THE GOSPEL
EPISTLES OF JOLIII:
MLiti) Notes,
CRITICAL, EXPLANATORY, AND PRACTICAL,
Designed for both Pastoes and People.

EEV. HENRY COWLES, D.D.

" The words that I speak unto you, they are spirit and they are lilc."— Jescs.

NEW YORK:
D. APPLETON & CO.,
549 & 551 Bboad-w^Ay.
1876.

Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1876, by
REV. HENRT COWLES, D.D.,
In the Office of the Librarian of Congress, at Washington, D. C.

PREFACE.

John -\vrote his gospel for the twofold purpose — "that
ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God ;
and that, belie-ving, ye might have Ufe through his name."
The Christian commentator can have no other -worthy object
than to enter into the spirit and promote the purposes of his
author. In the present case he has no occasion to aspire to any
thing higher, and can have no apology for any thing lo-wer,
or other. To reveal Jesus to men, so that, in the light of his
¦words and of his deeds, they shall see him to be surely the
promised Christ, the very Son of God, and therefore the
Giver of life to morally dying souls — this is supreme. No
object can be higher or nobler ; none more vital to real sal
vation. To know Jesus as John reveals him is not only to
know that he is sent of the Father ; bears witness to the
truth ; suffered unto death as " the Lamb of God, taking
away the sin of the world," but it is also to know his heart
of love and sympathy, of fellowship with his people, and of
most tender and confidential friendship.  It is the charm
of John's writings that they bring Jesus impressively near to
the heart, and beget a sense of personal acquaintance with
the Lord. Under such apprehensions of Jesus, our love to
him naturally becomes intelligent and therefore solid, endur
ing, and such as legitimately develops itself in joyous obe
dience. In my Notes on Jolm, my first aim has been interpretation
— to unfold and illustrate the true and the whole sense of his
words. The amount of labor expended upon passages has
(iii)

IV PEEFACE.
been in the compoxmd ratio of their difficulty and of their
relative importanae. In this as in former volumes my plan
presents not so much the processes of my investigations as
the results, and not so much other men's opinions as my
own. A few passages involving vital issues, in which I could not
be satisfied with the current and commonly received inter
pretations, have been treated with unusual fullness; e. g.
(John 3: 5): "born of water and Spirit;" and (John 20:
23) on remitting or retaining other men's sins. Under a
sense of their very high importance, I have sought to unfold
thoroughly Christ's doctrinal discussions with the Jews (John
5 and 6) ; his views of their moral blindness and righteous
doom, as in John 12 : 37-41 ; the doctrine of the Holy
Spirit; the scenes and the significance of Gethsemane and
Calvary ; the resurrection, also, and not least the true divin
ity of Christ in its relation to the trinity and unity of God.
In the way of practical application, I have aimed at little
beyond suggestion. This field is naturally unlimited; my
plan allows me only to indicate in few words where it lies,
but not to range over it at will.
The Epistles of John have been subjoined as a natural
appendix — the author's own application of the great facts
of his gospel history. I trust this addition wiU not prove
void of interest or of spiritual profit.
HENRY COWLES.
Obeelin, O., January 28, 1876.

THE GOSPEL OF JOHN.

GENERAL INTRODUCTION.

I. The Author.
This gospel history — the last in order of the four, and lat
est in date of composition — is, on the concurrent testimony of
the best authorities, ascribed to the Apostle John. Notice
ably he is spoken of in the book itself, not under his proper
name John, but as " the disciple whom Jesus loved." (See
13: 23, and 19: 26, and 20: 2, and 21: 7, 20, 24.) The
last of these verses indicates him as the author of this book.
The testimony in proof that John was the author falls nat
urally under two heads : The external, i. e. historical ; and the
internal. The external comes to us in the earliest writings, more or
less fragmentary, of the Christian age.
In sifting this testimony it should be borne in mind that
oral tradition respecting the words and deeds of Jesus was
earlier than the apostolic writings ; and moreover that (ac
cording to Luke 1 : 1-4) there were some written memoirs
put in circulation by others than the apostles, in advance of
theirs, at least in advance of Luke. In view of these facts,
Meyer evinces commendable discrimination in omitting from
his proofs of the genuineness of this gospel history sundry
passages in writings now bearing the name of Barnabas or
Ignatius (men nearest to the apostles), and a portion of what
comes ia Irenseus, on the ground partly of some doubt as to
genuineness in the case of Ignatius, but more on the ground
(1)

2 GENERAL INTRODUCTION.
that the passages in question while they may perhaps have
been taken from the writings of John, may also with equal
probalMlity have reached those writers by means of oral tra
dition. To make the proofs satisfactory, there should be
some distinct reference to a written document hke this gos
pel, and a somewhat exact quotation of its language.
With due regard to these principles we may name Papias *
as perhaps the oldest witness, of whom Eusebius affirms that
he used proofs from John's first epistle. It is conceded that
this epistle and the gospel were written by the same John,
so that testimony to the genuineness of one, makes with
scarcely abated force for the genuineness of the other.
Of the same nature is the testimony of Polycarpf who
quotes 1 John 4:3; "For whosoever does not confess that
Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is antichrist."
Justin Martyr J (Apology 1 : 61) quotes from the conver
sation of Christ with Nicodemus (John 3:5); " For Christ
said. Except ye be born again, ye can not enter into the
kingdom of heaven."  "The first power after God, the
Father and Lord of all, is the Word who is also the Son ;
* Bishop of Ilierapolia in Phrygia, whom Irena3ua descrihea thus:
" An ancient man who -was a hearer of John and a friend of Poly-
carp." t Of Polycarp, who fell a martyr about A. D. 150, Irenseus hia
pupil, haa thia striking teatimony (Irenasus II: 158, 159). 'Writing
tb Florinus, he says — "'While I -was yet a hoy, I saw thee iu Lower
Asia -with Polycarp. For I have a more vivid recollection of -what
occurred at that time than of recent events (inasmuch as the experi
ences of childhood, keeping pace -with the growth of the soul, become
incorporated -with it), so that I can even describe the place where
the blessed Polycarp uaed to sit and discourse ; his general mode of .
life and personal appearance, together with the discourses which he
deUvered to the people; also how he would speak of his familiar
intercourse with John and with the reat of those who had seen the
Lord ; and how he would call their -worda to remembrance. What
soever thinga he had heard from them respecting the Lord, both with
regard to his miracles and his teachings, Polycarp, having thus re
ceived informatiou from the eye-witneases of the "Word of life, would
recount them all iu harmony with the scriptures," etc.
t Justin, born at Sychem (Palestine) ; first a professional student
and teacher of pagan philosophy ; but after his conversion a labori
ous missionary of the gospel, labored among the churches of Asia
Minor and also at Rome where, near the middle of the second cen
tury, he sealed his faith with his blood. Among his works (of great
value) are two Apologies for Christianity, addressed to Roman Em
perors, and a dialogue with Trypho a Jew, elaborating the argument
from the Old Testament that Jesus ivas the Messiah.

GENERAL INTRODUCTION. 3
and of him we will relate that he took flesh and became
man." (Compare John 1 : 1, 2, 14.) Justin's Apol. 1 : 32.
Tatian, a disciple of Justin, not only quoted from "John's
gospel but made up a "Diatessaron" (this word signifying
four in one), the first eflTort known to us upon a harmony of
the four gospels. This of course assumes the existence of
the four in his time. He flourished about A. D. 170.
Athenagoras * evinces a familiar acquaintance with what
John has said of the Logos, to which reference will be made
in a special essay upon the relation of the Logos to the Trin-
Meyer in his commentary (p. 14) remarks that the earliest
of the Christian fathers who quotes John's gospel by name is
Theophilus,f thus : — "Whence the holy scriptures and all the
inspired men teach us, from among whom John writes : ' In
the beginning was the Word,' " etc. This father also pre
pared a harmony of the four gospels.
The testimony of Irenseus J is specially valuable — to the
points that the apostles did not enter upon their great work
of preaching the gospel to every creature, nor did they hand
it down to men ' ' in the scriptures to be the ground and pil
lar of their faith " until after they were fiUed with the Holy
Ghost. Concerning the gospel writers he specifies thus : "Matthew
issued a written gospel among the Hebrews in their own dia
lect while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome and lay
ing the foundations of the church. After their departure
[death], Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did
ako hand down to us in writing what had been preached by
Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a
book the gospel preached by him. After-wards John, the
disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon his breast,
-* Athenagoras, foremost among the fathers of the second century
in the staple merits of an author, was a Christian philosopher of
• Athens, and wrote his Apology A. D. 177. His themes correspond
with those of Justin — treated, however, more ably. His extant
works are usually printed with Justin's.
t Theophilus, made bishop of Antioch in Syria, A. D. 168, wrote a
commentary on the four gospels, not now extant.
i Irenseus, born in Asia Minor, trained under Polycarp and Pa
pias, went as a missionary to Lyons and 'Vienne in France about
A. D. 150 ; became bishop of Lyons A. D. 177 ; died a martyr's death
A. D. 202. His great work against the heresies of his age stands
among the choicest and most instructive relics of the second cen
tury.

4 GENERAL INTRODUCTION.
did himself publish a gospel during his residence at Ejihesus
in Asia." (Irenseus 1 : 258, 259.)
Irenseus quotes often and largely from the gospel of John —
for example thus : "John, the disciple of the Lord, desiring
to put an end to all such doctrines [as those of the heretics
referred to] commenced his teaching in the gospel thus: 'In
the beginning was the Word,'" etc., quoting entire John 1 :
1-5. (IreuKus 1 : 288.)
Curiously Irenseus sometimes gives scope to his fancy, as
we may see in his argument from the nature of things as to
the number four, that there must needs be four gospel his
tories ; no more, no less ; because (he says) there are four
zones of the world in which we live and four principal winds ;
and the cherubim of John's Revelation had four faces, etc.
(Vol. I. 293). We may accept his testimony to the fact
that there were in his day four gospel histories extant, and
four only, while we demur to his argument as to the reason
why. The external testimony to the early reception of John's
gospel may be closed with the fact that all the prominent
heretics of the second century (Marcion, the Valentinians,
the Montanists, Ccelsus, etc.) recognized this book as not
only extant, but of admitted authority among all Christians.
(See Meyer, pp. 15, 16.)
Meyer suspends his citation of individual witnesses with
this remark (p. 19) : "By the end of the second century and
from the beginning of the third, tradition in the church
testifies so clearly and uniformly in favor of the gospel that
there is no need of additional vouchers (e. g. Clement of Al
exandria, Tertullian, Hippolytus, Origen, Dionysius, etc.).
Eusebius (HI: 25) places it among the homologoumena "
[universally accepted].
The nature and force of this testimony will be readily seen
if we consider that those Christian brethren who were most
intimately associated with the Apostle John when he wrote
this book and who first received it from his hands must have
known beyond the possibility of mistake that he was the
author. It should be borne in mind that the great body of
Christians in those early ages appear to have appreciated
very justly the value of inspired writings as compared with
any thing whatever not inspired, and consequently, the crit
ical responsibility resting upon themselves in this particular
point of accrediting any document as the writing of apostles
or their associates. It is on record that such men as Justin

GENERAL INTRODUCTION. 5
Martyr (A. D. 140-160) ; Origen (A. D. 203-254) ; Jerome
(A. D. 370-420), visited the churches of Asia Minor, of
Rome, and of Palestine and Syria, to ascertain from those
to whom the Epistles were addressed and among whom the
gospel histories were first put in circulation, what books were
written by accredited apostles or under their immediate su
pervision. Only on the basis of substantial testimony was
any book admitted to the confidence of the churches as com
ing from inspired men. This was no less true of the gospel
histories than of the Epistles, e. g. to Rome, Corinth, Ephe
sus. As in the case of these Epistles, those churches primarily
addressed were the original witnesses, competent above all
others to testify from whom they came, so in the case of the
several gospel histories, those churches among whom they
were first circulated, and for whom each severally was spe
cially adapted and written, would be the primary authority
as to their authorship. It deserves special notice that these
four gospel histories bear internal marks of a very distinctive
character. From such marks it appears that Matthew wrote
primarily for Jewish readers, never pausing to explain what
all Jews must understand, and quoting the Old Testament
scriptures most abundantly, as might be expected of an au
thor himself a Jew, writing to and for Jewish readers.  As
to Mark, the tradition of those times witnesses that he had
been intimately associated with Peter. Correspondingly the
internal conditions of the book are met if we suppose it pri
marily written (like Peter's epistles) for "the strangers scat
tered abroad throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia,
and Bithynia." The accurate memory of Peter as an eye
witness appears in the minute particulars given of the looks,
actions, and manifest emotions of the chief actors — not to
say also in the very full and honest account of Peter's denial
of his Lord, and of his tears of bitter repentance.  Luke,
it is well known, traveled and labored long with the Apostle
Paul. Of Gentile origin himself, and conversant with Gen
tile churches, it was fitting that his gospel narrative should
adapt itself as it does to their knowledge and wants. Luke's
style stands highest in Greek culture, and most abounds in
allusions to the current history of the Roman Empire. So
it should if indeed he wrote primarily for those churches
which Paul planted throughout most of the provinces of that
great empire, and even in her very capital.  Of John it
should be said that his explanations of Jewish usages ; e. g. of
their marriage customs (2 : 6) ; of the Passover (2 : 23, and

6 GENERAL INTRODUCTION.
6:4); and of the national antipathy between Jews and Sa
maritans (4: 9) show plainly that he had in mind other read
ers than Jews in Judea. Suffice it to say that his internal
marks harmonize most entirely with the testimony of early
Christian writers that he wrote at Ephesus, and with special
adaptation to the churches of Asia. Note the correspond
ing facts of his seven brief epistles to the seven churches of
Asia, in Rev. 2 and 3. All those churches, therefore, must
have known this aged apostle intimately. Receiving this gos
pel history from his hands, they were of all men the most im
portant witnesses to his authorship. It is simply impossible
that on this point they could be mistaken.
Thus the external, historical testimony justifies the con
clusion that the author of this gospel was the Apostle John.
No counter-testimony of any importance appears.
INTERNAL TESTIMONY.
1. The book throughout bears marks of having been writ
ten by that one of his disciples whom Jesus loved preemi
nently, who leaned on his bosom at supper, and enjoyed his .
intimate confidence. This .disciple might be expected to re
member best those words and deeds which form the staple
of this book. The spirit of the book is in beautiful harmony
with the spirit of the Apostle John as we may gather it from
these incidental allusions.
2. The book corresponds admirably with the traditional
notices of this apostle in his advanced years — affectionate,
tender, earnest — whose spirit appears in his latest exhorta
tion, "Little children, love one another."
3. The date of this gospel coincides with the great age of
John. Every thing indicates that this gospel was written
after the other three ; and all history testifies that John long
survived all the other apostles.
4. The style evinces much more skill and familiarity witb
the Greek tongua than the style of the Revelation — favoring
the opinion that this gospel was written many, perhaps a
score of years, subsequently to the prophetical book. (Tho
luck and Meyer.)
5. Finally, no other man known to history, save John,
was living in the age when this gospel history was written
who was at all equal to its production. So Neander ex
presses himself with the strongest conviction (p. 6) :

GENERAL INTRODUCTION. 7
"It could have emanated from none other than that 'beloved
disciple ' upon whose soul the image of the Savior had left its
deepest impress. So far from this gospel's having been written
by a man of the second century (aa some assert), we can not even
imagine a man existing in that century so little affected by the
contrarieties of his times and so far exalted above them. Could
an age involved in perpetual contradictions ; an age of religious
materialism, anthropomorphism, and one-sided intellectuiuism,
have given birth to a production like this, whioh bears the stamp
of none of these deformities ? How mighty must the man have
been who, in that age, could produce from his own mind such an
image of Christ as this I Aud this man too, in a period almost
destitute of eminent minds, remained in total obscurity! Was it
necessary for the master-spirit who felt in himself the capacity
and the calling to accomplish the greatest achievement of his
day, to resort to a pitiful trick to smuggle his ideas into circu
lation?" pehsonal history.
The Apostle John was the son of Zebedee and Salome ;
brother of the martyred James (Acts 12 : 2) ; a fisherman
by occupation, and resident on the shore of the Sea of Gali
lee, otherwise called Tiberias. The family was manifestly
one of some means. The fact that John was " known to
the High Priest" (John 18 : 15, 16) may have been due -to
his business relations with Jerusalem as the chief market ;
perhaps also, to his social and religious position among the
leading men of Jerusalem.  Apparently Salome was a sis
ter or sister-in-law of Mary, the mother of Jesus, for com
paring the several enumerations of the women who from a
distance witnessed the crucifixion, we have in John 19 : 25,
the mother of Jesus and "his mother's sister;" in Matt. 27:
56, "the mother of Zebedee's children;" and in Mark 15:
40, the specific name, " Salome." On this supposition John's
relationship to Jesus may in part account for the intimate
and tender sympathy between them.
DATE OF THIS GOSPEL.
It is very probable that John did not locate in Ephesus un
til after Paul's last interview with the elders of that church
(Acts 20 : 17-38), inasmuch as his presence, supposing him
there at .that time, could scarcely have failed of some notice
in this narrative. Even Paul's second letter to Timothy,
tlien at Ephesus (about A. D. 67), makes no" allusion to the
Apostle John as being there — not to say that John's presence

8 GENERAL INTRODUCTION.
there would have obviated the necessity of sending Timothy
there at all. But the exigencies of those seven churches of
Asia as they are brought to view in Rev. 2 and 3, may be
supposed to have brought him there from Jerusalem, and
the more so as the calamities impending over Jerusalem ad
monished not only the apostles, but all Christians to escape
from the doomed city. Very definite historical testimony
proves that John lived to a great age, and passed the closing
years of his life with the churches of Asia Minor, at or near
Ephesus. The fact that the first three gospel histories very
minutely record while John entirely omits the prophetic dis
course of Jesus with his disciples, foretelling the destruction
of Jerusalem by the Romans and specifying the antecedent
signs of this catastrophe (Matt. 24, and Mark 13, and Luke
21), may be accepted as proof that Matthew, Mark, and
Luke wrote before the fall of the city, and John after. How
long after, no existing data suffice to show with more than
proximate precision. The most probable estimate assigns its
date bet-ween A. D. 80 and 90.
The special aim and purpose of this gospel history deserve
attention. After three gospel histories were already extant,
what worthy object could call for a fourth ?
Perhaps anticipating this question, John himself gave the
answer which we find (chap. 20 : 30, 31) in these words :
"Many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his dis
ciples, which are not written in this book. But these are writ
ten that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God,
and that, believing, ye might have life through his name."
This seems to be very definite. His purpose was to prove to
his readers that Jesus of Nazareth was truly the promised
Messiah and indeed the Son of God ; and further, to per
suade them to faith in him as such in order that, believing,
they might have life — the true gospel life of salvation —
through his name. Thus, to prove the great gospel facts
respecting Jesus, and to persuade men to accept him by cor
dial faith unto salvation, were the two coordinate aims of this
gospel history.  If it be objected that this passage contem
plates rather John's aim in his selection from Christ's mira
cles than his general purpose in the writing of his book, it
may be fitly replied that a very considerable portion of the
book hangs upon the miracles it records; that -these were
introduced, not as n^ked facts of history, barren of special
pertinence and relations, but as the occasion of introducing
those vastly important discussions with the Jews to which

GENERAL INTRODUCTION. 9
they gave rise, or with the no less broad purpose of showing
forth the Messiah's glory to his disciples and friends. The
author specifies the latter as the purpose of Jesus in the first
recorded miracle (John 2 : 11). The discussion with the
Jews which grew out of the healmg at Bethesda (John 5) ;
out of the feeding of the five thousand (John 6) ; out of the
healing of the man born blind (John 9) ; out of the raising
of the dead Lazarus (John 11), are in point to show that the
selection of precisely these from Christ's many miracles had
for its ulterior object the proof of his claims to be the Mes
siah, and the setting forth of his glory as one "mighty to
save." In studying the purpose and aim of this gospel history as
compared with the other three, we are met with a very con
siderable difierence, not to say contrast, in its general char
acter. Thus : — John omits what Matthew and Luke give
in detail respecting the antecedents of the human birth of
Jesus ; the genealogy of Joseph and Mary ; the angelic an
nouncements, and the various incidents of his early history.
On the other hand they all omit, but John gives, the ante
cedents on his divine side — how the divine "Word" was re
lated to God, and ultimately "became flesh and dwelt among
us."  In the line of historic facts John omits the tempta
tion of Jesus in the wilderness, his transfiguration ou the holy
mount (though a personal witness), very many of his mira
cles, his agony in Gethsemane; and iu the line of his in
structions, John passes by the Sermon on the mount, his
numerous parables, the prophetic announcements respecting
the destruction of Jerusalem, etc., etc. But over against
these he records matter which they all omit ; e. g. the per
sonal labors of Jesus with Nicodemus, with the woman of
Samaria, with the man healed at the pool of Bethesda, with
the man born blind, and his relations to the loved family at
Bethany, and the raising of Lazarus ; and especially the ex
tended discussions with the hostile, captious Jews ; also the
full and free conversations and the remarkable prayer with
his disciples during the evening preceding his arrest. _ Com
prehensively we might say the three earlier gospel histories
give the moralities of the Christian life; this of John, the
spir'itualities. Those unfold the moral law in its principles
and applications; this, the law of the spiritual life — the
relations of Jesus to his people as their bread of life, their
"good Shepherd," their sympathizing Friend; and espe
cially the doctrine of the Comforter — his mission and his

10 GENERAL INTRODUCTION.
work. The former are characterized by the Sermon on the
mount, the royal law of love and its application to " my
neighbor : " the latter, by the law of love to Christ and to
the brethren, and the blessed fruits thereof.
With these points before us of broad distinction between
John's and the three earlier gospel histories, it seems appro
priate to ask —
Was this gospel history purposely made supplementary to the
other three f
Beyond all question it is largely so ; but was it made so
of definite purpose — the others lying before him, and his
mind being impressed with a sense of their deficiencies and
ofthe importance of supplying them?  Or, did this gospel
history become supplementary in a way mainly or altogether
incidental, and without set purpose ; i. e. as the result of
having a somewhat different special aim before his mind,
such as he has himself indicated, and by prosecuting it in
a thoroughly independent way?  The latter seems to me
most probable. There is at least no proof that John had the
other gospel histories before him at the time of his writing.
He makes no such allusion to them as we find in the Sec
ond Epistle of Peter (3: 15, 16) to the writing of his brother
Paul, nor such as appear in Luke 1 : 1, 2, to other gospel
narratives. Yet, writing so long after the other three, it is
a priori probable that John had known of their existence,
and, moreover, had seen them, and had at least some gen
eral notion of their contents.  But on the other hand, if
he wrote with those gospel histories before him, purposely to
make his own supplementary to those, it is not easy to ac
count for the discrepancies which he suffered to exist in some
points between his history and theirs ; as, for example, in
the antecedents to the feeding of the five thousand. Why
did he not either correct them if he thought them in error,
or adjust his statement to theirs if he knew them to be cor
rect ? It is entirely manifest that John wrote in a perfectly
independent way, adhering closely to his proposed object;
selecting his matter and giving it shape, all for the precise
ends which he had in view. He therefore stands before the
world as an independent witness to the great facts both of
the historic life and of the words of Jesus which he records.
As such, his gospel is of priceless value. No estimate can ex
aggerate its importance or its living interest and vital bear
ings upon the inner life of his people.
Yet other points claim brief attention.

GENERAL INTRODUCTION. 11
In circles of German criticism it has been gravely objected
to the genuineness and authenticity of John's gospel history
that its Messiah is too unlike the Messiah seen in the three an
tecedent gospels, and therefore can not have been the same
personage, or at least can not have been drawn by the same
divme inspiration.* As those critics accept the historic
Messiah of the first three gospel histories, they claim to feel
bound to reject the Messiah of John, and, consequently, the
record itself.
This critical objection may be met as follows :
1. The points newly or more fully developed in John are
in no respect inconsistent with the character and work of the
Messiah as presented in the three antecedent gospels. Sure
ly Matthew, Mark, and Luke have reported nothing of the
Christ whose words and deeds they record which is incon
sistent with his true divinity — nothing which precludes the
doctrine that the personage named by John "the Logos" —
existing from eternity with God, and really himself God —
assumed, or in the phrase of John, "became" flesh, entered
into a mysterious union with the Son of Mary, and became
thus God manifest in the one man Jesus. For, observe, the
Jesus Messiah of those first three gospels is sinless, so that
on the moral side there can be nothing incompatible with
his being really divine as well as human. He is, moreover,
aU-idse; he made no mistakes. He is all-powerful for any
exercise of power which his mission called for. No miracle
needful to his work was ever too stubborn for his arm. Thus
we might expand this point indefinitely, to the preclusion of
any, even the least possible inconsistency in supposing that
the Messiah set before us in the first three gospels was really
all that John represents him.
2. We have in the earlier gospels some remarkable fore-
shadowings of those great points which are the staple of what
is most peculiar to John ; e. g. in Matt. 11 : 27, and 28 : 18,
and Luke 10: 22: "All things are delivered unto me of
my Father" ["all power is given unto me in heaven and in
earth"]; "and no man knoweth the Son but the Father,
neither knoweth any man the Father save the Son, and he
to whomsoever the Son wiU reveal him ; " or as put by Luke,
" No man knoweth who the Son is but the Father, and who
* As the objection is phrased in Olshausen (2: 288) — "The Savior
as delineated iu the fourth gospel appears a, perfectly difl'erent per
son from that "which he is described to be in the three other gospels."

12 GENERAL INTRODUCTION.
the Father is but the Son," etc.  " All things delivered
unto me;" "All power in heaven and in earth given to
me:"  Who then is this "mef" Shall it be assumed
that he is merely, only, a man, one of our own mortal race ?
 Note further ; -this claim to have received from the
Father the investiture of supreme control of the universe is
backed up by the assertion of a somewhat in his nature un
known to all but the Father, and indeed that himself knows
the Father as no other being in the universe can know him.
How can these affirmations be true of any being lower than
the Eternal Word who "was from the beginning with God,"
and who "was God?" Let it not, therefore, be said that
the Divine Word, the Eternal Logos, is not distinctly fore
shadowed in the words of Christ as recorded by Matthew and
by Luke.
3. The points specially unfolded by John (though not by
him alone and exclusively) are of exceeding vitality and
importance, such as could in no manner be spared from the
Christian system. It seems pertinent therefore to inquire
briefly how it came to pass that they were not unfolded in
their fullness by the earlier gospel historians, and why they
should have been reserved (to such a degree) for John, and
to a period so late ?
My reply may be brought mainly under three heads :
(1) From the beginning it has been the divine policy — un
questionably and most obviously a wise one — that in shaping
his written revelation to men there should be "progress of
doctrine." As in the history of all human science, so in the
Avritten revelation made to men of God and of his ways, the
simpler elements come first in order, and so the mind is
aided to rise by gradual stages of advance to the higher
elements. This principle appears in the advance made by
John upon the earlier gospel historians.
(2) According all honor and all efficiency to the wisdom
of the inditing Spirit, we may yet attribute much that is
peculiar in this gospel to what was in great measure special
and peculiar in John himself. His mind was contemplative
and loved to go into the deep things of God. His heart
was affectionate, and for this reason entered into the deep
est spiritual communion with Jesus. There was a reason in
his inmost being why he, rather than any other one of the
twelve, should lean on Jesus' bosom and be known as
"the disciple whom Jesus loved." Hence he, more than
any other one of the twelve, caught up, studied, and' re-

GENERAL INTRODUCTION. 13
membered those words in which Jesus spake of his rela
tion to the Father, his pre-existent glory, and of his inex
pressible love for his people. If we assume his personal re
lationship by blood to Jesus (as above noted), this fact
may have had some bearing upon the very peculiar inti
macy and freedom of affection and confidence which existed
between them. To this may be added that the lapse of
years, the mello-wness of old age, and perhaps a careful and
profound study of the earlier gospel Ilistories may have com
bined to impress him with the importance of having the
points which naturally interested him so deeply brought out
in the greater fullness Avhich we see in his gospel history.
(3.) Something may be attributed to what was external
to his later life. His removal from Jerusalem to Ephesus
— from Palestine to Asia Minor — transferred him from the
atmosphere of Jewish to that of Grecian mind. It brought
him into contact with new modes of thought, and we may
also say probably with new and peculiar receptivities to
truth. The Jews were the staunchest of Monotheists. It
had been the work of ages to impress into the depths of
Jewish thought — " The Lord our God is one Lord." We
find in this gospel history by John that they stumbled fa
tally over this offense — Jesus claiming to be equal with
God. Somewhat as the result of ages of providential train
ing, they could bear no modification of their monotheistic
doctrine. In the Grecian mind as developed in Asia Mi
nor and in Egyptian Alexandria, the case was far other
wise. The doctrine of emanation, applied to God, was no
offense to them. There were some among them who held
that the Supreme One might send forth from himself other
beings of truly divine attributes, and had done so. This
sect, currently known as " Gnostics," were, it is thought by
many, in the eye of John when he wrote this gospel. It
may be supposed that one inducement to write it was to set
forth the true viewi'te opposed to the subtle errors of the
Gnostic sect.  Furthermore, it may be suggested that, in
the capability of nice distinctions (one of the strong fea
tures of the Greek tongue), as well as in the acuteness of
Grecian mind, and in the absence of foregoing prejudice,
John might have seen special facilities and inducements for
putting forth prominently the great points made in his gos
pel history. The way was providentially opened for the
fuller development of the real doctrine of the Trinity, in
cluding the pre-existent divine person of Christ.

14 GENERAL INTRODUCTION.
Another point it may not be amiss to discuss; for al
though it might not be thought of by those who make small
account of the human element in inspiration but large ac
count of the divine ; yet it is wont to be an offense to those
who on the other hand make chief account of the human
and little or none of the divine.
The question is raised — Did John record these extended
conversations of Jesus from memory, or from written docu
ments made up at or near the time of their occurrence?
How is the human thought and mind of John related to the
facts he describes and the speeches he records? Were they
given him by direct inspiration ; or did he as a personal wit
ness, seeing and hearing for himself, come to his knowledge
under the normal laws of the human mind ?
Let it be considered that according to our best knowledge,
not far from half a century intervened between the historic
events and the writing of the book. What can be said of
John's remembering the events and the spoken words with
accuracy for fifty years?
I suggest these points. The accurate and retentive re
membrance of transactions seen and of spoken words heard,
depends on several various conditions :
(a) It is partly a thing of original endowment, some
minds being far more gifted in this respect than others.
(6) It is always a thing more or less of careful culture
and practice. Training and use will work wonders. It
should also be considered that before printing and before
books came into current use, there was far greater demand
for the culture of memory as to spoken words than there
has been since.
(o) Very much will always depend on the mind's interest
in the things seen or heard, and upon their being kept fresh
before the mind by frequent repetition and by deep, absorb
ing reflection. We are by no means to assume that John
dropped those deeds and words of Jesus from his mind through
the lapse of those fifty intervening years. Rather it should be
assumed that no day passed in which they were not in some
aspects present to his thought and living in the deeps of his
heart's emotions and affections, often repeated and impressed
in his preaching and conversation.
{d) Something must be accorded to that well known law
of mind by which, far into old age, the scenes of youth and
the impressions made in the earliest years of life, abide in

GENERAL INTRODUCTION. 15
their freshness, while things and words of recent date fade
out of memory.
(e) Though last not least, is the aid of " the Comforter.''
It was one of his promised functions — " He shall bring all
things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto
you." We need not interpret this to imply any violation of
the laws of the human mind. Under these laws there is
ample scope for the effects promised. Verily there can never
be any lack of resources in the Inflnite Mind to reach the
human mind which himself has made in his own image, with
suggestions, quickened remembrance, sanctifying impressions.
In view of these points — all germain to the case — there
need be no stumbling over the hypothesis that John recorded
with sufficient accuracy for all the purposes of vital truth the
events transacted and the words spoken a half century before
he made the record which has come down to us.

GOSPEL OF JOHN.

CHAPTER I.
The author first introduces the great personage of his book by
setting forth his true divinity, and especially his relations to God
before he became manifest to men (vs. 1, 2). He was supreme
and universal Creator (v. 3) ; the source and fountain of life
and light to men (v. 4) ; albeit this light was strangely repelled
by a benighted world (v. 5). Prominent among the subjects
brought forward in this chapter is the mission of John the Baptist
as a witness for Christ (vs. 6-8). Jesus was the true light of the
world although so strangely repelled by his ancient people (vs. 9-
11). Yet some did receive him, thus becoming sons of God by
a birth truly from God (vs. 12, 13). The divine 'Word appeared
in human form, revealing to men the glory of the Father (vs. 14,
18). Again the author reverts to the testimony of John the Baptist
(v. 15), and enlarges upon the fullness of grace and truth which
comes to men through Christ, other and greater than that which
came through Moses (vs. 16, 17).  Priests and Levites are com
missioned from Jerusalem to interrogate Jesus ; his reply (vs. 19-
28). John sees Jesus approaching and bears direct testimony
that he is the Lamb of God and the Son of God (vs. 29-34).
Two of John's disciples follow Jesus and invite others to him (vs.
35-42). Jesus finds and calls Philip and Philip introduces Na
thaniel (vs. 43—45) ; what Jesus said to Nathaniel closes thia chap
ter (vs. 46-51).
1. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was
with God, and the Word was God.
Who is meant by the "Word," is amply shown by the descrip
tive points presented in vs. 1-18, but especially in vs. 1-3, 14.
The personage to whom this peculiar name is applied can be no
other than the Christ, the Son of God with special reference to
what he was before he became manifest to men in human flesh.
This "Word," having been "with God" from eternity, himself
really God, "became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld hia
glory." For, according to v. 1, before he thus became flesh, he
existed even " from the beginning ' and then was "with God and
(17)

18 GOSPEL OF JOHN.— CHAP. I.
was God." As further described (v. 18) he "was the only begot
ten Son ; " was " in the bosom of the Father ; " and having come
forth before the world of mankind, declared or manifested God
to them.
" In the beginning the word was " — existed. By the almost
universal consent of critics, the phrase " in the beginning," signi
fies in the past eternity ; before time ; before the world was. The
author must have thought of " the 'Word " as existing before this
world or any part of the material universe came into being, for
he aifirms that "all things were made by him," and there was not
the least occasion for saying that the Creator must have existed
before he could create. Apparently John had in mind the first
verse of Genesis; "In the beginning God created the heavens
and the earth." We may infer this from his using equivalent
words, and from his reference immediately to the creation of all
things as done by the Logos.  If it be asked why John uses
"In the beginning" to denote in eternity past I would answer:
In the poverty of all human language to express the idea of past
eternity, this phrase came to hand as the nearest approximation.
In the beginning the Word was in being — not, came into being,
but was already in being — before any thing else existed with
which to compare it — before any epoch from which to date his
existence ; farther back than thought itself can travel — back of
the remotest point reached by the boldest outgoings of human
search — ihere was the eternal Word already in existence.
It should therefore be carefully remarked that John does not
by any means attempt to fix the date when the " Word " began to
exist, but only to help us conceive of his existence from eternity
by saying that at the earliest point we can think of, the Word
was already in existence.— — It should be noted that the Greek
word for "beginning"* is without the article. If John had re
ferred to any well known beginning, to any definite recognized
epoch as the point at which the Word came into. being or even
was in being, he would have used the article. Omitting it, he
must mean that at first — at that intangible, ideal point which we
may conceive of as the remotest point possible to human thought,
then and there the Word existed.
" The Word." Passing on from the inquiry Who was the
Word? we meet the question — ^Why does John choose this Greek
term Logos, as a name for the eternal Son of God ?
To this question two answers have been given.
(a) That this name is chosen with an eye to its essential sig
nificance, word meaning that which conveys thought, which car
ries truth from mind to mind. With this may be coupled the
antecedent usage of Scripture which associates power with spoken
words aa uttered by the Almighty.
(6) That the term "Logos" was chosen by John with special
reference to existing or foregoing speculations in regard to the di-
* apxv.

GOSPEL OF JOHN.— CHAP. L 19
vine beina e. g., those of Plato the Grecian philosopher or of
Philo the Jewish, coupled also perhaps with the usage of the Jew
ish Targums which in some cases translate the Hebrew terms for
God by the circumlocution — " The Word of the Lord."
Instead of adopting either of these theories to the entire exclu
sion of the other, I prefer to attribute a measure of influence to
both. The first named is altogether natural, and moreover is quite
in harmony with the cast of John's mind — at once simple and
profound. Hence he might think of the term word as the vehicle
of thought — the medium for conveying truth from one mind to
another. In this view the eternal Word is simply the revealer
of God : his mission is the uttering forth to the apprehension of
intelligent man, or more broadly, to the intelligence of all created
minds the truth concerning God.  We notice that John makes
this function of the Son every-where prominent. " No man hath
seen God at any time; the only begotten Son hath declared him"
(v. 18). "Truth came by Jesus Christ" (v. 17). Jesus himself
makes this point emphatic : " I came into the world to bear wit
ness to the truth'' (John 18: 37).
Moreover let us not miss the great fact that in the Holy Scrip
tures God does honor to written words as the vehicle of truth m
respect to himself In the universe of matter God has made a
lower revelation of himself: the higher comes through words,
spoken in former times by the prophets; " in these last days by
his Son" (Heb. 1: 1, 2). Abstractly therefore, yet most com
prehensively, the Great itevealer himself may fitly be named the
"Word." That John rather than Matthew, Mark or Luke should originate
this usage of the term " Word " may be due, not alone to his met
aphysical cast of mind, but possibly in part to the fact that it fell
to him as one of the gospel historians to record the verbal utter
ances of his Master. The other historians give his- miracles ; the
great deeds that filled out his public life: John, far more than
they, his spoken words — those extended discussions whioh he had
with captious Jews, and his tender conversations with hjs be
loved disciples.
Let it be noted also that while the term Word has naturally the
primary sense of that which conveys thought — which carries truth
from mind to mind, yet the Hebrew writers prior to John had as
sociated with the spoken word of God the idea ot power. "God
said, Let there be light: and light was" (Gen. 1: 3). _^"He
spake, and it was done; he commanded, and it stood fast" (Ps.
33: 9). "He commanded, and they were created" (Ps. 148: 5).
"He sendeth forth his commandment upon earth; his word
runneth very swiftly" (Ps. 147: 15, 18).  This accessory idea
in the term logos made it still more appropriate for John's pur
pose. It seems to me legitimate to sustain this view by appeal to
John's analogous use of the terms "Life," "Light," "Truth."
If it be objected that the term " word" denotes not the speaker

20 GOSPEL OF JOHN.— CHAP. I.
but the thing spoken, so (it may be replied) does the term "life "
denote properly the abstract entity and not its author and source ;
" light ' is that by means of which we see and not the Light-
bearer; the word "truth" denotes properly the abstract idea and
not its Kevealer, yet in almost the same breath John calls the
Eternal Son first "the Word;" then the Life, the Light, the
Truth. "The Life was the Light of men" (v. 4). "That was
the true Light which is coming into the world " (v. 9). " For the
Life was manifested, and we have seen and bear witness, and show
unto you the Eternal Life who was with the Father, and was mani
fested unto us" (1 John 1 : 2).  ^Here the argument is that this
usage — ^the abstract term for the concrete — a name significant of
what he does, applied to designate the Great Agent himself — is
shown to be in harmony with John's cast of mind and habits of
expression, and therefore goes far to sustain the theory that he
gives the name word to the Eternal Son, in part at least because
he came to men with the truth concerning God clothed in human
speech. Yet while I make chief account of this prime significance of
the term "word" as the reason for John's use of it here, I see
no occasion to rule out the other reason noticed above, viz : the
fact that in the philosophical speculations of the Greeks and Jews
as seen in Plato, Philo and in the apocryphal books (" Wisdom of
Solomon" 9: 9-11, 17 and Ecclesiasticus 24), there had been an
approximation toward this usage of the term "word," or its cor
relate, " wisdom." With an eye upon this usage, and with the
purpose of correcting its misconceptions, and filling out more
fully the great idea of which those philosophers had scarcely the
germ, John may have defined and expanded the sense of this
term Logos.
"The Word was witJi God." No just interpretation of this
clause can drop below the implication of some sort of distinct
personality. The preposition "with" does not indeed define the
precise sense or give the exact measure of this personal distinc
tion; but it certainly forbids absolute identity. The "Word"
must therefore be somewhat different from and other than God —
else he could not with propriety be said to be " with God." *
® The Greek student would notice that the preposition for ttiiih is
not meta whioh would suggest companionship, intimate association ;
nor is it sun whioh would indicate a yet closer fellowship ; but it is
pros — the primary and usual sense of which is to be in front of, as
-ivhen one thing is in the presence of or before another — suggesting
therefore that the Logos is the visible manifestation of God ; is that of
God -which is put forward and becomes patent, apprehensible, visible,
to his creatures. Yet a few oases of New Testament usage are found
in which pros is translated " with." Thus : " Are not his sisters
all with us?" (Matt. 13: 56). "Are not his sisters here wi<A us ? "
(Mark 6: 3). In these cases however pros might be taken in the
sense — before us ; in our presence. Also Mark 9 ; 19, " 0 faithless

GOSPEL OF JOHN.— CHAP. I. 21
"And the word was God " — not merely was godlike ; not, was
simply divine in the loose transcendental sense in which great
men and their great thoughts and deeds are sometimes spoken of
as divine. Nor in the opposite extreme does the phrase mean that
the Word was the God — the only God ; the God in the exclusive
sense which should comprise within himself all there is of God.
This exclusive sense would have been indicated by the Greek ar
ticle if it had been used here. But standing without the article,
the sense must be — was truly and essentially divine. The ancient
exposition "very God" is felicitous, in the sense — nothing less
than God, yet not excluding those other equally divine persons —
the Father and the Spirit. ¦*  Yet again ; To translate, " was the
God," meaning the whole of God, would nullify what John had
just said — "was with God," for it would render such a fact im
possible. Nor can we translate — The Word was a God — for this
would imply an absolutely distinct being — another God — a state
ment revolting to the whole current of Scripture, both of the Old
Testament and the New.
2. The same was in the beginning with God.
"The same was in the beginning with God."  " The same"
— this very Logos ; literally — this one ; this personage.  Note
that V. 2 brings together the first and second clauses of v. 1. In
that verse .lohn had said two things, viz : that the Word was in
the beginning ; and that the Word was with God. In v. 2 he
afBrms that the Word was with God in the beginning — i. e., before
the first act of creation ; during the past eternity. Whatever the
relation expressed by with, it was not a thing of time only ; was
not of recent occurrence or of transient duration, but had existed
coeval with the existence of God. This point John makes em
phatic by his perfectly explicit affirmation in this verse.  More
over it is supposable that one object in repeating " was with God "
may have been to guard the reader against the possible misappre
hension above referred to, viz: supposing "the, Word" to com
prehend the whole Godhead.
3. All things were made by him ; and without him was not
any thing made that was made.
All things became existent — began to be — by him ; and without
his agency has nothing ever come into being. That the divine
Word created the entire universe — has been universal Creator —
is affirmed in the strongest possible language, first by the term
"all;" second, by excluding all other creatorship — every other
creative agency but his.
generation! how long shall I be wiih you?" i. e. going out and in
before you. So 1 Cor. 16 : 6, 7 : " It may be that I will winter with
you. I trust to tarry awhile with you" (i. e. in your society).
® For a more extended discussion of the divinity of Christ as re
lated to the Trinity of the Godhead, see Excursus I in the Appendix.

22 GOSPEL OF JOHN.— CHAP. I.
It should be noted that although in this passage no allusion is
made to any agency of the Father- in creation, yet elsewhere in
the New Testament his agency is brought to view, and that of the
Son is represented as being mediate, executive: e.g. "In God who
created all things hy Jesus Christ" (Eph. 3:9). "By whom (his
Son) he (God) made the worlds " (Heb. 1 : 2). We also find forms
of statement entirely coincident with this of John, e. g. " For by
him (the Son) were all things created that are in heaven and that
are in earth ; visible and invisible ; whether they be thrones or
dominions, or principalities or powers; all things were created by
him and for him" (Col. 1 : 16).  In yet another passage (1 Cor.
8 : 6) the concurrent agency of the Father and of the Spirit is put
in this form : " But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom
are all things and we in him ; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom
are all things and we by him." This passage from Paul has the
metaphysical precision characteristic of his clear thought and
nicely adjusted words.
If now the question be asked, Why did John at this point intro
duce the "Word" as Creator — a fact touched in this connection
only in this one short verse and not referred to again ; it may be
answered : — (a) For the sake of the great fact itself: — (6) To con
firm and enforce the idea of his true divinity: "He who built all
things is God " (Heb. 3 : 4). — (c) To give greater breadth to the
conception of the Eternal Word as the Revealer of God. Naturally
the "Word should be thought of as the Messenger of God to men by
his written revelation, being comprehensively the true word of God
to men. But there is another grand department of God's revela
tion of himself — viz., that which is made through the universe of
matter — here ascribed equally to the divine Son of God. — (d) In
cidentally this verse augments the proof that John has before his
mind the first words of Moses (Gen. 1 : 1), in which God ig intro
duced to mankind as the Creator of the heavens and the earth.
Comparing with each other the respective introductions to their
several histories as given by Mathew and Luke on the one hand
and by John on the other, we may note that while the two former
put in the foreground the human birth and antecedents of Jesus,
the latter gives first the divine antecedents of the Eternal Word
whp became flesh — i. e. came down to dwell as man among us.
The former trace the genealogy of the man Jesus to Adam, Abra
ham, and David ; the latter labors to carry us back to the position
and relations of that exalted divine Personage who was in being
before the world was, coexisting eternally with the Father, and
really himself God. If the former sought to support the Messiah-
ship of Jesus by showing that he was truly the Son of David, the
latter sought equally to prove that Jesus is the Christ the Son of
God (John 20: 31) "in order that believing" on such a. Savior
" we might have life through his name." Thus appropriately each
author m the very manner and scope of his introduction fore
shadows the drift of his book.

GOSPEL OF JOHN.— CHAP. I. 23
4. In him was life ; and the life was the light of men.
_ "In him is life" [is rather thaii "was," on the best authori
ties] — the present tense implying that life is in him forevermore,
and is not a transient, temporary endowment.  In him is life,
moreover, not in the sense merely that he exists, but far beyond
this — that he is the great and sole Life-giver — the infinite Foun
tain of Life.
Yet further we must ask — In what sens.e of the word "life ?"
 This word being used here with no limitation whatever, we
must interpret it in the absolutely universal sense — all life in the
universe. Yet the context shows that John's thought is specially
upon moral, spiritual life ; for he proceeds to say, this life brings
light to men — not sunlight to the eye of the body, but the light of
God to human souls, that light which terminates in salvation as its
end.  Following closely the course of John's thought — the laws
of suggestion under whioh one thought follows another — we may
assume that he passes from Creatorship which gives existence to
matter and animal life to sentient beings, to this far higher func
tion exercised upon a lost race dead in sin, which offers life in the
rich and glorious sense of restoration to God, to hope and to bliss.
lie who first gave physical existence to all that is — ^vegetablc or
animal — advances to the analogous yet nobler function of breath
ing life into souls dead in moral ruin.
"This life was the light of men." It developed its power by
means of truth — which shows that its action takes effect upon in
telligent mind, not upon non-intelligent matter. Por certainly
" light " here must refer to mind — must be not sunlight upon
the material eye, but the light of God upon darkened understand
ings. The subsequent context demands this spiritual sense of the
word.  This light concerning God stands naturally correlated to
the life which resurrects human souls from death in sin to recon
ciliation, peace, love, and blessedness in God.
5. And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness
comprehended it not.
Our translators should have followed the original and inserted
the article before " darkness " — shineth in ihe darkness — the well
known moral darkness of a fallen race.  As material light might
be supposed to labor to pierce into the dense darkness [e. g. of a
London fog] but meet only repulsion, so this precious light from
heaven poured itself forth upon the darkness of benighted souls
the world over, but alas I this darkness would not admit its heavenly
rays.  " Would not" is the appropriate phrase in this case ; for
while in the material world light naturally penetrates and scatters
away darkness, and we never think of darkness as making inten
tional or even natural opposition, it is entirely otherwise in the
spiritual world. For here the very mischief — the real virus of
darkness is its moral repugnance to Heaven's light— the alarming
and guilty fact being that men love darkness rather than light, and

24 GOSPEL OF JOHN.— CHAP. I.
therefore do not make light welcome — not even this glorious light
from heaven, emanating from " the Father of lights," th'e very God
of love.
6. There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.
7. The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the
Light, that all men througli hira might believe.
8. He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of
that Light.
This transition to John the Baptist may seem at first view abrupt.
If so, a closer attention will show that the evangelist passes from
the general statement in regard to the moral darkness of the race
repelling the light of God, to particulars, to show the antecedent
steps taken in the kind providence of God to secure a favorable
reception for the Great Eevealer of heavenly light when he should
come. "There was* a man," etc., we might paraphrase — ^It came to
pass under the divine economy that a man was sent from God
(after the manner of the old prophets) whose name was .lohn.
The specific and sole purpose of his divine mission was to bear
witness to .lesus, the great Light about to appear from God, to the
end that all men through him {i. e. through the influence of his
antecedent teaching and testimony) might believe in Jesus when
he should come. He was not that great Light of whom I have
spoken, but was sent to prepare the way for his reception as the
long promised Messiah. Thus the evangelist introduces John the
Baptist. 9. Tliat was the true Light, which lighteth every man
that cometh into the world.
Here the writer would prove that Jesus (not John the Baptist)
is the true — i. e. the real, genuine light from heaven. In v. 8 he
had said that John was not that great Light but came to bear wit
ness to him who was. Continuing the discrimination, he sub
joins^" The true Light was that which, coming into the world,
enlightens every man." The universality of his work is its token
and identification. He came to bring the light of God, not to
Jews alone ; not to Jews and their proselytes ; but to Jews and
Gentiles wi'hoiit distinction ; to all men of every race and clime.
 Critics differ on the point whether the phrase " coming into
tho world," is said of this "Light," or of "every man." Gram
matically either is admissible. 1 incline to connect as above with
the " Light," (Jesus Christ), because his coming into the world
ia a very prominent thought throughout this entire passage, kept
constantly before the mind ; while, on the other hand, connected
with " every man," it seems altogether inept and purposeless.
What does it add to the signiflcance ofthe words " every man?"
* Greek, " 'Eyevero," it came to pass.

GOSPEL OF JOHN.— CHAP. L 25
Is there a tacit allusion to some men who do not " come into the
world" and so fail of seeing this light? Does the writer make
this a special point — that only those men who come into this
world receive this light? This is scarcely supposable. But he
does wish to impress the fact that Christ came into this world —
from heaven to earth — on the grand mission of bringing down the
light of God to all of every race who would receive it.  More
over the Messiah had long been known as the coming one ; " he
that should come" — the Avord being the same as here. (Matt.
11:3, and 21 : 9, and Luke 7: 19,20, and John 6 ; 14, and 11 :
28, and 12: 13).
10. He "was in the world, and the world was made by
him, and the world knew him not.
11. He came unto his own, and his own received him
not. Note how the writer amplifies his subject, reiterates and re
arranges his points, to expi'ess his amazement at the strange re
pulsion which this Light from heaven received. He actually
came down into this very world in person : indeed the material
world was his own creation, and moreover he gave all living men
their very being; and yet these minds made intelligent by his
own gift, would not know him. He came unto a people specially.
selected ages before to be his own, and even they did not (as a
nation) receive him.-*  The coming, specially in mind, is that
of his incarnation rather than his antecedent manifestations to
Israel through prophets or providential agencies.
12. But as many as received him, to them gave he power
to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his
name: 13. Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the
flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
While most of his originally chosen people rejected their Mes
siah a few received him by faith — a faith of the sort that both
believes andloves— and so became " Sons of God." " Power " to be
come God's sons — in the sense of prerogative, high privilege. The
power contemplated seems not to be a new moral ability by means
of which alone the recipient could exercise saving faith, for the
receiving of him by faith precedes in the order of nature this bles
sing of sonship toward God. To such as had received him, he gave
thia right or privilege.
" Who were born, {i. e. became sons of God) " not of blood
-* The Greek reader would notice the difference of gender. He came
unto his own things (ra iSia, neuter), and his own people (oi idioi,
masculine) did not receive him. Israel considered as God's inherit
ance, the home of his sanctuary, is a thiiig — a possession, truly his
own ; the people acting as men on their personal moral responsibility,
are persons, as the masculine gender implies.

26 GOSPEL OF JOHN.— CHAP. L
(not by lineal descent from Abraham as the Jews of that day as
sumed) — not ofthe impulses of the flesh as in all human births ;
— not of any merely human willing or action, but of God, by
virtue of his grace alone. The sonship of believers is aU of God.
Whoever will receive Christ by faith as his own personal Savior
is adopted (or born) into the family of God as a son. Tbe being
born is simply and only being made sons of God. As many as re
ceive Christ God receives into sonship — brethren of Christ.
14. And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us,
(and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten
of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
"The Word was made flesh" — the very phraseology suggest
ing the poverty of human language to express a truth so profoundly
mysterious. Por we must not think of any essential transforma
tion of the Word into flesh of such sort as would convert Deity
into humanity, though it may be admissible to suppose that the
divinity subjected itself, under some law unknown to us, to the
conditions of human flesh. The conditions and relations of this
union between God and man are but partially revealed in the
Scriptures and have never been fathomed by any human research.
It seems safe to assume, because apparently revealed in Scripture,
that this incarnation ("the Word became flesh") was the union
bf the divine Logos with a whole man ; not to a human body only
with no human soul ; nor to the human soul only with no human
body save in appearance or semblance ; but the real divinity was
united under laws and conditions not fully known to us, with a
real and complete man.-  There is no occasion to say — with hu
manity in the abstract, for such a conception only helps toward
mysticism and obscurity — We may also assume as the result of
this union on the negative side, that the man Jesus became thereby
none the less a man — none the less subject to the incidents of nor
mal humanity — the frailties, infirmities, fatigues, and sufferings,
the demands for nutrition, sleep, and rest ; the exposure to temp
tation, at least from the devil if not from the world and the flesh. — ¦
On the other hand, the divine Logos did not become in any re
spect less than divine by reason of this union. It did involve an
obscuring of his divine glory, an emptying of himself aa to this
glory, as Paul puts it (Phil. 2:7), yet manifestly only iu the sense of
what was apparent, and related to the form rather than the reality.
It is also clear that this union ensured a most intimate sympa
thy between the human andthe divine inthe person of .lesus, and
indirectly a marvelous sympathy between Jesus and all his believ
ing people toward whom he evermore bears himself as their El
der JBrother — a relation which could not have been what it now is
without the incarnation.  Of its great and precious results bear
ing upon the value of his atoning death, and of his mediation, ever
living before the Father's throne ; also upon the exaltation of hie
accepted brethren gathered home to the "many mansions" he
has himself provided for them — it is not in place here to speak.

GOSPEL OF JOHN.— CHAP. L 27
"And dwelt among us" — tabernacled, or dwelt in a tent among
us, as the Greek word denotes, with manifest allusion to the visi
ble glory which, under the old economy, dwelt in the thick dark
ness of the most holy place. Yet the divine glory though shaded
was not entirely obscured, for we saw some forth-streaming rays
thereof — "the glory as of the only-begotten of the Father. In
terpreting to us the moral significance of this word " glory," he
sa.ys, " full of grace and truth " — grace in the sense of kindness,
love, favor; and " truth" comprehensively put for the revelations
he was evermore making of God and of human duty.
The word " only-begotten" opens new questions, specially these
two:— (o) Does it refer to the Logos — the divine nature of Christ;
or to the man Jesus as born of the virgin Mary ?  (&) If its ref
erence be to the Logos, then we have the further question : Must
the epithet be taken in its primary sense, involving actual birth
into existence, and implying a derived and created being ; or in
its secondary sense — one best beloved, dearest to the heart ?
As to this epithet " only-begotten," * the history of its N. T.
usage is briefly this : It is used by .lohn (1 : 14, 18, and 3 : 16, 18,
and 1 John 4 : 9), and by Luke (7 : 12, and 8 : 42, and 9 : 38 ; also
in Heb. 11 : 17), which may be only another case of Luke's usage.
Only John applies it to the person of Christ.  That he applies
it rather to the divine person of Christ than to the human is
strongly indicated in each case by the context, the "glory"
spoken of (v. 14) being manifestly that of his pre-existent divine
personality. His being from eternity in the bosom of the Father
(v. 18) sustains the same reference. God's "giving his only be
gotten Son " (3 : 16) naturally suggests the Logos rather than the
man Jesus. So also in 1 John 4:9; "In this was manifested
the love of God because that God sent his only-begotten Son into
the world that we might live through him."
(6.) Assuming then its special reference to the divine Logos,
must we give the word its primary sense — the only born — exclud
ing all other sons, yet involving the normal sense of bringing
into being ; or, ruling out the idea of derived existence as incom
patible with his existing from eternity and with his being really
God — (the very point which John affirmed in the outset) (1 : 1), —
may we limit its meaning to the secondary sense, viz, best be-

This secondary sense is a natural one, the special affection felt
by the parent for an only son being an impulse and law of nature.
It is moreover favored by the Hebrew usage of their correspond
ing word.f  ^Yet again, in view of the fact that John virtually
foreclosed this primary sense of the epithet when he flrst intro
duced the Logos, affirming that he existed from eternity and was
truly God, it seems plain that he could not gainsay^^ those first
solemn declarations by using the word " onlv-begotten " in a sensfe
which involves derived existence-.  Finally, the secondary sense
-* Greek : /xovoyevt;;. t TT'l

28 GOSPEL OF JOHN.— CHAP. 1.
— best beloved — is in full harmony with the scope of the pas
sages in John, e. g. " in the bosom of the Father ; " " God so loved
the world that he gave his Son," though most dearly loved, etc.
15. John bare witness of him, and cried, saying, This
was he of whom I spake, He that cometh after me is pre
ferred before me ; for he was before me.
The Evangelist now adduces the testimony of John the Baptist,
at whose feet he had been wont to sit. Hence the vividness of
the picture, for the writer well remembered how the Baptist used
to stand and cry aloud to the gathered multitudes. When he saw
Jesus approaching he cried — This is he of whom I have often
spoken as soon to come. Coming after me in point of time, he
becomes before me in dignity and greatness, eclipses me with his
superior glory, for (in his pre-existent divine naiure) he existed
before me, and therefore should take rank indefinitely above me.
 The reference to Christ's pre-existent divine nature in the
words, " for he was before me, ' * seems unquestionable. The
Baptist — last of the Old Testament prophets, and, on the author
ity of Jesus himself (Matt 11 : 10, 11), greatest among them all —
must be supposed to have understood the pre-existence of the ex-
Sected Messiah not less clearly than Isaiah (6:1, and 40 : 3) and
'aniel (7 : 13) and Malachi (3 : 1).  Note also the prophetic
view of his father Zacharias (Luke 1 : 16, 17, 76), who manifestly
saw that John was to be the harbinger of the Messiah foretold by
Isaiah and Malachi.
16. And of his fullness have all we received, and grace
for grace.
The best textual authorities commence this verse not with
" and " [/cai], but with because [^oti^, indicating it as continuing
the Evangelist's own words and closely connected with v. 14; v.
15 being a parenthesis. We saw the glory of tbe Divine Word
when he appeared among us in human flesh, full of grace and
truth, . . . 'because of his fullness [of grace and truth] have all
we Christian believers received.  On the exact sense of the
words "grace upon grace," the best commentators differ; some
explaining them of the successive installments of grace given to
believers — grace after grace, or grace upon grace — constant sup
plies to meet their ever recurring wants: while others would
say — Christ gives to his people grace like his own, corresponding
in its nature to that of which he has an infinite fullness. The
latter construction well interprets the preposition " for" [anii] ;
is in harmony with the drift of thought; and evolves a most pre
cious truth, viz., that Jesus gives to his people of the same grace
of which he has such fullness — thus making them " partakers of
his holiness." -* 'oTi irparo; /lov ijv.

GOSPEL OF JOHN.- CHAP. 1. 29
17. For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth
came by Jesus Christ.
The gift of grace through Jesus Christ is still further height
ened by being placed iu antithesis with the mission and work of
Moses. Through him God gave the law, good in its time and
place ; and yet it was followed in the fullness of time by far richer
manifestations of divine favor and of glorious truth.  There is
no occasion to push this contrast to such an extreme as to make
it imply that no grace and truth were revealed through Moses, or
that no law came through Christ. The obvious sense is the true
one ; — the burden of the revelation by Moses was law ; the full
ness of Christ came in the line of grace and truth.
18. No man hath seen God at any time; the only begot
ten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath de
clared him.
The statement — "No man hath seen God at any time," will
perhaps seem abrupt, until we trace the mental associations which
suggested it. Do we not flnd these in the history of Moses, where
we see his intense desire to behold the face of God, and have the
response of the Lord whioh granted his prayer, subject however
to large limitations (See Ex. 33: 12-23). No man during all the
antecedent ages had come so near to seeing the face of God, yet
the history shows how far he fell short of it.  Of course " to
see one's face" expresses the deepest and truest possible appre
hension of real character. The Psalmist said of the future life —
"I shall behold thy face in righteousness." The present life af
fords no such experience.  "Hearing and learning" (John 6:
45, 46) indicate a lower grade of knowledge, made possible to men
on earth through the teaching Spirit; but the perfect knowledge
expressed by seeing, "none save the Son has enjoyed. He whose
relations to the Father were most endearing and his communion
altogether perfect [" in the bosom ofthe Father"], having con
sequently kno-wn the Father perfectly, was competent to "declare
him" — to set forth with all clearness, fullness and certainty, the
deepest things of God.
19. And this is the record of John, when the Jews sent
priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him. Who art thou ?
20. And he confessed, and denied not; but confessed, I
am not the Christ.
21. And they a.sked him. What then? Art thou Elias?
And he saith, I am not. Art thou Uiat Prophet ? And he
answered, No.
22. Then said they unto him, Who art thou? that we
may give an answer to them that sent us. What sayest
thou of thyself?

30 GOSPEL OF JOHN.— CHAP. I.
23. He said, I am the voice of one crying in the wilder
ness. Make straight the way of the Lord, as said the prophet
Esaias. This testimony of John the Baptist to himself and to Jesus
may be regarded as official, given in reply to a special delegation,
sent to him while prosecuting his work.  Jerusalem was the
religious center of the nation. The Sanhedrim — the constituted
religious authorities of the whole people — resided, or at least held
their sessions, there. In the great movement produced by John's
preaching, when there " went out to him Jerusalem and all Judea "
(Matt: 3: 5), and even "many of the Pharisees and of the Sad-
ducees" (Matt. 3: 7), the Sanhedrim could not be unaffected.
Their official responsibilities and probably too their rational curi
osity would suggest the deputation here spoken of Apparently,
there is no occasion to impute other than laudable motives in
sending this embassy. It was both proper in itself and impor
tant to themselves and to the whole people that they should know
who this great preacher might be. Was he the nation's long ex
pected Messiah ? This was naturally the first and main question.
John answered it promptly and squarely in the negative. Was
he Elijah ? ¦* The prophecy of Malachi (4 : 5) had raised in some
minds the expectation that Elijah would reappear from heaven.
The true interpretation had been given by Zacharias, the father
of John: — "He shall go before him [Jesus] in the spirit and
power of Elias'' (Luke 1: 17). That the prophetic eye of Ma
lachi rested upon this John was repeatedly affirmed by Jesus
himself (Matt. 11: 14 and 17; 10-13)  When John answered
the second question — "Art thou Elias?" with an explicit denial,
it must be assumed that he saw the sense in whioh they put the
question and answered definitely to thai sense of it — No ; I am not
Elias, literally returned from heaven. We need not suppose that
.lohn denied what his father had said, viz, that this son would go
before Jesus, a second Elijah in his spirit and power. As to its
words their question might have either of these two senses. John
answered to the sense which he saw was in their thought — as he
ought honestly to do.
Their next question — "Art thou that prophet? " is supposed by
most critics to refer to the prophecy given through Moses (Deut.
18: 15,18): " The Lord thy God shall raise up unto thee a Proph
et from the fliidst of thee like unto me ; unto him shall ye heark
en," etc.  ^These questions repeated in various forms show that
they were in earnest to ascertain whether this wonderful man
had been at all fore-indicated in their own prophetic scriptures.
It was reasonable that they should push this great inquiry. John
seems to have accepted their questioning kindly. With no hesi
tation ho proceeded to give them the true and full answer : " I am
the voice of one crying in the wilderness, Make straight the way
¦'' "Elias" ia the Greek form of this Hebrew name.

GOSPEL OF JOHN.— CHAP. L 31
of the Lord." Ye will find the prediction of this coming " voice "
in the prophet Isaiah (40 : 3). Matthew (3 : 3) and Luke (3 : 4)
make the same explicit identification; while Mark (1: 2) simply
says that this is " written in the prophets." There is good reason
to suppose that IMalaohi (3 : 1, and 4 : 5, 6) followed the words of
Isaiah and reaffirmed their application to the great forerunner of
the Messiah.
Were the men of this delegation impressed by this straight
forward, honest testimony to the coming Messiah and ready to im
plore this witness to lead them at once to their nation's great Re
deemer? Alas I they were Pharisees, and their notions of great
ness and glory were by no means met in the preaching, the spirit,
the general appearance and bearing of this bold reprover of
their sin.
24. And they which were sent were of the Pharisees.
25. And they asked him, and said unto him, Why bap-
tizest thou then, if thou be not that Christ, nor Elias, neither
that Prophet ?
The Evangelist John su^ests it as a significant fact that the men
sent on this embassy were Pharisees ; for none but they -would have
put and pressed the question — Why then dost thou baptize if thou
art not the Christ, nor Elias, nor " that prophet? " The Pharisees
were professionally and with full heart in charge over the whole
domain of religious rites and ceremonial institutions.  -Their
question implies that they had some notions about baptism, its sig
nificance, and the authority to administer it; for they manifestly
assume that either Christ, Elias, or "that prophet" might with
propriety baptize — but no one of lower dignity than theirs.
Inquiring for the actual or supposable ideas of the Pharisees in
regard to baptism, we find (1.) That the Mosaic ceremonial system
abounded in ablutions, washings, (in the words of the writer to the
Hebrews, "stood in diverse baptisms "-Eng. "washings,") all
built on the analogy between physical cleanness and moral purity.
No men could be more conversant and familiar with these things
than the Pharisees.  (2.) In their o-wn scriptures there occurred
numerous references to the moral cleansing to be wrought by the
Holy Spirit, symbolically indicated by washing, sprinkling and
various references to fountains of water. We can see now that
those passages in the Old Testament looked forward to the great
moral work of the divine Spirit and bore within them the true sig
nificance of baptism. But how thoroughly the Pharisees of John s
time understood those passages can not be fully kno-wn.- — -(3.)
That proselytes from the Gentiles to Judaism were admitted by
baptism is well attested by Jewish authorities, e.,g. Maimonides
and by the Jerusalem Talmud and the Babylonian, [oee »m"n s
Bible Dictionary on "Baptism."] , s -d
With these facts before us, we may put the case thus : (a.) Bap
tism with water implied a confession of moral impurity and ofthe

32 GOSPEL OF JOHN.— CHAP. I.
need of moral cleansing.  (&.) It involved in the subject of bap
tism the promise and covenant of a better life, coupled apparently
with a measure of faith in gracious help from God.  (c.) Hence
it would be legitimate for a great reformer, such as their expected
Messiah, or Elias or " that Prophet," to baptize those who became
his disciples, promising to follow him in the ways of a holy life.
The Jews of that age expected their Messiah to institute a king
dom, and apparently did not object to his making baptism its rite
of initiation. In the sense in which Paul says the Hebrew nation
were " all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in tho sea " (1 Cor.
10 : 2), all the followers of a great prophet, equal to or like unto
Moses, might pledge themselves by baptism to become his disciples
and to follow him in a new moral life.
26. John answered them, saying, I baptize with water :
but there standeth one among you, whom ye know not.
27. He it is, who coming after me is preferred before me,
whose shoe's latchet I am not worthy to unloose.
I understand John's answer thus: On your own principles it is
proper for me to baptize. For though I am not myself the Christ,
yet I am only a few days before him, laboring to prepare the people
to welcome his advent and come penitently to his feet. Indeed, he
is already standing among you, though ye know him not.  More
over I baptize with water only ; he, greater far in moral power than
I, will baptize with the Holy Ghost (v. 33). On your own prin
ciples I am authorized to call the people to repentance, to take
their pledge to accept the coming Messiah already so very near at
hand, and to put this pledge iu the expressive form of baptism' by
water. Even if there could be some question as to the propriety
of such baptism when the Messiah's coming was remote, there can
be none now that he is just at hand.  Moreover the baptism
which I administer makes only the least possible account of their
following me as their spiritual leader. It is the great and far more
glorious Personage who comes after me to whom I direct every eye.
As to myself I am not even worthy to untie his shoes. [This was
deemed of all service most menial]
28. These things were done in Bethabara beyond Jordan,
where John was baptizing.
On the highest textual authority, the location of this scene is not
Bethabara, but Bethany; yet not the Bethany on the Mount of
Olives, but (to distinguish this from that) a place beyond the river
Jordan. The place was doubtless small, obscure, in that wilder
ness region where John was preaching and baptizing. It seems
to have sunk after this into oblivion. Origen, three hundred years
later, could find no trace of the name Bethany, and therefore fixed
upon Bethabara as the place — whence came (as is supposed) the
change in some moro recent copies of the text.

GOSPEL OF JOHN.— CHAP. I. 33
29. The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and
saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin
of the world !
The day following the interview with the priests and Levites
from Jerusalem, John had an opportunity to identify Jesus and
introduce him publicly to his own disciples. Seeing .lesus ap
proaching, he cried aloud: "Behold the Lamb of God who taketh
away the sin of the world." The Lamb of God, i. e. of his own
providing, whose chief mission in coming to earth from heaven is
to " take away the sin of the world." He does not say. Behold the
world's Great Teacher; nor this — Behold Him whose spotless ex
ample is to enlighten and regenerate the race; nor even thia —
Behold your long expected King, for the kingdom of heaven, as ye
have often heard from me, is even now at hand. Any one of these
points he might have put forward into the foreground of this first
announcement ; but, passing them all, he seizes upon another, by
far more central, prominent and comprehensive than either or all
of these and announces him as the sacrificial Lamb who takes upon
himself and bears away the sin of the world.
The definite reference in the words " tiie Lamb " — ^the well
known, fore-indicated Lamb, raises the question. To what in par
ticular does John refer ? Is it to the Lamb of the Passover as
typifying Christ and fulfilled in him ? Or is It the daily morn
ing and evening sacrifice ; or may it refer to any one of the nu
merous sin or trespass offerings prescribed in the Mosaic ritual ?
 ^We are relieved from discussing these supposable references
by the entirely satisfactory evidence that John has his eye upon
the Lamb spoken of in Isa. 51 : 7 — that Great Sufferer who was
borne " as a lamb to the slaughter." For we know that John the
Baptist was familiar with the book of Isaiah; he found his own
mission and work foretold there as " the voice of one crying in
the wilderness." There also he found the great, chief work of
the Messiah — his specially characteristic work — delineated in clear
est outline as he who "bore our griefs; " was "wounded for our
transgressions;" upon whom tbe Lord "laid the iniquity of us
all ; " who was borne " as a Lamb to the slaughter," " dumb as a
sheep before her shearers," never opening his mouth in self-vin
dication; who, in fine, "bore the sins of many and made inter
cession for the transgressors." This wonderfully graphic por
trayal of the world's Great j^ufferer and Sacrifice was most mani
festly before the eye of Johu the Baptist, supplying to him those
pregnant words with which he at once described and hailed the
Coming One at this . eventful hour, and introduced him to a wait
ing and expectant world.
As to the central, pivotal word in this announcement — "taking
away," * critics find m it two possible and apparently co-ordinate
ideas: (a) Taking upon one's self to bear: (6) Bearing away, re-
* Greek, aipcrv.

34 GOSPEL OF JOHN.— CHAP. L
moving and taking out of the way; the latter, however, rather than
the former being the most direct, natural, and necessary sense.
But nothing forbids that we unite these two ideas in the one word,
with the comprehensive result — Who takes upon himself to bear
and so does bear away the sin of the world. — 1'hus John puts
boldly in the foreground the sacrificial, atoning work of Jesus,
the nation's Messiah.
If the question be raised whether "taking away the sin of the
world" must not insure the salvation of the whole race, let these
points of explanation and reply, briefly put, be considered, viz : —
(1.) That in an announcement so concise as this, it were out of
place to notice the limitations and conditions of this salvation ;
and (2.) That there is a vital sense in which Christ's atoning work
waa for the world.
The Evangelist John wrote (1 John 2 : 2), " He is the propitiation
for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the
whole world; " also, "We have seen and do testify that the Father
sent the Son to be the Savior of the world " (1 John 4: 14) ; and
.lesus himself said — "And I, if I be lifted up, will draw all men
unto me" (John 12: 32). Plainly Christ's death for sinners
made salvation possible for all the world. It brought the race
out from a condition of universal condemnation into one where
pardon was provided for and proffered to all. No more or other
atoning blood was needful for the salvation of the wide world of
sinners. God had so loved the world that he gave his Son to die
for it. What each sinner must do for himself iu order to appro
priate this salvation and make it his own, it were not needful that
John should include in this most brief announcement. That was
left to be taught elsewhere. How needlessly, and sadly, and guilt-
fully many would fail of this salvation after it had been most ad
equately provided and most sincerely and warmly proffered, there
was no need to say in this first proclamation by Christ's great
Harbinger. To those who have made themselves somewhat familiar with
the fifty-third chapter of Isaiah and have studied the wonderful
Personage described so graphically there ; who have lingered (as
many have) over that portrayal of the world's great, meek, yet glo
rious Sufferer; who have seen the very marrow of the whole Bi
ble compressed into those few telling words, it must seem pecu
liarly felicitous that John the Baptist should seize the central
idea of that chapter, and apply it to Jesus of Nazareth to identify
him as the Messiah then already come. We might search the
Bible through and through in vain for better words than those.
If salvation for our race is through atoning blood, then these are
of all possible words the most fitting to set forth a Savior slain.
If life for the saved comes through the death of their Savior, then
he can have no fitter description than this — "The Lamb of God
who taketh away the sin of the world." If it were important
that some great prophet should announce his coming into the
world and his appearing before men as tho world's Messiah, and

GOSPEL OF JOHN.— CHAP. 1. 35
then if it were also important that his announcement should put
the central idea of his work in most graphic and unmistakable
terms, then surely the end to be sought is well attained in these
few but most forcible and expressive words.
30. This is he of whom I said, After me cometh a man
which is preferred before me; for he was before me.
" Of whom I said "¦ — as in vs. 15, 27. These are the very words
in which his great testimony respecting Jesus as one about to
come was usually expressed.
31. And I knew him not : but that he should be made
manifest to Israel, therefore ara I come baptizing with water.
32. And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit de
scending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him.
33. And I knew him not : but he that sent me to baptize
with water, the same said unto me. Upon whom thou shalt
see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same
is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost.
34. And I saw, and bare record that this is the Son of
God. Note here how emphatically the Baptist declares, twice re
peated : " I knew him not " — till at his baptism he was pointed
out, according to a prophetic pre-intimation, by the visible descent
of the Holy Ghost in form as a dove, resting upon him.  But
the narrative given by Matthew seems to imply that when Jesus -
oame from Galilee to John to request baptism, John already knew
him — it being there said that "John forbade him, saying, I have
need to be baptized of thee, and oomest thou to me ? To which
Jesus replied, " Suffer it to be so now; for thus it becometh us to
fulfill all righteousness." " Then he suffered him." This conversa
tion manifestly preceded the baptism itself, and seems to show
that John recognized Jesus as so much greater than himself that
it was incongruous and inappropriate for himself to baptize him.
The explanation of this apparent contradiction turns upon
knowing Christ in two different senses, a lower and a higher. In
the lower sense Johu recognized Jesus before the scenes of his
baptism, for he had heard of him; possibly had seen him, and
had known many things about him. But the higher and more
certain knowledge, the definite and unmistakable ceriificaiion
from heaven, John had not until that visible descent of the Holy
Ghost upon him — the supernatural testimony from God himself.
In view of this he might well say, I did not know him before. I
had no knowledge of him worthy of the name — none equal to
the emergency — no such positive certainty as I needed to have
that Jesus was God's own Son, indorsed from the very heavens by
the testimony of God himself  Observe, moreover, that it was
not for John s personal benefit alone that he needed this emphatic
identification of Jesus as the Messiah. It was rather that this

36 GOSPEL OF JOHN.— CHAP. I.
Messiah " might be made manifest to Israel." For the sake of
the whole people this testimony from the visible heavens was ap
propriate, not to say demanded.
"With beautiful fitness it was the Spirit descending visibly and
remaining upon him that pointed him out as he who should " bap
tize with the Holy Ghost." He to whom the Spirit was given
" not by measure ' (John 3 : 34), but in fullness above measure,
was endowed with the prerogative of imparting the Spirit in
blessed fullness to his people.
Note also here the words in which John bore his testimony to
Jesus : " I saw and bare record that this is ihe Son of God."
Apparently this Sonship looks toward the incarnation, the words
being used in the same sense as in Luke 1 : 35 : "Therefore also
that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called The Son
of God." The identification of Jesus before the Jewish nation
should naturally contemplate his visible humanity rather than his
pre-existent divinity. Their eyes saw the human form, and the
thing they needed to know of him was that he was the incarna
ted Son of God.
35. Again the next day after, John stood, and two of
his disciples ;
36. And looking upon Jesus as he walked, he saith. Be
hold the Lamb of God !
37. And the two disciples heard him speak, and they fol
lowed Jesus.
38. Then Jesus turned, and saw them following, and saith
unto them. What seek ye? They said unto him, Rabbi,
(which is to say, being interpreted, Master,) where dwellest
thou? 39. He saith unto them. Come and see. They came and
saw where he dwelt, and abode with him that day : for it was
about the tenth hour.
40. One of the two which heard John speak, and followed
him, was Andrew, Simon Peter's brother.
The notices of time in the narrative portion of this chapter
seem remarkable, especially when we consider the lapse of years
(perhaps forty) between the events themselves and the writing of
this record. The transactions of three successive days are
mapped out (vs. 29-34; 35-42 ; 43-51). Eventful days were these
in the life-history of the Evangelist .lohn. He could not forget
them.  John the Baptist was standing with two of his disci
ples; one said (v. 40) to be Andrew; the other we must assume
to have been the Evangelist John, who never gives his own name.
The Baptist, looking upon Jesus as he was walking about to and
fro,-* said again: "Behold the Lamb of God!"^ — omitting the
-* Gr. trepfKaTown.

GOSPEL OF JOHN.— CHAP. I. 37
words " who taketh awaythe sin of the world," probably because
they had been used before and would be suggested by the word
"Lamb."  The remark was a hint to those two disciples to follow
him. They at once understood and accepted it. Jesus saw them fol
lowing ; anticipated their purpose, and, as he is wont to do, met it
promptly and most kindly : "What seek ye?" — My master, said
they each ; let me sit at thy feet and learn more of thee. Where
is thy home that we may have leisure with thee ? Jesus said.
Come and see. Two more hours of the day remained. They
went and abode with him through those hallowed hours.
41. He first findeth his own brother Simon, and saith
unto him. We have found the Messias, which is, being in
terpreted, the Christ.
42. And he brought him to Jesus. Aud when Jesus be
held him, he said, Thou art Simon the son of Jona : thou
shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, A stone.
Those two hours of Andrew with Jesus had fixed his heart
upon this new Master. What should he do next but find his own
brother Simon to tell him the great discovery — We have found the
Messiah ; come at once and see him for yourself You too must
learn to know and love him.  He brought him to Jesus. .lesus
saw in an instant all that Peter was to become in his group of
disciples and in his founding of the new kingdom. Thou hast
been called Simon; thou shalt have the surname of Cephas
[Syriac] or Petros [Greek] — both words having the same signifi
cance — a stone or rock.  Such a prophetic foreshadowing
ought to have impressed Simon, not so much with a sense of his
importance and dignity as of his great and delicate responsibility.
The reader may also note that the author's explanation of the
meaning of such -words as "Messiah" and "Cephas" shows that
he wrote originally for Gentile and not Jewish readers. No
Jews of that age could need feuch interpretations.
43. The day following Jesus would go forth into Gali
lee, and findeth Philip, and saith unto him. Follow me.
44. Now Philip was of Bethsaida, the city of Andrew and
Peter. Jesus, about to leave the field of the Baptist's preaching and
labors, and go back to his own home in Galilee, improved his op
portunity to gather about him his chosen twelve. The first se
lected members of the apostolic group were taken from the
school of John the Baptist — their preparatory school.  Philip
being a townsman of Andrew and Peter, seems to have been
drawn to Jesus by their influence.
45. Philip findeth Nathanael, and saith unto him, We
have found him, of whom Moses in the law, and the proph
ets, did write, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.

38 GOSPEL OF JOHN.— CHAP. I.
Philip had at least one personal friend — Nathanael; earnest
and true-hearted. He forthwith seeks him to tell him the joyful
news — "We" (several of us) "have found that wonderful Per
sonage of whom Moses in the law, and the Prophets in their
books, did write — Jesus of Nazareth, the Son of Joseph. Is not
this good news?"
46. And Nathanael said unto him, Can there any good thing
corae out of Nazareth? Philip saith unto him. Come and
see. Nazareth was in bad repute. Recalling their manner of treat
ing their own fellow-citizen [Jesus of Nazareth was such] as
given by Luke (4 : 16-30), we shall cease to wonder at their bad
reputation. Nathanael's first feeling was surprise that one so
great and good 'could possibly originate there. Fortunately for
him, this slight prejudice readily gave way before appropriate
evidence to the contrary. Philip said — Come and see what you
will yourself think of this wonderful man.
47. Jesus saw Nathanael comingto him, and saith of him.
Behold an Israelite indeed, in whom is no guile !
48. Nathanael saith unto him. Whence knowest thou me?
Jesus answered and said unto him. Before that Philip called
thee, when thou wast under the fig tree, I saw thee.
Jesus does not repel Nathanael for that slight prejudice, but
promptly and openly recognizes his guileless, noble character.
 How eamest thou to know me? said Nathanael. I saw thee
under the fig-tree before Philip called thee.  That scene under
the fig-tree must have been specially suggestive, with some more
than ordinary bearing upon the pending issues ; we can not other
wise account for this allusion to it. Taking into consideration
the fact that good men found retirement for devout meditation
and prayer under the shade and in the seclusion of gardens and
their fruit-bearing trees, we may very naturally infer that Na
thanael had been there engaged in prayer, the Lord moving upon
his soul to prepare him for this revelation of Jesus to both his
eye and heart. So God has his ways of preparing his people for
eventful scenes.
49. Nathanael answered and saith unto him, Eabbi, thou
art the Son of God ; thou art the King of Israel.
Sure that no mortal eye could have seen him there under tho
fig-tree, he is at once convinced that Jesus saw with more than
earthly vision, and therefore recognized him as the Great Searcher
of hearts, the promised Son of God, the predicted King of Israel.
If, as seems probable, Nathanael had been a disciple of John the
Baptist, he would natur.ally apply to the Messiah the same de
scriptive title — " Son of God "- — which his master had given (v.
34). The o'ther name— "King of Israel" — came legitimately

GOSPEL OP JOHN.— CHAP. I. 39
from the Old Testament prophecies, e. g. Zech. 9 : 9 aud Jer 23 •
5, and 30 : 9, and Hos. 3:5. ' '
Who was this Nathanael, and what became of him ? Does he
appear under any other name in later gospel history ?  Tho
opinion is held somewhat extensively that Nathanael appears in
the first three gospel histories under the name Bartholomew, and
of _ course that he was one of the twelve. The main reasons for
this opinion are these :  (1.) It Avas not uncommon for tho
same man to have two or more names; e. g. Thomas, Didymus ;
Simon, Cephas, Peter; JIatthew, Levi, etc.  (2.) As Jesus -\vas
at that time making up the twelve kno-wn as his disciples, and as
Nathanael appears here with all the essential qualifications, it is
highly probable that he became one.  (3.) John nowhere gives
the name Bartholomew, yet once elsewhere (21 : 2) gives the
name Nathanael as of Cana in Galilee and associated with tho
disciples.  (4.) But Matthew (10: 3), Mark (3 : IS), and Luke
(6: 14) give the name Bartholomew; never the name Nathanael.
 (5.) Noticeably these three authors in their respective lists
of the twelve place Bartholomew immediately after Philip, pre
cisely where we should expect to find Nathanael.  The com
bined force of all these considerations amounts to strong pre
sumptive evidence for the identity of Nathanael aud Bartholo
mew. 50. Jesus answered and said unto him, Because I said
unto thee, I saw thee under the fig tree, believest thou?
thou' shalt see greater things than these.
51. And he saith unto him. Verily, verily, I say unto
you. Hereafter ye shall see heaven open, and the angels of
God ascending and descending upon the Son of man.
Commending his faith, Jesus promises that he shall see yet
greater things, and proceeds (v. 51) to say what they should be.
 The best authorities omit the word for " hereafter," leaving
it " Ye shall see," etc.  The just interpretation of the words —
" Ye shall see heaven open, and the angels of God ascending
and descending upon tho Son of man,'' must assume a reference
to the revelations of God made to Jacob in vision at Bethel.
The import therefore should be essentially this:- — God coming
very near iu most impressive manifestations ; supernatural works
not infrequent ; angels coming and going as if a highway were
opened and often traversed by angelic feet. If the vision at Bethel
was verified in a series of answering facts throughout Jacob's life
— double camps of angels at Mahanaim ; the angel of the cove
nant wrestling with him at Peniel ; manifest providences of God
taking away his Joseph, but in due time restoring him again,
a savior to Israel ; how much more abundantly was heaven opened
over the incarnate Son of man — angels coming down to minister
to him after his great temptation, in the scenes of Gethsemane,
and at the sepulchor. These demonstrations of a present God

40 GOSPEL OF JOHN.— CHAP. I.
looking out as from an open heaven upon thcfiairthly trials and
work of his incarnate Son, should certainly suffice to confirm the
faith of his trusting disciples. I'he earthly life of the incarnate
Sou of God could by no means lack such testimonials from the
heavens above. On every principle of reason we should expect
them. It will be noticed that Jesus speaks of himself here as " the
Son of man," while iu this chapter John the Baptist (v. 34) and
Nathanael (v. 49) concur in giving him the title — "Son of God."
Why this diversity? Why does Jesus call himself "the Son of
man," while his greatest prophet and his disciples all say " Son
of God?"
The fads of usage in regard to these two designations — "Son
of man" and "Son of God" — aro striking and full of precious
significance. 1. Usually and almost invariably Jesus calls himself — " The
Son of man." We may say he uses this name manifestly in prefer
ence to any other. He does not disclaim the title, " Son of God ; "
does not seem to object to it as used by others ; never hints that it
is in any wise inappropriate : but yet for some reason it is not the
name of his choice for his own purposes.  In point for illustra
tion are the passages Matt. 26 : 63, 64, and Luke 22 : 69, 70. On
his trial before the Jewish Council the High Priest said — "I adjure
thee, tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God." Jesus
answered — Thou hast said [expressing assent] ; but adds in his
own words ; " Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man, sitting on the
right hand of power and coming in the clouds of heaven.' Here
" Son of man ' is for his own use the name of his choice.  As
recorded by Luke, thus : " Hereafter shall the Sou of man sit on
the right hand of God." " Then said they all. Art thou then the
Son of God? And he said unto them. Ye say that I am " [it is as
ye have said]. Thus we see he does not choose the name " Son of
God " for his own use ; yet accepts it as entirely just when used by
others. 2. Throughout the entire gospel history the disciples never call
Jesus " The Son of man." The name which Jesus chooses for his
use, they never have chosen for theirs. * We may perhaps find
some adequate reason why they did not use -the same name whioh
Jesus so constantly prefers to use for himself
3. With remarkable uniformity the disciples, and indeed all
others save Jesus, use the name " Son of God."  The disciples
use it in their most defined doctrinal statements — as we might say,
in their most formal confessions of faith. Thus in that striking
* The case of Stephen (Acts 7: 56) looking into the open heavens
and beholding there " the Son of man standing ou the right hand of
God," is only a partial exception, for Stephen was not one of the origi
nal disciples personally conversant with Jesus in the flesh, and more
over these words may be virtually quoted from the lips of Jesus as
above. Matt. 26 : 64.

GOSPEL OF JOHN.— CHAP. I. 41
conversation recorded by Matthew (16 : 13-20) when Jesus asked
his disciples — " Whom do men say that I, the Sou of man, am?" they
answered first as to the various opinions of the Jewish people —
" Some say thou art John the Baptist, some Elias ; and others Jere
mias, or one of the prophets." But Jesus, seeking to draw out their
own faith, made his question definite : " Whom say t/e that I am ? "
Then Simon Peter — always prompt and foremost — answered :
" Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God." This confession
of faith, Jesus approved warmly and emphatically.  The similar
confession of Peter (John 6 : 69) stands in the revised text of
Tischendorf in these simple terms: "We have believed and have
known that thou art the Holy One of God." As put by Martha
(John 11 : 27) thus: "I have believed [and still believe] that thou
art the Christ, the Son of God, that should come into the world."
This name for Jesus is used by Satan in his temptation (Matt. 4 :
3, and Luke 4: 3, 9); by demons (Matt. 8: 29, andLuke4: 41, and
8 : 28, and Mark 3 : 11); by men under the awe of present miracles
(Matt. 14; 33): "Of a truth thou art the Son of God: "—by the
High Priest adjuring him to testify (Matt. 26 : 63) ; by his revilers
at the cross (Matt. 27 : 40) ; and by the affrighted centurion at the '
scenes of his death (Matt. 27 : 54, and M.ark 15 : 39). The standard
passage, however, which definitely assigns the reason for this name,
" Son of God," is Luke 1 : 35 — the words of the angel Gabriel to
Mary : " The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of
the Highest shall overshadow thee; therefore also that holy thing
which shall be born of thee shall be called " the Son of God."
4. Returning to speak more definitely of the usage of our Lord
himself as to his significant names, note that he employs the title
of his usual choice, " Sou of man," with equal freedom, whether
the scene suggests his humiliation or his glory. On the one hand,
" the Son of man hath not where to lay his head" (Matt. 8: 20):
on the other, " When the Son of man shall come in his glory and
all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of
his glory and before him shall be gathered all nations." "The
Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels "
(Matt. 16: 27, 28 ; also Matt. 9: 6, and 13 : 41, and 24: 27, 30, and
Mark 8: 38, etc., etc.)
5. The cases in which Jesus speaks of himself as " the Son of
God " are not only few compared with those in whioh he calls him
self " the Son of man," but are somewhat less direct, not being the
subject of the verb, but put in remote cases. Of this sort are these :
" Condemned because he hath not believed on the name of the
only-begotten Son of God" (John 3: 18): "The dead shall hear
the voice of the Son of God" (.lohn 5 ; 25) ; To the man born blind—
" Dost thou believe on the Son of God ? " (John. 9 : 35) ; " Say ye
of him whom the Father hath sent into the world, ' Thou blas-
phemest,' because I said, I am the Son of God ?" (John 10: 36).
" This sickness is not unto death but for the glory of God that the
Son of God might be glorified thereby " (John 11 ; 4). These cases
suffice to show that Jesus by no means disowns this title though

42 GOSPEL OF JOHN.— CHAP. I.
his far more frequent use of the name "Son of man," indicates
his decided preference.
From this classification of the fads of New Testament usage, let
us turn a moment to the further question as to the supposable
reasons for the usage both of Jesus and of his disciples, and of its
moral significance :
1. May it be supposed that Jesus said commonly "Son of mau"
as being less offensive to his enemies? We may notice that they
never objected to his use of this name, and did not put it into their
indictment against him ; while they did emphatically object to his
calling himself, " The Son of God.' To their superficial eyes, the
deep significance of the title, "The Son of man, ' may have iDcen
veiled, and its modesty may have disarmed their jealousy — as it
certainly should.
2. This chosen title — "The Son of man" — manifestly looks
toward the incarnation — the great fact of his earthly life. It must
always suggest his human relations; and we can not forbear to
say — suggest them as those of which he was never ashamed. Low
as the race of man might be relatively to the Infinite and ever
blessed God — exceeding far below the glory whioh the pre-existent
Logos " had with the Father before the world was ; " yet Jesus never
sought to suppress, conceal or throw into the background the fact
of his being born of woman into alliance with our unworthy race.
3. On the other hand, it is of the utmost consequence to hold
in mind that this title, " The Son of man," always implied his
pre-existent divinity. For he was no ordinary " Son of man,"
but par excellence, "ihe Son of man;" not any Son of man
merely human ; for this would nullify all its real significance.
He stood forth alone in this grand distinction of his nature — that
being eternally divine ; from eternity " with God," and being really
himself God, he yet " became flesh and dwelt among us ; " was
born of woman with no other father than God ; and for this rea
son especially bore the name, " The Son of God ; " while yet with
reference to this human birth he assumed and ennobled the title
" The Son of man." Thus this chosen title — " The Son of man "—
always assumed and implied the pre-existent, pre-eminent glory
of his divine nature, yet assumed it in no repulsive form, but with
consummate modesty aud humility — evermore with the bearing
of ineffably tender love to his redeemed people as his brethren
in the relationships of human flesh. As has been well said, the
spirit of this chosen designation is put in the remark of the Evan
gelist John where he introduces the account of Jesus washing his
disciples' feet. " Jesus, knowing that the Father had put all
things into his hand, and that he was come from God and went
to God, riseth from supper, and laid aside his garments ; took a
towel and girded himself" — to wash their feet. Fully aware of
his own inherent and divinely recognized dignity of rank and
glory ; with those great facts of his past and of his future fully in
his mind, he condescended to this service — most menial according
to the notions of men— that he might leave to the world through

GOSPEL OF JOHN.— CHAP. II. 43
all its future ages this illustrious example. So every time he used
of himself the name, " The Son of man," he meant it should
breathe the same spirit of voluntary humiliation for love's sake —
of willing sympathy with the lowliest for the sake of uplifting
them toward purity and goodness and God.
4. In view of this sublime moral influence of the usage by our
Lord of the title, " The Son of man," and also of its natural and
forcible implication of his pre-existent divinity, it may at least be
gravely questioned whether it is not really a higher title and one
of more sublime significance than the other — " Son of God."
This title — "The Son of God" — as interpreted by the angel
Gabriel — ^while it starts with the divine, looks toward the human ;
suggests it ; implies it : even as the title — •" The Son of man "
expresses the human side but assumes and implies the higher
nature, the divine.
5. These considerations suffice to show why the title — " The Son
of man" was inexpressibly pertinent, suggestive, precious as used
by Jesus of himself, but altogether inept to be used of him by his
disciples. Remarkably their sense of fitness recoiled utterly from
using this title of their Lord. Was it not because they felt that
its deeper implication of a pre-existent divinity was entirely in
appropriate to their lips, and its beautiful humility and conde
scension as coming from his lips quite lost, not to say reversed, as
falling from theirs?  On the other hand, the title, "The Son
of God," was level to their position, involved the very assumption
which it was becoming in them to make, and therefore became
their standard designation.

CHAPTER II.
The topics of this chapter are — The marriage in Cana, and the
miracle of water made wine (vs. 1-11); a short stay at Caper
naum (v. 12); Jesus at the Passover in Jerusalem, purifying the
temple (vs. 13-16), and what it suggested to his disciples (v. 17);
the demand of the Jews for a sign to confirm his authority for as
suming such control of the temple and the resulting conversa
tions (vs. 18-22); the moral impression made by these first mira^
cles and Christ's intuitive knowledge of men's hearts (vs. 23-25).
1. And the third day there was a marriage in Cana of
Galilee ; and the mother of Jesus was there :
2. And both Jesus was called, and his disciples, to the
marriage. "On the third day"— J. e. after the events of John 1: 43-51,
which occurred when Jesus was about to leave the locality where

44 GOSPEL OF JOHN.— CHAP. IL
John the Baptist had been preaching and go back to his early
home in Galilee. This is " Cana of Galilee " in distinction from
another Cana named Josh. 19 : 28, in the tribe of Ashur, far west
toward Phenicia.-*
The mother of Jesus was there before his arrival, coming ap
parently from her own home at Nazareth. It is every way prob
able that one or both of the parties in this marriage were near
relatives to Mary. This will naturally account for her presence
there, for her interest, and for her position of influence.  This
family relationship would secure the invitation of Jesus. Five
disciples, having so recently attached themselves to him, were
now with him — thus unexpectedly swelling the number of guests
at this humble wedding-feast — a fact which perhaps may account
for the failure of the wine-supply.
3. And when they wanted wine, the mother of Jesus
saith unto him. They have no wine.
4. Jesus saith unto her. Woman, what have I to do with
thee? mine hour is not yet come.
5. His mother saith unto the servants, Whatsoever he
saith unto you, do it.
The Sinaitic manuscript reads, v. 3: "And they had no wine,
because the wine of the marriage waa finished "- — which is sub
stantially adopted by Tischendorf The sense is unchanged by
this emendation, since both readings imply that a small stock had
been provided, and (supposably by the unexpected increase of
guests) exhausted.  The mother of Jesus, sympathizing keenly
with the family in these straits, said to him, " They have no
wine." His reply assumes that she looked to him for relief in
this emergency, and probably for relief by miracle.  He an
swers, " What is there to me and to thee, woman ? " i. e. What
thoughts and purposes have we in common ?  Much in tho
spirit of the remark made to his parents many years earlier :
" Wist ye not that I must be about my Father's business ? "
(Luke 2 : 49.) It seemed to him important to say even to one so
much respected as his mother, that in his work as the Messiah —
the incarnate Son of God — he must move in a plane of life and
purpose far other than hers, and therefore he could not be con
trolled by her opinions, much less by her authority. He must
judge for himself when his time for a miracle had come.  The
case affords not the least countenance to the Romish doctrine of
Mary's power as mediator with her son Jesus.  Yet note that
the name he used — "Woman" (rather than mother) — was not
disrespectful, for he used it again while hanging on the cross
*- Dr. Robinson fully identified the Cfina of this miracle, bearing
the name of " Kana el Jelil " (i. e. of Galilee), "about N. ^E. from
Nazareth, and not far from three hours (nine miles) distant." Eob.
Researches, pp. 204-208, First Edition.

GOSPEL OF JOHN.— CHAP. II. 45
(John 19 : 26), where the spirit of his address is at the farthest
possible remove from being disrespectful. But he did not say
"Mother." After his public ministry began, he never (so far as
is shown by the record) called her " mother " — another fact fatal
to the Romish assumption.  His mother indicates no spirit of
offense at his plain words ; but, remarkably, seems to have taken
some encouragement as to help toward her object, shown in her
instructions to the servants to do any thing he might direct.
6. And there were set there six waterpots of stone, after
the manner of the purifying of the Jews, containing two or
three firkins apiece.
Personal cleanliness was one of the virtues of the Jews — made
yet more sacred by their religion. Hence this provision in the
household for large supplies of water, not improbably in this
case an increased supply for the company expected.  As to the
capacity of these vessels, the record is not quite definite — " two
or three firkins apiece." Supposing them to average 2J, and the
Greek word for "firkins" to indicate (as estimated) 8| gallons,
theu each water-pot would hold 21 gallons, and the six, 126 gal
lons, or about four barrels. In this estimate critical authorities
substantially concur.
7. Jesus saith unto them, FiU the waterpots with water.
And they filled them up to the brim.
8. And he saith unto them, Draw out now, and bare unto
the governor of the feast. And they bare it.
The pots being filled entirely full of water, there could be no
reasonable suspicion that wine was afterwards added.  The
" governor of the feast " had the general direction of the enter
tainment and of its order.
9. When the ruler of the feast had tasted the water that
was made wine, and knew not whence it was, (but the serv
ants which drew the water knew,) the governor of the feast
called the bridegroom,
10. And saith unto him. Every man at the beginning
doth set forth good wine ; and when m'en have well drunk,
then that which is worse : but thou hast kept the good wine
until now.
Not knowing the source of supply, and judging by the taste only,
he pronounced it " good," and seemed surprised that it should
have been reserved till near the close of the feast.
There has been much discussion of the Greek verb translated—
" have well drunk," * some supposing it to mean, have drank
rather freely, yet short of intoxication ; while others give it the
* fiedvu.

•46 GOSPEL OF JOHN.— CHAP. II.
sense — " have drank to intoxication." The cases of its New Tes
tament usage give the sense " drunken " with entire uniformity, as
the reader may see : Matt. 24 : 69 — " to drink with the drunlcen; "
Acts 2 : 15 — " these are not drunken as ye suppose ; " 1 Cor. 11 :
21 — " another is drunken ; " 1 Thess. 5 : 7 — " are drunlcen in the
night; " Rev. 17 : 2, 6 — ¦" have been made drunk with the wine of
her fornication ; " "I saw the woman drunken with the blood of
the saints," etc. The cognate verb bears the same sense in every
case, viz, Luke 12 : 45, and Eph. 5 : 18, and 1 Thess. 5 : 7. The
principle that " usage gives law to language," would seem there
fore to admit nothing less in this case than to have drunk quite
freely, so that its effects are apparent.  The exigencies of the
case where a word is used must be allowed a certain measure of
influence in fixing its meaning there. . In the case of a marriage-
feast in rural Galilee, we should be shocked to read — " After the
guests have made themselves drunk, then set before them poorer
wine." Judicious criticism will therefore seek to give due weight
to each of these considerations — the exigencies of the case on the
one hand, and the usage of the staple word on the other, and will
arrive at this medium result : — ^After the guests have drank to the
point of apparent exhilaration, then give them wine of second-
rate quality.  But the sense of this verb is not specially im
portant for any supposed bearing upon the state of the guests at
this feast in particular, inasmuch as the remark of the governor
of the feast refers not to the condition of his company, but to the
general custom of serving wine at festivals : Every man in the
position I now hold, regulating the opder of the entertainment,
gives his guests the best wine first; the inferior grade afterwards
when men have already drank enough, the reason for this usage
being perhaps to lessen or remove the temptation to drink too
much. 11. This beginning of miracles did Jesus in Cana of Gal
ilee, and manifested forth his glory ; and his disciples be
lieved on him.
This was the first miracle wrought by Jesus, and consequently
was the first step in this special manifestation of his divine glory.
It answered its special object in confirming tbe faith of his new
disciples. Some general points made or suggested by the account of this
first miracle should receive more special attention :
1. Its bearing against the idolatrous worship of the virgin Mary,
and against prayer to her as mediator with her sou Jesus, is most
decisive. What could have been more so ? It would seem that
Jesus must have intended to suppress the first tendencies toward
such reliance upon his mother and such homage to her.-  As
we might expect from such a man in such circumstances, Calvin
hurls from this text the sternest denunciations against the then
current Romanist folly and crime of Mary-worship.
2. The case bears a noble testimony of approbation and honor

GOSPEL OF JOHN.— CHAP. II. 47
to the marriage institution. Jesus purposely sanctioned marriage
by his presence in company with his disciples, as ono of the first
public acts of his ministry. How could he have given this insti
tution a more emphatic indorsement ?
3. MustVe not add also to thia, that he recognized the propri
ety of a certain deference to the social usages of society, such as
a joyous festival in connection with the marriage of friends? He
not only attended this festival, but contributed miraculously to
supply the deficiency of wine for the occasion. Perhaps he
deemed it the more important to make his example clear and
strong on this point because he would not give his sanction to the
ascetic spirit which was current in his age among the Jewish
Essenes, and which the life of John the Baptist might be sup
posed to favor.  The example of Jesus in this case is liable, no
doubt, to abuse ; yet this is no reason why it should not be ac
cepted in its legitimate influence, sweetly hallowing the innocent
joys of social life, and assuring us that our divine Father re
joices in the social enjoyments which he has himself provided
for his children in the paths of virtue.
4. We must not pass this case without carefully considering its
relations to the cause of temperance.  It is simply inevitable that
this miracle should awaken the most intense interest for its real
or supposed bearings on the temperance question, both among the
advocates of free or moderate drinking, and the advocates of total
abstinence. Did Jesus create by miracle a large quantity of al
coholic wine, to be drank by himself, his disciples, his mother,
and the family relatives and friends ? If so, why should not his
example justify the use — at least, the festive use — of alcoholic
wine as a beverage, and its indefinite manufacture for such use ?
The following points will naturally be involved in this discus
sion :
(1.) It is an open question whether the wine made by this mir
acle was at all alcoholic. It might look like common wine and
taste like it, without any alcohol whatever. There can be no
positive proof of the presence of alcohol in this wine.  ^Yet in
asmuch as it was called wine, with no intimation of any thing pe
culiar in it, it must, I think, be conceded as in a degree probable
that it did not differ in this respect from the wine ordinarily used
on such occasions. It is certain (judging from the record) that
our Lord did not say in so many words — "I disapprove the use
of wine that might cause drunkenness, and therefore have made
this harmless in that respect."
(2.) As the governor ofthe feast called this wine " good," another
debatable question will turn on the standard tests of " good wine."
What kind of wine was then accounted " good ; " — the new un
fermented article, without alcohol ; or the fermented, containing
alcohol ?
In favor of the former alternative it might be said — (a) That
the Orientals prized most highly the first flovfings of the juice
of the grape, that whioh exuded under very slight pressure, and

48 GOSPEL OF JOHN.— CHAP. II.
was entirely sweet — non-alcoholic.  (6) Kings, {e. g, in Egypt,
Gen. 40: 11,) in a condition to command what was deemed the
perfection of luxury, drank wine pressed from grape clusters be
fore their eyes. Of course this wine was unfermented, and pure
from alcohol.  (c) It is in evidence that the ancienfe had meth
ods, analogous though inferior, to the modern process of canning,
by which fermentation was prevented. I am not aware that it can
be ascertained to what extent any of these methods were prac
ticed in Galilee at the Christian era.
Yet all these considerations in favor of the theory that the wine
accounted "good" in that age was unfermented, seem to me to
be outweighed by the manifest implication in the Greek word here
used (and in what is said here) that this " good wine " did exhil
arate men perceptibly — so much that it was deemed expedient,
after men had drunk of it somewhat freely, to exchange it for
wine of inferior — i. e. less stimulating properties. Truth should
be sought and evidence weighed with candor : hence I feel com
pelled to make this admission.
(3.) Most vital of all is the fact that the circumstances in the
age of our Lord were so entirely different from what they are now
that no inference can be drawn from his acts theu to settle ques
tions of duty now. Then, distilled liquors were unknown. Liq
uors adulterated with active poisons had not then as now filled and
flooded all the channels of commerce until uo purchaser can have
the slightest assurance that what he buys under the name of wine
has the first drop of grape-juice in it. The wines of Palestine
in that age were not " enforced" as they often are now by the
addition of alcohol. Of course there was not then as now a fear
ful inclined plane from fermented liquors (beer, cider, and wines)
down to the countless forms of distilled spirits — a plane down
whioh those who begin to slide are in infinite peril of the drunk
ard's doom. In our age the duty of abstinence from any bever
age whatsoever containing alcohol rests mainly on the principle
whioh the Great Apostle has well put and nobly honored: "If
meat make my brother to offend" (stumble), "1 will eat no meat
while the world stands lest I make my brother stumble." The
terrible logic of facts proves to us that any use of alcoholic bev
erages imperils the dearest welfare of men for thi.<! world and the
next. Therefore let every friend of his race say — I will abstain
entirely, and throw my influence solid against all such drinks. I
do not need to raise the question whether drinks containing five
or ten per cent, of alcohol are necessarily injurious to me. It
suffices that I can live without them, and that my use of them
would tempt somebody to his hurt — probably to his ruin. There
fore I can not bear the responsibility of ensnaring my brother to
his ruin for the sake of even a luxurious indulgence'. If the cir
cumstances had been such in our Savior's time as they are now,
there can not be the slightest question how he would have borne
himself; He could not have fallen below Paul in his benevolent
self-sacrifice for others' good. He could not have either made or

GOSPEL OF JOHN.- CHAP. II. 49
drank alcoholic beverages. What he would have done with al
cohol as a medicine it is of no consequence here to attempt to de
cide. But iu the midst of such drinking usages as obtain to-day,
andof such perils as those usages involve, and such fearful des
olations as follow, it is simply impious to raise any question as to
the path of Christian duty ; or — which is the same thing — any
question as to the example whioh our Lord would have put before
the world if the world of his time had stood as to intoxicating
drinks where it stands now.
But the question may be pressed — Did not Jesus know that
alcohol would come in like a flood in thia nineteenth century?
Could he not anticipate every element in our present circumstan
ces and give us example and instruction definitely adapted to
them all?
I answer. There is no occasion to deny his perfect foreknowl
edge ; but there is ground for saying that he lived and taught with
definite adaptation to the generation then present, and not with
like adaptation to generations eighteen centuries in the future.
The examples and precepts of the Bible were always naturally and
necessarily those of the times then present. As Jesus was to live
but one life on earth, and as that must needs be with and before
the men of his time, so he could shape his example only for the
men of his generation, and his precepts must have a special adjust
ment to those times — applicable to other times, however, in so far
as the circumstances were similar and the involved principles
analogous ; no farther. No oth er way of making up a Bible for
the race was wisely practicable. It must have been addressed
to the generation then living; written for them and adjusted to
their circumstances; or it would have been nearly useless. — Be
sides ; if we insist that it ought to be specially adjusted to the
nineteenth century, why may not our remote posterity claim with
equal force that it be adjusted to the nine hundredth century?
Which of all the centuries down to the last shall have the prefer
ence? But whether we can give truly all the reasons for the divine
method in making up a Bible, (viz, the method of inspiring holy
men to live each in his own age and to write each his own part for
his own times severally,) this at least is true : — The Bible is written
so and not otherwise. Jesus lived before his own generation — not
before any other ; set his example there, and not elsewhere ; ad
justed his life to those times, and not to any other times ; and con
sequently never paused to say — "About so many hundred years
from this day a process of making alcohol by distillation will be
discovered, and by consequence the amount and variety of drunk
ard's drinks will be immensely increased ; and then the use of fer
mented wines will come to sustain an entirely new relation to the
public welfare," etc., etc. All this was destined to become true,
and the divine mind doubtless foresaw it; — but what then? No
such anticipatory instruction appears in the Bible. The principles
that are to be applied to determine duty are there. The special

50 GOSPEL OF JOHN.- CHAP. II.
circumstances to which they are to be applied are to bo found by
every man in his own century, amid his own personal surround
ings. ... , .1 •
The comments made by Dean Alford m his commentary on this
miracle of the wine are so extraordinary that 1 can not forbear to
quote and notice them.— He says: "The Lord here most effectu
ally and once for all stamps with his condemnation that false sys
tem of moral reformation which would commence hy pledges to
abstain from intoxicating liquors. He pours out his bounty /or
all; and he vouchsafes his grace to each for guidance; and to en
deavor to evade the work which he has appointed for every man
hy refusing the bounty to save the trouble of seeking the grace is
an attempt which must ever end in degradation of the individual
motives, and in social demoralization, whatever present apparent
effects may follow its first promulgation."- — These are Dean
Alford's words : the italics for emphasis are his own. — I have read
them over and over, each time with utter and painful amazement.
What! Are there no drunkards' graves in England? While the
rich are drinking wine, are not the poor led on by this example iu
high places to drink cheaper fermented and distilled liquors, till
the curse of strong drink has fallen like the plague upon the whole
land, with its desolations of poverty, pauperism, want, disease,
premature death, crime, and eternal damnation? And are these
evils so trivial that it would be absurd to suggest to those who fill
high positions in England's society that they might well afford to
deny themselves their wines for the sake of dissuading their less
wealthy countrymen from all use of drinks that intoxicate? Is
there no occasion in England for the martyr spirit of Paul — "If
meat make my brother offend (stumble), I will eat no meat while
the world stands? "  Moreover, have not wine and strong drink
made many a sad wreck of life in families blest with every appli
ance for the best culture and the noblest fruits of Christian man
hood ? Do not the wine-drinking usages of England, defended by
her highest influences in church and in state, cost too much?
But Dean Alford assumes that total abstinence is not only false
in principle, but pernicious in its ultimate results. In his Chris
tian philosophy, men should never try to shun temptation, but
rather welcome it, only praying for grace accordingly.  Does
he leave out of his version of the Lord's Prayer — " Lead me not
into temptation " ? Does he sneer at Paul for saying — " I keep
my body under, lest I be a castaway " ? Does he use honest words
when he represents those who pledge themselves to total absti
nence as " refusing the bounty to save the trouble of seeking the
grace " ? Is such an insinuation creditable to a distinguished com
mentator upon the gospel of Jesus Christ? Does he really believe
that total abstinence from all that intoxicates, carried into practice
from the highest ranks to the lowest throughout England, would
" degrade individual character " and beget " social demoraliza
tion ' ? Has he yet to gain his first conception of the moral sub
limity of self-denial for others' good ?

GOSPEL OF JOHN.— CHAP. II. 51
12. After this he went down to Capernaum, he, and his
mother, and his brethren, and his disciples ; and they con
tinued there not many days.
From Nazereth, where Jesus " had been brought up " (Luke 4:
16) — where his early life had been spent — the family seem to have
removed ere this to Capernaum. To this family home, the entire
group, including the disciples already called, came down from
Cana ; but as the Jews' Passover was near, the stay of Jesus and
his disciples was short.  The precise site of Capernaum is still
in dispute ; the rival claimants being all in the plain of Genes-
saret, on the western shore of the Sea of Tiberias, otherwise
called, of Galilee. See Smith's Dictionary, " Capernaum."
13. And the Jews' passover was at hand, and Jesus went
up to Jerusalem,
14. And foimd in the temple those that sold oxen and
sbeep and doves, and the changers of money sitting :
15. And when he had made a scourge of small cords, he
drove them all out of the temple, and the sheep, and the
oxen ; and poured out the changers' money, and overthrew
the tables ;
16. And said unto them that sold doves, Take these things
hence ; make not my Father's house a house of merchandise.
17. And his disciples remembered that it was written.
The zeal of thine house hath eaten me up.
In calling this "the Jews' Passover," the writer sho-ws that he
wrote for readers other than Jews.  I'his Passover occurred
not long after the baptism of Jesus and his entrance upon his
public ministry ; and consequently gives the first data from which
to estimate its entire duration.
The supply of the various animals needed for sacrifice, and the
exchange of foreign coin for the Jewish shekel in which the trib
ute for the temple service must be paid, created these branches
of business — ^legitimate in themselves, but deserving stern rebuke
for desecrating the sacred localities of the temple. Jesus boldly
and nobly assumed the right to cleanse his Father's house of such
defilement, and therefore drove out these traffickers and their ani
mals in these memorable words : " Make not my Father's house
a house of merchandise."  ^Was this " scourge of small cords "
prepared for the tradesmen as well as for their animals ? Perhaps
not. The Greek words, closely translated, would read : "he drove
out all, both the sheep and the cattle." The command — "Take
these things hence," etc., was addressed to those that sold doves,
for the doves could not be so well driven out with a scourge ; per
haps it was said also for the other dealers.
'This daring step impressed all parties. It suggested to his dis
ciples the words of the Psalmist (Pa. 69: 10): " The zeal of thine

52 GOSPEL OF JOHN.— CHAP. II.
house hath consumed me." It prompted the Jews to demandof
him by what authority he acted, and how he supported his claim.
18. Then answered the Jews and said unto him. What
sign shewest thou unto us, seeing that thou doest these
things ?
19. Jesus answered and said unto them. Destroy this tem
ple, and in three days I will raise it up.
20. Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this tem
ple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days?
21. But he si^ake of the temple of his body.
The Jews rightly understood these words and acts of Jesus
to involve the assumption of being the Messiah, or at least some
extraordinary teacher sent of God; and therefore, not improperly,
they demanded of him what "sign" (miraculous indorsement)
he put before their eyes to justify himself for doing these things,
viz, cleansing the temple.
'The reply made by Jesus is every way memorable. He did
not work a miracle on the spot before their eyes, as they perhaps
expected and seem to have demanded. Jesus never wrought mir
acles upon call — in response to a special demand. His conscious
quiet dignity of character forbade it. While he never fell below
the point of giving adequate evidence of his Messiahship — all
that could reasonably be asked for — he never descended to meet
the caprices or the captious cavils of hostile spirits.  In the
present case, his words — "Destroy this temple, and in three days
I will raise it up" — come to us with the evangelist's own inter
pretation : " He spake of the temple of his body." I see not the
least occasion to question the soundness of this interpretation,
although many German commentators — perhaps half of those who
are of the present century — have done so.  At the moment of
this conversation the temple was before every mind ; hence Jesus
naturally takes from it his analogy. Noticeably the analogy be
tween the Jewish temple under the old economy and the human
body of God's people under the new became so familiar in the
Christian age that Paul exclaims -against the brethren at Corinth
with amazement : " What I know ye not that your body is the
temple ofthe Holy Ghost who is in you?" (1 Cor. 6 : 19.) " Know
ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God
dwelleth in you?" (1 Cor. 3: 16.) In the old temple God dwelt
in a visible radiance of glory. In the new he dwells by the light
and glory of his Spirit.  There was the more reason why Jesus
should assume that this analogy would be, or ought to be, intelli
gible to the Jews, because it had been foreshadowed in their own
prophets, e. g. Zechariah (2: 5, 10): "Fori, saith the Lord,
will be the glory in the midst of her." " Sing and rejoice, O
daughter of Zion, for lo, I come, and I will dwell in the midst
of thee."  It is specially noticeable, however, that this sign
given by Jesus was not immediately available; it did not bring

GOSPEL OF JOHN.— CHAP. IL 53
out its great power until his actual death and resurrection. Then
it became the standard and chief testimony to his divine Sonship.
"This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses"
(Acts 2 : 32). " If Christ be not risen, then is our preaching
vain, and your faith is also vain " (1 Cor. 15 : 14).
The Savior's policy seems to have been to bring out the evi
dence in support of his claims little by little as men might bo
prepared to receive it, reserving the most conclusive to the later
stages of the progressive demonstration. On this policy his resur
rection closes the argument from miracles triumphantly with its
crowning glory: — "In three days I will raise it up" — and men
shall know that Jesus was in very deed tho Son of God. A method
that should have reversed this order would have been impolitic—
not to say impossible.
The Jews insisted that the words " this temple " in the mouth
of Jesus must refer to their proud structure so long under tho
process of rebuilding by Herod the Great. Hence they replied —
" Forty-six years was this temple in building; and wilt thou rear
it up in three days ? "  Herod sought the glory of splendid
architecture. Too cruel and despotic to be in favor with the
Jews, yet sorely needing their good-will because of his depend
ence on the Romans, he thought to ingratiate himself into favor
by immensely lavish expenditures in rebuilding and adorning
their temple. As the Jews would not trust him to tear down the
old and build anew from the foundation, he was compelled to
rebuild piecemeal by removing the old in small portions and
replacing with new. Hence the process " long drawn out " might
readily be made to span forty-six years. It was begun B.C. 20.-*
22. When therefore he was risen from the dead, his dis
ciples remembered that he had said this unto them; and
they believed the Scripture, and the word which Jesus had
said. It is not clear that even the disciples fathomed the depth of his
meaning at the time. . But after he had risen from the dead,
these words arose and lived again in their thought. _ We may
suppose this was in fulfillment of the Savior's promise — " The
Comforter shall bring all things to your remembrance whatsoever
I have said unto you" (John 14: 26)— an illustrative case which
shows that the Spirit not only brought back the words to memory,
but (what is not only more but better) brought to their mind and
heart their deep significance no less.
23. Now when he was in Jerusalem at the passover, in
the feast day, many believed in his name, when they saw the
miracles which he did.
24. But Jesus did not commit himself unto them, because
he knew all men,
'¦¦ See Smith's Bible Dictionary, " Herod."

54 GOSPEL OF JOHN.— CHAP. IIL
25. And needed not that any should testify of man ; for
he knew what was in man.
This faith which rested on the miracles of Jesus alone was
manifestly superficial, leaving the heart unchanged and unloving.
Perhaps they were saying inwardly— This man might lead our
nation to victory over the Romans. With such resources of power,
what might he not do to aggrandize the house of David?  Per
haps the case may illustrate the natural imperfection of a belief
which rests on miracles only — which goes not beyond the convic
tion of great power, and which limits its impression to the in
tellect, with no bearing on the heart.
Jesus knew their heart too well to commit himself to them.
The Evangelist avails himself of this case to ascribe to .lesus
that divine searching which goes to the bottom of all human
hearts, before which no thought or unborn act can be hidden.

 >oj«e;o

CHAPTER III.
This chapter is in two principal parts : vs. 1-21 narrate the
night interview of Jesus with Nicodemus, and the extended dis
course to which it gave occasion ; vs. 22-36 bring Jesus once more
near the scenes of John the Baptist's preaching, and give us the
last testimony of the Baptist to Jesus and to hia mission and doc
trine. The locality of the former portion seems to have been at
or near Jerusalem ; that of the latter is definitely stated (v. 23).
1. There was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus,
a ruler of the Jews :
2. The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him,
Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God :
for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except
God be with him.
The charm of a special interest gathers about these personal
labors of Jesus with individuals, such as this conversation by
night with Nicodemus, and that (chap. 4) with the woman of Sa
maria by Jacob's well. We see that Jesus entered warmly into
gospel work to enlighten and save even one human soul ; and that
when he had but one hearer, he availed himself of his opportu
nity to give his instructions the more definite, and so more effect
ive, adaptation.
In the first clause of v. 2, the corrected text, with the author
ity of the three oldest and most reliable manuscripts (S.V. A.)
gives "him" in place of "Jesus" : "The same came to him by
night." This reading indicates a closer connection between the

GOSPEL OF JOHN.— CHAP. IIL 55
opening of this chapter and the close of the preceding, showing
that Nicodemus is one of those men referred to (John 2 : 23) who
were impressed by the miracles of Jesus, but were still in great
darkness on the vital points of salvation through his name.
Nicodemus was a Pharisee and a member of the Jewish Sanhe-
Srim ; is twice brought to light in John's subsequent history, viz ;
in 7 : 50, and in 19 : 39 ; in the former case protesting against the
action of the council in condemning Jesus without a hearing: in
the latter, bringing in his tribute (may we hope) of loving sym
pathy as well as respect for the Crucified One — "an hundred
pounds of myrrh and aloes" with which to embalm the body. In
both references John identifies him as the same who first " came
to Jesus by night." We are left to infer that he came by night,
not because of the pressure of other duties throughout the day
so much as for a' private interview that should not imperil his
standing with his brethren of the Sanhedrim.
He accosts Jesus very respectfully — My Lord; my Teacher. 
"We know" — perhaps speaking the convictions of other candid
men as well as his own — "that thou art a teacher come from
God; for no man can do these miracles that thou doest except
God be with him." Such miracles are wrought only by a power
really superhuman, and therefore, if not even directly by God's
hand, yet certainly with his permission given to superhuman
agents. Consequently such miracles must be accepted as God's
indorsement of the teacher's mission. Some critics disparage
the concession — "Except God be with him" — as a very low and
inadequate inference from the fact of miracles. I see no special
force in this criticism. It lies equally against Peter as against
Nicodemus (see Acts 10: 38): "How God anointed Jesus of
Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power; who went about
doing good and healing all that were oppressed with the devil;
for God was with him." That God should be "wiih Jesus,"
proving his presence by miraculous powers, is the best and high
est possible indorsement of his divine mission — the very sort of
indorsement which should be rationally expected.  On these
perfectly valid grounds, therefore, Nicodemus recognizes Jesus as
a teacher sent from God, and comes to him to seek instruction
in divine truth. Jesus proceeds at once to teach him what he
most of all needed to learn.
3. Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I
say unto thee. Except a inan be born again, he can not see
the kingdom of God.
4. Nicodemus saith unto him. How can a man be born
when he is old? can he enter the second time into his
mother's womb, and be born?
"Jesus answered" — according to New 'Testament usage ia,
not necessarily answering a definite question, but may mean.

56 GOSPEL OF JOHN.— CHAP. IIL
taking np a subject suggested either by some previous remark
or by the circumstances of the case.
If to some readers Jesus should seem to open the subject of
the new birth abruptly, let it be considered — (a.) That Nicodemus,
being apparently one of the class referred to (John 2: 23) had a
certain faith in Jesus, yet a faith which precisely lacked what
the new birth would supply. He believed in the power of Jesus
to work miracles ; accepted these miracles as indorsing his mis
sion from God as u. great teacher; yet came short oiaccepting
Jesus with loving, trusting heart as his own- personal Savior
from sin. — (6.) 'These first words of Jesus will no longer seem
abrupt and wanting in easy connection with pre-existing ideas if
we bear in mind that Nicodemus as a well educated Jew had
definite notions respecting "the kingdom of God" — definite
though not in all respects correct, and in some great points fun
damentally defective.  He was familiar wiih ike phrase. This
being a point of no small importance, let it be expanded so far
at least as to suggest — (1.) That the OH Testament prophecies
(in his own text-book) are full of it, four of the Messianic Psalms
(e. g.) being built upon it (viz, the 2d, 45th, 72d and 110th); also
a very large portion of all the Messianic prophecies in Jeremiah,
Ezekiel, and Zechariah. They give us a king to reign after the
model of David — so fully on his model that several give him the
very name "David," in the sense of a second David.  (2.) That
the entire phrase comes from Daniel (2: 44, and 7: 13, 14, 27):
" The God of Heaven shall set up a kingdom which shall never
be destroyed," etc. — hence called interchangeably, "kingdom of
God" and "kingdom of heaven."  (3.) That John the Baptist
made these words ring in the ears of all Judah and Jerusalem —
"Repent; for the kingdom of heaven is at hand." Jesus began
his preaching on the same key-note ; from the same text — ^in the
same sense.  (4.) The masses of the Jews were certainly fa
miliar with the idea; else they would not have proposed to
"take him by force to make him a king" (.lohn 6: 15); would
not have brought him into their city with all the regalia of a
triumph, shouting (as put in John 12: 13, 15) — "Hosanna:
Blessed is the King of Israel that cometh in the name of the
Lord;" "Behold, thy King cometh." See the more full account.
Matt. 21 : 1-11, and Mark 11 : 1-11, and Luke 19: 29-38— a scene
so significant in the life-history of Jesus that each of the four
evangelists has put it on record.^  (5.) His murderers taunted
him with having claimed to be "King of the Jews;" — and finally
(6.) — The apostles honored him evermore as "Lord" and
" King;" and most distinctly of all, the Revelator John gives high
and most significant prominence to his kingdom and reign. 
Let these great facts suffice to show that Jews of average intel
ligence, like Nicodemus, must have been entirely familiar with
the phrases " kingdom of God," or " of heaven."
Now let it be specially noted that Nicodemus had some vital
things to learn about this kingdom, especially about the conditions

-^ GOSPEL OF JOHN.— CHAP. IIL 57
of membership, i. e. of citizenship. As a Jew from the loins of
Abraham, he had never thought of questioning his citizenship in
this kingdom by right of birtli. Was he not born a Jew ? Was
not his pedigree sanctioned and honored in the genealogies of his
nation ? Did any body ever question his place by birth in this
expected kingdom of the Messiah who should "reign over the house
of David forever " ?
Thia, theu, is his first fatal mistake. To make him a son and
an heir in this kingdom, more is needed than the birth he thinks of
He must have a higher birth than that. So Jesus begins from this
starting-point. Beyond all question he uaes the figure of birth and
speaks of being " born" for this kingdom because, in the mind of
Nicodemus, his birth from the stock of Abraham gave him his
credentials of membership iu the kingdom of God.  Jesus, there
fore, began with the solemn averment — " 'Verily, verily, I say unto
thee. Except a man be born from above, he can not see the king
dom of God." The word which Jesus used ¦* should certainly be
translated, not " again," 'but from above. It means precisely this
in its etymology, being a compound word, made from two others,
one meaning from ; the other above. In every other instance of
its use in the New Testament, it means from above, f
Moreover, this sense is to be preferred as being more compre
hensive, for it not only implies the sense, "again," the second
birth, but points to the source of the power which brings the new
birth. _
If it be said — Nicodemus understood .Tesus to mean, " born
again" and therefore we must assume this to have been his mean
ing, it may be replied : — Nicodemus did not care to take issue on
the primary idea — the source whence the new birth came; but
seized upon the secondary one — born another time, by a new and
second birth, and sought to push the absurdity of this birth in its
literal sense. It is not by any means certain that Nicodemus
failed to take the sense — born from above. It is more probable
that he left that point unnoticed because he had nothing to say
about that. Moreover, it is supposable that Nicodemus was not
altogether honest. An excessive eagerness to involve his Rabbi
in an absurdity may have blinded his mind to the point whioh
Jesus sought to make prominent^— the birth-,/)-o)» above.
-» " avadev."
tThe moat illustrative cases are — John 3: 31: '-He that cometh /rom
above ia above all;" John 19: 11: "Thou couldeat have no power
against me except it were given thee from above;" James 1 : 17 ;
" Every perfect gift is from above and cometh down from the Father
of lights," etc. Also Jamea 3 : 15, 17 : " Thia wiadom deaoendeth not
-from above;" " But the wisdom that is /rom aJoM," etc.  The remain
ing oases, in the sense of what is higher iu space or earlier in time,
may be seen. Matt 27: 51; Mark 15: 38; Luke 1:3; John 19: 23,
and Acts 26 : 5, and Gab 4:9. It will be seen that not one of alt
these cases will bear the sense of again.

58 GOSPEL OF JOHN.— CHAP. IIL
To Nicodemus, himself an old man, the idea of being born over
again as at the first, seemed most absurd. Is it strange that with
this view of Christ's meaning he should exclaim — "How can it
be ? " .lesus will explain in due time.
But let us note here that the word " see" [i. e. the kingdom],
while essentially synonymous with " enter into " in v. 5, and there
fore involving membership and all its blessings — will naturally
suggest that accurate and impressive knowledge which comes of
vision — implying, therefore, that without the enlightening of the
Spirit and the sense of divine things that comes with being born
of the Spirit, no man will ever rightly and fully appreciate and
know in his deep experience what this reign of Christ truly is.
5. Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except
a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he can not enter
into the kingdom of God.
6. That which is born of the flesh is flesh ; and that which
is born of the Spirit is spirit.
.lesus solemnly reaffirms the main points made in v. 3, yet re
affirms with explanatory modifications. We must note with the
utmost care every point of change in this second speech.-  (a.)
The change from " seeing the kingdom " to " entering into the
kingdom" can not be regarded as specially significant. If (as
suggested above) " seeing ' looked iu a sort toward a deep thorough
apprehension of its meaning, Jesus may have thought best to leave
out that point and make his affirmation more simple, and so more
emphatic, with the single point — membership.  (b.) But to
change " born from above " to " born of water and Spirit" * was
really an advance in the way of explanation. It brought in dis
tinctly and by name what was only referred to before as to the
source whence it came. Jesus teaches him that this new birth is
wrought hy tiie Spirit. In what sense hy water, I reserve for sub
sequent discussion. As to the fact of the Spirit's agency in this
birth, there is not the least ground for doubt or difference of
opinion.  (c.) There is also a very vital point of explanation in
v. 6. Jesus would say : You are thinking about that which is "born
of the flesh" — of the' human, mother. That will of course be
nothing but a human child, of mere flesh and blood like the parent.
I am not speaking at all of such a birth. I speak of being " born
of the Spirit" of God. That which is born thus ofthe Spirit will
be a spiritual product— a soul with a new spiritual life ; morally
considered, a "new creature;!' flguratively speaking, "a new
heart and a new spirit" "put within."  This truth, vital far
above all other truth pertaining to the conditions of membership
in thia kingdom, Jesus puts here, briefly indeed, but clearly as to
its vital elements, and in manner with most impressive and solemn
affirmation. * e| vSaroa xai irvevfiaToa.

GOSPEL OF JOHN.— CHAP. IIL 59
It remains to consider what is meant here by the word " water "
in the phrase — " born of water and Spirit."
In the outset let me apprise the reader that more ia depending
upon the sense of this word " water" in this passage than may
be at first thought apparent. In a statement from the lips of tho
Great Teacher, made under circumstances so impressive ; in man
ner so terse and comprehensive, and bearing on a point so vital as
the conditions of membership in his kingdom, every word may
have — nay more, must have immense and telling significance.
For we must ask. Are there here two agencies — one water, and
the other Spirit ; or only one — that of the Spirit ? If two, are
they both equally vital, both equally indispensable? Is being
born of the Spirit sufficient without being born of water ? Is be
ing born of water sufficient without being born of the Spirit ?
What is the status of him who has been born of water only ?
What is his who, supposably, is born of the Spirit only, and not
by water?  And yet again: Is the term " water," as used here,
exactly equivalent to baptism? When Jesus says "water," does
he mean baptism, and nothing more or less, so that water is noth
ing except as it is used in the proper mode of the ordinance of
baptism ? And does he imply that baptism with water carries
with it the new birth by the Spirit? Or may it be that baptism
has a function to perform quite distinct from that of the Spirit,
and eithei' equally essential or not equally essential to salva
tion ?
Thus the questions over this word " water," branch out almost
indefinitely. No intelligent Bible reader ought to satisfy himself
-without a very careful and thoroughly fundamental investigation
of these points here in issue.
To facilitate progress we will take first this main question — one
which in fact willmostly settle all the rest : — Is " water" here only
another word for baptism, referring to that Christian ordinance,
implying it, meaning it: or is it only a symbol of the Spirit's
agency — significant of moral cleansing, and having, therefore, no
reference to baptism as an external rite ?
As preliminary to the discussion before us, let me remind the
reader that Jesus has for his pupil a man of apparently fair can
dor [note how his candor appears in John 7 : 51] — a real inquirer
after truth (not a caviler) ; so that we must assume that Jesus
aimed to enlighten his mind, and therefore would use words and
phrases which Nicodemus might be expected to understand.
Honest minds always talk for the sake of being understood ; al
ways choose their words and figures accordingly. Hence we are
safe in assuming that Jesus adjusted his words to what he sup
posed Nicodemus knew, or at least might be supposed to know.
That is, in addressing Nicodemus he really spaketo that group of
ideas and sentiments which lay in the mind of his hearer.
Coming now to the main discussion of the one point as put
above, I note —
1. That Nicodemus is a Jno ; therefore .lesus must talk as to

60 GOSPEL OF JOHN.— CHAP. IIL
a Jew.  Moreover, Nicodemus is not only one of the Jewish
people, but is a member of the highest Jewish council (the San
hedrim), and therefore by profession a teacher — in the words of
Christ, " the master [teacher] of Israel " (v. 10). As such the
Old Testament was his text-book, and he might be presumed not
only to understand that book fairly, but to be able to teach it to
others. It is therefore all but certain that Jesus will teach him
out of his own book; will assume that he ought to understand
that, and will not assume that he ought to understand what that
book had not taught.
2. This last named point is made the more certain because Je
sus expresses his astonishment that Nicodemus, being the teacher
of Israel, {i. e. one of the prominent, distinguished teachers,)
should not know these things. In his view it was not only mar
velous but unpardonable that a professed teacher of the Jewish
scriptures should not comprehend the plainly taught things of
his ow^i book. We must therefore look for the usage of the term
"water" in the Old Testament. As we meet it there, is it bap
tism, or is it simply a symbol of the Spirit's work? We will
search this out shortly.
3. The first and most fundamental principle of interpretation
being this — that " usage gives law to language," we are compelled
to find this usage, and hence its behests, in what precedes rather
tlian what follows. Therefore Jesus must have spoken according
to the usage of the Old Testament rather than of the New, (the
yet unwritten and unknown New,) for Nicodemus could not be
supposed to understand the New, and Jesus, honestly aiming to
teach him, must begin with making himself understood, and must
therefore choose his words accordingly. Therefore we must in
terpret the words of Jesus from things previously known — not
from things subsequently revealed; i. e. we must find the usage,
¦which gives law to his language in the Old Testament — not in the
New ; in the teachings and symbols of the old economy, and not
in the yet undeveloped institutions [e. g. baptism] and their ex
planations and analogies as brought out only in the later gospel
age. 4. Again: As the phrase "kingdom of God " or ''of heaven"
comes from Old Testament prophecy, we might expect, or at least
we might hope, to find the terms of membership there. We may
at least say that as the kingdom itself is an Old Testament idea,
expressed in Old Testament phrase, so should the conditions of
admission, whether found in the Old Testament or the New, be
expressed in terms familiar to a good student of the Old Testa
ment scriptures.
5. Yet again : All the standard terms of the gospel system lie
back in the Old Testament : so therefore should these terms
"water and Spirit," in respect to regeneration. In the Old Testa
ment we have repentance ; we have faith, belief, trust ; we have
sacrifice for sins ; redemption, reconciliation, pardon, righteous
ness, atonement; most surely then we have a right to look there

GOSPEL OF JOHN.— CHAP. IIL 61
for the new heart and new Spirit, and for the true doctrine of the
Holy Spirit of God, and also for the sense of "water" in thia
connection. 6. Still somewhat more definitely let it be said — The doctrine of
the Spirit and of his work in regeneration is in the Old Testa
ment as really as in the New, and "water" is spoken of in con
nection with the new heart as really there as in this conversation
with Nicodemus. Every candid reader will see the propriety
therefore of referring to the Old Testament for the true exposi
tion of this word " water " in connection with the work of the
Spirit in the new birth.
7. Advancing yet another step — a short one only — I remark
that the customary, not to say the invariable, symbol under which
the agency of the Spirit is illustrated in the Old Testament is
" water." David has the idea in his fifty-first Psalm : " Wash me
thoroughly from mine iniquity and cleanse me from my sin ; "
" Create in me a clean heart ; " " Take not thy Holy Spirit from
me." Isaiah has it in the form of gospel promise, first in sym
bol : — -" I will pour water upon him that is thirsty, and floods upon
the dry ground; " — then in the thing symbolized — " I will pour
my Spirit upon thy seed and my blessing upon thine offspring ; " —
and "One shall say, I am the Lord's, ' etc. (Isa. 44: 3, 5). 
Joel has it (2: 28, 29): " t will pour out my Spirit" [pour, as
if it were water] " upon all flesh"- — a promise which Peter saw
fulfilled incipiently on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2: 16-18). —
In Zechariah the reader may consult chap. 13 : 1, and 14: 8.
In Ezekiel we have the living water flowing forth from under
the temple (47: 1-12) — but more significant than all the rest is
the passage, Ezek. 36: 25-27: "Then will I sprinkle clean water
upon you, and ye shall be clean ; from all your filthiness and
from all your idols will I cleanse you. A new heart also will I
give you, and a new spirit will I put within you : and I will take
away the stony heart out of your flesh, aud I will give you a heart
of flesh. And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to
walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments and do them."
Here we have in one group all the leading ideas found in these
words of Christ to Nicodemus: — first "water"- — clean, cleansing
water, sprinkled and cleansing from all moral filthiness; next,
" the new heart and the new spirit" given — which is precisely re
generation ; last, the recognition of " the Spirit of God " as the Su
preme Agent whose work is set forth by the symbol of cleansing
water, but which really gives the new heart and insures the new
moral life: " I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to '
walk in my statutes. '
It admits of no reasonable doubt that Jesus had these words from
Ezekiel definitely in mind when he said, " born of water and
Spirit." In each passage— that in Ezekiel and this in Jesus to
Nicodemus — we have the same three leading ideas, and in essen
tially the same order: water; the new heart or birth; God's
Spirit, so that we may suppose Jesus to have almost said to his

62 GOSPEL OF JOHN.— CHAP. III.
pupil— that "master in Israel" — "What! hast thou never read
Ezekiel? Hast thou possibly forgotten what he said so clearly
about ' clean water ' to cleanse from all iniquity ; ' a new heart
and new spirit; ' and all wrought by God's own Spirit put within
the souls-of men?"
Let me turn the reader's attention yet more definitely to this
point, that Jesus uses the term " water " for a " catch-word," in the
good sense common to some English Expositors- — i. e. a suggest
ive word which will "catch" the hearer's ear and lead his mind
into the desired line of thought. Thus the word "water" would
naturally suggest to Nicodemus this very passage in Ezekiel — not
to say also, numerous other Old Testament passages in which
water symbolizes the Spirit's agency in the hearts of men. 
This explains sufficiently why Jesus puts "water" first in order;
also why he names it once, and once only — i. e. not as being
itself one of the agents in regeneration, but as suggesting the Old
Testament passages which speak of the Spirit under the symbol
of water.
Thus it seems to admit really of no question that Jesus, follow
ing Old Testament usage, speaks of water as a symbol of the
Holy Spirit's renewing, heart-cleansing agency in regeneration.
8. But over against this, let it be carefully considered — Bap
tism is not in ihe Old Testament ai all. The word in its Chris
tian sense is not there. Therefore Jesus could not assume that
Nicodemus ought to have found and learned it there. To have
assumed this, and to have reproached Nicodemus for being " a
master in Israel," and yet for not having learned from the Old
Testament what was never there, is to make the rebuke recoil
upon its author — the blessed Jesus I Whose heart does not ex
claim, "God forbid I"
9 Yet further: It is entirely too early for Jesus to speak of
Christian baptism. Christian baptism made very special account
of the work of the Holy Ghost, for John the Baptist puts his
baptism iu contrast with it, saying — "I indeed baptize with wa
ter; but he that cometh after me shall baptize with the Holy
Ghost."  At the time of this discourse with Nicodemus, the
doctrine of the Spirit was but partially unfolded. No command
had yet gone forth to "baptize into the name of the Father, and
of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." In fact this command which
was legitimately the very institution of Christian baptism, dates
only after Christ's resurrection.  Now, therefore, if it be said
that Jesus used the words — " born of water and Spirit" — with
reference to Christian baptism, Nicodemus might have replied —
"Rabbi, even thy disciples have not heard yet of baptizing into
the name of the Holy Ghost; how then dost thou reproach me
for not understanding it?"  The reader will the more surely see
the force of my argumenthere if he will consider that if " water "
here means baptism, it must mean baptism in its closest possible
relations to the Holy Ghost and to his regenerating work. To
suppose otherwise is to rule out the great Christian element of

GOSPEL OF JOHN.— CHAP. IIL 63
baptism ; degrade it to a thing of mere water; and virtually sub
vert the whole gospel of salvation.  But to interpret bapti.sm
here of its special significance as related to the Holy Ghost ia to
interpret quite ahead of dates.
If it be objected that Jesus had already begun to ba.ptize, even
this objection is not altogether felicitous, for we are told that Je
sus did not himself baptize, but passed it over to the hands of
his disciples. This certainly does not look as if Jesus attached
supreme importance to baptism — does not imply that he deemed
it essential to admission into the kingdom of heaven, or that in
his view the grace of regeneration oame always with water-bap
tism, and never without it. If these had been his views, he could
have spared no pains to make the administration impressively
solemn ; he could not have stood aloof personally from its admin
istration and left it in the hands of novices — for such were his
young disciples — at this time less than one year in his training
school. 10. If in this passage " water '' is interpreted to mean baptism,
it springs upon us several questions of momentous bearing, e. g.
Is baptism really vital to salvation, as truly so as being " born of
the Spirit" ? Is it vital by virtue of what is in itself, or only bo-
cause of its relation to the Spirit? Does baptism certainly and
necessarily involve the birth by the Spirit? If not, then what is
the state of one born of water and not "born of the Spirit" ?
And again, what of him " born of the Spirit" and not " born of
water ' ?  Now observe : under this interpretation these vital
questions are sprung upon us and then left utterly without solu
tion. Not a ray of light is thrown upon them. Jesus passes
them all as if nobody could ever raise them or be troubled about
them. But they will come up, and they must be met. If by
" water" Jesus means baptism, he gives no light upon them what
ever. All is left loose, indefinite, perplexing, bewildering, and
the more solemnly in earnest we are to understand fully all the
real conditions of salvation, the more agonizing becomes our per
plexity. Such results from inierpreiiiig this loord "water" to mean
baptism are utterly fatal to the interpretation which evolves and
creates ihem. For this is never the way of God's teaching in the
Bible — is never the way of Christ's opening the door into the
kingdom of heaven. "Woe to all honest inquirers after the way
of salvation if it were 1
The considerations already advanced are amply sufficient to
prove that "water" is here only a symbol of the Spirit's cleans
ing agency, and has no reference to baptism as a visible, external
rite. Several of them would be decisive alone, in their individ
ual force; combined, they seem to me resistless. _
11. But there are still other arguments ; e. (?. this : If Jesiis meant
baptism, and not water, why did he not say baptism ? He might
have used the word baptism as easily as the word water, and so have
lifted his words above all the darkness of ambiguity and doubt.

64 GOSPEL OF JOHN.— CHAP. III.
12. Again: If he meant baptism, thein he made two conditions
of admission into the kingdom of God. But in v. 6 he seems to
forget that there are two conditions, and speaks as if there were
but one — being "born of the Spirit."
13. Yet again : If baptism be one of the conditions, distinct
from the Spirit, then he assigns it the first place ; puts it in the
foreground : how then could he ignore it altogether throughout
the remaining portion of this discourse, and indeed throughout
all his future instructions ? How can we account for it that Je
sus never again brings up this doctrine to reassert or expound
it; that never one of his disciples preached — never one of his
apostles wrote — that men must be baptized or never enter into the
kingdom of God?
It is hoped that these considerations, combining and massing
their forces, will suffice to prove that "water" here is not bap
tism, but is only a symbol — borrowed from the Old Testament—
of the cleansing, renewing agency of the Spirit in the new birth.
A word is perhaps due in reply to one single objection, put by
tliose expositors who make large account of grammatical usage.
They say that the figure known as " Hendiadys " (i. e. two words
for one idea) by whioh the words "water and Spirit" come to
mean the water or washing of ihe Spirit, is not well supported
by Greek usage, and is therefore to be rejected in this passage.
My brief reply to this objection is that in this passage Jesus
does not concern himself so much with Greek usage as with tho
usage of Ezekiel in his passage quoted above, about the " new
heart." He spake with those words in his eye ; says " water "
because Ezekiel does, and Spirit because Ezekiel does ; and puts
the ideas represented by these words into their place in connection
with the "new heart" because Ezekiel does, and because Nico
demus ought to understand these words and this sense of them.
Hence we have not the least occasion to trouble ourselves over the
question of Greek usage here. Old Testament usage in a case of
this sort ought to be supreme.
Some of my readers will recall the fact without my aid — that
the doctrine of " baptismal regeneration" rests upon this passage
only, assuming that "water" here is baptism, and that regenera
tion goes with baptism, and not without it. Consequently infants,
duly baptized, are therein regenerated. Some of the early
Christian fathers wrote in this way of " baptismal regeneration " —
" regeneration in the water of baptism," etc.
But if "water" is here only a symbol of the Spirit's cleansing,
and is not baptism at all, then the whole doctrine of "baptismal
regeneration" is a fancy only, and has no scriptural foundation.
False interpretations of words found in the Bible have no more
force than new words foisted into the Bible would have. The true
sense of the words of Jesus is all that Jesus said. Any other
supposed meaning which can not be legitimately put upon his
words is utterly without his authority.

GOSPEL OF JOHN.— CHAP. III. 65
7. Marvel not that I said unto thee. Ye must be born
again. 8. The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest
the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and
whither it goeth : so is every one that is born of the Spirit.
In the kindness and compassion of his heart Jesus fears that
a sense of the marvelous, excited by what seemed strange and
incomprehensible, is counteracting the moral impression of his
words — "Ye must be born from above." Hence this caution;
and hence also this analogy between the Spirit's agency and the
gentle breeze — designed to suggest that mystery may overhang
the philosophy of the commonest facts of human life. This anal
ogy was the more suggestive because the same Greek word is
used both for "Spirit' in the sense of the Heavenly Agent, and
for "wind" as here said to blow— breathe gently — where it will.
Of these gentle zephyrs you hear their sound (literally "their
voice"), but they never report whence they come or whither they
go. So there are untold, unrevealed things concerning the new
birth by the Spirit. Do not doubt or in any wise disparage the
glorious truth because some things about it lie shaded in mys
tery. 9. Nicodemus answered and said unto him. Plow can
these things be?
Sad to say, Nicodemus is still snagged where he was before : —
"How can these things be?" And how can I be born again if
I can not understand it ?
10. Jesus answered and said unto him, Art thou a master
of Israel, and knowest not these things?
Is there in these words a slight under-tone of impatience,
moving the Lord to this gentle rebuke — Art thou the professed
teacher of spiritual things in Israel [the Greek has the article
ihe'\ — one of the distinguished doctors of the law, and yet hast
never read, or at least never understood what is so plainly said
there of the "new heart and new spirit" — the work of the
Spirit of God, symbolized by cleansing water ?
11. Verily, verily, I say unto thee, We speak that we do
know, and testify that we have seen ; and ye receive not our
witness. 12. If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe
not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?
13. And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he
that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is
in heaven.
In saying "we," Jesus may perhaps include with himself his

66 GOSPEL OF JOHN.— CHAP. HI.
disciples, yet no special stress should be laid on the plural, for
in vs. 12, 13, he speaks of himself only.
Jesus would say to JSicodemus — There are things in the great
realm of divine truth which you must receive vpon testimony. I
know what I affirm ; I testify only what I have myself seen :
why should not you receive my testimony ? Yet you refuse it.
In V. 12 "// I have told you," is equivalent to this: Inasmuch
as I have — assuming that he has, and not making the supposi
tion of what would be if he should. This usage of the word "if"
is not infrequent in John.  This verso brings up the ques
tion — What things are spoken of as "earthly" and what as
"heavenly"?  Some have answered: The former are things
material; the latter are things spiritual. But this sense seems
to me quite inept and not pertinent to the issues pending here.
 Others have said: The "earthly" are things done here on
the earth; the "heavenly" are done in heaven, or at least, their
working forces originate there and come down from thence. — :—
This explanation comes nearer to the truth, yet still falls short
of it. 1 suggest that light on this subject may come from two
quarters.  (a.) G'he "earthly things ' are those which Jesus
had told Nicodemus, yet which he would not believe; while
the " heavenly" were those which Nicodemus demanded to know,
but which Jesus implies that he would not believe if he were
told them — probably would find even more stubbornly incred
ible because apparently more impossible. In the former class
we may put the fad of the new birth and its absolute neces
sity ; in the latter, the great question which so perplexed Nico
demus; — Hoio. can it be? How can it be done? The mystery
of the Spirit's agency.  (6.) It is legitimate to fall back upon
that Old Testament usage which speaks of things easy of ap
prehension as " earthly;' and of things difficult of apprehension
as being "heavenly" — remote, too far away to be seen or learned
by mortals. We find this usage first in Moses (Deut. 30: 11-14),
but appearing again in Paul to the Romans (10: 6-10): "This
commandment whioh I command thee this day is not hidden
from thee, neither is it far off. It is not in heaven that thou
shouldest say. Who shall go up for us to heaven and bring it unto
us that we may hear it and do it? Neither is it beyond the sea
that thou shouldest say. Who shall go over the sea for us and
bring it unto us that we may hear it and do it ? But the word
is very nigh unto thee, in thy mouth and in thy heart, that thou
mayest do it."  Paul applies this usage beautifully to tho
"righteousness of faith" — a thing so simple and so easily appre
hended that no one need say in his heart — "Who shall go up jnto
heaven for us to bring Christ down to us" that we may under
stand him? or who shall descend into the deep as if to bring
up Christ from the shades below? "But what saith it? The word
is nigh thee" — plain, simple, easy of apprehension: — for it is
only to " confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and believe in
thy heart that God hath raised him from the dead ; and thou shalt

GOSPEL OF JOHN.— CHAP. IH. 67
be saved."  Following this ancient Jewish usage we put into
the class of "earthly things" the simple plain facts of the now
birth which Jesus had announced — e. g. that it is wrought by the
Spirit, his agency being symbolized as in the Old Testament by
cleansing water; and that this morally new birth is the vital
prerequisite for admission to the kingdom of heaven. We put
into the class of "heavenly things' those laws of the Spirit's
agency which no human ken has searched out, involved in the
question — "How can these things be done ?" and suggested by .le
sus in his analogy of the Spirit to the winds that blow, but come,
we know not whence, and go, we know not whither. These
points Jesus did not propose to reveal, assured that Nicodemus
would not believe these inasmuch as he hesitates to believe the
far more plain and simple points already solemnly affirmed.
V. 13 follows by natural association from the usage of Moses
aud of Paul which speaks of "going up to heaven" to get
knowledge that is too deep and vast to be found on earth. No
man goes up to heaven to get this deep knowledge of the things
of the new birth ; but the Son of man comes down from heaven,
and therefore is entirely competent to teach all the most abstruse
things of the realm of truth.  The words — " The Son of man
who is in heaven" — seem to recognize the relation of the Logos
to the Father to be equivalent to his constantly abiding in
heaven. Eternally with God, and indeed being in no respect less
than God, he knows God and all the deepest things of the heavenly
world, even as if he were dwelling forever there.-*
14. And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness,
even so must the Son of man be lifted up:
15. That whosoever believeth in him should not perish,
but have eternal life.
By the delicate law of mental association of ideas, the lifting
up of the serpent and the analogous lifting up of the Son of man
upon the cross may have been suggested by the ascending up to
heaven to get truth which ia too far from human reach to bo
grasped below.
Let us note, moreover, that this allusion to Moses and the ser
pent in the wilderness is doubly pertinent in a discourse with
Nicodemus, because it comes from his own text-book.^ There lay
in it a most significant foreshadowing — first, of the lifting up of
Jesus upon the cross ; next, of the looking up to him by faith for
life by every soul stung with conscious guilt, and verily lost under
the doom of condemnation from God. The looking up to that up
lifted serpent was in its nature, faith ; the looking up to the Cruci
fied One is definitely called believing in him, and is coupled with
the promise, not of the life of the body for a few days or years
longer as in the case of the serpent-bitten men, but with the prom-
«- The old manuscripts (S. "V.) omit the words—" who is in heaven."
Tischendorf, however, retains them.

68 GOSPEL OF JOHN.— CHAP. IIL
ise of life eternal — a life of restoration to God and of everlasting
peace in his presence and favor.  Let it be noted that Christ's
way of speaking of himself as to be " lifted up" (i. e. on the
cross) seems to have made a deep impression on the mind of
John. He remembered and put on record two other references
to the same fact, in the same words : " Then said Jesus unto them,
When ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that
I am he," etc. (John 8: 28). Also this: "And I, if I be lifted
up, will draw all men unto me ; " which .lohn explains : — " This
he said, signifying what death he should die " (John 12 : 32, 33).
 Thus Jesus led Nicodemus along into the great things of the
gospel system — the sacrificial death of the Son of man upon the
cross, and the looking up to him thus crucified, as the world's
Great Sufferer, who bore our sins in his own body on the tree — to
look unto whom by faith is to live eternally.
We shall miss much of the beauty of these verses (14-21) if
we overlook (as some readers do) the fact that we are still listen
ing to Jesus in his night conversation with Nicodemus. How
kindly and yet how briefly, in most comprehensive words, does
Jesus lead his pupil on into the great elementary things of the
gospel scheme ! ¦*
16. For God so loved the world, that he gave his only be
gotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not per
ish, but have everlasting life.
17. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn
the world ; but that the world through him might be saved.
Moving forward in his discourse logically (" for "), his next
point naturally is to trace this scheme of salvation for lost men
to its source in the deep, eternal, absolutely infinite love of God
for this lost world. If Nicodemus may be supposed to have un
derstood to some extent the deep significance of "the Son of man
lifted up " upon the cross— dying in torture that guilty men might
have life by looking unto him, we might expect another exclamation
like the former — " How can these things be I " Was ever such a sac
rifice of dear life made for one's guilty enemies ? And how is it
possible that God should give up his Son to such a death ? An
ticipating this new marvel, Jesus by one word lets in a flood of
light from heaven upon it : " For God so loved the world " — loved
the world with love so pure, -so unselfish, so self-sacrificing — that
he gave up the only-begotten Son,f in order that no believer in
¦* In V. 15 the text corrected upon the authority of the Sinaitic and
the Vatican, omits the words — "not perish, but" — reading the pas
sage thus: "Whosoever believeth iu him should have eternal life."
It is supposable that they were introduced here by some copyist be
cause lie found them in v. 16.
t " The only-begotten Son " is the reading beat supported.

GOSPEL OF JOHN.— CHAP. IIL 69
him should perish, but every such one should have eternal
life.-* In verse 17 we have a alight advance in the glorious gospel doc
trine — the great purpose of God in sending his Son into this re
bellious world being put iu its negative side as well as its positive
. side. You might .anticipate that the Great King, Sending his
royal Son into a revolted province, would commission him only to
subdue and destroy ; but so thinking, you would utterly miscon
ceive the mission of the Son of God. For God did not send him
to wield Heaven's exterminating thunders, nor to sit in righteous
judgment unto eternal condemnation, but that the world through
him might be saved. The world's salvation — not its damnation —
was the declared purpose, the sublime design, of this wonderful
mission. We should wrest this scripture to our sore damage if we were
to push it so that it should deny the doctrine, elsewhere revealed,
of a future judgment, to be administered by "the Son of man."
The two doctrines are in no respect self-conflicting. The first
coming of Jesus is for salvation, the second for judgment. The
first provides and offers a free salvation to all men whosoever will ;
the second brings before the " great white throne " of judgment
the whole race of men to award their righteous doom to all those
whom no mercy could save ; whom no offers of pardon could move
to accept it ; whom no long-suffering and no beseeohings of love
have ever availed to bring to repentance and to faith in an offered
Redeemer. 18. He that believeth on him is not condemned : but he
that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not
believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
This verse expands more fully the thought of the last clause in
V. 16 — the truth that whoever believes in Christ shall have eternal
life. So Jesus here puts first the case of the believer. He is not
condemned but pardoned, and therefore saved. Then on the other
side the case of him who believes not: he is condemned already
because he does not believe in the name of the only-begotten Son
of God.
Here the main point of inquiry exegetically will be brought out
by the question — " Condemned already," for what sin? Is it for
ihe one sin of unbelief; or for the sins of his whole life, for which
no pardon has come, or can come while he will not believe in Jesus ?
Either of these views is in itself admissible — i. e. is true ; but the
scope of the passage seems to me to favor the former. Jesus seems
to speak here as if in his thought the whole issue between saved
-»In the last clause of each verse (15 and 16) "eternal" and
"everlasting" (as in Matt. 25: 46) are used interchangeably to
translate the same Greek word " aiSnios." It is unfortunate tlat re
gard to euphony should have led our translators to violate the beat
rule of translation — the same English word for its equivalent Greek.
4

' 70 GOSPEL OF JOHN.— CHAP. IIL
and lost turned on the one point — believing or not believing in the
name of the Son of God — every believer being saved; every
unbeliever lost. Other sins besides this one of unbelief are com
paratively of no account as bearing on the question of ultimate
salvation, for all else can be forgiven ; but the sin of unbelief in
God's offered Son must of necessity be fatal to salvation, because
it puts the soul beyond the pale of mercy; debars the -sinner from
the possibility of pardon ; practically nullifies, as to the man who
will not believe in Jesus, all that God in his great mercy has pro
vided for human salvation.
If this exposition of the thought of Jesus in this passage be just,
it will be readily seen that in his view every man's eternal destiny
turns on the single point — gospel faith, or gospel unbelief This
point is lifted into a prominence which towers high above every
thing else. It is not surprising therefore that he should proceed
to show how unbelief roots itself vitally in the love of man s heart
for sin, and, consequently, for the darkness which perverts his
views of truth — as we shall see.
19. And this is the condemnation, that light is come into
the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because
their deeds were evil.
20. For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither
cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.
21. But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his
deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.
Here gospel unbelief is traced philosophically to " evil deeds " —
whioh if a man will justify and will not forsake, he must needs
cover them as best he can wiih darkness. Hence he will love
darkness rather than light. He comes to have a personal interest
in darkness, since it is only by its help that he can make himself
at all comfortable in sinning. It is the perpetual annoyance of
sinners that God has made them with a moral sense which con
demns sin — which insists upon witnessing against sin as wrong,
base, unworthy of a moral being. This witnessing testimony of
his own conscience the sinner must in some way withstand. How
shall he do it ? Shall he bribe the witness, or muzzle his lips, or
mystify his points, or stop his own ears ?  In the words before
us, the Great Teacher treats the case with beautiful yet rich sim
plicity. Truth is light — truth being to the mind what light is to
the body. "This light of moral sort God has brought into the
world. In his power of moral choices man has his option to come
or not to come to this light. If he loves light, he comes ; if he
loves darkness rather, he hates the light and will not come. Of
course he will love darkneas if his deeds are deeds of darkness,
such as can not bear the light. The philosophy of this is almost
too simple to be made more plain by analysis or exposition. As
long as a mau proposes to continue" iu siu, he will vindicate his
former sinning self so far as he can, and will labor to make his

GOSPEL OF JOHN.— CHAP. IIL 71
sins appear trivial, i. e. he will shut off the light, will dread its
revelations ; will hate it and will not come up to it lest it make his
life and his soul unendurably odious.  On the other hand, if a
man live up to his moral convictions ; — in the words of Jesus, if
he "doeth truth," then he will come to the light, and you may at
once see that his doings aro manifestly "wrought in God" — the
deeds of a soul new-born to God with that birth which is by the
Spirit. The ultimate doctrine reached by this philosophy of gospel faith
and unbelief is that both have their roots rather iu the heart than
in the bead, since gospel faith wells up spontaneously in the heart
that loves purity and truth ; while gospel unbelief has its roots and
impulses in cherished sin and in the darkness which brings the
only comfort to a persistent sinner.  We reach essentially the
same result when -we say that repentance naturally goes before
gospel faith, and impenitence as to sin begets gospel unbelief; for
when a man turns against his former sinning self, he begins to
welcome the light of truth ; he gladly comes to it; gladly hails the
help the gospel brings, and opens his soul to the peace and joy of
Christ's salvation. But so long as any man persists in sin he
keeps himself under the strongest temptation to justify sinning—
for which the only available means are to shut off God's light, and
to make a covenant with darkness.
When Christ said to Nicodemus (v. 19) "light is come into the
world," we must suppose him to refer to his own coming from
heaven to earth with the light of salvation; as said (1 : 9) "This
was the true light which coming into the -world, enlightens every
man." Thus Jesus would press it upon Nicodemus that the one
supreme ground of condemnation — the great damning sin — is, re
pelling the light of heaven which the Son of God, becoming in
carnate in human flesh, came to reveal.
Contemplating this conversation with Nicodemus as a whole,
we are impressed with its simplicity, its directness, and the com
prehensiveness with which Jesus puts before his pupil the vital
truths of the gospel. With what concentration of truth and mo
tive does he bring every thing to bear upon the one great point — ¦
believing on the name of the Son of God I We can almost see
him throw his loving arms around the old man, saying with sol
emnly tender tone and flowing tears — If you will only break off
your sins by righteousness ; cease to love darkness for the sake
of self-justification in evil ways, and thus open your soul to the
light of God, and come in the spirit of a child to believe in that
Son of God for pardon and life, how will your soul reat in the
peace of God that paaseth all understanding I
22. After these things came Jesus and his disciples into
the land of Judea ; and there he tarried with them, and bap
tized. The second portion of this chapter, opening here, brings Jesus

72 GOSPEL OF JOHN.— CHAP. IIL
for the last time into contact with John the Baptist, and records
the final testimony of the Baptist in behalf of Jesus as the Messiah.
If we inquire for the supposable reason why Jesus went from
the city of Jerusalem into the country — Judea — to preach, we
have it probably iu the two facts — ^that the bigotry and pride of
the Pharisees were most virulent and hostile in the city — less so
in the country; and that John's preparatory work, preaching re
pentance and awakening expectation of a Savior near, had been by
tar most effective in the country. It was wise that Jesus availed
himself of these preparatory labors of his Great Forerunner.
23. And John also was baptizing in ^non near to Salim,
because there was much water there: and they came, and
were baptized.
John the Baptist was also baptizing at a pofnt so near that his
disciples were cognizant of the work Jesus was doing.
The precise locality of jEnon and Salim is still uncertain, tho
best authorities favoring either a point six miles south of Scy
thopolis (Bethshean), or a point some five miles north-east from
Jerusalem — the latter corresponding best with the exigencies of
the context. See Smith's Bible Dictionary on these words.- 
jEnon signifies fountains, a place of copious springs. The Greek
words translated "much water," may as fitly be translated, many
'Waters or fountains, such as would supply the personal wants of
a large concourse of people.
24. For John was not yet cast into prison.
The author assumes that his readers know the fact of John's
imprisonment. Therefore he simply refers to it as not having
yet occurred. The Baptist was still prosecuting his work.
25. Then there arose a question between some of John's
disciples and the Jews about purifying.
26. And they came unto John, and said unto him, Eabbi,
he that was with thee beyond Jordan, to whom thou barest
witness, behold, the same baptizeth, and all men come to
him. All the better textual authorities say — not " the Jews," but a.
Jew, in the singular.  This "question about purifying" had
reference obviously to baptism, that being the only thing in the
context to which purifying can refer. But the precise snape of
the question is not indicated. That the discussion resulted in
sending John's disciples to their master to teU him what .lesus
was doing in the way of baptizing multitudes favors the view
that the dispute arose over the mutual relations of the two bap
tisms — that of John and that of Jesus. To John's disciples it
may have seemed that Jesus was working in opposition to their
maater. Had his baptism any new significance, or only the same
as that of John ? If both signified essentially a spiritual purifi
cation, why should both bo baptizing, each building up a distinct

GOSPEL OF JOHN.— CHAP. UL 73
body of followers ?  A feeling of dissatisfaction, akin to envy
or jealousy, seems to underlie the message brought to John the
Baptist by his disciples.
27. - John answered and said, A man can receive nothing,
except it be given him from heaven.
28. Ye yourselves bear me witness, that I said, I am not
the Christ, but that I am sent before him.
29. He that hath the bride is the bridegroom : but the
friend of the bridegroom, which standeth and heareth him,
rejoiceth greatly because of the bridegroom's voice: this
my joy therefore is fulfilled.
30. He must increase, but I must decrease.
Not the least tinge of en-vy is in the words or the heart of
John because of the rising honor and growing success of Jesus.
He begins his reply by saying. All spiritual success comes down
to men from heaven. Therefore if God gives more to another
than to me, who am I that I should complain?  Besides, ye
know I never claimed to be the Messiah, but only that I was sent
before him to prepare his way. As the bride belongs to the
bridegroom, and not to the bridegroom's friend, so the church of
God — all real converts — belong to Christ — ^not to me. My high
mission is to wait on the bridegroom; hear his words of command ;
and promptly, joyfully obey them. This my joy is now complete.
I work for his success — not for my own. It is enough for me if
the multitudes throng around his feet. He must increase in in
fluence and honor. I am to be thrown more and more into the
shade, and my special followers must become, relatively to his,
fewer in number.  There is moral grandeur in the hearty joy
with whioh John accepts this overshadowing greatness of his
Master, eclipsing his own popularity.
31. He that cometh from above is above all : he that is
of the earth is earthly, and speaketh of the earth : he that
cometh from heaven is above all.
32. And what he hath seen and heard, that he testifieth ;
and no man receiveth his testimony.
Jesus coming really from above, from heaven itself, must surely
be above all others — higher iu nature, in authority, in success.
As to myself, I am only of the earth, and my teaching is of the
earth, as compared and contrasted with that of my divine Master.
 The better textual authorities omit in v. 31 the last three
words — "is above all" — aud connect verses 31 and 32 on this
wise : " He that cometh from heaven testifies what he hath seen
and heard."  Yet, strange to say, almost no man — none with
but few exceptions— receives his testimony.
33. He that hath received his testimony hath set to his
seal that God is true.

74 GOSPEL OF JOHN.— CHAP. IIL
There are some noble exceptions. He who does receive the tes
timony which accredits the Messiah, puts his seal to God's vera
city — accepts the tes,timony of God as veritably true.
34. For he whom God hath sent speaketh the words of
God : for God giveth not the Spirit by measure unto him.
The first clause is virtually a moral truism. He whom God
sends and accredits will speak his words, being sent for no other
purpose save to speak for God. He could not be indorsed by
miracle if he did not speak truly for God. To him God gives his
Spirit in unmeasured fullness — the special function and work of
the Spirit as thought of here being the same which Jesus con
templates in his descriptive epithet — " The Spirit of truth " (John
14 : 17, and 15: 26). Jesus being filled in the fullest measure by
this truth-revealing Spirit, would surely speak the words of God.
35. The Father loveth the Son, and hath given all things
into his hand.
Great truths are these, yet put in words most brief and ex
pressive. The Father loveth the Son, especially for his pure,
self-sacrificing benevolence ; fully approves of his work of re
demption; and has committed to him supreme power in heaven
and earth for its execution.
36. He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life :
and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life ; but
the wrath of God abideth on him.
Peculiar solemnity is in these words, considered as the last re
corded utterances of John the Baptist, whose life-mission it had
been to preach repentance to Israel, and exhort his countrymen
with mighty persuasion to turn from their sins that they might be
ready to welcome their nation's Great Redeemer, soon to appear.
At this point he sees this Redeemer already come — already preach
ing the gospel and ministering mercy to every penitent, waiting
soul. Can he drop one last word of earnest, solemn testimony
which may avail to press lost men forward to Jesus ? — He has
said that this Jesus came down from heaven, bearing the great
seal of God, speaking words from God, filled with the Spirit be
yond measure, loved of the Father, and invested from Him with
all power: and now, to urge sinners with utmost pressure of
motive, he proclaims — " He that believeth on the Son hath ever
lasting life ' — ^blessedness that never ends; while "he that be
lieveth not the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abi
deth on him." What could he have said more impressive ; of
vaster import; more appropriate for last words to be left vibra
ting in the ears of his generation when his own voice should be
silenced by death ?  This statement, let it be carefully noted, is
strictly absolute and final ; it denies unqualifiedly ; no form of
statement possible to human speech can be stronger. It shuts

GOSPEL OF JOHN.- CHAP. IV. 75
off all questions of limitation — as e. g. whether " everlasting " may
not come to an end, and another and different sort of destiny fol
low. If the unbelieving sinner shall not see life, his die is cast
beyond hope of reversing it. The blessedness of life with God,
and with all the pure-hearted above, he can never enjoy.
Nor let it be said that he has still a refuge from the doom of
eternal woe in annihilation, for according to this word of the
Lord, "the wrath of God abideth on him" — remains and dwells
upon him ; and there the testimony of inspiration leaves him. 
Shall it be said that this abiding, ever-enduring wrath of God
resting upon him does not prevent his dropping into non-exist
ence ? 'Why should men ascribe to God the absurdity of making
his wrath abide forever upon nonentities ? Do men change the
eternal truth of God when they pervert his words — the plainest
and most explicit words he can employ? Does it subserve any
good purpose for sinners to wrest God's words to their own de
struction ?

oV^^ot^

CHAPTER IV.
Here is the conversation of Jesus with the woman of Samaria
whioh opened the way for two days' successful gospel labor in her
city and among her people (vs. 1-42) ; then the healing of a noble
man's son of Capernaum (vs. 43-54).
1. When therefore the Lord knew how the Pharisees had
heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than
John, '2. (Though Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples,)
3. He left Judea, aud departed again into Galilee.
Jesus went from .ludea into Galilee to place himself for the
time beyond the persecution which his great success in baptizing
converts might excite. It had come to his knowledge that the
Pharisees had heard that he was making more converts than even
the Baptist had made, and he had reason to know that this -would
excite their jealousy and hate into fury. It was his policy to
evade for a time, and so postpone, the outburst of this storm until
he had trained his disciples ; laid the foundations for great gospel
work by his example and his preaching — in his own phrase, till
he had " finished the personal work the Father had given him to
do." Here we have the reasons why so large a portion of his
miracles and teachings were in Galilee rather than in Judea.
The fact that Jesus Himself did not administer baptism, but left
it to his disciples,, must be regarded as significant. This inci
dental mention of it manifests a like purpose, viz, to counter-

76 GOSPEL OF JOHN.— CHAP. IV.
vail an innate tendency in men to overestimate the value of the
merely external and ritual things of religion. If Jesus had per
formed all the baptisms with his own hand; if the record had re
cited minutely the attendant circumstances- — the solemn forms
and ceremonies — the imposing display ; the impression upon
minds susceptible to the glory of the external would have been
magic — and let us also say, fearfully perilous. To avoid this, Je
sus adopted a method which bears its testimony through all the
ages against overdoing the mere rites of religion, and against un
due reliance upou the external matters of Christianity. He
meant to show for all time that the efficacy of baptism lay not in
the holy, consecrated hands administering it, but in the sincerity
of the converts baptized; in "the answer of a good conscience
toward God ; " and in the power of the cleansing, sanctifying
Spirit, signified under this symbol.
4. And he must needs go through Samaria.
5. Then cometh he to a city of Samaria, which is called
Sychar, near to the parcel of ground that Jacob gave to his
son Joseph.
6. Now Jacob's well was there. Jesus therefore, being
wearied with his journey, sat thus on the well : and it was
about the sixth hour.
" Sychar " is supposed to be the city of Sychem (otherwise
Shechem)— this change of name by the Jews being designed for
reproach, suggesting either falsehood as involved iu idol- worship,
or from another root, suggesting drunkenness. The city is. re
markable for its proximity to Jacob's well, whose locality corre
sponds entirely with the sacred history of the patriarch, and is
indorsed by unbroken tradition since the hour when Jesus sat
there. It has been repeatedly visited and examined in modern
times : was dug in solid rock, about nine feet in diameter and one
hundred and five feet deep; was descended in part by steps — its
depth of water varying, as measured at various times, from fifteen
feet to five.  We have a probable reference to Jacob's gift of this
piece of ground to Joseph in his dying benediction (Gen. 48 : 22).
 The Orientals are wont to start their journeys with the early
morning. A six hours' walk brought Jesus there wearied and
worn, so that he seated himself by the well to rest and to wait his
opportunity for a draught of water.
7. There cometh a woman of Samaria to draw water :
Jesus saith unto her. Give me to drink.
8. (For his disciples were gone away unto the city to liuy
meat.) 9. Then saith the woman of Samaria unto him. How is it
that thou, being a Jew, askest drink. of me, which am a
woman of Samaria ? for the Jews have no dealings with the
Samaritans,

GOSPEL OF JOHN.— CHAP. IV. 77
While the disciples were gone into the city to buy food — an
hour's absence — a woman of Samaria came up to this well for
water — of course with the necessary means for drawing. Recog
nizing Jesus as a Jew, she is surprised that he should ask water
to drink from a Samaritan, aud even a Samaritan woman, lu all
Jews the caste feeling against Samaritans was intense, and by the
laws of caste would manifest itself most intensely (though fool
ishly) in the point of drinking water from their hands.  John
shows that he is writing, not for Jewish readers, who would, need
no explanation of this woman's surprise, but for Gentile readers —
supposably of Asia Minor.  Jesus had no sympathy with this
caste feeling of his countrymen. We may suppose he rather
welcomed this opportunity to bear the testimony of his example
and spirit squarely and totally against it.
10. Jesus answered and said unto her, If thou kuewest
the gift of God, and who it is that saith to thee. Give me to
drink ; thou wouldest have asked of him, and he would have
given thee living water.
Skillfully, tenderly, impressively, Jesus leads the mind of this
Samaritan woman into the great things of gospel salvation : " You
think it strange that I ask you for a draught of water from this
well. If you only knew the great gift of God to men, even his
only-begotten Son who is now before you, you would have asked
of him, and he would have given you living water."  Note with
-what inimitable modesty and beauty Jesus introduces himself as
the Giver of the waters of life to perishing souls 1 Taking up the
ever fresh and precious Old Testament usage of the term " waters "
. — e. g. " Ho every one that thirsteth, come ye to the waters " — he
identifies himself as the long promised Savior whose mission to
earth was to "seek and to save the lost."  ^"Living water" —
not merely water from a living spring which never dries away,
but living in a yet higher sense which Jesus himself will soou
explain. 11. The woman saith unto him,. Sir, thou hast nothing to
draw with, and the well is deep : from whence theu hast thou
that living water ?
12. Art thou greater than our father Jacob, which gave
us the well, and drank thereof hiraself, and his .children, and
his cattle?
13. Jesus answered and said unto her, Whosoever drinketh
of this water shall thirst again :
14. But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give
him shall never thirst ; but the water that I shall give him
shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting
life. Slow to measure the full depth of the strange words, "living

78 GOSPEL OF JOHN.— CHAP. IV.
water," this woman discloses her perplexity : — " This well is deep,
and thou hast nothing to draw with; how then canst thou get
living water from it? And as for any other water than this, we
know of none better. Art thou greater than our father Jacob who
gave us this wonderful well the waters ofwhich were good enough
for him and his children ? How is this that thou seemest to think
of better water than this from our father Jacob ?  These ques
tions' bring up the very point which Jesus wished to reach ; his
explanation is therefore ready : You drink from Jacob's well, and,
good though the water be, you thirst again. _ But having drank of
the water that I give, you never thirst again. It becomes within
you a living fountain, and wells up unto eternal life. It becomes
a self-perpetuating supply. It satisfies once and forever. You
will never even desire any thing better. There is life in it for the
very soul. It meets and fills the greatest, deepest wants of your
being.  This is what Jesus meant by "living water; " his pre
cious words contain the whole of this glorious, priceless truth ; — but
the woman of Samaria will need more help and more time to grasp
these great thoughts as to the nature and the fullness of Christ's
salvation. 15. The woman saith unto him, Sir, give me this water,
that I thirst not, neither come hither to draw.
16. Jesus saith unto her. Go, call thy husband, and come
hither. 17. The woman answered and said, I have no husband.
Jesus said unto her. Thou hast well said, I have no husband.
18. For thou hast had five husbands ; and he whom thou
now hast is not thy husband : in that saidst thou truly.
One thing she can understand : If the water thus promised will
quench her thirst for all time it must be a real treasure. She haa
had plenty of experience in the toil of coming under the sultry
heats of noon to lift water from a hundred feet of depth, and she
can see what a saving might be made with water that would supply
itself and quench her thirst once for all. So she puts in her re
quest for this new sort of water — of properties so strange. — The
Master readily sees that he must lead her thought to deeper things,
and therefore says, Go, call thy husband to come with you. — Her
quasi-married life, she knew but too well, would not bear probing.
'Was it because she felt herself to be in a Presence which would
pierce through all disguises, that she at once brought out the truth,
" I have no husband," or did she, perhaps, suppose that this state
ment would foreclose all further inquiry ? However this may
have been, Jesus soon showed her that he knew her whole life-
history. How much of crime may have lain in that history, run
ning so rapidly through married life with five husbands, consecu
tive or otherwise, it was not important for the moral purposes of
this story to disclose. The words of Jesus sufficed to show that
he knew her whole life and her very heart. This was one of the

GOSPEL OF JOHN.— CHAP. IV. 79
impressions which the Master sought to make — one, but probably
not the only one ; for we must suppose that he meant also to
awaken conviction of sin and suggest that she had ample occasion
for penitence and pardon.
19. The woman saith unto him, Sir, I perceive that thou
art a prophet.
20. Our fathers worshiped in this mountain ; and ye say,
that in Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship.
Tbis woman is frank to confess that her life has been truly told,
and that this stranger must be a prophet. Still her thought does
not readily turn toward her sinful life (as we may suppose the
Master purposed and hoped) ; but rather, as human nature has
often done before and since, drifted toward a theological contro
versy. Assuming as before that Jesus is a Jew, she brings up the
old and long mooted issue between Jews and Samaritans as to the
place of acceptable worship. Our fathers, said she, as you very
well know, worshiped in this Mt. Gerizim : your people insist
that men ought to worship in Jerusalem.  Did she propose to
got his opinion on this question ; or did she rather intend to sug
gest tacitiy that, being a Jew, lie would doubtless insist on his
Jewish doctrine ; while she, being a Samaritan, must be allowed
to adhere to the doctrine of her fathers ?
21. Jesus saith unto her, Woman, believe me, the hour
cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at
Jerusalem, worship the Father.
22. Ye worship ye know not what : we know what we
worship; for salvation is of the Jews.
23. But the hour coraeth, and now is, when the true
worshipers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth :
for the Father seeketh such to worship him.
24. God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must wor
ship him in spirit and in truth.
This theological controversy, then already from four to seven
hundred years old, had virtually run its course. So Jesus, in
stead of pronouncing upon it, as she probably expected, pro
ceeded at once to supersede it by assuring her that all such ques
tions as to the locality of ritual worship were ruled out of account
as no longer of the least consequence. No matter whether men
sacrifice on Gerizim or in Jerusalem, the hour has come when
men may worship anywhere with equal acceptance before God,
provided only they worahip the Father in spirit and in truth. He
seeks such worship. The homage of pure and loving hearts is
accepted before him; the place where is no longer to be regarded.
 -Moreover, ye Samaritans have hadno sense of the Being ye
have professed to worship ; ye have sacrificed only to an unknown
God. In this most vital respect, the Jews are entirely in ad-

80 GOSPEL OF JOHN.— CHAP. IV.
vance of you, for the light of God abides -with them, and from
among them the Savior of the world is to come. A new era of
light and truth breaks forth upon the world ; old things are pass
ing away ; worship ceases to lie in sacrifices and ritualities. God
makes himself known as a Spirit, and those who would worship
him acceptably must give him their heart's homage in spirit and
in truth. Thus the old Judseo-Samaritan issue is swept away
aud new light breaks forth.
25. The woman saith unto him, I know that Messias com
eth, which is called Christ: when he is come, he will teU us
all things.
26. Jesus saith unto her, I that speak unto thee am Iw.
The woman is borne onward by this new announcement. It
suggests to her the ancient faith of her people — in some meas
ure common to Samaritans and to Jews — "that Messias cometh,"
and that " when he shall come, he wiU tell us all things." - The
Samaritans, as is well known, had a version of the Pentateuch,
differing only in few and slight particulars from the ancient He
brew text. This, and this only, constituted their Old Testament
scriptures. They have even to this day a copy of this Samaritan
Pentateuch which (wi:ote Dr. Robinson ¦* in 1838) " they professed
. was then 3460 years old, referring it to Abishua, the son of
Phineas" (1 Chron. 6: 3, 4).  In this Pentateuch the Lord
had said through Moses (Deut. 18: 15, 18), "I will raise them up
a Prophet, like unto thee, and I will put my words in his mouth,
and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him." In
the simple thought this corresponds closely with the brief words
of this Samaritan woman — ""When he is come, he will tell us all
things; " so that we may safely assume that the great Messianic
promise on which the Samaritan faith' rested was this from Moses
iji Deuteronomy. — How must her ears have tingled when this
stranger at the well announced — "I that speak unto- thee am he" !
Indeed; and has our Great Messiah, waited fbr through long ages,
come at last ! And these eyes have seen him !
27. And upon this came his disciples, aaid marveled that
he talked with the woman : yet no man said, AVhat seekest
thou? or. Why talkest thou with her?
At this crisis in the conversation, the disciples came up from
the city. They are surprised, not to say astonished, to find their
Master talking with a Samaritan woman; but either through a
sense of his personal dignity, or a half unconscious conviction of
an unworthy prejudice on their part, not a man of them dared
say — ^What can be thy object? or why shouldest thou talk with
her ? " Wisdom is justified of her children." Goodness and truth
may sometimes iu a sinning world like this seem strange, but will
*- Robinson's Researches, Vol. III. 105.

GOSPEL OF JOHN.^CHAP. IV. 81
always be their o-wn vindication and command the homage of
all honest minds. Hence the disciples, though startled at first,
probably soon gave the Master their more profound respect.
28. The woman then left her waterpot, and went her way
into the city, and saith to the men,
29. Come, see a man, which told me all things that ever
I did : is not this the Christ ?
30. Then they went out of the city, and came unto him.
Forgetting the water she came for, and even dropping her water-
pot, the woman hasted" away to the city -with her good news. She
bails the men from afar: " Come, see a mau -who has told me all
things that ever I did: Is not this the Christ?" Did she tell
them also how he said explicitly — "I that speak unto thee am
he" ? Very probably; but wisely she puts the argument before
the assertion. She verily knew that this stranger had revealed
to her the great — shall we say the guilty — secret of her life. He
had shown her that he knew it all. She was therefore sure he
must be far more than human. Moreover, must we not attribute
her faith in him as the Messiah in no small part to the moral
evidence that shone forth iu his benignity, his manifest goodness
of heart; his gentleness, and tenderness, and compassion; his
marvelous interest in her welfare — so strange in the experience
of a lone woman, from a despised race, engaged in a menial service,
with not a thing to recommend her, save degradation, and want,
and a poor human soul!  Her story, so earnestly told, so start
ling in its facts, seems to move the whole city. They follow her
back to the scene and to the "Man."
31. In the meanwhile his disciples prayed him, saying,
Master, eat.
32. But he said'unto them, I have meat to eat that ye
know hot of.
33. Therefore said the disciples one to another. Hath any
man brought him aught to eat ?
34. Jesus saith unto them, My meat is to do the will of
him that sent me, and to finish his work.
' The disciples failed to appreciate how intently absorbed their
Master had become in his labors for this woman and her people;
or, we may perhaps suppose, thought that hunger and fatigue had
demands which even this great spiritual crisis should not over
rule. Accordingly, during the absence of the woman, they pressed
.him to eat. He replied, "I have meat to eat that ye know not
of." Observe, they do not ask him to explain ; do not say — ¦" We
do not understand what thou canst mean ; " but they said in an
under-tone one to another — Hath any man brought him food ?
Does any one know how or whence he has obtained bread ? —
Apparently there were limits to the fiimiliarity which they felt to

82 GOSPEL OF JOHN.— CHAP. IV.
be admissible with their Master. There was more depth to his
character than they had yet fathomed ; a modest reserve on their
part was therefore becoming.  In this case, as usual, Jesus knew
their thought, and so proceeds to explain: "My meat is to do the
will of him that sent me, and to finish his work." This is more
to me than bread. In the crisis of a great harvest hour, men will
forget the body through the unutterable yearnings and longings
of the soul
35. Say not ye. There are yet four months, and tJien com
eth harvest? behold, I say unto you, Lift up your eyes, and
look on the fields; for they are white already to harvest.
36. And he that reapeth receiveth wages, and gathereth
fruit unto life eternal : that both he that soweth and he that
reapeth may rejoice together.
37. And herein is that saying true. One soweth and an
other reapeth.
38. I sent you to reap that whereon ye bestowed no
labor: other men labored, and ye are entered into their
labors. There are two slightly variant interpretations of the words —
" Say ye not. There are yet four montlis and then cometh har
vest?" — one assuming the words to be a proverbial expression,.
naturally on the lips of the sower as he looks onward from
seeding to harvest; the other assuming that the disciples had
been saying these words just then as they looked forth upon
grain fields then green and full of promise. In either case it is
held that Jesus made these words the text of his remarks on
ward to the end of v. 38.
The supposition of a proverb lacks support from known usage ;
and encounters grave difficulties from the fact that in Palestine
the usual interval from the seed-time for gr.iin to harvest is from
five to six months, and not merely four.  Adopting therefore
the latter construction of these pivotal words, we may paraphrase
the passage on this wise: Were ye not just now saying as ye
looked down these fertile valleys — Four months more and these
fields now green will be waving with their yellow harvests ? Be
hold, I say unto you, look down these valleys again ; mark those
thronging groups of men from the city, led on by the woman ye
saw here at the well. Are ye aware how deeply their hearts are
moved, how anxiously they are inquiring whether the Savior of the
world has really conie, and how ripe they are for a spiritual har
vest ? Now is the time for reaping and for the wages of fruit
unto life eternal. Here you are spared the toil of sowing and
the trial of waiting long months for the harvest hour. Should.
not such a harvest time as this charm even hungry men away
from their bread ?
33. And many of the Samaritans of that city believed on

GOSPEL OF JOHN.— CHAP. IV. 88
him for the saying of the woman, which testified. He told
me all that ever I did.
40. So when the Samaritans were corae unto him, they
besought him that he would tarry with them : aud he abode
there two days.
41. Aud many more believed because of his own word ;
42. And said unto the woman, Now we believe, not be
cause of thy saying : for we have heard him ourselves, and
know that this is indeed the Christ, the Savior of the
world. The remainder of this narrative is put only in general state
ment. Many of the Samaritans from the city believed, on the
basis of the woman's personal testimony. When they saw Jesus
for themselves they begged him to come and stay with them. He
went and abode there two days. In the result many more be
lieved and said to this woman — We believe, not on the ground
of your words, but of what we have seen and heard for ourselves.
Now we know that this is indeed the Christ, the Savior of the
world. It is noticeable that no people in either Galilee or Judea seem
to have embraced the gospel from the Savior's lips with equal
readiness. Publicans and harlots enter the kingdom of heaven
before proud Pharisees.  When, after the first persecution had
driven the disciples out of Jerusalem, "Philip went down to Sa
maria and preached Christ unto them" (Acts 8: 5-8), "the people
with one accord gave heed;" "and there was great joy in that city."
Then the seed sown here by Jesus himself brought forth yet an
other glorious harvest.
Reviewing this story to gather up its marvelous points as they
bear upon the labors and the life of the Great Master of Israel,
let us note that these labors began, not with a vast congregation,
but with a single individual; not upon a set appointment, but in
a merely incidental, casual meeting; not when the Master was
fresh and buoyant, but when weary and hungry with a six hours'
walk; and note also that this one was not some distinguished
gentleman, but an unknown woman, to be thought of as women
are wont to be in Oriental society; not of high caste, but of low;
not moving in the higher plane of social life, but apparently in
the lowest; not a woman of previously unblemished reputation,
but one whose record was at least doubtful, not to say sus
picious. In short, the only point of attractiveness apparent to us
in her case was that she was human — a soul to be saved or lost.
To her Jesus addressed himself as we have seen, assiduously, dis
creetly, te-nderly; he won her confidence by his benignity, kind
ness, and manifested interest in her true welfare, and pressed
steadily toward the end he had in view-, refusing to be diverted
from it for even one moment to any side issue.  We admire
his skill of approach ; we love his spirit of inimitable goodness

84 GOSPEL OF JOHN.— CHAP. IV.
and condescension. Let us never forget that he has left us an ex
ample that we should walk in his steps. In our humble measure
we may follow where he haa so beautifully led the way, and if we
can not do things as great, we may at least aspire through his
grace to be equally loving, kind, and good.
43. Now after two days he departed thence, and went into
Galilee. 44. For Jesus himself testified, that a prophet hath no
honor in his own country.
45. Then when he was come into Galilee, the Galileans
received him, having seen all the things that he did at Jeru
salem at the feast: for they also went unto the feast.
The reasoning suggested by "for" (Gr. yap) in v. 44, has
greatly perplexed critics. Assuming his own country to be Gali
lee, and that a man should naturally go where he could expect
to receive the honor due him, they have said, How happens it
that the reason assigned for his going into Galilee is that according
to his own knowledge and frequent testimony, he could have no
suitable honor there?  ^I have to suggest that some relief in
this dilemma may come from the two following considerations: —
(a.) That, comparing Samaria with Galilee, the former honored
him as a prophet; the latter, only as a worker of miracles (v. 48).
In Samaria, Jesus wrought no miracles, yet the people honored
him as a great prophet. No such honor was accorded to him in
his own country — Galilee.  (6.) It is supposable that Jesus had
reasons for choosing'lo go for the time where he would have less
honor rather than where he might have the greatest. Recurring
to the points adduced in 4: 1-3, we see that he left Judea and
went into Galilee because he was making disciples dangerously
fast; because his popularity there might expose him too soon to
the murderous rage of his enemies. For a similar reason it
might be his choice to leave Samaria and go into Galilee, for no
such reception awaited him in his own country as might prema
turely excite the jealousy and wrath of the Pharisees andnastcn
their persecution to its deadly crisis.
The Galileans received him because they had seen his miracles
in Jerusalem at the feast. (See 2: 23.)  The remark, "For they
also went unto the feast," suggests again that the writer explains
points which no Jewish reader would need to have explained, but
of which remote Gentiles, e. g. those of Asia Minor, would need
explanation. 46. So Jesus came again into Cana of Galilee, where he
made the water wine. And there was a certain nobleman,
whose son was sick at Capernaum.
47. When he heard that Jesus was come out of Judea
into Galilee, he went unto him, and besought hira that he

GOSPEL OF JOHN.— CHAP. IV. 85
would come down, and heal his son: for he was at the
point of death.
48. Then said Jesus unto him. Except ye see signs and
wonders, ye will not believe.
49. The nobleman saith unto hira. Sir, come down ere
ray child die.
60. Jesus saith unto him, Go thy way ; thy son liveth^
And the man believed the word that Jesus had spoken un
to him, and he went his way.
51. And as he was now going down, his servants met
him, and told him, saying. Thy son liveth.
52. Then inquired he of them the hour when he began
to amend. And they said unto hira, Yesterday at the,
seventh hour the fever left hira.
53. So the father knew that it loas at the sarae hour, in
the which Jesus said unto him. Thy son liveth: and him
self believed and his whole house.
54. This is again the second miracle that Jesus did, when
he was come out of Judea into Galilea.
A "nobleman,'' of princely rank, but beyond this fact, indi
cated by the Greek term,* nothing is known of him. His son
lay at the point of death in Capernaum. The father met Jesus
in Cana and besought him to come down and heal his son. This
request brought to the mind of Jesus the moral dullness of the
Galilean people, which could be moved to faith by nothing short
of miracle. Whether Jesus intended this remark to bear directly
upon this nobleman does not appear. It at least fell short of a
prompt consent to go. But the nobleman was thoroughly in
earnest and would not be put aside. His urgency evinced his
faith in both the power and the love of Jesus — a case which Je
sus could not refuse to meet. Hence the reply was decisive : " Go
thy way, thy son liveth." The man believed this word, and
moved on homeward joyfully. It was the next day that his serv
ant met him to say that his son was doing well. He inquired
/rom what hour, and found it to be the moment when Jesus gave
him that word of promise and life. On the joyful testimony of
this miracle, himself and all his house believed.
We may note the striking variety in ihe manner in which Je
sus performed miracles. Sometimes he wrought, as here, at a dis
tance, but usually in his presence ; sometimes he imposed hands ;
sometimes imparted the gift through the touch of his garments ;
sometimes in silence, and at other times after crying aloud as in
one case, " Lazarus, come forth." Restricted to no set forms, ap
parently adopting the widest range of variety for the very pur
pose of heightening the evidence of real miracle, yet always care-
"¦ j3ac;i?uicor.

86 GOSPEL OF JOHN.— CHAP. V.
ful to shape these great works so as to inspire faith in his divine
person, and to reveal the deep love and compassion of his heart,
his miracles reach the perfection of testimony (in this line) to
his Messiahship, and evermore couple with this testimony the
most precious illustrations of his spiritual po-wer for the saving
of human souls from death in sin to life in God. We look with
admiration upon the wise economy of spiritual forces and the
wealth of great truth illustrated which was secured by the mir
acles of the Son of God.

CHAPTER V.
The wonderful words of Jesus recorded in this chapter were
occasioned by the miracle at the pool of Bethesda, and the cap
tious hostility of the Jews because Jesus bade the restored crip
ple take up his bed and walk upon the Sabbath.
The facts of the case stand in verses 1-16 ; the reply of Jesus,
remarkable for its unbroken continuity, for its pungency, its
moral force, its boldness, and its astounding revelations, fills out
vs. 17-47.
1. After this there was a feast of the Jews; and Jesus
went up to Jerusalem.
The discussion of the question, What feast? has been vigorous
and long protracted, without as yet reaching any general agree
ment among critics. Special importance attaches to this question
because of its bearing upon the duration of Christ's public min
istry. The data for this question are in this gospel of John — and,
more specifically, in the notices he gives us of the several Pass
overs that occurred between his baptism and his death. Of these,
three are fully defined, viz. (1) John 2: 13, 23, supposed to have
been about six months after his baptism ; (2) John 6: 4; (3) Johu
12: 1, and 13 : 1, at which last his ministry closed with his death.
If now this doubtful reference (John 5 : 1) be a fourth, we have a
ministry of three and a half years ; but if this be some other than
a Passover feast, his ministry is apparently reduced to two years
and a half Hence the special importance of this question.
The discussion has narrowed the question mainly to the one
issue between the feast of Purim in the month Adar — the last of
the Jewish year, and the Passover, which would be in the flrst
month. One point of some importance is the omission or insertion of
the Greek article. Did John write — " a feast," or " the feast" ?
Unfortunately this point is in dispute with the testimony for and
against the article nearly balanced— perhaps slightly preponder-

GOSPEL OF JOHN.— CHAP. V. 87
ating against. The Sinaitic, however, gives the article, and Tis
chendorf admits it, but Alford, Meyer, and Tholuck reject it.
The article, admitted, would favor the theory of the Passover.  ¦
It makes against Purim that it did not convene the Jews en masse
at Jerusalem. They rather kept it in their several villages over
the whole country. But hore are the multitudes together (v. 13).
Also that this was not a specially religious festival, but rather one
of hilarity and feasting iu commemoration of victory over Haman
and his party in the days of Esther. It is asked with no little
force — Would .lesus be likely to go up to .lerusalem to attend thia
feaat there ?  Yet again : This feast is not described as being
that of Purim. But John is wont to describe those feasts that
might need description, e. g. the feast of tabernacles (7:2); and
the feast of dedication, dating from the times of Antiochus (John
10: 22). A feast of the Jews with no descriptive epithet or name
is most likely to be the one best known of all — the Passover. 
It is thought to make somewhat against the Passover that in other
references to this feast, John names it definitely. Why, it. is
asked, should he not in this case ? The proper reply is that this
argument bears with yet greater force against any and every other
feast of the- Jews, and therefore throws ita weight in favor of tho
Passover. It is also urged very earnestly that assuming this to be the Pass
over, there is too much unoccupied time between this one and
that of John 6 : 4. But who can tell how many of Christ's deeds
and words may be unrecorded? No one of the four histories
claims to be exhaustive.  In my -view, the strongest circum
stance in favor of the shorter ministry (2J years), is the virulence
of his enemies. Is it probable that they were frustrated and kept
in check through three and half years ?
This synopsis of the arguments, pro and con, is by no means
exhaustive. I incline to the Passover theory, but recognize the
difficulties and uncertainties of the problem, and honor the great
names arrayed on the other side. I doubt if the question can
ever be determined with entire certainty.
2. Now there is at Jerusalem by the sheep market a pool,
which is called in the Hebrew tongue Bethesda, having five
porches. 3. In these lay a great multitude of impotent folk, of
blind, halt, withered, waiting for the moving of the water.
4. For an angel went down at a certain season into the
pool, and troubled the water : whosoever then first after the
troubling of the water stepped in was made whole of what
soever disease he had.
In this passage the best textual authorities omit from v. 3, the
words — "waiting for the moving of the water," andalso v. 4 en
tire. The three most ancient manuscripts (the Sinaitic, Vatican,

88 GOSPEL OF JOHN.— CHAP. V.
and Alexandrian) omit the last clause of v. 3-ii«Ae Sinaitic and
Vatican omit v. 4 altogether, while the Alexandrian has instead
of it — " An angel of the Lord washed at a certain season."
Hence the best modern critics disallow the original authority of
these pasaagea. They suppose that the waters of this pool were
medicinal and intermittent — both these facts dep*ending upon nat
ural and not supernatural causes; but that this healing virtue as
well as the intermittent flow came to be associated in the popular
mind with angelic agency, and that this tradition was ultimately
embodied in the text aa in our received version.  It ia suppos
able that the first flow after an intermission would be more highly
charged with medicinal gases, and hence the popular belief might
have had Some basis of fact — viz, that the first man to bathe in
the pool when the water came freshly in would be healed.
This pool obtained the name "Bethesda"- — House of mercy —
from the circumstance that so many poor objects of compassion
found relief in its waters. Consequently, there lay around it a
great multitude suffering under various ills, biding their time for
the hour of healing.
5. And a certain man was there, which had an infirmity
thirty and eight years.
6. When Jesus saw him lie, and knew that he had been
now a long tirae in that case, he saith unto him, WUt thou
be made whole ?
7. The impotent man answered him, Sir, I have no man,
when the water is troubled, to put .me into the pool : but
while I am coming, another steppeth down before me.
Among them was one, a paralytic, almost powerless, who had
been under this infirmity thirty-eight years. Was there still a
fiickering hope in his stricken heart? He might as well be there
as anywhere, dim as the last ray of hope in his soul seems to have
been. Jesus knew he had been long in this sad case. Is it strange
that his compassions were moved, and that, unasked, he came for
ward to accost him — " Dost thou wish — art thou willing — to be
made whole?"  Observe here that in the words used by Jesus,
" wilt" is not the English future tense, but is a verb of willing,
of purpose inspired by real desire. Art thou waiting and long
ing for the soundness and strength of a whole man ? He re
plies — I am here, friendless and alone, with none to help rae into
this pool at the favored moment; while I am crawling slowly for
ward, another, less crippled than I, steps in before me, and I
miss it every time.  This was his answer to the point of being
willing to be healed : — ¦" Indeed I am ; I have done my best never
so long — sick at heart over my perpetual disappointment."
8. Jesus saith unto him, Eise, take up thy bed, and walk.
9. And immediately the man was made whole, and took
up his bed, and walked : and on the same day was the sabbath.

GOSPEL OF JOHN.— CHAP. V. 89
With the words, "Rise, take up thy bed and walk" — anew
power courses through his long crippled frame ; a new energy comes
to his' will ; and ere he has time for a second thought, he springs
to his feet, seizes his pallet and begins to walk — a new man I Ah,
indeed; this is the power of .lesus; thus it became manifest that
"in him is lifo." So the new life toward God of souls new-born
through faith in Jesus found a rich and truly wonderful illustra
tion. It happened that the day of this healing was the Sabbath. On
this fact hinged the furious, bigoted assault made upon Jesus by
the Jews.
10. The Jews therefore said unto him that was cured, It
is the sabbath day : it is not lawful for thee to carry thy
bed. 11. He answered them, He that made rae whole, the sarae
said unto me. Take up thy bed, and walk.
12. Then asked they him. What man is that which said
unto thee, Take up thy bed, and walk ?
13. And he that was healed wist not who it was : for Je
sus had conveyed himself away, a multitude being in that
place. The words, "The Jews," as used by John in such a connection
denote the adherents of the Sanhedrim — the party, mostly Phari
sees, who were by position the spiritual leaders of the Jewish
people. There was a class of "common people," quite distinct
from these "Jews" (so called) who "heard Jesus gladly." 
" They said to him that was cured " — for they knew him as such —
knew that he had been, through an average life-time, a miserable,
helpless cripple, till now, all suddenly, he is before them a healed
and sound man. Do they rejoice with him in sympathy and love ?
Do they invite him into their temple to render his thank-offering
to God there ? Do they ask — Who ia he that spake thy palsied
body into this new and wonderful life ? — Not a word of all this.
No; but they assail him rudely for carrying his cot — perhaps
every thing he can call his own on earth — on the Sabbath. 
He answers according to the simple truth: " The man who made
me whole bade me take up my bed and walk." They ask him who
it was, not that cured him — for that seems in their eye a matter
quite indifferent — but who it was that ordered him to carry his
bed on the Sabbath.  At firet the man could not tell; it was a
stranger, and he suddenly disappeared, to escape the notice of
the multitude.  ^We fear this healed man did notfix a grateful,
tearful eye upon his benefactor — did not rush to his feet to pour
out his thanksgivings there for the first great mercy of his lifo.
Certainly his record is less fair on this point than we could
wish. 14. Aftenvard Jesus findeth him in the temple, and said

90 GOSPEL OF JOHN.— CHAP. V.
unto him. Behold, thou art made whole : sin no more, lest
a worse thing come unto thee.
15. The man departed, and told the Jews that it was Je
sus, which had made him whole.
Afterward Jesus met him " in the temple." We may hope he
was there for a grateful purpose. It was the fit place for
him.  The words of Jesus — " Sin no more, lest a worse thing
come unto thee "- — seem to imply that sin had brought on him
that fearful malady of his life ; and that more sin of similar sort
would bring on a relapse into a state more dreadful still. There
are abuses of the human body — sins, they deserve to be called —
which entail swift and appalling retribution. Let men mark
them and take warning I It is at least supposable that Jesus saw
in this healed man but too much proclivity still toward his old
paths of self-destruction.
This man has now learned that his benefactor is Jesus, and
seems to have lost no time in reporting the fact to the Jews. 
Was he under moral obligation to report this? Was it kind in
him toward his best earthly Friend ? Did he not know that they
sought this information for a malicious purpose?  We hear of
this healed man no more, and are left to infer that there was very
little of moral stamina, or of wholesome, lovable character, or of
real gratitude, in him. So many weary years of sinning and of
suffering may have given him but the least possible moral culture,
bringing out almost nothing worthy of love or esteem, so that Jesus
may have been moved to heal him solely through pity for a great
sinner and sufferer. We will not overlook the fact that on this
supposition of the case.' the character of Jesus shines out with
peculiar brilliancy and beauty.
16. And therefore did the Jews persecute Jesus, and
sought to slay him, because he had done these things on the
Sabbath day.
Now the Jews have a case of crime against Jesus. They have
testimony which in their view will convict him of violating the
Sabbath. Por the laws of Moses forbade the bearing of burdens
on the sacred day (Jer. 17 : 21, 22, 27, and Neh. 13 : 15) ; and Jesus
had bidden a man rise and carry his bed on the Sabbath. They
are now ready for measures against his life.
Such unreasoning, virulent hatred seems in every aspect
astounding. Did they see no love and kindness in this healing
cif a miserable paralytic, thirty-eight years before their eyes a
helpless sufferer ? Did they see no power in it which should have
awed them into reverence, and forced them to ask — What manner
of man is this who bids a life-long paralytic " rise and walk ; " and
he rises in their sight, a whole man ? How can we account for it
that facts like these fell powerless upon their hardened souls ? 
It is very much easier to adjust this case to the well known laws
of depraved human nature than to justify it to reason. To these

GOSPEL OF JOHN.— CHAP. V. 91
Jews, their religion was bread and honor — all their living. But,
the soul of their religiou being practically extinct, its body — the
merely external form — required the more careful adornment.
When religion has nothing but an outside, the utmost possible
must be made of this. Hence their rigid, extreme construction
of the law of the Sabbath. Farrar (Life of Christ, p. 175) speaks
of " the wretched formalistic inferences of their forged traditions
as having gravely decided that on the Sabbath a nailed shoe might
not be worn because it was a burden, but an unnailed shoe might
be worn; that a person might go out with two shoes on, but not
with one only ; that one man might carry a loaf of bread but that
two men might not carry it between them, and so forth to the
utmost limit of tyrannous absurdity."  Naturally these Jews
lacked all sympathy with Christ. Worse still; they malignly
hated him. His whole life and spirit were a silent but terrible
rebuke: his uttered words were unendurably scorching. They
must be rid of this man and of his infiuence, or their religion and
themselves must go down hopelessly and forever. Hence they
seize eagerly upon this charge — "He has broken the Sabbath, '
and they intend to treat it as a capital crime punishable with death.
17. But Jesus answered them. My Father worketh hither
to, and I work.
This answer fully justifies the remark elsewhere on record —
" Never man spake like this man." All suddenly .lesus plants
himself upon the highest ground possible. He enters into no small
discussion over the details of Sabbath prohibition, into no minor
questions of legal interpretation. He does not urge in defense
that this violation of the Sabbath was rather apparent than real ;
that it was a very trivial matter ; that no harm was done ; no true
worship interrupted, and nothing done that could militate against
the sacredness of the day. He does not attempt to show that this
healing was an act of mercy; that it was kindness to the man to
allow him to take away all the little property he had in the world ;
that such a case of healing might properly be attested before the
people by this manifestation of restored strength. Nothing of
this sort IS thought of. On the contrary Jesus rises at once to the
dignity of the Son of God— authorized therefore to do what his
Father had ever done and was still doing. My Father whose ex-
.ample of rest from creative work laid the foundation for the Sab
bath command has never rested from his spiritual work for the
souls of men. In this he has been laboring ever since the creation
of the world, and is laboring in it still. I am only doing the same..
This work of saving the souls of men knows no law of Sabbath
rest. Walking therefore in the steps of my Father I ha-ve broken
no law; my work has the sanction of the highest authority in the
universe.  This was indeed taking the case out of their juris
diction. If Jesus had a right to say what he did, they would touch
him at their peril. So doing they would come into collision with
the Infinite Son of God.

82 GOSPEL OF JOHN.— CHAP. V.
18. Therefore the Jews sought the mose^to kill him, be
cause he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that
God was his Father, making himself equal with God.
With their view of the case, their course ia by no means sur
prising.  In addition to the first charge— Sabbath-breaking—
they have now another — blasphemy — for he has said that God was
his own Father (so the best textual authorities) — thus " making
himself equal with God." 'Ihe argument in the reply of Jesus
did unquestionably assume a substantial equality with God. It
claimed for Jesus such a sonship as made it right for him to do
what his Father was doing, and right, because his Father did it.
Because God wrought with unresting labor for the salvation of
human souls, therefore Jesus his Son might and ought to do the
same, and no law of Sabbath observance could restrain him from
this, as no law to this effect could reach his Infinite Father. The
Jews therefore can not be accused of misinterpreting his words.
In those words Jesus had put himself on an equality with God
in dignity, in the point of being above the Mosaic law of the Sab
bath, and of having the right to do all that his Father was doing.
19. Then answered Jesus and said unto them. Verily, ver
ily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but
what he seeth the Father do : for what things soever he
doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.
20. For the Father loveth the Son, and sheweth him all
things that himself doeth: and he will shew him greater
works than these, that ye may marvel.
The case is fairly opened, and Jesus proceeds to define more
fully his relation of sonship to God and its consequent powers, re
sponsibilities, and duties. Observe, he did not reply — You mis
understand me ; I by no means arrogate to myself equality with
God; I would not be understood to put my defense on that foot
ing. This, he does not say ; but on the contrary, with most sol
emn asseveration he declares — The Son does nothing of his own
motion : originates no plans ; strikes out into no schemes of his
own, but simply follows the example of his Father. The Father
in the truly parental spirit loves the Son, and, therefore, kindly
shows him all that himself is doing in order to make this lawof
hia Son's life evermore plain and perfect; and will go on to yet
greater works than ye have yet seen at which ye will marvel.
But all will follow the same law — the Father making his own work
the example and guide for his Son.
The discussion in this chapter leads us into the profound rel.v
tions between the Son and the Father. Some readers will per
haps raise the question— In what precise sense does Jesus speak
of himself as "the Son" 1  On this question we must choose
between three possible (or supposable) alternatives: (a.) As the
divine Logos — the Eternal Word^simply and only, with no ref-

GOSPEL OF JOHN.— CHAP. V. 93
erence to a human nature : (6.) As human only — the mere Man of
Nazareth, born of Mary : (c.) Or as not only born of woman, but
as having no father other than God — being therefore the divine
Logos in mysterious union with the babe of Bethlehem.  Of
these three, we must doubtless accept the latter as being the only
alternative whioh is in harmony with the inspired statements.
Matt. 1: 18, 20-23, and Luke 1: 35: and (what is not less decis
ive) the only one which corresponds with the views given us in
our author John, in his expressive language, " The Word was
made flesh, and dwelt among us ; and we beheld his glory — the
glory as of the only begotten of the Father " (John 1 : 14). This
then is definitely the sense in which Jesus speaks of himself in
these discussions as " the Son." *
21. For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quicken
eth tliem ; even so the Son quickeneth whom he will.
The key to the main thought of the passage (vs. 21-29) lies in
this verse, turning essentially on the point. — In what sense is the
Father said here to raise up the dead ? — Premising that the choice
•--Dean Alford, commenting on the -word "can" (v. 19) — "The Son
can do nothingof himself "(Greek, ((Jwarai), indulges in metaphysical
discussion of the point whether this be a natural or a moral impossi
bility, and concludes by deciding for a natural and necessary and
against a moral agency of the Son. He says — "Jesus here statea
that he can not work any but the worka of God— -can not by this very
relationship to the Father, by the very nature and necessity of the
case; — the acf'eavTov ('of himself) being an impossible supposition,
and purposely set to e»preas one. The Son can not work of himself
because he is the Son ; his very person pre-supposes the Father's will
and counsel as his will and counsel, and his perfect knowledge of
that will and counsel. And this because every creature may abuse
ita freedom and may will contrary to God; but the Son, standing in
essential unity with God can not, even when become man, commit
sin — break the Sabbath — for hia whole being and work is in and of
God." Underlying these apeculations are two assumptions which vitiate
their value; viz. (a.) That the will ofthe Son is not only harmoni
ous with the will of the Father, but absolutely and necessarily iden
tical, not distinguishable even in thought.  This is wholly at va
riance with the drift of these passages; — "The Father loveth the
Son; " "The Son doeth whatsoever he seeth the-Father do; " "As the
Father raiaeth up the dead, etc., ao the Son quickeneth whom he
will."  'What could imply distinct, moral personality and a dis
tinct (not identical) moral activity if these words do not ?
(6.) That the highest supposable excellence is the product of ne
cessite/ not ot freedom — which is equivalent to saying that the effects
|)f the law of gravitation are infinitely praiseworthy; but that the
free-hearted, voluntary love and obedience of a morally responsible
mind are simply dangerous and not to be thought of as in essence
morally excellent.

94 GOSPEL OF JOHN.— CHAP. V.
must lie between raising up dead bodies from their graves and
raising dead souls to new life, I suggest that in addition to what
may be gathered from the subsequent context, there are two other
legitimate sources of evidence on this question: — viz; (a.) The
facts out of which this discussion arose, together with the discus
sion itself thus far.  (6.) The usage of the Old Testament.
(a.) Let it be remembered that this discussion arose from the case
of quickening power which went forth with the words, " Rise :
walk:" — a case much more directly suggestive of the morally
quickening energy which renews men's souls than of that power
which is (in the great future day) to raise dead bodies. That
the former rather than the latter was before the mind of Jesus
seems clear from the words — " My Father worketh hitherto" —
for this working was rather the saving of men's souls than the
raising of their bodies.  (6.) Old Testament usage is in point
because this discussion is had with Jews to whom those -writings
were at once familiar and classic. They had a recognized au
thority, and commanded a professed respect. It must certainly
be assumed that these worda were intended to be intelligible to
all honest-minded Jews, and hence with the highest probability
would be in harmony with Old Testament usage.  Now the Old
Testament gives some well-defined cases of the spiritual, i. e. fig
urative sense of resurrection ; e. g. isa. 26 : 14, 19 and Ezek. 37 :
1-12. On the other hand, in its literal sense — raising the body
from its grave, the word resurrection occurs in the Old Testar
ment but rarely.  These considerations strongly favor the
sense in our paaaage of raising dead souls to life.
The same conclusion is strongly supported by the limitations
as to the application of this resurrection powtr ofthe Son — -" quick
eneth whom he will;" for when he raises the dead from their
graves, there are no such limitations : " all shall hear his voice
and come forth."  Moreover, this construction is put beyond all
doubt in v. 24 — the passing from death unto life being conditioned
there upon hearing the words of Jesus and beUeving ou the Fa
ther as having sent him.
22. For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed
all judgment unto the Son :
23. That -all men should honor the Son, even as they
honor the Father. He that honoreth not the Son honoreth
not the Father which hath sent him.
The logical connection throughout vs. 20-22, expressed in our
version by " for " (Greek yap) should be carefully noticed. This
discourse is a chain of reasoning, every point bearing upon the
relation of the Son to the Father as worthy of equal honor, and
as amply justified therefore in his great work on the Sabbath. ,
"Hath committed all judgment unto the Son" — suggests the
question whether the reference be specially to the final judgment,
subsequent to the general resurrection ; or, more comprehensively,

GOSPEL- OF JOHN.— CHAP. V. 95
to the entire administration of the divine moral government of
our world, not to say of the moral universe. The latter view is
favored by this comprehensive language — "aZi judgment;'' alao
by the more specific reference (v. 27) to the " authority to exe
cute judgment" — which seems to look particularly to that of the
last day. In the comprehensive sense — administering "adjudg
ment" — Jesus determines the conditions of pardon and who has
fulfilled them ; the control of the entire scheme of earthly pro
bation, discipline, preliminary retribution (as in ~the present
world) ; every thing that comes under the head of the executive
administration of God's moral government both in the present
life; at the final judgment; and throughout the realms of eternal
retribution. The reason for committing all judgment in this broad sense
to the Son is given plainly; — "that all should honor the Son even
as they honor the Father." Any earthly king who should en
trust such responsibilities to his son would be likely to do it for
this definite purpose. In this case not to honor the Son equally
with the Father is to dishonor the Father, since it would disre
gard his avowed purpose ; would be construed to impugn his wis
dom ; would contemn his authority.
We can not fail to see how forcibly all this bears upon the great
argument of Jesus with the Jews in vindication of himself for
healing the impotent man and bidding him carry his bed on the
Sabbath.  ^Nor can we fail to see its incidental bearing as proof
of his true divinity — none the less forcible for being incidental —
an assumption underlying the entire argument,
24. Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my
word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting
life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed
from death unto life.
If we have correctly the sense of the words "all judgment" in
V. 22, we may find here the development of some of its ground
principles, particularly the conditions on which men pass from
death unto life. Hearing the words of Jesus attentively and obe
diently; believing, not merely on me [Jesus] but on "him that
sent me" — i. e. believing on me as one sent by the Father and
fully commissioned to the work of Savior and Judge — "he hath
everlasting life," a life that shall begin here in the new heart
and morally changed life, and shall hold on unto everlasting life
in the blessedness of the redeemed. He shall no more come
into condemnation — there being "no condemnation to them that
are in Christ Jesus" (Rom. 8 : 1). This man has passed from a
state of death, condemnation, in sin, unto life in God and his in
finite favor.
25. Verily, verily, I say unto you, The' hour is coming,
and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son
of God : and they that hear shall live.

96 GOSPEL OF JOHN.— CHAP. V-.
With solemn asseveration as one announcing^sAiost momentous
truth — "verily, verily" — Jesus declares that even now dead souls
are hearing the voice of the Sou of God, and so hearing are
passing from death into life. We can scarcely miss the refer
ence in this phraseology to the voice which sent life thrilling
through the bodily organs of the powerless man at the pool of
Bethesda. So, new life shall breathe through the souls of those'
who listen with faith and obedience to the voice of Jesus calling
them to him.  The hour is coming when the numbers saved to
new life shall be greatly augmented : even now the work is glo
riously begun.-*
26. For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he
given to the Son to have life in himself;
27. And hath given him authority to execute judgment
also, because he is the Son of man.
Life is here more than existence — the main stress of the idea
in fact goes beyond that to the life-imparting power. As the
Father has in himself the power of imparting life, so has he given
this power in full measure to the Son. And also " authority to
execute judgment," in the broad sense of the words in v. 22; yet
perhaps with a drifting towiird the more specific sense which is
so fully implied in vs. 28, 29. This is specially the execution
of judgment; not only the judicial decision of the highest tri
bunal but the carrying of that decision into effect in the final
awards of destiny according to deeds done.
" Because he is the Son of man. "-j- The fact of the incarnation
is made the reason for committing all judgment to Jesus and es
pecially, the final judgment of the race. Having loved this fallen
world so deeply, so tenderly, that he could consent to assume our
very nature and suffer in it even unto death, who throughout all
the universe will ever doubt his compassion, his pity, his heart
to save whosoever will meet his revealed conditions and put him
self within the possible reach of mercy ? With infinite confi
dence will all the intelligent universe trust him for ever to ad
minister the final judgment in tbe truest sympathy for our race
and never with undue severity — inflicting never one pang of
-* The Sinaitic manuscript omits the clause "and now is." Other
authorities with great unanimity sustain it. It is supposable that
the clause was omitted to make the passage conform to v. 28. But
Jesus doubtless intended a contrast between that verse and this. In
this, the pr.ocess is already begun: in that it waits for the blast of
the final trump of God.
t In the Greek text the word "Son" lacks the article. But Neiv"
Testament usage gives other similar cases of its omission; e.g. Matt.
14: 33, and 27 : 43, and Luke 1: 35, and John 19: 7. The sense remains
essentially the same if we translate — "Because he is a Son of
man" — really human; truly incarnated into the race.

GOSPEL OF JOHN.— CHAP. V. 97
suffering in excess of what justice must demand. That he -will
care tenderly for those who love and trust him, who shall ever
doubt? O, how will he gather them under hia sheltering wing
and hold their souls sweetly calm and joyful under the blast of
the great trump of doom, amid the opening of countless graves,
the waking of the dead of all the ages, and the wreck of worlds I
 Moreover, how fitting that Jesua should sit in judgment on
those who heard his calls of mercy only to refuse them, or (as the
case maybe) to repel them with scorn; who would not believe
on his name, but in their freedom chose their lot among the neg-
lecters of this great salvation ! How impressive before the moral
universe that the same voice which once called so tenderly, " Come
unto me for life" — should, in the great final day, proclaim with
infinite majesty and irreproachable righteousness — " Depart from
me, ye cursed !"
Moreover, the entire moral universe will see that .lesus richly
deserves this honor of administering and executing the final
doom of every one of the human race.
28. Marvel not at this : for the hour is coming, in the
which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice,
29. Aud shall corae forth: they that have done good, unto
the resurrection of life ; and they that have done evil, unto
the resurrection of daranation.
"Marvel not at this" which I have been saying — the word
"this" referring more naturally to things said before than after.
Let it not surprise you that the Father hath given me power to
speak dead souls to life, for lie hath given me the power to bring
dead bodies from their graves.
" For the hour is coming" — somewhere iu the future ; it is not
said where. — Observe, Jesus does not add — "And now is" — for
this form of resurrection is not yet. " In which all that are in
their graves " — a description entirely definite and unambiguous.
He does not say as in v. 25, "the dead" — a term which when
plainly distinguished from " those in their graves" describes not
bodies but souls, spiritually dead, who pass from this death into
life through hearing the Savior's word and believing.  " Shall
hear his voice " — keeps up the analogy with v. 25, — the word
" voice " in both cases involving some allusion to that voice which
said, " Rise and walk."— — That this resurrection is unioersal,
extending to all the race, is shown not only in the words, " all that
are in their graves," but in the specification of the two great and
only classes — "those that have done good" and "those that have
done evil." The former rise with a "resurrection unto life" —
not merely existence but blessedness ; the latter, to a resurrection
followed by damnation. — The same truth is taught by Jesus more
in detail in Matt. 25 : 31-46.
30. I can of mine own self do nothing : as I he:ir, I judge :

98 GOSPEL OF JOHN.— CHAP. V.
and my judgment is just ; because I seek not mine own will,
but the will of the Father which hath sent me.
Here the great question exegetically is whether this hearing and
judging refer specially to the' final judgment, or, in their broadest
possible application, to the whole moral administration conducted
by Jesus. The latter view must be taken, especially because Jesus
uses the preSent tense, implying that this hearing and judging were
then in progress ; and because his argument -ndth the Jews demands
this broad application.
Jesus rests his claim to righteous impartiality upon his absolute
freedom from selfishness. He seeks only the Father's will, seek
ing that supremely, and therefore judges with perfect equity.
31. If I bear witness of rnyself, my witness is not true.
32. There is another that beareth witness of me ; aud I
know that the witness which he witnesseth of me Ls true.
The original Greek makes the contrast' strong between "I" and
" another " as witnesses by writing out " ego " and by the location
of "aVKof" — [another]. If I were the only witness to myself; if
the Father did not indorse and sustain my claim, it would justly
fiill to the ground. But " another " is my witness, even God. —
" And ye know "- — the reading ye being better sustained than " I."
Jeaua appeala to the convictions of their reason — ye know that the
testimony which God the Father bears to me must be true.
33. Ye sent unto John, and he bare witness unto the truth.
34. But I receive not testimony from man : but these things
I say, that ye might be saved.
35. He was a burning and a shining light : and ye were
willing for a season to rejoice in his light.
-" Ye sent unto John " — as recorded above, 1 : 19-28. He testi
fied to me with most entire truthfulness. But I do not rely chiefly
or specially upon the testimony of any m.an. I refer to John the
Baptist only in the hope of carrying your convictions and thus
saving your souls. Ho brought from heaven a brilliant light; for
a season ye seemed to rejoice in that light. — They knew very well
that it was for a brief season only; for though John called their
attention most earnestly and emphatically to the Greater One to
come after him, yet when they came to know this Greater One,
they repelled and rejected him.
John was a light — i. e. — a lamp ; not tbe sun. He burned and
shone, not with original but with borrowed light; " a light illumi
nated, not illuminating"- — said Augustine.  John "was," not
is ; for at the time of this conversation he had been cast into prison,
or perhaps had gone to the executioner's block.
36. But I have greater witness than tliat of John : for the
works which the Father hath given me to finish, the same

GOSPEL OF JOHN.— CHAP. V. 99
works that I do, bear witness of me, that the Father hath
sent me.
37. And the Father himself, which hath sent me, hath
borne witness of me. Ye have neither heard his voice at
any time, nor seen his shape.
38. And ye have not his word abiding in you : for whom
he hath sent, him ye believe not.
Greater witness than any from John came through the miracles
which he wrought by virtue of his connection w-ith the Father,
and which were the Father's own indorsement of his mission.
Apart from these miracles was yet another form of testimony
from the Father (v. 37). What was this other form? — Not, as
some have supposed, the audible voice, heard by a few at the
baptism of Jesus, or that heard by yet fewer at his transfiguration,
for manifestations of this sort seem intentionally excluded: "Ye
have neither heard his voice, nor seen his shape." Nor does there
seem to be any authority for supposing a reference here to God's
voice to man's inner consciousness — the witness of the Spirit.
Nothing in the passage itself or in the context favors this view. 
It remains to find this new testimony in God's revealed word — the
Old Testament Scriptures. We are sustained in this finding by
what immediately follows — " And ye have not his word abiding in
you." God has given you in the Scriptures most decisive testi
mony to the Messiah, all which (Jesus implies) has been fulfilled
in myself; but alas ! as to you this is unavailing, because God's
revealed word does not abide in you ; its power is not felt in your
souls. And fhe proof of this is that ye do not — will not — believe
in him whom God has sent. There could be no stronger proof
than this.
39. Search the Scriptures ; for in them ye think ye have
eternal life : and they are they which testify of me.
40. And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life.
The original Greek — " Search the scriptures " — may be either
indicative or imperative ; the statement of a fact, or the injunction
of a duty. Commentators are sharply, perhaps almost equally
divided in opinion between these alternatives.  The indicative
would run thus : — Ye search the scriptures, making great account
of them, supposing that ye have eternal life in them even in your
way of studying and' obeying them. Yet they are my special
witnesses (so the Greek puts it; they are the witnesses for me) —
a fact ye are too blind to see. Ye will not— choose not to — come
to me for life.  But as imperative, thus : The Father bears
witness to me in your own sacred scriptures ; but this word of the
Father ye have not abiding in you. Let me exhort, yea command
you to search those scriptures, as ye in conscience and self-con
sistency ought to do, for ye suppose that in them ye have eternal
life, and they testify abundantly of me. Ye -would see this testi-

100 GOSPEL OF JOHN.— CHAP. V.
mony if your eye were clear and your heart honest. But alas ! " ye
will not come to me that ye may have life." The settled purpose
of your obdurate heart is wholly against coming to me.
In my view the imperative should have the preference as being
more in harmony with facts, and in a moral point of view, more
forcible. 41. I receive not honor from men.
42. But I know you, that ye have not the love of God in
you. "I receive not honor," etc., strikes by contrast at the root of
their obdurate rejection of Jesus — the contrast being brought out
in V. 44. I am not, like yourselves, poisoned morally by a de
praved ambition for the glory that comes from men. But I know
your heart ; ye have no love of God in you. Your love runs wholly
toward the honor that comes from men. The first great precept
of your law (Deut. 6 : 4, 5) enjoins love supreme, with all the heart,
to God. Here is the fatal lack in your souls.
43. I am come in my Father's name, and ye receive me
not : if another shall come in his own name, him ye will re
ceive. Yet how utterly inconsistent and unreasonable ! Ye are look
ing with extreme and even passionate eagerness, for some great
Coming One who may bring salvation to Israel. I come in my
Father's name, yet ye will not receive me. Despite of the
Father's indorsement by miracles, and by the testimony of your
own scriptures, sustaining my claims, ye yet reject me. But if
some other shall come in his own name, ye will readily receive
him — a statement borne out remarkably in the subsequent history
of the Jewish people. The number of falae Christs who did ap
pear in the ages subsequent was legion. Many of them drew im-
- mense throngs of followers.  The moral explanation of this
fact is simple. Jeaua was too pure and the leaders of Jewish
thought too corrupt to admit of the least practical sympathy.
There could be only collision and repellenoy between the meek,
spotless .lesus, and. the bigoted, covetous, self-seeking, sanctimo
nious Pharisees. The silent rebuke of his example and spirit
stung them: his words of rebuke were daggers to their proud
hearts. 44. How can ye believe, which receive honor one of
another, and seek not the honor that cometli from God
only? These few words reveal the root and mainspring of their un
belief in Jesus. They sought, they loved, the honor that came
from one another : they neither cared for nor sought the honor
which came from God only. They built themselves up by means
of mutual admiration. They honored each other according as

GOSPEL OF JOHN.— CHAP. V. 101
they ware valiant, and mighty, and fierce in opposing Jesus. Un
der the power of this master-passion, how could they possibly be
lieve in Jesus ? How could any sort or amount of evidence get
into their mind, force conviction upon their souls, and command
the homage of their heart? That man must have read human
nature most superficially who has not learned the power of an
ovprmaatering passion to blind the mind to evidence, and make
the heart as adamant against the voice of either reason or con
science.  But if they had sought the honor that cometh from
God, the whole course of their thought and heart would have been
reversed. For, would they not then have honored the Infinite
Son of God ? Would they not have accepted the miracles as
God's voice through the realm of nature, and their own accredited
scriptures as another voice from God, witnessing to his predicted
Son ?
45. Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father :
there is one that accuseth you, even Moses, in whom ye trust.
46. For had ye believed Moses,, ye would have believed
me : for he wrote of rae.
47. But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye be
lieve my words ?
Jesus would not put himself forward as accusing them to the
Father. We must take his words in this comparative sense : It
is not so much myself as Moses -who accuses you. I came, not to
condemn but to save. But the same Moses in whom ye trust aud
in whose name ye glory aa your Great Lawgiver, your model pa
triarch, your highest ideal of a Teacher sent from God — he ac
cuses you. If ye had truly believed him, ye would have believed
me, for he wrote of me; described me; foretold my coming, my
character, my work. But since ye do not believe his writings, how
can ye believe my words ? Their professed admiration of Moses
is thus shown to have been utterly fallacious — a mere delusion.
Thus closes this wonderful discourse. In the high stand-point
of its defense against the, charge of Sabbath desecration ; in the
calm- and solemn majesty of its tone; in the conscioua dignity
with which Jesus set forth his relation to the Father ; in the per
tinence and moral force of his presentation of himself, first as
giving spiritual life to spiritually dead souls; and next, as one
day to give life from the dead to all who are in their graves — re
vealing himself thus as the Infinite Arbiter of all human destiny,
the Great Judge of quick and dead — this discourse has no parallel
in human language.
How was it received by the Jewish elders ?' They were think
ing they had him at their mercy under the double charge of Sab
bath-breaking and blasphemy ; how must they have been aston
ished at his defense : I have violated the Sabbath only as my di
vine Father does ; I work only as he works ; he abo-ws' me all that
he is doing; I fiiUow his example; I can not do otherw-ise than

102 GOSPEL OF JOHN.— CHAP. V.
fulfill the mission he has assigned me. I raiae^ad souls into
life new and divine, even as he does; and ere long " the dead in
their graves shall hear my voice and come forth " — to their eter
nal reward.  Thus while they thought to arraign him at their
tribunal, they found themselves the culprits and Jesus their final
judge !  "Were they not utterly incredulous ? Did they not re
pel every point in these statements which, admitted as true, would
have been fearfully appalling ? No doubt we must for the most
part assume this. Jesus assumed it, and therefore went on to sus
tain his claims by appealing to the testimony of John ; to the in
dorsement which the Father had given him by miracles, and Mo
ses by his prophetic writings. He spake to them calmly, but with
most searching scrutiny and appalling truthfulness, of the reason
why they could not believe ; of that passion for the honor coming
from men which made them utterly blind and dead to the claims
of the Son of God. He said — "I know you that ye have not the
love of God in you.'' I know you that though ye applaud Moses,
ye will not believe his writings in their witness for me. I know,
alas I but too well that ye simply will not come to me that ye may
have life. Solemnly and yet sadly we must suppose .lesus pointed
these rebukes and bore this painful testimony. What more could
he do?
Perhaps the inquiry will spring up in some minds : Why did
not Jesus drop off the outer vail of his weak humanity, and stand
out before their eyes in all the majesty of the transfiguration, or
of that other scene of his unvailed glories before him of Patmos
— " his eyes as a flame of fire ; " " his face as the sun shineth in
its strength ; " " his voice as the sound of many waters " ? Then,
like the ancient seer, they might have " fallen at his feet as
dead." But it is not the wisdom of God to work the scheme of
human probation in this way. To overwhelm is not to convince.
To appall is not to persuade. The freest moral activities of hu
man souls must be provided for, because it is only by their nor
mal working that radical changes in moral character are wrought.
If searching truth — tenderly, solemnly, pun gently pressed upon
the human understanding and conscience — proves unavailing, all
effort is hopeless ; nothing else can be effective ; and men must
be left where Jesus was compelled to leave the great body of those
Jewish councilmen — to the infatuation, blindness, aud moral death
of their own free and persistent choice.

GOSPEL OF JOHN.— CHAP. VL 103

CHAPTER VI.
The historical events of this chapter and tho remarkable dis
course to which they gave occasion hinge upon the feeding of five
thousand men on the eastern shore of the Sea of Tiberias. The
accountof this miracle fills (vs. 1-14); the less public miracle
of walking upon the sea occurred during the succeeding night
(vs. 15-21) ; the multitude follow him to Capernaum the next day
(vs. 22-25) ; after whioh the ensuing conversation presenting
Jesus as the "bread of life," fills out the chapter (26-'71).
1. After these things Jesus went over the sea of Galilee,
which is the sea of Tiberias.
2. And a great multitude followed him, because they saw
his miracles which he did on them that were diseased.
The events of this chapter seem to have followed those of chap-
tor 5 at no long interval.  " Went over the Sea of Galilee," i. e.
from the western side where lay the Galilean homes of Jesus
(Nazareth and Capernaum) to the eastern shore near which were
the plain where Jesus fed the five thousand and the mountain
where he sat with his disciples.
This great multitude wore following him, not, like the Samari
tans, because they saw in him the long expected prophet of-Is-
rael, but because their curiosity and interest were excited by his
miracles of healing.
3. And Jesus went up into a mountain, and there he sat
with his disciples.
4. And the passover, a feast of the Jews, was nigh.
Comparing this narrative with that given bv Matthew (in 14 :
13-21); by Mark (in 6: 30-44); and by Luke"'(in 9: 10-17), we
find that Jesus had just heard of the murder of John the Baptist,
and that the disciples had but recently returned from their first
missionary tour " through the towns, preaching the gospel and
healing every-where." The inquisitive people were thronging
upon him ; thrilling events had been transpiring ; it was a time
therefore both for physical rest, and yet more, for instruction and
meditation. The disciples needed a quiet and restful sitting at
the feet of their Master.
That "the Passover was nigh" seems to be noticed here to ac
count for the great multitude of people seeking for Jesus. Some
may have gathered here for their journey to Jerusalem ; others,
living more remote, may have tarried here a season on their way.
5. When Jesus then lifted up his eyes, and saw a great
corapany come unto him, he saith unto Philip, Whence shall
we buy bread, that these may eat?
6. And this he said to prove him : for he himself knew
what he would do.

104 GOSPEL OF JOHN.— CHAP. VI.
7. Philip answered him. Two hundred pennyworth of
bread is not sulficient for them, that every one of them may
take a little.
8. One of his disciples, Andrew, Simon Peter's brother,
saith unto him,
9. There is a lad here, which hath five barley loaves, and
two small fishes : but what are they among so many ?
10. And Jesus said. Make the men sit down. Now there
was much grass in the place. So the men sat down, in
number about five thousand.
11. And Jesus took the loaves ; and when he had given
thanks, he distributed to the discijiles, and the disciples to
them that were set down ; and likewise of the fishes as much
as they would.
12. When they were filled, he said unto his disciples.
Gather up the fragments that remain, that nothing be lost.
13. Therefore they gathered them together, and filled
twelve baskets with the fragments of the five barley loaves,
which remained over and above unto them that had eaten.
This miracle is the only one recorded by each of the four evan
gelists.  Some have thought it the same as that recorded, Matt.
15 : 32-39 and Mark 8 : 1-10. This latter is similar in its nar
ture — a miraculous increase of food; but is too unlike in most
of the details to admit the supposition of identity. For in this
latter the people had been with Jesus, mostly fasting, three days ;
the bread to begin with was seven loaves (not five) ; the fishes
not " two" but a "few; " the fragments that remained were seven
baskets, not twelve. 'The people in thia latter miracle came, "di
vers of them, from far" — apparently Gentiles; while in the first
miracle they were Jews, looking toward the feast at Jerusalem.
Moreover it is scarcely supposable that the same historian would
give two accounts of the same miracle — whether with or without
variations. Comparing John's narrative of this miracle with that given by
the other three evangelists, there is apparent discrepancy on the
point of the immediate antecedents — specially ou the question
who made the first suggestion of their need of food and of the
possible means of supply. The other three — often called " the
synoptists " — concur in saying that the first suggestion came from
the disciples. " They came to Jesus, saying. This is a desert place,
and the time is now past; send the multitude a-way, that they
may go into the villages and buy themselves victuals," etc. In
John's narrative the first suggestion named came from Jesus him
self: "He saith unto Philip, Whence shall we buy bread that
these may eat ? "
In view of this apparent discrepancy, manj' have impugned the

GOSPEL OF JOHN.— CHAP. VI. 105
accuracy of the gospel historians, and have thought it a very
grave and damaging allegation.
On this point 1 suggest  (a.) That John does not deny what
the other three assert on the point of the first suggestion, viz,
that it came from the disciples. For ought that John relates, the
disciples may have called the attention of Jesus to this matter
before he spoke to Philip aa in v. 5. Admitting this, the sup
posed discrepancy mainly if not wholly vanishes. The difference
between the first three and John is chiefly in regard to the omis
sion or insertion of the several points — the flrst three omitting
things which John records, and John omitting things which they
record. But this is exceedingly far from being a stubborn and
damaging discrepancy.  (b?) The minuteness of John's narra
tive in giving the names of Philip and of Andrew evinces au ac
curate memory and entitles his statements to confidence.  ¦
(c.) But finally, these points are of very minor importance, and
the diversity in these four narratives on points so trivial, even if
it did involve slight discrepancies, should by no means weaken
our confidence in their entire truthfulness as to all the vital mat
ters of the history. Supreme attention to the things that are vital
will often involve -a. relative inattention to points unimportant.
So long as the human mind is less than infinite, this law will
surely find some scope ; an absorbing interest in the things of
chief concern will withdraw attention from the small and inci
dental points so that slight inaccuracies as to them will become
the common law.  If over against this remark it be said that
inspiration, if real, ought to bring in the infinite mind and thus
secure perfect accuracy in all points however minute, I answer —
When Inspiration speaks through human lips and pens, ita style
partakes of the human channel through which it flows. Be the
philosophy of this fact what it may, the fact itself is every-where
obvious and therefore simply undeniable.
In this narrative the points requiring verbal explanation are
few. V. 6 explains the reason of the question put to Philip, viz :
to call his attention to the difficult problem of feeding so many
men, and to see what he had to say of it. — Not that Jesua
needed any helpful suggestions, for he had already decided
what he would do. Philip estimates the amount of bread requi
site for a moderate supply at " two hundred penny-vrorth." Aa
the best standard of money value the world over and through all
the ages of human history is the amount of day labor it repre
sents, we flnd our best measure in the New Testament fact that
wages then ruled at a penny a day. Two hundred days' work
would earn this amount of bread.  The other evangelists state
that the men were seated on the graaa by hundreds and by
fifties— a method which made enumeration easy and reasonably
coi-reot.  The " baskets " which received the fragments were
the common traveling baskets of that age, adapted to carry pro
visions for a journey.
Aa to tho special nature and the moral value of this miracle.

106 GOSPEL OF JOHN.— CHAP. VL
let it be noted  {a.) It thoroughly precluded deception. _ Five
thousand hungry men are very certain to know. beyond mistake
whether or not they have been honestly fed and their stomachs
really satisfied.-  (6.) The people had no conceivable induce
ment to connive at deception. So far as appears they would haye
detected and exposed a fraud (if there had been any) as indig
nantly as any modern skeptic, living then, would have done. 
(c.) 'This feeding made all the impression upon the people which
a real miracle could have made, for we see that they were ready
to "take Jesus by force to make him their king.'' Some of them
followed him the next day over to the other side of the lake as
men thoroughly convinced that this was surely " that groat Prophet
who should come into the world" (v. 14.)  {d.) The service of
waiting upon this vast company would naturally impress the mir
acle forcibly upon the disciples. No wonder they never forgat
it. No wonder that the record of it has found place in each
one of the gospel histories.  (e.) The order to save all the frag
ments that remained would perpetuate the impression of the
scene, and be withal a wholesome lesson in economy — not to say
also, "would obviate a possible abuse of this miracle in the shape
of a feeling that henceforth they were sure of perpetual plenty
and might afford to waste.  (f.) And finally, this bountiful
supply IS beautifully typical of the fullness of spiritual bread in
our Father's house — " bread enough and to spare " — so that never
a man need to suffer from hunger (Luke 15 : 17), miserable prod
igal though he may have been.
14. Then those men, when they had seen the miracle
that Jesus did, said. This is of a truth that Prophet that
should come into the world.
15. When Jesus therefore perceived that they would come
!xnd take him by force, to make him a king, he departed
again into a mountain himself alone.
Does this reference to " the Prophet that should come into the
world" look specially to Deut. 18: 15, 18? Apparently so; and
yet their thought to make him their king suggests that they saw
in him their nation's Messiah, and applied to him, not that one
prediction only, but the great body of Old Testament prophecy.
Restive under the Roman yoke, ever aspiring to national inde
pendence and greatness, nothing could be more congenial to their
ambition than a king of their own who should lift their nation at
once to power and glory.  But with this feeling of theirs, Jesus
had not the least sympathy. To yield to their notion would have
been to abandon the purpose for which he had come into the
world: would have fired into flame the hardly suppressed ambition
of even his disciples ; and must have prostrated all his efforts for
the spiritual regeneration of Israel.
16. And when even w'as iiow come, his disciples went
down unto the sea.

GOSPEL OF JOHN.— CHAP. VL 107
17. And entered into a ship, and went over the sea to
ward Capernaum. And it was now dark, and Jesus was not
come to them.
18. And the sea arose by reason of a great wind that
blew. 19. So when they had rowed about five and twenty or
thirty furlongs, they see Jesus walking on the sea, and draw
ing nigh unto the ship : and they were afraid.
20. But he saith unto them. It is I ; be not afraid.
21. Then they willingly received him into the ship: and
immediately the ship was at the land whither they went.
The scenes of this eventful night, briefly sketched here, appear
more fully in Matthew (14: 22-33) ; also in Mark (6 : 45-52), but
are omitted in Luke. The circumatances in full were these : —
that Jesus sent the disciples back by water without him, remain
ing himself to dismiss the people ; then went up into the moun
tain to pray, and when evening had come was there alone ; that
a fearful wind-storm fell upon the lake — a head-wind to the toil
ing disciples and their crew; that they had made only some three
or four miles of their voyage — scarcely more than half across,
when, far on toward morning, .Tesus appeared, walking on the
surging billows ; that they saw the strange sight, thought it a
phantom, and " cried out for fear; " that then the sweet and well
known voice fell on their ear — "Be of good cheer, it is I: be not
afraid;" — to whioh words, their most impulsive man, Peter, re
sponded ; " Lord, if it be thou, bid me come to thee on the water."
" Come," said .lesus: and forth from the ship Peter sallies, man
aging apparently to get on well so long as his eye was upon Je
sus ; but dropping his eye to the tossing waves, and struck by the
stiff blasts, a tremulous fear came over him, and, beginning to
sink, he cried, "Lord, save me;" whereupon Jesus put forth
his hand, caught and saved him; — with however the gentle re
buke — "0 thou of little faith, wherefore didst thou doubt?" Ac
cording to John the disciples were now wishing to take him into
the ship, and presently the ship was in the haven they sought.
Mark omits these circumstances respecting Peter (why ?) saying
however that Jesus seemed about to pass by them, but, hearing
their cry of fear and alarm, came up to them into the ship. 
Remarkably in referring to the moral impressions of the scene
upon the disciples, Matthew gives prominence to their joyous tes
timony to his divine sonship ; — " They worshiped him, saying,
Of a truth thou art the Son of God;" while Mark says, "They
were sore amazed in themselves and wondered; for they con
sidered not the miracle of the loaves ; for their heart was hard
ened." Thus Matthew testifies that their faith was refreshed and
specially manifested ; while Mark seems to have been impressed
by their moral dullness and unbelief in not appreciating the force
of the recent miracle. Shall we explain this app.aront discrop-

108 GOSPEL OF JOHN.— CHAP. VL
ancy by supposing that the moral attitude of the twelve was not
a unit — a part of them being described by Matthew ; another part
by Mark ?  It is hard for us to conceive how such a scene could
have failed to be sweetly and most deeply impressive upon them
all. 22. The day following, when the people, which stood on
the other side of the sea, saw that there was none other
boat there, save that one whereinto his disciples were en
tered, and that Jesus went not with his disciples into the
boat, but that his disciples were gone away alone;
23. Howbeit there came other boats from Tiberias nigh
unto the place where they did eat bread, after that the
Lord had given thanks:
24. When the people therefore saw that Jesus was not
there, neither his disciples, they also took shipping, and
came to Caperiiaura, seeking for Jesus.
25. And when they had found him on the other side of
the sea, they said unto him, Rabbi, when eamest thou
hither ?
It seems that the efforts of the Master to send the five thousand
away to their homes or onward in their journey, were not alto
gether successful. Some of them at least are soon on hand again,
carefully noting that the disciples were sent on board ship to
cross the lake alone (without their Master), and in the only boat
which lay in sight. Other boats came up, however, during the
night, driven over perhaps by the same wind-storm against whioh
the disciples contended during that fearful night. Entirely un
certain where Jesus might be, they entered these boats and crossed
over to Capernaum, seeking for Jesus, their first question on finding
him being naturally this: — "Rabbi, how earnest thou hither?"- —
Did they ever learn that he walked over those surging billows?
He took no pains to exhibit or in any way disclose this miracle,
but turns his thoughts and theirs to their low and unworthy aims
in seeking him, and to the far nobler aims they should have had — ¦
as we shall see. '
26. Jesus answered them and said, Verily, verily, I say
unto you, Ye seek me, not because ye saw the miracles, but
because ye did eat of the loaves, and were filled.
37. Labor not for the meat which perisheth, but for that
meat which endureth unto everlasting life, which the Son
of man shall give unto you : for him hath God the Father
sealed. They had been fed by miracle, yet it was hot the miracle but
the feeding that had impressed them and that drew them on after
him. Strangely they failed to accept the miracle in its true in-

GOSPEL OF JOHN.— CHAP. VL 109
tout and for its real value; they did not — -perhaps rather would
not — see in it the Father's indorsement of^ his Son as the Infi
nite Fountain of life to dying men. This great and fatal failure
on their part prompted the exhortation — "Labor not for bread
that perishes, but for that which endures unto everlasting life" —
such as the Son of man gives you ; for him hath the Father
commissioned, indorsed, and set apart for this very service, seal
ing his credentials by miracles, as ye should have seen. 
"Meat" — not flesh but food; and here better in the special
sense — bread — as in the subsequent context — "the bread of life."
The laws of thought by which Jesus reached the figure here —
"the bread of life" — are at once obvious and beautiful. Com
mon bread had been multiplied by Jesua for the feeding of the
five thousand; they had eaten it and were filled; and were now
¦with no little labor folio-wing after him for more. Jesus says
to them — There is other and better bread than what ye seek —
bread that both satisfies and endures — the latter point, in the
case of the bread as in the case of the water commended to the
woman of Samaria — being the distinctive test. This bread en
dures unto and naturally ensures everlasting life. It brings into
human souls the very life of God. It is the mission of his Son
to give it. Ye are seeking of mo only bread that perishes; the
thing ye should seek of me is the bread that endures and gives
life forever.
28. Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we
might work the works of God ?
29. Jesus answered and said unto thera. This is the work
of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.
Our translators would have indicated 'the course of thought
better, if following the original Greek, they had put it — "Work
not for the meat that perishes" (v. 27); and "What sh.all we do
that we may work the works of God?" (v. 28). The Jews took up
the identical word which Jesus had used, inquiring, — What is
the work which thou wouldest enjoin? What work is this whioh
God requires? — To this Jesua replies, "This is the work" God
enjoins — "that ye believe on him whom he hath sent." The
one great work whioh God expects of you 'is faith in his Son. 
To Jews, toilsomely working out their salvation (as they sup
posed) by external works of meritorious righteousness, it was su
premely pertinent and fitting to say — Faith in Jesus is the one
comprehensive work required by God. Here was an Infinite
Savior. To accept him in true faith was then and is evermore
the one condition of salvation.
30. They said therefore unto him, What sign showest
thou then, that we may see, and believe thee? what dost
thou work?
31. Our fathers did eat manna in the desert; ^as it is
written. He gave them bread from heaven to eat.

110 GOSPEL OF JOHN.— CHAP. VL
" The Jews (said Paul, 1 Cor. 1 : 22) require a sign "- — evermore
demanding, never satisfied with the miracles exhibited before
them. Only the evening before, five thousand of them had been
fed to the full on five loaves and two small fishes ; and still they
demand more sign — as if Jesus had never given them any reli
able sign of his divine mission I "That we may see and believe
thee " — as if they were entirely, ready to believe if only they
could have the appropriate evidence. "What dost thou work?"
has the tone of sheer insult when construed in the light of the
miracle then fresh as the scenes of yesterday. How weakly and
wickedly they assume that the miracle they had just seen should
go for nothing I Perhaps they had some preconceived notions as
to the sign that Jesus in their view ought to give ; and unless
they could bring him to their idea would accept nothing.
The Jews first suggested the manna which their fathers ate in
the desert — an illustration which- Jesus subsequently resumed
twice (vs. 49, 58). We may suppose the course of their thought
to have been on tbis wise ; — He bids us work for bread that en
dures unto everlasting life, and speaks of giving it to us himself
and of coming down from heaven, sealed of God. But our
fathers had bread from heaven, and yet it did not endure unto
everlasting life. Would he pretend to have any thing better than
that? So the woman of Samaria could not see how Jesus could
have any better water than that of Jacob's well.
The reference — "it is written" — is to Ps. 78: 24, 25, where in
poetic imagery God is said to have " given them of the corn
[bread] of heaven." The manna actually fell with the dew from
the lower heavens — the atmosphere above them; and more than
this, — God's hand was so signally in it that with striking pro
priety, it could be said to have come do-wn from his abode —
heaven. 32. Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto
you, Moses gave you not that bread from heaven ; but my
Father giveth you the true bread from heaven.
33. For the bread of God is he which cometh down from
heaven, and giveth life unto the world.
Jesus speaks, not according to the license of poetry but to the
precision of prosaic fact. That manna-bread Moses did not send
down from the true — the real heaven ; but my Father (said Jesus)
gives to men blessings most worthy to be called the true bread
from heaven. Jesus then advances to the yet higher idea — that
this bread from heaven is a real, living person who comes down
from heaven and gives life to the world. Apparently in this form
of statement, Jesus fell slightly short of saying — It is I myself
34. Then said they unto him. Lord, evermore give us this
bread. Here is the woman of Samaria repeating herself As she said
(John 4 : 15) — "Give me this water that 1 thirst not; " so under

GOSPEL OF JOHN.— CHAP. VI. Ill
their first impulse these Jews said; "Lord, evermore give us this
bread." Alas, that they should have so poorly understood their
own words 1
35. And Jesus said unto thera, I am the bread of life : he
that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth
on me shall never thirst.
Jesus here advances to the further point of identifying this
person — -"he who cometh down from heaven" — with himself: —
" I am the bread of life."  This bread is to be tested and known
by its effects. Like the water described to the Woman of Samaria,
it forever satisfies ; it meets the great moral want in man's soul — -
meets it perfectly once and forever.  Yet one other truth lies
in this first wonderful statement; viz., "Coming to Jesus" is the
true sense of eating this bread of life. He that comes to Jesus
does in that act eat this life-giving bread; just as believing on him
ia equivalent to drinking the waters of life. Who drinks shall
never thirst more.
36. But I said unto you. That ye also have seen me, and
believe not.
Some preachers would have caught up the words — " Lord, ever
more give us this bread" — as proof of conversion. Jeaus goes
deeper; knows his men better; seeks rather to make real converts
than to count them. He may repel some ; he must deal with them
faithfully. — As I have told you before, so now again: — ^ye have
seen me and have not believed. Ye have not lived up to your
light. This bread of life has been before you, offered freely — and
ye would not take it.  Let them not deceive themselves. If they
will, it shall not be through any lack of faithful, pointed instruc
tion from the world's great model preacher.
37. All that the Father giveth me shall come to me ; and
him- that cometh to me I will in nowise cast out.
It behooves ns to study these words and the analogous passage
(vs. 44, 45) very carefully and withal thoroughly. — —Jesus inti
mates that he does not expect all men to come to him for life, but
only all whom the Father hath given to him.  Pausing a moment
over this fact as developed in vs. 36-45, I suggest these three in
quiries : — (1.) Why, may we suppose, did Jesus put this truth
before these Jews in this form? — -(2.) How are those who are
" given by the Father to the Son " described and to be known ? —
(3.) How is this doctrine guarded against abuse — especially the
abuse of discouraging sinners from coming to Christ?
To the first point 1 answer suggestively — Perhaps because those
.lews with extremest self-righteousness claimed to be the chosen
and specially favored people of God, and because they gloried in
this claim. Jesus therefore may have sought to show them that
this claim was utterly groundless. — If ye were indeed God's chosen

112 GOSPEL OF JOHN.— CHAP. VL
peoplerhow surely ye would receive and honor hia Son; how cer
tainly would ye be taught of God and come in solid masses to hear
the words of his Son and to welcome from his hand the bread and
the waters of life. — The intended effect of these statements may
therefore have been to show these Jews that they entirely miscon
ceived their own moral attitude toward the Father.  (2.) On the
second point (above named) we may know who are given to Jesus
by the Father, for all such will come to him. Their coming iden
tifies them.  (3.) No rational ground is afforded for abusing the
doctrine as here put, for no matter who comes to Jesus, he shall
in nowise be cast out. Let no sinner be deterred by the fear that
he is not one of those who are "given to Jesus "*by the Father.
Let him settle that question in his own favor by coming to Jesus
at once — coming with all his heart — coming, not as worthy but as
invited and as made welcome. This assurance — the coming one
never oast out — was put by the Master in the very best place
possible. 38. For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own
will, but the will of him that sent me.
39. And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that
of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but
should raise it up again at the last day.
40. And this is the will of him that sent me, that every
one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have
everlasting life : and I will raise him up at the last day.
The logic expressed by " for" (v. 38) should refer specially to
the last clfiuso of the verse preceding rather than to the first, for
it should look to what Jesus does and not to what the Father docs;
thus : I will never cast out, but will surely save to the uttermost
iill who come to vae; for I came down from heaven to do not my
will but his; and his will is that 1 should save and never cast out
those whom he has given me.  This will of the Father is ex
panded and reiterated in most striking words (vs. 39, 40).  Let
the reader note carefully in what points these verses are the same
and in what they differ. They are the same in that they both
define the will of the Father in sending Jesus — especially that he
should save every one of a certain defined class, losing none, but
siiving them all unto everlasting life, even unto the raising them
up, saved soul and body, at the last day. On the other hand they
differ in this one respect, viz., that the class referred to are de
scribed in one verse as given to Jesus by the Father ; in the other,
as seeing the Sou and believing on him. That is, the first puts
forward into the foreground the agency of God; the second, the
agency of man. That the class is in each case identically the
same can not be doubted. They may be described iu either of
these two ways — either as given by the Father to the Sou ; or as
seeing the Son and believing in him. Each fact and both aro
descriptive and serve equally well to identify. The former fact

GOSPEL OF JOHN.— CHAP. VI. 113
(may we not say) insures the latter; and yet insures it in a way
which by no means interferes with human agency — much less
supersedes it.
The certainty of ultimate salvation for all who fall within these
descriptive terms — "Given by the Father to the Son;" "Seeing
Jesus and believing on him" — is the main point specially affirmed
here. I see not how any human language could be more explicit
and decisive to this point of certainty than what we read here.*
41. The Jews then murmured at hira, because he said,
I ara the bread which carae down from heaven.
42. And they said, Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph,
whose father and mother we know ? how is it then that he
saith, I came down from heaven ?
The Jews murmured at him, complaining, objecting, repelling
— not what he had said of the Father's agency in giving him
those who should come to him; but more fundamentally because
he claimed to have come down from heaven — the bread of life
for men. They said — ^Do we not know all about this .lesus?
Have we not seen both his father and his mother ? How then
can he say — " I oame down from heaven " ? — — -The evidence of
his miracles they seem to have thrown out utterly: the purity of
his life, and the inimitable perfection of his teachings, fell pow
erless on their souls. Possibly they had some notions of their
own as to the manner in which thoir Messiah ought to come
down from heaven — supposably, in a blaze of glory ; a chariot of
fire; or with the peal of the archangel's trump: but if God
would not adjust his methods to their ideas, they were too self-
conceited to conform their views to his.
43. Jesus therefore answered and said unto thera. Mur
mur not among yourselves.
' 44. No man can come to me, except the Father which
hath sent me draw him : and I will raise him up at the last
day. 45: It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all
taught of God. Every mau therefore that hath heard, and
hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.
¦»The use in v. 39 of the neuter ("il" and also "all" iu the Greek)
is noticeable — apparently designed to indicate the entire body — the
mass as a whole.
The best manuscripts ditfer from our received text (vs. 39, 40) in
placing the word "Father" not in v. 39, but in v. 40; thus: In v.
39, " This is the will of him that sent me ; " but, v. 40 ; " This is the
will of my Father." The dift'erence has no bearing on the meaning
of the verses. The same may be said of an immense number of the
various readings of the New Testament text.

114 GOSPEL OF JOHN.— CHAP. VL
46. Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he
which is of God, he hath seen the Father.
In tones of blended tenderness and decision, we may suppose
Jesus besought them not to give place to murmurs among them-
aelves.  The declaration, " No man can come to me except the
Father who hath sent me draw him," gives the negative side, cor
responding to the positive as put in v. 37. There he had said.
All who are so given shall come; here. None can come except
those who are drawn by the Father. In the last clause of v. 45,
the same point made in v. -37 is put again, adjusted in phrase to
the context : All who have heard and learned of the Father come
to me. — ^The points of chief practical importance here lie un
der the question — Is this inability ("can not come") moral or
physical — that of the will, or that of proper incapacity, want of
power? So also secondly: Is this "drawing" of the sort which
moves matter, or of the sort which moves free, intelligent minds?
Does it act, like creative power, to produce faculties ; or, like per
suasive power, to induce the desired moral activity ? The distinc
tion is a broad one, easily apprehended and exceedingly important
to be understood.
As bearing on the nature of this inability, whether moral or
physical, I suggest :  (a) That if physical, it could involve no
blame for not coming. Physical incapacity to walk exempts from
all blame for not walking. One so intelligent as Jesus, and withal
so far from making unreasonable requisitions, could never have
blamed the Jews for not coming to him if really they had no
ability — no capacity to come.  (6) The thing they needed was
to be drawn of God. But the very idea of drawing implies that
they had the power and lacked only the inducement, the persuasion
— which is equivalent to saying that they were entirely able if only
they had chosen to do so.  (c) Yet more conclusive is the expla
nation of this drawing which Jesus himself subjoins, viz., that it
consists in being " taught of God." So v. 45 shows decisively.
But being taught applies only to intelligent mind ; not here to un
intelligent matter. It contemplates moral action under the power
of truth, and not any change wrought by creative energy or by
force applied to matter. If a man can not come without being
drawn, and the drawing consists in being taught of God, we come
to the root of the difficulty when we raise the question — Why can
not men be " taught of God " ? Why do they not receive his in
struction, and why do they not obey it? Plainly, not for want
of mental capacity ; not because of idiocy ; not by reason of any
can not which takes away blameworthiness ; not for any incapac
ity which lies beyond the range of their voluntary control. " Ye
will not come to me that ye may have life," tells the simple and
the whole truth in the case.
V. 46 seems designed to guard the Jews against supposing that
the " being taught of God " of which be spake (quoting from Isa.
54 : 13) implied seeing him. No one had seen the Father save

GOSPEL OF JOHN.— CHAP. VL 115
the Son who came down from heaven — a state in whioh ho was
near God.*
47. Verily, verily, I say unto you. He that believeth on
me hath everlasting life.
48. I am that bread of life.
49. Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and
are dead.
50. This is the bread which cometh down from heaven,
that a man may eat thereof, and not die.
In the usual form of solemn emphasis with which Jesus is
wont to propound new and momentous truths, lie declares — " He
that believeth hath everlasting life : I am that bread of life." 
There is more force (he would say to those Jews) in your own al
lusion to the manna than yourselves altogether apprehended.
Your fathers did indeed eat manna in the wilderness, and died —
died, alas ! but too soon ; died, many at least of them, before their
time. But all unlike that manna-bread is this whioh came from
the real heaven, of which it will be universally and forever true
that whoever eats of it shall not die.
51 . I am the living bread which came down from heaven :
if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever : and the
bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the
life of the world.
"I am the living" (in the sense of life-giving) "bread." The
whole course of thought demands the sense life-giving.  The
better text in the middle clause is — not " this bread ; " but my
bread.  In the last clause we have yet another advance in the
figure. Having said repeatedly — "I am the bread of life," he
here advances to the more definite statement — " The bread that
I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world."
The true and full significance of these words should be carefully
studied. They are reiterated and somewhat explained below.
52. Tlie Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying,
How can this man give us his flesh to eat ?
53. Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto
you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink
his blood, ye have no life in you.
54. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh ray blood, hath
eternal life ; and I will raise him up at the last day.
55. For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink
indeed. -» Greek, napa rov Bsov. The moro approved reading makes the last
clause — " he hath seen God."

116 GOSPEL OF JOHN.— CHAP. VI.
56. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood,
dwelleth in me, aud I in hira.
57. As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the
Father ; so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.
58. 'This is that bread which came down from heaven :
not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead : he that
eateth of this bread shall live for ever.
59. -These things said he in the synagogue, as he taught
in Capernaum.
This advanced doctrine sprung a fresh debate among the Jews ;
they could not understand how thia man could " give them hia
flesh to eat."  Jesus replies— not retracting a word he had said;
not toning down his strong language, but reaffirming and expand
ing with some explanatory statements: Ye must absolutely eat
the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, or ye can have
no life in you. Every man who thus eats and drinks has eternal
life, and I will raise him up, saved, at the last day — every such
man, and no other. For my flesh is real food for human souls —
the food that restores and gives enduring life to souls dead in sin.
Then vs. 56, 57, add somewhat in the nature of explanation.
" Dwelling in me and I in him " involves and expresses the most
intimate relationship — a perfect communion and fellowship. Let
it be also carefully noted that these words must rule out the
whole realm of matter — must exclude all reference to flesh and
body in the material sense as to be eaten literally. For if "I iu
him " means that the flesh of Jesus passes by being eaten and di
gested, into the flesh, the real body of his people; then, on the
other hand, " dwelling in me " must also mean that the flesh of
the believer goes in like manner into th« material body of Christ.
Why not?  We are therefore driven from the material to the
spiritual sense of this figure.  To the same construction we are
brought also by v. 57, which gives the analogy between Christ's
relation to hia Father, and the relation of his people to himself.
" As I live " (said Jesus) " by the Father," drawing my life from
the Father — so " he that eateth me shall live by me." But the life
which Jesus draws from the Father can not for a moment be
thought of as in any sort the product of material bread — is not
the sort of life in which our bodies are sustained by digesting
bread.  Let it also be noted that Jesus subsequently affirms
thia construction (v. 63) iri the words: — "It is the Spirit that
quickeneth " (giveth life) ; " the fiesh profiteth nothing.' I have
never meant to say that the flesh of my body giveth life to those
that eat it in the same sense in which bread sustains life in hu
man bodies. No; I am thinking only of the truth I teach, the
sense of the words I speak — as giving life to human souls.
In pressing the figure of himself as the bread of life, to the ex
tent of eating his flesh and drinking his blood, Jesus must (it
would seem) have had reference to his sacrificial death on the

GOSPEL OF JOHN.— CHAP. VI. 117
cross. _ His own institution — the holy supper — warrants this con
struction of his words iu this chapter. He meant to lead the
thought of hia disciples forward to that atoning death, aud to
teach them that his power to give spiritual life to their souls oame
iu a measure through his laying down his life as the Lamb of
Sacrifice. It was in this point of view that his blood as well as
his flesh enters into the redemption of his people.  May we
not also assume a pushing forward of the analogy of digestion
as an agency for the material lifo of the body, to illustrate the
agency whereby Jesus brings spiritual life to human souls ? In
this spiritual realm his fiesh and blood are represented (v. 63) by
" the words I speak unto you wliich are spirit and life." Words,
inwardly digested, feed the soul, as bread properly digested, feeds
the body. The spiritual power of the ordinance of the supper is
altogether of fhe same sort — not the bread eaten feeding the body,
but the truth suggested and illustrated feeding the soul.
A freshened sense of the importance of a thorough and clear
exposition of this chapter comes over me as I read the comments
of such a critic as Dean Alford. He maintains strenuously that
these words of Christ can not take effect — that Christ can not be
come the bread of life to his people, so that the aense of these
words shaU be realized in Christian experience until after his
resurrection, because it is Christ's resurrection body, and that only
which his people eat. These are Alford's words : " His (Christ's)
flesh is the glorified substance of his resurrection body, now at
the right hand of God." , "It is then in his resurrection form
only that his flesh can be eaten and be living food for living
men." "It is only through or after the deaih of the Lord that
by any propriety of language his flesh could be said to be eaten."
['The italics in the above quotations are his.]  Again: "To
eat the flesh of Christ is to realize in our inner life the mystery
of his body now in heaven — to digest and assimilate our own por
tion in that body."  So of the blood. Hia view as to both the
flesh and the blood of Christ he brings out in this remarkable
statement: — "The eating of his flesh and drinking of his blood
import the making to ouyaelves and the using, aa objectively real,
those two great truths of our redemption in Him of which our
faith subjectively convinces us."  And as if to carry his mysti
cism to its perfection, he maintains elaborately that the world
[kosmos] is to have life through Christ's body, and says — " The
very existence of all the created world is owing to and held to
gether by that resurrection body of the Lord." [But was not the
world created quite a while before the resurrection body of the
Lord came into being ?]
Now let the reader inquire soberly, What can be the meaning
ofall thia? Is it that Christ's resurrection body is to be eaten
aa men eat the fleah of animals for dinner? If so, when and
where? Is it here and now? or only after we have our resur
rection bodies? If here aud now, is this eating a fact cognizant
6

118 GOSPEL OF JOHN.— CHAP. VI.
to our senses, or even to our consciousness? When Christs res
urrection body is eaten and digested by the. believer, does the
portion of that body, so eaten and digested, cease to be a part of
Christ's body, and become a constituent portion of the saint's
body? And again — Is this eating of Christ's resurrection body
an essential condition of salvation? If so, how were the ancient
saints saved who lived and died before Christ's resurrection? 
Does not this whole system of Alford's utterly ignore those quali
fying, explanatory worda of Jesus — " It is the Spirit that quick
eneth ; the flesh profiteth nothing. The words that I speak unto
you, they are spirit and they are life " (v. 63) ? Does it not also
violate and render nugatory the analogy (put in v. 57) between
Christ's living by the Father and the believer's living by Christ?
Is it not absurd and revolting to our common sense to assume a
material or physical eating as the mode by which Christ derives
life from the Father?
Thia entire scheme of interpretation put forward by Dean Al
ford, I must regard as mystical in the bad and dangerous sense,
as entirely misleading, and as exclusive of the true and whole
some sense of Christ's words.
Far more simple, more sensible, more scriptural in every bear
ing, is this construction (as above given), viz: That the bread,
miraculously multiplied for five thousand men, suggested to the
Jews the manna of the desert. Following out this suggestion
Jesus said — That bread was not from the real heaven; it did not
impart enduring life; those who ate it died fearfully soon. I
give you the real bread from heaven. I am the bread of life.
Receiving me by faith ye live forever. And to make the analogy
more forcible he pushes it yet further ; — My flesh I give for the life
of the world. Men must eat my flesh and drink my blood to
gain eternal life — said with an eye to his sacrificial death as pro
viding the means and agencies for the life of man. Dying he
made atonement for sin, and thus made pardon possible and sal
vation sure to all who believe. His death, moreover, evolved the
great moral forces which reach men's hearts and subdue them to
penitence, gratitude, and love.-  The bread and wine of the
supper set forth in symbol the precise significance of these
verses.  This construction of " eating the flesh of the Son of
man" is sustained against all other constructions, and especially
against the mystical one of Alford, by the explanations and an
alogies supplied by Jesua himself, as in vs. 56, 57, 63. No rule
of interpretation is more reasonable or more imperjitive than
this — that Jesus should be allowed to interpret his own words;
and that we are bound to take his interpretation.
60. Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard
this, said. This is a -hard saying; who can hear it?
61. When Jesus 'knew in himself that his disciples mur
mured at it, he said unto them. Doth this ofl^end you?

GOSPEL OF JOHN.— CHAP. VI. 119
62. [Vliat and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up
where he was before ?
63. It is the Spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth
nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit,
and they are life.
Some who had previously been regarded as his disciples stum
bled at these teachings and murmured. "This," said they, "is a
hard saying" — hard in the sense of repulsive, unacceptable, such
as we can not receive.  ^What was precisely the point upon which
they stumbled? Was it that he said — "No man can come to me
except the Father draw him" ? There is nothing in this chapter
which indicates offense at this.  Was it what he said of "eat
ing his flesh " ? This was one of the hard sayings over which the
.lews strove among themselves, as appears v. 52. And this seems
to have been the head and front of the offense. It involved a
Messiah suffering and dying — not as they construed it, conquer
ing, reigning; and therefore it ran counter to all their cherished
notions of their nation's Deliverer. His work as thus set forth
made no account of the worldly greatness they aspired to, but
utmost account of that spiritual life, in purity and love, for which
they had no aspirations. Hence they said in their hearts — We
are disappointed in this man; he meets none of our cherished
hopes; why should we follow him longer? Jesus said (v. 64)
that they "believed not" — i. e. did not accept him as the prom
ised Messiah.
In V. 62 the Greek, literally translated, would read— "If then
ye should see the Son of man ascend where he was before" —
leaving the real question. What then? to be supplied. The
bearing of this is plain. The visible ascension of Jesus to the
Father was ere long to take place; some human eyes would see
it: What would ye think of it if it should transpire before your
very eyes ? This future fact would carry with it a certain power
of demonstration. Our Lord fitly refers to it in this way as one
of the proofs yet to be revealed of his real Messiahship.
Suddenly dropping that point, he seeks (v. 63) to remove the
offense from before them by turning their minds from their gross
literalism to the just view of what he had said as to eating his
flesh. It is only the spirit — not at all the flesh — which gives men
real life, and by which I become to men "the bread of life." It
is in the worda I speak — not in the literal flesh supposably eaten
by human teeth — ^that this power of life for men resides.
It deserves remark here that this flgure of "eating" (as ap
plied to Christ's flesh) was far more m harmony with Jewish
than with modern ideas and usage, and therefore more readily
intelligible to them than to ua. They could say (as in Jer. 15 :
16) " Thy words were found, and I did eat them :" or (Ezek 3:1)
" Son of man, eat that thou findest; eat thia roll;" also (Isa. 55 :
1) "Come ye, buy and eat; yea come, buy wine .and milk with-

120 GOSPEL OF JOHN.— CHAP. VI.
out money and without price.'' "The wick*^^ eat the fruit of
their own way,'' etc.
64. But there are sorae of you that believe not. For Je
sus knew from the beginning who they were that believed
not, and who should betray him.
65. And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man
can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my
Father. Jesus saw in their heart the root of all this trouble — the true
occasion of this sad stumbling. There were some amonghis pro
fessed disciples who did not heartily believe on him. Some, we
know not how many, seem to have followed him up to this hour,
but left him here. It was with an eye to their case that Jesus had
aaid (as above) — ¦" No man can come to me except it were given
unto him of my Father." These apostates had not been "taught
of God ; " they had never sought^— had never accepted the teach
ing that comes from God through the Spirit. Their supposed
conversion had been without God, no hand of God being in it.
Their motive and spirit had been wholly of the earth, earthy.
66. From that time many of his disciples went back, and
walked no more with him.
67. Then said Jesus unto the twelve, WiU ye also go
away? 68. Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall
we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.
69. And we believe and are sure that thou art that
Christ, the Son of the living God.
Was it because so many turned back at this point that Jesus
said — as if feeling almost utterly forsaken — ""Will ye also go
away ? " Or was it rather to draw out from them this grateful tea
timony to their fidelity ?  ^Be this as it may, Simon Peter is
always prompt and ready. Go away from Thee ? Go where ? To
whom else could we go, or should we ? " Thou hast the worda
of eternal life." There can be no higher Teacher — none better.
Thy words are unto life eternal. We accept — we love them. We
want no other.  Moreover, " we know ihee."  ^Peter's words
according to the beat text were — " We have believed and have
known that Thou art the Holy One of God." The reading in our
English Bible is supposed to have come from Matt. 16: 16 — the
tr.anscriber assuming that Peter must have used the same expres
sion here as there.  The coincidence of this language with that
of the demoniac as in Mark 1 : 24 and Luke 4 : 34 is remarkable.
 The Sinaitic and Vatican manuscripts concur in this read
ing — "the Holy One of God" — beautifully brief and expressive.
70. Jesus answered them. Have not I chosen you twelve,
and one of you is a devil ?

GOSPEL OF JOHN.— CHAP. VII. 121
71. He spake of Judas Iscariot the son of Simon: for he
it was that should betray him, being one of the twelve.
Even of you, " one is adevil" — said of Judas Iscariot, the traitor
whose heart was bare before the eye of Jesus. "A devil," in the
sense of being a ready instrument for Satan's work; temptible, and
sure when the occasion came, to fall before Satan's temptation and
betray his master.
If the question be raised — Why did .lesus choose one Judas into
the number of the twelve ? we may not see all the reasons, yet ¦\^¦e
may perhaps conjecture some of them. We may at least suggest
that the testimony of this traitor — "I have betrayed innocent
blood" — served to supplement and fill out to perfection the proof
that Jesus was honest and sincere. Judas had been with him in
his daily life, present in his consultations ; conversant with his
most secret plans, so that if there had been another side to his
character — an inner side known only to his chosen associates —
here was the mau to divulge it — a mau who had not merely the
.ability but every inducement, in order to justify hia treason to
himself and to mankind. In the. hour of crisis not a word had he
to say in self-justification — not a word of teatimony against Jesus
to give the court and the prosecution who were seeking testimony
with untiring zeal ; but on the contrary, stung with remorse, he
cried, " I have sinned in that I have betrayed the innocent
blood!" Moreover inasmuch as very many, not to say most of the local
churches of Christ will have one or more, members of the charac
ter of Judas, there may lie in this fact a reason why Jesus should
submit to the trials of such a condition, that his people through
all time might see that he was tempted in all points as we are, and
knows how to sympathize with and succor his people in every
need.

CHAPTER VII.
The converaations and scenes of this chapter occurred in the
temple iu .lerusalem at the feast of tabernacles. First is the dia-
cussiou between himself and his lineal brethren as to his going
up to the feast (va. 1-10) ; then the general inquiry among the
Jews as to his character and claims (vs. 10-13); nis teachings in
the temple and the discuaaiou which followed (vs. 14-20) ; renewed
discussion over the healing of the impotent man at Bethesda
(vs. 21-24): persecution excited afresh by the men of Jerusalem
(vs. 25-31) : officers are deputed to arrest him and the ensuing con
versation (vs. 32-36) ; the public announcement by Jesus on the
great day of the feast and the diverse opinions among the people

122 GOSPEL OF JOHN.— CHAP. VIL
(vs. 37-44) ; the officers failing to arrest himr^ake their official
returns and a fierce debate ensues (vs. 45-52).
1. After these things Jesus walked in Galilee: for he
would not walk in Jewry, because the Jews sought to kill
him. 2. Now the Jews' feast of tabernacles was at hand.
3. His brethren therefore said unto him. Depart hence,
and go into Judea, that thy disciples also may see the works
that thou doest.
4. For there is no man that doeth any thing in secret, and
he himself seeketh to be known openly. If thou do these
things, shew thyself to the world.
5. For neither did his brethren believe in him.
"Walked" — traversing the country from place to place aa the
Greek word implies, preaching and healing.  "Jewry" —
another name for Judea which is the Greek word here. No rea
son appears for using this word rather than Judea unless it be
to indicate it as the special residence of Jews.  Jesus knew
that the Jews were incensed against him, plotting his death; and
shaped his movements accordingly,  At this point in his min
istry his lineal brethren had not believed in him as the nation's
Messiah. They professed not to understand why he should be so
retiring and so averse to publicity. " Go up," said they, to Jeru
salem ; perform miracles in the presence of the people who are
willing to hear thy instructions ; for surely, one who claims to be
the nation's Messiah, and whose busineaa therefore it should be to
make himself known, ought not to work only in secret.  They
seem to imply that this policy must disparage his claims. The
historian (v. 5) accounts for their words by saying that as yet
they did not believe on him.
6. Then Jesus said unto them. My tirae is not yet come :
but your time is always ready.
7. The world can not hate you ; but me it hateth, because
I testify of it, that the works thereof are evil.
8. Go ye up unto this feast : I go not up yet unto this feast ;
for my time is not yet full come.
9. When he had said these words unto them, he abode
still in Galilee.
10. But when his brethren were gone up, then went he
also up unto the feast, not openly, but as it were in secret.
My time for the publicity you insist upon ia not yet; I know my
work and its obstacles ; I understand what wisdom and prudence
demand. Ye have no occasion for such caution ; ye have never
incurred the hatred of bad men by faithfully rebuking their sins.
At first view it may appear to some readers that Jesus fell short

GOSPEL OF JOHN.— CHAP. VII. 123
of entire frankness, not to say truth with those brethren in first
saying--" I go not up to this feast; " and afterwards in going.
Must this be regarded as duplicity ? — On thia point let it be noted :
— (a.) Jesus did not say, I am not going at all; but I am not going
noio — using the present tense. He left it an open question whether
he should go at some later time if it should seem to him best. 
(6.) It is supposable that his eye was specially upon the public
manner of going up which his brethren advised ; and that therefore
he meant to say — I can not go in the way ye recommend and
demand. If 1 go it must be in a much more private way — as the
historian is careful to say (v. 10) that he actually went.  (c.)
May it not be said that a remarkable consciousness of integrity is
manifest both in the words of Jesus and in the fidelity of the his
torian — in that the statements are so unguarded, as if there were
no fear or thought that any one would suspect duplicity. There
is no studied attempt to avoid the appearance of it.
11. Then the Jews sought him at the feast, and said,
Where is he ?
12. And there was much murmuring among the people
concerning him : for sorae said. He is a good man : others
said, Nay ; but he deceiveth the people.
13. Howbeit no man spake openly of hira for fear of the
Jews. The public mind was profoundly moved with the question of
the claims of Jesus.  This "murmuring" was not in the sense
of complaining, fault-finding ; but rather of whispering, talking in
an under-tone. It contemplates the talk as heard by a listener —
a buzzing sound. Those men feared to speak openly lest they
should incur the suspicion or the wrath of the Jewish leaders —
already furious against Jesua.  The " Jewa" in such a connec
tion are the members of their Great Council with the leading
Scribes aud Pharisees in their sympathy.  Noticeably, the
primary and pivotal question was that of moral character — Is he
a good man ; or is he a deceiver of the people? For if Jesus were
a thoroughly good man with none but honest intentions, he must
be the long promised Messiah ; since it was not even supposable
that he was himself mistaken as to his being sent of God, taught
of God, and indorsed of God by receiving from him the miracle-
working power.
14. Now about the midst of the feast Jesus went up into
the temple and taught.
15. And the Jews marveled, saying, How knoweth this
man letters, having never learned ?
16. Jesus answered them, and said, My doctrine is not
mine, but his that sent me.
17. If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doc
trine, whether it be of God, or ivhether I speak of myself.

124 GOSPEL OF JOHN.— CHAP. VIL
18. He that speaketh of himself seeketh his own glory :
but he that seeketh his glory that sent him, the same is true,
and no unrighteousness is in hira.
This feast was held eight days, half of which had past before
Jesus appeared in the temple. His time had come for a more
open manifestation of himself and of hia claims. — "The .Tews " —
the same parties as above (v. 13) marveled at his knowledge of
their scriptures, for they knew he had not been, trained in their
schools — had never sat at the feet of their Gamaliels. They could
not comprehend how one could get so much knowledge of this
sort anywhere else.-  It is highly probable that this discourse
was mainly an exposition of the Old Testament Scriptures, especi
ally of the prophecies concerning the Messiah like that in the syna
gogue at Nazareth (Luke 4 : 16-22). For the time had then come
for such a discourse in the temple, and this supposition well accounts
for their expressed surprise at his knowledge of their books — ¦
["grammata"].  Jesus replies; What I teach is not original
with me but comes from him who sent me. These prophecies
which I have been expounding are God's own words ; all I teach
comes from him. Thia answers your question — How knoweth
tills man the things of our Scriptures ?
" If a man will do his will " (as given in our English) is too tame
and weak. The word "will" inthe phrase "will do" is not a future
tense but a verb — full of force ; if one has a ivill to do God's pleas
ure, if he sets his heart upon it and solemnly purposes to do all
God's known will and nothing else or other, then God will teach
him concerning me and my doctrine whether it be from God, or
whether I speak out of my own heart only, with no message from
God. This IS the old doctrine ; — " The meek will he guide in judg
ment; the meek -ivill he teach his way" (Ps. 25: 9). The docile
and obedient God loves to lead on into all truth. He sends his'
Spirit on this very mission, to do this very work.-  This princi
ple gives the great secret of learning the truth of God. It shows
what attitude of mind ahd state of heart toward God will insure
his divine guidance, and consequently, lead into all vitally impor
tant truth.  In the phrase (v. 17, 18) " speaketh of himself ' — •
" of" is not in the sense of concerning but rather — out of- — out of
hia own heart as opposed to speaking what ia given him by and
from God. If Jesus had spoken so it would have been seeking his
own glory, whereas in fact he sought only the glory of God who
sent him and thus proved himself a irue man and no impostor.
19. Did not Moses give you the law, and yet none of you
keepeth the law? Why go ye about to kill me?
20. The people answered and said, Thou hast a devil: who
goeth about to kill thee?
Christ's appeal in this way to Moses and the law was specially-
pertinent to them because they gloried in being his professed fol-

GOSPEL OF JOHN.— CHAP. VII. 125
lowers — above all other students or teachers of his law. But Jesus
puts it to their conscience — "None of you keepeth the law" — for
that law describes myself as the great prophet to be sent of God ;
yet ye not only reject me but seek my life.  The people answer —
"Thou hast a devil." They did not say diabolos, aa is said of Judas
(0 : 70), but "daimonion" — a demon spirit, which they meant to
say possessed him — perhaps in their view the real author of the
words he spoke and of the deeds he wrought. Could the infatua
tion of moral blindness farther go ?  " Who goeth about to kill
thee " ? as if they were supremely innocent of any such purpose
and had never heard even a whisper thereof I ' Apparently they
did not see the way open yet to strike and therefore deliberately
lied to keep dark for yet a season longer.
21. Jesus answered and said unto them, I have done one
work, and ye all marvel.
22. Moses therefore gave unto you circumcision ; (not
because it is of Moses, but of the fathers;) and ye on the
sabbath day circumcise a man.
23. If a man on the sabbath day receive circumcision,
that the law of Moses should not be broken ; are ye angry
at me, because I liave made a man every whit whole on the
sabbath day?
24. Judge not according to the appearance, but judge right
eous judgment.
The "one work" referred to was the healing of the impotent
man at the pool of Bethesda, -which, it should be remembered,
occurred at Jerusalem, aa also the long discourse which ensued
(as in John 5). Here Jesus resumes that discussion with a fresh
argument, viz, that the law of circumcision, which like the Sab
bath was older than Moses, required the infant to be circumcised
on its eighth day, and this was done even though the day was the
Sabbath. Should they then be angry at him for making a man
entirely whole on the Sabbath? "Was the sacredness of the day
more violated by what he had done than by what they were
often doing in the act of circumcision ? Was not healing a poor
cripple as good a work and as needful aa the circumcision of a
babe eight days old? "Judge not" (says he) upon the merely
surface view, but according to intrinsic righteousness.
25. Then said some of them of Jerusalem, Is not this he,
whom they seek to kill ?
26. But, lo,'he speaketh boldly, and they say nothing unto
him. Do the rulers know indeed that this is the very
Christ? "The men of Jerusalem" lead off, more virulent against Jesus
than any others. Living at the central, focal point of Pharisaism,
they had (as they felt it) more and deeper interests at stake than

126 GOSPEL OF JOHN.— CHAP. VIL
any other Jews.  Is not this the man, said they, who has been
found worthy of death for both Sabbath breaking and blasphemy ?
(John 5 : 18). Why do they let him go on thus in bold and pub
lic speech misleading the people ? Do the rulers know that this
is the very Christ? Of course this, in their thought, is an im
possible supposition, put only for effect. It amounts to a chal
lenge to those rulers to repel the taunt and clear themselves of
the suspicion of being disciples of the supposed Nazarene.
27. Howbeit we know this man whence he is : but when
Christ cometh, no man knoweth whence he is.
28. Then cried Jesus in the temple as he taught, saying,
Ye both know me, and ye know whence I am : and I am
not come of myself, but he that sent me is true, whom ye
know not.
29. But I know him; for I am from him, and he hath
sent me.
It does not appear on what ground they aasumed that the Mes
siah must come from some unknown quarter. In fact the proph
ecy of Micah (5 : 2) had indicated hia birth-place very definitely —
Bethlehem. Yet it ia not certain that they knew of his birth
there.  In saying-;-" Ye know me and know whence I am,"
Jesus, no doubt, meant to rebut their argument against his Mes
siahship — viz, that his origin was unknown. He meant to say —
Ye know enough of me and of my mission from God to demand
your belief. Your skepticism has no valid foundation. Your
plea — ^We do not know his credentials — is false and unavailing.
Ye know I have not come of my own motion. Ye know I am
sent of God, though ye are far from knowing God in the deep
spiritual sense in which I know him.
30. Then they sought to take him : but no man laid hands
on him, because his hour was not yet come.
31. And many of the people believed on him, and said,
When Christ cometh, wiU he do more miracles than these
which this man hath done?
Infuriated by such plain rebuke and such exposure of their fal
lacies, they sought to seize him. Precisely how they were pre
vented is not apparent. Perhaps the masses were not ripe for
it and would not sustain or even permit his violent arrest. This
is made probable by the remark that "many of the people then
believed on him." With much good sense they reasoned that the
real Messiah should not be expected to work more miracles than
this man had wrought.
32. The Pharisees heard that the people murmured such
things concerning him; and the Pharisees and the chief
priests sent officers to take him.

GOSPEL OF JOHN.— CHAP. VIL 127
33. Then said Jesus unto them, Yet a little while am I
with you, and then I go unto hira that sent rae.
34. Ye shall seek me, and shall not find me: and where I
am, thither ye cannot come.
35. Then said the Jews among theraselves. Whither will
he go, that we shall not find him? will he go untp the dis
persed among the Gentiles, and teach the Gentiles ?
36. What manner of saying is this that he said, Ye shall
seek me, and shall not find me: and where I am, thither ye
cannot come ?
The Pharisees heard of this talking in under-tone among the
people, and forthwith commissioned a band of officers to arrest
him.  The manner in which Jesus met them is characteristic.
With quiet yet solemn, impressive dignity; unawed by their au
thority; fearless of their violence; he said — "I have a little
longer yet to remain among you ; all your threats of violence and
attempte at arrest will not shorten this hour. When my time
comes, I shall go to him that sent me, and ye will seek me then
in vain."  The spirit of these worda appeara again in what Je
sus said to Pilate ; " Thou couldest have no power at all against
me except it were given thee from above ; therefore he that de
livered me unto thee hath .the greater sin " (John 19 : 11). I am
under the care of Almighty God ; ye can do nothing more or
worse than his wisdom permits. He will soon take me safely to
himself; your wrath against me will be utterly futile.  In their
speculations as to the sense of his words, they scornfully taunt
him with perhaps thinking of going abroad to preach to Gentiles
and to Jews exiled in other lands among despised outsiders. Yet
they could not quite fathom his meaning to their own satisfaction.
His words would lie heavy and hard upon their souls. Could
it be that this man was really as safe under God's care as he
seemed ?
37. In the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus
stood and cried, saying. If any man thirst, let him corae
unto me, and drink.
38. He that believeth on me, as the Scripture hath said,
out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.
39. (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that be
lieve on him should receive : for the Holy Ghost was not yet
given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)
It is generally held that this last and great day of the feast was
the eighth, and that this proclamation of Jesus may have been
suggested by the Jewish custom of having water borne on that
day in joyful procession from the pool of Siloam and poured out be
fore the Lord. Some, however, hold that the water was not
brought, in at this time, yet that even this failure may have been

128 GOSPEL OF JOHN.— CHAP. VIL
suggestive — as if Jesus would say fo the expeotftnt, waiting, but
disappointed people — ^Look rather to me ! If any man thirst, let
him come unto me — ^not go to the waters of Siloam — and in me
find the true waters of life. However the case may be as to Jew
ish usage on this last great day, there can be no question that Je
sus had his eye somewhat upon the words of ancient Scripture —
" With joy shall ye draw water out of the wells of salvation"
(Is.i. 12: 3); "I will pour water on him that is thirsty and
floods upon the dry ground."  "I will pour my Spirit
upon thy seed and my blessing upon thy offspring ' (Isa. 44 : 3) ;
" Ho, every one that thirsteth ; come ye to the waters " (Isa. 55 :
1) — with pasaagea of kindred import in Joel and Zechariah (Joel
2: 28, 29, and 3: 18; Zech. 13 : land 14: 8).
In regard to the apecific reference in v. 38 — "As the scripture
hath said "¦ — we fail to find precisely these words in the Old 'Testa
ment scriptures. Yet taking into view the New Testament usage
by which the human body is spoken of as "the temple of the
Holy Ghost," we find the symbol naturally corresponding to the
Savior's words in Ezekiel 47 : 1-12, where rivers of living water
flow out from under the spiritual figurative temple. As this pas
sage in Ezekiel beyond a doubt looks toward the effusions of the
Spirit in the gospel age, it seems to meet the conditions of our
Savior's allusion — " As the scripture hath said, out of his belly
shall flow rivers of living water." The historian (John) seems
aware that these worda of Jeaua (vs. 37, 38) might be obscure, es
pecially to his contemplated Gentile readers — less familiar than
Jews with the Old Testament prophetic scriptures (as above quo
ted), and therefore subjoins the explanation in v. 39, viz. that. Je
sus referred to the gift of the Spirit, then shortly to 'be shed forth
abundantly, as Isaiah, Joel, and Zechariah had foretold. He
makea it a special point that this gift of the Spirit in its extraor
dinary fullness was yet future though near; "not yet given, be
cause that Jesus was not yet glorified." The scriptures show
clearly that thia being " glorified" involved hia resurrection from
the dead, and referred specially to his ascension in his risen
body, and hia public exaltation to the throne of heaven in equal
honor with the Father — " high above all principalities and powers
in the heavenly places" (Eph. 1: 20, 21). The apostles are joy
fully emphatic on the point of this exaltation, and of its being
followed at once by the signal outpouring of the Spirit. Earliest
in time 'is Peter's testimony on the day of Pentecost: "This Je
sus hath God raised up ; " " Being therefore by the right hand of
God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of
the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth thia which ye now see and
hear" (Acts 2: 33). Compare also Acts 5: 31.
In this connection let us recall the remarkably full instructions
respeotingthe mission and work of "the Spirit of truth" — the
Comforter — which Jesua gave his disciples on the evening before
his arrest — as in John 14: 16-18, and 15: 26, and 16: 7-15. In
view of the fullness and richness of these words, they might seem

GOSPEL OF JOHN.— CHAP. VIL 129
almost a new revelation. — ^Luke ia definite on the point that Je
sus in repeating the promise of this gift from the Father bade his
disciples "tarry in Jerusalem till they were endued with power
from on high" (Luke 24: 49, and Acts 1: 4, 8). Obeying this
command, they waited and prayed — "all continuing with one ac
cord in prayer and supplication" " until the day of Pentecost had
fully come ; " then " a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty
wind" gave token of the Spirit's coming.
As to the divine philosophy of this arrangement — the reason
why this great gift of the Spirit — delayed through all the ages be
fore the Messiah came ; kept iu waiting till after his earthly min
istry had been finished,- and his death on the cross had trans
pired, and u.p to the very point of his ascension and enthrone
ment iu the highest heavens ;— we can not mistake widely in ita
- solution.  -On the earthward side of the case, it was fitting that
the great facts and truths which the teaching Spirit would make
mighty through his power for the salvation of lost men should
be oui — patent — ready to be witnessed unto by his chosen apos
tles, before the great work of the Spirit should commence. As
the age of the world, beginning with Christ's advent and fully in
augurated at his ascension, was to be pre-eminently the dispensa
tion of the Spirit, it w.aa well it should open with impressive
manifestations, at once illustrative of his nature, and inspiring to
God's people through all the onward centuriea.
On the heavenward side it may not be amiss to consider that
Jeaus as incarnate had not been seen in heaven — manifest to the
view of its glorious hierarchies of angels and seraphim before.
It was fit that his coming should be a marked event— that his in
auguration should be (may we say) an high day in the heavenly
-world — that infinite honor should be conferred on him who
throughout his earthly life had been " despised of men " — a glor
ious testimony to the loving appreciation in which he was held
by the Infinite Father.
The great gift of the Spirit at this eventful hour witnesseth
that this was the highest favor Jesus chose to ask, more dear to
hia heart than all others. It came before the universe as tho
Father's indorsement of the scheme of salvation to which the
Son was fully committed: it testified that henceforth the whole
Deify — every perfection and power of the Triune God — Father,
Son, and Spirit — are at one in working for this sublime consum
mation — the redemption of the world to Christ. _ It was deserved
honor to' the Mighty Conqueror who had vanquished Satan and
all his powers of darkness. The scene suggested to Paul the
Roman triumph whioh the Senate of Rome was wont to grant to
her grandest conquerors when they returned to her proud capital
with the spoils of vanquished nations. With this triumph in his
oye as an illustration, he wrote — " When he [Jesus] ascended up
on high, he led his captives captive," i. e. gracing hia triumphal
march as he entered the glorious city of God; and " gave gifts to
men "  rewards of honor to his valiant and faithful soldiers.

130 GOSPEL OF JOHN.— CHAP. VIL
These gifts Paul enumerates — " Apostles, prop^ta, evangelists,
pastors, teachers " — " for the perfecting of the saints," etc.— all to
be specially imbued with gifts of the Spirit. (Eph. 4 : 8-12). 
When the incarnate Son took his place visibly on the throne of
heaven to administer the reign of grace over this fallen but re
deemed world, it was supremely appropriate to signalize the open
ing of his administration by very special effusions of the Spirit.
The hosts of the heavenly world were then able to understand
the grounds and reasons of this honor paid to the Son, and of
this power lodged in his hands.
Returning to contemplate the words in vs. 37, 38, as part of
the human history of the man of Nazareth, let us think of their
bearing upon a question we often ask — Did Jesus place himself
before the thousands of his countrymen as truly their promised
ilessiah ?  The records of his public life speak of him mostly
as being in remote Galilee, traversing cities and villages, heal
ing the sick ; casting out devils ; teaching his disciples ; occa
sionally, yet rarely, drawing about him and after him large
crowds of people ; — but not often in Jerusalem, and only on few
occasions becoming conspicuous at the great annual festivals of
the nation. But in this chapter we see him in the temple on the
great day of their most joyous festival; the thousands of Israel
are gathered there; and his time has fully come to announce
hiraself as their Redeemer and Messiah. "He stood and cried';"
taking his stand conspicuously in the presence of the multitude,
he lifted up his voice as one who had an important message to
proclaim, and a right to be heard ; and then and there, in words
, chosen from their well known prophetic scriptures, he declared —
I come to fulfill in myself those munificent promiaes. I come to
give the waters' of salvation to every thirsty and believing soul.
If any man thirsts, let him come unto me and drink. The wa
ters 1 give shall be an unfailing fountain in his soul; a well of
water springing up unto everlasting life; "rivers of living water,"
flowing out in blessings to others if so they will — never to fail. 
What better words could he have spoken to place himself before
the people as their own Messiah? 'What one feature in the scene
could be changed or what new feature added to make the whole
more impressive, more majestic, more tender, and yet more sub
lime? 40. Many of the people therefore, when they heard this
saying, said. Of a truth this is the Prophet.
41. Others said, This is the Christ. But some said. Shall
Christ come out of Galilee ?
42. Hath not the Scripture said, That Christ cometh of
the seed of David, and out of the town of Bethlehem, where
David was ?
43. So there was a division among the people because of
him. '«!»

GOSPEL OF JOHN.— CHAP. Vll. 131
Naturally the people were impressed. Probably the officers,
with writ of arrest in hand, were within hearing, awed by the
majesty and touched by the tenderness of thia strange man and
message, to say — " Never man spake like this man." Of the
people some declared — This must be the great prophet; others,
This is the Christ; while yet others stumbled over his supposed
Galilean origin, inasmuch as the prophet Micah had distinctly
located the birth of their nation's Deliverer in Bethlehem — the
second David coming from the same town as the first.
44. And some of them would have taken him, but no
man laid hands on hira.
"Some would have taken him." — Strangely dead to the sweet
ness and glory of these words of life ; repelled by the purity and
goodness which made their own moral ugliness unendurable : but
they were too few to carry their measures against the greater
number who admired and sustained; — so that no man laid hands
on him. It is pl.ain that in a fair field, when Jesus spake in
sweetness and majesty before the people, he had the hearts of
too many to permit the small and malignant minority to resort
to violence. Hence the necessity of treachery and betrayal iu
order to arrest him in the absence of the multitude.
45. Then carae the oflicers to the chief priests and Phar
isees ; and they said unto them, Why have ye not brought
him? 46. The officers answered, Never man spake like this man.
The officers commissioned to arrest him return their writ —
the service it required being impracticable.
"Why did ye not bring the culprit before us?"
"Never man spake like this man." Did they mean to say —
We can not find it in our hearts to toUch him? Or only this:
The people will not let us ? Perhaps, nay probably, both. The
officers make no further reply.
47. Then answered them the Pharisees, Are ye also de
ceived? 48. Have any of the rulers or of the Pharisees believed
on hira?
49. But this people who knoweth not the law are cursed.
The Pharisees seem to have supposed that they were led away—
" deceived" they call-it — by the words and the manner of Jesus.
Assuming moreover that their officers must have been influenced
by the opinions of others (some men can never think of any
other influence), they push their question; — "Have any of the
great men, whose opinions are of any value, believed on him?"
Ye can not be so senseless as to care for the notions of the com
mon people — the more r.ibble who know nothing of the law —

132 GOSPEL OF JOHN.— CHxVP. VIL
miscreants, all; "accursed." Hard words these, to use of the
common people ; but they indicate the self-conceit and moral in
fatuation that reigned in the bosoms of the Pharisees who con
stituted the Great Sanhedrim.
50. Nicodemus saith unto them, (he that came to Jesus
by night, being one of them,)
51. Doth our law judge any man, before it hear him, and
know what he doeth ?
One man — one honest man — was there ; the same Nicodemus
of whom we have heard before. He quietly suggests that their
law did not judge any man until it had heard him in his own de
fense,-* and learned from his own lips what he was doing or had
done. - This principle, always grandly equitable — an honor to
any system of jurisprudence — he suggested should be applied in
the present case.  Nicodemus deserves our respect for this dig
nified interposition. Perhaps he was not sufficiently resolute and
firm; and perhaps he was. At least he made his point forcibly.
As to the true text in v. 50, modern critics quite unanimously re
ject "by night;" Tischendorf with the Sinaitic omits the entire
clause — ¦" He that came to Jesua by night; " while Meyer would
haveit — "Who oame to him before. ' All accept the words — "Who
was one of thom." These variations have no doctrinal importance.
52. They answered and said unto hira. Art thou also of
Galilee? Search, and look: for out of Galilee ariseth no
prophet. They put the question, "Art thou also of Galilee?" with the
same Greek interrogative which Nicodemus used — " Doth our law
judge," etc. ? — both questions implying the expectation of a negar
tive answer. The Pharisees would say — We know thou art not a
Galilean by birth ; but cah it be possible that thou art in sympathy
with thia Galilean ? Wouldest thou take sides with that outlandish
people against the holy city and the holy people of thine own
country ?  Look carefully into this case. No great prophet ever
did or can come out of Galilee. Probably they would have said —
If God should discriminate thus against his own holy city and
people by sending the Messiah through Galilean blood aud parent-
-* The worda of the la-w referred to are of this sort: "I charged
your judges, saying; Hear the causes bet-B'eeu your brethren, and
judge righteously between every man and his neighbor," etc. "Ye
shall not respect persons in judgment, but ye shall hear the small
as well as the great," etc. (Deut. 1 : 16, 17). -" If a false witness rise
up against any man to testify against him -that whioh is wrong,
then both the men between whom the controversy is shall stand be
fore the Lord, before the priest and the judges whioh shall be in
those days; and the judge shall make diligent inqiiisition," etc.
(Deut. 19: 16-18).

GOSPEL OF JOHN.— CHAP. VIII. 133
age, away with him I — -Bigotry is always blind ; bigotry strong and
fierce as theirs was doubly so ; for in the first place God did raise
up some old prophets from Galilee, e. g. Jonah certainly (2 Kings
14: 25),_and in the spirit of it Elijah also, and perhaps others
whose birth-place is not recorded : and in the second place, Jesus
was not born iu Galilee, but in Bethlehem-Judah — as they should
have known.
53. And every man went unto his own house.
Thia verse belongs with the disputed portion of chap. 8. — viz.
vs. 1-11. It naturally precedes 8; 1, and stands or falls with it.

CHAPTER VIII.
The opening of this chapter springs a new and truly grave
question ; — viz. as to the genuineness of the passage respecting
the woman said to have been taken in adultery — (v. 1-11). [The
question involves also the laat v. of chap. 7.]
The objectiona to ita genuineness are certainly very strong; in
the view of the ablest and most thorough critics, decisive. Sub
stantially the objections, external and internal, are as follows.
I. The external.
1. Of the four oldest and most important manuscripta, the Vati
can and Sinaitic omit precisely these verses. The Alexandrian
and the Codex Ephrem omit this passage and somewhat more ; viz.
the former from John 6 : 50 to 8 : 12, and the latter from 7 : 13 to
8 : 34. But the relative size of the space wanting seems to prove
that this passage was never in those manuscripts. — 2. The oldest
and best manuscript which does contain tbis passage — that of Beza
gives it with very considerable diversity from the received text.
— 3. A large number of manuscripts dating from the ninth to the
twelfth century contain it, yet with very great variations — a fact
which goes strongly against the genuineness of the passage. It
should be noted also that a number of those whioh contain the
passage in substance, locate it, not here, but at the close of Luke
21.^^. The balance of testimony from the church fathers bears
against its genuineness.-* — 5. It is wanting in the most ancient
manuscripts and editions of the Syriac and Coptic ; but appears
in the Itala — the oldest Latin version.
Thus it will be seen that the balance of external evidence is
strongly against the genuineness of this passage.
II. As to the internal evidence :
* It is at least not named by Origen, Apollinaris, Theodore of Mop-
Bueatia, Cyril, Chrysostom, Basil, Tertullian, Cyprian. [Tholuck].

134 GOSPEL OF JOHN.— CHAP. VIIL
(1.) There is strong objection to this as its original and natural
place, because it breaks the connection of thought, aud has no
logical or other relation with what precedes or follows.  (2.) It
also contains quite a number of words, forma of expreaaion and
connective particlea, which are foreign from the uaage of John,
and therefore atrongly against the theory of his being the author.
In answer to the question — Plow came the passage here? and
has it any historical authority whatever ? — the hypothesis which
receives most favor is that, in substance, it is historically true;
that it was handed down through several centuriea by tradition ;
and at length admitted into a number of the later manusdripts.
This hypothesis accounts for the diversity of text where it appears
at all, and for its ultimate admission into our received version.
The passage is rejected as not genuine by Tischendorf, Meyer,
Tholuck, Olshausen and Alford. Ellicott holds somewhat decid
edly that it waa not written hy John; Farrar has " no shadow of
doubt that the incident really happened, even if the form in which
it is preserved to us is by no means indisputably genuine."
From V. 12 onward, we have an animated discussion between
Jeaua and the captious, hostile Pharisees ; — Jesus presents him
self as the light of the world; his opponents question his testimony
(vs. 12-20) : Jesus repeats hia previoua declaration as to going
away whither they could not come, and meets their question —
""Wno art thou? ' (vs. 21-30): A remark by Jesus to' certain
young converts — " If ye continue in my word, the truth shall make
you free" — stirred up his opponents to aver that they were Abra
ham's children and never in bondage (v. 31-33), but Jesua declares
that they were in bondage to the devil, were his children and doing
his work (vs. 34^-47). The Jews retort, charging Jesus with being
a Samaritan and possessed with a devil (vs. 48-53), to which Jesus
makes his final reply, affirming himself to have been before Abra
ham waa. They take up stones to stone him as their only adequate
reply, but he escapes their vengeance (vs. 54-59).
1. Jesus went unto the mount of Olives.
2. And early in the morning he came again into the tem
ple, and all the people came unto him ; and he sat down,
and taught them.
3. And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto hira a
woman taken in adultery; aud when tbey had set her in
the midst,
4. They say unto him. Master, this woman was taken in
adultery, in the very act.
5. Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such
should be stoned : but what sayest thou ?
6. This they said, tempting him, -that they might have
to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger
wrote on the ground, as tlwugh he heard them not.

GOSPEL OF JOHN.— CHAP. VIIL 135
7. So when they continued asking hira, he lifted up him
self, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you,
let him first cast a stone at her.
8. And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground.
9. And they which heard it, being convicted by tiieir own
conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even
unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman
standing in the midst.
10. When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but
the woman, he said unto her. Woman, where are those
thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?
11. She said. No man. Lord. And Jesus said unto her.
Neither do I condemn thee : go, and sin no more.
In so far as the inspired authority of thia passage becomes
doubtful will its interpretation lose both interest and importance.
In my view it has only a modified, weakened demand upon us for
exposition of its meaning, or for defense of the course of our
Lord as here presented. A few words must suffice.
The great questions have been these :
{a.) "Was the allegation against this woman true or false?
(6.) In what way did the scribes hope to tempt Jesus, and find
means to accuse him ?
(c.) Of what ¦were they convicted by their own conscience, and
why did they withdraw ?
(d.) On what ground did Jesus refuse to condemn this woman?
(e.) What moral lessons (if any) are taught here ?
'Taking these questions in their order, I suggest as to the first:
(a.) That the allegation is probably to be taken as true because
it would be too hazardous to mike if false; would react severely
upou false accusers ; aud because Jesua seems to imply tacitly
that she had sinned — i. e. in the respect charged.
(6.) It may be supposed that they hoped to entangle him in the
dilemma between condemn and acquit, inasmuch aa to condemn
would put him in collision with the Roman civil authorities, then
in the ascendant, although to the Jewish courts irksome and
odious ; while to acquit would put him in antagonism against Mo
ses.  Or, on the auppoaition that the case haa no relationa to
the Roman authoritiea, it is generally admitted that the law of
Moses against adultery had become mostly inoperative, public
feeling and usage being against it. Hence to condemn would
bring Jesus into odium before the people; to acquit, would ex
pose him to the charge of dishonoring Moses and the ancient law.
(c.) Convicted of malicious designs against Jesus, and perhaps
of being personally guilty of the very crime charged against this
-vvomau. According to history the Rabbis of that age were in
this respect flagrant offenders.
(d.) Apparently on the ground of having no jurisdiction in the

136 GOSPEL OF JOHN.— CHAP. VIII.
case. The prosecution had disappeared. There remained no
case before him. There was not the least occasion therefore for
him to pass judgment upon the wisdom or authority of the law
of Moses; or upon the innocence or guilt of this woman, even on
the yet doubtful supposition that under any circumstances he
would become a court of justice for a criminal prosecution. 
Consequently he did not decide (as some have supposed) that men
— themselves in sin — ought never to administer civil law — i. e.
ought never to condemn others while in some sense more or less
guilty themselves. Nor did he decide that a criminal, who gives
evidence of penitence is therefore and on that ground to be dis
charged as not guilty.  ^It should be very carefully noted that
civil jurisdiction is one thing; a merely moral jurisdiction quite
another; — that Jesus Avas among men, not as a civil magistrate —
not a court of justice under civil government; but as a teacher of
moral truth, dealing with the human heart and conscience as an
individual and not as a public magistrate.
(e.) As to the moral lessons of this passage, I am mainly im
pressed with the obvious fact that Jesus aimed at only moral re
sults. At these he did aim ; at once wisely, earnestly, and suc
cessfully. Toward his accusers who sought to ensnare him, his
worda and no less his manner wore fraught with scorching re
buke, laying bare to their own eye the malignity of their heart
and tho rottenness of their professions. There is scarcely
another case on record in whioh his assailants so manifestly
quailed and recoiled from before him. Rarely, if ever, did they
ao feel the power of hia kindness and compassion toward the err
ing, put in contrast with their own heartless severity and shame
less hypocrisy.
Then as toward this woman — cruelly sinned against in the
manner of her exposure, yet having sinned under circumstances,
we know not whether more or less aggravated, his bearing was
marked by thoughtful compassion, adapted as best it could be to
lead her to repentance. Having no responsibilities as a civil mag
istrate, to what should he turn his attention and direct his efforts,
but this — to reclaim her from a life of sin and shame, and to save
her soul ?  The example of Jesus in this respect should stand
before his followers as, in spirit at least, supremely worthy of im
itation. It was never intended to bear upon the question of civil
law, or the duty of civil magistrates to enforce wholesome law.
.lesus was not acting in any such capacity. He gave no opinion,
left no example, bearing upon civil jurisprudence. But upon the
moral and spiritual duties of all good men and women toward the
fallen, it reads us lessons at once wholesome, wise, and heavenly.
12. Then spake Jesus again unto them, saying, I am the
light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in
darkness, but shall have the light of life.
" Spake again'' — resuming the discourse which closed John 7 :

GOSPEL OF JOHN.- CHAP. VIII. 137
44. Another chapter or section of this discourse stands in vs.
21-30 below.  " I am the light of the world " — in point of
moral instruction what the sun is for the material light. The
light I shed illumines the p.ath of all those who follow me. They
shall have "the light of life" — all needed light to guide them
unto eternal life.  Some critics suppose that the words — " I am
the light" — were suggested to Jesus by the great chandeliers of
the temple which were lit up during some at least of the eve
nings of this feast. While the people were admiring and enjoying
their brilliant light, Jesus would say — In the true and far higher
sense, I am the light of the whole world.  Such reference is
perhaps supposable ; but we may fitly remember that Jesus had
used this figure long before, even in the sermon on the mount
(Matt. 5 : 14-16), and that John also had spoken of Jesus (1: 4-
9) as " the light," " the true light," etc.
13. The Pharisees therefore said unto him. Thou bearest
record of thyself; thy record is not true.
14. Jesus answered and said unto them. Though I bear
record of myself, yet my record is true : for I know whence
I came, and whither I go; but ye can not tell whence I
come, and whither I go.
"Bearest record" translates the Greek verb for testify. They
mean to say that Jesus was hia own aud his only witness ; and
they imply that any impostor could do aa much ; that any mere
pretender might be expected to make out a good story for him
self.  .Jesus replies : It is appropriate that I should testify of
myself My testimony of myself ia true because I know whence
I came and whither I go. 1 know with infinite certainty that I
came forth from God my Father, and shall soon return to him
again — things of which you can have no such conscious knowl
edge. And nothing can be more obvious than that the real Mes
siah — he who waa anointed and sent forth from God — must have
this perfect consciousnesa of his mission, and therefore by virtue
of his own nature must be the first and best witness of his own
Messiahship. 15. Ye judge after the flesh; I judge no man.
16. And yet if I judge, my judgment is true : for I am
not alone, but I and the Father that sent me.
17. It is also written in your law, that the testimony of
two men is true.
18. I am one that bear witness of myself, and the Father
that sent me beareth witness of me.
"¦ludge after the fleah," is in tacit contrast with judging after
the spirit, and involves imperfection, frailty, error. Jesus may
in this case have thought of their carnal views of the Messiah
and his kingdom ; of their fleshly and false notions which perpet-

138 GOSPEL OF JOHN.— CHAP. VIII.
ually perverted their ideas of himself and his work.  "I judge
no man," so — i. e. as ye judge me. Or his thought may have
been — "I judge no man now ; my mission to the world at this
time is not to judge, but to save. Yet it must be conceded that
the context does not specially favor this supposed reference to
passing judgment upon human character and destiny. The course
of thought is rather upon judging as to his personal claims to be
the Messiah. So far aa I do testify ("judge ) of myself, my tes
timony is true, for I am not alone: the Father who sent me bears
witness of me; and by your own law, the testimony of two wit
nesses is conclusive. (See Deut. 17 : 5 and 19 : 15).
19. Then said they unto him. Where is thy Father ? Je
sus answered, Ye neither know me, nor my Father : if ye
had known me, ye should have known my Father also.
20. These words spake Jesus in the treasury, as he taught
in the temple : and no man laid hands on hira ; for his hour
was not yet come.
The keenest insult was purposely couched under the question,
"Where is thy Father?" The question utterly ignored his claim
to be the Son of God : — You talk much about your Father ; what
do you mean? — Where is that Father?  Their notions on this
point are brought out (John 6: 42); "They said. Is not this Je
sus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we 'know?" 
It is to this attitude of their mind that Jesus replies : " Ye neither
know me nor my Father: if ye had known me, ye should have
known my Father also."
The " treasury " was a precinct of the temple in which gifts,
brought for the temple service, -were deposited. (See Mark 12:
41).  "No man laid hands on him" — all his enemies being re
strained by some agency of God's providence; perhaps the pres
ence and demonstrations of too many friends ready to protect him.
The fact that ultimately his enemies were compelled to hire a
traitor to guide them to his place of retirement that they might
arrest him in the absence of the multitude, favors this explana
tion. 21, -Then said Jesus again unto them, I go my way, and
ye shall seek me, and shall die in your sins : whither I go
ye can not come.
22. Then said the Jews, AVill he kill himself? because he
saith, AVhither I go, ye can not come.
23. And he said unto them. Ye are frora beneath; I am
from above : ye are of this world ; I am not of this world.
24. I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your
sins : for if ye believe not that I ara lie, ye shall die in your
sins. "I go my way, on my mission. We must part company for-

GOSPEL OF JOHN.— CHAP. VUL 139
ever, since ye loill not follow me, and I can neither go nor stay
with you."  " Ye shall seek me" — in the day of your calamity,
when it shall be all too late !  It is better to apply these words
to their individual and personal rather than national relations to
Christ. What is true of all sinners must be true likewise of those
individual men. Rejecting Jesus, they will sooner or later come
to sorrow; will feel their want ofa Savior and would fain seek
him — if then it could be of any avail  " Shall die in your
sins"— or in the expressive form ofthe Greek — "In your sin, ye
shall die!" In your one, all-comprehensive, and fatal sin of un
belief, ye must die forever I With mournful and solemn empha
sis we must suppose these words fell from those blessed lips, sug
gested by the contrast between his future and theirs — himself
going so soon to dwell with the Father in blessedness perfect and
eternal; they " going to their own place" to meettlie doom of the
guilty and the lost I " Whither I go ye can not come ; " my home
is no home for you; with spirit utterly uncongenial — of character
totally unlike — -under the sternest ofall necessities, ye must go to
an abode and to a destiny far other than mine.
The Jews said — " Will he kill himself" to get beyond our reach ?
For they saw in his words — perhaps in his tone and manner — -
that he thought of death as parting them asunder. But did they,
at this stageof their persecution, surmise that he would go, not by
suicide, but by their own murderous hand? Wicked men, led
ou by Satan, are not always aware how far they may be pushed
on in wickedness. — The Jews had a special abhorrence of sui
cide, yet did not shrink from imputing it (supposably) to Jesus.
The thought of Jesus was upon the contrast between them and
himself; " Ye are from beneath ; I am from above : " ye are from
Satan — hia pupils, followers, servants : I came down from my
Father. ""Ve are of this world," acting upon its principles; im
bued with its spirit ; obeying its behests — in all which I have not
the least sympathy. It was for this reason that I said unto you,
" Ye shall die in your sins." There can be no other result of
such a character and such a life as yours.  "If ye believe not
that I am" — this is the precise translation and sense of the
Greek : — if ye believe not in me as the unchangeable " / am " —
said (aa it seems) with reference to the name of the revealing
God, given to Moses at the bush (Ex. 3 : 14). We find the same
Greek word in vs. 28 and 58 below; — "When ye have lifted up
the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am' , — i. e. that I am
truly divine— the very Son of God. "Before Abraham was, I
am;" — my eternal being was moving on its career of existence
long before Abraham lived.  In the passage before us (v. 24)
the literal translation impresses me as far more significant and
forcible than that ofthe English version — " I am he." It will seem
ao, 1 judge, to most readers unless they take the word "he" in
the sense which appeara in some Old Testament passages (e. g.
Deut. 32 : 39 and laa. 41 : 4 and 48 : 12) -where the Hebrew pro
noun for he is put with a peculiar emphasis for the name of God.

140 GOSPEL OF JOHN.— CHAP. VIIL
Is it not supposable that this was in the mind of the English
translators ?
25. Then said they unto him, Who art thou? And Je
sus saith unto them, Even the same that I said unto you
from the beginning.
The spirit of thia question (made by the Greek word -j'tj)
seems to be — What kind of a being or person art thou ? What
dost thou pretend to be?  The answer has been explained va
riously by able critics ; some giving it — -What I told you at the
beginning ; while some would put these same worda in the inter
rogative form — What have I told you, etc. ? others thus : Funda
mentally, comprehensively, what I have said; or thus : Essentially
what my words show; estimate what I am by what I say; or
what I have said all along, from the very first. These shades of
difference are of no great account in the general discussion.
26. I have many things to say and to judge of you : but
he that sent me is true; and I speak to the world those
things which I have heard of him.
27. They understood not that he spake to them .of the
Father. Ye ask me who I am. I have already said much in answer to
that question. 1 could say much more, and much in rebuke and
condemnation of your unbelief: but, obstinate as your unbelief is,
he who sent me is true, and all his words sent through me to the
world are true. I speak those truthful words and none other.
 Such seems to be the drift and connection of thought in v.
26.  Yet even then they failed to see that he spake of God the
Father. 28. Then said Jesus unto them. When ye have lifted up
the Son of man, then shall ye know that I ara he, and that
I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught
me, I speak these things.
29. And he that sent rae is with me : the Father hath
not left me alone ; for I do always those things that please
hira. 30. As he spake these words, many believed on him.
"Lifted up the Son of man "-^-signifying by what death he
should die at their hand. (See the phrase repeated and explained
in John 12 : 32, 33). At his death and thereafter, new and more
impressive proofs would appear of his true Messiahship. Amid
the scenes of the crucifixion, some would cry out, " Verily, this
waa the Son of God" (Matt. 27: 54, and Mark 15 : 39). His res
urrection would bring yet other confirmations of his mission from
heaven. The descent of the Spirit would bear home these now

GOSPEL OF JOHN.— CHAP. VIII. 141
teatimoniea to many hearts.  The points thou to be shown (aa
here put) were his divine nature ; his mission from God ; his un
selfish fidelity to hia truat; that the Father stood by him, indors
ing, approving, sustaining, with his manifested love. It was the
joy of this " man of sorrows," that though rejected and forsaken
of men, he was neither rejected nor forsaken of the Father.
At this stage of the discussion, the historian pauses to say that
"many believed on him." Was it that this allusion to his death
was tenderly effective ; that these views of his relation to the
Father seemed to them just and convincing? Yet it should be
said — Many critics, assuming that the rest of this chapter refers
to these same believers, explain away their belief as being en
tirely superficial and transient. We must (in the sequel) in
quire whether this assumption is justified.
31. Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on hira,
If ye continue in my word, tlien are ye my disciples indeed ;
32. And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall
make you free.
Turning to these professed believers, Jeaus admonishes them to
continue in his word, with docility and loving obedience. So
should they know the truth more and more, and this truth would
redeem their souls from the dominion of sin — make themyi-ee in
the high and glorious aense of spiritual emancipation from the
slavery of sinful passion. The admonition assumes danger in
their case lest they might be drawn away from him so as to reject
his word aud come under their old bondage to sin.
33. They answered him, We be Abraham's seed, and were
never in bondage to any man : how sayest thou. Ye shall be
raade free?
Here the firat question is — Who are included under the word
" they ? " Must we answer — The converts juat before spoken of
aa "believing on him" ? Some commentators assume this; but
(as it seems to me) against the probabilities of the case. There
is no necessity for identifying these respondents with the believ
ing Jews spoken of in v. 31. In scriptural usage, the antecedent
to the pronoun can not always be determined by proximity; we
must not always take the nearest word for the true antecedent.
The aaored writera give their readers large scope for the use of
their good sense (e. g. Isa, 37: 36, last part; also Psa. 7:11, 12).
Old Testament usage is remarljably controlled by this principle
of common sense. It should not surprise us to find more or leaa
of the same usage pervading the New.
Jesus had said to those that believed — " The truth shall make
you free " — to be slaves no longer. Thereupon those who had
been debating with Jesus in hostile, prejudiced mood, throughout
this chapter, are offended at his implying that they were not free
men but slaves; and therefore thev repel the implied charge: —
7

142 GOSPEL OF JOHN.— CHAP. VIII.
Do not insinuate that we are slaves. " We are children of Abra
ham, and have never been in bondage to any man." What can
you mean by saying — " Ye shall be made free" ?  Those Je-ws
took pride not only in being the children of Abraham, but in
their national and personal liberty — ^never in fealty to any human
power. It was at that very time a hotly contested question
whether, and to what extent, if any, they were under the juris
diction of Rome.
34. Jesus answered them, "Verily, verily, I say unto you,
Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin.
35. And the servant abideth not in the house for ever:
bid the Son abideth ever.
36. If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be
free indeed.
Jesus neither thought of nor much cared for freedom in the
political sense. Going far deeper than that, he insists that every
sinner is a slave. In committing siu he yields to a master; he
surrenders himself to do the will of the devil ; hia own lusta
overpower his better judgment and reason. He is absolutely in
bondage — a bondage at once tyrannous, terrible, humiliating, dis
graceful. Then, recurring to the figure of servitude [slavery] he
contrasts the state of tho slave in the household with that of the
son. The slave has no permanent home there; no rights of
home; may be ejected at any time; at best (if a Jew) serves out
his time in six years— if of Gentile birth, in fifty — and goes.
The son is the heir, and is at home there with no limit of time.
If now the Son of man gives you the rights of freemen in God's
house ye are indeed free — not otherwise.
37. I know that ye are Abraham's seed; but ye seek to
kill me, because my word hath no place in you,
38. I speak that which I have seen with mj Father:
and ye do that which ye have seen with your father.
39. They answered and said unto him, Abraham is our
father. Jesus saith unto them. If ye were Abraham's chil
dren, ye would do the works of Abraham.
40. But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you
the truth, which I have heard of God : this did not Abra
ham. Jesus admits that they are the'" seed," but denies that they are
" children " of Abraham.-* They were unquestionably born in
his lineage, but, • as unquestionably, were aliens in spirit and
character; utterly far from being children of Abraham in the
sense of bearing his image and inheriting his virtues.  Ye
* He says they are " airepfta," but not " rcKva."

GOSPEL OF JOHN.— CHAP. VIIL 143
seek to kill me because I tell you the truth which I have heard
from God. Abraham never did any thing like this — never could
have done it. Abraham waa eminently "the friend of God" (2
Chron. 20: 7, and Isa. 41 : 8, and James 2 : 23) obedient to every
command, of unshaken faith in every promise. In every point
they were totally unlike Abraham — children of another father ;
men of entirely opposite character.
Of course these words cut into their pride and self-conceit with
unsparing faithfulness.
41. Ye do the deeds of your father. Then said they to
him. We be not born of fornication; we have one Father,
even God.
42. Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye
would love me: for I proceeded forth and carae from God;
neither came I of myself, but he sent me.
43. Why do ye not understand my speech? even because
ye can not hear my word.
44. Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your
father ye will do : he was a murderer from the beginning,
and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him.
When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own : for he is
a liar, and the father of it.
45. And because I tell you the truth, ye believe me not.
To men making so much account as these Jews did of parent
age, it was both pertinent and forcible to speak of them as chil
dren of him whose spirit they inherited and whose deeds they
were reproducing. So Jesus said, " Ye do the deeds of your
father," showing whose children ye are by the sort of deeds ye
are doing. Sharply resenting this remark they declared them
selves born iu honest matrimony, and said they had but one Father,
viz, God. But here they were persecuting with mortal hatred
God's only and well-beloved Son — proof enough that they had no
ground whatever for assuming themselves to be children of God.
If God were your Father and y^ were his dutiful, loving children,
ye would love me — not hate me without cause and with spirit so
malignant. In V. 43 the exact thought seems to be — Why do ye not under
stand my plain words ? Because ye can not hear — in the sense
of can not hear my doctrine — the substance of the truth I teach.
As those malicious Jews with murder in their heart had boldly
declared that their one Father was God, Jesus responded with like
plainness of speech: — "Ye are of your father the devil, and the
lusts of your father ye will to do ' — do, with the -will— the real
choice and purpose of your souls. From the beginning of the
race — from the age of Eve and of Cain, — he.was a murderer, and
stood not in the truth ; his moral status was never there but always
in the moral opposite of truth — in lies. There was never any

144 GOSPEL OF JOHN.— CHAP. VIII.
truth in him — no love for truth — no speaking ^^ruth. Speaking
lies is but uttering his own heart, for he is arS^r and the father
of it — the lie. Pregnant with falsehood, he naturally brings forth
lies ; they are his legitimate offspring. In this sense he is " the
father of lies."  Those Jews claimed to be children of Abra
ham in the sense of inheriting his virtues. Precisely in this sense
Jesus declared that they were children of the devil, for they in-,
herited his spirit of falsehood and lies. It was because they had
no natural sympathy with truth that they could not and would not
believe Jesus and his truthful words.
46. Which of you convinceth me of siu? And if I say the
truth, why do ye not believe me?
47. He that is of God heareth God's words : ye therefore
hear them not, because ye are not of God.
They had held Jesus guilty, but without convicting him of any
crime or falsehood whatever. They had simply assumed him
guilty without proof; and this because they hated his just rebukes
of their sin.  If I say the truth (and ye can not deny that I
do), why do ye not believe me ?  He proceeds to answer his
own question : — The words I bring to you are words of God. If
ye were of God, his children, in sympathy with his Spirit, ye
would hear and receive these words. This explains your conduct.
Ye hear not my words because ye are not in harmony with God —
with his Spirit and his truth.
48. Then answered the Jews, and said unto him. Say we
not well that thou art a Samaritan, and hast a devil?
Irked and stung by such truth-telling, heart-revealing words, they
turn again upon him to taunt him with being a Samaritan — one
of the most odious epithets they could think of — one which the
Jews customarily applied to outcasts from their people. Perhaps
they had some allusion to the fact that Jesus had associated with
Samaritans and made converts from among them.  They also
seek to vilify him and break the force of every thing he had said,
by the charge — (made before; John 7: 20): "Thou hast adevil."
The same thing appears again (John 10: 20): "Many of them
said — He hath a devil and is mad; why hear ye him?" He is
only a maniac, insane ; probably they meant to imply — not morally
responsible for the incoherent, irrational words he utters. At
least, they meant — a man whose words were of not the least ac
count, being void of sense and truthfulness.  As above (7 : 20)
the word here used for "devil" is not diabolos but daimonion —
demon ; the current doctrine of the age being that these demons
entered into the human body, and displacing the rational mind,
took possession — speaking through human lips and controlling all
the activities of the man. This charge, therefore, so far as it was
believed, broke the moral force of every word Jesus might
utter.  Thoir question as put here — " Say we not well that thou

GOSPEL OF JOHN.— CHAP. VIII. 145
hast a devil ? " not only suggests that they had said this before,
but assumes with unblushing boldness that they had said this
"well" — with good reason; on valid grounds. How could the
cool impudence aud the moral hardihood of the basest depravity
go farther?
49. Jesus answered, I have not a* devil; but I honor my
Father, and ye do dishonor me.
50. And I seek not mine own glory: there is one that
seeketh and judgeth.
The charge of being a Samaritan Jesus passes unnoticed; the
other charge — that of being possessed with a devil — he meets with
a square denial. It was too vital in its bearings, not to be re
pelled.  In his next words Jesus seems to fall back upon the
convictions of his deepest consciousness ; — ^I know that I honor
my Father ; I know that the words I have spoken and the deeds
I have done have sprung from supreme devotion to his service and
glory. They might blind their eyes to the evidence of this; the
fact lived in his own deep consciousness — ^his consolation under
the keenest reproaches; his joy under the bitterest failures. 
I honor my Father; but ye give me only dishonor, scorn, shame.
The thought seems to be suggested by the contrast.  1 say not
this because I selfishly aspire after personal glory : It is not be
cause it smites down some idol in my heart that I shrink from the
scorn ye heap on me. It is enough for me that my Father smiles
his approbation. This is what he intimates — "There is One that
seeketh" my glory and "judgeth" between me and my vilifiers.
I can well afford to await his judgment.
51. Verily, verily, I say unto you. If a man keep my
saying, he shall never see death.
In the discourses of our Lord the words — "Verily, verily," —
always imply an advance to some new point of special impor
tance.  ^If we look inquiringly for the law of mental associa
tion which suggested thia announcement, may we not find it in this
line of thought ; — Ye repel my words with scorn and baffie my
utmost endeavors to lead you into truth and back to God. I look
with unutterable sorrow upon the ruin of eternal death which lies
but one step before you : therefore let me say solemnly and ten
derly, one word more : — If any man of you all shall keep my
saying — accept my doctrine with loving heart and abide therein —
" he shall never see death." Such a connection of thought does
juatice to the love of his heart for the vilest; to his compassion
over the men who were soon to become his murderers. O, how
gladly would he have plucked even one soul from among them out
of the open jaws of death I
52. Then said the Jews unto him, Now we know that thou
hast a devil. Abraham is dead, and the prophets ; and thou

146 GOSPEL OF JOHN.— CHAP. VIII.
sayest. If a man keep my saying, he shall never taste of
death. 53. Art thou greater than our father Abraham, wliich is
dead ? and the prophets are dead : whom makest thou thy
self? More unwilling than unable to take in the high, spiritual sense
of these words of Jesus, they seem glad to find in them another
proof (as they would pretend) of his insanity — an impostor hold
ing forth that whoever would keep his saying should never die !
" What 1 " they would say ; Dost thou pretend to be greater than
our father Abraham, who yet — good man as he was — had to die;
and all the prophets met death in their time; whom dost thou
pretend to be ?
54. Jesus answered. If I honor myself, my honor is noth
ing : it is my Father that honoreth me ; of whom ye say,
that he is your God :
55. Yet ye have not known him ; but I know him : and
if I should say, I know him not, I shall be a liar like unto
you ; but I know him, and keep his saying.
If my words were those of high, fulsome, vain pretension, they
should justly go for nothing. It is my Father — not myself — that
honors me. Of him ye say, he is your God. (Would there were
truth in your claim — but there is not ! ) Ye have not known
the true God in any right sense at all. But 1 know him ; this
1 must maintain as the cardinal point in my testimony before
the world. I know God; he is my Father; he sent me from
heaven ; I come to bring his words of truth and mercy to per
ishing men. If I should say with you that I know him not, then I
should belie my own deepest convictions, and should be a liar
like yourselves.  Thus Jesus puts the great issue between him
self and these hostile, maligning Jews.
56. Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day : and he
saw it, and was glad.
Your father Abraham, all unlike yourselves, appreciated my
work ; leaped for joy that he might " see my day ' — not my per
son, which would have been a yet more glorious vision — but my
" day ; " its general outline, purpose, work and results. The
knowledge of your nation's Messiah which ye despise, he longed
to attain, though he could hope for it only in an inferior meas
ure. He did attain that and rejoiced therein with great joy. So
much for the application of this case of Abraham to rebuke at
once their contempt of him and their self-conceited assumption
of being the children of Abraham.
What is said here of Abraham's vision of Christ, seems to im
ply two distinct stages: first, he was exhilarated with the hope

GOSPEL OF JOHN.— CHAP. VIIL < 147
or prospect of seeing it ; next, his hopes were realized in at least
some good measure: he saw and exulted with joy.  Were these
in fact two distinct stages of revelation to him — the former less
full and the latter more : or was the former only the traditional
views of the far-future Deliverer which came down from the first
promise made to Adam — somewhat dimly hinted also to Noah ?
 ^This is at least supposable, and, if accepted, would seem to
show how good men in those times were animated with bright
hopes of a day far better than the world of their age had seen.
Still another supposition has found some favor, viz: that the
second stage of his vision — -"he saw and was glad" — was not of
that prophetic sort which came of old to saints yet in the flesh ;
but of that higher sort which saints receive in glory — such knowl
edge as Moses and Elijah may have rejoiced in "before they met
Jesus on the mount of transfiguration, and which may have sug
gested themes for that wonderful conversation.  In choosing
between these two theories, it should be considered that Abra
ham actually had successive prophetic visions, and certainly vis
ions very much in advance of what had come down to him by
tradition from the fathers, so that there is no violence to known
facts in the supposition that the "seeing" and "gladness" per
tained to his latest visions in the flesh.  Further, the suppo
sition of a reference to knowledge reached after death should
not be accepted without some real demand for it, inasmuch as
the scriptures are not wont to give intimations on this subject.
57. Then said the Jews unto him. Thou art not yet fifty
years old, and hast thou seen Abraham ?
How eamest thou to know so much about Abraham? Surely
thou hast never seen him.  The reason why they named fifty
years, is supposed to be that this was an average limit to hu
man life. May it not have been suggested by his apparent age :
judging from your appearance you must be short of fifty. 
The prophet Isaiah said of him, " His visage was so marred
more than any man, and his forfli than the sons of men " (Isa.
52 : 14) ; and his disciples were reminded on one occasion of the
consuming zeal of their Master for which they found expression
in words of scripture — " The zeal of thine house hath eaten me
up" (John 2: 17); so that possibly he had the appearance of more
years than he had actually seen.
58. Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you,
Before Abraham was, I am.
No fair construction of these worda can make them mean leas
than this : / existed before Abraham was horn. My life is not
to be limited within fifty human years. Ye have no just views
of my person while ye restrict my existence within this limi
tation. Long before Abraham was born my divine person was
" with God" — the real "I am," eternally self-existent. Thia must

148 ^ GOSPEL OF JOHN.— CHAP. IX.
be the sense of these words of .lesus. ThoseJ^o accept the doc
trine of the Logos as taught in John 1 : 1-14, can have no diffi
culty with this statement.
59. Then took they up stones to cast at him: but Jesus
hid himself, and went out of the temple, going through the
midst of them, and so passed by.
This last declaration brought the conversation to its crisis. His
adversaries, in a frenzy of excitement, began to gather stones to
hurl upon him. Jesus suddenly withdrew — and so this scene
closed. The thoughtful reader of this chapter must- be impressed with
the hopeless moral hardihood of these captious Jewa. The efforta
of Jeaua to convict their consciences of sin, to lead them into
truth, and to bring them to a docile, honest faith in himself, were
utterly powerless as toward these results. Every fresh point in
his progressive argument only maddened them the more. When
they reached the point where they could say, "Thou hast a devil,"
there must have been, it would seem, an end of hope in their
case.  We have no further occasion to wonder that they rushed
madly on to plot and to take his life ; or that the nation, follow
ing such religious leaders, waxed more and more corrupt, infatu
ated and desperate in guilt, till the judgments of heaven fell ou
their city and nation, and " there was no remedy."

CHAPTER IX.
This chapter has unity, presenting one event and one only —
the healing of a man born blind, with the discussion which it oc
casioned. 1. And as Jesus passed by, he saw a man which was blind
from his birth.
2. And his disciples asked him, saying, Master, who did
sin, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?
3. Jesus answered, Neither hath this man sinned, nor his
parents : but that the works of God should be made mani
fest in him.
That this entire scene occurred on a Sabbath is shown in v.
14; but whether on the same day with the discussion recorded
8 : 12-59 is in dispute among commentatora ; some holding it to
have been on the same day; others, on the Sabbath next suc
ceeding.  Accustomed to sit near the temple to beg his living.

GOSPEL OF JOHN.— CHAP. IX. 149 ft
this man probably pled the fact of having been born blind. This
raised the question among the disciples whose sin was punished
in this case of congenital blindness.* Was it the sin of the man
himself, or the sin of his parents V They asaumed it must be
somebody' s sin. How could it be for his sin before he was born :
and how could it be just to punish him for the sin of his parents?
Here was a hard problem. They bring it to their Master. He
answers — Neither of your alternatives meets the case. This
blindness was permitted of God for the purpose of manifesting
his works to men.
4. I must work the works of hira that sent me, while it
is day : the night cometh, when no man can work.
5. As long as I ara in the world, I am the light of the
world. Manifestly Jesus thinks of such works as he spake of in John
5: 17: "My Father worketh hitherto, and I work." He is sent
into this world to do such works of mercy as those done by the
Father. Now another occasion occurring, he must improve it.
 " While it is day " — the time for work. He saw that his
night drew near — a night of no more loork here and now, of this
sort.  -"I am the light of the world" — said with his thought
upon the opening of sightless eyes — firat in the physical sense ;
then in the far higher spiritual sense in which he unseals eyes
blinded by life-long sin.
6. When he had thus spoken, he spat on the ground,
and made clay of the spittle, aud he anointed the eyes of
the blind man with the clay,
7. And said unto him. Go, wash in the pool of Siloam,
(which is by interpretation. Sent.) He went his way, there
fore, and washed, and came seeing.
In this miracle, the things required of the blind man to do can
not be supposed to have had the least natural influence. Neither
the saliva, the clay, or the washing, could have had any agerfcy
or virtue in giving vision to eyes that had never seen. The obe
dience and the faith which it implied were no doubt conditions in
the spiritual realm, without which Jesus would not have wrought
the miracle.  We may notice iu the miracles wrought by Jesus
a wide range of diversity in the method of operation — the manner
and the circumstances; and the antecedent conditions. All the
reasons for this diversity we may not be sure of diacerning; some
of them we can probably understand. One stereotyped method
* The precise im,port of their question is — 'Who did sin, thia man
or his parents, that, as a punishment, he must needs be born blind ?
They assumed it to be a necessity under the moral connection be
tween sin and suffering.

*

150 GOSPEL OF JOHN.— CHAP. IX.
would have greatly lessened their moral power as miracles. Di
versity augments their moral force. It goes strongly against any
supposition of collusion or deception. Moreover, Jesus seems in
most oases to have had an eye to a good moral impression upon
the subject of the miracle or his friends.
The pool of Siloam was in the south-east part of the city — a
beautiful fountain of pure and sweet water. The word Siloam
came from a Hebrew root, having the meaning, "sent." No
other reason appears for this allusion to the meaning of the name
except the coincidence between this command and this signifi
cance.  The blind beggar obeyed promptly and came back
seeing. 8. The neighbors therefore, and they which before had
seen him that he was blind, said, Is not this he that sat and
begged ?
9. Some said, This is he : others said. He is like him : but
he said, I am lie.
10. 'JDherefore said they unto hira. How were thine eyes
opened ?
11. He answered and said, A man that is called Jesus
made clay and anointed mine eyes, and said unto me, Go to
the pool of Siloam, and wash : and I went and washed, and
I received sight..
12. Then said they unto him. Where is he? He said, I
know not.
This story tells with great simplicity the surprise, the inquiries,
and the circumstances of the case aa developed among the neigh
bors and those who had known him from birth. It appears that
Jesus performed this miracle with no pains to make himself
known, and then disappeared; so that when this blind man came
back with seeing eyes, Jesus had gone, he knew not whither.
13. They brought to the Pharisees him that aforetime
was blind.
14. And it was the sabbath day when Jesus made the
clay, and opened his eyes.
15. Then again the Pharisees also asked him how he had
received his sight. He said unto them, He put clay upon
mine eyes, and I washed, and do see.
16. Therefore said some of the Pharisees, This man is not
of God, because he keepeth not the sabbath day. Others
said, How can a man that is a sinner do such miracles.
And there was a division among them.
They bring the restored man and his case before the Pharisees.
An important fact in the- case comes to light here; — It was done

GOSPEL OF JOHN.— CHAP. IX. 151
on the Sabbath. Jesus could not have forgotten the fierce perse- -
oution he had suffered once before for performing a similar miracle
on the Sabbath (John 5), yet he seems to have taken no pains
to avoid exciting like prejudice and persecution again. He was
right in performing works of mercy and power on the Sabbath,
and he purposed to maintain his position, with no parade and
no needless provocation, yet with firmness and decision.  The
Pharisees examine the man, demanding and receiving his straight
forward account of his restoration to sight. Some of them at
once prejudged Jesus : he could not be a man of God because he
did not keep the Sabbath — according to their notions. And
they were entirely too bigoted to allow the thought that possibly
their notions of Sabbath-keeping were not of God. Some among
them said very sensibly — "How can a man that is a sinner draw
upon the Almighty for power to work such a miracle?" "If
I regard iniquity in my heart, the Lord will not hear me" —
makes an appeal to the good sense of men which no candid mind
can resist.
17. They say unto the blind man again, AVhat sayest thou
of him, that he hath opened thine eyes? He said. He is a
prophet. Very appropriately they ask him of restored sight what he
thinks of the man who gave him eyes to see. His good sense
answered promptly — " He is a prophet." He remembered that
his Old Testament scriptures spake of miracles somewhat like
this, done by the Lord's ancient prophets.  This man appears
throughout the narrative to have had excellent good sense, and
withal firmness and independence of character, worthy of high
commendation. He has a much better record than the man
healed at the pool of Bethesda on that other Sabbath.
18. But the Jews did not believe conceming him, that
he had been blind, and received his sight, until they called
the parents of him that had received his sight.
19. And they asked them, saying, Is this your son, who
ye say was born blind? How then doth he now see?
20. His parents answered them and said, We know that
this is our son, and that he was born blind :
21. But by what means he now seeth, we know not; or
who hath opened his eyes, we know not: he is of age; ask
him : he shall speak for himself.
22. These words spake his parents, because they feared
the Jews : for the Jews had agreed already, that if any man
did confess that he was Christ, he should be put out of the
synagogue. •23. Therefore said his parents. He is of age; ask him.

152 GOSPEL OF JOHN.— CHAP. IX.
We can have no great respect for incredulity so unreasonahle
and so manifestly begotten of prejudice and hat?; yet in this case
it powerfully subserved the interests of truth. They happenied
to live just when stubborn skepticism, no matter how wicked, un
reasonable and gratuitous, would yet turn to most excellent account
for all future time. The skeptics of all after ages.might afford to
thank these unbelieving Jews for sifting the evidence of this mi
racle and rejecting every thing short of moral demonstration. 
They must have the identity of this man proved by the testimony
of the father who begat him and of the mother who bare him. Very
well. We may be glad they demanded this testimony— and- got
it. They did not like to be satisfied with even this testimony ;
but really they could doubt that point no longer.  The parents
were timidly afraid of losing caste with the Jewish authorities,
and seem not to have been much affected with gratitude to the
stranger for the great blessing he had brought to their son.
24. Then again called they the man that was blind, and
said unto him. Give God the praise : we know that this man
is a sinner.
"Give God the praise,'' coming from their lips, meant — Do not
give the praise to this man who is a sinner. We know this man
to be a sinner because, according to our notions of the day, he
breaks the Sabbath. Of course they know that their notions are
right. Men supremely bigoted always know this. How this
wicked man could work such a, miracle, they perhaps tried to
think was no concern of theirs. It seemed a very religious way
to dispose of this case, to tell the restored man to give the praise
to God.  A slightly different view of their meaning in the
words — "Give glory to God," is at least supposable, viz. that they
used them as Joshua used similar words to Achan (Josh. 7: 19);
Honor the Omniscient God by confessing your sin; telling the
whole truth ; acknowledging that such a, sinner as Jesus never
could have wrought this miracle as you say.  This construction
supposes them to have been supremely bigoted and overbearing — -
aa they actually were.
25. He answered and said. Whether he be a sinner or no,
1 know not : one thing I know, that, whereas I was blind,
now I see.
Thia restored man knows nothing of the antecedents of his ben
efactor ; does not at this stage of the discussion claim to be pro
found (as they claim to be) in hia philoaophy as to the miracle-
working power of a sinner ; and does not feel called upon (just
now) to advance any opinion on that point. But as to the fact
of having been honestly blind all his previous life and of now
seeing, he is ready to testify. So much he knows, and no brow
beating shall stop his mouth to the effect of shutting off this tes
timony.  All the world (unless those bigoted Jews be an excSp-

GOSPEL OF JOHN.— CHAP. IX. 153
tion) have admired his grit, his honest love of truth, and his fear
lessness in maintaining it.
26. Then said they to him again, What did he to thee?
how opened he thine eyes?
27. He answered them, I have told you already, and ye
did not hear : wherefore would ye hear it again? will ye also
be his disciples?
28. Then they reviled him, and said, Thou art his disci
ple ; but we are Moses' disciples.
29. We know that God spake unto Moses: as for this fel
low, we know not from whence he is.
Oh, if they could only find some flaw in this testimony — if thoy
could only get over this great solid fact, looking them so calmly,
yet uncomfortably in the face I Is there not some way to explain
it without admitting miraculous power? This pinch haa troubled
many thousand skeptics from that day to this. It is a comfort to
all honest, truth-loving souls to see that the battle with skepticism
as to the facts of the case was fought out bravely while the scenes
¦frere all yet fresh, the original witnesses living, and fortunately,
the very parties in the fight.  It is not perhaps strange that this
honest-hearted man who had told the story over quite a good many
times — in the same way, to the same purport every time — should
have his patience a little tried by the strain brought upon it.
Perhaps it seemed to him to reflect somewhat upou his veracity..
1 have told you all about it once aud again, and ye did not hear;
ye seem not to accept and believe what I said : why should ye
wish to hear it over again ? _. Do ye think of becoming his disci
ples ?  This last word was perhaps a little sharp. They felt
insulted, and retorted with reviling.-  It is perhaps supposable
that the question — Do ye wish to become his disciples ? was put
in good faith, in this sense : — ^Are ye pushing these inquiries in
the spirit of an honest regard for truth, prepared, if ye find the
evidence satisfactory, to admit his mission from God, and place
yourselves at his feet as disciples? If so, his position was no
ble ; his regard for truth, sublime.  Their claim to be disciples
of Moses had an eye to their sanctimonious regard for the Sab
bath-law whioh came to them through Moses. Moses was a good
man ; they know that. It can not be wrong, they think, to stand
up for Moses and his Sabbath-law; but as for this man, they can
not speak of him with too much scorn. They neither know or
wish to know any thing of him.
30. The man answered and said uuto them. Why herein
is a marvelous thing, that ye Imow not from whence he is,
and yet he hath opened mine eyes.
31. Now we know that God heareth not sinners : but if
any man be a worshiper of God, and doeth his will, him he
heareth.

154 GOSPEL OF JOHN.— CHAP. IX.
32. Since the world began was it not heard that any man
opened the eyes of one that was born blind.
33. If this man were not of God, he could do nothing.
The restored man waxes bold, and plies the logic of his strong
common sense vigorously. What shall be thought of it, for-* here
is a strange fact — that ye should not know whence this man is,
and yet he hath opened my eyes 1 How happens it that ye
should know nothing of a man possessed of such powers. This
ignorance is not much to your credit. But look ye into the nature
of this case. It is entirely certain that God does not hear the
prayer of sinners; but if one be a worshiper of God and a doer
of hia will, God will hear his prayer, and may help him work a
miracle. The man who gave me eyes must have had help from
God. There is no weak spot in this reasoning. No mere man,
unaided of God, has ever smce the world began, opened eyes born
sightless. If this man were not of God, he would be utterly pow
erless for such a miracle.
34. They answered and said unto him, Thou wast alto
gether born in sins, and dost thou teach us ? And they cast
him out.
Bigotry had swamped their common sense — not to say also
common honesty. Having never a word to answer to this logic
or to the facts and principles that were underlying it, they throw
it in this man's face that his eyeless birth proved him a worthless
sinner, not fit to be regarded by such holy men as themselves.
They put themselves upon their dignity as not to be taught by such
a sinner — and cast him out of the synagogue I  Did they feel
easier in conacienoe after this ? Such men make but the least
poasiblcaccount of conscience. It was perhaps a momentary re
lief td get out of their way a man whose testimony to facts was
so very annoying, and whose honest reasoning upon those facts
it was so impossible for them to meet.
35. Jesus heard that they had cast him out ; and when he
had found him, he said unto him. Dost thou believe on the
Son of God?
36. He answered and said, Who is he. Lord, that I might
believe on him ?
37. And Jesus said unto him, Thou hast both seen hun,
and it is he that talketh with thee.
* Greek writers sometimes begin a sentence wilh yap (for), leaving
some brief expression to be supplied, as here ; 'What shall 1 make of
this— /or it is indeed wonderful that ye — such men as ye are — who
ought to know all the eminently great and good men of your time
should not know a man so good and so great as to be able to open
eyes that never saw before !

GOSPEL OF JOHN.— CHAP. IX. 155
38. And he said. Lord, I believe. And he worshiped him.
A charming sequel. The man who had borne himself so nobly
need not be cast down in spirit — for Jesus is near and will give
him his own sympathy. A mind so honest, a spirit so brave for
the truth and so candid, is not far from the kingdom of God.
Jesus soon found him — found him ready to inquire — " Who is
the Son of God that I may believe on him ? " and to say — " Lord,
I believe."  ^We hear of this man no more.
39. And Jesus said, For judgment I am come into this
world, that they which see not might see ; and that they
which see might be made blind.
The case suggested to Jesua this comprehensive remark as to
the moral results of hia miasion to this world — that the not-see
ing (like this man blind from birth) might have sight restored :
and that men, blessed with all needful vision but abusing their
blessings, should be judicially blinded. Naturally the blind
man's case became suggestive of what takes place in the moral
realm of human hearts and consciences under the light of re
vealed truth : — one class — long sitting in moral darkness —
brought forth into light : another class, favored above others with
the light-bearing word of God, yet resisting its demands, and
blinding their eyes to its pure teachings, are doomed in judgment
to the blindness they have cherished, and are given over to their
own chosen infatuation. The world is full of cases illustrating
this contrast. For such judgment has Jesus come into this
world ; such are every-where the fruits of his coming.
40. And some of the Pharisees which were with him heard
these words, and said unto him. Are we blind also ?
41. Jesus said unto them. If ye were blind, ye should
have no sin: but now ye say, We see; therefore your sin
remaineth. Some of the Pharisees, hearing this remark, said — Dost thou
mean that for us ? Wouldest thou insult us by the insinuation
that we are blind ?7— Jesus answers : If ye were really blind, hav
ing no knowledge of God and duty, ye would have no sin : but
now that ye say. We see ; — now that in fact ye have had ample
means of moral light, and might have been wise unto salvation,
your sin abides — is upon you and is to be, forever I " Ye knew
your duty, but ye did it not." No other form of sin is so surely
damning! What can save those men whom all the light and
trutlT of God fail to save, aud serve only to heighten and aggra
vate their guilt ?

156 GOSPEL OF JOHN.— CHAP. X.

CHAPTER X.
This chapter is closely related in thought and in time to the
two preceding. It seems to have been sugge'sted by the case of
the Pharisees — then the recognized spiritual leaders of the cove
nant people, but altogether apostate from God — blind leaders of
blind men. To the fold of God's people they were as thieves and
robbers who get in by scaling the walls, " climbing up some
other way." They did not enter legitimately through the door.
 This line of thought led Jesus to speak of himself as the door
of the sheep-fold — a figure which to a considerable extent obtains
through vs. 1-10. The conception of Jesus as also " the Shep
herd appears in vs. 2-5, but especially in vs. 11-18, and 26-30.
The resulting division of sentiment among his hearers comes to
view (vs. 19-21). This discussion seems to have been resumed
at the subsequent feast of dedication (v. 22 and onward). In
tbis discussion the words of Jesus — " I and the Father are one "
— revived the charge of blasphemy, under which they again at
tempt to stone him. Jesus defends his declaration — ^I am the
Son of God — from the Old Testament scriptures (vs. 34-36), and
appeala again to his miracles (vs. 37, 38) ; escapes a violent ar
rest, and repairs to the locality where John at first baptized (vs.
1. Verily, verily, I say unto you. He that entereth not by
the door into the sheep-fold, but climbeth up some other way,
the same is a thief and a robber.
2. But he that entereth in by the door is the shepherd of
the sheep.
In studying the figurative imagery with whioh this chapter
opens; the door of the sheep-fold; the porter; the shepherd;
the thieves and robbers ; — it is wise to seek in a docile spirit for
the real meaning of Christ's words, and to guard ourselves
against being hypercritical iu demanding congruity of figure
throughout. What if the figurative conception should change —
firat preaenting Jesus as the door ; and afterward as the " Shep
herd ? The sense is still clear. In some aspects he is the
door; in others, the shepherd.
A sheep-fold is an inclosure, with walls and a door. The owner
is supposed to employ and control the porter, and also, the shep
herd; or perhaps, as in the application of the figure here,
he may fill all these offices himself He is lord of the fold" and
of the flock; and of course has command of the door of en
trance.  " Thieves and robbers '' scale the walls; get in as they
can, " some other way." By this they may be known. Of course
they have no rights there ; and none but bad intentions.
3. To him the porter opcneth ; and the sheep hear his

GOSPEL OF JOHN.— CHAP. X. 157
voice : and he calleth his own sheep by name, and leadeth
them out.
4. And when he putteth forth his own sheep, he goeth
before them, and the sheep follow him : for they know his
voice. 5. And a stranger will they not follow, but will flee from
hira ; for they know not the voice of strangers.
6. This parable spake Jesus unto thera ; but they under
stood not what things they were which he spake unto them.
The porter opens the door to the real shepherd; the sheep
hear his call, recognize his voice. "He calleth them by name
— a remarkable fact in Oriental husbandry, that in a flock of
hundreds or thousands, each individual sheep has its name;
knows it, and is known by it. So Christ's sheep are never so
numerous that he will not know each one's individual name —
each one's peculiarities, personal character, talents, fitnesses,
weak and temptible points, exposures and demands for his sym
pathy and care. A positive personal communion of mind,
thought, sympathy, and love, is constantly active between Jesus
the Shepherd and every one of his sheep. They aeverally know
him ; he personally knows each one of them. He can call each
one by name, and lead him out from the fold into the pasture
grounds that will best meet his wants.
" When he putteth forth all his own " (so the most approved
text reada), " he goeth before them, and the sheep follow him ; for
they know his voice" — the usages of shepherd life being in every
point applicable most beautifully to the spiritual nurture and
care of his people as exercised by Jesus their Shepherd. As
sheep will not follow a stranger whose voice is unfamiliar, the
people of Christ may learn to know the voice of their good Shep
herd, so as, with quick and sure perception, to detect every
strange voice and refuse to follow it. How well for them to make
and maintain this definite personal acquaintance with Christ, so
that they surely know his from every misleading voice !  These
words of Jesus give us the true theory of the Christian life.
Let it be ours to reduce this theory into our living and undevia-
ting practice.  This " parable,' — not precisely in the same
sense as this English word has in the other evangelists — nor is
John's Greek word the same as theirs. John's word means only
in general a figurative illustration — as may be seen also in 16 :
25, 29. V. 6 raises the question — To whom waa this parable spo
ken ? 7/'ho did not understand it ? Is this said of his own peo
ple, or of the Jews ? Probably the latter, as we might infer from
v. 19, and as might be inferred also from its having been appar
ently suggested (as above said) by the case of the apostate Phari
sees, breaking into God's fold and acting the thief and the rob
ber. It is not specially strange that they did not readily under-

./

158 GOSPEL OF JOHN.— CHAP. X.
stand au illustration which bore with just severity against them
selves and cut so deep into their self conceit.
, 7. Then said Jesus unto them again. Verily, verily, I say
unto you, I am the door of the sheep.
8. All that ever carae before me are thieves and robbers ;
but the sheep did not hear them.
As tbey did not take his meaning readily, he proceeds to speak
yet more plainly. Commencing with his emphatic "Verily, ver
ily," he declares, " 1 am the door of the sheep." 1 own thia
fold ; I keep the door and have the care of this flock. "All that
ever came before me " — e. g. Satan scaling the walls of the gar
den of Eden ; and all hia servants from that time to this — are
thieves and robbers.  There is no need to press these words,
"All that ever came before me," so as to include the patriarchs
and prophets — Abraham, Moses, David, Isaiah — whom God cer
tainly uaed as his own ahepherds in their time and sphere. His
thought is not upon them, but flrst (it would seem) upon Satan
himself and thence onward upon all his instruments and helpers.
 "The sheep did not hear them" states the general fact; or,
as hinted above, the theory of the Christian life, under which
Christ's people are to know and follow his voice, and neither
know nor follow the voice of strangers.
9. I am the door : by me if any man enter in, he shall be
saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture.
10. The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and
to destroy: I am come that they might have life, and that
they might have it more abundantly.
The striking, not to say interesting thing in these verses, is
the facility with which the speaker passes from figurative to lit
eral terms. Here is a sheep-fold with its " door." The door is
Jesus himself It is a " man " who enters in through this door;
and so entering, he is " saved " as the souls of men are saved ;
yet the figure returns again. He "goes in and out" of this
sheep-fold as sheep are wont to do, night and morning, and he
"finds pasture" — such grass as is good for sheep. But no reader
need miss the sentiment — at once beautiful and forcible — the
Christian soul lives on Christ; is fed and guarded, kept and made
peaceful, safe and quiet as the trustful lambs under the faithful
care of their kind shepherd.  ^All unlike the good shepherd and
the faithful door-keeper comes the thief into the fold, with no
object but to steal, kill, and destroy; reckless of the shepherd's
rights of property — reckless ofthe comfort and even ofthe life of
the sheep.  What is he but an enemy — a destroyer!  The case
suggests how sorely Jesus must have been tried, grieved and fired
with indignation against the Pharisees who had climbed into his
sheep-fold only to steal and to kill, murdering human souls in-

GOSPEL OF JOHN.— CHAP. X. 159
stead of leading them into paths of life !  Jesus puts his own
purpose and work in the sharpest contrast with theirs: "I am
come that they may have life"" and may live well — with a life at
once healthful, vigorous, enduring and full of joy. How express
ive are these blessed worda ! How full of truth is the spiritual
reality which they represent !
11. I am the good shepherd : the good shepherd giveth
his life for the sheep.
12. But he that is a hireling, and not the shepherd, whose
own the sheep are not, seeth the wolf coming, and leaveth
the sheep, and fleeth ; and the wolf catcheth them, and scat-
tereth the sheep.
13. The hireling fleeth, because he is a hireling, and
careth not for the sheep.
These exquisitely precious words — " I am the good shepherd "
— lead our thought first to the admirable fitneas of the figure, con
sidered as originating in Oriental lands, based on the charming
relations as there seen of the shepherd to his flock, in which we
have care and sympathy on the one side, met with never falter
ing trust and never flagging obedience on the other — begetting
fellowship and companionship never to be intermitted by day or
by night, in summer or in winter, in sunshine or in storm — the
relations of want and supply reaching to food and to shelter, to
help in weakness, to succor in trouble, to protection against ene
mies — indeed to every possible aid which interest can prompt or
affection demand. The people of Christ have found comfort and
quickening iu this similitude — Christ the good shepherd, and
themselves the sheep of his fold — ever since David embalmed his
Christian experience in his sweet twenty-third paalm: "The Lord
is my shepherd ; I shall not want."
But further: these words of Jesus should carry us back to those
prophetic scriptures which had put the Meaaiah in contraat with
the false and vile shepherds who had assumed to control the flock
of God, but, in fact, only to make it waste and deaolate. Such
contrast is rather implied than distinctly expressed in Isa. 40:
11 : " He shall feed his flock like a shepherd ; he shall gather the
lambs with his arm and carry them in his bosom, and shall gently
lead those that are with young." The description is beautiful ;
the tenderness and sympathy inimitably fine, and to all suffering
Christian souls, full of hope and consolation.  In Ezek. 34, we
have no lack of strong points of contrast, such as give force to the
worda — " I am the good shepherd " — the well known shepherd of
your prophetic scriptures whose mission was specially promised ;
whose -work was put in sharp contrast even there with the evil
shepherds who served none but themselves, and only cursed the
flock.  " Sou of man, prophesy against the shepherds of Israel ;
Woe be to the shepherds of Israel that do feed themselves ! Ye
cat the fat and ye clothe you with the wool; ye kill them that

160 GOSPEL OF JOHN.— CHAP. X.
are fed; but ye feed not the flock." Therefore God arises in.
majesty for the relief of his flock and for retribution on their des
troyers, saying : " Therefore will I save my flock, and they shall
no more be a prey. . . And I will set up one shepherd over
them, and he shall feed them, even my servant David : he shall
feed them, and he shall be their shepherd; and I the Lord will
be their God, and my servant David a prince among them ; I the
Lord have spoken it" (Ezek. 34: 2, 3, 22-24).  Zech. 11 also
develops in very graphic style the relations of Jesus as the good
shepherd to those who during his earthly life were acting the part
of thieves and robbers to his fold.
Over against the good shepherd, we have here another charac
ter — at least one put under another figure. Thus far in the dis
course, the enemy is a thief and a robber, breaking into the fold
over its inclosing walls ; but the new character is an " hireling,"
aud not the shepherd. He neither owns, loves, nor cares for the
sheep. He cares only for his wages. Seeing the wolf coming,
he does not face the foe and fight, to save his flock, but runs.
The wolf catches some, and scatters the rest. Nothing less than
a heart-felt interest in the flock will make the shepherd brave in.
peril, and if need be self-sacrificing for their good. The good
shepherd puts himself in strong contrast with the hireling ; and
more than suggests that his under-shepherds should be like him
self — true and even fearlessly brave to protect the sheep.
1 4. I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am
known of mine.
15. As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Fa
ther : and I lay down my life for the sheep.
At the point where the contrast would seem to require "1 care
for my sheep," we have instead, the word "know ' — " I know
mine and mine know me " (the best manuscripts have it). But
the word " know " came ultimately and very pertinently up to
the full idea which the contrast leads us to expect here. For, in
timate personal acquaintance begets sympathy and love, so that
the Hebrews were wont to use the verb know in the sense of lov
ing, caring for. Jesus knows every believing, trustful soul —
knows each one perfectly ; never fails to note and feel every sor
row, every want, every outgoing toward himself of love, gratitude,
trust; — and this all-embracing knowledge begets love and watch
ful care.  " They know me ' also — know in a like full, minute,
comprehensive sense — a sense which begets love and trust. 
Moreover, let it be noted that v. 15 stands in very close connec
tion with V. 14 — closer in the Greek than in our English — of this
sort : " I know mine and mine know me, even as the Father
knows me and I know the Father." The analogy between Jesus
and his people on the one hand and between Jesus and his Fa
ther on the other is the point made here, expressed in both cases
by the comprehensive Avord know — this word involving not merely

GOSPEL OF JOHN.— CHAP. X. 161
knowledge, acquaintance; but the love, the sympathy and mutu-al
interest which intimate acquaintance ia wont to beget.
16. And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold :
them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice ; and
there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.
The " other sheep not of this fold " are without doubt Gentiles.
"Not of this fold" because the "fold" thus far since Abraham
had included only the covenant people. If any Gentiles were
brought in, they oame as proaelytes and were reckoned as of the
same fold. But the time is near for a new order of things. Others
in great numbers are to be brought into the fold of Jeaua, hearing
his voice and obeying his call. So sh.all there be one flock (more
true to the Greek than " fold " ), for the idea of incloaure is slightly
modified. The church ia thenceforward rather a flock than a fold.
17. Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay
down my Hfe, that I might take it again.
18. Np man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself.
I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it
again. This commandment have I received of my Father.
Twice already in this discourse had Jesus spoken of laying
down his life for his sheep (vs. 11, 15). Here he resumes this
thought to say yet more concerning it.  Two points deserve
special notice : — (a.) That the Father approves the sacrifice even
to death of his Sou. He loves his Son "because he is free-hearted
to make this sacrifice. We may infer from this that the Father
ia perfectly in sympathy with the scheme of atonement in whioh
the death of Christ was the great central fact. He had " so loved
the world as to give up his only begotten Son " to meet this death.
In his view the prize to be won was worth this coat.  (6.) Je
sus was to lay down his life — not as a failure in hia enterprise;
not as a warrior falls in battle, the cause of his country falling
with him ; but — unlike any human analogy — was to- lay down hia
life with his own consent and with power to take it again. The
death of Jesus contemplated a glorious resurrection — a rising to
a higher life and to a mightier power.  " This commandment
have I received of my Father" — in the sense that this waa in the
plan or scheme. Jesus was to lay down his life, but also to take
it asain — soon, gloriously — to reach thereby the sublime results
of salvation to a lost world and of infinite honor and glory to God.
19. There was a division therefore again among the Jews
for these sayings.
20. And many of them said, He hath a devil and is mad ;
why hear ye him ?
21. Others said, These are not the words of him that hath
a devil. Can a devil open the eyes of the blind?

162 GOSPEL OF JOHN.— CHAP. X.
As usual, the words of Jesus stir the Jewish mind profoundly,
but affect various men variously. Some, here as elsewhere — now
as before — say : " He hath a demon and is mad " — language which
shows that in their view some forma of demoniacal possession
produced insanity — yet whether in hia case they supposed it of
such sort as to vacate personal responsibility does not appear
with certainty. Their inference in this case was that a man so
possessed could say nothing of value ; was not fit to be heard.
How far this was an honest conviction, or on the other hand, how
far it came under that law of mind by which " the wish is father
to the thought," we are left to infer from the character of the
men.  Others, with more and better reason, said — His words
are too full of good sense and wisdom and love to come from a
demon spirit within him. And besides, think of what he has
done before all the people. Can a demon open blind eyes? Would
he if he could ? Have ye ever known such a case? Can ye sup
pose a demon to have either the power or the will to do such a
miracle ?  Thus folly and wisdom were in sharp discussion.
There were some men of sense living in those days ; and unfor
tunately some men, high in religious place and power, whose
speech was by no means very sensible.
22. And it was at Jerusalem the feast of the dedication,
and it was winter.
23. And Jesus walked in the temple in Solomon's porch.
Appropriately a new chapter should commence here. The
time, the occasion, and naturally the theme, have entirely changed.
Since the opening of chapter 7, the events have gathered close
about the feast of tabernacles, in the Jewish seventh month.
Here we are set forward not far from three months, to the latter
part of the month Chisleu, corresponding to our Christmas (Dec.
25). "The feast of dedication" was in progress at Jerusalem —
a feast which celebrated the cleansing and re-dedication of the
temple after it had been profaned by Antiochus Epiphanes and
its customary sacrifices suspended three and a half years.* It
was winter — the rainy season of Palestine ; therefore Jesus did
not teach in the fore-court in the open air, but in the eastern
porch of the fore-court of the Gentiles which had continued to
stand at the destruction of Solomon's temple by the Chaldeans.
Being thus a relic of Solomon's building, it fitly retained his
name.  Jesua was walking to and fro when the conversation
here narrated took place.
24. Then came the Jews round about him, and said unto
him, How long dost thou make us to doubt? If thou be
the Christ, tell us plainly.
* See 1 Mac. 4: 41-59 and 2 Mao. 10; 1-8 and Josephus Antiq.
12: 7,7.)

GOSPEL OF JOHN.— CHAP. X. 163
To the Greek verb translated — " make us to doubt," some crit
ics, closely following its normal significance, give the sense — lift
up ; excite our minds ; keep us in this unnatural fever of expecta
tion. But the context is decisive for the meaning — hold us in
suspense; keep our minds strained upon the doubts of the case.
 If thou be the Christ, teU us in plain words, publicly spoken.
 This complaining tone tacitly assumes that Jesus has been in
fault, while they — poor unfortunate men — are not only innocent,
but abused. They would, forsooth, be very glad to know some
thing certain. It is painful to be kept thus in suspense I
25. Jesus answered them, I told you, and ye believed
nof: the works that I do in my Father's name, they bear
witness of me.
26. But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep,
as I said unto you.
Very appropriately Jesus answers — Your complaints are en
tirely gratuitous. I have told you already, but ye would not be
lieve. I have not only declared myself to be your nation's Mes
siah — thei Coming One foretold by your prophets in your own
scriptures, but I have wrought miracles iu my Father's name
-which have been his witness to me. Still ye have neither be
lieved my word nor my miracles. " Ye believe not because ye
are not of my sheep." The laat clause — "As I said unto you"
is omitted in the Vatican and Sinaitic manuscripts. Tischen
dorf also omits ; but Alford, Tholuck, Meyer, and others, retain
them because not far from three months had transpired since the
discourse iu the temple (John 10 : 1-18) to which he refers, the
text of whioh was — " I am the good Shepherd; " " my sheep hear
my voice," etc. Some of his hearers on this occasion may not
have been present there, though obviously many of them were.
27. My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they
follow me :
28. And I give unto them eternal life ; and they shall
never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my
hand. 29. My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all ;
and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand.
30. I and my Father are one.
Those who are really my sheep are not troubled with the
doubts whioh you claim to feel. They know my voice ; I know
them; they follow me. That peculiar relation of shepherd to
flock is fully, beautifully developed between myself and my peo
ple. Hence they are surely mine forever : I give them life — not
transient life, but life eternal. They shall by no means ever per
ish [the Greek is very strong] ; no one shall ever pluck them
from my hand. My Father also is pledged, for He gave them to

164 GOSPEL OF JOHN.— CHAP. X.
me, and no one has power to pluck them from the Father's hand.*
 " I and the Father are one." (The approved text has, not
"my" but the Father).  The peculiar accuracy and force of
the Greek language are developed in these words. With the help
of a special form for the first person plural of the verb, they are
able to say — " I and the Father we are one."
This text has been pressed into service for the metaphysics of
theology to prove that the Father and the Son are one in essence,
and not merely in sympathy, purpose, and work. Whatever may
be true as to unity of essence in the case of the Logos and the
Father, the argument aa made from thia passage is materially
weakened by these two considerations : — (a.) That the context^de-
mands nothing beyond unity of sympathy, purpose, and work.
If the passage teaches any thing beyond this, it must be by an in
ference of thia sort, viz. a unity of purpose and of operation must
assume and imply unity of essence.  Perhaps we are scarcely
competent to establish such an inference.  (6.) It is by no
means certain that the speaker, Jesus — the "I" of this passage —
is precisely equivalent to the Logos. Should it not rather be as-
su-med that the speaker here is the " Word made flesh, dwelling
among us," and manifesting hia glory before human eyes ? In
this view of the case, is it logical to assume that all which is true
of the Logos as existing antecedent to his incarnation, can be af
firmed (as to essence) after the incarnation — i. e. of the Son of
man when the human was present equally with the divine, in
these words and deeds ?
Another controverted theological point has brought vs. 28, 29,
into requisition — viz. that of the final perseverance unto salvation
of all the truly converted.  This is not the place for extended
theological discussion. A few words may be due in the interests
of exposition, interpretation.
To break the force of these verses as proof tests for the final
perseverance of all real converts, it is urged that for aught said
here, saints may tear themselves away from Christ and so perish
— nothing being affirmed here except that no violence from with
out shall pluck them from Jesus' hand.
To this it may be replied; (a.) The form of these assertions
adjusts itself to the figure before the mind — that of aheep and
their shepherd. Now it is not even supposable that sheep tear
themselves from their shepherd. The nature of the sheep utterly
forbids this. To suppose it would be in revolting violation of
the genius and nature of the figure of sheep and ahepherd. The
only danger conceivable in the case of sheep is that they perish
from wolves attacking, or from thieves and robbers breaking into
the fold. The affirmation is therefore purposely made as strong
and absolute as the nature of the figure admits. What more need
-* The Sinaitic and Vatican give it, not my Father, but the Father.
Tischendorf aud Alford follow their authority. The sense is not ma
terially affected by the change.

GOSPEL OF JOHN.— CHAP. X. 165
we ask'?  (6.) "Shall never perish" guaranties against both
violence from without and apostasy from within.  (c.) Other
declarations. of scripture are pointed especially against the danger
of lapsing through impulses from within; — e. g. " Confident of
this very thing, that He who hath begun a good work in you will
perform it until the day of Jesus Christ" (Phil, i: 6). "Kept
by the power of God through faith unto salvation '' (1 Pet. 1 : 5).
 {d.) Query: Is not the real question this — Whether Jesus,
the good Shepherd, is able to take care of his own sheep so that
they shall not fail of ultimate salvation? Are his resources of
power through his providence, his word, his manifested presence,
and hia Spirit — ^all combined, adequate to this result? In mak
ing the afSrmations before ua in theae veraea, did he duly con
sider that the beings given to him of the Father to be saved
(" sheep " they are in the figure, but men, human beings, in the
thing figuratively represented), have a moral nature — a free will,
and are therefore to be influenced, not so much by physical force
as by moral considerations, adapted to free, intelligent mind ?
For it must be conceded, I think, that if Jesus made these
decla,rations in full view of the nature of the beings to be saved,
there can be no reason to question that he understands his work,
and is equal to its accomplishment.
31. Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him.
32. Jesus answered them, Many good works have I
shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do
ye stone me?
33. The Jews answered hira, saying, For a good work we
stone thee not; but for blaspheray; and because that thou,
being a man, makest thyself God.
Note how quietly — shall we not say also shrewdly — Jesua as
sumes that he had wrought no other than good works — none at
all that were bad. But had he not a perfect right to make this
assumption? It served only to put the actual case on its real
merits. Those Jews were proposing to stone him for some of his
good works, or good worda ; — fitly therefore does Jesus ask — for
which f Let them think which. It may open their eyes to their
mistake, or shall we not rather say — to their crime ?—  They an
swer; Not for any good work, but for blasphemy — the blasphemy
of making thyself God when thou art so manifeatly a man. 
They underatood — at leaat they claimed to underatand — his
words — "I and the Father— we are one" — to be equivalent to
making himself God. Prosecutors are under great temptation to
make up a strong case.
34. Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I
said. Ye are gods?
35. If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God
came, and the Scripture can not be broken ;
8

16G GOSPEL OF JOHN.— CHAP. X.
36. Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and
sent into the world, Thou blaspheraest; because I said, I am
the Son of God?
For many reasons, but especially for its bearings upon the
views which Jesus himself held respecting his own divine nature,
this passage should be examined -with the utmost candor and care.
 Jesus had said, " I and the Father — we are one." This was
equivalent to calling himself " the Son of God" in a very special
and peculiar sense. Upon the testimony of these words the
Jews charged him with blasphemy in that, being a man, he
made himself God. What answer did Jesus make to this charge?
He appealed to their law, and specifically to Psalm 82: 1, 6, which
passage, moreover, refers to Exodus 21 : 6, and 22 : 8, 9, 28. In
these passages from Exodus civil judges are called Elohim — one
of the names of God. The English Bible, however, translates the
word "judges." But in Psalms 82, the same word in the same
sense is twice translated "gods." 'The reason for applying this
word "Elohim" to civil judges we may suppose to have been that
they were acting in the place of God, in his behalf administer
ing his law; also that the original, etymological sense made it
appropriate — the high ones — elevated to high responsibility over
their fellow-men. It may be added that this name for God ad
mits of a wider range of application than any other one of his va
rious names — it being used for angels (Ps. 8 : 6), and in the sin
gular number for the gods of the heathen (Isa. 44: 10, 15, and
45 : 20, and 46 : 6). (See my Notes on Ps. 82). So much should
be said as to the worda quoted by Jesua from the Old Testament —
" I said. Ye are Gods."
Here we have to meet the question — What is the nature of this
self-defense of Jesus? What is his argument and what are its
legitimate bearings?
Two suppositions have been made: — {a.) That Jesus puts his
own case on the precise footing of the Jewish civil magistrate, in
ferring that if those magistrates were called "gods" in their law
and there was no blasphemy in giving them this name of God,
no charge of blasphemy could lie against him for calling himself
the Son of God. They were called "gods" because the word of
God came to them — "word" in the sense of commission, dele
gating authority to act as judges ; including also, perhaps, the
laws they were to execute and all needful instructions as to the
processes of civil trial, etc.  Now if Jesus puts himself under
the wing (so to speak) of this Old Testament uaage in speaking
of civil judges, virtually pleading that under such a sanction he
might at least speak of himself as the Son of God without blas
phemy, we have one theory of hia defense — one which, appa
rently, makes no claim on his part to real divinity.
(6.) Another construction of his argument is supposable; viz:
That Jesus does not by any means tone down his claims as to hia
person and work to the grade of those Old Testament judges;

GOSPEL OF JOHN.— CHAP. X. 167
does not assume an exact analogy between himself and those
judges; but makea an argument of this sort: "If he called them
gods who were only civil judges, how mucli more may I, being not
merely one " to whom the word of God came," but being from
eternity the very Word of God — myself "sanctified" [set apart]
of the Father "and sent into the world" as his Supreme Vice
gerent, to administer his moral realm aa Judge and Lord of all —
how much more may I with propriety ^peak of myaelf as the Son
of God?  In this view of it, his appeal to the Old Testament ia
made because those Jews held their ancient scriptures in the
highest regard and even reverence, and because, an argument
drawn from their usage .would have more force than any thing
else he could possibly adduce.
This latter construction seems to me unquestionably the true one.
The phrase — ¦" unto whom the word of God came" seems chosen of
design for the purpose of suggesting the inference as put above —
How much more may he who comes from the Father as the very
Word himself be called the Son of God.  Then, moreover, a
strong point of difference between himself and those ancient
judges lies in the descriptive points as to himself — " Him whom
the Father hath sanctified and sent into the world." This des
cription purposely lifts Jesus entirely above the grade of those
ancient judges who yet were called "gods."  These oonaider-
ations combine to sustain the latter of the constructions n.amed
above, and to show therefore that no argument adverse to the true
divinity of Christ (in his own view of himself) can be drawn from
this answer made to the Je-^\'s.
37. If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not.
38. But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the
works; that ye may know, and believe, that, the Father is
in me, and I in him.
"The works of my Father" must be taken here substantially as
where first used by Jesus (John 5:17)," My Father worketh hitherto,
and I work." I am working as he works; doing the sarae thinga,
in the same spirit, for the same ends. These works were prima
rily his miracles of mercy and of power, done in the Father's
name ; in a sense, by means of the Father's power and specially aa
an indorsement of the mission of his Son. Jesus says — If I have
not performed such miracles, believe me not. If I have per
formed such, then, though ye reject the testimony of my word,
yet ye must accept the testimony of these works — God's own tea
timony to his Son.
In the latter part of v. 38, some of the most reliable manuscripts
give ua — not "know" and "believe," but know and understand.
The difference in sense is (as often) of small account.
39. Therefore they sought again to take him ; but he es
caped out of their hand.

168 GOSPEL OF JOHN.— CHAP. XL
40. And went away again beyond Jordan into the place
where John at first baptized ; and there he abode.
Another ebullition of rage and another escape of their intended
victim. The time for his arrest had not yet come.  His choice
of the region where John the Baptist began his work was made
(supposably) on two main grounds: Its quiet retirement far from
Jerusalem and the fiery Pharisaic zealots who frequented that
city ; and also, the preparation for his labors which naturally re
sulted from the antecedent labors of John.
41. And many resorted unto him, and said, John did no
miracle : but all things that John spake of this man were
true. 42. And many believed on him there.
This must be the man of whom John speaks as to come after him.
He fills out the description given of him by our great Teacher of
righteousness. . Besides, he works miracles as our teacher John
did not. Thus many of the people there believed o-n Jesua.

CHAPTER XI.
The central fact of this chapter is the raising of Lazarus from
the grave. The story is told in full detail, with some of its re
sults. 1. Now a certain man was sick, named Lazarus, of
Bethany, the town of Mary and her sister Martha.
2. (It was that Mary which anointed the Lord with oint
ment, and wiped his feet with her hair, whose brother Laz
arus was sick.)
First the historian identifies the man Lazarus. He was of
Bethany — not the Bethany where John the Baptist preached
(Johu 1 : 28), but that Bethany whioh lay just over the summit
of the Mount of Olives, east of Jerusalem; fifteen furlongs (v. 18)
- — one and seven-eighth miles — distant. Thia -n'as a " town," in
the sense of a small unwalled village in the country, and was known
as the residence of Mary and her sister Martha — the sick man
Lazarus being their brother. There being in the circle of Jesus'
special friends several of the name Mary, this one is identified as
the same who (John 12: 1-3) "anointed the Lord with ointment."
 According to Jewish tradition — more or less reliable — Martha
was now a -widow, her husband, Simon the leper, having deceased.

GOSPEL OF JOHN.— CHAP. XI. 169
It is more to our purpose and more reliable that the family were
in easy circumstances ; that this was one of the dear, peaceful
homes of the man of Nazareth ; that Martha delighted to minister
to his personal wants ; while JMary delighted not less to sit at hia
feet and drink in his blessed words.  The sisters come to view
in Luke 10 : 38-42, and also again in John 12 : 1-3.
3. Therefore his sister sent unto him, saying, Lord, be
hold, he whom thou lovest is sick.
4. When Jesus heard that, he said, This sickness is not
unto death, but for the glory of God, that the Son of God
might be glorified thereby.
Why should they not send to their dear sympathizing friend,
if only for the sake of his sympathy ? But they had known so
many sick ones restored by his power, that they fondly hoped he
might work such a miracle upon their only brother.  This first
reply of Jesus foreshadowed the ultimate result with deeper sig
nificance than the hearers of it at first apprehended.  This sick
ness is not unto hia final death, for I purpose to raise him from
death, that the glory of the Father and of the Son may be made
manifest thereby. Jesua waa accustomed to speak of his miracles
as " manifesting forth his glory." (John 2: 11, and 11 : 40.)
5. Now Jesus loved Martha, and her sister, and Lazarus.
6. When he had heard therefore that he was sick, he
abode two days still in the same place where he was.
7. Then after that saith he to his disciples. Let us go into
Judea again.
The writer seems purposely to bring together these two facts — •
the love of Jesus for this family, and yet his delay of two days
before he set off to visit them upon their very urgent call. He
had a reason for this delay. The writer leaves us to think what
it might be.
8. His disciples say unto him. Master, the Jews of late
sought to stone thee ; and goest thou thither again ?
9. Jesus answered. Are there not twelve hours in the day ?
If any man walk in the day, he stumbleth not, because he
seeth the light of this world.
10. But if a raan walk in the night, he stumbleth, because
there is no light in him.
Sensitive to the danger of their Master after the several cases of
attempted violence to his person which had alarmed them, it ia
not strange that they gently protested against his going again so
near Jerusalem.  The reply of Jesus imports that he should go
fearlessly where his life-work lay, and should expect to -work hia
twelve hours of daylight through without stumbling.

170 GOSPEL OF JOHN.— CHAP. XL
11. These things said he : and after that he saith unto
them, Our friend Lazarus sleepeth ; but I go, that I may
wake him out of sleep.
12. Then said his disciples, Lord, if he sleep, he shall do
well. 13. Howbeit Jesus spake of his death : but they thought
that he had spoken of taking of rest in sleep.
Here for the second time (see the first case in Matt. 9 : 24, or
Mark 5 : 39, or Luke 8 : 52) — Jesua spoke of death as a sleep — a
uaage in respect to God's children whioh has long since become
established — suggestive of whatever is most sweet, peaceful,
blessed, and ultimately restoring in the highest sense :
"Asleep in Jesus — peaceful rest,
'Whose waking is supremely blest."
To the disciples this usage was yet unfamiliar; so tbey thought
that sleep in the case of this patient might be a favorable symp
tom. 14. Then said Jesus unto them plainly, Lazarus is dead.
15. And I am glad for your sakes that I was not there, to
the intent ye may believe ; nevertheless let us go unto him.
16. Then said Thomas, which is called Didymus, unto his
fellow disciples. Let us also go, that we may die with him.
Their misapprehension brought out the explanation in plain
terms — "Lazarus is dead." For your sake 1 am glad, since it
prepares the way for a manifestation of my power which should
confirm your fath in me.
The meaning of Thomas in his remark to his fellow disciples
turns upon the reference of the last words — " him." Does he
mean, let us go and die with him — ^Lazarus — as intimate friends
sometinjes feel when a dear one dies : Let me die also and go with
him ; or is it rather. Let us go with our Master, and if he must
die by the violence of his enemies, let us share the same fate and
rejoice to die with him?  The latter is the more rational and
therefore probable — a pleasing testimony to the loving fidelity of
at least one of the chosen twelve.
17. Then when Jesus came, he found that he had lain in
the grave four days already.
18. Now Bethany was nigh unto Jerusalem, about fifteen
furlongs off:
19. And raany of the Jews came to Martha and Mary, to
comfort them concerning their brother.
Of these four days, the messenger sent may have mostly occu
pied one (the distance being about twenty miles); two were passed
in the delay before setting off (v. 6); and a fourth iu the journey

GOSPEL OF JOHN.— CHAP. XI. 171
of the Savior with his disciples. This would show that Lazarus
died soou after the messenger started ; also that, as usual in the
climate of Palestine, interment in the sepulcher followed very
soon after death.  The high social position of this family and
their endearing qualities had drawn around them numerous
friends, of whom many came to minister whatever comfort their
sympathy and condolence might afford.
20. Then Martha, as soon as she heard that Jesus was
coming, went and met him : but Mary sat still in the house.
21. Then said Martha unto Jesus, Lord, if thou hadst
been here, my brother had not died.
22. But I know, that even now, whatsoever thou wilt ask
of God, God wUl give it thee.
Martha, impulsive and warm-hearted, rushed out to meet Jesus
when she heard of his approach. Thoughtful Mary still sat mua-
ing, waiting. When Martha and Jesus met, she seems to have
been the first to speak, giving expression to the cherished hope
of both herself and her sister, that if Jesus had only been there ;
if he could by haste have reached them iu time, her brother need
not have died. It had long been settled in her mind that Jesus
could heal the sick. In fact, she goes yet a little farther. Jesus
is a man of prayer — as she has had frequent occasion to know.
She hints her half-cherishedhope that if he were to give himself
to prayer in the present emergency, something — she can not well
surmise what — more perhaps than she dared to hope — might yet
be done.
23. Jesus saith unto her, Thy brother shall rise again.
24. Martha saith unto him, I know that he shall rise
again in the resurrection at the last day.
25. Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the
life : he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall
he live :
26. And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never
die. Believest thou this ?
27. She saith unto him, Yea, Lord : I believe that thou
art the Christ, the Son of God, which should come into the
world. Remarkably Jesus advances by stages of progress toward dis
closing the great purpose of his heart. First, " 'Thy brother shall
rise again." He did not say when; did not intimate distinctly
that it should be on that very day.  Martha replied, I know
that — if thy meaning be only that he shall rise when all the dead
shall come forth from their graves at the last day. Thou hast
taught us that before. (John 5: 28, 29.) Whether this were a
commonly received doctrine of the Jews, other than those taught

172 GOSPEL OF JOHN.— CHAP. XL
by Christ, can not be inferred with certainty from thia confession
of her faith by Martha, for she may have learned it from Jesus
only.  I'hen Jesus resumed his answer in those wonderful
words, so characteristically brief and pregnant with meaning :
" I am the resurrection and the life ; " the power of raising the
dead and of all real life resides in me. " He that believeth in
me, though dead, shall yet live" in the resurrection to immortal
life. Also, the man now living who believes in me shall never
die — the second death — the death eternal. These words seem to
take their special form and meaning from the case of Lazarus,
then present to his mind, and to bear relations to both the body
and the soul — to both natural death and immortal life — thus :
" He that believeth in me, though dead " — as Lazarus now is —
shall yet live (as I am about to raise him to life) ; and whosoever
is not dead (as Lazarus is now), but is living, if he believes in me,
shall never die in the great and fearful sense of death eternal.
Whether one is now dead or now living, faith in me will surely
save him from the second death, and ensure to him the resurrec
tion of the body and eternal life. This exposition accounts for
the antithesis between " Though he were dead," on the one side,
and " Whosoever liveth," on the other. True faith in Jesus will
save each class unto eternal life.
When Martha is asked — "Believest thou this?" she answers as
one not entirely sure that she had his full meaning, and therefore
puts her confession of faith in her awn words : " I believe that
thou art the Christ, the Son of God " — the One long promised to
come into the world. I believe this, and she would imply (prob
ably) all else that is involved iu being the Christ, the Son of^God
and the long promised Messiah.
28. And when she had so said, she went her way, and
called Mary her sister secretly, saying, The Master is come,
and calleth for thee.
29. As soon as she heard that, she arose quickly, and came
unto him.
30. Now Jesus was not yet come into the town, but was
in that place where Martha met him.
31. The Jews then which were with her in the house, and
comforted her, when they saw Mary, that she rose up hastily
and went out, followed her, saying, She goeth unto the grave
to weep there.
32. Then when Mary was come where Jesus was, and saw
him, she fell down at his feet, saying unto him, Lord, if
• thou hadst been here, my brother had not died.
"Called her secretly," we may suppose, for fear of the Jews;
it being well understood to be unsafe for Jesus to appear in pub
lic among the Jews in and near Jerusalem.
Mary, whose modesty or contemplative spirit had restrained

GOSPEL OF JOHN.— CHAP. XI. 173
her from going out uninvited to meet Jesus, now moves moat
promptly upon his invitation. Remarkably, Jesus still remained
where Martha had left him — shall we suppose — resting from the
fatigues of his journey, or choosing not to advance to the house
till he better understood the state of things there, especially as
to the Jews, hostile to himself; or perhaps because he chose to
see Mary alao alone. — But some, at least, of the Jews followed
Mary, supposing she was going to the grave — a very natural sup
position, this usage being common in Palestine. In consequence
of thus following Mary, a considerable number of them were pres
ent at the raising of Lazarus.  We may notice that Mary's
first words to Jesus — falling at his feet — were the very same as
those said by Martha when she met him (v. 21), showing that
their views on this point were the same — the result supposably
of thoir conversation on the subject. So far their faith m Jesus
had borne them before they met him.
33. When Jesus therefore saw her weeping, and the Jove's
also weeping which came with her, he groaned in the spirit,
and was troubled,
34. And said, Where have ye laid him ? They say unto
him, Lord, corae and see.
35. Jesus wept.
36. Then said the Jews, Behold how he loved him !
On the part of Jesus these were tears of sympathy, purely and
only. For there was no occasion to deplore the fate of Lazarus,
or to mourn over the purposed result of his death, viz. the rais
ing of him from death which Jesus fully purposed and was about
to do. This grand event would avail to the glory of God and to
untold consolations to God's people down through the ages by
virtue of its palpable demonstration of the great fact of resurrec
tion from the grave. It was therefore not for these things that
Jesus wept, but because he felt so tenderly the appeal to his sym
pathies. His very heart waa sympathy. So the historian puts
it; — "When Jesus saw Mary weeping and the Jews also — her
friends, weeping," his own bosom swelled with emotion. " He
groaned iu spirit" — our .English veraion has it; but legitimately
the Greek word means he made efforts to restrain and keep under
due control the deep tides of his sympathetic feeling ; he " troubled
himself" — (so the Greek); the effort to command his emotions
produced deep agitation. Did he think alao of like scenes of
grief, suggested by this, which his all-embracing eye might take
in around myriads of dying beds and open graves, where the ten
derest of human ties are sundered and hearts are torn and bleed
ing? Did there come up before his view theae keeneat pains of
our mortal life — theae bitter fruita of sin and death as seen in
this dying world?  But we quite fail to do justice to this scene
unless we give emphasis to the point that our Jesus as seen here
is thoroughly, not to say, intensely human. His sympathies are

174 GOSPEL OF JOHN.— CHAP. XL
those of our own hum.an nature. We know this, for we have all
felt them. We feel in our own bosom the deep sorrow we see
manifested in other human bosoms. The tears of other eyes bring
tears to our own. We may not be able to tell why ; we do not
stop to reason why ; we know they come. Jesus wept because he
saw Mary weeping. In the broader view of the results in this
case as they lay before the mind of Jesus he might see much to
relieve this sorrow ; but still his sympathies for Mary were touched
none the less. It was human; it came of his human range of
view; it testified to his sympathizing human heart; — and herein
lies its never-dying charm and consolation for his suffering peo
ple. It is consoling to think that our Jesua appreciates and does
not rebuke these sorrows of our smitten hearts ; that he sees the
tears that fall and knows the pangs of bereavement : has wept him
self over such scenes, and is "the same yesterday, to-day, and
forever." Even the Jews who had known little personally of Je
sus before, were impressed by this manifestation of sympathetic
sorrow; — "Behold, how he loved him!" Such an impression
should naturally have had the effect to conciliate their feelings
toward Jesus — perhaps prepared the way for some of them (at
least) to believe on him.
37. And some of them said, Could not this man, which
opened the eyes of the blind, have caused that even this mau
should not have died ?
Even some of these Jewish friends of the family suggest that
one who could open the eyes of a man born blind might have
saved the life of Lazarus if he had been jpresent in season. — -
The miracle upon the blind man occurred in Jerusalem and ap
pears to have been known to many. The two cases iu which Je
sus had restored the dead to life, viz. the daughter of Jairus
(Luke 8 : 49-56) and the son of the widow of Nam (Luke 7:11-
16 and Mark 5; 35-42) were located in remote Galilee, and per
haps were not generally known to the residents in Jerusalem.
We might naturally expect, however, that the dear friends in this
Bethany household would have heard of those cases of the really
dead restored to life by their Lord.
38. Jesus therefore again groaning in himself cometh to
the grave. It was a cave, and a stone lay upon it.
39. Jesus said, Take ye away the stone. Martha, the sis
ter of him that was dead, saith unto him. Lord, by this
tirae he stinketh : for he hath been dead four days.
40. Jesus saith unto her. Said I not unto thee, that, if
thou wouldest believe, thou shouldest see the glory of God?
With sympathetic grief still unabated Jesus approaches the
grave. As was the custom in Palestine, this was not a grave dug
in the earth in our modern style, but an excavation in rock — moro
nearly the modern tomb. A stone closed and secured the en-

GOSPEL OF JOHN.— CHAP. XL 175
trance. Jesus bade the bystanders remove the stone. He might
have applied his miraculous power to remove it, but he never
made useleaa diaplays of this power ; never applied it where ordi
nary human agencies were adequate.
The words of Martha make it almost certain that up to this
moment she has not been thinking of her brother's resurrection
as near. Would it not be offensive to open that sepulcher — for
decomposition must have commenced? She shows at least that
she supposed him to be really dead. There can be no stronger
proof, scientifically considered, of absolute death than decompo
sition of the body.  Moreover, though it may seem scarcely
worth the mention, her simple-hearted remark shows that this
was no farce — no contrived scheme to get up a aham miracle for
effect.  Was it a gentle hint to Martha that she had been slow
of heart to take in the sense of his words, when Jesus reminded
her how he had said, "If thou wilt believe, thou shalt see the
glory of God ? " We do not find precisely these words on record,
but their sentiment was involved in the first words of the Lord
(v. 4) which may be supposed to have been sent as his message
to the afflicted sisters, and was perhaps virtually implied in v.
25; "He that believeth in me, though he were de.ad, yet shall ho
live.'' But nothing forbids the supposition that Jesus said these
very words to Martha, though the historian did not record them.
41. Then they took away the stone from tlie place where
the dead was laid. And Jesus lifted up his eyes, and said.
Father, I thank thee that thou hast heard me.
42. And I knew that thou hearest me always : but be
cause of the people which stand by I said it, that they may
believe that thou hast sent me.
43. And when he thus had spoken, he cried with a loud
voice, Lazarus, come forth.
44. And he that was dead came forth, bound hand and
foot with grave clothes ; and his face was bound about with
a napkin. Jesus saith unto them, Loose him, and let him
go. The prayer before the summons — "Come forth" — was specially
designed to show the people standing by tb-at Jesus wrought the
miracle by virtue of his relation to the Father — i. e. as man
rather than simply and only as God. That, as the Messiah,
God'a Son, incarnated iu human fleah — he waa sent from God to
men; was teaching men as one from God; was fulfilling all the
functions of his great mission from heaven as one sent of God
and indorsed by miracles wrought by the power of God — these
were the very points which Jesus sought to make clear and prom
inent before the Jewish mind. Hence the fitness of this audible
prayer. Note the confidence in the Father which thia prayer breathes.

176 GOSPEL OF JOHN.— CHAP. XL
I know (the / emphatic) ; I know past all doubt that thou hear
est mc. It is not for my sake, therefore — not that I may have
some fresh or additional proof that thou hearest my prayer ; but
that the people standing by might have the proof they need —
" that they may believe that thou hast sent me.",  Then with
loud voice that all the people might hear — rloud alao (we may per
haps suppose) aa a suggestive pre-intimation of that final peal
of the archangel's trump which shall wake all the sleeping dead
and burst myriads of human sepulohers — .lesus cried: "Lazarus,
come forth ! '  The words were few; but oh, how majestic they
seem ! How impressive upon those who stood listening to the
prayer, and looking toward the open sepulcher with intense
eagerness for the possible results ! And what shall we say of .the
emotions of Martha and Mary when with their own eyes they saw
their dear and only brother actually coming forth at thia com
mand, awathed in his grave clothes, hia face bound with a nap
kin! That is our own brother, living again! And this is what
is meant by the resurrection from the dead ! So Jesus can raise
his believing people from their graves in his own time, and so he
will! It may aid our conceptions of the value of Jeaua aa a Friend to
ask just here what Martha and Mary must have thought of him
as their friend iu their great need ? They had known him some
what before ; but never before as now. It has been sometimes
said that we measure the worth of a friend on this twofold scale ;
one side graduating the sympathy that is born of love; the other,
the power which is available for help in need. "VVith these
standards in our mind, let us think how wonderfully Jesus re
vealed himself to the sisters in this emergency ! "Was ever hu
man sympathy more tender and pure than his ? What sweet con
fidence in his love it must have begotten in their bosoms ! 
And then, on the other side, there was power to help — it were
idle to wish it were greater. What more can our human weak
ness ever need ? How safe we may feel under the wing of such
a friend ! The dear sisters at Bethany will remember these testi
monies to the value of such a friend as Jesus to the end of their days.
We hope they rendered many a song of thanksgiving all along
their after pilgrimage of trials and griefs.-  And is not their
Jesus also our own ? — as true, and quick, and tender iu his sym
pathies with us as with them ? as mighty to save in our weakness
as iu theirs ?
45. Then many of the Jews which came to Mary, and had
seen the things which Jesus did, believed on him.
46. But some of them went their ways to the Pharisees,
and told them what things Jesus had done.
The moral power of this miracle was immense. Many of
those Jews who were present believed in Jeaus at once. Yet not
all — for some turned away to report the case to the Pharisees.

GOSPEL OF JOHN.— CHAP. XI. 177
Yet even there it still appears that tho power of this miracle was
very great ; "scarce any one ever wrought by Jesus was more so.
It brought matters at once to a great crisis in the Jewish Sanhe
drim — as the historian proceeds to say. It led the chief priests
to consult how they might get Lazarus out of their way, because
so many Jews were brought by his resurrection to believe on
Jesus (12: 10, 11). And it moved the people to honor him with
that triumphal march into Jerusalem which is recorded by all
the Evangelists, but only by .Tohn ascribed to the impression
made by this miracle (12: 17, 18).
47. Then gathered the chief priests and the Pharisees a
council, and said. What do we? for this man doeth many
miracles. 48. If we let him thus alone, all men will believe on hira ;
and the Romans shall come and take away both our place
and nation.
Notice here that Christ's enemies make not the least attempt to
dispute the reality of his " many miracles." Their reasonings as
to the policy to be pursued, and also the policy itself, rest on
these two assumptions: (1.) That the miracles are real; (2.)
That the masses of the people believe ihem to be real, so that he
became, in their notion, a dangerous man to the nation on this
special account. " If we let him alone, all men will believe ou
him."  ^But why do they fear that the Romana will come upon
them ?  We can not vouch for the entire honesty of their pro
fessed fears ; but the pretense, the doctrine put forth (honestly or
otherwise), was that he claimed to be a king ; that his kingdom
was so far " of this -world " that it would come into collision with
the jurisdiction of Rome, and bring down her vengeance upon
the Jewish nation. This, they said, would take away their
" place " — in the seuse probably of exterminating them from
their country; and their "nation" then of course — in the sense
of putting an end to their nationality.  It was in harmony
with these notions of theirs that the indictment whioh they em
blazoned on his cross was — "This is Jesus, ihe King of the
Jews ; " and also that before Pilate Jesus met thia charge by de
claring—" My kingdom is not of this world " (.John 18 : 36).
We muat not overlook the fearful retribution which fell, acme
forty years subsequently, upon Jerusalem, and the whole nation
by the hand of this Roman power — fell not because they " let Je
sus alone," but because they seized and murdered him; not be
cause his kingdom brought down the wrath of Rome, but because
their o-n'n corruption, depravity, crime, brought down on them
the wrath of God ; not because they were too feeble to withstand
the sweep of Roman ambition and conquest, but because they
lifted thoir voice to God, saying, " His blood be on us and on our
children " (Matt. 27 : 25), and" God answered — Let it be as ye
have said!

178 GOSPEL OF JOHN.— CHAP. XI.
49. And one of them, named CaiaphaS;...,feeing the high
priest that same year, said unto them. Ye know nothing at
aU, 50. Nor consider that it is expedient for us, that one man
should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish
not. 51. And this spake he not of himself: but being high
priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for
that nation ;
52. And not for that nation only, but that also he should
gather together in one the children of God that were scat
tered abroad.
The animus of this speech by Caiaphas went to tone their con
victions up to the necessity of sacrificing the life of one man,
though he were innocent and good, for the sake of saving the
nation. If we let him live and go on, our nation is ruined. It
is expedient therefore that we take his life so that the nation
may be saved. He marvels that they do not see this: — "Ye
know nothing at all" if ye do not see it; for what can be more
certain ?  Such were the human thoughts of this high-priest,
and this Jiis meaning as intended by himself, and understood
by the council. But we notice that in the view of the Evangel
ist, his words were shaped — not " of himself" alone, but of God,
above and beyond any thought of his — so as to become a, proph
ecy — signifying that it was deemed of God expedient that Jesus
should die — not for the nation of Jews only, but for the world —
not with the result of scattering the Jews into every land under
heaven (as the council had suggested, v. 48) but rather, of gath
ering into one vast brotherhood the children of God from all
lands of the earth — all the believing and redeemed — into the one
spiritual kingdom of the glorious Lord of all. The phraseology
inthe last part of v. 52 — "gather together in one,' etc., seems
designedly put in contrast with the words of the council in v.
48 — " take away our place and nation."
As to the possibility of such unconscious prophecy from the
lips of the high priest, there can not be the least question
that John believed in it; nor ia there any room to question
that his construction of the words has the sanction of the Spirit
under whose inspiration he wrote. There is no shadow of au
thority for assuming that this was merely a private opinion of
his, never suggested or sanctioned by the divine Spirit.  That
it is possible for God to shape the words of a bad man to express
a prophetic truth of which he had no thought, I see no reason to
doubt. The historian suggests that hia being " high priest that
year" gave occasion to subsidizing his lips (so to speak) for the
utterance of this prophecy. Under the ancient regime God was
wont to speak sometimes through those (officially) sacred lips.

GOSPEL OF JOHN.— CHAP. XIL 179
53. Then from that day forth they took counsel together
for to put him to death.
From that day the policy of murder was fixed and only waited
its opportunity.
54. Jesus therefore walked no more openly among the
Jews ; but went thence unto a country near to the wilder
ness, into a city called Ephraim, and there continued with
his disciples.
This place of retreat — Ephraim — is supposed to be identical
with Ophrah — about twenty miles north of Jerusalem (See Elli
cott, p. 246).
55. And the Jews' passover was nigh at hand : and many
went out of the country up to Jerusalem before the passo
ver, to purify themselves.
56. Then sought they for Jesus, and spake among them
selves, as they stood in the temple. What think ye, that he
vrill not come to the feast ?
57. Now both the chief priests and the Pharisees had
given a commandraent, that, if any man knew where he
were, he should shew it, that they might take him.
The last Passover — the one during which Jesus suffered on the
cross — is now at hand. In the group of those who came up early
to the holy city, the question was anxiously put — Will Jesus
come? — showing that the public mind was intensely moved by his
miracles and by his teaching. This question awakened the deeper
feeling because it had become generally kn6wn that the council
had issued an order for his arrest, commanding all loyal citizens
to inform the authorities where he might be that they might take
him. Thus the great crisis was hastening on.

CHAPTER XII.
This chapter groups together several misocllaneoua points : the
supper at Bethany at which Mary anointed the feet of Jesus and
the revelation made there of the character of Judas (vs. 1-8) ;
the interest among the people to see Lazarus and the plots of the
chief priests against his life (vs. 9-11); the great triumphal entry
into Jerusalem (12-18) which excited the rage of the Pharisees
yet the more (v. 19). The desire of certain Greeks to see Jesus
(vs. 20-22) leads him to apeak of the great crisis of his life then
just athand and its bearings upon his friends (vs. 23-20) and upon

180 GOSPEL OF JOHN.— CHAP. XH.
himself (vs. 27-33) ; the nice question whether according to the
Scriptures Christ should abide forever (v. 34), and the indirect
reply of the Master (vs. 35, 36). The historian finds the preva
lent unbelief of the Jews foretold in Isaiah (vs. 37—41) ; speaks
of the weak, ineffective faith of some chief rulers (42, 43), and
gives the concluding comments of Jesus (vs. 44-50).
1. Then Jesus six days before the passover came to Beth
any, where Lazarus was which had been dead, whom he
raised from the dead.'
2. There they made him a supper ; and Martha, served :
but Lazarus was one of them that sat at the table with him.
3. Then took Mary a pound of ointment of spikenard,
very costly, and anointed the feet of Jesus, and wiped his
feet with her hair : and the house was filled with the odor
of the ointment.
While many of the people came up to Jerusalem in advance
of this Passover (11 : 55), Jesus also came at least as far as Beth
any six days before it commenced. This social supper made for
him was an expression of grateful interest for the raising of Laz
arus, and an opportunity for the special friends of the family to
meet both Jesus and Lazarus.  Matthew and Mark speak of
this feast aa being " at the house of Simon the leper" (Matt. 26 :
6 and Mark 14 : 3) — a statement not necessarily inconsistent with
John inasmuch as Simon may have been a neighbor and intimate
friend where Martha's habit and nature of "serving" (see Luke
10 : 40) found scope. Lazarus sat with Jesus, they being the two
distinguished guests of the occasion. Mary's work was specially
the service of love — with a pound of most fragrant, pure and
costly ointment, to anoint the feet of Jesus and to wipe those
sacred feet with her hair. Service done to the feet in Oriental
life waa, as we might expect, menial, and for this reason well ex
pressed her deep humility and her yet deeper love. Was there
any thing involving cost or personal humiliation she would not
joyfully do for this dear honored Friend ?  We love her for
this spirit, and wish ourselves might have more of it.  As to
the manner of applying this ointment, Matthew and Mark con
cur in saying — " poured it down on his head " — which may be
true since she might have poured it upon both his head and his
feet; or, if poured upon the head, it may have flowed down to
the feet. Matthew adds — " In that she hath poured this ointment
ou my 6ody, she did it for my burial" (26; 12). As fragrant odor
was one object and the quantity was large, no discrepancy in the
statements can be complained of
4. Then saith one of his disciples, Judas Iscariot, Simon's
son, which should betray him,
5. Why was not this ointment sold for three hundred
pence, and given to the poor?

GOSPEL OF JOHN.— CHAP. XIL 181
6. This he said, not that he cared for the poor ; but be
cause he was a thief, and had the bag, and bare what was
put therein.
Judas Iscariot did not like this. John, m-Dre outspoken as to
.ludas than the other gospel historians, not only fastens this fault
finding upon Judas, but discloses his heart-motive. Whereas,
Matthew (26: 8) speaks of "the disciples" as having indigna
tion and saying — " To what purpose is this waste ? " and Mark
says (14: 4) — "There were some that had indignation within
themselves," John is entirely definite in attributing the complaint
to Judas; — "Why was not this ointment sold for three hundred
pence and given to the poor?"  This was (we may suppose)
the first suggestion, and, seeming to some others at first view
plausible, they may have too easily concurred. But John gives
Judas no credit for sympathy with the poor. Being the treasurer
of the company and a thief, it was for his convenience to have
the bag well filled. Had he been known to be a thief before ?
John assumes this. Arrant hypocrite ! — that he should ask this
money in behalf of the poor, yet with no better purpose at heart
than to ateal it ! Such a man could be mean and wicked enough
to betray his Master for money !
As to the estimated value — "three hundred pence" — ^we may
rem.ember that "two hundred penny worth of bread" was the
estimate for supplying five thousand men with their supper.
Hence thia amount would provide more than a few meala of bread
for the poor. But such a manifestation of overflowing love and
gratitude to Jesus was even better than this.
7. Then said Jesus, Let her alone: against theday of my
burying hath she kept this.
8. For the poor always ye have with you; but me ye
have not always.
Waa Mary disconcerted amid the murmurs sprung around this
table by the rebuke from Judas Iscariot? Did the thought per
haps begin to trouble her that possibly her love, had carried her
too far? If so, Jesus came kindly and in good time to her re
lief: — "Let her alone;" spare those cruel criticisms; not a word
of them is just. As reported by Matthew and by Mark, .lesus
said — " Why trouble ye her ? She hath wrought a good work on
me. She hath done what she could. She is come beforehand to
anoint my body to the burying."  Was she so far in advance
of the disciples in her understanding of Christ's prophetic words
that sho was already forecasting his death and had it in mind
that while she could, she would give his body its laat obsequies?
Or waa thia anointing anticipative of the burial only in the
thought and plan of God?*  Jesus would not disparage the
* In the laat clause of v. 7 some of the best textual authorities
(the Sinaitic and Vatican, whom Tischendorf and Alford follow)

182 GOSPEL OF JOHN.— CHAP. XII.
giving of alms to the poor. But he intimates— Ye will always
have opportunity for such alms: there will be but one opportu
nity for this anointing of my body for its grave — but one for such
an expression of grateful sympathy and self-sacriflcing love.
9. Much people of the Jews therefore knew that he was
there : and they came not for Jesus' sake only, but that they
might see Lazarus also, whom he had raised from the dead.
Through the wise arrangements of God's providence, many
Jews from Jerusalem were present at the raising of Lazarus.
The startling news must have reached many others in the great
city. Consequently, thia family-supper, which was an outgrowth
of that event then recent, had drawn together a large company,
curious not only to see and honor Jesus, but also to see Lazarus
who so lately had been four days in the state of the dead.  Cu
rious, were they ? Did they ask him what he could tell them of
that unknown world ? Did they come hoping to hear words such
as had never fallen from human lips before ?  Whether the lips
of Lazarus were sealed; whether the thinga he saw were simply
"unspeakable" — such as it were not possible for man to utter (2
Cor. 12 : 4) — we are not told ; but not a word from his lips passed
into this historic record. Our historian John has given us no
light as to the supposable testimony of this man from the realms
of the dead.
10. But the chief priests consulted that they might put
Lazarus also to death;
11. Because that by reason of him many of the Jews
went away, and believed on Jesus.
All thia awakened intereat in Jesus of Nazareth and this con
viction of his true Messiahship whioh waa pervading the public
mind were exceasively annoying to the chief prieats. Lazarus iu
their view has become a dangerous man. If it were expedient
that Jesus should die for the nation's good, it must be equally ex
pedient to take off Lazarus. Therefore they came not reluctantly
to the conclusion that he too must die. No scruples of con
science, no recoil from the crime of murder, must be allowed
to stand in their way.
12. On the next day much people that were come to the
feast, when they heard that Jesus was coming to Jerusalem,
13. Took branches of palm trees, and went forth to meet
give it— -"That she may keep it unto the day of my entombment" —
in this sense (we may suppose) — "I^t her alone:" it is noble in her
thought and heart " that she should keep this against the day of my
burial."  The sense is not changed materially by this modification
of the text.

GOSPEL OF JOHN.— CHAP. XII. 183
him, and cried, Hosanna: Blessed is the King of Israel that
cometh in the narae of the Lord.
14. And Jesus, when he had found a young ass, sat
thereon ; as it is written,
15. Fear not, daughter of Sion : behold, thy King coraeth,
sitting on an ass's colt.
16. These things understood not his disciples at the first:
but when Jesus was glorified, then reraembered they that
these things were written of him, and that they had done
these things unto him.
17. The people therefore that was with him when he
called Lazarus out of his grave, and raised him from the
dead, bare record.
18. For this cause the people also met him, for that they
heard that he had done this miracle.
Here one of the most remarkable and most public events in tho
entire recorded history of Jesus comes before us in its historical
and logical place. We are shown when and how it came to pass,
and why the people gathered about him in such crowds to do him
homage as Sion's Great King. The people that were with him
when he summoned Lazarus from hia gr.ave had been bearing
tiieir testimony to that deed. Moved by this testimony yet other
crowds of people met him " because they heard that he had done
this miracle."  John omits many of the particulars of this tri
umphal entry into the great city — supposably because the three
earlier historians had given them so fully, or possibly because
those details were somewhat aside from the main purpose of his
book. Thus while Matthew and Mark describe, John omits, how
Jesus and the disciples obtained the young ass on whioh he rode ;
how they got the owner's consent; how the people spread, not
palm-branches only, but their garments along the way he went;
how the whole city waa moved and rushed to the scene inquir
ing — Who is this? and were answered — -"This is Jesus the Pro
phet, of Nazareth in Galilee." It is even more remarkiible that he
omits certain matters recorded by Luke only — e. g. that some of
the Pharisees from among the multitude were bold enough to say
to Jesua himself — " Master, rebuke thy disciples " — as if this scene
were all too noisy and rude for their holy city ! — To whom Jesus
made answer — "I tell you that if these should hold_ their peace
the stones would immediately cry out."  Another circumstance,
recorded by Luke only, we are moved to ask how such a man as
John could possibly omit; viz; that when he -was come near, prob
ably descending the Mount of Olives at a point where the whole
city lay open to his view, " he beheld the city and wept over ii,
saying. If thou hadst known, even thou, at least in this thy day,
the things that belong to thy peace !— but now they are hidden
from thine eyes !  Ah indeed, a conqueror in triumph and yet
iu tears ! Jesus, at the point of hia highest earthly honor, testi-

1S4 GOSPEL OF JOHN.— CHAP. XII.
fying how little he thought of the pageant of display and how
deeply he felt for the souls of his hopelessly hardened and des
perately infatuated enemies. Never elsewhere so near the point
of being suitably inaugurated as the nation's glorious Messiah,
yet heart-burdened even to tears over the suicidal madness of those
who "would not have this man to reign over them" ! Where,
other than here, have the records of royalty in ita triumphs
evinced such compassion for the guilty — such tears for traitors in
arms!  We are thankful that Luke did not omit this record:
how it happened that John left it out is, scarcely within the reach
of conjecture. The silences of Scripture are sometimes more re
markable than its utterances.  At this point it naturally occurs
to ask how the first three evangelists could have come so near to
the great facts respecting Lazarus and yet not touch them.
They tell us of the feast gotten up in honor of the leading par
ties — Jesus and Lazarus; — but they quite omit to speak of its re
lation to the raising of Lazarus ; leave out every one of the three
honored names of the Both-any household — Mary, Martha, Laza
rus ; tell us of the anointing of Jesus with the precious ointment,
but speak of her who acted Mary's part only as " a woman." As
said already, they give us the triumphal entry with ample detail,
but not a word to indicate that it had any connection with the
raising of Lazarus. Was not this great event sufficiently prom
inent, sublime, yea also tenderly impressive and potent in its
bearings upon the violent death of their Lord, to entitle it to
some notice in their histories?
For myself I see no explanation of these facts so plausible as
that which finds it in the respective dates of the writing of these
books. The first three were (supposably) written before the death
of Lazarus; the fourth, after. While Lazarus yet lived, the notori
ety which the inspired record of these facts would give him might
be painful to a modest man, or provocative to an idle curiosity in
others ; possibly annoying to his quiet, if not even dangerous to
his life. In theae aspects of the case we may see the wisdom of
delaying one of the four gospel histories so long after the occur
rence of its great events.
Returning from these side questions to our main subject, we
note that each of the four historians, except Luke, finds in this
triumphal riding into Jerusalem a fulfillment of prophecy — that of
Zech. 9 : 9, 10. John, and he only, adds (as we should expect froin
him) that though the disciples did not dream at the time that they
were fulfilling prophecy, it all came to them afterward what time
the Holy Ghost began to "bring all things to their remembrance"
whioh Jesus had said and done to them and they to him, and to
put them in the sunlight of prophecy and of their relations to
God's great scheme of salvation. It then became both comment
and illustration of what Jesus had said of that particular function
of the Comforter (John 14 : 26).
This triumphal entry muat be regarded as one of the extraor
dinary events in the wonderful history of Jesus of Nazareth. This

GOSPEL OF JOHN.— CHAP. XIL 185
is the only event which has in any measure the aspect of display.
Here only did Jesus allow himself to assume the air and manner
of a king, advancing to his capitol to take possession of his throne.
It is plain that the time had then come for a great change of pol
icy in some points ; for whereas Jesus had usually sought retire
ment rather than publicity, and had avoided what might expose
him very seriously to the murderous designs of the chief priests,
he here shrinks from no publicity and seems to fear nothing from
the madness of his enemies. There had been a time when a great
multitude were ready to " take him by force to make him a king ; "
then he was not ready. Over and over again he slipped away
from threatened assault or arrest : now he seems to feel that his
time has come, and the policy of fearlessness in duty with any
exposure is in order. Consequently events are shaping them
selves rapidly for the great crisis.
19. The Pharisees therefore said among themselves. Per
ceive ye how ye prevail nothing ? behold, the world is gone
after him.
See how the Pharisees are stirred up. They were powerless to
stop this vast procession ; powerless to hush the voices that were
making the welkin ring with their Hosannas; but they could meet
in secret conclave and stir up each other's zeal to fury against the
Nazarene, and plot his death. " The world (said they) is gone
after him.'' They could not stop the world from going; they saw
the scepter of their power over the people in danger of dropping
from their hand ; they must make way with this hated — this dan
gerous man.
20. And there were certain Greeks among them that came
up to worship at the feast :
21. The same carae therefore to Philip, which was of
Bethsaida of Galilee, and desired him, saying. Sir, we would
see Jesus.
22. Philip cometh and telleth Andrew: and again Andrew
and Philip tell Jesus.
This visit from certain Greeks— ^proselytes from the Gentiles,
we must suppose — stands here as a story begun, but suddenly left
unfinished. We learn very particularly how they obtained their
introduction, and that for some unexplained reason they wished
to see Jesus. The introduction came naturally through Philip,
who was himself of Bethsaida in Galilee, and probably an old ac
quaintance. But whether they did see Jesus, and if so, what they
said to him, or he to them, remains untold. For, the remarks that
follow (v. 23 and onward) seem rather addressed to those disci
ples who oame and told Jeaus, than to these Gentile strangers,
since they appear to assume a long previous acquaintance with
his teachings and history. It would seem therefore that this visit

186 GOSPEL OF JOHN.— CHAP. XII.
of these Greeks is noticed by the historian only because it became
to the mind of Jesus specially suggestive. It brought up a train
of reflections upon the near approaching crisis in his life-work.
These men, said he to himself, are moved to seek a personal in
troduction to me. Are they aware how far my earthly career is
already run, how near 1 am to the great crisis ; and how critical
the hour must be for those who are willing to be known as my ad
herents ? But his course of thought, suggested by their request
for an interview, will appear in the sequel.
23. And Jesus answered them, saying. The hour is come,
that the Son of man should be glorified.
24. Verily, verily, I say unto you. Except a com of wheat
fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone : but if it die,
it bringeth forth much fruit.
25. He that loveth his life shall lose it ; and he that
hateth his life in this world shall keep it unto life etemal.
26. If any man serve me, let hira follow me ; and where I
am, there shall also my servant be : if any man serve me,
him will my Father honor.
"Glorified"^! e., through death and the resurrection and ascen
sion to the highest heavens, and to the highest dominion there —
all which were to follow soon. The analogy in the vegetable king
dom to illustrate this change from weakness to power is at once
patent and beautiful. A grain of seed-wheat, kept dry, remains
itself and itself only ; but, laid in the warm, moist bosom of its
mother earth, it dies ; yet dying, it soon rises again to verdure,
fruitage, glory. So is the resurrection of aU the righteous dead ;
so specially would be the death of Jesus and its resulting conse
quences.  This case seems to have suggested the related anal
ogy whioh appears in the Christian life. He who lives for him
self only, makes an utter failure of life : Working only to save his
life, he will surely lose it. On the contrary, he who lives as if
he hated his life in this world — who lays himself — his life-power
and all there is of himself — on the altar of Jesus for other's good,
he keeps and saves himself unto life eternal. It is the great
Christian paradox. Give thy life away if thou wouldest save it for
ever. In niggardliness and the tightest selfishness, labor to make
the utmost for thy little single self; so shalt thou surely lose thy
soul — thy all. The force and beauty of these principles are
heightened by their twofold application, i. e., both to Jesus and
to hia believing people.  Onward in v. 26, the course of the
Savior's thought seems to be on this wise: Such self-sAorifice ;
such a launching forth upon self-abnegation; such disregard of
dear life — are not according to the common impulses of human
nature. Men will need some powerful motive for it. Therefore
let me point the way and suggest the reward. As to tho way :
" If any man serve me, let him follow me." I ask no more of

GOSPEL OF JOHN.— CHAP. XII. 187
him than I have done and suffered myself " Where I am, there
shall my servant alao be " — which ought to be reward and in
ducement enough for all who love me. " If any man serve me,
him will my Father honor " — and what higher reward should
mortal man desire?
27. Now is my soul troubled ; and what shall I say ?
Father, save me from this hour : but for this cause came I
unto this hour.
28. Father, glorify thy name. Then came there a voice
from heaven, saying, I have both glorified it, and will glorify
it again. 29. The people therefore that stood by, and heard it, said
that it thundered : others said. An angel spake to him.
30. Jesus answered and said. This voice came not because
of me, but for your sakes.
The approaching crisis, involving self-sacrifice even unto death,
seems here to rush upon his soul in most vivid forethought. As
Gethsemane was Calvary iu anticipation, this ia Gethaemane be
fore its time — the same in kind, though less in degree and in du
ration. We can not know how often such scenes of poignant
grief and heart-trial in anticipation of the dread hour may have
occurred in the experience of Jesus. We know only that they
come of our frail human nature, and in the case of Jesus are to
be ascribed to his human nature only — not at all to his divine.
Historically, only John refers to this scene, while he and he only
passes in ailence the apparently more protracted scenes in the
garden. The other three historians have described Gethsemane
with considerable fullness (Matt. 26: 36-46; Mark 14: 32^2;
Luke 22; 39-46).  "Now is my soul troubled" — agitated,
tossed with anxious, fearful forebodings, not unmixed with per
plexities, indicated by the question — "What shall I say ? " What
shall Ipray for ?  The middle clause of v. 27 (" Father, save me
from this hour") is read in some texts interrogatively; in others,
affirmatively ; the former in this sense : Shall I pray, " Father,
save me from this hour?" Nay, because I have co.me to this
hour for the very purpose of enduring these agonies— of drink
ing this cup of sorrows.  The affirmative construction makes
the middle clause itself a prayer — " Father, save me from this
hour ; " yet supposes the suppliant to check himself suddenly
with the thought : 1 may not insist on this, because I came to this
hour in order to meet its woes.  The ultimate thought is sub
stantially the same on either construction. In favor of the affirm
ative construction it may be said ; (a) The Greek text gives no in
dication of an interrogative. (6) The more full expression of
feeling in Gethsemane certainly has prayer equivalent to — " Save
me from this hour " — in the words : " If it be possible, let this cup
pass from me; " "He prayed that if it were possible, the hour

loo GOSPEL OP JOHN.— CHAP. XIL
might pass from him;" "Father, all things are possible unto
thee : take away thia cup from me ; nevertheless, not what I will,
but what thou wilt."
In this case the prayer upon which his agitated soul settled
down at length was — " Father, glorify thy name." To this a voice
from heaven brought answer, audible at least to his ear : I have
glorified it; I will glorify it again.  Of the bystanders, some,
hearing a sound which seemed to them inarticulate, mistook it for
thunder ; others thought it the voice of an angel. Such utter
ances sent down from heaven will be heard intelligently by those
to whom they are specially spoken ; not always by all others
present. In the case of Saul of Tarsus, the apparently discrep
ant accounts (Acts 9 : 7, and 22 : 9) are best harmonized on the
supposition that while Saul heard the words,, his attendants heard
only inarticulate sounds, and failed to get the words spoken.
Speculations on this point are of small importance ; yet obviously
much will depend on the receptivity of the hearer. Failure to
catch the words may be due to perturbation.  In the present
case the voice came iu no whispering tones, but in solemn maj
esty ; perhaps through angelic ministration. Jesus remarked
that the voice came not for his satisfaction but for theirs.
31. Now is the judgment of this world : now shall the
prince of this world be cast out.
32. And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all
men unto me.
33. This he said, signifying what death he should die.
The course of our Savior's thought here taken in its connection
is grand, sublime. From extreme depression, agitation, intense
forecasting of woes to be endured, from which human heart and
fleah recoil, he rises through prayer — the prayer of deep submis
sion and devotion to the Father's will — to the assurance of glori
ous triumph. He sees the crisis of this world's great conflict cloae
at hand. He sees his great antagonist, the Prince of thia-K'orld,
fallen, cast out, dethroned, despoiled. Of his death on the cross,
indicated here as being "lifted from the earth," he foresees that it
will itself beget an attractive power whioh will draw men to him
self in love and homage. The first effect of being thus " lifted
up," will be to him simply torture, heart-darkness, his cup filled
with woes ; but the after effects will be the drawing of men away
from Satan unto himself, the casting out of his chief antagonist
— the great uaurper — and the firm enthronement of himself as
King and Lord of all.
Instead of the word "judgment" in v. 31, I ahould prefer the
Greek word itaelf which comes into our English — cri.ns. It sig
nifies here the hour of destiny, the point where the great, long-
pending isauea of the conflict come to their final decision. The
battle has been fought — with apparently varying fortunes and
probabilities ; but now the combat deepens ; the struggle becomes

GOSPEL OF JOHN.— CHAP. XIL 189
desperate ; Satan is doing his utmost and his worst. He has
gained entrance into the heart of one of the twelve. " This is his
hour and the power of darkness ; " he has at length compassed the
death of the Son of man, and the deep caverns of his pit rever
berate with just one yell of fiendish exultation! — but one; no
more ! Alas for him ; how soon the Crucified One rises a mighty
conqueror !— rises, and lo 1 it appears that his very death on the
cross has lifted, not himself alone for agony — but all men by its
moral power of love. All men aro lifted and drawn away from
the grasp of the devil, and into sweet allegiance to him who hath
" loved them and given himself to die for them."  Such is man
ifestly the course of thought in this wonderful passage.
Aa to tho details of_ exposition : the "Prince of this world"
contemplates Satan as having usurped a dominion never rightly
his own ; as having long held sway over the nations ; but aa be
ing now prospectively vanquished and cast out from a world never
his into " the place prepared for him and his angels."
The drawing of all to himself, need not be pressed to the
extreme of implying the actual salvation of all the race. The
fact that Satan is thought of as having long maintained his
usurped dominion as the Prince of this world should preclude
thia construction. Let it rather be held to mean that the
morally attractive power of the cross ia adequate to reach all va-
rietiea of the human heart ; that it develops a power which legit
imately impresses all; and that, in the ultimate result, it will
reach the masses of the race with effective salvation.
The word " if" in the phrase — ^" if I be lifted up" — can not
imply any contingency as to the future fact. Essentially the
sense ia, when 1 shall be; inasmuch as I am to be, therefore
whenever it shall occur these will be the results.
34. The people answered him. We have heard out of the
law that Christ abideth forever : and how sayest thou. The
Son of man must be lifted up? who is this Son of man?
The people understood his being "lifted up" as implying his
death — so far rightly. But they remembered that some ofthe
prophecies respecting their nation's Messiah had spoken of the
perpetuity of his kingdom. In fact there were many auch proph
ecies. (See Ps. 72 : 5, 7, 15, 17, Isa. 9 : 7 and 60 : 15, 19, 20 and
Dan. 2; 44.)
It was however simply their mistaken inference that thia per
petuity of his reign precluded his human death on the cross.
They had yet to learn that their nation's Messiah was to die that
he might conquer ; that his death of agony was to be the very
pivot on which should hinge everlasting victory and unutterable
glory. 35. Then Jesus said unto them. Yet a little while is the
light with you. Walk while ye have the light, lest dark-
9

193 GOSPEL OF JOHN.— CHAP. XIL
ness come upon you : for he that walketh in darkness know
eth not whither he goeth.
36. While ye have light, believe in the light, that ye
may be the children of light. These things spake Jesus,
and departecf, and did hide himself from them.
Noticeably .leans makes not the least attempt to relieve their
assumed perplexities. Did he see that these were only assumed
and not really honest? Or did he pass them as trivial and un
worthy of attention ? Did he deem it better to hold them to
things far more vital?  The latter view is at least in harmony
with his reply ; — Ye have light now — for a little while — light
enough to walk by ; therefore use it while ye have it. Soon dark
ness will settle down fearfully upon those who will not walk while
their daylight shines. "While ye have light, walk in it:" be
lieve in what truth ye really know: So shall ye be children of
light, and the God of light will shed ou your soul every ray ye
may need in future.  With these monitory words, Jesus closes
this discussion.
37. But though he had done so many miracles before
them, yet they believed not on him :
38. That the saying of Esaias the prophet might be ful
filled, which he spake. Lord, who hath believed our report ?
and to whora hath the arm of the Lord been revealed ?
39. Therefore they could not believe, because that Esaias
said again,
40. He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart ;
that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with
their heart, and be converted, and I should heal thera.
41. These things said Esaias, when he saw his glory, and
spake of him.
These are the words of John — ^his reflections upon the sad fact
ofthe general and fatal unbelief of his countrymen. His narrative
of the discourses, discussions, and moral efforts of his Master for
the salvation of the Jews is now near its close. How often had
both he and his Master " marveled at their unbelief" — marveled
with great astonishment and most poignant grief pressing often
the question — Why is this? No wonder that long and thought
ful study of this fact brought to his mind the words of Isaiah here
quoted — the first passage from 53 : 1 which gives by prophetic an
ticipation the grief of their nation's Messiah over the almost
universal unbelief of hia covenant people; the second from 6; 9,
10 — a part of the inauguration services at the induction of the
prophet into his work, yet in the view of our author referring re
ally to the same great fact of the nation's rejection of their Mes
siah through persistent unbelief and the moral blindness to which
they were judicially abandoned in the righteous judgment of God,

GOSPEL OF JOHN.— CHAP. XIL 191
Thia is John's own comment: — "Those things said Isaiah be
cause he saw his glory and spake of him."  \_" Because," not
" when," is the beat sustained reading.]
In the closer examination of these quotations and their bearings
upon the unbelief of the Jews, the most difficult and altogether
the most important problem is to adjust their teachinga to the
moral relations and responsibilities of those hardened Juws so as
to put in its true light the mutual action of human afid divine
agency inthe case. Did tho .lews reject Christ in unbelief ./or
the purpose of fulfilling Isaiah's prophecies? Was it impos.iible
for them to believe, and if so, in what sense impoaaible ? Did the
Lord blind their eyea to the end that they should not see and be
converted?  These questions will suffice to indicate the points
that seem to need our special consideration.  To meet, and in -
somo measure at least to answer them, I suggest :
(1.) It is entirely legitimate grammatically to read v. 38, in its
connection — not, " They did not believe io the end that, or in or
der that, the saying of Isaiah might be fulfilled;" but thus: —
"They did not believe; so that the prophecy came to be ful
filled ; " — the sense being this ; — Inasmuch aa they did not be
lieve the prophecy waa fulfilled. John does not assume or assert
that those unbelieving Jews intended, purposed, to fulfill Isaiah,
or even thought of fulfilling him. Nor does he moan to say that
the Lord led them on into their unbelief /o?- ihe sake of fulfilling
prophecy. Nothing more is necessarily meant than that their un
belief did iu fact fulfill Isaiah. ¦"'
(2.) The words — (v. 39) " They could noi believe," are correctly
translated. The Greek verb f here used can not be translated
otherwise. The real question then is — Why could they not be
lieve ? What is the nature of this impossibility ?  We have had
the same problem already in John's gospel. Jesus uaed the same
Greek verb (John 6 ; 44) — "No man can come to me except the
Father who hath sent me draw him." [The reader will revert
to that passage and to the notes upon it.] The " drawing" in the
case came through being "taught of God" by means of his truth
and his Spirit. Why were not these Jews thus drawn by means of
being taught of God's truth and enlightened by his Spirit ? Their
history gives the anawer : They would not be taught in the
way God had provided. They would not accept the Great Teacher
whom he had sent. They would not believe that he came from
God. 1'hey repelled the proof he gave thom in hia miracles.
"¦- In the technical language of grammarians, the two very diverse
senses of the word which stands before the subjunctive mood — ex
pressed above in a popular way by the phrasea — " to the end that" —
and "so that" — are called — the forraer, the telic ; the latter, the ee-
baiic. 'Writing for the masses I aim to use language with which they
are familiar.  Tt seems scarcely necessary to give the arguments
in support of the latter rather than the former of these senses.
" t ijdvvavTO.

192 GOSPEL OF JOHN.— CHAP. XII.
They repelled the evidence that shone forth in his heavenly life,
his loving spirit, his fidelity to truth and duty. They said he had
a devil and was not fit to be heard. They even sought to murder
the important witnesses to his great miracles. In every way they
shut their eyes to the light of God and their heart against under
standing and feeling the force of the truth of God. These and
nothing less or other than these were the simple facts in their
case, tt was thus and only thus that it could be said—" He (the
Lord) hath blinded their eyes — that they should not see." We
must interpret the moral nature of the divine agency in this case
by the known facts respecting the mode of that agency. So in
terpreting, we are forbidden to make this agency a direct one
with intentional and purposed aim,, producing its results by direct
causation. We can not carry it beyond the line of a permissive
agency — which means that God suffered moral causes to work out
their legitimate results.
He suffered depraved human nature to run its self-persistent
course, and to produce ita natural, inevitable fruits. When those
Jews would not believe; when they spurned all the light from
heaven respecting Jesus their Messiah; when they repelled every
influence that wisdom, love and tenderness could exert upon
them; when they labored to quench all testimony for Christ even in
the blood of the witnesses ; — when they ascribed to the devil the
miracles that Jesus wrought by the divine Spirit — what could this
be less than the unpardonable sin ? How could the result be
less than a moral hardening of their own hearts which a right
eous God for the safety and honor of his moral kingdom must
visit with irretrievable damnation?  (3.) Our question legiti
mately involves not only the kind of agency which Jesus had in
blinding the eyes and hardening the hearts of those Jews, but
the spirit in which he worked this agency. The heart of Jesus
in thia whole case comes vitally into the main question. Fortu
nately on this point, we are left in no doubt whatever. Both
Luke and Matthew have recorded his words at the moment when
the sweep of his eye brought to his view, present and pro
phetic, — first, this moral hardness of unbelief, national, deep,
damning; and secondly, the ruin that within a single generation
was to whelm the holy city under the waves of a most terrific
desolation.  As given by Luke (19: 41, 42) — "When he was
come near, he beheld the city and wept over it, saying — If thou
hadst known, even thou, at least in thia thy d^y, the things that
belong unto thy peace ! — but now they are hidden from thine
eyes." — In Matthew (23: 37, 38) on this wise; — "O Jerusalem,
Jerusalem ; thou that killest the prophets and stonest them that
are sent unto thee ; how often would I have gathered thy children
together even as a hen gathers her chickens under her wings; —
but ye would not! Behold, your house is left unto you deso
late."  Now here but one thing need be said; If these were
honest tears; if these were truthful words, uttering the real feel
ings of his soul, then it is simply an outrage to ascribe to Jesns

GOSPEL OF JOHN.— CHAP. XII. 193
the moral purpose to harden those Je-wish hearts and bring upon
them these rushing wavea of desofation. We must dismiss — nay
more — we must put utterly from our heart the possibility of any
direct, purposed agency of God or of Jesus Christ to make those
hearts hard and- unbelieving, and so prepare them for thia awful
curse.  (4.) It is quite another thing that Jesus should deem it
wise and perhaps unavoidable to let human depravity run ita
natural course and work out ita legitimate fruits of moral obdu
racy unto terrible retribution. It is the law of our moral na
ture — indeed, of all moral natures in the universe, that light
sinned against, conscience resisted, progresses onward into
deeper hardness aud yet more blind and mad infatuation, — until
there is no remedy. The tendencies and fruits of auch sinning
go to set at nought all remedial agencies and to drift the soul into
the vortex of perdition.  JSow this being the natural and inev
itable law of persistent sinning, working the more surely and rap
idly according to the measure of light sinned against, and of
mercy deapiaed, why should not Jesus let this law take its course
in the case of those who " set at nought all his counsel and would
none of his reproofs " — who had the light of heaven as it oame
down in ita glory, beaming forth from the very face of Jesus in his
words, his miracles, his tears ?
It is not wiae or well to complain or to stumble because some
of the sacred writers on occasion put tho divine agencies in the
permiasion of sin in the very bold and atrong form which we
meet with here. It was by no fault or mistake of theirs that they
saw God's hand in ihe permission of sin, or in leaving the laws
of a free moral nature to work on in their own way — to their own
natural results. They had ground for believing and for saying of
some sinners, that " because they received not the love of the
truth that they might be saved, God would send them strong de
lusion that they should believe a lie, that they all might be
damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unright
eousness" (2 Thess. 2: 10-12). Such declarations should lift up
their voice, loud as seven thunders along the pathway of self-har
dening sinners. Let them never be ignored, never suppresaed,
never stumbled over as making God in the least responsible for
any sinner's persistent unbelief*
* The following comments of the Autho'r in his Notes on laa. 6: 9,
10 (pages 48, 44), may properly be introduced here:
Here the prophet receives his message. In v. 9 he is told w-hat
to say ; in v. 10 what to do, or more strictly what should be the effect
of his labor. The passage is peculiar iu its forra of statement, and
therefore should be considered carefully. In v. 9 we can by no means
take these imperatives in their direct sense as forbidding the people
to understand and perceive what God is saying. They muat there
fore be taken as solemn irony, so put in the hope of arousing their
dull hearts to serious thought. " Go on hearing, since so you choose
and will: go on hearing and not understanding ; go on to see and yet

194 GOSPEL OF JOHN.— CHAP. XIL
42. Nevertheless among the chief rulers also many be
lieved on him ; but because* of the Pharisees they did not
confess him, lest they should be put out of the synagogue :
43. For they loved the praise of men more than the
praise of God.
The conviction of many chief rulers was gained, but not their
hearts. This could not have been true gospel faith, for it fell
shortof making them Christ's servants and disciples. There was
not moral power enough in it to make them willing for Christ's
sake to be put out of the synagogue — not enough to make them
love and value the approval of God above the praise that comes
of men. It was therefore clearly a case of intellectual convic
tion of truth which yet fell short of inducing hearty obedience
to this truth. A state of fearful sin is this, — holding back and
resisting the legitimate influence of truth whioh they know and
are compelled to admit to be truth.
44. Jesus cried and said. He that believeth on rae, be
lieveth not on me, but on him that sent ^i^.
45. And he that seeth me seeth him that sent me.
perceive nothing." Alas! you will find ere long to yonr bitter cost
tliat such a course is fraught with ruin and death! Why will ye
madly pursue it ? Our Lord seems to speak in the same way in Matt.
23 : 32, " Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers."  V. 10 ia
addressed to the prophet, and like v. 9, is to be taken, not in a direct
but in a modified sense; not as enjoining him to aim and labor to
harden the hearts of the people and make their hearing dull and
their seeing dim or unavailing; but as indicating what must be the
incidental results of his best and holiest endeavors. " Go and deliver
my mesaagea to this people." They have resisted my call hitherto :
they will again. Thus far tliey have shut their ears and closed their
eyes; you need expect no better hearing ,ind seeing from them here
after. Despite of your most tender and earnest appeals, they will
cleave to their sins; they will repel your invitations; scorn your en
treaties; mock atthe threatenings you proclaim, and press on inthe
way of rebellio-n and moral ruin. It is their set purpose, and they
will persist in it to their certain death. The Spirit of the Lord has
pressed them long and kindly, but with no good result, and now
they must be made a terrible example of the ruin that comes ou
those who will " always resist the Holy Ghost."  This strong case,
strongly stated, of moral obduracy of heart and of judicial visitation
from God, manifestly made a strong impression upon at least the good
men of the nation in future ages. "We have proof of this in the fact
that these- verses are referred to by quotations more or less full in
at least six passages in the New Testament. See Matt, 18: 14;
Mark 4: 12; Luke 8: 10; John 12: 40; Acts 28: 26; Rom. 11: 8. 
Our Lord's use of it in the discussion which grew out of his p.i-
rable of the sower (as in Mathew, Mark and Luke) was entirely in

GOSPEL OF JOHN.— CHAP. XII. 195
46. I am come a light into the world, that whosoever be
lieveth on me should not abide in darkness.
This emphatic public declaration of truths essentially taught
before is made just here to meet the case of those half-way be
lievers of whom the history has just spoken. Whoever believes
on me believes not on me alone, but on him that sent me. I
come into the world, a light to men, so that none who really ac
cept my light need abide in darkness. Let all half-hearted, be
lievers take notice and beware less they miss the light of God 1
47. And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I
judge him not : for I came not to judge the world, but to
save the world.
48. He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words,
"hath one that judgeth him : the word that I have spoken,
the same shall judge him in the last day.
" Hear my words and keep " [so the best authorities have the
text] — "keep them not" — a very close fitting description of the
class of believers spoken of vs. 42, 43. "I judge him not" now —
the emphasis being on now. I am not here now to judge men
but to save ; I shall come in due time to judge. The word that
I have spoken will appear in that great judgment day as a swift
harmony with its drift and purpose as it stands here in Isaiah, i. e.,
illustrative of that judicial blindness to which God leaves sinners
who resist his Spirit and set at nought his merciful endeavors to en
lighten and save them.  The phraseology of Matthew (13:14) and
of Paul (Acts 28: 26) is slightly modified from that of Isaiah. It is
not, "Shut thou their eyes," but "their eyes have ihey closed." This
change makes God's permissive 'and judicial agency less prominent,
and the sinner's own voluntary agency more prominent. The latter
agency Isaiah most fully and surely implies ; and the former, neither
Matthew nor Paul would exclude.  It should be noted that these
Apostles, Matthew and Paul, quote from the Septuagint which reads,
" The heart of this people has become gross ; with their ears they
hear heavily " (in dullness), " and their eyes have they shut lest
they should see with their eyes," etc. This is entirely correct in
sentiment, yet does not bring out in its full strength the divine agen
cies in withdrawing his Spirit and giving up self-hardened sinners
in judgment to their own free and guilty choice of rebellion and
death. It puts this guilty choice aud this persistent refusal of the
sinner in the foreground as facta never to be ignored. And rightly.
The indoraement of this view by our Lord, as in Matthew (13: 14)
and by Paul (Acts 28: 26) may be taken as a timely suggeation and
caution against over-straining the divine agency iu the judicial har
dening of the persistent sinner. It would be ineifably revolting to
give it such a construction as would ignore God's love and pity for
even the guilty sinner, or his sincere and earnest desire that they
would, any and all, turn from their sins and live."

196 GOSPEL OF JOHN.— CHAP. XIIL
witness for their condemnation, for it will show that they had
abundant light for their salvation, but shut their eye and heart
against it.
49. For I have not spoken of myself: but the Father
which sent rae, he gave me a commandment, what I should
say, and what I should speak.
50. And I know that his comraandment is life everlast
ing : whatsoever I speak therefore, even as the Father said
unto me, so I speak.
These words recapitulate and re-affirm certain points of most
vital testimony in the public debates of Jesus with the Jews, and
come in appropriately here at the close of those debates and
discuaaions. Of these points none could be more vital than — ¦
(a.) His mission from the Father — that hia worda were not
his own but the Father's, sent through himself to dying men ; and
(6.) That obedience to God's great message through Jesua would
insure everlasting life. These great truths will bear repetition,
and the most earnest, emphatic announcement. The issues of
life are in them. To accept them as true and obey them as duty
will carry life into souls otherwise dying and sure of death.

CHAPTEE XIII.
Jesus iciili his Disciples.
JOHN XIII-XVII.
There is method in this gospel history by John. It is through
out a history of Jeaus who is always one party in all its various
scenes and transactions. The second party, shown with him, is
not throughout the same, but varies with the shifting of the scenes.
We might arrange the book into sections on this principle— the
varying secondpariy. —
(1.) We see Jesus (chap. 1-4) in his relations to individuals :—
e. g. John the Baptist; Nicodemus; the woman of Samaria: be
sides whioh in chap. 2 we see him in a group of family friends.
(2.) In chap. 5-12 we see him in his relations to the unbeliev
ing, questioning, cavilling Jews (high priests and .Pharisees)—
the historic incidents being introduced mainly for the purpose
of presenting the discussions, arguments and exhortations to
which those incidents gave occasion.
_ (3.) In chap. 13-17 we see Jesus with his disciples — this sec
tion being made up almost exclusively of free conversations, fare
well counsels, expressions of sympathy, love and confidence :' clos
ing appropriately with prayer.

GOSPEL OF JOHN.— CHAP. XIIL Idl^
(4.) In the next section we see Jesus with his murderers, and
have tho betrayal, the arrest, the mock-trial and the crucifixion.
(5.) Finally, in chapter 20 and 21 we see him the risen Jesus,
with his disciples again, for parting words of sympathy, reproof
and counsel.
With this chapter 13, we enter upon the section which presents
Jesus in special communion with the twelve. He saw in tho
nearer future (what they did not) — the fearful strain of that trial
to which their faith must needs 'be subjected when he should be
seized by ruthless hands and hurried away to a death of shame
and agony. In the more remote future he saw that his resurrec
tion and ascension would leave them alone in the world — alone
not only but almost utterly friendless ; not friendless only, but
encompassed on every side with hostile powers — the civil and re
ligious authorities of the land in deadly antagonism, watching
them with Argus-eyed jealously — in the intense bigotry of their
fiery zeal, thinking that to kill these followers of the despised
Nazarene would be to do God service. Into such a cold, hostile
world Jesus knew that his disciples would be launched at his
death; — and not only launched forth to live themselves aa beat
they could, wherever they might; but to do a momentous work;
to lay the foundations of the Christian church; to begin the
evangelization of the wide world — yea, to " go forth into all the
world and preach the gospel to every creature."  Did it not
seem in the last degree preposterous to put a few Galilean fisher
men and converted tax-gatherers to such a service ?  Manifestly
there were many thinga to be said to them and done for them by
way of preparation for the life-work that lay before them when
their Head should have been taken away.  How much and what
preparation they did require can by no means be adequately ap
preciated without very careful attention to the leading elements
in their religious thought and life at the time when this section
of their history opens. To this, therefore, let us for a moment
turn our attention.
When Jesus passed his eye over the twelve as they sat around
this Pasaover* board and thought over their adaptation to meet
the triala and do the work before them, what were the points that
would most impress his mind and shape hia farewell -words?
1. With the exception of one traitor — aoon withdrawn — the
reat had some true Christian faith and love, yet faith and love
that greatly needed culture and invigoration.
2. They had been in the school of Christ several years ; had
learned some precious truths, but had much more yet to learn.
Many words of Jesus, more than once heard, were yet but half
understood and needed to be recalled, reconsidered, and their
deeper significance more thoroughly apprehended. Especially it
* The question whether this vpas the Paschal supper of the Jews
has been hotly contested. Vfe can not debate the point here, but will
for the present assume that it was.

198 GOSPEL OF JOHN.— CHAP. XIII.
should be noticed that their early Jewish misconceptions of the
Messiah's kingdom as being of earthly sort needed to be expelled,
and the true spiritual conception of it rooted immovably in
their place.
3. To face and bear those near impending persecutions which
Jesus foresaw and they did not, it was vital that they should be
not only forewarned but thoroughly forearmed. Every thing that
farewell words could do to deepen their love to their Master and
his cause ; to lift their souls above fear, and pain and even death
for his sake; would be eminently in place in this eventfulnight-
interview. 4. Comprehensively let it be noted that every one of these
great defects in their Christian character and great necessities for
their future work combined to constitute a demand for the pres
ence and work of the Holy Ghost. If Jesus could be with them
as he had been, he might encourage, inspire and guide them.
But he is going up to the Father, and therefore the Spirit of
truth must needs come in his place to do all and more than all
the work which Jesus had been doing. There is much therefore
to be said concerning the Spirit's mission and work. Nowhere
could this be more in place than here and now.
Bearing in mind these facts and features in their spiritual state,
and in their approaching orphanage, persecutions, and immense
labors, we shall the better appreciate the meaning, the fitness, and
the force of the words and deeds of Jesus during this eventful night
with his disciples.
In this chapter tho central fact is the washing of the disciples'
feet, including the scene itself (vs. 1-5); the objection made by
Peter (vs. 6-11) ; the practical application of this example (vs.
12-20) ; the disclosure respecting Judas the traitor (vs. 21-30) ;
Jesus forecasts the glory of the nearer future (va. 31, 32); apprises
the disciples that he muat soon go away (v. 33) ; gives the new
commandment of mutual lovo (vs. 34, 35) ; and forewarns his too
self-confident disciple Peter of his sad fall (vs. 36-38).
1. Now before the feast of the passover, when Jesus knew
that his hour was come that he should depart out of this
world unto the Father, having loved his own which were in
the world, he loved them unto the end.
2. And supper being ended, the devil having now put into
the heart of Judas Iscariot; Simon's son, to betray him ;
3. Jesus knowing that the Father had given all things
into his hands, and that he was come from God, and went
to God ;
Here are the antecedents of the feet washing, presently to be
described, including the external circumstances, and especially
the internal thoughts and faQta present to the mind of Jesus and

GOSPEL OF JOHN.— CHAP. XIII. 199
to be taken into account by the reader that he may the better ap
preciate the transaction.
It was immediately before the feast of- the passover. The prep
arations for this feast were made and the supper hour had come.
The clause which stands in our version, " supper being ended,"
should rather be read ; Supper being on hand ; or, it being sup
per time. Literally it is, supper being — i. c, being in progress.
 ^Moreover, the purpose to betray his Master h.aving been
already instigated in the soul of Judas by the devil and accepted
by the traitor, the agencies were at work for his speedy arrest and
crucifixion. All this Jesus knew. He knew therefore that he
was soon to depart out of this world unto the Father. The
thought that he must so soon leave his chosen disciples quickened
his love toward them. He had loved them tenderly before ; this
love threw into the background all thought of his own impend
ing agonies, and blazed forth with fresh ardor at this point — so
near the end of his personal communion Avith them upon earth.
 ^He is now about to perform for his disciples the most menial
service known to the usages of Oriental life — that of washing their
feet. The historian would remind us that Jesus did this with the
full knowledge and under the present power of the thought that
the F-ather had given all things into his hand, making him the In
finite King and Lord of the universe, aud that he had come forth
from God, having been from eternity "with God" and truly God;
and was juat about to return to " the glory he had with hia Father
before the world waa." In a case of auch a,pparent self-abase
ment, you might have thought (had you seen it) that he must have
been oblivious to his infinite dignity; unaware and forthe time
at least unconscious of his Sonship to God and of his prospective
exaltation to the throne of the universe — but no ! That view of
his consciousness is altogether wrong. John would forewarn you
against it in the outset. This washing of the disciples' feet was
done by the Master under the fullest sense and consciousness of
his superlative glory before the Father. The act can not be prop
erly appreciated by his people save as they hold fully in mind this
present consciousness of Jesus in the transaction.
4. He riseth from supper, and laid aside his garments ;
and took a towel, and girded himself.
5. After that he poureth water into a basin, and began to
wash the disciples' feet, and to wipe them with the towel
wherewith he was girded.
He rose from the supper-table before the repast had fully com
menced. The guests had taken their half recumbent positions
around the table in the usual Oriental style, reclining upon the
left side, resting on the elbow, leaving the right hand free for ser
vice in eating, and with feet extended outward. He then " laid
aside his garments " (so the record has it) — the outer garment
certainly, and possibly the inner one also; on this supposition,

200 GOSPEL OF JOHN.— CHAP. XIIL
supplying its place iu part with the large towel girded about the
waist which he used also for wiping the feet after the washing.
In Oriental experience, washing the feet was regarded as a luxury
to the subject, but in Oriental idea, a most menial service for the
operator. None but the lowest class of servants were expected to
perform it. Its rigid restriction to this class was due not ao much
to its being laborious or offenaive, aa to the power of a caste feel
ing which, as is well known, is wont to go far beyond the intrin
sic reason of things. We shall fail to appreciate this act of the -
Master unless we take into our estimate the current caste notions
of the people among whom it was done. In this act Jesus became
a servant of servants to his disciples. He showed that to serve
was the business of his life, and in his view was not to his ahame
but to his glory. It was an example to illustrate a principle — the
same principle which is stated to be the purpose of his mission
to earth — " The Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but
to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many" (Matt. 20:
28).  More is said below of its purposed moral application to
his disciples in that age and, indeed, in every other.
6. Then cometh he to Simon Peter : and Peter saith unto
him, Lord, dost thou wash ray feet ?
7. Jesus answered and said unto him. What I do thou
knowest not now ; but thou shalt know hereafter.
8. Peter saith unto him. Thou shalt never wash my feet.
Jesus answered him, If I wash thee not, thou hast no part
with me.
9. Simon Peter saith unto him. Lord, not my feet only,
but also my hands and my head.
10. Jesus saith to him, He that is washed needeth not
save to wash his feet, but is clean every whit : and ye are
clean, but not all.
11. For he knew who should betray him ; therefore said
he. Ye are not all clean.
Verse six opens, not " then cometh he," but consequently
(Greek, ow), i. e., in the course of this operation. Peter being
one, his time would come; whether flrst in order, or not, does not
appear.  As usual, Peter is impulsive, and very out-spoken. Did
he ever have a thought or impulse but it was a live one, and would
burst out?  It seemed to him very repulsive — a very improper
thing in his divine Lord — this getting down upon his knees (per
haps) and applying water to other people's dirty feet. " Lord "
(said he) " dost Thou wash my feet?" -He could not see the pro
priety at all.  The first reply of Jesus, throwing the reason of
it upon the judgment of the Master, did not relieve Peter's mind.
Jesua suggested that if he could not understand it now, he would
at some future time. Peter, less considerate than he might have
been^ did not propose to take this strange operation upon trust,

GOSPEL OF JOHN.— CHAP. XIII. 201
and therefore, under the impulses of his deep sense of its impro
priety, exclaimed, "Thou shalt never wash my feet!" It might
be very suitable, he probably thought, for me to wash thy feet ;
but never shalt thou wash mine!  As was hia wont, Peter apoko
very strongly; for he felt so. Perhaps we ought not to blame him
severely; yet had ho not seen enough of his Master to justify an
unfaltering confidence that he never could do any thing improper,
unreasonable ; never a thing that had not a good meaning in it ?
These words of Peter have quite too much the air and tone of a
rebuke — which as from him toward Jeaus -waa entirely out of place.
•  -The reply of Jesus — " If I wash thee not, thou hast no part
-\vith me " — brought Peter round at once and most entirely. Lord,
if that is the case, -n-ash me never so much ; " not my feet only,
but also the hands and the head."  To understand the final re
ply of Jesus (v. 10) it should be noted that our version has the
same word " wash ' repeo.ted — " He that is washed needeth not
save to wash his feet," but the original, as spoken by Jesus, gives
us two words — differing in their usage; the first used for a full
bath; the second, for washing only particular portions ofthe body
— as the hands or the feet. The primary sense of the words of
Jesus must therefore be this: He who has taken the full bath — i. e.,
of the whole person, has no occasion to wash more save his feet,
for in coming from the bath his bare feet may have been soiled.
So much for the primary meaning. It asaumea the habit of fre
quent. /'itZZ ablutions, and the yet more frequent waahing of the
feet only. In preparation for this pasaover, the disciples (sup
posably) had taken their fnll bath, perhaps before they left Beth
any. Now, after the walk into the city, only the feet needed
washing.* " Ye are clean, but not all of you " — looked toward the spir
itual sense of "clean." Ye are -washed from sin — all of you save
the traitor Judas. The remark has importance as showing
that washing here has some reference to its figurative or spiritual
import. 'The deep significance of this washing of the disciples' feet by
their Lord remains still for inquiry. Shall we assume that it
means nothing beyond moral cleansing, analogous to the physical
cleansing by water ? So some have supposed, and therefore have
found here only another Christian ordinance, corresponding
closely to baptism. Carrying out this analogy, they compare the
full bath to regeneration ; the partial waahing, aa of the feet,
that may follow from time to time, to subsequent special clean-
ings.from sins of later life as they may occur.
It seems to me this conatruction fails to reach the bottom sig
nificance of this feet washing. It overlooks the menial character
of this service and consequently misses the illustration of blended
* Following the Sinaitic manuscript, Tischendorf omits the Greek
words for " olher than the feet;" but other authorities mainly re
tain them. If omitted, their significance must be implied.

202 GOSPEL OF JOHN.— CHAP. XIIL
humility and benevolence which shines forth in it. As has been
already said, in washing his disciples' feet, Jesus filled the func
tion of the humblest servant. He gave himself to serve his peo
ple. He put in act what he long before put in word — " The Son
of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister.'' In this
symbol ho bore our griefs and carried our sorrows ; nay, more, he
went calmly and lovingly into service deemed vulgar, servile, low
— fit emblem therefore of the acorn and shame, the spitting and
buffeting which culminated at length on the cross in a death at
once of agony and dishonor.  Such service of shame and suf
fering Jesus came to render for his people. He foreshadowed it
in the menial service of washing his disciples' feet. "If I wash
thee not, thou hast no part with me," would therefore, in this
view of its significance, mean, if thou canst not accept my menial
and most humble service, as of one who is to bear thy griefs and
carry thy sorrows, " despised and rejected of men," thou canst
have no part with me.  In thia view of the significance of the
whole transaction we may better understand why there is no need
save to wash the feet. If hiimilating and painful self-sacrifice for
other's good was the thing to be shown, washing the feet sufficed
to show it, and no further or other washing could add to its
value. Thus far we have considered this act of feet-washing, without
reference to any special circumstances at or near the time, which
might intensify its significance. Let us now recall the incident
stated both by Matthew (20; 17-28), and by Mark (10: 32-45)—
that when Jesus was going up to Jerusalem to attend this very
paasover, the mother of Zebedee's children (James and John)
came to him with a very special request; — " Grant that these my
two sona may sit, the one on thy right hand and the other on thy
left, in thy kingdom." As Mark haa it the two sons themselves
came, seeking to commit Jesus to the granting of their request
before they had indicated what it was; — "We would that thou
shouldest do for us whatsoever we shall desire." With more of
mildness and less of sharp rebuke than we should expect, Jesus
replied — "Ye know not what ye ask; " — there will be more of
suffering and toil in reaching the honor ye seek than ye dream of
The honors of my kingdom come, not as ye are thinking, but only
through the baptism of suffering and blood.  This adroit push
of the two brethren to be in advance of all others in their appli
cation for the chief honors of the coming kingdom excited the in
dignation of the other ten. The resulting unpleasantness seems
not to have altogether subsided when they came around this sup
per-table. For Luke (22: 24), speaking of "a strife among them
which should be accounted the greatest," locatea it in the midst of
the scenes of this supper. This shows at least that the spirit of
aspiration for pre-eminence had not subsided but was still rife even
here. Some critics suggest that by Jewish usage, the feet of all
the party were to be washed at this table ; that as Jesus and his
twelve employed no servant for their menial work, this service

GOSPEL OF JOHN.— CHAP. XIIL 203
neccssa-rily devolved upon some one of their number; that in tho
present case, no one offered himself for this service, but in far other
spirit each was ambitious to get the first honors in the expected
kingdom ; and that, therefore, Jesus rose from the table and per
formed the service himself It will be readily seen that under
such circumstances the act must have been a pertinent and pun
gent rebuke, which could not be soon forgotten.
12. So after he had washed their feet, and had taken his
garments, and was set down again, he said unto them, Know
ye what I have done to you ?
13. Ye call me Master and Lord: and ye say well; for so
I am. 14. If I then, your Lord and Master, have washed your
feet ; ye also ought to wash one another's feet.
15. For I have given you an example, that ye should do
as I have done to you.
16. Verily, verily, I say unto you, 'The servant is not
greater than his lord ; neither he that is sent greater than
he that sent him.
17. If ye know these things, happy are ye if ye do them.
Ts it not somewhat surprising that there could be the least oc
casion to auggeat that this transaction was intended aa an exam
ple ? Why did not every diaoiple catch the spirit of it at once,
and feel the power of ita rebuke of his own aelfiahness? We must
conclude that the temper of the diaciplea on the point here in
volved was far on toward the opposite pole — utterly unlike what
Jesus desired and waa laboring to inculcate.  Do ye understand
what I have been doing ? Ye call me your Lord and your Mas
ter [Teacher] ; so far, well; for I am.  Ah, did they realize how
high he stood above them in purity, in dignity, and in glory ?
Did their minds take in at all adequately the moral force of this
transaction aa done by the Infinite Son of God upon and for
themselves — ^weak, vile ; yet aspiring and proud mortals ? 
" Verily, verily, (the usual emphatic words) I say unto you, the
servant ia not greater than his lord,", — aud should never feel
himself above any service which his lord is willing to do. It is
one thing to know this principle of obligation and this rule of
duty — quite another to obey it. Blessed ia the man who shall
do — who shall bring his very spirit and life into harmony with
this law of self-sacrificing service for others' good! Manifestly
the Master felt a painful fear lest even these most favored and
best trained disciples would fail to take home to their heart and
to work into their life this first law of Christian living. Alas I
that there should be so much reason for this foar as to all his
professed disciples, from that day onward.
On the question. What constitutes obedience to the example of
Jesus in washing his disciples' feet? it seems hardly necessary

204 GOSPEL OF JOHN.— CHAP. XIII.
to say — It lies in the spirit ; not in the letter. As to the letter —
the mere outside act, the washing of another's feet is an entirely
different matter now from what it was then. Climate and modes
of protecting the feethave made some of this difference ; the usages
and ideas of social life have made thia difference yet much
greater. It ia simply prepoateroua to aaaume that obedience to
Christ's example demands in our age andtimes the identical thing
which he did. — Yet let not thia fact weaken our sense of obliga
tion to follow his example. All that his example, meant then, it
means now. The real service which the law of Christ demands
of us is not abated by the least jot or tittle in consequence of the
change in social customs which renders it improper now to wash
one another's feet. It were more than a misfortune to lose the
sweet power of this divine example ; it were worse than a blunder
to miss its precious influence toward the crucifying of human sel
fishness and the culture of Christian humility and of loving service
toward all the Christian brotherhood.
18. I speak not of you all : I know whora I have chosen :
but that the Scripture may be fulfilled, He that eateth bread
with me hath lifted up his heel against me.
19. Now I tell you before it corae, that, when it is come
to pass, ye may believe that I am he.
20. Verily, verily, I say unto you. He that receiveth
whomsoever I send receiveth me ; and he that receiveth me
receiveth him that sent me.
" I speak not of you all " — for there is one among you whose
heart is not with me but against me. "I know whom I have
chosen ; " he is not one of them. In this apostasy the scripture
is fulfilled which long since said; "He that eateth bread with
me" — bound therefore to me inmost sacred bonds of friendship
— hath turned away from me, lifting his heel against me in ruth
less violation of all duty and honor.  The scripture referred to
here ia Ps. 41 ; 9, — said probably of the treachery of Adonijah
and his associates. (See my notes on the Psalm.) It was ful
filled in the case of Judas in the sense that this case filled out
fully the very idea of David in the Psalm. The same thing which
befell David befell David's greater Son also.  As is quite common,
the connection between the event and the scripture is not that
Judas turned against Jesus for the sake of fulfilling an ancient
scripture considered as a prophecy, but simply that, in this treach
ery, there was a filling out again of the same crime of heartless
and guilty treason.
The reader will scarcely need to be reminded that in all Orien
tal lands the rights of hospitality are deemed most sacred.
Whoever has eaten bread or salt with another, is pledged to eter
nal friendahip. The man who should lift his heel against a friend
with whom he had eaten at the same table would doom himself
to the deepest infamy.  Jesus forewarned his disciples of this

GOSPEL OF JOHN.— CHAP. XIIL 205
treachery in Judas that it might not take them by surprise, nor
suggest the inquiry — Did our Master fail to read the heart of Ju
das, and was he surprised in this outbreak of treachery? He
would have their faith in him the rather confirmed by the devel
opments whioh he had foreseen.  " Believe that I am "- — am all I
have ever claimed to be — the great "I am." (See John 8 : 58, and
8 : 24).
V. 20 is doubtless in place here, and must have some connec
tion of thought with what precedes and follows. It behooves ua
to inquire for this connection. May it be this ?  The treachery
of Judas is before tho mind of Jesus. The guilt of this treach
ery lay in the light sinned against, and in the position of high
honor and dignity from whioh he had fallen. He was one of
those whom .lesus had sent forth to preach the gospel. His func
tions were of such exalted honor that whoever should receive
him would virtually receive Jesus himself. To receive Jeaus "was
equivalent to receiving the Infinite Father who had sent him.
 From this high brotherhood of relationships with the Son of
God and with the Father, Judas had utterly and basely fallen !
He had shown himself to have no appreciation of this high
honor ; no sense of the obligations it imposed ; no heart in sym
pathy with its exalted aervice. Thirty pieoea of paltry silver
weighed more -with him than all this 1
21. When Jesus had thus said, he was troubled in spirit,
and testified, and said, Verily, verily, I say uuto you, that
one of you shall betray me.
"Troubled in spirit" — the same word we met in the scenes at
the grave of Lazarus (Johu 11 : 33) — indicating deep .and painful
emotion — it seemed so inexpressibly sad that one of his chosen
twelve — one -who had sat beside him at table ; was sitting (per
haps) next him at this moment — who had been lifted so high in
privilege and honor, and in the possibilities of a noble life, should
turn against him in the foulness of the baseat treason !  It
should engage our thoughtful notice that the deep emotions of
Jeaus were not (apparently) indignation toward such meanness,
nor resentment in view of such treachery ; but unspeakable pity
and sorrow over this fearful fall I " One of you " whom I have
loved so tenderly, and ministered unto so long — one of you must
go down to an unutterably hopeless perdition, and make a total
wreck of his own well-being forever! As the story is recited by
Matthew and Mark, Jesua had this fearful ruin vividly in mind :
" Woe to that mau by whom the Son of man is betrayed ! Good
were it for that man if he had never been born ! "
The time had come for Jesus to announce this sad fact to hia
yet faithful disciples — but we notice he approaches it gradually,
not calling out Judas at once by name, but saying with the usual
solemn asseveration — "One of you shall betray rne." Itwas no
doubt morally wholesome to put the matter first in this indirect

206 GOSPEL OF JOHN.— CHAP. XIIL
way. It wakened them to earnest thinking and to personal self-
examination. 22. Then the disciples looked one on another, doubting of
whora he spake.
23. Now there was leaning on Jesus' bosom one of his-
disciples, whom Jesus loved.
24. Simon Peter therefore beckoned to him, that he
should ask who it should be of whom he spake.
25. He then lying on Jesus' breast saith unto him , Lord,
who is it ?
26. Jesus answered. He it is, to whom I shall give a sop,
when I have dipped it. And when he had dipped the sop,
he gave it to Judas Iscariot, tlie son of Simon.
The other evangelists present this scene with some variations
and with more or less additional circumstances. Matthew (26 :
21-25), and Mark (14 ; 18-21) make very prominent the agony of
sorrow and solicitude whioh this announcement — " One of you
shall betray me " — brought upon thoir souls. " They were exceed
ing sorrowful and began every one of them to say unto him —
"Lord, is it I?" As they relate the case, Jesus answered their
inquiry aud pointed out the traitor by saying (aa in Matthew)
" He that dippeth his hand with me in the dish, the same shall
betray me ; " and in Mark — " It is one of the twelve that dippeth
with me in the dish." Luke treats these points in a less specific
way, giving only the general statement. — " The hand of him that
betrayeth me is with me on the table" (22: 21). These slight
variations by no means impair the general accuracy of these in
dependent narratives.  Only John brings out hia own special
agency in identifying Judas. How could John ever forget these
facts ? He sat next to Jesus on the right, almost leaning into his
bosom, therefore in a condition to put his question in an under
tone — to which Jesus seems to have given his reply so audibly as
to be heard by all at the table. It is plausibly supposed that Ju
das sat next to Jesua on his left, so that Jeaus could readily pass
to him the morsel of bread (" sop ") after dipping it in the com
mon dish. This near position of the traitor at thia table gives
special emphasis to the words — " He that eateth bread with me; "
" lifted up his heel against me ; " " one of you " — among the
nearest to my person, and one among the most honored. Alas,
that he should betray me, and go away to a doom at once so
guilty, so hopeless, so dreadful !
Throughout this book John is wont to designate himself as
" the disciple whom Jesus loved." (See John 19; 26, and 20: 2,
and 21 ; 7, 20, 24).  Assuming that this descriptive phrase came
from John himself what shall we say of the spirit it manifests ?
Ia it aasuming and consequential, as if John would suggast the
high distinction which he enjoj'ed in the esteem and love of his

GOSPEL OP JOHN.— CHAP. XIII. 207
Master? Or is it really modest and humble, the author purposely
implying that the marvel of his life had been that Jesus could
love such a man as he ? Or does the phrase make no special
manifestation of John's spirit, resting upon the simple fact that
being a relative, an early, and in the main a steadfast disciple, he
had enjoyed a very special intimacy with Jesus ?  Of these al
ternatives, the first is too revolting ; the second is admissible and
pleasant to admit; the third is not specially objectionable.
27. Aud after the sop Satan entered into hira. Then
said Jesus unto him. That thou doest, do quickly.
28. Now no man at the table knew for what intent he
spake this unto him.
29. For some of them thought, because Judas had the
bag, that Jesus had said unto him, Buy those things that we
have need of against the feast ; or, that he should give
something to the poor.
30. He then, having received the sop, went immediately
out ; and it was night.
" Satan entered into Judas," taking advantage of the open door
to his soul, for this exposure fired up his resentment and made
him desperate. Now (said the devil to him) you may as well
strike ; you can never go back ; all confidence in you is lost
here ; get the money while you can — and Judas thought so too.
 .The next steps were all downward. Jesus simply remarked
— "That thou doest, do quickly." The eleven were not in the
secret; and speculated to small purpose what the Master could
mean. Judas went immediately out, to close the arrangement
with the priests ; night set in ; the dread event came on apace.
Will it be a useful study of human nature to pause here a
moment over this Judas Iscariot?  We naturally ask; What
kind of a life had he lived since his call to be a disciple and
his public enlistment into the service of Jesus? Nothing ap
peara on the record of its earlier stages to mark him as the fu
ture apostate; nothing to show that the eleven suspected him
rather than any other one of their number when Jesus as
tounded them by declaring, "One of you shall betray me." It
ia suppoaable that he had thought most of the earthly side of
Messiah's kingdom ; looked for a good time in Jerusalem when
Jesus should take his throne there, and perhaps had felt dis
couraged of late by the opposition and by the slow progress in
the line of his hopes. We may also consider that Satan helps
such profeaaors to keep up a fair appearance, to rein in their
earthward propensities, or at least the manifestation of them.
 Perhaps Judas enjoyed the society of good, kind brethren;
had some relish for the social side of their Christian life, and
having committed himaelf to Christ in hope of selfish good, did
not see his way clear to withdraw without dishonor. So he may

208 GOSPEL OF JOHN.— CHAP. XIIL
have managed to keep up appearances though heartless as to all
real sympathy with the spirit of his Master.  Are there not
such professed followers of Jesua in the churchea of our age ?
 But why did not his better impulses recoil from betraying
his Master ?  Satan has his ways of keeping in the back
ground the revolting aspects of sin. He may have whispered
to the soul of .ludas after this manner : The enterprise of your
Master is not as hopeful as you expected ; he manages badly for
the best success; the money does not corae in well and you are
scarcely paid for your services ; you need a little more money
very much, and ought to have it. Besides, if Jeaua goea into
their hands, he can easily get out again by using his miraculous
powers. You have not been quite well treated and may prop
erly take some redress, etc.  The other side of the case was
somehow strangely kept in the dark — the kindness he had ex
perienced from his Master; the love that had been shown him;
his positive conviction that Jesus was not only innocent but un
selfish, benevolent, worthy of his deepest gratitude and hia purest
love and service; the unutterable wrong, sin, and shame of turn
ing against so good and glorious a Friend — to all these thoughts
he was strangely oblivious. But, oh, how did they come rush
ing upon his poor soul after the awful deed was done ! 
Alas ! is there any deception like that of sin ? Is there any folly
and madness possible to human souls like this which Satan fos
ters and works into force upon the human -will till the sin is
past and only its horrors remain !
31. Therefore, when he was gone out, Jesus said. Now is
the Son of man glorified, and God is glorified in liim.
32. If God be glorified in him, God shall also glorify him
in himself, and shall straight v.-ay glorify him.
When Judas had gone out, the mind of the Master instantly
grasped the coming result — the betrayal, the arrest, the death of
agony, and what is specially to be noted, the ultimate fruit —
glory to God and supreme exaltation for his Son. It is refresh
ing to note that these remotest results came to the front in his
E respective view of his death, and that he saw them so near at
and — " shall straightway glorify him."
33. Little children, yet a little while I ara with you. Ye
shall seek me ; and as I said unto the Jews, Whither I go,
ye can not come ; so now I say to you.
Not dazzled in the least for an instant by this prospective
glory, his thoughts of love and tenderness return to the dear ones
before him : "Little children," I must leave you soon. A sense
of hmelinesa and desolation will come over you, I know ; ye will
seek me and long for the return of such precious hours of fel
lowship as we have enjoyed; but ye can not, for a time, come
where I am to bo. Nothing remains for you but to pass your

GOSPEL OF JOHN.-CHAP. XIIL 209
remaining life on earth without my bodily presence. To pro-
pare you better for this earthly life, I have many things to say.
34. A new commandment I give unto you. That ye love
one toother ; as I have loved j'ou, that ye also love one
another. 35. By this shall all men know that ye -are my disci jiles,
if ye have love one to another.
These expressive words, so full of "wisdom and of love, should
be considered in the light of that recent disturbance of feeling,
"the strife among them which should' be accounted greatest,'
and the ambition of James and .Tohn to have first seats in his
kingdom — which had stirred the indignation of the other ten
disciples. It would be most dangerous, nay more, ruinous even
to their cause, if such jealousies should supplant their mutual
love, after their Master should have passed away. They abso
lutely must hold together in the spirit of real love for each other
- — such love as Jesus had felt and shown for them — or their work
must utterly fail. Such love would show the world that they
were disciples of Jesua, for the world never meets such love
elsewhere than among his followers. The philoaophies and wis
doms of earth have always failed to beget such fraternal love
in human society — and always will. Reasonably, therefore, will
sensible men for evermore infer that such mutual love proves dis-
cipleship in the school of Christ. It ia therefore intrinaically one
of the great vital powera of Christianity, working internally to
augment the solid strength of Christian bodies; and working ex
ternally to enforce the conviction upon the world that such love
of brethren ia heaven-born, and witnessea with all the force of
demonstration that these loving souls are Christ's disciples.
36. Simon Peter said unto him. Lord, v,-hither goest thou?
Jesus answered him. Whither I go, thou canst not follow rae
now ; but thou shalt follow me afterwards.
37. Peter said unto him. Lord, why can not I follow thee
now ? I will lay down my life for thy sake.
38. Jesus answered him. Wilt thou lay down thy life for
my sake ? Verily, verily, I say unto thee, The cock shall
not crow, till thou hast denied me thrice.
These words of Peter connect themselves logically with what
.Jesus had said (v. 33) of going away. Perhaps the intervening
words about loving one another did not arrest his attention — at
least they did not divert it from that previoua remark by Jesus
about going away from his disciples.  He ia curioua to learn
where Jesus proposed to go. Jesus intimates that_ his going
would be by death, and that Peter might come to him at some
future time. 'The ardor of Peter's soul may be seen iu the feel-
incT — Why may I not follow thee now ? How can I endure to

210 GOSPEL OF JOHN.-CHAP. XIV.
live here without thee ? I am ready to die for thy sake.  Ah!
Peter, those noble impulses lack the solid base and the firmness
of purpose which experience, culture, trial, and grace may yet
give. There are deeds in thy nearer future that will astound
thy friends and thyself!  How he felt when Jesus forewarned
him of hia fall we are not told. It should have made him watch
ful, self distrustful, prayerful. We fear it failed of these results.
Probably he was perplexed and scarcely believed it.  It is sup
posable that the words passed aomehow out of his mind — until
that " look " of Jesus which brought the cock-crowing to mind,
and this admonition too, and made him weep — oh, moat bitterly !

CHAPTEK XIV.
This chapter reports the conversationa of Jesus with tho eleven
at the supper-table where they ate the Pasaover, until they ad
journed to go over the Kidron to the garden of Gethsemane. 
The great central fact which shapes this entire discourse is that
Jesus is soon to be parted from them, leaving them to do battle
for hia cauae alone. Hence it became vital to minister moral
strength to their faith ; to open more fully before them the blessed
ness of the future life ; to give them new light and new promises
as to prayer, and not least, to reveal to them the mission and work
of the Comforter; and in the same connection, to assure them of
fresh manifestations of himself and of God the Father, condi
tioned upou their steadfast obedience to hia commands. Such,
therefore, is the general current of thought in this precious
chapter. 1. Let not your heart be troubled:- ye believe in God, be
lieve also in me.
The death of Jesus would naturally fill their hearts with
trouble— not grief only for the loss of one so honored and so
dear, but anxiety, trouble in view of their own personal danger;
in view also of the responsibilities of their work and of the sud
den withdra-wal of One upon whom they had been wont to lean
so absolutely and with such sweet confidence. The'refore Jesus
admonishes them "not to let their hearts be troubled." It is
their privilege to trust in God and in himself, as truly and as fully
as ever, and indeed far more fully than ever yet.  In the last
clause of the verse the Greek verb for " believe," being repeated
iu precisely the same form with reference to " God " as to " me " [Je
sus] may grammatically be either indicative or imperative ; so that
we may translate it in either of the three following ways ;- (1 ) Both
indicative; — Ye do believe in God; ye do believe in me: — (2)

GOSPEL OF JOHN.— CHAP. XIV. 211
Both imperative ; — Believe ye in God ; believe ye also in me ; —
or (3) Either of the two indicative and the other imperative ;
i. e. Either — Ye do believe iu God ; believe ye alao in me ; or
Believe ye in God ; ye do believe in me.  The best is the aecond
of these alternatives, making both clauses imperative ; — Believe
ye in God ; believe ye alao in me. They needed thia exhortation
to more faith in both God the Father and God the Son. So far
as appears there is no reason to assume that their faith in God
was already perfect, so that they only needed to bring up their
faith in Jesus to the same perfection'. To interpret thus — As ye
already believe in God as fully as need be, so give your confi
dence in like fullness to me — rests on nothing in their previous
history or experience, and is therefore. gratuitous. It is better to
interpret the exhortation as urging equally and alike more faith
in God and more faith in Jesus.
2. In my Father's house are many mansions : if it were
not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for
you. 3. And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come
again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there
ye may be also.
The course of thought is — ^I must leave you ; but it is only for
a short time. Indeed one object in my going is to prepare a
place where we may dwell together forever.  "In my Father's "
[great] "house are many mansions" — places of abode — not pre-
ciaely equivalent to palaces as if the leading idea were magnifi
cence, splendor; but places for permanent abode where we may
dwell together.  There was none of the coldneaa of formality,
none of the reserve of a half distrustful friendship, manifested
in saying — " If it were not so, I would have told you." I with
hold nothing from friends ao dear which it is i^jiportant for them
to know.  The best textual authorities read — •" I would have
told you, for I go to prepare," etc.  "If I go " — the word "if"
not implying the least doubt as to hia going. It is equivalent to
saying, " When I shall have gone and prepared a place for you, I
will come again and receive you to myself"  This must refer
to Christ's coming in the deaih of his saints. At and in their
death he comes to receive their souls to himself, to bear them up
to his Father's mansions where he has prepared a place for them
that they may be where he is. This passage has great importance
because of ita bearing upon the true sense in which Jesus speaks
of coming to his people — or rather I would say — upon one of the
senses in which he was to come again, for there are other comings
besides this.*
"Many mansions" — ^but for whom? Observe, Jesus does not
say many mansions for you — does not imply that the mansions
* See this subjecti treated more fully in the Appendix.

212 GOSPEL OF JOHN.-CHAP. XIV.
previously there wore prepared and intended for hia redeemed
people. It should be considered that these disciples had heard
of angels in heaven, " beholding always the face of the Father,"
and they might also have heard of various orders of unfallen
beings — " principalities and powers in the heavenly places." It
was pertinent therefore for Jeaua to auggest that his Father's
house had mansions for all these, and tha-t still there was a place
also for his disciples which he would put in order for their re
ception. This brief but rich allusion to the future reunion of Christ's
people with himself ahould not be passed without a few moments'
attention to its salient points — as e. g.
(1.) It haa definite locality — in opposition to the notion that
heaven has no locality ; means nothing but happy existence, with
not the leaat regard to place.
(2.) As to place where, we learn nothing here save what ia in
cidentally implied, viz, that this place prepared for Christ's peo
ple ia in the same great house of our Father in which are the
manaions for we know not how many ordera and families of his
unfallen children. Jesus testifies that there are many such man
sions, and more than intimates that he will fit up yet other places
of abode, of the aame sort, for the new accessions gathered by
his grace from the fallen sons of earth. So much then as to the
future home of his people we may regard as made certain.
(3.) The notion that the future a,bode of Jesus with his people
ia to be on ihis earth after it shall have been purified by the final
conflagration, is not only unsupported by revelation, but is in di
rect conflict with this testimony from Christ. We can afford
therefore to dismiss it to its place among the fancies, thankful
that something at once better and surer is provided.
(4.) It should be spoken of gratefully that this very brief al
lusion to the heavenly place carries in it the best possible elements
of blessedness ; viz. being wiih Jesus where he is. Let this be
enough for us to know. Nothing could be better. May we not
almost say — Nothing can add to the blessedness of this com
panionship and ever-abiding presence. It matters little to us
where among the celestial bodies of the boundless universe the
locality may be; what its relations in space maybe to other worlds;
what its surroundings ; what its possibilities of acquaintance with
the vast universe of matter or of created mind. The one all-com-
prehenaive fact, itself sufficient though it were alone, will be that
this everlasting home is to be wiih Him we love, with him who
hath loved us ; who wears our nature and takes us to himself as
his redeemed brethren.
4. And whither I go ye know, and the way ye know.
5. Thoraas saith unto him, Lord, we know not whither
thou goest ; and how can we know the way ?
6, Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the
life : no man cometh unto the Father but by me.

GOSPEL OF JOHxN.— CHAP. XIV. 213
Ye must surely understand ere thia that I refer to my own
death aa the going, and to heaven aa the place whither. Ye
must- therefore know the ivay by which human beings reach that
other world.  Noticeably the thought of Jesua is not at all upon
the direction in space, or the convoy of agencies for transportation,
or attendants upon this transit from earth to heaven : — nothing
of thia sort. He thinks only of the "way," taken in its-spiritual
sense, i. e. of himself as the only way to that blessed life above.
He had already illustrated tbe same truth under the flgure of
"the door" into the sheep-fold, and had taught it in plainest
terms by the promise of everlasting life to those who believe in
himself  "Way;" "truth;" "life" — abstract terms of most
comprehensive import. 1 am myself the " way," for only by and
through me can men reach that blessed state. I reveal all truih;
I give all real life. No man cometh to the Father save by me.
 In V. 4 the Sinaitic and Vatican manuscripts (whom Tisch
endorf follows) give the text; "Whither I go, ye know the way."
 Thomas in reply made two points ; the place whither and the
way by which, and said that not knowing the first they could not
understand the second. Jesus adds nothing more respecting the
place whither, but answers to the more important point — the way
to gain it.
7. If ye had known rae, ye should have known my Father
also : and from henceforth ye know him and have seen him.
8. Philip saith unto him, Lord, shew us the Father, and
it sufiiceth us.
9. Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with
you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath
seen me hath' seen the Father; and how sayest thou then.
Shew us the Father?
Twice in this connection Jesus had spoken of the Father; in
V. 2, of his Father's house as their own future abode with their
Lord Jesus; in v. 6, as one to whom they must needs como
through himself; — but did they really know this Father? Jesus
tacitly assumes that they do not — at least that they needed a yet
deeper and more full knowledge of him. Therefore he says —
"If ye had known me thoroughly, ye would have known my
Father also." From henceforth, since I have revealed myself to
you so fully — since I have shown and am about to show you the
depths of my heart of love, ye will know the Father and m.ay con
sider that ye have seen not me only but him.  Philip does not
quite understand theae allusions to the Father. In saying —
"Lord, show us the Father and it sufficeth us," he may perhaps
have had his mind upon the case of Moses — "I beseech thee, show
me thy glory;" when the Lord replied — "I will make all my
goodness pass before thee," etc. (Ex. 33 : 18-23).  "It sufficeth
us " — breathes a precious spirit. If only we may have such reve-
10

214 GOSPEL OF JOHN.-CHAP. XIV.
lations of the Father as thou, our heavenly Teacher, canst surely
give, it shall be enough for us; it will meet the greatest and
niost deeply felt want of our souls.  The answer of Jesus
is perfectly definite and lucid, and also entirely in point. I
have been with you a long time, .and hast thou not known me,
Philip ? If thou hast really seen me, thou hast seen the Father.
I am the very manifestation of the Father to men. My words,
my character, my life, reveal to men nothing save what is iu the
Father also — omit nothing that is in him. The revelation I make
of the Father is therefore perfect.-  The truth taught here haa
immense significance. Jesus, the revealer of God the Father to
men ; the perfect representation of the Father's character ; of the
Father's love, of the Father's compassion for sinners, of his in
terest in their salvation, of his love for the penitent and believ
ing; of his patience, sympathy, tenderness, and eternal faithfulness
to all his promises in their behalf  It is one of the infirmities
of the human intelligence that its conception of a God never seen
by human eyes — never brought near in his distinct personality,
but revealed only in his works of nature, his agencies of provi
dence, his written word, and such testimonies as he may give to •
man's inner consciousness, should seem indefinite, dim, cold, dis
tant. How wonderfully do all our conceptions of God become
distinct, clear, vivid and intensely impressive when we have him
brought before our very eyes and home to our souls iu the person
of the incarnate Jesus ! As seen in Jesus Christ, God meets ua in
all the varied moods of our inner and outer life ; in every variety
of circumstances; in sorrows and in joys; iu darkness and in
light; in depressions and doubts, and no less in our days of trust
and peace : — for with the life of Jesus before us and taught to
see God in this life, we have the very Father himself brought
home to our mind's conception and to our heart's sensibility in
every poaaible phase in which we can need to see or feel a present
God. O how near we come to the Great Father when we are in
troduced to him by his incarnate Son, our human brother! How
definite and precious may our thoughts of him become when we
understand that we may shape them upon the model of Jesus,
made manifest in human flesh!
10. Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the
Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not
of myself; but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth
the works.
11. Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father
in me : or else believe me for the very works' sake.
The form of question seems to imply that Jesus had said this
before, and that Philip ought to have believed it. Art thou still
slow of heart to believe what thou hast heard from my lips al
ready— "that I am in the Father and the Father in me" ? (chap.
10; 38). The same expression occurs subsequently (14 ; 21, and

GOSPEL OF JOHN.-CHAP. XIV. 215
17: 21, 23).  No human language can be framed to express a
closer relation than these words express — " I iu the Father, and
the Father in me." It has been well said that the most intimate
relationships known to human society fall bejow this ; for we never
say — The patient is in his physician ; or the client in his advo
cate; never that the soldier is in his commander; the pupil in his
teacher ; — never that the parent is in his child nor the child in hia
parent. These human relationshipa give us precious illustrations
of trust, confidence, sympathy, affection ; — but the great depth of
oneness, reaching almost to the point of complete identity — auch
as this language gives us — finds no adequate illustration in hu
man relationships. How much it does in fact mean, who can
tell? Where all hum.au analogies fail us, our conceptions
are (may we not say ?) necessarily feeble and imperfect.
The definite points that follow are tangible. " The words that
I speak unto you, I speak not of myself" Jesus had often in
sisted upon this point — that he came among men to speak, not
on his own authority, but on that of his Father — words not only
concerning God, but from God — the very Words the Father had
given him to speak.—- — So also of his "works" — The Father who
dwelleth in me, doeth these miraculous works which are wrought
through my voice aud hand.*
Again Jesus adduces his miracles to confirm the testimony of
hia personal word: "Believe me" — my own declaration — "that
I am in the Father and the Father in me ;" or if you aak more
and higher testimony, believe me on the ground of these miracles —
("for the very works' sake ").
12. Verily, verily, T say unto you. He that believeth on
me, the works that I do shall he do also ; and greater works
than these shall he do ; because I go unto my Father.
. The double asseveration, "Verily, verily,'' implies as usual
that Jesus here advances to a new announcement of special so
lemnity and importance. What is it? Especially, what are these
" works " which believers shall do, the same essentially as his own,
and even greater? And what are the force and bearing of the
reason assigned — " Because I go to the Father " ?
In the antecedent context the "works" spoken of include mir
acles unquestionably. We need not say — denote miracles to the
exclusion of all other works, but they obviously include miracles
and make them prominent as testimony from the Father. Does
Jesus mean to say that his believing people will work miracles
equal to his own, and even greater ?
In the decision of this question the points to be considered are
these :
* The better sustained text has it — not " ihe works," but " his
works"- in the sense — his own works are wrought by and through
me.

I

216 GOSPEL OF JOHN.-CHAP. XIV.
(1.) That in the passage where Jesus first speaks of his "works"
in relation to the Father's (John 5 : 17-25), these " works " include
the raising of dead souls to new spiritual life as well as the work
ing of miracles in the natural world. Therefore the idea of
spiritual works, wrought iu the realm of the spiritual life, is
not foreign from the thought of Jesua in the uaage of thia term
"works." (2.) That subsequent to his resurrection and ascension his be
lieving disciples did perform miracles in the natural world as
well aa works of converting power in the spiritual world. The
power to work miracles was definitely promised them (Mark 16:
17, 18). Yet it must be said, there is no intimation that these
miracles were to be, or actually were, "greater" than those
wrought by Jesus in person.
(3.) The reason given — "Because I go to the Father'' — must
look to the promised gift of the Spirit. This gift was made di
rectly contingent upon his going: "It is expedient for you that
I go away ; for if I go not away, the Comforter will not cOme unto
¦ou; but if I go away, I will send him unto you" (16: 7).  ¦
n the decision of our main question, very great force must be
accorded to this last consideration because, standing as the reason
for the greater worka, it shows what was specially present to the
thought of Jesus in these words.  It is therefore with special
regard for this last consideration that I would interpret these
" greater works " to mean the spiritu.al fruits of their labors, par
ticularly as wrought by the fresh and copious effusions of the Di
vine Spirit. Jesus had in his eye the scenes of the great Pen
tecost and those continuous manifestations of the Spirit's power
of which Pentecost waa the beginning and the type.  Of hia
personal feelings in the view of that sublime manifestation of
spiritual power, we are reminded that as John the Baptist said
of Jesus — " He must increase but I must decrease," and said -it
with no pain of heart from the thought of being eclipsed by the
brighter glory that came after, somewhat so, Jesus saw that the
Holy Ghoat, the Spirit of Truth, coming to take his place as a help
ful presence and power with hia people, would do greater things
through those human instrumentalities than himself had "wrought.
He too foresaw this with no thought of sadness in being eclipsed
by the greater brightness of the new manifestations. It was in
hia heart to honor the work of the Spirit. It is always in his
heart that we should do ihe Spirit honor. No sentiment in our
heart can be more grateful to him— none more vital to our spir
itual life — none more conducive to the triumph of truth and to
its effective force on the earth.  Let it then be carefully con
sidered that these " greater works" to be done by those who be
lieve in Jesua are not supposed to be due to improved methods
of Christian work, nor in any large measure to progress made in
Christian doctrine, nor to greater zeal in the laborers — to nothing
in abort that is merely or even mainly human and of man. No ;
the reason — "Because I go to the Father" — looks toward the

GOSPEL OF JOHN.-CHAP. XIV. 217
miasion of the Spirit as constituting this new accession of power.
This fundament-ally is its source and fountain. He comes to
work through human instruments. So working, he may bring
into aervice better methoda of Christian labor ; a purer Christian
doctrine; a truer zeal and a more thorough self-denial and conse
cration; — yet in all this, "the excellencj' of the power shall be
evermore of God and not of m.an."
13. And whatsoever ye shall ask in ray name, that will I
do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son.
14. If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it.
It should not surprise us that thia line of thought brings up
prayer as the next subject. Indeed it seems to me thatthe better
punctuation connects -\. 13 closely with v. 12 in thia sense;
Greater works than these shall he do (1.) Because I go to my ^
Father; and (2.) Because, " whatsoever ye shall ask in my name
that will I do" — a second reason why believers in Jesus after he
shall have gone to the Father will do the "greater works"- — -viz.
he appears before the throne as their Great Advocate and Inter
cessor, and so will secure the utmost efficiency to believing prayer.
These words — supremely rich in meaning — demand careful at
tention. The points to be considered are 
1. That here is "progress of doctrine" in regard to prayer — an
advance in the agencies provided for prevailing prayer and in the
light which reveals them. It is a new thing that Josus the iiicar-
nate Son is now in heaven, " exalted as a Prince and Savior to
give repentance and remission of sins '' (Acts 5 : 31); an Advocate
with the Father; "a great High Priest passed into the heavens."
His presence and agencies there are so revealed to us that we can
see intelligently an enlarged foundation for richer spiritual bless
ings in answer to prayer and for greater assurance that they shall
be given.
2. What ia implied in asking in Jesus' name ?  That we are
in sympathy with his work; that we ask blessings upon his king
dom and its interests, and not upon ourselves apart from th.at
kingdom and those interests ; that we plead on the ground of his
worth and not our own — -because he is worthy, and not because
we are ; also that he and not -we may be honored thereby. We
put his name forward and not our own — appearing at the throne
of the Father (so to speak) behind that name of Jesus and not
otherwise. 3. Bearing upon the mutual relations of the Father and of the
Son, we may properly compare the passage before ua with John
16: 23; here, "Whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I
do ; " there, " Whatsoever ye shall ask the Father in my name.
He will give it you." The Father and the Son are at one — in per
fect harmony in this matter of answering prayer offered in Jesus'
name. It would seem that each has a common interest and a
common agency; indeed, that the case ia such that those forms

218 GOSPEL OF JOHN.-CHAP. XIV.
of statement a.re essentially interchangeablc^=^" what things the
Father doeth, those doeth the Son likewise."
4. The reason assigned — " That the Father may ])e glorified in
the Son " — implies that the Father accounts it his honor to hear
the intercessions of the Son ; to show before the universe that he
loves and honors the Son, aud approves his benevolent self-sacri
fice for man. The whole scheme of human salvation is no less
truly au outgrowth of the Father's love than of the Son's.
While it is said on the one hand that " God so loved the world
that he gave his only-begotten Son," it is also said that the Son
came to seek and to save the lost— came under the impulses of
his own infinite love. Of this self-sacrificing love the Father de
lights to show his approbation.  The appropriate inference from
this is — that all prayer, honestly made in the name of the Son,
will be surely and joyfully answered by the Father because he
loves to honor his Son, and to glorify himself before the universe
thereby. 5. But there will arise the question of limiiation as to things
that may be asked in Jesus' name. What shall we say of the
apparently unlimited " any thing" ? Does this promise authorize
Christians to ask any thing they %oitt,.yi'i\h. the certainty that it will
be granted ?
In my view this promise carries with it its own limitations —
all there are — all there need be. The blessings sought must be
blessings — not 'curses; must be auch as can be asked in Jesus'
name — for the glory of God in the scheme of human salvation.
No provision whatever is made under this promise for men to ask
for what are blessings only iu the seeming, and to " consume upon
their lusts." The condition of asking in Jesus' name utterly pre
cludes all those things from the class of subjects appropriate for
this praver. Countless things of an earthly nature — health, pro
longed life, food, raiment, comforts of varied sort — these may be
prayed for in sympathy with Christ, for the ends of his kingdom
according to our honest judgment ; and if God should judge aa
we do, he will grant them; otherwiae, we ought not to wiah him
to do so. If our heart is iu sympathy with his kingdom, we
shall of course defer sweetly to his wisdom in all such subjects of
prayer. Those things — a large class — which on the great whole
may be or may not be blessings, must find their necessary limita
tion in God's wisdom. But those things which, in their very
nature, must be blessings, and never can be evils, fall entirely
within the range of this promise. If we ask them in true sym
pathy with Jesua, aaking really iu his name, so that iu giving them
the Father may be glorified in the Son, they are sure. Thia
promiae, therefore, is as free from limitation as -we ought to wish ;
is as broad, as rich, as sure, as it can be reasonable for us to de
sire. 15. If ye love rae, keep ray commandments.

GOSPEL OF JOHN.-CHAP. XIV. 219
16. And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you
another Comforter, that he raay abide with you for ever ;
17. Even the Spirit of truth ; whom the world can not
receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but
ye know him ; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in
you. Toward a superior, obedience is the natural outgrowth and ex
pression of love. The profession of love avails nothing without
it. In this case, as between Jesus and his disciples in every age
of time, he is the superior, with infinite right to command.
Consequently there is always infinite reason why his people
should render to him the love of their heart, and the natural ex
pression of this love in the fullest obedience.  There is yot
another view of the case. Jesus has work to be done by hia peo
ple. The same salvation whioh has blessed their souls so abun
dantly, he would have them carry (instrumentally) to other souls,
that they also may in like manner be blessed. As Jeaua rejoiced
with great joy in giving to them these blessings of his dying love,
so does he long with great longing to aee like bleaainga borne to
other souls. This is the work to which he calls his people. By
all the love they bear to their own Savior; by all the gratitude
they feel toward him for their own salvation ; by all the sympa
thy they have in his enterprise of saving a world from its sins —
they are bound moat aacredly to " keep his commandments."
.  ^In view of the circumstances of his disciples then present,
Jesus would say, I am to leave you and go away. If in my ab
sence ye would express your love to me, this is the way to do it — •
" Keep my commandments ; " conform your heart and life to my
expreaaed will ; perform with all diligence the work I give you to
do ; spare no pains to understand what my will concerning you
is that ye may do it. This is the requital I ask for all the great
blessings I- have given you ; this the testimony I look for of your
love to me.
Note further : This injunction of obedience stands here as the
condition of a special promise. " Keep my commandments ; " so,
or then, on this condition, "I will pray the Father in your be
half and he will give you another Comforter."
We have reason for the deepest interest in learning all w«
can respecting this promised Comforter. Our sources of knowl
edge as to his mission and work are — (1) The names given him:
"Comforter," "Spirit of truth," "Holy Spirit," etc.— (2) The
functions assigned him — thinga he is said to do : — e. g. To
"dwell with you and be in you;" to "abide with you forever;"
to "teach you all things and bring all things to your remem
brance whatsoever I have aaid unto you" (14: 26); to "guide
you into all truth and show you things to come" (16: 13); in
the words of Joans, "He shall testify of me" (15: 26); "he
shall glorify me, for he shall receive of mine and shall show it
unto you" (16: 13, 14).- (3) That he shall be "another Com-

220 GOSPEL OF JOHN.-CHAP. XIV.
forter " as compared with Jesus himself, in this respect filling
the place left vacant by Jesus when he withdrew his personal
presence. As Jesus was to them a perpetual comforter, so shall
the Spirit of truth become their comforter, being to them a sec
ond Jesus — a successor to Jesua, filling hia place permanently to
the end of the world.  So much Jeaua taught respecting tho
Comforter during the conversations of this eventful night.
The word chosen here as the leading name for the divine Spirit
- — " Comforter " — is specially adapted to the circumstances of the
disciples, then to be left in a sort of orphanage. They would
need consolation. Tbey had been blessed with a Friend whose
words were always sustaining, consoling, cheering, morally brac
ing to the soul. By his words of sympathy, counsel, caution,
sometimes of reproof, they had been sustained and kept during
the years of their pupilage under him. When he should leave
them, they would need another such Comforter. Hence it was fit
ting not only that Jesua should provide one, but that he should pre
sent him under this name, that they might look to the Spirit for
the same sympathy, counsel, consolation, which they had been
wont to obtain from Jeaus himself
The Greek word, translated " Comforter," is sometimes trans
ferred into our language — Paraclete. The primary sense of the
root is to call; the sense of this compound with para, is to speak
on terms of intimacy [witli], and hence to speak kindly, to one's
comfort and consolation in trouble ; also to instruct and to ad
monish or reprove, in oases where the truest friendship would re
quire it.  ]?urthermore, the -word ia used of one who speaks
not only to us in intimate friendahip, but _/or us io another as an
advocate, intercessor.  Such are fundamentally the functions
of the Spirit as indicated by the name " Comforter."  It should
be noted that these are his functions toward Christians, the fol
lowers of Jesus. Toward the world — toward men in their sins,
his work is not that of comfort, consolation ; but of reproof, re
buke, conviction, as we shall see (John 16; 8-11).  It will be
readily seen that the descriptive points which define his service
for true disciples coincide entirely with the significance of this
descriptive name — Paraclete, Comforter.
Let it be noted, moreover, that, as said here, Jeaus prays to
the Father, and the Father, in answer to hia prayer, givea the
Comforter. , In another passage (14: 26) Jesus says — "Whom
the Father will send in my name;" and in yet another (15: 26),
" Whom 1 will send unto you from the Father; " and also (16 :
7), "If I depart, I will send him unto you." These various modes
of expreaaion are seen to be in harmony when we consider that
the Father and the Son act jointly and co-ordinately in the send
ing of the Spirit. In certain aspects the sending may be ascribed
to the Father ; in certain other aspeota to the Son. Apparently
the most precise statement is this in the passage before us — Jesus
praying, and the Father, iu anawer to hia prayer, sending. 
The great discussion of the IMiddle Ages — whether the Spirit pro-

GOSPEL OF JOHN.-CHAP. XIV. 221
ceeds fi'oiu the Father and from the Son, or only from the Father,
haa been mostly logomachy — a mere war of words.
Thia Comforter is to " abide with you forever " — a ministration
which shall continue to the end of the world — not to be closed
.as my personal ministrations in the flesh are to be by my deatli.
This presence of the Spirit, men of the world " can not ro-
oei-^e," because they neither see nor know him. So long as the
spirit of the world rules in their souls, they have no heart — i. e.
they care not either to see or to know him. This does not say
that they might not have his presence if they sought it : might
not hear his voice if they would listen to it reverently and obey
it honestly. It simply means that in the spirit of the world — ¦
i. e. of selfishness and sin — of pleasure-loving and seeking — they
give no ear to the Spirit; never put themselves in communion
with his presence ; have no heart for his teaching and counsel ;
know him not.  But ye, my disciples, know him, for he ia in
finitely near to you, dwelling within you, abiding in you.
This blessed truth of Christian experience found its early illus
tration from the case — very familiar to all Jewish Christians — of
the Shechinah — the visible glory of God in their ancient temple.
Under this figure, the Christian body became a temple of the
Holy Ghost. He dwelt in this temple, aa of old the glory of God
reposed above the mercy-seat beneath the cherubim, in the deep
recesses of the most holy place.
18. I will not leave you comfortless : I will come to you.
Where the Greek has tho word " orphanous," equal to orphans,
our translators put it " comfortless," to keep up the harmony with
the word " Comforter." Orphans gives the more exact sense.
They would be as children left alone in the -world — father dead,
mother dead. But Jesus would not leave them so. " I will come
to you," he said — said it manifestly with reference to sending the
Spirit to dwell with them as a near and dear and perfect Friend.
The Spirit would fill the place of his own presence. They would
have no occasion to regret the change by whioh Jeaua ahould go
(bodily) and the Spirit come (spiritually).
19. Yet a little whUe, and the world seeth me no more ;
but ye see me : because I live, ye shall live also.
It was but a little while and death would remove his bodily
presence. Then the world with their eye would see him no more.
Ye (said he to his disciples) will see me still — not with the
eye of flesh, but with the eye of the inner soul. Yet strictly
speaking, this vision of Jesus is by means of the Spirit, of v,fhich
Jesus said in this very discourse — "He shall receive of mine and
shall show it unto you. He shall testify of me ; he shall bring
all things to your remembrance whatsoever I have said unto you.
No work of the Spirit in the souls of God's people is made more
prominent in these discourses — none can be in itself more vital

222 GOSPEL OF JOHN.-CHAP. XIV.
and precious — than to reveal Jesus. His perfect ability toset all
truth respecting Jesus in beams of sun-light before the Christian's
thought and apprehension qualifies him for this service. _ Jesus
might fitly say of those who had these clear and impressive rev
elations, "Ye see me."-  Such seeing bears home to the soul a
vivifying spiritual power., " Because T live, ye shall live also."
Because, though I go away in death, this dying is not ceasing to
be — ia not ceasing to act and to fill all the functions of real life,
but is rather, to rise to a mightier life-power and to a more
blessed existence. Because I receive this great accession of life-
forces in my ascension to the Father, so shall ye live also, with
life renewed and mightily invigorated and intensified. The gift
of the Spirit shall breathe new life into your souls. Ye need not
fear that my death on the cross is destined to lessen my power
to sustain and to comfort you in your Christian life, for it will
rather bring to you a quickened life, of intensor energy and richer
blessedness. 20. At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father,
and ye in me, and I in you.
This passage has special interest on two grounds : (a.) That it
places side by side the relation of Josus to the Father on the one
hand and to his people on the other, implying some degree of an
alogy between these respective relationships.  If we inquire
more deeply into the points contemplated in this analogy, we
need be in no doubt that it looks, at least in part, towards the
spiritual life — a precious union of heart, a relationship of sym
pathy and love.  Does it look also, more fundamentally, toward
some analogy in the relationship of being, comparing Jesus re
lated to God as a sou on the one side, with Jesus, related to his
people as a brother on the other side ? Who can tell ?
(6.) The other point of interest in the passage lies in the word
"know." "At that day ye shall faiow." It will be a new knowl
edge, known before but poorly and imperfectly if at all. Exe
getically we must find the significance of this knowledge in the
line of the speaker's thought as brought out particularly in vs.
21, 23: — "I will love him, and will manifest myself to him."
"My Father will love him, and we wiil come unto him and make
our abode with him." Under the light and inner glory of such
manifestations — Jesus to the believing and obedient soul; Jesus
and the Father also, to every such loving and obedient one, even
to the extent of coming to him and abiding with him — the soul
thus visited, not with manifestations only but with the very pres
ence of the Son and of the Father — can not but know, aa said
here, both that Jesus is in the Father and also in his people. It
is the knowledge of experience, using this word in its broadest
sense— a knowing that comes of the witnessing presence of God
in Christ to the human soul.
21. He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them,

GOSPEL OF JOHN.-CHAP. XIV. 223
he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth rae shall be
loved of ray Father, and I will love hira, and will raanifest
myself to him.
To " have the commandments" of Jesus implies careful study,
diligent inquiry and docility. To "keep them" involves the
true spirit of obedience — the one deep, changeless purpose to do
all his known will. This is the legitimate evidence of true love
to Christ. He can accept no lower evidence than this; but he
will most joyfully accept this evidence, and give every obedient,
loving soul the testimony that he accepts it. This is what he de
clares here. " He that loveth me shall be loved of my Father,"
or as said most directly in v. 23 — "My Father will love him," for
the Father rejoices greatly to see hia Son honored truly and loved
with the love of honest obedience. "I also will love him, and
will manifest myself to him " — causing him to know that I love
him; revealing to him my face and favor; answering his prayer;
renewing his spiritual strength ; witnessing by my Spirit to the
love I bear him.  Of course the fulfillment of this promise lies
in the field of human consciousness and personal experience.
Each Christian must learn its inner moaning for himself alone.
Inasmuch as to manife.it is to show — to cause one to see — there
fore for Jesua to manifest himself is to make himaelf seen and
known. Consequently, thia revelation must be made to each in
dividual soul, for himself to see and not for another ; also to see
for himself and not for any other.  A statement essentially the
same yet somewhat more full, we have in v. 23.
22. Judas said unto him, not Iscariot, Lord, how is it
that thou wilt manifest thyself unto us, and not unto the
world ?
This other disciple bearing the name .ludas — (the "Jude" of the
Epistles) — to be broadly distinguished from Iscariot who was not
there and was never to be among the chosen again — could not
understand how Jesus would show himself to his disciples and
not to the world. He was grasping some new idea about an in
ward manifestation, not visible to the godless eye, and yot the
mystery puzzled him. How could it be ? Fortunately this ques
tion brought to them from the Lord a renewed statement of es
sentially the same truth, yet with clearer light upon some of its
aspects. 23. Jesus answered and said unto him. If a man love me,
he will keep my words, and my Father will love him, and
we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.
Observe (a.) The natural connection between love and obedi
ence is put here, as compared with v. 21, in new form: — there;—
" He that hath my commandments and keepeth them, he it is
that loveth me :" here — " If a man love me, he will keep my

224 GOSPEL OF JOHN.-CHAP. XIV.
words,"' The fact is the same — ^but in other form of statement.
 (6.) Jesus had said before — "I will love him;" here, only — ¦
"The Father will love him."  (c.) Instead of the word uaed
before — "manifest" — he says here; "will come unto him and
make our abode with him." This new form of statement was ob
viously designed to answer the question put by Jude — "How wilt
thou manifest thyself to ns and not to the world?" We will
come to him and dwell with him. You can surely underatand
that a man will easily learn to know those who come to him and
live with him; "abide with him;" give him their every day pres
ence; their constant communion. If a man can not know thor
oughly and intimately those who come and abide with him in all
the intimacies of every-day life, what can he know ?  The mys
tery of the point How f as it lay in the mind of Jude, here is no
attempt to explain to men of the world that thoy might under
stand it. It was enough to explain it to Jude and to the dia
ciplea — an explanation equally good for all disciples in every age.
Every disciple — loving and obedient — will know what these mani
festations mean when Jesua and hia Father shall come tq him
and make their abode with him; when they shall become inex
pressibly near to his conscious spii'it; when he shall know the
presence of Jesus and the presence of the Father; when the
spirit of adoption is living and strong in hia heart wliereby he
says- spontaneously — Father ; Father.
It will be readily seen that this promise is put on one definite
condition, viz. love and obedience — that love whioh begets obe
dience. Every believer w"ho has such love as begets and insures
honest obedience to Christ's commandments — including both
knowing and keeping — has this promise to claim aa hia .own.
It is made sure to him. No promise in the sacred word is stated
more definitely; none is connected with its one condition more
simply and closely ; none is therefore more easily understood and
more readily made available.
We should greatly wrong ourselves if we were to pass these
words of Jeaus without taking special note of what he says of
himself and of the Father as bearing upon his true divinity, and
yet distinct personality. Perhaps we shall aee thia better if we
make the supposition that Jesus is only a distinguished human
teacher, of the same sort as Peter and John. Then on this sup
position, we should be forced to ask — What can he mean by
claiming for himself the love and obedience of his people in the
same sense and degree in which love and obedience are claimed
for God the Father ? What can he mean by promising to mani
fest himself to his loving and obedient friends in such ways as
the world can not see and can not know ?  By what authority
can he promise that such friends of his shall be loved of his
Father, God ? By what right does he pledge to them the Father's
love ? More still : Is it not impudent presumption in him to put
himself on the same level with the Father and say — " We will
come to him and make our abode with him"? Was Jesus com-

GOSPEL OF JOHN.-CHAP. XIV. 225
petent to make such pledges in honesty and truth ? If so, thon he
is far more than a merely human teacher. If so, he can be noth
ing less than the Infinite Son of God.
Observe alao that he does not by any moans identify himself
with the Father. Every -word of our passage rests upon the as
sumption of distinct personality. "I will love him;" "my
Father will love him ; " " we aviU come unto him and make our
abode with him." If this does not imply and involve distinct
personality, what human language can ?  -If there is mystery in
the mutual relation of the Son to the Father, be it so. Here is
no attempt to explain the mystery ; but the fact of distinct per
sonality is put in words than which none in our language — nono
in any human language — can be plainer.
24. He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings : and
the word which ye hear is not raine but the Father's which
sent me.
Statements of special importance in the Scriptures aro often
strengthened by being put in both the positive and the negative
form. In vs. 21, 23, we found the positive form; here, the nega
tive : "He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings." The
non-loving are of course non-obedient. I say ali thia, not on my
own authority alone, but ou that of my Father who haa sent me
, — a statement often repeated by Jesus, as a thing never to be for
gotten or left out of account.
25. These things have I spoken unto you, being yet present
with you.
26. But the Comforter, ivhich is the Holy Ghost, whom
the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all
things, and bring all things to your remerabrance, whatso
ever I have said unto you.
So much I have said to you while present; the rest — the many
thinga more which you will need to know — will be taught you by
the Holy Ghoat. 'Thia waa the very place and time to put in
atrong light the work of the Spirit as a Teacher. He was to sup
plement the teaching of Jesus — to teach the many more things — -
the " all things "^they might need to know. Moreover, he
would not only reveal new truth as they might be prepared for
its revelation, but he would bring to their remembrance what Je
sus had said, recalling it for a more full illustration, and adeeper
spiritual impression. For it can not be denied that the disciples
had been dull and slow of Understanding as to many things Jesus
had said. Their previous miaconceptions of the nature and
genius of his kingdom had often misled them, had often darkened
their minds, and retarded their reception of the simple truths of
the gospel. The death and resurrection of Jesus struck down
many of their cherished notions, and consequently had brushed
away the mists and clouds so aa to let in heaven'a clearer light.

226 GOSPEL OF JOHN.-CHAP. XIV.
If Jes-ua had continued among them after his resurrection not
forty days only, but forty years, talking with them as with the
two brethren on the way to Emmaua he would have done much
of thia work himaelf; — but thia waa not the better plan. Aacend-
ing to heaven, he sent down the Spirit of truth on this mission
of spiritual instruction — not by taking two or three only at once
— but myriads if need be at the same moment; — not for forty
years only, but for all the years thenceforward even to the end of
the world.
f 27. Peace I leave with you, ray peace I give unto you :
not as the world giveth, give I unto you. Let not your heart
'be troubled, neither let it be afraid.
The only right interpretation of this verse is the Oriental —
that which is based upon all Oriental usage. According to this
usage " peace " is the heart's benediction — the utterance of loving
farewell words; expressions of earnest good will; prayer for all
peace and proaperity. The usage runs through all Old Testa
ment times ; the salutation, "Peace" (sbalom) we hear often in
its history of common life, e. g. Gen. 43 : 23, and .fudges 19 : 20,
and 1 Sam. 25 : 6, etc. Also in the New Testament, compare
Matt. 10: 13, and Luke 10: 5, 6; Gal. 6 : 16, and Eph. 6: 23. To
this day the Arab gives his friends his " salam," repeated and
still repeated according to the fullness of his heart or the homage
he pays to the conventional forms of social life.
Jeaus says — I am about to leave you; I give you my blesaing;
I leave it with you ; and mark this — not as the world give; not at
all in their spirit of form and ceremony ; not in words void of
heart, empty of love ; but with overflowing soul and with abiding
friendship, enduring sympathy, the most tender concern for your
welfare. Let this suffice to sustain your souls under the pressure
of the sternest trial. Let not your heart be troubled or afraid.
Ye know my love for you ; ye shall have occasion to know my
power to save and the fullness of my promised consolations.
28. Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and
come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, be
cause I said, I go unto the Father : for my Father is greater
than I.
The point pf critical interest here lies in the words — " My
Father (or as in the improved text "the Father") "is greater
than 1." " Greater," in what sense ? Must it necessarily mean
"greater" in the essential elements of his being — i. e. of a
higher nature ; of attributes really divine — with the implication
that those of Jesus are less than divine?  Or may these words
of Jesus mean in this connection, only greater in position —
greater as being exalted above all the incidents of such a world as
this — so that for Jesus to go there will be to exchange a life of
sorrow, humiliation, trials manifold, for one of infinitely higher

GOSPEL OF JOHN.-CHAP. XIV. 227
dignity and blessedness ?  In making our- choice between these
two possible alternatives, two things may safely be said, and per
haps these include all that can be affirmed safely.
(1) That the latter construction meets the exigencies of the pas
sage ; i. e. it gives a good reason, and doubtless the true reason, why
they should rejoice in his going to the Father. In hia going they
could not rejoice on their own account, ao far forth as their own
interest, pleasure, comfort, were concerned; but jTor his sake
they would rejoice, because to him this going to the Father would
be exaltation in place of humiliation ; glory instead of shame ;
bliaa forever, and no more aorrow.  Thua the logic of the paa-
sage demands that the word "greater" should refer to position,
and not necessarily to the essential elements of being. Around
the Father's throne would be supreme dignity and glory, to which
the Son would be at once exalted upon his ascension to the
Father. This view is auatained fully by the current of apostolic
teaching in regard to the ascension of Christ and the glory that
should follow.
(2) On the other hand, it is by no means apparent that tho
other proposed construction — The Father greater than I in his es
sential nature — can meet the logical demands of the context.
Admit for argument's sake that the sense is — The Father a
greater being than I in his esaential nature, would thia be any
more a fact after the ascenaion of Jesus than before? Would it
bring any new accession of happiness to the Son after his ascen
sion? — i. e. would it be any apparent reason why tbe disciples
should rejoice because Jesus was going to the Father?
29. And now I have told you before it come to pass, that,
when it is corae to paas, ye might believe.
I have spoken thus freely of my death and of my subsequent
ascension to the Father that when ye shall see these things, ye may
have the more assured confidence in all I have said and in all that
I am. Thus when your straining eyes shall follow me rising to
ward heaven till the opening cloud shall encompasa me and take me
from your sight, ye may return to your work, not with waning but
with growing confidence ; not with deeper sadness, but with sub
limer joy.
30. Hereafter I -will not talk much with you : for the
prince of this world cometh, and hath nothing in me.
What I can say to you now must be limited ; our time is short.
The Prince of this world — Satan — is coming shortly ; he will find
no foothold in me; no avenue of approach; no point open to his
assault; nothing upon which his tempting arts can take hold.
The conflict will be on his part desperate ; "but aa to the issue, we
have nothing to fear.
31. But that the world may know that I love the Father;

228 GOSPEL OF JOHN.-CHAP. XV.
and as the Father gave me commandment, even so I do.
Arise, let us go hence.
All these things I have said and done that the world may know that
I love the Father, and have done all in obedience to his command
ment. The sweet consciousness of this was the joy of hia soul
The testimony of it ho had sought in all honesty to bring before
men that they might see reason to accept his mission and believe
in him to their salvation.
At this point, the conversation around the paasover table seema
to have closed. Preparations were soon made to leave the city and
go as usual across the Kidron to the Mount of Olives. The next
allusion to place locates them in the garden of Gethsemane. Yet
we infer from John 18 : 1 that the discourses recorded in chap.
15 and 16 and the prayer of chap. 17, occurred in the city before
they left; but more definitely where; whether in the house in
which tho Passover was eaten or elsewhere, does not appear.

CHAPTER XV.
The aim of Jesus in this precious discourse is to impress upon
his disciples a sense of spiritual dependence upon himself; to re
veal the conditions of obtaining from himself perpetual strength;
to testify to his love for them and to intensify their love to him
self; to forewarn them of hatred from the world — from -which he
passes to speak of the great sin of those who rejected him, clos
ing with a renewed allusion to the promised Comforter and to his
work, with which their own personal agency should co-operate.
1. I am the true vine, and my Father is the husband
man. 2. Every branch in me that beareth not fruit he taketh
away: and every branch that beareth fruit, he purgeth it,
that it may bring forth more fruit.
3. Now ye are clean through the word which I have
spoken unto you.
In Isa. 5: 1-7 the Lord's people are put as his vineyard upon
which he expends his care in culture, and from which he looks
for fruit often in vain. This figure is here expanded with some
modifications, especially that which makes Jesus the vine and his
people the branches, bearing or not bearing fruit according as
they meet their moral reaponaibilitiea.  1 understand Jeaus to
call himself the " irue vine," in the sense of real, genuine — one
that honestly fulfills its legitimate function of nutrition to its

GOSPEL OF JOHN.-CHAP. XV. 229
branches. Perhaps he meant to intimate that in himself the fig
ure of vine and branch became thoroughly appropriate to express
the relation between himself and his people.
In speaking ofthe treatment ofthe non-bearing and ofthe bear
ing branches, the original Greek makes its contrast more clearly
and yet tersely than our English version : thus : Every non-bear
ing tiranch he taketh away ; * every branch that beareth, he tak
eth away from ii; j- i. e. taketh away the superfluous shoots that
rob the young fruit-clusters, abstracting nutriment to give it to
useless foliage and tree-growth. The antithesis between taking
away the whole branch that promises no fruit, and taking aw.ay
from ihat branch its superfluous growths, ia put at once clearly,
tersely, and forcibly.
Our English has yet another infelicity iu the use ofthe words
"purge" (v. 2) and "clean" (v. 3). The old English word
"purge" has become obsolete except as it has saved itself from
utter oblivion by linking itself with professional phrases, e. g. in
the usage of courts of law — to purge one's self ia to clear him
self of alleged offense; while in the physician's dialect, "purge"
retains yet another and a very definite significance. With these
exceptions the word has deceased.  Few English readers would
suspect that " clean " (v. 3) means the same as "purged" (in v.
2), yet the original gives us a word of the same significance, from
the same root. The connection of thought demands the same
sense — which in both cases might better have been put — " prun-
eth" — "pruned" — in the sense of cutting away superfluous and
damaging growths.
As bearing upon the use of figures like this of the vine, let us
note that it is only to carry out the figure that a branch (one of
Christ's disciples) is said to be "in me" (Christ) and yet not
bear fruit. He might be in Christ by profession — numbered and
named among the disciples ; but really in Christ, in the strict
sense, he could not be, without bearing some fruit. Indeed, Je
sus himself affirms below (v. 5) — " He that abideth in me and I
in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit."  In the literal
vine there are often branches which are not fruit-bearing. Cor
respondingly, in tbe spiritual life, one might be — as it should ap
pear to others' eyes — in Christ, and yet, if he bore no fruit,
this fact would show that for the time at least, the vital, life-im
parting connection with Christ is suspended. That professed
Christian should take the -warning — not to say the alarm — lest
death supervene. .
The blending of literal terms with figurative is seen (v. 3); "Ye
are pruned through the word which I have spoken unto you."
"Pruning" is in and of the fit^ure; the "word ' is of that which
the figure represents — the literal Christian_ heart or character.-
Jesus had been pruning away the non-bearing branches by his
words of instruction, reproof, correction. The spoken words were
-* aiQci.

230 GOSPEL OF JOHN.-CHAP. XV.
the pruning knife; but in strictness, the " pruning'' is figure; the
" word " is literal. — Moreover, let it not he thought to mar the
beauty or forceof thia figure that Jesua himself does this pruning,
although in the outset the Father is the husbandman and Jesus
the vine. In some aspects Jesua is the vine; in other aspects he
has the care of the pruning. The figures of scripture are plain
and instructive, even although they sometimes fall short of meetr
ing all the demands of our rules of rhetoric.
4. Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch can not
bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine ; uo more can
ye, except ye abide in me.
5. I am the vine, ye are the branches. He that abideth
in me, and I in him, the sarae bringeth forth much fruit;
for without me ye can do nothing.
6. If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch,
and is withered ; and men gather them, and cast them into
the fire, and they are burned.
Here the branches are thought of, mostly, as intelligent and
morally responsible — as personally active in forming and main
taining in due force the living connection with Christ the vine ;
i. e. the discourse shades off gradually from the figure — the vine-
branches in husbandry — to the thing illustrated by the figure, viz.
the human soul as being in Christ. The figure, however, still
helps us to apprehend the spiritual fact.  The central idea in
these verses is the abiding ; the sustained life-connection of the
soul with Christ. As the branch, severed from the parent vine,
is cut off from nutrition, can bear no fruit and dies ; so the soul
that abides not iu Christ can bear no fruit: — can not even live —
but withers, dies, is cut away, fit only for burning. Human souls,
abiding in Christ, bear much fruit; severed from him, as a branch
may be severed from its parent stock, they can do nothing. The
sense of the original in the phrase (v. 5) "without me ye can do
nothing," is precisely this; — apart from me— severed from me
like a branch cut off — ye are powerless as to spiritual fruitage.
 The reader will note that this abiding in Christ is presented
as a moral duty, a thing of obligation — proper to be enjoined by
command. Some of the care and culture therefore devolve upon
what in the figure are branches, but in reality are morally re
sponsible human souls.
Let no one pass these worda — so richly freighted -with precious
thought — truths most vital to all Christian living, — without solemn
personal endeavor, first, to comprehend their significance; and
then, to appropriate all their wealth of instruction to his own new
and divine life.
7. If ye abide in me, and my words abide in you, ye shall
ask what ye will, and it shall be done unto you.

GOSPEL OF JOHN.-CHAP. XV. 231
By the most natural relations of thought, Jesus passes from
"abiding ill him" to prayer. Verily it is chiefly by prayer that
this abiding is to be maintained and kept in vigor. Prayer holds
ou to the arm of Jesua ; or more in keeping with the figure, it is
the channel of life-sympathy and life-power, corresponding to the
tubes and ducts through which the vital juices fiow and reflow
between vine-stock and fruit-branch. Prayer ! it lives on Christ,
and draws invigorating force evermore from that life-fountain.
The promise, standing here with its condition, is complete in
both its main parts — the conditions so clear that none need mis
take them; the blessings promised so rich that none need wish
them more so.  As to conditions, we note the slight change
whioh is essentially explanatory — from "abide in me and I in
you" — to "abide in me and my loords in you." While it stood
¦' I in you," the human duty and agency were less clear, for even
an honest, truth-seeking heart might say — What can I do to keep
Christ abiding in me ? But when Jesus substitutes " my words"
for "1," we aee at once how the thing is to be done. "We are to
hold his words close to our own living, loving heart; study their
significance ; absorb their living force ; breathe their spirit ; con
form our voluntary activities evermore to their demands. He
who loves Christ's words and keeps them in abiding force upou
his own moral nature certainly has Jesus himself abiding in tho
heart. Fulfilling those conditions " ye. shall ask what ye will, and it
shall be done unto you." What richer promise could tho very
soul of want frame for itself? What more should the children
of poverty and need desire than the privilege of asking what one
will, to be granted him ?
But is not this promise too broad and too rich for God to make
and to fulfill ? Does it not transfer too much power to mortals ?
Who will remain Ruler of the universe and Manager of all mun
dane things when the whole sacramental boat shall come up to the
measure of this great promise and every one ask what he will —
God being pledged to grant it ?  We may dismiss all fear lest
the Lord should make promises, blind to their possibilities of dan
ger. In this case the safeguard lies essentially in the conditions.
" If ye abide in me and my words abide iu you," ye will be most
entirely in harmony and sympathy with the will of God, desiring
what he desires ; valuing above all else what he most desires for
you, and desiring nothing save what will (as ye judge) meet his
approval and subserve his glory. If in any point ye ahould mis
judge, God will see it (as you should wish him to do), and with
hold it (as ye would pray that he might). "Would not this work
well and safely for God's kingdom ?
8. Herein is my Father glorified, that ye bear much fruit ;
so shall ye be my disciples.
Standing in this connection, these worda seem to have two
main objects: — (1) To afford additional ground for confidence

232 GOSPEL OF JOHN.-CHAP. XV.
that God will answer prayer, doing for u^^hatever we ask be
cause to do so ia vital to our bearing much fruit; — (2) To show-
that Christian fruitfulneaa honors God and consequently must be
most grateful and pleasing to him. Such fruit-bearing is alto
gether in harmony with his own nature — always " doing good to
all" — "his tender mercies evermore over all his works." In one
important view this is what men are converted for, viz. that they
may be laborers together with God to put forward God's own
work of salvation in a world of lost men.
" So shall ye be my disciples" — for thia and only this ia learn
ing truly of me ; imbibing my spirit ; walking in my footsteps.
For this I have' called, taught, trained you all; this work, there
fore, I expect at your handa.
9. As the Father hath loved me, so have I loved you :
continue ye in my love
They could not doubt that the Father loved his Son Jesus;
there might be ground for doubt or fear whether Jesus could love
them. 'This statement was therefore well adapted to confirm their
conviction and sense of the love of their Master.  The exhor
tation — " Continue ye in my love," assumed that they might for
feit and alienate his love. Let them take care to avoid every thing
that could tend to this result; let them also cultivate and cherish
whatever would serve not only to perpetuate but to intensify his
love for them.
We must not omit to notice how very timely these words were,
considering how soon these disciples were to be left alone, under
circumstances in which the sense of Jesus' love would seem to be
their only remaining consolation, and their only source of cour
age to heart or hope.
10. If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my
love ; even as I have kept my Father's commandments, and
abide in his love.
It was kind as well as considerate in Jesus to tell them how
they might retain his love, " abide " in it, according to the fig
ure of branches abiding in their vine. They must " keep his
commandments." This keeping would be the proof of their love
(as he had often aaid); au(J it would ensure his continued love
to them. To enforce this, he appeals to his own case aa toward
his Father. Their relation to him was the same as his to his
Father. 11. These things have I spoken unto you, that my joy
might remain in you, and that your joy might be fuU.
In these exhortations Jesus had two objects, viz, his own con
tinued joy in them, and their augmented, completed joy in him.
In the opposite course, they would bring bitter grief to him;
and not woe only, but ruin upon themselves. Would they not
think of this contrast and strive to appreciate its moral force?

GOSPEL OF JOHN.-CHAP. XV. 233
. 12. This is my commandment. That ye love one another,
as I have loved you.
13. Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay
down his life for his friends.
14. Ye are my friends, if ye do whatsoever I command
you. This command — " Love one another ", — is repeated here (see
13: 34), even with the same words annexed — "As I have loved
you " — which we may take as at once the standard or measure,
and also the motive, of this new command. We may suppose it
repeated here for the twofold reason — that it lay so near his
heart; and that he wished to enlarge upon the appended clause
considered as a motive. "As I have loved you ; but consider
how great this love of mine toward you has been, and how you
will properly look upon it when you see me die for you. No
manifestation of love can be stronger than to lay down one's
life for his friend. What more, what beyond this can man pcs-
sibly do ? He has no costlier gift to bestow — no greater sacri
fice to make. But precisely this ia what Jesus does for his
friends. Now he asks them to show themselves his friends by
doing what he commands. Does he not imply — I ask of you
nothing more ? So much — for my life laid down for you — I
have the right to ask; so much you will surely do for your dy
ing Friend !
15. Henceforth I call you not servants ; for the servant
knoweth not what his lord doeth : but I have called you
friends ; for all things that I have heard of my Father I
have made known unto you.
The word confidential gives the pith of this verse. Jesus
treated his disciples as his confidential friends. They were not
" henceforth", — for the statement looks somewhat more to the fu
ture than to the past — to be mere servants for toil and drudgery
- — to do service not knowing why this rather than any thing else;
but aa friends, taken by the Maater into the fellowship and confi
dence of co-workers, intelligent helpers, who should understand
the "nature and object of their work, and feel consequently « per
sonal interest in its results.  We can not withhold the remark
that he who spake theae words understood human nature — knew
full well how powerfully such expressions of confidence impress
responsibility, draw out the heart, inspire endeavor.
If it be said that this verse runs in a very different strain from
13 : 13, 16, " Ye call me Master aud Lord, and ye say well, for so
I am," etc., the reply is— even so; the strain is different; the
object is different and each good and noble in its place. Yet
there is no confiict whatever between the two. The earlier state
ment contemplated his real superiority, his higher dignity ; but
was utterly far from thrusting the disciples into the position

234 GOSPEL OF JOHN.-CHAP. XV.
of servility. This latter by no means denies Christ's infinite
superiority ; yet it does imply great condescension — a sympathy
and fellowship which rest— may we not say ? — upon a common
humanity, and upon the confidence which real love begets where
it safely may.  "All things which I have heard of my Father,"
pertaining to the scheme of salvation — to the methods, encourage
ments, inspirations for Chriatian work; all the things needful for
your guidance and efficiency — I have made known unto you. As
ye contemplate this great wealth of truth, pause and think of it
as the outflowing of my confiding heart toward you as laborers
together with God ; regard it as said to you because ye are my
friends, as to whom I have no concealments — nothing other than
fraternal confidence.
16. Ye have not chosen rae, but I bave chosen you, and
ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and
that your fruit should remain ; that whatsoever ye shall ask
of the Father in my name, he may give it you.
The choice which brought these men rather than others into
the family of Jesua and into the first group of apostles was made
by Jesus, not by them — was his choosing of them, not their choos
ing of him. He set them apart by ordination to their work, with
these two great objects — both of a sort to be brought out perti
nently here, viz, that they should bring forth much and abiding
fruit: and that they might be models of prevailing prayer — evin
cing its principles, its methods, and glorious possibilities. Let
them take courage even to the point of full assurance of success
iu their work.  What could be more inspiring ? Called of
Jesus into his service with such a calling, for such ends, with
such sustaining forces — how " strong in the Lord " it was their
privilege to become!
Need we say less of all their successors in every age, and not
least, our o.wn ?
17. These things I command you, that ye love one
another. I have enjoined upon you several precepts ; let them all bear
upon this one great, freshly announced duty — that of love to one
another. My heart feels this most deeply ; how can I forbear to
repeat it and to make every thing converge to enforce it?
18. If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me be
fore it hated you.
19. If ye were of the world, the world would love his
own ; but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen
you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you.
20. Remember the word that I said unto you, The ser
vant is not greater than his lord. If they have persecuted

GOSPEL OF JOHN.-CHAP. XV. 235
me, they will also persecute you ; if they have kept; my saj'-
ing, they will keep yours also.
21. But all these things will they do unto you for my
name's sake, because they know not him that sent me.
"If" (v. 18) supposes no doubtful contingency. The world
-will hate you. When you feel its hatred malign and scornful,
then consider for your comfort that your Maater bore the same
before it fell on you. Let there come, with the- world's scorn,
this consolation, that it proves you not of them — not of their
party, but of mine. Ye can afford to bear their hatred for the
sake of my love. Moreover, remember what I said to you about
servant and Lord. If they abuse the Lord, ye should expect
them to abuse the servant no less. Consider ; they have perse
cuted me ; they will you. If they h.ad kept my saying, ye might
hope they would keep yours ; but since they have rejected mine,
ye must expect nothing better.  -"Do unto you for my name's
sake," means because ye bear my name. Because they hate me,
they will also hate mine.  They hate me and mine also be
cause they refuse to know that my Father hath sent me. They
have set at nought the testimony I have given them of my mis
sion from the Father. In this ignorance and blindness which
themselves have chosen, they must remain my enemies and die
in their sins.
22. If I had not come and spoken unto thera, they had
not had sin ; but now they have no cloak for their sin.
23. He that hateth rae hateth ray Father also.
24. If I had not done among them the works which none
other man did, they had not had sin : but now have they
both seen and hated both me and my Father.
25. But this cometh to pass, that the word might be ful
filled that is written in their law, They hated me without a
cause. The underlying doctrine here is that light sinned against both
heightens and measures the guilt of sin. So far indeed does Je
sus carry this point that he speaks as if those Jews would have
been without sin — sinless — if he had not come among them and
spoken to them, doing before their eyes miraculous works never
done by mortals. But we must construe these words aa referring
to the sin of rejecting his mission, and not to every other form
of sin. That am of unbelief toward himself was specially in his
mind : it is therefore legitimate to interpret his words aa refer
ring to that sin only. So construed, they would doubtleaa have
been without sin if they had had no light at all as to his claims
to be the Son of God and their promised Messiah.  This hatred
of Jesus involved also hatred of his Father. Through the preach
ing of .lesus they had come to know more of God the Father,

236 GOSPEL OF JOHN.-CHAP. XVL
and hence their hatred of him became more intelligent and more
damning. In these facts those ancient scriptures (Ps. 35: 19, and 69: 4)
had their significance filled out. .Holy men of old had this plaint
to makfe; why should not Jesus also? and hia faithful followers
no less?
26. But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send
unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which
proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me :
27. And ye also shall bear witness, because ye have been
with me from the beginning.
.Jesus repeats here many things said before (14: 16, 17, 26) of
the Comforter, and obviously for the purpose of bringing out
more fully his witnessing agency for Christ. In the context Je
sua had spoken of himself as maligned, hated, rejected by the
men of hia generation- — the "world" of thoae timea — before
whom he had testified as to his mission from God. When they
shall have put him to death, will this testimony of his be quashed
— its force be exhausted, and its light extinguished forever ? No,
indeed. The glorious Spirit of truth, proceeding from the Fa
ther, will take up the theme and testify for Jesus through tongues
of flame, and with transcendent, convincing power.  Ye too
shall bear witness for me because ye have been with me from
the flrst, personally familiar with my teachinga, my miracles, my
life.  The hour would come — was not far hence even then —
when such words from Jesus would be supremely inspiring.
How they must have come up to their minds afresh amid the
glories of the Great Pentecost ! How the witnessing testimonies
of that scene must have quenched the fear of the disciples lest
their Master's claims and cause were doomed to go down in dis
honor and oblivion !

CHAPTER XVI.
This chapter closes the conversations of Josus held with his
disciples prior to the scenes of Gethsemane. The central thought
is — the approaching separation — Jesus soon to leave them and re
turn to the Father. In view of this near event, he apprises them
of the persecutions they must meet (vs. 1—4) ; assures them, there
is occasion rather for joy than for sorrow in his departure, for
his going is to be followed by the Spirit'a coming (vs. 5-7);
shown inwhat the Spirit will do; (a.) as toward the ungodly (vs.
8-11) ; — (b.) for themselves, especially in revealing Jesus to their

GOSPEL OF JOHN.-CHAP. XVI. 237
souls (vs. 12-15). The transient pain but ensuing joy consequent
upon his leaving them, and their subsequent coining to him, are
put (in vs. 16-22). The subject of prayer recurs again (vs. 23-
27), and also the leading theme — his return to the Father and its
rasuks to themselves, with closing words of consolation (vs. 28-
33). 1. These things have I spoken unto you, that ye should
not be offended.
2. They shall put you out of the synagogues : yea, tlie
time cometh, that whosoever killeth you will think that he
doeth God service.
3. And these things will they do unto you, because they
have not known the Father, nor rae.
The merely English reader may need the caution not to take
the word " offended " in the sense of being displeased. It means
only being stumbled — i. e. perplexed, puzzled, and perhaps con-
seqently discouraged. Jesus forewarns them of impending per
secution, to the end that it should not take them by surprise, but
should rather confirm their faith in himself The religious au
thorities of the Jews would excommunicate them from their
church [synagogue], and with a perverted and terribly bigoted
conscience, would shed their life-blood, aud think it a religious of
fering acceptable to God. All this because they had not known
God the Father nor his Son. They assumed that they knew
God ; no mistake could be greater. 'They would not know him ;
they were in no mood of mind to receive the real truth respecting
either the Father or the Son.
4. But these things have I told you, that when the time
shall come, ye may remember that I told you of them.
And these things I said not unto you at the beginning, be
cause I was with you.
5. But now I go my way to him that sent me ; and none
of you asketh me. Whither goest thou ?
6. But because I have said these things unto you, sorrow
hath filled your heart.
These forwarnings of persecution might pass from their minds
for a season, but would be recalled when the bloody scenes should
open, and might theu serve to confirm their faith in Jeaus aa
both foreknowing all, and in his compassion .and wiadom, labor
ing to prepare them to meet even the worst with courage and
joy.  On V. 5 — " None of you asketh me," etc., the reader will
naturally say — ^Did not Peter (13: 36) ask this very question,
"Whither goest thou?" and did not Thomas (14: 5) remark,
" Lord, we know not whither thou goest ? " — The explanation
probably is that the queation Whither had excited much less at-
II

238 GOSPEL OF JOHN.-CHAP. X'VI.
tention than he had a right to expect. The disciples were en
grossed with other things — brooding sadly over their own pros
pective bereavement, rather than turning with inquiring thought
toward the future of their Lord. Was there not a shade of sel
fishness in this?
7. Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for
you that I go away ; for if I go not away, the Comforter
will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him
unto you.
It was in part to meet this extreme solicitude as to their own
case when Jesus should have gone that he here declares emphati
cally that even for them (no leas than for himself ) it was well
that he should go. — ^"Expedient" — in the sense of profitable,
conducive to ends that were of the very highest value to his
kingdom. It would be expedient because the coming of the
Comforter hinged upon hia own going. If I go not, he does not
come. When 1 go, I shall send him to fill and more than fill my
place. The truth here taught most explicitly is too vital to be passed
without attention. Comparing the spiritual work respectively of
himself here in the flesh with that of the Comforter, he represents
the latter as being most effective, most fruitful, and therefore
most to be desired by his people. To show how and why this is
the case, he adduces — (1) His agency upon unbelievers — men in
their sins ; and (2) Hia functions as to believers — guiding them
into all truth ; imparting such truth as God might send through
him; revealing things to come; but especially, setting forth in
new light all they needed to know of Christ — " receiving of mine
and showing it unto you."  (3) By no means least in impor
tance is the fact that the agency of the Spirit has no limitations
oi place or time. The presence of Jesus in the flesh was of ne
cessity restricted to few — sometimes to the most favored three;
usually to the chosen twelve ; more rarely to a somewhat enlarged
circle of friends, or to a listening group of hearers, yet always
under the limitations of one human voice, and of the physical
endurance of one living man. But the Spirit is simply Omni
present, and of never waning, never wearied energy — bounded
by no limitations of space or time or power. In every land, at
every hour, among the countless peoples of the wide earth simul
taneously, hia work may go forward, only the more effectively aa
the numbera brought under his influence shall be multiplied.
What an accession of power — what an augmentation of forces —
is to come from this substitution of the- presence of the Divine
Spirit for the personal presence of Jesus in the flesh !  Those
who express such impassioned longing for Jesus to come again to
earth in his visible person, to reverse the whole scheme of
spiritual agencies, and to act ua back to the state of things in Ju
dea and Galilee, would do well to consider the significance of

GOSPEL OF JOHN.-CHAP. XVL 239
these declarations. If believers were to have the presence of
Jesus only through their bodily eye, how would the uncounted
millions in all the continents of the earth deplore their loss !
Of how little avail would be all the pilgrimages possible to hu
man flesh to get a moment's vision of his bodily form, and to
hear one word, if they might, from his living voice ! In what
terms, then, shall we express the folly of longing and praying that
Jesus would come again to earth to show his people his human
body under the same laws of limitation as when he taught in the
temple or sat around the passover board in the holy city ! As if
it were expedient now — not for him to be in heaven and the
Spirit on the earth — but, reversing tliis preaent order, and falling
back upon the former system — to let the Spirit return to the
heavenly spheres, and Jesus come to manifest hia human body
before human eyes as of old !
The theory underlying these notions as to Christ's visible com
ing seema to be that the plan of the gospel dispensation as set forth
by Jesus iu these chapters might be very much improved by re
turning to the methods in force during his public ministry, be
fore his ascension, aud before the Great Pentecost; — in other
words — that it was a mist-ake to suppose it " expedient for you
(Christians) that I ahould go away and the Comforter come."
If any should reply to this that the limitations of human flesh
are to be ruled out by the resurrection body and by new modes
of spiritual existence — i. e. by bringing down to earth not Jesus
only but heaven itself; then I answer — This theory or scheme,
instead of improving goapel work, rulea it out entirely; instead
of introducing mightier spiritual forces to sustain the Christian
life and to convert sinners to God — puts au end to probation ;
ahuts down on the age of mercy for loat men ; abandons the con
version of the world to Christ, and puts the Christian heart in
the attitude of saying — 0 for an end of this working for Christ
toward human salvation ! O for the heavenly rest, in place of this
weariness of toil !  To all which the fit reply is — By what right
ate we praying God to deaist from his scheme of converting the
world to Christ? With what reason are we putting our opinion
against the expressed opinion of Jesus as to the expediency of
his going away that the Spirit may come ? With what face do
we ask to be excused from labor and to have our pay before our
day's work is done?
As bearing with great weight upon the expediency of Christ's
going away that the Spirit might come, let the reader consider
carefully that as the case is put here, his going is made the defi
nite condition of the Spirit's coming. If Christ does not go, the
Spirit does not come. Now does not this imply that if Christ
returns to earth again, the Spirit alao returns to his own heaven?
'Why not ? Especially must this question — Why not? carry great
force if we take into account that Jeaua makes the sending of the
Spirit hinge upon his own prayer before the Father's throne:
"If I go 1 will send him unto you;" "I will pray the Father and

240 GOSPEL OF JOHN.-CHAP. XVL
he shall send," etc. For reasons that lie in the economy of the
heavenly world, Jesus must appear there in person before the
Father, interceding for the Spirit as the condition of his being
sent. It does not devolve upon ua to set forth and explain the
reasons underlying this divine arrangement; yet nothing could
be more presuming — perhaps nothing more offensive to God —
than to aaaume that he has no good reaaona for requiring Jesua
to be there in order that the Spirit may be here ; or to asaume
that the Father would readily modify this arrangement to meet
human schemes.
Perhaps it would startle some admirers of the pre-millennial
advent scheme to find that according to these scriptures, if Jesus
returns to be here in the flesh as he was in Judea of old, the
Spirit also returns to his former place and his special agency
among men is superseded by the visible presence of Jesus, reign
ing here, not praying there. It ought to startle us if we find that
our speculations are reversing the order of the divine plans.
8. And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin,
and of righteousness, and of judgment :
9. Of sin, because they believe not on me ;
10. Of righteousness, because I go to my Father, and ye
see rae no more ;
11. Of judgment, because the prince of this world is
judged. To prove that it is expedient for himself to go and the Spirit to
come, Jesus proceeds to atate what the Spirit will do ; — firat, aa to
the ungodly— the " world " in their sins. In general his work aa
to sinners is to reprove them ; i. e. to enforce conviction as to their
sin ; to bring the truth that shall convict before their intelligence
and to make it effective upon the conscience. Then, with re
markable method and consequent clearness, he m-akes three dis
tinct points as to whioh he will reprove or convict them; viz: sin;
righteousness ; and judgment. Then resuming each point sepa
rately, to show more particularly what the Spirit will do, he
says ; — " Of sin because they believe not on me.' The sin of not
believing on Jesus is the capital sin — the one great, comprehen
sive, all-inclusive sin of ungodly men. All other sins could be
forgiven and their power on the heart broken — if the sinner
would believe on Jesus. No siu other than this so deeply insults
the Lord of glory; no other, so cruelly wounds his heart; none
other so fatally baffles his efforts for that sinner's salvation, or
so surely dooms him to remediless woe. Appropriately, there
fore, will the Spirit concentrate his efforts to set before every sin
ner's eye the guilt of not believing on Jeaua.  This accords
with the experience of all truly convicted souls, and is in har
mony with the soundest philosophy.
The Spirit when he comes will plead for Christ ; will testify to
tho sin of setting him at nought and despising his salvation ; will

GOSPEL OF JOHN.-CHAP. XVI. 241
make this cruel, damning sin stand forth in tho sunlight of infi
nite truth before the sinner's soul.  From which wo pause here
only to suggest these two deductions: — (a.) That the Christian
laborer who would be a worker together with God in saving sin
ners should press this point above any and all others: — (6.) That
the sinner who has any wisli to be converted and saved should
fix his eye on this great sin ; should consent to see its enormity
and to feel its guilt ; and should of course turn from it by coming
to Jesua in penitence, in love, in airaple trust for salvation.
Next; the Spirit " will reprove the world of righteousness " —
" because (said Jesus) I go to the Father aud ye see me no more."
Of whose "righteousness"? Of his who goes to the Father.
Moreover, the nature of the case forbids us to think of the sin-,
ner's righteousness, for he haa none; or of the word as applying
to any other than Jesua.
"Righteousness" must hore have essentially the sense of right-
ness — the truth and justness of his claim to bo the Son of God,
sent of God to men with revelations of truth and messages of
mercy. The Spirit will vindicate the Tightness of this claim of
.Tesus by appealing to his resurrection and ascension to the Fa
ther. This is every-where the doctrine of the New Testament;
the resurrection of Jesus waa the aupreme testimony to his Mes
siahship. If he had failed to rise again, there would have been
no Savior ; all the preaching of the apostles would have been iu
vain (1 Cor. 15 : 13-15) ; all faith in him vain; all men would be
hopelessly in their sins.  In harmony with this construction
of these words was the whole history of apostolic practice and
preaching. They chose thoir twelfth man to fill the place of Ju
das that he might (as they said) "be a witness with us of his
resurrection" (Acta 1: 21, 22). They began with preaching —
" This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnessea "
(Acts 2: 32). The voice of that hiatory is — "With great power
gave the apostles witness of his resurrection " (Acts 4; 33). The
text and theme of Paul' a preaching at Athens waa "Jesus aud
the resurrection" (Acts 17: 18).  Thus was the righteousness
of Jesus set forth before the men of that generation. He was
proved to have been sent of God because God raised him from the
dead, and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places
far above all principalities and powers (Eph. 1 : 20, 21).
" And ye see me no more "• — no more till the Spirit'a work of
convicting and aaving sinners ia finished; no more till I como
again to close this scene of earthly probation and inaugurate the
era of eternal retribution.
" Of judgment because the prince of this world is judged." "In
the usage of Jeaus "the prince of this -world" is no other than
Satan (John 12: 31, and 14: 30). He is "judged" when the
band of the Almighty falls heavily upon him, blaata hia schemes ;
confounds his wiadom ; overwhelma his power ; makes his utmost
wrath work out God's praise. Satan plotted the murder of Jo
sus ; made Judas and the Jewish Sanhedrim his tools ; and com-

242

GOSPEL OF JOHN.-CHAP. XVL

passed hia crucifixion. Then, did he not exult over hia fallen
enemy ?— Ah! but when that death of Jesus proved the salvation
of the world and his own utter fall ; when his supposed victory
brought only disaster to his kingdom and ruin to his cause ; when
he whose eye awept the realma of the spiritual world reported —
"I beheld Satan fall as lightning from heaven" — then how sud
denly did his fiendish exultation'give place to chagrin and shame !
In this sense Satan was "judged." This defeat was a visitation
of righteous justice from the Almighty— a foretoken of his final
doom ; — and, what is not less in point here — a beginning and
foreshadowing of the righteous judgment of God upon all the
armies of Satan, all his followers, servants and sympathizers, of
earth or hell. Persistent sinners of whatever race or world might
mark the fall of their captain and read in it their own approach
ing doom.  Of this great fact, the Spirit of God when he oame
would convict [convince] the world. We may suppose this to
have been one of the elements of that convicting power whioh fell
on the gathered thousands at the first great Pentecost. They not
only saw their sin in rejecting and murdering Jesus, aud the
righteousness of Jesus vindicated by his resurrection and ascen
sion to the Father ; but they saw Satan hurled down from the
high place of his power at the very point where he thought him
self the conqueror. The doom of Judas the traitor lay in their
eye, suggesting terrible premonitions of like doom for all the
enemies of Jesus.
12. I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye can
not bear them now.
13. Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will
guide you into all truth : for he shall not speak of himself;
but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak : and he
will shew you things to come.
14. He shall glorify me : for he shall receive of mine, and
shall shew it unto you.
15. All things that the Father hath are mine: therefore
said I, that he shall take of mine, and shall shew it uuto
you. Protracted as this last series of conversations was, many things
remained unsaid. Precisely what these many things were we can
know only so far as we infer them from the future revelations
made through the Spirit. Whether the disciples could not bear
,them then because of physical weariness, or because so many new
things had been crowded upon their minds during this eventful
evening, or because their Jewish misconceptions of the Messiah
were still too stubborn and misleading — does not clearly appear.
It was an eventful moment. A thousand things crowded upon the
mind of the Master as he looked down into the great crisis of his
own agony, over into the fearful trials that awaited his scattered

GOSPEL OF JOHN.-CHAP. XVL 243
sheep when their Shepherd should be smitten, and beyond into
the new fields of Christian life and Christian work to open when
the Comforter should have come : how could he say all that pressed
upon his laboring mind ?
It was a relief that the Spirit of truth was so soon to come
and be their Great Teacher iu things divine. We note that here
the Spirit is not called (as before) " the Comforter," but " the
Spirit of truth" — the Teacher divine — to guide them into all
truth, to speak what he should hear as his message from the Fa
ther and of the Son, including also " things to come " — such fu
ture events revealed in prophecy as the exigencies of the times
might require.  Jesus gives special prominence to one moment
ous fact, in the words — " He shall glorify me ; for he shall re
ceive of mine and shall show it unto you." "Receive of mine,"
in the sense of receiving what concerns me — the truth that re
veals my person, character and works ; the messages I send throug'n
him ; all that pertains to me which my people may need to know
for their conaolation, quickening, joy, and efficiency in my work.
The Spirit is io be the Great Eevealer of Jesus to his people.
The things of Jesus are the staple of his meaaages to men — the
matter which he is pre-eminently to teach.  But let it be noted—
this must not exclude whatever truth relates to the Father. "All
thinga that the Father hath" (said Jesus) "are mine." It was
in view of this fact in our mutual relations to each other that I
said — -"He shall take of mine and shall show it unto you." Ye
will understand that I by no means exclude the truth ye need to
know reapecting the Father. All that truth is iu a sense mine,
for while I have been among you I have always said that I came
to reveal the Father and have made this my chief concern. The
Spirit of truth takes up the same work, revealing both the Fa
ther and the Son.
In four several and successive passas:es from the lips of Jesus
(viz. 14 : 16, 17, 28 and 15 : 26, and 16 : 7-15) we have had a
very full and an incomparably precious exposition of the work
of the Holy Spirit upon human souls. It is so full as to in
clude hia action upon believers and also upon the unbelieving
world. Theae passages above any others in the Scriptures, are
to be studied if we would gain the full light of revelation on
this subject and would eliminate whatever errors may be cur
rent in regard to it.
In the light of these passages let me call attention to two mis
apprehensions as to the work of the Spirit whioh are (as I sup
pose) more or less prevalent in our age, viz :
1. That hia work is to create capabilities for right moral ac
tion — i. e. to implant the necessary faculties, or at leaat to impart
the pmver to use the faculties of the soul which are requisite for
right action.
2. That his work is to produce emotion, feeling, sensibility ;
and that he acts upon the emotional nature rather than pri
marily upon the intelligence and conscience.

244 GOSPEL OF JOHN.-CHAP. XVI.
To place these views under the light of our passages, I remark
as to the first —
1. It is one thing to create capacities for right moral action,
and quite another to induce men io use capacities already in ex
istence. The former is the error now in question; the latter,
its correlated truth.
The attentive reader will readily notice that these passages say
nothing whioh implies that the Spirit creates new moral facul
ties, or even imparts a new and previously unknown power to
use such faculties aright. On the contrary every thing said here
contemplates an entirely different agency from that of an original
creation of faculties.  For observe : — The Spirit is " another
Comforter " as compared to Jesus — a second Jesua — taking up
and doing for his people the same work which Jesus did for
them during his earthly life. But this work of Jesus was not
to make new faculties, but was to teach men how to use them
— to instruct as to duty and to persuade men to do it. Such
therefore was to be the Work of the Spirit.  Note also that
the Comforter is definitely described as " the Spirit of truth "
— the Spirit who uses truth to produce the moral effects which
he labors to secure. With most entire definiteness it is said —
" He shall teach you all things and bring all thinga to your re
membrance whatsoever I have said unto you " — all which ia ac
tion upon mind by means of truth.  ^Note also that what is
said of his agency upon " the world," i. e. the unbelieving, is all
put in one word, "reprove," in the sense of convict, enforce con
viction as to sin, righteousness, and judgment. This is action
upon a mind supposed to be already in possession of intelligence
and conscience — the faculties requisite for moral action. It as
sumes the existence of such powers, and brings the truth to bear
upon minds so constituted, to produce thia conviction of sin. 
Thus theae passages in which Jesus unfolds the work of the
Spirit lend their entire force to the doctrine that the Spirit acts
hy means of truih upon minds already endowed witli the re
quisite powers for right moral action, and against the notion that
his work consists in creating such powers, or in imparting the
ability to use them.
If to break the force of these considerations, appeal be made to
other scriptures which speak of being " born of the Spirit," and
of being " created anew in Christ Jesus," let regard be had to two
points of reply : — (a) Whether these be not figurative rather than
literal expressions: i. e. figures taken from changes Avrought in tho
natural, material world, and applied by figurative license to .anal
ogous moral changes in the free moral attitudes and activities of
the mind : — and (6) whether in our endeavor to reach the precise
nature of the Spirit's agency, we ought not to depend on these
words of Jesus which are as explicit, definite, and exact as lan
guage can ever be, rather than upon expressions which are so ob
viously figurative.
2. A second misconception assumes that the Spirit acts directly

GOSPEL OF JOHN.-CHAP. XVI. 245
upon the emotional nature and that hia object ia to produce ooio-
tion rather than conviction and a moral change in the will. On
this point we need to discriminate between direct purpose and
incidental reault. Instruction in truth aims directly at conviction
of duty and obedience to this conviction. Yet indirectly, inci
dentally, such conviction will naturally reault in more or leaa emo
tion. But to make emotion the aim and p'.irpose is a totally dif
ferent thing. Some preaching is purposely sensational, exciting,
shaped to intensify the emotiona. Another style of preaching
aims to impart and impress truth and so to convict men of sin and
bring them to duty. As shown in these passages, the agency of
the Spirit moves altogether in the latter line — instruction, moral
conviction, obedience to the truth. To suppose therefore that the
Spirit aims to produce emotion is by no means warranted by
these represent.ations of his work.  It will follow from this
view of hia work that we are not to judge of ita depth and
amount by the, emotional excitement which may appear, but from
the deep moral conviction and the radical change aa to obedience
to God which may result.
Finally, these views of the work of the Spirit are in the best
sense practical, particularly because they show how we may pro
mote and facilitate his work; and also how, through misapprehen
sion of what his work is, we may retard it — not to say, frustrate
it altogether.Obviously it is expected of us that we profoundly honor the
work of the Spirit ; invite and welcome his presence ; of set pur
pose, do the utmost in our power to promote the work he would
do and the results he would secure.  For this purpose it is vital
that we close our mind against diverting thought, and open it
most fully to the truth of God. We are made capable of self-
control in this matter, and can, if so wo will, give our attention
seriously to thoae subjects which we know the Spirit would fain
teach and impress. Serious meditation on such themes naturally
promotes the work which the Spirit seeks to do in our souls. As
in the case of the disciples the Spirit would recall the words of
Jesus to their remembrance, so we may read those same words
and invite the Spirit to teach us their deep significance and make
them words of power and life to our hearts.  In this line of
purposed labor and moral effort, we may become " workers to
gether with God " for our own apiritual profit and for the profit
also of others.
16. A little while, and ye- shall not see me: and again, a
little while, and ye shall see me, because I go to the Father.
17. Then said scmie of his disciples among themselves.
What is this that he saith unto us, A little while, and ye
shall not see me : and again, a little while, and ye shall see
me: and. Because I go to the Father?

246 GOSPEL OF JOHN.-CHAP. XVI.
18. They said therefore, A'Vhat is this that he saith, A lit
tle while? we cah not tell what he saith.
19. Now Jesus knew that they were desirous to ask him,
and said unto thera, Do ye inquire among yourselves of that
I said, A little while, and ye shall not see me : and again,
a little while, and ye shall see me ?
20. Verily, verily, I say unto you. That ye shall weep and
lament, but the world shall rejoice ; and ye shall be sorrow
ful, but your sorrow shall be turned into joy.
21. A woman when she is in travail hath sorrow, because
her hour is come : but as soon as she is delivered of the
child, she reraembereth no more the anguish, for joy that a
man is born into the world.
22. And ye now therefore have sorrow : but I will see you
again, and your heart shall rejoice, and your joy no mau
taketh from you.
The great fact that he must leave his beloved diaciplea so soon
can not be out of mind long. — "A little while " — here only a few
hours — and he must go from their presence by death. Again, it
would be but another "little while' — three days only — and they
would see him again, risen from the dead. We must interpret
the second "little while" on the same scale of measurement as
the first. So doing, we must refer it to his resurrection, and not
to any event more remote; e. g. — not to any supposed second
coming ; not to his meeting them after their individual death. 
The reason why, after a little, they should not see him, was —
" Because I go to the Father." They must have learned ere this
that these words from his lips meant his own death. For in the
very opening of these discourses on this evening, Jesus had said
(John 14: 2): "In my Father's house are many mansions;" "1 go
to prepare a place for you." Thia certainly waa going to his
Father s house and home by means of dying. — But the words now
spoken embraced somewhat more, viz: a second "little while,"
after which they would see him. This waa a new fact; what
could it mean? They talked about it among themaelves (in an
under-tone perhaps), possibly ashamed of their dullness of appre
hension, or fearing lest their inquisitivenesa might be out of har
mony with the deep solemnity of theae moments. But Jesus
either heard their whispers or knew their hearts otherwise than
through their words, and therefore proceeds to meet the point of
chief importance by an illustration;, — that of a woman in child
birth whose transient pangs are followed with the luxury of
joy over " a man born into the world." So they -would have a
few most desolate days, bereaved, bewildered, trembling with fear
for their own lives, 'borne down with sadness iu the loss of such
a Friend, shocked with the sudden sinking of such hopes as
they h.ad still cherished in the promised King of Israel, coming

GOSPEL OF JOHN.-CHAP. XVL 247
in the name of the Lord to set up something they thought of as
a " kingdom." It is hard for us to take in all the elements of
that fierce conflict of thoughts and emotions, which raged iu their
smitten bosoms when they really saw their Master hung upon the
cross till he was certainly dead!  This rush of the waves of
sorrow Jesua foresaw, and therefore kindly gave them these words
among the very last — good to be recalled to mind in the bitterness
of that anguish. He did not care to go into a very minute ex
planation of the shortness of these two periods — the first and tho
second "little while" — but he did say — "I will see you again,
and your heart shall rejoice." The historian verifies the fulfill
ment of thia prediction, remarking upon their feelings when Jesus
showed them his hands and his feet with the nail-prints still
fresh; — "Then were the disciples glad when they saw the Lord"
(20: 20).  It was no insignificant thing to add — "And your
joy no mau taketh from you." For, the ground of this joy
could never pass away. Jesus lived again — to die no more, lie
had said (and they would know the truth of it more and more
forever) — " Because I live, ye shall live also." Their joy in
such a Savior no man could take away. Fire and fagot could not
burn it; prison or exile could not cramp or crush it; never so
many waves of bloody persecution could not quench it. Ah ! no
indeed ; it would live and glow with purer bliss by reason of
whatever efforts the wrath of mon or devils might seek to take it
away. 23. And in that day ye, shall ask me nothing. Verily,
verily, I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall ask the Father
in my name, he will give it you.
24. Hitherto have ye asked nothing in my name: ask,
and ye shall receive, that your joy may be full.
It is a point of some practical importance to determine whether
in the words — " In that day ye shall ask me nothing," Jesus
meant to forbid (or even advise against) the address of prayer to
himself Does the antithesis involvied in this verse lie between
addressing prayer to Jesus on the one hand and to the Father in
the name of Jeaus on the other? If so, and if the words — "In
that day" — mean not only "in" but evermore after that day,
then prayer should not be addressed directly to Christ, but always
to the Father in the name of Christ. Is this the Scripture doc
trine, and is it also the Apostolic practice ?
This queation atated thus broadly we may wisely defer till
we have examined this passage in its connection. Examining it
thua, we shall see that "asking Jesus" had been an every-day
business for fully three years. But thia free, face-to-face ques
tioning was about to close. That this gives the sense of " asking
me," in v. 23, is made more than probable by the occurrence of
the same verb in this sense, v. 19 — only four verses back; "Jesus
knew that they were desirous to ask him." This unrestrained

248 GOSPEL OF JOHN.-CHAP. XVL
freedom of question had been the law of their life under their
Great Teacher. I'heir words fell on his earthly ear ; his replying
words fell on theirs. But after his ascension this form of asking
Jesus must cease, and instead of it muat come praying to .the in
visible Father in the name of that Jesus whom they had been
wont to ask as they would while visibly present with him, but
whom henceforward they muat think of as having passed into the
heavens, and evermore making intercession for his people there.
The latter method of obtaining blesaings would not fall in any-
wiae below the former. They might ask the Father in heaven aa
freely as they ever had the Son on earth. They might use the
name of Jesus in coming to the Father as really as they had ever
used it in addressing him face to face. The methods of prayer
[asking] were then to change: "Hitherto ye have not asked the
Father in my name;" henceforward, this new way is open; "Ask
and receive, that your joy may be full."
. In this view the antithesis lies between asking Jesus iu the
freedom of personal conversation in the flesh on the one hand;
and asking the invisible Father by prayer in the name of the risen
Jesus on the other. The transition from the former method to
the latter was then just at hand, and nothing could be more nat
ural or appropriate than for Jesus to connect the former method
with the latter by words like these. It would help them to real
ize how freely and fully they might still and evermore present
their prayers to the Father in the name -of Jesus.
Under this construction of his words Jesus did not intend to for
bid them to address their prayer to him in heaven after his as
cension. They certainly did not understand him to forbid this, for
Stephen, full of the Holy Ghost, died with prayer to Jesus on hia
lips (Acts 7 : 59, 60), and so current was this practice in apostolic
times that Paul describes Christians thus; — "All that in every
place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord " (1 Cor. 1 : 2).
25. These things have I spoken unto you in proverbs : but
the time cometh, when I shall no more speak unto you in
proverbs, but I shall shew you plainly of the Father.
Speaking " in proverbs " as contrasted with speaking "plainly"
(both in v. 25 and in v. 29) is the difference between using figures
of speech, illustrations; e. g. ofthe "door" to the sheep-fold ; of
the shepherd and his sheep (John 10) ; or of the vine and branches
(John 15); — and using the plainest and most direct words for the
very thing intended.  The " showing plainly ofthe Father"
must be referred to his teaching them by means of the Comforter,
the Spirit of truth, who, as said above (vs. 13-15), wouldreveal
Jesus to them ; " He shall receive of mine and shall show it unto
you " — more plainly than his own lips had ever done.
26. At that day ye shall ask in my name, and I say not
unto you, that I will pray the Father for you :

GOSPEL OF JOHN.-CHAP. XVI. 249
27. For the Father himself loveth you, because ye have
loved me, and have believed that I came out from God.
Here we must notice the special turn of thought: "I say not
unto you that I will pray the Father for you." Observe ; Jesus
does not say — I shall never offer such prayer in your behalf; but
he says a very different thing from that. He means — I would not
have you think that the Father has no love for you, or that you
win get his ear only because he loves me. While it is every way
proper that you should ask in my name, I wish you to know that
the reason for your praying in my name is not by any means be
cause the Father has personally no sympathy — no love for you.
He certainly has. He loves you as truly as I do. He loves you
because ye have loved me, and because ye have believed that I
came forth from God. It is a matter of profound intereat to him
that some from this fiillen race have had faith in hia mission of
his Son and have received him as their own Savior; have learned
of the Father through his lips ; have believed on the Father by
reason of what they have learned through his Son.
28. I came forth from the Father, and am come into the
world : again, I leave the world, and go to the Father.
29.- His disciples said unto him, Lo, now speakest thou
plainly, and speakest no proverb.
30. Now are we sure that thou knowest all things, and
needest not that any man should ask thee : by this -\ve be
lieve that thou eamest forth from God.
The point made in v. 28 — often repeated in various form —
seems now at length to lie understood and fixed in their minds.
Consequently they now have a broader view of Christ's foreknowl
edge and a deeper sense of it; which serves to confirm their
faith that he came really from God.
31. Jesus answered thera. Do ye now believe?
32. Behold, the hour cometh, yea, is now come, that ye
shall be scattered, every man to his own, and shall leave
me alone : and yet I am not alone, because the Father is
with me.
33. These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye
might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation :
but be of good cheer ; I have overcome the world.
No doubt Jesus was glad of thia apparent quickening of their
faith in himself; — but were tbey aware how soon and how sorely
it would be shaken ? It may be well to remind them that they
are on the eve of fearful peril. A terrible strain upon their fidel
ity, courage, and practical faith in him would presently come
upon them. They would be scattered every man to his old home
associates. All the disciples would forsake him and flee; and

250 GOSPEL OF JOHN.-CHAP. XVH.
Peter — alas ! — ^but he had already told them of his coming fall.
 But observe ; Jesus does not stop here to rebuke or reproach
them, or even to tell them how deeply he should be grieved; but
turns the course of thought. " Yet I am not alone : " I shall not
be alone when ye all forsake me ; for the Father is and -will still
be " with me." I have said these things not to make you sad —
not to rebuke you beforehand ; but with far other purpose ; viz.
that in me ye might have peace. I did long to assure you of
my love and sympathy, though 1 have in my eye even now the
fact that ye all are soon to forsake me in my hour of bitterest
woe. And thus this series of conversations, of unparalleled signifi
cance, of inexpressible sweetness — precious above all other words
that ever fell from those sacred lips — came to its close. It only
remained to Jesus to pour out his full soul in prayer — prayer for
the men he loved most tenderly ; for men whose pending perils
he foresaw clearly ; whose moral frailties lay vividly before him,
and whose need of help from above he therefore saw to be ex
ceedingly great and demanding.

CHAPTER XVII.
This entire chapter is prayer — the longest prayer of Jesus on
record; offered in circumstances of the. deepest interest both to
himself and to his disciples. Noticeably, it is not mainly prayer
for himself — that he might endure to the end and drink submis
sively the cup of sorrows soon to be pressed to his lips ; but, al
most exclusively, it is prayer for his beloved disciples whose fore
seen perils and whose moral weaknesses were a sore burden upon
his heart. In words most simple; in thoughts most weighty; in
choice of points for petition embracing with wonderful grasp the
grand elements ofthe Christian life — this prayer for every reason
commends itself to our profoundest study and contemplation.
1. These words spake Jesus, and lifted up his eyes to
heaven, and said, Father, the hour is come : glorify thy
Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee.
" These worda " are those recorded in chap. 13-16. Having
uttered these, he paaaed naturally toprayer. Hia full heart de
manded thia expression of its yearning, longing desires for his
people. "Father" — no form of address could be more appro
priate — Oh thou universal Father — in the highest sense my
Father ; — as such I now come to Thee. It should be noted that
the first five verses are specially personal to Jesus himself, ex-

GOSPEL OF JOHN.-CHAP. XVIL 251
preasinghia own individual relationa to the Father.-  -" The hour
has come;"-rthe hour long anticipated, most eventful, toward
which my whole earthly life has looked and all its labors have
been shaped — this great hour of crisis, of issues, of consumma
tion — of trial, pain, arrest, torture, confiict with Satan, death, res
urrection, ascension, triumph, eternal glory — how do the grand
issues of my earthly mission culminate upon this momentous
hour ! and yot though these issues, specially personal to Jesus were
so absorbing, another class of interests are here perhaps even
more pressing — those of hia little flock, for they are to be left
among devouring wolves — their ahepherd amitteu and the sheep
scattered ; their faith fearfully tried ; their souls perplexed, be
wildered, ataggered; — Oh, how could their compaasionate Maater
leave thom without pouring out the prayer of his burdened heart
in their behalf!
" Glorify thy Son." We pause in the presence of this petition.
No other spirit save one of profoundest reverence befits us when
we assume to interpret such words uttered by the glorious Son
of God. Yet they are here to be studied and to be understood aa
best we may. It seems to me supremely important that our ap
prehension of their meaning should be at once clear &-nclj%ist.
We recognize Jesus who offers this prayer as " God manifest
in human flesh," meaning by thia that the divine peraon, named
in this gospel by .lohn " the Word " [Logos] became mysteriously
united with the human person, born of Mary.  These points
are brought to view here only aa bearing upon the prayer of Je
sus. Do we not make some advance in our conception of his
prayer when we consider that in its very nature and relations
prayer is of man — ia human; and that, conaequently, as offered
by Jesus it assumes that his human consciousnesa is in the fore
ground and is made specially prominent ?  With this view, I
suggest whether we should not interpret the prayer — " Glorify
thy Son " — to mean not merely — Lift him at once from his earthly
humiliation to his heavenly glory ; but rather — Bear him through
these scenes of his earthly trial, now instantly pending; help
him to be true to his mission of suffering, shame, and death ; to
drink the cup of woe which Thou, Father, hast given him to
drink : strengthen him that through thy help he may manifest be
fore the universe thy love for lost men, and may glorify Thee
amid this fearful ordeal of torture and temptation. Glorify thy
Son by making him more than conqueror through these last and
sorest conflicts, so that he may glorify Thee — fitly representing
thy love for those in whose behalf he dies.
2. As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he
should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him.
The first word in this verse " as " [better read according as] is
specially, aignificant becauae it logically connects the words that
follow with those that precede. Be pleased to answer my prayer.

252 GOSPEL OF JOHN.-CHAP. XVIL
"Glorify thy Son,'' in accordance with that grant of power over
all the race conferred on him to the end that he might give eter
nal life, etc. As the Father had endowed the Son with this
power over human souls, in the realms of providence and grace,
for the grand purposes of salvation — the salvation of the " given"
ones — all who are really saved at last — ao now' in thia hour of
crisis he prays to be girded with strength to bear and lo go tri
umphantly through these scenes of fiercest conflict and of most
perilous responsibility. Now if ever [he would say], O my
Father, I need thy sustaining hand that I may truly honor thee.
Only with thy present help can I meet this fearful crisis with
honor to thee and to myself Thou knowest well the work I have
undertaken — this giving eternal life to all whom Thou hast given
to me.  In support of his plea it waa in place aa an indirect ar
gument to suggest this final purpose — the eternal life of the
" given " ones — and to refer thus to the fact that they had been
given by the Father. He was thus an interested party. His
hand and counsel were in the scheme. Jesus asked only that he
might be sustained to carry through a scheme which had its ori
gin in the Father's love — for the accomplishment of which the
Father had already given him " power over all flesh.'' He now
needs and asks more blessings in the sauae line, on the same
principle, for the same ultimate purpose.-  The Greek reader
would notice that for the words translated — " as many as " — he
finds the Greek word for all in its neuter form — the precise sense
being therefore — to the mass, thought of as a body — a whole.
3. And this is life eternal, that they might know thee, the
only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.
That "life eternal" which he is to give to believers, in ita
simplest conception, is the practical knowledge of God the
Father and of his Son. It is not merely to know that Jehovah
is the one true God and that Jesus is hia Son ; but to know them
as such. Of course such knowing involves the adjusting of the
heart and of the life to this knowledge. It signifies that what is
thus known of God and of his Son is received in love ; is wrought
into the very life of the soul; develops the spirit of loving obe
dience, and the simple trust of faith — so that thus knowing God
intelligently, they become in spirit and life hia children through
the aalvation provided in Jeaua his Son. The word "know"
thus used becomes signally emphatic, or shall we say, all-compre
hensive; inclusive of the moral acts and statea to whioh auch
knowledge legitimately tends. It is the knowledge of truth,
made effective by the Spirit of truth, according to the legitimate
potency of such truth, so that the human heart yields itself to
its molding power.
4. I have glorified thee on the earth : I have finished the
work which thou gavest me to do.

GOSPEL OF JOHN.-CHAP. XVIL 253
So far I have done the work undertaken, to the honor of tho
Father. This was his sustaining consciousness, and seems hero
to be made the basis for the plea that follows : — " Glorify thou
me," etc. (v. 5).  At this point the great work was moatly fin-
iahed, yet not entirely. The last words of .lesus on the cross as
reported by John were — "It ia finished" (19: 30). Thon the
suffering was indeed endured ; all that belonged to the stage of
humiliation was past, and only the glory remained. ¦*
5. And now, 0 Father, glorify thou me with thine own
self ^^-ith the glory which I had Avith thee before the world
was. In the interpretation of the words (v. 1) — "Glorify thy Sou,''
there seems good reason to refer them in part (yet perhaps only
in part) to blessings needed in the immediate future, for whatever
of endurance and trial lay directly before the Great Sufferer.
The allusion to the " power over all flesh " as givon him, seemed
to contemplate more blessings of similar sort, needful to perfect
the entire work undertaken fur the salvation of men. But in
this verse (as in v. 4) Jeaua seems to stand in thought at the
point of consummation, where he looks upon the period of his
humiliation as closing, and lifts up his prayer for the glory that
lay beyond. Bring me home to that glory in which I dwelt with
thee in the eternal ages before this world's creation.  " With
thine own self" is not equivalent to — hy thine own power — but
means, along wiih thyself Raise me to that former position of
coequal dignity and glory in which I dwelt from eternity " with
God." Closely construed it would seem that in this prayer the
divine — not the human — consciousness is in the foreground — the
word " I " in the phrase — " which I had with Thee " — represent
ing the Logos especially ; the eternal Word, who was from the be
ginning " with God." f
6. I have manifested thy name unto the men which thou
gavest me out of the world: thine they were, and thou
gavest them me : and they have kept thy word.
7. Now they have known that all things whatsoever thou
hast given me are of thee.
8. For I have given unto them the words which thou
gavest me ; and they have received Hiem, and have known
surely that I carae out from thee, and they have believed
that thou didst send me.
-* The improved text puts the verb " finished " in tho form of its
participle — " Having finished the work," etc.
tThis view of the divine personality as prominent iu this prayer,
must be taken unless we adopt the opinion held by some that the
human nature of Jeaus alao, as well aa the divine, was pre-existent
— " before the world waa."

254 GOSPEL OF JOHN.-CHAP. XVIL
From thia point onward Jeaua prays especially for his people.
 " Manifested thy name " — iu the sense of thyself, thy char
acter, and particularly thy great love and thoughts of mercy for
lost men. To those whom the Father had given him had these
revelationa of God been made. All others had repelled his teach--
ings. This mode of putting the case kept prominent the an
tecedent agency of the Father in regard to the salvation of
Chriat'a people and made that agency an argument iu his plea.
 " They have kept thy word " — revealed to them through my
ministry. Now therefore thou wilt aurely remember them with
mercy in their preaent and pending emergencies.-  "All things
whioh Thou hast given me ' — both words to be spoken and deeds
to be done (miracles included) are of Thee. They have joyfully
recognized this. The words which Jesus had received from the
Father for men, they had accepted in faith and in love. 
" Have known surely "- — were better read — not " surely," but
truthfully — the point being not so much tbe certainty as the
correctness — the exact conformity to the truth. The points
stated here as truthfully known are put in two forms, essen
tially equivalent; viz. that 1 came out from God; and that Thou
(God) didst send me.
9. I pray for them : I pray not for the world, but for
them which thou hast given me ; for they are thine.
10. And all mine are thine, and thine are mine; and I
ara glorified in them.
Should this negative statement — " not for the world " — be con
strued in its fullest and most absolute sense — never, at all; or,
only in a qualified sense — e. g. I am not praying for the world
¦now, or not for them specially : but I do pray specially for these
my disciples.  The latter view seems to me the true one, in
asmuch as below (vs. 21, 23) Jesus expresses a real interest for
the world — " that the world may believe that thou hast sent me ; "
" that the world may know." Moreover, elsewhere the broadest
benevolence is affirmed ; — " God so loved the world," etc. (John
3 : 16). " God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the
world, but that the world through him might bo saved," etc.
(John 3 ; 17). It seems legitimate therefore to construe this
prayer thus : I pray now especially for them.^  A prominent
point in this plea is that these men had been given to him by
the Father — really belonged to the Father ("they, are thine"),
and indeed belonged by the same tenure to both the Father and
the Son — each having in them a common right of property. Of
course this conception of property is borrowed from human re
lationships ; but is at once clear in its significance and precious
in its bearings.
11. And now I am no more in the world, but these are
in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep

GOSPEL OF JOHN.-CHAP. XVIL 255
through thine own narae those whom thou hast given nie,
that they rnay be one, as we are.
12. "VVhile I was with them in the -world, I kept thera in
thy narae : those that thou gavest rae I have kept, and
none of them is lost, but the son of perdition ; that the
Scripture might be fulfilled.
Here then is property jointly owned by the Father and tho
Son, to be taken care of Jesus has had them in special charge
while with them in the flesh : but he is now to go from them
to the Father. Hence he prays the Father to keep them.  It
is not quite clear what our .English translators meant by the
word "through" — "through thine own name." Usually this
preposition siguifles-;-^!/ means of; but in this case it translates
the Greek word for in — the very same which in the next verse
they have translated "in" — "I kept them in thy name." There
can be no good reason for translating the aame word "-through"
in V. 11 and " in" in v. 12.  Moreover, not only is the Greek
original the same, but the connection and relationa are the
same. Jesus prays to the Father to do precisely what he him
self has been doing. " While I was with them I kept in thy
name ; " now that I leave them, I pray thee to keep them in thy
name. The sense therefore must be — keep them in the knowl
edge and love of thy name — " name " being synonymous with re
vealed character.
We muat note also that in both v. 11 and v. 12 the improved text
gives us — not " those whom" (masculine plural), but which (neu
ter singular), referring to name, the sense being — thine own name
which thou hast given me. Then v. 12, closely translated, would
be — " While I was with them I was keeping them in thy name
which [name] thou gavest me, and I guarded [them] and none
of them is lost," etc. He had kept all of them safely in the
knowledge of his Father's name, except the traitor, iu the loss of
whom the Scripture was fulfilled.
13. And now come I to thee ; and these things I speak in
the world, that they might have my joy fulfilled in them
selves. I say these things in the world, while j'ct with them in the
flesh, in order that they may have in full measure the aame joy
in thee which.I have. This must be the sense of "my joy " — tho
¦^Bry joy whioh I have in my Father. I Avish to show them that
they may love and trust the Father even as I have done and may
have the same joy which I ever have in this love and trust. 
Would not this be a blessed experience?
14. I have given them thy word ; and the world hath
hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am
not of the world.

253 GOSPEL OF JOHN.-CHAP. XVIL
I have given them thy word and so have k^pt them. But now
that I leave them, new dangers will beset them from external
sources — i. e. from a hostile world, hating them beca'use they are
not of ii aa I am not. Both they and I are of another class, hav
ing no sympathies in common with a selfish, wicked world.
15. I pray not that thou shouldest take them out of the
world, but that thovi shouldest keep thera from the evil.
16. They are not of the world, even as I am not of the
world. It might soom a very simple and perfect protection for them
to take them out of the world, but we are not ready for that. I
do not pray for that; but that thou shouldest keep them from
the Fvil One — not from evil in the abstract, but from the Master
Spirit of evil — Satan — who has always fought me and will fight
them.  In 1 John 2: 13, our translators have rendered the
same Greek words as these (both the noun and the article) — "Ye
have overcome ihe Wicked One." Both consistency and phil
ology required that they should translate this passage iu the aame
way. 17. Sanctify them through thy truth : thy word is truth.
Make and keep them holy through thy truth — that of thy re
vealed word. We need not construe this prayer to exclude the
agency of the Spirit. Let it rather include thia agency, aince the
Comforter is evermore the Spirit of truth, teaching, suggesting,
impressing, fulfilling his functions as a Sanctifier by means of
God's revealed word of truth.  Sanctifying human souls should
not be considered a mystical process, in such a sense mysterious
that we can get no clearly defined conceptions of it. Far other
wise. The fact that it is effected " through the truih," brings it
within the pale of our own consciousness — a subject of study
and of distinct intellectual apprehension. To assume it to be a
mystical operation can never be otherwise than misleading and
pernicious. 18. As thou hast sent me into the world, even so have I
also sent them into the world.
On essentially the same mission, viz; to testify for God; to re
veal God to men ; and at this point, especially to preach the gos
pel. Jesus could not have meant that they had the same work
as himself in dying to make propitiation for the sins of the world;
but — as to the point then present in thought — viz ; the agency
of revealed truth to sanctify and save men — their work was sub
stantially a continuation of his. As the Father had sent him
with great and glorious messages of truth to men, so did he send
them.

GOSPEL OF JOHN.-CHAP. XVIL 257
19. And for their sakes I sanctify myself, that they also
might be sanctified through the truth.
As applied to Jesus, the word "sanctify" must have ita primary,
not its secondary sense — the primary being — to set apart for holy
purposes; the secondary — to purify from sin. Only in the former
sense could it be used of Jesus. But it might be used as to his
disciples in both senses or in either. Jesus meant to say that he
set himself apart with supreme devotion to the sanctification of
his people — the purifying of their hearts by faith — which is
equivalent to saying " through the truth." Faith stands related
to truth. Faith receives the word of God as true, and thus se
cures to the believer the legitimate moral forces of truth.
20. Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also
which shall believe on me through their word ;
21. That they all may be one; as thou. Father, art in me,
and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the
world may believe that thou hast sent me.
22. And the glory which thou gavest me I have given
them ; that they raay be one, even as we are one :
23. I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made
perfect in one ; and that the world may know that thou hast
sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.
Not for these eleven disciples alone do I pray, but for all who
shall come into faith through their preaching, onward down
through all the ages.  For what does he pray, in their behalf?
"That they all may be one;" this is the burden of the prayer —
illustrated, reiterated, and its anticipated results stated — viz:
" that the world may believe," etc.  What then is this oneness'^
Something more aud better than a denominational, organic
unity of the church, as opposed to diverse organizations. It
might involve this by involving and including the spirit which
would insure it; but this precisely and this only it can not be.
There ia nothing in the paasage that suggests thia as the main
idea. There was nothing in the circumstancea of Jesua at that
moment which would naturally bring thia aort of oneneas before
hia mind. The entire deacription with its illustration leads to a
different and vastly higher view; "As thou. Father, art in me and
I in thee; that they alao may be one in us." There can be no
simpler way to indicate entire unity — perfect oneneas — than this —
one person in another. We need not push the sense of the
word "in" so far as to constitute identity and to absorb and
rule out individual personality. Stopping short of this, it gives us
the completest conception of moral oneness which human lan
guage can express. Morally, Jesus and the Father were ai one:
the same love, the same purity, the same glorious spiritual life,
lived and reigned in each and in both. The prayer of Jesua ia

258 GOSPEL OF JOHN.-CHAP. XVII.
that his people may all be one in us (the Father and the Son) in
the same sense of moral, spiritual union.  " The glory" (v. 22)
must refer to that honor, dignity, exaltation, which the Father had
prospectively given to the Son ; to which the Son was soon to be
raised. — "Thia" Jesus says, "1 have given to them as thou hast
given it to me.'' The bestowment of this glory would still con
duce to the same great end — moral, spiritual oneness ; would be
given for the sake of this reault — -" that they may be one, even as
we are one."  Still the precious idea ia expanded and reiter
ated; "I in them and thou in me, that they may be made perfect
in one." Is it not worthy of special thought that here this oneness
(if we may coin a word) is not put as reciprocal — (I in them and
they in me ; I in thee. Father, and thou in me) — but in each case
the greater is in the less — the superior is in the inferior ; for the
Father is said to be in the Son and the Son also is in his people.
The higher condescends to come down and manifest his presence '
and power in the lower, obviously to uplift — ^to raise up into a
higher plane of spiritual communion and fellowship. As the
Father brings himself into spiritual communion with the Son
(considered as incarnate), so does the Son bring himself into
spiritual communion with his people. This constitutes Jeaus the
connecting link — the uniting agent — between the Father and each
true believer.  ^When the lower is spoken of as in the higher;
as for example, believers are said to be in Christ as branches are
in the vine, the connection is specially one of faith, dependence,
trust on their part, bringing them into such relations to Jeaua that
currents of sustaining life-power flow from him to them, as from
the parent vine to the inhering branches; or as the vital nervous
force flow-s from the brain [the head] through the entire human
organism [all the members]. But in our passage the mode of
stating the law of spiritual union — i. e. the higher parhr in the
lower — makes prominent the idea of condescension — of coming
down to lift up the relatively lower party into the relationship of
sublime communion and fellowship^a communion born of divine
love and made effective through the sanctifying agency of God's
truth and Spirit. Human souls made in God's image are inspir-
able — capable by virtue of their created constitution, of being
pervaded and permeated thus with God. No higher quality — ca
pability — than this in man's nature can possibly be conceived of
 A noticeable addition is made (v. 23) to the clause — "that
the world may know that thou hast sent me ;" viz ; "And hast
loved them as thou hast loved me." Exalting them to the same
heavenly glory with Josus would serve to show this. But going
deeper than this exteru.al glorifying, and contemplating the moral,
spiritual renovation of their natures, and conaequently the bringing
thom into moral oneneaa with Jeaua and with the Father, we shall
aee that this must testify to the aame love of the Father toward
them as toward his Son.  Is not all this surpassingly wonderful?
24. Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given

GOSPEL OF JOHN.-CHAP. XVII. 259
me, be with me where I am; that they may behold my
glory, whicb thou hast given me: for thou lovedst rae be
fore the foundation of the world.
The genuine tenderness, sincerity and condescension of Christ's
love for hia people could not easily be put in more touching form
than this : 1 would have them very near me — with me — so that
they may behold my glory which thou hast given me. I know
they will enjoy it. I too shall rejoice to see them enjoy it. Hu
man friendships are full of such manifestations. Who does not
love to have his personal friends see and sympathize with his own
honors — his real and worthy success in his labors? How then
could Jesus show his disciples more clearly that he holds them
as his beloved, confidential friends, than by this prayer that
they may rise to behold his own eternal glory and rejoice with
him in his immortal honors and triumphs ?
25. O righteous Father, the world hath not known thee :
but I have known thee, and these have known that thou
hast sent me.
Why does Jesus choose the word " righteous " to apply to the
Father in thia connection?  1 suggest this: that " righteous "
involves moral discrimination between good and evil ; good-doers
and evil-doers. The thought — underlying and implied — may be
this : I hav.e prayed that these whom thou hast given me — sancti
fied through thy truth — may be with me in my heavenly glory.
Why do 1 not ask the same for all the world ?  A righteous God
could not grant it. " 0 righteous Father, the world have not
known tliee." They would- not receive my testimony of thee;
they have loved darkness rather than light because their deeds
are evil. There can be no home for them in the pure and glori
ous heaven. " But I have kuown thee, and these have known
that thou hast sent me," and therefore are preparing to know thee
with the perfect knowledge of heaven.
26. And I have declared unto thera thy name, and will
declare it; that the love wherewith thou hast loved me may
be in thera, and I in them.
I have begun already to reveal the Father to them : I have
more yet to reveal and to manifest to their obedient and loving
hearts. I shall pursue this work- to the end that the love thou
hast for me may go forth also toward them — that thou mayeat
¦ love them as thou hast loved me ; also that I myself may be in
them in yet greater perfection.
Thus cloaca this wonderful, glorious prayer. Were truths more'
sublime ever uttered, or thoughts more inspiring to Chriatian
souls, or more consoling to men looking forward to perils and
conflicts which might be unto death? Studying it as heard by
the chosen few in that eventful moment, -n-e can scarcely restrain

260 GOSPEL OF JOHN.-CHAP. XVIIL
the inquiry — Did they comprehend the grandeur of these senti
ments and feel the mighty inspiration of such sympathy, and
were their souls lifted up by the anticipation of such communion
and fellowship with the risen Jesus and with the Infinite Father ?
Did they say within themselves — Now we can endure any thing
bravely for such a Friend ; now we can surely count it all joy to
go with him to prison and to death for the love we bear him and
for the glory that is so soou to follow ?
We can not know precisely what the then preaent impression
of this prayer waa upon the disciples ; but we may doubtless be
lieve that after Jeaua had gone up into heaven before their eyes
and the Spirit began to bring these things to their remembrance,
then they began indeed to drink in their grand inspirations, and
to feel their sustaining power. It is sweet to think how the peo
ple of God all down the ages have delighted to read the words of
this prayer and to feel the spiritual power thereof

CHAPTER XVIII.
Thia chapter and the next comprise the selection made by John,
from the historic incidents of the Savior's passion, including his
arrest, trial, crucifixion and burial. Each of the four gospel his
torians has made his own several selection from among this group
of incidents, Matthew and Mark following with slight variations
the same general principle of selection, so that in the main their
accounts are parallel with each other ; while Luke and John each
contain a considerable amount of new matter, peculiar to them
selves. Hence it is only by bringing these several histories to
gether and allowing them to supplement each other that we get
the full view of what is revealed in respect to tho final passion
of the world's Great Sufferer.
Much the same might be said of any other considerable chap
ter of our gospel history, and being said, might become an argu
ment for treating it in this complementary method. Thus far in
this volume I have confined myself mainly to the record given us
by John. In treating the two chapters next ensuing, I propose
to notice briefly those main points of the hiatory which, being
omitted or less fully stated by John, are brought out more fully
by the other historians. I am induced to adopt this method by
the exceeding great interest and importance of the subject. 
Moreover what John haa aaid will be better understood when sup
plemented from the parallel records. There is the more reaaon
for this course in a commentary upon these chapters of John be
cause it is more apparent here than elsewhere in this book that

GOSPEL OF JOHN.-CHAP. XVIIL— GETHSEMANE. 261
he regarded it as only supplementary — i. e. wrote it, aware of
what others had written before him, and therefore (probably)
omitted certain things because they had -been fully recorded al
ready by his brethren.
This chap. 18 gives the scenes of the arrest (vs. 1-14) ; the
course of Peter, resulting in his sad denial of his Master (vs. 15-
18, and 25-27) ; and in part, the incidents of the trial before the
high priest and before Pilate (vs. 19-24, and 28-40).
1. When Jesus had spoken these words, he went forth
with his disciples over the brook Cedron, where was a gar
den, into the which he entered, and his disciples.
This passing over the brook Cedron (otherwise Kidron) which
skirted the city on the east, brought them to the foot of the
Mount of Olives, and to that ever memorable garden known in
the other evangelists as Gethsemane. The word "garden"
should not suggest here a spot under cultivation for vegetables,
flowers, and perhaps aummer fruits ; but rather, an orchard — in
this case devoted, as we may infer from the significant name, to
the olive. It was a sweet and calm retreat from the turmoil of
the great city, perhaps under the care of some well-known
friend, but at least a place often frequented by Jesus and his dis
ciples, and as we raay well suppose, sacred to the double purpose
of rest and of prayer. This was Gethsemane. Here, there fell
upon the human soul of Jesus that mighty agony whioh human
language seems to falter in every attempt to describe. Mark says,
"He began to be sore amazed, and to be very heavy, and saith
unto them — My soul is exceeding sorrowful unto death ; tarry ye
here and watch." Matthew records most fully the words of his
prayer; — " He fell on his face and prayed, saying, 0 my Father,
if it be possible, let this cup pass from me ; nevertheless, not as 1
will but as thou wilt."  Returning to the disciples and finding
them asleep (alas, for human infirmity — not to say also for de
ficient sympathy !) — he saith to Peter, as if to remind him of
profeasions of love, acarcely yet cold upon hia lipa : — " What !
could ye not watch with me one hour ? "  But mark the tender-
ness of his own apology: "The spirit indeed is willing, but the
flesh is weak."  Still there comes no relief from the dreadful
burden, and again he withdra-ws from them (Luke says " about a
stone's cast "), and pours out his soul in prayer: " O my Father,
if this cup may not pasa from me except I drink it, thy will be
done." Returning to the chosen three once more, he finds them
asleep again. — Ah, the pain of such neglect ! — the fearfully sug
gestive power of its intimation that even hia redeemed people will
not (alwaya) stand by him in his most bitter need.
In the general outline of this scene, Matthew and Mark are al-
to"-ether at one— the points made by each being substantially the
same ; the differences being little else than verbal. Luke adds
12

262 . GOSPEL OF JOHN.-CHAP. XVIIL— GETHSEMANE.
two or three incidents ; e. g. that " there appeared unto him an
angel from heaven, strengthening him: " and that "being in an
agony, he prayed more earnestly, and hia sweat was, as it were,
great drops of blood falling down to the ground." "What messa
ges of love and sympathy this ministering angel brought from
heaven, are not on record (we may wish they were) — but it is a
comfort to think that when all human sympathy failed him so de
plorably, angelic sympathy came to his relief  As to the sweat,
said to haye been " as great drops of blood," the prevalent opin
ions of critics concur in this sense: great drops of sweat colored
with blood—hot in appearance only, but in fact a bloody sweat.
It is highly improbable that a profuse sweat would be compared
-with great clots of blood, if the only point of comparison waa the
size of the drops and the sweat were really bloodless. That such
bloody sweat is physiologically possible under intense agony,
seems to be a well authenticated fact, though the cases are exceed
ingly rare.
In speaking of the sleep of the disciples, Luke puts it — " sleep
ing for sorrow." This result of sorrow is scarcely supposable
save in the case where great sorrow has served to exhaust human
endurance — which would bring the fact as an apology under the
other statement — " The flesh is weak." Really this is the only
apologetic plea which this case admits. The preceding day and
evening had been one of intense excitement-— of exhausting in
terest aud thought.
The inspired accounts of the scenes in Gethsemane are rounded
out by the writer to the Hebrews (5 : 7, 8) ; who says of Jesus — ¦
" In the days of his flesh when he had offered up prayers and
supplications with strong crying and tears to him that was able
to save him from death, and was heard in that he feared: —
Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things
whioh he suffered."  This passage, being a sort of comment by
an inspired apostle upon the scenes of Gethsemane, should have
weight in the interpretation of those scenes. It recognizes the
fact of most earnest prayer; that this prayer was offered as to
" one who was able to save him from death ; " and that in some im
portant sense the prayer waa heard and answered. In what
sense is one of the chief questions iu interpreting the words and
scenes of Gethsemane.  The clause translated — " was heard in
that he feared" — is not only obscure in the English but some
what doubtful in the Greek.*  The choice lies between these
two constructions ; {a.) " Being heard [and delivered] from the
thing he feared; " and (6.) Being heard fromf [becauseof] the
piety, i. e. of hia prayer — "because of his profound submission to
the Father's will. The former construction assumes it a case of
" constructio preguans " — i. e. one which involves the idea of
another verb. It also takes the noun translated "fear"{ in a
¦* EtaaKovaOcia airo Tija evXafieiaa. t aTro. % tv7.a^eiaa.

GOSPEL OF JOHN.— CHAP. XVIIL— GETHSEMANE. 263
sense unknown to the New Testament — its only N. T. sense be
ing godly fear — trne piety ; and never the dread of some danger.
 The latter construction takes the preposition * in an unusual
yet not inadmissible sense, and seems to require the word for his
instead of the article — because of his piety. Hence there are
somewhat grave difficulties in either construction ; — less, however,
(grammatically and lexicographically) in the latter than in the
former.  -But without deciding absolutely between these con
structions, let it suffice to say that both concur in this point —
that the prayer of Jesus in Gethsemane was in some important
sense answered.
Is it permitted us to approach this scene of agony and inquire
reverently — What were the elements of its great sorrow ?
In the first place it must be carefully considered that the hu
man rather than the divine in the person of Christ is prominent
here. It is not given us to know perfectly how it could be that
the human should bear such relations to the divine as to suffer
not only pains of body but pains of soul according to the normal
laws of human suffering, as if the divine nature and powers were
for the time, to a greater or less extent, in abeyance ; but such
seems to be the fact. As we have more than once had occasion
to suggest in reference to the prayers offered by Jesua — prayer is
human; and hence the prayers of Jesus must assume that the
human in his compound nature is in the foreground. He prays
as man — not as God. These scenes in Gethsemane were full of
prayer — were certainly as human as prayer is human. So far as
we can comprehend them, the sufferings that evoked those
prayers were those of his human soul.
Reasoning therefore upon these aaaumptiona, we take into con
sideration all the known circumatances of the case, and there
upon suggest — -
{a.) This was the hour of supreme, intense, undiverted aniici-
paiion. Other interests than his own personal suffering had re
ceived their due attention. Earnest thought had been devoted
long to the case of hia diaciplea. He had given large scope to
his solicitudes, sympathies, counsels, and prayers for them — as we
have seen all through the previous hours of this memorable eve
ning. Now his own great " hour " draws nigh, and all the momen
tous scenes of his final sufferings rush upon hia soul. We know
how terribly the anticipation of suffering bears upon human
nerves. Upon some temperaments and in certain respects it haa
less alleviations and seems more unendurable than the very suf
fering which is foreseen.
(6.) We must allow some place to the suggestive power of the
circumstances immediately present ; — e. g. that one of the chosen
twelve is the traitor, reminding him how often he must be wounded
in the house of hia friends ; that the three of his remaining
eleven — most loved and most relied on, are sleeping instead of

264 GOSPEL OF JOHN.— CHAP. XVIIL— GETHSEMANE.
sympathizing, praying, watching; can not be induced either to
pray or to watch with him, nor even to watch and pray for them
selves in this hour of so much peril. — Moreover, he knew they
would all within a few moments forsake him and flee ; that the
most earnest, enthusiastic, and outspoken of them all would deny
him with oaths and curses. Alas 1 how bitter must these facta
have been, considered not merely in themselves alone but in their
suggestive power as indicating how unspeakably his soul must be
tried all along the ages of the future by the infirmities and the sins
of his profeaaed diaciplea 1
(c.) More yet must be ascribed to the asaaults of Satan and his
legions. To such assaults Jesus seems to allude in the words
(Luke 22: 53): "But this is your hour and the power of dark
ness." Also in these (John 14: 30): "For the Prince of this
world cometh," etc. "We may therefore assume that these were
moments of fierce and fearful conflicts with Satan. It is but lit
tle that we can know, from the testimony of other human expe
rience, of the foul suggestions, the hot temptations, of Satan; of
the rapid succession of his thrusts, and the fierceness of his as
saults ; but we may safely say — he did hia worat. He shrunk
from nothing as too mean, too dastardly, too blasphemous, too
horribly malign — which might (in his hope) break down the sub
lime purpose of the Holy Sufferer ; or, failing of this, might in
flict torture, harass with doubt, or enshroud with darkness and
gloom. All and more than all (probably) that his children have
ever suffered from Satan, or ever will, went into his cup in that
dreadful hour — to the end that " having suffered, being tempted,
he might the better succor those who are tempted."
(d.) To all this may we not add a certain fearful apprehension
that he might fail under the dreadful burdens to be borne.
Would his fortitude and patience be equal to the strain ; would
his soul abide true to its purpose through the entire long period
of this anticipated horror and agony ? It is at least supposable
that Satan's temptations were plied on thia point especially, and
that a sense of human weakness heightened the agonizing appre
hensions of this fearful hour. May not this have been a large
element in the pains grouped under the word " cup " which he
prayed so fervently might paaa from him — the fear of some moral
failure under his awful sufferings of body and soul upon the
gross? — It should be considered that "cup ' does not define the
nature of the sufferings which fill it. We need not auppoae it to
denote mainly hia death itself by crucifixion. There are grave
objectiona to the supposition that he prayed to be excused from
this death. Far more probable is it that he prayed against pos
sible failure— that this was the fear which so agonized him in the
garden, and that in this definite respect — from this dread appre
hension — he was delivered in anawer to his prayer. It ia en
tirely clear that the agitation and horror which were so promi
nent in the garden passed away and left his soul calm and self-
possessed. Never was moral heroism more calm than his when

GOSPEL OF JOHN.-CHAP. XVIU. —GETHSEMANE. 265
Judas and his posse broke upon the stillnesa of Gethaemane and
they led him away to the insults and injustice of their tribunals.
(e.) Coupled with all the rest, we must assume a very extreme
physical nervous prostration — a state of exhaustion which may
have almost robbed him of the power of endurance. He may
have spoken from experience — ^even present experience — when
he said for his disciples — " The flesh is weak." "VVhen we review
the scenes of the previous day and evening; think of the mental
tension, the draft upon his sympathies, the burden of such and
so much responsibility ; of the words he spake and the prayer he
offered, coupled also with the wear of that flood of anticipations
then ruahing upon hia aoul, we shall have some data from which
to estimate the nervous exhaustion of the Man of sorrows at this
hour. That he became physically unable to carry the wood of
his cross alone, and that under the agonies of crucifixion life be
came extinct long before Pilate supposed it possible he could have
died, are collateral circumstances confirming this view of his
physical exhaustion.
(/,) The point last to be named — ofwhich we know least — can
be only suggested — viz. that there may have been in some degree
u, hiding of the Father's face — a measure ofthe s.ame experience
which at the sixth hour of hia paasiou extorted that most bitter
wail which ever fell from human lips : — " My God, my God, why
hast thou forsaken me?" — We could scarcely make a greater
mistake than to estimate on the scale of our own experience the
darkness and horror of his holy soul under such conscious sus
pension of the Father's manifested favof . For, be it considered,
none of us -have ever stood — none will ever stand — in the place
of lost sinners before God, to " bear their sins " in the way of an
atoning sacrifice. God has never hidden his face from us — has
never "forsaken" us — while we were faithfully true to our love
and service for him — and never will  And not least — let it be
considered that — to Jesus, who had never known such darkness
Godward before — who had enjoyed the perfect bliss of the Father's
light and love with never an intermission till then — this experi
ence must have been inexpressibly agonizing, appalling. This
may be the very thing suggested if not expressed inthe word used
by Mark (14 : 33) — -"began to be sore amazed" * — a word which
expreases both surprise and horror — as if some new experience
was upon him — appalling and even astounding.
These are suggested as being (auppoaably) the elementa of the
great agony of Jeaus in Gethsemane.
The reader will not make the mistake of supposing that these
points are put here as actual knowledge. No such claim is made.
It is not given us yet to know with absolute certainty what were
the elements of that cup of woe. Of the surrounding circum
stances we do know something; with the laws of our own human
nature we may become in a measure familiar ; of the words that
-*- eKda/if^enfiai.

266 GOSPEL OF JOHN.— CHAP. XVUL— GETHSEMANE.
fell from the lips of the Sufferer we have probably a somewhat
full and certainly an authentic record. It has been my aim to
form opinions and make suggestions based upon these data, con
fident that it muat be morally wholeaome to study the entire
scene reverently, solemnly, tenderly — with our souls keenly alive
to sympathy with him we love, and open to the full impression
of what it was for him to " bear our griefs and carry our sorrows,
that by his stripes we might be healed."
If the question be asked. Why did not John give some account
of these scenes in Gethsemane ? we can answer only by conjec
ture. We may be quite sure this omission waa not due to any
-want of sympathy and interest in those scenes. We may remem
ber that he (and he only) records that other very aimilar though
briefer and leas agonizing scene (viz. in 12 : 27-30). His own
personal recollections of the real Gethsemane could not have
faded out, for he was one" of the three, chosen by Jesus to be near
est him in that dark hour. No apparent reason for his omitting
all record of this scene is more probable than this — that he knew
it had been very fully described in three other gospel histories.
He may therefore have felt that he had nothing to add to what
had been fully and well said by others.  To this we may per
haps subjoin suggestively that those scenes did not seem to bear
very directly upon the special object for which he compiled his
history — " That ye may 'believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son
of God." Gethsemane revealed the human in Jesus rather than
the divine.
2. And Judas also, which betrayed him, knew the place :
for Jesus ofttimes resorted thither with his disciples.
Judas knew the place; he had been there often with his Master
and the chosen disciples. He had reason to expect that after the
labors and responsibilities of such a day in the temple among the
gathered thousands, and after the scenes at the supper, Jesus
would retire to this place of prayer for his accustomed commun
ion with his Father.,  But -what a revelation is made here of the
character of Judas ! His definite plan is to break in upon Jesus
while engaged in his private devotions and in the very place
sacred to communion with God ! Judas had been there scores of
times, a witness to the devotions of his Master, but never in de
vout sympathy ; never to pray himself No hallowed associations
with that sacred spot deterred his treason for one moment. It was
a good time to find his victim apart from the multitude, alone with
his God; — what more should he care for? Why should any
qualms of conscience, or any notions as to the sacredness of com
munion with God hold him back from — the chance of making
money by selling his knowledge of this secret place of prayer ?
3. Judas then, having received a band of men and officers
from the chief priests and Pharisees, cometh thither with
lanterns and torches and weapons.

GOSPEL OF JOHN.-CHAP. XVIIL 267
4. Jesus therefore, knowing all things that should come
upon him, went forth, and said unto them. Whom seek ye ?
5. They answered him, Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus saith
unto them, I am he. And Judas also, which betrayed him,
stood with them.
6. As soon then as he had said unto them, I am he, they
went backward, and fell to the ground.
This "band" may possibly have been Roman soldiers, but
probably were a detachment from the Levite guards of the tem
ple. The word"* is uaed of either. In the present case it was a
rudely armed troop — " swords and staves," or bludgeons — not the
weapons of the Roman soldier ; besides that a Roman band
would naturally take their prisoner at once before a Roman tribu
nal The officers of the chief priests and Pharisees were of
course Jews.  "Armed with lanterns and torches," as well as
death weapons, because it was night and vital to their success
that they should recognize their man.  Jesus, fully aware of
their purpose, with no thought of either resistance or escape,
" went forth," i. e. from the secluded retreat where his great
agony of prayer had transpired, and surrendered himself to their
hands. The other three evangelists concur iu saying that Judas
was to designate the man by the concerted signal of a kiss — and
did so — professing the truest friendahip to carry out the foulest
treaaon ! What could be more mean and vile ?  John only of
the four evangelists records that at the words of Jesus — "I am
he," this armed poaae "went backward and fell to the ground."
Strange that this did not open the eyes of Judas and appall his
soul with terror ! Strange that his heart was not smitten with a
sense of the dignity and majesty of the innocent mau he was be
traying ! Strange that the priests and Pharisees present in that
"band" did not think of fifty men sent twice to bring Elijah'
down from his mountain retreat, and ask themselves, "What are
we doing ? Who is this man of Galilee that we can not stand be
fore him ?  ^Whether this " band " were made up of volunteers,
or of picked men, we must suppose them men of average firmness
, — not of the sort whose manhood is sapped by a weak superstition
— that they should be smitten with causeless panic. But they
were sent on a cruel, unrighteous mission, and it may have been
divinely ordered to give them one admonition (perhaps but thia
one) that their bloody purpose brought them into collision with
the Infinite aud righteous God.
7. Then asked he them again, Whom seek ye? And they
said, Jesus of Nazareth.
8. Jesus answered, I have told you that I am lie: if there
fore ye seek me, let these go their way :
*- OTVEipa,

268 GOSPEL OF JOHN.-CHAP. XVIIL
9. That the saying might be fulfilled, which he spake, Of
them vchich thou gavest me have I lost none.
When they rose to their feet Jesus mildly repeated his ques
tion, "Whom seek ye?" and renewed his surrender of himself,
asking only the favor that his disciples ntight go unmolested. 
The "saying which he apake" ia supposed to be that in John 17:
12. The divine plan called for his life to be sacrificed, but
equally, that the lives of his disciples should be spared, for the
work yet before them.
10. Then Simon Peter having a sword drew it, and smote
the high priest's servant, and cut ofi" his right ear. The
servant's name was Malchus.
11. Then said Jesus unto Peter, Put up thy sword into
the sheath : the cup which my Father hath given me, shall
I not drink it?
True to his own instincts and characteristics, Peter is for fight,
with deadly weapons, and to the death — for, judging from the
aim of this blow, he intended it to be more serious than it was. 
Did this quick resort to his sword come of his still cherished no
tions of a temporal kingdom, to be founded in force and sustained
by arms ? Whether so or not, it is plain that his Master's rebuke
staggered, not to say stunned him, and that his soul gravitated
suddenly from the extreme of rash boldness to pusillanimous
timidity ; that non-reaiatance. did not come easy to him ; and fur
thermore, that he became fearful that he had exposed himself to
vengeance and had every thing to fear from being known as one
of the disciples of Jesus. So one mis-step begat more.  Thia
servant's name, omitted by each of the other evangelists, appears
-in John. The omission at the early date of the first three may
have been prudent; the insertion at the late date of John's gospel
was doubtless safe enough, and served to give an air of life-like
ness to his history.  All the goapel historians speak of this
sword-blow of Peter, as falling upon a servant of the high priest
and cutting off his right ear. Luke only haa told us that Jesus
said — " Suffer ye thus far ; " then touched his ear and healed
him.  How Jesus expostulated with Peter is given most fully
by Matthew (26 : 52-54) : " Put up again thy sword into his
place; for all they that take the sword shall perish with the
sword. Thinkest thou that I can not now pray to my Father
and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of an
gels ? But how then shall the Scriptures be fulfilled, that thus it
must be?"
12. Then the band and the captain and officers of the
Jews took Jesus, and bound him,
13. And led him away to Annas first; for he was father

GOSPEL OF JOHN.-CHAP. XVIIL 269
in-law to Caiaphas, which was the high priest that same
year. 14. Now Caiaphas was he, which gave counsel to the Jews,
that it was expedient that one man should die for the people.
In giving the details of this trial, John only has spoken of
the preliminary examination as being before Annas. The point
of transition from Annas to Caiaphas as preaiding officer, if in
deed it waa made distinctly in fact, ia not clearly put in the
inspired histories. Matthew seema to say that Jesus was taken
at once aud at first before Caiaphas ; next and last, before Pilate.
!Mark omits the name of the Jewish presiding officer, simply calling
him " the High Priest." Luke also omits names; passes over the
night session with no details of "the examination ; but notices dis
tinctly the early morning session of tho whole Sanhedrim.
Whether the scenes recorded by John (vs. 19-24) were before An
nas or before Caiaphas, or before both sitting on the same bench,
seems to be left in doubt. If before Annas only, then John omits
what transpired before Caiaphas during the night session.  This
partition of responsibility between Annas and Caiaphas is of no
special importance.  John is careful to identify Annas as the
same who had previously advised the murder of Jesus (11 : 49, 50).
Judas has done his part and got his money. Shall we follow
him a moment to his end?  John drops hia story here. From
others we learn that when he saw Jesus condemned " he repented
himaelf" (not the word used for gospel repentance); brought
again the thirty pieces of silver to the priests and elders (whioh
after the manner of ill-gotten gain was " eating hia fleah as it had
been fire," James 5 : 3) saying — " I have sinned in that I have
betrayed the innocent blood." To whioh, with the coldest sort
of comfort, they replied — "What is that to us? See thou to
that." All they cared for was their victim. What if he were
innocent ? They knew that before.  If you have done a wicked
thing, that is your concern, not ours! Alas! Judas scarcely
needed any one to tell him it was his concern. He not only knew
this but felt it.  This accursed money; — his hand could hold it
no longer ; he thrust it down upon the pavement of the temple ;
rushed away; sought some elevated point and hung hims.elf; — to
whioh Luke adds (Acts 1 ; 18) that, " falling headlong, he burst
asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out." — A yet
briefer record testifies what became of his immortal part: — " Ju
das by transgresaion fell that he might go io his own place." 
The record in whole supplies two great moral lessons ; one upon
the innocence of Jeaua ; the other upon the wages of sin.
15. And Simon Peter followed Jesus, and so did another
disciple : that disciple was known unto the high priest, and
went in with Jesus into the palace of the high priest.
16. But Peter stood at the door without. Then went out

270 GOSPEL OF JOHN.-CHAP. XVIIL
that other disciple, which was known unto the high priest,
and spake unto her that kept the door, and brought in Peter.
17. Then saith the damsel that kept the door unto Peter,
Art not thou also one of this man's disciples? He saith, I
am not.
18. And the servants and officers stood there, who had
made a fire of coals, for it was cold ; and they warmed them
selves : and Peter stood with them, and warmed himself.
These are the first erring steps of Peter. He followed Jesus —
but " afar off" — to see what might befall him. So did another
disciple whom the writer forbears to name. We may call him —
the writer himself — this being his way of speaking of himself
It happened that John was known to the high priest, and so was
permitted to enter the court-room. Peter not being recognized
and fearing what might happen to himself, stopped outside the
door till John brought him in. It seems to have been a casual
remark of the door-maid, having no purposed bearing upon Pe
ter's safety — "Art thou not also ' (as well as John) " one of this
man's disciples?" To which he replied — "I am not." Our au
thor locates this as his first denial of his Lord.  Peter did not
think it prudent to leave abruptly ; it might excite more suspicion ;
and moreover he had not yet seen the end ; so he throws himself
among the servants around the fire — apparently as if one of them,
while the trial of his Lord went on.
19. The high priest then asked Jesus of his disciples, and
of his doctrine.
20. Jesus answered hira, I spake openly to the world ; I
ever taught in the synagogiie, and in the teraple, whither
the Jews always resort; and in secret have I said nothing.
21. Why askest thou me? ask them which heard me,
what I have said unto them : behold, they know what I
said. 22. And when he had thus spoken, one of the officers
which stood by struck Jesus with the palm of his hand, say
ing, Answerest thou the high priest so ?
23. Jesus answered him. If I have spoken evil, boar wit
ness of the evil : but if well, why smitest-thou rae?
24. Now Annas had sent hira bound unto Caiaphas the
high priest.
From this account of the proceedings before the' high priest, it
is clear that the court was itself the accusing party; that tlie
judge had no definite charge to make, but was laboring to find
one. .The question what it should be was an after consideration;
the question whether it were just or not — was no consideration
at all.  So they began with leading questions : — Why have you

GOSPEL OF JOHN.-CHAP. XVIU. 271
been gathering disciples ? And ivhat have you taught them ? 
With profoundest sagacity Jesus replied : — I have taught in pub
lic only — in your own synagogues and in your temple. Ask the
people what I have taught; they know: "In secret have I s.aid
nothing." My gospel is for all the world; I teach nothing which
I fear to have all the world aud this court itaelf know perfectly.
 Matthew and Mark relate more fully the history of this ex
amination, showing how earnestly and long they sought false wit
ness against Jesus, but found none ; how they labored to convict
him of threatening to destroy their temple, but no two witnesses
concurred to the same point. At length the high priest adjured
him — put him under the sacred oath — to answer whether he
were " the Christ, the Son of God." He could not remain ret
icent; this solemn adjuration before the high court of Israel
made it his duty to anawer, and the point itaelf, it had been the
great aim and labor of his public miniatry to affirm and set forth.
He therefore solemnly reaffirmed it here — "I am." To admonish
them once more of their infinite peril, he subjoins — " Hereafter
ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power
and coming in the clouds of heaven."  The High Priest ex
pressed his horror ; declared it blasphemy ; and called for the de
cision ofthe council. They all said, "He is guilty of death." 
Thus before the highest Jewish tribunal, Jesus stands convicted
of blasphemy and is therefore adjudged worthy to die. But the
power to take life judicially had passed from their hands to the
Romans. Hence they must needs take the case before Pilate.
25. And Siraon Peter stood and warmed hiraself. They
said therefore unto him. Art not thou also one of his dis
ciples ? He denied it, and said, I am not.
26. One of the servants of the high priest, being lus
kinsman whose ear Peter cut off, saith, Did not I see thee
in the garden with him?
27. Peter then denied again ; and immediately the cock
crew. These verses conclude John's record of Peter's fall. The sec
ond denial was iu reply to a question put to him by those who
stood with him around the fire ; the thh-d, to a queation by a kins
man of that servant of the high priest whose ear Peter had cut
off. This latter question would naturally suggest to Peter tbe
thought of personal danger, and so become a special temptation to
deny his Lord.  Close upon this third denial the cock crew.
Supplementing this record from the other evangelists, we learn
that the more definite form of Christ's prediction waa — " Before
the cock crow twice, thou wilt deny me thrice;" that there waa
a. firat and second crowing of the co6k — the flrst apparently un
noticed by Peter; but that the second suggested -to him this
solemn forewarning from his Master; that Peter "denied with an
oath," or as reported by Matthew and by Mark — "began to curse

272

GOSPEL OF JOHN.-CHAP. XVIII.

and to swear, saying, I know not this man of whom ye speak ;" that
Peter's provincial tongue betrayed hia Galilean origin; that im
mediately upon the second cock-crowing, "the Lord turned and
looked upon Peter," and that then Peter remembered those words
of warning; suddenly "went out and wept bitterly," or according
to Mark — "When he thought thereon, he wept."  ^It seems re
markable that John ahould omit this weeping and give no hint
of_ Peter's repentance. Must we not suppose that he made up
this record as supplementary, so that he might omit very impor
tant facta becauae they were fully recorded already ?  It de
serves notice that Mark, who is supposed to have written under
the supervision of Peter himself, details the case more fully than
any other gospel historian, and gives its darkest features. He
gives in its full strength the cursing and swearing, but on the
side of penitence says only " he wept;" while Matthew and Luke
have it-— "wept bitterly." Staunch honesty, real contrition and
humility, make his statement of the offense very strong, but put
no special emphasis upon the tokens of penitent grief.
28. Then led they Jesus from Caiaphas unto the hall of
judgment : and it was early ; and they themselves went not
into the judgment hall, lest they should be defiled ; but that
they might eat the passover.
This "hall of judgment" was the Roman tribunal, Pilate being
at this time the Roman Procurator, and consequently the judge.
The High Priest and his Council carry the case before Pilate,
not of choice but of necessity — as their only means to take his
life judicially.  Notice how sanctimoniousness and crime con
sort together in the same bosoms — the spirit of murder firing
their hearts, yet afraid to defile their hallowed garments or sou
their holy feet by going into Pilate's judgment hall, inasmuch as
they were soon to eat the holy Pasaover I * A ceremonial religion
naturally divorces itself from sound morality — ceremonies super
seding both love to God and love to man. Hence in the case of
men under the influence of such religious notions, no amount of
depravity or crime ought to surprise us.
The words, " That they might eat the Passover," open a ques
tion in regard to the time when our Lord and his disciples on the
one hand, and the scribes and Pharisees on the other, ate the
Passover. It seems clear that Jesus and his eleven had already
eaten their Paschal lamb f — i. e. on the evening preceding thia
¦•¦¦ Jewish authoritiea on defilement inform us that going into the
house of a Gentile made a Jew unclean for one day.
t The testimony of Matthew (26 : 17-20) ; of Mark (14 1 12-18) ;
and of Luke (22: 7-15), that Jesus and his disciples did eat the real
Passover seems to be aa clear and atrong as can be framed in human
language. Thus Matthew; — "Now the first day of the feaat of un
leavened bread, the diaciplea came to Jesus, saying, 'Where wilt thou

GOSPEL OF JOHN.-CHAP. XVIIL 273
hearing before Pilate. How then are we to explain it that these
priests anticipate their Passover as yet future — being afraid of
such defilement as might preclude them?
It does not fall within the plan of this work to give the his
tory of the various controversies which have arisen over points
of this nature. Let it suffice here to say that the solution most
satisfactory to me rests upon a distinction between the eating of
the Paschal lamb on the first evening of the Passover week, and
the festival of the week which opened fully on the day following
and continued through the seven days. This distinction being
recognized and applied in this case, we may hold, in harmony
with all the statements, that our Lord and his disciples ate the
Paschal lamb on the evening preceding his arrest; that these
priests and men of the Great Council, for aught we know, may
have had their Paschal lamb at the same time (unless they neg
lected it to carry out this scheme of arrest) ; but that they had
the great festival yet in prospect. Possibly they cared more for
the festival than for the Paschal lamb itself with its bitter herbs.
29. Pilate then went out unto them, and said, What accu
sation bring ye against this man ?
30. They answered and said unto him, If he were not a
malefactor, we would not have delivered him up unto thee.
As they must not go in, Pilate comes out to them to inquire
of what crime they accuse the prisoner. It was a hard question
for them to answer the Roman Procurator. Their council had
condemned him for blasphemy ; but such blasphemy was no crime
before Roman law. What ahould they do? First, they respect
fully suggest that Pilate might take their judicial action upon
trust — with so much respect for their justice and good seuae as
to believe that they would not deliver a man up to him for the
sentence of death unless he were a bad -man — a real bad-doer.
If Pilate would only be so very kind as to make himself their
tool and order a man to be crucified upon their sentence ag-ainst
that we prepare for thee to eat the Passover? " ..." I will keep
the Passover at thy house." "They made ready the Passover, and
when even was come, Jesus sat down with the twelve."  Mark
gives his testimony with no less strength : " The disciples made
ready the Passover ;"^" In the evening he cometh with the twelve,
and as they sat and did eat" — the exjposure of Judas occurred, etc.
 Luke is no less positive ; " Then came the day of unleavened
bread when the Passover must be killed;" "They made ready the
Passover;" " When the hour was come he sat down and the twelve
apostles with him ; and he said — "With desire have I desired to eat
tliis Passover with you before I suffer."  Such testimonies can not
be overruled without impugning the historic veracity of these three
evangelists. This ia one of tlie vital points in the discussion. If
the witnesses .are reliable the teatimony is decisive.

274 GOSPEL OF JOHN.-CHAP. XVIIL
him as a malefactor, the case might be disposed of without trouble
or delay.
31. Then said Pilate unto them, Take ye hira, and judge
him according to your law. The Jews therefore said unto
hira, It is not lawful for us to put any man to death :
32. That the saying of Jesus might be fulfilled, which he
spake, signifying what death he should die.
Pilate does not fall into this trap so readily as they had hoped.
But he says — Take him; judge him by your own law; and then
execute your sentence by inflicting such penalties as lie within
your powers.  Pilate seema to asaume that the crime could not
be one that deserved death, and therefore that some penalty fall
ing within their authority would be amply sufficient for the ends
of justice.
They reply — That will by no means answer our purpose. We
must have his life ; and it is not lawful for us to put any man to
death.  Jeaus had spoken of his death as a being " lifted up " —
i. e. on the cross (Johu 12 ; 32, and 8 : 28, and 3 : 14) ; and death
by crucifixion implied an execution by Roman hands — this being
their method of capital punishment. The Jewish method (while
they had the power) waa stoning. Jeaus foreknew that hia death
must be by Roman hands. The historian apprises us how the
course of events was shaped to this result.
33. Then Pilate entered into the judgment hall again, and
called Jesus, and said unto him, Art thou the King of the
Jews ?'
34. Jesus answered him, Sayest thou this thing of thyself,
or did others tell it thee of me ?
John does not show how Pilate was led to put this question to
Jesus. Luke remarks — " They began to accuse him, saying— We
found this fellow perverting the nation and forbidding to give
tribute to Csesar, saying that he himself is Christ a king ' (23 ; 2).
John, perhapa, opens the case at an earlier stage, while it yet re
mained doubtful to Jesus how Pilate waa induced to put his main
queation. Jeaus therefore calls for Pilate's information: — "Did
this question spring up in thy mind spontaneously ; , or did others
tell thee ?"  Before Jesus should answer that question, it was
" at least prudent to ascertain,what Pilate meant by it ; what he
had heard, if any thing ; and what hia views of the nature of the
charge might be.
It was to the credit of Pilate's sagacity and good sense'that the
clamors of the accusing Jews as given by Luke made but little
impression on hia mind. Very probably he saw that those
charges must be false — as they were. The central point — that
Jesus forbade tribute-paying to Cassar — was totally false — the
very reverse of the truth ; and sufficed to discolor whatever else

GOSPEL OF JOHN.-CHAP. XVIIL 275
in their words as reported to us had any semblance of truth —
e. g. that .lesus claimed to be a king. The main charge — that of
setting up a worldly kingdom in rebellion against the Roman
power — was worse than groundless, for it imputed to Jesus those
worldly notions of empire — so rife among the whole Jewish peo
ple, including these very accusers — which notions it had been the
labor of his life to oppose, and the great sorrow of his life that
he waa able to oppose to so little purpose. Probably Pilate saw
the animus of this accusation, and knew very well that no such
sedition as they charged could have existed without his knowl
edge, or would have disturbed these restless, seditious Jews, if it
had been never so serious. He knew they were ready enough to
throw off the Roman yoke if only some leader powerful enough
might appear, to be their head. Hence he saw that they -were
pushing this prosecution "for envy."
35. Pilate answered, Am I a Jew ? Thine own nation
and the chief priests have delivered thee unto me : what
hast thou done ?
36. Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world : if
my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants
fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews : but now
is my kingdom not from hence.
"Am I a Jew?" seems a little sharp — as if his equanimity or
his notions of personal dignity were slightly disturbed by this
plain question from the prisoner.  The crime charged (he seems
to imply) must pertain to the Jewish religion. Thou shouldest
not expect me to be versed in those matters. Please not take me
for a Jew ; I am a Roman. Thine own nation have brought thee
before me under the charge of sedition ; it is my business to put
the question — What hast thou done?  To this Jesus answers
squarely ; " My kingdom ia not of thia world." It differs totally
from the kingdoms of earth. It claims no civil jurisdiction ;
exacts no tribute; forbids no proper allegiance to kingdoms
which are of this world ; resorts never to force of arms. My
servanta, you must have known, were not allowed to fight to
shield me from arrest. My kingdom comes not of human power;
was never won by the sword ; has no earthly origin.  So far
the reply of Jesus is substantially negative — saying what his
kingdom M not. This sufficed to rebut the charge of treason.
37. Pilate therefore said unto him. Art thou a king then?
Jesus answered. Thou sayest that I ara a king. To this end
was I born, and for this cause carae I into the world, that I
should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of
the truth heareth my voice.
Thy words (Pilate seems to say) imply, however, that thou art
a king: how is this? Art thou really a king ? If so, what sort

276 GOSPEL OF JOHN.-CHAP. XVIIL
of a king?  .lesus meets this question also with most entire
frankness. It is as thou sayest ; 1 am a king. For it should be
noticed that the words — -"'rhou sayest that I am" — are equiva
lent to — ^I am as thou sayest : it is as thou hast said.  1 was
born a king ; 1 came into the world to reign as king, or what
amounts to the same thing — " that I should bear witness unto the
truth." For my kingdom is an empire of truth. " Every one
that is of the truth "- — whose heart receives and lovea the truth —
hears my voice and is one of my subjects — is a member of my
kingdom. Thus it will be seen, Jesus does not object to the
words used in the charge brought against him, but rests his de
fense upon his definition of their true meaning. In the sense in
which he is a king, his claim to be one is no crime.^  He came
from heaven to earth to bring to men messages of truth ; to reveal
great truths respecting God and man; God's rightful claims;
man's rebellion against those claims; the law God has enjoined;
the guilt and condemnation of the race .as sinners; the redemp
tion provided through his Son, aud the offer of free pardon to the
penitent and believing ; — such were the vital points in this great
realm of truth of which Jesus is king. To receive and obey thia
truth is to render the homage and service due under this king
dom. Over all such obedient, loving hearts, Jesus reigns. This
aud such is his kingdom.
38. Pilate saith unto him, What is truth ? And when he
had said this, he went out again unto the Jews, and saith
unto them, I find in him no fault at all.
39. But ye have a custom, that I should release unto you
one at the passover: will ye therefore that I release unto
you the King of the Jevi's ?
40. Then cried they all again, saying. Not this man, but
Barabbas. Now Barabbas was a robber.
Pilate said, " What is truth ? " with a slight emphasis on " is,"
signifying, not that he never heard that word before; not that he
had no idea of truth as contrasted with falsehood; but intending
to ask — What precisely dost ihou mean by "truth"? What is
truth as the word cometh from thy lips ? 'What kind of truth ia
that to which thou bearest witness, and which maketh thee_ a
king ?  Then suddenly checking himself as if,, this rising in
quiry might lead where he choae not to go — perhapa recoiling
from the subject as one likely to come too closely home to his
own ungodly soul — or arresting the inquiry as being aside from
his official business, " he gave no opportunity^ for the Great
Teacher to answer his question, but went out again to the waiting
Jews to say—" I find in this man no fault at all." _ The charge
of sedition which ye bring against him must be entirely ground
less. He may have some peculiar religious notions ; and perhaps
lie may have come down from heaven as he says ; — I dare not — ¦
can not — condemn him to death. But (he adds) let me suggest a

GOSPEL OF JOHN.-CHAP. XIX. 277
plan which will relieve both you and myaelf, viz. that according
to your cuatom of having one prisoner released at this festival,
ye consent that I release this Jesus — the king of the Jews. 
Nothing could be more distasteful to the Jews ; any thing else
-would please them better; ail with one voice cry aloud — "Not
this man, but Barabbas."  John remarks that this " Barabbas
was a robber;" Mark, more fully, that he "lay bound with
others who had made insurrection with him, and had committed
murder in the insurrection" (15; 7) — in which points Luke con
curs. Matthew and Mark inform ua that " the chief prieats and
elders persuaded the multitudes to ask Barabbas and to destroy
Jeaus." So Pilate is again frustrated in his endeavor to satisfy
at once his own convictions of right, and the demands of those
infuriated, prejudiced, persistent Jewa.

CHAPTER XIX.
The author ooncludea his narrative of the trial of Jesus before
Pilate (va. 1-16); speaks of the crucifixion (vs. 17, 18); of the
title put by Pilate upon the cross (vs. 19-22) ; of the diapoaal of
his raiment (vs. 23, 24) ; relates how Jesus committed his mother
to John (vs. 25-27) ; the final death-scene (28-30) ; the body taken
from the cross and pierced (31-37) ; then finally embalmed and
placed in its sepulcher (38-42).
1. Then Pilate therefore took Jesus, and scourged him.
2. And the soldiers platted a crown of thorns, and put it
on his head, and they put on him a purple robe,
3. And said, Hail, King of the Jews! and they smote hira
with their hands.
This scourging and these insults were concessions by Pilate to
tbe malice of the Jews, made probably in the hope that they
would be satisfied with these inflictions and would cease to de
mand hia life. The effect on them waa the very opposite ; they
were the more sure of their power and of Pilate's weakness. It
was Pilate's capital mistake ; he lacked the courage to stand up
to his moral convictions. Perhaps he had not fully learned be
fore that bad men, infuriatd with pasaion, are not to be managed
by concession.  Note that the whole course of the tri.al before
Pilate puts the charge of sedition in the foreground. We hear
little of the charge of blasphemy, but Jesus is treated as one who
pretended, claimed, to be the King of the Jews._ Hence the form
of these insults.  The better textual authorities begin v. 3 —
"And they came to him and said," etc. — making more emphatic

278 GOSPEL OF JOHN.-CHAP. XIX.
the formal, perhaps insulting, approach, in the way of mock
homage. 4. Pilate therefore went forth again, and saith unto
them, Behold, I bring him forth to you, that ye may know
that I find no fault in him.
5. Then came Jesus forth, v/earing the crown of thorns,
and the purple robe. And PU-ate saith unto thera, Behold
the man!
Again Pilate comes out from his court-room to report to the
Jews — No proof against the accused ; I find no fault in him. —
How much and what Pilate meant in his words— " Behold the
man!" is not entirely clear. -Perhaps this: You see him humil
iated and insulted :— Will not this suffice you ? You see also that
he is powerless for any harm in the line of sedition — nothing
but the pageant of n king. Why should ye fear mischief from
such a man? Can ye not therefore on the ground of his harm-
lessness consent that I release him and let him go ?
6. When the chief jsriests therefore and officers saw him,
they cried out, saying, Crucify him, crucify him. Pilate
saith unto them. Take ye him, and crucify him : for I find
no fault in him.
7. The Jews answered him, We have alaw, and by our law
he ought to die, because he made himself the Son of God.
"When they saw him", — he having been for a season with
drawn from their view in the Roman court-room, into which it
would defile them to enter. As he came again before their eyes,
they raise yet more fiercely the cry — Crucify him ! To this, Pi
late replies — Take him and crucify him yourselves, if so ye
will — on your own- responsibility — not on mine. I find no fault
in him, and I can not crucify a man whom I believe to be inno
cent of crime. — The Jews seem here to concede at least tacitly,
that the charge of sedition is of no particular account, for they
fall back upon their original charge — blasphemy. " We have a
law, and by the law " (so the best authoritiea, inatead of our
law) " he ought to die." — The reading, " By the law," being ac
cepted, ia stronger, as the reading, " our law," ia weaker — since
this latter makes the law only a Jewish thing. They would fain
claim for this statute the dignity and authority of universal law.
8. When PUate therefore heard that saying, he was the
more afraid ;
9. And went again into the judgment hall, and saith unto
Jesus, Whence art thou? But Jesus gave him no answer.
10. Then saith Pilate unto him, Speakest thou not unto
rae? knowest, thou not that I have power to crucify thee,
and have power to release thee?

GOSPEL OF JOHN.-CHAP. XIX. 279
That Jesus claimed to be the Son of God springs new thoughts
in the mind of Pilate. What — he says to himself — can thia
mean ? There is a strange dignity in his bearing ; a, tone and
air of innocence as well as integrity that I can not understand.
I wish I might be rid of this responsibility; how can I give com
mand for his causeless murder by these maddened Jews ?
Again he resumes his place on hia tribunal to push hia in-
quiriea aa to the origin, the birth, and aonship of his prisoner.
'I'o his surprise and somewdiat to his displeasure, Jesus gave him
no answer. His official dignity waa touched ; — Dost thou not rec
ognize my authority to release thoe or to crucify ?
11. Jesus answered. Thou couldest have no power at all
against rae, except it were given thee from above : therefore
he that delivered me unto thee hath the greater sin.
12. And from thenceforth Pilate sought to release him:
but the Jews cried out, saying. If thou let this man go, thou
art not Cesar's friend: whosoever maketh hiraself a king
speaketh against Cesar.
Abating nought from hia high claim of being the Son of God,
but virtually assuming this sonship more distinctly than ever be
fore in this judicial presence, Jesus intimates to Pilate that his
power would be of no account if God from above had not per
mitted these proceedings for purposes far other than Roman
.fudge, or blinded, maddened Jew, was aware of Judas who be
trayed him to their hand knew better than they could know
whence Jeaua came. His sin in betraying One whom he knew to
be the Son of God was fearfully damning.
These words made a yet deeper impression upon Pilate. From
that point he sought more earnestly to release Jesus — so the lan
guage must imply. But he had begun to make concessions ; the
accusing party push their demands, returning to the attack with
more desperate determination, giving Pilate to understand that it
was at the peril of his place if not of his head, to let this man
go. They knew they could accuse Pilate before Caesar ; he also
knew they could; and this fear at last brought him to their terms.
Roman Procurators in the provinces held office ou a moat precari
ous tenure. The history of those times recites numerous cases
of their arraignment before the powers at Rome.
13. When Pilate therefore heard that saying, he brought
Jesus forth, and sat down in the judgraent seat in a place
that is called the Pavement, but in the Hebrew, Gabbatha.
14. And it was the preparation of the passover, and about
the sixth hour: and he saith unto the Jews, Behold your
King! 15. But they cried out. Away with him, away with him,
crucify him. Pilate saith unto thera. Shall I crucify your

280 GOSPEL OF JOHN.-CHAP. XIX.
King? The chief priests answered, We have no king but
Cesar. 16. Then delivered he him therefore unto them to be cru
cified. And they took Jesus, and led him away
That last remark touched Pilate in his most susceptible point.
Ills sense of justice gave way before his personal fear of losing
his place through the ill-will of these leading Jews. To bring Jesus
forth from his own court-room into the open area called " the
Pavement" where his accusers were standing indicated that he
had at length fully yielded to their demands. Now his procla
mation to them is — " Behold your King ! " There he stands, sur
rendered to your Will ; what do you say ? — Again, they raise their
shout. Away with him ; Crucify him ! Shall I crucify your king ?
aaid Pilate. " We have no king," said they, " but Caesar" — very
profuse in their professions of loyalty to Caes.ar. Just then it was
more adroit than honest to make these flaming professions. They
sought to impress Pilate, not more with the conviction of their
own, loyalty than of their influence at Rome, to be wielded against
him if he should refuse to meet their demands. At last he de
livered Jesus to their will to be crucified.
Ere we drop the case of Pilate, let us note certain points made
in the other evangelists only.  Luke relates that Christ's ac
cusers spake of his " stirring up the people, beginning from Gal
ilee : " that thereupon Pilate inquired if he were a Galilean, and
learning that he w-as, aent him to Herod — then in the city, and at
that time tetrarch of Galilee; — glad no doubt to divide if not al
together escape the unwelcome responsibility ofthe case. Herod
had often heard of Jesus ; was curious to see him ; hoped to see
some miracle done by him. Jesus was reticent before him.
Herod so far succumbed to the popular furor aa to allow hia men
of war to aet the priaoner at nought, and cruelly inault and abuse
him; — but sent him back to Pilate as one not convicted of
grime.  To this Matthew adds that in the early morning hour
ofthe trial, Pilate'a wife sent him this message: "Have thou
nothing to do with that just man; for I have suffered many
things this day in a dream because of him." The hand of the
Lord is sometimes traceable in dreams. — This mesaage had weight
with Pilate, heightening his trouble of conscience — not to say,
his superstitious fears ; yet not quite saving him from his great
(jj-ime.  Matthew records the final effort of Pilate to purge him
self from" the responsibility of this judicial murder and to trans
fer it to his accusers : " "When Pilate saw that he could prevail
nothing, but that rather a tumult was made, he took water and
washed his hands before the multitude, saying— I am innocent
of the blood of this just person; see ye"— or more literally, ye
shall see. His meaning seems to be— Assume ye for yourselves
this responsibility. - They so understood it and assumed the re
sponsibility in those memorable, awful words—" His bloo.d bo on

GOSPEL OF JOHN.-CHAP. XIX. 281
ns and on our children ! "  Never were words of imprecation
more fearfully visited upon their authors in the horrors of divine
retribution. Ere those who were children then passed from tho
stage of life, Titus, at the head of the Roman legions, inveated Je
rusalem; laid it utterly desolate ; and buried in its ruins all but the
whole living generation. Particularly it is related by Josephus —
personally cognizant of the facts — that an immense number of
Jews, made prisoners during the siege, were tortured and cruci
fied on the high grounds adjacent to the city walls — crucified iu
such numbers " that there was not room for the crosses to stand
by each other ; and that at last they had not wood enough to
make crosses of."
Of the final earthly doom of Pilate, reliable history gives
some account; doubtful tradition has said much more. It is
well authenticated that the evil he so much dreaded — that of
being arraigned before Cfesar for mal-administration — came upon
him, and cost him his official place (about A. D. 36). "The se
quel" (says EllicotI: — " Life of Christ," p. 316) " is aaid to have
been disgrace and misfortune (Eusebius), and not long afterward,
death by his own hand."
On verse 1 5, two incidental points ariae which involve critical
questions. The first respects " the preparation of the Passover."
Did not Jeaus aud his disciples " prepare " for the Passover on
the day previous to this and eat the Paschal lamb on the even
ing previous ? How then can this be the day of preparation
for the Passover ?  The best explanation seems to me to be
this: that the Greek word for "preparation"-*^ refers here to the
Sabbath rather than to the day before the Passover began. Mark
implies this (15 : 42) : " because it was the preparation, i. e. the
day before the Sabbath;" and John (19; 31) supports this view:
— " Because it was the preparation, that the bodies ahould not
remain upon the croas on the Sabbath day (for that Sabbath
day waa an high day)." Referring it thus to the Sabbath, we
obviate the difficulty. The Paschal lamb was eaten on Thurs
day evening, preparation for this having been made during the
day previous; Friday in the early morning came on the judicial
proceedings ; theu the crucifixion from about 9 A. M. to 3 P. M. ;
then late in the day the requisite preparation for the great Jew
ish Sabbath on Saturday — extra "great" when ita sanctity was
augmented by that of the Passover feast. In this case the day
of preparation for the Sabbath was not the same as the day of
preparation for the Paschal lamb, but was one day later. The
preparation for the Sabbath is specially intended in this passage.
The other point is the date given here — " about the sixth
hour." Was this Roman time, or Jewish? Aa the Romans
(whora modern nations follow) reckoned from midnight, their
system would make the time 6 A. M. A a the Jews reckoned
from the average sunrise, i. e. 6 a. m., their sixth hour would
-•^- TvapacTKevrj.

282 GOSPEL OF JOHN.-CHAP. XIX.
be 12 M. Apart from the exigencies of this passage, the Jew-
iah_ syster^ is the more probable. But so late an hour as 12 m.
is impossible. For the sufferings on the cross were protracted
through six hours, commencing according to Mark (15: 25) at
the Jewish third hour (9 a. m.) and terminating in death at the
ninth hour— 3 p. M. (Mark 15: 33, 37). Moreover, the bodies
remained some time on the cross after Jesus had expired, and
yet were taken down before sunset of that day. The dates by
Mark correspond so entirely with all the recorded circumstances'
and withthe necessities of the case that they must be accepted
as essentially accurate.  It may have been slightly later than
the third hour when the crucifixion commenced ; and John's
statement may be taken aa very general and approximative — i. e.
the time may have been nearer the sixth hour than any other
general division of the day. This explanation does not entirely
remove the difficulty; yet may be the best we can suggest. 
There is some authority for reading in .John " third " instead of
" sixth" hour; but not sufficient to justify this change of text.
.17. And he bearing his cross went forth into a place
called the place of a skull, which is called in the Hebrew
Golgotha :
18. Where they crucified him, and two others with him,
on either side one, and Jesus in the midst.
On the question — By whom was the crosa borne ? the improved
text in John (v. 17) makes it — "He, bearing the cross by him
self" — implying that at least in tho outset he bore the cross
alone. Both Matthew and Mark say they laid hold of one
Simon and compelled him to bear it; while Luke gives (perhaps)
the most exact statement — " On him they laid the cross that he
might bear it after Jesus " — i. e. might bear one end of it, walk
ing beljind .lesus, to relieve him in part of its burden, the whole
being found to be beyond his strength.  The locality of the
crucifixion can not be fixed with certainty. It was outside the
city walls, yet not remote, but near a very considerable thorough-
fVire of travel (v. 20). _ _ .
Death by crucifixion was intended to be a slow, lingering pro
cess, but one of terrible torture. The frame — one post with a
transverae beam crossing it near the upper end — was first laid on
the ground and the prisoner fastened to it by means of a spike
("nail") driven through the palm of each hand into the trans
verae beam along which the arms were stretched ; and by another
driven through the feet into the upright post. It is doubtful
whether each foot waa spiked separately, or whether the same
spike was driven through both. This is a point of no special im
portance. In all other respects the mode is well known. After
the subject had been fastened to his cross, it was raised with him
upon it and fixed in an upright position, where he must hang
upon these spikea till death put an end to his agony.  Under

GOSPEL OF JOHN.-CHAP. XIX. 288
such physical torture the life-forces of our blessed Redeemer
were worn away, till endurance failed him and life became ex
tinct under the exhaustion of his agonies.
Luke, and he only, has given us the very striking scene between
Jesus and the penitent thief
19. And Pilate wrote a title, and put it on the cross.
And the writmg was, JESUS OF NAZARETH THE
KING OF THE JEWS.
20. This title then read many of the Jews ; for the place
where Jesus was crucified was nigh to the city : and it was
written in Hebrew, and Greek, and Latin.
21. Then said the chief priests of the Jews to Pilate,
Write not. The King of the Jews ; but that he said, I am
King of the Jews.
22. Pilate answered. What I have written I have written.
On the part of Pilate, this title may have been a prudential
measure — a public testimony for hia own vindication to the effect
that this man was executed under the charge of sedition, claim
ing to be the King of the Jews, and therefore in arms against
the Roman power.  The emendation suggested by the Jews (v.
21) was not to Pilate's mind. Perhaps his reply tacitly signified
— ^Ye have shown full as much of the spirit of dictation in this
whole matter as I am prepared to bear. If the form in which I
have put it should be a little humiliating to your nation, perhaps
ye have deserved it.
23. Then the soldiers, when they had crucified Jesus, took
his garments, and made four parte, to every soldier a part ;
and also his coat : now the coat was without seam, woven
from the top throughout.
24. They said therefore among themselves. Let us not
rend it, but cast lote for it, whose it shall be : that the
Scripture might be fulfilled, which saith, They parted ray
raiment among them, and for my vesture they did cast lots.
These things therefore the soldiers did.
Four was the number of soldiers assigned for the execution of
this sentence.  The clothing of the sufferer waa by uaage one
of the perquiaites for thia service.  The Scripture referred to
hore as fulfilled is Ps. 22 : 18 : " They part my garments among
them, and cast lots upon my vesture.' Occurring in a Psalm,
the whole of which may most appositely be referred to the Mes
siah, thia is one of the moat minute among all Scripture proph
ecies. No wonder .lohn should take this special notice of its pre
cise fulfillment. These points never had any known fulfillment
in the case of David. No fulfillment meeta their significance ex
cept in those events here narrated. Tho reader is referred to my

284 GOSPEL OF JOHN.-CHAP. XIX.
noteson Ps. 22 for the proof that the entire Psalm refers to the
Messiah, and has had a definite fulfillment throughout in him
and in him only.
25. Now there stood by the cross of Jesus his mother, and
his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Cleophas, and Mary
Magdalene. 26. When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple
standing by, whom he loved, he saith unto his mother.
Woman, behold thy Son !
27. Then saith he to the disciple. Behold thy mother!
And from that hour that disciple took her unto his own
home. Naturally a deep interest gathers about the names and history
of these women. That in this eventful hour, when not one of
the eleven (apparently) save John, was near, while the Great Suf
ferer was passing through his last, most bitter agonies — there
were women whose courage was equal tothe emergency, whose
sympathizing love held them to the scene ; whose hearts yearned
to minister in any way possible for them to his comfort or relief;
and who yet, if nothing else could be done, would still stand near,
waiting, weeping, loving ; — such women as these command our
admiration, and we may wish that we knew their history far bet
ter than we do.
Neither of the gospel historians gives the names of the whole
group, each naming only the more prominent, aud giving these
with some diversity of name. Thus we have — (1) Mary the
mother of Jesus ; — (2) One described as '" Mary the mother of
James and Joses," and also as " the wife of Cleophas ; " (3) Sa
lome, the mother of Zebedee's sons (James and John) ; (4) Mary
Magdalene.  Of their history aa elsewhere developed it is not
in place here to speak. Their presence here and the spirit they
manifested are an honor to woman. We love to do them honor.
There were others, in considerable number, associated with them
in sympathy, in patient attendance, iu devoted affection.  Ap
parently their presence here is alluded to by John for the purpose
of stating another fact of tender interest. As Jeaua saw both his
mother and the disciple he specially loved standing near him and
near to each other, he said to his mother, "Behold thy son; "
and to the beloved disciple, "Behold thy mother." It -was a del
icate, tender way of committing the mother that bare him to the
fostering care of this disciple for whatever yeara of her earthly
pilgrimage might yet remain. From that hour this disciple " took
her" io his own " — as hia own mother, to ahare with him all that
his family home could supply. It was the last tribute of filial
affection on the part of the Great Sufferer, and can be duly ap
preciated only as we think of it as said under the fearful pangs
of his dying agony.

GOSPEL OF JOHN.— CH2VP. XIX. 285
28. After this, Jesus knowing that all things were now ac
complished, that the Scripture might be fulfilled, saith, I
thirst, 29. Now there was set a vessel full of vinegar : and they
filled a sponge with vinegar, and put it upon hyssop, and
put it to his mouth.
30. When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he
said. It is finished : and he bowed his head, and gave up the
ghost. The " all things now accomplished" would seem to be specially
the sufferings he was to endure both as to kind and amount. Je
sus knowing that he had drained this fearful cup to its bottom,
and hence was near his end — -in order to fulfill yet one more
prediction, cried — "I thirst." This is auppoaed to refer to Ps. 69:
21 : " In my thirst they gave me vinegar to drink." Great thirst
ia one of the effects of such extreme suffering. At an earlier
hour according to Matthew (27 ; 34) they had offered him " vine
gar mingled with gall," or as described by Mark (15: 23) "wine
mingled with myrrh ; " but when he tasted he would not drink.
This sour wine, prepared with so-called " gall " or " myrrh " was
intended to be an anesthetic, to deaden the sense of pain — which
seems to have been the reason why Jesus would not drink. He
was there to suffer — not to spare himself any part of the cup
given him of the Father to drink. But after all the prescribed
and predicted sufferings had been endured, it was proper to give
expression to his dreadful thirst, and not improper to taste the
vinegar presented to his lipa. This done, he cried — " It is fin
ished" — the dreadful agony is all borne; the great work is done!
— and died !
At this point it can not be amiss to group together the various
utteriinces of Jesua on the way to his cross and while suspended
upon it, as recorded by the several evangelists, no one of whom
has given them all.
Following the probable order of time, we arrange them thus :
(a) On the way to the crosa, to the women who followed him,
bewailing and lamenting: — "Daughters of Jeruaalem, weep not
for me, but weep for yourselves and for your children," etc. — a
touching testimony to the unselfishness — the deep, matchless com-
p.assion of hia heart; the very benevolence which bore him to the
cross for guilty man. — Recorded by Luke only (23 : 27).
(h) His prayer for bis murderers — " Father, forgive them, for
they know not what they do ; " — most probably uttered while they
were nailing him to his cross. This also comes to us in Luke
only (23 : 34).
(c) What he said to the penitent thief on the crosa by his side
— " To-day shalt thou be with me in Paradise." This, and in
deed the entire account of tho penitent thief, occurs only in Luke
(23 ; 43). 13

286 GOSPEL OF JOHN.-CHAP. XIX.
(d) Next we may place that one wailing cry — which told all
and more than all which the human mind can meaaure — that one
" loud cry of unfathomable woe and uttermost desolation ; " *
• — "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" It is vain
for us to attempt the depth of meaning or of woe that lies in
these words. It seems worse than puerile to say they were taken
up from the lips of David (Ps. 22), and therefore may have
been used by way of accommodation, not signifying really any
such sense of being forsaken of God as the words K-om David's
lips might appropriately express. In truth, that entire Psalm is
IVfessianio, speaking prophetically of him and for him ; and these
first words of it give ua ita key-note — the ruling thought and senae
of the Great Sufferer.  These words occur only in Matthew aud
Mark. Next in order we may locate the three expressions recorded by
John only ; viz :
(e) The words said to his mother and to the beloved disciple.
(./¦) The exclamation, " I thirst."
{g) And that other, " It is finished ! "
{h) Last of all the words given by Luke only (23: 46):
"Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit."
Such, so far as the various records report them, were the utter
ances which fell from the Savior's lips during tbe scenes of his
last sufferings — the only manifeatationa which have come down to
ua of his thought, his sympathies, his love, and spirit of forgive
ness, of his relation to the Father, and of his immense agony, in
that dark and dying hour. As last worda of dear dying friends
are treasured in our deepest heart, so let theae testimonisils of our
greatest, most suffering Friend, lie embalmed in our souls, cher
ished in most tender remembrance— till at length we see him
face to face.
Of scenes external to the suffering Jeaus, Matthew has given the
most full account : — that from the sixth hour there was darkness
over all the land until the ninth hour ; that the great vail of the
temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom (signifying
that the way into the most ' Holy Place was open to all, and no
longer to the High Priest only) ; that "the earth did quake, and
rocks were rent, and graves were opened, and many bodies of
saints which slept arose, came out of their graves, after his resur
rection; went into the holy city and appeared unto many." —
This last named fact, stated by Matthew only, has met with va
rious reception. 1 know of no reason- to discredit the record.
The many questions which may be asked and can not be an
swered — who they were ; how many ; what became of them ; why
they were raised at all; why these rather than others; why so
many and neither more nor less; what good came of it, etc., etc.,
may be wisely suffered to await a fuller revelation before we at
tempt to answer them. All we need aay is that in connection
¦s Ellicott, p. 321.

GOSPEL OF JOHN.-CHAP. XIX. 287
with a scene so stupendous as the death of the Son of God, the
Prince of life — of Him who is the Resurrection and the Life — it is
by no means incongruous, unnatural, preposterous — nothing ofthe
kind — that many bodies of sleeping saints should arise from their
graves as here said. It was of course au exceptional case : the
whole great transaction of the crucifixion and death of Jesus was
exceptional. The deep darkness that veiled the heavens and covered the fiice
of the land for three houra was also exceptional ; certainly super
natural, and not the result of auy eclipse. The moon being then
at its full, an eclipse of the sun waa a natural impossibility. But
this hiding of his glorious face was signally significant when
the Great Maker of the heavens and earth, in his incarnate re
lations to our human nature, was dying in mortal agony I Man
in his guilt and blindness might be reviling, insulting, torturing ; —
but God from his lofty throne bade his sun in the heavens to hold
ita light and the forces of our inner earth to give their signals of
convulsion and horror!
31. The Jews therefore, because it was the preparation,
that the bodies should not remain upon the cross on the sab
bath day, (for that sabbath day was a high day,) besought
Pilate that their legs might be broken, and that they might
be taken away.
32. Then came the soldiers, and brake the legs of the
first, and of the other which was crucified with hira.
33. But when they came to Jesus, and saw that he was
dead already, they brake not his legs :
34. But one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side,
and forthwith came there out blood and water.
35. And he that saw it bare record, and his record is true ;
and he knoweth that he saith true, that ye might believe.
36. For these things were done, that the Scripture should
be fulfilled, A bone of him shall not be broken.
37. And again another Scripture saith. They shall look
on him whom they pierced.
This entire paragraph ia peculiar to John.  Upon the word
" preparation," see note on v. 14.  The Mosaic law was very
specific against allowing a dead or suspended body to remain over
night upon the tree. (See Deut. 21 : 22, 23). These Jews seem
to have deemed it doubly important to take the bodies down in
thia case because the following day was the Sabbath, and one of
special sanctity, since it fell within the days of unleavened
bread.  The custom of breaking the legs of those who suffered
crucifixion had for ita object to ascertain or to hasten the event
of death. It seems that neither of the two thieves were found
dead but that Jesus was — indicating that he was in a state of un
usual exhaustion before he was nailed to the cross; or, that death

288 GOSPEL OF JOHN.-CHAP. XIX.
was hastened by mental agonies as well as phyaical.  The
spear piercing his side is supposed to have penetrated the peri
cardium — since this would account most naturally for the dis
charge of both blood and water. This point is important physio
logically inasmuch as it proves most conclusively his actual
death — upon which fact hangs that of a real resurrection from
death. It will be noticed that John certifies very specifically to the
discharge of both blood and water. But whether his estimate
of the importance of this fact turned on ita value as proof of
actual death, or upon its symbolical significance — the water, of
mor.al cleansing ; the blood, of atonement and remission of sin —
is not clear. 'That he made account of this double symbolism
appears in his first epiatle (5 : 6) : " This is he that came by wa
ter and blood; not by water only, but by water and blood." 
In each of these two facts — no bone broken, and his side pierced,
John finds prophecy fulfilled. As to the former, it was forbid
den to break any bone of the Paschal lamb (Ex. 12 : 46). In
Jesus, our Paachal Lamb, this must needs be fulfilled* Tn Ps. 34 ;
20, the same thing is said of the righteous: — " He [God] keepeth
all hia bones; not one of them is broken." But this is a prophecy
as to Chriat only because in his human relations he is one of
God's children, cared for under the universal law.  ^As to the
piercing of his side, see Zech. 12: 10: "They shall look upon
me whom they have pierced" — which occurs in a passage prop
erly regarded as Messianic.
38. And after this Joseph of Arimathea, being a disciple
of Jesus, but secretly for fear of the Jews, besought Pilate
that he might take away the body of Jesus : and Pilate gave
him leave. He came therefore, and took the body of Jesus.
39. And there carae also Nicodemus, (which at the first
came to Jesus by night,) and brought a mixture of myrrh
and aloes, about a hundred pound weight.
40. Then took they the body of Jesus, and wound it in
linen clothes with the spices, as the manner of the Jews is
to bury.
41. Now in the place where he was crucified there was a
garden ; and in the garden a new sepulcher, wherein was
never man yet laid.
42. There laid they Jesus therefore because of the Jews'
preparation day ; for the sepulcher was nigh at hand.
It happened that the body of Jesus was honorably cared for
by two distinguished Jews — Joseph and Nicodemus — each of
them a member of the Sanhedrim; each a disciple of Jesus,
though not publicly known as such. JSach of the four evangelists
speaks in high terms of Joseph; Matthew saying of him — "A
rich man of Arimathoa who himself was Jesus' disciple ; " Mark

GOSPEL OF JOHN.— CHAP. XX. 289
adding to this — " An honorable counaelor who alao waited for
the kingdom of God, went in boldly unto Pilate and craved
the body of Jesus; " while Luke says of him — " A counselor, a
good and just man (the same had not consented to the counsel
and deed of them" — i. e. of his fellow-members of the Great
Council) ; " who also himself waited for the kingdom of God."
John, as we see, calls him " a disciple of Jesus, but secretly for
fear of the Jews." — The part borne by Nicodemus attracted less
attention, no one of the gospel historians save John, having al
luded to him or to his agencyat all. He seems to have borne no
part iu obtaining the body from Pilate, but did contribute, grate
fully we may hope, to furnish the necessary materials (one hun
dred pounds weight of myrrh and aloes) for laying out the body
for Interment. Remarkably, all these provisions for the interment,
i. e. entombing of the body, were of the first class ; a very large
amount, we must suppose, of " myrrh and aloes ; " " spices " also,
applied in the folds of the linen cloth that enwrapped the body ;
a new sepulcher, hewn out of rock ; itaelf in a garden of rural
beauty. It js remarkable that up to tbe point of death, all the
surroundings of the Crucified One were savage, cruel, not only
disrespectful, but positively and intentionally insulting — fit only
for the basest and meanest of men : — but all suddenly, from the
point of actual death the scene changes utterly ; every point in
his surroundings betokens dignity and honor. The same sudden
transition appears in that celebrated prophecy (Isa. 53), where
we see him, up to the period of death, " despised and rejected of
men" — but thence and onward " with the rich in his death," and
passing thence to the highest honors before God ; — " shall see of
the travail of his soul aud be satisfied; " "the pleasure of the
Lord shall prosper in his hand," etc., etc. That was indeed a point
of wonderful, sublimely glorious transition, where he could say
of all the pain and all the shame — " It is finished ; " from whicli
onward there remained only glory and honor, dominion and
power, praise and homage, through all the eternal ages.

CHAPTER XX.
The Besurredion and its Incidents.
It remains now to give somewhat fully the circumstances at
tending and confirming the resurrection of the Lord.  Mary
Magdalene, Peter and John, find the sepulcher empty, the body
of their Lord not there (vs. 1-10); Mary lingers at the sacred
spot, weeping, and is greeted with tho first appearance of the

290 GOSPEL OF JOHN.-CHAP. XX.
risen Jesus (11-18); the same day at evening Jeaua appeara sud
denly in the midst of the assembled disciples, all being present
save Thomas (19-23) ; Thomas is very skeptical and demands
sensible proofs (24, 25) ; the next Lord's day evening Jesus ap
peara similarly again and satisfies Thomas (20-29). The author
states his object iu this book (30, 31.)
1. The first day of the -sveek came Mary Magdalene early,
when it was yet dark, unto the sepulcher, and seeth the
stone taken away from the sepulcher.
In this first visit made by the faithful ones to the sepulcher, Mary
Magdalene waa undoubtedly moat prominent. Dear woman : — the
love and gratitude of her heart to the Crucifled One moved her to
her utmost endeavors to minister to his mortal remains ; brought
her to the sepulcher after the Sabbath was passed ere yet it was day,
and held her there watching, weeping, just in the state of mind
to hear the first whispers of hia voice and to be greeted with the
first vision of his presence.  Remarkably, while John names
the Mary, of Magdala only, Matthew says the other Mary came
also to see the sepulcher : Mark adds to the list the name of
Salome, and moreover tells us they came, "having bought sweet
spices that they might anoint him.' The hasty service performed
on the evening of Friday was imperfect, unfinished. They came
again to complete this service of affection as soon as possible
after the Sabbath is passed and the light of another day returns.
— ^ — In respect to this group of sisters, Luke names but three — ¦
compared with Mark, giving the name Joanna in place of Salome,
and adds, " certain others with them." The precise number re-
inaina therefore indefinite. Obviously Mary Magdalene was the
leading spirit.-  They found the stone rolled away from the sep
ulcher, which rolling away Matthew attributes to an angel from
heaven, while Mark records the anxious solicitude of the women
lest this great stone should baffle their purpose of reaching and
anointing the body. This angel gave them their first hint that
their Lord had really risen.
2. Then she runneth, and cometh to Simon Peter, and to
the other disciple, whom Jesus loved, and saith unto them,
They have taken away the Lord out of the sepulcher, and
we know not where they have laid him.
3. Peter therefore went forth, and that other disciple, and
came to the sepulcher.
4. So they ran both together : and the other disciple did
outrun Peter, and came first to the sepulcher.
5. And he stooping down, and looking in, saw the linen
clothes lying ; yet went he not in.
6. Then coraeth Simon Peter following him, and went
into the sepulcher, and seeth the linen clothes lie.

GOSPEL OF JOHN.-CHAP. XX. 291
7. And the napkin, that was about his head, not lying
with the linen clothes, but wrapped together in a place by
itself 8. Then went in also that other disciple, Avhich came first
to the sepulcher, and he saw, and believed.
9. For as yet they knew not the Scripture, that he must
rise again frora the dead.
10. Then the disciples went away again unto their own
home. Simon Peter is once more back among the faithful ones — a live
man in the group — to whom IMary Magdalene makes report as
to one who will be prompt to act in the emergency. To this Peter
and to John she tells her thrilling story in those ever-memorable
¦words: "They have taken away the Lord out of the sepulcher,
and we know not where they have laid him." Who the parties
were — indicated by her word "they," she did not know: all waa
yet iu darkueaa — only she had found the sepulcher empty. Ah,
she did not know what they had done with thoae hallowed re
mains !  The two disciples ran for the sepulcher : our author
remembers the minutest circumstances of the case ; how he out
ran his brother and reached the sepulcher first, but for some un
explained reason did not go in; how Peter came up soon, and,
true to his daring, impulsive nature, dashed in; how he saw the
linen which had enfolded the body carefully laid aside aud the
napkin which had swathed the head deposited with the utmost
order by itself These minute particulars are by no means value
less; for they testify to the writer's accurate remembrance of
these points, and (what is of more value) they utterly disprove
the allegation that aomebody came by night] and stole away the
body while the guard slept. Body-snatching ia not wont to be
done in this quiet, delicate manner, leaving every thing arranged
in perfect order ; and of course, rifling a sepulcher for the
sake of the valuables there would leave none of them behind.
 These disciples now saw with their own eyes and "be
lieved" — i. e. believed that he must have risen from the dead — ¦
a new idea in their mind, for up to this point they had not under
stood from the Scriptures that he was thus to rise. What Jesus
had said to them of his rising from the dead ou the third day
(Matt. 16: 21, and 17: 22, and 20: 19) they had not well under
stood — at least it had not been lodged in their minds as an event
fully accepted and anticipated.  After these diacoveriea, not
seeing any thing more to be done, they returned home.
11. But Mary stood without at the sepulcher weeping:
and as she wept, she stooped down, and looked into the
sepulcher, 12. And seeth two angels in white sitting, the one at the

292 GOSPEL OF JOHN.-CHAP. XX.
head, and the other at the feet, where the body of Jesus had
lain. 13. And they say unto her. Woman, why weepest thou?
She saith unto -them. Because they have taken away my
Lord, and I know not where they have laid him.
14. And when she had thus said, she turned herself back,
and saw Jesus standing, and knew not that it was Jesus.
15. Jesus saith unto her, AVoman, why weepest thou?
whom seekest thou? She, supposing him to be the gard
ener, saith unto him, Sir, if thou have borne him hence, tell
me where thou hast laid him, and I will take him away.
16. Jesus saith unto her, Mary. She turned herself", and
saith unto him, Kabboni ; which is to say. Master.
17. Jesus saith unto her. Touch rae not; for I am not yet
ascended to my Father : but go to my brethren, and say
unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and
to my God, and your God.
18. Mary Magdalene came and told the disciples that she
had seen the Lord, and tliat he had spoken these things unto
her. Mary's loving heart holds her to the spot. She stands by the
sepulcher weeping. She knows it is empty ; Peter and John had
both reported it so ; but still she lingers, and now, almost uncon
sciously she stoops down and looks in. Lo ! there are two angels
in white sitting one at the head and the other at the feet of the
very place where the body of her Lord had lain. What minis
tries of love and service brought them down from their home
in heaven ? Had they come to attend the risen Jesus ? Was it
their hands that disposed in so orderly a manner both the linen
clothes and the napkin ?  They are present now, in the true
spirit of angelic ministry, to comfort Mary. Just here, something
moved her to turn and look behind — and there stood Jesus ! Her
weeping eyes and agitated spirit failed at first to recognize the
well-known form. At first she did not even recognize that sym
pathizing voice, inquiring why she wept and whom she sought.
Her words in reply, repeated now for the third time, show that
her thoughts are still upon taking away that precious dead body
in order that she and her sisters might complete their ministry
of love with the sweet spices brought and ready.  At first Jesus
accosted her by the term "woman; " but neither this name nor
the tones of his voice secured recognition. Next, he said "Mary."
Oh, how often had she heard that well-remembered voice pro
nouncing her own name and carrying Love's electric impulsea to
her heart. She could not fail to recognize those tones of love.
That, said she in her thought, is my own Lord and Savior, and she
instantly responds — "Rabboni" — meaning not merely "Master,"

GOSPEL OF JOHN.-CHAP. XX. 293
but "My Master." No better word could have been chosen for
thia spontaneous response of her soul.  Why did Jesus say to
hor "Touch me not; " whereas on that very day (according to
Matt. 28 : 9) "the other women early at the sepulcher came
and held him by the feet and worshiped him; " and a few days
later he said to unbelieving Thomas, " Reach hither thy hand
and thrust it into my side ? (v. 27).  1 doubt if any conjec
ture of value can be made to account for the diverse attitude of
Jesus in theae several cases. Mary's thought, if she advanced to
embrace him, was not like that of Thomas to satisfy herself of
his actual resurrection. Thomas had aaid he should demand this
sort of evidence ; in great condescension to his skepticism, Jesua
yielded to hia demand. Why he forbade Mary's embrace is not
made clear.  The construction which assumes that Mary clasped
(or moved to clasp) the person of her Lord, and that he bade her
not detain him, is not favored by the Greek word. This does
not mean detain, but touch.-* Whatever interpretation we adopt
should at least assume th.at the original word said what was
meant — i. e. it should base itaelf upon this test and not some
other. The words in which he would have his approaching ascension
to the Father announced to his disciples must strike every reader
as inimitably tender and inspiring: " I ascend unto my Father
and your Father" — to one who is at once both my Father and
yours; yours as truly as mine. So you may think of him — your
own Father as well as the Father of your elder Brother, the Jesus
whom you have followed and loved through the days of his humil
iation. 19. Then the same day at evening, being the first day of
the week, when the doors were shut where the discifiles were
assembled for fear of the Jews, came Jesus and stood iu the
midst, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you.
20. And when he had so said, he shewed unto them his
hands and his side. Then were the disciples glad, when they
saw the Lord.
To the disciples as a family, this waa the first appearance of
the risen Jesus.  As bearing upon the nature of his resurrec- .
tion body there has been no little speculation upon this sudden
appearance in the midst of a group sitting with closed doors. The
question has been virtually put — ^Was his raised body so Mnmate-
rial that closed doors were no obstacle to hia entrance Iz  But it
were well to raise the previous queation — Haa John's allusion to
the "closed doors" the least reference to the manner of the Lord's
entrance into the room ? Was it in his thought to suggest that
Christ's body was of such a nature that it could and did enter de
spite of the shut doors? Or, was it not rather his purpose to rop-

294 GOSPEL OF JOHN.-CHAP. XX.
resent this as a private meeting of the disciples, convened in this
secluded way through fear of violent persecution ? The circum
stance that Jesus " came and stood " certainly favors the idea of
a material body. We may admit a mild form of miracle — sup
pose in opening the doors unobserved, or iu holding the senses of
the disciples that they should not perceive how he entered ; but
the assumption that his body was in such a sense spiritual that
closed doors were no barrier to his entrance should have more ev
idence than this narrative affords.  That " he showed them his
hands and his feet"^ — where the nails were driven through — was
beyond all doubt deaigned to convince them that this was the same
body which was nailed to the cross. Whatever changes it had
undergone in the resurrection, it had not ceased to be a material
body ; it was in some vital sense the aame body. Its laws of be
ing, as to sustenance, sleep, fatigue and rest, disease, frailty,
temptability, etc., etc., may have been — indeed, seem to have
been — greatly changed ; but the precise extent of these changes
and the nature of body after such change — how can we know till
our experience in the risen glorified body of the saints shall re
veal it?
When Jesus broke thus suddenly upon their astonished vision,
hia words of salutation were inexpressibly cheering. What
could have been more so? I am your old, your long-tried Friend.
You will remember my words while yet present with you, say
ing, " Peace I leave with you; my peace I give unto you ; not as
the world giveth, give I unto you." I come now to reiterate the
same assurances; to reaffirm the same benedictions. Oh, were
they not glad when they saw the Lord, and had such proofs of
his true identity — such assur.ances that this was verily, most cer
tainly, their own precious Redeemer !
21. Then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you:
as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you.
22. And when he had said this, he breathed on tliem, and
saith unto them, Eeceive ye the Holy Ghost :
23. Whosesoever sins ye remit they are remitted unto
them ; and whosesoever siris ye retain, they are retained.
He repeats the tender words, his salutation of peace, adding —
I send you forth on your gospel mission as my Father sent me.
Ye are to take up and prosecute the same work for which the
Father sent me into the world. Thia also was adapted at once to
cheer their hearts, to brace up their courage, to inspire an undy
ing zeal, and to impreaa a senae of great reaponaibility. But how
sweetly the sense of such responsibility must have rested upon
their souls accompanied with such inspiring consolations; en
forced by such claims; associated with such heavenly fellow
ship ; quickened by such asauranoea of final reward !
"Breathed on them, aaying. Receive ye the Holy Ghoat" — a
Bvmbolic act, based on the analogy between breath and spirit, and

GOSPEL OF JOHN.-CHAP. XX. 295
indicating that he now began to fulfill to them the great promise
made so prominent in hia laat conversations before Gethsemane —
that he would give them " another Comforter, the Spirit of truth,
who ahould lead them into all triith."
" Whosesoever sins ye remit, they are remitted," etc. The inter
pretation of these words, it must be conceded, involves somewhat
grave difficultiea, and moreover is so important as to justify
thorough and if need be extended examination.
Let it be rioted, they are not introduced with the declaration —
"All power is given unto you in heaven and on earth ; " the ad
ministration of government and pardon under the scheme of re
demption is transferred absolutely to your hands: — not in any
such connection do these words stand. There is no .intimation
that they were designed to suspend or materially modify the doc
trine — "Who can forgive sins but God only?" "The Son of
man hath power on earth to forgive sins." If this view be cor
rect, this must be one of our land-marks to guide us iu the inter
pretation of the passage.
It may not be amiss to suggest also that in the nature of the
case, the real remission of sins must assume these two antece
dent conditions in the pardoning power — (1) The prerogative of
supreme authority under God's moral government: — (2) A
knowledge of human hearts, scarcely if at all less than omnis
cient — at least sufficient to determine with unerring certainty the
sincerity of repentance and of gospel faith in Jesus the Savior.
These qualifications are sihiply indispensable. It can not for u,
moment be supposed that God will transfer the power or the
right to forgive sins to any party in heaven or on earth in -whom
these conditions are not met.
Advancing now to the simple question of interpretation — What
do these words mean ? let it be noted, they stand in immediate
connection with the promise, or more strictly the gift of the
Spirit. This gift would prepare them for the function of remit
ting sins, whatever this precise function as here intended might
be.  ^It is germain therefore to our present chief inquiry to ask
— Waa the Spirit promised and given to enable the apostlea to
administer God'a moral government; or rather, only to publish
iis principles and their bearinga ? Waa it to give them the
power to know human hearts unerringly ; or simply the power to
tell men how God would note their moral attitude toward him
self, forgiving the penitent and the believing, but condemning to
deeper woe those who under the gospel remained still impeni
tent and unbelieving ?  Fortunately we have in the historic
facts of the case the key to the interpretation we seek. When
the Holy Ghost oame mightily upon the apostles, Peter — very
much a representative man among them — proclaimed every
where, in the temple, and before the Great Council — not "I ab
solve : " not — we, apostles, are commiasioned to absolve from sin,
or to retain men's sins unpardoned upon their guilty souls unto
their eternal daranation — but rather on this wise: "Repent ye,

296 GOSPEL OF JOHN.-CHAP. XX.
for the remission of your sins " (Acts 2 : 38) ; " Repent and be
converted, that your sins may be blotted out " (Acts 3 : 19) ; " Him
[Jesus] hath God exalted with his right hand to be a Prince and
a Savior, /or to give repentance to Israel Scndi forgiveness of sins,
and we [apostles] are his witnesses of these things, and so is also
the Holy Ghost" (Acts 5: 31, 32). Here we have it precisely.
Jesus, and he only, gives repentance and forgiveness of sins.
We, his apostles, are only his witnesses as to this thing. We tes
tify ; we announce ; we proclaim this great truth and tell men
how it must apply to their sinning souls. In thia sense, and in
this only, do we, the apostles of Jesus, remit or retain men's sins.
,  To some it may seem superfluous to press this argument
from actual history. It would perhaps ba so if the subject itself
were not so vital, and the errora made in it so grave — if Rome
had not built upon it her immense system of forgivenesses of sins
past, and indulgences for sins future; and if Protestants had not
labored long aud immensely to find some middle ground, a little
short of plenary forgiveness, administered by preacher or pope,
yot quite beyond declaring, preaching, forgiveness by and through
Christ alone.  Let the argument frora history then be closed by
a reference to the case of Peter dealing with Simon Magus — in
which Peter, holding the keys, did not, by and of himself, absolve
the trembling Magus, but said — " Repent therefore of this thy
wickedness, and pray God if perhaps the thought of thy heart
may be forgiven thee" (Acts 8: 22).
But it will probably be said — These words of Jesus are per
fectly plain and explicit ; also that the interpretation I have sug
gested rather interprets their obvious sense out of them than de
velops the senae that must be in them.
.This objection shpuld be fairly met. I reply to it that the moat
obvious sense of words is not always the true sense, and that pe
culiar constructions are in some cases demanded by known usage.
For aimilar uaage to this above suggested I refer to an analogous
case. When the Lord would commission Jeremiah as his prophet
— as Jesus here commissions the disciples as his gospel preach
ers — Jeremiah reporta the tranaaction thus; "The Lord put forth
his hand and touched my mouth" [a symbol quite analogous to
" breathing on the disciples to impart the Holy Ghost" ], " and the
Lord said unto me — ^Behold, I have put my words into thy mouth.
See, I have this day set thee over the nations and over the king
doms, to root out and to pull down, and to destroy and to throw
down, to build and to plant" This, it will be noted, is perfectly
plain and explicit. Jeremiah is to destroy kingdoms, and to plant
and build up kingdoms. Nay, more; the Lord declares — "I have
this day set thee over the nations and over the kingdoms " for
this very purpose. But what is the true sense of these words ?
Is it that Jeremiah was really made God's vicegerent with_ all
power on earth to do these things in very deed — by his own right
arm ? Not at all. This language means only that he was to pre
dict from' the mouth of the Lord what the Lord himself would

GOSPEL OF JOHN.-CHAP. XX. 297
do. He was only a prophet-preacher ; not an executive officer
armed with omnipotence.  Here let it be noted that this mode
of presenting such a thought waa not unfamiliar to Hebrew ears.
Jesus is here speaking to Hebrew men; Old Testament-reading
men ; and therefore could safely follow Hebrew usage with no
special liability of being misunderstood hy them. Moreover, as
said already, his worda thus interpreted give ua what became act
ual fact in their hiatory ; but if interpreted in the sense of con
ferring plenary power to absolve or condemn, who can show that
history fulfills such a sense ?
Allusion has been made to the fact that certain Protestant in
terpreters have sought to find some middle ground between that
of the Romanist, and that, say, of Jeremiah's usage, given above.
Thus Alford on this text : " By this passage authority to discern
spirits and pronounce on them is reassured (see Matt. 18; 18);
also (it is plain from Luke 24: 45) a discerning of the mind of
the Spirit is given them."  As to the present meaning and ap
plication of theae worda he says: — " The words closely considered
amount to this — that with the gift and real participation of the
Holy Spirit come the conviction and therefore the knowledge of
sin, of righteouaneaa, and of judgment; and this knowledge be
comes more perfect, the more men are filled with the Holy Ghost.
Since this is so, they who are pre-eminently filled with his pres
ence are pre-eminently gifted with the discernment of sin and re
pentance in othera ; and hence hy the Lord's appointment au
thorized to pronounce pardon of sin and ihe contrary." [The
Italics are his]. "The apoatlea had thia in a special manner, and
by the full indwelling of the Spirit were enabled to discern the
hearts of mon and to give sentence on that discernment. And
this gift belongs to the church in all ages, especially to those who
by legitimate appointment are set to minister in the church of
Christ," etc.
Ellicott (as we should expect) has a more just sense ofthe dif
ficulties of the passage. He limits himaelf in his text (Life of
Christ, pp. 360, 361) to the remark that "the mysterious power
of binding and loosing was conferred upon the inspired and anew
accredited apostles; and in his note adds — "'The myaterioua
power now given to the apostles was an essential adjunct to their
office as the ambassadors of Christ, and more especially as the
rulers of his church. It had reference (as Meyer rightly ob
serves) not merely to the general power of receiving into the
church or the contrary, but to their disciplinary power over indi
vidual members of it, both inthe respect to the retaining and the
absolving of sins." [But let us arrest quotations and ask — Does
Christ certainly save all whom the church receives into her fel
lowship, and not save whom she does not receive ? Is her deci.s
ion upon cases of discipline certainly ratified by Jesua, and is
thia the doctrine of our paaaage? If so, then Rome is right, and
the decisions of Chriatian churchea and miniaters upon individ-
u.al piety is final before the court of heaven ! ]

298 GOSPEL OF JOHN.-CHAP. XX.
Olshausen holds that men full of the Spirit have this power of
absolving and retaining; they only, and only those when so
filled. He says — " With the possession of the Spirit was con
nected the power of forgiving sins and that of not forgiving, i. e.
of retaining them, for in his nature lie the conditions through
which alone such power becomes explicable and secured against
abuse." Tholuck scarcely grapples with the main question, yet says —
"Only by the power of the Holy Ghost can a judgraent be
forraed as to the moral position of men and its relations to the
kingdom of God : so far the promise in v. 22 is connected with that
in V. 23. Thia judgment ofthe Spirit, however, is not an indiatinct
emotion, but ia connected with the rule of faith and life; so far
the jus olavium — 'the power of the keys,' is, in the later church,
a right of the clergy.'
Doddridge, moat judicious among thera all — thus: "I will soon
give you the Spirit in great- fullness to qualify and furnish you
for your iraportant office, in consequence of which whosesoever sins
ye shall rerait, or shall declare to be forgiven, they shall be re
mitted," etc.; "shall retain, ov pronounce io he unpardoned, etc.; for
3'e shall have a power not only of declaring what shall be lawful
or unlawful under the gospel dispensation, but also of sending or
removing miraculous punishments, and discerning the spirits of
men in such perfection as to be able with certainty to declare to
particular persons whether they be or be not in a state of pardon
and acceptance with God."
The careful reader of the above comments on this passage will
see that commentators fall naturally into three classes on a rising
scale, thus: — {a.) Those who understand the functions of the
apostles to be simply declarative — preaching Salvation for believ
ers; condemnation for unbelievers; — tersely expressed in other
form — " He that believeth shall be saved, and he that believeth not
shall be damned." In yet other words they were commissioned
to proclaim to lost men ihe principles of the gospel system, so
that thoy might understand whose sins should be remitted and
whose retained.
(6.) Those who would add to this function of declaring, the
power of discerning spirits — i. e. of reading moral character — so
as to be able to judge who is penitent and believing, and who ia
not; coupled with the doctrine that Jesus pledges himself to
ratify and confirm their judgment.
(c.) Those who add one element more, viz; authority, acting in
the place of God, to remit — absolve — men's sins; or to retain and
bind — i. e. condemn.  Thia ia au advance upon the nest pre
ceding, inaamuch as it is more to pass the sentence than it is
simply to know how it should and will be passed by the Supreme
Ruler. It is noticeable that a large class of writers lay out their
strength to sustain the second grade of opinions, i. e. to show
that gospel preachers, and churches, acting officially, may be so

GOSPEL OF JOHN.-CHAP. XX. 299
fully taught of the Spirit as to judge correctly upon the question
of another's personal piety.  In general this may be conceded
to be true ; but the further question will yet remain — Does Josus
pledge himself to indorse their deciaion ? Does he ever promise
to make those decisions infallible? And theu there is the yet
further question : Does he delegate to hia disciples the authority
to pardon or not pardon sin according to their own judgraent of
the case?  For plainly, if we must take the words in their
most obvious sense, they will carry us quite beyond the discerning
of spirits (reading men's hearts), to the higher function of ap
plying this knowledge by really passing sentence of acquittal or of
condemnation. If we recoil from the latter as abhorrent to both
Scripture and reason, what do we gain by holding ou to the power
of judging infallibly?
In my view the only safe construction is the first above named-^—
the responsibility oi declaring ihe principles on which men's sins
are forgiven or not forgiven — principles which God will indorse
for evermore; upon which he will certainly act in his final judg
ment upon ail the race according to deeds done in the body.
24. But Thomas, one of the twelve, called Didyraus, was
not with them when Jesus came.
25. The other disciples therefore said unto him, We have
seen the Lord. But he said unto them, Except I shall see
in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into
the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I
will not believe.
In that eventful meeting Thomas was absent. Probably his
proclivity toward doubt occasioned this absence. He may have
almost given up the hope of any thing to purpose in the future
of the goapel enterpriae. Jesua was dead: what could they
now ?  When the othor disciples met him next they told him
the news which had so gladdened their souls. They found him
very skeptical. He would take no testimony short of the senses,
and of no man's senses save his own. And he must have not
only sight, but feeling — must not only see iu those hands the
prints of the nails, but put his very finger into thoae nail-printa
and thrust his hand into the wounded side. This evidence would
identify the risen body to his satisfaction ; nothing less should.
 It was long ago said — Under God's good providence, Thomaa
doubted that we might not doubt ; his skepticism suffices for all
future skeptics who are really honest — should be the panacea for
all subsequent doubting as to the actual resurrection of the Cru
cified One. '
26. And after eight days again bis disciples were within,
and Thomas was with them: tlien came Jesus, the doors
being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, Peace be unto
you.

300 GOSPEL OF JOHN.-CHAP. XX.
27. Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger,
and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and
thrust it into my side, and be not faithless, but believing.
28. And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord
and my God.
29. Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen
me, thou hast believed : blessed are they that have not seen,
imd yet have believed.
When the prayer meeting of the next Lord's day evening
came round, Thomaa waa there; and again, aa before, Jesus came,
and with the same benediction. Then he turned to Thomas. He
knew what Thomas had said, and very graciously, instead of re
buking him, calls him up aa near as he could wish, to see with
his own eyes and to feel with finger and hand, just as he had
said he raust before he could believe, adding, however, this
caution; — "Be not faithless, but believing." The judgraent and
the heart of Thoraas are alike carried. He believes and he wor
ships ! " My Lord," cries he, " and my God I" Oh, my Jesus, all
divine art Thou, and I adore Thee as Supreme Lord of all — my
very God !  It would be a gross outrage upon believing, peni
tent Thoraas to put these words of his into the category of pro
fane exclamations — as if he could use such worda as the mere
utterance of surprise, astonishment. And it would be no less an
outrage upon the purity of Jesus to aaaume that he would proceed
forthwith to bless Thomaa for profane awearing ! No one can
queation that Jeaus understood the meaning of Thomas and knew
his heart — knew whether these were the solemn convictions of his
soul, or the thoughtless, profane words of a loose tongue, accus
tomed to take the name of God in vain.
While Jesus does not rebuke Thomaa directly, he gently sug
gests that those who believe without the evidence of their own
senses will be yet more blessed.
30. And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence
of his disciples, which are not written in this book :
31. But these are written, that 3'e might believe that Jesus
is the Christ, the Son of God ; and that beUeving ye might
have life through his name.
Several critics (German more especially) maintain very strenu
ously that these are the last words that John wrote in this gospel
history; and that chap. 21 is spurious — written at sorae later pe
riod and by some unknown hand.  It can not and need not be
denied that these verses have the appearance of a close, being a
natural and appropriate ending. The author takes a comprehen
sive survey of what he has written; says there were many_ other
incidents of like character, not included here, and gives his rea
sons for his selection. We may suppose that John did close here.

GOSPEL OF JOHN.-CHAP. XXL 301
in precisely this way ; but at a later period, for special reasons,
not certainly known to us, added this chap. 21 as an appendix.
His greatly prolonged life afforded him the opportunity for this.
It has been suggested with some plausibility that he wrote it
mainly to withstand the tradition to which he refers (v. 23) that
this beloved disciple (John) " should not die." It were better to
quaah such a tradition by a full statement of the circumstances
which gave rise to it than to let it run till his actual death should
disprove it — with staggering effect upon those who had accepted
it as the word of the Lord.
" Signs " in the sense of miracles — implying that miracles were
the staple themes of the book. If we include, with the narrativea
which record the miracles, the conversations and discussions of
the Lord connected therewith, we shall find that a large part of
the book comes under this deacription.
The object of this book as here given haa come under consid
eration already in the Introduction. It is scarcely necessary
therefore to say hore that his object was to set forth the Messiah-
ship and Sonship of Jesus, and this for the twofold purpose —
first, of inducing men to believe these facts, and next, that through
such believing, they might find that spiritual life which such be
lief honestly held and allowed to develop its legitimate influence,
will assuredly give. No aim could be more noble ; no results
more precious. Let us bo forever grateful to God for this book !

CHAPTER XXI.
This appendix details soraow-hat minutely a third appearance
of the risen Jesus — viz. to seven of his diaciplea (those of the fiah-
ermen claas) at the sea of Tiberias (vs. 1-14) ; then a conversa
tion of Jesus with Peter (vs. 15-19); followed by a suggested
conversation between the same parties respecting John (vs. 20-
24); closing with the author's identification of hiraself and hia
concluding reraarks as to the number of the Lord's notable deeds
(vs. 24, 25).
1. After these things Jesus shewed hiraself again to the
disciples at the sea of Tiberias ; and on this wise shewed he
himself. 2. There were together Simon Peter, and Thomas called
Didymus, and Nathanael of Cana in Galilee, and the sotis
of Zebedee, and two other of his discipiles.
3. Simon Peter saith unto them, I go a fishing. They
say unto him. We also go with thee. They went forth, and

302 GOSPEL OF JOHN.-CHAP. XXI.
entered into a ship immediately ; and that night they caught
nothing. 4. But when the morning was now come, Jesus stood on
the shore ; but the disciples knew not that it was Jesus.
The impulse which moved Peter to lead off in this fishing ex
cursion is not even hinted — whether it were recreation, pleasant
reminiscences of forraer pursuits, subsistence, or spare time not
otherwise filled. It does not appear that the Lord rebuked the
movement.  One toiling night brought them no fish. In the
morning Jesus stood on the shore, within speaking distance, yet
not recognized. We might suggest supposable reasons for this
non-recognition, but they would be only suppositions.
5. Then Jesus saith unto them. Children, have ye any
meat ? They answered him. No.
6. And he said unto them. Cast the net on the right side
of the ship, and ye shall find. They cast therefore, and
now they were not able to draw it for the multitude of fishes.
7. Therefore that disciple whom Jesus loved saith unto
Peter, It is the Lord. Now when Simon Peter heard that
it was the Lord, he girt his fisher's coat unto him, (for he
was naked,) and did cast himself into the sea.
8. And the other disciples came in a little ship, (for they
were not far from land, but as it were, two hundred cubite,)
dragging the net with fishes.
The precision of the Greek language appears in this question
(v. 5) translated — "Have ye any meat?" In Greek the question
is put by a word which is at once an intA-rogative and a nega
tive — the negative referring to the thought or supposition of the
questioner : thus — Children, ye have not any food here, have
you ? The word implies that Jesus assumes they have none.— —
This iraraense draught of fishes served to flash it upon the mind
of John that the man who told them where to find, was their own
Lord Jeaua. He whispers this to Peter. Quick as thought Peter
girds about him hia flaher'a coat (in respect for the Blessed One)
and dashes into the sea to meet his Lord. How like Peter! , The
other disciples (Peter excepted) eome — not in a little ship, as if
it might be some other little ship, coming to their help — but in
the little ship — the sarae in wdiich they had been fishing all night
, — dragging their burden.

"-«&"

9. As soon then as they were come to land, they saw a
fire of coals there, and fish laid thereon, and bread.
10. Jesus saith unto them, Bring of the fish which ye
have now caught.
11. Simon Peter went up, and drew the net to land full

GOSPEL OF JOHN.-CHAP. XXL 303
of great fishes, a hundred and fifty and three ; and for all
there were so many, yet was not the net broken.
The fire of coals prepared, with fish and bread in readiness,
suggest that Jesus, with his own hand, or by miracle, or by
means of other helpers, had been making provision for their
meal.  Simon, now on shore, was ready to lend a hand in haul
ing up this draught of fishes.  This great success must have
been sweetly suggestive of the promiae — "I will raake you fish
ers of men." Ye shall know the difference it makes to have the
presence of your Lord, and may estimate the blessedness of hav
ing him " always iciili you even to the end of the world."
12. Jesus saith unto them, Come and dine. And none
of the disciples durst ask him. Who art thou ? knowing that
it was the Lord.
13. Jesus then cometh, and taketh bread, and giveth them,
and fish likewise.
14. This is now tbe third time that Jesus shewed himself
to his disciples, after that he was risen from the dead.
No one dared ask him. Who art thou ? for it seemed an im
pertinence when they knew ao well. A strange feeling of pro
foundest awe seems to have blended with tender affection and
fascinating interest, iu such a presence. If they were restrained
from saying all they thought, they could at least feel most in
tensely and rejoice with exceeding great joy.  That Jesua
should take his usual place at the head of the table, breaking
bread and distributing to thera as of old, was indeed (estimated
from Oriental usage, or from the usages of any people) tenderly
kind and assuring — a precious guaranty of undying affection.
At this point John closes his record ofthe appearances of Jesus
risen, to his disciples. Let us revert, briefly as possible, to tho
records on this point left us by the other evangelists and by Paul.
Matthew relates two instances: (1) His appearance to Mary
Magdalene and "the other Mary" as they were returning frora
their very early visit to the sepulcher, and hastening to tell the
disciples that the body was not there (28 ; 9).  (2) His appear
ance to the eleven on a mountain in Galilee (28; 16, 17).
Mark states vei-y definitely that Jesus appeared first to Mary
Magdalene (16: 9); next to t-wo brethren (not of the eleven) as
they went into the country — the same (supposably) which Luke
relates much more fully (24: 13-35) ; and lastly, to the eleven as
they sat at meat (16 ; 14).
Luke narrates at some length the very early visit of the women
to the empty sepulcher ; how they saw two angels in human form
and from them learned that Jesus had risen ; but Luke does not
eay that they saw the Lord. The appearance of Jesus to the two
brethren who went out that inorning to Emmaus, Luke narrates
minutely — how Jesus made himself known to thom as they were

304 GOSPEL OF JOHN.-CHAP. XXL
breakiuT bread ; rebuked their unbelief; " expounded in all tho
Scriptures the things concerning himself; " and ultimately van
ished suddenly from their sight. Returning at once to Jerusalem,
they found the eleven convened ; learned that Jesus, during the
day, had appeared to Peter, and had begun to rehearse their own
story — when, lo ! Jesus himself came into the midst of the group.
 Luke, therefore, as Mark also, recites three distinct appear
ances — of whioh two seera to be identical — the third in each his
tory being omitted by the other evangelist.
John, as we have seen, specifies four several appearances.
Paul (1 Cor. 15 : 5-8) makes a very well defined list. — (1) Seon
by Cephas {i. e. Simon Peter); (2) By the twelve (perhaps iden
tical with his appearing on the first Lord's day evening to the ten) ;
(3) By more than five hundred brethren at once (supposed to
have been in Galilee) ; (4) By James, not elsewhere specified ;
(5) By all the apostles — probably identical with the last appear
ance recorded by Luke; (6) Last of all, by Paul — -n-hich must
have been at or after his conversion, aud in either case, after
Christ's ascension.
Grouping together some thoughts upon these various records, I
suggest —
1. That the several narrators seem to have written altogether
independently of each other. No one copies from another; no
one even alludes to any other; nay more — no one seema to have
had the leaat regard for making his atatement harmonize with
those of any one of his brethren. Consequently they are inde
pendent witness'es.
2. Each historian seems to have selected those cases of visible
appearance which had most impressed him, or with which he
was most familiar, or which seemed to him most important for
the purposes of his own history. Such considerations would natur
ally have force upon honest minds. Every thing indicates the
presence and control of such considerations in their case.
3. No one of them has made his enumeration exhaustive. The
presumption is, they did not aim to. Paul's list is more full than
either of the others, and presents most evidence of being drawn
up to prove the fad oi Christ's actual resurrection. Note espe
cially the case of his being seen by more than five hundred at
once — many of whom he said were living then — a strong circum
stance to the point of proof But he entirely omits the appear
ances to the sisters as reported by the other historians. It is ob
vious that his Corinthian readers would lack that deep social in
terest which made the manifestation of Jesus to those sisters so
very precious to the disciples, and moreover would underrate the
value of their testimony to the great historic fact. In Corinth
Christianity had not then elevated woman as it had in Judea
and Galilee.
Luke did not aim to make his enumeration exhaustive, for
while his gospel history narrates in detail but two cases, alluding
incidentally to a third, his reference to the subject in Acts 1 :

GOSPEL OF JOHN.-CHAP. XXL 305
4 — " To whora he showed himself alive after his passion by
many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speak
ing to them of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God " —
implies forcibly that he knew many other cases. Indeed this
statement, beyond any other we have, indicates that Jesus was
often present among his followers during those forty days, and
strongly suggests that all our records combined fail to be ex
haustive. 4. The prominence given by the four evangelists to the cases
of the sisters — Mary Magdalene and others — is manifestly due to
their personal character, to their positive agency, and to the high
esteem in which they were held both by Jesus and by the whole
brotherhood of disciples. It is a precious tribute to the influence
of Christianity upon woman, and to the services rendered by re
deemed woraan to that Christianity which has redeemed her. In
giving so much space in their narratives to women as favored
with viaions of the risen Jesus, the gospel historians were think
ing less of making up judicial testimony to the fact of a real res
urrection, and more, of doing justice to the deep sympathy and
love of Jesus for them, and to their own hearts' love for Jesus.
Let us be thankful for such facts — that they existed then and
have been reproduced in every age of a living Christianity —
thankful alao for a record so honest, so impartial, so rich in its
testimony to the high appreciation in which woman's devotion to
her Lord waa held by the earliest Christian brotherhood.
5. It remains to say that taken in whole the recorded testimony
to the fact of Christ's actual resurrection is perfectly conclusive.
It is not easy to see how a fact of this nature could be more
abundantly substantiated.  Of course the fact of his actual
death must be eatabliahed — and is so, beyond the remotest poaai-
bility of mistake. Of this point there is no occasion to treat
here. The point of his actual resurrection from the dead must
be proved substantially as we have seen it proved in these records
— by hia visible manifestations; by his bodily presence shown to
mortal eyes, seen by living men and women; handled by human
fingers ; evinced by hia living voice, by hia partaking of human
food with and before them, and by replacing himself in his for
mer relations to thera as their spiritual Teacher, their sympa
thizing Friend, their own Lord and Maater.
These manifeatationa, we may notice, were made, not to men
previously committed to make out a miracle and palm it off upon
the world; not to men of easy credulity, but to men so remote
from thia that though it had been previously foretold repeatedly,
they could not accept it in ita literal senae, did not understand,
believe, or expect it. As to one of their number, we are defi
nitely told he would believe on nothing short of the fullest evi
dence of sight and touch. Again, these pch'sonal appearances
were not made before strangers who had never or rarely seen
hira before, but to thoae who had known hira best; were mado
not once only, but many times ; not under ono set of circum-

306 GOSPEL OP JOHN.-CHAP. XXI.
stances, but in almost every possible variety of circumstance —
during open day and in the evening; walking by the way, and
also sitting around the table at meals; in the city and in the
country ; in Jerusalem, on Mount Olivet, and on a mountain in
Galilee; several times to one individual only ; several other times
to the assembled group of the eleven ; again to more than five
hundred brethren at once, of whom Paul, writing to the Corin
thians, said — " The greater part remain unto this present [time],
but some are fallen asleep." The living witnesses therefore down
to that day (about A. D. 57) were still an host — i. e. a host for
all practical purposes of competent testimony to prove a fact cog
nizant to their own senses. * The bum.an court that should de
mand more witnesaes than the greater part of five hundred to a
fact of personal observation, would prove itaelf incompetent to
sit on such a question. No judge or jury — being sensible men —
ever have demanded or could demand the personal testimony of
so great a cloud of witnesses to prove a fact of this nature. 
Thus it appears that the actual resurrection of Jeaua from the
dead lacks no sort of evidence that is germain to such a question.
The evidence is also abundantly ample in amount. No suspicion
can attach legitimately to the transmission of this evidence in
written records from that day to this. There was divine wisdom
in resting thia pillar of the Christian systera upon such solid
foundations. We reaurae the narrative.
15. So when they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter,
Siraon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me more than these? He
saith unto him, Yea, Lord ; thou knowest that I love thee.
He saith unto hira. Feed my lambs.
16. He saith to him again the second time, Simon, son of
Jonas, lovest thou me ? He saith unto hira. Yea, Lord ;
thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto hira. Feed my
sheep. 17. He saith unto him the third time, Siraon, sow of Jo
nas, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he said
unto him the third time, Lovest thou me ? And he said unto
him, Lord, thou knowest all things ; thou knowest that I love
thee. Jesus saith unto him, Feed my sheep.
Dinner being past, Jesus has a word for Peter. Since that sad
scene when Jesus stood before the high priest, and with unutter
able aorrow, heard his disciple Peter, standing with the servants
around the fire, deny hira thrice, and since he gave hira that one
tender yet perhapa reproving look, it doea not appear that he had
alluded with either word or look to that denial Here his mind
reverts to that scene. Yet we may observe his allusions to it
are rather remote than direct — rather to the antecedent cause, his

GOSPEL OF JOHN.-CHAP. XXL 307
excessive self-confidence, than to the dreadful sin itself: — "Simon,
son of Jonas, lovest thou me more than these other disciples do ? "
Thou wilt perhaps remember how thou didst protest so earnestly —
" Though all shall be offended because of thee, yet will I never
be offended " (Matt. 26 : 33, 35). Is it quite apparent that thy
love toward me has been greater than that of thy brethren ? 
Peter's answer prudently omits the shading of comparison ; he
does not care to say- — more and better than his brethren — but his
full heart prompts him to say — "Lord, thou knowest that I love
thee." , To whioh Jesus only replies — Give rae long as thou livest
this proof of thy love ; " Feed my lambs." " When thou art con
verted, strengthen thy brethren." Avail thyself of all this sad
experience to raake thyself a better pastor, a raore hurable, watch
ful shepherd — to save other souls iu their scenes of spiritual
peril.  As Peter h-ad denied his Lord three times, it was sug
gestive to him that his Lord puts to him this searching question
three times in succession — "Lovest thou me?" The third time
Peter was grieved — perhaps not merely because it reminded him
so painfully of that threefold denial, but because it seemed to
imply that his Lord lacked confidence in his professions. It was
to the latter point only that Peter alludes in reply, appealing to
his knowledge as the Searcher of hearts : — " Thou who knowest
all things, knowest that I love thee."  It is wonderful how
sweetly Jesus blends the faithful with the kind in this gentle re
proof of the once erring but now penitent Peter. For Peter could
no longer say in his heart — My Master can never love me again —
never can fully and freely forgive my cruel abuse of his love : — ¦
no, verily ; — for what could evince more tender love than thia gen
tle, very gentle reproof for a sin so flagrant and so cruel toward
his Master!
18. Verily, verily, I say unto thee, AVhen thou wast young,
thou girdest thyself, and walkedst whither thou wouldest :
but when thou shalt be old, thou shalt stretch forth thy
hands, and another shall gird thee, and carry iiiee whither
thoii wouldest not.
19. This spake he, signifying by what death he should
glorify God. And when he had spoken this, he saith unto
him. Follow me.
These words directly apprise Peter of his future destiny — viz.
being bound and imprisoned for the Master's cause. Indirectly
they imply that from this time he will be faithful to his Master
even to death. By a martyr's death he will glorify God. One
sad fall has marred his Christian life — but it shall be the last 1
For the future, having worn life away even to old age in toil for
his Master, he should glorify God through a death of violence from
other hands.  Then, that Jesus should add — " Follow me " — was
once more to signify — I renew my call of thee into my service.
Do not allow thyself to think that I can trust tboc no lunger !

308 GOSPEL OF JOHN.-CHAP. XXL
20. Then Peter, turning about, seeth the disciple whora
Jesus loved following ; which also leaned on his breast at
supper, and said. Lord, which is he that betrayeth thee?
21. Peter seeing him saith to Jesus, Lord, aud what shall
this man do f
22. Jesus saith unto hira, If I will that he tarry till I come,
what is that to thee ? follow thou me.
23. Then went this saying abroad among the brethren,
that that disciple should not die : yet Jesus said not unto
him. He shall not die ; but. If I will that he tarry till I
come, what is tliat to thee ?
It goes to prove that this appendix is by the same hand aa the
book itself (chap. 1-20); that the writer follows the same method
in speaking of himself — "The disciple whom Jeaus loved." He
further identifies himself here by reference to the very distinct
ive scenes at the table — as in John 13.  This John falls into
line with Peter in following Jesus. Peter, noticing this, is moved
(perhaps by curiosity) to ask the Lord what his destiny was to be.
Thou hast told me mine ; please tell me his also.  It seems de
signed for a gentle rebuke that the Lord should say — " If I will
that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee?"  Incidentally
this paaaage may furnish light as to the sense in which Jesus
used the worda — "till I come;" and moreover, light aa to the
sense put upon these words by the disciples.  In interpreting
them we must choose between the three following possible
senses : — (1.) Till 1 come to take him to myself at his death; — (2.)
Till I come for the destruction of Jerusalem; — (3.) Till I come
to judge the world. The usage of this phrase in the lips of Je
sua takea the range of theae three senses. In one or another of
them we muat interpret theae worda.  The first is utterly inept : —
If I will that he live till he dies — this is entirely inadmissible. 
The third (last named) must (as it seems to me) be set aside, since
it ia equivalent to saying — If I will that he shall never die — for
he who lives till the final judgraent escapes death altogether.
But this was the very misconstruction which John is laboring to
obviate. This was the " saying that went abroad " as giving the
meaning of Jesus in those words. John would tell his readers
that this saying was a miaapprehension — amiatake.  Of course
there remains only the second sense — Till I come to overthrow
the Jewish city and state. In fact John did live to see ihis coming
of the Lord.  The passage moreover shows that, before this
appendix was written, the apostles had inclined to give these
words of Jesus (till I come) the third seuse as put above— viz. to
apply them to his great coming to the final judgraent, and appar
ently, to look for tills event as then not far remote. In this they
were miataken. Little by little Jesus and his teaching Spirit
souo-ht to correct this erroneous view as to Christ's then future

GOSPEL OF JOHN.-CHAP. XXL 309
24. This is the disciple which testifieth of these things,
and wrote these things : and we know that his testimony
is true.
The person spoken of above without name, and very indefinitely,
is here purposely identified with the author of the book.  The
plural, " ice know," has given certain critics occasion to say that
this verse must have come from some other hand than John's be
cause John could not claim to be "we." But what if John in
tended to say that there were other witnesses beside himself to
the truth of his statements ? The word " we " might include with
himself an indefinite number of his Christian brethren, cognizant
like himself of the verity of the transactions he has here re
corded. The first peraon in the phraae (v. 25) — "/ suppose" —
goes as far to prove that some one man (e. g. John) wrote these
verses, as " we know" does to prove that two or more men were
the authors.
25. And there are also many other things which Jesus
did, the which, if they should be written every one, I sup
pose that even the world iteelf could not contain the books
that .should be written. Amen.
" Things which Jesus did "- — should in strictness refer to hia
works rather than to his words ; yet the phrase " other things "
suggests that words are included here no leaa than acts. 'This
goapel history is made up of both, and the matters omitted were
of the sarae character as the matters recorded.  In the writer's
view it were vain to attempt an exhaustive history of all the pre
cious words of Jesus, or of all his blessed deeds.  That " the
world could not contain the books," etc., ia of course hyperbole,
and probably is a proverbial phrase — of the same class with a
" camel going through the eye of a needle." It is simple folly to
discuss the literal truthfulness of such phrases. Men have always
taken the liberty to speak iu proverbs, and more or less, with the
exaggerations of hyperbole. Sensible readers are not often stum
bled by such liberties of language.  In what sense " could not
contain" is to be taken, it is scarcely worth our while to debate.
Obviously he thinks of their reception and utility as hooks rather
than of storing them in warehouses as merchandise. Even the
Bible might have been made too large, too copious, for its own
practical purposes.  It will be noticed that this remark is not
out of place at the cloae of thia appendix to John's gospel. He
would say — At first I closed this hiatory with an allusion to its
leading purpose (as ye may see in 20; 30, 31), but subsequently
circumstances occurred which called for this brief addition. A
great many more things are yet unwritten, but enough for all
practical purposes is recorded ; too much would be an evil. My
14

310 GOSPEL OF JOHN.-CHAP. XXL
history therefore closes here. — — ^If we may suppose him aware
of what his brethren, Matthew, Mark, and Luke, had long before
written, we shall have a deeper sense of the wisdom which guided
him in the selection of what he has recorded. As to the wisdom
of omitting what is nowhere recorded, it is ours to trust, not to
judge.

FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN.

GENEEAL INTRODUCTION.

The preliminary questions useful to introduce the reader
to this Epistle are —
I. Who was the autlior f
II. 'When, where, and for whom originally, was it written ?
III. What were ite immediate specific objects f What then
present wante in the churches did it aim to supply?
IV. What are its relations (if any) to the gospel of John ?
I. The question of authorship has never been deemed dif
ficult. By most if not all good critics, the author of this
Epistle is held to be the same John who wrote the gospel.
Some quite decisive historic testimonies have come down to
us from the early Christian Fathers, with one voice to this
effect. The names of the witnesses are of the best ; Poly
carp and Papias who knew John personally ; Irenseus, a dis
ciple of Polycarp, and hence but one remove from John;
Origen and Clement, both of Alexandria, but of 'world-wide
learning and personal knowledge of their times.*
But foreign historic testimony that John wrote this Epistle
is rendered practically needless by the decisive indications
found in the Epistle itself — ite striking similarity to the
gospel in style, in spirit, in themes of discourse, in the choice
of staple terms and phrases — in short, in every prominent
quality which gives character to a literary production. Let
the reader note how much this writer speaks of "life;"
-* More is said of the personal history of these witnessea in my
General Introduction to the Gospel of John. (311)

312 GENERAL INTRODUCTION.
"eternal life;" "light," "darkness;" of walking in lightand
of walking in darkness ; of love to God and love of the breth
ren ; of faith and its moral power ; of Jesus as the Propitia
tion for our sins. Recurring to the gospel he will find that
these thoughts, these themes, and these staple forms of ex
pression, are its prominent characteristics. No reader can
place these two books side by side, examining each with
care, without being impressed with their remarkable simi
larity in all vital respects. To read and compare them is
to see and feel the proof that they come from the same
literary hand and from the same Christian heart.
II. When, where, and /or w/i09?i originally, was it written?
As to the date of this Epistle, nothing decisive has come
down to us from sources external to the books of the New
Testament. Testimony from this book iteelf is only approx
imate, not specific. The writer speaks as a patriarch — an
aged father to his little children ; indicating therefore bis
own advanced age. His allusion to "the last time" (2: 18)
is by no means definite as to date, since tbe phrase might
refer to a period shortly before the fall of Jerusalem ; or if
to a point subsequent to that fall, it is quite impossible to
say how long subsequent.
Very probably it was written after the gospel. In the order
of nature it comes after, for it presupposes the facts of the
gospel history. Its object could scarcely be accomplished,
nor could a sensible writer expect to 'accomplish it, except
as it rested on a general knowledge of the facts of that gos
pel history. In other words, with such an object Lu view as
this Epistle manifests, the author would certainly -write his
gospel history first and this Epistle subsequently, based upon
those historic facts. Since nothing forbids us to date the
Epistle after the gospel, and the considerations above named
favor it, we may safely rest in this conclusion.
As to the locality of the author at his writing, it may be
said — •
(a.) That by general consent of the Christian Fathers,
John removed from Jerusalem to Ephesus shortly before Je
rusalem fell ; and passed the remaining years of his life in
that city, or in ite vicinity.
(6.) In John's gospel we noticed the frequent explanation
of Jewish customs and of Hebrew words and phrases — im
plying that he wrote with his eye on other than Jewish
readers, for men residing elsewhere than in Palestine, and
supposably for the churches of Asia Minor. These circum-

GENERAL INTRODUCTION. 313
stances support the theory that this Epistle also was writ
ten from Ephesus, and for the same original readers as his
gospel. (c.) The fact that in his Apocalypse John sent letters to
the seven churches of Asia adds still further corroboration.
Moreover, those brief letters show that false teachers were
even then imperiling the purity of those churches, and that,
as usual, immoral practices accompanied (or followed) de
partures from the faith in Jesus. Correspondingly, in this
Epistle also we find allusions to doctrinal errors and to de
generacy in morals. These coincidences strongly favor the
theory that this Epistle had in view the same churches, and
the same prevalent or threatening evils within thera.
III. What were its immediate objects f What then pres
ent wants in the churches did it aim to supply ?
To these inquiries the Epistle iteelf gives no uncertain an
swer. Its one comprehensive object is put distinctly (2 : 1)
in the words — " These things I write unto you Hiat ye sin
not." The whole Epistle opposes sin ; urges personal holi
ness. Every thing looks toward a truer, stronger love, and
a purer life.
To accomplish these objects required effort in two direc
tions : (1.) To withstand errors in doctrine, especially those
which dried up the very fountains of gospel life and power
— e. g. denying that Jesus Christ had come in the flesh. —
(2.) To show that the great facte of the gospel — such as the
provisions made for pardon and victory over sin ; the great
love of God for lost men, revealed in Jesus Christ — de
mand of believers a loving heart and a blameless life.
Hence, to maintain the fundamental truths of the gospel
scheme, and to show the natural legitimate connection be
tween faith in these truths and a really Christian life, are
the main objects sought in this Epistle.
IV. What, if any, are its- relations to the gospel of John f
Briefly said, its relations to the gospel are supplemental.
It aims to secure more thoroughly the declared objecte of the
gospel; viz. " that ye may believe that Jesus is the Christ,
and that, believing, ye may have life through his name."
He would give men more just views of the Sonship of Je
sus and of the atoning virtue of his death ; would exhort
them to a more intelligent and steadfast faith in these truths ;
would admonish them against those perversions and abuses
of the gospel which would emasculate its moral power toward
the spiritual life of faith and love and the moral life of

314 GENERAL INTRODUCTION.
practical godliness. He saw that in both directions — poison
ing the fountains of gospel truth, and diverting its streams
from their place of power and blessing in the Christian
heart and life — there was need of vigorous effort. So he
sent forth this brief but vigorous Epistle for the joint pur
poses of working a purer doctrinal faith and of promoting a
better Christian life.  How he made and sustained his
points, we shall see as we bring his words under special con
sideration. His object was thoroughly practical ; his pointe
made are exquisitely simple, yet sublimely grand ; his logic,
none can gainsay; the love of his heart, manifested richly
throughout the Epistle, should endear these messages to the
church of every age. Truly we have cause of gratitude to
the Inspiring Mind for raising up such a witness in behalf
of gospel truth and for bequeathing to the Christian world
this last legacy from his pen.

FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN.

CHAPTEE 1.
With no formal introduction; with no hint as to the people or
cliurches specially addressed; the writer enters at once upon his
work, giving first the subject matter — the great theme of which
he is to speak, viz. the incarnate Son of God (vs. 1-3) ; then fhe
purpose or object iu view (vs. 3, 4) ; the substance of his mesaage
(v. 5) ; the personal application of the truth conveyed in this raes-
sage and its fruits (vs. 6, 7) ; and especially that it is a salvation
from sin provided for men who are sinners (vs. 8-10).
1. That which was from the beginning, which we have
heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have
looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of
life; • _
2. (For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and
bear witness, and shew uuto you that eternal life, which was
with the Father, and was manifested unto us ;)
3. That which we have seen and heard declare we unto
you, that ye also may have fellowship with us : and truly
our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus
Christ. No reader can fail to note the striking similarity between the
opening of this epistle and the opening of John's gospel. Alike
they discard all preliminaries ; alike they call our thought at once
to the person of the eternal Word, made manifest in human flesh
— the incarnate Son of God. Most of the same descriptive terms
are here which are there, this Great Personage being set forth as
" the Word of life," who was " from the beginning; ' was " with
the Father; " and was "made manifest to ua." Kemarkably, thia
laat point--his manifestation to us (his disciples) — is expanded
with great fullness: — "which we have heard,' i. e. whose human
voice our mortal ears have heard ; whom we have seen with our
own eyes as human eyes see fellow-men in the flesh ; " whora we
have looked upon," giving yet another but analogous Greek verb
(315)

316 I. JOHN.-CHAP. L
of seeing which superadds the idea of attentive contemplation ; —
aud whom our hands have handled — or better, whom we have
touched with our hands as in the familiar intercourse of huraan
life, and perhaps with some allusion to unbelieving Thomas, per
mitted to put his hand into the print of the nails and into the
wounds in his side. We can not fail to notice that this repetition
and reiteration were intended for strong testimony to the actual
appearance of the divine Word in human fleah, iu a real peraonal
body, like other human bodiea — very poaaibly to bear against
the notion that the body of Jesua was not material but spiritual ;
was a body in appearance only, not in fact ; a mere phantom,
unsubstantial and unreal.
Thus John labors to emphasize and expand the true idea of
his cardinal word "manifest ;" the human body of Jesus brought
before our very senses ; his voice entering our ears ; his form
present to our mortal eyes under every variety of condition ;
his material body subjected to our touch. He lived with us ;
talked, walked, toiled, rested, slept, waked, ate and drank before
and with us as man with man, as friend with friend. What
more or better evidence of a true and real human nature could
we desire ?
What we have thus seen and heard we now declare to you.
Our desire in this writing is that ye may be brought into full
fellowship with ua, that is to say — that ye may come to know
the Father and the Son Jesus Christ as we have learned to know
thera, and that ye may enjoy the communion of love with the
Father and the Son as we do ; so shall we have fellowship with
each other. For we would have you underatand fully that we
enjoy the fellowship of love and friendship with the Father and
with his Son.
Fellowship! How shall we fathom the depth of meaning in
this precious word ?  Going down into the essential idea of
the original word-* we find it signifies somewhat in common be
tween two parties, having for its basis a more or less intimate
knowledge of each other, upon which is founded a common in
terest, a common sympathy, a common mutual love. Such is
fellowship between one human being and another ; such in ita
nature muat be the fellowship of man with his Maker and Ke-
deeraer. In yet another line of search into the deep significance of
this word, we might follow the thread of John's personal his
tory, asking how it came to pass that he reached this conscious
sense of fellowship with the Father aud with his Son Jesus
Christ.  The gospel history from his pen gives us the flrst
utterances of this precious testimony. The opening verses of
this epistle echo the same voice. John seems to have been a
relative, perhaps a cousin, to the child Jesua, born of Mary.
Having been a disciple of John the Baptist, he was early pre-

I. JOHN.-CHAP. L 317
pared to become one of the flrst disciples and followers of .lesus.
Among the chosen twelve, he was brought nearest to the loving
heart of the Master; sat by his side at the laat supper, an3
leaned on his bosom there ; was one of the three chosen to wit
ness the transfiguration, and to be nearest the Great Sufi'erer
during his agony in the garden. Among the eleven, he only
seeras to have been near the cross during the dread agonies
borne by Jesus there. Who first gave hira the distinctive title,
" The disciple whom Jesus loved," we are not told ; but we may
think of hira as knowing the heart of Jeaus beyond most of
his brethren^aa having entered most deeply into his sympathies
— as giving to him the purest love of his own heart. It was
Johu -who testified of Josus that, " having loved his own that
were in the world, he loved them to the end" (John 13: 1);
John -who remembered and recorded the precious words : — " Ho'
that hath my commandments an^ keepeth them, he it is that
loveth me ; and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father,
and I -will love him, and will manifest myself unto' him." —
Also : — " If a man. love me he will keep my words, and my
Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make
our abode -n-ith him" (John 14: 21, 23). We muat auppose that
Johu had a lively and deep senae of the meaning of these words
and a precious experience of the communion they promise.
Moreover, it was through knowing Jesus so well that he carae
into similar communion and fellowship with the Father. John
above any other sacred writer has unfolded this great idea — that
to know Jesus is to knoio ihe Father. " Have 1 been so long
time with you, aud yet hast thou not known me, Philip ? He
that hath seen rae hath seen the Father " (John l4 : 9).
Thus pushing our inquiries historically, we may get somewhat
definite conceptions of .what John means by " fellowship with
the Father and -ivith his Son." First in the order of time, he
came to know and to love the incarnate Son. Through the in
timacies of close acquaintance and of confidential friendship ;
through the perpetual manifestations of loving sympathy; through
the profoundest appreciation and adrairation of the character of
Jesus, and by means of shaping his own character more and
more into the same image, there sprung up the sweet confidence
of mutual friendship and fellowship. The two friends became
one in heart and sympathy; one in the purposes and aims of life.
From this point we have only to advance one short step fur
ther and note that the human Jesua aa thus seen and studied,
known and loved in the fleah, brought John to know Jeaus as di
vine — aa the Logoa whoae glories shone forth and were manifested
in the sinleaa man. And then, through the manifestations of hira
who waa at once the Son of man and the Son of God, John came
to know the Father and to have fellowship with him. The incar
nation was the stepping-stone for the ascent upward frora man to
God. Thus the disciple John was introduced to the Logos as re
vealed through the man .lesus, and through Him, to the Eternal

318 L JOHN.-CHAP. I.
Father.  Essentially what was true of John becomes true of all
disciples of Jesus. By faith and love they enter into the same
deep communion and fellowship vrith the Father and with his
Son Jesus Christ.
And now as to the esaential blessedness of thia fellowahip with
the Father and the Son as possible to be enjoyed even here and
now by mortals of our race, I have no words — I know of none —
adequate to set it forth. To know a God, so pure, so good, so
glorious ; to love such a God with undivided, supreme afi'ection,
aud devotion; to come into the fellowship of humble trust, un
qualified submission, grateful and devout adoration on the human
side— ^over against which on the divine shall be the manifestation
of God's forgiving love, sympathy, and care; to feel a deep con
sciousness that this union of fellowship and friendship is real, is
sure, is growing, is promised of God to endure forever— what
shall we — what can we say that will adequately set forth its
blessedness! Corresponding to the glory and worth of this blessedness possi
ble to human souls is the value of those revelations of God to
men through his incarnate Son, and through his indwelling
Spirit, by means of which it has been gained and realized, and is
surely made possible to redeemed sinners. When " the disciple
whom Jesua loved " pours out before us the fullness of his heart
in such heaven-inspired words as we find in this epistle, let us
accept them as warmed with the deepest love of his soul, and as
witnessing to the ripe and blessed experience of one who felt
that he had " fellowship with the Father and with his Son Jesus
Christ." 4. And these things write we unto you, that your joy may
be full.
The improved text reads this verse — " These things we write
that our (not "your") joy may be full." Assuming thia to be
what John wrote, we must interpret him to mean — Our burdened
heart must have relief by pouring out these words of love and
sympathy. We so long to see you all sharing in common with us
this deep and true fellowship with the Father and with his Son
— how can we forbear to write you these testimonies to the truth
as it is in Jesus ?
5. This then is the message which we have heard of him,
and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no
darkness at all. /
" This is the message " — the great central truth, ooraprehensiveX
above any other — which we have heard from him (i. e. Jesus
as manifesting God to men) ; and " declare unto you," not in
this epistle only, but in the gospel history which I wrote to you
as well — "that God is light" — pure light, with no darkness
whatever. " Light," then, is the vital word in the message.

//

L JOHN.— CHAP. L 319
What is the precise and full idea in this word when applied aa
here to describe or interpret to us God ?  Perhaps our best con
ception of it is a blending of the two ideas — truth and purity ;
truth as related to the intelligence ; purity or holiness as related
to the moral nature. Truth is a better word than knowledge only
in so far as it better gives the notion of what is absolutely relia
ble — certainly in harmony with facts as they are ; and also be
cause it has been associated with knowledge concerning God, anil
knowledge coming from God concerning his creatures. Knowl
edge is to the mmd what light is to the eye, so that the word
" light," borrowed from the material world, gives us a very happy
conception of that true knowledge which emanates frora God
even as heaven's light beams on our eyes from God's sun in the
heavens. Then, moreover, the related idea of moral purity in
heres iu the word light, as darkness and siu are kindred ideas.
All deeds of sin and shame love darkness, and can not bear the
light. So we get the full and true sense of this richly compre
hensive word "light" as said of God when we combine the two
great ideas— truth, and purity or holiness. Precious ideas they
are indeed; — God, the infinite fountain of truth — of all that
knowledge which illumines the mind and blesses the souls of all
intelligent beings in heaven and in earth : who is also the foun
tain of holiness, moral purity ; its best model and exemplar, and
forever giving forth infiuencea and agenciea to beget correapond-
iug holiness in creaturea as they corae under the irapresaion of
his perfect, blessed character. God truthful ; God sinless ; — God
the fountain of all truth ; God the Author and Giver of all holi
ness to his creatures— theae are the great ideaa -which lie in the
word Light as it stands here descriptive of God.
6. If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk
in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth :
7. But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we
have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus
Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin. "
Let no one suppose that to call God light is so abstract and
metaphysical as to be almost unmeaning and void of practical
bearing upon human soula. Nothing could be farther from the
facts of the case. For, observe : this great abstract idea of God
is brought to view here for the very purpose of ita practical bear
ings. Does any man say, " I have fellowship with God," while
yet he walks in darkness, i. e. sin, he certainly says what is not
true, and what in his case can not possibly be true. Light and
darkness have nothing in common — have no communion with
each other. To have fellowship with God is to see and to love
all that we know to be true of him ; is to have in good degree
hia purity ; implies certainly that one loves holiness, seeks it,
longs for it, cherishes and cultivates it as the heart's_ richest
treasure. But this is utterly inconsistent with walking in dark-

320 L JOHN.-CHAP. I.
ness. Men do not walk in the darkness of night when the sun
shines full in the heavens above them ; ao neither do men walk
in the ways of sin while the light of God shines full on their
souls, and they are in hearty sympathy and fellowship with God.
The incorapatibility ia as absolute in the one case as in the
other.,  ^To " do not the truth " ia to be wholly out of harmony
with it, living in constant violation of its spirit and of its moral
demands. The man who lives so and yet claims to be in fellow
ship with God is either trying to deceive others, or is deceived as
to himself
On the other hand, if we walk in the light as God is in the
light — walk according to his truth as made known to us, meeting
every call of duty, yielding sweetly to every honest moral convic
tion, seeking supremely to knop- God's will and to do it, then "we
have fellowship one with another;" a kindred spirit animates all
hearts that are in this common moral attitude toward God and his
truth. This walking in the light of God ia so nearly the aame
thing in all human aoula and producea so fully the same spiritual
results that there will surely be a cordial fellowship and sympa
thy between all who stand in this common relation to the Great
Father of light and of love.
To show how the light (truth) that comes from God is brought
to bear practically upon those who receive and love it, the writer
comes down from abstract, general forma of statement to the spe
cific and concrete — to tell us how our sin is taken away and we
are restored to the pure moral image of God: viz. thus: — "The
blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin."
Upon this very rich aud expressive passage, all thoughtful
readers will naturally raise two main questions :
(1.) How is it that blood, naturally defiling, should be said here
to "cleanse" ?
(2.) Does this cleansing refer to forgiveness or to sanctification;
which, if either alone, or may it include both ?
(1.) That blood should cleanse — a result so foreign from its na
ture and frora the current ideas of mankind — must be due to
some very special quality — some fact quite aside from the com
mon course of things. No other explanation can be given except
that which comea from the bloody sacrifices of the early ages ofthe
race, unfolded fully in the Mosaic sacrificial systera. . 'There the
great idea stands forth in the light of God's own institution — that
" without the shedding of blood, there is no remission of sin ;"
yet that with it, under it, by means of it— atonement is made and
God forgives the penitent ofi'erer. The voice of God speaks in
those bloody sacrifices — Let the innocent lamb be ofi'ered in sac
rifice on mine altar; so hia blood shall make atonement for your
souls. He shall die that ye may live. Thus and thus only did
blood under the old economy become an emblem of moral
cleansing. Forgiveness of sin came through the shedding of
blood. The death of Jesus as "the Lamb of God" fills out the

L JOHN.-CHAP. L 321
prophetic (or typical) idea of the ancient lamb of sacrifice and has
availed td "take away the sin of the world." (John 1 : 29.)
(2.) Aa to the second main question — the sense of tho term
" cleanse," I accept it as comprehending both forgiveness and
sanctification. When the sacred writers aim at the utmost
brevity in speaking of the great work of Christ for men, they
briiig to view the moral cleansing; — e. g. "Shalt call his name
Jesus, for he shall save his people from their sins;" "Behold the
Lamb of God who taketh away the sin of the world;" "The blood
of Jesus cleanses frora all sin." Yet they understood as fully as
we do that there are really two quite distinct parts of this one
great work; viz. the forgiveness of past sin, and the recovery of
the soul frora the spirit of sinning — ita reatoration to raoral pu
rity. We may aee in v. 9 below that John haa both these ideas
in his mind: "He is faithful and just" — first to forgive us our
sins ; secondly — to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. Hence
we must comprise ulider the words — "cleanseth us from sin" — ¦
both forgiveness and moral purification ; both the blotting out of
sins past, and the taking away from the heart the love and tho
indulgence of sin.  It is the more admissible — nay, more than
that — the more appropriate to group these two ideas, forgiveness
and moral transformation, under the one word "cleanse" — (1.)
because moral tranaforming always presupposes forgiveness, inas
much aa forgiveness naturally comes first in order ; no one be
comes pure iu heart till first forgiven: — and (2.) because tbe
raethod of God's own providing for the pardon of sin, through
the atoning death of Jesus, itself develops a mighty power of truth
aud love, bearing toward the cleansing of human souls frora sin.
" For the love of Christ constraineth us." How can we sin
against him who haa loved us even unto dying for us that we may
live ?  Thus the taking away of sins past by pardon and of the
sinning heart preaent, by moral cleansing, are naturally linked
together, both in the divine agencies that work thera out in hu
man soula, and in the experience of all saved men. Hence we
may know that when moral cleansing is named, forgiveness is
certainly presupposed and implied.
These verses (7-9) have sometiraes been pressed to raake them
bear upon the question of sinless perfection in the preaent life.
It can never be well to force any paaaage of Scripture to teatify
on a point irrelevant to its true design. In this passage there is
no apparent indication that John had this particular question in
his mind at all. What he would say on this question he has not
told us here — certainly not in direct, explicit terma. How the
things he does say bear legitimately on this question can be
reached only by inference. For plainly the two opposite charac
ters present to his thought in this passage are— (a) The man who
walks in darkness — who, if he says he has fellowship with God,
lies, and does not the truth — the open, manifest sinner on the
one hand ; (6) And on the other hand tbe honest, sincere be
liever, who walks in the light of God, has fellowship of soul with

322 L JOHN.-CHAP. L
all the Christian brotherhood, and really with the Father and the
Son. Theae are the two opposite characters of whom he speaks.
The former class stand utterly aloof from Jesus as a Savior, de
claring — " we have no sin " (v. 8) ; " we ba'^e not sinned " (v.
10); we have no need of auch help as your systera of so-called
salvation in Christ professes to provide.  The other class con
fess themselves sinners ; " God is faithful and just to forgive
their sins, and to cleanse them from all unrighteousness."- 
These are the two classes, morally considered, of whom he
speaks, and this is what he says of them respectively. Upou the
new and quite distinct question whether this moral cleansing be
comes absolutely perfect on earth, we can not assume that he in
tended to express an opinion. Indeed, if we raake him speak di
rectly to this point, I do not see how we can defend him from
self-contradiction; for on the one hand we should make him say
— " The blood of Jesus cleanses us frora all sin "¦ — absolutely, per
fectly from all — even here and now ; — but on the other hand, in
the, next breath we make him declare that "if we say we have
no sin at all, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us " —
all whioh would amount to saying that salvation by Christ is an
impossible experience; that nobody is cleansed from sin by the
blood of Christ.  Such results come of forcing a man's words
beyond his intent, and a,pplying them to questions entirely for
eign from his thought. Hence I have ventured to call the appli
cation of John's words here to this modern question " a side
issue," quite remote frora his purpose and intent.
8. If we say that we have no sia, we deceive ourselves,
and the truth is not in us.
9. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive
us our sins, and'to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
10. If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a
liar, and his word is not in us.
On these verses the first question exegetically will be whether
the sarae class are in John's thought in both v. 8 and v. 10, — in
the forraer, saying — "we have no sin;'' in the latter, saying — ¦
" we have not sinned."
That these slightly differing descriptive phrases do refer to the
sarae class of raen, is rendered more than probable — nearly or
quite certain — by these facts:  (a) That John affirms of them
both the same things — iu the former verse "they deceive them
selves ; " in the latter they " make him (God) a liar ; " in the for
mer verse, "the truth is riot in them; " in the latter, "his word
is not in them ; "  (6) By the further fact that iu both these
verses the characters described are put in contraat with thoae
who confess their sins, and whom God "is faithful and just to for
give and to cleanse from all unrighteousness ; "—and again (c)
By the fact that a fair construction .of the worda iu v. 8 gives es
sentially the same aenae as the words of v. 10 bear. " If we say

I. JOHN.-CHAP. I. 323
that we have no ain," i. e. no sin that needs to be forgiven and
cleansed ; if we take the ground that we have no occasion for
such a Savior as Jesus— a Savior provided for sinners — we virtu
ally say that " we have not sinned." *• They that are whole have
no need of a physician." In both verses (8, 10) the men who
have no sense of being personal sinners — who refuse to see any
sin, wrong, guilt, in themselves — are described and their case
put. We may conclude therefore that in each of these verses
John describes the sarae moral class of men.
Such raen never corae to Jesus for pardon, cleansing, and life.
They rule themselves out from the range of gospel bleaainga. 
But alas I they utterly deceive themselves ; the truth is not in
them. They represent God to be a liar, for God declares all men
to be in siu. The giving of his Son to die for raen is his own
declaration before the worlds and the ages of this broad universal
fact aa to the race. Conceived of as reaponsible moral agents,
they are sinners.
In this point of view we readily see why " confessing our sin"
is the flrst condition of being saved through Christ. If we say
— " I have no sin; " "I have not sinned ; " we charge God with
slandering our moral character; and what ia more still, with
throwing away the life and blood of his Son needlessly, for a thing
of nought — for no worthy consideration — for nothing better than
a vain display of uncalled-for and falsely professed benevolence !
Do those who will not confess themselves sinners conaider how
cruelly they insult God, and how fearfully they abuse his love and
outrage his patience !
Aa to those who "confess their sins" — implying not the con
fessing of the fad only, but of the wrong and guilt of it also — -
God is both "faithful and just to forgive."  In what sense
"both faithful and just" ? " Faithful" as having proralsed, and
therefore as iu good faith fulflUiug; "juat," as doing a righteous
thing — a thing which he can righteously do by reason of the pro
visions made iu the atoning death of Christ.
Is there perhaps a slight antithesis between these words, " faith
ful " and " just," of this sort ? He can in good faith forgive and
yet he just to hiraself and to the demands of a perfectly holy law
— a wonderful achievement — to make forgiveness consistent with
justice ; the blotting out of sin and the free pardon of the sin
ner, consistent with a law which declares — " Tho soul that sinneth,
it shall die." Thia is what God does -when in both faithfulness
and justice he forgives the penitent who confesses his sin. 
By such a systera of forgiveness and raoral cleansing through
the blood of Christ, God has prepared the way for pardoned sin
ners to corae into fellowship with the Father and with hia Son
Jeaus Christ.

324 I. JOHN.-CHAP. IL

CHAPTER II.
Much in the usual style of epistolary writing, John passes
from one subject to another as new thoughts come to his mind,
all however converging to the one great endeavor — " thai ye sin
not" — and particularly that ye may not be aelf-deceived as to
really knowing God ; that ye may love the brethren and not love
the world, nor be misled by those who deny Christ, etc.
1. My little children, these things write I unto you, that
ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with
the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous:
2. And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not fpr
ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.
"Little children" — not young in years absolutely, but only
relatively to the writer, that very aged patriarch who belonged to
a past generation.  The great purpose which lay ever warm
upon his heart is here put in simplest, fewest words — " thai ye
sin not." If he might only preserve them all from siu — ain that
worst evil that could befall them — that worst thing they could do —
that fountain of all the ills and woea of mortals ! How should it
be resisted, repelled, watched against, hated, avoided — with ut
most endeavor and with ever wakeful solicitude !
But if under subtle or overmastering temptation, or through
some outburst of pasaion, any man should siu, let me hasten to his
relief with the message — "We have an Advocate with the Father,
Jesus Christ the Eighteous One." Through Him ye may find
salvation. He pleads for penitent sinners before the Father, so
that sin can be forgiven. No man need sink in despair under a
sense of unforgiven sin.
"Advocate" (Gr. Paracletoa) is the same word which Jesus ap
plied to the "Holy Spirit of truth"- — the " Comforter" (John 14;
16, 17). As our Advocate with the Father, Jesus is most truly
and richly a Comforter to guilt-burdened souls. With blended
pity and love, he pleads for our pardon before the Father'a throne.
Oh, the blesaedness of such a Friend — an Advocate so kind to us
and so prevalent in intercession before the Father !
"Jesus the Righteous One" — to be taken in the sense of the
sinless, in harmony with Heb. 7: 26: "For such an High Priest
became us — holy, harraless, undefiled, separate frora sinners;" —
one who had no sins of his own to preclude hira from audience
before Infinite Purity. To the same purport also are the words
of Peter (1 Peter 3: 18) — "Christ once sufl'ered for sin's, the just
for the unjust, that he raight bring us to God."
" He is the propitiation," i. e. the Propitiator — one who makes
propitiation ; who propitiates in the sense of making pardon pos
sible to a righteous God consistently with all due regard to the

L JOHN.-CHAP. IL 325
law which sin has broken and the sacredneaa of tho penalty which
the tranagressor has both incurred and deserved. Strictly the
idea is not that Jesus works upon the pity and love of the Father
to bring him over from wrath to mercy ; but rather that he obvi
ates the otherwise stern necessity of executing the penalty of
death for sin ; and thus opens the way for the safe exercise of the
pardoning power. The way being thus opened, the infinite lore
of God flows out naturally and mightily in the freest forgiveness of
the penitent who accepts for himself the atonement made by Jesus.
In this aense the blood of Jeaua Christ, the Eighteous One, makea
propitiation for our sins. He prepares the way for the Suprerae
Euler to forgive with honor to himself, with safety to his throne,
with joy eternal to his own heart.  Such a propitiation is in
ita nature, "not for our sins only" (the "our' including Chris
tians), " but for the sins of the -whole world." In its relations
to law, to government, to pardon, the atonement made by the
blood of Chriat is complete in itself before any sinner receives
pardon through it, and whether the nuraber ever forgiven under
it be less or greater. It would have been au atoneraeut ample for
all the world even if no sinner ever accepted it. In ita nature it
was large enough, broad enough, for the race; and therefore really
made aalvation possible for all sinners in the same sense in which
it made salvation possible for one sinner. Hence this atonement
is properly called " universal," " unlimited" — not meaning or im
plying by these worda that it savea all mankind, for in itself, con
sidered as made by the death of Christ, it saves no man. The
salvation comea only upon the sinner's believing. Its practical
results of real salvation reach never a soul till that soul accepts
it for himself with penitence for sin and humble faith in this
atoning blood as his ground of hope for pardon.
Every thoughtful reader will see that it is because Christ's atone
ment is really made for all and oflered to all, that the guilt of
every sinner who refuses it becomes so great, and withal, so neces
sarily and so justly fatal to all possibility of salvation. Because
sinners " deny the Lord who bought them," they bring on thera
selves swift and sure destruction. They need not die — if only
they would come to Jesus and take the offered life; but oh,
if they will not have life, then what but destruction, with no
remedy !
3. And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep
his commandmente.
4. He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his com
mandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.
5. But whoso keepeth his word, in him verily is the love
of God perfected : hereby know we that we are in him.
6. He that saith he abideth in him ought himself also so
to walk, even as he walked.
We need some reliable test of true piety that we may judge

326 I. JOHN.-CHAP. IL
safely either of ourselves or of others. The Christian state, the
being a Christian, John puts iu two forms of atatement; they
"know God;" they are "in God." But the teat of the true
Chriatian ia one — keeping God's commandments. Nothing avails
without this ; with thia, nothing more is needful. According to
John therefore, this is the sovereign, certain, and only necessary
test.  ^We may remember that Jesus taught the same : " My
sheep hear my voice; they follow me." "If any mau serve me,
let him follow me." "He that hath my comraaudraents and
keepeth thera, he it is that loveth me." "If a man love me he
will keep my words," etc., etc.
We shall the better understand the meaning of John and ap
preciate the value of his teat if we turn for a moment to con
sider his notion of what true piety is.-  He speaks of it as
knowing God. As reported to us in John's gospel, Jesus used
this word " know " in the same deep, comprehensive sense :
" This is life eternal, that they might know Thee, the only true
God, and Jesua Christ whom Thou haat sent" (17: 3).  Be
ginning at the bottom of the subject we must note that true re
ligion pertains to intelligent beings. It assumes firat of all ca
pacities for knowledge, and not least, for an actual knowledge
of God. Next, it assumes that this knowledge is in some good
degree according to truth : — it ia knowing some thinga truly of
God.,  A yet more vital element is, that the human soul ad
justs iiself io this knowledge ; receives it approvingly, joyfully;
makes it welcome ; and voluntarily puts itself into harmony with
the legitimate demands which such knowledge of God makes
upon his intelligent ofl'spring. For, to know God truly is to
know him as to his relations to ourselves : i. e. to know him as
Creator, Father, Euler. To adjust ourselves to a God so known
¦ — known as standing in such relations to us — is to bow our will
lovingly to his will ; is to render to him the homage of humble
adoration, praise, and especially, or perhaps we should say com
prehensively, of simple obedience to all his revealed will.
But sorae one will ask — ^Are there not thousands in Christian
lands who know much about God and yet this knowledge lies
in their souls only as a cold abstraction of truth — a specu
lation, a theory which is admitted as true by the intelligence,
but its moral demands are resisted by the will, or, if not con
sciously resisted, are at least ignored — practically disowned and set
at nought ?  Manifestly and -most sadly, tbis must be admitted.
If it be still inquired — -Why then did not John allow for this
very large exception to his general law and forbear to assume
without qualification that "knowing God" well defines true
piety because it means and implies it — this may be said in ex
planation and defense of his usage of words.  (1.) Ordinarily,
men do not learn muqh about God unless they love him and
love to learn of him.  (2.) Legitimately, knowing God begets
— at least tends powerfully to produce — true love to God. Hence
an eflect so natural may be embraced under the same word used

I. JOHN.-CHAP. IL 327
for the cause, i. e. knowing God carries with it both the knowl
edge (intellectually considered), and its natural fruita — tho love
and obedience it begets.  (3.) This closely connected result —
love following upon knowledge — will be the more sure if- the
external surroundings, the forces of the times, are such as to
rule out all inducement to get the theory of God unless tho
heart is ready to yield to his moral demands. A somcAvhat vig
orous persecution of those who know God — who study and obey
him — will tend to sift out the ranks of his pupils and exclude
from his school all save those who listen to the moral demands
of such knowledge, and therefore study God for the sake of
loving and obeying him.  Note now that such were the ex
ternal circumstances when Jesus lived and John wrote. Hence
iu their use of language they might naturally assume what was
then ordinarily the fact — that those who knew God intellectu
ally gave him their heart's love morally.
Let us be careful to consider that in the senae of Jeaus and
of John, to "know God" is to open one's heart to this knowl
edge, to bow one's will sweetly to its moral demands, to bring
the soul voluntarily and with earnest endeavor into fullest har
mony with all we learn of God. Thus the crucial test of really
knowing God is that ^Ye honestly obey his commandments. 'This
test we can apply (if so we will) to ourselves ; we can also with
a fair measure of certainty apply it to other men.
Eecurring to our passage let us note that in v. 3 the Greek
tense requires — "Hereby we know that we have known hira"
— though probably this aorist tense should include the present
also; — have known and still know. "If we keep his command-
raenta " involves both a previous conversion and a present Chris
tian life.-  According to v. 5, keeping God's word develops
the love of God in huraan souls to its perfection. It is the way
to reach this great and glorious attainment — perfect love. The
simple spirit of obedience, diligently cultivated, steadfastly main
tained, made supreme over all the raoral activities of the soul
— this brings up the love of God to its highest development. 
The law of the Christian life therefore is — "He that saith he
abideth in him ought himself so to walk as Jesus walked." . To
be in Christ as branches in their parent vine is to drink only
at the fountains of his life — to be fed from the springs of influ
ence and vital moral force which flow forth from him 'to his
people. Of course this implies that we live and walk according
to the model left us in his earthly life.  Let it then be deemed
forever futile and vain for a man to say he abides in Christ un
less the fruits of his heart in the outward life show it.
7. Brethren, I write no new comraandment unto you, but
an old commandment which ye had from the beginning.
The old commandment is the word which ye have heard
from the beginning.

328 L JOHN.-CHAP. II.
8. Again, a new commandment I write unto you, which
thing is true in him and in you : because the darkness is
past, and the true light now shineth.
What I have written here of " keeping his commandments,''
and accounting this the only evidence of knowing God and of
being in him, is nothing new, but ia rather the old doctrine of
my goapel hiatory, well known to you from the beginning of your
Christian life, or of the gospel age. But again I write to you
what may be regarded as a new commandment only inasmuch aa
it presents this old truth in new aspects and new applications ;
for with the march of time, truth reoeivea now developmenta ; the
old darkneas disappears and clearer light shines.  This antith
esis between the old command and the new seems somewhat ob
scure ; yet probably the new aspects referred to are those which
appear in vs. 9-11 — and perhaps onward; e. g. that hatred to
one's brother nullifies all proof of piety, for hatred is a sure char
acteristic of moral darkness — the ungodly state, as love is of
light — the really Christian life.-*
9. He that saith he is in the light, and hateth his brother,
is in darkness even until now.
10. He that loveth his brother abideth in the light, and
there is none occasion of stumbling in him.
11. But he that hateth his brother is in darkness, and
walketh in darkness, and knoweth not whither he goeth,
because that darkness hath blinded his eyes.
Probably there were asperities and alienations of feeling among
professed brethren against which John intended these verses
should bear. Let such unloving professors of religion understand
that their spirit is of earthly darkness, and not of gospel light;
is ofthe world, not of Christ; that they know not the true light,
but abide still in the old darkness of their ungodly life. Doubtless
if such men suppose themselves Christians, they are blind and
self-deceived.-  He who walks in love abides in the light, and
will not make either himself or his fellow-men stumble in the
Christian life.
12. I write unto you, little children, because your sins
.ire forgiven you for his name's sake.
13. I write unto you, fathers, because ye have known him
ilwt is from the beginning. I write unto you, young men,
because ye have overcome the wicked one. I write unto
you, little children, because ye have known the Father.
14. I have written unto you, fathers, because ye have
known him that is fr'om Jhe beginning. I have written unto
* The corrected text at the close of v. 7 omits " from the begin
ning" — a change wliich leaves the seuse the same.

L JOHN.-CHAP. IL 329
you, young men, because ye are strong, and the word of
God abideth in you, and ye have overcome the wicked one.
To three clasaea distinguished by age, viz. children, fathers,
and young men, he writes now and has written before. In these
verses he gives the special reasons why he has written. The
reasons for both the present and the former writing seem to be
substantially the same, the slightly varied expressions amounting
to much the same in thought ; — to little children because they are
forgiven through Chriat, or otherwise put — " have known the
Father ; '' to the fathers in the church becauae they had " known
him who ia from the beginning," of whom in his gospel John had
said — "In the beginning was the Word; " to young men because
they had overcome Satan ; were strong in the vigor of youth and
in the freshness of their Christian life through having God's word
abiding in their hearts. He assumes it to be a glorious achieve
ment for young men at the age when the world, the flesh, and
the devil are perhaps raost seductive and powerful, to have over
come the devil and to put all their youthful vigor into Christian
work aud the Christian life.
In the last clause of v. 13 (the second address to little chil
dren) the corrected text gives, not "I write," but "I have writ
ten" — a change which makes the order complete — each of the
three classes being named twice; once as addressed now; and
again, as having been written to previously.  Whether the
forraer writing refers to his gospel; to some other epistle; or to
the preceding part of this — is neither very certain nor very im
portant. 15. Love not the world, neither the things tliat are in the
world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father
is not in him.
16. For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and
the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the
Father, but is of the world.
17. And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof:
but he that doeth the will of God abideth forever.
Naturally John's allusion to the moral -victory achieved by
young men suggested these words of admonition as to the chief
dangers ofthe Christian life.  The love of the Father and the
love of the world are naturally incompatible because both say,
" Give rae thy heart," and " no raan can serve two masters "—es
pecially two so antagonistic as God and Mamraon.  The analy
sis and classification of the difl'erent forma of worldly good (as in
V. 16)— "the lust ofthe flesh, the lust ofthe eyes, and the pride
of life" — are exceedingly useful as indicating in general what is
meant by "the world" and by "loving the -world," while at the
same time it is not wise to regard this classification as exhaust-
'ire. There may be yet other forms of worldly good not less

330 L JOHN.-CHAP. IL
hostile to loving God; not less ensnaring therefore and ruinous.
The love of money is not named here. Let no one forget that
Jesus put Mamraon among the chief enemies of huraan souls, and
that Paul said, "The love of money is the root of all evil" — (1
Tim. 6 : 10). John may have had reasons for placing the points
named here in the foreground — supposably because these were
then the forms of worldly pleasure which most imperiled the
young. But John would justly rebuke ua if we should infer from
his not naming the love of money that he made no account of
that form of world-loving.
Of every form of worldly good he would say — ^It is short-lived,
fleeting, sure to pass swiftly away. While yet one is saying to
hiraself — "I have gained it; behold what a treasure!" Io, it is
gone ! Or, what is equally fatal, the pleasure-lover himself passes
away, and is no more ! — That John had this in mind may be in
dicated by his contrast: " He that doeth the will of God abideth
forever." In u, very precious sense he never dies. Never is he
torn away from all he loves. It is only the miserable worldling
who " is driven away in his wickedness." Oh, how does the por
tion of the righteous rise in its preciousness and brighten in
glory as the years roll away and as the end of human life draws
near !
18. Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have
heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many
antichrists ; whereby we know that it is the last time.
"The last time ''^ — in the Greek, "the last hour." The ques
tion will arise — Did John suppose the days then passing to be the
last hours of time ? Could he have been so much mistaken, and
yet be writing letters under inspiration ?
To meet these questions fundamentally, let us group to
gether the parallel passages ofthe New Testament which will give
us the current ideas of the age and the then current usage of
these and kindred terms. " Hath in ihese last days spoken to us
by his Son" (Heb. 1: 2); — " Christ was manifested in these last
times for you " (1 Pet. 1 : 20) ; — " It shall come to pass in the last
days, saith God, I will pour out my Spirit " (Acts 2 ; 17) — sup
posed to be fulfilled at the Great Pentecost; — "Now the Spirit
speaketh expressly that in the latter times some shall depart from
the faith" (1 Tim. 4:1); "In the last days perilous tiraes shall
corae " (2 'Tim. 3 : 1) ; — "Eemember the words spoken before by
the apostles . . . how they told you there should be mockers
in the last time " (Jude 17, 18) ; — ¦" 'These things are written for
our admonition upon whom the ends ofthe world are come " — i. e.
upon whom the two ends of the ages meet — the former age
coming to its close and the latter age beginning (1 Cor. 10: 11);
- — "Now once in the end of ihe world hath Christ appeared to
put away sin by the sacriflce of himself" (Heb. 9; 26).
The careful reader of these passages will see that the italicised

I

L JOHN.-CHAP. IL 331
ihrases describe the Messianic age, the period commencing with
is incarnation and including all that was to be subsequent.
The Jews divided all time into two ages (" worlds " they some
times call them) — the age before Christ and the age after —
much as the Christian world make the birth of Christ the divid
ing line of time, reckoning what preceded in one table, and all
that follows in another. In dividing time thus into two great
ages, neither the Jewish world nor the Christian express any
opinion as to the length of the last age. We agree to call it the
last days, the last age, committing ourselves to no theory as to its
duration. Any further consideration of questions in reference to
the views of the apostles respecting Christ's future comings, will
come fitly into my Excursus on this subject in the Appendix.
The word "antichrist" is peculiar to John and occurs only
in these Epistles (2: 18, 22, and 4: 3, and 2 Eps. 7). The refer
ence to antichrist in the verse before us seeras to conteraplate
some definite individual; but in v. 22 any one who denies the
Father and the Son is an antichrist.  " Ye have heard that
antichrist shall come "- — for Jesus had forewarned his people
(Matt. 24 : 11, 24) of the coming of " false Christs and false
prophets," and so also had Paul in speaking to the elders of the
Ephesian church (Acts 20: 29, 30) (where John was writing) and
also iu writing to Timothy, then at Ephesus (1 Tim. 4: 1, and 2
Tim. 3 : 1). "These forewarnings designated the time as in the
latter days. Jesus placed false Christs and prophets, in time,
shortly before the destruction of Jerusalem.
19. They went out from us, but they were not of us ; for
if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued
with us : but they went out, that they might be made mani
fest that they were not all of us.
Some of these antichrists were apostates from the Christian
faith. John thinks it important to show how men once supposed
to be real Christians might become apostate. He explains it
thus : They never were true Christians. If they had been they
would have remained true to Christ ; but they went out, not be
cause ihey wished to show that they never belonged there, but
because God sought to show it. We may assume that John re
membered what Jesus had said so very strongly and what him
self had recorded so fully (John 10: 26-29) : "Afy sheep hear ray
voice, and I know them, and they follow me : I give thera eternal
life ; they shall never perish ; none shall ever pluck them from
my hand," etc. It ia not strange therefore that he should pause
at this point to explain how the case of these apostates can be
harmonized with those strong words of Jeaus as to keeping all
hia sheep safely unto eternal life.
20. But ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye
know all things.

332 I. JOHN.-CHAP. II.
In thi3 best manuscripts the last clause of this verse stands —
not "ye know all things," but "ye all know" — the word " all"
qualifying the persons — not the things. Ye all have Christian
knowledge. " Unction," i. e. chrism, or the anointing, may be a tacit allu
sion to the name Christ — the anointed One; but more probably
resta ou the ancient Hebrew uaage of anointing priests and kings
for their sacred functions — which anointing became an emblem
of divine illumination for their work. The word passed down
into the Christian age to signify the teaching of the Spirit as
promised by Jesus— "He shall teach you all things," etc. Thus
taught by the Spirit they had such Christian knowledge that they
could detect these antichrists and withstand their seductions.
21. I have not -written unto you because ye know not the
truth, but because ye know it, and that no lie is of the
truth. 22. Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the
Christ ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the
Son. Fortunately, John could have confidence in the brethren to
whom he wrote that their knowledge of gospel truth would be
equal to this emergency. They raust see that to deny the Messi
ahship of Jeaus would be fatal to the whole gospel scheme. This
being denied, nothing remains. For, to deny this denies both the
Father and the Son. We have no God left to love and to worship,
for God the Father has most fully indorsed the mission of Jeaus
hia Son. If this is not reliable, we have lost God, and virtually
have no God — Father, Son, or Spirit — on whom we can rely.
23. Whosoever denieth the Son, the sarae hath not the
Father : \hui\ he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father
also. In our English version the last clause of this verse is put in
Italics, indicating doubt of its being genuine. There seems to be
not the least occasion for this doubt. The best manuscripts con
tain it, and the course of thought with this clause included is en
tirely in harmony with John's habit. To deny the Son is to lose
the Father; to confess the Son retains to us the Father — two prop
ositions mutually correlated to each other. Men must hold to the
Father and to the Son both aud equally, or must lose both. It is
impossible to retain the Father after having rejected the Son.
24. Let that therefore abide in you, which ye have heard
frora the beginning. K that which ye have heard from the
beginning shall remain in you, ye also shall continue in the
Son, and in the Father.

I. JOHN.-CHAP. IL 333
25. And this is the proraise that he hath promised us, even
eternal life.
Hold fast, therefore, to the doctrine of Christ which ye have
heard from the first. So doing, ye will continue in the Son and
in the Father ; and the promised bleasings of this gospel— that
eternal life in whioh all culminate — shall be your portion.
26. These things have I written unto you concerning them
that seduce you.
27. But the anointing which ye have received of him
abideth in you, and ye need not that any raan teach you :
but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is
truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall
abide in him.
All these things I have written to warn you against being se
duced from the truth as to Christ.  "Anointing ' (v. 27) (Greek)
is the word translated " unction" (v. 20), and refers here aa there
to the truth taught them by the Spirit. In this teaching John
has unlimited confidence — that they have it; that it is pure truth;
and will be all they need to know concerning Jesus.
28. And now, little children, abide in him; that, when
he shall appear, we may have confidence, and not be
ashamed before him at his coming.
" That if he shall appear " — " if" being a more accurate trans
lation than " when."  " Not be ashamed," should rather be —
not be put to shame ; for in that august and glorious hour, it is
not supposable that perishing mortals will be ashamed of Jesus,
coming in his glory. The one only thing they have to fear is that
Jesus may be ashamed of them, and they be put to shame before
him. But what shall be said of this supposition — that Jesus may pos
sibly appear ?  Thia at leaat — that auch a supposition is always
in order — never can be out of place.  Also this farther : — that
if the time when lay in a sense uncertain before John's mind, and
he could not be sure but it might be really near, there would be
the greater propriety in making thia supposition. As to the opin
ions of the apostles on this time-question, my views have been
expressed and referred to sufEciently.  Aa to the moral bear
ings of this coming, nothing could be m.ore fearful than to be
found out of Christ — not abiding in hira — when that august day
shall break upon the world.
29. If ye know that he is righteous, ye know that every
one that doeth righteousness is born of him.
" He ia righteous " — but who is meant by " he " ? The nearest
expreased antecedent ia "he" who is to appear — Jesus. Yet ip
15

334 I. JOHN.-CHAP. IIL
the subsequent context, "born of him" should refer to God, the
more so because sons so born are in the next verse spoken of as
" sons of God." But the senae ia essentially the same whether
" he " refers to Christ or to God.
If ye know that God is righteous ye know that the righteous
ones among men are his children, born of him. Nothing short
of such a new birth insures the fruits of intrinsic righteousness
of character and life. Jt is perfectly safe to assume and affirm
this, for, apart from the grace that regenerates human souls, there
is no esaential righteousness in human character.

0Ot»40* 

CHAPTEE III.
The central doctrine in this precious chapter ia that being born
of God reveala itself in an unsinning, loving life in thia world,
and in the consummation of purity aud blesaedness in the next.
1. Behold, what manner of love the Father bath bestowed
upon us, that we should be called the sons of God : there
fore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not.
It will aid the reader toward the full sense of this verse to con
sider its close connection with the verse immediately preceding,
and also the bearing of the words which the best authorities in
troduce after the clause — " the sons of God" — viz. "and we are."
These words suggest that the marvel of God's love is not merely
that we should be called the sons of God, but that we should really
he such; — "and we are."  Connecting this verse with the one
next preceding, we have this line of thought : Inasmuch as the glory
of God's character is its infinite righteousness, it follows that
every one who practices righteousness, being in heart and life
really righteous, shows that he has been born of God. He has
become what he is through the new birth by the Spirit.  Then
.lohn breaks forth in this expression of admiring wonder: "Be
hold what manner of love the Father hath bestowed on us that we
ahould be called sons of God I " Yet let us not put too much em
phasis on the word " called," as if John thought more of the
honor of the narae than of the value of the thing which the name
indicates. Let us recall the fact that Hebrew usage — most marked
iu Isaiah — employs the verb "call" to signify not so much the
name aa the reality. Such muat be John's meaning here not only
because of this ancient Hebrew usage, but because the improved
text manifestly gives this sense. Behold this love of God — that
he should not only call us sons, but that we should really be sons I
The great love shines forth in the new birth which makes us sons

L JOHN.--CHAP. IIL 335
in spirit and in life, rather than in the gift of a name and the
honor of a public adoption into the family of God. The intrinsic
righteousness which makes us like our Heavenly Father is more
than the honor of the recognized parentage, though the latter be
truly great and wonderful. Oh, the inefi"able love manifested frora
God in that work of his Spirit whioh tranaforras human hearts
from enmity to love — from all iniquity into the spirit of intrinsic
righteousness like that of God himself I In what fitting words
shall we celebrate and set it forth! That w? — such as we were
by nature and auch as we had made ourselves by sin — should not
only be called but ahould in fact become sons of God by being
transformed into his raoral image — what less can we say of this
than to exclaim — Behold what manner of love in God does this
reveal ! Was such love ever known elsewhere in all the universe ?
John proceeds to say — No wonder that men of the world know
not us, for they know not God. When Jesus came araong men
revealing God, their eyes were blind, their souls dark as to this
light of God. Therefore it were vain to expect they will recog
nize us as God's sona, born into his moral image. They have no
eyes (morally speaking) to discern such raoral qualities. Hating
such light, the power of a bad heart to darken the huraan intelli
gence takes fearful effect and dooms them to the guilt and ruin
of moral blindness. Hence Christians may walk in the light and
the love of Christ through life, heirs of a heavenly kingdom and
yei unknown ; nay more, with heart and life attuned to the intrin
sic righteousness of God, yet as really unrecognized of the world
as Jesus himself was when he lived before huraan eyes unknown.
2. Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not
yet appear what we shall be : but we know that, when he shall
appear, we shall be like him ; for we shall see him as he is.
3. And every man that hath this hope in him purifieth
himself, even as he is pure.
Beloved, so much we know of our prerogatives aud blessings ;
but of the far more glorious future — ah, indeed, we know but lit
tle! What we shall be, who can tell? Yet let it sufiice us to
know that whenever Jesus shall appear, coming in the clouds of
heaven to take his risen saints into their promised glory with
hiraself, then we shall be like him — all-glorious and all-pure even
as he — ¦" for we shall aee him as he is.' The moral transforma
tion of our souls into his image w'ill be made absolutely perfect
then, eflected under the normal law of all such moral changes, viz.
to see, to study, to behold admiringly, lovingly, itaelf begets the
transformation. Such a character as that of Jesus — so sweet, so
charming, so enrapturing — impresses itaelf perfectly into the
souls of hia people. It molds, transforms, new creates ; and we
become like hira, for we see hira, not diraly, not remotely, not
imperfectly, not with the leaat false shading; but perfectly as he
is ; so that the impreaaion taken up by our own willing, loving
souls will be perfect as the image that we behold.

336 L JOHN.-CHAP. III.
It was a wise hand that framed and hung the curtain that shades
the glories of the heavenly world somewhat from the curious up
turned eyes on this hither side. No doubt it is well — none can
yet say how well — that " it doth not yet appear what we shall be."
Too much for the imagination to play upon might divert us dan
gerously from the rougher work and the sterner realities of our
earthly Christian life. Of the wisdom of hiding the things kept
behind this curtain we can not perhaps speak altogether posi
tively ; but of the wisdom of revealing what is sufl'ered to shine
through we can speak somewhat intelligently, and surely ought
to speak with profoundest adrairation. Oh how glorious and yet
how safe to be assured that we shall be like Him I Like Him
whose moral image is infinite beauty and unspeakable glory; like
Hira whora above all others we love, revere and adore. How
should this satisfy us, though we Were to know nothing else
whatever of heaven ! Satisfy ? nay more — how should it ravish
our soula with inefi'able delight; how should it breathe through
our whole being- the deep repose of a perfect consummation!
Surely the Christian who has thrown bis whole heart into earnest
endeavor to become like Christ, with watchfulness and prayer and
manifold recastings, laboriously eliminating the evil and giving
fresh culture to the good — will know how to appreciate this one
blessed asaurance: "We shall be like him, for we shall see him
as he is."
In this very line of thought John himself would lead us; —
"Every man that hath this hope in Him (Christ) purifieth him
self even as he (Christ) is pure." Such a hope of being in the
better world perfectly like Jesus puts the soul upon its utmost
endeavors to reach even here the highest attainable conformity to
his pure character. By one of the highest and beat laws of our
being, we labor spontaneously to prepare ourselves for the future
responsibilities, dignities, labors and trusts that lie before us in
anticipation. Adjusting his revelationa of the heavenly world to
thia law of our being, God puts in the foreground of the revealed
heaven theae two great facts — that we are to see Jesus as he ia;
and that we are to become perfectly like him. Now let thia re
vealed knowledge have its free play of action and reaction upon
our souls, and how mightily must it inspire us to the utmost en
deavor to perfect this maturity of Christian character even here !
The sort of influence we shall receive from the heaven we think
of will be as that heaven itself - A fancied sensual paradise will
feed sensuality. A heaven of scientific pursuits and acquisitions
might very naturally stimulate scientific culture. Too much place
given to the social side of our nature as to be developed among
our fellow-raen would be in danger of toning down the grand as
pirations which John conteraplates. But to put the vision of Je
sus as he is, aud the becoming verily like hira, not only into the
foreground but over the whole ground of our view — this is at
once wholesome in its perfect safety, and in its very nature is
grandly sublime I

L JOHN.-CHAP. IIL 337
If our ideal heaven were such a heaven as this, and if all our
hopes of heaven were these hopes of seeing Jesus as he is, and
of being absolutely like him, the mistaken hopes and the failures
of the hoping, to reach heaven, would be indefinitely leaa, and
the moral power of anticipating heaven would be indefinitely
greater and purer.
4. Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law :
for sin is the transgression of the law.
5. And ye know that he was manifested to take away our
sins; and in him is no sin.
6. Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not : whosoever sin
neth hath not seen him, neither known him.
The connection of these verses with those which precede should
be carefully noted — viz. that the spirit of the Christian life, his
sonship, his intrinsic righteousness, his aspirations to be like Je
sus — are all fundamentally anti-sin — there being no sympathy
whatever but the most repellant contrariety between such a
Christian and the sinner whom he here conteraplates.
The noticeable thing in v. 4 is the prominence given to the
fact that sin is against laio. It would seera that these proposi
tions — the doer of siu practices law-breaking : for sin is break
ing law — raust allude to some heresy theu current, supposably
one which ignored the moral law, perhaps denied its binding
force, and thua virtually broke down God s standard of human
duty and obligation. Of this, however, we can not speak posi
tively. It deserves consideration whether the word John uses, transla
ted " transgression of the law " * ahould not be taken in the sense
of lawlessness — the lawless spirit — in which sense he would affirm
that the doer of sin raanifests lawlessness ; that the chief element
of guilt in all sin is the lawless spirit which it involves — the reck
less disregard of God's authority; the deliberate repelling of
God's standard of human duty. This would evince a heart in
hostile and even disdainful attitude toward God. In this aspect
of sin, the difficulties of the passage mainly if not wholly disap
pear. For, with such a spirit of sin, the Christian life is utterly
contrasted. There can be no difficulty, in maintaining that such
sin must be unknown in the true Christian life, and is utterly in
consistent with it. His deficiencies and short-comings never
reach the point of defiant lawlessness. He may sin inadvertently,
or through sudden impulses of temptation, or in falling short of
the highest and purest possible devotion to Christ; but his sin is
not lawlessness.
.lesus was made manifest in human flesh (aa ye all know) for
* Anomia.

338 L JOHN.-CHAP. IIL
the great purpose of taking away sin,* and waa himself sinless.
Hence his example bears with ita solid force against sinning.
The great aim of his mission to earth bears in the same direc
tion. Let his people remember all this forever.  Consequently
whosoever abideth in him, as the branch in its parent vine, draw
ing his life-forces from Jesus himaelf, does not sin. Such minis
trations of spiritual life-power, beget the fruit of holiness, not of
sin. The man who sins makes it plain that he has no just spirit
ual apprehensions of Jesus — surely does not in the gospel sense,
" abide in him." The same doctrine is put in v. 9 below in terms
somewhat dlfl'ering, but in sense the same.
The only really difficult question involved in these passages re
spects the sort of sins of which some, not to say many who
give unquestioned proof of piety, confess themselves from time to
time^-or perhaps all the time, guilty. Not that they confess to
a lawless spirit; not that they disown obligation or deny Christ;
not that they raake up their mind to forsake his service and sell
themselves to work iniquity ; no ; but they confesa to falling be
low their own standard of duty ; to inadvertent transgressions ; to
deflcient zeal and love. Vfhat shall be said of such confessed sin
in the case of raen apparently true followers of Christ ?
Shall we say that John uses the words " sin" and "sinner"
in the strong eraphatio aense which is so coramon in the gospel
histories, a sense involving open, flagrant immoralities — e. g.
" Behold a woman in the city who was a sinner " etc. (Luke 7 :
37, 39) ; "He was gone to be a guest with a man that is a sinner"
(Luke 19 : 7); " Publican and sinners " — often; "How can a man
who is a sinner do such miracles ? " . . " We know that this man
is a sinner." (.lohn 9: 16, 24). — This usage, being both common
and' strong, must be conceded (it would seem) to have weight in
the interpretation of these words of John. — According to this
usage he who practices sin is a positive character — a real sinner,
whose spirit and life fix and stamp him as a known law-breaker,
even if not in every case a man of lawless spirit.
But it behooves us to beware lest we push this supposed sense
of his words too far, and so let a bad class of sins, such as should
distress any Christian heart, escape condemnation as not included
under the word " sin." For, beyond all doubt, John is here la
boring to show that Jesus, our Exemplar, had no sin ; that he came
to take away all sin, and that the pure life of the Heavenly One
should inspire all his friends with aspirations for the same purity
even here.
What then is John's doctrine, here, in regard to those imper
fections of which many apparently true Christians confess them
selves guilty?
With a deep undisguised sense of the great delicacy and real
difficulty involved iu this question, I yet venture the following
¦* The best textual authorities omit ihe v,'ord "our," making the
affirmation general.

I. JOHN.-CHAP. IIL 339
suggestions;  (1.) There is nothing here whioh indicates that
John had these consciously imperfect yet upward struggling
Christians deflnitely iu his mind, and raeant his statements to
bear specially upon them.  (2.) Consequently the utmost cau
tion should be used iu applying these words to cases which seem
to have been foreign from his thought.  (3.) Yet all his state
ments and reasonings bear against every form and degree of sin
of which men can be intelligently conscious, and toward the attain
ment here in time of Christ-like purity.
On this passage Luecke reraarks — " John speaks not of the dif
ferent degrees of perfection which struggling Christians have
reached, but of the ideal and absolute difference between Chria
tian virtue and piety, and ain in general"  Neander (Epiatle
of John, p. 194) apeaking of the really Christian spirit and of its
possible imperfections, remarka ; " That the deterraining tenden
cies of the Chriatian, of the will in the Chriatian, can be no
other than holy and averae to sin : that only the after workings
of the forraer relations of sin, of the old mau, oppose themselves
to what is now his determining and controlling tendency."
7. Little children, let no man deceive you : he that doeth
righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous.
8. He that committeth sin is of the devil ; for the devil
sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of
God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the
devil. Manifestly John was not beating the air, but levelling his blows
against teachers of false doctrine, then abroad, infesting the
churches. Under what pretenses they sought to defend iniquity,
aud perhaps immorality, it is not of special importance that we
should know. No doubt .lohn met them, squarely confronting
their doctrine when he said — None save the doer of righteousness
is a righteous man, like Jesus Christ. Profession of righteous
ness without the real practice of it is worse than worthless. Sin
ia of the devil, and he who commits it worka under hia maater and
in hia service. The Son of God became manifest among men to
war upon the devil, to counteract and destroy his works. No an-
tagoniata were ever more aquarely confronted than they or in more
deadly hostility to each other.
9. Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin ; for
his seed remaineth in hira : and he cannot sin, because he is
born of God.
Beyond question, being "born of God" here is the new birth,
regeneration ; and the flgure of the human birth ia still carried
out in the allusion to " his seed " as remaining in him. As we
might say, one born of royal parentage carries ever in his veins
his royal blood.  But when we pass from the material to the
spiritual and ask — What is that in the human soul which, being

340

I. JOHN.-CHAP. UL

introduced in regeneration, remains in him, by virtue of which
he can not sin, what shall we say ? Does Peter express it accu
rately (1 Peter 1 : 23) — " Being born again, not of corruptible
seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God whioh liveth and
abideth forever" ? This turns our mind to God's revealed truth
as the corresponding spiritual reality. Yet does not the nature
of the case suggest also a certain receptivity to -this truth and a
certain moral attitude of will and purpose, due influentially to the
Spirit of God, which give cast and tone to all subsequent moral
activities ? Metaphysically considered, the philosophy of the new
birth is deep. It is more easy, perhaps more comraon, to talk
about it superficially than profoundly. Aa interpreters we may
reasonably be satisfied with saying that according to John's phi
losophy of mind the new birth brought into the soul an element
at once morally powerful and permanent, which quite forbids any
relapse into utter, fatal antagonism to God. In the strong em
phatic sense of sinning, the new-born soul can not sin.
10. In this the children of God are manifest, and the
children of the devil : whosoever doeth not righteousness is
not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother.
In the sense comraon in the gospel of John (e. g. 8 ; 37-44),
according to which Jesus adraltted that the Jews were Abraham's
progeny but denied that they were his children, the being chil
dren here implies that they have the spirit of their father. In
this sense the children of God and the children of the devil may
be readily tested and proved: The former practice righteousness;
the latter wickedness ; the forraer loveth his brother; the latter
hateth. 11. For this is the message that ye heard from the be
ginning, that we should love one another.
12. Not as Cain, who was of that wicked one, and slew
his brother. And wherefore slew he him? Because his
own works were evil, and his brother's righteous.
From the beginning of the gospel age — perhaps John would
say — in my gospel history — ye had the message which commanded
that we " love one another" (John 13 : 34, 35). An example in
point — put in contrast — will make it plain and give it force :
" Not as Cain who was of Satan" (irapelled by his instigations)
" and slew his brother." But note with what raasterly ease and
accuracy John puts his finger on the impelling motive. Cain
could not bear to see his virtuous brother accepted of God, and
himself, consciously guilty, rejected. "His own works were evil
and his brother's righteous," and worst of all, God knew it and
saw fit to testify his views of them both. It was too much for
the wicked brother to bear. So envy and jealousy work unto

L JOHN.-CHAP. III. 341
murder.  But is every body's envy and hate of a brother of tho
sarae sort and of like guilt with that of Cain ? So John implies.
13. Marvel not, ray brethren, if the world hate you.
14. We know that we have passed frora death unto life,
because we love the brethren. He that loveth not /w'.3
brother abideth in death.
15. Whosoever hateth his brother is a raurderer: and ye
know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him.
That the world should hate you should surprise no one. The
case of Cain explains it all. When we truly love the brethren with
love like Christ's, we may safely infer frora it that we have passed
from death in sin unto life in God. A loving heart toward Chris
tian brethren is one of the surest tests of piety and one most
easily applied.  On the opposite hand, to hate one's brother is
the spirit of murder as ye saw in Cain ; .and how can a murderer
have eternal life abiding in him?  Note the pith and force of
the phrase " eternal life" to signify true godliness — such a char
acter as ripena for immortal bleaaedness and is indeed a heaven
already begun in the soul. The pungency and force of the
phraae lie in the obvious incompatibility of murder and love
dwelling in the same bosom.
If we take love to the brethren as an infallible test of piety,
it becomes vitally important that we make no mistake as to its
genuineness. On this point there may be fatal mistakes. For
example ; there is a social good feeling that falls far short of
Christian love of the brethren ; there may be a common sym
pathy in church work and religious service which haa little to
do with love to Christ or to the souls of men. Even worahip may
be congenial for its esthetic taste and surroundings rather than
for ita adaptations to the broken and contrite spirit.  Then
moreover, what is thought to be brotherly love may go not beyond
complacency in really lovable social qualities, and may have in it
none of that outgoing benevolence whioh loves and seeks the
highest spiritual good of the brethren and gives itself spontane
ously to prayer and labor in their behalf Only that love of
brethren is genuine, and, as a test of piety reliable, which presup
poses love io God — as John expresses it; loving him that begat,
-we love his begotten ; loving God, we love his children, for they
become (we may say) lineal brothers — ¦brethren not in name but
in blood — in spirit; in character.
1 6. Hereby perceive we the love of God, because he laid
down his life for us : and we ought to lay down our lives for
the brethren.
The reader will notice the words " of God " in Italics, indi
cating that the Greek has no words corresponding. These Italic
words are not at all necessary to the sense. They rather mislead

342 L JOHN.-CHAP. III.
than lead well, for the thought is rather upon Christ than God'.
Herein have we known [i. e. have had the means of fully appre
ciating] what real love meana ; viz. by this — That he [Jesus
ChristJ laid down his life for us. This is the crowning illustra
tion of real love. We need go no further for one more expres
sive.  Note the striking contrast which suggested this allusion
to the death of Christ— viz. between the murderer who takes an
other's life because he hates, and Jesus who lays down his own
becauae he lovea.  From this example of Jesus the writer ad
vances to the Christian duty. We ought to be ready to follow
Christ, even to the laying down of our lives for the brethren.
Why not? This could not be more than Jesus has done for us.
17.- But whoso hath this world's good, and seeth his brother
have need, and shutteth up his bowels of compassion from
him, how dwelleth the love of God in him ?
18. My little children, let us not love in word, neither in
tongue ; but in deed and in truth.
The service of love is often withheld at a point far short of
laying down our life for the brethren. Consider this case in
point; — A mau has this world's good — literally, the life of thia
world, in the sense of the meana of supporting life; and sees his
brother in want and shuts up his bowels of compassion — hardens
bis heart against sympathy and shuts' his hand from help; —
How can the love of God be in him? Can it be possible that he
loves God and yet manifests no love for God's children ? His love
can not reach God in the way of beneficence ; such love is cheap
in the sense that it costs him no outlay of labor or sacrifice. If
he had any real love for God's children, he might readily show
it — buthe shows it not! Let him not deceive himaelf with the
delusion that he lovea God!  Mark how pungently John puts
his admonition — ^Let us not love in word neither in tongue ; word-
love, tongue-love, is odious, disgusting, hateful to God as it is
worthless and a"busive to the sufl'ering poor. Let your love be
that of deeds and realities, a love that evinces its sincerity by its
legitimate fruits of beneficence.
This opens the great subject of charity to the poor ; not indeed
presenting all its nice questions as to helping the indolent, the
improvident, the wasteful, the dishonest, the vicious ; but putting
the subject forward in its simple elements — compaaaion for the
needy. It waa not in place for John to raise questions as to the
wisdora of one method of relief compared with another, nor to
show how to forestall abuses of charity. He must be expected
to speak for his own tiraes. Then, some Christians lost all by
confiscation; sorae were imprisoned ; some banished; some slain —
for their fidelity to Christ. Shall pinching want occasioned by
such fidelity to Christ be unrelieved by their well-fed brethren ?
The principle of loving one's Christian brother at the cost of
some sacrifice of worldly good to meet their greater need, John

I. JOHN.-CHAP, III. 343
sought to present in strong light, aud has done it. Let us be
ware lest we dishonor this principle, disown this duty, and fail
of the blessings of obedience because in our times Christian
charity is soraetimes selfishly abused, and numberless questions
as to the wisest method are sprung upon us. It were better to
fall below perfect wisdom than to mar the beauty and miss the
blessedness of real love,
19. And hereby we know that we are of the truth, and
shall assure our hearts before him.
20. -For if om- heart condemn us, God is greater than our
heart, and knoweth all things,
21. Beloved, if our heart condemn us not, then have we
confidence toward God.
By such tests as this, proving our love by really doing good,
making sacrifices for our more needy brethren, we may know that
we are of the truth, and are entitled to have confidence of soul
before him. "Assure our hearts before him" in the sense of al
laying conscientious fears and taking encouragement from a con-
sciousneas of real honeaty before God.  "Being of the truth"
looks toward "loving in deed and in truth." To have this proof
that our love ia genuine will justify a quiet non-accusing con
science. The word "heart" is applied here to what is comraonly
known as the conscience — the moral sense, considered as taking
cognizance of our own moral states and acts. God has given us
this capacity of self-inspection and self-judgment. John mani
featly assumes that in general its decisions are to be obeyed as iu
harmony with God's, and that we may expect God to sustain and
endorse them. If our own conscience condemns us — e. g. as to
the point here in hand — for withholding our sympathy and aid
from our more needy and suff'ering brother, we raay be very sure
that God — greater than our heart and knowing all things more
perfectly than we can — will condemn us also. But if our con
science condemn us not, we may at least have confidence toward
God that he does not condemn us. John doea not say — It ia there
fore certain that God will not condemn us, but only, that we may
have a quiet trust, free from painful solicitude.
22. And whateoever we ask, we receive of him, because
we keep his commandments, and do those things that are
pleasing in his sight.
This calm, non-accusing, really approving conscience, sustaina
most vital relations to prayer. "We do not come before God al
ready self-condemned for our dishonesty, insincerity, hypocrisy:
no, but rather with confidence that we honestly aim to keep his
commandraents and do evermore what we suppose and believe to
be pleasing in his sight. John says that, coming before God in
this moral attitude, we receive of him whatever we ask.  Let
it be carefully observed here that John does not rest our preva-

344 I. JOHN.-CHAP. IV.
lence in prayer upon the basis of our personal merit; does. not
-'say that having deserved blessings, we may be sure of receiving;
but merely says that a consciousness of honesty toward God and
of a steadfast aim to do his commandments legitimately begets
confidence before him, and that God will respond with favoring
answer to our prayer — of course only for Christ's sake. Well
does Neander remark on this passage — "As sons, whose filial re
lation has suffered no interruption, .can with child-like trust and
confidence ask all from their father ; so believers whose life is of
the truth, who are conscious of no disturbance of their filial re
lation to God through unfaithfulness on their part, can ask all with
child-like confidence from God their Father."
23. And this is his commandment, That we should be
lieve on the name of his Son Jesus Christ, and love one
another, as he gave us comraandment.
24. And he that keepeth his commandments dwelleth in
him, and he in him. And hereby we know that he abideth
in us, by the Spirit which he hath given us.
Altogether like John are these comprehensive words expressing
the elementary principles of gospel requirement. If you aak
what are the central commandmenta in the goapel scheme, he
answers — Believe in Jesus; love one another. Keeping his cora-
mandments ye come into raost intiraate rautual relations to hira;
ye dwell in him ; he dwells in you ; and of this indwelling his
Spirit, present to your soul, .is the witness. We may know that
Christ dwells in us by the self-conscious testimony which his
Spirit bears to our inmost heart.  This witneaaing of the Spirit,
taught plainly. here by John (see 4: 13), and also by Paul (e. g.
Eom. 8; 16), is doubtleaa liable to abuse (what point of gospel
truth or grace is not ?), yet is none the less a thing of fact and
of conscious experience. If the mission of the Spirit be a reality,
and his presence in Christian souls, a fact, why should it be
thought a thing incredible that he should raake his presence raani
fest in the temple where he dwells ? Why should not his voice
be heard — nay more, be sometimes identified — made so definite,
so clear, so emphatic, so precious, that the human soul may hear
and may verily know that this is his own voice and none other
than his?

CHAPTEE IV.
To expose false spirits; to prove their false character by de
cisive tests; to give tests of real piety for each one's own self-

L JOHN.-CHAP. IV. 345
judgment; to give prominence to lovo aa the cardinal element of
Christian character — these aro the leading themes in this chapter.
1. Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits
whether they are of God : because many false prophets are
gone out into the world.
H. Hereby know ye the Spirit of God : Every spirit that
confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God :
3. And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ
is corae in the flesh is not of God : and this is that spirit of
antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should corae ; and
even now already is it in the world.
Other spirits than those from God have infested the church
more or leaa in all ages. • The law of Moses contemplated their
presence and provided tests for their detection (Deut. 13 : 1-5) —
these tests being not the miracles they clairaed to work but the
doctrines they taught. In the age of Jereraiah, they were a ter
rible curse upon Israel. Jesus forewarned his disciples against
them (Matt. 24: 11, 24) — not without reason, as their own aubae-
quent writinga show. It was therefore the dictate of wisdom to
enjoin — "Believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether
they are of God." Not all who profess to be led by the Spirit of
God are to be accepted. Try them by what they teach ; receive
them not till ye know that their message is in accordance with
God's revealed truth.  ^At the time and place where John lived
and wrote, the touch-stone was the question -whether "Jesus Chriat
had come inthe flesh" — the denial of hia true humanity, involv
ing of course the denial of the incarnation of the Son of God.
It deserves more careful attention than ia sometimes given to it
that these words of John — " Believe not every spirit, but try the
spirits whether they are of God" — imply that these "spirits"
claimed to come with inspiration frora God. We must suppose
that they imitated the true prophets of that age ; put on the airs
of ecstasy, rapture, strong mental excitement, so that the utraost
vigilance and the application of searching tests becarae a necessity
for the protection of the churches. Furthermore, coupling these
representations of John with the teachings of Paul it becomes
clear that in the view of the apostles, these false prophets were
really instigated by the devil. Their inspiration came from him.
Paul said — " We wrestle not against flesh and blood [only] but
against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the
darkness of this world, against wicked spirits in high places
(Eph. 6 : 12). So the apostles held and taught. Were they mis
taken? 'Was this notion a mere superstition of the age? Has
the progress of huraan thought lifted this notion as an incubus
of superstition frora the heart of the intelligent, scientific world
of our days? Or is it not rather the case that the last of Satan's

346 I. JOHN.-CHAP. IV.
devices is to beguile men into ignoring his agencies, not to say
also his very existence ?
4. Ye are of God, little children, and have overconie them :
because greater is he that is in you, than he that is m the
world. 5. They are of the world : therefore speak they of the
world, and the world heareth thera.
6. We are of God : he that knoweth God heareth us ; he
that is not of God heareth not us. Hereby know we the
spirit of truth, and the spirit of error.
" Have overcome them "—the " false prophets and lying spirits."
Notice, John says—" Have overcome, although the battle was
yet mostly to be fought still. Their victory could be anticipated
with the utmost certainty ; for to have God on our side_ is always
certain victory. The opposing parties have tried their relative
strength on many a field of struggle — God always the conqueror.
To have " God on our side " — we are wont to say; but John puts
this fact more forcibly—" God in you ; " " Greater is He that is
in you than he that is in the world.^' "When God ia in us, he can
not suffer us to be overcome.  Matching God against Satan, God
ia evermore the greater and the mightier, so that even " little
children," Christians iu the infancy of the religious life, are al
ready more than conquerors when they fully admit the mighty God
into their trusting souls. " They that wait on the Lord shall re
new their strength."  Those false prophets " are of the world ; "
are not sent of God, but come forth from the world, possessed by
the spirit of the world, in sympathy with the world only and al
together. Hence their speech and doctrine are of the world.
No marvel then if men of the world hear them. Of course they
will. " But we are of God," iu the same sense in which they
are " of the world." Therefore the men who know God will hear
us ; men not of God will not hear us. This test will enable you
to discriminate the spirit of truth from the spirit of error. Godly
men are in sympathy with the former; ungodly men with the
hitter. Men of G-od hear and love the truth ; godless men receive
and love falsehood— the errors and lies that claim to be Christian
doctrine. 7. Beloved, let us love one another : for love is of God ;
and every one that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God.
8. He that loveth not, knoweth not God; for God is
love. 9. In this was manifested the love of God toward' us, be
cause that God sent his only begotten Son into the world,
that we might live through hira.
10. Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he
loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.

L JOHN.-CHAP. IV.. 347
Again and again the author enjoins — Let us love one nnother —
as if in hia regard this was the most sacred of Christian obliga
tions, the first of Christian duties. Was it because in his tirae
this duty was grievously violated ; or because his own fatherly,
loving heart was full of this spirit to constant overflowing ; or was
it due to his intelligent conviction of the relative place of this
in the glorious group of Christian graces ? Probably, if we sav/
the whole heart of this patriarch we should find that not some one
alone but all theae causes combined lent their force to impress
his deep sense of the worth of brotherly love in the household of
faith. Let us observe the logic of the precept; "Let us love one
another,yoj' love is of God ; " the inbreathing of his Spirit brings
it down from his own infinite fullness of love. When God gives
us of his Spirit, what can it be less or other than love? The lov-,
ing huraan heart has been born of God, for such love comes not
of man ; is not born of the flesh ; ia iu no sense congenial to
man's selfish nature. Therefore the presence of such pure love
to one another testifies to the new birth frora God and to a spirit
ual knowledge and apprehension of him.  Hence the converse
of thia should also be true ; he that loveth not his brethren can
not possibly know God — in the sense of an experimental appre
hension of his character and a true sympathy with his nature — -
for God is love. Therefore to know God as he is means that we
know his love aud experience the inbreathingsof that love through
our own moral nature.
" For God ia love." The aame truth is reaffirmed (v. 16). Let
ua give it our thoughtful attention.
In form, the atatement seems abstract, metaphysical ; for ob
serve, it is not that God is kind, affectionate, evermore manifest
ing his good will; but that he is love itself- — the very impersona
tion of love; all love, and nothing else but love. It is of course
comprehensive, all embracing. It meana that there can never
be any thing iu him, nothing coming forth frora him, that ia
not loving — an outgoing of his love.
But some one will say — Does this statement really include
and cover every element of his being? Is it not of hia nature
that he should fill the universe with his presence so that there
shall be never a point of space, iu heaven, earth, or hell, where
God is not? How can this quality of his nature be conceived
of as falling under thia definition — God is love ?  So of his
power, which, since he is God, must be simply infinite — equal
to any results which power can produce. But how can this in
finite power be brought within the definition — " God is love" ?
We raust answer these and analogous questions by adraitting
the broad distinction between God's natural attributes and his
moral. The natural are so irrelevant to John's line of thought
that he seeras not to notice them at all. Eeally, as compared
with the moral, they have only a slight importance. Yet per
haps it is more to our. purpose to say that John might reason-

348 I. JOHN.-CHAP. IV.
ably leave out of account the whole group of God's natural at
tributes because they can never very greatly need either proof
or illustration. They are self-affirmed so vigorously in every
man's sober reason ; they become such a necessity to our idea
of God, that they prove themselves. 'The man who can not in
tuitively see and know that God must be every-where present,
and infinite in power and all-aearching in kno"\vledge, has jaot
yet begun to think to purpose — has too little mind to be prof
ited by any logic of reasoning or force of facts.  Not so iu
the great realm of God's moral nature. Here it is not so clear
to every man's strong intuitions that "God is love." For do we
not see suff'ering, calamity, among his creatures? Do not hu
man nerves, made by his own hand, sometimes quiver with pain .
and seem to be nothing else but inlets of agony? Do not these
sufferings sometimes fall upon guileless infancy and upon sin
less animals, and fall, it may be, with no apparent graduation
to human guilt? To allude to these seeming irregularities, not
to say mysteries, under God's government may suffice to show
that this definition of God ia by no means gratuitous and un
called for. If it be certainly true, and if in very deed all the
apparent irregularities, mysteries, and seeming contradictions to
it which appear in the history of our world are reducible within
this definition; if the entire suff'erings in the universe be not
inconsiatent with God'a perfect love, but come legitimately un
der it — permitted in wisdom and limited to what they are by
love — how sublime must be the revelation that shall prove it!
How glorious the outshining of truth that shall disclose the love
that lay behind every apparently dark dispensation — underneath
every mysterious law of human existence I
But some one's troubled heart will ask — Can it be possible that
John meant all this when he said, "God is love"? Are -we not
overstraining his words when we give them so broad a sweep of
application ?
Let us see. The subject is too grave to be passed upon with
out attentive and candid consideration.
How does John know that God is love ? What made him think
so? Sorae devout minds will expect me to anawer this question by
falling back upon hia inapiration and saying — He wrote so un
der the dictation of the inditing Spirit.  'This is doubtless ono
way to answer the question, but not the only way. This epistle
of his (it so happens) does not leave us there, but suggests very
distinctly that John did not so ranch take this statement upon
trust aa see the truth of it in the great revelation which God had
made of his love. The next verse gives us the light we need.
We shall see there how the great love of God had been mani
fested before his eyes. He tells us how his mind became estab
lished upon this everlasting rock of truth as to the loving heart
of God. One great fact was proof enough : — " Because God sent
his only begotten Son into the world that we might live through

L JOHN.-CHAP. IV. 349
him." This means real love. If you ask for some demonstration
of God's love, here it is. I do not mean, he would say, love iu
our heart toward God, but love in God's heart toward ua. It was
this love that made him "send hia Son to be the propitiation for
our sins."  Do we take iu the full significance of this great
gift and sacrifice from God, considered as a demonstration of his
love?  Eefiect; — "Propitiation for our sins" — "that we might
live Irhrough him." Consider; sin is rebellion against God, with
its root in causeless hatred, enmity. It is not only guilt, but
meanness. Such sin makes the sinning character odious, dis
gusting. It seems to take out of man almost every quality that
God could regard as noble or attractive. And yet God so loved
this debased, hateful, guilty world of sinners that he sent his only
begotten Son to die a sacrifice for them that they raight live I
Was not this love, all love, one vast outpouring of love, one
sublirae and resistless deraonstration of an infinite heart of love?
How can it be conceived possible that God should give up his
only Son to such a doora if his heart were not pure and perfect
love? Thus the Apostle John reached the conclusion — or shall we
rather aay — felt the conviction — that God ia love. It forced itaelf
upon hia soul. He felt the proof of it as it carae upon hira with
overwhelming richness and fullness. Herein is love. Do ye ask,
What does love mean, and where can perfect love be found ?
Here it is ! Who shall ever doubt that God ia perfect love after
such a demonstration ?
11. Beloved, if God so loved us, we ought also to love
one another.
"If God so loved us'' — if God, so pure, could love us, so vile;
if God to whom sin is so revolting and sinners are so unlovable,
and whose love, to reach us, must condescend so low and bear so
much abuse; — oh, if under such circumstances, God can so love
ua, "we ought to love one another." What infinite force lies iu
this logic ! The heart, broken for sin, sensible of the great cora-
paaaion of God toward one so vile, will surely feel that /by me to
love my brother, each being alike objects of God's infinite love, is
a duty to be done — a claim to be met — with all the heart.
12. No man hath seen God at any time. If we love
one another, God dwelleth in us, and his love is perfected
in us.
13. Hereby know we that we dwell in him, and he in us,
because he hath given us of his Spirit.
To our mortal eyes God ia inviaible; not a raan has ever seen
him : but what has this to do with the Apostle's thought here ?
Perhaps this :— I have been speaking to you freely of God and
of his love for us, as if we could really know much of him. But

350 I. JOHN.-CHAP. IV.
how is it that we know him?  Usually we get our best knowl
edge of other beings by seeing them ; but none of us have in
this sense seen God ; we do not pretend to have seen him with
these mortal eyes. But if we love one another, God comes nearer
to us than merely being present to our eye of sense ; — aye indeed,
if we love one another, God dwelleth in us. He is not a God
simply outside of us, to be apprehended by the sense of sight;
but He lives within us, and thus his love reaches its full' and
proper development in our souls. We know that we dwell in
him and he in us by means of the witnessing testimony of his
Spirit. This Spirit brings a sense of God's presence, aud with
it, fullness of joy, and so inspires a sweet confidence in his love.
The Spirit dwelling in our hearts is the presence of God there.
No longer is God far away, but inexpressibly, delightfully near.
14. And we have seen and do. testify that the Father sent
the Son to be the Savior of the world.
15. Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of
God, God dwelleth in hira, and he in God.
Under such revelations of a preaent God, inapiring in our
hearta pure love to our brethren, impreasing us with a perpetual
sense of his own perfect love, -we are richly prepared to see and
to testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Savior of the
world. Nothing less could bring such an experience of love into
our inmost heart. In auch experience we have the proof of thia
mission of Christ, outgrowing from the love of the Father. 
Conversely, this confessing that Jesus is the Son of God certifies
that God dwells in us and that we dwell in him. Of course John
means indefinitely more than a confession with the lips only.
He means a confession that wells up from the depths of hu
man hearts — from hearts that have accepted this truth in love
and have felt its transforming spiritual power.
16. And we have known and believed the love that God
hath to us. God is love; and he that dwelleth in love
dwelleth in God, and God in him.
This ia one vital point in our experience; we have known and be
lieved the love that God bears toward us. Vf e accept it as true —
indeed, as a most blessed truth.  On the words, "God is love,"
see Notes on v. 8.  The words — " He that dwelleth in love " —
should be construed in keeping with the strain of this chapter,
and indeed, of this whole epistle. So construed, they refer
especially to love of ihe brethren, (considered as having its root
in love to God) — the deep mutual affection which reigns in the
hearts of those who are born to God and are brought under
the full influence of the love God hath toward all his children.
Loving the Father supremely, we shall surely love all his chil
dren. One who dwells in the atmosphere of such love to the
brethren dwells in God and God in him.

I. JOHN.-CHAP. IV. 351
17. Herein is our love made perfect, that we may have
boldness in the day of judgment : because as he is, so are
we in this world.
This verse is somewhat obscure, and has been interpreted vari
ously by good critics.  1 understand " our lovo " (Gr. love with
ua) to refer particularly to mutual Christian love of the brethren ;
the "day of judgment ' to be (as usual iu the N. T.) the final
judgment of the race : " boldness " I take in the sense of an unre
strained, joyful confidence, as toward one with whom we are on
terms of intimacy and may apeak freely. In the phrase — " Be
cause as he ia" — "he" muat refer specially to Christ and the
clause, to his earthly life, which we follow in close imitation
while we walk in love to God and love to the brethren.  The
entire verse may be paraphrased thus ; — By thus dwelling in su
preme love to God and consequent love of God's children, and by
thus having God dwelling in us (v. 16), our mutual Christian love
for each other is developed to its due perfection, so that we may
be without fear as to the day of final judgment; for as Jesus lived
iu this world, walking in supreme love to the Father and in mu
tual love to his people, ao do we live in thia world, and are there
fore exempt frora slavish fear and full of the sweet confidence of
peace with God through Chriat.
18. There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out
fear: because fear hatb torment. He that feareth is not
made perfect in love.
19. We love him, because he first loved us.
Such love expels fear, in the sense of anxiety, the spirit of
restleaa apprehenaion. Fear of this sort is torraenting; its pres
ence testifies that the soul is not yet perfect iu love, for love
surely begets confidence. Spontaneously a sweet confidence will
spring up in the soul, and you can not be afraid of the God whora
you honestly, deeply love.
In V. 19 — the reasoning underlying the word " because " may
be understood iu either of two somewhat different senses ; one
comparatively narrow ; the othor more broad and general. The
narrow makes it the mere love of gratitude, as I gratefully love one
who gives me favors, and becauae of those favors. The more broad
relation puts the manifested love of God for men, in the order of
nature and causation, before the love we bear to God. While we
were yet enemies Christ died for us. " We have kuown and be
lieved the love that God hath to us" (v. 16) and thia love haa
subdued the enmity of our hearts toward him ; laid the found
ation in the sacrifice of his Son for our pardon and peace with
God, and hence for all the love of huraan souls toward their loving
Father.  Thus all our love for hira has followed his — coraes
after it in the order of nature; is wholly indebted to God's love
for the provisions which have made pardon possible and for the

352 L JOHN.-CHAP. V.
influences whioh have subdued our enmity, melted our hardness,
and molded us to responsive love.  This broad view of the re
lation of God's prior love to our poaterior love seems to me most
in harmony with the scope of this chapter.
20. If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he
is a liar : for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath
seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen ?
21. And this commandment have we from hira, That he
who loveth God love his brother also.
The doctrine of John is that love of the brethren is one of the
most decisive and most easily applied tests of true love to God.
In this view of it he said (3 : 14), " We know that we have
passed from death unto life because we love the brethren." The
same doctrine underlies the argument in 3 : 18-21 ; If we love
the brethren in deed aud iu truth, " we know that we are of the
truth, and shall assure our hearts before hira" (God); "for if
our heart conderan us not " in this thing (a point determined
with comparative ease and certainty), " then have we confldence
toward God." Hence in view of this great and decisive test, " if
a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar " — he
ought to know better ; probably, in so plain a case, he does, and
therefore purposely affirms what he knows can not be true — not
so much self deceived as a real deceiver.
In the last clause of v. 20, John's philosophy seems to be that
seeing in the order of nature precedes loving, since seeing repre
sents the most perfect knowledge of character possible to us in
our present state, and all true love rests on such knowledge of
character. If then, having seen his brother, he yet hates him,
how can he pretend to love God whom he has never seen ? If
your heart were tuned to love ; if the Spirit of loving were
there, ye would certainly love your Christian brother. Not lov
ing him, it is more than vain to pretend you love God whom of
course you know less perfectly than your brother.  Hence the
pith and force of tbe great commandment: If ye love God, love
alao your brother who ia one of God's children.

CHAPTEE V.
Following the same general line of thought as in the previous
chapter, John would show Christians how they may know they
love God ; — in his own words (v. 13) — " that ye may know that ye
have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the
Son of God." Incidentally, he speaka also of the blessedness

L JOHN.-CHAP. V. 353
of being sons of God, and of this assured confldence as to our re
lationship to him.
1. Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born
of God : and every one that loveth hira that begat loveth
him also that is begotten of him.
Eeal faith in Jesus as the Christ is proof of the new birth ;
none but the new-born have it. Such souls, new-born to God,
naturally love their divine Father, and conaequently love all his
spiritual children. Loving God as their Father, they love all who
stand in like relation to this loving Father. This is the well-
known law of the huraan faraily through all ages. The love of
father and mother begets love to the brothers and sisters, stand
ing in the same common relation, and born into the fellowship of
the same mutual love.
2. By this we know that we love the children of God,
when we love God, and keep his commandments.
3. For this is the love of God, that we keep his com
mandmente : and his commandmente are not grievous.
Noticeably the usual order is here reversed ; for whereas Johu
has been wont to make love of brethren the proof of true love to
God, here he makes love to God and the keeping of his cora-
mandments the proof for the genuineness of our love to the
brethren.  As usual, keeping God's commandraents is ac
counted the evidence of love to God. Jeaus had taught this most
fully and repeatedly (e. g. John 14 : 15, 21, 23, 24, and 15 : 10,
1^)' ¦ . , , .
" His comraandments are not grievous ' — can not be, coming
from such a source, for they corae frora the kindest and most lov
ing of Fathers ; — are not iu their nature, for they enjoin only
love and good-will, which, the heart being right, are of all things
most delightful; — are not therefore in the conscious experience
of the obedient, for they find all true obedience supremely joy
ous — a burden (if it may be called such) delightfully borne. The
service of love ia a perpetual charm to the loving heart. "It ia
more blessed to give than to receive." Blessed are they who try
it, for they shall know it, aa no theorizing can aet it forth.
4. For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world :
and this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our
faith. 5. Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that be
lieveth that Jesus is the Son of God?
Note in theae veraes the logic of their connection, introduced
by '^for " in the sense of because. The reaaon why we keep his
comraandments and do not find them " grievous," is that every
thing born of God conquers the world. Observe next the use of

354 L JOHN.-CHAP. V.
wAaisoever inatead of joAoaoever — the neuter pronoun in place of
the more usual and natural masculine. The same usage appears
in the gospel of John (6 ; 39, and 17 ; 2) ; " This is tlie will of
hira that sent me, that of every thing whioh he haa given me, I
should lose nothing." " Thou hast given him power as to all
flesh that every thing thou hast given hira he should give eternal
life to thera." The nenter seeras to be chosen as bearing raore
decisively the sense of universality — absolutely all in its totality.
" Overcometh," translates the coramon Greek word for being
victorious, gaining the victory, which has the ring of war, battle,
triuraph. John has used it in this epistle before, e. g. of his
Christian young men (2: 13, 14) who had conquered ("over
come") the Evil One; also of hia converta — "little children," he
calls them — as withstanding auccessfully the lying spirits, false
prophets, who had assailed them (4 : 4).
What, then, does John affirm here ? That every soul, really
new-born to God, becomes victorious over the world; and, being
thus victorious, keeps God's comraandments and flnds them not
" grievous." When the power of the world over the heart is
broken, we obey God's comraandraeuta with ease and delight —
find them no burden.
How is this victory over the world achieved ? Johu has but
one anawer — by faith, which he explains to be " believing that .le-
aua ia the Sou of God," and of course taking hold of his strength
as such. Ye can conquer the world because Jesus can give you
this victory, and will, if ye trust him by faith for the help ye
need. First, John affirras this ; then boldly challenges every op
ponent to show a case of such victory over the world achieved by
any other force than thia. Let all the human philoaophies be in
voked, or all the educational forces, or all the social powers; can
they produce one human soul lifted by their training, and by
their boasted forces, into real victory over the world ? Such I
take to be a fair exposition of theae precious words.  Will the
reader accept the suggestion that this truth is in the best sense
intensely, gloriously, practical ? It comes to us in our moral
weakness; finds us encompassed with temptations frora without;
weakened perhapa by moral defeata from within ; put to hard con
flicts against many a subtle, stubborn foe, and sometiraes not a
little discouraged; — ^-yet what does it say? Ita worda are not
many, but they are wonderfully pregnant with meaning: — "vic
tory over ihe world "; " victory through faith in the Son of
God" 1 The truth put into theae few worda meeta our caae per
fectly. Let it acatter our fears to the winds, and lift our souls
into the calm assurance of trust, peace, victory !
Some readers will ask how these verses bear upou the question
of a sinless Christian experience in this life.  To meet this
question briefiy, I suggest — (1) The passage must be treated in
the same way as the analogous passages (that above 3 : 4, and that
below 5 : 18) : " Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin,"
etc. Much if not all that was said in exposition of those words

I. JOHN.-CHAP. V. 355
ia pertinent here.  (2) Whatever John means by " overcoming
the world," he declares to be the experience, not of a few only of
God's children, but of all. He seems to have no thought of two
classes of real Christians — one sanctified, and the other not sanc
tified. All that he embraces under the words — ¦" overcome the
world " — he represents as the common experience of all those
who are truly new-born to God.  (3) It is supposable that in
his age professed Christians were more positive in character than
in our tiraes ; that the class unfortunately but too well known to
us, who are so world-loving, so ranch conformed to its spirit and
usages as to involve their piety iu grave doubt, may have been in
hia time mostly unknown ; or perhaps John would say of them
as Paul of Deraas — " hath forsaken me, having loved this present
world," and therefore would not take them at all into account as
having been born of God. Be this as it may, John does not seem
to provide any place in the Christian fo'ld for those who did not
in some very positive sense gain the victory over the world.
What he would say as to the imperfections in love and iu service,
in spirit and iu life, among those who in the main were conquer
ors of the world, the flesh, and the devil, perhaps he has not told
us. It does not appear that he had this point deflnitely in his
mind, and it behooves ua not to press his words too severely in
our efforts to apply them to points which he may not have con-
teraplated. Yet I ara aure we raay aaaume that very glaring im-
perfectiona ; that veiy manifeat aius ; that positive, open conform
ity to the world in spirit and life, must not be forced into har
mony with his words, " overcometh the world."
6. This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus
Christ ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And
it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is
truth. Water as related to the spiritual life is universally the symbol
of moral cleansing; blood, of tho propitiation wrought by Christ's
atoning death. No other interpretation of theae words can be
thought of The usage of the Scriptures — the Old Testament and
the New alike — goes solid in support of this simple construction
and application of these words. The reader raay refer to my
notes of John 3 : 5 for the usage of the word " water."  The
Spirit of truth bears witness to these great facts as to the work
of Christ. It ia hia mission to teach theae truths and to impress
them in their living power on huraan hearta. His special wit
nessing agency carae after Christ's ascension, in aud after the
scenes of the great Pentecost.
7. For there are three that bare record [in heaven, tlie
Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost : and tliese three are one.

356 I. JOHN.-CHAP. V.
8. And there are three tliat bear witness in eartli] the Spirit,
and the water, and the blood : and these three agree in one.
The words here put iu italics and included within brackets are
unquestionably spurious. No important manuscript contains
them; none of the really ancient versions have them. They ut
terly lack the authorities requisite to entitle them to a place in
the sacred text. No modern critic, versed in such questions, de
fends them as genuine.-*
These words not only lack external (historical) authority ;
they are also entirely out of place in the Apostle's argument.
He is here producing the testimonies for Christ which are
brought out on the earth, before human eyes ; not those which i
supposably might be brought forth in heaven. For, it may well
be asked. What have his readers to do with the latter ? And
how can it be pertinent to ask them to believe in Jesus on the
strength -of witnessing testimonies to him which are seen or
heard only in heaven?
9. If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is
greater : for this is the witness of God which he hath testi
fied of his Son.
Following the course of thought in the antecedent context (vs.
6, 8) this " witness of God " muat be specially that of the " Spirit"
as borne emphatically after Christ's ascension. That God's testi
mony to his Son through the Spirit should be accounted greater
than that of any man or even of all men is most obvious, and its
weight ought to be resistless.
10. He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness
in himself: he that believeth not God hath made him a
liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of
his Son.
To every believing soul there is a form of testimony unknown
to the ungodly; peculiar to the believer; viz. that which he has
in himself. He knows there is a joy and peace in believing
which no delusion could ever give ; he knows that through Jesus
he has communion with God ; he knows that for Jesus' sake
God hears his prayer. He is deeply conscious of a spiritual
-*- According to Luecke (Eps. John, page 267-8), these words are
found only in two Greek manuscripts, and those quite insignificant
— one dating only from the sixteenth century, and the other without
any "weight of critical antiquity.  See also Neander on this Epis
tle, page 289.

I. JOHN.-CHAP. V. 357
power of the Holy Ghost, of which he can say (with Dr. Thomas
Scott) : " I could as soon believe there is no Holy Ghost as to
doubt his personal presence in my heart" iu connection with
certain truths of God's word to which he referred.
In this self-conscious, witnessing testimony, he who is a stran
ger to God intermeddleth not. It lies wholly outside the pale of
his conscious experience. He will know what it is only when,
in the honest sincerity of his heart, he too believes on the Son
of God.
The last clause of this verse looks toward external testiraonies
only. He who believes not makes God a liar, inaamuch aa he
virtually charges him with giving false testimony as to his Son.
God's record as to his Son has been clear, explicit, and in point
of significance, unmistakable. He therefore who will not believe
this record, virtually arraigns the witness on the charge of false
hood. 11. And this is the record, that God hath given to us
eternal life, and this life is in his Son.
12. He that hath the Son hath life ; and he that hath not
the Son of God hath not life.
All the exposition these plain words can need will be found in
.lohn's gospel in such pasaagea as 17 : 3, and 3 : 36, and 5 : 24-26.
Our author borrows thera substantially from his Master.
13. These things have I written unto you that believe on
the name of the Son of God ; that ye may know that j'e
have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the narae of
the Son of God.
John is a writer of definite airas. He knows what results he
¦wishes to secure. He stated his object in his gospel history (20:
30, 31); he doea the aame as to this epistle here.
The most reliable authorities omit from this verse the last
clause — " and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of
God." This being omitted, the declared object of this epiatle
(if the stateraent refers to it in whole) ia one — " that ye may
know that ye have eternal life."  Under this knowing are two
supposably distinct points, viz. (a) Knowing that this salvation
through Christ means eternal life, provides for it, secures it; and
(b) Knowing each for himself that he has a personal interest iu
this salvation. We have seen that this epiatle brings out theae
personal proofs or tests of piety with remarkable fullness. No
other portion of God's word makea this point so prominent.
" Hereby we know that we dwell in hira and he in us " (4 : 13) ;
" By this we know that we lovo the children of God," etc. (5: 2) ;
" 'We know that we have passed frora death unto life, because we
love the brethren " (3 : 14). Such ia the strain of this epistle,
16

358 I. JOHN.-CHAP. V.
14. And this is the confidence that Ave have in him, that,
if we ask any thing according to his will, he heareth us :
15. And if we know that he hear us, whatsoever we ask,
we know that we have the petitions that we desired of him.
"Confidence" — yet the Greek word ia more suggestive than
this for the caae of prayer, aignifying the freedom of speech
which is felt toward an intimate friend—the talking familiarly
with one aa when we know and can fully trust him. In Heb. 4 :
16 our version puts it — " come with boldness " — but this should
be taken in the good sense — a free utterance with no restraint of
fear. In the conditional clause — "If we ask any thing according to
his will" — we need to inquire — ^Is it the manner of asking, or
the sort of thing asked, that must be " according to his will" ?
The words might refer to either — i. e. as to the manner — whether
in the name of Jesus or in our own ; as to motive — whether for
the glory of God or for our own ; for the interests of God's king
dom, or to consume upon our lusts. Or on the other hand, it
may refer specially to the thing asked — the blessing sought.
The next verse, pursuing the sarae subject, saying — " If we know
that he hear us, whatsoever we ask" — indicates that the latter is
the senae intended. The thing we ask must be according to his
will. In its practical bearings, the question of unsurpassed interest
as to prayer is that of its limitations. Aa put here the limita
tion ia — "according to his will" — it must be for things in har
mony with the will of God.  Now this limitation can never
disturb or embarrass any true child of God in the least. For
he will always say — I can desire nothing, can ask nothing save
what is agreeable to my Father's will. 1 have unbounded con
fidence in both his love and his wisdom. I know his love will
give me any thing I need if he can do it wisely, and I know
his wisdom never can misjudge.  Moreover, if what seems to
be my interest clashes with other greater interests, I withdraw
my request. Let God be the judge ; let hira favor the more im
portant interests, whatever may befall me and mine.  Yet
further : In this passage John seems not aware that these words
— " any thing according to his will" — amount to any limitation
whatever. For, mark how he speaks, in the next verse; " If we
know that he hear us whatever we ask " — be it what it may.
Observe, he does not say — Since the promise includes only things
according to his will, we must be studiously careful to limit our
requests to such things, and also our expectation of success ; —
this he does not say. Apparently it "had escaped him that he
had said any thing about this limitation. Keally he does not
seem to think it amounts to any restriction upon prayer. Prob
ably as it lay in his mind, it was no restriction at all. Things
out of harmony with the will of God have no place in prayer.
We would neither ask them, nor have them if we might. Hence

L JOHN.-CHAP. V. 359
*
we come unembarrassed to the broad, magnificent, glorious con
clusion — " We may know that we have the petitions that we de
sired of him." This is our confidence toward God in the mat
ter of prayer. He hears us whatsoever we ask. We can not
wish for any thing other than what is according to his will.
Those things that are outside of hia will — out of harmony with
his wisdom and love — are not what we desire. If we were to
ask for them it would be our mistake — made through miaappre
hension of his will ; and we shall thank him forever for with
holding these things. If we err in wiadom of judgment, we re
joice that he can never err, but will certainly set the matter
right by withholding whatever it would be unwise to give.
16. If any man see his brother sin a sin which is not unto
death, he shall ask, and he shall give him life for them that
sin not unto death. There is a sin unto death : I do not
say that he shall pray for it.
17. All unrighteousness is sin: and there is a sin not unto
death. These verses must be put iu their natural connection with
the two next preceding, Johu would say — Observe how this
doctrine of prayer applies in reference to prayer for a sinning
brother in the church. There are certain possible limitations
here that should be understood. All classes of sinners can not
be reached and saved by prayer. There are some sins that are
naturally "unto death; for such, no prayer can avail,  Tljis
case is described in terms so general, that no small diff'erence
of opinion has existed as to its true interpretation,  Some
points however are made clear, e. g. that this sin is that of " a
brother," doubtless a brother in the Christian fraternity. One
who thought so much as John did of love for the brethren
would have the deepest sorrow of his soul moved by the sin of
a Christian brother, especially if it were of such sort as must
greatly imperil his salvation,  Note also that this muat be a
sin, not of the secret thought merely, but of the visible life, for
the "man" is supposed to "see" it. Further, the doctrine is
that sorae aina are "unto death," while other sins are "not unto
death;" and also, that this distinction is one which the pray
ing brother can make. Christians are assumed to be able to
classify the aius they may see in their brethren as to this point.
If one sees the sin to be " not unto death," he shall pray, and
life shall come in answer to his prayer. But if he judge it to be
a sin "unto death," John says — "I do not say that he shall pray
for it." I could not enjoin it as his duty. Perhaps this negative
atatement purpoaely leaves the praying brother to be governed by
his own inward sense of the case, by the impulses of the Spirit
within his own soul. But no inspired direction enjoina prayer
in such a case, though possibly John implies — does not peremp-

360 1. JOHN.-CHAP. V.
torily forbid it. This latitude however can be at best only hypo
thetical. Are we competent to go into this discrimination and draw the
line, even proximately, between sins "unto death" and sins "not
unto death " ? The subject is too momentous to be left under
any darkness if it be possible to get light upon it. If some sins
are really " unto death," so manifestly mortal that no prayer
for the sinner can ^be even adviaable, much leas available, then
surely it were well to know what they are — and let all men take
warning !
All light on this point— that is light — must corae from God's
word.  We readily recall the awfully solemn words of Jesus
respecting the sin of blasphemy against the Holy Ghost (Matt.
12: 31, 32, and Mark 3: 28-30, and Luke 12: 10). They show
that sinners may insult, traduce, malign, resist, the Holy" Ghost,
beyond possible forgiveness. That sin must surely be " unto
death " !
The writer to the Hebrews (10 : 26-29) defines a sin of similar
sort in the worda — " For if we ain willfully after we have re
ceived the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sac
rifice for sins, but a certain fearful looking for of judgment and
fiery indignation." . . this sinner " having trodden under foot
tbe Son of God and counted the blood of the covenant an un
holy thing, and done despite io ihe Spirit of grace."  ^Probably
the same sin is in his eye in 6 : 4-6; "For it is impoaaible for
those who were once enlightened, etc  if they shall
fall away to renew them again unto repentance, seeing they cru
cify unto themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open
shame."  Peter held the same views of a certain class of apos
tates (2 Epis. 2 ; 20-22) : " If after they have escaped the pollu
tions ofthe world through the knowledge of the Lord and Savior
Jesus Chriat, they are again entangled therein and overcome, the
latter end ia worse with them than the beginning," etc. We may
remeraber that Paul recognizes a fearful " peradventure " on the
point whether God will give certain oppoaers repentance (2 Tim.
2 : 25, 26), and Peter expresses a similar doubt in the case of
Simon Magus whether, even if he were to pray himself, this
wicked thought of hia heart could be forgiven; — "Pray God"
(said he) " if, perhaps, it may be."
Underlying all theae passages is the doctrine that some sinners,
especially apostates once greatly enlightened, are past recovery.
Their sins are " unto death." So far as appears from the descrip
tive pointa given of theae caaes the fatal elements are — the degree
of light sinned against, and the hearing of the sin against ihe
Spirit of God. The work of the Spirit in this world is so deli
cate, ao vital, so sacred, and so ranch depends on his being treated
with due honor, that God must and will shield him from insult
and his work from dishonor, though it cost the eternal damnation
of every blasphemer and contemner of his name !  Hence Chris
tiana are to judge what sins are unto death, mainly, 1 apprehend.

L JOHN.-CHAP. V. 361
by these tests — The light sinned against; and the abuse of the
Spirit of God.
"SVe ought to note that one object of John in these verses is the
relief of praying Christians. For if they were to pray without
regard to this discrimination, it might become terriloly agoni
zing, perplexing, and even stumbling, to find that their prayer
availed nothing, and not to understand the reason of this failure.
18, We know that whosoever is born of God sinneth not;
but he that is begotten of God keepeth himself, and that
wicked one toucheth him not.
19. And we know that we are of God, and the whole
world lieth in wickedness.
Are these verses related in thought to the two next preceding ?
Usually, this should be assumed unless the nature of the caae for
bid. Being asaumed here, we may put the logic of the connec
tion thus: — Those, -who "sin unto death" are not of those who
have been "born of God." We knowthat thoae thus born to God
do not sin fatally — " unto death." Every such new-born soul
keepeth himself tlirough grace, and that wicked one — the devil —
toucheth him not. Wide aa the poles apart are these two classes ;
we, Christians, are of God, made his sona by his regenerating
grace ; the whole world lieth in wickedness. The one class are
under God'a protecting hand ; the other are under Satan.
20. And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath
given us an understanding, that we may know him that is
true ; and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus
Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life.
21. Little children, keep yourselves from idols. Amen.
The great points of truth which " we know," and which have
wrought these transformations of character and state in us —
briefly put here — are — that the Son of God is come into our world ;
has given us an understanding of the true God ; and has brought
us into relations to God, best expressed by the words, " we are in
him."  ^Moreover, we are in him,- the true God, by being in his
Son Jesus Christ. First knowing and receiving his Son, we have
corae to know, receive, and love the Father. Being in the Father
comes of first being in the Son. So intiraate and so peculiar is
the relation of the Father to the Son that we can scarcely distin
guish even in thought the being in the Son from being in the
Father who sent him.
On the clause — "This is the true God and eternal life," we meet
the nice critical question whether the pronoun "this" refers to
the Father, spoken of before aa " him that ia true," or to the Son.
In favor of referring it to the Son are theae considerations; —
(a.) That Son is the nearest antecedent. Usually this fact is de
cisive.  (6.) The Son is known in the writings of John aa "the

362 I. JOHN.— CHAP. V.
life; " (John 1:4)" The life is the light of men ; " and (1 John
1 : 2) "The life was manifested; " " We show unto you the eter
nal life who was with the Father," etc. Thus we aee that the
Son is called not only " the life," but explicitly — " the eternal
life."  (c.) A third consideration of great force ia, that John
having twice already in this one verse spoken of the Father as
"the true One," i. e. of course — the true God, and having said
this in most explicit, emphatic terms, there is not the least occa
sion to repeat it again. To do so adds nothing to the thought,
but really weakens his stateraent.  Bear in mind John has said —
The Son of God has come; he has made known to us the true
One — the really true God. We have come to be in this true
God — i. e. by first being iu his Son. Having said all this, is it
even supposable that John should close with saying — This person
age whom I have called "the true One is the true God? Bather
is not this his thought? This Jesus the Son who has thus re
vealed God to us and brought us into fellowship with him, is also
himself really God and the Eternal Life.
The objections made to this construction are chiefly doctrinal :
i. e. of this sort ; This passage can not be construed to say that
the Son is "the true God" because he is not and can not be.
'There is but one true God; and to make Jesus one is to make
two.  John has not told ua deflnitely how he would meet this
objection, but has left us the fact with no attempt at metaphys
ical explanation. — From his silence on this point it is probably
safe to infer that we shall need the light of a brighter world and
perhaps the power of raore acute, discrirainating, comprehensive
thought ere we shall " know the Almighty to perfection."
The closing words are — " Little children, keep yourselves from
idols." Is this warning connected in thought with the subject
then in hand ? Perhaps so ; perhaps not. In that age — idolatry
being every--where about them — it could never be amiss to give
this warning. Yet a certain connection is supposable — say with
V. 19; "The whole world lieth in wickedness;" we who are of
God must needs withstand idolatry on every side.  Or possibly
withv. 20; We worship the Father as God; the Son also as the
true God; beyond these, none. Beware of being drawn to the
worship of idols.

II^TEODUOTIQ]^
TO THE
SECOND AND THIRD EPISTLES OF JOHN.

These two short private letters are supposed to have been
written by the aged Apostle John. One is addressed to a
sister in the church whose proper name I take to have been
Cyria [Gr. Kuria] ; and the other to a brother (apparently a
layman) whose narae is given — Gaius. The residence of nei
ther is given. We can only assurae that both resided within
what we may call John's diocese — within the circle of
churches under his apostolic supervision, for with each he
manifestly had some personal acquaintance ; had seen them
both before and hoped to again. Neither were poor in
this world's goods, for both letters assume that they were
exercising a somewhat large hospitality, receiving Christian
strangers to their houses. Indeed, the special purpose of
each letter assumed this — in the case of Cyria suggesting the
danger and unwisdom of receiving into her house and to her
hospitality men who brought some other doctrine than the
truth in Jesus ; and in the case of Gaius, that he should re
ceive to his house, to his confidence and sympathy, certain
traveling missionaries — perhaps self-sent — yet laboring for
Christ's name and taking nothing of the Gentiles toward
their support. Virtually therefore this was an apostolic cer
tificate of Christian character and of recommendation to the
confidence and aid of this hospitable and worthy lay brother.
Thus the object of these private letters is made quite
plain from their contente.
As to the author of these letters — supposed to have been
John the Apostle, let us inquire on what grounds they are as
cribed to him.
His name is not here. Tho writer only calls himself
(363)

364 INTB.ODUCTION TO JOHN IL AND IIL
"the elder" (presbutCros), which may mean either an old
man or an elder [officer] in the church. John lived to a
great age ; at the date of this writing was probably better
known through all the churches of Asia Minor as tlie aged
one, than by any other appellation. For some unknown
reason John was always remarkably reserved in- the use of
his own name. He never gives it in bis own writings. In
a number of passages his gospel refers to hiraself, but never
even whispers his own name John. The first epistle is en
tirely written without name. It would therefore be aside
from his habit to give his name in these epistles.
The historical evidence that John wrote these epistles is pe
culiar ; — I can not say defective or suspicious. By some of
the early Fathers they were classed among what were tech
nically called "the antilegomena," i. e. the disputed books.
They did not from the very first obtain universal reception
among the writings of Apostolic men.
But under the circumstances this fact does not in the least
disparage their inspired authority. It is only what should
be expected. For consider — They were merely private let
ters. They belonged to John's private correspondence with
individual parties. If they had been written to a church,
e. g. the Church of Epbesus, they would have come into no
toriety at once. First read in the religious assemblies of
that church and of course endorsed by them ; then copied
and sent to other churches, they would soon find their way
into general confidence and use. " But both these were
private letters. Cyi'ia and Gaius knew the writer; each wel
comed John's letter, and doubtless kept it as a family treas
ure. But probably at first there was no demand on them
to send theu- private correspondence to be read in public
church assemblies. In fact the letters were not only private
in their address but personal rather than public in their
character. How they ever became known to the Christian
public does not appear ; doubtless it was a work of time.
Not that they lacked merit, for they were indeed treasures,
and by and by good men abroad came to know and appre
ciate them.  Most of the epistles in our New Testament
were public in nature and intent, and consequently were in
troduced at once to public notice and confidence. Paul
wrote four letters to individuals ; but three of these were to
young ministers (Timothy and 'Titus) in responsible positions,
under every inducement to bring these letters before their
churches. His letter to Philemon is the only one analogous

INTRODUCTION TO JOHN IL AND III. 365
to these two from John. But Philemon was in a prominent
position, for there was a "church in his house" (v. 2), and
he was personally known to a considerable circle of Paul's
fellow-laborers (vs. 23, 24).  Hence that these two private
letters from John should be rather slow in obtaining a gen
eral reception among inspired epistles is precisely what
should be expected. Any diflTerent result would be prima
facie suspicious.  The fact that their general reception
took time testifies to the watchful care of those early churches
in regard to admitting written documents into their canon
of inspired writings.
Ultimately the historical evidence in favor of these epis
tles became abundant and most satisfactory. The church
and school at Alexandria (Egypt) indorsed them strongly.
Clement, Origen, Dyonisius — successively at the head of that
great Theological School — received them. There is a cer
tain life-likeness in the indorsement given by " Bishop Alex
ander of Alexandria " who, in a letter missive to the bishops
of his diocese, justifies the excommunication of Arius and
bis adherents by a direct appeal to 2 John 10.* So also in
a synod held at Carthage under Cyprian, on the then im
portant question of baptizing heretics, one Aurelius, Bishop
of Chullabi, gave his vote in the words of 2 John 9, saying —
"John in his own epistle lays down this doctrine, saying,"
etc. t  The testimony of Irenseus, whose early residence
was in Asia Minor, is emphatic and decisive ; — " For John,
a disciple of tha Lord, hurls his condemnation [' damna-
tionem '] against these [heretics], nor would he allow a God
speed [' ave '] to be said to them," etc.
Much more testimony might be adduced : let this suffice.
Of the internal evidence that these letters were from the
same John who wrote the gospel and the first epistle, it can
scarcely be necessary to say a word. Every reader will see
the sentiments, the phrases, and the loving heart of the
same John. No other Apostle wrote so; indeed, no other
man. * Luecke, pg. 298. t Luecke, pg. 299.

SECOND EPISTLE OF JOHN.

1. The elder unto the elect lady and her children, whom
I love in the truth ; and not I only, but also all they that
have known the truth ;
2. For the truth's sake, wliich dwelleth in us, and shall be
with us for ever.
3. Grace be with you, mercy, and peace, from God the
Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of the Fa
ther, in truth and love.
As said in the introduction, I take the word translated "lady"
to be a proper and not a common noun — the personal name of
this Christian sister, Cyria.  "Elect" in the Christian sense —
one of God's chosen, beloved. The same word is used of her sis
ter (v. 13), some of whose children were then with the apostle. 
"Love in the truih" — might in some connections be taken ad
verbially in the sense of ti-idy. But here the emphatic repeti
tion of the word "truth" — "all who have known the truth;"
" for the truth's sake;" and at the close of the salutation — "in
truth and love," and in v. 4, "walking in the truth" — strongly
support another construction — substantially of this sort ; — love in
the interests of truth ; in the fellowship of the truth ; for the
truth's sake.  Throughout John's writing we are impressed by
the prominence given to love — love to Christ, love to the Father,
love to the brethren. How wonderfully does this sentiment live
and glow in his soul and this word distill in fragrance from his
lips 1 But here we see a like prominence given to truth. Cer
tainly in his thought " truth is in order to goodness " — a necessary
means to that end ; at the very foundation of all intelligent love.
The love he thinks of is not sentimentalism ; is not a mere emo
tional good nature ; but is an intelligent benevolence, which seeks
for all men the good that is seen to be the highest and best possi
ble ; which intelligently sees a perfect God at the head of the
universe, and giving him the supreme love of the heart, loves all
his creatures for his sake, following his high example, obeying
(366)

II. JOHN. 367
his perfect will. Thus love in creatures, being at once intelligent
and moral, rests on the basis of truth. What we know and be
lieve of the Infinite God — Father, Son and Spirit — inspires and
directs all rational love of man to man; and pre-eminently of
Christian man to his fellow-Christians. — —John wrote this epistle
under a quickened sense of the priceless value of Christian truth,
this sense being wrought into intense feeling by the dangerous
influence of men who were underraining the foundationa of the
goapel system. What would become of love if men were to deny
that Jesus Christ is come in. the flesh ? What can that love be
good for which knows no Jesus — which has dishonored his name — -
which has stricken down all the moral forces toward pure be
nevolence, which have corae to us in the revelation of God's great
love to lost raen in giving his only Son ? When the vital truths
of the gospel, and indeed of all revealed religion, are thus slaugh
tered, what can be left us ? What are men's professions of love
worth after they have stricken down and blotted out all the great
love-inspiring truths of Christianity?
4. I rejoiced greatly that I found of thy children walking
in truth, as we have received a commandment from the
Father. 5. And now I beseech thee, lady, not as though I wrote a
new commandment unto thee, but that which we had from
the beginning, that we love one another.
6. And this is love, that we walk after his comraandments.
This is the commandment, That, as ye have heard from the
beginning, ye should walk iu it.
This Christian sister had children. John had learned that
they were walking in truth according to the Father's command
ment, and rejoiced in thia exceedingly. Such a mother doea a glori
ous service for God, for the church, for mankind. We may notice
that John has not fallen in with the notions sadly prevalent in
the early church, of a superior sanctity in celibacy, virginity, and
the monastic life. He believes in virtuous mothers and in truth-
loving, truth-abiding children.  We notice the same staple Chris
tian graces put forward here as in John's goapel and first epistle : —
Christian love of the brethren, and obeying God's command
ments — the essence, proof, and manifestation of true love.
7. For many deceivers are entered into the world, who
confess not that Jesus Christ, is come in the flesh. This is a
deceiver and an antichrist.
8. Look to yourselves, that we lose not those things which
we have wrought, but that we receive a full reward.
9. Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doc
trine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doc
trine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son,

368 IL JOHN.
The truth of God was vigorously asaailed ; falae prophets and
teachers were abroad in force. Their doctrines are sufioiently
defined ; they denied the real incarnation of the Son_ of God.
Whether so intended by themselves or not, this was equivalent to
renouncing the whole gospel scheme. There was no Jesus, no
Savior for lost men if Christ had not come in the flesh.  These
deceivers did not hold but rejected the true doctrine of Christ
(v. 9). Of course there was no God of truth left to their system,
for they had made the true God a liar by not believing his testi
mony as to his Son. Take care now (John would say) lest, se
duced into these fatal errors of doctrine, ye lose all that ye have
wrought through years of gospel labor, and fail utterly of any
reward. 10. If there come any unto you, and bring not this doc
trine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God
speed :
11. For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his
evil deeds.
John understood that Oriental rights of hospitality were held
most dear — not to say sacred ; that it would be a hard thing —
a stern test of principle, to turn from your door any well-appear
ing stranger who might present himself as your friend; but John
is inflexible ; the bottom truths of the gospel are more to him
than the demands of hospitality. Therefore, he enjoins — ^If any
man come to your door, seeking admittance to your hospitality,
and begging your good ofiices in his behalf, yet if he bring not
this true doctrine of Christ but discard it — receive hira not into
your house; give him not even the common friendly salutation
(God Sliced and bless you), for to do even this is to make your
self responsible for his mischief — is to assume a share with him
in all the evil he may do. For this sorae may disown you ; but
I implore you be true to Christ and to the cause of heavenly
truth, however much this flrmness may displeaae men who have
no goapel truth in their souls, or however it may seem .to dishonor
the claims of hospitality.
12. Having many things to write unto you, I would not
write with paper and ink: but I trust to come unto you,
and speak face to face, that our joy may be full.
13. The children of thy elect sister greet thee. Amen.
I have much to say — more than I can write ; but these things
are too vital to "be postponed ; — so much must be said.  The
burden then pressing on the heart of this noble patriarch is lifted
when he has adraonished this sister,_ tenderly, solemnly, to stand
flrm against those deceivers and antichrists who were discarding
the true faith of Christ.

THIRD EriSTLE OF JOHN.

1. The elder unto the well beloved Gaius, whom I love
in the truth.
2. Beloved, I wish above all things that thou mayest
prosper and be in health, even as thy soul prospereth.
" Love in the truth," as in 2 John 1 — love in the common
bonds of the gospel of truth, in behalf of the truth and in its
precious sympathies.  Frail of body, but strong and noble of
soul, Gaius was a rare man. The men are few in our world for
whom this chief prayer of John for Gaius would be appropriate
— that their body might be as vigorous as their souls are healthy,
thriving and strong. In the case of moat men this prayer needs
to be reversed, aud put thus : — I wiah above all things that thy
soul may thrive in piety as thy body does in its healthful vigor.
3. For I rejoiced greatly, when the brethren carae and
testified of the truth that is in thee, even as thou walkest in
the truth.
4. I have no greater joy than to hear that my children
walk in truth.
Gaius seeras to have been one of John's spiritual children.
Full of love for Jesus 'and his truth as John's heart was, it should
not surprise us to hear him say — " I have no greater joy than to
hear that my children walk in the truth."  To walk in the
truth is to put gospel truth to its proper use by making it govern
all the comraonest deeds of life, even all human activities — by
fundamentally controlling the whole heart, i. e. the will. A
blessed earthly life is this which is shaped evermore by the be
hests of the truth as it is in Jesus.
5. Beloved, thou doest faithfully whatsoever thou doest to
the brethren, and to strangers;
6. Which have borne witness of thy charity before the
(369)

370 IIL JOHN.
church : whom if thou bring forward on their journey after
a godly sort, thou shalt do well:
7. Because that for his name's sake they went forth, tak
ing nothing of the Gentiles.
8. We therefore ought to receive such, that we might be
fellow helpers to the truth.
Testifying warraly to tbe noble hospitality and hearty good will
of Gaius to his Christian brethren and even to those who were
personally strangers, John now comraends to his confidence and
aid certain missionary brethren going forth for the work of
Christ, and in so far at their own charge that they " took noth
ing ofthe Gentiles." To help such men was to be fellow-helpers
to the truth — a consideration which such a man as Gaius would
surely appreciate. — '¦ — In v. 6 our translators have expressed the
Greek word whioh everywhere means love by the word "char
ity." Neither they nor we should restrict the sense to almsgiv
ing. It is here rather that full-souled love which may indeed de
velop itself in giving alms, yet not in this way only, but in every
other way possible.
9. I wrote unto the church: but Diotrephes, who loveth
to have the pre-eminence araong them, receiveth us not.
10. AVherefore, if I come, I will remember his deeds
which he doeth, prating against us with malicious words :
and not content therewith, neither doth he himself receive the
brethren, and forbiddeth them that would, and casteth Hiem
out of the church.
Even the venerable John encountered opposition in his own
churches. The spirit of this opponent John puts in one Greek
word which it may be hard to match perfectly in our tongue ;
yet we might call him a power-loving man, whose master passion
was to be first every-where. Consequently he must needs op
pose whatever counter-worked his ruling passion. This Diotre
phes would not receive those whom John commended to the
church by letter. They not being his men, nor working under
his control, he was bound to oppose. Worse still, he slandered
the aged apostle ; would neither receive the brethren he sent nor
let the church receive them, and seems to have had power
enough to expel them. John writes : — " If I should come, I will
remember his deeds" — said apparently with reference to some
infliction of physical evil — judgment from God — a form of mira
culous power which seems to have been lodged in the hands of
the apostles to meet cases of this sort.
11. Beloved, follow not that which is evil, but that which
is good. He that doeth good is of God : but he that doeth
evil hath not seen God.

IIL JOHN. 371
This is the general rule or law for the Chriatian life, resting
on eternal foundations. Doing good is godlike ; the doer of evil
has not known God. There is nothing godlike in his work; no
influence from God haa moved hira that way. It is worse than
vain for him to pretend (as Diotrephes had doubtless done) that
he was serving God.
12. Demetrius hath good report of all men, and of the
truth itself: yea, and we also bear record ; and ye know that
our record is true.
Why Demetrius is spoken of here does not appear clearly.
Probably he had had trouble with Diotrephes ; perhaps had been
expelled from the church by his means. If so, this would ac
count for John's indorsing his character so decidedly.
13. I had many things to write, but I will not with ink
and pen write unto thee :
14. But I trust I shall shortly see thee, and we shall speak
face to face. Peace be to thee. Our friends salute thee.
Greet the friends by name.
The full heart of the aged apostle finds but meager and tame
expreaaion through ink and pen. He hopes to see this dear
brother soon, and therefore closes here with heartiest Christian
salutations. Dear old man ! It may have been a slow and painful labor for
that trembling hand of thine to put on paper so many blessed
worda as have corae to us in thy gospel history and iu these three
letters. We thank thee for them all ! A heavenly fragrance
breathes forth through them from thy warm, loving heart. Pre
cious witnesses for the true doctrine of Jesus are they, which the
Christian world could never afibrd to spare. Most and best of all
— they give ua the words, the spirit, the life and the love of Jesus
Christ as manifest in the flesh, making it seem to the thoughtful
readers thereof all along the ages that they have been introduced
and made personally acquainted with Jesus himself. Such writ
ten words are a precious legacy, a heavenly benediction to man
kind.

EXOUESUS I.

On the Divinity of Christ as related to the Trinity and Unity
of God.
The very opening of John's goapel springs this great question
upon us. The term Logos ["Word"], beyond all controversy,
designates that pre-existent Personage who became incarnate in
the human Jesus. John afirms of this Logos theae several facts:
That he existed from eterniW; that in that eternal state he existed
with God ; and that he was God. Also that all things were made
by him, and yet, that this truly divine Personage " becarae _^es A,"
i. e. in the sense of entering into mysterious union with man ;
and so " dwelt among us," revealing the glory of the only-begot
ten Son of God.
In tbe outset let it be premised that I use the terms person or
personage to avoid circumlocution, and moreover as being the
nearest approximation to the true idea, yet not thereby implying
that absolute and perfect distinction which the term indicates
when used of men as related to each other.-*
-* The question often arises — Inasmuch as the word " person " is ad
mitted to be defective and sometimes misleading, why not use some
better word? Why not get a perfectly descriptive term — one which
¦will give the exact sense with no liability to misapprehension ?
The ans-wer is — No human language can furnish such a, -word.
Thia impossibility resta mainly on the fact that neither our own hu
man nature nor any other created nature fully known to us fur
nishes any analogy to this triune relationship. Therefore human
speech furnishes no word to express it, or the parties to it.  All
human language ia of neoeaaity built on known human relations, ex
periences, knowledges ; and therefore supplies us with no words for
things that have no human analogy.
I have said — " rests mainly" on the absence of analogy in human
nature. Let me add that immense difSculties embarrass all our at
tempts to define this triune relationship by any circumlocutions of
speech, because the light from revelation on this point comes in the
term of statements which assume and imply rather than define and
a^rm metaphysically what it is. For example : " The glory -which
I had with thee before the world was " (Johu 17 ; 5) aaaumes and
implies some distinction between "I" and "Ihee," but does not define
it metaphysically. (872)

DIVINITir OF CHRIST AND TRINITY OF GOD. £73
A certain undefined distinction, expreaaed by thia qualified
use ofthe word " person" exists between Father, Sun, and Spirit.
As we shall see in the progress ofthe discuaaiou, each ia mani
festly represented as being truly divine, and yot as in somo sense
distinct frora the others.
How can these faats be reconciled with the unity of God?
How, on any laws of being known to us, can the Logos be him
self God and be also "with God" as John most clearly affirms,
and yet there be but one God? How shall the Bible doctrine of
the Trinity of persons in the Godhead be adjusted to the Bible
doctrine of the unity of God ?
It ia vital to any practical good from this investigation that we
hold firmly in mind that it is the Bible doctrine of tfie Trinity
and nothing else or other than this, that we have occasion to ex--
plain and defend. If we are to have any theory at all as to this
triune diatinctiou of persons, we need one which will apply to the
Language of the Scriptures — to the modes of expreaaion fdund in
them touching the relations of the Father to the Son and of the
Son to the Father, and of either or both to the Spirit. For we
can know nothing of Christ's real divinity save from the Scrip
tures; or, more comprehensively stated, we can know nothing of
.1 Trinity of any sort in the Godhead except what comes to us iu
this written revelation. It is therefore most appropriate to begin
with the inquiry : Hoiv do the Scriptures present this subject ?
What worda and atatements do we find here which seem to assume
and imply that special distinction in the Godhead which we indi
cate by the term " person" ?
Let us then group together at least the raore iraportant passages
which involve this distinction.
Obviously we should orait frora this group all those passages in
which the human nature of Jesus is made prominent. For,
plainly, it might be suppposed that a divine effluence, analogous
to that of the Holy Ghost upon all Christians, might have dwelt
inthe man Jesus, and yet this indwelling ofthe Spirit would fall
entirely short of implying real divinity. It would involve noth
ing like distinct personality in the being of God.
Foremost in our group of test passages we may fitly place the
opening verses of John's gospel — already brought before the
reader. The Logos — the same who was made flesh by a human
birth of the virgin Mary — existed frora eternity; is declared to
have been wiih God; and to be really God. Of this last naraed
point, the highest sort of proof is given in the fact that " all things
were made by him " as the absolute and universal Creator.
Again; "The Father loveth the Son, and hath given all things
into his hand" (John 3 : 35). This "giving of all things into his
hand " is nothing less than the investiture with supreme domin
ion (See Matt. 28 : 18), such as no merely human being could
hold and wield ;' such as must imply attributes perfectly divine. 
Let it be noted here that this gift of all power made by the
Father to the Son involves the very distinction which we call per-

374 DIVINITY OF CHRIST AND TRINITY OF GOD.
sonal. For the meaning can not be that the Father gives all
things into Ms own hands; but rather that he gives them to
another than himself — even to the Son. So also the love of the
Father for the Son — apparently put here as a reason for invest
ing hira with supreme dominion — involves some sort of distinc
tion of person. Such language is often used of human fathers
giving property or dominion to their sons^a fact which must be
held to interpret these inspired words.
Analogous to thia is the passage (John 5 ; 22, 23) : " The Father
hath committed all judgment unto the Son" — a responsibility
which requires divine attributes and a conveyance of prerogative
which assumes distinct personality — both points being made the
stronger by the declared purpose or object in view; viz. "that all
should honor the Son even as they honor the Father. He that
honoreth not the Son, honoreth not the Father who hath sent
him."  Also John 7: 62: "What if ye see the Son of man
ascend up where he was before?" — in which words the speaker
thinks of himaelf as being in heaven before his manifestation' in
human flesh, his ruling consciousness being that of his divine na
ture. The same ruling consciousness — the divine eclipsing the
human — appears often in the words of Christ; e. g. John 17 : 5:
" The glory which I had with thee before the world was;" the ego
[I] being none other than the pre-existent divine Personage — un
questionably thought of as distinct from the Father- — " which 1
had with Thee."  See also John 17: 24: "For thou lovedst mo
before the foundation ofthe world."  Also John 8: 58; To the
queation put by the Jews ; " Hast thou — being not yet fifty years
old — seen Abraham?" Jesus answered; "Before Abraham was, I
am " — " am " iu the sense which assumes perpetual and change
less existence, being borrowed apparently from tlie passage in
Moses (Ex. 3: 14): "I am hath sent me, etc.  Here also the
"I" must contemplate his pre-existent personality.
Note also the numerous passages in which Christ claims to
have seen and known the Father (e. g. John 6 : 46, and 1:18, and
Matt. 11 : 27) ; also to be the only Personage capable of revealing
the Father, and moreover, really revealing him : " No man hath
seen God at any time ; the only begotten Son who is in the bosom
of the Father, he hath declared hira " (1 : 18). Also this state
ment; — "I came forth from the Father, and am come into the
world: again, I leave the world and go to the Father" (John
16; 28). In the first clause here the divine is the ruling con
sciousness ; in speaking thus of himself, hia thought is upon the
divine in his nature rather than the human. He speaks not as
man but as God; yet certainly of hiraself as God, not in any such
sense as would coraprehend the whole of God and ignore all dis
tinction of Father from Son.
Note also how the Son classes hiraself with the Father (as in
John 14: 23): "If a man love me he will keep my worda; and
my Father will love him, and we will come unto him and make
our abode with him" — language which assumes virtual equality

DIVINITY OF CHRIST AND TRINITY OF GOD. 375
with God, and which also involves some sort of real distinction of
personality. A similar implication appears in the different methods in which
Christ promises the gift of the Spirit; "I will pray the Father
and 7je will give you another Comforter" (John 14: 16); compared
with this; "When the Comforter is come whom /will send unto
you frora the Father" (John 15 : 26). Here the agents — "I,"
"he" or "the Father,'' appear aa distinct persons, yet each as
really divine; each interchangeably thought of as doing the same
thing, and therefore as really exercising divine prerogatives.
In John's first epistle we have similar expressions: "That
which was from the beginning . . . which we have looked
upon and our hands have handled of the Word of life"; . . .
" We show unto you the Eternal Life who was with the Father,
and was manifested to us," etc. (1 John 1 : 1, 2).  Also this; "We
are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is
the true God and eternal life" (1 John 5: 20).
Turning from John to Paul, I adduce first a passage in which
the Christian doctrine is put in contrast with heathen polytheism
(1 Cor. 8: 4-6): "We know that an idol is nothing in the world,
aud that there is no other God but one. For though there be
that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth (as there be
gods many and lords many) ; But unto us there is but one God, the
Father, of whom are all things and we in him ; and one Lord Jesus
Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him." Here a broad
line of distinction is drawn between the Father and the Lord
Jesus Christ; yet not such a distinction in Paul's view as pre
cluded him frora afiirming that while heathen idolaters have
" gods many," Christians have but one God. The relation of all
things that exist, to the Father on the one hand, and to the Lord
Jesus Christ on the other — expressed here by "of" {tQ as to the
Father, and by the preposition " by " (dia) as to the Lord Jesus
Christ, suggests the Father as the infinite original Source of all
created being, and the Son as mediately the Agent by whom thia
creation is wrought. Yet this mediate agency must involve the
attributes of real divinity. Paul does not tell us how he harmo
nizes the doctrine of but one God with this manifestly distinct
personality of the Father from the Lord Jesus Christ, coupled
with the actual creatorship of the latter, carrying with it, as it
must, his real and true divinity.
Let us also note some passages in which Paul seems to indi
cate his conception of a Trinity in God (e. g. 1. Cor. 12: 4-6);
"Now there are diversities of gifts but the same Spirit; and
there are difi'erences of administration but the same Lord ; and
there are diversities of operations but it is the same God who
worketh all in aU." Here "the Spirit," "the Lord," and "God"
are each thought of as doing essentially the sarae thing ; prose
cuting the sarae work; each and all conveying apiritual gifts to
the people of God.  Moat fully in harraony with this is his
form of what is known as "the Apostolic benediction" (2 Cor.

376 DIVINITY OF CHRIST AND TRINITY OF GOD.
13; 14); "The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of
God and the communion of the Holy Ghost be with you all."
The reader will have a sufficient comment on this passage if he
will suppose another of Pauls epistles to close thus : " The
grace of the one God, and the good will of the angel Gabriel,
and the blessing of the Holy Virgin (or of the great Apostle Peter)
be with you all."
Jt deaervea remark that the doctrine of distinct personality in
the Godhead, coupled with the true divinity of the Son, is not
based on certain isolated passages, wrested out of their connec
tion and so misinterpreted. For in some instances the doctrine
is found wrought into the entire scope of the context, and elab
orately argued as the very point to be proved. See for example
the entire first chapter to the Hebrews : " God . . . hath in theae
last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir
of all thinga ; by whom alao he made the worlda ; who being the
brightness of his glory, and the express iraage of his person, and
upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by
hiraself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Ma
jesty on high; " all which involves distinct personality and also
real divinity. Then the writer places this exalted Son in contrast
with the angels, aud labors to prove not only that he is greater
than they, but that he is really divine and they are not ; that he
is called God (vs. 8, 9) as they are not; that he laid the founda
tiona of the earth — a work never done by them ; and that angels
are required to worship the Son, obviously with such worship as
is appropriate to no being lower than God.
This group of passages (and such as these) present the condi
tions that must "be met by any theory proposed for tbe purpose
of harmonizing distinct personality as between the Father, the
Logos, and the Holy Ghost, with the doctrine of one God only.
Let it now be carefully observed :
(1) That this personality is put, not in modified, qualified
terms, as if the speakers were consciously using language in some
other than its ordinary sense ; but in plain, unqualified phrase —
such as, if used, of various men, would by no means suggest any
thing less than entirely distinct persons.
(2) That these persona are represented as performing distinct
works, exercising diverse functions and each his own — functions
moreover that are truly divine ; e. g. the Father usually as origi
nating the great scheme of redemption — (" God so loved the
world that he sent his Son," etc.; " We have one God of whom
are all things," etc.); the Son as creating all things; becoming
heir of all things ; as being the universal Lord and final Judge ;
and the Holy Ghost as a spiritual .force, wielding a power of
truth for moral regeneration in human souls.  [As bearing
upon the precise question now before us, it is not pertinent to in
troduce the special functions of the Son considered as incarnate.
His human nature, his sufferings unto death, the atonement thus

DIVINITY OF CHRIST AND TRINITY OF GOD. 377
made — all that resta upon the incarnation proper — ahould logic
ally be omitted.]
(3) These persons are represented as having a distinct moral
character — to such an extent distinct as to become objects of
mutual love to each other; e. g. "For thou lovedst me before the
foundation of the world" (John 17: 24). In this passage, the
" me " can be no other than the Logos, for " before the world
was," the incarnation had not taken place. There was no human
nature included under "me," but only the divine.  Either lov
ing or being loved involves the possession of all the grand elements
of a moral being. Moreover it can scarcely be necessary to sug
gest that the words — "Thou lovedst me" — express distinct per
sonality iu terms most clear and decisive. Who can express per
sonality in stronger and less ambiguous phrase ?
Now obviously, any theory proposed for the purpose of har
monizing these scriptural representations with the unity of God
must meet these conditions ; otherwise it ia valueless.
At this point, and before we proceed to name and discuss the
various theories which look toward this harraony, it seems im
portant to bring under brief review a sample at least of the pas
sages which teach or imply the unity of God. It behooves us to
inquire how this unity is affirmed ; to what extent it is put in con
trast with polytheism, and how far (if at all) it may seem to be
affirmed in such connections and relations as bear upon [or if it
be so against] distinct and equal personality.
Passages from the Old Testament come first in order ; e. g.
Deut. 4 : 35, 39, and 6 : 4, 5, 14. " The Lord, he is God; there is
none else beside him," etc. " Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God
is one Lord," etc. " Ye shall not go after other gods," etc.
Compare also Isa. 44: 8, and 42 : 8, and Pa. 86 : 8, 10, aud 89 ; 6,
and Jer. 10 ; 6.  It is the less important to cite and expound
these passages, inasmuch aa they do not appear to bear purposely
against or even. upon the tripersonality of God; but are leveled
against the giant delusion o£ the ages — viz. polytheism — the in
definite multiplication of gods, in diversified grades, in various
spheres of activity, of countless nationalities and basest morals.
Turning to the prominent New Testament passages, note first
John 17 : 3 : "This ia life eternal, that they may know Thee, the
only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent."  The
noticeable thing in this passage, and in the prayer of which it
forma a part, ia that while it seems to affirm the absolute unity
of God in moat explicit terms, it yet equally seema to imply and
therefore to hold the true divinity of the Logos, and also his dis
tinct personality. For the knowledge of Jesus Christ as that in
which eternal life consists is put on tlie same footing with the
knowledge of "Thee, the only true God." We find also among
the words of this prayer, these : " I'he glory which I had with
thee before the world was" (v. 5); "'fhey have kuown surely
that I came forth from Thee " (v. 8) ; " Thou lovedst me before
the foundation of the world" (v. 24); "The world hath not

378 DIVINITY OF CHRIST AND TRINITY OF GOD.
known Thee, but I have kuown Thee " (v. 25) ; "I have declared
unto them thy narae," etc. (v. 26). In the same prayer, there
fore, Christ seems to affirm the unity (shall we say absolute unity)
bf God, and also to iraply for himself an eternal pre-exiatence;
the coming forth from God into the world; the being loved of
the Father before the foundation of the world ; and the perfect
knowledge of God — each and all of theae facta being such as
can be affirmed or implied of no one who is leas than divine.
Muat we not therefore infer that hia conception of the unity of
God did not in his mind conflict with his own assumption of
these divine attributes and relations ?
The passage (1 Cor. 8 : 4-6) has been referred to above. It is
remarkable for its very explicit antithesis with polytheism
(" though there be that are called gods, as there are gods many,
and lords many"); also for the somewhat close definition of the
Christrian doctrine — " the one God, the Father, of whom are all
things and we in him ; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are
all things and we by him."  ^It is not easy to see how a some
what distinct personality — personality of some sort — could be
more definitely expressed than it is here. The only real ques
tion upon this passage is whether the creatorship, attributed here
to the Lord Jesus Christ, involves true divinity. Did the Logos
create by means of a derived and delegated power, of such sort
as might be exercised by a being of derived existence and of at
tributes less than divine ?  Bearing against such a supposition,
we have the uniform strain of the Scriptures which in numerous
passages appeal to creatorship as the highest proof of true divin
ity. See Heb. 3:4: "He that built all things is God." Jer.
10: 11, 12: "Thus shall ye say to them" (idolatrous heathen) —
" The gods that have not made the heavens and the earth, even
they shall periah from the earth and from under these heavens."
" lie " (the true God) " hath made the earth by his power," etc.
Ps. 96: 5: "For all the gods of the nations are idols; but the
Lord made the heavens." See also laa. 42; 5, and 44; 24.
It seems therefore undeniable Chat our finite minds are ex
pected to accord the attributes of true divinity to him who is re
vealed to us in the Scriptures aa universal creator.
In Eph. 4:5, 6, occurs an exhortation to Chriatian unity,
based on the oneneas of all the vital elements of the gospel
scheme — there being in it but one Lord [Jesus] ; one sort of sav
ing faith ; " one God and Father of all" Christiana (Jew or Gen
tile), " who is above all, through all, in all." If there were many
gods, there might be as much foundation for many diverse sects
or sorts of worshipers as there would be for any one seot. Per
fect moral unity between the Lord Jesus and the Father is vital
to Paul's argument in this passage; such a unity is every-where
implied ; often affirmed.  Over against this, Jesus is never rep
resented to be Lord [of all] in any such sense as conflicts with
these affirmations as to " one God and Father ofall."
In 1 Thess. 1 : 9, Paul wrote — " Ye turned to God from idols to

.DIVINITY OF CHRIST AND TRINITY OF GOD. 379
serve the living and true God, and to wait for his Sou from
heaven," etc. — a passage of importance aa showing how naturally
the inspired minds of that age put in contrast the serving of idols
and the serving of the one living and true God. But the unity of
God as opposed to polytheism is not necessarily a unity inconsist
ent with tripersonality.
Let it be noted also that " waiting for his Son from heaven " as
explained in the New Testament involves and implies the real di
vinity of the Son, so that " turning to God from idols " does not
exclude divine homage to the Son. To regard the Son as divine
is not idolatry. Yet it would be if God's unity were of such a
sort as must rule out the real divinity of the Son.
'Twice in Paul's first epistle to Timothy, he brings out strongly
the doctrine of the divine unity, viz. in 1 Tim. 1 : 17, and 6 : 15,
16: "Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible — the only
wise God, be honor and glory forever and ever; amen." The
best manuscripts omit the word " wise ; " the best critics decide
against its authority. The omission improves the sense — the
thought being manifestly, not that the eternal King is the only
God who has wisdom, but the only real God who exists at ali.
We must accept thia passage as an explicit affii-mation that there
is but one God; yet nothing in the context indicates that the in
spired apostle, either by implication or otherwise, meant to deny
that the Son is also divine. The passage has no apparent refer
ence of any sort to the Son or to the Holy Ghost.  The other
passage runs thus: "Which in his times he shall show" [i. e.
which appearing of the Lord Jesus he shall exhibit — cause to be
seen — in its due time] — " even he who is the Blessed and only Po
tentate ; the King of kings and Lord of lords ; who only hath im
mortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto ;
whom no man hath seen or can see : to whom be honor and
power everlasting. Amen."  Thus in most sublime strains this
passage bears human thought back of him who reveals God to
created minds, to the Great Unseen and Unapproachable — the
deathless One of whom immortality is a prime attribute, and
whoae power over his universe ia simply supreme and eternal —
" King of kings and Lord of lords." i et these epithets which ex-
preaa aupreme power are elsewhere applied with unabated fullness
and force to the Lord Jesus. He too is " King of kings and Lord
of lords " (Rev. 17 : 14, and 19 : 16) — aa indeed we might expect
from his own declaration : — " All power is given unto me in
heaven and in earth " (Matt. 28 : 18).  If to any one these
words — " all power given " — should seem to indicate that the very
nature of the Son is inferior — of lower grade as to divinity than
that of the Father — " the Blessed and only Potentate " — it de
serves special conaideration that this apparent inferiority may be
only apparent— not real ; due to the subordinate part he acts in
the great scheme of human redemption, and not to any intrinsic
inferiority of nature. It certainly does not appear that these lofty
terma of majesty are applied to the Father for the purpose of

380 DIVINITY OP CHRIST AND TRINITY OF GOD.
proving the natural inferiority of the Son and of the Spirit. Ap
parently the Son is before the eye of Paul as seen in his incarna
tion — coming back frora heaven to the final judgment of the race
— which fact of itself implies a position of relative subordination
to the Father, yet without by any means aaauraing in the pre-ex
istent Son a lower grade of divinity — (or better expreaaed) a grade
of attributes less than really divine.
Laat, we notice the extraordinary passage with which John
closes his first epistle (I John 5: 20): "We know that the Son
of God is come and hath given us an understanding that we may
know Him that is true" (the true One, and not as some copies
have it, the true doctrine or thing) ; and we are in him that is
true — in his Son Jesus Christ. "'This [one] is the true God and
eternal life."  This passage deserves to be studied with the ut
most care. A paraphrase will help to present my view- of it —
thus : We know that we have attained the knowledge of the true
God (the great world around us have not) ; for we are certain that
the Son of God has corae and has revealed to us such truth and
hath given us such apprehension of it that we know — not merely
may know, but (according to the best manuscripts) do know Him
who ia the true God. We not only know him but we are in him
— that is to say, we are in his Son Jesus Christ. To be in the
true God is to be in his Son ; and to be in the Son is to be in
the true God, for this one, Jesus Christ his Son, is the true God
and eternal life.  The clause which in our English version
comraences with the word "even'' in Italics must stand in gram
matical apposition and therefore be identified in thought with the
clause next preceding. We are in him who is the true God, the
Father, by being in his Son Jesus Christ. To be in Christ is
equivalent to being in the Father — carries with it the same rela/-
tion toward the Father — because his Son Jesus Christ is the true
God and is the fountain of eternal life.
Beyond these statements as to the metaphysical relations of
the divine Father aud the divine Son, John does not carry us.
Was this exposition of it satisfactory to his own mind ? It
would be very difficult to prove that it was not. He drops no
word whioh even suggests that he saw in these statements any
conflict with the unity of God.
It is now in place to bring under special consideration some of
the leading theories which have been proposed and more or less
extensively held as harmonizing the unity of God with the scrip
tural representations of his tripersonality. Do they, any of them,
meet the required conditions ?
I arrange them as follows :
1. That the Logos is a created being; the flrst-born and the
highest, but yet really deriving his existence frora the Father,
who is the one God only.  It does not essentially iraprove thia
theory to say that the Son came into being by " emanation" from
the Father; nor to say [with Lessing] that " to think, to will, ahd

DIVINITY OF CHRIST AND TRINITY OF GOD. 381
to create, are with God one," and that ao, God projected his
thought of hiraself into an existent person, " wanting in no per
fection which he hiraself possessed." No matter what the mode
of putting forth creative power may have been. The vital point
is a derived existence, which necessarily carries with it the denial
of his eternal being, and indeed the denial of all truly divine
attributes. A created being raay be very great ; but no created
being can be God. No created being can be worthy of worship
as God. . No created being can sit at the right hand of the Fa
ther on the throne of universal dominion, enjoying equal honors
and praises with the Father. To admit this at all is to subvert
the eternal and necessary distinction between the Inflnite and
the finite; is to annihilate all just notions of the worship due to
the Infinite God and to hira only.
2. That, ontologioally considered, there is no original, essential
distinction to which the terra " peraon " can apply. The language
of the Scriptures is to be explained aa simply bold personifica
tion, there being at bottom nothing beyond distinct manifeatation.
God unrevealed ia Father; but God considered as revealing him
self to his intelligent creatures, whether before or after the in
carnation, is the Logos : considered as energizing morally in the
hearts of moral creatures for their regeneration and holiness, he
is called the Spirit. I-t is only the one God, working in these di
verse forma — much as the sarae one man may be a son to his par
ents ; a father to his children ; a husband to hia wife ; a magis
trate to the civil community; a physician in professional business.
This theory raight relieve the philosophical difficulties quite
satisfactorily if only it could be made to meet aenaibly the cou-
ditiona of the scriptural representations. But to meet these con
ditions is entirely vital; and is indefinitely more important than
to relieve our mundane philosophy. If we accept the Scriptures
as a revelation from God, we must at least give them a fair, com
mon sense interpretation. .
Let this theory be tested by applying it to the Scriptures in
question. Let " Father" be the name for the flrst manifestation;
Son; for the second; Spirit, for the third.  The first manifeata
tion loves the second aud has given all power unto it : the second
manifestation addresses the first, speaka of the glory enjoyed with
it before the world was, and aspires to return and enjoy again the
sarae glory. The second manifestation was from eternity with
the first and was really God. Sometiraes the first is represented
as sending forth the third, and sometiraes the second does the
same thing.  ^It seems therefore that if we fall back to the facts
affirmed in Scripture in reference to the thinga said and done by
these several manifestations toward each other and toward our
lost world for its redemption, we find theae manifestations to be
really persons, despite of our new and improved philosophical no
menclature. They fulfill the functions of personality. They have
the mutual affections characteristic of personality, and bear to each
other and to the universe the mutual relations of distinct persona,
17

382 DIVINITY OF CHRIST AND TRINITY OF GOD.
It will perhaps be replied that these words of Scripture are bold
personification, and nothing more ; that the first manifestation is
personified as Father; the second as Logos, etc. The reply to
this would be that high bold personification has its proper atmos
phere and home in the realms of fancy and imagination, and is
entirely inadmissible elsewhere. The cool, good sense of man
kind rebels utterly against its introduction in prosaic, matter-of-
fact narration. The style and tone of John's gospel are altogether
of this latter sort. To make this gospel history an allegory, after
the model of Bunyan's "Christian Pilgrim" or Hannah More's
"Parley the Porter," would shock the coramon sense of honest
readers. The theory of manifestations in place of personality or as
its philosophical explanation, does violence to all fair principles
of interpretation and is therefore inadmissible.
3. A third theory assumes that the entire group of mental
attributes or powers requisite to constitute a moral agent (classi
fied well into intelligence, sensibility and free will), when exist
ing in combination, constitute the one God. These mental attri
butes, broken up and rearranged or distributed, constitute sev
erally the respective persons who appear in Scripture as Father,
Son and Holy Ghost. No one of the several persons possesses
the entire group. Thus, it would seem, we must understand Al
ford, his language being this (Com. p. 615); "The Son never
works of himself, but always as the revelation of the Father;"
" his work is the Father's will, and the Father has no Will except
the Son who is all his will." " The Christian Fathers rightly re
jected the Semi-Arian formula; — 'The Son was begotten by an
act of the Father's will' — for he is that Will himself."  The
statements of Athenagoras (one of the Fathers in the second
century) seem to assume this theory: "The Son being in the
Father and the Father in the Son, in oneness and power of Spirit,
the understanding and reason [nous and logos] of the Father is
the Son of God. If you inquire what is meant by the Son, I will
state briefly that he is the first product ofthe Father, not as having
been brought into existence (for from the beginning God who is
the Eternal Mind [nous] had the Logos in himself being from
eternity instinct with Logos [' logikos ']) ; but inasmuch as he came
forth to be the idea and the energizing po-n-er of all material
things which lay like a nature without attributes and an inactive
earth, the grosser particles being mixed up with the lighter" (p.
385).  Again: '"For we acknowledge a (jod, and a Son, his Lo
gos, and a Holy Spirit, united in essence — the Father, Son and
Spirit, because the Son is the Intelligence, Reason, Wisdom of the
Father; and the Spirit an effluence, aa light from fire " (p. 405).
In examining thia theory the reader should be cautioned to
keep it diatinct from the one immediately preceding — ^viz. the
theory of personification, or aimply diverae manifestation.
The theory now under discussion must be carefully analyzed.
What does it mean and imply? Does it raean that the Logos,
going forth from God as the Will, took from the Godhead all

DIVINITY OF CHRIST AND TRINITY OF GOD. 383
there was of the Will-power, leaving none to the Father and
none to the Spirit: i. e. leaving to the Father and to the Spirit
only intelligence and sensibility ; and, moreover, does it mean
that the Logos, going forth thus as the Will-power, took from
the Godhead this power only, and no intelligence — no sensibil
ity ? If so, then we must ask — How mere 'Will-power is to act
to purpose without intelligence and without sensibility? What
moral quality could there be in the exercises of such Will
power ? How can such exercises be supposed to be worthy of
love and of honor and glory from the Father ?  And, more
over, how utterly inert raust the Father and the Spirit be — all
WiU-power being abstracted? How does this theory help us
conceive of Father, Logos and Spirit as each working severally
in his respective sphere or function, e. g. in the scheme of hu
man redemption ?
Returning to the theory in question, we ask again — Does it
allow to the Logos a moderate amount of intelligence and sen
sibility, but an extra araount — a very special development — of
the will-power ? And, as to the Father and the Spirit, does it
in a corresponding manner accord to them a diminished will-
force, but intelligence and sensibility in full divine measure ?
 'Then we must ask — What is gained by this reapportion
ment of the respective eleraents requisite to raental and moral
action ? Is it supposable that the Son acta with more energy
of will than the Father, or than the Spirit ? Or that he acts
with somewhat less intelligence, or with less of the sensibility
of emotion, desire, affection ? What is the proof of either of
these points ? Does this theory bring any help whatever to the
proper understanding of the scriptural representations on this
subject? Yet again ; may we suppose this" to be theory — viz. that God,
considered as putting forth the energy of his will, is the Logoa ;
that God, considered as loving the well-being of creatures and
consulting with himself iu wisdom and forming the great plans
of creation and redemption, is the Father ; and, moreover, con
sidered as carrying out the scheme in the appliances of moral
power [truth, persuasion], is the Spirit?  Then we have these
problems to solve : how the will-power in repose during the past
eternity can be said to have been " with God " and to " be God ; "
how the will-power, going forth in time for its activities in hu
man redemption, can be said to be God ; also, how God, con
sidered as doing the work of the Logos, can be an object of
love to God considered as not doing this work, but simply as
giving up his Logos to do it ?
Thus if we carry out this theory in its actual application to
the words and to the apparent sense of Scripture, we shall find
that we either have (despite of our theory) the distinct personal
ity which we are seeking to escape because of ita philosophical
difficulties ; or we slide into the theory of no distinction save
in simple raanifestation ; or we abstract all senae and make non-

384 DIVINITY OF CHRIST AND TRINITY OF GOD.
sense of the scriptural conceptions and representations aa to
the mutual work and relations of Father, Son aud Spirit.
4. Yet another theory labors to construct a Trinity by first
making out a duality in all moral beings, resting upou the ca
pacity of self-knowledge. This capacity, we shall readily see,
belongs necessarily to all moral agents — human or divine — be
cause without this power of knowing one's self, there could be
no self-culture and no conscience ; no compunction for wrong
doing; no intelligent self-approval for doing right.
Now in making up a duality of persons (suppose in either
God or man) these speculative philosophers reason thus : " I
know myself." I who have this knowledge am ono; self, the
object of this knowledge, is another, counting two — the knower
and the known. Thus, say they, we certainly have a duality
in all morally acting minds ; and we need but one more to make
up a trinity.
There are at least two fatal objections to thia theory.  (1.)
That two is not there, but lacks one of it. This difficulty, be
ing mathematical, is thoroughly stubborn. Moreover, there ia no
room for the third in thia category. A third party — standing on
the same footing, of the same sort — is a natural impossibility.
The great fact of a capacity for self-knowledge provides for an
apparent duality (only apparent, ho-wever, not real), but can
never provide for even an apparent Trinity. There can be no
third party springing up out of this capacity for self-knowledge.
(2.) A second objection equally fatal is that this apparent du
ality is restricted to self-knowledge and disappears the moment
we pass beyond it. As to all other activities and functions of
mind even this duality has no existence.  This will be seen if
we lay side by side the following propositions.  (a.) God knows
himself — an apparent duality; God and self  (6.) God knows
man : — two entirely distinct parties. 'The proposition makes not
the least approach toward a duality in God. God and him
self here coalesce in one, with no conceivable distinction. 
(c.) Again, God creates matter. Here is no shadow of distinc
tion between God and himself This distinction which was sup
posed to appear when the point affirmed was self-knowledge, dis
appears at once and universally when we step beyond the realm
of self-knowledge. Therefore, for the point now in question — a
duality or trinity to be developed in the work of human redemp
tion, this theory is utterly valueless. The functions requisite in
this great acheme have no affinity with self-knowledge. They call
for outgoing activities altogether foreign to the study or concep
tion of one's own mental states or acts, and therefore by their
very nature shut off all aid from this apparent duality of persons.
6. Yet another theory which has found favor perhaps more ex
tensively than any other among evangelical Christians, resta ou
an aaaumed diatinction between essence or substance, and its
attributes. Commencing our analysis with matter, we naturally, perhaps

DIVINITY OF CHRIST AND TRINITY OF GOD. 38o
necessarily, -think of abasia or subatratura, underlying its quali-
tiea. A lump of matter has form, color, weight, etc., etc. — quali
ties, we call them; but we -are wont to assume a basis of simple
matter in which these diverse qualities inliere, albeit it might
puzzle us to aay what baais would remain if all these qualities,
attributes, were taken out of it.
From this atepping-stone we aacend to our conception of spirit.
Here too we seem compelled to think of some substratum, some
basis -ivhioh men are wont to call eaaence or substance. In
this essence there exist the varioua spiritual faculties or powers
which are called attributes. Now a theory to explain the trinity
of persona in the Godhead has been built on this assumed dis
tinction between essence- and attributes. The three persona are
said to be in essence one, but iu grouping of attributes three. It
is said that although in the subject man there can be but one
group of attributes in any one spiritual essence or substance, yet
we know too little of God to deny the possibility of a triune dis
tinction in his nature — i. c. a threefold grouping of attributes iu
one divine esaence.
Of this theory we may at least say, it is impoaaible to diaprove
it. It raay possibly be the true solution of the raystery. Itraakes
entirely iu its favor that it does not build on any supposed anal
ogy in the nature of mau. Most obviously there is no such anal
ogy. Man has no trinity in his being analogous to that which
the Scriptures assume as to God; and the assumption that he has
can never aubaerve any other end than to perplex, confound,
and mialead.  -In candor I muat alao express it as ray opinion
that, while this theory can not be disproved, so also it can not
be proved. The eleraents of theproblera lie beyond our depth —
in the mysteries of the Infinite Mind.
In conclusion I call special attention to the following points :
1. The sacred writers (John aud Paul) make no attempt to har
monize the trinity of God with his unity. Indeed they write as
if they were entirely unconscious of any discrepancy between
them. They seera to have no thought of any incompatibility be
tween their conception of one only Suprerae God, and the equal
divinity ofthe Father, aud ofthe Son, and ofthe Holy Ghost. I
find no allusion to this subject aa one involving mystery; much
less any attempt to explain it as if it demanded explanation in
order to its intelligent reception and practical utility. . Paul does
seem to speak ofthe incarnation as a great mystery: "Without
controversy great is the mystery of godliness; God was mani
fest iu the flesh; justifled iu the Spirit; seen of angels; preached
unto the Gentiles; believed on iu the world; received up into
glory" (1 Tim. 3: 16). On the face of it this passage seeras to
refer to the incarnation, and to this only: not at all, to the rela
tiona of the trinity to the unity of God. No similar utterance as
to the trinity appears in either Paul or John. May -we assume
that they had no sense of raystery in these relations ? Shall we
conclude that they had a theory -which relieved the subject of all

386 DIVINITY OF CHRIST AND TRINITY OF GOD.
its otherwise apparent mystery, or that they accepted it as a
mystery beyond the comprehenaion of human thought in this*
earthly state, and therefore wisely passed it in utter silence 't-. 
A few words from their lips or pen might have helped us to de
cide between these two alternatives ; but for such words we look
in vain. Probably it is well left where it ia. If we may suppose
that the teaching Spirit deterrained in their case what not to say
as well as what to say, we must rest in this conclusion.
This course of remark appliea not only to paasages in which
John or Paul express their own thought (under inspiration of
course), but also to those in which John (in particular) records
the spoken words of Jesus ; e. g. in his discussions with the Jews,
and in his prayer (John 17) with his disciples. Jesus assumes
his pre-existent divinity; his eternal existence with the Father-
in superlative glory — yet with no intimation that this raight seem
incomprehensible to human thought, or might so stagger our hu
man conception as to justify repellent skepticism.. He neither
suggests that these things involve mystery too deep to be fath
omed, nor does he volunteer any metaphysical explanation to re
lieve supposed incompatibility.

EXOUESUS II.

What is said by Jesus himself as to his then future comings,
considered with reference to modern pre-millennial theories.
In the gospel of John we have raet this prolific word in several
pasaagea.-*- In the other evangelists also it occurs in various
senses.f Many minds are confused by the various meanings and
various applications of thia word. Some (as I believe) have rad
ically misapprehended Christ's meaning, and have built upon
their miaconceptions a ayatem at variance with the real doctrines
of Scripture — especially this; — That Jesua has promised to come
in his human body, long prior to the final resurrection and gen
eral judgment, to set up a sort of kingdom unknown before,
reigning visibly over his people and virtually superseding the'
present dispensation of the Spirit.— — Some hold this modified
view — that the Scriptures are not clear on this point; that this
visible coming and new kingdom may he the true seuse of Scrip
ture ; — may therefore become real, but that as they understand the
Scriptures, the question is left open and unsettled.
It is entirely vital to any useful discussion of this subject that
we have definite views of the system built upon the supposed
visible coming and personal reign of Christ.
Is it (a.) That the righteous dead are to be raiaed to live and
reign with Christ in imraortal bodies ? This is generally if not
universally held as a part of the systera.
Is it (6.) That when Jeaua ahall visibly come, all living saints
will be changed from mortal to immortal?  1 suppose this also
is the current opinion of those who hold to this visible coming
and earthly reign.
Is it (c.) That the wicked, living on the earth at the supposed
coming are to be destroyed by judgments; and if so, is this de
struction universal, and are no more wicked men to live on the
earth, and is probation to cease? Then the outcome of the sys
tem is — an end to probation in this world; au end to labor for
-» B. g. 14: 2, 8, 16-18, 23, 28, and 21 : 22, 23.
t Matt. 16 : 27, 28, and its parallels (which are, Mark 9 : 1, and
Luke 9: 27); Matt. 24: 29-34, and its parallels (viz. Mark 13: 24-30,
and Luke 21 : 27, 31, 32) ; also Matt. 26 : 61, and Luke 18 : 8.
(387)

388 ON CHRIST'S COMING FOR A PERSONAL REIGN.
the salvation of sinners; a real transition into a state of uni
versal retribution.  In regard to this scheme, we must ask —
What is the benefit of cutting off all further labor for the salvation
of men? What business have we to be longing and praying that
gospel work may cease? And what is gained by having the fu
ture paradise of the saints located on this planet rather than iu
heaven ?
But perhaps the more common view is that a part only of the
wicked found on the earth are to be out off; that a part survive
and will continue as before under the normal laws of the preaent
life; that gospel work will still go on araong thera, and with
greater success than ever before.
Of the systera in this form we may ask — Doea it honor the Di
vine Spirit to assume that the bodily presence of Jesus will be
more efficient toward the salvation of sinners or toward the spiritual
life and joy of believers than the Spirit's invisible po-wer ? Does
thia correspond with the opinion expressed by Jesus himself: —
" It is expedient for you that-I go away " (as to my visible per
son), "and the Comforter come' ?
Again : the doctrine being (supposably) that gospel agencies in
this new reign are to be wielded, not by mortals but by immor
tals, theu how about "having this treasure in earthen vessels
that the excellency of the power may be of God and not of mau " ?
Will it any longer be God a plan "by the foolishness of preaching
to save them that believe" ? How are immortals to come down to
mortals in the aympathy of fellow-aufferers and reach thera as
standing with thera on the common level of earthly frailty and suf
fering ? Who can be very sure that this change would be a real
iraprovement upon the present system of labor for the salvation
of sons and daughters, of neighbors and fellow-sufferers ?  It
may seem to be very nice to be lifted at once out of all earthly
frailty, but the further question will be — Ought we to be ready to
forego the facilities which our kinship with sinners gives us in
labor for their salvation? If men are tired of earthly toil and
suffering even in the Master's service, for the salvation of the
souls he died to save, and are absolutely irapatient to get out of
it, then they have the question to settle with their Master whether
he will modify the systera for their special convenience, relieving
them from all burdens — from all hard work — frora all liability to
the infirmities common to a world of probation.
But some may say — ^You misapprehend the system. Only the
raised saints are immortal; the living are to remain under the
normal laws of our present life; and the wicked also.  Then
these questions will arise: Who is to do the gospel work — the
mortals, or the immortals ? If there is to be co-operation, then
under what laws? How are the immortals to work for the sal
vation of mortal men?  And yet again: How are the living
saints all along the future ages of this new system, to have the real
presence of Christ ? Who and how many araong the millions of
them are to be favored with the special privilege of seeing his

-ON CHRIST'S COMING FOR A PERSONAL- REIGN. 389
transflgured forra and of hearing hia celestial voice ? With or
gans of sight limited to a few hundred feet, more or less, and of
hearing yet more restricted as to space, who shall hear and who
shall see the Son of man iu this new form of his raanifestation?
'To raake the case plain, suppose that when Jesus trod the bills
aud vallej's of Judea and of Galilee, instead of one hundred and
twenty disciples iu and about Jerusalera and flve hundred who
could be gathered in one spot in Galilee, there had been as raany
hundred thousands as at this moment, located in every country
on the face of the earth, how many of them could have set their
eyes on his glorious form, or bent their ears to hia inspiring
voice ? How many of them all could have sat around the same
table with him or wet his bleaaed feet with their penitent tears?
Is there not a vaat amount of careless thinking and thoughtless
wishing when men compare the possible communion of saints
with Jesus, spiritually manifested under the present system, with
their privileges under this imagined visible reign of Christ on
earth, themselves being still subjected to their preaent limitations
of aense ?
Not to push further at present either our search for the exact
system of those who are enamored with the idea of Christ's per
sonal reign on earth, or the difficulties we should flnd in its adop
tion, let us rather inquire :
Did Jesus promise such a coming and such a reign on earth ?
Has this system of views any scriptural bottom whatever ?
To answer this inquiry satisfactorily, we must bring under con
sideration all the important passages in -which Jeaua spake of
his own then future coming. What are they, and what do they
legitimately mean ?  Of course, their meaning must be ascer
tained frora the connection in which they severally stand, and
frora whatever else is aaid aa to thoae corainga. A claasification
based on theae principles will exceedingly facilitate a just and
clear apprehension of the whole subject.
The passages in which Christ spake of his then future comings
may be brought into four classes, arranged according to the.
various senses, or perhaps rather purposes, of the coming.
1. He comes for the purpose of taking his people to himself at
their death.
2. He comes in the sense of manifesting his presence in the
hearts of hia people through the Divine Spirit, " the Comforter."
3. He comes in power (or in his kingdom) in the sense of
bringing sore judgments on Jerusalem and the Jewish nation,
contemplated as a great, hostile, persecuting power.
4. He comes at the end of the -world to raise all the dead, and
to judge all mankind.  Hia coming in judgmenta on Jerusalem
(No. 3) is in several passages regarded as a type and pledge of
this final coming, and conaequently the two are brought into
specially close connection.
1. Following out this classification, I place in the first class
,Iolin 14 : 2, 3 ; " In my Father'a bouae are many mansions: I go

390 ON CHRIST'S COMING FOR A PERSONAL REIGN.
to prepare a place for you. And if I go and prepare a place for
you, I WILL COME AGAIN and receive you io myself: that where I
am, there ye may be also."  It seems too obvious to admit of
rational doubt that these words refer to Christ's coming in the
event of death to take each believer home to himself in heaven.
This construction is in harmony with the course of thought in
this connection, aa manifested for example in Christ's words to
Peter (13 ; 36) — " Whither I go thou canst not follow me now,
but thou shalt follow me afterwards " — i. e. at thy death.— — •
Moreover, the only alternative construction which seems at all
supposable (viz. that this coming is at the end of the world, and
the taking of thera to hiraself is only after the final judgment) is
set aside by the doctrine of the entire New Testament— that Je
sus does in fact take his people to himself iraraediately at their
death : " This day shalt thou be with me in Paradise " (Luke 23:
43). The beggar (Lazarus) "was carried by angels into Abra
ham's bosom" and "was comforted" (Luke 16: 22, 25); "To
depart " (in Paul's view) was " to be with Christ " (Phil. 1 : 23),
etc., etc. The Revelation of John every-where locates departed
saints with Jesus even then. Hence scripturally the idea that
this coming and receiving his people to himself refers to the final
judgment is untenable. It must therefore refer to his coming at
the death of each individual saint.
2. In a second sense of " coming," Jesus comes to his people
in the manifestations of his presence by and through the Holy
Spirit. Thus we must explain John 14 : 16-18, 23, aud perhaps
V. 28 : "I will pray the Father, and he will give you another
Comforter, that he may abide with you forever, even tho Spirit
of truth: . . Ye know him, for he dwelleth with you, and shall be
in you. I will not leave you comfortless ; / will come io you " —
i. e. come inthe person of this " other Comforter" "who shall re
ceive of mine, and shall show it unto you" (16; 14).  This
construction is most abundantly confirmed throughout this con
text, the next verse declaring — " Yet a little while and the world
seeth me no more " (his body being reraoved from earth), " but ye
see me" — i. e. through the manifestations made of me to your
souls by the Spirit.  Again, (v. 23) : "If a man love me he
will keep my words and my Father will love him, and we will
come unto him and make our abode with him" — this coming be
ing expressed (v. 21) by the word " manifest." See also v. 28 :
" Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away and come again
unto you " — probably in the sense of spiritual manifestations
through the Holy Ghost, though possibly this may refer to John
14 : 3 — coming again to receive them to himself To one or the
other of these classes this passage must refer.  The reader may
compare also Rev. 3 : 20: "I will corae in unto him and sup with
him, and he with me."
3. In the third class Jeaua speaks of himself as " coming in
power " or " iu his kingdom," in the sense of bringing desolating
judgments on Jerusalera, and makes this fearful visitation of

ON CHRIST'S COMING FOR A PERSONAL REIGN. 391
retributive justice a type and pledge of his final judgment of the
whole race.
The standard passages are — Matt. 16; 27, 28, with its parallels
(Mark 8 : 38, and 9: 1, and Luke 9 : 26, 27) ; also Matt. 24; 29-
34, with ita parallels (Mark 13 : 24-30, and Luke 21 ; 31, 32). 
That these passages have one reference to the final judgment is
unquestionable : — " The Son of man shall come in the glory of
his Father with his angels ; and 'then shall he reward every man
according to his works"- — nothing less than the final judgment ;
but Jesua adds — " Verily I aay unto you, There be some standing
here who shall not taste of death till they see the Son of man com
ing in his kingdom " — which with equal certainty must be a long
anterior coming, of somewhat similar character, for similar pur
poses of retributive justice — yet, falling within the life-time of
that generation, must refer to his judgments on Jerusalem. We
are shut up to the sarae construction of Matt. 24 and its parallels.
It may in some cases be doubtful in which claas (No. 3 or No.
4) we shall locate such pasaagea aa Matt. 26 : 64; " Hereafter ye
shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power and
coming in the clouds of heaven." It would be true in both senses
of his coming — in the nearer future by terrible judgraents on
themselves, their city, temple and nation ; in the more remote fu
ture, on his " great white throne " before whioh "should be gath-.
ered all nations." For our present purpose it is of no special con
sequence in which class we place this passage. It must certainly
fall into one or the other. Its descriptive terms favor the latter —
the final coming to judgment.  Of Luke 18; 8 — "When the
Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth ? " — it need
only be said — there is nothing in the connection which servea to
locate it at all. It seema to have been left indefinite purposely.
If at any time the Son of man should come to see (as the Lord
looked down upon the world in Noah's tirae to see what men were
doing) would he find faith there ? There is not here the least in
timation of a visible, peraonal coraing, nor the least hint of setting
up a personal reign on the earth.
The passage (John 21 : 22, 23) has been discussed in its place
in the coramentary.
. 4. Of passages in the fourth class, the standard one is Matt.
25; 31-46. The others of most importance have been noticed in
cidentally in speaking of the third class.' The purposes and re
sults of this coming are so entirely definite, so unlike the sup
posed personal coming for a visible reign on the earth, that there
need be no difficulty in referring them to the final judgment.
Upon these passages thus classified, I remark —
1. Only the last of the four classes contemplates a visible, per
sonal coming. The first may be by angelic ministration ; the sec
ond is spiritual — through the agency ofthe Holy Ghost; the third
is wrought through providential agencies ; the fourth and this
only, is a coming in person, visibly manifest before the universe.
2. None of theae passages can. by any fair construction be re-

392 ON CHRIST'S COMING FOR A PERSONAL REIGN.
moved from the class in which it is here arranged. [This must be
taken as the author's personal conviction.]
3. Substantially, I think, they are exhaustive aa to the aubject,
comprising all the passages in which Jesus speaks of himself as
yet to come. No passage of any conceivable importance has been
omitted intentionally.
4. Consequently, none of these passages can be fairly inter
preted to promise and prove a visible- coming yet future but long
prior to the general judgment, for the purpose of inaugurating a
visible reign on the earth. They do not-mean such a coming.
5. Hence this doctrine of a visible, personal coming and reign
on the earth has no foundation in the recorded words of Christ.
So far as his words are concerned, it is a tbeoi-y without a bottom.
Nothing that Jesus has said contains the doctrine, or gives it the
least support.
These facta might seem to constitute a sufficient refutation of
this theory ; yet somewhat more may be said — thus : —
(a.) This theory of a personal reign of Christ, superseding the
preaent dispensation of the Spirit, is debarred hy iis unwisdom.
Jeans himself has declared the present system — the spiritual dis
pensation of the Spirit — to be "better : " It is expedient for you
that I go away" (personally) — withdrawing my bodily presence —
" that the Comforter may corae." " If I go not away he will not
come ; if I go, I will send him unto you." The joint presence of
both (Jesus in the body and the Spirit, in hia spiritual power) is
not conteraplated as falling within the divine plan. One or the
other separately, but never both present and combined — is mani
festly assumed and implied as the plan of God. Jesus affirms the
diapensation of the Spirit to be the better and the more efficient.
 The aame superiority in point of effective power is implied
also in those words of Christ (John 14: 12): "He that believeth
on me, the works that I do shall he do also ; and greater works
ihan these shall he do, because I go to the Father" — because
Jesus, having gone to the Father, will send upon them the Spirit
of power.
[On the alternative — either Jeaua bodily, or the Spirit spirit
ually — but not both — see the commentary under John 16 ; 14, lo,
p. 238-240.]
(b.) This theory of Christ's personal reign instead of the
Spirit's agency is debarred by the expressed and implied perpetu
ity ofthe Spirit's dispensation, till the end of the world. " That
he may abide with you forever" (John 14; 16). "Lo, I am with
you alway" (as from that day forward hy the manifestation ofthe
Spirit) " even to the end of the world." In the same sense in
which he waa "with them" in the soenea of the firat Christian
Pentecoat and onward, he would be to the end of time. What
hia presence was and what it signified then, it was to be to the
end. (c.) This theory of a personal reign is ruled ont by the fact that
the definite points it makes as to the nature, the surroundings.

ON CHRIST'S COMING FOR A PERSONAL REIGN. 393
the laws and workings of this supposed personal reign are
altogether imaginary — are siraply and only speculation — there be
ing not a word frora Jesus himself -«'hich throws any light upon
the assumed points in this theory. All there ia of it coraes from
other sources than the words of Jesua. Moat of the points which
make up thia ideal coming and reign seem to be the invention of
human fancy ; the rest is obtained from words of apostles and
prophets misinterpreted. It ought to beget the gravest doubts as
to the soundness of the whole scheme that Jesus himself said ab
solutely nothing about such a visible reign in this world of pro
bation and mercy and of gospel work for the salvation of men.
(d.) Nay, more; during his public ministry Jesus persistently
contended against the notion then current that his reign was to
be visible, earthly, like that of human kings dependent on his vis
ible presence. This notion was a deeply rooted error of the Jews
of his generation, strongly irabedded moreover in the ideas of his
own disciples — so strongly that it embarrassed and retarded their
just conceptions of the nature of bis kingdom, and for some
time (we know not how long) tinged with more or less of error
their notions of this kingdom.
This theory of Chriat'a visible coming and personal reign on
earth is therefore the old error of worldly Jewa revived, repro
duced, and (sad to say) pushed, despite of the life-long opposition
made against it by the teachings and life of Jesus.
(e.) If it be still insisted that Jesus has promised to " come in his
kingdom ; " to set up a kingdom, and that " the kingdom of heaven
was near at hand," etc., etc., and that, as this has not been done
yet, it must be still future and may be now very near at hand —
I reply : — The testimony of Jesus and of hia apostles is perfectly
decisive to the point that this kingdom was set up at the very be
ginning of the gospel age. Both he and they began their preach
ing with the declaration: "The kingdom of God [or of heaven]
is at hand." As reported by Mark (] : 15) Jesus began with de
claring — " The time is fulfilled and the kingdom of God is at
hand.' When questioned before Pilate, he avowed himself to be
aking even then — but said : " My kingdom is not of this world " —
not of earthly sort — but is an empire of truth — truth ruling and
swaying the hearts of men.  ^When he had ascended to the Fa
ther, Peter proclaimed (Acts 2: 36) — "Let all the house of Is
rael know assuredly that God hath made that same Jesus whom
ye have crucified both Lord and Christ" — "Lord" ip the sense
of Monarch, and Christ in the sense of Anointed King. What
can this be but his inauguration as King in his long promised
kingdom?  No less decisive ia this (Acts 5: 31); "Him hath
God exalted with his right hand to be a Prince and a Savior" —
hath exalted already; " exalted to be a Prince" — a King ou his
goapel throne.  ^Proofs might be multiplied almost indefinitely
to the same purport — that the Scriptures represent Jesus as ex
alted and enthroned at his ascension, to be universal King and
Lord — precisely fulfilling all the promises raade reapecting his

394 ON CHRIST'S COMING FOR A PERSONAL REIGN.
coming in his gospel kingdom. As illustrative cases (not exhaust
ive) see Phil. 2 : 9-11, and 1 Pet. 3 : 22. [Other senses of the
word "coming" as used by Jesus, see treated above].
(f.) As a last argument for the near personal coming and per
sonal reign of Christ, it may perhaps be said (it has been) that
even if the words of Jesus do not teach this doctrine, the words
of his disciples do teach it, for they supposed this coming even
then near at hand. This lies outside of the words of Jesus, and
therefore outside the limits of this essay ; yet still very briefly I
answer. If they did so suppose they were mistaken. The facts
of the case have shown their mistake. Such a personal coming
¦ aud visible reign on the earth was not then near at hand. Almost
two thousand years have passed, and still Christ's reign is only
spiritual, invisible, " not of this world ; " and the visible, personal
coming has not appeared. If the apostles, under the perverting
influence of their early Jewish training, were expecting such a
coming and such a reign soon — within their own life-time or
shortly after, it was a mistake. 'That is the best that can be said
of it. It does not become us to raake this mistake because they
did. But let us carefully make a broad discrimination between
wdiat they thought during the earthly life-time of Jesus, before
they were enlightened by the Spirit; and what they held and
taught when under inspiration they wrote their epistles. The for
mer is of comparatively small moraent to us ; the latter is worthy
of careful consideration.
Yet again : if it be claimed that their epistles teach and imply
the near visible coming of Christ to set up a kingdom of this
world, then it must still be said — on that construction of their
words they were mistaken. If it be retorted that this way of
speaking of the apostles is damaging to their inspiration, my re
ply is — Let those who put thia construction upon their words see
to that. The responsibility is theirs. For myself I do not be
lieve that Paul and James and Peter (at the point when they
wrote for us inspired epistles) did believe at all in Christ's per
sonal, visible coming to reign on the earth ; and of course they
did not believe that such a coming for such a reign was then near
at hand. My construction of their words does not at all imply that
at the time of writing their epistles they held erroneous views on
this point. They do seem to have been under somewhat grave
misapprehensions on this subject up to and at the time of Christ's
death. -Immediately before his ascension, they put the question —
"Wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?"
(Acts 1 : 6). How soou the teaching Spirit eliminated from their
minds whatever was erroneous on this subject, is not revealed —
perhaps can not be certainly known. But to hang a whole sys
tem of faith in a visible and personal reign of Christ on this
earth upon their early misconceptions would be superlatively un
fortunate, not to say unwise.

lECTURE-KOOM NOTES,

IAN DOREH'S SnUGESTITE COMMENTAEY.

D. APPLETOIV' & CO., Broadway, New York; K. DICKINSOIf, T3
Farringdon St., Lendon.
The following Scholars are interested in the Series :
GENESIS. — Professor Bjeecheb, Auburn Theological Seminary.
BOOK OF JOB.— Thos. Robinson, D. D., England.
PSAIiMS. — Profeaaor I. Muephy, D. D., Belfast Theological Seminary.
ECCLESIASTES AND PROVERBS.— L. Young, D. D., Virginia.
ISAIAH. — Profeaaor Smythe, D. D., Londonderry Theological Seminary.
MATTHEW.— Professor J. Vernahan, Pb. D., London.
LUKE. — W. H. Van Doeen, D. D., Chicago. 2 vols. (2fow ready.)
JOHN.— W. H. Van Doren, D. D., Chicago. 2 vola. (A'om ready.)
ACTS.— W. K. GoRBON, D. D., Ne-w Jeraey.
ROMANS. — Thomas Robinson, D. D., Morpeth, England. 2 vola. {Now
ready.)
GALATIANS. — Profeaaor T. Ceosket, Londonderry.
HEBREWS. — Rev. -Thomas Doggett, Niagara.
CATHOLIC EPISTLES.— J. Demaeest, D. D., New Jeraey.

Eev. Dr. FATJSSET, Tork, England, the Commentator.
•' I know no exposition of Scripture so terse, so snggestive, aud yet so full and so
cleai-." DEAM" ALFORD, the Commentator.
After a lon^, friendly letter, he apolo^-zes thus; "I have had time only to read
sixty pages. It will be a most useful work."
Rev. CHAS. LEE, Havestock BVZ.
" The work of Dr. Van Doren contains the EQaxlmum of thought in the minimum
of space." THE HOmiLIST, London.
"The idea of this series is an unusually happy one. It Is preeminently sug
gestive." THE FBEEMAN, London.
" This work is much after our own heart. These volumes are among our best
helps." THE CHXTECHMAKT, London.
" This work contains under each sentence a few brief, well-chosen notes, which will
be found of great value."
S'W-QRD AND TEOWEL, Sjmrgeon, Editor.
"This commentary Is novel m its arrangement, and well sustains its title of
suggestive."

CHUISTIAN WORLB, Zmdon.
"Dr, Van Doren's work ia more condensed than Lange's, containing the pith and
marrow of criticism. It will bo prized by all who love the doctrines of the Eefor
mation/' HOENIWa STAR, London.
" In this work are condensed the thought and criticism of many volumes. "We
shall hail with delight a complete work on this admirable plan."
J. C, HYLS, D. D„ Commentator.
"A curious and original work. It succeeds in supplying an astouish.ing amount
of thought and criticism in very few lines."
Rev. JAHIES HAMILTON", D. D.
" I am sure Dr. Van Doren will have the gratitude of all whose books are few and
whose time is precious." Rev. J. JONES, qf Bd/ast.
"To ministers and school-teachers I would say, that they will here find au amount
of knowledge, in my judgment, not to be found in the same space anywhere else/'
W. L. ALEXANDER, D. D., Edinburgh,
" I am much pleased with the plan, and with the success with which it has been
carried out/'
THE PORWARD, London.
" This work is cheap, compact, and suited to -this hard-working age. The plan is
new and useful."
BAPTIST MESSENGER, London.
"In ordinary cases we do not consult commentators In two cases out of ten with
real advantage. But inthe 'Suggestive Commentary' we have not Lq a single instance
been disappointed/'
BRITISH QUARTERLY, London.
"Dr. Van Doren, in the form of short sentences, brings together the gist ofall pre
vious commentators, and supplies abundance of hints to those who have but little
leisure/'
ENGLISH PRESBYTERIAN, London.
"To clergymen and students this work is invaluable. "We have brought the work
ander the special notice of ouj friends in private/'
"WnSLEYAN TIMES, London.
" An excellent idea, admirably worked oat. "We have tested the work on the Lord's
Prayer, and we cordially commend it."
WESLEYAN METHODIST TIMES.
" It is a work to make men think, and not save them from thinking. These vol
umes will be welcome to many a student of the Scriptures. Hai'd-worked ministers
and Bible-class teachers will be well repaid by studying them/'
THB- INDEPENDENT, London.
" This is a remarkable work, and valuable as well. If there ever was niuttum in
paroo, it is here found. The labor in preparing it must have been immense. The
work is eminently suggestive, and will save an enormous amount of time/'
L. HALSEY, D. D., Professor Theological Seminmyy Chicago.
¦'Every page bears marks of thorough and accurate scholarship, and of patient,
cireful study. It is the most readable commentary we have ever met. It is impos
sible to say things m quicker time or narrower space than he has said them."
G. B. CHEEVER, D. D.
" It is admirable. The best multUTn in parvo I have ever seen,"
PRINCETON REVIEW.
" This work has been highly recommended by th3 joui-nals of Great Britain. It cer
tainly evinces thonght, labor, and learning.''

CowLEs's Notes on the Old Testament

I. THE MIKOli rnOPHETS.
1 vol., I2ino. $2.00.

JJ. BZEKIEL AKB DANIEL.
1 vol., 12mo. $2.2o.

JJJ. ISAIAH.
1 vol, 12mo. $2.25.

JF. mOVERBS, ECCLESIASTES, AND
THE SONQ OF SOLOMON,
1 vol., 12mo. $2.00.

r. NOTES ON JEREMIAH.
1 vol., 12ino. $2.25.

By Rey. HENRY COWLES, D. D.

From Tlie Christian IntelMgen<ier., 27, Y.
" These works are designed for both pastor and people. They embody tho re
sults of much research, and elucidate tiie text of sacred Scripture with admirable
ftTce and simplicity. The leamed professor, having devoted many vears to the
close and devout study of the Bible, seems to have become thoroughly f^imishod
with all needful matei-ials to produce a useful and trustworthy commentary/'
From Dr. Leonard BacoTi, of Tale CoUege.
"There is. within my knowledge, no other work on the same portions of the
Bible, combining so much of the results of accura'te scholarship with so >uuch com-
mon-senae and so much of a practical and devotional spirit"
From Eev. Dr. S. Wolcott, of Cleveland., Oliio.
" The author, who ranks as a scholar with the most eminent graduates of Tale
College, has devoted years to the study of the Sacred Scriptures in the original
tongues, and the fruits of careful and independent research appear in this work.
With sound scholarship the ^vriter combines the unction of deep religious expe
rience, an earnest love of the truth, with a remarkable freedom from all fancilUl
ipcculation, a candid judgment, and the fiiculty of expressing hia thoughts cleailj
Bnd forcibly." From President F. B. Fairfield^ of nuisdale College.
"I am very much pleased mth your Commentary. It meets a want which
aas long been fel^ For various reasons, the -writings ofthe prophets have conaU
rated u sealed book to a large part of the ministry as wsll as most of the common
people. They are not sufficiently understood to mahe them appreciated. Yooj
brief notes relieve thom of all their want of interest tt common readers. _ I tbtak
na k&re aaid .^lut enoush."

INTERNATIONAL SCIENTIFIC SERIES.
NOW READY.
Uo. 1. EOKEtS OP "WATEE, in Clouds, Rain, Rivers, Ice, and Glaciers. By
Prof. John Tyndall, LL. D., F. K. S. i vol. Cloth. Price, $1.50.
No. 2. PHYSICS AND POLITICS; or. Thoughts on the Application of the
Principles of "Natural Selection" and "Inheritance" to Political Society.
By Walter Bagehot, Esq., author of "The English Constitution." i
vol. Cloth. Price, $1.50.
No. 3. FOODS. By Edward Smith, M, D., LL. B., F. R. S. i vol Clothr
Price, $1.75.
No. 4. MIND AND BODY. The Theories of their Relation. By Alex.
Bain, LL. D., Piofessor of Logic iu the University of Aberdeen, i vol.,
i2mo. Cloth. Price, $1.50.
No. 3. THE STTJDY OF SOCIOLOaY. By Herbert Spencer. Pjice,
$1.50.
No. 6. THE NEW CHEMISTEY. By Prof Jo.siah P. Cooke, Jr., of Har
vard University, i vol., i2mo. Cloih. Piice, $2.00.
No. 7. THE CONSBE'VATION OF ENEEGY. By Prof. Balfour
Stewart, LL. D., F. R. S. i vol., i2mo. Cloth. Price, $1.50.
No. 8. ANIMAL LOCOMOTION; or. Walking, Swimming, and Flying,
with a Dissertation on Aeronautics. By J. Bell Pettigrew, M. D.,
F. R. S., F. R. S. E., F. R. C. P. E. i vol., i2mo. Fully illustrated.
Price, $1.75.
No. 9. RESPONSIBILITY IN MENTAL DISEASE. By Henry
Maudsley, M. D. I vol., i2mo. Cloth. Price, $1.50.
No. 10. THE SCIENCE OF LA'\Sr. By Prof Sheldon Amos, i vol., i2mo.
Cloth. Price, $1.75.
No. 11. ANIMAL MECHANISM. A Treatise on Terrestrial and Aerial
Locomotion. By E. J. Marey. With 117 Illustrations. Price, $1.75.
No. 12. THE HISTOEY OF THE CONFLICT BETWEEN RE
LIGION AND SCIENCE. By John Wm. Draper, M. D., LL. D.,
author of " The Intellectual Development of Europe." Price, $1.75.
No. 13. THB DOCTEINE OF DESCENT AND DAEWINISM.
By Prof. Oscar Schmidt, Strasburg University. Price, $1.50.
No. 14. THE CHEMISTEY OP LIGHT AND PHOTOGEAPHY.
In its Application to Art, Science, and Industry. By Dr. Herhjann Vo-
GEL. zoo Illustrations. Price, $2.00.
No. 15. PTTNGI; their Nature, Influence, and Uses. By M C. Cooke, M. A.,
LL. D. Edited by Rev. M. J. Berkeley, M. A., F. L. S. With 109
Illustrations. Price, $1.50.
No. 16. THE LIFE AND GEOWTH OF LANGTTAGE. By Prof.
W. D. Whitney, of Yale College. Price, $1.50.
No. 17. MONEY AND THE MECHANISM OF EXCHANGE.
By W. Stanley Jevons, M. A., F. R. S., Professor of Logic and Pohti
cal Economy in the Owens College, Manchester. Price, $1.75.
No. 18. THE NATTTEE OP LIGHT, with a General Account of Physical
Optics. By Dr. Eugene Lommel, Professor of Physics in the University
of Erlangen. With 188 Illustrations and a Plate of Spectra in Chromo-
lithography. Price, $2.00. ^
No. 19. ANIMAL PAEASITES AND MESSMATES. By Monsieur
Van Beneden, Professor of the University of Louvain, Correspondent ol
the Institute of France. With 83 Illustrations. i^In press.)
D. APPLETON & CO., PnBLiSHERS,.S49 & 551 Broadway, N. Y.

A SUPERB NEW WORK BY LACROIX.

THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY.
THE MANNERS, CUSTOMS, AND COSTUMES OE THE EIGH-
TEENTH CENTURY, IN FRANCE, 1700-1789.
Illustrated with twenty-one magnificent Chrormo-lithographs (art-gems in themselves),
and three hundred and fifty highly-fi 11 ished Wood-Engravings after Watteau, Van
loo, Rigaud, Boucher, Lancret, J. Vemet, Chardin, Jeaurat, Eeauchardon, Saint-
Aubin, Eisen, Gravelot, Moreau, Cochin, Wille, Debucourt, etc. The designs,
lithographs, and engravings, all executed by eminent artists, under the direction of
M. Racinet, the well-known author of "Polychromatic Ornament." In one sump
tuous volume, imperial 8vo, cloth, emblematic gilt sides, and gilt edges, $15; half
calf, $18; calf, $21; tree calf, $28; morocco, extra, $24.
The comprehensive character of this work will be appreciated more fully by noting
contents, embracing, as they do, the social ranks and customs, the public occupations,
amusements, etc., of " La Belle France," as follows, viz. :

I. The King and the Court.
2. The Nobles.
3. The Bourgeoisie.
4. The People.
g. The Army and N.ivy,
6. The Cler^.
7. The Parliament.

8. The Finances.
9. Commerce.
10. Education.
II. Charities,
12. Justice and Police,
13. Aspect of Paris,

14. FStes and Pleasures of
Paris.
!=;. The Cuisine and Table.
16. The Theatres.
17. The Salons.
18. Voyages, etc.
19. Costumes and Modes.

*jp* The splendid success of the various works of M. Lacroix, on the "Manners,
Customs, and Dress, during the Middle Ages, and during the Renaissance," suggested
the preparation of a work of a similar character, on the "Institutions, Manners, and
Dress, in France, during the Eighteenth Century." This sumptuous volume is a
brilliant exhibition of every grade of life and societyin France, from 1700 to 1789. The
work is illustrated with 21 full-page Chromo -lithographs, richlj^ colored, and 350 beau
tiful Engravings on Wood. These illustrations are copied with the utmost care from
the original paintings of the best and most esteemed artists of the eighteenth century,
and in beauty of design, exquisite finish, and the real interest of their subjects, far
surpass any similar productions. The typographical excellence, and elaborate and
appropriate^ binding, combined with its intrinsic literary and artistic value, render-it
on t of the richest volumes ever published.

OTHER WORKS BY THE SAME AUTHOR,
THE ARTS IN THE MIDDLE AGES, and Bt the Period of the Renaissance.
By Paul Lacroix, Curator of the Imperial Library of the Arsenal, Paris. Illus
trated with 19 Chromo-lithographic Prints by Kellerhoven, and upward of 400 En
gravings on Wood. I vol., imperial Svo, cloth, gilt sides and back. 520 pages.
Price, $12; half calf, $15; half morocco, $15; full calf, $18; full morocco, $25.
MANNERS, CUSTOMS, AND DRESS, DURING THE MIDDLE AGES,
and during the Renaissance Period. By Paul Lacroix. Illustrated with 15
Chromo-lithographic Prints by F. Kellerhoven, and upward of 400 Engravings on
Wood. I vol., ro'val Svo. Half morocco, price, $12; half morocco, extra, $15;
h^lf calf, $15; calf, $tS; tree calf, $25; morocco, extra, $21; morocco, super
extra, $25.
MILITARY And religious LIFE IN THE MIDDLE AGES, and at the
Period of the Renaissance. By Paul Lacroix. Illustrated with 14 Chromo-
lithographic Prints by J. Kellerhoven, R6jamey, and L, Allard, and upward of 400
Engravings on Wood. 1 vol., royal Svo. Half bound, $12; half calf and mo
rocco, $15 ; calf, $18 ; tree calf, 525 ; morocco, extra, $21 ; super extra, $25.
r. APPLETON & CO., Publishers,
549 & 551 Broadway, New York.

MEMOIRS OF GENERAL WILLIAM T. SHERMAN,
WRITTEN BY HIMSELF. Complete in Two Volumes. With a Military Map
showing the Marches of the Armies under General Sherman's Command, inserted
in a pocket at the end of the second volume ; size, 30 by 47 inches. Small 8vo, 400
pages each. Price, in Blue Cloth, $5.50; Sheep, $7.00; Half Morocto, $8.50;
FuU Morocco, $12.00.
" These memoirs are by far the most interesting and important contribution yet made
to the miUtary history of the Rebellion by any of the leading actors in the great strug
gle. The staggering blows which General Sherman dealt to the Confederacy have se
cured him the undying gratitude of his countrymen, while the brilliancy which he dis
played as a strategist, and the surpassing ability -which he developed as a commander,
entitle him to rank among the most distinguished leaders that the world has produced.
The personal history of so marked a man must always possess extraordinary interest.
When it is related by the man himself, and in that peculiarly racy style which General
Sherman's letters and speeches have made familiar to the pubhc, it becomes not only
absorbing but fascinating. The march from Atlanta began on the moming of Novem
ber ISth. General Sherman's narrative of this whole movement is of romantic interest.
Some of his descriptions are not only picturesque but thrilling in their eloquence. And
interspersed are well-told incidents, many of them full of genuine humnr, which give
unusual vivacity to the story. In military annals the narrative is unique, but it must
be read in its entirety to be appreciated. The terse, clear, vigorous English in which
the memoirs are written is one of their greatest charms. This fitly reflects the intense
personality of the man. The straightforward, spirited narrative will enable a grateful
country better to appreciate the immense value of the services which General Sherman
rendered it in the critical period through which he helped guide it, and it will also aid
others than Americans in forming a clearer estimate ofthe tremendous struggle in which
the author of these memoirs bore so distinguished a part." — N. Y. Times.
"An autobiography so unreserved as this of General Sherman, printed during the
lifetime ofthe wnter, would certainly be an unsafe procedure for one who had the least
need of any assistance from humbug. The author of these memoirs is a man who can
afford to be seen as he is. Strip him of his epaulets, his brass buttons, and his cocked
hat, and he still appears a valiant, able, and distinguished person. Indeed, it is quite
necessary that he should be stripped of these accoutrements. We need to see him amid
the camp-fires of Georgia, or on the march with,his wagon-trains and foraging-bummers.
So much for the picturesque and external man. But there is no need that he should
conceal the mind behind all this. General Sherman has told his story with the most en
tire unreserve, and the story is one which Americans will be proud to read. We cannot
help a feeling of satisfaction in being ofthe same race and the same country with such a
man. We have here a picture of a person, resolute yet cautious, bold yet prudent, con
fident yet modest; a man of action to his finger-ends, yet withal something of a poet;
we see all through the book the evidences of a chivalrous mind and of an intellect of
singular force and precision. . . . We have spoken of Shermanas, in some sort, a poet.
All through these great campaigns, while his whole mind is absorbed with the events he
is conducting, he nevertheless appears to take a poet's joy in the spectacle of his battle
fields and moving armies. His enthusiasm will be shared by his readers. That passage
in which he speaks of his last look on Atlanta, and tells us how it brought to his mind
* many a thought of desperate battle, nf hope and fear,' has an eloquence which no mere
writer of books can reach. The skill to write in that way is not taught in Blair or
Whately." — N. Y. E7jeni7ig Post.
" Slierman shows that he can wield the pen as well as the sword. His style is as
much his own as that of Csesar or Napoleon. It is a winning style. We see a gifted
man tellinghis life in a plain, artless fashion, bul with a trenchant rhetoric. Whenever
an opinion is demanded he gives it. His picture of the early days in California is as
graphic as a chapter from Sir Walter Scott. Now and then there are criticisms upon
his contemporarieswhich will provoke comment; but, plainly enough, Sherman means
what he says. This is the value of the work. We are glad the General has written it.
In many cases it throws new light upon the Rebellion. Only by such light can the full
measure of that momentous time be taken. And, whatever criticisms may be made
upou the book, we honor the General for having%iven us so grapjfiic and just a his
tory of events in which he himself was so illustrious and successful an actor," — A^. Y
Herald. D. APPLETON &= CO,., Ptihlishers, 549 &> 551 Broadxvay, N. Y

"A rich list of fruitful topics."
Boston Commonwealth.

HEALTH AND EDUCATION,
By the Rev. CHARLES KINGSLEY, F. L. S., F. G. S.,
CANON OF WESTMINSTER.
I2ino. Cloth  Price, $1.75.
" It is most refreshing to meet an earnest soul, and such, preeminently, is Charles
Kingsley, and he has shown himself such in every thing he has written, from 'Alton
Locke ' and ' Village Sermons,' a quarter of a century since, to the present volume, which
is no exception. Here are fifteen Essays and Lectures, excellent and interesting in
different degrees, but all exhibiting the author's peculiar characteristics of thought
and style, and some of them blending most valuable instruction with entertainment,
as few Uving vn:it6rs can." — Hartford Post.
"That the title of this book is not expressive of its actual contents, is made mani
fest by a mere glance at its pages ; it is, in fact, a collection of Essays and Lectures,
written and delivered upon various occasions by its distinguished author; as such it
cannot be otherwise than readable, and no intelligent mind needs to be assured that
Charles Kingsley is fascinating, whether he treats of Gothic Architecture, Natural
History, or the Education of Women. The lecture on Thrift, which was intended for
the women of England, may be read with profit and pleasure by the women of
everywhere." — St. Louis Dejnocrat.
" The book contains exactly what every one needs to know, and in a form which
every one can understand." — Boston Journal.
" This volume no doubt contains his best thoughts on all the most important topics
ofthe day." — Detroit Post.
"Nothing could be better or more entertaining for the family library.'" — Zio7i*s
Herald. " For the style alone, and for the vivid pictures frequently presented, this latest
production of Mr. Kingsley commends itself to readers. The topics treated are
mostly practical, but the manner is always the manner of a master in composition.
Whether discussing the abstract science of health, the subject of ventilation, the
education of the different classes that form English society, natural history, geology,
heroic aspiration, superstitious fears, or personal communication with Nature, we
find the same freshness of treatment, and the same eloquence and affluence of language
that distinguish the productions in other fields of this giftgd nuihor,"— Boston Gazette.
B. APPLETON & CO., Publishers,
549 & SSI Broadway, N. Y.

THE EXPANSE OF HEAVEN;
A Scries of Essays on the Wonders of the Firmament.
By R. A. PROCTOR, B.A.
I vol., l2mo. Cloth  Price, $2.00.
" It is Mr. Proctor's good fortune that not only is he one of the great
est of living astronomers, but that he has a power of imparting knowl
edge that is not equaled by any living astronomer. His style is as
lucid as the light with which he deals so largely, and the plainest of
readers can go along with him with entire ease, and comprehend all
that he says on the grandest subject ever discussed by mortal intelli
gence. Most scientific writers either cannot or will not so use the pen
as to make themselves understood by the many; not so with Mr.
Proctor : he both can and does so write as to command the attention of
the million, and this too without in the least derogating from the real
dignity of his sublime theme. Few of us can study astronomy, because
that implies a concentrated devotion to an inexhaustible matter, but
we all can 'read astronomical works to our great advantage if astrono
mers who write will but write plainly ; and in that way, without having
the slightest claim to be spoken of as "scientists," we can acquire no
ordinary amount of knowledge concerning things that are of the loftiest
nature, and the effect of which must be to elevate the mind. Such a
book as 'The Expanse of Heaven ' cannot fail to be of immense use
in forwarding the work of education even when it is read only for
amusement, so forcible is the impression it makes on the mind from
the importance of the subjects treated of, while the manner of treat
ment is so good." — Boston Traveller.
"Since the appearance of Ennis's book on 'The Origin of the
Stars,' we have not read a more attractive work on astronomy than
this. It is learned enough to be instructive, and light enough to be
very entertaining. " — Alta California.
" It reads like a work of fiction, so smooth and consecutive is it;
but it inspires the worthiest thoughts and the highest aspirations." —
Boston Commonitiealth.
" Perfectly adapted to their purposes, namely, to awaken a love for
science, and at the same time to convey, in a pleasant manner, some
elementary facts." — Church Herald.
"This is not a technically scientific work, but an expression of a
true scholar's conception of the vastness and grandeur of the heavens.
There is no dry detail, but blended with the scholar's discoveries are
the poet's thoughts, and a true recognition of the Almighty's power."
— Troy Times. D. APPLETON & CO., PuUislers,
549 & SSI Broadway, N. Y.

A thoughtful and valuable cotitribution to the best religious literature
of the day.
RELIGION AND SCIENCE.
A Series of Sunday Lectures on the Relation of Natural and Revealed
Religion, or the Truths revealed in Nature and Scripture.
By JOSEPH LE CONTE,
PE0FES30B OF GEOLOGY AND MATCTKAL HXSTOEY IN THE UNIVEESITY OF CALIFORKIA.
l2mo, cloth. Price, $I S"-
OPINIONS OF TIIJE'FMX:SS.
" This work is chiefly remarkable as a conscientious effort to reconcile
the revelations of Science with those of Scripture, and will be very use
ful to teachers ofthe different Sunday-schools." — Detroit Union.
"It will be seen, by this resume of the topics, that Prof. Le Conte
grapples with some of the gravest questions which agitate the thinking
world. He treats of them all with dignity and fairness, and in a man
ner so clear, persuasive, and eloquent, as to engage the undivided at
tention of the reader. 'We commend the bcok cordially to the regard
of all wht) are interested in whatever pertains to the discussion of these
grave questions, and especially to those who desire to examine closely
the strong foundations on which the Christian faith is reared." — Boston
Journal. "A reverent student of Nature and religion is thebest-qfealifiedmon
to instruct others in their harmony. The author at first intended his
work for a Bible-class, but, as it grew under his hands, it seemed well to
give it form in a neat volume. "The lectures are from a decidedly re
ligious stand-point, and as such present a new method of treatment."
— Philadelphia Age.
"This volume is made up of lectures delivered to his pupils, and is
written with much clearness of thought and unusual clearness of ex
pression, although the author's English is not always above reproach.
It is partly a treatise on natural theology and partly a defense of the
Bible against the assaults of modem science. In the latter aspect the
author's method is an eminently wise one. He accepts whatever sci
ence has proved, and he also accepts the divine origin of the Bible.
Where the two seem to conflict he prefers to await the reconciliation,
which is inevitable if both are true, rather than to waste time and words
in inventing ingenious and doubtful theories to force them into seeming
accord. Both as a theologian and a man of science. Prof. Le Conte's
opinions are entitled to respectful attention, and there are few who will
not recognize his book as a thoughtful and valuable contribution to the
best religious literature ofthe day." — New York World.
D. APPLETON & CO., Publishers, S49 & 11^ Broadway, N. Y.

The Recovery of Jerusalem.

Capt. "WILSON, R. E., and Capt. "WARREN, R. E.,
Etc., Etc.
1 vol., 8vo. Cloth. 'With Maps and Illustrations.
I»rioe, ^3.50.
" This is a narrative of exploration and discovery in the City of Jera-
Balem and the Holy Land. It is a volume of unusual interest to the stu-
dentof antiquities, and throws much light upon what was already partially
known about the Holy City, and opens up many curious speculations and
suggestions about things that were entirely unknown until the excavations
and explorations commenced which the book faithfully records. The
maps and illustrations much enhance the interest, and aid in a thorough
understanding of the things described. It ia a volume of over 400 pages,
8vo., bound in cloth, and altogether beautifully presented." — Springfield
Republican.

Christ in Modern Life.
SERMONS PREAGHED AT ST. JAMES'S CHAPEL.
By Rev. STOPFORD A. BROOKE.
1 vol., 12mo, Clotli  Price, $2.00.
The main thought which underlies this volume is, that the ideas
whioh Christ made manifest on earth are capable of endless expansion, to
suit the wants of men in every age ; and that they do expand, developing
into new forms of larger. import and wider application, in a direct pro
portion to that progress of mankind, of whioh they are both root and
sap. If we look long and eamestly enough, we shall find in them the ex
planation and solution not only of our religious, but even of our politi
cal and social problema. All that is herein said is rested upon the truth
that in Christ was Life, and that this Life, in the thoughts and acts which
flowed from it, was, and is, and always will be, the light of the race
of man. D, AP?LST0:T & 03,, PuVJshars, Nsw York