*ii,lr-i 
 
 m 
 
 *;M: «/' 
 
 T. D. Woolsey 
 
 "The Disciple whom Jesus Loved" 
 
 %^WW. 
 
 ' ^''^^^ 
 
 f 
 
 <^^ 
 
 
^JAN 11 1961 ^ 
 
 BS2455 
 .VI91 
 
\ Ooo\Sf: Y — 
 
 "THE DISCIPLE WHOM JESUS LOVED," 
 
 WITH SOME REMARKS ON THE PASSAGES WHERE THESE WORDS 
 
 ARE USED. 
 
 Iisr the first three Gospels there is no evidence to be found that any one 
 of the twelve disciples was held by Jesus in higher esteem than the rest. 
 More than once, indeed, it appears that two or three of them were se- 
 lected to do certain duties, or to act as witnesses, on special occasions, of 
 what our Lord did, or of what befell Him. But this selection does not 
 show especial trustworthiness, or higher love on the part of Jesus to the 
 persons selected. Such were Peter, James, and John, or the first and 
 the last of the three. Once Andrew is associated with the three (in 
 Mark xiii. 3), as putting questions to Jesus touching the destruction of 
 the temple and the signs of the fulfillment of his projihecies. The same 
 three were chosen as witnesses of the transfiguration, that greatest of 
 wonders in our Lord's life (Matt. xvii. 1-8 ; Mark ix. 2-10), and were 
 called to go with the JMaster into the garden of Gethsemane, while the 
 other apostles stayed at the entrance of the garden. 
 
 It is evident that two or three of the disciples named above did spe- 
 cial services on occasions where only a few persons were needed ; but 
 there is no proof that a preeminence of any one among the twelve over 
 the others existed in our Lord's lifetime, or after the crucifixion. In the 
 Acts, where a spokesman for the apostles was necessary, Peter took this 
 duty by general agreement, or by an understanding from the times before 
 our Lord's death ; and he, with John especially, represents the apostles 
 before the public authorities. Even as late a;s when Paul began to be a 
 preacher to the Gentiles, Peter and John, with James, " the Lord's 
 brother," were regarded as " pillars," — although one of them was not 
 even an apostle, — a title which implied no positive power, but only au- 
 thority conceded by the rest. From this time John is nowhere men- 
 tioned apart from his brother, unless the Apostle John and the autl)or of 
 the Apocalypse are one and the s.i';:e person. 
 
 It is remarkable that John received more rejiroof from Jesus than any 
 otlier of the twelve, except Peter. . In Mark ix. 38, Luke ix. 49, he is 
 mildly reproved for having tried to stop one who was casting out demons 
 in the name of Christ because he did not belong to the company who 
 followed Jesus. And in Luke ix. 54, when the Samaritans treated the 
 Master inhosi)itably because He seemed to be directing his course toward 
 Jerusalem, and John with his brother desired of Jesus that they might 
 have power to bring fire down from heaven and consume them, our Lord 
 rebuked the brothers for their wrong temper, in the words " Ye know 
 not what manner of spirit ye are of." And again a rebuke came from 
 Christ, when their mother, with their concurrence or at their solicitation 
 (Matt. XX. 20-23 ; Mark x. 35-40), asked that they might sit on his right 
 
hand and on his left in his glory. It is evident from the passage that 
 John was not as yet meek, loving, and unambitious to such a degree as to 
 deserve the title of " the disciple whom Jesus loved " for what he was, 
 rather than for what he was to become ; there were in him the germs of 
 a beautiful and divine life, but he had not as yet been " made perfect in 
 love." 
 
 Here we may ask whether the name " sons of thunder," given to the 
 two brothers by Jesus (Mark iii. 17), was intended as a reproach, or at 
 least as involving the wrong tendency of feeling which appeal's in Luke 
 ix. 54 ; or, if not, what is its true imjjort ? It seems unlikely that our 
 Lord should have given this as a surname of censure to both brothers at 
 once ; and still less probable that their wrong spirit, elsewhere spoken of, 
 should be referred to here in Mark without giving the reason for it. 
 More probably tlie meaning of vehement or impetuous is to be put into 
 the word, not as referring to fervid, fiery eloquence, but to vehemence of 
 temper. As for John, even in his old age, after long years of discipline 
 in the school of Christ, fervent feeling appears to be part of his nature ; 
 and his ardent love is not inconsistent with such a spirit, after he had 
 been brought into the spirit of peace and self-control by being with Christ. 
 Such a story as that which records his words uttered when Cerinthus and 
 he happened to be in a bath together ^ points to ardent feeling even in 
 his extreme old age. Nor was he in this unlike his Master ; for where 
 is stronger rebuke than that of the " scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites," in 
 Matt, xxiii. ? 
 
 The expression " disciple whom Jesus loved " is found with slight va- 
 riations in five places of John's Gosjiel, and nowhere else in the New 
 Testament. In ch. xiii. 23 we have " now there was reclining in [or 
 leaning on] Jesus' bosom one of his disciples, whom Jesus loved." In 
 xix. 26 we have '• the disciple standing by, whom he loved." In xx. 2, 
 " she runneth therefore, and cometh to Simon Peter, and to the other 
 disciple, whom Jesus loved." In xxi. 7, we read " that disciple, there- 
 fore, whom Jesus loved saith unto Peter, It is the Lord," — a passage 
 very interesting, as showing the quicker insight, the more intimate per- 
 ception, of a beloved person by one in greater sympathy with him than 
 others can attain to. And finally, in verse 20 of this same chapter, it is 
 said that " Peter, turning about, seeth the disciple whom Jesus loved 
 following ; which also leaned back on his breast at the supper," etc. 
 Whether this last chapter of the Gospel was written by John himself as 
 far as to ver. 24, or whether it was added by his friends after his death 
 from his notes, in whole or in part, will be considered in the sequel. 
 Whatever may be thought on this point, there is a pretty general agree- 
 ment that the apostle himself is as responsible for the facts of this ap- 
 pendix as for any otlier part of his Gospel. 
 
 These passages, when chey speak of the disciple whom Jesus loved, 
 agree in their phraseology almost exactly, except that in the fourth (xx. 
 2), the verb translated "loved " is i<f>L\€i, while rjyana stands in all the 
 others. This also will be considered hereafter. At present we shall try 
 to answer the question who is pointed at by this disciple, and when he 
 can be supposed to have been first so called. 
 
 To the first point the closing verses of the Gospel give answer. In v. 
 20, Peter turns and sees the disciple, so called, following, who is de- 
 scribed as leaning on Jesus' bosom at the last supper, and as one of the 
 
 ^ Euscb. iii. 28, as handed down from Polycarp. 
 
8 
 
 twelve. No one, who is not prepared to pronounce all this to he a pure 
 invention, will hesitate to identify him with the Apostle John, although 
 there were no more proof of it than what is found in xxi. 24, which may 
 have heen written by one of his friends after his death. He is certainly 
 not Peter, and if from the first three Gospels any conjecture can be 
 drawn, he must be one whom our Lord employed in various services 
 which show the trust reposed in him. Now in the fourth Gospel a disci- 
 ple (or apostle) who must have written it speaks a number of times of 
 a disciple who has an important part to act, yet without mentioning the 
 name of that disciple, and only calling him the disciple whom Jesus loved, 
 "this disciple." It is remarkable that the author of the fourth Gospel 
 makes no mention of himself by name, and that, even when there is no 
 reason discoverable for such a suppression, unless it be a personal one. 
 Thus the fullness of the narrative in i. 37-40 points to a distinct memory 
 of what took place when the writer first saw Jesus ; but he is content 
 with naming his own companion, for Andrew could not have been the 
 wi'iter. The same veil put upon his own face is seen in all the passages 
 where the " disciple whom Jesus loved " occurs ; and in his Epistles he is 
 content with calling himself " the elder." So in xix. 25 he is reserved as 
 it respects his mother, who was probably there. In ch. xxi. 2, he does 
 indeed speak of the two sons of Zebedee, but that was less personal than to 
 say openly James and John. Another instance of this self-concealment 
 is found in John xviii. 15, where Peter and another disciple who was 
 known to the high px'iest met together, and that disciple spoke to the por- 
 tress and brought Peter thus into the court. Now this might be Joseph 
 of Ariraathea, or some unknown person ; but when we comjiare this with 
 other instances in which John speaks of himself we can hardly doubt that 
 he was both narrator and witness. Comp. Meyer's fifth ed. and B. Weiss, 
 in Meyer's sixth. 
 
 Here, however, some one may ask whether, by using this title, he is 
 not jilacing himself above the other disciples, as held in higher regard 
 than the rest of the twelve. The answer which can fairly be made to 
 this question is that while Jesus loved him with a special and tender 
 love, it does not appear that this title was given him until after the resur- 
 rection ; and indeed perhaps not until years after that event, and even 
 when a number of the old apostles may have been called to be with 
 Christ. The title, again, must have been affixed to him by others who had 
 heard of the especial regard in which Jesus held him. If this gospel was 
 the latest of the four in its publication, as can scarcely admit of a doubt, 
 it might disclose recollections which at an earlier period would not per- 
 haps have been given to the world. 
 
 Nor could the title have been intended to denote that John was the 
 only one of the twelve whom Christ loved: for such a meaning " the apos- 
 tle whom Jesus loved " would have been necessary ; it must mean that with- 
 out standing above the rest of the twelve in some respects, there was a 
 reason, or more than one reason, why he was especially dear to Jesus. A 
 man may have a beautiful and lovely character ; he may attract his inti- 
 mate friends by certain special qualities, and yet be inferior to others of 
 his circle for practical power and activity in his station. 
 
 The fii'st thing we notice as to the man " whom Jesus loved " is that he 
 is always called " the disciple." But as this title is found only in the 
 fourth Gospel and the word " apostle " is not found th«re, except in xiii. 
 16, where it means simply a person sent, in contrast to the sender ; we 
 
should not look for it as of course designating one of the twelve. In Mat- 
 thew, " apostles " is found only once, in x. 2, where it repeats the word 
 "disciples" of ver. 1. In this verse we find having "called to him the 
 twelve discii)les," and in ver. 2. the words, " the names of the twelve 
 apostles are these." P^lsewhere Matthew speaks of " the disciples," or of 
 " the twelve disciples," or of " the tvvelve ; " and the same is true of 
 Mark's usage, except in the single instance occurring in vi. 30, " and the 
 apostles gatlier themselves together unto Jesus " on their return from 
 their preaching mission. There is, moreover, a peculiar reason for the 
 nse of the word " apostle " in this jjlace, derived from Mark's words in 
 the verse preceding, where it is said " when his disciples lieard of it " 
 — that is, ivhen John's disciples heard of his death ; this made it nec- 
 essary, in order to avoid an amhiguity, to find some other word, such as 
 " apostles," to denote the tvvelve disciples of Jesus. 
 
 But a doubt may arise in i^egard to the meaning of "disciple" in these 
 places ; is it to be taken in its wider sense, or to refer to one of the 
 twelve ? Without question, to the latter. If Jolm liad been at a somewhat 
 later time — some time after Christ's death, for instance — known as the 
 person whom Jesus loved, the title must have come by tradition from mem- 
 bers of the apostolic body, since it refers to what Jesus elid when He was on 
 earth. It was Jesus himself who showed an affection towards this disciple, 
 which caused his fellow-disciples — that is, the apostles — to give him the 
 name. And perhaps the last supper, when John lay on Jesus' breast, gave 
 especial occasion for it. Perhaps, also, the last moments of the life of 
 the Lord Jesus, when He committed his mother to the care of John, fast- 
 ened the name more permanently upon him. 
 
 We may stop a moment at the word " Jesus," in the title " whom Jesus 
 loved," and ask why the name, and this only, was connected with John's 
 title, " the beloved disciple." The cause is to be ascribed without doubt 
 to the intercourse of our Lord with John during his acquaintance with 
 him on earth ; to no one event nor to any one quality of the disciple, but to 
 our Lord's discernment of John's character from tlie beginning of his min- 
 istry, and probably before his ministry began. It was an intimacy between 
 the master and the disciple of no short acquaintance ; his feeling is de- 
 noted in the imperfect tense by yyd-n-a ; He loved hinr with a continuous 
 love. There may also have been a family intimacy and a relationship 
 which carried his knowledge of John back to early youth, as we shall seek 
 to show. He discerned in his disciple lovely traits, as He did in the young 
 ruler, whom He may be said to have loved for the possibilities of high 
 excellence that He saw in him. But his love to John was a tried, strong, 
 personal love, such as the man Jesus coidd feel for some souls with 
 especial endowments which few possessed. And it was a religious love, 
 which no one could so correctly feel as He who had an intuitive knowl- 
 edge of hearts. This love was the love of Jesus to one who was made 
 to love in retui'n. It was an earthly love of a heavenly soul, such as the 
 Son of God in the form of a servant would feel beyond all men besides. 
 
 We have already seen that in one instance out of five c^iAew expresses 
 this affection of Jesus to the disciple, but that ayaTraw is used to convey 
 the same meaning in the others. Here we come to some interesting 
 points touching the use of these verbs in early and classical Greek on the 
 one hand, and in the Septuagint, the Apocryplial books, the New Testa- 
 ment, and the writings influenced by them, on the other. <J>tA.eco, we need 
 not say, is as early as the earliest Greek literature itself, and as wide in its 
 
. meaning as our verb to love, running through all kinds and degrees of the 
 feeling, from the love of family and friend down to mere liking and 
 to be'uvj ivont to do a thing ; and passing over from the sphere of inno- 
 cent to that of licentious love, whether passionate or merely sensual. With 
 this word, another, not found in Homer, and in gotxl Attic use, mipyoi, 
 is chiefly confined to love between parents and children, and to other 
 somewhat analogous relations, such as those of king and people. Nor is 
 it a word of frequent occurrence, like ^lAew. 
 
 By the side of these words a third one, as old as Homer, and always 
 in good use, dyaTrao), with early kindred forms in -a^w and -a^o/xai, 
 is to be met with. This word, connected perhaps with ayai/, uyn/mL, 
 dyaio/xat, is found eight or ten times in Homer and together with several 
 derivatives through the whole course of the literature of Greece. 
 
 Thus in Odyss. xxiii. 214, Penelope asks her husband to forgive her, 
 because on first seeing him she did not laelcome him or treat him with 
 affection (aydirrjcra, which Eustathius interprets by ItfuXofjipovrja-dixrjv). 
 In xvi. 17, we find " as a father, feeling kindly, embraces or welcomes 
 his son," (^t'/Va (fipovecov a.yairac,€L. Comp. Iliad, xxiv. 464. In Pindar, 
 Pyth. iv. 241, we have " and with mild words (dyaTra^ovr'), they welcomed 
 him " or made much of him. In Eurip, Suppl. 764, (^ai-q^ dv, el -dprjcrO', ot 
 ■^yoLTra icKpoLS may be rendered, " you would have said so, when he treated 
 lovingly (or made much of) the dead." Paley on this passage says that 
 rjyu.Tra here means to show affection by an embrace, which would put 
 into it the sense of d/x<^ayd7ra{oj ; but the thought cannot be so special. 
 Comp. Eurip. Hel. 937 ; Phoeniss. 1332. 
 
 In the Attic prose writers tliis word is not uncommonly used in the 
 sense of mcujnijicare, and also in that of contentum esse or acqniescere. 
 The second of these meanings is not, I believe, to be met with in the 
 Sept. or N. Test, at all, but is easily derived fi'om the notion of making 
 much of, or being well pleased with. It is thus found in Homer once 
 (Odyss. xxi. 289), ovk dyuTra? o eK7]\o% Saa'vcraL, etc. : " Art thou not satis- 
 fied that thou art feasting with us, such great people?" This sense is 
 found with the verb in several constructions, as with ort, or el, with a 
 dative, or accusative, and with a participle. It resembles a-ripyw in tak- 
 ing this sense. In the sense of making much of, it is also not infrequently 
 found. Comp. Demosth. Olynth. ii. p. 23, ed. Reiske, toi'tou? dyaTra koI 
 Trept avTuv e^ei, '' these he makes much of, and keeps around him ; " de 
 Corona, p. 263, 7, " nor did / value the gifts ... of Philip," ovTe 
 rjya-i^cra. Here we add that the verbal dyaTTT/ros with eirrl is used not 
 infrequently, like the verb, in the sense of being satisfied loith ; but although 
 a common word in the N. Test., it never has this meaning there. 
 
 The contrast between cfiiXeio and»dya7rdco, which is found several times 
 in Greek writers, is important as showing the sense of the latter, before it 
 was used in the translation of the Hebrew Scriptures. Thus Xenophon 
 (Memorab. ii. §7, 12) says "they loved him as one who cared for them, 
 and he valued them (thought liighly of thorn) as useful ; " ecfiiXow ws 
 Kr]8eix6ia, b 8i, w; (jc^eXt'/xovs yyci—a. So in Plato's Lysis, 220 D : "It wovdd 
 become manifest that we Avere highly judging and loving the good " 
 (r/yarrwp.ei' Kal ecjuXoviiev) ; where the latter word contains something more 
 of feeling, while the former contains more of i-egaid, and a higher degree 
 of respect. A much later writer, D. Cassius (xliv. 48), gives the same 
 place of greater emphasis to (fitXew, when he says of the Roman people 
 
at Julius CiCsar's death, icfuXTQcraTC w? Trure/ja kol yyairrja-aTC ws ev-ep- 
 y€T7]v, — " highly esteemed him." 
 
 In Greek profane literature these two words remained in their old rela- 
 tion to one another, while the Jewish sacred books translated into Greek 
 almost discarded one of them, and that one vastly more in use than the 
 other. ^i\eco takes the backgi-omul in these translations, while the place 
 of honor and frequent use is ceded to ayuTrdio. This is not only the case 
 to a greater extent when religious love is concerned, — as when love to 
 God, or God's love is expressed, — but to a considerable extent </)iAew, when 
 used in other senses, gives way to what may be called a new-comer, 
 which in its native region of Greek speakers and writers was compara- 
 tively little used.^ Still more worthy of remark is it that while the noun 
 ayd-1] is whoUy unknown to the Greek of Greece before the Christian 
 era, it appears in the New Testament books as frequently as if it had 
 always been a current word. It is a natural root of verbal forms in ao> 
 and a^w, and yet is a stranger to the Greek language until after our era, 
 to a great extent. When a want of some nominal form answering to 
 aya-n-dw was felt, ttyuTTi/tris seems to have been first thought of, which is 
 found in somewhat later writers, and is not found in the N. Test., but 
 now and then occurs in the O. Test, and the Apocr. Before the transla- 
 tion of the Septuagint it must have been comparatively unused ; for while 
 the verb is as common as it is in the N. Test, the noun, dyaTTT;, is of quite 
 restricted use in the Sept., and a new meaning was in process of time 
 given to it in the early church, that of love feasts, dyaTrai. The verb 
 
 dyaTrdoi is found in the Sept. about 252 times, answering to -"7^ in 150 
 of them, and in the N. Test., 142 times ; dydTrrj in the former 15 times, 
 but in the latter 118 ; and dyairrp-os in the Sejit. in the meaning of be- 
 loved, but in the N. Test. 63. Comparing the frequency of occuiTence of 
 <f)i\C} and its family in the N. Test, with that of dyaTrw, we find <^tXw used 
 25 times, (/)tAo?, 29, <^tA.ia and ^1X17, once each. 
 
 The increased use of dyaTraw and its family in the Sept. and in the 
 Christian Scriptures is probably to be accounted for by the frequent use 
 of (ficXid) and its derivatives in denoting sensual love, and in covering up 
 foul acts under the veil of words so common and important. Such a 
 change, on this supposition, must have come from a higher condition of 
 moral feehng which may have been first felt by Greek-speaking Jews. 
 The words were too necessary to be dropped out of use in social life ; 
 and it does not appear that the other family — that of cfuXiw — became 
 much more common for a long time, at least in heathen authors. And 
 so, also, if there gi-ew up a demand for a translation into Latin, which 
 would naturally be called for by Jews at Rome and elsewhere in the 
 West, it would have been made first in following the Septuagint. The 
 same objections would meet the use of amo, amor, and their kin- 
 dred ; and perhaps the objections to these words were more felt at the 
 end of the republic and under Augustus than at Alexandria, when the 
 Greek translation first appeared. The new set of words in the early 
 Latin translation of the Scriptures were dillgo, dllectus and dilectio, cams, 
 and the superlatives dilectissimi and earissimi, with the noun caritas. 
 No other words were substituted for these in the translations and other 
 
 ^ The verb ayai^iw, the verbal and its adv. ayairii)T6s, and -tcos are found 
 in Demosth., as noticed in indices, 22 times ; in Plato, 18 ; in Lysias, 3 times ; in 
 Isocrates, 3 times. The xxse of the verb in the sense of to be content with Ls 
 common ; so is that of the verbal, and of a.yairr}T(i>s. 
 
Christian books ; and to these the translators seem to have strictly ad- 
 hered. A multitude of instances where these words occur in the works 
 of Tertidlian and of Cyprian, as well in their citations from the sacred 
 books as in their own compositions, show that this use was impressed on 
 the Latin language by Christian writers. Dilectio is said to be of later 
 origin than the rest, but it is found in Tertullian.^ 
 
 Notwithstanding this disuse to a great extent of cf>iX4u) in both the 
 Jewish and the Christian Scriptures, it is found a number of times in the 
 N. Test, and especially in John, of which " the Father loveth the Son " 
 ((^tXei), V. 20, "the Father loveth you," xvi. 27, and the five places in 
 xxi. 15-17 may serve as instances. So he who " loveth a father more 
 than me" (o (fnXwv), or "a son more than me," Matt. x. 37 bis; and 
 1 Cor. xvi. 22, '' if any one loveth not the Lord," ov (/)tAer tov K. It is 
 strange that the sphere of this word is not wider. Another passage in 
 John XX. 2 will be noticed hereafter. 
 
 In the Septuagint the use of (faXeu) is more limited. In Prov. v. 19, 
 we find <^tXia, Vulg. aviore; Prov. vii. 18, ^tAt'as ; x. 12, (juXia, love or 
 friendship ; xv. 17, dinner of herbs (/rpos f^iXiav), " where love is," Vulg. 
 cum caritafe ; xvii. 9, " seeks friendship," (^iXiav ; xxvi. 5, " open rebukes 
 are better than secret love," <^t\('a9. 
 
 Here, perhaps, is the place for asking the question whether there is 
 any difference of meaning between c^iXd and dyaTroi, and if be there any, 
 what ? Among those who have discussed this point, Trench, in the first 
 part of his " Synonyms of the New Testament," deserves to be heard 
 on account of his learning and carefulness. He approaches his point 
 from the Latin representatives of the two words, amo and diligo, and 
 first cites the following passage in Cicero's Epist. ad Fam. vii. 47, " ut 
 scires ilium a me non diligi solum, verum etiam amati." And again he 
 cites the first sentence of the letter to Brutus, Lib. 1, " L. Clodius, tribunus 
 plebis designatus, valde me diligit, vel ut eix<^aTiKutTepov dicam, valde 
 me amat.'' Comp. Epist. ad Fam. ix. 14, 5 : " tantum accessit " {i. e., to 
 the love which I had for thee) " ut mihi nunc denique amare videar, 
 antea dilexisse." The two words are also united, as in Epist. ad Fam. xv. 
 7, " te semper amavi dilexique ; " in these letters diligo occurs very often. 
 Ernesti, as Trench thinks, has successfully seized the difference of the 
 words, when he says that " diligere magis ad judicium, amare vero ad 
 intimum animi sensum pertinet." So that Cicero, in the passage first 
 quoted, means that he does not esteem or value the man merely, but that 
 there is something of passionate warmth of affection in his regard for 
 him. Some have thought that amare, which corresponds to c^iAeu', is 
 stronger than diligere, which answers to dyaTrai' ; yet it is not a greater 
 strength and intensity in the first word than in the second which ac- 
 counts for these and for a multitude of similar uses of these words. 
 " Trench adds that the first expresses a more reasoning attachment of 
 choice and selection, from seeing in the object upon which it is bestowed 
 that which is worthy of regard, while the second is more instinctive, more 
 allied to the feelings, implies more passion." 
 
 ^ We may add the remark that the use of words from more than one root 
 in the Latin translations shows that t)ie style was not fixed all at once. The im- 
 pression is not pleasant, when forms from two roots come together in the same 
 meaning. Comp. John, Epist. i., " carissirai, diligamus invicem, quoniam ca- 
 ritas a Deo," etc., ver. 7 ; and so vv. 10, 11, 12. Carllas may have been in use 
 before dilectio. 
 
8 
 
 We believe that this is a true statement of the difference between the 
 two words and notions. Grimm, in his Clav. Nov. Test., states his view 
 of the difference in the two cases [sub voce, <^i/\ew] thus : " Uhid (i. e., 
 dyaTTuto) , lege cognationis cum uya/xai, jiroprie denotat benevolentiam quae 
 admiratione, veneratione, bona estimatione nititur ; latine diUgere, bene 
 cupere alicui ; cfuXelv autem animi inclinationem sensu et aft'ectu excita- 
 tam, latine amare. . . . Hinc homines dicuntur deum ayaira.}', non 
 <^iA.€U' ; Deus dicitur aya-Trja-ai tov Kocrfxov (John iii. 16), Christi cultores 
 K^iXdv (xvi. 27) ; Christus, tovs i)^6pov<i u.yaTTav jubet, non cf)L\uv ; quia 
 ainor imperari nequit, sed tantum dilectio, sapientia rovs ifxk <jiiX.(.viTa<s 
 dyaTToJ." Grimm adds, " nunquam dicitur, nee dici potest de venerea 
 amore.'' But this last remark is not fully borne out by fact. Conip. Lu- 
 cian, Ver. Hist. ii. 25, Plut. Pericl. xxiv. 2, and even Judges xvi. 4, where 
 in the Sept. we find yyaTrrjcre, but in the Vulgate more properly aviavit. 
 This is one illustration of the difficulty of keeping words within exact 
 bounds, especially where there is a temptation to veil sin under fair words. 
 But this use of ayairdw is exceedingly rare. 
 
 We add a few words from Freund's " Lexicon " on the difference be- 
 tween amo and diUgo. Under amo he remarks " that through all the dif- 
 ferent gradations, from the purest love of husband and wife, children and 
 friends, down to immoral, sensual love," the meaning of amare extends. 
 It thus has as the radical notion the opposite of odisse, while diligere ex- 
 presses the love growing out of respect, admiration, reverence, and the 
 like, in contrast to spernere. In a passage from Cicero, Lact. xxvii. 100, 
 " amare nihil aliud est nisi eum ipsum diligere quern ames, nulla indigen- 
 tia, nulla utilitate qusesita." Thus it would mean loving the object of love 
 on account of its qualities. Diligo thus denotes a love founded on es- 
 teem. But the distinction between the two is not strictly represented in 
 the Greek of the New Testament by the odisse and spernere of the Latin, 
 and so jxicrfiv is several times made a direct opposite of ayairav. For ex- 
 ample, in the Sept. is (Mai. i. 2, 3), " I loved Jacob " (gyaTrrjcra) , and " I 
 hated Esau" (iixurqo-a). Comp. Rom. ix. 13; 2 Sam. xiii. 15 ; Matt. vi. 
 24, and especially 1 John ii. 9, where dyaTrSv and ixLaetv are as ojjjjosite as 
 light and darkness. 
 
 There are in the NeAV Testament a few instances where ayaTrav and 
 <f)iXeti' are completely synonymous. In one set of examples the former 
 word falls down to the level of the latter. Thus in Luke xi. 43 we find 
 dyaTTure tijv —pwroKaOeSpiai', and in Matt, xxiii. 6, (juXovcn irpwroKXiaiav, 
 although Matthew makes use of 0tAeu/ only five times, — once in the 
 sense of to kiss. In Luke again, xx. 46, cfjtXovi'Twv aa-n-aar/xol"; is the 
 only instance where that verb occurs, except in xxii. 47, where it is used 
 in the sense of kissing. In another set of examples cfuXelv rises to the 
 highest conception of love. Instances of this are Matt. x. 37, " he who 
 loveth father or so7i moi-e than me ; " " the Father loveth the Son" John 
 V. 28 ; " the Father loveth you because you have loved me," John xvi. 
 27 ; " if any one loveth not the Lord," ov cfuXel, 1 Cor. xvi. 22. 
 
 Of the few instances in which (juXeiv is used in the New Testament 
 several are very instructive, as showing the distinction between (fnXeiv 
 and dyaTTav. In John xi. 3, the sisters of Lazarus sent to the Lord Jesus, 
 who was then on the west side of the Jordan, to tell him of the illness 
 of their brother. " Thon lovest " ((juXel^) denotes friendship) or Avarm 
 friendship for Lazarus on the part of Christ. In ver. 5 of the same chap- 
 ter we find a brief remark as coming from John : r/yciTra 8e 6 'Iz/aoiis 
 
9 
 
 TTjv MdpOav, etc., and not ec^tXci, as not the word to be chosen, when 
 speakinjf of tliese Christian women. On the other hand, in 1 Cor. xvi. 
 22, Paul says, " if any one {6v c^tXei tw livptov) let him be anathema ; " 
 and just below, in ver. 23, r) dyaTrr; yxou /xeTo. TrdvTwv v/xCov. The passages 
 in John xx. 2, and the use of <^iAa> five times repeated in xxi. 15-17, 
 will soon call for some further remarks. 
 
 We pass now to the passages of the fourth Gospel in which the Apos 
 tie John is called " the disciple whom Jesus loved." The first of these is 
 contained in ch. xiii., in the account of the last supper. In the course 
 of the su2)per our Lord was troubled in spirit, and said, " Verily, verily, 
 I say unto you, that one of you shall betray me." The emotion ap- 
 parent in Jesus' words, and probably in his demeanor also, may have 
 arisen not so much from the nearness of death as from the deep sense of 
 the horrible treachery of a disciple (comp. xi. 37, 38 ; xii. 27). When 
 He said, '' One of you shall betray me, the disciples looked one on an- 
 other, doubting of whom he spake." It is possible that Judas Iscariot 
 had already been susjiected, and had a doubtful repute among his asso- 
 ciates. Perhaps John had for a long time been aware of his worthless- 
 ness to some extent. In the sixth chapter, ver. 70, it is recorded that our 
 Lord said to Peter and the rest, " Did I not choose you, the twelve, and 
 one of you is a devil ? " It does not seem probable that so startling an 
 expression could have been foi'gotten or have aroused no suspicions, and 
 yet Judas, living in the holy circle, had already had negotiations with 
 the Jewish leaders for the betrayal of his Master. His remark at the 
 house of Lazarus and his sisters a few days before (xii. 5) was probably 
 heard by John, and may have been interpreted to his discredit ; but no 
 one as yet could have thought of his being ready to sell Christ for 
 money. 
 
 The curiosity of Peter was awakened by the words of Jesus, and with 
 characteristic boldness he sought to know from the Lord himself who the 
 betrayer was to be. His curiosity showed his own honesty. He might 
 have been led to his lamentable falsehoods by previous self-trust and bold- 
 ness, but he could not have committed an act of treachery. As he was 
 situated at the table he could not have put a question, even in a low 
 voice, to the Master, which some one else might not hear. It was this 
 curiosity on his part which brings before us the man whom Jesus loved. 
 For John reclined nearer to the Lord himself, and probably could in 
 some way answer Peter's inquiry without being heard by any other per- 
 son. 
 
 The arrangements at the table were something like these : three sofas, 
 forming three sides of a hollow square and inclosing on these three sides 
 the table, with a passage adjoining it, made up the ordinary triclinium. 
 The sofa in front, on the right hand of one looking from the centre 
 of the room, seems to have been that one on which Christ, the master of 
 the feast, lay, in the seat nearest to the outside. The host had the pre- 
 rogative of arranging the gTiests (comp. Luke xiv. 8-10), although the 
 persons invited to a dinner of an ordinary character generally chose 
 their seats. Next to our Lord John was placed, probably by a special 
 act of Christ's, who reclined with his left hand sujjporting the upper 
 part of his body, and with his right hand free. The person next to him 
 had the same position ; both being supported, when they wished, by the 
 left hand and partaking of the food with the right. The two persons 
 nearest to one another on the sofa while they lay on the left hand could 
 
10 
 
 hold conversation witli one another, if they wished, without being over- 
 heard. 
 
 At an ordinary dinner or supper there were usually nine seats ; so 
 that at a larger feast there would be either several triclinia, or a greater 
 number of guests on each sofa. In the last supper there were thirteen 
 persons to be ])laced at the table ; and to put them at a distance from 
 one another at separate triclinia would by no means secure the ends of 
 the feast. If twenty persons met at one passover, which was a common 
 number, they would be probably crowded together on three sofas, or be 
 put on two triclinia. Christ and the disciples might have been placed on 
 tlu-ee sofas, the two front ones of which might seat foui' guests, and the 
 rear one live. Horace (Sat. i. 4, 86), says, " saepe tribus lectis videas 
 coenare quaternos ; " and that even five were sometimes put on a single 
 sofa is shown by a passage of Cicero's "Oration against Piso," xxvii. 67, 
 " quini in lectulis, saepe plui-es." 
 
 When our Lord, rising up or standing up, said, " Verily, verily I say 
 unto you that one of you shall betray me," his words, which were heard 
 no doubt by all the disciples, caused them to look on one another, 
 " doubting '" (or being at a loss) " who it was of whom he spake." It is 
 plain, from these words, that Judas was as yet not generally suspected. 
 Peter had no knowledge of his treachery, and his only way of discover- 
 ing who was the traitor lay in asking John to put a direct question to 
 the Lord Jesus. It is tliis hope on Peter's part of discovering the 
 truth in the matter that led John to speak of himself here, in the Gos- 
 pel, as the person to whom Peter's question was put. Peter, it is said by 
 the only person who was aware of all that Peter did at this time, 
 " beckoneth to John and saith. Tell us who it is of whom he speaketh ; " 
 (or, as the Revised Version's reading has it,) " beckoneth to him to 
 ask who it could be of whom Jesus "speaketh." Receiving the reading 
 chosen by Tischendorf and Westcott, we have the meaning that Peter, 
 being a little way off, first beckons to John, to arrest his attention, and 
 then asks him to learn from the Master the thing desired. We must 
 adopt this sense, or suppose that Aeyet . . . tis ia-rtv Trepl ov Ae'yct is the 
 interpretation, in the Gospel, of Peter's signs. In this case, John, under- 
 standing Peter's signs, put the inquiry, but perhaps could not well make 
 it known at once to Peter what Jesus had said. Tliis happened dm-ing 
 the amazement of the disciples, and corresponds with the statement of 
 the first two evangelists (Matt. xxvi. 22 ; Mark xiv. 19), if not of Luke. 
 John now became aware of the treachery of Judas to the fidl, when 
 Christ in a low voice told him that the traitor was the one to whom " he 
 should dip the sop and give it." ^ This sop Jesus gave to Judas, without 
 revealing to the disciples his wickedness, which He concealed for the time 
 by adding, " What thou doest do quickly." The apostle adds that no 
 man at the table knew what these words meant ; some supposing, be- 
 cause he had the box containing the money of Chinst and the disciples, 
 that he was told to buy something for the feast ; others, that he was to 
 give something to the poor on behalf of Christ and the disciples. Judas 
 
 ^ The word for the piece of bread dipped in the sauce, ^d!>fxioy, used in vv. 26, 
 27, of ch. xiii., is nowhere else found in the New Testament. Tb xl/d/jnov may 
 denote the bit of bread held by our Lord m his hand at this time, or that which 
 the master of the feast handed to some one of the company. The sauce used 
 on this occasion, and probably elsewhere, was made, it is said, of sweet dried 
 fruits, such as figs and dates. 
 
11 
 
 is to be excepted, it is probable, from the ignorance of the other dis- 
 ciples. He knew that Christ knew him to the core. For his own sake 
 he went out from the dreadful presence, and took no part in the Lord's 
 supper. Pie perhaps did not wish to have the plot of arresting Christ 
 succeed, and thought that if He were the Son of God He could baffle or 
 destroy his enemies. The Jews had the guilt, Clirist would have the vic- 
 tory. For it is evident that Judas did not believe that the Jews would 
 manage to have Clu-ist condemned to death. He believed that Christ . 
 would prevail in the contest in some way or other. There was then at 
 once in this man's heart a love of money, which led liim to sin, a belief 
 that Christ would prevail, and probably a desire to have Him come out 
 of the struggle superior. He was in the same state of mind with the im- 
 penitent thief. " Art thou not the Christ ? Save thyself and us." He 
 doubted, perhaps hoped, and put the matter to the test. But at any rate 
 he determined to have the pieces of silver. 
 
 The next passage in which " the disciple whom Jesus loved " is made 
 mention of occurs in ch. xix. 25-27. As the whole passage jouts the love 
 of Jesus towards John and his confidence in him in a stronger light than 
 any other, besides being of great historical importance, it demands to be 
 examined at some length. We insert it here as it is found in the Revised 
 Version. (25.) " But there were standing by the cross of Jesus his mother, 
 and his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Klopas, and Mary Magdalene. 
 (26.) When therefore Jesus saw his mother, and the disciple stand- 
 ing by, whom he loved, he saith unto his mother. Woman, behold, thy 
 son ! (27.) Then saith he to the disciple, Behold, thy mother ! And 
 from that hour that disciple took her unto his own home." 
 
 A main point, needing to be settled here, is, whether there were four, 
 or only three women in this company. If there were three, the sister of 
 the mother of Jesus is called the wife of Klopas. Comp. for rj ruv KAwttS, 
 Matt. i. 7, Ti}? Tov Ovptov (the wife) of Uriah, and other places where rj 
 may point to a daughter, or other near connection of a man whose name 
 is given. 
 
 If four women are here spoken of, they are placed in two pairs, like 
 the apostles in the history of Matthew and Mark. And it is not im- 
 probable that the last three follow one another in the order of remote- 
 ness in family relationship to our Lord's mother. First comes her sister, 
 then the wife of Klopas, then Mary of Magdala, who, so far as appears, 
 was not of kin to our Lord's mother, but seems to have followed Christ 
 and helped to support Him and the apostles out of gratitude to Him for 
 healing her manifold diseases. (Luke viii. 2, 3.) We add that the wife 
 of Klopas seems to be identified with the mother of James the less (or 
 the short, so called as contrasted with James, John's brother) and of 
 Joses (Mark xv. 40, 47 ; xvi. 1) and of James, son of Alpheus (Matt. x. 
 3 ; liuke vi. 15 ; Acts i. 13). Thus we are almost compelled to identify 
 Alpheus and Klopas, although the identification is by no means a clear 
 one. 
 
 Quite a number of modern interpreters are of the opinion that there 
 were four women in this company, on the ground that if there were 
 three only, the second, being the Virgin Mary's sister, had the same 
 name with her. Meyer in loco says that " to give two sisters the same 
 personal name was most improbable in itself, and is supported by no Jew- 
 ish example." Three women are named as being distant spectators of 
 Christ on the cross, and as afterward preparing spices for the embalm- 
 
1^ 
 
 ing of his body. These three are Mary Magdalene^ ]\Iary the mother of 
 James and Joses, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee. (Matt, xxvii. 
 66.) Of these, Mary INIagdalene and the other INIary '* sat over against 
 the sepulchre " after the crucifixion, and appear again at the same place 
 early on the Sabbath morning. (Matt, xxvii. Gl ; xxviii. 1.) Mark 
 speaks of the same women (xv. 41), calling them Mary Magdalene, and 
 Mary the mother of James the less and of Joses, and Salome. The 
 first two of these women " beheld where he was laid," and the three, in- 
 cluding Salome (xvi. 1), brought spices to the sepulchre, when the Sab- 
 bath was past.^ 
 
 In these accomits, the same woman, apparently, is called by Matthew 
 "the mother of Zebedee's children," and by Mark, " Salome." Thus Sa- 
 lome and the mother of James and John seem to be one and the same 
 person. There is nothing strange why she should be near the cross, for 
 she had come from Galilee with Christ and the apostles ; she had been 
 on the morning of the same day with "the other Mary ; " her own son 
 was with this company at the cross ; and we must regard it as very nat- 
 ural that she should desire to see the last days of the Lord in whom she 
 believed. That she was a near relative of our Lord's mother is also ren- 
 dered probable by her bold request that Jesus would make her sons to 
 have the highest places on his riglit and his left, when his kingdom should 
 be established. (Matt. xx. 23 ; comp. Mark x. 35-40.) In Matthew, 
 where this is spoken of, the two sons were with Christ and the apostles 
 on their way from Galilee. She had probably accompanied them until 
 they reached Jerusalem ; and here she is found, first at a distance from 
 the cross, and then just before our Lord's death, some one who had been 
 with the two ]\Iarys, who seems to have been at once the mother of the 
 sons of Zebedee and to have borne the name of Salome, was here with 
 them still, and with that son of Zebedee whom Jesus especially loved. 
 Was she not the sister of the Virgin Mary ? Many modern interpreters 
 believe that she lies concealed, so to speak, in John's narrative as his ' 
 mother ; to whom he points significantly enough to those who knew her 
 well, but in the same way in which he puts a veil before his own face. 
 
 This identification of Salome with the Virgin's sister, which involves 
 her being John's mother and of the house of David, is advocated by Wiese- 
 ler, Lange, Liicke, Ewald, Laurent, Meyer, B. Weiss, and others. Among 
 recent English commentators this opinion finds favor with Alford ; West- 
 cott in " The Speaker's Commentary ; " Plumtree in the commentary ed- 
 ited by Eilicott ; Mulligan in Schaff's popiUar commentary, and others. 
 Some reject it, as De Wette and his reiiditor, Bruckner, and Luthardt in 
 his comment, on John, first ed. Luthardt's statement of his reason for so 
 doing amounts to this : that if John were her nephew, to intrust her to 
 him would be almost a matter of course, but would be the more remark- 
 able if she had no near family connection with him than if she were a 
 relative by blood. In a subsequent edition this opinion is, I believe, re- 
 called. Nor ought we to omit mention of Bengel's note on ver. 25 (in his 
 
 1 It may be added that the third companion of Mary Magdalene, and of Mary 
 the mother of James the less and of Joses, who is called " Salome " by Mark xv. 
 40, and " the mother of Zebedee's children " by Matt, xxvii. 5G, disappears after 
 the crucifixion. (Comp. Matt, xxvii. 61, xxviii. 1 ; Mark xv. 47, xvi. 1.) Is not 
 this well accounted for on the supposition that after the crucifixion she was en- 
 gaged in sustaining and consoling Mary the mother of Jesus, as being a very 
 near friend or relative ? 
 
13 
 
 "Gnomon "), written before this opinion had been expressed, or at least 
 gained currency. Speaking of the persons there, under tlie word elarr}- 
 Keia-dv, he says, " matrem suam Johannes modeste non memorat, quae 
 etiam adstitit." Yet the other point of the blood relationship between 
 Mary and Salome did not occur to him. 
 
 Thus the nearest and best known friends of our Lord were gathered, 
 a few moments before his agony, around the cross. Without doubt He 
 wished it to be so, but it must have come to be so, not by any preconcert, 
 but by divine arrangement. Probably as they saw at a distance that the 
 last moments had arrived, they came together, escorted by the apostle, to 
 bid a last farewell to Jesus before his death. As He noticed his mother 
 below the cross, He said to her, " Woman, behold, thy son," and to the 
 disciple, " Behold, thy mother." Two words of agony, " I thirst," and 
 " It is finished," were all that He said besides, ere He bowed his head 
 and gave up the spirit. 
 
 Perhaps no one ever read these words thus explained without feeling 
 that the love manifested by our Lord in his last moments towards John 
 must have made the disciple happy all his lifetime. And this last act of 
 the Saviour must have led those who had heard of it to understand how 
 the discijile came to be known abroad as the beloved disciple. He took 
 her to his own home from that hour.^ These words seem to show that 
 Jerusalem was in some sense his dwelling place ; and perhaps Salome 
 dwelt with them, and James, the apostle's brother, until his martyrdom. 
 
 Let me be pardoned here for making the remark that those who be- 
 lieve that the " brethren of Christ " were children of Mary, and not of 
 some former wife of Joseph's, find something here which ought to per- 
 plex them. Oiu? Lord, according to tliis view, commits his mother to a 
 near relative, it may be, but in so doing decides that her own children 
 are unworthy of performing a duty far more imperative on them than on 
 any one else, — the duty of maintaining, or at least of giving a home to 
 and taking care of their own mother. And still farther, as there were 
 seven of them, four sons and at least three daughters (comp. Matt. xiii. 
 56, "and his sisters, are they not all Avith us "), would it not be some- 
 thing strange to release her from maternal and then from filial duties ? 
 especially as the youngest of them, if they were her own children, must 
 have been in need of her care and influence, and she was their divinely 
 constituted guardian. Thus this touching scene seems to favor very de- 
 
 ^ " From that hour" can only mean that he took the mother of Jesus to a 
 dwelling place at Jerusalem where he lived, and perhaps Salome and James 
 also. Liicke (ed. 1) says that " this is not to be taken strictly. Not until after 
 the resurrection, when the feast was ended, John returned, as it seems, to Gal- 
 ilee, where he probably had to XSia (oiKi^yuoTo)." Td i5:o is so wide in its meaning 
 that it need not imply that he necessarily owned or occupied exclusively a house 
 by himself. Paul at Rome lived iv ISleo ixKrOdjfxaTi. Nor w^ould .John's to tSio imply 
 his living apart from his own mother, or his having a family of his owai. Does 
 1 Cor. ix. 5 prove that " the rest of the apostles and the Lord's brothers and 
 Cephas " had wives and families ? or is the sense this — that as the persons men- 
 tioned had a right d5eA(^iV -ywalKa irfptdyety, so Paul and Barnabas had the same 
 right ? the proof of wliich is that not all of them exercised such a riglit, but 
 some of them. Meyer on this passage says that " it does not follow from this 
 that all the other apostles were married, but the majority had wives." But if 
 only one had a wife, and it was allowed or recognized as his right, was not 
 such allowance enough ? As long as Mary lived, John's home must have 
 been her home. 
 
14 
 
 cidedly the earliest opinion in the Christian church, that Mary had no 
 child but Jesus. ^ 
 
 The next passage where John is spoken of as " the disciple whom Jesus 
 loved " is contained in xx. 2, where Mary of Magdala, early in the morn- 
 ing of the first day of the week, having found the sepulchre empty, ran 
 and came to Simon Peter kol Trpos rov aAAov /JiadrjTrjy, ov i(fiiK€L 6 'Jt^o-oCs. 
 Here icfiiXet appears instead of -iiyairo., and " the o^Aer disciple whom Jesus 
 loved " is not entirely clear. The repetition, also, is not easily explained 
 of 7r/3os used twice, with Peter, and with the other disciple. 
 
 One interesting question touching this passage is whether " she came to 
 Peter and to the other discijole " means that she came to Peter, who was 
 in one place, and to John, who was somewhere else. The disciples may 
 not have been together by night and by day, although they are spoken of 
 as being assembled on the evening of this same day (xx. 19), as well as 
 afterwai'ds (xx. 26). The most natural conclusion is that Peter and John 
 were not together (comp. Thayer's A. Buttmann's Gr. p. 340), but that 
 Mary went to each of the places where she knew that they were lodged. 
 Again, John is called " the other disciple whom Jesus loved." Must this 
 mean that she Avent to find Peter and the other disciple, namely, him 
 whom Jesus loved ? — in which case the name of John is suppressed, but 
 the appositional clause reveals who he was ; or does it mean that Peter 
 was one of the two loved by Jesus, and John the other ? Westcott, in 
 " The Speaker's Commentary," makes this remark upon the passage : that 
 the difference of this plirase, " the other disciple whom Jesus loved," 
 from that in xxi. 7, " that disciple whom Jesus loved " {ij.a0r)r}]<; eKelvos) 
 leads to the conclusion that both disciples are here described as ob- 
 jects of the same feeling. If John had written " Simon Peter and the 
 disciple whom Jesus loved," it would or might have implied to some 
 readers that Jesus did not love Peter, and this the delicate perception 
 of John would have led him to avoid. 
 
 It is in this place not altogether plain why icj^tXeu is used instead of 
 T^yaTTd. Meyer, in his remark on the passage, says that ec^t'Aei expresses 
 the remembrance of Christ with a more tender sensibility, to which B. 
 Weiss seems to assent. Westcott in lilie manner thinks that a pei'sonal 
 affection is more strikingly shown than it would be by rjyaTra. The Vulg. 
 translates, as elsewhere, by amabat. All these explanations concur in 
 something like this : that Jesus was conceived of under the power of a 
 new affection. It was natural that when the Lord showed himself again 
 to his disciples they could not but feel a want of nearness and familiarity, 
 which helped them in their earthly intercourse with Him. Until their 
 faith grew, and they believed more joyfully in their divine master, the 
 human sight and presence were supports which sustained them while 
 away from Him. But dyaTrw returns in xxi. 15 and 20, as to the Divine 
 Saviour, as soon as the presence of Jesus began to be apprehended again 
 by the help of sight. Faith grew stronger, and the loss of Jesus' pres- 
 ence was an enlargement of the sway of the nobler principle, and was no 
 more felt to be an absence. May we not conceive that the strange news 
 of the vacant grave awoke faith and sight together, until sight was made 
 up for by the visible working of the invisible Lord ? 
 
 ^ If we suppose the Virgin Mary to have been eighteen or twenty years old 
 in 754 A. u. c, at the birth of Jesus, and if the Jewish rebellion broke out in 
 819 A. u. c, she would have reached, if living in this latter year, the age of 
 eighty-five. It is very possible that she died before the rebellion, and that it 
 was then that John went to Asia Minor. 
 
15 
 
 The twentieth chapter of John's Gospel is regarded by many as the 
 close of the genuine Gospel ; while many hold that it was for a time all 
 that appeared, and was spread abroad as the apostle's own composition. 
 The last verse is generally, and we believe justly, regarded as the close 
 of what was known to the world of this Gospel in the writer's lifetime. 
 Verses 30, 31 are to be regarded as, at fii-st, the original close o£ the 
 whole Gospel. The " signs " in ver, 30 can hardly refer to the wonderful 
 things performed after the resurrection, giving jjroof that Jesus was the 
 Son of God, of which by no means all were recorded, but are rather in- 
 tended to include the whole time since He called together a body of disci- 
 ples. This is, in fact, a general close of the work, having for its object 
 proofs from the first, by which He showed that He came from heaven. 
 Acts i. 3, which has some similarity to this place, is not parallel, but in- 
 cludes only the forty days until the resurrection. 
 
 Such, then, was the temporary close of the Gospel. But an appendix 
 appeared afterwards, sooner or later, containing an account of another 
 interview before the ascension, and indeed soon after the resurrection, in 
 which Christ meets a majority of the twelve at the lake of Tiberias. This 
 account is most remarkable and beautiful, and worthy of preservation, but 
 it does not probably appear here for this reason : it was more probably 
 made public by his friends, on account of a statement circulated abroad 
 among believers that John at this interview was told by Jesus that he 
 would not die until the _pa?w<s?'a. John must have died before this ap- 
 pendix was written, and a motive for making it public, or even for writ- 
 ing it, must have been to correct a mistake. Another motive may, per- 
 haps, have been to show that Peter was restored or acknowledged to be 
 in full discipleship. 
 
 An imjiortant point here is whether this chapter was written by John 
 himself, or by his friends, from his mouth in jiart, and in part by one of 
 their number. There is no agreement and can be none on this point. 
 But as to the last verse, although well attested by the MSS., we must 
 with Meyer (in his fifth ed.), and very many others, deny it to be from 
 John's hand. It is not for us to enter into this question. The interpre- 
 ter can find in Meyer's John, ed. 5, and in the 6th ed., revised by B. 
 Weiss, the leading opinions on each side of this disputed point. AVeiss 
 gives a list of some twenty who contend that it was not written by John, 
 and of more tlian thirty that he was the author. Meyer thinks that the 
 passage in 1-24 was John's own production ; Weiss and many others 
 that it was written by his friends, after his death. 
 
 It is impossible to decide confidently between these opposite judgments ; 
 yet the writer is obliged to believe that indications from style are on the 
 side of Jolin's being the author, although the verses 24, 25 may have 
 been added, and ver. 25, as we have said, is manifestly spurious. If we 
 gave up this conclusion, we should not unwillingly assume another posi- 
 tion : that John's friends took it down in his latter days from his 
 mouth. 
 
 We add here a list of resemblances to John's style, tending to show 
 that this mark of his authorship, at least, is preserved in the appendix. 
 
 Among the marks of John we notice the asyndetic structure, and the 
 use of ovv, so much more frequent than in the other Gospels. Comp. for 
 the first point vv. 2, 3, 4, 12, 13, several clauses in w. 15, 16, 17, where 
 Aeyet begins a sentence, and 20, 22. As for ovv, it is nearly as frequent 
 in this chapter as in other historical portions of this Gospel, in which it 
 
16 
 
 is found nearly twice as often as in the three other Gospels put together, 
 being found in the present text in John about 212 times, but in the three 
 together about 113 times. A. Buttmann (in Thayer's transl. §151) calls 
 asyndeton in the narration of historical facts following each other a pre- 
 eminent characteristic of John ; but adds that this species of asyndeton 
 has been marred by the copyists times without number, by the insertion 
 of such particles as 8e, ya/j, ovy, etc. Ovv in this chapter is as common 
 as it is in the rest of the Gospel. 
 
 Other peculiarities of the Gospel found here are such as these : in John 
 vi. 1 and xxi. 1, the lake or sea of Galilee is called the sea of Tiberias, 
 and nowhere else in the N. Test. Peter is called Simon Peter in this 
 chapter five times, and about eleven times besides in this Gospel. 'A/x^v, 
 dfX7]y, occurring in xxi. 18, meets us thus repeated 24 times in earlier chap- 
 ters and nowhere else. " Nathaniel " is found only in ch. 1, five times, 
 and here (v. 2), and is called " of Cana of Galilee " here alone. The name 
 of the apostle Thomas with his surname Didymus occurs in xi. 16, and 
 nowhere else. "AAAot e/< with a genitive (v. 2) answers to rives aAAoi 
 i$, Acts XV. 2. Ilia^ti), vv. 3, 10, is found six times in Jolm, and four 
 elsewhere in the N. Test. In v. 4, Trpona? ■i]8r} yivofxiva^, " when it was 
 already coming to be early morning," is like Trpwtas yevo/xeVr;?, in Matt, 
 xxvii. 1, " when it came to be early morning." "EiXKvcrai, and elAKvcre (vv. 
 6 and 11), forms of k^Kvta, meet us in John four times beside and once in 
 Acts, but only six in all in the N. Test. Aia^ojvvDju.t is confined in the 
 N. Test, to John xiii. 4, 5, and this place. Tu/xros is nowhere else found 
 in the N. Test, as denoting " with no upper garment on," but is found in. 
 1 Sam. xix. 24, in the Hebrew and Sept. Comp. Grimm's Lex. In v. 8, 
 the expression ws aTro Trr/^^wv StaKocriwi/ has its parallel in John xi. 18, 
 (OS OLTTO (rraStwv SeKaTrevre. ^vpovTe<; (v. 8) appears thrice in Acts, once 
 here, and once in Apoc. 9. ^kvOpaKiav is used by John in xviii. 18 
 and here in the sense of a fire of coals, and in N. Test. 10. 'Oif/dpLov. 
 Found five times in N. Test., all of them in this Gospel, vi. 9, 13, and 
 xxi. 10, 12, but common in the Greek winters, denotes cooked, esp. roasted, 
 fish, but also fish for roasting. 12. AeDre, 13 times in N. T., in John 
 here and in iv. 39. 'Aptcrrr^o-are, break your fast, and so in v. 15. Com- 
 mon, spoken of the morning meal, in Luke used of a later meal, xi. 37, 
 and nowhere else in N. T. 'EfeVao-at avTov crv rts a^. Search out, 
 search out by asking who art thou, so in JMatt., e^eTacraTe vrepL, l^erdcraTi 
 Tis, and nowhere else in the N. T. 14. ToDro rj^rj rptToy, as in 2 Cor. 
 xiii. 1, rpiTov tovto epxofJiai, literally, "already this third time or for 
 this third time am I coming to you." "HSr; seems to denote that already, 
 so soon after the resurrection from the dead, He manifested himself, or 
 was manifested. The times referred to, it may be, were the manifesta- 
 tion of himself on the resurrection day, that on the next Sunday when 
 Thomas was present, and this, all of them to apostles ; or that on the 
 day of resurrection, that a week after, and this ; which tliree are espe- 
 cially mentioned in this book. 18. ^Hs as in xi. 21, 22, instead of rjcrOa. 
 Vr)pd(Tr]';, shalt hecovie old, is used of actual old age, and in Heb. viii. 13, 
 of an institution which is going towards decay, used nowhere else in N. 
 T. 'EKxei'tis in N. T., always with x"P<^> ^^^^ ^o* happening to be found 
 in Jolin's Gospel, — so ^wi'i'v/At, not found in John, except here, occurs 
 in the other Gospels and Acts. 19. Ilotw OavaTw. So in xii. 33; 
 xviii. 32. 20. 'E7r((Tr/3a</)€ts. See Mark v. 30 ; viii! 23. 19, 20. 'Ako- 
 kovdu fioi. The two senses of this common word, that of following in 
 
17 
 
 a path and that of following as a disciple are, as elsewhere, readily ex- 
 pressed in this chajiter. Comp. John viii. 12 ; xii. 38, and ver, 22 be- 
 low. 
 
 There are in this chajiter a few words found nowhere else, as is the 
 case in the historical parts of this Gospel and elsewhere in the New Tes- 
 tament. These are dAtei;eii' (v. 3), npoarcf)dyLov (o), -irpo/SaTtoi' (16), 
 €Trev8vTrj<; (7). The first and fourth might naturally enter into the dia- 
 lect of sailors. The second is called by glossarists rather Hellenic than 
 Attic, and answers to the Attic oi/^ov, which is represented in John, ch. 
 vi. and xxi., five times by oxpdpiov. 'AAteuetv is found in the Sejit. Jer. xvi. 
 16, and is cited as being used by Lucian and Plutarch. 'ETrei'SiVr;? is met 
 with several times, and denotes an overcoat or wrajjper sometimes made 
 of linen, but not confined to fishermen. In the Septuagint we find it sev- 
 eral times. In 2 Sam. xviii. 4, Jonathan exchanges his eVei'SiTTj? and 
 other garments with David, as a mark of friendship ; and in 1 Sam. 
 xiii. 4, a daughter of David is spoken of as wearing a garment so called. 
 Finally Trpo/SaTiov, if it be the true reading, is a term of endearment, 
 like reKViov and Trat'Siov used by our Lord, although this is doubted by 
 some critics, especially Lachmann, while Tischendorf and Westcott and 
 Hort admit it into their editions. 
 
 From this examination of the twenty-first chapter, which seems to show 
 that in substance it is written by John himself, we turn next to the two 
 passages which contain the words " the disciple whom Jesus loved." The 
 chapter begins with "after these things," and we are carried by it to the 
 Sea of Galilee, whither, probably not long after the second Lord's day, 
 the disciples had resorted. Why all the apostles were not there together, 
 why the names of two who were there are not given to us, we cannot ex- 
 plain. Andrew, one of the men of business among the apostles, was not 
 there ; and Peter appears again in his old standing as the leader among 
 the brethren, having been soon received back after his denial, for which, 
 indeed, at the last supper our Lord had made provision, Luke xxii. 32. 
 Together they meet at the sea near which they had been most of them 
 brought up ; and Peter proposes to go a-fishing, to which all the rest 
 agree. They go on board of a small vessel over night, throw out their 
 net, and at the dawning of day have caught nothing. Now, being about 
 two hundred cubits from the shore, and at a time of day when even a 
 well-known person might not yet be recognized, they see a man standing 
 on the shore, who calls to them, " Children, have ye any meat ? " or, ac- 
 cording to the form in which He puts his question, " Little children, you 
 have not got anytliing to eat, have you ? " His word TTpocT<^dyiov (only 
 found nowhere else in the New Test.) means anything eaten with bread, 
 as meat, especially fish. They could hear his voice three hundred feet off, 
 and answered that their night's fishing had been unsuccessful ; to which 
 He replied, " Cast the net on the right side of the vessel, and ye shall 
 find." They did so, and the haul of large fishes was so heavy that they 
 could not draw the net along. Jolm, and possibly others, may have been 
 struck by the word '• children," remembering the words 7rat'8ta and reVvta 
 used by the Master ; and remembering also, — some of them, — how in the 
 early times of his ministry at Capernaum He had told Peter and his part- 
 ners (Luke V. 5-11), when they had toiled all night and had taken noth- 
 ing, " to put out into the deep and let down their nets for a draught." 
 John, with his quick perception, and his recollection of that scene on the 
 same water, was the first to think that tliis was the Lord. Peter, when 
 
18 
 
 his friend told him what he thought, felt sure that it must be so ; and put- 
 ting over liis tunic an upper garment used by fishermen and others, he 
 swam or waded to the shore. These simple words bring the two apostles 
 before our eyes in a very striking way, — the man of quick perceptions, 
 of insight, and of love ; and the man of boldness and eagerness, who 
 wanted the more to see Christ, if it were Christ, on account of his own 
 fall and forgiveness. The other disciples, John among them, came in the 
 little boat (R. V. ; in a little ship, A. V.). The little boat attending on 
 the larger fishing smack, as we might call it, was probably able to come 
 nearer to the shore, and thus it was easier to land without having to wade. 
 Some translators make irXoZov and TrXotapiov to denote the same vessel, and 
 it is not certain that there was more than one boat there, but the greater 
 probability is that there were two.^ 
 
 Having dragged the net ashore, they see preparations made for them as 
 by some host, who knew that they would be at the place. All believed 
 Him to be the risen Lord, but there was something in his features which 
 did not exactly remind them of Him as He was before the crucifixion. 
 Their state of mind is expressed by the apostle in an exceedingly skUl- 
 ful way in ver. 12. None of the disciples dared (could venture, or make 
 up his mind) to ask of Him, or to find out by questions who He was, " be- 
 cause they knew that he was the Lord." These words, as far as we can 
 judge, most happily express what they felt. The proofs He gave of his 
 identity made all feel sure who He was, and yet that wonderful event of 
 his resurrection approached to the incredible. It is possible that his 
 face had somewhat changed in its appearance, which can explain, per- 
 haps, how the two who went to Emmaus on the morning of the resui-rec- 
 tion day did not recognize Him on their long walk, nor at the table, until 
 the close of the meal. This may be said of what occurred here with 
 less probability, for the apostles had, since his resurrection, seen Him at 
 least twice before. On his first appearance to his disciples " they were 
 terrified and affrighted, and supposed that they beheld a spirit " (Luke 
 xxiv. 37), and although "he showed them his hands and his feet," 
 " they still disbelieved for joy " {Ihid. 40, 41). On the whole, they were 
 in that state of mind that, while they were sure He was the Lord, the ten- 
 dency to reject what is miraculous lay in their minds, producing a kind 
 of questioning, or conflict of judgments, which is natural to a human 
 being when he sees that which is out of the course of nature. 
 
 When they reached the land they saw preparations made for their 
 breakfast : a fire of coals, fish roasting on it, and bread. Jesus acted as 
 
 1 The apostles came tc land iv Tq3 nXoiaplcj), This can mean either in the 
 small boat, which attended on the irXotov ; or it is another word for the irXoiov, 
 the vessel in which they were, when they first saw Jesus at a distance. If- it 
 were a small service boat, they would naturally draw the net through shoal 
 water, where the irXolov could not be used. The small boat, then, was used of 
 necessity, and the article t^ has a meaning. Yet boats or vessels were of such 
 varieties of sizes that the same vessel might have both terms applied to it. 
 The readings in Mark iii. and in John vi. vary much between the two words. 
 In Mark iii. 9 a irXoidpiov waited on him because of the crowd. A irXo'iov 
 might have tempted the crowd to get on board. In Mark iv. 36, 37 the read- 
 ing is doubtful; irXowv is received by Tischendorf, Westcott and Hort, etc., 
 and the vessel was going across the lake. In John vi. 17, 19, 21, the -nXoiov 
 crossed the lake. In v. 22, one ir\oidpiov was lying near the land ; and the 
 people found that Jesus was not in the irXotov. Other nXoidpia came, however, 
 and the ixXos got on board and crossed to Capernaum. Comp. for irXoidpiou 
 Aristoph. Ran. 139, and Diod. Sic. 11, p. 157. 
 
19 
 
 master of the feast, and bade them to bring ashore some of the fish that 
 they had caught ; upon which Peter, getting up into the boat (or small 
 boat, the Greek being ai'efSr) only), pulled the net holding tiie fishes 
 up to the land. The fish proved to be large in size, and in number one 
 hundred and fifty-three, — a number which seems to contain no hidden 
 meaning, but to be accounted for by the Apostle John's love of minute 
 particulars. We cannot help believing that the disciples were reminded, 
 by this success in catching the fishes, of the somewhat similar aid from 
 Jesus at the beginning of his ministry (Luke v. 4-11). 
 
 After they had partaken of the food, it became evident that one 
 reason for his manifestation of himself at this time was to make it more 
 apparent than He had done before how He felt towards Peter, and that 
 He wished to establish him again in the love and confidence of the other 
 disciples. Our Lord's motive seems to have been to show, by a public 
 act, that He had chosen Peter to follow Him in the work of an apostle 
 imtil he should honor his Lord by a martyr's death. 
 
 When the breakfast was ended, Jesus said before them all, three times 
 in succession, " Lovest thou me ? " — at first in the words aya-rras /xc TrXeiov 
 TovTcov ; then in the first two of the words, ayaTras /xe ; then using Peter's 
 words which he had used throughout, <^tAets fxe. ; The words, " more than 
 these disciples," must refer to what Peter said at the last supper, 
 "Though all should be offended, yet will I never be offended," Matt. xxvi. 
 33. (Comp. Mark xiv. 29-31 ; Luke xxii. 31, 34 ; John xiii. 37, 38.) 
 That this was a loving and gentle rebuke of Peter's boldness, and almost 
 boastfulness, seems to be evident. Peter had repented, and had been for- 
 given. Yet it seems to have been most wise and kind for Jesus publicly 
 to reinstate Peter in the confidence of the unsinning apostles, and to help 
 him thus to put forth all the power and love within him in the jNIaster's 
 cause. As our Lord said in Luke xxii. 32, " When thou ai't converted, 
 strengthen thy brethren ; " so here, by his manifest trust shown in the 
 words "feed my sheep," "feed my lambs," before the apostles then 
 present, He put Peter back where h« was before, and helped him to re- 
 cover whatever might have been lost of their respect and confidence. 
 
 We stop for a moment on these questions of our Lord, and on Peter's 
 answers, simply to ask why our Lord uses aya-n-doi the first two times, and 
 why Peter adheres throughout to ^tAew. Trench explains the difference 
 thus : " ayaTras [xe sounds too cold to Peter," when all the pulses in his 
 heart are beating with an earnest affection towards his Lord ; it does not 
 sufficiently express the warmth of his personal affection. Besides the 
 question itself, which grieves and hurts Peter (verse 17), tliere is an ad- 
 ditional pang in the form which the question takes, as though it were in- 
 tended to put him at a comparative distance from his Lord, and to keep 
 him there. He therefore in his answer substitutes for it a word of more 
 personal love, ^tAw o-e (v. 15).^ 
 
 A difficulty attendant on this explanation is, that when the word so 
 much used for the love of God to men and of man to God is chosen by 
 Christ, Peter should make use of another, because Christ's word is " too 
 cold." We naturally avoid or distrust attaching this quality of coldness 
 to ayoTTaM or ayaTTv; ; and while we ascribe to these words the consent of 
 the will and benevolent regard, we do not strip them of feeling (comp. 
 Luthardt on vv. 14, 15). May we not rather consider it to be more 
 
 1 I have abridged or omitted some of the remarks of Trench. Synon. of 
 New Testament, i. 65. Amer. ed. 
 
20 
 
 probable that Peter felt his love to Christ to be too human, too much like 
 a friend's love to a friend, and ventured not on this solemn occasion to 
 give it the name more appropriate to a love such as did not reach the 
 point of ayaTrr] ? Hence it is humility and a feeling of unwortliiness vhich 
 leads Peter to choose another expression ; that one wliich liis conscious- 
 ness and his conduct might both justify. Christ's words in the first ques- 
 tion are, " Simon, son of Joannes (or Joanes), lovest thou me more than 
 these ? " Here, possibly, there is a reference to the name Ce])has, or 
 Peter, i. 42, and if so, there is a certain degree of rebuke in the ques- 
 tion ; but it would seem moi-e probable that the words rather point to 
 the passage preserved by Luke xxi. 31, 32, ending '• and when once 
 thou hast turned again strengthen thy bretlu-en." but especially to Matt, 
 xxvi. 33, and Mark xiv. 29, " H all shall be offended in thee, yet will 
 not I." There is thus in this interview a purpose of rebuking effectu- 
 ally but lovingly. Peter re})lied. " Thou knowest that I love thee," and 
 received for answer, ** Feed my lambs." If thou lovest me I call thee 
 to the office and honor of feeding those who belong to my flock, espe- 
 cially to the younger ones of the fold. Here some of the ]>assa':;es of 
 the beautifid chapter, John ix., especially '* I lay down my life for my 
 sheep," niight be thought of by the apostle. The second time He saith 
 to him the same or nearly the same words, and Peter returned an an- 
 swer as before, apjiealing to Christ's knowledge as being the best evi- 
 dence that could be desired. But Christ still again asked the same ques- 
 tion, only jnitting <^ Atl? /zc in the ])lace of Christ's dyu-a? /xc. In the 
 tlu'ee answers of our Lord we have in succession " Feed my lambs " (or, 
 "my dear little lambs"), "Tend my sheej) " (or, "my dear sheep." ac- 
 cording to another reading), and again. '• Feed my sheej)." As already 
 remarked, these threefold admonitions imjdv his restoration to his place, 
 not only as a believer, but as an ajwstle of Christ also. This was his 
 great honor and office, and ever afterwards he was himself kept from 
 falling, and led others to Christ whilst he lived. We fiml him, under 
 the same metaphor, saying to Christian elders, " Tend the flock of God 
 which is among you," — and when the chief shepherd shall be manifested 
 " ve shall receive the crown of glory that fadeth not awav " (1 Pet. ii. 25 ; 
 v.* 4). 
 
 These words were prol>ably said within the hearing of all the discijiles 
 that were present, and they must have restored Peter to his former j)lace 
 in their aft'ections, as well as saved him from overmuch grief. In ver. 17 
 we are told that " Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third 
 time, ' Ix)vest thou me ? " " AVas this grief awakened by the recollection 
 of the words, " The cock shall not crow till thou hast denied me thrice " ? 
 It is natural so to understand it ; and the repeated enqjhasis on '* Lovest 
 thou " would without fail touch Peter's inmost soul. AVe may su])pose 
 also that this scene would have awakened deep gi'ief, if Peter had heard 
 the same words from Jesus when tliey were alone, but it was a blessing 
 every way to Peter that the other disciples were witnesses. 
 
 Whether the next words also were uttered within the hearing of any 
 besides John may be doubted, since Jesus had removed a little from the 
 main body of the disciples, and the words related to Peter and John 
 only. That which was said to Peter has no gieat connection with the 
 preceding verses, but must have borne with ])ower on the remainder of 
 his life. It is introduced with d/xiji' afxyw which is used, thus rejieated, 
 twenty-five times, but in John's Gospel only. The substance of it is 
 
21 
 
 that Peter when he was younger was wont to gird Wmself. that is to 
 prepare Inmself for walking and going abroad, as he sa>v ht by rk^ 
 mg a part of the tunic above the girdle and thus giving more fr^e 
 
 nT^V.^^^r'^^^"^'f^ '^"^ ^'-^^^ ^^ should Wome oTder he 
 would s retch forth us hands, and another would gird him and carry 
 him «-hi her he would not. These words, as here interpreted bv Jol J 
 
 f.l! r ^^'^,7^*^^\. The last clause in the second part of the contrast, 
 _ sha 1 carry thee whither thou wouldest not," precedes instead of follow- 
 ing the arrangements for his crucifixion, or for whatever death he mi^ht 
 be called to endure. It cannot, therefore, refer to his stretching out his 
 
 ttp"t Tr.K fi '" '^' ''"''^ ^^'y''' ^''^ '^ t^« V^'^^Se fs that in 
 the first half of the verse, ore 7j, y.^epo, answers to orav yrjpda., ■ ir^y. 
 
 vv« acavrov to aAAcs ae ^oicra taken together with iKrael, ra, veZpa^ aov; 
 and TTcpu^rarccs oxuv rjOeX., to olaec oVo. ov 6eXu,. Thus the stretching 
 out of Peters hands would denote no independent separate act, but thl 
 exj^ression of his unresisting surrender of himself to those who had the 
 power of death Thus the place in the sentence of the last clause, 
 -carry thee whither thou wouldest not," would imply also the carr\-incr 
 of him tr, tlie place of execution. And the kind of martj-rdom would 
 not be distinctly specified; nor could the words, "by what manner of 
 death he should glorify God " explain the form of death, whether it 
 might be crucifixion, or some other, such as beheading, and could only 
 mean in general his death as a martyr. If, then, Peter, in the vear of 
 our Lord ().>, suffered crucifixion about the age of seventy (on the 'sup- 
 position that he was somewhat older than our Lord), orav ^^pdar]^ would 
 be jtistiHed. and Trmco Oaydrw be fairly explained. To notice other views 
 would take more si)ace than we can well afford. 
 
 When our Lord had said this to Peter, He added. aKoXo{Oei ,j.ol (ver. 
 19). Ihis has been understood either as meaning the following of the 
 Master through life, until ha should glorifv God by death, or as mean- 
 ing nothing more than to follow Him now to a distance ; as if Christ 
 wished to hold a conversation with him which the other disciples could 
 not be admitted to hear. It seems necessary to take d/coA.ov^a /xoi in the 
 spiritual sense; but in the next verse aKoXovOoh-ra has, of course, the 
 sense of following from behind in order to join Chi-ist and Peter. John, 
 without doubt, understood the word spiritually ; for he would surety not 
 have intruded himself upon a private discourse, and Peter sees him fol- 
 lotcinr/ (Yev. 20). The Avi-iter, whether he was John or one of John's 
 disciples and friends, explains the words of Christ, which we suppose to 
 mean - fullow me until you glorify God by a death like mine." Just 
 then Peter turned about and saw John following from behind. And 
 here comes in a descrijition of John without his name, but with a refer- 
 ence to John's part at the last supi)er, which shows its source cle^ly in 
 ch. xiii. of the Gospel, but is cited from memory. '• Peter, turning about, 
 sees the disciple whom Jesus loved following, who also leaned back on his 
 breast at the supper, and said, ^Vho is he that betrayeth thee ? " In xiii. 
 25 we find €-(-£0-0)1' ovi' eVetios i-l to (rnjOo^ tov 'hjaoi: Ae'yet aiVw* Kvpie, 
 Ti's eVrti' ; yet in the original passage diaTreo-wr is found in several im- 
 portant M8S., and has the support of several excellent editors. Instead, 
 also, of Kvpu, Tis eVrti' 6 -apaSiSovi; cre, as here, we find tl<; 1(ttlv in xiii. 
 25. This shows citation from memory, but may be John's recollection 
 of his own words as naturally as the recollection of one of his friends. 
 
K 
 
 o 
 
 i 
 
o 
 
 |S2 
 
 
 f 
 
PAMPHLET BINDER 
 
 Z^^ Syrocuse, N. Y. 
 Stockton, Colif. 
 
miimL 
 
 BS2455 .W91 , „ .. 
 
 "The disciple whom Jesus loved, with 
 
 Princeton Theological Seminary-Speer Library