulg. diligis)] It will be
noticed that the foundation of the apostolic
office is laid in love and not in belief.
Love (dydan) in its true form includes
Faith (comp, 1 Cor, xiii, 13).

Yea, Lord...) St Peter in his answer
affirms his personal attachment to the Lord,
appealing to the Lord’s own knowledge ; but
his profession differs in two important points
from the question proposed. He does not
assume any superiority over others (more
than these) : and he lays claim only to the
feeling of natural love (¢iAG ce, Vulg.
amo te), of which he could be sure. He
does not venture to say that he has attained
to that higher love (dyamgv) which was to
v. 16—18.]

than these? He saith unto him, Yea,
Lord; thou knowest that I love thee.
He saith unto him, Feed my lambs.

16 He saith to him again the
second time, Simon, son of Jonas,
lovest thou me? He saith unto him,
Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I
love thee. He saith unto him, Feed
my sheep.

Sr. JOHN. XXI.

17 He saith unto him the third
time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou
me? Peter was grieved because he
said unto him the third time, Lovest
thou me? And he said unto him,
Lord, thou knowest all things; thou
knowest that I love thee. Jesus saith
unto him, Feed my sheep.

18 Verily, verily, I say unto thee,

 

be the spring of the Christian life (ch. xiii.
34, xiv, 15, 21, 28, &.). Moreover now he
says nothing of the future, nothing of the
manifestation of his love (xiii, 37). Comp.
Bernard, ‘Serm. de div.’ xx1x. fin.
thou (emphatic) knowest] Experience had
taught St Peter to distrust his own judg-
ment of himself. Even when the fact is
one of immediate consciousness he rests his
assertion on the Lord’s direct insight.
Feed my lambs] In response to the sincere
confession the Lord imposes a charge which
shews that He accepts the apostle’s answer.
The privilege and the work of love are
identical. The image is now changed, The
fisher’s work is followed by the shepherd’s
work, Those who are brought together and
taken out of “the many waters” need to be
fed and tended. This office of the shepherd
with which St Peter is entrusted is regarded
under three different aspects. The first
oe here is the simplest and humblest.
he little ones in Christ’s flock need support,
which they cannot obtain of themselves;
this the apostle is charged to give them.
Feed] The original word (Pdcxeuv).
which occurs again in v, 17, is found else.
where in the New Testament only of swine
(Matt. viii. 30, 33; Mark v. 11,14; Luke viii.
32, 34, xv. 15). As distinguished from the
word which follows (v. 16, mowpaivery)
it expresses the providing with food.

16. A short pause, as we must suppose,
followed; and then the question was re-
peated a second time, but so that the thought
of comparison is omitted: Simon, son of
John, lovest (dyamgs) thou me? St Peter’s
answer is identically the same as before.
He still shrinks from taking to Himself the
loftier word. In reply the Lord lays upon
him a new part of the shepherd’s duty :
Tend—be shepherd of—my sheep. The
lambs require to be fed; the sheep require
to be guided. The watchful care and rule
to be exercised over the maturer Christians
calls for greater skill and tenderness than
the feeding of the young and simple.

Feed] Tend (otpa:ve), Acts xx. 28;
1 Pet, v. 2; Matt. ii. 6. Comp. Rev. ii. 27,
&c.; Jude 12. The Vulgate does not dis-
tinguish feed and tend (pasce, pasce).

17. lovest thou (ptAcis, Vulg. amas) me)
When the Lord puts the question “the
third time.” He adopts the word whick St

Peter had used. Just as the idea of
comparison was given up before, so now
the idea of the loftiest love is given up.
It is as if the Lord would test the truth
of the feeling which St Peter claimed.

The three questions could not but recall
the three denials; and the form of this last
question could not but vividly bring back
the thought of the failure of personal
devotion of the moment of trial. So Peter
was grieved not only that the question was
put again, but that this third time the
phrase was changed; that the question was
not only put once again, but at the same
time put so as to raise a doubt whether he
could indeed rightly claim that modified
love which he had professed. His “grief”
lay in the deep sense that such a doubt
might well be suggested by the past, even
if it were at the time ungrounded. Men
might reasonably distrust his profession of
sincerity after his fall, but he appealed to
the Lord (Thou (ob) knowest...).

The answer of St Peter meets the points
in the changed question. He leaves out the
affirmation (Yea, Lord) of his former reply
and throws himself wholly on the Lord,
upon His absolute knowledge, and upon His
special knowledge. Lord, Thou knowest
(otSas) all things, and at this moment Thou
seest (yiviioxels) that I love Thee. The
knowledge to which he appeals is not only
that of divine intuition, but of immediate
observation, Comp. ii. 25, note. The Vulgate
again fails to distinguish the two words.

In reply the Lord completed His commis-
sion, Feed (Bdcxe) my sheep. Themature
no less than the young Christians require
their appropriate sustenance. Provision
must be made for their support as well as
for their guidance. And this is the last and
most difficult part of the pastor’s office,

my lambs...my sheep...my sheep...) It will
be noticed that the Lord retains His own
right to those who are committed to the
apostle’s care. Comp. 1 Pet. v. 2f, Augustine
paraphrases admirably : “Si me diligis, non
te pascere cogita, sed oves meas sicut meas ~
pasce, non sicut tuas; gloriam meam in eis
quere, non tuam, dominium meum non
tuum...” (‘In Joh.’ cxxr1t, 5).

18. The threefold apostolic charge resting
on the assurance of personal love was given.
The revelatior of the personal issues of that
love followed § There was a most true sense

303
304

When thou wast young, thou girdest
thyself, and walkedst whither thou
wouldst: but when thou shalt be
old, thou shalt stretch forth thy hands,

Sr. JOHN. XXI. a“

[v. 19.
and another shall gird thee, and carry
thee whither thou wouldest not.

19 This spake he, signifying by
what death he should glorify God.

 

in which the bold declaration of the apostle
(xiii, 37) was destined to find a literal ful-
filment : Verily, verily, I say to thee......

Verily, verily] The Risen Christ uses
once more his familiar formula.

When thou wast young (vedrepos, Vulg.
junior, lit, younger)] ‘The earlier outward
freedom of St Peter in his youth is con-
trasted with his final complete outward
bondage. At the moment he stood between
the two states. Perhaps the thought of a
converse growth of spiritual freedom under-
lies the image.

when thou shalt be old) The martyrdom
of St Peter is placed in the year a.p. 64,
and he seems to have been already of
middle age (Matt, viii, 14).

stretch forth thy hands] as helpless and
seeking help,

gird thee] bind thee as a condemned
criminal,

whither thou wouldest not] The way to
a violent death must always be terrible,
because unnatural; and that exactly in
proportion as the violation of nature by
such an end is realised. Comp, xii, 27.

19. This spake he (Now this he spake)
signifying (comp. xii. 33, xviii. 32) by what
(what manner of) death...] The crucifixion
of St Peter at Rome is attested by Tertullian
(‘Scorp.’ 15) and later writers. Origen
further stated that he was crucified with his
head downwards at his own request (Euseb.
‘H, E! 11.1). Though the language of the
Lord has very commonly been adapted to
the details of crucifixion, it does not appear
that it points directly to anything more than
martyrdom, when ‘another girded him,”
and he was taken “ whither he would not.”
The “stretching forth the hands” can
hardly be referred primarily to the position
on the cross, since this detail is placed first.

he should glorify God] Literally, he shall
glorify. The construction in xviii. 32 is
different. The Evangelist throws himself
back to the time when the death of St
Peter was as yet future. As martyrdom was
a “glorifying God,” so conversely the
martyr himself was said to be “ glorified”
by his death. Comp. vii. 39, xii, 23, and
Suicer s, v, Sofdgev.

Follow me] The end of martyrdom having
now been shewn, the Lord repeated the
command given before under different cir-
cumstances to others (i, 43; Matt. viii, 22,
ix, 9, xix, 21), “Follow me.” What had
been impossible before the apostle’s fall
became possible for him now (xili 36 ff.).

The command itself, as given before and
after the Resurrection, has necessarily differ.

ent though analogous meanings. During the
Lord’s earthly life following Him implied
the abandonment of previous occupations
(Matt, ix. 9) and duties (Matt. viii. 22);
attendance upon Him even when He entered
on strange and mysterious paths; partici-
pation in disgrace and danger (Matt. x. 38).
Now to “follow Christ” required further
the perception of His course; the spiritual
discernment by which His movements can
still be discovered; and yet further the
readiness to accept martyrdom as the end.

These different thoughts appear to havea
place in the words follow me, but the com-
mand had also, as appears from the next
verse (following), a literal meaning also,
though it is impossible to decide for what
purpose the Lord called St Peter away
from the other disciples.

Augustine’s comment on the promise of
the glory of future martyrdom to the peni-
tent and restored apostle is pregnant with
thought : “ Hunc invenit exitum ille negator
et amator; presumendo elatus, negando
prostratus, flendo purgatus, confitendo pro-
batus, patiendo coronatus; hunc invenit
exitum ut pro ejus nomine perfecta dilec-
tione moreretur, cum quo se moriturum
perversa festinatione promiserat. Faciat
ejus resurrectione firmatus, quod immature
pollicebatur infirmus. Hoc enim oportebat
ut prius Christus pro Petri salute, deinde
Petrus pro Christi pradicatione moreretur.
Preposterum fuit quod audere coeperat
humana temeritas, cum istum disposuisset
ordinem veritas. Animam suam se positurum
pro Christo Petrus putabat, pro liberatore
liberandus; cum Christus venisset animam
suam positurus pro suis ovibus in quibus
erat et Petrus; quod ecce jam factum est...
Jam pretio pro te fuso, nunc est [Petre] ut
sequaris emptorem, et sequaris omnino
usque ad mortem crucis” (‘In Joh.’ cxx1It.
4). It is impossible to translate adequately
this epigrammatic African Latin,

li. The work of St John,

20. Peter (omit Then), turning about}
The command of the Lord appears to have
been accompanied by some symbolic action,
As St Peter literally obeyed the call thus
expressed under a figure, and moved away
from the group of the apostles, something at.
tracted his attention, and he “turned about ”
to the direction indicated (émurrpadeis,
Mark v. 30). The whole picture is full of life.

the disciple...) Comp. xiii, 23, note.

which also leaned’ (leaned back):..the
supper] The reference is to the special act
of the apostle (dvérerev), and not to the
position which he occupied at the table
a on B.
23. & 20.
Q

V.20—23.]

And when he had spoken this, he
saith unto him, Follow me.

20 Then Peter, turning about,
seeth the disciple «whom Jesus loved
following ; which also leaned on his
breast at supper, and said, Lord,
which is he that betrayeth thee?

21 Peter seeing him saith to Jesus,
Lord, and what shall this man do?

St. JOHN. XXI.

305

22 Jesus saith unto him, If I will
that he tarry till I come, what is that
to thee? follow thou me.

23 Then went this saying abroad
among the brethren, that that dis-
ciple should not die: Yet Jesus said
not unto him, He shall not die; but,
If I will that he tarry till I come,
what is that to thee?

 

 

(Av dvakeiuevos, xiii, 23). The notice is
added here to explain the close connexion
of St John with St Peter, and the confi-
dence with which St John ventured to
follow even without a special invitation.

21. Peter therefore...] No question could
be more natural, The fact that St John was
following was itself an unspoken question as
to the future, an asking of the Lord’s will.

Lord, and...) The original is singularly
brief and pregnant, “Lord, and this man,
what ?” (Kipce, otros 8 ti ; Vulg. Domine,
hic autem quid?) What of him? What
shall he suffer or do? what shall be his lot ?

22. In the Lord’s answer the emphasis is
laid upon the pronouns “ him” and “thou”
(édv adrdv 6...0% pordx.), The thought is
of the individual offices of disciples. St
Peter’s fortune corresponded with his work,
and so too St John’s,

If I will (comp. xvii. 24, note) that...]
The hypothetical form of the sentence veils
the divine counsel. Experience has shewn
what that was,

abide till Z come] The exact force of
the original is rather ‘‘ while I am coming”
(ws épxopuat), The “coming” is not re.
garded as a definite point in future time,
but rather as a fact which is in slow and
continuous realisation. The prominent idea
is of the interval to be passed over rather
than of the end to be reached. Comp, ix.
4, xii, 35 £.; Mark vi, 45 ( dwoAdec).: 1 Tim.
iv, 18; Luke xix. 13 (év @); Matt. v, 25.
“Abiding” is the correlative to ‘‘following ;”
and according to the manifold significance
of this word it expresses the calm waiting
for further light, the patient resting in a
fixed position, the continuance in life.

The ‘‘ coming ” of the Lord is no doubt
primarily “ the second coming ” (rapovoia,
1 John ii, 28); but at the same time the
idea of Christ’s “ coming ”’ includes thoughts
of His personal coming in death to each
believer. And yet further the coming of
Christ to the Society is not absolutely one.
He “ came” in the destruction of Jerusalem.
Thus St John did tarry till the great
“coming,” nor is there anything fanciful in
seeing an allusion to the course of the history
of the church under the image of the history
of the apostles. The type of doctrine and
character represented by St John is the last
in the ordor of development, In this sense

he abides still. Comp, xiv. 3, note; and
Rev. ii. 5,16, iii, 11, xvi. 15, xxii, 7, 12, 20.

what is that to thee?] The arrangement
of the various parts in the whole body of
the Church does not concern men. That
rests with the divine will, and the divine
will is unfolded in the course of life.

23. Then went this saying...] This saying
(word) therefore went...the words which
the Lord had spoken, These were inexactly
repeated, and taken to affirm “that that
disciple dieth not.” The tradition that St
John was sleeping in his grave at Ephesus,
and that the moving dust witnessed to the
breathing of the saint beneath, survived
for a long time. Augustine mentions it
doubtfully “on the authority of grave
men” (‘In Joh.’ cxxrv, 2).

among the brethren] This use of the
phrase which is common in the book of the
Acts (ix, 30, &c.) is found here only in the
Gospels (comp. ch, xx, 17; Luke xxii. 32).

yet Jesus...) Themanner in which the
error is corrected seems to shew clearly that
it had not been refuted by fact, or, in other
words, that this Epilogue to the Gospel was
written by St John. The apostle, still alive
and looking to the uncertainty of the future,
rests on the simple repetition of the precise
language of the Lord. He does not claim to
know all that He meant; he repeats what
He said. The true interpretation of the
words was for history,

It is obvious that St Peter and St John
occupy in this narrative representative posi-
tions both as to their work and as to the
issue of their work. The one is the minister
of action whose service is consummated by
the martyrdom of death: the other is the
minister of thought and teaching whose
service is perfected in the martyrdom of
life. Augustine (‘In Joh.’ cxxtv. 3) has a
very interesting comparison of the two
charges, which is thus summed up: “ Per-
fecta me sequatur actio, informata mex
passionis exemplo: inchoata vero contem-
platio maneat donec venio, perficienda cum
venero.” See also the Preface to the
Commentary of Rupert of Deutz,

ConcLupING Notes: vv, 24, 25.
These two verses appear to be separate
notes attached to the Gospel before its pub-
lication. The form of v. 24, contrasted with
that of xix, 35, shews conclusively that it
306

b chap. 20,
30.

24 This is the disciple which tes-
tifieth of these things, and wrote
these things: and we know that his
testimony is true.

25 bAnd there are also many other

Sr. JOHN. XXI.

[v. 24, 25.
things which Jesus did, the which,
if they should be written every one,
I suppose that even the world itself
could not contain the books that
should be written. Amen.

 

is not the witness of the Evangelist, The
words were probably added by the Ephesian
elders to whom the preceding narrative had
been given both orally and in writing. See
Introduction, p. xxxv. The change of person
in v, 25 (J suppose, compared with we
know) marks a change of authorship. It is
quite possible that this verse may contain
words of St John (comp, xx, 30), set here
by those who had heard them,

24, testifieth...testimony] beareth wit-
ness...witness. The witness is spoken
of as present, but the form of the phrase
(6 paprupor, contrast 6 Apdéas) does not in
itself shew conclusively that the apostle
was alive at the time when the note was
written (comp. i, 15), though this is the
most natural interpretation (comp. v. 32, 33).

these things} The phrase may be referred.
to the whole contents of the Gospel (xx.
31), or be limited to the narrative of ch. xxi,

weknow] The plural (contrast xix. 35)
taken in connexion with this is the disciple

and I suppose (v. 25) seems to be un-
doubtedly a true plural, and not a usage
like 1 Johni.1, | Compare Col. iv. 3, where
there is a corresponding change from the
apostolic group (Col, i. 1) to St Paul himself.

true] true in fact (dA7O07s). The thought
is not brought out here as in xix. 35, that
it satisfies the ideal conditions of testimony
(dAn6.vy). The words read like an echo
of 3 John 12,

25. I suppose] The word ( ofpat ) is rare
in the N.T. (comp, Phil. i, 17; James i.
7). From the form of the sentence (édv
ypddnrat...xwpyoev) it appears that the
recollection of the other deeds was still
fresh, so that the record of them was
possible.

could not contain] The bold expression
answers to a deep truth. A complete
account (every one) of the perfect human
(Jesus) life of the Lord would be practi-
cally infinite,

Amen) is no part of the original text

ADDITIONAL NOTES on Cuap. xxr.

11. The precise statement of the number
has naturally attracted the attention of
commentators from early times, aud the
interpretations which have been assigned
to it do more than form a sample of
ingenious combinations, They illustrate a
method of viewing Scripture, which, how-
ever different from our own, was at one
time nearly universal. It will then be not
without use and interest to notice one or
two of the prominent explanations of the
number which have been offered.

There is, as far as I have noted, no ex-
planation of the number preserved in the
great ante-Nicene fathers, Clement, Irenzus,
and Origen, Tertullian and Cyprian, But
Cyril of Alexandria (+ 444) and Augustine
(t+ 430) have probably preserved earlier
interpretations in their own comments,

Cyrrin or ALEXANDRIA (in loc.), followed
by AmmMonius the Pressyrer (‘Cramer
Cat.’ in loc.), Huthymius (doubtfully) and
Theophylact (ad loc.), regards the number
as being significant in its three simple
elements : 100 + 50+ 3. The 100, he says,
represents the fulness of the Gentiles, for
100 (= 10 Xx 10) is “the fullest number,”
and as such it is used to describe the
Lord’s full flock (Matt, xviii. 12) and full

fertility (Matt, xiii, 8). The 50 represents
“the remnant of Israel according to
election,” which falls short of completeness

(0-20) The 3 indicates the Holy

Trinity, to whose glory all alike are gathered.

Augustine (‘in Joh, Tr.’ cxx11.) adopts a
more complicated interpretation. Zen, he
says, is the number of the Law. But the
Law without grace kills. To the number
of the Law therefore we add seven, the
number of the Spirit, in order to obtain
the divine revelation as a power of life, But,
he then adds, the sum of the numbers from
one to seventeen inclusive is one hundred
and fifty-three (1 + 2+ 3 &c, + 17 = 158).
So that the number 153 signifies all those
who are included in the saving operation
of divine grace, which makes reconciliation
with the Law. Nor is this all. The three
is the symbol of the Trinity ; and the triple
fifty brings out the idea of unity in the
Spirit, who is revealed in a sevenfold
operation (50 =7 X7+ 1). -

Grecory THE Great adopts in part the
symbolism of Augustine, but employs it
even more ingeniously. The Evangelist,
he writes, would not have given the exact
Sr. JOHN. XXI.

number unless he had deemed that it
contained a mystery. All action under the
Old Testament is ruled by the Decalogue ;
and under the New Testament by the
seven gifts of the Spirit (Isai. xi. 2). Our
action, therefore, under both aspects can
be represented by 10 +7. But it is by

faith in the Holy Trinity that action is.

made effectual. We therefore multiply 17
by 3 and obtain the number 51, which
expresses the idea of true rest, being unity
added to the number of the year of jubilee.
This symbol of rest (51) is again multiplied
by three and we gain the result 153, the
symbol of the elect citizens of the heavenly
country, the final heirs of rest (‘Hom.’
XXIV. 4).

Rupert of Devrz (‘In Joh." xiv.) regards
the three numbers as representing the pro-
portions of three different classes united
in one faith. The “hundred” are the
married, who are the most numerous, the
“fifty” the widowed or continent who are
less numerous, the “three,’’ the least in
number, are the virgins. ‘‘ But,” he adds,
“there is much that has been profitably
written on this 153 by learned divines,
which the careful reader will easily find.”

Bruno AsTensis (xith—xiith cent.; the
homilies were wrongly published under the
name of Eusebius of Emesa) adopts a
simpler view. “Three,” he says, “ has
the same significance as 150 = 3 x 50. There
are three parts of the world, Asia, Africa,
Europe. Therefore 150 + 3 represents the
sum of all the faithful throughout the
world.” (Zn loc. [Hom. Lxx1.] Migne,
‘Patrol.’ cxtv. 599.)

It may be worth’ while to add, if such

interpretations seem alien from our way of
thinking, that Volkmar has recently sur-
passed them in extravagance. He gravely
argues (‘Mose Prophetie’ (61 f.) that the
number represents Simeon Bar Jona Kepha.
To obtain this result he is obliged to leave
out one letter in Kepha, and to give the
Hebrew letters values inconsistent with
ancient usage.

Norte on THe READINGS IN vv, 15 ff.

The readings in the three charges of the
Lord are sumewhat perplexed,

15. Booxe ra dpvia pov. Sox ABLX and
almost all: Vulg. agnos. But C*D read
mpoGara, and old Lat, oves. In this case
however the reading cannot be doubtful.
The substitution of mpdGara shews the
tendency of scribes.

16. Tlotuove ra rpoBdrid pov, So BC,
“some old copies.”

But NADX and nearly all others read
mpoBata. Old Lat, oves. Vulg. agnos.
The reading here may be fairly con-
sidered doubtful. The force of the
diminutive is seen below.

17, Booxe ra mpoBdtid pov. So ABC.

But DX and nearly all others 7pdBara,
Lat, oves (some agnos). <A dpvia.

In this case there can be little doubt that
mpoBar.a is the true reading. The diminu-
tive, which is a form of tender endearment,
goes naturally with Bdoxe. In the second
charge there is no special fitness in the
diminutive, though the use of the diminu.
tive throughout has an appropriateness
to the circumstances,

307
THE
RECONSTRUCTION OF BELIEF

BELIEF IN GOD BELIEF IN CHRIST
THE HOLY SPIRIT AND THE CHURCH

By The Rt. Rev. CHARLES GORE, D.D.
(Formerly Bishop of Oxford).

“Notwithstanding all criticism, it remains that Dr. Gore is
unquestionably the leading figure in the Church of England to-day.
. .. A study of his work to-day will be of the greatest value. He
helps us to see things as they really are.”—Church Times.

“Extremely valuable is Dr. Gore’s very clear vindication of the
theology of the General Councils, and very special attention should
be paid to what he says in answer to eminent modern critics of
Chalcedon.” —Church of England Newspaper.

“With his habitual honesty he faces the facts of the present
situation. . . . He establishes the fact that in the Hebrew prophets
there is a firm declaration at once of the righteousness and of the
love of God.”—Guardian.

“The series of three books form an imposing structure of
consecutive reasoning to establish the truth of the traditional view
of Christianity and the orthodox framework of belief.”—West-
minster Gazette.

‘“ All his work demands and repays careful study, and one
cannot travel very far in his company without a strengthening of
faith and a quickening of the finer elements of the mind.”—Sunday
School Chronicle.

“Dr. Gore is invariably fair ; he writes with conviction ; and he
has the knack of imparting interest to his discussions.” —Glasgow’
Herald.

“He writes with such depth of conviction and sincerity that his
words have peculiar force. He is certainly in knowledge and
profundity the leading English theologian of the day, and he has
the gift of simple and clear exposition.”—Daily Mail.

7s. 6d. net.
Works by the

Right Rev. A. C. HEADLAM

C.H., D.D., Bishop of Gloucester

THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND
Dr. Headlam reviews the history and purpose of the Church of
England, and proceeds to discuss its doctrine, its worship, its
organization, and its connection with the State. The latter
part of the book deals with the Church and its relation to education
and other religious bodies, and Dr. Headlam finally attempts to
outline the mission of the Church in the world. 12s. net.

THE LIFE AND TEACHING OF JESUS THE CHRIST
The Church will be very grateful to Dr. Headlam for this account.
It is a trustworthy guide, written with reverence and enthusiasm.
3rd Impression. 12s. net.

THE DOCTRINE OF THE CHURCH AND

CHRISTIAN REUNION
THE BAMPTON LECTURES, 1920. “‘ As a teacher and writer, Dr.
Headlam has always been distinguished for clearness of thought
and logical consistency.”—Church Family Newspaper. 2nd
Edition, with new Preface. 12s. net.

THE NEW PRAYER BOOK

A supplement to ‘‘ The Church of England ” which deals in detail
with the reason that led to the revision of the Prayer Book.
2s. 6d. net.

JESUS CHRIST IN HISTORY AND FAITH

Being the William Beldon Noble Lectures, delivered in Harvard
University, 1924. With a New Preface. 6s. net.

THE BUILDING OF THE CHURCH OF CHRIST
A selection of sermons preached by Bishop Headlam, dealing with
the Church as a great Society representative of the religious life
of the Nation. 7s. 6d. net.

HISTORY, AUTHORITY, AND THEOLOGY

The object of these Essays has been to answer, primarily for the
writer’s own satisfaction, certain questions which any thoughtful
person who considers the religious problems of the present day
must put to himself. 6s. net.

THE REVENUES OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND
The author examines the Revenues of the Church of England in
relation to the work that it has to do, and suggests a scheme for
the reorganization of its endowment. 2s. 6d. net.