AN

Illustrated Commentary

ON

THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO
ST. JOHN.

FOR FAMILY USE AND REFERENCE, AND FOR THE GREAT BODY OF CHRISTIAN WORKERS OF ALL DENOMINATIONS.

By LYMAN ABBOTT, D.D.,

AUTHOR OF A SERIES OF COMMENTARIES ON THE NEW TESTAMENT.

A. S. BARNES & COMPANY,

NEW YORK, CHICAGO, AND NEW ORLEANS.

1879.

(THE REMAINING VOLUMES OF THIS SERIES IN PREPARATION.)


SECOND SERIES. EIGHT VOLUMES. 8vo.

A handy edition for Christian workers.

(THE REMAINING VOLUMES OF THIS SERIES IN PREPARATION.)


For Sale by Subscription. Persons owning any volume of either Series may obtain the other volumes by addressing the Publishers.

Copyright, 1879, by A. S. Barnes & Co.

TO ALL THE VOLUMES OF THIS SERIES OF COMMENTARIES.

The object of this Commentary is to aid in their Christian work those who are endeavoring to promote the knowledge of the principles which Jesus Christ came to propound and establish—clergymen, Christian parents, Sunday-School teachers, Bible-women, lay-preachers. Intended for Christian workers, it aims to give the results rather than the processes of scholarship, the conclusions rather than the controversies of scholars; intended for laymen as well as for clergymen, it accompanies the English version of the New Testament, in all references to the original Greek gives the English equivalent, and translates all quotations from the French, German, Latin and Greek authors.

The introduction to Volume I contains a statement of those principles of interpretation which appear to me to be essential to the correct understanding of the Word of God. This Commentary is the result of a conscientious endeavor to apply those principles to the elucidation of the New Testament.

It is founded on a careful examination of the latest and best text; such variations as are of practical or doctrinal importance are indicated in the notes. It is founded on the original Greek; wherever that is inadequately rendered in our English version, a new translation is afforded by the notes. The general purpose of the writer or speaker, and the general scope of the incident or teaching, is indicated in a Preliminary Note to the passage, or in an analysis, a paraphrase, or a general summary at the close. Special topics are treated in preliminary or supplementary notes. The results of recent researches in Biblical archæology have been embodied, so as to make the Commentary serve in part the purpose of a Bible Dictionary. A free use is made of illustrations, from antiques, photographs, original drawings, and other trustworthy sources. They are never employed for mere ornament, but always to aid in depicting the life of Palestine, which remains in many respects substantially unchanged by the lapse of time. Since the Commentary is prepared, not for devotional reading, but for practical workers, little space has been devoted to hortatory remarks or practical or spiritual reflections. But I have uniformly sought to interpret the letter by the spirit, and to suggest rather than to supply moral and spiritual reflections, a paragraph of hints is affixed to each section or topic, embodying what appears to me to be the essential religious lessons of the [Pg vi] incident or the teaching; sometimes a note is appended elucidating them more fully. The best thoughts of the best thinkers, both exegetical and homiletical, are freely quoted, especially such as are not likely to be accessible to most American readers; in all such cases the thought is credited to the author. Parallel and contrasted passages of Scripture are brought together in the notes; in addition, full Scripture references are appended to the text. These are taken substantially from Bagster’s large edition of the English version of the Polyglot Bible, but they have been carefully examined and verified in preparing for the press, and some modifications have been made. For the convenience of that large class of Christian workers who are limited in their means, I have endeavored to make this Commentary, as far as practicable, a complete apparatus for the study of the New Testament. When finished it will be fully furnished with maps;—there are four in this volume; a Gazetteer gives a condensed account of all the principal places in Palestine, mentioned in our Lord’s life; and an introduction traces the history of the New Testament from the days of Christ to the present, giving some account of the evidence and nature of inspiration, the growth of the canon, the character and history of the manuscripts, the English version, the nature of the Gospels and their relation to each other, a brief life of Christ, and a complete tabular harmony of the four Gospels.

The want of all who use the Bible in Christian work is the same. The wish is often for a demonstration that the Scripture sustains the reader’s peculiar theological tenets, but the want is always for a clearer and better knowledge of Scripture teaching, whether it sanctions or overturns previous opinions. I am not conscious that this work is written in the interest of any theological or ecclesiastical system. In those cases in which the best scholars are disagreed in their interpretation, the different views and the reasons which lead me to my own conclusions have been given, I trust, in no controversial spirit. For the sole object of this work is to ascertain and make clear the meaning of the Word of God, irrespective of systems, whether ecclesiastical or doctrinal.

No work is more delightful than that which throws us into fellowship with great minds; of all work the most delightful is that which brings us into association with the mind of God. This is the fellowship to which the student of the Bible aspires. I can have for those who use this work no higher hope than that they may find in its employment some of the happiness which I have found in its preparation, and that it may serve them as it has served me, as a guide to the Word of God, and through that Word to a better acquaintance with God himself.

Cornwall-on-Hudson, May, 1875. LYMAN ABBOTT.

THE GOSPEL OF JOHN.

Most of the engravings in this volume have been drawn and engraved expressly for this work; some from original sketches by Mr. A. L. Rawson, others from careful study from the best accessible authorities, by Mr. R. F. Zogbaum.

INTRODUCTION.

From the beginning of the third century to near the close of the seventeenth, the Fourth Gospel was by a common and substantially a unanimous consent attributed to the Apostle John. This authorship was then questioned, at first by an English critic by the name of Evanson. The discussion was soon transferred to Germany, where it waxed warm, and whence it was again transferred to England and this country.[1] It may now be regarded as the most hotly contested question in biblical criticism. The controversy has been intensified by prejudices and feeling on both sides. It is indeed impossible to discuss it with cool indifference, as a mere matter of curious literary interest. If this Gospel was written by the Apostle John, we have the testimony of an undoubted eye-witness—not his conclusions but his account of facts in respect to which he could not well be deceived—certainly not, unless we are prepared to believe that Jesus was himself a deliberate deceiver; testimony of an eye-witness whose honesty not even the most resolute skepticism would or could well call in question. This testimony would establish beyond question such facts as the miraculous feeding of the five thousand, the healing of the man born blind, the resurrection of Lazarus, and the death and resurrection of Jesus himself. In other words, it would establish beyond the possibility of reasonable question, the truth of historical Christianity. Accordingly, Renan, who to a certain extent accepts the authenticity of the Fourth Gospel, is compelled to maintain that the pretended resurrection of Lazarus was a pious fraud to which Jesus lent himself because it was necessary to the success of his mission, and because his growing religious enthusiasm justified to his conscience this means, for the sake of the end to be accomplished by it. Moreover, we have in this Gospel a report of words of Jesus, which leave to us no alternative but to accept him as in a peculiar sense the Son of God, or to regard him either as a religious impostor or a religious enthusiast. The synoptics leave some opportunity for discussion as to the place which Jesus assumed to fill. The Fourth Gospel does not. Thus the question of the authorship of this Gospel is not merely a question in literary criticism, but even more one respecting the nature of Christianity. Accordingly we find, on the one hand, the advocates of its apostolic authorship more or less resting their belief upon the inherent beauty of the book, and the opponents more or less declaring the true ground of their opposition to it, viz., that it presents what they call a mythological view of Jesus, and a dogmatic view of his teachings; in other words, that it presents Jesus distinctively as the incarnate Son of God, and represents the central truth in his teaching to have been the necessity of faith in him. Both these aspects of truth are indeed presented in the other Gospels, but not with the same clearness, nor with the same prominence, as in the Fourth Gospel. Hence the latter is assailed with peculiar vigor by the opponents of evangelical Christianity, and is, for the same reason, maintained with equal vigor by evangelical believers. It does not come within the province of this work to enter into the details of this controversy. To give the arguments, pro and con, would require a treatise, and for a consideration of them the reader is of necessity referred to the various works which have been written on this subject. The student will find the most vigorous assault on the authenticity of the Fourth Gospel in the second volume of “Supernatural Religion,” which, however, must be read with considerable allowance for a scholarship evidently warped by determined prejudices, and which is certainly one-sided, if not absolutely false in many particulars. Among the many defences of the authenticity of the Gospel, I have found nothing more comprehensive or satisfactory than that contained in the first volume of Godet’s Commentary on John. With this, however, may be advantageously compared Luthardt’s “St. John, the Author of the Fourth Gospel,” Prof. Fisher’s “Supernatural Origin of Christianity,” and the introductions to the commentaries, especially those of Luthardt, Lange, Alford, Meyer and Tholuck. Here I propose merely to set before the reader briefly a compact statement of the more important facts in the case, confining myself mainly to those that are undisputed—facts which led the world for fifteen centuries to attribute the Fourth Gospel to John without a [Pg 4] doubt, and which on a more careful examination have led the great majority of scholars to adhere to that conclusion.

The Apostle John. The Apostle John was probably a native, certainly a resident, of Galilee. His mother, Salome,[2] early became a follower of Jesus. She was probably one of the women of Galilee who accompanied him on his missionary tours, and ministered to him of their substance.[3] She was with him on his last journey to Jerusalem, and during the passion week, and was one of those women who were last at the cross and first at the sepulchre.[4] Like the other followers of Jesus, she anticipated the establishment of a temporal kingdom, was ambitious for her sons James and John, and made an application for special favors for them when the kingdom should be established. From a comparison of Matt. 27:56 with John 19:25, it would appear that she was own sister to the Virgin Mary, in which case John was own cousin to Jesus. This opinion is not accepted by all critics, but I believe it to be the correct one. See note on John 19:25. John’s father, Zebedee, was a well-to-do fisherman on the shores of the sea of Galilee. Of him we know very little. He was sufficiently prosperous to own several boats and to hire men to work for him. Tradition makes him of noble birth; and this tradition is perhaps confirmed by the fact that John had some acquaintance with the high-priest.

John has been characterized by those critics who wish to make out that his character is inconsistent with the idea of his authorship of the Fourth Gospel, as ignorant and unlettered, on the authority of Acts 4:13, and as a vehement and bigoted Jew on the authority of Galatians, chap. II, and of the peculiar Hebraic tone of the Book of Revelation. Both characterizations are quite gratuitous assumptions. In connection with every Jewish synagogue was a parochial school, in which the pupils were taught reading, writing, and the rudiments of such natural sciences as were then in existence. The Jewish children of the common people were far better educated than those of Greece or Rome. There is every reason to believe that John received this common education of the age and community in which he lived, and there is absolutely no reason whatever to suppose the contrary. It was only by the Pharisees that John was considered as ignorant and unlettered, and they affixed the same stigma upon Jesus himself.[5] To the Pharisees the only learning worth the name was learning in the traditional lore of the church. Of this the Galilean fisherman was ignorant. In the eyes of a Pharisee of Jerusalem, Plato himself would have been ignorant and unlearned. As little reason is there to believe that John was a vehement and bigoted Jew. There is not the slightest evidence that John was among the Judaizing Christians to whom Paul so frequently refers, and whom throughout his life he combated. With one exception, Judas Iscariot, all the twelve were taken from Galilee. This province of Palestine was innocent of that formalism and narrowness which characterized the southern province of Judea. The people had lived in amicable relations with their heathen neighbors, and had intermarried with them ever since the days of the treaty of amity between Solomon and the King of Tyre.[6] The line of commerce between Damascus and the Mediterranean lay directly across this province. Mineral springs of real or fancied value near the southern coast of the Sea of Gennesaret made it the summer resort of the wealthy Romans of the entire land. Thus history and location, commerce and social relations, combined to make the inhabitants of Galilee indifferent to the rigid formalism of the Judeans, and comparatively free from their narrow race and religious prejudices. Indeed, the two assertions that John was ignorant and unlearned, and at the same time a narrow and bigoted Jew, contradict each other. Jewish bigotry and reverence for the traditional lore of the Jewish church always went together.

The important facts in the history of John, so far as known, are few and soon told. John the Baptist was second cousin of Jesus, and John the Apostle was probably, as we have seen, his own cousin. The two Johns were, therefore, probably acquainted. At all events, when the Baptist began preaching the gospel of repentance for the remission of sins, the Apostle was among his disciples; and when the Baptist pointed out Jesus as the one whom God had indicated to him as the promised Messiah, John was among the first to leave the old teacher to follow the new one. This was, however, a temporary following only. We next meet him fishing with his father at the Sea of Galilee, where Jesus finds him and his brother, and calls them to become permanent followers of him. This summons, without hesitation or delay, they obey. From this time onward John is the constant companion of Jesus. With Peter and James he belongs to an inner circle of friends: the three are selected to be the sole witnesses of the resurrection of Jairus’s daughter; they alone go up into the Mount of Transfiguration, and witness his glory there; they alone accompany him to the Garden of Gethsemane, and are invited to be the sharers of [Pg 5] his sorrow there; when the arrest takes place, and all the disciples forsake their Master and flee, John and Peter turn back and follow him to the scene of his trial, and the former, with a courage for which few critics give him credit, goes without concealment, as a disciple, openly, into the house of Caiaphas, follows the Master to the trial before Pilate, and when the sentence of crucifixion is pronounced, accompanies the procession to the place of execution, to remain by the cross till all is over. When the news of the resurrection is brought to the disciples, he and Peter are the first to reach the sepulchre. In the subsequent history of the Church, as recorded in the book of Acts, he does not take a prominent part. To him was committed the care of Mary, the mother of Jesus, and probably this sacred charge prevented him from quitting Palestine while she lived.[7]

For the subsequent history of John we are dependent on tradition. This is, however, in his case, less uncertain than in many other cases. As Christianity spread over the heathen world, Jerusalem ceased to be the centre of Christian operations; but, while the Roman Empire continued pagan and persecuting, Rome could not take the place of Jerusalem, as subsequently it did. Hence, for the first century, Asia Minor was the great field of missionary work, and Ephesus, which was the scene of Paul’s greatest triumphs and most successful labors,[8] became the centre of the Christian church. Here John became settled in his later life. From this point he seems to have exercised an apostolic supervision over the churches of all Asia Minor. The few traditional stories of his old age accord with what the Gospels indicate of his character. When he could no longer preach, it is said that he was accustomed to be carried into the church, and to repeat from the pulpit as the sum and substance of Christian doctrine, “Little children, love one another!” He was banished to the island of Patmos, where, according to the book of Revelation, he witnessed the vision therein recorded. He subsequently returned to Ephesus, where it is probable he died at an extremely advanced age—not much, if any, less than a hundred years old.

The character of John has been strangely misconceived. He is with reason identified with the unnamed “disciple whom Jesus loved,” and who at the Last Supper rested his head on Jesus’ bosom; the Epistles attributed to him breathe a spirit of love; the Gospel attributed to him is of all the Gospels the most spiritual in its tone. From these premises, the character of John has been constructed; it has been supposed that he was by nature peculiarly tender, gentle, loving, and spiritually-minded; that his was a woman’s character. He is so portrayed in art, and to some extent in literature; and the special friendship which Christ has been supposed to have entertained for him is attributed to a character by nature peculiarly loveable.

There are, however, other considerations which any such view totally ignores. James and John were by Jesus called Boanerges, “the sons of thunder;” it was John who prohibited a strange disciple from casting out devils in Jesus’ name, because he followed not the Twelve; it was John who desired to call down fire from Heaven upon the Samaritan village which refused to entertain his Master; it was James and John who, with their mother, applied secretly to Jesus for the highest offices for themselves in his anticipated kingdom; it was John who followed Jesus into the courtyard of the high-priest, when all the other disciples forsook him and fled; John who stood with the Galilean women near the cross at the time of the crucifixion; John who with Peter defied the edict of the Sanhedrim after the death of Jesus, prohibiting them from teaching or speaking in his name.[9] These are not the acts of one whose nature was characteristically timid, gentle, or spiritually-minded. By nature John was ardent, courageous, impetuous, and not more broad-minded or spiritually-minded than his co-disciples. Indications of these traits are not wanting, as we shall presently see, in the Gospel and the Epistles which bear his name.

But he was of all the Twelve the most receptive. When Christ foretold his passion, Peter remonstrated with him. When Jesus spoke of the heavenly mansions and of his departure to prepare a place therein for his disciples, Thomas expressed his doubt and his perplexity by the question, “We know not whither thou goest, and how can we know the way?” When Jesus pointed to himself as the manifestation of the Father, Philip, dissatisfied, asked for a direct revelation of the Father. When Jesus promised to his disciples a spiritual manifestation of himself, Judas (not Iscariot), after the manner of modern theology, desired to have that manifestation explained to him before he could accept the truth. When Jesus rebuked Judas Iscariot for complaining of Mary’s act in anointing her Lord, Judas was angered.[10] But we look in vain in the Gospels for any instance in which John expressed any rebuke of Christ, or any opposition to him, or any doubt of his teaching, or demanded any other evidence of its truth than the simple word of his Lord. Of all the disciples the [Pg 6] most receptive, he was the one whose character underwent the greatest and most radical change. The John that we know is the John transformed by the renewing influence of the spirit of Christ; he is the John that is a new creature in Christ Jesus. He was, I believe, the beloved disciple, because he was the one in whom the love of Christ had the freest course and wrought the fullest and the largest results. This simple fact must be borne in mind in considering the question of the internal evidences for and against the Johannine authorship of the Gospel.

The external evidence. Those who expect to find a demonstration of the Johannine authorship of the Fourth Gospel in the external evidences, will be disappointed. The literature of the first three centuries does not afford a demonstration of authorship of any ancient book. But the authorship of John’s Gospel I believe to be as well established, on a fair consideration of all the evidence, external and internal, as that of any work of the same era.

It is not questioned by any one that at the beginning of the third century the Fourth Gospel was in general use in the churches, and universally recognized as written by the Apostle John. Eusebius, Origen, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, are among those who bear testimony to this fact. The Fourth Gospel is recognized as John’s composition in the canon of Muratori, A. D. 175; and by Irenæus, who died about 202, and who was a pupil of Polycarp, himself a pupil of John. References to sayings of Jesus reported only by John are also found in the writings of Tatian, A. D. 170, Justin Martyr, A. D. 120-160, and the various Gnostic writers of the second century. These references do not conclusively prove the Johannine authorship of the Fourth Gospel, for these earliest writers are not accustomed to give the names of authors from whom they quote; but they do conclusively prove that as early as the first part of the second century, sayings of Christ, found only in the Fourth Gospel, were attributed by the Church to Jesus. The best report of these quotations which I have seen is to be found in the second volume of “Supernatural Religion,” and they are there the more effective because the author in vain endeavors to break their force, by what most readers will consider an ingenious but ineffective special pleading. Let the reader compare these quotations with the parallel passages in the Fourth Gospel; he will not doubt that the later writers borrowed from the earlier one. The only alternative is the irrational hypothesis that both borrowed from the same source and one generally recognized in the primitive Church; in other words, that there was a Gospel containing the same matter that is now found in the Fourth Gospel, but that it has so entirely disappeared that no tradition even of its existence has survived, and that in its place a forgery has been palmed off upon the Church so successfully, that in the beginning of the third century it was universally accepted as the original work of the Apostle whose name it has ever since borne.

Space does not allow me to give in detail these quotations, which are numerous; it would be still more out of the province of this introduction to enter into the arguments by which the rationalistic writers endeavor to reconcile these quotations with their hypotheses. I can but briefly indicate a few of them, referring the student to the larger works for the examination in detail of the parallelism between these early ecclesiastical writers and the Fourth Gospel. Justin Martyr thus refers to the testimony of John the Baptist: “I am not the Christ ... for he cometh who is stronger than I, whose shoes I am not meet to bear” (comp. John 1:19-27). He cites Christ as saying, “Unless ye be born again, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven,” and adds the comment, “Now that it is impossible for those who have been born to go into the matrices of the mother is evident to all” (comp. John 3:3-5). Tatian refers to the sayings, “The darkness comprehends not the light” (comp. John 1:5), and “All things were by him, and without him was not anything made” (comp. John 1:5, 3). Hegessippus (A. D. 125) refers to “that which is spoken in the Gospels, ‘That was the true light which lighteth every man who cometh into the world’” (comp. John 1:9). In the writings of the Naaseni and Peratæ, Gnostic sects of the beginning of the second century, we have several unmistakable references to sayings that are peculiar to the Fourth Gospel. “I am the door,” (comp. John 10:7); “As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son be lifted up,” (comp. John 3:14); “If thou hadst known who it is that asketh thee, thou wouldest have asked of him, and he would have given thee living water, springing up,” (comp. John 4:10); “The Saviour hath said, ‘That which is born of flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit,’” (comp. John 3:6); “Except ye eat my flesh and drink my blood, ye shall not enter the kingdom of heaven,” (comp. John 6:53). These are by no means all the citations from the writers of the first two centuries which appear to have been taken from the Fourth Gospel, but they will suffice to give the reader an idea of the nature of the evidence which is regarded by most Christian writers, and by some rationalistic critics—Matthew Arnold, for example—as establishing the fact that the Fourth Gospel was in existence and recognized as an authority in the Church in the beginning of the second century. If this is the fact, it is reasonably certain that it was the work of the Apostle [Pg 7] John, since if it had been written by any one else as early as that date, that is, during the lifetime of some of the contemporaries of John, the forgery would certainly have been detected.

The internal evidence. The facts indicated above are not questioned by any critic. But though from the beginning of the third century to the close of the eighteenth, the Fourth Gospel was unanimously attributed to the Apostle John, it is maintained by those critics who deny the Johannine authorship that a fair consideration of the external evidence now extant, leaves it uncertain whether the unanimous opinion of the Church in the first century was correct, and that the internal evidence, i. e., the character of the Gospel itself, when contrasted (1) with the other Gospels, (2) with the known character of John, (3) with the other writings attributed to him, makes it certain that he was not the author.

Unquestionably the Fourth Gospel presents very different matter and a very different aspect of Christ’s life and character from that presented by the other three Gospels. The three Gospels give an impression almost exclusively Galilean; the Fourth Gospel narrates almost exclusively a ministry in Judea; the three Gospels indicate one which might have been completed in a single year; the fourth indicates three years as the duration of Christ’s ministry; the three Gospels report chiefly Christ’s ethical discourses; the fourth reports chiefly his doctrinal discourses; love to men’s neighbor is the predominate theme in the three Gospels; faith in a divine Saviour is the predominate theme in the fourth; the three Gospels portray the work of Jesus Christ; the fourth portrays his person and character; the three Gospels repeat the same incidents and instructions in slightly different language; the fourth repeats scarcely anything found in the other three; and when, as in its account of the feeding of the five thousand, it does repeat, the manifest object of the repetition is to introduce a report of a discourse of Jesus omitted in the other narratives.

It is also true that there is a marked difference between the style of John’s Gospel and the Book of Revelations. This difference is so considerable that it is vigorously maintained that the same author could not have written both books. “The difference,” says Lucke, “between the language, way of expression and mode of thought and doctrine of the Apocalypse and the rest of the Johannine writings is so comprehensive and intense, so individual and even so radical; the affinity and agreement on the contrary either so general, or in detail so fragmentary and uncertain, that the Apostle John, if he really is the author of the Gospel and of the Epistles—which we here advance—cannot have composed the Apocalypse either before or after the Gospel and the Epistles.” This difference is of two kinds, a difference both of style and of spirit. The language of the Apocalypse is comparatively harsh and Hebraic, that of the Gospel a comparatively fine and flowing Greek. The author of the Apocalypse, it is claimed, is an intense Jew, whose imagery is borrowed from the Hebrew Scriptures, and whose object is the exaltation of the Jewish people; who narrates the outpoured punishment of God on the enemies of God’s chosen people, and whose celestial capital of the kingdom without end is the new Jerusalem. The author of the Fourth Gospel, it is claimed, could not have been a Jew or of Jewish extraction; he makes no attempt to conceal his enmity of the Jews; he stigmatizes them as the enemies of Christ, and as the children of the devil;[11] and he writes of them and of their customs as no Jew would or could have written of the customs of his own people.[12]

It is not my purpose here to enter upon a discussion of these objections. It must suffice to say that they are founded on a false conception of the character of John and a false assumption that what John was when he first met Jesus by the banks of the Jordan, that he was after a life-time spent as a disciple, learning of him and undergoing that transformation of character which has been the peculiar and glorious fruitage of Christ’s husbandry. Instead of entering into such a discussion, I shall ask the reader to consider briefly what are some of the more notable characteristics of the Fourth Gospel, and what would be the conclusion as to its authorship from an independent and original examination of its pages.

Imagine then that we have just discovered this ancient manuscript, a manuscript which unquestionably dates from the beginning of the third century, probably from a still earlier period, and which we have abundant evidence was then unanimously attributed to the Apostle John. We enter upon its examination that we may form for ourselves a judgment who its real author probably was. In this examination there are three characteristics which force themselves upon our attention as predominant: (1) the claims which it presents; (2) its literary character; (3) the indications which it affords as to the personality of its author.

1. Its claims. It assumes to be written by an eye-witness. In his introduction the writer says distinctly of the subject of his biography: “We beheld his glory, the glory as of the only-begotten of the Father.” In the Epistle attributed to him, [Pg 8] he reiterates this statement even more explicitly. “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 ... that which we have seen and heard declare we unto you.” In his account of the crucifixion he emphasizes the fact that he is an eye-witness of the events described. “He that saw it bare record and the record is true; and he knoweth that he saith true that ye might believe.” And yet again in the closing chapter, generally regarded as written subsequent to the rest of the volume, and as supplementary to it, the writer is identified with the unnamed beloved disciple. “This is the disciple who testified of these things and wrote these things, and we know that his testimony is true.”[13]

In reading the book we constantly come upon indications that the work is by an eye-witness or by one who writes in order to give that impression. No one of the Evangelist’s narratives more abounds with graphic touches, slight but significant, such as indicate the vivid remembrance of one who was not only an eye and ear witness, but also one who treasures up in a remarkably retentive memory incidents which mere tradition would not have preserved. John the Baptist “looks upon Jesus,” and points him out to his disciples, by his peculiar gaze; Jesus “turns” and sees them follow; wearied with the journey he sits “thus on the well;” there is “much grass” where he feeds the five thousand; when Mary anointed Jesus the “house was filled with the odor of the ointment;” when Judas went out to complete the betrayal “it was night;” the night “was cold,” and Peter stands with the servant of the high-priest warming himself at a fire of coals in the court-yard.[14] These may serve as illustrations. Examples the reader will find in great abundance, and references to them in the notes. Of all the Gospels, the Fourth Gospel is the one which reports most fully the private conferences between Jesus and the Twelve, and the only one which reports his “asides” and his personal feelings in explanation of his public acts.[15] These features in the narrative do not prove that it was written by an eye-witness, but they indicate that it was written either by an eye-witness, or by one who desired to produce that impression; either by one of the Twelve or by a deliberate and skilful forger.

2. Its literary character. The differences between this Gospel and the other three which I have already very briefly described, are very considerable. They have led different minds to very different conclusions respecting the authorship of the Fourth Gospel. It is, however, safe to say that they are just such as might be expected if the Fourth Gospel was written after the other three, and by some one familiar with them, or at least with the traditions embodied in them. This Gospel presents precisely the aspect which would be presented by a book written for the purpose of supplementing the accounts already possessed by the primitive churches, and of portraying an aspect of character not adequately portrayed by the earlier writers. It presents, too, exactly that aspect which would be presented by a narrative written after the rapid growth of the Church, and its prophetic incursions into heathenism had given the writer a better conception than his co-disciples possessed of the spiritual character of the new religion. Matthew, Mark, and Luke might perhaps have believed that the privileges of Christianity were to be confined to Jews and Jewish proselytes. Though many of Christ’s words which they report indicate a broader scope, it is by no means clear that they comprehended them. But no one can doubt that the author of John’s Gospel, when he wrote, believed that the atonement of Jesus Christ was for all humanity, his religion for all classes, races, and conditions of mankind. It is the Fourth Gospel which tells us that He was the true Light which lighteth every man which cometh into the world, that God so loved the world that he gave his only beloved Son that whosoever believeth in him should have everlasting life, and that whosoever comes to him he will in no wise cast out; it is the Fourth Gospel which reports Christ’s interview with the woman of Samaria and his subsequent preaching to the Samaritans, which brings out more clearly than either of the others the grounds of Christ’s practical abrogation of the Pharisaic law of the Sabbath, which dwells more than any other Gospel on the spiritual aspects of his kingdom and the divine nature of the king.[16] All this we might expect from one writing after more than half a century of Catholic Christianity had interpreted the nature, mission, and words of Christ to his church.

Let us add that a forger would not have suffered his narrative to stand in such a marked contrast with the previous and recognized narratives already in the possession of the churches. He would have commingled the ethical with the doctrinal, the human with the divine. He would have repeated in a modified form some of the incidents and teachings already reported by the other Evangelists, that he might thus give a color of authenticity to his narrative. The very contrast between the Fourth Gospel and the [Pg 9] other three, on which skeptic writers rely to prove its untrustworthiness, is an indication that it cannot be the work of fraud. If that aspect of Christ’s character and teachings reported by John’s Gospel was not recognized by the primitive church as true, or if the author was not himself known in the age in which the narrative was produced, and so known that his simple name was a sufficient guarantee of the accuracy of his narrative, an account so dissimilar from those already in the possession of the churches would have received little credit and no general, certainly no universal, acceptance.

3. Indications of authorship. A further examination of this Gospel gives a definite impression respecting the character of the author. He is evidently thoroughly familiar with Jewish manners and customs. He knows whereof he writes. He has lived in the country and mingled with the people. His knowledge is not that of a student of books, nor that of a mere casual traveler. But he writes for those who are not familiar with Palestine or its social life. He inserts parenthetical explications of Jewish customs. He explains to his Gentile readers the use of the firkins of water at the wedding-feast “for purifying after the manner of the Jews;” the wrapping of the body of Jesus, as the manner of the “Jews is to bury;” the refusal of the Pharisees to enter Pilate’s hall “lest they should be defiled.” The feast of Tabernacles is the Jews’ feast of Tabernacles, the Passover is the Jews’ Passover, and the Preparation for it is the Preparation of the Jews.[17] These references are so incidental as to indicate a writer thoroughly familiar with Jewish life; yet they are so marked as to indicate equally clearly a writer whose readers were not Jews but Gentiles.

The indications are not less clear that the writer, whoever he may have been, was not himself a sharer in Jewish prejudices. Jew he may have been; an intolerant Jew he certainly was not. He is familiar with the Pharisees and with the Pharisaic law, but he has no sympathy with the one and no admiration for the other. We can hardly be mistaken in thinking that his native prejudices are adverse rather than favorable to the inhabitants of Judea. More than any of the other Evangelists his language respecting them indicates his aversion to them. He is the Evangelist who reports the mobs in Jerusalem against Jesus, and the secret counsels for his assassination, and the deliberate judgment of Caiaphas that it is better for the rulers to kill the Galilean Rabbi than to hazard their own offices, and the persistent persecution of Jesus; he it is who with delicate sarcasm stigmatizes Caiaphas as high-priest for “that same year;” the very language which he employs in describing the religious festivals of Judea as “feasts of the Jews,” indicates an author not in sympathy with the religious formalism of Judea; the very phraseology with which he characterizes the reluctance of the Jews to enter into Pilate’s judgment-hall, indicates a writer having little sympathy for the formalism which was never a characteristic of the Galilean Jews, and always was a characteristic of the more intense and bigoted Jews of the Syrian province of Judea.[18]

Nor can we be mistaken in surmising that the author was, by nature and temperament, ardent, impulsive, vehement. The intensity of his nature has been tamed by age, experience or grace, or the three combined; but the indications of his native character crop out in occasional utterances. The records of Matthew, Mark, and Luke are absolutely colorless. They are without epithets. Their simple and artless narrative is left to produce its own impression. This is less true of the Fourth Gospel than of the other three. The intense indignation which the writer feels against Judas Iscariot, he is at no pains to conceal. He it is who reports Jesus as declaring early in his ministry, One of you is a devil; he it is who characterizes Judas Iscariot as a thief; he who twice declares that Satan entered into Judas Iscariot.[19] These are the most notable exhibitions of his feelings; but one can hardly read through the entire narrative without realizing in its tone and spirit the evidence that the author was a man of intense and passionate earnestness, kept under marvelous self-restraint.

Finally, it is clear that the author is a man of some native capacity for culture and of large education. He is familiar with the Greek language and with the Greco-Oriental philosophy. He writes with a pure and flowing style. His introduction could have been penned only by one who had become habituated to those forms of philosophic thought which some cities of Greece, and notably Ephesus, had imported from Alexandria and the further East. It could only have been written for readers who were familiar with that philosophy and could best be approached by employing its phraseology.

We find then in the direct claims and the incidental allusions of the Fourth Gospel indications that it was written by an eye and ear witness, who was with Jesus from the commencement to the close of his ministry; in the broad differences between the Fourth Gospel and the other three gospels, indications that it was written after the [Pg 10] others and by one who was familiar with them or with the traditions embodied in them, and who wrote to supplement their accounts; in the general catholic and spiritual atmosphere of the book, indications that it was written after history had begun to interpret the words and work of Christ, and to make clearer his transcendent and incomparable character; and in the style and phraseology of the book, indications that it was written by one who was familiar with Jewish customs but not sharing Jewish prejudices, who possessed an ardent nature which had been brought under the power of a strong self-control, and who to a native capacity for culture added that familiarity with Greek literature and philosophy which only long residence in a thoroughly Greek society could impart.

Now, so far as our limited knowledge enables us to judge, John’s life and character remarkably correspond with these indications of the Gospel which was so long unanimously attributed to his pen. His parents were well-to-do Galileans, and he probably received a fair education in his childhood; his early education as a Galilean would have given him familiarity with Jewish customs, and yet would prejudice him against rather than in favor of the inhabitants of Judea; his later and prolonged residence in Ephesus, of all Greek cities the most Oriental, would have made him familiar with the best Greek culture, and with the mystic philosophy of the Greco-Oriental school; that he possessed a vehement nature is evident from his original title of Son of Thunder; his receptive disposition and his intense love for Jesus might have been expected to tame that nature, without eradicating from his writings all indications of its existence; of all the disciples the most courageous and the most sympathetically intimate with the subject of his biography, he was of them all the one to adhere to Jesus in his dangerous ministry in Jerusalem, and the one therefore to record what all the others have omitted; he was also the one to interpret Christ’s actions by his own suggestion of Christ’s unuttered thoughts; writing after the other Gospels had been written and were already being widely circulated, his omission of events and teachings which they had recorded is not only explicable, but natural and to be anticipated; finally, writing after the destruction of Jerusalem, after the dispersion of the Jews had begun, after the descent of the Holy Spirit had interpreted the mystical promises of another Comforter, after churches had been organized as far west as Rome in which Gentile and Jew met on equal terms, after, in a word, the history of the church had interpreted the prophecies and instructions of its Lord, it would have been strange indeed if he had not given a deeper, truer, and more catholic exposition of Christ’s Gospel than could have been written during the first half-century in Palestine, by those whose comprehension of Christ’s, teaching had not been broadened by residence in a foreign land and an observation of Christ’s redeeming work in a pagan community.

Other hypotheses. The conclusion to which a consideration of the external and internal evidence brings the candid student is confirmed by a consideration of the alternative hypotheses presented to him. These are many in form; for it is a significant fact that while those who believe in the authenticity of the Fourth Gospel are entirely agreed in respect to its authorship, and the time and place of its composition, those who disbelieve in its authenticity are not agreed among themselves respecting either. But in general their various opinions may be reduced to two classes.

The first is that the Fourth Gospel is the work of a Gentile Christian writing in the third century. Confessedly this Gospel purports to be written by an eye and ear witness. Confessedly it was unanimously attributed to the Apostle John in the third century. Confessedly it is without a peer in literature, ancient or modern, sacred or secular, Christian or pagan, in the purity of its doctrine, the moral elevation of its style, and the spirituality of its atmosphere. This hypothesis asks us to believe that it is the work of a deliberate ecclesiastical forger, with so little conscience that he neither hesitated to assume the pen of an Apostle nor to attribute to Jesus fictitious discourses and imaginary miracles, yet with so much conscience that he would not put an Apostle’s name to his composition, but left its authorship to be inferred by a self-deluded public; written too by a forger who was so skillful that he deceived the whole contemporaneous church, all sects and sections, Jewish and Gentile, Greek, Roman, and African, orthodox and heretic, and yet who was such a bungler that the gross discrepancies of his account, contrasted with that of the other three evangelists, make his fraud palpable to the ecclesiastical and literary critics of the nineteenth century. This hypothesis demands so great an exercise of credulity that sober critics of even the rationalistic school are generally abandoning it, or have already done so. This opinion may be already characterized as a thing of the past.

The other hypothesis is more plausible and captivating. This is that the Fourth Gospel was written by an amanuensis or a disciple of the Apostle John, that its essential facts were derived from him, that it was written in his old age, that his recollection was already growing dim and his reports of the words of Jesus are unconsciously modified by his philosophy and experience, and that these reports are still further modified by the free pen of the amanuensis or the disciple [Pg 11] who perfected the written record; and it is urged that this hypothesis explains both verbal peculiarities and the title given to it from early ages, viz., not the Gospel of John, but the Gospel according to John.[20]

In support of this opinion there is quoted an ancient legend found in the canon of Muratori (A. D. 175), which runs as follows: “The fourth of the Gospels is by the disciple John. He was being pressed by his disciples and (fellow) bishops, and he said, ‘Fast with me this day, and for three days; and whatsoever shall have been revealed to each one of us, let us relate it to the rest.’ In the same night it was revealed to the Apostle Andrew that John should write the whole in his name, and that all the rest should revise it.” It must suffice to say of this opinion that in its most pronounced form it is wholly unsustained by evidence. It is ingenious, but not substantial. Doubtless the reports of Christ’s disciples are not verbatim. Doubtless we have in many instances the sentiments of Christ embodied in the words of John. Possibly some glosses and explanations added originally by an amanuensis or scribe may have become incorporated in the narrative.[21] But that the book is in no sense a composite production, that it is the work of one not of many minds, that we have essentially the portrayal of the life and character of Jesus by a single author, is evident on even a casual perusal, and still more on a careful analysis of the work.

Discourses of Jesus. The Gospel of John abounds with reports of the discourses of Jesus; it is more a report of his discourses (λόγια) than of his works (ἔργα); the miracles reported are generally only a text for a discourse which follows. The student, passing from the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew, or the parables in Perea, in Luke, to the sermon on the Bread of life at Capernaum (John, ch. 6), or on the Good Shepherd, at Jerusalem (John, ch. 10), feels the difference between them, a difference chiefly in the phraseology employed, sometimes in the phases of truth taught, but never amounting to a contradiction in the essential teaching. The same doctrine respecting the authority of Christ is conveyed by Matt. 11:27, and John 5:19-30; the same truth as to the nature and necessity of a new and divine life in the soul is expressed in Mark 4:26-29, and in John 6:50-58; similar parallels in essential truth may be found in the synoptics to all that is taught in the Fourth Gospel; but the form of expression is strikingly different. Thus, in the study of the Fourth Gospel, the question is constantly pressed upon the student, how far the reports of Christ’s addresses by John are to be regarded as reported in the words of Christ.

In answer to this we have, on the one hand, Christ’s promise reported by John: “The Comforter ... shall bring all things to your remembrance whatsoever I have said unto you” (ch. 14:26); on the other, we have reason to believe that the reports are not verbatim. (a) This would require a supernatural exercise of memory nowhere claimed by the Evangelists, and therefore not to be claimed by the church for them. (b) In some instances, e. g., the case of the conversation with Nicodemus and the woman at the well, it is certain that John could not have been present, and must have derived his information either from Jesus or from the other party to the conference. (c) The language in which the discourse is reported is analogous not only in words, but also in the forms of expression to that of the narrator; the likeness is so marked that in several instances the critics are not fully agreed how much is to be regarded as the discourse of Jesus, and how much as the accompanying comment of John. (d) The thought is sometimes, and the language is often, obscure. And though this obscurity is increased by mistranslations, and by the division into verses, which hides from the reader the true unity of the discourse, nevertheless it exists in the Greek original. Such obscurity does not exist in the reports of Christ’s discourses in the other Gospels. (e) The largest public discourse as reported would not have required over eight minutes in delivery. I believe then that in the Fourth Gospel we have the substantial thoughts of Christ, reproduced generally in the words and with the phraseology of John, whose mind, under the divine inspiration, preserves the essential truth unimpaired, but represents it, not as a mechanical repeater of words, but as a disciple who freely reproduces the ideas of his Master, but largely in language of his own.

Object and character. We are not left to surmise the object of the author of the Fourth Gospel. He himself tells us what it was: “These are written that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that, believing, ye might have life through his name.”[22]

According to John’s Gospel, true religion consists not in obedience to an external law, but in a new life in the soul, by which it is transformed, [Pg 12] and the soul, its habits and character, are brought into conformity with the law of God, that is, the law of love. This new and divine life is implanted supernaturally from above; it is fed perpetually by the influence of the divine Spirit; it emancipates the soul from all bondage to sin and the law; for it preparation is made by the life and death of the Lord; in it God is manifested in a peculiar manner to the soul and abides with it, an indwelling Comforter. This life comes through a vital faith in Jesus as in a peculiar sense the Son of God, in whose life the believer finds his ideal of true life, by whose death he is redeemed from death, by whose spiritual power he is raised a new creature in Christ Jesus, by whose abiding presence he is guided, guarded, strengthened, fed. Those incidents and discourses in the life of Christ which illustrate and enforce this aspect of Christian truth and experience are those which John gives us in his Gospel. The other Gospels represent the duties of the disciples, John their privileges; the other Gospels bid them what they ought to do, John points them to what they can become; the other Gospels represent Christ chiefly as a Saviour coming to seek and to save that which is lost, John as a Friend abiding with his own; in the other Gospels he is a Shepherd in the wilderness, in John the Shepherd in the fold; in the other Gospels the Son is either still in the far country or but just returning to his Father’s home, in John he has returned and is abiding in his Father’s love. In the other Gospels, therefore, Jesus is chiefly represented as a divine teacher, in John as a recognized Saviour; in the other Gospels as the Son of man, in John as the Son of God; in the other Gospels we have seen him as he appears to the wanderer, in John as he is interpreted by the heart of the saved; in the other Gospels the bridegroom is coming for his bride and is still the Unknown; in John he has taken her to himself, and her love at least dimly recognizes in him the One among ten thousand and altogether lovely.

These aspects of truth may be easily discerned in even a brief survey of the Fourth Gospel.

John opens his narrative by an introduction, in which he borrows the mystical language of Oriental philosophy to characterize Jesus, whom he describes as the Life, the Light, the Word; he reports John the Baptist, not as the preacher of the baptism of repentance, but as a prophet of the Lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the world (ch. 1); in his account of the conversation with Nicodemus (ch. 3), he points out the origin of the spiritual life which Christ imparts to the believer, “Ye must be born from above;” in his report of the conversation with the Samaritan woman, and of the discourse at Capernaum (chaps. 4, 6), he indicates the means by which that life is sustained, by appropriating faith in Christ; and in his record of the intermediate discourse at Jerusalem (ch. 5), the basis for that faith in Christ’s own portrayal of himself as the Son and manifestation of God the Father; in his report of the discourses in the Temple, he sets forth in a different form the same truths. (ch. 7), declares the emancipation from bondage which faith in the Son achieves for the soul, contrasts it with the life of bondage unto sin (ch. 8), and describes the safety and security of the disciples, a security purchased by the death of their Lord (ch. 10); he narrates the resurrection of Lazarus, therein portraying Jesus as the resurrection and the life (ch. 11); he reports those words of Jesus at the Last Supper, the full meaning of which no Christian experience has ever yet fully sounded, in which is promised to the believing disciple a spiritual manifestation of God to the soul, an abiding life of God in the soul, and a joyful realization of all spiritual fullness in God by the soul (chaps. 14, 15, 16); he records the only reported intercessory prayer of the Lord for his disciples (ch. 17), the burden of which is, “As thou Father art in me and I in you, that they also may be one in us;” in the account of the Passion he alone gives the short dialogue between Jesus and Pilate, in which the Lord declares himself a king and his kingdom one of everlasting truth; and in his account of the resurrection (ch. 20), he tells the story of Thomas’s unbelief and of Christ’s warm commendation of “those who have not seen and yet have believed.” Life through faith—this is the burden of John’s Evangel; Jesus Christ the Life-giver, the disciple of Jesus Christ the recipient of a new life—this is the good news which constitutes the Fourth Gospel.

When and where and for whom written. A very ancient testimony, that of Irenæus, repeated by Jerome and later writers, fixes the place of publication at Ephesus. This accords with the character of the Gospel itself. The Oriental phraseology employed in the first chapter especially, but also in less degree in other portions of the Gospel, indicates that it was written in a city where Oriental philosophy had a strong hold; and of all Greek cities Ephesus was the most Oriental. Moreover, an ancient and apparently trustworthy tradition makes this city the home of John in his later years. The time of its composition is uncertain. Irenæus states that it was the latest written of the four Gospels. The character of the Gospel, as we have seen, confirms this tradition. The book bears marks of being written in old age; it is apparently the production of a ripened Christian experience. Alford fixes the date as between A. D. 70 and A. D. 85; Macdonald, A. D. 85 or 86; Godet, between A. D. 80 and 90; Tholuck, not far from A. D. 100.

1:1-18. THE CHRISTOLOGY OF JOHN.—​The pre-existence of Christ.—​The creative power of Christ.—​The regenerating work of Christ.—​The illumination given by Christ.—​The divine manifestation in Christ.—​The Word; the Light; the Life; the Tabernacle; the Only-begotten Son.—​Contrasted with John the Baptist; with Moses.—​The gifts he confers; the welcome he receives.

Preliminary Note.—The ordinary English reader will find no difficulty in comprehending the truths which John expresses in this introduction to his Gospel, viz., the pre-existence, divine attributes, and divine nature of that Jesus, the Messiah, of whom his book is written. John identifies him with the Word, which was with God from eternity, and with the Light which lighteth every man that cometh into the world. But it is not so clear why he should use the peculiar and somewhat mysterious language here employed; for the full understanding of this, some historical explanation is necessary. My object in this note is to afford very briefly this historical explanation, as a basis for more detailed consideration of particular words and phrases in the notes.

From the earliest ages the ablest minds have been perplexed by the problem how to reconcile faith in an all-wise, all-powerful, and all-benevolent Creator, with the fact of a creation full of sin and suffering. One of the ablest thinkers of modern times (John Stuart Mill) has declared the problem insoluble, and from the facts of creation has deduced the conclusion that the Creator is neither all-wise, all-powerful, nor all-good; to use his own words respecting the Creator, “his wisdom is possibly, his power certainly limited, and his goodness, though real, is not likely to have been the only motive which actuated him in the work of creation.”—(Three Essays in Religion.) Oriental philosophy, pondering this problem, proposed for its solution an hypothesis which to a Western mind seems singularly puerile and fantastic, and yet which, in slightly different forms, gained, at one period in the world’s history, an acceptance quite as widespread as any form of philosophy or theology of to-day. This hypothesis, however modified in form, was in essence this, that the evil in the world came not from the Creator, but from some other and inferior Being. In the Persian religion there were two deities, a good and an evil god, Ormuzd and Ahriman, struggling with each other for the supremacy. In the Chaldean philosophy Light was the soul of the universe and the Original First Cause; in the lower realms, far below the space filled with pure and unapproachable light, were darkness, night, and all forth-springing evils, which either the Supreme Light regarded it beneath his dignity to contend with, or which were indestructible and could only be confined within narrow limits, not destroyed. In the Hindoo philosophy, the Great First Cause, the beatific Brahm, lived in perpetual repose, in a supreme and serene indifference to all things. From him, by emanations, proceeded lesser deities, and from these, by a process more or less remote, a corrupt creation. At the beginning of the Christian era, Alexandria, founded by and named in honor of Alexander the Great, was one of the intellectual centres of the world. Here was gathered a library of over 700,000 volumes; here congregated Oriental dreamers, Greek philosophers, and Jewish religionists. Here, in the third century before Christ, was translated into the Greek language the Old Testament Scriptures. Here about 20 B. C., was born Philo, a Jew, of a priestly family, a philosopher and litterateur, and a voluminous writer. He was not an original thinker; his works are therefore all the more valuable as a reflection of the current mystical philosophy of his age and school. This dreamy philosophy it is difficult to translate into modern forms of thought. So far as this can be done, it may be said to have involved the following statements: God is simply the absolute, unchangeable Existence, incomprehensible, inconceivable, yet ever to be the object of our thoughts and meditations. He could not come directly into contact with matter without losing something of his ineffable excellence. Hence he gave forth certain divine powers or influences, “incorporeal potencies,” which surround God as the members of a court surround an earthly monarch. The highest of these is the divine Logos or Word of God. Through this Word the world was created, and to the influence of the inferior potencies the evils of the world must be attributed. Again, borrowing the imagery of the Chaldeans, Philo conceives of God as the pure and absolute Light, the original source of effulgence, the Logos or Word as the nearest circle of light proceeding from it, and each separate power as a separate ray, fading more and more away into darkness, as it becomes removed from the original source and centre. From this philosophy was later developed that peculiar and incomprehensible form of thought known as [Pg 14] Gnosticism. This Gnostic philosophy, which reached its climax in the second century after Christ, undertook to describe in detail all the emanations from the original inconceivable deity; Reason, the Word, practical Wisdom, theoretical Wisdom, Power, Light, Life, were all lesser deities. The God of the Jews was one of these lower deities; Jesus Christ was a higher deity—the Reason according to some, the Word according to others, who came to deliver the world from its subjection to the inferior deity, and who entered the body of Jesus at his baptism, and departed from it just before his crucifixion. Whether John was acquainted with the writings of Philo we do not know; but he was certainly familiar with this Gnostic philosophy. It had already begun to enter into and corrupt the Christian church during the lifetime of Paul, whose writings contain frequent references to different phases of it (e. g., Col. 2:18; 1 Tim. 4:1-4; 2 Tim. 2:16-18); Ephesus, a city of luxury, effeminacy and superstition (Acts, ch. 19, notes), was a centre of this philosophy; in Paul’s address to the elders of the church at Ephesus (Acts 20:29, 30), and in his letter to Timothy, first bishop of that church (subs. to 2 Tim.), he especially warns against it (2 Tim. 2:16-18; 3:8, 9); and Ephesus was John’s residence, and probably the city in which he wrote his Gospel. (See Introduction.)

John, then, employs the language of this mystical philosophy, in order more effectually to refute its errors. He finds a certain substratum of truth, viz., that there is one God and one Mediator between God and man, underlying this superstructure of error; he begins his Gospel by occupying this ground, and by his phraseology brings himself into sympathy with his Gnostic readers; then, from this common ground he leads them on to the truth respecting the incarnation. It is true, he says to them, that there is a Word of God, but this Word was from the beginning with God, and is indeed God himself, who is not incommunicable, but a self-manifesting God. It is true that there is a Life and a Light; but the Life is God himself, not an inferior and subordinate deity; and the Light is not remote and unapproachable, but lighteth every man that cometh into the world. For this Mediator is not an emanation from God, but God himself, the true Light shining in the darkness (verse 5), the true Life by whom we can not only commune with Christ, but become the very children of God (verses 12, 13). And he has come and tabernacled among men in the flesh, in the earthly life of Jesus of Nazareth.

It only remains to add that there is to be found in the Old Testament (see notes below) a Scriptural basis for John’s use of the language here, particularly his phrase “the Word of God,” and that there is not the least ground for the claims of some rationalistic scholars that John derived his doctrine here from Philo, or from the Alexandrian or Gnostic schools. On the contrary, his doctrine and theirs are radically inconsistent. Philo holds that matter is inherently defiling, that God cannot come into contact with matter, even to fashion it in creation, without defilement; John, that God “was made flesh and dwelt among us,” and yet so far from being defiled thereby, manifested his glory, “the glory of the only-begotten of the Father.”

1. In the beginning. John begins the Gospel where Moses began the Law. The employment of and the reference to the language of the first verse of the first chapter of Genesis is unmistakable. In that beginning in which God created the heavens and the earth was the Word, and the Word was with God and was God and was the One through whom the act of creation was consummated. So in Prov., chap. 8, Wisdom personified is represented as with God in the creation and from the beginning (see especially verses 23-29). For parallel passages teaching the pre-existence of Christ, see John 8:58; 17:5; Phil. 2:5, 6; 1 John 1:1. In Rev. 3:14 he is described as “the beginning of the creation of God,” but this does not necessarily imply that he was a created Being. See notes there.—​Was the Word. There are several Greek words meaning word; (1 and 2) ῥῆμα and ἔπος, word in the grammatical sense, i. e., that which is spoken; (3) μῦθος, word in the rhetorical sense, that which is delivered by words, the subject expressed; (4) ὄνομα, word in a technical sense, strictly a name, and only because words are names or appellations; (5) λόγος, word in the philosophical sense, the outward form by which the inward thought is expressed. The latter term is employed here. As the thoughts or experiences of the soul are completely hidden from us till they are uttered, so God is the Unknown and the Unknowable, save as he utters himself, discloses his nature to us, which he does chiefly if not solely through him who is for that reason called the Word, i. e., the utterance of God. The metaphor which underlies this phraseology is in part interpreted by the saying of Wordsworth that language is the incarnation of ideas. (2) In the Old Testament we have a partial employment of the same symbolism. In Moses’ account of the creation, God is represented as calling the various powers of nature into being by a word. “God said Light be! Light was!” (Gen. 1:3, see also 6, 9, 11, etc.) In the later Hebrew poetry this symbol is made more prominent in the distinct declaration that “by the word of the Lord were the heavens made.” (Ps. 33:6; comp. 107:20; Isaiah 55:10, 11; see also Heb. 11:3.) The same symbol, in a slightly different form, reappears in Prov., chap. 8, which is connected with that employed here by the language of certain [Pg 15] of the apocryphal books, e. g., “I (Wisdom) came out of the mouth of the Most High and covered the earth as a cloud” (Ecclesiasticus 24:3). “She (Wisdom) is the breath of the power of God” (Wisdom of Solomon 1:25). (3) The same symbolism was employed as we have seen (Prel. Note above) in the mystical philosophy of Alexandria and of later Gnosticism, with which John was familiar, and of which, Ephesus, his city, was a centre, to represent an eon or emanation for the deity. That the Word here does not mean the Bible or the Gospel is evident both from the connection, since it cannot be said that the Bible became flesh (ver. 14), and also from John’s usage, who never employs the phrase Word of God to designate the Bible, but usually the term Scriptures or writings (John 2:22; 5:39; 7:38, 42; 19:24, 28, 36, 37, etc.). Moreover he does employ this phraseology elsewhere to designate Jesus Christ (1 John 1:1; Rev. 19:13). It cannot mean the Speaking One nor the Promised One. Though both these meanings have been attributed to it, it is not grammatically capable of either interpretation. There is classical authority for rendering it Reason or Order, and this meaning it still retains in words ending with ology, such as ge-ology (ge-logos), the order, i. e., science of the earth; path-ology (pathos-logos), the order, i. e., science of disease. But it is never used with this signification by John, and is never but once so used in the N. T. (1 Peter 3:15), if even there the translation is strictly accurate, which is doubtful. Seeking, then, to understand John as he would have been understood by his contemporaries, I think it clear that he declares, not that Reason or Wisdom was in the beginning with God, nor Speech, nor the Promised Messiah, but the Word, i. e., the One by and through whom he was chiefly to be manifested to the world, as one soul is to another by utterance.—​And the Word was with God and the Word was God. Grammatically the last clause of the sentence may be read, and God was the Word. But the obvious connection calls for the rendering of our English version, and it is the rendering adopted by the best scholars. There is a difference in the language of the first and last clause of this sentence in the original which is significant, but difficult, if not impossible, to render in the English. In the first clause, “the Word was with God,” the article accompanies the word God; in the second clause, “the Word was God,” it is wanting. We should measurably reflect the meaning by reading the passage, “the Word was with God and the Word was divine;” or “the Word was with the Father and the Word was God.”

2. The same was in the beginning with God. John recurs to his first statement and reiterates it, not merely for the sake of emphasis, but also to mark a real distinction between the Word and the unknown Father. For he labors to express two conflicting and even apparently contradictory ideas, the identity of the Word with God and the individuality of the Word, as distinct from the infinite and invisible deity. This contradiction subsequent theology has endeavored in vain to eliminate by drawing distinctions between essence and substance, person and being, etc., in such phraseologies as three in substance and one in essence, or three persons in one God. This philosophy of the Trinity is extra-Scriptural, framed to harmonize teachings respecting the divine nature, which are best harmonized by the frank confession that the knowledge of the divine nature is too wonderful for us, we cannot attain unto it (Ps. 139:6; Job 11:7). So Chalmers, “The Father is God, the Son is God, the Holy Spirit is God. God is one. If you ask me to reconcile the four (propositions), I answer, I cannot. We require no one to reconcile the personality of each with the unity of God.” So Calvin, “I could wish them (the extra-Scriptural phrases, person, hypostasis, etc.) to be buried in oblivion, provided this truth were universally received, that the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit are the one God; and that nevertheless the Son is not the Father, nor the Spirit the Son, but that they are distinguished from each other by some peculiar properties.”

3. All things were made by him. To interpret this language “All things” as meaning simply the moral creation, is to distort plain language in order to conform it to preconceived ideas, a fault in exegesis of which no school of theology is entirely innocent. The reference to Genesis, ch. 1, is unmistakable. The declaration is parallel to and interpreted by such passages as Col. 1:16; 1 Cor. 8:6; Heb. 1:2. The Greek student will observe, however, and the English student should know, that the language here implies that the Word was the instrument by which God created the “all things,” not the original source of creative power. There are two Greek prepositions translated in English “by,” [Pg 16]one (ἐκ) signifying the source or origin from which anything proceeds, or the power by which it is produced; the other (διά) signifying the means or instrument through which it is produced. One indicates the original, the other the proximate cause. The preposition here used is the latter, and the exact meaning of the sentence will be imparted by the rendering All things were made by means of him or through him. With this interpretation corresponds the general teaching of the New Testament, which represents Christ, both in his earthly life and in his heavenly administration, as always the executor of his Father’s will. This is in some sense especially prominent in John’s Gospel (see for example John 5:22, 23, 27; 6:37, 44, 57; 8:28, 42; 10:29; 14:10; 17:18, 24); but it is equally clearly taught elsewhere (Luke 2:49; 1 Cor. 15:27, 28; Phil. 2:9; Col. 1:19; comp. Mark 10:40, note and references there).—​And without him was not anything made that was made. Simply an emphatic and exhaustive reiteration, such as is not infrequent in fervid writing. For analogous rhetorical repetition in John see verse 20; 1 John 2:4, 27. Some manuscripts and some few scholars put a period at the close of the first clause of the sentence, and connect the last clause with the following verse, so that the passage reads: And without him was not anything made. And what originated in him was life. But while this reading is grammatically possible, it is generally repudiated by the best scholars, who accept the punctuation and rendering of our English version as correct.

4. In him was life. There is probably a reference here again to the language of Gnostic philosophy (See Prel. Note), which supposed other eons or emanations from God, besides the Word, prominent among which was Light and Life. Here, as throughout this introduction, John employs the language of the Gnostics to correct their errors. The general and practical teaching for us of the declaration is that Christ is the source of both physical or external life (Col. 1:17), and of intellectual and spiritual life (ch. 10:10). It is admirably interpreted by Kaulbach’s famous cartoon of the Reformation, in which Luther with the open Bible in his hand is represented as the centre of the intellectual and moral awakening which characterized that century. Observe, since Christ is Life and Light, that any religion which dwarfs man, represses their life, belittles them, and any which shuts them up in darkness and denies them intellectual freedom and progress in any direction, is so far anti-Christ. The cause of Christ has nothing to fear from any intellectual life or any light of scientific discovery.—​And the life was the light of men. Not merely shall be, not merely is, but was. The intimation is that all the light of Old Testament prophecy and instruction, if not all that dim religious light which has illuminated even heathen nations, through special instructors such as Buddha, Confucius and Socrates, came through the Word, i. e., through the Mediator by whom the invisible God reveals himself to man, of which revelation the incarnation (ver. 14) is only a part, though a most important part. Compare with the language here 1 John 1:5.

5. And the light shineth in the darkness. Shines, not merely appears; a real illumination is indicated; shines, not shone; a present and continuous illumination is indicated; the darkness, not merely darkness; as, before God said “Let there be light,” the earth is reported as enveloped in darkness (Gen. 1:2), so, before and apart from this spiritual illumination, through the Light of the world, the nations of the earth were in gross darkness. Comp. Isaiah 42:6, 7; Matt. 4:16, note; Ephes. 5:7, 8; John 12:46.—​And the darkness comprehended it not. This has been universally true in the world’s history; the dim light of conscience has never been apprehended, taken hold of by heathen nations. The light afforded by special and signal moral geniuses has never been comprehended aright by the people, as witness the deterioration of Buddhism and Confucianism; the teachings of the Jewish prophets were not comprehended; they shone in darkness which was not dispelled by their instructors; and the clearer light of Christ has never, even in the best ages, been more than very imperfectly apprehended, even in the church. Here the primary reference is certainly to the constant closing of their eyes by the Jews to the light of the Old Testament teachings, concerning the spirit of true religion, the nature of the kingdom of God, and the character and appearance of the promised Messiah. For the reason why the darkness does not comprehend the light, see chap. 3:19; comp. Matt. 13:15, note.

6, 7. There was a man sent from God. From a characterization of the light, John passes to a description of the incarnation and its object, and to a discrimination between the incarnate Light and the prophet who foretold its coming. From the Greek word here rendered sent (ἀποστέλλω, [Pg 17] apostello) comes our word apostle. The apostle is a man sent from God; Christ is the word or utterance, or manifestation of God. Comp. Heb. 1:1-3.—​John. The Baptist.—The same came for a witness. As one who enters the witness-stand to testify what he knows, so John the Baptist came to declare what had been revealed to him concerning the coming Messiah. Comp. John 5:32-35.—​To bear witness of the Light. Simply a repetition and amplification of the previous clause of the sentence. He was not a mere preacher of the law, nor of the duty of repentance, though this is the phase of his ministry most prominent in the reports of Matt. (3:1-12), and Luke (3:1-18). He was a forerunner of the great King, sent to bear witness of his approach. And this phase of his ministry, though indicated in the other Gospels (Matt. 3:11; 11:9, Mark 1:7, 8; Luke 3:16, 17), is most clearly brought out in John (verses 23, 29-36).—​That all through him might believe. That is, through John might believe in the Light. The other construction, through the Light might believe, i. e., in God, is forced and unnatural, even if grammatically admissible. The true office of the Christian ministry is so to bear witness to the Light which the preacher knows by his own experience (Rom. 7:14; 8:28; 2 Tim. 1:12), that men may believe in and accept that Light (2 Cor. 4:5; Col. 1:28.)

8, 9. An early Gnostic sect (second century) believed that John was the Messiah. The primary reference here appears to be to this error, which, in common with other Gnostic errors (see Prel. Note), John aims to correct in this introduction to his Gospel. Compare, with the declaration here, Christ’s characterization of John, “He was a burning and a shining light” (ch. 5:35). The Greek scholar will observe that the English word “light” represents different Greek words in the two passages. Here the word is one signifying original light (φῶς), there rather a borrowed or reflected light (λύχνος), though the latter word is once applied to Christ (Rev. 21:23). We are to be in a true sense the former kind of light (φῶς, Matt. 5:14), because Christ in us is our light, and by his indwelling we are made partakers of his nature (2 Pet. 1:4), and men seeing this light glorify, not us, but Him who shines in and through us.—The true Light was that which lighteth every man that cometh into the world. There is some difficulty about the construction of this sentence; this appears to me to be the best. For other constructions, see Alford and Meyer. On the meaning of the declaration observe, (1) That John’s use of the word true here is interpreted by his use of the same word in other and analogous passages, e. g., “true worshippers” (John 4:23); “true bread” (ch. 6:32); “true vine” (ch. 15:1). The light, the bread, the vine of earth are regarded only as symbols of the spiritual truths which they parabolically represent. Christ is the original pattern, or source of light; all prophets and teachers are only reflections from him; all material light is a symbol or parable of his illuminating grace. (2) The phrase, “lighteth every man that cometh into the world,” is not to be taken as an hyperbole. The latter clause is added, not merely, as Meyer, “as a solemn redundance,” “an epic fullness of words,” but to emphasize and make clear the declaration, and to show that “every man” means not merely (a) the Jews, nor (b) those who accept Christ as their light, nor (c) the Christian nations, but literally all men. The every (πᾶς) here is thus distinguished from the all (πᾶς) of verse 7 above. Christ is the universal light; all intellectual and political as well as moral illumination has come through him; and this, not only in Christendom, but also in heathendom. Such light as struggles through the thick darkness, in a partial disclosure of divine truth afforded by a Buddha or a Confucius, or dimly recognized by a Cornelius, comes from Him who, in larger or smaller measure, lighteth every man that cometh into the world. By this declaration we are to interpret such passages as Matt. 8:11; Acts 10:35; Rev. 5:9; whoever accepts even this imperfect and dim light, mistakenly called the light of Nature, in so far accepts Christ.

10, 11. Notice the rhetorical climax in these verses; he was in the world; he came unto his own; the world knew him not; his own received him not. The world is here humanity in general, Jew and Gentile, both of whom united in Christ’s crucifixion; the Jew, represented in the high-priest who deliberately rejected him (John 11:47-50), the Gentile, represented in Pilate and the soldiers, who simply did not know him. His own are the Jewish people, Jehovah’s peculiar possession (Exod. 19:5; Deut. 7:6; Psalm 135:4; Isaiah 31:9), to whom he first came and by whom he was rejected before he was preached to the Gentiles (Acts 13:46; Rom. 1:16). It was only the world of men that knew him not; nature knew and obeyed him whenever he commanded her obedience, as in the turning of water into wine, the stilling of the tempest, etc. The verbs in this sentence are in the imperfect [Pg 18] tense, and the reference is to the incarnation of Christ and his earthly life. Observe that the Jewish nation which rejected the Messiah is rejected by God (Matt. 8:12), and that the disciples of Christ are not to know the world which knew not their Lord and Master (1 John 2:15-17).

12. But as many as received him. Not merely, as Alford, “recognized him as that which he was—the Word of God and Light of men,” but received him as the Word to be implicitly obeyed (ch. 14:21; 15:10, 15), and the Light in which to walk (1 John 1:6).—​To them gave he power (ἐξουσίαν). Not capability, nor privilege, nor claim, but power and right; the original word combines the two ideas. He confers the power to become the sons of God, and confers the right to claim that privilege. Ryle is certainly correct in saying that this verse “does not mean that Christ confers on those who receive him a spiritual and moral strength, by which they convert themselves, change their own hearts, and make themselves God’s children.” He is as certainly wrong in saying, with Calvin and the marginal reading, that the original Greek word means “right or privilege.” The reader will best get its meaning by comparing John’s use of it in other passages, in no one of which could it be rendered either “right” or “privilege.” See ch. 5:27; 10:18; 17:2; 19:10, 11. Comp. Matt. 28:18, note. The plain implication here is that the power to become a son of God is not natural and inherent, but acquired, and is the especial gift of God. See Phil. 2:12, 13; Titus 3:4, 5.—​To become the sons of God. Sons and therefore (1) partakers of the divine nature (Ephes. 4:13; Heb. 12:10; 2 Pet. 1:4); (2) entitled to and walking in freedom as children, not in bondage as servants (ch. 15:15; Gal. 4:1-7); (3) heirs of God and joint-heirs with Christ, his only-begotten Son (Rom. 8:16, 17). But the full conception of the meaning of this sonship we cannot know, till in the other world we see the Father as he is (1 John 3:1, 2).—​Even to them that have faith in his name. His name is Jesus, i. e., Saviour, given to him because he saves his people from their sins (Matt. 1:21). To have faith in that name is to have faith in him as a personal Saviour from sin. Observe, then, that this verse comprises the whole Gospel in a sentence. It declares (1) the object of the Gospel: that we who are by nature the children of disobedience and of wrath (Ephes. 2:2, 3) may become the sons of God; (2) the source to which we are to look for this prerogative of sonship: power conferred by God; (3) the means by which we are to attain it: personal faith in a personal Saviour from sin. Observe too that John follows his description of the rejection of Christ, not by threatening punishment to them, but by depicting the infinite gain of those that accept Christ.

13. Not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. That is, not by inheritance (Luke 3:8); nor by resolution (Rom. 8:5-8); nor by human teaching (1 Cor. 3:6, 7); but by the direct personal influence and contact of the Spirit of God on the heart (Titus 3:5, 6). Thus, John emphasizes the declaration of the preceding verse, that God gives the power to become the sons of God, by declaring that Christian character is not the product of either good parentage, a strong will, or a good education, but directly of a divine recreative act. (Gal. 6:15.) The Greek student will observe that the preposition used is of (ἐκ), not through (διά); the writer is speaking of the origin or source of Christian character, not of the instruments by which it is developed. Good parentage, will power, and education, are all means for the development of divine sonship; the original cause, without which a true son of God is never produced, is the creative act of God himself.

14. And the Word. The self-manifesting God, as described in the first verse.—​Became flesh. Not a man (ἄνθρωπος) nor a body (σῶμα), but flesh (σάρξ). The word is one whose signification would probably be best rendered to the English reader by the phrase human nature. Though occasionally used in the N. T. of the literal and material flesh (Acts 2:31), it almost always indicates man in his corporeal or earthly nature, sometimes signifying the predominance of that over the higher or spiritual nature, sometimes simply signifying this aspect of his nature, without any indication of its corrupt tendencies. Here, then, the declaration is that the Word became human nature; how is not indicated. The language gives no sanction to either of the two principal theories of the incarnation; the first, that Christ took on human nature as something superadded to the divine, so carrying through life a double nature, both divine and human; the second, that he simply entered a human body and became subject to the limitations which it imposed on him. How the divine became human [Pg 19] we must learn elsewhere in the N. T., if the N. T. reveals it at all; but the declaration here is explicit that the divine Word became human.—​And tabernacled among us. Pitched his tent with us. As God in the wilderness dwelt for a time in the transitory tabernacle, so the Word dwelt in the flesh, which is elsewhere in the N. T. compared to a tabernacle (2 Cor. 5:1, 4; 2 Pet. 1:13, 14). As God dwelt subsequently in the permanent Temple at Jerusalem, so the Word makes its permanent abode in the soul of the believer, which is the Temple, not the Tabernacle of God (ch. 15:6, 7; 2 Cor. 6:16; Rev. 21:3). That the reference here is to the incarnation, not to the spiritual presence of Christ with the believer, is evident from the fact that the verb (ἐσκίνωσεν) is in the historical tense. John says he tabernacled, not he tabernacles, among us.—​And we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten from the Father. We are made sons of God; but Christ alone is the only begotten Son. For the meaning of this phrase, see Luke 7:12; 8:42; 9:38. John uses it only of Jesus Christ. The Greek student should observe the use of the preposition from (παρά). It designates the source from which anything is derived, and here indicates that in a peculiar sense Christ is from the Father, directly and immediately; we are from him only through Christ. Comp. ch. 7:29. In a peculiar sense the Apostles beheld Christ’s glory (ch. 2:11; Matt. 17:1-4; 2 Pet. 1:16; 1 John 1:1). But in Christ’s life and character, and in their influence on the world, we are all beholders of the true divine glory, manifested in him (Heb. 1:3); and his earthly life is the brightness and glory of heaven (Rev. 21:23; 5:9, 10). The language, as of the only begotten, distinguishes the glory of Christ from that of all previous revealers of the divine will and nature. Since many of the prophets too were glorified, as Moses, Elijah, and Elisha, the one encircled by the fiery chariot, the other taken up by it; and after them Daniel and the three children, and the many others who showed forth wonders; and angels who have appeared among men, and partly disclosed to beholders the flashing light of their proper nature; and since not angels only, but even the cherubim were seen by the prophet in great glory and the seraphim also; the Evangelist, leading us away from all these, and removing our thoughts from created things, and from the brightness of our fellow-servants, sets us at the very summit of good. For, “not of prophets,” says he, “nor angel, nor archangel, nor of the higher powers, nor of any other created nature, if other there be, but of the Master himself, the King himself, the true only begotten Son himself, of the very Lord of all, did we behold the glory.”—(Chrysostom.)—​Full of grace and truth. There is some doubt whether this is said of the glory beheld, or of the only begotten Son whose glory was beheld. The question is not very important; the latter construction is grammatically preferable. Thus rendered, the clause “And we beheld, etc.,” is parenthetical, John’s statement being: “The Word tabernacled among us, full of grace and truth.” Observe (1) that the grace here answers to the Life in verse 4, and the truth to the Light in verse 9. Because of his grace Christ is Life to all who accept him; because of his truth he is Light to all who follow him; (2) that the declaration here is explained by, and is possibly partially derived from Exodus 33:18, 19, where Moses asks to see God’s glory, and is promised a disclosure of the divine goodness; in the goodness of God in Christ Jesus we behold the divine glory; (3) that the Christian is to be, like his Master, full of grace and truth, and that to be at once perfectly truthful and also gracious is one of the most difficult practical problems of the Christian life (Rom. 12:9). It seems to me clear that John has in mind throughout this verse the manifestation of the glory of God, through the Shechinah, in the Tabernacle, and subsequently in the Temple (Exod. 40:34, 35; 1 Kings 8:10; see Matt. 17:5, note). As the Shechinah made luminous and glorious these earthly dwelling-places, so the Word, by his indwelling, made glorious the flesh.

15. John is testifying concerning him. John the Baptist was long since dead when these words were written; but his testimony was not dead; it was an ever-living testimony. The verb is therefore put in the present tense, not, as in our English version, in the past.—​And he cried, saying, It is the echo of this cry which still resounds and witnesses to Jesus Christ. The language used implies a public testimony, and one borne with confidence and joy. On seeing the Christ of whom he had prophesied, John the Baptist cries out, “This is he of whom I spoke.” For illustration of John’s prophetic utterances concerning the Messiah, previous to the baptism of Jesus, see Matt. 3:11, 12; Mark 1:7, 8.—​He that cometh after me. Christ did not begin his public ministry till the imprisonment of John the Baptist (Mark 1:14). Thus as a public teacher he came after John the Baptist.—​Came forth before me. Not, was before me (γίγνομαι has not the force of εἰμί), for then the sentence would be tautological—that Jesus was before John is in the [Pg 20] next clause given as the reason for the statement in this, that he came forth before him; nor can the meaning be was preferred before me, in the sense of esteemed above me, for the mere fact of Christ’s pre-existence would be no reason for esteeming him more highly than John—the devil existed before John the Baptist; nor, was preferred before me, in the sense of, was exalted in rank above me, though some excellent scholars, e. g., Alford, Olshausen, De Wette, so interpret it; but, as I have rendered it above, came forth, or, was set before me. The reference is to the previous manifestations of the Word, in the partial revelations of God in the O. T. All the disclosures of the divine nature in the O. T. were made through the Word or utterance of God, through whom alone he speaks to the human race. See ver. 4, note, and ch. 8:56-58. John then says “He who is coming after me is the One who has already come forth before me; for he existed before me.” Christ’s pre-existence would not explain the preference, either in the divine love or in rank, but it does in part explain precedence in appearance or manifestation. So Hengstenberg, “My successor is my predecessor.”

16. And of his fullness have we all received. The fullness is that of the divine nature, of which we are made partakers through faith in Christ (Col. 1:19; 2:9, 10; Ephes. 3:19). The all are those who receive him and thus become the sons of God (verse 12). This and the two following verses are the addition of the Evangelist, not the continuance of John the Baptist’s discourse; this is evident both from their style, which better accords with that of the Evangelist, and because the fullness of Christ’s nature was not received by John the Baptist and his disciples, for it was not disclosed till after the Baptist’s death. Observe, (1) How inexhaustible the fountain. From Christ’s fullness all spiritual life is supplied. Chrysostom compares Christ to a fire from which ten thousand lamps are kindled, but which burns as brightly thereafter as before. “The sea is diminished if you take a drop from it, though the diminution be imperceptible; but how much soever a man draw from the divine Fountain, it continues undiminished.” (2) How free the supply; we have all received. “None went empty away.”—(Meyer.) (3) The nature of Christian experience. It is not a mere trust in a crucified Saviour for pardon for the past; it is also a personal and continuous receiving of divine life from the fullness of a living Saviour.—​And grace for grace. Of this expression there are two interpretations. The ancient expositors understood it to mean, For the lesser grace of the O. T. we have received the greater grace of the N. T. So Chrysostom: “There was a righteousness and there is a righteousness (Rom. 1:17); there was a glory and there is a glory (2 Cor. 3:11); there was a law and there is a law (Rom. 8:2); there was a service and there is a service (Rom. 9:4; 12:11); there was a covenant and there is a covenant (Jer. 31:31, 32); there was a sanctification and there is a sanctification; there was a baptism and there is a baptism; there was a sacrifice and there is a sacrifice; there was a temple and there is a temple; there was a circumcision and there is a circumcision; and so too there was a grace and there is a grace.” The modern commentators, Alford, Meyer, Lange, etc., understand it to mean, “For each new accessory of grace we receive a still larger gift. Each grace, though, when given large enough, is, as it were, overwhelmed by the accumulation and fullness of that which follows.”—(Bengel.) “Grace for grace, grace in the place of that which preceded—therefore grace uninterrupted, unceasingly renewed.”—(Winer.) The spiritual signification of the passage is substantially the same on either interpretation. We have nothing to give in exchange for the divine grace; our only virtue is to receive. It is given to us in exchange for the grace already imparted. “Unto every one that hath shall be given;” but what he already hath is God’s gift, which bestows both the good and the purchase money, each new gift superseding the old, as the N. T. gift of grace and truth through Jesus Christ superseded the lesser gift of law through Moses. With this accords the teaching of both O. T. and N. T. See, for example, Deut. 7:7; Ps. 6:4; 23:3; 25:7; 31:16; 79:9; 115:1; Isaiah 55:1; Ephes. 2:4; 1 John 4:8, 10.

17. For the law was given by Moses. Through (διὰ) Moses as the instrument or mediator of the old covenant.—​Grace and truth came by Jesus Christ. Through (διὰ) Jesus Christ as the mediator of the new covenant. The grace is the favor of God (see below), the truth is the clear revelation of the divine character and will, seen only dimly under the old covenant. (2 Cor. 3:13, 14.) Observe the contrast between Christ and Moses (comp. Heb. 3:5, 6); and between the gifts brought by the two. The law was given, a completed thing, once for all; grace and truth came and continually come, grace for grace, out of the inexhaustible fullness of the giver.

On the meaning of the word “grace.” The word here translated grace (χάρις) is also variously translated in the N. T. acceptable, benefit, favor, [Pg 21] gift, joy, liberality, pleasure, thanks, and thankworthy. This fact will of itself sufficiently indicate that the word possesses various shades of meaning. They are all, however, etymologically derived from the same root idea. The noun is derived from a verb meaning to rejoice, and primarily signifies that which gives joy to another. With the Greeks, beauty was one of the chief joys; hence the first meaning of the word—grace of external form, manner, or language, a meaning which it but rarely bears in the N. T. (see Luke 4:22; Col. 4:6). Thence it derived a deeper meaning, viz., beauty in character, and this, according to the N. T. teaching, is good-will, the disposition to do a kindness to another, to make another rejoice; hence the word is used to signify that quality in God which leads him to confer freely happiness on men, either on special individuals (Luke 2:40; 1 Cor. 3:10), or on the whole human race (Rom. 3:24; Ephes. 1:6; Tit. 2:11). Thence it was employed to designate the kindness actually flowing from and conferred by this disposition, hence an alms, and in the N. T. the spiritual gifts conferred by the divine love on the soul (1 Cor. 16:3; 2 Cor. 8:4; 1 Cor. 15:10; 2 Cor. 6:1; 2 Pet. 3:18); in which sense it is employed in the apostolic benediction (1 Cor. 1:3; 2 Cor. 1:2; Gal. 1:3, etc.). Finally it was used to designate the feeling awakened by favors shown, the reflection in the human heart of the divine grace imparted, and hence gratitude and even its expression in thanks (Luke 6:32-34; 17:9; 1 Tim. 1:12; 2 Tim. 1:3). Underlying its meaning in all these uses is the radical idea that the gift is conferred freely and finds its only motive in the bounty and love of the giver, an idea which finds expression in the Latin word gratis (for nothing), now thoroughly Anglicized, a word which comes from the same root as grace (gratia). By the doctrine of grace, then, as it is variously expounded in the N. T., is meant that our own spiritual life is the free gift of God, bestowed on us without merit or desert on our part, purely from the love and good-will of God. Our graces are God’s free gifts. John here marks the contrast between the law which requires obedience of man, and grace and truth which confers spiritual power on man. The one says, Do this and live; the other says, Live, so that you can do this (Rom. 8:3). Nowhere in the N. T. is the doctrine of grace more clearly set forth than in these 16th and 17th verses, which may be paraphrased thus: From the divine fullness in Jesus Christ we have all received; the only condition which God attaches to the free impartation of his spiritual gifts is that we should have received willingly those already proffered to us; by Moses it was revealed to us what God would have us do and be; by Christ it is clearly disclosed to us what God is, and there is freely imparted to us power to become, like him, sons of God.

18. No one hath seen God at any time. Not merely no man; no one—man, angel, archangel. The phrase here, seen God, is equivalent to the phrase knowing God perfectly, in Matt. 11:27 (see note there). We know him but in part, shall see him only when we awake in his likeness (Ps. 17:15); Christ sees him because he is one with him.—​The only begotten Son. Some manuscripts have here, The only begotten God, and this reading is adopted by Tregelles, but rejected by Alford, Meyer, and Tischendorf. For examination of the authorities on both sides, see Alford (sixth edition) and Lange, critical note by Dr. Schaff. The external authorities are not conclusive; internal authority strongly favors the ordinary reading. The only begotten God is a phrase occurring nowhere else in the N. T., and is unnatural if not unmeaning. The change of a single letter in the early copies would account for the corruption of the text (Ψ to Θ).—​Which is in the bosom of the Father. A metaphorical expression, indicating the closeness of intimacy, and drawn more probably from the relation of a child with its parents, than from the not infrequent reclining of one on the bosom of his friend, at meal-time (John 13:25).—​He hath declared him. Comp. ch. 6:46; 14:6, 9, 10; 1 Tim. 3:16; Heb. 1:3. These and other kindred passages indicate clearly how Christ declares the Father, viz., not merely by what he teaches concerning the divine nature, but yet more by his personal manifestation of the divine nature in his own life and character. This verse thus interprets the word truth in the preceding verse, as the word grace has already been interpreted by verses 11 and 12. Christ is the truth of God, because he reveals the divine nature; he is the grace of God because he imparts the divine nature to such as trust in him.

Note on the Incarnation. A correct apprehension of the character and place in history of Jesus Christ is essential to a correct apprehension of Christianity. Our conception of the system will depend upon our conception of the Founder. The other Evangelists give simply the story of his life, leaving the readers to draw their own deductions respecting him. John, writing at a later date, and in a more philosophical atmosphere, [Pg 22] begins his Gospel with a characterization of the One the story of whose earthly life he is about to narrate. It is evident on even a cursory examination of this preface that John believed and intended to teach, (1) That Christ existed prior to his earthly birth. He was the Light that lighteth every man that cometh into the world; was before John the Baptist, whom in his earthly history and mission he succeeded; and he was in the beginning with God (vers. 1, 4, 15). (2) That he possessed a superhuman character. He is carefully distinguished from and placed above John the Baptist, the last of the prophets and more than a prophet (Matt. 11:9), and from Moses the lawgiver and politically the founder of the Jewish nation; and he is emphatically declared not only to have been with God in the beginning, but to have partaken of the divine nature (vers. 1, 6-8, 17). (3) This superhuman character is further illustrated by what is declared of his office or work. He is the Creator, the Light and Life of men, the regenerating power through whom men are brought into divine sonship, the daily support of the spiritual life of the children of God, the disclosure of the divine nature to men (vers. 3, 4, 12, 13, 16, 18). (4) This truth is incidentally, but all the more effectively, enforced by John’s peculiar language in describing Christ’s earthly state: he “tabernacled among us and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten from the Father” (ver. 14). (5) Finally, it is illustrated in the various titles conferred upon him throughout this chapter, which are ten in number: the Word; the Light; the Life; the only begotten of the Father; Jesus Christ, i. e., the Saviour, the Messiah; the only begotten Son; the Lamb of God; the Son of God; Master; the Son of Man. It is not the province of the commentator to construct a systematic theology. But it is certain that these elements must enter into any conception of Jesus Christ which is founded on and accords with the N. T. There is probably no other single passage of equal length in the N. T. which contains so much respecting the character and office of Jesus Christ as this preface to John’s Gospel; with it, however, should be examined Paul’s Christology (e. g., Phil. 2:5-11), and that of the unknown author of the Epistle to the Hebrews (Heb., chaps. 1, 2).

Ch. 1:19-51. INTRODUCTION OF CHRIST TO THE WORLD. By John the Baptist (vers. 19-37); by Himself (vers. 38-51). Christ the sin-bearer of the world.—​The power of Christ; the abiding of God’s Spirit on him.—​Christ our pattern in fishing for men.—​The value of personal and private work.—​The power of prejudice in good men.—​The best answer to skepticism, “Come and see.”—​Christ reveals himself when he reveals us to ourselves.—​Christ’s first coming a prophecy and foretaste of his second coming.

The historical portion of the Fourth Gospel begins here. The interview between the deputation from the Sanhedrim and John the Baptist here described probably took place after the baptism of Jesus, and during the temptation, of which latter event this Gospel makes no mention. With the account of the Baptist’s ministry given here the reader should compare Matt., chap. 3, and Luke, chap. 3.

19, 20. And this is the witness of John. The writer goes back and gives a detailed history of John’s first explicit testimony to the Messiah, connecting it with his previous reference to that testimony in verse 15.—​When the Jews sent priests and Levites. In John’s Gospel, the term Jews generally signifies, not the residents of Palestine, but those of Judea, and sometimes the official heads of the people. This appears to be the meaning here. It is clear from verse 22 that this was an official deputation, probably sent by the Sanhedrim. The Baptist’s preaching had produced a profound sensation throughout that part of Palestine; great crowds flocked to his ministry; he was universally regarded as a prophet, and by some as perhaps the Messiah; some of the Pharisees themselves came to his baptism, though his severe denunciation of their formalism, and their own opposition to such a personal reform as his preaching demanded, made them, as a class, bitterly opposed to him (Matt. 3:5, 7; 21:25, 26; Luke 3:15). It was therefore natural and fit that the Sanhedrim should send to inquire officially respecting his ministry. There is nothing to indicate whether this inquiry was conducted in a hostile spirit or otherwise.—​Who art thou? Observe, throughout this interview, the difference in the spirit of the inquirers and of John. They persist in demanding to know who he is; he replies only by pointing out what he does. “They ever ask about his person; he ever refers them to his office. He is no one—a voice merely; it is the work of God, the testimony to Christ, which is everything. So the formalist ever in the church asks, Who is he? while the witness for Christ only exalts, only cares for Christ’s work.”—(Alford.)—And he publicly acknowledged, and denied not. We know from Luke 3:15 that some thought he might be the Messiah; and later, a Gnostic sect maintained that he was the Messiah. This testimony, amplifying the brief reference to it in verses 7, 8, is probably inserted in part to refute this error.

21. Art thou Elijah? And he saith, I am not. Mal. 4:5 declares that Elijah should precede the Messiah. John the Baptist’s character, and even his appearance (comp. Matt. 3:4 with 2 Kings 1:8), resembled that of Elijah. Christ distinctly declares that John the Baptist is the Elijah foretold by the prophet and expected by the people (Matt. 17:12, 13; comp. Luke 1:17). Here John says he is not. The true explanation is, not that [Pg 23] the people were expecting a literal resurrection of Elijah from the dead, and John denied that he fulfilled that expectation, but that, like many another great but humble messenger of God, he did not comprehend his own character and mission and relation to ancient prophecy. He was more than he knew.—​Art thou that prophet? From Deut., 8:15 the Jews expected a prophet to precede the Messiah (John 6:14; 7:40). Not till later was this prophecy correctly interpreted by the Apostles as referring to Christ himself (Acts 3:22; 7:37).

22, 23. See Matt. 3:3 and Mark 1:3, and notes. It is evident that the characterization of John the Baptist there and the application to him of the prophecy of Isaiah 40:3 was derived from John himself.

24-27. And they which were sent were of the Pharisees. The Pharisees were scrupulous ceremonialists, and ablutions were an important part of their ceremonial. See Matt. 15:1-7; Mark 7:2-5, notes. To them John’s employment of baptism appeared irregular and unauthorized if he were not invested with some special divine authority.—​John answered them. This answer is only indirectly responsive to their interrogatory. He passes at once from his own authority, which he disdains to defend, to testify to the Messiah, whose forerunner he is. The synoptical Evangelists (Matt. 3:11, 12, note; Mark 1:7, 8; Luke 3:16, 17) report more fully John’s characterization of his own baptism and its contrast with that which the Messiah would inaugurate; one in water, the other in fire and the Holy Ghost; one a symbol, the other the thing symbolized; one a prophecy, the other its fulfillment.—​There standeth one among you whom ye know not. That is, do not recognize as what he really is, the Messiah. It is not necessarily implied that Jesus Christ was present at this interview, and verse 29 implies that he was not. The language simply points to one apparently of the common people and unknown.—​Who cometh after me, whose shoe-latchet I am unworthy to unloose. This is the true reading; the words is preferred before me have been added by some copyist from verse 15. On the significance of the expression, see notes on Matt. 3:11 and Luke 3:16. The latchet of the shoe is the leather thong with which the sandal was bound on to the foot or the shoe was laced. For illustration, see Mark 6:7-13, Vol. 1, p. 362.

28. Bethabara. The best reading here is Bethany; the common reading, Bethabara, is derived from Origen, who found such a place about opposite Jericho. The Bethany intended is certainly not the well-known town of that name on the eastern slope of the Mount of Olives, for this one was beyond Jordan. The site is unknown; it has been fixed by Origen as far south as Jericho; by Stanley, 30 miles north of Jericho, near Succoth; by Lightfoot, north of the Sea of Galilee. We can only say that it was probably at one of the fords of the Jordan, in the great eastern line of travel, and certainly at some point between the sea of Galilee and the neighborhood of Jericho. There are two traditional sites, one Greek, the other Latin, and both historically worthless.

29. The next day. Not merely, some following day, for the original Greek word (ἐπαύριον) never has this meaning in the N. T. It has been so rendered by some commentators here, in order to introduce the Temptation between the testimony of the Baptist to the delegation from Jerusalem and his testimony here uttered to his own disciples.—​He seeth Jesus. The word John has been inserted by some copyists to make the meaning clearer.—​Coming toward him. Not, as in our English version, unto him. The preposition employed (πρός) signifies simply direction. Why he was coming toward him is not a matter for profitable conjecture. Not, as some suppose, for baptism, for the temptation followed the baptism, and the order of events in John’s narrative follow each other so closely up to and after the marriage at Cana (vers. 35, 43; ch. 2:1), that no time is afforded for the temptation, which was forty days in duration, and which must have occurred prior to the interview between the Baptist and the Jewish delegation.—​And said. Publicly, probably to his own disciples, perhaps to the multitude. This first preaching of Christ produced no observable effect. It was not till [Pg 24] John repeated it on the following day (ver. 37) that any of his auditors followed Jesus.—​Behold the Lamb of God. Not a lamb of God. The meaning cannot therefore be, Behold a pure and innocent man; an interpretation which would probably never have been conceived, but for the purpose of escaping the doctrine of atonement for sin, which can be escaped only by rejecting both the Old and the New Testaments in their entirety.—​Which taketh away. This exactly represents the significance of the original verb (αἴρω), which means, not bears, or suffers, or releases from the penalty of, but takes away. For its non-metaphorical use, see Matt. 13:12, shall be taken away; 21:21, be removed; Luke 6:30, that taketh away thy goods; John 11:39, take away the stone; 11:48, the Romans shall take away both our place, etc. It thus corresponds almost exactly with the word (ἁφίηγι) ordinarily translated forgive. See Matt. 6:12, note. Observe that the verb is in the present tense, is taking away. The sacrifice has been offered once for all; but its effect is a continuous one. Christ is ever engaged in lifting up and taking away the sin of the world.—​The sin of the world. Not sins from the world, which would be a very different matter. The sin is represented as one burden, which Christ as a whole lifts up and carries away. His redemption is not a limited redemption; it provides a finished salvation for the entire human race. See ch. 16:22, note.

Very unnecessary difficulty has been made respecting the interpretation of the Baptist’s simple metaphor here. The lamb was throughout the O. T. times commonly used for sacrifice as a sin-offering (Lev. 4:32); in cleansing the leper (Lev. 14:10); at the morning and evening sacrifice (Exod. 29:38); at all the great feasts (Numb. 28:11; 29:2, 13, 37; Lev. 23:19); and in large numbers on special occasions (1 Chron. 29:21; 2 Chron. 29:32; 35:7). The sacrifice of the paschal lamb at the Passover connected the lamb as a sacrifice with the greatest feast day of the nation, and with the national redemption from bondage and deliverance from death (Exod. 12:21-27). The ceremony with the scape-goat on the day of atonement, the only fast-day in the Jewish calendar, interpreted clearly, and by an annual symbol, the meaning of these sacrifices. On that day two kids of goats were chosen, closely resembling each other; one was slain as a sin-offering; over the other the high-priest confessed the sins of the people, “putting them on the head of the goat,” who was then led away into the wilderness, “to bear upon him all their iniquities unto a land not inhabited” (Lev. 16:5-10, 20-22). Isaiah, with unmistakable reference to these typical sacrifices, declared that the Messiah should bear the sins and sorrows of the world as a lamb slaughtered (Isaiah 53:1-7); and the Baptist, speaking to a people whose national education had led them to regard the lamb as the type of sacrifice, through the shedding of whose blood there was a redemption, a carrying away of sins, points to Jesus with the declaration, Behold the Lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the world, that is, the true Sin-bearer, of whom all that went before were but types and prophecies. How he was to take away this load of sin the Baptist does not say, and probably did not know. That he did not realize that Christ was to be a true sacrifice for sin is indicated by his subsequent perplexity and message to Jesus (Matt. 11:2-6, note). Observe the analogy and the contrast between the O. T. and the N. T. Under the O. T. there were provided by the sinner lambs, whose sacrifice took sin away from the individual or the nation, but for the time only, and therefore the sacrifice needed to be continually repeated; under the N. T. one Lamb is provided, the Lamb of God, i. e., proceeding from and provided by God, as intimated by Abraham to Isaac (Gen. 22:8), whose sacrifice once for all (Heb. 10:10-12) takes away the sin of the whole world (1 John 2:2), and therefore never needs to be repeated. It is worthy of note that the word lamb is never used in the N. T. except in reference to Jesus Christ (John 1:29, 36; Acts 8:32; 1 Peter 1:19; Rev. 5:6, 8, 12, etc.). The word lambs in the plural form occurs twice, but both times refer to the disciples of Christ (Luke 10:3; John 21:15).

30, 31. After me cometh, etc. See on verse 15.—​But that he should be made manifest to Israel therefore am I come, etc. The object of the Baptist’s ministry was not then merely to preach repentance, but to preach repentance as a preparation for the coming of the kingdom of God in the incarnation of the King. And with this agrees his own definition of his mission (verse 23) and the other Evangelists’ epitome of his ministry (Matt. 3:2). The true office of the minister is always that Christ may be made manifest.

32-34. And John witnessed. Evidently the Evangelist here speaks of his witness at some period subsequent to the baptism, and therefore subsequent to the temptation which immediately succeeded the baptism.—​I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove. That is, in the form of a dove. The vision was seen only by Jesus and John. On it [Pg 25] see Matt. 3:16, note.—​And it abode upon him. The Spirit of God, not the dove, abode. That John in some way recognized the abiding as a part of the sign of Christ’s Messiahship, is evident from the next verse; how he recognized it is not indicated.—​I also knew him not. He connects himself with the people who knew him not (verse 26). I, as well as you, knew him not, till this sign was vouchsafed me. Why then did he at first object to baptizing Jesus, if he did not recognize in him the Christ (Matt. 3:14). He was second cousin of Jesus; knew him, probably, as a pure and holy man; perhaps knew the facts respecting Jesus’ birth, which were certainly known to John’s mother; may even have suspected that he was the promised Messiah; and at all events may have believed that he needed no baptism of repentance. He did not, however, know him to be the Messiah, and did not recognize him as such, till after the promised sign, and this followed the baptism of Jesus.—​Saw and bare witness. That is, at that time. He refers the people to his witness-bearing at the time of the baptism, a testimony which was still fresh in their memory.

35-37. Again the next day. That is, the day following the apparent public discourse, so briefly reported in the preceding verses (29-34).—​And two of his disciples. See on their names verse 40 and note. As they were disciples of the Baptist it is to be presumed that they had been baptized, but by John’s baptism which was unto repentance and not in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. See Acts 19:3-5.—​As he walked. Or, as we should say, As he was taking a walk. One of the numerous indications in the Gospels that Christ was a lover of nature, and accustomed to meditate and study in communion with nature.—​Saith, Behold the Lamb of God. See on verse 29. Observe the practical value of line upon line. John’s private message recalls and repeats his public testimony. See Phil. 3:1.—​And the two disciples heard him speak. He spoke possibly in soliloquy, more probably to them. It is clear that it was not a public discourse which is here reported. There is no ground for the hypothesis that the two disciples had not heard the discourse of the previous day. Rather the implication is that they had heard it, and these words uttered to them in private by their teacher, enforced the public lesson, and led them to seek further knowledge concerning the one who was pointed out to them as the Messiah. Observe how this passage teaches the value of personal work and personal influence. The first disciples are led to seek Christ, not by the public discourse, but by the private words of the Baptist; by private influence they bring Peter (41); by private invitation Philip is added to the disciples (43); and by his personal solicitation Nathanael is brought to Christ (45).—​And they followed Jesus. Not, in the religious sense of the words, became followers of Jesus; not till later did they leave all to follow him (Luke, ch. 5). The simplest is also the truest interpretation of these words. They literally followed him; drawn partly by curiosity, partly, perhaps, by a real spiritual desire for closer acquaintance with the one whom their teacher designated as the Lamb of God.

38, 39. Jesus * * * saith unto them, What seek ye? Not because he was ignorant of their purpose, for he knew what was in man (ch. 2:25; comp. Mark 2:8, etc.); but because he would draw them out. In a similar manner he opens conversation with the woman at the well (ch. 4:10, 16), with the disciples fishing at the sea of Galilee (ch. 21:5), and with the disciples on their way to Emmaus (Luke 24:17). Christ as a conversationalist is a study for the Christian. Observe how he opens the way and leads on to familiar acquaintance, first by his question, then by his invitation, finally by his hospitality.—​Rabbi * * * Master. Rather, teacher, or doctor. Rabbi is a Hebrew word; teacher (διδάσκαλος) is its Greek equivalent. John, writing for the Gentile world, habitually translates the Hebrew phrases into their Greek equivalents.—​Where dwellest thou? They are timid and dare not, or at least do not, express their whole desire. Often in the spiritual reticence, so common to the first experiences of the awakened soul, its real aspirations after truth are concealed beneath an assumed curiosity respecting some indifferent matter. Christ meets this non-pertinent if not impertinent curiosity with an invitation which attaches the two inquirers [Pg 26] to him for life.—​Come and see. Rather, Come and ye shall see. This is the best reading, and is given by Alford, Meyer, Tischendorf, Tregelles, etc. (ὄψεσθε not ἴδετε).—​And abode with him that day. For the rest of the day.—​For it was about the tenth hour. Reckoning from 6 A. M., according to Jewish fashion, this would make it 4 P. M. Observe, as indicative of the Evangelist John’s character, and of the force of the impression made on him from the outset by Christ, that he remembered not only the day, but the very hour, of his first interview with his subsequent Lord. This, too, is one of those minute touches which would not be found in either a mythical tradition or an ecclesiastical forgery.

40-42. One of the two * * * was Andrew. It is the almost universal belief of scholars that the other was John the Evangelist, an opinion which rests on the following considerations: (1) John never mentions himself in his Gospel; if he refers to himself at all it is never by name (ch. 13:23; 18:15; 19:26; 20:3; 21:20). (2) The name of the other disciple would have been mentioned if there had not been some special reason for not mentioning it, and John’s habit of suppressing his own name constitutes a sufficient reason; no other plausible reason has been suggested. (3) The minute accuracy of detail in this narrative, extending to the specification of the day and of the hour, justifies the belief that it is the narrative of an eye and ear witness. On the life and character of Andrew see note at close of Matt. ch. 10, Vol. 1.—​He first findeth his own brother. Our English version is ambiguous if not misleading. The meaning is not, Before going to Jesus’ residence he found his own brother, but of the two he was the first to find Simon. The implication is that both went in search of him; all three, John, Andrew, and Simon were probably at the baptism of John the Baptist, and were his disciples. There is no evidence to sustain the hypothesis that John brought his brother James to Jesus at this time, or even that James was with John at the Jordan.—​The Messiah * * * the Christ. One is a Hebrew, the other a Greek word. The meaning is the Anointed One. On the spiritual meaning of the names of Jesus, see note at close of Matt. ch. 1, Vol. I. Andrew’s exclamation of delight on finding the Messiah, eureka (εὐρήκαμεν, we have found), is the same attributed to Archimedes on his discovery of the adulteration of Hiero’s crown. He detected the mixture of silver in a crown which Hiero had ordered to be made of gold, and determined the proportions of the two metals by a method suggested to him by the overflow of the water when he stepped into a bath. When the thought struck him, he is said to have been so pleased that, forgetting to put on his clothes, he ran home shouting Eureka, Eureka, I have found it, I have found it. What is the grandest discovery compared with that which the soul makes when it finds its Messiah?—​Thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation Peter. Cephas is Hebrew; Peter is Greek; both words mean a stone. On the significance of this change of name, see Matt. 16:18, note. At the interview there reported Christ refers to the name here given, and confirms and interprets it; at least this is the view of the best Evangelical scholars, Meyer, Alford, Lange, Schaff; and it is more reasonable, on the whole, than the supposition that the Evangelist John anticipates and reports the change of name out of its place. The careful student will observe that here Christ’s language is that of prophecy: Thou shalt be called Peter; there it is the language of fulfillment. Thou art Peter. The apostle did not become Peter till he made the inspired confession of Christ as the divine Messiah, which is recorded in Matthew.

43-45. The day following. That is, the day following the bringing of Peter to Jesus, which Meyer thinks occurred on the same day in which Andrew and John accompanied Jesus to his home, but which it appears to me, from verse 39, must have occurred on the following day; and this is the view of the ancient and of many of the modern expositors. In that case the order would be as follows: first day, John’s conference with the delegation from Jerusalem (19-28); second day, John’s public testimony to Jesus (29-34); third day, John’s private testimony to Jesus (35-39); fourth day, Peter brought to Jesus (40-42); fifth day, Nathanael brought to Jesus (43-51); seventh day, one day intervening, the marriage at Cana in Galilee (ch. 2:1, etc.).—​Findeth Philip and saith unto him, Follow me. [Pg 27] This is Christ’s first personal call of a disciple to follow him. There is no evidence that Philip ever withdrew from this personal following of Christ as did John and Peter and Andrew; they did not permanently attach themselves to Jesus till his subsequent call to them by the sea of Galilee (Luke 5:1-11). On Philip’s life, see note at close of Matt. 10, Vol. I. He is not to be confounded with Philip the deacon, mentioned in Acts 6:5; 8:5-12, etc.—​Bethsaida. There is no good ground for the hypothesis that there were two towns of this name on or near the sea of Galilee. The city was on the northern shore, near the entrance of the Jordan into the sea. See Mark 6:45, note; and for illustration of site, John ch. 6.—​Philip findeth Nathanael. Observe that the young disciple does not wait, but as soon as he has found Christ begins to declare his discovery to others. So with Andrew above (41), with the woman of Samaria (ch. 4:28, 29), with Paul after his conversion (Acts 9:20). Nathanael’s name occurs in the N. T. only here and in John 21:2. It is not among the list of apostles furnished by Matt. 10:2-5; Mark 3:16-19; Luke 6:14-16; and Acts 1:13. But they all mention, in close connection with Philip, a Bartholomew, which is not properly a name but only a patronymic, its meaning being Son of Tholmai. These facts have led most scholars to adopt, as a reasonable hypothesis, the opinion that Nathanael and Bartholomew are different names for the same person. The name Nathanael, like our Theodore, means gift of God.—​We have found him of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets, did write. The reference is unmistakably to the Messiah. For references in the books of Moses to the promised Messiah, see Gen. 3:15 and 17:7, with Gal. 3:16, and Deut. 18:15-19.—​Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph. This is the language, not of the Evangelist, but of Philip. Unquestionably at that time Philip knew nothing of the supposed birth of Jesus; to him Jesus was, as to the Nazarenes subsequently (Matt. 13:54-56), simply the son of Joseph. The supposed inconsistency of this language and the account of Christ’s supernatural birth as given by Matthew, is therefore purely imaginary.

46. Out of Nazareth is it possible that anything good can come! There is a scornful emphasis on the word Nazareth not preserved in our English version. That Nazareth was an unimportant and insignificant town is indicated by the fact that it is neither mentioned in the O. T. nor in Josephus; that the moral condition of its inhabitants was below that of the rest of Galilee is indicated by the declaration of Mark 6:5, 6, and by the mob which threatened the life of Christ at a time when he was just growing into popularity elsewhere in Galilee (Luke 4:28-30). No other definite reason is known for the evident odium which attached to Nazareth even in the minds of Galileans. Comp. Matt. 2:23, note. The question of Nathanael furnishes a striking illustration of the spirit of prejudice in even good men. To Nathanael it seems impossible that the promised Prophet can appear elsewhere than in or near the city of the Great King.—​Come and see. This is the best answer to make to unbelief. Christ is his own best witness (ch. 5:34). It is not merely true that “personal experience is the best test of the truth of Christianity, which, like the sun in heaven, can only be seen in its own light” (Schaff), but it is also true that Christ is a greater miracle than any he ever wrought; and that the supreme character of Christ carries in itself a moral conviction to hearts which resist all arguments drawn from nature. Of this truth John Stuart Mill, in his Three Essays on Religion, affords a striking illustration. After considering all the arguments for the existence and perfection of the Divine Being derived from nature, and declaring that Natural Religion points to a Being “of great but limited power,” “who desires and pays some regard to the happiness of his creatures, but who seems to have other motives of action which he cares more for,” he comes to the character of Christ, and not only pays a tribute to it, eloquent and reverent, but adds his conviction that it would not “even now be easy, even for an unbeliever, to find a better translation of the rule of virtue from the abstract into the concrete, than to endeavor so to live that Christ would approve our life.” Chrysostom notices the gentleness and candor of Philip’s reply; he furnishes a model to all disputants in dealing with religious prejudice. See 2 Tim. 2:24.

47-49. An Israelite indeed. Because in faith and love a true child of God. Comp. Luke [Pg 28] 19:9; Romans 2:28, 29; Gal. 3:29; 6:15, 16. For O. T. description of such an Israelite, see Psalm 15.—​In whom is no guile. Therefore, characteristically unlike the Pharisees, whose pride it was that they were children of Abraham (Luke 3:8; John 8:33), and who were full of hypocrisy (Matt. 6:2, 5, 16; 23:14-33).—​Whence knowest thou me? As Saul of Tarsus (Acts 9:5, 6, notes), so Nathanael is surprised by the Lord’s reading of his character and inward experience.—​When thou wast under the fig-tree. The whole course of the narrative indicates in this response a supernatural sight, as in the previous characterization of Nathanael a supernatural insight. If Christ had merely chanced to see Nathanael without being seen by him, this fact would afford, surely, no basis for Nathanael’s faith, or Christ’s commendation of it. It seems also clear that something more is implied than the mere fact that Christ saw Nathanael under a fig-tree, since that would neither explain Christ’s commendation of him as an Israelite without guile, nor Nathanael’s astonishment. Hence the surmise of the commentators that he had retired there for purposes of prayer, and that Christ had seen him there, like the Israel from whom he descended (Gen. 32:24-23) wrestling with God, for the bestowal of the long-promised blessing to his realm, in the gift of the Messiah. It was probably this revelation of the secret of his soul which caused Christ to characterize him as a true Israelite, and Nathanael to recognize in the One who read his inmost life so perfectly, the King of Israel.—​The Son of God * * * the King of Israel. The Messiah. See Ps. 2:7; Matt. 16:16; Luke 22:70; John 1:34; 11:27. Observe that Christ recognizes and accepts this characterization of himself at the outset of his ministry, a quite sufficient refutation of the theory of Renan, that it was the outgrowth of his followers’ later admiration, and tacitly accepted by Christ at or near the close of his earthly life. That Nathanael fully comprehended the meaning of his own confession is not, however, probable.

50, 51. There is some difficulty respecting the proper interpretation of Christ’s promise here. The word hereafter is rather henceforth; but it is omitted by the best critics, e. g., Alford, Tischendorf, Lachmann. The figure is undoubtedly drawn from the vision of Jacob (Israel) of the ladder between heaven and earth, and the angels ascending and descending on it (Gen. 28:12). Some suppose the reference to the angelic appearances to Christ, and the divine signs given in attestation of his mission (ver. 32; Matt. 4:11; Luke 2:13; 9:29-31; 22:43), but the earlier of these had already taken place, and Nathanael was neither present at the temptation, at the transfiguration, nor at the garden of Gethsemane. Chrysostom refers in addition to the angelic appearances at the resurrection, but they by no means furnish a literal fulfillment of the promise. Some interpret it spiritually, of the manifest opening of the heavens and the intercommunication between earth and heaven, through Jesus Christ. So Maurice: “Faithful and true Israelite! the vision to thy progenitor who first bore that name, shall be substantiated for thee, and for those who trust in me in lonely hours, through clouds and darkness, as thou hast done. The ladder set upon earth and reaching to heaven—the ladder upon which the angels of God ascended and descended—is a ladder for thee and for all. For the Son of man, who joins earth to heaven, the seen to the unseen, God and man in one, He is with you; through Him your spirits may arise to God; through Him God’s Spirit shall come down upon you.” Similarly Luther, Calvin, Tholuck, Alford, and others. But this interpretation is not wholly satisfactory, since it converts Christ’s words into an allegory, and deprives them of all literal meaning. According to this view the angels are but spiritual blessings, the open heavens are not seen, and the angelic appearances are not upon the Messiah, but through him to mankind. A third interpretation connects Christ’s words here with his analogous declarations in Matt. 25:31; 26:64, etc., and refers it to his Second Coming. So Ryle: “When He comes the second time to take his great power and reign, the words of this text shall be literally fulfilled. His believing people shall see heaven open, and a constant communication kept up between heaven and earth—the tabernacle of God with men, and the angels visibly ministering to the King of Israel, and King of all the earth.” I believe that these three views are congruous and consistent, and are all embraced in the promise. Christ opened the communication between earth and heaven; manifested that fact by the angelic appearances which accompanied his coming, his presence, and his departure; still manifests it, by the spiritual blessings which he constantly confers in answer to the prayers of his people; and will finally [Pg 29] manifest it yet more gloriously when he comes to take possession of his established kingdom, with his holy angels with him. The past and present fulfillments of this prophecy are but fragmentary and imperfect. The final and perfect fulfillment awaits us in the future.

AN ORIENTAL WEDDING.
“And the third day there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee”

CHAPTER II.

Ch. 2:1-11. THE MARRIAGE AT CANA IN GALILEE. Christianity not asceticism.

This miracle is recounted only by the Evangelist John. That fact does not discredit the account: it incidentally confirms the view that he wrote to supply what was lacking in the other Gospels.

CANA OF GALILEE.

1, 2. The third day. That is, probably, after the interview with Nathanael described at the close of the preceding chapter. Lightfoot says that, according to Jewish custom, the weddings of virgins took place on the fourth day of the week, our Wednesday, and of widows on the fifth day, our Thursday.—​There was a marriage. For description of wedding ceremonies among the Jews, with illustration of wedding procession, see Matt. 25:1-13, Prel. Note.—​In Cana of Galilee. The traditional site is Kefr Kenna, four and one-half miles northwest of Nazareth. The more probable site is about nine miles north of Nazareth and six or eight hours from Capernaum. See Map, Vol. I, p. 50. Robinson describes it as a fine situation, and once a considerable village of well-built houses. They are now uninhabited and the whole region is wild and desolate.—​And the mother of Jesus was there. Her name is never mentioned by John. The fact that Joseph is not mentioned in either of the Gospels, after Christ’s manhood, has led to the universal opinion that he was dead. The presence of Mary, and her apparent authority (ver. 5), indicates that the bride or bridegroom were connections or relatives. Different traditions represent respectively Alphæus, one of his sons, John the Apostle, and Simon the Canaanite [Pg 30] as the bridegroom, but they are all equally untrustworthy. The Mormons maintain that this was the marriage of Jesus himself. The student will observe that it is said of Mary that she was there, of Jesus that he was called, an indication that he came at a later period, and probably after the marriage feast, which usually lasted for several days, had begun.—​And his disciples. Probably those who had already begun to follow him, though not yet ordained as apostles, nor summoned by him to leave their regular avocations to become his constant companions. These were Andrew, John, Simon Peter, Philip, and Nathanael, and they were probably invited because they were with Christ, and out of consideration for him.

3. And the wine failing. Not merely, as in our English version, when they wanted wine. The implication is that wine had been provided, but the supply proved insufficient. Possibly the unexpected addition of the five disciples of Christ exhausted it.—​The mother of Jesus saith unto him, They have no wine. Why did she appeal to him? There is certainly no ground for such an explanation as that of Bengel, that she meant to give a hint to Jesus and his disciples to go away! Nor is there any evidence that she asked him to work a miracle, or even definitely anticipated or desired it. If she were in any way responsible for the success of the feast, and the supply was falling short, the appeal for help to her son was natural; and it was specially so, if, as modern customs in the Orient indicate (see Ellicott’s Life of Christ, p. 118), the guests often contribute to the supplies at such entertainments. Along with this desire to do the bride and bridegroom a favor, there may have been, as Chrysostom suggests, a desire through her son to render herself conspicuous, and a vague and inexpressible feeling that he could, if he would, supply the want by a miracle, as Elijah supplied the widow’s cruse (1 Kings 17:14-16). And his quasi rebuke, if rebuke it be, may have been addressed to this mother’s vanity.

4. Woman, what have I to do with thee? Mine hour is not yet come. Some question has been made respecting the meaning of this language. It is clear (1) that woman is not a harsh term, and involves no tone of rebuke or reproof; for when Christ on the cross commends his mother to John’s care, he uses the same term, “Woman, behold thy son” (ch. 19:26); (2) the Greek phrase (τί ἐμοὶ καὶ σοὶ) is properly rendered in our English version, What have I to do with thee? Though literally capable of the translation proposed by Dr. Adam Clarke, What is this to thee and me? that is, What is this to us? the uniform usage of the N. T. forbids this translation. The Greek is the same in the following passages, where the translation cannot be other than that given both there and here. Matt. 8:29, note; Mark 1:24; 5:7; Luke 8:28. I can only understand it as a disclaimer on Christ’s part of any responsibility in the matter, and an intimation that in his future mission he was not, as he had heretofore been, subject unto his mother. There may also be in it implied a gentle rebuke of her endeavor to elicit from him some display of his miraculous power, before the time for the commencement of his public ministry. Chrysostom interprets her spirit here by that of Christ’s brethren (ch. 7:4), and his reply by his refusal, later, to turn aside from his work at her solicitation (Matt. 12:47, 48). Evidently she did not regard his language as that of refusal, for she expects his aid, and bids the servants do his bidding. “She read a yes latent in his apparent no.”—(Trench.)—Mine hour is not yet come. Not mine hour to die, though that is usually the signification of this oft-repeated phrase in John’s Gospel (ch. 7:30; 8:20; 12:23, 27; 13:1); but that would be here meaningless; nor, The hour to work this miracle, because the wine is not yet wholly exhausted, or the guests are not conscious of the lack, and have not asked for supply; but, The hour for me to begin my public ministry, accompanied as it is to be with the working of miracles, the hour for my manifestation. The Protestant commentaries see in the language here a rebuke of the spirit of Mariolatry, in this following the fathers; e. g., Chrysostom: “The answer was not that of one rejecting his mother, but of One who would show her that having borne him would have availed nothing, had she not been very good and faithful;” and Augustine: “As God he has no mother. And now that he was about to perform a divine work, he ignores, as it were, the human womb, and asks, ‘Woman, what have I to do with thee?’ as much as to say, Thou art not the mother of that in me which works miracles; thou art not the mother of my Godhead.”

5. His mother saith onto the servants. The fact that there were servants, and more than one, indicates that the family was in at least comfortable if not opulent circumstances. Christ associated with the rich as readily as with the poor; but the rich did not, as readily as the poor, associate with him. Her direction to the servants and their unquestioning obedience indicates [Pg 31] that in this marriage festival she had some degree of authority.

6-8. The forms of the water-pot and of the ewer, with which the water was drawn or dipped out, are shown in the accompanying illustration. The water-pots may have set in the room; more probably in an ante-room or in the courtyard of the house. The fact that the water was provided for purifying is stated to account for the presence of so much water; and the reference to the manner of the Jews is added for the Gentile readers, for whom John especially wrote. On these ceremonial washings, see Mark 7:2-5, notes. The firkin (μετρητης) is equivalent to 8⅞ gallons; the whole amount of water, therefore, was between 100 and 150 gallons. Since the jars were filled to the brim, the water was apparent after they were filled; there was, therefore, no room for fraud or mistake. The statement of the exact number and proximate size indicates that we have here the description of an eye-witness. It also indicates that there were a large number of guests.

WATER-POTS AND EWERS.

The quantity of wine made by Christ on this occasion has been the subject of some hostile criticism, as though it were an invitation to excessive drinking. But (1) there is no evidence that any more wine was created than was used. Whether it was changed in the stone jars, or as it was carried to the guests, does not appear; (2) in Palestine, a wine-growing and wine-consuming country, where it is not merely a beverage, but the beverage of the common people, four or five barrels of wine would not seem so extraordinary a supply as it would to us, nor would it produce any such effect in the consumption as an equal amount of the ordinary wines of to-day; (3) it is God’s way to pour out his bounty, not only in abundance, but in superabundance. As Christ created, not merely barely enough bread for the 5,000, but the disciples, after all were fed, gathered up twelve baskets full, so we may well believe that here he created not barely sufficient for the hour, but a superabundance which remained to bless the home after the departure of the guests. On the probable character of this wine, see below, Note on Christ’s example in the use of wine.

9, 10. The ruler of the feast. The same word as governor of the feast, in the preceding verse. Among the Greeks and Romans, a ruler of the feast (symposiarch) was commonly chosen, usually by lot, who regulated the whole order of the festivities, proposed the amusements, etc. A reference in the Apocrypha (Eccles. 32:1, 2) indicates that the same practice prevailed among the Jews. There is no ground for supposing the ruler of the feast in this case to have been other than a guest, who occupied this honorary office.—​But the servants knew, they having drawn the water. Not merely, the servants which drew, knew; the reason of their knowledge is indicated; they knew because they had themselves filled the jars with the water, and drawn it out.—​Called the bridegroom. Called out to him, probably across the table. The language which follows is sportive, and characteristic of such an occasion of festivity.—​Every man at the beginning doth set forth good wine; and when men are drunken, then that which is worse. The verb rendered in our English version “have well drunk” is literally are drunken. It is in the passive voice. This does not necessarily imply that in the East men counted on the inebriacy of their guests, and for [Pg 32] that reason provided the best wine first, still less that the guests here were intoxicated. “The man says only in joke, as if it were a general experience, what he certainly may have often observed.”—(Meyer.) The ancient commentators have observed the difference between the feasts of the world and the feasts of Christ; the world gives its best wine at first, and when men have become intoxicated with it, then the poor, as the prodigal son experienced (Luke 15:13-16); Christ ever reserves the good wine to the last. See this thought beautifully drawn out by Jeremy Taylor in his Life of Christ. Comp. John 4:13, 14.

11. This beginning of miracles. An incidental and indirect testimony that the miracles of Christ’s infancy, narrated in the apocryphal Gospels, are spurious.—​And manifested forth his glory. Observe his glory; the miracles of the disciples did not manifest forth their glory, but that of their Lord (Acts 3:8; 14:11-15).—​And his disciples believed in him. That is, the five that had already begun to follow him. But what or how much they believed is not indicated. They began to have that confidence in him which was not consummated till after his resurrection.

In respect to this miracle, observe, (1) The simplicity of the narrative. John does not directly assert that the water was made wine, nor that a miracle was performed, nor does he deduce any conclusion from the event; he simply narrates what he saw and heard—the jars filled with water, the contents drawn out, the testimony of the governor of the feast to the excellence of the wine carried to him; the reader is left to draw his own conclusion. (2) The utter failure of all naturalistic explanations, such as that Christ simply accelerated the process of nature, or changed the attributes of the water after the analogy of mineral waters, so as to give it the taste and appearance of wine, or that the taste and semblance of wine was due to a state of spiritual exaltation on the part of the company, all of which views have had defenders even among orthodox critics. See Lange’s and Meyer’s Commentaries for a statement of these and kindred interpretations. Meyer well says, respecting them all, “Instead of a transmutation of water we have a frivolous transmutation of history.” (3) The impossibility of deception or fraud. The jars are those belonging to the household; they are filled to the brim with water; it is drawn out by the servants; the judgment respecting the wine is pronounced by the governor of the feast, who does not know of the miracle. (4) The analogy of nature. “He who made the wine at this wedding does the same thing every year in the vines. As the water which the servants put into the water-pots was turned into wine by the Lord, so that which the clouds pour down is turned into wine by the same Lord. It excites no wonder in us, because it occurs every year.”—(Augustine.) (5) The moral and spiritual significance of the miracle. Contrast Christ’s ready consent to convert water into wine to add to the festivities of others, with his refusal to convert stones into bread to supply his own imperative needs (Matt. 4:3, 4); his conversion of water into wine, the symbol of inspiration and life, with the first miracle of Moses, who converted water into blood, an instrument and a symbol of death (Exod. 7:20, 21)—​Christ brings life and power, Moses brings law and condemnation (Rom. 7:8, 9); his entrance on his ministry by attendance on a marriage festivity, and his miracle to prolong its festivities, with the asceticism of John the Baptist (Luke 1:15; Matt. 3:4). Compare his inauguration of the new covenant by a miracle at a marriage with God’s inauguration of the old covenant by ordaining and creating the marriage relation (Gen. 1:21-24). Notice in this miracle a type of Christ’s redeeming love, who converts the water of the law into the wine of the Gospel, and every soul which hears and obeys his creative command into an inspiring life-giving spirit (John 5:21; 6:33; 1 Cor. 15:45). Observe the fundamental lesson, that Christ’s example bids us not to withdraw from the world, nor abstain from its use, but to use without abusing it (1 Cor. 7:31), and that the assertion that Christianity bids men “make this earth as unpleasant to themselves as possible so as to secure hereafter the joys of heaven,” is a monstrous perversion of the teaching and example of Jesus Christ. Comp. Matt. 9:9, 10; 11:19; Luke 7:36; 11:37; 14:1; John 12:1, 2.

Christ’s example in the use of wine. 1. The facts. These are that Christ inaugurated his public ministry by attending a wedding feast, and there by a miracle creating a large quantity of wine—certainly all that the guests could use—for the simple purpose of prolonging the festivities of the occasion; that he was accustomed throughout his life to attend social gatherings where wine was freely used; that he used it freely himself, notwithstanding the fact that it subjected him to the reproaches and the misrepresentations of his enemies (Matt. 11:19; Luke 7:34); that he never directly or indirectly condemns the use of wine, though he does condemn drunkenness (Matt. 24:49; Luke 12:45); and that he directs its use by his church as a perpetual memorial of his atoning love, and employs it as a symbol of joy and fellowship in the world to come (Matt. 26:26-29; Mark 14:22-25; Luke 22:18; 1 Cor. 10:16). The force of this example is strengthened by the reflection that drunkenness was common in the East before Christ’s day (Esther 1:10; Isa. 5:22; 28:7; Dan. 5:2-4; Hosea 4:11), and in Palestine and the neighboring countries during Christ’s lifetime, so that even the church of Christ had need of constant admonition against it (Matt. 24:49; Luke 15:13; Rom. 13:13; 1 Cor. 11:21; Gal. 5:21; 1 Pet. 4:3); that a Jewish Sect [Pg 33] existed, the Essenes (Matt. 3:7, note), who were total abstainers, with whom Christ never identified himself; and that he directly contrasts his life and example with that of John the Baptist (Matt. 11:19), who, as a Nazarite, was pledged against the use of wine and strong drink (Luke 1:15; Numb. 6:3). Attempts have been made to show that the wine which Christ made on this occasion and used on other occasions was not fermented. It is certain that there were in use in the Greek and Roman world, and presumptively in Palestine, three kinds of wine—fermented wines, which, however, were unlike our own fiery wines and contained only a small percentage of alcohol, and which were usually mixed in the use with water, in the proportion of two or three parts of water to one of wine; new wine, made of the juice of the grape, and, like our new cider, not fermented and not intoxicating; and wines in which, by boiling the unfermented juice of the grape, or by the addition of certain drugs, the process of fermentation had been stopped, and the formation of alcohol prevented. It is claimed that fermented wine was not used at the Passover, though I can find no other reason for this opinion than the fact that leavened, i. e., fermented bread was prohibited—a prohibition the sole object of which was to remind the Jews of the haste of the original passover. Paul’s language in 1 Cor. 11:21 (see note there) makes it evident that fermented wine was used by the primitive church in the administration of the Lord’s Supper; and the Rabbinical rule, requiring water to be mixed with the wine at the paschal feast (see Lightfoot on Matt. 26:27), lest drunkenness should disgrace it, makes it equally evident that wine was used in the original O. T. festival. There is nothing in the language of the N. T. to indicate any discrimination between fermented and unfermented wines; Christ himself never directly or indirectly discriminates between them; neither do any of his apostles; and it is apparently indicated if not necessarily implied in the account here, and in other passages, that it was the ordinary fermented wine which Christ employed; see especially Matt. 11:19, “Behold a glutton and a wine-bibber,” and Matt. 9:17, “No man having drunk old (fermented) wine, straightway desireth new (that of the last vintage and unfermented), for he saith the old is better.” The language of Mark 14:25, “I will drink no more of the fruit of the vine,” etc., plainly implies that he had been accustomed to drink it freely and as a beverage with his followers. I judge then that Christ here made, and throughout his life ordinarily used, fermented wine; and this is the nearly unanimous judgment of the best unprejudiced Biblical scholars. The opposite opinion is of later origin, an after-thought, the product not of impartial Biblical research, but of the temperance reformation. (2) Significance of these facts. It appears to me clear, in the light of these facts, that neither Christ’s precept nor his example can be cited in favor of the doctrine of total abstinence, as a universal and permanent obligation from all use of wine, even as a beverage; that it rather indicates that he recognizes the right and propriety of so using it; and that the doctrine and practice of total abstinence must be maintained, if at all, not by any specific precept, nor by the general course of Christ’s life, but from local and perhaps temporary considerations, and solely on the ground that the Christian must always be willing to surrender a lawful gratification for the sake of a higher good, either to himself or to others (Matt. 5:29, 30; Rom. 14:21; 1 Cor. 6:12). It is equally clear that neither Christ’s precepts nor his example justifies the ordinary drinking usages of American society of to-day, with its bars, its wine-shops, its beer-gardens, its fiery wines and strong liquors, and all its attendant evils. The ordinary wine of to-day is a very different article from that in Christ’s day. The word is the same, the thing is different. And the usages are equally different. It is not my province here to enter into a general discussion of the temperance question, or even of the Bible teaching on the subject; but for the convenience of the student I add, from my Dictionary of Religious Knowledge, a tabular view of the principal Bible passages which bear on the subject, either for or against the use of wines.

[Pg 34] Ch. 2: 12-22. CHRIST CASTS THE TRADERS OUT OF THE TEMPLE. An illustration of the character of Christ.—​A symbol of the work of Christ.—​An example to the followers of Christ.

This incident is narrated only by John. It is not to be confounded with the second casting out narrated by the synoptists. See note on Matt. 21:12, 13. This occurred at the first Passover in Christ’s public ministry; that at the last. There is a significance in the repetition. It indicates both the tendency of a corrupt church to corruption in spite of cleanings, a truth unhappily abundantly illustrated in history; and the persistence of Christ’s zeal, a quality imperfectly reflected in the zeal of his disciples. The probable date of this event was March, A. D. 28.

12. Went down to Capernaum. From Cana, which was the hill country, to Capernaum, which was on the shore of the sea of Galilee. For description of Capernaum, see Matt. 4:13. It would be on the natural though not necessary route from Cana to Jerusalem. This visit is not to be confounded with Christ’s permanent change of residence from Nazareth to Capernaum, which resulted from the mob in the former city (Luke 4:28-31); this did not take place till after the imprisonment of John the Baptist (Matt. 4:12, 13). The statement that they continued not there many days, distinguished this visit from that permanent change of residence.—​His mother and his brethren and his disciples. His public ministry had not yet fully begun; he had not, therefore, yet left his mother and brethren to devote himself to his work. That these were real brethren, not cousins or other relations, I think is clear, though by many doubted. See note on “Brethren of our Lord,” Vol. I, p. 187.

13. And the Jews’ Passover was at hand. For origin of Passover see Exodus, ch. 12; for some account of its ceremonies see Matt. 26:26-30, Prel. Note.—​And Jesus went up to Jerusalem. Observe, that he was accustomed to attend the Jewish feasts as well as the synagogue services. The corruption of the church did not cause his withdrawal from its public services (ch. 10:25).

SUBSTRUCTURES OF THE TEMPLE.

[Pg 35]

BIRD’S-EYE VIEW OF JERUSALEM.

[Pg 36]

PLAN AND SECTION OF THE TEMPLE.
From “Life of Jesus, the Christ,” by Rev. Henry Ward Beecher.

14. In the temple. Historically there were three temples: Solomon’s (1 Kings, ch. 6, 7; 2 Chron., ch. 3, 4), the temple of Zerubbabel, constructed at the time of the restoration under Nehemiah (Ezra 3:8-11; 6:3-5), and Herod’s. The latter, named for its builder, Herod the Great (Matt. 2:1, note), is the one mentioned here and elsewhere in the N. T. Its site, established with as much certainty as any in the N. T., was a rock platform in the southeast corner of Jerusalem, now occupied by the Mohammedan Mosque of Omar. In its erection ten thousand skilled workmen were employed; among them one thousand priests especially instructed in the arts of the stonecutter and the carpenter. The result was a temple whose architectural magnificence is thought never to have been surpassed in ancient or modern times. It was less a building than a collection of buildings, and covered an area of over nineteen acres. The stone was white marble, the roof cedar, the architecture probably a combination of the Greek and the Roman. On the east it overlooked the valley of the Cedron, forming an effective fortification. It also served as a defence on the north, where adjoined the tower of Antonia, the barracks of the Roman soldiery. On the south a single gateway, on the west four gateways, gave exit and entrance. On the east it was connected by a bridge over the Tyrophœan valley with Mount Zion, the site of Solomon’s and later of Herod’s palace. The remains of this bridge have been lately discovered. The annexed ground plan, from Henry Ward Beecher’s “Life of Christ,” will enable the reader to understand the internal structure of the temple. The illustration in Vol. I, p. 257, will give an idea [Pg 37] of its external appearance. The reader is there supposed to be on the Mount of Olives looking down upon the temple from the east; Mount Zion with its palaces and towers is in the background; the long-roofed structure on the left, that is, the south, is the royal cloister or Stoa basilica. This is minutely described by Josephus (Ant. 15:11, 5). It consisted of a nave and two aisles, the side toward the country being closed by a wall, that toward the temple proper being open. It was 105 feet in breadth, 600 feet in length; the centre aisle was 100 feet high, the side aisles 50. The roof of cedar was supported by 102 Corinthian columns of white marble, the floor was a magnificent mosaic. Between this cloister and the temple structure was the open court of the Gentiles. It was open to all, heathen and Jew alike, and was used for the purpose of social and intellectual exchange, as well as for religious processional services. Here Christ (Matt. 21:23), and subsequently his disciples (Luke 24:53; Acts 5:21, 42), taught the people. Inscriptions in Greek and Latin forbade the heathen from passing beyond this court, under penalty of death. For a supposed infringement of this law Paul was mobbed (Acts 21:26-30). Within were the successive courts of the women, of Israel, of the priests. In this latter was the sacred furniture and utensils, the table of shewbread, the altar, the laver, etc. In the heart of this enclosure, investing all with a mysterious sacredness, was the Holy of Holies, veiled from even priestly gaze by the curtain, which was subsequently rent in twain at the time of Christ’s death (Matt. 27:57). This Holy of Holies, 90 × 30 feet, is seen in the illustration of the temple as restored, in the centre of the building; it constituted the most prominent feature. It was in the outer court of the Gentiles that the sheep and cattle and money-changers had gathered. The scattered Israelites were unable to bring in person the sacrifices for the altar. The Mosaic law permitted them to sell their first-fruits, and with the money purchase their gifts at Jerusalem (Deut. 14:24-26). They were also required to pay for the support of the temple service a half-shekel (Exod. 3:11-16; Matt. 17:24-27, notes). This must be paid in Jewish money, for Gentile coin would pollute the sacred coffers. Thus, gradually, the feast-days became great market-days, as they still are among the nomadic tribes of the Mohammedan religion. The priesthood, sharing in the profits, suffered the traffickers gradually to intrude into and occupy the outer court of the temple. Thus, not only were the religious services of the Jews disturbed by the bleating of sheep, the lowing of cattle, the cooing of doves, the clangor of the money-changers, and the hum of a busy market, but the Gentiles were absolutely driven from all participation in the religious benefits of the temple. To their exclusion Christ referred in the second expulsion (Mark 11:15-19, note). The priests winked not only at the sacrilege, but also at the double defrauding of God and man which accompanied it (Mal. 1:7, 8). The court of the Gentiles was worse than a market-place; it was a den of thieves. Thus Christ’s act was not only a vehement protest against the sacrilege which suffers business to encroach on the house and worship of God, but also a rebuke of the bigotry which is indifferent to the religious wants and worship of men not of our race, faith, or companionship.—​Those that sold cattle, sheep, and doves. For sacrifices under the Levitical law; sheep, rams, lambs, goats, kids, bulls, cows, calves, doves, and sparrows were offered for this purpose. All sacrifices were required to be offered by the priesthood and in the temple. On the great feast-days, when the population of Jerusalem was increased to a million or more, the traffic must have been both large and profitable.—​And the changers of money. Money-changers had in Greece and Rome their stalls or tables in the streets and market-places for the purpose of exchanging the coin of one nation for another. They are still to be found in Jerusalem, seated by their little glass cases, in which are saucers of brass filled with coins of silver and gold, of every size and value.

THE EXPULSION OF THE TRADERS.
“He drove them all out of the temple, and the sheep and the oxen; and poured out the changer’s money, and overthrew the tables.”

15, 16. And when he had made a scourge of rushes. The original indicates that the scourge was made of the rushes which were used to bed the cattle. Christ picked these up from the floor and wove them together into a whip. [Pg 38] Of course this fragile lash would not do much real execution. It was used as one might use a switch to alarm and so drive out the animals. The original shows very clearly that it was used for this purpose alone, and not to threaten the men with physical chastisement.—​He drove all out of the temple, both the sheep and the cattle. This is the correct rendering; our English version is ambiguous and so misleading.—​And poured out the changers’ money. Poured it out upon the floor. This prevented their resisting, for it occupied their energies to pick up and save the coin.—​And said unto them that sold doves. It is noteworthy that he drove out the sheep and cattle, which the owners could reclaim in the streets, but did not set the doves free, which would thus have been lost to their owners. A true Christian indignation never blinds to the true rights even of the most flagrant wrong-doers.—​Make not my Father’s house a house of merchandise. Compare Christ’s language at the second expulsion, Mark 11:17, note.

EASTERN MONEY-CHANGER.

17. And his disciples remembered, etc. At the time, not afterward; if this had been meant it would have been expressed, as in ver. 22. It is not here stated that the utterance in Ps. 69:9 was a prophecy which Christ fulfilled; simply that his course recalled the language there. The fact indicates the vigor and intensity of Christ’s zeal in the manner and spirit of his action, as well as in the act itself.

This and the subsequent purification of the temple during the Passion week, indicate in Christ a vigor and intensity of character, and a power of indignation, which modern thought rarely attributes to him. They interpret the suggestive description of Christ’s personal appearance given by John in Rev. 1:13-16, the only hint of his personal appearance afforded by the New Testament. We can imagine that in this expulsion his eyes were as flames of fire, his feet firm in their tread like feet of brass, his voice as the sound of the ocean, his words as a two-edged sword. This indignation was aroused by (a) the sacrilegious covetousness which made God’s house a house of merchandise; (b) the fraud which converted it into a den of thieves; (c) the selfishness of the bigotry which excluded the heathen from the only court reserved for them. It should inspire in his disciples a like spirit of indignation (a) against the sacrilegious covetousness which converts the house of God into a mart of merchandise, whether by the sale of indulgences, masses, and prayers to others, or by employing it not for the praise of God but for the social and pecuniary profit of the pretended worshipper; (b) against the bigotry which permits us to look with indifference upon the exclusion of the poor, the outcast, the despised from the privileges of God’s house. It is a type of (a) the cleansing which Christ comes to do for every soul, which is a temple of God (1 Cor. 3:16), and out of which all unclean things must be driven by the power of God, before it is fit for God’s indwelling; (b) the final cleansing when he will come to cast out all things that defile and work abomination (Rev. 21:27). Observe that in Revelation the world is represented as dreading “the wrath of the Lamb.” Christ’s example here does not justify the use of physical force by the church to cleanse it from corruption; for Christ did not employ physical force. His whip was not a weapon; the power before which the traders fled was the moral power of Christ, strengthened by the concurring judgment of their own consciences and the moral sense of the mass of the people (Mark 11:15, note).

18, 19. What sign showest thou unto us? What evidence of authority to expel from the temple practices allowed by the priesthood. They questioned not the right of an inspired prophet to act thus, but the authority of Jesus as a prophet. The moral power before which all quailed was the greatest of signs; but to that they were indifferent. “They required signs to be proved by signs.”—(Bengel.) No other authority for any reformation is ever required than the power and grace to achieve it. The same question was repeated at the second cleansing, but it elicited a very different answer (Matt. 21:23).—​Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up. In interpreting this passage observe that (1) John himself explicitly declares Christ’s meaning, “He spake of the temple of his body” (ver. 21); (2) that not only the Jews, who might have willfully perverted Christ, misunderstood his meaning, but his own followers did not, till after his death, understand him (ver. 22); hence (3) the hypothesis that he pointed to himself when he said, “Destroy this temple,” is not only unnecessary but improbable. The words are a prophecy, but are purposely left enigmatical, to be interpreted by the event. The temple is itself a type of man, who is intended to be the temple of God, in which he will dwell; and therefore a type perfectly fulfilled only in Christ, in whom alone the Spirit of God dwelt without measure, and with no periods of partial or complete exclusion. The Jews in crucifying Christ destroyed the divine reality of which the building was only a symbol or prophecy; moreover [Pg 39] they inaugurated that terrible drama of passion which ended in the literal destruction of the temple itself. For description of this destruction see Matt. ch. 24, Prel. Note. Some objections to this passage have been suggested. (1) The crucifixion of Christ and his resurrection taking place three years later cannot be a sign of his authority here. Ans. In fact Christ does not comply with the Pharisees’ demand for a sign but refuses it, as in the analogous passage in Matt. 12:34-40, where he also by a metaphor refers to his resurrection. (2) The prophecy would not be and in fact was not understood. Ans. It was not intended to be understood then, but to afford a basis for the faith of the disciples when subsequent history had interpreted it. It was an enigma more likely to be remembered because enigmatical. “Many such sayings he uttered which were not intelligible to his immediate hearers, but which were to be so to those who should come after. And wherefore doth he do this? In order that when the accomplishment of his predictions should have come to pass, he might be seen to have foreknown from the beginning what was to follow.”—(Chrysostom.) (3) The language is imperative and thus involves a command by Christ to crucify him. Ans. The imperative, Destroy this temple, is not equivalent to the future, You will destroy this temple; nor is it permissive merely, You may destroy this temple; nor yet is it a command, You must destroy this temple. It is a challenge. Destroy this temple, and I will raise it up. “It springs from painfully excited feelings, as he looks with heart-searching gaze upon that implacable opposition which was already beginning to show itself, and which would not be satisfied till it had put him to death.”—(Meyer.) (4) The language, I will raise it up, imputes to Christ the power of the resurrection which is uniformly attributed to the Father. Ans. This objection is founded on a misapprehension. The N. T. recognizes no such distinction between the Father and the Son as this objection implies, and Christ uses language elsewhere, as distinctly implying his own act in the resurrection as that used here (ch. 10:18; 11:25; comp. 5:39, 40, 44). The interpretation proposed by some writers, that Christ here speaks of the decay of the Jewish religion in its temple, and the building up of a new spiritual theocracy, will not be accepted by those who believe that John’s explicit declaration of Christ’s meaning is inspired and authoritative. Observe how the Jews intentionally misrepresented Christ’s saying; they accused him of threatening to destroy the temple (Matt. 26:61, note), when he had really prophesied that they would destroy it.

20. Forty and six years was this temple in building. The argument is a natural one, and seemed conclusive. The temple was commenced by Herod twenty years previous to the birth of Christ, and had been forty-six years in construction up to this time. It was not finally completed, however, till A. D. 64, under Herod Agrippa II; so that it was really over eighty years in building. The workmen were at this time still engaged upon it, and the language of the people refers to the work up to this time.

22. When therefore he was risen from the dead. Not merely after but at the time of his resurrection and in the light of that fact, the disciples interpreted both what he had said and what the O. T. contained on this subject.—​They believed the Scripture. Not the N. T., no part of which was written at the time of the resurrection; and the “Scripture” is here distinguished from the words which Jesus had spoken. The O. T. contained prophecies of the resurrection which are enigmatical, and probably were but imperfectly comprehended by even the most devout Jews, but which were interpreted by the event (Ps. 16:4 with Acts 3:15; Ps. 17:15; 73:23, 24; Isaiah 26:19; Hosea 6:2). For evidence that Christ, and subsequently the apostles, recognized in the O. T. prophecies of the resurrection, see Luke 24:26, 27; John 20:9; 1 Cor. 15:4.

23-25. Many trusted in his name, seeing the signs which he wrought, but Christ did not entrust himself to them, because he knew all men and needed not, etc. Compare with the English version the translation here given which approximates more nearly to the original; and observe respecting this that (1) the term miracle has acquired in modern theology a technical meaning it does not possess in the N. T. Christ may have wrought miracles at this time not recorded by the Evangelist (ch. 21, 25), but the belief of the Jewish disciples may have rested on such signs of his moral power as the expulsion of the traders from the temple; (2) their trust in his [Pg 40] name was not necessarily a true spiritual acceptance of him as a personal Saviour from sin; the reverse is implied by the statement that they trusted him because they saw his miracles; and still more by the declaration respecting himself that he did not entrust himself to them; (3) this declaration would scarcely need interpretation were it not for a common misinterpretation. It does not imply that he held back from them his doctrine, or refused to work miracles for their benefit, but simply that he did not and could not enter into that close and unreserved personal intercourse with them which characterized his Galilean life and companionships. He knew them too well to do this; knew that when the spiritual and universal nature of his kingdom of love was revealed unto them, they would reject and crucify him. The statement that he knew what was in man, indicates a divine and supernatural reading of the secrets of the human heart, of which the N. T. affords many and striking illustrations (Matt. 9:4; Mark 2:8; Luke 7:39, 40). The declaration that he knew all men, indicates that this interior knowledge of the heart was not occasional and exceptional, but universal. Melancthon sees in the example of our Lord here an admonition of caution in opening our hearts unreservedly to strangers, even though they may seem to receive our word with kindness. Be friendly to all, be intimate with few.

Ch. 3:1-21. CHRIST’S CONVERSATION WITH NICODEMUS.—​The argument from miracles: its strength and its weakness illustrated (verse 2).—​Christ more than a teacher, a Life-giver; Christianity more than a system of truth, a new life.—​The condition of spiritual knowledge, a new spiritual life.—​The spirit of skepticism illustrated (verse 4).—​The true method of answering skepticism, not by argument, but by personal assured conviction (verse 5).—​The two conditions of entering Christ’s kingdom: a new spiritual life, and a public confession of Christ (verse 5).—​Like begets like.—​The known and the unknown in theology (verses 8, 11): the known, what takes place on earth; the unknown, what takes place in heaven.—​The ignorance of the wise; he is no master who has no personal knowledge of the new birth.—​The power of salvation: a crucified Christ; the condition of salvation: faith in Him; the condemnation of sinners: their love of darkness and rejection of the light.

Christ’s interview with Nicodemus is described only by John. It occurred immediately after the events described in the preceding chapter, and before Christ had inaugurated his missionary labors, which he did not begin till the imprisonment of John the Baptist (Mark 1:14). In studying this passage, the following considerations will prevent the student from falling into the perplexities and errors into which some learned and orthodox commentators have fallen. (1) The conversation was had at the commencement of Christ’s ministry, before he had explained, even to his own disciples, the principles of his kingdom; we cannot therefore safely assume that Nicodemus was familiar with those principles, nor can we interpret Christ’s teachings here by the later apostolic teaching, except in so far as that was developed from this as from a germ. (2) Nicodemus was a Pharisee, therefore a formalist, and pre-eminently a Jew. We may safely assume that Christ’s object was in part to correct Jewish and Pharisaic errors, and our first object must be to understand, if we can, Nicodemus’ understanding of our Lord. (3) There is no evidence that John was present at this interview; and it is not probable that we have a full verbatim report of it. The structure of the narrative indicates that only so much of the conversation is reported as was necessary to make clear Christ’s discourse founded thereon.

1. There was a man of the Pharisees named Nicodemus. Of Nicodemus nothing is known except what John tells us. He is not mentioned by the other Evangelists; and subsequent traditions are untrustworthy. There is a Nicodemus referred to in the Talmud; but there is nothing to identify him with this one, for the name was common among the Jews. The only incidents related of him are this conference, his protest against condemning Jesus unheard (ch. 7:50-52), and his participation with Joseph of Arimathea in the burial of Jesus (ch. 19:39). There is a spurious Gospel of Nicodemus, the author of which is, however, unknown. The designation of him here as a ruler of the Jews indicates that he was one of the Sanhedrim, and this indication is confirmed by ch. 7:50. On the character of the Pharisees, see Matt. 3:7, note. Among them there were some pure and honest souls, sincere but not courageous seekers after the truth (Mark 12:28-34; 15:43; Acts 5:34-39; 15:5; Phil. 3:5); to this class of the Pharisees Nicodemus seems to have belonged.

A MODERN JEWISH RABBI.

2. The same came to Jesus by night. [Pg 41] Why by night? The reason generally assumed is fear of the Jews; but this is not asserted by the Evangelist, and at this time there had not been developed any pronounced hostility on the part of the Judeans to Jesus. Nicodemus may have had a natural reluctance to commit himself to an unknown Rabbi, till he had learned more of his doctrine; he may have simply sought a quiet and personal conversation, such as he could not obtain in the busy day-time.—​Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher. The plural is not used here for the singular number; Nicodemus expresses not merely his own personal conviction, but that of the Pharisees as a class. That they did, even much later, recognize Christ’s superhuman character and mission is clear from such passages as Matt. 12:23, 24; John 9:29-34; 11:47, and this even when they resisted him most bitterly.—​For no man can do these miracles, etc. This is the argument from miracles put in the tersest possible form. Comp. Acts 4:16, 17. And this is all that miracles prove, namely, the commission and authority of Christ; they do not of themselves show his character. Nicodemus then regards Christ as a prophet sent from God; and John, who in ch. 1:6, etc., has drawn clearly the distinction between the prophet and the Light and Life, reports in this conversation with Nicodemus a discourse of Christ in which he emphasizes the same distinction. Nicodemus impliedly asks to know what new doctrine Christ has to teach; Christ replies in substance that the world needs not new doctrine, but new life. The key to the understanding of this conversation is the contrast between the two conceptions of religion, as a system of doctrine, and as a new and spiritual life.

3. Verily, verily. With Christ these words are a common precursor of any especially weighty and solemn declaration (Matt. 5:18, note).—​Except a man be begotten anew, he cannot see the kingdom of God. On the meaning of this sentence, it is to be observed that, (1) The word (γεννάω) here rendered in our English version born, more properly signifies the act of begetting. Here therefore Christ’s language carries Nicodemus back to the very beginning of life. (2) The word (ἄνωθεν) rendered here in our English version again, is certainly mistranslated. It means either anew, i. e., from the beginning or from above. Both meanings are attached to it here by the best scholars. According to the first definition, Christ simply implies that the life must begin anew, that the character must be rebuilt from the foundation, without however implying how; according to the other idea, he indicates in the use of this word not only a new but a spiritual and divine birth. The word is used in the first sense in Luke 1:3, where it is rendered from the very first; in the second sense in James 1:17; 3:15, 17, where it is rendered from above. It is clear that Nicodemus understood it in the former sense merely, and therefore I have so rendered it here. (3) The word rendered see (ἰδεῖν) is not equivalent to enter into (εἰσελθεῖν), as Meyer interprets it. The declaration is explicit that a new spiritual life is necessary, not only to enter into but even to form any correct conception of the kingdom of God. And with this agrees the teaching of Christ elsewhere (Matt. 13:14, 15), and of Paul (1 Cor. 2:9, 14, 15). Christ thus declares to Nicodemus that he cannot even understand the spiritual teachings of the new religion without first beginning a new life. In other words, a new spiritual life is the condition precedent to a correct spiritual apprehension of Christ’s teaching. It is further to be observed that light is thrown on the meaning of this declaration by a consideration of previous Rabbinical and of later Apostolic teaching. The new birth was a familiar metaphor with the Rabbis. They held that a Gentile in becoming a Jewish proselyte, and submitting to circumcision and baptism, was born again. Old things passed away; all things became new; it was even maintained that the proselyte might marry his nearest kin without offence, because the old relationships were annulled by his new [Pg 42] birth. Christ employs this metaphor, familiar to the Jewish Rabbi, without interpreting it, and declares that no man, Jew or Gentile, could see the kingdom of God without undergoing a change as radical. This truth, that a man may bury his old life and begin a new one, with something of the freshness and hope of youth, is also foreshadowed in the O. T. (Isa. 1:18, 19; Jer. 31:33; Ezek. 11:19, 20; 36:26), and underlies the teaching of the N. T. (Rom. 6:8; 8:3; 12:2; 2 Cor. 5:17; Gal. 6:15; Ephes. 2:1-8; Col. 3:9, 10; Titus 3:5); and the metaphor itself frequently occurs in the teaching of the apostles (Rom. 8:15; James 1:18; 1 Pet. 1:3; 1 John 3:9).

4. How can a man be born when he is old? It seems to me clear that this question is asked in a spirit of irony. So Godet, Alford, Luther, and others. Considering that the metaphor was a common one, as Lightfoot has shown, and that the doctrine of a new life inspired from God could not have been unknown to any devout student of the O. T. (see references above), it is hardly possible to suppose that Nicodemus took Christ literally. This is however Meyer’s interpretation of the question; but it represents Nicodemus as not only “a somewhat narrow-minded man,” but also as a grossly ignorant and stupid one; and so, in truth, Meyer represents him throughout.

In the following verses (5-8), Christ answers Nicodemus’ threefold question: first, by simply reasserting his declaration that no man can see the kingdom of God unless he is born anew; second, by declaring the nature of this new birth, as the commencement of a new spiritual life, not of a new physical or fleshly life; and third, by borrowing an illustration from nature to indicate the degree of knowledge attainable by man on this subject; he can perceive the results of the operations of the spirit of God, but he cannot trace them to their source nor comprehend their laws.

5. Born of water and of Spirit. Governing ourselves by the cardinal canon, that we are to understand Christ as Christ expected his auditor to understand him, it cannot be difficult to understand this declaration. The Jewish proselyte, as a sign that he put off his old faiths, was baptized on entering the Jewish church. John the Baptist, employing the same symbolic rite, baptized Jew as well as Gentile, as a sign of purification by repentance from past sins. The Sanhedrim were familiar with his baptism, and had sent a delegation to inquire into it (ch. 1:19, 25), and he had told them prophetically of the baptism of the Spirit which Christ would inaugurate. Nicodemus then would certainly have understood by Christ’s expression, “born of water,” a reference to this rite of baptism, and by the expression, “born of the Spirit,” a reference to a new spiritual life, which however he could have only imperfectly apprehended. The declaration then is that no man can enter the kingdom of God except by (1) a public acknowledgment and confession of sin, a public putting off of the old man and entering into the new; and (2) a real and vital change of life and character wrought by the Spirit of God in the heart of the believer. By the one act he enters into the visible and external kingdom; by the other, into the spiritual and invisible kingdom. That a public confession and consecration is essential is clearly indicated elsewhere in Christ’s teaching (Matt. 10:32, 33). Observe the difference in phraseology here and in verse 3. He cannot see the kingdom of God, except his eyes are opened by the Spirit of God; he cannot enter it, except by a public and complete abandonment of the old and a spiritual consecration to the new life (2 Cor. 5:14-16).

6. That which is born of flesh is flesh. The connection is this: even if a man when he is old could enter again his mother’s womb and be born, it would avail nothing; that which is born of flesh is always flesh; only that which is born of the Spirit partakes of the Spirit of God. (Comp. Rom. 8:5-9.) The declaration here, coupled with John’s explicit declaration in ch. 1:14, that the Word was made flesh, implies that the birth of Jesus was supernatural, though he narrates none of the circumstances of that birth.

7. Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again. The original, by its construction, puts an emphasis on the word ye. And it was this which surprised Nicodemus; not that men must be born again, but that this necessity was laid on him, a child of Abraham, and an honored ruler and teacher among the Jews. Observe too that he says ye, not we. “The Lord did not, could not say this of Himself. Why? Because, in the full sense in which the flesh is incapacitated from entering the kingdom of God, He was not born of the flesh. He inherited the weakness of the flesh, but his spirit was not like that of sinful man, alien from holiness and God, and therefore on Him no sentence hath passed; when the Holy Spirit descended on Him at His baptism, the words spoken by the Father were indicative of past approval, not of renewal. His obedience was accepted as perfect, and the good pleasure of the Father rested on Him. Therefore He includes [Pg 43] not himself in this necessity for the new birth.”—(Alford.)

8. It is very difficult to convey the exact meaning of the original of this verse; for in the original the same word signifies wind and spirit; there is thus a verbal felicity in the metaphor, a certain play upon the word itself, which cannot be transferred from the Greek into another language. As in nature we see the operation of the summer breeze, that comes we know not whence, and goes we know not whither, so in the kingdom of grace we see the effects of the Spirit of God, in changes wrought in the individual character and in the community (Gal. 5:22), but are unable to comprehend the nature of the influence or the laws according to which it operates. Christ by this metaphor certainly indicates something more than the mere incomprehensibleness of the Spirit’s work (comp. Eccles. 11:5); he indicates also the realm in which we are to conduct our investigations, and that from which, by the nature of the case, we are excluded. We can study to advantage the results of the Spirit’s operations; but all endeavors to know how He operates, what are the occult laws of His being and work, are in vain. A humble acceptance of this teaching would eliminate many useless discussions from theology. Alford notices that the Greek word used for wind (πνεῦμα) indicates the gentle breath of summer, not the violent gale. “It is one of those sudden breezes springing up on a calm day, which has no apparent direction, but we hear it rustling in the leaves around.” Observe also in the language, where it listeth, an indication of the fact that the divine operations are free, unconstrained, and not answerable to man, nor subject to his control. Comp. Rom. 9:15, 16.

9, 10. Nicodemus answered, ... how can these things be? He is sobered by the moral power and earnestness of the Lord, lays aside cavilling, and asks seriously for clearer light. For similar effect of Christ’s personal power on a skeptical nature, compare his conference with the Samaritan woman (ch. 4:11 with 25), and with Pilate (ch. 18:33-38 with 19:9-12); compare also account of Paul before Festus and Agrippa (Acts 26:31, 32). Observe that Christ does not overcome Nicodemus’ skepticism by arguing against his objections, but by the mere power of his own personal assurance of the truth.—​Thou art the teacher of Israel; and dost thou not know these things? There is certainly in this declaration and question a touch of irony and of rebuke. The necessity of a radical change of heart and life, for Israelite as well as Gentile, is abundantly taught by the O. T. (see ver. 3, note, for references); Nicodemus, as a professional teacher of the religion of the O. T., ought not to have been surprised at Christ’s reiteration of the truth; and the less because the doctrine of a new birth and a public baptism as a symbol of it were taught by the Rabbis to the Gentiles. The language here, The teacher of Israel (ὁ διδάσκαλος) indicates that Nicodemus was a well-known teacher; perhaps that he prided himself on his pre-eminence.

11, 12. We speak that we do know, etc. Christ has spoken hitherto only of that which is matter of common observation, viz., man’s need of a new and divine life, and the apparent results of it in character and conduct. He now speaks of that which is matter of personal experience with Him, the new life in the soul. He now becomes not merely an interpreter to facts that are patent, but also a witness to facts that are not. Christian teaching, to be effectual, must always be founded on personal experience of the truth taught (1 Cor. 2:12, 13).—​Earthly things ... heavenly things. The connection of these verses with the preceding interprets the contrast which Christ here indicates. Nicodemus has impliedly asked for an exposition of Christ’s system of truth. Christ has replied by saying that no man can understand the truths that pertain to the kingdom of God unless he is born again. This necessity of a radical change in heart and life in order to appreciate divine things is an earthly fact, easily tested by an observation of men; a striking evidence of it is afforded by the question of Nicodemus in verse 4. He then immediately goes on to ask how such a change can be effected. But this, the method of God’s work in anew creating the heart, is a heavenly thing, not a matter of observation; and Christ says, If you do not believe me when I tell you a truth which you can easily verify by studying the earthly life of men, what use is there in my telling you the secrets of God’s working, the truth of which disclosure you have no means of verifying. Observe the implication that the things which are earthly, literally, upon the earth (ἐπίγεία), belong to us to study and know, and the things which are heavenly, literally, which take place in the heavens (ἐπουρανια), belong to the secret counsels and [Pg 44] work of God, and do not belong to us to investigate (Deut. 29:29). And yet by far the largest proportion of theological conflicts have taken place respecting these hidden things, concerning God’s eternal counsels not man’s present duty.

13. The key to the interpretation of this verse is to be found in its context and connection. Christ says: How shall ye believe if I tell you of things which take place in heaven; yet no one else can tell you, for no one has ascended into heaven, and no one therefore can report its secrets, except he who has descended from heaven and is in continual communion with heaven. So interpreting it, observe, (1) The declaration, No one (not merely no man) hath ascended up to heaven, means no living person; it does not militate against the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead, nor imply an unconscious or even an intermediate state. It is by the connection limited to those living on the earth, for they alone could reveal the secrets of heaven if acquainted with them. (2) He that came down from heaven plainly implies the pre-existence and supernatural character and origin of Jesus Christ (comp. ch. 8:58). He contrasts himself with other men, patriarchs, prophets, apostles, as the only one who has descended to earth from heaven. (3) Which is in heaven indicates not merely, as Meyer apparently interprets it, that Christ’s proper abode and home were in heaven, but also that he maintained a vital and continuous communion therewith, dwelling in the Spirit in heaven, even while in the flesh upon earth. The Christian’s experience interprets, though it does not fully measure, this mystery of the heavenly life in the flesh (Phil. 3:20; Ephes. 2:6; Heb. 12:22).

14, 15. As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness. The reference here is to the event recorded in Num. 21:4-9. The account there should be carefully studied and compared with the spiritual interpretation which Christ affords here. What species are there indicated by the description “fiery serpent” is not very clear; probably the title was given from the burning sensations produced by their bite. Travelers describe a large serpent, said to abound in the Arabian peninsula, full of fiery red spots and undulating stripes, and regarded as one of the most poisonous of the serpent kind. Excruciating heat and a burning thirst are among the symptoms produced by the bite of this serpent. The brazen serpent described in Numbers is thought to have been put upon a pole and carried throughout the camp, so as to bring it within the sight of all the people. It was carefully preserved and carried into the Holy Land, where it became an object of idolatry and was destroyed in the reformation instituted under Hezekiah (2 Kings 18:4). A Roman Catholic church at Milan, Italy, however, still claims to possess the original brazen serpent.—​Must the Son of Man be lifted up. Why must? What is the necessity? That question Christ does not answer here, nor, so far as I can see, does the N. T. anywhere. It simply represents the atoning sacrifice of Christ as a necessity, without explaining the grounds of that necessity (comp. Luke 24:26). That it is in the divine economy of grace an inexorable necessity is indicated even by the types of the O. T. (Lev. 17:11; Heb. 9:22). The phrase “Son of Man” was a common Jewish designation for the Messiah. It would have been so understood by Nicodemus (Matt. 10:23, note).—​Be lifted up. Not only on the cross, but by the cross unto glory. It is the cross which lifts up Christ to be the object of adoration for the whole creation (Phil. 2:9; Rev. 5:9).—​Should not perish. These words are wanting in the best manuscripts. But the doctrine implied, that those who do not believe will perish, is clearly taught in verse 16, from which it was probably borrowed and inserted here by some early copyist.—​Eternal life. The same Greek words are rendered everlasting life in the next verse (ζωὴν αἰώνιον). Comp. ch. 10:10. Eternal life is the life of the soul which disaster cannot impair nor death destroy—a present possession, not a future inheritance, except that it is a possession which grows in value and importance in the future.

In studying Christ’s language in these two verses observe (1) That we have Christ’s authority for the doctrine that the O. T. history is intended to indicate, by types or object-teaching, the great truths of the Gospel. This he assumes elsewhere in his ministry (Luke 22:15, 19, 20; John 6:49-51), and it is directly asserted by Paul (1 Cor. 10:11), and underlies the Epistle to the Hebrews. The history of the brazen serpent is then a parable of the Gospel; parabolically it points out the way of salvation. (2) The serpent is throughout the Bible an emblem of Satan, and its poison an emblem of the deadly and pervasive effects of sin (Gen. 3:1, 14, 15; Deut. 32:33; Psalm 58:4, 5; 140:3; Rom. 3:13; 2 Cor. 11:3; Rev. 12:9). It is a fitting emblem—slight in its first wound, affecting the blood, the current and fountain of [Pg 45] life, pervading the whole frame with its subtle poison, a poison for which there is no human remedy, and resulting in certain death. (3) For the human soul, poisoned by sin, the end whereof is death (James 1:15), there is lifted up One who, though he knew no sin, was made in the likeness of sinful flesh (2 Cor. 6:21), so that in him the enemy himself was, as it were, nailed to the cross (Col. 2:15). Thus, as the brazen serpent represented the fiery serpent, yet had in him not poison but healing, so Christ represented sinful flesh, but had in him no sin but redemption from the poison of sin in others. (4) The one only condition of healing to the poisoned Israelite was that he look on the brazen serpent; and this simply as an act of obedient faith. To this fact Isaiah had reference in his interpretation of the divine condition of salvation, “Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth; for I am God, and there is none else” (Isaiah 45:22). So here to “believe in him” is not to believe some doctrine about the Messiah, but simply to trust in him, to look unto him (Acts 16:31; Heb. 12:2). (5) The work of heralding the Gospel is the work of Moses in the wilderness. It is a simple pointing to the Saviour, lifted up that the sinner, by looking unto him, may be saved. The work of instruction in the precepts of Christ and the principles of his kingdom comes after, not before, salvation (Matt. 28:19, 20, note).

16. Some scholars, including Olshausen and Tholuck, suppose that Christ’s discourse ends with the preceding verse, and that the remainder, to verse 21, are added by John; but the grounds for such an hypothesis seem to me quite insufficient, and the objections to it quite conclusive. The grounds are (a) That all allusion to Nicodemus is henceforth dropped. But Nicodemus is only introduced as an interrogator, because his questions elicit the instruction of Jesus; and only so much of his share in the conversation is recorded as is necessary to make Christ’s language intelligible. (b) Thenceforth past tenses are used. This might, however, well be the case, even if the events were future, the discourse being prophetic. But the events were not future, but past. The love of God, the sending his Son into the world, the opening of the door of salvation through Him—all this was already accomplished; and the passion is not described in detail as an event past. (c) The phrase “only begotten” is said to be peculiar to John. But Stier well replies that John probably obtained the phrase from Christ. The objections to the view which supposes that Christ ends the discourse at verse 15, and that the rest is John’s are, (a) That the discourse breaks off abruptly, if ended at verse 15, leaving Nicodemus in entire ignorance of the way of salvation. The same necessity which, on this hypothesis, led John to complete it, would much more have led Christ to complete it. (b) There is nothing to indicate a break at verse 15; and to suppose John guilty of adding to the discourse of our Lord his own words, without indicating that it is an addition, is to accuse him of imposture, if not forgery, and casts discredit over his whole narrative. Lange, Stier, Meyer, Alford, all hold the discourse to be our Lord’s to the end, at verse 21. The verse itself has been well called by Luther “The little gospel,” for it embodies the whole gospel in a single sentence. It declares the divine nature—love (1 John 3:9, 16); the nature of that love, a love unto self-sacrifice, the sacrifice of his Only Son; the object of that love—the whole world; the result of that love—the gift of the Messiah; the divine nature of the Messiah—God’s only begotten Son; the object of that gift—salvation; the sole condition of securing the benefits of that gift—trust in the Saviour; the proffer of that salvation—to all that believe in him; the effect of rejecting it—perishing; the effect of accepting it—everlasting life. Observe, (1) that all attempts to limit the meaning of the word world (ὁ κόσμος) to the elect, or the church, are inconsistent with the original and with other parallel passages of Scripture. See particularly 1 John 2:2, and Matt. 13:38, note; (2) the cause of the atonement is traced here not to the wrath but to the love of God, a fundamental fact often lost sight of in presenting that doctrine; (3) in the original an emphasis is put upon the word so, which is not preserved in the English version. The wonder of the Gospel is not that God loved the world, but that he loved it with such a love, a love which only the sacrifice of an only begotten Son can interpret.

17. Not ... to condemn the world. The Jews believed (see Lightfoot) that the Messiah would save Israel and judge the Gentile nations. It was a Rabbinical interpretation of Isaiah 21:12, “The morning cometh and also the night.” “It will be the morning to Israel (when the Messiah shall come), but night to the (Gentile) nations of the world.” This error Christ refutes, in this his first private preaching of the Gospel, as subsequently in his first public preaching (Luke 4:25-27); he declares that he brings salvation to the whole world. Alford notices the peculiar construction of the close of the verse, not, That he might save the world, but, That the world through him might be saved. “The free will of the world is by this strikingly set forth in connection with verses 19, 20. Not that the Lord is not the Saviour of the world, but that the peculiar cast of this passage requires the other side of the truth to be brought out.”

18. The connection is this: Though God did [Pg 46] not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, yet he is even now judging it and condemning its unbelief, though not in the way Nicodemus had anticipated; his mere presence is a judgment. His fan is in his hand (Matt. 3:12); for he that trusts in Christ is thereby taken out from judgment, while he that rejects Christ condemns himself. The next verse states the ground and the nature of this condemnation. The Light has come into the world, and men by refusing the Light attest their love of darkness; and it is for this, not for the darkness but for their love of it, that they are condemned.—​Is not condemned. But “is passed from death unto life” (ch. 5:24).—​Is condemned already. The sinner is condemned, not by Christ but by his own act; he is self-condemned (Tit. 3:11). Observe, that throughout the N. T. both condemnation and salvation are represented as present realities, not as future possibilities. The last judgment decides nothing; it simply announces publicly the results of the judgment now forming. Life is the true judgment-day.—Because he hath not believed. Men are not condemned for their deeds but for their desires. The way of escape from the evil is provided and declined; and for this the soul is condemned. Thus it is true that the Lamb of God taketh away the sin of the world (ch. 1:29) and yet condemns the sinner (ch. 15:22), because the condemnation is not for the past sin, but for the present rejection of the Saviour from sin.—​In the name of the only begotten Son of God. The name is Jesus, i. e., Saviour, and was given to him because “he shall save his people from their sins” (Matt. 1:21). To disbelieve in that name is to reject that salvation. “The ‘only begotten’ also here sets before us the hopelessness of such a man’s state; he has no other Saviour.”—(Alford.)

19. And this is the condemnation. Not merely, This is the cause of the condemnation; Christ has already stated that in the preceding verse; he here states the nature of the condemnation. He that loves darkness rather than light is given over to his own choice; this is the sentence pronounced against him (Hosea 4:1-17; Rom. 1:28; Rev. 22:11).—​Men loved darkness rather than light. Not merely more than light; they chose darkness. For illustration of this deliberate choice of darkness see Matt. 13:14, 15; 28:12-14; John 6:66; 12:10, 11; Acts 4:16, 17; 2 Tim. 4:10. This is not always, however, a conscious and deliberate choice. See John 12:43; 2 Tim. 3:4.—​Because their deeds are evil. Corrupting to others. This is the force of the Greek word (πονηρὰ), which is different from that rendered evil in the next verse. The corrupting power of sin lies in its secreting its evil character and purpose; hence it avoids the light; hence too it is called in Scripture the power of darkness (Luke 22:53; Col. 1:13; Rev. 16:10). Observe the secret cause of unbelief here indicated; men are willfully ignorant of the truth. It is not the intellect, but the will which is perverse. “The source of unbelief is immorality.”—(Meyer.)

20. Every one that practiseth evil. Worthless things (φαῦλα) not as in the preceding verse, things corrupting. But corrupting include worthless things, for they are not only worthless but worse than worthless. The evil here characterized is parallel to the idle words of Matt. 12:36, and it is opposed to the truth which is always fruitful in goodness and love.—​Hateth the light. It has been supposed by some that there is in these words a covert rebuke of Nicodemus for coming to Christ secretly by night. This seems to me improbable. Christ was not accustomed to conceal his rebukes so deftly.—​Lest his deeds should be reproved. Not necessarily by words of condemnation, but by the mere exposure of their worthlessness when brought to the light. See Luke 3:19, 20; John 8:8, 9; Compare Ephes. 5:11-13.

21. But he that doeth the truth. Man practises the evil (πράσσω), he does the truth (ποιέω). Compare ch. 5:29, where the same distinction is observed: “they that have done good (shall come forth) unto the resurrection of life, they that have practised evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.” “He that practises (πράσσω) has nothing but his practice, which is an event, a thing of the past, a source to him only of condemnation, for he has nothing to show for it, for it is also worthless (φαῦλον); whereas he that does (ποιέω) has his deed—he has abiding fruit; his works do follow him.”—(Alford.)—Cometh to the light. Not merely is willing and desirous to come to the light, but is also enabled to come to it, and to appreciate and receive it (Prov. 4:18; John 7:17). Observe that throughout the N. T. truth is represented not merely as an abstract philosophy to be intellectually received, but as a life in harmony with [Pg 47] the eternal verities of God’s law and character. Thus the incarnation is the fundamental doctrine of Christianity; as Christ is himself emphatically the Truth, so every Christian must be in a smaller measure an embodiment and incarnation of divine truth, manifesting it less by his words than by his life. So, on the other hand, Paul catalogues the vices of life, as the things which are contrary to “sound doctrine” (1 Tim. 1:10). For an exemplification of what it is to do the truth, see Psalm 15.—​That they are wrought in God. The Christian comes to the light, not for self-glorification, but to glorify God; his desire is not to manifest the goodness in himself, but the goodness in God which has triumphed over the evil in himself (Matt. 5:16; 1 Cor. 15:10).

Ch. 3:22-36. FURTHER TESTIMONY FROM JOHN THE BAPTIST TO JESUS.—​The office and the joy of the ministry—​Christ contrasted with his herald—​The human confirmation of divine truth—​The conditions of salvation—​The ground of condemnation—​The danger of and the defence from envy.

22. After these things. Not necessarily immediately after. There is nothing to indicate how much time elapsed between the conversation with Nicodemus and the events recorded in the latter part of this chapter, except the note of time in verse 24.—​And baptized. Christ did not baptize (ch. 4:2), and the baptism could not have been in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, for the Holy Ghost was not yet given (John 7:39), that is, in such measure as to be the common heritage of all disciples. The probable explanation of the statement here and in ch. 4:1, 2, is that of Chrysostom: “Both parties (John and the disciples of Jesus) alike had one reason for baptizing, and that was to lead the baptized to Christ.”

23, 24. In Enon near to Salim. The site of both places is uncertain. For different hypotheses see Smith’s Bible Dictionary, article Ænon. Jerome and Eusebius both affirm that Salim existed in their day eight Roman miles south of Scythopolis near the Jordan. Van der Velde found a Mussulman oratory called Sheyk Salim about six miles south of Scythopolis, and two miles west of the Jordan. Dr. Hackett seems to think this the more probable site. This places it near the northern border of Samaria.—​Because there was much water there. Rather many waters, i. e., many springs. Whether this spot was chosen because the water afforded conveniences for baptizing, or because the springs afforded conveniences for the pilgrims that flocked in such numbers (Matt. 3:5) to the baptism of John, is uncertain. Nothing respecting the form of baptism can be deduced from this expression.—​For John was not yet cast into prison. For chronology of this period, see Matt. 4:12, note. The events recorded in John, chaps. 2, 3, and 4, seem to have occurred between the temptation and the first preaching of Jesus recorded in Matt. 14:3-12; Mark 6:14-29. See notes there.

25, 26. Then there arose a question between some of John’s disciples and a Jew about purifying. Not the Jews, but a Jew, an indication that the difficulty, whatever it was, started with him. Various conjectures have been proposed respecting the nature of this question. The discussion of them is unprofitable. The fact of the question is merely stated to explain how the instructions of John the Baptist came to be given.—​And they came. Some of the disciples of John came.—​Said unto him. What they said was evidently in the nature of a complaint. “He who also was with thee,” said they, “as one of thy disciples, has started off on a mission of his own, and is eclipsing thee.” There was possibly a little personal jealousy in this complaint. To their minds Jesus was but a disciple of the Baptist like themselves.

27, 28. A man can receive nothing except it be given him from heaven. Some, as Alford and Maurice, suppose that John refers to himself, saying in effect: I cannot take more than God has given me, viz., the mission of a herald; others, as Chrysostom, that he refers to Jesus. This latter seems to me clearly the true view, which has been abandoned, perhaps, from a reluctance to apply the principle involved in it to Christ, that whatever power he possessed was not independent but derived from the Father. The connection seems to me to be this: “If he whom I baptized is drawing all men unto him and is conferring on them spiritual gifts greater than I conferred, it is because his spiritual power, heaven bestowed, is greater. For, in the spiritual realm no man [Pg 48] can usurp; no man can receive what heaven does not give.” In other words, spiritual results are always an all-sufficient justification for any spiritual work. No question of its regularity, or of the authority or the right of the worker is to be entertained.—​Ye yourselves bear me out. He turns their words, “to whom thou barest witness,” against themselves. See for his witness Matt. 3:11, 12; John 1:20, 25-27.—​I am sent before him. As a herald before a king (Luke 3:3-6).

TRADITIONAL SITE OF ENON.

29, 30. He that hath the bride is the bridegroom, etc. In the East, etiquette forbids any meetings between the bride and groom prior to marriage. Often they do not even see each other. All communications between them are carried on by one answering to our groomsman, and who is designated as the friend of the bridegroom. See Matt. 25:1-13, Prel. Note. To this custom John refers. The Church is the bride (Matt. 9:15; 25:1-13; Rev. 21:9); in a sense every individual Christian is the bride (Jer. 3:14; Isa. 54:5); Christ is the bridegroom; every one who brings Christ to his Church, or to the individual soul, is a “friend of the bridegroom.” The practical lesson for us is that we are to rejoice to be lost in the Master; to rejoice when our mission is ended for the Church or the individual, and those whom we have been teaching are able to say to us, as the Samaritans to the woman (John 4:42), “Now we believe, not because of thy saying; for we have heard him ourselves, and know that it is indeed the Christ, the Saviour of the world.” “I know scarcely any words in all the Scriptures which have a deeper and diviner music in them than these, or which more express all that a Christian minister and a Christian man should wish to understand and feel; and should hope [Pg 49] that some day he may understand and feel as he who first spoke them did.”—(Maurice.)—Who standeth and heareth him. Stands ready to do the bridegroom’s bidding.—​He must increase, but I must decrease. This is with John the Baptist a subject not for resignation, but for rejoicing. His decrease in the increasing of Christ is the evidence that his work and his faith have not been in vain. For him to live is Christ; hence the more Christ and the less John, the greater his joy.

31-32. It has been supposed by some critics that the discourse of John the Baptist ends with the preceding verse, and that what follows is a comment by the Evangelist, (so Bengel, Olshausen, Tholuck); and by others that although it is in form the Evangelist’s report of the Baptist’s words, it has been so transformed in the reporting that it is in effect the Evangelist’s, (so Lucke and De Wette.) It must be confessed that the style is far more like that of John the Evangelist than like that of John the Baptist, so far as we have reports from other quarters, of the latter’s discourses; but there is no indication of any transition here from a report to a comment on it; and the closeness of the connection in thought forbids the idea that any such transition exists. I therefore (with Alford and Meyer) regard the whole discourse as in substance that of John the Baptist, though probably in phraseology largely that of the Evangelist.—​He that cometh from above is above all. The Baptist emphasizes the contrast between Christ and himself. Christ, from above and above all, speaks what he knows and has seen (comp. John 3:11); John the Baptist from the earth, and possessing the earthly nature, can, like all other human teachers, only declare the truth as it has come to him in his earthly condition and as seen through the earthly atmosphere. The teachings of Christ are the highest even in the Bible, for they are free from that admixture of earthiness which belongs essentially to all mere earth-born teachers.—​No man receiveth his testimony. A sorrowful comment (comp. ch. 1:11); but not literally true, nor is it intended to be literally taken. This is evident from the next verse.

33-35. He that hath received his testimony hath sealed that God is true.—​The seal was in ancient times, as in modern, attached to any document in confirmation and attestation of it. John the Baptist declares that whoever accepts heartily the testimony of Jesus Christ becomes himself a confirmation of its truth to others, by his own life. The meaning is interpreted by Matt. 5:14; and 2 Cor. 3:2. A pregnant and suggestive metaphor; that we put the seal to God’s testimony.—​He whom God hath sent. The question of Christ’s relation to the Father is not in issue here. John’s disciples complain that Jesus teaches at all; John replies that the divine effects of his teaching are the attestation of his divine ministry; and that having been divinely sent, he can speak no other than divine words. Compare ch. 7:16.—​For the Father giveth not the Spirit by measure. Alford sustains the addition of the English translators, unto him; to me it seems, as to Meyer, quite arbitrary. The meaning is not, God has distinguished Christ from all other teachers by his unmeasured gifts of grace to him; but, when God gives he does not stint, nor measure, nor parley, but gives abundantly more than we can ask or think (Ephes. 3:20); therefore, when he sends one into the world to reveal divine truth, we are not to be afraid of his teaching, and to put limitations upon and hindrances about him, lest he go astray. The truth that God has given immeasurably more into the hands of his only begotten Son than to any created being appears in the next verse, not in this. Our English version destroys the climax, and makes ver. 35 little more than a repetition of ver. 34.—​And hath given all things into his hands. Observe that throughout the N. T. the power and authority of Christ is represented as derived from the Father, not as original or independent of him. See for example, John 5:26; Phil. 2:9; Heb. 1:9.

36. He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life. An assertion, not a promise. The declaration is not that everlasting life shall be given to him in the future as a reward for his act of faith, but that faith at once inducts him into spiritual life, which is alone everlasting. Compare ver. 18 above; Rom. 6:23; 1 John 3:2. Observe what faith confers is life, i. e., the highest development and activity of the whole being (John 10:10), the reverse being death.—​He that believeth not the Son. Two different Greek words are translated in the two clauses of this verse by the English word believe. The force of [Pg 50] the original is impaired, if not destroyed, by this mistranslation; but it is not easy to find in English the exact equivalent for the distinction which is noted in the original. The passage may perhaps be rendered, He that hath faith in (πιστεύων εἰς) the Son hath everlasting life; but he that will not be persuaded by (ἀπειθων) the Son shall not see life. Beware of considering Believe on the Son as equivalent to either Believe correctly about the Son, or even Believe the Son. See Matt. 18:6, note.—​Shall not see life. Not only shall not have it, but cannot even comprehend it. Spiritual life is only spiritually discerned, and faith is the first condition of spiritual discernment. See ver. 3 and note.—​The wrath of God abideth on him. Remains, as something previously resting upon him and not removed. See Ephes. 2:3.

SYCHAR.

Ch. 4:1-26. CHRIST AND THE WOMAN OF SAMARIA.—​Christ a preacher in season and out of season.—​His example as a Christian conversationalist.—​The divine spring; the human cistern.—​The essential and the insignificant questions in worship contrasted.

This interview between Christ and the Samaritan woman is reported alone by John. The time is uncertain; the only definite indication is that of verse 35, and the interpretation of that is uncertain. With Ellicott and Andrews, I think December of A. D. 27 the most probable date. Matthew (4:12) explains Christ’s departure into Galilee by saying that it took place when he heard that John the Baptist was cast into prison; John here attributes it to another cause, a fear of rivalry and contention between his own and John’s disciples. The probable explanation is that Christ left Judea for the latter reason, but did not commence his public ministry till the imprisonment of the Baptist. See ch. 5, Prel. note.

1-4. Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John. The conversation between Christ and Nicodemus took place at the Passover, and therefore in the spring; if that between Christ and the woman at the well occurred in December, Jesus and John the Baptist baptized together during the summer. The doctrine which Christ preached at this time was substantially the same as that of the Baptist. “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand” (Matt. 3:2; 4:17); for he had not yet begun to explain publicly the spiritual and universal nature of his kingdom. But differences between the ministries of the two were from the first apparent; differences chiefly respecting the ceremonials of religion—purifying, baptizing, fasting (ch. 3:25, 26; Matt. 9:14). The increasing popularity of Christ threatened to awake the envy of the Baptist’s disciples, his disregard of ceremonial to awaken their suspicion; the Pharisees were alert to stimulate both. So Christ withdrew, forestalling the first danger of rupture and conflict, a lesson to all Christian workers against all unchristian rivalries and contentions about details in doctrine or ceremony. Envy is the most common instigator of denominational controversy.—​Jesus himself baptized not. No instance is recorded of any baptism administered by Christ, or of any baptism commanded or authorized by Christ, till after his resurrection and about the time of his ascension. Baptism appears to have been adopted by his disciples from John the Baptist, and [Pg 51] employed by them without express direction from Christ, as a symbol of repentance and a profession of a new life, and to have been subsequently adopted in a modified form by their Lord. That it was always regarded by the apostles as subordinate to the preaching of the Word is indicated by Acts 10:4, 8, with 1 Cor. 1:16, 17, from which it appears to have been a ministerial act not ordinarily performed by the apostles. On the history of baptism, see note on the baptism of Jesus by John, Vol. I, p. 72, and on Christian baptism, note on Matt. 28:19.—​And he must needs go through Samaria. Simply because that province lay directly between Judea and Galilee, and therefore on the direct route. See map. Josephus tells us that it was the custom of the Galileans, when they came to the holy city to the festivals, to take their journey through the country of the Samaritans. The more bigoted Judeans may have sometimes avoided it by going through Perea. The history of Samaria explains, and in some measure justifies, the odium attaching to it and its inhabitants among the Jews. At the time of the secession of the ten tribes under Rehoboam (1 Kings, ch. 12), Shechem was adopted by him as the capital of the new monarchy, and made the seat of an idolatrous worship. Subsequently the city of Samaria was built by Omri, king of Israel, as capital (1 Kings 16:24), and so remained till the time of the captivity of the ten tribes under Shalmaneser (2 Kings 17:6). A heathen colony was then sent in to take the places of the exiled Israelites; these colonists suffered from the devastations of wild beasts, and acting on the common assumption of that time that their own gods were not competent to take care of them in a strange land, sent for and received priests of Israel to teach them the manner of the God of Palestine. The result of this instruction was a mixed religion, partly Jewish, partly heathen (2 Kings 17:24-41). In the O. T., the phrase “the cities of Samaria,” is equivalent to the “kingdom of Israel;” it thus included all of Palestine north of Judea. That portion of Israel east of the Jordan which originally belonged to it was subsequently taken away the kings of Assyria (1 Chron. 5:26), Galilee shared the same fate (2 Kings 15:29), and Samaria was reduced to the dimensions which it possessed in the time of Christ. The character and conduct of the Samaritans increased the antagonism between them and the Jews. They were refused permission to participate in the rebuilding of the temple at Jerusalem, at the time of the return of Judah from captivity, and became open, and, for a time, successful opponents of the rebuilding (Ezra, chaps. 4 and 5; Neh., chaps. 4 and 6). Finally, an exiled priest from Jerusalem obtained permission from the Persian king of his day to build a rival temple at Gerizim, and Samaria became the rival of Jerusalem, and the rallying-point of its foes and its outlaws (Josephus’ Antiq. 11:8, 6). To a rival temple and religion, they added a Samaritan Pentateuch, for which they claimed a greater antiquity and authority than for any copy of the O. T. possessed by the Jews. The bitter national and religious antipathy between Jew and Samaritan, consequent upon this history, is illustrated in several passages in the N. T. (ver. 9, note; 8:48; Luke 9:52-56; 10:30-37; 17:16). If anything could justify such an antipathy this would be justified, since the Samaritans were renegades both to their religion and to their nation; and Christ’s course here and elsewhere implies a condemnation of all rancor and bitterness, founded on race, national, or religious differences. Of the Samaritans, one hundred and fifty still worshipping in a little synagogue at the foot of Gerizim are all that are left, “the oldest and the smallest sect in the world.”

5. A city of Samaria called Sychar. The prevalent opinion is that Sychar is a corruption of the name Shechem, that it means drunken, and that this slight change was given by the Jews to the rival capital in derision, and in possible allusion to Isaiah 28:1. If this be so, it must have become current at this time; for we can hardly believe that John would otherwise embody a mere term of derision in the Evangelical narrative. Dr. Thomson (Land and Book, ii:206, following Hug, Luthardt, and Ewald) identifies the ancient Sychar with a village about half a mile north of the supposed site of Jacob’s well, called Aschar; and as the corruption of Shechem into Sychar is a mere hypothesis, framed to account for the use of the word here, Dr. Thomson’s opinion appears to me the more probable. Shechem was two miles distant from Jacob’s well, and apparently was abundantly supplied with water.

JACOB’S WELL.

6. Now Jacob’s spring was there. There are two Greek words translated well in this narrative: the first means a spring or fountain, i. e., water-source; the second a well or cistern, i. e., a water-chamber. The first (πηγή) is used here, indicating that the well was fed internally by springs, not externally by rain. A well, now dry and deserted, answering to all the conditions of [Pg 52] the narrative here, is designated by an ancient tradition as the one here described; and the case is one of the very few in Palestine in which tradition appears to be trustworthy. It is accepted even by Dr. Robinson. The purchase of the ground by Jacob is described in Gen. 33:18-20, but for the digging of the well there is no other authority than tradition, unless Gen. 49:22 is an allusion to it. Whether Jacob himself dug it, or whether his name was subsequently given to it by tradition is not known, nor does the reference here determine that question; it only designates the well by its customary name. Why he should have dug a well at all has been made matter of question, since the whole valley abounds with water. To this question Dr. Thomson replies: “The well is a very positive fact, and it must have been dug by somebody, notwithstanding this abundance of fountains, and why not by Jacob?” And he suggests that these fountains may have been already appropriated by the native population. The site of the well is in the valley between Mts. Gerizim and Ebal. For a striking description of this valley, see Van der Velde. The historical associations connected with the site were many and sacred. There the Lord first appeared to Abraham (Gen. 12:6, 7); Jacob built his first altar (Gen. 33:18-20); Joseph sought his brethren in vain (Gen. 37:12); Joshua rehearsed the law, with its blessings and cursings, and amidst the loud amens of the assembled people (Josh. 8:30-35; 24:1-25); and there Joseph was buried in the land that belonged to his father Jacob (Josh. 24:32). “At no other spot in Palestine, probably, could Jesus have more fitly uttered his remarkable doctrine, of the absolute liberty of conscience from all thrall of place or tradition, than here in Shechem, where the whole Jewish nation, in a peculiar sense, had its beginning.”—(H. W. Beecher’s Life of Christ.)—Being wearied with his journey. The commentators call attention to this weariness as an evidence of the reality of his humanity. It seems to me, when coupled with the prophecy of Isaiah 53:2, his apparent sinking under the weight of the cross, and his early death, while the two thieves survived (Matt. 27:32; Mark 15:44; John 19:32, 33), to be an indication that his physical frame was not robust, was not equal to the demands of the soul which it contained, and that, as a part of his human experience, he knew the peculiar sorrows which an intense and active mind feels when hindered by a weak bodily organization.—​Sat thus at the spring. “What meaneth ‘thus’? Not upon a throne; not upon a cushion; but simply and as he was upon the ground.”—(Chrysostom.)—And it was about the sixth hour. That is, about twelve o’clock. There appears to be no adequate reason for the opinion that has been advanced, that John employs a different kind of reckoning from that common among the Jews, and means here 6 P. M. It is true that the evening was the common hour of resort to the wells by the women, but evidently this conference was with Christ alone, an indication that the hour was not the evening hour, for then others would probably have been present also. Ryle suggests that there is a significance in the fact that while Christ talked with Nicodemus alone, and at night, his ministry to this sinful woman was at a public resort, and at noon. “If a man will try to do good to a person like the Samaritan woman, alone and without witnesses, let him take heed that he walk in his Master’s footsteps, as to the time of his proceedings, as well as to the message he delivers.” Compare the circumstances of Christ’s Gospel message to the woman that was a sinner (Luke 7:37, etc.).

7, 8. A woman of Samaria. That is, a Samaritan woman.—​To draw water. In the East the towns are not supplied, as with us, by means of aqueducts and water-pipes, nor are individual houses furnished each with its well. The well itself is usually excavated from the solid limestone rock, and provided with a low curb to guard against accident (Exod. 21:33). On such a curb Christ probably sat to rest. The well is ordinarily not furnished with any apparatus for drawing water. Each woman brings her own bucket, most commonly made of the skin of some [Pg 53] animal; sometimes the well is shallow, and she descends by steps made for the purpose (Gen. 24:16), and dips the water up from the surface; if it is deep, she lets down her bucket with a rope. To assist in the work, a wheel or pulley is sometimes fixed over the well. A trough of wood or stone usually provides a means for watering cattle and sheep (Gen. 24:20; Exod. 2:16). In this case, Christ had no bucket with him, and the well being deep, so that he could not descend into it, he had no means of obtaining water (ver. 11).—​Jesus saith unto her, Give me to drink. Observe how insignificant a request he makes the occasion for a deeply spiritual religious conversation; and how natural the transition from the material to the spiritual. Observe, too, that by asking a favor he opens the way to the granting of one. He thus verifies the truth that the way to gain another’s good will is not at first by doing, but by receiving a kindness.—​His disciples were gone ... to buy meat. They apparently carried little or nothing to eat on their journeys (Matt. 16:6, 7; 12:1), but money to make the necessary purchases (John 12:6). The direction to depend on hospitality (Matt. 10:9, 10) was not for their general guidance and government.

9. For the Jews have no dealings with the Samaritans. This is taken by some to be said by the woman; more probably it was added parenthetically by the Evangelist, to explain to his Gentile readers the woman’s surprise. For the reason of the fact, see on verse 4. It seems clear that the statement is not to be taken literally, for the disciples, who were Jews, had just gone into the Samaritan city to purchase food; but that there was abundant ground for it is evident from Rabbinical writings; e. g., “Let no Israelite eat one mouthful of anything that is a Samaritan’s; for if he eat but a little mouthful, he is as if he ate swine’s flesh.”

10. If thou knewest the gift of God. Not, If thou knew that water is the gift of God; this knowledge might indeed have prevented her seemingly surly refusal, but it would not have led her to ask living water of him. Nor, If thou knewest the peace and joy which are the spiritual gifts of God; these constitute the living water, and if she already knew them, in her experience, she would not need to ask to receive them. Christ is the unspeakable gift of God; if she knew the full importance of this gift, the office and work of the Messiah, and that he who was asking her for a drink of water was he, she would have asked and received from him living water. The objection that the woman would not have so comprehended the reference, and therefore that it cannot be the primary meaning (Alford, Meyer), is not tenable, because by the very language itself it is implied that the woman will not comprehend it. Christ speaks of a mystery to provoke her to further inquiry.—​Living water. This phrase signifies primarily spring water, as opposed to water in a cistern. In Gen. 26:19; Lev. 14:5; Jer. 2:13, the word rendered “springing,” “running,” and “living,” is in the Septuagint the one here rendered “living.” It is taken by Christ as a symbol of the spiritual life which he imparts, and so as a symbol of himself, for he gives himself to the soul, and is, by his indwelling, the bread and water of life. The spiritual meaning then is not life-giving; for that a different Greek word would be employed (ζωοποιών not ζῶν). It is true that living water is life-giving, but that is not the meaning conveyed by the phrase. The meaning is water that has life in itself, as in John 6:51; “living bread” means the living Christ, in contrast with the inert manna. The significance of the metaphor here is explained by its connection. Christ compares himself with water, not because of its cleansing power, nor because of its revivifying power on the soil, but because he satisfies the soul’s thirst. A similar metaphorical use of water is to be found in the O. T. See Psalm 23:2; Isaiah 55:1; Jer. 2:13; but especially Numb. 20:8-11, an incident which it appears to me probable Christ had in mind, and one with which the woman was probably familiar, as the Samaritans accepted and employed the Pentateuch. Observe that salvation is the gift of God (Rom. 6:23), and that the only condition of receiving it is asking (Matt. 5:6; 7:7; Rev. 22:17). The water’ is always ready; it is the thirst only that is wanting (Luke 14:17-19).

11, 12. Sire, Thou hast no bucket, and the well is deep. Not spring; the water chamber, not the water source (φρέαρ not πηγή) See on ver. 6. The language is that of badinage. It is analogous to that of Nicodemus in ch. 3:4; though here, commingled with irony, there may well have been a real perplexity. The original [Pg 54] indicates a change in the woman’s tone; she at first says, How is it that thou being a Jew? she now addresses him as “Sire” (kύριε).—​Our father Jacob, etc. The Samaritans traced their origin back to the patriarchs, and her language here implies a claim to an ancestry superior to that of the Jews, among whom she classed Jesus. Observe an illustration of the spirit which says, What sufficed for our fathers is good enough for us, no one can be greater than they; a spirit which is fatal to all progress, in either material or spiritual things.

AT THE WELL.
“Whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst.”

13, 14. Every one drinking of this water; accustomed to drink of it, and relying upon it. “The ‘drinking’ sets forth the recurrence, the interrupted seasons of the drinking of earthly water.”—(Alford.)—Shall thirst again. He appeals in this to the woman’s experience, who comes daily to re-supply the ever-recurring want.—​But whosoever has drunk; once for all; the tense (aorist, πίῃ) indicates an historical act once performed.—​That I shall give to him. Observe the representation throughout that the water is a gift, and a gift not received by Christ in common with humanity, but given by Christ to humanity. The Bible may be searched in vain for similar language from any prophet or apostle.—​Shall not thirst unto eternity. That is, shall never, even unto eternity, thirst. “The whole verse is a strong argument in favor of the doctrine of the perpetuity of grace, and the consequent perseverance and the faith of believers.”—(Ryle.) Comp. ch. 10:28; Rom. 8:35-39; 2 Tim. 1:12.—​But the water which I shall give him. This Christ does by giving his own life for the life of the world in his sacrifice for sin (ch. 6:51) and in his spiritual indwelling in the soul of the believer (ch. 14:19, 23).—​Shall become in him a fountain of water. Not a well (not φρέαρ but πηγή). The reason he shall never thirst is that the water which Christ gives becomes itself a water source, a spring, a perpetual fountain of supply.—​Springing up unto eternal life. Not into; the preposition indicates not something into which the fountain will be transformed, but the duration of its existence; it will forever spring up in the soul. The contrast throughout these verses is between earthly and spiritual supplies. The well (φρέαρ) is a symbol of earthly supply. This appeases but never satisfies; for it furnishes that which is external, and which is consumed in the using, so that the soul which relies on earthly cisterns for its satisfaction thirsts again. The living water, the spring (πηγή) which Christ gives, becomes a fountain in the soul, it enters into and becomes part of the character; using does not consume but increases the supply. In Christ’s promise here thirst is not equivalent to “desire,” nor is the declaration “shall never thirst,” equivalent to “shall never feel any spiritual want.” Thirst is of all bodily cravings the most painful and intolerable. Hence it is used in the Bible as a metaphor, not merely of spiritual desires, but of an urgent and intense desire, that cannot be denied (Psalm 42:2; 63:1; 143:6; Isaiah 55:1; Matt. 5:6, note). Here then the declaration is that Christ satisfies this painful longing, so that the soul shall experience it no more. Of soul-thirst we have striking illustrations in Psalms 41 and 42, and in Rom. 7:17-24; of soul-satisfaction in Christ, illustrations in Psalm 46 and in Rom. 8:31-39. Compare Christ’s promises in John 11:36; 16:32, 33. The continuance of earnest spiritual desires is not inconsistent with a rich spiritual experience. See Phil. 3:12-14.

15. There is certainly a difference in tone between this request and the answer of verses 11, 13. The woman now dimly recognizes and vaguely appreciates Christ’s interpretation of her own soul-want, and replies half in jest, half in earnest. But her language “neither come hither to draw,” shows that she still gives to Christ’s words, as I think purposely misinterpreting them, a prosaic and literal meaning. Observe the implied misapprehension of the office of Christ, as one who relieves the soul of all further care and labor in the matter of religion. “There are many like her who would be glad of such a divine gift of religion as should take away all the labor and trouble of Christian life. ‘That I come not hither to draw’ is the desire of thousands who want the results of right living without the trouble of living aright.”—(H. W. Beecher.)

16. Go, call thy husband, etc. This is in appearance a break in the conversation; it is in reality the first step toward granting the woman’s request: “Give me this water;” for the first step is to convince of sin. It is only if we confess our sins that “He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from [Pg 55] all unrighteousness” (1 John 1:9). Hence when Christ came to bring this water of life to the world he began by preaching the duty of repentance (Matt. 4:17; Mark 1:15). Other explanations, as that a longer conversation with the woman alone would be indecorous (Grotius), or that she was unable to understand Christ’s meaning and so he summoned her husband (Cyril, quoted in Alford), or that he wished her husband to share with her in the benefits of the conversation (Chrysostom), singularly ignore the moral meaning and continuity of the discourse. Observe Christ’s uniform way of dealing with skepticism. Its root is in sin; and he addresses not the reason, but proceeds directly to convict the conscience. It is only the sinner, conscious of sin, who ever truly finds a divine Saviour.

17, 18. The word (ἀνήρ) in Christ’s reply, rendered husband, is one of more general import and is often translated man. But it is the ordinary word used in the N. T. for husband, and I see no reason to doubt that she had lived with five successive husbands.—​From these she had been separated, from some perhaps by death, from others by divorce; at all events the last of these separations was unconcealedly illegal, and her present life was one which her own conscience condemned as licentious. Observe the severity in fact and the gentleness in form of Christ’s rebuke. It shows a full knowledge of her sin; yet it is couched in the language not of condemnation but of commendation.

19, 20. The woman saith unto him. Her sentence is incomplete, either in the utterance or in the report. It is the basis of a question, implied, or perhaps expressed, but not given by John, in which place should worship be offered; which were right, Jew or Samaritan. The question was one fiercely debated between them (See on verse 5).—​I perceive that thou art a prophet. It was a hasty conclusion; Christ might have known her character and life by other than supernatural means. Bigotry and vice are apt to be credulous and superstitious. Observe, however, the difference in tone between this declaration and the language of verse 9: “How is it that thou being a Jew.”—​Our fathers worshipped. “The argument of ‘our fathers’ has always proved strong. Opinions, like electricity, are supposed to descend more safely along an unbroken chain. That which ‘our fathers’ or our ancestors believed, is apt to seem necessarily true; and the larger the roots of any belief, the more flourishing, it is supposed, will be its top.”—(Beecher.) Calvin’s comments are admirable though too long to quote. He suggests four errors into which men are apt to fall, from blindly following the “fathers,” all illustrated by the Samaritans: (1) When pride has created a false custom or religion, the history of the fathers is ransacked to find justification for it; (2) when men imitate the example of the evil-doers, because they are ancient, forgetful that they only are worthy to be reckoned as fathers who are true sons of God; (3) when we imitate the conduct but not the spirit of the fathers, as if one should defend human sacrifice from the example of Abraham in Gen. 22:1-10; (4) when we imitate the conduct of the fathers without considering the change of circumstances, as when the Christian church attempts to copy the ceremonials of the Jewish. “None of these are true imitators of the fathers; most of them are apes.”—In this mount, Gerizim. According to the Samaritan tradition it was here that Abraham went to sacrifice Isaac; and here, not on Ebal, as according to our Scripture (Josh. 8:30; Deut. 27:4), that the altar was erected by Joshua on which the words of the law were inscribed. The first view is sanctioned by some Christian scholars, prominent among whom is Dean Stanley. A temple was built on Gerizim by the Samaritans, according to Josephus, during the reign of Alexander, though the date is doubtful. The two temples intensified the bitterness of the feud between the Jews and the Samaritans, and the Samaritan temple was deserted and destroyed, B. C. 129, by John Hyrcanus (Josephus’ Antiquities 13:9, 11); but the Samaritans at Sechem (Nablus) still call Gerizim the holy mountain, and turn their faces toward it in prayer.—​Ye say. She still treats Christ as a Jew.

Some have regarded the question presented by the woman here as a serious one; recognizing Christ as a prophet, she asks his solution of what was to her mind the great religious problem of the day; others see in it an endeavor on her part to evade the personal reference to her own sins. Both seem to me true. She endeavors to turn the conversation; recognizing the truth of Christ’s allegation, “He whom thou now hast is not thy husband,” not by confessing her sin but by acknowledging him as a prophet; but eludes the topic by opening a problem in controversial theology. In all this she is honest [Pg 56] and in earnest. She is not the first inquirer who has deemed theoretical theology more important than practical duty. The moment her thoughts are turned to religious truth, they tend to its external aspects, and she naturally and honestly seeks a refuge from her conscience in the question, Where ought men to worship? The question, What ought I to do? is postponed. Observe that Christ suffers her to change the subject; leaves her conscience to press the sin to which he has awakened it, and teaches his followers how to deal with those who evade practical duty by doctrinal or ceremonial questions by his own response, No matter where or how the soul seeks God, if it only seeks him in spirit and in truth.

21-24. Believe me. This expression is nowhere else used by our Lord. It answers to his “Verily, verily, I say unto you” (Matt. 5:18, note), and to Paul’s “This is a faithful (i. e., trustworthy) saying” (1 Tim. 1:15, 4:9; Tit. 3:8). He employs it here because his declaration is partly in the nature of a prophecy, which must be accepted, if at all, upon simple trust in him.—​The hour cometh. The word hour is here equivalent to time or season; this use of “hour” is not infrequent in John’s Gospel (ch. 2:4; 5:25, 28, 35, “season;” 8:20, etc.).—​When ye shall neither in this mountain nor yet at Jerusalem worship the Father. A prophecy which was speedily, perhaps in the lifetime of this woman, fulfilled. The ravaging of Palestine by the Roman armies, and the destruction of Jerusalem and the dispersion of the Jews, has scattered the worshippers throughout the world. The Samaritan sect is indeed extinct, except the few survivors at Nablus, but the Jews continue their worship in exile in every land (Mal. 1:11).—​Ye worship ye know not what. Their ignorance concerning the nature of the true God is indicated in their early history (2 Kings 17:24-34). The woman was solicitous concerning the place of worship; Christ directs her thought toward the person to be worshipped.—​We know what we worship. This is the only instance in which Christ classes himself with the Jews by the pronoun we. He accepts, for the time, her estimate of him as a Jewish prophet, and declares that it is in the Jewish Scripture she is to look for a knowledge of the true God. In fact, all correct knowledge of the character, attributes, and dealings of God, possessed by the world to-day, has come through the Jewish people, by means of the Old and New Testaments (see Romans 3:1, 2; 9:4, 5). At the time of this conversation idolatry had entirely disappeared from the Jewish nation; and however inadequate, imperfect, and corrupt their worship, they at least recognized the one only true God. Notwithstanding some efforts to prove the contrary, I think it is historically demonstrable that Judaism is the source of all monotheistic religion. It is reasonably certain that the monotheism of Mohammedanism is due to Mohammed’s early instruction in the principles of Judaism.—​For the salvation is of the Jews. The definite article in the original, unfortunately omitted in our English version, gives not only emphasis but significance to the language. The Jews know what they worship, because it is from them, as a nation, that there comes forth the divine salvation, typified by the sacrifices at Jerusalem, prophesied by Jewish Scripture, and fulfilled by the Messiah born at Bethlehem in Judea. It is therefore here equivalent not merely to the Saviour, but also includes all the preparations which preceded his personal advent.—​But the hour cometh and now is. The last clause is added parenthetically as a suggestion that the woman is not to look to the remote future for the fulfillment of this word. Already the day has dawned, though it has not fully arrived. Her language in verse 25 indicates that a suspicion of Christ’s true nature was, perhaps by this declaration, awakened in her.—​When the true worshippers. Not merely the sincere in opposition to consciously hypocritical worshippers (Isaiah 29:13), but also the true, inward worshippers, in opposition to those whose worship was one of external form and therefore not genuine. The word true is elsewhere used thus by John to indicate the inward and spiritual as contrasted with the external and earthly, e. g., the true light (1:9), the true bread (6:32), the true vine (15:1). Compare Luke 16:11.—​Shall worship the Father, and therefore know what they worship; in spirit and in truth. Not in the Holy Spirit, though it is true that all spiritual worship is inspired and directed by his influence (Rom. 8:26; Zach. 12:10); nor with the breathing and aspirations of the heart, in contrast to worship with outward forms and symbols, for symbol is necessary in all public worship, language is but an external symbol of inward feeling; nor in holiness and righteousness of life, for that is not the meaning of spirit; [Pg 57] nor in soundness of faith, in contrast to heretical worship, for the worship of the Jews was not heretical, Christ has just said, “We know what we worship.” In (ἐν) expresses not the instrument with which the worship shall be conducted, but the atmosphere in which it will live, an atmosphere of spiritual life and truth; worship in spirit, is in contrast with a worship in the flesh, the essence of which consists in the rite, the form, the language, the posture (Comp. Rom. 12:1; Phil. 3:3, 4; Heb. 9:9, 24); worship in truth is one which in its character harmonizes with the nature of him who is worshipped. The Lycaonians would have worshipped Paul and Barnabas (Acts 14:11-13) in sincerity, but not in truth. Christ’s language condemns the spirit of ritualism, but not the employment of rites.—​For the Father is seeking such to worship him. God is represented as in quest of such worshippers, among the many who are worshippers merely in form. Observe work is not worship; God is seeking not merely workers (Matt. 20:1) but also worshippers (Comp. Luke 10:38-42, notes).—​God is a Spirit. This declaration is fundamental, and radically inconsistent with (1) all scientific theories which represent him as an abstract impersonal force; (2) with all metaphysical refinements which, ignoring his personality, treat him as a “power that makes for righteousness,” or as “the highest dream of which the human soul is capable;” (3) with much of the received theology, which often assumes that God is like nature, and deduces his attributes from such an imaginary likeness; (4) with all idolatry, whether the idol be in the imagination or in wood, stone, or canvas. But it justifies us in looking to man’s spiritual nature to interpret the divine nature to us. The spirituality of God is abundantly taught in the O. T., but by implication only. The abstract statement occurs only here and in 2 Cor. 3:17.—​Must worship him in spirit and in truth. Nothing else is worship.

Observe (1) Christ answers the woman’s question not by pointing out the right place of worship, but by inculcating such a conception of the true nature of worship, that the controversy respecting Gerizim and Jerusalem shrinks into insignificance. The solution of many theological problems is to be found, not in any answer, but in a new, a higher, a more spiritual conception of religion as a spiritual life. (2) The place, and impliedly the forms and methods of worship, are matters of no importance. (3) It is important that we know what we worship, i. e., that our worship be intelligent, else it is superstitious. “Unless there be knowledge, it is not God that we worship, but a phantom or idol.”—(Calvin.) (4) That knowledge includes three elements, viz., that God is a spiritual being, with the sympathies, the flexibility, the life which belongs to spirit; that he is a Father, and is therefore to be approached with a filial, reverential, trusting affection (Matt. 5:9, note); that he is revealed to us through the Jewish Scripture and the Jewish Messiah. (5) He must be worshipped in spirit, i. e., with the heart, and in truth, i. e., in accordance with the realities of his nature as thus revealed to us; nothing else is worship. (6) Worship is essential to a religious life. God looks for it, as well as for work, as an evidence of love. The whole lesson is eloquently embodied by Henry Ward Beecher in his Life of Christ: “It expresses the renunciation of the senses in worship. It throws back upon the heart and soul of every one, whoever he may be, wherever he may be, the whole office of worship. It is the first gleam of the new morning. No longer in this nest alone, or in that, shall religion be looked for, but escaping from its shell, heard in all the earth, in notes the same in every language, flying unrestrained and free, the whole heavens shall be its sphere and the whole earth its home.”

25, 26. The woman saith unto him. Chrysostom well expresses her spirit: “The woman was made dizzy by his discourse, and fainted at the sublimity of what he said.” So she turns away from the present revelation, procrastinating its application with the expectation of a better opportunity when the Messiah comes.—​He will tell us all things is not to be interpreted literally; it is the expression of a vague hope of a clearer light by and by.—​I that speak unto thee am he. Christ did not until a much later period declare his Messiahship to his own disciples; he never declared it more clearly than to this sinful Samaritan woman. There is a reason for it, in that this declaration took from her all excuse of procrastination, and in fact made her a missionary of the Messiah. Perhaps, too, the very fact that she was an uninfluential woman and a Samaritan may have made him more ready to reveal himself; for it was certainly his general purpose not to disclose his character and mission to the public until his death (Matt. 17:9). We certainly have no right to say, with some rationalizing critics, that because we cannot fully understand his reasons it is incredible. Such a method of criticism would make havoc of all history. Most scholars suppose that the words “which is [Pg 58] called Christ” were spoken by the woman. It seems to me more probable that they were added by John, as an explanation to his Greek readers of the Hebrew term Messiah. The word Christ is its Greek equivalent.

Note on Christ as a conversationalist.—​Christ as a preacher has been studied; Christ as a conversationalist is quite as worthy the Christian’s study. Many of his so-called discourses were simply conversations; this is notably the case with the discourse to Nicodemus (ch. 3:1-21) and the discourse here to the woman of Samaria. Observe, I. The contrast. In the first the conversation is with a religious teacher, of honorable position, of unexceptionable life; in the second, with an abandoned woman, of licentious life; in the first, conversation with Christ is sought, in the second, repelled; in the first, Christ impresses the truth that the moralist must be born again, and without personal trust in a personal Saviour is condemned; in the second, he impresses upon the outcast the truth that for the lost there is new life in him; the first he discourages, the second encourages; to the first he proclaims duty, to the second he preaches deliverance. II. The harmony. Both are skeptical; both receive his declaration with scoffs; both invite argument; with both Christ refuses to argue; to both he simply proclaims the truth, but without strife or debate; with both he conquers cavilling by patience, not by argument. III. Christ’s method. (a.) Though wearied, he does not neglect the occasion and opportunity afforded to him. (b.) He commences the conversation by a natural request. (c.) He opens the woman’s heart by requesting from her a favor. (d.) He passes, by a natural transition, from the physical to the spiritual world, from nature to the truth which nature typifies. (e.) He presents to her not ethical, but spiritual truth; not the simple moralities, but the deep things of the Gospel. (f.) Her badinage does not affront him, nor does he reprove her for it, or indicate surprise, astonishment, or even objection. (g.) He answers it by a direct and unanswerable appeal to her conscience, by convicting her of sin. (h.) In this, while his rebuke is sharp, his language is courteous, the language of commendation clothing condemnation. (i.) Having once awakened her conscience, he does not pursue the rebuke; leaving conscience to do its work, he suffers her to change the subject. (j.) He answers her theological question not by direct response, but by asserting a principle of worship which lifts the soul above all controversies respecting forms and methods of worship. (k.) Finally, he makes his first and fullest disclosure of his Messiahship to this Samaritan woman, showing himself most a Saviour to her who most needs his salvation. IV. His example. It illustrates the enthusiasm (Rom. 10:1; Col. 4:13; 2 Tim. 4:2), the skill (Prov. 11:30), the patience (2 Tim. 2:24; 1 Thess. 2:7), and the spirituality (1 Cor. 2:13, 14) needed for the most efficient, direct, personal work of soul-saving.

Ch. 4:27-42. CHRIST IN SAMARIA.—​The sustenance of Christian laborers.—​The call for Christian laborers.—​Their reward.—​Their success.

27-30. And marvelled that he talked with a woman. There is no definite article in the original. The disciples knew nothing of the woman’s character except that she was a Samaritan. What amazed them was that Christ should descend to instruct a woman at all, and especially a woman of Samaria. See above on ver. 4.—​No man said, What seekest thou? One of the many indications in the Gospel of the awe in which these life-companions of Christ stood toward him (Mark 9:32; 10:32; 16:8; Luke 8:25; John 21:12).—​Left her waterpot. Lightfoot supposes in kindness, for the Lord to use; Calvin, with greater probability, in her haste forgetting it. In her eagerness to carry to others the news of the Messiah, she forgets her original errand, which was to draw water for her home.—​Come see a man. Compare ch. 1:39, 46.—​Which told me all things that ever I did. The natural exaggeration of enthusiasm. Observe the method of the spread of Christianity in its earliest years. The new convert became a missionary, propagating its faith. Compare Acts 8:4; 9:20. If ever a new convert might be excused from evangelical labors, this one might—a woman, living in an age when female preaching was more obnoxious even than now, and a woman of such ill-repute that she might well expect to be received with scorn, not with respect. But her strong convictions overbear all obstacles, secure for her a hearing, and obtain for her mission success (ver. 39). Chrysostom dwells upon her wisdom as well as her eagerness: “She said not, Come, see the Christ, but, with the same condescension with which Christ had netted her, she draws the men to Him; Come, she saith, see a man who told me all that ever I did. Is not this the Christ? Observe again here the great wisdom of the woman; she neither declared the fact plainly, nor was she silent; for she desired not to bring them in by her own assertion, but to make them to share in this opinion by hearing [Pg 59] him. * * * Nor did she say, Come, believe, but Come, see, a gentler expression than the other, and one which more attracted them.”—​Then they came out of the city. Wisdom and tact inspired by enthusiasm produced by a personal and profound conviction of Christ’s person and power, rarely fail in evangelical labor.

31-33. Master, eat. The disciples had brought food from the city, to obtain which they had originally left him (ver. 8).—​I have meat to eat that ye know not of. The commentators generally assume that the doing of his Father’s will was this meat. This seems to me a false interpretation not required by and not really accordant with a correct reading of ver. 34 below (see note there); inconsistent with other teachings of Scripture, and practically misleading to the disciple. It is inconsistent with the metaphor; for in nature work is never a substitute for food, but physiologically exhausts it. It is inconsistent with other teachings of Scripture, which never represent work, but always divine sustaining grace, as the Christian food. It is practically misleading, for it leads the disciple to suppose that he can grow by simply doing the will of his Father, whereas he is to acquire the power to do that will by constantly receiving grace from the Father. Christ’s language here is interpreted by such passages as Matt. 4:4, “Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God;” Matt. 25:4, “The wise took oil in their vessels with their lamps.” Compare John, ch. 6. That Jesus lived by this divine food is evident from his habit of prayer, and from such declarations as John 5:19, 26, 30; 14:10, 11. This meat then is the indwelling Spirit of God, conditioned upon entire consecration to God. It was this meat which fed Peter in prison (Acts 12:6), Paul and Silas at Philippi (Acts 16:25), and Paul in the shipwreck (Acts 27:23, etc.); this too which sustained Christ in the hour of Gethsemane and throughout his Passion. A faint type of it is afforded in earthly experiences by the strength which seems often to be imparted to even a feeble mother in the hour of her child’s sickness, and which carries her through vigils which, but for her love, it would be impossible for her to sustain. Her work is not her food: her love and faith are her food, and sustain her for her work. No Christian can live by or on his work; nor did Christ.—​Hath any one brought him aught to eat. They thought, perhaps, that the woman had done so. “It is very characteristic of the first part of this Gospel to bring forward instances of unreceptivity to spiritual meaning. Compare ver.11; ch. 2:20; 3:4; 6:42, 52.”—(Alford.)

34. For me meat is in order that I may do the will of him that sent me. The meaning is not, as our English version seems to imply, that meat and doing God’s work are synonymous. The above is a literal translation of the original; and the meaning is, The object of meat is that I may do the will of him that sent me and may finish his work. The expression is parallel to and interpreted by Paul’s in Acts 20:24, “Neither count I my life dear unto myself so that I might finish my course;” or in Phil. 1:21, “For to me to live is Christ.” The object of Christ was the accomplishment of his mission; for this purpose alone had meat any value to him; for this purpose he both needed and possessed meat that his disciples, in their then state of spiritual culture, did not and could not understand; and in the work which he had accomplished, by his conversation with the woman, he had received greater satisfaction than in any food which they could have brought to him from the city.

35. There is some uncertainty regarding the proper interpretation of this verse. Alford, Tholuck, De Wette, and some others, suppose that Christ is quoting a proverbial expression; perhaps referring to the time which elapsed between seed-time and harvest, perhaps to some time intervening between a local feast or a religious anniversary and the harvest. Meyer, Andrews, Ellicott, and others take it as a chronological indication that it was then four months to harvest, i. e., the month of December, a fact to which perhaps some reference had been made by the disciples in the course of their walk. Chrysostom, Meyer, and others, suppose moreover that the approaching Samaritans were seen through the corn-fields, and to them Christ pointed when he said, “Lift up your eyes and look on the fields.” “The approaching townspeople now showed how greatly the doing of the Father’s will was in process of accomplishment. They were coming through the corn-field, now tinged with green; thus they make the fields, which for four months would not yield the harvest, in a higher sense already white harvest fields. Jesus directs the attention of his disciples to this; and [Pg 60] with the beautiful picture thus presented in nature he connects further appropriate instructions.”—(Meyer.) The phrase “Say not ye” seems to me clearly to indicate that Christ refers to some proverbial saying (comp. Matt. 16:2); the direction, “Lift up your eyes and look on the fields,” indicates some present appearance which gave point to his declaration that they were white already, a declaration which would have no significance if the fields were literally ready for the harvest. I therefore, with Tholuck, combine the two views and suppose that Christ did refer to a proverbial expression, probably indicating the time between seed-time and harvest, and appropriate then because it was then the seed-time. The spiritual meaning is very clear. Procrastination is a fault of the church as well as of the world, of the disciple as well as of the impenitent sinner. The Christian is constantly waiting for an opportunity; he should wait on, he never need wait for the Lord. Since Christ has ascended, and the Holy Ghost has been given, the field is always white for the harvest; we never need wait for God to ripen the grain. The message, “All things are now ready,” was given by the Lord to his servants; it is only as the servant understands and believes this that he can make the guests believe it (Luke 14:17).

SAMARITAN REMAINS IN GERIZIM.

36-38. And he that reapeth receiveth wages and gathereth fruit unto life eternal. The Lord’s husbandman has both wages and heaven. The earthly wages of the successful evangelist is not in his salary, nor in his fame or position, but in the affections which reward him, and the personal present consciousness of work achieved, the highest and grandest which it is ever permitted man to do. To this is added the joy inherent in bringing souls to Christ, and through Christ into eternal life, a joy which will not be consummated until the reaper enters into glory, with an “abundant entrance,” and brings his sheaves to his Lord.—​That both * * * may rejoice together. The sowing is in tears; the reaping is with rejoicing (Ps. 126:5); but in the future life both will rejoice in the ingathering; hearts that knew not whence they received the seed will learn to thank the unknown or the unrecognized benefactor; and the Lord of the harvest will say to both, “Well done, good and faithful servants.”—​Herein is that saying true. Undoubtedly a reference to a proverbial saying, to which Christ gives a new and spiritual significance. Primarily, Christ is the sower, who sowed in tears and reaped but little; the apostles are the reapers, who gathered in a single day more souls into the church of Christ than Jesus [Pg 61] himself in his whole lifetime.—​But secondarily the prophets were sowers and the apostles reapers, a fact illustrated by their constantly quoting of the prophets in attestation of the divine character and mission of Christ. And finally, the twofold work of sowing and reaping goes on throughout all time, the same man sometimes being both sower and reaper, sometimes sowing all his life in tears that another may reap in joy. The truth of Christ’s saying in verses 37, 38, is illustrated, but as a prophecy it is not fulfilled, by the successful mission of the apostles to Samaria, where Christ sowed at this time and they reaped subsequently (Acts 8:5-8, 14-17).

39-42. This mission of Christ to the Samaritans is not inconsistent with his directions to his apostles, when they were commissioned, not to go into any Samaritan city, for the reason of that prohibition was not his unwillingness to open the Gospel to the heathen, but the fact that his apostles did not yet comprehend its catholicity, and could not therefore successfully preach it to the heathen. That the opening of the doors to others than Jews was neither an afterthought with Christ, nor a supplemental act originating with Paul, is evident from the incident recorded here. Notice that the faith of the Samaritans rested on Christ’s words—he apparently wrought no miracles; and that they recognized in him the Saviour not of the nation but of the world. “Universalism was more akin to the Messianic faith of the Samaritans than to that of the Jews, with their definite and energetic feeling of nationality.”—(Meyer.) Notice too, the forms of Christian experience illustrated in this passage; one (ver. 39) rests on the testimony of others, the other (ver. 42) rests on a personal communion with and experience of Christ as a Messiah and Saviour.

Ch. 4:43-54. THE CURE OF THE CENTURION’S SON.—​Two kinds of faith; a poor faith requires miracles; a true faith accepts Christ’s word simply.

43-45. After two days. Spent in preaching the gospel to the Samaritans. The nature of this ministry is left to conjecture. We must presume, however, that it was of the same type as Christ’s preaching in Galilee at this time, where his theme was, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand” (Matt. 4:17); the nature of that kingdom, and the character of the Messianic king, he probably made no attempt to explain. It was preparative; he sowed only, leaving the reaping to be done by others at a later day.—​For Jesus himself testified that a prophet hath no honor in his own country. The rationalistic critics cite this as one of the evidences that the Fourth Gospel is not the product of one of the Twelve. Thus, “In the Synoptics Jesus is reported as quoting against the people of his own city, Nazareth, who rejected him, the proverb, ‘A prophet has no honor in his own country’ (Matt. 13:57; Mark 6:4; Luke 4:24). The appropriateness of the remark here is obvious. The author of the Fourth Gospel, however, shows clearly that he was neither an eye-witness nor acquainted with the subject or country when he introduces this proverb in a different place. * * * * * He (Christ) is made to go into Galilee, which is his own country, because a prophet has no honor in his country, and the Galileans are represented as receiving him, which is a contradiction of the proverb.”—(Supernatural Religion, Vol. II, 447.) I have cited this objection at length because it is a not unfair illustration of the straits to which rationalism is reduced in its efforts to discredit this Gospel. Constructive dogmatism is bad enough; destructive dogmatism is much worse. The difficulties created by evangelical critics in the interpretation of the passage are equally curious as an illustration of forced and fanciful exaggerations. The curious will find them stated in Alford and Meyer. The English reader, who simply takes the context, will assuredly find no difficulty in the passage. Christ was received in Samaria, notwithstanding he was a Jew, with whom usually the Samaritans had no dealings (ver. 9), and this though he wrought no miracles, and merely because of his words, i. e., the purity and beauty and self-evident truth of his teaching (ver. 41).—​In Galilee he was received only because he was a Jew, and had wrought miracles at Jerusalem (chap. 3:2), and brought with him a metropolitan reputation. He had no honor in his own country as a prophet, until he brought it back with him from the holy city; it was honor, not indigenous but imported.

46, 47. Into Cana. For site see chap. 2:1, note. The fact that he went at once to Cana, gives color to the supposition that the marriage there may have been that of John, according to an ancient tradition; at all events it probably was one of some intimate friend of Christ.—​A certain nobleman. Probably an officer of Herod Antipas who had a palace at Tiberias. It has been conjectured that he may have been the Chuza, whose wife became attached to Jesus with other women of Galilee (Luke 8:3). That he was a Jew is probable, since the manifestation of faith in a heathen is generally especially noted by the historian or by Christ.—​Was sick at Capernaum. About twenty miles distant.—​Was at the point of death. Literally Was about to die.

48, 49. Except ye see signs and wonders. Rather a soliloquy applied to the entire people, than a personal rebuke of the nobleman. For there is certainly no evidence that his faith was notably small; rather the reverse. He had traveled twenty miles to apply to Christ for assistance; his request that Christ should come personally was certainly not unnatural, for he could not be expected to assume that Christ would or could heal by a word; when the word was spoken he went away undoubtingly; and he evidently made no great haste (see note on verse 51), an indication of his restful assurance on Christ’s mere word. Analogous to Christ’s utterance here is that of Mark 9:19; see note there. It is certainly a rebuke to the skepticism which to-day demands signs and wonders as a basis for faith, and to the church which continually endeavors to satisfy this desire by demonstrating the miracles as though they were the evidences of Christianity. Christ himself never, in public discourse with skeptics, based his claims on his miracles; never performed a miracle for the purpose of proving his claims to an unbeliever (Matt. 11:4, 5 is not an exception; see note there); and rebuked the demand made on him for miracles as a basis of faith in his mission.—​Come down. One of those geographical and incidental evidences of accuracy in the historian which demonstrate his familiarity with the country. Capernaum was on the shore of the sea of Galilee; Cana was in the hill country.

50-54. He went his way. The course of the nobleman was not that of one deficient in faith. On the contrary, he did not wait to see signs or wonders; he believed the simple word. That he did not hasten is evident from the next verse. Christ spoke the word of healing at the seventh hour, i. e., one in the afternoon. The father could have reached home that same night; but it was not until the next day that his servants, coming to relieve his fears, met him on the road. Faith neither worries nor hurries.—​Thy son is living. He was so sick before the father left home, that the mere announcement that he was living demonstrated that he was recovering. The case was one in which life could not last long if a change for the better did not take place.—​Himself believed. Believed what? He had believed before, when he came to Jesus, or he would not have come; and again when he went away, or he would not have been satisfied at the mere word of Jesus. But he before simply believed about Jesus, e. g., that he was a prophet, possessing certain healing powers, the extent of which he had not measured. Now he believed on Jesus; without as yet comprehending the Saviour’s mission or character, he yet had faith in him; that kind of faith which was ready to accept him as all that he claimed, whatever that might be. To believe, used absolutely, as here, always indicates not believing a doctrine about Christ, but personal belief in and allegiance to him.

This miracle is certainly not the same with the healing of the centurion’s servant, recorded in Matt. 8:5-13, with which it has been sometimes confounded, but with which it really has little in common. One is wrought at Capernaum, the other at Cana; one at the petition of a nobleman, an officer of the court, the other at the request of a centurion; one probably for a Jew, the other certainly for a Roman; one in behalf of a son, the other in behalf of a servant; one for a petitioner who entreats Christ to come to his house, the other for one who deprecates his doing so; one affording an illustration of the largest faith in a heathen, the other of the development of faith from a small beginning in an Israelite. The resemblances are superficial; the differences are radical. Accepting the narrative as true, it is one of the many [Pg 63] which utterly refute the rationalistic explanation of miracles offered by such writers as Schenkel. This cure could not have been due to any natural means, as the inspiration of hope, or the infusion of nervous power by personal contact, or the like, for the sick man did not see Jesus nor even know when the father saw him.

Ch. 5:1-47. HEALING OF IMPOTENT MAN AND DISCOURSE THEREON.—​A parable of redemption; the nature and the condition of spiritual cure illustrated.—​The Christian law of the Sabbath illustrated.—​The authority of the Son of God: he is with the Father; comes from the Father; is to be honored and trusted as the Father; he raises the dead and judges the living.—​The evidences of Christianity; the testimony of John; of Christ’s life and works; of the Scripture.—​The cause of unbelief.

CHURCH OVER THE POOL OF BETHESDA.

1-4. After this was a feast of the Jews. There were three great feasts of the Jewish nation, the Passover in the spring, usually March; the Pentecost, fifty days after, coming therefore usually early in June; and the Tabernacles, a feast in the Fall, usually October, analogous to our Thanksgiving. To these must be added the feast of Purim, which was kept in celebration of the deliverance of Israel, in the time of Esther, from massacre (Esther 9:17-19), and the feast of Dedication, instituted subsequent to the close of the O. T. canon, to commemorate the purging of the temple and the rebuilding of the altar, after Judas Maccabeus had driven out the Syrians, B. C. 164. There is nothing in the language of John to indicate which of these various feasts is the one here intended. Some manuscripts have indeed the words, the feast of the Jews, and if this reading were correct it would unquestionably designate the Passover; but the weight of authority is against it. The question is one which has provoked a vast deal of discussion, but no general agreement. It is important only in determining the chronology of the life of Christ, and is itself so far undetermined that it cannot be of great value even for that purpose. I think it clear (a) that it could not be the feast of Dedication, which took place in the winter, when it is not probable that the sick would be lying in the porches of Bethesda; (b) nor the feast of Purim, though this has been maintained by some eminent modern scholars, as Wieseler, Godet, Olshausen, Ellicott, and Meyer; for there is no evidence that the Jews generally went up to Jerusalem to celebrate the feast of Purim, and no reason to believe that our Lord would [Pg 64] have gone there in honor of a festival which was purely national, not directed by the O. T., observed not in connection with the temple service, but privately at home, and often, if not generally, with rioting and excess, rather than with religious services. I agree therefore with Alford and Tholuck that we cannot gather with any probability what feast it was.—​And Jesus went up to Jerusalem. Presumptively to attend the feast.—​By the sheep-market. Rather sheep-gate. See Neh. 3:1, 32; 12:39. The site is unknown. The traditional site, identical with the gate now known as St. Stephen’s, is pretty effectually disproved by Robinson, who shows that no wall was existing there at the time of Christ.—​A pool. Properly a swimming-place. Pools for purposes of bathing were in use in the great cities of the old world; and recent excavations have brought to light the fact that ancient Jerusalem was in a remarkable degree supplied with water. See below.—​Called Bethesda. The word means House of mercy. The location is entirely uncertain. Tradition places it near the modern St. Stephen’s gate; but this tradition dates back only to the 12th century.—​Having five porches. Opening upon the bath or tank. In these the sick could lie and be partially protected from the weather.—​In these lay a great multitude of impotent, blind, halt, withered. Four classes intended to embrace all forms of purely bodily disorder of a chronic character, but not including those possessed of evil spirits. The impotent are those simply suffering from special weakness and infirmity or from general debility; the halt are those deprived from any reason of the full and free use of their limbs; the withered are those affected by paralysis or kindred disorders.—​Waiting for the moving of the water * * * * was made whole of whatever disease he had. Whether this explanation, i. e., the last clause of ver. 3 and the whole of ver. 4, is genuine or a later interpolation, is a question of dispute among the critics; the weight of authority is, on the whole, in favor of its omission; the weight of reason is wholly so. (a) The external evidence is, on the whole, against its retention. It is wanting in the Vatican, Cambridge, and Sinaitic manuscripts; in those manuscripts in which it occurs, the verbal variations are considerable. Tischendorf, Meyer, Alford, and Tregelles all declare against it. (b) The internal evidence is conclusive. If it had been in the original, the early copyists would not have omitted it; for in the first centuries there was no such reluctance to accept the supernatural, and no such discrimination between wonders that are and wonders that are not miracles, as would have induced its omission. On the other hand, if no explanation of the reason why the sick were gathered in the porches of Bethesda were given in the original account, it would have been very natural for copyists to have supplied the omission by inserting one. (c) The explanation offered by the doubtful passage is itself incredible. It is a marvel, but it is in no sense a miracle. The irregular and fitful appearance of help by such an angelic visitor, would have witnessed to no truth, would have had no tendency to confer faith in God or his grace. “That God would thus miraculously interpose to throw down from time to time a boon among a company of cripples, to be seized by the most forward, selfish, and eager, leaving the most helpless and miserable to be overwhelmed again and again with bitter disappointment, is a supposition not admissible.”—(Jacob Abbott’s Notes on the N. T.) (d) These considerations have led the latest and best scholars, with substantial unanimity, to omit the explanatory words of ver. 4, and latter clause of ver. 3. So Alford, Tholuck, Ebrard, Trench, Olshausen, Meyer, Tischendorf, and Tregelles. But though it is no part of the sacred record, it probably correctly states what was the popular belief among the Jews, or at least among such as resorted to this spring for cure. The real basis of this belief is indicated by recent researches. These have made it evident that the pools in and about Jerusalem were connected with each other by underground aqueducts. Dr. Robinson gives an account of his exploration of such an aqueduct connecting two pools, the Fountain of the Virgin and the Pool of Siloam. He satisfied himself that water flowed from the one to the other reservoir, and he witnessed the “troubling of the water” in the Fountain of the Virgin. “We perceived the water rapidly bubbling up from under the lower step. In less than five minutes it had risen in the basin nearly or quite a foot; and we could hear it gurgling off through the interior passage. [Pg 65] In ten minutes more it had ceased to flow; and the water in the basin was again reduced to its former level.” His observation has been since confirmed by others. It is now difficult to see how the Fountain of the Virgin could ever have been surrounded by porches or made a resting-place for the sick; and it is quite certain that the Fountain of the Virgin cannot be asserted with any positiveness to have been the Pool of Bethesda. But these discoveries indicate the probably true explanation of the troubling of the water mentioned, not by John it will be remembered, but by some subsequent copyist, in the text. The Pool of Bethesda, probably, was connected by an underground passage with some intermittent spring, possibly possessing healing virtues, and the bubbling of the water from time to time gave rise to the legend of an angelic visitant, which certain of the Jews accepted, but which the Evangelist does not confirm, and to which there is no reference in other literature.

5-9. Which had an infirmity. The original implies rather a loss of power than a positive disease; probably it was a nervous disease of the paralytic type.—​Thirty and eight years. The words “in that case,” are added by the translator, but they correctly convey the meaning, which is not that he had been at the Pool of Bethesda, but that he had been diseased that length of time.—​Wilt thou be made whole? Why this question? Not necessarily because there was any reasonable doubt whether the man desired healing; nor because Christ required, as a conditional preliminary, the man’s assent to healing on the Sabbath; nor because he would imply blame, as though the man’s long infirmity were the result of his own weakness of will; nor, surely, because he would indicate that he was an impostor and desired to use his apparent but exaggerated infirmity to appeal to the compassion of others. All these hypotheses have been suggested. But Christ almost, if not quite, always requires on the part of the healed some act of the will precedent to and concurrent with his act of grace; the cured are never merely receptive and quiescent. I believe there is a deep religious meaning in this, for every miracle is a parable of redemption, and that our Lord would teach us that it is only as we will to be made whole that any wholeness is possible for us, even through omnipotent divine grace. In this particular case it is certainly true that the man might have traded on his infirmity and not really desired to be cured; and though Christ’s knowledge of character would have rendered the question unnecessary for his own information, it was not unnecessary to make it clear to others that he was acting in sympathy with the man, nor was it unimportant as a disclosure to the man himself that he must rouse himself from the lethargy of despair, and lay hold, by hope, on the salvation brought to him.—​I have no man. It is the friendless who appeals peculiarly to the Friend of the sinful and the suffering.—​Rise, take up thy bed and walk. The original (κράββατόν) implies a small, low bedstead. See for illustration Mark 2:4, note. Here, however, the term may be used in a more general way, and may imply simply a mattress which served as a couch by day and a bed by night. Observe the command to take up the bed. This apparently was not necessary; I can conceive but two reasons for it; one to emphasize the perfection of the cure, the other to provoke the controversy with the Pharisees respecting the Sabbath, and thus make it the occasion for the discourse which follows.—​Immediately. The instantaneousness of the cure indicates its miraculous character; so does its permanence. He was cured instantly; he was cured so thoroughly that he could not only walk, but could carry his bed; and he remained cured.

I have already said that the miracles are parables of redemption. Of no one of the miracles is this more strikingly true than of the present one. The diseased man has been a long time sick. He is helpless, friendless, in despair. He waits for an imagined moving of the water, an expected divine cure that is to come without act or interposition on his part; and it never comes. Christ calls first his will into exercise: Wilt thou be made whole? then bids him do: “Rise, take up thy bed;” and in the choice and the obedience, by faith indeed, but by the faith which chooses and obeys, he is made instantly and permanently well.

10-13. It is not lawful for thee to carry thy bed. The general Sabbath command was, Thou shalt do no work. Nehemiah, enforcing this command, forbade the carriage of commercial burdens (Neh. 13:19). From this the Pharisees, with their accustomed literalism, had deduced the doctrine that nothing must be carried on the Sabbath. To forbid this man from carrying his bed was like forbidding a modern, man to move a chair or a campstool. Either he [Pg 66] must have left his bed at the pool, to be stolen, or he must have stayed there to watch it, or he must have been allowed to take it home with him. For the Pharisaic regulations respecting the Sabbath, see Matt. 12:2, note.—​He that made me whole said unto me. The man knew nothing about Christ or his authority. His idea appears to have been that Christ proved his right to give the command, Take up thy bed and walk, by his miracle of healing.—​What man is it that said unto thee, Take up thy bed. Observe the spirit of the Pharisees. Their question is not, Who healed thee? but, Who said unto thee, Take up thy bed and walk? They are blind to the miracle; they can see only the Sabbath violation, as they regard it.—​A multitude being in that place. Christ had stopped a moment, spoken the word of healing, and passed on into the crowd. All was over in an instant, and because of the crowd Christ escaped the man’s identification. This was early in his ministry; he was not yet widely known and thronged, as later in life. Observe the indications of the nature of belief, an obedient trust, not a correct intellectual apprehension. This man had faith enough to be healed because faith to obey Christ’s directions despite Pharisaic criticism; yet he knew nothing of Christ’s person, character, or work; did not even know who he was. It is possible to have faith in even an unknown Christ.

14-16. In the temple. Possibly an indication that the divine grace of healing had already acted as a means of spiritual quickening.—​Sin no more, lest, etc. A plain indication that the man’s disease, probably some form of paralysis, was an effect of sin. See note on ch. 9:1. Here, as almost everywhere, Christ makes the physical healing minister to a spiritual cure.—​And reported to the Judeans that it was Jesus which had made him whole. They asked who bade him carry his bed; he replied that it was Jesus who healed him. They asked to condemn, he answered so as to honor Christ.—​And therefore did the Judeans come in pursuit of Jesus. Here, as very generally throughout his gospel, John uses the word Jews (Ἰουδαῖος) to signify not generally the members of the Hebrew race, but distinctly the inhabitants of the province of Judea. I therefore render it here and elsewhere by the more distinctive word Judeans. His language indicates not a legal persecution, but a malicious pursuit. Norton translates as I have, Came in pursuit of Jesus. This is the literal rendering of the original verb (διώκω), which however generally, though not always, indicates a pursuit with an evil intent. Here the meaning is not that the general cause of the persecution which Christ suffered in Judea was his supposed Sabbath violation, but that in this particular instance they pursued him to call him to account for this particular act of Sabbath breaking. It is always the nature of the ceremonialist to care more for the ceremony than for man.—​And sought to slay him. These words do not belong here. They have been added to explain and correspond with the expression in verse 18, Sought the more to kill him. They are omitted by Alford, Meyer, Norton, and all the best critical authorities.

17-47. In the study of the discourse which follows, beware of considering it simply verse by verse. It is not a collection of incidental aphorisms, but a connected address, the theme being the character, mission, authority, and credentials of the Son of God. The Pharisees call Christ to account for healing on the Sabbath; he cites in his defence the example of his heavenly Father. They seize upon his language, deduce from it the conclusion that he makes himself equal with God, and charge him with blasphemy. This serves as the text of the discourse which follows. He declares that he comes not to draw allegiance from, but to, the Father; that he acts under the Father’s will; that to him the Father has committed the whole work of grace on the earth; that he is even now raising the spiritually dead to life; that he is to raise the physically dead to a new life; and that he will finally complete this work entrusted to him, by declaring and executing the divine judgment. The evidence of his mission and authority is not in his own words; he is testified to by John the Baptist; by his own life and work; and by the Scriptures of the O. T. He closes by pointing out the secret cause of the Jews’ rejection of him, viz., their personal ambition. Beware, too, of imputing to the words a dogmatic meaning borrowed from later ecclesiastical controversies, which they did not bear in the minds of his hearers at [Pg 67] the time. There is little or nothing here respecting the relations of the Son to the Father, except as the language throughout implies that the Son is subordinate to and dependent upon the Father; but the relation of the Son to the human race is clearly revealed, the relation of life-giver and judge, and is certainly not that of any man, however endowed, to his fellow-men. Nevertheless this address contains the christology of Jesus Christ, his own teaching concerning his own character and work; and it clearly implies, on the one hand, that he not only represents the Father, as an ambassador might represent a king, that he is not only clothed with divine authority, as Moses was clothed, in the administration of the theocracy, with the authority of God, but that he is a partaker of the divine nature; nor less clearly, on the other hand, does it imply that his authority is derived from the Father, that his power is conferred on him by the Father, that he executes in all things the will of the Father, that he is to be conceived of not as distinct from, but as one with the Father, and that his object is in all things to be a way unto the Father. Against every form of tri-theism, against all substitution of the Son in the place of the Father, this discourse is a solemn and earnest admonition, no less than against all belittling of either his character to that of man or angel, or his mission to that of mere messenger or teacher.

17. My Father worketh hitherto, and I work. The argument is very brief; it is based on the premises that we are to be followers of God as dear children (Ephes. 5:1), that the Father’s work is a pattern for our own working. It gives color to the opinion that the days of creation are long eons or periods; that the seventh day, which God blessed and on which he rested, is the present period in which the mere physical work of creation has given place to the higher work of redemption; thus the Sabbath of God becomes both interpreted and an interpreter to us of what our Sabbath should be. The divine work does not cease; the grass grows, the buds swell, the flowers bloom, the fruits ripen, the rains fall, the winds blow,—but all this is the work of love; over all this work God’s tender mercies brood (Psalm 145:9). The lesson of nature interpreted here by Christ is that the work of love is never a violation of the true Sabbath law. This verse, with Matt. 12:8 and Mark 2:27, give the three canons for the Christian observance of the Sabbath. (1) The Son of man is Lord also of the Sabbath. It is then a Christian day, belongs to the Christian dispensation, is under the Lordship of Christ and in his kingdom, and is to be kept in that spirit of joyous freedom with which Christ makes free. (2) The Sabbath is made for man. It is therefore man’s day; belongs to all men, Gentile and Jew, poor and rich; a day to be used for man; so that whatever work is necessary to the real abiding welfare of the human race, is not foreign to this day. (3) My Father worketh hitherto. The Father’s work is the example and the law for his children; the work of love, the work for others, the work that has tender mercy for its inspiration and its overseer, is Sabbath work. It is to be our rest-day as it is our heavenly Father’s rest-day, and only so; a prophecy of that eternal rest which will be one of glorious activity: a rest from care, from worldliness, from the common temptations of life, but not a day of mere dull cessation of labor.

18. Because he had not only broken the Sabbath. Literally relaxed (λύω) the Sabbath. See note on Matt. 5:19 for meaning of the word. The Pharisees then, as the literalists now, believe that the sanctity of the Sabbath could only be preserved by putting the soul under bonds to a literal compliance with specific regulations. Christ broke these bonds asunder, gave the soul liberty, and preserved the Sabbath by inspiring the souls of his disciples with allegiance to himself, love for humanity, and sympathy with the redeeming work of the Father. He did relax what they supposed to be essential to the preservation of the day, but what was really destroying it. To keep this poor man on his bed, or watching it to prevent it from being stolen, would have destroyed for him the rest of the day, in order that he might comply with the letter of the Pharisaic regulations. So he who rides in a horse-car rather than remain away from church, or travels late Saturday night or early Sunday morning rather than destroy his Sabbath by spending it with strangers, seems to the Sabbatarian of to-day to be relaxing the Sabbath, while he may be in truth preserving it.—​But said also that God was his own Father. (πατέρα ἴδιον.) Norton renders the sense accurately though freely, Had spoken of God as particularly his Father. The meaning of the original will be indicated to the English reader by Rom. 8:32, “Spared not his own Son;” 1 Cor. 6:18, “Sinneth against his own body;” 1 Cor. 7:2, “Have her own husband.” It is clear that the Jews either did understand Christ by his language to claim [Pg 68] peculiar relations with God, or pretended so to do. In his mere reference to God as Father there was no such claim, for he bids us all call him our Father (Matt. 6:6, 7). True, in the language “my Father,” most commentators see a ground for the interpretation put upon his language by the Judeans:—thus Meyer: “They rightly interpreted ‘my Father’ as signifying peculiar and personal fatherhood;” Bengel: “The Only-begotten alone can say, ‘my Father’;” similarly Alford, Tholuck, and others. There is perhaps some ground for this view. Yet I can hardly think that Christ’s mere designation of God as “my Father” implies more than Paul’s “Abba Father” (Rom. 8:15), which Luther renders “dear Father,” or the frequent designation of God as my God by the patriarchs, and especially by David. See for example, Exod. 15:2; 1 Chron. 28:20; 2 Chron. 18:13; Ps. 22:1, 10; 38:21; 71:12; 2 Cor. 12:21; Phil. 4:19. And in Psalm 89:26; Jer. 3:4, man is directed by God to apply this very phrase “my Father” in his address to God. I believe then that the statement that Jesus said that God was in a peculiar sense his Father, and the deduction that he thus made himself equal to God, are the malicious wresting of his words by the Judeans, for the very purpose of finding an occasion of offence. They manifested the same spirit in John 10:31, etc., though there they have better ground for the interpretation which they put upon his words. In the discourse which follows, Christ does not hold them to their original charge respecting the Sabbath. He follows them into the new ground which they have entered on, and expounds his true nature and mission.—​Making himself equal with God. “On the same level with God” (Meyer); “On an equality with God” (Norton); “Of the same nature and condition” (Robinson). The language of Jesus, his claim of the right to work because the Father works, and his language My Father, the Judeans regard as embodying an assumption that he is of the divine nature and possesses the divine prerogatives. That they so interpreted his language does not prove that it is to be so interpreted. The Pharisees are not authorized interpreters of the words of Christ. His claim we must interpret for ourselves from the discourse which follows. How far does he correct and how far confirm their interpretation? It seems to me clear that at the very outset he materially modifies it, in his declaration of his obedience to and dependence upon and work under the Father (ver. 19), while he confirms the substantial idea that he possesses the same nature as the Father, is, so to speak, of kin to Him, by his declaration that he does what the Father does (ver. 19), shares in all the counsels of the Father (ver. 20), gives life to the dead as the Father (ver. 21), judges all men for the Father (ver. 22), is to be honored as the representative of the Father (ver. 23), is the door through which all must enter into eternal life in the Father (ver. 24), and is the final Resurrection and Judge for the Father (ver. 25-29); yet at the close he again emphasizes the truth that in all this he is not a second or even subordinate God, but the One through whom the Father does all (ver. 30), the one mediator between God and man (1 Tim. 2:5).

19, 20. Verily, verily. A formula used by Christ in cases of important and emphatic affirmation.—​The Son can do nothing of himself, i. e., of his own will or authority. “Of myself (ἀφ’ ἑαυτοῦ), i. e., of one’s own will or accord, without authority or command from another.”—(Rob. 24, art. ἀπό.) This declaration cannot be limited, as by Calvin, to the power of Christ in his human nature, without, adding to the verse what is not in it, nor in its necessary connection; nor can we read it, as Chrysostom does, that Christ can do nothing contrary to his Father’s will, because of the perfect union between them, for this is clearly not the meaning of the original. Christ says not, I can do nothing contrary to my Father, but, I can do nothing of myself by my own independent and original power. The meaning of the original is transparent, though the truth is transcendent. This is that the power of Christ is not an original but a derived power; that it comes from the Father and is a power only to do those things which carry out the Father’s will. As the Christian can do nothing without Christ (ch. 15:5), yet can do all things through Christ strengthening him (Phil. 4:13), so Christ can do nothing without the Father, but does all things by virtue of a divine power imparted to him by the Father, and as a manifestation of the Father. This is a partial answer to the charge that Christ makes himself equal to the Father. He show’s that so far from doing anything calculated to draw away allegiance from the Father, he draws allegiance to the Father, since in all that he does he acts out only the Father’s will. He is divine because of the divinity with which he has, so to speak, been clothed by the Father’s [Pg 69] love.—​But what he seeth the Father do. “A familiar description, borrowed from the attention which children give to their father—of the inner and immediate intention which the Son perpetually has of the Father’s will, in the perfect consciousness of fellowship of life with Him.”—(Meyer.)—Whatsoever things he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise. In like manner (ὁμοίως), that is, with like power and authority. This surely could be said of no man, no angel. It indicates not only a superhuman but also a super-angelic character. Thus this verse puts in a very compact form the paradox of Christ’s character—a paradox not to be explained away by either modifications of the first clause or denials of the second. The first clause asserts that Christ’s power comes from the Father, and thus, in a sense, is not equal to that of the Father, which is uncreated and underived. And with this declaration agree many other passages of Scripture. See for example, ch. 7:17, 18; 8:42; 14:10; Phil. 2:9; Heb. 1:9; 3:2. The second clause asserts that this power, conferred upon the Son, is that of the Father, who has put all things into the hands of the Son that he may be Lord of all. Acts 10:36; James 5:9; Col. 1:16, 17; 3:11. It is noticeable that John, who of all Evangelists makes most clear the divine nature of Christ, as well as his divine mission, is the one who more clearly than any other of the evangelists asserts his dependence on the Father.—​For the Father loveth the Son, etc. This is stated as the reason why the Son is able to do all things that the Father doeth. His power is derived from the Father through the Father’s love for him. Comp. Heb. 1:9.—​And showeth him all things. “He who loves hides nothing.”—(Bengel.)—He will show him greater works than these. Greater miracles than the healing of the impotent man. Far greater works were done later in Christ’s ministry in Jerusalem and vicinity, the consummation being the raising of Lazarus from the dead.—​That ye may marvel. Here the verb marvel (θαυμάζω) is used with the idea of praise as well as wonder. The object of the wonderful works of God is not merely to awaken the wonder of mankind, but, through the wonder, the reverence and so the allegiance of mankind to the Father through Christ his Son.

21-23. For as the Father raiseth up the dead and maketh them to live, even so the Son, whom he will, makes to live. Observe, (1) that the verbs in this sentence are in the present tense; Christ is therefore speaking of a present resurrection, one now taking place. (2) That this resurrection is one recognized among men, not one taking place in the invisible world (ver. 23). (3) That as the result of this resurrection, the raised pass from death unto life (ver. 24). (4) That a universal resurrection is not indicated, but only of those whom he wills to raise (ver. 21). It is then not of a future resurrection of all men at the last day, nor of a present resurrection of the literally dead taking place as they die, that Christ here speaks, but of a spiritual resurrection, taking place on the earth, confined to those whom the Saviour calls and who hear and answer his call, and so manifest to men that it is recognized as a sign of the Saviour’s power. As Christ has power on earth to forgive sins (Mark 2:10), so also he has power to raise the dead in trespasses and sins. Thus he is now, as he will be in another sense in the last day, the resurrection and the life (John 11:25). This theme of a spiritual resurrection and life-giving occupies verses 21-27; then by a natural transition Christ passes to the future resurrection of the physical dead. Be not surprised, he says in substance, at my declarations respecting the spiritual resurrection; for the final resurrection shall also be at my voice. Be not surprised at my claim to be now a judge, for the great day of judgment the Father has also committed into my hands.—​Whom he will. This phrase does not indicate “that he specially confers this grace on none but certain men, that is, on the elect” (Calvin); nor can we say that “He will not quicken others because they believe not” (Meyer), for though this is true, it is neither asserted, nor even hinted at here; nor is the meaning merely that “in every instance where his will is to vivify, the result invariably follows” (Alford). Clearly the indication of the passage is that spiritual life has its source, not in the will of the sinner but in that of the Saviour (comp. ch. 1:13; Rom. 9:16); but the reason why the divine will apparently chooses some and not others, whether for reasons in human character and choice, or for inscrutable reasons, not explained nor indeed explicable, is not here hinted at.—​For the Father judgeth no man. The whole work of judgment, the whole moral government of the world, the whole course of divine Providence, as regards the nation, the church, and the individual, is entrusted to the Son. See Psalm 2; Rev. 1:5.—​That all men should honor the Son even as they honor [Pg 70] the Father. There is some reasonable ground for a difference of opinion as to the proper interpretation of the preceding verses, which treat of the relations of the Father to the Son; and Christian critics are not wholly agreed respecting their meaning. But there can be no room for difference of opinion as to the meaning of this verse, which gives the practical outcome of those which precede. Whatever opinion the theologian may entertain concerning the mystery of Christ’s nature, the Christian can hardly doubt the plain teaching of Scripture that the highest allegiance that the soul can pay to its God, the highest love it can offer, the highest reverence it can experience, are all due to the Son. Even as signifies the manner and the degree. So in heaven the highest praises are paid to the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world (Rev. 5:12; 7:10).—​He that honoreth not the Son, honoreth not the Father which hath sent him. Not because the failure to honor an ambassador is a failure to honor the king whom he represents, but because the honor paid to God belongs to his character, and of that character the Son is the manifestation; so that the soul that does not honor the Son, who is the brightness of the Father’s image, and who doeth all things which the Father does, and as the Father does them, does not really honor the Father. In truth, he who does not recognize in Christ the Son of the Father, the true image of the divine glory, has either no true conception of the Son or none of the Father; for the only way to the Father is the Son. And in fact, those forms of theological doctrine which have tended to belittle Christ have also tended, in the history of the church, to dwarf worship.

24. Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth me and hath faith on him that sent me, hath eternal life, and comes not into judgment, but has passed out of the death into the life. The meaning of this declaration is not obscure, though it has been sometimes obscured by unbelief. To hear the word of Christ is to hear it with the spiritual ear, not merely with the physical ear. Thus those may be included who have never heard of the historic Christ; for as he is the Light of the world, who lighteth every man who cometh into the world (ch. 1:9, note), so those who, without the literal hearing of his words, do hear and attend to the message which he speaks to the soul, in the inner experience, are to be included among those who hear his words. To have faith on him that sent me, is not merely to believe his written word, nor to believe that he has sent Christ into the world, nor to believe any specific dogma respecting Christ, however important, but to have faith in an unseen divinity, in contrast to faith in either one’s self or in any human helper. It is to direct faith toward this unseen God that Christ came into the world; and to have faith in Christ is to have faith in the Father who sent him, in order that he might bring all unto the Father, and present all to him (ch. 17:8, 21, 24). Cometh not into judgment is mistranslated in our English version, Shall not come into condemnation. The verb is not future, and the noun is judgment, not condemnation. “There can be no good reason why the word (κρίσις, krisis) should be rendered judgment in the 22d verse, and condemnation in the 24th. But from a fear, I suppose, lest the one should seem to contradict the other—lest the Son should be thought not to execute the judgment that had been committed to him—they (the translators) were unfaithful to the letter, perhaps even more unfaithful to the spirit, of the passage.”—(Maurice.) The promise is one fulfilled in this life, a promise of present not merely future deliverance, and of a deliverance not merely from condemnation, but from judgment. If the Christian comes into judgment, he would also inevitably come into condemnation (1 John 1:8, 10). The meaning of this verse then is, that when the soul has accepted Christ as its Master, hearing his words, and following him, for spiritual hearing involves following (ch. 10:3, 4) so as to live by faith in God (Gal. 2:20), he is no longer subject to divine judgment; there is no more condemnation to them who are thus in Christ Jesus (Rom. 8:1). With this is involved the further truth that there will be no true judgment for them in the last day. “The reckoning which ends with ‘Well done, good and faithful servant,’ is not judgment; the reward is of free grace. In this sense the believers in Christ will not be judged according to their works; they are justified before God by faith, and by God.”—(Alford.) Finally, the last clause of the verse, but hath passed out of death into life, indicates the true condition of both the impenitent and the believer; the one is already in death, from which he can only be delivered by the Life-giver; the other has already entered into eternal life. This is not a future reward reserved for him; it begins here and now, though it is to be consummated hereafter. The life is spiritual life, the death spiritual death. Of these great realities [Pg 71] physical life and death are but tropes and symbols.

25-27. The hour is coming, and now is, when, etc. The resurrection here spoken of is then one already taking place. In order to meet this evident requirement of the verse, those commentators who regard Christ as throughout this passage speaking of the final resurrection suppose here a reference to the cases of resurrection which took place in connection with his ministry. But none such had as yet taken place; moreover, this construction requires us to suppose that Christ used the word life in one sense in the preceding verse and in another sense here, without giving any indication of the change of meaning. His reference then I believe to be here, as throughout this passage up to verse 28, to spiritual death and spiritual resurrection.—​For as the Father hath life in himself, so he hath given to the Son to have life in himself. Norton renders this somewhat enigmatical verse liberally, thus: “For as the Father is the fountain of life, so hath he given to the Son to be the fountain of life.” This must be regarded rather as a paraphrase than as a translation; but it embodies well the meaning of the verse, as indicated by the context. No man is a fountain of life to any other man. He may be a conduit, but not a source. It is given to Christ to be a source of life himself to others. We live only as we draw continuously our life from God; to the Son the Father has given life in such a sense that he becomes himself the life of the world, and thus the life-giver to the dead.—​Because he is a Son of man. Not, as in the English version, the Son of man. The omission of the article is significant, for without the article the phrase son of man means simply one of the human race; with the article it always means the Messiah. Here then the meaning is that Christ is to be the judge of all the earth, because he has taken on himself human nature. Why is this any reason that he should be the judge of the world? The answer is, I think, indicated by Heb. 5:15: “We have not an high-priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities, but was tempted in all points like as we are, yet without sin.” Our judge is chosen, because he knows our frame, he understands sympathetically our temptations, is able to make allowances for all infirmities and weaknesses of humanity, and for all trials of life, and able, also, to measure at their true worth the false excuses with which we endeavor to excuse ourselves to ourselves and to our fellows. Other explanations, for which in detail see Meyer, as that judgment is a necessary part of redemption, or that it belongs to Christ as the Messiah, or that it is given to him as a reward for accepting the humility of human nature, seem to me to be inadmissible. Judgment is not a part of redemption; it is in no true sense redemptive; the phrase a son of man never means the Messiah; and it would be no reward to a tender and loving nature to exercise judgment, except as it afforded an opportunity for the exercise of mercy in judgment.

28, 29. Marvel not at this. Not only because the greater wonder absorbs the less (Meyer), but also because there is nothing strange in the declaration that he who is to be the final judge of all flesh should exercise judgment now on men, and he who is to be the final resurrection and the life should be the resurrection and the life in the spiritual realm now.—​For the hour is coming. He does not add and now is, for now he is speaking not of a present resurrection, but of one to take place only in the future.—​All that are in their graves shall hear his voice, and shall come forth. A voice like the sound of a trumpet (Rev. 1:10), and like the sound of many waters (Rev. 1:15), that is, like the roar of the ocean for fullness and power. Comp. 1 Thess. 4:16. The entire language is highly figurative. If literally interpreted it would seem to imply a bodily resurrection, and it is apparently so understood by some of the commentators, e. g., Alford and Olshausen; but it is evident that it cannot be literally interpreted. Thus the dead do not in a literal sense hear his voice; their arousing is not that of literal sleepers who have been awakened by a voice. The doctrine that death is a sleep, that the soul remains in an unconscious state till the resurrection, and that the life is then anew given to the soul simultaneously with the re-creation of the body from the dust, is so inconsistent with the plain teaching of Scripture in many passages (see 1 Cor. 15:36-38, 50, 51), that it cannot be sustained by doubtful interpretations of pictorial passages like the present one. How little ground there is for the opinion that the Bible supports a doctrine of a literal and universal bodily resurrection, will be evident to the student who considers the force of the following passages, which are said by Olshausen, and quoted with apparent approval by Alford, both of whom seem to believe in a literal resurrection of the body, to be the [Pg 72] only passages in Scripture which imply a resurrection of the bodies of the impenitent: Acts 24:15; Matt. 10:28; Matt. 25:34, etc.; Rev. 20:5, 12; Dan. 12:2. No one of these directly asserts the resurrection of the body, and some of them can hardly be said even remotely to imply it. The doctrine is directly inconsistent with the teaching of Paul in 1 Cor., ch. 15. See notes there.—​They that have done good unto the resurrection of life. That is, unto a resurrection the necessary result of which is life, life in the Messiah’s kingdom.—​(Meyer.)—And they that have practised evil. The righteous have done good—their fruit remains; the wicked have only practised evil—their works do not follow them. The wheat is garnered into the storehouses; the chaff is destroyed. See ch. 3:20, 21.—​Unto the resurrection of judgment. Observe again that only they that have done evil come into judgment (verse 24, note). Observe too that it is they that have done good to whom is given the gift of eternal life, and they that have practised evil that enter into judgment. The test, and the only test of character which the New Testament recognizes, is that of fruit in the actual life (Matt.7:20; 12:33; 25:31-46; Ephes. 5:6; 1 John 3:7, 8). The works of righteousness are the fruits of the Spirit; his gracious influences are received into the soul by faith, but the evidence of the abiding of that Spirit consists in the manifestation of these fruits in a righteous life (John 15:1, 2, 6; Gal. 5:22-24; James 2:14-26). Living a Christ-like life is the only evidence of possessing a Christ-like spirit.

30. In this verse Christ returns to the statement made in the beginning of the discourse, ver. 19 (see note there); he does all things as the representative of the Father and the expression of the Father’s will.—​As I hear I judge. As Christ is the image of the Father, so his voice is the echo of the Father’s voice.—​My judgment is just, because I seek not my own will, but the will of the Father. To the Father there is no law superior to his own will; to the Son the will of the Father is the law. In this declaration our Lord gives us an example of the way in which we may secure just judgments in ourselves. It is self-seeking which obscures the judgment. Unselfish seeking of the Father’s will is the great clarifier of the moral judgments of the disciple.

31. This verse makes a transition from the subject-matter of the discourse thus far to a new subject. Christ has been speaking of his own character and authority; he now passes to speak of the evidences which attest it. The verse is to be read not affirmatively, but interrogatively. Do you say, if I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true? I will then point you to other testimony. That this is the true reading of the verse is evident from ch. 8:14, where Christ declares that though he bears witness of himself, his witness is true. He here anticipates the objection there made by the Pharisees (ch. 8:13), and replies to it. In his reply, which extends to verse 39, he cites in attestation of his mission three witnesses: (1) the testimony of John the Baptist (vers. 32-35); (2) his own works, including, but only incidentally, his miracles (ver. 36); (3) the personal testimony of the Father, speaking chiefly through the O. T. Scripture (vers. 37-39).

32, 33. There is another that beareth witness of me. Most of the modern commentators consider this another to be the Father. So Alford, Meyer, Bengel, Tholuck, and others. They understand the connection to be this: The Father testifies to me; John’s testimony I do not receive, because it is human and fallible, but in passing I refer to it, for your salvation. Thus verses 33-35 are parenthetical. The other interpretation seems to me the more natural and preferable. Christ gives, in an ascending climax, a threefold testimony to himself: first the testimony of John, a prophet, rather the prophet and forerunner of the Messiah; then his own works; finally the testimony of the Father, in the heart and through the written word.—​And I know that the witness which he witnesseth of me is true. Such language confirming the testimony of John the Baptist is natural; such language in confirmation of the testimony of the Father seems to me strained and unnatural. What significance can be given to the statement, The Everlasting Father testifies of me, and I know that his testimony of me is true? It is apt if applied to John the Baptist, a human and fallible witness, whose language might be attributed by the Jews to extraordinary and mistaken admiration.—​Ye sent unto John. The reference is probably to the delegation which came out from Jerusalem to inquire into John’s character and work (ch. 1:19).—​He bare witness [Pg 73] unto the truth. That is, To the truth concerning Jesus Christ. By this declaration Christ makes the christology of John the Baptist his own, and declares of himself that he is the Son of God and the Lamb of God that taketh away the sins of the world. See ch. 1:29, 34.

34, 35. But I receive not testimony from man. This is not equivalent to, I will not avail myself of human witness in this matter (Meyer); he does in fact avail himself of human witness, cites it, and declares the reason why he does so, that his auditors may by it be saved from fatal error; nor does it merely mean, as Calvin, that he cites this testimony out of regard to them rather than to himself, though this is true, and equally true of all his ministry, and of all the testimony which he cites in support of his divine claims. Here, as in so many other places in the N. T., especially in the reports of Christ’s words, the careful study of the original clears up obscurity which is felt in the translation, and sometimes which any mere translation fails to clear away. From (παρά), when joined to verbs of inquiring, asking, and learning, indicates that the matter to be learned is viewed as in the mental possession of the person cited (see Winer, § 47, p. 365), that is, as derived from him and dependent on his testimony. So in common language with us, “I know such a fact to be true, for I learned it from Mr. A.,” indicates Mr. A. as the authority for the statement. Christ’s declaration here then is, not that he will not use human testimony, but that his claims do not depend upon it. Compare Matt. 11:27, “No man knoweth the Son but the Father,” and Matt. 16:17, “Flesh and blood hath not revealed it (the truth respecting Jesus) unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.” The testimony of John the Baptist, like that of all the prophets, is not in truth testimony of or from man, but testimony from God, through man, the man speaking as he is moved by the Holy Ghost. And the moral for us is that all mere human argument for and witness to the character of Christ breaks down; it is only as the divine character has been divinely revealed to us, by the Spirit of God, that we can hope to persuade others of the truth, a lesson abundantly confirmed in the history of the church by its dealings with infidelity. Unbelief is to be vanquished by spiritual, not by mere intellectual power. Alford represents the idea well by a free translation, “I take not my testimony from man.”—These things I say that ye might be saved. Blind to the testimony of the O. T. (2 Cor. 3:14), unspiritual, and therefore deaf to the inner voice of God (1 Cor. 2:14), there is hope that they may heed the recent testimony of John, whom all men counted for a prophet (Matt. 21:26), and whose baptism even the Pharisees and the Sadducees had attended (Matt. 3:7). Therefore he cites it to them, that he may by any means save some. He seeks to outflank their prejudice.—​He was the lamp, kindled and shining. Observe the difference between this translation and that of our English version. He was not a light, but the lamp; not burning, but kindled. A common title given to famous Rabbis was The candle of the law; Christ borrows it, applies it to John, and declares him to have been the lamp, lighting not the law, but the way to Christ. The lamp, because the one foretold in the prophets to light the way of the Lord and prepare for his coming. The lamp, not light. Two different Greek words (λύχνος and φῶς) are erroneously rendered by the same English word, light. Man is but a lamp; Christ is the light which lighteth every man that cometh into the world (ch. 1:9); and man (the lamp) can give light to others only as he is himself filled with Christ (the true and only light). This lamp is kindled (καιόμενος, passive), i. e., by the touch of God, as a lamp unable to give light until it is filled and lighted by the owner’s hand; and shining, as one of the lights of the world (Matt. 5:14), shining with divine light because kindled by a divine hand and partaking of the divine nature (lumen illuminatum, not lumen illuminans).—​And ye were willing for a season to rejoice in his light. The two marks of a spurious religious enthusiasm. They were willing to rejoice, but not to repent; they were ready to “enjoy religion,” but not to “bring forth fruit meet for repentance;” they flocked in great crowds to John’s Baptism (Matt. 3:5), much as men now flock to camp and tabernacle meetings; but they were not ready to “do justly, love mercy, and walk humbly before God.” And their enthusiasm was but “for a season,” as all merely emotional enthusiasm is. It made no practical and lifelong change in their character or conduct.

36. But I have greater witness than that of John; for the works which the Father hath given me to finish. From the testimony of John the Baptist, Jesus passes to the second authentication of his mission, the works which he is doing. These works are not merely nor primarily his miracles. Against this narrow and unspiritual interpretation the church should have been saved by even a careful study of the words. For (a) the word here rendered works [Pg 74] (ἔργον) is never used by John as equivalent to a miracle, but always, when in connection with Christ, as significant of his whole course of beneficent and redeeming activity; (b) in this very discourse Christ uses it in connection with and in reference to his work of spiritual life-giving to the dead in trespasses and sins (vers. 20, 21); (c) the phrase “hath given me to finish” points forward to the time when he should be able to say in prayer to his Father, “I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do” (ch. 17:5; comp. 4:34), and in his last triumphant cry upon the cross, “It is finished” (ch. 19:30). The matter is important because the church needs to recognize that the evidences of Christianity on which Christ relied are not the miracles, which are purely historical acts, the historic veracity of which must be proved like that of any other past events, but the whole work of redeeming love, the visible and indubitable fruits of which are to be unceasingly seen in the victories of Christianity over the individual and over communities.—​The same works that I am doing. Not have done, which might have been said of miracles already wrought, but am now engaged in doing, which alone could be said of the unceasing work of him who ever went about doing good. Observe that the works which he is doing are those which the Father hath given him to do (vers. 19, 20, notes), and that whatever the Father hath given him, that he does (ch. 18:11).—​Bear witness of me, that the Father hath sent me. Because they are manifestations of the Father’s love. The message which the Son has come to bring is the message of the Father’s grace (ch. 1:14).

37, 38. And he which hath sent me, the Father himself, hath borne witness of me. The past tense of the verb indicates a completed testimony, borne in past time, but accessible to present hearers. The meaning therefore cannot be the witness of the Spirit to Christ’s character and mission, a continuously fresh testimony, which is however borne only to those that are already the sons of God, through a measurable faith in Jesus as Saviour and Messiah. The reference is possibly in part to the testimony which the Father had borne at the baptism to Christ as his well-beloved Son (Matt. 3:17), a testimony repeated on other occasions (Matt. 17:5; John 12:28); but the primary reference is to the testimony borne to God in the O. T. Scriptures, which were to the Jewish nation witnesses to the Messiah, whose coming they heralded, and whose work they described (Luke 24:27-44; Acts 13:27).—​No voice of his have ye ever heard, no appearance of his have ye ever seen, and his word ye have not abiding in you. This gives as nearly literally as is possible the meaning of the original. Two interpretations are possible. One is that indicated by our English version. According to this interpretation Christ declares the general philosophic truth, that the Father is a Spirit, and therefore invisible and inaudible, to be spiritually discerned; and since the Jews have not spiritual discernment, since they have not God’s word abiding in them, they are without any knowledge of God or understanding of his witness. The other interpretation is that indicated by the more literal translation given above. According to this translation it is the language of “reproach for want of susceptibility to this (divine) testimony” (Meyer). This was the view of Calvin, who here, as in the interpretation of so many other passages, anticipated the results of later criticism. “When he says that they had never heard the voice of God or seen his shape, these are metaphorical expressions, by which he intends to state generally that they are utterly estranged from the knowledge of God.” This last I believe to be the correct interpretation, both because it more nearly accords with the literal rendering of the original, and because, according to the other interpretation, Christ inserts in the midst of his discourse an abstract statement of philosophic truth, in a manner which, if not absolutely artificial, is at least quite unlike his usual method. His word abiding in you is the word of the O. T. This they had; but it was external to them. They did not believe it “with the heart unto righteousness” (Rom. 10:10). It was not an abiding force in the shaping of their conduct or the formation of their character. He only can truly comprehend what the Scriptures teach concerning God, who yields obedience to whatever they teach concerning duty; for it is only as the divine attributes are reproduced in us that we can approximate an understanding of them in God.—​For whom he hath sent, in him ye have not faith. This may be regarded either as the reason why they have not seen God nor heard his voice, because they have not faith in his Son; or as the evidence that they have not seen God, etc., since if they had they would have faith in his Son. The latter is the preferable interpretation, He that is truly and spiritually familiar with the Father will discern the Father’s lineaments in the Son; he that does not recognize the divinity in [Pg 75] the Son bears thereby witness that he does not truly know in what divinity consists.

39, 40. Ye search the Scriptures because in them ye think ye have eternal life; and they are they which testify concerning me; and still ye will not come unto me that ye might have life. The verb search (ερευνᾶτε) may be rendered either as imperative or as indicative. Alford and Tholuck make it, as does the English version, imperative, thus interpreting it as a direction to search the Scriptures; Meyer, Bengel, Olshausen, and Godet make it indicative, thus interpreting it as a statement of a fact and a basis for the condemnation which follows. Which interpretation is correct is to be determined wholly by the context and the circumstances; either is grammatically correct. It appears to me clear, both from the context and the audience, that Christ does not give here a command or an exhortation, but simply states a fact. For (1) he is addressing men who did not need a direction to Scriptural study; the great, almost the exclusive, study of the Jewish Rabbis was either the Scriptures or the commentaries thereon. It is true that their search was not spiritual; they stopped with the letter which killeth, and disregarded the spirit which giveth life; but this was a reason, not for an exhortation to more searching, but to a different spirit in the searching. (2) The theme of Christ’s discourse here would not naturally lead to an exhortation to Bible study. He is pointing them to himself; and their failure to find him was not because they were not familiar with the Scriptures, but because a veil was over their hearts when they read it (2 Cor. 3:15). I understand then that Christ in this verse notes a contrast between the Scriptures and himself; the Jews search the Scriptures because in them they think to find eternal life. But eternal life is not in the Book; it is in the person to whom the Book bears witness. And they search in vain who do not find in it the Christ to whom the Book bears testimony. In contrast with their searching, note the spirit and method of the Bereans, who searched to see if these things were so (Acts 17:10, 11), that is, with a docile and inquiring, not a predetermined mind.—​Ye will not come unto me. Though the Scriptures which they searched so diligently contained testimony to a suffering and saving Messiah, they would not come to him. They were as one who reads a guide-board, but goes not whither it points.—​That ye might have life. The object of Christ’s coming was to give life; the object of coming to Christ is to receive life (ch. 10:10). The kind of life imparted by him and to be received by us is indicated in Ephes. 2:10; Gal. 5:22, 23.

41, 42. I receive not honor from men. It is true that at his name every knee shall bow and every tongue shall confess him to be Lord, but to the glory of God the Father (Phil. 2:10, 11). As the Christian lets his light shine that men may glorify Christ, so Christ’s light glorifies the Father. Moreover, this honor is not derived from men. What was said on the meaning of the original on ver. 34 (see note there) is equally applicable here. From men (παρά) indicates the original source. Christ’s glory comes from the Father (Phil. 2:9); human voices do but echo the divine voice.—​I know you. As no man ever knows his fellow-men. For illustration of Christ’s divine insight into the hearts of men, see Matt. 9:4; John 2:24; Heb. 4:13.—​That ye have not the love of God in you. They who were condemning Christ for a violation of the ceremonial law of the Sabbath were themselves guilty of violating the first and great commandment Of the law (Deut. 6:5).

43, 44. In my Father’s name. “The name of God, of Christ, is a paraphrase for God himself, Christ himself, in all their being, attributes, relations, manifestations.”—(Rob. Lex., art. ὄνομα.) See Matt. 28:19, note. Here, therefore, Christ’s declaration is primarily, I have come in the power of the Father, not in my own power, or with my own authority; and secondarily, I have come to manifest and glorify not myself, but Him.—​If another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive. The reference is primarily to the false Christs, of whom many have been at different times received by Jews. See Matt. 24:5, note. But the declaration has a wider application to all times and nations. Wherever the minister is received, not as a guide to God, but as an independent object of hero-worship, he is received in his own name.—​How can ye have faith which receive honor derived from (παρά) one another? Earthly ambition is inconsistent with spiritual growth. He that seeks the perishable cannot at the same time seek the imperishable crown.—​And [Pg 76] seek not the honor which cometh from the only God. Not, as in our English version, from God only. The structure of the sentence forbids that interpretation. The reference is to such passages as Exod. 8:10; 9:14; 20:3; Deut. 4:35, 39; 2 Sam. 7:22; Isa. 45:5, 6, etc. To those who seek from the one and only true God glory and honor and immortality, by patient continuance in well-doing, and to them alone, is the gift of eternal life promised (Rom. 2:6, 7).

45-47. Do not think that I will be your accuser before the Father. The imagery is borrowed from the course of judicial proceedings. In the last judgment Christ will be judge (ver. 37), not public prosecutor.—​There is one that accuseth you. Observe the present tense, who is accusing you. The law is a perpetual accusation against the sinner (Rom. 2:15; 3:19, 20), from whose indictments there is no escape except in the pardon offered by the grace of God through Jesus Christ. For prophetic and specific accusations of the Jewish nation in the Mosaic writings, see Deut. 31:21, 26.—​Even Moses. The law-giver is put for the law.—​In whom ye have put your hopes. (εἰς ὃν) For the meaning of in whom (εἰς ὅν), see 2 Cor. 1:10. In (εἰς) signifies the end toward which any action tends; with verbs indicating a mental action, the object of that action. The hopes of the Jews looked toward Moses, i. e., toward an exact obedience of the letter of the law given by Moses, not toward a spiritual communion with the Father whose children they were called to be. For a portrayal, autobiographically, of this legal and self-righteous hope, see Phil. 3:4-6.—​Had ye believed Moses. Not believed in or on him; the child of God believes the prophets, he believes in or on Christ only. If the Jews had really believed Moses, even as a teacher, they would have believed on Christ; for Moses testified of Christ.—​For he wrote of me. An incidental testimony to the Mosaic authorship of the books usually attributed by the Jews to Moses, viz., the first five books of the O. T.; also an indication of the prophetic and typical character of the ceremonial law. Moses was a prophet because the entire O. T. ceremonial and service—temple sacrifices, ablutions, etc.—​were prophecies, fulfilled in and by Christ. Thus Christ himself incidentally confirms that view of the O. T. ceremonial which underlies and is most fully expounded by the Epistle to the Hebrews.—​But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words? “The meaning is, Men give greater weight to what is written and published, the letter of a book, than to mere word of mouth; and ye in particular give greater honor to Moses than to Me: if then ye believe not what he has written, which comes down to you hallowed by the reverence of ages, how can you believe the words which are uttered by Me, to whom ye are hostile? This however is not all; Moses leads to Christ; is one of the witnesses by which the Father hath testified of Him; ‘if then ye have rejected the means, how shall ye reach the end?’ If your unbelief has stopped the path, how shall ye arrive at Him to whom it leads?”—(Alford.)

Ch. 6:1-15. FEEDING OF THE FIVE THOUSAND.—​The grace, the bounty, the power, and the method of Christ illustrated.

Of this miracle accounts are given by the four Evangelists (Matt. 14:13-33; Mark 6:32-52; Luke 9:10-17); and it is the only miracle recorded by them all. There are some differences in their records; for details see notes below. In the main the three Synoptics agree, while the differences between them and the Fourth Gospel are more considerable. According to the Synoptics Jesus and his disciples crossed the Sea of Galilee to the east side; the people, going round by land, outran them, and apparently were waiting for them on the shore (Mark); Christ therefore abandoned his original design of rest, and devoted the day to instruction (Mark) and healing (Matthew and Luke). When evening was come the disciples asked him to send the people away to the villages to get necessary food; Jesus replied, Give ye them to eat; the disciples answered that they had nothing but five loaves and two small fishes to give; and from these Jesus fed them. According to John, Jesus crossed over the sea with his disciples, went up into the hills, and there sat with them; while sitting there he saw the people coming round by land, proposed to feed them, asked Philip where they should get the bread, and apparently going down to the plain to feed the people, took the five loaves and two small fishes and distributed them among the people. All agree, however, as to the main facts: the feeding of five thousand on five loaves and two small fishes, and the gathering of twelve baskets of fragments, are narrated by all four Evangelists; the subsequent departure of Christ into the mountain for solitude and prayer, the embarkation of the disciples by boat, and his walking to [Pg 77] them upon the sea are recounted by all but Luke; Matthew alone gives the account of Peter’s attempt to walk upon the water to meet Jesus. Harmonists have endeavored to combine these accounts in one consistent narrative; this is the work, however, rather of imagination than of criticism; any such harmony is necessarily hypothetical. The attempts have succeeded in so far as to show that the accounts are capable of combination. It may be added that the variations are just such as we might expect in narratives coming from independent eye-witnesses, and not such as we might expect in different fictitious accounts, or in different versions of a myth, derived from the same tradition. The miracle took place immediately on the return of the twelve after executing the commissions given to them in Matthew, ch. 10; the immediate object of Christ in retiring to the eastern shore of the Sea of Galilee was to secure quiet for a personal conference with the twelve respecting their work (Mark 6:30). For further statement of the chronology of the event, and the most probable harmony of the four accounts, see Matt. 14:13-27, note. A topographical difficulty is presented by an apparent but not real inconsistency between Luke 9:10 and Mark 6:45. According to Luke, Christ took the twelve with him into a desert place belonging to Bethsaida, whither the multitude followed him; according to Mark, after feeding the multitude he told the twelve to sail across to the other side unto Bethsaida. Thus Luke seems to place Bethsaida on the eastern, and Mark on the western shore of the lake, and this has led to the hypothesis that there were two Bethsaidas, an hypothesis generally adopted by the commentators, without, it seems to me, sufficient inquiry. It has no historical confirmation, was invented to harmonize Luke and Mark, and is needless. Let the reader compare the map of the Sea of Galilee (Vol. I, p. 342) with the accompanying illustration, in which he looks down on the Sea of Galilee from the north. The ruins in the foreground are those of Bethsaida; the river is the Jordan. Probably in ancient times the town of Bethsaida reached to or near the shore of the lake. The mountains in the distance are those on the eastern shore of Galilee, and the plain at their foot is the plain of Butaiha, where the five thousand were fed. Christ was at or near Capernaum; sailed with his disciples across the Sea of Galilee to the plain of Butaiha, at the foot of the hills on the northeastern shore of the lake, not far from Bethsaida. After the attempt of the multitude to make Jesus king, he bade them embark and row along the shore toward (πρός) Bethsaida (Mark 6:45), where he proposed to meet them. A sudden wind rising and blowing down the Jordan valley from the Lebanon range (see on verses 16-18), drove the disciples’ boat out into the lake; and it was while they were rowing back, against the wind, [Pg 78] toward Bethsaida, where their Lord had promised to meet them, that he came out upon the waves for that purpose. Thus it is true that when they left Capernaum for the plain of Butaiha in the morning, they were going over to a plain belonging to the city of Bethsaida, as Luke reports; and also true that when they started back in the evening in the direction of Capernaum, as John reports (ver. 17, εἰς indicating the ultimate point they had in view), they were also going toward Bethsaida, which lay on the northern shore, and not far from midway between the eastern and the western shores. See further, Mark 6:45, note.

BETHSAIDA.

1, 2. After these things. Not a definite note of time. It was subsequent to the healing of the impotent man at the foot of Bethesda. But many and important events had intervened. See Tabular Harmony of Gospels, Vol. I, p. 44.—​Which is the Sea of Tiberias. John, writing for Gentile readers, gives the name by which this body of water was best known in the Gentile world. For map and description, see Vol. I, p. 342. The eastern shore was not populous; it is to this day comparatively a solitude; Christ went thither with his disciples partly for rest and a quiet conference (Mark 6:30, 31), and partly in consequence of the death of John the Baptist, perhaps to avoid the possibility of danger to himself and to them from Herod. After the sermon which followed this miracle of feeding, reported in this chapter by John, he engaged no more in any public ministry in Galilee. See Matt. 15:29-39, note.—​Because they saw his miracles which he did. John has not recorded any miracles done at this time in Galilee, and only two performed at any time in Galilee. This is one of those incidental references which makes it clear to my mind that John wrote not only with a personal knowledge of the writings of the other Evangelists or some of them, but with a recognition of the fact that their writings would be familiar to the readers of his own Gospel. The miracles referred to here are those performed in Christ’s Galilean ministry subsequent to his return from the second Passover at Jerusalem. They are recorded in Matthew, chaps. 8-13; Mark, chaps. 2-5; and Luke, chaps. 5-8.

3, 4. And Jesus went up into the hill country. Up from the shore of the sea to the quiet of the hills. These, on the eastern shore, rise to a height of nearly 2,000 feet above the level of the sea, which is however itself depressed some 600 feet below the level of the Mediterranean.—​The Passover, a feast of the Jews, was nigh. This affords both a note of time and an explanation of the multitude present. The month was Nizan (our March). The grass was green; the trees were in full leaf; the palm trees were laden with blossoms; the orange and lemon trees with fruit; the barley was ripening in the fields. At such a season and in such a climate, to spend a night without shelter is no hardship, and is not unusual. The leisure of the Oriental is partly a characteristic of the people, partly an incident of a climate which compels less labor than ours. The fifteen days preceding the Passover were largely devoted to various preparations for it; the roads, streets, and bridges were repaired, and the caravans began to move toward Jerusalem. The gathering at such a time of a congregation of 5,000 men, besides women and children, attracted by the fame of such a prophet, is not at all incredible. The reader must also remember that Galilee was then the home of a large population. According to Josephus, there were six cities of considerable size on the thirteen miles of coast-line along the northern and northeastern shores of the Lake of Tiberias.

5, 6. When Jesus then lifted up his eyes. According to Mark the people going round by the shore outran Jesus, and he found them there upon his arrival (Mark 6:33). There is no irreconcilable inconsistency in the two statements. It may be that Jesus found a few of his disciples, those that knew his probable destination, and took them up with him and the twelve into the hills; for the term disciples (ver. 3) is not in the Gospels confined to the twelve apostles; that the larger multitude followed, looking for the Lord; and that their gradual congregating moved his compassion (Mark 6:34) and led him to descend from the retirement of the hills to teach and to heal them.—​He saith unto Philip. He spent the greater part of the day in teaching and healing (Matt. 14:14; Mark 6:34; Luke 9:11). The people, absorbed by their interest, took no note of the passage of time. As the afternoon drew on, the disciples proposed to Christ to send the people away to procure food (Matthew, Mark, Luke); it was probably as a result of this proposition [Pg 79] that Christ addressed to Philip the question here, Whence shall we buy? This question is reported alone by John. Why did Jesus address this inquiry to Philip? Some commentators have supposed that he was the purveyor for Christ and the apostles; others that his faith was especially weak and needed strengthening; still others that the question was addressed to him because he belonged to Bethsaida (ch. 1:44), and therefore would be the one to know where food could be procured; but there is no evidence to support either hypothesis. Christ frequently questioned his disciples in order to bring out to their own consciousness the measure of their faith (Matt. 9:28; 16:13; 19:17; Luke 24:17, etc.).—​For he himself knew what he would do. A statement made by the apostle to emphasize the truth that Jesus himself was not in perplexity, and taking counsel with his apostles for his own guidance. This he is never recorded to have done. According to Matthew the question of providing for the multitude was not raised until “it was evening” (Matt. 14:15). Yet both Matthew and John say that “when evening was come” Jesus was left alone in the mountain (ver. 16; Matt. 14:23). The explanation of this discrepancy lies in the fact that there were two evenings recognized by the Hebrews, as by the Greeks, one beginning with the declining sun at or about three in the afternoon, the other with the setting sun. It was during the first evening, i. e., between three and six, that the people were fed; at the second evening, i. e., about sunset, they had departed and left Jesus alone.

7-9. Two hundred pennyworth of bread. The penny, or denarius, was equal in value to seventeen cents American coin; but it was the day’s wages of a common laborer (Matt. 20:2); two hundred pennyworth therefore would be practically equivalent to $200 worth in our time.—​One of his disciples said unto him. Christ bade them ascertain how much they had on hand for themselves (Mark 6:38). Andrew ascertained and reported in response to Christ’s direction. The lad here mentioned was therefore probably some one in attendance upon Christ and the twelve, and carrying their simple store for them. How much blessing the Lord can impart to the service of a little child. Comp. 2 Kings 5:2, 3. Here a little boy (παιδάριον) had but five loaves, and they of barley, and yet when given to the Lord, and blessed by Him, they feed five thousand.—​Five barley loaves. The loaves of the Jews were thin round cakes or crackers; for illustration and description, see Mark 8:3-5, note. Barley was the food only of the lower classes. “One in the Talmud, speaking of barley bread, says, ‘There is a fine crop of barley.’ Another answers, ‘Tell this to the horses and asses.’ A Roman soldier who had quitted his ranks, had for part of his punishment that he received barley bread instead of wheaten.”—(Geike’s Life of Christ.) Thus we have here (1) an indication of the simplicity of the living of our Lord; without a place to lay his head, i. e., a permanent home, and with the plainest possible food for his fare, the bread of the peasant classes; (2) a suggestion of true benevolence; he did not create wheaten bread for the multitude; he gave such as he had. To share what we have, not to aspire to give what we have not, is true benevolence.—​And two small fishes. The word here rendered small fishes (ὀψύριον) denotes any relish eaten with bread; hence, because fish was a common accompaniment, the most common from the animal kingdom, it came to be used for fish, generally salt fish, prepared for and used as a relish.

10, 11. Make the men sit down. It requires little imagination to picture to the mind the wondering surprise with which the disciples prepared to obey a direction the object of which they could not conceive, and the perplexity of the people as they prepared to take their places, wondering what was to occur next. They sat down; Mark tells us in ranks, literally garden plats (πρασιαὶ πρασιαὶ; the repetition without καί denotes distribution). With their bright-colored Oriental dresses, these men sitting cross-legged on the ground in groups of fifty each (Mark 6:40), so that their number was afterward easily estimated, presented an appearance which recalled a brilliant garden in the early summer. The picture thus presented by Mark, but lost in our English translation, is one of the pictorial characteristics of his Gospel, and is thought to have been derived by him from Peter, the most effective and therefore probably the most pictorial of all the apostolic preachers.—​There was much grass in the place. This is not inconsistent with its description by the other Evangelists as a desert place, the word desert implying simply solitude, not an arid soil. The location (Thompson’s Land and Book, Vol. II, p. 29) was probably the rich level plain of Butaiha, forming a triangle, of which the Eastern mountains [Pg 80] make one side and the lake shore and the Jordan the other two. It was at the southeastern angle of this plain, near the point where the hills abut upon the lake, that the feeding took place. “From the four narratives of this stupendous miracle we gather: 1st, that the place belonged to Bethsaida; 2d, that it was a desert place; 3d, that it was near the shore of the lake, for they came to it by boats; 4th, that there was a mountain close at hand; 5th, that it was a smooth, grassy spot, capable of seating many thousand people. Now all these requisites are found in this exact locality, and nowhere else, so far as I can discover. This Butaiha belonged to Bethsaida. At this extreme southeast corner of it the mountain shuts down upon the lake, bleak and barren. It was, doubtless, desert then as now, for it is not capable of cultivation. In this little cove the ships (boats) were anchored. On this beautiful sward, at the base of the rocky hill, the people were seated.”—(Andrews.)—About five thousand. Besides women and children (Matt. 14:21), who perhaps sat separately from the men, as Oriental custom would require them to do.—​When he had given thanks. The same act is differently expressed by the other Evangelists as blessing the bread. Asking a blessing upon food before meals was a universal custom among the Jews, and was practised both by Christ and by the apostles (Luke 22:17, 19; 24:30; Acts 27:35).—​He gave [to the disciples and the disciples] to them that were set down. The words which I have put in brackets are not in the original according to the best manuscripts. They have been added from Matt. 14:19. They undoubtedly represent the actual fact, viz., that the bread was distributed by the hands of the twelve.

12-15. Gather up the fragments that remain, that nothing be lost. “It was a custom and a rule (among the Jews) that when they ate together they should leave something to those that served. ‘Every one leaves a little portion in the dish, which is called the servitor’s part.’”—(Lightfoot.) The fragments thus gathered up by the apostles were probably preserved for their own use. The practical lesson is important: “He likewise exhorts his disciples to frugality when he says, ‘Gather the fragments which are left, that nothing be lost’; for the increase of the bounty of God ought not to be an excitement to luxury. Let those therefore who have abundance remember that they will one day render an account of their immoderate wealth, if they do not carefully and faithfully apply their superfluity to purposes which are good, and of which God approves.”—(Calvin.) This gathering up of the fragments demonstrates also the reality of the miracle. See below.—​They filled twelve baskets (κοφίνος). These baskets were the common baskets used universally by the Jews in traveling to carry their food. See for description and illustration, Matt. 16:9, 10, note. Christ there distinguishes between this miracle and that of the feeding of the 4,000, which are evidently not to be confounded as one event.—​That prophet that should come into the world. Foretold in Deut. 18:15, 16, and referred to by the delegation sent from Jerusalem to inquire of John the Baptist as to his character and authority (John 1:21). By some Rabbis this prophet was regarded as a forerunner of the Messiah; by others as the Messiah himself. Here apparently the people regarded the two as identical; this at least is indicated by their desire to take Christ at once and crown him as king.—​Jesus knowing that they were about to come and seize him that they might make him king. Either by reading in their hearts the half-formed design; or perceiving it in their whispered conference; or informed of it by the apostles, who doubtless shared the enthusiasm of the multitude, and who may have been as eager as any for the coronation of their Lord. This attempt of the people to make Christ a temporal king was a renewal of Satan’s endeavor to tempt him to secure the kingdoms of the earth by Satanic methods (Matt. 4:8-10, note). The Jews anticipated a realm of material marvels and miracles with the advent of the Messiah. “Drought and famine should then be known no more. The prophecy of Isaiah (Isa. 65:13), ‘My servants shall eat, but ye shall be hungry,’ should be literally fulfilled. Israel should be gathered together. The young men should feed on bread, the old men on honey, the children on oil. Every palate should be pleased, every appetite satisfied, and the prolific profusion of the Garden of Eden should repeat itself in the land of the Messiah. These prophecies of the scribes, with which constant [Pg 81] repetition in the synagogue had made the common people familiar, seemed to them about to be fulfilled.”—(Abbott’s Jesus of Nazareth.)—He departed again into the mountain. For solitude and prayer (Matt. 14:23; Mark 6:46). He first constrained his disciples to embark for Bethsaida, a fact which Matthew and Mark state (Matt. 14:22; Mark 6:45) without giving the reason for it; John alone tells of the purpose of the multitude to make Christ a king. There is significance for us in Christ’s refusal of their homage. They desired to make him king, not to accept him as king; to give him a sceptre, not to own allegiance to the sceptre he possessed; to secure his power and authority in aid of their designs, not to recognize his royal authority and be obedient to his will. When they found out what that will involved, from his discourse on the following Sabbath at Capernaum, they would have him for their king no longer. It is one thing to attempt to make Christ serve our wills; it is a very different thing to make our wills obedient to his.

Various attempts have been made to explain this miracle on rationalistic principles. The two principal explanations offered are: (1) that the people were so satisfied with Christ’s instruction that they did not feel the claims of hunger (Schenkel); (2) that they had their hearts opened by the beneficence of Christ, so that those who possessed food themselves provided for those that had none, and thus all were furnished by a miracle of love, operating not by the literal creation of new supplies, but by the inspiration of a new spirit of benevolence in the people themselves. This, if I understand him aright, is Lange’s explanation. See his Life of Christ, Vol. II, p. 140. For a more elaborate classification of rationalistic theories, see Lange’s Commentary on Matthew, Am. ed., p. 266. Neither interpretation deserves serious refutation. The first is inconsistent with the fact that twelve baskets of the fragments were gathered up after the meal was ended; the second is contradicted by the language of the disciples, who plainly imply that the people are without food (Matt. 14:15; Mark 6:36; Luke 9:12), and by the enthusiasm of the people after the miracle has been performed. They were not of a kind to be ready to crown a prophet as king, merely because he had opened their hearts and inclined them to benevolence. It is, however, to be noted that here as elsewhere the Evangelists simply state the facts, leaving the reader to make his own deductions. These facts are that over 5,000 people were upon a plain, without provisions; that all the food which Christ had for them was five loaves and two small fishes; that he distributed this to the twelve, and they to the multitude; that all had enough; and that when the meal was over there were twelve baskets full of fragments remaining. Assuming these to be the facts, the explanation of a miraculous creation of bread is the only reasonable explanation; any other hypothesis impugns the historical verity of the four Gospels. The attempt to explain the miracle as an acceleration of the processes of nature (Olshausen), to which, as Dr. Schaff well says, “must be added an accelerated process of art, or the combined labors of the reaper, miller, and baker,” gives no help in understanding the process by which Christ provided for all. We can accept the fact without comprehending the method, which is indeed as entirely incomprehensible as are God’s methods in the ordinary phenomena of nature, e. g., the multiplication of a single kernel of corn into the many kernels upon the stalk. The parallel and contrast between this miracle and the analogous but different multiplication of food wrought by the O. T. prophets Elijah and Elisha (1 Kings 17:16; 2 Kings 4:42-44) are instructive. Like all of Christ’s miracles, this multiplication is a parable. (1) It illustrates Christ’s method: the way to men’s hearts is often through ministering to their bodies; in the recent famines in India and China (1877), the missionaries have found the way opened for the gospel in many districts by their ability to provide the starving with food or employment. (2) It manifests the miraculous grace of God: “everything wastes in the hands of men; but everything multiplies in those of the Son of God.”—(Quesnel.) (3) It rebukes distrust: “He who feeds here five thousand men in an extraordinary manner and by a visible miracle, cannot He find means to support this numerous family, which raises in the mind of this father and mother so many unceasing and distrustful thoughts?”—(Quesnel.) (4) It is an inspiration and a prophecy of Christian love. It is “the brilliant inauguration of that fruitful miracle of Christian charity which has ever since gone on, multiplying bread to the hungry. The heart of man once touched, like the rock in the desert touched by the rod of Moses, has gone on pouring over thirsty crowds the inexhaustible stream of generosity.”—(Pressense.) (5) It is a symbol of the inexhaustible love of Christ himself; a symbol of that miraculous multiplying of sacred influences which, from one brief life of three active years, and one body pierced and broken on the tree, feeds innumerable thousands, a love which Christ imparts to his disciples, and which they in turn convey throughout the ages and to all lands.

Ch. 6:16-21. JESUS WALKS ON THE SEA.—​Christ the Lord of nature: light in our darkness; peace in our storms.—​He comes to those who are toiling to come to him.—​His message to all his disciples: Fear not.—​The ground of that message: he is the I am.

[Pg 82] Compare Matt. 14:22, 23; Mark 6:45-52, and see Prel. Note at beginning of this chapter.

16-18. And when even was come. This was the second evening, which began at sunset. See on ver. 6.—​His disciples went down unto the sea. From the plain where the five thousand had been fed. By the disciples here is meant the apostles. They went reluctantly, yielding to Christ. This is implied by the language of Matthew and Mark, he “constrained his disciples.” While they departed by sea Jesus sent the multitude away.—​And entered into a ship. A fishing-boat; large enough to carry Christ and the twelve; not too large to be propelled by oars. See for description, Mark 6:36, note.—​And went over the sea unto Capernaum (εἰς Κ.). Mark says toward Bethsaida (πρός β.). John indicates the final aim of their journey; Mark the direction in which the boat was steered. They started for Capernaum via Bethsaida. See Prel. Note above, and Mark 6:45, note.—​Jesus was not come to them. An evidence that they expected to meet him along the shore; probably (this is implied upon a comparison of the three gospel narratives) at Bethsaida, i. e., at or near the entrance of the Jordan upon the lake.—​The sea arose by reason of a great wind that blew. It is a common occurrence for the winds to arise suddenly upon this lake, drawing down the Jordan valley from the Lebanon range in the north. See Mark 4:37, note. “My experience in this region enables me to sympathize with the disciples in their long night’s contest with the wind. I spent a night in that wady Shukaiyif, some three miles up it, to the left of us. The sun had scarcely set when the wind began to rush down toward the lake, and it continued all night long with constantly increasing violence, so that when we reached the shore the next morning the face of the lake was like a huge boiling caldron. The wind howled down every wady from the northeast and east with such fury that no efforts of rowers could have brought a boat to shore at any point along that coast. In a wind like that the disciples must have been driven quite across to Gennesaret, as we know they were. To understand the causes of these sudden and violent tempests, we must remember that the lake lies low—six hundred feet lower than the ocean; that the vast and naked plateaus of the Jordan rise to a great height, spreading backward to the wilds of the Hauran, and upward to snowy Hermon; that the water-courses have cut out profound ravines and wild gorges, converging to the head of this lake, and that these act like gigantic funnels to draw down the cold winds from the mountains.”—(Thompson’s Land and Book, 2:32.) Dr. Thompson adds a testimony to the suddenness with which these winds arise: “I once went in to swim near the hot baths, and before I was aware a wind came rushing over the cliffs with such force that it was with great difficulty I could regain the shore.”

19-21. So when they had rowed about five-and-twenty or thirty furlongs. Stadia; that is, a little over three miles. The lake at this point is about six miles across; they had therefore rowed about half way across the lake; but they were unable to make head against the wind, and could not reach the northern shore to keep their appointment with Jesus. It was while they were endeavoring to come to Jesus that he came out upon the sea to meet them.—They see Jesus walking on the sea. That he was really walking on the sea, not standing on the land and supposed to be on the sea because only dimly discerned through the storm and darkness (Bleek), is evident from the facts, (1) that Peter went out to meet him (Matt. 14:28-31); (2) that on receiving him into the ship they were immediately at the land “unto which they were going” (εἰς ἣν ὑπῆγον). This was the plain of Gennesaret, on which Capernaum was situated, and was two or three miles away from the point where they met Jesus; for they had as yet rowed only about half the distance across the lake.—​He saith unto them, It is I. Literally, I am. The same language used by Jesus in Jerusalem (ch. 8:58), for which the Pharisees would have stoned him, and in the O. T. to designate Jehovah (Exod. 3:14). Here I should prefer to give it this meaning. Christ says not merely, “It is I, your Friend and Master;” he says, at least implies, It is the “I am” who is coming to you, the Almighty One who rules winds and waves, who made them, and whom they obey.—​Be not afraid. This is the message of Christ to his people in the hour of his advent (Luke 2:10); of their tempest experiences of temptation and struggle (Matt. 14:27; Mark 6:50; 1 Pet. 3:14); their sorrows (Matt. 28:10; Mark 5:36); and their hour of dangerous duty (Acts 18:9).—​Then they willingly received him. Literally, Thereupon they willed to receive him. If [Pg 83] this account stood alone we might perhaps doubt whether he actually did enter the ship, as some rationalistic commentators have done; but Matthew and Mark are explicit in their statements that he did so.—​And immediately the ship was at the land to which they were going. That is, the shore at Capernaum. This, coupled with the statement of ver. 19 that they had only rowed twenty-five or thirty furlongs, i. e., about half way, seems clearly to imply a further miracle, unless indeed we give to the word immediately (εὐθέως) a large latitude of expression, understanding it merely to mean that since the wind at once ceased (Matt. 14:32) they had no further difficulty in reaching their destination. Matthew adds that they that were in the ship came and worshipped Jesus, saying, “Of a truth thou art the Son of God;” and Mark that they were amazed beyond measure, “for they considered not the miracle of the loaves, for their heart was hardened,” rather dull, stupid. They had been amazed at the miracle of the loaves, but they had not deduced from it the natural conclusion that Christ was the Lord of nature, so when a new manifestation of his power was made they were as much surprised as if they had never seen any previous manifestation. In this they were very typical of Christians in all ages of the church.

Ch. 6:22-71. SERMON ON THE BREAD OF LIFE.—​The condition of eternal life: feeding on Christ.—​The true nature of faith symbolized.—​The meaning of the Lord’s Supper.

Preliminary Note.—Before entering upon this discourse in detail, some preliminary considerations are necessary. 1. The report. There is no reason to believe that we have a verbatim report of Christ’s discourse, but good reason to believe the reverse. John makes no claim to give the sermon in full. The language of ver. 59 implies that he does not. The whole sermon occupies in deliberate reading less than five minutes. We can hardly suppose that an actual discourse delivered in the synagogue would have been compressed in so brief a space. We have then, here, John’s subsequent report written out from memory, though from memory quickened by divine inspiration, of a discourse very much longer than the report. It embodies in John’s language the substance of Christ’s thoughts. 2. The circumstances and connection. After the feeding of the 5,000, the apostles embark in their boat; Christ goes up into the hills to pray; the people linger a while for his return, then conclude that he has returned to Capernaum, and go back to Capernaum themselves; on the following Sabbath morning he enters the synagogue; their astonishment at his approach is great; they break out in questioning, How did you get here? His answer diverts them from mere astonishment to a serious consideration of spiritual truth: “Ye are seeking me, not because of the evidence I have given of my divine commission, but because ye did eat of the loaves and were filled. Labor not for the meat that perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life.” Their response indicates some seriousness of desire: “What is the work which God would have us to do that we might have this bread of life as our reward?” This is the question of all religious aspiration, and Christ’s answer is the response of Christianity to the soul-hunger of the ages: “This is the work of God, that ye have faith in him whom he hath sent.” This I believe to be the text of the sermon which follows; it gives the subject; it is the key to its mysticism. The object of the discourse is to give Christ’s definition and interpretation of faith. This definition appears and reappears, first in metaphor, then in interpretation: My Father is giving you the true bread, which is coming down from heaven. I am the bread of life; he that cometh to me shall never hunger; he that believeth on me shall never thirst. This coming is not a literal physical coming; it is a coming of the spirit; a coming drawn by divine influence; a coming of those who are taught of God. To thus believe in me, to thus eat my flesh and drink my blood, is to have everlasting life; for to thus eat my flesh and drink my blood is to dwell in me and have in me an indwelling life. Finally, to guard his followers against that literalism which has since converted this metaphor into a stone of stumbling and a rock of offence, Christ adds to his discourse the decisive words of ver. 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.” 3. Meaning of the metaphor. I believe then that the key to the metaphors of this sermon is to be found in the question and answer of verses 28, 29; that it is Christ’s metaphorical interpretation of the declaration that faith is a condition of spiritual life; that it is mystical, because experience is always mystical except to those that know it experimentally; that it is expressed in metaphor, because a spiritual experience can never be expressed in any other way; and that Christ has emphasized the importance of the metaphor by subsequently making it a permanent symbol in the Lord’s Supper. To eat his flesh and drink his blood is to have faith in him, to come unto him; to partake of his character and imbibe his spirit (verses 35, 40, 47, 54, 57). Faith, according to Christ, is not then merely believing what is revealed in the Word (Westminster Confession); nor merely receiving what God says to be true and resting on it (George Muller); it is feeding on Christ. [Pg 84] It is interpreted (a) by the physical phenomenon of eating and drinking. The food enters into us, becomes a part of us; builds us up; makes us what we are; different food going to different parts of the body—some to brain, others to muscle, etc.; different natures and different avocations needing different food. It is Christ in us who is the hope of glory. (b) By our own use of the same metaphor. We recognize in common language a higher than mere physical feeding; other gateways to the nature than the mouth and the stomach; other means that modify, develop, and make the character. Men are made by what they receive through interior faculties. So Christ’s metaphor constantly reappears in the language of our common life; we drink in a picture; imbibe ideas; devour books; e. g.,

(c) By the Rabbinical use of the metaphor, common in Christ’s time, and well understood by the Jews. “There is nothing more common in the schools of the Jews than the phrases of eating and drinking in a metaphorical sense.”—(Lightfoot.) “To eat of my bread” was a phrase equivalent to partake of my doctrine. Christ borrows a common metaphor to emphasize a deeper truth; to have faith in him is not to “eat of my bread,” but to “eat of my flesh;” that is, it is to receive not merely the influence of Christ’s teaching, but yet more that of his life and character itself, an influence which could be imparted to the world only through his passion and death, through the literal rending of his flesh and shedding of his blood. (d) By the experience of faith in a lower sphere, our faith in each other. The highest faith of a child in his mother is not believing something about her, nor merely believing what she says; it includes an intellectual belief that she is his mother, and a filial trust in her, but it also includes such a reverence for her, an uplooking to her, an admiration of her, a feeding upon her, that all her best characteristics are reproduced in the worshipping child. So the character of the best teachers ever reproduces itself in the character of their admiring pupils. (e) By the actual record of the experience of faith contained in the O. T. and the N. T. (e. g., Ps. 42:5, 11; 63:5-8; 73:23-26; 2 Cor. 3:18; Gal. 2:20; Phil. 3:8-14). (f) By other metaphors in the N. T. in which Christ is compared to a way on which we walk, a garment which we are to put on, a vine on which we are to be engrafted, a husband to whom we are to be married, a head from which we as a body are to derive all our life, the ground in which we are to be rooted, the foundation on which we are to be built, and the Spirit which is to dwell in us as in a temple. Faith in Christ then, as defined by Christ himself, if I have rightly interpreted this discourse, is not belief about him, nor trust in him, but appropriation of him. It is not mere belief in what the Bible teaches respecting him, though it is certainly founded on historical Christianity; it is not mere trust in his word or power or grace, though it involves the highest personal trust in him as a divine and gracious Saviour. It is making him the soul’s spiritual aliment, following after him, coming to him, dwelling in him, so drinking in his words, life, and spirit as to be conformed to his image. The soul enters into eternal, that is spiritual life, not by believing any teaching respecting Christ, not by trusting that Christ will bestow that life, but by so fastening its love and aspirations and desires upon Christ that he becomes the All and in all to the soul, and at once the model for and modeler of its future and final character.

22-24. The day following, etc. A part of the people undoubtedly had dispersed to the villages about; others of them remained, hoping for the reappearance of Jesus; when he did not reappear they thought it possible that he had returned to Capernaum, and went thither themselves. The other side of the sea indicates the eastern shore, i. e., the opposite side from Capernaum. In ver. 25 the same phrase indicates the western shore, i. e., the opposite side from that on which the multitude had left Christ. The construction of these verses is complicated and involved, but the original is fairly well rendered in our English version. The facts here stated, together with the surprise of the people (ver. 25) at Christ’s appearance at Capernaum, afford an additional though incidental evidence of Christ’s miraculous passing from the eastern to the western shore.—​Tiberias. A town on the southwestern shore of the Sea of Galilee; mentioned in the N. T. only by John; built by Herod Antipas, and named in honor of the emperor Tiberius. The present city, Tubanyeh, contains about two thousand inhabitants.

[Pg 85]

TIBERIAS.

25. And when they had found him. The greater part of the discourse which follows was apparently delivered in the synagogue (ver. 29), and presumptively on the Sabbath day. Maurice supposes that “the conversation commences on the borders of the lake of Tiberias, with the people who had just crossed and found Jesus there,” and is afterward continued in the synagogue, and he makes the synagogue discourse commence with ver. 43. This is certainly possible, though I should think it more probable, from the close connection between the beginning and close of the colloquy as reported, that all occurred at one time and in the synagogue. It is not at all incredible that such interruptions as are here reported should have occurred in the synagogue service.—​Rabbi, when camest thou thither? “The question when includes how.”—(Bengel.) Wordsworth’s comment on the mysterious manner in which Christ crossed the sea and presented himself in the synagogue affords a curious illustration of the allegorizing method which he pursues throughout in dealing with this chapter. “By walking on the sea, invisibly to the eyes of the multitude, and suddenly presenting himself to them in the synagogue at Capernaum, in a manner unintelligible to them, he instructs us that, though he does indeed come by water in holy baptism, and is verily and indeed present in the holy eucharist, yet the manner of his presence is not to be scrutinized by us. * * * * Let us not speculate inquisitively into the time and manner in which he is present in the holy eucharist, but let us receive him joyfully in our hearts, as the disciples received him into the ship; and then we shall soon be at the haven of peace where we would be.”

26, 27. Verily, verily, I say unto you. See Matt. 5:18, note.—​Ye seek me, not because ye saw the signs, but because ye ate of the loaves and were satisfied. Christ leads the people from the lower to the higher, from the earthly to the spiritual, making, as was his wont, a simple incident the text of a deeply spiritual discourse. See Matt. 11:7; 16:6; Luke 13:1; 14:7; John 4:10. The meaning here is this: You are not seeking me because you have seen and recognized the evidences of my divine commission, and really desire to put yourselves under me as your Lord and Master; you are seeking my gifts, and because you have eaten and been satisfied. He thus characterizes and impliedly rebukes those who seek not Christ but Christ’s, because they want not him, but something external to himself, which they think he [Pg 86] can give them.—​Busy not yourselves about the meat which perishes. It is not literally true that we are not to labor for the meat that perishes (Acts 18:3; Eph. 4:28; 1 Thess. 4:10-12); it is true that the meat which perishes is not to be the object of our life-work (Matt. 5:24). “If any be idle and gluttonous, and careth for luxury, that man worketh for the meat that perisheth. So, too, if a man by his labor should feed Christ, and give him drink, and clothe him, who so senseless and mad as to say that such an one labors for the meat which perisheth, when there is for this the promise of the kingdom that is to come, and of those good things? This meat endureth forever.”—(Chrysostom.) Comp. with Christ’s language here Isa. 55:2, to which perhaps he refers, and John 4:13, 14, where an analogous metaphor is used to enforce the same teaching.—​But about the meat which abides unto everlasting life. Unto (εἰς) indicates the purpose for which it remains, namely, that it may nourish eternal life, i. e., the life which continues unto, not which begins in, eternity; for eternal life is a present possession (vers. 47, 54). This food abides in us. Chaps. 5:38; 6:56; 8:31; 15:4, 7; 1 John 2:6, 27; 4:12, 15; 2 John 2 indicate both what is the meat and what the abiding of which Christ speaks.—​Which the Son of man shall give to you. The phrase Son of man is here, as everywhere in Christ’s use of it, equivalent to the Messiah (Matt. 10:23, note), and would be so understood by his hearers. This food of the spiritual life is the gift of God through the Messiah (Rom. 5:17; 6:23). We might well wonder that Christ’s characterization of it here as a gift should not have prevented the question of the multitude in the following verse, but for the fact that, despite the explicit teaching of the N. T. that eternal life is given, even the disciples of Christ have ever been seeking to earn it as wages by labor. Christ says shall give (future) because the great sacrifice was not yet offered, and so the unspeakable gift (2 Cor. 9:15) was not yet perfected.—​For Him hath God the Father sealed. In the East the method of authenticating a document is not, as with us, by a signature, but by the impression of a seal (1 Kings 21:8; Esther 3:12; 8:8, 10; Jer. 32:10). The meaning here then is that Jesus’ commission as the Messiah of God is authenticated by the Father, by the works given him to do (John 5:36).

28. What can we do that we may work the works of God? Observe can, not shall; subjunctive, not future. The works of God are not works wrought by God, but works pleasing to God (Jer. 48:10; 1 Cor. 15:58). The meaning is not, What are the works of God which we shall do? but, What can we do in order that we may please God by our works? This is the question which humanity has ever been asking, repeated in the pilgrimages and the self-mutilations of the Oriental religions, in the penances and appointed prayers of the mediæval religions, and in much of the so-called Christian activity of modern Protestantism. This was the question which Loyola asked by his vigils, and to which Luther found an answer when, climbing Pilate’s staircase on his knees, he heard the words, “The just shall live by faith,” and fled from the religion of works to that of faith. That the questioners of Christ were seeking, not guidance to devout activity, but to divine rewards, is clear from the sequel (ver. 31).

29. This is the work of God, that ye have faith in him whom he hath sent. They ask respecting the works of God (plural), he replies concerning the work of God (singular); they ask what they shall do, he replies have faith; they ask respecting work to be done for God by them, he replies that it is a work of God in them that is required. The condition of eternal life is not doing any work for God, it is having a work of God done in ourselves. See John 3:5; Titus 3:5-7. The condition of this work is faith in Christ. The nature of this faith it is the object of the discourse which follows to explain; it is certainly not equivalent to belief, and the use of the word believe is an unfortunate necessity from the poverty of the English language, which contains no verb corresponding to the noun faith. Of this faith I know no better nor more comprehensive definition than that of Webster’s dictionary, “That confiding and affectionate belief in the person and work of Christ which affects the character and life, and makes the man a true Christian.” See Heb. 11:1, and notice that it is there defined not only as the evidence of things unseen, i. e., the power of seeing and realizing the invisible world, which would include the imagination, but also as the substance of things hoped for, which clearly includes the activity of the desires and affections. The germ of all Paul’s subsequent teaching of justification by faith is contained in this one single sentence. The Epistles are but an amplification of the gospel as proclaimed by Christ himself. “I know not where we can find any passage, even in the writings of the apostles, which says more significantly [Pg 87] that all eternal life in men proceeds from nothing else than faith in Christ.”—(Schleiermacher.)

30, 31. What therefore doest thou as a sign that we may see and believe thee? This response of theirs brings out the contrast between faith and belief. Christ has said, Believe in him whom God hath sent; the people, recognizing his reference to himself, reply, Why should we believe you? or, as Norton renders it, “give you credit.” He calls for an affectionate and confiding belief in his person and work, they decline to give him simple credence.—​What dost thou work? This is not, as Maurice seems to interpret it, the language of a spiritual yearning, but, as Alford, Stier, Meyer, the language of unbelief and opposition, a sarcastic retort of his own words. “Thou commandest us,” say they, “to work; what dost thou work thyself?” This demand, coming so soon after the feeding of the five thousand, has given rise to some perplexity, and rationalistic commentators cite it as an evidence that no such miraculous feeding took place. If not, why should the people refer to the manna? The fact is that, though the five thousand were fed, no explanation was made to them of the way in which the food was provided; they were commanded to take their seats; the barley cakes, the bread of the poorest peasantry, were distributed among them; they were doubtless astonished; but no conclusions were drawn for them, and they were not in the habit of drawing conclusions for themselves. When, therefore, on the Sabbath, Christ met in the synagogue some of those who had been fed, together with others who had not been present, nothing was more natural than this demand, impliedly for both a repetition and an explanation of the miracle. This is the significance of the reference to the O. T. account of the miracle of the manna, “He gave them bread from heaven to eat” (Ps. 78:24). It was as if they said, The Psalmist has explicitly pointed out the way in which the commission of Moses was confirmed; leave us not in the dark respecting the feeding of the multitude, which was, indeed, strange, but which has not been interpreted.—​There is also implied a contrast between the work of Moses and the work of Christ; the manna came down from heaven, the bread was distributed upon the earth; the manna was given day by day as needed for forty years, the bread had been given but once; the manna was a sweet and delicate food, “the taste of it like wafers with honey” (Exod. 16:31), and it was among the rabbinical prophecies that the Messiah would cause manna to descend which would please all tastes, “bread for the young men, honey for the old, oil for the children;” but the bread which Christ had distributed was barley bread, the commonest fare of the poorest people.

32, 33. Verily, verily, I say unto you, not Moses gave to you that bread from heaven; but my Father is giving you that which is the true bread from heaven. The people have referred to the manna as the authentication of Moses; though they do not in words refer to him, the spirit of their response is analogous to that of ch. 4:12, Art thou greater than our father Jacob? Compare ch. 8:53. To this Christ replies (1) that Moses did not give the manna; it was given by God; Moses had nothing to do with bestowing it; the Israelites found it in the morning after the dew had dried off the ground (Exod. 16:4, 14). (2) This manna was not the true bread, but merely a type or shadow of the spiritual antitype; so the Red Sea, the rock, the brazen serpent, were mute prophets of spiritual verities, to be fulfilled through Christ (ch. 4:14, 15; 1 Cor. 10:1-11). (3) Hence, the bread of God was not a past, historic gift fulfilled in the days of the wilderness, but a present and a perpetual gift, which the Father is ever giving. The practical contrast suggested is that between the faith which reveres only a past religion, a providence and an inspiration in the days of the patriarchs and prophets and apostles, and that which holds fast to a present providence, an ever-living Spirit, and a continuous inspiration, a living bread ever given throughout all ages.—​For the bread of God is that which comes down from the heaven and gives life to the world. Christ here lays down a general principle in which he defines the essential characteristics of God’s spiritual gift. That alone is the true bread (1) which is evermore descending from the heavens, a perpetual bestowment; (2) which bestows life; (3) which is for the world. The manna did not last over a single day (Exod. 16:19, 20), and finally ceased to fall when the Israelites entered the Holy Land (Josh. 5:12); they that ate it all died (ver. 49); and it was given only to a single nation. The type was brief in its duration, limited in its effects, [Pg 88] confined to a few recipients. The antitype is for all mankind, confers everlasting life, and is bestowed evermore.

34. Lord, evermore give to us this bread. Comp. ch. 4:15, note. Not spoken ironically (Calvin), nor with a definite idea of some miraculous kind of sustenance, a magic food or means of life from heaven (Alford, Meyer), nor with a serious comprehension of his spiritual meaning and a sincere desire for his spiritual gift (Maurice, Lucke). The people were shallow and superficial; without comprehending the meaning of Christ’s words, they yet saw in them the offer of something desirable, they knew not what, and asked for it. In the minds of some there may have been a dim sense of the value of the inner life, such as is sometimes borne in upon sensual and superficial natures by the mere power of the presence of a great soul. Comp. Luke 14:15. There, as here, Christ by his teaching rebukes the superficial and ignorant desire for an uncomprehended blessedness; there, by showing parabolically how the spiritual food is declined by those to whom it is offered; here, by interpreting the nature of spiritual food. The rejection of Christ by the people here, illustrates the parable uttered by Christ there.

35, 36. I am the bread of life. They say, Give us this bread. His reply is, The bread is already given; it is for you to accept and feed upon it. And this is always the answer of the gospel to every soul that cries out for a Saviour and a salvation. How the soul is to accept this bread he then goes on to say.—​He that cometh to me shall not hunger, and he that hath faith in me shall never thirst. It is clear that the “coming” and “believing in” here are equivalent to the eating and drinking of ver. 54. See notes there. The coming is a continuous coming (present participle with πρός); a coming into Christ’s likeness, and therefore into spiritual unity with him; a coming perfected only by the process of feeding upon him, drinking in his spiritual power so as to be transformed by it. It is the coming which David describes in Psalm 63:8, “My soul followeth hard after thee,” and Paul in Phil. 3:13, 14, “Forgetting those things which are behind, and reaching forth unto those things which are before, I press toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus.” Comp. with the promise here Matt. 5:6; Rev. 7:16. All spiritual hunger and thirst are not ended when Christian experience begins, because in this life we are ever coming toward Christ, we have never come fully into him. This coming is consummated when we are one with Christ as he is one with the Father (John 17:21, 22); the promise of the gospel is then fulfilled in the glorious satisfaction of a perfected redemption (1 John 3:2; Ps. 17:15). We are not satisfied till we awake in his likeness.—​Ye also have seen me and ye have not had faith. See ch. 20:29. The reference here may either be to words actually uttered in this discourse, but not reported by John, or to what he has said by implication though not by exact words, or to rebukes uttered on some previous occasion, e. g., John 5:38, 40, 43.

37, 38. The all which the Father has given to me shall come toward me, and he that comes toward me I will in no wise cast out. Toward, not to me. The original (πρὸς) indicates the object toward which anything is directed, not ordinarily the goal actually reached. The promise then is that he who sets out in the direction of Christ shall not be rejected by him. He does not wait till we have come to him; he receives us when we start toward him. In this and the next verse all (πᾶν) is in the neuter gender, indicating, not that the body is included with the soul (Maurice), but that the whole is given by the Father in its totality, but is received by the Son separately and individually. “In Jesus Christ’s discourses, that which the Father hath given to the Son himself is termed, in the singular number and neuter gender, all; those who come to the Son himself are described in the masculine gender, or even the plural number, every one, or they. The Father has given to the Son the whole mass, as it were, that all whom he hath given may be one; that whole the Son develops individually in the execution of the divine plan.”—(Bengel.) Christ’s language here indicates his dependence upon the Father’s will and power, and is analogous to that in many of his discourses, especially in those reported by John. He has come to do his Father’s will; the works which he does are those which his Father has given him to do, and are done by his Father’s power; the words which he speaks are his Father’s words; his whole life is represented as the incarnate expression of his Father’s will; and those whom he saves are saved not by his own independent power, they are those whom his Father has given him (ch. 10:28, 29). Here then I [Pg 89] understand Christ neither to limit his salvation nor to declare it to be without limit. He simply asserts on the one hand that his saving power is efficacious only over those whom the Father has given unto him, and on the other that there is nothing lacking in his grace or power which shall cause those thus given to fail of a perfected salvation. As a Saviour he is the representative of the Father’s gracious love and power. Here there is no indication who are the all thus given to him. From other Scripture, however, it appears clear that it includes many among the heathen nations (Ps. 2:8 with Matt. 8:11), and that it does not include the entire human race (ch. 17:6, 9, 25). This interpretation is confirmed by the verse which follows, which further expresses the subjection of the Son in his mediatorial work to the Father.—​Because I came down from heaven, not that I might do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me. The catholicity of Christ’s love is a disclosure of the love of the Father toward us. In these words Christ gives us a suggestion of the reason of his receiving sinners and making them companions and associates. His own earthy inclinations, tastes, and sensibilities, had he followed them, would all have been against such society; but all were subordinate to, and overridden by, his great controlling purpose that the world through him might be saved (ch. 3:17; 1 Tim. 1:15). For every Christian disciple there is a practical lesson in these words of Christ. We are all sent into the world as Christ also was sent into the world (ch. 17:18); and it is ours to see to it that no pride, or social taste, or moral irresolution, induce us to cast out those who would otherwise come to us for help; but we are also to remember that our power to help does not extend beyond those whom the Father in his own gracious wisdom has seen fit to give to us as the seals to our apostleship (1 Cor. 9:2).

39, 40. And this is the will of him that sent me, that the all which he has given me, from it I should lose nothing, but shall raise it up in the last day. In omitting the word Father from verse 39 and inserting it in verse 40 I follow the best MSS. See Alford. The resurrection here spoken of is the resurrection of life, i. e., unto eternal life (ch. 5:29), which is given only through Christ (ch. 11:25; Phil. 3:10, 11).—​For this is the will of my Father, that every one (πᾶς, not πᾶν), masculine, not neuter; the whole is given to the Son; but each one must come by and for himself to the Son.—​Seeing the Son. Looking unto him, as those bitten in the wilderness looked unto the brazen serpent (ch. 3:14, 15; Numb. 21:9; Isa. 45:22).—​And having faith in him. Making Christ the substance of his hope as well as the object of his faith (Heb. 11:1; ver. 29, note).—​May have eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. These verses clearly imply (1) that there is nothing in any secret decree or election of God, or in the nature or extent of the provisions of divine grace, to limit the gift of eternal life or prevent any one from receiving it through faith in the Son; (2) that the only condition required is one inherent in the nature of the case, namely, a sincere belief in, and desire for, that spiritual life which alone is eternal and of which Christ is the supreme manifestation; (3) that whoever has once thus looked to Christ with living faith has an absolute assurance of preservation from the weakness of his own will, as well as from external temptation, an assurance afforded by Christ’s declaration, “Of all which he has given me I shall lose nothing.” It does not imply a literal bodily resurrection. The literalism which so reads this promise is akin to that which misinterpreted Christ’s language respecting eating his flesh and drinking his blood. The whole spirit and tone of this discourse is poetic and metaphorical.

41, 42. The Jews then murmured at him. The Jews are in the usage of John the Judeans; here, those who had come from Jerusalem, or who, dwelling in Galilee, partook of the character of the more bigoted and superstitious dwellers in the southern province.—​Because he said, I am the bread, etc. Their reference is to what he has said in verses 33, 35, 38. Envy was the real cause of their murmuring. This claim to superiority offended their pride.—​Is not this Jesus the son of Joseph, etc. Comp. ch. 7:27; Mark 6:3. The Christ they knew was the Christ according to the flesh, whom Paul declared he would not know (2 Cor. 5:16); the Christ who came down from heaven, that is, the divine Spirit working in him and manifesting itself through him, they did not know. He is known and only can be known by spiritual apprehension.—​How then saith this [Pg 90] fellow (λέγει οὗτος). There is implied in the original Greek a contempt which may fairly be expressed by this translation. The same expression is so translated in Matt. 12:24; 26:61; Luke 23:2; John 9:29.

43-45. Jesus therefore answered, * * * * No one (not, no man) can come unto me except the Father which has sent me draw him. Parallel to this declaration is that of Matt. 16:17; the true knowledge of Christ is revealed to the soul by the Father. There has been much theological discussion as to the proper interpretation of this passage. On the one hand, Calvin declares that “it is therefore a false and profane assertion, that none are drawn but those who are willing to be drawn, as if man made himself obedient to God by his own efforts; for the willingness with which men follow God is what they already have from himself, who has framed their hearts to obey him;” on the other hand, Adam Clark, representing the Arminian school of theology, thus interprets the divine drawing: “A man is attracted by that which he delights in. Show green herbage to a sheep, he is drawn by it; show nuts to a child, and he is drawn by them. They run wherever the person runs who shows these things; they run after him, but they are not forced to follow; they run through the desire they feel to get the things they delight in. So God draws man; he shows him his wants—he shows the Saviour whom he has provided for him.” The true interpretation of the declaration involves the long disputed and yet unsettled problem of the psychology of the will, what is the nature of and what are the limits to its freedom of action, a problem which belongs rather to the domain of mental science than to that of theology or Biblical interpretation. In interpreting this passage, however, the student should consider: (1) the literal meaning of the word draw (ἕλκω). This primarily carries with it the idea of force, and is used by Homer of carrying one away captive; by Luke, of dragging persons before a court (Acts 16:19; comp. James 2:6); and by John himself of dragging a net (ch. 21:6, 11). Thus the metaphor involved in the word implies at least a certain resistance to the divine love and a certain difficulty to be overcome by the divine drawing. (2) Parallel teachings in the O. T. and N. T. (comp. Sol. Song 4:1; Jer. 31:3; Hos. 11:4; Luke 14:23, note; John 12:32; 1 Cor. 1:9), where the word called is parallel to the word draw here (Phil. 2:12, 13). (3) Christ’s own interpretation of the Father’s drawing, afforded by ver. 45. They that have learned of the Father are they that are drawn by him. (4) The nature of that coming to Christ which is the object of the divine drawing. “We do not come to Christ by walking, but by believing; not by the movement of the body, but by the free will of the heart. * * * * Think not that thou art drawn against thy will, for the mind is drawn by love.”—(Augustine.) Interpreting this passage in the light of these considerations, I understand not that God drags the unwilling by an irresistible grace, nor merely the willing by placing before the will in its natural condition such objects—a sense of its needs and a revelation of its Saviour—as attract the unsatisfied heart to himself; but that he makes the soul willing in the day of his power, working in us both to will and to do of his good pleasure (Ps. 110:3; Phil. 2:13).—​It is written in the prophets (Isa. 54:13), They shall be all taught of God. The all here appears clearly from the reference in Isaiah to be all the children of God, not all humanity.—​Every one, therefore, hearing from the Father and learning, comes unto me. Emphasis is placed by the structure of the sentence in the original Greek on the word learning. The Pharisees heard, but they did not learn. He that does not reverently recognize the divine glory in the life and character of Christ, who sees no beauty in him that he should desire him, does not possess true piety, has not heard and learned of God.

46. Not that any one has seen the Father. The object of this verse, which is parenthetical, seems to be to guard the Jews against an unspiritual interpretation of his words.—​Save he which is from God. Evidently Jesus refers to himself. Comp. ver. 35, and observe how habitually he distinguishes himself from man, never classing himself with men. “Imagine a human creature saying to the world, ‘I came forth from the Father—ye are from beneath, I am from above;’ facing all the intelligence and even the philosophy of the world, and saying, in bold assurance, ‘Behold, a greater than Solomon is here’—‘I am the light of the world’—‘the way, the truth, and the life;’ publishing to all peoples and religions, ‘No man cometh to the Father, but by me;’ promising openly in his death, ‘I will draw all men unto me;’ addressing the Infinite Majesty, and testifying, ‘I have glorified thee on the earth;’ calling [Pg 91] to the human race, ‘Come unto me’—‘follow me;’ laying his hand upon all the dearest and most intimate affections of life, and demanding a precedent love: ‘He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me.’”—(Bushnell.)

47, 48. Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that hath faith hath eternal life. The words on me are wanting in the best manuscripts, are omitted by Tischendorf and Alford, and are queried by Schaff; internal evidence is against them. The declaration is generic; faith in the largest sense of that word—the power which lays hold upon the invisible and the hope which reaches after it (Heb. 11:1), a faith which may be and is exercised by those who have never known Christ (Rom. 2:7), is the essential condition of spiritual life. This life is not, as in our English version, merely “everlasting life,” but life eternal, i. e., the spiritual life which is created in the soul when it is born from above, which is nurtured in the soul that follows after that it may apprehend Christ Jesus (Phil. 3:12), the fruits of which are love, joy, peace, etc. (Gal. 5:22, 23). This eternal life is a present possession; he that hath faith already hath this life.—​I am the bread of that life. Faith may exist without Christ, as it did in the O. T. prophets and patriarchs, and as it does in greater or less measure in some at least of those in heathen lands; but Christ is the bread of that life; by him it is fed, strengthened, and made to grow; by him faith in invisible things is made rich and strong. The universal effect of a pure Christianity has been to turn the mind away from material things to unseen realities (2 Cor. 3:18).

49-51. In these verses Christ marks the contrast between the bread given in the wilderness through Moses, to which the people had referred (ver. 31), and for a repetition of which they had asked, and the spiritual bread of which this material manna was but a type. That manna was temporary in its effects, the fathers were dead, of this spiritual bread if one eats he shall not die, it is eternal in its effects; that bread was material, dead, this is a living and immortal bread; that was given to a few, the Jewish nation, this descends from heaven, that any one may eat of it, it is for universal humanity; that bread was bestowed without suffering, this bread is a divine sacrifice given for the sake of saving others from suffering.—​This (fellow) is the bread. They had said (ver. 42), “How then saith this fellow?” He replies, repeating their language of contempt, This (fellow, οὗτός) is the bread which descends from heaven. Observe that his language here, as throughout this discourse, implies his pre-existence, if not his supernatural birth.—​In order that any one may eat of it and may not die. Not merely “that one may eat;” his language, “that any one may eat,” implies the universality of divine grace; the bread is for whosoever will.—​I am the living bread. Not equivalent to life-giving, for which another Greek word (not ζόω, but ζοωποιέω) would have been used. Here, as in John 4:10, is signified the spiritual life of the food itself which Christ affords by the bestowal of himself. It is true that Christ is life-giving, but he is so because he is ever-living. He is the life, therefore he gives life.—​If any one eat of this bread. Again the universality of divine grace is implied. Comp. Acts 2:38, 39, note and refs. there.—​He shall live unto eternity. Not merely forever. The idea here, as everywhere throughout the N. T., is not merely an endless existence, which might be no boon, but an immortal, a divine life, the very life of God, making the new-born soul a true son of God.—​And the bread which I will give. Observe the future tense. He speaks therefore of a gift yet to be perfected by his passion and death.—​Is my flesh, which I will give for the sake of (ὑπὲρ) the life of the world. Comp. ch. 3:16. It seems to me that these enigmatical words are added to guard the church from falling into the error of supposing that Christ’s doctrine is the bread of life, and that to hear and believe his words as a divine teacher is to secure the life eternal of which he speaks. This bread is not merely the teaching nor the example of Christ; the sacrifice is an essential principle of that spiritual food which he has provided for the world’s life.

52. How can this (fellow) give us his flesh to eat? The Judeans here interpret Christ’s words with precisely the literalism with which the church of Rome has interpreted them since. The rest of the discourse Christ devotes to guarding his hearers against this misapprehension of literal and prosaic natures, and to emphasizing the mystical doctrine to the elucidation of which the whole discourse is devoted. Verses 53-55 reiterate and re-emphasize the truth that the soul must feed on Christ, receive [Pg 92] him, his life, his death, his character, as the supply of its own spiritual life; verses 57-59 and verses 61-63 interpret what he means by the metaphor. In the interpretation of Christ’s symbolic language here we are to guard ourselves against simplifying it, either by a literal rendering on the one hand, or, on the other, by that process of rationalism which, under pretence of interpreting a metaphor, does away with it altogether. If there were nothing mystical in the doctrine, we may be sure that Christ would not have clothed it in language seemingly so full of mysticism.

53-55. Therefore Jesus said unto them. Therefore connects what follows with what has preceded; he emphasizes and explains the eating and drinking, in response to their interruption in ver. 53.—​Verily, verily, I say unto you. These words give a solemn emphasis to the declaration which follows.—​Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man. That is, of the Messiah (Matt. 10:23, note).—​And drink his blood. The use of animal blood in any form was prohibited to the Israelites as food (Gen. 9:4; Lev. 3:17; 7:26, 27; 17:10-14; 19:26; Deut. 12:16, 23; 15:23), and was exceedingly odious to the Jewish thought. Moreover, to touch even the corpse of a man rendered the Jew unclean. It is not, therefore, strange that Christ’s language here should have offended many even of his disciples (ver. 60).—​Ye have no life in you. The mere physical life is accounted in the N. T. no life at all. The true life is that of God in the soul, the absence of which is death.—​Whoso eateth my flesh. The Greek verb rendered in both places eat is different from that used above. The word here (τρώγω) signifies literally to chew or masticate, and seems to me to have been substituted by Christ for the more general one (φαγεῖν), in order to add still further emphasis to the doctrine which he is expounding.—​And drinketh my blood, hath eternal life. A present possession. See ver. 47, note.—​And I will raise him up at the last day. This is one of the passages on which the advocates of the doctrine of conditional immortality base their belief. The promise of resurrection here certainly is limited to those who through faith have received the gift of eternal life.—​For my flesh is true meat and my blood is true drink. To Christ the material universe was but a shadow, and the realities were those things of which the material universe is a type. “Food and drink are not here mere metaphors; rather are our common material food and drink mere shadows and imperfect types of this only real reception of refreshment and nourishment into the being.”—(Alford.) In the interpretation of Christ’s language here, the student must remember the declaration respecting him, “Without a parable spake he not unto them” (Mark 4:34); unquestionably the language here is parabolic. It is also true that the phrases eating and drinking were used among the Jews in a metaphorical sense, and that bread especially was employed among them as a symbol for doctrine (Isa. 3:1; Jer. 15:16; Lightfoot on John 6:51; Geikie’s Life of Christ, ch. 44, note c). It seems to me, however, very clear not only that Christ here means something more than receiving his doctrines, but that he employs his peculiar language for the express purpose of emphasizing the truth that it is not merely enough to receive him as a teacher. If this had been his meaning, it would have been easy to correct the misapprehension of his Jewish hearers, and remove the offence which they felt at his discourse. This he does not do. On the contrary, he declares, not that they must eat the bread of the Son of man, but that they must eat his flesh and drink his blood (ver. 53); in a slightly different form, he reiterates this declaration in ver. 54; and finally, to avoid the possibility of the misinterpretation which substitutes his teaching for his personal presence and influence, he adds the emphatic declaration of ver. 55. If something more than accepting and following the teaching of Christ is not meant by these verses, then it would seem that Christ has embodied a very simple truth in very unnecessarily mystical language. That more than this is meant I take to be declared unmistakably by verses 53-55; what more than this is meant it is the object of verses 56-58 to show. The commentators have discussed at great length the question what relation the solemn assertions of these verses bear to the Lord’s Supper. There are three general opinions: (1) that no reference to the Lord’s Supper is intended; (2) that the whole passage exclusively relates to the Lord’s Supper prophetically; (3) that the idea involved in the Lord’s Supper, but not the ordinance itself, is referred to. For discussion of these opinions, see Alford’s note. To me it seems clear that Christ here teaches by a word-parable the same truth which he subsequently embodies in a parable in action in the ordinance of the Supper; whether he prophetically refers to it or not is a question of no great importance.

56-58. He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood abides (μένω) in me and I in him. This result of the eating and drinking interprets the kind of eating and drinking signified. The same truth is elsewhere interpreted by other metaphors, ask by that of being engrafted on Christ (John 15:4, 5); being rooted in him (Ephes. 3:17); being joined to him as the body to the head (Ephes. 4:15, 16); being married to him (Ephes. 5:23); receiving him as a temple receives and is made sacred by the Spirit of God (1 Cor. 3:16); being clothed with him (Rom. 13:14; Gal. 3:27).—​And I in him. As Christ is in the Father and the Father in Christ, so the disciples are to be one in them (John 17:21).—​As the living Father hath sent me and I live by the Father, so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me. This one verse should have prevented the three current errors of interpretation in this chapter: (1) that spiritual life is dependent on a literal feeding on Christ’s body and blood; (2) that it is dependent on a sacramental feeding on the sacred symbols of his body; (3) that it requires only a belief in him as a religious teacher. How did Christ live by the Father? Certainly not by any literal eating of the Father’s flesh or drinking of the Father’s blood; nor by any symbol or ceremonial whatever; nor yet by any mere hearing and obeying of the Father’s words. The Father was personally present in Christ; Christ, by his words and his acts, manifested the indwelling glory of the Father; so Christ fed on the Father because the Father was the source and supply of his spiritual life. In like manner we feed on Christ, not when we merely accept and endeavor to follow his precepts, but when, under the direct personal influence of his spiritual presence, we manifest his glory unto the world, having not merely a spirit like Christ, but having the very spirit of Christ himself in us (Rom. 8:9, 10).—​This is that bread which came down from heaven. Christ thus interprets his own previous metaphor.—​Not as your fathers did eat and are dead. Again he guards the Jews against their literal interpretation; the eating of which he has spoken is not the physical eating for the supply of the body; this can never give true life.

After this chapter had gone to press a remarkable article from the pen of Dean Stanley appeared on “The Eucharist” in the Nineteenth Century (May, 1878), in which he arrives at substantially the same conclusions that I have arrived at in these notes, and enforces them with his usual eloquence and learning. He urges that in all religious ordinances we ought to try to get beneath the phrases we use, and not to rest satisfied with the words, however excellent, till we have ascertained their meaning; that Christ’s words here and in the appointment of the last supper as a permanent memorial ordinance are evidently metaphorical; that the very strangeness of the metaphor should turn our thoughts from the outward form to the inward essence; that the body and flesh signify the personality and character of Christ; that we must incorporate in ourselves, that is in our moral natures, the substance—the moral substance—of the teaching and character of Jesus Christ; that this is the only true transubstantiation; that the blood of Christ is his spirit, the inmost essence of his character, the self of his self; and that to drink his blood is to imbibe this inmost spirit; that this spirit is love or charity, which is throughout the New Testament represented as the fundamental essence of the highest life of God, and therefore of his children; and he interprets verses 53-56 here, in accordance with these principles, as follows: “This is one of those startling expressions used by Christ to show us that he intends to drive us from the letter to the spirit, by which he shatters the crust and shell in order to force us to the kernel. It is as if he said: ‘It is not enough for you to see the outward face of the Son of man, or hear his outward words, or touch his outward vesture. That is not himself. It is not enough that you walk by his side, or hear others talk of him or use terms of affection and endearment toward him. You must go deeper than this; you must go to his very inmost heart, to the very core and marrow of his being. You must not only read and understand, but you must mark, learn, and inwardly digest, and make part of yourselves, that which alone can be part of the human spirit and conscience.’ It expresses, with regard to the life and death of Jesus Christ, the same general truth as is expressed when St. Paul says, ‘Put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ’—that is, clothe yourselves with his spirit as with a garment; or again, ‘Let the same mind be in you that was in Christ Jesus.’ It is the same general truth as when our Lord himself says, ‘I am the vine; ye are the branches.’”

59, 60. In the synagogue. I believe the whole discourse to have been delivered in the synagogue. See Prel. Note above.—​Many of his disciples. Not of the twelve, but of those [Pg 94] who had been theretofore inclined to accept him as a teacher.—​This is a hard saying. Rather, an impious saying, or at least hard in the sense of harsh and repulsive, rather than in that of merely difficult. To the Jews then, as to the world ever since, a system of religion which proposes an amelioration of condition only by a revolution of moral character, by a new and divine life, seemed not only not attractive, but repellent.—​Who can hear it? That is, Who can stay and listen to such teaching as this?

61-63. When Jesus knew in himself. Either miraculously or by a subtle sense which the delicately organized often possess.—​Doth this offend you? Stumble you. See Matt. 5:29, note; 11:6, note. The teaching of the disciple, as the teaching of Christ, will sometimes be to men a stumbling-stone and a rock of offence.—​What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? Another admonition that they are not to take his words in a material sense, for in his glorified body he is to ascend into heaven before their sight. The language is a strong testimony to the historical verity of the ascension.—​The spirit is the life-giver, the flesh profiteth nothing whatsoever; i. e., It is my spirit in your spirit which will give eternal life, not my flesh in your flesh. This is the natural meaning of these words, and they are to be taken in their material sense, not with such qualifications as that of Augustine, “The flesh alone and by itself profiteth not,” i. e., without the blessing of the spirit; or such as that of Alford, “He does not say my flesh profiteth nothing, but the flesh.” The flesh is my flesh; for it is only of his own flesh that he has spoken at all in this discourse. The flesh of Christ, if it could be miraculously reproduced by the benediction of a priest, would still be of no profit.—​The words which I have spoken to you, they are spirit and they are life. The meaning is not that Christ’s words are themselves life-giving, though this is true; but that the words which he has just spoken to them respecting his flesh and his blood relate to the spiritual realm and the eternal life, and are to be so interpreted.

64, 65. But there are some among you who have not faith. Such could not receive the teaching of Christ, for it is true in spiritual as in physical gifts, according to one’s faith, so is Christ’s blessing (Matt. 9:29).—​For Jesus knew from the beginning, etc. Compare this distinct statement of Christ’s foreknowledge with Christ’s own statement of the limitations of his knowledge in Mark 13:32. The contrast illustrates one of the inexplicable mysteries of Christ’s nature, whose knowledge transcended that of man, yet in his earthly condition was less than that of omniscience. To the question, Why, if he foreknew the betrayal of Judas, did he ordain him as an apostle? there is no satisfactory answer. The problem of divine foreknowledge and human free-will, of that divine law the inflexibility of which science has in these later days so strikingly demonstrated, and that freedom of moral action to which universal consciousness testifies, is one which transcends the limits of the human intellect.—​Therefore said I unto you that no one can come unto me except it were given unto him of my Father. Judas and the withdrawing disciples had, in a sense, come unto him; they had followed him, accepted him as their Master, and had given him for a time their allegiance. Yet they had not really come to him, for no one truly comes except he is drawn by a divine influence. Therefore connects the declaration of ver. 44 with the fact here stated that some of the disciples were without true faith. The practical warning to us here is this, that we have need to examine ourselves that we may know whether our coming to Christ has been merely that of a natural inclination or that of obedience to the impulse of the Spirit of God.

66, 67. From this many of his disciples went back. From this indicates both, as the English version represents, the time from which this withdrawal dated, and also the cause from which it proceeded. Observe that faithful preaching will drive some apparent disciples away from Christ. The minister, like his Master, will ever have the fan in his hand, and the gospel which he preaches will in some measure separate the chaff from the grain. This was illustrated in the experience of the apostle Paul. See Acts 13:44-46; 14:4; 17:12, 13, etc. “It will never be possible for us to exercise such [Pg 95] caution that the doctrine of Christ shall not be the occasion of offence to many; because the reprobate, who are devoted to destruction, suck venom from the most wholesome food and gall from honey. The Son of God undoubtedly knew what was useful, and yet we see that he cannot avoid offending many of his disciples.”—(Calvin.)—​Then said Jesus also to the twelve, Ye do not also wish to go away? The tone is one of pathetic protest; the language that of one who felt keenly the desertion, and yearned for an expression of the fidelity of his immediate friends, not as an assurance, for he knew from the beginning who believed not, and therefore who believed and would endure, but as an utterance of loyalty and love. At the same time he leads them to a confession which draws them more closely and binds them more tenderly to himself.

68, 69. Then Simon Peter answered. As in Matt. 16:16, he speaks quickly, for all.—​Lord, to whom shall we go? To go away from Christ is to go out even here into the darkness; unto loneliness, hopelessness, despair.—​Thou hast the words of eternal life. As Martha’s utterance of her faith in John 11:27, so Peter’s declaration here is not wholly responsive to the discourse that has preceded. He does not fully comprehend the meaning of that personal feeding on Christ of which the Lord has been speaking; but he believes that Christ’s words, though he does not fully understand them, are words of, that is full of, eternal life, and that he is the Messiah and the Son of God. And in this faith he is content to await humbly till the full meaning of Christ’s enigmatical discourse shall be revealed to him, as it could not be till Christ’s death, resurrection, and ascension, and the descent of the Holy Spirit.

70, 71. Have not I chosen you twelve? Chosen them, not to be heirs of eternal life, but to be apostles; in the inner circle of his disciples; receiving his most sacred influence and intimate instruction. And one of you is a devil. Not the devil; not merely devilish; but belonging to the kingdom of the devil; one of his ministers and agents. To Christ all men belong to either the one or the other kingdom.He here, as it were, looks forward to the time when Judas should have gone to his own place, forecasts his future, and characterizes him in the present by what he is to be when the germinal sin, now in him, has brought forth its final fruit. On the character of Judas Iscariot, see Vol. I, p. 307, Note on character and career of Judas Iscariot.

Ch. 7:1-52. JESUS AT THE FEAST OF TABERNACLES. The demand of the unbeliever for an exhibitory Christ.—​The world never ready for its reformers and regenerators; always ready for those who have for it no message.—​The true authority and ordination of the christian teacher.—​Lay preaching sanctioned by the example of Christ.—​The law of the Christian Sabbath and the law of Christian judgment.—​Whence Christ cometh; whither he goeth.—​The power of faith: to receive; to impart.—​The moral power of Christ illustrated.

Preliminary Note.—Between the close of ch. 6 and the beginning of ch. 7 occurred a period of retirement, employed by Christ in giving to his apostles especial instructions concerning the kingdom of God. The fullest account of these instructions is afforded in Matthew, chaps. 15, 16, 17, 18. During this time occurred the healing of the Syrophenician woman’s daughter and the transfiguration. The public ministry of Christ in Galilee was substantially brought to an end by his sermon in the synagogue at Capernaum and his consequent rejection by the people. The ministry in Judea begins with this chapter and continues to ver. 39 of the tenth chapter, verses 40-42 affording a concise statement of that ministry in Perea, of which Luke alone gives any extended account. The journey to Jerusalem mentioned below (ver. 10) is, I think erroneously, identified by some harmonists with that described by Luke, ch. 9:51, 52. That journey was immediately before his passion, and was notably public, messengers going before his face to prepare the way for him; this was “as it were in secret,” and six months of instruction in Judea and Perea intervened between it and his death. See Luke 9:51-56, Prel. Note, and Tabular Harmony, Vol. I, p. 45.

BOOTH ON THE HOUSETOP.

2-4. Now the Jews’ feast of Tabernacles was at hand. This was one of the three greater festivals to be observed by Israel. It was also called the feast of Ingathering, from the fact that it was held at the year’s end, when [Pg 96] all the labors of the field were consummated. It thus resembled nearly our own Thanksgiving Day. It commenced on the fifteenth of the seventh month, answering to our October, and lasted seven days. It was instituted to commemorate the dwelling in tents when in the desert; accordingly, while the feast lasted the people dwelt in booths or tents placed on the flat roofs of the houses, in the courts of the temple, and in the squares and open places, and the streets when their width allowed. The particular sacrifices to be offered are detailed in Num. 29:1-38, and notices of the observance are to be found in Neh. 8:13-18; Hos. 12:9; Zech. 14:16-19.—​His brethren. Their names are given in Matt. 13:55. I believe his half brothers, children of Joseph and Mary, are intended. See Note on Brethren of the Lord, Vol. I, p. 187.—​That thy disciples also may see the works that thou doest. This was after the commission, the missionary tour, and the return of the twelve (Matt., ch. 10), through whose ministry probably many had become in a certain loose sense disciples of our Lord, regarding him as a Jewish rabbi, and perhaps as an inspired prophet, who had never seen him personally. The language of Christ’s brothers is that of contempt. Leave this province, said they, and go up into Judea, the religious centre of the Holy Land, and show yourself to those who have heard of you, and exhibit to them what you can do. Additional significance is given to this language if we remember that it was used after a period of retirement of more than six months. See above.—​For no one does anything in secret, and yet seeks himself to be frank and open (ἐν παῤῥησίᾳ). The intimation is that the reason why Jesus does not make more public exhibition of himself and his work is that he is deceiving the people. His brothers attempt to compel him to adopt their policy by imputing to him, because of his course, a lack of frankness and fearlessness.—​If thou do these things, show thyself to the world. If implies a doubt. In a worldly view the policy of these brothers would seem wise; but it was really, in a more subtle form, the policy suggested by Satan in the second temptation (Matt. 4:5-7). Christ would be accepted by faith and love, not by wonder and fear; for the sake of his truth, not because of his miracles. These he persistently refused to show to the world as a means of compelling allegiance.

5. For neither had his brethren faith in him. This verse seems to me quite conclusive that none of the brethren here mentioned were among the twelve, and therefore that James, Simon, and Judas, the brethren of the Lord, cannot be the apostles who bore the same name. They afterward became believers (Acts 1:14; 1 Cor. 9:5). They may at this time have recognized that Jesus possessed extraordinary powers, without recognizing in him the Messiah, or even an inspired teacher, whose instructions they were willing to follow. “They expected him to make a startling exhibition of his power to the eye. They did not believe in Him; for faith rests upon that which is not seen; it confesses an inward vital power.”—(Maurice.)

6-9. My time is not yet; but your time is always prepared. The context indicates the meaning. They had urged him to show himself to the world; his answer is, My time to show myself to the world is not yet. This manifestation of himself is gradual and successive; he partially manifested himself in the discourse delivered in Jerusalem at this very feast (see vers. 16, 18, 28, 29, 37, 38); more fully by his subsequent discourses in the temple during the Passion week (Matthew, chaps. 21, 22, 23); still more fully by his crucifixion, [Pg 97] in which was disclosed that love which is the wisdom and power of God unto salvation (1 Cor. 1:24), and in which, even at the time and by the manner of his death, his divine Sonship was revealed to the Roman centurion (Mark 15:39); yet again by his resurrection from the dead (Acts 2:32-36; 3:15); increasingly in the ages since, by his personal presence and power in the church (Matt. 28:18, 20; Rom. 1:3, 4); a manifestation to be finally consummated when he is revealed from heaven in his second coming (Matt. 24:27; Col. 3:4; 2 Thess. 1:7). For this final coming the church is ever preparing the world, casting up a highway for him; and not till this highway is completed and he comes again shall all flesh see the salvation of God (Luke 3:4-6). The time of his brothers was always prepared; for the world is always ready for him who has no message for it. “If I,” said Luther, “would speak what the Papists like to hear, I would be very glad, too, to take lodgings with the Bishop of Magdeburg at Rome.” “The Son of man feels all the difference between those whose time was always ready, who could go up to the feasts whenever it pleased them, merely with the expectation of meeting friends and mixing in a crowd, and him who had the straitening consciousness of a message which he must bear, of a baptism which he must be baptized with.”—(Maurice.)—​The world cannot hate you, etc. Comp. chaps. 15:18; 17:14; 1 John 3:13; Luke 6:26. He that would preach the gospel of salvation to the world must first testify of it that its deeds are evil. The Holy Spirit convinces the world of righteousness only after convincing it of sin (John 16:8, 9). For illustrations of Christ’s preaching against the works of the world, see Matt. 5:20; 6:1, 2, 5, 16; 7:22; 11:16-24; 12:39-15; Luke 6:46; 10:12-16; 11:45-54; 12:54-57, etc. A study of the preaching of Christ and the apostles, and of the writings of Paul, will show that the divine method is always to convince of sin as a preparation for proclaiming the good news of salvation from it.—​I go not unto this feast. The word yet is not in the original, though it probably correctly interprets the real meaning of Christ’s answer. This was not, I shall not go (future), but, I am not now going (present). Perhaps Christ did not know whether he should go or not; he who acted constantly under the guidance of the Divine Spirit may not have received guidance on this point. It would at all events have defeated his purpose to have gone up with those who were determined that he should make an exhibition of himself and his work. There is no ground for either the reproach that he deceived his brethren, or that he acted in a fickle manner in subsequently going up to the feast.

10-13. Not openly, but as it were in secret. Not secretly, but as if in secret, that is, quietly, unostentatiously, incognito, in contrast to the way in which his brothers wished him to go up. “Not in the company of a caravan of pilgrims or in any other way of outward observation, but so that the journey to that feast is represented as made in secrecy, and consequently quite differently from his last entry at the feast of the Passover.”—(Meyer.) The description of this journey to Jerusalem renders it improbable that it is to be identified with the journey described in Luke 9:51, 52. See Prel. Note.—​Then the Jews sought him. By the Jews John generally if not invariably means the inhabitants of Judea, in contradistinction to the other inhabitants of the Holy Land. See ch. 6:41, note.—​Where is that fellow (ἐκεῖνος)? The language is derisive. “Thus contemptuously can they speak of the man, that they cannot name him.”—(Luther.)—​And there was much murmuring. The original (γογγυσμός) implies suppressed discourse.—​Some indeed said. The Greek particle which I have rendered indeed (μέν) implies a concession, at the same time pointing forward to something antithetic. The implication is that among the Judeans the believers were a minority.—​No! but he deceiveth the people. He that is popular with the multitude is generally looked upon with aversion by the hierarchy.—​No one spoke openly. “Both mistrusted the hierarchy; even those hostile in their judgment were afraid, so long as they had not given their official decision, that their verdict might be reversed. A true indication of an utterly Jesuitical domination of the people.”—(Meyer.) Hostility to Christianity fears nothing so much as free discussion; and it quite accords with human nature that the consideration of Christ’s claims by the people at all should be dreaded by the priesthood. The interpretation of Alford, Godet, Tholuck, and others, that only the friends of Christ feared to speak openly, is in direct conflict with the explicit language of the narrative. [Pg 98] Maurice pictures the scene well: “It is a hum of voices. There is a fear of something, the people do not well know of what. It is a fear of the Jews; the apostle says each fears the other. There is a concentrated Jewish feeling in the Sanhedrim, among the rulers, which all tremble at. Till that has been pronounced—above all, while there is a suspicion that it will come forth in condemnation—it is not wise for any to commit themselves. Brethren, do we not know that this is a true story? Must it not have happened in Jerusalem then, for would it not happen in London now?”

14, 15. About the midst of the feast. Bengel calculates that on this year the middle of the feast would be the Sabbath; the temple would in that case be especially crowded, and the day would suggest the remarks respecting the Sabbath.—​Jesus went up into the temple and taught. He came to Judea privately, he went into the temple publicly; he would not exhibit himself, he would not conceal his doctrine.—​And the Judeans marvelled, saying. The form of the question which follows indicates a hostile spirit; but it may have been raised, not by the scribes or teachers (Meyer, Alford), but by the people (Tholuck).—​How knoweth this fellow learning, never having been taught? “A rule analogous to that which still prevails in most church communions forbade any rabbi to teach new truths except he was a regular graduate of one of the theological schools. He might catechise, but he could not preach. This rule the Jews cited against Jesus. ‘How,’ said they contemptuously, ‘does this man know anything of sacred literature, being no graduate?’”—(Abbott’s Jesus of Nazareth.) Letters (γράμμα) is here the sacred writings of the Jews, i. e., the sacred Scriptures and the comments thereon. This question affords the key to the interpretation of the discourse which follows, which is upon the authority, primarily of Christ, secondarily of every Christian teacher, an authority derived, not from theological schools or clerical ordination, but from the indwelling Spirit of God. Christ was himself a “lay preacher;” his example and his precept alike sanction unordained preaching.

16, 17. My teaching is not mine, but his that sent me. For doctrine read teaching; for not merely the subject-matter taught, but the power with which it was presented, was divine. My teaching is not mine is not a hyperbole. It is not merely equivalent to “not acquired by any labor on my part in learning” (Bengel), or “not an invention of my own” (Geikie). Neither in origin nor in aim was Christ’s teaching his own. Ever about his Father’s business, he was ever teaching his Father’s words and doing his Father’s works (ch. 5:19, 30). In a sense every true Christian teacher should be able to repeat this saying of Christ (chaps. 14:26; 16:13). It does not follow that the Christian teacher need not be a Christian student; but it does follow that he should be a student only of those things which enable him better to understand and interpret the Father’s will and nature. Only so far as schools of theological thought help him to do this are they truly Christian schools.—​If any one wills to do his will, he shall know concerning the teaching, whether it be of God or whether I speak of myself. An often misunderstood declaration. The promise is not that if any man does God’s will all theology shall be made clear to him, nor even that he shall be brought to a correct apprehension of the most important truths of the Christian system. The last clause qualifies the first; the declaration is that if any man purposes to do God’s will, makes that his ultimate and supreme choice (1 Tim. 6:11-16), he shall know respecting Christianity whether it is of divine or human origin. The declaration is both a promise and the enunciation of a spiritual law. The purpose to do God’s will itself clarifies the spiritual sight, so that the soul recognizes the Spirit of God in the life, the character, and the teachings of his Son. The degree of advancement which one subsequently makes in comprehending the full significance of those teachings will depend partly upon the purity of his spiritual purposes, but partly upon other conditions. Not the mere outward obedience to God’s commandments, but a true spiritual purpose, is declared to be the condition of spiritual light; and to that purpose is attached, not a promise of all light, but only of so much as will enable the soul to know the source from which it may obtain constantly increasing illumination. Nevertheless, the first step toward the solution of any theological difficulty whatever, is repentance of sin and practical obedience to the voice of God in the soul. Except a man be born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.

18, 19. He that speaketh from himself seeketh his own glory. From (ἀπό) represents the remote cause; out of (ἐκ) represents the more immediate cause. The former refers [Pg 99] to what is general, the latter to what is special. See Rob. Lex., ἀπό. Every Christian teacher must speak out of himself, i. e., out of his own experience of truth internally possessed and become a part of his nature; but no Christian teacher may speak, from himself, i. e., of his own notions and by his own authority. The inward experience out of which he speaks is powerful only as it is derived from the Spirit of God. Egotism is the natural expression of him who speaks from himself, and has not the rhetorical skill to conceal the inherent weakness.—​But he that seeketh his glory that sent him, the same is true, and no unrighteousness is in him. This is a general proposition. In so far as any one seeks the divine glory he is preserved both from error and from unrighteousness (Rom. 8:1, 2; 1 John 1:5, 7; 3:6). Christ is the only one who is absolutely true, and in whom is no unrighteousness, because he is the only one in whom there is no self-seeking.—​Did not Moses give you the law, etc. The connection is well given by Alford: “There is a close connection with the foregoing. The will to do his will was to be the great key to a true appreciation of his teaching; but of this there was no example among them; and therefore it was that they were no fair judges of the teaching, but bitter opponents and persecutors of Jesus, of whom, had they been anxious to fulfil the law, they would have been earnest and humble disciples” (ch. 5:46).—​Why go ye about to kill me? The reference is to the purposed assassination at a previous visit to Jerusalem (ch. 5:18), a purpose from which the Pharisees had evidently not relented (ch. 7:1).

20-24. Thou hast a devil; who goeth about to kill thee? It is evident from ver. 25 that some of his auditors knew the secret design which had been formed for Christ’s assassination. Their language here is that of foulest abuse. I judge then that they were startled by Christ’s sudden revealing of the secret designs against him; and with that inconsistency which is common to the self-condemned, they in the same sentence denied that his death had been compassed, and implied that the fact that it was compassed had been disclosed to him by an evil spirit which possessed him.—​Jesus answered * * * * I have done one work, and ye all marvel. The work referred to is that described in the fifth chapter of John, the only miracle in Jerusalem up to this time which is described in detail; not the only one which he had wrought (chaps. 2:23; 3:2), but presumptively the last one. They wondered not at the miracle, but at the fact that he had performed it on the Sabbath day (ch. 5:16). It is not necessary to give to the word wonder here any accessory idea, as of doubt (Bengel) or disquietude (Chrysostom); Christ begins with the mildest characterization of their sentiment as that of mere surprise. Here, as habitually, he does not proceed to severe language till milder language has proved unavailing.—​Moses therefore gave unto you circumcision. There is some doubt whether the word therefore belongs to this or to the preceding verse; i. e., whether Christ says, I have done one work, and ye all therefore marvel, or, Moses therefore gave unto you circumcision, not because it is of Moses, but of the fathers. The latter reading is preferred by the later scholars, e. g., Bengel, Meyer, Alford, against Olshausen, Tholuck. Either is grammatically possible; and the purely grammatical considerations appear to me to be about equally balanced. The latter interpretation is preferable, because it gives a better meaning to the sentence. Accepting this rendering, the meaning appears to be, Moses gave unto you circumcision for this reason, viz., because it was patriarchal, not because it originated with him. And this statement of the reason of the Mosaic law respecting circumcision affords a basis for the argument which follows. It was a saying of the rabbis “that circumcision drives away the Sabbath,” and they held that the rite, notwithstanding the work which it necessarily entailed, might be performed on the Sabbath day, because it was of patriarchal origin, and so antedated the Mosaic institution of the Sabbath. Christ, referring to this fact, convicts the Jews of inconsistency in being angry with him for placing the law of mercy above the law of the Sabbath. For the law of mercy was older than either; it belongs to the eternal law of God’s nature.—​That the law of Moses should not be broken. That law prescribed that circumcision should be performed on the eighth day (Lev. 12:3); to allow that day to pass by, therefore, without circumcision would be a breach of the law.—​Because I have made an entire [Pg 100] man (ὅλον ἄνθρωπον) well on the Sabbath day. We can hardly suppose, with Bengel and Olshausen, that the entire man here signifies the healing of both soul and body; for there is no evidence in the original account that the physical was accompanied with a spiritual healing, and no likelihood that Christ’s auditors would have understood him here to refer to spiritual healing. The contrast rather seems to be between circumcision as an act of wounding, which brought only ceremonial cleanness, and the miracle at the pool of Bethesda, which gave relief from the consequences of sin (ch. 5:14), and gave health to the whole body.—​Judge not according to appearance, but judge righteous judgment. See Zech. 7:9. One of Christ’s Sabbath laws; we are ourselves to avoid, but we are not to condemn in others, the appearance of evil. What is Sabbath observance and what Sabbath transgression is to be determined, not by the external act, but by the inward motive and the ultimate end.

25-27. Then said some of them of Jerusalem. Residents of Jerusalem, who were therefore more likely than the pilgrim strangers to know the designs of the hierarchy.—​Whom they seek to kill. See chaps. 5:18; 7:19, 32.—​Surely (μήποτε) the rulers do not know that this is indeed the Messiah? The form of the sentence is an inquiry, strongly implying a negative answer.—​Howbeit as to this fellow, we know whence he is; but when the Messiah cometh, no man knoweth whence he is. It is true that prophecy foretold that the Messiah should be born in Bethlehem (Micah 5:2; Matt. 2:6); but according to the Rabbinical teaching he was straightway to be snatched away by spirits and tempests, lie hidden for a while, and unexpectedly and supernaturally reappear to enter upon his miraculous mission (Lightfoot on Matt. 2:1). The people here bore an unconscious testimony to the Messiahship of Jesus; for they neither knew his earthly nor his heavenly origin. They believed him who was born in Bethlehem to be a native of Nazareth, and the Son of God to be the son of a carpenter.

28, 29. Then Jesus cried aloud teaching in the temple, and said, Ye do indeed know me, and ye know whence I am; and I am not come of myself, but it is the True One who hath sent me; him ye do not know. I know him, for I have come from him, and he it is that hath sent me forth. As I read it, this is one of those outbursts of indignation with which we occasionally meet in the teachings of Christ. The obduracy and resoluteness in evil of the Jews aroused his indignation and elicited his stern rebuke. Comp. chaps. 8:41, 44; 9:41; Matthew, ch. 23. I understand then his language to be neither ironical nor interrogative, but affirmative, and not to refer to his human nature and origin, but to his divine character and mission. In his miracles and his instructions they had seen and heard enough to assure them that he was from God (chaps. 3:2; 11:47, 48). Their contemptuous declaration, We know this fellow, he transformed into an indictment against them. They had whispered it; he proclaimed it aloud. “Ye do know me,” he says, “and ye know whence I am, for the authentication of my divine mission is ample. Ye do know that I am not come of myself, for my whole life is a conclusive demonstration that I am not a self-seeker.” The True One is not equivalent to the Truthful One nor the Really Existent One merely, but the One True God (2 Chron. 15:3; Jer. 10:10; John 17:3; 1 Thess. 1:9; 1 John 5:20). Him they did not and could not know, because the knowledge of God is only for the pure in heart (Matt. 5:8). Jesus knew him, for he had been his companion from eternity. In a sense we are all from God, but not in the sense in which Christ here indicates that he is from God. The preposition used (παρά) has the sense of from beside, from near, French de chez (Rob. Lex.). The declaration is interpreted by ch. 1:1; Phil. 2:6. The public exposure of their whispered contempt, the equally public exposure of the secret thought of their own hearts, which they had not themselves read as clearly as Christ read it for them, and the tone of fearless assumption in which he at once claimed to be the companion of the Only True God and declared that they did not even know Him, whose peculiar people it was their peculiar boast to be, angered the Judeans, and especially the hierarchy, and led to the unsuccessful attempt to arrest Jesus recorded in the succeeding verse.

30, 31. They sought therefore to arrest [Pg 101] him. An arrest for the purpose of bringing him before the authorities, not a mere lawless act of a mob, is indicated by the original (πιάζω). The attempt, however, was probably made by some of the people, acting without special authority; this is implied by the account of the official action subsequently taken (ver. 32).—​Because his hour was not yet come. The hour appointed in the divine counsel for his passion and death. The immediate cause of the failure to arrest may have been a fear of the Galileans and others with whom Christ was popular; but John passes this wholly by to speak of the real reason in the divine counsels. Predestination is quite as strongly marked in John as in Paul.—​But of the multitude many believed on him. The degree of faith is not indicated. Its spirituality may have been very slight; yet the rest of the sentence certainly indicates that they were inclined to think that this might be the promised Messiah.—​More miracles than these which this one hath done. To those which had been wrought in Jerusalem were probably added, in their thought, those which had been wrought in Galilee; some of these had doubtless been witnessed by many of the Galileans present.

32-34. The Pharisees and the chief priests sent officers to take him. This was an official act on the part of the Sanhedrim or its officers, carrying out the design of certain of the people, as indicated in ver. 30; and it is the first official endeavor to arrest him, the beginning of a course of action consummated in his final arrest, trial, and crucifixion.—​Therefore said Jesus unto them. A break evidently occurs between verses 31 and 32. The discourse up to ver. 31 is continuous, and took place about the middle of the feast, that is, the third or fourth day; the discourse in verses 37-39 was on the last day of the feast; between the two the orders for Christ’s arrest were given. Verses 33, 34 are founded on Christ’s knowledge of those orders, and it is a reasonable surmise that the presence of the officers suggested it to him and interpreted its meaning to some at least of his auditors.—​Yet a little while am I with you. About six months after this address he was crucified.—​And I go unto him that sent me. With this explicit statement of his meaning, interpreted as it was by the previous declaration that it was the true God who had sent him, it is difficult to understand how the Jews could have been perplexed respecting his meaning. De Wette’s explanation that they knew not the One who had sent him, and therefore that this saying was a dark one to them, is not wholly satisfactory, for surely they did know who was meant by the phrase, he that sent me, and as surely they could not fail to understand that going to God was equivalent to death. Meyer supposes that the words him that sent me in this verse were not a part of Christ’s discourse, but added, perhaps by John himself; but they are not wanting in any of the manuscripts; and that is both a doubtful and a dangerous kind of criticism which removes a difficulty by the summary process of removing the difficult words, without any external authority for so doing. I believe therefore that Christ was explicit, that he was understood, and that the assumed perplexity of his hearers was a piece of hypocrisy. See on verses 35, 36.—​Ye shall seek and shall not find me; and where I am ye cannot come. The key to the true interpretation of this passage, is afforded by Luke 17:22; John 8:21; 13:33. Christ does not refer to an inimical seeking; the search here is the same as the desire to see one of the days of the Son of man in Luke 17:22; i. e. the Jewish desire for a manifestation of the Messiah. He does not refer to a true spiritual seeking, for in ch. 8:21 he declares, to the same Jewish auditors, Ye shall seek me and ye shall die in your sins. Eusebius declares that many Jews in consequence of the judgments of God on Jerusalem became believers; such did indeed seek Christ, but they found him. The meaning then is that in the coming days of travail and sorrow, when many should go out after false Christs (Matt. 24:23, 24), the Jews would earnestly desire a Messiah for their deliverer, whom, however, they could not have, because with their own hands they had put him to death. They would seek, but theirs would be a temporal, not a spiritual seeking; the seeking of fear and self-interest, not of repentance, faith, and love. This verse affords no authority whatever for the opinion that any earnest spiritual soul ever seeks Christ in vain.

35, 36. Then said the Jews among themselves. Their utterance has been by some regarded as the utterance of a genuine perplexity. So apparently Maurice: “He had broken down the barriers between different classes of Israelites—between [Pg 102] Galileans, Samaritans, and Jews. Why might he not carry his designs further? Why might he not go to the dispersed tribes in heathen lands? Why might he not preach to the heathen themselves?” By others it is regarded as the language of scorn and contempt. So Meyer: “An insolent and scornful supposition, which they themselves, however, do not deem probable (therefore the question is asked with μή), regarding the meaning of words to them so utterly enigmatical. The bolder mode of teaching adopted by Jesus, his universalistic declarations, his partial non-observance of the law of the Sabbath, would lead them, perhaps, to associate with the unintelligible statement a mocking thought like this, and all the more because much interest was felt among the heathen, partly of an earnest kind, and partly (comp. St. Paul in Athens) arising from curiosity merely, regarding the Oriental religions, especially Judaism.” The latter view seems to me the more probable, because (1) it is inconceivable that the Jews should have misapprehended Christ’s meaning (ver. 33, note); (2) his analogous language in the next chapter they clearly did understand to refer to his death (ch. 8:22); (3) the fact that what was said was “among themselves” indicates that it was not an honest perplexity, in which case they would have asked Christ for an explanation, but of the same quality as the murmuring reported in verses 26, 27.

37. In the last day, that great day of the feast. The feast of the Tabernacles proper lasted for seven days (Lev. 23:34, 41, 42), but on the eighth day a solemn assembly kept as a feast-Sabbath was directed to be held (Lev. 23:36; Numb. 29:35; Neh. 8:18); and though the people dwelt in the booths only the seven days, this eighth day was reckoned by the Jews as a part of the feast. Whether the seventh or the eighth is intended here by the “last day of the feast” is a little uncertain, as it also is whether the drawing of water from the brook Siloah, which was a characteristic ceremonial of the other days of the feast, took place also on the eighth day. This ceremonial recalled the miraculous supply of water in the wilderness from the riven rock; it was connected by the more superstitious of the people with the notion that at this time God determined the amount of rain which should fall during the year; and the more spiritual saw in it a symbol of the time when the promised gift of the Holy Spirit should be bestowed upon Israel (Isa. 12:3). Whether the words of Christ were uttered, as Dr. Geikie supposes, during this ceremonial, or, as Alford supposes, the day after this service had come to an end, the reference to it is unmistakable. Dr. Geikie’s supposition certainly makes this reference more striking, and gives, if not peculiar significance, at least peculiar force, to Christ’s words. “The last day of the feast, known as ‘the Hosanna Rabba’ and the ‘Great Day,’ found him, as each day before, doubtless, had done, in the temple arcades. He had gone thither early, to meet the crowds assembled for morning prayer. It was a day of special rejoicing. A great procession of pilgrims marched seven times round the city, with their lulabs, music, and loud-voiced choirs preceding, and the air was rent with shouts of Hosanna, in commemoration of the taking of Jericho, the first city in the Holy Land that fell into the hands of their fathers. Other multitudes streamed to the brook of Siloah, after the priests and Levites, bearing the golden vessels with which to draw some of the water. As many as could get near the stream drank of it amidst loud shouting of the words of Isaiah—‘Ho, every one that thirsteth, come ye to the waters,’ ‘With joy shall we draw water from the wells of salvation’—rising in jubilant chants on every side. The water drawn by the priests was, meanwhile, borne up to the temple, amidst the boundless excitement of a vast throng. Such a crowd was, apparently, passing at this moment. Rising as the throng went by, his spirit was moved at such honest enthusiasm, yet saddened at the moral decay which mistook a mere ceremony for religion. It was burning autumn weather, when the sun had for months shone in a cloudless sky, and the early rains were longed for as the monsoons in India after the summer heat. Water at all times is a magic word in a sultry climate like Palestine, but at this moment it had a double power. Standing, therefore, to give his words more solemnity, his voice now sounded far and near over the throng, with soft clearness, which arrested all: If any man thirst, let him come unto me and drink.”—(Geikie.)—If any man thirst. This is not an unconditional promise; it is conditioned, not merely on desire, but on a fervent desire. Comp. Isa. 55:1; Matt. 5:6; Rev. 22:17. “None are called to obtain the riches of the Spirit but those who burn with the desire of them. For we know that the pain of thirst is most acute and tormenting, [Pg 103] so that the very strongest men, and those who can endure any amount of toil, are overpowered by thirst.”—(Calvin.) An illustration of this spiritual thirst is afforded by David in Psalms 42, 43, and by Paul in Phil. 3:8-14.—​Let him come unto me. If one can imagine these words spoken to the throng while the procession is marching into the temple, or even just after the solemn service is over and the minds of the people are still full of it, he will form a faint conception of the divine assumption implied in them; and if he further considers the effect produced, both on the multitude (verses 40, 41) and on the officers sent to arrest Jesus (ver. 46), he will form a faint conception of the divine dignity with which those words were uttered.

38. He that hath faith in me. As in ch. 6 to eat the flesh and drink the blood of Christ is to have faith in him and live by him, so here, to come unto him and drink is to come with the affections and receive him into the soul.—​As the Scripture hath said. There is no passage in the O. T. which directly sustains this citation, and no reason to suppose that Christ refers to any lost book. Alford refers to Ezek. 47:1-12, where the river of the water of life is described as flowing from under the temple, which Alford regards as a symbol of the believer; similarly Olshausen; but both this reference and that to Zech. 14:8 are remote and unnatural. We are either to suppose that the phrase “as the Scripture hath said” refers only to the preceding clause, “he that believeth on me,” so that the meaning is, He that according to the O. T. believeth on me; or else we are to suppose that John by the following verse (39) not only interprets the meaning of Christ’s promise, but also the meaning of his reference, and that we are to look for the Scripture in those passages which refer to and promise the gift of the Holy Ghost. The former of these interpretations is that of Chrysostom, the latter that of Meyer, who refers to Isa. 44:3; 55:1; 58:1; Joel 3:18; Zech. 13:1.—​Shall flow rivers of living water. This declaration is not to be limited so that it shall be simply equivalent to the promise in John 4:14, “Whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst.” The language out of his belly clearly implies something received that it may flow from the recipient unto others. The water which he drinks becomes in him a spring from which living waters flow, as the light which illuminates him makes him in turn one of the lights which illuminate the world (Matt. 5:14; Phil. 2:15). That this is the meaning is clear, not only from the language here, but from John’s interpretation in the succeeding verse. “The mutual and inspired intercourse of Christians from Pentecost downwards, the speaking in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, the mutual edification in Christian assemblies by means of the charismata even to the speaking with tongues, the entire work of the apostles, of a Stephen and so on, furnish an abundant historical commentary upon this text.”—(Meyer.)

39. But this spake he of the Spirit. This declaration of John makes the second chapter of Acts and the succeeding history of the Church of Christ the true commentary on Christ’s promise.—​For the Spirit was not yet. The meaning cannot of course be that the Holy Spirit had no existence, for “this would be not only in flat contradiction to chaps. 1:32, 33; 3:5, 8, 34, but to the whole O. T., in which the agency of the Spirit in the outward world is recognized even more vividly than in the N. T.” (Alford.) And it is not only in the outward world that the O. T. recognizes the Holy Spirit, but also in the hearts of individual prophets, who thus became the ministers of divine grace to others (Gen. 41:38; Exod. 4:11, 12; 31:3; 2 Chron. 15:1; Ps. 51:11; Isa. 63:11, 14). Nor does the addition by the translators of the word given adequately represent the meaning, for the Holy Ghost was given before the glorification of Christ, but not to all men; he was not a universal gift. The meaning is that the dispensation of the Holy Ghost had not yet begun; he had not yet been so given that whoever had faith in the Son of God received the gift of the Holy Ghost and became one of the Lord’s prophets (Acts 2:38). See Acts 2:4, note.—​Because Jesus was not yet glorified. The death and resurrection of Christ were the conditions precedent of the outpouring of the Holy Ghost (ch. 14:16, 17; 16:7; Acts 1:7-9).

40-44. These verses give the impressions produced on different auditors by Christ’s discourses at the feast. The word many is wanting in the best manuscripts, and is omitted by Lachmann, Tischendorf, Meyer, Alford, Schaff; for it read some. Some regarded Jesus as the prophet foretold in Deut. 18:15 [Pg 104] (comp. ch. 1:21; Matt. 16:14); others thought that he might even be the Messiah. See ver. 31. The opponents of Christ based their opposition not upon his character or that of his teaching, but upon their Jewish prejudice to his supposed Galilean origin. There is no good ground for the conclusion, arrived at by some rationalistic critics from John’s language here, that he did not know that Jesus was born in Bethlehem. Writing his Gospel many years after the main facts of Christ’s birth, life, and death were known throughout the church, he here simply narrates as an historian the objections which the Judeans made to the claim that Jesus was the Messiah; to have pointed out their mistake would have been a work of supererogation. Alford’s note on this point is quite conclusive: “De Wette’s ‘probability that John knew nothing of the birth at Bethlehem’ reaches much further than may appear at first. If John knew nothing of it, and yet the mother of the Lord lived with him, the inference must be that she knew nothing of it—in other words, that it never happened.”

OFFICERS OF THE CHIEF PRIESTS.

45, 46. Then came the officers. Not Roman soldiers, but temple police, answering to the modern constable or the Roman lictor or the English beadle. They had been directed by the officers of the Sanhedrim to arrest Jesus (ver. 32). Presumptively this return of the officers occurred several days after their commission to make the arrest. They had been watching him during the feast.—​Never man spake like this man. They were not overawed by the multitude, but by the words of Christ himself. There is no stronger testimony, even in the Gospels, to the marvellous moral power of Christ’s personality and words than this declaration of the temple police, who were probably ignorant but also simple men, without the culture, but also without the religious prejudices, of the rulers. In the life of Whitefield are several illustrations of analogous moral power over roughs who had [Pg 105] come to the preaching to break it up, but who remained spell-bound under its influence. To have elicited such testimony as this from such men as these, Jesus must have possessed the power of a true oratory.

47-49. The language of the Pharisaic rulers is that of unbounded scorn for Jesus and for the multitude. The latter are declared to be under divine wrath and cursed with moral blindness because they have an admiration for such a Sabbath-breaker. “All here is wonderfully living and characteristic. The faint effort of the officers to execute the command of their masters; the awe which held them back; their simple confession of the power which they found in the words of Jesus; the surprise of the Sanhedrim that the infection should have reached even their servants; their terror lest there might be traitors in the camp, lest any Pharisee or lawyer (probably some eyes were turned on Nicodemus) should have been carried away by the impulse to which the crowd, naturally enough, had yielded; their scorn of the people, as wretched, ‘accursed’ men, utterly ignorant of the law—who does not feel as if he were present in that convocation of doctors? as if he were looking at their perplexed and angry faces? as if he were hearing their contemptuous words?”—(Maurice.)

50-52. On the character of Nicodemus, see notes on ch. 3. The impression which Jesus had made upon him in that interview was an abiding one. There is a covert sarcasm in his question here, Doth our law judge the man except it first hear him and know what he doeth? They themselves knew not the law, and were openly disregarding it. The Rabbinical laws explicitly required that every accused person should have a hearing, with an opportunity to confront the witnesses against him and to cross-examine them. See Vol. I, p. 298. That Nicodemus’ rebuke was felt by the Pharisees is shown by the tone of their answer. They replied, not by argument, but by a sneer, Art thou also of Galilee? and by a falsehood, Out of Galilee hath arisen (perfect, not present) no prophet. Jonah was of Galilee (2 Kings 14:25), Elijah very probably so (1 Kings 17:1;—Alford), and Nahum either of Galilee or of Assyria, a heathen land (Nahum 1:1). The prejudices of the Pharisees led them to forget their history as well as their law. In lieu of doth our law judge any man? read the man, i. e., this man; Nicodemus refers specifically to Jesus. In lieu of ariseth read hath arisen; though there is some uncertainty. Alford gives the present tense, ariseth; Lachmann, Tischendorf, and Meyer, with greater probability, the past tense, hath arisen. With either reading the meaning is substantially the same; not, as Godet, The promised prophet is not now arising, but, as Meyer and Alford, No prophet ever ariseth from Galilee.

53. This verse belongs with the next chapter.

Ch. 7:53 to 8:11. THE WOMAN TAKEN IN ADULTERY.—​Illustrates: The tact of Christ—​The precept, Judge not, that ye be not judged—​The power of conscience—​The Christian treatment of the fallen.

Preliminary Note.—Verse 53 of ch. 7 belongs unquestionably with the first eleven verses of ch. 8. Whether the whole passage is really a part of John’s Gospel or no is one of the most difficult and doubtful questions in Biblical criticism. The weight of critical authority is against it; the weight of internal evidence is in its favor. For a complete discussion of the considerations pro and con, the student must be referred to the commentaries of Alford, Meyer, Luthardt, and Godet, the last being, of the three, the most comprehensive in its treatment. Here I give briefly (1) the facts, (2) the different opinions, (3) my own conclusion.