r *" v<; 
 
 1362.6,15 
 
 ■tf 
 
CLARK'S 
 
 FOEEIGN 
 
 THEOLOGICAL LIBRARY, 
 
 FOURTH SERIES. 
 VOL. LVI. 
 
 <&oUct on tlje @o$pel of £t. Soljn. 
 VOL. IIL 
 
 EDINBURGH: 
 
 T. & T. CLAEK, 38 GEOEGE STEEET. 
 
PRINTED BY MORRISON AND GIBB, 
 FOR 
 
 T. & T. CLARK, EDINBURGH. 
 
 LONDON, HAMILTON, ADAMS, AND CO. 
 
 DUBLIN, GEORGE HERBERT. 
 
 NEW YORK SCRIBNER AND WELFORD. 
 
COMMENTARY 
 
 OX THE 
 
 GOSPEL OF ST. JOHN. 
 
 ;itfj a Critical Entrotiuction* 
 
 TRANSLATED FROM TIIE SECOND FRENCH EDITION 0? 
 
 F. GODET, D.D., 
 
 PROFESSOB OF THEOLOGY, KEUCHATEL, 
 
 By S. TAYLOE and M. D. CUSIN. 
 
 VOLUME THIRD. 
 
 EDINBUEGH: 
 T. & T. CLAEK, 3 8 GEOEGE STEEET. 
 
PREFATORY NOTE. 
 
 The first part of this Volume, embracing pp. 1-235, has been translated by 
 Miss Sophia Taylor, the translator of Luthardt's Apologetic "Works, etc. 
 The remainder of the Volume has been translated by Mrs. Cusin, a translator 
 of the earlier part of this Commentary and of the "Commentary on St. Luke ;" 
 and revised by the Rev. Alex. Cusin, M.A. 
 
CONTENTS. XI 
 
 CONTENTS OF VOLUME III. 
 
 SECOND PAET. 
 THIRD CYCLE (XI. and XII.) 
 
 FIRST SECTION. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 The Resurrection of Lazarus (xi. 1-57), .... 2 
 
 Of the Resurrection of Lazarus, ..... 2 
 
 SECOND SECTION. 
 The Last Days of the Ministry of Jesus (xii. 1-36), . . .45 
 
 THIRD SECTION. 
 
 Retrospective Glance at the Mysterious Fact of Jewish Unbelief 
 
 (xii. 37-50), . . . . . .82 
 
 THIED PAET. 
 
 (XIII.-XVII.) 
 
 Tee Development of Faith in the Disciples, ... 94 
 
 FIRST SECTION. 
 The Facts (xiii. 1-30), 05 
 
 SECOND SECTION. 
 The Discourses (xiii. 31-xvi. 33), . . . . ,119 
 
 THIRD SECTION. 
 The Prayer (xvii. 1-26), 191 
 
XII QONTENTS. 
 
 FOURTH PART. 
 
 (XVIII. AND XIX.) 
 
 PAGE 
 
 The Passion, . . . . . , . 221 
 
 FIRST SECTION. 
 The Arrest of Jesus (xviii. 1-11), ..... 222 
 
 SECOND SECTION. 
 The Trial of Jesus (xviii. 12-xix. 16), . .... 228 
 
 THIRD SECTION. 
 
 The Crucifixion of Jesus (xix. 17-42), . .... 262 
 
 Of the Day of Jesus' Death, ... • 2S3 
 
 FIFTH PART. 
 
 (XX. 1-29.) 
 
 The Resurrection, ....... 304 
 
 Of the Resurrection of Jesus, ...... 322 
 
 Conclusion (xx. 30, 31), . . , . . . 332 
 
 A.ipendix (xxi. 1-25), ....... 337 
 
COMMENTARY ON THE GOSPEL OF 
 ST. JOHN. 
 
 THIRD CYCLE. 
 CHAPTERS XI. AND XII. 
 
 ALL was now ripe for the catastrophe; the development 
 begun at ch. v. was accomplished. The national un- 
 belief, now consummated, had only to produce its fruit : the 
 condemnation of Jesus. And this final crisis was entailed by 
 a third good work (x. 32), the resurrection of Lazarus. 
 
 So true is it that this point of view, viz. the development 
 of Jewish incredulity, is the governing principle to which the 
 exposition of facts is in this whole section subordinated, that 
 the triumphal entry (xii. 12—19), the event which forms, in 
 the synoptic Gospels, the opening of the narrative of the 
 Passion, is here only brought forward as one of the factors of 
 this development. 
 
 This cycle is divided into three sections: — 
 
 I. Ch. xi. : The resurrection of Lazarus, with its direct 
 result : the condemnation of Jesus. 
 
 II. Ch. xii. 1—36 : Three facts forming the transition from 
 the active ministry of Jesus to His Passion. 
 
 III. Ch. xii. 37—50 : A retrospective glance by the evan- 
 gelist at that great fact of Jewish unbelief, which has 
 occupied him since ch. v. 
 
 GODET III. A JOHN. 
 
2 GOSrEL OF JOHN. 
 
 EIKST SECTION. 
 
 XI. 1-57. THE RESURRECTION OF LAZARUS. 
 
 I. The Preparation — vv. 1-16 ; II. The Fact — vv. 17-44 
 III. Its Consequence — vv. 45-57. 
 
 I. The Preparation. — Vv. 1-16. 
 
 St. John first describes the general situation (w. 1, 2) ; 
 then the behaviour of Jesus towards the sisters (vv. 3-6) ; 
 and lastly, His conversations with His disciples before depart- 
 ing (vv. 7—16). 
 
 Vv. 1,2. "Now a certain man vjas sick, Lazarus of Bethany, 
 the town of Mary and her sister Martha. It was Mary who 
 anointed the Lord with ointment, and wiped His feet with her 
 hair, whose brother Lazarus was sick!' — The stay of Jesus at 
 Perea (x. 40-42) was interrupted by the news of a friend's 
 sickness, which summoned Him to Judea. Lazarus being 
 introduced in his condition of a sick man, aadevcov, sick, 
 stands first. The particle Be, now or hut, brings out the 
 change which this circumstance brought about with respect to 
 Jesus. St. John immediately adds the name of the place 
 where Lazarus dwelt, because it was the situation of this 
 town (in Judea) which occasioned the conversation between 
 Jesus and His disciples which then took place. But why 
 should the author designate Bethany as the town of Mary 
 and her sister Martha, two individuals whose names have not 
 as yet occurred in this Gospel ? He evidently takes it for 
 granted that these two sisters were already known to his 
 readers by evangelical tradition, and especially by the fact 
 recorded by St. Luke (x. 38-42). Bethany, now El-Azirieh 
 (from El-Azir, the Arabic name of Lazarus), is a small village 
 situate on the eastern slope of the Mount of Olives, three- 
 quarters of a league from Jerusalem. The supposed nouse 
 of Lazarus and his sepulchre have both been pointed out 
 since the 4th century. — The two prepositions airo and e'/e, 
 here similarly employed, are regarded by Meyer as synoDy- 
 mous (comp. i. 45) ; it would nevertheless be possible in thead 
 
CHAP. XI. 1, 2. 3 
 
 passages to refer the first to the more external fact, that of 
 dwelling, and the second to the more inward relation, that 
 of origin : Lazarus dwelt at Bethany, whence he was. — The 
 name of Mary is mentioned before that of Martha, and the 
 latter is designated as her sister, and Lazarus as her brother 
 (ver. 2), not because she was the eldest, for vv. 5 and 19, and 
 Luke x. 3 8 sqq., seem to prove that Martha had the chief care 
 in the house. The precedence here given to Mary arises, no 
 doubt, from the fact, about to be mentioned (ver. 2), in which 
 she played the chief part. Hence the important place 
 accorded to her by tradition. Comp. the saying of Jesus, Matt. 
 xxvi. 13. Besides, tradition had not preserved the name of 
 Mary in the narrative of the anointing of Jesus ; comp. Matt, 
 xxvi. 6 sqq., Mark xiv. 3 sqq., where we read merely : a 
 woman. This omission or reticence in the tradition explains 
 the form of St. John's narrative at ver. 2 : " This Mary, of 
 whom I am now speaking, is the very woman of whom it 
 is related that she anointed . . . and wiped . . ." At the 
 close of the verse, St. John returns from this episode to the 
 fact which forms the subject of his narrative : It is she ivhose 
 brother Lazarus was sich 
 
 Hengstenberg devotes twenty- six pages to prove that Mary, 
 the sister of Lazarus, was, according to the idea which gene- 
 rally prevailed before the Beformation, the same person as 
 Mary Magdalene (Luke viii. 2), and as the woman which was 
 a sinner who anointed the feet of Jesus (Luke vii. 36 sqq.). 
 On this theme he composes quite a little romance, according 
 to which Galilee was the scene of Mary's dissolute life. 
 Martha, her sister, is said to have become acquainted, during 
 a visit to the feast, with Simon, a rich Pharisee residing at 
 Bethany, and after marrying him to have received into her 
 house both her sister Mary, who had renounced her trans- 
 gressions, and her brother Lazarus, who had fallen into 
 poverty. This is to account for the entrance of Mary into 
 the feast-chamber (Luke vii.), for she was at home in the 
 house of Simon, while the murmuring of the latter is regarded 
 as a brother-in-law's malicious mischief. There is nothing, 
 even to the parable of Dives and Lazarus, which may not 
 in this way be explained, etc. etc. This dissertation, how- 
 ever, proves only one thing, and that is the facility with 
 
4 GOSPEL OF JOHN. 
 
 which an intelligent and learned man can prove any- 
 thing which he wishes to prove. The only argument of 
 any value is the similarity of the expressions in John 
 xi. 2 and Luke vii. 37, 38. But then, how different is 
 the scene ! On the one side, Galilee ; on the other, Judea : 
 there, the early days of Christ's ministry ; here, one of the 
 days preceding His passion : there, a discussion on the for- 
 giveness of sin ; here, a conversation on the sum expended : 
 while the repetition of such homage is, according to Eastern 
 customs, so natural, that we cannot grant the least probability 
 to the double identity of individuals which Hengstenberg 
 seeks to establish. 
 
 Vv. 3, 4. " The sisters then sent to Jesus, saying : Lord, 
 behold, he whom Thou lovest is sick. When Jesus heard, He 
 said : TJiis sickness is not to death, but it is for the glory of 
 God, that 1 the Son of God might be glorified thereby." — -The 
 message of the sisters was full of delicacy, hence the evan- 
 gelist reports it in their own words (Xeyovacu, saying). The 
 address, Lord, alludes to the miraculous power of Jesus ; the 
 term iSe, behold, to the impression which this unexpected 
 intelligence would not fail to make upon Him ; lastly, the 
 expression ov $t\et?, lie whom Thou lovest, to the tender affec- 
 tion by which Jesus was bound to Lazarus, and which made 
 it their duty not to leave Him uninformed of the danger to 
 which His friend was exposed. On the other hand, they by 
 no means urge Him to come ; as, indeed, how could they, 
 knowing, as they did, the perils which awaited Him in Judea ? 
 They merely state the case, leaving it to Himself to decide 
 how He would act. 
 
 The saying of Jesus (ver. 4) is not given as an answer to the 
 message; we are told, not that He answered, but that He said. It 
 was a statement made as much to the present disciples as to the 
 absent sisters. It shows but very slight acquaintance with the 
 always original and frequently paradoxical character of our Lord's 
 sayings, to be able to imagine that He really meant to say that 
 Lazarus would not die of this illness, and that He was only 
 subsequently convinced of His mistake on the reception of a 
 second message, which is assumed in the narrative (ver. 14). 
 Undoubtedly, Liicke observes with perfect justice, that the 
 
 1 N repeats x\\a before iva. 
 
CHAr. XI. 5-7. 5 
 
 glory of Jesus did not imply omniscience. But His moral 
 purity did exclude the assertion of anything which He did not 
 know, and it is very evident that the evangelist himself did 
 not attribute such a meaning to this saying. The expression 
 made use of by Jesus was amphibological ; and whether it 
 involved an announcement of recovery or a promise of re- 
 surrection, it meant at any rate that the definitive result of 
 this sickness would not be death, ov irpo<i Ouvarov. — The glory 
 of God is the renown diffused in men's hearts by His power, 
 working for the sake of His holiness or His love. And what 
 would be more likely to produce such an effect than a victory 
 over death ? — At ver. 40, Jesus recalls this saying to Martha 
 in the words : "Said I not unto thee, that if thou woiddest believe, 
 thou shoiddcst see the glory of God I " When, then, He spoke these 
 words, He already knew what He would do ; He had asked all of 
 His Father, and had obtained all from Him at the very moment 
 when He uttered this promise, and that even before the mes- 
 senger had departed to carry his answer to Bethany (ver. 42). 
 But this manifestation of divine power was also to reflect its 
 splendour on Him who was its agent. In fact, God is only 
 glorified on earth in the person of His Son, in whom He 
 reveals Himself, so that the first end, the glory of God, 
 involves the second, the honour of the Son. "Iva, so that, 
 does not, then, indicate another end in juxtaposition with the 
 first {virep), but explains the manner in which the first is to 
 be attained. This passage shows how far the name Son of God, 
 in the mouth of our Lord, surpasses the title Messiah. — The 
 pronoun 8l avrijs, by it, may be referred to the glory, but it 
 is more natural to refer it to the sickness. — This saying recalls 
 that of ix. 3, but excels it in greatness, in proportion as the 
 resurrection of Lazarus surpasses in power the cure of the 
 man born blind. 
 
 Vv. 5-7. " Now Jesus loved Martha, and her sister, and 
 Lazarus. When, then, He had heard that he was sick, He re- 
 mained yet two days in the place where He was ; then, after that, 
 He saith to His disciples : 1 Let us go again 2 into Judea." — To 
 understand the relation of these three verses, and the intention 
 of ver. 5 in particular, we must remember that the nev of 
 
 1 A D K r a A n, 20 Mnn. add avrcv after pxhrais. 
 S N omits «Xi», A reads voXii {to the Jewish city). 
 
6 GOSPEL OF JOHN. 
 
 ver. 6 supposes an understood Be in ver. 7 : " Jesus loved 
 Martha . . . ; when, then, He had heard . . . He remained, 
 it is true (jiiv) ; but then (Be) He saith : Let us go . . ." We 
 then feel that the remark of ver. 5 : He loved, bears not upon 
 the fact of ver. 6 : He remained, but upon that of ver. 7, the 
 order to set out. This very simple explanation overthrows 
 several forced suppositions ; that, for example, that St. John 
 meant to say : " Though Jesus loved . . .," or the still more 
 forced : " Because He loved, He remained, that He might still 
 longer try the faith of the sisters." St. John here uses the 
 more dignified term aycnrav, instead of the affectionate one, 
 (})i\elv (ver. 3) ; not, as exegetes say, because he was speaking 
 of the affection of Jesus for women, — for the disciple of the 
 Lord is above such prepossessions, — but because the nobler 
 term better suits the pen of the evangelist, while the ex- 
 pression of tenderness is more suitable in the mouth of the 
 sisters. — Martha here occupies, as also in ver. 19, the first 
 place ; she had precedence in the home by reason of her age, 
 and perhaps, too, of her social position as a widow and the 
 mistress of the house. 
 
 Baur explains the delay mentioned, ver. 6, by the desire of 
 Jesus to let Lazarus die for the sake of raising him, and finds 
 in this circumstance evidence of the non-authenticity of the 
 narrative. But nothing in the text hints at any such intention 
 on the part of Jesus ; and even ver. 15: "I am glad for your 
 sakes that I was not there," decidedly excludes it ; for Jesus 
 might, indeed, rejoice at a divine dispensation, but not at a cir- 
 cumstance which He had willingly and purposely occasioned. 
 Besides, the sequel shows that when Jesus received the message, 
 Lazarus had already breathed his last. For if we reckon the 
 four days which, according to vv. 17 and 39, elapsed between 
 the burial of Lazarus and the arrival of Jesus at Bethany, 
 these days can only be distributed as follows. The fourth 
 was that on which Jesus travelled from Perea to Bethany 
 (a distance of from eight to ten leagues), the third and second 
 were the two days' stay at Perea, and the first that on which 
 the messenger brought Jesus the intelligence. Hence it was 
 at the beginning of this first day, shortly after the departure 
 of the messenger, that Lazarus died, and in the course of this 
 day that he was, according to Jewish custom, buried. Thus 
 
CHAP. XL 8-10. 7 
 
 towards evening, when Jesus first received the news of 
 his sickness, Lazarus was already resting in the sepulchre. 
 The distance between Jerusalem and the Jordan being 
 seven leagues, it must have been a good day's journey 
 from Bethany to the actual abode of Jesus on the other 
 side of that river. — We see how incorrect is the calculation 
 of Keim (i. p. 495), that "it would take Jesus three days to go 
 from this country of Perea to Bethany," while nothing of the 
 kind results from St. John's narrative. Nor is Meyer less 
 mistaken in taking for the first of the four days which elapsed 
 after the burial of Lazarus (ver. 1 7), that which followed the 
 two days of waiting in Perea. For why should Jesus have 
 taken three whole days in going from the Jordan to Bethany ? 
 As to the cause which hindered His immediate departure, we 
 may undoubtedly conjecture, with Lucke and Neander, that it 
 was the work of His ministry in Perea. But would it not be 
 better to say, with Meyer, that He waited for the signal of the 
 Father, by which He always regulated His proceedings ? God 
 might act in such wise as the man Christ Jesus would not 
 of Himself have done, and might prolong this time of waiting 
 ior the purpose of rendering the miracle more manifest and 
 more striking, with a view to His own glory and that of His 
 Son. 
 
 The expression : iiretTa fiera tovto, literally, then after that, 
 is not a pleonasm, but tells how long this waiting at first 
 seemed to the sisters, and perhaps also to Jesus Himself. — 
 It should be noticed that Jesus did not say : Let us go to 
 Bethany, but : Let us go into Judca. It was an allusion to 
 the perils which threatened them in that country, and elicited 
 from the disciples an expression of that feeling of alarm which 
 He knew to be in their hearts, and desired to overcome before 
 setting out. "With the same purpose He added the word 
 iraXiv, again, which recalled the danger He had incurred 
 during his last stay at Jerusalem. It is in vain that Meyer 
 protests against this purpose. 
 
 Vv. 8-10. " The disciples say unto Him: Master, the Jews 
 of late sought to stone Thee, and gocst Tliou thither again ? Jesus 
 answered : Are there not twelve hours in the day ? If any 
 man walk in the day, he stumbleth not, because he seeth the light 
 of this world ; but if a man walk in the night, he stumbleth, 
 
8 GOSPEL OF JOHN. 
 
 because there is no light in him." — At the word Judea, the 
 disciples, as their Master expected, expostulated. He profited 
 by their objection to give them sublime instruction with respect 
 to their future ministry. The answer of Jesus (Vv. 9, 10) has 
 naturally a double meaning. Lucke and de Wette apply the 
 image of day to the purely moral idea of the task to be accom- 
 plished : to quit the path of duty laid down, is to plunge into 
 spiritual darkness, and perish. But the expression twelve 
 hours cannot, from this point of view, be well explained. 
 Bengel, Meyer, and Hengstenberg go to the opposite extreme. 
 In their view, the image day has a purely temporal sense, and 
 refers to the season of earthly life : " The time granted me has 
 not yet elapsed, and so long as it lasts no one can hurt me ; 
 when it has elapsed, I shall fall into the hands of my enemies." 
 But the expression to stumble is too active a one to designate 
 a purely passive result ; and what can we do with the expres- 
 sion, there is no light in him, as applied to Jesus ? Meyer 
 says it is a feature belonging to the image, and of no im- 
 portance ; but such an expedient is only resorted to to save an 
 untenable explanation. The image day here designates both 
 the life-task and the life-time, the day of work, like ix. 4. 
 The whole imagery is taken from the situation in which Jesus 
 found Himself and His disciples. It was morning, the sun 
 was rising ; they had before them a good day's journey, twelve 
 full hours. During all this time we may travel without 
 danger ; it is only when walking by night, and when daylight 
 is past, that there is danger of stumbling. But this was unne- 
 cessary, as they might before night reach Bethany, the end of 
 their journey. Taken in its moral sense, the similitude signi- 
 fies : " I may fearlessly go wherever duty calls me. I know 
 that my twelve hours of work are not yet over. The dura- 
 tion of my earthly life is meted out and secured to me by a 
 higher will. So long as it lasts, I may walk without fear on 
 the road prescribed by my mission. It is daylight to me, for a 
 greater sun than that of this world enlightens my path, even 
 that of the Divine will, which discloses our task step by step. 
 The danger of stumbling will not begin until, by basely elud- 
 ing a foreseen danger, we arbitrarily prolong the time of our 
 life, and add, so to speak, a thirteenth hour's journey to the 
 twelve which are lawfully ours. From that time we cannot 
 
CHAP. XL 11-13. 9 
 
 fail to stumble. For the sun of the Divine will would no 
 longer shine within us ; an hour of life not given us by God 
 would be an hour without duty, and without a mission." The 
 application of this answer to the state of things at the time 
 is very obvious : " The Jews will not be able to shorten by 
 a single moment the time granted me for accomplishing my 
 work on earth ; real danger, that of walking without God, can 
 only reach me if, as you seem to propose, I should arbitrarily 
 endeavour to prolong my life, by refusing to go whither duty 
 calls me." This saying applies to the believer who, in a 
 time of persecution, should prolong his life by denying the 
 faith, to the physician who should flee at the approach of a 
 contagious disease, etc. A life thus lengthened would no 
 longer be illumed by the light of the Divine will. A man 
 in such a situation would in vain seek the direction of his 
 own by a higher will. He could no longer do aught but sin 
 and morally perish {irpoaKoirrav, stumble). Meyer objects 
 that this idea does not suit the context, because the disciples 
 merely desired that Jesus should not shorten His life, not that 
 He should prolong it. As though a desertion of duty did 
 not, by refusing to shorten, really seek to prolong it ! This 
 meaning is confirmed by the parallel passage, 1 John ii. 10, 11, 
 in which the analogy of the ideas and expressions is remark- 
 able. St. John there applies to him who loves or does not 
 love his brother, what Jesus here says of His own yielding or 
 not yielding to the appeal of the sisters of Lazarus. 
 
 This saying is, both in form and matter, the pendant of 
 that which Jesus advanced (ix. 4) as a reason for the cure of 
 the man born blind. The only difference is, that then it was 
 evening ; and seeing the sun descending towards the horizon, 
 I cannot, He said, lose a moment of the short time which is 
 left me for giving light to the world. Now it was morning. 
 The time which is given me, said Jesus, is quite sufficient ; I 
 must not by cowardice try to add a single hour to the day of 
 my life as meted out to me by the Divine appointment. In 
 these two words : to add nothing, to lose nothing, is summed 
 up the whole duty of man with respect to the task and time 
 of his earthly life. 
 
 Vv. 11—13. "These things said He, and after that He saith: 
 Our friend Lazarus slecjoeth, hut I go to awake him. Then they 
 
10 GOSPEL OF JOI1X. 
 
 said 1 to Him : Lord, if he sleep, he shall do well. But Jesus 
 spake of his death, and they thought that He had spoken of taking 
 rest in sleep." — The words ravra etire, he said these things, and 
 . . ., are by no means superfluous. They signify : having 
 uttered this truth, He immediately applied it to the actual 
 circumstances. — The epithet : our friend, appealed to their 
 affection for Lazarus, just as the expression : he whom thou 
 lovest (ver. 3), had done to His own friendship for him. — Some 
 expositors have supposed that it was not till now that Jesus 
 knew, by means of a second message, of the death of Lazarus. 
 But ver. 4, rightly understood, shows that He had knowledge of 
 this event, in a supernatural manner, from the time when His 
 attention was drawn to the state of His friend by the message 
 of the sisters, and at which He pronounced that promise. — 
 Jesus delights to present death under the image of sleep, and 
 thus to transform it into a phase of life. 
 
 Strauss finds the misunderstanding of the disciples (at ver. 
 1 2) inconceivable, and Eeuss is of the same opinion. But they 
 do not take into consideration how extremely desirous the 
 disciples were to find some excuse for dissuading Jesus from 
 going to Judea. After the promise of ver. 4, they no longer 
 thought it possible for the sickness to terminate in death, and 
 they represented this mysterious sleep, from which Jesus desired 
 to go and awaken Lazarus, as a favourable crisis, which would 
 of itself end in convalescence. What improbability, then, is 
 there in the circumstance stated ? — The general term /co/f/z^o-t? 
 (ver. 13) is derived from KeKolyjr\Tai (ver. 11). 
 
 Vv. 14—16. " Then said Jesus unto them plainly : Lazarus 
 is dead, and I am glad for your sakes that I was not there, to 
 the intent ye may believe ; nevertheless let us go unto him. 
 Then said Thomas, which is called Didymus, unto his fellow- 
 disciples : Let us also go, that tve may die with Him." — Jesus 
 had (vv. 9, 10) dismissed the motive alleged against this 
 journey, and afterwards stated (vv. 11, 12) the positive 
 reasons which induced Him to undertake it ; He now explained 
 Himself, and gave the order to depart. — Uapprjcrla, as at xvi. 2 5 : 
 without figure. — There would have been, as we have already 
 
 ' T. R., with 10 Mjj. the Mnn. ItP leri i ue Vg., reads ti-ro* ow »i paS. ««*««.— N B C 
 D K X read aura, either before or after o< paL, and omit aurou. — A and 1 Mn., 
 which Teschendorf follows, omit «/ pa-Q. awov, and read wt* 
 
CHAP. XI. U-16. 1 1 
 
 remarked, manifest dissimulation in our Lord's mode of expres- 
 sion (ver. 15), if this death had been the consequence of His 
 own way of acting. — The words : to the intent ye may believe, 
 are a comment upon the regimen : for your sahes. Undoubtedly 
 the disciples were already believers, but, as Hengstenberg says, 
 1 by growing, faith originates; and at each new stage which it 
 1 reaches, the preceding stage seems to it nothing but un- 
 belief. The increase of faith which they would obtain at that 
 grave would soon be greatly needed, when they would be 
 called upon to behold that of their Master. — There is some- 
 thing abrupt in the last words : nevertheless' let us go to him, 
 which seem meant to constrain them, and to overcome the 
 last remains of opposition. They yielded, but not without 
 the unbelief, still lurking in the heart of some, becoming 
 manifest. 
 
 In fact, the saying of Thomas to his fellow-disciples shows 
 jJboore love to the person of Jesus than faith in the wisdom of 
 •y the step He was about to take. The meaning of it is : Well, 
 t if He is resolved to perish, let us perish too ! The Thomas 
 <who speaks thus is indeed the same Thomas whom we meet 
 I with in xiv. 5 and xx. 25 — a man of great candour and resolu- 
 tion, but one little inclined to subordinate the visible to the 
 invisible. This undesigned consistency in the part played by 
 the secondary characters is, as Luthardt has shown, one of the 
 most striking features in St. John's narrative, and one of the 
 best proofs of the historical truth of his Gospel. — The name 
 Thomas (from the Aramaic xnxn, Hebrew DNT)) signifies twin. 
 The name Didymus, which has the same meaning in Greek, 
 was undoubtedly that by which this apostle was most generally 
 called by the Greek Christians among whom St. John wrote. 
 This explains the repetition of this translation at xx. 24 and 
 xxi. 2. Hengstenberg sees in this name twin an allusion to 
 the fact that there were in Thomas two men, a believer and 
 an unbeliever, a Jacob and an Esau ! 
 
 What wisdom and what love are manifested in the man- 
 ner in which Jesus prepared His disciples for a journey so 
 repugnant to them ! How sublime are the thoughts which 
 on this occasion He instilled into their hearts ! What beauty 
 and what fitness in the images by which He endeavoured to 
 make them intelligible ! 
 
12 GOSPEL OF JOHN. 
 
 II. The Miracle. — Vv. 17-44. 
 
 1st. Vv. 17-27. Jesus and Martha. 
 
 Vv. 17—19. " When Jesus came, He found that he had been 
 in the grave four days already. JXoio Bethany was nigh unto 
 Jerusalem, about fifteen stadia off ; and ! many of the Jews came 
 to 2 Martha and Mary, to comfort them concerning their brother" 3 
 — On the four days, see remarks on ver. 6. The expression : 
 He found, refers to the intelligence given Him on His arrival. 
 — It is well known that the Jews were accustomed to bury the 
 dead before sunset on the very day of their decease. — St. John 
 mentions the nearness of Bethany to Jerusalem for the sake of 
 explaining the presence of so large a number of Jews (ver. 19) ; 
 15 stadia are a walking distance of about 45 minutes. This 
 distance is reckoned from Jerusalem (i<yyv<; twv 'Iepoaofevfjuayv), 
 which explains the use of the preposition airo. — The inf L '.' f It 
 teas refers to the part played by Bethany in this nai ,/ r xve, 
 which was no longer recent when St. John wrote ; it ( is un- 
 necessary to suppose that he used the past tense because of 
 the destruction of this town in the Eoman war. — The turn of 
 expression, al irepl MdpOav (ver. 1 9), so usual with the Greeks, 
 is got rid of by the Alex, reading, but erroneously, as even 
 Meyer and Tischendorf admit. This form represents Martha 
 and Mary as surrounded by the members of their household, 
 and seems dictated by the notion of the etiquette which pre- 
 vails in mourning ceremonies. It certainly implies that the 
 two sisters were in comfortable circumstances. These visits 
 of condolence generally lasted seven days (1 Sam. xxxi. 13 ; 
 1 Chron. x. 12). — The sequel shows that the term Jews, here 
 used, preserves the tinge which it bears throughout this Gospel. 
 The connection of Martha and Mary with these people 
 did not hinder them from belonging, for the most part, to the 
 party hostile to Jesus (vv. 28, 37, 46). 
 
 Vv. 20—24. " Wlien Martha, heard that Jesus was coming, 
 she went and met Him, but Mary sat in the house. Then said, 
 Martha unto Jesus : Lord* if Thou hadst been here, my brother 
 
 '8ABCDLX: toXXoi Ss instead of xxi vroXXoi. 
 
 2 T. E. reads -rpo; ras -ripi Mxpfa* x. M. with 12 Mjj. (A r, etc.) and nearly all 
 the Jinn., while SBCDLX and 4 Mnn. read npos (or -rpoi t»v) )iy«» *. M. 
 
 3 N B D L omit *«™». * B omits xvpu. 
 
CHAP. XI. 20-24. 13 
 
 had not died ; l but 2 / know that even now, whatsoever Thou 
 wilt ask of God, God will give it Thee. Jesus said unto her : 
 Thy brother shall rise again. Martha said unto Him : I know 
 that he shall rise again in the resurrection at the last day!' 
 — Martha, who was undoubtedly occupied in domestic affairs, 
 was the first to receive the news of our Lord's arrival, and in 
 her eagerness ran to meet Him without thinking of her sister, 
 whom her grief was keeping in the inner apartment. Such as 
 the two sisters are represented in Luke x. 38 sq., such exactly 
 do we here find them. The narrative of St. John seems to 
 allude to that of his predecessor, while on the opposite sup- 
 position, the manner in which they harmonize is only the 
 more striking. — The saying of Martha (ver. 21) is not a 
 reproach. For how could she be ignorant of the fact that her 
 brother was dead before Jesus had received the news of his 
 illness ? And how, especially, would she have allowed herself 
 to complain of His mode of acting, at the time when she 
 was about to make the very greatest of requests ? She merely 
 expressed her regret that Jesus had not been there at the 
 time of his illness, and this regret only helped to prepare for 
 the petition she was about to make. — 'AWa, real vvv : But even 
 now, although so late ! She knew that there must be no such 
 thing as despair with a Being such as He. " Thou couldest 
 not come to cure my brother, but even in death he may ex- 
 perience the virtue of Thy prayer." The a\Xd, but, must 
 then be maintained in the text. — The indefinite expression, 
 whatsoever, leaves that which is too great to express to be 
 understood. The reticence of this indirect request is admir- 
 able. The repetition of the word ©eo?, God, at the close of 
 both the propositions of ver. 22, was undoubtedly prompted 
 by the greatness of the expected work : " Thou art the well- 
 beloved of God ; God will give Thee the life of my brother." 
 Martha was inspired with this confidence not only by the 
 resurrections effected in Galilee, but more especially by the 
 promise of Jesus, which her messenger would not have failed 
 to report, and above all by His sudden arrival. 
 
 Martha's faith was more lively than enlightened. She 
 
 'NBCDKLXn read ai-iSunv instead of infamta, which is the reading of 
 AEFGHMSUTAAand almost all the Mnn. 
 8 N B C X omit the aXXa. of T. R. before xai *vt. 
 
14 GOSPEL OF JOHN". 
 
 believed in a prodigy to be effected by power, but was not yet 
 initiated into that spiritual sphere from which it was to 
 emanate. Before granting her desire, Jesus endeavours to put 
 her into a condition in which she may be capable of both 
 understanding and receiving. With this view He proceeds, as 
 in chs. v. vi., by first giving to His promise the most general 
 form : " Thy brother shall rise again." Hengstenberg even 
 thinks that in these words He did not allude to the approach- 
 ing raising of Lazarus, which, in His opinion, did not deserve 
 to be called a resurrection, because a return to this sad state 
 of existence is unworthy of such a name. But is it not doing 
 violence to the text, to refuse to recognise in this saying a 
 promise of the event which was about to take place ? — A belief 
 in the resurrection of pious Israelites, as an inauguration of the 
 Messianic reign, already taught, Dan. xii. 2, and 2 Mace. vii. 
 9, 14, etc., was very general in Israel, especially in those 
 circles in which Pharisaic teaching prevailed. 1 
 
 Martha certainly felt what Jesus meant to say, but, with a 
 view of making quite sure of it, she applied His saying to the 
 final resurrection, which she regarded as certain. This gave 
 Jesus occasion to explain Himself, and to declare expressly 
 what she hardly dared to hope. Hence there is neither a 
 mournful resignation (Meyer), nor a relapse after a flight of 
 faith (Luthardt), in this answer of Martha, but the language 
 of this active and energetic woman constantly breathes a 
 masculine faith. But this faith was not as spiritual as it 
 was strong, nor was it as yet sufficiently fixed upon the person 
 of our Lord, whose answer was intended to develop it in both 
 these respects. 
 
 Vv. 25,26. "Jesus said unto her: I am the resurrection and 
 the life : he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall 
 he live, and whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die: 
 bclievest thou this ? " — To this great future event of the resurrec- 
 tion, of which Martha spoke, Jesus opposed His own person 
 (iyco, I), and His person as present (elfii, I am). Victory over 
 death is not a purely physical fact, but a personal work, — an 
 act of which Jesus, then present, is the author, and which He 
 could, if He chose, as easily accomplish at that very moment 
 
 1 Schtirer, Neutest. Zeitc/esch. p. 395 sq. The differences of opinion, existing in 
 this general expectation of the resurrection, are fully shown by this writer. 
 
CHAP. XI. 25, 26. 15 
 
 as after the lapse of ages. He thus concentrated the thoughts 
 of Martha upon Himself, and gave her faith its proper object. 
 He sought to exchange adherence to a doctrinal truth for 
 confidence in Himself. He acted in just the same manner 
 in chs. iv. vi., when, after some moments of conversation, He 
 substituted Himself for the abstract notions of living water 
 and bread from heaven. — After declaring Himself to be the 
 Eesurrection, Jesus proclaimed Himself the Life. It might 
 have been thought (see our 1st edit.) that He spoke thus from 
 the view-point of His relations with us ; for death is our natural 
 element, from which we must be rescued by Christ, in the 
 way of resurrection, before possessing life in Him. But it is 
 better to admit, with Luthardt, that our Lord here passes from 
 the physical resurrection to that deeper fact which is its con- 
 dition ; if He is the Eesurrection, it is because He is first 
 of all the Life. Jesus was striving to spiritualize Martha's 
 faith. He revealed to her that the impartation of life, of 
 which He is the source, is the principle of that physical 
 resurrection which He will effect in His people. Hence they 
 who are united to Him by faith possess, notwithstanding 
 the temporary accident of death, a life which nothing can 
 interrupt, and in this life the pledge of the resurrection of 
 the body. This applied to Lazarus, who, though dead, 
 might in virtue of this life of faith be at any moment 
 recalled to earthly existence by Jesus. Besides, and this 
 applied to the living by whom Jesus was surrounded, every 
 believer is in reality and for ever shielded from death (ver. 
 26). To die with full light, in the clear certainty of the 
 life which is in Jesus, to die only to continue to live to 
 Him (ver. 25), is no longer that fact which human language 
 designates by the name of death (see rem. on vi. 50, viii. 
 54). It is as though Jesus had said: In me, death is 
 certain to live, and the living is certain never to die. The 
 epithet 6 ^wv, he who liveth (ver. 26), is the antithesis to kolv 
 cnroOavrj, though he were dead (ver. 25) ; and both expressions 
 should be taken in their proper meaning. 
 
 This saying, by leading Martha's thoughts from the isolated 
 act of resurrection which was about to be effected, to its 
 spiritual and permanent principle, gave the miracle its true 
 value with respect to her own religious life, made that act a 
 
lb COSrEL OF JOHN. 
 
 ray of the glory of Jesus, and was a means of uniting the soul 
 of Martha to Himself, the source of life. Before proceeding 
 to act, then, He asks her : " Believest thou this ? " 
 
 Ver. 27. "She said unto Him : Yea, Lord, I believe that Thou 
 art the Christ, the Son of God, which should come into the world." 
 — To see, as some do, in this confession of Martha, only an 
 acknowledgment that she had not understood the words just 
 uttered by Jesus, and to make it mean : I do not comprehend 
 these deep matters, but my theology, in a few words, is, 
 I believe Thee to be the Messiah, is strangely to undervalue 
 it. Such a meaning would give to this solemn scene a puerile 
 and almost ridiculous character. By her answer: Yea, Lord, 
 Martha certainly appropriated all that Jesus had affirmed con- 
 cerning His person. But being unable to find terms in which 
 to express her faith in things so new to her, she made use of 
 words with which she was familiar, to declare that Jesus was 
 to her all that was greatest, and that whatever He might say 
 concerning His person, He would never say too much for the 
 faith of her to whom He was speaking. The Christ : the end 
 of the theocratic revelations and dispensations ; the Son of 
 God: the individual in whom God is manifested as in no 
 other, and who is in intimate and mysterious relation with 
 God. 
 
 The expression : which should come into the world, is not a 
 third title, but an apposition, explanatory of the other two. 
 The present part., ip^ofievo^, he that cometh, is the present of 
 the idea : He who, according to the divine promise, necessarily 
 comes. The world is the foreseen theatre of His Messianic 
 agency. There is a great psychologic truth in this answer of 
 Martha's ; by it she implicitly acknowledged that He was all 
 that He said : the resurrection and the life. 'Eyeo, L, whom 
 thou art questioning ; ireirla-revKa (perfect) : that is the convic- 
 tion L possess. 
 
 2d. Vv. 28-37. Jesus and Mary. 
 
 Vv. 28-30. "And when she had said this, 1 she went away, 
 and called Mary her sister secretly, saying : The Master is come, 
 and calleth for thee. As soon as she heard, she riseth 2 quickly 
 
 ' SBCLX Cop. : rsvro instead of ravra, which is the reading of the *14 
 other Mjj., almost all the Mnn. It. Vg. and Syr. 
 * N B C D L X It. Sah. : yyiptn instead of tyiiftnu. 
 
CHAP. XI. 31, 32. 17 
 
 and cometh 1 to meet Him. Now Jesus was not yet come into 
 the toivn, hut was 2 in the place where Martha met Him." — 
 The words : He calleth for thee, are enough to prove that 
 Jesus had indeed given Martha this commission. He would 
 certainly desire to prepare Mary, as well as her sister, for the 
 miracle, which could only be really beneficial to either on this 
 condition. Perhaps the caution with which Martha delivered 
 this message (Xddpa, secretly) had been advised by Jesus 
 Himself; He had heard by whom she was surrounded, and 
 though He would not flee from danger, neither would He 
 seek it. 
 
 Mary's lively emotion at the reception of the message is 
 depicted by the pres. iyeiperai, riseth, which is certainly the 
 true reading, and by the adverb which accompanies it. — That 
 Jesus had not entered Bethany was not merely because the 
 grave was outside the town (Luthardt) ; some important 
 motive must have detained Him, or He would have gone at 
 once to the house of mourning, to which His heart called 
 Him. He certainly desired to avoid anything which might 
 attract notice ; and the purpose of the following verse is to 
 show how this desire was frustrated by a will higher than 
 His, which had resolved to give this miracle the greatest 
 publicity. Jesus acted as He ought ; God acted as He 
 pleased. That which now happened is somewhat similar to 
 what is related in Matt. ix. 31 ; Mark vii. 24, 36. 
 
 Vv. 31, 32. "The Jews then which were with her in the house, 
 and comforted her, when they saw her rise up hastily and go 
 out, followed her, saying : 3 She 4 goeth to the grave, to weep 
 there. When, then, Mary was come to the place where Jesus 
 vjas, she fell down at 5 His feet, saying : Lord, if Thou hadst 
 been here, my brother* had not died." — One and the same 
 thought had occupied the mind of the two sisters, and per- 
 haps that of the dying man during his last hours : If Jesus 
 were but here ! But upon this common background of grief 
 and regret are depicted some significant differences between 
 
 1 The same (minus D) : h^sto instead of tpx'-rai. 
 
 2 K B C X It. Vg. and Cop. : j?v t-ri (was still) instead of w (ivas). 
 
 5 N B C D L X, 7 Mnn. Syr** and Cop. read S«|«vtsj instead of Xiy^ns. 
 
 4 N : en Itxrous urayn (Jesus goeth!). 
 
 5 N B C D L X : -rpo; instead of u$. 
 
 6 N B C L A place /tov before affidavit. 
 
 GODET IIL B JOHN. 
 
18 GOSPEL OF JOHN. 
 
 the two sisters. We have remarked upon the masculine 
 character of Martha's faith. Mary seems, on the contrary, 
 entirely absorbed in grief; hers is a nature wholly feminine. 
 And like all persons of sensitive disposition, she makes no 
 energetic effort to conquer the depression which overwhelmed 
 her, but lets herself fall, as Martha had not done, at Jesus' feet 
 — the place, moreover, in which she delighted (Luke x. 39 ; 
 John xii. 3). Nor does she add, as her sister had done, 
 a word of faith and hope to the expression of her grief. 
 Lastly, there are, in the exclamation which was common to 
 both, two shades of difference which are not accidental. 
 Instead of eTeOvqicei, he is dead (the actual state), she says : 
 diredave, he has performed the act of dying (the Aorist), as if 
 it were still the terrible moment when the separation took 
 place. Thus the pronoun fiov, of me, is in her mouth placed 
 before 6 dhekfyos, the brother, and even, according to the Alex, 
 reading, before diredave; it is as though a part of herself 
 were gone. — Then there is in Martha a practical character 
 and an elastic nature capable of energetic reaction against 
 an overwhelming sentiment; in Mary, a sensibility surren- 
 dered to without a trace of reaction against the feeling which 
 absorbs her. How true is every feature of this picture ! 
 
 Jesus knew the human heart too well to attempt to treat 
 Mary in the same manner which He had just employed with 
 Martha. A grief like hers needed sympathy and action, not 
 instruction and conversation. 
 
 Vv. 33, 34. " Wlien Jesus, therefore, saiv Mary weeping, 
 and the Jews also iveeping ivhich came with her, He shuddered 
 in His spirit, and troubled Himself^ and said : Where have 
 ye laid him ? They said unto Him : Lord, come and see" — 
 The particle therefore establishes a relation of causality 
 between the grief of Mary and those who accompanied her 
 and the unusual emotion by which Jesus was at that time 
 overcome. This relation is confirmed by the words : when He 
 saw, and by the repetition of the participle weeping, with 
 which both propositions end, like a refrain. It is now 
 generally acknowledged that the term ifi^pi/xdaOac (from 
 fipifid&iv, to neigh, to roar) can only designate a shudder of 
 indignation. See the thorough demonstration in the article 
 
 1 P, some Mnn. and Sail. : i'za.fa.^n runvivfia?i u; '.pfiftftufiLivtt. 
 
CHAP. XI. 33, 34. 1 9 
 
 of Gumlich, Studien und Kritihen, 1862, pp. 260-269. 
 This sense is even applicable in such passages as Matt. ix. 30 
 and Mark i. 43, though with a special tinge. We must 
 first of all, then, reject the meaning : to be seized with gricj 
 (Liicke), and : to sigh deeply (Ewald). But what could have 
 been the object of this indignation ? According to Chry- 
 sostom, Cyril, and other Greek expositors, the very emotion 
 which He felt at the sight of the sorrow of those around 
 Him, with this difference, that, according to Chrysostom, tg> 
 irvevfxaTL, His spirit, designates the object of His indignation (He 
 was indignant at His own spirit, that is to say, at the emotion 
 which mastered Him) ; while Cyril sees in the Spirit the 
 agent of this indignation, and makes it the divine nature of 
 Jesus, by means of which He sought to overcome this move- 
 ment of entirely human sympathy. The explanation of 
 Chrysostom is reproduced by Hilgenfeld : " His divinity was 
 irritated at the emotion of His humanity, and violently re- 
 pressed it." But this non-natural meaning would require, in 
 any case, the use of ^vy/i, soid, instead of irvevfia, spirit. 
 For the soul is the seat of the natural emotions — comp. xii. 
 2 7 ; TrvevfAa, spirit, designating the region of those higher 
 feelings which pertain to the relation of the soul with the 
 divine. Besides, if Jesus had really struggled against an emotion 
 of sympathy, how carne He to resign Himself to it the very 
 next moment with such perfect simplicity (ver. 35) ? Meyer 
 thinks that His indignation was excited by the hypocritical 
 tears of the Jews, as contrasted with the sincere grief of 
 Mary. But the two participles, weeping, stand in a relation, 
 not of contrast, but of agreement. Others (Keim, Strauss) 
 refer this indignation to the want of faith which He dis- 
 cerned both in Mary and the Jews. But the word weeping, 
 which is twice repeated to explain the emotion of Jesus, 
 contains, indeed, the notion of grief, but not that of unbelief. 
 Besides, He wept also the next moment. Several exegetes 
 (Calv., Olsh., Luthardt) are of opinion that the Saviour's indig- 
 nation was directed against the power of death, and against 
 Satan, who wields this murderous weapon against men (viii. 
 44). In fact, in the sight of Jesus, death is no more an 
 event than resurrection: these two facts are actions, the Jesuits 
 of a personal will. If this explanation is adopted, we must 
 
2 GOSPEL OF JOHN. 
 
 admit that, while the indignation felt by our Lord (ver. 33) 
 concerned the murderer, the tears which He shed (ver. 35) 
 express His compassion for the victims. From this point of 
 view, however, it is very difficult to account for the words 
 which follow : He troubled Himself. The emotion of Jesus 
 seems, according to this remarkable expression, to have been 
 of a more personal kind than this explanation supposes. An 
 emotion of an entirely similar kind is mentioned xiii. 21, 
 when Jesus saw the treason of Judas about to be perpe- 
 trated : He ivas troubled in spirit. The spirit is the seat of 
 the religious emotions, as the soul is that of the natural 
 affections. Thus Jesus says (xii. 27) : My soul is troubled, 
 because the anticipation of His sufferings made His nature 
 shudder; while in the other passage (xiii. 21) it was in His 
 spirit that He was moved, because He found Himself in 
 immediate contact with evil in its most hateful form, and felt 
 horror at the proximity of the invisible being who had taken 
 possession of the heart of Judas. This parallel passage 
 throws light upon the shuddering of Jesus (ver. 33). The 
 sobs which He heard around Him urged Him to effect the 
 resurrection of His friend ; but, on the other hand, He well 
 knew that to yield to this impulse was to give His enemies, 
 and him who inspired their action, the signal for His own 
 death. They would make the most glorious of His miracles 
 the excuse for His condemnation, nay, some even of those 
 whose sobs were urging Him to perform it, would themselves 
 turn informers against Him. He was filled with horror at the 
 thought that He would have to pay with His life for the 
 crime of having vanquished death, and His holy soul was 
 stirred to its inmost depths at such diabolical perversity. — 
 The words : He troubled Himself, indicate a physical commo- 
 tion, a bodily trembling, which might be perceived by the 
 witnesses of this scene. The expression chosen by the 
 evangelist is such as to obviate any notion of an either 
 unreasonable or merely passive agitation. Hence it does not 
 denote, as Meyer and others think, the natural reaction of 
 the moral upon the physical feelings. On the contrary, 
 immediately after the emotion which had just seized Him, 
 He spontaneously formed a strong resolve, and overcame 
 the horror with which His prevision had filled His souL 
 
CHAP. XL 35-37. 21 
 
 The physical agitation indicated by the words : He troubled 
 Himself, is an indication of the inward determination with 
 which He shook off the impression, and which was expressed 
 in the short and abrupt question, Where have you, laid him ? 
 The repetition of kcll, and, brings out the close connection of 
 these different emotions, which followed each other in such 
 rapid succession. 
 
 Vv. 35-37. "Jesus wept} Then said the Jews: Behold, 
 how He loved him ! But some of them said : Could not this 
 man, who opened the eyes of the blind, have caused that even 
 this man should not have died?" — The storm had passed, 
 and Jesus, in approaching the sepulchre, no longer felt any- 
 thing but tender sympathy for the grief which had possessed 
 the heart of His friend at the moment of separation, and 
 that which the two sisters were at that very moment feeling. 
 The word Satcpveiv, to weep, does not, like Kkaieiv, indicate 
 sobs (ver. 3 3), but tears ; it is the expression for a calm and 
 gentle sorrow. Baur does not admit that it is possible to 
 weep for a friend so soon to be restored, and regards this 
 feature as a proof of the non-authenticity of the narrative. 
 Assuredly, if this Gospel were, as he believes, the production 
 of speculative thought, it would not have contained this 35th 
 verse. Jesus would, as the true Logos, with nothing human 
 except the outward appearance, have raised His friend with 
 triumphant looks and unmoistened eyes. But the evangelist, 
 from the first, lays down the principle : The "Word was made 
 flesh. " It is not with a heart of stone that the dead are 
 raised," says Hengstenberg ; and Heb. ii. 1 7 teaches us that 
 he who would help the unhappy, must first of all surrender 
 his heart to feeling that very suffering from which he desires 
 to deliver them. It is a remarkable thing, that the very Gospel 
 in which the deity of Jesus is most clearly asserted, is also 
 that which makes us best acquainted with the profoundly 
 human side of His life. The very criticism of the German 
 scholar proves how little such a Jesus is the offspring of 
 speculation. — The solemn brevity of the sentences in these 
 34th and 35 th verses is worthy of remark. 
 
 Even on the borders of the grave we encounter the inevitable 
 division produced by the person of Jesus whenever He mani- 
 1 SD and some Mnn. read xeu before i$ccx,pv€n. 
 
22 GOSPEL OF JOHN. 
 
 fested Himself, whether by word or deed. Among the Jews 
 themselves, there were some whose hearts were touched at the 
 sight of these tears. Sympathy with misfortune is neutral 
 ground — a purely human region, in which all hearts, not 
 utterly hardened, may meet. But some of them found in these 
 tears of Jesus a reason for suspicion. One of two things must, 
 they thought, be the case ; either He had not that friendship for 
 Lazarus which He was affecting to feel, or He did not really 
 possess that miraculous power of which He had pretended to give 
 a proof in the cure of the man born blind. In either case there 
 was something doubtful about His behaviour. Many exegetes 
 (Liicke, de Wette, Tholuck, Gumlich) give a favourable meaning 
 to the question of these Jews, ver. 3 7. But the evangelist, by 
 the very turn of the expression {some among them), identifies the 
 Jews of ver. 37 with those of ver. 46. Besides, it would be 
 impossible, with such a meaning, to understand the relation be- 
 tween this question of the Jews and the fresh emotion manifested 
 by our Lord (ver. 38). — Strauss finds it strange that these Jews 
 should not here refer to the resurrections of dead persons effected 
 by Jesus in Galilee, rather than to the healing of the blind man. 
 And certainly no evangelist of the second century would have 
 failed to put into the mouths of these Jews allusions to these 
 resurrections, then so well known in the church through the 
 Synoptic Gospels ; while, on the other hand, so natural a cir- 
 cumstance as that inhabitants of Jerusalem should rather refer 
 to the last striking miracle performed by Jesus in that city, 
 and under their own eyes, does but manifest the historical 
 truthfulness of St. John. A cure which had given rise to so 
 much discussion, and had been the subject of such opposite 
 judgments, was naturally the first to present itself to their 
 minds. 
 
 3d. Vv. 38-44. Jesus and Lazarus. 
 
 Vv. 38, 39. "Jesus therefore, again shuddering in Himself, 
 cometh to the grave. It was a cave, and a stone lay wpon it. 
 Jesus said : Take ye away the stone. Martha, the sister of him 
 that was dead} saith unto Him : Lord, (by this time) already he 
 stinketh,for he hath been there four days? — This repeated feeling 
 of indignation on the part of Jesus was evidently called forth 
 
 1 The Mss. are divided between nfanxoTo; (T. R. and the Byzantines) and 
 ririXtvxirof (S A B C D K L n). 
 
CHAP. XL 38, 30. 23 
 
 by the malicious remark of the Jews (ver. 37), as St. John 
 gives us to understand by therefore (ver. 38). And in the 
 explanation which we have offered of the cause of this indig- 
 nation (ver. 33), the relation between the two facts is easy 
 to understand. The emotion, however, seems to have been 
 less profound than on the former occasion, and more easily 
 overcome. This very natural detail is a fresh proof of the 
 faithfulness of the narrative. 
 
 The sepulchre was a cave hollowed out in the rock, either 
 horizontally or vertically. The verb eire/ceiTo would signify in 
 the first case that the stone was placed at the entrance of the 
 cave, in the second, upon its opening. If the tomb now shown 
 as that of Lazarus is really such, it was of the latter of these 
 forms. It is a cave cut in the rock, and descended into by a 
 ladder of twenty-six steps. Eobinson has, however, in this as in 
 so many other instances, proved that tradition is not authentic. 
 — The stones by which such caves were closed, being merely 
 intended to keep off wild beasts, might be easily removed. — 
 There is between this second feeling of indignation on the 
 part of Jesus, and His peremptory command : Take ye away 
 the stone, a relation analogous to that which we have already 
 remarked between His first emotion of the kind and the 
 question : Where have ye laid him ? The state of expectation 
 into which this command would throw the crowd may be 
 easily imagined. 
 
 Did the remark of Martha proceed, as many expositors 
 think, from a feeling of incredulity ? The expression : the 
 sister of him that ivas dead, which adds nothing to what the 
 reader already knows, leads us rather to think that Martha 
 was preoccupied with the painful sensation about to be ex- 
 perienced by our Lord and His companions by means of one 
 so dear to her. As a sister, she would feel a certain amount 
 of perplexity and difficulty on this account ; besides, it must 
 be remembered how closely the notion of pollution was, among 
 the Jews, connected with that of death and corruption. We 
 have here, then, an exclamation dictated by a feeling of respect 
 for Him to whom she was speaking : Lord ; and a kind of 
 delicacy with respect to the person, so sacred to her, of him 
 of whom she speaks : the sister of him that was dead. It is 
 possible that the assertion of Martha: he stinketh already, 
 
24 GOSPEL OF JOHN. 
 
 might have been a mere supposition on her part, which she 
 justified by adding : for he has already been there four days. 
 But it is more natural to regard these words as the expression 
 of a fact of which she had already had experience. The 
 explanation : for he has been there . . ., while pointing out 
 the cause of this fact, contains a slight allusion to the delay 
 of Jesus. But, it is asked, had not Lazarus been embalmed ? 
 Undoubtedly he had, but after the manner of the Jews, who 
 limited themselves to wrapping the body in perfumes, a pro- 
 cess which could not prevent corruption. It has been supposed 
 that, the arrival of Jesus being expected, the body had been 
 placed in the tomb without the performance of this ceremony. 
 Ver. 44, however, which shows that the limbs of Lazarus were, 
 like those of any other corpse, enveloped in bandages (comp. 
 xix. 40), does not favour this opinion. If Martha's remark 
 did not arise from unbelief, it might nevertheless, by re- 
 calling this fact, occasion some failure of faith at this decisive 
 moment. 
 
 Vv. 40-42. "Jesus saith unto her: Said I not unto thee, 
 that if thou believest thou shalt see 1 the glory of God ? Then 
 they took away the stone? And Jesus lifted up His eyes and 
 said : Father, I thank Thee that Thou hast heard me. As for 
 myself, I know well that Thou hearest me always, bid I said it 
 because of the people who surround me, that they may believe that 
 Thou hast sent me." — Several exegetes refer the words : Said I 
 not unto thee . . . ? to the conversation of vv. 23-27. And, 
 indeed, the words of Jesus : If thou believest . . ., do remind 
 us of the expression: He that believeth in me (vv. 25, 26), 
 and the question : Believest thou this ? (ver. 2 7). But the 
 characteristic expression of the present verse : the glory of 
 God, is absent from these declarations, while it forms the 
 salient feature of the promise of ver. 4. It was, then, this 
 latter promise of which Jesus especially reminded Martha. 
 He well knew that it had been reported to the two sisters 
 by their messenger, and it had, indeed, formed the starting- 
 point of the conversation, vv. 23—27, which confirmed and 
 developed it. Hence, Said I not unto thee, stands for: Did 
 
 1 15 Mjj. read o^n instead of 0-4,11, which is the reading of T. R. with KUrn, 
 2 T. R., with 9 Byz. Mjj. (E G H, etc.), here adds the words : ov *v nfa*xu} 
 Kn/iDios. A K n have quite shortly : ov »■, 
 
CHAP. XI. 40-42. 25 
 
 I not send thee word ? — TJie glory of God is here, precisely as 
 at Eom. vi. 4, the glorious triumph over death and corrupt 
 tion (ver. 39) of God's omnipotence exerted for the sake of 
 His love. This is the sight Jesus promises to Martha, and 
 opposes to the painful sensations which she dreads for the 
 spectators and herself so soon as the stone is removed. — It 
 is not necessary to see a reproach in the words : Said I not 
 unto thee, that if thou woiddest oelieve . . .? as though Martha 
 had shown a want of faith in speaking as she had done at ver. 
 39, in presence of the manifest signs of decomposition which 
 had already begun. He exhorts her to a supreme act of faith, 
 giving her as a foundation His former promise. She had 
 already scaled the arduous steeps of the mountain ; one last 
 peak had to be gained, and the spectacle of the glory of God, 
 of life triumphing over death, would be displayed before her 
 eyes. Man always desires to see in order to believing. 
 Martha is called upon to give an example of the contrary 
 process : of believing in order to see. In expressing Himself 
 as He did, Jesus by no means made the fulfilment of His 
 promise depend, as Meyer supposes, upon the faith of Martha. 
 What He makes contingent upon this last act of confidence 
 which He demands from her, is not the miracle, but her 
 own enjoyment of it (to see the glory). The bodily eye 
 alone is not sufficient for the enjoyment of such a light. 
 The received reading : the stone from the 'place ivhere the 
 dead lay, seems to be a paraphrase. The Alex, reading, 
 which is simply : the stone, does not explain the other two. 
 May not the third, that of A K IT, the stone from where it 
 was, be the original text ? Its brevity (ou rjv) accounts on the 
 one hand for the Byzantine gloss, and on the other for the 
 entire omission of the sentence by the Alexandrines. — Jesus 
 lifted up His eyes. To man, the visible heaven is the most 
 eloquent witness of the invisible power of God. And so 
 truly was Jesus man, the Word made flesh (comp. xvii. 1), 
 that it was by gazing upon that infinite expanse that He 
 sought His Father's face and prepared Himself for inward 
 communion with Him. — The miracle was in the eyes of Jesus 
 already effected, hence He gave thanks for it as for a thing 
 accomplished : Thou hast heard me. He thus confirmed the 
 view of His miracles announced by Martha (ver. 22): they 
 
26 GOSPEL OF JOHN. 
 
 were just so many answered prayers. The difference, however, 
 between His position and that of others sent by God, who per- 
 formed similar works, was the perfect assurance of being heard 
 with which He addressed God. As the Son, He drew freely 
 upon the divine treasury, and Besser well remarks : " Un- 
 doubtedly He performed all His miracles by faith, but by 
 a faith peculiar to Himself, that of being the Son of God 
 manifested in the flesh." 
 
 If Jesus, as in the present instance, expressed His gratitude 
 aloud, it was not, as He Himself added, because there was any- 
 thing extraordinary in the conduct of the Father towards Him 
 on this occasion. This act of thanksgiving is anything but an 
 exclamation extorted by surprise at being exceptionally heard ; 
 constantly heard by the Father, He is continually giving Him 
 thanks. That which urged Him at this solemn moment to do 
 so aloud was the sight of the people by whom He was sur- 
 rounded. He had in private conversation prepared His dis- 
 ciples and the two sisters to behold and understand the work 
 He was about to perform. He now desired to dispose the 
 people also, whom His Father had unexpectedly assembled 
 around this tomb, to behold the glory of God — that is, to see 
 in this miracle not merely a prodigy, but a sign. Otherwise 
 the astonishment they might feel would be unfruitful, and 
 would not terminate in faith. It was for this reason that our 
 Lord uttered in an audible voice that sentiment of filial grati- 
 tude which at all times filled His heart. By addressing His 
 Father, He had just put God into the position of either 
 granting or withholding His co-operation. If Lazarus remained 
 in the tomb, let Jesus be acknowledged an impostor, and all 
 His other miracles attributed to Beelzebub ! If God, who 
 was thus solemnly invoked, should manifest His arm, let Jesus 
 be acknowledged as sent by Him ! Thus this act of thanks- 
 giving before the still occupied sepulchre made this moment 
 one of solemn ordeal, like that of Elijah on Carmel, and 
 imparted to this miracle a supreme and unique character in 
 the life of Jesus. — Criticism has called this prayer " a prayer 
 of pomp " (Strauss, Weisse, Baur), and found in this circum- 
 stance a reason for suspecting the authenticity of the narra- 
 tive ; but it has failed to grasp the whole bearing of the act. 
 The Jews had regarded the cure of the man born blind as 
 
CHAP. XI. 43, 14. 27 
 
 startling and inexplicable, but, viewing it as a breach of the 
 Sabbath, had denied its divine character. By giving thanks 
 to God on the present occasion, before all the people, pre- 
 viously to performing the miracle, Jesus positively makes 
 God participate in the work about to be effected. Jehovah, 
 the God of Israel, will be henceforth either the authenticator 
 of His mission, or the accomplice of His imposture. — It is 
 interesting to compare this expression : Thou hast heard me, 
 with the assertion of M. KeVille, when, speaking after the 
 manner of Scholten, he says: "The fourth Gospel knows 
 nothing of Jesus praying as a man" {Rev. de Thiol., 1865, 
 vol. iii. p. 31G). 
 
 Vv. 43, 44. "And when He had thus spoken, He cried with 
 a loud voice : Lazarus, come forth. And 1 he that ivas dead, 
 came forth, his feet and hands bound with bandages, and his 
 face wrapped in a napkin. Jesus saith unto them : Loose him, 
 and let him" 2, go." — Jesus, having thus impressed its true cha- 
 racter on the miracle, proceeded to accomplish it. The loud 
 voice with which He spoke w r as the expression of a decided 
 will, sure of being obeyed. As a man is called by name to 
 awaken him from sleep, so did Jesus rouse Lazarus from death, 
 which is but a sounder sleep (vv. 11, 12), by calling him 
 loudly. Undoubtedly these external signs were only, as 
 Hengstenberg says, for the individuals present, the power of 
 raising the dead dwelling, not in the voice, but in the will of 
 Jesus expressed thereby. — When speaking to the daughter of 
 Jairus, and to the young man of Nain, He had said only : Arise, 
 or : Awake, because they lay in a bed or on a bier. In the 
 present instance He said : Come forth, because Lazarus was 
 within the sepulchre. The simplicity and brevity of these 
 two words : Bevpo egco (literally : here, out !), are in glorious 
 contrast with their efficacy. 
 
 The expression: he came forth, ver. 44, does not necessarily 
 indicate that he walked, especially if the sepulchre were dug 
 vertically, but simply that he arose, which he could easily do 
 notwithstanding the linen cloths in which he was enveloped ; 
 nor need we, on this account, suppose that each limb was 
 
 1 Kai is omitted in BCL Sah., but found in all the other Mjj. (including 
 N) and Vss. 
 
 2 B C L read avr»\ after atpsn. 
 
28 GOSPEL OF JOHN. 
 
 separately swathed, according to the custom of the Egyptians. — 
 The detail : his face was bound about ivith a napkin, is the 
 touch of an eye-witness, and recalls the impression — an im- 
 pression never to be obliterated — made upon the spectators 
 by the sight. While they remained motionless with astonish- 
 ment, Jesus, with perfect calmness, and as though nothing 
 extraordinary had occurred, invited them to take their part in 
 the work : Every one to his office ; I have raised, it is for you 
 to loose him. The words : Let him go, mean quite simply : 
 Restore to him that power of motion of which, by this bind- 
 ing, you have deprived him. — The term inrdyeiv, to go away, 
 has in it a touch of triumph, like the command of Jesus to 
 the impotent man : Take up thy bed, and walk ! 
 
 The resurrection of Lazarus is the miracle of friendship, as 
 the prodigy at Cana was the miracle of filial piety, and that 
 not merely because the affection of Jesus for the family at 
 Bethany was its cause, but especially because Jesus performed 
 it with the distinct consciousness that by restoring his friend 
 to life He was signing His own death-warrant (comp. vv. 8-1 6 
 and vv. 33-38). The self-sacrifice of friendship here rises to 
 the height of heroism, a fact well understood by St. John, 
 of whose narrative this thought, which is clearly brought out 
 by the passage next following, is the very soul. 
 
 III. The Effect produced by this Miracle. — Vv. 45-57. 
 
 1st. And first, its immediate effect upon the spectators. 
 
 Vv. 45, 46. " Then 1 many of the Jeivs, those who had come 2 
 to Mary, and had seen the things 3 which He did, believed in Him. 
 But some of them went their ways to the Pharisees, and. told them 
 what 3 Jesus had done? — Again a division among the specta- 
 tors, and a more far-reaching one than on preceding occasions. 
 It is indeed natural to oppose the words : many of the Jews, 
 to those of the next verse : but some of them. The antithesis, 
 moreover, of the two verbs : believed (ver. 45) and went their 
 ways (ver. 46), corresponds with that of the subjects. There 
 is, however, a difficulty in this explanation, viz. that the parti- 
 ciples : who had come, and who had seen, do not in Greek agree 
 
 1 N : St instead of ow». 2 D : tuv ixtovrwv instead of a txPovns. 
 
 3 B C D read o instead of « at ver. 45, as do also C D M at ver. 46. 
 
CHAP. XI. 47-50. 29 
 
 with the word Jews, but with the word ttoWoi, many (not : 
 many of the Jews . . ., but : many, those who . . . ), so that this 
 turn of the phrase seems to imply that all those who had come 
 believed without exception. But in this case what are we to 
 do with rive?, some, which seems, on the other hand, to con- 
 stitute a part of the iroXkoi, of those many who came to Mary ? 
 Meyer accepts the consequence of this construction, and main- 
 tains (as Origen has done before him) that, as they already 
 believed, they took this step of going to the Pharisees vrith 
 a, good purpose. But this opinion is incompatible with the 
 evident and double antithesis between vv. 45 and 46, already 
 pointed out. Hence I rather hold that the some, nveq, must 
 not be included in the category of those numerous visitors 
 to Mary and Martha who now believed, ver. 45, but that the 
 pronoun avrwv, of them, ver. 46, refers to the Jev:s in general 
 (IovBalcov, ver. 45). There were certainly other Jews pre- 
 sent besides those who came to visit the sisters — Jews not 
 predisposed in favour of Jesus by sympathy for the mourners. 
 It was these who, faithful to their part of Jews, hastened to 
 carry the great news to the Pharisees, the most vehement 
 enemies of Jesus. This explanation is perhaps confirmed by 
 the expression : those who came to Mary (ver. 45), which 
 seems to make what is there said refer only to those who were 
 in the house with her (ver. 31). 
 
 2d. Vv. 47—53. The more remote effect of the resurrection 
 of Lazarus. 
 
 Vv. 47—50. " Then gathered the chief priests and the Phari- 
 sees a council, and said : What do we ? for this man doeth many 
 miracles. If ive let Him thus alone, all will believe on Him, 
 and the Romans ivill come and destroy both 1 our place and 
 nation. But one among them, Caiaphas, being high priest that 
 same year, said unto them : Ye know nothing at all, and do not 
 reflect' 2 that it is expedient for us 3 that one man should die for the 
 people, and that the whole nation perish not." — The resurrection 
 of Lazarus did not occasion the death of Jesus, but it did give 
 rise to the resolution to condemn Him. The vessel was full, 
 
 1 D K n, 10 Mnn. and some Vss. omit xxi before rev ro*o*. 
 ! X A B D L, some Mnn. and Or. read \t>yi%arh instead of ^laXoy^arh. 
 3 The Mss. are divided between w^v (T. K. with AEG, etc. ) and vp.iv (BDLM 
 X r). N omits both. 
 
30 GOSPEL OF JOHN. 
 
 and this was the drop which made it overflow. — The Pharisees 
 are specially mentioned as the instigators of this hostile meet- 
 ing (ver. 46, ix. 15). — The absence of the article before awe- 
 Bpiov may be explained by admitting that St. John here treats 
 this word as a proper name (the Sanhedrin). It is, however, 
 more natural to take this term here in the general sense of 
 assembly, council, which it has also in classical Greek. — The 
 present iroLovjjLev, what do we ? instead of the future, is inspired 
 by the imminence of the danger, and the certainty that some- 
 thing must be done : " Why do we not act ? He is acting 
 (7rotet)." "Otl : because. The fear expressed, ver. 48, was not 
 without foundation. The slightest rising might have furnished 
 the Eomans with an excuse for depriving the nation of those 
 last remnants of independence which it still enjoyed, and for 
 blotting out its name from the map of the world. And then 
 what would become of the power of the Sanhedrin ? Ovtcos : 
 without opposing His action by our own. The minds of the 
 rulers, while recurring to the destruction of the nation, dwell 
 chiefly on that of their own power. This is emphatically 
 expressed by the position of the pronoun rjfiav before the two 
 substantives. Jesus reproduced this expression in the words 
 of the husbandmen, Matt. xxi. 38. Jerusalem and Israel were 
 their affair. Our place naturally means the capital, as the seat 
 of their government, rather than the temple, or the whole of 
 Judea. Taken in this sense, the term is more easily connected 
 with that which follows : our nation, that which we govern from 
 this place. Speaking from a political point of view, and opposing 
 one nation to another, they use the term Wvos, instead of the 
 more honourable one \a6s, for the people of Israel. 
 
 The expression : one of them, does not allow us to suppose 
 that Caiaphas was presiding ; for even though it now seems 
 proved that the high priest was, in virtue of his office, also 
 president of the Sanhedrin (Schiirer, Lehrb. der N. T. Zeitgesch. 
 p. 411), it must be remembered that the present was not a 
 regular meeting (ver. 47). — Amidst a host of irresolute spirits, 
 hesitating between conscience and interest, a man of energetic 
 character, who boldly denies the rights of conscience and 
 decidedly brings forward the claims of the state, always has a 
 chance of carrying his point. — If this circumstance had taken 
 place in the palmy days of the theocracy, the expression : 
 
CHAP. XI. 47-:0. 31 
 
 "being the high priest that same year, would be incomprehen- 
 sible ; for, according to the Mosaic law, the high-priesthood 
 was held for life. But since the Roman supremacy, the rulers 
 of the land, dreading the power derived from a permanent 
 office, had adopted the custom of frequently exchanging one 
 high priest for another. According to Josephus {Ant. xviii. 
 2. 2), the Roman governor, Valerius Gratus, " deprived Ananus 
 of the high-priesthood and conferred it on Ishmael, and after- 
 wards deposing him, made Eleazar, son of Ishmael, high 
 priest. A year after he also was deposed, and Simon nominated 
 in his stead, who, retaining the dignity for a year only, was 
 succeeded by Joseph, surnamed Caiaphas." The latter con- 
 tinued in office from the year 25 till 36 of our era, and con- 
 sequently throughout the ministry of Jesus. These frequent 
 changes justify the expression of the evangelist, and deprive 
 criticism of any excuse for saying that the author of this 
 Gospel did not know that the Jewish pontificate lasted for life. 
 But since Caiaphas was high priest for eleven consecutive 
 years, why did St. John three times over (vv. 49, 51, xviii. 
 1 3) use the expression : high priest that year ? Certainly 
 because he desired to recall the importance of that unique and 
 decisive year, in which the perfect sacrifice terminated the 
 typical sacrifices and the Levitical priesthood as exercised by 
 Caiaphas. It devolved upon the high priest to offer every 
 year the great atoning sacrifice for the sins of the people, and 
 this was the office now performed by Caiaphas, as the last 
 representative of the ancient priesthood. By his vote he, in 
 some degree, appointed and sacrificed the victim, who in that 
 ever memorable year " was to homing in everlasting righteousness, 
 and to cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease " (Dan. ix. 2 4, 
 27). This vote was rendered more remarkable by the con- 
 trast between the divine truth of its matter and the diabolical 
 intention of him who uttered it. The apostrophe of Caiaphas 
 to his colleagues exhibits a certain amount of rudeness. This 
 feature, as Hengstenberg observes, agrees with the conduct of 
 that Saclducean sect to which Caiaphas probably belonged (comp. 
 Acts iv. 6 and v. 17, and Joseph. Ant. xx. 9. 1). Josephus 
 says (Bell. Jud. ii. 8. 14) : "The Pharisees are friendly to each 
 other, and cultivate mutual harmony, with a view to their 
 common interests ; but the manners of the Sadducees are far 
 
32 GOSPEL OF JOHN. 
 
 rougher, both to each other and to their equals, whom they 
 treat as strangers." Hengstenberg takes Bidkoyl^ea-de in an 
 intransitive sense, and the on following in the sense of because. 
 After reproaching them for their general want of knowing how 
 to act : Ye know nothing at all, he brings forward the special 
 difficulty which they were unable to solve. The compound 
 BtaXoyi^eaOe : you are incapable of clearing up by your present 
 discussion, is preferable to the simple \oy%eo-de, which is the 
 result of either negligence or a mistaken correction. — The 
 reading rjixiv, for us, has, in reality, the same meaning as the 
 variation: v^itv, for you; but it better disguises the selfish nature 
 of the deliberation (comp. the rjficov of ver. 48). — The choice of 
 the terms Xaos and e6vo<;, which correspond with DJ? and i\}, is 
 not arbitrary. The first designates the multitude of individuals 
 composing the theocratic nation, in opposition to the single 
 individual who was to perish, while the second signifies Israel 
 as a body politic, in opposition to the foreign nation of the 
 Romans. 
 
 Vv. 51, 52. "Now this he spahc not of himself , but being high 
 priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus should, die for that nation, 
 and not for that nation only, but also that He should gather together 
 in one body the children of God that lucre scattered." — Several exr 
 positors (Luthardt, Bruckner) deny that St. John here attributes 
 the gift of prophecy to the high priest as such ; it was not, 
 they think, as high priest, but as high priest that year, that 
 Caiaphas gave utterance to this prophetic statement. But this 
 explanation gives the impression of being a mere expedient. 
 The relation between the participle wv, being, and the Aorist 
 7rpoe(p/]revcrev, he prophesied, naturally leads to the notion that 
 the evangelist refers the prophetic character of the words of 
 Caiaphas to his office, even if we regard this notion as only a 
 Jewish superstition. In the 0. T. the normal centre of the 
 theocratic nation was not the king, but the priest. In all the 
 great crises of the nation's fate, it was the high priest who 
 received, in virtue of a prophetic gift communicated for the 
 occasion, the decision of the Most High for the welfare of His 
 people (Num. xxvii. 21 ; 1 Sam. xxx. 7 sq.). St. John by 
 no means asserts that the high priest was generally endowed 
 with this prophetic power ; He merely regards Caiaphas as 
 playing at this decisive moment the part assigned him in such 
 
CHAP. XI. 51, 52. S3 
 
 cases as God's accredited organ to His people, and that not- 
 withstanding the contrast existing between his individual 
 character and the spirit of his office. In fact, when the heart 
 of the high priest was in harmony with his office, that heart 
 became the normal instrument of the divine decision. But if, 
 as in the present case, the heart of the individual was in 
 opposition to his office, it might be expected that the Divine 
 oracle would, as in the present instance, be uttered by that 
 consecrated mouth in the form of a most diabolical maxim. 
 And what could be more worthy of the Divine Spirit than, 
 while respecting his office, to make His degenerate instrument 
 thus condemn himself with his own mouth ? St. John has 
 already, more than once, called our attention to the fact that the 
 adversaries of Jesus, when deriding Him, were prophesying in 
 spite of themselves: No man knoivetfi whence he is (vii. 27) ; 
 Will he go and teach the Greeks? (vii. 35). If the devil often 
 travesties the words of God, God sometimes chooses to parody 
 those of the devil, by bestowing upon them unintended truth. 
 It was such a " divine irony " that was, in the highest degree, 
 manifested in the present instance. For this was the central 
 point of human history, the moment at which the most Divine 
 of mysteries was to be accomplished in the form of the greatest 
 of crimes. 
 
 According to several expositors, ort, is not the direct comple- 
 ment of the verb which precedes it. Meyer : " he prophesied 
 as to the fact that Jesus . . ." Luthardt : " he prophesied 
 for truly Jesus was to . . ." They have been led to these 
 forced explanations by ver. 52, the words of which go beyond 
 the tenor of the saying of Caiaphas. But it is the close 
 of ver. 51 which alone is the object of he prophesied, 
 while ver. 52 is added by the evangelist to impress upon his 
 readers the unexpected extension acquired in its realization, 
 by the principle, one for all, laid down by Caiaphas. St. John 
 never forgets that he is writing with a view to Greek readers, 
 and never omits an opportunity of pointing out their share in 
 the fulfilment of the divine promises. If the parallelism 
 between the thought of this 5 2d verse and the saying x. 16 
 is considered, there can be no hesitation in applying the term 
 children of God to heathens predisposed to believe, in the same 
 sense in which St. John uses the expressions : to he of God 
 
 GODET III. C JOHN. 
 
34 GOSPEL OF JOHN. 
 
 (viii. 47), to be of the truth (xix. 37). The term children of 
 God naturally involves an anticipation based upon the actual 
 moral condition of these future believers, and not, as Meyer 
 thinks, upon divine predestination. 
 
 Ver. 53. " Then from that day forth they took counsel 1 to put 
 Him to death." — The then gives us to understand that the 
 advice of Caiaphas was adopted (Luthardt). St. John brings 
 out the decided importance of this meeting, and hence, in- 
 directly, that of the resurrection of Lazarus, which occasioned 
 it. Indeed, from that time a permanent conspiracy against 
 the life of Jesus was organized. The daily conferences of 
 His enemies became, to use Lange's expression, "meetings of 
 Messianic murder." There was no longer any hesitation as to 
 the end, indecision from this time forth being felt only with 
 regard to the means. 
 
 3d. The stay at Ephraim: vv. 54-57. 
 
 Jesus was forced to retire to a lonely place. The rulers, on 
 their part, took a fresh step on the road on which they had 
 already advanced so far. 
 
 Vv. 54-57. "Jesus therefore walked no more openly among 
 the Jews; but ivent thence into a country near to the wilderness, 
 into a city called Ephraim? and there continued 3 with His* dis- 
 ciples. Noiv the Jeivs' Passover was nigh at hand : and many 
 went out of the country up to Jerusalem before the Passover, to 
 purify themselves. Then sought they for Jesus, and said among 
 themselves, as they stood in the temple : What think ye, that He 
 ivill not come to the feast? Noiv the chief priests and the Pharisees 
 had also 5 given commandment 6 that if any man heard where He 
 was, he should show it, that they might take Him." — Ephraim 
 is sometimes spoken of in conjunction with Bethel (2 Chron. 
 xiii. 19 ; Joseph. Bell. Jud. iv. 9. 9). It lay some distance 
 north of Jerusalem — eight miles according to Eusebius, twenty 
 to the north-east according to Jerome. The place was, on 
 account of its retired situation, and its proximity to the desert, 
 
 1 SBD, 4 Mnn. and Or. (once) read ifit>v\ivtra.vTo instead of trv\ii£t>v\ivce.vro. 
 
 2 N L It. Vg. Ir. read Eppiy. instead of EQpaip. 
 
 3 K B L and Or. read i/tuvit instead of "inrft^tv. 
 
 * NBDILrA omit aurcv. 
 
 6 11 Mjj. (N A B, etc.) 35 Mnn. It. "Vg. Syr. Cop. and Or. omit **/, which is 
 the reading of T. R. with DEGHISr. Mnn. 
 
 6 N B I M, 3 Mnn. and Or. read ivroXas instead of t»To;.«». 
 
CHAP. XI. 54-57. 35 
 
 favourable to the design of our Lord. He might there prepare 
 His disciples in solitude for His approaching end, and, if pur- 
 sued, retire to the desert. This desert is, as Lange remarks, 
 the northern extremity of that barren strip by which the 
 table-land of Judah and Benjamin is separated in its whole 
 length from the valley of the Jordan and the Dead Sea. 
 From this locality Jesus might, at the time of the Passover, 
 either join the pilgrims from Galilee, who were going to 
 Jerusalem by the direct route through Samaria, or go down 
 to Jericho, in the plain of the Jordan, and put Himself in 
 front of the caravan from Perea. We know from the Synop- 
 tists that He took the latter step. — Merd (ver. 54) is not 
 synonymous with o~vv ; the meaning is : He there confined 
 Himself to the society of His disciples ; and not merely : He 
 was there with them. 
 
 'E/c Tf)$ Scopus (ver. 55) does not relate to the country 
 of Ephraim in particular (Grotius, Olshausen), but to the 
 country in general, as opposed to the capital (ver. 54): 
 "They went up from different parts of the country." — The 
 law did not prescribe any special purifications before the 
 Passover, but the people were commanded, in several pas- 
 sages of the 0. T., to purify themselves before any important 
 event (Gen. xxxv. 2 ; Ex. xix. 10, 11, etc.), and this principle 
 had naturally been applied to the Eeast of the Passover (2 
 Chron. xxx. 16-20). 
 
 Ver. 56 graphically depicts the restless curiosity of these 
 country-people, who were collected in groups in the temple and 
 discussing the approaching arrival of Jesus ; comp. vii. 12. — 
 'Eo-tt) /cores, standing, in an attitude of expectation. — '-'Otl does 
 not depend on Soicei; it is more natural to separate the two 
 propositions and make them two distinct questions. — The 
 Aorist e\drj may quite well refer to an act about to be 
 accomplished in the immediate future. 
 
 Ver. 5 7 adds a new and more special motive to those which 
 rendered the coming of Jesus improbable ; for thus is its con- 
 nection by the particles Se tcai, now . . . also, explained. It 
 would not have been very difficult for the authorities to discover 
 His place of retreat. Hence the motive for this order must rather 
 have been a desire to intimidate our Lord and His disciples, and 
 to accustom the people to regard Him as a guilty and dangerous 
 
36 GOSPEL OF JOHN. 
 
 man. It was another link in the series of hostile measures so 
 well detailed by St. John since the beginning of ch. v. Comp. 
 v. 16, 18, vii. 32, ix. 22, xi. 53. — The chief priests were the 
 authorities from whom the command officially emanated; the 
 evangelist adds the Pharisees because they were its actual 
 authors. Comp. vii. 45. — In the Babylonian Gemara (edited 
 from ancient traditions about 550) is found the following 
 passage : " Tradition reports that Jesus was crucified (hanged) 
 on the evening of the Passover, an officer having during the 
 preceding forty days publicly proclaimed that this man, who 
 by his imposture had seduced the people, ought to be stoned, 
 and that any one who could say aught in his defence was to 
 come forward and speak. But no one doing so, he was hanged 
 on the evening of the Passover " (Lightfoot, Hor. Hebr. ct 
 Talm. p. 460). — It would be difficult to avoid comparing this 
 passage with that of St. John. In both there is a public 
 proclamation on the part of the Sanhedrin relating to the 
 approaching condemnation of Jesus, and at the same time 
 too marked a difference between them to allow it to be sup- 
 posed that either gave rise to the other. 
 
 The history of the raising of Lazarus, says Deutinger, is 
 distinguished above all the narratives of the fourth Gospel by 
 its particularly vivid and dramatic style. The characters are 
 drawn by a hand at once firm and delicate. Nowhere are the 
 relations between Christ and His disciples so strikingly shown ; 
 we are, as it were, initiated, by this history, into the confidential 
 intimacy, the affectionate interchange of thought and feeling, 
 which existed between the Master and His followers. The 
 disciples are portrayed in the most attractive manner ; their 
 simple frankness and noble devotedness are made manifest. 
 The Jews themselves, whose obstinate resistance to the efforts 
 of Jesus is what we chiefly hear concerning them in this Gospel, 
 appear in a more favourable light, as friends of the sorrowing 
 sisters, the man appearing even in the Jew. Especially, how 
 sharp and delicate is the sketch of the characters of the two 
 women ; with what refinement, and with what deep psycho- 
 logical feeling, is the difference in their respective behaviour 
 detailed I 1 In these characteristics of the narrative, so well 
 1 Das Reich Gottes, nach dan AjpostelJoliannes, 1862, vol. ii. pp. 67 and 6-S. 
 
CHAP. XI. 54-57. 37 
 
 Slimmed up by the German author, we find the first evidence 
 of its intrinsic truth : " it is not thus that fiction is written," 
 and especially it was not thus that fiction was written in the 
 second century ; witness the apocryphal gospels. 
 
 The reality of the fact here narrated is also brought out by 
 its relation to the whole preceding and subsequent history of 
 Jesus. The evangelist is fully conscious of the consequences 
 of the fact which he is recalling, he is continually pointing 
 them out during the course of the narrative : vv. 47 (there- 
 fore) and 53 (from that day forth). Comp. xii. 9-11, 17—19. 
 How should the author have assigned to a purely fictitious 
 occurrence so decisive a part in the organism of Christ's life ? 
 
 Moreover, not one of the explanations intended to eliminate 
 this fact from the circle of authentic narratives in the life of 
 Jesus is tenable. 
 
 (1) The so-called natural explanation of Paulus, G abler, and 
 A. Schweizer: In consequence of the message of ver. 3, Jesus 
 did not from the first think the malady dangerous; subsequently, 
 on receiving fresh information (Paulus reckons four messages), 
 and making more exact inquiries, He found out that it was but 
 a lethargy. Arriving at the sepulchre, He perceived some signs 
 of life in the supposed corpse, for which He gave thanks (vv. 
 41 and 42), and called upon Lazarus to come forth. The latter, 
 revived by the coolness of the sepulchre, the odour of the per- 
 fumes, and, at the moment of the opening of the grave, by the 
 warmth of the external air, arose in full vigour. So Paulus and 
 Gabler. According to A. Schweizer, the confidence of Jesus 
 in the recovery of His friend was based upon His faith in the 
 Divine assistance promised to His cause ; and the pretended 
 miracle was only the fortunate coincidence of this religious 
 confidence with the circumstance that Lazarus was not really 
 dead. — This explanation has been condemned by no one more 
 severely than by Strauss x and Baur. 2 The former shows, 
 against Paulus and Gabler, that the terms in which Jesus 
 announces the resurrection of Lazarus are too positive to be 
 anticipations founded on uncertain symptoms, and that the 
 meaning of the entire narrative is, and can be, according 
 to the intention of the narrator, nothing else than that 
 
 1 Vie de Jesus, vol. ii. part i. pp. 154-165. 
 » Theol Jahrb. vol. iii. 1844. 
 
33 GOSPEL OF JOHN. 
 
 which every reader finds in it, viz. the raising of Lazarug 
 from the dead by the miraculous power of Jesus. The 
 opinion of Baur as to the manner in which the fourtti 
 Gospel in general, and this passage in particular, is treated 
 by Schweizer, is as follows : — " Devoid of all feeling for the 
 unity of the work, he tears this Gospel to rags for the purpose 
 of eliminating therefrom, as superstitious interpolations, all 
 which he is unable to explain in a tame and rationalistic 
 manner, and of leaving to the marvellous action of chance all 
 that he allows to remain." These last words, indeed, define 
 the opinion of Schweizer concerning this miracle. 
 
 But let us now consider the explanations brought forth by 
 these two critics in place of those of their predecessors. 
 
 (2) The mythical explanation of Strauss is as follows : — The 
 O. T. having related that resurrections of dead persons had 
 been effected by mere prophets, the Christian legend could do 
 no less than attribute similar miracles to the Messiah. But 
 can it really be supposed possible that a legend should attain 
 to the height of a narrative, with such wonderful shades of 
 colouring, and with characters so sharply and accurately drawn? 
 It cannot be understood, as Eenan justly observes, how a 
 creation of the popular mind should get itself framed in such 
 personal remembrances as those which refer to the relations of 
 Jesus with the family of Bethany. Besides, legends idealize, 
 and would never have invented a Christ moved to the very 
 depths of His soul and shedding tears at the grave of the 
 friend whom He was about to raise from the dead ! And is 
 not Baur right, when, arguing against Strauss, he says : " If a 
 mythic tradition of this kind had really been propagated in 
 the church, it would not have failed to have been included, 
 with so many similar narratives, in the Synoptic history. It 
 is against all probability that so important a miracle, and one 
 to which a decisive influence on the final catastrophe is attri- 
 buted, should have remained a local legend, restricted to a 
 very narrow circle." Notwithstanding these difficulties, M. 
 Eeville, " for his part, feels no embarrassment " in explaining 
 the history of Lazarus by the mythic process. The legend 
 meant to represent by Lazarus the pariahs of Jewish society 
 (comp. Luke xvi. 20), whom Jesus rescued from their spiritual 
 death by loving and weeping over them. " He bent over this 
 
CHAP. XL 54-57. 39 
 
 tomb (of Israelite pauperism), crying to Lazarus : Come forth, 
 and come to me; and Lazarus came forth, pale, . . . tottering." 1 
 Such fancies are unworthy of discussion, and are judged as 
 severely by M. Eenan as by ourselves ; he calls them expe- 
 dients of theologians at their last gasp, saving themselves 
 by allegory, myth, and symbol (p. 503). One circumstance 
 especially ought to prevent any serious critic from attributing 
 a legendary origin to this history. Myths of this kind are 
 fictions isolated from each other, but we have seen how integral 
 a part of the organism of St. John's Gospel the history of the 
 raising of Lazarus forms. The work of St. John is evidently 
 of one casting. With regard to such an evangelist, criticism 
 is irresistibly driven to the dilemna : historian or inventor ? 
 Baur's merit consists in having appreciated this situation, and, 
 since by reason of his doctrinal premisses he could not admit 
 the first alternative, in having boldly pronounced in favour 
 of the second. 
 
 (3) The speculative explanation of Baur, according to which 
 this history is a fiction, intended to give a body to the meta- 
 physical thesis laid down, ver. 25 : I am the resurrection and 
 the life. This explanation suits the notion entertained by Baur 
 of this Gospel, which, in his opinion, is a composition of an 
 entirely ideal character. But is this, we ask, compatible with 
 the simplicity, the candour, the prosaic character, and, if we 
 may be allowed the expression, the hither and thither of the 
 whole work ? From beginning to end, situations are described 
 for their own sake, and without the least tendency to idealiz- 
 ing (comp. e.g. the close of this chapter, the stay at Ephraim, 
 the proclamation of the Sanhedrin, the conversations with 
 the pilgrims to Jerusalem). Far rather does the narrative 
 present features which are entirely non-intellectual and anti- 
 speculative. The Jesus who shudders and weeps is certainly 
 not the creation of a theorist. The very offence which Baur 
 takes at these circumstances of the narrative proves it. The 
 productions of intellect are quite transparent to intellect. The 
 more mysterious and unexpected the circumstances, the more 
 manifest is it that they are taken from reality. Besides, if 
 this narrative were the product of the idea, it ought to be 
 completed by a discourse in which the fact would be spiri- 
 
 1 Revue Germanique, 1st Dec. 1S63, p. 613. 
 
40 GOSPEL OF JOIDJ. 
 
 tualized and the idea itself brought forward. Every reader is 
 impressed with the fact that the writer himself believes in all 
 earnestness in the reality of the fact which he is relating, and 
 that he has no notion of creating. When Plato clothes his 
 deep doctrines with a veil of myths, his own self-projection 
 in his creations, and his spontaneous choice and use of this 
 form of instruction, are easily discerned. Here, on the con- 
 trary, the author is himself under the power of the fact he 
 is relating ; his heart is penetrated and his whole self pos- 
 sessed thereby. If, then, he created, he was himself the first 
 dupe of his own fiction. Lastly, we must remember that, 
 according to Baur's school, the author of the fourth Gospel 
 does not believe in a true incarnation, but regards the Logos 
 as having only assumed the appearance of humanity. And 
 yet he is said to have here invented a scene in which the 
 human nature of Jesus is in full force. Such a picture 
 would be diametrically opposed to the thought which is 
 said to have inspired the work. How is it possible to 
 impute such clumsiness to so skilful a person as Eaur's pseudo- 
 John ? 
 
 (4) Hence we see modern critics turning more and more to 
 a somewhat different kind of explanation. Weisse had already 
 suggested the notion that this history was nothing else than a 
 parable transformed into a fact by tradition, and this notion 
 is now reproduced by Keim, Schenkel, etc. The parable 
 which gave rise to this history is said to be that of Dives and 
 Lazarus (Luke xvi.), which the author of the fourth Gospel 
 worked up into this picture. Eenan himself, to a certain 
 degree, adopts this mode of explanation. He at first regarded 
 the raising of Lazarus as a pious fraud, to which Jesus was 
 not entirely a stranger. "His friends," he says, "desired a great 
 miracle, for the conviction of the unbelieving inhabitants of 
 Jerusalem. . . . Lazarus, still pallid from his recent illness, had 
 himself swathed in bandages, like a corpse, and placed in the 
 family grave. . . . Jesus desired to see once more the friend 
 whom He loved . . ." The rest may be understood. M. Eenan 
 makes every excuse for Jesus. " Amidst the impurity of 
 Jerusalem, he was no longer himself. . . . Desperate, driven 
 to extremities, . . . He yielded to the torrent. He rather 
 submitted to than performed the miracles exacted by public 
 
CHAP. XI. 54-57. 41 
 
 opinion." Now, however, M. Eenan yields to the general 
 feeling, which revolts against this explanation, and loudly pro- 
 claims its moral impossibility. The friends of Jesus, he now 
 says, desired a great prodigy : they wanted a resurrection. 
 Mary and Martha undoubtedly confided this feeling to Jesus. 
 If, said these pious sisters, a dead man were to rise, the living 
 would perhaps repent. "No," answered Jesus; "if Lazarus 
 himself were to return to life, they would not believe." This 
 saying subsequently became the subject of singular mistakes. 
 . . . The supposition was changed into a fact . . . ; tradition 
 attributed to Martha and Mary a sick brother, whom Jesus 
 raised from the grave. In a word, the misunderstanding in 
 which this history originated is just like one of those cock- 
 and-bull stories so common in small Oriental towns (13th 
 edit. pp. 372-374). — Our only refutation shall be that this 
 history tells us just the opposite of the saying which is said 
 to have originated it. The Jews do believe after witnessing 
 the fact, and the saying of Jesus, Luke xvi., which the narra- 
 tive is said to illustrate, is : They would not be persuaded 
 though one rose from the dead. It is not so easy a matter to 
 get rid of a narrative of this kind by means of criticism. 
 
 But if this is a real fact, why is it not related in the 
 Synoptic Gospels ? 
 
 And first let it be remarked, that the manner in which 
 the oral tradition, of which these books are the compilation, 
 was formed, is still in many respects an insoluble problem. 
 Hence it would be irrational to sacrifice reasons so positive 
 as those which speak for the reality of the fact, for a diffi- 
 culty, to solve which the most necessary elements are absent. 
 M. Eenan himself says : " The silence of the Synoptists with 
 respect to the episode of Bethany does not seem to me of 
 much account (p. 507). . . . If we reject this narrative as 
 imaginary, the whole edifice of the last weeks of the life 
 of Jesus is shattered by the same blow" (p. 514). 
 
 According to Liicke, the authors of the Synoptic Gospels 
 were ignorant of this miracle, the remembrance of which was 
 lost among so many similar occurrences. It may, however, 
 be asked, whether such a miracle was not marked by special 
 features which would prevent its being forgotten. Meyer 
 says that the Synoptists meant only to relate events which 
 
42 GOSPEL OF JOHN. 
 
 transpired in Galilee. But liow is so singular a selection to 
 be explained ? And do not their narratives include all the 
 last sojourn at Jerusalem ? Grotius, Herder, and Olshausen 
 suppose that they desired to spare the family of Lazarus, 
 which dwelt near Jerusalem, and might, by the open mention 
 of this miracle, have been exposed to the vengeance of the 
 still powerful Sanhedrin. Comp. xii. 1 : The chief priests 
 consulted that they might put Lazarus also to death. This 
 ingenious hypothesis might, indeed, apply to St. Matthew's 
 Gospel, which was written in Palestine, but it is difficult to 
 explain by it the silence of Mark and Luke, who wrote in 
 countries at a distance from the Holy Land. Hengstenberg 
 adopts the opinion that the raising of Lazarus belonged to a 
 series of more profound transactions which did not form part 
 of tradition, and were instinctively reserved for St. John. 
 This opinion approximates to that of Heidenreich, who 
 thought that no writer till John felt himself capable of 
 depicting such a scene. Few will, however, find this expla- 
 nation satisfactory. 
 
 I do not deny that there is an amount of truth in some 
 of these suppositions, perhaps even in all. But if they are 
 really to contribute to the solution of the problem, they must 
 be placed in another light. 
 
 And first of all, we must start from the fact that in the 
 apostolic mind no one special fact in the ministry of Jesus, 
 not even the most striking of all, was of that supreme im- 
 portance which we are now inclined to attribute to it. The 
 point of view taken up by the apostles in their preaching 
 was utterly different from that which we occupy when we 
 make their teaching the subject of critical study. They were 
 labouring to found a church and to save the world ; we are 
 endeavouring to reconstruct a history. No wonder, then, if 
 narratives, composed from the former point of view, should 
 contain much that is enigmatical to us. The death and 
 resurrection of Jesus — events more decisive, and, in a religious 
 aspect, incomparably more important, than the raising of 
 Lazarus — had succeeded this miracle, and must for a time 
 have eclipsed both this and every other single miracle of our 
 Lord's ministry. Apostolic preaching, in its first phase, con- 
 fined itself to the announcement and demonstration of the 
 
CHAP. XL 51-17. 43 
 
 supreme fact : The Lord is risen. This was the foundation 
 on which the church was built by the apostles. The time 
 was not yet come for the relation of anecdotes. Undoubtedly 
 the general miraculous agency of our Lord was referred to, 
 as we see from the discourses of the apostles in the Book of 
 the Acts (ii. 22, x. 37), but particular narratives were still 
 kept in the background. If the details of Christ's ministry 
 played any part during this first phase of Christian teaching, 
 it was in private conversations. The great official proclama- 
 tion of the gospel found nothing to place side by side with 
 the death and resurrection of the Messiah, those great facts 
 by which the world's salvation was effected. It was on this 
 point also that the instructions of Jesus were concentrated 
 after His resurrection (Luke xxiv. 26, 45-47). 
 
 It was subsequently, and when the first gale had begun to 
 spend itself, that old memories were first disinterred. Under 
 the influence of that apostolic preaching which founded 
 churches, the ministry of catechists, whose office it was to 
 edify them by detailing the different facts of our Lord's life, 
 arose and was developed. Some of these narratives were 
 put in circulation by the apostles themselves — probably those 
 which constituted the permanent and universal stock of oral 
 evangelization, and which passed in a tolerably uniform manner 
 into the written tradition, into our Synoptic Gospels. Others 
 were first started by those members of the church who had 
 either been subjects or witnesses of the facts. These remained 
 a part of the oral tradition in, as far as possible, the form 
 given them by their first narrators, and, coming more or less 
 accidentally to the knowledge of the writers of the Gospels, 
 they formed the special treasure of each of our Synoptists. 
 A third kind, finally, were purposely and at first withdrawn 
 from public narration, or were only included in it with a 
 certain reserve of names or things. Such reserve was, in 
 different respects, required for the sake of those who had 
 played a part in these facts. Thus, in recounting the blow 
 with the sword given by St. Peter at Gethsemane, which 
 was really a criminal act, and might have compromised the 
 cause of Christ, it was usually said in oral tradition : one of 
 those who were vjith Jesus (Matthew) ; or, one of those who 
 vjere present (Mark) ; or again, one among them (Luke) ; while 
 
44 GOSPEL OF JOHN. 
 
 St. John, relating the same fact, long after the death of St. 
 Peter and the fall of the Sanhedrin, gives without hesitation 
 the name of Peter from his own remembrance. 
 
 It is possible that there might also be some special reason 
 for reserve with respect to the narrative concerning the family 
 at Bethan}' - . St. Luke (x. 38 sqq.) speaks, indeed, of two 
 sisters, and designates them by their names ; but he omits 
 that of the town in which they dwelt, and says : " Jesus 
 entered into a certain village." Undoubtedly, because he was 
 himself ignorant of its name. And why, but because tradi- 
 tion, having from the first omitted it, had not furnished him 
 with this information ? St. Matthew (xxvi. 6 sqq.) and St. 
 Mark (xiv. 3 sqq.) certainly name Bethany, but are silent as to 
 the names of the sisters : "A woman came," is the manner in 
 which they commence the account of the anointing by Mary. 
 Simon the leper, the only individual named by them, seems 
 to be brought forward to cast the rest into the shade. Is it 
 asked : What reason was there for such reserve on the part 
 of tradition ? Perhaps fear of the vengeance of the Sanhe- 
 drin, which, as long as that tribunal possessed authority, 
 might so- easily reach the dwellers at Bethany. Perhaps, 
 also, the very close and personal character of our Lord's 
 relations with Lazarus and His family. There was a feeling 
 that the home at Bethany, that sanctuary still inhabited by 
 the family into whose intimacy the Lord had been received, 
 should be respected in public teaching, and in the preaching 
 of the gospel within the churches ; that if, notwithstanding, 
 general edification should occasion the bringing forward of 
 these individuals, this should only be done, as by St. Luke, 
 by leaving the name of their abode unmentioned. As to 
 the raising of Lazarus, it was here necessary to tell every- 
 thing or nothing ; so the last alternative was chosen, and this 
 fact was excluded from the series of narratives commonly 
 recorded. Meyer objects that, at the time of the compilation 
 of the Synoptic Gospels, there was no longer any object in 
 such reserve, because the parties interested were no longer 
 living. This reason is, however, of no value, since the point 
 in question is the formation of tradition immediately after 
 the day of Pentecost, and not its compilation thirty or forty 
 years afterwards. It was not till towards the close of the 
 
chap. xii. i-3g. 45 
 
 apostolic age, when St. John wrote from a single source, and 
 independently of traditional accounts, certain facts of the 
 history of Jesus,, that he could lift the veil from this long- 
 hidden sanctuary, and bring forward before the eyes of the 
 whole church the revered beings by whom Jesus had then 
 been surrounded. 
 
 In any case, the mention or the omission of any single 
 miracle performed by the Lord, is too accidental a circum- 
 stance to mislead a criticism under wise self-restraint, to 
 give more weight to the silence of one, two, or even three of 
 our documents, than to the plain, positive, and circumstantial 
 testimony of the fourth. No part of the gospel history is 
 better attested than the appearance of Jesus to five hundred 
 brethren, spoken of by St. Paul (1 Cor. xi.) ; and yet there 
 is no express mention of this appearance in our four Gospels. 
 Spinoza, according to the testimony of Bayle, declared to his 
 friends, that if he could have persuaded himself of the 
 raising of Lazarus, he would destroy his whole system, and 
 embrace, without reserve, the common faith of Christians. 
 And this is just what explains the fact of its being at 
 present as violently attacked as that of our Lord Himself. 
 But let the reader take up St. John's narrative, and read it 
 again without any previously formed opinion, . . . and the 
 conviction to which the pantheistic philosopher was unable 
 to attain will spontaneously and irresistibly arise within him, 
 and he will, on the testimony of this account, every particular 
 of which bears the stamp of truth, simply accept the fact 
 with all its consequences, rather than let himself be carried 
 hither and thither by a criticism, each new attempt of which 
 gives the lie to that which preceded it. 
 
 SECOND SECTION. 
 
 XII. 1-3G. THE LAST DAYS OF CHEIST'S MINISTRY. 
 
 This section contains three divisions : — I. The supper at 
 Bethany, vv. 1-11 ; II. Christ's entry into Jerusalem, vv. 
 1 2-1 9 ; III. The last scene of His ministry in the temple, vv. 
 20-36. 
 
46 GOSPEL OF JOHN. 
 
 These three facts are selected by the evangelist as marking 
 the transition from our Lord's public ministry to His Passion. 
 This tendency in the narrative comes out in the first portion, 
 in the discontent of Judas, which was the prelude to his 
 treason, and in the answer of Jesus containing the announce- 
 ment of His own approaching death ; in the second, in ver. 
 19, which shows that, in consequence of the triumphal entry, 
 the rulers were reduced to the necessity of either doing 
 homage to Jesus or getting rid of Him ; and lastly, in the 
 third, in the whole discourse of Jesus in answer to the step 
 taken by the Greeks, and in His final adieu to the Jewish 
 nation, ver. 36. — In the two first portions, the evangelist, at 
 the same time, shows the influence exercised on the course of 
 the events which he recounts by the resurrection of Lazarus : 
 vv. 2, 9-11, 17-19. Thus there is an underlying connec- 
 tion between the different parts of this apparently fragmentary 
 account. And this chapter is, as Luthardt justly observes, at 
 once a conclusion and an introduction. 
 
 I. The Supper at Bethany. — Vv. 1—11. 
 
 In presence of the great conflict now anticipated by all, 
 the devotion of our Lord's friends increases; while as a counter- 
 poise, the national enmity, which has an instrument among the 
 twelve, breaks out within this inner circle, Jesus with perfect 
 gentleness announcing to the traitor the approaching result of 
 his hostility. 
 
 Ver. 1. " Therefore Jesus, six clays hefore the Passover, came 
 to Bethany, where Lazarus was which had been dead, 1 whom He 
 raised from the dead!' — We learn from the Synoptists, unless 
 their accounts are at variance with that of St. John, that Jesus 
 went from Ephraim to Jericho, to go up to Jerusalem with 
 the companies of pilgrims who were arriving from Perea. 
 He thus took the same road subsequently traversed in an 
 inverse order by Epiphanes, who tells us that he went up 
 from Jericho to the plateau with a man who accompanied 
 him across the desert of Bethel and Ephraim. 1 cannot 
 understand why this simple hypothesis should scare the im- 
 
 1 o nhnx&is is omitted by N B L X It* 11 ", Syr. Tisch. (8th edit). These words 
 are found in the 14 other Mjj., all the Mini. ItP'" i; i ue , Vg. Cop. Tisch. (7th edit). 
 
CHAP. XII. 1. -47 
 
 partiality of Meyer. He brings forward in objection the 
 information in xi. 54; but the time of silence was now over 
 with Jesus. — We know from St. Luke, that even before enter- 
 ing Jericho He was surrounded by a considerable crowd (xviii. 
 36), that He passed the night at the house of Zaccheus (xix. 
 1 sq.), and that general expectation was excited to the highest 
 degree (xix. 11, and Matt. xx. 20 sq.). The distance from 
 Jericho to Bethany might be accomplished in six or seven 
 hours. The body of the caravan continued its journey to 
 Jerusalem the same day, while Jesus and His disciples stopped 
 at Bethany. This halt is not mentioned by the Synoptists, 
 but this is no reason for calling it in question. One or more 
 of the Synoptists often leave gaps which can only be filled up 
 by the help of the third. Two cases of the kind occur in the 
 account of the following days : Mark xi. 11-15 tells us that 
 a night elapsed between the triumphal entry and the expulsion 
 of the sellers in the temple, an interval which would not be 
 supposed from reading the other accounts. Again, according 
 to Mark xi. 12 and 20, there was an interval of a day and 
 night between the cursing of the fruitless fig-tree and the con- 
 versation respecting it between Jesus and His disciples, while 
 in St. Matthew the conversation seems to have immediately 
 followed the miracle. These seeming contradictions arise from 
 the fact, that in the traditional teaching the moral and religious 
 importance of events greatly outweighed the chronological 
 interest. If such, notwithstanding their general parallelism, 
 are the mutual relations of the Synoptic narratives, we 
 need not be surprised if this phenomenon is reproduced upon 
 a still greater scale in the relation between the Synoptic and 
 the fourth Gospels. 
 
 The ovv, therefore, refers to xi. 55 : The Jews Passover ivas 
 at hand. The turn of expression : Trpb ef rjfx. r. ir., six days 
 he/ore . . ., may be explained by a Latinism (ante diem sextum 
 cmendas), in which the preposition is transposed (Baumlein) ; 
 or perhaps the most natural explanation of this phrase in 
 Greek is as follows : — To the definition of time : before (the 
 space of) six days, is added, under a genitive form, the point 
 from which the computation is made : the Passover (Winer, sec. 
 61, 5). Jesus knew that He should want all that time to 
 strike a last and great blow in the capital. On what day, 
 
43 GOSPEL OF JOHN. 
 
 then, must we, according to this expression, place the arrival 
 of Jesus at Bethany ? Opinions differ on this point, according 
 as the day of arrival or the first day of the Passover is 
 included or not included in the six days ; as the Passover is 
 considered to begin on the 15th, the first great Sabbatic day 
 of the Paschal week, or on the 14th, the day of preparation 
 on which the lamb was slain ; and finally, as the Friday 
 on which Jesus suffered is, in the sense usually attributed to 
 the Synoptists, regarded as the 15th Nisan, or, in the sense 
 mostly — and, as I think, justly — given to St. John, as the 
 14th, the day of the preparation. It is impossible for us to 
 follow out in detail all the different ramifications to which 
 these different issues give rise. The summary of their results 
 is as follows: — Some (Tholuck, Lange, Wieseler, Hengstenberg, 
 Luthardt, Lichtenstein, etc.) place the arrival of Jesus at 
 Bethany on Friday the 7th or 8th Nisan ; others (Meyer, 
 Ewald), on Saturday the 8 th or 9 th ; others (de Wette, Andreas, 
 etc.), on Sunday the 9th or 10th; while Hilgenfeld, Baur, 
 Scholten, and Baumlein make it Monday the 10th or 11th. 
 Among these possible suppositions, that which now seems the 
 most probable is that stated by Andrese in the excellent paper 
 entitled, " der Todestag Jesu " (in the Bewcis dcs Glaulens, Nos. 
 July to Sept. 1870). The sixth day would be the 14th 
 Nisan — that is, according to the very lucid chronology of St. 
 John, the Friday on which Christ was crucified (see at the 
 close of ch. xix. the detailed discussion of the whole question). 
 This would make the day of the arrival at Bethany to be 
 Sunday the 9th Nisan. Jesus, after passing the Sabbath at 
 Jericho with Zaccheus, would, early next morning, travel with 
 the caravan from Jericho to Bethany, where He remained while 
 the other travellers proceeded to Jerusalem. It was on the 
 evening of this day that the banquet, about to be related, was 
 given Him, and on the next day, Monday, that He made His 
 solemn entry into Jerusalem. In this manner everything is 
 clear and simple. 
 
 In my first edition, I left the 14th Nisan, the Friday on 
 which Jesus died, outside the six days, as one of the days of 
 the feast. In fact, this day does play a prominent part in the 
 institution of the Passover (Ex. xii.) ; and Josephus (Antiq. 
 xii. 15. 1) counts eight feast days, which shows that he includes 
 
CHAP. XII. 1. 49 
 
 the 14th. But, on the other hand, it must be admitted that, 
 if the feast of Unleavened Bread began on the 14th, the Passover, 
 properly so called, did not begin till the 15 th and ended on 
 the 21st. These two great Sabbatic days formed the begin- 
 ning and end of the Paschal week. Another objection to this 
 mode of computation is, that by starting from Thursday the 
 loth, and counting backwards six days, we get Saturday the 
 8 th as the day of the arrival at Bethany. Now it cannot 
 possibly be admitted that Jesus would make so long a journey, 
 as that from Jericho to Bethany, on the Sabbath. Meyer, to 
 escape this objection, which applies to his calculation also, 
 supposes that Jesus on the preceding evening reached a point 
 sufficiently near to Bethany to leave only the distance which 
 it was lawful to travel on the Sabbath (20 minutes). But, in 
 that case, why did He not come on that evening to Bethany? 
 I had proposed a somewhat different solution of this difficulty, 
 — viz., that Jesus arrived on the Friday evening near enough to 
 Bethany to allow him to reach it that same evening during 
 the first hour of the Sabbath, which began at about six o'clock 
 in the evening, this Saturday being the first of the six days 
 before the feast. The banquet would be given Him the next 
 evening, about the close of this Sabbath, and on the next 
 morning (Sunday) He would make His entry into Jerusalem. 
 But this combination seems to me less simple than that pro- 
 posed by Andreae. 
 
 Expositors who desire to impose upon the text of St. John, 
 the chronology generally supposed to be that of the synoptic 
 account, regard the 14th (according to their view, the Thurs- 
 day of the Paschal week) as one of the days of the feast. 
 Hence they reckon the six days backwards from Wednesday 
 the 13 th, which brings them to the 8 th Nisan (the Wednesday, 
 according to them, before the feast) as the day of the arrival 
 at Bethany. If the premises of this computation are admitted, 
 there is nothing to object to the result. 
 
 According to Hilgenfeld, Baur, etc., who make the 15th the 
 starting-point of their computation, and include this day in 
 the six, the arrival at Bethany took place on Monday the 
 10th Nisan; and most of these expositors think that the evan- 
 gelist was by this date seeking to establish a typical relation 
 between the arrival of Jesus and the Jewish custom of setting 
 
 GODET IIL D JOHN. 
 
50 GOSPEL OF JOHN. 
 
 apart the Paschal lamb on the 10th Nisan, an intention which 
 would evidently compromise the historical character of the 
 nariative. But this pretended relation between the arrival of 
 Jesus and the setting apart of the Paschal lamb is a mere 
 imagination, of which the narrative does not afford the slightest 
 indication. And how should this coincidence have ever come 
 into he minds of the Greek Christians, for whom St. John 
 was writing, without such indication ? 
 
 Vv. 2, 3. "Therefore they made Him a supper there, and 
 Martha served ; and Lazarus was one of those 1 who sat at table 
 with Him. 2 Tlien took Mary a pound of ointment of pure nard, 
 very costly, and anointed the feet of Jesus, and wiped His feet 
 with her hair; and the house ivas filled with the odour of the oint- 
 ment." — When did this repast take place ? Naturally, according 
 to our lypothesis, on the Sunday evening, the expression next 
 day (ver. 12) designating Monday. — The subject of eiroLrjaav, 
 they made, is indefinite, and hence cannot have been the mem- 
 bers of the family of Lazarus, — a fact also brought out by the 
 express mention of the presence of Lazarus and the serving of 
 Martha, both circumstances which would have been self-under- 
 stood, if the supper had taken place in their house. Hence 
 the unexpressed subject of the verb is more probably certain 
 inhabitants of the locality, who might feel impelled to testify 
 their gratitude to one who had honoured their obscure town 
 by so glorious a miracle. This connection of ideas seems 
 expressed by the therefore (ver. 2) placed immediately after the 
 striking detail : the dead man whom He had raised. The cir- 
 cumstance by which they were especially urged at this time 
 to pay this public respect to Jesus, was the hatred on the part 
 of the rulers to which they saw Him exposed. This banquet 
 was a courageous answer to the edict of the Sanhedrim (xi. 57), 
 an horn ur done to the man whom it had proscribed. 
 
 The text does not tell us in whose house the repast took place. 
 But Lazarus being there as a guest, and not as host, it must 
 have been in another than his. This confirms quite naturally 
 the accounts of St. Matthew and St. Mark, who say pointedly 
 that the supper took place in the house of Simon the leper, 
 
 1 N B L, It. Vg. read ex before ™v a.va.x<iu:vw». 
 
 2 T. R. with only a few Mnn. : <ruvKiaxiip.ivuv a.wru. All the Mjj. : avaxn/uivut 
 
CHAP. XII. 2, 3. 51 
 
 undoubtedly one healed by Jesus, who claimed the privilege 
 of entertaining Him in the name of the rest. It is inconceiv- 
 able how so simple a combination can seem to Meyer a process 
 of spurious harmonizing. Not every one could receive Jesus, 
 but every one desired to contribute, to the best of his ability, to 
 the homage now paid Him. The inhabitants of Bethany, by 
 the banquet given in their name ; Martha, by her personal ser- 
 vice, even in the house of another; Lazarus, by his presence, 
 which glorified the Lord more than all that others could offer 
 — as is expressed by the epithet 6 Tedvr)K(o<;, wrongly omitted 
 by some Alex.; and lastly, Mary, by such royal prodigality as 
 could alone express the feeling which animated her. 
 
 The general custom among ancient nations was to anoint 
 the heads of guests on festal occasions. " Thou preparest a table 
 before, me ; Thou anointest my head with oil ; my cup runneth 
 over" said David to the Lord, when describing, under the image 
 of a banquet given him by God, the delights of communion 
 with Him (Ps. xxiii. 5). The omission of this ceremony was 
 brought forth by Jesus as a lack of courtesy (Luke vii. 46). 
 Such an error was not committed at Bethany, where Mary took 
 upon her this office, reserving to herself the right of perform- 
 ing it after her own fashion. — Mvpov is the generic name for 
 all kinds of liquid perfume, and vdpBos, nard, that of the most 
 costly among them. This word, of Sanscrit origin, designates 
 a plant which grows in India, and of which some less esteemed 
 varieties are found in Syria. Its juice was enclosed in special 
 flasks (nardi ampulla?), and it was used not merely to anoint 
 the body, but also to perfume wine. We have translated 
 iriariKOf by pure. This word, which is alien to classical 
 Greek, only occurs in the N. T. in the parallel passage 
 of Mark. Among the later Greeks it was used to desig- 
 nate a person worthy of confidence, hence one to whom was 
 confided the care of a vessel or a flock. It would therefore 
 mean nard, which might be depended on as genuine. This 
 sense is the more applicable, because nard was liable to all 
 kinds of adulteration. Pliny enumerates nine plants by which 
 it might be imitated, and Tibullus uses the expression nardus 
 pura, which gives almost the character of a technical expres- 
 sion to this 7Tio-Ti/c?)5 in Mark and John. The meaning drink- 
 able (from irlv(o, Twrio-Kw) is much less probable, not only 
 
52 GOSPEL OF JOHN. 
 
 because the natural form would be ttkjtos or TroTtfios, but 
 especially because the notion of its being drinkable has no 
 reference to the context. An attempt has also been made to 
 derive the word from the name of a Persian town Pisteira, 
 said to be sometimes shortened into Pista (comp. Meyer on 
 Mark xiv. 2), but this is an expedient of no value (comp. 
 Meyer, Hengstenberg, and especially Liicke and Wichelhaus). 
 The epithet Trokvrlfxov, very costly, can only refer to the 
 former of the two substantives, though Luthardt thinks 
 otherwise; for it was not the plant (vdpBov), but the perfume 
 (/xvpou), that had been purchased. Alt pa, a pound, answers to 
 the Latin libra, and means a pound of twelve ounces, an 
 enormous quantity for so expensive a perfume. But neither 
 quantity nor quality were to be lacking in Mary's homage. 
 
 These hermetically sealed bottles of nard were probably 
 brought from the East; to make use of their contents the neck 
 had to be broken, which was accordingly done by Mary, as we 
 are told in Mark xiv. 3. As there was something striking and 
 solemn in this action, she must have performed it in the sight 
 of the other guests, and consequently over the head of Jesus, 
 as already seated at the table. Thus His head received the 
 first-fruits of the perfume (comp. Matt, and Mark : she poured 
 it upon His head). But afterwards, as no ordinary guest was 
 in question, and Mary desired to give the Lord not merely a 
 mark of esteem and affection, but also of adoration, she united 
 to the customary anointing of the head, a homage altogether 
 unusual. As if the costly liquid had been only common water, 
 she poured it on His feet in such quantities as to bathe them; 
 and, being therefore obliged to wipe them, she used for that 
 purpose her own hair. This last particular brought the 
 homage to a climax. She might have heard of what the 
 woman that was a sinner had done in Galilee (Luke vii.), and 
 have desired that the friends of Jesus should not do less for 
 Him than a stranger had. It was regarded among the Jews, 
 says Lightfoot (vol. ii. p. 633), as a disgrace for a woman to 
 loosen the bandeaux which bound up her tresses and to appear 
 with dishevelled hair. 1 Hence Mary by this act testified, that 
 as no sacrifice was too costly for her purse, so no service was 
 
 1 Sotah, fol. 5,1: " The priest unbinds the hair of a suspected woman . . . 
 as a sign ol reproach." Vajicra Eabba, I'ol. 188, 2 : " Kamith, who had had 
 
CHAP. XII. 2, 3. 53 
 
 too mean for her person. The reason for the certainly not acci- 
 dental repetition of the words tov$ TroBas, his feet, is easily 
 perceived. It was to this, the least noble part of His person, 
 that she paid such unusual homage. There is not in the 
 whole account a single detail which does not breathe with 
 the adoration which inspired this act. 
 
 The identity of this fact with that related in Matt. xxvi. 6—13 
 and Mark xiv. 3-9 is undeniable. The trifling discrepancy, 
 that in the Synoptics the perfume is poured upon the head and 
 not upon the feet of Jesus, may, as we have just seen, be easily 
 explained. After the anointing in the customary form, this 
 bathing of the feet with perfume, of which John has preserved 
 the memory, and which gives this scene its unique character, 
 took place, would it not be absurd to suppose that she poured 
 a whole pound of liquid on His head ? As to the place 
 occupied by the circumstance in the synoptic narrative, this 
 was evidently determined by its moral relation with the fact 
 related immediately afterwards, viz. the treachery of Judas 
 (Matt. v. 14-16 ; Mark v. 10, 11). This association of ideas 
 had fixed the conjunction of these two facts in the oral tradi- 
 tion, whence it had passed into the written compilation. The 
 relation of the anointing of Jesus at Bethany with the fact 
 narrated in Luke vii. is altogether different. We have already 
 mentioned (p. 3) the particulars which do not permit us to 
 identify the two narratives. Keim lays down the law, that an 
 act of homage of this kind could not have taken place twice. 
 But anointing, as well as bathing the feet, necessarily took 
 place at every repast to which an invitation had been given 
 (Luke vii. 44). The details in which the two scenes are 
 similar are purely accidental. What is there in common 
 between Simon the leper of Bethany and Simon the Pharisee 
 of Galilee, except the name ? But, only in the small number 
 of individuals met with in the Gospel history, there are twelve 
 or thirteen Simons; and yet it is said that there could not be 
 two men with so common a name, at whose houses these two 
 similar scenes would take place ! The chief point of resem- 
 blance is, that both women wiped the feet of Jesus with their hair. 
 
 seven sons who were high priests, answered those who asked her to what she 
 owed so great an honour: ' To the fact that the beams of my chamber have never 
 seen the hairs of my head.' " 
 
54 GOSPEL OF JOHN. 
 
 But the sinner wiped away her tears with which she had 
 bedewed His feet, and after that spread perfume on them. 
 Mary, on the contrary, had no tears to shed at a time like 
 this, when she was enjoying the full satisfaction of possession, 
 and only wiped away perfume, thus anointing herself as well 
 as the Lord. This difference sufficiently separates the two 
 women and the two scenes. Besides, Christian feeling will 
 always protest against the identification of Mary of Bethany 
 with a woman of bad character. 
 
 Vv. 4—6. "#Thcn ' saith one of His disciples, Judas, son of 
 Simon the IscariotJ which would (shortly) betray Him, Why 
 was not this perfume sold for two hundred pence, and the price 
 given to the poor ? Noio he said this, not that he cared for the 
 poor ; but because he was a thief, and kept 3 the purse, and took 
 what was put in it." — This burst of indignation on the part of 
 Judas was undoubtedly occasioned by the reason pointed out 
 by the evangelist ; but, like his treason, it had a deeper source 
 than avarice. For a long time (vi. 70) a gloomy displeasure 
 at the part taken by Jesus (vi. 70, 71, comp. with v. 15) had 
 filled his heart, and this feeling was only waiting for an excuse 
 to show itself. In the Synoptists it is His disciples (Matt.), 
 some (Mark), who remonstrate. It seems that on this, as on 
 so many other occasions, Judas played among his fellow- 
 disciples the part of the leaven which raises the flour. 
 
 In this passage we again find between St. John and the 
 Synoptists the same relative difference which so frequently 
 occurs. In the latter, the outlines are obliterated, in the 
 former the individual and characteristic features are preserved. 
 — Judas knows the exact price of this commodity, as if he were 
 a trader. — On the value of the penny, see remarks on vi. 7. The 
 sum, in the times of the emperors, was about ten guineas, and 
 is stated at exactly the same amount in Mark. , Several 
 similar coincidences have already been noticed between these 
 two evangelists (v. 3, vi. 7, 1 0). — Even independentlyW the 
 fact of Judas' treachery, attested as it is by four evangelists, 
 
 1 N and B read 2s instead of aw». 
 
 2 There are many various readings in the designation of Judas. N B and L : 
 
 Uulx; a l<rxx.piu>rris ; T. K. with 10 Mjj. (A I K, etc.) : Uvt. 2tfiu*); Irxapium; ; 
 J) : I«i/S. aT» Kccpvurov, etc. 
 
 3 K BDLQ have i%m instead of s<^;» *«;, 
 
CHAP. XII. 7-8. 55 
 
 it would be a very rash proceeding to attribute the accusation 
 here made by St. John to the impure motive of hatred, as 
 modern criticism has thought fit to do. — The word yXcoa-aoKOfMov 
 (properly ryXaxraoicofjLeiov) literally means the case in which 
 musicians kept the mouthpieces of flutes ; hence : box. This 
 purse was probably a small portable cash-box, in which the 
 property of Jesus and the disciples was mingled with that of 
 the poor (xiii. 29). This fund was furnished by voluntary 
 gifts (v. 5 ; Luke viii. 1-3). — It may be seen from xx. 15 
 how easily the word fiaard&Lv, generally used in the 1ST. T. 
 in the sense of to bear, changes its meaning for that of to 
 bear away, to 'purloin (de Wette, Meyer). The former sense, 
 without being absolutely impossible here, would nevertheless 
 furnish a tautology with the preceding proposition. But 
 why, it has been asked, did our Lord entrust Judas with an 
 office so dangerous to his morality ? We would not say, with 
 Hengstenberg, that He thought fit thus to call forth a mani- 
 festation of his sin, as the only mode of effecting his cure. 
 In thus acting, Jesus would, as it seems to us, have put Him- 
 self in the place of God in a manner unsuited to the reality 
 of His humanity. And what proof have we that Jesus directly 
 intervened in the choice of Judas as treasurer to the com- 
 munity ? Might it not have been an arrangement between the 
 disciples themselves, with which He did not wish to interfere ? 
 Vv. 7, 8. "Then said Jesus, Let her alone : against the day 
 of my burial 1 hath she kept this. For the poor always ye have 
 ivith you, but me ye have not always." 2 — We translate according 
 to the reading of the T. E. ; a$e? is absolute : " Leave her. (in 
 peace) ; cease to trouble her with your observations." According 
 to the Alex, variation, the proposition which follows might be 
 made the direct regimen of a'(/>e?, whether in the sense of the 
 Vulgate, Meyer, Baumlein, etc.: "Let her keep it (aura, the rest of 
 the perfume of which she had as yet used but a part) to embalm 
 me on the day of my death, and not to sell it for the poor," 
 or in that of Lange, Luthardt : " Allow her to have kept this 
 perfume for this very day, which, by the act she has performed, 
 
 1 T. R., with 12 Mjj. almost all the Mnn. Syr sch , reads : *<pe? aurn*- us t»> 
 Vft'.pav t. tvrxip. /u.t>u nrtipuxiv kvto. NBDKLQXn, 4 Mnn. ItP' er '1 u9 Vg. 
 Cop. : x$'.; aurrti iva. a; triv up., r. tvraQ, jj.iv rypnm aura. 
 
 2 D omits ver. 8. 
 
5 6 GOSPEL OF JOHN. 
 
 becomes, as it were, tl,at of an anticipated burial." Eilliet, 
 while accepting the Alex, reading, takes a$e? in the absolute 
 sense, which we must do in the T. B. : " Let her alone, that she 
 may keep it for the day of my burial." The sense of Lange is 
 grammatically forced ; it would have required : d<pe<; avTrjv 
 T€T7]pfcevcu, the expression acpievai "va necessarily relating to 
 the future. That of Meyer rests upon the idea that only a 
 portion of the perfume had been used, a notion incompatible 
 with the natural sense of ver. 3. And with what right can 
 avro be restricted to the portion thus assumed to be unused ? 
 Besides, the saying of Jesus, thus understood, has no connection 
 with the objection of Judas, who had not disputed Mary's 
 right to keep all or part of the perfume for the purpose of 
 using it on some future appropriate occasion. The translation 
 of Eilliet does not remove these difficulties, and we can but 
 agree with Liicke and Hengstenberg, that this reading, how- 
 ever translated, does not present any passable meaning. It 
 is an unfortunate correction by the hand of critics who 
 were occupied with the notion that no man is embalmed 
 before his death. The received reading, on the contrary, offers 
 a sense at once clear and refined. Jesus bestowed on the act 
 of Mary just what it lacked in the eyes of Judas — an aim, a 
 practical usefulness. It is not for nothing, as your reproaches 
 suggest, that she has poured forth this perfume. She has 
 embalmed me beforehand, and has thus by anticipation made 
 to-day, which precedes by so short a period that when thy 
 treachery will so suddenly consign me to the grave, the day 
 of my burial. 'EvTacfx.aa/jLos, embalmment and the usual pre- 
 parations for burial. The word reTrjprjicev, she has kept, is lull 
 of subtle meaning. It is as though there had been on the 
 part of Mary a long-formed plan, in accordance with that cold 
 utilitarianism upon which the reproach of Judas was founded. 
 — The meaning to which we are thus led perfectly suits that of 
 the saying of Jesus in Mark : " She is come beforehand to anoint 
 my body to the burying." 
 
 Ver. 8 is wanting in D ; hence, if this manuscript is alone 
 correct, in opposition to all the other documents, it must have 
 been imported by copyists from the Synoptists. But it is 
 much more likely that this is one of the erroneous omissions 
 so frequent in D. Its sense is : " If the poor are really the 
 
CHAP. XII. 9-11. 57 
 
 objects of your solicitude, you will at all times be able to 
 exercise your liberality towards them ; but my person will be 
 soon removed from your zealous and tender care." The first 
 proposition seems to contain an allusion to Deut. xv. 11. — The 
 present e^ere, in the first proposition, results from iravroje, 
 always; the second is introduced by the first. 
 
 Beyschlag justly observes on this passage : " It is asserted 
 that the fourth evangelist delights in depreciating the twelve; 
 but why then does he here set down all to the account of 
 Judas only ? It is also said that he entertained a special 
 hatred for Judas; but it is forgotten that a writer of the 
 second century could have had no reason for personally hating 
 Judas. — The slight modifications introduced into the synoptic 
 narrative by St. John are quite unmeaning from the ideal 
 point of view, and can only be explained by his more exact 
 knowledge of the fact, and by the more historical character 
 of his delineation. We thus see how erroneous is that idea 
 of dependence, with regard to the account of St. Mark, which 
 Weizsacker attributes to the fourth evangelist, because of the 
 three hundred pence common to both narratives, and the 
 coincidence of their expressions" {Untcrsuch. p. 290). 
 
 Vv. 9-11. "Much people of the Jews therefore kneio that 
 He was there : and they came not for Jesus' sake only, out that 
 they might see Lazarus also, whom He had raised from the 
 dead. Now the chief priests consulted that they might put 
 Lazarus also to death; because many of the Jews went away 
 and believed on Jesus." — The pilgrims who came from Jericho 
 with Jesus, had, on arriving at Jerusalem, spread the news 
 of His approach. And those inhabitants of Judea, already 
 spoken of in xi. 55, 56, who, many days before His arrival, had 
 made Jesus the subject of their conversation, could not, when 
 they learnt that He was staying in the neighbourhood, restrain 
 their impatience to see Him, as well as Lazarus, the living 
 monument of His power. — The term Jews here maintains 
 the meaning which it bears throughout this Gospel, viz. the 
 representatives of the ancient order of things. This was just 
 the point which exasperated the rulers ; the very people upon 
 whom they had always depended to make head against those 
 of Galilee, the inhabitants of Judea, and even of Jerusalem, 
 were beginning to fall away. — 'Tirdyeiv, to retire, but in a 
 
58 GOSrEL OF JOHN. 
 
 private manner, for some caution accompanied these visits to 
 Bethany. — Thus was the solemn entry into Jerusalem pre- 
 pared for. The people were quite disposed for an ovation, and 
 Jesus had but to give the signal, and cease to restrain the 
 enthusiasm of the multitude, and the hour of that royal 
 manifestation, so long desired by His mother (ii. 4) and 
 demanded by His brethren (vii. 14), would immediately strike. 
 
 II. The Entry into Jerusalem. — Vv. 12—19. 
 
 Till this day, Jesus had on every occasion laboured to 
 repress all popular manifestations in His favour (vi. 15 ; Luke 
 xiv. 25-33, xix. 11 sq., etc.). He now gave free course to 
 the feelings of the multitude, and accepted the homage offered 
 Him. What reason was there any longer for precautions ? 
 Ought He not, at least for once, to be acknowledged and 
 saluted as the King of Israel ? The hour of His death was 
 at hand, hence that of His royal accession had arrived. 
 
 The tradition of the Christian church fixes our Lord'a 
 entry into Jerusalem on the Sunday preceding His passion 
 The most probable explanation of ver. 1 does not confirm 
 this view, and it is more likely that it took place on the 
 Monday. The evangelists do not point out the time of day 
 at which it happened. But it seems to result from Mark xi. 
 11: "And Jesus entered into Jerusalem, and into the temple : 
 and when He had looked round about upon all things, and 
 now the eventide was come, He ivent out unto Bethany with the 
 twelve" that it was during the second half of the day. This 
 verse in fact means that, after having entered Jerusalem, Jesus 
 did nothing of importance on that day, because it was already 
 too late. 
 
 Vv. 12, 13. "On the next day a great crowd of 'people that 
 viere come 1 to the feast, when they heard that Jesus was come 
 to Jerusalem, took branches of palm trees and went forth to 
 meet Him, 2 and cried, 3 Hosanna : Blessed is the King of 
 
 1 N and A omit a before sx^v. 
 
 2 A K U n, 50 Mnn. read iTx^mffii instead of wranrr^iv (11 Mjj.). D C L X: 
 auitztrntriv. 
 
 3 N D L Q read ixf%vyaX,f» instead of ix?*^. tf A D K Q X n add 
 
 XtyitTif, 
 
CHAP. XIL 12, 13. 59 
 
 Israel that cometh in tlie name of the Lord ! " — Tiie crowd 
 spoken of in vv. 9—1 1 meant only the Jews of Jerusalem and 
 its neighbourhood, whose defection had so alarmed the rulers. 
 But that mentioned in ver. 12 contained great numbers of 
 pilgrims, who had come from all parts to the feast, and who, 
 hearing that Jesus was at Bethany, and about to come to 
 Jerusalem, went out to meet and escort Him into the city. 
 Some of them, as we have just seen, went as far as Bethany ; 
 others, who set out later, met Him on the road ; hence, as 
 He drew near, He was met by group after group of the 
 rejoicing multitude. It is thus that St. John's account 
 explains, completes, and gives preciseness to that of the 
 Synoptists. The latter, not having mentioned His stay at 
 Bethany, quite naturally represent Him as entering the city 
 with the caravan of pilgrims who, like Himself, had arrived 
 from Jericho. These latter certainly formed part of His 
 escort, but St. John gives us to understand that it was 
 composed also of many other persons, — viz., of numerous 
 inhabitants of Judea, and all the pilgrims spoken of in xi. 
 55, 56, who had arrived long before our Lord. 
 
 This multitude seems to have been animated by a feeling 
 of heavenly joy. Their aspirations and rejoicing were ex- 
 pressed by symbols and songs. — The palm was regarded in 
 the East as the emblem of strength and beauty, and its 
 branches as that of joy. In 1 Mace. xiii. 51, Simon returns 
 to Jerusalem " with thanksgiving and tranches of palm trees, 
 and with harps and cymbals, and with viols and hymns and 
 songs, because there was destroyed a great enemy out of Israel." 
 In Lev. xxiii. 40 it is said, in the institution of the feast of 
 Tabernacles : " You shall take . . . branches of palms . . . 
 and ye shall rejoice before the Lord your God seven days." 
 There was, on each day of this feast, a procession, in which 
 palm branches were carried round the altar of burnt-offering. 
 But on this occasion all was done spontaneously (comp. Bev. 
 vii. 9). — The term ftatov alone, signifies branches of palm, but 
 the complement rwv fyowUwv was added by St. John for 
 readers unacquainted with this technical term. 
 
 The cries of the multitude leave no doubt as to the mean- 
 ing of this demonstration ; it was, indeed, the Messiah whom 
 the people welcomed and saluted in the person of Jesus. 
 
60 GOSPEL OF JOHN. 
 
 The acclamations reported by St. John (ver. 13), and for 
 which equivalents are given by the Synoptists, are taken 
 from Ps. cxviii., especially w. 25, 26. Numerous Eabbinic 
 quotations prove this psalm to have been regarded as 
 Messianic. Every Israelite knew these words by heart : they 
 were sung at the feast of Tabernacles, in the procession made 
 round the altar, and at the Passover, after the singing of 
 the great Hallel (Ps. cxiii.-cxviii.) at the close of the repast. 
 Hosanna (from jo njwin, save, I beseech TJiee) is a prayer 
 addressed to God by the theocratic people on behalf of its 
 King Messiah ; it is, if we may venture so to speak, the 
 Israelite God save the King. It is more natural, as it seems 
 to us, to refer the words in the name of the Lord to the verb 
 cometh, than to the participle blessed. The expression, that cometh 
 in the name of the Lord, designates, in a general and still a 
 very vague manner, that Sent One from God upon whose 
 person and work Israel implores the blessing of Heaven. 
 After this comes the great word, whose meaning all can 
 understand, the unequivocal title, King of Israel. — Of course, 
 all in this crowd did not cry out in exactly the same manner, 
 a fact which easily explains the differences in reporting the 
 acclamations of the populace in the different evangelists. — As 
 Jesus saw (vi. 5), in the arrival of the multitudes in the 
 wilderness, the call of His Father to give a feast to His 
 people, so does He now recognise the divine signal in the rush 
 of these crowds to welcome Him with triumphant shouts. He 
 perceives that, as the very psalm from which their songs 
 were taken says : " This is the day which the Lord hath made," 
 and that it is a day on which to rejoice ; and He responds 
 to the salutations of the people by a truly Messianic sign. 
 
 Vv. 14, 15. " Jesus having found a young ass, sat thereon ; 
 as it is written, Fear not, daughter 1 of Sion: behold, thy 
 King cometh, sitting on an ass's colt." — The conduct of Jesus 
 was necessitated by the nature of things. When once He 
 consented to accept this homage, it was impossible for Him 
 to continue any longer mingled with the crowd. On the 
 other hand, He desired to appear upon the scene in the 
 humblest manner, and in the form most appropriate to the 
 
 1 T. R., with 8 Mjj. (N E G, etc.), reads hy*np ; 9 Mjj. (A B D, etc.): 
 
 tv^artip. 
 
CHAP. XII. 14, 15. 61 
 
 essentially spiritual character of His royalty. In the East, 
 the mule, as well as the horse, is regarded as a noble animal ; 
 the ass, on the contrary, is despised there, as it is here. 
 Comp. Wisd. xxxiii. (xxxvi.) 25 (24). Hence the manner in 
 which Jesus was mounted must not be compared with that 
 of Solomon (1 Kings i. 38), when he made his regal entry 
 into Jerusalem upon the mule of David his father. The 
 prophet Zechariah has himself furnished a commentary on 
 this symbol by saying (ix. 9) : " Behold, thy King cometh unto 
 Hue: just, and having salvation, and lowly (Fr. poor)." But, 
 at the same time that the ass represented the poverty of the 
 Messiah, it also recalled the pacific nature of His reign : " I 
 ivill cut off the chariots of war ; and this King shall speak 
 peace to the nations " (Zech. ix. 1 0). These two notions of 
 peace and poverty easily combine, as do, on the other hand, 
 those of riches and military power. — The expression evpoov, 
 having found, seems at the first glance incompatible with the 
 synoptic account, that Jesus sent before Him two of His 
 disciples with a special order to bring Him the ass. But 
 evpcov by no means signifies finding without seeking ; witness 
 the evpijKa of Archimedes ! The word might be translated : 
 having procured; nothing can be inferred from it as to how 
 the finding was effected, and St. John might naturally intend 
 to summarize in this brief expression the synoptic account 
 which was already sufficiently known in the Church. He 
 equally abridges the quotation from Zechariah, his sole con- 
 cern here being to prove the general relation between the 
 prophecy and its fulfilment. The expression daughter of 
 Sion designates either the town of Zion itself personified, or 
 the population of the town as protected by the royal hill. 
 John substitutes Fear not for the Rejoice of the prophet ; it 
 is the same sentiment in a lower degree, such a king could 
 not be a tyrant. — If Jesus had never entered Jerusalem in 
 this fashion, this prophecy would equally have been fulfilled. 
 His whole ministry in Israel was its accomplishment. But 
 by literally realizing the image employed by the prophet, 
 Jesus desired to render the true and spiritual fulfilment of 
 the prophecy more evident. At the moment, however, the 
 disciples did not so remember the prophecy as to grasp its 
 reference to what was taking place before their eyes. 
 
62 GOSPEL OF JOHN'. 
 
 Ver. 1 6. " Now the disciples understood not these things at the 
 time : but after Jesus was glorified, then they remembered that 
 these things were written of Him,, and that they had done them 
 to Him." — Hitherto, in fact, the disciples had not imagined 
 that this prophecy was to be accomplished in so simple and 
 natural a form. It was not till after the elevation of their 
 Master to heaven that they understood all the greatness of 
 the act that day performed. Hence there is no reason for 
 banishing, as Eeuss does, the natural meaning of iSo^dadrj, 
 ivas glorified, and referring this term to the salutary effects of 
 our Lord's sufferings. — What a charlatan is Baur's pseudo- 
 John, amusing himself by throwing into his narrative this 
 piece of information, for the sake of making himself appear 
 to have been one of those disciples whom the ascension had 
 enlightened ! — Exception has been taken to the expression : 
 they had done these things to Him, because, in the scene related 
 by St. John, the apostles did nothing to Jesus. Several take 
 e7roi7]aav in the indefinite sense in which it is used in ver. 2, 
 and make the multitude its subject. But the subject of they 
 remembered cannot be entirely different from that of they had 
 done. If they are distinct, the first ought at least to be in- 
 cluded in the second. What St. John means to say is just 
 this, that the disciples afterwards perceived that they had 
 themselves assisted in accomplishing a prophecy of which at 
 the time they were not thinking. The co-operation of the 
 disciples, hinted at in John, is described in detail in Luke xix. 
 29-36 and the parallel passages. We find here a fresh proof 
 of the abridged character of the narrative, while its relation 
 with that of the Synoptists is clearly brought out. — The 
 words : they had done these things unto Him, show how mis- 
 taken is the notion of Keim, who affirms that the tendency of 
 St. John's narrative is to represent Jesus and His disciples 
 as passive during this scene, and that out of repugnance for 
 the idea of the Jewish Messiah. 
 
 Vv. 17, 18. " The multitude therefore that was with Him 
 ichen 1 He called Lazarus out of his grave, and raised him from 
 the dead, bare Him ivitness ; and for this cause also 2 the midti- 
 
 1 On (when) is the reading of « A B G H M Q S U X r A A, 100 Mnn. and s, 
 While D E K L, ItP leri< ' ue Syr. and T. R. read »n (that). 
 
 2 B E H a A omit *<*<. 
 
CHAP. XII. 17, 18. 63 
 
 tude met Him, "because they had heard that He had done this 
 miracle." — St. John does not give us a complete picture 
 of the triumphal entry, because his design in recording this 
 fact is solely to show its relation, on the one hand with the 
 raising of Lazarus (its cause), and on the other with the con- 
 demnation of Jesus (its effect) ; and it is this connection 
 which he brings forward in vv. 17-19. If, with some im- 
 portant Mss. and the most ancient translations, we read (ver. 
 17) otc, that (bare Him witness that), the meaning is, that the 
 crowd, by accompanying Jesus, was celebrating among other 
 rairacles the raising of Lazarus, and it is thus unnecessary to 
 suppose that the multitude of ver. 17 differed, as Liicke 
 supposes, from that of ver. 18. It might be the same at two 
 different moments, and the prodigy it was now celebrating by 
 escorting Jesus (ver. 17) was the same which induced them 
 to come and meet Him (ver. 18). But if, with the oldest 
 Mjj., we read ore, when (that was with Him when He raised 
 Lazarus), the meaning is quite different. Then the multi- 
 tude of ver. 1 7 comprises only the Jews who were in Bethany 
 at the time of the raising of Lazarus, those said to have 
 " believed" in xi. 45, and here pointed out as the true authors 
 of the ovation now offered to our Lord. They were dispersed 
 among the crowd, relating to all who would listen what they 
 had themselves heard and seen. The circumstance which 
 gives a preponderance in favour of this reading is the dramatic 
 amplification : when He called Lazarus out of his grave, and 
 raised him from the dead ; for the former case, the mere 
 mention of the fact would have sufficed. If we adopt the 
 latter, the therefore of ver. 17 is connected with vv. 10 and 
 11, and the verb i/xapTvpet must be taken in an absolute 
 sense : bare Him witness. Ver. 1 8 adds to ver. 1 7 the idea 
 that not only was this miracle the chief subject of conversa- 
 tion among the crowd, but also that it induced the company 
 of pilgrims, to whose knowledge it had come on their arrival at 
 Jerusalem, to go and meet Jesus. — We find here a remarkable 
 resemblance to the account of St. Luke : " When He was 
 come nigh, even now at the descent of the Mount of Olives, the 
 vjhole multitude of the disciples began to rejoice and praise God 
 with a loud voice for all the mighty works that they had seen." 
 As usual, the synoptic narrative presents a vaguer picture. 
 
64 GOSPEL OF JOHN. 
 
 with more undecided features, while that of St. John gives 
 sharper outlines. 
 
 Ver. 19. "Whereupon the Pharisees said among themselves, 
 You see that you prevail nothing ; behold, the whole world is 
 gone away after Him." — Vv. 17 and 18 brought out the in- 
 fluence exercised by the raising of Lazarus in the scene of the 
 entry into Jerusalem; ver. 19 points out that of this scene 
 upon the final catastrophe. — Upb? eavrovs, instead of 737)05 
 aWrjXovs, because, belonging to the same body, they were, as 
 it were, speaking to themselves. — "ISe, behold, alludes to the un- 
 expected spectacle they had just witnessed. — There is distress 
 in the term o fcoa-fios, the world : all these people, both natives 
 and strangers ; and in the Aorist aTrri\.6ev, is gone away : it is 
 an accomplished fact; we are alone! — Oecopeire may be taken 
 either as a present indicative or an imperative. In either 
 case, these Pharisees are, with a certain amount of bitterness, 
 mutually reproaching each other with the uselessness of their 
 half measures, and encouraging themselves to adopt without 
 further delay the extreme measures advocated by Caiaphas. 
 It is by these last words in particular that this passage is 
 connected with the general design of this part of the Gospel. 
 
 " The more closely the narrative of St. John is studied, the 
 more impossible is it to regard it as the accidental product of 
 tradition or legend. Instead of that juxtaposition of anec- 
 dotes which characterizes the Synoptic Gospels, we find at 
 every step traces of profound connection even in the very 
 slightest details. "With regard to this book, the dilemma, 
 then, is : either it is a true history profoundly grasped and 
 reproduced, or a romance powerfully conceived and very 
 skilfully executed " (Baur). 
 
 III. The Last Scene in the Temple.— Vv. 20-36. 
 
 Among all the facts which took place between the solemn 
 entry and the Thursday evening before our Lord's death, St. 
 John has preserved but one, omitted by the Synoptists, — viz., 
 the attempt of certain Greek proselytes to approach Him, and 
 the discourse in which He expressed the feelings to which 
 this unexpected circumstance gave rise. 
 
 If St. John so specially records this fact, it is by no means 
 
CHAP. XII. 20-36. 65 
 
 because it was his design to complete the synoptic narrative 
 in this respect, but that, recognising in this memorable scene, 
 on one side the close of our Lord's ministry, and on the other 
 the prelude to the agonies of His passion, it hence formed 
 an important link in his narrative. He does not tell us on 
 what day this event took place. According to Mark (xi. 11), 
 it could not have been on that of the triumphal entry. Be- 
 sides, it ends with the decided rupture of Jesus with the 
 people. Now we know that, during the days which succeeded 
 the entry, Jesus dwelt in the temple, as in His palace, and 
 exercised in it a kind of Messianic sovereignty. On the first 
 of these days (Tuesday), He purged the temple from the presence 
 of the sellers ; on the next, He coped with the authorities, 
 who demanded an explanation as to the source of the authority 
 He assumed ; and then successively with the Pharisees, Sad- 
 ducees, and scribes, who approached Him with captious 
 questions, putting to them in His turn, from Ps. ex., the great 
 question concerning the divinity of the Messiah, which was to 
 be the subject of His condemnation. In the evening, after 
 pronouncing the malediction upon the rulers of the people, He 
 retired to the Mount of Olives, where He unfurled before the 
 eyes of His disciples the picture of the threefold judgment of 
 the church, of Jerusalem, and of the human race. The words 
 of ver. 36:" These things spake Jesus, and departed, and did hide 
 Himself from them" give us reason to think that the scene 
 recounted by St. John also took place on the Wednesday even- 
 ing, at the time when Jesus was leaving the temple to repair 
 to Bethany (comp. the solemn farewell, Matt, xxiii. 37-39). 
 In this case, Jesus would not have returned to Jerusalem on 
 the Thursday morning at the time when the people were ex- 
 pecting Him in the temple, but have spent the whole of the 
 day in retirement at Bethany (He hid Himself from them). If, 
 however, this seems to make the Wednesday too full of events, it 
 is possible, as the saying quoted by St. Matthew may have been 
 pronounced in Galilee (Luke xiii. 34, 35), that Jesus returned 
 for a few moments to Jerusalem on the Thursday morning, and 
 that the scene related by St. John took place then. But in 
 this case, the expression : He hid Himself from them, is not so 
 well justified, assuming as it does a certain interval of voluntary 
 absence. 
 
 GODET III. E JOHN. 
 
6 6 GOSPEL OF JOHN. 
 
 Vv. 20-22. " Now there were certain Grcelcs among them that 
 came up to Jerusalem to worship at the feast, who came to Philip, 
 who was of Betlisaida in Galilee, and desired him, saying, Sir, 
 we would see Jesus. Philip cometh and telleth Andrexo, and 
 Andrew and Philip tell 1 Jesus." — These Greeks belonged to 
 those numerous Gentiles who, like the Ethiopian eunuch 
 (Acts viii.), had embraced the Jewish religion, and came to 
 Jerusalem to keep its festivals. They must be carefully dis- 
 tinguished from those Jews, speaking the Greek language, who 
 dwelt in heathen lands (eWrjvia-ral). The spacious court of 
 the Gentiles was devoted to these proselytes, according to the 
 words of Solomon (1 Kings viii. 41—43). If these strangers 
 witnessed the entry of Jesus into Jerusalem, and were pre- 
 sent at the expulsion of the sellers, — an act by which Jesus 
 restored to its proper use the only part of the sanctuary open 
 to them, — we can all the better appreciate their desire for 
 rearer acquaintance with such a person. Assuredly they did 
 not merely desire, like Zaccheus, to behold Jesus with their 
 bodily eyes (Bruckner) ; for such a purpose there was no 
 need of Philip's intervention, since they might have seen Him 
 as He passed through the court. Besides, the solemnity of 
 our Lord's reply obliges us to attribute a more serious inten- 
 tion to this step. What they desired was to have a private 
 conversation with Him on religious subjects. How do we 
 know even whether, having witnessed the opposition He en- 
 countered from the rulers of His own nation, they did not 
 desire to invite Him to turn to the Gentiles, who would 
 better appreciate such a sage and teacher than these bigoted 
 Jews? The ecclesiastical historian (Eusebius, i. 13) has pre- 
 served the memory of an embassy sent to Jesus by the king 
 of Edessa, in Syria, to invite Him to take up His abode with 
 him, and to promise Him such a royal welcome as should 
 compensate Him for the obstinacy with which the Jews re- 
 jected Him. This fact is not without resemblance to that 
 which now engages our attention, and in which we behold, 
 in one of the first demonstrations of the heathen world in 
 favour of the Gospel, the first indication of that attraction 
 
 1 T. E., with 12 Mjj., reads, xai vaXiv Aiihpias xai ^iXittos Xiyoviriv. — A B L 
 
 reads, tp^irai Av$^. x. $iX, xai XiyovtTiv. — N ! xai TaXit tp^'.rai Av$p. x <PiX. xai 
 
 Xtyvnv. — The Vss. also present several variations. 
 
CHAP. XII. 20-22. 67 
 
 which its moral beauty was soon to exercise over the whole 
 human race. — Jesus was undoubtedly, at the time this request 
 was communicated to Him, in the court of the women, which 
 was entered after crossing that of the Gentiles, and in which 
 He frequently taught (vol. ii. p. 320). — The art. rwv and the 
 part. pres. avafiaivovTiav indicate a permanent and well-known 
 category of individuals, the class of proselytes not merely from 
 among the Greeks (it is not necessary to understand 'EXktfvcov), 
 but of every nation, who were commonly seen at the festal 
 seasons. The term irpoarfkOov, approached, has a certain tone 
 of gravity and solemnity. The address : Sir, shows the 
 respect they felt for the disciple of such a Master. — The 
 imperf. rjpcbrcov, they desired, expresses an action begun and 
 awaiting its completion, the answer of Philip. — ©eko/nev, we 
 have decided to . . . ; procure us therefore the means ! The term 
 ISeiv, to see, derives its meaning from the context. These 
 strangers used the most modest expression : to see Him more 
 closely ! — The apposition : which was of Bethsaida of Galilee, 
 may serve to explain the reason why these Greeks applied to 
 Philip. They came perhaps from some country near to Galilee, 
 Decapolis, for example, on the other side of the Sea of Galilee, 
 where were several entirely Greek cities. " It is remarkable 
 that Philip and Andrew, the two disciples whose intervention 
 was used for these Greeks, are alone those whose names were 
 of Greek origin. Undoubtedly the Greek name went hand 
 in hand with Greek culture " (Hengstenberg). 
 
 We here again see the cautious character of Philip. He 
 feels the gravity of the step he is asked to take. According 
 to the principle He had Himself laid down in Matt. xv. 24 : 
 " / am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel," 
 Jesus had, during the whole of His earthly ministry, entirely 
 confined His agency to the Jewish people. Hence Philip 
 dares not take alone the initiative in a request which sought to 
 induce Jesus to deviate from His habitual conduct, and brings 
 the matter before Andrew. Andrew is that one of the four 
 disciples standing first in order in all the catalogues of the 
 apostles, who is always placed next to Philip ; we have seen 
 him twice mentioned with Philip in ch. i. and vi., and have 
 already pointed out, ch. vi., that these two apostles, so 
 specially named by St. John, seem, according to tradition, not to 
 
68 GOSPEL OF JOHN. 
 
 have been strangers to the composition of this Gospel. After 
 deliberating, they decided jointly to present this request to 
 the Lord. It is probable that Andrew, the more vigorous and 
 decided character, was the spokesman, and that this is the 
 reason his name is placed first. — Of the three readings, that 
 of the Sinait. is evidently a mixture of the other two. That 
 of A B L is the most concise and probable (see Meyer). 
 
 Do we ask why this circumstance made so profound an 
 impression on Jesus ? First, it aroused within Him the feel- 
 ing of His sovereignty over the Gentile world. Religious 
 wants expressed by Gentiles, and to Him ! It is, as it were, 
 the first bursting forth of a new world. But this sovereignty 
 of Jesus over the Gentiles could only be realized so far as He 
 should Himself be freed from His Jewish covering, and raised 
 to a new form of existence. Hence His thoughts turned directly 
 to the fact by which alone this new order of things could be 
 realized : the way of Calvary unveiled itself before Him. Did 
 He not know that it was from the height of a cross that He 
 would draw all men unto Him? (ii. 19, iii. 14, 15, x. 15, 16). 
 Hence, instead of answering yes or no to the question ad- 
 dressed to Him, He was absorbed in the reflections it called 
 forth. The Gentiles were knocking at the door of the king- 
 dom of God : it was the signal that for Himself (vv. 23-30), 
 for the human race (vv. 31—33), and especially for Israel (vv. 
 34-36), a decisive hour had come. 
 
 This discourse contains an indirect reply to the request of the 
 Greeks : " The time for my intercourse with the Gentiles is in- 
 deed at hand, but it is not yet come." This answer, however, 
 though implicitly a negative one, may not have prevented Him, 
 in crossing the court of the Gentiles, from testifying for these 
 Greeks the sympathy which He ever extended to those who 
 sought Him. St. John is silent on this point, because the im- 
 portance of the scene was in his eyes of a different kind. As 
 Luthardt says : In his history, it is not the external part, but its 
 moral significance, with which he is chiefly concerned ; and this 
 was in the present instance the impression made on Jesus, 
 and the discourse in which that impression was manifested. 
 
 Ver. 23. "Jesus answered 1 them, The hour is come, that the 
 
 1 N B L X : airoxpivsrai instead of ccTrtxpivure, which is the reading of T. K. 
 with 13 Mjj. It. Syr. 
 
CHAP. XII. 24, 25. 69 
 
 Son of man should be glorified" — 'Aire/cpivaTo is not absolutely 
 synonymous with dTretcpfflr) (see on ver. 19). This question 
 rather gave rise to a meditation than to a direct reply on the 
 part of Jesus. — The first words : The hour is come, contain the 
 germ of the whole discourse which follows, and which is 
 entirely devoted to disclosing the importance of the time then 
 present. First, to Jesus Himself, it was the hour of His 
 personal transformation, and of His return to the divine con- 
 dition, by the painful passage of death. What had just taken 
 place made him perceive that this was now imminent. " It is 
 arbitrary here, as elsewhere, to apply the expression So^aaOrj- 
 vai, to be glorified, to the acknowledgment of Jesus as the 
 Messiah, and to the extension of His kingdom among the 
 Gentiles " (Liicke, Eeuss). The last words of vv. 25,26 show 
 that Jesus was thinking first of all of the exaltation of His 
 Person to heaven : His agency among the Gentiles would be 
 only a consequence of this change (xvii. 1, 2, 5). The term : 
 Son of man, is inspired by the feeling of His inseparable 
 union with human nature, which is to be raised in Him, its 
 representative, to the possession of the divine condition. 
 It is then that He will be able to communicate without 
 impediment with the Greeks and the whole world. At 
 ver. 24 Jesus expresses by a figure, and at ver. 25 in plain 
 terms, the painful condition upon which this glorification 
 depends : 
 
 Ver. 24. " Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except a corn of 
 wheat fall into the earth and die, it abideth alone : but if it die, it 
 bring eth forth much fruit." — Jesus states what must happen to 
 Him before He can respond to those needs of which the first 
 symptoms have just been manifested. As long as a grain of 
 wheat remains in the granary, it is indeed in safety, but is 
 without the power of reproduction ; as soon as it is cast into 
 the earth, its coverings decompose, and it perishes as a grain, 
 but only to be born again in a multitude of grains like itself. 
 This figure was perhaps the more apt, inasmuch as the grain 
 of wheat played a considerable part in the Greek mysteries. 
 — The strong affirmation, Amen, Amen, refers to the contrast 
 which Jesus knew to exist between this painful necessity and 
 the glory of which His disciples dreamed. 
 
 Ver. 25. Application of the figure : " He that lovcth his life 
 
70 GOSPEL OF JOHN. 
 
 loscth it ; l and he that hateth his life in this world shall "keep 
 it in life eternal." — From the connection of ver. 23 with 
 ver. 24, and of ver. 24 with ver. 25, there can be no donbt 
 that Jesus applied this sentence to Himself. He thereby 
 declared Himself to be subjected to that fundamental law of 
 human life which He had so frequently applied to His dis- 
 ciples (Matt. x. 39, xvi. 25; Mark viii. 35; Luke ix. 24, 
 xvii. 33). By the expression his life, yjrvxv, Jesus meant the 
 breath of natural life, and all the faculties with which it is 
 endowed. This physical and psychical life was good, inas- 
 much as it was the starting-point of human existence, and 
 Jesus Himself possessed it. But it was not destined to main- 
 tain and perpetuate itself as such ; it was to be transformed 
 by a divine force into a better life, a life spiritual and eternal ; 
 and to reach this it must be given, sacrificed, immolated, re- 
 nounced. Otherwise, after having flourished for a moment 
 with more or less of satisfaction, it perishes and withers for 
 ever. This law applies also to a pure being, and to his law- 
 ful tastes. All that is not given to God by an act of volun- 
 tary immolation bears within it the germ of death. Hence, 
 suppose that Jesus, seeking only His personal safety, had now 
 gone to the Greeks to play among them the part of a sage, 
 or to organize the state like another Solon, He might indeed 
 thus have saved His life, but would in reality have lost it. 
 Not having given it up to God, He could not have received 
 it from Him glorified (ver. 23). Thus kept by Him, it would 
 have remained doomed to sterility and earthly frailty. It was 
 by renouncing the part of a sage that He became a Christ, 
 by renouncing the throne of a Solomon that He obtained 
 that of God. Lange, with much depth of perception, points 
 out that this saying included the judgment of Hellenism. 
 For what was Greek civilization but human life cultivated 
 from the view-point of enjoyment, and withdrawn from the 
 law of sacrifice ? — It is more probable that the present loseth 
 (a7ToWvei) was replaced by the future shall lose (aTroXeaei) 
 than the reverse. This substitution would take place under 
 the influence of the following proposition. The expression 
 loses it goes beyond that of ver. 24 : dbideth alone. — The term 
 
 1 N B L : axoWvu (loses it) instead o" wroXitru (shall lose it), which is the 
 reading of T. K. with the other Mjj. 
 
CHAP. XII. 26-28. 71 
 
 uio-eiv, to hate, here includes the idea of a generous contempt, 
 and well characterizes the noble ambition which aims higher 
 than this world. The expression : in life eternal, opposed as it 
 here is to : in this world, refers not only to the superior 
 nature of this life, but also to the future epoch in which it 
 shall be perfectly developed. — This moral axiom, by which 
 the Master's life is ruled, applies also to that of the disciple : 
 
 Ver. 26. " If any man serve me, let him follow me; and 
 vjhere I am, there also shall my servant be : if 1 any man serve 
 me, him will my Father honour." — Follow, i.e. in the way of 
 sacrifice, which is also that of glorious transfiguration. The 
 expression : where I am, is a present of anticipation, referring 
 to the Lord's state of heavenly glory, as the promise : there 
 also shall my servant be, does to the faithful disciple's partici- 
 pation in that state (xviii. 24). — TifLrja-et, will honour, recalls 
 the should be glorified, SotjaoOrj, of ver. 23 with respect to 
 Jesus. The Father will as certainly honour the faithful servant 
 as He has glorified the Master. This is in both cases truly 
 to keep the life which they give. Perhaps Andrew and Philip 
 had felt some carnal satisfaction at the sight of these strangers 
 thus ready to do homage to Jesus. But He, who was so con- 
 stantly accustomed to repress in His own case even the 
 lawful aspirations of natural life, silenced them with a word 
 in that of His disciples. He thus revealed to them, as 
 Luthardt observes, the condition by which alone they could 
 extend His kingdom among all nations, and that condition 
 was their own death. But having thus announced the law 
 which obliged them to die, He immediately felt in His whole 
 being the reaction of this formidable thought. 
 
 Vv. 27, 28. " Noiv is my soid troubled; and what shall I 
 say ? Father, save me from this hour : but for this cause came 
 I to this hour. Father, glorify Thy name!' — The soul, tyvyf], is 
 the seat of the natural, as the spirit, irvev^ia, is that of the 
 religious emotions (see on xi. 33). Jesus here used the first 
 of these terms, because it was the prospect of His personal 
 sorrows which at this moment moved Him. — The perf. rerd- 
 paKTat,, is troubled, indicates the condition into which the Lord 
 found Himself plunged. This inward trouble revealed itself 
 to Him especially by the unusual hesitation which He ex- 
 1 N C D L X, It, Syr. omit *«« before *<*.» *>$. 
 
72 GOSPEL OF JOHN. 
 
 perienced when about to pour out His feelings in prayer. 
 Generally, He had a distinct view as to what He should ask 
 of the Father ; now this certainty was absent. Like the 
 believer in the state described by St. Paul in Bom. viii. 26, He 
 knew not what to pray for, and asks Himself : What shall I 
 say ? This question was, properly speaking, addressed neither 
 to man nor to God, but to Himself. For His sacrifice was a 
 voluntary one ; He might yet, if He thought good, ask God 
 to release Him from it. And the Father would now, as ever, 
 have heard Him, even if He had had to send twelve legions 
 of angels. But would not the prayer which rescued Him 
 ruin the world ? Jesus did not feel Himself at liberty to 
 pray thus. He had advanced too far on the road to the cross 
 to stop so near the end. Renouncing, then, the cry of nature, 
 He gave utterance to the voice of the Spirit : Father, glorify 
 Thy name. This was His real prayer, the definite request 
 in which His filial heart entirely poured itself forth, and 
 which restored His serenity : " Do with me what Thou wilt, 
 provided Thou art glorified thereby ! " The word now charac- 
 terized His present anguish as an anticipation of that which 
 awaited Him in presence of the cross, now already, though the 
 hour is still distant. — After the question : What shall I say ? 
 there is nothing strange in the interrogative turn which we 
 have given to the prayer : " Father, save me from this hour." 
 This was the prayer to which nature prompted Him ; He 
 expressed it hypothetically, to teach His disciples to silence, 
 in every similar position (ver. 26), the voice of the flesh, 
 and always to let that of the spirit prevail before God. 
 Llicke, Meyer, and Hengstenberg regard these words as a 
 positive prayer : " Deliver me from the necessity of dying." 
 But then how should we understand the next sentence, 
 which would in this case be an immediate withdrawal of this 
 request ? So abrupt a transition of feeling is impossible. 
 The prayer at Gethsemane is appealed to, but there Jesus 
 began by saying : if it be possible, and also expressly desig- 
 nated the contrast between the two cries by the word 
 TfXrjv, nevertheless, while here the contrast would be abso- 
 lute and left unexplained. Luthardt feels this, and pro- 
 poses to understand crcoaov, save me, not in the sense of: 
 " Save me from death," but in that of : " Bring me victoriously 
 
CHAP. XII. 27, 28. 73 
 
 through it." This expedient is, however, excluded by the 
 adversative particle a\\d, but, which follows. For there is no 
 opposition between : " to have come to this hour," and : " to go 
 victoriously through it." — Thus, whatever turn we give to this 
 phrase, we cannot help seeing in it a hypothetical prayer ; it 
 was the cry of nature, if Jesus had suffered nature to speak. 
 In the words which follow He expresses, first, what really 
 hindered Him from addressing such a request to God — it 
 would be the negation ef all that He had as yet done and 
 suffered ; — then the prayer in which His heart definitely 
 found repose, the cry of the spirit which alone remained 
 when once the moment of trouble had passed : glorify Thy 
 name. Nothing can be more instructive than the sight of 
 this contrast between the two factors which claimed the 
 empire over His will. The struggle is like one of those 
 fissures in its crust which enables science to fathom the bowels 
 of the earth. It lets us read the very inmost depths of the 
 Lord's being. And what do we discover ? Just the reverse 
 of that impassive Jesus attributed by criticism to St. John. 
 
 The expressions : for this cause and to this hour, seem to 
 constitute a pleonasm. This proposition might be taken as a 
 question : " Is it then for this cause that I am come to this 
 hour ? " — that is to say, to seek to defer it indefinitely ; or the 
 words for this hour might be made an explanatory apposition 
 to for this cause : " It is for this cause that I came (here below)" 
 — that is to say, for this hour. Both these meanings are 
 forced — the first, because of the interrogations which precede ; 
 the second, because ei<? is not a natural iteration of Sid, but 
 rather the direct regimen of rfkOov, in opposition to o-axrov e/c. 
 Hengstenberg explains : " It is that my soul might be troubled 
 that I came to this hour," which is still more forced. Lucke 
 and Meyer refer the words for this cause to the idea of the 
 prayer which follows : for the glorification of the Father's 
 name. But this is doing violence beyond measure to the 
 phrase ; while it seems quite natural to understand the neuter 
 touto, this, as a slightly mysterious expression of the something 
 which had just plunged His soul into so much trouble, the 
 gloomy and unspeakable events of the hour which was draw- 
 ing near, and which He felt tempted to remove by prayer. It 
 is because of (Bid) this death which I am to undergo (tovto) that 
 
74 COSrEL OF JOHN. 
 
 I have held on to this honr. What He had done and borne 
 with a view to the cross would not suffer Him to relax at the 
 moment when the hour of this terrible punishment was at 
 length about to strike (comp. iii. 14). 
 
 M. Colani, in his criticism of Kenan's Vie de Jdsus, by a 
 strange inadvertence puts into the mouth of our Lord the 
 words : " Father, glorify my name," an expression which he says 
 is unmeaning, except from the view-point of the doctrine of 
 the Logos. 1 Nothing is better calculated to show the differ- 
 ence which exists between the profoundly human Jesus of St. 
 John and the fantastic and metaphysical Christ imputed by 
 criticism to this evangelist than this writer's involuntary 
 alteration of the text of this prayer. If, after this, M. Colani 
 can see in this sublime scene only " an emblematic and almost 
 simulated agony," whose is the fault ? 
 
 The most admirable feature in this passage is the perfectly 
 human character of the struggle between nature and spirit in 
 the heart of Jesus ; the next is the sincerity and candour with 
 which He expressed His inmost feelings, His weakness (Heb. 
 v. 2), before all the people, without fearing to let them witness 
 His distress at the prospect of His approaching sufferings. — 
 This scene was, as is generally acknowledged, the prelude to 
 that of Gethsemane. The only difference is, that in the latter 
 Jesus at the climax of His anguish really utters the cry : " Save 
 me from this hour!" which He here hesitates to pronounce. This 
 slight shade of distinction, so suitable to the difference of the 
 two situations, proves the strictly historical character of both. 
 As to the view that St. John omitted from his Gospel the 
 scene in Gethsemane as incompatible with the divine character 
 of the Logos, it falls of itself before the passage we are studying. 
 
 Lastly, how admirable is the gradation between Luke 
 xii. 49, 50, John xii. 27, and the scene in Gethsemane! — a 
 gradation which so naturally depicts the increasing emotion 
 with which Jesus slowly drew near to the cross. 
 
 Eenan observes on this passage : " Here are verses which 
 exhibit an unmistakeable historical stamp. They give the 
 obscure and isolated episode of the Greeks who applied to 
 Philip. Notice the part played by this apostle ; this Gospel is 
 the only one which knows anything of it." 
 
 1 Revue de Th(ologie, third series, vol. i. p. 382. 
 
CHAP. XII. 28, 29. 75 
 
 Vv. 285, 29. " Tlien came there a voice from heaven: I have 
 loth glorified it, and will glorify it again. The people then, 
 that stood hy and x heard, said that it thundered : others said, An 
 angel spake to Him." — Each time that the Son performed a 
 great act of personal consecration, the Father answered by a 
 sensible manifestation of approval. What had happened at 
 the baptism and at the transfiguration was renewed. Now — 
 when the ministry of Jesus was ending, and He was devoting 
 Himself to death — or never was the time for the Father to affix 
 publicly to His work and person the seal of His satisfaction. 
 
 Lucke, de Wette, and even Hengstenberg, view this voice 
 from heaven as a mere clap of thunder, to which Jesus, by 
 reason of the coincidence of this natural phenomenon with 
 His prayer, gave a free interpretation in the sense pointed out 
 by the evangelist. The Eabbis gave to prophetic voices and 
 mysterious inspirations, sometimes arising in the heart on the 
 occasion of a word accidentally heard, the name of i>ip m, 
 daughter of the voice. But this name dates from an antecedent 
 era, and is applied only to the human voice. Besides, accord- 
 ing to St. John, this was not a stroke of thunder interpreted 
 by Jesus as a voice from heaven, but, on the contrary, a voice 
 from heaven taken by some of the bystanders for a clap of 
 thunder. And, finally, can it be supposed that St. John — 
 nay, that Jesus Himself (comp. vv. 3 1 and 3 2) — would trans- 
 form a purely material sound into a positive divine saying ? 
 Some even among the crowd discerned articulate language in 
 this sound, and the text will not suffer us to regard this 
 phenomenon as other than supernatural. — The past, I have 
 glorified, refers to the Lord's ministry in Israel, now drawing 
 to its close ; the future, / will glorify, to the approaching 
 agency of Jesus upon the whole world, when from the midst 
 of His glory He would be a light to lighten the Gentiles. 
 Between these two great works which the Father effects by 
 the Son, lies that hour of suffering and death which is the 
 necessary transition from the one to the other. He would not 
 then draw back from this hour. — And was it not well accom- 
 panied ? " Before it . . . the name of God glorified in Israel ; 
 after it . . . the name of God glorified in the whole world ; " 
 this was indeed the most consoling answer to the filial heart 
 1 fet D Cop. omit xxt before axovircc;. 
 
70 GOSPEL OF JOHN. 
 
 of Jesus (xvii. 1, 2, 4, 5). — The two «ai, both . . . a?ici r , bring 
 out the close relation between the work clone and the work to 
 be done : " I who have effected the one, shall be able also to 
 accomplish the other." 
 
 The whole multitude heard a noise ; but the meaning of 
 the voice was only perceived by each in proportion to his 
 spiritual intelligence. Thus, the wild beast perceives only a 
 sound in the human voice ; the trained animal discovers a 
 meaning, a command, for example, which it immediately 
 obeys ; man alone discerns therein a thought. — "O^Xo? : " the 
 greater number ; " ak\oi : others, " in smaller number " (comp. 
 Acts ix. 7 with xxii. 9, xxvi. 13, 14). — The perf. \e\d- 
 Xrjtcev, instead of the Aorist, signifies that in their eyes Jesus 
 was from henceforth an individual in possession of a celestial 
 message. 
 
 Vv. 30—32. "Jesus answered and said, This voice 1 came 
 not because of me, but for your sakes. Noio is the judgment of 
 this world : now shall the prince of this world 2 be cast oui. 
 And I, when I have been lifted up from the earth, will draw 
 all 3 men unto me? — These words are the development of the 
 promise just made by God, to glorify His name by Jesus in 
 the future as He has glorified it in the past. — When Jesus 
 said this voice was not heard for His sake, He does not mean 
 that He had no need of being strengthened, but that He had 
 no need of being so by a sensible manifestation. What the 
 step of the Greeks had been to Him in making Him feel 
 the gravity of the present hour to Himself, this heavenly 
 manifestation was to be to them, by revealing to them the 
 gravity of the present crisis to themselves, first with respect 
 to the world in general (vv. 31, 32), and then more particu- 
 larly with respect to Israel (vv. 35, 36). — As to the world, 
 this hour was one of deepest revolution. It was the signal, 
 first, of its judgment (ver. 31«), then of the expulsion of its 
 ancient master (ver. 31&), and, lastly, of the accession of its 
 new Sovereign (ver. 32). The word vvv,now, at the beginning 
 
 1 T. R. with 11 Mjj. (E F G, etc.) : aur» n Qui*, instead of n <pu:tt ora, in 
 7 Mjj. (NAB, etc.). 
 
 2 N omits the words »uv a apx, uv *• *■• «»th», and replaces them by xxi (con- 
 fusing the two tov xotrftov reurou). 
 
 2 Instead of rccvrus, N D. It. Yg. read «»t« [each man or all things). 
 
CHAP. XII. 80-32. 77 
 
 of the first two propositions, expressly brings out the decisive 
 nature of the present moment with respect to the human race. 
 
 To judge is to verify the moral condition. The judgment 
 of the world is based upon the cross, inasmuch as this dis- 
 closes, as completely as possible, the moral condition of man 
 in his natural state. Man, by raising this throne for Jesus, 
 judged himself, and manifested that rebellion and enmity 
 against God which is in the depths of his heart. Having 
 erected it, he judges himself still more decidedly by his 
 relation thereto ; for either by faith he finds therein his salva- 
 tion, or by unbelief his condemnation. And of this choice, 
 the final judgment would be only the ratification. Thus the 
 judgment of the world dates from Good Friday. Its first 
 external manifestation was the destruction of Jerusalem ; its 
 second will be the judgment of the church ; its third, the 
 last judgment. Comp. the discourses in Matt. xxiv. and xxv., 
 delivered on the very evening of the day on which Jesus 
 uttered the words with which we are engaged. 
 
 But, while the crime of the cross disclosed the moral 
 condition of the world, it also filled up the measure of toler- 
 ance granted to the perversity of its prince. The crucifixion 
 of the Son of God was the most odious and most unpardon- 
 able transgression of Satan ; this crime put an end to the 
 long-suffering of God towards him, and consequently to his 
 dominion over mankind. The Eabbis habitually designate 
 Satan the prince of the world, but place the Jews outside his 
 kingdom, while Jesus includes them as well as the heathen 
 therein (ch. viii.). Out signifies not only out of his office 
 and power, but chiefly out of the world, his ancient realm, as 
 is shown by the connection of these words with those which 
 precede them, and the opposition between vv. 31 and 32 (etc 
 
 The overthrow of the throne of the former monarch co- 
 incides with the accession of the new Sovereign. Jesus 
 declares Himself appointed to fill this part : Kayca, and I. 
 But, strange to say, while substituting His power for that of 
 Satan, it is not upon this earth, whence Satan is cast out, 
 that He will establish His kingdom. He will not become, as 
 the Jews expected, the successor of His adversary, and conse- 
 quently another prince of this world ; He as well as His rival 
 
78 gospel of jonx. 
 
 will leave the earth ; He will be raised from it, and above 
 it, and it will be in a higher sphere that He will draw to 
 Himself His subjects and realize His kingdom. However 
 little familiar we may be with the language of Jesus, it is 
 easy to perceive that the expression to be lifted up must be 
 understood here in the same amphibological sense as at iii. 
 14 and viii. 28. His lifting up upon the cross, that throne 
 of love on which the eyes of believers throughout the whole 
 world are fixed, appears to Him as the gloriously ironical 
 emblem of His elevation to the throne of glory. And this 
 comparison is based upon a deep truth. For was it not the 
 cross which created the abyss between Christ and the world 
 (Gal. vi. 14), and rendered the purely heavenly form of the 
 kingdom of God for the present necessary ? The earth, after 
 being moistened with the blood of the Son of God, could not 
 be glorified till it had passed through destruction and renewal. 
 Meyer alleges against the double sense of the term to be 
 lifted up, the regimen e'/c -n}? 7%, from the earth, as proving 
 that Jesus was thinking not of His death, but of His ascen- 
 sion. It is very evident that the expression from the earth 
 does not refer only to the small distance between the ground 
 and the feet of the crucified. From or out of the earth, 
 designates an ignominious expulsion from earthly existence 
 by any capital punishment. It is the word to be lifted up, 
 which contains an allusion to the particular punishment of 
 the cross. But who can fail to feel that the expression out of 
 the earth would be out of place if referred only to the 
 ascension ? The natural regimen in this case would have 
 been : to heaven. 
 
 The cross and the ascension united freed Jesus from all 
 earthly ties and national obligations, and placed Him in a 
 position to extend His agency to the whole world, to become 
 the Lord of all (Rom. x. 1 2). " / toill draiv all to Me ; " all, 
 not Jews only, but all men, especially the Greeks. It is 
 this word all and this future will draw which evidently con- 
 tain an answer to the request that elicited this discourse. 
 The hour for the call of the Greeks was undoubtedly dt hand, 
 but another hour must strike first ! — Many restrict the all to 
 the elect ; others understand it in the sense of : " men of all 
 nations." Meyer, on the contrary, seems to find in it the 
 
CHAP. XII. 33, 34. 79 
 
 notion of final universal salvation. But iKxveiv, to draw, does 
 not necessarily imply effectual drawing. The word may 
 relate solely to the preaching of the cross in the whole world, 
 and to the agency of the Holy Spirit which accompanies it. 
 This heavenly drawing is not irresistible. — The last word, to 
 me, brings out the personal situation of Jesus as the supra- 
 terrestrial centre of the Divine kingdom. Once raised to 
 heaven, Jesus will draw around Him a new people, strangers 
 to earth, and like Himself of heavenly nature, His spiritual 
 body. He will Himself be both the author and the end 
 of this divine attraction. 
 
 These two verses sum up the whole history of the Church, 
 whether from the negative and polemic point of view, the 
 destruction of Satan, or from the positive, the gradual estab- 
 lishment of the kingdom of God. 
 
 Ver. 33. "Now this He said, signifying what death He 
 woidd die!' — This explanation of St. John is declared in- 
 correct by many modern interpreters (Meyer, Eeuss, etc.) ; for, 
 in their opinion, the preceding saying refers not to the cross, 
 but to the ascension. But the apostle does not say hrfkwv, 
 declaring, but uses the term o-rj/jLaiveiv, which signifies indi- 
 cating, giving to understand ; and we have just seen that, by 
 giving His thought this form, Jesus really indicated the 
 kind of death He was about to die. Hence St. John's 
 remark attributes nothing to Jesus which was not really in 
 His mind. 
 
 This passage, in which our Lord, after shuddering at the 
 view of His cross, encouraged Himself by portraying in broad 
 outlines the immense revolution it would effect, may be com- 
 pared to the passage of St. Paul, Col. ii. 14, 15, in which 
 that apostle represents Jesus as making a show of the infernal 
 powers, despoiling them of their power and triumphing over 
 them upon the cross. Comp. also the passage, 2 Cor. v. 14-17, 
 according to which the death of Christ is the virtual prin- 
 ciple of life for the whole human race, and the means of 
 universal renewal : " It is a new creation : old things are 
 passed aivay ; behold, all things are become new" 
 
 Ver. 34. " TJie people ansioered Him} We have heard out of 
 the law that Christ dbideth for ever : and hoio sayest thou, Tlie 
 
 'KBLX add »v* to ecnxfJn. 
 
80 COSPEL OF JOHN. 
 
 Son of man must he lifted up ? who is this Son of man ? " — 
 According to the Jewish programme, the Messianic kingdom 
 was simply a glorified earth, and the Messiah the perpetual 
 Sovereign of this new Eden. And now Jesus — who, as the 
 triumphal entry proved, aspired to Messianic dignity — was 
 transporting the kingdom, together with His own person, to 
 another sphere ! This was to the multitude a contradiction 
 not to be solved. " How sayest Thou ? " Hv, Thou, is here 
 opposed to the law and those who explained it. — The 
 passages to which the Jews allude are those in which the 
 Messiah is represented as founding an everlasting empire upon 
 the ruins of the Gentile kingdoms (Isa. ix. 6 ; Ps. ex. 2-4 ; 
 Dan. vii. 14, etc.). — On the term the law, see vol. ii. p. 409. — 
 To solve this difficulty, the objectors themselves put forth a 
 supposition. Jesus was ac6ustomed to call Himself the Son 
 of man; could this name, in His mouth, designate some other 
 individual than the Christ ? This supposition has some 
 resemblance to that which John the Baptist seems to have 
 entertained in prison (see vol. ii. p. 168). The Jews, then, 
 in asking : " Who is this Son of man ? " do not mean to say : 
 "Is it thyself, or some one else?" (comp. ver. 23), but: 
 " What is the part to be played by this individual, thus differ- 
 ing from the Messiah, in the final drama ? " Comp. the " Who 
 art thou?" of i 19. Meyer understands, "What strange 
 Messiah is this who is to depart ? " But in this sense we 
 should have had, not : " Who is this Son of man ? " but : " What 
 kind of Christ is this ? " — This answer of the people proves 
 that the title " Son of man " was not used in Israel to designate 
 the Messiah, and that it must be regarded as originating with 
 Jesus Himself (vol. ii. p. 180). On this point we agree with 
 M. Colani. 1 
 
 Vv. 35, 36. " TJien Jesus said unto them, Yet a little while is 
 the light with you. 2 Walk while 3 ye have the light, lest darkness 
 
 1 Jisus-Christ et les croyances messianiques de son temps, p. 75 sqq. But 
 how can this author say : " We must go back at least four months (viii. 28) to 
 find this title of ' Son of man' in the mouth of Jesus " ? He forgets ver. 23, which 
 immediately precedes. 
 
 2 T. K., with AEFGHSVaa, Mnn. and Syr., reads : (tit vp U v ;ODK 
 LMXn, 20 Mnn. It. Vg. Cop. : » vpn. 
 
 3 A B D K L X n, 4 Mnn. have &>; instead of tut, which is the reading of 
 T. B. with 11 Mjj. 
 
CHAP. XII. 35, 3G. 81 
 
 come upon you : for he that walkcth in darkness knoweth not 
 whither lie goeth. Wliile x ye have the light, believe in the light, 
 that ye may be the children of light. These things spake Jesus, 
 and departed, and did hide Himself from them" — It was no 
 longer the time for instruction and discussion. Hence Jesus 
 did not give a direct answer, but addressed a last appeal to 
 their Israelite consciousness, and made them feel the serious- 
 ness of the present hour to themselves and the whole nation. 
 This is the reason why St. John says elirev, He said, He de- 
 clared, instead of aireicplOri, He answered. The last hour of 
 the day of salvation had arrived, the sun was about to set for 
 Israel. Let each hasten to believe ; for, once deprived of 
 Jesus, the heavenly revealer, the nation would be like a tra- 
 veller lost at night and wandering aimlessly. We have seen 
 that vv. 3 1 and 3 2 contained the history of the church, this (ver. 
 35) sums up that of Israel after the time when Jesus spake. 
 The preaching of the apostles was, it is true, yet granted to 
 this people ; but, when once launched upon the declivity of 
 unbelief, how could they as a nation change their direction ? 
 And this last favour, the apostolic preaching, after having been 
 welcomed by individuals only, was soon withdrawn from the 
 nation. Since then, Israel has wandered in the wilderness of 
 this world, like a caravan without a goal and without a guide. 
 — TlepiTrareiv, to ivalk, to advance towards an end ; and that 
 by believing. — Of the two readings, eco*?, while, and &>?, as, 
 Meyer and Luthardt prefer the latter as the best supported : 
 " Walk according as the light still enlightens you." Baumlein 
 justly declares this meaning forced. We must then either 
 give, as he does, the meaning of while to d>9 (according to 
 Soph. Ajax 1117, andPM. 635, 1330), or, as these examples 
 are uncertain, prefer the reading eeo?, which is supported at 
 ver. 35 by the Sinaiticus. The initial e of ea>9 may have 
 been confused with the final e of 7repnraTeire. The notion of 
 while naturally combines with that of : a little while, which 
 prevails throughout this passage. The same may be said of 
 ver. 36. — An equal solemnity pervades the statements both 
 of ver. 35 and ver. 36, but in the first a tone of compassion, 
 in the second a tone of affection, is in the ascendant. The 
 last saying of the Saviour to His people was to be an invita- 
 l KABDLn:»j instead of tus. 
 GODET in. F JOHN. 
 
82 GOSPEL OF JOHN. 
 
 tion, not a threat : " While you still possess in me the living 
 revelation of salvation ($W9), acknowledge it, believe in me, 
 and become (yivrjade) by me, the Light, children of light." The 
 man united to Christ is so saturated with light that he him- 
 self becomes luminous. 
 
 Such was the farewell of Jesus to Israel. The words : 
 These things said Jesus, in this context, signify : " Jesus gave 
 them no other answer." He then retired, and did not reappear 
 on the morrow. This time it was no mere cloud which 
 obscured the sun, but the sun itself had set 
 
 THIRD SECTION. 
 
 XII. 37-50. A RETROSPECTIVE SURVEY OF THE MYSTERIOUS FACT 
 
 OF JEWISH UNBELIEF. 
 
 This passage, which closes the second part of St. John's 
 Gospel, is regarded by many expositors as a summary of the 
 history of our Lord's public ministry. Chs. v.-xii. are viewed 
 as depicting His public, and chs. xiii.-xvii. His private, agency. 
 But this mode of regarding them is superficial ; for there is 
 between these two parts a far deeper contrast, that of unbelief 
 and faith — of unbelief on the part of the people, of faith 
 on that of the disciples. Is it not very easy to see that the 
 real object of the epilogue, which is about to claim our atten- 
 tion, is the fact of Jewish unbelief, and by no means our 
 Lord's public ministry in general ? It is the unexpected 
 failure of the work of Messiah in Israel which engrosses the 
 attention of the evangelist, and becomes for the time the 
 object of his contemplation. In the first passage, vv. 37—43, 
 he explains the causes of the fact whose history he has just 
 recorded ; in the second, vv. 44-50, he describes its serious- 
 ness and announces its eternal consequences. 
 
 I. The Causes of Jewish Unbelief. — Vv. 37-43. 
 
 If the Jews were the chosen people, destined by God to 
 receive the Messiah, and to convey the knowledge of salva- 
 tion to other nations, did it not follow from their unbelief iu 
 
CHAP. XII. 37, 38. 83 
 
 Jesus Christ, that this individual was not really the Messiah ? 
 Or, if not, how was this great paradox of history to be ex- 
 plained ? Chs. ix.-xi. of the Epistle to the Romans are 
 devoted to the solution of this problem, which was in fact to 
 be the great apologetic question of the Apostolic Age. This 
 explains the fact that this passage of St. John contains so 
 many thoughts which also form the basis of St. Paul's 
 dissertation. 
 
 Vv. 37, 38. " But though He had done so many miracles before 
 them, yet they believed not on Him : that the saying of Esaias 
 the prophet might be fulfilled, which he spake, Lord, who hath 
 believed our preaching ? and to whom hath the arm of the Lord 
 been revealed ? " — However unreasonable might be the fact with 
 which St. John was about to be occupied, it was neverthe- 
 less inevitable, for it was predicted, and prophecy must be 
 fulfilled. — How many motives had not the Jews for believing 
 in the appearance of Jesus, and especially in His miracles ! 
 There was then, as it were, some fatality in such blindness. 
 Toaavra, so many, in our Gospels, is always applied to 
 numbers and not to greatness (vi. 9, xxi. 11). This saying 
 assumes that Jesus had done a far greater number of miracles 
 than the six related in this book. Comp. also vii. 3, xx. 30. 
 Hence St. John did not intend to relate all he knew. — The 
 term arjfiela, signs, recalls the striking nature, and the words 
 e/jbirpoa-dev avrcov, before them, the entire publicity, of these 
 works. — The imperf., they believed not, brings out the duration, 
 the obstinate persistence of Israelite unbelief. 
 
 An impartial exegesis would not weaken the sense of iva, 
 in order that, by making this word synonymous with ware, 
 so that. — The passage quoted by John is Isa. liii. 1. The 
 prophet, when describing the humiliation and sufferings of the 
 Messiah, declares that this message, so out of harmony with 
 their carnal desires, will not be favourably received by the 
 people. Now, if the announcement of a suffering Messiah 
 was rejected by them, how much more this Messiah Himself ! 
 It is on this a fortiori that the application made of this 
 text by the evangelist to his contemporaries is based. The 
 question : Who hath believed ? shows that there would un- 
 doubtedly be believers, but in numbers so small that they 
 might be counted. — According to Hengstenberg, the expres- 
 
84 GOSPEL OF JOHN*. 
 
 sion aicor\, our "hearing, for the thing which we hear, signifies : 
 " what we (prophets) have heard from the mouth of Jehovah." 
 A more natural explanation is : " what you (men) hear from 
 the mouth of us, the prophets." " It is then by no means the 
 people who are supposed to ask this question " (Hofmann, 
 Delitzsch, Luthardt). Otherwise, we should have to suppose 
 that they did so after turning from their unbelief, which is 
 forced. It is Isaiah, as representing the other prophets, who 
 puts this question. — The first term : what we 'preach, is here 
 applied by the evangelist to the teaching of Jesus; that which 
 follows : the arm of the Lord, refers to His miracles, those 
 acts of divine power which He performed in Israel. 
 
 But Jewish unbelief was not merely predicted ; it was 
 willed by God, who Himself co-operated therein. 
 
 Vv. 39, 40. " Therefore they coidd not believe, because that 
 Esaias said again, He hath blinded their eyes and hardened x 
 their hearts ; that they should • not see with their eyes, nor 
 understand 2 with their hearts, and be converted, 3 and I should 
 heal 4 them." — The omnipotence of God was itself exerted to 
 realize what His omniscience had predicted, and to cause 
 Israel to commit the impossible. The gradation between ver. 
 37 and ver. 39 is as follows: They did not believe (ver. 37), and 
 they even could not believe (ver. 39). The word iraXiv (again) 
 shows that we have here a second idea which serves to 
 explain and complete the first. The same logical relation 
 also exists between the two prophecies cited by St. John. 
 The Bta tovto, on account of this, bears, as it generally does 
 in John (v. 18, x. 17), upon the following ore, because : "And 
 this is why they could not believe; it is because Esaias had in 
 another passage (iraXiv) said . . ." The words are taken from 
 Isa. vi. 9, 10, but are not exactly quoted either from the 
 Hebrew or the LXX. According to the former, it is Isaiah 
 who, at the command of God, is to blind the eyes and 
 harden the heart of the people by His ill-received prophesy- 
 ing : " Harden the heart of this people." In the latter, this 
 
 1 The Byz. (r A, etc.) read <7r1vrupux.1v ; the Alex. (A B K L X) : iiruputnv ; 
 H n : frtiputrt*. 
 
 2 K n, and Chrys. have vvtuaii instead of vt»>>ru>riv. 
 
 3 NBD: trrpiMpuffiv instead of fmrrpaipua-iv, which is the reading of T. E. with 
 10 Mjj. ; 5 Mjj. (K L, etc.) have ivitrTpi-^onriv. 
 
 4 All the Mjj. except L r read /airo^a* instead of tara/iai. 
 
CHAP. XII. 39, 40. 85 
 
 hardening is mentioned merely as a fact which is laid to 
 the charge of Israel : " The heart of this people is hardened!' 
 The text of John agrees in meaning with that of the prophet, 
 for the omitted subject of the two verbs, He has blinded, 
 He has hardened, can be none other than God. The command 
 intimated in Isaiah is represented in John as an accom- 
 plished fact. The passage proves that St. John was not 
 dependent upon the Greek translation, and was acquainted 
 with the Hebrew text (vol. i. p. 253). — TvtyXovv, to Mind, 
 signifies to deprive of intellectual light, of a sense for the 
 true and even the expedient ; irwpovv, to harden the skin, the 
 want of moral sensibility, of a sense for the good. Unbelief 
 necessarily results from the inactivity of these two organs ; 
 the people may witness miracle upon miracle, hear testimony 
 after testimony, but they will not recognise the Messiah. 
 'lacrojiai, I will heal, the reading of almost all the Mjj., may 
 signify : " and I will end by bringing them back to myself 
 by means of this very hardening." But the /cat, and . . . 
 and . . ., are too closely connected to admit of such a con- 
 trast between the last verb and those which precede. The 
 influence of the formidable Xva /jlij, so that . . . not, evi- 
 dently extends to the end of the sentence. If we object to 
 the indicative Ido-ofiai (depending on Xva, which is not in 
 itself impossible), we may find in these last words an indica- 
 tion of the result which would have followed in the opposite 
 case, but which is not to be : " lest they should be converted 
 ... and I will heal them," for : " in which case I would 
 heal them." 
 
 If such, then, is the meaning of the words both of the 
 prophet and evangelist, how is it to be justified ? Such 
 declarations would be inexplicable and profoundly revolting if 
 Israel had, at the time when God thus addressed and treated 
 this nation, been in its normal condition, and regarded by God 
 as His people. But such was not the case ; God, when sending 
 Isaiah, said to him, " Go and say to this people " (Isa. vi. 9). 
 And we feel that a father, when speaking of his son as this or 
 that child instead of my child, means that the paternal and filial 
 relation no longer exists. This is the point of view which 
 we must occupy to understand the divine dealings, which here 
 enter into the category of chastisements. The creature who 
 
86 GOSPEL OF JOI1N. 
 
 has wilfully abused previous Divine favours, incurs the most 
 terrible of punishments. It is degraded from the rank of end 
 to that of means ; from being person, it becomes matter. In 
 fact, though man can refuse freely to glorify God by his 
 obedience and salvation, he cannot hinder God from glorifying 
 Himself by an exemplary punishment, which shall publicly 
 show forth the hateful character of his sin. " God," says 
 Hengstenberg, " has so constituted man, that, when he does 
 not resist the first beginnings of sin, he loses the right of 
 disposing of Himself, and must obey to the end the power 
 to which he has surrendered himself." And God not only 
 permits this development of evil, but wills it and concurs in 
 it. But how, it will be said, is the holiness of God, thus 
 understood, to be reconciled with His love ? This it is which 
 St. Paul explains to the Jews by an example in Eom. ix. 17 : 
 Pharaoh refused to hearken to God, and to be saved. He 
 had a right to do so. But from that moment he was forced 
 to subserve the salvation of others. For this purpose, God 
 paralyzed within him both the sense of the true and the 
 sense of the good ; He rendered him deaf to the appeals of 
 conscience, and even to the calculations of interest rightly 
 understood ; He gave him up to the suggestions of his insane 
 pride, that the world might learn, by the example of the ruin 
 into which he plunged himself, what are the consequences of 
 wickedly resisting the first calls of God. Thus he, at least, 
 contributed to the salvation of the world. The history of 
 Pharaoh is exactly reproduced in that of the Jews. As 
 early as the days of Isaiah, the mass of the people were so 
 carnally minded that the prophet foresaw their unbelief in 
 the Messiah, the man of sorrows, as an inevitable moral fact 
 (Isa. liii.). Could such an Israel, without a change of heart, 
 recognise the Messiah, and become the nucleus of the Messianic 
 church ? Certainly not ; for that purely intellectual adher- 
 ence, of which we see examples during the ministry of 
 Jesus, not only would not have saved Israel itself, but 
 would have fettered the Divine work in the whole world. 
 God preferred total unbelief to this belief without moral 
 reality ; for the rejection of the Jews might contribute to 
 the salvation of the world by more widely opening the door 
 to the Gentiles ; while we have only to remember their con- 
 
CHAP. XII. 39, 40. 87 
 
 tentions with St. Paul to perceive what an insurmountable 
 obstacle would have been placed in the way of the mission 
 to the Gentiles by the entrance of the bulk of a carnal, 
 legal, and Pharisaic Israel into the church. God, then, blinded 
 Israel that the miracles of Jesus might be in their eyes as 
 though they had never taken place ; He hardened them, that 
 His preaching might be to them as an empty sound (Isa. vi.). 
 Hence, carnal Israel rejected freely, and might be freely 
 rejected. This decided position did not really render Israel's 
 lot the worse, but it had, as shown by St. Paul in Eom. xi., 
 most beneficial results on the salvation of the Gentiles. 
 Israel became by their punishment what they had refused 
 to be by their salvation, the apostles of the world ; and, like 
 Judas, their true type, they had also to fulfil, whether 
 willingly or unwillingly, their irrevocable commission. It is 
 also evident that, amidst this national judgment, each indi- 
 vidual was free to turn to God by repentance, and thus to 
 escape the general obduracy. The 13 th verse of Isaiah and 
 the 4 2d of St. John prove that this was the case. 
 
 As to the relation of Jewish unbelief to the Divine pre- 
 vision (vv. 37 and 38), St. John does not point out the meta- 
 physical theory by means of which he was able to reconcile 
 God's foreknowledge and man's responsibility, but simply 
 accepts these two data — the one of the religious sentiment, the 
 other of the moral consciousness. But if we reflect that God 
 is above time, — that, properly speaking, He does not foresee a 
 fact which, as far as w T e are concerned, is still future, but sees 
 it absolutely as we contemplate one present, — that, consequently, 
 when He announces it at any moment as well before as after 
 its accomplishment, He does not predict, but describes it as 
 a spectator and witness, — the apparent contradiction of the 
 two apparently contradictory elements vanishes. Undoubtedly 
 the fact, once predicted, cannot fail to happen, since the sight 
 of God cannot show Him as being that which will not be. 
 But the fact does not take place because God saw it ; but, on 
 the contrary, God saw it because it will be, or rather because 
 in His eyes it is. Hence the true cause of that Jewish 
 unbelief which God announced was not His foreseeing it. This 
 cause in its ultimate analysis was the moral state of the people 
 themselves. It was that state which, when it had once become 
 
88 GOSPEL OF JOHX. 
 
 permanent, necessarily involved the final unbelief of Israel, as 
 being on the one hand its deserved punishment, and on the 
 other the condition of the salvation of the Gentiles. 
 
 Ver. 41. "These things said Esaias, wJien 1 he saw His glory, 
 and spake of Him." — St. John justifies in this verse the appli- 
 cation just made by him of the visions of Isaiah to Jesus 
 Christ. The Jehovah of the 0. T., the Adona'i whom Isaiah 
 beheld in this vision, is the Divine Being who became incar- 
 nate in Jesus. St. Paul says the same thing in 1 Cor. x. 4, by 
 calling Christ the spiritual rock which folloivcd our fathers, and 
 in Phil. ii. 6, by attributing to Jesus before His incarnation the 
 form of God, the Divine state. Some expositors have en- 
 deavoured to refer the pronoun avrov not to Christ, but to God. 
 But the last words : and spake of Him, would in this sense be 
 superfluous, and the whole remark purposeless, in the context. — 
 The Alex, reading: "because he saw . . . and spoke," has against 
 it the testimony of the most ancient versions and the general 
 tone of the verse, to which this because would give the far too 
 pronounced character of a dogmatic reflection. It might have 
 been concluded from vv. 37—41, that not a Jew either had 
 believed or could believe ; but vv. 42 and 43, while completing 
 the historical picture, remove this misconception. 
 
 Vv. 42, 43. " Nevertheless among the chief rulers also many 
 believed on Him, ; but because of the Pharisees they did not confess 
 Him, lest they should be put out of the synagogue : for they 
 loved the praise of men more than 2 the praise of God." — St. 
 John mentions this exception not to mitigate the severity of 
 his own and Isaiah's estimate of the condition of the people, 
 but to show that, notwithstanding the exception he is about 
 to point out, the truth of this general estimate is unimpeached. 
 Even where faith was evoked, cowardice repressed its confes- 
 sion and hindered its development. These remarkable words, 
 which furnish the key to the parables of ch. x., show how 
 crushing was the yoke laid upon Israel by the Pharisaic 
 spirit. The spiritual obduracy and blindness spoken of in ver. 
 40, consisted precisely in the total surrender of the people 
 to the power of Pharisaic fanaticism. The words: lest they 
 
 1 S A B L M X, some Mnn. Cop. Sail, read en, because, instead of oti, wlun, 
 which is the reading of 12 Mjj. (D r A, etc.), tie Mnn. It. Syr. Chrys. 
 
 2 N L X and 5 Mnn. read wtp instead of tivtp. 
 
CHAP. XII. 44-50. 89 
 
 should be put out of the synagogue, are an evidence of the 
 reality of the decree mentioned in ix. 22. — Ao^a, at ver. 43, is 
 used almost in its etymological sense: "opinion, approbation:' 
 The difference of reading (prrep and rJTrep) is probably due to 
 itacism, (the pronunciation of i) and v as i). If we read 
 inrep, we have here two forms of comparison combined to 
 bring out more strongly the odiousness of such a preference. 
 Undoubtedly, men like Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea 
 must not be reckoned, as they are by Llicke and Meyer, 
 anions these cowards. It is of those who remained attached 
 to the Jewish system, of Gamaliel, and so many others who 
 were the Erasmuses of those days, that St. John meant to 
 speak. On the necessity of confession to salvation, see Eom. 
 x. 10 
 
 II. The Responsibility of Israel. — Vv. 44-50. 
 
 The gravity of Jewish unbelief was directly proportioned 
 to the greatness of the Being towards whom it was displayed. 
 Now this Being was He whose person was the pure manifesta- 
 tion of God (vv. 44-46), and whose teaching was the pure 
 expression of the mind and will of this same God (vv. 47-50). 
 If this were the case, to reject Jesus was nothing less to Israel 
 than to reject God Himself and His word. This rejection was 
 that supreme act of rebellion, which could not fail to draw 
 down an unexampled judgment. 
 
 Such is the meaning and spirit of this paragraph. 
 
 Criticism rightly disputes the historical reality of the fol- 
 lowing discourse, alleging, and with good reason, the absence 
 of occasion and of definite locality, and the lack of any new 
 idea (see e.g. Keim). But it is a mistake to infer that it is 
 therefore a fictitious composition of the evangelist (de Wette), 
 a composition which proves that the discourses of Jesus in 
 the fourth Gospel are merely the expression of its author's 
 own ideas (Hilgenfeld). 
 
 How, indeed, can we admit that the evangelist could, at this 
 point of his narrative, have intended to give another discourse 
 of Jesus as actually delivered by Himself ? It is true that 
 this is admitted by those who make Him speak thus on quit- 
 ting the temple (Lampe, Bengel), or when again returning to it 
 
90 GOSPEL OF JOHN. 
 
 after the departure mentioned in ver. 3 6 (Clirysostom, Hengsten- 
 berg), or in a private conversation with His disciples (Besser, 
 Luthardt, 1st ed.). But the first two suppositions clash 
 with ver. 36, which evidently indicates the close of His public 
 ministry. A word of explanation would at least have been 
 necessary after the terms which conclude this verse. The 
 third, against which the term e/cpafe (he cried out) especially 
 testifies, has been withdrawn by Luthardt himself (2d ed.). 
 Moreover, the idea of this being a discourse really delivered 
 by Jesus is excluded by the fact, that it would then be the 
 sole example in St. John of this kind of teaching without 
 indication of either occasion, time, or locality. 
 
 It must not be forgotten that at ver. 36 the evangelist 
 finishes his part of narrator, so far as this portion of the 
 history is concerned, and that after ver. 36 he is contemplat- 
 ing the fact recorded, viz. the unbelief of the elect people, and 
 meditating on its causes and effects. As in vv. 37-43 he 
 was chiefly preoccupied with our Lord's miraculous agency, he 
 is here recapitulating His teaching, for the purpose of showing 
 to what they are exposed who reject the testimony borne by 
 Jesus to His own Person and word. Hence we have here 
 indeed a discourse composed by St. John, but solely as a sum- 
 mary of the whole of Christ's teaching. And this is just the 
 reason that it contains, as has been said, no new idea. The 
 Aorists (eicpa%ev, etirev) recall all the particular cases in which 
 Jesus had uttered such statements concerning Himself; they 
 should be rendered : ■'* And nevertheless He had told them 
 plainly enough. . . . He had cried out loudly enough. . . ." 
 Biiuinlein : " Jesus hatte aber laut erkldrt." This is, with slight 
 tinges of difference, the prevailing interpretation, the result of 
 which is that each of the following statements, cited by St. 
 John, rests upon a certain number of passages contained in 
 the preceding discourses. 
 
 Vv. 44—46. " Now Jesus had cried, saying, He tlmt believeth 
 on me, believeth not on me, but on Him that sent me. And he 
 that seeth me seeth Him that sent me. I am come a light into 
 the world, that whosoever believeth on me should not abide in dark- 
 ness." — In the appearing of Jesus no element of independent 
 and purely human will had hindered the revelation of God. 
 Hence to believe in Him was not to believe in man, as though 
 
CHAP. XIL 47-30. 91 
 
 Jesus bad come or had acted in His own name (ver. 43), 
 but really to believe in God alone, since God alone appeared 
 in Him. It is not therefore necessary to take the negation 
 not in the diluted sense of not only. — The sight spoken of in 
 ver. 45 is not that of the body ; it is that which is developed 
 together with faith itself, the intuition of the inward and moral 
 being of the individual beheld with the bodily eye. It is by 
 this sight that Jesus, the living revelation of God, becomes the 
 light of the soul. He who does not attain to it remains in 
 darkness (ver. 46). Comp. for vv. 44 and 45 the following 
 passages : ver. 36, vi. 38, vii. 17, 18, viii. 28, x. 38, etc. ; and 
 for ver. 46 the following: iii. 19, viii. 12, xii. 5, 39. What 
 responsibility, then, is attached to such an appearing ! From 
 His Person He now passes to His doctrine. 
 
 Vv. 47, 48. " And if any man hear my words, and keep l them 
 not, I judge him not ; for I came not to judge the world, out to 
 save the world. He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words 
 hath one that judgeth him : the word that I have spoken, the same 
 shall judge him at the last day." — Jesus being the pure mani- 
 festation of God, His word is the pure manifestation of God's 
 mind, for nothing of His own is mingled with it. Hence it 
 is to be the sole criterion at the day of judgment. It is true, 
 indeed, that it will be Jesus who will j udge us ; but He will 
 confine Himself to applying to each life the rule of His word 
 (comp. iii. 17, v. 24. viii. 15). What, then, will be the fate of 
 Jnm who has rejected this instruction ! — The reading : fyvka^rj, 
 keep, seems preferable to the received reading : iriarevarj (" and 
 believe not "), for the former term is less used than the latter, 
 and applies here to the act of internal appropriation, which is 
 nothing else than faith. 
 
 Vv. 49, 50. " For I have not spoken of myself ; but the Father 
 which sent me has Himself commanded 2 me what I should say, 
 and how I shotdd say it. And I know that His commandment is 
 life everlasting ; therefore what I say, I say as my Father has told 
 me." — These verses explain the absolute value attributed by 
 Jesus to His word as the rule of judgment. His teaching is 
 both as to its matter (rl etVo)) and form (ri \a\ijaco), purely and 
 simply that of the Father. He receives in each case a special 
 
 '^ABKLX several Mnn. It a11 * Syr 8Ch real <;v\r.l*i instead of ■xi-nvtv. 
 2 N A B M X and 30 Mnn. read 2fS»««» inst?ad of t^xtv. 
 
92 GOSPEL OF JOHN. 
 
 mandate (ivToXtj), to which in teaching He faithfully adheres ; 
 and this obedience arises in His case from the perception 
 which He has of the quickening and regenerating power of 
 the word entrusted to Him by the Father, of the fact that 
 from it proceeds life eternal for every soul. This is why 
 (therefore in 505) He delivers it to men as He receives it, with- 
 out allowing Himself to make any alteration (comp. v. 30, 
 viii. 16-18, and the passages already quoted). 
 
 It would be impossible to summarize the absolute value 
 constantly attributed by our Lord to His Person and His 
 words in better terms than is done by St. John in these few 
 propositions. And it is said that such a summary is one of the 
 discourses composed by the evangelist himself ; that he drew 
 up this formidable accusation against Israel, here on the ground 
 of discourses which Jesus never delivered, and at ver. 3 7 sqq. 
 on the ground of miracles which He never performed ! Is not 
 such a proceeding morally impossible ? There is, however, 
 one thing which is perhaps still more so — viz., that the 
 evangelist should put into the mouth of Jesus the principle : 
 "I have said nothing of myself ; my Father has commanded me 
 what I should say, and hovj I should say it" after having 
 made Him speak throughout a whole book after his own 
 fashion, and continuing to make Him speak thus in these very 
 words ! Was such deception ever before conceived ? 
 
 Lastly, we would remark that, in proportion as reflections 
 like these are in place from one who had himself witnessed 
 the development of Jewish unbelief, and who wrote at a time 
 when the recently consummated rejection of Israel was a sub- 
 ject which still filled all minds, would they be inappropriate 
 in a writer whom no personal circumstance would any longer 
 interest in the matter, and at a time when the ashes of Jeru- 
 salem were cold, and the Jewish question relegated to the 
 second class by new discussions, important for very different 
 reasons, both to faith and the government of the church. 
 
 Before leaving this second part of the Gospel history accord- 
 ing to St. John, let us take, as its author does, a retrospective 
 glance. We have followed, throughout its dramatically related 
 vicissitudes, the development of the national unbelief, and the 
 separation gradually effected between a small minority of 
 believers and almost a whole population excited to fanaticism 
 
CHAP. XII. 49, 50. 93 
 
 by its rulers. Let us now try to reject in thought all this 
 aspect of the ministry of Jesus, all these journeys and dis- 
 putes in the very centre of the theocracy, which form the 
 subject of chs. v .— xiii., as must be done by those who deny 
 the authenticity of this Gospel. We are now in view of the 
 final catastrophe, attested by the Synoptists as well as by St. 
 John. How are we to explain this sudden and tragical catas- 
 trophe ? Only by the collisions arising from some cures on the 
 Sabbath day in a remote province of the Holy Land ? No ; 
 an earnest historian, desiring to account for the events of the 
 life of Jesus, cannot, even allowing for the triumphal entry, 
 dispense with this whole series of scenes in Jerusalem which 
 we have lately been considering. 
 
THIRD PAET. 
 
 XIII. l-XVIL 26. 
 
 THE DEVELOPMENT OF FAITH IN THE DISCIPLES. 
 
 THE third part of this Gospel relates the last moments 
 spent by Jesus with His disciples, and teaches us to 
 behold the full development of faith in their hearts, by show- 
 ing us the supreme manifestations of His love to them. St. 
 John here opposes to the dark picture of Jewish unbelief the 
 bright one of faith, in the future founders of the church. 
 Christ effected this work in the heart of His disciples — 1st, by 
 two acts, the washing of their feet and the dismissal of Judas, 
 by which He purged the apostolic circle from the last 
 remnant of carnal Messianism ; 2dly, by a series of discourses, 
 by which He prepared His disciples for the approaching 
 separation, imparted to them the instructions necessary for 
 their future ministrations, and raised their faith in His Person 
 to the highest degree which it could as yet attain ; 3dly, by a 
 prayer of thanksgiving, in which He set the seal to His now 
 accomplished work. Under the power of these last manifesta- 
 tions, their faith reached its relative perfection, as fruit ripens 
 under the warm rays of the autumnal sun. It underwent a 
 twofold test, that of humiliation by their Master's deep self- 
 abasement in washing their feet ; and that of sacrifice in the 
 prospect of a violent struggle to be encountered on the part of 
 the world, and of a victory to be gained solely by the spiritual 
 power of Christ. With such anticipations, what would become of 
 the earthly hopes which they cherished ? But the faith of the 
 apostles came out of this trial purified and triumphant; it 
 grasped the divine person of Christ, and exclaimed : " We believe 
 that Thou earnest forth from God" (xvi. 30). To which Jesus 
 
 replied: "Ye do noio believe" (xvi. 31), and poured forth abun- 
 
 M 
 
chap. xiii. i. 95 
 
 dant thanksgiving to God (ch. xvii.) for the eleven whom He 
 had given Him. 
 
 Hence this part is divided into three sections : — 
 
 I. Ch. xiii. 1-30 : The purification of the faith of the 
 apostles by two definite facts. 
 
 II. Ch. xiii. 31— xvi. 33: The strengthening of this faith 
 by those last instructions of Jesus which contain the supreme 
 revelations of His person. 
 
 III. Ch. xvii. : Our Lord's thanksgiving for His now termi- 
 nated earthly ministry. 
 
 FIKST SECTION". 
 
 XIII. 1-30. THE FACTS. 
 
 I. The Washing of the Disciples' Feet — vv. 1-20; 
 II. The Dismissal of Judas — vv. 21-30. 
 
 I. The Washing of the Disciples' Feet. — Vv. 1-20. 
 
 This section contains a preamble (vv. 1—3), the fact (vv. 
 4-11), and the explanation of the fact (vv. 12-20). 
 
 1st. Vv. 1-3. The preamble. 
 
 We have already met with short introductions to certain 
 narratives, describing the moral situation in which the event 
 took place, e.g. ii. 23-25, iv. 1, 2, 43-45. Each of these 
 preambles is, with respect to the narrative it precedes, what 
 the general prologue (i. 1-18) is to the whole gospel. That 
 which we are now about to consider is composed after exactly 
 the same fashion as the chief prologue, its matter being 
 entirely borrowed from the sayings of Jesus contained in the 
 narrative which follows. 
 
 Ver. 1. "Before the feast of the Passover, Jesus knowing 
 that His hour was come, 1 when He should leave the world to 
 go unto the Father, after having loved His own 2 which were in 
 the world, He perfectly manifested all His love to them." — The 
 
 1 TheT. R. with the Byz. (E F G H, etc.) reads tXtkuft* ; the Alex. (N 
 B K L, etc.) ; *\6i*. 
 
 2 X : IovIkiovs {the Jews) instead of i%ti>vs ! 
 
96 GOSPEL OF JOHN. 
 
 words : before the feast of the Passover, are connected with the 
 previous particular six days before the Passover (xii. 1). 
 These two expressions must then have nearly the same mean- 
 ing. The Passover in xii. 1 designated, as we have seen, the 
 time of the Paschal meal, the evening of the 14th-15th 
 Nisan ; the feast of the Passover may likewise include the 
 whole of the 14th. Hence the time indicated by St. John 
 in the terms " before the feast of the Passover," is the evening 
 preceding that on which the Paschal meal was eaten, viz. the 
 evening of the 13 th- 14th Nisan. This is quite in accord- 
 ance with the language of the 0. T., which speaks of the 
 15th Nisan as the day after the Passover. See Num. xxxiii. 
 3 in the LXX. (Meyer). Expositors who, for the sake of 
 identifying this last supper of Jesus with the Paschal meal 
 of the Israelites, try to harmonize the meaning of St John's 
 narrative with that usually attributed to the Synoptists, 
 understand these words : " before the feast of the Passover," in 
 the very narrowed sense : at the moment preceding the Paschal 
 supper, or even : at the beginning of this repast. But this is 
 doing violence to St. John's expression. For in this case he 
 ought to have said : before the Passover (the Paschal meal, 
 comp. xii. 1), or more plainly : Trpo rod SeiTrvov rov iraa^a : 
 before the supper of the Passover. What follows confirms 
 the first explanation. — For upon what verb does this chrono- 
 logical particular bear ? Naturally on the principal verb : 
 rj^airnaev, He loved. But since this verb expresses a feeling 
 constantly present in the heart of our Lord, and not an 
 historical act, several expositors reject this relation, and assert 
 that St. John could not really mean to tell us that, before the 
 Passover . . . Jesus loved His own. Hence this particular 
 has been referred (Luthardt, 1st ed., and Eiggenbach) to the 
 part. etSa>9, knowing, or to ^a^cra?, having loved (Wieseler, 
 Tholuck). But this notice, standing as it does at the head 
 of the whole paragraph,- can only refer to the principal action: 
 rjiyaTrncre, He loved ; and this relation, besides being the most 
 natural, is also that which offers the best meaning. The 
 verb ayaTrav, to love, here means, as shown by the Aorist, not 
 merely the sentiment, but also its external manifestations, 
 especially that about to be related : He riscth, etc. St. John 
 means to say that it was just before the day on which Jesus 
 
chap. xiii. 1. 97 
 
 was about to leave His own that He perfected the manifesta- 
 tion of His love, that He in some way surpassed Himself in 
 His manifestation of this feeling. 
 
 "With this chronological data, St. John connects a particular 
 of a moral nature : " Jesus, knowing that . . ." These words 
 show the prevailing thought of our Lord's mind during these 
 highest manifestations of His love ; He knew that the hour 
 of His return to the Father, and His separation from His 
 own, was at hand. Hengstenberg and others paraphrase the 
 participle knowing in the sense of: " Though He knew . . .," 
 as though St. John had intended to say that the prospect of 
 His future exaltation did not prevent Him from testifying the 
 whole extent of His love to His disciples. But this is 
 self-evident, and what St. John would, on the contrary, tell 
 us is, that it was just because He saw that the time of parting 
 was at hand that He redoubled His tenderness towards those 
 whom He had so faithfully loved. It is to this meaning of 
 knowing that the relation between the expressions : " to go out 
 of this ivorld," and " His own which were in the world" also 
 points, as well as the antithesis between the terms : this 
 world, and the Father. — Meyer makes ayennjaras, having loved, 
 refer to /xera^fj : " depart unto the Father . . . having loved." 
 This construction is clumsy, and the sense empty. The two 
 participles, knowing and having loved, are parallel, and both 
 bear upon the principal verb rj^dirrja-ev, which they qualify 
 each in its own manner. — Luthardt justly points out the con- 
 trast between the expression : " His hour was come" and that 
 which we have so frequently met with : " His hour was not 
 yet come." This contrast shows the gravity of the present time. 
 
 It was under the force of this contrast, which He so 
 keenly felt, between the state in which He was leaving them 
 and that which He was about to enjoy with the Father, that 
 all His love at length overflowed. 
 
 St. John adds a third particular : "Having loved His own . . .," 
 which does not mean : " as He had loved them, He continued 
 to do so," but : " if He had loved them before, it was now that 
 it was fully seen how much He loved them." — The expression 
 His own expresses the value His heart attached to these 
 beings given Him by the Father, whom He was about to 
 leave in so critical a position. — El? Tekos does not seem to 
 
 GODET III. G JOHN. 
 
98 GOSPEL OF JOHN. 
 
 have in Greek the meaning : unto the end. At least Passow 
 does not give this meaning, nor does the N". T. seem to fur- 
 nish an example of it. In the two passages Luke xviii. 5 
 and 1 Thess. ii. 16, we must translate: at last, or to finish, 
 a sense which this phrase has also in classical Greek (Passow), 
 hut which is inappropriate here. The usual meaning of et9 
 re'Xo? in good Greek is : to an extreme, to the greatest degree ; 
 and this is also the most suitable in this verse. At these 
 last moments, the manifestations of His affection attained a 
 degree of intensity which they had not hitherto reached ; 
 they went so far as to completely pour forth this feeling, 
 and, in some sort, to exhaust it. This is the sense which 
 we have endeavoured to give in our translation. 1 
 
 As we shall find in ver. 2 a fresh introduction relating 
 more particularly to the washing of the disciples' feet and the 
 departure of Judas re]ated in this chapter, this ver. 1 must 
 be regarded as forming the preamble not of this chapter only, 
 but of the whole of this part of the Gospel in ch. xiii.-xvii. It 
 is in fact in the discourses in ch. xiv— xvi., and in the prayer 
 in ch. xvii., rather than in ch. xiii., that the subjects filling our 
 Lord's mind, and summed up by St. John in the knowing that 
 of ver. 1 , are brought to light. Com p. xiv. 12: " I go to my 
 Father ;" xv. 18 : "If the world hate you, know . . . ;" xvi. 28 : 
 " / leave the world and go to my Father ; " xvi. 33: "In the 
 world ye shall liave tribulation ;" xvii. 11 : "I am no more in 
 the world, but these are in the world, and I come to Thee!' 
 Comp. also xiii. 34, xv. 9, 11, 14, xvii. 23, 24, etc. 
 
 Vv. 2, 3. "And a supper having taken place? the devil 
 having now put into the heart of Judas Iscariot, son of 
 Simon, to betray Him ; z Jesus, 4 knowing that the Father had 
 
 1 The saying of Penelope to Ulysses (Od. ■$, 214) : "Be not angry that I did 
 not love you as much {£V vyannva) at the first moment that I saw you, as now 
 when I press you in my arms," may be cited as analogous to this sense of 
 
 hya-^trma.. 
 
 - Instead of yuoftivou, which is the reading of T.R. with all the other Mjj. all 
 the Mnn. and Vss. and Or. (once); yivoptvou is the reading of N {yawp.) BLX, 
 Or. (four times). 
 
 s N B L M X It aIiq Vg. Or. (seven times) read, tov "iiufr. «5»j £s/3x»*. u s t. x.ap\ 
 iva. Tapahu autov Uvhxs 2. Ux.upiw?n;. T. E., with 11 Mjj. the Mnn. ItP leri 1 ue Syr. 
 Or. (three times), reads, rou 2ja/3. »S» /3i£A»x. u% t. xafb. \ouha 2. Irxapiurdv iv« 
 
 avrov vaprthu; N BD: ftzpa'hoi instead of rrapccbu. 
 
 4 N B D L X do not here repeat o Uoovt. 
 
CIIAP. XIII. 2,3. 99 
 
 put x all things into His hands, and that He was come from 
 God, and went to God ; . . ." — This second preamble, relating 
 more especially to the two following scenes, also contains 
 three particulars calculated to throw light on our Lord's 
 mode of action. 
 
 And first a definition of time : " a supper having taken 
 place" for it is thus, as it seems to us, that the words heiirvov 
 ryevofiivov should be translated. To translate, as many ex- 
 positors do : " the supper being ended," we should need either 
 the article before heforvov, or that the context should clearly 
 show that the supper par excellence, the Paschal supper, was 
 intended, in which case the article would be unnecessary. 
 But the first words of ver. 1 : " Before the feast of the Pass- 
 over," are calculated to exclude rather than to originate such a 
 notion. The Alex, read ^ivofxivov, which would mean: " Wlien 
 the repast as a repast began." This reading, though approved 
 by Tischendorf and Meyer, is only a correction, intended to 
 place the washing of the disciples' feet, as seemed natural, at 
 the beginning of the repast, the time at which the perform- 
 ance of this act was customary. 
 
 The second particular, relating to the treachery of Judas, is 
 expressed under two considerably differing forms in the Mss. 
 and Vss. The Alex, text reads : " The devil having already put 
 into his heart that Judas Iscariot would betray him." Whose 
 heart ? That of the devil himself, says Meyer, by reason of 
 the Greek phrase, " to put into the heart," signifying to decide 
 to. But this meaning is insufferable. Wherever do we find 
 Scripture speak of the heart of the devil ? and how long 
 has the devil had men so entirely in his power that, if 
 he but decides to make one of them a traitor, he infallibly 
 becomes one ? We must then understand : put into the 
 heart of Judas (Baiimlein, Luthardt) ; but the term : into the 
 heart, cannot be used in this absolute manner, and without its 
 complement. Hence this reading must be rejected. It arose 
 from the idea that the diabolic impulse was only exercised at 
 the moment described in ver. 2 7. The Byz. reading says only : 
 " The devil having put into the heart of Judas to betray Him." 
 This makes everything harmonize, for ver. 27 assumes that 
 the treachery was already consummated in the heart of Judas ; 
 1 N B D K L Or. : iSwxev instead of ^iSuku. 
 
100 GOSPEL OF JOHN. 
 
 while, according to the Synoptists, the bargain between Judas 
 and the Sanhedrim took place at least one day before this 
 repast. — What, we would next ask, is the purpose with which 
 this particular is here brought forward ? To bring out, ac- 
 cording to Chrysostom, Calvin, and Luthardt, the long-suffering 
 and love of Jesus ; according to Meyer, to show the perfect 
 certainty of mind with which He advanced to meet His fate ; 
 according to Liicke, to indicate that time pressed. To us it 
 seems that St. John desired more especially to show the 
 motive for the different allusions which Jesus was about to 
 make to the presence of the traitor, during the whole of the 
 ensuing scene (comp. vv. 10, 18, 21, 26, 27, 30), and to exalt 
 the love which, notwithstanding the certain perception of this 
 revolting fact, suffered Him to wash the feet even of Judas. 
 The Alex, reading irapahol instead of irapaBS (T. E.) is 
 explained by grammarians as either a contraction of the 
 optative 7rapa8o{rj (see in Kuhner's Ausfiihrliche Grammatih 
 a multitude of examples from Plato and other writers), or as 
 a contraction of the subjunctive (as by Baumlein, after 
 Buttmann). — As the first particular : " a supper having 
 taken place" answers to the first of ver. 1 (" before the 
 feast . . ."), so does the reflection : " the devil having put 
 into . . .," answer to that of ver. 1 : " having loved His own 
 . . ." The vilest malice is here the pendant to the tenderest 
 affection. 
 
 The picture of both the external and the moral situation 
 is completed by a third hint, which affords us a view of the 
 inmost feelings of Jesus, and reveals the true meaning of the 
 act of abasement which follows : " Jesus, knowing that . . ." This 
 knowing corresponds with that of ver. 1, and here, even more 
 frequently than in the latter passage, commentators are wont 
 to paraphrase it as : " though knowing." But this is in our 
 opinion a still graver misconception of the evangelist's mean- 
 ing, as well as of that of Jesus Himself, than at ver. 1. It 
 was not notwithstanding His divine greatness, but because of 
 that greatness, that Jesus humbled Himself in the manner 
 about to be related. Feeling Himself the greatest, He also 
 felt that it was for Him to give the example of true greatness, 
 by humbling Himself to fulfil the office of the lowest ; for 
 greatness in the Messianic kingdom, as He had come to estab- 
 
CHAP. XIII. 4, 5. 101 
 
 lish it, would consist in voluntary abasement. This was a 
 kind of greatness hitherto unknown in the world, and which 
 His own were now to behold in Him, that His church might 
 never acknowledge any other. It was therefore, inasmuch as 
 He was Lord, and not though He was Lord, that He was 
 about to fulfil the office of a slave. St. John borrows this 
 idea from the succeeding discourse of Jesus (vv. 13, 14): 
 " You call me Master and Lord ... If then . . ." It is in 
 this sense that the accumulation of propositions, recalling the 
 different features of His supreme greatness, is to be under- 
 stood ; His sovereign position : all things are put into His 
 hands ; His divine origin : He came from God ; His divine 
 destination : He is going to God (notice the repetition of the 
 word God). And it was His consciousness of this incom- 
 parable greatness (knoioing) which induced Him to abase 
 Himself as none other had ever done. Hence His example 
 became decisive and irresistible to His own. 
 
 2d. Vv. 4-11. The fact. 
 
 Vv. 4, 5. " (Jesus) riseth from supper, and laid aside His 
 garments ; and took a towel, and girded Himself After that 
 He poureth water into the basin, and began to ivash His dis- 
 ciples' feet, and to wipe them with the towel whereto ith He was 
 girded." — Ver. 3 has already taught us the purpose of this 
 act, and this alone might suffice to explain it. Hence Ewald 
 and Meyer abstain from seeking any external motive. 
 Generally, however, Jesus was not accustomed to act from 
 mere inward impulse, but to obey the Father's signal. Several, 
 modern expositors (Lange, Hengstenberg) find this signal in 
 the fact that the ablution of the feet, which should, according 
 to custom, have taken place at the beginning of the meal, had 
 been omitted either through the pride or negligence of the 
 disciples. None among them had been willing to take the 
 place of the slave whom they were without. Peter, or one of 
 the others, had indeed, Hengstenberg thinks, washed the feet 
 of Jesus, but had then taken his place at the table, and waited 
 with his co-disciples of the higher order for some disciple of 
 inferior rank to perform the same service for them. This 
 provoked the dispute spoken of by St. Luke at the close of 
 the meal, as to which of them was greatest, and to which 
 Jesus put an end by rising and Himself fulfilling an office 
 
102 GOSPEL OF JOHN. 
 
 disdained by all. Of course all this would occur before the 
 commencement of the meaL But the expressions : Zeiirvov 
 yevofiivov, "a supper having taken place" (ver. 2), and: "He 
 riseth from, supper " (ver. 4), do not favour this opinion, but 
 rather lead us to think that the meal had already begun, and 
 even that it was nearly concluded. Besides, in this case, the 
 subject of dispute would have been, not who was the greatest, 
 but who was the least, the lowest, whose part it was to per- 
 form the lowest office. Baumlein's supposition, that the 
 dispute was provoked by the claim of each to occupy the 
 chief place at table, is more probable. To us it seems certain 
 that the dispute mentioned in Luke occasioned the washing 
 of the disciples' feet, as seems almost necessarily to follow 
 from the words of our Lord in that Gospel : " The kings of the 
 nations exercise lordship over them ; . . . let it not be so among 
 you. . . . For lohether is greater, he that sitteth at meat, or he 
 that serveth ? . . . I am among you as he that serveth." But, 
 according to these words themselves, this act must, like the 
 dispute itself, have taken place during the course or at the 
 end of the meal, which is also the natural meaning of the 
 text of John. Probably the washing of the feet, not being 
 commanded by the law (Matt. xv. 2), had, as no one had 
 volunteered to perform this office for our Lord and His com- 
 panions, been omitted at the beginning of the meal. Jesus 
 had allowed this want of respect to pass unnoticed ; but 
 when, in the course of the repast, a dispute which pained Him 
 y the heart, brought out in full light the notions of earthly 
 greatness still prevailing in the minds of His disciples, He made 
 use of the omission to give them the lesson they needed by 
 subsequently repairing the deficiency — He took the dress of a 
 slave : Nihil ministerii omittit, says Grotius. Each particular 
 is a picture. 'Ifidna, here the upper garment which He laid 
 aside, keeping on only the tunic, which was the vesture of 
 slaves. He girt Himself with the towel, to leave both hands 
 free for carrying the basin. Niirr^pa, with the article : the 
 basin, that vessel which was in the room and formed part of 
 its furniture. 
 
 Vv. 6—11. "Then comcth He to Simon Peter: and he 1 saith 
 unto Him, Lord} dost thou wash my feet ? Jesus answered 
 1 K B b omit ixnn>; ; N omits xupiu 
 
CHAP. XIII. 6-11. 103 
 
 and said unto him, What x I do thou hiowest not now ; but 
 thou shalt know soon. Peter said unto Him, No, never shalt 
 Thou wash my feet. Jesus answered him, If I wash thee not, 
 thou hast no part with me. Simon Peter saith unto Him, 
 Lord, 2 not my feet only, but also my hands and my head. 
 Jesus saith unto him, He that is bathed needeth not save to 
 ivash his feetf but is clean every whit : and you, ye are clean, 
 but not all. For He knew who should betray Him ; therefore 
 He said* Ye are not all clean!' — This conversation with St. 
 Peter is an unexpected episode in the transaction. Ovv, then 
 (ver. 6), in going from one to the other, in the order in 
 which they sat. The natural inference from this then, is 
 that Peter was not sitting next to our Lord (comp. ver. 24). — 
 The feeling of reverence which called forth this resistance is 
 expressed in the antithesis of the pronouns av, thou, and fiov, 
 my, and in the title Lord. Here, as in Matt. xvi. 22, it was 
 respect which produced in this apostle's behaviour a want of 
 respect. — The antithesis of iyco . . . av (I . . . thou) (ver. 7) 
 corresponds with that of av . . . fiov (thou . . . my) (ver. 6). — 
 Mera, ravra, which we have rendered by soon, is referred by 
 Chrysostom to the future ministry of St. Peter. But the rela- 
 tion between yvcoorj, thou shalt know, and yivwafceTe, know ye 
 (ver. 14), shows that Jesus was thinking of the explanation 
 which He intended to give, as soon as He had completed the 
 act in which He was engaged. 
 
 The gentleness of our Lord emboldened Peter : he had but 
 questioned (ver. 6) ; he now positively refuses, and refuses for 
 ever. Jesus answers him in the same categorical tone, and there 
 is certainly in His no part an echo of Peter's never. How then 
 is this threat to be understood ? Are we to see (with Hengsten- 
 berg) a symbol of the forgiveness of sins through Christ's blood 
 in this washing ? There is nothing in the circumstances which 
 gave rise to this act, nor in the explanation given of it by our 
 Lord in ver. 12 sq., to lead us to attribute to it this meaning. 
 Must we then consider that the resistance of Peter induced 
 
 1 X reads a %yu instead of a %yu. 2 N omits xvpu. 
 
 3 T. R., with AEGMSUTAA, reads, « rov; -xoias n^ao-txi (save to wash his 
 feet) ; B C K L n : s/ jjt» rou; nohas ^i-^a.sia.i (if not to wash liis feet) ; N C : 
 »(^«<r^«( (needs not (o wash but . . .). 
 
 4 B C L add crt. 
 
104 GOSPEL OF JOHN. 
 
 Jesus to attribute to this act a bearing beyond what He had 
 at first intended ? Such a notion is improbable. Would it 
 not be more simple to suppose that Jesus regarded Peter's 
 refusal to accept the service which He desired to perform for 
 Him as a refusal to enter fully into the spirit of His work, as 
 He was at that time inculcating it, as a proof of his obstinate 
 persistence in that love of earthly greatness from which He 
 was at that very moment endeavouring by this act to purify 
 him ? In fact, by rejecting the humiliation which his Master 
 was imposing upon Himself with respect to him, Peter was 
 rejecting that which he was one day to impose upon himself. 
 Our Lord's answer, then, was a new and more forcible repro- 
 duction of the truth which He had in another form ex- 
 pressed to His disciples, on the occasion of a similar dispute : 
 " Unless ye be converted, and become as little children" not 
 only none of you shall be greatest in the kingdom of heaven, 
 but " ye shall not enter it at all " (Matt, xviii. 1—4). — Mipo? 
 e%etv cvv, to have 'part with, is an expression frequently 
 used in the 0. T. to indicate the participation of an inferior 
 in the riches and glory of his leader (Josh. xxii. 24, 25 ; 
 2 Sam. xx. 1). 
 
 Ver. 9 presents us with one of those sudden revulsions of 
 feeling in St. Peter which we so often find reported of him 
 by the Synoptists. We have here the same Peter who one 
 moment rushes into the water, and the next cries out, " I 
 perish ! " who now smites with the sword and now flees, who 
 goes even unto the High Priest's palace, and who denies his 
 Lord. The perfect harmony of these scattered features, and 
 the image so full of life which results from them, admirably 
 prove in this case, as in others, — as Luthardt has so well 
 shown, — the entire truthfulness of the Gospel history. — In 
 reality, what Peter was thoughtlessly demanding was the re- 
 petition of his baptism. It is this which furnishes the key 
 to the answer of Jesus. This answer has naturally a double 
 meaning. As in His conversation with the Samaritan woman 
 He passed with a rapid transition from the material to the 
 spiritual; just as one who, having bathed in the morning, 
 considers himself clean and does not repeat this total ablution 
 at meal-time, but is contented with washing his feet on enter- 
 ing, to remove such accidental defilement as he may have 
 
chap. xni. c-:i. 105 
 
 contracted by the way ; so he who, by sincerely attaching 
 himself to Christ, has found pardon for his sins, needs nothing 
 else than a daily and continual purification from the moral 
 defilement of which he becomes conscious during the course 
 of his life. Peter was clean because he sincerely believed in 
 Christ. The purpose, then, of what Jesus was now doing for 
 him was not to reconcile him to God, but to remove from him, 
 by such an example of humility, that particular defilement, the 
 desire for earthly power and greatness, which Jesus at that 
 very moment observed in His own. "With this evil tendency 
 Peter could not labour in the work of God, nor even sit down 
 one day at the table of Christ. Every Christian must then 
 apply this saying to his daily purification from those evil 
 inclinations whose presence he discovers within him. The 
 word, the example, and the spirit of Christ are the means of 
 this increasing purification, which is the necessary complement 
 of preliminary justification. — The reading el yJ\, if not, of some 
 Alex, is a correction of r\, which is slightly irregular; r\, than, 
 for ovSevbs aWov r\, nothing else than. The omission of the 
 words 7j tovs 7roSa? in the Sinait. completely changes the 
 meaning : " He who is bathed needeth not to wash, but is 
 quite clean." This reading is a correction caused by the 
 difficulty of distinguishing between bathing the whole person 
 and a partial ablution. — The last words : but is clean every 
 whit, must be explained as follows : " hut, far from needing to 
 bathe a second time, as thou dost request, his body is, generally 
 speaking, clean. He has only to remove any defilement which 
 his feet may have contracted." 
 
 But was this happy state of reconciliation indeed the con- 
 dition of all ? No, there was one who had either broken the 
 tie which united him to Jesus, or in whose case it had never 
 existed. It was he who really needed to be the subject of 
 that inward operation whose symbol Peter had just demanded. 
 This is the first hint at the treachery of Judas during this 
 repast. The Saviour, by expressing the grief which He felt 
 in thinking of the crime of Judas, made a last effort to bring 
 him to repentance. If He did not succeed, He would at least 
 show His disciples that He was not the dupe of his hypocrisy 
 (ver. 19). 
 
 3d. Vv. 12-20. The Explanation. 
 
1 GOSrEL OF JOHN. 
 
 Vv. 12-17. " When then He had washed their feet} and 3 
 had taken again His garments, and Jvad sat down again, 5 He 
 said unto them, Know ye what I have done to you ? Ye call 
 me Master and Lord:* and ye say well ; for so I am. If I 
 then, your Lord and Master, have washed your feet, ye ought 
 also 5 to wash one another's feet. For I have given 6 you an 
 example, that ye should do as I have done to you. Verily, 
 verily, I say unto you, The servant is not greater than his 
 lord; neither he that is sent (Fr. the apostle) greater than he 
 that sent him. If ye know these things, happy are ye if ye 
 do them." — The explanation just given of our Lord's conversa- 
 tion with Peter, not attributing to the act of washing the 
 disciples' feet a meaning foreign to its primary intention, the 
 discourse by which it was followed no longer presents any 
 difficulty. Jesus feared notning so much for His Church as 
 hierarchical pretensions. The disciples knew that their Master 
 was establishing a kingdom. The very word was calculated 
 to excite within them notions of superiority in a temporal 
 sense. This was the reason why He sought to show them, 
 that in His kingdom the means of rising was to descend, and 
 that the way to the highest position was unhesitatingly to 
 choose the lowest. — At ver. 13, you call me properly signifies : 
 you thus designate me when you address me. The title 
 Master refers to teaching, that of Lord to His sway over the 
 whole life. They were the titles of Rabbi and Mar given by 
 Jewish pupils to their masters. It is from the words : for so 
 I am, that St. John rightly derived the knowing of ver. 3. The 
 Church has, since the fourth century, seen in vv. 14 and 15 the 
 institution of a rite, and it is well known what this ceremony 
 has become where it is still literally practised. But neither 
 the term viroSeiyfia, example, nor the plural, these things, in ver. 
 1 7, agree with the notion of such an institution ; while in this 
 case our Lord ought to have said in ver. 1 o, 6, what, instead of 
 
 1 X reads avrov instead of auruv. 
 
 2 SAL, ItP Ieri( i ue Syr. omit xat before £Xa/3sv. 
 
 3 N B 0, Syr. read xai *n*tfi», and A L, ItP ,er!< i»» Kai etvx-rnruv, instead of 
 
 ayavsiruv. 
 
 4 T. R. with 6 Mjj. (Byz.) reads « xup. y.m » S,oWx. ; all the others (12 Mjj.) : 
 o S.5. k, a xvf. 
 
 * D, ItP leri< i ue Syr. read t/xtu pxXXo* before xxr vpus. 
 6 K A K M n : SsSiwxa instead of i'Suxx (13 Mjj.). 
 
CHAP. XIII. 13, 10. 107 
 
 kclOms, as. Self-abasement to serve, and service to save, these 
 are the moral essence of the act, and its permanent elements. 
 Its form was accidental, and derived, as we have seen, from 
 the actual situation ; hence it was but transitory. The wash- 
 ing of feet mentioned in 1 Tim. v. 1 was a duty of hospitality, 
 and had only a moral relation to the precept of vv. 1 4 and 
 15. — The meaning of the sentence, ver. 16, which is also 
 found, with a different application, in the Synoptists (Luke vi. 
 40; Matt. x. 24, 25; comp. John xv. 20), is here, as in 
 Matt, x., that the inferior cannot find any act unworthy of 
 him which his superior has consented to perform. — But the 
 Lord knows that it is more easy to approve and admire 
 humility than to practise it, and for this reason adds the saying 
 of ver. 1 7. El, if, " if indeed," as was really the case, expresses 
 the general supposition ; edv, in case, the more particular 
 condition. — The happiness here promised is not merely the 
 inward complacency which accompanies every act of volun- 
 tary abasement, but a really superior position in God's sight ; 
 we are greater in His eyes, and nearer to Him, in proportion 
 as we humble ourselves to serve our brethren (Matt, xviii. 4). 
 Vv. 18, 19. " I speak not of you all: I 1 know those whom 2 
 I have chosen : but it is that the Scripture may be fulfilled, He 
 that eateth bread with me 3 hath lifted up i his heel against me. 
 Henceforth I tell you before it come to pass, that when it is come 
 to pass you may believe that lam." — The thought of the happiness 
 of disciples walking in the way of humility calls forth in the 
 heart of Jesus the feeling of a contrast : there was one then 
 present whose unconquerable pride would deprive him of this 
 happiness and bring a curse upon him. — 'E^eXel^dfivv, I have 
 chosen, has been referred to election to salvation. In this 
 sense it would not apply to Judas, but vi. 70 shows that it 
 here signifies election to the apostolate and includes the 
 Twelve. — The words : / know, serve to justify the preceding 
 statement: I speak not of you all; hence, if the for of 4 Mjj. 
 is a gloss, it is a correct one. — TJiat may be made to depend 
 upon the verb has lifted up : " That the Scripture may be 
 
 1 S A K n, 30 Mnn. It a,! i Cop. Syr. read yap after iyu. 
 
 2 K B C L M, Or. read tivxs instead of «vt. 
 
 3 B C L : /aov instead of pir i/mu. 
 
 4 K A U n : mnpx.ii instead of urif/iv. 
 
108 GOSPEL OF JOHN. 
 
 fulfilled, he that eateth bread with me hath lifted up . . ." 
 In this case our Lord would he identifying the scriptural 
 quotation with His own words. But it is more natural to 
 admit an ellipsis, and understand either, with Meyer : " Never- 
 theless I have chosen him, that . . .," or, which seems simpler, 
 to supply : " This has happened that . . ." (comp. xix. 3 6 ; 
 Matt. xxvi. 36). This latter ellipsis refers the responsibility 
 of the choice of Judas to God, whom Jesus obeyed (see 
 remarks on vi. 64). Ps. xli., from the 10th verse of which this 
 quotation is taken, is but indirectly Messianic ; its immediate 
 subject is the just man in affliction, but this ideal is only 
 perfectly realized in the suffering Messiah. Among the 
 troubles which befall the righteous, the psalmist (David 
 according to the title, Jeremiah according to Hitzig) places 
 in the front rank the treachery of an intimate friend. In the 
 mouth of David, this would refer to Ahithophel. This last 
 stroke, Jesus would say, cannot fail to reach me also, in whom 
 all the sorrows as well as all the virtues of the righteous 
 sufferer are combined. This is, in the context, the meaning 
 of the formula : " That the Scripture might be fulfilled!' The 
 sing, aprov, bread, in agreement with the Hebrew, while the 
 LXX. has the plural aprovs, might speak in favour of the 
 use of the original text. The translation of the passage by 
 St. John seems, on the whole, independent of the LXX. 1 To 
 raise the heel, to kick, is emblematic of brutal malice, and not, 
 as some have thought, of cunning. Foreseen and foretold as 
 it was by the Lord, this treachery, which might otherwise 
 have been a stumbling-block to His disciples, was afterwards 
 to be transformed into a support to their faith. This is 
 the fact brought out by Jesus in ver. 19. — The understood 
 attribute of iyco el/ju, I am, is : all that I have declared 
 myself, and all that you believe me to be, your Lord and 
 Master. 
 
 Ver. 20. " Verily, verily, 1 say unto you, He that rcceiveth 
 whomsoever I send receiveth me; and he that receiveth me 
 receiveth Him that sent me." — The relation between this saying 
 and that which precedes is so obscure, that Kuinoel and 
 Liicke propose to regard this verse as a gloss derived from 
 
 1 The assent which I gave to Mangold's opinion on this question (Tntrod. p. 
 253) must be modified. Comp. the quotation, xii. iO. 
 
CHAP. XIII. 20. 109 
 
 Matt. x. 40. Others, as Lampe, connect it with ver. 16, 
 thus making what intervenes a mere parenthesis. Meyer 
 and Hengstenberg think that Jesus designed to encourage His 
 apostles, in prospect of the treachery of Judas, by reminding 
 them of the greatness of their mission. Baumlein calls this 
 verse "a fragment of a larger whole, to which, perhaps, 
 belonged the institution of the Lord's Supper." If we 
 regard vv. 18 and 19 as a parenthesis occasioned by the 
 contrast between the fate of Judas and the happiness of 
 the faithful disciples (ver. 17), we can scarcely fail to see 
 in ver. 20 the salient point of the fia/capioTi]?, the happiness 
 promised in ver. 17 to the apostle who is humble and devoted 
 like His Master. He had just said : " The servant is not 
 greater than his master ; " He now seems to say : " The 
 servant is not less than His Master." To receive Him is to 
 receive Jesus, and God Himself (comp. Matt, xviii. 4, 5, and 
 parallel passages). In Luke xxii. 29, 30, Jesus said: "I 
 appoint unto you a kingdom, as my Father hath appointed 
 unto me ; and ye shall sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve 
 tribes of Israel." This promise remarkably agrees with this 
 20th verse. To have Jesus within, and God in Him, is 
 not this to reign and to judge in the deepest sense of the 
 words ? 
 
 Bretschneicler and Strauss look upon this narrative of the 
 washing of the disciples' feet as of legendary origin. But, 
 as Baur observes on the raising of Lazarus, if such a fictitious 
 narrative, due to Christian consciousness, had really been in 
 circulation in the Church, it would infallibly have appeared 
 in the Synoptic Gospels. Baur therefore regards this par- 
 ticular as purposely invented by the evangelist for the sake 
 of a moral idea. But it is very difficult thus to account for 
 so simple and vivid a scene, and especially for the composi- 
 tion of the admirable dialogue between Peter and the Saviour. 
 Even Schweizer well brings out the seal of historical truth 
 impressed upon the whole scene. Keim thinks that Jesus 
 would not on that evening have thus openly opposed the 
 feelings of His disciples. But the question was to teach 
 them, in some manner which could never be forgotten, in 
 what spirit their future mission was to be fulfilled, and this 
 was the last opportunity for so doing. Exception has beer* 
 
110 GosrEL of joiin. 
 
 taken to this circumstance from its omission by the Synop- 
 tists. It is probable that the institution of the Lord's Supper, 
 a fact of such supreme importance to the Church, may have 
 eclipsed it in the oral tradition of this last supper. Hilgen- 
 feld suspects that the evangelist here substituted a narrative 
 of his own invention for the institution of the Lord's Supper, 
 which he was desirous of excluding (Introd. p. Ill), as 
 though there were such a relation between these two facts 
 that one could compensate for the other. In any case, the 
 discourse in Luke against false greatness, at the close of the 
 supper, assumes a fact of this kind. St. Luke found in his 
 documents the discourse reported independently of the fact. 
 He desired to preserve the sayings of Christ, and reproduced 
 this unconnected passage as he found it, without either adding 
 to or taking from it. 
 
 II. The Dismissal of Judas.— Vv. 21-30. 
 
 We have here another work performed by Jesus from love 
 to His disciples. So long as Judas was present, His feelings 
 were under restraint, and He could not give free course to 
 the Divine treasures with w T hich His mind was filled. Ver. 3 .. 
 vividly expresses the feeling of relief which He experienced 
 at seeing the traitor depart, and it was then that those full 
 effusions of His inmost heart, contained in chs. xiv.-xvii., 
 took place. These last moments of friendly intercourse were 
 necessary to our Lord's work. 
 
 In the circle of the Twelve, Judas had been the repre- 
 sentative of that spirit of carnal Messianism directly opposed 
 to that which Jesus had just sanctioned by washing the 
 disciples' feet (vi. 64, 70). If he would not humble himself 
 and renounce this spirit, he must depart ; and it was the spirit 
 of the false, of the Jewish Messiah, of antichrist, which departed 
 with him. 
 
 Vv. 21, 22. "When Jesus had thus said, He was troubled 
 in spirit, and testified, and said, Verily, verily, I say unto 
 you, that one of you sJuxll betray me. Then l the disciples 
 looked one on another, doubting of whom He spake." — The 
 emotion of Jesus arose neither from the feeling of wounded 
 
 1 B C 1 , omit gin. 
 
CHAP. XIII. 23. *L Ill 
 
 affection nor from pity for the traitor. The regimen ru> 
 7rvev/xaii, in spirit, shows that it had its dwelling in a higher 
 region than that of even the noblest natural sensibility. 
 Here, as at xi. 33-38, it was a shock of a religious nature, 
 a kind of horror felt by His pure heart at the sight of this 
 satanic crime, and at the approach of its invisible author. 
 On the difference between ^frvxn, sou h an d "rrvevfia, spirit, in 
 this relation, see remarks on xii. 2 7. The words : " When He 
 had thus said" connect this emotion with the preceding dis- 
 course, in which Jesus had twice alluded to the treachery of 
 Judas. The expression : " He testified" opposes the positive 
 statement which follows to the vague indications of vv. 10 and 
 1 8 ; and the "Amen, amen" denotes the Divine certainty of 
 this testimony. Accordingly, we find the apostles in ver. 22 
 doubting each other, and their own hearts, rather than the 
 word of their Master, each of them, according to Matt, xxvii. 
 22, with a touching humility asking : " Is it I ? " The same 
 evangelist tells us that Judas himself addressed this question 
 to Jesus, a circumstance which has been regarded as in- 
 credible. But would he not have betrayed himself had he 
 alone remained silent ? The answer of Jesus : " Thou hast 
 said it" (Matt. xxvi. 25), is only a summary of the following 
 scene related by St. John. It was by the act narrated in vex. 
 26 that Jesus answered his question. 
 
 Vv. 23, 24. "Now 1 there was leaning on Jesus' bosom one 
 of His disciples? he whom Jesus loved. Simon Peter beckoned 
 to him, that he should ash who it was z of whom He spake." 
 — The ancients rather lay than sat at table, each guest having 
 his left arm upon a cushion so as to support the head, and 
 the right at liberty for eating ; the feet were stretched out 
 behind. Thus the head of each was near the breast of his 
 companion on the left ; and this was the place of John 
 with regard to His Master in this last supper. In fact, the 
 unanimous tradition of the primitive church points out John 
 
 1 B C L omit h. 
 
 2 11 Mjj. (X A B C, etc.) add t* before rav pxfaruv. 
 
 3 Instead of -rvhriai t$; «v an (to ask who it was), which is the reading of 
 T. R. with 12 Mjj. (A D r A A n, etc.), most of the Mnn. Syr. Cop., we read in 
 B C I L X, ItP ,eri< »" Vg. Or., xai Xiyu a.vru wri ns tirnt (and he saith to him, 
 Say who it is). — X combines the two readings : vwh<r0xi <nt av un irifi »v tXtytt 
 xat Xiyu ocVTu mrt n; lonv ttioi cu >.tyti. 
 
112 GDSPEL OF JOHN. 
 
 as the disciple to whom ver. 23 applies. This Gospel itself 
 leaves no doubt of it, as we have already shown in the Intro- 
 duction (I. p. 259). This is brought out by ch. xxi. 2, com- 
 pared with 7 and 20-23. Among the seven disciples spoken 
 of in ver. 2, Peter, Thomas, and Nathanael are naturally 
 excluded, as sometimes mentioned by name in the course of 
 this Gospel, while the disciple whom Jesus loved is nowhere 
 thus indicated. The two last unnamed disciples appear not 
 to have belonged to the circle of the Twelve. Hence there 
 remain only the two sons of Zebedee, of whom, James being 
 excluded by his premature death (comp. ver. 22: " If I will 
 that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee?"), John alone 
 is left. The Byz. reading : " to ask Him who it was," is very 
 preferable to that of the Alex, and Origen : "And he said 
 unto him, Say who it is" If, indeed, we interpret this last 
 expression as telling us that Peter said to John : " Tell me 
 who it is," this he said unto him is in contradiction with 
 vevei, he made a sign, which assumes that the two apostles 
 were too far from each other for speaking. Besides, how 
 should Peter suppose that John already knew this secret ? 
 If we understand : " Peter said to John, Ask the Lord of 
 whom He is speaking," we are obliged to give to say the 
 unusual sense of ash, and to supply the pronoun avrm, to 
 him, as the regimen of this verb, which is forced. The 
 Alex, text seems to result from a gloss, at one time added 
 to (Si7iait.), at another substituted for {Vatican), the 
 primitive text as maintained in most of the other docu- 
 ments. — Ver. 24 shows that Peter was not seated next 
 Jesus, since in that case he could himself have asked the 
 question. 
 
 Vv. 2 5-2 7a. "He then 1 lying 2 on Jesus' breast saith unto 
 Him, Lord, who is it ? Jesus answered, It is he to whom I 
 will give a sop, when I have dipped 3 it. And when He had 
 
 1 X D L M X A, several Mnn. ItP ,eri i ue Vg. read ow instead of h, which is 
 the reading of T. R. with 7 Mjj. Mnn. It ali< ». — B and C entirely omit the 
 particle. 
 
 2 B C K L X n, 20 Mnn. Or. read o.vu*htuv instead of fxt-ruruv. — 10 Mjj. 
 read owra; after t*t- (or ava-) incuv ; this word is omitted in the T. R. with X 
 A D n. — K S U r A read ovro; instead of ixuvos. 
 
 3 B C L : fia^u ro i^ufi. xai tutu. T. R. with the others : /Z«^ay ra 4""!^ 
 
CHAP. XIII. 25-27. 113 
 
 dipped 1 the sop, 7 He gave it to Judas Iscariot, Hie son of 
 Simon? And after he had received the sop, then 4 Satan 
 entered into him." — The received reading eiriireawv, leaning, 
 properly casting, indicates a sudden movement agreeing with 
 the strong feeling which inspired it. The Alex, reading : 
 avairec&v, seems absurd, because sitting to table is not here 
 spoken of, and could only be received with the adverb oi/t&x?, 
 and in the sense proposed by Baumlein : " As he was thus 
 seated at table " (comp. ver. 23:" leaning on Jesus' breast "). 
 But it is far more probable that this is a mechanical correc- 
 tion after xxi. 20, where uveireaev is perfectly in place. In 
 any case, the most inadmissible reading is that adopted by 
 Tischendorf (8th ed.) : iTwreaoov outcu?. — In the course of the 
 Paschal meal, the father of the family used to offer to the 
 guests pieces of bread or meat dipped in a sauce composed 
 of fruit boiled in wine, representing the fruits of the Pro- 
 mised Land. Jesus here recurs to this custom, and answers 
 John in language intelligible only to himself. As a sign of 
 fellowship, it was one more appeal to the conscience of Judas. 
 If he had been heart-broken at receiving it, he might yet 
 have found pardon. Hence the moment was a decisive one, 
 and this is what we are given to understand by the Tore, 
 then (ver. 27), a word of tragic solemnity. — The Alex, read- 
 ing : " He takes and gives the morsel," can only mean : " He 
 takes it from the dish" after having dipped it, which is super- 
 fluous. — " Hitherto," says Hengstenberg, " Judas had, in the 
 interest of his passion, stifled his conviction of his Master's 
 Divinity. But now the ray of Divine omniscience which, in 
 preceding warnings (ver. 10), had but grazed the surface, 
 penetrated to his inmost soul, when Jesus plainly told him, 
 both by this sign and the words which followed (Matt. xxvi. 
 25:' Thou hast said ') : It is thou who, having eaten my 
 bread, hast lifted up thy heel against me ! But, at the same 
 time, He gave him to understand that he was still one of His 
 own. He could, therefore, even then have returned. But he 
 
 1 X B C L X Or. : fiance; ou» ; T. K. with the others : x«i ip$a^*t. 
 
 - B C L M X Or. add Xaf&fiavn »ai after ipwftiov. 
 
 3 The Alex. (K B C, etc.) : l(r** f iurcv ; T. R. with the others (A r A, etc.) : 
 
 *NDL ItP ,CTi i« omit ««. 
 GODET III. H JOHN. 
 
114 GOSPEL OF JOHN. 
 
 would not, and the violent effort which he made to close hig 
 heart to the heavenly power opened it to the powers of evil. 
 It was from these even that he had to seek strength to 
 accomplish this last act of resistance. As it is said of David : 
 'lie strengthened himself in God,' so did Judas strengthen 
 himself in Satan." — The indwelling of Satan in a human soul, 
 as well as that of the Holy Spirit, has its degrees. In Luke 
 xxii. 3, the phases distinguished by St. John (comp. ver. 2) 
 are combined. The present moment was that at which the 
 will of Judas was at last confiscated by the power to which 
 he had gradually yielded himself. Till then, he had acted 
 freely and tentatively. From this moment it would not have 
 been possible for him to recede. It has been asserted that, 
 according to St. John, this result was owing to the magical 
 agency of the piece of bread, that this was a miracle by 
 which Jesus " dcmonized " the soul of a disciple. 1 If St. 
 John had intended to express such a notion, he would have 
 written, not fiera rb -^to^t'oy, after the sop, but rather fiera rod 
 ^rcofxiov, with the sop. It has been asked, moreover : Who 
 saw Satan enter into Judas ? 2 We might perhaps answer : 
 John ; for the terrible struggle which was at that moment 
 taking place within him could not be unperceived by the eye 
 of one who was anxiously observing the traitor, and some- 
 thing infernal in the expression of his countenance may have 
 borne testimony to the decided victory just gained in his 
 heart by the devil. — Keim would find an excuse for Judas in 
 the conduct of Jesus at this juncture, supposing it faith- 
 fully related by St. John. 3 But Jesus expressly spared Judas, 
 by making him known to John only. 
 
 Vv. 27&-30. " Then said Jesus unto him, That thou docst, 
 do quickly. Now no man at the table knew for ivhat intent 
 He said this unto him. For some of them thought, because 
 Judas had the bag, that Jesus meant to say to him, Buy the 
 things that we have need of for the feast ; or, that he shoidcl 
 give something to the poor. He then, having received the sop, 
 went immediately out : now it was night." — The saying of 
 Jesus to Judas was not a permission (Grotius), but a com- 
 
 1 Revue de Thiol. 3d series, vol. i. p. 255. * Ibid. 
 
 3 "Freilich wenn Jesus ihn so prostituirte, wie bei Johannes, war Judas 
 einigermassen entschuldigt," iii. p. 262. 
 
CHAP. XIII. 27-SO. 115 
 
 mand. Our Lord has been reproached for pushing Judas 
 over the precipice by thus speaking. But there was now no 
 longer any reason for treating him with caution, because it 
 was no longer possible to him to recede. The evening was 
 already far advanced (ver. 30), and Jesus needed the little 
 time which yet remained to Him, to finish His work witli 
 regard to His own disciples. Judas, in his pride, supposed 
 that the Person of his Master was in his hands. Jesus lets 
 him feel that he, like the new master whom he now obeys, is 
 but an instrument. St. John says : " None of those who were 
 at table" (ver. 28). Keim objects that, if Jesus had really 
 given John to understand who was the traitor, he at least 
 must have perceived the meaning of this saying. Undoubt- 
 edly he did ; nor is there anything to say that John does not 
 except himself in using this expression, he only besides Judas 
 possessing the key of the situation. It is difficult to infer 
 from this passage anything decided respecting the day of 
 Christ's death. On the one hand, it is said that this could not 
 have been the day on which the whole nation was celebrating 
 the Passover. For how could purchases be made at that 
 Sabbatic season ? and how could they be made for the feast, if 
 the Paschal meal, the essential act of the feast, had already 
 taken place ? On the other hand, it is said : If this evening 
 were that of the 13 th— 14th, there would be the day of the 
 14th left for purchases, and the supposition of the disciples 
 would be unmeaning. Neither of these arguments is de- 
 cisive. — The skill with which Judas must have concealed 
 his character and plans is surprising, for even at this last 
 moment his fellow-disciples were utterly in the dark about 
 him. As far as our Lord Himself is concerned, He could 
 not with safety have unmasked him more openly ; for, with 
 the impetuosity of Peter, what might not have taken place 
 between him and the traitor ? — The whole of the scene re- 
 lated in vv. 27-29 was but the affair of a moment. The 
 words : " having received the sop" ver. 30, are directly connected 
 by ovv with ver. 27:" and when He had dipped the sop" 
 Hengstenberg places the institution of the Lord's Supper 
 between the participle having received and the verb he went out. 
 But the evOeax;, immediately, makes the second of these . acts 
 directly follow the first. — The last words : " it was night," help 
 
116 GOSPEL OF JOHN. 
 
 to reproduce a perfect picture of the situation which was 
 indelibly imprinted on the memory of John, whose narrative 
 is everywhere interwoven with similar details only to be 
 explained by the vividness of personal reminiscence. Comp. 
 i. 40, vi. 59, viii. 20, x. 23, etc. The symbolical meaning 
 which some, including Luthardt (2d ed.), have tried to attri- 
 bute to these words by connecting them with xi. 10, cannot 
 be accepted as the explanation of this detail in so simple a 
 narrative. 
 
 At which period of this repast are we to place the institu- 
 tion of the Lord's Supper ? — In stating this question, we 
 are accepting the view that this was indeed the meal at 
 which our Lord, according to the Synoptists, instituted this 
 rite ? Bengel, Wichelhaus, and others, have, it is true, 
 attempted to distinguish two repasts. The first, they say, 
 took place (John xiii.) at Bethany, John xiv. 31 indicating 
 the moment at which Jesus left this place to go to Jerusalem ; 
 while the second, that of the Synoptists, was on the following 
 evening, at the time of the Jewish Passover. — But the predic- 
 tion of Peter's denial in both, and the close connection between 
 the narrative of the washing of the disciples' feet and the 
 discourse Luke xxii. 24-30, make this hypothesis untenable. 
 — We admit, moreover, that though the institution of the 
 Lord's Supper is not mentioned in this Gospel, this was not 
 because its author was either ignorant of or denied it. For 
 we agree with Liicke, that either this author was St. John, 
 and that the existence of this rite being, according to 1 Cor. xi., 
 an undoubted fact, could neither be ignored nor denied by 
 an apostle, or that the author was a pseudo-John of the second 
 century. Now at this epoch the First Epistle to the Corinthians 
 was universally known, and the Lord's Supper universally 
 celebrated in the Church ; so that the pseudo-John, by pre- 
 tending to ignore this fact, or to deny it by his silence, would 
 only have made his narrative suspected. Its omission, then, 
 can be explained only by the idea that the author did not 
 relate it, because, as it was already sufficiently known in the 
 Church, he had no special inducement for introducing it into 
 his narrative. 
 
 If, then, this is the case, where must the institution of the 
 Lord's Supper be inserted ? According to Keim, after xiv. 
 
CHAP. XIII. 27-30. 117 
 
 31, as the foundation of the discourse in xv. 1 sqq. : "I am 
 the true vine" etc. ; but at this moment Jesus arose and gave 
 the order for departure, and this does not seem a suitable 
 situation for such a ceremony. — According to Olshausen and 
 Luthardt, after xiii. 38 (the prediction of Peter's denial), and 
 before the words : " Let not your heart he troubled." This opinion 
 might be accepted, but that the Synoptists are unanimous in 
 placing the prediction of the denial after the institution, while 
 two of them recount it as uttered on the way to Gethsemane. 
 — Lucke, Lange, Maier, and others place it in the interval 
 between vv. 33 and 34, after the words : " Yet a little while" etc., 
 and before the proclamation of the new commandment. And 
 certainly there is between this last expression and the idea of 
 the new covenant, so strongly brought forward in the institu- 
 tion of the Lord's Supper, a relation which gives some proba- 
 bility to this view. But opposed to it is the direct connection 
 between the question of Peter : " Lord, whither goest Thou ? " 
 (ver. 36), and the saying of Jesus : "Whither I go, ye cannot 
 come" (ver. 33) ; a ceremony of such importance could hardly 
 be interpolated between these two sayings. — It is placed by 
 Neander and Ebrard in the interval between w. 32 and 33. 
 But ver. 33 is the direct continuation of ver. 32 (comp. the 
 straightway of ver. 32, and the yet a little while of ver. 33). 
 Indeed, the whole discourse in vv. 31-35 forms so closely 
 connected a whole, that it is very difficult to insert in any 
 part of it so important a fact. 
 
 Paulus, Kahnis, and others decide for the interval between 
 vv. 30 and 31, immediately after the departure of Judas. 
 The words : " when he was gone out, Jesics said" (see ver. 31), 
 are unfavourable to this opinion. — That of ITengstenberg (ver. 
 30, before the departure of Judas) seems to us incompatible 
 with the expression : " he ivent out immediately." — Stier is for 
 the interval between vv. 22 and 23. But the sign made by 
 Peter, in ver. 24, is too directly connected with the anxious 
 questions of the disciples in ver. 22. — Baumlein proposes the 
 interval between w. 19 and 21, where the somewhat isolated 
 saying in ver. 2 is placed. And certainly the idea of receiving 
 Jesus and God, is in itself closely related to the Holy Supper ; 
 only it should not have been introduced by the totally alien 
 idea of receiving him whom Jesus sends. — The notion of 
 
118 GOSPEL OF JOHN. 
 
 Beyschlag is perhaps the most probable of the kind. The 
 first act of the institution (the bread) is by him placed before 
 ver. 18, and in this Judas would participate. The second act 
 (the cup) he places after ver. 30, and thus considerably later, 
 after supper, as it is said in Luke xxii. 20 and 1 Cor. xi. 25, 
 and in this Judas would not take part. This view requires 
 the admission that the repast lasted till this moment. The 
 objection to it is the very close relation between vv. 18 and 
 17, and the no less direct connection of ver. 31 with ver. 30. 
 — Meyer says : only after ver. 30. 
 
 The narrative of St. Luke, and certain hints in that of 
 St. John, lead me to place the washing of the disciples' feet 
 quite at the close of the repast. Hence the institution of 
 the Lord's Supper would precede this act, and it would be as 
 far back as ver. 1 that I should place this solemn transaction. 
 Perhaps there is an allusion to this supreme pledge of Divine 
 love in the expression : " He perfectly manifested all His love 
 to them." The saying of St. Luke : " after He had supped" 
 which places the institution at the close of the meal, moy be 
 objected, while John xiii. 26 (the sop given to Judas) seems 
 to assume that it was still going on. But undoubtedly they 
 would remain at table after the supper properly so called 
 (comp. Luke xxii. 20, 27). And this sign, given by Jesus, 
 does not necessarily imply anything more. Sieffert, in his 
 work on the first Gospel, is, as far as I know, the first author 
 who has spoken in favour of the solution here offered. 1 
 
 On the behaviour of Judas we would add some remarks to 
 those already given at the close of eh. vi. — It was not for the 
 satisfaction of his moral necessities (as a being given, taught, 
 and drawn by God, vi. 39, 44, 45), but from political ambi- 
 tion and gross cupidity, that Judas had become a follower 
 of the Lord. For in his eyes Jesus was the Messiah, His 
 miracles proved it, and by joining his fortunes to His a 
 brilliant career seemed open to him. But when, as he soon 
 perceived, the way followed by this Christ was the very oppo- 
 site of what he hoped and expected, he became from day to 
 day more irritated and exasperated. He saw himself at once 
 deceived concerning Jesus, and seriously compromised in the 
 eyes of the chiefs of the hierarchy by being His disciple. 
 1 Ueber den Ursprvnj des ersien kanonischen Evangeliums, 1822. 
 
CHAP. XIII. 31-XVI. 33. 119 
 
 Hence his treason proceeded both from resentment and a 
 desire to regain the favour of the rulers of the nation. As 
 soon as he perceived that this latter object had failed, despair 
 took possession of him. — Judas is an example of the faith 
 which does not originate in moral wants. 
 
 Lastly, we would consider the relation of the narrative of 
 St. John to those of the Synoptists with regard to this scene. 
 Two principal differences are found in them : 1st. In propor- 
 tion as the synoptic account is vague and obscure on the 
 subject of the indication of the traitor, is that of St. John 
 luminous, particular, and exact. As Beyschlag remarks : " The 
 obscurities of the synoptic narrative are dispersed by its 
 dramatic clearness." 2d. In the Synoptists, the relations 
 between our Lord and Judas are presented as a special narrative, 
 forming a separate picture. In St. John these relations form 
 an organic part of the description of the repast, and are pre- 
 sented under the form of a series of historical shades and 
 gradations. They form a living element, mingling in the 
 whole course of events during this last evening, and accom- 
 panying its different phases. Which, we would fearlessly ask 
 of any intelligent man, is the truly historical representation ? 
 
 SECOND SECTION. 
 
 XIII. 31-XVI. 33. THE DISCOURSES. 
 
 Jesus has just bid farewell, an eternal farewell, to Judas : 
 "Do what thou hast to do ! " He now turns to His own, and 
 the farewell which He addresses to them implies a future 
 meeting (Gess x ). The departure of Judas has set His heart 
 at liberty. His love is now poured forth in a series of con- 
 versations and instructions which complete the revelation of 
 His inmost soul to His disciples. Touched as they were by 
 the affection which He had just testified, humbled as they 
 had never been before by His humility, the apostles, not- 
 withstanding their ignorance and weakness, were now disposed 
 to receive and to preserve these last words. 
 
 1 See his excellent work, Bibelstunden tiler Ev. Joh., chs. xiii.-xvii., 2d ed. 
 1S73. 
 
120 GOSPEL OF JOHN. 
 
 A series of conversations (comp. the questions of Peter, 
 ver. 3 6 ; of Thomas, xiv. 5 ; of Philip, ver. 8 ; and of Jude, 
 ver. 22) open these communications upon the most familiar 
 footing. They naturally turn upon the approaching separa- 
 tion, which Jesus teaches them to regard as the condition of 
 a speedy and eternal reunion (xiii. 31, xiv. 31). Ver. 31 of 
 ch. xiv. divides these conversations from the discourses by 
 which they are followed. From this point onwards, the form 
 of instruction properly so called prevails ; Jesus transports 
 Himself in thought to the period when the promised re- 
 union will be realized, and glances from this point of view 
 at the future career of His apostles in the midst of a hostile 
 world to be saved (xv. 1-xvi. 15). Then the form of the 
 dialogue reappears, and with it His mind reverts to the point 
 whence He started, the imminent separation. Here Jesus 
 now finds the decisive words (xvi. 16—33) to inspire them 
 with the courage which they need at this painful moment. 
 Thus does a dying father, when he has gathered his children 
 about him, begin by speaking of his end ; then their future 
 career claims his regards, and he tells them what they will 
 have to do here below, and what the world will be to them. 
 After which, returning to the present situation, he draws 
 from the depths of his paternal heart those last words in 
 which he bids them a long farewell. 
 
 This course of things is so natural, that we are forced to 
 own that, if this situation really existed, and if Jesus spake 
 therein, He could only have spoken thus. His tone is ever 
 on a level with the situation ; it is one of deep but repressed 
 emotion. The logical connection is not for a moment 
 broken, but it is never made prominent. Distinctness of 
 intuition is united with inwardness of feeling, and we are 
 carried gently onwards by that gentle undulation of thought 
 which characterizes, in a unique manner, the sayings of our 
 Lord in this section. We know of only two passages of 
 Scripture which present any analogy with this, and they 
 originate in similar situations. These are the last discourses 
 of Moses in Deuteronomy, in which the great lawgiver takes 
 leave of his people, and the second part of Isaiah, in which 
 the prophet, transported in spirit beyond the future ruin of 
 Israel, unrolls the picture of its restoration, and describes the 
 
CHAP. XIII. SI, 32. 121 
 
 work of tlie true Israel in the midst of the world. — Ililgen- 
 feld contrasts these discourses with those last instructions of 
 an eschatological nature given in the Synoptists (Matt. xxiv. ; 
 Mark xiii.). According to John, he says, Jesus expects only 
 the reign of the Spirit on earth, while, according to the 
 Synoptists, a visible return of Christ to this world is spoken 
 of. But the notion of the reign of the Spirit is not absent 
 from the Synoptists (parable of the talents, or of the pounds 
 in Matthew and Luke, and that of the virgins in Matthew ; 
 also Matt, xxviii. 18-20 ; Luke xxiv. 48, 49, etc.). And, on 
 the other hand, the idea of an external and glorious con- 
 summation is not, as we have seen, lacking in John. The 
 testing and the spiritual reign do but prepare for the judg- 
 ment and the external reicm. 
 
 I. After Separation, Meeting. — xiii. 31— xiv. 31. 
 
 After some sayings uttered by our Lord under the im- 
 mediate impression produced by the departure of Judas (vv. 
 31-35), He replies to the questions of Peter (ver. 36-xiv. 4), 
 of Thomas (vv. 5-7), of Philip (ver. 8-21), and of Jude 
 (vv. 22-24), and concludes with reflections inspired by the 
 present situation (vv. 25—31). 
 
 1st. Vv. 31-35. 
 
 Vv. 31, 32. "When, therefore} he was gone out, Jesus says, 
 Now has the Son of man been glorified, and God has been 
 glorified in Him. If God has been glorified in Him, 2 God 
 will also glorify Him in Himself? and will straightway glorify 
 Him." — These two verses sound like a shout of triumph from 
 the heart of Jesus at seeing the traitor depart in the dark- 
 ness. Several documents omit the ovv, therefore, and connect 
 the words ore i^rjXOev with the preceding sentence : " It was 
 night when He went out." But this addition would be use- 
 less, and would weaken the gravity of the short proposition : 
 " now it was night." Besides, the next verb \iyei, he says, 
 
 1 T. R., withN B C D L X, several Mnn. It. Vg. Cop. Or., reads trt om; while 
 ?, with the other Mjj. 90 Mnn. Syr., omits ««/». 
 
 ! X B C D L X n, 12 Mnn. ItP leri i ue omit the words u « ties ib~oZ,«.e-tr, ev avru, 
 which are read in T. R. with 12 Mjj. (A F, etc.) Mnn. It a,i< »Vg. Cop. Syr. Or. 
 
 3 'A B H A read iv «.vtu instead of s» lavra. 
 
122 GOSPEL OF JOHN. 
 
 must be connected with what precedes it. "We must then read 
 ore ovv, and make the proposition : " when he had gone out" 
 bear upon : "Jesus says." The vvv, now, with which the follow- 
 ing sayings begin, naturally connects them with the departure 
 of Judas. This is also shown by the past iSo^dadr], has been 
 glorified, which includes the whole past life of Jesus down to 
 the scene just terminated. Most expositors, on the contrary, 
 see in this verb an anticipative expression of the future glory 
 of Jesus, whether by His death (Meyer), or by His elevation 
 to the right hand of God (Luthardt, Gess). But if this is 
 the case, why did Jesus directly after pass to the future 
 (Bo^dcrei, will glorify) in speaking of this glorification to 
 come. At xvii. 10, Jesus Himself gives thanks that He is 
 from henceforth glorified (SeBo^aafiat) in the hearts of His 
 apostles. The act of washing their feet had completed His 
 condemnation of that false human glory which had filled 
 their hearts, and with the departure of Judas the spirit of 
 carnal Messianism had at last disappeared from the apostolic 
 circle. Jesus now reigns there supreme, and the true glorjr 
 realized in His Person has definitely triumphed over the false. 
 This is also the reason that He here calls Himself the Son 
 of man, for it was by His very humiliation that He obtained 
 this glory. Now, such a glory did not, like ordinary human 
 glory, make Him an appropriator of that of God. For it 
 consisted, on the contrary, in His ever giving, as He had done 
 that very evening, glory to God : "And God has been glorified 
 in Him." To glorify God by voluntary self-abasement is the 
 task of man, and such had been the work of the Son of man, 
 — a work now in some sort accomplished. The first words 
 of ver. 32 : "If God has been glorified in Him" are omitted 
 by the Alex. This omission, wrongly approved by Luthardt, 
 arises simply — as the reading iv avr<p instead of iv iavra) 
 in many of them proves — from the confusion of the two iv 
 avToi by copyists. Examples of similar omissions in the 
 Alex, text are very numerous, especially in N. The proposi- 
 tion : "If God has been glorified in Him" is not only perfectly 
 appropriate, but even necessary to explain the transition from 
 the past has been glorified to the future will glorify in ver. 
 32. Jesus, the instrument of God's glory on earth, will be 
 glorified by God in heaven. Could God do less than the Son 
 
CHAP. XIII. 33-35. 123 
 
 of man has done for Him ? If He has glorified God, God 
 will also (jcal) glorify Him. This icai, also, stands at the 
 head of the sentence to give vivid expression to this cor- 
 relation between the conduct of Jesus and that of God 
 (comp. xvii. 4, 5). Such, too, is the meaning of the evident 
 correlation between the two regimens : in Him (Jesus) and in 
 Himself (God). When God has been glorified by a being, He 
 draws him to His bosom and envelopes him in His glory. Thus 
 was His future illuminated in the eye of Jesus by the holy 
 light of His past. This future was at hand. The departure 
 of Judas had shown Him that it was imminent. Straightway, 
 said Jesus, alluding to His resurrection and ascension. The 
 second /cat is explanatory, "and that straightway." — And after 
 having thus given vent to His own feeling, Jesus next turned 
 to His disciples, and made them the sole objects of His care. 
 
 Vv. 33-35. "Little children, yet a little while 1 1 am with 
 you. Ye shall seek me : and as I said to the Jews, Whither 
 I go, ye cannot come ; so now I say to you. A new command- 
 ment I give unto you, that ye love one another. By this shall 
 all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to 
 another." 2 — The term of affection, reKvia, little children, is 
 nowhere else found in the Gospels ; it was inspired by the 
 straightway, implying a speedy separation, of ver. 32. The 
 disciples seem to Him like children soon to become orphans. 
 Indeed, what a void must be produced in any human heart by 
 the absence of Jesus ! He Himself vividly felt what they would 
 experience : " You shall seek me" you will desire to rejoin me. 
 And for Himself, how greatly He could wish to take them 
 with Him into that world to which He was about to return ! 
 But what He had six months before said to the Jews (vii. 34, 
 viii. 21) still applied to His disciples: they were not yet 
 ready to follow Him. There was, however, this difference 
 between them and the Jews, that in their case the impossi- 
 bility was but temporary (comp. xiv. 3 : " I will receive you t(, 
 myself, that where I am there ye may be also "). Meantime He 
 leaves them a task, but one so pleasant that it will also be 
 their comfort. This new duty, conformable with the new 
 situation, is indicated in ver. 34. 
 
 1 N L X It aliq add £/>a»sv after f.ixpat. 
 
 * K reads met' u>.?.r 4 >.iuv instead of t* x}.x»>.en. 
 
12-i GOSPEL OF JOHN. 
 
 The expression ivroXi] icaivr}, new commandment, has per- 
 plexed expositors, because we are commanded in the 0. T. to 
 love our neighbour as ourselves (Lev. xix. 18), and it does 
 not seem possible to love him more. — Or are we to say with 
 Knapp, in his celebrated discussion of this subject, that Jesus 
 taught us both by example and precept to love our neighbour 
 more than ourselves ? This is a notion more specious than 
 correct. Must we then give to Kaivrj, new, some unusual 
 meaning : illustrious (Wolf), always new (Olshausen), renewed, 
 (Calvin), renewing man (Augustine), unexpected (Semler), latest 
 (Heumann), etc. ? This is unnecessary. The entirely new 
 character of Christian love is brought out first by the words 
 one another, and then still more clearly by the explanation 
 which follows : " as I liave loved you" This love does not 
 apply to the whole human family in general, as might be said 
 of the law of charity written on the conscience, nor specially 
 to the members of the Jewish nation, like the commandment 
 in Leviticus, but embraces all believers neither more nor 
 less. This is an entirely new circle. But on what does its 
 existence depend ? Upon the appearance of an entirely new 
 centre of life and affection upon earth. The love of a Jew 
 for his neighbour arose from his seeing in him a worshipper 
 of Jehovah, a being beloved by Him ; thus every Israelite was 
 to him a second self. So, too, it was from the love of Jesus 
 for the disciples that this love for each other resulted. From 
 this new hearth there issued forth the flame of an affection 
 very different from any which the world had hitherto known : 
 in Christ is the true explanation of this word new. It is a 
 family affection, and the family came into existence that very 
 hour. — The proposition : " as I have loved you," is not, whatever 
 Meyer and Luthardt may think, an appendage to the first 
 proposition : " that you should love one another" which would 
 render the repetition of these words at the end of the verse 
 entirely useless. After saying in a general manner : " that you 
 should love one another ," Jesus again gives this command with 
 fresh emphasis, this time adding to it the characteristic defini- 
 tion : " I mean to say that, as I have loved you, you should 
 also love one another." Comp. exactly the same construction 
 at xvii. 21. Kadcos, as, means more than a simple compari- 
 son (Jxxrirep) ; it indicates a conformity, and characterizes the 
 
CHAP. XIII. 36-38. 125 
 
 mutual love of believers as of the same nature as that which 
 unites Jesus to the believer (x. 15), each returning to his 
 brother the love with which Jesus loves him. To this 
 pleasant duty Jesus adds the most exalted motive, His glory ; 
 for He well knows that they who feel themselves beloved by 
 Him can have none more urgent. — 'E/iot is perhaps stronger 
 as a dative than as a nom. plural : " disciples belonging to me, 
 the new Master." This promise of Jesus was realized in the 
 history of the primitive church : " They love before they 
 know each other," said Minutius Felix of the Christians ; and 
 the railing Lucian declared : " Their Master makes them be- 
 lieve that they are all brothers." 
 
 2d. xiii. 36-xiv. 4. 
 
 Vv. 36-38. "Simon Peter said unto Him, Lord, whither 
 goest Thou ? Jesus answered him, 1 Whither I 2 go, thou canst 
 not follow me now ; but thou shalt follow me afterwards. Peter 
 said unto Himf Lord, why cannot T follow Thee now ? 4 I 
 will lay down my life for Thy sake. Jesus answered him, 
 Wilt thou lay down thy life for my sake ? Verily, verily, I 
 say unto thee, TJie cock shall not crow till thou hast denied* me 
 thrice." — What especially struck St. Peter in the preceding- 
 sayings was the thought : " Whither I go, thither ye cannot 
 come." His mind dwelt on the thought : Jesus is going to 
 glory ; Peter had no doubt about it (ver. 32). Why, then, 
 after having walked, like his Master, upon the waters, and 
 ascended with Him the Mount of Transfiguration, could he 
 not follow Him to His glory, and return with Him to earth 
 when He should establish His kingdom ? — Jesus declared the 
 separation to be for the present inevitable. Was He think- 
 ing of the task which Peter had yet to accomplish by his 
 apostolic ministry ? The saying in xiv. 2, 3 leads us to think 
 rather of reasons of another nature. In the first place, the 
 road is not yet open, redemption not yet effected ; then Peter 
 himself is not yet prepared for heaven. On his part, Peter, 
 imagining that Jesus spoke as He did because He thought 
 
 1 B C L ItP'" i( i ue Vg. Cop. omit o™ after ainxpifa. 
 
 ! RDU add lyu before vxayca. 
 
 8 N, some Mnn. Vg. Cop. omit xvpie. 
 
 * C D L X read vuv instead of apn. 
 
 S S ABCLX: aToxpivirai instead of xTixpJti xvrm. 
 
 8 13 D L X : apy/ntr-si instead of aira.pn,t*. 
 
126 GOSPEL OF JOHN. 
 
 him incapable of facing death, declared himself ready to 
 undergo martyrdom (ver. 3 7). Jesus then follows him to this 
 region, and declares that even in this respect he is as yet 
 incapable of accompanying Him (ver. 38). — The prediction of 
 his denial appears to have made a profound impression upon 
 this apostle ; he seemed, as it were, overwhelmed by it, and from 
 this moment he did not speak again during these discourses. 
 f xiv. 1, 2. " Let not your heart he troubled. Believe in God, 
 believe also in me. In my Father's house are many dwellings : 
 if it were not so, I would have told you} I go to prepare a 
 place for you? — The division into chapters is here very faulty, 
 for these words relate to the preceding conversation, and 
 particularly to the saying of Jesus : " Thou shaltfollovj me after- 
 wards." He now extends this promise to all His disciples, and 
 explains it to them by showing them the manner in which He 
 will fulfil it. He will begin by preparing a place for them in 
 heaven (ver. 2), then He will Himself transport them thither 
 (ver. 3). This explains the exhortation to full confidence, 
 notwithstanding the approaching separation, contained in ver. 1. 
 This event, far from plunging them into trouble of heart, 
 would, if they understood it aright, fill them with the most 
 joyful hope. The two 7naTevere agree better with the im- 
 perative rapaa-aiadci) if they are both taken as imperatives : 
 Believe, than if the first or both are regarded as indicatives : 
 you believe. Besides, it would be very unmeaning to remind 
 them that they do believe in God. To dispel their trouble, 
 Jesus invites them to confidence, first in God, who has pro- 
 mised them a glorious future, then in Himself, who will be 
 able to realize it. In the first member of the sentence, the 
 verb believe is placed before the regimen (in God) ; in the 
 second, the regimen in me precedes the verb, to bring out the 
 antithesis of the regimens in God and in me. The first 
 motive to confidence is pointed out in ver. 2 : the heavenly 
 home to which Jesus is going is destined also for them. The 
 image is derived from those vast oriental palaces, in which 
 there is an abode not only for the sovereign and the heir to 
 the throne, but also for all the sons of the king, however 
 numerous they may be. The term iroWai, many, by no 
 
 1 K A B C D K L X n, 20 Mnn. It ali i Vg. Syr. Cop. insert en between vpn 
 and vepivopcci {I would have told you that J go). 
 
chap. xiv. 1, 2. 127 
 
 means refers to a difference between these abodes (as though 
 Jesus meant to allude to the different degrees of heavenly 
 glory), but solely to their number : there are as many as there 
 are believers ; in this vast edifice there is room for all. — This 
 heavenly abode is before all a spiritual state ; it is the sublime 
 and filial position granted to Christ in the Divine glory, of which 
 He will make His faithful people partakers. But this state 
 will be realized in a definite locality, in the place where God 
 most conspicuously manifests His presence and glory, in 
 heaven. Lange thinks that Jesus, in uttering these words, 
 pointed to the starry sky ; but xiv. 3 1 proves that both 
 Himself and His disciples were still in the upper room. 
 
 The words which follow have been very differently ex- 
 plained, but are easily understood if we adopt the reading 
 which places otl, that, after vjuv : " If it were not so, I would 
 have told you that I go to prepare a place for you;" or, 
 which comes to the same thing, if, rejecting otl, we translate : 
 " I would have told you, I go ... " But this meaning 
 seems to me incompatible with ver. 3, in which Jesus says 
 that He is really going, and that to prepare. All the efforts 
 of the Fathers, who generally give this explanation, have not 
 succeeded in removing this contradiction. It has been 
 attempted to take the words elirov av vjjllv in an interrogative 
 sense (so Ernesti, Lange, Ewald) : " Would I tell you ? " or, 
 " Would I have told you that I am going to prepare a place for 
 you ? " But this would make Jesus allude to a saying which 
 he had previously or at that moment pronounced, and we 
 find nothing of the kind either in this discourse or in the 
 Gospel. Some expositors, while rejecting the otl, also take 
 the proposition in the interrogative sense : " If it were not so, 
 should I tell you?" In this form there would be a certain 
 touch of naivete", harmonizing with the affectionate invitation : 
 " Trust in me." But this meaning would require the imper- 
 ii ct eXeyov av. As to the meaning : " Would I have told 
 you ? " the same reason makes it inadmissible. We must 
 therefore return to the most simple interpretation : " If it 
 were not so, I would have told you." That is to say : " If 
 our separation were to be an eternal one, I would have fore- 
 warned you ; I would not have waited for this last moment 
 to declare it to vou." 
 
123 GOSPEL OF JOHN. 
 
 It is not enough that the Father's house is spacious ; access 
 to it must be open to them, and an abode there assured them. 
 For this purpose Jesus will precede them. Comp. Heb. vi. 20, 
 
 -,- Christ as the 7rp68po/j,o<; (forerunner). It is under this image 
 that He teaches them to regard His death, first, as that which 
 will open to them by its atoning efficacy an entrance into 
 heaven, and then as His elevation to that Divine condition, 
 in which He will make them sharers by the gift of Pentecost. 
 ^Meyer, reading with the Alex, ort before iropevofiat, gives to 
 this conjunction the sense of for, and makes this for bear 
 not on what immediately precedes it, but upon the propo- 
 sition : " there are many mansions." But this relation is very 
 forced ; the proposition : " If it were not so, I would have told 
 you" being certainly too closely connected with the principal 
 idea : " believe also in me" to be a mere parenthesis. 
 
 Ver. 3. "And if I shall go away and 1 prepare" 2 a place for 
 you, I vjill come again and will receive you to myself, that where 
 I am, there ye may be also." — But how are they to reach that 
 abode when He has opened its entrance to them ? Jesus 
 will take care for this also. The omission of xai, and, before 
 iroifidaco (" and shall prepare ") in some documents, makes no 
 sensible alteration in the sense : " If I go ... I will prepare." 
 The and must nevertheless be maintained, as it prevents the 
 tautology between this and the preceding phrase. The reading 
 erotfiaaai, to prepare, was an almost indispensable correction 
 when once this and was omitted. — The two verbs, / come again 
 and I will receive to myself, answer to the two verbs of the 
 principal phrase, 1 go aivay and I prepare. — The present, 
 / come again, indicates the imminence of the action. Several 
 
 — refer this promise to the Lord's second and glorious coming 
 (the Fathers, Calvin, Lampe, Meyer, Hofmann, Luthardt). 
 But the promise in the context was a promise given not to 
 the Church in general, but to the disciples personally, to 
 comfort them in their present trouble ; and could Jesus have 
 meant to speak to them of an event still future when we now 
 speak of this promise ? We seem utterly to forget that Jesus 
 never affirmed that His second coming was at hand, bub 
 rather stated the contrary. Comp. : " Wliile the bridegroom 
 
 1 K*/ is omitted by A E G K r A and 40 Mnn. 
 * D M, 60 Mnn. Syr. : troip.K<rxi instead of kch 
 
CHAP. XIV. 3. 129 
 
 tarried" (Matt. xxv. 5); "If the master come in the second 
 watch, or if he come in the third " (Luke xii. 3 8) ; and the 
 parable of the leaven. On the other hand, it is not possible 
 to apply this term come to the resurrection of Jesus (Ebrard) ; 
 for how, then, could we explain the close connection of the 
 ideas, " I come again" and " i" will receive you to myself" ? 
 Grotius, Eeuss, Lange, Hengstenberg, refer the word come to 
 the coming of Jesus at death to every believer ; comp. the 
 vision of St. Stephen. But would this same term ep^ofiai, 1 
 come, be twice used in the same discourse in quite different 
 senses ? In ver. 18 it is applied, as even these exegetes allow, 
 to the return of Jesus by the Holy Spirit. And this is also 
 the case in this passage. There are different distances in this 
 saying of our Lord. The first is His coming in the Spirit : 
 " I come again " (vv. 3 and 18); the second is the immediate _ 
 effect of this return : " / will receive you to myself." The close I 
 and indissoluble union contracted between the believer and 
 the Person of the glorified Saviour (777309 ifxavrov), from the 
 time when he receives the gift of the Holy Spirit, is the 
 subject here spoken of. The third is the final result, the aim 
 of that increasing union which comprises the whole life of 
 the believer, his entrance into the abode thus prepared, the 
 participation of the sanctified believer in the Divine glory of 
 his Lord : " that where I am, there ye may be also," xvii. 24. 
 This includes the death of the faithful as the commencement, 
 and the second coming of Christ as the completion, of this 
 participation. Identity of place (where, there) implies iden- 
 tity of moral condition ; otherwise the return of Jesus in 
 Spirit would not be the necessary condition of this future 
 reunion. — With what touching simplicity and what dramatic 
 force are these ideas, at once so novel and profound, of the 
 believer's heavenly glory, and of that spiritual union with _ 
 Jesus in this world, which is its indispensable condition, here 
 expressed ! "My Fathers house," the preparation of a dwelling, 
 the return, the word: "I will receive you to myself;" this familiar, 
 this almost childlike language, sounds like soft music by which 
 Jesus is trying to alleviate the agony of parting. Thus closes 
 the first conversation elicited by the question of Peter: " Wliy can- \ 
 not I follow Thee now ?" Not even his martyrdom would suffice; . 
 the life of the Holy Spirit in the heart was what was needed. 
 
 GODET IIL I JOHN. 
 
130 GOSPEL OF JOHN. 
 
 But Jesus perceived that many questions were rising 
 in their minds, and that they were agitated by many 
 doubts ; hence He challenges, as it were, their ignorance, by 
 saying : 
 
 Ver. 4. " And whither I go ye know, and the way ye know? x 
 — The way, according to ver. 3, is communion with Him ; 
 and, according to ver. 6, it is Himself living in them. This 
 way the apostles knew, because they knew Him. And did they 
 not really know Him better than any one else ? This is what 
 Jesus meant when He told them that they knew the way. 
 But, on the other hand, they did not yet know Jesus as the 
 way, so that Thomas might with no less truth say : " We know 
 not." The Alex, variation attributes to the disciples the 
 knowledge of the way only, and not of the end : "And whither 
 I go, you know the ivay." But, first, this construction is some- 
 what harsh, and then 14 Mjj., most of the Mnn., and the two 
 most ancient Vss. (It. and Syr.) are in favour of the received 
 reading ; it was probably the confusing of the two olhare 
 which, as in so many analogous cases, gave rise to the omis- 
 sion. According to the T. E., which we have followed, Jesus 
 attributed to His disciples the knowledge of the end as well 
 as that of the way. This end was, according to ver. 2, the 
 Father's house, or, as Jesus also said (comp. xiii. 32, 33), the 
 Father. The disciples might therefore have known whither He 
 was going, but that, their imaginations being still preoccupied 
 with another end, the earthly reign of Messiah, they had not 
 yet learned to transfer their hopes from the world to God, 
 from earth to heaven. They thought, with the Jews (xii. 34) : 
 " We have heard that Christ abideth for ever " (on the earth, 
 which He shall glorify) : " how saycst Thou, then, The Son of 
 man must he lifted up?" Comp. Acts i. 6. And this false 
 end hid from their eyes the true, which they nevertheless 
 knew in a certain sense. These two you know, which ex- 
 pressed a relative truth, incited them to seek that clearer 
 knowledge on these two points which they were as yet 
 without. 
 
 3d. Vv. 5-7. 
 
 Vv. 5, 6. " Thomas saith unto Him, Lord, we know not 
 
 1 Instead of the words ttiecn mm mv o2«v etixTt, X B C L Q X read oiha-t 
 
CHAP. XIV. 5, 6. 131 
 
 whither Thou goest ; and 1 how can we know the ivay ? 2 Jesus 
 saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life : no 
 man cometh to the Father hit by me." — The first conversation, 
 occasioned by the questions of Peter : " Whither goest Thou ? 
 Why cannot I follow Thee now ? " had turned upon the final 
 reunion, the end. The second, called forth by the question 
 of Thomas, turned rather upon the ability of Jesus to bring 
 them to the end, upon the way. It is Thomas who is here, 
 as he generally is, the exponent of the feelings of doubt and 
 discouragement by which the apostles were possessed (comp. 
 xi. 16, xx. 24). He frankly declares that the end, as just 
 revealed by Jesus, is, so far as he is concerned, still enve- 
 loped in obscurity, and that consequently the way by which 
 it is to be attained is also so misty as to be imperceptible. — 
 To explain the end, Jesus substitutes the Father Himself for J" 
 the Father's house. For it is not in heaven that we are to 
 find God, but in God that we are to find heaven. And when 
 once God is pointed out as the end, it is easily understood in 
 what sense Jesus declares Himself the way. Besides, He 
 Himself explains this by adding to this figurative expression 
 the two terms the truth and the life, which express its 
 meaning without a figure. The truth is God revealed in His _ 
 essential nature, — that is to say, in His holiness and in His 
 love (vv. 9, 10) ; the life is God communicated to the soul, 
 and imparting to it holy strength and perfect blessedness 
 (ver. 23). And as it is in Jesus that this revelation and 
 this communication of God to the soul are effected, it is also 
 by Him that the soul comes to the Father, and finds access 
 to the Father's house. To be in Jesus is to be in the Father, 
 because He is Himself God possessed and manifested. The 
 three terms, way, truth, and life, are not then co-ordinate 
 (Luther, Calvin : beginning, middle, end) ; neither do they 
 express a single notion : vera via vitas (Augustine) ; nor 
 does Keuss seem to me to quite accurately express their 
 relation when he combines them, by defining the way as the 
 means of arriving at truth and life. Jesus means to say : 1 . 
 am the means of coming to the Father (the way) ; because I \ 
 am the truth and the life. M. Eeuss, on the other hand, 
 
 1 ]5 C L It ali( i omit kcc, before »;, 
 
 'BCD It 8 '" 1 : oiluftiv inv oSsv instead of lu^a/jc-Ja tjjv elm aiivai. 
 
132 GOSPEL OF JOHN". 
 
 makes the very just remark upon the word / am, that this 
 expression excludes the notion of any other parallel means. 
 Gess says : " A man can at most show the way to others ; he 
 can be neither the way, the truth, nor the life." 
 
 Ver. 7. " If you had known l me, you would have known 2 
 my Father also : and from henceforth ye knoio Him, and have 
 seen Him." — This verse reproduces the idea of the last pro- 
 position of the preceding verse, that of coming to the Father 
 by Jesus. If Jesus is the manifestation of God realized, to 
 have known Him is to have attained the knowledge of God 
 (pluperf. iyvco/ceire). Jesus seems at first to deny that they 
 possessed this double knowledge ; in fact, it was not till Pente- 
 cost that they fully possessed it (ver. 20). Then He partially 
 concedes it, and that from the present time. Meyer takes this 
 expression literally : " Since my preceding statement " (that 
 of ver. 6), which is too constrained, and almost insignificant. 
 Chrysostom and Liicke, on the contrary, see in it an anticipa- 
 tion of the future enlightenment of Pentecost, a sense which 
 from henceforth does not allow. It was to all that had taken 
 place during this last evening that Jesus alluded ; the washing 
 of His disciples' feet, the departure of Judas, all that He 
 had already told them, was well calculated to throw light 
 upon the true nature of God and of His kingdom. Un- 
 doubtedly the fruit of these last instructions would not 
 perfectly ripen till afterwards, but the germ of true know- 
 ledge was already implanted within them. In disclosing to 
 them His inmost being, Jesus had revealed to them for ever 
 the nature of God. The reading of s D, admitted by 
 Tischendorf (8 th ed.) : " If you have "known me, you will also 
 know the Father," is well explained by Luthardt as arising 
 from the scruple felt by copyists at making our Lord say 
 that His disciples had not as yet known Him. 
 
 This last saying seems, like ver. 4, intended to evoke the 
 expression of some uneasy feeling which Jesus perceived in 
 their hearts. The words you have seen Him, in particular, 
 challenge this hidden trouble to show itself. For was not 
 to have become beholders of the Father (perf. eoopaKare) the 
 very utmost that the apostles could desire. This privilege 
 
 1 N D : tyvaxan instead of tytuKun. 
 B C L Q X have ai rihurt ; X D : ytutrmii, instead of iytux%tn x*. 
 
CHAP. XIV. 8. 9. 133 
 
 had under the Old Covenant "been to a certain degree granted 
 to Moses and Elias. If Jesus could bestow it on them, their 
 faith would be henceforth unassailable. For, had not Isaiah " 
 said, when speaking of the times of Messiah : " The glory of 
 the Lord shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it " ? (Isa. 
 xl. 5). This furnishes a natural explanation of the request 
 of Philip : " Thou sayest : you have seen ; we ask Thee : 
 show lis ! " 
 
 4th. Vv. 8-21. 
 
 Vv. 8, 9. "Philip saith unto Him, Lord, show us the 
 Father, and it snfficeth us. Jesus saith unto him, 1 have been 
 so long time x ivith you, and yet thou hast not known me, 
 Philip ! He that hath seen me hath seen the Father ; and 2 
 how sayest thou : Show us the Father ? " — Gess takes occasion 
 from these interruptions on the part of the disciples to point 
 out how much they felt at ease with their Master, and how 
 this kind of relation justifies His saying : " / have called yon 
 friends," xv. 15. — The desire of beholding God is an aspira- 
 tion implanted in man's heart by God Himself. Comp. the 
 request of Moses in Ex. xxxiii. 18. Philip here makes himself 
 the exponent of this desire, with a simplicity which recalls 
 that which he manifested at ch. vi. Undoubtedly by this „ ^ 
 request he denied what Jesus had just affirmed concerning 
 His Person in ver. 6. A dazzling vision, a magnificent 
 spectacle in the atmosphere, seemed to him the best means 
 of so strengthening his faith as to make it henceforth im- 
 moveable. It was the view-point occupied by those who 
 demanded of our Lord a sign from heaven. This request 
 would have been well founded if the Divine nature consisted 
 solely in power. But God is holiness and love, and hence 
 the true Theophany could not be a splendid phenomenon, 
 but must be a Person manifesting in word and act those 
 features ^fTHe Divine character, a human, filial life, in which 
 is displayed that relation full of dignity and tenderness which 
 God maintains with the Being who calls Him His Father. 
 Now this unique spectacle, this only true Theophany, this 
 visible brightness of the Divine glory, had been before the 
 eye? of the disciples for three years, and Jesus beheld with 
 
 N D L Q : vetrowra xpeva instead of Totrnumv xpovav, 
 * K B Q ItP' eri 'i ue Vg. Cop. : rut instead of *«/ nut. 
 
134 GOSPEL OF JOHN. 
 
 wonder and grief that they had not better appreciated the 
 privilege which had been granted them. The ground of His 
 human consciousness was in such wise the feeling of His 
 divinity, that He could hardly understand that a knowledge 
 of His true nature had not also been found in the heart of 
 
 His disciples. — The appellation, Philip, served to bring this 
 
 disciple to himself, for, as Hengstenberg remarks, he had by 
 thus speaking become alius a se ipso. His words must, as 
 Luthardt observes, be connected with the preceding phrase, 
 which was addressed to the disciples in particular, and not 
 with the subsequent one, which is a general maxim. The 
 perfects eyvcoKas, ewpa/cw?, ecopaxe, hast known, has seen, 
 oppose the permanent condition to the sudden and single 
 act expressed by the Aorist Belljov, show us. — It is impossible 
 to refer this answer to the mere moral union of Jesus with 
 God. No Christian, even if perfected, could say : " He that 
 has seen me has seen Christ." How much less, then, could a 
 Jew, though perfect, have said : " He that hath seen me hath 
 seen the Father " ! The expression can only be understood 
 inasmuch as the Son carries on in this world, and under the 
 human form, that revealing function which as the Word He 
 accomplishes under the Divine form. 
 
 Yv. 10, 11. "Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the 
 Father in me ? The words that I speak 1 unto you, I speak not 
 of myself: and the Father that dwellcth in me, He docth these 
 tuorks. 2 Believe me when I say that I am in the FatJier, and 
 that the Father is in me ; and if not, believe 3 because of these 
 works." — Jesus points Philip to two signs by which he should 
 have recognised and might yet recognise the presence of God 
 in Him. Jesus did not mean to say that He is one and the 
 same Person with the Father, for He often addressed Him in 
 prayer as Thou. The union of which He was speaking was 
 that in virtue of which they live One in the Other (comp. 
 Gess). Such a relation necessarily had the Logos life for its 
 background. The first sign of this community of life and 
 action is His teaching. The expression : " the words that J 
 
 1 B L N X Cop. read Xtya instead of XaXa. ^8 
 
 8 X B D read ccurou after ipyx, and omit avms ; L X have voiu t/ 
 
 3 We here omit pa, according to N D L It" 1 '* Vg. Syr. 
 
CHAP. XIV. 10, u. 135 
 
 say" might refer solely to the preceding statements, especially 
 that of ver. 9. But it is more natural to apply it to the 
 teaching of Jesus in general, that living self-manifestation 
 whose Divine character testifies to His intimate union with 
 the Father. Jesus would say : " Believe in my teaching, 
 especially in my statements concerning myself, because I 
 have never spoken of myself. And if you suspect them 
 because they have passed through my mouth, believe in my 
 works, because it is always God Himself living in me who 
 has wrought them." This, then, was the second sign to 
 which He appealed. The negative form of the first proposi- 
 tion supposes an affirmative proposition uncleiotood ; and 
 the converse holds good of the second. Meyer is wrong 
 when he sees in the latter a proof of the former (as though 
 the works were to demonstrate the Divine nature of the 
 words), words and works simultaneously demonstrating the 
 intimate relation of Jesus with the Father. — "I in the Father" 
 is the suppression, on the part of Jesus, of all thought, will, 
 and power of His own in the accomplishment of His work. 
 "The Father in me" is the communication, on the part of God, 
 of all the fulness of His being to the Person of Jesus. The 
 reading XaXco is better than Xiya. Jesus is but the instru- 
 ment ; it is God who speaks, Jesus who announces. — At ver. 
 11, Jesus demands faith in this relation with the Father, — 
 which makes Him the true Theophany, — on the authority of His 
 mere word, of the testimony He gives to Himself. In the 
 second proposition, the imperative believe is absolute (accord- 
 ing to the reading of nBL): "Believe {in me, not me) on the 
 foundation of my works," by which Jesus evidently means 
 His supernatural works, His miracles. The same thought 
 occurs in x. 37, 38. His miracles would be a proof to those 
 who did not believe in His words, because this Divine 
 testimony did not pass through His mouth, but was purely 
 objective. — Their true position in apologetics is assigned to 
 miracles by this saying. The part played by these super- 
 natural facts is real, but it is secondary. — The meaning, then, 
 Vi c our Lord's reply is : The true Theophany has long been 
 eye£-, re your eyes. But, He adds, there is another and a 
 >r one, which, if you continue in the faith, shall soon be 
 1 you. To this it is that the following passage refers 
 
 _J 
 
136 GOSPEL OF JOHN. 
 
 Vv. 12-14. " Verily, verily, I say unto you, Re that be- 
 lieveth on me, tlie works that I do shall he do also ; and greater 
 than these shall he do, because I go to the Father? And 
 'whatsoever ye shall ash in my name, that will I do, that the 
 Father may be glorified in the Son. If ye shall ask 2 any- 
 thing in my name, I my self z will do it." — The marvels of 
 another Theophany, that which He was about to effect in 
 them, here begin to be displayed. Amen, amen, announces 
 the revelation of a new and unexpected truth. The expres- 
 sion: "the works that I do shall he do" refer to those miracles 
 like their Lord's which were wrought by the apostles ; and 
 the words which follow : " greater than these shall he do" to 
 works of a higher nature than bodily cures. That which 
 was done by St. Peter at Pentecost, by St. Paul all over the 
 world, that which is effected by an ordinary preacher, a single 
 believer, by bringing the Spirit into the heart, could not be 
 done by Jesus during His sojourn in this world. For, that 
 such facts should take place, it was needful that the wall of 
 separation between God and man should be destroyed, and 
 that the Holy Spirit should be given to mankind (Gess), or, 
 as is said at the close of the verse, that the glorification of 
 Jesus should be accomplished : " because I go to the Father." 
 The branch united to the vine may thus bear fruit, which the 
 vine alone could not as yet bear. The term greater does not, 
 then, designate miracles of a more astounding character, but of 
 a more exalted nature, and does not, as Liicke, Tholuck, 
 Olshausen, de Wette understand it, refer only to the extension 
 of the apostolic ministry beyond the limits of the theocracy, 
 — a distinction here occupying only the second place, — but to 
 the very nature of the works accomplished. 
 
 But if the disciple effects such works, it is not by his own 
 might, but because his Master, having attained the fulness of 
 His power, accomplishes them through him. In fact, this 
 superiority of productiveness attributed to the disciples is 
 based upon the higher position of Christ Himself : " Because 
 I go to the Father." Jesus here says to the Father, not 
 to my Father. For God is presently shown to be the Father 
 
 'SABDLQXnlt. omit f*eu after trttvip*. 
 'NBEHUriJO Mnn. It aU< > Vg. Syr. read pi after outwit. 
 * A B L It ali<l Vg. Cop. read *cvto instead of tyu. 
 
CHAP. XIV. 12-H. 137 
 
 of believers as well as of Jesus Himself. — The sentence 
 must not be made to terminate with these words, the follow- 
 ing proposition in ver. 13 being its necessary complement. 
 Prayer is there declared to be the disciples' part in these 
 greater works. The believer asks, and the glorified Christ 
 works from the throne of His omnipotence. It is not, how- 
 ever, to prayer in general, but to a special kind of prayer, to 
 prayer in His name, that Jesus attributes this power. To 
 ask in the name of another is, in ordinary language, to ask in 
 his stead, and, as it were, on his behalf. This individual 
 has, by position, by service rendered or favour enjoyed, a 
 right to what is demanded ; he who asks in his name, asks 
 as if filling his place. To ask in the name of Jesus, is, 
 then, to come before God in the assurance of our recon- 
 ciliation with Him, and our adoption in Christ, and to ask 
 as if we were the representatives of Jesus Himself. This 
 formula has been very variously explained : invoking my name 
 (Chrysostom), through my merits (Calovius), in the element 
 of my life (Meyer), in my spirit and for my sake (de Wette). 
 All these definitions are true, but they are all included in our 
 explanation. Jesus so lives, thinks, wills, desires in us, as 
 reconciled believers, that our prayers are in God's sight as 
 His own. Hence, prayer in the name of Jesus necessarily 
 assumes the Pentecostal gift of which Jesus speaks after ver. 
 15. Comp. xvi. 23, 24, 26. — Meyer objects to this explana- 
 tion of the formula in my name, first, that we cannot in this 
 manner pray for the pardon of our sins, and, secondly, that 
 by reason of the words I will do it, we thus make Jesus hear 
 His own prayer. But does not Jesus, we ask, intercede for 
 the pardon of our sins ? And may He not, as the organ of 
 God's omnipotence, effect what He asks of God by the mouth 
 of His people thus closely united to Himself? Comp. ver. 
 16:7 ivill pray, and xv. 26 : / will send. — And all this 
 shall be, He adds, for the glory of the Father in the Person of 
 the Son ; for the Son has no notion of establishing a kingdom 
 on earth which should belong to Himself alone, but disposes 
 of both Himself and His people in the interests of His 
 Father's kingdom. His motto is : Thy kingdom come ! not : 
 My kingdom come ! 
 
 Ver. 14 is a confirmation of this astonishing promise. By 
 
138 GOSPEL OF JOHN. 
 
 the words o ri av, whatever, Jesus gives an unlimited range 
 to the Christian ambition of His disciples. Hence this : 
 " Yes, I say it again, you have only to ask and . . ." The 
 received reading : eyoi ivoi,i]aw, I myself will do it, is un- 
 doubtedly genuine. Certain Alex, have mechanically repro- 
 duced the expression of ver. 13. But Jesus purposely 
 modified it by substituting i<yco for tovto : I, who have 
 never deceived you, who shall be reinvested with omnipo- 
 tence, and be with the Father, myself engage to do it. So 
 close will be the nearness effected by Him between earth and 
 heaven, that while His disciples pray on earth in His name, 
 and, as it were, in His behalf, He will act in heaven in the 
 name and on behalf of God. " We feel certain," says Stier, 
 " when reading those frequently -recurring words at the be- 
 ginning of St. Paul's epistles : ' I cease not to make mention 
 of you in my prayers,' that it was by prayer in the name of 
 Jesus that the apostles brought forth the Church." — Jesus 
 next explains what is the source whence this prayer in His 
 name, by which such great works are to be effected, flows 
 forth. 
 
 Vv. 15-17. "If ye love me, keep 1 my commandments. 
 And for my part, I will pray the Father, and He shall give 
 you another support (Fr. soutien), that He may abide 2 with 
 you for ever; the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, 
 because it seeth Him not, neither Jcnoweth Him: 3 but 4 you, you 
 know Him; for He dwclleth with you, and shall be 5 in you!' 
 — And first, ver. 15, we have the moral condition of this 
 new state : In the name of the love you bear me, remain in 
 the road laid down by my directions, and you will be in a 
 position to receive that supreme blessing which I proclaim to 
 you. These commandments are the orders He had given, and 
 especially the instructions of this last evening (xiii. 14, 15, 
 34, xiv. 1). The Aorist imperative keep reminds them that 
 they were free to keep or break this condition. The reading 
 of B L : you ivill keep, is a correction arising from the future 
 
 1 Instead of rtiprxrxrz (keep), B L Cop. : Tripntnn (you shall keep), K : <rfifn<rr,n. 
 
 2 X B L Q X ItP leri; » ue Cop. Syr. : « instead of fti»n. 
 
 3 N B a omit the second auro. 
 
 4 N B Q omit S= after v/uts- 
 
 5 B D, 5 Mini. It. Syr. : urn* (Is) instead of itrat (shall be) in all the other 
 Mj> 
 
CHAP. XIV. 15-17. 139 
 
 which follows : and I will pray. — Jesus next pointed out the 
 objective condition or efficient cause of the Divine gift, His 
 own intercession. As the future, object of this intercession 
 is the Pentecostal gift, it is not difficult to reconcile this 
 saying with xvi. 26: "I say not unto you, that I ivill pray 
 the Father for you ; " this latter passage referring to the times 
 which will follow this outpouring of the Spirit, the season 
 when the disciples will be able themselves to pray in tlie 
 name, and as though they were the mouth of Jesus. — 
 The term irapaKkr]ro<i, literally called towards, was taken by 
 Origen and Chrysostom in the active sense of "TrapaKk^jwp, 
 Comforter (Job xvi. 2 in LXX.) ; and this sense has, under 
 the influence of the Vulgate, been transferred to our versions. 
 It is now, however, acknowledged that this word of passive 
 form should have a passive meaning : he who is called as a 
 support ; this is exactly the meaning of the Latin advocatus 
 and our word advocate, the defender of the accused before 
 a court of justice. The word always has this meaning 
 wherever it is met with outside the N. T., as in Demosthenes, 
 Diogenes, Laertes, Philo, and the Eabbinists (the Peraclith). 
 St. John himself gives it this meaning in his First Epistle, ii. 
 1 : " We have a Paraclete with the Father, Jesus Christ the 
 righteous." It is also that which is most suitable in these 
 last discourses of our Lord. The meaning teacher (Theod. of 
 Mopsuestia, Ernesti, Hofmann, Luthardt) has no philological 
 basis to rest on ; and the expression : " Spirit of truth," ver. 
 17, is not sufficient to justify it. What Jesus will ask for 
 them from the Father is then another support, always within 
 reach, always ready to come to their assistance at the first 
 appeal in their conflict with the world. From this funda- 
 mental meaning arise the following applications : support in 
 moments of weakness, counsellor in the difficulties of life, 
 consoler in affliction. In a word, it is He who is, in all 
 kinds of different situations, to replace the beloved Master 
 who is about to leave them. By that word another, Jesus 
 by implication attributes to Himself also this title of 
 Paraclete ; hence it is an error to see in 1 John ii. 1 a 
 doctrinal discrepancy between the evangelist and the author 
 of the First Epistle. This gift of the Father will be the 
 result not only of the prayer of Jesus, but also of His inter- 
 
140 GOSPEL OF JOIIX. 
 
 vention. Comp. xv. 26: "The Paraclete whom I will send 
 to you from the Father." As He prays for the Spirit on our 
 part, so does He send the Spirit on the part of God. And 
 He will not, like Jesus, come to depart some day, but will 
 dwell with them for ever. Meyer understands et? rbu 
 alwva : " till the age to come." But the word alcov, both in 
 the N. T. and in classical writers (e£ alwvos, he alwvos, e«< 
 alwva), denotes an infinite duration, and when used with the 
 article, eternity. — Can we conceive of the Holy Spirit, a 
 Divine Being, sent by the Father to replace a mere man ? 
 
 The apposition : " the Spirit of truth " (ver. 1 7), serves to 
 explain the term Paraclete, which was as yet obscure to the 
 disciples. Teaching by the medium of language could but 
 give a confused idea of Divine things ; however skilfully such 
 a medium might be used, it could only produce an image of 
 the truth in the mind of the hearer, hence Jesus compares 
 the instruction He has hitherto given in this form to a 
 parable (xvi. 25). The Spirit's teaching, on the contrary. 
 makes Divine truth enter the soul, gives it entire reality 
 within us, and makes it the truth to us. This is undoubtedly 
 the meaning of the expression : " the Spirit of truth." But to 
 receive this Divine teacher, a moral preparation is needed. 
 The soul in which He conies to dwell must have been with- 
 drawn from the profane sphere. This is the reason that Jesus 
 said at the head of this passage (ver. 15): " Keep my com- 
 mandments" and here also added : " ivhom the world cannot 
 receive.''* It was by no arbitrary act that the Spirit came 
 down upon a hundred and twenty only, on the day of Pente- 
 cost, and not on all the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the former 
 having alone undergone the indispensable preparation. Jesus 
 explains wherein this preparation, which the world is without, 
 consists : before receiving, they must have seen and known 
 the Spirit. The Spirit identifies Himself too closely with our 
 individual life to be merely a bestowed gift ; if He is to dwell 
 in us, He must be desired and summoned by us. And this 
 is what we cannot do till we have behold Him (Oeapeiv) in 
 come one of His external manifestations, and then perceived 
 and acknowledged (ryivona-iceiv) His supreme excellence and 
 holiness. This preparation had been effected in the disciples 
 during the three years they had passed in association with 
 
CHAP. XIV. 18, 19. 141 
 
 Jesus ; His words, His life, had been a constant emanation of 
 the Spirit, and their hearts had done homage to the exalted 
 holiness of this manifestation. This had not been done by 
 the world, by the Jews, who, when they heard His words, 
 said : " He hath a devil," and when they saw His miracles 
 attributed them to Beelzebub. They had thus remained aliens 
 to the sphere and the influence of the Spirit, they were not 
 in a condition to receive Him. — The preparatory operation of 
 the Spirit upon the disciples is expressed by the words : "He 
 dwelleth with you;" and the closer relation into which He 
 would enter with them at Pentecost by : " He shall be in you!' 
 Hence we must be careful neither to read with the Vulgate, 
 Hevel (in the future), he shall dwell, in the first proposition, 
 nor with some Alexandrines, ecm', is, in the second. The 
 whole meaning of the phrase consists in the antithesis of the 
 present dwelleth (comp. fjuevwv in ver. 25) and the future shall 
 he. The contrast of the two regimens with you (comp. irap 
 v/jliv of ver. 25) and in you corresponds exactly with that of 
 the tenses. Nor must the last proposition: "and He shall he 
 in you" be made to depend on on, because, which gives no mean- 
 ing. This last phrase expresses, on the contrary, a consequence, 
 a progress. And thus (by reason of the knowledge of Him 
 which you have already attained by my presence among you) 
 He shall be in you. — This distinction between the preparatory 
 operation of the Spirit upon man, by means of external 
 manifestations, and His actual dwelling in man, seems at 
 present almost effaced from Christian consciousness. — Hitherto 
 Jesus living with them had been their support ; henceforth 
 they were to have the support in their own heart (Gess), and 
 this support would again be Jesus Himself. 
 
 Vv. 18, 19. "/ will not leave you orphans: I return to 
 you. Yet a little while, and the world seeth me no more; 
 but you see me ; because I live, ye shall live also." — The 
 term orphans refers to the address, " my little children " (xiii. 
 33) ; it is the language of a dying father. The close con- , 
 nection of feeling between these sayings and the preceding is 
 indicated by the absence of any logical particle between vv. 
 17 and 18. This alone would suffice to obviate any other 
 explanation of the words : "I return to you" than that which 
 refers them to the return of Jesus by the Holy Spirit (vv. 
 
142 GOSPEL OF JOI.'N. 
 
 1 6 and 1 7), and is adopted by most moderns (even by Meyer 
 and Luthardt, 2d ed.). Those who apply this promise to 
 the appearances of Jesus after His resurrection (Chrysostom, 
 Erasmus, Grotius, Hilgenfeld) are unable to account for w. 
 20, 21, 23. Those who apply it to His second coming 
 (Augustine, Hofmann, Luthardt, 1st ed.) cannot explain vv. 
 19 and 23. In fact, that seeing Him again, which is pro- 
 mised to believers, is to coincide with the fact of His non- 
 appearance to the world; and, according to ver. 23, His 
 return to His disciples is to be a purely inward one, while 
 of His final coming it is said : " Every eye shall see Him." 
 Still, what may and must be granted is, that this spiritual 
 return was prepared for by the appearances of the risen, as 
 it will be consummated by the coming of the glorified Christ. 
 — The Spirit is undoubtedly another, a different support from 
 Jesus ; but His coming is none the less the return of Jesus 
 Himself, otherwise the promise of the Paraclete would have 
 but imperfectly met the needs of the disciples, whose hearts 
 were demanding union with their Master Himself. Tholuck 
 concludes from the expression : "I come again" that the Holy 
 Spirit is only the Person of Jesus spiritualized ; and Eeuss 
 insists that, though literal exegesis pleads for a distinction of 
 persons (between Christ and the Holy Spirit), practical logic 
 forbids its admission. He has even ventured to express the 
 opinion, that in the discourses of Jesus the abstract notion of 
 the Word is replaced by the more concrete notion of the Spirit. 
 St. John is, however, innocent of so serious a confusion. 
 As no Old Testament writer would have used the terms 
 " Spirit of God " and "Angel of the Lord " for each other, so 
 neither can a confusion of the Word with the Spirit be 
 admitted in any writer of the New. St. Paul says (2 Cor. 
 iii. 17): " The Lord is the Spirit." But he does not there- 
 fore confound the Person of the glorified Saviour with the 
 Holy Ghost. This is a sphere in which it is of consequence 
 to distinguish between different shades of meaning. Accord- 
 ing to xvi. 14, the Spirit is not the Lord, but the power 
 which glorifies Him, which manifests Him, which makes Him 
 live and increase within us, and that by taking of what 
 is His and imparting it to us. Their parts are perfectly 
 distinct. And they are quite as much so in the work of 
 
CHAP. XIV. 18, 10. 143 
 
 Pentecost as in that of the Incarnation. The Holy Ghost did 
 not become Christ by producing Him in the Virgin's womb, 
 nor does the Spirit become Jesus by glorifying Him and 
 causing Him to live in us. The "Word is the principle of the 
 objective revelation, the Spirit that of the subjective. Jesus 
 is the object to be assimilated, the Spirit is the assimilating 
 power. Without the objective revelation given in Jesus, the 
 Spirit would have nothing to fertilize in us ; without the 
 Spirit, the revelation given in Jesus would remain exterior to 
 us, and resemble a parable which is not understood. Hence 
 it is in one sense true, that when the Spirit comes, it is Jesus 
 who comes again ; from one without, He becomes one within 
 us. The completed work of the Spirit is Christ formed in 
 the believer, or, to express the same idea in other words, it is 
 the believer come to the measure of the stature of the fulness of 
 Christ (Gal. iv. 19 ; Eph. iv. 13). 
 
 The words: "Yet a little while" (ver. 19), are in accordance 
 with the present i" come. They reduce, so to speak, the period 
 of separation to nothing. If Jesus, when He said : " You 
 shall see me again" were thinking of His appearances after 
 His resurrection, it was in any case only in a secondary 
 manner, His mind really dwelling at this time on another 
 fact. For these appearances were but temporary, while the 
 seeing Him, of which He was here speaking, was to be per- 
 manent. It is that close intercourse described by St. Paul in 
 the saying so like the present passage (2 Cor. iii. 18): " We 
 with uncovered face behold the glory of the Lord," the inward 
 view of the glorified Saviour produced in us by the Holy 
 Spirit. While the world, which has known Jesus only after 
 the flesh, sees Him no more after His bodily departure, He 
 becomes from that time visible to His people in a spiritual 
 and Divine medium, to which they are transported by the 
 Spirit, and where they meet Him. This close intercourse is 
 the source of all the Christian's strength in his conflict with 
 himself and with the world. The next phrase may be under- 
 stood in three different manners. First, that of Meyer and 
 Luthardt : " And you, you see me because I live, and you 
 shall live also." " Christ and believers being transported, the 
 former by glorification, the latter by the work of the Holy 
 Spirit, into the same medium of life, they meet again, His 
 
144 GOSPEL OF JOIIN. 
 
 living people see their living Lord." The idea is a noble one, 
 but the contrast between the presents : you see me, I live, 
 and the future : you shall see me, cannot be well explained 
 with this interpretation, though Luthardt endeavours to 
 account for it. It may be secondly explained : you see me 
 (then), because I live ; and (by reason of this sight of me 
 who live) you shall live also. The spiritual sight of Jesus 
 which is granted us results from His heavenly life as glorified, 
 and our life results from this inward vision. This meaning 
 is equally beautiful, but there is a third construction which 
 seems to me preferable : But you, you see me (in opposition 
 to the world seeth me no more), and because I live, you shall 
 live also. They behold Him, and since He whom they be- 
 hold is alive, their own life flows forth from this beholding. 
 — In any case, Jesus, by His use of these presents : I live, 
 I come, I come again (vv. 3 and 18), already transports 
 Himself to that approaching time, when, death being finally 
 overcome, He will live the perfect and indestructible life ; 
 from that time, beheld by His people in the light of the 
 Spirit, His life will become theirs. The relation between 
 I live and you shall live is the same as that between / 
 come and / loill take in ver. 3. The present denotes the 
 principle laid down once for all, the future its daily, gradual, 
 and eternal results. 
 
 The absence of any logical particle between the successive 
 promises of vv. 16-21, betrays the emotion with which Jesus 
 beheld and announced the decisive day of Pentecost. 
 
 Vv. 20, 21. "At that day ye shall know that I am in my 
 Father, and ye in me, and I in you. He that hath my com- 
 mandments, and Jeecpcth them., he it is that loveth me : and 
 he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and 1, I will 
 love him, and will manifest myself unto him." — The expression : 
 " that day" indicates a definite time. And as all the great 
 events of His ministry were connected with Jewish festivals, 
 as the feast of the Passover was to be the period of His 
 death, and the time of great illumination was closely to 
 follow that event, there is no reason why we should not 
 suppose, whatever Liicke and de Wette, etc., may say, that 
 the day of which He was here speaking was already in His 
 view that of Pentecost. By the expression : " that day" Jesus 
 
CTIA.P. XIV. 20, 21. 145 
 
 contrasted that time with the time then present, in which they 
 found so much difficulty in forming a conception of their 
 Master's relation to the Father (vv. 9 and 10). 'T^et?, you: 
 '• yourselves, hy your own experience, and not only, as now, 
 by faith in my words." The object of this spiritual illumina- 
 tion of believers will be first the union of Jesus with the 
 Father; they will know Him as a Being who lives and acts 
 in God, and in whom God lives and acts as in a second self. 
 This direct consciousness of the relations between Jesus and 
 God will proceed from the living consciousness they will 
 receive of their own relation to Jesus — they will feel Him 
 live in them, and will feel themselves to live in Him ; and 
 when they no longer know any other life than that which 
 they derive from Him {you in me), and feel at the same 
 time that all His life really enters into them (/ in you), 
 they will thence understand what He has revealed to them 
 of what God is to Him, and what He is to God. The tran- 
 scendent fact of the communion of Jesus with God will 
 become to them an object of direct perception in the experi- 
 ence of their own communion with Jesus. These were the 
 /jueyaXeia rov Qeov, the wondrous tilings of God, which St. 
 Peter and the disciples celebrated in new tongues on the 
 clay of Pentecost. 
 
 Ver. 21 defines the mode of this illumination. Jesus had 
 briefly said in ver. 1 5 : "Keep my commandments, and I will- 
 pray the Father!' He here enumerates in detail each link 
 in this chain of graces. 1st, His word must be resolutely 
 retained (e%e«/) and practically observed {r^pelv). This is 
 not done by the world, which hears but rejects it, and is 
 therefore unfitted to receive this higher favour. 2d, He 
 that does so (e/eeti/o?, this exceptional individual) gains by his 
 moral faithfulness the special character of a friend of Jesus (6 
 ayairoSv fie). 3d, He hence becomes the heloved of the Father, 
 for the Father loves all who love the Son, the supreme object 
 of His love. This love of the Father is not that spoken of 
 in iii. 16: " God so loved the world." There is between these 
 two feelings the same difference as between a man's com- 
 passion for his guilty and unhappy neighbour, and the affection 
 of a father for his child, or of a husband for his wife. 4th, 
 The Son, seeing the eye of the Father rest with loving com- 
 
 GODET III. K JOHN. 
 
146 GOSPEL OF JOHN. 
 
 placency on His disciple, feels Himself united to the latter 
 by a new tie (" and I will love him ") ; whence ensues, 5th, 
 The perfect revelation of Himself : "I will manifest myself unto 
 him." This is the highest fulfilment of the words, you shall 
 know, in ver. 20. But this remarkable expression, hfi^avi^etv, 
 transposes the manifestation of the Messiah to the inward 
 (eV), the spiritual, and consequently the individual sphere. 
 And it was just this circumstance which called forth the 
 question of Jude. Thus this last word, while terminating the 
 conversation with Philip, gave rise to the conversation with 
 Jude which now follows. Philip had requested a theophany. 
 Jesus had answered : " Thou hast long enjoyed one " (vv. 
 9-11). Then, justifying the aspiration of the apostle, who 
 was longing for something still more glorious, He said : "And 
 thou shalt have that which is still better ; a more excellent 
 theophany awaits thee, that of my return within thee by 
 the Spirit" (vv. 12-21). This is the climax of the second 
 series of thoughts on the internal theophany, which the 
 answer of Jesus to Jude is about to bring before us. Gess 
 compares our Lord, in His manner of treating these inter- 
 ruptions on the part of His disciples, to a skilful pilot, who 
 does not suffer himself to be diverted from his course by the 
 waves which he encounters, but by a prompt stroke of the 
 rudder restores the ship each time to the direction he desires 
 to give it. 
 
 5th. Vv. 22-24. 
 
 Ver. 22. "Judas saith unto him, not Iscariot, Lord, and 1 
 what has happened, that Thou wilt manifest Thyself unto us 
 and not unto the world ? " — The mode of revelation, of which 
 Jesus had just spoken, entirely perplexed the minds of the 
 disciples, constantly turned as they were towards some 
 external manifestation of the Messianic kingdom which should 
 be visible to all. It was especially in the secondary group 
 of the apostolic college, which was more or less influenced by 
 the carnal spirit of Iscariot, that such notions were still 
 maintained. The Judas or Jude here mentioned is only so 
 called by St. Luke (Luke vi. 16 ; Acts i. 13). In the lists 
 of Matt. x. 3 and Mark iii. 18, he is designated by the 
 names (surnames) of Lebbeus and Thaddeus : the hold or the 
 1 A B D E L X ItP le "i ue (not N) omit xca before r,. 
 
CHAP. XIV. 23, 24. 147 
 
 beloved. He occupies one of the lowest places among the 
 apostles. The explanation, not Iscariot, is intended to obviate 
 the supposition of a return of Judas after xiii. 30. — By 
 saying, "What has happened?" Jude requests to know the 
 new fact which is the cause of so complete a change in the 
 Messianic programme — a change of which he thinks he sees 
 a proof in the saying of Jesus in ver. 21. The icai, and, 
 before ti yevovev, is an expression of surprise; it is omitted, 
 as superfluous, in several Mss. — To us here signifies : to 
 us alone. The objection of Jude is connected with, and 
 completes, the request of Philip. The latter was thinking of 
 the great theophany which was to inaugurate the establish- 
 ment of the Messianic kingdom ; Jude, of the realization of 
 the kingdom itself. 
 
 Vv. 23, 24. "Jesus answered and said unto him, If any 
 man love me, he will keep my words, and my Father will love 
 him, and we will come unto him, and will make 1 our abode 
 with him. He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings; and 
 the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father's ivhich 
 sent me." — Jesus continued His discourse as though He had 
 not heard the question of Jude ; for the first part of ver. 2 3 
 is but a reproduction of ver. 21. He nevertheless answered 
 the question by more forcibly reiterating the promise, as well 
 as the moral condition, which had called forth the objection. 
 Comp. an analogous kind of answer, Luke xiii. 41 sqq. To 
 love Jesus, to keep His word, to be loved of the Father, 
 these are the conditions of the promised revelation ; now the 
 world does not fulfil them, but is animated by opposite dis- 
 positions (ver. 24). — As to the conditions of the manifesta- 
 tion, Jesus abridges ver. 2 1 ; as to the manifestation itself, He 
 more gloriously develops it. The manifestation of Jesus to 
 the soul becomes an actual habitation, and this is a descent 
 of heaven to earth, a true dwelling of God Himself in the 
 believer. Here, as at x. 30, Jesus, speaking of God and 
 Himself, says we; this expression, under penalty of being 
 absurd, implies His consciousness of His deity. — The concep- 
 tion of the kingdom of God here met with is one not alien 
 to the Synoptists. Comp. Luke xvii. 20:" The kingdom of 
 God cometh not with observation; the kingdom of God is within 
 'SBLX read ■xowou.iia instead of <rti*ram*. 
 
14S GOSPEL OF JOHN. 
 
 you" (cVto9 v/xoiv) ; and Matt, xxviii. 18-20. A similar 
 image occurs in Eev. iii. 20 : " If any man hear my voice and 
 open the door, I will come in to him, and I will sup with 
 him, and he with me!' The term fjbovrj, dwelling, connects 
 this verse with ver. 2. Here below, it is God who dwells 
 with the believer ; above, it will be the believer who will 
 dwell with God. The first of these facts (ver. 23) is the 
 condition of the second (ver. 3). 
 
 Ver. 23 explained the to us of Jude's question; ver. 24 
 answers the and not unto the world. The notion : "And it 
 is no slight thing to reject my word, for (jcal) it is that of 
 God Himself," must be understood between the two proposi- 
 tions of ver. 24. The understood conclusion is: "How, then, 
 with such a disposition, hostile as it is to the word of both 
 the Son and the Father, is it possible to become their abode ? " 
 Comp. what is said of the world in vv. 15 and 17. — Thus 
 have the various encouragements brought forward by the Lord 
 gradually risen : " You shall be received with me into my 
 Father's house. ... In me you have already seen the 
 Father. . . . You shall carry on my work below. . . . 
 Another divine support shall give you power. ... In this 
 inward support I will myself return within you. . . . 
 With me the Father Himself shall dwell in you. . . ." Was 
 not all this enough to justify His " Let not your heart be 
 troubled" (xiv. 1)? The next passage, with which this first 
 outpouring on the part of Jesus closes, returns to the starting- 
 point, but changes the Be not troubled into Rejoice ! 
 
 6th. Vv. 25-31. 
 
 Vv. 25, 26. " These things have I spoken unto you, being 
 present ivith you ; but the support, the Holy Spirit, whom my 
 Father vnll send in my name, shall teach you all things, 
 and bring back all things to your remembrance which I have 
 said unto you!' — These words might be directly connected 
 with the preceding, since it is by the gift of the Holy Spirit 
 that the great promise of vv. 22-24 will be fulfilled. But 
 the perf. \e\d\7)Ka, I have told you, which denotes a teaching 
 now concluded, and the words being present with you, which 
 allude to the approaching separation, show that Jesus was 
 returning to the idea from which He started, and the first 
 discourse approaching its termination ; and this is confirmed 
 
CHAP. XIV. 25, 2G. 149 
 
 by all that follows. The sayings, then, of vv. 25-29 must 
 "be regarded as beginning the conclusion of this dialogue. 
 What Jesus had just said concerning a future meeting above 
 (vv. 1-3), and here below (vv. 12-24), is all that He 
 can as yet reveal to them. If this future is to them still 
 enveloped in obscurity, the instructions of another teacher 
 shall dispel these mists, and explain all His promises by ful- 
 filling them. Tavra, these things, stands first, in opposition 
 to TravTd, all things (ver. 26): "This is what I can tell you 
 now, another shall afterwards tell you all." — The epithet holy, 
 given to the Spirit in ver. 26, recalls that deep line of demar- 
 cation just drawn by Jesus in vv. 17 and 24, between the 
 profane world and the disciples, already sanctified by their 
 attachment to Him. As holy, the Spirit can dwell only 
 with the latter. — The expression, in my name, should, 
 according to Luthardt and Meyer, be explained by the 
 general principle that all that is done for the accomplish- 
 ment of the plan of salvation is done in Christ — that is to 
 say, for the manifesting and glorifying of the name in which 
 salvation is comprised. But is not this too vague ? Jesus 
 had just said that He who loved Him should be loved of His 
 Father, and that the manifestation, which is the work of the 
 Spirit, should proceed from this love. The believer's title, 
 then, to this gift will be his love for Jesus, and the motive for 
 this gift on the part of the Father will be His love for Jesus, 
 and for him who loves Jesus. This is the exegesis of the 
 formula : in my name. The pron. e'tfe«/o<?, He, only brings into 
 strong relief the instruction of the new teacher in opposition to 
 that of Jesus, who is about to leave them (ver. 25). He will 
 do two things : teach all things, and bring to their remem- 
 brance what they have been already taught. The two 
 functions are closely connected: He will teach new truths 
 by recalling the old, and will recall the old by teaching the 
 new. The sayings of Jesus, the remembrance of which the 
 Spirit shall revive within them, will be the matter of His 
 instruction in all truth, the germ which He will fertilize 
 in their hearts ; as conversely this inward agency of the Spirit 
 will incessantly recall to their memories some former saying 
 of Jesus, so that, in proportion as they partake of His 
 illumination, they will exclaim : "Now I understand this or 
 
150 GOSPEL OF JOHN. 
 
 that saying of the Lord ! " Then, again, the brightness of 
 this light will bring from oblivion other long - forgotten 
 sayings. Such is even yet the relation between the teaching 
 of the written word and that of the Spirit. — Of the two 
 iravra, all things, the first, the object of shall teach, embraces 
 more than the second. The Holy Spirit will make the dis- 
 ciples understand all, by recalling to them one after another 
 all the sayings of Christ. Of course, this all includes only 
 the things of the new creation in Christ Jesus, of salvation. 
 The first creation, nature, is not a matter of revelation, but of 
 scientific study. 
 
 Vers. 27-29. "Peace I leave you, my peace I give you : not 
 as the world gives it, give I it unto you. Let not your heart be 
 troubled, neither let it be afraid. You have heard how I said 
 to you, I go aivay, and I come to you. If ye loved me, ye would 
 have rejoiced because I said} I go unto the Father, for my 2 
 Father is greater than I. And now I have told you these 
 things before they come to pass, that when they come to pass you 
 may believe." — The promises of vv. 25 and 26 aimed at tran- 
 quillizing the disciples with respect to the obscurity which 
 hovered over their own, and their Master's future. Vv. 
 27—29 tend to reassure them concerning the difficulties to be 
 encountered in this future. Meyer takes the word elprfvij in 
 an objective sense : salvation (D"6tJ>, full prosperity). But the 
 close of the verse : Let not your heart be troubled, favours the 
 subjective meaning, which is also the natural signification of 
 elptfvr) : tranquillity, inward repope. Peace is the inward 
 serenity based upon reconciliation with God. This is His 
 legacy (dfyiniii, I leave), a legacy derived from His own 
 treasury : my peace. Their faith was not yet strong enough 
 to produce in them a peace of their own, hence He invited 
 them for the present to enjoy that which they beheld in Him. 
 They were by faith in Him to make His calmness in the 
 presence of clanger their own. The verb SiBco/xl, I give, 
 agrees with rrjv e^v (my) ; it is of his own that one gives. In 
 Luke x. 5, 6, Jesus confers upon His disciples the power 
 which Ho here exercises, that of imparting their peace. — The 
 
 1 8 A B D, 10 Mnn. It. Vg. Syr. Cop. Or. omit •<«•«» between on and 
 tropivoftui (because I go, instead of because I said 1 go). 
 " A 13 D L X, 8 Mnn Tt p '" ique Vg. omit fc»v after **rt,p. 
 
CHAP. XIV. 27- 2D. 151 
 
 contrast between the peace of Jesus and that of the world is 
 generally referred to their nature, — the world's peace consisting 
 in the enjoyment of a good which is but seeming ; that of 
 the Saviour in the possession of real and imperishable good. 
 But the omission of the object, peace, in the second pro- 
 position (not as the world giveth give I), and the conj. Ka6m 
 (in the manner of), oblige us, I think, to place the contrast on 
 the verb give, and not on its object : " My gift is real and 
 efficacious, while the world, when it bids you farewell with 
 the ordinary formula, Peace be unto you, gives you but 
 empty words, a powerless wish." I cannot see in what respect 
 this meaning is beneath the serious nature of the situation 
 (Meyer). It was the peace which He at that moment imparted 
 which was to banish from their hearts the trouble He still 
 perceived there (fir) rapaaaeadw), and to preserve them at the 
 same time from the danger of being afraid, BeiXiav, which 
 would result therefrom. 
 
 But it was not sufficient for Jesus to see that they should 
 be reassured and strengthened ; He desired to see them even 
 glad (ver. 28). And this they would really be if they under- 
 stood aright the meaning of His approaching departure. The 
 words : if you loved me, are exquisitely tender. The Saviour 
 uses them to make their joy the duty of affection ; He calls 
 their attention to His approaching exaltation (comp. xiii. 3, 
 31, 32). What friend would not rejoice to see his friend 
 raised to a position truly worthy of him ? And if they rightly 
 understood the extent of this change in their Master's situa- 
 tion, they would at the same time rejoice for themselves. 
 This second idea is brought out by the fact that Jesus, while 
 saying : " I go away, I go to the Father" adds : " and I come to 
 you." The first of these facts is the condition of the second. 
 It is because Jesus is, by His departure, about to share in the 
 omnipresence and the absolute life of the Father, that He will 
 be able to manifest and impart Himself to His disciples, and 
 to live with them everywhere (vv. 21 and 23). Matt, xxviii. 
 18-20 expresses the same connection of ideas. To Jesus, to 
 go away is to come again in a truer manner. This meaning 
 of ver. 28 seems to us to result directly from the expressions 
 used and from the context. The explanation : God will be a 
 better protector to you than I could be by my visible presence 
 
152 GOSPEL OF JOHN". 
 
 (Liicke and De Wette after older expositors), ignores the per- 
 sonal character of the words : If you loved me. 
 
 The saying : The Father is greater than I, is in perfect 
 agreement, whatever M. Eeuss may say, with the premises 
 laid down in the prologue ; or rather, the thought of the pro- 
 logue is but an echo of this statement and of so many like it 
 in this Gospel. On the one hand, in fact, this saying assumes 
 in Him who uttered it the most vivid consciousness of His 
 participation in the divine nature. For how should nothing- 
 ness institute a comparison between itself and God ? The 
 creature who should say : " God is greater than I" would blas- 
 pheme no less than one who should say : "lam equal with 
 God." God alone can compare Himself with God. Hence the 
 Arians have been guilty, to say the least, of great unskilful- 
 ness in relying on this saying. On the other hand, it is 
 impossible to admit that it is solely as man, and not as Logos, 
 that Jesus, as orthodoxy affirms, uttered these words. The 
 unity of Christ's person must be maintained, and two distinct 
 egos cannot be admitted in Him. The difficulty is solved by 
 allowing that the ego of the Divine Logos fully entered into 
 the human condition, but that in the course of His develop- 
 ment, Jesus, at a given moment (that of His baptism), appre- 
 hended Himself in His oneness with the Divine Logos. It 
 is, then, the Logos made man who, from the midst of His 
 limited and relative existence, contemplates that divine abso- 
 lute state of being in which He found Himself before His 
 incarnation, and to the participation of which He is about, as 
 man, to be re-exalted. Nothing could be more consistent with 
 the views of the prologue. 
 
 At ver. 29 Jesus applies to His approaching departure 
 what He had said, ch. xiii., of the treachery of Judas. This 
 painful separation and this return of a purely spiritual nature, 
 which they find it so difficult to receive, will, when these facts 
 have taken place and the disciples remember the present say- 
 ings of Jesus, conduce to the establishment of their faith. 
 And now at last He gives the order for departure, for which 
 He has thus prepared them. 
 
 Vv. 30, 31. "I will sag little more to you; for the prince 
 of this l world cometh, and hath nothing in me. But that the 
 1 Tcvtov in T. R. is supported by only some Mnn. and It. 
 
CHAP. XIV. 30, 31. 153 
 
 world may know that I loce my Father, and l that I act as the 
 Father hath commanded 2 me, arise, let us go hence." — Jesus felt 
 the approach of His invisible enemy. He had a presentiment 
 not only of the arrival of Judas, but also of the conflict with 
 Satan himself which He was about to sustain in Gethsemane. 
 Two very different meanings may be given to these verses, 
 though the results are in either case fundamentally the same. 
 Either the icai, and, before iv ifioi must be taken in a con- 
 cessive sense : and indeed : " He cometh, and indeed he hath 
 nothing in me which can be a reason for his power over me ; 
 but for the love I have to my Father I willingly surrender 
 myself to him. Arise ! " Or we may take this KaL in the 
 adversative sense, in which it is so frequently used in St. 
 John : " He cometh, hut he has no hold upon me ; nevertheless 
 (aXkd), that the world may know . . . arise ! and let us 
 depart hence, that I may yield myself to this enemy." OuSev 
 e^eo/ signifies to have neither right nor power over the object 
 of his hatred. The saying implied in Him who pronounced it 
 a consciousness of perfect innocence. That may be made to 
 depend on Trotoo, I do : " That the world may know . . ., I am 
 about to do all that the Father has commanded me." But 
 this construction is a forced one, by reason of the icai which 
 precedes Kadws. Or that may be made to depend on a verb 
 understood : " It happens thus, that the world may know that 
 I love the Father, and that I do what He has commanded me." 
 So Tischendorf. But how much more effective is a third 
 construction, which makes that depend upon the two impera- 
 tives which terminate the sentence : " But that the world may 
 know . . ., arise " ! This manner of speaking much resembles 
 the triumphant apostrophe of our Lord, preserved by the 
 three synoptists, Matt. ix. 6 and parallel passages. To rise for 
 the purpose of going to Gethsemane was, in fact, willingly to 
 surrender Himself to the power of Satan, who was there pre- 
 paring for a decisive conflict, the completion of that in the 
 wilderness, and to the treachery of Judas, who was about to 
 seek Him in that very place which he knew so well. Jesus 
 knew that no one would come to take Him in the room which 
 He and His disciples at that moment occupied. 
 
 1 A E It a,i< > omit *«*. 
 
 * B L X It. Vg. read e»t;X>;v iiuxu instead of t*tri,>c;r$. 
 
154 COSPEL OF JOHN. 
 
 The imperatives : arise, let us go hence, might certainly 
 have produced no immediate effect ; which is the supposition 
 of Meyer, Luthardt, and all who consider that Jesus remained 
 in the room till after the priestly prayer. But in this case, 
 it is not easy to see why St. John should have so expressly 
 mentioned this order, without at least hinting at this delay by 
 a word of explanation, as in xi. 6. Hence Gess justly remarks : 
 " Jesus having in ver. 3 1 given the signal for departure, we 
 must regard the discourses of chs. xv. and xvi. as delivered on 
 the road to Gethsemane." The opposition of Meyer and 
 Luthardt to this view does not make us hesitate to do so. 
 Comp. remarks on xvi. and xvii. 1. 
 
 According to M. Eeuss, the questions of Thomas, Philip, 
 and Jude arose from misconceptions so strange, and mistakes 
 so gross, that it is impossible to regard them as having any 
 historical value. Exegesis has, on the contrary, confirmed 
 their perfect agreement with the view-point at that time 
 occupied by the apostles. So long as Jesus was with them, 
 they tlid not greatly differ from the rest of the people, except 
 in attachment to His person. Intellectually speaking, they still 
 shared the generally received ideas. It was their Master's 
 death and ascension, and lastly, the gift of Pentecost, which 
 radically transformed their notions of the kingdom of God. 
 Hence there is nothing astonishing in the fact that Thomas 
 should, like the Jews in ch. xii., declare that he can under- 
 stand nothing about a Christ who leaves the earth and speaks 
 of meeting His disciples in another world; or that Philip 
 should, like those who demanded a sign from heaven, beg for 
 a sensible theophany as a pledge of his Master's and the 
 disciples' glorious future ; or, lastly, that Jude should inquire 
 with anxiety concerning the reality of a Messianic coming 
 from which the world would be excluded. — Undoubtedly, the 
 reproduction of the details of this conversation in so natural, 
 and at the same time so exact, a manner, could only have 
 been the work of one who had, like the author himself, stood 
 on the confines of the two conceptions, that of Jesus and 
 that of the disciples, thus brought into collision. Nowhere 
 does the evangelist appear more completely initiated into the 
 internal relations and characters of the individuals composing 
 the apostolic circle. As to the answers of our Lord, they 
 
CHAP. XV. 1— XVI. 15. 155 
 
 are so perfectly adapted to the situation, they bear such 
 an impress of exquisite refinement of feeling and sublime 
 spirituality of thought, that it is impossible to attribute them 
 to any other than Jesus Himself, without making that other 
 the equal of Him whom the church adores as her Lord and 
 Founder. 
 
 II. The Position of the Disciples in the World after the Effusion 
 of the Holy Spirit. — xv. 1-xvi. 1 5. 
 
 The preceding conversations referred to the approaching 
 separation between Jesus and His disciples, and to the twofold 
 meeting, both heavenly and earthly, which would terminate 
 it. This meeting would take place by means of their future 
 dwelling with Him in His Father's house, and previously by 
 means of an event now close at hand, by His dwelling in 
 them by the Holy Spirit. At ch. xv. Jesus transports Him- 
 self in thought to the period which will bind together these 
 two meetings — the period in which His spiritual return will 
 be consummated, but His people not yet exalted to His 
 abode. The glorified Christ, possessed of His divine condi- 
 tion, has returned, and is living in His people. They are 
 united to Him, and by Him to each other. Under His 
 influence they work together like members of one body at the 
 Father's work. Such is the new position, in view of which 
 He now gives them the necessary directions, warnings, and 
 encouragements. Like the branches of a fruitful vine, they 
 are to offer good fruit to the world, which, instead of blessing 
 them, will take up the axe to destroy this noble vine, this 
 heavenly plant. This opposition, however, will have no other 
 effect than that of making conspicuous to all, that divine 
 power by which they are animated, and by which they will 
 confound the world. Thus we have three leading ideas : 1st, 
 The new condition of the disciples resulting from the Pente- 
 costal gift, xv. 1-17; 2d, The consequent hostility of the 
 world, xv. 18-xvi. 4; 3d, The spiritual victory to be gained 
 over the world by the Holy Ghost, through their instru- 
 mentality, xvi. 5-15. The actors in this future drama are 
 the disciples, the world, and the Holy Spirit, each of whom 
 is successively predominant in the following discourse. 
 
156 40SFEL OF JOHN. 
 
 1st. XV. 1-17. 
 
 After the words: "Let us depart hence? Jesus and His dis- 
 ciples left the upper chamber, which had just "been to them, 
 as it were, the vestibule of the Father's house. They passed 
 in silence through the streets of Jerusalem, and soon found 
 themselves alone in some retired spot on the declivity which 
 descends into the valley of the Kedron. Surrounded by this 
 little band of disciples, in view of Jerusalem, in which the 
 Jewish people were assembled, and thinking of the human 
 race represented by Israel, Jesus reflected on the mighty task 
 which awaited His disciples in carrying on His work in the 
 world. And in the first passage He chiefly devoted Himself 
 to making them fully understand the nature of this new 
 situation and the obligations attached to it. In this, then, 
 we have first the position, in w. 1-3 (in me) ; then the duty 
 of this position, in ver. 4 (to abide in Him) ; and lastly, the 
 consequences of fulfilling or neglecting this duty, in vv. 5-8 (to 
 bear fruit, or to be burned). 
 
 Vv. 1-3. "I am the true vine, and my Father is the husband- 
 man. Every branch that beareth not fruit in me, He taketh 
 away ; and every branch that beareth fruit, He pnrgeth it, that 
 it may bring forth more fruit. And as for you, ye are 
 clean already because of the word which I have spoken unto 
 you." — The pronoun ij(o, standing first, and the epithet r] 
 uXrjOivri, the genuine vine, naturally lead us to suppose that 
 Jesus was here intending to contrast His person with some 
 other vine, which was not in His eyes the true. We ask, 
 then, " What external circumstance was it which led Jesus 
 thus to express Himself ? " Those who hold that Jesus had 
 not yet quitted the room decline to answer this question (De 
 Wette), or have recourse, in explaining this image, either 
 to the use of wine in the institution of the Lord's Supper 
 (Grotius, Meyer) ; or to the shoots of a vine whose branches 
 entered the room (Knapp, Tholuck) ; or to the golden vine 
 which adorned one of the gates of the temple, the remem- 
 brance of which might present itself to the thoughts of Jesus 
 (Jerome, Lampe) ; or, finally, to the representation of Israel 
 under the figure of a vine, so frequent in the 0. T. If it 
 be admitted, as by us, that after pronouncing ver. 31 of ch. 
 xiv. Jesus really left the room and the city, the explanation 
 
CHAP. XV. 1-3. 157 
 
 becomes more easy and simple. Jesus stops at a vine loaded 
 with branches ; His disciples gather around Him ; He finds 
 in this plant an emblem of His relation to them. This 
 natural vine is in His eyes an image, an earthly copy, of the 
 true, essential, spiritual vine, and He proceeds to develop 
 the thought of His future union with. His people, by borrow- 
 ing from the object before His eyes, expressions which may 
 render it intelligible to His disciples. " It is to be supposed," 
 says Gess, " that on the declivity of the valley of the Kedron 
 there were vines, before which Jesus stopped with His dis- 
 ciples." The word vine here comprises both the trunk and 
 the branches, as the term 6 Xpiaros in 1 Cor. xii. 12 denotes 
 Christ and the church. The point of comparison between 
 Christ and the vine is that organic union by which the life 
 of the trunk becomes that of the branches. As the sap in 
 the branches is that which they draw from the vine, so will 
 life in the disciples be the life they will derive from Jesus 
 glorified. This comparison might undoubtedly have been 
 borrowed from any other plant. But the vine has a special 
 dignity, resulting from the nobleness of its sap and the ex- 
 cellence of its fruit. — The title of husbandman is given to 
 God as at once proprietor and cultivator. He it was who 
 possessed the theocracy, and this theocracy seemed now to 
 be transformed into the little community by whom Jesus 
 was surrounded. He it was who watched over the preserva- 
 tion of that divine organism, and directed its development on 
 earth. While Jesus is its essential life, the Father cultivates 
 it by His providential care. Jesus designs to impress upon 
 them the value of this plant, which God Himself tends and 
 cares for. What is here said by no means interferes with the 
 fact that God effects this work by the instrumentality of the 
 glorified Christ, only the figure employed does not allow this 
 aspect of the truth to be brought forward. On the one 
 hand, Jesus lives in His people by His Spirit, and it is in 
 this respect that He compares Himself to the vine. On the 
 other, He reigns over and for them as the organ of the Father, 
 and His agency in this respect cannot be represented here by 
 reason of the figure employed, but is mingled with the agency 
 of the Father. St. Paul finds the means of uniting these 
 two aspects in Eph. i. 22. The culture of the vine embraces 
 
153 GOSPEL OF JO 11^. 
 
 two principal operations,— that by which every unfruitful 
 branch is cut off (the aipeiv), and that by which the fruitful 
 branches are purged — that is to say, freed from barren shoots, 
 that the sap may be concentrated in the cluster which is 
 forming (the icadaipeiv). As this passage refers solely to the 
 relation of Jesus to the true or seeming members of His 
 church, the first of these images cannot be applied, as 
 Hengstenberg thinks, to unbelieving Israel. If any historical 
 example were present to the thoughts of our Lord, it would 
 only have been that of Judas. But He was probably think- 
 ing of the future of His church, and was contemplating 
 beforehand those professors of the gospel, who, while ex- 
 ternally united to Him, nevertheless live in a state of 
 internal separation from Him, whether in consequence of a 
 decree which prevents their genuine conversion, or of their 
 own neglect to sacrifice wholly their own life and to main- 
 tain the spiritual tie which unites them to Him. — 'Ev 
 ifioi, in me, may refer either to the word branch : every 
 branch in me (united to me), or to the participle <pepov : 
 which bearcth not fruit in me. In any case, the term branch in 
 itself already assumes that individuals who are in a certain 
 sense united to Christ are here spoken of. "By fruit, Jesus 
 designates the spiritual life, with all its normal manifesta- 
 tions, — that life which the believer is called upon to produce 
 and incessantly to develop, whether in himself, or, by the 
 power of Christ living (Bom. i. 13) in him, in the case of 
 his neighbour. It may happen that the believer, after a 
 season of fervour, suffers his own life to predominate above 
 that which he derives from the Lord, and that the latter 
 is about to perish. Then the arm of the Father interposes. 
 After tolerating for a time the presence of this dead member 
 in the church of Christ, God severs the deceptive tie, at one 
 time by allowing him to be subjected to a violent temptation, 
 at another by death and the judgment which is to follow. 
 
 In describing the second operation, Jesus had in view 
 not only the eleven disciples, but all future believers 
 who should live in Him by the Holy Spirit. Ver. 3 teaches 
 that it is first of all by the word of Christ that God will 
 purge them from the shoots of their own life, which show 
 themselves in them ; then, when this proves insufficient, God 
 
CHAP. XV. 4. 159 
 
 will use other and more painful means, which will, like a 
 sharp pruning-knife, cut to the quick of the natural affections 
 and the carnal will. And thus the whole being of the dis- 
 ciple will at last be devoted to the production of the divine 
 fruit which he ought to bear. 
 
 Jesus calms the minds of His disciples with respect to this 
 second operation, by reminding them (ver. 3) that in their 
 case it is, in principle, already accomplished. By their 
 attachment to Christ, and by the word which He has spoken 
 to them, " the old man has already received his death-blow " 
 (Gess), although he has yet to die. The moral training 
 which they had received from Jesus had deposited in them 
 the principle of perfect purity. For the word of Christ is 
 the instrument of a daily judgment, of an austere discipline, 
 which God exercises by it upon the soul which remains 
 attached thereto. On this part, attributed to the word of 
 Christ, comp. v. 24, viii. 31, 32, xii. 48. — Aid (with the 
 accus.) is not by, but because of. — 'T/tet?, you, in opposition 
 to those who were not yet in this privileged position. — From 
 the nature of the position (in me), Jesus deduces the duty of 
 this position : to abide. 
 
 Ver. 4. " Abide in me, and I in you ; as the branch cannot 
 bear fruit of itself except it abide 1 in the vine, no more can ye, 
 except ye abide 2 in me." — For a branch to remain united to 
 the vine is the condition, the law of its life. All the condi- 
 tions of fruitfulness are included in this. The imperative 
 proves that this relation is maintained as it was begun, 
 freely, by the faithful use of the means divinely offered. Ver. 
 7 will show that the fundamental means is the word of Jesus. 
 — 'Ev ifiol fieveiv, to ciide in me, expresses the continuous 
 act by which the Christian lays aside all that he might draw 
 from his own wisdom, strength, or merit, to derive all from 
 Christ by the inward aspiration of faith. And this is so 
 entirely the sole condition laid down for the agency of Christ's 
 life in him, that Jesus omits the verb in the following propo- 
 sition. Hence the : and I in you, appears to be in such wise 
 the direct and necessary consequence of the former of these two 
 acts, that where the first is accomplished the second cannot 
 
 1 X B L : ^£v» instead of putt) (T. R. with 14 Mjj.). 
 
 2 K A B L : piwrt instead of pum« (T. K. with 13 Mjj.). 
 
1 C GOSPEL OF JOHN. 
 
 fail to be realized. Thus the agency of Christ is, no less than 
 our own, boldly placed under the control of our freedom. 
 The close of ver. 4 justifies the duty pointed out ; instant 
 unfruitfulness would be the immediate result of the believer's 
 separation from the vine. Here, as in ver. 19, iav /mi] is a 
 simple explanation of the a<£' eavrov, and not a restriction 
 appended to the principal idea. — The thesis here laid down is 
 not that of the moral impotence of the natural man, but that 
 of the unfruitfulness of the believer left to his own strength ; 
 still it is evident that the second of these truths is based 
 upon the first. 
 
 The following verses, vv. 5-8, are, as it were, the sanction 
 of the law of life and death which Jesus has just proclaimed. 
 We have first the contrast between fruitfulness and unfruit- 
 fulness (ver. 5), with the terrible consequences of the latter 
 (ver. 6), and then the glorious results of fruitfulness (vv. 7 
 and 8). 
 
 Vv. 5, 6. "I am the vine, ye are the branches; he that 
 abideth in me, and I in him, the same beareth much fruit, for 
 apart from me ye can do nothing. If a man abide l not in me, 
 he is cast forth as the branch and is ivithered ; then they gather 
 them 2 and cast them into the fire, and they burn." — The first 
 words of ver. 5 : " I am the vine, ye are the branches," are not, 
 as has been said, either an idle repetition or a tardy develop- 
 ment of the truth expressed in ver. 1. While continuing to 
 contemplate the actual vine before Him, an increasingly vivid 
 sense of the entire dependence of His disciples upon Himself 
 possessed our Lord's mind : " Yes, this is indeed what I am 
 to you, and what you are to me ; I the vine, ye the 
 branches ! " The reason alleged : "for without me ye can do 
 nothing" seems, as a purely negative one, at the first glance 
 illogical. But if Christ is in such wise all to the believer 
 that he can do nothing without Him, does not this imply 
 that he can do much if he remains united to his Lord ? 
 
 With the happy fruitfulness of the branch united to Him, 
 Jesus contrasts the sad and terrible fate of the unfruitful 
 branch. — The operation of pruning had just taken place in 
 Palestine ; perhaps, as Lange remarks, Jesus might at that 
 
 1 l> A B D : fiiv» instead of ftu*». 
 
 s fei U L X A n, 20 Mnn. Il al "» Syr. : aura instead of ««t*. 
 
CHAP. XV. 7, 8. 1 G 1 
 
 very moment have been beholding the fire in which the 
 recently lopped branches were burning. It is impossible to 
 refer ver. 6 (as Hengstenberg does) to the Jewish nation and ^ 
 its destruction by the Eomans ; a believer who does not remain 
 faithful is the sole subject of this saying, which is spoken 
 as a warning to the disciples when they should have received 
 the Pentecostal gift. — The aorists, i^npavdv, i/3\rjdrj, has been f- 
 withered, has been cast forth, are, according to Baumlein, to be 
 explained in this passage, as in numerous other cases where 
 this tense is employed to designate a fact of daily experience. 
 Perhaps it would be better to say, with Meyer, that our Lord 
 transported Himself in thought to the moment of the judg- 
 ment just uttered. 'EfiXtfOr), cast out of the vineyard. — The 
 subject of away ovai, they gather, is the vineyard labourers ; 
 in the application, the angels (Luke xii. 20 ; Matt. xiii. 41). 
 The fire is the emblem of judgment ; comp. another image in 
 Luke xiv. 34, 35. Kalerai, they burn, is the present of dura- 
 tion, which here has its full force. The thought pauses at 
 this unquenchable fire, . . . and then turns to the fruitful 
 branch, which bears fruit to the husbandman's praise. Thus 
 vv. 7 and 8 combine with ver. 5 in developing the glorious /^ 
 results of the believer's communion with Christ. 
 
 Vv. 7, 8. " If ye abide in me, and my words abide in you, 
 ye shall ash 1 what ye will, and it shall be done unto you. 
 Herein is my Father glorified, that ye bear much fruit, and 
 thus shall ye become 2 my discijrfes." — The parallelism of the 
 two conditions in ver. 7 leads us to expect the expression : 
 " and if I abide in you." For this, Jesus substitutes the remark- 
 able variation : " and if my words abide in you." In fact, it 
 is by constantly remembering and meditating on the words 
 of Jesus that the Jisciple remains united to Him, and that 
 He can continue to act on and by His disciple. Jesus next 
 adds an important idea, that of prayer, which is directly con- 
 nected with the preceding. The words of Jesus, digested by 
 meditation, nourish in the soul of the believer those holy 
 desires which urge it to prayer. By meditating on them, he, 
 
 1 A B D L M X r, 50 Mnn. It*''* : atrvra.irfo, ask, instead of atrwnsh, yon, 
 shall ask (T. R. with N, 9 Mjj. etc.). 
 
 ! B D L 11 X A : yifnefe, that you may become, instead of ywwfo, yon shall 
 become (T. E. with 11 Mjj. etc.). 
 
 GODET IH« L JOHX 
 
1C2 GOSPEL OF JOHN. 
 
 better understands the holiness and beauty of God's work ; 
 he measures its length and breadth and depth and height, 
 and, moved by this contemplation, he more fervently suppli- 
 cates, in that definite manner which arises from actual wants, 
 the advancement of this work. A prayer thus inspired is a 
 child of heaven ; it is God's promise transformed into petition ; 
 as such it is certain to be heard, and the absolute promise : 
 " it shall be done unto you" is no longer surprising. — The 
 Alex, substitute the imperative ask for the future you shall 
 ash, a correction which turns the promise into a moral precept. 
 — The result of this fruitfulness of the disciples would be the 
 glorification of the Father (ver. 8). What could more honour 
 the husbandman than the abundant fruitfulness of the vine 
 which he has taken care of with so much delight ? Now the 
 husbandman is the Father (ver. 1). 'Ev tovtw, in this, evi- 
 dently bears upon iva, so that, or that, which follows ; this 
 conjunction taking the place of on, because the idea of bearing 
 fruit presents itself to the mind as an end to be attained. — 
 The aorist iho^aaOr}, properly has been glorified, characterizes 
 this result as one immediately attained whenever the condi- 
 tion, the bearing of fruit, is present. Winer and others make 
 this aorist an aorist of anticipation, as in ver. 6. — Jesus, when 
 contemplating with filial satisfaction the glory of the Father, 
 which will from time to time be the result of His disciples' 
 work, seems to press these beloved beings with redoubled 
 ardour to His heart. By carrying on here below the work of 
 their Master, whose only care was to glorify the Father, they 
 will more and more deserve the title of His disciples. Kal, and 
 thvB. The Alex, read the subjunctive, and that you may 
 become (yivrjaOe, dependent on Iva), instead of you shall be- 
 come. Tischendorf himself rejects this reading, which is only 
 a correction after (peprjTe. — The dative efioi is closer and more 
 affectionate than the genitive ifiou : " You shall more nearly 
 belong to me as disciples." We are not disciples once for all, 
 but must always be becoming such. — As the vine does not 
 itself directly bear fruit, and offers its clusters by the inter- 
 vention of the branches, so Jesus will only diffuse spiritual 
 life here below by the instrumentality of those who have 
 received it from Him. By forming a church, He created a 
 body for the effusion of His life, and the glorification of God 
 
CHAP. XV. 9-11. 163 
 
 upon earth. In this great work the Vine hides itself, and 
 lets only the branches appear ; it is for them in their turn to 
 hide themselves, and to do homage to the Vine for all that 
 they effect. The Epistles to the Ephesians and Corinthians 
 show this same relation between Christ and His members 
 under an entirely original form. The image of the head and 
 the body in these Epistles corresponds with that of the vine 
 and the branches in this passage. When St. Paul says of the 
 glorified Christ, that " in Him dwelleth all the fidness of the 
 Godhead bodily" and that " ive have all fidness in Him" he 
 does but formulate the meaning of the parable of the vine 
 and the branches. This also explains why the diffusion of 
 spiritual life makes such slow progress in the world. The 
 vine effects nothing but by means of the branches, and these 
 so often paralyse instead of promoting the action of the vine 
 
 The condition of abiding under the influence of Christ's- 
 love is to persevere in obedience to His commandments, that 
 is to say, in brotherly love (vv. 9-17). 
 
 Vv. 9-11. "As the Father hath loved me, I have also loved 
 you ; abide in my love} If ye keep my commandments, ye 
 shall abide in my love, even as I have 2 kept my Father's com- 
 mandments, and abide in His love. These things have I spoken 
 %mto you, that my joy might be 3 in you, and that your joy might 
 befidl." — Jesus here substitutes the notion of abiding under 
 the influence of His love for that of abiding in Him. In fact, 
 it is the love of Jesus which forms the tie between Him and 
 ourselves. In Him the fountain of divine love has welled 
 forth upon earth : the love of the Father for Jesus, of which 
 He gave assurance at His baptism, and which includes that 
 wherewith He loved Him before His incarnation (xvii. X 4), 
 and then that of Jesus for His people, which is of like nature 
 {ica6(£)<i, not wairep). In both these cases, the initiative of love 
 was taken by the more exalted Being. On what condition, 
 then, may the relation be maintained and strengthened ? 
 Solely by the inferior responding to this love. He has not 
 to evoke it, he has but to remain under its beams. To do 
 this he has only to abstain from forcing it, by unfaithfulness 
 
 1 K omits the words :«»... iv r. ayx-rn y.ov (confusing this with ver. 9.). 
 
 2 K D It. : tyu instead of xayu. 
 
 8 A B D It. Vg. read u instead of (tutu. 
 
164 GOSPEL OF JOHN. 
 
 and disobedience, to turn from him. Jesus points out that 
 He imposes upon the believer no other condition with respect 
 to Himself but that to which He had to submit with respect 
 to the Father. His holiness was an act of continual sub- 
 mission to the divine injunctions, and without this submission 
 He would have instantly ceased to be the object of the 
 Father's complacence (viii. 29, x. 17). Such also is the 
 position of the believer in respect of Christ's love to him. 
 The expression my love can here, in fact, only denote the love 
 of Jesus for His people ; comp. the words : as I have loved 
 you, and the development, vv. 13-16. The second propo- 
 sition of ver. 9 : and I have loved you, does not depend on 
 riadcti?, as : " As my Father has loved me, and I have loved 
 you." For the principal verb would in this case be abide, 
 which is impossible, because this idea is in no logical connec- 
 tion with the first of the two propositions of ver. 9 : As my 
 Father has loved me. — Jesus is certain that in thus speaking- 
 He is not imposing a burden, but rather revealing to them 
 the secret of perfect joy (ver. 11). This constant enjoyment 
 of the Father's love in the way of obedience constitutes His 
 joy, which will in the same way be reproduced in His dis- 
 ciples. It is, then, indeed His joy into which He initiates 
 them, and in the possession of which He associates them, in 
 the words : " These things have I spoken to you, that . . ." My 
 joy cannot then signify : the joy which I will produce in you 
 (Calvin), or : the joy which I feel on your account (Augus- 
 tine), or : the joy which you feel on my account (Euthymius) ; 
 but the joy which He Himself experiences in feeling Himself 
 the object of the Father's love. Comp. the analogous expres- 
 sion "my peace" in xiv. 27. — By obedience their joy will 
 grow to perfect fulness. For every act of faithfulness will 
 draw closer the bond between Jesus and themselves, as every 
 moment of His life did the bond between Jesus and the Father. 
 And is it not perfect joy to be included with the Son in the 
 Father's love ? The reading y seems preferable to fie ivy. The 
 notion of being is enough, that of remaining superfluous ; comp. 
 xvii. 26. 
 
 This obedience to His commandments, to which Jesus 
 invites them, is concentrated in the exercise of brotherly love. 
 
 Ver. 12. "This is my commandment, that ye love one another, 
 
CHAP. XV. 13-15. 165 
 
 as I have loved you." — Comp. xiii. 34. Hengstenberg finds 
 in vv. 1—11 a summary of the first table of the law, and in 
 vv. 12-17 one of the second. The normal relation of each 
 branch to the others assumes first of all its normal relation to 
 the vine. 
 
 In vv. 13-16 Jesus exalts Christian love to its full height, 
 by setting before it His own for its model. These four verses 
 are a commentary on the words : as I have loved you. And 
 first, ver. 1 3 states the point to which love carries its devotion, 
 death ; then vv. 1 4, 1 5 show the intimate character of the 
 relation He has borne to them, the confidential intercourse 
 of a friend rather than the authority of a master ; and lastly, 
 ver. 16 declares the free initiative which He took in estab- 
 lishing this relation : " If, then, you ask yourselves what limits 
 you are to lay down to your mutual love, first ask yourselves 
 what limits I set to the love I have shown to you ! " or : " and 
 if you want to know what it is to love, look at me " (Gess). 
 
 Ver. 13. " Greater love hath no man than this, 1 that a man 
 lay down his life for his friends." — Our Lord's meaning is 
 clear; in the relation of friends there is no greater proof of 
 love than the sacrifice of life. Undoubtedly there is, absolutely 
 speaking, a greater proof of love, viz. to give it for enemies, 
 Eom. v. 6-8. "Iva preserves the notion of an end: "The highest 
 point to tvhich love in this relation can aspire is . . ." 
 
 Vv. 14, 15. " Ye are my friends, if ye do ivhatsoever 2 I 
 command you. I no longer call you servants, because tJie ser- 
 vant Jcnoiveth not what his lord docth : but I have called you, 
 friends ; for all things that I have heard of my Father I have 
 made known unto you." — At ver. 14 the accent is not on the 
 condition : if you do, but upon the statement: ye are my friends, 
 as though Jesus meant to say, " It was not without a reason 
 that I just now said: for his friends (ver. 13), for this is 
 really the relation I have borne to you." And what is there 
 more touching in domestic life, than a master who, finding a 
 servant really faithful, raises him to the rights and title of a 
 friend ? — Ver. 1 5 proves the reality of this statement. He 
 had bestowed upon them an unbounded confidence, by com- 
 
 1 N D It, omit ris after nee.. 
 
 2 The Mss. read either a (B It a,i ') or « '« D L X It""" Vg. Cop.) or with 
 T. R. ota. (13 Mjj. Mnn. Syr.). , 
 
1 C 6 GOSPEL OF JOHN. 
 
 municating to them all that the Father had revealed to Him 
 regarding the great work for which He sent Him. Undoubtedly 
 there were still many things of which they were not yet 
 informed (xiv. 12). But it was not from want of confidence 
 and love that He had not revealed these also, but to spare 
 them in their state of weakness, and because another alone 
 could fulfil this task. The title : my friends, used in Luke 
 xii. 4, long before the present moment, has been adduced in 
 objection to this ovkctl (I no more call you) ; as though the 
 tendency to make them His friends had not existed from the 
 very first, and could have failed to manifest itself from time 
 to time ! It has also been objected that the apostles con- 
 tinued to call themselves servants of Jesus Christ, as though, 
 when the master chooses to make his servant a friend, the 
 latter is not all the more bound to remind himself and others 
 of his real condition ! 
 
 Ver. 16. " You have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, 
 and appointed you, that you should go and bear fruit, and 
 that your fruit should remain: that whatsoever^ ye ask the 
 Father in my name, He may give it you." — Jesus is conscious 
 how great is the proof of love which He has given them in 
 calling them of His own accord to the apostolate. It was 
 Himself alone who took the initiative in calling them to 
 the highest office bestowed upon man. By the expression : 
 I have chosen you, Jesus alludes, as in vi. 70 and xiii. 18, to 
 the solemn act of their election to the apostolate, narrated in 
 Luke vi. 12 sqq. The word cOtjku, have appointed, denotes 
 the endowment with spiritual light and power which accom- 
 panied this act, and enabled them to exercise such an aposto- 
 late. The expression vTrdyrjTe, that you may go, brings out 
 the kind of independence to which He had gradually raised 
 them : " I have put you in a condition to walk alone." Fruit 
 here, as throughout this chapter, denotes the communication 
 of spiritual life to mankind ; this fruit, unlike that produced 
 by earthly labour, does not perish, but remains. 
 
 The second that is rather parallel with, than dependent, as 
 
 Luthardt makes it, on the first; comp. the two 'Cva, xiii. 34, 
 
 and for the meaning the two ore, xiv. 12, 13. To the end of 
 
 their election, Jesus adds the essential means by which the 
 
 1 Instead of ;»« • ti *v and S*/ (or $«>i), N reads on a» and SWj*. 
 
chap. xv. 17-20. 167 
 
 apostles are to accomplish their task — a means which also 
 enters into the end of their vocation, viz. prayer in His name. 
 This latter proposition — depending as it does on the words : 
 I have appointed you — signifies : "And I have put you into 
 the glorious position of yourselves obtaining directly from the 
 Father all that you ask of Him." This is the privilege which 
 they owe to the free initiative of His love. 
 
 Ver. 17. " These things I command you, that ye may love 
 o.ne another" — The pronoun ravra {these things) can only refer 
 to the iva which follows : " I command this, so that you may 
 love one another." For the plural proves that this expression 
 comprises and sums up all the preceding instructions and 
 exhortations since xv. 1. The work is all love: love in its 
 hidden source, the love of the Father ; in its first manifesta- 
 tion, the love of Christ ; and lastly, in its full outpouring, the 
 love of believers for each other. Love is its root, its stem, 
 and its fruit. It forms the essential characteristic of the new 
 kingdom, whose power and conquests are owing solely to the 
 contagion of love. This is why our Lord left no other law 
 than that of love to those who had by faith become members 
 of His body. 
 
 Luthardt points out that not a single connective particle 
 occurs in the first seventeen verses of this chapter. There is 
 special solemnity in this long asyndeton. We have here the 
 last wishes of Jesus as delivered to His own (see xvii. 24). 
 Such a style could not be that of a Greek author, but must 
 have proceeded from the Hebrew mind. 
 
 2d. xv. 18-xvi. 4. 
 
 In opposition to this spiritual body, whose inner life and 
 external agency He has just described, Jesus beholds a hostile 
 association arise, whose unifying principle is hatred of Christ 
 and of God. This association, of whose hatred to believers 
 Jesus gives a sketch, vv. 18—25, is the world, mankind in its 
 natural state, which will declare war against the church, and 
 was at that time represented by the Jewish people. Then, 
 after encouraging His disciples by a passing indication of the 
 assistance which will be afforded them, He reproduces in more 
 vivid colours, ver. 26-xvi. 4, a description of the hostility of 
 the world. 
 
 Vv. 18-20. "If the world holes you, know that it hated me 
 
1G8 GOSPEL OF JOHN. 
 
 hrfore you} If ye were of the world, the world would love its 
 oivn : but because ye are not of the world, but I have drawn you 
 out of the world, therefore the world hateth you. Remember the 
 word that I have said 2 unto you, The servant is not greater 
 than his lord. If they have persecuted me, they ivill also 'per- 
 secute you; if they have kept my ivord, they will keep yours 
 also." — Jesus desired not only to announce to His disciples 
 that hatred on the part of the world of which they would be 
 the objects, but also to strengthen them against it ; and this 
 He did first by saying : " It will hate you as it hates me (vv. 
 18-20), and then it will hate you on my account " (vv. 21-25). 
 Nothing could better prepare for suffering than the certainty 
 of suffering like Christ and for Him. Tivdjo-Kere is not indi- 
 cative {you knoiv), but imperative, like' /xvrjfjLovevere (remember), 
 ver. 20. Consider what has happened in my case, and you 
 will understand that all that happens to you is but natural. 
 — By their union with Christ, the disciples would henceforth 
 represent a new principle upon earth. This would be a 
 strange and a wounding phenomenon to the world, which 
 would try to get rid of it. — 'E^eke^dfirjv, I have chosen, here 
 refers to their having been called to be believers, not apostles ; 
 and by it Jesus means to designate the act by which He with 
 drew them from the world, and not divine predestination. 
 The idea of the close connection thereby formed between Jesus 
 and His disciples reappears at ver. 20 in the expressions ser- 
 vant and lord. The axiom here cited by Jesus is used in the 
 same sense as at Matt. x. 24, but in one differing from John 
 xiii. 16. In ch. xiii. it was quoted as an encouragement to 
 humility, here as a reason for patience. — It is natural to 
 regard the two cases laid down by Jesus as both actual. The 
 mass of the people will no more be converted by the preach- 
 ing of the apostles than by that of Jesus. But as He had 
 enjoyed the satisfaction of snatching individuals from ruin, so 
 will this joy be also granted to them. This meaning seems 
 to me to be preferable to that of Grotius, who gives to the 
 second proposition an ironical signification; or to that of 
 Bengel, who takes Ttjpecv, to keep, in the sense of to observe 
 
 1 S D ItP Ieri i ue omit vfiuv. 
 
 2 Instead of rov Xoyou eu tyu itvtv, S reads rov \eyev »» tXccXnirxi D: rout Koyoui 
 tut ikaXnen. 
 
CHAP. XV. 21—25. 1G9 
 
 maliciously ; or lastly, to the interpretation of Lucke, Meyer, 
 De Wette, and Hengstenberg, who see in these two alternatives 
 only abstract propositions, of which the apostles must discern 
 which will be realized in their case. 
 
 Vv. 21-25. "But all this will they do unto you 1 for my 
 name's sake, because they hnoio not Him that sent me. If 1 
 had not come and spoken unto them, they woidd not have 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 works 
 such as none other has done, 2 they would not have sin : but now 
 they have seen and nevertheless have hated both me and my 
 Father. But this is that the word might be fulfilled which is 
 written in their law : They hated me without a cause" — 'AWd 
 (ver. 21) : " But be of good cheer, it is for my sake." — If Israel 
 has not in this case recognised God as Him who sent me, it 
 is because they have not in general the knowledge of God. 
 Their idea of God is morally perverted, and this is why they 
 have stumbled at my appearing. Jesus speaks only of their 
 ignorance, but behind this ignorance He discerns hatred of 
 good — of Himself as manifested good, of God the living good. 
 Hence the following words, ver. 2 2. Their long resistance to 
 God through the whole course of their history would certainly 
 have been forgiven, as well as their individual transgressions, 
 if they had at last surrendered in presence of this supreme 
 manifestation. But rejection of Jesus characterized their 
 state as one of invincible estrangement, as hatred of God, 
 which is by its nature the unpardonable sin. — The idea differs 
 somewhat from ix. 41. — Ver. 23. Jewish wickedness by hating 
 Jesus clearly showed itself to be hatred of God, and was thus 
 distinguished from mere ignorance, like that of the heathen. 
 The words of Jesus (ver. 22), or if not these, His works (ver. 
 24), ought to have opened their eyes. He whose conscious- 
 ness was not sufficiently developed to grasp the divine cha- 
 racter of His teaching, had at least eyes to behold His miracles. 
 On the two nai, see remarks on vi. 36. I cannot attach any 
 value to the reasons adduced by Meyer against this meaning. 
 His, if I am not mistaken, amounts to : " If I had not come, 
 
 1 B D L It al 'i Syr. : us v/u.a; instead of upm. it omits the -word. 
 
 2 The Mss. are divided between •riroivKtv (T. B. with E G H, etc.) and i-rciwrit 
 N A B D, eir.y 
 
170 GOSPEL OF JOIIX. 
 
 the Jews would not have rejected me and God in me, and 
 would not, by this rejection, have filled the measure of their 
 resistance to God." This idea might suit ix. 41, but is too 
 weak for the present context. — Ver. 25. 'AWd: But this is 
 not to be wondered at. The righteous man under the old 
 covenant had already complained by the mouth of David, Ps. 
 xxxv. 19, lxix. 4, of being the object of the gratuitous hatred of 
 the foes of God. If their hatred was to be entirely laid to their 
 own account, notwithstanding the faults and follies of the im- 
 perfect righteous man (Ps. lxix. 6), how much more might the 
 perfectly righteous Saviour make this complaint, which was 
 at the same time His comfort as well as the comfort of those 
 who suffer like Him and for His sake ! So that depends 
 upon : " This has happened," understood. — On the term : their 
 law, see remarks on viii. 1 7. De Wette sees a certain amount 
 of irony in these words : " They faithfully observe their law." 
 But this seems rather far-fetched. 
 
 Vv. 26, 27. "But 1 when the Support is come, whom I 
 will send unto you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who 
 proceedeth from the Father, He shall testify of me : and ye also 
 shall bear vntness, because ye have been with me from the begin- 
 ning? — Jesus here points out, in only a passing manner, the 
 power which will sustain them in their conflict with the world. 
 This idea He develops in the following paragraph, xvi. 5—1 5, 
 but now hastens to show His disciples the authority which 
 they would have to oppose to that of the world. In saying : 
 I vnll send, Jesus was necessarily thinking of His reinstate- 
 ment in His divine condition ; His saying, from the Father, 
 taught His own subordination to the Father, even when 
 He should have resumed that condition. — Jesus here desig- 
 nates the Spirit as the Spirit of truth, in opposition to the 
 falsehood, the voluntary ignorance, of the world. The Spirit 
 will disperse the obscurity with which the world endeavours 
 to surround itself. It is difficult (with Luthardt, Meyer, and 
 most moderns) to refer the words : who proceedeth from the 
 Father, to the same fact as the former : whom I will send to 
 yon from the Father, as this would be mere tautology. Besides, 
 the future ire/i-^w, I ivill send, refers to an historical fact to 
 take place at an undefined period, while the present eWo- 
 
 1 X B A omit Ss after *r«». 
 
CILVP. XV. 2G, 27. 171 
 
 peverai, procecdeth, seems to refer to a permanent, divine, and 
 therefore eternal relation. The divine facts of revelation are 
 based upon the Trinitarian relations, and are, so to speak, their 
 reflections. As the incarnation of the Son is related to His 
 eternal generation, so is the mission of the Holy Spirit to His 
 procession within the divine essence. — The Latin Church, start- 
 ing from the words : I will send, is not wrong in affirming the 
 Filioque, nor the Greek Church, starting from the words : from 
 the Father, in maintaining the per Filium and the subordination. 
 To harmonize these two views, we must place ourselves at the 
 Christological view-point of St. John's Gospel, according to 
 which the homoousia and the subordination are both at the 
 same time true. — The pronoun iiceivos, he, this Being, and He 
 only, sums up all the qualities which have been attributed to 
 the Holy Spirit, and brings out the authority of this divine 
 witness. The expression : shall hear witness of me, must not 
 be referred to the miracles effected by the Holy Spirit in 
 attestation of the mission of Jesus ; in which case we should 
 have virep i/xov, in my favour, and not irepl ifiov, of me, con- 
 cerning me. Does, then, this witness borne to the person of 
 Jesus consist in the presence of the Spirit in this world ? 
 Such a sense would suit neither the epithet Support, nor that 
 of Spirit of truth. Or is the witness to be borne by the Spirit 
 in the hearts of the apostles intended ? This cannot be when 
 the testimony spoken of is to be given before the world, and 
 in answer to its hostile attitude. We conclude, then, that 
 Jesus intended to speak of testimony to be borne by the 
 mouths of the apostles, like that of Peter and the one hundred 
 and twenty on the day of Pentecost. — But in this case, why 
 did He afterwards distinguish it from the testimony of the 
 apostles themselves : " And ye also shall tear witness to me" ver. 
 27 ? The difference is explained by the words which follow : 
 " because ye have been with me from the beginni?ig." The apostles 
 are by no means to be the passive instruments of the Spirit ; 
 they are to remain free personal agents. Side by side with the 
 agency of the Spirit, they will have their special part in the 
 testimony to be given. For they possess a treasure which is 
 their own, and which the Spirit could not have imparted to 
 them, their historical knowledge of the ministry of Christ from 
 its commencement to its close. The apostles were to be the 
 
172 GOSPEL OF JOHN. 
 
 witnesses of the historic Christ. Now the Spirit does not 
 teach historical facts, but reveals their true meaning. Hence 
 the apostolic testimony, and the testimony of the Spirit, form 
 but a single act, in which each contributes a different element, 
 — the one the historic narrative, the other the internal evidence 
 and the victorious power. This relation is reproduced in our 
 own days in all living preaching derived from Holy Scripture. 
 St. Peter equally distinguishes the two kinds of testimony, 
 Acts v. 32: " And we are His witnesses of these things ; and 
 so is also the Holy Ghost, whom God hath given to them that obey 
 Him!' This shows us why, when the apostles desired to fill 
 up the place of Judas, they chose two men who had accom- 
 panied Jesus from the baptism of John to the resurrection 
 (Acts i. 21, 22). — Kal u/xet? Si then signifies : "And you too, 
 you shall bear your part in this testimony." 
 
 xvi. 1—4. " These things have I spoken unto you that ye should 
 not be offended. They shall put you out of their synagogues ; 
 yea, the hour cometh, that whosoever killeth you will think he 
 offer eth worship to God. And these things will they do unto 
 you x because they have not known the Father nor me. But these 
 things I have foretold you, that ivhen their hour shall come, ye 
 may remember 2 that I told you, of them. These things I said 
 not unto you from the beginning, because I was with your — 
 Having thus encouraged His apostles, Jesus comes to the 
 most serious matter He had to communicate concerning the 
 subject of which He was speaking. The former picture 
 brought out especially the guilt of the persecutors, the present 
 words dwell rather on the sufferings of the persecuted ; the 
 apostles, having always lived in expectation of the national 
 conversion of Israel, might have felt their faith shaken at the 
 sight of the impenitence of this people, and of their increasing 
 hatred to the church. — 'AXka here, as frequently, is a term 
 of gradation (2 Cor. vii. 11): But you must expect more. 
 "Iva denotes that the contents of the hour are willed by God. 
 The fanatic zeal of Paul at the time of Stephen's martyr- 
 
 1 T. R., with N D L, several Mnn. ItP leri i ue Cop., reads vfuv after «r«»i<rei/«v ; 12 
 Mjj. Mnn. It al 'i Syr. omit it. 
 
 2 ABn Syr. read avruv twice, after up* (the hour of these thing*) and after 
 ftvvpevtvnri. L. Mnn. It. Vg. read it after up* and omit it after ^n^anvn-i. 
 D omits it both times. 
 
CHAP. XVI. 5-15. 173 
 
 dom is a striking example of the spiritual state described at 
 ver. 2 ; comp. Acts xxvi. 9. The notion of ignorance at 
 ver. 3 is introduced by the term Bo^rj, will think. Is it not 
 really the height of blindness to think to serve God by the 
 very act which is an expression of the most vehement hatred 
 against Him ? Ver. 4 returns to the thought of ver. 1. How- 
 ever terrible might be their sufferings, the apostles, by remem- 
 bering their Master's predictions, would no longer find in them 
 a reason for doubt, but a ground of faith ; comp. xiii. 9. 
 Hitherto Jesus had sought to spare them by not disclosing to 
 them this gloomy prospect. As long as He was with them, 
 it was upon Himself that the blow would fall. But now 
 that He was about to leave them, He could no longer conceal 
 from them the future that awaited them. — It seems to us 
 impossible to reconcile this saying : " These things I said not 
 unto you at the beginning," with the place occupied in the 
 discourse, Matt, x., by the positive announcement of the 
 persecutions to which the church would be subjected. It 
 cannot be said, with Euthymius and Chrysostom, that the 
 sufferings here foretold are far more terrible (comp. Matt. x. 
 17, 21, 28); nor, with Bengel and Tholuck, that the present 
 description is more detailed ; nor, with Hofmann and Luthardt, 
 that Jesus at this season of leave-taking made the announce- 
 ment of these persecutions the more exclusive object of His 
 discourse. All these distinctions seem to us too slight. It 
 would be better to admit that St. Matthew, in the great dis- 
 course given in ch. x., combines all the instructions given to 
 the Twelve at different periods on this subject, as he does in 
 chs. v.-vii. all the new Christian law, and in chs. xxiv. xxv. 
 all the eschatological predictions ; and that, because in the 
 composition of the Logia he attached more importance to 
 subject than to chronology. This characteristic is explained as 
 soon as the mode of composition of the first Gospel is under- 
 stood. (See my Etudes Bibliqiies, II. pp. 18, 19, 3d edit.) 
 
 3d. xvi. 5-15. 
 
 Jesus now describes the victory which His disciples shall 
 gain over a world in arms against them. He first points out 
 the power which will gain this victory by their means, 
 w. 5—7; then describes the victory itself, vv. 8-11; and 
 lastly, speaks to His disciples of that inward operation bv 
 
174 COSrEL OF JOHN. 
 
 which the Holy Spirit will prepare them to become His 
 instruments in this conflict with the world, vv. 12-15. 
 
 Vv. 5—7. " But now I go my ivay to Him that sent me : and 
 none of you askcth me, Whither goest thou ? But hecause I have 
 said these things unto you, sorrow hath filled your heart. Never- 
 theless I tell you the truth: it is expedient for you that I go away : 
 for if I 1 go not away, the Support will not come ; hut if I go, I 
 will send Him unto you." — Vv. 5 and 6 form a natural transition 
 from the idea of separation to the promise of the Paraclete, 
 ver. 7 ; the departure of Jesus being the condition of the 
 mission of the Holy Spirit. De Wette and Lucke propose 
 placing ver. 6 between the two propositions of ver. 5. Such 
 a proposal is useless, for the connection is perfectly clear : 
 from the great conflict Jesus proceeds to the great promise. 
 Grieved to see His disciples dwelling exclusively upon the 
 approaching separation, and not also upon the glorious end to 
 which His departure is to lead both Himself and them, He 
 reminds them that if He goes away, it is to Him who sent 
 Him ; and to raise them from the deep dejection into which 
 they had fallen, He invites them to ask the further informa- 
 tion which He desires to give them concerning the glorious 
 state into which He is about to enter, and the new agency He 
 will then exercise. The friendly reproof : "Hone of you askcth 
 me : Wliither goest thou ? " is not in contradiction with the 
 questions of Peter (xiii. 36) and Thomas (xiv. 5), since which 
 some considerable time had now elapsed, and which, moreover, 
 related, one to the possibility of following Jesus, the other to 
 the difficulty of knowing the way. As Hengstenberg says, 
 Jesus would at such a moment have rejoiced to find in them 
 the glad promptitude of hearts opening at the prospect of a 
 new era, and putting incessant questions concerning all that 
 it promised. 
 
 The words : Because I have said these things to you (ver. 
 6), after ver. 5, signify : " Because I have spoken of parting, 
 conflict, and suffering." At ver. 7 Jesus appealed, as He did 
 in xiv. 2, to their conviction of His truthfulness, and then 
 announced some of those causes of rejoicing concerning which 
 they had not been as forward as they should to inquire. 
 
 1 T. R., with 8BDLY It ali i, omits tyu, which is found in 10 Mjj. 120 Mnn. 
 
 Jt,pleri,,ue gy r# 
 
chap. xvi. 8-n. 175 
 
 His departure was the condition of His restoration to His 
 divine state, and this would enable Him to send the Holy 
 Spirit. It is the same idea which we meet with in vii. 39 : 
 "The Spirit was not yet, because Jesus was not yet glorified." 
 That Jesus might send the Spirit, He must possess Him as 
 His own personal life, and that as man, since it is to men 
 that He is to impart Him. This supposes the complete 
 glorification of His human nature. — It is surprising that no 
 mention should be made in this passage of the sacrifice of the 
 cross, which seems to be the first condition of the gift of the 
 Spirit. Certainly, if it had been the evangelist who had put 
 these words into the mouth of our Lord, this deficiency 
 would not have existed (comp. the first Epistle of St. John ii. 
 1, 2, v. 6-8). That it does so is explained by the statement 
 of ver. 12 : "I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye 
 cannot bear tliem now." 
 
 Vv. 8—11. "And when He is come, He ivill convince the 
 world of sin, of righteousness, and of judgment : of sin, because 
 they believe l not in me ; of righteousness, because I go to my 2 
 Father, and you shall see me no more ; of judgment, because 
 the prince of this world is judged." — We have here a descrip- 
 tion of the moral victory to be gained over the world by the 
 Holy Spirit, through the instrumentality of the disciples. 
 The preaching of St. Peter at Pentecost, and its results, are 
 the best commentary on this promise. The term eA.ey%ety 
 signifies to convince of fault or error, here of both at once. — 
 The world in which such conviction is to be produced is not, 
 as the Fathers, De Wette, and Bruckner think, men decidedly 
 lost, to whom the Holy Spirit will demonstrate the righteous- 
 ness of their condemnation. — Ver. 11 proves that the prince 
 of this world alone is actually judged. If the world is the 
 object of the Holy Spirit'b reproof, this is because it is still 
 capable of salvation. The effect of the apostle's preaching in 
 Acts shows that this reproof may lead the world to either 
 conversion or obduracy ; comp. 2 Cor. ii. 15, 16. The 
 apostles, the instruments of the Spirit's agency, are not 
 named. Their persons disappear in the glory of the Divine 
 Being who works by their means. The absence of the article 
 
 1 Some Mnn. ItP ,eri( J ue Vg. read oux <.Tri<n<-v<ra.v. 
 
 s K B D L, several Mnn. ItP ,eri i u,! Vg. Cop. omit fav after rartp*. 
 
17G GOSPEL OF JOHN. 
 
 before the substantives sin, righteousness, and judgment, leaves 
 these three notions their most indefinite meaning. Jesus 
 defines their application by the three on, because, which 
 follow. 
 
 Generally, when sin was spoken of in Israel, shameful 
 crimes or gross infractions of the Levitical law were intended. 
 The Holy Spirit would reveal to the world another sin, of 
 which it thought nothing: that of not believing in Jesus. 
 This He did by the mouth of St. Peter on the day of Pente- 
 cost (Acts ii. 22, 23, 36,iii. 14, 15) ; and those Jews who were 
 sincere immediately acknowledged the truth of this reproof 
 (Acts ii. 3 7). — This office is permanent. Jesus is the Supreme 
 Good ; to reject Him is to prefer evil to good, and wilfully to 
 persevere in such a preference. This it is which the Holy 
 Spirit is, by His instruments, continually making the un- 
 believing world feel. — 'AfiapTia<; on, not : will convince the 
 world of the sin which consists in unbelief, but : of sin in general, 
 and that because of its unbelief. 
 
 If the world, and especially the Jewish world, was in error 
 as to its notion of sin, it was not less so in its manner of 
 understanding righteousness. Its ideal of righteousness was 
 an unexceptionable Pharisee, honoured by God and men. The 
 Holy Spirit comes to show that this man, inasmuch as he 
 believes not, may be a type of sin (ver. 9). On the other 
 hand, He teaches the world what righteousness really is, by 
 making it see its new and only true type, in the Person of 
 One condemned as a malefactor by the righteousness of the 
 age, but exalted by God to His right hand, and who, from 
 the heaven into which He has vanished, acts with sovereign 
 power. The Holy Spirit, in this respect, exercises in some 
 sort the functions of a court of appeal. Good Friday had 
 attributed sin to Jesus, and righteousness to His judges; 
 Pentecost reversed the sentence. It was to the condemned 
 that righteousness belonged, it was His judges who were 
 malefactors. This meaning seems to us to result from the 
 contrast between the terms sin and righteousness, and from the 
 fact that, as in ver. 9 the Jews, the subject of the explanatory 
 proposition, are at the same time the individuals to whom 
 sin belongs, so in ver. 10 Jesus, the principal subject of 
 the explanatory proposition, must be the individual to whom 
 
CHAP. XVI. 8-11. 177 
 
 righteousness belongs. This righteousness cannot, then, he 
 (Augustine, Calvin, Luther, etc.) that which the believer finds 
 in Christ, or, as Lange thinks, that of God, who deprives the 
 Jews, as a punishment of their unbelief, of the visible pre- 
 sence of the Messiah and of His earthly kingdom ("you 
 shall see one no more "). — Jesus says : " because I go to my 
 Father." The ascension, as the principle of Pentecost, was, 
 indeed, the demonstration by fact of the righteousness of 
 Christ. He adds : " You shall see one oio more." By the 
 disappearance of His body, His departure acquired the 
 glorious character of a heavenly exaltation. If the corpse 
 had remained below, ignominy would still have rested on 
 the supposed malefactor. The disgrace of punishment was 
 washed away by the glorification of His body. This is the 
 idea which St. Peter developes in Acts ii. 24-26, combin- 
 ing, as it were, in one view, the resurrection and ascension 
 (vv. 32 and 33) as divine testimony to the innocence of 
 Jesus. 
 
 It would seem that when judgment is spoken of after the 
 contrast between sin and righteousness, it must be a judgment 
 which, emanating from righteousness, would strike the sin just 
 spoken of. It is not, however, anything of the kind. The 
 judgment of which the Holy Spirit will give a demonstration to 
 the world is not that of the sinful world, but of its prince. For 
 the world may yet be saved, if it accepts the reproofs of the 
 Spirit, while the prince of this world has now filled up the 
 measure of his sin. Till Good Friday, Satan had only dis- 
 played his murderous hatred against the guilty. On that 
 day he directed his attacks against the perfectly Kighteous 
 One. In vain had Jesus said : "He has nothing in one; " Satan 
 exhausted upon Him his murderous rage (viii. 44 and 40). 
 This murder, for which there was no excuse, brought forth 
 an immediate and irrevocable -sentence against him. From 
 that moment he was actually judged (perf. KeKpcrai), and his 
 ancient realm opened to the preaching of salvation. This 
 invisible revolution, of which the cross was the principle, and 
 whose results extend throughout the universe, was revealed 
 upon earth by the coming and the powerful language of the 
 Sprit ; and every sinner, snatched from Satan and regenerated 
 by the Spirit, is a monument of the condemnation hence- 
 
 GODET IIL M JOHN. 
 
173 GOSPEL OF JOHN. 
 
 forth pronounced upon him who was formerly called the prince 
 of this world. 
 
 This passage differs only in form from xii. 31, 32 ; the 
 three actors mentioned, the world, Satan, and Jesus, are the 
 same, as are also the parts attributed to them. One idea 
 alone is added, viz. that it is the Holy Ghost who will dis- 
 close to men the greatness of the invisible drama consum- 
 mated on the cross. Henceforth, then, some will remain in 
 the sin of unbelief, and share the judgment of the prince of 
 this world ; others will take the side of the righteousness of 
 Christ, and escape the judgment pronounced upon Satan. — But 
 if this victory of the Spirit is to be won by the apostles, 
 the work of the Spirit must first have been accomplished in 
 them. This is the reason that Jesus now passes from the 
 agency of the Spirit upon the world by believers, to His 
 agency in believers (vv. 12-15). 
 
 Vv. 12, 13. " I have yet many tilings to say unto you, but 
 you cannot bear them noiv. 1 When He, the Spirit of truth, is 
 come, He will guide you into all the truth ; 2 for He shall not 
 speak of Himself, but whatsoever ° He shall hear 4 that shall He 
 speak, and He shall announce to you things to come." — Jesus 
 begins by making room for the teaching of the Spirit beside 
 His own. At that very time He had told His disciples so 
 many things, which they could but half understand ! Un- 
 doubtedly He had, in respect of confidence, hid nothing from 
 them (xv. 15); but with regard to their spiritual incapacity, 
 He had kept to Himself many revelations which were re- 
 served for the teaching of the Spirit. These higher revela- 
 tions comprise all which in the apostolic writings goes beyond 
 the word of Christ in the Gospels : redemption by ' His 
 sacrifice, the relation of grace to the law, the conversion of 
 the Gentiles without legal conditions, the conversion of the 
 Jews, the final apostasy, the destiny of the church till its 
 consummation. In all these respects the teaching of Jesus 
 had only sown the germs, which the Spirit came to fertilize. 
 
 1 X omits apn. 
 
 2 T. R. with 11 Mjj. Mnn. : us nasai t»v aA^iiav. A B Y Or. : u; t. ax. 
 
 ■ra.tra.il. D L ItP leri 1 ue ; t» t» a.'KnSiia. Tasn. {< : tv t» a,Xnhia,. 
 
 3 Av is omitted by X V> D L, 4 Mnn. 
 
 4 T. It. with 10 Mjj.: xxovtrn. BDEHY Or.: kxmu. X L : mxovu. 
 
CHAP. XVI. 12, 13. 179 
 
 The term oBrjyeiv, to show the road, at ver. 13, presents the 
 Spirit under the image of a guide conducting a traveller in 
 an unknown country. This country is truth. It is evidently 
 only essential truth, the truth necessary to salvation, of which 
 Jesus here spoke. That realm of the new creation, which 
 He had only been able to show them at a distance, and by 
 means of similitudes, should be disclosed to them by the 
 Spirit in a direct and perfectly true manner. This truth, 
 according to xiv. 6, is Jesus Himself, His person, His word, 
 His work. — The reading el? suits the verb 6Sr]yija€t better 
 than ev. 
 
 The infallibility of this guide arises from the same cause 
 as that of Jesus Himself (vii. 17, 18) : the absence of all self- 
 originated and consequently unsound productivity. Satan is a 
 liar just because he speaks according to an entirely different 
 method, deriving what he says from his own resources (viii. 
 44). The term oaa civ, all tilings that, leads to the notion 
 of a series of separate acts. Eveiy time an apostle needs 
 wisdom, the Spirit will impart to him what is suitable. Of 
 the Father or of me may be understood as regimen of the verb 
 shall hear. Ver. 15 proves that these two ideas must be 
 combined, and this most naturally explains the expression 
 shall hear : He is present at the special communications 
 between the Father and the glorified Son ; He shares in the 
 revelation which God gives to Jesus Christ (Eev. i. 1), to show 
 unto His servants ; and thus initiated into the divine plan, 
 He instructs the disciples according to their needs. It is 
 evidently an instruction in things as yet unknown upon 
 earth (ver. 12), a primordial revelation, which is here spoken 
 of. It is by this characteristic that apostolic inspiration is 
 distinguished from that of simple believers. The latter is 
 but a reproduction of the knowledge for which we are in- 
 debted to the former, and is consequently but indirectly 
 included in this promise. It is effected by means of the 
 word, in which the apostles deposited the wealth of the 
 original revelation, which was their prerogative. The expres- 
 sion all the truth shows that, during the present dispensation, 
 no new word of Christ will be heard upon earth. — To this 
 teaching of the Spirit belongs also, as a specially important 
 clement, the revelation of the destiny of the church, the, 
 
180 GOSrEL OF JOHN". 
 
 tilings to come. — Kal, and even. As Jesus is not merely the 
 Christ who is come, but also the Christ coming (6 ip%6/jievo<;, 
 Eev. i. 4), these tilings to come (ip^ofxeva) are still contained 
 in His person. The saying xiv. 26 gives the formula of 
 the inspiration of our Gospels ; ver. 1 3 gives that of the 
 inspiration of the Epistles and the Apocalypse. 
 
 Vv. 14, 15. " He shall glorify me, for He shall take of ivhat 
 is mine, and shall show it unto you. All that the Father hath 
 is mine ; therefore said I, He shall take 1 of mine and shall shotu 
 it unto you." — The asyndeton between vv. 1 3 and 1 4 shows 
 that Jesus does but reproduce in ver. 14, in a new and 
 stronger form, the thought of vv. 12 and 13. The definite 
 work of the Spirit will be the glorification of Jesus in the hearts 
 of the apostles. After the Father has personally exalted Christ 
 to glory, the Holy Spirit will beam forth from above His heavenly 
 image in the hearts of the disciples, and by their means in 
 those of all believers. We have here a mysterious exchange, 
 and, as it were, a rivalry of divine humility. The Son 
 labours only to glorify the Father, and the Spirit desires only 
 to glorify the Son. — The close relation between ver. 14 and 
 what precedes shows that the revelation of the truth (ver. 13) 
 is nothing else than the glorification of Jesus in the heart. 
 Christ, His words and work, — this is the only text on which 
 the Holy Spirit will comment in the souls of the disciples. 
 Thus He will, by one and the same act, cause the disciples to 
 grow in truth, and Jesus to grow in them. — To understand 
 this word glorify, comp. the experience so admirably described 
 by St. Paul in 2 Cor. in. 17, 18. In calling the source from 
 which the Spirit is to draw mine, Jesus uttered a paradox, of 
 which He gives the explanation in ver. 15. In fact, He adds, 
 " all that the Father hath is mine." This wonderful saying 
 reveals, as none other does, the consciousness He possessed of 
 the greatness of His Person and His gospel. Christian fact 
 is, in the consciousness of Jesus, the measure of the divine for 
 human nature. There is nothing Christian which is not 
 Divine, nothing Divine which is not Christian. — " Therefore 
 said I unto you " here signifies : " Therefore I have been able 
 
 1 T. R., with A K n, some of the Mnn. ItP Ieri i ue Vg. Cop., reads Xn^trcn (shall 
 take). But BDEGLMSUYaa Syr. and most of the Mnn. read Xaftfavti 
 (takes). N (coniusing the two avayyiXu v/n>) omits the whole of ver. 15. 
 
CHAP. XVI. 16-18. 181 
 
 to say." — There is more documentary authority for the pres. 
 takes (ver. 15) than for the future will take. It is, besides, 
 in relation with the presents hath, is, the future seeming a 
 correction after ver. 14. He talces — this is His permanent 
 function, the principle of His agency, whence it results that 
 He will take in each particular case. — It is evident that 
 there is no really divine inspiration which does not refer to 
 Jesus Christ. St. Paul, too, makes the exclamation of adora- 
 tion : " Jesus is the Lord ! " the criterion of all true action 
 on the part cf the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. xii. 3). When it is 
 remembered that the glorification of the creature is in the 
 Scriptures the capital crime, it will be understood what is 
 implied by such words. 
 
 All these discourses, and especially this masculine pro- 
 noun e'/ceiw?, He, in ver. 14, are based upon the notion of the 
 personality of the Holy Spirit. 
 
 III. The Last Farewell. — xvi. 16-33. 
 
 From these distant prospects Jesus returns to the event 
 which so engrossed the present moment, to His approaching 
 departure. It was natural that He should end with this, and 
 that the conversational form should reappear. 
 
 Vv. 16-18. "A little ivhile, and you slmll see me no more ; x 
 then a little while more, and you shall see me, because I go to the 
 Father. 2 Then said some of His disciples among themselves : 
 What is this that He saith unto us, A little while, and you shall 
 see me no more ; 3 then a little while more, and you shall see me ? 
 And, because 1 4 go to the Father. They said, therefore, What 
 is this 5 that He saith : A little while ? We do not understand 
 what He saith!' — If the seeing again promised refers to appear- 
 ances of Jesus after the resurrection, there is no connection 
 between ver. 16 and the preceding verse. But the asyndeton 
 leads us to suppose that there is a very deep connection 
 
 1 K B D L A read auxin instead of ov. 
 
 2 S B D L It aliq Cop. omit the words an . . . -z-artpx, which are read in 13 Mjj. 
 most of the Mnn. It al 'i Syr. etc. 
 
 3 N (confusing the two ptxpov ku.i) omits the words uixpav xat . . . va\tv. 
 
 4 Eya, is omitted bySABLMAn.il Mnn. Hp 1 " 1 ^ 6 . 
 
 5 Instead of rovro n .. « Xiya, B L Y It. Or. read n i. rcuro e A., and K D t. 
 
 \ff-TI TOUT*. 
 
182 GOSPEL OF JOHN. 
 
 between them. This proves that this seeing Him again refers 
 to the illumination of Pentecost, which being admitted, the 
 relation with what precedes no longer offers any difficulty. 
 Full of the idea of His glorification by the Spirit in the hearts 
 of His disciples, Jesus called this return a seeing of each other 
 again (vv. 16, 22). It was by this living reappearance in the 
 souls of His disciples that their approaching separation w r ould 
 be ended. — The first jxinpov, a little while, is that which ends 
 at the death of Jesus ; the second terminates at Pentecost. 
 Four Alex, omit the words : Because I go to the Father. Pro- 
 bably it was not understood how the departure of Jesus could 
 be the cause of His being seen again, especially when this 
 seeing Him again was understood of the appearances of His 
 risen body. But all is clear when this is referred to Pente- 
 cost. It was because Jesus ascended to the Father that He 
 could manifest Himself anew by the Holy Spirit. Still, by 
 expressing Himself as He did, Jesus proposed, as He was 
 aware, a problem to His disciples. Those two short delays 
 (a little ivhile), which were to have opposite results, and that 
 apparently contradictory notion : " you shall see me because I 
 go away . . .," could not fail to be enigmas to them. "We here 
 again meet with the pedagogic process, which we have already 
 observed in xiv. 4, 7. By these paradoxical expressions, He 
 purposely provoked the disclosure of their last doubts, for the 
 sake of entirely removing them. 
 
 The kind of aside which took place between certain of the 
 apostles (ver. 17) could not be easily explained if they had 
 still been gathering round our Lord, as when He uttered the 
 discourse in xv. 1 sqq. It is therefore probable that at 
 ver. 16 He continued His journey, the disciples following at a 
 short distance. This explains how they could converse with 
 one another, as related in vv. 17 and 18. The words: I go 
 to my Father, were perhaps the signal to proceed. — The objec- 
 tions of the disciples were, from their point of view, natural. 
 That which is quite clear to us was to them all mystery. If 
 Jesus were about to found an earthly kingdom, why should 
 He depart ? If not, why should He return ? Then how were 
 they to understand these contradictory sentences, which were 
 to be accomplished one after another ? And, lastly : " I come 
 because I depart . . . ! " Had they not some reason for ex- 
 
CHAP. XVI. 19, 20. 183 
 
 claiming: "We do not understand what He saith" (ver. 18) ? 
 All this clearly proves the truth of the narrative ; for how 
 could a later author have ever thus placed himself in the 
 very quick of the historical reality ? The last words of ver. 
 17 necessarily assume the reading of the T. E. at ver. 16. 
 
 Vv. 19, 20. "Jesus then 1 knew that they desired" 2 to ash 
 Him, and said unto them, Do ye inquire among yourselves of 
 what I said : A little while, and ye shall not see me ; and 
 again a little while, and ye shall see me ? Verily, verily, 1 say 
 unto you, that ye shall weep and lament, hut the world shall 
 rejoice ; and 3 ye shall he sorrowful, hut your sorrow shall he 
 turned into joy." — Jesus here gives them a last proof of His 
 superior knowledge, not only by showing them that He was 
 conscious of the questions which were engrossing their 
 thoughts, but also by solving in this last conversation all the 
 enigmas by which they were tortured. But being unable to 
 give them an objective knowledge of those great facts which 
 were about rapidly to transpire, He described the opposite and 
 sudden impressions of which they would themselves be the 
 subjects. The greatest joy would succeed the greatest grief, 
 and the latter would be but short — as short as the hour of 
 travail to a woman ; it would only last during the time of 
 coing to His Father and returning. It would be a terrible 
 hour for them to pass through, but He could not spare it them, 
 and afterwards their joy would be unmixed, and their power 
 unlimited. These are the contents of vv. 20—24. — The tears 
 and lamentations of ver. 20 find their explanation at ch. xx. 
 in the tears of Mary Magdalen, and in the state of the dis- 
 ciples after their Master's death. The appearance of the 
 risen Saviour only half healed this wound ; perfect joy was not 
 given till the day of Pentecost (ver. 22). The words: and 
 the world shall rejeice, are not the true antithesis of the words : 
 ye shall weep. They only form a kind of inserted contrast. 
 This is why Jesus reproduces them in the words : you shall 
 he sorrovjful, to introduce the originally intended antithesis : 
 But your sorrow shall he turned into joy. The he, hut, after 
 i'lxeh well expresses this return to the former idea. 
 
 1 M B D L omit aw after tyvw. 
 x N : ny-ixkov instead of wAav. 
 * K D D A Unique Syi* h Cop. omit Si. 
 
184 GOSPEL OF JOHN. 
 
 Vv. 21, 22. "A woman when she is in travail hath sorrow, 
 because her hour is come ; but as soon as she is delivered of the 
 child, she remembereth no more the anguish, for her joy that a 
 man x is born into the world. And ye also now have sorrow ; 2 
 but I will see you again, and your heart shall rejoice ; and your 
 joy no man taketh 3 from you." — The term of comparison is 
 the sudden transition from the extremity of grief to the ex- 
 tremity of joy, and to this we must confine ourselves. The 
 notion of the bringing forth of a new world as the result of 
 this hour of anguish does not seem to have been in the mind 
 of Jesus. — The expression : her hour, alludes perhaps to the 
 terrible hour through which Jesus had Himself to pass {my 
 hour). What they would experience would be but the 
 rebound of what He had to bear. The word a man brings 
 out the greatness of the event accomplished, and gives a 
 reason for the mother's joy. 
 
 Ver. 22 applies the comparison. The connection of this 
 verse with the following clearly determines its meaning. It 
 is the event of Pentecost and not the resurrection which is 
 here spoken of. The meaning of the words : " I will see you 
 again," may be expressed as follows : " I will return to see 
 you, to revisit you, to live again with you." These words are 
 not exactly synonymous with : " you shall see me again." His 
 death not only separated His disciples from Him, but also 
 Himself from His disciples. He no longer held, as during 
 His life, the reins of their life. It is for this reason also that 
 He, in the prayer which follows, entrusted them to His Father, 
 so real was the separation on both sides. After Pentecost, on 
 the contrary, He again guided His flock with His crook, 
 and governed them from His heavenly throne. It is this 
 change in His own situation which He expresses by : / 
 will see you again (a change which the resurrection alone 
 could not have effected). This explanation appears to Meyer 
 artificial, and I will see you again is, in his opinion, iden- 
 tical with you shall see me again. — The present alpet, takes, is 
 the true reading, Jesus transporting Himself in thought to 
 that time. 
 
 1 N reads « before avfy<u*«j. 
 
 2 A D L, 12 Mnu. It ali i Cop. : i\iti instead of ix'-t'-. 
 
 3 B D r It aliq : *fU {will take) instead of tuiu {takes). 
 
CHAP. XVI. 23-27. 185 
 
 Vv. 23, 24. " And in that day ye shall no more question 
 me on anything ; verily, verily, I say unto you, that whatsoever l 
 ye shall ask the Father in my name, 2 He will give it you. 
 Hitherto have ye asked nothing in my name ; ask, 3 and ye shall 
 receive, that your joy may be made full" — This perfect joy 
 (ver. 22) will be based upon a double privilege, which they 
 will from that day enjoy, — fulness of knowledge (ver. 23a), 
 and fulness of power (ver. 23&). They will no longer need 
 to ask Him to explain what might seem to them mysterious 
 or obscure, as they had but just now desired to do, ver. 19 ; 
 they would have the Paraclete within. And, moreover, this 
 inward source of light would make them participate in omni- 
 potence, by conferring on them the new faculty of prayer in 
 the name of Jesus (comp. xiv. 12-14). — The reading of A, o, rt, 
 av, all that, may well be the true one. After having changed 
 this 6 Tt into cm, because, it was necessary to add the pronouns 
 6 or oaa, and the on was next omitted as useless (Meyer). — 
 Ver. 24 does not absolutely require that the words in my 
 name (ver. 23) should be connected with the verb you shall 
 ask, rather than with He will give. This is, however, not- 
 withstanding the Alex., their most natural relation. — Before 
 the gift of Pentecost, the apostles could not pray in the name 
 of Jesus — that is to say, as His organs ; for this, it was 
 necessary that He should live in their hearts. By saying : 
 ask (pres. alrelre), Jesus transports Himself to the great day 
 announced. Then, says Meyer, will the deliverance described 
 in ver. 21 be consummated, and perfect joy succeed extreme 
 grief. 
 
 Vv. 25—27. "These things have I spoken unto you in parables: 
 but 4 the hour cometh when 5 / shall no more speak unto you in 
 parables, but I shall speak 6 to you openly of the Father. At 
 
 1 Instead of on ten at, which is the reading of T. E. with 10 Mjj. Mnn., A 
 reads on (probably o, n) av ; BCDLY It. Or. : av n ; N : on o av; X and some 
 Mnn. : on » tav ; Syr. : oaa. av. 
 
 2 SBCLXYi Sah. Or. place sv t. nap. pov after 1j>o-u vp.iv (will give in my 
 name). 
 
 3 S and some Mnn. read anntrao-h instead of airwri. 
 
 4 N BCDLXY ItP'" i( i ue Or. omit «/U«. 
 
 6 S reads onov instead of »«. 
 
 6 The Mss. are divided between avayytXu (N A B, etc) and avayytX* (E G H, 
 etc.). 
 
186 COSPEL OF JOHN. 
 
 that day ye shall ask in my name : and I say not unto you, 
 that I will pray the Father for you : for the Father Himself 
 lovcth you, because ye have loved me, and have believed that I 
 came forth from God." 1 — Ver. 25 takes up again and enve- 
 lopes the idea of ver. 23a (knowledge), vv. 26, 27 that of 
 235 (power). Jesus during His whole teaching made use 
 of figures ; He had done so that very evening (the vine, the 
 woman in travail, His return, their seeing one another again), 
 because He could not just then express Himself plainly. It 
 is the office of the Spirit alone to speak in language really 
 commensurate with the truth. All teaching in words is but 
 a parable, until the Spirit explains it. Tlappr\ala here signi- 
 fies, in appropriate terms, which do not compromise the idea 
 by exposing it to erroneous interpretation. On irapoiixla, see 
 remarks on x. 6. — It is not easy to decide between the two 
 verbs dvwyyeXetv (Byz.), to declare openly, and aTrayyeWeiv 
 (Alex.), to announce as news. 
 
 V. 26 and xiv. 16 are harmonized by the fact that before 
 Pentecost Jesus prayed for His disciples that He might 
 send the Spirit to them ; while after the Pentecostal gift, and 
 in proportion as it worked in them, they themselves prayed 
 in His name, and consequently He needed no longer to pray 
 for them. As long, then, as they remain in this state of union 
 with Him, the intercession of Jesus (Piom. viii. 34 ; Heb. vii. 
 25) is unnecessary. But as soon as they sin, they need the 
 advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous (1 John ii. 
 1, 2). The expression : / say not that I will pray, is admir- 
 ably adapted to this condition. He does not promise that He 
 ivill pray, for as long as they remain in the normal condition 
 they will not need it. In this condition He prays by them, 
 not for them. But He does not say that He will not pray, 
 for they may happen yet to need His intercession when some 
 separation takes place between Him and them. Grotius and 
 others understand the words : I say not that ... in the 
 sense : not to say that I also will pray for you. This is making 
 Jesus say exactly the reverse of His thought, as shown by 
 ver. 2 7. — On the words : the Father Himself loveth you, because 
 you have loved me, comp. xiv. 21, 23. By saying: and have 
 believed, Jesus comes back from Pentecost to the present state 
 
 * Instead of foov, B C D L X, 2 Miin. Syr 8011 Sail, read -rxr f »i. 
 
CHAP. XVI. 28. 187 
 
 of His disciples. This is also shown by the present, loveth, and 
 the perfects, have loved and have believed, as opposed to the 
 futures which precede them. Jesus returns to the work 
 already effected, the condition of that which still remained to 
 be accomplished (that of Pentecost). And, in fact, the supreme 
 moment was at hand. It was time to set the seal to the 
 faith actually formed. For this purpose Jesus clearly states 
 its essential contents : " You have believed that I came forth 
 from God!' Teschendorf himself rejects the Alex, reading : from 
 the Father, instead of: from God (which is the reading of the 
 Sinait.). Indeed, it was the divine origin and mission of 
 Jesus, and not His filial relation to God, which it was needful 
 at that moment to hold forth as the principal object of the 
 apostles' faith. The case is quite different at ver. 28. The 
 prepos. nrapd, from with, and the verb e^jkOov, I came forth, 
 express more than the mere mission, which would have been 
 designated by airo and ekrjXvOa, and characterize that divine 
 sphere in general whence Jesus proceeds. They well bring 
 out the heroism of the apostles' faith. They had recognised 
 in this Being of flesh and blood, this feeble and despised man, 
 one who came from the Divine abode. 
 
 Ver. 28. " I came forth 1 from the Father, and am come into 
 the world: now I leave the world, and go to the Father." — 
 What the disciples could not previously understand was, that 
 Jesus should leave the world, where He was, as they thought, 
 to establish His kingdom. They had, besides, no clear notion 
 of the place to which He was going. Jesus started from what 
 was more clear, for the purpose of explaining to them what 
 was less so. They believed and understood that His origin 
 was divine ; that behind His terrestrial existence was not 
 nothingness, but the bosom of the Father (ver. 2 7) ; that con- 
 sequently this world was to Him only a place of passage ; that 
 He came hither solely to perform a work. What more 
 natural than that, having accomplished this work, He should 
 leave this world, to which He came only for a purpose, and 
 return to God, from whom He proceeded ? The ascension is 
 explained by the incarnation, and the divine future is illumi- 
 nated by the divine past. The symmetry of the four pro- 
 positions of this verse casts an unexpected light on the history 
 
 1 Instead of vxpa {from with), B C L X, 2 Jinn. Cop. Or. read tx (out of). 
 
188 GOSPEL OF JOII2T. 
 
 of Jesus and on each of the four great phases in which it is 
 summed up : self-abnegation, incarnation, death, ascension. — 
 The Alex, reading i/e has, as Liicke himself observes, a too 
 decidedly dogmatic flavour to be genuine. Ilapd, from, here, 
 as in ver. 27, includes both origin and mission. The idea of 
 this first proposition is the renunciation by Jesus of the divine 
 condition which He possessed with God. He here says the 
 Father, instead of God (ver. 2 7). He was no longer speaking, 
 as in ver. 27, of the contents of the apostolic faith. All the 
 sweetness of His filial relation to the Father was present to 
 His mind. The term irakiv, again, which we have translated 
 by now, indicates the correlation between His coming and 
 returning, the former fully justifying the latter. The apostles 
 understand why He goes away : because He came ; and whither 
 He goes : to God, because it was from God that He came. 
 
 Vv. 29, 30. "His disciples said unto Him} Lo, now speediest 
 Thou plainly, and speahest no parable. Now we know that Thou 
 knowest all things, and needest not that any should ash Thee : 
 for this we believe, that Thou earnest forth from God." — At hear- 
 ing this simple and exact recapitulation of all the mysteries 
 of His existence, past, present, and future, the disciples felt 
 surrounded by unexpected light; a unanimous and spontaneous 
 confession was pronounced by them ; and the doubts which 
 had from the be^innin^ of these conversations tormented 
 them, were dispersed. They seemed to have nothing more to 
 desire in respect of illumination, and to have already arrived 
 at that noonday of perfect knowledge which Jesus had just 
 promised. Not that they had the folly to affirm, in opposition 
 to the word of Him whose omniscience they were that moment 
 proclaiming, that the promised time had already arrived ; still 
 the light was so bright that they could not conceive one more 
 brilliant. By answering thus directly the thoughts which 
 were secretly agitating their hearts, Jesus gave them a 
 standard whereby to estimate the truth of all His sayings, 
 and the certainty of all his promises. — They had just 
 experienced, like Nathanael in the early days of His 
 ministry, that He was omniscient, and like him, they thence 
 inferred that He was Divine. — The relation of the words : Thou 
 needest not that any should ask thee, to those of ver. 19, Jesus 
 ' K B C D A n, 2 Mnn. Il" ,!< > oir.it mt*. 
 
CHAP. XVI. 31-33. 189 
 
 knew that they were desirous to ash Him, is indisputable ; but 
 it must be understood, as above, in a large sense, and one 
 worthy this solemn scene (against Meyer). — The two ideas of 
 Divine mission (enro) and origin (i%?]\6e<;) are mingled in the 
 confession of the disciples, as they are in the expression 
 Son of God, i. 5 0. 
 
 Vv. 31-33. "Jesus answered them, Noiv ye believe. Be- 
 hold, the hour cometh, and is already x come, that ye shall be 
 scattered, every one to his own home, and shall leave me alone : 
 and yet I am not alone, because the Father is with me. These 
 things have I told you, that in me ye might have 'peace. In 
 the world ye shall have 2 tribulation ; but be of good cheer ; I 
 have overcome the ivorld." — The present was to Jesus a moment 
 of unutterable sweetness ; He had been recognised and under- 
 stood by these eleven Galileans. That was enough ; the Holy 
 Spirit would complete the work of glorifying Him in them, 
 and through them in mankind. He can now close this con- 
 versation and give thanks, for His earthly work is finished. 
 St. John alone understood the greatness, and has preserved the 
 remembrance, of this moment. We must be careful, therefore, 
 not to take the words : Now you believe, in an interrogative 
 sense, as though Jesus had cast any doubt upon the reality of 
 their faith ; nor must we set dprc, now, in opposition to what fol- 
 lows : " Now indeed you believe, but what will you do shortly ? " 
 For how, in this case, could Jesus have poured forth such fer- 
 vent thanksgiving to God for the faith of His disciples ? Comp. 
 xvii. 8. " They have known truly (aXwOoos) that I came forth 
 from Thee, and they have believed that Thou didst send me" words 
 in which Jesus certainly alluded to this, ver. 30. The word 
 now refers to the past, not to the future : " You have then 
 reached the point to which I have so long laboured to lead 
 you. At length you believe." 
 
 The tie, however, which is but just formed, is about to be sub- 
 jected to a rude test (ver. 32). The bundle will be broken at 
 least externally. But the centre will remain firm, and all the 
 scattered members will return and group themselves around 
 it. — Nvv, which we have rendered by already, may have been 
 
 1 K ABCDLX Cop. omit *w before i\n\v6n. 
 
 - Instead of i%in (you shall have), which is the reading of T. E. with D, several 
 linn. ItP ,tri i ue > the other documents have txtn {you have). 
 
100 GOSPEL OF JOHN. 
 
 omitted by the Alex., because it seemed as though the time 
 had not yet arrived. — The aor. pass. aKopiriaO^re, when you 
 shall be scattered, is more fitted to extenuate than to aggravate 
 the fault of the disciples announced by the words : ye shall 
 leave me alone. It is a violent blow, which will strike and 
 stun them. This saying recalls the quotation from Zechariah 
 in the Synoptists : "/ will smite the shepherd, and the sheep shall 
 be scattered" (Matt. xxvi. 31). — El? to, Ihia, to their respective 
 dwellings. Gess remarks that this saying and that of ver. 33, 
 uttered as they were at the moment when the disciples were 
 about to forsake Him, contain beforehand the pardon of their 
 unfaithfulness. 
 
 Ver. 3 2 reassured the disciples with regard to their Master's 
 Person ; ver. 3 3 aimed at setting them at rest as to themselves. 
 — All that Jesus said to them during this last evening tended 
 to inspire them with perfect repose by means of faith in Him 
 (xiv. 1-xv. 17). Undoubtedly He could not conceal from 
 them that they would have a conflict to maintain with the 
 world (xv. 18-xvi. 4). But in presence of the tribulation by 
 which this conflict would be accompanied, their peace must 
 acquire the character of assurance, and become courage (6apao<;). 
 For Christ has vanquished beforehand that hostile world with 
 which they have to contend, has resisted its seductions and 
 overcome its terrors. The cross which awaited Him, and 
 which His obedience accepted, showed that henceforth the 
 w r orld had in Him its conqueror. — The two regimens, in me 
 and in the world, are opposed to each other ; they designate, the 
 one the sphere of the inner life : peace ; the other that of the 
 outer life : tribulation. The last proposition points to the 
 victory of the life in Christ over the changing fortunes of the 
 earthly life — a victory whose principle is that of Christ's over 
 the world. As yet this was only accomplished in Him who 
 was speaking, but it w T ould soon be so in their case also. 
 'Eyco, I, emphatically brings out the idea of that unique per- 
 sonality whose viccory is that of all the rest. 
 
CHAP. XVII. 1-26. 191 
 
 THIED SECTION. 
 
 XVII. 1-26. THE PKAYEK. 
 
 It was with a shout of triumph that Jesus concluded Hia 
 conversations with His disciples ; but this triumph was an 
 anticipation of faith. To transform the present reality into 
 victory, nothing less than God's omnipotence was needed. 
 And to this Jesus appeals. 
 
 This prayer is generally divided into three parts: first, prayer 
 for Himself (vv. 1-5) ; secondly, prayer for His apostles (vv. 
 6-19) ; and thirdly, prayer for the church (vv. 20-26). But 
 when Jesus prayed for Himself, He had in view not His own 
 person, but the work of God (vv. 1, 2); when He prayed for the 
 apostles, it was as the instruments and continuers of this same 
 work ; and when He commended to God believers present and 
 future, it was as the objects of that work, and because their 
 souls were to be the theatre on which the Father's glory was 
 to be displayed. The framework of the prayer is indeed that 
 indicated by the generally received division, but the leading 
 thought which unifies it is the Father's work, or, which comes 
 to the same thing, the glory of God. This prayer of Jesus is 
 throughout inspired by His mission and His filial affection. 
 He thanks God for what has already been given Him to do 
 for His cause, and asks for the more effectual means which 
 are henceforth indispensable to the completion of the work 
 now begun. 
 
 This prayer is more than a mere meditation. Jesus had 
 acted (ch. xiii.) and spoken (chs. xiv.-xvi.) ; He now used * ,3e ^ 
 language which is at the same time action : He prayed. oW ^ ne 
 He not only prayed, He prayed aloud ; which prr t° him. 
 while speaking to God, He was also speaking for th'™ person 
 Him. He desired to initiate them into that close s > moreover, 
 which He maintained with His Father, and, if pos4 y speaks of 
 them to pray with Him. It is an anticipatory jtually desig- 
 that communion of glory which He asked for them e more just 
 " That they may behold my glory which Thou ha&Alex. read- 
 that they may be with me where I am!' He raie )n v Thee, 
 
 that divine sphere in which He Himself dwells. an( ^ * s no ^ 
 
 "God the 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 \ 
 
192 GOSPEL OF JOHN. 
 
 This prayer has heen called priestly. We have here, indeed, 
 the act of the High Priest of mankind beginning His sacrifice 
 by offering to God Himself and all His people, present and 
 future. Beyschlag rightly brings forward a multitude of ex- 
 pressions in this prayer which would be inapplicable to the 
 Logos as such, and which thus exclude the hypothesis that 
 the theory of the Logos was the parent of this Gospel. (On 
 its true theory, comp. Introd. pp. 187, 189.) 
 
 Vv. 1-5 : Jesus prays for restoration to His divine glory. 
 
 Vv. 1,2. " These words spake 1 Jesus, and lifted up^ His eyes 
 to heaven, and said, Father, the hour is come ; glorify Thy Son, 
 that Thy Son 3 also* may glorify Thee : as Thou hast given 5 Him 
 'power over all flesh, that to all those whom Thou hast given Him, 
 He may give 6 eternal life." — Jesus had spoken the preceding 
 sayings on the road from Jerusalem to Gethsemane ; He was 
 therefore on the point of passing the brook of Kedron. At 
 this decisive moment He paused for reflection and prayer. — 
 He raised His eyes to heaven — a natural effort of the soul to 
 escape from the prison of the body, an aspiration towards the 
 living God, whose glory shines in the majestic spectacle of the 
 heavens. How much better is this action understood out of 
 doors than in a room ! (comp. xi. 41 ; Mark vii. 34). The 
 words : and He said, mark the moment when, beyond this 
 visible heaven, His heart met the countenance of God, and in 
 the God of the universe beheld His Father. The whole spirit 
 of the prayer which follows is concentrated in this name of 
 Father by which He addresses God. The tone which dis- 
 tinguishes it is that of confidence and filial affection. The 
 cAramean word N2N (abba), Father, which was generally used 
 victJ.esus in prayer, and which expressed the holiest emotions 
 earthly 1 heart, became sacred to Christians, and passed as such 
 the worldanguage of the New Testament (Eom. viii. 15 ; Gal. 
 was speaki. 
 
 'E<ya> I emi" instead of i\tt.\*tri*. 
 
 sonalitv whoi X ' 7 Mnn ' Ita ' iq Vg ' Cop : ,ra ' ,aj ■ • ■ £ " r£v instead of 5,r ^ 5 
 
 omit <r»v after vh>s {the Son instead of thy Son). 
 
 3 Mnn. ItP leri * ue Vg. Syr. Cop. Or. omit x.x, after <»«. 
 xcts instead of Huku.; (this variation is almost constantly repeated 
 s passage). 
 law avTon (T. E. with 7 Mjj.), 9 Mj\ (B E H, etc.) have lum 
 

 CHAP. XVII. 1, 2. 193 
 
 iv. G). — The hour of which St. John and our Lord Himself had 
 often said in the course of the Gospel, that it was not yet come, 
 — the hour of death as that of a transition to glory, — had now 
 struck. But if this was to be its result, the interposition of the 
 Father, the manifestation of His arm in the glorification of 
 the Son, was needed. Many, understanding by this glorification 
 of Jesus the moral perfection which, by the Divine assistance, 
 He would exhibit in His sufferings, give His prayer the 
 meaning of : " Strengthen me, that I may honour Thee in the 
 conflict which awaits me." Others, like Eeuss, think rather of 
 the poiusr of attraction which Jesus would henceforth exercise 
 upon men, and of His spiritual glorification in their hearts. 
 These explanations are incompatible with ver. 5, which shows 
 that Jesus was thinking of His personal restoration to that 
 Divine condition which was His before His incarnation. This 
 glory of Jesus must not be restricted, as it generally is by 
 orthodox theologians, to the enjoyment of Divine happiness 
 and glory. The result of His exaltation, thus understood, 
 would not give any greater ability to glorify the Father in the 
 future than He at present possessed ; and yet the aim of His 
 prayer was : " that Thy Son may glorify Thee." It was for an 
 increase of personal power, for new means of action, that He 
 petitioned. His restoration to the possession of Divine omni- 
 presence, omniscience, and omnipotence, the participation of 
 His humanity in the Divine state (the /^op^rj @eov, Phil. ii. 6); 
 this was what He needed for continuing to glorify God, and 
 for consummating that work of salvation of which He had 
 already laid the foundation. He begged, therefore, for a very 
 real change in His personal condition. — He spoke of Himself 
 in the third person, as we do whenever we desire to draw the 
 attention of one whom we address to what we are to him. 
 There is, therefore, nothing suspicious in this third person 
 which St. John puts into our Lord's mouth. It is, moreover, 
 consistent with the manner in which He generally speaks of 
 Himself in the Synoptic Gospels, where He habitually desig- 
 nates Himself the Son of Man. There would be more just 
 cause for suspicion in the expression given by the Alex, read- 
 ing adopted by Tischendorf : " That the Son may glorify Thee," 
 — a reading which has a manifestly doctrinal tinge, and is not 
 more probable than that of these Mss. at i. 1 8 : " God the 
 
 GODET III. N JOHN. 
 
194 GOSPEL OF JOHN. 
 
 only Son" — The particle kclL after 'iva, that also, must, in spite 
 of the same documents and of Tischendorf, be carefully main- 
 tained in the text. This little word well brings out the filial 
 sentiment by which the request was inspired : " Glorify me, 
 that I in my turn may glorify Thee." 
 
 Ver. 2 is an explanatory addition to ver. 1. In its first 
 proposition, Jesus mentions what it is that gives Him the 
 right to say to the Father, Glorify me. In thus praying He 
 was only asking what was in conformity with the decree of 
 God Himself : " As Thou hast given Him . . ." This decree 
 is that by which God, when He gave Him His mission 
 (x. 36), granted to the Son the sovereignty over the whole 
 human race (all flesh; comp. Eph. i. 10). — The second pro- 
 position of ver. 2 : " that He may give life" is parallel with 
 . the second of ver. 1 : " that He may glorify Thee" The 
 true means of glorifying God is the communication of eternal 
 life. For this consists in knoioing God (ver. 3). By pre- 
 senting the aim of His supplication under this new aspect, 
 then, Jesus was urging it on more pressing grounds : " Glorify 
 me, that I, in conformity with the mandate Thou hast given 
 me, may give eternal life to all believers." As much as 
 to say : " Grant me the ascension, that I may execute the 
 work of Pentecost." — Tlav, all, designates the future body of 
 believers, the unity, the ev spoken of in ver. 33, xi. 52, and 
 by St. Paul, Eph. ii. 14, which God beheld from eternity, 
 and gave to the Son (Eom. viii. 28). Tlav is generally re- 
 garded as nomin. absolute ; but is it not rather an inverted 
 accusative? The writer was at the beginning of the sentence 
 already conscious of the action of which this all would be 
 the object ; hence the accusative. Afterwards, when the verb 
 comes, — a verb requiring a dative, — he completed it by the 
 pron. avToi? ; comp. vi. 39. This avroh, to them, individualizes 
 the contents of the totality, the irav, which is the object of 
 the giving. The act of giving refers to the whole ; the com- 
 munication of life is an individual fact (plu. to them). — The 
 form hoaa-rj in the T. E. is singular. It occurs in Eev. viii. 
 3 and xiii. 16, in some Mss. Is it a future conjunctive, a 
 posterior form, of which some examples are, it seems, found in 
 the N. T. (Baumlein cites o-tyya-de, Luke xiii. 28 ; Kavdriao^ai, 
 1 Cor. xiii. o ; KepSrjdi'ja-ayvrai, 1 Peter iii. 1 ; evpijaus, Eev. 
 
CHAP. XVII. 3. 195 
 
 xviii. 14) ? Or may it be the conjunctive of an aorist form, 
 eScocra (a form unknown to the N. T.) ? The second supposi- 
 tion is the more probable. In fact, it would have been 
 difficult to say Sco/cy. The true reading, however, is probably 
 Saxrei (Vatic), which it was thought necessary to correct on 
 account of the iva (comp. ver. 3, the reading <yiv(i)<Tfccocn). The 
 reading 8eoar<o in the Sinait. is incompatible with the third pers., 
 which is used throughout the passage. The reading uvtm, to 
 it (the ivav), in the same Mss., is an evident correction. — The 
 meaning of the expression : all that Thou hast given Him, is 
 far less extensive than that of the term all flesh. If Jesus 
 received power over every living man, it was in view of the 
 believers whom He was to save. Comp. Eph. i. 22:" He has 
 given Him to the church, which is His body, as head over all 
 things." — Ver. 3 states the profound connection existing between 
 the two ideas of glorifying God and giving eternal life (ver. 2). 
 Yer. 3. " Noiv this is life eternal, that they might know Thee, 
 the only true God, and Him ivhom Thou hast sent, Jesus Christ." 
 — Jesus pauses to contemplate that eternal life which He is to 
 bestow upon mankind ; He fathoms its nature, and describes 
 it in an expression of adoration. — Eternal life is a knowledge. 
 This knowledge is not simply verbal and rational. Scripture 
 always uses the word know in a deeper sense. When it is 
 applied to the relation between two persons, it denotes the 
 perfect intuition which each has of the moral being of the other, 
 their near mutual approach in the same luminous medium. 
 Jesus described in xiv. 21, 23, the revealing act which 
 should, in the case of His people, result in this only real 
 knowledge of God. It is the work of the Spirit glorifying 
 Jesus, and with Him God, in us. The epithet only bears, as 
 Luthardt says, upon the whole phrase : true God. The term 
 d\r]0tv6<i shows that this God alone perfectly answers to the 
 idea expressed by the word God. One can hardly fail to see 
 here, with Meyer, the opposition to the many gods, unworthy 
 the name, of the dominant polytheism. Has not the term cdl 
 flesh called forth the image of those nations, aliens to Israel, 
 who compose the idolatrous portion of mankind ? And does 
 not the contrast of Jewish and Christian worship with that of 
 the heathen in the second part of the verse find its comple- 
 ment in the contrast of the Messianic faith of the disciples 
 
196 GOSPEL OF JOHN. 
 
 with the unbelief of the Jewish people ? The knowledge of 
 the only true God and of Jesus the Messiah is thus that which 
 will distinguish the new faith from all preparatory religions, 
 whether within or outside the theocracy. Compare a similar 
 contrast, iv. 21, 23. The opposition, then, of the expression: 
 the only true God, is not to the person of Jesus. Could 
 He be a mere creature, the knowledge of whom is in the 
 following sentence joined to that of God, as the source, the 
 very essence of eternal life ? In the prologue the Logos is 
 also placed in juxtaposition with God in ver. lb, and the 
 solution of the contrast immediately given in ver. lc : "And 
 the Word was God." Meyer is certainly wrong in making the 
 words : the only time God, the attribute of know : " to acknow- 
 ledge Thee as the only . . ." We are thus led to give the 
 word hioiv too intellectual a meaning, in opposition to the 
 part attributed in this saying to knowledge (the source of 
 life). The expression : the only true God, is the apposition, 
 not the attribute of thee : " to know Thee, Thyself the only true 
 God ! " Thus the word knoio maintains the deep and vital 
 meaning which it ought here to have, while the contrast with 
 polytheism, pointed out above, is by no means excluded. 
 
 If Jesus had been praying with a view to Himself only, 
 He would have limited Himself to the words: "That they 
 may know Thee, the only true God I" But He was praying 
 aloud, and consequently with a view also to those around 
 Him. And while worshipping God in their presence, as the 
 source of eternal life, He was conscious of being the sole 
 medium by which they could have access to this source, for 
 it is in Him that God manifests and imparts Himself (xiv. 6). 
 The enjoyment of eternal life, by all that is called man, is 
 then identified in His eyes with the knowledge of Himself, 
 Jesus, no less than with that of God. Full of gratitude 
 towards the author of such a benefit to mankind, He pro- 
 claims Himself as the way prepared by God : Him ivhom 
 Tliou hast sent, and sums up this supreme dignity in the title 
 Jesus Christ (Jesus Messiah). This form has been severely 
 criticised since Bretschneider. Would Jesus, it is asked, 
 have called Himself by His name, and that in prayer, and 
 with the use of the title Christ in the technical form sub- 
 sequently in use {Jesus Christ) % Is not this a proof of the 
 
CHAP. XVII. 3. 197 
 
 fictitious composition of this prayer ? The answer does not 
 seem very difficult. Hitherto Jesus had avoided giving Him- 
 self the title of Christ before the people. Rather than use 
 this term, subject as it was to so much misconception, He had 
 had recourse, when He found the ordinary designation, Son of 
 Man, insufficient, to the strangest circumlocutions (viii. 24, 
 x. 24 sq.). He had acted thus in the circle of His disciples 
 (xiii. 13-19). Once only, and exceptionally, in Samaria, in a 
 non-Jewish land, He had openly taken the title of Messiah. 
 In the Synoptics He behaves in the same manner. Thus at 
 Matt. xvi. 20, while accepting the confession of Peter, He 
 takes the opportunity of forbidding the apostles to proclaim 
 Him publicly to be the Christ. But the time had now come 
 when the new word of command for mankind, the glorious 
 name formed by the union of the two words Jesus Christ, 
 was to be published throughout the world. Was it not, then, 
 necessary that the disciples should once at least hear it from 
 His own lips ? Could they have repeated this symbol of 
 the new faith with such triumphant confidence to the very 
 ends of the world, if their Master had to the end persisted 
 in keeping apart the two words of which it was composed ? 
 And under what more favourable circumstances, in what more 
 worthy or solemn form, could Jesus utter it than at this 
 moment, in this last act of communion with His Father, 
 while adoring Him in their presence for all that this name 
 (Jeshouah hammashiach, Jesus Messiah) was about to become 
 to them and to the world ? St. John, then, is here guilty of 
 no inadvertence. He has reproduced that inexpressibly serious 
 and affecting moment in which he at length heard Jesus 
 Himself consecrate, in a manner never to be forgotten, the 
 conviction which had never ceased to grow within him since 
 the day when he approached Him for the first time (i. 42). 
 Would to God that all confessions of faith in the church had 
 been as temperate as that contained in this verse, and that 
 they had always been produced, as in the mouth of Jesus, 
 under the form of devotion ! — We must not translate : " That 
 they may acknowledge Him whom Thou hast sent, Jesus, 
 as the Christ," by making bv airkcrj. 'I. the object, and 
 Xpicnov the attribute, of the verb know, which here also 
 lias not so cold and intellectual a meaning. The expression : 
 
198 GOSPEL OF JOHN. 
 
 Him ivhom Thou hast sent, is the object ; it is the pendant 
 of tre, thee, in the first proposition, and the name Jesus 
 Christ, or Jesus Messiah, is an apposition (as were the words : 
 the only true God) : " to know Him whom Thou hast sent, 
 Jesus Messiah." — "Iva is used instead of ore, because know- 
 ledge is brought forward as an end, as the supreme good to 
 be obtained. — After this outpouring, Jesus returns to the 
 prayer of ver. 1 ; He mentions what He has already done 
 towards establishing in the world this twofold knowledge, the 
 source of eternal life to every believer, and reiterates the 
 request of ver. 1, by asking for the restoration of His Divine 
 condition, from the midst of which He will be able to com- 
 plete the work thus begun (ver. 5). 
 
 Vv. 4, 5. " I have glorified Thee on earth; I have finished 1 
 the work which Thou gavest me to do. And now, Father, 
 glorify Thou me with Tliine 'own self, with the glory which I 
 had with TJiee hefore the loorld was." — Jesus would say : " I 
 have done what I could to glorify Thee in the world, in my 
 'earthly condition (iirl rrjs 7^9). To carry on and complete 
 this work, I need more potent means of action." It is an 
 explanatory restatement of the words : " Glorify Thy Son, that 
 Thy Son may glorify Thee" (ver. 1). — Jesus here expresses 
 with sublime ingenuousness the feeling that His conscience 
 is perfectly pure. He does not, at this supreme moment, 
 perceive in His whole life any evil committed, or even any 
 good omitted. The duty of each hour has been perfectly 
 fulfilled. There has not been in that human life which is 
 now behind Him, any spot, or even any deficiency. — The 
 reading Te\eicoaa<i has the same meaning as that of the T. E., 
 but aims too much at elegance. 
 
 These more potent modes of action, He can only obtain 
 by recovering the condition which was His prior to the 
 incarnation. This is the purpose for which He demands it, 
 and there is no boldness on His part in addressing such a 
 prayer to God, because this Divine glory is His own proper 
 nature, which He voluntarily renounced to serve God here 
 below. — By the words: with Thine own self, Jesus opposes 
 the Divine sphere to that in which He at present lives (upon 
 earth, ver. 4) ; xiii. 32. — The expression : The glory ivhichlhad, 
 
 1 N A B C L n, 5 linn. It !,,i '' Syr. Cop. : ri\ua<rx; instead of tnXuura. 
 
ciiAr. xvii. 6-19. 199 
 
 is opposed to another glory which He has now ; see remarks 
 on i. 14. — Beuss thinks that this verse does not imply 
 absolute pre-existence, eternity, but only a certain priority 
 with respect to the world. But in the scriptural point of 
 view, the world embraces all that belongs to the sphere of 
 becoming, and beyond this sphere there is only being. Comp. 
 the opposition of ^Iveadai and etvai, i. 1—3, viii. 58 ; and Ps. 
 xc. 2. — Ilapd aoi, with Thee, cannot have the purely ideal 
 sense given it by the Socinians, and recently in a slightly 
 differing form by Beyschlag : the ideal man existing in the 
 Divine intelligence, and which, from the view-point of its 
 realization in Jesus, appears to the consciousness of the 
 latter as clothed in personality. 1 This theory, besides being 
 artificial, does violence to the words of St. John. He who 
 says : / had . . . with thee, lays no less stress upon His 
 personality than on that of God (ver. 24). See, moreover, 
 remarks on viii. 58. — Because Jesus said: "before the world 
 was" and not : " before / came into the world," Schelling con- 
 cluded 2 that the humiliation of the Logos began from the' 
 creation, and not merely with the incarnation. This conclu- 
 sion is not exegetically tenable. For Jesus is here only 
 opposing this glory to a glory which would have had some 
 sort of beginning. 
 
 Vv. 6-19. Jesus prays for His apostles, and entreats the 
 continuance and perfecting of their consecration to the Divine 
 work. 
 
 It was with a view to the work of God that Jesus soli- 
 cited the restoration of His glory, but He will accomplish 
 this work only by means of the instruments whom He has 
 chosen and prepared. Hence prayer for them naturally 
 follows, and combines with that which He makes for Himself. 
 This prayer is at first of a general character : / pray for 
 them, ver. 9 ; but afterwards becomes more particular and 
 definite in the two distinct petitions : rijprjaov, keep them, and 
 ayiacrov, sanctify them, which are the pendant of Sogacov 
 /me, glorify me, vv. 1 and 5. — Vv. 6-8 prepare for the first 
 general petition, for which vv. 9 and 10 give the full reasons. 
 
 1 Beyschlag seems now to have modified his point of view, and to have adopted 
 that which perceives two contradictory theories in this GospeL 
 - In his oral courses. 
 
200 GOSPEL OF JOHN. 
 
 Vv. 6—8. "I have manifested Thy name unto the men which 
 Thou gavest 1 me out of the world : Thine they were, and Thou 
 yavest them me; and they have kept' 2 Thy loord. Noiu they 
 have Jenoivn 3 that all things, whatsoever Thou hast given me, 
 are of Thee. For I have given unto them the words which 
 Thou gavest me; and they have received them, and they have 
 knoivn* surely that I came out from Thee, and they have 
 believed that Thou didst send me." — The general idea expressed 
 in these words is that of the value which the apostles have 
 acquired by the ministry of Jesus among them, and the 
 success of this work. This prepares for the prayer in which 
 Jesus commends them to His Father's care. The aorist 
 icpavepcoaa, I have manifested, is connected with the similar 
 aorists of ver. 4. The most important part of the work, on 
 the accomplishment of which Jesus congratulated Himself, 
 was the preparation and education of the Eleven. The 
 name of God, which He revealed to them, denotes the reflec- 
 tion of the Divine Essence in the consciousness of the Being 
 who knows it perfectly, in that of Jesus Himself. This con- 
 sciousness, revealed in His word, had already become that 
 of the disciples (Matt. xi. 25, 26). Jesus had revealed to 
 them the Father, by revealing to them Himself as the Son. 
 This is the reason that His testimony concerning Himself 
 was, as we see in the Fourth Gospel, an essential element 
 of- His teaching. — Having stated what He has done on their 
 behalf, Jesus proceeds to what God Himself has done for 
 them. The apostles were God's. This is not here said of 
 them merely as men, and as Jews, but by reason of the 
 relation they already bore to God by inward disposition ; 
 comp. the expressions: to be of God (vii. 17, viii. 47), to be 
 of the truth (xviii. 37), to do the truth (iii. 21), expressions 
 used to designate the moral state of Israelites or heathens 
 faithful to the lights of the law or of conscience. God had 
 given to Jesus these beings who belonged to Him, and that 
 by the drawing of the inward teaching so often spoken of, 
 vi. 37, 44, 45, 65. This spiritual tie once formed, they had 
 
 1 Here and elsewhere the Alex, read s2*>xa; instead of lihuxxt. 
 
 * N : £T^jj«rav instead of Tirn^xaa-i (BDL: TiTriftix-av). 
 
 3 N : tyycat instead of syvaxxv. 
 
 4 Kat tyvutrav is omitted by N A D It" 1 " 1 . 
 
CHAP. XVII. 9, 10. 201 
 
 faithfully maintained. Jesus here passes to what the apostles 
 had themselves done for Him. They had kept intact and 
 unaltered that name of God which had by His words been 
 transmitted from His consciousness to theirs. Jesus says : 
 " They have kept Thy word, not my word." This is explained 
 in ver. 7 : His word is only a faithful reproduction of the 
 Father's. The disciples had been able to discern this pro- 
 found relation, and to recognise in the teaching which Jesus 
 had given them that which God Himself had given to Jesus. 
 There is, at first sight, a tautology in the expressions : which 
 Thou hast given me, and : is of Thee. But the first is derived 
 from the consciousness of Jesus ; the second is taken from 
 that of the apostles : " They have perceived that all that I 
 have imparted to them concerning Thee really came from 
 Thee." And, in fact (ver. 8), Jesus never added aught to 
 it from His own resources. From their perception of the 
 absolutely Diviue character of His word, they had risen to 
 that of the Divine origin of His Person (/ came from Thee), 
 and of His mission (Thou didst send me). These sayings 
 also breathe that sentiment of inward joy and lively gratitude 
 which Jesus had but a few moments since experienced ; for 
 it was but quite recently that the glorious result for which 
 He gave thanks to His Father had been obtained (xvi. 
 29—31). The harvest seemed undoubtedly scanty: eleven 
 Galilean peasants after three years' labour ! But it is enough 
 for Jesus, for in these eleven He beholds the pledge of the 
 continuance of God's work upon earth. — "They have received : " 
 upon the authority of my testimony ; " they have known : " 
 by their own moral discernment ; " they have believed : " by 
 the surrender of their whole being. The forms eyvcotcav, 
 reTrjprjicav, are Alexandrine; and the question here, as in so 
 many other similar cases, is to know whether they were used 
 by the apostles themselves or introduced by the Alexandrine 
 copyists. — Having thus prepared for His petition, Jesus next 
 states it, and then proceeds to bring forward further reasons 
 for its being granted. 
 
 Vv. 9, 10. " I pray for them: I pray not for the ivorld, but 
 for them whom Thou hast given me ; for they are Thine. And 
 all mine are Thine, and Thine are mine; l and I am glorified iii 
 
 1 Instead of xai ra tpx ... rot i(ttK, X reads xai ipoi uv-ou; Couhus. 
 
202 COS PEL OF JOHN. 
 
 them." — From the infinite value imparted by faith to the per- 
 sons of the disciples, Jesus draws the conclusion : "I pray for 
 them." 'Eyco, I, stands first : I who have so laboured to bring 
 them to this point. Then immediately after, and before the 
 verb, irepl avrcov, for them : For them, the fruit of my labours. 
 This general prayer is equivalent to : I commend them to 
 Thee. The antithesis : " / pray not for the world" is to be ex- 
 plained thus : Jesus has not the same reasons to bring forward 
 in favour of the world, nor the same requests to make for it. 
 Luther justly says : " What must be asked for the world is, that 
 it may be converted, not that it may be sanctified or kept" 
 Assuredly the statement of Jesus, that He prays not for the 
 world, is no absolute one. He Himself said upon the cross : 
 " Father, forgive them ! " Was not this to pray for the world ? 
 Only He did not then, as He does now, bring forward as a 
 reason : "they have known" (ver. 8), but on the contrary : "they 
 know not what they do!' And instead of appealing, as in His 
 priestly prayer, to the care of God for beings precious and 
 belonging to Himself, He invokes His compassion for beings 
 guilty and perishing. The saying in ver. 2 1 : "that the world may 
 know that Thou hast sent me" contains an implicit prayer foi 
 the world. Comp. also iii. 16. The statement of Jesus, that 
 He prays not for the world, only becomes absolute in propor- 
 tion as its moral characteristic of opposition to God is fixed, 
 and as it becomes the association of " those who are not only 
 enemies of God, but who desire to remain such " (Gess). — 
 Before proceeding to the more special petitions contained in 
 this general prayer, Jesus reproduces the two principal claims 
 possessed by his disciples to the Divine interest: 1st. " Thou 
 hast given them to me ; watch therefore over Thine own gift ; 
 and the more so since, in becoming mine, they have not ceased 
 to belong to Thee, but have even become more than ever 
 Thine. For what I receive from Thee, I receive only to restore 
 it to Thee, and to ensure to Thee its possession." Luther: 
 " Any man may say : What is mine is Thine, but only the Son 
 can say: What is Thine is mine." The present elcn, "arc Thine," 
 is purposely substituted for the imperfect rjaav, "were Thine," 
 ver. 6, to express the idea that the gift of them to the Son has 
 only confirmed their being God's. 2d. The second motive which 
 commends them henceforth to the Father's care is, that they 
 
chap. xvii. 11. 203 
 
 have become the depositaries of His Son's glory (perf. SeSo^acr- 
 ficu). The expression : / am glorified in them, has been 
 variously understood. There is no reason for departing from 
 the constant meaning of the term : to be glorified. Notwith- 
 standing His form of a servant, Jesus had appeared to their 
 hearts in all His beauty as Son of God ; even before having 
 been restored to His glory, He had regained it in them by 
 the fact that they had recognised Him for what He truly was, 
 vv. 7, 8. — To this general commendation were added two 
 special requests. The first : Keep them, is prepared for by ver. 
 11a, stated 11&, and the reasons for it brought forward in vv. 
 12-15. 
 
 Ver. 11. "And I am no longer in the world, but these 1 are 
 in the world, and I, I come to Thee. Holy Father, keep them 
 in Thy name, them 2 whom Thou hast given me, that they 
 may be one as 3 we." — While supplicating God's protection for 
 His disciples, the mind of Jesus naturally turned to the 
 dangers to which they would be exposed in the state of 
 desertion in which His departure would leave them : " Keep 
 them, these vessels so precious (w. 6-10), and henceforth so 
 exposed" (vv. 11-15). Jesus would no longer be with them 
 in the world to keep them, and would not as yet be with the 
 Father to protect them from the midst of His heavenly glory. 
 There would be a sorrowful interval during which His Father 
 must fulfil this office. This motive would be utterly incom- 
 prehensible if the fourth Gospel really taught, as Pteuss insists, 
 that the Logos is insusceptible of either abasement or exalta- 
 tion, or, as Baur asserts, that death was to Him only the 
 putting off of His corporeal semblance. 
 
 The appellation : " Holy Father," is in relation with the 
 petition presented. With man, holiness is the consecration of 
 his whole being to the task assigned him by the Divine will. 
 In God, holiness is the free, deliberate, calm and immutable 
 affirmation of Himself who is goodness, or of goodness which 
 is Himself. The holiness of God, then, so soon as we are 
 
 1 K B read auroi instead of ourai. 
 
 2 T. R. with only the Mnn. It ali i Vg. Cop. : «t/ 5 ; X A BCEGHKLMSYr 
 A A n, several Mnn. :«;DUX, 11 Mnn. Syr. : a ; ItP le,ic i ue omits all from u (ovs) 
 to np'-'i. 
 
 2 B M S (J Y, 12 Mnn. read «z: after **t*s. 
 
204 GOSPJL OF JOHN. 
 
 associated therewith, draws a deep line of demarcation between 
 
 us and those who live under the dominion of their natural 
 
 instincts, and whom Scripture calls the world. The term : 
 
 Holy Father, here characterizes God as Him who has traced 
 
 this line of separation between the disciples and the world ; 
 
 and the petition : Keep them, has in view the maintenance of 
 
 this separation. Jesus begs His Father to keep the disciples 
 
 in this sphere of consecration, which is foreign to the world's 
 
 life, and of which God is Himself the centre. The words: in 
 
 Thy name, make the revelation of the Divine character granted 
 
 to the apostles the enclosing wall, as it were, of the sacred 
 
 region in which they are to be kept. — The reading given by 
 
 almost all the Mjj. would signify : " in Thy name which Thou 
 
 hast given me." But where does Scripture speak of the name 
 
 of God as given to the Son ? The saying : " My name is in 
 
 Him" (Ex. xxiii. 21), is quite different. We should prefer the 
 
 reading o 8e$cotca<;, "what Thou hast given me," in the Cantabrig., 
 
 making these words the explanatory apposition of abrovs, them, 
 
 which follows, exactly as at ver. 2 (irav o Se&w/ea? . . . clvtols) 
 
 and ver. 2 4 (if the reading 6 is genuine in this verse) : " Keep 
 
 them in my name, them, that which Thou hast given me." 
 
 This reading (ofc), while giving the same meaning as that of 
 
 the T. R, easily accounts for the Alex, reading (c5 for o, which 
 
 was referred to ovo/xart). The conjunction that may depend 
 
 either on 8e8(ofca<;, or, which is the only possible sense with 
 
 the readings o and 01/5, on Keep them : " Keep them in the 
 
 sphere of the knowledge of Thyself (them whom Thou hast 
 
 permitted me to place therein), that they may remain one as 
 
 we are, and that none of them may be lost in isolation, by 
 
 breaking off from the bundle which my care has formed." 
 
 What, in fact, would have become of Thomas, if, after the 
 
 resurrection, he had persisted in keeping aloof from his 
 
 brethren ? — The words as toe signify that, as it is by 
 
 the possession of the Divine nature that the Father and 
 
 the Son are one, it is by their common knowledge of this 
 
 nature (the name) that the disciples also may remain closely 
 
 united among themselves, and be each individually kept in 
 
 safety. 
 
 Vv. 12, 13. " While I was with them in the world} I kept 
 
 1 K I'. C D L ItP'« ri< » ue Vg. Cop. omit m ?u xoapu. 
 
chap. xvn. 12, 13. 205 
 
 them myself in Thy name : I have watched over those whom 
 Thou hast given 1 me, and none of them is lost, but the son of 
 perdition ; that the scripture might be fulfilled. But now I 
 come to Thee ; and these things I speak while I am in the world, 
 that they may have my joy fulfilled in themselves." — The verses 
 which follow support the petition: Keep them,by further develop- 
 ing the motive already shortly indicated in ver. 11a: They are 
 in need of Thy protection. — "Wlien I was with them" takes up 
 the idea of ver. 11: "/ am no more in the world? — 'Ertfpovv, I 
 kept them, shows the result obtained : icf>v\a^a, I have watched, 
 refers to the means employed. — The reading a> is still less 
 admissible in this, than in the preceding verse. — By the term 
 son of perdition, and its allusion to prophecy, Jesus desires to 
 discharge Himself from responsibility, but not to lessen that 
 of Judas. Prophecy had from tho first set a limit to the 
 effects of His vigilance, which it was not possible to pass over. 
 As to Judas, he had freely played the part which prophecy 
 had beforehand marked out. We may here compare what is 
 predicted concerning antichrist. We know from prophecy 
 that this individual will exist, yet this will not hinder the 
 man who takes this part from doing so freely. Comp., pp. 86 
 and 87, the remarks on the relation between Divine fore- 
 knowledge and human freedom. In the Hebraic phrase : son 
 of . . ., the term indicating the complementary notion of the 
 word son personifies the abstract principle (light, darkness, 
 etc.), which defines the moral life of the individual thus desig- 
 nated. The passage to which Jesus referred is Ps. xli. 10, 
 quoted xiii. 18. Are we then to infer from this saying that 
 Jesus reckoned Judas also in the number of those whom the 
 Father had formerly given Him ? The words el fit], if not, do 
 not oblige us to make this inference ; comp. Matt. xii. 4 ; Luke 
 iv. 26, 27. 
 
 The remark is parenthetical, and intended to justify the 
 Lord's vigilance in respect of the loss of Judas. Jesus after- 
 wards returns to the idea of His approaching departure, and 
 declares that if he speaks these words aloud — for this is the 
 meaning of \a\eiv — before His disciples, it is that they may 
 share in the joy with which He is Himself filled. It may be 
 
 1 Instead of ou;, B C L read « (like ver. 11) and add *«< before apvXa^a. ;. N reads 
 
 WH iipu\utr<rov instead of »u; l^uxa.,- . . . i$v>.a£x. 
 
20 G GOSPEL OF JOHN. 
 
 asked whether this joy was that caused by His assurance that 
 the Father would take them under His protection, or that 
 which He experienced from the expectation of His own speedy 
 return to the Father ? Both these grounds of rejoicing were 
 mingled in His heart, and they ought to combine in theirs, 
 and disperse, as in His, the last cloud of sadness. — The need 
 in which they stood of protection is more particularly and 
 urgently shown in the words which follow. 
 
 Vv. 14, 15. " I have given them Thy word; and the world 
 hath hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am 
 not of the ivorld. I pray not that Thou shouldest take them out 
 of the ivorld, hut that Thou shouldest keep them from the evil." — 
 The word of Jesus, which they had faithfully received, had 
 made them as much strangers to the world as was Jesus 
 Himself. Like Him, they had become objects of the world's 
 hatred. In such a condition, Jesus might easily have allowed 
 Himself to entreat of God that they might be sharers in His 
 departure. But since it was for the very purpose of preparing 
 them for a mission to the world that He had separated them 
 from the world (ver. 18), it was necessary that they should 
 remain in it after His departure. Still the line of demarca- 
 tion between them and the world must not be obliterated. 
 While remaining in the world, they must be kept from the 
 evil which prevails therein. Hence Jesus closes this passage 
 by reiterating the petition which forms its background. Tov 
 irovepov must certainly be taken in the neuter sense of from 
 evil, and not from the Evil One. This is shown by the pre- 
 position i/c, out of which relates to a realm out of which one 
 is taken, rather than to an individual. The case is otherwise 
 in the Lord's Prayer, where the prep, airo and the verb 
 pveaOai are used, two expressions which refer rather to a 
 personal enemy (Matt. vi. 13). Beuss, then, is wrong in 
 translating : " from the power of the devil." Hengstenberg 
 points out that the form Trjpelv e« only occurs again in Eev. 
 iii. 10. — From the prayer: Keep them, which refers to their 
 salvation, Jecus passes to the second petition, which concerns 
 rather their mission : Sanctify (or consecrate) them. This is 
 prepared for, ver. 1 6 ; uttered, ver. 1 7 ; developed and justified, 
 vv. 18, 19. 
 
 Vv. 16, 17. " They are not of the ivorld, even as I am not of 
 
CHAP. XVII. 10, 17. 207 
 
 the world. Sanctify them by TJiy truth : x Thy word is truth." 2 
 — Jesus had raised them to that sphere of holiness in which He 
 Himself dwelt ; hence that mission to the world wherewith 
 He could entrust them. Thus ver. 16 forms the transition 
 from the first to the second petition. According to x. 36, the 
 sending of Jesus upon earth was preceded by a consecration : 
 " Him whom the Father hath sanctified and sent into the 
 world." The same thing must take place in the case of the 
 disciples. The word dyid^eiv, to sanctify, is not synonymous 
 with Kadapt^etv, to purify. The holy is not opposed to the 
 impure, but merely to the natural (without any idea of im- 
 purity). To sanctify is to consecrate to a religious use 
 anything pertaining to common life. Comp. Ex. xxix. 1, 36, 
 xl. 13; Lev. xxii. 2, 3; Matt, xxiii. 17. From an Old 
 Testament point of view, consecration was an external and 
 ritual act ; under the New Covenant, where all is spiritual, 
 the seat of consecration is first of all the heart, the will of 
 the person consecrated. In saying, then, " Sanctify them" 
 Jesus solicits for them a heart entirely devoted to the task 
 they will have to fulfil in the world. Their whole strength, 
 talents, life, must be dedicated to this great work, the salva- 
 tion of men, which involves the renunciation of all self- 
 gratification, however lawful, the absence of all interested 
 aims and all self-seeking. This is the sublime idea of Christian 
 holiness; but here, where the apostles are in question, it 
 is viewed as about to be realized under the special form 
 of the Christian ministry. Kept (now) themselves in this 
 sacred sphere, they are hereafter to become the representatives 
 and bearers of holiness among mankind. — We have in our 
 translation given, as in i. 31, 33, the instrumental sense, by, 
 to iv. Divine truth is thus designated as the agent of conse- 
 cration. Meyer and others translate in : " In this medium of 
 truth in which I have placed them." But why, in this sense, 
 should Jesus have added: "Thy word is the truth"? Is it 
 not the aim of these words to represent truth as the means 
 by which this consecration may be effected ? Tliy word desig- 
 
 1 lov, which is the reading of T. R. with 12 Mjj., almost all the Jinn. Syr. 
 Cop., is omitted hy N A B C D L ItP leri i" e Vg. ; tf omits the words <rou . . . xx»hia, 
 confusing the two aXnhitt. 
 
 2 B reads n before aXrtlim. 
 
208 GOSPEL OF JOHN. 
 
 nates that which Jesus had in His instructions imparted to 
 them (vv. 6 and 8). The pronoun <rov in the first proposi- 
 tion is wanting in the Alex. The testimony of the ancient 
 Vss. (Cop. Pesch.) is, on the other hand, in its favour. — Jesus 
 alleges, in support of this petition, two motives, — one taken 
 from the mission He had conferred on His disciples (ver. 18), 
 the other from the work which He had effected upon Himself, 
 — for the purpose of obtaining what He was now asking on 
 their behalf (ver. 19). 
 
 Vv. 18, 19. "As Thou Imst sent me into the world, so have 
 I also sent them into the world. And for their sokes 1 1 sanctify 
 myself, that they also 2 may be sanctified in truth." — If Jesus 
 asked that the spirit of their charge might be in them, it was 
 was because He had already committed to them the charge 
 itself (ver. 17). ' ' Airea-TeCKa, I have sent, alludes to the name 
 of apostles which He had long ago given them. But how 
 could He say that He sends them into the world, when they 
 were in the world already ? Because He had raised them tO a 
 sphere above the life of the world (ver. 16), and it was thence 
 that He sent them into the world, as really as He had been 
 Himself sent from heaven. And if He sent them thither, it 
 was that they might continue the work commenced by Him- 
 self. This is the first motive which He urges for His petition : 
 " Sanctify them!' The second is stated in ver. 19. The sense 
 of teai, and, at the beginning of this verse is : " And in order 
 to obtain for them this consecration which I ask, I begin by 
 effecting my own." Jesus asks nothing from the Father 
 without having done all that depends upon Himself for the 
 realization of His request. It is by effecting His own sancti- 
 fi cation that He demands and prepares for theirs. The word 
 sanctify by no means involves, as we have seen, the removal 
 of impurity, for it is not a synonym of purify (jca6api£eiv). 
 Hence those interpreters are mistaken who find in this verse 
 a proof of the existence of original sin in Jesus. On the 
 other hand, however, those too much restrict the meaning of 
 the word who apply it, like Chrysostom, Meyer, and Eeuss, 
 to His voluntary consecration to death as the condition of the 
 gift of the Spirit. For this explanation obliges us to give to 
 
 1 X A omit tya. 
 
 * 10 Mjj. (X A B C, etc.) It. Syr. : utri kxi hutoi instead of xai avroi usi. 
 
CHAP. XVII. 18, 19. 209 
 
 the word sanctify entirely different meanings in the first and 
 in the second proposition of the verse. We must confine 
 ourselves to the natural sense of the word to sanctify, viz. to 
 render holy (or sacred) by inward consecration to God. Our 
 Lord possessed a human nature like our own, endowed with 
 inclinations and dislikes as ours is, though of such only as 
 are perfectly lawful. Of this nature He was continually 
 making a holy offering ; He constrained it to obedience : 
 negatively, by sacrificing it where it was in contradiction with 
 His mission (e.g., in the cultivation of the arts and sciences, 
 domestic life, etc.) ; positively, by devoting to His divinely- 
 appointed task all His powers, all His natural and spiritual 
 talents. It was thus that He, by the Eternal Spirit, offered 
 Himself without spot unto God (Heb. ix. 14). When the 
 question was to sacrifice a gratification, as in the desert, or 
 to endure sorrow, as in Gethsemane, He ever subjected His 
 nature to the work to which the will of the Father called 
 Him. And this was not effected once for all. His human 
 life received in an ever increasing degree the seal of consecra- 
 tion, till the entire and final sacrifice of death. — The pronouns 
 I and myself, as well as the active sanctify, bring out the 
 energetic action He had to exert upon Himself to obtain this 
 result. — By such means did Jesus realize the perfect consecra- 
 tion of human life, and thus did He in His own Person lay 
 the foundation for its consecration in His people. — " For their 
 sakes," He said, and explained these words by the next propo- 
 sition : " that they also may be sanctified." The sanctification 
 of each Christian is nothing else than the communication to 
 him by Jesus of the human nature sanctified in His Person. 
 This is the truth developed by St. Paul in Eom. vi. 1-12, and 
 especially in viii. 1—3, where he shows that Christ began by 
 condemning sin (condemning it to non-existence) in the flesh, 
 that the (moral) righteousness exacted by the law might be 
 realized in us. Jesus created a holy humanity in His Person, 
 and it is the office of the Spirit, who has also the power, to 
 reproduce in us this new humanity : " The law of the Spirit of 
 life, which is in Christ Jesus, has made me free from the law of 
 sin and death." In this respect, as in all others, the part of 
 the Spirit is to take of that which is Christ's (that perfectly 
 holy human life) to give it unto us. If this holy life had not 
 GODET III. JOHN. 
 
210 COSPEL OF JOHN. 
 
 been realized in Christ, the Spirit would have had nothing to 
 impart to us in this respect, and the sanctincation of man 
 would have remained a barren aspiration. We would remark 
 finally, that, according to ver. 1 7, the apostles are here regarded 
 not merely as Christians, but especially as ministers (ver. 18). 
 Jesus Himself, while sanctifying Himself as man, and for the 
 purpose of realizing human holiness, at the same time sanc- 
 tified Himself as Saviour, and for that of restoring life to man. 
 So also the task of the apostles would not be merely that of 
 realizing that common consecration to which all believers are 
 called. Jesus, by releasing them from every earthly vocation, 
 and sending them into the world as His ambassadors, in- 
 tended that their personal sanctincation should be effected under 
 the form of the apostolate. — This form is not more holy, but it 
 has the character of a special service. — 'Ev a\.7]6ela, in truth, 
 must here be taken, seeing the article is omitted, in the ad- 
 verbial sense of in a true manner, as opposed to the wholly 
 external consecration of the Levitical priesthood. — Thus, from 
 the general petition : " I pray for them" have branched off 
 the two progressive requests, "Keep them in holiness !" " Conse- 
 crate them by holiness to become the instruments of the world's 
 sanctincation ! " It was natural that Jesus should thence pass 
 to a prayer for the world itself, at least so far as its future 
 believing part was concerned (vv. 20-26). Jesus prayed for 
 believers, and asked for them spiritual unity, vv. 20, 21, 
 and participation in His glory, vv. 22-24. 
 
 Vv. 20, 21. " Neither pray I for these alone, but for them 
 also ivho shall believe ] in me through their ivord ; that they all 
 may be one, that as Thou, Father, art in me, and I in Thee, 
 they also may be one 2 in us, that the world may believe 3 that it 
 is Thou vjho hast sent me." — Having commended to God the 
 author and the instruments of the work of salvation, Jesus 
 prayed for its objects, the whole body of believers. We behold 
 in the mirror of His prayer, the Church exalted by faith to 
 unity in God and union with God, and thus rendered capable 
 of possessing the glory of the Son. This is the realization of 
 
 1 T. R. with D\ several Mnn. ItP' eri " u * Vg. Sah. : ■r«rrii><wr*» (who shall be- 
 lieve). The 19 Mjj., all the other Mnn. Syr. Cop.: -jrnrnvovTuv (who believe). 
 
 2 Ev before u<w is omitted by B C D It a,i< < Sah, 
 
 3 N B C : wtnivn instead of nHmvcn. 
 
CHAP. XVII. 20, 21. 211 
 
 the end for which God created man, the contents of that 
 hidden wisdom which God ordained before the world unto our 
 glory (1 Cor. ii. 7). It is not, then, as is so often thought, 
 the union of Christians with each other which is here spoken 
 of, but above all that union which is its foundation, the 
 union of the body of believers with Christ, and through Him 
 with God. The Lord was contemplating the society of be- 
 lievers which would, by means of their preaching, gather 
 around the apostles, and in which He would Himself dwell. 
 The true reading is certainly the pres. iria-revovrcDv. But this 
 present is anticipative, for as yet no believers had been won 
 by the word of the apostles. Jesus was bringing before His 
 mental vision all believers, absolutely speaking — believers of 
 all times and places, whom in His prayer He was combining 
 into a single body and transporting to glory. — This saying of 
 Jesus assigned a capital part in the life of the Church to the 
 apostolic word. Jesus did not recognise in the future any 
 faith capable of uniting man to God, and of preparing him for 
 glory, except that which should be begotten and nourished by 
 the teaching of these eleven apostles. The term word (\0709) 
 does not designate, as that of testimony (fjiaprvpia) might do, 
 merely the narration of facts ; it includes also the revelation 
 of the religious and moral meaning of the facts, the contents 
 of the Epistles as well as of the Gospels. There is no real 
 coming to Christ at any time but by this means. 
 
 The first proposition, ver. 21 : " that they may be all one" 
 summarily indicates the general idea. The words : as thou, 
 Father . . ., which follow, depend, by an inversion similar to 
 that of xiii. 34, on the subsequent, not on the former, that. 
 The former word is returned to by way of explanation : " That 
 they may be one, that, / say, as thou, Father . . . they also 
 may be one in us." This construction has not the dragging 
 character of that which makes as depend on the former that. 
 Having thus petitioned for the unity of believers, Jesus 
 describes it as a unity of the highest order, as sharing the 
 nature («a#aj?) of that of the Father and the Son. As the 
 Father lives in the Son, and the Son in the Father, so the 
 Son lives in believers, and, by living in them, causes them to 
 live in one another. This sacred unity is the work of the 
 Spirit, who alone has the power of overthrowing the barrier 
 
212 GOSPEL OF JOHN. 
 
 between different individualities without destroying them. 
 Instead of : " that they may be one in us," some Mss. read . 
 " that they may be in us." This reading is condemned by the 
 context, which here requires the idea of the unity of believers. 
 The eu has been lost in the ev rj/xiv which precedes it. 
 
 A spiritual organism of this kind exercising its functions on 
 the earth, is so novel a phenomenon, that the sight of it brings 
 the world to faith in Him from whom it proceeds. This is 
 the contents of the third that in ver. 21, the final end of the 
 two preceding and parallel. The word believe is never used 
 in the N. T. except in a favourable sense. Hence it cannot 
 designate a forced conviction like that spoken of in Phil. ii. 
 10 sq. Jesus knows that there are still, in what He calls 
 the world, elements capable of being won to the faith. And 
 will not the effect produced upon the Jewish people by the 
 sight of a local and transitory phenomenon, like that of the 
 primitive Church at Jerusalem (Acts xxi. 20:" Thou seest hoiv 
 many thousands of Jews there are which "believe "), be repeated 
 on a larger scale in the whole world by the same spectacle 
 magnified. It may be that Jesus had more specially in view 
 the conversion of the Jews in the latter days, when they 
 should see the Church realized in all its beauty among the 
 Gentiles. This supposition is confirmed by the words : " that 
 it is Thou who hast sent me" i.e., "that I, this Jesus of 
 Nazareth whom they have rejected, am indeed the Promised, 
 the Sent One whom they were expecting," Rom. xi. 25, 31. 
 Comp. 1 John i. 3; Eph. ix. 13. — Jesus now rises to His 
 highest request, a share in His glory for His disciples. This 
 petition is prepared for, vv. 22, 23, and then solemnly 
 uttered, ver. 24. 
 
 Vv. 22-24. " And the glory which thou hast given me I have 
 given them ; that they may be one, even as we are one : 1 I in 
 them, and Thou in me, that their oneness may be perfect ; and 2 
 that the world may acknowledge that Thou hast sent me, and that 
 Thou hast loved 3 them, as Thou hast loved me. Father, I will 
 that they whom 4 Thou hast given me may also be with me where 
 
 1 B C D L omit s<r/«sv, and K £» £«/tsv. 
 
 2 KBCDLX It ali< i Cop. Or. omit ««< before iva. y^uex*. 
 
 3 D, 7 Mnn. It ali i Cop. : nya-rmra. {that I have loved them) instead of ttyxirwrat. 
 
 4 H B D Vg aIi i Cop. : a instead of evs. 
 
CHAP. XVII. 22-24. 213 
 
 / am ; that they may behold my glory, which Tliou hast given 
 me : for Thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world." — 
 Throughout this prayer, Jesus supports His petitions by what 
 He has already done Himself towards the attainment of the 
 end in view. Hence the iyco, I, stands first. He had already 
 begun that communication of His glory to the disciples of 
 which He was soliciting the completion. What, then, we ask, 
 is that glory which Jesus had already given to His own ? 
 Chrysostom understands thereby the honour of the apostolic 
 office and miraculous gifts. But the mind of Jesus takes a 
 higher flight, as is proved by the close of vv. 23, 24. Heng- 
 stenberg refers the term glory to the participation of believers 
 in the oneness of the Father and the Son, an explanation which 
 makes this tautological with the next proposition. Meyer 
 understands by it the glory of the future kingdom ; but if they 
 did not as yet actually possess this, it was none the less their 
 assured property. The prayer in ver. 24 only demanded that 
 right should be exchanged for fact. This explanation is 
 accepted by Luthardt (2d ed.). But our Lord appears to 
 have had in mind a gift really effected, as a point of departure 
 for a future gift. The end of ver. 2 3 leads us to a slightly 
 different meaning. As the essence of the glory of Jesus consists 
 in His dignity as the Son, and the ivell-beloved Son, so the glory 
 which He has bestowed upon believers is the filial dignity, the 
 state of adoption (i. 12), whereby they have become what the 
 Son eternally is, children of God, and objects of His perfect 
 love. This glory Jesus bestowed upon His own, by bringing 
 matters to such a state that God could justly reflect upon 
 them all the love which He has for Jesus Himself (ver. 26, 
 xv. 9, 10). Thus the proposition which follows: "that they 
 may be one, even as we are one" is easily understood. Once 
 objects of the same Father's love, and bearing in common the 
 image of their elder brother, they form among themselves a 
 closely united family (comp. Eom. viii. 29; Eph. i. 10). 
 The foundation of this union is once more expressly recalled 
 by the words : " / in them, and TJwu in me," which are not a 
 new proposition, but, as Meyer says, an explanatory apposi- 
 tion of the subject me in the preceding phrase ; or, as we would 
 rather say of the predicate of this phrase : " to be one as we" 
 God living in Christ, Christ in each believer, — what is this 
 
214 GOSPEL OF JOHN. 
 
 but the Divine unity reproduced on eartli ? Hence a new so 
 that. At the sight of this wonderful unity the world will not 
 only believe, as was said in ver. 21, but will acknowledge. 
 These two verbs cannot be synonymous. The term acknow- 
 ledge undoubtedly includes the forced conviction of rebels as 
 well as the faith of believers (ver. 21). The word /eooyio?, the 
 world, whatever Meyer (who here gives my explanation very 
 lamely) may say, cannot designate believers only, but must have 
 a more extended signification. In short, it is that universal 
 homage, whether voluntary or involuntary, described in Phil. ii. 
 10, Eom. xiv. 10-12, which is here intended. 
 
 At beholding the glorious results of the work of Jesus, 
 believers raised to perfect unity by that seal of adoption which 
 they all bear, the whole intelligent universe will render 
 homage to the Sent One of God, who, by transforming them 
 into His own image, has succeeded in making them beloved 
 of God as He is Himself beloved by Him. Thus is the ultimate 
 end of God's dealings with the Church of Christ, the direct 
 contemplation and enjoyment of the glory of the Son of God, 
 who was willing to become its Head, prepared for. The 
 repetition of the invocation : Father (w. 21, 24, 25), reveals 
 the increasing emotion of Jesus, in proportion as He draws 
 near to the close of His prayer. The reading o Sebootcas, " what 
 Thou hast given me," by which expression Jesus would 
 designate the body of the elect, the ev of whom He had just 
 spoken (ver. 23), may here, as at ver. 11, probably be the 
 true one. — Oekco : Jesus no longer says, I pray ; but, I will ! 
 This expression, which is nowhere else found in the mouth of 
 Jesus, is generally explained by saying that the Son thus 
 expressed Himself, because He felt Himself on this point so 
 fully in accordance with the Father. But this He felt in 
 every prayer, and this unique expression must be taken in its 
 relation to the unique character of the situation. It is the 
 saying of a dying man : " Father, my last will is . . ." It is 
 truly His testament which Jesus thus deposits in His Father's 
 hands. — In gathering disciples about Him, His one end had 
 been, as He mentions in vv. 22, 23, to accustom them to 
 the direct contemplation of His glory. This glory, according 
 to His own explanation, is the love wherewith the Father 
 eternally loves Him, and all its consequences. The words : 
 
CHAP. XVII. 22-24. 215 
 
 " "before the foundation of the world" necessarily indicate 
 eternity. This expression is, among all the sayings of Jesus, 
 that which leads us farthest into the depths of Deity. It 
 points out to Christian speculation the road by which it must 
 seek the solution of the Trinitarian relations ; love is the key 
 of this mystery. And this love being eternal, and therefore 
 equally without end as it is without beginning, can form the 
 permanent object of contemplation to believers who thus 
 become initiated into the mystery of the nature of the 
 Son and His eternal generation. And still more as being, 
 through the complete community which the Son has suc- 
 ceeded in establishing, objects of a love like that which 
 the Son enjoys, are they themselves thus introduced into 
 the eternal movement of the Divine life. This is what is 
 brought out by the word behold. A fact of this order is only 
 beheld by being shared in. This is the height to which Jesus 
 elevates the Church. Having drawn His spouse from the 
 mire, from the midst of a world immersed in evil, He intro- 
 duces her into the sphere of the Divine life, and places her 
 with Himself upon the throne. 
 
 Meyer and Luthardt (2d ed.) deny that the glory of which 
 Jesus here spoke can be that of His Divine state prior to the 
 Incarnation. For that, they say, is not a gift of the Father's 
 love, but inherent in the Person of the Son. The intention 
 of the words : "for Thou lovedst me before the foundation of 
 the world" is not, they think, to explain wherein consists the 
 glory of the Son, but to indicate the motive for which the 
 Father is about to glorify Him by the ascension. The glory 
 which the Father has given Him is thus that of the glorified 
 Son of man. But the eternal love of the Father for the Son 
 could not be the motive for the glorification of the man 
 Jesus. According to the teaching of Jesus and His apostles, 
 the reason for the exaltation of the Incarnate Christ was His 
 perfect submission and absolute faithfulness to the will of God 
 during His earthly life : x. 17, xv. 10, xiii. 32, xvii. 4, 5 ; Phil, 
 ii. 9 (" wherefore also . . ."). Hence, if there is a glory which 
 the Son owes to the eternal love of the Father, it is His 
 eternal glory, His dignity as Son, His Divine condition prior 
 to the Incarnation ; comp. ver. 26 : "The Father hath given 
 Him to have life in Himself." It is this inner mystery of the 
 
216 GOSPEL OF JOIIX. 
 
 Divine nature to the contemplation of which the faithful are 
 to be admitted. "Ort is then explanatory : " the glory which 
 Thou hast given me, in that Thou lovedst me." Is not the love 
 of which any one is the object his glory ? The glory of the 
 Son is the eternal love through which He is the Son. — Jesus 
 lias now come to the climax, and therefore to the close of His 
 prayer. But He feels a desire again to justify such petitions. 
 The righteousness of God is present to His mind. Does it not 
 bar the way to an answer ? 
 
 Vv. 25, 26. " righteous Father, the world, it is true, hath 
 not known Thee : hut I have known Thee, and these have believed 
 that Thou hast sent me. And I have made knoivn unto them 
 Thy name, and I will make it knoivn : that the love tvherewith 
 Thou hast loved me 1 mag be in them, and I in them." — In thus 
 transporting a church of sinners with Himself to His throne, 
 how could He fail to feel the need of justifying to the right- 
 eous God the unheard-of privileges which He claimed for His 
 people ? The world had undoubtedly refused to know God, 
 and, if the disciples had still been of the world, Divine justice 
 would rightly have protested against His prayer. But He 
 who presented Himself at their head knew God, and they too, 
 by recognising Him as the Sent of God, had been introduced 
 into the light of the knowledge of God. This light, it is true, 
 had but dawned in them ; but Jesus, who had caused its first 
 rays to shine upon them, engaged to communicate to them in 
 the time to come all His own knowledge of the Father, that 
 thus they might become, with the same title as Himself, the 
 objects of the Divine love, and that when His work was 
 finished He might so truly live in them, that in loving them 
 the Father would be loving Him still, and Him always. Hence 
 Divine justice, far from having any pleas to raise against this 
 step, should rather join her voice to that of love to support 
 the petition of Jesus. — The title Righteous Father is not sub- 
 stituted without a purpose for that of Holy Father. It is 
 not holiness, the love of goodness for its own sake, which 
 is the property of this Divine attribute, still less the equity 
 of God, that is to say, His mercy, which is here spoken of. 
 The words : " but I have known Thee," show that Jesus here 
 places Himself in presence of the retributive justice of God, 
 
 1 K reads auiovs instead of a**- 
 
CHAP. XVII. 25, 26. 217 
 
 which, in excluding the world from glory, might or must 
 have excluded the disciples also, if Jesus had not, by His 
 work in them, found the means of making justice itself plead 
 on their behalf. The icai, and (which we have rendered by it is 
 true), before the word the world presents some difficulty. Meyer 
 explains it (according to the frequent use of /cat in this Gospel) 
 as indicating an opposition. This ical would thus form an 
 opposition to the idea of righteousness : " righteous Father : and 
 nevertheless the world . . ." That is to say : " Eighteous Father, 
 for such Thou truly art, even though the world has not recog- 
 nised Thee as such." And Jesus would then proceed to 
 claim the favours which follow in the name of this justice (so 
 also Luthardt, 2d ed.). But could the world's denial of God's 
 righteousness be of such gravity, that Jesus should feel He 
 could not greet His Father by the title of righteous, without 
 thus expressly justifying the statement ? It seems to me 
 that, according to the general analogy of St. John's style, the 
 construction is quite otherwise, and the intention very different. 
 St. John delights in expressing contrasts by the correlation of 
 two Kal (vi. 36, xv. 24, etc.): "both . . . and," for: "on the 
 one side ... on the other." Thus the first Kal, put in the 
 first place of the first proposition, before 6 Acooyio?, would 
 announce an antithesis, and this is actually found in the third 
 proposition : Kal ovtoi . . ., " and these have known . . ." The 
 contrast then is as follows : " On the one side {Kal), the world 
 has not known Thee . . . ; on the other [Kal), these have re- 
 cognised me as sent of Thee, and through me have learnt to 
 know Thee." The relation of this moral contrast to the idea 
 of retributive justice {righteous Father !) is as clear as possible. 
 The world, it is true, deserves from Thee only rejection, for 
 it has misconceived Thee; but these, by receiving me, and 
 learning from me to know Thee, have become worthy of Thy 
 blessing. — But it was necessary to introduce between these two 
 terms of the contrast : " the world . . . these" an intermediate 
 notion, that of the part performed for the disciples by Jesus. 
 For otherwise they would be confounded with the world. It 
 was the appearance of Jesus which had given rise to the 
 contrast. The world, by rejecting this appearance, had mis- 
 conceived God ; the disciples, by receiving Him by faith, had 
 begun to know God, and had now the prospect of the perfect 
 
218 GOSPEL Of JOHN. 
 
 knowledge of Him. This is the reason why our Lord inter- 
 calates between the two terms of the original antithesis the 
 words : " Bid I, I have known Thee" which form a secondary 
 antithesis (iyco Si, but I, comp. xvi. 20). The /ecu of the first 
 and that of the third propositions are then correlative ; but 
 the Be, but, of the second forming an indispensable contrast 
 with the first, the second /cat is consequently at once the 
 pendant of the first and the continuation of the Be, which 
 intervenes in a somewhat unexpected manner. 1 Such a con- 
 struction could only occur in actual speech, and could not be 
 explained in an artificial composition. — Meyer applies the 
 words : has not known Tliee, with regard to the world, to . the 
 blindness of mankind towards the revelation of God in nature, 
 spoken of by St. Paul in Eom. i. 19, etc., a notion which has 
 not the slightest relation to the context. What is there spoken 
 of is unbelief with regard to the revelation of God in the 
 Person and teaching of Christ. — The future : I will make 
 known, refers to Pentecost and to the whole work of Christ in 
 the Church subsequent to that day. — The closing words of 
 the prayer : and I in them, act as a motive to the whole, but 
 especially to the last thought : " and that the love wherewith 
 Thou hast loved me may be in them." The love of God in 
 lighting on believers will not attach itself to aught that is 
 defiled. For it will in truth light only on Jesus Himself, 
 on Jesus living in them, and upon them as identified with 
 Him and reflecting His holy image. 
 
 What simplicity, what calmness, what transparent pro- 
 fundity, prevail throughout this prayer ! " It is, indeed," as 
 Gess remarks, " the only Son speaking to His Father. All 
 here is supernatural, because He who speaks is the only Son 
 from heaven ; but, at the same time, all is natural, for He 
 speaks as a son to a father." The feeling which is the very 
 soul of this prayer, an ardent zeal for the glory of God, is 
 indeed that which is the soul of the whole life of Jestis. 
 And are not these three petitions, that for His personal 
 
 1 Meyer finds tins explanation "contorted." It seems to me to defend and 
 justify itself, it approximates that of Baumlein (which Meyer treats no better) : 
 i x.'oofji.i>i (fih) . , . \yu X\ . . . xa.) ouroi ("the world undoubtedly . , . but I . . . 
 and these also ' ). 
 
CHAP. XVII. 25, 26. 219 
 
 glorification, that for the consecration of His apostles, and 
 that for the glorification of the Church, just the petitions in 
 which this feeling must vent itself? In its details not a 
 word is met with which exegesis cannot demonstrate to be 
 perfectly appropriate and exactly suited to the situation. How, 
 then, could it be possible to adopt Baur's view, that some 
 Christian author, after more than a century, thus succeeded in 
 recovering and reproducing the impressions of Jesus in all 
 their holiness and exalted sublimity ? It is the same as 
 saying that there once existed another Jesus than Jesus 
 Himself. 
 
 M. Eeuss admits, as we do, that this composition is that of 
 an immediate witness. But he finds in certain passages, e.g. 
 ver. 3, a proof that the disciple freely reproduced the thoughts 
 of the Master. He asks whether John had pencil and 
 tablets in hand to take down word for word the prayer of 
 Jesus. But we ask again, if John really regarded Jesus as 
 the Logos, how could the respect which he must have felt 
 for His words have suffered him to make Him speak, and 
 especially to make Him pray, after his own fashion ? Un- 
 doubtedly he had not pencil in hand, but were not the words 
 of Jesus of such a nature as to engrave themselves more 
 deeply and more distinctly than ordinary speech ? Might 
 not St. John, some short time after this evening, have com- 
 mitted to writing what he distinctly remembered of these 
 conversations and of this prayer ? Or, if not, might not his 
 constantly renewed meditation on these words, graven as they 
 were on the tablets of his heart, and continually refreshed by 
 the agency of the Holy Spirit, have compensated for the use 
 of external means ? Is not this internal miracle — if calling 
 it such is insisted upon — less inexplicable than the artificial 
 composition of such a prayer ? 
 
 But, it is asked, how is the calmness which pervades this 
 prayer compatible with the agony of Gethsemane? Keim 
 insists that John, by this narration, annihilates the Synoptic 
 tradition. The conflict of Gethsemane exhibits the character 
 of a sudden crisis, of a violent shock in some sort of a 
 storm, after which calmness was restored to the mind of our 
 Lord as quickly as it had been disturbed. The cause of this 
 passing crisis was twofold ; first, it was natural, viz. the 
 
220 GOSPEL OF JOIIS. 
 
 unique impressionability of the soul of Jesus, of which we 
 have already seen so many proofs in this Gospel, especially 
 ch. xi. and xii. 27. By reason of the very purity of His 
 nature He was accessible, beyond any other man, to every 
 lawful emotion. His soul resembled a magnetic needle, 
 whose mobility is only equalled by the perseverance with 
 which, in every oscillation, it tends to recover its normal 
 direction. Gethsemane was to our Lord not punishment, but 
 the acceptance of punishment, and therefore the anticipation 
 of the suffering of the cross. Such an anticipation is some- 
 times more terrible than the reality. The supernatural cause 
 is pointed out by Jesus Himself in xiv. 30 : "The prince of 
 this world cometh." Comp. Luke xxii. 53 : "TJiis is your hour 
 and the power of darkness." The satanic origin of this agony 
 is betrayed by its very suddenness and violence. St. Luke 
 finishes his account of the temptation in the wilderness 
 with the words : " The devil . . . departed from Him, a^pi 
 icaipov, till another favourable moment." The hour of Geth- 
 semane was, in the eyes of the prince of this world, this other 
 favourable moment. 
 
 The priestly prayer, which includes our Lord's act of 
 thanksgiving for the work He had effected on earth, is the 
 climax of the narrative of the development of faith in the 
 disciples (chs. xiii.— xvi.). It thus forms, in this Gospel, the 
 pendant to the passage, xii. 37—50, in which St. John sum-^^ 
 marizes the history of Jewish unbelief (contained in chs. 
 v.-xii.). 
 
FOUETH PART. 
 
 XVIII. l-XIX. 42. 
 
 THE PASSION. 
 
 IT certainly was not the evangelist's intention to give, in 
 the account which follows, as complete a narrative as 
 possible of our Lord's Passion as though no other history of 
 this event had existed side by side with his own. The most 
 determined opponents of the authenticity of this Gospel (Baur, 
 Strauss) are now in agreement with its most orthodox inter- 
 preters (Lange, Hengstenberg) as to the point that the fourth 
 evangelist had constantly in view, the narratives of his prede- 
 cessors. They only differ as to the intention to be attributed 
 to the writer. According to Baur and Strauss, the pseudo- 
 John derived from the Synoptists the materials indispensable 
 for giving some air of probability to his romance of Jesus- 
 Logos. According to the commentators of the opposite side, 
 St. John was simply endeavouring to fill up the vacancies 
 left in previous narratives, or to present facts already related 
 in their true light. 
 
 It seems to us, as to these latter, that his choice of 
 materials is often determined by a desire to complete the 
 narratives already current in the Church. Thus, when St. 
 John relates the examination of Jesus at the house of Annas, 
 which is omitted by the Synoptists, and omits His appear- 
 ance before the Sanhedrim, so fully related by the former 
 Gospels, this intention appears evident. It is seen, also, in a 
 multitude of other examples. On the other hand, the narrative 
 of St. John has hitherto presented a character of too serious 
 meditation and too profound elaboration, to suffer us to admit 
 that the portion which now follows is governed by no ruling 
 idea, but only obeys chance, as an account would do whose 
 only motive it was to relate what others had omitted. 
 
222 GOSPEL OF JOHN. 
 
 In St. John's history of the Passion, we again find that 
 threefold point of view stated in the Introduction. Jesus 
 makes His glory beam through the veil of ignominy with 
 which it is covered, and that especially by the freedom with 
 which He yields Himself to the lot awaiting Him. The 
 faith of His own gathers up these scattered rays, and grows 
 in the silence of grief. But especially — and this is, as we 
 shall see, the ruling feature of the narrative — Jewish unbelief, 
 by a series of hateful acts and disloyal sayings, passes judg- 
 ment upon itself, and is then consummated by the murder of 
 the Messiah. 
 
 There are three principal scenes : — 
 
 I. The apprehension of Jesus : xviii. 1-11. 
 
 II. His double trial, ecclesiastical and civil: xviii. 12- 
 xix. 16. 
 
 III. His punishment : xix. 17-42. 
 
 FIEST SECTION. 
 
 XVIII. 1-11. THE APPREHENSION OF JESUS. 
 
 Though St. John here omits the agony in Gethsemane, he 
 clearly assigns its place to this fact by the words (ver. 1) : 
 " where was a garden, into the which He entered." On reading 
 these words, no Christian in possession of the three first 
 Gospels could fail to think of their account of this scene. 
 The reason for this omission, as well as that of the trans- 
 figuration, the institution of the Lord's Supper, and so many 
 other matters, is that St. John knew this scene to be suffi- 
 ciently well known in the Church, and that it had no special 
 reference to the end which he had in view. 
 
 Strauss exclaims : " Every attempt to intercalate the agony 
 of Gethsemane in the narrative of St. John between chs. 
 xvii. and xviii. is a treason against the moral elevation and 
 even the manly character of Jesus." * At this rate, St. John 
 would be himself the first author of a treason of this kind ; 
 witness the scene in the temple (ch. xii.), especially the saying 
 in xii. 27. Strauss concludes that we have in the synoptic 
 
 1 Das Leben Jesu, 1864, p. 553. 
 
CHAP. XVIII. 1-3. 223 
 
 narrative " a simple fiction, in that of St. John a more con- 
 sidered and calculating fiction." Thus, those who narrate lie 
 in narrating, and he who omits lies in omitting ! Such is 
 the result at which criticism arrives by following its course 
 to the end. It claims to restore the genuine edifice, it 
 destroys the very soil on which it is to be reared. 
 
 Vv. 1—3 : The arrival of the band. — " Having spoken these 
 ivords, Jesus went out with His disciples to the other side of 
 the brook Cedron, 1 where vms a garden, into which He entered, 
 as well as His disciples. And Judas, who betrayed Him, also 
 knew the place ; for Jesus had often met there 2 with His dis- 
 ciples. Judas then, having received the band with officers from 
 the chief priests and Pliarisees, cometh thither with lanterns 
 and torches and arms." — The verb i%rj\0e, He went out, con- 
 nected directly as it is with the regimen irepav tov ^eip.dppov, 
 to the other side of the brook, can only signify : " He went 
 out from the town and suburbs of Jerusalem." This is 
 acknowledged by De Wette, though he and many others con- 
 sider that the discourses in chs. xiii.-xvii. were uttered in the 
 supper chamber. — The received reading twv /ciSpcov would 
 mean the brook of the cedars, and would evidently be an 
 error on the part of St. John, for there are no cedars in the 
 country, and the name Cedron comes from jmp (Kedron), 
 dark. In Josephus also the name iceSpdov is a nomin. sing. 
 (e.g. xel/jLappos KeSpoovof, Ant. viii. 1. 5). But it is suffi- 
 ciently proved that the reading twv KeSpcov, of the cedars, 
 originated with ignorant copyists, who, taking KeSptop for a 
 genitive plural, placed the article rwv before it. The true 
 reading is tov KeSpcov, of the Cedron, and this is preserved 
 in the Alexandr. and the Sangallensis. The tov has been 
 kept in the Sinait. and Cantabrig., but the gen. sing. iceSpov, 
 of the cedar, has been brought in after it. The same altera- 
 tion is met with in several Mss. of the 0. T. (see 2 Sam. xv. 
 23 and 1 Kings xv. 13). — The brook of Cedron rises half a 
 league north of Jerusalem, and falls into the Dead Sea after 
 a southward course of six or seven leagues. It is generally 
 
 1 A S A It ali< i Vg. and several other Vss. read mv xihpuv ; X D It aliq Cop. 
 Sah. : tou xihpoo ; T. R. with BCEGHKLMUXYrAn, most of the 
 Mnn. Or. and Tisch. : ruv Kiipa*. 
 
 2 9 JIjj. (E G M, etc.) read *«- after vnnxfin. 
 
224 GOSrEL OF JOHN. 
 
 dry during nine months of the year, and we were told at 
 Jerusalem that for more than twenty years not a , drain of 
 water had been seen in it. Its bed is at the bottom of the 
 valley of Jehoshaphat, between the temple hill and the Mount 
 of Olives. After passing over the little bridge by which its 
 dried-up bed is crossed, there is on the right hand a tract 
 planted with ancient olive trees, and said to be the garden of 
 Gethsemane. There is no reason worthy of consideration, 
 whatever Keim may say, against the truth of this tradition. 
 The word 7ro\A.a/a9, often, at ver. 2, applies not only to the 
 days immediately preceding, but to previous sojourns of Jesus 
 at Jerusalem. This garden undoubtedly belonged to friends 
 of Jesus, and generally served as a place of meeting for 
 our Lord and His disciples {avvrf^Q^, the aorist : " the act of 
 meeting") when they were returning from Jerusalem to the 
 Mount of Olives and to Bethany, and desired to avoid passing 
 together through the streets of the city. Comp. Luke xxi. 
 37, xxii. 39. — The term enreipa always signifies in the N. T. 
 the legion or part of the Eoman legion which occupied the 
 citadel Antonia, at the north-western angle of the temple. 
 A detachment of Eoman soldiers had seemed necessary to 
 support the servants of the Sanhedrim. It was commanded 
 by the tribune himself, the cliiliarch mentioned in ver. 12. 
 The art. vrjv, " the band," is perhaps explained by the presence 
 of this superior officer, who represented the whole. Although 
 the Synoptists do not speak of this escort, the message of 
 Pilate's wife shows that the governor had had to busy him- 
 self in the matter since the previous evening, and this 
 circumstance confirms the participation of the Eoman band 
 in the apprehension of Jesus. If Keim chooses to speak 
 ironically of " half an army," this poor piece of pleasantry 
 is quite gratuitous. Biiumlein opposes the application of the 
 term airdpa to the Eoman garrison. But an apprehension 
 could scarcely have taken place, especially during the residence 
 of the governor, without the participation of the Eoman 
 authorities. — The virrjperai, are, as in vii. 32, 45, the officers 
 of the Sanhedrim or guards of the temple. — It was to them, 
 properly speaking, that the order for our Lord's arrest was 
 committed. Ver. 10 shows that servants belonging to the 
 households of the chief priests had joined the band. — The 
 
chap, xviii. 4-9. 225 
 
 meaning of the words j>avol and \afji7rdSe<; is questionable. 
 The former seems to us rather to designate lanterns, the 
 latter lamps placed at the end of a long handle (Matt. xxvi. 
 1). All this apparatus : " lanterns and torches and arms," 
 casts, by its very Heedlessness, an air of ridicule upon the 
 scene. It was feared that Jesus might hide Himself, but 
 He willingly gave Himself up ; that He might defend Him- 
 self . . ., but where was the use of such arms if He had 
 chosen to use His power ? (ver. 6). 
 
 Vv. 4-9 : The meeting of Jesus with the band. — " Jesus 
 therefore}- knowing all that should happen to Him, went forth, 
 and said unto them, 2 Wlwm seek ye? They answered Him, 
 Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus saith unto them, I am He. Now 
 Judas also, who betrayed Him, stood among them. Wlien then 
 He had said, I am He, they drew lack, and fell to the ground. 
 Jesus asked them a second time, Whom seek ye ? They said, 
 Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus answered, I have told you that I am 
 He : if therefore ye seek me, let these go away : that the saying 
 might be fulfilled, which He spake : Of them which Thou gavest 
 me I have lost none." — In advancing of His own accord to 
 meet the troop, our Lord had a purpose which the sequel 
 explains. He desired, by delivering Himself up, to provide 
 for the safety of His disciples. The kiss of Judas, in the 
 Synoptists, which is said to be incompatible with the narra- 
 tive of St. John, must be placed at the moment when Jesus 
 came out of the garden and met the band, therefore immedi- 
 ately before the question : " Whom seek ye ? " Jesus having 
 undergone this last act of treachery on the part of His disciple, 
 turned to the band and addressed to them this question con- 
 cerning their mission. He desired thereby to oblige them 
 formally to declare what was the object of their search, for 
 the purpose of sheltering His disciples. " He went out " might 
 signify : " He advanced from the midst of His disciples, or from 
 the depths of the garden" (Matt. xiv. 14). But the most 
 natural sense is that He went out of the garden itself. Un- 
 doubtedly the kinsman of Malchus says at ver. 26 : " Did not 
 I see thee with Him in the garden ? " But Jesus was walking 
 boldly forward, while the disciples were keeping behind Him 
 
 1 N D L X ItP' eri< i ue Syr. Cop. have Ss instead of »»v. 
 
 2 B C D ItP ltri i"» Vg. : sgnXftv xx, xiyu instead of igtftAn urn*. 
 
 GODET III. P JOHN. 
 
226 GOSrEL OF JOHN. 
 
 iii the garden. — The intercalation in this place (ver. 5) of the 
 remark concerning Judas has been variously explained. 
 Luthardt justly says : " These words are placed between the 
 saying : ' It is I,' and the effect it produced, because they are 
 intended to explain this effect." But how ? The terror produced 
 by the declaration : " It is I" which seemed to contain a threat 
 from heaven, would first of all be felt by the perfidious disciple, 
 and communicated by him to those who surrounded and fol- 
 lowed him. — St. John has been accused of personal hatred to 
 Judas, yet it is he alone among the evangelists who does not 
 mention the kiss ! — The same moral ascendancy to which the 
 buyers and sellers in the temple yielded, caused the troop to 
 draw back, and this sudden backward movement on the part 
 of those who went first, caused the fall of a certain number 
 among those who were following. The purpose of Jesus in 
 this imposing display of His miraculous power is still the 
 same ; what follows shows that He desired to save the disciples 
 from being apprehended. — In a milder tone, which summoned 
 the officers to approach again, Jesus questioned them a second 
 time. Their reply again showed that it was Himself alone 
 whom they were sent to arrest ; whereupon, ver. 8, He drew 
 the conclusion at which He was aiming from the first, and, 
 while giving Himself up as a prisoner, stipulated for the liberty 
 of His disciples, thus fulfilling the beautiful image he had 
 used, x. 1 2 : " The shepherd seeth the wolf coming, and fleeth 
 not, because he careth for the sheep." It was not only for 
 the safety, but for the salvation of His disciples, as St. John 
 truly felt, that Jesus was at this time solicitous, a fact which 
 accounts for the remark in ver. 9. The example of Peter, the 
 most courageous among them, shows what would have hap- 
 pened to the weakest if they had been at that moment called 
 upon to share the fate of their Master. Jesus, who had before 
 said : " / have watched over those whom Thou hast given me, and 
 none of them is lost" (xvii. 12), was to realize all that was 
 included in this saying, which bore upon the whole of His 
 work on earth. This quotation is instructive. No one can 
 suppose that St. John was ignorant of the spiritual meaning 
 of this saying of our Lord ; and yet he here applied it to a 
 material fact, which only indirectly contributed to the salvation 
 of the disciples. 
 
CHAP. XVIII. 10, 11. 227 
 
 Vv. 10, 11: Peter's attempt at defence. — "Then Simon 
 Peter having a sword drew it, and smote the high priest's 
 servant, and cut off his right ear} The servants name was 
 Malchus. Then said Jesus unto Peter, Put thy 2 sword into the 
 sheath again : the cup which my Father hath given me to drink, 
 shall I not drink it ? " — Was not St. John alluding to the 
 natural character of Peter, by here giving him the name of 
 Simon ? Comp. xxi. 15-17. — Luke, xxii. 38, shows that the 
 apostles had in fact brought arms with them. — Why, it may 
 be asked, did St. John repeat this fact already related by the 
 Synoptists ? He desired to restore to it that precision which 
 it had lost by oral tradition : the name of Peter had been 
 omitted, very probably on purpose (see on xi. 2), that of 
 Malchus forgotten. — These names are a constant source of 
 embarrassment to critics. Again is the intention of humiliat- 
 ing Peter imputed to the writer, although the act attributed 
 to him is wanting in neither faith nor courage ! But as for 
 Malchus ? How can the slightest vestige of idealism be dis- 
 covered in this name ? Keim objects : " If these names were 
 known, how could Mark and Luke have omitted them ? " But 
 because Mark and Luke were ignorant of them, was it impos- 
 sible for one better informed to know them ? How can we 
 believe that an earnest Christian of the second century, writing 
 at a distance from Palestine, either at Kome or Alexandria, or 
 in Asia Minor, would have claimed a historical acquaintance 
 with the name of a servant in the high priest's household ! (ver. 
 26). Is such miserable charlatanism compatible with the 
 character of the author of the discourses of the fourth Gospel ? 
 The trifling detail : " the right ear," found also in Luke, is, 
 according to Strauss, a legendary amplification. To what a 
 degree of childishness is not the evangelic narrative thus 
 degraded ? — The act of Peter, while testifying to a strong faith 
 and to the sincerity of his declaration in xiii. 37, none the 
 less by its imprudence compromised the cause of Jesus. Little 
 was wanting to its depriving Him of the power of saying before 
 Pilate (ver. 3 G) : "If my kingdom were of tins world, then would 
 my servants have fought." The answer of Jems lays down for 
 
 1 K B C L X Y It. Vg. : arupiov instead of an«. 
 
 2 Sat;, which is the reading of T. R , is only found in several Mnn. and 
 
228 GOSPEL OF JOHN. 
 
 the Church its line of conduct under persecution, viz. that 
 passive resistance called, Eev. xiii. 1 0, the patience of the saints. 
 — The image of a cup, used to designate a lot to be submitted 
 to, recalls the similar expression in the prayer of our Lord at 
 Gethsemane related by the Synoptists. — St. Luke alone men- 
 tions the miraculous cure, of Malchus. If this fact had not 
 actually taken place, one cannot see why Peter should not have 
 been indicted tor the act of rebellion which he had committed. 
 
 SECOND SECTION. 
 
 XVIII. 12-XIX. 16. THE TRIAL OF JESUS. 
 
 I. The Ecclesiastical Tfjal, xviii. 12-27; II. The Civil 
 Process, xviii. 28-xix. 16. 
 
 I. The Trial "before the Sanhedrim. — xviii. 12-27. 
 
 The next portion contains an account of an appearance of 
 Jesus before Annas, the ex-high priest, an account which is 
 intermingled with that of the denial of St. Peter. This appear- 
 ance is not mentioned by the Synoptists, who, on the other 
 hand, relate a meeting of the Sanhedrim at the house of 
 Caiaphas, at which Jesus was condemned to death, which is 
 omitted by John. How, then, is this relation between the two 
 chief forms of the Gospel history to be explained ? Was St. 
 John mistaken, as some think, in representing an appearance as 
 taking place before Annas, which, according to the Synoptists, 
 took place before Caiaphas ? Or were the Synoptists, as others 
 suppose, in error when they made the house of Caiaphas the 
 scene of an event which really happened in that of Annas ? 
 
 We would first of all remark, that when St. John says, 
 ver. 13, that the band led Him away to Annas, he adds, 
 irpwrov, firstly, thus letting it be clearly understood that this 
 appearance before Annas was followed by a second appearance. 
 This could not have been that before Pilate. For we are 
 positively told at ver. 24, that " Annas then sent Him bound 
 to Caiaphas the high priest;" and at ver. 28, that "they led 
 Jesus from (the house of) Caiaphas to the prsetorium." Could 
 
CHAP. XVIII. 12—27. 229 
 
 St. John more plainly indicate that a meeting had taken place 
 in the house of Caiaphas, even though he omitted giving an 
 account of it ? Besides, the appearance of Jesus before Pilate 
 necessarily supposes that sentence of death had been previously 
 pronounced against Him by the Sanhedrim, the question being 
 to obtain from the governor, the confirmation and execution 
 of this sentence (ver. 31, xix. 7, 11, 16). Now nothing 
 approaching a condemnation took place in the meeting at the 
 house of Annas described by St. John. It was merely a 
 simple preliminary inquiry, and followed by no kind of sen- 
 tence. The narrative of St. John, then, implies a subsequent 
 meeting of the Sanhedrim, as the high court of justice, for the 
 condemnation of the accused, and consequently that meeting 
 described by the Synoptists. If it is asked, what then was in 
 this case the purpose of the appearance before Annas, we 
 reply that not only might it serve to obtain from the mouth 
 of Jesus some compromising words of a nature to procure His 
 condemnation, for the lack of such was a matter of embarrass- 
 ment, but that juridical usage absolutely required it. It is 
 known that a capital sentence could not be pronounced by the 
 Sanhedrim till the day which followed the appearance of the 
 accused. 1 In the present case, this form could not be com- 
 pletely observed, because it had been decided to shorten the 
 time. Still, to save appearances as much as possible, a sem- 
 blance of a first preliminary meeting, followed by a second at 
 which judgment should be given, was at least to be presented. 
 The Synoptists have, in conformity with the nature of oral 
 tradition, preserved only the remembrance of the meeting, 
 which made a historical mark ; St. John, as he usually does, 
 has repaired the synoptic omission by relating the preliminary 
 meeting, but has omitted the solemn sitting of the Sanhedrim 
 as already sufficiently known. In fact, however impossible it 
 is to deny that Jesus was condemned to death in the manner 
 recounted by the Synoptists, it is, on the other hand, equally 
 so not to admit that this condemnation was preceded by an 
 inquiry intended to impart to it an appearance of legality, as 
 related by St. John. 
 
 Langen 2 denies any appearance whatever of Jesus before 
 
 1 Schurer, pp. 416 and 417, d'aprbs Sanhcdrin, iv. 1, t. 5. 
 8 Die letzten Lebcnsiage Jesit, 1864. 
 
230 GOSPEL OF JOHN. 
 
 Annas, and insists that the scene recounted by St. John in vv. 
 20-23 formed part of the meeting in the house of Caiaphas. 
 He says that St. John, having omitted to state that Jesus had 
 been led immediately from the house of Annas to that of 
 Caiaphas, repaired this omission at ver. 24, where we must 
 naturally translate the aorist by the pluperfect : " Now Annas 
 had sent Him . . ." Langen admits that if this translation is 
 impossible, his opinion is untenable. We defer this considera- 
 tion till ver. 24. — M. Lutteroth settles matters in nearly the 
 same manner, 1 solving the difficulty of ver. 24, however, by 
 an expedient of another kind (see on this verse). — Beyschlag 
 admits but one meeting at night taking place at the house of 
 Annas, as described by St. John ; then one in the morning 
 assumed by St. John, and rightly placed and described by St. 
 Luke in ch. xxii. 54, 66—71. St. Matthew and St. Mark, he 
 says, also mention this latter (Matt, xxvii. 1 ; Mark xv. 1) ; 
 but they have confounded the night meeting with* that morn- 
 ing meeting when the appearance at the house of Caiaphas 
 took place and Jesus was condemned by the Sanhedrim, an 
 error which would make the morning meeting in their narra- 
 tives utterly useless. "We shall, I believe, see Beyschlag's 
 mistake upon this latter point (see on xviii. 28); and with 
 this mistake his entire hypothesis is overthrown. 
 
 Baur and Strauss see in the appearance before Annas only 
 an invention of the author of the fourth Gospel, for the 
 purpose of augmenting the guilt of the Jews by making the 
 condemnation of Jesus to be pronounced not only by one, but 
 by two of their high priests. But (1) St. John does not put 
 any sentence of condemnation into the mouth of Annas ; 
 (2) he keeps a profound silence concerning that pronounced 
 by Caiaphas ! — Hilgenfeld thinks that the author, in his nar- 
 rative, does but just glance at the meeting of the Sanhedrim, 
 because the Jewish Messiaship of Jesus was too strongly dwelt 
 upon in it for his anti-Judaic feeling. — But with the licence 
 with respect to history which, according to these critics, he 
 allowed himself, nothing could have been easier for him than 
 to modify the narrative of this scene by making, e.g., the sen- 
 tence of Jesus turn solely on His assertion of His dignity as 
 
 1 "Annas was informed in passing of the success of the apprehension," Essai 
 d'interpritadon des dernilres -parties de VEv. dc St. Matthieu, 1S76. 
 
CHAP. XVIII. 12-14. 231 
 
 Son of God. Besides, if the idea of the Messianic office were 
 so repugnant to St. John, why did he so expressly recall it 
 side by side with his quality of Son of God in the summary 
 of the Gospel with which this book concludes ? (xx. 31). — 
 Keim grows quite warm on the subject, and exclaims : " Who 
 can be blind enough to seek for truth in a narrative which, 
 after introducing the inquiry before Annas as a fact of a 
 decisive nature, ignores in the most unpardonable manner 
 that before Caiaphas ! " (pp. 322, 323). But the meeting in 
 the house of Annas had, according to St. John himself, 
 nothing decisive about it. Its juridical result, to the great 
 annoyance of the enemies of Jesus, who expected to derive 
 therefrom some complaint against Him, to be brought before 
 the great judicial meeting about to be held, was nil. Besides, 
 this latter meeting is, as we have seen, by no means ignored. 
 For St. John, while omitting its narration, most correctly 
 assigns it its place (ver. 24), exactly in the same manner as 
 he had done in the case of the scene in Gethsemane (xviii. 1). 
 — Eeuss, in his lately published work, 1 thus expresses him- 
 self : " John says nothing, and we may add, without deceiving 
 ourselves, knows nothing, of the official inquiry and the trial 
 before the court, because all this took place with closed doors." 
 We have shown that St. John knew all, and that he makes any 
 one who will read him carefully, clearly understand what it 
 does not suit his purpose expressly to relate. Kenan is un- 
 sparing in his admiration of this part of St. John's narrative. 
 " Our author alone," he says, " makes Jesus appear before 
 Annas, the father-in-law of Caiaphas. Josephus confirms the 
 correctness of this account. . . . This circumstance, of which 
 the two first Gospels afford not a notion, is a beam of light. 
 How should a sectary writing in Asia Minor or Egypt have 
 known of it ? . . . It is a strong proof of the historical value 
 of our Gospel" (pp. 522 and 407). 
 
 1st. Jesus led before Annas. 
 
 Vv. 1 2—1 4. " Hun the band and the tribune and the officers 
 of the Jews took Jesus, and bound Him, and led Him away l 
 first to Annas ; for he was father-in-law to Caiaphas, who was 
 
 1 IJhtoire ivangeliqiie, 1876, p. 663. 
 
 s X 13 D, 6 Mnu. have r>y* y ,v instead of axnyayov.—^ B C D X A It ali< ' omit 
 
 tturtr. 
 
232 GOSPEL OF JOHN. 
 
 high priest that year} Caiaphas ivas he who had given counsel 
 to the Jcivs that it teas expedient that one man should die 2 for 
 the people!' — The word Trpcorov, first, contains a tacit confir- 
 mation of the synoptic account, according to which Jesus was 
 led directly to Caiaphas; comp a similar remark, iii. 24. — 
 Annas had himself been high priest in the years 6-15 of our 
 era, that is, about fifteen years before. "We see from Josephus 
 that he was the influential man of the times. St. John, how- 
 ever, gives us to understand that the true reason for which 
 Jesus was at that time led before him, was rather his relation- 
 ship to Caiaphas the high priest. In virtue of this relation- 
 ship, these two individuals were, so to speak, regarded as one. 
 Comp. the expression in Luke iii. 2. — On vv. 13, 14, comp. 
 xi. 50, 51. St. John would give us to understand by the 
 remark in ver. 14 what kind of justice Jesus had to expect 
 from such a judge. 
 
 2d. The first denial. 
 
 Vv. 15-18. " And Simon Peter followed Jesus, and so did 
 another disciple ; 8 and that disciple was known unto the high 
 priest? and went in with Jesus into the court of the high priest. 
 But Peter stood at the door without. Then went out that other 
 disciple and spake to her that kept the door, and drought in 5 
 Peter. Then said the damsel who kept the door to Peter, Art 
 thou not also one of this man's disciples ? Peter answers, I am 
 ■not. Now the servants and the officers were standing there, having 
 made a brazier, because it was cold: and they ivere warming 
 themselves : and Peter 6 was standing among them and warming 
 himself." — While the Synoptists relate consecutively the three 
 denials of Peter, probably because they were, in the oral 
 tradition of the Gospel, grouped in a single and separate nar- 
 rative, forming one of the dTrop,ovevfiara or traditional sub- 
 jects, John separates them in the course of his history, passing 
 
 1 Cod. 225 adds after Tpair«» : utTOTTti^io ovv aurov n Avva; SeSs^vsv irpof Kaiafai 
 
 tov ap%nptx. SyrP adds the same words in the margin. Cyril reads after ixuve" : 
 
 uvarrtiXav Ss xvrcv OiOlfttvoi vrpo; Kcciaipctv -rov ap%upza (comp. Ver. 24). 
 
 : S B C L X, 13 Mnn. several Vss. have wxatavtiv instead of avo^ta-dai. 
 
 3 S A B, 5 Mnn. and probably It. Vg. Syr. Cop. Sail., omit « before ux\* s 
 (" an other disciple"). 
 
 4 B C L X read a yv. mv upx. 5 ^ : uo-v<nyxi instead of no-nyayiv. 
 
 6 N B C L X, some Mnn. Up'"*™ Vg. Syr. Cop. read »«< before o xiirpt (" &nd 
 Feter also "). 
 
CHAP. XVIII. 15-13. 233 
 
 alternately from Peter to Jesus and from Jesus to Peter. 
 This less disjointed narrative certainly reproduces the real 
 course of events, and there is nothing in this Gospel which 
 more plainly discloses in its author the witness of the facts. 
 " The same superiority," rightly exclaims Eenan, " in the 
 history of the denials of Peter ! All is more circumstantial 
 and better explained." 
 
 The art. o, the, omitted by the Alex, before the words aXkos 
 fjbadrjTrj'i, other disciple, ver. 15, must undoubtedly be rejected. 
 This omission is confirmed by ancient versions and by the 
 context. For nothing in what precedes justifies the use of 
 the definite article. We must then translate : " another 
 disciple." Who, then, is it whom St. John thus designates ? 
 Himself? Such is the most usual answer. But the peri- 
 phrasis used by St. John to designate himself, while main- 
 taining his anonymous position, is : " the disciple wltiom Jesus 
 loved" (xiii. 23, xix. 26). I endeavoured in my first edition 
 to justify the absence of this expression, in the present case, 
 by saying " that it was not the moment for using it " after 
 the disciples had just forsaken their Master. I cannot, how- 
 ever, conceal from myself that this explanation is somewhat 
 subtile. Why should not John designate by this phrase some 
 other disciple, his brother James, for instance, whom ho 
 nowhere names in this Gospel any more than his mother ? 
 We do not know what were the relations which Zebedee and 
 his sons might have with the household of the high priest. 
 Perhaps the very calling of Zebedee might have given rise to 
 them. Thanks to this relation, this disciple was allowed to 
 enter with the band into the high priest's palace, and soon 
 obtained admission for Peter also, who had undoubtedly 
 claimed his good offices. 
 
 But of what high priest is St. John speaking when he says, 
 ver. 15 : " into the court of the high priest" {avkrj, more pro- 
 bably here the inner court than the palace itself) ? On the 
 one hand, after it has been said : " They led Him away to 
 Annas" it seems impossible to think of any other house than 
 that of this individual. But, on the other hand, the title of 
 apxiepev<;, high priest, is not given to Annas either in this 
 chapter or in any other part of this book. Undoubtedly, as 
 Schiirer has well proved, this term might designate, besides 
 
234 GOSPEL OF JOHN. 
 
 the high priest in office, all those who had previously filled 
 this position, ind even all the members of those few privileged 
 families from whom the high-priesthood was generally re- 
 cruited. For this reason it is that high priests are spoken 
 of, and that Annas himself, though long since out of office, is 
 called ap^epeu? in the Acts of the Apostles (iv. 6). Only 
 this is never done in this Gospel; and it would be difficult 
 to believe that St. John, after opposing the high priest Caiaphas 
 to his father-in-law Annas, as he does in ver. 13, should some 
 few lines later have designated the latter by the title of high 
 priest, without a word of explanation to his readers. If, then, 
 it is the house of Caiaphas which is spoken of, we must 
 conclude that, since acquaintance with the high priest Caiaphas 
 and the members of his household opens the abode of Annas 
 to the disciple, these two individuals must at this time have 
 inhabited one and the same palace. The close connection by 
 which they were united would explain this circumstance, and 
 it was perhaps for this very reason that St. John mentioned 
 this fact. Meyer, then, is certainly wrong in saying that the 
 text furnishes not the slightest indication in favour of this 
 opinion, to which, on the contrary, it directly leads. 
 
 The Hebrews very generally employed female doorkeepers 
 (see Josephus, Antia. vii. 2. 1 ; Acts xii. 13; 2 Sam. iv. 6 in 
 the LXX.). — The /cat, also (" Art thou not also "), shows that she 
 well knew the anonymous disciple to be a disciple of Jesus. 
 — The three denials of Peter have, as Luthardt observes, three 
 distinct historical points of departure, which are in some sort 
 distributed among the evangelists: 1st, the introduction of 
 Peter into the court by a friend known to be a disciple of 
 Jesus ; 2d, the recognition of Peter by those who had seen 
 him at the time of his Master's arrest; 3d, his Galilean 
 dialect. But to these external circumstances, which called 
 forth his trial, was added an internal one, which facilitated his 
 fall, — viz., the remembrance of the blow which he had dealt, 
 and which exposed him more than all the rest to be involved 
 in the condemnation of Jesus. Fear thus allied itself to pre- 
 sumption, and the warning given him by Jesus : " The spirit 
 indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak" was verified. 
 
 The hovXot, servants, ver. 18, designate the private domestics 
 of the priestly palace ; the virripkrat, officers, are the official 
 
CHAP. XVIII. 19-21. 235 
 
 servants of the Sanhedrim charged with the guardianship of 
 the temple. — The last words of ver. 18:" Peter was standing 
 with them and warming himself" are literally repeated at ver. 
 25, where they are placed as a stepping-stone to the approach- 
 ing resumption of the account of Peter's denials. The verbs 
 in the imperfect are graphic, and signify that the situation 
 described remains during the investigation about to be described. 
 
 3d. Appearance at the house of Annas. 
 
 Vv. 19—21. " The high priest then asked Jesus of His dis- 
 ciples, and of His doctrine. Jesus answered him, I spake l 
 openly to the world ; I ever taught in open synagogue? and in 
 the temple, whither all 3 the Jews resort ; and in secret have I 
 said nothing. Why askcst 4 thou me ? asJc them which heard, 
 me, what I have said unto them : behold, they know what I 
 said." — Though this semblance of inquiry took place at the 
 house of Annas, it was not he, as is generally thought, but 
 Caiaphas, who directed the examination. The title of high priest 
 which is given him in ver. 13, and again in ver. 24, immedi- 
 ately after, admits no other interpretation. This sitting was 
 not entirely private, as is often said. It had its necessary 
 place in the trial, and the term officer in ver. 22 supposes its 
 official character. The duty of presiding over it therefore 
 devolved on the high priest as such. It has been supposed 
 that Annas acted here as Ab-bcth-din (chief of the court of 
 justice). But this dignity belonged to the high priest himself 
 (Schurer, p. 413). Keim rightly says (assuredly not in the 
 interest of John's narrative) : " If Caiaphas was really the 
 acting high priest, and at the same time the soul of the move- 
 ment directed against Jesus, it was for him, and not for his 
 father-in-law, to take knowledge of the matter and report to 
 the Sanhedrim" (iii. p. 322). What meaning otherwise could 
 attach to the description of Caiaphas in ver. 13? And when, 
 at ver. 22, the officer says to Jesus : "Answerest thou the high 
 priest so ? " can we think of another than the acting high priest, 
 the same who alone bears the title all through the chapter ? 
 
 1 SABCLXYi: AsXaAuxa instead of %\a.\rnja. 
 
 2 T. R. reads m before trma.yuyn solely with A and some linn. 
 
 3 T. R. with only some Mnn. : **vrohv ; r with 10 Mjj. (Y r A A, etc.) : 
 
 travrorz ; X A B C L X II : <xuvti$. 
 
 4 T. B. with Byz. : 1*1(017%$ and iripwiiw ; Alex. : spurx.; and ipan»<rov. 
 
23 G GOSPEL OF JOHN. 
 
 Ver. 24 does not contradict this interpretation. The only 
 change referred to there is one of locality. — The question put 
 to Jesus was intended to extort from Him some answer fitted 
 to be the ground of His condemnation. For embarrassment 
 was felt as to the course to be followed in this matter, as is 
 proved by the recourse had to false witnesses. — What is asked 
 of Jesus is not the names of His disciples, as if a list of His 
 accomplices was wanted ; it is information about the number 
 of His partisans, and the principles which serve as their watch- 
 word. — Jesus, knowing that all they seek is to drag from Him 
 some utterance which they may turn to His disadvantage, 
 simply appeals to the publicity of His teaching. He is not 
 the chief of a secret society, nor the propagator of principles 
 which fear the light of day. — ^vvaycoyfj, without article : in 
 synagogal assembly; the word lepov, temple, has the article, 
 because this edifice stands alone. When Jesus taught His 
 disciples in private, it was not to tell them anything different 
 from what He declared in public. — The testimony of the 
 ancient Vss. decides in favour of the Alex, reading : " all 
 the Jews ; " not : " the Jews everywhere or ahvays." 
 
 Vv. 22, 23. " When He had thus spoken, one of the officers 
 which stood by struck Jesus with the palm of his hand, saying, 
 Answerest thou the high priest so ? Jesus answered him, If I 
 have spoken evil, bear witness of tJie evil ; but if ivell, why smitest 
 thou me ? " — The answer of Jesus certainly contained a tacit 
 rebuke. An officer, who wished to pay court to his master, 
 takes occasion to remind Jesus of the respect due. — 'T?a r map,a 
 signifies strictly : a blow with a rod. No doubt in Matt. v. 
 3 9 the verb pairi^eiv is taken in the sense of buffeting. But here 
 the strict meaning seems preferable, because of the term Bepeiv, 
 to fay, ver. 23. — MapTvprjaov: "prove by lawful witness- 
 bearing." — Jesus does not here literally fulfil His own precept 
 (Matt. v. 39). His own innocence demanded this answer, so 
 full of gentleness and dignity. 
 
 Ver. 24. " Therefore 1 Annas sent Him bound unto Caiaphas 
 the high priest." — This verse has always perplexed those who 
 held that the previous sitting was that which took place at 
 the house of Caiaphas, and which is related by the Synoptics. 
 
 1 T. R., with B C L X A It ttliq , some Mnn., reads: em {therefore); N Syr"*, some 
 Jinn. : Ss (then) ; r, with 13 Mjj. (A, etc.), omits every particle. 
 
CHAP. XVIII. 25-27. 237 
 
 This is what has led to the transposition of this verse in some 
 documents after ver. 1 3 (see the critical note on this verse) ; it 
 has also led several critics, such as Calvin, Lucke, Tholuck, 
 de Wette, Langen, to take cnreo-reCkev in the sense of the 
 pluperfect, had sent. And as the particle ovv, therefore, did 
 not suit this explanation, they have been led thereby either to 
 reject this particle or to transform it into Se : " Now Annas 
 had sent . . ." But the most probable text is certainly there- 
 fore ; and this particle evidently makes the following sending 
 the consequence of all that has just been related, and especially 
 of the appearance at the house of Annas. The evangelist's 
 object in inserting this notice here, is to indicate that this 
 appearance must be distinguished from that which took place 
 later at the house of Caiaphas before the Sanhedrim, and to 
 assign its place to this well-known sitting which he does not 
 relate. M. Lutteroth gives this verse a sentimental cast : 
 " Now this Jesus, thus struck by the officer, stood with His 
 hands bound, as Annas had [previously] sent Him to Caiaphas ! " 
 But this meaning does not harmonize with the uniform sim- 
 plicity of the apostolic narrative. Besides, also, it supposes 
 the meaning of the pluperfect given to the Aor., without any 
 valid reason (see Meyer). — Jesus had no doubt been unbound 
 during His examination ; this scene over, Annas had Him 
 bound anew to send Him to Caiaphas. Probably He was 
 unbound a second time during the sitting of the Sanhedrim, 
 and thus is explained why, Matt, xxvii. 2 and Mark xv. 1, 
 He is bound anew when He is led away to Pilate. — " Unto 
 Caiaphas " here signifies : " to the palace of Caiaphas ; " there 
 were the official apartments and a hall for the meetings of the 
 Sanhedrim. This body had been called together in the interval. 
 The members were at Jerusalem for the feast. 
 4th. Second and third denial. 
 
 Vv. 25—27. "And Simon Peter stood and warmed himself. 
 They said therefore unto him, Art not thou also one of his dis- 
 ciples ? He denied it, and said, I am not. 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 ivith him ? Peter then 
 denied again: and immediately the cock creiv" — Till now, 
 according to John, all has passed at the house of Annas ; and 
 it was consequently in the court of his palace that the hre wa$ 
 
238 GOSPEL CF JOHN. 
 
 lighted beside which Peter denies Jesus. According to the 
 Synoptics, who do not mention the appearing before Annas, 
 the three denials took place at the house of Caiaphas. We 
 have already stated the reasons which in our view support the 
 supposition by which this contradiction is resolved, viz. that 
 Annas and Caiaphas inhabited the same sacerdotal palace. 
 This opinion is in keeping with oriental usage, according to 
 which palaces are not only inhabited by the reigning prince, 
 but also by all the members of his family. The marked con- 
 nection of the first words of this verse with the last of ver. 1 8 
 shows that the second and third denials took place during the 
 examination, vv. 20-23. The sending of Jesus to Caiaphas, 
 therefore, followed immediately on this last denial. And so 
 may be explained the look which Jesus cast on Peter, accord- 
 ing to Luke (xxii. 61). Jesus was passing through the court 
 which He had to cross to get from the apartments of Annas 
 to those of Caiaphas. At that moment He heard the cock 
 crow ; and it was then that His look met that of Peter. The 
 epithet BeSe/xevov, hound, serves to explain better the impres- 
 sion produced on the faithless disciple by seeing his Master in 
 this condition. 
 
 The subject of elirov, they said (ver. 25), is indeterminate. 
 According to Matthew, it is a maid-servant who sees Peter 
 approaching the gate to escape from the court to the front of 
 the house. According to Mark, it is the same servant who 
 had already given him trouble, and who denounces him to the 
 servants gathered round the fire. In Luke, it is vaguely a 
 eVepo?, another person. It is probable that the porteress spoke 
 of Peter to one of her companions, who denounced him to the 
 assembled servants. From this group there rose instantly the 
 question addressed to Peter. — After the second denial, Peter 
 seems to have played the bravado, and to have set himself to 
 speak more freely with the persons present. His Galilean 
 accent was soon remarked, and drew attention more particu- 
 larly from a kinsman of Malchus, which occasioned the third 
 denial. John does not speak of Peter's imprecations which 
 are related by Matthew. If, therefore, any one was animated 
 with ill-feeling to Peter, it was not the author of our narrative, 
 as is alleged, but rather the first evangelist. 
 
 This whole narrative would suffice to prove: 1st, how close 
 
CHAP. XVIII. 2S-XIX. 1G. 239 
 
 is the relation which is sustained by this Gospel to the previous 
 Gospels ; 2d, with how much less life and ease the facts were 
 related by oral tradition than they have been by the pen of 
 the eye-witness. The latter alone has reproduced the minutest 
 links of the history ; and M. Eenan is not without reason in 
 speaking of " its undulating features and lifelike points." 
 
 II. The Trial he/ore Pilate. — xviii. 28-xix. 1G. 
 
 Had the Eomans, when they converted Judea into a pro- 
 vince of the empire, taken away from the Jews the right of 
 capital punishment ? Our narrative says so positively, putting 
 into their own mouths the words (ver. 31) : "It is not lawful 
 for us to put any man to death." To this have been objected 
 the execution of Stephen, Acts vii. 5 7 et seq., and the permis- 
 sion granted by Titus to the Jews to put foreigners and even 
 Romans to death who passed beyond the enclosure of the 
 temple court (Josephus, Antiq. vi. 2. 4). But the former is 
 an act of extra-legal popular fury, and the permission given 
 by Titus is expressly an exceptional case. According to the 
 Talmud as well as John, the right of inflicting capital punish- 
 ment did not now belong to the Sanhedrim. In the times 
 which had followed the conquest, the governors had probably 
 made use of concessions to the conquered people. But not 
 long before this, perhaps since the governorship of the despotic 
 Pilate, the Jews had been reduced to the common provincial 
 law : the jus gladii had been withdrawn from them. " Forty 
 years before the destruction of the temple," says the Talmud, 
 " capital sentences were taken away from Israel." 1 It was, 
 therefore, about the year 30 of our era, the year of Jesus' 
 death. Hence the reason why the rulers were obliged to lead 
 Jesus before Pilate, and to ask this Gentile magistrate to ratify 
 and execute the sentence which they had just pronounced. — 
 When we examine carefully the conduct of the Jews at this 
 hearing, we discover in it a maturely- concerted and skilfully- 
 followed plan. This circumstance proves, indeed, that after 
 the judgment pronounced on Jesus at the house of Caiaphas, 
 there must have been a new sitting, at which it was agreed 
 
 1 Sanhedr., fol. 24. 2 : QuadraginLa ami? ante vaslatum templum ablata sunt 
 judkia capitalia ab Israiile. 
 
240 COSPEL OF JOHN. 
 
 what course should be followed to get the sentence of death 
 ratified by the procurator. 1 Moreover, the sentence, having 
 been pronounced over night, required to be legally confirmed 
 at a regular diet. 2 Finally, the Sanhedrim, wishing to conduct 
 Jesus in a body to the governor, must have had a meeting- 
 place somewhere. Such was the origin of the morning sitting, 
 which took place very early, probably in the famous hall, 
 paved with mosaic (lischleath haggazith), situated at the south 
 of the temple. Comp. Matt, xxvii. 1 ; Mark xv. 1. Luke 
 (xxii. 66 et seq.) has also preserved to us the account of it, 
 perhaps mixing with it some details borrowed from the night 
 sitting, which he passes over in silence. In any case, the 
 examination and judgment of Jesus must have been summarily 
 reproduced and ratified in this plenary (Travres, Matt.) sitting 
 of the Sanhedrim. 
 
 The Jews begin by asking Pilate to confirm their sentence 
 without examination (ver. 30). This he refuses. Such is the 
 first phase : vv. 28—32. They then frame a political accusa- 
 tion : He made himself a king. Pilate judges this accusation 
 unfounded, after which he makes two attempts to deliver Jesus 
 with the support of the people, but without success. This is 
 the second phase : ver. 33-xix. 6. The Jews then advance 
 a new charge of a religious nature : He made himself the Son 
 of God. But, on hearing this accusation, Pilate endeavours all 
 the more to deliver Jesus. This is the third phase : vv. 7-1 2a. 
 At this moment, the Jews, seeing their prey on the point of 
 escaping from them, put aside all shame and employ the odious 
 means of personal threatening to bend the conscience of the 
 judge ; and in this way they allow themselves to be dragged 
 into the denial of their most cherished hope, that of the 
 Messiah ; they subscribe themselves vassals to Cassar. Such 
 is the fourth phase: vv. 12&-16. 
 
 Ver. 28. "Then led they Jesus from Gaiaphas unto the hall 
 of judgment : and it was early ; and they themselves went not 
 
 1 Comp. especially the expression : uan. tavuruitrai alrov, Matt, xxvii. 1, that 
 is to say : " to seek the ways and means best fitted to secure from the governor 
 the execution of Jesus." 
 
 2 Lightfoot, Hor. Hebr. in Matt, xxvii. 1. Keim : "The day sitting was 
 required in point of legality to complete the night one. For the sittings of 
 the Sanhedrim, especially in a case of capital punishment, required to be held 
 during the day and in the morning, before man has drunk or eaten." 
 
CHAP. XVIII. 28. 241 
 
 into the judgment hall, lest they should he defiled, that 1 they 
 might eat the Passover." — The prwtorium {judgment hall) was, 
 properly speaking, the place where the praetor sat at Eome 
 when he administered justice. This name had been applied 
 to the palaces of the Eoman governors in the provinces. Most 
 critics hold that it denotes here the palace of Herod, which 
 stood on the hill of Zion, in the western part of the upper 
 city. They quote the passage of Josephus, Bellnm jud. ii. 
 1 4. 8, but wrongly ; for it is said there : " Florus at that time 
 (totc) dwelt in the royal palace," — a clear proof that the 
 Eoman governor did not live there ordinarily. It is more 
 probable that Pilate occupied a palace belonging to the citadel 
 Antonia, where the Eoman garrison was stationed at the north- 
 west corner of the temple. There, at least, tradition places 
 the starting-point of the Via Dolorosa. — IIpa>t(T. E. irpwta), 
 early morning, comprises the time from three to six o'clock 
 (Mark xiii. 35). In general, the Eoman courts did not open 
 their sittings till nine o'clock ; but, as we have seen, Pilate was 
 forewarned the previous evening of what was passing, and he 
 had consented to receive the Jews at this unusual hour. 
 
 The scruple which prevents the Jews from entering the 
 governor's house brings us again face to face with the seem- 
 ing contradiction between John's narrative and that of the 
 Synoptics. If, as the latter seem to say, the Jews had already 
 celebrated the Paschal feast on the 'previous evening, how are 
 we to explain their fear that, defiling themselves by contact 
 with leaven in a Gentile house, they should not be able to 
 eat the Passover that same day ? The defenders of what is 
 thought to be the synoptical view had no other resource than 
 to refer the expression eating the Passover, not to the Paschal 
 feast properly so called, but to those sacred feasts which were 
 celebrated daily during the festival, and which consisted of 
 unleavened bread and of the flesh of the peace-offerings. It is 
 in this general sense, they say, that the word Passover is taken, 
 Deut. xvi. 2,3: " Thou shalt sacrifice the Passover unto the Lord, 
 of the flock- and the herd . . . ; seven days shalt thou eat unleavened 
 bread therewith" (the Passover). Comp. the analogous expres- 
 sion, 2 Chron. xxx. 2 2 (literally) : " And they did eat the feast 
 (the sacrifices of the feast) seven days, offering peace-offerings and 
 1 H A B C A reject the second <v«. 
 
 GODET IIL Q JOHN. 
 
242 GOSPEL OF JOHN. 
 
 praising the Lord ;" 2 Chron. xxxv. 7-9: u And Josiah gave 
 to the people, of the flock, lambs and kids, all for the Passover 
 offerings, for all that were present, to the number of thirty thou- 
 sand, and three thousand bullocks : these were of the king's 
 substance. . . ." 
 
 It is alleged further, that, according to the Talmud, the 
 defilement which the Jews would have contracted by entering 
 the prsetorium would only have lasted to the end of the day, 
 and would not have prevented them from eating the Paschal 
 feast, which fell wholly on the following day. — But the 
 passages quoted do not prove what they w r ould require to 
 prove. As in Deut. xvi. 5, 6 the term Passover is applied 
 exclusively to the Paschal lamb, it follows that the expression : 
 " of the herd and of the flock" in ver. 2, is not an explanatory 
 apposition to the word pisach (Passover), but an appendix by 
 which there are added to the principal sacrifice all the secondary 
 sacrifices required to complete it during the course of the holy 
 week. And in any case, even if the word Passover could 
 embrace along with the Paschal lamb all the other sacrifices 
 of the feast, it would not follow that it could designate the 
 latter without the former, as would be the case in the passage 
 of John. — In 2 Chron. xxx. the name Passover is applied, 
 vv. 15, 17, 18, exclusively to the Paschal lamb. Why does 
 the chronicler in ver. 22 substitute for this special designation 
 the general expression the feast, except because he now wished 
 to speak of the sacrifices of the feast, excepting the Paschal 
 lamb ? Besides, the reading : " and they did eat (vajokelou)," is 
 very doubtful. The LXX. had certainly read vajekallou, " and 
 they finished;" for they translate ical avverekeaav. — In the 
 third passage (2 Chron. xxxv. 7-9), the distinction between 
 lambs and kids intended to form tlte Passover, and the bullocks 
 consecrated to the other sacrifices and feasts, is obvious at a 
 glance. — But even supposing that in some passage of the 
 0. T. the term Passover had received from the context a wider 
 meaning than ordinary, would it follow that so common and 
 technical a phrase in the N. T. as that of eating the Passover 
 could all at once be applied to another than the Paschal 
 feast ? Here certainly Meyer has good right to protest against 
 forced harmonistic. 
 
 As to the objection taken from the duration of the defile- 
 
CHAP. XVIII. 29-32. 243 
 
 nient which the Jews would have contracted : 1. It is impos- 
 sible to conclude anything with certainty as to the times of 
 Jesus, from a passage of the Kabbin Maimonides about the 
 year 1200. 2. This passage refers to a case of defilement 
 arising from contact with dead animals, etc., and not to defile- 
 ment produced by leaven, and specially and directly connected 
 with the feast itself. 3. The members of the Sanhedrim 
 might perfectly, without incurring the penalty of death, have 
 abstained from taking part in a sacrifice or feast of a general 
 kind ; for these acts were voluntary ; the Paschal feast properly 
 so called was the only one which did not admit of abstention. 1 
 4. The defilement thus contracted would in any case have 
 prevented the members of the Sanhedrim from participating 
 in the slaying of the lamb in the afternoon. 
 
 For all these reasons, it is impossible for me to hold the 
 view of the numerous and learned critics who refer the expres- 
 sion: " eat the Passover" in our verse to the peace-offering (the 
 cliagigah) which the Jews offered on the 16th Nisan (we 
 shall only name among moderns, Tholuck, Olshausen, Heng- 
 stenberg, Wieseler, Hofmann, Lange, Eiggenbach, Baumlein, 
 Langen, Luthardt, and Kirchner). 
 
 The pronoun avroi, themselves, contrasts the Jews, in their 
 Levitical purity, with Jesus, whom nothing could pollute more, 
 so polluted was He already in their eyes. He was immedi- 
 ately given over to the governor and led into the prretoriurn. 
 From this time Pilate must thus go from the Jews to Jesus, 
 and from Jesus to the Jews. Keim judges this situation 
 historically impossible, and is witty on the ambulant judge, 
 the peripatetic negotiator who is presented to us in John's 
 narrative. But the apostle himself clearly perceived the 
 exceptional nature of the situation, and explained it definitely 
 in ver. 28. 
 
 The first manoeuvre of the Jews : 
 
 Vv. 29-32. "Pilate then went out 2 unto them, and said, 9 
 Wliat accusation bring ye against this man ? 4 They answered 
 
 1 See the article of Andrea. 1 , already quoted (at xiii. 1), in the Bevieis de 
 Glaubem, 1870. 
 
 2 X adds &,«> after UiXa-ro;, BCLX Syr. before «?»« avrovs, others after these 
 words. 
 
 3 K BCLX: $ri<nv instead of u-rit. * X B omit x«r«. 
 
244 GOSPEL OF JOHN. 
 
 and said unto him, If he were not a malefactor} we would not 
 have delivered him up unto thee. Then 2 said Pilate unto them, 
 Take ye him, and judge him according to your law. The Jews 
 therefore said unto him, It is not lawful for us to put any man 
 to death: that the saying of Jesus might he fulfilled, which He spake, 3 
 signifying what death He should, die'.' — Pilate was the fifth 
 governor of Judea since the Eoman domination. He was in 
 office from 26 to 36 A.D., under Tiberius and Caligula. He 
 was subordinate to the proconsul of Syria. His residence was 
 Ceesarea ; he went up to Jerusalem at the feasts ; he loved on 
 these occasions to display before the people the pomp of Eoman 
 majesty. Philo {Leg. ad Caium) represents him as a proud, 
 obstinate, impracticable man. But it is probable that the 
 fanaticism of the Jews had also much to do with the endless 
 embroilments which they had with him. " All Pilate's acts 
 which are known to us," says M. Eenan, " show him to have 
 been a good administrator." This portrait is assuredly flatter- 
 ing ; but it is confirmed in some measure by the picture of his 
 government drawn by Josephus, Antiq. xviii. 2-4. Accused 
 of false testimony and murder before his chief, Vitellius, 
 governor of Syria, he was sent to Eome to answer for him- 
 self. Eusebius relates, on the testimony of pagan writers, that 
 he committed suicide under Caligula. — Ovv, therefore (then) : 
 because the Jews would not enter his court. 
 
 The answer of the Jews to Pilate (ver. 30) is clever. It is 
 easy to see that it is premeditated. It unveils the attitude 
 which they had decided to take up at the outset : they have 
 judged; Pilate has only to execute. Thus the loss of the 
 jus gladii came really to little. Pilate was the executioner ; 
 they were still the tribunal. Pilate understands them. He 
 knows them. He plays check with them. Entering apparently 
 into their view, delighted at finding this means of getting rid 
 of the business, he answers them without hesitation : " Very 
 well ! Since you wish to be sole judges in this matter, be it 
 so ! Take the accused and punish him yourselves (of course 
 within the limits of your competency)." The Sanhedrim had, 
 indeed, certain disciplinary rights, such as excommunication, 
 
 1 N reads xaxoti Koinea,;, B L xaxov voiav, instead of xocxoTotH. 
 
 * B C omit ow ; A K IT n read h. 
 
 * S omits 4» uvui. 
 
CHAP. XVIII. 33-C5. 245 
 
 scourging, etc. There was no need of Pilate to apply such 
 chastisements. Some critics have thought that Pilate really 
 authorized them to put Jesus to death, but with this implied 
 reserve : " If you can and dare " (Hengstenberg). But this 
 is to make Pilate say yes and no at one and the same time. 
 xix. 6 proves nothing in favour of this meaning, as we 
 shall see. 
 
 This reply was not to the mind of the Jews, who wished at 
 any cost to have Jesus put to death. It forces them, there- 
 fore, to avow their dependence in this case where capital 
 punishment is in question (ver. 31). And this circumstance 
 seems significant to the evangelist (ver. 32) ; for if they had 
 been their own masters, or if they had allowed themselves to 
 be carried away, as they did later in the murder of Stephen, 
 to act as if they still were so, Jesus would have undergone the 
 Jewish, not the Roman punishment. He would have been 
 stoned, but not lifted wp from the earth like the brazen serpent, 
 as He had foretold (iii. 14, xii. 32). 
 
 The second manoeuvre of the Jews : 
 
 Vv. 33-35. " Then Pilate entered into the judgment hall 
 again, and called Jesus, and said unto Him, Art thou the 
 King of the Jews ? Jesus ansivered him, 1 Sayest thou 2 this 
 thing of thyself? or did others tell it thee of me ? Pilate 
 ansivered, Am I a Jew ? Thine own nation and the chief 
 priests 4 have delivered thee unto me ; what hast thou done ? " 
 — In John's narrative there is evidently a blank here. For 
 there is nothing to explain the question of Pilate to Jesus : 
 "Art thou the King of the Jews ? " Such an inquiry supposes 
 a saying on the part of the accusers giving rise to it. This 
 supposition is changed into certainty when we compare the 
 synoptical account, especially that of Luke : " We found 
 him, say the Jews accosting Pilate, perverting the nation, and 
 forbidding to give tribute to Ccesar, saying that he is the Christ 
 the King" (xxiii. 2). Luke has omitted the first phase of the 
 accusation, that which John has just related ; he begins his 
 narrative at the point where the Jews come down to the 
 humble part of accusers, and recognise fully the position of 
 Pilate. It is evident that John, after supplying in the pre* 
 
 1 9 Mjj. (A B C, etc.) omit kvtu. 2 $ : mr«f instead of \iyus. 
 
 3 S BCL: ecro aiuwrov instead of a<p' ixvtou. * K b e : a tt.f>%iiptvf. 
 
246 GOSPEL OF JOHN. 
 
 ceding part what the Synoptics had omitted, supposes in ver. 
 33 that the accusation mentioned by them is known. It 
 comes out ever more clearly how intimate is the relation 
 between his narrative and theirs. 
 
 To his question Pilate no doubt expected a ready, frank 
 answer in the negative. But the position was not so simple 
 as he imagined. There was a distinction to be observed. In 
 the political sense which a Roman naturally gave to the 
 term : "King of the Jews" Jesus could repudiate the title ; but in 
 the religious sense given to it by every believing Jew, Jesus 
 must accept it, whatever might be the consequences of His 
 avowal. Otherwise He would have given occasion to the 
 report that He had denied being the Messiah. Everything 
 thus depended on the question whether the charge proceeded 
 from Jewish or Gentile lips. Meyer's objections to this 
 explanation seem to me of no weight. He sees in the 
 question of Jesus to Pilate nothing but an explanation which 
 He had the right to ask, that He might know the origin of 
 the accusation. What ! without any object whatever ? Does 
 Jesus in this scene then lavish His sayings uselessly ? Ac- 
 cording to Tholuck and Luthardt, Jesus simply means to 
 make Pilate aware of the suspected origin {others, the Jews) 
 of this information. But why in this case not rather answer 
 by a simple no ? The really affirmative answer of Jesus in 
 vv. 36 and 37 becomes a counter assertion. These two verses 
 are incompatible with the question of Jesus, except on our 
 explanation, which is that of Olshausen, Neander, Ewald, etc. 
 — It must be concluded from this saying that Jesus had not 
 Himself heard the accusation of the rulers, and that conse- 
 quently He was already in the prsetorium at the time when it 
 had been uttered. 
 
 Pilate does not in the least understand this distinction. 
 He gets out of patience : " What have I to do with all your 
 Jewish subtilties ! " There is supreme contempt in the anti- 
 thesis : iyco . . . 'JouSato? ... {I ... a Jew ?). Then, 
 dismissing the Jewish jargon with which he had allowed the 
 accusers to impose on him for a moment, he examines as an 
 open, straightforward Ptoman : " Come, to business ! What 
 crime hast thou committed ? " 
 
 Vv. 36, 37. "Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this 
 
chap, xviii. 3fi, 37. 247 
 
 world: if my "kingdom were of this world, then woidd my 
 servants fight, that I should not he delivered to the Jews : but 
 now is my kingdom not from hence. Pilate therefore said 
 unto Him, Art thou a king then ? Jesus answered, Thou 
 sayest that I am a king} To this end was I x born, and for 
 this cause came I into the ivorld, that I should bear witness 
 unto the truth} Every one that is of the truth heareth my 
 voice!' — Jesus resumes the question (ver. 36) at the point to 
 which it was brought by ver. 34. Ver. 36 : in the Gentile 
 political sense, He is not a king ; ver. 3 7 : in the Jewish 
 religious sense, He is. — The phrase e/c tov /coo-fiov, of this 
 ivorld, is not synonymous with iv tw Koafim, in this ivorld. 
 The kingdom of Jesus is certainly developed here below. 
 But it does not derive its origin from beneath, from human 
 will and earthly force. Jesus alleges in proof of this, the 
 way in which He has given Himself over to the Jews. His 
 servants are that crowd of adherents who had surrounded 
 Him on Palm day, and not merely, as they are understood 
 by Liicke and Luthardt, hypothetical beings : the servants, 
 whom in that case I should have. Of the meaning given 
 by Bengel and Stier : the angels, Pilate could not even have 
 had a glimpse. — It has been sought to give to vvv, now, a 
 temporal sense : " My kingdom is not now, but it will be 
 later, of this world." But, at our Lord's advent, His kingdom 
 will no more be of this world than it is to-day. Now ought 
 to be taken, as it often is, in the logical sense : it contrasts 
 the ever present reality of truth with the non-existence of 
 error. 
 
 If in ver. 37 we read ovkovp, certainly not, this word must 
 be taken interrogatively : " Thou dost not then profess, as I 
 thought, to be a king ? " Pilate would thus make haste to 
 take advantage of the denial of Jesus, ver. 36, to get rid of 
 the business. But the end of ver. 36:" My kingdom . . . ," 
 and the assertion of Jesus, ver. 37: "Thou sayest," in which 
 He resumes and appropriates the contents of Pilate's words, 
 rather favour the accentuation ovkovv : then. " Thou art a 
 king then ! Thou confessest it ? " — The affirmative formula 
 
 1 S B L Y, 10 Mnn. It a,i( > omit one of the two %yo, read by T. E., the one 
 alter si/xi, the other before sv tovtu. 
 
 * J$ '. fiXfTUfVfl TSfl Tift ct).r,liiXi. 
 
248 GOSPEL OF JOHN-. 
 
 used by Jesus : "Thou sayest" though unknown to classic Greek 
 and even to the 0. T., is common in the Eabbins. M. Eeuss 
 gives these words an impossible meaning when he makes 
 Jesus say : " It is thou who sayest that I am a king ; as for 
 me, I have come into the world that . . . ," which would 
 signify : I am not a king, but a simple prophet. For this 
 meaning, an adversative particle would have been required 
 between the two propositions ; and the well-known sense of 
 the formula : "Thou sayest" does not admit of this explanation. 
 — "On might signify for: "Thou art right in saying so; for 
 I am." But it is more natural to explain : " Thou sayest 
 well, that I am a king." The importance of the idea im- 
 presses Jesus with the need of expressing it at full length. 
 — Hengstenberg entirely separates from this declaration the 
 words following, which he applies exclusively to the prophetic 
 office of Jesus Christ. But it is quite evident that Jesus 
 wishes to explain by them in what sense He is King. He 
 conquers the world by testimony borne to the truth, and His 
 people are recruited from all men who have the sense of 
 truth. The first iyco, I, should be rejected. Jesus certainly 
 did not say : " I am a king, I at least." The first no less 
 than the second ets tovto, for this end, bears on the following 
 Xva (in order that), in opposition to the translation of Oster- 
 vald and Arnaud : " For this (to be a king) was I born." — 
 " i" was born " refers to the fact of His birth, which He has 
 in common with all men, while the words : " I came into the 
 world," bring out the mission for which He appeared below. 
 — It is by His prophetic work that Jesus founds His kingdom 
 among men. The truth, the revelation of God, this is the 
 sceptre which He passes over the earth. The mode of 
 conquest which Jesus here unveils to Pilate was the opposite 
 of that whereby the Koman power was formed, and Lange 
 very justly remarks that, as xii. 25 contained the judgment 
 of the genius of Greece, this declaration of Jesus to Pilate 
 contains the judgment of the genius of Borne by the Gospel. 
 Here is the normal accomplishment of Paul's saying : " The 
 spiritual man judges all things." — The phrase, " to be of the 
 truth" is similar to iii. 21, vii. 17, viii. 47, x. 16, etc. It 
 denotes that moral disposition whereby one is ready before- 
 hand to receive objective truth, as soon as it is revealed in 
 
chap, xviii. 38-40. 249 
 
 Jesus Christ. By the word whosoever, Jesus was no longer 
 addressing the judge, but man, in Pilate (Hengstenberg). 
 
 Ver. 38. "Pilate saith unto Him, What is truth? Ana 
 when he had, said this, he went out again unto the Jews, and 
 saith unto them, I find in him no fault." — Pilate's exclama- 
 tion is neither the expression of an ardent thirst for truth 
 (the Fathers), nor that of the despair of a soul which has 
 long sought it in vain (Olshausen) ; it is the profession of a 
 frivolous scepticism, such as is frequently met with in the 
 man of the world, and especially in the statesman ; witness 
 the manner in which Napoleon used to speak of ideologues. 
 If Pilate had seriously sought truth, this would have been 
 the time to find it. He would not have turned away so 
 abruptly from Jesus. But the conviction to which he has 
 come now is, that the person before him is either a dreamer 
 or a sage, but not a rival to Caesar. With " that broad senti- 
 ment of justice and civil government which, as M. Pienan 
 says, the most ordinary Ptoman carried with him everywhere," 
 he avows to the Jews his conviction of the innocence of 
 Jesus as to the political accusation raised against Him. It 
 was his duty now to dismiss Jesus, purely and simply absolv- 
 ing Him. But, fearing to offend the Jews, who had certain 
 reasons for accusing him before the supreme government, he 
 seeks to avoid such a measure, and has recourse to a series of 
 expedients. The first was remitting the matter to Herod, on 
 the pretext of the Galilean origin of Jesus ; it is described 
 by Luke xxiii. 6—12, and omitted by John, as a fact well 
 known, and as not having led to any result. The second 
 was that which John briefly relates, vv. 39 and 40, and which 
 is given in detail by the Synoptics. 
 
 Vv. 39, 40. " But ye have a custom, that J should release 
 unto you one at the Passover : will ye therefore that I release 
 unto you the King of the Jews ? Then cried they all 1 again, 2 
 saying, Not this man, out Barabbas. Novj Barabbas was a 
 robber." — These words are immediately connected by John 
 with those of ver. 38, because the sending to Herod was 
 preceded as well as followed (Luke xxiii. 4, 14) by a declara- 
 tion of the innocence of Jesus. These two declarations 
 
 1 X B L X, 15 Mrm. omit *a»rt;. 
 
 2 G K U n, 50 Mini. ItP'e^™ Syr. Cop. omit «r*Ai». 
 
250 GOSPEL OF JOHN. 
 
 might be blended in one. The very abridged account which 
 John gives of the episode of Barabbas serves as a link of 
 connection between his narrative and that of the Synoptics. 
 The origin of the custom referred to in Pilate's offer is un- 
 known. It is probable, since the custom was connected with 
 the feast of Passover, that it contained an allusion to the 
 deliverance of the Jews from their Egyptian captivity. — The 
 words iv tw irdaj(a, at the Passover, by no means contain 
 the proof, as Lange, Hengstenberg, etc., allege, that the Pass- 
 over feast was by this time celebrated. The 14th Nisan 
 already formed part of the feast (see on xiii. 1). It is even 
 more probable that the deliverance of the prisoner took place 
 on the 14th than on the 15th, that he might be able to 
 take part in the Paschal feast with all the people. — In 
 making this offer to the Jews, Pilate counted on the popular 
 sympathy for Jesus which had appeared so remarkably on 
 Palm day. For it was to the entire people that the favour 
 was granted ; and Pilate knew perfectly well that it was. 
 from envy that the rulers wished the death of Jesus (Matt. 
 xxvii. 18), and that the feeling of part of the people was 
 against them. — In the designation : "King of the Jews" irony 
 prevails, as in ver. 1 4. Only the sarcasm is not addressed to 
 Jesus, for whom Pilate from the beginning feels a growing 
 interest and respect, but to the Jews. Their King ? What ! 
 This, then, is the only rival whom this people with their 
 national pretensions have to set up against Csesar ! But it is 
 said in Mark xv. 11:" The chief priests moved the people, that 
 he should rather release Barabbas unto them." The friends of 
 Jesus remained mute, or their weak voices were drowned in 
 those of the rulers and their creatures. Some resolute 
 agitators imposed their will on the multitude. Thus is 
 explained John's iravTes, all, which corresponds to Luke's 
 7ra/j,7r\7)dei. — The irakiv, again, the authenticity of which is 
 established by the principal documents of both families, is 
 remarkable. Thus far in John's account the Jews have 
 uttered no exclamation. It was otherwise in the Synoptics. 
 Comp. Mark xv. 8 : avafioi]aa<; 6 0^X05, and Luke xxiii. 5, 
 10:" They were the more fierce, saying . . . they vehemently 
 accused Him." Here, again, John's narrative expressly 
 assumes that of his predecessors. — A-garrit does not always 
 
chap. xix. 1-3. 2t)l 
 
 signify robber, but a violent man in general. According to 
 Mark and Luke, Barabbas bad taken part in an insurrection 
 in which a murder had been committed. The gravity of the 
 choice made by the people is indicated by one of those short 
 propositions whereby John describes a crisis of peculiar 
 solemnity. Comp. xi. 35, xiii. 30. — The name of the man 
 who was set up along with Jesus for the choice of the people 
 admits of two etymologies : Barabbah, son of the father 
 (either God or any Eabbi), or Bar-rabban, son of the Rabbin. 
 In the first case we must double the b, in the second the r. 
 The Mss. and Talmudic orthography (Lightfoot, p. 489) favour 
 the first etymology. The name is not infrequent in the 
 Talmud. 
 
 According to Mark's narrative, there occurred at this point 
 something like a rush of people demanding spontaneously 
 the application of the custom whereby a prisoner was released 
 to them ; and Pilate sought to turn this incident to his 
 purpose, the liberation of Jesus. In any case, whether this 
 incident was suggested or simply turned to account by Pilate, 
 thus to deliver Jesus was to commit a denial of justice. For 
 He should have been released as innocent (ver. 38). This 
 first weakness was soon followed by a graver. We come to 
 Pilate's third expedient. 
 
 xix. 1-3. "Then Pilate took Jesus, and scourged 1 Him. 
 And the soldiers platted a croivn of thorns, and put it on His 
 head, and they put on Him a purple robe, 2 and said, Hail, 
 King of the Jews ! and they smote Him with rods!' — Pilate 
 had ascended his tribunal to pronounce the liberation of 
 Barabbas. Then it was that he received his wife's message 
 (Matt, xxvii. 19). Hengstenberg thinks that the washing of 
 his hands ought also to be placed here. But this act must 
 have accompanied the sentence of condemnation, which did 
 not take place till later (vv. 13-16). After his two ineffec- 
 tual efforts, Pilate has recourse to a third attempt. Scourging 
 required legally to precede the death of the cross ; it was the 
 obligatory preliminary. This is proved by a multitude of 
 passages from Josephus and Eoman historians. Comp. also 
 Matt. xx. 19, Luke xviii. 33, where Jesus, predicting His 
 
 1 S LX Cop. Sah. : Xx/Za* . . . i^avriyuft. 
 
 2 tf B LU X A n, 20 Mnn. ItP'«^"e Vg. Cop. Sah. here add *«/ tipx,*'^* *p>s «"■«* 
 
2o2 GOSPEL OF JOHN. 
 
 Passion, does not disjoin scourging from crucifixion. Mate, 
 seated on his tribunal, now pronounces the condemnation of 
 Jesus to the penalty of scourging. He does so in this case, 
 in the hope of averting the extreme punishment, by con- 
 ceding a measure of satisfaction to the less violent among the 
 enemies of Jesus, and awakening the zeal of His friends and 
 the compassion of the crowd. — Scourging, as practised among 
 the Eomans, was so cruel a punishment that the prisoner 
 very often succumbed to it. The scourge was formed of 
 switches or thongs armed at the extremity with pieces of bone 
 or lead. The prisoner received the strokes while fastened 
 to a small post, so as to have his back bent and the skin on 
 the stretch. The back became quick flesh, and the blood 
 spurted out with the first strokes. — As to the maltreatment 
 described, vv. 2 and 3, it is solely the doing of the Eoman 
 soldiers. The crown of thorns, the purple robe, the " Hail, 
 King ! " this whole masquerade is a parody on Jewish royalty. 
 The thorny plant is probably the Zycium spinosum, which 
 grows in abundance round Jerusalem, and whose flexible 
 stalk, armed with sharp spikes, can easily be plaited. The 
 red robe was the soldier's common mantle, representing the 
 purple robe worn by kings. These caricatures do not so 
 much refer to Jesus personally, whom the soldiers do not 
 know, as to the nation despised and detested by the Romans. 
 It is its well-known Messianic hope which the soldiers ridi- 
 cule in the person of one who passes for an aspirant to the 
 dignity. 
 
 Pilate lets things take their course, and pursues his object. 
 
 Vv. 4-6. " Pilate went forth x again and saith unto them, 
 Behold, I bring him forth to you, that ye may knoio that I find 
 no fault in him? Then came Jesus forth, wearing the crown 
 of thorns, and the purple robe. And he saith unto them, Behold 3 
 the man ! When the chief priests therefore and officers saw 
 Him, they cried out* saying, Crucify, crucify him ! 5 Pilate 
 saith unto them, Take ye him, and crucify him: for I find no 
 faidt in him." — The scourging took place in the court of the 
 
 'SDr itP'erique. £ ?„ x ^ v simply ; T. R. with 9 Mjj. (E G H, etc.): t&xht 
 »w ; 6 Mjj. (A B K, etc.): xxi il*\fa*. 
 
 2 N : on atTixv oii% ivpirxo). 3 }f BLX Y: 3ou instead of ib'.. 
 
 * H ■ >*e*Z«-*. L T. K. omits, with N B L, som- Man. VgJ , ' eri, i ue , ecvm. 
 
CHAP. XIX. 7-9. ZJO 
 
 prsetorium (Mark xv. 15, 16), probably so as to be seen from 
 without. As soon as it is at an end, Pilate goes out, followed 
 by Jesus. This spectacle could not fail, Pilate thought, at 
 last to furnish him, through the favourable interposition of 
 the people, with the point of support which he needed to 
 resist the hatred of the priests. In the expression : "Behold 
 the man ! " there is a mixture of respect and pity for Jesus 
 Himself, and a bitter sarcasm on the impossible part which is 
 ascribed to Him. But once again Pilate is out in his calcu- 
 lation ; no voice rises from the multitude in favour of the 
 victim, and be again finds himself face to face with the fixed 
 will of the rulers to push things to extremity, without con- 
 tenting themselves with a half punishment. Concessions 
 have only served to embolden them. At once indignant and 
 full of vexation, Pilate then says to them : " Take ye him, 
 and crucify him ! " which in the context can only signify : 
 " Do it yourselves if ye will, at your risk and peril ; as for 
 me, I shall take no part in such a murder ! " This emotion 
 was noble ; it was destined, nevertheless, to remain barren. 
 Thrice already Pilate had left the sphere of strict right, on 
 which alone he could have kept his ground against the violent 
 pressure which was brought to bear on him. 
 
 Of course the Jews could not think of using the impunity 
 which was offered to them by Pilate. How could they pro- 
 vide for the execution ? And without the fear with which 
 the Eoman power inspired the people, could the rulers hope 
 to conduct this great affair successfully ? The people might, 
 by a sudden reaction, turn round violently against them and 
 wreck everything. And so, prudently measuring the dangers 
 of the offer, they have recourse to another expedient. 
 
 This is their third manoeuvre. 
 
 Vv. 7-9. " The Jews answered him} We have a law, and 
 by our 2 law he ought to die, because he made himself the Son 
 of God. When Pilate heard that saying, he was the more 
 afraid ; and went again 3 into the judgment hall, and saith 
 unto Jesus, Whence art thou ? But Jesus gave him no answer." 
 — The Eomans allowed conquered peoples in general to enjoy 
 their laws and national institutions, precisely as the French 
 
 i x itpieriiue omit auru. * 10 Mjj. (tf B, etc.) ItP»'*ii>« Or. omit ti/im. 
 
 H omits *xkt*. 
 
254 GOSPEL OF JOHN. 
 
 do at the present day with the Mussulmans of Algeria, to 
 quote M. Eenan's parallel. The Jews, taking their stand on 
 this ground, appeal to the article of their code (Lev. xxiv. 16), 
 which condemns blasphemers to death, and demand from 
 Pilate the application of this article. They do not attempt 
 hereby to regain the position which they had lost at the 
 beginning; they state the offence, and submit it for the 
 governor's investigation : " He made himself the Son of God!' 
 Here there comes out palpably the difference, which is so 
 often denied, between the meaning of this title and that of 
 the designation King of the Jews, or Messiah. The inquiry 
 regarding this latter claim had taken place ; it was at an end. 
 Now the question is of something entirely new. — But these 
 words of the Jews produce an effect on Pilate for which they 
 were not prepared. The saying gives strength to a dreadful 
 presentiment which was gradually forming within him. All 
 that he had heard related of the miracles of Jesus, the 
 mysterious character of His Person, of His words, and of His 
 conduct, the strange message which he had just received from 
 his wife, — all is suddenly explained by the term Son of God. 
 Was this extraordinary man truly a Divine being who had 
 appeared on the earth ? The truth naturally presents itself 
 to his mind in the form of pagan superstitions and mytho- 
 logical legends. But it is well known how rapid the tran- 
 sition is from scepticism to the most superstitious fears. 
 Feeling, then, the need of conversing with Jesus in private, 
 Pilate leads Him back into the prastorium. The question : 
 " Wlicnce art thou ? " cannot refer to the terrestrial origin of 
 Jesus ; Pilate knows perfectly that He is of Galilee. It 
 certainly means, therefore : " Art thou of the earth or of 
 heaven ? " Wonder has been felt at the silence of Jesus. 
 According to some, He keeps silence because He is unwilling, 
 in giving the true answer, to keep up a pagan superstition 
 in the mind of Pilate ; according to others, He refuses to 
 answer because here is a question of pure curiosity ; Luthardt 
 thinks that He will not, by revealing Himself to Pilate, pre- 
 vent the plans of God from being accomplished. The true 
 answer seems to us to follow from what precedes : Pilate 
 knew enough of the matter as of himself to set Him free ; he 
 had already declared Him innocent ! And besides, the Jews by 
 
chap. xix. io, 11. 255 
 
 changing their accusation as they suddenly did at this point, 
 sufficiently condemned themselves. If, in such circumstances, 
 he did not set Him free as a simple man, he had deserved 
 the issue of crucifying Him as the Son of God. Such was at 
 once his crime and his punishment. Furthermore, Hengsten- 
 berg rightly observes that His silence was in itself an answer. 
 If the claim which the Jews accused Jesus of making had 
 not been well founded, He would have expressly denied it. 
 
 Vv. 10, 11. "Pilate saith unto Him} Spcakest thou not 
 unto me ? knoivest thou not that I have power to crucify 
 tJiee, and have power to release 2 thee ? Jesus answered, 3 Thou 
 couldest 4 have no power against me, except it ivere given thee 
 from above : therefore he that delivered 5 me unto thee hath the 
 greater sin." — Pilate feels that this silence contains a reproach. 
 He assumes all the hauteur of the Eoman judge and governor. 
 Hence the i/noi, unto me, foremost (" to me, if not to others"), 
 and the repetition of the words : " / have power." — T. R. puts 
 the " to crucify thee " before the " to release thee." For the idea 
 of the imminent punishment of death is that which prevails 
 in the conversation ; but the opposite reading may also be 
 defended (see Luthardt). Pilate speaks only of his power ; 
 Jesus reminds him of his dependence and responsibility. 
 With the word I have is contrasted the term given. This 
 time Jesus speaks. He also puts on His dignity ; He takes 
 the place of judge of His judges, and, as if He were already 
 seated on His tribunal, He weighs Pilate and the Sanhedrim 
 in His infallible judgment scales. The Bia tovto, therefore, 
 is explained by the preceding words : " Because the power 
 which thou exercisest is given thee, while the power of him 
 who delivers me to thee is usurped." God Himself, by sub- 
 jecting His people to the Eoman power, had placed the Jews 
 and their King under the imperial jurisdiction. But the San- 
 hedrim, in taking possession of the Person of their King, and 
 giving Him over to the authority of the foreigner, arrogated 
 to themselves a right over Him which God had not entrusted 
 
 1 X A, several Mnn. Syr. Cop. omit auv. 
 
 2 K A B E Syr. read a.'Xo'Kvaa.i ti . . . e<ra.iipu<Tu.t tri. 
 
 3 NBL It*"" Syr. add auru. 
 
 4 S A L X Y A n, 10 Mnn. Cop. : tx'-'s (thou hast not) instead of s/^i, {tl.ou 
 irotiidest not have). 
 
 b X -t> E A A It. Vg. : Taputovs instead of Tccsa.'o.'atvs. 
 
256 GOSPEL OF JOHN. 
 
 to them, and committed an act of theocratic felony. — "He that 
 delivered me to thee " is neither Judas — Jesus could not have 
 said in this case : " to thee " — nor Caiaphas, who acts only in 
 the name of the body which he represents, and who is not once 
 named throughout the whole scene. It is the Sanhedrim which 
 is meant, and the Jewish nation in whose name that body acts. 
 — The explanation which we have given of those words of 
 Jesus is nearly that of Calvin : " He who delivered me unto 
 thee is the more guilty of the two, because he criminally 
 makes use of thy lawful power." Some commentators think 
 that Jesus means to distinguish between the function of 
 judging, which is official, and that of informing, which is 
 voluntary. This is less natural. The other explanations do 
 not account for the therefore. Thus : Pilate is less guilty, 
 " because he sins from weakness rather than wickedness " 
 (Euthymius) ; " because he has less knowledge than the 
 Jews " (Grotius). — Far from taking offence at this answer, 
 Pilate is struck with the majesty which it breathes. Hence 
 the fourth phase of the trial, Pilate's last effort to deliver 
 Jesus, meeting with defeat from the fourth and last expedient 
 held in reserve by the Sanhedrim. 
 
 Ver. 12. "And from thenceforth Pilate sought to release 
 Him : but the Jews cried out} saying, If thou let this man go, 
 thou art not Caesars friend : for whosoever mdketh himself a 
 king speaketh against Cccsar." — 'Etc rovrov, strictly : " after and 
 in consequence of that word." Comp. vi. 66. — John seems to 
 say that all Pilate's previous efforts to release Jesus were 
 nothing in comparison with those which he made under the 
 impression of the words which He had just heard from His 
 lips. But the Jews had by them a weapon which they had 
 resolved to use only at the last extremity, that of personal 
 intimidation. The reigning emperor, Tiberius, was the most 
 suspicious of despots. The accusation of high treason was 
 always well received by this tyrant. Qui atrocissime exercebat 
 leges majestatis, says Suetonius. The most unpardonable charge 
 was that of having allowed his authority to be endangered. 
 Such is the peril which the Jews call up before the dismayed 
 view of Pilate. This equivocal term : " King of the Jews," with 
 
 1 T. ?.. with 9 Mjj. (E H K, etc.) : **/>*£« ; AILMYn, 24 Mnn. Oi.: 
 ixpKuytt.%t>f ; 13, 13 Mnn. : ixpauyatrxv ; K : sAsya* instead of sx^«£«» Xiyo»n$. 
 
CHAP. XIX. 1C-1G. 257 
 
 the political colour which it could not fail to have in the eyes 
 of Tiberius, would infallibly make Pilate appear as an unfaith- 
 ful adminstrator who had attempted to screen from punishment 
 an enemy of the imperial authority ; and his trial would be 
 short. Pilate knew this well. True, to play this last move 
 was, on the part of the Jews, to deny the very notion of the 
 Messiah, and to subscribe themselves vassals of the Empire. 
 Such a victory was a suicide. And so it is easy to understand 
 why in their plan of operations they had kept this manoeuvre 
 to the last ; it was the stroke of desperation. Its effect was 
 immediate. 
 
 Vv. 13-16. " When Pilate therefore heard these sayings} he 
 brought Jesus forth, and sat down in the judgment-seat, in a 
 •place that is called the Pavement, and in the Hebreiv, Gabbatha. 
 And it was the preparation of the Passover, and 2 about* the sixth* 
 Jwur : and he saith unto the Jews, Behold your King ! Tliey 
 cried out, 5 Away with him, aivay tuith him, crucify him. 
 Pilate saith unto them, Shall I crucify your King ? The chief 
 priests answered, We have no king but Cccsar. Then delivered 
 he Him therefore unto them to be crucified." — Before this threat 
 (the plur. rwv \6ycov tovtcov brings out its gravity more 
 forcibly than the sing, of T. E., rbv \6yov tovtov) the judge, 
 who had long since renounced his part, lowers his head and 
 gives in. Without saying a word more, he orders Jesus to be 
 led out of the prsetorium ; for the sentence must be pronounced 
 in presence of the accused ; and he ascends his tribunal the 
 second time. — The name \i66o-rpwrov signifies a place paved 
 ivith stones. There, probably, there was one of those mosaic 
 pavements on which Eoman magistrates were accustomed to 
 place their judgment-seat. The Aramaic name Gabbatha is not 
 a translation of the previous term ; it is taken from the nature 
 of the place. It signifies an eminence or hill. 
 
 John here inserts a notice of the day and hour when the 
 
 1 T. R. reads, with K U A n, some of the Mnn. Syr., tovtov to* Xoyov ; all the 
 
 rest : tovtojv tojv Xoyuv. 
 
 2 T. R. with E H I S Y r A : ay* Ss ; 9 Mjj. (K A B, etc.) : »/w n» ', K : up* 
 
 Oi r,v. 
 
 3 The Mss. are divided between u; and uau (T. R. with 4 Mjj.). 
 * Instead of £«t», L X A, 3 Mnn. read rpirn. 
 
 5 Instead of oi Ss ixpxuyoctrxv, K Y n : oi Ss ixeaw/a^ot ; B L X : zxpxvyxo-oct *u» 
 txsivoi ; X : oi 3s tXtyov, 
 
 GODET III. B JOIIN T . 
 
258 GOSrEL OF JOHN. 
 
 sentence was pronounced. With what view ? Was it because 
 of the solemnity and importance of this decisive moment for 
 the lot of humanity ? Or would he explain thereby the 
 impatience of the Jews, which appears at ver. 15, to see this 
 long trial at last come to an end, and the punishment of death 
 exacted before the close of the day ? The first solution is the 
 more natural. "It was the preparation of the Passover" says John. 
 The critics who try to bring John's narrative into accordance 
 with the meaning usually assigned to the synoptical account, 
 in regard to the question of the day of Christ's death, give to 
 TTapacr/cevT], preparation, the technical signification which it 
 has sometimes in patristic literature, and even, according to 
 them, in the N. T. : the Friday, as the day on which food was 
 prepared for Sabbath, " the preparation of the Sabbath." Comp. 
 Matt, xxvii. 62 ; Luke xxiii. 54; and especially Mark xv. 42: 
 7rapa<Ticevr) 6 iarc irpoadfifiaTov. They consequently explain 
 the phrase Trapacr/cevr) rov Trda^a, the Friday of the Paschal 
 week. But though irapaaKevrj, taken alone (the preparatio?i), 
 became the name for Friday among the Fathers, it does not fol- 
 low that when the word is succeeded by a complement like to£ 
 ircurya, of the Passover, it does not preserve its natural mean- 
 ing: " preparation of the Passover." Why otherwise add this 
 complement : of the Passover, which carried absolutely no 
 meaning to the reader ; for what reader could fail to know 
 that it was the Paschal week which was spoken of ? How, 
 besides, could Greek readers, who did not know the Jewish 
 meaning of this word preparation, imagine on reading the 
 words : "preparation of the Passover" that they signified the 
 preparation of the Sabbath in Passover week, as we would say 
 the Friday of holy week ? It is evident that every one would 
 be led to think, on the contrary, of the day of the 1 4th Nisan, 
 as it was generally known that on that day preparation was 
 made to celebrate the Paschal feast by slaying the lamb. This 
 date agrees, therefore, with those of xiii. 1, 29, xviii. 28, and 
 leads us, like all these passages, to the conclusion that the 
 Paschal feast was not yet celebrated, but was to take place on 
 the evening of this day (vv«. 14, 31, 42). 
 
 According to John, sentence was pronounced on Jesus about 
 the sixth hour, that is to say, about mid-day. It is difficult to 
 harmonize this statement with Matthew's narrative, according 
 
CHAP. XIX. 13-1G. 259 
 
 to which at mid-day Jesus had been for some time on the 
 cross, and still more with Mark xv. 25, where it is said that 
 it was the third hour, that is to say, nine o'clock, when Christ 
 was crucified. And if it were thought to reckon John's sixth 
 hour from midnight, according to the Eoman fashion, we 
 should set six o'clock in the morning as the hour when the 
 sentence was pronounced. But at this hour Jesus was only 
 being led to Pilate. The sitting, far from being at an end, 
 was beginning. The reading Tpirr), third, in some Mss. of 
 John, is evidently a correction intended to harmonize the two 
 narratives. Eusebius supposes that some old copyist had con- 
 verted the gamma (P'=3) into a stigma (r'='6). This sup- 
 position is far from probable. Some documents at least would 
 have preserved the true reading. Bather let it be remembered, 
 
 (1) that the day as a whole was divided, like the night, into 
 four parts of three hours each. This explains why mention 
 is scarcely ever made in the N. T. of any hours except the 
 third, sixth, and ninth (comp. Matt. xx. 1-5), and why also, 
 as Hengstenberg remarks, the expressions almost or about are 
 so frequent (Matt, xxvii. 46 ; Luke xxiii. 44 ; John iv. 6 ; 
 Acts x. 3, 9). The &)?, about, is expressly added by the author 
 in our passage. It is therefore certainly allowable to take the 
 mean here, both in Mark and John, especially if it be remem- 
 bered that, as Lange says, the apostles had not watch in hand. 
 As Mark's third hour may extend from eight to ten o'clock, John's 
 sixth certainly includes from eleven to twelve. But, above all, 
 
 (2) account must be taken of an important circumstance, which 
 is also remarked by Lange, viz. that Matthew and Mark have 
 given to the scourging of Jesus the meaning which it ordinarily 
 had, and have regarded it as the beginning of the whole punish- 
 ment. They have consequently identified the two judicial 
 acts which are strictly distinguished by John, that whereby 
 Pilate condemned Jesus to scourging, and that whereby he 
 delivered Him over to the last penalty of death. It is easily 
 conceivable that Mark, having lost sight of the entire interval 
 between the two condemnations, has dated the pronouncing the 
 sentence of death at the time which was properly that of the 
 sentence of scourging. 
 
 There is a savage irony in the words of Pilate : " Behold 
 your King I " But it is aimed at the Jews, not at Jesus. 
 
260 GOSPEL OF JOHN. 
 
 Towards the latter Pilate constantly shows himself full of 
 respectful interest, which towards the end goes the length of 
 fear. Yet there is also a serious side to this sarcasm. Pilate 
 perceives that if there is a man by means of whom the Jewish 
 people are to carry out a great mission in the world, this is 
 He. The rage of the rulers increases on hearing this declara- 
 tion. The three imperative Aorists express their impatience 
 and haste . to have done. Pilate is henceforth resigned to 
 yield, but first he wishes to have the pleasure of once more 
 thrusting the dagger into the wound : " Shall I crucify your 
 King ? " He thus seeks to avenge himself for the act of base- 
 ness to which they compel him. The Jews thus find them- 
 selves driven to the decisive declaration whereby they pronounce 
 with their own lips the abolition of the theocracy, and the 
 absorption of Israel into the world of the Gentiles. They who 
 cherish but one thought, the overthrow of the throne of the 
 Csesars by the Messiah, allow their hatred of Jesus to carry 
 them so far, that they cry out before the representative of the 
 emperor : " We have no king but Ccesar." 
 
 After this they can say no more. Israel has denied herself; 
 this is the price at which she obtains the delivery of Jesus to 
 her. Avroh, to them, says John, and not to the Eoman 
 executioners. For the latter are only the blind instruments 
 of the judicial murder which is about to be committed. 
 
 Modern criticism (Baur, Strauss, Keim) regards this whole 
 description of Pilate's conduct as fictitious. The author's 
 intention is to personify in Pilate the sympathy of the Gentile 
 world with the Gospel, and to throw on Israel almost the 
 entire responsibility of the crime. But, 1. It is not really 
 otherwise in the Synoptics, or the Acts, or the Epistles. In 
 Matthew the governor marvelled (ver. 14) ; he knows that it 
 is for envy that the rulers delivered Jesus (ver. 18), and strives 
 to obtain His liberation from the people instead of that of 
 Barabbas (vv. 17, 22). He asks indignantly: " Wliy, what 
 evil hath he clone?" (ver. 23). He sees that he prevails 
 nothing, and ends by giving in, while declaring himself, by a 
 solemn act, innocent of the Mood of this just man (ver. 24). 
 Thus is the condemnation of Jesus by Pilate described in the 
 Judeo-Christian Gospel ! Has it not the same meaning at 
 
CHAP. XIX. 13- 1G. 261 
 
 bottom as that of John ? It is the same with Mark's account, 
 in which we see still more clearly than in Matthew the eager- 
 ness with which Pilate, in order to save Jesus, takes advantage 
 of the spontaneous desire of the multitude to release a prisoner 
 to them, and how he reckons confidently in his object on the 
 popular sympathy (vv. 8-10). Luke adds to the other efforts 
 made by Pilate his sending Jesus to Herod, and his twice 
 repeated offer to let Him go at the cost of a simple scourging 
 (vv. 16, 22). "Wishing to release Jesus" is the express state- 
 ment, ver. 20. Then at ver. 22 : "And he said to them the 
 third time, Why, what evil hath he done ? " In the Acts, 
 whose conciliatory tendency is proclaimed in our day, Peter 
 likewise charges the Jews with the entire responsibility of the 
 murder : " Him by wicked hands ye have crucified," ii. 23; 
 comp. iii. 15. Even James, addressing the rich of his nation, 
 says to them : " Ye have condemned and killed the just " (v. 
 6). Finally, the Apocalypse designates Jerusalem as " the 
 spiritual Sodom and Egypt where our Lord was crucified," 
 xi. 8. The place (where), in such a context, implies the notion 
 of causality and responsibility. 2. The second century, from 
 Trajan to Marcus Aurelius, was a time of bloody persecution 
 carried on by the Gentile world against the Church, and it 
 would be very strange had an author at this epoch created a 
 Eoman governor more or less imaginary, to personify the sym- 
 pathy of the Gentile world, and especially of the Eoman power 
 with the gospel ! 3. The scene depicted by John carries in 
 it its own defence. It is impossible to describe more to the 
 life, on the one hand the astuteness, the perseverance, and 
 the shameless suppleness of the accuser, who is determined to 
 succeed at any price, and on the other the obstinate struggle 
 in the heart of the judge between conscience and interest, 
 between the fear of sacrificing an innocent victim, perhaps 
 more dreadful than He seems to the eye, and that of 
 driving to extremity a people already exasperated by crying 
 injustices, and so to find himself accused before a suspicious 
 sovereign who with one stroke of the pen (Eeuss) can hurl 
 him to destruction ; finally, between cold scepticism and 
 the transient influences of natural religiousness and even 
 Gentile superstition. M. Eeuss acknowledges that it is " the 
 fourth Gospel which gives the true key to the problem " of 
 
262 GOSPEL OF JOHN. 
 
 Pilate's inconceivable conduct : " Jesus was sacrificed by him 
 to the exigency of his position" (p. 675). Excepting the 
 natural blanks arising "from the fact that no witness saw the 
 whole from beginning to end," the Gospel account (including 
 John's) " bears, according to this author, the seal of entire 
 authenticity " (ibid.). These two figures, indeed, — the one ex- 
 hibiting a cool and diabolical malignity (Caiaphas, representing 
 the Sanhedrim), the other a cowardice and vacillation deserv- 
 ing pity, and both contrasting with the calm dignity and holy 
 majesty of the Christ, — form a picture which we do not fear 
 to call the masterpiece of John's work, and which, taken by 
 itself, could serve, were it necessary, to certify its authenticity. 
 
 THIED SECTION. 
 
 XIX. 17-42. THE CRUCIFIXION OF JESUS. 
 
 1st. The crucifixion, vv. 17, 18 ; 2d. The inscription, vv. 
 19-22; 3d. The parting of the raiment, vv. 23, 24; 4th. 
 The Son's legacy, vv. 25-27 ; 5th. The end, vv. 28-30 ; 6th. 
 The breaking of the legs and the spear-thrust, vv. 31-37; 
 7th. The burial, vv. 38-42. 
 
 John does not mean to present the full description of the 
 crucifixion of Jesus. He states some circumstances omitted 
 by his predecessors, and at once completes and gives precision 
 to their narratives. 
 
 The crucifixion : 
 
 Vv. 17, 18. " Then 1 they took Jesus, and led Him aivay? 
 And He, bearing His cross? went forth to the place called the 
 place of the skull, which is called in the Hebrew Golgotha : 
 ivhere they crucified Him, and two others with Him, on either 
 side one, and Jesus in the midst!' — These two verses are the 
 very brief summary of the synoptical narrative. The subject 
 of they took is the Jews (ver. 16a); it was they who executed 
 the sentence by the soldiers' hands. — According to ancient 
 
 1 The Mss. are divided between h (T. R. with 11 Mjj.) and ov» (B L X). 
 
 2 After ray \wrow, T. R. with A M U r : *«« av*tya.yt» ; 9 Mjj., 130 Mnn. : 
 ko.1 nyayoi; B L X, several Mnn. ItP ,eri< * ue Cop. reject these words; K : •' *« 
 ^x/ievri} rot I. airnyayav aurav. 
 
 * T. E. with 11 Mjj. : oivtiu (sauroy) ; B X : avru ; K Ij FI : -aurm. 
 
CHAP. XIX. 17, 18. 263 
 
 testimonies, the condemned had themselves to bear their cross. 
 This is also implied by the figurative expression used by Jesus 
 Himself in the Synoptics : " If any man will come after me 
 . . . let him take up his cross" (Matt. xvi. 24 and parallels). 
 John alone mentions this feature in the sufferings of Jesus. 
 And herein he does not contradict the Synoptics, who relate 
 that Simon of Cyrene was required to fill the office. For the 
 participle fiacna^wv, hearing, is closely connected with the 
 verb i^rjXOev, He went forth. When He set out, Jesus was 
 subjected to the common rule ; the episode relating to Simon 
 did not happen till later, when Jesus from exhaustion began, 
 no doubt, to delay the procession. — Moses had forbidden the 
 execution of capital sentences within the enclosure of the 
 camp (Lev. xxiv. 14; Num. xv. 35). And the Jews had 
 remained faithful to the spirit of this law, by putting criminals 
 to death outside the gate of their cities (1 Kings xxi. 13 ; 
 Acts vii. 58). On this custom is founded the exhortation, 
 Heb. xiii. 12, 13. ""E^rjkdev therefore signifies, He went forth 
 from the city. The holy sepulchre lies now pretty far within 
 the interior of Jerusalem ; but the wall may have been dis- 
 placed. Eegarding the place of our Lord's execution and that 
 of His burial, there exists no certain tradition. — The name, 
 •place of the skull, does not come from the executions which 
 took place there (this would require the plural icpaviwv, skulls) ; 
 and such remains would not have been left uncovered among 
 the Jews. The origin of the name was undoubtedly the 
 rounded form and bare aspect of the hill. Golgotha : from rhibi, 
 in Aramaic Nrfafa, skull, from bbi, to roll. — The word efipaiaTi, 
 which occurs four times in our Gospel, appears again twice in 
 the Apocalypse, but nowhere else in the whole N. T. 
 
 The cross had the form of a T. It was of no great height 
 (see ver. 29). The condemned man was raised to the desired 
 elevation by means of cords (in crucem toller e) ; the hands 
 were nailed to the transverse piece of wood either before or 
 after he was raised. Keim quotes the following words from 
 a Latin author : " Patibulo suffixus in crucem crudeliter erigitur," 
 which show that the hands were usually nailed before its 
 erection to the top of the cross. That they might not be 
 torn by the weight of the body, the latter rested on a block 
 of wood fastened to the shaft of the cross, and on which the 
 
2G4 GOSPEL OF JOHN. 
 
 prisoner sat as on horseback. There has been great discussion 
 in modern times as to whether the feet were also nailed. 
 The passages of the ancients quoted by Meyer (see on Matt. 
 xxvii. 35) and Keim are decisive; they prove that, as a rule, 
 the feet were nailed. Luke xxiv. 3 9 leads to the conclusion 
 that it was so with Jesus. Sufferers lived usually on the 
 cross for twelve hours, sometimes till the third day. 
 
 This sort of death combined in the highest degree the 
 pains arid infamy of all other punishments. " Crudelissimum 
 teterrimumque supplicium" says Cicero {in Verrem). The 
 growing inflammation of his wounds, his unnatural position, 
 the constrained immobility and rigidity of the limbs caused 
 thereby ; the local congestions, especially in the head ; the 
 unspeakable anguish resulting from the disturbance of the 
 circulation ; a burning fever and thirst tortured the unhappy 
 victim without killing him. — Was it the Jews who had 
 demanded the execution of two other prisoners, in order to 
 render the shame of Jesus more complete ? Or are we to see 
 here an insult put by Pilate on the Jewish people, and repre- 
 sented by the two companions in punishment set beside their 
 King ? It is hard to say. 
 
 The inscription : 
 
 Vv. 19-22. "And Pilate wrote a title, and put * it on the 
 cross. And the ivriting ioas, Jesus of Nazareth, the King of 
 the Jeivs. TJiis title then read many of the Jews : for the place 
 where Jesus ioas crucified was nigh to the city : and it was 
 written in Hebrew, and Greek, and Latin? Then said the 
 chief priests of the Jews to Pilate, Write not, The King of the 
 Jews ; 3 but that he said, I am King of the Jews. Pilate 
 answered, Wliat I have written I have written." — John here 
 completes the very abridged account of the Synoptics. Accord- 
 ing to the Roman custom, the cruciarius himself bore, or there 
 was carried before him on his way to execution, an inscription 
 {titulus, TirXo?, iirtypacprj, aavis, atria) which contained the 
 statement of his crime, and was afterwards affixed to his cross. 
 Pilate took advantage of the custom to stigmatize the Jews 
 by proclaiming this malefactor their king. — Tholuck and 
 
 1 A K, 12 Mnn. : i*<Jt>xtv for ttnxiv. 
 
 2 Instead of s/3/>. , i\\w., pap., B L X, 8 Mnn. Cop. Sah. read tfip., pup., (XXxv. 
 
 3 X omits vv. 20 and 21 as far as a.x a.' oti exclusive. 
 
CHAP. XIX. 23, 24. 265 
 
 de Wette have thought that the eypayp-e must be explained in 
 the sense of had written; Meyer prefers to hold that Pilate 
 wrote and sent this inscription afterwards, when Jesus was 
 already on the cross. But the Be /cat, now also, is a connection 
 sufficiently loose to admit of our placing the act of writing at 
 the time of condemnation, as is natural. The mention of the 
 three languages in which the inscription was composed is 
 found also in Luke, according to the ordinary reading ; but 
 that reading is uncertain. Hebrew was the national language, 
 Greek the language universally understood, and Latin that of 
 the conquerors. Jesus, in the lowest depths of His abase- 
 ment, was thus proclaimed King in the language of the three 
 principal peoples of the world. — The expression : " the high 
 'priests of the Jeivs," ver. 21, is remarkable. It occurs nowhere 
 else. Hengstenberg explains it as an intentional contrast to 
 the term : "King of the Jews." In reality, it was between those 
 two theocratic powers that the struggle lay. And yet this ex- 
 planation is far-fetched; the expression signifies more simply 
 that they acted here as defenders of the honour of the theo- 
 cratic people. — The imperfect: " they said" describes the attempt, 
 which fails. The present : " Write not" is that of the idea. Pilate 
 replies in the perfect, twice repeated : " I have written." It is 
 the tense of the accomplished fact. Here appears the Pilate 
 who is characterized by Philo as inflexible in character (Heng- 
 stenberg). 
 
 The parting of the raiment : 
 
 Vv. 23, 24. "Then the soldiers, when they had crucified 1 
 Jesus, took His garments, and made four parts, to every soldier 
 a part; and also His coat: 2 now the coat was without seam, 
 vjoven from the top throughout. They said therefore among 
 themselves? Let us not rend it, but cast lots for it, whose it shall 
 be : that the scripture might be fulfilled, which saith? They 
 parted my raiment among them, and for my vesture they did cast 
 lots. These things therefore the soldiers did." — Here again John 
 completes the account of his predecessors, as to the description 
 of the coat and the fulfilment of the prophecy. The Roman law, 
 De bonis damnatorum, adjudged the garments of the condemned 
 
 1 Instead of »ts itrTaupuaav, N : oi (rravfuoavTi;. 
 
 2 X It* 1 " 1 Syr ,ch omit *«/ t«» ^/th/v*. 
 
 * X : ttuTovs instead of «x; »>Xot/j. 4 N B Itr ,CTi <« ue omit » teyovaa.. 
 
206 GOSPEL OF JOHN. 
 
 to tlieir executioners. It is usually held that the entire com- 
 pany was composed of four men. 1 Keim thinks that each 
 cross had its own company. 2 The soldiers performed two 
 operations. They divided among them the various pieces of 
 clothing, such as caps, girdles, upper garments, and the coats 
 of two of them. Then, as the coat of Jesus could not be 
 divided, and as it was too precious to go into one of the parts, 
 they cast lots for it. This coat was no doubt a gift of the 
 women who served Jesus (Luke viii. 2, 3 ; Matt, xxvii. 55). 
 It was woven throughout its whole length, as was the gar- 
 ment of the priests, according to Josephus. Hence the use of 
 the lot (therefore, ver. 24). Thus was realized to the very 
 letter the description given by the psalmist when he draws 
 the picture of Israel's King in the height of His sufferings. 
 Criticism, it is true, declares that the two members of the verse 
 quoted (Ps. xxii. 18) are entirely synonymous, and that John 
 is the sport of his own imagination when he would distinguish 
 either between the verbs parting and casting lots, or between 
 the substantives l/xdria, garments, and IfiaTia /ao?, vesture, in 
 the LXX. But a more profound study of parallelism in 
 Hebrew poetry proves that the second member always adds a 
 shade or a new idea to the idea of the first. Otherwise the 
 second would only be a needless tautology. It is not repeti- 
 tion, but gradation. Thus, in this verse of the psalm, the 
 contrast between the plur. Wii2, garments, and the sing. W2?, 
 vesture, is obvious. The first term denotes the various pieces 
 composing the upper dress ; the second, the vestments pro- 
 perly so called, after the removal of which the person is 
 wholly naked; the tunic. The passage of Job xxiv. 7-10 
 confirms this most natural distinction. The gradation between 
 the two verbs is not less evident. It is a great humiliation 
 to the prisoner to see his garments parted. Thereafter he 
 may well say there is nothing left him but to die. But what 
 humiliation greater than to see lots drawn for his garments, 
 and so to become like a worthless plaything ! David wished 
 to describe these two degrees, and John remarks that in the 
 sufferings of Jesus both of them are literally reproduced ; not 
 
 1 Philo, in Flaccum. 
 
 2 Comp. Actsxii. 4, where we find four detachments, each of four men ; doubt- 
 less one for each of the four watches. 
 
CHAP. XIX. 25-27. 207 
 
 that the fulfilment of the prophecy depended on this detail, 
 but it came out the more clearly ; and that, above all, because 
 everything was done by the instrumentality of the rudest and 
 blindest agents, the Eoman soldiers. On this last idea John 
 wishes to lay stress when he concludes the recital of the scene 
 with the words : " These things therefore the soldiers did." The 
 Eoman governor had proclaimed Jesus the King of the Jews ; 
 the Eoman soldiers, without meaning it, indicated Him to be 
 the true David. 
 
 Strauss thinks (new Lehen Jesu, p. 579 et seq.) that when 
 the Messianic pretensions of Jesus had been belied by the 
 cross, the Church sought in the 0. T. the idea of the suffering- 
 Messiah, and found it there, especially in Ps. xxii. and lxix. 
 Thenceforth there was imagined in this programme a whole 
 fictitious picture of the Passion. Thus facts first of all 
 created the exegesis ; then the exegesis created the facts. 
 But, 1st. The idea of the suffering Messiah existed in Jewish 
 theology before and independently of the cross (vol. i. pp. 421 
 and 439). 2d. It will always be difficult to demonstrate 
 that some unknown righteous man in the 0. T. could hope, as 
 the author of Ps. xxii. does, that the effect of his deliverance 
 would be the conversion of Gentile peoples, and the establish- 
 ment of the kingdom of God to the very ends of the earth 
 (26-32). 
 
 The filial legacy : 
 
 Vv. 25-27. "Now there stood by the cross of Jesus His 
 mother, and His mothers sister, Mary 1 the wife of Cleophas, 
 and Mary Magdalene. When Jesus therefore saw His mother, 
 and the disciple standing by whom He loved, He saith unto His 
 mother? Woman, behold thy son ! Then saith He to the disciple, 
 Behold thy mother ! And from that hour 3 that disciple took her 
 unto his own home." — John only relates this incident. Ma.tthew 
 and Mark simply say that some Galilean women stood at a 
 distance from the cross, " beholding afar off." It appears from 
 John that some of them specially named, and particularly the 
 mother of Jesus, accompanied by John, who supported her, 
 
 i Syr^and the Persian and Ethiopic Vss. read «« before M«m« « <r. K. ("and 
 Mary the wife of Cleophas "). 
 9 X B L X It a,i( ' omit xurau. 
 3 A E, 40 Mnn. Sah. ; »(*ipxs instead of «f««. 
 
268 GOSPEL On jOfltf. 
 
 stood nearer the cross. This fact might easily be omitted in 
 the synoptical tradition. Ilapd does not mean at the foot, but 
 by the side of; the cross was not very high (ver. 29). — We 
 have already said in the Introduction (vol. i. pp. 30, 31), that 
 Wieseler, adopting the reading of the Peschito (see critical 
 note 1), finds four women, and not three, in this passage. 
 Thus the difficulty is evaded of two sisters bearing the same 
 name, the mother of Jesus and the wife of Cleophas. The 
 unnamed sister of Mary the mother of Jesus was (according 
 to Wieseler, Meyer, and Luthardt) Salome, the mother of 
 John, mentioned by Matt, xxvii. 56 and Mark xv. 40 as 
 present at the crucifixion. But (if at least the text of all 
 our Mss. without exception is authentic) the absence of the kcli, 
 and, before the words : " Mary the wife of Cleophas" renders 
 this explanation far from natural. If he omitted this word, 
 the evangelist expressed himself in a wholly ambiguous 
 manner. And how could it happen that throughout the whole 
 Gospel history there should not be a single trace of so close a 
 relationship between John and Jesus ? It is simpler to hold 
 that John abstained from mentioning his mother here, as he 
 constantly keeps silence about the person of his brother. If 
 he designates himself, it is only in an indirect manner. As 
 to Mary the wife of Cleophas, see vol. ii. pp. 20-25. — Why 
 do the Synoptics not mention the presence of Jesus' mother ? 
 It is difficult to say. Perhaps she left the cross immediately 
 after the incident related by John. The Synoptics do not 
 speak of the presence of the friends of Jesus and of the women 
 till the close of the narrative. 
 
 Jesus, despoiled of all, seemed to have nothing left to give. 
 Yet, from the midst of this deep poverty, He had already 
 made some precious gifts : to His executioners He had be- 
 queathed the pardon of God ; to His companion in punish- 
 ment, paradise. Could He find nothing to leave to His 
 mother and His friend ? These two loved ones, who had been 
 His most precious treasures on earth, He bequeathes the one 
 to the other, thus giving at once a son to His mother, a 
 mother to His friend. This word, so full of tenderness, must 
 have completely broken Mary's heart. She hasted to leave 
 this place of grief. — The word " to his own heme" does not imply 
 that John possessed a house at Jerusalem, but simply that 
 
CHAP. XIX. 28-30. 269 
 
 he had a lodging there ; comp. the same e£? ra cSia applied 
 to all the apostles, xvi. 32. From this time Mary resided 
 with Salome and John, first at Jerusalem, afterwards in 
 Galilee (Introd. vol. i p. 3 7). — On the word : " Woman" see 
 at ii. 4. 
 
 Keim, after Baur's example, regards this incident as an 
 invention of the pseudo-John, intended to exalt the Apostle 
 John and to make him the head of the Church, superior even 
 to James and Peter. M. Eenan also ascribes this fiction to 
 the school of John, which yielded to the desire of making its 
 patron the vicar of Christ. In the eyes of the man who has 
 the sense of truth, a scene and sayings like these do not 
 admit of such explanations. Besides, is it not Peter whom 
 our evangelist describes as the great and bold confessor of 
 Jesus? (vi. 68, 69). Is it not to the same apostle that John 
 or his school (xxi.) ascribes the direction of the Church in a 
 magnificent and thrice-repeated promise ? (w. 15-17). Finally, 
 this supposition would imply that the mother of Jesus is here 
 the type of the Church, a supposition of which there is not a 
 trace either in the text or in the whole Gospel. 
 
 The death : 
 
 Vv. 28-30. "After this, Jesus hioiving 1 that all things were 
 notv accomplished, that the scripture might he fulfilled? said,, I 
 thirst. Now 3 there was set a vessel full of vinegar : and they filled 
 a sponge with vinegar, and put it upon hyssop* and put it to His 
 mouth. Wlien Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, He 
 said, It is finished : and He bowed His head, and gave up the 
 ghost." — John completes with some important details the 
 already well-known history of the last moments of Jesus. — 
 Mera tovto, after this, should be taken in a wide sense, as 
 everywhere in our Gospel. Between the preceding incident 
 and this one comes the unspeakable anguish of heart under 
 which Jesus exclaimed : " My God, my God, why hast Thou, 
 forsaken me ? " — The phrase : "All is finished," refers to His 
 task as Piedeemer, so far as He could finish it during His 
 earthly existence ; and even in this restricted sense the word 
 
 1 E G H K S Y r, 70 Mnn. Cop. : Xv instead of uiw. 
 
 2 Instead of ri\nu9n, it D ,u pp', several Mnn. : o-Ax^w. 
 ' A B L X It a '"' omit ow ; x reads Se. 
 
 4 N B L X, some Mnn. Ita'-l Sah. read trrrtyyov aw psrrov c%ou; vtriraivru vifihtrtt^ 
 
270 GOSrEL OF JOHN. 
 
 all should be limited by what follows. In fact, there remained 
 yet a point of prophecy which was not fulfilled. Now the 
 scripture formed part of that all which must necessarily be 
 finished. Many commentators (Bengel, Tholuck, Lange, 
 Meyer, Luthardt, and Baumlein) make Xva, in order that, de- 
 pend on rereXeaTai, " All is finished that the scripture may be 
 fulfilled." This meaning seems to us inadmissible, first, be- 
 cause of the forced construction : "finished, that ; " and next, 
 because of ver. 30, where we find that Jesus could not declare 
 all was finished in relation to the Scriptures, because to this 
 fulfilment there was wanting a last feature of the prophetic 
 description, that indicated in ver. 29. The that depends 
 therefore on Jesus saith, which follows. So Chrysostom, 
 Lucke, de Wette, etc. The object of Jesus in saying : " I 
 thirst," was really to give occasion to the accomplishment of 
 this last unfulfilled incident in the Messiah's sufferings : 
 " They gave me vinegar to drink" (Ps. lxix. 21). The there- 
 fore (ver. 29), which is probably the true reading, precisely 
 indicates the relation between this saying of Jesus and the 
 fulfilment of the prophecy. Unquestionably Jesus had for a 
 lonsr time been tormented with thirst. This was one of the 
 most cruel tortures of crucifixion. But He might have been 
 able to restrain, as He had done up till now, the expression of 
 that painful sensation. If He does not do so, it is that the 
 last incident of the humiliations to which He was to submit 
 may take place without delay. John says reXeicoOr}, and not 
 TfkrjpddOfi (which some documents wrongly substitute). The 
 subject in question, indeed, is the finishing of the fulfilment of 
 the Scriptures as a whole, and not the fulfilment of this par- 
 ticular prophecy. — The drink offered to Jesus is not that 
 which He had refused at the beginning of His crucifixion. 
 The latter was a wine mixed with a bitter and stupefying 
 liquor, such as absinthe (Matthew) or myrrh (Mark). The 
 giddiness which this poison produced in the victim somewhat 
 deadened the first pains. Jesus had refused it because He 
 wished to preserve the perfect clearness of His mind to the 
 end. The drink now offered to Him by the soldier is purely a 
 vinegar prepared for the sufferers themselves, as is proved by 
 the sponge and the stalk of hyssop. This last circumstance 
 sets aside the common opinion of commentators who think 
 
CHAP. XIX. 31. 271 
 
 that it was wine intended for the soldiers. — In the first two 
 Gospels it is the cry : " Eli, Eli ! . . . My God, my God ! . . ." 
 which leads the soldier to offer Him the vinegar. But John 
 completes their narrative by referring to the cry : " / thirst," 
 which more immediately determined the soldier's action. — 
 Hyssop is a plant not more than a foot and a half in height. 
 Since a stalk of this length sufficed to reach the lips of the victim, 
 it follows that the cross was not so high as is usually repre- 
 sented. — Ostervald and Martin are quite wrong in translating : 
 " They put hyssop round [the sponge] . . .," or " surrounding 
 it with hyssop . . ." 
 
 " I thirst " was the Saviour's fifth saying, and " It is finished " 
 the sixth. The first three had reference to His personal rela- 
 tions : the prayer for His executioners (Luke) ; the promise 
 made to the thief, His companion in punishment (Luke) ; the 
 legacy made to His mother and His friend (John). The 
 following three refer to His work of salvation : the cry : " My 
 God . . ." (Matthew and Mark), contains all the moral suffer- 
 ings of the expiatory sacrifice; the groan: "/ thirst" (John), 
 sums up all its physical sufferings ; the triumphant saying : 
 "It is finished" proclaims its consummation. The seventh 
 and last saying is expressly related only by Luke : " Father, 
 into Thy hands I commit my Spirit ; " but it is implied in John 
 by the word Trapehwice, He gave up. This word is by no means 
 rendered by our phrase : " to give up the ghost" It expresses a 
 free, personal, spontaneous act. "No man taheth my life from 
 me" Jesus had said ; " 7" have power to lay it down, and I have 
 power to take it again" (x. 18). Here, too, we have the 
 meaning of that loud cry with which, according to Matthew 
 and Mark, Jesus expired. — The word /cXtVa?, " having bowed 
 His head," indicates that till then Jesus kept His head erect. 
 
 The breaking of the legs : w. 31-37. 
 
 Ver. 31. "The Jeios therefor", because it ivas the prepara- 
 tion} that the bodies shoidd not remain upon the cross on the 
 Sabbath day {for that Sabbath day 2 was an high day), besought 
 
 1 The words ith 7ra.patrx.ivn »> are placed by S B L X V, 10 Jinn. ItP ,eri< ' ue Vg. 
 Syr. Cop. San. immediately after m ow lovbatoi, and not after sv ™ <ra£$aTu (T. 
 II. withl2Mjj.). 
 
 2 Instead of txuvn, the reading of T. R. with some Mnn. It aliq Vg., txtnov is 
 found in all the other documents. 
 
272 GOSPEL OF jOIIN. 
 
 Pilate that their legs might he broken, and that they might be 
 taken away." — John here traces a series of providential events 
 omitted by his predecessors, which passed one after another, 
 and which conspired to impress on the Person of Jesus, in 
 His state of deepest abasement, the seal of Messiahship. 
 The Eomans usually left the condemned to perish on the 
 cross ; their bodies became the prey of wild beasts. But the 
 Jewish law required that the bodies of criminals should be 
 put out of sight before sunset, that on the following day the 
 Holy Land might not be polluted by the curse attached to 
 the lifeless body, a monument of condemnation (Deut. xxi. 
 23 ; comp. Josh. viii. 29, x. 26 ; Josephus, Bell. jud. iv. 5. 2). 
 Ordinarily, no doubt, the Eomans did not trouble themselves 
 about this Jewish law. But in this particular case the Jews 
 could not have borne the violation of it quietly, because, as 
 John observes, the following day was not only a Sabbath, 
 but a Sabbath of exceptional solemnity. Those who think 
 that, according to John as well as the Synoptics, the Jewish 
 people had already celebrated the Paschal feast on the previous 
 evening, and that thus it was the end of the great Sabbatic 
 day of the 15th Msan, here give to the word Trapaa/cevi], 
 preparation, the meaning which it has in the Jewish calendar, 
 that of Friday, and think that the peculiar solemnity of the 
 Saturday, which was about to begin, arose simply from the 
 fact that this Sabbath belonged to the Paschal week. Or 
 they refer to the fact that it was on this day (16th Nisan) 
 that the offering of the sacred sheaf fell to be made, a well- 
 known act of worship with which the harvest opened yearly. 
 But neither the one nor the other of these reasons can 
 explain the extraordinary solemnity which John ascribes to 
 the Sabbath of the morrow. The 16th Nisan was so little 
 of a Sabbatic day, that, before cutting the ears intended to 
 form the sacred sheaf, the deputies of the Sanhedrim were 
 obliged to wait till the people called to them : " The sun is 
 set;" this cry was the proclamation of the end of the 15th 
 and the beginning of the 16 th. Then only could they take 
 the sickle. For from that moment work was allowed. So 
 the 16th is called, Lev. xxiii. 11-15, "the day after the 
 Sabbath.'" How, then, could the coincidence of the Sabbath 
 with this day, so purely a work-day, enhance the Sabbatic 
 
CHAP. XIX. 31. 273 
 
 value of the Saturday which was about to begin ? Besides, 
 this technical meaning of irapaaicevr), Friday, is here set aside 
 by the absence of the article. Finally, there is an evident 
 relation clearly indicated by the yap, for, which follows, be- 
 tween the idea of preparation and that of the solemnity of 
 the Sabbath which was about to begin at six o'clock even- 
 ing. We are therefore forced to hold that this exceptional 
 solemnity of the morrow arose from the fact that that year 
 the weekly Sabbath exactly coincided with the great and like- 
 wise Sabbatic day of the 15th Nisan. Hence it follows 
 that, at the moment when Jesus died, it was still the 14th 
 and not the loth. Thus are explained the words (literally): 
 "for it was preparation" on the one hand, undoubtedly pre- 
 paration for the Sabbath (as being Friday), but, at the same 
 time, preparation for the great Paschal day, the 15th Nisan. 
 This day had in it, as it were, an accumulation of prepara- 
 tion, as the following had also in it an accumulation of 
 Sabbatic rest. The for refers to the idea : " that the bodies 
 might not remain . . .," as is indicated by the Alex, reading, 
 supported by that of the old Vss. The evangelist hereby 
 indicates indirectly that the essential act of preparation, 
 the slaying of the lamb, took place in the temple at this 
 moment, and that the Paschal feast was to follow that very 
 evening. 
 
 Pilate, respecting the scruples of the Jews, consented to 
 what was asked of him. The breaking of the legs did not 
 produce immediate death, but its object was to make it 
 certain, and so to allow the removal of the bodies. For it 
 rendered all return to life impossible, because gangrene was 
 the necessary and immediate result. The existence of this 
 custom (aKeXoKoiria, crurifragiuni) among the Romans, in 
 certain exceptional cases, is perfectly well established (see 
 the numerous passages quoted by Keim himself). M. Penan 
 also says: "The Jewish and Poman archaeologies of ver. 31 
 are exact." If Keim, notwithstanding, still raises difficulties, 
 asking why the Synoptics do not mention the fact if it is 
 historical, it is easy to answer : Because Jesus Himself was 
 not affected by it. Now His Person alone was of conse- 
 quence to them, not those of the two malefactors. Neither 
 would John have mentioned it but for the relation of the fact 
 
 GODET III. S JOHN. 
 
274 gospel of joiin. 
 
 to the prophecy which struck him so forcibly. Must we 
 understand the apdwcn, might be taken away, of the taking 
 from the cross ? I doubt it very much. What concerned the 
 Jews in making this demand, was not that the bodies should 
 be unfastened, but that they should be removed out of sight. 
 The law, Deut. xxi. 23, which dictated their request, had no 
 reference to the punishment of the cross, a punishment un- 
 known to Israel. 
 
 Vv. 32—34. "Then came the soldiers, and brake the legs of 
 the first, and of the other which was crucified with Him. But 
 when they came to Jesus, and saw that He was dead already} 
 they brake not His legs: but one of the soldiers with a spear 
 pierced His side, and forthwith came thereout blood and 
 water." — ^HXdov, they came, here signifies they approached; 
 for there is no reason to suppose that other soldiers are meant 
 than those who had completed the crucifixion. — If the object 
 for which the legs of the victims were broken was what we 
 have said, this operation became useless in regard to Jesus, 
 from the fact of His death. The soldier's spear-thrust was 
 therefore a compensation, as it were, for the omitted operation ; 
 it meant : if thou art not really dead, here is something 
 to finish thee. It would be absurd to demand precedents 
 for such a fact, which had nothing judicial in it. Yet the 
 saying of Quintilian may be quoted : " Cruces succiduntur, 
 percussos sepeliri carnifex non vetat." — The verb vvauetv 
 denotes a thrust of a greater or less depth, in opposition 
 to a cut. Homer uses it sometimes to denote even mortal 
 wounds. — The fact of the effusion of blood and water might 
 be regarded as a natural phenomenon. No doubt generally, 
 when a corpse is pierced, no liquid comes from it ; yet if 
 one of the large vessels happens to be touched, there may 
 How from the wound a blackish blood with a coating of 
 serum. Could this be what John called blood and water ? 
 This is far from probable. Ebrard supposes that the spear 
 touched some deposits of extravasated and decomposed blood. 
 Gruner (Commentatio de morte Jesu Christi verd, Halle 1805) 
 thinks that the spear first pierced some aqueous deposits 
 which, during the long suffering on the cross, had formed 
 round the heart, and then the heart itself. William Stroud 
 
 1 feS : l "fov auTov r{hn rtfayKorcc xai ov, instead of mt . . . •nhtiKora, av. 
 
CHAP. XIX. 35-S7. 275 
 
 (London 1847) has recourse to phenomena observed in cases 
 of sudden death caused by cramp of the heart. These 
 explanations are not inadmissible, but they are all somewhat 
 improbable. The phrase : " blood and water" which naturally 
 denotes two substances flowing simultaneously, but perfectly 
 distinct, in the eyes of the spectator, finds no natural ex- 
 planation on any of these suppositions. Baur and Strauss 
 conclude for the necessity of a symbolical interpretation, and 
 here again find the purely ideal nature of the narrative. The 
 author meant, by this fact of his own invention, to express 
 the abundance of spiritual life which was henceforth to flow 
 from the Christ (Baur) ; the water represented more especially 
 the Holy Spirit, the blood the Holy Supper, with allusion 
 to the custom of mixing the wine of the sacrament with 
 water (Strauss in his new Vie de Jdsus). Are we entitled to 
 ascribe such absurdities to the evangelist ? And wdiat notion 
 must we form of the morality of a man who should affirm 
 so solemnly that he saw (ver. 35) what he was conscious of 
 never having beheld except in idea ? In favour of this 
 allegorical explanation there has been alleged the saying, 
 1 John v. 6 : " He came not by water only, but by water and 
 blood." But water here denotes the baptism of John the 
 Baptist as opposed to the work of Jesus, who adds to the 
 water of the baptism of repentance the blood of expiation 
 and pardon. There remains but one explanation : the view 
 that the fact lay beyond the laws of common physiology, and 
 that it is related to the exceptional nature of a body which 
 sin had never tainted, and which was destined to an im- 
 mediate resurrection. From the very instant of death, the 
 body of Jesus must take another way than that of dissolu- 
 tion, and enter upon that of glorification. Such is the 
 meaning which the evangelist seems to have ascribed to this 
 unprecedented phenomenon. Thus is explained the almost 
 oath-like affirmation with which he certifies the reality of it 
 in the following verse, which does not, however, mean that 
 the affirmation of ver. 35 relates only to this fact. It 
 refers also to the other two events which were mentioned, 
 vv. 33 and 34 (the breaking of the legs and the spear- 
 thrust). 
 
 Vv. 35-37. "And he that saw it bare record, and his record 
 
276 GOSPEL OF JOHN. 
 
 is true : * and he Jcnoweth that he saith true, that ye also 2 might 
 believe. 3 For these things were done, that the scripture should 
 be fulfilled, A bone of Him 4 shall not be broken. And again 
 another scripture saith, They shall look on Him whom they 
 pierced." — Several (Weisse, Schweizer, Hilgenfeld, Weizsacker, 
 Keim, and Baumlein himself) hold that in the words in ver. 
 35 the author of the Gospel expressly distinguishes himself 
 from the apostle whose testimony he cites. The author speaks, 
 indeed, of the witness : " he that saw," in the third person, 
 consequently as of a third person. And thus this passage, 
 which had always been regarded as one of the strongest 
 proofs of the Johannine composition of our Gospel, would be 
 transformed into a positive denial of its apostolic origin. 
 We have already examined this question, Introduction, i. pp. 
 93-95. We offer here the following remarks: 
 
 1. The school of Baur, while unable to refrain from 
 catching at the bait presented to it by the verse when thus 
 understood, has nevertheless felt the hook concealed beneath 
 it (see Hilgenfeld's embarrassment on this question, Einl. p. 
 731). If, indeed, as the critics of this school allege, the 
 author wished throughout his whole treatise to pass himself 
 off for John the apostle, how comes he to distinguish himself 
 expressly from him in this passage ? Hilgenfeld's answer 
 is that "he falls out of his part" (p. 732). Singular un- 
 skilfulness in a forger so able as the man to whom the 
 composition of our Gospel is ascribed ! 
 
 2. Neither the form of the phrase nor the pronoun i/ceivos, 
 that man, oblige us to regard the author of the writing as 
 a different person from the apostle whose testimony he 
 relates. When a narrator wishes to avoid speaking of him- 
 self in the first person, and regards himself objectively to the 
 extent of designating himself in the third person, as happens 
 so frequently, it is evident that he may employ all the 
 forms which are used in speaking of another. So Jesus 
 
 1 N : a-XvQns instead of aXnhvn. 
 
 2 15 Mjj. (X A B, etc.), 25 Mnn. It. Vg. Syr. read *«< before vfjt.ii; ("that ye 
 also might believe") ; T. R. omits x.ai with 7 Mjj. (E G, etc.), and the other 
 Mnn. 
 
 3 x B : nt<r<Tivnri, instead of vrto-rrivirnri. 
 
 4 S» 60 Mnn. ItP leri i ue : «»' avrov instead of avnu (following Ex. xii. 46 in 
 the LXX.). 
 

 CHAP. XIX. 35-37. 277 
 
 does throughout the whole course of His ministry when 
 calling Himself the Son of man. So Paul does in a remark- 
 ably striking way, 2 Cor. xii. 2 : " I knew a man in Christ 
 who . . ." Hilgenfeld does not believe that this mode of 
 speaking admits of the use of the pronoun e/ce«/o?, that man, 
 which refers to a remote subject. But Steitz 1 has clearly 
 proved that this pronoun, and that in St. John's Gospel, has 
 a peculiarly emphatic and exclusive sense, but one which does 
 not imply the remoteness of the subject to which it refers : 
 he, he precisely, he only. Comp. i. 8, 18, 33, v. 39, etc. 
 There is even a passage wholly analogous to ours (ix. 37): 
 " Thou hast seen Him, and He that talketh to thee is He " 
 (i/celvos ianv, He precisely, and no other). Weizsacker and 
 Keim do not therefore insist on the philological question, but 
 they appeal so much the more, as Keim says, to " rational 
 logic," which does not allow us to hold " that a writer would 
 describe himself objectively at such length." 
 
 But, 3. "Eational logic" is precisely what absolutely forbids 
 our writer to affirm of John, as one distinct from himself, 
 the fact which he attests here. What ! a disciple of John 
 declare to the Church that the apostle, his master, saith true, 
 that is to say, that he did not lie or was not the dupe of an 
 illusion ! But the first of these attestations would be an 
 insult, and the second an absurdity. And in general, if one 
 may in certain cases become surety for the veracity of 
 another, he can never act as surety for the inner consciousness 
 which that other possesses of his own veracity, as would be 
 done by the author here when he says of the apostle- witness : 
 " And he hnoweth that he saith true." If the writer really 
 wished to distinguish himself from the witness, he should 
 have said : " And / know that he saith true." Then he must 
 have followed this up by saying : " that we may believe," and 
 not : " that ye may believe ; " for, excepting the witness who 
 alone saw, all the rest, including the narrator himself, believe 
 in consequence of this ocular testimony. 
 
 4. Hilgenfeld, Keim, and Baumlein quote, as an analogy, 
 xxi. 24: "This is the disciple (the loved disciple) which testi- 
 ficth of these things, and ivrote of them : and we know that 
 
 1 See on the use of the pron. IxiTvos in the fourth Gospel, Steitz, Stud, u 
 Kritik. 1S59, pp. 497-506, and Buttmann, ibid. 1860, pp. 505-536. 
 
278 GOSPEL OF JOHN. 
 
 his testimony is true." But there is a complete difference 
 between the two passages. The attcster, xxi. 24, is dis- 
 tinguished not only from the witness, but likewise from the 
 author of the Gospel, whom he identifies with the witnessing 
 apostle. And because he distinguishes himself from him, he 
 uses the first person: "vje know" (ver. 24), "/ think" (ver. 25), 
 and so does what the evangelist would have required to do in 
 our passage if he had really wished to distinguish himself 
 from the apostle. — We are persuaded that the time will 
 come when this whole discussion will appear singularly un- 
 necessary. 
 
 Me/j,apTvpvtce, hath testified, and that by this very narration 
 which continues from that time forward (the perf). — 'AXy- 
 Oivrj, not a veracious testimony (dX^difc), but a testimony 
 which really deserves the name. — Ral v/j,ei<;, ye also: "ye, 
 as well as I myself, the witness." In fact, the matter in 
 question is not faith in the particular facts which have just 
 been related, and to which the term faith would not apply in 
 relation to him who bore witness to them. The subject in 
 question is faith in the absolute sense of the word, faith in 
 Christ ; this ought in the case of all to derive confirmation 
 from the facts mentioned above, which had already strength- 
 ened that of the witness himself. It is to this meaning of 
 the word faith that the for of ver. 36 applies, since it refers 
 to the manifestation of the Messianic character of Jesus by 
 the fulfilment of the two prophecies quoted, vv. 36 and 37. 
 — It follows, finally, from this connection of ideas, that the 
 ravra, these things, of ver. 36 embraces not only the effusion 
 of the blood and water, but also the two facts which gave 
 rise to it, the omission of the breaking of the legs in the 
 case of Jesus, and the spear-thrust. The first prophecy is 
 taken from Ex. xii. 46, not from Ps. xxxiv. 20, as Baum- 
 lein thinks ; for this latter passage refers to preservation of 
 Ufa — The Paschal lamb belonged to God, and typified the 
 Lamb of God. Hence the law sheltered it from all profana- 
 tion, from all violent and brutal treatment. This is also the 
 reason why the remains of it were to be burned immediately 
 after the feast. 
 
 If prophecy was fulfilled by what did not take place in the 
 case of Jesus (the breaking of the legs), it was equally so by 
 
chap. xix. s.:-:7. 279 
 
 what actually took place (the spear-thrust), ver. 37. Zechariah, 
 xii. 10, had represented Jehovah as pierced by His people, in 
 the Person of the Messiah. The death of the cross had 
 realized this prophecy. But this fulfilment, to stand forth 
 clearly, must take a yet more literal character (see on xii. 15, 
 xviii. 9, xix. 24). The meaning of the Hebrew word (npl) 
 they pierced was considerably weakened by the LXX., who 
 no doubt thought the expression too strong to be applied to 
 Jehovah, and translated it by KaTcop^cravro, they insulted. 
 The evangelist goes back here to the Hebrew text, as the 
 author of the Apocalypse likewise does in the same quota- 
 tion (i. 7). The term : " they shall look on" otyovrcu, refers 
 to what shall take place at the time of the Jews' conversion, 
 when in this Jesus rejected by them they shall recognise 
 their Messiah. The look in question which they shall then 
 cast on Him is one of repentance, supplication, and faith ; a 
 striking scene magnificently described in that same prophetic 
 view, Zech. xii. 8—14. 
 
 To understand what John felt at the moment which he 
 here recalls, we must suppose a believing Jew, familiar with 
 the 0. T., seeing the soldiers approach who are to break the 
 legs of the three victims. He asks himself anxiously what is 
 to be done to the body of the Messiah, which is still more 
 sacred than the Paschal lamb. And, lo ! simultaneously and 
 in the most unexpected manner this body is rescued from the 
 brutal operation which threatened it, and receives the spear- 
 thrust, thereby realizing the spectacle which repentant Israel 
 is one day to behold ! After such signs, with what feelings 
 will this man leave the cross ? Will not what he has seen 
 strengthen his faith, and soon also that of the whole Church ? 
 Such is the meaning of John. Olshausen thinks that the 
 water and blood are mentioned to prove the reality of Jesus' 
 body ; Liicke and Neander, to prove the reality of His death. 
 But the Docetse did not deny sensible appearances in the 
 person of Jesus ; and these sufficed to explain what John 
 perceived. As to His death, the fact related no more confirms 
 than it invalidates its reality. The apostle therefore estab- 
 lishes, as we have said, the exceptional state of the body of 
 Jesus, which was manifested at this time by an unexampled 
 evidence. The Holy One of God was not to see corruption 
 
280 GOSPEL OF JOHN. 
 
 (Ps. xvi.) ; and this promise must be fulfilled perfectly in the 
 case of the perfect Holy One. Now it implied the beginning 
 of the work of resurrection at the very moment when, in the 
 case of every other death, the crisis of dissolution begins. 
 
 The entombment of Jesus: vv. 38-42. 
 
 John here fills up, as in the preceding passage, the nar- 
 rative of his predecessors. He exhibits the part which 
 Mcodemus took in the funeral honours paid to Jesus, and 
 brings out the relation between the advanced hour of the day 
 and the place of the sepulchre where the body was laid. He 
 thus accounts for facts whose relation was not indicated by 
 the Synoptics. 
 
 Vv. 38—40. "After this} Joseph of Arimathoza, being a 
 disciple of Jesus, but secretly for fear of the Jews, besought Pilate 
 that he might take away the body of Jesus: and Pilate gave 
 him leave. He came 2 therefore, and took 2 the body of Jesus. 3 
 And there came also Nicodemus, which at the first came to Jesus 
 by night, and brought* a mixture* of myrrh and aloes, about an 
 hundred 'pounds. Then took they the body of Jesus and wound 
 it in 5 linen clothes with the spices, as the manner of the Jews is 
 to bury*' — The request of the Jews, ver. 31, referred to the 
 three victims ; but, as John has observed, Pilate's order was 
 executed only in respect of two of them. Joseph then appears 
 before him with an entirely new request, which applies to 
 Jesus only. Baumlein : " Sometimes, especially on occasion 
 of a feast, the corpse of the capitally punished was given up 
 to the relations. Philo, in Flacc. § 10." Mark relates that, 
 on hearing this request, Pilate was astonished that Jesus was 
 dead already ; a fact which, according to Strauss, would con- 
 tradict the permission which he had himself given, ver. 31. 
 But this operation, while involving death, did not bring it 
 about immediately, as Strauss himself acknowledges ; it served 
 only to make it sure. And Pilate could thus express his 
 astonishment that death had already taken place. Perhaps, 
 also, Pilate's astonishment arose from the fact that Jesus was 
 
 1 Ai is omitted by 7 Mjj. (X A B, etc.) It. 
 
 2 Instead of n\hv and r,piv, $ It a,iq read *\$ov and npa.ii. 
 
 Instead of ro truiua. rau I., B L X A read to tru/tcc aurov, \\ avrtiv, ItP ,er '1 ue airs. 
 4 X reads tx uv instead of tpipuv ; N B : iXiyfAa. instead of ft<ypx. 
 * N B K L X Y n It a,i< * Vg. omit, ev before o<W< £ . 
 
CHAP. XIX. 38-40. 281 
 
 dead without the necessity of breaking His legs. For he 
 required a detailed account of the manner in winch the punish- 
 ment had been carried out. This is attested by Mark himself, 
 xv. 44 : "And calling the centurion, he asked him." Arima- 
 thcea might be the city Rama, situated two leagues to the north 
 of Jerusalem, or another Eama, now called Bamleh, lying ten 
 leagues to the north-west of the capital, near Lydda. But the 
 place in question is more probably Ramatha'im (with the article 
 represented by the syllable ar), in Ephraim, Samuel's native 
 city (1 Sam. i. 1). In any case, Joseph was now settled in 
 Jerusalem with his family ; for he had a burying-place there, 
 but very recently, no doubt, as the sepulchre had never yet 
 been used. 
 
 In mentioning Nicodemus, John exhibits the contrast 
 between the boldness of his present profession and the 
 cautiousness of his former conduct. This man's faith recog- 
 nised at this moment, in the crucified one, the Saviour typified 
 by the brazen serpent which Jesus had explained to him 
 beforehand (iii. 14). It is remarkable that these members of 
 the Jewish aristocracy, Joseph and Nicodemus, are led to con- 
 fess their faith in Jesus at the very moment of His deepest 
 humiliation. — To irpoirov here denotes, as at x. 40, the 
 beginning of the ministry of Jesus. If Nicodemus had been 
 to John, as M. Eeuss seems to hold, nothing more than a 
 fictitious type (ch. iii.), how could he make him reappear here 
 as a real acting person, and that while expressly recalling the 
 scene of ch. iii. ! — Myrrh is an odoriferous gum ; aloes, a scented 
 wood. After being pounded, they were made into a mixture 
 which was spread over the sheet in which the body was 
 wrapped. Probably this cloth was cut up into bandages to 
 wrap the limbs separately. The words : " as the manner of 
 the Jews is . . .," contrasts this mode of embalming with that 
 of the Egyptians, who removed the intestines and secured the 
 preservation of the corporeal wrappings by processes much 
 more lengthened and complicated. — The hundred pounds 
 remind us of the profusion with which Mary had poured the 
 spikenard over the feet of Jesus, ch. xii. ; it is a truly royal 
 homage. The Synoptics inform us that the holy women 
 intended also on their part to complete this provisional 
 embalming, but after the Sabbath only. 
 
282 GOSPEL OF JOHN. 
 
 Vv. 41, 42. "Now in the place where lie was crucified there 
 was a garden ; and in the garden a new sepulchre, wherein was 
 never man yet laid} There laid they Jesus therefore because of 
 the Jews preparation ; for the sepulchre was nigh at hand." — 
 According to the Synoptics, the sepulchre belonged to Joseph ; 
 and this was the reason of the use made of it. According to 
 John, this tomb was chosen on account of its nearness to 
 Golgotha, because the Sabbath was about to begin. These 
 two reasons, far from contradicting, complete one another. 
 What purpose would the proximity of the sepulchre have 
 served if it had not belonged to one of our Lord's friends ? 
 And was it not the circumstance that Joseph owned this 
 sepulchre near the place of crucifixion which suggested to 
 him the thought of asking the body of Jesus ? — John and 
 Luke (xxiii. 53) observe that the sepulchre was new. Comp. 
 Luke xix. 30 : "Ye shall find a colt tied whereon yet never man 
 sat." These are providential facts which belong to the royal 
 glory of Jesus. When a king is received, the objects devoted 
 to his service are such as have never yet been used. — Might 
 the phrase : " the Jews' preparation" signify (as is thought by 
 those who allege that, according to John as well as according 
 to the Synoptics, the death of Jesus took place on the 1 5 th) : 
 the Jeivs' Friday ? What would be the object of this singular 
 expression ? ftotermund 2 answers, to explain how it happened 
 that the morrow following the Sabbatic 15th day was also a 
 Sabbath. But that has already been explained twice : vv. 14 
 and 31. Why this repetition and this new form: "the Jews"? 
 When, in the space of thirty lines, the same thing is thrice 
 repeated, there is not merely an affirmation expressed ; there 
 is the negation of the opposite idea. As at iii. 24, ii. 11, and 
 iv. 54, John wishes tacitly to rectify some misunderstanding of 
 the Gospel history. It was the hour when the Jews (so this 
 supplement finds its explanation) prepared for their great 
 national feast by killing the lamb. And they made haste, 
 because with the setting of the sun the work day of the 1 4th 
 would close, and the doubly Sabbatic day (v. 31) of the 15th 
 begin; comp. Luke xxiii. 56. 
 
 1 N B : «» nhifityos instead of infa, 
 
 • In the remarkable article, " Von Epliraim nach Golgotha," Stud. u. Kritik. 
 1S76, first number. 
 
OF THE DAY OF OUR LOED'S DEATH. 283 
 
 Of the Day of our Lord's Death. 
 
 The evangelists are manifestly at one as to the day of the 
 week on which the death of Jesus took place : it was a Friday. 
 But they seem to differ about the day of the month, and con- 
 sequently about that of the Paschal feast on which this event 
 fell. The Jews celebrated the Paschal supper, the opening of 
 the feast, on the evening of the 14th Msan. This evening 
 formed, strictly speaking, part of the 15th; the first and great 
 day of the seven da} r s of the feast, and one peculiarly solemn. 
 For the law assimilated the loth to the weekly Sabbath, so far 
 as obligatory cessation from labour was concerned, with the 
 single difference that it permitted the preparation of necessary 
 food on this day (Ex. xii. 16), probably because on the even- 
 ing before, the preparation of the Paschal feast having absorbed 
 attention, it was impossible to provide the food of the 15th. 
 Now it is generally held that, according to the synoptical 
 narrative, it was on this Sabbatic 15th day that the Friday 
 on which Jesus was crucified fell that year; which implies, 
 of course, that on the evening before, Jesus had celebrated 
 the Paschal feast with His disciples, in conformity with 
 Jewish law and practice. And such seems really to be the 
 force of Matt. xxvi. 1 7, and the parallel passages of Luke and 
 Mark. 
 
 John's narrative, on the contrary, would lead to the conclu- 
 sion, as we have seen, that the Friday of Jesus' death was the 
 14th Nisan, the day of the preparation of the Paschal supper 
 and of the Paschal feast in general. In this case, it is obvious 
 that He could not have celebrated the Paschal supper with the 
 people generally ; for He was dead some hours before this cere- 
 mony, and the last supper described by John is nothing more 
 than an ordinary meal on which Jesus impressed peculiar 
 solemnity by instituting the Holy Eucharist and uttering His 
 last farewell. 
 
 Can these two forms of narrative be harmonized ? And, if 
 not, which is to be preferred ? 
 
 From a very early date this question has occupied the 
 Church. In a dispute which broke out about 170 at Laodicea, 
 in Asia Minor, there were some who maintained that our Lord's 
 last meal was the real Paschal feast, celebrated at the hour 
 
284 GOSPEL OF JOHN. 
 
 fixed by the law on the evening of the 14th, from which they 
 concluded that the Church ought also yearly to celebrate on that 
 evening the Holy Easter Supper, at the same time as the Jews 
 celebrate their Paschal feast. Apolinarius, Bishop of Hierapolis, 
 who opposed them, declares in substance " that, according to 
 them, our Lord ate the lamb with His disciples on the 14th, 
 and that He suffered death on the great day of unleavened 
 bread (the 15th) ; and that they thus explain the Gospel of 
 Matthew." 1 We do not know what attitude was taken in this 
 matter by Mclito, Bishop of Sardis, who, Eusebius tells us, 
 was the first to write a book on this controversy. But we 
 have in the same collection some fragments of the works of 
 Apolinarius and of Clement of Alexandria, which were called 
 forth by that of Melito. "The 14th," says the former, "is our 
 Lord's true Passover, the great sacrifice in which the Son of 
 God, put in stead and place of the lamb, was to be given up 
 to be crucified. . . ." These words are clear: they express 
 John's view. Jesus did not eat the legal Passover ; He died 
 on the day on which they were preparing to celebrate it. 
 Clement expresses himself to the same effect, but in a manner 
 still more explicit : " In previous years Jesus had celebrated 
 the feast by eating the Paschal lamb slain by the Jews. But 
 on the 13th (iy) He taught His disciples the mystery of the 
 type [the type of the lamb], when they asked Him, saying : 
 ' Where wilt Thou that we prepare for Thee the Passover ? ' 
 For that was the day on which took place the consecration of 
 the unleavened bread, and the pro-preparation (Trpoeroi/xacria) 
 of the Passover. . . . And our Saviour suffered on the follow- 
 ing day [the 1 4th] ; for He was Himself the true Passover. 
 . . . And hence the high priests and scribes, when bringing 
 Him to Pilate, did not enter the prsetorium, that they might 
 not be defiled and might eat the Passover in the evening with- 
 out hindrance." The disciples then asked our Lord, as is 
 related in the Synoptics, not on the 14 th, but on the 13th; 
 and it was on the evening of the 13th that Jesus instituted 
 the Supper, and consequently on the 1 4th that He died. This 
 
 1 Fragments of Apolinarius (not Apollinarius) in the Chronicon paschale (a 
 compilation of extracts from ancient authors, carried on from the fourth to the 
 seventh century, and discovered in Sicily in the sixteenth ; see Le Jour de la 
 Preparation, by M. Lutteroth, p. 59). 
 
OF THE DAY OF OUR LORD'S DEATH. 285 
 
 is really John's view, and, besides, it is the first known attempt 
 to harmonize it with the synoptical narrative. 
 
 After such discussions, it is not surprising that Chrysostom 
 takes full account of the difficulty, and leaves his readers to 
 choose between these two solutions : either John understands 
 by the Passover the whole feast, which would allow us to hold 
 that He was crucified on the 15th; or Jesus anticipated by a 
 day the celebration of the Paschal feast, which would allow us 
 to hold that He was crucified on the 1 4th. In these remarks 
 Chrysostom has, as Meyer says, traced the programme of all 
 the subsequent discussions down to our day. 
 
 We have treated this question briefly (Introd. i. pp. 209- 
 211) in its bearing on the authenticity of our Gospel. We 
 resume the subject here more fully from the exegetical and 
 historical point of view. 
 
 I. 
 
 The conclusion to which we have been led is this : Accord- 
 ing to the fourth Gospel, Jesus was crucified on the l&th Nisan, 
 the preparation day of the feast of Passover. 
 
 The most decisive passages in favour of this conclusion have 
 been the following : — 
 
 1st. xiii. 1. — Again quite recently Rotermund (in his very 
 interesting article, "Von Ephrai'm nach Golgotha," Stud. u. 
 Kritik. 1876) has alleged, as had been done before by Langen 
 (on untenable grounds) and some others, that in this verse the 
 feast of Passover meant the morning of the 15th, and that the 
 phrase : " before the feast of Passover," must therefore mean the 
 evening of the 14th, and so the hour of the Paschal supper 
 (agreeably to the Synoptics). If John had said : " before the 
 feast of Unleavened Bread" this meaning would have been 
 admissible (Mark xiv. 1). But how can we for a moment 
 imagine John placing the Paschal supper 5e/b?*c,and consequently 
 outside of, the feast of Passover? How can we hold that, writing 
 for Greek readers, he designated the Paschal feast by saying : 
 " Before the feast, a supper [or even : the supper] being ended," 
 without designating this solemn feast more clearly ? 
 
 2d. xviii. 28. — All the learned efforts of Kirchner {Die 
 judische Passahfeier, 1870) appear to me insufficient to over- 
 throw the natural conclusion from this passage, so clearly 
 
286 GOSPEL OF JOHN. 
 
 recognised by Clement of Alexandria, as we have established 
 it by our exegesis. 
 
 3d. xix. 14, 31, 42. — Neither Kirchner nor Rotermund has 
 succeeded in convincing us that the translation in these three 
 passages should run : " the Paschal Friday . . . it was Friday 
 . . . the Jews' Friday . . ." That the day was a Friday is 
 evident. That the word paraskeui (preparation) sometimes 
 denotes in patristic language Friday cannot be disputed. But 
 all this does not prove, as we have seen, that in the context 
 John could give the word preparation this technical sense. As 
 to Matthew and Mark, we shall examine the question after- 
 wards. Eotermund himself cannot help making the following 
 confession : " In truth, it is very surprising that the Gospels 
 so expressly designate the day of the death as that preceding 
 the Sabbath, if this day was itself the first day of the Paschal 
 feast. . . ." So surprising, indeed, that it seems even im- 
 possible. 
 
 M. Lutteroth, in his pamphlet quoted above, is at one with 
 us as to this impossibility. In his view, the preparation of 
 the Passover signifies the preparation f6r the feast. But the 
 Paschal feast began, according to him, on the 10th Nisan, the 
 day on which the Jews set apart the lamb, five days before 
 that on which they killed it. And it was, according to him, 
 on this 10 th day of Nisan that Jesus was crucified. He rose 
 again after three full days and nights passed in the tomb, 
 between the 13th and 14th; and His first appearances took 
 place on the morning of the 1 4th. It is easy to see what super- 
 human exegetical efforts are needed to bring the texts into 
 harmony with this wholly new chronology. It is overthrown 
 especially by Mark xiv. 12, Luke xxii. 7, and Matt, xxviii. I. 1 
 
 After the observations of Kirchner and Luthardt, I do not 
 insist on ranking xiii. 29 among the decisive passages, though 
 
 1 Mark xiv. 12 : " And the first day of unleavened bread, when they killed the 
 Passover ..." This expression may, according to M. Lutteroth, denote the 
 10th Nisan, because this day opened the jieriod of the days of unleavened bread, 
 which, according to the author, began five days before the 14th ! As to the rela- 
 tive when (or on which), it does not refer to the word day, but to the complement 
 of unleavened bread : the unleavened bread conjointly with which they killed 
 the lamb ! — Luke xxii. 7 : " Then came the day of unleavened bread, when the 
 Passover must be killed. ..." This, he holds, is not a chronological determi- 
 nation (notwithstanding the parallels), but an anticipation purely of feeling : 
 Fear not ; the day of unleavened bread came afterwards [the 14th], when Jesus 
 
OF THE DAY OF OUR LOKD'S DEATH. 287 
 
 it will always be difficult to understand how the apostles could 
 have thought of buying on the night of the Passover. What 
 shop would have been open in Jerusalem on that night, when 
 every family, rich or poor, was gathered round the Paschal 
 table ? 
 
 II 
 
 This Johannine date of the l&th Nisan is not positively con- 
 tradicted by any of the documents in our possession; it is 
 confirmed by many of them. 
 
 1st. The Talmud. — We have quoted in full, vol. i. p. 124, 
 the passage of the Babylon Gcmara, which says that " Jesus was 
 suspended on the evening of the Passover (bee'rev happe'sach)," 
 an expression which certainly denotes the eve of the Passover, 
 as certainly as the evening of the Sabbath (6rev haschschabbath) 
 constantly signifies the eve of the Sabbath. No doubt against 
 the trustworthiness of this Talmudic tradition there may be 
 urged its late composition, and the erroneous statements which 
 are mixed up with it in other passages where it is reproduced, 
 for example, that " the son of Stada [Jesus] was stoned, and then 
 hung at Lydda, on Passover eve " (Sanhedr. 6 7. 1). Yet it 
 is remarkable that this point of time : Passover eve, reappears 
 uniformly in those different Talmudic statements. Of two 
 things the one or other : either a very positive tradition on 
 this point had been kept up among the successors of Caiaphas 
 and Gamaliel ; or the learned Jews had borrowed this notice 
 from our Gospels, which would prove that they understood them 
 exactly in the sense which has seemed to be the meaning of 
 John's narrative. 
 
 2d. Saint Paid. — Keim thinks that this apostle is a con- 
 vincing witness against the opinion which fixes on the 14th, 
 instead of the 15th, as the day of our Lord's death (i. pp. 127, 
 
 rose again; or, as M. Lutteroth now explains (Essai d 'interpret, p. 410): The 
 day was come when Christ, the true Passover, must be killed ! — Matt, xxviii. 1, 
 our author translates: "Now after these things, on that one of the Sabbaths 
 which daions on the other of the Sabbaths, Mary . . .," which signifies: on the 
 14th, a day of the Passover which reaches to a second Sabbath [the 15th]; as if 
 the 14th had been a Sabbatic day! — But untenable as these explanations are, 
 M. Lutteroth's treatise nevertheless remains a monument of earnest investiga- 
 tion and solid learning ; and it cannot be denied that even for views so eccentric 
 as the above, he has succeeded in discovering in patristic literature some 
 apparent points of support ^comp. pp. 60 and 76-77). 
 
288 GOSPEL OF JOHN. 
 
 128, iii. p. 476). His argument is as follows: Paul envelopes 
 the institution of the Holy Supper in the forms of the Paschal 
 feast, which proves that in his view, as in that of the Synoptics, 
 this institution coincides with the Jewish feast ; that conse- 
 quently Christ's last feast took place on the 1 4th, and not the 
 13th. This argument would tell if Keim could prove that 
 Jesus was unable, with the foresight of His approaching death, 
 to institute the Holy Supper, by borrowing the forms of the 
 Paschal feast, on the eve of the day when it was legally cele- 
 brated. But this it will always be impossible to demonstrate. 
 Perhaps some indications are to be found even in Paul of a 
 view contrary to that which holds the 15th as the day of Jesus' 
 death. In the narrative of the institution of the Holy Supper, 
 1 Cor. xi., he says : " The Lord Jesus, the same night in which 
 He was betrayed." If this night had been the solemn Passover 
 night, would he not have characterized it a little more speci- 
 ally ? When speaking of the different stages in the work of 
 resurrection, Paul designates Christ as the first-fruits (airap')(i'j). 
 The term is that used to designate the sacred sheaf, gathered 
 on the 16th Nisan, as the first-fruits of the harvest. Now 
 this 16th day was precisely that of the resurrection of Jesus, 
 if He died on the 14th and not the 15th. The most elevated 
 spirituality did not prevent Paul from cherishing the most 
 pious attachment to Jewish symbolism. Cornp. the allusion 
 to the Passover, 1 Cor. v. 7, 8, a passage written exactly at 
 the time of this feast (xvi. 8). 
 
 3d. The Synoptics. — We shall not renew here a detailed dis- 
 cussion which has been so often taken up with opposite views 
 in recent times, and at such length that it has become almost 
 wearisome. — Could the priests and their officers go forth from 
 Jerusalem to lay hands on Jesus in Gethsemane at the very 
 time when the whole people were celebrating the Paschal 
 feast within their dwellings ? Yes, says the defender of the 
 Synoptics, they certainly could. No, answers the defender of 
 John, it was impossible. — Could sittings of tribunals be held 
 and follow one another, one, two, three, during a Sabbatic night 
 when, according to the Talmud, " everything reprehensible on 
 Sabbath, such as climbing a tree, riding, holding a court, etc., 
 is equally forbidden on the feast day"? (Beza, v. 2). Impos- 
 sible, says the one. Quite possible, answers the other; for 
 
OF THE DAY OF OUR LORD'S DEATH. 289 
 
 the law of the feast day is always less rigorous than that of the 
 Sabbath ; for a judicial sitting is allowed, provided there be no 
 writing done at it ; for these severe prescriptions were not 
 formally set down till the Talmudic times, and there is nothing 
 to prove that they were observed so early as the time of Jesus. 
 — Is it possible to hold that Simon came out of the country on 
 the morning of the Sabbatic day, the 15th (Mark xv. 21); 
 that Joseph bought a winding-sheet that same day (xv. 46); 
 that the women put off embalming the body that evening in 
 order to rest, because the Sabbath was near (Luke xxiii 56), 
 if the very day on which these things took place was itself a 
 Sabbatic day ? No, says the one ; by all these facts the 
 Synoptics testify that the day of the death was a work day, 
 and thus do homage consciously or unconsciously to the date 
 of John, that of the 14th. Not at all, say the others; all is 
 in perfect keeping with the 15th. Simon is a dweller in the 
 country who is simply repairing to the city. The purchases 
 are perfectly reconcileable with the Sabbatic rest, provided 
 payment is not made the same day. Finally, the sanctity of 
 the weekly Sabbath is always held higher than that of the 
 feast day. 
 
 With such skilful and learned pleaders before us, it is 
 prudent doubtless to pronounce no decision. Yet it is remark- 
 able that the judge who betrays the most decided antipathy 
 to John cannot help declaring that the 15th is the most 
 difficult reading (Keim, iii. p. 475). 
 
 Besides these facts, the Synoptics also contain certain say- 
 ings which equally favour John's narrative ; they are especially 
 the three following passages : — 
 
 1. Matt. xxvi. 18, Jesus sends this message to the citizen 
 of Jerusalem, at whose house He intends to eat the Passover : 
 " My time is at hand ; I will keep the Passover at thy house with 
 my disciples." M. Eeuss says with perfect frankness : " The 
 saying : ' My time is at hand,' cannot well be interpreted 
 otherwise than as an allusion to His death, though this com- 
 munication has no very intimate relation to the commission 
 given to the disciples." The connection sought is not estab- 
 lished, indeed, unless the Lord meant to say : " I must make 
 haste : to-morrow it will be too late ; prepare everything there- 
 fore with my disciples, that I may eat the Passover at thy 
 
 GODET HI. T JOHN. 
 
290 GOSPEL OF JOHN. 
 
 house to-day with my own whom I am about to leave " (iroi<o, 
 the present). Thus understood, the message of Jesus has 
 meaning, but a meaning which implies on our Lord's part the 
 anticipation of the Paschal feast. 
 
 2. In Matt, xxvii. 62, the Saturday on which Jesus rests 
 in the grave is described by the evangelist as " the next day 
 that folloived the day of the preparation!' Supposing that the 
 word preparation was really used here in the sense of Friday, 
 would it not be as strange an expression as if Sabbath were 
 called the day that followed Friday ? That would be like a 
 riddle put to the reader. Is it not rather Friday which should 
 be called the day which comes before Sabbath ? Of two days 
 which are related to one another, that which determines the 
 designation of the other is evidently the more important of 
 the two. There is in the case before us only one explanation 
 of so strange an expression : As the day of the death, it was 
 the so-called preparation day which for this time played the 
 decisive part, and from which the designation of the Sabbath 
 itself deserved to be taken. This phraseology therefore 
 implies that the day was naturally a work day, and that its 
 importance was entirely due to the fact that it was the day of 
 our Lord's death. 
 
 3. Mark xv. 42 is often quoted as one of the passages 
 opposed to John's date : " It was the preparation (Trapacr/cevrj), 
 that is, the day before the Sabbath (7rpoo-d/3l3aTov)." But does 
 it follow that irapaaicevri really signifies Friday ? What does 
 Mark mean ? That it was Friday ? There was no need of 
 two different terms to express this. The object of his remark 
 is to convey to his Gentile readers the thought that every 
 day having a Sabbatic character, whether the Sabbath or a 
 feast day, was preceded by a day bearing the name of pre- 
 paration, that is to say, of pro- Sabbath, because on that day 
 everything was arranged so that the rest of the morrow 
 might not be disturbed. Now this remark, with the accom- 
 panying explanation, was very important in the context. As 
 is well said by Weiss {Marc. ad. h. 1.) : " All work — and 
 consequently also the taking down from the cross, which fell 
 under this category — must terminate before sunset, otherwise 
 the Sabbatic rest which was about to begin would have pre- 
 vented its execution." Hence it follows not that the dav of 
 
OF THE DAY OF OUR LORD'S DEATH. 291 
 
 Christ's death was a Friday (though it was so in reality), but 
 that it was a preparation day in relation to some Sabbatic day 
 or other which was about to follow. Would a Jew ever have 
 characterized the 15th of Nisan thus, that day so essentially 
 Sabbatic, if, as is alleged, Jesus really died on that day ? 
 
 The only point at which the synoptical account seems 
 really to conflict with that of the fourth Gospel, is the date of 
 the disciples' question, Matt. xxvi. 1 7 ; Mark xiv. 1 2 ; Luke 
 xxii. 7. But here everything depends on the precise time of 
 the question put by the apostles. If it is supposed that it 
 was put on the morning of the 14th Nisan, all possibility of 
 harmony certainly disappears. For the evening which fol- 
 lowed that morning, and on which the last supper of Jesus 
 took place, could have been no other than that between the 
 14th and 15th, that of the Paschal feast among the Jews, 
 which inevitably places the death of Jesus on the morrow 
 following that feast, and so on the 15th. But Strauss has 
 remarked, 1 that the procuring of the room and the articles 
 necessary for the Paschal feast could not have been put off till 
 the morning of the 14th. The number of pilgrims coming 
 to Jerusalem was too considerable to admit of waiting till the 
 morning of the day on which the feast took place to secure a 
 room. Also Clement of Alexandria, to designate the previous 
 day, that of the 13th, uses the term TrpoeToifiaaia, pro-pre- 
 paration, or preparation for the preparation. The day of 
 preparation (for the feast) was the 14th, but that on which 
 the arrangements needed for this preparation were made was 
 the 13 th. Now, of these measures the most essential was 
 to secure a room. It is therefore probable, to say nothing 
 more, that it was on the afternoon of the 13 th that the dis- 
 ciples referred to the Lord the steps to be taken with this 
 view. Are the expressions used by the evangelists opposed 
 to this idea ? Luke says : " The day of unleavened bread was 
 come . . ." These terms apply to the afternoon of the 13 th, 
 to the time of sunset, as well as to the morrow morning, and 
 even better. For it was exactly at this time, on the evening 
 of the 13th, between six and seven, that lamps were lighted to 
 ransack the darkest corners of the houses, and to remove from 
 them the last particles of leaven (Kirchner, p. 12). — Matthew 
 1 Das Leben Jesu, 1864, p. 533. 
 
292 GOSPEL OF JOHN. 
 
 says : " On the first day of the feast of Unleavened Bread, the 
 disciples came to Jesus!' Mark says : " The first day of un- 
 leavened bread, when they killed the Passover . . ." Mark's 
 somewhat more detailed expressions are solely intended to put 
 Gentile readers more completely in possession of the object of 
 the feast. They may, as well as those of Matthew, with which 
 they are synonymous, refer to the last hours of the afternoon 
 of the 13th, which, according to the Jewish mode of reckoning, 
 began the 14th. 
 
 It is objected (Eotermund) that, notwithstanding the official 
 mode of dividing days, reckoning from one evening to the 
 other, in popular language (which is that of our evangelist) 
 the evening of a day was always that of the day which ivas 
 closing. But the proof of the opposite appears in the common 
 expression : Erev haschschabbath, Sabbath evening, which denotes 
 not Saturday evening, but Friday evening; and in the fact 
 that the sacred sheaf of the 16th Nisan was cut not on the 
 morning of that day, but on the eve of it. The deputies of 
 the Sanhedrim arrived on the field accompanied by the people. 
 ■ Has the sun set ? they asked. — Yes, it has. Am I to cut ? 
 — Yes, cut ! With this sickle ? — Yes. Into this basket ? 
 — Yes." Then the work was accomplished. It belonged to 
 the 16th, a work day, and not to the 15th, a Sabbatic day. 
 Finally, when Hippolytus puts into the mouth of the partisans 
 of the 14th this saying: "Christ celebrated the Passover on 
 the day on which He suffered, I ought therefore to do like- 
 wise," is it not evident that they include in the 15th day 
 the preceding evening, when the last supper took place ? 
 The objection is therefore unfounded. 
 
 An interesting coincidence, which can hardly be accidental, 
 presents itself here. On the evening between the 13th and 
 14th Nisan, before the stars appeared in the sky, people went 
 from every house to draw water from the fountain with which 
 on the morrow to knead the unleavened bread. This custom 
 no doubt explains the sign which our Lord gives to His two 
 disciples, Peter and John, when, on sending them to the city, 
 He says : " Behold, when ye are entered into the city, there 
 shall a man meet you, bearing a pitcher of water ; follow 
 him. . . ." This coincidence fixes at the same time the hour 
 when the disciples were sent ; it was evening, when the stars 
 
OF THE DAY OF OUR LORD'S DEATH. 293 
 
 were about to appear. The 14th had therefore begun. In 
 reality, it was the beginning of the first day of unleavened 
 bread. 
 
 What was our Lord's intention in giving these orders to the 
 two disciples ? The latter had asked His instructions for the 
 morrow evening. In presence of the apostles, Jesus entered 
 apparently into their thought. For He required to be on His 
 guard against the treachery of Judas, who was watching all 
 His steps. But when sending His two confidential disciples 
 to the city, and giving them the message, which we know 
 from Matthew, for the host on whom He reckoned, He gives 
 them to understand that they were to prepare everything not 
 for the morrow, but for that same evening. The mysterious 
 nature of this message did not allow Judas to know before- 
 hand the house where Jesus was to pass that last evening with 
 His own. 
 
 It will be objected that it was rather late to buy and pre- 
 pare the lamb. But from the 10th Nisan it must have been 
 put aside and kept in a particular place. It was needed only 
 to take and roast it, which could certainly be done between six 
 and eight o'clock. The other necessary articles belonged to the 
 furniture of the room, or might easily be procured by the host 
 or His disciples. 
 
 But where, it will be said, is the ritual or sacerdotal killing 
 of the lamb, such as took place in the temple on the afternoon 
 of the 14th? It is to be remarked, first, that this whole 
 ceremony of slaying in the temple was a human addition to 
 the law. According to the Paschal ordinance and the example 
 of the first Passover, every father of a household was himself 
 to slay the lamb in his house, without the intervention of a 
 priest. At this time, when the typical Passover was about to 
 take end, it was surely allowable to return to its original sim- 
 plicity. But more than this : the legal covenant verging to 
 its close, the sacramental feast of that economy, the Israelitish 
 Passover, resembled only a withered calyx, from the bosom of 
 which there was about to blossom the sacramental feast of 
 the new covenant, the /caivrj Siadrj/cr), as Jesus Himself says 
 some hours later (Matt. xxvi. 28 and parall.). The lamb in 
 the feast which was preparing had only a part to fill, that of 
 giving place to the true Lamb, which was substituted for it 
 
2 ( J4 GOSPEL OF JOHN. 
 
 with the words : " Do this henceforth in remembrance of me!* 
 In such conditions the sacerdotal consecration was useless. 
 
 A difficulty remains, that of the day. Could Jesus change 
 the legal day of the Paschal feast ? Impossible, answer Keim 
 and Luthardt resolutely, and this time in perfect harmony. 
 But if Jesus could boldly declare Himself the Lord of the 
 Sabbath, — and the transference of the Sabbatic day from Satur- 
 day to Sunday in His Church has proved that this was no 
 vain word, — how should He not also be the Lord of the Pass- 
 over ? The Sabbath was the corner-stone of the whole Mosaic 
 constitution. He who disposed of it freely, held in His hand 
 the whole edifice. 
 
 We conclude : Many things lead, and not one is absolutely 
 opposed in the Synoptics, to the date of John. 
 
 4. The Paschal Controversies. — The general fact on which 
 this last contention rests is the following : The churches of 
 Asia Minor celebrated the Paschal feast by fasting during the 
 14th Nisan, and taking the communion the evening of that 
 day. The other churches of Christendom, with Eome at their 
 head, fasted during the days preceding the Passover Sunday 
 (the first Sunday after the 14th), and communicated on the 
 morning of that day. In both cases the communion terminated 
 the fast. 
 
 First 'phase of the discussion. About 1 5 5, 1 Polycarp in a visit 
 to Eome converses on this subject with Anicetus. Each defends 
 the rite of his church, on the ground of an apostolical tradition 
 of which it is the depositary (proceeding at Ephesus from John 
 and Philip, at Eome from Paul and Peter). There is nothing 
 to prove that on this occasion the disputants penetrated to 
 the exegetical and dogmatic domain of the question. The 
 peace of the church remained unbroken. "Diversity in rite 
 served rather, as Irenoeus says, to establish harmony in faith." 2 
 Second phase. Fifteen years after, in 170, there breaks out 
 at Laodicea, in the very bosom of the church of Asia, a dis- 
 cussion on the subject of the Passover. There are people — 
 who are they ? we shall have to study the point — who, while 
 
 1 Recent discoveries, due especially to M. Waddington, seem to prove that 
 the martyrdom of Polycarp took place in 155 or 156, and not later, as used to be 
 held. 
 
 * "Letter to Victor" (Eus. H. E. v. 24). 
 
OF THE DAY OF OUH LORD'S DEATH. 295 
 
 practising the Asiatic rite, found it expressly on the fact that 
 Jesus instituted the Supper on the evening of the 14th, while 
 celebrating the Paschal feast at the time prescribed by the law, 
 in proof of which they allege Matthew's account, according to 
 which our Lord celebrated the Paschal feast on the 14th, and 
 was crucified on the 15th. 1 It is obvious that the controversy 
 escapes from the domain of tradition, and lays hold from this 
 time forth of the exegetical side of the question. Melito is 
 the first who writes on this subject, we know not on which 
 side. Then, on occasion of his treatise (e£ ahiai), — not in 
 opposition to him, as is still alleged by Schiirer, — Apolinarius 
 and Clement of Alexandria take the pen. Both of them, 
 judging from the fragments quoted in the Chronicon paschalc, 
 hold that Jesus celebrated His last feast and instituted the 
 Supper not on the 14th, but on the 13th, and that He died 
 not on the 15 th, but on the 14th. They allege especially 
 John's account in favour of this view. 
 
 Who are the adversaries combated by these two writers ? 
 Baur, Hilgenfeld, Schiirer, and Luthardt answer : Simply the 
 churches of Asia with their rite of celebration on the 14th. 
 Apolinarius would thus be in Asia itself the champion of the 
 western rite. It is difficult to believe this. 1st. Eusebius 
 represents the churches of Asia as unanimous : " The churches 
 of all Asia thought, according to an ancient tradition, that 
 they were bound to observe the 14th in the celebration of the 
 Holy Supper." If this consensus of all the churches of Asia 
 had been broken by so considerable an exception as that of 
 Apolinarius of Hierapolis, Eusebius, the declared adversary of 
 the Asiatic rite, would not have failed to state it. But he 
 says nothing of the kind. Undoubtedly Baur relies on the 
 fact that a little later, Polycrates, when enumerating in his 
 letter to Victor of Rome the illustrious persons who observed this 
 rite, does not mention Apolinarius. But he names only the 
 dead. Apolinarius might be included among those numerous 
 bishops of whom Polycrates speaks without naming them, 
 and who surrounded him at the time when he wrote his letter, 
 
 1 Comp. p. 539, the polemic of Apolinarius and the words which Hippolytus, 
 in his Ph'dosoplmmena, puts into the mouth of his adversaries: "The Lord 
 celebrated the Passover and suffered on that day [that is to say, on the day 
 between the 14th and 15th] ; and therefore I should do as He did." 
 
296 GOSPEL OF JOHN. 
 
 and gave it their assent. 2d. If Apolinarius had made a 
 division in Asia, it is probable that the dispute would have 
 broken out at Hierapolis in his own diocese, not at Laodicea. 
 3d. The adversaries of Apolinarius supported their position 
 from Matthew, evidently in opposition to arguments drawn 
 from other sources. Whence, if not from the fourth Gospel ? 
 Now is it not known, is it not obvious from the letter even of 
 Poly crates, that John was constantly, whether from personal 
 tradition or by his Gospel, the light of the churches of Asia ? l 
 And we should find them all at once making Matthew their 
 patron, and that perhaps against John himself ! The thing is 
 impossible. 4th. The polemic of Apolinarius, in opposition 
 to his Laodicean adversaries, does not really imply either a 
 rupture with the Asiatic rite or adherence to the occidental. 
 He might perfectly well remain faithful to the former, while 
 justifying it otherwise than the Laodiceans, either exegetically 
 or dogmatically. For we have seen that the latter likewise 
 observed the 14th. As to the western rite, it is impossible 
 to understand how the opinion of Apolinarius, which placed 
 the death of Jesus on the 14th rather than on the 15th, 
 favoured the view which placed the celebration of the Passover 
 on the following Sunday ! 5 th. Schiirer is entangled in an 
 inconceivable contradiction : According to him, if the churches 
 in Asia celebrated the 14th, it was without any relation to 
 any fact whatever of Gospel history (whether the institution 
 of the Supper or the death of Jesus) ; their rite arose solely 
 from their having transformed the Jewish Paschal feast of the 
 14th into the Christian Supper and a celebration of redemp- 
 tion. Such is the result of his solid and remarkable work. 
 And yet, on the other hand, the polemic of Apolinarius forces 
 him to acknowledge that, if the Laodicean adversaries of this 
 Father fixed the Supper on the 14th, it was to commemorate the 
 institution of the ceremony on that day by Jesus Christ. How, 
 then, can it be alleged that the latter are no other than the 
 churches of Asia ? 
 
 Thus it is easy to understand how Weitzel and Steitz, with 
 
 1 See, besides the Asiatic literature of the second century, which rests or, the 
 writings of John (Polycarp, Papias, Ignatius, Melito, Tb.eopb.ilu8, and Irenseus, 
 comp. Introd. i. pp. 199-246), the letter of Polycrates, in which there is found 
 indisputable allusion to John's Gospel. 
 
OF THE DAY OF OUR LORD'S DEATH. 297 
 
 whom are associated Eitschl, Meyer, Beville, etc., have been 
 led to see in those Laodiceans a Judaizing party which arose 
 in the church of Asia with the intention of preserving the 
 Jewish Paschal feast, while adapting to it the Holy Christian 
 Supper. Then the polemic of Apolinarius and Clement strikes 
 home. These people say : " We wish to do as the Lord did 
 [celebrate the Paschal feast on the 14th]." The two Fathers 
 reply : " The Lord did not do so. He replaced the Paschal 
 feast of the 14th by the Supper on the 13th," — an opinion 
 which does not prevent Apolinarius from remaining faithful 
 to his church's rite ; for, as Schurer himself acknowledges, the 
 church of Asia did not celebrate the 14th as the day of the 
 institution of the Supper. She celebrated the Holy Supper 
 on that day as a memorial of redemption, thus translating into 
 a sacramental Christian feast the Jewish Passover, which was 
 instituted in memory of the Israelites' deliverance. 
 
 There are only two points on which I would dissent from 
 Weitzel and Steitz : 1st. The Laodicean adversaries of 
 Apolinarius I should hold to be less an Ebionite sect than a 
 branch of the church of Asia with a more pronounced Judaiz- 
 ing tendency. 2d. The rite of the churches of Asia arose 
 simply from the celebration of the 14th in Israelitish worship, 
 not from the thought of maintaining that this day was that 
 of Jesus' death. This consequence flows from the words of 
 Eusebius : " The churches of Asia thought they should cele- 
 brate the 14th, the day on which the Jews were commanded to 
 kill the lamb;" and especially from those of Poly crates : "And 
 all my relatives (bishops before me) celebrated the day on 
 which the people took away the leaven." The Asiatic rite is 
 expressly put into relation to the day of Christ's death only 
 in two passages of the fourth and fifth centuries, the one in 
 Epiphanius, the other in Theodoret (see Schurer, pp. 57 and 58), 
 which shows that this point of view did not prevail in the 
 beginning. 
 
 Third phase. Between 180 and 190 a certain Blastus 
 (Adv. Jiccr. of the pseudo-Tertullian, c. 22) seeks to transplant 
 the Asiatic rite to Borne. Hence, probably, the reawakening 
 of the controversy between the two churches of Borne and Asia, 
 which are represented at this epoch by Victor and Tolycrates. 
 The latter, in his letter to Victor, no longer defends his cause 
 
298 GOSPEL OF JOHN. 
 
 merely by traditional arguments, as Polycarp had done thirty 
 years before. " Before writing, he went over all the Holy 
 Scriptures (iraaav dyiav <ypa(f>7jv Biek^XvOco^)." And he de- 
 clares that " his predecessors also observed the 14th according 
 to the Gospel {Kara to evayyeXiov)." These words give rise to 
 reflection. It has been sought to get rid of them by subtleties 
 (see Schurer's embarrassment, p. 35). They evidently prove, 
 as the preceding do, that Polycrates and the bishops of Asia 
 had succeeded in establishing a harmony of the Gospels by 
 means of which not only did those writings not contradict 
 one another (to eva<yje\iov, the one Gospel in the four), but 
 such that they also agreed with the law itself (all the Scrip- 
 tures). Such sayings imply, therefore, that Polycrates and his 
 bishops had found the Asiatic rite confirmed at first by the 
 law (the matter in question is the institution of the Passover, 
 Ex. xii., fixing the Paschal feast on the 14th), next by the 
 unanimity of the canonical Gospels, which has no meaning 
 unless Polycrates harmonized the Synoptics with John by 
 interpreting them as we have done ourselves ; for to do the 
 reverse (to bring John to the apparent meaning of the Synop- 
 tics) did not then occur to any one. Thus the words of Poly- 
 crates and the censure which Apolinarius pronounces on the 
 opinion of his Laodicean adversaries are perfectly equivalent : 
 " Wherefore not only is their opinion contrary to the law 
 (which requires the lamb to be slain on the 14th), but there 
 would also be in this case a disagreement between the Gospels 
 [Matthew fixing the death on the 15th, John on the 14th]." 
 
 Polycrates therefore sets himself, in order to support the 
 Asiatic rite, exactly at the same exegetical standpoint as 
 Apolinarius does to combat the Laodicean party. This dis- 
 pute was allayed by the efforts of Irenoeus and several others, 
 who interceded with Victor and stopped him on the way to 
 violent measures. 
 
 Fourth phase. It is marked by the decision of the Council 
 of Nice in 324, which enjoined on the Orientals to fall in 
 with the western rite now generally adopted. " At the close 
 of the controversy," says Eusebius (in his irepl t?}? rov Trda^a 
 eopr/}?, Schlirer, p. 40), " the Orientals yielded ; and thus," adds 
 he, " they broke finally with our Lord's murderers and joined 
 their co-religionists (6^080^049)." The Asiatic rite, from the 
 
OF THE DAY OF OUR LORD'S DEATH. 299 
 
 fact of the Holy Paschal Supper falling simultaneously with 
 that of the Jewish Passover, had become more and more the 
 sign of a secret sympathy with the unbelieving Jews. This 
 it was which decided its discontinuance. From this time, 
 those only who, like the Laodicean Judaizers, maintained as 
 the exegetical basis of their observation of the 14th the fact 
 that the Holy Supper had been instituted on that day, kept 
 their ground under the names of Audians and Qitarto-decimans, 
 who figure in the lists of heresies. Athanasius frankly con- 
 fesses that they are not easily refuted when they advance the 
 words of the Synoptics : " On the first day of unleavened bread, 
 the disciples came to Jesus . . ." (Schurer, p. 45). 1 Here we 
 come upon the first symptom of that preponderance which 
 the synoptical narrative finally obtained over John's, and 
 which held its ground through the Middle Ages and the 
 Eeformation down to modern times. The Synoptics, more 
 popular than John, and apparently clearer, forming besides a 
 bundle of three against one, and especially no longer encoun- 
 tering as a counterpoise the fear of mixing up the Christian 
 Supper and the Jewish Passover, carried the day in general 
 feeling. Of the Fathers, Jerome is the one who contributed 
 most to this victory. 
 
 How, then, are we to explain the origin of the two observances, 
 the Asiatic and the Roman, in the second century ? 2 Paul had 
 no fear of bringing into the Church the celebration of the 
 Jewish Passover (Acts xx. 6 ; comp. 1 Cor. v. 7, 8, with 
 xvi. 8). He transformed and spiritualized its rites, that is 
 undoubted ; the Holy Supper was substituted for the Paschal 
 feast of the lamb and the unleavened bread ; but the time 
 was the same ; had not Jesus said, " Do this (the Passover) 
 in remembrance of me " ? John did the same ; and thus it 
 was that, under cover of his authority, there was introduced 
 
 1 It is likewise to one of those obstinate and henceforth schismatic Quarto 
 decimans that we must apply the words of Eusebius in the treatise quoted above 
 (Schurer, p. 40) : " But if any one should say, It is also written, On the first 
 day of unleavened bread ..." It is easy to see that the same objection em- 
 barrasses Eusebius as well as Athanasius. But it no more proves the identity 
 of the ancient churches of Asia with the Laodiceans of the second century than 
 with the Quarto-decinians of the fourth (in opposition to Schurer). 
 
 - Schurer seems to us to have thrown real light on this important and difficult 
 point, p. 61 et seq. 
 
300 GOSPEL OF JOHN. 
 
 into Asia Minor the practice of celebrating the 14th Nisan 
 by the Holy Supper. But the churcnes of the "West, more 
 estj-anged from Judaism, no doubt felt a certain repugnance 
 to this close bond of unity in time, between the Jewish feast 
 and the Christian, and to the sort of dependence in which 
 this simultaneousness placed the one in relation to the other. 
 They therefore cast off the yoke ; and, instead of celebrating 
 the Holy Paschal Supper on the evening of the 14th, as they 
 had already the institution of the weekly Sunday, this cere- 
 mony was fixed for the Sunday morning which followed the 
 14th Nisan yearly, or, to speak more correctly, the full moon 
 of March. 1 Thus arose, no doubt, the western observance, 
 which ended by carrying the day over the primitive observance. 
 The Church is free in such matters. 
 
 The result of this long and complicated history, so far as 
 concerns the subject before us, seems to be this : From the 
 time that the Church occupied herself with the exegetical 
 side of the question, she held to John's narrative. She made 
 use of it, on the one hand, to refute by the pen of Apolinarius 
 the exegetical basis which the Laodicean party pretended to 
 lay for the observance of the 14th (by making that day, 
 according to Matthew, the day of the institution of the Supper) ; 
 on the other, to defend against Eome by the pen of Polycrates 
 the Asiatic celebration of the 14th, by representing it as 
 the Jewish Passover spiritualized, as the Christian feast of 
 redemption, the counterpart of the Israelitish deliverance in 
 Egypt. For the church of Asia, then, there was no question 
 of celebrating the 14th Nisan as the day of the institution of 
 the Supper, nor even, strictly speaking, as the day of Jesus' 
 death (in opposition to Steitz). The meaning simply was to 
 christianize the Jewish Passover. If, therefore, this observance 
 contains any homage to John's narrative, it is not so of itself 
 undoubtedly (for it has no direct relation to any particular 
 fact in the life of Jesus) ; but it is so from the manner in 
 which it was defended by Apolinarius on the one hand, and 
 Polycrates on the other, for this double apology rests entirely 
 on John's narrative. 
 
 1 So it comes about, as Schiirer rightly observes, that the name Easter 
 (Pdques) is applied at the present day to the day of the resurrection rather than 
 to that of the death. 
 
OF THE DAY OF OUR LORD'S DEATH. 301 
 
 5. The year of our Lord's death. — This year cannot be 
 regarded as finally fixed. Science still oscillates between the 
 year 29 (Ideler, Zumpt) and 35 (Keim), or even 36 (Hitzig). 
 Yet, excepting the year 33 (Ewald, Eenan), it is the year 30 
 which is condescended on at the present day by the majority 
 of savants (Winer, Wieseler, Lichtenstein, Caspari, and 
 Pressens^). It is the year which has always appeared to us 
 also to combine the largest sum of probabilities on its side. 
 Two astronomers, Wurm and Oudemann, have sought to de- 
 termine which of those different years were those on which 
 either the 14th or the 15th Nisan must have fallen on a 
 Friday. They have found that in the year 30 the Friday of 
 the Paschal week was the 15th, and not the 14th. This 
 result, unfavourable to our interpretation, has been re-examined 
 by Caspari, and he has attempted to show that Wurm's calcu- 
 lation, rightly understood, far from overturning our thesis, con- 
 firms it, and makes the 14th Nisan of the year 30 fall exactly 
 on the Friday. The important fact is, that we find ourselves 
 here face to face with the incalculable eventualities and 
 subtleties of the Jewish calendar. Wurm feels this himself: 
 he speaks simply of probabilities. He says also : " One will 
 not be greatly mistaken if he calculates thus." He acknow- 
 ledges that there always remains an uncertainty of one or 
 two days, which in this question are of capital importance 
 (Keim, pp. 498-500). It is therefore surer to operate on 
 positive texts, as we have done, than on grounds so precarious. 
 We think, consequently, that we may indicate Friday the 14th 
 Nisan, the 7th April of the year 30, as the most probable 
 date of the death of Jesus. 
 
 Thus, then, no historical fact really and duly attested lends 
 itself to falsify the solution which we have presented. 
 
 III. 
 
 Let us now cast a rapid glance at the other proposed solu- 
 tions. 
 
 1st. The ideal explanation of Baur and his school: The 
 Johannine narrative is a fiction dictated on the one hand by 
 the desire, the real passion (Keim) of the pseudo- John, to pre- 
 sent Christ as the Paschal lamb, and on the other hand by 
 the tendency to throw as much as possible into the shade the 
 
302 GOSPEL OF JOHN. 
 
 Jewish Paschal feast. — But in thus putting himself in contra- 
 diction to the tradition received in the Church and the ancient 
 Gospels, which had full authority within it, did not the forger 
 run the risk of compromising the entire success of his work ? 
 And that for nothing ; for the typical relation between Christ 
 and the Paschal lamb was a point universally admitted in the 
 second century, on the ground of 1 Cor. v. 7, xi. 24, 25, 1 
 Pet. i. 19, and the Apocalypse, and that abstracting from all 
 chronological connection between the slaying of the lamb and 
 the day of Christ's death. As to the Jewish Passover, it had 
 already given place everywhere in the second century to the 
 Christian Supper (Schurer, pp. 29-34); it was no longer 
 necessary to reduce its importance. 
 
 2d. The interpretation of John which seeks to find in his 
 narrative a meaning ordinarily attributed to the Synoptics 
 (the death of Jesus fixed on the loth Nisan). In spite of all 
 the efforts of erudition and sagacity made by Hengstenberg, 
 Tholuck, Wieseler, Hofmann, Luthardt, Lichtenstein, Lange, 
 Langen, Eiggenbach, Baumlein, Oosterzee, Ebrard, Kirchner, 
 and Eotermund, this explanation seems to conflict with the 
 clear and precise texts of John, and to succumb to their 
 force. 
 
 3d. Various attempts, tending either to put the Israelitish 
 Paschal feast forward by an evening, or to hold two feasts, the 
 one on the 14th, the other on the 15th, of which Jesus chose 
 the former. The Jews this year held the Paschal feast a day 
 earlier (Eusebius and Chrysostom ; see Tholuck, p. 41) ; the 
 Jews made it a day later this year to avoid celebrating two 
 Sabbaths in succession (Friday, 15th, and Saturday, 16th), and 
 Jesus abode by the legal day (Calvin, Beza, Scaliger, Casau- 
 bon) ; the Jews celebrated the Paschal feast every year, and 
 legally on the evening between the 13th and 14th, and not 
 the evening between the 14th and 15 th (Frisch, Eauch) ; 
 Jesus on this occasion followed the practice of some sect, the 
 Karaites, for example, who celebrated the Passover on the 
 evening between the 13th and 14th(Stier); inconsequence 
 of the great number of lambs to be slain in the temple from 
 three to six o'clock (sometimes more than 250,000, according 
 to Josephus), the Galileans (Ebrard) or the Jews of the Dias- 
 pora (Serno) celebrated the feast the evening before the legal 
 
OF THE DAY OF OUR LORD'S DEATH. 303 
 
 day, and Jesus joined them. But there is no contemporary 
 historical ground either in Josephus or Philo, or in the N. T., 
 to support any one of these hypotheses whatever. And yet 
 if ours is rejected, one or other of them must be accepted, 
 unless we take the desperate course to which some condemn 
 themselves : 
 
 4th. That of admitting a contradiction pure and simple 
 between our Gospel narratives, and declaring it insoluble 
 (Liicke, Neander, Bleek, de Wette, Steitz, J. Muller). Comp. 
 also M. de Pressense' (Vie de Jtsus, p. 593): "We regard the 
 question up till now as insoluble, while holding John's 
 account to be entirely correct." Undoubtedly this would be 
 what should be done if the text of the Synoptics refused to be 
 harmonized with the latter. But how explain such a contra- 
 diction on a point like this ? 
 
 To sum up, we think that the difference between John and 
 the Synoptics may be formulated and explained as follows : — 
 
 In editing the oral tradition, the Synoptics contented them- 
 selves, as it had done, with placing Christ's last Supper on the 
 first day of unleavened bread, without expressly distinguishing 
 between the first and second evening of that day. Now, as 
 Jesus had wished to give to this last feast, celebrated on the 
 evening of the 13th, the forms of the Paschal feast with the 
 view of connecting with it the institution of the Holy Supper, 
 while substituting the one of those sacred feasts for the other, 
 a misunderstanding might easily arise ; it might be thought 
 that this feast had been the ordinary Paschal feast, a mistake 
 which would necessarily result in displacing the day of our 
 Lord's death by carrying it over to the 15th. John (as he 
 had done in so many other cases in his Gospel) wished to 
 rectify this misunderstanding and to dissipate the obscurity 
 of the Synoptics, which might give it countenance. He 
 therefore deliberately and clearly restored the real course of 
 things, to which, besides, the synoptical narrative bore testi- 
 mony at all points (comp. in modern times : Krummel, Lit- 
 teralurUatt of Darmstadt, Feb. 1868; Baggesen, Der Apostel 
 Johannes, 1869 ; Andreee, Beiveis des Glaulens, art. quoted). 
 
FIFTH PAET. 
 
 XX. 1-29. 
 
 THE RESURRECTION. 
 
 TE WISH Unbelief had at once consummated and condemned 
 itself in the trial and doom of Jesus. Now, the faith of 
 the disciples reaches its full expansion through the highest 
 earthly manifestation of the glory of Jesus — His resurrection. 
 John's narrative strikes out for itself a firm and sure way 
 through the somewhat divergent narratives of the Synoptics, 
 and without effort gives us a glimpse of their harmony. In 
 a first piece (vv. 1—10), the evangelist relates how he himself 
 attained to faith in the resurrection. Then, in the three 
 following passages, he relates the appearances of Jesus by 
 which this same faith was prepared, then established, and at 
 last consummated in the apostolic circle. These are the 
 appearances to Mary Magdalene (vv. 11—18), to the apostles 
 on the evening of Easter day (vv. 19—23), and to the same, 
 including Thomas, eight days after (vv. 24-29). 
 
 I. Peter and John at the Sepulchre. — Vv. 1—10. 
 
 Everything in this first passage tends to the words of ver. 
 8 : " And he saw, and believed." The part of Mary Magdalene 
 is only that of the messenger who calls the two disciples to 
 the sepulchre. 
 
 Vv. 1-3. " The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene 
 early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepidchre, and seeth the 
 stone taken away from the sepulchre. Then she runneth, and 
 cometh to Simon Peter, and to the other disciple whom Jesus 
 loved, and saith unto them, They have taken away the Lord out 
 of the sepulchre} and we know not where they have laid Him. 
 
 1 S, some Mnn. It ali, J Cop. Sah. add avo m; tvpa; (from the door) before t» 
 rou fji\v)u.uoj (X) Or rov (*.\riy.iic,v. 
 
 304 
 
CHAP. XX. 1-3. 305 
 
 Peter therefore went forth, and that other disciple, and came to the 
 sepulchre." — In the phrase /jlicl twv aafiftaTcov, there might be 
 given to the word aafifiaTa the meaning of Sabbath: "the first 
 day (fiLa) starting from the Sabbath." But Luke xviii. 12 
 proves that adftfiaTov or adfiftara signifies also the whole week, 
 as forming the interval between two Sabbaths. So : " the 
 first (fx,ia) of the days of the week." The greater was the 
 deliverance which Mary Magdalene owed to Jesus (Luke 
 viii. 2 ; Mark xvi. 9), the more fervent was her gratitude, the 
 more lively her attachment to His Person. John does not 
 mention the purpose which brought her to the sepulchre, and 
 which the Synoptics mention, that of embalming the Lord's 
 body. Did she come alone ? That is in itself far from pro- 
 bable. A woman would not have ventured to go alone to the 
 sepulchre at so early an hour. Besides, the Synoptics inform 
 us that her companions had the same intention as she had. 
 Finally, the verb in the plural : we know not, in ver. 2, indi- 
 cates positively that she was not alone. If she only is 
 mentioned, it is because of the part which she plays in the 
 following scene. Meyer objects the ovk olha, I know not, of 
 ver. 1 3, and alleges that this singular counterbalances the plural 
 of ver. 2. A weak reason, which proves that if there is a 
 harmonistic partiality, there may also be an anti-harmonistic 
 passion. Alone with the angels, ver. 13, and naturally 
 enough not speaking with them, but in her own name, she 
 says here : " / know not" and not : " we know not ; " as she 
 says : " my Lord," and not : " the Lord " (ver. 2). Meyer 
 attempts to explain the plural : we know not, by saying that 
 Mary is speaking in the name of the Lord's disciples in general. 
 But why, then, bring in all the believers here, not one of 
 whom, according to Meyer, attested the opening of the tomb 
 with her ? Ewald and Luthardt hold that she arrived alone, 
 and that the other women followed her. But is it not simpler 
 to say that they came all together, and that, as soon as from 
 a distance they saw the tomb open, Mary Magdalene made 
 haste to bring the disciples word, while her companions re- 
 mained in the vicinity of the sepulchre ? When Mary 
 returned with Peter and John, her companions had already 
 gone back to the city. Comp. Luke xxiv. 22, 23 : "Certain 
 women of our company were early at the sepulchre, and when 
 
 GODET III. U JOHN. 
 
306 GOSPEL OF JOHN. 
 
 they found not the body," etc., and Mark xvi. 1-8. — There is 
 only a slight chronological difference between John, Matthew, 
 and Luke on the one side, who say : " When it ivas yet dark" 
 or : "As it began to dawn" and Mark on the other, who says : 
 "At the rising of the sun." Perhaps there were several 
 groups of women, whom each evangelist combines in one. — 
 During Mary's absence, her companions approached the tomb 
 and received the angel's message, which is related by the 
 three Synoptics. As to the appearing of Jesus to the women 
 mentioned by Matt, xxviii. 9, 10, it is certainly no other than 
 the appearance to Mary Magdalene which is about to be 
 described by John himself. Other features detailed coincide 
 perfectly. The first Gospel applies to the whole group what 
 passed in the case of one of its members. Thus is to be 
 understood the account of Mark xvi. 1-8, and the words of 
 the two disciples of Emmaus in Luke xxiv. 22, 23, implying 
 that the women had not seen the Lord. In fact, Mary Mag- 
 dalene not having seen the Lord at the tomb till later, and 
 after the other women had returned to the city, the two 
 disciples of Emmaus had set out from Jerusalem without 
 having heard of this appearance. There were therefore in 
 reality no other appearances on the morning ot that day than 
 that of the angels to the women and to Mary Magdalene, and 
 that of Jesus to the latter. There is no occasion for the loud 
 cries which are uttered by criticism (Keim, iii. p. 530). 
 
 The repetition of the preposition tt/jo?, to the house of, 
 ver. 2, may lead us to conclude that the two disciples had 
 different homes, which is natural, if John lived with his 
 mother and Mary the mother of Jesus. — The term i<pt\ei, 
 loved, which has something more familiar in it than ^ydira, 
 is no doubt used here only as a designation, without par- 
 ticular emphasis, Jesus Himself being absent. — The imp. 
 rip'XpvTo, they were coming, were repairing, the fact pictured. 
 This imperfect of duration reflects the feeling of inexpres- 
 sible expectation which made the heart of the disciple and his 
 companion beat. 
 
 Vv. 4-7. "So they ran loth together: and the other dis- 
 ciple 1 did outrun Peter, and came first to the sepulchre. And 
 lie stooping down, seeth the linen clothes lying ; 2 yet went he 
 1 S omits xai « «xx«$ [tahrns. ? K A X Syr. Cop. Sah. place xuptvx after »6eu*. 
 
CHAP. XX. 8-10. 307 
 
 not in. Then cometh Simon Peter following him, and went 
 into the sepulchre, and seeth the linen clothes lie, 1 and the 
 napkin, that was about His head, not lying with the linen 
 clothes, hut wrapped together in a place by itself" — John, pro- 
 bably younger and more agile, arrives first. But his emotion 
 is so great that he stops at the entrance to the sepulchre 
 after looking in. Peter, of a more masculine and practical 
 character, enters resolutely. These details are so natural, and 
 so much in keeping with the personality of the two disciples, 
 that they bear in themselves the seal of their authenticity. 
 They remind us of the details of ch. i. — The pres. he seeth 
 (ver. 5) contrasts with the Aor. came (ver. 4) ; the same con- 
 trast reappears between the verbs he went into and he seeth 
 (ver. 6). John hereby brings out the contrast between the 
 single moment of arrival, and the attentive and prolonged 
 examination which follows it in either case. The 0€oopel, con- 
 siders, includes observation and reflection on the fact. This 
 linen displayed to view, did not lead to the supposition of a 
 removal ; the body would not have been taken away entirely 
 naked. The napkin especially, wrapped together and care- 
 fully put aside, attested not a precipitate removal, but a calm 
 and holy awakening. There was matter of reflection here for 
 the two disciples. 
 
 Vv. 8—10. "Then ivcnt in also that other disciple which 
 came first to the sepulchre, and he saw, and believed. For as 
 yet they knew 2 not the scripture, that He must rise again from 
 the dead. Then the disciples went away again unto their 
 own home!' — The singulars, he saw and he believed, are remark- 
 able. Till now, the two disciples had been spoken of; and 
 in ver. 9 the plural is resumed : they knew not. What is 
 meant in such a context by these two verbs in the singular, 
 if they do not indicate an experience peculiar to this dis- 
 ciple ? Here is an incident in the author's inmost life. He 
 initiates us into the way by which he reached faith in the 
 resurrection first of all, and then through it to complete 
 faith in Christ as the Messiah and Son of God. The idea 
 of believing cannot, in fact, refer solely, as some have thought, 
 
 1 X omits the end of ver. 5 from ou and all ver. 6 (confusion of the two r. o. 
 
 ttii/ittd), 
 
 2 N It ali< * : tihi. 
 
303 GOSPEL OF JOHN. 
 
 to the report of Mary Magdalene. On seeing the state of 
 the tomb and the position of the linen clothes, the disciple 
 arrived at this conviction : Jesus lives. And perhaps this 
 is the explanation why there is no mention of any particular 
 appearance of the Lord to His beloved disciple, while there 
 is mention of appearances to Peter and James. On the other 
 hand, we must not see in these two words, he saw and he 
 believed, an eulogy which in this case would rather be a boast. 
 They contain a reproach or, better still, a confession. For 
 the following verse proves that we must paraphrase : " he saw 
 and he believed at length." John himself is amazed at the 
 state of ignorance in which he, like Peter, had been plunged 
 till then, in regard to the Scripture prophecies announcing the 
 resurrection of the Messiah. He says rjSeiaav, which has the 
 meaning of the imperfect, not the pluperfect. " They knew 
 not," not even then ! It was the teaching of Jesus after His 
 resurrection which opened the disciple's eyes on this point, as 
 on so many others. Luke xxiv. 25-27 and 45. 
 
 As to Peter, the sight of the interior of the sepulchre did 
 not yet bring him to faith. To gain this result fully, there 
 was needed the Lord's appearance, which was granted him 
 that same day (Luke xxiv. 34; 1 Cor. xv. 5). — The parallel 
 of Luke xxiv. 1 2 is probably nothing more than a gloss bor- 
 rowed from John's narrative. And hence we make no use of 
 it. — This whole passage relating to the disciple whom Jesus 
 loved and to Peter, presents one of the most striking instances 
 of the autobiographic character of our Gospel. 
 
 The Tubingen school, followed in this by M. Eenan and 
 Strauss (in his second Leben Jesu), think that this narrative 
 is a fiction intended to place John in all respects on a 
 level with Peter. John, it is said, seeks systematically " to 
 put himself above Peter " (M. Eenan). How ? Because he 
 ascribes to himself more agile limbs, but less courage ? Or 
 Peter and John personify, the one the carnal Christianity of 
 the Twelve, the other Johannine spiritual Christianity. How 
 so ? Does not John accuse himself of having required to 
 see in order to believe ? Does not all this Machiavellism 
 ascribed to the evangelist vanish before the simple reading of 
 this narrative ? Is the sense of the true and pure really 
 paralyzed in our critics ? 
 
CHAP. XX. 11-13. 309 
 
 11. Colani sees in the words, ver. 9 : " they knew not the 
 scripture" a contradiction to the predictions of the resur- 
 rection put into the mouth of Jesus by the Synoptics. If 
 those predictions were real, the evangelist would have said : 
 " they knew not the predictions of Jesus." 1 But John has 
 himself already explained to us (ii. 22), that scripture was 
 the medium through which he came to understand the pro- 
 phecies of Jesus regarding His Person : " When He was risen 
 from the dead . . . His disciples believed the scripture, and 
 the words which Jesus had spoken." And then John had 
 quoted no other prophecies regarding His resurrection than 
 that of ch. ii. ; he was not, therefore, obliged to make special 
 allusion here to such prophecies. 
 
 II. The Appearance to Mary Magdalene. — Vv. 11-18. 
 
 Mary Magdalene has just been the messenger to the two 
 chief disciples announcing the empty tomb ; she is to become 
 to them and to all the others the first herald of the living 
 Jesus. 
 
 Vv. 11—13. "But Mary stood without at the sepulchre' 1 
 weeping : and as she wept, she stooped down, and looked into 
 the sepulchre, and secth two angels 3 in white sitting, the one 
 at the head, and the other at the feet, where the body of Jesus 
 had lain. And they say unto her, Woman, why weepest thou ? 
 She saith unto them, Because they have- taken aivay my Lord, 
 and I know not where they have laid Him." — Peter and John 
 withdraw, the one meditating, the other already believing ; 
 Mary remains and weeps. Jesus, adapting His conduct, as 
 He always did, to the wants of each of His own, reveals 
 Himself to this suffering, loving soul. There is nothing to 
 prevent us from taking the partic. pres. /caOe&iievovs, sitting, 
 in its strictly grammatical sense. She sees the two angels at 
 the time of their appearance. This fact does not contradict 
 the previous appearance of an angel to the women who had 
 first visited the tomb. Angels are not immoveable and visible 
 
 1 J6sus Christ et les croyances messianlques de son temps, p. 112. 
 
 2 Instead of ■rpos *■« pinpuev, ABEGHLMaa, 60 Mim. read Tfo; ru 
 ftvffi.uu, X ev tu fimptiu (rejecting sgw with A ItP leri y ue Syr.). 
 
 1! j$ omits 2«/o before ayyiXiut. 
 
310 GOSPEL OF JOHX. 
 
 after the fashion of stone statues. — Mary answers the question 
 of the heavenly ambassadors as simply as if she had been 
 conversing with human beings, so thoroughly is she pre- 
 occupied with a single idea: to recover her Master. Who 
 would have invented a touch like this ? 
 
 Vv. 14-16. "And when she had thus said, she turned her- 
 self back, and saw Jesus standing, and knew not that it was 
 Jesus. Jesus saith unto her, Woman, why weepest thou ? 
 whom seekest thou ? She, supposing Him to be the gardener, 
 saith unto Him, Sir, if thou have borne Him hence} tell me 
 vjhere thou hast laid Him, and I will take Him away. 
 Jesus saith unto her, Mary. She turned herself, and saith 
 unto HimJ Babboni ; which is to say, Master" — Mary, after 
 bending for a little over the sepulchre, raises herself and 
 turns round as if to seek Him of whom she is in quest. 
 His transition from His former to His new life, without 
 destroying the identity of the body of Jesus, had yet 
 wrought a change in His whole Person : He appeared iv 
 eripa f^op<j>fj, says Mark (xvi. 12). His own who saw Him 
 again had an experience something like that which passes 
 with us when we meet a friend after a long separation ; we 
 need a longer or shorter time to recognise him, and the 
 simplest manifestation in such a case is often sufficient to 
 make the bandage fall from our eyes. — It has been asked 
 what garments Jesus wore, and it has been supposed that He 
 had borrowed the clothes of the gardener. Are this question 
 and answer in keeping with the conditions of the new exist- 
 ence of the glorified Jesus ? — The most personal thing in 
 human manifestations is the sound of the voice ; it is thus 
 that Jesus makes Himself known to her. The tone which 
 the name Mary takes in His mouth expresses all that she is 
 to Him, and all that He is to her. — It appears from the word 
 aTpafaicra, turning herself back, that she had again fixed her 
 eyes on the tomb. For she was agitated, and sought first on 
 one side, then on the other. And now, at the sound of that 
 well-known voice, trembling with joy to the very depths of 
 her soul, she in turn puts all her being into the cry : " My 
 Master ! " and casts herself at His feet, seeking to clasp them, 
 
 1 J$ ; (/ rv u a (ha.irTa.ira.;. 
 
 2 SBDLOXAn,7 Mnn. ItP I » i i u « Syr. ?op. read sfya^r, after avrm. 
 
CHAP. XX. 17, 18. 311 
 
 as is shown by ver. 17. — Bdbboni, which occurs only here and 
 in Mark x. 51, is a form of the word Rabban. — The * is 
 either the » paragogic or the suffix my. In the second case, 
 it must have gradually lost its signification, which explains 
 why the evangelist does not translate it. 
 
 Vv. 17, 18. "Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not 
 yet ascended to my Father : 1 hut go to my brethren, 1 and say 
 unto them, I ascend 2 unto my Father, and your Father, to 
 my God, and your God. Mary Magdalene comes and tells 3 
 the disciples that she had seen the Lord, and that He had spoken 
 these things unto her." — If we put ourselves at the standpoint 
 of chs. xiv.-xvi., the words of ver. 17 do not present the 
 great difficulties which have been found in them. Jesus had 
 said : "Ye shall see me, because I go to my Father " (xvi. 16), 
 which meant that it would not be till after His ascension 
 and from the midst of His Divine glory that He would 
 re-form the tie which His death was about to sever. His 
 appearances as the Eisen One were not therefore intended 
 to establish the new state of communion between them and 
 Him, but to prepare for it, to render it possible by laying the 
 foundation of faith in the hearts of His own. This thought 
 explains the words : " Touch me not." "Airreadai denotes a 
 touch intended not to hold the object (tcpaTeiv), but to possess 
 or enjoy it : to attach oneself to. " It is not yet the time 
 for laying hold of me, as if my promise to return to you 
 were already accomplished." According to Luke xxiv., Jesus 
 in one of His appearances uses this remarkable expression : 
 " While I was yet with you." He is no longer with them : He 
 only appears to them ; but soon He will be in them. Then 
 they will have Him anew. The regimen fiov, me, is placed 
 before the verb, with a certain emphasis : " Me, as I am here 
 before thee in my human individuality." In this sense, the 
 motive assigned by Jesus : "for I am not yet ascended . . .," 
 is easily understood. " I have not yet reached the state by 
 means of which I shall be able to live with you in the 
 communion which I promised you." Jesus does not use 
 the Aor. avej3?)v, which would signify : " I have not yet done 
 
 1 N B D It aU i reject ftov after vrarspx, and ^ D ftes after aliX^ou;. 
 * N adds iiiv before ttt»fi«ntt. 
 
 S N A BI X; ocyyiXXevra for urayyiXXivtra. 
 
312 GOSPEL OF JOHN. 
 
 the act of ascending." It is not an act which is in question, 
 but a state. Hence the perfect ava{Se(Sr)Ka : " I am not 
 yet in the state of one who has ascended ; I have not yet 
 acquired that supreme position which is the condition of 
 our mutual meeting." We can see by this denial of Jesus 
 that the disciples considered His death as having already 
 realized the promise which He had made to them of ascend- 
 ing to the Father. Thus the resurrection disappeared ; for 
 death became the ascension itself ; and if He was to reappear, 
 it must be not as the Risen One, but as the Glorified One 
 descending from the bosom of the Father. For the notion 
 of the resurrection there was substituted that of a Parousia. 
 Such was undoubtedly the figurative sense which the disciples 
 instinctively had given to the resurrection promises related 
 by the Synoptics. The surprise which the resurrection caused 
 them is therefore perfectly compatible with the historic reality 
 of these promises. In opposition to all these ideas, Jesus 
 declares that He is not yet ascended, but that now only He is 
 about to ascend. The resurrection is the first stage of His 
 glorification, of His return to the Father, which, far from being 
 finished, begins that very day (pres. / ascend). 
 
 As with the instant of His death His resurrection began 
 (xix. 34), so from the moment of the resurrection dates the 
 beginning of His ascension. Instead, therefore, of luxuriat- 
 ing in this moment of possession, as if Jesus were really 
 restored to her, Mary must rise and go to tell the disciples 
 what is passing. " But go . . ." is opposed to the act of 
 staying to enjoy that which is about to be taken from her (as 
 from the two of Emmaus). The message with which Jesus 
 charges her for His own thus signifies : " From the time that 
 I shall be in my state of glory, I shall make you sharers 
 in it, and then nothing shall separate you more from me." 
 Hence the expressions : " my brethren" and " my Father and 
 your Father . . ." They bring out the indissoluble unity 
 which shall exist between them and Him in the new state upon 
 which He is just entering. They shall be before God exactly 
 in the same position as Himself. Calvin and Hengstenberg 
 here refer to Ps. xxii. 23, where the Messiah, rescued from 
 His sufferings, exclaims : " / will declare Thy name unto 
 my brethren ; " comp. also Matt, xxviii. 10: "Go tell my 
 
 
CHAP. XX. 17, 18. 313 
 
 brethren:" He goes to prepare the place (xiv. 2, 3), to make 
 the heetrt of His Father and His God to be the heart of their 
 Father and their God. Col. iii. 3 : "Ye are dead, and your 
 life ii hid with Christ in God." Jesus does not say : our 
 Father, our God, because God is not their Father, their God, 
 in the sense in which He is His. The word Father describes 
 filial intimacy ; the word God complete dependence. These 
 two features which have characterized the worship of Jesus 
 and His entire life, while preserving in Him an exclusive 
 character, will henceforth be reflected in the life of His 
 own. Comp. Gal. iv. 6 : " Because ye are sons, God hath sent 
 forth the Spirit of the Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, 
 Father ! " 
 
 The explanation which we have just given is almost that 
 of Calvin, 1 and approximates very nearly to that of de Wette, 
 Gerlach, and Luthardt. The principal divergent explanations 
 are : 1st. That of Beza, Bengel, and Hofmann : "Stay not to 
 touch me, but haste thee, go and tell . . ." But the following 
 words : " / am not yet ascended" present absolutely no sense. 
 2d. That of Liicke and Hilgenfeld : " Do not worship me ; 
 for I have not yet entered into my Divine glory {aTneaOai in 
 the classical sense of aTneadai, iroSoov, <yovaT(ov)." But eight 
 days later Jesus accepts the worship of Thomas. 3d. That 
 of Neander : " Do not hold me thus ; I am not disposed to 
 escape from thee." For this meaning Kpciret would be needed 
 rather than airrov, and the explanation : " / am not yet 
 ascended," does not give a clear sense. 4th. That of Paulus, 
 Schleiermacher, and Olshausen : " My body is still suffering 
 from its wounds," or " is yet in a state of transformation ; 
 do not touch it." But that very evening Jesus invites His 
 disciples to touch Him (Luke xxiv. 39). 5th. That of 
 Meyer : " Do not touch me thus to be assured that I am 
 corporeally present ; I have not yet returned to the state of 
 pure spirit." But, in the Bible view, Jesus glorified does not 
 become pure spirit. 6th. That of Baur : " Do not detain 
 me ; for at this very moment I rise to my Father." Baur 
 
 1 The meaning of these words is, that the condition of His resurrection will 
 not be at all full or perfect until He is seated at His Father's right hand, and 
 so that the women do wrong in that, contenting themselves merely with the 
 half of His resurrection, they desire to have Him present in the world. 
 
314 COSPEL OF JOHN. 
 
 thinks that, according to our Gospel, the ascension must be 
 placed on this very day, so that the following appearance, 
 vv. 19-23, is posterior to that event. But there was no 
 reason in that case to begin with saying : "I am not ascended." 
 It would be necessary to say immediately : "for I am 
 ascending." And how could the ascension have taken place 
 that day, when in the appearance of the evening, and in 
 that which took place eight days after, Jesus convinces His 
 disciples of His sensible presence in the midst of them ? 
 When the glorified Saviour appears to Paul, He does not say 
 to him : Touch me ! Jesus wishes, therefore, to raise the 
 thoughts of Mary and His disciples from this passing re- 
 appearance, which is only a means, to the permanent spiritual 
 communion which is the end, and of which His perfect 
 elevation to the Father is the yet uncompleted condition. — 
 This warning applies to all the visits which shall follow, and 
 is intended to console His own for the disappearances which 
 terminate them. 
 
 The pres. she comes (ver. 18) expresses in all its vividness 
 the surprise produced among the disciples by Mary's arrival 
 and message. — The identity of this appearance with that related 
 by Matthew appears from the words : " Touch vie not" com- 
 pared with these : " They held Him by the feet . . . ; " " Go 
 thou and tell my brethren," comp. with these : " Go ye and tell 
 my brethren" But what unprejudiced man could hold, with 
 some of our critics, 1 that the scene in John is a poetical 
 amplification of the short narrative of Matthew enlarged with 
 some details from Mark and Luke ? Is it not plain, on the 
 contrary, that Matthew's account is only a vague and imperfect 
 summary of tradition, while John's description reproduces the 
 scene in all its primitive freshness and vividness ? 
 
 III. The First Appearance to the Disciples. — Vv. 19-23. 
 
 The Lord proceeds gradually in His self-revelation. The 
 appearance to Mary Magdalene, prepared for by that of the 
 angels, prepares in its turn, by the message confided to her for 
 
 1 Keim for example, iii. p. 558 : "The evangelist of Christian mysticism 
 borrows from Matthew the visit of Mary Magdalene to the sepulchre, and the 
 message to the disciples ..." 
 
CHAP. XX. 19, 20. 315 
 
 the disciples, for the appearing of Jesus in the midst of them. 
 Three manifestations of the Eisen One took place during the 
 second half of that day, the appearance to the two disciples of 
 Emmaus, that which was granted to St. Peter (Luke xxiv. 
 13-32, 34; Mark xvi. 12, 13), and that the account of 
 which we are about to consider. This one must be identical 
 with those related by Luke (xxiv. 36 et seq.) and Mark 
 (xvi. 14); it took place in the evening, according to all the 
 accounts. 
 
 Vv. 19, 20. " Tlien the same day at evening, being the first 
 day of the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples 
 were 1 for fear of the Jews, came Jesus and stood in the midst, 
 and saith unto them, Peace be unto you. And when He had 
 so said, He showed unto them His hands and His side? Then 
 were the disciples glad, when they scau the Lord." — The phrase : 
 " the doors were shut" can only be meant to indicate the 
 miraculous way in which Jesus entered. Strauss goes the 
 length of declaring, in opposition to Schleiermacher, that it 
 needs a veritable induration against the real sense of the 
 Gospel text to maintain the contrary. Calvin and M. de 
 Pressense suppose that the doors opened miraculously (comp. 
 Acts xii. 10). Yet the natural sense of the expression is that 
 the doors were and remained closed, and that Jesus appeared, 
 rather than entered. In truth, the body of Jesus was still 
 that which had served Him as the organ of His activity during 
 His life (ver. 20) ; but, as is proved by His walking on the 
 waters, this body before His death was subject to the power 
 of the Spirit (vi. 16-21) ; and now it was still more assimi- 
 lated to the nature of the spiritual or glorified body (1 Cor. 
 xv. 44). Now the characteristic of the latter is its being 
 subject to the free disposition of the Spirit. Hence the word 
 eanj, which occurs also in Luke's narrative : " He stood there," 
 without any one having seen Him enter. We can understand 
 the terror of the disciples and their supposition : it is a 
 spirit (Luke xxiv. 37). To this mode of appearing there 
 correspond the sudden disappearings (Luke xxiv. 31 : a^avro*; 
 ejeveTo). — The salutation of Jesus is the same in Luke and 
 John : " Peace be unto you." It is the ordinary Jewish form, 
 
 1 T. R. adds <rvvwyf*,i»at, omitted in N A B D I A, « lVTnn. It sIi, » Syr. 
 
 8 ^ ABD I; T«J Xtip*> *«' TJ>v rXiupxt xvtoi; ; A E : xxt tk; %iipo.f. 
 
316 GOSPEL CF JOHN. 
 
 but serving here to express an entirely new thought. Jesus 
 invites His disciples to open their hearts to the peace which 
 He has just secured for them by His redeeming work, and 
 which He brings them as the Eisen One. All the painful 
 emotions through which they have passed, the fear which they 
 still feel, all their former and present trouble, must give place 
 to complete serenity in the certainty that God is for them ; 
 comp. Eph. ii. 17: " He came and preached peace." — The 
 words: " When He had so said" (ver. 20), are intended to 
 bring out the relation between this prayer and the following 
 act. To convince them of the bodily reality of His appearance 
 is to give them, by the greatest of miracles, the transcendent 
 proof of Divine good-will toward their Master and toward 
 themselves. Besides, from the moment they have satisfied 
 themselves of the identity of His Person, their terror is changed 
 not only into peace, but into joy. 
 
 Vv. 21-23. " Then said Jesus 1 to them again, Peace be unto 
 you : as my Father hath sent me, even so send 2 / yon. And 
 when He had said this, He breathed on them, and saith unto 
 them, Receive ye [the] Holy Spirit. Whosesoever 3 sins ye remit, 
 they are remitted* unto them; and whosesoever sins ye retain, 
 they are retained." — It is not only in regard to their past and 
 to them as believers that Jesus wishes to communicate 
 peace ; it is also in view of their future and of their apostolic 
 calling that He assures them of it. Hence the repetition of 
 the prayer : "Peace be unto you." They must face their ministry 
 with that peace of reconciliation which they are to preach 
 to the world (2 Cor. v. 20). On the foundation of the work 
 accomplished by Him, Jesus confers on them the office (ver. 
 21b), then communicates to them the gift of the ministry, in 
 so far as He is able to do so in His present position (ver. 22) ; 
 and finally He reveals to them the greatness of the work which 
 they have to accomplish (ver. 23). 
 
 Strictly speaking, there is only one mission from heaven to 
 earth, that of Jesus. He is the Apostle (Heb. iii. 1). That of 
 
 1 T. R. reads Uoom before a-aJuv, which is omitted by S D L X itpieriqu. 
 Vg. Cop. 
 
 2 Instead of •xift.'xu, K : ki/u.-J'u ; D L : a.-xoanXXa>. 
 
 3 Instead of nvu*, B It aliq : nves. 
 
 * The Mss. are divided between afanrai, in T. It. with 11 Mjj. (E G I, etc.) e 
 and tcifiuvrai (A D L X). 
 
CHAP. XX. 21-23. 317 
 
 the disciples is embraced in His, and completes its realization. 
 Hence it comes that Jesus, when speaking of Himself, uses the 
 most solemn term airearaXKe : His is an embassy ; while in 
 passing to them He makes use of the simpler term ireinrw : 
 they are envoys. 
 
 As there is but one mission, that of Jesus, so there is but 
 one power, that of the Holy Spirit whom Jesus communicates. 
 The words : " when He had so said" serve, like ver. 2 0, to 
 connect the following act closely with the preceding words. 
 After conferring the office, Jesus conveys the gift. There are 
 two extreme opinions as to the value of the act described in 
 this verse. According to Chrysostom, Grotius, and Tholuck, 
 it is simply a symbol, a promise. But is this meaning com- 
 patible with the imper. Xaftere, receive ? There would be 
 needed : ye shall receive. This phrase implies an actual com- 
 munication. On the other hand, Baur alleges that here is 
 Pentecost itself, so far as it was known to the evangelist. 
 But the absence of the article before irvevfia ayiov could not 
 well be explained in this sense. The natural meaning of the 
 words of Jesus is : " Beceive an effusion of the Spirit." What 
 Jesus gives them is not a simple promise, but neither is it 
 the fulness of the Spirit ; it is an earnest. Baised Himself to 
 a degree of higher life, He hastes to make them sharers in it 
 as far as that is possible. This communication is to the 
 resurrection what Pentecost will be to the ascension. As by 
 Pentecost He will initiate them into His ascension, so by 
 breathing on them now He associates them with His life as 
 the Bisen One. Some commentators, M. Beuss for example, 
 see here an allusion to Gen. ii. 7 : " The Lord breathed into his 
 nostrils the breath of life." Jesus would thus stand forth as 
 the author of the new spiritual creation which is to sanctify 
 and consummate the natural creation. But perhaps His 
 thought is rather related to the future than to the past, and 
 He means : " When the promised day shall come on which 
 you shall feel the mysterious breathing, ye shall recognise in 
 that breath of the Spirit the gift of your glorified Master." 
 What was the immediate fruit of that preparatory communica- 
 tion, that anticipatory Pentecost ? Luke informs us when he 
 says (xxiv. 45) : " Then opened He their understanding, that 
 
 ' might understand the Scriptures." The meaning of the 
 
318 GOSPEL OK JOHN. 
 
 whole theocratic work and word was unveiled to them. It 
 may be said that the Gospel of St. Matthew is the fruit of this 
 first inspiration. 
 
 The commission and the gift point to a work to be realized. 
 This work is presented in ver. 2 3 in all its grandeur : it is 
 the salvation, or, if not, the condemnation of humanity. Hence- 
 forth men will no more have to do, as in the Old Testament, 
 with a provisional pardon or a rejection which may be revoked. 
 With Pentecost, the world enters into the domain of absolute 
 and immoveable realities. It has been sought to limit the 
 meaning of the words used by Jesus in this verse to the offer 
 or declaration of pardon, as well as to the threatening of dam- 
 nation by the preaching of the Gospel. But the words of 
 which He makes use involve positive action, real efficacy. 
 We only need to remember that the ministry of the word 
 (ver. 21) is carried out in the power of the Spirit (ver. 22). 
 It is this Divine force which through its human organ looses 
 or binds, removes or seals sin. Peter and Paul did not merely 
 speak to the world of salvation or damnation. They consum- 
 mated the double work of the salvation of the Gentiles and 
 the rejection of the Jews, and thus presented to the Church 
 the most striking example of the fulfilment of these words. 
 Comp. Acts x. 34 et seq., xiii. 45 et seq., xxviii. 25 et seq. 
 The pres. d^levrai (literally, are pardoned) indicates a present 
 effect ; the perf. afyewvrai, found in several Alexandrines, 
 would signify : " are and remain pardoned." This perfect has 
 probably been introduced to render this proposition sym- 
 metrical with the following (/ce/cpciTrjvTai,). The copyists did 
 not understand that, in the former case, a deed is in question, 
 which is accomplished at the instant when the Divine act 
 emancipates the believer; while, in the second, Jesus is speak- 
 ing of a state which is the consequence of unbelief itself, and 
 which continues. The order of the two propositions indicates 
 that the first of those two effects is the true object of the 
 mission, and that the second is not destined to be realized 
 save in those cases in which the first fails. 
 
 IV. The Second Appearance to the Disciples. — Vv. 24-29. 
 A last leaven of unbelief remained still in the circle of the 
 
CHAP. XX. 24-27. 319 
 
 Twelve. It is rooted out, and the development of faith reaches 
 its goal in all the future witnesses of the Christ. 
 
 Vv. 24, 25. "But Thomas, one of the Twelve, called Bidymus, 
 was not with them when 1 Jesus came. Wlien therefore^ the other 
 disciples said unto him, We have seen the Lord, he said unto 
 them, Except I shall see in His hands the print 2 of the nails, 
 and thrust my hand into His side, I will not believe." — On 
 SiSvfxos, twin, see xi. 16. We have learned to know Thomas 
 from xi. 16 and xiv. 5 ; the impression made on him by his 
 Master's death does not surprise us. It could not fail to be 
 that of deep discouragement. " I told Him so," this no doubt 
 was what he kept repeating to himself. His absence on that 
 first day could not be without relation to that feeling of bitter- 
 ness, and this is confirmed by the manner in which he receives 
 the testimony of his brethren. There is tenacity even in the 
 form of his utterance, especially in the deliberate repetition of 
 his phrases. And so we need not hold, with Tischendorf, the 
 reading roirov, the place, instead of the second tvttov, the print; 
 this reading takes away precisely from the denial of the 
 disciple its marked character of obstinacy. Thomas does not 
 speak of the feet; this is perfectly simple in the circum- 
 stances, and it is ridiculous to conclude from it, as some 
 commentators do, that the feet were not nailed. 
 
 Vv. 26, 27. "And after eight days again His disciples 
 were within, and Thomas with them : Jesus came, the doors 
 being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, Peace be unto you. 
 Then saith He to Tlwmas, Reach hither thy finger, and, behold 
 my hands ; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my 
 side : and become not faithless, but believing." — The disciples 
 spent the whole Passover week at Jerusalem; that was 
 natural. At the utmost stretch, they might have set out for 
 Galilee on the Sunday which followed the second Saturday 
 of the feast. What was it that detained them still on that 
 day ? Is it not allowable to suppose that it was the fear 
 of abandoning Thomas, and of losing him if they left him 
 behind in the state of mind in which he had passed the 
 
 1 N adds ovv after on, and rejects it in ver. 25 after iXtyo*. 
 
 2 A I ItP !er 'i ue Vg. Syr. Or. read totov (the place) instead of tutov, and N : m 
 tw x''P a * (sic) awrov (except I put my finger into His hand, and except I put my 
 hand into His side). 
 
320 GOSPEL OF JOHN. 
 
 week ? — In His salutation Jesus includes this disciple also ; 
 nay, it is to him that He addresses it specially, for he is the 
 only one who does not yet enjoy the peace which faith gives. 
 — The almost literal reproduction of the disciple's rash words 
 is intended to make him blush at the grossness and carnality 
 of such exactions. — By the expression : " become not," Jesus 
 gives him to understand that he is now at the critical point 
 at which the two routes diverge : that of decided unbelief, and 
 that of perfect faith. 
 
 Vv. 28, 29. " Thomas answered 1 and said unto Him, My 
 Lord and my God. Jesus saith 2 unto him, Because thou 
 hast seen me, 3 thou hast believed: blessed are they that have 
 not seen, 4 and yet have believed." — What produces so pro- 
 found an impression on Thomas is not merely the conviction 
 of the reality of the resurrection, but also the proof of 
 omniscience which the Lord gives him by repeating the words 
 which he thought he had uttered in His absence. And it is 
 this immediate contact at once with the Divine attribute 
 of omniscience, and with victory over death, which inspires 
 him with the cry of adoration which goes forth from his 
 heart. This scene recalls that of Nathanael (ch. i.). As in 
 the case of that disciple, the light shines at this supreme 
 moment with sudden splendour to the very depths of Thomas' 
 soul; and by one of those reactions frequent in the moral 
 life, he rises at a single bound from the lowest depths of 
 faith to its very pinnacle, and proclaims the divinity of his 
 Master in a more categorical form than had ever passed 
 from the lips of any of his colleagues. The last becomes for 
 the time the first, and the faith of the apostles, as pro- 
 fessed by Thomas, attains at length to the full height of the 
 Divine truth formulated by the prologue. It is in vain for 
 Theodore of Mopsuestia and others to attempt to apply to 
 God, and not to Jesus, Thomas' cry of adoration. In that 
 case, it should not be eiirev avrw, " he said to Him ; " and 
 the word my Lord can only refer to Jesus. To this the 
 
 1 7 Mjj. (K B C D I, etc.) ItP'« !( i ue reject kx, before et*i»p,fv. 
 
 2 Instead of Xiyu, N : £/«» Ss. 
 
 3 All the Mjj. 150 Mnn. It. Syr. reject Quua after ««/>***; pi. Instead of 
 it, N reads x«/. 
 
 4 X Syr. read^t after iSotrss. 
 
CHAP. XX. 23, 29. 321 
 
 monotheism of Thomas is objected. But it is for the 
 very reason that the disciple understands that henceforth he 
 bears toward Jesus a feeling which transcends all that can 
 be accorded to a creature, that he is forced by his very 
 monotheism to place this being in the heart of Deity. — The 
 objective validity of this feeling in Thomas is attested by 
 the manner in which Jesus receives the expression of it. The 
 Lord does not repress this outburst, like the angel of the 
 Apocalypse, who says to John : " Worship God." He answers, 
 on the contrary : " Thou hast believed." In an article of the 
 Lien (May 1869), it is objected that this approving answer 
 relates not to the exclamation : " my God" but to his faith 
 in the fact of the resurrection. But the two convictions of 
 the resurrection of Jesus and of His Divine character are 
 absolutely confounded in the impression of Thomas : the one 
 is involved in the other; and it is this faith with its full 
 object, as Thomas has just expressed it, which Jesus hails. 
 Otherwise he could easily have removed the alloy while 
 preserving the pure gold. 
 
 The perf. ireirla-revKa^ does not signify merely : Thou hast 
 performed an act of faith, but : Thou art henceforth in posses- 
 sion of complete faith. These words, like those of Jesus to 
 Nathanael, i. 50, and to the disciples, xvi. 31, may be taken 
 as an affirmation. But Meyer observes, not without reason, 
 that the side of rebuke emphasized by the words : " because thou 
 hast seen" comes out better with the interrogative form. In 
 the last words Jesus describes the entirely new character of 
 the era which is beginning, the era of a faith which shall 
 have to content itself with the apostolic testimony, without 
 claiming, like Thomas, to check it with its own eyes. The 
 words thus close the history of the development of faith in 
 the apostles, while opening the history of the Church. Baur 
 alleges that Jesus is here contrasting with faith in external 
 facts that which seeks its contents only in itself, in the idea 
 of which it is henceforth fully conscious. It is easy to see 
 that vv. 30 and 31 are entirely opposed to this view. And 
 so Baur declares them interpolated, though they are not 
 wanting in any document. The contrast which Jesus indi- 
 cates is that between a faith which, to accept the miraculous 
 fact, insists on seeing it, and a faith which consents to accept 
 
 GODET III. X JOHN. 
 
322 GOSPEL OF JOHN. 
 
 it on the foundation of testimony. In the first way, faith 
 would be possible for the world only on condition ot miracles 
 being renewed unceasingly, and appearances of Jesus being 
 repeated to every individual. Such was not to be the course 
 of God's operation on the earth, and hence Jesus calls those 
 blessed who shall believe by the solitary means of that faith 
 to which Thomas insisted on adding the other. — The Aorist 
 participles ISovTes, iriGTevaavres, are taken from the stand- 
 point of one who places himself at the goal of the development 
 of the Church, and casts his eyes backwards on the way 
 in which all the glorified have attained to faith, and thereby 
 to life (ver. 31). 
 
 These words of Jesus, which indicate the goal of the 
 development of faith in the apostolic circle, and the point of 
 departure for the history of faith on the earth, are the normal 
 conclusion of a Gospel like John's, which rests on this 
 thought : the manifestation of the glory of Jesus producing 
 on the one hand unbelief, which separates from God, and on 
 the other faith, which unites to Him. 
 
 Of the Resurrection of Jesus. 
 
 Here, as Strauss says, is " the decisive point at which the 
 naturalistic school must retract all its previous assertions, 
 or succeed in explaining faith in the resurrection without 
 bringing in a corresponding miraculous fact." * It is no 
 longer possible to have recourse to the customary expedients, 
 " the secret forces of spontaneity," " the contact of an exquisite 
 person," etc. For no human being took part in the resur- 
 rection of Jesus. If He really left the tomb after being laid 
 there dead, it was indubitably Divine power which broke 
 forth in this central fact of history ; and, as Peter says, " God 
 hath raised up Jesus" "What, do you think it impossible that 
 God should raise the dead ? " asked St. Paul of King Agrippa 
 and the Governor Festus. — Yes; for it is contrary to the 
 laws of nature. — But if the laws of nature were in this 
 case the very element ordering the fact which you deny 
 in their name ? Does not the same natural law, in virtue 
 of which sin separates from God and kills, require that 
 
 1 Das Leben Jesu, 1864, p. 2S3. 
 
OF THE RESURRECTION OF JESUS. 323 
 
 holiness should unite to God and vivify ? Is not this 
 moral effect as necessary as the physical effect of whole- 
 some nourishment to strengthen the body, or of a poisoned 
 drink to destroy it ? If Jesus was free from all sin, and 
 supported Himself here below only on holiness, if He lived 
 on God (John vi. 57), is not life the crown which should 
 await this bold, this unequalled conqueror at the close 
 of His career ? And if, to fulfil the law which condemns 
 sinful humanity, He gives Himself up voluntarily to death, 
 will not this blow, falling upon a nature perfectly sound, 
 both morally and physically, and reaching it only from 
 without, meet, — will it not awake even, in this exceptional 
 organism powers of reaction which are also exceptional, and 
 from which Divine power will draw forth life as legitimately 
 and necessarily as death is evolved from the action of sin ? 
 Certain symptoms in the body of Jesus betrayed, as we have 
 seen, an unexampled vital reaction at the moment when 
 dissolution commences in every other body. And that loud 
 final cry with which He gave up His life and left it, not to 
 be wrung from Him like the sinner, is another evidence, at 
 once physical and moral, of an exceptional state fitted for the 
 triumph of life over death, strength over weakness. 
 
 In these circumstances, then, the laws of physical and 
 moral nature, far from protesting against the resurrection of 
 Jesus, imperiously demand it. 
 
 Is it possible ? If it is morally necessary, it must be 
 possible, unless we are to affirm an irreconcilable dualism 
 between being and virtue, which would be the destruction of 
 monotheism. The essence of being, and consequently also 
 of matter, is will ; and as the law of the Divine will is 
 virtue, it cannot be allowed that any part of being whatever 
 escapes from the law of virtue. The will which made matter 
 appear in relation to free being did not abdicate its power 
 in relation to it, but reserved to itself the means of always 
 ruling it and making it subserve the education and final 
 destiny of free being. " Every historian," says Strauss, " should 
 possess philosophy enough to be able to deny miracles here as 
 well as elsewhere." " Every true philosopher," we shall reply, 
 " should be sufficiently initiated into the secrets of history to 
 understand the possibility of a miracle here as elsewhere.'' 
 
324 GOSPEL OF JOHN. 
 
 There are four ways of getting rid of the miracle of the 
 resurrection of Jesus Christ : — 
 
 1st. The oldest and simplest is to suppose a fraud on the 
 part of the apostles, they in some way or other makirjg the 
 body of Jesus disappear (Matt, xxviii. 12—15). This is the 
 plan to which the Jews who devised it had recourse, and 
 following them Celsus, the Wolfenhilttel Fragments, and others. 
 It is positively rejected by Strauss. A premeditated decep- 
 tion is indeed incompatible with the discouragement into 
 which the disciples were plunged after the death of Jesus, 
 and with the triumphant faith which they drew duriDg their 
 whole ministry from the conviction of their Master's resur- 
 rection. 
 
 2d. The second plan consists in asserting that Jesus was 
 not entirely dead when He was laid in the tomb, and that 
 the vital force w T as reawakened by the influence of the spices 
 and of the coolness of the sepulchre. Paulus and Schleier- 
 macher are the chief defenders of this hypothesis. From 
 this point of view, the appearances of Jesus are real, but 
 natural facts. Strauss has disposed of this hypothesis also. 
 How, indeed, could Jesus appear in a room the doors of 
 which were closed ? How, after a punishment like that of 
 the cross, could He make a long journey on foot with the 
 disciples of Emmaus, to disappear suddenly thereafter, and 
 reappear in the evening at Jerusalem ? How, some days 
 later, could He undertake the journey to Galilee ? But above 
 all, how could a half-dead being who had dragged Himself 
 miserably from the tomb, whose life depended on every sort 
 of care and nursing, and who after some time could not fail 
 to succumb to His sufferings, have been able to produce on 
 His disciples the impression of a conqueror of the grave, a 
 Prince of life ? How could such a sight have transformed 
 their sadness into enthusiasm, their confidence into adora- 
 tion ? Here is puzzle which no serious historian will ever 
 explain. 
 
 3d. The third and boldest plan is to acknowledge that 
 the disciples believed in the resurrection, that without this 
 faith the founding of the Christian Church was an impos- 
 sibility, but to explain this faith by a purely mental 
 phenomenon, a series of hallucinations in the holy women 
 
OF THE RESURRECTION OF JESUS. 325 
 
 and in the disciples. " No one in reality," says Strauss, 1 " was 
 a witness of the fact of the resurrection." Besides, none of 
 our Gospels being authentic, we have not a single directly 
 apostolic testimony. And then the accounts of the different 
 appearances contradict one another in our Gospels. Finally, 
 the notion of the risen body of Jesus presents contradictory 
 characteristics ; on the one hand it is raised above the laws 
 of space and gravity, and on the other it can assimilate honey 
 and fish. It must therefore be held that, in consequence of 
 a morbid disposition of Mary Magdalene, and of a state of 
 exaltation produced in the disciples by their return to Galilee, 
 in the places where they had lived with Jesus, His memory 
 reawoke in their hearts with extraordinary vividness, and 
 became transformed into visions. They believed they saw 
 Him, heard Him, touched Him ; and this illusion produced 
 the same moral effect on them as would have been produced 
 by the objective fact. — Of course the date of the third day, 
 indicated by the narratives, is not historical ; we are to regard 
 it only as a misapplication of a proverbial phrase and of 
 some Scripture expressions. As to the body of Jesus, it was 
 cast on the dunghill like those of the two malefactors ; and 
 when, six weeks later, at Pentecost, Peter for the first time 
 publicly proclaimed the resurrection, it was impossible to use 
 it to undeceive the disciples and annul the powerful effect of 
 their testimony. — Such is the explanation of Strauss, shared 
 in its leading features by Baur and M. Eenan. 
 
 That the fact of the resurrection had no immediate witness 
 is certain ; but if the appearances of the Eisen One are estab- 
 lished, this proves nothing against the fact itself. — If even it 
 were true that we are not possessed of any authentic Gospel, 
 we should not be without all direct apostolic testimony to it. 
 Does not the Apocalypse, in which Strauss recognises the 
 work of John, put into the mouth of the glorified Jesus the 
 following words : " 7" was dead, and, behold, I am alive. . . . I 
 have the keys of hell and of death" (i. 18); "These things 
 saith He who was dead and is alive " (ii. 8) ? Besides, Strauss 
 acknowledges that the apostolic preaching which founded 
 the Church implies faith in the resurrection. The passage 
 1 Cor. xv. 1—11 would prove it unanswerably; for it ranks the 
 1 Das Leben Jem, 1864, p. 602 et seq., pp. 312, 316 et seq., and elsewhere. 
 
326 GOSPEL OF JOHN. 
 
 testimony of the Twelve to this fact among the fundamental 
 points of tradition proceeding from their lips, and that at a 
 time when Peter, John, and the most of the Twelve were yet 
 alive and preaching (1 Cor. ix. 5). — Divergences of detail 
 between the Gospel narratives serve only to bring into brighter 
 light their substantial unanimity, and, as Reuss says (Ristoire 
 dvangelique, p. 698), to prove that the faith of the Church 
 on this point is not " the product of an arbitrary and con- 
 ventional combination ; " for in this case, certainly, " men 
 would have come to a uniform and stereotyped report." The 
 differences are easily explained, if account is taken of the 
 special circumstances which determined the mode of each of 
 our Gospel narratives. Matthew's, agreeably to the character 
 of his whole narrative, is summary as to its history, and aims 
 solely at the proclamation of the Messiah and the royal 
 instructions addressed by Jesus to the Twelve in His last 
 discourse (Matt, xxviii. 18-20). These words are the counter- 
 part of the first word of the book (i. 1) : " Jesus the Christ, 
 the son of David, the son of Abraham." They show the 
 programme drawn in this preface as realized : Jesus as 
 the Jewish Messiah, and at the same time as the Saviour of 
 all the families of the earth. As such, Jesus charges His 
 apostles to make the conquest of the world in His name, by 
 preaching and baptism. The fact of the resurrection is estab- 
 lished by the appearing ; this is all that was needed in this 
 narrative. The historical delineation is only the frame de- 
 signed to contain the teaching on which the mission is based. 
 Luke's narrative has also in this last part a very abridged 
 character, as is shown by the words : "And He saith unto 
 them" frequently repeated without any indication of the 
 precise situation, which is contrary to all Luke's antecedents. 
 The reason of this fact, different from that which concerns 
 Matthew, is, that the author proposed to give all historic 
 details in opening the second volume of his work, the Book 
 of Acts. As to Mark's Gospel, the conclusion of his treatise 
 is wanting. — The contradictions which are pointed out between 
 the different characteristics of the risen body of Jesus fall to 
 the ground if account is taken of the words of Jesus Himself : 
 " I ascend" avaftaivco (xx. 17). It is a transition time, during 
 which our Lord's body in certain respects still belongs to the 
 
OF THE RESURRECTION OF JESUS. 327 
 
 present order of things, and yet already possesses, in a certain 
 measure, the qualities of the spiritual body ; that is to say, a 
 body which has as its principle of life not a human soul 
 merely, but the Spirit (1 Cor. xv. 44, 45). We must acknow- 
 ledge, besides, the mystery which such a state presents, a 
 mystery on which we have no experimental datum. 
 
 The hypothesis of Strauss himself is beset with difficulties 
 otherwise insurmountable. 1 1. The first question, supposing a 
 hallucination on the disciples' part, is, What became of the 
 Lord's body ? " It was cast to the dunghill," says Strauss, or, as 
 others express themselves, friends and enemies left it neglected. 
 But the fact is, that our biblical accounts are unanimous in 
 relating that it remained in the hands of friends of Jesus, and 
 the Eoman law is perfectly in keeping with this mode of pro- 
 cedure. If it is so, the supposition of hallucinations becomes 
 impossible ; they must have vanished in presence of the dead 
 body. We should thus have to return to the hypothesis of 
 fraud, which Strauss himself had so vigorously set aside. 
 But if it is alleged, despite the unanimity of the records, that 
 the body remained in the hands of the enemies of Jesus, how 
 did they not use it to bring those poor misguided minds to 
 reason ? For if it was at Pentecost that Peter preached for 
 the first time, it was nevertheless from the third day that the 
 conviction of the resurrection sprang up in the disciples. 
 This date is established not only by the four records, which 
 diverge on so many other points, but also by the positive 
 declaration of Paul, 1 Cor. xv. 4. So he had learned the fact 
 from the lips of Peter and James (Gal. i. 18, 19). To escape 
 tins date, and to endeavour to form a gulf between the faith 
 of the disciples and the terrible instrument of conviction 
 deposited so near them at Jerusalem, Strauss makes them flee 
 to Galilee on the day of the death or the day after, and 
 there give themselves up to the dreams of their imagination. 
 But this is a pure romance. According to all the accounts, 
 the first appearances took place at Jerusalem, and that even 
 according to Matthew, the most Galilean of the evangelists ; 
 
 1 Some of them have been vigorously exposed by Keim (iii. pp. 594-602), 
 though there is an unmistakeable desire in this critic not to close this retreat 
 against himself absolutely, if his present position (see below) should become 
 scientifically untenable. 
 
328 GOSPEL OF JOHN. 
 
 comp. xxviii. 1-10. If so, the disappearance of the body can 
 only be explained by the voluntary leaving of His tomb by 
 Jesus, and the faith of the disciples only by this mode of 
 disappearance. 
 
 2. The idea of a hallucination is incompatible with the 
 disciples' state of mind. None of them expected the return of 
 the body to life. The women repaired to the sepulchre to 
 embalm it. The disciples shared their feeling. Now, hallu- 
 cination can only be the fruit of expectation, the child of 
 desire. If the disciples expected anything, as we have seen, 
 it was the heavenly reappearance of Jesus glorified. It is 
 with this meaning that the two of Emmaus say : " And this 
 is now the third day" (Luke xxiv. 21) ; and the thief: " Re- 
 member me when Thou comest into Thy kingdom " (xxiii. 42). 
 Such, without doubt, is the application which the disciples 
 had sought to give to the promises of Jesus in relation to His 
 resurrection. As to the return of His body to a terrestrial 
 existence, no one had a glimpse of it. They expected the 
 Parousia, not the resurrection. Now, in this disposition of 
 mind, how would they have interpreted simple hallucinations 
 as bodily appearances ? They would rather have done the 
 very reverse, that is to say, interpreted real appearances as 
 simple spiritual visions. And is not this what they really do 
 when they believe that they see in Jesus who has appeared a 
 pure spirit, and when Jesus endeavours to convince them of 
 the contrary, and rebukes them on this point for their unbelief ? 
 (Matt, xxviii. 17; Mark xvi. 11-14; Luke xxiv. 25, 26, 37, 
 38, 42, 43 ; John xx. 20, 27.) 
 
 3. If there was nothing in question but simple subjective 
 visions, it would be necessary to hold a real contagion, a 
 nervous epidemic, which, originating with one or two of the 
 faithful, Mary Magdalene and Peter, had gradually spread to 
 the whole community, and finally issued in the most incon- 
 ceivable paroxysm, in a hallucination not only of two or eleven, 
 but of five hundred persons simultaneously (1 Cor. xv. 6). 
 This supposition is improbable enough in itself, and Keim 
 rightly meets it by pointing to the calm self-possession, the 
 thoroughly practical energy of will, all the signs, in fine, of 
 a perfectly sound intellectual and moral disposition, which 
 characterized the founders of the early Church, and which are 
 
OF THE RESURRECTION OF JESUS. 329 
 
 incompatible with a state of visionary and morbid excitement. 
 We could understand a time of intoxication being succeeded 
 by coolness. But the simultaneousness of the two opposite 
 states is morally impossible. 
 
 4. The very nature of the appearances is irreconcilable 
 with the idea of purely subjective visions. If the object con- 
 templated were some luminous appearance floating between 
 heaven and earth, and soon vanishing into the azure of the 
 sky, one might be forced to explain it by a hallucination, 
 though it would be difficult to understand how it could be 
 common to various persons. But we have to do with a per- 
 sonage who shows Himself very near, who invites men to 
 touch Him, who gives distinct orders to gather, for example, 
 on a mountain which is named, to baptize the nations, to 
 preach the gospel to every human creature, to remain from 
 that day forward at Jerusalem, etc., who has detailed conver- 
 sations with the two of Emmaus, with Thomas, Peter, etc. 
 Here we have a series of instructions and promises which, 
 though scattered through the four records, form a whole which 
 has admirable appropriateness and gradation. 1 Hallucination 
 is not compatible with features so particular and precise. It 
 is absolutely necessary to charge the narratives with being 
 legendary, and even fictitious. But what, then, are we to say 
 of Paul, who, during the lifetime of the apostles, alludes to 
 them in the most express manner ? (1 Cor. xv.) 
 
 5. But the last and greatest difficulty is that which Keim 
 first brought out prominently : the sudden end of those alleged 
 visions. At the end of a few weeks, — after eight or nine 
 appearances, 2 which Paul, following oral tradition, counts, so 
 to speak, on his fingers, and to which the narratives of our 
 evangelists perfectly correspond, — on a well-marked day which 
 the Church designates by the name of the Ascension, the 
 excitement all at once calms down. Those 500 visionaries 
 have suddenly returned to coolness. The Montanist excitement, 
 
 1 Comp. the fine development of this remark in Gess, Christi Zeugniss, etc. , 
 pp. 198-204. 
 
 3 Four on the first day (Mary Magdalene, the two of Emmaus, Peter, and 
 the eleven) ; one eight days after (Thomas) ; three during the following weeks 
 (on the shore of the lake of Gennesaret ; on the mountain in Galilee, pro- 
 bably the same as that mentioned by Paul to the 500 ; and James) ; the last 
 (ascension). 
 
330 GOSPEL OF JOHN. 
 
 though much less creative, lasted a whole half-century. . . . 
 Here, at the end of six weeks, everything returns to order. 
 For it is evident that the visions of Peter and Paul in the 
 sequel of the Acts — except that on the way to Damascus, 
 which fills a place by itself — do not belong to the same 
 category ; they have no relation to the earthly existence of 
 Jesus. They are not signs of His victory over death, but 
 manifestations proceeding from the midst of His heavenly 
 glory. As to the appearance of the Eisen One, it is as if a 
 charm had been broken. They take end for ever. The fact 
 is incomprehensible, unless an external fact controlled both 
 those few strictly-counted manifestations and their sudden 
 cessation. — The hypothesis of visions is therefore as untenable 
 as the preceding. M. Eeuss rightly says : " Eecourse to a 
 visionary illusion is impossible, in view of the universality 
 and firmness of the convictions within the Church" (p. 701). 
 4th. Keim has advanced another explanation already pro- 
 posed by Weisse and defended by Fichte (the son) : The 
 appearances of the Eisen One are true and real manifesta- 
 tions of Jesus, as glorified Spirit, to the spirit of the disciples. 
 The objectivity which the preceding explanation denied to the 
 appearances is granted to them in this, which at the same 
 time accounts more easily for the small number of those 
 miraculous facts, and for their prompt and abrupt cessation. — 
 It may be said that as the apostles, in their expectations, 
 substituted the Parousia for the resurrection, Keim's hypothesis 
 identifies the resurrection with Pentecost. For what is the 
 work of the Spirit, except the spiritual revelation of Jesus 
 glorified to the hearts of believers ? There is here a first step 
 in the way of return to the explanation which the Church has 
 always given of the fact. But this step is not enough, and that 
 for the following reasons : 1st. This hypothesis does not explain 
 any better than the preceding the disappearance of the body 
 of Jesus and the empty tomb. 2d. What are we to think of 
 Jesus, who, being pure spirit, ate before His disciples and 
 called them to feel Him with their hands, to prove to them 
 that He was not pure spirit ; of Jesus, who, being pure spirit, 
 rebukes them for their unbelief, which leads them to think 
 that they have to do with a pure spirit ! 3d. How could 
 the disciples, so little expecting a resurrection properly so 
 
OF THE RESURRECTION OF JESUS. 331 
 
 called, have come to substitute for those purely spiritual 
 visions the idea of bodily appearances ? Keim's hypothesis 
 succumbs to these insoluble contradictions. — We shall take 
 up the two theatres of the appearances (Judea and Galilee) 
 when we come to deal with the fact related in the following 
 chapter. 
 
 Strauss had the good sense to acknowledge, that without 
 the faith of the apostles in the resurrection of Jesus the 
 Church would never have been born. We think we may add 
 with no less truth, that without the fact of the resurrection, 
 the faith of the apostles in that event would never have been 
 born. 
 
THE CONCLUSION. 
 
 XX. 30, 31. 
 
 ri^HE evangelist here closes his narrative ; for he tells 
 JL his reader of the way in which he has proceeded in 
 composing it (ver. 30), and of the aim of his work (ver. 31). 
 
 How are we to explain this so abrupt termination ? If his 
 aim had been to write the history of Jesus, could he rationally 
 close his narrative with the conversation between Jesus and 
 Thomas ? Evidently not ; this termination has no meaning 
 except in so far as this conversation, with the exclamation in 
 which it ends and the declaration of Jesus which follows it, 
 is in close and essential connection with the purpose which 
 has prevailed throughout the whole narrative — with the very 
 idea of the hook. This cannot be understood unless we acknow- 
 ledge that the author's purpose was to describe the development 
 of the disciples' faith and of his own. It is obvious in this 
 case that the exclamation in which Thomas at length pays 
 homage not only to the Messiahship, but to the personal 
 divinity of Jesus, is the normal close of such a work, as the 
 rirst testimony of John the Baptist relative to the Person of 
 Jesus, and which resulted in the visit paid to the Lord by 
 John and Andrew, was from this standpoint its equally normal 
 commencement. The birth of faith was the starting-point of 
 the narrative, the consummation of faith must be its close. 
 
 We need not therefore wonder at not finding in such a 
 Gospel the account of the ascension, any more than at not 
 finding that of the baptism of Jesus. Both of these events lie 
 beyond the limits which the author has marked out for himself, 
 the one on this side, the other on that. And it is easily seen 
 how unfounded are the consequences which have been drawn 
 from this silence by an unwise criticism, whether in the way 
 of dinputiDg the author's faith in these events, or the realitv 
 
 ^32 
 
CHAP. XX. 30, 31. 333 
 
 of the facts themselves. 1 If John believes in the reality of 
 the bodily resurrection of Jesus, — and the preceding chapter 
 leaves no doubt on this head, — and if he cannot have thought 
 that this raised body was anew subjected to death, there 
 remains only one possibility, namely, that he ascribed to it 
 as its mode of departure the ascension, as this was held by 
 the whole Church. This is further proved by the words which 
 he puts into the mouth of Jesus, vi. 62 and xx. 17. And this 
 would be proved if need were by his very silence, which 
 excludes every other supposition. — The author's declaration 
 about his method (ver. 30) and about his aim (ver. 31) is in 
 harmony with this view. 
 
 Vv. 30, 31. "And many other signs truly did Jesus in the 
 presence of His disciples? which are not written in this hook : 
 but these are written, that ye might believe 3 that Jesus is the 
 Christ, the Son of God ; and 4 that believing ye might have life 
 through His name." — It is not a complete picture of what he 
 lias seen and heard that John meant to draw. From the mass 
 of facts which he acknowledges to be true, and part of which 
 already form the subject of other works than his, he has set 
 himself to make a selection appropriate to the object which 
 he has in view. — The particle /xev ovv, it is true, might be 
 paraphrased thus : " There may be wonder, no doubt, that from 
 a life so rich as that of Jesus I have related only so small a 
 number of facts. But these suffice for the end which I have 
 had in view." How, with this declaration of the author before 
 us, can serious critics argue thus : John omits — therefore he 
 denies or knows not ! 
 
 The facts which he has omitted differ from those which he 
 has adopted in his narrative not only as to quantity {iroXkd, 
 in great number), but also as to quality (aWa, other). Conse- 
 quently, if he has not given specimens of all the kinds of 
 miracles, — if, for example, he has not related cures of lepers or 
 of possessed persons, it will be positively in opposition to his 
 intention to conclude from this silence that he meant thereby 
 
 1 Keim, iii. p. 616: "John knows nothing of a visible ascension, though 
 Jesus speaks once of it in one of His sayings (vi. 62)." 
 
 2 Avrov is omitted by A B E K S A, 12 Mnn. 
 
 3 X B ; vrifTiurirz instead of -rurTiurnn. 
 
 4 S omits xcu before <va, and with C D L T d , 12 Mnn. It ali, », adds cuana* to 
 
 Z<utlt. 
 
334 GOSPEL OF JOHN. 
 
 to deny them. — According to many commentators, from 
 Chrysostom to Baur, the words : " the signs which Jesus did" 
 denote merely the appearances related in the foregoing 
 chapter as signs or proofs of the resurrection ; whence it 
 would follow that these vv. 3 and 3 1 are the conclusion not 
 of the Gospel, but only of the account of the resurrection. 
 This opinion is incompatible, 1st, with the term Troieiv, to 
 do: an appearance is not done; 2d, with the epithets many 
 and otlier : the appearances were not so numerous and diverse ; 
 3d, with the expression in this book, which shows that the 
 contents of the whole book, and not of one of its parts, 
 are in question. — Why does John refer only to the signs 
 and miracles, and not also to the discourses which he has 
 related ? No doubt because the discourses are usually in 
 this Gospel the mere expansion of the miracles which serve 
 as their theme. 
 
 The phrase : " in the presence of His disciples" brings out the 
 part assigned to the Twelve in the foundation of the Church. 
 They were the chosen witnesses of the works of Jesus not only 
 with a view to their personal faith, but also with a view to 
 the establishing of faith throughout the whole world ; comp. 
 xv. 26, and Acts i. 21, 22. The position of the word tovtw 
 after /3t/3)u'<» {this booh) gives it peculiar force, which, whatever 
 Luthardt may say, seems to indicate an allusion to other 
 fiifiXia (books) which already contain the things omitted in this 
 one. The phrase, thus understood, harmonizes with all the 
 proofs which we have found of the acquaintance which John 
 already had with our Synoptics. If it is so, the apostle in 
 these words ratifies the contents of those Gospels anterior to 
 his own, and gives it to be understood that he merely wished 
 to complete them in certain respects. 
 
 But if his method did not consist with writing as complete 
 a history of the ministry of Jesus as possible, what end then 
 had he in view ? Ver. 31 answers the question. He has 
 related what he thought best fitted to guide his hearers to the 
 faith which fills himself. And for this end, as we have shown, 
 he has simply selected from the life of his Master those facts 
 and testimonies which had most powerfully contributed to 
 the formation and strengthening of his own faith. From this 
 selection sprang the Gospel of John. When he says ye, the 
 
CHAP. XX. SO, 31. ooO 
 
 apostle addresses certain known Christians; but they, as Luthardt 
 sa} r s, represent the whole Church. They believe already, no 
 doubt, but faith ought always to be making progress, and at 
 every step the previous faith appears as no longer deserving 
 the name of faith (see ii. 1 1 and elsewhere). — The position of 
 iariv, is, in the text, can only be rendered by our translation : 
 " is really." John characterizes Jesus, so far as He is the 
 object of faith, so as to remind us of the two phases which 
 we have observed in the development of his own : first the 
 Christ, and then the Son of God. The first of these terms 
 refers to the fulfilment of the prophecies and of the theocratic 
 hope. It was in this character that the faith of the disciples 
 had first welcomed Him (i. 42, 46). The solemnity with 
 which this notion of the Messiah is referred to in this verse, 
 which is a summary of faith, absolutely sets aside the idea of 
 any tendency in the author of the fourth Gospel hostile to 
 Judaism. But the acknowledgment of the Messiah in Jesus 
 was only the first step of apostolic faith. From this John and 
 his colleagues were soon raised to a more sublime conception 
 of Him in whom they had believed. In this Messiah they 
 recognised the Son of God. The first title referred to His office ; 
 the latter refers to the Divine character of His Person. Especially 
 from ch. v. of our Gospel does this new light begin to pene- 
 trate the souls of the disciples, under the influence of the 
 declarations of Jesus. It reached its consummation in the 
 words of Thomas : " My Lord and my God" which has just 
 closed the Gospel. — If John desires by his narrative to make 
 his readers sharers of this faith, it is because be knows by 
 experience that it gives life: "that believing ye might have life." 
 By receiving Jesus as the Son of God, the heart is opened to 
 the Divine fulness with which He is Himself filled, and man 
 enters into that perfect communion with God which is life, 
 human existence saturated with blessedness and strength. 
 The words: in His name, depend on the phrase: having life. The 
 name is the acknowledgment of the dignity of Jesus in the 
 heart, His essence as the Son of God written in letters of fire 
 in the believer's soul. 
 
 Either the author who speaks thus of the aim of his book 
 is deceiving us, or his work is not a work of religious specu- 
 lation. His aim is not to produce knowledge, but faith, and 
 
336 GOSPEL OF JOHN. 
 
 by faith life. He has not laboured as a romance -making 
 philosopher ; his work as a historian is included in his apos- 
 tolical commission. It is the testimony to which, in all ages, 
 the faith of those shall be able to cling who have not seen. 
 Such is the real aim of the fourth GospeL 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 XXL 1-25. 
 
 IT seems to us impossible to doubt that this chapter is 
 a piece composed independently of and posterior to 
 the Gospel, but one which was closely connected with it 
 before the time of its publication. The former of these facts 
 follows : 1st. From the conclusion, xx. 30, 31, which evidently 
 closes the original narrative. All the efforts of Hengstenberg, 
 Holemann, Hilgenfeld, etc., have not succeeded in effacing this 
 final period, placed at the end of his work by the author's hand. 
 2d. From the relation which we have established between the 
 scene with Thomas and the governing idea of the Gospel. 
 The goal is reached, the work finished, the plan exhausted ! 
 Lange and Holemann see in this chapter an epilogue intended 
 to form the counterpart of the prologue. " As," says the 
 former (Lcben Je.su, iv. p. 752), "the evangelist depicted in 
 ch. i. the ante-historical reign of the Christ . . ., so he now 
 draws the picture of His post-historical reign to the end of 
 the world." But this parallel is more ingenious than real. 
 In the following account it is the apostles who are on the 
 scene much more than the Lord Himself; and it is their 
 future lot which is described, much more than the reign of 
 their glorified Lord. The counterpart of the prologue, from 
 the point of view indicated by Lange, is not ch. xxl, but the 
 Apocalypse. Weitzel has made a remark which may appear 
 somewhat better founded. 1 The three other Gospels, says 
 he, close each with a piece relating to the activity of the 
 apostles after the departure of Jesus ; comp. Matt, xxviii. 
 19, 20 ; Mark xvi. 20 ; Luke xxiv. 53. With the same 
 right as those passages, ch. xxi. forms, according to him, an 
 integral part of our Gospel. But though the observation 
 were more just than it is (it cannot be held either in the 
 
 1 "Das Selbstzeugniss des vierten Evangelisten iiber seine Person," Stud. u. 
 Kritlk. 1849, p. 578 et seq. 
 
 GODET III, Y JOHN. 
 
338 GOSPEL OF JOHN. 
 
 case of Mark or Luke, and scarcely in the case of Matthew), 
 no conclusion could be drawn from it in regard to the fourth 
 Gospel, composed as it is on a special plan. The insertion of 
 the conclusion contained in vv. 30 and 31 of ch. xx. will 
 always remain inexplicable from this point of view. 
 
 This piece, composed separately from, was certainly composed 
 after, the Gospel. Ver. 14 (" this was now the third time . . ."), 
 which supposes the narratives of the resurrection, excludes all 
 doubt on this head. The same appears also from ver. 24 : 
 " This is the disciple which testified of these things" evidently 
 of all the facts contained in the Gospel. 
 
 At the same time, and independently of the proofs which 
 may be gathered from the contents of the piece, we have 
 ground to think that this appendix was joined to the Gospel 
 before it was put into public circulation. Otherwise there 
 would undoubtedly have been formed, as in the case of Mark's 
 Gospel, two families of copies, the one a faithful reproduction 
 of the original text, without the appendix, the other derived 
 from the completed text. We must therefore place the addi- 
 tion of this chapter between the time of the composition of 
 the Gospel and that of its publication. M. Eenan's judgment 
 is almost to the same effect. " I close," says he, " the first 
 work at the end of ch. xx. Chapter xxi. is an addition, but 
 an almost contemporary addition, either by the author himself 
 or his disciples" (p. 534). 
 
 It remains now to be seen, 1st, by whom and with what 
 view this piece was edited ; 2d, by whom and with what 
 view it was joined to the Gospel. The solution of these 
 questions supposes the previous study of the piece. \ 
 
 This narrative may be regarded as containing two distinct 
 scenes, which are expressly divided by the remark of ver. 1 4 : the 
 one general, referring to all the disciples present, vv. 1—13 ; the 
 other particular, referring specially to the two principal of them, 
 vv. 1 5-2 3. — Vv. 24 and 2 5 form the conclusion of the appendix, 
 and at the same time bind it indissolubly to the work as a 
 whole. 
 
 I. Jesus and His Disciples. — Vv. 1-14. 
 
 This first general scene comprises two descriptions, that of 
 the fishing and that of the repast. 
 
CHAP. XXI. 1-14, 339 
 
 The fishing : vv. 1—8. 
 
 The theatre of this narrative is remarkable : it is the shore 
 of the sea of Tiberias, in Galilee. The Johannine tradition, 
 therefore, from which in any case this account proceeds, 
 related other appearances besides those which took place in 
 Judea, and which were related in ch. xx. This notion is in 
 keeping with the Gospel of Matthew, which places the great 
 Messianic appearance in Galilee on a mountain, perhaps 
 Tabor, where, by a mistaken tradition, the transfiguration was 
 afterwards placed. Thus the bond is established between 
 Matthew, who (excepting the appearance to the women at 
 Jerusalem) speaks only of the Galilean appearance, and Luke, 
 who relates only the appearances which took place on the first 
 day at Jerusalem, and on the last, near the Mount of Olives. 
 The forty days of which Luke speaks in Acts i. 3 give, indeed, 
 the necessary margin for a reconciliation. But it is our 
 narrative which furnishes the harmony itself, by proving that 
 the Johannine tradition related appearances on both theatres. 
 The disciples then had returned to Galilee, and had there for 
 the time resumed their old mode of life. Then towards the 
 end of the forty days they returned, no doubt at the bidding 
 of Jesus, to Jerusalem, where they were to begin the work of 
 public preaching ; and it is to this sojourn that the Lord's 
 command refers not to leave Jerusalem till the coming of the 
 Holy Spirit (Luke xxiv. 49, comp. with Acts i. 3, 4). " Har- 
 monistic expedients!" exclaims Meyer. " Anti-harmonistic 
 passion" is our answer. — According to Matt. xxvi. 31, 32, and 
 xxviii. 7—1 0, all the believers (the flock ; ye, addressed to the 
 women) were to assemble anew in Galilee after the death of 
 Jesus, and there see Him again. The appearances in Judea, 
 by gathering the apostles, commenced this reunion of the 
 flock ; through the obstinacy of Thomas, a whole week 
 elapsed before this first object was reached. Only there- 
 after could the apostles return to Galilee, where Jesus 
 appeared to them, first by the sea-shore, afterwards on a 
 mountain designated by Him (comp. Matt, xxviii. 16). 
 Though Matthew speaks only of the leaders of the flock, the 
 Eleven, because to them was given the missionary instruc- 
 tion which follows, we understand from 1 Cor. xv. 6 that 
 this was the reunion of all the Galilean believers, to the 
 
340 GOSPEL OF JOHN. 
 
 number of more than five hundred, which Jesus had in view 
 before His death. 
 
 Vv. 1, 2. "After these things Jesus showed Himself again to 
 the disciples l at the sea of Tiberias ; and on this wise showed 
 He Himself. There were together Simon Peter, and Thomas 
 called Didymus, and Nathanacl of Cana in Galilee, and the 
 sons of Zcbedee? and two other of His disciples" — The transition 
 fjuera ravra, after these things, is frequent in John (v. 1, vi. 1, 
 vii. 1, etc.). It obviously serves to join the appendix to the 
 narrative of the last appearance, xx. 29, and to the Gospel. 
 The phrase etyavepcoaev kaviov is equally agreeable to John's 
 style (vii. 4 : (pavepcoaov creavrov ; xi. 33 : irdpa^ev eavrov). 
 Till now Jesus had manifested His glory, now He manifests 
 Himself ; for His Person even has entered from this time forth 
 into the sphere of invisibility. The name sea of Tiberias is in 
 the N. T. a purely Johannine name (vi. 1). — The Synoptics 
 say sea of Galilee (Matt. iv. 18), or lake of Gennesaret 
 (Luke v. 1). The 0. T. knows neither the one nor the other 
 of these expressions ; Josephus uses them both. — The propo- 
 sition : " and on this wise . . .," is by no means superfluous. It 
 impresses us with the solemnity of the following scene. — Of 
 the seven persons indicated in ver. 2, the first five only are 
 apostles ; the last two belong to the number of the disciples, 
 in the wide sense which so often belongs to the word in our 
 Gospel (vi. 60, 66, vii. 3, viii. 31, etc.). If it were other- 
 wise, why would they not have been expressly named as well 
 as the former ? Hengstenberg asserts that " every one must 
 understand that it was Andrew and Philip ! " The other 
 reasons alleged have as little weight. The sons of Zebedee 
 then occupy the last place among the apostles properly so 
 called. The fact is the more remarkable, because, in all the 
 apostolic catalogues, they are immediately joined to Peter, 
 who is uniformly put first. We know of only one reason 
 which can explain this striking circumstance : it is that the 
 author of the narrative is himself one of Zebedee's two sons. 
 It has been said, " But John never names either himself or his 
 brother." That is true ; and exactly by this designation he 
 avoids the proper name, while yielding to the necessity of 
 
 1 D H M U X r, 40 Mnn. ItP ,eri i ue Syr. Cop. add «»«■«« to f**evrai;. 
 S KDE read »i via insttad of »/. 
 
CHAP. XXI. 3-6. 341 
 
 pointing to himself in view of the following scene. — On 
 Thomas Didymus, see on xi. 1 6. — The explanation : " of Cana in 
 Galilee" had not been given in ch. i. The author here repairs 
 that omission. — Might the two unnamed disciples not be that 
 Aristion and that presbyter John of whom Papias speaks as 
 old disciples of the Lord (fiaOrjral rov Kvplov), living at 
 Ephesus at the time when John wrote, and having almost the 
 rank of apostles ? 
 
 Vv. 3, 4. " Simon Peter saith unto them, I go a fishing. 
 They say unto him, We also go with thee. They went forth, 1 
 and entered into 2 a ship immediately ; 3 and that night they 
 caught nothing. But when the morning 4 was come, 5 Jesus stood 
 on 6 the shore : hut the disciples knew 7 not that it was Jesus." — 
 After their Master's ministry, the disciples returned to their 
 old profession. As usual, Peter takes the initiative. There 
 is something abrupt in the apostle's words, which seem to 
 indicate an uneasiness, a presentiment. The evOvf, immediately, 
 wrongly rejected by some Mss., confirms this impression. — 
 The word irid^etv, used in vv. 3 and 10, occurs six times 
 besides in our Gospel, nowhere in the Synoptics (Hengsten- 
 berg). Baumlein : The asyndeta \iyet, Xeyovaiv, i^yfkdov, etc., 
 are in John's style. — That long night of fruitless toil must 
 have reminded the apostles of that which had preceded their 
 calling to be preachers of the Gospel (Luke v.). 
 
 Vv. 5, 6. " Then Jesus saith unto them, Children, have ye 
 any 8 meat ? They answered Sim, JVo. And He said unto 
 them, Cast the net on the right side of the ship, and ye shall 
 find. They cast therefore? and now they ivcre not able 10 to draw 
 it for the multitude of fishes." — The term iraihla, young people, 
 boys, is not strange to John's language (First Epistle, ii. 14, 
 18). It is quite natural for Him not to use here the term of 
 endearment, re/cvLa, my little children, as in xiii. 3 3 ; for He 
 
 1 A P It ali i add kcci before, X G L X, ouv after s^x^v. 
 
 2 T. R. with A A : avs/3»<rav ; almost all the Mjj. : tvifino-av. 
 8 8BCDLXi, some Mnn. It. Vg. Syr. Cop. omit tvlus. 
 4 X, some Mnn. ItP leri i ue Vg. Syr 8 * omit vh. 
 
 * A B C E L, 10 Mnn.: ym/tntit instead of yivopivm. 
 6 K ADLMUX read iti instead of us (™» eciytxXcv). 
 '{{LX: iyvarxv instead of »Se;»-«v. 8 N omits tu 
 
 v $$ D Cop.: oi It i£a.\ov instead of % «.\ov aw. 
 10 X B C D L A n, 10 Mnn. ItP led i ue Vg. : t<r X vot instead of nr^i/«r. 
 
342 GOSPEL OF JOHN. 
 
 could not do so without betraying Himself. He makes use 
 of the word of a master speaking to his workmen. — The 
 meaning of the interrogative form, firj ti . . ., is analogous to 
 that of vi. 67: Ye have nothing then . . . ? Why this ques- 
 tion ? The sequel will explain. Jesus is contemplating not 
 merely a take of fish, as in Luke v., but a repast. We need 
 not therefore think, with Tholuck and others, that Jesus 
 appears as a merchant desiring to buy fish. — Ilpoo-cpdyiov 
 denotes, like o-^rdpiov, what is added to bread at a meal. So 
 in this case fish : only the second of the two terms reminds us 
 of the cooking {oirrdw, to roast). — The apostle thinks that this 
 stranger is acquainted with fishing, and that he has observed 
 some symptom of a nature to give rise to his advice. Is the 
 opposition between the left side of the ship, where they vainly 
 cast the net the whole night through, and the right side, where 
 they are about to take their magnificent draught, intended to 
 symbolize the contrast between the failure of the work of evan- 
 gelization in Israel and its unspeakably rich fruits in the heathen 
 world ? This is not sufficiently indicated, and seems contrary to 
 what is related in Acts ii.-v. and xxi. 20 (fivptdSes). It is safer 
 to hold to the general idea of the immense successes which 
 will be gained in the world by preaching, if the apostles take 
 direction from the Lord in the course of their work. This 
 meaning could not escape them, however little they might 
 remember the terms of the original call : " / will make you 
 fishers of living men." They did not understand it, however, 
 till after recognising Jesus. 
 
 Vv. 7, 8. " Therefore that disciple whom Jesus loved saith 
 unto Peter, It is the Lord. Now when Simon Peter heard that 
 it was the Lord, he girt his fisher's coat unto him {for he was 
 naked), and did cast himself into the sea. And the other 
 disciples came in a little ship l {for they were not far from 
 land, hut as it were two hundred cubits), dragging the net with 
 fishes." — How characteristically do the two apostles appear in 
 these simple incidents ! John contemplates and divines ; 
 Peter acts, and that with impulsive energy. While recording 
 these details, the author doubtless thought of the part subse- 
 quently taken by each of them in the evangelization of the 
 world. — The garment called eVeySur^? is one intermediate 
 1 $ reads «.xxa before vZ-iixpiu (" with the other boat ! "). 
 
CHAP. XXI. 9-11. 343 
 
 between the x L ™ v > ^ ne un( ^er dress, the shirt, and the IfiaTiov, 
 the upper dress, the coat ; it is the workman's blouse. After 
 taking it off, Peter was really naked, except for the subliga- 
 culum, the apron, demanded by decency. 1 Yet Meyer thinks 
 that he wore an under garment, which, in Greek usage, does 
 not prevent the use of the term yv/xvos, naked. The word 
 8ie%(oaaTo, literally he girt himself, here evidently includes the 
 two ideas of putting on the dress and fastening it. — While 
 Peter casts himself into the water and swims to the Lord, 
 John remains with the other disciples in the boat. This detail 
 has also its meaning, as we shall see. U\oiap[a>, local dative 
 (Meyer), or rather instrumental: by means of the boat (in 
 opposition to Peter, who had taken to swimming), and while 
 dragging the net. The for explains how they could in 
 this case have recourse to dragging : " they were not far from 
 the shore." Two hundred cubits are a little over 100 yards. 
 'Atto, remarks Hengstenberg, is only used to measure distance 
 in our Gospel (xi. 18), and in the Apocalypse (xiv. 20). The 
 same author observes that the terms ifkolov and ifkoiapiov 
 alternate in this piece, as in vi. 17 et seq. 
 
 Strauss thinks that this miracle is a fictitious enhance- 
 ment of the two legends Luke v. and Matt. xiv. (the walking 
 of Peter on the waters). Only he is embarrassed by the 
 fact that swimming is not more but less miraculous than 
 walking on the sea. But he does not suffer this to trouble 
 him. For, says he, in this case " all the surroundings are 
 supernatural." And so in this case the excess of the super- 
 natural produces the return to the natural ! — The suppleness 
 of criticism is inexhaustible in devices. 
 
 The repast: vv. 9-14. 
 
 Vv. 9—11. "As soon then as they were come 2 to land, they 
 saw a fire of coals there, and fish laid thereon, and bread. 
 Jesus saith unto them, Bring of the fish which ye have now 
 caught. Simon Peter went up, 3 and drew the net to land^ full 
 of great fishes, an hundred and fifty and three : and for all 
 
 1 Meyer, in his note directed to me, p. 668, forgets that I made this excep- 
 tion. Nothing more common in the East than to see men in the state here 
 described. 
 
 8 X H : avs/3»<rav, A : itrs/Snrey, instead of aTifitira*. 
 
 3 SL: £»s/Sjj instead of «»e0«. 
 
 4 X A B C L P X A n ; tig rnv ymi instead of art rn; ytu. 
 
344 GOSPEL OF JOHN. 
 
 there were so many, yet was not the net broken" — If this 
 draught is to the disciples the symbol and pledge of the 
 success of their preaching, the repast is undoubtedly the 
 emblem of the spiritual and even temporal assistance on 
 which they may reckon from their glorified Lord so long as 
 the work shall last. Grotius, Olshausen, and others (I myself 
 in my 1st ed.), have thought that, in contrast with the sea 
 which represents the field of labour, the land and the repast 
 represent heaven, from which Jesus gives aid, and to which 
 He receives the faithful after their labour. The first meaning 
 is simpler, and we are more naturally led to it by the question 
 which opens the narrative : " Ye have nothing to eat then ? " 
 — 'Avdpaictd, brazier, is found only here and in the account of 
 Peter's denial, and in John's account of the denial only, xviii. 1 8 
 (Mark and Luke : irvp and $&<;). — The sing, otyapiov, roasted 
 fish, must certainly be taken to the letter, whatever Meyer 
 and Luthardt may say : a fish. In ver. 1 Jesus bids Peter 
 bring some of the fish which they had just taken, simply 
 because the quantity prepared is not sufficient. The plural 
 of the word is used by John v. 10 and vi. 9 (Svo by\rdpia). 
 — Whence came this bread and this fish ? Luthardt traces 
 them to the ministry of angels ; Baumlein, to the activity of 
 Peter. The disciple might indeed have lighted the fire ; but 
 whence could he have procured the bread and the fish ? 
 Lampe thinks that Jesus received these provisions from some 
 fisher in the neighbourhood. Anyhow, He did not create 
 them ; this course would be contrary to all His antecedents 
 (ii. 7, vi. 9; comp. vol. ii. pp. 7 and 207). Does not the 
 word of John himself : "It is the Lord" make it superfluous to 
 occupy ourselves with this question ? — The food prepared by 
 the Lord must be completed by the product of their own 
 fishing. Such a detail is incomprehensible unless it has a 
 symbolical meaning. Jesus means to teach them that the 
 satisfying of their wants will constantly depend on the con- 
 currence of two factors : His blessing and aid on the one 
 hand, and their faithful work on the other ; as it is written, 
 Ps. cxxviii. 2 : " Thou shalt eat the labour of thine hands." 
 
 The number of one hundred and fifty-three has been made 
 the text of the strangest commentaries. Some Fathers have 
 seen in it the emblem of God and of the Church (100, 
 
CHAP. XXL 9-11. 345 
 
 representing the Gentiles; 50, the Jews; 3, the Trinity). 
 Hengstenberg explains it by an allusion to the 153,600 
 Canaanitish proselytes who were received into the theocracy 
 at the time of Solomon (2 Chron. ii. 17). According to an 
 explanation somewhat prevalent among critics at the present 
 day, this figure originates in the idea received among 
 naturalists of that time, that the entire number of the kinds 
 of fish was 153. Kostlin, indeed, has quoted a passage 
 from Jerome {Comment on Uzekiel, xlvii.) which seems to 
 prove the existence of this idea among the savants of the 
 day from the words of a Cilician poet called Oppian, who 
 lived under Marcus Aurelius : " Those who have written 
 on the kinds of animals . . ., and among them the very 
 learned poet Oppian of Cilicia, say that there are 153 
 kinds of fishes, which were all taken by the apostles, and 
 none of which remained uncaught." x The figure, according 
 to him, would naturally designate the totality of the Gentile 
 nations. Hilgenfeld, to complete the interpretation, holds 
 that the fish and the bread prepared by Jesus represent the 
 Jewish people. But, 1st. Strauss himself (Leben Jesu, 1864, 
 p. 414) remarks that Oppian does not indicate the total 153, 
 but that he merely makes a not very clear enumeration, the 
 sum of which may as probably be a number larger or smaller 
 as that number itself. Then, 2d. Oppian's work is later than 
 John's, and the terms used by Jerome would appear to 
 signify that John's figure has rather been taken advantage of 
 to support this scientific fable. As to Hilgenfeld's idea {Einl. 
 p. 718), how are we to suppose that a sensible writer would 
 represent the Jewish people under the figure of a roasted 
 fish and bread ? 2 
 
 The mention of this number is not at all more astonishing 
 
 1 "Aiunt qui de animantium scripsere naturis et proprietate, qui aXnumcd. 
 tarn latino quam grseco didicere sermone, de quibus Oppianus Cilix est poeta 
 doctissimus : CLIII. esse genera piscium, quoe omnia capta sunt ab apostolis et 
 nihil remansit inceptum. " 
 
 2 We shall merely indicate in passing the still more fantastic explanations of 
 some moderns, who find the key to this number by calculating the letters in the 
 name Peter ; thus Egli, following the Hebrew form : Schimeon Jonah (Simon, 
 son of Jonah); Volkmar (Himmelf. Mose, p. 62), taking the form: Schimeon 
 (71) bar (22) Jonah (31) Ktpha (29), total 153; and finally Keim himself 
 (Gesch. Jesu, iii. p. 564), under this other form : Schimeon (71) Jochanna (53) 
 Kepha (29). 
 
346 GOSPEL OF JOHN. 
 
 than that of the number of men who were fed, and of the 
 baskets filled with fragments after the multiplication of the 
 loaves, John vi. It is the simple fact recorded to prove two 
 things: 1st. The largeness of this draught; 2d. The eager 
 interest with which the apostle fishers counted the take. — 
 The unbroken net is perhaps mentioned as a symbol of the 
 Lord's special protection vouchsafed to His Church and to all 
 those whom it contains. 
 
 Vv. 12-14. "Jesus saith unto them, Come and dine. But 1 
 none of the disciples durst ask Him, Who art Thou ? knowing 
 that it was the Lord,. Jesus comethj and taketh bread, and 
 giveth them, and fish likewise. This is 3 now the third time 
 that Jesus showed Himself to His disciples* after that He was 
 risen from the dead." — A feeling of respectful fear prevents 
 the disciples from approaching this mysterious personage. 
 Jesus invites them to eat ; and even then they dare not 
 address Him. Their relations are no longer the familiar 
 ones of former days. — "Ep^erai (ver. 1 3) : approaches the 
 brazier. — The use of the terms ToXfiav and i^erd^eiv cannot 
 be established in John. But as to the former, it is evidently 
 a pure accident. As to the second, it is the notion of 
 informing oneself, and not the more ordinary one of inquiring 
 {eirepwTav), which is meant to be expressed here. 
 
 The indication given at ver. 14 divides the narrative in 
 two ; for it is evident that the words of ver. 15:" So, when 
 they had, dined" connect the following conversation with the 
 scene of the repast, ver. 13. The author undoubtedly meant 
 hereby to separate what in this appearance had a general 
 character, and referred to the work of evangelization repre- 
 sented by the disciples present, whether apostles or simple 
 believers, from what specially concerned the future part and lot 
 of the two chief apostles, Peter and John. — The phrase rovro 
 77877 rplrov, this is now the third time, is singular ; it conceals 
 one of those subtleties of which we have remarked several 
 in the course of this Gospel. It reminds us of the forms 
 already explained, ii. 11 : ravTrjv erroi^ae ttjv dp^qv, and 
 iv. 54 : tovto iraXiv hexnepov arjfielov liroir\<je.v. We have 
 
 ' B C omit Si. 2 N B C D L X omit tut. 
 
 3 # G L X omit Si after rovro. 
 
 • N A B C L, some Mnn. omit a-vrsv after patnrait. 
 
CHAP. XXI. 12-14. 347 
 
 seen in these two examples that the somewhat complicated 
 phrases covered a rectification of the synoptical narrative. 
 The same is the case here. It seemed, according to Matthew 
 (and Mark ?), that Jesus appeared for the first time to the 
 disciples not in Judea, but in Galilee. By no means, says 
 our author here ; when He appeared to them in Galilee, it 
 was now the third time that He showed Himself to them as 
 the Eisen One. The two previous appearances to which he 
 alludes are evidently the last two of ch. xx. ver. 19 et seq. 
 and ver. 26 et seq. He does not reckon that to Mary 
 Magdalene, because, as he says expressly, he means to speak of 
 appearances to the disciples only. 
 
 On the relation of these words of John to Luke's account 
 and the enumeration of Paul, 1 Cor. xv. 5-7, two words 
 only : The first two appeances in Luke (Emmaus and Peter) 
 are not reckoned here by John, any more than that to Mary 
 Magdalene, which is related by himself. The reason is in 
 the to the disciples, ver. 14. The third (to the Twelve) com- 
 prehends the two, John xx. 19 and 26. — Paid sums up the 
 apostolic testimony. He instances, 1st. Peter, the witness 
 par excellence ; 2d. The Twelve (comp. John xx. 19 and 26) ; 
 3d. The five hundred, at the head of whom were the Eleven 
 (Matt, xxviii. 16-20); 4th. James, that personage who was 
 so important as the brother of Jesus ; 5th. The Tw r elve (ascen- 
 sion). — John xxi. is omitted as in Luke. Here, as elsewhere, 
 John has repaired the omission of tradition. 
 
 Might it not be these last appearances indicated by 
 Matthew and Paul of which our author gives a hint in the 
 phrase : " now the third time" which leads us to suppose that 
 there were others besides posterior to that which he relates 
 here ? — Thus all our narratives have their peculiarities in 
 harmony with the object whioh inspires them, but they 
 present no difference which it is not possible and even easy 
 to reconcile. 
 
 A last question remains to us in regard to this verse : Why 
 did John not include in his Gospel the appearance to the 
 disciples which forms the subject of this appendix ? The 
 answer appears from what we have said above on occasion of 
 the scene with Thomas. The two appearances to the disciples 
 (ch. xx.) had for their aim to establish faith in the resur- 
 
348 GOSPEL OF JOHN. 
 
 rectiou in the circle of the apostles, the witnesses chosen by 
 Jesus. The present appearance no longer bore on the faith 
 of the disciples ; it was destined to assure them of their 
 glorified Master's blessing and aid in the apostolic work 
 which they were about to undertake. The Eisen One, by 
 the eloquent language of signs (fishing and eating), confirms 
 not the fact of His resurrection, but the apostolic ministry 
 which He had instituted during the days of His flesh. 
 This appearance, therefore, did not enter into the framework 
 of the fourth Gospel, as we have understood it. On the 
 groundwork of this description relative to all the apostles, 
 there now rises, in the second part of the narrative, a special 
 revelation concerning the future of the two chief of them. 
 
 II. Jesus with Peter and John. — Vv. 15—23. 
 
 Jesus and Peter: vv. 15-1 9a. 
 
 As the preceding scene contained the confirmation of the 
 apostolic ministry given by the Eisen Jesus, so the following 
 conversation is a reinstallation of Peter as director of the 
 apostolate. No doubt Jesus had already pardoned his sin in 
 the strictly private appearance which he had granted him 
 (Luke xxiv. 34 ; 1 Cor. xv. 5). But he had not yet restored 
 him to his position either as apostle or as chief of the apos- 
 tolate. This is what He does in the first part of the following 
 conversation (vv. 15—17). 
 
 Ver. 1 5. " So, when they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon 
 Peter, Simon, son of Jonas} lovest thou me more than these ? 
 He saith unto Him, Yea, Lord ; Thou Tcnowest that I love Thee. 
 He saith unto him, Feed my lambs." 2 — There is a remarkable 
 resemblance between the present situation and that of the two 
 scenes in the previous life of Peter with which it is related. 
 He had been called to the ministry by Jesus after a miraculous 
 iraught of fishes ; it is after a similar draught that the ministry 
 $ restored to him. He had lost his office by his denial beside 
 k fire of coal ; it is beside a fire of coal that he recovers it. — 
 The form : " Simon, son of Jonas" or rather, as it should 
 probably read, according to the Alex. : " Simon, son of John" is 
 
 1 B C D L ItP ,eril » ue read l»«»»w instead of luvz ; K omits this word. 
 'CD: T^o,J«r« instead of aft, a. 
 
CHAP. XXI. 15. 349 
 
 not contrasted unintentionally with the name Simon Peter, 
 which is used by the evangelist in this very verse. It recalls 
 to Peter his natural state, from which the call of Jesus had 
 brought him, into which he had relapsed by his fall, and which 
 now serves as the starting-point for his restoration. The 
 allusion to the apostle's threefold denial in the three following 
 questions cannot be doubted, whatever Hengstenberg may 
 think to the contrary. The threefold profession of his love to 
 Jesus is intended to efface, as it were, the triple blot which 
 he himself caused. It is to furnish him with the opportunity 
 of fulfilling this noble task that Jesus is now concerned. 
 When he adds : " more than these" Jesus certainly reminds him 
 of the presumptuous superiority which he had claimed when 
 he said, Matt. xxvi. 33, Mark xiv. 29 : "Though all shall be 
 offended because of Thee, yet will I never be offended" No doubt 
 John has not mentioned these words ; but have we not found 
 his narrative in constant relation to that of the Synoptics ? 
 Except for curiosity, it is unnecessary to quote the interpreta- 
 tion which refers these to the fishing implements or to the 
 fish : " Lovest thou me more than thou lovest thine old pro- 
 fession ? " Peter, with a humility inspired by the memory of 
 his fall, first drops from his answer the last words : " more 
 than these;" then for the term a^airav, to love, in the sense of 
 veneration, complete, profound, eternal love, he substitutes 
 the word (f>i\.elv, to love, in the sense of cherishing friend- 
 ship, simple personal attachment, devoted affection. He 
 thinks he may claim this latter feeling, and yet he 
 does so not without expressing a certain self -distrust, 
 nor without seeking an authentication for the testimony of 
 his own heart in the profound and infallible knowledge of 
 the human heart which he ascribes to his Master. It is not 
 omniscience in the absolute sense of the word which is in 
 question here. Comp. ii. 24, 25. This appeal, as Luthardt 
 says, softens the too decided tone which a simple yea would 
 have had. 
 
 On this reply, Jesus assigns to him the care of His flock. 
 " He confides those whom He loves to the man who loves 
 Him," says Luthardt. The expression : " the lambs" does not 
 denote a special class of the members of the Church, the 
 children and laity, for example, but the entire flock viewed in 
 
350 GOSPEL OF JOHN. 
 
 relation to the individual care and tender painstaking needed 
 by all its members from him who is over them as the repre- 
 sentative of the Chief Shepherd. The term lamb is a familiar 
 one with the author of the Apocalypse. Of course its appli- 
 cation is the more intense in proportion as those whom it 
 designates have, moreover, the character of weakness. The 
 term feed, (Socriceiv, denotes the intimate sympathy which springs 
 from love, tender direction, and strong aid. 
 
 Vv. 16, 17. "He saith to him again the second time, 1 Simon, 
 son of Jonas, 2 lovest thou me ? He saith unto Him, Yea? Lord ; 
 Thou hnoioest that I love Thee. He saith unto him, Lead my 
 sheep} 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, 
 TJwu knowest all things ; Thou Jcnowest that L love Thee. Jesus 
 saith unto him, Feed my sheep." 7 — As the " more than ■ these " 
 had gained its object, Jesus now drops it ; but He persists in 
 using the most elevated term to denote love, ccyairav. Peter, 
 on his side, does not venture to appropriate such a term ; but 
 so much the more energetically does he affirm his love in the 
 simple sense of the word <pCkelv, and that while anew appealing 
 to the searching glance of the Lord. On this condition Jesus 
 \ again confides to him His flock, but with two characteristic 
 differences. For the word fioa/ceiv, feed, which referred to the 
 most personal care, He substitutes iroLfxalveiv, lead, like a 
 shepherd. This term denotes the direction of the Church as. 
 a whole. According to the two manuscripts, the Vatican and 
 Ephrem, He moreover uses the term 7rpo/3aTia, here, strictly 
 speaking, little sheep, instead of irpo^ara, sheep, which all the 
 others read. And this reading is very possibly the true one ; 
 for, while expressing a feeling of tenderness, this word denotes 
 a stronger and more advanced state than the word lamb, and 
 forms the transition to the term sheep, it po fiara. 
 x Finally, the third question leaves Peter no longer in doubt 
 
 1 N omits %ivt.(0)>. 
 
 2 Here again N B C D ItP leri, » ue read la/aw«u instead of l«v«. 
 
 3 S Omits vai. 
 
 4 B C read vrptfianu. instead of -rpo^ara, the reading oi all the others. 
 
 5 S B D ItP Ie "i ue : \actnov instead of \a*a. 
 
 6 SADX: Xtyn instead of u*tv. 
 
 7 ABC: irfofiKTia. instead of irpof-ar*. 
 
CHAP. XXI. 16, 17. 351 
 
 of the humiliating fact which the Lord wishes to recall to his 
 mind ; and he is the more painfully affected because Jesus now 
 substitutes, as Peter himself had done from the beginning, the 
 term <pi\elv for ayairav, whereby He seems to call in question 
 even that lower kind of attachment which the apostle had 
 claimed. Peter feels the spear-point pierce even to the quick, 
 and, gathering all his energy for a last affirmation, he appeals 
 expressly to the Lord's most penetrating knowledge : " Thou 
 hnowest all things" and under the eye of this omniscience he 
 says : See if I do not love Thee ! Three old manuscripts 
 (A B C) here read (like two of them above) 7rpo/3aTia ; but is 
 it not probable that the copyists, not apprehending the shades, 
 have mistakenly repeated this diminutive, and that Jesus said 
 this time irpofiara, my sheep, which once again denotes the 
 whole flock, but from the standpoint of its normal state. 
 Jesus here resumes the term feed, whereby He gives Peter to 
 understand that the general government of the Church should 
 not hinder the pastor from occupying himself individually with 
 each of the members of the flock. Acts xx. 31 shows that 
 the apostles thus understood their commission. The passage, 
 1 Pet. v. 1-4, seems also to be an echo of these words of Jesus 
 to the apostle. — It has been asked if Peter was simply restored 
 by this second installation to the apostolate which he had in 
 common with his colleagues, or if the words of Jesus include 
 the idea of a primacy belonging to Peter in relation to the 
 other apostles. Meyer seems to me to give the right answer 
 to the question when he says that Peter is restored to his 
 former position, and consequently that this restoration embraces 
 the pre-eminence of Peter so far as it already belonged to his 
 previous apostleship. 
 
 After restoring Peter to his apostleship in the first part of 
 the conversation, Jesus announces to him in the second, vv. 
 18, 19a, what shall be the end of his ministry. The con- 
 nection between this new idea and the previous dialogue is 
 easy to understand. Peter, by his protestation of love to 
 Jesus, had just effaced his denial ; but the Lord promises him 
 that he will one day accomplish this same task better than by 
 words — that he will accomplish it in act by martyrdom. A 
 similar connection of ideas may be seen, Acts ix. 15, 16. 
 
 Vv. 18, 19a. " Verily, verily, I say unto thee, When thou 
 
352 GOSPEL OF JOHN. 
 
 wast younger, thou girdcdst thyself, and walhedst whither thou 
 wouldest : but when thou shalt be old, thou shalt stretch forth 
 thy hands, and another shall gird 1 thee, and carry thee whither 2 
 thou wouldest not. This spake He, signifying by what death 
 he shoidd glorify God." — The form afirjv, afitfv, Verily, verily, 
 belongs exclusively to John. In the following saying there 
 is a correspondence between the three members of the two 
 propositions. To " thou wast younger," corresponds : " thou shalt 
 be old." Peter was married, and must have been of ripe age. 
 He must then have been of intermediate age between youth 
 and old age. The phrase younger, however, might also be 
 applied to the present in contrast with the time of his old age, 
 to which Jesus transfers Himself in thought. To the words : 
 " thou girdedst thyself," there correspond the following: "thou shalt 
 stretch forth thy hands, and another shall gird thee." This cor- 
 relation proves that the idea of stretching out the hands has no 
 significance in itself, and is only the condition needed for the 
 accomplishment of the act of being girded by another. One 
 who is to be bound stretches out his hands either in token of 
 complete resignation, and to give them over to be chained, or 
 at least that the arms may not be pinioned with the body. 
 It is therefore impossible to refer these words, as so many 
 interpreters, including even Baumlein, have done, to the act 
 of crucifixion, in which the arms are extended on the instru- 
 ment of punishment. This meaning is, besides, excluded by 
 what follows : " another shall carry thee whither thou ivoiddcst 
 not." The idea of punishment occurs only in this last proposi- 
 tion ; the preceding words indicate merely the preparation for 
 it. If the idea of extending the arms be applied to crucifixion, 
 the word gird, which follows, must be applied to the act of 
 binding the crucified one to the cross, or there must be seen 
 in it an allusion to the subligacidum in this punishment, two 
 meanings which are far from natural, and which are, besides, 
 excluded by the antithesis : "thou girdedst thyself" in the previous 
 proposition ; then we must apply the words : " another shall 
 lead thee (lit. will carry thee) whither thou wouldest not" to the 
 elevation of the crucified one to the height of the cross after 
 having his hands nailed to the transverse beam on the ground. 
 
 1 S D II : aXXoi ^coreviriv. 
 
 3 X . T oina ova -t <roi mra. instead of oiffit otoU. 
 
CHAP. XXI. 19-21. 353 
 
 But this meaning is forced, and does not well suit the antithesis : 
 " and wallcedst vjhither thou wouldest!' 
 
 Some have seen in the words before us the contrast 
 between self-will, which was the prominent feature of the 
 apostle's natural character, and that submissive passiveness 
 which was to become characteristic of his spiritual life. But 
 then will this latter disposition not begin till the time of 
 his old age ? Jesus is merely contrasting the full liberty of 
 motion belonging to the man who has still the disposal of 
 himself with the passiveness of the man who is led off bound. 
 " Whither thou wouldest not" is spoken from the standpoint of 
 natural feeling. By another, Bleek understands Jesus Him- 
 self. This explanation would only be admissible were there 
 to be given to the thought the moral meaning which we have 
 just set aside. — The phrase : " by what death" refers to the death 
 of martyrdom in general, and not specially to the punishment 
 of crucifixion, as we have just proved. This expression is 
 \ simply opposed to the idea of natural death. The author 
 speaks here of Peter's death as of a fact well known to his 
 readers. This narrative was therefore drawn up after that 
 event, which took place, according to most authors, in July 
 64, according to others one or two years later. The phrase: 
 " to glorify God" to signify martyrdom, became a technical 
 term in later ecclesiastical writings. Here we find it still in 
 its original freshness. The phrase tovto Be elirev aw/iaivwv 
 is peculiarly Johannine, as well as the iroim 6avara> which 
 follows ; compare xii. 3 3. 
 
 Jesus and John: vv. 195-21. 
 
 This conversation refers to the future of John's ministry, 
 as the preceding to the future of Peter's. 
 
 Vv. 19&-21. "And when He had spoken this, He saith unto 
 him, Follow me. Then Peter, turning about, seeth the disciple 
 whom Jesus loved following ; l which also leaned on His breast at 
 supper, and said, 2 Lord, 3 which is he that betray eth thee ? Peter 
 seeing* him saith to Jesus, Lord, and what shall become of this 
 man ? " — Very diverse meanings have been put on the com- 
 
 N Olllits axoXovfivvrx as. 
 
 2 S : Xiyn instead of wnt ; SCD add avra>. 
 8 N C omit xupts. 
 
 4 N B C D ItP Ier "i ue Vg. Cop. Or. add «t/» after rovrtt, 
 GODET III. Z JOHN. 
 
354 GOSrEL OF JOHN. 
 
 rnand : "Follow me" Paulus understood it in the most literal 
 sense : " Follow me in the place where I am going to bring 
 thee to converse with thee alone." Chrysostom and Baumlein : 
 "Follow me in the active work of the apostolic ministry." 
 Meyer : " Follow me in the way of martyrdom where my 
 example leads thee." Luthardt : " Follow me to that invisible 
 world into which I have already entered, and to which thou 
 shalt be raised by martyrdom." We would not dispute the 
 gravity and solemnity of this command ; but it is absolutely 
 impossible for us to believe that, when the text adds : " Peter, 
 turning about," there is no indication of a motion made by 
 Jesus, Peter following Him in the literal sense, a fact which 
 speaks decidedly in favour of the meaning of Paulus. This 
 meaning is confirmed by the following words : " He seeth the 
 disciple following them " (aicoXovdovvTa) ; this identity of terms 
 cannot be, as Meyer would have it, accidental. After an- 
 nouncing to Peter his martyrdom, Jesus began to move off, 
 and commanded Peter to follow Him in the literal sense ; and 
 John followed them without any express invitation. Must 
 we conclude from this that the meaning of the command : 
 "Follow me," is thus exhausted ? By no means ; for this step 
 which Peter took in the following of Jesus was the first step 
 in the way of obedience which was to guide him to the last, 
 viz. martyrdom. Thus it is that the higher sense naturally links 
 itself with the lower. It is vain for Meyer to scout this 
 symbolism ; it forms the basis of John's entire Gospel ; it 
 forced itself on our attention with the first word of the Gospel 
 in the "Follow me" addressed by Jesus to Philip, i. 44 (follow 
 me to Galilee on the way of faith), and we find it here again 
 at the close in a manner equally evident. 
 
 What could be the object of the conversation which Jesus 
 desired to have with Peter ? Perhaps it was to give him 
 the necessary instructions for convoking those hundreds of 
 Galilean believers to whom Jesus wished to manifest Himself 
 personally before wholly withdrawing His visible presence 
 from the earth (1 Cor. xv. 6). We learn from Matt, xxviii. 16 
 that Jesus Himself, with this view, designated a certain moun- 
 tain in Galilee. It was no doubt by Peter that He made His 
 will known to His own on this point ; perhaps He wished to 
 communicate it to him at this time. This was therefore his 
 
CHAP. XXI. 22, 23. Soo 
 
 first act as shepherd of the flock {irotixaivuv), the office which 
 Jesus had just been committing to him. With the turning 
 about, itiricrTpa<f>ei<i\ comp. xx. 14 and 16; it is an absolutely 
 Johannine form. John followed Jesus and Peter; for the 
 intimacy with Jesus, to which he had been admitted during 
 His earthly life, authorized him to do so, and this is precisely 
 what is expressed by the two epithets : " the disciple whom 
 Jesus loved" and : " he who leant on Jesus' bosom, and said to 
 Him . . ." John was certain that nothing could pass between 
 Jesus and Peter which should be kept a secret from him. Such 
 is the true reason why that mark of supreme confidence which 
 he had enjoyed at the last feast is here referred to (xiii. 25). 
 It does not therefore contradict the Johannine origin of the 
 narrative. The /eat after o?, " who also (or in consequence)," 
 indicates that this exceptional intimacy was precisely in con- 
 nection with his character as the well-beloved disciple. 
 
 "What is the true motive of Peter's question, ver. 21? It is 
 not only the Tubingen school, but men like Olshausen, Lucke, 
 Meyer, Baumlein, who ascribe to this apostle a feeling of 
 jealousy towards John. He is curious, they say, to know 
 whether Jesus does not reserve for this privileged disciple a 
 less painful future than that which He has just announced to 
 himself. Such a feeling seems to us incompatible with the 
 frame of mind into which the previous conversation must have 
 brought Peter. Must not the love which he had just testified 
 for Jesus, and the memory of his denial so vividly reawakened, 
 have led him to regard martyrdom rather as a favour than as 
 a misfortune ? Besides, Peter and John were closely bound 
 to one another, and loved one another truly (ver. 7). The 
 former, with his masculine nature, understood the tender and 
 sensitive character of the latter ; and it is his sympathy with 
 a weaker nature which suggests to him the question, so full of 
 interest : " and this man, what shall become of him ? " If we 
 think of the profound emotion which had just been produced 
 on Peter's mind by the announcement of his tragical end, 
 nothing will appear simpler than this question. 
 
 Vv. 22, 23. "Jesus saith unto him, If I will that he tarry 
 till I come, what is that to thee ? follow thou me. 1 Then went 
 this saying abroad among the brethren, that that disciple shoidd 
 1 N A B C D Itr'« ri< i ue Vg. Or. place fit, before axcXivhi. 
 
356 GOSPEL OF JOHN. 
 
 not die : yet Jesus said 1 not unto him, He shall not die ; hut, If 
 I will that he tarry till I come." 2 — Peter's question, though 
 dictated by a feeling of affection, was somewhat indiscreet ; and 
 the Lord makes him feel this by the words : " what is that to 
 thee ? " The coming of the Lord, in the fourth Gospel (ch. xiv.- 
 xvi.), denotes His coming in the spirit from Pentecost onwards. 
 This meaning is not applicable here, for Peter was present at 
 that event. The coming of Jesus in the passage xiv. 3 refers 
 at the same time to the deoih of the apostles ; and this mean- 
 ing has been tried here. Jesus, it is held, predicts a natural 
 death for John as the close of a long apostolical activity, in 
 opposition to the martyrdom of Peter. This, or nearly this, 
 is the meaning adopted by Grotius, Olshausen, Weitzel, Ewald. 
 But it would follow from this that the Lord comes to seek 
 only those of His own who die a natural death, and not 'those 
 who perish by martyrdom ; which would be absurd, and is 
 contradicted by the account of Stephen's martyrdom. The 
 coming of Jesus denotes also in some passages His invisible 
 return to judge Jerusalem, and (for this correlative idea may be 
 joined here) to establish His kingdom and make his cause 
 triumphant in the Gentile world (Matt. x. 23, xvi. 28, comp. 
 with Mark ix. 1 and Luke ix. 27; Matt. xxiv. 33, 34, etc.). 
 This important epoch in the kingdom of God, from the year 
 7 to the end of the first century, was not witnessed by Peter ; 
 liut John lived an'3 took a preponderating part in it to the 
 very end of his career. And it is to this difference between 
 the two chief disciples that Baumgarten-Crusius, Luthardt, 
 and others refer the promise of Jesus in this verse. This 
 explanation is certainly preferable to the preceding ; it is, I 
 think, that which applies to Mark ix. 1 and parallels. It is 
 therefore also possible here. Lastly, the Lord's coming denotes 
 most frequently His glorious advent at the close of the present 
 economy (comp. in John's First Epistle, ii. 2 8, iii. 2). Meyer and 
 others apply this meaning here : " If I will that he tarry till 
 my Parousia." It appears, certainly, that this was how the 
 contemporaries of John interpreted the words, since they had 
 concluded from them that John would not die, but that, pre- 
 
 1 NBC Or. : ovx. writ Ss instead of x.«.i ovx, eivriv. 
 
 2 We reject here the words n Tpas n (what is that to thee ?), which are omitted 
 by X| some Mnn. It ,licl * 
 
CHAP. XXI. 22, 23. 357 
 
 served till the Parousia, he would be changed with the then 
 living believers (1 Thess. iv. 17; 1 Cor. xv. 51, 52). This 
 meaning of the expression : " till I come" is certainly the most 
 natural. But it raises the question : Did John really die, yea 
 or nay ? In the former case, what becomes of the promise 
 implicitly contained in the words of Jesus ? In the latter, 
 how are we to conceive of a fact so extraordinary as that which 
 would be revealed to us here : John remaining alive during 
 all the present economy ? Meyer thinks he can escape 
 from the difficulty by means of the conditional form : "If I will" 
 and laying special stress on the conjunction idv, used here in 
 preference to el. The difference of meaning between idv and 
 el proves nothing ; for what matters it whether Jesus says : 
 "If I will (el)" or : "If it happen that I should will (idv)"1 As 
 to the conditional form in itself, it does not remove the real 
 difficulty. When He said : "If I will" Jesus must in any case 
 have had before Him something precise, reasonable, and possible. 
 The hypothetical form bore only on the realization or non-realiza- 
 tion of the idea. But when He spoke thus, the Lord must have 
 thought something ; and it is this something which puzzles our 
 understanding. For to hold that He threw out to Peter as 
 possible a supposition which He regarded as impossible, is to 
 reproach the seriousness of His character. In spite of the if, 
 the problem therefore remains entire. The idea which I gave 
 forth (1st ed.) may be called strange, as it is by Meyer, — 
 the idea, viz., that the Lord here spoke of the possibility of 
 preserving John, the last survivor of the apostolate, in 
 constant connection with the progress of the Church to the 
 very end, in a form mysterious and to us (who know at bottom 
 the nature neither of life nor of death) impenetrable. Yet we 
 shall be easily led, if we are resolved not to make play of this 
 last word of the Lord in our Gospel, to give it this or some 
 similar meaning. And a fact of this nature, inconceivable as 
 it may appear, is not without biblical precedent. The primitive 
 epoch of humanity had its Enoch, who knew not death ; the 
 theocratic epoch had its Elias, who was also exempted from 
 its power ; and may not the Christian epoch also have its 
 representative set free from death ? But I am aware that 
 such a meaning will be denied to the saving of our Lord. In 
 that case, it remains only to take refuge in the preceding 
 
358 GOSPEL OF JOHN. 
 
 explanation. For no one surely will bring his mind to accept 
 either the explanation of Paulns : " If I will that he tarry 
 here, to wait for us till I return with thee," or that of Bengel, 
 Ebrard, Hengstenberg : " If I will that John remain in life till 
 jhe day when he shall receive the apocalyptic revelation." * 
 
 Here the unity of the whole chapter opens up to us. As 
 on the basis of the miraculous draught of fishes, which repre- 
 sents the future of all the apostles, there stands out the 
 particular part assigned to the two chief of them, that of 
 Peter, who suddenly leaves the boat to make his way across 
 the waters to the very feet of Jesus, and that of John, who 
 remains patiently in the boat to the end of the fishing, so in 
 the future of the apostolic work in general there will stand 
 out as two contrasted and prominent forms the ministry of 
 Peter, the apostle who shall be removed from the Church by 
 a speedy martyrdom, and the apostleship of John, who shall 
 continue to be active within the Church till the establishment 
 of the kingdom of God upon the earth. Here again we shall 
 not let ourselves be staggered by the epithet strange (ivunder- 
 lich), whereby Meyer and Luthardt characterize this parallel. 
 The question is not whether the correlation which we point 
 out between the events of the fishing and the meaning of the 
 conversation is or is not strange, but whether it is or is not 
 in the mind of the author of the narrative. And so far as 
 we are concerned, the answer is not doubtful. Thereafter 
 we shall willingly accept Luthardt's idea, that in these two 
 principal forms of apostleship there are represented the two 
 permanent types of the Christian ministry, the testimony of 
 blood by martyrdom, and that of speech by a Johannine and 
 priestly activity. — After this saying relating to John, Jesus 
 anew invites Peter to follow Him to receive His present com- 
 mands, and so to return immediately to the active work of 
 His apostleship, which had been for the moment interrupted 
 (ver. 1). The av, thou, which Jesus here expressly isolates 
 from the verbal idea (in opposition to the form, ver. ] 9), is 
 related to the rt 77730? ere (" what is that to thee ? ") : " As to 
 
 1 The idea expressed by Holtzmann (art. "Johannes " in the Bibel-lexicon of 
 Sehenkel), that this saying of Jesus is only an application to John of the general 
 promise (Matt. xvi. 28 ; Mark ix. 1 ; Luke ix. 27), is ingenious, but it does not cor- 
 respond to the precisely-marked situation in which it is placed by our appendix. 
 
CHAP. XXI. 22, 23. 359 
 
 thee, this is what concerns tJiec." — The Alex, place the fioi, 
 me, to me, before the verb : " It is to me, and no other, that 
 thou must look ; for it is in my steps that thou must walk." 
 
 The author does not give in ver. 23 the interpretation of 
 the saying of Jesus. He contents himself with correcting 
 the misunderstanding which eventually came to be attached 
 to it, by reproducing its exact tenor. The last words : " what 
 is that to thee ? " not being necessary in this view, it is 
 probable that the reading of the Sinaiticus, which omits them, 
 is the true one. The present airodvqir/cei, he dieth not, is not 
 the present of fact, but of idea. "What is meant is not that 
 John does not die at the time when the words are spoken, 
 but that absolutely speaking he does not die. If we vividly 
 imagine this X070?, this common saying, we shall feel that the 
 author reproduces it just as he hears it repeated in the Church 
 at that very time. The interest of this rectification, besides, 
 is not easily conceivable till that time, that is to say, imme- 
 diately after or a little before the apostle's death, with the 
 view of effacing or preventing the scandal caused by the con- 
 tradiction between his death and the saying ascribed to Jesus ; 
 and it is probable that care was taken rather to prevent than 
 to repair (see on ver. 24). Keini (i. p. 137) and Mangold 
 (Bleek's Einl 3d ed. p. 258), who place the composition of 
 this appendix towards the end of the second century, are 
 consequently obliged to seek a quite different object for this 
 rectification. Its aim, according to them, is to reconcile the 
 tendency of the Church of this epoch to establish itself com- 
 fortably here below with the declarations of Jesus about the 
 nearness of His Parcusia (comp. 2 Pet. iii. 4 et seq.). But 
 on this understanding the remark of ver. 23 would harmonize 
 nothing ; but the contrary, since it appears from the exactly 
 given tenor of the saying of Jesus, that John might possibly 
 be present in life at the Parousia. And what purpose, besides, 
 would it serve to exhume from oblivion, at the end of the 
 second century, a lost saying in order to rectify it, while the 
 Gospels contained so large a number of others perfectly well 
 known, in regard to which the difficulty remained entire ? It 
 follows, therefore, from this passage, that, according to the 
 view of Bleek, Meyer, Ewald, and Baumlein, this appendix 
 necessarily dates from the last years of the apostle's life, or 
 
360 GOSPEL OF JOHN. 
 
 from the time which immediately followed his death. — Tho 
 Kai adversative, and yet, before ov/c tlirev, reminds us of one 
 of the most uniform peculiarities of our evangelist's style 
 (i. 8, v. 39, vi. 36, xv. 24, etc.). 
 
 Here is the end of the narrative contained in the appendix. 
 What can be its aim ? Here again the school of Baur sup- 
 poses an ignoble manoeuvre. The object, according to it, is to 
 raise John, the apostle of Asia Minor, above Peter, the patron 
 of the Eoman church. Strange means to this end, the triple 
 installation of Peter in his apostolic dignity (not without the 
 idea of a primacy over his colleagues), and the promise made 
 to this apostle of the most glorious death ! Not to take into 
 account that, according to Baur and his school, the whole 
 Gospel was intended to make good the case of Eome against 
 Asia Minor in the Easter controversy, which establishes a 
 flagrant contradiction between the object of the appendix and 
 that of the Gospel. Besides, Kostlin and Volkmar have 
 come to suppose a wholly contrary intention. This appendix, 
 according to the dictum of the former, is a flattery addressed 
 to the bishop of Eome in favour of his supremacy ; and, accord- 
 ing to the second, an attempt to re-establish the authority of 
 Peter, which the rest of the Gospel had undermined. We 
 cite these vagaries ; they need no refutation. Bleek, Meyer, 
 and others more simply find the object of this narrative in 
 the refutation of the false report circulating about John, vv. 
 22 and 23. But would this have required the reproduction 
 of the entire fishing scene, of the repast, and of Peter's rein- 
 stallation ? This intention, besides, seems to us inconsistent 
 with the parenthesis of ver. 14, which divides the chapter 
 into two, and thus gives a significance of its own to the first 
 part of the narrative. The same objection holds also against 
 the much too particular intention assumed by M. Eeuss 
 (Gesch. der heil. Schrift. dcs N. T. § 239), that of re-establish- 
 ing the dignity of Peter, which had been compromised by his 
 denial. — We have seen that the unity of the different pieces of 
 which this appendix is composed only comes out clearly when 
 it is regarded as intended to cast a survey over the future of 
 the apostolic ministry in general — such is the meaning of the 
 first picture, vv. 1—14, and over that of the ministry of the 
 two chief apostles in particular — such is the object of the two 
 
CHAP. XXI. 22, 23. 3G1 
 
 conversations, w. 15—23. It is likewise from this point of 
 view that there opens tip the relation between the appendix 
 and the whole book. Lange, Schaff, and Holemann have 
 regarded this chapter as the counterpart of the prologue, and 
 we have already seen that this idea is untenable. The matter 
 in question here is not the celestial activity of Jesus as the 
 counterpart of His divine activity anterior to His incarnation. 
 It is not quite so far back in the Gospel we must go to find 
 the counterpart of our appendix. The second part of ch. i. 
 relates the first call of the apostles, in particular that of Peter 
 and John. What Jesus did then provisionally at the begin- 
 ning of the formation of faith, He definitively confirms on the 
 foundation of faith acquired. The call to education for their 
 mission is ratified by the call to the mission itself. This is 
 what is described in the appendix. As not entering into the 
 description of the development of the apostles' faith, this 
 incident could not form an integral part of the Gospel. But 
 as a glance thrown at the future of the apostolic ministry, it 
 was its natural complement ; for the consummation of their 
 faith is their mission. 
 
 To vjhom are we to ascribe the composition of this narrative ? 
 The Johannine type as to matter and style is so deeply 
 and obviously imprinted on it, that only two suppositions 
 are possible on this subject : either John himself composed 
 this piece some time after having finished the Gospel, or 
 we have here the work of that circle of friends and disciples 
 who surrounded the apostle at Ephesus, who had often heard 
 him relate the facts contained in it, and who have reproduced 
 them in his own language. It is of small importance which 
 of these two suppositions is chosen. Yet we must say that 
 the first alternative, as it seems to us, deserves to be pre- 
 ferred. 1st. Would the disciples of John, in the enumeration 
 of ver. 2, have placed their master in the last rank among the 
 apostles properly so called ? 2d. Could they have preserved 
 so delicately the slightest shades in the conversation between 
 Jesus and Peter ? 3d. Who besides, more than John himself, 
 would feel bound to correct the possible error arising from the 
 saying uttered by Jesus in regard to him ? 4th. Finally, 
 ver. 24, little as may be the value attached to the testimony 
 it contains, settles the question in this way. 
 
362 GOSPEL OF JOIIN. 
 
 Conclusion of the Appendix. — Vv. 24, 25. 
 
 Vv. 24, 25. " This is the disciple which testificth of these 
 things, and wrote these things : 1 and we know that his 2 testimony 
 is true. There are also many other things which 3 Jesus did, the 
 which, if they should he written every one, I suppose that even the 
 world itself could not contain* the hooks 6 that should he written." 
 — From what pen do these two last verses proceed ? On this 
 point very different opinions prevail. Some (Hengstenberg, 
 Lange, Weitzel, Hilgenfeld, Holemann, etc.) regard them as 
 both belonging to the author of the whole appendix. Others 
 (such as Meyer, Tischendorf, etc.) ascribe ver. 24 to this author, 
 and ver. 25 to a later interpolator. A third party, finally 
 (Tholuck and Luthardt), regard them as both added to the 
 appendix by one or more persons different from the author. 
 Between these three views only a detailed study will enable 
 us to decide. The author of these lines declares, in the first 
 part of ver. 24, that he who has not only related {fiaprvpwv, 
 which testificth), but also written {^pd^ra<i, which wrote) these 
 things is the beloved disciple who has just been spoken of in 
 vv. 20-23. First of all, what things (tovtwv) are in question ? 
 Does such an attestation bear simply on the contents of the 
 appendix ? It is hard to believe this. The narrative had no 
 such great importance as to call for this solemn declaration 
 about its author. The editor of ver. 24 has therefore in view 
 not only the appendix, but the entire Gospel. The conclusion, 
 xx. 30, 31, had closed the Gospel. This new conclusion, 
 imitating the preceding one, is intended to close at once both 
 the Gospel and the appendix, while binding them into one 
 whole. Can it proceed from the hand of the evangelist ? 
 No doubt we have heard John himself, xix. 35, declaring 
 himself to be the witness on whose authority a particular fact 
 is to be believed in the Church. But here the editor goes 
 
 1 Instead of *«/ ypa-^a;, B D Cop. read *«/ » ypa^ui, and K* and some Mnn. : 
 
 * xui yfcc^a.;. 
 
 2 B C D place avrov before » paprvpix. 
 
 3 Instead of «<r«, which T. K. reads with 13 Mjj. (A D, etc.), N'BCX read *. 
 *{{BC Cop. : x a P" ffi " 1 instead of xuprKrxi. 
 
 5 N A B C D, some Mnn. ItP leri i u » Vg. Syr. Cop. Sah. Or. omit */**» aftey- 
 /Si/sxia. — The whole of this 25th verse is wanting in N (not in Cod. 63, as was 
 long said erroneously after Mill, Wetstein, Griesbach ; see Teschendorf's 8th ed.). 
 
CHAP. XXI. 24, 25. 363 
 
 further ; he ascribes to John not only the authority of the 
 testimony, but the fact of the writing. This declaration is 
 therefore probably added by a person other than the apostle, 
 whom special circumstances authorize to give forth such an 
 attestation in the face of the Church. The oi8a/j,ev, we know, 
 which follows, confirms the idea that the writer of this note 
 is by no means the author of the appendix and of the Gospel ; 
 for the latter never speaks of himself in the plural, and it is 
 impossible to have recourse to the expedient of Chrysostom, 
 who divided this verb into two words : olSa p,ev, now I know. 
 It is equally impossible to accept the explanation of Meyer, 
 who ascribes these words to the author of the Gospel, and 
 who thinks that he wrote them as an expression not only 
 of his own feeling, but of the feeling of all the faithful who 
 surrounded him. In this case, where the matter in question 
 concerns the author personally, it is absolutely impossible to 
 combine in one and the same " we know " the expression of the 
 author's feeling and that of the persons surrounding him. 
 The moral position of the former and of the latter in regard 
 to this fact of consciousness is too widely different. This 
 declaration, therefore, proceeds very obviously from a plurality 
 of individuals. We cannot, it is true, name with certainty 
 those who were parties to it. But the well-known passage of 
 the Fragment of Muratori (Introd. i. p. 248) brings on the 
 scene on this occasion the Apostle Andrew and other apostles 
 (such as Philip) living in Asia at that time, as well as the 
 bishops of Ephesus ; x the famous passage of Papias 2 suggests 
 also the thought of Aristion, of the presbyter John, and of Papias 
 himself. In any case, we have certainly to do here with 
 those in whose hands the apostle had deposited his writing, 
 who had charged themselves with publishing it at time con- 
 venient, and who, when carrying out their commission, think 
 themselves bound to accompany a work of such importance 
 with this semi-official certificate. 
 
 Meyer justly brings out the contrast between the pres. 
 partic. 6 /xapTvpoSv, he which testifieth, and the past partic. 
 ypdy}ra<;, he who wrote. It follows thence that at the time 
 
 1 "John the disciple, exhorted by his fellow - disciples and the bishops, 
 said . . . ; that same night it was revealed to Andrew, one of the apostles . . ." 
 
 2 Introd. vol. i. p. 49. 
 
364 GOSPEL OF JOHN. 
 
 when this attestation was penned, John was still continuing; 
 in addition to his now finished written testimony, that of his 
 living word.- — The term rypdtya<;, who wrote, obviously does 
 not exclude the process of dictation then generally employed. 
 It may be said that Paul wrote the Epistle to the Eomans, 
 notwithstanding Rom. xvi. 22. — The information of this verse 
 is, therefore, not only that John is the author of the Gospel, 
 but that he was still living at the time when this declaration 
 was made. But why is it necessary to add to a narrative 
 which is the work of John himself an attestation like this : 
 " and we know that his testimony is true " ? If this declaration 
 proceeds from John's colleagues in the apostleship, it simply 
 certifies that their recollection of the facts accords with 
 that of John, which assuredly implies nothing hurtful to his 
 character. Is it not related in the Muratori Fragment that 
 it was decided that John should write all in his own name, 
 and that the others should revise his narrative (recognoscentibus 
 cunctis) ? If it emanates from the presbyters of Ephesus, it 
 signifies that they, knowing the apostle personally, and having 
 found him truthful and holy in all his conduct, are perfectly 
 assured of the truth of his testimony in the Gospel narrative 
 which he has left. There is nothing to prevent these two 
 meanings from being applied here together. There is nothing, 
 therefore, in this saying which is opposed, as M. Nicolas has 
 alleged {Revue germanique, Ap. 1863), to the apostolic dignity 
 of him who wrote the Gospel. 
 
 Does ver. 25 proceed from the same plurality of witnesses 
 as ver. 24 ? There are three evidences which lead us to 
 doubt this. First, the grammatical or syntactical form of the 
 verse. Ver. 24 still bore the impress of Johannine sim- 
 plicity. The construction of ver. 25 is more complicated. 
 Then the verb in the sing, ol/xai, I suppose, which contrasts 
 with the plur. oiSafiev, we know, ver. 24. Finally, the too 
 emphasized exaggeration which characterizes the verse. We 
 feel ourselves carried somewhat beyond the simple gravity 
 and sobriety of an apostle. But must we conclude hence 
 that the verse has been interpolated at a date posterior to the 
 publication, as is thought by Meyer and Tischendorf? It 
 would be impossible in this case to understand how there 
 were not spread throughout the Church a great many copies 
 
CHAP. XXI. 24, 25. obo 
 
 free from this addition. It is true the Sina'iticus omits it, 
 but it is solitary in this respect, and there is no manuscript 
 more chargeable than it is with omissions and inadvertencies. 
 Besides, we have here to do probably with an intentional 
 rejection, in consequence of the very proofs which we have 
 been indicating. As this verse is wanting nowhere else, 
 any more than ver. 24, it is probable that it accompanied the 
 Gospel from the time of its publication, and that it proceeds 
 consequently from the pen of some one of the members of 
 that body from which the attestation of ver. 24 emanates. 
 The tone of the verse is not without resemblance to that of 
 the descriptions given by Papias in his well-known ampli- 
 fications relative to the thousand years' reign ; and as this 
 Father is said to have been contemporary with Aristion, with 
 the presbyter John, and even with the Apostle John (Introd. 
 vol. i. pp. 49-54), it is not impossible that the subject of 
 the verb 7" think may be Papias himself, a fact which would 
 explain the strange notice discovered by Tischendorf in a 
 manuscript of the Vatican, according to which Papias was 
 the secretary to whom John dictated his Gospel. 1 
 
 In any case, the meaning of the verse is, that if this 
 narrative is the truth (ver. 24), it is not all the truth; for, 
 says the author, the task of evangelic narration, if it were 
 understood in the sense that it must furnish a complete 
 history of the life of Jesus, could never be realized, not only 
 because never could such a life be adequately contained in 
 books, but also (ovSi, not even) because the whole universe 
 would be too little to contain the books which would fulfil 
 this condition. The meaning of this hyperbole, which taken 
 literally would be ridiculous, even attenuated as it is by the 
 word / think, is evidently this : the infinite cannot be com- 
 pletely contained within the compass of the finite ; or : the 
 category of spirit is and remains superior to that of space. 
 Writings might be added to writings without end to describe 
 the glory of the only-begotten Son, full of the grace and 
 truth of God. . . . This indefinite series of writings would 
 never exhaust such a subject. 
 
 From this detailed study we conclude : 1st. That the 
 narrative, vv. 1-23, is from the hand of the evangelist. 2d. 
 1 Wann wurden unsere Evangelien vnfasst ? p. 119. 
 
366 GOSPEL OF JOHN. 
 
 That ver. 24 is a declaration emanating from the friends of 
 John, who had called forth the composition of his Gospel, 
 and to whom he had committed it after its completion (comp. 
 what is said of Mark entrusting his Gospel to his friends in 
 the Eoman church who had asked it of him). 3d. That 
 ver. 25 is written by one of them with whom the work was 
 deposited, and who thought himself bound to close it thus, 
 to the glory not of the author, but of the subject of the 
 history. By these last words the entire work becomes one 
 whole. Accordingly we are shut up to hold either that 
 John is the author of our Gospel, or that the author is a 
 forger who, 1st, palmed himself off on the world with all 
 the characteristics of the apostle ; who, 2d, carried his shame- 
 lessness so far that he got made out for him, by an accomplice 
 of his fraud, a certificate of identity with the person of 
 John ; or who, more simply still, to save himself the trouble 
 of finding a companion in falsehood, made out this certificate 
 for himself in the name of another, or of several others. 
 And he who had recourse to such ways was the author of a 
 writing in which lying is blasted as the work of the devil 
 (viii. 44), and truth glorified as one of the two essential 
 features of the Divine character ! If any one will believe 
 such a story ... let him believe it! (1 Cor. xiv. 38). 
 
 For my part, I rejoice to be able to say that the renewed 
 study of this inimitable work has made the certainty of its 
 authenticity shine before my view with evermore irresistible 
 clearness. It is proved, as it seems to me, above all by the 
 luminous transparency with which there is revealed in it the 
 self-consciousness of Christ. A Divine life, humanly lived, 
 Jesus offers Himself to the world as the bread of life, come 
 down from heaven, that whosoever eats of it may realize 
 through Him the sublime destination of our race : man in 
 God, God in man. This conception bears within it the seal 
 of its origin. 
 
 THE END.