f * *rt«vW ¦fti^i ^v^ E~ "J^sfwe tii/t Booh for Vie famuSng tf a. ColUgi Oi^lUI^ Cototiy" o iLHiBi^^iFiif o Gift of MISS SARAH S. LANE 1931 .l»lM«mM».llM»!»«! COMMENTARY GOSPEL OF ST. JOHN. A. THOLUCK, D. D. »* » PROFESSOR OK THEOLOGY IN TBE UKIVKRSITY OF HALLE. TRANSLATED KKOM THE GERMAN Bt Rev. A. KAUFMAN, Minister of the Episcopal Churcli in Andovor, Mass. BOSTON: PUBLISHED BY PERKINS AND MARVIN. PHILADELPHIA . HENRY PERKINS. 18 36. Entered according to Act of Congreag, in the year 1836, by PERKINS AND MARVIN, in the Clerk's Office of the District Court of Massachuaelts. A ND O V E a : Gould & Newman, Printers. TRANSLATOR'S PREFACE. Professor Tholuck is so well known, and his writings are so universally appreciated by American scholars, that it is unnecessary to offer any apology for presenting the public with his annotations on the Gospel of St. John, in an English dress. Irrespective of the fact that these annotations come from his able pen, nothing is perhaps more wanted in the theological domain than a good Commentary on the Gospels. On this interesting and most important part of the Bible, wherein are contained the History and the Instructions of the Redeemer in his human manifestation, our language of fers the student little that is valuable in a critical and doc trinal view. We would here except the learned " Recensio Synoptica" of Dr. Bloomfield, and his own very valuable Commentary on the New Testament. These evince such a copiousness of learning, and so much patient labour, as in the estimation of many to leave but little to be desired in this department. Yet even these faii in one very important feature, necessary to the perfection of our Biblical Literature. For in our apprehension they are confined too much to the letter, to grammatical analysis and classical comparison, whilst the spirit, the living Spirit, is often misapprehended or neglected. 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 ac quaintance with language and a nice perception of its force, together with a clear insight into the spiritual nature of man. These characteristic excellencies are more or less exhibited in the work before us ; and with these traits of excellence there is no man more interesting than our Author upon the theatre of Germany, nor indeed upon the literary arena of any nation. He stands forth pre-eminent among the learned IV f RANSLAT&r's PREFACi;; ones of that learned people ; he yields to none in versatility of mind, in depth and compass of thought, or in variety of knowledge. The principal languages of modern Europe he speaks with ease and fluency, as well as the Latin and Greek ; with the oriental dialects he is familiar, and is, moreover, ex tensively read in the Poetry and Philosophy both of the East and West. His contributions to the theological and philo sophical literature of his country have been very important, having written and edited a number of works rich in learn ing and deep in thought. Some of these, treating of Orien tal Philosophy and Theosophy, have met with the approba tion of the Baron De Sacy, the most illustrious Arabic schol ar in Europe. — But a lustre is thrown over all these attain ments by his deep and earnest piety. Such a fervor and glow of Christian devotion as every where breathe in his wri tings, but more especially in his Sermons, are scarcely to be met with in any writer since the days of the venerable Arch bishop Leighton. Amid the doubters and infidels of Ger many, it is truly delightful to discover such a spirit as Tho- luck's ; learned and eloquent as the proudest among them, lie 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. A sincere interest for the well-being of man, and a true Christian love, are every where discoverable in his writings. Even his philolog-ical works evince them, and they are, withal, free from that frigid lifelessness which char acterize too many of our works on science. However some readers might feel disposed to question a portion of his theo logical tenets, none could fail to admire and approve his spirit. Perhaps the strongest objection which can be urged against such commentators as Tholuck and Olshausen, is the fact that they give too much prominence to the spiritxiat aspect of religion and of our nature, to the almost total exclusion or suppression of the material and mttmard. They seem to forget that we are beings of a compound character, possess ing our souls in material, sensuous bodies ; and that the in- .stitutions of Christianity are adapted to the latter as well as to the former. They seem to forget that the feelings and sentiments of the soul are ofttimes created or coloured by the peculiar outward circumstances under which it has been reared ; and that as a consequence, the religion which is de signed for man in his present state, must have external rites and ordinances as well as inward feelings and hopes. Hence TRANSLATOR S PREFACE. V they seem to place too low in their estimation every thing of an external character; forgetful, meanwhile, of the intimate relationship which subsists between the inward and the out ward, and of the almost absolute and controlling influence which the latter exerts over the former. These remarks might be fully exemplified by adducing what is said on the Ministry, on Baptism, on the Lord's Supper, and on the na ture of external ordinances generally. But He who knew what was in man, and was fully ac quainted with all the wants of humanity, instituted these in connexion with His own redemptive merits, that under their combined influence, enlivened and rendered effective througli the agency of the Holy Spirit, we might be trained up for Heaven. This fact would of itself lead us to infer that they are most important constituents of Christianity, and deserve to be guarded with the most serious and anxious care. And their necessity may besides be vindicated on strict philosophi cal grounds. Wherever the Church is not established with its saving ordinances, there we find iniquity and wickedness to reign : — with the same certainty that we look for igno rance and superstition where science and schools of instruc tion are unknown. But why is this so? Does not the rude Hottentot possess a ray or emanation of Divine Reason equal ly with the German Transcendentalist? Does he not pos sess a mind to apprehend, and a will to comply with the re quirements of Divine truth, equally with the most pious per son on earth ? " Does not the Omiiipresent Spirit, rich in pow er to renovate human hearts, even now brood over tlie popu lous plains and crowded cities of India and of China, as well as over the cities and plains of England 1 Is not God — even our God — locally present among the dense rayriad.s that tread the precincts of idol worship ? Is He not ever, and in all places at hand; and wherever at hand, able also to save ?"* What then makes the difference, in a moral re spect, between the Ciiinese and the English ? Why does virtue and faith reign in the one land, wiiilst idolatry and sin predominate in the other? What cause can be assigned for this but the fact that in the one case they are destitute of the external blessings of Christianity, whilst in the other they are favoured with them ? Why then should we not regard the Offices and Sacraments of the Church as the channels or * .VutliuroC FuMatici^m. TR.iNSLATOR S PREFACE. golden conduits, through which the streams of the Spirit s influence are made to flow into the heart? Or why should we hesitate to believe, that whilst an inward and direct Pow er must be brought to act upon the apostate will, that these ordinances are yet most important media employed by the Spirit of God to operate upon the spirit of man? and that of a consequence they should be devoutly received, and every infringement upon them carefully avoided? — True, indeed, with that worshipper who would be accepted of God, purity of heart must be first and purity of motive must be the last ; but at the same time we should bear in mind that these are more or less superinduced by a faithful use of the external ordinances of Christianity. The Ideas and Doctrines of re ligion must be impersonated before they can exercise a per manent or extensive influence among mankind. An em bodied representation of the Ideal, enlirens our apprehen sions, and kindles our love, and leads us to seek for its reali zation in our own practical life. This was no doubt one im portant reason why Christ was manifested upon the earth, to the end that in the Incarnate Word we might have an em bodied representation of holiness in living and absolute per fection. Equally influential also are the other external means which he has instituted for the purpose of cherishing our growth in virtue. There are not wanting in our own country those who re gard all external forms in religion as fit only for the human race in its infancy ; but since it has thrown off its swathing bands, and .stands forth matured in manhood, these are by them considered as mere trammels to the soul. They have outgrown, they tell us, the necessity of every thing formal in its character ; they think themselves able to rise up to Hea ven by the energy of the spirit alone. To say nothing of the fact that these modern Christians have grown faster in their likeness to the worshippers of the upper Temple than did the Saviour in his human manifestation, and St. Paul in his en deavours to be found at last accepted of God, yet they are evidently " wise above what is written." For it is written in the volume of Inspiration, and it is written in the history of the world, and it is written in the wants of humanity, that these things are indispensable to its well being, and to its healthful growth in conformity to God. The external ordinances of the Church are " the living creatures and the wheels" which the Holy Prophet saw in translator's PREFACE. vii the visions of God that were given to him, whilst he sat among the captives by the river Chebar when the Heavens were opened. To humanity they are the Cherubim on which " the living spirit" is to sit enthroned, and by which it is to be upborne in its aspirations after God. But the spirit also must dwell in and animate the wheels, so that all may move on harmoniously. — " And when the living creatures went, the wheels went by them : and when the living creatures were lifted up from the earth, the wheels were lifted up. Whithersoever the spirit was to go, they went, thither was their spirit to go ; and the wheels were lifted up over against them : for the spirit of the living creature was in the wheels. When those went, these went; and when those stood, these stood ; and when those were lifted up from the earth, the wheels were lifted up over against them : for the spirit of the living CREATURE WAS IN THE WHEELS." A word of explanation in reference to the present transla tor. It is known that this work was originally announced under the name of Mr. Hermann Bokum. A train of cir cumstances which need not here be detailed led to a transfer of the work from him to its present hands. Among the rea sons of the transfer were the fact that the first tr,anslation had been undertaken previous to the arrival of the fourth and last edition, and that the health and other circumstances of Mr. B. did not allow him to proceed as he wished. For these reasons the work was given over into its present hands with the entire wish and consent of both Mr. Bokuin and the publishers. It is not pretended that all the foreign words and expres sions found in this work have been translated. Though it is believed that this has been done in almost every instance, except in the case of Latin and Greek extracts. Not one word of these is rendered in the original German ; and the course pursued by the American Translator was to leave un altered those which were very long, those which contained little else than a repetition of the author's exegesis in differ ent words, and those which could not be of any interest ex cept to such as are rersed in the Greek Language and Liter ature. Wherever a passage was deemed of special impor tance it was rendered into English. In many instances when a Greek word or phra.se is not translated, its import can be easily discovered by a reference to the portion of Scripture designated. So that the intelligent English scho- viii translator's preface. lar can avail himself of nearly every thing important found in this Commentary. One considerable error was overlooked in the revision of the last sheets : Fabii for Zabii will several times be found, by a substitution of F for Z.^Other errors there no doubt are ; and for these the Translator would solicit the indulgence of the critical scholar. May God bestow his blessing upon this effort to elucidate a portion of his Holy Word ; and may He kindle up in many breasts the same spirit which animates the Author of this Commentary, and which animated the Writer on whom he comments ! A. KAUFMAN. Andovcr, Mass, Jan. 183C, AUTHOR'S PREFACE TO THE THIRD EDITION. The Commentary on the Gospel of John has received va rious improvements in this third Edition. In the first place, the complete accentuation has been given. Repetitions, which were rendered superfluous by a reference to the pre ceding exposition, are here omitted. In several places, — though in this respect much remains to be desired, — the ex planations have been made more definite. The meaning of many passages is developed with a greater degree of exact ness and precision. The interpretation of the discourses of Christ has been almost throughout re-written. Notwith standing, the size of the book has not been increased, be cause it was intended to present the matter in a concentra ted form. I am, however, fully conscious of the imperfections which may be found in the present edition of this book ; were it now to be wholly re-written, it would undergo several chan ges. I was particularly desirous of explaining still more ful ly the Scriptures by means of the Scriptures themselves. This becomes possible only in the same degree, that the com mentator has engaged in an exegetical study of the whole of the Scriptures ; and this, accordingly, must be the principal aim of the commentator. I have likewise become more and more conscious, how necessary, in every respect, is axgi- jSfta, 'extreme accuracy,' to the interpretation of those wri tings, which " are written not in the words which man's wis dom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth." On this point Winer, in the third Edition of his commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians, has paid an appropriate com pliment to the ancient and forgotten Bengel : Cum nostra ?ecclesia per aliquantum temporis non vidisset solertem in- terpretem, sec, 18, fere med. exortus est A. Bengelius mag- X AUTHOR S PREFACE. namque sagacitatem in rimandis et presse explicandis ApoS- toll sententiis verboruraque etiam minimorum significalibus consumit. * For some time no skilful interpreter had appear ed in our church, when about the middle of the eighteenth century, A. Bengel arose and employed a high degree of acuteness in diligently examining, and briefly explaining the sentiments of the Apostle, and the signification of even the smallest words.' This extreme accuracy of Bengel, though once, and not entirely without reason, ridiculed by Ernesti, I consider in its combination with the depth of Calvin, as the highest quality of an interpreter of the Scriptures. Of Cal vin, Winer says in another place: miram in pervidenda Apostoli mente subtilitatem, in explicanda perspicuitatem probavit, ' he exhibited a singular tact in apprehending the meaning of the Apostle, and clearness in explaining it.' May the spirit of true interpretation, as it breathes in the writings of tliose men, return to our church in an increasing measure ! A need of such interpretation is felt, and the loudest opposi tion will in vain attempt to suppress it. He who caused this need will also know how to satisfy it ! — In our times at least. Christian life cannot have a healthy growth without Christian knowledge. In spite of all its clamorous opponents, the edi fice of a Christian Theology is erecting ; our ancient faith is justified in respect to doctrinal science, ecclesiastical histo ry, exegesis and criticism, and the Messing from above will secure the influence of these exertions on hearts that are susceptible to them. Soli Deo gloria ! A. THOLUCK. Halle, i'id May, 183]. PREFACE TO THE FOURTH EDITION. Inasmuch as the exposition of the discourses of Christ was laboured anew in the third edition of this Commentary, I have found occasion to alter but little in the present im pression. In the mean time, however, many additions have been made, and here and there some things have been im^ proved. A. THOLUCK. Halle, IQth Feb. 1833, COMMENTARY GOSPEL OF JOHN. INTRODUCTION. § 1. Particulars of the Life of John, the Evangelist. The Evangelist was the son of the Galilean fisherman Zebedee, and of Salome. He was probably born at Beth- saida, a fishing-place near the lake of Galilee, (n'l'^X n''S, locus ad piscatum aptus,) wheneePeter, Andrew and Philip likewise derived their origin. This seems to follow from his intimate acquaintance with them, as well as from their being together. Matt. 4: 18, 21. John 1: 40. The parents of John were probably not altogether indigent. Zebedee had ^tia- ¦Ouaovs, ' hired labourers,' in his service, Mark 1: 20. Sa» lome, likewise, was among the women who assisted .Tesus in regard to his support. Matt. 27: 56, and who bought spices to embalm him, Luke 23: 55 ; and at his death the Redeemer recommended John to take Mary eig id id'ia, into his house. The easy circumstances and the respectability of Zebedee might perhaps also be inferred from the fact, that John was known to the High Priest, John 18: 15. • From these consid erations it may well be concluded, that the Evangelist had received some instruction. In Acts 4: 13, he is numbered among the idicotac, ' uneducated ;' but the Pharisees counted among them all those who were not engaged in the Rabbin ical studies of the law, who were not C^HDll ¦''i''73i:n , Rab- 3 14 INTRODUCTION. binical scholars. Probably at an early period he was inclin ed to seek after divine things. His mother Salome appears to have been a pious woman, because she attached herself at a later date with so much love to Jesus. — It is likewise pro bable that she had occupied herself with the hopes respect ing a Messiah, Matt. 20: 20 ; from which account it also ap pears, that she cherished a strong affection for her children. Such a mother must necessarily have been well qualified to develope early in her children a pioiK disposition ; and this may have been fostered by the peculiar character of a fisher man's life. John must often have awoke during the silent nights, near the water, in a delightful part of the country, resembling the environs of the lake of Geneva, (Ritter, Erd- kunde, Th. II. p. 315). When John, the Baptist, appeared, and announced every where the near advent of the kingdom of God, it was natural that our John, prompted by a pious desire, should join himself to this powerful herald of Christ Besides, according to the uncertain tradition of Theophylact, he is said to have been a nephew of the father of the Baptist, by which his joining the latter would be still more easily ex plained. The Baptist described in prophetic vision the sub lime destination of Jesus ; from himself as preparatory mes- .senger, he directed his hearers to Him who was the true light of the world. The docile disciples now turned to Jesus ; among them were Andrew and John ; the latter immediately, at the first conversation, felt so greatly interested, that he remained with the Messiah, whom he had at length found, from the fourth hour in the afternoon until night. Notwith- .standing, Jesus did not yet attach him permanently to his society. It belonged to the divine wisdom which character ized the teaching of the Redeemer, that he never imposed more on the mind than it was just able to bear. He threw a germ into the soul, and left this to develope itself gradually. This likewise distinguished Christ so greatly from the teach er, who, filled with mere human enthusiasm, is desirous of LIFE OF JOHN. 15 beholding the harvest together with the seed, and thus anti cipates the natural course of human development. John re turned again to his employment. It was some time after, when Jesus was walking near the lake of Galilee, that he first call ed the youth, who, at a former period, had been so strongly excited, to become his constant companion. He had formed in the mean time so great an attachment for the person of the Messiah, that he was immediately obedient to his call. Matt. 4: 21. In his intercourse with the Redeemer, he then mani fested so great a gentleness of heart, such active mental de velopment, so much and such warm attachment, that he be came peculiarly dear to him, which is intimated by John him self, without, however, mentioning his own name, John 13: 23. 19: 26. 20: 2. 21: 7. It likewise appears from several statements in the gospels, that three of his disciples, and John among them, were treated by Jesus with a certain de gree of distinction. Matt. 17: 1. 26: 37. Mark 5: 37. After the ascension of Christ, John took up his residence at Jeru salem, and was there obedient to the request of his Divine Master, in taking care of his mother. Tradition, therefore, infers, that he did not leave Jerusalem before the decease of the mother of Jesus, which, according to Eusebius, occurred A. D. 48. On this tradition, however, no conclusion can be based, since it is only related by Nicephorus Callisti, who lived as late as the fourteenth century, and who cannot always be relied on ; besides, it is easy to explain its origin. John cer tainly was not yet in Ephesus, his later sphere of action,* at the time when Paul was there in the year 58 or 59. For, in the first place, Paul did not wish to labour in places which were already occupied by others; he therefore would not have intruded himself on the field of John : — and, secondly, in Acts 20: 17, John must have been mentioned, if he had been at that time at Ephesus. It was perhaps the death of the Apostle Paul which first occasioned John's leaving Je- rusaJem, that he might be active in those regions, which 16 INTRODUCTION. were greatly in need of an energetic and wise teacher. This would lead us to the year 65 or 66 after Christ During the labours of the Apostle in those regions of Asia Minor, he was banished by one of the emperors to Patmos, one of the Spo^ rades in the Aegean Sea, where he wrote the Apocalypse, according to Rev. 1: 9. Irenaeus, however. Adv. Haer. 1. 5. c. 30, and Eusebius, who follows him in his Hist. Eccl. 1. 3. c. 18, say, that the revelations had been made to John at the end of the reign of Domitian, and therefore the banish ment of the Evangelist must have taken place under his reign. We find besides in Tertullian, Praesc. Adv. Haeret. c. 36, and following his statements in Hieronymus Adv. Jo- vin. 1. 1. c. 14. in Matt 20:23, and in other places, the narra tion that John had been carried to Rome under Domitian, that he had been thrown into a barrel filled with oil, but that he had been saved in a miraculous manner. But as no other ancient writer gives this account except Tertullian, who is not very critical, — ^not even Eusebius, at a place where he had an opportunity to do so, (Dem. Evang. 1. 3. c. 5.) — no reliance ought to be placed on his statement. (Comp. Mo- sheim. Diss, ad Hist. Eccl. Vol. I. p. 497 seq.) After John, in the reign of Nerva, had returned from his exile (Euseb. Hist. Eccl. 1. III. c. 20. and 23, Hieron. Catal. Script. Eccl. c. IX.) he presided again zealously over his congregations, and died at Ephesus more than ninety years old, under the reign of Trajan. § 2. Character of John, the Evangelist. If we contemplate the picture which the Gospel and the Epistles of John present of their author, together with some traits of his life, which antiquity has preserved for us : we arrive at the result, that he was of a gentle, susceptible, yield ing and contemplative nature, ready to improve, easily exci ted, full of deep feeling, and of a living inward intuition. la CHARACTER OF JOHN. 17 this character the qualities of a holy mildness, meekness, hu mility and love are manifested, an entire devotedness of a loving mind to the Saviour and to his brethren, and an in tense warmth which glows for the whole world. In John these qualities by themselves show so divine a character, that we cannot regard them as the product of his natural, human development This becomes yet more obvious, when we contemplate some historical features of his early life. We find him manifesting a blind natural warmth in the instance which is related Luke 9: 54, where he desires with a purely natural violence to have the enemies of the Messiah punish ed. The disposition which he here exhibited seems to have been deeply settled in his character, for on account of this incident Christ applied to him and to his brother, the name oi poaviQyig, (as in Hebrew fi?"l~'';3j and Syriac jAvt i ,_»ii>J^ viol ^QOVTtlg ' sons of thunder,' to remind them always of their internal enemy, Mark 3: 17. We find the vehemence of an unholy selfishness manifested in the oc currence mentioned Mark 9: 38, where he expresses himself enviously in regard to those who had received the miracu lous gifts of the Gospel, without having left every thing be hind, like the Apostles, to follow Christ. The same passion ate selfishness is manifested in the occurrence Mark 10: 35. Comp. Matt. 20: 20, where John, together with his brother, addresses himself to Christ through the medium of his moth er, and requests an earthly distinction in the kingdom of the Messiah. It may, therefore, be well presumed, that those sublime qualities of love, humility and mildness, by which the writings of the Evangelist are distinguished, were the result only of the transforming grace of God, — of the influ ence of the Spirit of Christ on the disciple, who had yielded himself to him. That it was so, is confirmed by experience generally. Even gentle and yielding minds are often ca pable of great asperity in regard to such influences as are 2* 18 INTRODUCTION. disagreeable to them, and particularly of a more refined self- complacency. They hate with the same cordiality that they love. It was necessary, therefore, that even the mind of a John should be first purified by the sanctifying spirit of the Gospel in order to arrive at that meekness, mildness and deep humility, which we find in his writings and in some features of his later life. We shall mention them here, because they belong likewise to a complete representation of his character. The following is related by Clemens Alexandrinus in his book : tig 6 acvCd/Aivog nkoiiaiog, c. 42 : " Listen to a le gend, or rather to a genuine tradition, concerning John, the Apostle, which has been faithfully preserved in memory. At his return from Patmos to Ephesus, he visited the neigh bouring country to ordain bishops and to form congregations. Now when he was engaged in a town, not far from Ephesus, — of which even the name is mentioned by some writers, — in admonishing and consoling his brethren, he beheld a beau tiful and lively youth, who interested him so greatly, that he addressed himself immediately to the bishop of the congre gation in these words : ' Before Christ and this congregation, as witnesses of this solemn act, I recommend this youth to you.' The bishop then took charge of the youth and prom ised to do all in his power. When parting, John again re peated those words. The elder took the youth into his house, attended and watched him, until at last he could admit him to baptism. But after he had received this seal of the Lord, the bishop relaxed in his care and watchfulness, and the youth, too early freed from the restraints of discipline, fell into bad company. At first he was led away by dissipation, and was finally carried so far as to rob those who travelled by night. As a spirited horse, which leaps out of the right course, throws itself suddenly into an abyss, so also did his violent nature throw him into the depth of depravity. He now despaired of the grace of God, and as he was to share the fate of his companions, he was ambitious of distinguish- CHARACTER OF JOHN. 19 ing himself by something great. He assembled his compan ions, and forming a band of robbers, he became their leader, and surpassed them all in bloody desires and deeds of vio lence. After some time, John was induced by some busi ness to revisit that town. After he had arranged all other matters, he said to the bishop : ' Return now to , me that pledge with which I and the Saviour entru.sted thee in the presence of the congregation.' The latter was startled at first, thinking that he referred to money, that had been em bezzled ; but when John said : ' I demand the youth of thee again, and the soul of that brother,' the old man sighed deep ly and replied with tears : 'He is dead!' 'Dead?' asked the disciple of the Lord. — ' And what disease has deprived us of him V — ' He is dead to God' — replied the old man — ' he has be come wicked, and at last a robber. Instead of the church, he now occupies with his companions a mountain.' The Apostle, on hearing this, tore his garments with loud lamen tations, and striking his head, exclaimed : ' O, to what a guardian have I entrusted the soul of my brother !' He at once takes a horse and leader, and hastens to the place where the band of robbers had taken up their residence. He is seized by the guards : he does not flee, but exclaims : ' For this very reason have I come ; bring me to your leader !' The latter in arms expects his arrival ; but as soon as he dis covers that he who approaches is John, he flees full of shame. John, however, forgetful of his age, quickly hastens after him, and exclaims : ' Why dost thou flee from me, O my child ! — me, thy father, an unarmed, an old man ? — Take pity on me, my child ! — Be not afraid of me ! — There is yet a hope of life for thee. I will account for thee to Christ ; I am ready to die for thee, if it be necessary, as Christ has di ed for us. I am willing to give up my life for thee. Stand ! and believe that Christ has sent me 1' — The other, when he hears these words, at first stops with downcast eyes. He then throws away his arms and begins to tremble and to weep 20 INTRODUCTION. bitterly. When the old man approaches, he embraces his knees, and with the most vehement lamentations asks his forgiveness, conferring on himself, as it were, a second bap tism by these tears ; — his right hand only he conceals. But the apostle pledges himself with an oath, that he has obtain ed for him forgiveness from the Saviour ; he entreats him, and throwing himself on his knees, he kisses his hand, which had become clean as it were, by the purifying of repentance. Thus he leads him back to the congregation. He here prays so earnestly with him, and to such a degree wrestles with him in fasting, and so admonishes him, that he finally could return him to the church as an example of a true change of disposition and genuine regeneration." — To this narrative from the life of the holy disciple, which bears so completely the stamp of his disposition, Jerome adds (Comm. ad Gal. Vol. III. p. 314. Mart) this beautiful trait : " When John was very far advanced in age, he was too feeble to walk to the meetings. He suffered himself then to be carried in by his disciples. Being unable to speak much, he repeated con tinually the words : 'Little children, love one another !' — And when he was asked, why he always repeated these words alone, he replied, because such is the commandment of the Lord, and because it is sufficient, if this is done.'' § 3. Language, time, and place, together with the object of the Gospel of John. The testimony of antiquity unites in saying that this Gos pel was written by the Apostle at Ephesus. To this conclu sion we are also led by internal proofs, for the writer pays regard to Hellenistic Jewish Theosophy, and in general, to readers not residing in Palestine, John 2:6, 13. 4: 9. 5: ] 2 ; and finally he shows an intimate acquaintance with the Hellenistic Greek language. When compared to the style of the Apocalypse this acquaintance is so great, that if John LANGUAGE OF THE GOSPEL OF JOHN. 21 the Evangelist, is its author, the Gospel must have been necessarily written at a far later period. According to Iren. Adv. Haer. V.30. 3, the revelations were made (ioifiu&rj) to John near the end of the reign of Domitian, who died A. D. 96. If we assume that the writing of them was immediate ly subsequent, the Apocalypse must have been written about the year 95 ; if we then place the writing of the Gospel in the year 100, (and we can hardly presume that it was writ ten luter,) there would be but the space of five years between the two writings, which is rather too short to account for the great difference of language. But according to Rev. 1: 9 it must be assumed, that the Apocalypse was not written until after his return fi-om Patmos, so that between it and the Gospel there would not even be five years. Now, if the Apocalypse is really the production of the Apostle, the differ ence of style between that, on the one hand, and the Gospel and Epistles on the other, is a riddle difficult to be solved. In regard to the language in which the Gospel was writ ten, we can admit none but the Greek. Salmasius, Grotius, and Bolton assume an original text in the Syro-Chaldaic lan guage ; but in behalf of this assumption the following is all that can be adduced : in the first place. The Aramaean Idioms, glimpses of which appear throughout the Greek ; and secondly. That John could not be expected to possess so great a knowledge of Greek as is there manifested. The first reason, however, can by no means be regarded as a proof, since in all the apostolic writings, the Aramaean forms the basis of the Greek. And in respect to the second, it can be prov ed to be probable, that among the Jews the Greek language was rather generally spoken at the time of Christ, together with the Aramaean ; and that John, therefore, likewise had sufficient opportunity to become acquainted with it. Hug's Einleitung Th. II. p. 42 sq. and the Treatise of Paulus : Verosimilia de Judaeis Palaestinensibus, Jesu etiam atque Apostolis non Aramaea dialecto sola, sed Graeca quoque 22 . INTRODUCTION. Aramaisante locutis, Jenae 1808, And even if the Apostle had not before had the slightest knowledge of the Greek lan guage, his long stay in Ephesus presented him with a suffi cient opportunity to become perfectly acquainted with it ; — nay, it compelled him to do so. The inquiry in regard to the object of the writing of the Gospel is more important. All those who wrote down the evangelical history, had the general aim of spreading and establishing the belief in Christ and of his saving doctrines. With this view Luke prepared his account for Theophilus, as he says in the introduction to his Gospel. John also had this general object in view, as he tells us himself 20: 31. The question, then, is, whether we are authorized to pre sume that independent of this, the Apostle had yet a partic ular aim. The nature of his Gospel might well lead to such an assumption. His Gospel has throughout quite a peculiar, fixed, didactic character, a peculiar doctrinal form. This might lead us to infer that he was desirous of opposing a particular foreign doctrinal tendency. Again, the arrange ment of his narrative greatly differs from the other Evange lists. He furnishes in most respects different statements from the rest. This might lead us to believe that he was de sirous of giving his gospel a determinate place by the side of the others, to fill up a vacuum, which they had left. We might therefore suppose, that besides that general one, John had a polemico-doctrinal or an historical aim. Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. 1. 3. c, 12, says, that John designed to contend against the errors of Cerinthus, the Gnostic. Many ancient and modern theologians have adopted this statement of that teach er of the church, whom they accounted worthy of credence on account of his connexion with Polycarp, a disciple of the Apostle ; several of them, however, have assumed a more general polemical intention against the Gnostics and Doce- tae. Besides, many thought also that they found in the Gos pel a polemical tendency, directed against the disciples of OBJECT OF THE GOSPEL OP JOHN. 23 John or the Fabii (Baptists). So the Socinians : Schlich- ting, Wolzogen ; Grotius, Herder (Erlaut. zum N. T. aus einer neuroffn. morgenl. Quelle, s. 11.) Overbeck (Neue Vers. lib. d. Ev. Joh.) who all refer its polemical character directly to the Fabii ; and also Michaelis, Storr, Schmidt, Hug, Kleuker, who assume that his polemics are directed at the same time against the Gnostics and the Fabii. Some, as for instance, Kleuker, also think they discover polemical views against carnal Judaists. If now, the question be proposed, whether there occur ex pressions in the Gospel, which may serve in contending against Gnostical, Fabaean and Judaizing errors, no one will deny it. This, however, would not prove that John had a fixed polemical aim ; for, when Christianity is taught in its purity, it forms, in and of itself, an opposition against those errors. The nature of the Gospel would not compel us to the assumption of so particular and polemical an aim, except its peculiar didactic character could be explained on ly by certain references, founded on history. This, however, is not the case. That character of the Gospel can be very satisfactorily explained by the peculiarities of the Evangelist himself. (See § 4 of the Introduction.) Still it may be said, that though this be the case, the testimony of Irenaeus, as a disciple of Polycarp, proves sufficiently the assumption of a particular polemical object, since Irenaeus had, no doubt, an opportunity of informing himself concerning the views of the Apostle. Nevertheless, it is well known that the fa thers of the Church, when contending against the heretics, were fond of representing the Apostles themselves, as determinate opponents of heresies. Irenaeus asserts in that place, that John had been desirous of contending at the same time against the erroneous doctrines of the Nicolaitans, which was certainly not the case ; and besides, without being determined by historical reasons, Irenaeus might come to the conclusion, that it had been the fixed intention of the 24 INTRODUCTION. Evangelist to assume a polemical position against the Gnos tics merely from the fact that several expressions of John could be made use of against them. To this may be added, that those passages which are supposed to have a polemical tendency against Cerinthus, (o >,6yog aap^ iyivto, 'the word became flesh,' etc. Storr on the Aim of the Gospel of John, § 43 sq.) and those others, which are thought to oppose the Fabii, (John 1:8. 3: 28, sq.) do not ex actly realize their polemical object as Paulus shows in Introd. in N. T. Capita Selecta, Jenae, 1799; indeed, that Cerin thus might have used some passages of John in his own fa vour, is shown in the same work p. 112. Besides, it would be impossible to trace this polemical object through the whole of the Gospel. Under these circumstances we cannot admit, that John in writing his Gospel had a fixed polemico-doctri nal object in view, still less that this was the principal object. By this, however, we would not contend that the Apostle has not incidentally paid attention here and there as occasion of fered, to the perverted doctrinal tendencies by which he saw himself surrounded, as this appears from the prologue, where he seems to oppose the idle inquiries of the Hellenistic, Jew ish Theosophy. So also Rettberg, An Jesus in exhibenda, etc. p. 9. Still, such an occasional regard paid to the rela tions of his times, is found in every writer. The Apostle has shown this more strikingly in his first Epistle than in his Gospel ; a fact, which very justly attracts the attention of Liicke in his Introduction to the first Epistle of John. It may now be asked whether John had the intention of placing his Gospel in a determinate relation to the other Gos pels. It may have been his design to give a more spiritual representation of the doctrines and of the life of the Redeem er. This thought very readily occurs to those who feel at tracted by the wonderfully sublime simplicity, and heavenly mildness which pervades this whole production, and shows the Redeemer as it were transfigured. The Alexandrians OBJECT OF THE GOSPEL OF JOHN. 25 already, who in general applied to Christians a two-fold spir itual stand-point, gave expression to this thought. Clemens in a lost fragment of his imioTviioiofig in -Euseb. Hist. Eccles. 1. 6. c. 14. says; lov fiivzoi Juiavut^v inyaiov avpidovra, ott, Tu aw^taTtxa ii> To7g luayytXluig didrj- i,wjcti, TTQOTQam'vTa vno rmv yvcoQlfttov, nvsv/Aaio -Oiaqo- gri-Oii/Ttt, nvevfitttixo v noitjaac tuayytXiov. ' But John indeed, the last of the Evangelists, seeing that the carnal had been set forth in the other Gospels, and being urged by his friends and inspired by the Holy Ghost, wrote a spiritual gospel.' In a similar manner Liicke advances the opinion, that the, first three Gospels originated on the foundation of Tilong^ faith, but that of John on the foundation of yi/caoig, knowledge, Comm. Th. I. s. 160 sq. Bpt as John in general relates those discourses and miracles of Christ which the other Evangelists do not mention, several, ancient and mod ern writers have assumed that his leading design was to make his Gospel a supplement to the earlier , Gospels, but particularly to their defective representation of the divine nature in Christ, n^v -Oeokoylai;. So Euseb. Hist Eccl. 1. 3. c 24, and so also Theodor. Mopsuest. in the Catena in Ev. Joh. ed. Corder, Antv. 1630 : d),k' oi nfyl jjji/ '^alav niaioi a^tOTtirnoTiQOv iwv lomojv fig rj/c loii iiayyiklov [.ta^Tvgi'av Jb;avvi^vx(jnitxvxfg fcfcsi rov ftuxuijiov, Ti()0(jrj- vfyy.Uf ^t» uutdj zag lH^kovg,, iiuOili' rjv rivu Tifpt aiixaiv iyii Tt]v So'S.av Tiaij avioZ ^ovXifxivoi. 'U di ijiyi'tof fiiv nig uXrjQilag iocs yfy(xu(fOTug,iqrini d't §Quyf'u /.itv aviolg 7iagaXfke7q&c7) TiXiov' xul ngog rov- TOig unuaiv dyiojzdri] y.ul qgixmStazdzr}, xal zouovTmv yi- jAOvau dnoggrjiwi', xul loaaijzu xofu'iovfja uyuxtu, « zovg ^tizd axgififlug xul ugoOv^ilug Xu^ovzug xul diuffvldzzov- zag, ovx %iii Xoijjoi/ dvOgwnox'g livui, ovdi inl zilg yr\g (xi- vfw, dX).' dvwzf'goi tjuvzmv iaiuvui zwi> fiiMzixdJt', xul Tigog zrjv dyyiXix>]v fitdugftoaafiffovg X^Siu, xuduTifQ zov ovga- vdv, ovzo) zr,v yijp oiy.ilv. In a similar manner Augustin Tract. 36. in Joh. : in quatuor evangeliis sen potius in qua- tuor libris unius evangelii sanctus Johannes apostolus, non immerito secundum intelligentiam spiritalem aquilae com- paratus, altius multoque sublimius aliis tribus erexit praedi- cationem suam, et in ejus erectione etiam corda nostra erigi voluit. Nam caeteri tres evangelistae tanquam cum homine Domino in terra ambulabant, de divinitate ejus pauca dixe- runt, ipsum autem quasi piguerit in terra ambulare, sicut ip so exordio sui sermonis intonuit, erexit se non solum super terram et super omnem ambitum aeris etcoeli, sed super om- nem etiam exercitum angelorum, omnemque constitutionem invisibilium potestatum, et pervenit ad euro, per quem facta sunt omnia, dicendo; In principio erat verbum, etc. Huic tantae sublimitati principii etiam caetera congrua praedica- vit, et de Domini divinitate quomodo nuUus alius est locutus. Hoc 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 bibe- bat, sed quod in secreto bibit, in manifesto eructavit. And Origen, Comm. p. 6. ed. Huet. : toX^tjtiov zolvvv elniii/ anagyrji' ixiv naa(3v ygcupiav fivui ra ivayyiXia, tcuv 8i tvayyiXioiv dnagy^rlv to ««r« '/caavvrjv' ov xdv vovv ovdilg CHARACTER AND STYLE OF THE GOSPEL. 31 SvDuzat Xtt^liv ^irl dvaniacoi' inl xd oztj&og '/tjoov . . . xul xiiXixovxov di yfi/i'a&ui dit xdv iaofiifov akXov '/wdvpTjv, maze olovil zov 'Jwdwriv dttj^&ijvai, ovxa 'Jrjaovv dnd 'Jj}- oov. (Origen means to say that the interpreter must enter into the spirit of John in such a manner, that John will ap pear as full of the spirit of Jesus as if he were another Jesus.) The pious Ernesti called this Gospel the Heart of Christ. To point out a certain intellectual tendency, which once claimed to be the truly theological and the only rational one, we cannot refrain here from placing by the side of this remark a statement from a wiiter of the last half of the eighteenth cen tury (Vogel, Joh. u. Seine Ausleger vor dem jungsten Ge- richt, 1. Th. S. 26) : " Our Evailgelist is adapted to the in firmities of such men only, on whom the philosophical spirit has not been poured forth (sic !). It is of little benefit to the Christians of our time." The representation of John is particularly characterized by an equality of tone which pervades the whole, by a holy tranquillity and self-collectedness, by a sublime simplicity, which are ever combined with both a holy seriousness and a holy mildness, and finally by a deep intensity of love. To this may be added the selection of subjects, so that those acts and sayings of Christ are particularly related, in which there is a meaning adapted to influence the innermost nature of man. The following passage in Claudius (Wandsbecker Bote, Th. I. p. 9 N. A.) in regard to the wonderful nature of that holy record, is classical : " I like best to read in the Gospel of John. There is something so very wonderful in it^ — twilight and night, and through them the quick flash of lightning ! A soft evening' cloud, and behind the cloud, lo, there is the large full moon ! There is in it something so mel ancholy, so sublime and foreboding, that you cannot get tired of it. When reading John I always feel as if I saw him be fore me lying on the bosom of his Master at the last supper ; as if his angel were holding my light, and at certain passages 82 INTRODUCTION. wishing to embrace me and to say something into my ear. I am far from understanding all that I read ; still it often seems as if that which John meant, were floating before me in the far distance ; and even when I cast my eyes upon a place that is quite d,ark, I have nevertheless a presentiment of a great and beautiful meaning, which I shall understand at some fu ture time, and therefore do I take up so joyfully every new in terpretation of the Gospel of John. True it is — that most of them are playing only with the evening cloud, and leave the moon behind it entirely out of sight." — We have already ob served, that this character of the Gospel can be explained by the character of the Apostle himself, as we have endeavoured above to pourtray it. This remark however, would be mis understood, if it were apprehended as implying, that the man ner of teaching and the appearance of Christ had been entire ly such as the first three Gospels represent them ; and that on ly the full souled nature and the depth of feeling which char acterize the views of John, had created such an ideal being as is presented to us in his pages. In that case John would be greater than Christ. From the traits which have been given above of his early life, it appears that before joining the Redeemer, he did not possess that spirit which his Gospel breathes. We are therefore led to conclude, that so much of the divine mind, and of the spirit with which the Redeem er was filled, had passed over to his beloved disciple by a more intimate acquaintance, that thenceforth his writings manifest an idiosyncracy which was entirely subdued and penetrated by the divine influence ; because, as his nature was more inclined to thought and to sensibility, so his being pervaded by the divine power was more readily observed. Besides, it likewise deserves attention, that such dispositions as that of John, on account of the yielding nature which is peculiar to them, much sooner appropriate to and receive in themselves the individuality of another ; so that we may con clude with some degree of certainty, that John also more CII.iRACTER AND STYLE OF THE GOSPEL. 33 than any other Apostle formed his language on the model of Christ's manner of expressing himself Yet it ought to be remembered, that he particularly appropriated to himself that tendency in Christ, which was most in correspondence with his own nature. Even Grotius in his time made the ingen ious remark, that Jqhn had been more qiXitjOovg, Peter more qi ikoxginzog, that the latter loved more the Messiah in Christ, whilst the former was more attached to the whole divinely- human person of the Redeemer. He compares, at the same time, what Plutarch (Vita Alex. c. 47, ) says of the two friends of Alexander, Hephaestion and Craterus : the former was qi- XuXt%uv8gog whilst the latter was(j»f.iivovg i^§t}vtti, qavigOv ndalv iazi, ' For Christ also said, unless ye be born again ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven ; but that it is impossible for those who have once been born to enter again into the wombs of their mothers, this is evident to all.' This passage obviously contains a quotation from John 3: 3 — 5, Bretschneider attempts to account for this, and other passa ges of a similar character found in the Fathers, where cita tions from the disputed Gospel so evidently occur, by suppo sing that they were derived from a source equally accessible to the Pseudo-John and to the Fathers : whether this source were tradition, or the anojA.vriixovfvi.tuTu anoazoXoiv of which Justin speaks, would be a matter of no consequence. But this supposition is seen to be unnatut-al, or at least in a high degree arbitrary, as soon as the existence of the Gospel of John can, irrespective of these citations, be rendered only AUTHENTICITY OF THE GOSPEL, 43 probable. And when we reflect farther, that it is impossi ble for us to settle any thing definitely in regard to the na ture of the dnofivri^iovivaza of Justin, and that they were unquestionably accordant with the doctrinal character of the three first Gospels, it can hardly be expected that they should have contained any traditions similar to the v/ritings of John. So that the above hypothesis cannot be established except by showing that there is no other way in which the Fathers could have come to those expressions. Besides, this suppo sition once admitted, no quotation of earlier times from the Gospel, however accordant it might be, could prove anything concerning its genuineness. There are some other passages of Justin, iu regard to which it seems more doubtful whether they refer to sentiments expressed by John ; they may, how ever, be very well received as his. Thus in Apol, II. p. 64, where he represents Christ as saying, o i^ii dxov- 0)v, axovii zov anoaztiXavzog jxs 'he who hears me, hears him that sent me,' Comp. John 14: 24 and ib. p. 316, where Justin says of John the Baptist ; ol dv&gwnoi vniXap^avov avzdv fit'ui, zdv Xgiazoi'' ngdg ovg xul av- xog i§ou, ni:x iifxl o Xgioxoc, uXXa qmvi] po(ovzog, ' The people took him to be the Christ ; but he cried to them, I am not the Christ, but the voice of one crying ;' comp, John 1:20,23. Also, from the manner in vvhich Justin speaks of the divinity of Christ, it is probable that he had at the time the Gospel of John before him. He says, Apol. I. p. 74 : z] di ngiuzr) dwa/xig jxeia zov nuzi'ga nuvzoiv xul dianoxtjv Biov xul tildg 6 Xoyog iailv. Sg xiva xgonov iragxonoirj&ilg av&gwnog yiyovtv, tv zo7g iir/g Igovftfv, ' The first power after the Father of all and God the Ruler, is the Son, the Word ; who, having in a manner been made flesh, became man, etc' And Apol. I. p. 44 : d divldg ixiivov,d iiovog Xt- fOfievog xvglatg vlog, o Xoyog ngd zmv notzjfiaxojv, xul (jvvcov xal yivvm^iivog, dze xriv dgyjjv Si uvxov navxa i'x- Tiai xal ixoaiirjof, ' The Son of him, who alone is properly 44 INTRODUCTION. called Son, the Word before all creatures, who also was co-ex istent with Him when in the beginning he created and adorn ed all things by him.' Justin also, in placing his more eleva ted view of the nature of Christ in opposition to the lower one of the Ebionites, observes expressly, that therein he did not follow dv-O^gmnilu dtddyfiuzu, ' human teaching,' but xa Sid XgiGxou dcdayi'vzu' the teaching of Christ,' Dial, c, Tryph, p. 267, In connexion with Justin his disciple Ta- tian is to be mentioned. When the latter Or. contra Graec. p. 145, ed. Col. says : Biog i^v iv dgiv, zvjv di ag^'^v Xo- yov dvvufiiv nugiiXr,q)Uixev x. t. X. ' God was in the begin ning, but the beginning,' etc., we may regard this as refer ring to the introduction of the Gospel of John. Quite indu bitable is the quotation ib. p. 152 : »J i/'^Z*? ^'''¦i'' iuvxtjv nxozog i'azi, xal zovzo I'azi zo iigrjfttvov ' jJ axozi'a zd qwg ou xuziXaj3iv, ' The soul in itself is darkness, and this is what was said ; the darkness did not comprehend the light,' comp, John 1: 5. Here also Bretschneider proposes to derive this sentiment from tradition, or from the duofivij^toviv/iiaxu. — Equally indubitable also are the quotations from the Gospel, which are found in the Recognitions and Homilies that have been falsely attributed to Clement, and which are to be dated from the end of the second century. Recogn. 1. VI. § 9. p. 551 : Amen, dico vobis, nisi quis denuo renatus fue- rit ex qua, non introibit in regna coelorum, ' Verily I say un to you, unless a man is bom again of water, he shall not en ter into the kingdom of heaven.' The same passage occurs in Hom. XL ^ 26. p. 698. Again, Recogn. I. II. § 48. p. 514, where the author quotes Matt 11: 27, and then adds : revelat autem filius patrem his, qui ita honorificant filium sicut honorificant patrem,'' But the Son reveals the Father to those who honour the Son even as they honour the Father ;' comp. John 5: 23, In the Homilies, we find furthermore, Hom, III. § .52 : iydt iifxi zj nt':).r] ztig Cft"??" o dc (/.lov tiafgxo- fxevog iloigxtxai eig x>)v ^wriv, cJ? ovx ovGijg tiigag xov AUTHENTICITY OF THE GOSPEL. 45 (sat^iiv Sivttfiivr,g didaoxaXlag, ' I am the gate of life. Who soever entereth through me, entereth into life ; for there is no other doctrine that is able to bring salvation ;' comp. John 10: 9, and za i/.ia ngdjiuzu uxovn ziig ffAzjg qtovi'ig 'my sheep hear my voice,' comp. John 10: 27. — For less authen ticated quotations from Ignatius and Hermas see Lardner, Credib. Pt II. — A particularly important testimony also is that of Theophilus of Antioch in his Apology, composed about the year 170. He says p. 110, ed. Col. : odfv di- ddaxovaiv i^fxdg ul dyiui yguqai, xal ndvxfg ol nvrvfiuxo- qogoi, i'§ cov /oiai'vzjg Xt'yif iv dgytj zjv 6 Xoyog' xal 6 Xoyog r]v ngdg xov &fdv x. x. X. ' Whence we are taught by the holy Scriptures, and all those who were inspired by the Spirit, among whom John says : in the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God.' Since, in this case, Bretschneider cannot simply refer to a quotation from the anofivrifiovcvfiazu, or tradition, he declares that Theophi lus might have easily persuaded himself to think this Gospel genuine, inasmuch' as he held to the principles of the Alex andrian school. But in Theophilus there is nothing of Al exandrian Gnosticism to be found ; in his interpretation of the Scriptures, he rather approaches the sound method of the school of Antioch. Being aware that this alternative is yet too constrained, Bretschneider adds the remark, that perhaps the Apostle was not meant, but John the presbyter ; and that besides,' Theophilus is interpolated in some places. We are, however, in possession of a still more important testimony, in the writings of Irenaeus, who, at the end of the second century, was bishop of Lyons. This man was a friend and disciple of Polycarp, the bishop of Smyrna, who himself had enjoyed the instruction of the Apostle John. Irenaeus relates that he had often listened to the discourses of that aged disciple, Polycarp ; and states also that in his addresses he frequently communicated the instructions of the Apostle, Since now this Irenaeus, who was, besides, bish« 46 INTRODUCTION, op of a congregation which always remained connected with Proconsular Asia— Since he without hesitation expresses himself concerning the genuineness of the Gospel of John, as he does in that known passage. Adv. Haer. 1. 3. c. 1, comp. 1. 3. c. 11, how could it be thought, that he had be come the dupe of an intentional, or unintentional, deception, concerning the real author of the delightful record ? Against this most important and indisputable testimony, the latest op ponent of the authenticity of the Gospel advances no other reasons but these : 1. that Irenaeus himself says, that he had known Polycarp only in early youth. But were this even so, yet as a youth, nay even as a boy, he could, and must have learned whether the Apostle, who was so dear to his congre gation, had left no record concerning the evangelical history, Irenaeus states, moreover, that he found the verbal discours es, which had been handed down to him from John, to cor respond entirely with the written ones, dnrjyytXXf ndvxa avuqtava za7g yg«qu7g. He also says expressly, that every circumstance had been deeply impressed on his mind, and that he had reflected on them diligently. Hist Eccl. 1. 5. c. 20. At the time, then, when he heard Polycarp, he had sufficient judgment to comprehend his discourses, which is also evident from the manner in which he speaks of his inter course with the old bishop in the fragments of the letter to Florinus, taken from Eusebius. 2. Bretschneider observes that Irenaeus had not been influenced by any historical rea sons to consider the four Gospels as genuine, but by the doc trinal reason, which he mentions 1. 3. c. 11 ; there must be four Gospels quoniam quatuor regiones mundi sunt, et qua tuor principales spiritus, ' because there are four parts of the world and four principal spirits.' But who that knows how greatly the Fathers of the church were in the habit of search ing for mystical reasons for all the positive declarations of revealed truth, will be inclined to think that Iranaeus could be determined by that reason alone to receive the four Gos- AUTHENTICITY OP THE GOSPEL. 47 pels ? Had it not been his design simply to justify on mysti cal grounds that which history taught, he would rather have received three or seven Gospels. Besides, how could he think of giving historical reasons in behalf of the Gospel, since he had not the least occasion for it ? — Finally, the weight of the testimony of Irenaeus is particularly increased by the fact, that it must have been of the highest interest to him to prove the spuriousness of the Gospel, since the Gnos tics, against whom he contended, used to ground themselves on it particularly, and, since the spirit of that Gospel was not a little contradictory to his more sensual millenarian views. We have now traced back the testimonies in proof of the authenticity of the Gospel of John, to the time of his disciples. The quotations from it, which we have adduced from the oldest Fathers of the Church, receive the more weight, if we remember, how much less those men in the first period of the church were inclined to quote, or even to read, than was the case at a later time. They preferred to keep to the liv ing word. So Irenaeus, Euseb. Hist. Eccl. V. 20, says that Polycarp had communicated in his sermons the verbal teach ings of John. So also Papias says, Euseb. Hist. Eccl. III. 39., he preferred to collect the oral traditions of the Apostles, ov yug zu ix rtov ^tfiXiiov xoaovzov /xe uqfXl7v vmXajx^avov, baov xd xagd ^wotjg quvrjg xal fifvovazjg. * For it does not profit me so much to receive instruction from books as from the voice that liveth and abideth.' At that time, likewise, the circulation of written records was much more difficult, and when quotations were made, less attention was paid to verbal correctness ; so Clemens Alex, says ex pressly in one place, that there was no reason to be startled at the izegoi6xr]g of his quotations from other writers, since he had paid more attention to the meaning than to the words. This may suffice in regard to the external proofs for the authenticity of the Gospel ; the internal proofs we have al ready stated in the other parts of this Introduction. As to 48 INTRODUCTION. the assertion of contradictions, errors, and inexplicable obscu rities in single passages of the Gospel, ftom which its spuri ousness is to follow, a, refutation of these will be given in 3 faithful exegesis of them. More particular attention to the attacks of Bretschneider on particular points, which in part are really ingenuous, but in part also sophistical, are found in the rejoinders which have appeared against his Proba bilia, and in the Reviews. Among the latter, we would mention that of Paulus, Heidelb. Jahrb. 14. Jahrg, 2, Heft, which partly agrees with, and confirms the objections of Bretschneider, and the Review in the Theol. Archiv. of Bengel, 5 Band, 1. St., which is directed both against Bretschneider and Paulus. Among productions in vindica tion of the Gospel the most deserving of attention are : 1. Stein, Authentia ev. loh. contra S. V. Br. dubia vindicata, Brandenb. 1822. 2. Die Authentie der Schriften des Evang. Johannis by Hemsen, Schlesw. 1823. 3, Crome, Probabilia hand Probabilia, or Widerlegung der von Dr. Bretschneider gegen die Aechtheit der Joh. Schriften erhobenen Zweifel, Leyden and Leipsic, 1824. The writer, who is dissatisfied with this edition, which certainly has some conspicuous im perfections, will himself publish a better treatise. 4. Usteri, Comm. Crit. in qua Evange. loh. genuinum esse ex com- paratis 4. Ew. Narrationibus de coena ultima et Passione Christi ostenditur, Turici 1823. S. Guericke against De Wette's Bedenklichkenten, Beitrage, s. 59, etc. — Of a more early period, the profound treatise of Siisskind, Magazin fiir Dogmatik und Moral, St 9, directed against earlier attacks, deserves to be mentioned. § 7. 21ie most important Commentaries on the Gospel. For an introduction to the Gospel see Wegscheider, VoU- standige Einleitung in das Evangelium Johannis, Gott. 1806. — Bertholdt, Verosimilia de Origine Ev. Joh. in Opusc, ed, Winer, 1824. COMMENTARIES ON THE GOSPEL. 49 1. Origen (died 253,) Comm. in Ev. loh. At the time of Jerome, there existed thirty-nine Tomi or Sections of Ori- gen's Commentaries ; Eusebius says that twenty-two only had reached his time. We possess portions merely of this great work, which, however, are not inconsiderable, Opp. Orig. ed. de la Rue, T. IV. Opera exegetica Orig., ed. Huet. T. I. However important this Commentary is in re gard to the doctrinal views of Origen, and, however beauti ful are the passages of a generally christian character which it contains, yet those that belong in a more limited sense to the exegesis of the Gospel are but scanty. 2. Theodorus of Mopsuestia (d. 428,) Apollinaris (400,) Ammon (250), Cyrill of Alex. (400). From all these con siderable fragments are found in the Catena Patrum in Ev. loh. ed. Corderius, Antwerpiae, 1630. They are in part valuable exegetical contributions, particularly the observa tions of Ammon. 3. Chrysostom (d. 407,) Homill. 87. in Ev. loh. ed. Morelli. T. II. ed. Montf T. VIII. These Homilies are particular ly distinguished by a great richness of practical observations. At the same time, Chrysostom explains the text according to a sound grammatico-historical mode of exposition. Yet in this respect, its pure exegetical merits are diminished by the circumstance that, Chrysostom was too fond of using the text for polemical purposes against heretical views. 4. Theophylact (d. 1107,) Coram, in 4. Evv. ed. Venet. 4. Voll. V. 2. He has collected the more valuable parts from Chrysostom and other fathers of the Church ; he usually com bines with them his own opinions, and follows generally the grammatico-historical mode of explanation. 5. Euthymius Zigabenus, (after .1118), Comment, in 4. Evv. ed. Matthiae, Lips. 1792. 4 Voll., in Vol. 4. This Commentary is also compiled from more ancient fathers of the church ; a great portion is from Chrysostom. The collec tion is made with care, and much of it is useful. 5 50 INTRODUCTION. 6. Augustine (d. 430), Tractatus 124, in loh. ed. Antw. T. III. These are Homilies, in which Aug. explains the text in a very diffuse manner, and with many digression s. For grammatico-historical exegesis, these Homilies contain little that is useful ; they are much richer in beautiful obser vations of a general christian character. 7. Maldonatus (d. 1583), Comm. in 4. Evv. Par. 1668. 2. V. One of the best commentators of the Roman church. He possesses great learning, particularly in respect to the Fathers, and much exegetical talent, which does not very readily suffer itself to be constrained by the fetters of the church, but which is, nevertheless, to some extent fettered by it. 8. Luther has commented on the Gospel from the 1st to the 20th chap., but on some portions only in a fragmentary way, in the 7th and 8th Volumes of the Edition of Walch. Wherever Luther keeps free from a polemic spirit in this Commentary, he does not remark on the Gospel — he rather lives in it, and carries it before the soul of the reader, as a divine source of life to every one who thirsts after life. In his interpretations also he generally hits the right point, though his exegetical views may not always be firmly estab lished and adhered to. 9. Melancthon, Enarratio in Ev. loh. Opp. ed. Viteb. T. IV., Syll. Coll. Lect. edited by Caspar Cruciger. In a dedication to Duke Maurice, Cruciger ascribes the work to himself The explanations are natural. On the whole, ex egesis is unduly neglected for the sake of doctrinal theology. Different from this, are the shorter Annotationes of Melanc thon, which Luther edited 1523. 10. Calvin, Comm in Ev. loh. Opp. ed. Amstel. T. VI. The Commentaries of Calvin on the four Gospels are less finished than those on the Epistles ; still, however, in this work also the great reformer distingushes himself as an exe getical writer, by easy, natural, and at the same time, pro- COMMENT.VRIES ON THE GOSPEL. 51 found remarks. In point of exegetical talent, we must give him the preference to his fellow-labourers. 11. Beza, Comm. in N. T. Gen. 1565.— Tig. 1653. In the Gospels, Beza developes the philological knowledge and the exegetical tact which he possessed, even more than in his Commentary on the Epistles. Nevertheless he does not explain all the difficulties, nor does he enter deep enough in to the spiritual meaning. 12. Zuinglius, Annotatt. in plerosque N. T. libros, Tig. 1581. It contains many peculiar views. A kind of Catena of the reformers is furnished by the val uable collection of Marloratus, Expositio catholica N. T., Viviaci 1605, in which the best passages from Calvin, Me lancthon, Bucer, Musculus, Brentius and others are collected. 13. Grotius (d. 1645), Comm. in 4. Evv. Par. 1644.— Halae 1769, ed, Windheim. 2. V. His Commentary on the Gospels is remarkable for unconstrained exegesis, and for richness in antiquarian and philological remarks, as likewise in parallels from profane authors, which, it is true, are here not always in their right place. 14. Lampe (d. 1729), Comm. Exegetico — Analyticus in Ev. loh., Amst 1724. 3. V. A stiff doctrinal method, with excessively minute divisions, united, however, with ex tensive learning, with much acuteness, with an ardent chris tian spirit, and generally also with sound judgment. 15. C. C. Tittmann (d. 1820,) Meletemata sacra sive Comm. exegetico-critico-histor. in Ev. loh. Lips. 1816. The exegesis is very easy and natural. Yet it fails in pre cision, and want of depth in developing the thought. 16. Paulus, Comm. zum Evang. ,Ioh. im 4ten Bande der 2. Ausg. des Comm. zu der Evangelien. The Go.spel of John is commented on only as far as the 11th Chapter, — to the history of our Lord's sufferings. This Commentary is not quite as extensive as that on the Synopsis, It has been already stated, in another place, on what grounds, and in 52 INTRODUCTION, what degree, these interpretations of Paulus are defective. This Commentary, however, will be always distinguished by the peculiar merit of throwing light on the relations of place and time, as well as on many individual characteristics, by extensive antiquarian learning and by great powers of combination. The whole lower field of life is elevated there by to a great picturesqueness, whilst the higher field, how ever, is left untouched, nay is frequently caricatured, 17. Kuinoel, Comm. in Ev. loh. 3. ed. 1826. However greatly the works of this author have been reproached with the want of a deep and peculiar acquaintance with the spirit of the writer, they are, nevertheless, repertories in which the more modern (not the ancient) exegetical helps are made use of with learning and judgment. 18. Liicke, Comm. zum Evang. loh. 2 Bde. Bonn, 1820 — 24. The severe censure which the first volume of this work experienced, at its first appearance, would not certainly have been so unmitigated, if its defects had not appeared in a very unfavourable light on account of the peculiar christian dis position of its author. In the second volume his great exe getical talent, his fundamental study of all the aids, and his impartiality of judgment, have been justly acknowledged. 1&. Olshausen, biblischer Commentar zu sammtlicher Schriften des N. T. II. Theil. The rich spiritual and feel ing commentator of the three first Gospels has also contri buted to the exposition of John many things that deserve our thanks. 20. Fikenscher, Biblisch-praktische Auslegung des Ev. Johannis, 1 B. 1831. This is simply a popular Commentary ; yet it is not only simple and clear, but sometimes enters ac curately into a consideration of the context. Among the works mentioned, the Commentary of Cal vin, of Grotius, and that of Liicke probably deserve most to be recommended for private study. The most extensive is that of Lampe. Besides the Commentaries mentioned above. COMMENTARIES ON THE GOSPEL. r,.i It might be Well to name the following : Erasmus, Paraphra sis Evang. loh, ed. Aug, T, II. Hammond, Paraphrasis N. T. ed. Cler. Amst 1698. Wolf, Curae philologicae in N. T. T. II. Heumann, Erklarung des N. T., Th. 3 and 4. Bengel, Gnomon, Tub. 1759. Semler, Paraphrasis et Notae in Evang. loh. Halae 1771. 2 T. Mosheim, Erkla rung des Evang. Johannis edited by Jacobi, Weimar 1777. Also the paraphrase of Lynar, Halle 1777, is not useless. — The Work of Lange hardly deserves to be recommended. COMMENTARY GOSPEL OF JOHN. CHAPTER L Verse 1. All revealed religion depends upon this, that there is a perfectly holy, glorious, and uncaused Being, who has adopted means to make himself known to man. The Evangelist begins with this Being, and with the manner in which these revelations have been communicated to mankind, and thus also leads Christianity back to the original fountain of all the divine communications which have been made from God to man. — We are here to inquire into the significance of Xoyog, the Word. It may be explained either with refer ence to the grammar alone, or also with regard to the histo ry, i. e. with regard to the use of language, customary at the time of John. Relatively to the former, two significations are possible: 1. o Aoyo? may have the meaning ot inuyyeXia, promise, as ill the Hebrew 'nS" has this meaning, and as in Sept. Prov. 12: 25, it is translated by inayyeXla. Farther, the abstract might stand instead of the concrete for o Xiyofxivog, 6 inayyeXifilg, he who was promised. So Laurentius, Valla, Ernesti, Tittmann. But this use of language cannot be con firmed from the New Testament ; and besides, the metony my were harsh. To this it may be added, that the con ception to be expressed is a very familiar one, and that it would pe strange if the Evangelist should have used in the 56 John 1: 1. very beginning so uncommon an expression for it. 2. o Xo yog as abstr. pro concr. may stand for o Xf'yow the Speaker, as Origen already remarked : nugd z(o dnayytXXiiv za xgv- qia zov &C0V, ' To make known the secrets of God,' in like manner as xd qdig, the light, for qoixl^av, the enlightener, n 686g,the way, for J diLxvvtov xtjv ddov, he who points out the way. Considered in itself, this explanation is not inadmissi ble : " The interpreter of the Deity, he who reveals, exhibits God ;" only the conception of interpreter must not be appre hended in too superficial a manner, as if it meant nothing more than a teacher, in which sense it is taken by Ecker- mann, Justi, and Storr. For, — disregarding the fact that this conception would not be appropriate to the other predi cates of the Logos — it could not be justified on philological grounds, since Xi'yuv does not signify directly to teach, and Xoyog has only in an indirect manner the meaning of doc trine. It would be more proper to understand Adyo? accord ing to the phraseology of Philo, who distinguishes in God the state ofihai, being, and that oi Xiyia&ai, revealing himself; so that according to him, d kiyoivis God revealing Hiniself, de Sacrif Cain, p. 148, Fr. Were the word to be taken only in the ordinary and simple meaning oi teacher, it would seem very strange that John should have selected so unusual a word for such a familiar conception. Besides, the observation presents itself readily to the exe getical Sense, that John speaks of the koyog as of a concep tion already known ; that he adverts to an Idea, which he supposes his readers will immediately connect with this word. And since now it can be actually proved, that the words o Xoyog xov -OiOLi at that time expressed a definite doctrinal conception, and such an one as is similar to that of John, it is altogether certain that John employed the word in that determinate doctrinal sense which was prevalent in his time. So that the question concerning the historical use of this word must be more important to us, than that which respects John 1:1. 57 its grammatical meaning. It is possible, however, to point out two doctrinal ideas of that time, either of which John may here have had in mind. 1. Auyog may stand for Wis dom, an attribute of God, which is here personified ; for which personification of the Wisdom of God as well as of the Word of God the O. T. writers had already furnished prece dents, Prov. 9: 1. Ps. 33: 6. Sir. 1: 5. 24: 3, Among the later Jews, and, — as some suppose — ^probably among the earlier ones also, it was a current opinion that certain of the ' Divine Attributes might exist in God, substantially divided from each other, yet without being separate from Him ; on which supposition these attributes could become connected with certain men, even as the Cabbalists supposed that fiasrt , Wisdom, united itself with the Messiah. Thus it is also said in Wisd. Sol. 10: 16, 17, fiaijX-dev (rj aoqta), ilg ipvytjv &eganovxog xvglov, xul avz,ioxrj ^aaiXevai x. x. X, ' She [Wisdom] entered into the soul of the servant of the Lord, and withstood kings, etc.,' and 7: 27 : xul xaxd yeviag elg yiv^ug dalag (.nzu^alvovaa qiXovg ¦&tov xul ngoqrjTag xazaaxivu^it, ' From one generation to anoth er entering into pious souls she maketh them friends of God and Prophets.' Explained in this way, then, the phrase 0 Xoyog augi lyivtzo, the word became flesh, John 1: 14, would mean : ' the Divine attribute of Wisdom manifested itself in Jesus in a very peculiar manner.' This explanation is adopted by Teller, Loffler, Eichhorn, Ammon, Stolz, etc. It is controverted with ability in Flatt's Magazin fur Dogm. und Mor. St. 10. s. 1, etc. — The chief objections against it are the following : (a) that the doctrine of a union, xoivm- vla, of certain divine emanated attributes with holy men is something very different from the ivougxmaig, the incarna tion, of the Logos, of which John speaks. (§) that on this supposition the commencement of the Gospel would be alto gether tautological : ' In the beginning was the wisdom of God, this divine wisdom was with God, and God was this di- 58 John 1 : 1. vine wisdom.' The Evangelist would have had no occasion to establish the identity of the Logos with God, if he had in tended to denote by Logos nothing else than a Divine attri bute.— 2. The Logos may indicate an Hypostasis, a Being in essence co-essential with God, but different in form. On the latter supposition also John will be found to have used language in accordance with the Jewish theology of .his time. For we find in the Old Testament, intimations referring to a distinction in the Godhead in so far as God reveals himself, and in so far as he is concealed. A circle of appellations is used in respect to God, — appellations which we regard as periphrases, but which are based on the idea of that distinc tion : ni in^ STO , the fulness, the richness of God, Ml ."¦; 1113, the splendour, the glory of Jehovah, "'¦' Dia, the name of Je hovah, as comprehending all the attributes of his Being, 1 ' "ipo , the countenance of God. That distinction is more definite and observable in the remarkable passage, Ex. 33: 20 and 23, where it is said that the n"':s , the face of God can never be exhibited to men, but only the T'nnN , the back. Now as in other passages the Crc , the face of God is gener ally characterized as the revelation of God, as we shall see immediately, so f ;e in this passage has obviously a different meaning, which is evident from its being placed in antithesis to T'^hN , the back. The countenance, as the spiritual part of the human body, is a figurative designation of the Internal, of the Essence of God; whereas VnnN , the back, is a figu rative expression of the External, of that which is cognizable by man. Now in the following, v. 23, it is said, that in con sequence of the prayer of Moses, God had revealed to him His (the divine) splendour, the fulness, (and according to V. 19 His name) ; so that this expression explains to us what is to be understood by VnnN , the back. In the same chap ter of the Mosaic history, we find also that distinction of the hidden and the revealed Deity expressed in the fact, that God when entreated by Moses to accompany him, replies that the John 1:1. 59 divine countenance, 'a'^lQ (the face, that upon which the in ternal nature of man impresses itself) should go along, 33: 14 ; for which it is said, 33: 2, the divine "^Nbji , angel, should go along, of whom we read Ex. 23: 21 , ' My name is in the an gel,' i. e. the whole of my attributes. And although this is again exchanged forthe expression, thatGod himself would go along, it should not thence be concluded that CIB and ^Nba are - T Ft; — mere periphrases ; for such a change of the two expressions belongs to the character of the doctrine, which regards the Revealer of God as in some respects different from God, but as the same with Him in essence. Again, in Is. 63: 9 we find, that the Revealer of God, from whom were derived all the means of salvation in the Economy of the Old Testament, is called VzB "^sb^ , the angel of his countenance, that is, the angel in whom the essence of God is revealed, as the in ternal being of man is reflected in his countenance. With this agrees the fact that the Messiah, Mai. 3: 1, is called the angel of the covenant, since even the Messiah in his higher nature was that Being who co-operated in the establishment of the Old Testament Theocracy. (See in respect to what has here been observed, a remarka'ble passage of R. Bechai on Gen. 22: 16, in the Dissert of J. H. Michaelis, de Ange- lo Dei, Halae 1702, in which Dissert, generally, the more ancient view of the subject has been given. Compare the Dissert, of the same author de Angelo Interprete, Job 33: 23, Halae 1707.) — Another periphrasis of the Deity in which the idea mentioned above is expressed, is that of Mirr; IST, the word of Jehovah, which, according to Ps. 33: 6, created the world, (2 Pet. 3: 5). As the nature of man manifests itself in his name, in his countenance, so his power, and his influence are known by his commanding word. The Lecture of Olshausen, on Easter 1823, founded on Heb. 4: 12, 13, shows what is meant by the speaking of God. — Fi nally, the same idea is expressed, when the Hebrews repre sent the wisdom of God as the representative of a divine Es- 60 John 1 : 1. sence and Energy, as is the case Prov. 8: 23 sq, where it is said of Wisdom, that she was created before the foundation of the world, that she was the work-master of God, etc. Ac cording to this representation, the Wisdom of God is that consciousness which God has of the fulness of his own being ; which becomes outwardly active, and gives birth to the world as a reflection of his own self This distinction between the revealed and the concealed Deity, which in the Old Testa ment rarely appears with much distinctness, is found express ed in a very definite manner in the Apocrypha, in the Chal- dee Paraphrasts, in the Cabbalistic writings, and in Philo. It is, however, improbable, that with these writers this distinc tion should have been only the result of an examination on cer tain passages in the Old Testament and of exegetical tradi tion. It is far more probable, and has been shown in part, that these writers intermingled kindred doctrines of the an cient oriental theosophy with the Jewish theology. At the same time, however, it is to be remembered, that they would not have done this, if they had not had similar doctrines in their own religious creed. In several oriental systems of re ligion, the Idea that the Highest Being is in himself incom prehensible and unapproachable, is found developed under various modifications. Man is represented as being seized with dizziness when he attempts to comprehend this Idea ; and in general there is no transit from this Being to a world of created existences. Consequently it became necessary for God to generate in himself a certain transition-point, to make his fulness comprehensible and communicable ; and this He did by producing out of himself from Eternity a Be ing like unto himself, through whom the concealed God was manifested. See Nitzsch, Theol. Studien, 1. Bd. and the author's Abhandlung iiber die speculative Trinitatslehre des Orients, Berlin 1826. This idea spread from Eastern Asia, in the century before Chrigt, to Syria, Asia Minor, and Egypt, so that the Jewish theologians had an opportunity to John 1:1. 61 blend with their own doctrine that kindred one from the East. — It will be well to compare what Baruch says in the Apocry pha concerning aoqia, wisdom. Bar. 3: 36 sq. to c. iv. See also Sir. 1: 1—10. 24: 8, and especially Wisd. 7: 22—25, where Wisdom is represented as an hypostasis, as the First born of God, as the Producer of all things and the dxtov. Image oi God. (Comp. Bretschneider Dogmat der Apoch. ^ 36 — 49). In the Chaldee Paraphrasts we find the idea fully developed, that God never appears acting immediately upon the world, but always through the medium of another, Now, since in Gen. i. and Ps. xxxiii. the word of God is re- . presented as the medium of the divine influences, they use the term iS<'i73"'a or '^^^3^l , teord, when they speak of the di-, vine acts. Thus they say Gen. 3: 8. Deut. 4: 12 : ' The voice of the. word of God spake.' Targ. Jerushalmi translates Gen. 49: 18: ' I do not wait for delivery by Samson or Gideon, but for redemption through thy Word,' etc. It cannot indeed be proved, that by the Word they meant any thing hypostatically different from God ; yet the whole origin of this mode of expression was based on a distinction between the hidden and the revealed Deity, a view which they bor rowed, in all probability, from the passages of the Old Tes tament which we have quoted above. They themselves may never have attained to such a state of consciousness as to feel the necessity of inquiring whether that distinction were hypostatical or not Instead of NTK'^Tp, the leord, Jonathan very frequently uses Nn!D"4j, the dwelling of splendor , as it were