LIBRARY OF THE THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY PRINCETON. N. J. PRESENTED BY Dr. F.L, , Patton Division . hS'L^Vb Section . T4rb"5 co^yl '• v^^ w r I ■-w ^t^ I COMMENTAKY GOSPEL OF JOHK %/ DE. AUGUSTUS THOLUCK. TRANSLATED FROM THE GERMAN, CHARLES P. KRAUTH, D. D. PHILADELPHIA: SMITH, ENGLISH & CO., No. 40 NORTH SIXTH STREET. NEW YORK: SHELDON & COMPANY. BOSTON: GOULD & LINCOLN. EDINBURGH: T. & T. CLARK, No. 38 GEORGE STREET. 1859. Entered, according to Act of Congress, in the year 1859, by CHARLES P. KRAUTH, in the Clerk's Office of the District Court of the United States for the Western District of Penn'a. STBBEOTTPZD BY W. B. HAVKM, PITTSBDEGH, PA. TRANSLATOR'S PREFACE. One of the most eminent Biblical scholars, not alone of our country, but of our age, in imparting some of the impressions derived from a sojourn in Europe, says: "To the American Christian who travels on this part of the Continent, Tholuck is undoubtedly the most interesting person whose acquaintance he will make. He possesses a greater personal influ- ence and reputation than any other theologian in Grermany."^ Prof. Park in his Sketch of the Life and Character of Tholuck, makes these remarks : "As a Commentator he has many excellencies. This would be anticipated from the fact that his reading has been so various, and his memory is so retentive ; from his almost unequaled facility in acquiring language, and his peculiar intimacy with the Hebrew and its cognate tongues. He is able to write and converse in a great variety of languages, as the English, Italian, Dutch, French, Spanish, Latin, Greek, Arabic, Persian and others. He is, of course, qualified to illustrate the sacred texts by a multiplicity of references; and he quotes with peculiar pertinence and eff'ect from the Oriental, and especially from the Rabbinical writings. For a single specimen, read his comment on John vii. 37-39. The classical quotations, too, in his Commentaries, are eminently valuable." * Kaufman observes in the preface to his translation of the fourth edition of Tholuck's John : "Nothing is perhaps more wanted in the theological domain than a good Commentary on the Gospels. On this part of the Bible our language afi"ords the student little that is valuable in a critical and doctrinal view. — In commenting on St. John particularly — the Plato of the inspired circle — it requires a mind of a peculiar order. This mind Tholuck possesses : a happy combination of deep and meditative thought with a Christian heart ; a quick apprehension, a glowing imagination, an accurate acquaintance with language, and a nice perception of its force, together with a clear insight into the spiritual natui-e of man. There is no man more interesting than our author upon the theatre of Germany, 1 Prof. Robinson, in 1831. Biblic. Reposit. i. 29. ' Biblical Cabinet, xxviii. 2-i. (iii) IV Translator's Preface. nor indeed upon the literary arena of any nation. He stands forth pre- eminent among the learned ones of that learned people ; he yields to none in versatility of mind, in depth and compass of thought, or in variety of knowledge. . . But a lustre is thrown over all these attainments by his deep and earnest piety. Such a fervor and glow of Christian devotion as everywhere breathe in his writings, are scarcely to be met with in any writer since the days of Leighton. Amid the doubters and infidels of Germany, it is truly delightful to discover such a spirit as Tholuck's; learned and eloquent as the proudest among them, he still preserves the meek simplicity of a child, and brings all his learning and his laurels and lays them down at the feet of Christ." Mtiller^ says : ''Every thing presents itself to the mind of Tholuck in large outline. . . Bold and brilliant images are always at his command. Not only does the Holy Bible open to him its treasure-chambers, but the sages of Greece, the ancient and modern teachers of the Church, the Christian lyric poets, present him their most beautiful flowers, and lay at his feet the most apposite expressions. There is given to Dr. Tho- luck THE POWER OF ENCHANTMENT OVER MIND." Not one of the Commentaries of this illustrious scholar has passed through so many editions, and found such universal favor, as the one which it is our privilege, in this volume, to offer the reader. To the illustrious Neander, whose "life and whose instructions had taught him to understand the Gospel of the Spirit," Tholuck dedicated the first edition of his Commentary on the Gospel of John. His original plan had been to present an epitome of the exegetical works of the Fathers and of the Reformers, which, upon the Gospel of John, are extraordinarily nu- merous and rich. In performing this labor, he felt constantly the necessity of marking and correcting the mistakes into which these illustrious men had sometimes been drawn by false or imperfect principles of interpreta- tion. The materials grew under his hand, and took the shape rather of a history of the hermeneutics of the Gospel, than of an exposition of it. He was led, in consequence, to the determination of preparing a com- pressed Commentary, in which the most valuable portions of the ancient Expositors should be presented in their own language — not so extended indeed in its compass, yet on the general plan which he had pursued in his Commentary on the Romans, (a Commentary which De Wette, remote as he was from its distinctive theological position, pronounced to be superior to any which had appeared on that Epistle.) The only reason for hesitating as to the prosecution of this purpose, was his sense of the peculiar merit of the Commentary of Liicke. A work characterized by 1 Stud. u. Kritik, viii. 239, quoted by Prof. Park, Sketch 31. Translator's Preface. v such " marked exegetical talent, thorough study of the aids, and impartiality of judgmcat," might have been supposed to render another unnecessary. But not only were the plan and extent of the work he proposed to himself different from those of Liicke's, but it seemed to him that no one work upon such a book as John could render all others superfluous. The Commentary of Liicke is a very ample exegetico-critical treatment of the Gospel, Tho- luck's was meant to be a Manual for the student and the scholar. The Commentary which was given to the public in 1826, met with such favor, that within a few months after its appearing it became necessary to make preparation for a second edition, which, with a number of corrections on particular points, but with no essential changes, appeared in 1828. Though many desired that he should give more breadth to his handling, the earlier judgment of Tholuck remained unchanged — he felt that a more imperative want was met by a Manual than would have been supplied by any other form he might have given his work. It would have been easy to enlarge the work, but he aimed at the more diflScult task of compression — the task of furnishing a work which should be comprehensive without being bulky, and which, while it avoided superficiality, should not run into excess of detail. The evangelical character of the Exposition, its mild fearlessness in the defense of Christian truth, and especially its views of inspiration, which rose so far above those maintained by the old Ration- alism, exposed the work to violent assault. Tholuck was willing to learn from foes as well as from friends, and the severity of the antagonism only made him more thorough in investigation and more delibei'ate in judgment. Thus the opposition of enemies not only helped to give a wider diffusion to his works, but served to render them more and more worthy of the distinguished favor with which they were received. A third edition appeared in 1831. It was marked by increasing definiteness, fullness, and precision. The interpretation of our Saviour's discourses was almost entirely rewritten, and various improvements of less moment were made. In the preface he expresses his sense of the defects of his work — defects which he would desire and hope to relieve, were he thoroughly to remodel it. To explain Scripture more largely by Scripture, to bring to bear upon each part of the Bible a mind enlarged by a study of the whole, to unite with the exquisite accuracy of Bengel the profoundness of Calvin — these he felt were necessary to the formation of an Expositor of the highest order, one who would fully meet the wants of the Church and of the times. He closes the preface with the hopeful words : "Despite all the clamorers, the edifice of a Christian theology is rising, our ancient faith is justified on the side of scientific theology, of Church history, of exegesis, of criticism, and the unction of tJie Poioer will procure for all those strivings an entrance into hearts prepared to receive them. Soli Deo gloria I" 1* vi Translator's Preface. The changes in the fourth edition, which appeared in 1833, were incon- siderable. This edition found a translator in the llev. A. Kaufman, Minister of the Episcopal Church in Andover, (Boston : Perkins and Marvin, 1836.) The notices of Mr. Kaufman's translation, in the leading religious periodicals of our country, were, with the exception of the review in the Biblical Repository, generally rather unfavorable, and in some cases severe. The obtrusion into the translator's preface, of private opinions in regard to various points, which seemed to have no very natural con- nection with Tholuck's work, or with his own labors upon it, gave special offense, and in some cases seemed to lead reviewers to an unjust estimate of the general merits of his work. It would indeed be easy to point out serious mistakes into which Mr. K. has fallen as to the meaning of his author, and the translation is throughout rather hard and mechanical. But it is no small honor to have performed so difficult a work, even tolerably well. The translation shows everywhere conscientious care, and is generally correct. Whatever its imperfections might be, it still met a wide-felt want, and has been largely used by theological scholars in this country and in England. It has for a number of years been out of print. A fifth edition of the original was issued in 1837, the year after the appearance of the translation. In the four years which had intervened between the fourth and fifth editions, so much that was important in the interpretation of John had made its appearance, that Tholuck felt it a duty to remodel his work, especially in the portion extending from the thirteenth chapter to the end. The number of pages, however, was reduced by the greater compression of the style, and the omission of some of the citations. In 1834, the second edition of Liicke's Commentary had been published, bearing on every page the evidence that the ten years which had elapsed since the appearance of the first had been faithfully used by its author. There was less fire, but far more light and clearness in the work in its new form. There was a general thoroughness, acuteness and finish of treatment displayed in it, yet it was less independent than the earlier edition, not reverential enough in its estimate of Divine revelation, and very unequal in the exposition of different parts. A second edition of the second part of Olshausen's Biblical Commentary had also appeared in 1834. The peculiar charm of this work, which is as familiar now to the English student as to the German, is that it is one outgushing of the inmost soul of its author — it has a unity and freshness, which have made it dear to many who would turn with indifference from works which might justly lay claim to more thoroughness. In the preface to the fifth edition of his Commentary, Tholuck gives what he regards as its distinctive character in its relations to these Translator's Preface. vii masterly works : " "Were I to express what I regard as the outward rela- tion of my Commentary to the two with which its spirit is most in affinity, I mean the Commentaries of Liicke and of Olshausen, my statement would be this : the Commentary of Liicke pursues at large the learned investigation of many points, especially of critical ones; mine limits itself to meeting the most imperative wants of the preacher, the candidate, and the student, with the effort in every part to present the very largest amount of matter in a small space. To the work of Olshausen, mine stands in this relation, that while in his the grand aim is to present the thought in its xinfolding, mine to the same degree has regard to the his- torical and philological needs of the classes of readers just mentioned. Their labor as little makes mine superfluous, as mine does theirs. And though in general we exhibit a unity of theological tendency, yet there is an individual diversity, so that one part of the world of theological readers will feel more drawn to one of us, and another part to another." With all their various changes, these editions were nevertheless not so radically diflferent as to affect the identity of the work. But between the appearance of the fifth edition (1837,) and of the sixth, (1844,) a revolution in the criticism of the Gospel had taken place. The works of Strauss (1835,) and of kindred writers, the masterly vindications by Neander and others, which they called forth, and the appearance of an extra- ordinary number of books of high merit, bearing on the interpretation of John, had made it necessary that the sixth edition should be newly elaborated from beginning to end. Not only did Tholuck perform this labor thoroughly, but he enriched his work by new researches in neglected portions of the ancient mines, so as to make it an ampler store-house of the old, even while he was bringing to it fresh treasures of the new. Though much of the matter of the other editions was dropped, and what was retained was compressed as much as possible, yet the new edition embraced nearly fifty pages more than the latest of the old. This edition the writer was induced to translate at the request of the publishing house of Smith, English & Co., Philadelphia. Regarding the work as one of science, not as one of art, he has believed that the mere graces of style should be freely sacrificed where such a sacrifice seemed to be demanded by exactness in reproducing the author's meaning. The work of Tholuck has been revised throughout, his references of almost every kind have been verified, and in a number of cases corrected. As a convenience even to the scholar, and as an indispensable aid to others who may use the work, the numerous citations in the learned languages are accompanied by a translation. The writer has made various additions, which will be found indicated at the points at which they are introduced. viii Translator's Preface. The translation was commenced in 1854, and was sufficiently advanced to have been furnished for the press in 1855. Various causes led, how- ever, to a postponement of its publication to the present time. Mean- while a seventh edition of Tholuck's John made its appearance. It will not be necessary to state its distinctive features, as the author's preface to it will be given. From this edition important additions have been made, which are indicated by the bracket, [ ]• Two Appendices of valuable matter have also been made from it, for the first of which the writer is indebted to the kindness of Prof. T, F. Lehman, of this city. As the translation comprehends the whole of the sixth, and so much of the seventh edition, it claims, in this combination, an advantage over either edition of the original, as in the seventh much of the most valuable matter of the sixth is omitted, under the supposition . that the reader has access to the earlier editions. Though the labor of translation has been carried on amid the duties and interruptions connected with the pastoral office, yet it is hoped that a conscientious care has so far overcome these difficulties that the defects will be found rather in the form than in the substance of the work. CHARLES P. KRAUTH. tuqh, Penn'a. \ March 17th, 1859. 122 Centre Avenue, PiTTSBunaH, Penn'a. \ AUTHOR'S PREFACE TO THE SIXTH EDITION. Since the appearance of the fifth edition of this Commentary, theo- logical literature has been enriched to such an extent with works which have exercised an influence on the exposition of the Gospel of John, that we could not avoid the labor connected with a new elaboration in every part of our Commentary, in the earlier editions of which the changes had been but occasional. In the preparation of this sixth edition, we have used and have had special regard to the following recent works : Neander, Life of Jesus, 3d ed.; Strauss, Life of Jesus, 4th ed.j Krabbe, Life of Jesus; the critical writings of Liitzelberger, Schwegler, Bruno Bauer ; Liicke's Commentary, 3d cd.; De Wette's Commentary; Ebrard, Scientific Critique of the Evangelical History ; Mau, on Death, the wages of sin ; and others. "We could not use the Commentary of Baumgarten-Crusius, nor Kostlin's System of John, in the body of our work, but have noticed them in a supplement. Among the older interpreters, of whom the other Expositors have hitherto made no use, or but an occasional one, we have consulted throughout, especially the following : Luther in his Sermons, Bucer, Crell, Maldonatus. We have used Bengel with even more frequency than before. In this way the work has been extended beyond the size of pre- vious editions. May it be destined in this new form also, to secure a favorable hearing and to promote science. Dr. a. THOLUCK. Halle, Nov. 4th, 1843. PREFACE TO THE SEVENTH EDITION. In permitting this Commentary, after an interval of twelve years, once more to go forth to the world, the lapse of so considerable a time, during which so many meritorious works upon this Gospel have made their appear- ance, has rendered it necessary that this new edition should be elaborated anew. It will be found that in preparing it we have not consulted merely aids of recent date, but also a number of the older Expositors, hitherto little used or not used at all, Origen in scattered passages in his works, and some other Greek Expositors, Luther, Brentius, Tarnov, Gerhard, the ingenious Bucer, Bullinger, Musculus, and others. I could not use in the earlier part of my work, the 3d ed. of Meyer, nor the Danish Commen- tary of Klausen, 1855. — The expressions bearing on dogmatics, have also been more thoroughly discussed. As regards the critical question which has grown into such magnitude, I must confess that after renewed investi- tigation, during which it has been my constant effort to give due weight to the views of those who differ from me, I feel constrained to abide by my earlier judgment, not excepting even the Passover question. If it should seem to some of the reviewers, that various points of the exegesis have not been handled sufficiently at large, I would remark, that brevity was an element of the original plan of this work, and that consequently the reader is not to look in it for such extended discussions as he finds in my Commentaries on Romans and on the Sermon on the Mount. When I began to elaborate anew the three Commentaries, (on the Epistle to the Romans, on the Sermon on the Mount, and on this Gospel,) the prospect seemed but slight, in the feeble state of my eye-sight, that I should be able to complete them, yet God has helped me, and given me strength to carry the work through. Should I still be blessed with the same aid, I shall with heightened pleasure, and with fresh love for the work, enter on a continuation of the preliminary History of Rationalism, in which my next task will be the delineation of "the ecclesiastical life" of the seventeenth century. A. THOLUCK. July 2d, 1857. (^3 [CONTENTS.^ Page Introduction — 1. Life and Character of John, - - - 1> 5 2. The Author as a personal witness, - - 431 3. Literary Characteristics, . - - - 18 4. Where and when he wrote the Gospel, - 9 5. The Arrangement, -, - - - - 1'^? 433 6. Object and Occasion, H 7. Genuineness of the Gospel on external grounds, 37 8. Genuineness on internal grounds — 1) dlpficultt of habmonizinq the gospel with the historical evidences of the judaistic chakacter of the apostle, 2) Difficulty of harmonizing the Gospel with the Synoptists ON the grodnd of history, especially in the Passoa'er question, 3) Difficulty of harmonizing the Discourses of Christ in John with those given by the Synoptists, 36 302 26 9. The most important Expositors, - -. - 49] The Commentary, ^'^ Appendices, "^^^ I The arrangement of the matter differs to some extent in the two editions. To facilitate comparison, that of the 7th is given, with the pages on which the matter will be found in the Translation. INTRODUCTION. § 1. Particulars of the Life of John the Evangelist. The father of the Evangelist was Zebedee, a Galilean fisher- man ; his mother's name was Salome. His birth-place was probably Bethsaida, (nyv n'3 "fishing place,") a fishing village on the sea of Galilee, the native place also of Peter, Andrew and Philip. This seems to be a natural inference from his intimate acquaintance with them, and from his being with them. Matt, iv. 18-21, John i. 40. The parents of John could not have been altogether poor: Zebedee had "hired servants," Mark i. 20; Salome was one of the women who provided for the Saviour's wants. Matt, xxvii. 56, and who purchased spices to embalm him, Luke xxiii. 55 ; and our Saviour, when he was dying, commended Mary to the care of John, and requested him to take her elg ra ISia, to his own house. That Zebedee was in good circumstances, and in a respectable social position, may perhaps also be inferred from the fact that John was known by the high priest, John xviii. 15. Under these circum- stances, the supposition is natural that the Evangelist had received some education. He is, indeed, enumerated (Acts iv. 13,) among the "ignorant," (idiojTaig,) but the Pharisees regarded all persons as such who had not pursued the Rabbinic study of the law, all who were not cd'odh '"I'P^i?, pupils of the Rabbins. It is probable that from his earliest years he had a religious bent. His mother Salome appears to have been a woman of piety, such was the devotion with which she attached herself to Jesus ; her mind, too, was probably occupied with the Messianic hopes, as we infer from the narrative in Matt. xx. 20, from which we gather also her devoted love to her children. 2 (1) 2 IXTllODUCTION, § 1. Such a mother would be Hkely to exercise at an early period a hallowed influence on her children, and this would be fostered in John by his mode of life as a fisherman, which often led him to pass the quiet watches of the night on the waters, amid the enchantments of a region resembling that which encircles the Lake of Lucerne. (See Seetzen in Winer, lieallex. in the article Genezareth ; Clarke in Raumer's Palastina, 2d ed. p. 58.) When, therefore, John the Baptist made his appearance and announced everywhere the near approach of the kingdom of God, it was natural that John, at that time a youth, should, under the impulse of a hallowed aspiration, attach himself to this herald of Christ. We find in Theophylact the tradition, that John's father, Zebedee, was an uncle of the Baptist. The Baptist, in prophetic intuition, depicted the exalted destination of Jesus. From himself, as the one who was to prepare the way, he referred men to him who was the true light of the world. The docile Disciples turned to Jesus, and among these, together with Andrew, was John, who, from the very first interview, was so attracted, that he remained with the Messiah, whom he had now found, from the fourth hour of the afternoon until in the night. Nevertheless, Jesus did not at once take him as a constant companion, though John probably accom- panied him for a few days. (See on ch. ii. 2.) It was charac- teristic of the divine wisdom of the Saviour as a teacher, that he placed the germ in the soul and allowed it little by little to unfold itself. John returned to his occupation, and some time after, when Jesus was wandering b}^ the sea of Galilee, he called to constant companionship with him the Disciple whose soul had been aroused at an earlier period, and the call was at once obeyed, Luke v. 10, Matt. iv. 21. This Disciple, then, by the whole course of his life, is a representative of that class of Chris- tians who, by a gentle and gradual unfolding of their inner life, have become what they are, as Paul, on the other hand, is a representative of those who have been transformed by a sudden conversion. In his intercourse with the Redeemer, John now revealed such a tenderness of heart, a disposition so susceptible of moulding, an attachment so profound, as to render him peculiarly dear to Christ, to which John himself alludes, though without mentioning his own name, John xiii. 23, xix. 26, xx. INTRODUCTION, § 1. '8 2, xxi. 7. It is evident, too, from some narrations of the Evangelists, that Jesus conferred certain tokens of distinction on three of his Disciples, of whom John was one. Matt. xvii. 1, xxvi. 37, Mark v. 37. After the ascension of Christ, John resided in Jerusalem, where Paul finds him (Gal. ii. 9,) on his third journey, (about A. D. 52,) though no mention is made of him on Paul's first visit, (Gal. i. 19.) As he took the mother of Jesus to his own house, that in accordance with the request of Jesus he might sustain to her the part of a son, (John xix. 27;) and as this house probably was in Jerusalem, tradition has drawn the inference that he did not leave Jerusalem before Mary's death, which according to Eusebius took place A. D. 48. This much is certain, that John at the time when Paul was in Ephesus, that is A. D. 58 or 59, was not yet in that city which became the scene of his later labors ; for not only would not Paul labor in places which had been occupied by others, and therefore would not have intruded upon the territory occupied by John, but besides there is a scene (Acts xx. 17,) in which mention of John could not have been avoided, had he then been in Ephesus. When, too, Paul wrote his Epistles to Timothy at Ephesus, John was not there. Yet when Paul afterward comes to Jerusalem, (Acts xxi. 18,) he does not find John there ; his absence, however, can hardly have been more than temporary, like the one mentioned. Acts viii. 14. The first occasion for John's leaving Jerusalem was probably furnished by the death of Paul, as Asia Minor, where especially the Christian Churches were very numerous, but where also doc- trinal errors of the most dangerous character germinated, was the very region to demand the oversight and fostering care of an Apostle. This would bring us to about A. T>. 65 or 66. In Palestine, as we learn from Gal. ii. 9, the Apostle still had the stricter legal tendency. Even the Apocalj^pse, at least rests decidedly on an Old Testament back-ground, and several men who sprung from John's school, (if that expression be allowable,) Papias, Ilegcsippus and L'enneus, were Chiliasts ; Hegesippus, in fact, had Ebionitish tendencies. As regards the Easter festival, .John and his disciples followed the Jewish usage. If we consider the type of his Epistles and Gospel as that which is distinctively characteristic of John, we can hardly speak with 4 IXTIIODUCTION, § 1. propriety of John's school, since the Letter of Polycarp, the Epistles of Ignatius, and the Epistle to Diognetus, have more points of accordance with Paul than with John, though instances of the latter are by no means wanting. How is this to be explained ? ^ Liitzelberger has on this ground denied that the Apostle resided in Asia Minor; Schwegler (see §6,) and other theologians of the school of Dr. Baur, are the more ready to receive the Revelation as the work of John, that they may regard the Gospels and Epistles as spurious. This is a mere cutting of the knot. We may perhaps say, that what is charac- teristic of John does not in general find imitators to the same extent as that which is distinctive of Paul, (a fact to which the later periods of the Church also add their confirmation ;) that in addition we must bear in mind the more limited energy of this Apostle in practical life, (even in Acts iii. 6, Peter is the one who speaks and acts ;) that the Churches in Asia Minor, moreover, were not founded, but simply taken care of, by him ; that the Gospel and Epistles were the work of his closing years ; that the more Judaizing type had already obtained predominance through the agency of a majority of the other Apostles — in Asia Minor especially, both Andrew and Philip had labored. During the period of the labors of the Evangelist in these portions of Asia Minor, he was banished by one of the empe- rors to Patmos, one of the islands of the Sporades in the u35gean sea, where, according to Rev. i. 9, he wrote the Apocalypse. Irenseus (Adv. Hseres. v. 30,) and Eusebius following him, (Hist. Eccles. 1. iii. c. 18,) say that the Apocalyptic vision was given to John at the end of the reign of Domitian. If this account may be credited, (see § 3,) the banishment must have occurred under Domitian, (died A. D. 96.) We find in addition in Tertullian, (Pr£escript. adv. hseret. c. 36,) and in Jerome, who adopts his statement, (adv. lovin. 1. i. c. 14, in Matt. xx. 23,) and in other writers, an account of John's being taken to Pome under Domitian, of his being cast into a vessel of boiling oil, of his miraculous deliverance from it, and of his being subsequently removed to Patmos. As this statement, however, rests on the authority of no ancient writer except Tertullian, 1 See p. 36. Introduction, § 2. 5 who was not very critical, and as this sort of capital punish- ment was unknown in Rome, no importance can be attached to it. (See Mosheim, Dissertat. ad Hist. Eccles. vol. i. p. 497, seq.) There is an independent testimony that John suffered for the faith, in the fact that Polycrates, bishop of Ephesus, (about A. D. 200,) calls him f-idprvg, "a martyr," (Euseb. His. Eccles. V. 24.) The return from exile is to be dated under Nerva, (Euseb. His. Eccles. 1. iii. c. 20, 23. Jerome, Catal. Scriptor. Eccles. c. 9.) In the ecclesiastical tradition he appears as the centre of the Church-life in Asia Minor, insomuch, that in the controversies, as for example the one about Easter, and in the struggle with the Gnostics, he is referred to, and frequent mention is made of his disciples and hearers. When upward of ninety years of age, (according to Jerome, he was a hundred, according to Suidas, a hundred and twenty years old,) he died at Ephesus, in the reign of Trajan. § 2. Character of John the Evangelist. If we connect the image of John which his Gospel and Epistles give of their author, with certain traits of his life, which antiquity has preserved to us, he appears to us as a tender, aftectionate, rather feminine character — a character which already displays itself in the diffluent and hovering recital, and especially in the passages where, with elegiac sadness, he speaks of the unbelief of the world; chap. i. 10, xi. 3, xix. 32, xii. 37. Originally, this tenderness was not destitute of a certain susceptibility to sudden flashes of anger, as is by no means rarely the case in this class of feminine dispositions; they are repelled as vehemently as they are attracted. Of this kind is the trait recorded, Luke ix. 54. From the Old Testament point of view, the anger of the Disciple in the case we have alluded to, was just, for it was an anger directed against wicked men ; but our Lord leads him to observe that such a frame of mind is not the proper one for a disciple of the New Testament. (We must notice in v. 55, the position of the vfietg.^) There is another aspect, also, in which 1 The prevftlent opinion, that this incident had led to the application of the sur- name "sons of thunder," to John and his brother, (Mark iii. 17,) is rendered less B 2* 6 Introduction, § 2. he appears in the narrative of the Evangelists in an unsanctified character. Selfishness reveals itself in the trait, Mark ix. 38, where lie utters expressions of jealousy toward those who, without leaving all to follow Christ, as the Apostles had done, had become partakers in the power of working the miracles which attended the Gospel. Selfishness also appears, Mark x. 35, (see Matt. xx. 20,) where he and his brother, through their mother, solicit Christ for an earthly distinction in the kingdom of the Messiah. "We are led, then, to the supposition that the characteristics of love, humility, and mildness, the expression of which we find in the writings of the Evangelist and in his later history, were the result of the renewing grace of God, of the influence of the spirit of Christ on the Disciple who yielded himself to it. We must not forget, however, that the tender- ness of John, when he became penetrated by the spirit of Christ, was in no sense an enervate softness. With all the difiluence of his descriptions, a severe moral earnestness reveals itself in his Epistles: 1 John i. 6, iii. 9, 20, v. 16, 2 John 10, 11. Polycarp (in Irenseus,) mentions a judgment expressed by John toward the close of his life, in which we recognize the Disciple of whom Luke ix. 54, tells us. John fled from a bath in which he found the heretic Cerinthus, saying that he feared that it w^ould fall upon their heads. We have also had, however, preserved to us narratives, on which there is an impress of the character of love which reveals itself in his Gospel and Epistles. Clemens Alexandrinus, in his book, rig 6 a(D^6iJ,evog irXovoiog^ (what rich man can be saved,) c. 42, narrates the following : "Listen to a story, or rather to a genuine tradition, of the Apostle John, which has been faithfully treasured in memory. On his return from Patmos to Ephesus, he visited the neighbor- ing regions to ordain bishops and organize Churches. While he was engaged in exhorting and comforting the brethren in a city probable ou the view we take of that occurrence, for there is not then in the words of Christ an absolute reproof, and they lose something of their severity. The name, at least, would not then be entirely one of reproach, but would merely mark the strength of their natural fervor. [The name " sons of thunder" cun have no reference to their eloquence; for at the time it was conferred on them, they could not have given proofs of their eloquence. The most natural explanation of it is afforded by their manifestation of violent emotion, as in Mark ix. 38, Luke ix. 54. (Here, however, the text is not settled beyond the word ETVEri/irjaev.) 7th ed.] 1 The original is given in Olshausen's Monum. Prsecip. i. 17-20, (Triuial.) Introduction, § 2. 7 near Ephesus, whose name is given by some, be noticed a handsome, spirited young man, toward whom he felt himself drawn so powerfully, that he turned to the bishop of the con- gregation with the words: 'I commit him to you, before Christ and the congregation, who are witnesses of my heartfelt earnestness.' The bishop received the young man, promised to do all in his power, and John, at parting, repeated the same charge. The elder took the youth home, educated and watched over him, and finally baptized him. After he had given him this seal of the Lord, however, he abated in his solicitude and watchfulness. The young man, too early freed from restraint, fell into bad company. He was first led into lavish habits, and finally drawn on to rob travelers b}^ night. Like a spirited steed that springs from the path, and rushes madly over a precipice, so did his vehement nature hurry him to the abyss of destruction. He renounced all hope in the grace of God ; and as he considered himself involved in the same destiny with his companions, was ready to commit some startling crime. He associated them with himself, organized a band of robbers, put himself at their head, and surpassed them all in cruelty and violence. Some time after, John's duties again called him to that city. When he had attended to all the other matters, he said to the bishop : ' Well, bishop, restore the pledge which the Saviour and I entrusted to thee, in the presence of the congregation !' The bishop at first was alarmed, supposing that John was speaking of money, and charging him with embezzlement. But when John continued: 'I demand again that young man, and the soul of my brother,' the old man sighed heavily, and with tears replied: 'He is dead!' 'Dead?' said the Disciple of the Lord; 'in what way did he die?' 'He is dead to God,' responded the old man; 'he became godless, and finally a robber. He is no longer in the Church, but, with his fellows, holds the fastnesses of a mountain.' The Apostle, when he heard this, with a loud cry, rent his clothing and smote his head, and exclaimed: 'To what a keeper have I committed my brother's soul!' He takes a horse and a guide, and hastens to the spot where the band of robbers was to be found. He is seized by their outguard ; he makes no attempt to escape, but cries out: 'I have come for this very purpose. 8 Introductiox, § 2. Take me to your captain!' Their captain, completely armed, is waiting for them to bring him, but, recognizing John as he approached, flees, from a sense of shame. John, nevertheless, forgetting his age, hastens after him with all speed, cr^-ing : ' Why, my child, do you flee from me — from me, your father, an unarmed old man ? Have compassion on me, my child ; do not be afraid. You yet have a hope of life. I will yet give account to Christ for you. If needs be, I vnll gladly die for you, as Christ died for us. I will lay down my life for you. Stop! Believe, Christ hath sent me.' Hearing these words, he first stands still and casts his eyes upon the ground. He next throws away his arms, and commences trembling and weeping bitterly. When the old man approaches, he clasps his knees, and with the most vehement agony pleads for for- giveness, baptizing himself anew as it were with his own tears : all this time, however, he conceals his right hand. But the Apostle, pledging himself, with an appeal to God for his truth, that he had obtained forgiveness from the Saviour for him, implores him even on his knees, and the hand he had held back he kisses as if it were cleansed again by his penitence. He finally led him back to the Church. Here he pleaded with him earnestly, strove with him in fasting, urged him with monitions, until he was able to restore him to the Church — an example of sincere repentance and genuine regeneration." To this narrative from the life of the holy Disciple, which bears so strikingly the impress of his heart, Jerome (Comm. ad Galat. vol. iii. p. 314, Mart.') adds the following trait: "When John had reached his extremest old age, he became too feeble to walk to the meetings, and was carried to them by young men. He could no longer say much, but he constantly repeated the words: 'Little children, love one another!' When he was asked why he constantly repeated this expression, his answer was: 'Because this is the command of the Lord, and because enough is done if but this one thing be done.' " At a recent date, Neander, and specially Liicke, have designa- ted " vehemence and choler " as "the individual temperament" of the Apostle ; but certainly no other vehemence is supposable 1 Mignes ed. vii. 433. Introduction, § 3. 9 tliau DUG which stands to tenderness as the opposite pole in the cue orb of character. Some just remarks on this point will be found in Br. Bauer, Kritik der Evaugelischen Geschichte des Johannes, p. 400, f. and a comprehensive exhibition in From- mann, Johann. Lehrbegrift* p. 22. §3. Language, Period and Place in which the Gospel of John was composed. The unanimous testimony of antiquity is, that the Apostle wrote his Gospel in Ephesus. "We are led to the same conclu- sion by internal marks, as for example, that the author has regard to the Hellenistic Jewish theosophy, and for the most part to readers out of Palestine. (John ii. 6, 13, iv. 9, v. 1, 2.) Another mark of the same kind, is his skill in the use of the Hellen- istic Greek. This is so great, when we compare it with the style of the Apocalypse, that if the Evangelist John be the author of the latter, the Gospel, to all appearance, must have been written at a considerably later period. According to Irenseus, adv. haer. v. 30, 3, the Apocalypse was seen {eupddri) by John toward the end of the reign of Domitian, (who died 96.) If we suppose that the vision was committed to writing about the time of its appearance, it would fix the date of the Apoca- lypse at about A. D. 95 ; if we now place the composition of the Gospel at about A. D. 100, (and we can hardl}^ put it later,) we shall only have an interval of five years between the writings, a space of time which seems too brief to account for the great diversity in their language. If we might, in accordance with the highly plausible internal marks, fix the time of writing the Revelation under Galba, (A. D. 68 or 69,) the time thus obtained would be all-sufficient. See Dannemann, Wer ist der Verfasser der Offenbarung Johannis ? 1841. The recent investi- gations of Dr. Paulus, Hug, Credner, (1841,) have rendered it probable that the Greek language was extensively used in Palestine. James himself, (the brother of our Lord,) who never was out of his native land, in his Epistle writes, com- paratively speaking, good Greek. John, then, may have had some knowledge of the Greek even during his residence in Jerusalem ; if he was banished soon after his entrance on his 10 Introduction, § 3. new sphere in Asia Minor, he could at that time have had little practice in it; the interval, on the contrar}'^, of from ten to twenty years subsequent to his return, must have had ai essential influence. (See Tholuck's Glaubwiirdigkeit der Evan gelischen Geschichte. 2d ed. 283.) The style of the Gospel, too, leaves on the mind a general impression that its author was not a practiced "WTiter, for the structure of the sentences is defective to a very unusual degree. As much as John falls below Paul in this respect, its solution nevertheless is to be found not so much in his want of practice in the management of language, as in the diversity of the peculiar genius of each; for the dialectic mode of thinking is entirely foreign to John, whose turn of mind appears to be very plain and simple. With a uniformity which has few exceptions, his words arrange themselves between the particles de and ovv; the extent to which the latter is used, is in fact quite striking. Such is the case for instance, chap. xix. 20, 21, 23, 24, (twice,) 26, 29, 30, 31, 32, 38, 40, 42. Quite as common is the simple connection with Kat, iii. 14, v. 27, viii. 21, 49, xvii. 11. In a single case, however, we find o/uuf — ^iv-oi, xii. 42, Kairoiyey iv. 2, the simple uevToi, vii. 13, xii. 42, as also koc — -e, vi. 51, viii. 16, 17, xv. 27, el vvv — de, ix. 41, xviii. 36. The uniformity in the use of certain fixed words and phrases, of which the three Epistles especially present examples, is no less to be referred as a general matter to the peculiarities of his genius, to a certain meditative simplicity, all whose ideas reduce themselves to a few comprehensive terms, such as napTvpia, 66^a, dh^deia, (pcjg, OKorog, ^cjrj alcjviog, jxevEiv, (see chap. v. 37.) Still we must admit, that the facility of expression in John falls short of that in Paul, and is indu- bitably below that of the Epistle to the Hebrews, Of departures from pure Greek, there are no examples which excite more diffi- culty than many of Paul's deviations from classic usage, though Eusebius, Hist. Eccles. vii. 44, goes too far, when he asserts that John wrote d-rTTaiarug, (without slips of style.) Of barbar- isms may be mentioned, tyvo^Kav xvii. 7, and according to Cod. A. D, eojpaKEVy also in v. 6, according to some MSS. ; also Joh. XV. 20, Eixooav for clxov, x^Pl^^H-'^'' ^^'^^' ^^j ^-j ^o^" X^P^t dXrjdLvog iv. 37, vii. 28, if we take it in the sense of dXrj^rig. Of solecisms, ov fi/j, in the dependent question, xi. 56, and in Introduction, § 4. 11 the direct question, xviii. 11, iva after the demonstrative, xv. 8, xvii. 3, the Hebraistic construction, vii. 4, &c. to which may be added viii. 39, if with Griesbach we read tore for 7/re. As s}>ecimcns of good Greek, we may cite the forms oi ■nepl Mapi9av, xi. 19, the use of vvv, xi. 8, -npo ?| -qixepm', xii. 1, 7/nfp, xii. 43, 6noiog, with tlie genitive, viii. 55, (of wliich there is no other instance in the jSTcw Testament,) 'lepoaoAi/ia, in- flected after the Greek, while in the Apocalypse it is written 'lepovoaX/jn^ &c. As peculiarities, we may mention the frequent use of the pronoun, vi. 71, vii. 7, ix. 39, the demonstrative with tva, XV. 8, xvii. 3, 1 John iv. 17, the repetition of a positive thought in a negative form, i. 23, xv. 6, 1 John ii. 27, 2 John 9.^ Winer would have done a desirable thing, had he given in his Grammar of the New Testament the characteristics of the language of the diifferent authors ; Llicke has neglected this in the 3d ed. of his John also. See in regard to the mode in ivhich the tliouglit is presented in John's Gospel, SeyfFarth, Beitrag zur Special charakteristic der Johann. Schriften, Lpz. 1833; as regards the language, Schott, Isagoge in jST. T. p. 150. The unanimous testimony of antiquity designates this Gospel as the one which was written last, a statement which internal criteria of various kinds conspire to sustain. It already pre- supposes the synoptical report, (see this point treated more at large below,) it stands to the others in the relation of a supple- ment, it gives us the discourses of Jesus with less verbal ex- actness, &c. § 4. Design and Plan. In the question in regard to object, we must distinguish the general design from the subordinate one. Every thing which the Gospel history has recorded, has the general design of extending and establishing faith in Christ and his saving doctrine. With this view, Luke prepared his narrative for Theophilus, as he mentions at the beginning of liis Gospel. This was also John's general purpose, as he says himself, xx. 31. The question now rises, whether we are obliged besides * To the peculiarities in the formation of sentences belong the construction with Kai — Kai, as in vi. 3G, ix. 37, ct al., and that the second period of a sentence embraces more than the thought in the first, v. 41, 42, ix. 41, xiv. 10, 1 John i. 3. 12 Introduction, § 4. this to suppose a special design. This Gospel is of such a nature as to lead us readily to that supposition. It has through- out a special didactic character, ofters a different circle of truth from that of the synoptical Gospels, and continually recurs to it. It would seem from this, that he had a distinct, heterosren- eous dogmatic tendency to oppose. The arrangement and matter of his history differ from those of the other Evangelists in respects which are not without significance. This might lead us to suppose that his design was to furnish a supplement to the other Evangelists. The idea of a polemical dogmatic design besides the general one, is held b}^ Irenseus, (adv. haer. 1. iii. c. 12,) who says it was John's purpose to confute the errors of the Gnostic Cerinthus. Many of the ancient and modern theologians concur in the view of this ancient father: some of them, however, suppose a more general polemical aim against Gnostic and Docetic errors at large, whilst many think that they discover in the Gospel besides this, a polemical aspect toward the sect of disciples of John or Zabians, (Baptizers.) So the Socinians, Schlichting and Wolzogen ; so too Grotius, Herder, (Erlaut. zum N. T. aus einer neueroffn. morgenl. Quelle, p. 11,) Overbeck, (I^eue Vers. lib. d. Ev. Joh.) who regard the aim as specifically polemic against the Zabians; besides these, Michaelis, Storr, Schmidt, Hug, Kleuker, who regard the aim as polemic toward both Gnostics and Zabians. Some, as for example Kleuker, and more recently L. Lange, (Beitrage zur altesten Kircheng.) think they can detect a polemical purpose against carnal Judaizers. The most recent negative criticism of Liitzelberger returns to the idea of a polemic aim against the disciples of John the Baptist, (p. 275,) and that of Schwegler, (see § 6,) which grants that the Gospel was written toward the end of the second centuiy, discovers in it a relation partly irenical, partly polemical, toward the Gnosis, and also toward Ebionism. If now the question be, whether in the Gospel of John expressions occur which can be employed in confuting Gnostic, Zabian, or Judaic errors, no one will deny it. This, however, is not sufiicient to establish a distinctively polemic aim on the part of John, for a pure Christianity, constantly and in its own nature, is in conflict with those errors. The characteristics of the Gospel can force us to the idea of an Introduction, § 4. 18 aim so definitely polemic, only in case the didactic character peculiar to it can be accounted for in no other way than by equall}- definite considerations grounded on the history. This is, however, not the case. As to the opinion of Irenteus, it is well known that the Fathers in their contests with the heretics were ready to imagine things of this sort, to represent the Apostles as distinctly opposing the particular heresies of their day. Ireueeus in the same passage maintains that John designed to combat the errors of the Nicolaitans, which is certainly not the case. Irenseus, moreover, from the fact that several passages in John could be employed against the Gnostics, might, with- out being led to it by any historical data, come to the conclusion^ that it was the distinctive object of the Evangelist to contravert the Gnostic views. To this may be added, that those places which are regarded as polemic against Ceriuthus, (6 Xoyoq aap^ eyivero, &c. Storr, iiber den Zweck des Ev. Joh. § 43, seq.) and those which are supposed to have a controversial aspect toward the disciples of John the Baptist, (John i. 8, iii. 28, seq.) do not strictl}^ answer their polemic intent, as Dr. Paulus has shown in his Introd. in ]^. T. Capita selecta, Ieu?e, 1799 ; in fact, that Cerinthus might employ for his own purposes certain passages in John, cf. sayne, p. 112. It cannot, moreover, be shown at all that this polemical character pervades the whole Gospel. Under these circumstances, we cannot concede that John, in the composition of his work, had a distinct polemic dogmatic aim before his eyes, still less that this was his grand aim. It is, nevertheless, probable that cursorily here and there, (xix. 34, 35,) especially in the Introduction, he has an eye to erroneous opinions and doubts, which just at that time were current. (This is Kettberg's view, An Jesus in Exhibenda, etc. p. 9.) It is natural to all authors to have an occasional regard of this sort to their relations to their own times. This tendency is more obvious in John's first Epistle than in his Gospel, about which the judgment of Liicke, in his Introduction to the first Epistle of John, is very just. If there be then no pervading controversial aim, did John perhaps design to place his Gospel in a definite relation to the other Gospels ? He might have intended to present a more Bpiritual delineation of the doctrine and life of the Saviour. 14 Introduction, §4. This thought readily occurs to him who has been attracted by the wonderfully sublime simplicity, and the heavenly gentle- ness, which pervade this whole work, as well as by the many expressions in regard to the higher nature of Christ. The Alexandrine writers, who generally embrace the idea that there is a twofold spiritual point of view existing among Christians, express this thought. Clemens, in a fragment (preserved by Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. 1. vi. c. 14,) of his lost vnorv-rrojaei^, says: Tov [livroL ^ludvvrjv eoxO'TOV owtdovra, on to, OMiiariKa iv rdtg evayyeXioig deSriXuTai, TTpoTpanevra v-no tg3v yvcopifiuv, 7rvevjj.aTL "deo^oprjdevTa, TrvevfiaTiicbv TTOirjaai evayyeXiov. "But John, last of all, perceiving that what had reference to the bodily, was sufficiently detailed in the Gospels, encouraged by his friends, and divinely incited by the Spirit, composed a spiritual Gos- pel." Of the same stamp the earlier view of Liicke was, that the first three Gospels were to be regarded as proceeding from the position of the Triang, (faith,) that of John from the position of the yvdaig, (knowledge.) (Comm. 1st ed. Thl. i. p. 160, seq.) Since in addition John generally recounts those discourses and miracles of Christ which are not mentioned by the other Evangelists, many writers, both ancient and modern, have supposed that John had a general purpose of completing the earlier Gospels, especially of supplying what was wanting in their delineation of the divine in Christ, {rrjv ■&eoXoyiav.) This is the view of Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. 1. iii. c. 24, and also of Theodore of Mopsuestia in the Catena in Ev. loh. ed. Corder. Antv. 1630 : dA/l' oi trfpl rrjv 'Aaiav ttcgtoI d^ioncaroTepov riov XoLTtuv eig ttjv tov evayyeXtov iiaprvpiav ^Icddvvrjv Kplvavreg elvai TOV fiaKapiov, TcpoorjveyKav jxev avrio Tag (ii(3Xovg, [xadelv j'jv Tcva Trepl avTujv ex^l ttjv do^av jtap avTOv (3ovX6iievoi. 'O 6e in'^veoe jiEV TTJg dX7]-&elag Tovg yeypacpoTag, e(p7]oe 6e jSpaxeo, fxiv avrolg TTapaXeXelcp'&ai, Koi riHv ndXiOTa dvayKaio)V Xex'drjvai davfidruv to, diSaOKaXiKd anavra fiiKpov. Eira kcu SeIv EcjiaoKe rovg Trepl Trig ^^ oapKL TTapovoiag tov XfiiOTOv diaXEyoiiivovg firjSe TOvg Trepl Trjg dEOTriTog Xoyovg napaXinelv ktX. "When the believers in Asia judging St. John to be the most credible of all witnesses, solicited him to write the history of Jesus, and laid before him the other Gospels to have his judgment upon them, he pronounced them all to be truthful records ; but said that some miracles of a very Introdictiox, § 4. 15 instructive character were omitted. lie said, besides, that the facts about the deity of Christ should be written as well as those that related to his appearing in the flesh, &e." Jerome, also, (Catal. de vir. illustr. c. 9,) speaks of the historic design of furnishing a complement to the other Evangelists. So likewise Storr, Hug, Feilmoser. The contrast in question to wit : that the fourth Gospel is more pneumatic than the others, certainly belongs to a later period, which reflected from its own point of view on the two classes of records. The Apostle himself would in all probability have judged in the matter as Herder does, vom Gottessohn nach Johannes, p. 34 : "If you insist on calling this a Gospel of the Spirit, be it so, but the other Gospels are not therefore fleshly. They also contain living words of Christ, and build on the same foundation of faith." The object of completing the three synoptical Gospels which we have, cannot, then, in this specific sense be admitted. That this cannot have been the grand design, is shown by the unity of form in the Gospel; "this Gospel," says Hase, "is no mere patchwork to fill up vacant spaces ;" and not even as a distinct subordinate pui'pose kept in view by the Evangelist throughout, can we perceive a design of filling out what had been omitted by the others. It is in conflict with such a view, in fact, that so much has been embraced in the fourth Gospel which is also found in the first three ; that not a few of at least apparent contradictions to them occur, which might have been harmonized ; that, on the other hand, the apparent contradictions between the synoptical Gospels themselves are not cleared up ; that at chap. xx. 30, some statement of this aim might justly be looked for; and finally, that to embrace this view strictly, would force us to think of a literary assiduity of a comparatively modern stamp. In addition, at that period the Churches were acquainted with the history of our Lord less from the written records of the three Evan- gelists than from tradition. N^evertheless, there is some truth lying at the bottom of this theor^^ If John in his instructions imparted much, w^hich passed beyond the circle of the ordinary oral tradition, and consequently beyond the synoptical Gospels which flowed from it, we can hardly think otherwise than that among his friends a longing would be excited to possess a history of the Lord in accordance with Ids delineation. If he 16 Introduction, §4. yielded to this desire, his work must of itself take the charac- ter of a complement, and only thus can we account for it, that so many significant facts are passed over, such as the baptism of Jesus by John, the temptation in the wilderness, the trans- figuration, the institution of the Lord's Supper, the agony in Gethsemane. That the reader is presupposed to he familiar with the ordinary traditional circle, is very clear from chap. iii. 24, xi. 2, and also from i. 32.^ (See Hug's Introduction, ii. § 53.) If he has, notwithstanding, given partly in a similar way with the others, large portions, as for example the history of the Passion and Resurrection, this is not to be wondered at, for without these no Gospel could be written ; nevertheless, John maintains his o^vn peculiar character in this division of his work. Besides, the only passages that coincide with the synoptical Gospels are chap. vi. 1-21, and xii. 1. The historical portion in chap. vi. is connected with the discourse that follows, although it may have also been introduced on account of the miracle ; the narrative, xii. 1, may be introduced on account of the trait it presents of Judas, of whose deed of blackness John designs to give a history in which results are traced to their causes. This view of the origin of the Gospel, so natural in itself, is confirmed by the Ecclesiastical Tradition : the account quoted above from Clement is expressly referred by him to the tradition of the dveKadev -npea^vTepoL, (the earliest presbyters.) The intimation of the Apostle himself, chap. xx. 30, 31, serves at least to show, that out of the mass of material which lay before him, he had made a selection with distinct objects in view — what they were he does not tell us. If he made a selection, the question arises, whether he merely intended to present something more, or whether this additional matter is placed under some definite point of view also. The earlier period reflected little about the literary character of the Gospels ; the most recent, especially in the Criticism of Dr. Baur and his followers, has carried this tendency to extremes. Since Strauss especially, they find throughout this pseudonymous Gos- pel, as they regard it, the most ob\dous intent, the most distinct ^ Add to these xiii. 27, xviii. 2, (where the concerting of Judas with the council is presupposed,) xviii. 19, (where the chief point in the hearing before Caiophas is xinnotlced,) xix. 7, xxi. 15. Introduction, §4. 17 designs and categories, to which the discourses and histories are adapted, the following up of a distinct plan, even to the minutest detail. The result naturally is: that to the degree to which we impute this reflective plan to the pseudonymous writer, we detract from his historic trutlifulness. Bruno Bauer proceeds, most of all, in an arbitrary, irrational manner. After returning from the perusal of these recent critics, we feel afraid that we shixll read the Evangelist with confused eyes — as Liicke (Comm. i. p. 183,) says, " will put meanings into him that he never had." Especially has criticism directed attention to the fact, that this Evangelist has made it his business to depict Jesus in constant conflict with the Jewish oflicials. Since this has been brought before the eye, those also who acknowledge the authenticity of John, as for example Liicke in his 3d ed. (see De Wette,) have obtained new insight iuto the composition of the Gospel. "We, too, feel free to aflirm that from its very commencement the Gospel pursues this theme: The eternal conjiict between the divine light and the corruption of men, exhibited in the opposition hetiveen the inimical Jewish party and the appear- ing of the Son of Crod, and protracted until the light is victorious As the overture expresses the idea of a musical composition, so the very Prologue embodies this theme, for it speaks of the contest of the world with the Logos before he became flesh; and as the theme of the Epistle to the Romans lies in chap, i. 17, so the idea which animates the Gospel of John is expressed in chap. i. 11-13. Two main divisions even of an outward character undoubtedly present themselves. The first, to chap, xii. embraces the Public Work of Jesus, and closes with a resume of it, V. 4-1-50. For the second division, the History of the Passion and Resurrection, we are prepared by the discourse of Jesus, chap. xii. 23-32, in which the leading thought is : the setting of the sun is necessary, for without it there can be no rising. Chapter xiii. begins the History of the Passion, and at the outstart, as it were, v. 3, the Disciple points to the final glory. The exclamation of Thomas: "My Lord and my God," the sublimest acknowledgment of the risen Saviour, closes the second part, and by the words to which it leads : "Blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed," forms the transition to the closing expression : " These are written, that 8* 18 Introduction, § 5. ye might believe tbat Jesus is the Son of God." In the first main division is delineated the gradual rise of the opposition of the Jewish rulers up to the decisive event of the resurrection of Lazarus, and the open outbreak of their hatred which followed. This recital closes with the official judgment of Caiaphas, chap, xi. 50, and involuntarily his decree becomes a prophecy of the significance of Christ's death. At an earlier period the religious pragmatism [disposition to exhibit the causes, relations and results of events. Tr.] had been noticed in the Gospel, that John everywhere sees a divine connection, and now and then refers to that course of providence which at time lingers, at others rushes on, chap. vii. 30, viii. 20, xiii. 1. In our view of the plan of the work, these intimations appear not simply as the casual eff'usions of a religious spirit, but as designed to subserve John's aim as a writer ; nevertheless, we are decidedly under the conviction, that the history presented itself after this form to the Evangelist as he wrote it, and not as the result of previous reflection. Had such a plan been before the eyes of the Apostle from the beginning as a scheme of which he was conscious, would he not have expressed it in that closing formula, chap. XX. 31, where the Evangelist has reached the end of his recital ? § 5. Contents and Form of John's Gospel as compared WITH THE first THREE GoSPELS. "With reference to its contents and form, this Gospel is throughout peculiar, and in this peculiarity lie a charm and a power of attraction, which have not only caused it to be pre- ferred to the other Gospels, but have led many to rank it above all other books of the Bible. [This Gospel speaks a language, to which no parallel whatever is to be found in the whole compass of literature ; such childlike simplicity, with such contemplative profundity; such life and such deep rest; such sadness and such serenity; and above all, such a breath of love — "an eternal life which has already dawned, a life which rests in God, which has overcome the disunion between the world that is and the world to come, the human and the divine." (Hase, Kircheng. p. 39, 7th ed. translated by Blumenthal & Wing, New York, 1855.) If we cast our eyes over the whole body of Introduction, § 5. 19 religious literature, tliere is certainly uone whom we would feel tempted to place by John's side, unless, perhaps, it were Thomas ii-Kempis; yet such a comparison would involve as complete a mistake, as to place in parallel the simplicity of Xenophou with that of Plato. In the Apostolic men, cited as scholars of John, in Polycarp, Ignatius, the author of the Epistle to Diognetus, there are, indeed, here and there, tones of assonance with John, but not the touch of John's pencil, while to Paul so many parallels, even besides Luther, present themselves.] All the leaders of the voice of the Church have been full of its praises. Chrysostom (Prooem. in Ilom. in loh.) writes thus : ec ok pr^zopixcou auXr^zcxcov re xal d&?.rjZ(xcou dudywu, Tcou fxsu &eazaly zcov dh bjiou ^scoftr^zal xal dxpoazal ixzzd zoaa:jzr^(^ xdd-r^vzac zyj^ Tzpo^ufxia!;, Ttoffrjv i^/jiiv xal otioooy^v xal -Tipo&oiiiav dv el'r^zs ocxacoi rzapaa'^sTu, obx abXrjzrxob zivo;;, ouos aocpcazixou vuv ere dfco)ja xa&tivzo:;^ dXX dv8pd^ dzb zcov obpavcou (p^syyo/jieuoo, xal ^povzr^i; lapTzpozipav dipcevzoc^ ipcovjv ; Ttdaav yap ztjv oixou iiivTjV i~iayt xal xazika^e, xal IviTzXrjat zfj j^ofj, ou zw fikya d'^axpaysTu, d/J.d zuj fitzd rijc ^t'la^ -ydpczo:; xcvr^aac zr^v yXcozzau. xal zb 8tj ■d^a'jjxaazbv^ ozi oiizco pttydX-^ ouaa q j3or] oox iazc zpayttd zc<;, ouds dr^or^^, d?2d Tzdar^;; ptouaix/^^ dppiopca^ ijoicov xal Tto&eivozipa xal ^s/.^a: IzcazapiuYj ttXJov' xal 7:pb^ zouzoi^ drcaacu dytcozdzrj xal (ppixcooeazdzr^y xal zoaoozcov yipooaa d~oppr^zo)v^ xal xoawjza xopii^ouda dyad^d, d zoh^, pszd dxpc^tia^ xal Tipod-upLiac. Xa^bvza:^ xal dca(fv)Azzovza;; obx sue X.octtou du&pcoTrou/^ eluac, oudk IttI zrj^ yrj<; fjLSUscv, dXK duQJzipa) Tzduzcop kazdvac zcov j^ccozcxcou, xal Tzpb;; zr^v dyytXcxTjV fiz&apno/Tajiiuouz Xr^^tv xa&aTitp zbv obpavbv^ ouzco ztjv y7^v olxzlv. " If the spectators of the Athletes, or those who are at once auditors and spectators, of rhetoricians and pipers, sit with so great readiness ; what readiness and earnestness does it become you to manifest, when you are summoned to the spectacle, not by a piper, not by a sophist, but by a man who speaks from heaven and emits a voice clearer than thunder? lie has pervaded and embraced the Avhole world, he has filled it with his cry, not by the greatness of the sound, but by a tongue moved by divine grace. And what is wonderful, is that this great cry is not harsh, not destitute of sweetness, but t^wceter and more charming, endowed with more power to nttract than all the harmony of music : and besides all these, it 20 Introduction, § 5. is most holy and awe-inspiring, filled with such secrets, con- veying such good things, that those who receive and guard it with diligence and earnestness, are no longer men, no more abide upon earth; they have placed themselves above the things of time, they are partakers of the state of angels, and thus dwell upon earth, as if it were heaven." In a similar manner Augustine (Tract. 36, in lohan.) declares : in quatuor evangeliis seu potius in quatuor lihris unius evangelii sanctus loJiannes apostolus, non immerito secundum intelligentiam spirit- alem aquilm comparatus, altius multoque suhlimius aliis tribus erexit prcedicationem suain, et in eius erectione etiani corda nostra erigi voluit. Nam cceteri tres evangelistce tanquam cum homine Domino in terra ambulahant, de divinitate eius pauca dixerunt^ ipsum autem quasi piguerit in terra ambulare, sicut ip)So exordio sui sermonis intonuit, erexit se non solum super terram et super omnem ambitum ceris et coeli, sed super omnem etiam exercitum angelorum, omnemque constitutionem invisibilium potestatum, et pervenit ad eum, per quern facta sunt omnia, dicendo : In prin- cipio erat verbum, etc. JTuic tantce sublimitati principii etiam ccetera congrua prcedicavit, et de Domini divinitate quomodo nullus alius est locutus. Soe ructabat quod biberat. Non enim sine causa de isto in illo ipso Evangelio narratur, quia et in convivio super pectus Domini discumbebat. De illo ergo pectore in secreto hibebat, sed quod in secreto bibit, in inanifesto eructavit. "In the four Gospels, or rather in the four books of the one Gospel, the Apostle St. John, not undeservedly with reference to hi a spiritual understanding compared to an eagle, has lifted higher and far more sublimely than the other three his proclamation, and in lifting it up he has wished our hearts also to be lifted. For the other three Ev^angelists walked, so to speak, on earth with our Lord as man, of his divinity they said but few things, but John, as if it oppressed him to walk on earth, has opened his words as it were with a burst of thunder, has lifted himself not onl}^ above earth and every sphere of sky and heaven, but even above every host of angels, and every order of invisible powers, and reaches to Him by whom all things were made, as he says : ' In the beginning was the word,' &c. He proclaims other things in keeping with this great sublimity with which he begins, and speaks of the divinity of our Lord as no other person Intkoduction, § 5. 21 has spoken. lie pours forth that into which he liad drunk. For not without a reason is it mentioned in his own Gospel, that at the feast he reclined upon the bosom of his Lord. From that bosom he had in secresy drunk in the stream, but what he drank in secret he poured forth openly." And Origen (Comm. p. 6, ed. Huet,) says : ToXmziov zoiyju d-ztv aizapfriu yikv Tzaacov Ypacpoiv Zivat xa zhayjiha^ zwv ok vjayyeUcov ar.apyr^v to xaza ^Icodvur^y oh rbv poou oijosc^ o'jvazac Xa^itlv jirj duaztawv izc zv az7j9o^ ^Jr^adb . . xai zr^?.cxoi)TOU dk yzvea&ac dec zbv iao/xevov dkXov 'Iwavvjyv^ &aze olovti zou 'Iwccvviyv dtf^&r^vat ovza ^Ir^aow a.7tb ^lyjaou. " We may presume then to sa}'- that the Gospels are the first fruits of all the Scriptures, and the first fruits of the Gospels is that of John, into whose meaning no man can enter, unless he has reclined upon the bosom of Jesus, . . he must become a second John, and take John as a Jesus from Jesus." (Origen means to say, the expositor must so enter into the spirit of John, that John, as one filled by Jesus, appears as the counterpart of Jesus himself.) The devout Ernesti styles this Gospel, the heart of Christ. Herder exclaims : " It is written by the hand of an angeh" This impression is a result as well of the literary form of the Gospel as of its substance. As regards the substance, it is more detached from special Jewish references than the others, and appeals in a more lively manner to the sensibilities than do the instructions mostly bearing on practical life, which are recorded in the synoptical Gospels. The superhuman in Christ, the necessity of faith in him, regeneration, the mystical union of believers with him and with one another, the commandment of love and the blessing attached to it, these are the chief themes of John's teaching, and many of the facts recorded by him and peculiar to his Gospel, correspond with them ; among these are presented the condescending love of Christ, shown in his seeking men, his tender i elation as a man to John, his position of earnestness yet of forbearance toward his betrayer, his superhuman knowledge, his glorification in suffering, and the obstinate unbelief of the world. To this substance, the peculiar character of the author's spirit impressing itself on the language, has imparted a form which enlists the sensibilities in a high degree. The noble simplicity on the one side, on the 22 Introduction, § 5. other, the hovering nature and the dim mystery of the narra- tion, the tone of grief and of longing, with the light of love shedding its tremulous beam on the whole, these impart to the Gospel a charm, a peculiar originality, to which, out of the writings of John, no parallel can be found. To these is to be added, the plastic power of the narrative to bring its scenes vividly before the eye ; the localities arc fully marked, chap. 1. 28, iv. 5, V. 2, vi. 59, x. 23— the dates, iv. 6, v. 9. vi. 4, vii. 2— personal traits, xi. 5, xii. 29, xviii. 10, vii. 25 — manners, ii. 6, iv. 9, xviii. 39, xix. 31 — gestures and passions, xviii. 6, viii. 11, 35, 38. The fact too, that Christ's discourses rather than out- ward occurrences, are given at large, that the Disciple not only stands before the history of the Lord, but in it and over it, and, as is the method in every work of art, reproduces it from a noble subjectivity, and accompanies it with remarks of his own, (ii. 21, iii. 16, 31, vi. 64, vii. 39, x. 6, xii. 33 and 35-50, xix. 35, XX. 30, 31,) contributes to impart to this delineation a life and vivifying character beyond that of the other Evangelists. The sense of the first mentioned peculiarities has been ex- pressed in a manner singularly striking by Claudius : (Wands- becker Bote, Th. i. p. 9, A.) "I love best of all to read in St. John. There is in him something so perfectly wonderful — dusk and night, and the quick lightning throbbing through them! The soft clouds of evening, and behind the mass the big full moon bodily ! — something so sad, so high, so full of presage, that one can never weary of it. When I read John, it always seems to me that I see him before me, reclining at the Last Supper on the bosom of his Lord, as if his angel held the light for me, and at certain parts would place his arm around me, and whisper something in my ear. I am far from understanding all I read, yet often John's idea seems to hover before me in the distance ; and even when I look into a place that is entirely dark, I have a preseusion of a great, glorious sense, which I shall some day understand, and hence I catch so eagerly at every new exposition of the Gospel of John. 'Tis true — most of them only ruffle the evening clouds, and never trouble the moon behind them." What is said of him, who learned from the tender, gentle disciple of love himself, thus to depict him, what is said of Claudius by Hamann, might have been written of the Gospel of Introduction, § 5. 23 the disciple of love : " On thy harp rests a light ethereal essence, which, even when the strings have ceased to tremble, moves in waves at freedom in the air, and fills the heart with gentle sadness." Precisely these peculiarities, nevertheless, in the substance and form of the Gospel, which have excited the praises of the leading spirits of all ages, have furnished the points on which in recent times the most formidable attacks have been made on its genuineness and authenticity. The more widely the fourth Gospel deviates from the type of the first three, the more diverse the history and the discourses both in form and sub- stance; the more readily could doubt be excited, first, of its authenticity, and then of its genuineness. But even if the latter be left at rest, the former may be shaken. If we reflect, for example, first on the strong impress of subjectivity in this delineation of the life of Christ, in the arrangement of the work and the order of the matter in general, and especially in the relation of the discourses ; if we call to mind the late period at which it was consigned to writing — more than forty years after the events ; if we remember that this same John, when Paul met with him in Jerusalem, (Gal. ii. 9,) appears as a Judaist, while the Gospel occupies a thoroughly free position ; if we consider especially the great afiinity between John's diction in his Epistles and that of Christ's discourses in his Gospel, 3'ea, that it seems as though the Evangelist had even put his own words into the mouth of the Baptist^ (ch. i. 16, iii. 31,) must we not come to the conclusion, that if John may be regarded in a general way as its author, his Gospel is for the most part a free product of the imagination in the latter years of his life, when the remembrance of events that had occurred, and of discourses he had heard more than forty years before, had grown faint, while in the meantime, in the circle of Asia Minor, with its Hellenistic culture and Gnostic influences, a freer, more ideal mode of contemplation had been aroused in the Disciple? Recently Schweizer (das Ev. Joh. nach sein. inn.'Werth. u. nach sein. Bed. krit. unters. — the Gospel of John critically examined as to its internal value and meaning, p. 239, seq.) has instituted an examination of those events, in which we may regard the Apostle as seeing or hearing for 24 Introductiox, § 5. himself, and those in which he could not have been present, but must have received his information through another medium, as for example the conversation with Nicodemus, the one with the woman of Samaria, the scene in the Sanhedrim, the hearing before Pilate, kc, and this examination also leads to a relative uncertainty of the detail. What can stand as historic after all the deductions which must ensue from this process, is the total to which, in De "Wette's judgment, the authentic in the Gospel is reduced, as the result of the attacks of Strauss and Weisse. And even this remnant has been called into dispute by those who think the authenticity must be rejected ; in fact, the enthusiastic judgment pronounced by the earlier centuries on its substance and form, has been completely reversed. The era of illumination at the beginning of our century had already pronounced this judgment, (Vogel, Job. u. sein. Ausl. &c. — John and his Expositors before the last judg- ment, part 1, p. 26 :) " Our Gospel is adapted to the infirmities of men ivJio have had no effusion of the philosophic spirit. It is of little use to Christians of our day." Bretschneider, in his Probabilia, c. i. § 8, has attempted to make a comparison to their disadvantage, of the discourses of Christ in the fourth Gospel with those in the synoptical ones; on this point, he complains of the "loquacity" with which Christ speaks of the dignity of his person, of the " obscurity of the words and their artificial ambiguity," of the "great repetition of the very same things," of that "sublimity so foreign to human sympathies, so chilling, and calculated to repel rather than attract the mind," and as the opposite of this, praises highly the practical fruitfulness and nervous style of the first Gospels. The most recent criticism since Strauss has adopted this esthetic judg- ment ; and the matter has reached such a point, that in some issues of the Halle Litteraturzeit, (e. g. 1841, IsTo. 15, 16,) the Christ of John has been denounced as but an unworthy, vaunt- ing thaumaturgist, unfit to serve as a moral ideal. It is con- tended, that the narratives and dialogues of Jesus are formed after one and the same manner in John, that one and the same tone runs through every thing, the misapprehension on the part of the hearers, the presentation of sublime truths tran- scending the sphere of the speaker, the long and tautological Introductiox, § 5. 25 spimiiug out of simple ideas — in all of wliicli there is evidence of the uniiistorical character of the events as well as of the discourses. AVc will first take up the events, afterward the discourses. When dialogues like the one with JTicodemus and that with the woman of Samaria are designated as presenting internal marks of improhability, it must be done primarily upon a basis of exegetical views, the correctness of which cannot be conceded, as when, for example, it is insisted upon — as Bauer and Schwegler especially have done — that according to John's account, Nicodemus actually understood the expression of Jesus in regard to the new birth in a j^^'^sical and literal sense ; and so in other cases of the same kind. A correct exposition of such portions will prove that they contain in them internal marks of historical authenticity. It is true, John was not present when these things occurred, but did not Nicodemus after his conversion attach himself to the Apostles? And as to the conversation with the Samaritan woman, did she not herself, according to chap. iv. 39, inform her own people of what Jesus had said to her? Besides, Jesus remained there two days with his Disciples, so that if he did not himself acquaint his Disciples with what passed at the interview, they nevertheless had abundant opportunity of reaching a knowledge of it. That the idea of a distinctive mannerism, running through all John's dialogues, is groundless, has been shown by Schweizer, in the work quoted, p. 30, seq. Xo proof is needed, as regards the events, that the matter of them could be impressed upon the memory ; the common order of things leaves us no room to doubt it. As evidence that they actually have been retained with great fidelit}', we may in our Evangelist appeal to the great degree in which our intuitive perception confirms his narrative. It cannot be denied that to innumerable defenses of Christianity, we may apply what Gibbon said of the Athanasian creed: "It was rhetoric con- strued into logic.'' Yet on the other side, too, it is a mere rhetorical artifice, when Strauss (Leben Jesu, Th. i. p. 60, 1st ed.) tries to meet Ileydenreich's declaration, that the individual character stamped upon the biblical histor^^, sufficiently demon- strates that it is not mythical, by the statement, that a couple 4 26 Introduction, § 5. of pages further on we encounter in this same writer exactly the opposite argumentation, to wit: that in the legends that are framed, every thing becomes more circumstantial and more ornate. Both these views are beyond question perfectly true, and it looks as though Strauss tried to array these two truths against each other, because he did not feel himself strong enough to undertake to meet them himself. In the myth which is formed unconsciously and involuntarily from common re2:)ort, you miss as a general rule the individualizing; on the other hand, just to the degree to which reilection consciously works upon the common report, the individualizing takes place, but in a way that is designed, and therefore untrue. Has not the effort been made on the one side to establish the mythical character of the feeding of the six thousand, and of Jesus' walking on the sea, because the power of coming home to our intuition, which characterizes fact, is wanting in them ? And who, on the other side, does not already know from the Apocryphal Gospels, the designedly individualizing character of the legend? Is it not adduced as proof on the one side, that the Epistle to the Hebrews is not from Paul, because there is a want of individual references in it ; and on the other, is not that very touch of individuality in 2 Peter i, 17, 18, because of "its obvious desiguedness," adduced as proof against the genuineness of that Epistle ? We may, it is true, be asked to furnish the criteria by which we may distinguish this designed individualizing from that which is natural and really historical. This demand we may be in a position up to a certain point to satisfy, but suppose that we could not do it, we need be as little embarrassed b}^ this as a painter would be, who, without being able to give the specific rules by which he judges, yet with unerring tact, decides what is j^ortrait, what study, and what a fancy sketch. We can confidently maintain that the historian will at once recognize in John not an air-drawn ideal, but a 2)ortrait after the original. The difficulties connected with the discourses are greater. It is undoubtedly true, that the' discourses of the Saviour in John have something hovering and diffluent in their character, and are consequently less easy to retain in the memory, so that the difficulty which exists at the very first, of impressing such Introduction, § 5. 27 discourses word for word on the memory, seems to become an impossibility, when we think of the long interval. If we consider besides the difference of the contents from those of the synoptical discourses, since in it the thoughts are connected and expressed in a diffluent manner, while in the others we meet with parables and pointed sentences ; if we notice, more- over, the similarity between the thoughts and style in John's Epistles and those of Christ's discourses in the Gospels, and especially the circumstance, as some maintain, that the Baptist has been made to speak in the Evangelist's own style, the authenticity of these discourses appears to be in the very greatest peril. Let ns weigh these different points one by one. This last circumstance has been pronounced by Strauss him- self (3d ed. i. p. 713,) the "thing of chief moment in the whole matter." There are three passages in which John apparently attributes twice to the Baptist and once to Jesus words of his own, (chap. i. 16, seq. iii. 16, seq. iii. 31, seq.) We commence with the first passage, ch. i. 16, seq. I think that it will be conceded that if the author of the fourth Gospel has consciously foisted these words upon the Baptist, he cannot with truth be regarded as a man of talent, which Strauss how- ever concedes that he is. The expression "of his fullness have we all received," is indicative most clearly of a member of the Christian Church, while in the mouth of the Baptist it would be perfectly inexplicable. We must not neglect to notice, too, that the 16th v. is not linked to the 15th, but to the last words of the 14th, "full of grace and truth." The historical narrative of the witness of John comes in first at v. 30 ; here his witness, as at V. 7, also, is introduced to confirm the Evangelist's own declarations, on which point we must bear in mind that for him, as one who had been a disciple of the Baptist, his words possessed a double weight. "Of his fullness," manifestly is connected with the "full of grace and truth," to which words again "the grace and truth," v. 17, refer. Wo have here also an indubitable voucher for the fact, that the Evangelist, without distinguishing them in any marked way, passes from the remarks of another to his own. Let us now look at ch. iii. 16-21. That Jesus could not have spoken these words, will only be main- tained with positiveness by those who have already made up 28 Introduction, § 5. their minds that he cannot have spoken in general in the way in which John represents him as speaking. "VVe will concede thus much, that in these words, more than in other discourses of Jesus, the Evangelist's mode of expression makes its appear- ance. "What well grounded objection, however, can be urged against the view that from v. 16 he consciously expands the thought which had just been presented by the Saviour ? The example from the first chapter has already given us a voucher that he does not strongly mark the transitions of the dis- course. The first Epistle of John shows throughout, that it directly belongs to the peculiar features of the Evangelist not to designate fully transitions of thought. But is it really necessary in the case before us to appeal to a characteristic of the Evangelist? Does not every preacher among us connect in the same way his own inference with the text he quotes from the Bible ?^ If we desire an instance yet more specific, we have it in Gal. ii. 14 ; after Paul had mentioned in the direct course of his remarks, what he had said to Peter in Antioch, these remarks from the 15th v. without any observable transition, blend with what he has to say to the Galatians. Certainly similar vouchers could be adduced from various points, one for example which I meet in Jerome, Comment, on Isaiah liii. (ed. Vallarsii, p. 612.) He there says : " Clement, a man of the Apostolic age, writes to the Corinthians: the sceptre of God, our Lord Jesus Christ, came not in the pomp of pride, though he had all power, but in humility — in so much that being smitten by a servant of the high priest, he answered : If I have spoken evil, give testimony of the evil, &c." If we had not the Epistle of Clemens Romanus, we would have regarded all this as his words, as Martianay has actually done ; but the text of the Apostolic Father demonstrates, that from the words " in so much" we have Jerome's own reflection. To this must be added, that John is accustomed to attach reflections of his own » To this example Bauer (Kritik des Joh. p. 105, see what Strauss, 2d ed. i. 705, objects to the instance from Jerome,) has replied, that the preacher has before him an acknoidedgcd, distinctly concluded sentence of another. Certainly, yet these sentences are some more, some less familiar. AVhen the critic says, that no one should include any thing of his o-wn, where the remark he quotes is not likely to be recognized nor the point at which it stops known, it may be a very good rule of style ; but docs John oflFend against none of the rules of style ? Introduction, § 5. 29 to the discourees of Christ. As in chap. xii. 44-50, he recapit- ulates in a comprehensive form the key-notes of Christ's discourses, might he not in the same way, when an opportunity oflered, attach to some declaration of Christ himself a state- ment in the third person of those same fundamental doctrines? We come, then, to the third passage, iii. 31-36. That the Baptist himself uttered these words, is very improbable. The conclusion, however, that the Evangelist designed them to be regarded as the words of the Baptist, is, to say the least, equally inadmissible. In the very first place, to establish the position thoroughly that the Evangelist has incorporated reflections of his own, it would be necessary to show that portions of dis- course occur mingled with discourses of the Baptist, which can, with the same plausibility, be referred to the Evangelist, as vs. 31 and 36 apparently can. Now the direct reverse is the case ; that vs. 27-30, throughout accords with the tone of the Baptist's mind, cannot be denied ; the Gospel of John accords here, at least, with the synoptical ones, Matt. iii. 11-14. Much stress has been laid upon the fact, that the parabolic element is so foreign to the author of the fourth Gospel, yet in these few words of the Baptist we have, v. 27, a gnome, and v. 29, a parabolic sentence ; v. 30, is also expressed in a sententious Old Testament manner, at least is not worded after the style of the Evangelist. If, now, the Evangelist in the first chapter, having connected with an earlier declaration of his own a sublime expression of the Baptist, pursues his own remarks without anything intermediate, who can take ofiense that in this place the words of his beloved teacher of a former day: "He must increase, but I must decrease," are taken as a point of transition to a further delineation of the preeminence of Christ? In the first chapter, after mentioning the Baptist, he adds, V. 8 : "He was not that light, but was sent to bear witness of that light;" in the same vein with that remark he here says, V. 31 : "He that is of the earth, is earthy," &c. As, finally, in the first chapter, a strange hand smuggling itself in would have betrayed too great a clumsiness if it had put v. 16 in the mouth of the Baptist, so equally in this passage would it have been the case if, after his disciples, v. 26, had said to him: "All men come to him," after he had acknowledged it too in what 4* 30 Introduction, § 5. he says in reply, the contradictory words had been put in his mouth which closely follow in v, 32: "And no man receiveth his testimony." Do not these words, just as clearly as chap, i. 16, betray the emotion of the Disciple, who in the midst of the feeble Church stands over against an unbelieving Avorld, in whom still resounds that word of the Master which we read in iii. 11, V. 38 ? (See xH. 37.) We turn now to the second instance, and consider the diversity in the contents of the discourses of Jesus in the synoptical Gospels and in that of John. " The Christ of John differs from that of the synoptical Gospels to such a degree, that it would be easier to imagine two faces to one head, than that these two images can be equally faithful likenesses of the same individual." In these words of "Weisse we have the doubt pre- sented in its most glaring colors. Inasmuch as for the present, as we have said, we leave the form out of question, we simply ask whether the contents of Christ's discourses, according to John, cannot be authentic equally with those in the synoptical account? Before our day, the difference in the delineation of Socrates in Xenophon and in Plato had already been adduced as a parallel. In Xenophon, Socrates appears as a man desti- tute of a speculative turn, and thoroughly practical ; according to Plato, as a profound spirit, who sought to refer practice itself for its ultimate basis to the speculative necessity. Against this parallel, which I have expanded and argued more at large in my Credibility of the Gospel History, (Glaubwiirdigk. der Ev. Ges. 2d ed. p. 319,) Bauer, in his' work before quoted, p. 412, alleges that so long as we cannot prove that Plato designed in his Dialogues to give historical notices of Socrates, and so long as it is clear from other history that the philosophical pupil recognized constantly as his teacher that very man, whom, according to that principle, (of the value of speculation,) he surpassed, the judgment must be valid, that Xenophon alone has given a true image of Socrates. "We think it sufficient on this point, to make our defense with the authorities of which we have availed ourselves in the part of our work alluded to above, (Glaubw. p. 319.) An entirely different view from that of Mr. Bauer, in relation to the partially historic character of Socrates in Plato, is held by Introduction, § 5. 31 Schleiermacher, Brandos and Hegel. Brandes, in his disserta- tion in the " Rhenish Museum, Elements of the Socratic Doctrine, (Grundlinien der Lehre des Socrates, H. i. p. 122,)* says: "It was by no means usual in antiquity, as in recent times, to consider the picture of Socrates sketched by Xeno- phon as a true portrait, the Socrates of Plato, on the contrary, as an ideal, something as completely destitute of reality as Plato's theory of ideas itself." And yet Plato did not at all design a purely historic delineation, while the fourth Evangelist did so design. We can apply to the subject before us the pertinent language of Bcngel, (Ilarmonie, p. 615 :) "The same person may narrate the same thing on different occasions in a diflerent way, and yet in each case with the fundamentals of truth. Compare Acts ix. and xxvi. with each other, and of the same kind chap. x. and xi. where the conversion of Paul and Cornelius is told twice. If a drawing is made of a city first from the east side, then from the west, though in both cases the tallest and most striking towers and edifices are presented, yet in all other respects the two sketches not only can, but must difi:er widely. And yet both are faithful copies of the original." "We will not urge that the character and value of many of the expressions characteristic of John are of such a nature that it is utterly out of the ques- tion to regard them as the voluntary invention of any Jewish Christian of that day, though De "VVette himself has decided for the authentic character of a number of John's expressions on the ground "that they glow with a lustre more than earthly." May we not suppose, that among the twelve Apostles one man could be found of as much originality as Paul ? If we think of John as one of those mystic spirits, a homo desideriorum, as Am. Commenius expresses it, of a class rare!}' occurring, from his youth diverted from practical life and directed toward the invisible world, {Ap2)ollo7iian souls, these elect ones of our race were styled by the ancients,) and think of the other Apostles as possessing the traits still common to fishermen and publicans; surely the image of Christ which impressed itself on John, the discourses which had 1 See Hegel, in his History of Philosophy, in his works, Th. iv, p. 124. 32 Introduction, § 5. peculiar value to him, would not be the same we find in the other Evangelists. We are speaking here for the most part hypothetic-ally, but the evidence which sustains our hypothesis oflfers itself readily to the eye. For all the doctrinal matter characteristic of John, (and on this argument the greatest weight should be laid,) some parallels at least can he found in the s^nojJtical Gospels and in the New Testament Epistles. The most scrupulosity may be directed against the authenticity of the many discourses of Christ in regard to his mysterious relation to the Father ; yet we have an expression of Christ, in regard to his relation to the Father, in Matt, which in its form sounds so much like John, that frequently persons not familiar with the Bible, have looked for it in John, (Matt. xi. 25. ^ A second instance of this sort is not to be found in the synoptical Gospels, yet be it marked, that Christ in his discourses even in them designates himself as the Logos, who already has wrought under the Old Testament, Matt, xxiii. 37, (this cannot refer to Christ's repeated presence in Jerusalem,) Luke xiii. 34, com- pare with Matt, xxiii. 34. The mysterious communion of the Redeemer with those who believe in him, is spoken of in Matt, xxviii. 20 ; the promise of the Paraclete appears to be peculiar to John, yet Luke, chap. xxiv. 49, has it also. Of love in that universal sense in which John employs it, Christ does not speak in the first Gospels, but Paul does, as he does also of that mystical "being in Christ," whose tones pervade John. Whether Paul is indebted for this knowledge to expressions of Jesus, transmitted orally, or to the direct operation of Christ wnthin him — in either case he confirms the doctrinal t}^e of John as genuinely Christian. On the other side, let us not in the difference of contents forget the agree- ment. Where John does not report discourses of a doctrinal character where tlie discourses are connected with the histoiy of Christ, there is almost an agreement to the letter, as in the narrative of Peter's denial, in that of the woman who anointed Christ's feet, (compare chap. xii. 7, 8, with Matt. 1 In Matt. xvii. 26, is nn expression which has not been noticed as it deserves, in which Christ speaks of his higher relation to God in a manner as original as it is profoundly spiritual — he is no subject in God's kingdom, he is the only begotten Son. ^^ Mij Father" is used in its emphatic sense in Luke ii. 49, Matt. XV. 13, xviii. 10, xix. 35, xx. 23, xxvi. 29, et al. as it is in John. Introduction, § 5. 33 xxvi. 10-12,) and in that of Pilate. The narrative of the woman who was taken in adultery, chap. viii. reminds us of the type of the other Gospels, even though we suppose it to be a record from the Apostle's narration, by another hand. Notice the argument with the Pharisees, x. 34, the practical confutation of them, v. 39, 42, 45, vii. 19. If w^e add to this, that the Evangelist in all probability had the contents of the other Gospels before his eyes, and designed to give chiejly what they had not, the difference of contents can excite no further scruple. — The writings which were occasioned by Bret- schneider's Probabilia belong here : liettberg's An Johannes in exhibenda Jesu natura reliquis canonicis scriptis vere repuguct? Gott. 1828; Reineke's work on the same subject, 182G, of less value ; an essay in Ileydenreich's Zeitschrift fiir Prediger-wissenschaft. 1 B. 1 H. ; compare, also, Schott, Isagoge in Xov. Test. p. 129, We come now to the foryn. We ask, in how far the nari'a- tiou of the discourses may be considered a verbal one ? That it should be absolutely word for word, is made impossible by the fact that it translates from the Aramaic into Greek ; even in the synoptical Gospels the different narrations of the very same discourse run into contrarieties in form. What judg ment are we to form of the similarity of language in the Epistles of John and the discourses of Jesus given in his Gospel? Origen in his day, and more recently the work of Stronk, (de doctrina et dictione lohanuis ad lesu magistri doctriuam dietiouemque exacte composita. 1797,) go upon the supposition that the Disciple had formed himself thoroughly upon the style of the Master. How much of the same sort has occurred even in our own time, I have in my Glabwiirdig- keit der Evang. Gesch. p. 337, attempted to show by instances from the most recent literature. John stood in the very sort of relation to Christ wdiich makes a dependence of this character credible ; between the Disciple and the Master on whose bosom he lies, must exist a close personal relation. Grotius makes the happy remark that John was more (fdcrjaoo:;, Peter more (pcXoyj/iaziji;^ (John loved Jesus, Peter loved Christ,) as Plutarch, Vita Alex. c. 47, says of Ilepha^stion andCraterus, Alexander's two friends, that the former loved Alexander, 34 Introduction, § 5. the lattei- the king. If such a relation could effect as regards the suhstance, that he took up what was profoundest and most essential, so could it cause as to the form that he might take up what was adventitious, especially if we may suppose a certain softness and feminine character in him. Yet we cannot maintain this dependence as regards the casual elements of speech ; the hovering nature and diffluence of these in John point rather to the character of the Disciple than of the Master. Still we are justified in supposing that the phraseology and certain leading terms are to be referred to the Master's account, and even Strauss has conceded more than we could have ventured to hope, when (Thl. i. p. 676, 1st ed.) he grants that the antitheses of "flesh" and "spirit," "light" and "darkness," "above" and "beneath," that moreover the mystic expressions "bread of life," "living water," — of which not one occurs in the synoptical Crospels — are constituents of the original discourses of Christ, which the author " has only developed further in an Alexandrian or in a general Hellenistic spirit." But how could the Disciple remember these discourses after the lapse of from forty to sixty years ? and if he was in Jerusalem all this time in the thrall of a gross Judaism, how can that fact be harmonized with his holding such discourses as these of Christ in his memory ? K we concede that the diffluent form is the Evangelist's own peculiarity, that only the thoughts lying at the bottom of it belong to Christ, all that is essential as to the difficulty of his remembering vanishes. The more ardent his nature, the more profoundly must every thing impress him. We are reminded in this connection, how many examples tbere are in our own time of persons who attribute their awakening to some particular sermon or sermons, and who are able to repeat what impressed them, with tolerable fullness, eveu after they reach old age. Irenseus, in a passage preserved in Eusebius, Hist. Eccles. v. 20, and which will be given in full in the next §, declares, that in his old age he could remember very fully the discourses of Poly carp, which he had heard when a young man, and uses two expressions which we can employ here: "What we learn in our youth, growing with our minds, unites with them firml}-," and : " Constantly by the grace of God I carefully ruminated on the things he said." It is not INTRODUCTION, § 5. JJ5 probable, indeed, that John at an early period took notes for himself, but the impossibility of his doing so cannot be established. "Who would imagine that the tanners and shoe- makers, with whom Socrates conversed, would make notes? and yet this very fact is recorded of Simon the shoemaker. Of the pupils of the Rabbins (o'TDSn) it is now and then mentioned, that they wrote down sentences from the lips of their masters. Finally, we must remember the promise of our Lord, that the Spirit should recall to the memory of the Disciples what they had heard, John xiv. 26. If the Spirit of the Lord touched the soul of the Disciples in general, like an electric stroke, all the intellectual faculties, and of course the memory of the truths they had heard, must have shared the animating influence. He who believes that in accordance with God's purposes, Christ has appeared in history as a Redeemer, believes at the same time, by necessary implication, in a transmission of his discourses and acts faithful in all essential respects. Evidence, too, derived from the character of the discourses before us, present themselves that they are no invention from the Disciple's hand, and that De Wette goes too far when he speaks of "an intoxication of soul," in which he has mingled things of his own with the expressions of Christ. Christ in his discourses does not designate himself by the name of the Logos, and with all the greatness wdiich he aflirms of himself, there are expressions even in John which seem to lower him, (chap. xiv. 12, 28, x. 34.) If it can be shown that the dis- courses of the Baptist are narrated in all respects faithfully and in unison with the synoptical Gospels, would not this be a ground for a fixvorable inference, a posteriori, as to the dis- courses of Jesus ? Noiv with the exception of a single passage^ (the contested " he that cometh after me is preferred before me," i. 15,) there is nothing in the discourses of the Baptist which is not either given in the first Evangelists, or susceptible of explana- tion from his Old Testament prophetical character. Compare chap. i. 19-36, iii. 27-30. We have been supposing a complete discrepancy of form, yet this, like the discrepancy of matter, allows of limitation. As regards the gnomologic and parabolic form, compare chap. v. 35, iii. 8, iv. 34-38, ix. 39, x. 1, seq. xv. 1, S6 Introduction, § 5. seq. xvi. 21 and 25. A number of sentences are coincident in the reciprocal accounts of the Evangelist: John xiii. 16, xv. 20, of. Matt. X. 24 ; John xii. 24, xxv. 26, cf. Matt. x. 38, 39 ; John iv. 44, cf. Matt. XV. 57 ; John xiii. 20, cf. Matt. x. 40 ; John xiv. 31, cf. Matt. xxvi. 46. Again, the first Gospels have expressions which even in respect of form remind us of John : Matt. xi. 25-30, viii. 22, vi. 22, xix. 17, xxvi. 29, Luke vii. 35, 45, cf. Matt. X. 39, with John xii. 25, the use of a):f]&cv6z and aXXorpcoc Luke xvi. 11, 12, olol too (fcoroi; Luke xvi. 8, with John xii. 36.' It yet remains for us to clear up the last scruple, which is how the discourses of our Lord, which exhibit a position of such freedom, could have lain dormant and inactive in him during the time he continued in a rigid Judaism ? (Llitzelberger, liber d. Ap. Joh. p. 179.) The scruple sounds like a very important one, but it presupposes more than can be proved. For in what consisted the difterence between James, John and Peter, on the one side, and Paul on the other ? Both parties were united in the view that Gentiles were to be admitted to the Church ; the only point on which a scruple was entertained, was whether they were to be exempt from the observance of the Mosaic law. Paul himself never designed to abrogate it at once among the Jewish Christians. The question then arose, whether, for the sake of unity among Christians, the Gentiles also should not be obligated to keep it. An agreement was effected at Jerusalem, which, from a spirit of accommodation toward the Jews, (Acts xv. 21,) imposed upon the Gentiles the avoidance merely of the grossest causes of offense. Now in all the discourses of Christ given by John, is there anything inconsistent with this ? Can the scruple of the Disciples occa- sion surprise, when Jesus himself during his life subjected himself to the demands of the law? The case would have 1 JoHn xi. 11, Tvbere a pause observed in the discourse of Jesus is marked, may serve as a proof of accuracy as to form in recollecting the discourse of Jesus; so may viii. 23, "and he said unto them." Yet on the other side, we may observe a carelessness to a remarkable extent, as regards verbal agreement, in xii. 34, xi. 40, x. 28, vi. 36. The verbal fidelity of the narrative is made most evident -where the Evangelist interprets the words of Christ, chap. ii. 20, vii. 38, xviii. 9, xii. 32, on the last of which passages, De Wette himself says : "It must be accepted as a fact, that Jesus used this expression." But yet the expression xii. 33, vii. 37, has the coloring peculiar to John ! Introduction, § 6. 37 been very different had John made the justification of man dependent on the observance of the hiw. Kor liave the other Apostles done this in a single instance. On this point compare Schweizer, in his work before quoted, p. 238. § 6. On the Genuineness and Authenticity of John. In the early Church no opposition to this Gospel found vent, except that of the sect of Alogians, who also urged indeed difficulties from the historical difference between John's Gospel and the synoptical ones, but especially as they rejected the doctrine of the Logos, were led to object to it on doctrinal grounds. After them — not to mention some anonymous Eng- lish deists — the first doubts of its genuineness were raised at the close of the last and beginning of the present century ; its genuineness was contested by Eckermann, (1793,)Vogel, (1801,) Horst, (1803,) Ballenstedt, (1812.) The great difference in Christ's method of teaching, and the assumed coincidence with Philo's theology, were then the grand stumbling block of doubt. These assaults were, however, destitute of foundation in various respects, especially of a historical sort. Bretschneider sought to furnish this in his Probabilia de Evang. et Epist. lohannis apostoli indole et Origine, 1820 ; and that, too, on grounds and presumptions of many of which the most recent period has again availed itself. According to Bretschneider's theory, the author of this Gospel belongs to the first half of the second century, and is a writer with a doctrinal drift, who composed this work with the design of propagating the meta- physical doctrine of the deity of Christ. At that time, especially because of the partiality of the school of Schleiermacher for the Gospel of John, these arguments obtain no currency. The author retracted his doubts. The most important writings against his work, are those of Calmberg, de Antiquiss patrum pro Evangelii loh. authentia testimoniis, 1822, Ilemscn, 1823, and Crome, 182-1. The attachment to this Gospel only in- creased the more, while on the other hand the synoptical ones, by obvious prejudice, were lowered. Suddenly, Strauss appeared, and preeminently with arguments drawn from inter- nal criticism, impugned the authenticity and historical basis of 38 Introduction, § 6. the fourth Gospel more decidedly than those of the first three. While the first three were a confused, but natural echo of the ori't3) thou shalt see. I will pass by thee ; when I am by, thou shalt look after me, (""^nx) but my face ('JS) thou canst not see." First of all, it is necessary to observe, at this point, that the 'J3 is used here in difierent senses. For where it stands in opposition to '"^nx, it desig- nates the profundity of the Godhead, as the face is the nobler part of man. Where, on the contrary, the face of God is said to go with them, it is a circumlocution for person^ as in many other places. There is, besides, a distinction made 1 Onl^- ill this -way can tlic contradiction be harmonized, tliat in Exodus xxiii. 20, seq. the sending of the angel, in whom is the name of God, is represented as an evidence of the grace of God, while on the contrary, ch. xxxiii. 2-5, the sending with them of au angel only, is regarded as a sign of the withdrawal of his favor. 60 Chap. L — Tue Logos. hero between an inner and an outer side of God, his essence and his appearance ; the former remains closed to man, the lat- ter is opened. It is called the glory, the beauty of God. This glory of God, at other times, appeared also to the people, ('- 1133) Exod. xvi. 10, xxiv. 16, xl. 34, 1 Kings viii. 11. ^ — The word of God is also mentioned as mediating the creation of the world, Ps. xxxiii. 6, (see 2 Pet. iii. 5;) and in Ps. cxlvii. 15, Is. Iv. 11, as mediating the government of the world, the manifestation of the divine energy. (See the Festprogramm of Olshausen on Hebr. iv. 12, in his Opusciil.) — The Spirit of God, from the very beginning of the world, appears as the fructifying, motive principle, and is, furthermore, the jDrinci- ple by which all animated creatures have life, (Ps. civ. 29, 30, Job. xxxiv. 14,) and by which men have wisdom and sanctify- ing 'power, (Ps. li. 13, cxliii. 10.) — Wisdom, also, that is, the attri- bute of God which assigns to things their objects, appears in the Old Testament with a certain independency, even in Job xxviii. 12. seq. more distinctly Prov. viii. 22, seq. She is called the daughter of God, who arose as the firstling of his work, (n'^x"? i2in) before the foundation of the earth she was anointed queen of the world; at the creation of the world, she was by God's side as the artificer by whom he arranged the whole. " The relation between God and the world, and between wisdom and the world, is contemplated as that of a tender parental love."^ (Ewald Poet. BB. d. A. T. iv. p. 76.) Yet more clearly does this distinction of God appear in that working out of Old Testament views which we find in the Apocryi^ha. According to Ecclesiasticus i. 1-10, wisdom is from eternity with God, before all that is finite she proceeded from God, and was poured out upon all his works; accord- ing to xxiv. 14, (Eng. Tr. xxiv. 9,) created from the begin- 1 Steudel's mode of treating this part of ExoJ. xxxiii. in the dissertation we have cited, is very unsatisfactory. He understands it that the vision of the glory and beauty of God is here refused to Moses, (p. 29;) the whole narrative, in his opinion, means that the attributes of God, either singly or collectively, cannot be known by man in their essence, that man can only afterward recognize therein the traces of the divine mercy, (see xxxiv. 6, in which there is cei'tainly a reference to xxxiii. 22.) 2 The older theologians used Prov. xxxi. 4, to prove that wisdom is also called the Son of God. That expression, and indeed the whole passage, has certainly never been satisfactorily explained. The Doctrine of the Logos. 61 niug- before the world, and enduring to the end, she has entered into the children of Israel, and has founded her glory in Jerusalem, and poured herself forth in the Book of the Law, (Ecclesiasticus xxiv. 10, seq.) According to Baruch, also, wis- dom has been given to Israel, and has been made known in the Book of the Law for all eternity, (eh. iii. 37, 38, iv. 1.) In the Wisdom of Solomon, written in Alexandria, wisdom, from eh. vii. 7, to ch. xi. is depicted as the reflected splendor of the eternal light, the breath of the power of God, the effluence of his glory ; in her is an understanding spirit, holy, one only, going through all rational spirits, (ch. vii. 22-26,) in all ages entering into holy souls, she prepares them to be prophets of God, (ch. vii. 27.) An approximation to what John teaches of the Logos, is presented in these Apocryphal writings, in this, especially, that they speak of a certain embodiment of wisdom in the people of Israel, in its law, and in its prophets. — The question, whether in the expressions used in Ecclesiasticus and the Wisdom of Solomon, wisdom {ao(pia) is simply a poetical personification, or is regarded by the authors dogmatically as a distinct hypostasis, has for a long time been variously answered. The view to which Liicke assents, which is now most com- monly entertained, and in our judgment is the true one, is this, that in the Book of Proverbs, and in Ecclesiasticus, there is merely a personification, but that this personification in the Wisdom of Solomon, from ch. vii. 22, passes over into a dog- matic hypostatizing. See also Dahue, Alexaudrinische Reli- gionsphilosophie, ii. p. 134, seq. 154, seq. We must further trace the doctrine after the type of the Jews of Palestine and those of Alexandria. The Chaldee paraphrasts, from whom we ascertain the former, never speak of God as opera- ting immediately, but constantly represent him as acting through the mediation of the N"jn'P. or i^an the word of God. In them we have, Gen. iii. 8, Deut. iv. 12, " The voice of the ivord of God spake ;" Gen. xlix. 18, the Jerusalem Targum translates : "I wait not for liberation through Samson or Gideon, but for salvation through thy word." Jonathan, in particular, in place of the K-iq'r? frequently employs the term Shekinah, "the habitation of the splendor, the gloiy," corresponding to the "glory" in T 62 Chap. I. — The Logos. which God revealed himself under the Old Testament, (cf. the Septuagint, Deut. xii. 8, and see 2 Peter i. 17.) The Memra is also employed in a sense parallel with angel of the Lord, Judg. 11, seq. (J. H. Michselis, de usu Targumim anteju- daico, Halse, 1720. Keil, Opusc. ii. p. 526.) Under the cooper- ation of the Oriental and Greek philosophy, these tendencies of the doctrine of the hidden and revealed God were carried out further by the Cabbalists. Two leading works of this liter- ature, the Book Jezira and the Book Sohar, are, to appearance, of so late an origin, that the latter, at least, can only be regarded as an interpolated writing of the Rabbi, Moses Leon, (see Tho- luck's Commentatio de ortu Cabbalse, 1837,) of the thirteenth century, but they follow more ancient speculations. In Sohar is found only the distinction between a great and small counte- nance of God, (T^J^ I'i'f T"^^) an open and closed eye ; in the Book Jezira, the Revealer is called the brightness of the unity of God, (nnnxn -inn.) As to Philo, it is this Alexandrian Jew, so conversant with Plato, in whom the inmost affinity of the Greek with the He- brew wisdom meets us, for the God of Plato, the ov, the auzb to dya^ov, does not himself appear in this world of becoming, but is mediated through the ideas ; Plato had also spoken of a voDc ^aacXixbi; iv tyj tou Acoq (puoec, (a regal principle of intelligence iu the nature of Jove,) (Phileb. p. 30. d. Steph.) Thus did a more perfect doctrine of the Logos evolve itself to the Alexandrian. The absolute God begat his counterpart in the Logos, (though only a relative, not an absolute one, for the Logos is only §e6<:, not 6 ??£oc,) who is the sum, the fxr^rpoTtoXc^ of the divine dopdfisc(; or coiai, the y.6a[xo^ vor^roi; ; after this was the xoajxoz aia&rjroi; formed, th^-ough it he operates in the world. This sum of the divine dumjutsc^ Philo calls Xoyo:;, which term he prefers to that of aoipio., partly because in the sense of reason, it is closely connected with the Platonic voDc, and in the sense of ivord, with the Old Testament, partly because the word as tlwught rendered exterjial, presents a designation conformable to the xoafio^ voTjToz stamped upon the actual world. This XbyoQ he also denominates 6 Trpto^oraro;: oib:; too &eou, (the eldest son of God,) 6 Tipcozbyopoz, (the first born,) and even 6 ovjTspo^ &^bQ, (the The Doctrine of the Lo«os. C3 second God,) although, as he adds, iu xazaypTJersi. lie sometimes uses (TO(fca, too, in the same sense as ?.6yo^. (Diihne, Alexandri- nische Rehgionsphilos. i. p. 220.) If we seek for the term 6 Xoyoc: before John, we^nd it pre- dominant only in Philo. Out of his writings, to wit: it occurs but once, Ecclesiastic, xxiv. 26, (28,) as a designation of the creative word of God, and "Wisdom viii. 15, as a designation of the punitive power of God, which, in poetical personification, is represented as an angel. This fact might easily lead to the idea that John's doctrine, if not directly, yet mediately, might be connected with that of Philo. This opinion, first maintained by Ballenstedt, (in the book "Philo and John," Gottingen, 1812,) has recently been embraced by the major part of the theologians. De AVette and Liicke also concur in it ; the latter says : "It is impossible to mistake as to the immediate historical connection of John's doctrine of the Logos with the Alexan- drian in its more perfect form, as it is presented in Philo." In fact, since Gfrorer's work on Early Christianity, the belief has •been embraced, that even the Pauline form of the doctrine of the Logos is connected with the Alexandrian Wisdom, (Col. i. 15, 16, 2 Cor. iv. 4, 1 Cor. i. 47, viii. 6 ;) in regard to the Epistle to the Hebrews, (ch. i. 1, seq.) this was believed still earlier, (see, opposed to this, Tholuck's Commentary, 2d ed. p. 67. Eng. Trans, i. 129.) On this point, also, De Wette and Liicke are in harmony with Gfrorer, (Liicke, Komm. 3d ed. i. Thl. p. 284, seq. 290.) For proof, Liicke appeals to Gfrorer, Philo, &c. ii. p. 280, seq. and Dahne in his work before quoted, ii. p. 237, seq. We will first glance at the question, whether it is probable that the Alexandrian G-nosis had also found an entrance among the Jews of Palestine. Of that which Gfrorer advances, much needs a sifting before it can be received ; much is unsound, or at least precarious. Proceeding on the supposition that the Essenes were, beyond doubt, an offshoot of the sect of Egyptian Therapeutfe, he would, from this fact, derive the 'date at which the Alexandrian Gnosis was transplanted. But at the very beginning, that derivation of Essenism from Egypt is very precarious; Neander, too, in the most recent edition of his Churcli History, 1842, 1 Thl. p. 105, ex- 64 Chap. I. — The Logos. presses an opinion adverse to it. The establishing of that date rests throughout on error. Gfrorer's strongest argument is the passage adduced, p. 349, from a Karaite author, according to which, Simeon Ben Schetach, a Rabbi of Palestine, who had been banished to Egypt some eighty years B. C. is alleged to have brought with him out of Egypt a Kabbala, that is a Tradi- tion "of which not the remotest trace is said to remain in the written law." This passage, which is given in full in Trigland ISTotitia Karseorum, p. 87, seq. does not, however, refer at all to what we call the Caballa, that is, the metajjliysical speculations of the Jews, but to the Talmudic doctrine, whose genuineness the Caraite writer attempts to invalidate, inasmuch as it was derived from Egypt. The Rahhinic writers, too, who make us acquainted with Ben Schetach, say no more, than that through him, on his return from Egypt, the "oral tradition" was invested ^vith new brilliancy. (Liber. Cosri. edit. Buxt. p. 240.) It is true, other learned men, Brucker, especially, in his Hist. Philos. ii. 706, have advanced the opinion, that the statement of the Jews to which we have alluded, is inaccurate, and that Simeon more probably introduced into Palestine the Alexandrian metaphysics. This opinion, however, is a mere hypothesis. Gfrorer, Dahne, and in unison with them, Liicke, appeal further to the traces of Alexandrian views in Josephus, and to the fact that the Jewish writers complain of the influence of the Greek wisdom in Palestine, and that Gamaliel also was acquainted with it. Whatever is to be estab- lished by Josephus, is exceedingly precarious ; in the passages cited from the Talmud, the point is : what are we to under- stand by the " Greek ^\dsdom, the r\':iv noon?" It is certainly too hasty, without anything further, to understand by it, "the allegorical exposition." See in addition what I have remarked on this expression in the Treatise before alluded to, de Ortu Cabbalse, p. 8. Although from the beginning we have been far from regarding as impossible, an influence on Palestine derived from the Alexandrian theosophy, yet we feel ourselves forced to declare, that what has hitherto been urged to sustain it, does not, in our judgment, warrant the confident language that has been employed. Liicke himself is disposed to think that with the theosophic views of the Chaldee paraphrasts, and The Doctrine of the Logos. 65 of Simon Magus, there has been a cooperation of Gnostic elements, wliich were brought back on the return from the exile. In this case, the necessity is still less of supposing an influence derived from Alexandria. As it is granted that Alexandria itself, in the centuries immediately preceding Christ, was influenced from the East, is not the remark at once suggested, that Palestine, also, may have been touched from the East? Compare here the weighty language of Neander used by him with reference to Simon Magus, in the Pflanzung der Christlichen Kirche, 3d ed. i. p. 80.^ That John had adopted his doctrine of the Logos during his residence in Palestine, is nevertheless not maintained, but rather the belief that the Palestinian- G-nostic type of this doctrine is to be met with only in Paul and in the Epistle to the Hebrews.^ John, on the other hand, in Ephesus, a city where, as in Alexandria, various religious elements were mingled, might (not indeed by the study of Philo's writings,' but from the circle of his own intercourse,) have become familiar with the Alexandrian type of the doctrine of the Logos, and adapted it to Christ. To the adoption of this view, in the first place, we are urged by no necessity whatever. If we bring together the points of the Old Testament to which the doctrine of the Logos can be linked, if we connect with those passages which Liicke has enumerated those that he has passed over, (he has made no reference to the "Angel of Jehovah," and to Exod. xxxiii. while Nitzsch, in his Dissertation " On the Essential Trinity of God," in the Stud. u. Ki-it, 1841, 2 H. p. 316, seq. attaches great importance to them ;) little in fact remains to be done to develope it to the point at which we meet it in the Prologue of John. Nor is the fact to be passed over, that in its connection in the doctrine 1 In this place Neander cites from a Palestinian Apocryphal work, a passage overlooked by Gfrorer and Dahne, which yet, more than any thing before adduced from Palestinian authors, embodies a spirit allied to the Alexandrian theosophy. « Strauss, also, Glaubenslehre, i. p. 419, seq. supposes the Christology of Paul to proceed from an acquaintance with the Hellenistic Apocrypha, that of John from a direct adaptation of the doctrines of Philo. s Gfrorer also thinks that the Apostle did not derive his views from the works of Philo, but from a widely extended circle. The circulation of the writings of these theosophists must have been limited indeed, if it be true, as Valckenaer thinks he can show, that even Philo had never read the writings of his great predecessor, Aristobulus. See Valckenaer de Aristob. p. 95. 7* 66 Chap. L — The Logos. of Philo, the Logos has a different meaning from that which it has in its connection in the Christian doctrine of the Trinity. In Philo it is not so much the principle of the revelation of God with God himself, as that of revelation to the world.^ (Bruno Bauer, in his Zeitschrift f. spekul. Theol. i. 2, in the Dissertation "iiher den alttestamentl. Ilintergrund des Ev^ Joh." — On the Old Testament background of the Gospel of John.) Be the question as it may as to whether the Evangelist is indebted mediately to the influence of Philo for the doctrine of the Logos in this shape, yet is the point of essential im- portance this, whether he and Paul have associated only in an incidental manner, their Gnosis, with their faith in Christ. Against this we must declare ourselves in the most decided manner. We fully subscribe to what has been said by Neander in his Pflanz. 3d ed. ii. p. 690, (Planting and Training, i. 505 :) " Certainly it could be nothing merely accidental which induced men so differently constituted and trained as Paul and John, to connect such an idea with the doctrine of the person of Christ, but the result of a higher necessity, which is founded in the nature of Christianity, in the power of the impression which the life of Christ had made on the minds of men, in the reciprocal relation between the appearance of Christ, and the arche- type that presents itself as an inward revelation of Cfod, in the depths of the higher self -consciousness. And all this has found its point of connection and its verification in the manner in which Christ, the unerring witness, expressed his consciousness of the indwelling of the divine essence in him." ^ Li fact, the witness of Christ of himself, that he is the Son of God, which is found not 1 Frommann, Joh. Lehrbegriff, p. 142, alleges also, as a distinction, that the Logos of Philo came into being, -while on the contrary, the Logos of John ^^ was in the beginning." But as John also regards the Father as the Original, as God /car' i^oxijv, the "was" employed by the Evangelist cannot exclude the idea of generation from God. Though Philo, on the one side, calls the Logos "first born," on the other he designates him as "-without beginning." As he makes time to commence -with the world, he could not regard the being begot- ten as a temporal relation. 2 Compare with this, Neander's Kirchengeschichte, i. 3, p. 989 : " Providence had 60 ordered it, that in the intellectual world in which Christianity made its first appearance, many ideas, apparently at least, closely related to it, should be current, in which Christianity could find a point of connection for the doctrine of a God revealed in Christ." The Dogma of tue Logos. 67 only in Joliii, but iu Matt. xi. 27, xviii. 35, ("iW^ heavenly Father,") xxii. 44, xxiii. 37, xi. 10, (cf. Mai. iii. 1,) and xxviii. 18, 20, is quite sufficient to explain the application of the doctrine of the Logos to him. And if no other necessity for supposing a connection with Philo can be established, the whole matter is narrowed to this, that the Evangelist, from the circle around him, borrowed the designation by the name Logos, "in order to lead those who busied themselves with speculation on the Logos, as the centre of all theophanies, to lead them from their religious idealism to a religious realism, to the recognition of that God who was revealed in Christ."' Neander, same work, p. 549, (Eng. Tr. 402.) In the same manner entirely, Nitzsch, (in his work already quoted,) p. 321, expresses himself, and protests against the idea that the Christology of Paul, of John, and of the Epistle to the Hebrews, presents merely a concep- tion which was the growth of time, (p. 305.) Frommann, (in his work quoted,) p. 146, says : " We do gross violence to the exalted and simple Christian spirit of our Apostle, if Ave repre- sent him as an immediate disciple of that Alexandrian scho- lasticism which, with all its show of monotheism, was close upon the borders of pantheism." Bruno Bauer himself, in his Kritik der evang. Geschichte des Job. p. 5, declares that the doctrine of the Logos is to be ascribed to existing elements only thus far: " that they invested with new importance, and advanced to a more decided form, views already firmly established in the mind of the Disciple of the Lord ;" the Apocryphal books, he remarks, might already have excited reflection upon the internal distinction of the Godhead, and adumbrated the doc- trine of the Logos. Cf. also, Olshausen's Comm. p. 30, seq. n. The Dogma contained in the Doctrine of the Logos. The view vndely embraced at the end of the eighteenth cen- tury, and defended by Teller, Loffler, Stolz, Eichhorn, Am- mon and others, that the Logos in this place is but a personifi- cation of the divine reason, as in the Wisdom of Solomon, ch. 1 As early as Count Lynar, in his Paraphrase of the Gospel of John, Halle, 1771, we have the remark: "The Logos, a term under which, as every one knows, both Jews and Gentile? of the present time understand something more than human, under which name I propose to describe Jesus, who is not yet sufficiently under- stood," Morus takes the same view. 68 Chap. L — The Logos. vii. 27, X. 16, 17, may be regarded at this day as superseded ; a confutation of it may be found in an Essay by Siisskind, in Flatt's Mao^azin. f. Dogmatik u. Moral St. 10. As at this time a dogmatic hypostatizing is acknowledged in the "Wisdom of Solomon itself, there is the less hesitation in conceding it here. It is now the problem of Theology to grasp the relation of this hypostasis to God, or rather in God. Exegesis cannot well avoid linking itself here to the results of Dogmatik. In place of the term urtooTaat^, abstractive rpoTio^ uTidp^sux:, Idcozrji;, commonly employed in the East, the Western Church used the term person. Yet this term is not applied to the hy- postases of the Godhead in the sense in which it is used of human individuals. The unsatisfactory character of the expression was felt, in fact, very strongly already, by Augustine, who says : "Tres — quidtres?" (three — three what?) and elsewhere: "per- sonse, si ita dicendse sunt," (persons, if they may so be called.) Person applied to men, designates the human individual as an impress of the conception of the human species under an incom- municable modification of being in the single one. In this sense, the term cannot be applied to the Godhead, partly be- cause Godhead is not a conception of a species, but exists once only, and partly because the same essence belongs to all the persons, and the formula of the Church runs : Una essentia in tribus personis. It is very certain that the Aristotelian Boe- thius, whose definition became the current one in the Occi- dental Church : " Persona est naturae rationalis indi vidua sub- stantia," by no means proposed in that way to define the divine persons, but designated the divine Trinity as diversitas relati- onum, (de trinitate, c. 5, p. 159, seq.) And thus the specula- tive theologians of the West commonly used the expression, subsistentise, relationes subsistentes, (Thomas, Summa. qu. 40, Art. 2.) The persons then of the Godhead, are: reed dis- tinctions, having a necessary basis in the essence of the Gfodhead, and at the same time are relations. God has knowledge of him- self in a triple action of self-consciousness ; he knows himself as subject, as object, and at the same time as the identical in sub- ject and object. ^ As an analogy, the human spirit may be 1 See Nitzsch, (in place already cited, ) who shows that the reference of the Trinity to a necessary internal Modality, if you choose to call it so, can by no means be denominated Sabellianism. The Dogma of the Logos. GO referred to in its self-distinguishing, as tJnnJcer^-and as thoufjht of itself, and again, as act if thinking. God as object of him- self is the Word, for in the Word (that is, regarded as an in- ternal thing,) the spirit becomes objective to itself The Word is consequently the principle through which God is revealed to himself. The Word is distinct from him, and at the same time the distinction is taken away, for God would not have perfectly rendered himself objective, had not (so to speak,) his thought of himself been as great and as substantial as he is.* As he now contemplates himself in the Word, he beholds the fullness of his own essence, and in this the archetypes of the world, for the works of God which, according to Rom. i. 20, mirror "the eternal power and Godhead " of God, must have been thoughts of God. In the Word, therefore, lies the xbaixoc, votjTo:;, (the intelligible world,) and so far the counterpart of God. The other coun- terpart of man, by which he is conscious of his individuality, is external to him, God has it in himself, in his Word. First, in having reference to this counterpart, he is also love. As the abstract One, he would be without love, for it pertains to the notion of love to find oneself in another. In his distinction from his counterpart, and in his reference to it, he is love. This love, accordingly, has reference also eternally to the world — but not to the world in its limited being, in its actually entering on existence, but as it is rendered objective to him in the "Word, in his own essence. It is, then, not a countepart for itself, but only for him. In virtue of his love, it attains now also existence for itself, that is the xbaixoc, vor^rb^ becomes real- ized in the xbaiioc aiad-Tizb^', the creation of the world ensues. Hence we have the Bible formula, that the world was created of the Father, by the Son. (John i. 3, 1 Cor. viii. 6, Eph. iii. 9, Col. i. 16.) This explains, too, why every revelation of God, ■whether in the Old Testament, (John xii. 41,) in the conscious- ness of the human soul, (John i. 5-9,) or in Christ, is referred to the Logos. What does the expression, " God reveals him- self," mean, but this : he imparts the thought, the knowledge 1 Luther also calls the Logos "a discourse," or a " thought of God of him- self ;" the dissimilarity in human analogy he traces profoundly to this, that God is causa sui, and then adds : "although in fact our word gives u little iuformatiou, in- deed gives cause for meditating on the thing." F 70 Chap. I. — Prologue. of himself? God's thought of himself, God objectively con- ceived, is the Logos. In Christ, however, the Logos has be- come man, inasmuch as this man is the archetype of humanity, which was contemplated in the Logos, which archetype, in virtue of that, views God with the same absoluteness of knowledge, is participant also of the love of God, in the same way as the Logos in his preexistent state.^ Luther says strikingly: "The other sons of God lirst become such through this Son, who, therefore, is the only begotten " — their creation, like their new creation, he says further, is founded in the Word, to wit : through the original man. Among the theological discussions of a very recent date, in regard to the Trinity, the greatest interest is claimed by the missives of Liicke and Nitzsch, the first of whom presents with plainness the considerations opposed to the doctrine of an immanent divine Trinity, the latter, with an equal absence of reserve, meets these scruples, (Stud. vi. Kritik. 1840, H. 1, 1841, H. 2.) The Dissertation by Lean Mehring, in Fichte's Zeit- schrift fur Spekulat. Theol. 1842, 5 Bd. H. 2, also deserves notice. Among the philosophical dissertations, Billroth's Religionsphilosophie, p. 5T, seq. and Erdmann, Natur oder Schopfung, (]!Tature or Creation,) p. 70, seq. may be referred to. Pkologue. — V. 1-18. The train of thought in the Prologue is now to be explained. The grand thought which stands before the soul of the Evangel- ist is, that the Logos has appeared as a human person. The Evan- gelist, however, starts from a remoter point, and commences with the thought, that from eternity the Logos has revealed God to himself, (v. 1, 2,) that through him the world has been brought into existence, as also the consciousness of God in man, (v. 3, 4.) But mankind have not had the proper disposition of 1 As regards the question, whether the Logos only, and not the Godhead, became man, tbe answer is to be found in the formula employed bj' Bernard: Credimua ipsam diviuitatem sive substantiam divinam sive naturam divinam dicas, incarnatam esse, sed in filio, ( "we believe that the Deity itself, call it divine nature, or divine substance, as you please, became incarnate, but in the Son.") It is further to be remarked, in regard to Christ, that the sphere of his earthly being does not present the incarnation of the Logos in its complete unfolding ; that follows the condition of exaltation. Prologue. 71 mind for this" light, (v. 5.) As John purposes to make a tran- sition to the personal appearing of the Logos, he prefaces it with a mention of the testimony of the Baptist, which was designed to produce faith in him that was to come, (v. 6-9.) He that was to come was, in fact, already present, but had been rejected, (v. 10.) He now came to his own peculiar people, and these also rejected him, (v. 11.) But the richest blessing became the portion of those who acknowledged him that had appeared, (v. 12, 13.) Thus he prepares for the delineation of the appearing of the Word in flesh, so abun- dantly rich in blessing, whose two grand benefits, designating them in the strongest manner, are called the grace and the truth, (v. 14, 17.) V. 1. ^Ev d.pyl, in the view of most expositors, is connected with the n'tyN").3 ("in the beginning") of the Old Covenant, to carry on, as it were, to a higher point, the beginning there mentioned. It may be so ; nevertheless, if that rt'K'Xi means the beginning of the creation itself, d.pyij must here have another meaning, for the Logos was not merely at, but before the creation of the world. It is most probable that John, by iy o-pyrj here and d-' o.pyr^^, 1 John i. 1, means d-' auouo^, which is used, Prov. viii. 23, (Septua.) in regard to wisdom, in place of which Ecclesiasticus xxiv. 14, (9,) has d-' dpyj^:;. " We show unto you r. ^(or.u r. auoucou," says the Evangelist, 1 John i. 2. Our conception cannot grasp an infinite range of time. When we wish, therefore, to speak of eternity, we fix a beginning, which we call original beginning. — John says: "He tvas in the beginning;" but according to the doctrine of the Church, the Son is begotten. But as the Church in this conception denies the prius and posterius, it follows that the existence of the Sou is to be regarded as posterior to that of the Father, only in the order of ajyjjrehensioii, not of time. The sunbeam is dependent on the sun, and yet is not later than it. In fact, there is a reciprocal condition, since the Father without the Son cannot be Father, in fact, not self-conscious God ; the efiect is thus, on the other side, cause also. 17 p6^ with the accus. here in the sense of u'ith, cf Winer, § 53, h. and the rzapa aoi, xvii. 5 ; so too {j ^cotj) rj-c^ vjn 7:po; rbu -aripa, 1 John i. 2. By the word ^^ivith" as indicative of 72 Chap. L — Prologue. — v. 2-9. space, is designated that idea which we call distinction, which is, however, annulled by the d^eoi; yjv which follows, as Luther expresses it: "That sounds as if the "Word were something different from God, he resumes, therefore, and closes the ring." Stoi; is not to be regarded as the subject ; the oDroc, v. 2, which again is connected with 6 Xoyo^, shows that the latter is the leading idea. 6>£6c without the article, designates God as the divine substance ; on the other hand, 6 d^eoz is meant to desig- nate God as subject and (in connection with what precedes,) the Father himself The consubstantiality of the Logos with the Father, is thus expressed, as Erasmus remarks. Those who maintain in general a close connection of the Evangelist with Philo, suppose that ??£oc without the article signifies, as in Philo, God in a subordinate sense, 6 deorepoq. The bear- ing of this on the doctrine of the Trinity would not be un- essential, for the Son would in that case no longer be the absolute image of the Father. V. 2, 3. The discourse again takes up the first words of v. 1, as the thought of the creation of the world connects itself with that of the eternal existence of the Word. Only in virtue of his eternal existence could the Logos effect the temporal existence of the world. The temporal beings are the thoughts of God which have become existent, and which were contained in archetype in the Logos ; according to Col. i. 16, all things were created in the Logos. The proposition x^opl^ abrou x. r. X. is not to be regarded as merely rhetorical, repeating in a negative form the thought which before had been expressed positively. That a special emphasis is attached to it, is clear from the fact that we have not the mere ohdiv. But why this express testimony, that everything existed through the media- tion of the Logos? According to Liicke and Olshausen, to exclude the Philonic view of the vkf], (matter as a principle of being.) But the testimony is designed to assure us, not of the dependence of everything on Crod, but of its existence by means of the Logos. Must not, then, the purpose of the Evangelist rather have been to represent the Logos as exalted above all orders of spirits, as Paul expressly gives prominence to the very same idea to the Colossians, Col. i. 16. V. 4, 5. Luther: "John now sharpens the pin and makes a Prologue. 73 new point, as he designs to bring in the thread of the human race," (an alhision to lace-weaving. Tr.) As the existence of beings has its root in the Logos, so also has their life. This life, however, was in men a seJf-rejlccted life, a consciousness of God eftectiiated by self-consciousness. That (pwn: does not strictly designate the self-consciousness, is manifest from v. 5 and 9, (cf. Matt. vi. 23,) yet the consciousness of God pre- supposes a capacity of self-consideration. KazaAa/x^di^siP can- not idiomatically signify "suppress," (Origen, Chrysostom, Schulthess,) it means "comprehend," in the spiritual sense, too, in expressing which the middle voice is usual, cf. v. 10, iyvoj, and iii. 19. In unison with this, Paul says, Rom. i. 19, that God was manifest in the heart of the heathen, and was not acknowledged. The abstract axorla designates the concrete col- lective idea of humanity not penetrated by the consciousness of God. "With the Aorist, we have ^acpsc in the present, as the Evangelist has before his mind an act yet in continual progress. V. 6-8. The thought that mankind did not comprehend the Logos at that time, already excites in the mind of the Evangel- ist a reflection on the unbelief that attended his appearing in humanity. He thus had occasion for the admonitory remark, that by God's arrangement through the Baptist, John's cher- ished teacher, preparation for faith in the incarnate Logos had been made, and so far rendered easy — "that all men (are the heathen already embraced in this, as Luther supposes ?) through him might believe." The explicit assurance in v. 8, appears superfluous, nevertheless, v. 20 and ch. iii. 28, show (cf. Paul, Acts xiii. 25,) that the establishment of what is here asserted, seemed of importance to the Evangelist ; the earliest traces of disciples of John the Baptist, who regarded him as the Messiah, are found in the second centurj^, but there might already exist an occasion for these remarks of the Evangelist, in the fact that even after the appearance of Jesus, a secluded circle of John's disciples remained. — The construction with Tva serves for the circumscribing of the idea of should, (cf ix. 3, xiii. 18, Mark V. 23.) V. 9. The point of time is now specified at which that witness resounded. The translation of Luther, which is also the one of the Vulgate, Syriac, Chrysostom, Calvin, (and the English 8 74 CuAP. I. — Pkologue. — v. 10-13. authorized version. Tr.) cannot therefore be allowed, since to justify it, an outo^ would be indispensable before the rjv. We must connect the 7ju with ip^ojutuou, and yju Ip^fpfx. is susceptible of two interpretations. It may mark the imperfect: "He came just then into the world," (De "Wette, Liicke, 3d edit.) On this view, indeed, the thesis cannot well be connected with what precedes, which would seem to make rore necessary, although this objection may be met by the consideration, that the following theses also are pretty abrupt. There is yet another difficult}^, however. If we take it in this way, v. 10 must be understood of Christ after his appearing, and would not the l^v then be out of place ? since De Wette and Liicke themselves cannot avoid translating: "was (appeared.") We prefer, therefore, with Theodorus of Mopsuestia, Grotius, Lampe, Schott, Olshausen, to understand the partic. pres. Ip'foiitvoc, of him who was shortly to enter the world, and to translate : erat venturum ; the proposition is then more closely connected with v. 8, as an elucidation. 'AXtj&cvo^^ " that which answers to its idea," (iv. 23, vi. 32.) A share of the light is indeed ascribed to the Baptist, but the true light illumines all men. Y. 10, 11. With the thought that the Light was first to come, is connected by reference to v. 5, what obviates a possible misunderstanding, and by which, at the same time, the thought expressed in v. 11 is strengthened. As v. 9 has already referred to the personal appearing, we now have the masculine ahxov. Instead of a conjunction making a clear logical deter- mination, we have, like the Hebrew, merely za/, the first '/.ai having an augmentive, the second an adversative sense. V. 11 can only be understood of the personal appearing of the Logos, as is shown by the y()3z and by v. 12 and 13 ; though Luther interprets r^Wt as referring to Christ's appearance subsequent to his baptism. Ta Idea, his own, that is his own property, peculiar possession, not essentially ditferent from the concrete ol coco:. If this designated no more than the previous xoa/io^, it would be the men in general, who belonged, in a more specific sense than other beings, to the Logos, since they are conscious life, inasmach as they bear in them the conscious- ness of God ; but the impression is irresistible, that I'dioc i« Prologue. 75 meant to express more than 6 xoafto^. In this light, the view of Erasmus, Luther, Calvin, Beza, and the recent w^riters, com- mends itself, that Israel is referred to (l»c ayo'ivtafta xlr^itovon'.a:: auTo'j, ("as tlie portion of his inheritance,") Ecclesiasticus xxiv, 13, Exod. xix. 5. If we take I'bcoc in this sense, can we not say that the whole Gospel is an expansion of this theme, since the party in apposition is always designated by John as ol "loudawc ? (see on i. 19.) — The rejection of Messiah expressed in as unqualified a manner as in iii. 32, receives, nevertheless, in V. 12, its limitation. The Baptist had designed to lead " all " to faith, (v. 7,) but the great mass had been blind. V. 12-13. The Evangelist depicts the more copiously the richness of blessing shared by the few. ' Eqooaia has, in the classics, the meaning of prerogative, ^ d^Uoacr, (Beza, cf. 1 Job. iii. 1,) but certainly not in the 'Hew Testament, nor can that of duva/iK:, internal power, (1 Cor. i. 18,) be supposed here ; better, therefore, according to the classic usage, where it has the mean- ing of ahility, as Erasmus : ut liceret filios Dei fieri, (that they might become sous of God.) In what way is this ability brought about ? We may answer in the words that follow : by the X^P'"^ ^^^^ dXij&sia, (the "grace" and "truth.") Tkxua ^so~j cannot here have the derivative sense "protege, favorite;" the thought, rather, as v. 13 shows, is that of a regeneration, a participation of the divine (puac<:, (2 Pet. i. 4,) so that Christ is preeminently the olb^ r. ??£oD, cf 1 John iii. 9, 1 Pet. i. 22, 23. At the same time the condition or mediation of the new" birth is given. Faith. The idea of spiritual birth is then, v. 13, ren- dered more distinct by putting it into antithesis with natural birth. We may regard the three members as distinct designa- tions ; Luther : the corporeal descent, the adoption, the sonship as a title of honor, or the second and third as subdivisions of the first, though in that case ouze — ours would be required. The blood through which the chyle is distributed to the differ- ent parts of tlie body, is the seat of life, hence the connection between child and parents is called blood relationship, and in classic usage, also, we have the expression " to spring from the bloody that is from the seed of any one," (Acts xvii. 2G.) The plural is used in the classic poetry for the singular. The idea of the older theologians that these words have a controversial 70 Chap. L — Prologue. — v. 14. aim against the Jewish pride of Abrahamic descent, cannot be well allowed in this connection. The lowliness of bodily descent, is depicted in antithesis to spiritual generation, yet more par- ticularly in the expression, " the lust of the flesh," (Eph. ii. 3,) that is, the natural impulse, and the " desire of man," that is, a more particular limitation of the fleshly desire. Over against this stands the "divine counsel of love." '£? marks in Greek, not merely the point of material origin, but also the efficient cause, cf. on iii. 6. V. 14. In V. 11, the incarnation of the Logos was already presupposed. Linked with the thought of the regeneration, efiected thereby, that incarnation is now depicted with an en- thusiasm inspired by its glory. The Evangelist speaks with the enthusiasm of an eye-witness, and with like fervor he speaks in the beginning of his first Epistle, written in extreme old age. Kai, as in the Grreek classics, and like the Latin atque, serves for the continuation or elucidation of a discourse, cf. v. 16, 19, 24. Idp^, like the fuller phrase adp^ xal aliia, (Ileb. ii. 14,) desig- nates humanity with reference to its character, as endowed with the senses and passions, cf. Heb. v. 7, 2 Cor. xiii. 4. We are not to understand by it the body merely, which would lead us into the error of ApoUinaris, which was, that Christ had not a human soul, but that in its place was substituted the Logos. The word adp^ is selected by the Evangelist to mark the incar- nation as an act of humiliation, perhaps, too, with a glance toward the docetic denial of the sensuous nature. (1 John iv. 2.) In men, in general, the Logos was divine consciousness as potential, but not come to energy in will or cognoscence; in Christ, the divine consciousness alike in will and cognos- cence attains to absolute energy, and therefore unites itself with the self-consciousness in personal unity. Ixrjvoco, pro- perly "to pitch tent," in a wider sense, ^^ to divell" The ex- pression is used solemnly in the first sense, to express the reality of his abode among men; (Luther: "not like the angel Ga- briel,") cf. fwuYjp TTocctv, John xiv. 23 ; though the image of pitching a tabernacle may serve to express the transientness of the abode of God's Son in the lotvl^ condition of humanity. (Phil. ii. 7.) According to Olshausen, Mej^er and Liicke, there is an allusion to the name Shekinah, (that is, dwelling,) see above, Prologue. 77 p. 62, as too, the mention of the do^a, which properly formed the Shekinah, immediately follows. That the Evangelist was indu- ced to the selection of the Greek axrjvouv by the mere similarity of sound with the Hebrew w^ord, is not to be supposed, and if he designed an allusion to that idea, the expression "he pitched a tabernacle" is not distinct enough; yet the mention of the do^a certainly favors the view. Ao^a designates, first of all, in the Old Testament, the radiance (11:33) the sensible token of the presence of God; to this a reference might be found, as though the Evangelist would say : " the sensible manifestations of God under the old covenant are now completed," for in them that which appeared^ and he tvho appeared, were distinct, but this is the case no more. According to New Testament phraseology, the do^d is imparted to Christ, and them that are his, only in the other ivorld. (vii. 39, xii. 23, xiii. 32, xvii. 1, 5, 24.) To this oo^a pertains also the immediate dominion of the spirit over nature ; since this, however, is averred of the Saviour even in this world, John here, and ii. 11, already ascribes to the Son of God a oo^a in this world. It is nevertheless possi- ble that in this he had in his mind the spiritual glory, also, of Christ. Luther has less fitly everywhere translated d(Ka^£iu by verklaren, (transfigure,) instead of verherrlichen, (glorify.) 'i?c is to be taken as the falsely so-called 3 veritatis, (this was thought to stand merely for asseveration,) in Hebrew, i. e. the object is attached to its idea, "such as is due one who is the only begotten," cf. Is. i. 7, N"eh. vii. 2, Matt. vii. 29. ^/oi>o;'£vijc, "that which exists once only, that is, singly in its kind." "Would the others become what Christ is, (John xvii. 22, Rom. viii. 29,) they become such through the iqoua'ia bestowed by him. Ilaoa Ttarpo^ may be construed with oo?«, but it is better to connect it with /wvoyei^oo'-, in which lies the verbal conception of yeuurj&suzor. Olshausen thinks that here only the Logos in itself is denominated fjouoyevvj'-, and appeals to the wv er'c T. xd?.~ou T. Tcarpo^, v. 18, but as we shall show, not with justice. nXr^pTj^ m^y? hy anacoluthon, be referred to /wuuysvou'T^ as Eph. iii, 17, but it is better to take xai zd^taaafiz^a — -arpor as a parenthesis called forth by strong emotion, so that Tzlrjprj^ refers to iarfiViofriv. All that Christ has been to the world, is com- prised in the two blessings of salvation, yo-p^: and d.A7jdeca\ what 8* 78 Chap. I. — Prologue. — v. 15-17. tliey embrace is brought out more clearly in the antithesis, V. 17. V. 15. He again returns to the testimony of his beloved instructor, and inserts it parenthetically in the same way as the exclamation in v. 14 ; the mention of the X'^P^^t ^- 1^' i^ again then connected with v. 14. The vivid feeling, as though what he speaks of were actually present, causes him to use the present, and even xkxpayz belongs to the perfects, that have the force of the present ; the expression cited is the one employed by the Baptist on the occasion mentioned in v. 30. " Ov sIttov with the accus. of the person, of whom we speak, Matthire, ii. 162, cf. ou iypaif^e, V. 46. The discourse of the Baptist has the pointed antithetical character which is displayed in the prophetic expressions in the Old Testament. The exposition must be determined by the force of i/iTvpoa&eu. According to the current usage, this designates only before with reference to space or time, but not precede7ice ; it is accordingly interpreted of preexistence, among the more recent writers, by "Wahl, Bretschneider, Lex. 3d ed. Meyer, Hengstenberg, (Christol. iii. 490); in the proposition which specifies the reason, they then understand ttcxoto^ also as referring to the preexistence. If with this conception we were to translate yeyovev, "he has become," it could not well be taken except in an Arian sense — the Arians, indeed, make their appeal to this interpretation ; but we may also translate, " he has been." In that case, however, it is impossible to deny the tautological character of the proposition, and if, to avoid this, we understand TvpajTO^ of dignity, why have we rjv, and not i(TTc ? "We must, then, proceeding from the signification which relates to physical space, adopt the meaning of precedence, as in Genesis xlviii. 20, (Septuag.) thus : "he has been preferred before me, has obtained a higher position" — which meaning may also be justified hj V. 27, where the Baptist acknowledges himself as filling but the position of a slave in relation to Christ. The TcpaJroc: which follows, has likewise been referred to the dignity/ by Chrysostom, Erasmus, Calvin, Maldonatus, Lampe, in which case, however, as we have already remarked, we would expect iart, and prefer, therefore, to refer it to the preexistence, (Lu- ther, Beza, Calovius, Le Clerc, Liicke.) The eternal being of the Logos, or Messiah, is the reason of his precedence. As the Prologue. 79 language here relates only to a comparison of two persona, TTptozoc: is used in the sense of TzpoTspo-: ; the genitive is used in consequence of the comparison. (Winer, 4th ed. p. 222.) The criticism of Strauss and Bauer, as this expression is one that could not have been anticipated from the Old Testament posi- tion of the Baptist, regards it as a fiction of the Evangelist, derived from his own point of view. In reply to this, we ob- serve : 1,) that the historic notice in v. 30, in regard to the expression, is an argument for its authenticity; 2,) so, too, is its pointed antithetical character ; compare the language of the Baptist, iii. 27-30 ; 3,) that the view of the preexistence of the Messiah was not foreign to the Jewish conception, (Bertholdt, Christ. Judifior. p. 131. Schmidt, Bibl. f. Kritik. u. Exeg. i. p. 38. Justin Martyr, Dial. c. Tryph. p. 226, 336, ed. Col.) and especially, that a man like the Baptist might have been led to it by an examination of such passages in the Old Testament, as Mai. iii. 1, Micah v. 1, Daniel vii. 13. It cannot, indeed, be demonstrated that John represented himself as that messenger, that Elijah, who is spoken of in Mai. iii. 1, 23,^ but it had been done, according to Luke i. 16, 17, 76, by Zacharias, his father ; Christ himself designates him in the same way. Matt. xi. 10, Mark ix. 12, 13 ; the passage of Isaiah which the Baptist ap- plies to himself, is like that in Malachi, in fact, according to Hengstenberg, the basis of it; how probable is it, then, that the Baptist himself had observed and applied to himself spe- cially, the words in Mai. iii. 1, and that is the very passage in which the Messiah is designated as the Lord and Angel of tht Covenant. May he not also have referred the 7(U[jco<: in Mai. iii. 23, (Eng. Tr. 4, 5,) to Christ as Jehovah? Y. 16, 17. The ■fjntl': Tzavxzz clearly points to the members of the Christian Church, the Tzlrjpcojxa to Tzlrjprj^, and -/^dpcv to yjipi-o':^ V. 14 ; w^e cannot, therefore, regard these as words of the Baptist, as Origen, Erasmus and Strauss suppose. Kal be- fore -^dpiv is epexegetical. 'JvW, "instead of," that is, one in place of the other, alternatel}", as we say, " one after another," thus ever neiv gifts of grace; the fullness is consequently an ezhaustless one, sufficient for all. Instead of this use of 1 What TTcngstenberg, in pass. abv. ref. to, advances, to establish a reference to Mai. iii. 1, in the words 6 d-iau jxov tpx-, does not seem to me to be convincing. 80 Chap. I. — Prologue. — v. 18. dure ill Greek, it is more common to employ Tzapd with the accusative. — V. 17 proves this ;f^(Wr to be the distinctive quality of the New Covenant. The antithesis which is made in this place by John, as in Paul, too, between )^6/j.o(: and xdpe'^y is worthy of remark. The xd(>e^ is the leading idea, but the dXr^&tca also forms an antithesis to vbp.or. Bengel : Lex iram parans et umbram habens, (the law preparing wrath, and hav- ing the shadow.) By the legal relation, condemnation falls upon men; the law, indeed, in its sacrifices and ceremonies, had grace also, but only symholicallij^ (Col. ii. 17, Heb. x. 1,) as opposed to which, the unveiled, absolute truth now appears. For iyiusTO, John could not well have written idd&/^ ; it is the historical fact of the appearing of Christ in humanity, by which grace and truth have become the portion of mankind. Cf the iyivT^^v], 1 Cor. i. 30. V. 18. Now follows a detailed statement in relation to the d.h^&eia. The proposition, that God cannot be looked upon, stands in the Old Testament, Exod. xxxiii. 20 ; the mode, how- ever, in which even in that passage the view of the back of God is spoken of, leads to the belief that in that proposition not merely a sensible vision, but an adequate knowledge also was contemplated. Cf. dopazo^, Col. i. 15. A decided distinc- tion is supposed, John vi. 45, 46, between hearing God and seeing him, and the first is attributed to men in general, the second to the Son alone. Hearing causes us to have percep- tion of the object in motion, consequently in communication with us ; vision perceives the object in the condition of rest, is consequently better adapted to express that knowledge which springs from personal unity with God. That sole absolute knowledge of God, Christ also claims for himself in Matt. xi. 27. That in the passage before us, 6 fxouoysiJr]^ u[6c designates, as Olshausen thinks, the Logos only, is shown to be untenable by the ixeTuoi: i^r^yjaazo ; the language is employed to mark the Logos personally united with the humanity. Tioc ^eou, used of Christ, refers in the profoundest sense to the unity of essence, as Christ himself intimates. Matt. xxii. 43. "We have, consequently, in this chapter, v. 50, 6 u?6c too ^eoo and 6 ^aadeht; too ^ laparjX associated, as also xi. 27, and Matt. xvi. 16, xxvi. 63. — FA<; has reference to the corporeal idea " to be on the Testimony of the Baptist. 81 breast." In oriental usage, the one best beloved lies in the bosom of the host, so that his head rests on his breast, and he can impart and receive confidential communications, (John xiii. 23.) In Latin proverbially: in gremio, sinu, alicujus esse; Calvin : " Scdes consilii pectus est," (the breast is the seat of counsel.) "^ E^r^yr^aazo requires as an object "zV," (Eng. Tr. him,) which is not expressed in Greek and Hebrew. Accrediting of Christ by the Testimony of the Baptist. V. 19-34. The preparatory thoughts have been expressed: the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth, has appeared, but — his own have not received him. The history which begins at this point, gives the amplitication. The ol ' loooatoc first appear here, under which name John, throughout the entire Gospel, designates the party inimical to the Son of God. This national appellation is ordinarily regarded as a designa- tion of the representatives of the people, hence, members of the Sanhedrim. These certainly are so designated in specie, cf. for example, vii. 13, where the dp-^($psc<: and ol '/ouducoc are identified ; but on the other hand, the people are called ' looodioc, so as specifically to distinguish them from the df)^csps7^, (xii. 10, 11 ;) by the name' loud a7o: are meant, in general, all with whom Jesus had to deal, whether high or low, enemies or friends, cf. viii. 31. A reason for the use of this generic name of the people by John, must be sought for; we find it, as has already been remarked, p. 17, (of the translation,) in this, that he ex- hibits the conflict between the divine light and the corruption of men in the Jewish nation, where, in consequence of their election, it presents itself in the most glaring form.' — The intimate connection of the author of this Gospel with the Baptist, displays itself here also in his thorough acquaint- ance with his testimony. So complete was his familiarity 1 By an independent process I have reached the same conclusions, especially in reference to v. 11, with those presented in the treatise by Fischer, on the expression ol 'lov6aloi in the Gospel of John, in the Tub. Zeitschr. 1840, H. 2. As for the rest, the writer, who is dependent on Strauss, thinks that from the data specified, the conclusion is justified that the Gospel was composed from a later Gentile-Christian point of view. 82 Chap. L— v. 19-28. with it, that he here does what elsewhere occurs only in the his- tory of the passion, he follows in chronological order the succes- sion of the days, {rrj iTiaufjcov, v. 29, 35. ii. 1,) and the day on which the deputation came forms the starting point. "The narrator must indeed have a personal and historical interest in that day, as was actually the case, since he, as that Disciple whose name is not given, who at that time left the Baptist for Jesus, had found in those days the influences that determined his whole course of life." (Schweizer.) Y. 19-23. By the ' louoaioc, we are evidently here to under- stand the Sanhedrim, which necessarily watches the more closely a teacher appearing in an extraordinary form, as no prophet had appeared for almost four hundred years. This superior tribunal was also under special obligation to prevent the ap- pearing of false prophets, (Matt. xxi. 23.) In addition to this, the Messianic baptism performed by the Baptist could not but excite mistrust and solicitude, (John xi. 48-50,) for which reason the question, v. 25, bears specially upon his baptism. We are not, indeed, to suppose that the various opinions men- tioned here prevailed in the Sanhedrim itself, it is more pro- bable that the popular views had reached their ears. Among the people, the intense longing for the Messiah, connected with the extraordinary features in the appearing of the Bap- tist, had aroused, during the first excitement, surmises whether he might not be the Messiah. (Luke iii. 15, Acts xiii. 25.) The importance which the Evangelist attached to the refusal of any such dignity on the part of the Baptist, is shown by his expressing it, not only in a positive, but in a negative form. — ''Ozt is used not only in the New Testament, but in the classics also, to introduce the orat. directa, Plato Critias, p. 52, a. It was very natural to think of Elias, as Mai. iii. 23, was usually taken in a literal sense, (Matt. xi. 14, Mark ix. 12.) Now, although the Baptist, as was remarked on v. 15, probably had referred to himself the expressions in Malachi, yet he must respond negatively to their question, since those who inquired, intended not EHas in the ideal, but Elias in the literal sense. (Cf the popular notions, Mark vi. 14, 15.) Besides this, some special, distinguished prophet was expected by the people, as precursor of the Messiah, by some, especially Jeremiah. (Matt. xvi. 14, Testimony of tue Baptist. 83 cf. 3 Mace. xy. 13, 14, 4 Ezra xvi. 2-18, 2 Mace, ii.) In vii. 40, also, we are to untlerstand by 6 7:poifr^Trjr, a great prophet, preeminently the object of expectation ; probably from the in- terpretation given to Dent, xviii. 15. The brevity of the Bap- tist's answers may be accounted for, by the compendious char- acter of the narrative, but v. 22 shows that he, in accordance with his rugged, ascetic character, actually answered no more than the question demanded. In other places, also, his dis- courses are brief and pointed. His positive answer he gives by quoting the verse, Isaiah xl. 3, in which, according to the report of all the Evangelists, he found a delineation of his own mission. The meaning of "making straight the way," is bmught out more clearly in the expressions derived from Malachi, and applied to the Baptist, (Luke i. 17.) The prophet in the pas- sage quoted, speaks of the manifestation of G-od, yet the Baptist may have understood, by the xopioc: and acor-riptov too i&so~j, (Luke iii. 6,) in a direct sense, the Messiah. V. 24-28. For the question as to the right to baptize, the Evangelist seems to design furnishing a motive, when he states that those who were sent were Pharisees ; this sect was ex- tremely rigid in matters pertaining to the ritual. A lustra- tion of the people in the time of the Messiah was expected, in accordance with Ezek. xxxvi. 24, 25, seq. Mai. iii. 2, 3, and as this was ascribed in the Old Testament, in part to the Mes- siah himself, in part to his legates, we have, with the Messiah, the prophets also here mentioned who were to prepare the way for his advent. Instead of outs — ours, the best evidence sustains the reading o'joi — ouds. What John means by bap- tism in, that is, ivith water, is made clear by the antithesis which he had in his mind in connection with it. In v. 33, the antithesis is ^aTzzc^ei:^ iu TrusupaT: d-yico ; thus the merely ritual symbolical baptism, and the real baptism, which imparts the Spirit, stand opposed to each other. But in the account given, Luke iii. 16, with iv Tzvvjuaz! dycoj, we have also TtupL If this ::uf)c is not to be regarded as merely an explanatory addition of the narrator, if it is the Baptist's own phrase, (perhaps a remi- niscence from Mai. iii. 2, 3,) we have the more special antithe- sis of a purification from outward, gross offenses, which operates more in a negative way, and an internal purification 84 Chap. L— v. 29. working positively throiigli the impartation of the Spirit ; the same antithesis would then meet us which lies in the words ££7 fiezduocav and ii(; Tzcartv xal aipzatv ajiaprmv. The expression //iffoc — ol'dazs presupposes that Christ was no longer in private, that he had already appeared, cf. Luke xvii. 21, if ivTot; bixcbv there means "among you;" had the Baptist himself not yet known Jesus as the Messiah, would he have said: ov ufxt^z obx oYdaret (Jacobi, in the Studien u. Kritiken, 1838, p. 851.) It appears, then, that we are to suppose the baptism of Jesus to have taken place before this language was used, on which point, see what is said at the close of this division. " Oc: — yiyovEv is to be regarded as spurious, as perhaps, also, auroc iariv. The fig- urative, concrete expression, by which the Baptist designates his inferiority, was fixed, as Acts xiii. 25 shows, in the Evan- gelical tradition. The untieing and bearing the sandals, was the duty of slaves; how highly above himself must he then have esteemed Christ ! On the construction of dqco^ with ha instead of -with the infinitive, see Winer, 4th ed. p. 312. (Agnew and Ebbeke's Transl. p. 264.) Origen supposed that for iv Dfj&avia^ the reading should be ev Brjd^a^apa^ as tradition in his time assigned the latter place on the Jordan as that at which the baptism had been performed, and no other Bethany than the one near Jerusalem was known to him. But we must fol- low the unanimous testimony of the Codices, and it is just as supposable that there were two Bethanys as two Bethsaidas, to which there is probably an allusion in the Tiepav too 'lopodvoo. V. 29. From the solitude in which Jesus, after his baptism, had abode, he comes again to the Jordan. Of the object of Jesus' coming, nothing specific is mentioned, since the Evan- gelist is concerned only with the testimony of the Baptist. If the words be not,. as most regard them, a sudden prophetic in- spiration, they are yet uttered with a design presupposed, espe- cially V. 36, of directing the Disciples to Jesus. The grand significancy of Jesus, he finds in his propitiatory office. In the expression 6 dpvb^ zoo d-eoo, it is an obvious inference from the article 6, that a designation already well known is alluded to, somewhat like iy pi;^a too 'haaal, (Isaiah xi. 10, Romans xv. 12,) and it is most natural to think of Isaiah liii. 7. By the genitive TOO ^eou, this Lamb is more particularly characterized, either as Testimony of the Baptist. 85 destined by God, or as iveU-pleasi?}^ to God, cf. ipya too dzo'j, (vi. 28.) Jcneiu =p;t xiyj is in many connections, equivalent to ds:7u, "to takeaway sins." But al'pseu also means, in the Septuagint, to bear, (Lamentations iii. 27,) hence al'f/erj (hiuf,. for pi! ^33. If the Baptist had in his eye the prophecy in Isaiah liii. we must adopt the latter meaning, since in Isaiah liii. 11, we have ex2)rcssly Vaq: xin onji;' xac za:; (iixapTia'- abrcov dvolau. The ])earing of the sins of the world is, therefore, the suffering for the sins of the world, which, indeed, is the basis on which the taking away is accomplished. It is true, lambs were only used under certain circumstances for sin offerings ;* but the more readily could the Baptiet designate Christ as the expiating lamb, if he intended, at the same time, to direct attention to the feature of patient suffering, which had been held up by Isaiah. That the words of the Evangelist are to be explained in the mode mentioned, is confirmed, too, by this, that in Rev, V. 6, 12, xiii. 8, Christ, with reference to his expiatory death, is called d()\jiov iaaupertatem sublevaret, [1 P. Lange, (Leben Jesu, II. 1, p. 307,) says that the elevated frame of mind on the part of the Master of the feast and of the guests, caused them to taste the water as wine.] The Purification of the Temple. 105 turn ut diuturman testimonium ac monimentum esset facti mirac- nli." "Christ desired not only to relieve a present necessity, but that a quantity of wine might remain for him who had just married, alike that He might assist him in his poverty, and leave a lasting witness and memorial of the miracle that had been wrought." In foct, under the circumstances stated, the vast quantity of wine is accounted for in a very satisfactory man- ner. Thus, then, this miracle is an expression of love on the part of Christ, and to his Disciples, as we read, a stimulus of faith. The Purification of the Temple. — v. 12-22. V. 12. From the southern and higher side of the region which lay around the sea of Galilee, Jesus repaired to Caper- naum, which lay on the north, consequently xari^rj. As his mother and brethren accompanied him thither, and as Caper- naum is called, Matt. ix. 1, his oivn city, we may conclude that the family had gone to settle there,^ or at least, that Jesus was in the habit of sojourning there for considerable periods of time ; yet at this time he remained but a little while, and, as it appears, without any display of miracles, (see iv. 44, 45.) He purposes to make Jerusalem the first theatre of his activity as Messiah. As the Disciples accompanied him on the journey to the Passover which he was now about to make, we are to suppose that in the interval he had united them with him in a permanent manner. V. 13-16. Having arrived in Jerusalem, Jesus at once ap- pears in that holy place, which he had once, as a boy, declared to be the house of Ms father, and performs the act of a prophet and judge in it, by which he, as it were, takes possession of it, (Calvin.) In addition to the three courts of the temple, there was yet a large space outside, which embraced a place which was paved, open at the top, and surrounded by a great colonnade ; this was the Court of the Gentiles ; and this we must regard as meant here by the general appellation, Upov. Lattice-work, to which there was a flight of four steps, separa- ted this place from the inner temple, and on the entrance of [1 Wicseler, Chronol. Synopse. p. 169. Luther : There in Caperuuum, Chi-ist Lad beeu Pastor, and had labored iu the word of God. 7 th ed.] 106 Chap. K— v. 17-19. this lattice, was an inscription which forbade any dXXdipoAo^ (foreigner,) to advance further. The traffic may originally have been pursued without the precincts of the temple, and only by degrees have insinuated itself into it. It certainly promoted the object for which the temple was resorted to, and found an excuse in this fact. The occasion may have been given by persons from other lands, who came to the feasts, who would desire to purchase sheep and oxen for sacrifice, and in doing so, find it necessary to exchange their foreign money, and would also embrace this opportunity of discharging the temple tribute, (Exod. xxx. 13, seq.) which could not be paid in foreign money. The rebuke of Christ, as we read in this Gospel, was directed to the business to which the temple was now exclu- sively devoted ; the stronger expression. Matt. xxi. 13, points at the same time, to sinful practices in the commercial transac- tions. The scourge which he lifted served, without being used, to direct greater attention, on the part of the rude mass, to his words. That Christ should have used it, is opposed to our conceptions of his dignity ; but independently of this, we would be the less inclined to such a view, as confessedly (even by Strauss, 3d ed. retracted, 4th ed.) such means would not have sufficed for the end in view ; this, the overpowering personal ma- jesty of Christ alone could effect, which created the impression that here one had appeared with divine authority; cf. what is said of the impression produced by the appearance of Jesus, ch. vii. 46, and xviii. 6. An interference in God's name in the reform and regeneration of civil and religious institutions, was, indeed, allowed to the position of the Old Testament prophets. Nor must we confine our view exclusively to the special prac- tical aim of this temporary purification of the temple ; the Saviour certainly contemplated in this single transaction the symbol of his entire work — purifying the house of God. If the sellers of doves are treated with more mildness than the others, the reason, perhaps, is to be found in the nature of that bird, or probably in the fact that doves were offered by the poor. V. 17. This same formula eiiv/ja&rjaav is found also in v. 22 and chap. xii. 16, but with the addition, "after the resurrection of Jesus;" as this addition is wanting here, we are left to infer that the passage of the Old Testament occurred to them at the The Purification of the Temple. 107 time. As David in Psalm Ixix. 10, is speaking of liiiiisclf, wo can of course suppose no direct i)r()pliecy, and can only say with Luther: "the individual is an inference from the genus." In the fact, to wit: that such a consuminc/ zeal is prediciitcd of the Old Testament saints in general, the Disciples liud a justifi- cation for the zeal of the Lord ; cf. on quotations of this sort, Tholuck's work, "Das Alte Testam. im N. T. (The Old Testa- ment in the New,) 2d ed. 1839." (3d ed. 1849.' Tr.) V. 18. The "Jews" are here, as in i. 19, members of the Sanhedrim. They do not deny, in the general, that an act of such zeal is admissible, but they desire evidence of the right of Jesus to do it. According to v. 23, Jesus at this first presence performed many miracles, but as his entrance into the temple had occurred before these, the demand of the Jews is easily ex- plained. Jsixv'jsiv like d~odeau. and iKiosixv. exhibere, to show, X. 32, 1 Mace. vi. 34. "Ou like the German dass, (Engl, that, seeing that,) is used in similar connection, equiv. to ec^ tooto on, vii. 35, ix. 17. V, 19. The imperative Ibaaxz is the permissive imperat. as in Matt. xx. 32. Toovov must have been spoken der/vr/Mx;, (pointing with the finger,) and as the Saviour had just purified the temple, there has been an inclination to take the following view of the meaning of his words : " Carry on your desecration of the sanctuary, of which you have just been giving an exam- ple, carry it on to the destruction of the temple itself, the cen- tre of your symbolical worship, and in a little space of time I will establish a new spiritual temple in its place:" thus Henke, Herder, Liicke, Bleek. A similar view was held among the ancient %vriters, by Athanasius, Opera, i. 545. Since it is unmistakably the case, that the Disciples have applied many passages of the Old Testament (without, indeed, deny- ing the historical reference,) in a diftbrent sense from that which the historic exposition demands, and since, moreover, they were accustomed to the symbolic character of the discourses of Jesus, it cannot be regarded as singular, that at a laterperiod they may have felt themselves obliged to seek a deeper meaning in such an expression as that before us, and consequently have ex- plained it incorrectly. A meaning which is not historically 108 Chap, n.— v. 19. exact, is attached to expressions of Christ, in xviii. 9 ; cf. xvii. 12, as also, vii. 39. Nevertheless, we feel compelled, after repeated reflection, to persist in the opinion, that no important objection can be urged against the interpretation which the Disciple him- self gives ; that, on the contrary, there are many difiiculties in the way of that more recent exposition mentioned above. This, too, is the view of Flatt, Symbolse in Ev. loh. p. 1 ; Hey- denreich, in HiifFell and Heydenreich's Zeitschrift. f Predigerw. 2 bd. 1 H. ; Meyer, Kling, in the Studien u. Kritiken, 1836, H. 1 ; ITeander, (1. c. p. 400.) We begin with the difficulties which conflict with the modern view. The argument used by others, that the New Testament kingdom of God would not have been designated as a resuscitation of the temple, we do not consider valid, for in substance both economies certainly form a unity, as in John x. 16, the "fold," and Hebrews iii. 2-6, the house of God in the Old and New Testament are considered as iden- tical. We would rather urge the following: 1) Even Strauss, Liicke and De Wette, now concede what was urged by me in earlier editions, that the vouchers for iu rpcalv -fjiiepat^, mean- ing in a sJiort time, do not seem to answer their object; the proverbial expression, Hosea. vi. 2, Luke xiii. 32, is only analogous. 2) The declaration of the witnesses, Mark xiv. 58, Matt. xxvi. 61, is called by the Synoptists a false wit- ness. We cannot, indeed, impute to these witnesses the spiritual apprehension of which we have spoken ; by the " tem- ple made without hands," they probably, in a material sense, understood an ethereal temple to descend from heaven. Some of the people, nevertheless, understood the false testimony as impl^nng that Jesus had promised a reformation of the temple, as we see in Acts vi. 12-14. When Liicke and De Wette say that the falsehood lay in this alone, that they had imputed to Jesus the design of destroying the temple, while in fact he had said: "Destroy i/e this temple," this difference has no essen- tial bearing on the matter. As to the main point, the witnesses who are called false had repeated correctly, as also Liicke him- self subsequently declares : " On historical grounds, I do not shrink from regarding the apprehension, or rather the explana- tion of the false witnesses in Mark, as more correct than that The Purification of the Temple. 109 of the Apostlo," (John.) 3) Had Christ, when he used royrov, pointed to the building, the Jews must have supposed that a destruction of that building was meant, and almost unavoid- ably must the expresssion have appeared to them as a boast, (Matt, xxvii. 40.) So tar the difficulty. That, on the other hand, the explanation of the Evangelist gives a pertinent sense, cannot be denied. He who. Matt. xii. 6, used the expression : "I say unto you. That in this place is one greater than the temple," might well in this place reply: Destroy, as this is in keeping with your unhallowed disposition, this temple, in which in a far more real manner than in yours, the Deity has made his habitation, and I Avill raise it up again. The answer to this is indeed urged, that such a reply must have been abso- lutely unintelligible to those who put the question ; but is it more so than when Jesus refers the Samaritan woman to a period when men should worship only in spirit and in truth — an exjiression whose authenticity is expressly conceded by De Wette himself. This argument, of which we hear so much, with which, however, the very interpreters who use it rarely remain consistent, we cannot in general acknowledge as valid. How many expressions of our Lord, which were originally un- intelligible, at a late period bore fruit not only in his Disciples, but beyond doubt in his very opponents who were susceptible to the truth. And besides, do not exalted spirits utter many a thought out of their own self consciousness, without calculating to what extent it may he comprehended hy those who hear them ? To this may be added, that even in Matt. xii. 38-41, and xvi. 4, Christ proceeds in entirely the same manner. On the other side, they who make the reply, that if Christ in using these words pointed to his own body, his words could not at least have been referred to the temple-building, leave out of the account that ill-will which the superiors of the people displayed in all particulars, (viii. 22, 57.) — How widely this expression of our Lord must have been circulated, is clear, not only from the allegation of it by the false witnesses, and by the accusers of Stephen, but from the mockery of those persons at the cross, Matt, xxvii. 40 ; and as John is the only Evangelist who has narrated it in a congruous, historical connection, and in its 11 110 Chap. Jl.— v. 20-25. original form, we have in this fact an important evidence of his historical fidelity. V. 20. As they refer Christ's words to the external temple, the mention especially of the space of three days makes on them the impression of a boast. In the 18th or 15th year of Herod, the rebuilding of the temple erected by Zerubbabel had commenced ; it was not entirely finished until under Agrippa II., A. D. 64 ; we may suppose that at this time, probably after the completion of some main part of the edifice, a cessation in building had taken place. V. 21, 22. It is clear from v. 22, and from xx. 9, cf. with Luke xxiv. 46, that the Apostles and our Lord himself found prophecies in the Old Testament in regard to the resurrection. Luke xxiv. 26 shows, too, that in doing this, passages were had in mind, in which the "glory" of Christ was spoken of, there- fore, especially Isaiah liii. In addition, the mode in which Christ, John iii. 14, establishes in the Old Testament in a typical manner the idea of expiation by one crucified, gives us an important hint as to how we are to understand these authentications of the resurrection. Cf. on v. 46. A purification of the temple when Jesus last repaired to the Passover, is also recounted in Matt. xxi. 12, Luke xix. 45. The identity of these two occurrences was first maintained by some English theologians, Pearce and Priestly, and subsequently by a majority of the recent writers, (by Krabbe himself, 1. c. p. 248.) After most writers (even Strauss, 1st ed.) had contended at first for the correctness, chronologically, of the position it held in the synoptical Gospels, the opinion now is that the position in John is the correct one, as also Strauss held in the 3d ed. though decidedly on the other side in the 4th ed. The Synoptists, it is supposed, had probably got an account of our Saviour's driving the dealers out of the temple, but without a complete historical detail, and as they knew of no other Pass- over, at least furnish an account of no other than the last, they "have disposed of it " in this place. We ask, first, has the repetition of the action during Christ's last entry into the temple any improbability ? We can find none. We should not be surprised if the dealers had by the very next Pass- Effect of tue Miracles in Jerusalem. Ill over renewed their evil course ; in fact, the opposite could only be anticipated in the degree to which this extraordinary appearance in the department of religion, made an impression on their consciences. Perhaps, however, the disorder was abated for the second year ; if, however, in the third year, the impression from the earlier period did not remain in sufficient strength to prevent its repetition, there is nothing in this to occasion surprise. Christ, in the SynoptiSts, does not allude to his having acted in a similar manner before, but the tradition transmits in all cases only the more striking characteristics of the discourse. To these would especially belong what Christ says, V. 19, as we see by the repeated allusions to it, of which mention has already been made. K, now, what the Evangelists recount, is the same fact mentioned by John, would we not expect to find in them this important expression of Christ ? We would lay no weight upon the other points of dissimilarity in the narratives, but that this expression is wanting in the Synoptists, we must regard as an evidence that they narrate a difierent occurrence. It has, indeed, been thought that in Matt. xxi. 23, Luke xx. 2, we have the same thing that John ii. 18 mentions, but the question of the superiors there refers to the teaching, and occurs, according to Matthew, on the following day, according to Luke, on one of the following days. Effect of the Miracles in Jerusalem. — ^v. 23-25. Y. 23-25. On the following days Jesus performed a num- ber of miracles, which are also alluded to in ch. iv. 45. Jesus, nevertheless, penetrated the hearts of men, and did not con- sider those his true Disciples who had been moved to the recog- nition of him merely by miracles or even by superficial impres- sions, (viii. 31.) On the importance attached by Christ him- self to miracles, cf. especially Neander, 1. c. p. 273, seq. Most of all under the bondage of the senses, was that class for whom miracles had no other than a sensuous and selfish object, (John vi. 26 ;) those were a step higher, who demanded the miracle, indeed, from personal interest, but who allowed themselves to be led by it to a loftier aim, (iv. 53 ;) of a yet higher grade were those who felt the need of faith, but who required the media- 112 Chap. IL— v. 25. tion of sucli proofs of divinity as addressed the senses, (iii. 2;) highest of all, those who, hy the word and appearing of Christ, were enabled to believe, (x. 38, xiv. 1.) — John loves to give prominence to our Lord's profound knowledge of men, (oh. vi. 61, 64, V. 42 ; cf. also, Matt. ix. 4.) The article before d.vd^pa)7io(:, designates each particular man whom he meets, each one with whom Christ has to do, (Winer, p. 103, Agnew and Ebbeke's Tr. 95.) His not committing himself to them, can- not, indeed, mean that he refrained from disclosing himself further, for Nicodemus also was of this number, but that he felt a distrust in their actual discipleship, (vi. 61-66.) CHAPTER III. Christ leads to a higher position of Faith one whose BELIEF had been EXCITED BY MlRACLES.^ — V. 1-15. Y. 1, 2. The Evangelist gives an example of one of those wlio have attained to what Luther calls "the milk-faith," an example in which Christ revealed deep insight into the human breast. The ordinary view assigns Nicodemus too low a place. The impression which Nicodemus had already receivedj must have been a strong one, for there was no little for him to over- come before he could go, even by night, to Jesus. He was a distinguished member of the highest judicature of the land, and, as we may conclude from that fact, a man of property, and advanced in life, (v. 4 ;) as a Pharisee, he was specially exposed to temptations to self-righteousness. Luther: "Here we have a pretty spiritual play presented to us, how the best reason and most beautiful piety upon earth stumbles at genuine truth and spirituality. He is assisted, so should we paint it, by power, the highest piety and prudence, all combined, and yet more, even by love to Christ; yet see how he stumbles." That, nev- ertheless, some of the prominent men had received like impres- sions, may be concluded from the ocda/ieu, from the example of Joseph of Arimathea, and from what the Evangelist says, (xii. 42.) To what now does Nicodemus confess? To faith in the prophetic dignity of our Lord, cf. with the "come from God," the " sent from God," i. 16. And for the superhuman origin of what Jesus did, he draws an inference in regard to 1 On this division, cf. the Dissertation in Knapp, Scripta varii argumenti, No. vi.. on V. 11, 15, the Dissertation by Jacobi, in the Studien u. Kritiken, 1835, H. 1, which enters thoroughly into the author's meaning. 11* (113) 114 Chap. III.— v. 3, 4. what he taught, and acknowledges God as the common author of both. V. 3. Luther: "That might be thought, forsooth, an un- friendly answer to a friendly salutation." If we presuppose the insight of Jesus into the heart of the Pharisee, the abrupt charac- ter of the answer will not surprise us. Of a similar nature in this respect is the answer vi. 26. The full discussion of the conception of ^'■hingdom of Grod,'' (for which Matthew has "king- dom of the heavens,") belongs to Matt iii. 2. See Tholuck's Commentary on the Sermon on the Mount, on Matt. v. 3. As a designation of the kingdom of the Messiah, the expression is found, Daniel vii. 14, xviii. 27. It bears this name, because, in this kingdom to whose final consummation we are pointed, 1 Cor. XV. 28, all the powers which oppose God shall be overthrown. According to the difierent degrees of enlightenment, the expres- sion was naturally understood by the Jews in a more or less spiritual sense. — The expression loziv, according to Hebrew usage*, "to experience, participate in," (iii. 36, viii. 51.) Whether d-vcod^ev here is equivalent to deurepov, (a second time, again,) or to oupavo&ev, (from heaven, from above,) has been up to the most recent period a matter of dispute ; Origen, Cyrill, Non- nus, Erasmus, Liicke, Meyer, De Wette, take the latter view; the Syriac, Vulgate, Coptic, Olshausen, Neander, the former. It is certainly worthy of notice, that in v. 31 and xix. 11, duco&ev is equivalent to oupavod-ev, and that in i. 13, 1 Joh. ii. 29, iii. 9, iv. 7, v. 1, iv. 18, we have only the conception of " being born of Grod," which is equivalent to obpavod^sv. Nevertheless, the fact that Nicodemus puts this counter-question, and that in this question he uses the words "to be born the second time," is decisive for the first mode of taking the expression, which has, in the New Testament, the parallels, "begotten again, born again," 1 Pet. i. 3, 23, "regeneration," Titus iii. 5, "new creature," Gal. vi. 15. "Auojd^sv, however, is not exactly the same as Tcdkv, but means over again, that is, anew ; Gal. iv. 9, we have ndhp autod^su together. Nicodemus was thus referred at once to the centre of the Christian faith. The sixth verse indicates more clearly what our Lord meant by the new birth ; that it is the origin of a condition, in which the Spirit of God is throughout the deciding principle. The Pabbins were not XlCODEMUS. 115 anacquaintcd with this image ; they call a proselyte a new creature, na^nn r^\•^2 (Schottgen, IIoriB Talmud. I. 704 ; Light- foot, Horse Talmud, p. 984;) it is possible that Paul presup- posed the expression as familiar, even if Christ did not, in this place. V. 4. That a man familiar with Scripture, and advanced in years, should have been so little versed in figurative expres- sions as i^icodcmus appears in this place, and in a yet higher degree in the question repeated, v. 9, (when at the same time it was common to call proselytes new-born, or ncAv creatures,) has to the most recent criticism appeared so incredible, that it regards the conversation as a fiction, in which the contrast hag been purposely depicted in the most glaring light, in order to represent the Jewish master as a fool, (Strauss, Bauer;) it is characteristic of the author's manner, too, say they, to spin out the dialogues of Jesus by carnal misapprehensions on the part of the hearers. This last position, in its general application, as well as in reference to this passage, has been criticised by Schweizer, 1. c. p. 32. He endeavors to show that Nicodemus throughout is not speaking of understanding^ but of believing. If understanding were the thing involved, why does the scribe, v. 9, repeat the question, since then he could have been thinking of none but a spiritual birth, and why does Christ, v. 12, reproach them that they did not believe ? The language, v. 4, is to be understood as com- parative, urging a parallel case ; JSTicodemus doubts whether so great a thing can be accomplished, and answers, therefore, that this demand would be as difficult to fulfill as for a man to enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born. To this idea, which had presented itself to me also, at an earlier period, I am now inclined to give the preference. We must, then, take the first question in v. 4 as purely figurative, the second, on which Bengel finely remarks : animosius objicit Nico- demus, we must take as an explanation by comparison : " Can one who is old be born anew ? It is as impossible as it would be, &c." There, is then, also, a better occasion for v. 8 in the connection of the discourse ; v. 5 and 6 confirm, in figurative expressions, the necessity of the new birth ; v. 8 shows the pos- sibility of it, namely, by the Spirit of God freely working. If it still be thought necessary, however, to find in these ques- 116 Chap, m.— v. 5. tions the language of one who does not understand, they may be thus taken : " You cannot mean to be understood literally ; what, then, is your meaning?" (Liicke, Olshausen.) — By the yipcDV wp, Nicodemus applies to himself the words of Christ, (Beza.) V. 5. First, the necessity is once more confirmed, then the nature of this birth explained — the same antithesis as in i. 13. By the statement of the begetting principle, the mode of generation is also characterized. But what means the specifi- cation ig uoazo^ ? Chrysostom already explained it of baptism, and ingeniously after the analogy of physical generation, the paternal principle was found in the Spirit, the maternal in the water, (Theodorus of Mopsuestia, Ammonius, Maldonatus,) thus, too, the Catholic and Lutheran interpreters; Bucer, also, and subsequently, Tittman, Knapp, Fikenscher. For this an argument is found in the connection in which elsewhere in the New Testament, regeneration and baptism are placed, (Eph. v. 26, 1 Pet. iii. 21, Titus iii. 5,) and iu odare xai (iiiiaxt in John himself, 1 John v. 6, which Liicke even, interprets of baptism. It is probably the dogmatic difficulty that in this way Clirist's own words would ascribe to baptism a like share with the Spirit in regeneration, which has led especially the Reformed expositors to abandon this interpretation. Zwingle intei-prets "water" as a figurative designation of "knowledge, clearness, heavenly light," (cognitio, claritas, lux coelestis.) Calvin, as epexegesis : " aquse spirituales, non fluviales," (waters of the spirit, not of the river ;) so, also, Beza, with a reference to the addition norn, Luke iii. 16. A reference of a comparative nature to the baptism of John is assumed by Beausobre and Herder, the former says : " Si quelqu'un n'est ne non seulement de I'eau, mais aussi de I'esprit," (unless a man be born not only of water, but of the spirit also.) Recently, however, an efibrt has on the one side been made to reach a fuller meaning, and on the other, with no dogmatic aim, to fix the meaning. The former by Olshausen. Calvin already mentions, that some regarded water as an elementary symbol of the tender disposition, and the spirit or wind of the facile, movable disposition of mind without which conversion is impossible. Thus, also, Olshausen inge- niously regards the water as the symbol of the soul yielding JSTlCODEMUS. 117 itself up in love; the spirit designates, as it were, the masculine potency by whose cooperation the new birth is effected. But in the compass of the !N"ew Testament usage such a symbolical meaning of water lias no analogy ; on the contrary, the refer- ence to baptism has the greatest analogy. To this view, con- sequently, even the negative critics have returned. But in the very fact, that in the juxtaposition of "water" and "spirit," we must by the former understand baptism, and that mention of it at this time and to this man is improbable in the last degree, Strauss and Bauer think they have found a new evidence of the fictitious character of the whole interview. But the idea of an intentional interpolation of this reference to water, from a doctrinal interest for the sacrament, (to give additional authority and value to baptism,) is the less tenable, as the expression is dropped in iii. 8. (Meander's L. J., M'Clintock and Blumenthal's Tr. 175.) It would be more plausible to say, that the Disciple, from the later conscious- ness in which baptism and regeneration are brought into closer mutual relations, had involuntarily inserted the expression, " of water." Is it, however, true, that Christ himself could not have spoken of baptism ? Ilis Disciples certainly baptized, see chap. IV. 2. In addition, could not the Saviour express from his own consciousness what his hearers at the time would not under- stand ? see on ii. 19. We ask further, is it true that if we refer "water " to baptism, it can be apprehended only in accordance with the Catholic or with the Lutheran doctrine of baptism ? The mention of the spirit alone, in v. 8, already contradicts such an opinion. It may still be said in accordance with the Eeformed doctrine, that baptism is mentioned as a pignus, signaculum, (pledge, seal.) Or we may say with Neander and Liicke : " The water may have already been known to Nicode- mus from the baptism of John, as a symbol of the purification of the inner man." Nevertheless, should not the mode in which elsewhere "of water" and "of the spirit" are placed in opposition, (i. 26, 31, 33, Acts i. 5,) make it probable that our Lord actually had John's baptism, and by consequence, the baptism of repentance in his mind, so that precisely these two points are made prominent, on which, according to the doctrine of the Church, regeneration rests ? The i? here and 118 Chap, in.— v. G-12. in V. 6, does not, indeed, as in i. 13, designate the "causa efficiens," but the element from which, according to the per- ception of the senses, the birth proceeds. V. G. The dignity of this birth is stated as in i. 13. The antithesis here, too, is simple : bodily and spiritual birth. The neuter more general than the masculine. From the act of begetting on the natural side of humanity, originates a product, in which nature preponderates, and which, first by a new act of grace from above, becomes genuine spirit. That the ■Kvvjjm^ " Spirit," means nvzuiia rob ^eou, " Spirit of God," is shown by v. 8. The product which in a spiritual generation proceeds from this Spirit, is of like kind. V. 7, 8. These verses rigidly taken, do not lead to the view, that I^icodemus, v. 4, had expressed an inability to understand, but that he had declared his doubt of the possibility of such an extraordinary change. They show, namely, that the Spirit of God exhibits an uncontrolled activity surpassing all under- standing. JJueu/xa and nn mean both wind and Spirit. The first time, as the outcor shows, we are not to understand the Spirit, (Origen, Augustine, Bengel,) but wind, which is used also in Ecclesiastes xi. 5, as an image of the inexplicable, and in Xenophon, Memorab. iv. 3, 14, as an image of the Deity who is invisible in his essence, and is to be traced only in his operations. There is a threefold point of comparison : the wind blows with a strength which man cannot resist ; its operation is perceptible ; but its mode is incomprehensible — we know in fact in but few cases, the causes of the disturbance of the equilibrium of the atmosphere.^ It is a question whether the last member is to be understood yet more strictly in its particulars, whether by it is intimated that the first beginnings and preparation for regene- ration, and its last goal reaching into eternity, are incompre- hensible to man. V. 9, 10. The words do not compel us to suppose that Nicodemus does not yet understand : they have not the charac- ter of a question, but of an exclamation. In this way, Luther regards it in one of his expositions of the Gospel, (B. xi. p. 1 Luther: " David has hit it, Psalm cxxxv. 7. He bringeth the wind out of his secret places, (Eng. Tr. treasuries,) cousequeutly so that no man knoweth and seeth it." XlCODEMUS. 119 2974,) in tlie other, however, he says of Nicodemiis, "the longer he listened, the less he understood," (p. 1556.) — Even now, NIcodemus cannot comprehend the greatness of such a change. Christ had spoken of the power of the Spirit of God ; of this, a teacher of the Old Testament law must have known, (Ps. li. 12, Ezek. xviii. 31, xxxvi. 24-28, Jerem. xxxi. 33.) The article before did. is rhetorical, (Bernhardy, Synt. p. 315, Passow, ii, p. 311,) which is evident, too, from the solemn ruu WapaijL Erasmus, Bengel, Knapp : " tu ex eruditione notus ille et clarus Israelitarum doctor es," (art thou that teacher of the Israelites, known and distinguished by thy learning ?) "Whether we translate "knowestnot," or "understandest not," it amounts to the same thing. V. 11. The 12th and 13th verses have inclined expositors to the view that the plural is to be taken as the rhetorical plural for the singular, (Theoph.;) especially as Christ specifically attributes the opdu to himself, (John vi. 46.) But common as this use is in epistolary style, it is not found in ordinary dis- course. But it does not seem admissible to regard the prophets as included, or John the Baptist, (Knapp,) since no such refer- ence is hinted at. Or, as v. 10 had referred to the testimony of the prophets, in regard to the operation of the Spirit, did Christ mean to designate himself and the prophets together as witnesses for the transforming power of the Spirit of God ? Maldonatus, with a view peculiar to him : de omnibus bonis testibus, (all good witnesses are included.) — The plural Xafi^dvtTt may be compared with oltdajizv in v. 2. V. 12. Ta imyeia and to. er.oopduca, 1 Cor. xv. 40, Phil. ii. 10, mark the antithesis of nature between earthly and heavenly things and beings. The sense, then, may be thus taken : " I have now spoken to you in earthly illustrations, how would you believe if I had imparted heavenly things without a veil," (Luther, Beza, Maldonatus,) — but to this, v. 13 is opposed. It would be much more natural to expect, in this connection, that the "earthly" would have reference to the regeneration previously mentioned, and then by the "heavenly" most writers under- stand the redemption spoken of in v. 14. Yet it appears impossible that Christ would have uttered "the heavenly" in the presence of those who were not in a condition to receive in 120 Chap. III.— v. 13-15. faith "the earthly ;" the view, therefore, may be held that v. 14 has no immediate reference to v. 12, since, also, the redemption by the cross is likewise an earthly fact. So Olshausen, accord- ing to whose opinion Christ did not impart the "heavenly things " to Nicodemus and those who attended him, for from the use of the plural, Olshausen infers that he brought such with him. Bengel : Causa, cur scriptura de multis rebus sileat, (the reason why Scripture is silent on many points.) But what, then, can be the meaning of these "heavenly things?" Could Christ give other communications than those from the sphere of religion ? Is it not intimated, also, v. 31, that he expressed " the heavenly things." According to Olshausen, it is the proper Ttw^ (how) of the new birth, in regard to which our Lord is silent, " because it would have to be sought in the ultimate prin- ciples of the spiritual world." But the question of Nicodemus certainly had not this metaphysical purport, in fact it is, as we have already remarked, less a question than an exclamation. !Nor can we acknowledge the validity of that difficulty, that the expiatory death, as over against the fact of the new birth, cannot be termed inoofjavcov. As regards the new birth, it can be said of it without scruple, that it is izcyecop, for it is an earthly fact, which hardly requires the ingenious remark of Bengel, that it occurs in margine coeli, (on the verge of heaven.) The crucifixion, it is true, equally occurred on earth ; but as this mere fact, it is not an object of faith, this it first becomes by the significance Avhicli attaches to it by its connection with the divine counsel, but this counsel is i-ouijdvcov. Thus in "Wisdom ix. 16, za i-l y/j:; and za eu obpavdl^ are contrasted, and the latter is explained, v. 17, as the ^ook/j of God. Relying upon that very passage, Liicke would thus express the antithe- sis: "the easily understood — the Jiard to be understood," (of. the similar view in Cyrill and Beza.) But in v. 13, standing in immediate connection, there is an express antithesis of y?] and obpavo^, cf v. 21, so that in v. 12 the meaning deduced cannot be adhered to. V. 13. If men will not believe Christ, it is impossible that they should understand the eTtoupduca, (i. 18.) As the " descend- ing from heaven " cannot be taken literally, just as little can the "ascending;" and "heaven" can only be the designation of the NiCODEMUS. 121 sphere of that absolute knowledge which proceeds from unity with God, (cf. i. 52.) Yet more clear does tliis become from the addition 6 wm iv up ovpautp. The participle cannot be taken as the partic. imperf and be resolved into 07 7jv, for a perfectly idle tautology would thus arise. It follows, also, from this proposition, that in Christ's judgment heaven and earth are no self-separating opposites. "W"e see from these words, that the figurative style predominates far more in the discourses of our Lord, than is acknowledged by most. V. 14, 15. If Christ, now, notwithstanding the refusal in v. 12, designs here to make known to Nicodemus "the heavenly things," we would certainly anticipate in an author exact in the use of the particles, some other particle of transition than the mere xa! ; either xac — oi, or merely oi, or at any rate ouu. Nicodemus had been placed in the subjective centre of the kingdom of God, the new birth had been announced to him. Christ judges him worthy to be introduced into the objective centre also, the doctrine of redemption. He lets himself down to the scribe's feeble measure of knowledge, by pointing out to him in a well known Old Testament fact, the appearance of that very idea which would be actualized in Christ's own death. The Israelites bitten by poisonous serpents, could be cured by looking in faith upon the brazen serpent, (Numb. xxi. 8, 9, Wisd. xvi. 6, 7.) We have here, also, a proof of the profound manner in which the Old Testament was interpreted by our Saviour, and an intimation of the way in which he is to be understood, when he finds even in Moses prophecies in regard to himself, (v. 46.) Precisely those two features of the doctrine of redemption, against which the opposition of carnal Israel was \ directed, justification by faith, and that, too, a faith in a crucified one, (1 Cor. i. 23, Rom. ix. 32,) are typified in this Old Testa- ; ment fact. Many have, indeed, given the type a yet more special application. That wliich healed w^as (without poison, indeed,) the same that had slain; the crucified one, who delivers, is, likewise in appearance only, a sinner and male- factor, (Rom. viii. 3 ;) thus Luther, Bengel, Olshausen, Jacobi. The purpose of the Saviour, at least with reference to Nicode- mus, was not to enter into such minute doctrinal details. — The meaning of lx^u'ju must be determined by reference to viii. 28, 12 122 Chap. IH.— v. lG-21. ef. xii. 32, 33, In tlie latter passage, the exaltation to heaven is the subject of discourse, but John finds in it an allusion to the crucifixion; when Christ says, chap. viii. 28: ""When ye have lifted up," he had in his mind, no doubt, their crucifying him. In Chaldee, too, ^\ also means "to raise, to hang," in Syriac, ao) ('Ip') "to crucify." A double sense may lie in it, (see p. 228,) but the phrase "lifted up the serpent," which is in opposition with it, presents no argument for it. Death on the cross is presupposed, also, in Matt. xx. 19, x. 38. In the words, '•''every one that believeth on him," the universality of the redemption is intimated. — Was, now, this profounder intimation lost upon the mind of the scribe? The history proves the reverse, and thus justifies the Saviour in judging fit to utter the "heavenly things" in the ears of Nicodemus. He who then came to Jesus by night, ventured, ch. vii. 51, to ofter a word for Jesus in the high council, and when we see that after Christ's crucifi-xion, when all earthly expectations had vanished, ]^icodemus was still active in honoring the crucified Saviour, even in the grave, (xix. 39,) does it not seem as though especially this word in regard to the expiatory death had, in the end, disclosed its meaning to him. It may be, that on this night the words made upon the scribe the impression (as Jacobi expresses it,) as of a speaking in an unknoivn tongue, but they were not utterly lost upon him. The Evangelist continues the thought, that the mission OF Christ into the "World is the work of God's love, AND that unbelief CONDEMNS BUT ITSELF. V. 16-21. V. 16, 17. K the observation made ii. 19, be considered just, that Christ expressed from his own consciousness what far transcended his hearer's point of view, this division might be regarded as a continuation of the discourse with Xicode- mus ; at least, the correction of the idea that the Messiah had appeared only as a judge to the Gentiles, was exactly in place in a conversation with a scribe. Thus it is taken, also, among recent writers, by Knapp, Meyer, Hug. Since Erasmus, how- ever, most interpreters have supposed that the Evangelist con- nects an independent train of thought of his own, enlarging Christ's Mission into the Would. 123 on the theme presented by the Saviour's discourse. If we could doubt that such is the case here, yet we could not as regards V. 31-36 ; and if the matter be indubitable there, there can be no further scruple here. In opposition to the carnal view, which imagined a judgment on the heathen world to be a prominent design of the Messiah, the Evangelist gives a spe- cial emphasis to "every one that believeth," and shows that by the appearing of the only begotten Son, life has also been oftered to the "world." That in idcoxsv there is a reference to the death on the cross, may more readily be admitted, as such a reference has preceded it ; nevertheless it is not necessary to complete it by adding ec^ zbv ^duazov, (Olshausen,) nor with Meyer, r. xda/jtco, but it corresponds with "resign, give up," vi. 51, Luke xxii. 19, at other times rzapidcDxtv ; it is consequently parallel with the subsequent dTzoffvsXXsa&cu ec^ rbv xbajiov^ but with prominence given to the idea that this was connected with humiliation and suffering, (Phil. ii. 7.) Y. 18, 19. A highly spiritual conception of the idea of the judgment, which also lies at the basis of the words in xii. 46- 48, (cf. Acts xiii. 46, Titus iii.ll, John ix. 41.) If in the appear- ing of Christ, forgiveness of sins, life and salvation, are offered to men, and if faith be the channel through which these bless- ings are conferred on men, unbelief is a judgment of one's self. Luther: "To liave sin is not what does the harm, but the insisting that we have no sin does the great harm." The Evangelist derives the unbelief, not merely from ignorance, but also from love of darkness. That man should love dark- ness appears incomprehensible, but v. 20, 21, assign the causes. y. 20, 21. The more man abandons himself to evil, the more does he regard it as his proper self, and loves it as him- self. As that which is holy is in opposition to him, and reproves his evil works, he feels himself mortified in that char- acter which is proper to him, and begins to hate what is holy. Christ presents this as the reason, ch. vii. 7, why he was hated by the world. Man begins to love the objectively holy, in the degree in which he recognizes that the evil attaching to him is something alien from him, and, therefore, does not fear the reproving of it. He then feels himself attracted by the object- 124 Chap, m. — v. 21-24. Ive appearance of the liolj, as his efforts are thereby sanctioned and promoted. If we compare in Rom. xiii. 12, 1 Thess. v. 8, and in John xi. 9, 10, how the spiritual and physical meanings of -fjidpa and ^a»c play allusively into one another, we shall be inclined to think that in v. 20 there is an allusion to the fact that evil seeks the shroud of night. 'A?.:j&sia, in the prac- tical sense of n:?x, like the expression, "das rechte," ("what is right,") in German, expresses at once the theoretical and practical, (1 John i. 6.) — ^Ev ??£a>, that is, so that the works have God as their source. It is in John we find direct expressions, according to which even those not yet converted can stand in a fellowship with God, (viii. 47, xviii. 37.) Strauss has pronounced the whole scene with Nieodemus a fiction, originating in the fact that the reproach that the Gospel was confined in its operations to the lower classes, goaded the souls of tlie early Christians. But with historical, as well as Christian penetration, Neander, in reply, has pointed to the fact, that the Christians of those earlier times gloried, on the very contrary, in this, that the humble had been exalted by Christ to so high a point, (1 Cor. i. 26, 27.) According to Bauer, too, the conversation must be a mere fiction, because, through the whole of it, the reflective point of view of the later Church can be recognized. "Weisse does not go so far, who, though he remarks that the conversation held without the presence of others, and first communicated by Mcodemus to the Disciples, could not be very faithfully detailed, yet directs attention to the fact, that from this very conversation originate allusions in Justin Martj'r, Clemens Romanus and Ignatius, which, if they be independent of John's Gospel, prove that John was not advancing mere inventions of his own; the presumption, indeed, is made without good cause, that those passages are independent of our Gospel, (see above, Introd. § 6.) The privacy of the conversation has, in general, given a support to the doubt of its genuineness. De Wette says : "The depth and spiritual fullness of the discourses detailed, we can, as regards their essence, derive only from the original sources ; the delineation of them, we cannot regard as the work of con- scious invention, but as a Spirit-drunken, poetical, free reproduc- tion.'' But no unprejudiced person can deny, that everything to New Testimony for Christ. 12o V. 15, which was said by Christ, was properly adapted to a scribe like Nicodemus, and the subsequent spiritual growth of the scribe confirms this. To assume with positiveness that not one of the Disciples of our Lord could have been present at the in- terview, would involve a presumption which has nothing to establish it, for Nicodemus had reason, indeed, to fear the Jews, but had no reason to fear the Disciples of our Lord. The possi- bility, then, that John had direct knowledge of what passed, must be conceded. Nevertheless, if it be granted that John got his knowledge of it through Nicodemus, yet if the conversation made that profound impression upon Nicodemus, which, from the subsequent history, it is evident it did, he would have been in a situation, at a later period, in his close relations with the Disciples, to give them an account faithful in all essentials. A NEW Testimony of the Baptist for Christ. — v. 22-30. V. 22-24. From the metropolis, Jesus went into the province of Judea. Through his Disciples, as ch. iv. 2 informs us, he baptized; meanwhile the Baptist also continued his baptism. We have here additional matter, exciting no little difficulty. First, this, that according to Matt. iv. 12, Mark i. 14, it seems as though Jesus had first made his appearance in Galilee in his active vocation, subsequently to the removal of John from the stage. That John should have continued his work at the same time with Jesus, appears also surprising in a high degree. Should the morning star continue to shine after the sun has risen ? On the contrary, we would even have anticipated that the Baptist himself would unite with the circle of the Disciples of Jesus. The difficulty, indeed, goes yet further — that Christ should have caused baptism to be administered during the time of his life on earth, is difficult to credit, since in fact he had not yet established a Church, (Bretschneider, Weisse.) Thus one difficulty attaches itself to the other. The following, how- ever, may be advanced in reply. If the Baptist continued, simultaneously with Jesus, to work independently, he must have done so because his position was regarded by himself as the Old Testament one, to wit : to baptize into " one that was to come," and thus to extend among the people in ever widening circles, 12* 126 Chap. III.^v. 24-30. a penitent mind and the longing after the Messiah, (Kern, Tlib. Zeitschr. 1836, ii. 11, p. 54.) If we may regard the procedure of the Baptist, eh. i. 35, as exhibiting his rule, he was not in every case urgent in insisting on fellowship with Christ, but confined himself to giving hints to the more susceptible spirits ; even in ch. i. 26, he merely intimates that the Messiah is present, without specifically designating Jesus as snch. His expressions here, too, v. 29, 30, confirm the relation in which he stands, just as the history narrates it, for they speak not of his retirement, but of his decline; they speak not of his attaching himself to the Saviour, but only of his calm inward sympathy with Christ's self-dependent activity. As regards Christ's bap- tism, it certainly could not at this period have the character it had subsequently to his resurrection, ascension and outpouring of the Spirit, (Matt, xxviii. 19.) To say, nevertheless, as Tertul- lian already does, that it was only John's baptism, is not correct ; for there was connected with it a confession of faith, a con- fession of Christ as Messiah who had already api^eared, while John's baptism required only a penitent confession in order to participate in the kingdom of Messiah to come. As regards, finally, the difference between John and Matt. iv. 12, we can certainly perceive from v. 24, that the oral tradition fixed the imprisonment of John pretty nearly about the same time with the appearance of Jesus. But the passage in Matthew does not necessarily lead to this view, if we bear in mind the very com- pendious character of the narrative of that Evangelist. The special activity of Jesus in Galilee, according to John, first falls, also, in the period after the return from the first Passover, (iv. 45 ;) after his return from his baptism at Jordan, he had remained but a short time in Galilee, (ii. 12.) That point of time was also in Matthew's eye, but as he was not acquainted with the intervening occurrence, it gives an appearance as if he differed from John. — ^non and the larger Salim, according to v. 26, lay on this side Jordan, and according to Eusebius, (Onomas.) the place was still pointed out at Jordan, and Robin- son found a callage of Salim in the neighborhood of ISTablous. On the motive assigned for baptizing at this place, in the words "because there was much water there," Bauer makes merry: "had not the Jordan, on whose banks we must picture jS'ew Testimony for Christ. 127 to ourselves the scene as taking place, abundance of water at other points, too?" But the precise fact hacl in view, is that the Baptist had abandoned his usual place of baptism at the Jordan.' V. 25-28. t The ovv has reference to the fact previously stated, that Jesus and John were baptizing at the same time. Z/jtr^ac^, Acts XV. 2, a question, hence disputation, called by the Rabbins, K'K/p.. By the connection, it would seem that the Jow^ gave a preference to the baptism of Jesus. The excitement of John's disciples displays itself, also, in the hyperbolical expression : "all men come to him." Ma.pToptiv, with dative, to otter testi- mony in any one's favor. The language of the Baptist bears to a remarkable extent the stamp of genuineness in its Old Testament gnomologic form, v. 27, 30, connected with the figurative expression, v. 29. The general sentiment, v. 27, can either be placed in close connection with v. 28, " I can arro- gate nothing to myself, but can only assume the position allotted to me by God," (Cyrill, Bengel, Liicke, Neander,) or with v. 26, "Jesus would not have it in his power to maintain such a position, if God had not assigned it to him," (Chrysos- tom, Olshausen, De Wette.) The Baptist may, however, have uttered the general sentiment, with reference to their mutual relation. The reasoning of Gamaliel, Acts v. 38, seq. is of a similar character. — \HX ore is a mingling of two constructions, ("Winer, p. 552.) ^Ey.ttuo(;, in v. 28, is by Bengel and De Wette not referred to 6 yjnazo^, as in that case ojjxdb would be required, (cf. however, vii. 45, Acts iii. 13,) but to Jesus, v. 30. V. 29, 30. The Baptist now declares what is the position assigned him. The Old Testament frequently designates God as the husband of his people, (cf. in the New Testament, 2 Cor. xi. 2, Eph. v. 32, Rev. xxi. 2, 9.) As the Messiah is the representative of God, a similar affirmation can be made of him. Maldonatus thus expresses the sense of the first words in v. 29 : quamvis in nuptiis multi sunt, non omnes sponsi sunt, (although 1 Neander, Liicke and De Wette, following RosenmuUer, observe that "jJ";^ is an intensive form, -with the signification of "abounding in springs." It is, indeed, not an intensive form, but an adjective form, ( Ewald, Hebr. Gramm. 3d ed. \ 341,) nevertheless the etymology justifies the observation of the Evangelist. [Airuv, equiv. to "jy^ l^J'Jr? adj. from "jV "place rich in springs," Ewald, Lehrbuch, 6th ed. p. 3G.J. 7th ed.] 2 (The critical authority for ^\ov6aiov is considered now as decisive. Tr.) 128 Chap. III.— v. 31-34. many are at the wedding, not all are bridegrooms.) The expression, "friend of the bridegroom," has a technical mean- ing, as according to Hebrew usage, a pcfitt' napavufKpcoi; acted as mediator in the marriage suit and contract. '^ Earrjxo)^, he stood without interfering, as a spectator who sympathizes, but takes no part. As regards the "voice of the bridegroom," Meyer was the first who referred to the passages in the Old Testament, in which the voice of the bridegroom and the voice of the bride are a de- signation of the festal joys of the wedding, (Jer. vii. 34, xvi. 9, XXV. 10.) Subsequently, De Wette and Liicke also understood by the joyous voice of the bridegroom, the jubilee of the wedding festivities. But in this sense it presents itself in the Old Testament passages, only in the distinct phraseologic con- nection ; the difiiculty, too, is suggested, that then the com- parison has no proper applicability to the thing compared. We reach this much better, when we have in our mind the interview of the bridegroom with the bride, during which the friend who has brought about the connection stands aside as a sympathizing listener. Understood in this way, the expres- sion is in perfect correspondence with the position which the Baptist assumed after the appearance of Jesus. Xa'ipttv ucd, instead of with kni or iv, is an unusual connection, is found, however, also, 1 Thess. iii. 9 ; cf. ■&ai>[jLd^zcv d:d, vii. 21. The dat. modi, X^P^j instead of the accus. is also unusual, cf. how- ever, Septaag. Is. Ixvi. 10. The last words in v. 29 express, definitively, in what the destination of the Baptist consisted. The expression, "my joy is fulfilled," belongs to the phraseology peculiar to John, (xv. 11, xvi. 24, 1 John i. 4 ;) yet the sense here is somewhat difierent, and has a historical reason, for the Baptist had hitherto rejoiced in hope. V, 30 is intelligible only on the supposition that the Baptist continued to labor at the same time with Christ. The Evangelist pursues the thought, that Christ is the ABSOLUTE Teacher and Mediator between men and God. V. 31-36. Y. 31, 32. It is true that even recently Hug has characterized the position of Strauss, ihat the Baptist could not have uttered the following words, a? "more impertinent than true," and it is Christ the Teacher and Mediator. 129 undeniably the fact, that the leading thought, v. 31, 32, coincides in essentials with i. 30 ; but v. 35, 36, especially, are too specifically of John's (the Evangelist,) type of Christianity; v. 32, also, is in opposition to v. 26 ; it is to be noticed, too, that the Old Testa- ment figurative mode of expression only goes to v. 30. That the Disciple should, with nothing interposed to mark it, have added, to use Bacon's words, an emanatio concionis lohannese, is to be accounted for only from his peculiar mystical ten- dency, which did not separate so rigidly between objective and subjective. Conformably to the fact that the Baptist had established the distinction between Christ and himself, espe- cially in the preexistence of Christ, the Evangelist here also, has established the specific distinction from the Baptist and all others in this, that the origin of the Redeemer cannot be referred to a merely human descent. The first, ix r^j^c yrj^, designates the origin^ the second, the kind and character^ and with the character corresponds the doctrine. The antithesis in iTzauco TcdvTiov iazi corresponds to the ix r^c r^C ^<^^^ and the xac — [xapTopel to the ix zr^^ yr^z ^mXeI. Christ, indeed, ch. vi. 46, claims for himself exclusively the seeing, and ascribes to man only the power of liearing the Father ; but in other places this distinction is not observed, (ch. v. 30.) We can, moreover, in the hearing, suppose the distinction that in Christ the hear- ing does not consist in a single act. In the plaintive words xal — Xaix^dvsc, we recognize the voice of the Evangelist, (i. 11, xii. 37.) V. 33, 34. The accountability which attaches to unbelief is pointed out, (Chrysostom.) As the words of Christ are the words of God, the rejection of his testimony is also a rejection of the testimony of God, (1 John v. 10.) — "Ov b &. 0.71. used of the Messiah, v. 38, xi. 42, xvii. 3, xx. 21, with sfc ^- xbaixov, x, 36, xvii. 18, cf. xviii. 37, xi. 46. Nearly like it Ix r. d^zo'j ipy., sometimes with £«c ^. xoafiov, viii. 42, xvi. 28, xiii. 3. The question rises, whether these formulas have the same meaning, and merely designate the prophetic dignity, (thus the Socinians, Grotius.) The phrase, "whom God hath sent," is certainly applicable to every prophet, but in John it designates not merely the outward sending, but the inward calling, see vii. 16, viii. 42, Isa. xlviii. 16 — used of Christ, the internal calling to 130 Chap, ni.— v. 34-36. 3Iessiahship. "With the addition, "into the world," the phrase already implies more, De Wette : " the appearing in the visible world;" Baumgarten-Crusius, on ch. i. 9: "an extraordinary- entrance into life," it is used only of the Messiah, (cf. xii. 46, also, vi. 14.) Yet more decided is the reference to the preexistence in dno or Ttapa ^eou ipy^. It is used, indeed, iii. 2, of the divine call in general, but dilfferently, viii. 42, xvi. 28, xiii. 3, as the antithesis Ttoptuojiac rtpba r. tt. shows, as also the motive assigned, viii. 42, by ouds yap an i//ayroy IIqI. Augus- tine, on viii. 42, distinguishes between processi a Deo, that is, the eternal generation, and veni, that is, the incarnation ; so, also, Ammonias, Hilary. On the other hand, Origen, Euthy- mius, Maldonatus, refer both to the incarnation. Among the recent writers, compare especially Tittmann, on xiii. 3, and Frommann, Joh. Lehrbegr. p. 388. — Ou ydp-dcococrc, in virtue of the present, and the want of aurw, stands as a general propo- sition, and the expositor, therefore, if he take it in a general sense, (as was already done by Bucer,) must see that he gives it a conformable signification. Bucer: "By God's giving his Spirit to any one, thus, to the prophet, the Baptist, He is not rendered poorer, so that He can- not impart it to the others." A superfluous observation, for which there is no sort of necessity. Bauer presses the pres. 8ida)(7:, and the want of the auzip, to such a degree as to find therein the evidence of the consciousness of the later Church forcing itself in. But why should not the thought that lies in it be, that God can and will do it, and (as the connection would lead us to conclude,) has here done it ? The direct reference to Christ is as tenaciously to be adhered to as if auzco were supplied, and this would be so much the less arbitrary, since, as Calvin observes, v. 35 is to be regarded as determinative and explanatory. Erasmus had already made the remark in gene- ral, that the Greeks frequently omit the pronoun where we would expect it, John vii. 17, after dtda^rji;, so also, ch. x. 29, xvi. 8, cf. similar cases, 2 Cor. xi. 20, Eph. ii. 10, (see Fritzsche on Matt. p. 138,) iii. 18, 1 Pet. ii. 11. The Rabbins say that the prophets obtained the Spirit only ^j^K^oa "by measure." 'Ex designates the rule and periphrases adverbs, (2 Cor. viii. 13.) Christ the Teacheri and Mediator. 131 Y. 35, 36. Love is the principle of impartation, we need not be surprised, therefore, that with the absolute love of the Father to the Son, He imparts to him not only the Spirit, but absolutely all things, (xiii. 3, xvii. 1, 2, Matt, xxviii. 18, xi. 27 ;) in ch. V. 20, also, the absoluteness of religious knowledge in the Son has its origin in the love of the Father. If, now, the Son be the medium for all the blessings that proceed from the Father, it follows that " eternal life," also, can only be attained through his mediation, and the organ for possessing it is faith, by which the thing hoped for is already possessed as a thing present. Here, indeed, eternal life is regarded, first, as a present thing, as in v. 24, xvii. 3, then, in its consummation, as something future ; that, nevertheless, the oux oi/'sra: pre- supposes an oy/ opa, may be inferred from the antithesis fjsus: i] opyr^. The condition of man without faith, is a condition in 6/)^', (Eph. ii. 3,) and the correlative of it is miseiy, the ??avaroc, (1 John iii. 14.) \47zeid-e7u alternates with d7:iaT£7vj Rom. xi. 30. '£;:£ cum ace. embraces, as i. 33, rest and motion. CHAPTER IV. Ministry of Christ among the Samaritans. — v. 1-42. V. 1-4.. From v. 35 of this chapter, it may be inferred that the Redeemer at this time remained about half a year in the surrounding country. His appearance as a reformer excited the opposition of the Pharisees more than did the Old Testa- ment activity of the Baptist ; as Christ, however, regarded it as yet too soon to arouse more violently the spirit of persecu- tion, he repaired to Galilee. On pres. Ttoiec, ^aKvc^ei, cf. on i. 40 ; on the baptism of Jesus, see on iii. 22. Why did Jesus not perform baptism himself? It is best simply to say: because this was a matter which could be attended to by others, which was not the case with preaching, (thus Thomas Aquinas,) cf. 1 Cor. i. 17. The scrupulous Jew, in order to avoid Samaria, was accustomed to make the journey to Jerusalem by the right side of the Jordan in Persea ; Christ, however, was above this prejudice, (Luke ix. 52,) for which reason, also, the command to the Disciples, Matt. x. 5, cannot have originated in mere prejudice. V. 5. So-/^dp, an unusual appellation of the city D^ty, which elsewhere is called ^^x^p- or to. Sixcua, and lay on the direct road to Jerusalem, (Eusebius, Onomast. p. 143, ed. Bonfrere.) The form lo-^dp is regarded by some as a derisive name given by the Jews, equivalent to "'p.^ "falsehood, idolatry," as the Samaritans Avere regarded as idolaters, (Sir. 1. 26, [28.]) On the other part the Samaritans called the ty^pan n'3 in Jerusalem wt^ytin n^3 domus percussionis, (house of smiting.) Perhaps, however, the change of the p into the p is accidental, as the liquids are elsewhere interchanged, as Nebuchadrezzar in Jere- miah, BsXiap and BdiaX. — What is here said of Jacob's field (132) Christ among the Samaritans. 133 and the present of it to Joseph, rests upon a traditional work- ing out of the material in Gen. xxxiii. 19, Joshua xxiv. 32, Septuagint, Gen. xlviii. 22. In Jacob's field, near the south- east entrance, lies a vale bordered by high mountains, and on the narrow base it supplies, rises Sichem, and there yet exists a well, ^^dth plantations of olive and fig trees near it, which Jews, Clxristians, Mohammedans and Samaritans point out as Jacob's Well, (see Robinson ;) Schubert arrived at this spot about the same time [spoken of here,] just about noon, and found that a poor family had pitched their tent and were spending a holiday by the cool spring. To the left, Gerizim rises in sight to the altitude of some eight hundred feet, with its springy base covered with lively green; on the right the somewhat steeper and less watered Ebal, from which the words of the curse were spoken, (Schubert's Reise, &c. — Journey in the East, iii. p. 137.) Y. 6-8. The well in its present condition is nine feet in diameter, and one hundred and five feet deep ; when Maun- drell visited it in the month of March, it had fifteen feet of water. The present city (under the modern name of Xablous,) lies about half an hour distant ; as there are a number of springs in its immediate vicinity, it may be asked why the woman came here for water ; the ancient city may, however, have been nearer, nor is it said that the woman came out of the city, {ix rrj^: layLaptiac^ is equiv. to Ia[xapziTc<:.) She may, perhaps, have come from the neighborhood of the city, (Rob- inson's Palestine, iii. 322, seq.^) — The sixth hour, according to the Jewish computation, was about noon. Rettig, who pre- supposes that the woman was drawing water for the cattle, thinks that from this passage he can make it probable that John followed the Roman computation, that it was conse- quently the sixth hour of the morning, since it was usual to travel through the night, and this was the hour at which cattle were watered; but v. 15, 28, render it difiicult to suppose that the woman had drawn water for the cattle. According to V. 35, too, this journey occurred in autumn, when it was rarely hot, (Bulile, Calendar. Pakcst. p. 52,) and when traveling by night was uncommon. No positive evidence, therefore, for »( Biblical Researches, vol. iii. p. 111. Last edit. (1856,) ii. 285. Tr.) K 13 134 Chap. rV. — V. 9-15. the Roman computation can be derived from this passage. Since Erasmus, o5r "resurrection to life." As only at this dvdavaacz a higher perfection is attained, it is called by way of preeminence y; di^da-aa::;, [the resurrection,) and in Philip, iii. 10, 11, cf. Luke xiv. 14, appears as something given by divine mere}'. There is no other passage except Acts xxiv. 15, in which the "resurrection" of the "unjust" is spoken of; cf. Tholuck, Komment. zu Hebr. vi. 2. (Comment. on Ep. to Hebrews, transl. by J. Hamilton, vol. i, p. 246.) The " unjust " are indeed already in this world devoid of the " life," but it is brought to perception only in a negative way; the judgment consists in the perception of this want, as an antith- eses to that which should be. Herein, first of all, is grounded the distinction between the "judgment " in this world, and that in the world to come ; with the internal discordance will then also harmonize the external. V. 30. The aim of the discourse to this point has been to give prominence to the superhuman powers of the Son, and as Christ throughout John, gives prominence to the thought, that in all that he does the Father is the ultimate cause, that conse- quently, whatever he affirms of himself serves only to glorify the Father, so here he returns to the thought that even in those greatest works the Father is the ultimate cause. The Unbelief of the Jews reproved. — v. 31-47. V. 31, 32. Although the following discourse treats of a different subject, yet a transition is observable. It lies in v. 30, in his effort to repudiate all self-glorification ; with this design our Lord places himself on the same point of view as that of his opposers, who must have been disposed to apply the principle of the civil law to the testimony of the religious self- consciousness. In a happy accommodation to this notion, (which is, however, something more than mere accommodation, see for example ch. xvi. 32,) he shows that in a certain measure he is prepared to satisfy this demand, although on the other side, when his opposers raise the objection in their own person, he rejects it as invalid, (viii. 14;) nevertheless, in that very passage ICO Chap. Y. — v. C3-38. he afterward condescends to the same accommodation, (viii. 16, 18.) Ah'cady in accordance with the analogy of the passage- just quoted, the inclination would be felt to understand by the " other witness," the Father, (Cyrill, Augustine, Bengel.) Chry- sostom and De Wette prefer, however, here also to understand the allusion as made to the Baptist; the latter writer urging this reason, that otherwise the train of thought would be in- terrupted by the testimony of the Baptist, when on the con- trary we would anticipate an advance from the lower to the higher; the words too, "and I know, &c." applied to the Father, would be insipid. On the other hand, this powerful expression of self-witness, (in ch. viii.) resembling the one in vii. 29, argues for the reference to the Father, (iii. 11.) With entire propriety could Christ still further increase the weight of this testimony of the Father, by a juxtaposition of it with that of the Baptist. V. 33-35. They had themselves desired a testimony, for they had taken the Baptist for the Messiah, and on that account interrogated him ; he had only borne a witness of the truth in favor of the truth, (dative commodi.) The Saviour gives him- self a place above all prophets, inasmuch as he declines human testimony ; Bengel : Ego, quicquid sum, id sum citra humance auctoritatis beneficium, " whatever I may be, I am such without the aid of human authority." As, however, there was a divine testimony in that of the Baptist, Olshausen thinks that Christ declines that testimony only so far as it is to be considered human. lie naturally declines it in that sense in which it had been desired by the Jews ; they had sent to John as to a prophet. Christ, nevertheless, for the benefit of the people, wished to mention this testimony. That this testimony ac- tually might have produced great blessings, the words that follow attest. — "He was" implies that the Baptist had already left the stage. The article before Xo^vot:, according to Bengel, has reference to Ecclesiasticus xlviii. 1, where it is said of Eli- jah, with whose character the appearing of John corresponded: " Then stood up Elias the prophet as fire, and his word burned like a lamp." But the expression in that passage does not correspond accurately enough with the one in this, nor was it sufficiently known to justify us in expecting any such reference Unbelief of the Jews reproved. ICl to it. Liickc, liowever, starts the question : " Whether from similar descriptious of Elias, a characteristic expression like the one hefore us may not have been formed with application to John, to which Christ here refers?" De Wette, however, interprets it: "He was the burning light, that light, namely, which should have guided you in the way." The "burning" refers not to the ardent zeal, but designates that condition of ignition whose result is the " shining," (Luke xii. 35.) dSXstv, not merely "ye were willing," but "it pleased you," (Mark ix. 13, xii. 38.) The emphasis lies not merely on "for a season," but also on "to rejoice." The preacher of repentance should have aroused earnest resolutions; but men sought him from mere curiosity, (Matt. xi. 7.) It is a question to what the words "for a season" refer; we suppose it to allude to the fact, that the throng about John gradually diminished, espe- cially after he had directed attention to Jesus ; cf. Mark ix. 13. V. 36-38. The discourse returns to what had been said in v. 32. In the comparative fiu^^^io rob ' Icodwoo, "greater than — of John," is a breviloquence for rmv epycov zou '/. "the works of John," as is common in Greek and Hebrew, (Matt. v. 20.) Chap. X. 25, likewise designates the "works" of Christ as the "wit- ness " of the Father. Do the " works" embrace the entire sphere of the Messiah's activity, and consequently comprehend his teaching and his life so as to correspond to the collective rb ipyou, xvii. 4? (Stark in the first Excursus to his Paraphr. et Commentar. in Evang. lohan. chap. 13-17, Jena, 1819 ; Schott Opuscul. i. p. 216, Liicke, De Wette.) Or are only the miracles meant, as also Olshausen recently, appealing to x. 25, xxxii. 38, xiv. 11, maintains ? The 20th verse already establishes the first view, as does xiv. 11. The whole work of Christ is accord- ingly, to the soul that is illumined, a witness that he is from God. In V. 20 he has declared that the greatest works are yet to come, yet there is in the present already a testimony. The iyo) is not emphatic, and is wanting in Cod. A B D L. — Great difficulty is connected with the decision of the question, whether the witness of the Father, v. 37, is different from that furnished in the works, and how many witnesses consequently are mentioned altogether. Luther and Chemnitz designate as the first witness, v. 35, the Baptist ; as the second, v. 36, the 15* 162 Chap. V.— v. 3G-40. works ; as the third, v. 39, the Scriptures ; as the fourth, v. 45, Moses. Augustine, Hilary, Maldonatus, Grotius, acknowledge only a two-fold witness, the one in the works, the other in the Scriptures. We first ask, whether the witness, v. 37, is to be regarded as distinct from that in the works ? To this is opposed, that the sentence then seems superfluous, and by the words, "which the Father hath given me," the very same thought has been sufficiently expressed, that moreover the auroc appears to designate a direct witness in distinction from the ipya ; perhaps, too, it is in point to direct attention to the perfect tense lxt[iapTuprjxzv, while previously fiapzuptl had been used. But in what, then, consists this direct testimony ? According to Cyrill, Theophylact, Calvin, Cocceius, it is the witness of the prophets, so that V. 39 is a further expansion of the thought, and the inter- mediate words, according to Calvin, are to be taken thus : " Ye are blind to all the divine forms of revelation, and have not received his word in you." According to Chrysostom, Lampe, Bengel, the allusion is to the direct testimony of God at the baptism and transfiguration of Jesus: "Ye have heard and seen voices and shapes in which the Father made himself known to you, and have not considered, nor have ye at all the word of Scripture in your heart." Liicke (3d ed.) and De Wette regard the word of God as the direct testimony. "For none of the modes of divine revelation have ye the tone of mind, although in my work ye might, as it were, hear God and see him, (Liicke compares xiv. 9,) and ye have not appropriated the direct witness of God in his word." Yet De "Wette hesi- tates very much whether the preference is not to be given to the view of Olshausen, which is, that the witness is not that of Scripture, but of the direct operation of the Spirit of God in man, (vi. 45, 1 John i. 10.) " Neither your internal ear, nor your internal eye is opened to God ; ye can have no internal theophanies, as the prophets had, neither have you in you, in an internal manner, that light of God which illumines all men." First of all, we must declare ourselves as opposed to the view that the voice and form of God at Christ's baptism are meant. The expression £?(5oc ahzob would be inappropri- ate ; it is, on the whole, a matter of doubt whether spectators were present at the baptism ; the TtcoTiore would, on that view, LTnbklief of the Jews reproved. 163 bo used without any motive. But in addition, we cannot bring ourselves to view (pco'^rj and sldo^ in the way assigned as a des- ignation (Crell says " proverbial,") of internal revelation ; we believe that then neither the perfects nor the Trdjjtoze would have been used ; cf the perf in iii. 13, Rom. ix. 19. We must therefore take "voice" and "shape" as the designation of sen- sible revelations of God, as Neander: "It is an unheard of thing, that the voice of God should be sensibly perceived, or his shape sensibly seen." That the fleshly mind of the Jews actually longed for this sort of revelation, is evident from John xiv. 8 ; the Saviour does not here mean to deny the theophanies, but simply to show what they really are — manifestations, which are not coincident with the reality. For the reasons assigned, we cannot, however, agree with Neander, when by the witness of the Father he understands that which is given in the tvorks, (Leben Jesu, 3d ed. p. 440. 4th ed. Transl. by M'Clintock and Blumenthal, p. 221,) but we follow those inter- preters who regard it as the testimony given in the divine word, yet so, however, that in accordance with the view peculiar to John's Gospel, it is regarded as a thing which has already passed over into suhjectivity, as 1 John i. 10 (cf. with v. 8,) indisputably shows. We accordingly paraphrase the passage thus: "But the Father has also given a direct witness in regard to me. Think not in this of palpable testimon}^, such is not furnished, and ye have never received such, neither have ye embraced his word in your heart, otherwise ye must have felt yourselv^es impelled to faith in him whom he has sent." It is true that on this supposition the syntactical construction does not correspond with precision to the thought, for we would expect Tov ds Xofov aitrou duuaade e)[^iu iu u/juv, but syntactical defects of this kind are frequent in John, thus, (v. 43,) vii. 18, viii. 28, xiv. 10, xvi. 10, 1 John i. 6, 7 ; especially is xvi. 10 to be compared. V. 39, 40. 'EpeupuTs, according to Cyrill, Erasmus, Beza, and most intei-preters, is in the indicative ; according to Chry- sostom, Augustine, Calvin, in the imperative. A positive decision for either view cannot be derived from the words; either interpretation is consistent with the sense we give ; but knt'jvilv in the indicative means " to indulge in subtle inquiries, 164 Chap. V.— v. 41-47. to analyze by the letter," (according to Josephus, De Bello Judaic, ii. chap. viii. § 14, Antiq. xvii. 2, 4, the Pharisees boasted fizza dxfjc^eca^ i^/^ysca&ac to. vofxc/xa, " of the exact skill they had in interpreting the law," but how za-eivoj^ (humbly) they pro- ceeded in it, we may gather from the keen reproach of Justin Martyr, Dial. c. Try. who says, they searched out trifles, to. de /2SYd?M y.ai aha. f^-qz-qiiaza fx-jnoze zolixcbai Ikyziv fXQoh iqrjecad^ac^ " but they neither dared to speak of nor to investigate great and important questions.") Christ says, 8oxs7zs, "ye think," because the sense in which they supposed they possessed eter- nal life in the Scriptures, was a perverted one ; they strove after a dead wisdom of the letter, cf. Eomans ii. 18-21, and in the Talmud. Tr. Pirke Aboth : nnin n^i iV n^ip N3n vhyy ".n iS nj.ip. " He possesses eternal life who comes to the possession of the words of the law." Compare also, "in whom ye trust," v. 45. If our views be correct, that the word of God, v. 38, is to be regarded as that which has passed over into the subjectivity, it follows that by the witness of the Holy Scriptures we are to understand not merely detached prophecies, but the whole spirit of the Old Testament, which passing over into the individual must beget a longing after Christ. That Christ reproves their want of solicitude in regard to religion, is shown by the words, "that ye might have life." With this corresponds the charge in v. 42, that they were destitute of the love of God, so too, vii. 17. The xac in v. 40 is both adversative and copulative, "and yet." Y. 41-44. They had been reproached because they had not the word of God living within them ; this is expressed in other words, when it is denied that they have love to God. It is also, however, made conspicuous in their selfish ambition, in which especially their alienation from God displayed itself. The older Commentators lose here the thread of the closer con- nection of ideas. "We would state it thus : " The real ground of your not coming to me is, that you do not understand my appearing. I am free from all selfishness, but I perceive of you that ye have no such love of God in you. As only like is drawn by like, ye have not received me ; when, on the contrary, others come in their own interest, ye will receive them. Where there is a selfish striving after personal honor, and not Unbelief of the Jews reproved. 165 the pure love of God, fiiith is impossible." A similar train of thought is fouud in vii. 16-19. Ao^a in v. 41-44, vii. 18, viii. 60, Brctschncider translates " applause ; " in this sense doqa ^£00 is also used in the writings of the Apostolic Fathers, and it runs indeed into the other, of. however, viii. 50, 54. To the striv- ing after human glory is opposed the love of God, for this, as v. 44 points out, involves the striving after glory with God. The foretelling of false Messiahs, corresponding with Matt. xxiv. 23, seq. is deserving of remark. In the course of histor}^, sixty- four of these have appeared ; a Bar Cochba found twenty- four thousand adherents. It shows a profound insight into the human heart, when the Saviour deduces the adhesion to false Messiahs from the fact that aflSinity begets sympathy, when he considers the striving after human glory as the chief cause of unbelief, as following this language of his the Evangelist also does in xii. 43. — The adjective fiovou is used as an adverb. • V. 45-47. As in v. 38, vii. 17, 19, Christ points out that the genuine spirit of the Old Testament must also lead to faith in his person. Karrjopttv is to be taken ideall}^, like xpivuv in Matt. xii. 41, 42. If the spirit and the word of Moses lead to Christ, the unbelieving are already judged by Moses. On eYpa(pe.v the commentators refer to the different Mosaic prophe- cies, especially to Deuteron. xviii. 18. But the train of thought in our passage leads us to take it in a universal sense, by virtue of which Bengel adds to iypaipzv a "nusquam non," "he writes everywhere." K v. 46 is interpreted in accordance with V. 38, 39, our Saviour means to say, that a love of God such as the law requires would recognize an affinity in Christ, aiid would feel itself drawn to him ; Bengel : Fide explicita opus erat, "an explicit faith was needed." There is certainly, how- ever, no necessity for interpreting v. 43 in such strict connec- tion with 38, 39. Christ may have had in his eye the indirect and typical prophecies of Moses, as well as the direct ones. It is conceded by Strauss, that the matter of this Discourse is in keeping with the character of Christ, as we learn it from, the other Evangelists, and with the attendant circumstances; but the form and style become for this very reason the more suspicious, as they have the very closest analogy with the First Epistle of John and ^vith those parts of the Gospel in which the M 166 Chap. V. — v. 47. author speaks, (Leb. Jes. Sd. ed. § 80; 4th ed. § 81.) Weisse's theory is, that we are to regard as an original element all which has affinity to the discourses in the Synoptists, but that even this has been expanded in a theoretical form by the author of this Gospel ; according to Bauer, the discourse is a pure invention. Adhering to what we have said in the introduction to this Commentary, we do not contend for the verbal accuracy of the details, but nevertheless would remark, that since the Evange- list, xii. 43, adopts the words used by Jesus in this chapter, it shows that elsewhere, where John's own phraseology corres- ponds with that in the discourses of Christ which he reports, we may be allowed to believe that he has adopted Christ's modes of expression. CHAPTER VI. The Miracle of the Feeding. — v. 1-13. As the Evangelist here, deviating from his general rule, narrates a miracle which the other Evangelists have related, we may find the occasion for it in his design of reporting the dis- courses connected with it. (So already Calvin.) He advances in mediam rem, for the return of our Lord from Jerusalem to Galilee is not mentioned. If the festival, ch. v. 1, is the Pass- over, there lies (as v. 4 of this chapter speaks again of a Pass- over,) the interval of a whole year between chapters v. and vi. According to the account of Mark vi. 30, seq. Luke ix. 10, seq. the Disciples had returned to Christ from their first missionary journey ; scarcely could they give an account to Jesus of what they had experienced, for the throng of people increased so greatly that they could not find time even to eat. Hereupon, our Lord retires into solitude with them, to the eastern side of the sea, according to Luke ix. 10, to Bethsaida Julias. The people, however, followed him on foot, attracted by the heal- ing of the sick, and in v. 4 there lies, perhaps, the intimation (cf. ouu, v. 5,) that the crowd of people had been still further swelled from the caravans of travelers on their way to the feast. The discourses of our Lord chain the attention of the people, the third hour has arrived, (Matt. xiv. 15,) the villages that lie around are too remote for food to be bought. The Saviour under these circumstances performs one of those miracles in which he displays his tender philanthropy. V. 1-4. Two names are given this sea, probably for the benefit of the Greek reader. It is singular that John (cf v. 15,) uses the indefinite to opo;;, which we find in Matt. v. 1, Luke ix. 28, Mark iii. 13. I have in my Commentary on the (167) 168 Chap. VL— v. 5-13. Sermon on the Mount, thrown out on Matt. v. 1 the conjecture, that TO OjOoc, as in Hebrew and in the Septuagint, is used for T^ dpscuTJ, (see Ebrard, Kritik d. Ev. Gesch. i. §. 71,) for the sea of Tiberias lies in a hollow surrounded by hills, from which the traveler must ascend at either side to get into the country. My conjecture is confirmed by what Robinson says, iii. part, 2 abth. p. 499: (Biblical Researches iii. 253, (1856,) ii. 499.) " The lake presents indeed a beautiful sheet of limpid water, in a deep depressed basin, from which the shores rise in general steeply and continuously all around. The hills are round and tame." — It would not be safe to draw the inference from v. 4, that Christ did not go to this feast ; see, however, the remarks on eh. vii. 1, 2. V. 5-9. Criticism has expressed itself in the strongest terms in regard to the improbability that Christ, on seeing such a crowd, should at once have been struck with the idea of feed- ing them. Even if we had not the accounts of the first three Evangelists, (of this miracle,) an impartial critic, in view of the way in which the Evangelists narrate other occurrences, would feel obliged to admit that in every case much may have preceded, which the Evangelist John, restricting himself to certain topics, omits as he hurries to his theme. But it appears also from Matt. xiv. 15, seq. that the people had been with Christ a considerable time ; that they had been instructed, and their sick had been healed, and that the Disciples had com- menced to draw the attention of our Lord to the need of food for the people.^ Matthew agrees, too, with John in the state- ment that Jesus, first of all, asked the Disciples to provide food. That Philip was specially addressed, is accounted for by Bengel, on the supposition that the arrangements of domestic matters had been committed to him, and by Chrysostom and Theodore of Mopsuestia, by supposing him specially weak in that faith which soars above the external, (xiv. 8.) The Tzecpd^eiv "proving" referred not to the question, whether the Disciple had the faith of miracles, but Christ would test how he would relieve himself from the difficulty. He immediately makes an accu- 1 Ebrard, 1. c. I. 477, supposes that Jesus ascended the mountain, after perform- ing the cures mentioned in v. 2, and it was when the people instead of dispersing, Btreamed thither, that he thought of feeding them. The Miracle of the Feeding. 109 rate computation; tlie sum of two hundred denarii, equivalent to eighty florins," exceeds the amount of money they had in common. As here, and so likewise in xii. 22, Andrew appears in close relation to Philip. "£v, if it be genuine, gives promi- nence to the fact, that there was only one boy. Barley bread was the coarsest food. The Talmud. Tr. Pesachim. f. 3. "Jochanan said: The barley is fine. The answer was : Tell that to the horses and asses." ' Oipdpcovj properly Tzttoaipdytov, anything eaten with bread, but particularly, as Plutarch, Sym- pos. iv. 4, already observes, fish, which were used by the poor as a relish ; those here oflfered for sale were probably already cooked. V. 10-13. There was grass in the place, for it was about spring time. \4ua-c7TTscu and duayJJusa&ai, to recline at table. E'j'j^ap:(Tzr^(Ta::, indeed, designates only the prayer before taking food, but V. 23 shows incontestably, that the Evangelist saw in this prayer the medium through which the miracle was wrought. Luke (ix. 16,) has, " looking up to heaven he blessed them," (the loaves and fishes,) cf. John xi. 41. (On the contro- versy, whether the euXoyca used 1 Oor. x. 16, in speaking of the Lord's Supper, designates the blessing merely, cf. Maldonatus on Matt, xiv.) Jddcoxs, according to Matthew, xiv. 19, includes the assistance of the Disciples. These, after the conclusion of the miracle, had to collect the fragments, and perhaps for the very purpose of giving more prominence to the miraculous character of the transaction, (cf. 2 Kings iv. 43.) The number of the baskets corresponds with that of the Apostles ; the fragments of the fishes are, for reasons easily imagined, not mentioned again, cf. however, Mark vi. 43. The natural occurrence to which Dr. Paulus, by the aid of an artificial exegesis, would reduce this miracle, (a hospitable sharing with one another the provisions brought with them, to which they were induced by Christ's benevolent example,) is still regarded by several of the most recent expositors as the basis of the account, which, as is wont with a legend, took the shape of a narrative of a miracle, and in this form was delivered to the writers of the Gospels, (thus Gfrorer, Kern, 1 From thirty to tliirty-fonr dollars, American currency. Tr. 16 170 Chap. YL— v. 13-20. ITiise.) To hold this view would make it necessary to pre- suppose that the first two Gospels are not genuine, and that the author of the fourth Gospel was accidentally absent from the scene. If the latter view, (the twelve baskets may be borne in mind,) like the former, is to be regarded as baseless and arbi- trary, neither legend nor myth (according to the canon recog- nized by Strauss, 4th ed. i. p. 62,) can have any thing to do with this case. Among those who recognize the historical character of the narrative, Olshausen, as he has done with the miracle of the water changed into wine, attempts by the application of the category of an accelerated process of nature to this feeding, to bring it near to what ordinarily occurs, and consequently near to our conception. In reply to this, Strauss had also shown his ability to make the thing ridiculous, for he enumerates one after the other, first, the steps of the natural process through which the seed matures to grain, then the stages of the artificial process through which the miller and baker carry the grain and the cook takes the fish to make them fit to be eaten, and then puts the question, whether it is suppos- able that Christ by the most rapid acceleration caused all these processes to follow each other. On this point, however, it will be enough to give the remark of Krabbe : (Leben Jesu, p. 273,) " If we here see a manifestation of divine causality going forth from Christ, the different human acts are not to be brought into any sort of comparative reference. That which human activity produces in a succession of time, we grant to the divine causality as a thing wrought at once in its totality." Certainly, the formula of an accelerated process of nature may be applied here, as the divine causality produces a similar result in a natural way, (for example, the bread-fruit tree,) to that which human art does in its way. It is, however, peculiar to this miracle, that it is not merely the internal process which is with- neld from view, but the external also. And not only is it diffi- cult to determine the outward lioiv, whether, to wit: as Hilary akeady asks, the miracle occurs in the hand of Christ or of the Apostles, (Chrysostom, Calvin,) or of the people, but the ivhat also, that is, whether we are to suppose that the increase of the loaves and fishes took place in their number or in their sub- stance. In regard to the former, the more obvious view, accord- Christ walks upon the Sea. 171 mg to V. 11, Mark vi. 41, is, that the blessing and influence of God, to which eukoyr^ae, euj^apiavr^aa:; refer, were manifested while Christ held the food in his own hand, (cf. also, Mark viii, 19.) Beyond that point, however, the process is withheld from our conception, so that we must confess ourselves unable to solve the questions which go further. Christ walks upon the Sea. — v. 11-21. Y. 11, 15. The miracle at first makes such an overwhelm- ing impression upon the people, that they regard Christ as the prophet' promised in Deuteronomy xviii. 15. Under the do- minion of earthly expectations regarding the Messiah, they wish now to take him [ApTzd^ecu,) with them to Jerusalem, in order to make him a king,^-a fact which makes it clear why Jesus frequently prohibited persons from noising abroad his miracles. "Wlien in Luke, immediately after the account of this miracle, Jesus lays before his Disciples, in solitude, the question, "Whom say the people that I am?" (Luke ix. 18,) it might seem as if this stood in connection with the fact mentioned by John, but according to Matthew, Jesus did not dismiss the people until the Disciples had departed by ship. According to Matthew and Mark, moreover, Jesus after performing the miracle withdrew to a mountain, to be alone with God. "When in Matthew he commands the Disciples to go before him unto the other side, while he sent the multitudes away, there lies in it an inti- mation that he would follow, and meet them in Capernaum. John gives Capernaum as the point to which they crossed ; Mark says Bethsaida, the places lying close to each other; Matthew says Gennesaret — the name of the entire region. V. 16-20. The d(/>ca mentioned here, is the d(/>ca osuzepa, between seven and nine o'clock, cf. Matt. xiv. 15, with v. 23. "Epysff&ai, according to the Greek and Hebrew usage, has the sense, " to go, to take a direction to a point ;" the imperfect presents the action as in progress. The sea measured, accord- ing to Joscphus, at its greatest width, forty stadia, that is about a German mile,^ and could consequently be crossed in a 1 About five miles and three-quarters, English. Tr. 172 Chap. VL — v. 21. short time ; but when tney were about the middle, (according to Matthew,) a storm arose, which detained them till toward morning, for when Jesus reached them, (Mark vi. 48,) about the fourth watch of the night, which was reckoned from four to six o'clock, they had just passed over two-thirds of it. When they unexpectedly saw Jesus near the vessel, they were terrified at his appearance, as if he had been a spirit. y. 21. This passage, considered without reference to the other Evangelists, seems to affirm that Jesus was not taken into the vessel, because they were already so near the shore. As according to the others, however, he Avas received, the ques- tion is raised, whether the two statements can be harmonized ? Beza already remarks that d^shiv in the verb. fin. united with the infinitive, imparts to it the idea of willingness, and accord- ing]}'- translates : volente animo eum reciperunt, " they received him with willingness." In the nature of the case, it was to be expected that they would be represented as " willing" in con- trast with their previous fear, and certainly there is no philo- logical objection to this view. See Buttman's Greek Gram- mar, 10th ed. p. 744 ; Sturz. Lexic. Xeuoph. under the word d-eXecv; cf. also, Ast on ^ooXeo&ac, in Plato, de Legibus. xii. 9 ; "Winer, 4th ed. p. 438. In John, too, viii. 44, d-eXeTe has this meaning, so also in Luke xx. 46, 1 Cor. x. 27 ; the actual per- formance of the action need not be mentioned, as the passage last cited shows, (cf. i. 43.) Kai before tb&eax: does not express antithesis, but introduces a new feature ; after etJii'eioc, supply: "After they had received him." If the wind had subsided, and but a third of the passage remained, it is evident that they must soon have reached the land, and the sooner if the point of landing was Bethsaida Julias, (Luke ix. 10,) for in that case they had not the entire width of the sea to cross. The view which was maintained con amore in the days of "enlightenment," (Lange, Stolz, Paulus,) that inl t7^c, d^a)Aaar]<; meant by the sea, that Jesus went by land round the sea, and thus appeared to them suddenly, is especially incapable of being harmonized vdih the account in Matthew, and has in general been abandoned at the same time with the explanation of the miracles, as natural events, although so far as the language is concerned, it may at least be harmonized with the account in ClIUIST WALKS UPON THE SeA. 173 John, for i-c with a genitive can in many cases be translated "6y," where the banks,- especially of streams, are referred to, which lie above the waters; 2 Kings ii. 7, Septuagint, {iTzc too 'lopdduoo,) Dan. viii. 2, John xxi. 1. Since rationalism has abandoned tliis exposition, nothing, really, but the mythical theory is left — but that a mere emanation of the fancy should Lave obtained in both classes of the Gospels the very same carefully designated historical position, does not seem pro- bable even to those who are favorable to the mj'th ; Kern persuades himself, therefore, that John only siq^posed that Jesus walked upon the water ; Ilase helps himself out by supposing that John was accidentally absent ; De Wette (on Matt, xiv.) stands perfectly at a loss. Some of the defenders of the mira- cle, Damascenus for example, supposed that the miracle was to be explained as an influence exercised on the waters ; most, however, as an operation, and that a transient one, on the bodies, (for Peter is not to be left out of consideration.) 01s- hausen, on the other hand, following the Valentinians, has supposed a quality specially inherent in the Saviour's body: "That a more exalted physical nature, teeming with the powers of a higher world, should rise above the earthl}' level, is less surprising;" according to him, the process of glorification of Christ's physical nature begins during his earthly life. But how are we to understand this ? If a diminution of the spe- cific gravity of Christ's body w^as a part of this process, so that at last it became lighter than the air, does it not then seem to be another miracle, that he could ivalk upon the earth ? This view applied to the earthly existence of the Saviour, leads, in more respects than one, to strange results. In proof of the power of the will to overcome the principle of gravitation, an appeal has been made to our daily experience that the hand or foot can be lifted by the mere exercise of the will, (Twesten, Dogmatik, i. p. 380.) This theory assumes, that between Christ's w^alking on the sea and the lifting of an arm, there is simply a quantitive distinction of the will ; but the latter operation, in fact, which is the result of muscular contraction, cannot be regarded as annulling the law of gravitation. Nothing analogous then would remain except the fact, Avhich Kieser and Kerner (die Seherin v. Prevorst, i. p. 94. — Seeress of Prevorst,) assure us fre- IG* 174 Chap. VL — V. 22-27. quently occurred, that persons under the magnetic influence did not sink in the water. But this would prove nothing, except that in a sphere different from that occupied by the miracles of Christ, things inexplicable like them occur. We have, therefore, in this case also, to adhere to the canon, which is applicable to all Christ's miracles : that the will, which is in absolute unity with the Ground of all the laws of nature, is likewise the Power over all the particular laws of nature. — The teleological objec- tion is yet to be considered, that the miracle is aimless, and appears merely as ixTrhjxTcxou, "astounding." To this maybe replied : Does not every action which establishes in the Disciples a consciousness of Christ's unity in power with the Father, (chap. xi. 22,) attain its moral end? Hess: "Thus did he convert before them into a thing of vision, that image under which the devout olden time represented God : ' Who treadeth on the waves of the sea as on dry land,' " (Job ix. 8.) Such actions of the Saviour have besides, however, their subjective reasons. In the present instance, the reason, according to Mark vi. 48, was that Christ from the mountain looked down upon the peril to which his Disciples were exposed by the storm, and hastened, consequently, to help them. The danger could have been no ordinary one, for the Disciples, as we remarked before, had been obliged to contend for six hours with the storm. The occasion for this miracle, consequently, offered itself in an appeal to his compassionate love. Discourse to the People in the Synagogue at Capernaum, IN REGARD TO THE TRUE BrEAD OF LiFE. — V. 22-59. V. 22-24. There is no reason for thinking that every indi- vidual of the five thousand who had been fed, returned on the following morning; but a part had assembled again, and others probably united with them. As regards the construction, the Cod. A D L have in v. 22, the reading e7dov, and the struc- ture of the sentence is then regular; but v. 23 has pretty clearly the character of a parenthesis, for which reason it is preferable with Cod. B to read cdcov, so as to take v. 24 as an interruption of the sentence commenced, which completed would have been: "They concluded that Jesus had gone by The True Bread of Life. 175 land to Capernaum, and hurried, therefore, to follow him in the ships." The sense of on nXocdpcov xzL may then he this : "When they saw that there was but one ship, that is, the one in which the Disciples departed, and which had returned toward morn- ing, that consequently Jesus could not have followed them by ship, (in which case, also, the one in which he went would have returned,) and as they knew that, &c." This was probably the way it was understood by the glossarists, who interpolated in V. 22 the words : ix£7uo e/c o hi^rjoav ol im&rjzal auvou ; thus Meyer takes it. But the presumption that the ships must necessarily have returned, would have been too unwarranted. Better, therefore: "As they knew that on the day before but one vessel had been there, in which the Disciples alone left, and now found that Jesus, too, was no longer there;" the aorists rju and auvztar^l&z are consequently, in accordance with the Grecism mentioned in i. 40, iv. 41, to be taken as pluperfect. When Strauss speaks of a fleet as necessary to transport the five thousand, he only displays his determination to fix impos- sibilities on the Evangelist. Who would think it even probable that every man of that entire multitude returned, and that they all, without exception, would determine to pass over; besides, if the Tzlocdnca embraced not merely skifts, but trading ships also, {zd. TtXdia is substituted in the next verse for nlocdpca,) they might hold a large number. V. 25. As the close of v. 24 already informed us, they had the distinct object of finding Jesus, and they now found him at the very place it would have been most natural to seek him — in the synagogue. Here, too, whoever wishes to press the letter, can bring out the contradiction, that according to this verse they met him by the sea-shore. Their question about the time, involves the question as to the way in which Christ had crossed over; they assume that Jesus came by land. As the^ confirmation of the miracle is presented in so incidental a manner, it is a proof how little the Evangelist is disposed to give it special prominence. V. 26, 27. Just as in the case of Nicodemus, the answer of Jesus is designed to meet the mental wants of the questioners ; they occupy the lowest position, for they are merely concerned about the temporal advantage of the miracle. The charge 176 Chap. Yl. — v. 28-36. seems to be contradicted by the readiness of the people to take him as Messiah, but might not this enthusiasm quickly be dissipated ? "Epyd^^ead^ac, in the classic and Hellenistic writers, "to earn;" without longing on their part, this food could not be obtained. Icppaycl^ta&ac has the same meaning as in iii. 33. V. 28, 29. The people have an indistinct perception that the words of Jesus demand a performance of the works of the law, works pleasing to God, (Jerem. xlviii. 10.) Christ opposes to the many works that one which Paul especially designates as the source of righteousness. V. 30, 31. This demand of a new miracle, as if the feeding of the five thousand had been wholly insignificant, is regarded by Kern, Bauer and "Weisse, as historically impossible ; accord- ing to Schweizer, no part of the discourse had reference to the preceding histoiy of the feeding, which has been foisted in by the Galilean diceuast. Already Bucer and Grotius remark, that the speakers here can hardly be those who were witnesses of that miracle. That in v. 24 the oj^).o:; (people) is regarded as identical with that of the previous day, cannot, in fact, be urged against this explanation ; where is the warrant that no other persons had joined them, and who expects of John such a nice discrimination of the speakers ? But there is no neces- sity for resorting to this supposition, for what Liicke says is certainly justified on psychological grounds, that: "The carnal belief in miracles is insatiable, it craves miracle after miracle," and Grotius quotes the words : fiezd r. bbatv tdytara. yrjpdaxzi Xdptz, "After the gift, the thanks soon grow old." "When Jesus spoke, v. 27, of an enduring meat, might not these words excite in the carnal multitude the hope of a new and yet more marvelous supply of food ? Luther remarks, also, perhaps with justice, that we may suj^pose them to have been irritated by the reply of Jesus. This would explain the contemptuous tI ipydCrj, "what dost thou work," or it may have resulted also from the selfish motive of urging Christ to do yet more. A similar motive explains the selection of the expression, " bread from heaven," Ps. Ixxviii. 24, to depreciate yet further the earthly bread of which they had partaken. In Matt. xvi. 1, we have the same view, that a brilliant miracle must be " from heaven." The true Bread of Life. 177 Y. 32, 33. As elsewhere in the discourses of Christ in Joliu, our Saviour adopts and confirms in a profounder sense the words of his opponents, so here he styles his appearing on earth a bread from heaven, for by it not merely nourishment in general, but the true life, was imparted to mankind. As Moses had not in the fullest sense given bread from heaven, there is a total negation of his having given it. Kata^aiviov here and in V. 50, stands in the participle present ; on the contrary, in v. 41, 51, it is in the participle aorist ; only in the latter case is there a reference to the historical appearing in Christ of the bread of heaven, here consequently the sense is : " That only de- serves the name of the bread of God which descends from heaven, and has the power of imparting life to the whole world." y. 34-3G. The request in v. 34 recalls to mind the very similar one, iv. 15. Bucer, Calvin, Maldonatus, who had regarded those words (of the Samaritan woman,) as irony, find also in these an expression of scorn. Luther supposes that they had in their mind, food for the body. "\Ye suppose that although they did riot comprehend in its proper sense what was promised by the Lord, they might, nevertheless, with a dim presension of something exalted, ask of him a gift whose promise was clothed with such sublime predicates. Christ now- tells them who is the subject to which the category expressed in V. 33 is applicable. As bread and water satisfy bodily need, so he satisfies spiritual need, and adequately, too, so that in him the satisfaction is absolute and there is no need of seeking any other. The condition is, the coming to him — evidently, as the connection shows, under the presupposition of need ; that this coming designates faith, is shown by v. 36, 40, 47. In v. 36, the first xai has created difficulty ; it is the result, in fact, of an idiom peculiar to John. The Evangelist partly unites adversative periods, where the Greek writers would use re — oi, or xat — oi, and coordinate periods also by the double W, as in vii. 28, ix. 37, xii. 28, xv. 24 ; see the remark on xvii. 25. ' Oftilv like &ecof>e7u, v. 40, 1 John iii. 6, referring to their per- ception of what he had done. Christ had not used precisely this language, either to this Galilean multitude or the people in general ; there is consequently here an inexactness, like tha< in X. 26, xii. 34. 178 Chap. VI.— v. 37-50. V. 37-40. The style here has a certain breadth. Luther says: "John describes this sermon with great diligence and pleasure." Why did they not believe? Because they were destitute of the inward sense of want, and came to him out- wardly indeed, but not inwardly. This inward sense of want is represented as the gift of the Father, (cf dedora:, Matt. xix. 11,) is more particularly described, v. 44, 45, and afterward especially in the prayer, ch. 17, is frequently made prominent. The Son of God has appeared in order to satisfy the divinely originated wants which lie in the very nature of man, and acts therefore in constant unity with the Father. Grotius supposes that dioouai is used here cum eflectu aliquo, like xXrjzoi in Paul's Epistles, but xvii. 12 shows that those committed to him by the Father may yet be lost by their own fault. Christ com- prehends all his gifts in the one gift of true life, and casting his glance, as it were, over the course of the development of that life, points to its final aim, when the outward shall become like the inward, cf. the remarks on ch. v. 21, seq. v. 41, 42. royyu^o), according to the Greek usage, implies a murmurins: of disdain. The human birth of Christ seems to exclude the supernatural origin, cf. on vii. 27. V. 43-47. The point of our Saviour's reply is, that all dis- pute about his person is fruitless, until the internal sense of want is experienced. In what this consists, we are told, v. 45, 46. Luther: "You wish to subject me to measure and square, and judge my word by your reason, but I say to you, that is not the right way and path — you will not come to Him till the Father opens to you his great mercy, and himself teaches you that from his fatherly love he sent Christ into the world. (For) the drawing is not as a hangman draws a thief to the gallows, but it is a friendly alluring, and drawing to himself." Ammonius : oux iarc to Ti))rov ^ ec<; ifik ttccttc^, dXXd zrj(; duw^ev dtiztti /yo;r-^c, ^J^« ^vo^c "« ^~'^P vouv. " Qa-zp lazouj -po^dyec b Tzarrjp r. Xpiaro) r. d.o&s.vzli:^ dvd^pcor.ou^. ("Faith in me is no thino- of chance, but there is need of an influence from above, that you may know the things that pass understanding. The Father conducts sick men to Christ, as to a physician.") — In a free citation from the Old Testament, he shows by Isaiah liv. 13, that there is the promise of a time when all shall permit The true Bread of Life. 179 themselves to be taught of the Father. This teaching of the Father consists in an internal guidance to the Son, for, as Schleiermacher expresses it, human nature is put to the Re- deemer. Didymus: "He therefore who hears xazd r. xotvdz ii^uola^y according to the conception which men have in common, and learns from the Father, cometh by faith to the Lord." If the expression be not taken in a false sense, it might be said that the Christian truth is an "engrafted word," (Jas. i. 21.) Theophylact observes that as the magnet does not attract every thing, but only iron, so also to be attracted by Christ, there must exist a certain frame of mind, (the feel- ing of what we should be, and are not.) There is . a parallel, therefore, in the thought, ch. viii. 47, x. 27, xviii. 37. Since Christ speaks not merely of the teaching, but adds the /Jta&cov, it follows that men may act contraiy to the voice of that inter- nal need, as in the case of Judas, (xvii. 12.) Since Christ else- where imputes to himself also a hearing of the Father, (ch. v. 30, viii. 40,) it is added by way of limitation, that the hearing which believers have is not like the hearing which the Son has ; that the Son has in addition the vision of the Father, which presupposes in his self-consciousness the unity with the Father, (see on ch. i. 18.)^ Hereupon the high importance of faith in him is again made prominent. — "EXxztv^ kXxuecv, different from a'jpscv, is chosen with reference to the ^^ come" which is used tropically, and designates even in the Old Testament the mighty internal and external operations by which God arouses , the attention of men to divine things, Jer. xxxi. 3, Song of Sol. i. 4. In Paul's Epistles the external and internal activity of the Father, by which he leads to the Son, is embraced in the word xaXeiv. The genitive «?£o5 with dcoaxroi designates God as the emanating point of the teaching, cf. Matt. xxiv. 35, 1 Thess. iv. 9. Y. 48-50. Repetition of the thought in v. 32, 35. If the antithesis adduced in evidence be taken iu perfect strictness, the inference from it is either that believers do not even * Calvin and Luther take it in a sense entirely different ; the Father never draws apart from Christ, but only in and through the preaching of Christ How, more- over, Bauer can say that the original germ of this declaration is to be foimd in Matt. 3U. 27, would be intelligible, only in case it were there said: "No one knows the Son, but he to whom the Father will reveal him," but it says just the reverse. 180 Chap. VL — v. 51-59. physically die, or that all who are unbelievers are to expect either in general no existence, or at least no full life after they die. That the former is not meant, is proven by xi. 25, and by the d.vaafjfT(o xzX, v. 54; the latter, consequently, is meant, as then it follows at once that nothing but faith in Christ can give true life even in this world. That the hearers should have connected this meaning with it at this time, is not, indeed, to be expected. In order that he may take the "va more strictly, De Wette proposes to translate oJ/roc, "o/ such a kind is the bread, to wit: that it can impart immortality," but his view is opposed to V. 33 ; 7va, consequently, is rather to be taken here in accordance with the same usage by which it elsewhere stands after the demonstrative, (Winer, p. 314. Tr. p. 257.) V. 51-59. For the exposition of this passage, which from its actual or supposed reference to the Lord's Supper has occupied the attention of commentators to a large degree, cf. the Zeitsch. of Heydenreich and Hiiffel, 2 B. 2 H. p. 239 ; the very excellent observations of Kling, Stud. u. Krit. 1836, H. 1 ; F. E. Miiller, numne locus lo. vi. 51-58, idoneis argumentis ad verum et proprium s. ccense usum trahi queat. 1839 ; Tisch- endorf, de Christo pane vitse s. de loco lo. vi. 51-59, coense s. potissimum ratione habita. 1839 ; the history of the ancient exposition is given by Liicke in the 2d Excursus, (left out in the 3d edition ;) the modern views are to be found in Lindner, die Lehre, &c. The doctrine of the Lord's Supper, p. 241, seq. What is expressed antithetically in v. 50 is explained in v. 51 in a direct manner. Zojv is not precisely equivalent to ^cooTTouov, it only expresses the possession of the life, v. 57, iv. 10. Kac — OS designates a more detailed statement, as in John i. 3, or a correction, as in xv. 27. Zwingle: Dixi diu me panem esse vitse, sed nondum quo pacto id fiat, hoc iam aperiam, "I long ago called myself the bread of life, but have not defined the sense in which I am such ; this I will now explain." '^Hu iyo) dcodco is wanting in so many of the authorities, that Lachmann omits it, but it can hardly be dispensed with grammatically, (Miiller, Liicke.) The future already shows in the first part, that not the appearing of Christ in human life in itself, but the ofiering up of this life for the world possesses the nourishing power, as it is also expressed in chap. xi. 24. The true Bread of Life. 181 Yet at the first dwaco, the question may arise, whether it applies to the historical institutory act of this food which took place in the expiatory death, or to the continued exhibition in the con- tinued appropriation of which v. 53 speaks, (thus Calvin takes it.) The hearers see clearly that Christ cannot, in the literal sense, give his "flesh" as food, and confer together, there- fore, with one another as to the real meaning of the word. Idp^ cannot essentially differ from fj ^wx'?' Matt. xx. 28, but the preceding image of bread naturally led to the use in this place of (idp^ instead of --^'c, as most critics take it, in accordance with the use of d.)jj&cv6z in (iv. 37,) xix. 35, Rev. iii. 14, xix. 9, 11. Luther : " Though I preach the truth to you over and over again, I must yet lie to you. Our Lord Jesus at the Feast of Tabernacles. 205 God miTst ill the world always be a learner and a liar, and let himself be mastered by its reason. Wherefore, Christ com- forts himself here : 'Though I must be before you as a liar, nevertheless God sent me, and I know that he is true.'" K with the first named expositors we interpret : " He who sends me is a genuine, true sender," that is, he who alone properly can send, the sense, indeed, is very appropriate, but this thought would have been expressed in a different way : 6 fOjjdcvo^ Tii/i-iov, or in some similar manner. We therefore take d.).rj&cv6^ as equivalent to d?.r^&ij^, and find the explanation of this title in the living witness to himself, which the Saviour bore within him ; from this same witness proceed the words ov xtX. which follow, expressing the contrast. So also does v. 29. V. 30, 31. Some of the magistrates desire to arrest Jesus at once, but their courage fails them. "S^pa here means the grand point of time in the life of our Lord, the time of his passion and death, (xvii. 1.) Liicke : "This is the religious pragmatism of history, with which no pious mind can dispense. At the same time we must not forget that it is John who more than any of the other Evangelists unveils the natural connection and the train of the development of that great hour, as it now hastens, and now lingers, and has thus skillfully united the religious view of the hour of Jesus with the intellectual." It may be asked, whether the faith to which, according to v. 31, many of the people attained, was a faith in Christ's work as a prophet, or in his work as Messiah. It seems to us that the former alone is the correct view, (Maldonatus, Heumann,) though most critics declare themselves for the latter, cf. how- ever, also, V. 40. How perverse it is to impute, as has become the fashion in our day, so much design to the Evangelist ; how little he aims at placing in the foreground the working of miracles, is manifest also from the cursory manner in which he here makes mention of the great number of the miracles. Besides, one might also most believe that these people out of the d^?.o^ were persons who had come from Galilee to the feast, (v. 20,) at least these would most naturally have ex- pressed themselves in this way. V. 32-34. \lfj'/czptt<;, tiie heads of the different classes of priests, dpy^oi^ztz zajv Tzazpiwu rcou hpioiv, (1 Chrou. xxiv. 6, 2, 19 206 Chap. VIL — v. 32-36. Chron. xxxvi. 14 ;) (papiaaloc is the name of the party, not of the calling, the apizpuc^ could also have been embraced under the term ; since there were also Sadducees in the Sanhedrim, (Acts xxiv.) it may perhaps be merely intimated that the per- secution proceeded from the party of the Pharisees alone, (v. 48,) or — may the ipapcaatoc designate the popixoc and ■jrpa/i/jiaTeT^, who under those names do not appear in John ?^ (Cf. in the division which is not genuine, viii. 3, there indeed the Ypapp.arei(; are mentioned together with the Pharisees.) It is not clear whether the Pharisees who heard what was said, made report to the Sanhedrim, who then gave the order to arrest Jesus, or whether they made the arrangement themselves on the spot. But v. 45 is decisive for the former view, on which verse it is to be noted, that the Sanhedrim usually convened in the temple itself, in the rin^n nstjfS, the stone chamber between the fore-court of the Gentiles and the inner court, (tr. loma, f. 25.) We see that Jesus knew of their determination. In explaining the difficult expression which occurs here, we must have in our eye the parallel passage, viii. 21, and the partial repetition of the expression before the Disciples, in xiii. 33. The different interpretations divide them- selves first of all into two classes : according to the one, ^TjzeiU designates an inimical seeking, the laying of a snare, (Origen, Grotius, Crell,) according to the other it designates a seeking out in order to obtain help, (Chrysostom, Erasmus, Calvin, Zwingle, Meyer.) Had the former been the case, a different structure of the sentence would be looked for, perhaps puxpbv xac ^rjTij(T£Te fis xai obf^ zuprjaere, (xvi. 17 ;) the expression, "seek and not find," has in it, moreover, something of the character of a phrase, and serves to designate a seeking of aid when the right time has passed away, cf. Amos viii. 12, Prov. i. 28, Hos. ii. 7, Isa. Ixv. 1. To this is to be added that in viii. 21, instead of do-j(^ zbp-qa. we read dTzod^avEca&s. iu tJj dpapTiO. ■jpioi', and that in xiii. 33, !^rjTe7u cannot be taken at all in an inimical sense. Does it mean then, a seeking from a sense of penitence and of longing ? (John xix. 37.) In chap. viii. 28, xii. 32, xvi. 10, conversions are spoken of which were to take 1 Cf. Winer, Reallex. at the word Schriftgelelirte ; Gfrorer, das Jahrhundert des Heils, 1 Abth. p. 140, seq. Jesus at the Feast of Tabernacles. 207 place in consequence of the lifting up of Christ ; and Eusebius, Ilist. Eocles. iii. 35, tells us that in consequence of the fearful judgments of God on Jerusalem, /rjpcoe ix Tzepaofjirjc: (innumer- able persons of the circumcision,) became believers. But of these it could not be said, that they had not found him, that tJieT/ had died in their sins, (viii. 24.) Under the //i, consequently, we would have to regard as contemplated, not the person of Christ, but the Messiah in the Jeivish sense : " Then shall ye seek that Messiah, whom, in my person, ye have despised," (Luke xvii. 22, Matt. xxiv. 23,) thus Zwingle, Lampe, Kuinol, Neauder, 1. c. p. 531, (Trans, p. 294.) But the lyio and xiii. 83 are against this view. Nothing remains, then, but as Theo- dorus Heraclese, Maldonatus, Grotius, De AVette, Liicke, 3d ed., have done, to regard the expression as a formula to desig- nate the complete separation, the entire disappearance, (Ps. x. 15, xxxvii. 10, Isa. xli. 12;) in this case, indeed, we must also again reduce the contents of otzoo — zX&eiv simply to the thought of the absolute separation, (by Christ's death and ascension,) a view in which viii. 21 is specially in the way, but which is favored by xiii. 33. It must, consequently, be said, that on the one side Christ, from his self-consciousness, speaks of the exaltation on which he would then enter, an exaltation above all that men could attempt against him, and on the other side warns them to use the time with which they were yet favored, (xii. 35.) Without any necessity, IsTonnus and The- ophylact already, have the reading elfxc instead of el fit, ("I go," instead of "I am ;") the formula or.cj dfii is also found in xii. 36, xiv. 3, xvii. 24, the present tense serves merely to give it the vividness of a thing present: "where I then am." V. 35, 36. * The question proceeds from the arrogance of hatred, as in viii. 22. Jiaa-oftd is taken by most as concrete, for ot 3caer meton., the place of those who are scattered among the Gentiles, (Syriac, Cyrill, Grotius,) as the e^c also shows, thus Judith, ch. v. 21, (19,) ix T. diaaTzopd^, oh dcsazajr/^aav ixe7, (from the place where they were scattered.) They ask, whether Jesus will betake himself to those Jewish congregations, in order from 208 Chap. VIL — v. 37-39. thence (as the Jews would not accord him their faith,) to operate upon the Gentiles ?^ Discourse on the Last Day of the Feast — Transactions IN THE Sanhedrim. — v. 37-52. V. 37-39.^ The feast of Tabernacles lasted, strictly speak- ing, seven days, (Lev. xxiii. 34, Deut. xvi. 13,) yet in the law there is mention already made of an eighth day, (Lev. xxiii. 36, cf. Nehem. viii. 18, Numb. xxix. 35.) On the question whether the seventh or eighth day was the great day of the feast, (cf xix. 31,) the evidence is wanting; according to the current tradition of the Rabbins, the pouring of the water, to which there seems to be an allusion here, took place only on the seven days of the feast, yet Rabbi Juda, tr. Sukka, iv. 1, 9, speaks also of a pouring of water on the eighth day; and as in ]^umb. xxix. 35, and in Josephus, Archseol. iii. 10, 4, the eighth* day, together with the first, is designated as a special day of rest, and of the festal assembling of the congregation, this may be regarded as the iizjal-q ^jfj.ipa. A universal jubilee of the people (Plutarch calls it a bacchanalian one,) and various pom- pous ceremonies took place at this feast, so that the Rabbins were accustomed to say : " The man who has not seen these festivities, does not know what a jubilee is," cf. H. Majus, dis- sert, de haustu aquarum. On every day of the feast, at the time of the morning sacrifice, a priest brought into the fore- court, in a golden vessel, water from the spring of Siloah, which rises within the mount on which the temple stood, and poured it, mingled with the sacrificial wine, into two bowls which stood upon the altar, and in which there was an opening by which it made its escape. During the performance of this rite, the priests caused trumpets and cymbals to be sounded, and the words of Isaiah xii. 3, were sung: " With joy shall we draw water out of the wells of salvation." The exegetical 1 Neander, 1. c. p. 531, supposes that the Jews may have begun to surmise the tendency of Christ's teaching to embrace mankind universally. 2 Cf. on this division, the Dissertation of Nosselt, Opuscul. diss. iii. p. 48 : Flatt. Opusc. diss. ii. Last Day of the Feast. 209 tradition has ascribed a special Messianic reference to these words of the prophet, which he in foct does utter in a song of thanksgiving, having reference to the times of the Messiah. Jonatlian trausLates those words 'Tn3D Nnrja mn isVn f'Vapn; K',p"lV, "ye shall receive the new doctrine with joy from the elect righteous ones." Later Rabbins call this festivity, nnrDi:' mjpn, (joy of the law,) because the water was a symbol of the divine grace. It is assumed then by the expositors with entire probability, that the Redeemer cried thus, just at the point of time when the priest was carrying that sacred water through the fore-court, and the people were abandoning themselves to a jubilant jo}^ at the sight of this symbol. It is noted by John, that on this occasion Jesus stood, (he usually sat when he taught,) and with a loud voice cried in the midst of the multi- tude. — The exalted words, testifying of the highest self-con- sciousness, announced that in him was actually imparted what was there expressed in symbol. We have an instance of a similar exalted testimony within himself, ch. viii. 12. He rep- resents here also the sense of the need of redemption as the condition of participation in the blessings which proceed from him, and represents faith as the organ by which that participa- tion is eflected. KocXia like *]P5 and :i";p., for that which is within man, in general, cf Ecclesiasticus xix. 22, Prov. xx. 27 ; in Arabic, also, .Jij stands for ^_/^, "body " for "heart" — yet would Christ have used this expression, and not rather simply have said i? abroo, if he had not designed an allusion to the xodia of the golden vessel from which the water was poured out? (Bengcl.) — Though Christ, iv. 14, declared that the water of life which he should give would be a self-dependent spring within the heart, yet this expression goes beyond that; on others also shall the streams of this spring pour themselves forth. (Chrysostom.) The reference to the Old Testament creates a difficulty ; a passage literallj'- corresponding is not to be found, though abundance of water is in various forms pro- mised, as an image of energies which impart life, cf on the one side, Isa. xliv. 3, Iviii. 11, on the other, the passages which speak of a spring of water which is to go forth from the tem- ple, Joel iii. 23, (iv. 18,) Zech. xiv. 8, Ezek. xlvii. 1-12.— As regards now the interpretation given by the Evangelist, he has 19* 210 Chap. VH. — v. 39-49. taken ptbaouai as the future absolute, on the ground that not until Christ was glorified was the Spirit to be poured out upon the Disciples, (Luke xxiv. 49, Acts ii. 33 ;) in consequence of this interpretation, when Christ appealed to the Old Testament, John thought of Joel iii. 1. What are we to think then of this explanation which the Evangelist furnishes ? First of all, if the water, as in iv. 14, designates metaphorically energies of life, such had certainly already, through our Lord's words as their medium, been conferred on the Disciples, (iv. 14, vi. 68, V. 25.) Is not such a communication of life also a communi- cation of the Spirit? It certainly is, for the language is: "My words are Spirit and life.'' But Jesus himself, not only in the passages we have cited from Luke and Acts, but also in John, ch. xiv. and xvi., designates the sending of the Spirit as a thing of the future. If now quickening be a necessary consequence , of the impartation of the Spirit, it would be entirely in accord- ance with the fact, if the Disciples dated the proper fulfilling of the promise from the time of the subsequent outpouring of the Spirit, and so much the more since with that event the life first began to flow forth from the Disciples. If the ouitco -qv is to be explained by reference to the outpouring of the Spirit, the Evangelist is not giving a declaration in regard to the existence of the Holy Ghost, but is speaking of his manifesta- tion in his operations, on which account, so far as the fact is concerned, the addition of otdofiivov (Lachmann,) by a num- ber of authorities is correct ; in Acts xix. 2, el tivzujio. cLjcov iaziv is also probably to be taken in the same way. But the ques- tion then rises, why the operation of the Holy Spirit is dated from that period, though he had wrought already under the Old Testament, and during the life of Christ ? Does the ex- pression designate merely the strength of the distinction as to the amount of activity and power? Thus especially it is re- garded by the Lutheran interpreters, who use it in maintaining the similarity/ between the operations of the Spirit under the Old and under the New Covenant. Or is there also a distinc- tion in the character of the outpouring ? Certainly the latter. The Holy Spirit in the specific Christian sense is that spirit which was wrought, in virtue of the unio mystica, with the glori- fied Christ, the new spirit of adoption which rests on the con- Last Day of the Feast, 211 sciousness of tlie finished propitiation, the spirit in the power of which tlie redeemed man knows himself more and more as the organ of that Christ who works in him and through him. This Spirit coukl descend upon the Disciples only after the propitia- tion had actually been accomplished, and Christ spiritually glorified. lie then made the Church the body for his manifes- tation, (Eph. i. 23,) and in it continued his work upon earth. The faith of the Disciples then no longer had its centre in the sensible manifestation of Christ, but in his spiritual internal testimony, in the unio mystica, in the strength of which a Paul could now speak (cf. John xiv. 19, 20,) of the doxcfirj z. )mXoi)vto^ iv ifioi Xpcazou, (2 Cor. xiii. 3,) of the xazepfd^ta&ac zoo Xpcazdij oc i/jLoi), (Rom. XV. 8.) There first was verified, that the living water which he had given them had becbme a self-dependent spring within them, (iv. 14.) V. 40^4. The expression 6 kdyo:; allows us to assume, that in what has preceded the Evangelist has merely given us the theme, as it were, of a discourse of Christ. On 6 7Tpoor mo are found, the death is always by strangling ; but cf. Exod. xxxi. 14, xxxv. 2, with Numbers XV. 32-34. Even in Christ's time, moreover, the Mosaic law- was no longer carried out in all points, as for example, the bit- ter water was no longer given to the adulteress as a test, (Num. V. 11, seq.) and after the destruction of the city, the changes were many and great, (cf. Michselis, Mos. Recht, § 262.) Still, even in the case before us, a consonance with the Mosaic law 1 Since according to v. 9, members of the Sanhedrim are included, it might be supposed there w^s a deputation of the Sanhedrim, (Meyer,) but this surely could not have been ojjlcialli/ sent. If the supposition is allowable, that, because of the freiiuency of adultery, the legal penalty wms no longer enforced, (Bbrnrd,) it would certainly be easier to understand hoTV it would come to pass, that a teacher might be consulted as an individual ; yet in such a case, his position of variance toward Moses would have had in :l nothing offensive ; but that they, in case uorl". in aor. 1, be noticed, which occurs elsewhere only in doTJdr^v, (Buttman, Ausfuhrl Gramm. ii. 415.) According to the law, the adulterer was also to be put to death, but he seems in this instance to have made his escape. They place the woman in the midst of the crowd which had gathered around Jesus, so that the eyes of all were turned upon her. ^ ETiauzoifMfHo is added, that no room for doubt about the truth of the accusation may be left. V. G-8. Some Codices add 7if>0(T7toioufjLsvo^, others /utj TtpoaTz. both evidently glosses. To iypa^zv various expositors have supplied, and even some Codices have actually added : Ivoc kxdazoo rd; dfjiapzca^ ; had Jesus, however, written any particu- lar words, the Evangelist would have mentioned what they were — ^besides, this was hardly possible on the floor, which was a paved one, and probably kept clean. If we may not urge the words that ivere written, yet the act of writing may be signifi- cant ; the meaning of it according to Bengel and Michaelis is : "Why do you question me? What stands written sufiices." Obscurely enough would this have been expressed, and cer- tainly if this had been the meaning the act would not, in v. 8, have been repeated. Rather is the explanation completely satisfactory which imputes to it the same significance which it still has among us. The writing or drawing {jpdcpsev signifies either,) on the ground was in the ancient world, as among us, the sign of profound meditation and of abstraction from all that is going on around, also of irksomeness, which, occupied with nothing external, is absorbed in the train of thought which passes within. See the Scholion on Aristophanes, Acharn. v. 31, in which passage come one after the other the words, xflv irtscddp w ij.6vo^, dTzopco, ypdipu), TTapaT'dXapa:, Xop^opcoUy (afterward when I am alone, I hesitate, I write, I twitch my hair, I calculate,) so that one word explains the other. In the Talmud also, tr. Gittin, f. vii. 1, are found traces of a similar usage among the Jews. Jesus, consequently, expresses in this way, first of all, that he is giving no heed to the question. And wherefore ? Probably on the same ground as in Luke xii. 14, because he is not willing to interfere in decisions on questions of civil law ; thus Keander, Liicke, Olshauscn, This is also Luther's view, who adds these words : " Our Lord means to 220 Chap. VHI. — v. 9-11. say, why do you question me ? and will not favor them with a word, turns himself in another direction, and will not attend to them nor answer them." But can it then be said that the mere expression of a judicial sentence is here mvolved? Such a sentence, in fact, the Sanhedrim alone could give. The law (a fact which must not be overlooked,) was a reZ^^^o-political one, and what it affirms they themselves adduce, they conse- quently wish merely to know what religious attitude toward the law Jesus would assume. We cannot, therefore, well sup- pose any design in the writing other than in its repetition, v. 8. We, consequently, coincide with Bengel: Silenti actione cogitation es adversariorum vagas, festinantes et securas fixit et conscientiam eorum excitavit, (by a silent action he fixed the wandering, hasty, self-reliant thoughts of his enemies, and aroused their conscience.) If we dared not assume, a priori, that they became accusers with a self-righteous and malignant satisfaction, yet v. 7 would prove that they did. On such accusers that deportment of the Saviour must have had the effect we have intimated. What passed in the mind of Jesus while he was silent, is shown by v. 7. The word of Christ is not to be regarded as demanding an abrogation of judicial punishment, but as a more concrete expression for xazaxplusiv. Thus this word of his strengthens the influence upon the thoughts of the people, which his silence had already been calculated to effect, and his relapse into silence gives free play to the chastening of conscience. There is evidence that at this period many of the Rabbins, high in position, were living in adultery, (Wagenseil on the Sota, p. 525, seq., Justin Mart, dial. c. Tryph. p. 363, ed. Col.) yet it is hardly necessary to demonstrate this to justify the result of which v. 9 tells us. V. 9. Musculus: Fuit procul dubio tantopere hoc Christi responso illorum verberata conscientia, ut primum prorsus obmutuerint, nee habuerint, quod in speeiem regererent. Deinde, ne ulterius quid, quod minus velleut, ubi se denuo erexissit, audirent, confestim se ex medio subducunt, (beyond doubt, their conscience was severely smitten by this answer of Christ's, so that at first they were entirely silent, nor had they anything specific to reply. Afterward, when he lifted up him- self a second time, they feared they might hear something The "Woman taken in Adultery. 221 further, which might be still less pleasant, and hurriedly with- di-ew,) cf. the admirable remarks of Calvin. — EI;; xad^ sFc, a sole- cism for xai^' eva n-dvrec, Mark xiv. 19, Rom. xii. 5, 3 Maccab. v. 34. "Eid:: zcijv ka-^dvcov does not seem to belong to the original text. Some interpret ::pta^'jrepoc and iay^azot as having refer- ence to age: "Old and young," (Grotius, Seller,) but if we read ewe iff^drcov, the lafaTO(; compels us to refer the izpza^. to the rank ; (Aristophanes : 6 layazoi; c?^/-«oc, the lowest of the people,) as in Latin, primores and homines postremi, (1 Cor. iv. 9.) A withdrawal in the exact order of rank is of course not intended, but merely that the one class withdrew, as well as the other ; yet the remark may be made, that when the' principal persons departed, their inferiors would have the less courage to remain. V. 10, 11. Olshausen discovers in the course here pursued by Jesus, a threefold difficulty. First, that Jesus, by making the exercise of the penal authority dependent on the moral character of the judge, undermines the foundation of civil law. Secondly, that in an unseemly manner he withdrew the criminal from her judge. Thirdly, that an exhortation to re- pentance, so necessary under the circumstances, is wanting. Yet he himself observes in part, what serves to resolve these scruples. The main point to be kept in view is this : Christ llxes his eye not so much on the act of the adulteress, as on the intention of her accusers ; regarded in this aspect, which is so entirely in keeping with the character of Him who had come into the world as its Redeemer, (iii. 17,) the conduct of Christ is perfectly intelligible. The sad mingling of what belongs to religion with what is demanded by civil order in his own day, led Luther especially to take that view, from which also this conduct of our Lord, as regards its relation to the laiv, is to be explained. In the Mosaic institutes, the State and the Church, the legal and the religious point of view, coincide ; in the Christian system, they are separate. The conception of the state rests upon that of the law, and retribution, that is, punish- ment is needed, that the law may be canned out ; Christ on the contrary, and the Church with him, works upon the mind, and this is done through nurturing love ; the discipline of the Church consequently, is not a xolam^, but simply a rcacdeca, which ceases 20* 222 Chap. Vin. — v. 12-16. where there is penitence, (2 Cor. ii. 6, 7.) In consonance with this, Luther says: "He does not take from their right, he lets Moses stand untouched, he says to them neither nay nor yea, yet in a masterly manner he says both. "Why do ye not what Moses has commanded ? But if ye wish to judge her in accordance with my kingdom, commit her case to me. For my judgment is : This adulteress is not alone ; there is not one of you that is not as bad and wicked as she is." That the exhortation to penitence is wanting, cannot be maintained — it lies in the fifjxsu dpapvaue, Augustine : ergo et dominus damnavit, sed , peccatum, non hominem, (therefore, our Lord did pass con- demnation, but on the sin, not on the person.) The exhorta- tion is a brief one, but how mightily had the circumstances spoken \ 1\\ her fears, the woman had already passed under the sentence of death, she had endured the public disgrace ; the cjuestion : " "Wliere are thine accusers," had made her feel how much she owed to Jesus, and that Jesus who but a moment ago with his searching words had thrilled the hearts of her accusers, turns now upon her the look of pitying love ! Was it in the power of words to strengthen the impression — would they not have weakened it ? A SECOND Testimony of Christ to himself. — v. 12-20. V. 12. Was this discourse, also, uttered during the last day of the feast? K v. 12 is connected with vii. 52, we must sup- pose it to have been uttered after those transactions, and in that case it can hardly belong to the same day. Although the first mention of the departure from the temple is made in viii. 59, there is yet a change of place supposed in v. 20. These dis- courses naturally fall then into the time succeeding the feast. The testimony of Christ to himself in this passage has an analogy with that in vii. 37 ; after the analogy of that and the character of these figurative discourses of Christ elsewhere, it has been thought necessary to search for some distinct occasion for this comparison of himself with light, and such an occasion has been found in our Lord's being supposed to cast his eyes on the two tall golden candlesticks, which during the feast of Tabernacles were lighted on either side of the altar of burnt Second Testimony of Christ to himself. 223 oftering, u'here also was tlie ya^oipuXdxcov — according to Maim- onidcs, they were lighted every day. If the discourse, however, was uttered after the feast, the possibility of such an allusion falls to the ground. Lyser and Heumann suggest that the rising sun gave occasion for the metaphorical language. We do not feel ourselves able to decide anything definitely on this point. As Christ in vii. 37 had designated himself as the fountain of the powers of life, so here he designates himself as the fountain of that illumination from which life comes, life for the ivhole world. By speaking of following him, he introduces the image of a guiding star, by which we are led on our pathway, and he who follows him receives this light of life into his soul. V. 13, 14. Such exalted representations in regard to his person must in the nature of the case excite opposition ; no man could receive a testimony of this sort, given of himself by the witness, unless he were in affinity with him, so as to feel it at the same time within himself. Having no such affinity, they at once charge him ^vith falsehood, but the Redeemer, in the power of a self-consciousness closely conjoined with God, was able to maintain the truth of what he had affirmed, (vii. 28, 29.) Augustine : Lumen et alia demonstrat et se ipsum. Tes- timonium sibi perhibet lux, aperit sanos oculos et sibi ipsa testis est, (Light, which brings other things to view, brings itself to view. Light furnishes its own testimony, it opens healthful eyes, and itself is a witness to itself.) The inference of his adversaries was indeed conceded by Christ in tbe discourse, chap. V. 31, but only by accommodation, and the same accom- modation follows here in v. 18. Y. 15, 16. He animadverts on the tone of mind from wbich that judgment proceeded. Idp^ may be the outward appear- ing of Christ, (cf. xaz o^/v, vii. 24,) or it may mean the crdp^ of those who judged him, in antithesis to the pneumatic tone of mind from which an acknowledgment of his witness to him- self would have to proceed. The iyco — oudiua, Bauer regards as absolutely out of place, and ascribes it entirely to the disposition of the Evangelist to exaggerate. Cyrill, Flatt, Kuinol, supply, to complete the sense, xa-a zr^v frdpxa, (according to the flesh,) but in this way the resumption in the proposition xai — i^o), which is clearly absolute, is falsified, (Be Wette ;) it is better, there- 224 Chap. Vm.— v. 17-24. fore, to take xpiuco in the connection in the same evil sense in which we find it used in the connection in Matt. vii. 1 also. Christ has no pleasure in judging, and where pleasure is felt in it, it is the infallible sign of a heart of impurity ; that he judges, however, is shown by v. 16, but he does it only in fellowship with the Father ; it springs, therefore, from motives which are objective, and consequently, pure. V. 17, 18. The thought expressed in v. 16 leads to an accommodation similar to that which we have in ch. v. 31, 32. "We see from expressions like these, and like those in verse 29 and in xvi. 32, that the identity of the self-consciousness of Christ with that of God has not abrogated the distinction between them. — Cf Deut. xix. 15. V. 19, 20. That the Jews knew very well whom he meant by the Father, we see clearly from chap. v. 18, x. 33, but they deride after the manner of men who cling to what seems to be the evidence of the senses. In correspondence with the state- ment elsewhere made, that the knowledge of the Father is indis- pensable to the acknowledgment of Christ, the converse as regards the relation may be affirmed. It cannot be determined with entire certainty what is here meant by the Ya^o(pu?Mxiov, see Liicke on this passage, and De Wette on Luke xxi. 1. According to the Talmud, there were in the Sanctuary thirteen boxes for the reception of ofiferings, which are, perhaps, here named collectively ya^O(pu?Ax:ou ; from Mark xii. 41, seq. we must suppose they were placed in the fore-court of the women. '£v designates place, (Luke xiii. 4.) The designation by John of the locality may be incidental, but may be designed to mark the fact that Jesus taught in a place where multitudes assembled, in order that the extraordinary fact that ouoerc iTriaaeu ahxbv (no man laid hands on him,) may be made more prominent, in which case xax must be taken as adversative, (and yet.) Jesus warns them— Discourses of his Dignity. — v. 21-29. V. 21, 22. Whether this discourse immediately followed, or is given without respect to the order of time, cannot be deter- mined. On one of the middle days of the feast, Christ had uttered something of the same Idnd, vii. 33, 34; here ouyi^ Jesus warns them — Discourses of his Dignity. 225 £uprj(T£ze is omitted, and xal iv ttj d/iapTca u/kou d.7:o&avtia&t is added. \i[iafiTia cannot, as Calvin supposes, have a dilOferent sense from the plural in v. 24. The thought is consequently this: "Ye shall die in an unredeemed condition." It would seem on this view, in conflict with the exposition we have adopted on vii. 34, as if (^rjzslv must designate the longing after the Messiah, and 07:00 — iX&eXv the result of dying without a Redeemer. But such a conception of the meaning of l^r^Tzty has nothing whatever in its favor, and in this very connection V. 24 is also against it, for as unbelief is the reason why they die in their sins, the ^r^rtiv cannot be a longing after Christ ; we are forced, therefore, with Calvin, to limit it to " a seeking for aid from necessity, without faith, and consequently no seeking at all." If, however, we make this distinction, must not the lan- guage refer to calamities at least? But if we admit this, we are the more necessitated to interpret the expression in conso- nance Avith vii. 33, xiii. 33. In this way we are led to the sense : " Use the present moment, for soon I shall be no more with you ; ye shall seek me in vain, and shall pass away in your sins, but I shall be forever delivered from your snares." There need be no difficulty in adopting this view, because it would require us to insert the words "in vain," since they must be added, even if we assume that ^tjtziv means the seeking of help. In John, least of all, can we be surprised at inexactness of phraseology, (cf. the remarks on vii. 3, xvi. 10, &c.) V. 23. Calvin : Pergunt non modo in securo contemptu, sed etiam in protervia, (they persist not only in their con- temptuous security, but even in. wantonness,) as in vii. 35. As the Jewish abhorrence of suicide was very great, and as the opinion prevailed among them that the self-murderer was con- demned to the lowest hell, (Josephus, De bello Judaic, iii. 8, 5,) the words imply the most unmitigated scorn, and intimate be- sides, why they would not wish to follow him — to wit : into hell. V. 23, 24. Verse 23 ma}^ be regarded either as a solemn re- joinder to their scoff, or merely as a continuation of v. 21. The former would undoubtedly be the preferable view, if ra xdrco meant the world below, ^XJ^, but the words Ix zoo x6a(io'j zoozoo show that it refers to the earth, (Acts ii. 19 ;) the transition to V. 24, would consequently, if that supposition were correct, be 226 Chap. VHI.— v. 25. difficult to explain. The connection, therefore, as Crell already gives it, is this: "Ye are earthly minded, I am heavenly; if therefore ye be not justified by faith in me, ye must perish in your sins." On iyd) ecfii, compare remarks at iv. 26. V. 25. Luther : " A sarcastic reply, as if they said : Pretty well, that is very likely. And who are you then, good Master Jesus?" This sentence, especially because of the tt^v dp^ijv at the beginning of it, has been a crux interpretum, and has given rise to the most diversified interpretations and fancies. As zrjv dpx^u even in a philological respect has been explained in ways very different and sometimes in conflict with the usages of the language, we have first of all to specify what it may mean and \vhat it cannot mean, cf. De Wette and Liicke. On this point it is considered as understood that o, zi is to be taken as relative, that xal is not to be removed from the text, and that tyju dp^jv is not substantive, but adverbial, like dxir/jv. This adverb cannot mean " truly," (Kuinol, Liicke, 2d ed.;) it can hardly mean, "to begin with, first of all," (Erasmus, Luther, Bucer, Grotius, Paulus, Olshausen;) "first of all, I am he whom I also tell you I am, that is, he who admonishes you," (Paulus ;) " first of all — and I speak it openly — I have much to censure, and to rebuke in you, and am, therefore, he who earnestly admonishes you," (Olshausen ;) " in the first place, I am what I have just declared myself to be — the light of the world," (Grotius;) "first, I am your preacher," (Luther.) All these ways of taking the expres- sion suppose that our Saviour's design was primarily to lead the Jews to a different view of himself, so that when they stood on this point of view, he might reveal to them one yet higher. But on the one hand, the trailing character of these explanations, on the other, their inaptness, is manifest; it is besides questionable whether tyiv dp-f^riv is ever used in the sense of "first of all." According to ordinary usage it signifies, 1) in the beginning, equivalent to formerly, aforetimes ; 2) from a former period, from the beginning, that is, altogether, and this is almost always its sense in negations ; 3) from the beginning, Herodotus, i. 9. (Schweighauser, Lex. Herod, i. p. 105. Her-, mann on Sophocles, Antig. v. 92.') The exposition most widely 1 Although the philologists we have named are sufficient authority for so nnder- Btanding the word in that passage, yet the meaning of "altogether" might perhaps answer. Liicke has overlooked that meaning. Jesus warns tiikm — Discourses of his Dk^xity. 227 embraced (Noiinus, Mclanctlion, Beza, Camerarius, Calvin, Le Clerc, Ileumann,') is that which rests on this third signification of the word, and ^v•hich takes }.a?M in the sense of the pre- terite: "What I told you already in the beginning, {or from the beginning^) that am I;" Eisner adduces as a parallel the passage in Plautus, Capteivi iii. 4, 91 : Eho, die mihi: quis igitur ille est? — queni dudum dixi a principio tibi, (come, then, tell me who he is ? — He whom I've told you all along from the beginning. Riley's Translat. Bohn, 1852.) The present tense ?m?xo, as in xiv, 24, viii. 58, includes the preterit. To the view just presented De Wettc objects, on the following grounds : 1) Because the colloca- tion of the words is arbitrarily changed. But does not the empha- sis lie on rijv drjyr^u'^. 2) Aa?M is taken as if it were iXdlr^aa. But has not De "Wette himself, in vi. 63, acknowledged that the pres- ent tense may include time past? The /«/, moreover, whether it be translated " also " or " even," is entitled to its due weight, and should this ha met with the objection, that lalco cannot stand for Uyco^ the reply may be made, that here, either would be in place, cf Xiyco in v. 26, with Xa/M^ xvii. 13, and in addition, vi. 63, xii. 48, xvi. 25. We consequently still maintain that our interpretation is entirely admissible. De Wette, on the other hand, insists that the proposition is to be understood in this way : " To the question of the Jews, Jesus does not wish to make the reply : I am the Messiah, because they adhered so strongh' to a dead, positive idea, and as they would not find this verified in him, they would only have been the more hardened against him : he refers them, therefore, to his dis- courses ; first of all in these discourses was he to be recognized." This way of taking it is ingenious, but I object at the very out- start to translating "first of all," "preeminently;" the word cannot be equivalent to inprimis, although it has been proposed by some to take it in this sense even in Herodot. i. 0. Liicke, 3d ed., following Euthymius, and especially Locella, (Xen. Ephes. Annot. p. 164, seq.) renews the conception of it as interrogative: "Why am I yet speaking to you at all?" so as to make it a dismissal of the matter like that in x. 25, ecTiov 1 Some of these expositors, without any thing further to justify it, translate in the preterit, others in the present; Beza, however, justifies the present, and Heu- mann also makes a remark upon it. 228 Chap. Vm. — v. 26-32. bfxiv xal ou ■Kiaxtbs.xz. On linguistic grounds, certainly no objec- tion can be urged against this view. "0, xt frequently occurs as absolute, in the sense of "wherefore," and that too by an elliptic usage, so that a scire velim must be supplied, (Stallbaum zu Euthyd. 271, A.) Kai m the gradation ad infra, "yet, still," is also familiar, (Rom. viii. 24.) But the want of con- gruity between this answer and that question, creates a serious difficulty, which would, however, be somewhat relieved if "at all" were left out; on this view, moreover, the connection of V. 26 is not a good one. Y. 26. With the complaint of their refusing to listen to an explanation oft repeated, are naturally connected the censure that they gave so much occasion for reproof, and the comfort which under the circumstances of the case is found in the thought, that the eternal fountain of truth, the Father himself, had imposed on him an internal necessity for uttering all these reproofs, (v. 15, 16.) "Ey^io with the infinitive, designates the objective ability, Acts iv. 14, (I could,) it here refers to the past time and the present. The two propositions, d.XX — xoafiov, are to be regarded as premises from which the hearer is left to draw his own conclusions. Ei^ xbv xbajxov for xG) xoafxii)^ (Mark xiii. 10, Luke xxiv. 47,) so that ilc. in an expression of more vivacity, indicates the direction and the extension of what he speaks, (Liicke.) V. 27-29. On v. 27, De "Wette makes the remark, that their not understanding him seems highly improbable — certainly, especially as in v. 19, they understood the word ; therefore, were it merely said ohx eyvcoaav xbv Ttaxepa, ov iXeyev abxdl(;, (they knew not the Father, of whom he was speaking to them,) we would fain say with Liicke, that the words refer to the recognition of the matter^ and consequently to unbelief, but the words are, ^'■tJiat he spake to them of the Father;" on the construction, cf. what is said on i. 46. — This want of openness of heart on their part, leads our Lord to reflect on the effect which his death would have, (xii. 24, 32, xvi. 7.) As we have uipdxryjxe^ and not the passive as in xii. 32, iii. 14, it is perfectly clear that the reference is to the crucifixion, which however, as the tran- sition to the glorification, (xiii. 31,) embraces the latter in it, (Calvin, Piscator, De "Wette ;) then under the co-working Christ rebukes his Opponents. 225> of the Holy Spirit, -w^onld it become manifest to many that Christ had acted and spoken in unity with God, In tlio opposition of the more general ttocco, and of the more special Xado), we miss the syntactical congruency, (see on eh. v. 38, p. 161.) He begins with the words xal 6 7zi:[jnpa^ xzL to compose his soul, as to the misapprehension in regard to him which prevailed. Instead of the aorist d^^xs, the present might have been anticipated, (Luther translates it "leaves,") but it has a retrospective regard to the 6 -kfupac:, so that the act of the send- ing and of the obx dtpdvac is to be regarded as one thing, (Liicke.) The causal relation indicated by ore is not obvious, and it may be asked : Is it not rather his not being left alone by the Father, that is the ground of the Ttozlv za dpzazd ? (" I do always those things that please him.") Maldonatus consequently takes ozc here, in the direct sense of ideo, (therefore,) and Olshausen and Meyer insist on taking ozc, not as a designation of the causa essendi, but of the cognoscendi, "as is known by the fact that I do, &c." Better thus: d;i p;"'.3 ~ ^^"7^ nnxS Vtap-I 'JOipn " tU children of that old serpmt who has slam Adam and all his posterity ," — in these passages, we say, bodily death is not expressly mentioned, yet it certainly is, if not exclusively, yet mainly what is meant, (see Tholuck's Kommentar zum Br. an d. Hebr. 2d ed. p. 174, and zum Br. an d. Rom. p. 247.) 2 In the controversy with Krabbe, Mau, 1. c. p. 94, opposes to this view the argu- ment, that the viodc in which the devil wrought the death of our first parents does not correspond with the mode in which the .Jews sought to put Jesus to death; but is there not a sufl&cient parallel in the fact that both parties were impelled by hatred of the truth, in their desire to destroy ? 3 In the farailar passage in Theoph. ad Autol. ii. 29, in Satan's seduction of our first parents, the physical murder is also regarded as his proper intent, and his drawing Cain on to the murder of his brother is regarded as a sequel to the seduc- tion of Adam, to wit : that as Adam, despite the fall, lived and begat children, he might in this way bring death into the world. Christ rebukes his Opponents. 237 Enthymius, Theodorus lieraklcir, in Catena patrum.) To bring out that parallel clearly, it certainly would have been noticed that this murder of Satan's was occasioned by his hatred of the truth ; instead of which it simply says, that he zvas an enemy to the truth, and that this enmity formed his proper character. — 'A?.i^^eca, with retrospective regard to the beguiling of our first parents bj' folsehood, and with prospective regard to the woixls which immediately follow, has ordinarily been under- stood of truth in opposition to falsehood ; by Origen, however, Augustine, Beza, Heumann, and by recent writers, it has been taken in the philosophic sense of John, the sense of real being, 60 as to embrace at once theoretic and practical truth. " Earr^xtv, by the Vulgate, Luther, and all the expositors down to Bengel, (by V. Coin also, Bibl. Theolog. ii. 71,) is taken as the preterit, and the passage has consequently been used as a dictum probans, (]^)roof text,) for the fall of the devil, (2 Pet. ii. 4 ;) only by Marck, (Exercitat. textual.) was brought out this idea, that \i aX. desig- nates not metaphysical truth, but moral truth alone, the ear/jxev must be referred to the fact of the beguiling in the fall of man. But in all passages of the N'ew Testament, the preterit is used in the sense of the present, just as it is in the classics, (John 1. 26, lii. 29, xi. 56,) thus already the Syriac, pO|.D].j^|^^jiIi (has not stood in the truth,) the Ethiopic, Origen, Theophylact, Euthymius. "Eazrjxev, however, is not ejitirely synonymous with lav'i, but has the force of "keeps not himself, does not persist,"' (see Tholuck on Eom. v. 2.) As regards dl. the con- nection (v. 40, 45,) would already excite the expectation, that it would designate the objective element of truth, that is truth in the metaphysical sense, as it is styled ; this view is confirmed by the ore xzX. which follows, and which created the greatest difl&culty in the way of those who found in iazr^xeu a reference to the fall of Satan, so much so, indeed, that Augustine, Pisca- tor, Lampe and Lyser, regarded it, as in v. 29, as a designation of the ratio cognoscendi, " for it is certainly present," &c. Our opinion is that dL is here the subjective truth, the love of truth ; 1 It is worthy of note that in the book cited by Schottgen, the Book Jalkiit Rubeni, f. 136, 4, this identical expression is used by Adam: r\1JOX33 HOj; Nbiy "who Btood not in the truth." Yet it must also be noted that this book was written in Prague, at the close of the seventeenth century ! 238 Chap. VIIL — v. 46. the subjective in affinity with the truth, conducts to the objective kingdom of the truth, (v. 47.) Origen thinks he must here enter on the knotty question, whether we can deny that the devil has truth in this, that is, in the formal sense; but the connection, (v. 45,) directs us to religious truth ; according to James ii. 19, the demons believe in truth, to wit : the truth of the existence of God ; but it is only His abstract existence in w^hich they believe — had they the truth of the knowledge of God, they would not tremble before him. — The ore xrX. is now unfolded further. In the case of him whose subjectivity does not bear the truth in it, falsehood pertains to his personal char- acter, {to. Idea, TO cdcoD/m,) and his conduct bears the stamp of it. It has been supposed that we must of necessity regard the ozi which follows as causa cognoscendi, but this is a mistake ; that the devil from his very nature originates nothing but lies, fol- lows from the conception of him as (peoatTjc ; abrou refers to the abstract which lies in (pzbax-qz, cf. on Rom. ii. 26. This passage particularly, decides the question whether our Saviour's dis- courses involve the personality of Satan. But the view is still held by v. Colin, that "Jesus adopts the prevalent opinions of the Jews, in order to impart in the minds of his hearers an additional weight to his moral teachings," (in Bib. Theol. ii. 74 ;) against this view, see ISTeander, Leben Jesu, 3d ed. p. 286. AVith a regard to verses 37, 40, 47, we apply to the opposers of Jesus the language in this way: "Ye prove yourselves to be of the devil's kind, ye have pleasure in his works, for he plotted the murder and ruin of man from the beginning ; lying is his most specific characteristic, and there- fore ye, too, for the very reason that it is truth I speak, do not believe me." V. 46. Chrysostom, Augustine, Luther, (Th. xii. p 1721,) Grotius, Heumann, take b-ixapxia in the sense of "sin," while on the other side, a large majority, induced by the connection, have preferred taking it in the sense of ipeudo:; in its various shades of meaning, "lie, error, deceit," thus Origen, Cyrill, Erasmus Schmid, Beausobre, Bengel, Kypke, Mosheim, Titt- mann, Kuiuol, Liicke, 1st ed., Hase, (Leben Jesu, 3d ed. § 32.) Since, however, in the theology of Schleiermacher, the doc- trine of the sinlessness of Christ has taken the place of ClimST REBUKES HIS OPPONENTS. 239 the Clmrch's doctrine of his deity, a new effort has been manifest to retain for the doctrine of the sinlessness of the Redeemer this grand dictum probans. Ullmaun (Siindlosig- keit, 3d ed.) would only maintain, as at an earlier period Crcll and Lampe had done, the general idea, "fault," that is, practical and theoretical ; but for the meaning " sin " in specie, we have the judgment of Olshausen, Liicke, 2d and 3d ed., De Wette, and even Ullmann, in the 4tli ed. p. 67 ; against his exposition particularly, Christ. Fr. Fritszche has protested in the pro- grams which are now collected in the Opusc. Fritzschiorum. After a renewed investigation, I must confess, that for the pres- ent I cannot agree with the expositors last named. I have consulted all the expositors to whom I could have access, who defend the meaning "sin," but have not been able to convince myself that a satisfactory connection can be made out if their ^ iew be adopted. Let us examine Liicke, for instance : " As Christ elsewhere says in positive terms : If ye will not believe my words, yet believe my works, so here he says in negative terms : Ye do not believe me, though I speak the truth ; wherefore do ye not? Can you perchance demonstrate that instead of doing the epya zoo &eo~j, (the works of God,) I have been doing the works of sin ? if ye cannot do this, why then do ye not believe when it is truth which I speak to you?" But against this stands the fact, that this very thought, " if ye cannot do this," is not expressed, and that if this were meant we would look for an ec de /xtj instead of ec ok dkrj&eiav Uyco. Chrysos- tom and Euthymius apprehend it in a manner which grasps the connection with yet more clearness and acuteuess: "The reason ^v'hy ye do not believe me, is none other than downright hatred of the truth, d de /i^, ttTiare to eyxk^fxa, (if this be not so, bring your accusation ;)" but were this the meaning would we not expect ydp after r:c, and as there is none, must not the second question be taken as antithetical to the first ? We are forced, therefore, to look for some other mode of apprehending it. ''Afiapria has in classic usage the meaning of "error," (see Raph- clcng. Annotat. ex Herod., and Kypke, in loc.) and Bretschnei- der, Lexic. 3d ed., cites from the Xew Testament itself, several places, as properly belonging to this definition ; Fritszche makes special reference to 1 Cor. xv. 34. But the meaning, "fault, 240 Chap. Vin. — v. 47-56. error," will not answer at all, since in that sense it would give an appearance as if the dl-q&tM of Christ were the product of meditation and of reflection, while it is in fact rather the immediate emanation of the unity of his self-consciousness with God, (v. 28, ch. vii. 17.) "We believe that Melancthon and Calvin have hit the true point, when they retain indeed the significa- tion "sin," but comparing 1 Cor. iv. 4, interpret the expression only of transgression within the sphere of his office, and so far only of error. If, as Tittmann especially does, we might take the dX^&tca in specie of the doctrina Christi de Ohristo, (cf. 55,) the expression would be rendered yet more clear; but embracing the practical Messianic activity, it may also be interpreted: "Have I in any case acted in conflict with the iuTo^ o^ the FsitherV V. 47. The dm zi in v. 46 is answered here. There is a weight laid anew upon the motive of the lust of murder and of the opposition in general ; the great truth which had already in iii. 20, 21, been intimated, is now expressed in so many words, cf V. 42, ch. vi. 44, 45, x. 27, xviii. 37. Y. 48-51. The jy/^sr^ and au may show that a retort was made on the part of the Jews. The reproach of illegitimacy they meet with the counter one, "thou art a Samaritan," one of a nation a majority of whom were originally heathen, and whose worship was impure. He had called them " children of the devil," they declare him to " have a devil," the result of which would be insanity. The Uyo/uev has perhaps a reference to V. 27. — The answer of Jesus touches merely the severest accusation, that of diabolic possession. The u/ico has reference to the testimony given by his words, to the d?,TJ&siau Xkyziv^ in which the testimony of himself is regarded as the main feature, (v. 55.) In place of the simple zar, either ok or o//wc might be anticipated. The glory of him who glorifies the Father will be vindicated by the Father. — In Calvin, we find the thought, that in v. 51, Christ addresses those whose suscepti- bilities were alive to the truth, and with him coincides De "Wette. It is possible that in those words he had in his eye the hearts of the more susceptible, and that in a certain sense he recurs to the promise in v. 31 ; but we must nevertheless think of the words as addressed to the multitude, so that whoever Christ rebukes his Opponents. 241 was willing to embrace them, might do so. Tr^pstv, according to Kuiiiol, Wahl, Brctschneider, "to observe," in the sense of "perform," which puts the loyo^ consequently in the category of prescription. This conception of it is admissible, and indeed seems almost enjoined in x\w. 21, and faith may be looked upon as something prescribed by Christ for us to perform ; neverthe- less, Liicke and De Wette explain it as equivalent to fiivecv iv T. Aoyuj, (31,) consequently equivalent to asservare, eondere, and Meyer even unites the two meanings, " to hold fast as the rule of life." Our word "keep," (bewahren,) can in fact embrace both ; if now the ?.6yo:: and the ivzoXai cannot properly be under- stood of mere prescriptions^ but designate doctrine, then ryjpsxv, both here and in xv. 10, can the more readily be taken in the sense of "keep," cf. also, rr^petv r. kvzoXi^v, 1 Tim. vi. 14. The promise, "he shall not see death," as in vi. 59, means he shall not abide in death, but shall be partaker in the true life, (cf. xi. 25.) V. 52, 53. In his putative assumption, they see the evidence that he is insane. '^Oazc^ differs from the simple oc, in that it includes the idea of character. V. 54-56. The Father is the ultimate cause of all that Christ is, consequently the ground of his ability to affirm of himself what is so exalted. As the Jews are the servants of falsehood, inasmuch as they pronounce the dkij&sia of Christ to be (pvJdo^, Christ would be a ^£u6c — iyeusTo. According to Cyrill, Luther, (Walch, iii. 1163,) Bucer, Calvin, Lampe, Grotius, Olshausen, v. Colin, (Bibl. Theol. ii. 95,) the " word," ^o^'oc, is either the command of God by which they are constituted,^ (so that Tzpoc signifies "with regard to,") or it means the word of revelation, by which they were illu- mined. Conceived in this way, we have a climax in the rela- tion of God to the Jewish judges on the one side, and to Christ on the other; the former receive God's word, Christ as the Messiah, is the absolute revelation of God. But can it be shown that all the particular judicial sentences are to be re- garded as prophetic decisions, as divine revelation? Perhaps so in the case of Moses himself, (Ex. xviii. 15, 19 ;) but is this true also of those judges whom he appointed, (v. 25,) and of the priestly judges in the central sanctuary ? (Deut. xvii. 8, xix. 17.) Lampe even remarks that the latter may have judged by Urim and Thummim. Olshausen may have been impelled by feeling the difficulty connected with this point, to embrace the prophets also under these words. The same difficulty had already led Crell to doubt the correctness of this meaning, and to think that "the word of God" referred only to the address contained in the Psalm, and this view has been followed by the more recent critics. Christ, therefore, presupposes an acquaint- ance with the Psalm, and as those addressed in it were judges, 1 In Gerhard's Loci T. xiii. p. 250, the expression is adduced as a proof passage for the diviue right of the magistracy. Discourses at the Feast op the Dedication. 269 there is a climax of official dignity. The judge, as does also the prince, represents by his plenipotence the omnipotent God;* Christ possessed a far higher power, could consequently lay claim in a far higher measure to that predicate, and yet more cogent would be this conclusion, if our Lord had in his eye, that the persons addressed in the Psalm are unrighteous judges. If it be the official dignity, on which is based the justification of the predicate "Son of God," the view, which discovers no more in that term than a title of office, can certainly appeal for confirmation to this passage, and already Camero remarks that this had been done by the hodierni Photiniani, (tlie Pho- tinians of the present day ;) but then, in the first place, the fact would be overlooked, that even here the official name must refer, at least, on the one side to the essence, that it bases itself, nameW, upon the plenipotence, and in the second place, that V. 38 defines more particularly the meaning of " Son of God." In the words, "J said I am the Son of God," elTrop, uVo<; ^eou ecfi:, there is again an absence of exactness, as Christ had not said this explicitly ; it is an ingenious remark of Theodore of Mopsuestia, that there is a designed climax in the antithesis between "gods" and "Son of God," and that, too, a climax ftom the greater to the less. The predicates with which, v. 36, the dignity of Messiah is designated, are certainly not distinct- ive enough, as others besides the Messiah may be sanctified, (consecrated,) and sent, (Jer. i. 5,) still it is like vi. 27, iii. 34, (cf. remarks on latter passage.) It is impossible to mistake the affinity between this argument and the character of the reason- ing in the synoptical Gospels, in which Christ often proceeds with an indirect argument, (Matt. xii. 27, xxii. 43.) The pro- cedure of Jesus forms a remarkable contrast with the other cases mentioned by John, in which he only states anew more strongly what had given offense. — The xai ou — /J ypw^ remains to be considered. The subject of 6?;re is 6 vo/zoc, or -^ Ypa, (v. 15, 40, 42, 45, Chrysostom, Mich^lis,) at the same time with the disciplinary aim of testing the faith of the sisters, (Heumanu, Matt. xv. 26,) and thus perfecting their faith — does not his very purpose lie at the root of the promises concealed in verses 23, 25, 26 ? Strauss, to be sure, pronounces it immoral in Christ to let his friend die, in order to glorify himself by a miracle, but Ebrard has very justly replied: "He, to whose omnipotence it was just as easy to raise a dead man as to heal a sick one, performed not only 7io less an act of goodness, in permitting the sickness of Lazarus to run to a fatal termina- The Raising of Lazarus. 275 tion, and then raising him, but did in fact the very same thing with only a change of form." — V. 8 shows that the impression made upon the minds of the Disciples by the recent commo- (iou in Jerusalem, was yet vivid. Nbu, as in classic usage, in a more extended sense, Acts vii. 52. V. 9, 10. The answer is clothed in the form of a question, which serves to make it more impressive. In explaining the parabolic language, the question rises, whether the same image is pursued in v. 10, or whether there is a turn in the thought. The former is the more simple, and with Melaucthon, (Liicke, also, 3d ed., and Schweizer,) we explain it thus : Day and night, tlie opposition of the period in which business is to be trans- acted and of that in which it cannot be done, consequently the time for one's calling and that not devoted to our calling. The time for our calling has its determinate measure — the day in Palestine was divided into twelve hours, varying somewhat in length according to the season of the year, (see on i. 40.) During the day, that is, during the life spent in our calling, the sun is visible, so that we do not stumble, that is, we incur no dans:er. Outside the calling there is dano-er — the iv in v. 10, (iv auTuj,) which is so singular, may be translated by " before, with," (Winer, p. 168, 1 John ii. 10,) yet it is not impossible that Christ, or the Disciple who reports his words, had given to the thought the turn, "there is no light in himself."^ The Saviour, therefore, first of all, quiets them with the thought, that if, as in this case, there be indisputably a divinely appoint- ed day's work, the man to whom it is assigned will always be protected. — By many others, " the day," rjfjtipa, is regarded only as the designation of lifetime, (Zwingle, Bucer, Le Clerc, Titt- mann, Maldonatus, Meyer,) by which this advantage is gained, that the interpretation of the first half is approximated to the meaniug of the expression ix. 4 : " Even to the closing hour of the day appointed me, the divine protection will not fail me ;" but if the latter half can, in this view, be explained in no other way than either with Heumann : (with perhaps an appeal toxii. 35,) "the night of death is coming, when my work will 1 Schweizer: "The man who shuns the way of God, betakes himself to darkness, and first falls into real dinger, because the true light is not in him " — " an expres- ^oa which forsakes the image, and belongs only to the counterpart." 276 Chap. XI. — v. 11-19. be broken off;" or witb Meyer: "I shall not fall until the appointed period of my death has come;" this would be doing violence to the language, nor can the passage, xii. 35, be brought in with propriety here. In the main point, De Wette, by another way, coincides with our interpretation : " The twelve hours of the day are an image of the space in which a morally pure and prudent business has its play ; the light of this world signifies the light of the Spirit, from which purity springs ; the night, in part, want of prudence, partly impurity ;" but the taking of ^[xepa in this sense, has this against it, that then the limitation to the twelve hours does not suit, and the exposition of (paj^ TOO xbajjLou is unnatural. According to Chrysostom, Lampe, Neander, by the "day," we are to understand the time of Christ's presence, by the "light," Christ himself, so that the words contained a comforting assurance for the Disciples ; so long as he was present, no evil could befall them. V. 11, 12. The xal ixzza rooro Xiyec indicates a j^ause. As Christ in v. 4 spoke of Lazarus as still sick, but here speaks of him as dead, it is probable that in the interval he had died ; the acquaintance of Christ with the fact is obviously referred to his supernatural knowledge. The solicitude of the Disciples had, in v. 9, been allayed by pointing out to them that in the path of his vocation no evil can befall a man ; and now they are encouraged yet more by having their sympathy aroused in the lot of Lazarus, for which reason, too, he is styled 6 (p'do^ jy /iftiv, [our friend.) "WTiat is the Saviour's reason here, as well as in the case of the daughter of Jairus, Luke viii. 52, for designating death as sleep ? As it was his purpose speedily to call back his friend to life, it was a natural and at the same time a more tender expression, which lends no aid to the mod- ern imputation, that " the Christ whom John paints is osten- tatious in his miracles." The Disciples would still more readily think of a deep sleep superinducing a crisis in the disease, if they had regarded what was uttered in v. 4 as an intimation of Christ's intention to heal him at a distance. V. 13-15. The language of tender indirectness is now exchanged for an explicit declaration, and our Saviour's pur- pose in permitting the sickness to go on to death is expressed in direct terms, to wit : the strengthening of their faith — for we The Raising of Lazarus. 277 are here to understand TTtazeuscv, of a more exalted measure of faith, see on ii. 11. V. 16. Siofxa-, equiv. to oUn, "twin." John in but three instances furnishes us with traits of this Disciple, namely, here and in xiv. 5, and in xx. 24, seq.; but they arc in such harmony as to furnisli a picture of character. Intellectual reflection pre- dominates in this Disciple, immcdiatcness of self-surrender and of trust was in defect ; here, consequently, he is unable to lift himself up to Christ's word, he gives proof, indeed, of some devotion, as for love of him he will not shrink from death, but he shows faint-heartedness enough to doubt whether their lives will be saved. V. 17-19. Jesus does not enter the village, he waits until Martha comes, in fact, has Mary also to come out to him, (v. 28, 30.) Why was this? Was it that he desired to avoid dis- play ? According to the ordinary view, it was simply because of the fact that the place of sepulture was outside of the village, and this view is favored by v. 31. — Since Chrysostom, the four days have been computed thus : On the day on which the messenger started Lazarus died, and he was buried on the same day, (for proof that this w^as usual, see Acts v. 6, 10, and Jahn, Archiiol, i. 2, p. 427.) Jesus still remained two days in Pertea, one day was needed for the journc}' of from twenty- three to twenty-nine miles from Pera^a to Bethany, thus Jesus would arrive on the fourth evening — but could that which folloAvs occur then on the same evening ? According to our view, (expressed on v. 11,) Lazarus was still alive on the day on which the messenger arrived ; the fact, moreover, has been lost sight of, that according to the rsra^oraToc, " the fourth," v. 39, Lazarus at the time of the arrival of Jesus could have lain in the grave three days only, and here in v. 17 the fourth day, yet incomplete, is counted with them. We may regard it as cer- tain, that Jesus did not make the whole journey in one day, for he went to the sepulchre the day he arrived, as a compari- son of V. 17 and 39 shows, and he must, consequently, have spent parts at least of two days on the road ; we ma}', there- fore, suppose that Lazarus died in the night which followed the arrival of the messenger and was buried the day after, and that this part of the day on which he was buried, and the fourth, 25 278 Chap. XI. — v. 20-31. which was not completed, are included in the computation of V. 17. — The nearness of Bethany to Jerusalem^ is mentioned to show that it was easy for the friends who testified their sym- pathy, to visit the sisters ; according to Maimonides, de Luctu, c. 13, § 2, the stated condolences lasted for seven days. The d;ro gives this force : "lying at the end of fifteen stadia," (ten stadia are equivalent to the modern geographical mile of sixty to the degree,) Winer, p. 513. The al vrepc in ancient Greek, desig- nates the principal person and the company surrounding him, but in Plutarch and his cotemporaries it is a paraphrastic ex- pression for one individual. Acts xiii. 13, is an instance of the older usage ; here, however, we have the later usage, as the too d.dtl(poi) abzaJv shows. V. 20-22. The similarity of the character of Martha and Mary in John, (connect with this narrative, chap. xii. 1-8,) with the depicture of the same character given in Luke x. 38-42, is very remarkable. Martha (probably the elder sister,) appears here also as the active one, expressing her thoughts, (v. 39 ;) Mary is more completely absorbed in her anguish. As the tidings of Christ's arrival become known, Martha goes out for the purpose of meeting him, while Mary remains at home. Of Mary it is said, that she sought to indulge her sorrow by visit- ing the grave. While Martha is at once disposed when she meets Jesus to converse with him, Mary sinks at the feet of the Master weeping and uttering but a word, (v. 32.) Both sisters at the glhnpse of Jesus express in their first words a regret which breathes their confidence in him ; a regret that he had not been present. Bengel : Ex quo colligi potest, hunc earum fuisse sermonem ante fratris obitum : utinam adesset dominus Jesus ! (from which may be gathered that before their brother's death this had been their language : O that the Lord Jesus were here !) In the minor of the conditional proposition the pluperfect is here connected with av;in v. 32, the aorist has a similar meaning, (see iv, 10.) The assuredness of the conviction that the pres- ence of Jesus would have prevented the death, is in itself no little evidence of strength of faith, but a greater one is found 1 The village is still in existence, and is three-quarters of an hour's ride from tho Damascus Gate of Jerusalem, Robinson, i. p. 130, (ii. 99-101, of the Ist ed., i. 431, last cd. Tr.) The Raising of Lazarus. 279 in V. 22, if what is there uttered is, as it appears to be, au expression of the hope of a restoration from death, which may, it is true, have been excited by the assurance which Christ had given, V. 4. V. 23-27. Jesus testing her faitli at first, still speaks inde- terminately; this indeterminate declaration is regarded by Martha as a repression of her ardent hopes, v. 22. With sub- limity and power, Jesus directs the glance of her faith upon his own person as the centre. In his own person lie the powers of the resurrection, (negatively,) and the !^coyj, "the life," (posi- tively,) see ch. v. 21, and Deut. xxx. 20. He is the vanquisher of death for the dead and for the living, faith is in both cases the condition; "though he were dead," xdv dTro&duY^, and "whosoever liveth," rrac o C^v, stand in opposition. It is im- possible to mistake here as to the use which the Redeemer makes of the event for the promotion of faith on the part of the sisters. Martha, like Peter, vi. 69, confesses her faith in that Messiah who is the raiser of the dead. V. 28-31. Filled with joyous hope by the words of the Saviour, she hastens to her sister, and (only to arouse her to make haste, shall we say?) tells her that the Master calls her; she does it " secretly," Id&pa, desiring that the interview should be confidential, mindful too perhaps, in her love, of the peril which had recently threatened Christ in Jerusalem. The Ori- entals, to this day, (ISTiebuhr, Journey to Arabia, i. p. 86,) repair frequently, as in ancient times, to the graves of their loved ones, see Talmud, tr. Seraachoth, c. 8, "For three days the grave of the dead is visited ;" as Maiy hastens to the vicinity of the place of burial, the Jews who were present suppose that she is about to perform that duty, and hasten after her. V. 32-34. "With the same words whicli her sister had used, she meets Jesus, casts herself reverentially at his feet, and weeps in silence. What is the meaning of iuSjSpi/iijffaTO — ia'jTovt ^E/jij3oi/idofiac, like ^ocacuo, j^pi/iahco, means in the predominant usage, "to be moved with indignation, to threaten vehemently," (Suidas, Ilcsychius, Etymol. magn., Passow,) and is so used in the iSTeu' Testament, Mark xiv. 5, i. 43, Matt. ix. 30. Retain- ing this signification, taking a wrong view at the same time of 280 Chap. XT. — v. 34-37. the true human nature of Jesus, Chiysostom and Euthymius interpret : " he reproved his own rising emotion," {tuj rtps'jfxau ;) C}Till, Theophylact: "through his divine nature he chided the human;" Theodore of Mopsuestia, Lampe: "he was angered at the unbehef of the Jews, (v. 38,) and of the sisters also." Reverting to this latter way of taking it, the most recent critics, Strauss and Fritzsche, maintain that it is entirely in keeping with Christ's character, as John delineates him, that as a thau- maturgus easily aroused, he should fly into a passion at every exhibition of a refusal to believe, in fact, should quiver with indignation, (cf Fritzsche, in the Allg. Litteraturz, 1840, !N'ro. 100, and 1841, Isro. 115.) Jesus, it is true, w^eeps, and asks sadly : Where have ye laid him ? — but his question, according to Fritzsche, is rather put in anger; his tears, according to Strauss, prove no more than that the passion of anger had passed over into that of sorrow. The Jews indeed, according to V, 36, see in the tears of Jesus a token of his love, but Strauss sees in this only an illustration of the t^-pe of John's representation, according to which, the enemies of Jesus put a false interpretation on all his actions. In this case, the ancient enemies of Christ certainly made no such misinterpretation ; that was reserved for his enemies of modern times, and they have made it with a pei'verseness to which we shall not pay respect so far as to involve ourselves in a controversy with it. "We proceed to a more particular examination of the meaning of ifx^pciidofiac : the analogy of the language, if not the usage, justifies the adoption of the meaning, "to be moved with grief." Dp:[xdoiiai designates the noisy manifestation of emo- tion, not only of indignation, but also of fervor ; ^pcfidaau), which is related, designates a shaking with j^^tulayice ; j^pdacrco, when intransitive, means "to ferment," when transitive, "to shake violently " — ip^pi/mopiai could therefore be used of the shaking, of the groaning produced by grief It is related to fremere, which is also used in speaking of sorrow, Virgil, ^n. vi. 175, Ovid, Metam. iii. 628, (528, tr.) Gesenius, Thesaurus, takes fremo as the primary definition of 'li'i, and as special senses "with indignation," "with sorroiv.'' Tip T.Mzbpa-i may be con- eidered parallel with iv kaoTuj v. 38, and we compare in addi- The Raising of Lazarus. 281 tion, Mark viii. 12, dvaarevd^a^ rijj Ttvvjfiazc, that is, internally, though perhaps accompanied by a suppressed sound.^ Tapdaaiji with la'jTov, paraphrastical for the middle zapdaazadai^ yet with a prominence of the spontaneity, (Winer, p. 234 ;) according to Liieke, it is spiritual agitation, as in ch. xiii. 21, izandy&ri zuj Tzvs'j/iazi, but the reflexive form would then be less eas}'- to explain; let the fact rather be recalled, that it is this vehe- ment, deep-seated, inward sorrow by which, more than by any other, an agitation of the upper part of the body is produced, (Euthymius.) If, then, the language marks the profoundest emotion of sorrow, the question arises, what was its object? According to Augustine, Olshausen, sorrow over death in gen- eral, over the mournful features of human life ; according to De "Wette, it was, "that the sisters whom he loved could not have been spared this sorrow," (compare, however, verses 4, 15, 42.) By Calvin and Maldonatus was already made the just observation, that the reason is clearly expressed in v. 33, the tears of Mary drew forth the tears of the Jews who followed her, and the sympathizing Saviour enters into this sorrow, (Rom. xii. 15;) yet a general sympathy with the griefs of human life may also be comprehended, (Calvin.) But, if it be asked, why weep, when the next moment life is to be restored to the dead ? we reply with Neander : the sympathizing phy- sician in the midst of a family drowned in grief — will not his tears flow with theirs, though he knows that he has the power of giving immediate relief? The same agitation is exhibited a second time, when the Saviour is standing by the grave, (v. 38.) V. 35-37. On the way to the grave, which was at hand, the internal agitation finds vent in tears; the love of Jesus to Lazarus leads some of these Jews who seem to have been well- meaning, but who were not aware of what had passed between him and the sisters, to put the question with surprise, why Jesus had not brought help at an earlier period. K they had appealed to the earlier raisings of the dead in Gal- ilee, the suspicion of the critics would have been excited, that this narrative was a fiction of a later author, who had * Under the word " ergrimmte," Luther embraces both meanings, ia Acts xvii, 16, that of anger, and in this passage, that of mournful emotion ; see Walch, B. vi. p. 1097. 25* 282 Chap. XI.— v. 38-46. those accounts before him ; now, however, as these citizens of Jerusalem (very naturally) make their appeal to the last great miracle which was fixed in their memories, Strauss urges Luke vii. 17, and presumes they must necessarily have known of any other restorations from death, had there been such. V. 38-40. The rich Orientals buried their dead in sepulchres hewn in the rocks, (Matt, xxvii. 60,) through which were pass- ages of the kind that may be seen to this day in the Cata- combs at Rome ; on both sides of these passages were openings (rj^3j) in which the bodies were deposited; many of these caves entered into the earth horizontally, others perpendicularly; iTTsxecTo, therefore, may just as well mean laid upon as laid against, cf. Nicolai, de Sepulchris Heb. c. x. 11. — What is Martha's object in the words, v. 39? "Would she deter Jesus, because it is now too late ? (Schweizer.) Or would she with- hold from Jesus what could not but be physically revolting ? (Bengel.) We think that our Lord's answer shows that in her mind despondency was predominant, which was not necessarily entirely relieved by the hope which had been aroused, (v. 28.) That corruption had actually taken place, it must be admitted, cannot be satisfactorily proven from her language, for the yap shows that she does not speak from direct knowledge.^ The Apologists attach all weight to the fact, that putrefaction in Oriental countries takes place sooner than with us, and it is unquestionable that in warm climates the corpse in a relaxed condition goes into decomposition without the intervening condition of rigidity usual with us, Burdach, Physiol, iii. § 634. But we should not forget that the occurrence must have taken place in winter, (see on x. 22, and 40-42.) She is aroused from her despondency by a reference to the promise, v. 23, where indeed there is a verbal difierence in the phraseology'', (cf. v. 4, and on x. 26.) V. 41, 42. Jesus solicits the Father for the miracle, as in vi. 11, yet he himself performs it, according to v. 11, 24, 43, and and so in vi. 6 also ; but chap. v. 19, 26 and x. 18 have already shown that in every thing that is done by Christ, the Father is to be regarded as absolute cause ; we have, moreover, on the 1 It is a matter of some surprise that Lazarus had not been embalmed, as the sisters had nard at least in the house, (xii. 3. ) The Raising of Lazarus. 283 part of Christ, perhaps, to imagine only a soliciting factor, to whom a process in the dead person, reducible to a divine caus- ality, is respondent. AYhat now occurs is an answer to a prayer of Christ — when did Christ make that prayer ? Bengel thinks it was in v. 4, but if we could suppose that the Redeem- er may have called every internal reference to the absolute ground of his own proper being, a prayer, this question could hardly be raised. Strauss finds something to stumble at in that the words addressed to God are interrupted by a reflection de- signed for those that stood by, and thus the prayer becomes, as Weisse styles it, a prayer for show. But does there not lie in this so-called reflection a monition to those that hear, and can we then allege that the reference to God, and the reference sug- gested by love to those that hear, exclude one another ? V. 43, 44, Does the act of restoration to life commence with this call? John appears to have thought so, but the thanks expressed in v. 41, permit the supposition that the moment of awaking was earlier, and that the call only eflected the coming forth of him who had already been restored to life. In the interest of the natural explanation, Ilase, 1. c. § 99, remarks : death can only so far be brought into the question, "as in the mysterious approximation of death and life, life again by the interposition of Jesus overcame death," and Kern: (Tubing. Zeitschrift, 1839, 1 11. p. 182,) "Except that here also, the possibility must be admitted, that life had not been absolutely interrupted, but had only vanished to that point at which, without the vivific influence of Christ, it would have been separated from these earthly relations."^ But can this view of the case be reconciled with verses 14 and 25 ? — In the same way as the Egyptian mummies, ever}' limb was sepa- rately wrapped ; the linen cloth, crouddrjiou, on the mummies extends down to the breast. V. 45, 46. It might be anticipated from what has preceded, 1 Were it otherwise, it has been asked, why did not Lazarus speak of that which is beyond the grave ? But had lie even done so, we would have had no reason •whatever for surprise, that John should say nothing of it. We should remember, moreover, the cases of persons apparently dead, who, though on waking, they have declared that they experienced something extraordinary, yet with a sacred reserve, have refused to give any account of it. 284 Chap. XL— v. 45-52. that among tne friends of the family there would be suscepti- ble hearts, and the sequel confirms this ; in some of the others, however, in this case, as too frequently elsewhere, was verified what Calvin says; "Those who have not a strong fear of God, and reverence for him, though they should see heaven and earth mingling together, with inflexible ingratitude would never cease to reject sound doctrine," (apud quos non viget Dei metus et reverentia, etiamsi ccelum videant terrse misceri, prsefracta in- gratitudiue sanam doctrinam respuere numquam desinent.) The pretended internal grounds opposed to the credibility of the narrative, have been considered in the preceding remarks ; in closing, we return to the difliculty which has been urged among recent writers, especially by Schneckenburger, iiber den Ursprung des ersten kanon. Ev. (" On the Origin of the first Canonical Gospel,") p. 10, seq. — the silence of Matthew in regard to the raising of Lazarus, a difficulty which has been met by Kern, iiber den Ursprung des Ev. Matthai, (" On the Origin of the Gospel of Matthew,") only so far as rather to cast the shadow of the suspicion on John. It is urged that not only must the other Evangelists have mentioned this rais- ing from the dead, as one of the greatest of miracles, but they had the additional reason that it had the most direct part in bringing about the final catastrophe, the death of Jesus. The opinion (Grotius, Olshausen,) that the silence of the other Gospels, was occasioned by a foresight which desired to shield Lazarus, is encumbered with too many difficulties. Hase pre- sents the correct solution : " The secret lies in the circumstances common to the synoptical Evangelists, and which have led to their silence in regard to all the earlier events in Judea," thus Kern, Liicke, Neauder. If the synoptical Gospels have resulted from a uniting together of single groups of narrative iu the oral or written tradition, if especially, the history of the pas- sion was transmitted as a whole, we can comprehend how a single particular, and especially this narrative, which is only preparatory to the catastrophe, may have been omitted ; Mat- thew and Mark are silent, too, in regard to the raising of the young man at Nain. Determination to put Jesus to death. 285 The Determination of the Sanhedrim to put Jesus DEATH. — V. 47-57. V. 47, 48. The Sanhedrim perceived that the decree of ex- commuuicatioii did not suffice to deter men from believinc: in Jesus. In order to terrify those that were favorable to him — and, as Calvin, correctly regarding the springs of mental action, has observed, — in order to tranquilize their own consciences, the matter was represented in such a way, as to create the im- pression that political danger threatened, in case Jesus was generally recognized and proclaimed as king of Israel, Calvin ; Sceleri obtenditur speciosus color, boni publici studium — ita hypocritfe, etiamsi intus coarguat eos conscientia, postea tamen vanis figmentis se inebriant, ut videantur peccando innoxii, interea mauifeste secum ipsi dissident, (" a specious color, the desire to promote the public welfare, is put upon their crime — thus h}'pocrites, though conscience is inwardly reproving them, intoxicate themselves with empty fancies, that they may seem guiltless of sinning, meanwhile they are clearly in conflict with themselves.") "Ozc^ which is left untranslated by Luther, is elucidative of the thought which remains to be supplied: "something must be done, for this man, &c." ToTto^ may designate either the land, the city, or the temple ; connected with aytov, it is used of the temple. Acts vi. 13, Matt xxiv. 15, without dyco:;^ 2 Maccab. v. 19, Acts xxi. 28, where, however, it has ohzoz with it. We might suppose that b t6~oz xal to It^voc, was phraseologic, like the German "Land und Leute," "land and people," (Eras. Schmid, Bengel,) but there are no examples of such a use. Al'pztv, " to destroy," used both of men and things ; ^ix(ov, however, may be connected with al'pecv, and be taken as the genitive of separation, (Luke vi. 29,) and then aiptiv means "to take away." V. 49-52. The passionate reproach of the high priest: "Ye know nothing at all," obx dloazs oboh, censures them in gene- ral for debating on a matter where the proper course was so obvious. It was certainly remarkable that the man who bore the office of high priest the year that Jesus was put to death, and who consequently cooperated in producing his death, should 286 Chap. XI. — v. 53-57. in these words involuntarily express the purpose of God in that death, (Schweizer;) he thus became like Balaam, as it were, a prophet against his will, (see Tholuck's Supplem. to comm. on Epis. to Hebrews, Beilage, 2d ed. p. 21.) Paulus, Kuinol, Liicke. De Wette, supposed that the Evangelist regarded the gift of prophecy as connected with the office of high priest, and find this thought expressed in the words, v. 51, "being high priest," apitzpio^ wv ; but Liicke himself, 3d ed., now con- fesses, that no express warrant for that opinion can be fur- nished ; moreover, why on that supposition would the words, "that year," r. hcaozod ixecuou, be added? The Evangelist could not have meant it merely to fix the chronology of the event, after v. 49 this would have been superfluous ; we have in xviii. 13 the same formula again, where De Wette is satisfied with the answer, that the z. ivcaurou ixelvou is a " mere mechan- ical repetition." "We would be much more near the truth in finding in it this meaning: "Who precisely in this memorahle year was high priest," (Lampe, Schweizer.) Let us now direct our attention more closely to the interpretation which the Evangelist puts upon his words. Caiaphas had only spoken of the theocratic people, John gives to his words a reference to the geiiuine people of God, and with a retrospect to x. 16, speaks of a union of all nations, which is to be effected through the death of Christ. On the expression, " the children of God," texva TOO d-sou, Chrysostom observes : " Those that were to become such," drro too /jti?2ouTO!; easa&ai, Calvin: "Erant in Dei pectore filii," "in the bosom of God they were already sons." Y. 58-55. Christ now escapes into the region of Jordan lying north of the Dead Sea, as in chap, x., after the commo- tion, he went to Peroea. Jerome says that Ephraim lay twenty Roman miles north of Jerusalem ; Eusebius makes the distance eight Roman miles, (the Roman mile was about 1614 yards.) It is difficult then, however, to see how it could have lain near to the wilderness, to wit : of Judah ;i it seems, therefore, that 1 This Ephraim is by Lightfoot, Reland, and rfthers, regarded as the same with the one mentioned in 2 Chrou. xiii. 19, and by Joscphus, de bello Jud. iv. 9, 9, and ■with some probability, as both passages point to a site north of Jerusalem. It irould have lain then in the neighborhood of Bethlehem ; ou the way from Jericho Determination to put Jesus to death. 287 another Ephraim must be intended. The wilderness of Judah not only stretched to the north corner of the Dead Sea, but beyond it as far as Gilgal, cf Tholuck's Exposition of the Psalms, Fs. Ixiii. On this view, the synoptical Gospels repre- senting Jesus as coming from Jericho to Jerusalem, and John representing him as coming from Ephraim, are in harmony, for by that site of Ephraim runs the road to Jericho. — The ;fw^«a, V. 55, is the vicinity of Jerusalem. Those who were unclean were obliged to purify themselves previously to the Passover, by sacrifices and other ritual observances, (Numb. ix. 10, seq. 2 Chron. xxx. 17, seq.) V. 56, 57. Ti dox£7 ujuTu is connected with what follows by the Vulgate, Ethiopic, Erasmus, Wahl, and is translated by the latter as a prseter: "What think you, that he has not come?" Tc doxzT (Toi, however, usually serves as a preliminary question, and as regards the tense, the aor. conj. after ou /iij but seldom marks past time, (Hartung, Partikell. ii. p. 156 ;) nor had the time for coming completely expired, so that it is better with Beza to translate: "That he will not come?" Thus the sus- pense on the part of those who repaired to the feast is brought before our eyes, and by the xac, v. 57, the expectation of the rulers of the people that he would come, is made coordinate with it. to Bethel, Robinson, found a frightful wilderness, (ii. 560.) Where, however, fl ipifioc stands without any thing additional, it either means the desert of Arabia or of Judah, perhaps the desert of Jericho. — As for the rest, the road from Jericho to Bethel is a day's journey. CHAPTER XII. Jesus anointed by Mary. — v. 1-8. Y. 1, 2. A WEEK before tlie feast Jesus makes his appearance. The genit. zou ndaya is to be resolved into Tipo zou r.day^a.^ and npo £^ jfjiepaju is equivalent to ec rjfxipa/;, as we say in German : " vor drei Tagen geschah es," (literally, " before three days it happened,") meaning on the third day. Amos i. 1, Septuag. Tipb duo izcov zoo (reiafioo, Thucydides, Hist. ii. 34 ; Ttpdzpiza, equivalent to triduo ante, three days before. It has been made a question, hovs^ these six days are reckoned, whether they in- clude the terminus a quo and ad quern, or only the term, a quo, or exclude both ? (cf Jacobi, in the Stud. 1838, 4 H. p. 894, and iTeander, 1. c. p. 593.) It is not probable that the journey and arrival took place on the Sabbath, they occurred perhaps, therefore, on Friday late in the evening, the meal-time would then be that which was observed at the beginning of the Sab- bath.^ We should have expected from the traits of Martha's character given in chap, xi., and in Luke x. 38, seq., that she would attend to the domestic arrangements, and give expres- sion in this way to her love for our Lord ; according to Matt, xxvi. 6 and Mark xiv. 3, the entertainment was given at the house of Simon, who formerly had been a leper — a circum- stance which, when we consider the similarity which aside from this exists in the other particulars, is not of sufficient import- ance to justify the supposition that two distinct facts are de- scribed ; the question might be asked, whether he may not have been Martha's landlord, or even her husband? (Heumann.) 1 According to tr. Schabbath. c. xvi. 2, cf. Maimonides, three meal-times -were obflerved, Friday evening, Sabbath morning and Sabbath evening. (288) Jesus anointed by Mary. 289 Montion is made of Lazarus sitting at the table with them, as evidence of his complete restoration. V. 3. This superabounding token of love which our Saviour accepted in such a way as fully to acknowledge its merits, is in perfect keeping with the character of ^Mary. It was not un- usual to connect the anointing of the feet with the ablutions which took place previous to entertainments, cf. Luke vii. 46, the Talmud tr. Menachoth, f. 82 ; Aristophanes, Vespse, v. G05 : xai Ttpcoza /iku -j duydzr^p [xs d~o'A^7j xal zch Tzod' dhc6vrMv shows, that we are to sup- pose that there were proselytes among them. Their reverence for a teacher so honored is too great to permit them to address him directly ; but their request appears so extraordinary even to Philip, (Matt. x. 5,) that he fii'st consults with Andrew, his friend, (i. 45.) 6i)xo is used, also, to designate a desire, (1 Cor. xiv. 5.) V. 23, 24. The answer of Christ cannot well be looked upon as a refusal of the request — at any rate, if v. 23 could be so regarded, v. 24 could not. If it could be urged that, strictly speaking, they desired only to see Jesus, not to speak with him, it might be supposed that he was ready to comply with their desire, and on that occasion made to his Disciples the address that follows. The leadinsr tlioui^-ht in that dis- course is this, in the longing of these Gentiles is an anticipation of the future conversion of the world. Bengel : Prreludium regni Dei a Judais ad gentes transituri, (a prelude to the speedy transfer of the kingdom of God from Jews to Gentiles.) Zwin- gle already makes reference to iv. 35, where, too, the first fruits u 26* 294 Chap. Xn.— v. 25-28. excite anticipations of the harvest. The "glorifying," do^aa- fjid;:, therefore, both here and in v. 28, has a more special reference to the acknowledgment of Jesus in the world, (v. 32,) in connection with which at the same time "the glorify- ing," oo^aa/^o^, of God was brought to pass, (xvii. 2, 4.) Inas- much, however, as subjection to death was the medium of that glorious rising, as v. 25 immediately expresses that sublime thought, we may here suppose the death also to be included. The dying seed, which only throws off the visible integument, in order to unfold the inner germ to a tree, is a striking image of the Redeemer, who laid off all the external characteristics separable from him, that he might rise again as a spiritual principle in the great congregation, for which the path of deepest humiliation is the path of exaltation — as Heumann so significantly said : " The cross is but a star shorn of its beams;" corresponding with this is viii. 28.^ V. 25, 26. The law, whose force he acknowledges for him- self, is the law for all his followers. That life which hesitates to lift itself into the divine, in which alone the ovrcoi; ^co^, (1 Tim. vi. 19,) can be found, destroys its own true existence. In the language of poetic inspiration, this truth is with special frequeiicy set forth in the East, but just as commonly in a pan- theistic mode of apprehension ; the Oriental mysticism and phi- losophy demand that the form should be destroyed, which should rather be transfigured.^ — ^^f/i^ like t^a^., means both "self" and "life," for the self is the life. The usage of the Evangelist alternates between lauvbv aTtoXiaac and rrjV ^oyyiv azoXiaac, (losing himself, losing his life,) Matt. xvi. 25, Luke ix. 25, cf. the Greek (pclo(po-/^eiv. In both instances here the meaning of "life " is to be retained. Mcatip, in accordance with the Hebrew 1 From my Anthology of Oriental Mysticism, which certainly presents many yet unused parallels to Biblical phraseology, Olshausen cites the words of Dschelaleddin, (p. 109.) " Widely sow the wheat deep in the lap of earth, Soon the golden, rifh. lar;^e ears of grain have birth; When again the flail shall smite the ears in twain, From the beaten ears comes bread to nourish man." 2 Dschelaleddin, 1. c. p. 102 : " Know the world of men is Imt a glass, my son. Pilled with drops 'which from God/s fount of being run. Is the wide world, then, with the streets of heaveii, But a single glass from Ilis life stream riven. Hasten, break the glass ujvm the stonf. in twain. That tilt drop may mingli with the stream again." Desire op Gentiles to see Jesus. 295 usage, is comparative, as iu Luke xiv. 26, " to value less." Our life like ourselves should plainly not be the object lixed on as the highest aim, but should be subordinated to that which is the truly highest aim. By this subordination it is lifted up, (tollere,) already in the contracted sphere of time becomes lim- itless and eternal, and is thus lifted up too in such sense as to be above all danger, (conservare ;) cf. with (puld^et the ^cooyoveTv^ Luke xvii. 33. The Saviour was about to give up his mortal life to promote the highest aim, and in this his Disciples are to follow him, and like him they shall be partakers in that "glory," Jocaoc £/£fv fJitza Tcvoi;, which is to be explained less by reference to Luke xii. 46, than by the Hebrew phrase 3 'h pSn. t^:, (Gesen- ius, Thes. s. v. p'^n,) is this: "to participate with any one in something." De Wette in adopting the sense : " Thou hast no fellowship with my lowly frame of mind," is neither sustained by the usage of the Hebrew phrase, nor by the context. Gro- tius more correctly : Non eris particeps meorum bonorum, "thou shalt not partake in my blessings." Maldonatus : Renuncio amicitiae tuse, "I renounce thy friendship." The Jesus avashes his Disciples' feet. 321 change to an expression of the very opposite character per- fectly corresponds with the sanguine-choleric vehemence of Peter. Chrysostoni : xai iu zf/ rrayaiz/^nzc (T(fody6^, xac iu zfj auf^ioyijatc aifooinKzoo^ ycuzzac, kxdztua nk ic dyaTZTj^^ " In his deprecation he was vehement, m his yielding more vehement, but both came l'n)m his love." As this expression reveals that no thought Avas so fearful to him as that of being sundered fi'om the Lord, v. 10 now presents a recognition of his devotion on the part of Christ. V. 10, 11. First of all let it be noticed, that Xoua&ac, in contradistinction from vinztad-ae^ signifies not "washing," but "bathing," nSoq, and refers, therefore, to the purification of the entire body, and not of a portion merely. Sometimes a bath was taken before a meal, and on leaving the bath the feet again became soiled ; now if Jesus and his Disciples had bathed that evening, these words may be regarded as simply furnishing the reason why the feet only needed to be washed at that time, (Heumaun, Tittmann, De Wette,) and the figurative language first comes in with xai biiti^ xzh But if the words, "clean every whit," xa&apbt; oXo^, are to be taken in a physical sense, does not the direct linking on of the thought, "ye are also spiritually pure," seem too abrupt? Most writers, therefore, give also to the first words of the sentence a figurative sense, either exclusively or at the same time with a literal one. In v. 8 already, some had found a symbolical meaning intimated and the washing designated as a sacramental action : " K I w^ash thee not by baptism, from sin," (Origen, Augustine, Lampe ;) in this place, where we have not merely vcTtzeiu but ?Musa&a:, this mode of apprehension is yet more obvious ; the Reformed expositors, however, as Lampe, Cocceius, substitute for baptism the regenerative operation of the Holy Spirit, the washing of the feet is then the daily forgiveness of the sins of infirmity, or according to the Catholic apprehension, the sacrament of penance, poenitentia. But as the words are at the same time an answer to v. 9, the proper sense cannot be abandoned. It is, to be sure, merely problematical that Jesus and his Disciples had bathed, but there is no difficulty in supposing a reference to what usually occurs, as when a person comes from the bath it is common for him to have need afterward to wash his feet, 322 Chap. XIU.— v. 12-19. yet is otherwise clean, thus the heart of the inner man is pure in you, (Neander.) If even the action had not been intended to have the symbolical meaning, yet this very exclamation of Peter which preceded it, in which were so beautifully revealed the pure depths of his soul, and at the same time was brought out the contrast between this genuine Disciple and the be- trayer — this very exclamation must have given occasion to this turn of it. His declaration had shown anew how thorough was the internal hold which Christ had upon him, (vi. 68, 69,) now he who had received Christ's word so deeply into his inner nature was pure, (xv. 3,) only the extremities were yet to be purified, it was ouly needful that the internal principle should unfold itself further and penetrate the whole man, while in the case of a Judas this principle was wholly wanting. In these words, as in the whole scene of love in which he too was allowed to be a partaker, there was for Judas a final persuasion and warning. V. 12-17. Now follows the meaning strictly had in view in the feet washing. In the mouth of the Disciples, 6 xiipco^ corres- ponded with the title an, and dcddaxaXoc: with nio ; how decidedly Christ claimed this high position among them, is shown by Matt, xxiii. 8. The nominative in Greek and Hebrew is also used for the vocative. The unwillingness to perform the feet washing had been on the side of the Disciples an " example," uTrodeiyfia, of selfishness, the action of Jesus was an "example," bTzbdzcfua, of condescending love ; it is not therefore the deed in itself considered, which is the grand thing, but the tone of mind exhibited in it, and the explanation given by Chrysostom, Augustine, that humility is the hardest, and at the same time the most characteristic virtue of Christianity, is confirmed by the exhortation in v. 17, as our Lord directs attention to that great chasm, which especially in the case of this virtue, lies between knowing and doing. It is clear that the idea that a sacrament is instituted here, is entirely out of the question, nor, furthermore, is the action linked with a promise. As long as feet washing was rendered necessary by the use of sandals, it was practiced as a work of love, (1 Tim. v. 10,) at a later period, it was retained as a suggestive s^'mbolical rite — first of all, in conformity with a reference of v. 10 to baptism, it was Jesus washes his Disciples' feet. 323 annexed to the ceremony of baptism/ then as a repetition in the strict sense of the original S3'mbolical action, was used in the Church of Rome, in which the Pope and Catholic monarchs, on Maunday Thursday, performed it on twelve poor, old men. The remarks of Bengcl may always have a fitness as regards this : Magis adrairandus foret pontifex, unius regis quam duodecim pauperum pedes seria humilitate lavans, "the Pope would do a more remarkable thing, if in unfeigned humility he washed the feet of one king, than he does in washing the feet of twelve poor men," and yet there glides into the mind what Claudius so beautifully says of ceremonies that have become empty : " They are the little flags which reach forth over the water, and mark where a ship with her rich lading has sunk." Luther on Gen. xliii. 24, commends in a case of actual necessity, the washing of feet, as an act of love ; in the Moravian fraternity, the ques- tion whether it shall be performed, or not, is left to the deci- sion of the stewards of the particular divisions, (Chore.) V. 18, 19. The thought previously aroused in regard to Judas once more strikes our Lord, but why and for what end is Uyto introduced ? Does it point to the fiaxdpioc ? (Maldon- atus, Bengel.) Yet this expression is used conditionally and of the future. It has in view the entirely reciprocal relation of ministering love, which could have no applicability in the case of Judas. The recent expositors pass too lightly over the i^eh^d/jtr^v. Does Christ intend to say, that one of them does not belong to the chosen ? But he says the reverse in chap. vi. 70: "Have I not chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil?" It would seem at first view as though the idea of Augustine, Calvin, Zwingle, was justified; it looks as though ixUyer^ was here employed in an emphatic sense, " to choose to true fellowship, to salvation." But would the citation that follows be in that case introduced with d//' ? The divine ordi- nation would then in fact be a notion coordinate with the pre- ceding. We would then be compelled with Maldonatus to interpret: Quomodo ignorare possum quales sint, quos elegi, "how could I be ignorant what kind of persons they would be whom I have chosen?" The reflection on the divine ordi- 1 After tlie fourth century, the feet of the newly baptized vrere washed, Augus- tine, Ep. 119, ad Jan. c. 18, Bingham, Autiq. Eccles. iv. p. 304 324 Chap. Xni. — v. 20-26. nation would then serve to produce a tranquilizing influence, (see on xii. 38.) After dXld we must supply iyivezo, in the same way exactly as in xv. 25, 1 John ii. 19. The quotation from the Psalm, (Ps. xli. 10,) speaks of a treacherous revolt on the part of a table companion, that is, of a most intimate friend ; the lifting up of the heel refers to the kick of a horse, (an image of similar character is used in Gen. xlix. 17.) Here, in fact the language is used of one who arose from the supper of love to consummate an act of betrayal, who so far from washing the feet of his Master, lifted up the heel against him ; hereby, too, Christ has become like David his type and ances- tor. 'ATzdpTi, in classic usage "just now," so the Ethiopic. The fulfilling of prophecy a seal of the Messiahship, xiv. 29, also. V. 20. So little connection subsists between this and the preceding sentence, that there has been a disposition, with Gabler, Kuinol, to regard it as a gloss taken from Matt. x. 40, but — laying aside the want of evidence — it is too decided a difference in the expression. Marked sentences, too, of the same sort, as may easily be shown, were repeated by Christ on different occasions, (see on xii. 25, Matt, xviii. 4, cf. here, also, V. 16 with XV. 20.) The prevalent opinion, in confirmation of which Olshausen appeals to xv. 20, seq. (?) is, that as the trial mentioned in v. 18 pertains to the Disciples as well as to the Master, it was his design to furnish encouragement, (Melanc- thon, Grotius ;) but on that supposition the thought seems to be too isolated and abrupt, so that it might be said with Liicke : " The thought of the betrayer, of which Jesus, by the train of thought entered on v. 20, would rid himself, agitates and interrupts him anew." Zwingle, Heumann, regard it as his aim in presenting this glorious aspect, to keep back the other Disciples from an imitation of the apostasy ; according to Piscator, Calvin, is shown : Injustum esse, ut quicquam ex dignitate apostolica imminuat quorundum impietas, qui in ofi&cio perperam versantur, "that it would be unjust to detract from the apostolic dignity, because some who held it were guilty of acts of wickedness." Departure of the Betrayer. 325 Departure of the Betrayer from the circle of the Disciples. — v. 21-30. V. 21-26. It is in keeping with Christ's character, that the thought of the faithless Disciple mightily agitates his inmost soul. It comes out yet more distinctly in v. 21 than in v. 10 and 18, and in v. 26 is exj-tressed in the most direct manner. We must suppose from v. 27 that the presence of the hetrayer was oppressive to the Holy One of God, and that the declara- tions were indirectly designed to cause him to depart. The question rises, did he leave before the institution of the Sup- per ? The other Evangelists make no mention of his depart- ure, but what Matthew says, xxvi. 30, 31, and the fact that Judas does not until a later period (v. 47,) return again to the circle of the Disciples, implies that he did. In Matthew and Mark, the scene of the conversation in regard to the betrayer, which corresponds with the account in John, precedes the Sup- per, but Luke, who, however, has much that is not precise in the history of the Passion, places it after the Supper, (Luke xxii. 21.) As we must suppose the feet-washing to have taken place at the beginning of the meal, and these discourses are closely connected with it, we must, in consonance with Matthew and Mark, suppose that they preceded the institution of the Sacrament, a view which is confirmed by the fact, that v. 31, seq. form a suitable introduction to the institution. A conclu- sion could less safely be drawn from what is said in tr. Pesa- chim, c. 10, and Maimonides in Lightfoot, on Matt. xxvi. 26, in regard to the order of eating the Passover. After partaking of the Passover, two of the bread-cakes were solemnly conse- crated, and wrapped about with bitter herbs were dipped into the sauce, with which part of the meal the breaking of the bread in the Lord's Supper would most naturally connect itself. If the (^uoacop, V. 26, is to be interpreted by reference to this, that feature of the institution certainly would not be very remote. Yet even in advance of the eating of the Passover, herbs and parsley were dipped in the sauce and handed about. The guests lay at the table supporting their heads with the left arm, which rested on the cushion, enabling the next person to 29 326 Chap. XIH. — v. 27-35. lean the back of his head upon the breast of the one who reclined by him. Just as characteristic of Peter as the delinea- tion is vivid, is the curiosity of this Disciple to know to whom the Saviour alluded aa his betrayer. "When Strauss, from the preeminence assigned to John in this picture, draws proof that the author of this Gospel was an intriguer, who designed to give by it a preponderance to the' party of John over that of Peter, we can only designate the author of such a fancy as a Rabulist, (pettifogging pleader.) The reading in v. 24, found in Cod. B C L and Origen, is worthy of remark : xai Uyec ahzlii' ecnk, Tc(; i(jTci>, Tzspt ob Uysi, which implies that Peter presumed that John was already in the secret. V. 27-30. Up to this moment we may suppose that there was a vacillation in the soul of the betrayer, whether he should execute his agreement or not ; the increasing distinctness of the declarations of our Lord may have been in correspondence with the increasing distinctness of the purpose within the heart of Judas, and not until now, when his determination to give up his Lord, fully ripened, is fixed in his soul, (James i. 15.) can Jesus no longer endure his presence. On the comparative rdyiou, where we would look for the positive, (1 Tim. iii. 14, Acts xvii. 21,) see Winer, p. 219, (Eng. tr. p. 191.) If we are to imagine not merely that the words of Jesus, v. 27, but his declaration also, v. 26, were spoken aloud, we must interpret v. 28 under the supposition that the Disciples did not anticipate so speedy a performance of the deed of darkness, or at least did not dare to suppose that these words of the Lord which summoned Judas to the deed, were to be referred to it. On V. 29, see above, p. 313. It was night when the betrayer departed — certainly before midnight, for the Paschal Supper could not be prolonged beyond midnight, (tr. Pesachim, x. 9.) Olshausen observes, that the words, "it was night," rju de vu^y arouse in the reader a reflection on the affinity between the deed of Judas and the time and hour, but had the Evangelist designed this, he certainly would have used the word ffxoua, (darkness.) Discourse op Jesus after Judas' departure. 327 Discourse of Jesus after the departure of the Betrayer. V. 31-38. V. 31-33. !N"ow the decisive moment has been reached as regards the cup of suffering, and at the same time as regards the glorification of God through Christ in humanity ; Olshau- sen truly says : "We are entering into the Holy of Holies in the Passion history. To what a pitch of exaltation we must sup- pose the Saviour's mind to have risen, is shown by the antici- pation of the entire future which lies in the word " now," wv^ a. future which, as v. 33 renders still more clear, already stood before his soul as a thing of the present, (cf. xvii. 11,) al- though immediatel}'' afterward the future is again used. In what consists the being " glorified?" Must we not regard the do^anjioz, which is here spoken of in the proleptic aorist, as the same of which v. 32 speaks in the future ? Most assuredly — here, too, chap. xii. 28 is to be compared. Bengel : Jesus passionem ut breve iter spectat et metam potius prospicit, "Jesus regards his sufferings as a short journey, and loves to look at the goal." As now he who becomes partaker of that glorification is the same person who utters in regard to him- self the expressions, xiv. 11, xvii. 21, it is of course not the glorification of the human subject isolated from God that is meant, but rather this subject that is reflected in God himself. The glorification of God in Christ is God's becoming manifest in the world through him ; the glorification of Christ in God is Christ's becoming hidden in him. According to Coloss. iii. 3, also, Christ is "hid in God," according to Acts iii. 21, he is at present hidden in heaven, according to both passages there is to follow upon this latency the yet higher grade of " appearing in glory," 6uo>, dydTzr^; oi o\) z7j^ xazd <^6/jlou, dA/.d z7^^ 0-kp loiioii. ^ Ex-I fikv ydp zb \4j-a7:rj(Tsi:; zbv TzXyja'tov tt»c kaozbv, Ivza'j&a os zb, xa'9oj^ ■/jyd~r^aa upu^, o'r/^ di^ ka'jzbv dXX u~sp eauzov, "Being about to ascend into the heavens, he lays as a foundation of all good the law of love, of a love not according to the law, but of a love above the law. For there it stands : ' Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself,' but here, ' as I have loved you,' not then as thyself, but above thyself." But is it not rather true, that alike in an impure and a pure self-love exists a desire that others should be ready to sacrifice themselves for us, so that "to love our neighbor as ourself " embraces on our part an act of sacrifice of this very sort ? There lies then in these words no antithesis to the Old Testament command, but if Christ in applying in general this word " new" to the " commandment," as he does to the " covenant " in the Lord's Supper, has used Discourse of Jesus after Judas' departure. 329 it with a reference to the Old Covoniint, it expresses distinction merely, not antithesis. The Old Testament may be diversely interpreted, the objective ideal of absolute love has first given it concrete shape. Here absolute self-renouncing love appears, the love of the high and holy for the lowly and sinful, (Horn. v. 6, 1 John iii. 16,) the love which regards it as more blessed to give than to receive, (Acts xx. 35,) the a^^embracing love. Though the discourse points merely to the love of the Disciples to one another, yet their love was to be like that of Jesus to sinners, a love, therefore, which was to extend itself beyond their own narrow circle. It may be a matter of inquiry, how- ever, whether Christ did not at the same time, if not exclusive- ly, refer to his own earlier instructions, (Bengel, Knapp, ISTean- der;) his death, which was so close at hand, would furnish the very occasion for speaking of that which had not previously been the subject of discourse, (xvi. 4.) — Brotherly love in this form had never been seen in the world, as it presented itself among these earliest confessors, cf. Acts iv. 32, ii. 4G, seq. Neander's Denkwiird. Th. 1, p. 97, (Memorials of Christian Life, &c. translated by J. E. Ryland. London : Bohn, 1852,) Arnold, Abbildung der ersten Christen, B. 3, and the remarks on chap. xvii. 23. The heathen often exclaimed in amaze- ment : (Tertul. Apol. c. 39,) " See how these Christians love one another, and how ready they are to die for one another !" In Minucius Felix, a heathen says of the Christians: "They love ere they know each other," and Lucian, in Peregr. says derisively of the Christians : " Their law-giver has persuaded them all to be brethren." V. 36-38. The question of Peter seems to be connected with V. 33. Although the following is, according to the con- nection, simply a following into blessedness, yet we are led by ch. xxi. 22 and 18, to find in it an allusion to the death by martyrdom, so that the duuaaa:, perhaps, embraces also an ethical reference. Without a clear idea of the nature of the following, Peter simply thinks that danger is in the path, and is confident that he can brave it. Earnest yet forbearing is the tone of the question addressed to the Disciple who speaks so confidently, cf. in the synoptical Gospels, Matt. xxvi. 30, seq. Mark xiv. 26, seq. and especially Luke xxii. 31, seq. 29* CHAPTER XIV. Comforting Discourses in reference to His death. V. 1-31. It is worthy of attention, that the manner of expression in ch. xiv-xvi. has a decided and peculiar impress, whose prominent traits are a childlike tone, and a certain suspension and diffuse- ness in the character of the delineation. Not only do we fre- quently miss the connection and progress of the sentence, but even in the separate sentences, the thought, or at least the ex- pression, (especially in xvi. 10,) is often not clear. As the peculiarity of character in these discourses renders them less easy to remember, so they actually give token that they have received from John that impress peculiar to him, which we observe in his first Epistle. The conversation of a charac- teristic sort, however, which is intermingled, xiv. 5, viii. 22, xvi. 17, and especially the misapprehension, xvi. 29, which could not have been invented, proves that we have not before us a mere fanciful subjective composition. Throughout the whole, too, is kept up a reference to the separation, and it is comprehensible psychologically, that this point of his history would be the very one at which Christ (to use Knapp's expres- sion,) would begin to speak with the Apostles, remissiore animo et familiarius, ("with a freer mind and in a more familiar tone.") No where throughout the entire Gospel has the language of Christ such perfect artlessuess, a character so adapted to the minds of his Disciples, as here, (xiv. 2, 3, 16, 18, 21, 23, xvi. 23, 24, 26,) as Luther says : " He speaks, as he must, who would charm and win the simple ;" in using these (380) Comforting Discourses in reference to His death. 331 very expressions, then, for the purpose of doctrinal theology, there must not be too anxious an adherence to the letter. V. 1. The Disciples were not indeed aware that their Lord was approaching a violent death, but they now knew and were troubled at the thought (xvi. 6,) that a separation, though it were but temporary, was before them. On the words TnaTsosTe xtL Erasmus already remarks that they may be taken in four ways, zcars'jsTS may be taken both times as imperative or as in- dicative, or the first time or the last as imperative or indicative. Luther translates both as indicative, Olshausen takes the second one as indicative and as a consequence of the first, in which case, however, the future would have been used; the Vulgate, Beza, Grotius, with more justice, regard the first as indicative; nevertheless, whether it be taken as a question or not, the second half cannot, without some violence, be attached to the first. It is better, therefore, to take both as imperative. Faith in God is faith in God's guidance and care, faith in Christ is faith in his word, (v. 11,) w^th a prominence of trust, (src-) v. 2, 3. At this very point where the discourse has so child- like an air, the reader has been led to take up a false impres- sion by overlooking this very artlessness. "We put a period after e7~ov du uiM\j; because, however, the Greek and Latin expos- itors could not conceive of an assurance so childlike as would then lie in the sentence, (Calvin : si me unum maneret ccelestis gloria, noUem vos frustrari, " if glory in heaven awaited me alone, I would not have deceived you,") they connected d ok fxrj — totlov bfuv^ and the reading of a number of important \vitness- es, by which an o-ci is put before T.opz'jonat, has arisen from this interpunction, and from the interpolation of an 6tc relativum after zl-ov, to give a clearer meaning. This reading, however, gives no clear sense whatever, see Lampe, Knapp. The dis- course perhaps glances back in a comforting manner to xiii. 33 ; the assurance that there is room enough there, belongs to the domain of childlike conception, and cannot well be resolved into a distinct thought, as is the case also with the words, "I will come again," Ttdhv Ip-f^oiim, which the old inteqireters referred to the general judgment, here represented as close at hand, at which Christ was to come for those raised from the dead, and Olshausen and Lucke interpret of liis coming again 832 Chap. XIV.— v. 4-9. by the Holy Ghost: "every advance in spiritual communion with the glorified Redeemer augments in his Disciples the surety of the life of heavenly blessedness." On the other hand, in the words "to prepare a place," zd-rtov kzoc/maai, we may observe a fundamental idea, as Christ also is the mediator of the heavenly bliss, Calvin : natura exulat humanum genus a regno coelorum, " mankind by nature live in exile from the kingdom of heaven." V. 4-6. They might now have known that the Father in heaven was the goal, and death the path to that goal, but ac- customed as they were to the figurative character of Christ's dis- courses, they are not certain as to his meaning here, and Thomas, intelligent and reflective, expresses this not without some agita- tion, in the words, "If we knew the goal we might perhaps surmise the way." The fourth verse had indeed spoken merely of the path and goal of Christ; as the Disciples, however, have the same path and the same goal, and as the question of Thomas, too, perhaps, also carried an allusion to this, Christ an- swers by giving a new turn to the thought, and now designates the Father as the goal, and himself as the way — to wit : for the Disciples.^ Many regard ^ojt] as the leading idea, as for exam- ple, Grotius, who explains 636^ as the exemplar, alrjd^ua as the doctrine, ^cdt^ as the goal and issue; according to the connection, however, the leading idea is rather j boo:;, as the explanatory ouosk: xXt. shows ; too strong a distinction is drawn between the three ideas, when with Luther (viii. p. 71, ed. Walch,) and Calvin we interpret: "Ego sum principium (rudimenta fidei,) medium (perfectio fidei) et finis (beatitudo,) "I am the begin- ning, (the elements of faith,) the middle, (the perfection of faith,) and the end, (blessedness in heaven.)" On the other hand, however, it blends them too much, with Tittmann and Kuinol, to connect d^d^eca merely adjectively with o^oc, "^Ae true way to ^2/6," Augustine : vera et vitalis via, " the true and life-giving way." WXi^&eca and ^.a^-q rather express the mode in which Christ is the way, so that we may compare Hebrews x. 20, where Christ is called bob;; ^coffa, inasmuch as he is the life- giving way to the Father. Zwingle : Qui in Christo ambulat, 1 Fritzsche, Opusc. p. 105, in order to avoid the supposition of a turn in the dis- course, takes a wholly different view, according to which the connection between v. 5 and G is this: "He who is the way to God as I am, clearly must, when he departs from men, go to God, and this can only come to pass by his laying off mortality." Comforting Discourses in reference to His death. 333 nee falli nee mori potest, "he who walketh in Christ can neither be deceived nor die." From this then it follows, that true union with God must always be through Christ as its con- dition, (1 John ii. 23, 2 John 9;) De Wette, not improperly, adds : " The particularistic principle, that no man cometh to the Father but through Christ, in its bearing on thosd who have never known him as an historical personage, is softened by the fact that he is also the Eternal (ideal) Logos." V. 7. ' Eyu(6x£{Z£, not, with Luther and Kuinol: "if ye knew," but "if ye had known." It is indeed singular that immediately on this our Lord seems to ascribe this knowledge to them. When indeed we compare the prces., e. g. in verses 17, 19, the presumption offers itself that here, too, Yiv(of7X£Ts and kwpdxaTs are to be taken in the sense of the future, that d-dnrc means "from henceforth," and that \h.Q-mc before drApn is adversative ; but in ktopaxazs the perfect excites a doubt, so that Chrysostom and Lampe, though they take yiuaxTxevs as future, yet in hopdxare adhere to the meaning of the perfect, Chrysostom : " Soon will ye know him, and ye have already seen him, (to wit : without knowing him.)" Maldonatus, and more recently Fritzsche, decide that the taking the meaning as future, is entirely inadmissible ; but is a prophetic prolepsis of this sort less admissible here, than with do^aa&ri, v. 13 ? (Kuinol, Liicke.) Still there is another mode of taking it which answers better, not indeed as it is presented in Olshau- sen, but as we have it in Calvin, Maldonatus, Grotius: dTcdpzi in the sense of "even now," Calvin: Deum illis jam nunc conspicuum patere, si modo apcriant oculos, " God would now be revealed to them, if they would but open their eyes." An addition of this sort conveying a reproof, connects better with the preceding, than a promise full of hope would, and 6 kcopaxcix; — rrazipa, v. 9, may then be regarded as a resumption. V. 8, 9. As the Disciple does not understand in what sense the Father had alread}^ been seen by him, he desires such a manifestation as the prophets had ; the dpxe7 /j/juu has not indeed the same depth of meaning as Ps. Ixxiii. 25, but exhibits an artless pious heartiness. In virtue of the unity with God, expressing itself in Christ's will, knowledge, and power, our Saviour had already, ch. viii. 19-42, pointed to the fact that 334 Chap. XIV. — v. 10-14. the invisible Father was to be seen in him, Bengel : Sicut anima, quse per se non cernitur, cernitur ex eo, quod ilia per corpus agit, etc., " as the soul, in itself invisible, is seen by what it does through the body." V. 10, 11. In regard to the reciprocal relation in this unity, see on x. 38. Christ points to the two manifestations by which they should recognize the unity, to wit: the words and the works. The want of congruity between the affirmative portion of the proposition and the negative is striking, as instead of 7:octi xa Iftya we would expect lalEl za pQiiaza. Calvin, Nosselt, and others, have from this circumstance understood ipya to mean doctrina, but we have already recognized it as a peculiarity of John, that his counter propositions do not always exactly cor- respond, (cf. on viii. 28,) at times the substance of the second proposition goes beyond that of the first and embraces it, see especially 1 John i. 6, 7 ; it is, consequently, allowable with Bengel, Liicke, De Wette, to suppose that za ipfa comprehends the XaXtiv. But a difficulty by no means slight presents itself in V. 11, where the ipya are mentioned in antithesis to the doc- trine, and ahzdy "the very works," seems to strengthen the assumption that ipya in v. 10 must have exactly the same meaning, (compare besides x. 38.) Although now we are will- ing to allow their full force to the objections urged by Fritszche, (opusc. p. 109-114,) against a strict limitation of the idea, (in opposition to Liicke, who appears, however, completely to have overlooked them,) yet we cannot assent to the interpretation given by him, (and still earlier by Grotius :) " I speak not of myself, but the Father doeth the miracles which serve for con- firmation ;" for, 1) di, which clearly marks an antithesis, is thus looked upon as merely a connecting word; were it so used here, then the ipya, in order to be perspicuous, would absolute- ly require tlie addition of something, as perhaps, divinse lega- tiones documenta, (proofs of a divine mission ;) 2) for consist- ency's sake, then, the meaning of " miracle " is retained by Fritszche in v. 12 also, and psc^oua would then express a promise of more extraordinary miraculous acts. We suppose that even in a writer unlike John it would not seem too strange entirely, that the same word should be used successively, in a broader, and then with an allusive particle indeed, in a narrow- Comforting Discoukses in reference to His death. 335 er sense, but still less can this excite surprise in the case of a style whose character is so blending as John's. V. 12-14. The discourse takes anew the direction of conso- lation, and the childlike form, as at the beginning of the chap- ter. The going to the Father corresponds to the sitting at the right hand of God, w^hich, in accordance wath the Old Testa- ment usage, occurs in the first Evangelists, (Mark xvi. 19.) It designates, consequent!}-, the entrance on the fullness of divine power, from which results the enlarged influence of Christ upon the world through the agency of his Disciples, a thought which had been expressed before, iv. 38, xii. 32, and is found again, xvi. 10, while the thought, that the Disciples would one day do more remarkable miracles, has nothing analogous else- w-here. "We would say, therefore, that ipya has the same mean- ing here as in v. 11, " miraculous works," nevertheless, (in the same sense in which Lessing once said, that we are amply in- demnified for the want of Christ's miracles, by seeing his prophecies in regard to the Church fulfilled,) the foundation of the Church itself may be designated as the greatest of miracles. If we only recall to our minds, that the number of Disciples w^iom Christ left upon earth hardly comprehended more than six hundred and twenty, (one hundred and tw^enty in Jerusalem, five hundred in Galilee,) that on the other hand, the result of the preaching on Pentecost alone was the conver- sion of three thousand souls, this expression does not seem surprising. Thus Luther : " The Apostles and Christians would advance further in their operations than Christ did, and bring more to him than he had done while in the body on earth. — Every single Christian is (through faith) such a man as Christ the Lord himself was upon earth, and executes such great things that he can govern the whole world in divine matters." — The medium of such great operations is the prayer- ful exaltation of believers to God in the name of the ascended Saviour. On iy ovbiiarc roi> Xpiazoo, compare Ilarless, Brief an die Epheser, p. 483, seq. ^ Ovofia is the sum of a personality, "Wahl intei'prets -co wo^a '' Ir^aou : "Jesus, with all the ideas and all the memories connected with his name." To speak, pray in the name of any one, that is, having him present to the mind, having reference to him, and in the case before us the 336 Chap. XW.—y. 15-19. reference may be of a subjective sort: "in trust upon Christ, and having his mind," and of an objective sort: "looking to the aim he had, and to his kingdom." The designation of the object of prayer by o, n dv, is, indeed, altogether a general one, nevertheless, all the objects of life should be settled with a reference to the kingdom of God. Already by his desire that prayer should be offered in his name, on which still more stress is afterward laid in chap. xvi. 24, Christ claims for himself the mediation through which prayer is heard, a claim still more strongly put forward in the words, "that will I do," iycb Tronjaco. The necessity for this mediation is apparently excluded in chap, xvi. 26, 27, but this appearance is simply the result of the childlike mode of expression, for in fact the mediation lies in that which in v. 27 of that very passage is given as the reason for which they will be heard. v. 15-17. Another fruit of the departure to the Father, is the sending of the Spirit mediated ("I will ask," ipcoryjaco,) and conditioned by it, (xvi. 7, Acts ii. 33, cf. on John vii. 39.) This Spirit is designated here, and in xv. 26, xvi. 13, as the Spirit of truth, 7[VEd[ia tyj^ d?.y^d^eiai;, that is the Spirit who is the principle of truth and imparts the truth, (xvi. 13,) consequently the gen. vossess. et effect.; this truth, however, is not a power for the intellect merely, but for the feelings and the will also, and this Spirit is consequently called, v. 26, "the Holy Spirit," to ttu. to dycov. Bengel: Veritas omnes in nobis virtutes veras facit, "truth makes all true virtues in us." This Spirit is distinct from the personality of Christ, is "another comforter," aXXoz TtapdxXv^To^, and yet in v. 18 he is again conceived of as iden- tical with Christ, for he is the power emanating from the personality of Christ, ix too ifiou ?.ij