International Revision Commentary ON THE NEW TESTAMENT. By British and American Scholars and Revisers. Edited bi/ PHILIP S CHAFF, D. D. I. THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST. MATTHEW. By Philip Schaff, D. D. One volume. IGmo. With a, Map. $1.25. Now Ready. II. THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MARK. By Professor Matthew B. Riddle. One volume. 16mo. With a Map. $1.00. Now Heady. III. THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO LUKE. By Professor Matthew B. Riddle. One volume. 16mo. Sl.25. Now Ready. IV. THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN. By William Milligan, D. D. and William F. Moulton, D. D. One volume. 16mo. $1.25. Now Ready. V. THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES. By Dean Howson and Canon Spence. One volume. 16mo. With a Map. $1.25. Now Ready. VI. THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. By Professor Matthew B. Riddle. One volume. 16mo. $1.00. In Press. This 13 the only commentary upon the Sevised Vergimi of the New Testament. The Revised Version is based upon a much older and purer text than the Old Version, and corrects seyeral thousind errors of the latter ; this makes it the best basis for a commentary. The International Revision Commentary contains the latest and best evangelical criticism and explanation of the sacred text, and is especially adapted for Sunday School use. It is hrief, clear and suggestive, and according to the general verdict, the volumes that have appeared are the cheapest and best single commentaries on the Gospels and Acts in the English language. THE NEW TESTAMENT Based upon the Revised Veksion of 1881 BY ENGLISH AND AMERICAN SCHOLARS AXD MEMBERS OF THE REVISION COMMITTEE /^DITED BY PHILIP SCHAFF, D.D, LL.D. Professor of Sacred Literature in the Union Theological Seminary of New York, President of the American Committee on Revision. Vol. IV. THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN By Dk. MILLIGAN and Dr. MOULTON NEW YORK CHARLES SCRIBNER'S SONS 1883 PEE FACE. \^i^-4S The Commentary on the Gospel of John by Dr. Milligan and Dr. Moulton is the result of long-continued, careful, independ- ent, and reverential study. The authors were among the most active and influential members of the New Testament Revision Company, and helped to make the authoritative changes of reading and rendering in the Jerusalem Chamber which are here explained and vindicated. Bishop Lightfoot told me, I could not have selected two better scholars for this work in all England and Scotland. In editing the small edition, I had only to adapt it to the Eevised Version, and even this labor was greatly facilitated by the agreement of the notes with the new text in every essential point. In the later chapters, I was obliged to economize space by curtailing the text in the notes, where it is merely a literal repetition of the text at the head of the page. I have occasionally ventured upon a brief addition in small type and in brackets (as on pp. 39, 55, 80, 301, 302, 322). Those who care for my own interpretation of particular passages can easily And it in my edition of Lange on John. This Eevision Commentary is now complete as far as the historical books are concerned. The Epistles will follow in regular succession at short intervals. Philip Schaff. New Yoek, Bible Rouse, Sept., 1883, mTEODUOTIOE" THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN. It is obviously impossible, within the limits to -wliich we must here confine ourselves, to treat with adequate fulness the many important and difl&cult questions relating to the Gospel of John; nor can we at- tempt to do more than indicate the leading points of inquiry, together with the grounds upon which we may rest in the confident assurance that that Gospel is really the production of * the disciple whom Jesus loved.' In endeavoring to do this, we shall approach the subject from its positive rather than its negative side, not dealing directly in the first instance with diflBculties, but tracing the history of the Gospel downwards from the time when it was composed to the date at which it enjoyed the unquestioning recognition of the universal Church. Afterwards, turning to the contents of the Gospel, we shall speak of the purpose which its author had in view, and of the general charac- teristics of the method pursued by him in order to attain it. Such a mode of treatmenl seems best adapted to the object of an Introduction like the present. It will be as little as possible polemical ; it will enable us to meet by anticipation, most certainly the most formidable, of the objections made to the authenticity of the Gospel ; and it will put the reader in possession of those considerations as to its general character without which we cannot hope to understand it. At the close of the Gospel (chap. 21 : 24) we read, ' This is the dis- ciple which beareth witness of these things, and wrote these things.' These words (which are in all probability from the pen of John ; see the Commentary) contain a distinct intimation on the part of the vii INTRODUCTION. writer (comp. ver. 20) that he was 'the disciple whom Jesus loved ; ' and although that disciple is nowhere expressly named, we shall here- after see that the Gospel itself leaves no room for doubt that he was the Apostle John. I. PERSONALITY OF THE WRITER. This Apostle was the son of Zebedee and Salome, and younger, as there seems every reason to think.*han his brother James. Of Zebe- dee we know little. He was a fisherman upon the Sea of Galilee, who pursued his occupation in common with his sons, and who con- tinued it even after they had obeyed the summons of their Lord to fol- low Him (Matt. 4: 2^). Of Salome we fortunately know more. From John 19: 25 it would seem probable that she was a sister of the Virgin Mary (see the Commentary) ; but the fact need not be dwelt upon at present. It would not help us to understand better the ties that bound Jesus to her son ; for these depended on spiritual sympa- thy rather than relationship by blood (Matt. 12 : 48-50). But whether this bond of kindred existed or not, Salome manifested her devotion to Jesus by constant waiting upon her Lord, and by ministering to Him of her substance (Mark 15: 40; 16: 1). Nor can we fail to re- cognize her exhibition of the same spirit, mixed though it was in this instance with earthly elements, when she came to Jesus with the request that her two sons might sit, the one at His right hand, the other at His left, in His kingdom (Matt. 20: 21). That was not an act of proud ambition, or the request would have been made in pri- vate.* The zeal of a mother for her children's highest good was there, as well as an enthusiasm, not chilled even afterwards by the events at the cross and at the tomb (Mark 15: 40; 16: 1), for the cause of One whom she felt to be so worthy of her trust and love. Tlie family of John does not seem to have been poor. Zebedee pos- sessed hired servants (Mark 1 : 20). Salome had substance of which to minister to our Lord during His life (Mark 15: 40 ; comp. Luke 8: 3), and with which to procure the materials for embalming Him after His death (Mark 16: 1). John was acquainted with the high priest (John 18: 15),— a fact at least harmonizing well with the idea that he did not belong to the lowest rank of the people ; and at one time of * Comp. Xiemeyer, Charalcteristil; p. 44. INTRODUCTION. ix his life, whatever may have been the case at other times, he possessed property of his own (John 19 : 27). It was in circumstances such as these that John received his train- ing in the faith of his fathers ; and, as that receptivity which in after life formed one of the most marked features of his character must have shown itself in the child and in the boy, we cannot doubt that, from his earliest years, he would imbibe in a greater than ordinary degree the sublime recollections and aspirations of Israel. We know, indeed, from his ready reference upon one occasion to the fire which the prophet Elijah commanded to come down from heaven, that the sterner histories of the Old Testament had taken deep possession of his mind ; while his enthusiastic expectations of the coming glory of his people equally reveal themselves in his connection with that request of Salome of which we have already spoken. Apart from such spe- cific instances, however, of John's acquaintance with the Old Testa- ment (which, did they stand alone, might not prove much), it is worthy of notice that the books of the New Testament most thoroughly pervaded by the spirit of the older dispensation are two that we owe to the son of Salome, — the Fourth Gospel and the Apocalypse. This remark is not to be confined to the latter of the two. A careful study of the former will show that it displays not only a much more inti- mate acquaintance with the Old Testament, but also a much larger ap- propriation of its spirit, than even that first Gospel by Matthew which was confessedly designed for Jewish Christians. Amidst all the ac- knowledged universalism of the Fourth Gospel, its thorough apprecia- tion of the fact that the distinction between Jew and Gentile has for- ever passed away, and that lofty idealism by which it is distinguished, and which lifts its author far above every limitation of the favor of God to nation or class, the book is penetrated to the core by the noblest and most enduring elements of the Jewish faith. The writer has sunk himself into all that is most characteristic of what that faith reveals in regard to God, to man, and to the world, to the meaning and end of religious life. In addition to this, the figures of the Fourth Gospel are more Jewish than those of any book of the New Testament, except the Apocalypse. Its very language and style display a similar origin. No Gentile writer, either of the Apostolic or of the sub-Apostolic age, no Jewish writer even who had not long and lovingly appropriated the oracles of God given to his fathers, could have written as John Tias done INTRODUCTION. These remarks have an important bearing on what is said of the apostle in Acts 4: 13. We there read that when the Sanhedrin be- held his boldness they marvelled, perceiving that he was an ' unlearned and common man;' and it has often been maintained that one to whom this description is applicable cannot have been the author of the fourth Gospel. The true inference lies in the opposite direction. The words quoted mean only that he had not passed through the discipline of the Rabbinical schools ; and certainly of such discipline the Fourth Gospel affords no trace. His education had been of a purer kind. He had grown up amidst the influences of home, of nature, of a trying occupation, of brave and manly toil. Therefore it was that, when, with an unfettered spirit, he came into contact with the great princi- ples and germinal seeds which underlay the Old Testament dispensa- tion,— above all, when he came into contact with the Word of Life, with Him of whom Moses in the law and the prophets had spoken, he was able to receive Him, to apprehend Him, and to present Him to the world as he did. It is in connection with the Baptist that we first hear of John. If Salome and Elizabeth were kinswomen (see above and comp. Luke 1 : 36), John would naturally become acquainted with the remarkable circumstances attending the birth and training of the Baptist. At all events the stern teaching of the prophet, his loud awakening calls which rang from the wildei'ness of Judaea and penetrated to the whole surrounding country and to all classes of its society, his glorious proclamation that the long waited for kingdom was at hand, must have at once kindled into a flame thoughts long nourished in secret. John became one of His disciples (John 1: 35), and the impression produced upon Him by the Baptist was peculiarly deep. More truly than any of the earlier Evangelists he apprehends the evangelical ends to which, amidst all its sternness, the Baptist's mission really pointed. If the three bring before us with greater force the prophet of repentance reproving the sins of Israel, he on the other hand shows in a clearer light the forerunner of Jesus in his immediate relation to his Lord, and in his apprehension of the spiritual power and glory of His coming (comp. John 1 : 26, 27; 3: 29, 30, with Matt. 3 : 11, 12 ; Mark 1: 7, 8; Luke 3: 15-17). The Baptist was the first to direct his disciple to Jesus (chap. 1 : 36). In company with Andrew, Simon Peter's brother, he immedi- INTKODUCTION. ately followed Him, inquired of Him where He stayed, accompanied Him to His house, and remained with Him that day. What the sub- ject of conversation was we are not informed, but the divine Sower had scattered His seed in the young ingenuous heart ; and when shortly afterwards Jesus called him to the apostleship he immediately obeyed the summons (Matt, 4: 21, 22). From this time onward to the close of his Master's earthly career John was His constant fol- lower, entering we cannot doubt into a closer union of spirit with Him than was attained by any other disciple. Not only was he one of the chosen three who were present at the raising of the daughter of Jairus, at the Transfiguration, and at the agony in Gethsemane (Luke 8: 51 ; 9 : 28; Mark 14 : 33) ; even of that small election he was, to use the language of the fathers, the most elect. He leaned upon the breast of Jesus at the Last Supper, not accidentally, — but as the dis- ciple whom He loved (John 13 : 23) ; he pressed after Him into the court of Caiaphas at His trial (chap. 18 : 15) ; he alone seems to have accompanied Him to Calvary (chap. 19 : 26) ; to him Jesus committed the care of His mother at the cross (chap. 19 : 26, 27) ; he was the first on the Resurrection morning, after hearing the tidings of Mary Magdalene, to reach the sepulchre (chap. 20 : 4) ; and, when Jesus appeared after His Resurrection to the disciples by the Sea of Galilee, he first recognized the Lord (chap. 21 : 7). Little is related of John in the earlier Gospels. The chief incidents, in addition to those already mentioned, are his coming to Jesus and saying, • Master, we saw one casting out devils in Thy name ; and we forbade him, because he followeth not with us' (Luke 9 : 49), and his receiving from Jesus, along with his brother James, the title of ' Son of Thunder' (Mark 3: 17), — a title given to denote not any posses- sion of startling eloquence, but the power and vehemence of his cha- racter. It has indeed been urged by foes, and even admitted by friends, that such is not the character of the Apostle as it appears in the Fourth Gospel. But this is a superficial view. No doubt in chaps. 13-17, when the conflict is over and Jesus is alone with His disciples, we breathe the atmosphere of nothing but the most perfect love and peace. The other chapters of the Gospel, however, both before and after these, leave a different impression upon the mind. The ' Son of Thunder ' appears in every incident, in every discourse which he re- cords. To draw a contrast between the fire of youth as it appears in INTRODUCTION. the John of the first three Evangelists and the mellowed gentleness of old age in the John of the fourth is altogether misleading. The vehement, keen, impetuous temperament is not less observable in the latter than in the former. We seem to trace at every step, while the conflict of Jesus with His enemies is described, the burning zeal of one who would call down fire from heaven upon the guilty ' Jews.' The continued possession of the same character is at least entirely consistent with what is told us of John in the Acts of the Apostles ; and it bursts forth again in all its early ardor in the traditions of the Church. John was present with Peter at the healing of the lame man (Acts 3: 1-11), and, although the address of the latter is alone re- corded, he does not seem to have been silent on the occasion (chap. 4: 1). He exhibited the same boldness as his fellow-apostle in the presence of the Council (chap. 4: 13); joined him in the expression of his determination to speak what he had seen and heard (chap. 4 : 19, 20) ; was probably at a later point coiumitted with him to prison (chap. 5: 18), and miraculously delivered (chap. 5: 19) ; was brought again before the Sanhedrin (chap. 5: 27), and through the influence of Gamaliel, once more set free to resume his labors (chap. 5: 41, 42). After Samaria had been evangelized by Philip, he was sent to that city with Peter that they might complete the work begun (chap. 8 : 14-17) ; and, this mission accomplished, he returned with him to Jerusalem, preaching the gospel at the same time in many villages of the Samaritans (chap. 8: 25). From this time we hear nothing of him until the first great Council at Jerusalem (Acts 15 ; Gal. 2). Then Paul found him in the holy city, regarded by the Christian community as one of the 'pillars' of the Church, — a circumstance which, combined with Paul's private explanations to those so named (Gal. 2: 2, 9), may justly lead to the inference that he still belonged to that portion of the Christian community which had not risen to the full conception of the independence and freedom of the Christian faith. Scripture says nothing more of John's apostolic labors. It was now A. D. 50 ; and we have no further information regarding him until he appears, in the traditions of the Church, as Bishop of Ephe- sus, in the latter part of the first century. An attempt has indeed been recently made to cast doubt on John's residence at Ephesus, but there are few points in the history of early Christianity upon which tradition is so unanimous, and there need be no hesitation in accept- INTRODUCTION. ing the statement. "We do not know the exact date at which he went to this city. It can hardly have been during the lil^ of Paul, or that Apostle would not, in accordance with his own principles of action, have connected himself so closely with the district (Rom. 15: 20; 2 Cor. 10: 16). The probability is that, deeply attached to Jerusalem, clinging to the memories associated with the labors and death of Jesus, he lingered in the sacred city until its destruction approached. Then he may have wandered forth from a place upon which the judgment of God had set his seal, and found his way to Ephesus. The tradi- tions of the Church regarding him while he continued there possess singular interest, partly from the light thrown by them upon the times, partly from the touching pathos by which some of them are marked, mainly because they enable us so thoroughly to identify the aged Apostle with the youthful follower of Jesus in the Synoptic Gospels. Such is the story of his meeting with Cerinthus. It is said that the Apostle once entered the bath-house at Ephesus, and, discovering Ce- rinthus the heretic within, sprang forth exclaiming, ' Let us flee, lest even the bath-house fall in, since there is within it Cerinthus, the enemy of the truth.' Such also is the story of John and the young robber, one of the most beautiful stories of Christian antiquity, which we have no room to relate ; and such the tradition that the Apostle, when too old to walk, was carried by his disciples into the midst of the congregation at Ephesus, only to repeat over and over again to his fellow-believers, * Little children, love one another.' Other stories are told of him which may be omitted as less characteristic than these ; but the general impression left by them all is not only that the early Church possessed a remarkably distinct conception of the personality of the apostle, but that its conception corresponded in the closest man- ner to the mingled vehemence and tenderness which come out so strongly in the picture of him presented by the earlier Gospels and by his own writings. From Ephesus, according to a tolerably unanimous, if rather indefinite tradition, which seems to be confirmed by Rev. 1 : 9, John was banished for a time to the island of Patmos, a wretched rock in the ^Egean Sea, but was afterwards permitted to return to the scene of his labors in Ephesus. It was under Nerva, it is said, that his return took place (a. d. 96-98), although he is also spoken of as having been alive after the accession of Trajan (a.d. 98). The days of the aged Apostle were now, however, drawing to a close. The com- xiv INTRODUCTION. panions of his earlier years, those whose eyes had seen and "whose ears had heard Hira who Avas the Word of Life, had been long since gath- ered to their rest. His time, too, was come. He had waited for more than threescore years to rejoin the Master whom he loved. He died and was buried at Ephesus ; and with him closes the Apostolic age. II. AUTHORSHIP OF THE GOSPEL. It is the almost unanimous tradition of the Church that the Apostle John wrote this Gospel. Our earliest authorities for the fact are Theophilus of Antioch (a. d. 175), Irenaeus (a.d. 130-200), the Mura- torian Fragment (a.d. 170-180), and Clement of Alexandria (a.d. 160-220). The accounts of these writers differ slightly from each other ; but all agree in distinctly attributing our present Gospel to John; while the fourth, who is clearly independent of the other three, draws a remarkable distinction between it and the earlier Gospels, the latter being spoken of as containing 'the bodily things,' the former as ' a spiritual Gospel.' To the distinction thus drawn we shall pre- sently return. If, as the above-mentioned authorities lead us to infer, the Fourth Gospel was made public towards the close of the first century (and it is unnecessary to discuss here the question of an interval between the writing and the publication), we naturally look for quotations from or allusions to it in the writings that have come down to us from the period immediately following that date. These prove fewer than we might expect. Xot, indeed, that they are wholly wanting. The ac- knowledged Epistles of Ignatius and the ' Shepherd ' of Hermas, be- longing respectively to the first twenty and the first forty years of the second century, exhibit a style of thought, sometimes even of language, closely connected with that of the Gospel. The Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians,^ again, a little later than the ' Shepherd,' and the writings of Papias before the middle of the second century, in bearing witness to the first Epistle as the work of John, lead us directly to the same conclusion in regard to the Gospel, for few will doubt that the two books are from the same hand. The account of the martyr- dom of Polycarp, moreover, written in the middle of the same century, is so obviously modelled upon John's narrative of the death of Jesus, that that narrative must have been in possession of the Church before the ' Martyrdom ' was penned. Finally, the Epistle to Diognetus INTRODUCTION. (a.d. 120), the address of Tatian to tlie Greeks (a.d. lGO-180), tne writings of Justin Martyr (a. d. 147-160), and the letter of the Churches of Vienne and Lyons (a.d. 177), all of which seem with more or less clearness to quote from the Fourth Gospel, bring us down to the distinct statements of Theophilus, Irenaeus, the Muratorian Fragment, and Clement, alluded to above, and to a date at which the testimonies to the Johannine authorship of the Gospel are as clear and full as can be desired. The stream of allusion we have been following has flowed through the writings of the orthodox Church. But it is a remarkable fact, that allusions to our Gospel are still earlier and clearer in the hereti- cal writings of the first half of the second century. This is especially the case with Basilides and his followers, as early as a. d. 125 ; and they are followed by the Valentinians, who can hardly be separated from their Master, Valentinus (a. d, 14.0), and by Ptolemceus and Heracleon (about a. d. 170-180), the last mentioned having even written a commentary upon the Gospel. To these facts may be added several important considerations. Thus, to quote the words of Bishop Lightfoot, 'when soon after the middle of the second century diver- gent readings of a striking kind occur in John's Gospel, we are led to the conclusion that the text has already a history, and that the Gospel therefore cannot have been very recent.' ^ Again, in the early years of the second half of the second century, the Gospel formed a part of the Syriac and old Latin translations of the New Testament, and as such was read in the public assemblies of the churches of Syria and Africa. Lastly, in the Paschal Controversies (about a. d. 160) there is hardly reason to doubt that the apparent discrepancy between this and the earlier Gospels, as to the date of the Last Supper of Jesus, played no small part in the dispute by which the whole Church was rent. All these circumstances go far towards answering the allegation often made, that the paucity of allusions to the Fourth Gospel in the first seventy or eighty years after its publication is inconsistent with its authenticity. To present them thus, however, as an argument that the Gospel is authentic, is not only greatly to understate the case ; it is even to put the reader upon a wrong track for arriving at * On a Fresh Revision of the Xew TestameiU, p. 20. xvi INTRODUCTION. a positive conclusion. The real ground of conviction is the consistent belief of the Church. It is not for those v?ho accept the Gospel to account for its admission into the canon of the last quarter of the second century, on the supposition that it is true ; it is for those who reject it to account for this, on the supposition that it is false. The early Church was not a mass of individual units believing in Jesus, each in his own way nourishing in secrecy and independence his own form of faith. It was an organized community, conscious of a common foundation, a common faith, and common ordinances of spiritual nou- rishment for all persons in all lands who held the one Head, Christ Jesus. It was a body, every one of whose members sympathized with the other members : to every one of them the welfare of the whole was dear, and was moreover the most powerful earthly means of se- curing his own spiritual progress. The various generations of the Church overlapped one another ; her various parts were united by the most loving relation and the most active intercourse ; and all to- gether guarded the common faith with a keenness of interest which has not been surpassed in any subsequent age of the Church's history. Even if we had not one probable reference to the Fourth Gospel pre- vious to A.D. 170, we should be entitled to ask with hardly less confi- dence than we may ask now : How did this book find its way into the canon as the Gospel of John ? How is it that the moment we hear of it, we hear of it everywhere, in France, Italy, North Africa, Egj'pt, Syria ? No sooner do the sacred documents of any local church come to light than the Fourth Gospel is among them, is publicly read in the congregations of the faithful, is used as a means for nourishing the spiritual life, is quoted in controversies of doctrine, is referred to in disputes as to practice. It is simply an impossibility that this could have taken place within ten or thirty years after some single congre- gation of the wide-spread Church had accepted it from the hands of an unknown individual as (whether claiming to be so or not) the pro- duction of John the Apostle. In the controversies of later years it seems to us that the defenders of the Gospel have failed to do justice to their own position. They have not, indeed, paid too much atten- tion to objectors, for many of these have been men of almost unrivalled learning and of a noble zeal for truth; but, by occupying themselves almost entirely with answers to objections, they have led men to re- gard the authenticity of the Gospel as an opinion to be more or less INTRODUCTION. plausibly defended, rather than as a fact which rests upon that unva- rying conviction of the Church which is the strongest of all evidence, and the falsehood of which no opponent has as yet been able to demon- strate. Let the faith, the life, the controversies, the worship of the Church about A. D. 170 be first accounted for without the Fourth Gos- pel, and it will then be more reasonable to ask us to admit that the small number of allusions to it in the literature of the preceding part of the century is a proof that the book had at that time no existence. Many considerations, however, may be mentioned to explain that paucity of quotation and allusion upon which so great stress is laid. We notice only two. (1) The Fourth Gospel is considerably later in date than the other three. By the time it appeared the latter were everywhere circulated and appealed to in the Church. They had come to be regarded as the authoritative exposition of the life of the Redeemer. It could not be easy for a Gospel so different from them as is the fourth at once to take a familiar place beside them in the minds of men. Writers would naturally depend upon authorities to which they had been accustomed, and to which they knew that their readers had been in the habit of deferring. (2) A still more im- portant consideration is the character of the book itself. May there not be good reason to doubt whether the Fourth Gospel, when first issued, would not be regarded as a theological treatise on the life of Jesus rather than as a simple narrative of what He said and did ? It is at least observable that when Irenreus comes to speak of it he de- scribes it as written to oppose Cerinthus and the Xicolaitanes (Adv. Haer. 3: 11, 1) ; and that when Clement of Alexandria gives his ac- cou-nt of its origin he describes it as 'a spiritual gospel' written in contrast with those containing 'the bodily things ' (in Euseb. H. E. 6: 14). It may be difficult to determine the exact meaning of 'spirit- ual' here, but it cannot be understood to express the divine as con- trasted with the human in .Jesus ; and it appears more natural to think that it refers to the inner spirit in its contrast with the outward fiicts of His life as a whole. If so, the statement seems to justify the infer- ence that the earlier Gospels had been considered the chief storehouse of information with regard to the actual events of the Saviour's his- tory. What bears even more upon this conclusion is the manner in which Justin speaks. We have already quoted him as one of those to whom the Fourth Gospel was known, yet his description of the Sa- 2 INTRODUCTION. viour's method of address is founded upon the discourses in the Sy- noptic Gospels, quite inapplicable to those of the Fq^rth {ApoL 1 : 14). Phenomena such as these make it probable that the Fourth Gospel was at first regarded as a presentation of spiritual truth re- specting Jesus rather than as a simple narration similar to those already existing in the Church : and if so, the paucity of references to it, until it came to be better understood, is at once explained. The suggestion now oflFered finds some confirmation in a fact formerly mentioned, that the Gospel was a favorite one with the early heretics. Containing the truth, as it did, in a form in some degree affected by the speculations of the time and the country of its birth, it presented a larger number of points of contact for their peculiar systems than the earlier Gospels. In it they found many a hint which they could easily develop and misuse. Its profound metaphysical character was exactly suited to their taste; and they welcomed the opportunity, as we see from the Refutations of Hippolytus (Clark's translation, 1 : p. 276), of appealing to so important and authoritative a document in favor of their own modes of thought. But this very circumstance must have operated against its quick and general reception by the Church. The tendency, if there was room for it at all, would be to doubt a writing in which systems destructive of the most essential elements of Christianity claimed to have support; and it helps to deepen our sense of the strength of the Church's conviction of the divine origin of our Gospel, that, in spite of the use thus made of it, she clung to it without the slightest hesitation and with unyielding tenacity. In reviewing the first seventy years of the second century, a period at the end of which it must not be forgotten that the Fourth Gospel is generally and unhesitatingly acknowledged to be the woi'k of John, we can trace no phenomena inconsistent with such a conclusion. No other theory gives an adequate explanation of the facts. Unless, therefore, the structure and contents of the Gospel can be shown to be inconsistent with this view, we ai'e manifestly bound to accept the testimony of the early Church as worthy of our confidence. Accord- ing to that testimony the Gospel was written, or at least given to the Church at Ephesus, towards the close of the apostle's life. There is nothing to determine with certainty the particular date. The proba- bilities are in favor of fixing it about a. d. 90. INTRODUCTION. Turning now to the internal character of the Gospel, we shall find that, if carefully examined, it is not only consistent with, but strongly confirmatory of, the Johannine authorship, I. The author was unquestionably a Jew. Some most marked pecu- liarities of the Gospel, such as its artificial arrangement and its teach- ing by symbolic action (points of which we have yet to speak more fully), not only are strictly Jewish, but have nothing corresponding to them in any Gentile writer of the age. Nor does this book contain one word to suggest the inference that its author, originally a Gentile, might have acquired his Jewish thoughts and style by having become, before his conversion to Christianity, a proselj'te to Judaism. To such an extent do these features permeate the Gospel, that they can- not be the result of later and acquired habits of thought. They are the soul of the writing. They are interwoven in the most intimate manner with the personality of the writer. They must have grown with his growth and strengthened with his strength before he could be so entirely moulded by them. Nothing shows this more than the relation which exists in the Gospel between Christianity and Judaism. The use of the expression 'the Jews,' when properly understood, implies the very contrary of what it is so often adduced to establish. It would be simply a waste of time to argue that our Lord's conflict with ' the Jews' was not a conflict with Judaism. But, this being so, the use of the expression becomes really a measure of the writer's indignation against those who, having been appointed the guardians of a lofty fixith, had dimmed, defaced, and caricatured it. Such ex- pressions as 'A feast of the Jews,' 'The Passover of the Jews,' 'The manner of the purifying of the Jews,' 'The Jews' feast of Taberna- cles.' and so on, not only could well be used by a writer of Jewish birth, but are even consistent with true admiration of the things them- selves when conformed to their ideal. He has in view institutions as perverted by man, not as appointed by the Almighty. He sees them ob- served and urged by their defenders for the sake of their own selfish interests, made instruments of defeating the very end for which they had been originally given, used to deepen the darkness rather than to lead to the coming light. He sees that that stage in the history of a faith has been reached when the form has so completely taken the place of the substance, the letter of the spirit, that to revivify the former is impossible : it must perish if the latter is to be saved. He sees the INTRODUCTION. spirituality of religion crushed, extinguished, in the very moulds ■which had for a time preserved it. Therefore he might well say, Their work is done: God's plan is accomplished: they must perish. In all this there is no antagonism to true Judaism. No Gentile author- ship is before us. The thought belongs to a diiferent training and a difierent race; and that, too, at a time when Judaism must have pos- sessed much of its former interest, when the echoes of its greatness had not yet passed away. The same thing appears in the relation of the writer to the Old Testament Scriptures. They are quoted with great frequency, and it is well worthy of notice that the quotations are not simply taken from the Septuagint. They are at times from the Hebrew where it differs from the Septuagint; at times the translation is original (comp. chaps. 2: 17; 12: 40; 19: 37; 13: 18). Nothing leads more directly than this to the thought not only of Jewish birth, but also of long fami- liarity with Jewish worship in Palestine. In all the provinces at least of the Western Diaspora, the service of the synagogue was con- ducted not in Hebrew, but in Greek, by means of the Septuagint. To Gentiles of all conditions of life, and similarly to Jews of the Dis- persion, with the exception of a very few, the Hebrew Scriptures were, even in the apostolic age, and certainly at a later date, utterly unknown. To think of a Gentile Christian of the first half of the second century, whether a native of Alexandria or of Asia Minor, as able to translate for himself, is to suppose a state of things of which no other illustration can be adduced, and which is at variance with all our knowledge of the time. The same conclusion is to be deduced from the Hebraic style of the book. This character of its style is now generally recognized. But the fact is of such interest and importance, yet at the same time so dependent upon a skilled and delicate acquaintance with both Hebrew and Greek, that instead of quoting examples which the English reader would hardly understand, we shall refer to two, out of many, state- ments from writers whose authority on such a point none will ques- tion. It is thus that Dr. Keim [the author of a very able and learned Life of Jesus] speaks : ' The style of the book is a remarkable combi- nation of a facility and skill essentially Greek,, with a form of expres- sion that is truly Hebrew in its complete simplicity, childlikeness, picturesqueness, and in some sense guilelessness.' * To a similar * Jesus von Nazara, i., p. 157. INTRODUCTION. eflFect Ewald [the greatest Hebrew scholar of the nineteenth century] : ' It is well worthy of our observation that the Greek language of our author bears the clearest and strongest marks of a genuine Hebrew who, born among Jews in the Holy Land, and having grown up among them, had learned the Greek language in later life, but still exhibits in the midst of it the whole spirit and air of his mother tongue. He has constructed a Greek tongue to which nothing corresponds in the other writings that have come down to us marked by a Hellenistic tinge.' ^ 2. The author heloiiged to Palestine. He is alive to all the geographi- cal, ecclesiastical, and political relations of the land. He speaks of its provinces — .Judasa, Samaria, and Galilee. He is familiar with its towns — Jerusalem, Bethany, Sychar, Cana, Nazareth, Capernaum, Bethsaida, Tiberias, Ephraim ; and not less so with its river Jordan and its winter-torrent Kedron. The general character of the country is known to him, the different routes from Judaea into Galilee (chap. 4: 4), the breadth of the sea of Galilee (chap. 6: 19; comp. Mark 6: 47), the lie of the road from Cana to Capernaum (chap. 2: 12), the exact distance between Jerusalem and Bethany (chap. 11 : 18). The situation of particular spots is even fixed with great distinctness, such as of Jacob's well in chap. 4, of Bethesda in chap. 5, and of Cana in chap. 2. Similar remarks apply to his acquaintance with the ecclesiastical and political circumstances of the time. It is not possible to illustrate this by details. We add only that all his allusions to such points as we have now noticed are made, not with the labored care of one who has mastered the subject by study, but with the simplicity and ease of one to whom it is so familiar that what he says is uttered in the most incidental manner. Where did he obtain his information ? Not from the Old Testament, for it is not there. Not from the earlier Gospels, for they afford but little of it. Surely not from that second century which, according to the statement of objectors, left him in the belief that appointment to the high-priesthood was an annual thing ! One source of knowledge alone meets the demands of the case. The writer was not only a Jew, but a Jew of Palestine. 3. The author was an eye-tcitness of ichat he relates. We have his own explicit statement upon the point in chap. 1: 14 and chap. 19: 35 * Die Johann. Sckriften, i., p. 44. INTRODUCTION. (see the Commentary). Upon this last verse we only call attention now to the distinction, so often overlooked, between the two adjec- tives of the original, both translated 'true' in the Authorized Version, but wholly different in meaning. The first does not express the truth of the fact at all, but sets forth the fact as one in regard to which the witness was not, and cannot have been, mistaken : his testimony is all that testimony can be. The moment we give its due weight to this consideration, we are compelled to admit that 'he that hath seen hath borne witness, and his witnesss is true,' can refer to no other than the writer of the words. He could not have thus alleged of another that his testimony was thoroughly true and perfect — that it was the exact expression of the incident which had taken place. What he himself has seen is the only foundation of such a 'witness' as that which he would give. The statements thus made are confirmed by the general nature of the work. There is a graphic power throughout the whole, a liveli- ness and picturesqueness of description, which constrain us to believe that we are listening to the narrative of an eye-witness. There is a delicacy in the bringing out of individual character (as in the case of Martha and Mary in chap. 11) which even the literary art of the present day could hardly equal. And there is a minuteness of detail, different from that of the earlier Gospels, for whose presence it is altogetli^r impossible to account unless it was suggested by the facts. If the trial before Pilate is an imaginary scene, there is nothing in all the remains of Greek antiquity to compare with it. 4. The author, if an eye-witness and a disciple of Jesus, could be no other than the Apostle John. We have already seen that he calls him- self 'the disciple whom Jesus loved.' But from such passages as chaps. 13 : 23 ; 19 : 26, we infer that the disciple so peculiarly favored must have been one of those admitted to the most intimate communion with Jesus. These were only three, Peter, James and John. One of these three, therefore, he must have been. He was not Peter, for that apostle is frequently mentioned in the Gospel by his own name, and is on several occasions expressly distinguished from ' the disciple whom Jesus loved' (chaps. 13: 24; 21: 7, 20). Neither was he James, for that apostle was put to deatJi by Herod at a date long an- terior to any at which our Gospel can have been composed (Acts 12 : 2). He could therefore only be John. INTRODUCTION. xxiii Internal evidence thus lends its force to the external for the con- clusion that we advocate. That there are no difficulties in the matter, or that they are slight, it would be foolish to allege. They are both numerous and weighty. But it seems to us that they are connected less with the actual state of the evidence than with the fact that the true character of the Fourth Gospel has usually been overlooked by tliose who, in this country at least, have defended its authenticity. In this respect we owe much to the very continental scholai-s who have been most unfriendly to its apostolic origin. None have con- tributed so greatly to unfold its true character; and, in doing so, they have helped mo-t powerfully, however unconsciously, to answer their own objections to the Johannine authorship. That authorship there is no reasonable ground to doubt. III. OBJECT OF THE GOSPEL. The Gospel of John is the production of that apostle who, of all the apostolic band, had been most closely and tenderly associated with their common Master. Why was it written ? We have already had occasion to mention some of the early tes- timonies bearing upon this point. We must now refer to them again. Eusebius quotes Qement of Alexandria as saying that ' John, the last of the Apostles, perceiving that the bodily things (of Jesus) had been made known in the Gospels, and being at the same time urged by his friends, and borne along by the Spirit, wrote a spiritual Gospel.' And a still earlier authority (the Muratorian Fragment) so far agrees with this as to tell us that 'when John's fellow-disciples and bishops exhorted him he said. Fast along with me three days from to-day, and let us relate the one to the other whatever has been revealed to us. The same night it was revealed to Andrew the Apostle that .John should m his own name write down the whole, and that they all ' should revise (what he wrote).' The two accounts, while obviously independent, bear witness to the same view of the origin of our Gos- pel. The friends of the Apostle-how impossible that it should be otherwise !-had often heard him relate much that was not found in the Gospels already in existence. They urged him to put it in writ- ing, and he complied with their request. In other words, the Fourth Gospel was written as a supplement to its predecessors. Up to a cer- tain point the idea may be accepted ; but that John wrote mainly for INTRODUCTION. the purpose of supplying things wanting in the Synoptic narrative is a theory inconsistent with the whole tone of his composition. His woi'k is from tirst to last an original conception, distinguished from previous Gospels alike in the form and in the substance of its delineation, pro- ceeding upon a plan of its own clearly laid down and consistently fol- lowed out, and presenting an aspect of the person and teaching of Jesus which, if not entirely new, is set before us with a fulness which really makes it so. It is one burst of sustained and deep ap- preciation of what its writer would unfold, the picture of one who paints not because others have foiled to ca,tch the ideal he would re- present, but because his heart is full and he must speak. On the other hand, it was the opinion of Ireneeus that John wrote to controvert the errors of the Nicolaitanes and Cerinthus ; in other words, that his aim was not so much supplementary sxs polemical. Up to a certain point, again, the idea may be accepted ; but it is impossi- ble to believe that it affords us the whole, or even the main explana- tion of his work. His presentation of Jesus might no doubt be moulded by the tone of thought around him, because he had himself been moulded by it. Yet he starts from a positive, not from a con- troversial point of view. Filled with his subject, he is impelled to set it forth without turning aside to show, as a controversialist would have done, that it met the deficiencies or errors of his age. Upon these he makes no direct attack. It may be in the light of the present that the truth shapes itself to his mind ; yet he writes as one whose main business is not to controvert the present but to revivify the past. Neither of these statements, then, explains the Apostle's aim. He has himself given the explanation, and that so clearly that it is diffi- cult to account for the differences of opinion that have been enter- tained. His statement is, ' Many other signs therefore did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book : but these are wi'itten, that ye may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing ye may have life in His name' (chap. 20: 30, 31). Almost every word of this statement is of the utmost importance for the point before us. But, referring for fuller exposi- tion to the Commentary, we now only remark that John is not to be understood as meaning that the Gospel was written in order that its readers might be led to acknowledge the Divine mission of Jesus, when they beheld the works wrought by Him in more than human INTRODUCTION. power. These readers were already believers, discij)les, friends. AVliat was wanted was not the first furmation but the deepening of faith Avithin them, so that they might reach a profounder appreciation of the true character of Jesus, a more intimate communion with Him and in Him with the Father, and thus also a richer and more abun- dant spiritual life (comp. chap. 10: lOj. The conclusion now reached will be strengthened if we observe that, with a characteristically firm grasp of his materials, and with that re- markable unity of plan which distinguishes the Gospel, John mani- fests the same intention at the first appearance of the Redeemer in his history. In his first chapter we read of three, Andrew, Philip, and Nathanael, who, having been brought face to face with Jesus, make confession of their faith. It is impossible to overlook the parallelism between this paragraph and chap. 20: 30, 31. The three disciples bear witness to the three aspects of the Saviour brought before us in the Evangelist's own summary of his work — 'Jesus,' 'the Christ,' ' the Son of God.' The similarity is an important testimony to the fact that that summary is not one for which he might have substituted another, but that it is the calm, self-possessed utterance of a writer who had from the first a clear perception of the end which he kept in view throughout. To the question, therefore, "Why did John write ? we may now reply : He wrote in order to present to believing men a revelation of the Divine Son which might deepen, enlarge, perfect their faith, and which, by bringing them into closer spiritual communion with the Son, might make them also in Him spiritually sons of God. He wrote to exhibit, in the actual fiicts of the life of the 'Word become flesh,' the glory of that union wliich had been established in His person be- tween the Divine and the human. He wrote to be a witness to tlie heart of One who is in His people, and in whom the Father abides (chaps. 14: 10; 17: 23). ir. CnAKACTERISTlCS OF THE GOSPEL. Having thus ascei'tained the purpose with whicli the Fourth Gospel was written, we shall now be better able to appreciate some of those characteristics which have furnished opponents with many plausible ohjections, and have occasioned no small perplexity to friends. Of these the following seem to deserve notice, either as being in them- INTRODUCTION. selves the most important, or as being fi-equently made use of in this Commentary : — (1). The selective principle upon which the Evangelist proceeds. No historian can mention ail the particulars of any whole life, or even of any single event that he records. To a certain extent he is bound to select those which, from whatever cause, strike him most or seem to bear most closely on his purpose. But the writer of the Fourth Gos- pel gives many proofs that he not only carries this principle to an unu- sual extent, but does it deliberately and on purpose. The incidents looked at as a whole will in part illustrate what we say. That these should constitute a group so diiferent from what we have in the earlier Gospels is often urged as an objection to the authenticity of the Fourth. Those indeed who make the objection lose sight of the fact that there is selection of incidents as truly in the former a« in the latter. The difference between the two cases lies less in the extent to which selection is carried, than to a degree of consciousness with which the principle is applied. In the Synoptic Gospels it is less easy to trace the hand of the writer as he puts aside what does not appear to him to bear upon his subject, or as he brings into prominence what has direct relation to his aim. Abstaining, however, from any com- parison between our two groups of authorities, and confining our- selves to the Fourth Gospel, we rather notice that the selection of its incidents in general is determined by the ideas to which expression is given in the Prologue. It is not through forgetfulness or ignorance of other incidents that the writer confines our attention to a selected few (comp. 21: 25), but through his conviction that no others will as well subserve the end that he has in view. Hence, accordingly, the space devoted to the discourses with 'the Jews,' which are not those of a mild and gentle teacher, but of one who is in conflict with bitter and determined foes, of one whose business it is to confute, to convict, and to condemn. No one, giving heed to the state of Jewish feeling at the time, can doubt that these discourses in their general strain have all the verisimilitude that outward evidence can lend to them, — that the teaching of Jesus must have been a struggle, and in precisely this direction. The conflict between light and darkness be- came thus to John a leading idea of the history of his Master. The thought finds expression in the Prologue (1 : 5-11), and the discourses which illustrate it naturally follow. It is not otherwise with the mi- INTRODUCTION. racles. He invariably styles these 'signs,' a word in itself showing that they are outward acts expressive of a hidden meaning from which they derive their chief importance. Why, then, does he give them as he does ? Because, looking over the whole manifestation of Jesus, he had been taught to find in Him the fulfilment of 'grace and truth' Tyhich had not been given in the law, — the perfect Light, the present and eternal Life, of men. ,He presents these ideas in the Prologue (1 : 4, 5, 9, 17), and the selection given of the miracles naturally fol- lows. The point now before us may be illustrated, not only by the inci- dents of the Gospel looked at thus generally, but by smaller and more minute particulars. Many of these, however, will be noticed in the Commentary (see, for example, the note on 9 : 6), and we shall not occupy time with them now. The point to be borne in mind by the reader is, that in the Gospel of John there is no attempt to give the historical facts of the life of Jesus in all their particulars. There is throughout conscious and intentional selection. From what he has seen, the writer has attained a particular idea of the Person, the Life, the Work of his Divine Master. He will present that idea to the world ; and knowing that, if all the things that Jesus did were to be written down, ' the world itself would not contain the books that should be written,' he makes choice of that which will most fitly answer the appointed end. (2.) The symbolic method of treatment which the Evangelist exhibits. This is so peculiarly characteristic of John, and has at the same time ■ been so much disregarded by most modern commentators, that one or two general remarks upon teaching by symbols seemed to be required. The Old Testament is full of it. All the arrangements of the taber- nacle, for example ; its courts, the furniture of its courts, the cere- monial observances performed in it, the very dyes and colors used in the construction of its wrappings, have an appropriate meaning only when we behold in them the expression of spiritual truths relating to God and to His worship. More especially it would seem to have been a part of the prophet! s task thus to present truth to those whom he was commissioned to instruct ; and the higher the prophetic influence which moved him, the more powerful his impression of the message given him to proclaim, the more entirely he was borne along by the divine afilatus, the more did he resort to it. As simple illustrations INTRODUCTION of this we may refer to the cases of Zedekiah, Elisha, Jeremiah and Ezekiel (1 Kings 22: 11 ; 2 Kings 13 : 17; Jer. 27: 1-18; Ezek. 4: 1-6). If it was thus under the Old Testament dispensation, there is not only no reason why we ought not to expect symbolism in the New Testament, but every reason to the contrary. The narrative of Aga- bus shows that in the apostolic age symbolic action was still a part of the prophetic function appreciated by the Jews (Acts 21 : 11). What wonder, then, if our Lord should teach by symbolism as well as by direct instruction ? He was the fulfilment not only of Israel's priestly, but also of its prophetic line. He was the true and great Prophet in whom the idea and mission of prophecy culminated ; in whom all that marked the prophet as known and honored in Israel attained its high- est development and reached perfect ripeness. Besides this. His eye saw, as no merely human eye ever did, the unity that lies at the bot- tom of all existence, the principles of harmony that bind together the world of nature and of man, so that the former becomes the type and shadow of the latter. When, accordingly. He appeared as the great Prophet of Israel, there is nothing unreasonable in the supposition that He would teach by symbol as well as word, that not only His words but His acts should be designed by Him to be lessons to the people, illustrations of the nature of His kingdom and His work. Still further, we cannot forget the general character of all the words and actions of our Lord. As coming from Him, they possess a fulness of meaning which we should not have been justified in ascribing to them had they come from another teacher. It is impossible to doubt that He mw all the truths which find a legitimate expression in what He said or did, however various the sphere of life to which they apply. And it is equally" impossible to doubt that He intended to utter what He saw. But if Jesus might thus teach, a disciple and historian of His life might apprehend this characteristic of His teaching, — nay, would apprehend it, the more he entered into the spirit of his master. There are clear indications of this, accordingly, even in the earlier Gospels. The account of the miraculous draught of fishes, at the time when Simon and Andrew were called to the apostleship (Luke 5 : 3-10), the cursing of the barren fig-tree (Matt. 21 : 18-20 ; Mark 11 : 12-14), the double miracle of the multiplying of the bread (Matt. 14 : 15-21 ; 15: INTRODUCTION. xxix 32-38 ; Mark 6 : 34-44 ; 8 : 1-9), afford clear illustrations of this prin- ciple. It is in the Fourth Gospel, however, that the symbolic spirit particularly appears; and that not merely in the miracles, but in lengthened narratives, and in many separate figures supplied by the Old Testament, by nature, or by incidents occurring at the moment. To the eye of the Evangelist the whole of creation waits for redemp- tion ; the whole of history reaches forth to Him ' that was to come ;' the heart of man in all its stirrings seeks to grasp a reality to be found nowhere but in the revelation of the Father given in the Son. Every- thing, in short, has stamped upon it a shadowy outline of what is to be filled up when redemption is complete. The Logos, the Word, is the source of all that exists (chap. 1:3), and to the source from which it came will all that exists return. Every chapter of the Gospel would furnish illustration of what has been said. It is impossible, however, to rest here ; for this power of perceiving in outward things symbols of inner truths may be so strong as to appear in the mode of presenting not only the larger but also the smaller circumstances of any scene in which Jesus moves. The greater may draw along with it a symbolic interpretation of the less. Nay, out of numerous little details the mind which is quick to discern symbolic teaching may really select some in preference to others, be- cause in them the impress of the symbolism may be more clearly traced. A writer may thus act without any thought of art or special design, even to a great degree unconscious of what he does, and simply because the higher object with which he has been engaged has a natural power to attract to itself, and to involve in its sweep the lower objects within its range. Illustrations of this will be found in the Commentary. (3.) The peculiar nature of the plan adopted by the Evangelist. The Gospel appears to us most naturally to divide itself into seven sec- tions, as follows : — 1. The Prologue: chap. 1 : 1-18. These verses contain a summary of the great facts of the whole Gospel, grouped in accordance with the Evangelist's purpose, and presented in the light in which he would have them viewed. 2. The presentation of Jesus upon the field of human history: chap. 1 : 19-2 : 11. Here Jesus appears before us as He is in Himself, the Son of God, and as He manifests Himself to His disciples before He begins His conflict in the world. INTRODUCTION. 3. General sketch of the work of Jesus in the world: chap. 2: 12- 4: 54. Jesus passes beyond the circle of the disciples, and is rejected by the Jews when he would cleanse the house of His Father at Jeru- salem. This leads to His revelation of Himself as the true temple "which, destroyed by 'the Jews' in their persecution of Him even unto death, shall be raised again in His resurrection. Thus rejected by the representatives of the theocracy, He reveals Himself by His word to individuals who, whether of Judea, or Samaria, or Galilee of the nations, are— not by signs but by His word — subdued to faith. 4. The conflict of Jesus with the world, chap. 5: 1-12: 50. This section contains the main body of the Gospel, setting Jesus forth in the height of His conflict with darkness, error, and sin. He comes before us throughout in all the aspects in which we have in the Pro- logue been taught to behold Him, and He carries on the work there spoken of as given Him to do. He is Son of God, and Son of man, the Fulfiller of the greatest ordinances of the law, the Life and the Light of men. As lie contends with the world, now in one and now in another of these manifestations of Himself, faith or unbelief is gradually developed and deepened in those who listen to Him. The believing and obedient are more and more attracted, the disobedient and unbelieving are more and more repelled, by His words and ac- tions, until at last we hear, in the closing verses of chap. 12, the mournful echo of * He came unto His own, and His own received Him not.' He has gathered His disciples to Himself. The darkness has not overcome Him (comp. chap. 1 : 5). He passes victorious through its opposition ; but His victory is not yet complete. 5. The revelation of Jesus to His own, together with the rest and peace and joy of faith: chap. 13: 1-17:26. The conflict of the previous section has divided men into the two great companies of faith and unbelief. These two companies are now to be followed, the one to its blessed rest in Him whom it has received, the other to those last steps in sin which, in the hour of apparent victory, really secure its final and ignominious defeat. The rest of faith is traced in ihe sec- tion now before us. The world is shut out from the sacred and tender fellowship of Jesus with His own. Judas leaves the company of the disciples (13: 30). The rest of the disciples are 'clean;' not only bathed, but with their feet afterwards washed, so that they are 'clean every whit' (13: 10), and Jesus is alone with them. Therefore He, INTRODUCTION. pours forth upon them all the fulness of His love. His glory — the glory of 'grace and truth' — shines forth in all the inexpressible ten- derness of the foot-washing, of the last discourse, and of the inter- cessory prayer. 6. The apparent victory but the real defeat of unbelief: 18 : 1-20 : 31. At first sight it may be thought that chap. 20 as containing the account of the Resurrection, ought to constitute a separate section ; but it is of the utmost importance for a proper comprehension of the plan of the Evangelist to observe that this cannot be. The Death and Resurrection of Jesus are in this Gospel always united, and cannot be separated in our thought ; the Redeemer with whom we have to do is One who rises through suffering to victory, through death to life (comp. remarks on the contents of chap. 20). Even the prominent thought of chap. 19 is not Jesus in humiliation, but Jesus 'lifted on high,' rising triumphant above the humiliation to which He is sub- jected, with a glory which appears the brighter the thicker the dark- ness that surrounds it. But this is exactly the thought of chap. 20 ; and the two chapters cannot be kept distinct. Thus viewed, we see in the section as a whole the apparent victory, but the real defeat of un- belief. The enemies of Jesus seem to prevail. They seize Him ; they bind Him ; they lead Him before Annas and Caiaphas and Pilate ; they nail Him to the cross ; He dies and is buried. But their victory is only on the surface.* Jesus Himself gives Himself up to the traitor and his band ; oflFers no resistance to the binding ; shows the infinite superiority of His spirit to that of the high priest; compels the homage of Pilate; voluntarily surrenders His life upon the cross; has the mocking of His enemies turned, under the providence of God, to their discomfiture and shame; and at last, rising from the grave, establishes the completeness of His victory when His enemies have done their worst. In short, throughout this section we are continu- ally reminded that the triumphing of the wicked is but for a moment, and that God judgeth in the earth. 7. The Epilogue: chap. 21. In this section we see the spread of the Church ; the successful ministry of the Apostles when, at the word of Jesus, they cast their net into the great sea of the nations; the satisfaction and joy experienced by them in the results of protracted toil. Finally, we see in it the reinstitution in the person of Peter of Christian witness-bearing to Jesus, together with the intimation of the INTRODUCTION. certain approach of that glorious time when the need of such testi- mony, with all its labors and sufferings, shall be superseded by the Second Coming of the Lord. Such appears to be the plan of the Fourth Gospel, — a plan vindi- cated by the narrative itself, aud having each of its sections marked off from the others by lines too distinct to be mistaken. When, accordingly, we recall what has been already said as to the leading aim of the Fourth Gospel, we can have little difficulty in un- derstanding the influence which that aim exerts upon the selection of particulars and upon the structure of the narrative as a whole. If in this Gospel pre-eminently Jesus reveals Himself with so much fre- quency and fulness, we have seen that this is the very truth which the Evangelist has set himself to unfold. Its prominence can throw no suspicion upon the historical reality of the representation. We are prepared to find in this Gospel a revelation of Jesus and His own glory different both in manner and degree from that presented in the earlier Gospels. The considerations that have now been adduced with regard to the history of the Fourth Gospel, the external and internal evidence bearing upon its Johannine authorship, and the striking peculiarity of the characteristics by which it is marked, seem sufficient to satisfy every reasonable inquirer that the uniform tradition of the Church, pointing to the Apostle John as its author, is correct. It is not to be denied, however, that there remain difficulties, some of a general na- ture, others arising out of special details contained in the Gospel itself. Our readers will readily acknowledge that it is wholly impossible within our limits to treat these with a fulness worthy of their import- ance. Of the second class of difficulties, too, it is less necessary to speak, for they will naturally present themselves as we comment on the text of the Gospel. Perhaps the only points that require notice in an Introduction are two belonging to the first class,— the relation in which the Fourth Gospel stands (1) to the Apocalypse, (2) to the earlier Gospels. The first of these must be deferred until the Apoc- alypse comes under our notice in this work. Upon the second we say a few words in bringing this Introduction to a close. INTRODUCTION. V. RELATION OF THE FOURTH TO THE EARLIER GOSPELS. This relation is often supposed to be one of ii-reconcilable diver- gence, and the divergence is found not only in particular statements in which the Fourth Gospel touches the others, but in the history as a -whole. Alleged differences of the first kind will be noticed when we meet them in the course of exposition. Looking, therefore, only at the history as a whole, the reader will easily observe that the apparent divergence runs in two main lines, one having reference to the out- ward framework, the other to the portraiture of Jesus, in Himself and in His discourses. As to the first of these, in its two branches, the sce7ie and the duration of the ministry, little need be said. It is true that in the earlier Gospels the scene, up to the Passion week, appears to be Galilee alone, while in the Fourth it is even more Jerusalem and Judcea ; that in the former the duration seems less than one year, in the latter more than two. Yet it is to be borne in mind that no one of our narratives professes to give a complete history of the life of our Lord upon earth. Their fragmentariness is one of their essential character- istics, admitted by all in the case of the Synoptists, distinctly declared by John in his own case (chap. 20: 30, 21: 25). All, therefore, that we are entitled to ask is, that the earlier Gospels shall leave room for the larger area and the longer time borne witness to by the latter ; and this they do. There is more, however, to be said ; for our different groups of authorities mutually imply the labors of Jesus in those portions of the land of Palestine which occupy a subordinate position in their own narratives. It is unnecessary to prove this with regard to John, so frequent is the mention made by him of the ministry in Galilee. The notices of the others with regard to the Judtean ministry are not so plain ; but even in them there occur passages which are unintelligible, except on the supposition that such a ministry had existed. Such passages are Matt. 23: 37 (comp. Luke 13: 34), where the words * how often ' are almost conclusive upon the point ; Matt. 21 : 8, indi- cating a previous acquaintance to account for the enthusiasm ; Luke 10: 38-42, refennng most probably to Bethany; while, if in Luke 4: 44 we accept the reading, 'And He preached in the synagogues of Jadsea,'' — and the evidence in its favor seems to be overwhelming, — the whole controversy is set at rest. It may be added that the words 3 INTRODUCTION. of Peter in Acts 10: 37-39 have an important bearing upon the point; and that all the probabilities of the case are opposed to the supposition either that Jesus would confine Himself to Galilee, or that the great drama of His life and death could have been enacted in less than a single year. More important than the outward framework of the history is the portraiture of Jesus presented in the Fourth Gospel ; and this again may be naturally divided into two branches, the Person and the dis- courses. As to the first of these, it is no doubt in John alone that ■we meet with the conception of Jesus as the Logos, or Word of God. Yet there is ample ground to justify the conclusion that it is not the object of the writer so to delineate Jesus as to make the Logos con- ception the dominating conception of His personality. The remark has often been made, that in the whole course of the Gospel Jesus does not once apply the designation of Logos to Himself, — neither in the three aspects of Jesus already spoken of as prominent in chap. 1 : nor in the closing summary of chap. 20: 31, is the Logos mentioned; and no passage can be quoted in which the fact that Jesus is the Logos is associated with ' witness ' borne to Him. This last fact has not been sufficiently noticed, but its importance appears to us to be great. If there is one characteristic of the Fourth Gospel more marked than another, it is the perfect and absolute simplicity with which the writer, whether speaking of himself, of Jesus, or of the Baptist, resolves the proclamation of what is uttered into * witness' or 'bearing witness." That term includes in it the whole burden of the commission given to each of them to fulfil. Whatever else they may be, they are first and most of all 'witnesses.' But if so, and if to enforce the Logos idea be the main purpose of the Gospel so far as it refers to the Person of Christ, we may well ask why that idea and ' witness ' borne to it are never brought together? Jesus is witnessed to as 'the Messiah, which is, being interpreted, the Christ,' as the one ' of whom Moses in the law and the prophets did speak,' as ' the Son of God, the King of Israel ; ' he is not witnessed to as the Logos, although he is the Logos ; and that single fact is sufficient to prove that the fourth Evangelist has no thought of presenting his Master in a light different from that in which He is presented by his predecessors. In addition to this it may be observed that we have in our two groups of Gospels, the very same interchange of allusions with regard INTRODUCTION. to the Person of Christ that we have already observed when speaking of the scene of the ministry. If in the Fourth Gospel Jesus is pre- eminently Son of God, He is not less distinctly Son of man. If, again, in the earlier Gospels He is pre-eminently Son of man. He at the same time performs acts and claims authority not human but Divine. He forgives sins (Matt. 9: 6), is Lord of the Sabbath (Matt. 12: 8), rises from* the dead (Matt. 17: 9), comes in His kingdom) Matt. 16: 28), sits upon the throne of His glory (Matt. 19: 28) ; nay, in one passage He speaks of Himself as Son of man at the very time when He appro- priates as true the confession of Peter, that He is ' the Christ, the Sou of the living God' (Matt. 16: 13-28). Many other passages in the earlier Gospels lead to the same conclusion ; so that, although the teaching of the Fourth as to the Divine nature of Jesus is richer than theirs, the truth itself, so far from being excluded from our minds, must be taken along with us in reading them before they can be properly understood. Without it, it would be diflficult, if not impos- sible, to combine their expressions into a consistent whole. If now we turn from the Person to the discourses of Christ, as these are presented in the Fourth Gospel, it is impossible to deny that they differ widely from those of the earlier Gospels, both in form and in substance. In the earlier Gospels the truths taught by our Lord are for the most part set before us in a manner simple and easily under- stood, in parables, in short pithy sayings, in sentences partaking largely of the proverbial and not difficult to remember, in a style adapted to the popular mind. In the Fourth Gospel not only is there no parable properly so called, but aphorisms are much more rarely met with, and the teaching of Jesus takes a shape adapted to enlight- ened and spiritually-minded disciples rather than an unenlightened multitude. Nor is the diflFerence in substance less marked. In the earlier Gospels the instructions and sayings of Jesus have mainly re- ference to the more outward aspects of His kingdom, to His own ful- filling of the law, to the moral reformation He was to effect, to the practical righteousness required of His disciples. In the other they have reference to tho profound, the mystical relations existing be- tween the Father and Himself, between Himself and His people, and among the various members of His flock. Again, however, it is to be noticed that the very same interchange of allusions which we have already found existing in our two classes XXXVl INTRODUCTION. of authorities with regard to the outward framework of the history and the nature of Christ's Person, exists also in their accounts of His discourses. Passages may be quoted from John partaking at least largely of the aphoristic character of the teaching generally found in the first three Evangelists. Thus chap. 4: 44 may be compared with Mark 6:4; chap. 12: 8 with Mark 14 : 7 ; chap. 12: 25 T^ith Matt. 10: 39 ; 16: 25; chap. 13: 16 with Matt. 10: 24; Luke 6: 40; chap. 13: 20 with Matt. 10: 40; chap. 15: 20 with Matt. 10: 25; chap. 15: 21 with Matt. 10: 22; chap. 18: 11 with Matt. 16: 52; chap. 20 : 23 with Matt. 16 : 19. Although, too, there are no parables in the Fourth Gospel, many of its figures so much resemble parables, could be so easily drawn out into parables, that they have been appro- priately described as 'parables transformed.** Such are the passages relating to the blowing of the wind, the fields white unto the harvest, the corn of wheat which must die in the ground before it springs up, the sorrow and subsequent joy of the woman in travail, the good shep- herd, the true vine (chap. 3:8; 4: 35; 12: 24; 10: 1-16; 15; 1-8). Nor can we forget that, in the Fourth Gospel, it is for the most part a different audience to which .Jesus speaks. He addresses not so much the mass of the people as the ' Jews ;' and as those so designated undoubtedly comprised a large number of the most highly educated of the day, we may expect that they will be spoken to in a tone diflFerent from that adopted towards others. The words of chap. 6 : 41 (see the Commentary) are in this respect peculiarly important ; for it appears from them that the 'hard sayings' found in the remaining portion of the discourse given in that chapter were intended, not for the * multi- tude,' but for the ruling class. The words of ver. 59 might at first sight lead to a difi'erent impression. On the other hand, there are clear indications in the earlier Gospels that Jesus did not always speak in that sententious and parabolic style which they mainly represent him as employing. In this respect the words of Matt. xi. 25-27 cannot be too frequently referred to, for the argument founded upon them is perfectly incontrovertible. They show that a style of teaching precisely similar to that which meets us in the Fourth Gospel was known to the first. Keim, indeed, has attempted to weaken the force of the argument by the allegation that the words are not found in ' the ordinary every-day intercourse' of Jesus, but at * Westcott, Intr. to Study of the Gospels, p. 268. INTRODUCTION. an 'isolated and exalted moment of his life,'* Such moments, how- ever, are precisely those -which John has undertaken to record ; or, if this ought not to be said, it is Jesus in the frame of mind peculiar to such moments that he especially presents to us. If, therefore, the words given by ^latthew are appropriate to the time when they were spoken, the words given by John, though on many different occasions of a like kind, are not less so. Nor is this the only passage of the earlier Gospels that may be quoted as possessing the isolated and ex- alted character referred to. The words at the institution of the Last Supper are not less marked: 'Take, eat, this is my body. . . , Drink ye all of it ; for this is my blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom' (Matt. 26: 26-29), Such words exhibit the very same lofty mystical spirit that meets us in the Gospel of John. They are as much out of keeping with the practical sententious character of the teaching of Jesus in the other parts of these Gospels (if indeed such an expression is to be used at all) as anything contained in the Gospel with which we are now dealing. A similar remark may be made with regard to the eschatological dis- courses of Jesus in the earlier Gospels (comp. Matt. 24 :), and to His answer to the high priest (Matt. 26 : 64), the difference between them and the Sermon on the Mount being quite as great as that be- tween His general teaching in the Fourth Gospel and in the Gospels which preceded it. It is in this thought, indeed, as it seems to us. that the explanation of the point now before us is to be found. The utterances of Jesus in John belong to the tragic aspect of His work. No one will deny that, taking the facts even of the first three Gospels alone, the life of the Redeemer upon earth was marked by all the elements of the most powerful and pathetic tragedy. His perpetual struggle with evil, His love and self-sacrifice, met with opposition and contempt ; His bear- ing the sorrows and the sins of men, His unshaken confidence in God, His sufferings and death, the constant presence of His Father with Him, and the glorious vindication given Him at last in the Resurrec- tion and Ascension, supply particulars possessed of a power to move us such as no other life has known. In this point of view John looks *Keim, Engl, transl., 1. p. 176. INTRODUCTION. at them. His Gospel is not the record of ordinary life. It is the rec- ord of a life which passes through all the most solemn and touching experiences of man, and which makes its appeal to the most powerful emotions of the heart. This is very strikingly exhibited in the light in which Jesus is set before us at the first moment when He passes be- yond the circle of His disciples to the larger field of the world (2 : 12, see Commentary) ; and it is not less apparent in the pathos that so often marks the language of the writer (1: 11, 12: 37). Hence the almost exclusive presentation of tragic scenes, of ' exalted moments,' »nd the preservation of discourses suitable to them. The remarks now made, though applying mainly to the form, may be applied also to the substance of the discourses of the Fourth Gospel. It must be felt, too, that the profound instructions of Jesus contained in it are not out of keeping with the personality or character of the Speaker, Was He truly the Son of God ? Did He come to meet every necessity of our nature ? not only to enforce that practical morality to which conscience bears witness, but to reveal those deeper truths on the relation of man to God, and in Him to his brother man, for which a revelation was especially needed ; then there is nothing strange in the fact that He should have spoken so much of matters lying far be- yond mortal ken. Rather, surely, should we expect that, with His own heart filled with the deep things of God, He would speak out of its abundance ; that, dwelling Himself amidst the great realities of the unseen and spiritual world, He would many a time lead into them the disciples whom He loved, and whom He would guide into all the truth. Or, if it be said that these profound teachings were spoken not to friends, but to determined enemies, the principle of reply is the same. Here also there is the same elevation above the level of common life. These ' Jews,' so constantly addressed, are not the nation, but those in whom the outward, carnal, selfish spirit of a degenerate Judaism was concentrated (see Commentary). As to the existence of this class there can be no doubt. The title, indeed, is peculiar to John, but the class itself meets us in the earlier Evangelists. If, then, it existed, we may well ask whether it is not represented in the Fourth Gospel as addressed in the very manner in which such an audience must be spoken to. Let us suppose any Church of our own day become as carnal as the Jewish Church in the days of Christ. What other course INTRODUCTION. could a reformer pursue, what other language could he use, but the course and the language of Jesus here? A worldly church cannot be spoken to like the world ; self-chosen darkness cannot be treated like the darkness of a naturally unfortunate condition. What has been said goes far to explain the peculiar character of the discourses of Jesus in the Fourth Gospel. But there are other ques- tions in connection with* them to which it is necessary to allude. Are they purely objective? Are they a record of the exact words used in the circumstances referred to? Are they free from any trace of the mind through which they passed in their transmission to us ? It has been urged that these questions must be answered in the negative, partly because such long and profound discourses could not have been remembered at a distance of fifty years from the time when they were spoken, partly because their resemblance to the First Epistle of John is a proof that in these discourses it is John who speaks rather than his Master. Neither consideration has much weight. It cannot be imagined that only at the end of fifty years would the Evangelist endeavor to remember them. Rather throughout all that time must they have been the thftne of his constant and loving meditation ; day after day and night after night he must have brought up before him the sight of that much-loved form and the sound of that well-remem- bered voice ; and every word of his Master, even many a word which he has not recorded, must have been ever flowing gently through his heart. John too had the promise of the Spirit to ■ bring to his remem- brance all things that Jesus said to him' (14: 26); and, to whatever extent we admit his own human agency in the composition of his Gospel, we cannot forget that the fulfilment of this promise must have secured him from the errors of ordinary writers, and enabled him, as they could not have done, to present to his readers the perfect truth. Nor, further, is the supposition with which we are now dealing needed to explain the fact that the tone of much of our Lord's teach- ing in this Gospel bears a striking resemblance to that of the First Epistle of John. Why should not the Gospel explain the Epistle rather than the Epistle the Gospel ? Why should not John have been formed upon the model of Jesus rather than the Jesus of this Gospel be the reflected image of himself? Surely it may be left to all candid minds to say whether, to adopt only the lowest supposition, the crea- tive intellect of Jesus was not far more likely to mould His disciple INTRODUCTION. to a conformity with itself, than the receptive spirit of the disciple to give birth by its own efforts to that conception of a Redeemer which so infinitely surpasses the loftiest image of man's own creation. While, however, this may be said, it may at the same time be allowed that up to a certain point the form in which the discourses are presented, sometimes even their very language, has been affected by the individuality of the writer. Lengthy as they not infrequently are, they are obviously compressed statements of what must have occupied a still longer time in delivery, with much of the questioning and answering that must have occurred in a protracted controversy suppressed. Occasionally the very language of the original (as in the use of an imperfect tense) indicates this ; while the reference at the feast of Tabernacles (7 : 23) to the healing of the impotent man (chap. 5), which must have taken place at least months before, is a proof that that miracle done on the Sabbath had been kept fresh in the minds of those addressed by many incidents and words not mentioned. Links may often be thus awanting which it is difficult for us to supply, and compression could hardly fail to give additional sharpness to what is said. Besides this, the tragic spirit of the Gosf el, of which we have already spoken, may be expected to exercise an influence over the manner in which discourses are presented in it. Keeping these con- siderations in view, we shall look, in the scenes of the Fourth Gospel, for such details as may best embody the essential characteristics of any narrative which the Evangelist is desirous to present to us, rather than for all the particulars with which he was acquainted. We shall understand, too, the artificial structure, the double pictures and parallelisms which meet us in the longer discourses, such as those of chaps. 5, 10, 14, 15, 16, (see the Commentary). The sayings and discourses of Jesus in the Fourth Gospel are not, therefore, to be regarded as in every respect simple reproductions of the precise words spoken by Him. The true conclusion seems to be that we have here a procedure on the part of the Evangelist precisely parallel to that which marks his method of dealing with the historical incidents of the life of Jesus. These are selected, grouped, presented under the dominating power of the idea which he knows that they express. So also with the words of Christ. They also are selected, grouped, presented under the power of the fundamental idea which prevails throughout them. INTRODUCTION. xU By frankly admitting this much is gained. On the one hand, his- torical accuracy, in its deepest and truest sense, is not impaired ; the result produced in the mind of the reader is exactly that which was produced by our Lord Himself upon those who witnessed His actions or heard His words. On the other hand, the facts of the case receive a natural explanation. Above all, the whole procedure on the part of John is in harmony with the principles of Him who would have us always rise through His words to that divine ideal which they reveal. One other remark ought to be made before we close. In so far as the difference between John and the Synoptists affords ground for an argument, its bearing is favorable, not unfavorable, to the authenticity of our Gospel. Let us assume for a moment the earliest date assigned to it by the opponents of its apostolical authority, and what is the phenomenon presented to us? That about a. d. 110 a writer, ob- viously setting before himself the purpose of giving a delineation of the life of Jesus and of impressing it on the Church, departed entirely from the traditional records that had now taken a settled form ; that he transferred the Messiah's labors to scenes previously unheard of; gave to His ministry a duration previously unknown; represented both His person and His work in a light wholly new ; and then ex- pected the Church, which had by this time spread abroad into all regions, through three generations of men, to accept his account as correct. In the very statement of the case its incredibility appears. Only on the supposition that the writer of the Fourth Gospel felt that the Church for which he wrote would recognize essential harmony, not contradiction, between his representation and that of his prede- cessors, that men would see in it that enlarging of the picture of a loved personality which faithful memories supply, can we explain his having written as he has done. VI. THE PRINCIPLES OF THIS COMMENTARY. We have spoken, as far as our limited space will allow, of some of those points connected with the Gospel of John which seem likely to be of most interest to the readers of a Commentary like the present, or which may prepare them to understand better the following expo- sition. It remains only that we indicate in a sentence or two the principles upon which that exposition is founded. xlii INTRODUCTION. Our main, it may almost be said our single, effort has been to ascer- tain the meaning of the words before us, and to trace the thought alike of the writer himself and of the great Master whom he sets forth. In doing this we have endeavored to bestow more than ordi- nary care upon every turn of expression in the original, upon every change of construction, however slight, effected by prepositions, tenses, cases, or even order of words. Many such changes have no doubt escaped our notice, and some have been left without remark be- cause we felt unable to supply a satisfactory explanation of them. Even as it is, however, it is probable that not a few will think that we have been too minute; and that, in spending time upon what they will regard as trifling particulars, we have paid too little attention to those larger statements of truth which might have been better adapted to the readers for whom we write. From such an opinion we venture entirely to dissent. No trustworthy statements of general truth can be at any time gained without the most complete induction of particu- lars ; and if this be true of any book of Scripture, it is even pecu- liarly true of the Fourth Gospel. The care bestowed upon it by its writer is one of its most remarkable characteristics. Whatever be the sublimity to which it rises, however impassioned its language, or however deep the flow of its emotion, every phrase or word or con- struction contained in it is fitted into its place as if the calmest and most deliberate purpose had presided over the selection. It is the skill of the loftiest feeling, though unconsciously exercised, that has made the Gospel what it is. The truth contained in it has woven for itself a garb corresponding in the most minute particulars to its na- ture, and every change in the direction even of one of its threads is a testimony to some change in the aspects of the truth by whose living energy the whole was fashioned. If, therefore, we have erred in con- nection Avith this point, we have erred not by excess but by defect. A rich harvest still awaits those who will be more faithful to the princi- ple or more successful in carrying it out than we have been. It seems unnecessary to add much more as to the principles by which we have been guided in our work. Innumerable references might easily have been made to the extensive literature connected with this Gospel, and to the opinions of those who have commented upon it before us. We have thought it best, except in one or two in- stances, to refrain from giving them. In addition to the Commenta- INTRODUCTION. xliii ries of Luthardt, Godet, Lange, Meyer, and others, which it would have been presumption to ncolect, we have endeavored to use all other helps within our reach. Unfortunately, the noble Commentary of Dr. Westcott did not appear until almost the last of the following pages had been printed off. It was thus impossible to take advantage of it ; but to the personal communications of that eminent scholar, and to the discussions which have taken place in the New Testament Revision Company, in regard alike to the Fourth Gospel and the other books of the New Testament, we probably owe more than Ave are ourselves aware of. At the same time, we are not conscious of having yielded in any instance to authority however great. Under a deep sense at once of the difficulty and responsibility of our task, we have submit- ted every question to independent investigation ; and the results, very often different frcm those of our predecessors, must be left to speak for themselves. It would be too much to expect that our readers will find every difficulty discussed which meets them in their own study of this Gos- pel. One of the most marked peculiarities of such a book is that, in the fulness of its life and meaning, it strikes every attentive student in a different light, and suggests to each thoughts and problems which do not occur to others. All that we can say is, that in no single in- stance have we consciously passed by a difficulty that we ourselves felt; and we may perhaps venture to hope that the principles upon which these have been treated may be applicable to others of which we had not thought. The principles upon which the Text of the Gospel has been deter- mined were explained by one of the authors of this Commentary in the second part of a small work on ' The Words of the New Testament,' published some years ago, and now out of print. In the translation of the text, we have aimed at correctness rather than ease of continu- ous expression : and if we have almost always given a full translation at the head of the notes, the reason is easily explained. It seemed desirable, where not only every word, but even the order of all the words is important, that the reader should have the complete sentence directly under his eye. In conclusion, we may be permitted to say that both the authors of the following Commentary hold themselves responsible for the whole. No part of it is the work of either by himself; and they have wrought xliv INTRODUCTION. together with a harmony which, through all the three or four years it has occupied them has been to both a source of constant thankful- ness and joy. But they desire to forget themselves, and they ask their readers to forget them, in the one common aim to discover the true meaning of a Gospel which the eloquent Herder long ago de- scribed as ' the heart of Jesus.' July, 1880. THE GOSPEL ACCOEDIN!^ TO JOHK " 7\ Chapter 1 : 1-18. '.v^^ ^^, The Prologue. 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the AYord The Prologue, vers. 1-18. CoNTF-NTS. — The Prologue of the Gospel of John stands in the most intimate connec- tion with the plan and purpose of the Gospel as a whole. It is not to be regarded aa a philosophical speculation to which the historical life of the Redeemer shill be afterwards conformed. It contains rather a short summary of that life in the light in which the Evangelist had been divinely taught to regard it, and of the impressions which he had gathered from it as the manifestation, the revelation, of God Himself to men. It is to illustrate and unfold this conception, which is at once metaphysical, theological, and historical, that the fourth Evangelist writes. Hence he begins with a description of what Jesus was in Himself, in the profoundest depths of His being; passing from that to what He ' became ' in order that in Him men might so behold the glory of the Father as to be transfigured into the same glory, reaching onward to the fulfilment of their own destiny, to be children of God. The Prologue is usually divided into three parts, ending with ver. 5, ver. 13, ver. 18, respectively. Of these divisions, the first brings before us the thought of the Eternal Word,— in Himself (ver. 1), and as the source of created being, of life, of light (vers. 2-5). The subject of the next thirteen venses is the Word as revealed to men, first generally (vers. 6-13), and secondly by the Incarnation (vers. 14-18). These two sections (in accordance with an important principle of structure, characterizing both this Gospel and the Apocalypse), though apparently successive, are really parallel: the thought is thus presented under two aspects, the second fuller and more definite than the first. In the former section we read of the Baptist, sent to bear witness concerning the manifestation of the Word as the Light (vers. 6-8) ; then of the twofold results of this manifestation, but e.specially of the blessedness of those who received the V(oTd (vers. 9-13). The next section records the Incarnation of the Word (ver. 14) ; the testimony borne by the Baptist to the glory of the Incarnate Word (ver. 1.5) ; and, as before (but with greater clearness and definiteness, and from the point of view of human experience), the results of this crowning manifestation of the Word. This analysis, whilst showing the general parallelism of the thoughts in the several divisions of the Prologue, shows also that the division as hitherto indicated is insuffi- cient Ver. 14 clearly commences a new section, and yet ver. 15 (relating to the Baptist) immediately recalls the commencement of the former spciion (ver 6). If, however, ver. 14 be carefully examined, it will be seen that it stands in a definite JOHN I. [1: 1. relation to the first section, the opening words (' And the Word became flesh ') being antithetical to ver. 1, and the remainder of the verse (which sets forth generally the manifestation of the Incarnate Word) corresponding to vers. 2-5. Hence the struc- ture of the Prologue as a whole may be presented in the following tabular form: — Section I. The Wokd. (o) In Himself (ver. 1). (6) In His general manifestations (vers. 2-5). Section II. The Wokd appearing in the wokld. (a) The Baptist's general witness concerning the Word, as the Light (vers. 6-8). (5) The general results of the manifestation of the Word (vers. 9-13). Section III. The Wokd fully revealed in the Incarnation. A. (1) The Incarnate Word Himself (ver. 14 a: parallel to ver. 1). (2) The Incarnate Word in His general manifestation of Himself (ver. 14 b : pai-allel to vers. 2-5). £. The Baptist's witness, now definite and personal (ver. 15 : parallel to vers. 6-8). C. The complete results of this manifestation of the Word in the case of all who receive Him (vers. lG-18 : parallel to vers. 9-13). Ver. 1. In the beginning -was the "Word. This sublime opening of the Gospel carries our thoughts at once to the no less sub- lime opening of the Book of Genesis, whose first words the Evangelist certainly had present to his mind. He too will tell of a creation, and a creation has a ' beginning.' The words 'in the beginning,' taken by themselves, do not express the idea of eternal pre-existence ; but they leave room for it, and in this respect they stand contrasted with the phrase * from the beginning,' which often meets us in the writings of John (8 : 44 ; 1 John 1:1, 2:7, 24, 3:8). They denote simply the point of time ; and the difference of thought with which they are connected, as compared with Gen. 1 : 1, is to be found not in the meaning of * beginning,' but in the different direction which the writer takes, and in the verb which he employs. In Gen. 1 : 1, the sacred historian starts from the beginning and comes downwards, thus keep- ing us in the course of time. John starts from the same point, but goes upwards, thus taking us into the eternity preceding time. In Gen. 1 : 1, we are told that God 'in the beginning created,^ — an act done in time. Here Ave are told that 'in the beginning the Word was,' a verb strongly antithetical to 'came into being' (vers. 3, 14, comp. 8: 58), and implying an absolute existence preceding the point referred to. As that which is absolute, self-existent, not created — that which is — is eternal, so the predication of eternity is involved in the clause before us taken as a whole. He who thus * was in the begin- ning,' who, as we afterwards read, ,' was with God,' and ' was God,' here bears the name of ' the Word ' [Logos, which means both reason and word'\. In one other verse of the Prologue this name is repeated (ver. 14) ; but it does not occur again in the Gospel. Nor shall we find the term fused, as here, simply and without qualification) in any other passage of the New Testament. The nearest approach is found 1: 1.] JOHN I. in Rev. 19: 13, where the name of the righteous Conqueror and King is given as * The Word of God.' Two or more other passages may be said rather to recall to our thought the name we are considering than to present examples of its use ; see especially 1 John 1 : 1 (' the word of life,' followed by 'the life was manifested,' ver, 2), and Heb. 4: 12. Though, however, this term is not really adopted by any New Testa- ment writer except John, it is not peculiar to him in any other sense. "When he wrote, it was a familiar and current term of theology. It has sometimes, indeed, been maintained that John's usage must be taken by itself, since with very much of the theological speculation in which this term so freely occurs he can have had no sympathy. We shall see that John's usage certainly does in an important sense stand alone ; but as it is absolutely impossible that he, living at Ephesus (to say nothing of his long residence in Palestine), should have been unacquainted with the current doctrines respecting the Logos, it is inconceivable that he can have taken up the term without reference to these doctrines. Hence it is with the history of the term that we first have to do. Every careful reader of the Old Testament is struck by the prominence given in certain passages to ' the word of the Lord,' language which almost implies personal action being sometimes con- nected with this 'word.' See, for example, Ps, 38: 6, 105: 19, 107 : 20; 1 Sam. 3 : 21. The root of this usage (at all events in very many instances) is to be found in the first chapter of Genesis, where the successive acts of creation are associated with divine words (see Ps. 33: 6), Such passages as these, with their partial personifi- cation of the word of God, seem to have powerfully impressed early Jewish teaching. There was much besides in the Old Testament to strengthen this impression, — as the frequent references in the Penta- teuch to the Angel of Jehovah, and the language used of Wisdom in the Book of Proverbs (chapter 8; compare also chapters 1,3,9, and Job 28). Thus a minute study of Scripture language was the means of leading Jewish teachers to connect divine acts with some personified attribute of God rather than with God Himself, or to seek for some medium of communication between God and man where the Scriptures themselves had spoken of direct revelation or fellowship. What other influence aided this tendency of thought, we cannot here inquire. The results are patent, especially in the Targums or Chaldee paraphrases of Scripture. The dates of the several Targums which are extant have been a matter of controversy : for our purpose, how- ever, this is not of consequence, as it is acknowledged on all hands that every one of these paraphrases contains early materials. We cannot within our limits quote at length ; but a reference to the fol- lowing passages in Etheridge's translation of the Targums on the Pentateuch will show how- far the writers went in substituting 'the. Word' {3Iemra) for the name of God Himself. In the Targum of Onkelos, see Gen. 3 : 8, 28 : 20 ; Num. 23 : 4, 21 ; Deut. 9 : 3 : in that of Pseudo- Jonathan, Gen. 3:8; Num. 23: 4, 21 : in the Jerusalem Targum, besides the three last mentioned, Gea. 18 : 1 ; 16 : 13 ; JOHN I, [1: 1. 19 : 24, From the Targum of Jonathan Ben Uzziel may be quoted Isa. 63: 7; Mai. 3:1. An examination of these passages will show how familiar to Jews had become the conception of the Word of God, through whom God made Himself known to men. Very little light is thrown upon the subject by the several Apocryphal books, and hence it will not be necessary to refer to them here. It is otherwise with the writings of the great Alexandrian philosopher Philo. In these the doctrine of the Divine Word holds a prominence which it would be hard to exaggerate. Yet from the multitude of passages in which Philo speaks of the attributes and actions of the Word, it is impossible to deduce with any certainty a clear statement of doctrine. ISow the "Word seems distinctly personal, now an attribute of God personified. In some passages the idea can be traced back to the thought of ' spoken word ;' in many others Philo takes up the other meaning of the Greek word Logos, viz. reason. Hence, though Philo speaks of the universe as created through the Logos, yet in other passages the Logos is the design or the idea of creation in the mind of God. It is not necessary to carry this inquiry farther, since our only object is to collect the chief elements of thought associated with this term when John wrote. As has been said, be could not be ignorant of these various forms of teaching ; if not ignorant, he could not be indifferent on the one hand to the good, or on the other to the evil, which they contained. He recognized the various teachings as a providential preparation for the true theology. In these introductory verses he adopts the term, but so defines it as to fix its meaning for all Christians. There is One by whom the Eternal and Invisible God reveals Himself: the Eevealer is a Person : the Revealer is Himself God. Not only in outward mani- festation, but also in inward fellowship with the heart, God reveals Himself by the Word of God, who is God. In one instance John appears to take up and ratify the wider application of the term which we have noticed above. This first verse takes us beyond the region of revelation to man : when ' in the beginning,' beyond the limits of time, ' the Logos was,' the thought of ' speech ' ceases to give us any help towards grasping the meaning ; and, if we may venture to inter- pret the term at all in this application, we can only think of the human analogy by which we pass from the Uttered word to the thought or reason of the speaker. To all that John teaches respecting the Logos, the Lord's own teaching directly led. The doctrine of these verses is identical with that of chaps. 5: 19, 6: 57, 10: 30, 17 : 5, etc. The personal application of the term is not found in our Lord's discourses ; but many of those recorded in this Gospel contain remarkable examples of that exalted use of 'the word' of God to which, as we have seen, the history of this sub- lime name may ultimately be traced. — And the Word was with God: the second of the three statements made in this verse regarding the Word, and obviously higher than the first. It is impos- sible to convey in English the full force of the preposition ' with ' in the Greek, for it denotes not merely being beside, but maintaining 1: 2-4.] JOHN I. 2 was with God, and the Word was God. The same 3 was in the beginning with God. All things were made ^by* him ; and without him ^was not anything 4 made that hath been made. In him was life ; and 1 Or, through. * Substitute the marginal rendering for the text. — Am. Com. 2 Or, was not anything made. TJtat which hath been made was life in him ; and the life, dc. communion and intercourse with (comp. Mark 6 : 3 ; 1 John 1 : 2 ; 2 : 1). — And the "Word -was God : the third and highest statement respecting the Word. The Word is possessed of divine essence ; in that being in which He ' was/ He so possesses the divine attributes that He is God. There is ditterence of personality, but unity of nature. In this hast ckuse the climax of the three clauses is complete. Ver, 2. The same was in the beginning with God. ' The same' — He who has just been spoken of as God — was in the beginning ' with God : ' i. e., ' He of whom I have spoken as God, was in the beginning in active, eternal communion with God, — not simply the "Word with God, but God with God.' The elements of the thought have been given in ver. 1, but in their combination they acquire new force. The special object of these words seems to be to prepare for the next verse ; it is only when we have been taught concerning ' God with God ' that we are prepared to hear of the creation of all things through'' the Divine Word. He with whom the Divine Word 'was in the beginning ' created all through Him. Ver. 3. All things came into being through him, and apart from him not even one thing came into being. Such a combination of two clauses, the first positive, the second negative (see note on ver. 20), is characteristic of John's style. The two together assert the truth contained in them with a universality and force not otherwise attainable. .This truth is, that 'all things' — not all as a whole, but all things in the individuality which precedes their combination into a whole — came into being through this Word who is God. The preposition ' through' is that by which the relation of the Second Person of the Trinity to creation is usually expressed (1 Cor. 8:6; Col. 1 : 16; Heb. 1 : 2) ; as, indeed, this is the conception which belongs to the doctrine of the Logos, the Divine Word. Occasionally, however, the same language is used of the Father : see Heb. 2 : 10, and comp. Rom. 11 : 36. Vers. 3, 4. That which hath come into being was life in him. We are led by various considerations to take this view of the passage rather than that which is presented in the Authorized Version. The Greek admits of either punctuation (and rendering), but the absence of the article before the word 'life' suggests that it is here a predicate, not the subject of the sentence. By almost all (if not all) the Greek Fathers of the first three centuries the words were thus understood ; and we may reasonably, in such a case as this, attach great importance to the conclusions attained by that linguistic tact 6 JOHN I. [1: 3,4. ■which is often most sure where it is least able to assign distinct reasons for its verdict. Further, this division of the words corresponds best witli the rhythmical mode in which the earlier sentences of the Pro- logue are connected with one another. It is characteristic of them to make the voice dwell mainly, in each line of the rhythm, upon a word taken from the preceding line ; and this characteristic is not preserved in the case before us unless we adhere to the ancient construction. We have seen what the Word is in Himself; we are now to see Him in His relation to His creatures. Created being was ' life in Him.' He was life, life absolutely, and therefore the life that can communi- cate itself, — the infinitely productive life, from whom alone came to every creature, as He called it into being, the measure of life that it possesses. In Him was the fountain of. all life; and every form of life, known or unknown, was only a drop of water from the stream ■which, gathered up in Him before, flowed forth at His creative word to people the universe of being with the endlessly multiplied and diversified existences that play their part in it. It is not of the life of man only that John speaks, still less is it only of that spiritual and eternal life which constitutes man's true being. If the word 'life' is often used in this more limited sense in the Gospel, it is because other kinds and developments of life pass out of view in the presence of that life on which the writer especially loves to dwell. The word itself has no such limitation of meaning, and when used, as here, without anything to suggest limitation, it must be taken in its most compre- hensive sense. It was in the Word, then, that all things that have life lived ; the very physical world, if we can say of its movements that they are life, the vegetable world, the world of the lower animals, the world of men and angels, up to the highest angel that is before the throne. Ere yet they came into being, their life was in the Word who, as God, was life, and from the Word they received it when their actual being began. The lesson is the, same as that of Col. 1 : 16, 17, 'In Him were all things created,' and 4n Him all things subsist;' or, still more, of Rev. 4: 11, 'Thou didst create all things, and because of Thy pleasure they were ' (not ' are,' as in the Authorized Version), 'and they were created.'— And the life was the light of men. From the wide thought of all created existences, the Evangelist passes in these words to the last and greatest of the works of God, man, whose creation is recorded in the first chapter of Gene- sis. All creatures had ' life ' in the Word ; but this life was to man something more than it could be to others, because he had^ been created after a fashion, and placed in a sphere, peculiar to himself amidst the different orders of animated being. God said, ' Let us make man in our image, after our likeness' (Gen. 1 : 26) Man was thus capable of receiving God, and of knowing that he had received Him ; he had a sphere and a capacity belonging to none of the lower creatures spoken of in the great record of creation ; his nature was fitted to be the conscious abode, not of the human only, but of the divine. Hence the Word could be in him as in no other creature. 1 : 5.] -■ JOHN I. 5 the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in the darkness ; and the darkness ^ apprehended it 1 Or, overcame. See ch 12 ; 35 (Gr.). But the Word is God (ver. 1), and ' God is light ' (1 John 1 : 5). Thus the Word is 'light' (comp, ver, 7) ; and as man was essentially fitted to receive the Word, that Word giving life to all found in him a fitness for the highest and fullest life, — for 'light,' therefore, in its highest and fullest sense : and ' the life was the light of men.' The idea of human nature thus set forth in these words is peculiarly remarkable, and worthy of our observation, not only as a complete answer to those who bring the charge of Manicha3an dualism against the Fourth Gospel, but also to enable us to comprehend its teaching as to human responsibility in the presence of Jesus. * The life,' it is said, ' was the light of men; ' not of a class, not of some, but of all the members of the human family as such. Man's true nature, it is said, is divine : divine in this respect also, as distinguished from the divine in all creation, that man is capable of recognizing, acknowledging, seeing the divine in himself. The ' life ' becomes ' light' in him, and it does not become so in lower creatures. Man's true life is the life of the Word ; it was so originally, and he knew it to be so. If, therefore, he listens to the tempter and yields to sin (whose existence is admitted simply as a fact, no attempt being made to account for it), man cor- rupts his true nature, and is responsible for doing so. But his fall cannot destroy his nature, which still testifies to what his first condi- tion was, to what his normal condition is, to what he ought to be. Man, therefore, only fulfills his original nature by again receiving that Word who is to offer Himself to him as the ' Word become flesh.' But if man's receiving of the Word be thus the fulfilling of his nature, it is his duty to receive Him ; and this duty is impressed upon him by his nature, not by mere external authority. Hence the constant appeal of Jesus in this Gospel, not to external evidence only, but to that remaining life of the Word within us, which ought to receive the Word completely, and to hasten to the Light (comp. ver. 9). Ver. 5. And the light shineth in the darkness. The darkness here spoken of is not an original darkness coexistent with created being (ver. 3). It belongs to the development of thought begun at ver. 4, and is coexistent only with the moral process of rejecting the Word, implied, though not expressly stated, in that verse. The Word through whom all come into being offers Himself at the same time to all as their light. Let them acknowledge and accept Him, they have life (chap. 8 : 12) ; let them reject Him, they are in darkness for which they are responsible, because they have chosen it. It is a fact, however, that many always did, and still do, reject the light ; and thus the darkness has been and is a positively existing thing. Yet the light has not forsaken the world. Not merely present point of time is indicated ; in that case John could not have JOHN I. [1: 6. 6 not. There came a man, sent from God, whose name immecl lately added the past tense, overcame. The idea is general. The Light, as it had existed, had shone ; as it exists, it shines, always seeking to draw men into the full brightness of its beams. — And the darkuess overcame it not. Such is the most probable meaning of these words, and so were they understood by the most ancient Christian writers. The verb which we have rendered ' overcame ' occurs not unfrequently in the New Testament ; but (when used, as here, in the active voice) it has not, and cannot have, the meaning comprehend [i. e. understand), which is given to it in the Authorized Version. The most important guide to the meaning is chap. 12 : 35, where the same word is used, and where also the metaphor is similar: ' Walk . . . lest darkness overtake you,' — come over you, seize you. In the verse before us we read of light shining in the darkness ; the darkness, ever antagonistic to the light, yet does not overtake or come over the light. The idea of seizing, in connection with this figure, is equivalent to overcoming or intercepting the light. Even if ' compre- hend ' were possible as a translation, it would be nothing to tell us that the darkness did not comprehend the light. That is implied in the fact that the darkness is self-chosen (comp. on ver. 4). But it is much to tell us that, in the conflict between the darkness and the light, the darkness failed to overcome (or eclipse) the light. The light, though sometimes apparently overcome, was really victorious ; it withstood every assault, and shone on triumphantly in a darkened world. So far, therefore, from our finding here a 'wail' (as some have said), we have a note of exultation, a token of that victory which throughout the whole Gospel rises to our view through sorrow. We thus close ■what is obviously the first paragraph of the Gospel ; and although it relates to the Pre-incarnate AVord, and expresses the principles of His dealings in their most general form, the development of thought is precisely the same as that which the history of the Incarnate Word "will be found to present. Through the Word all things have come into being. To all He offers Himself, that He may make them not only exist in Him, but, in the free appropriation of what He offers, live in Him, Some receive Him, and He becomes their light; others reject Him, and are immersed in the darkness which they choose. The darkness opposes and seeks to destroy the light, but the light shines on to victory. Ver. 6. There arose a man, sent from God, -whose name "was John. With this verse we pass forward into the times of the Incarnate Word. The section upon which we first enter is, as com- pared with the second, general ; hence the Incarnation is only implied, not expressly mentioned. The immediate preparation for this new period is the testimony of the Baptist ; and the words with which he is introduced to us stand in striking contrast to what we have been told of the Word in ver. 1. He 'arose,' — literally, he 'came into being,' as distinguished from the ' was ' of that verse. He was a man, ' sent 1: 7-8.] JOHN I. 9 7 was John. The same came for witness, that he might bear witness of the light, that all might believe through 8 him. He was not the light, but came that he might from God,' as distinguished from the Word who was 'with God,' In adding, 'his name was John,' tlie Evangelist (we may perhaps say) does more than identify him as the great prophet who had so power- fully impressed all classes of the people. If we remember the deep siguifieance attached to ' name ' in this Gospel, it will seem possible that the antithesis to ver. 1 is still continued. The personal name needed for identification amongst men is placed in contrast with that name by which the eternal attributes of the Son are expressed, ♦ the Word' (comp. ver. 12). [It is significant that John the Evangelist calls the Baptist simply John, without the title given him by the Synoptical Evangelists to distinguish him from the son of Zebedee. One of the many indications of the Johannean orgin of the Gospel. — Ei>.] Ver. 7. The same came for witness, that he might bear witness concerning the Light, that all might believe through him. The impression produced by the Baptist had been great, but he had come to bear witness to One higher than himself. Here we meet for the first time with this word ' witness,' one of the characteristic words of the writings of John, occurring in various forms nearly fifty times in his Gospel, and thirty or forty times in his Epistles and the Apocalypse. The importance of the thought lies in its simpli- city. The true witness declares what he has seen and heard (1 John 1 : 2, 3) ; his testimony reflects ' the truth ' so far as he has received it, just as the faithful mirror reflects the light that has come upon it. John came to bear tuch witness concerning the Light, that through him all might be led to ' believe' — trustfully to accept that Light, and yield themselves up to its influence. The introduction of the word ' all ' is very remarkable. More clearly than any other passage this verse teaches us how great were the results which the Baptist's mission was intended to produce, immeasurably greater than those which were actually realized. Had Israel been faithfully and obediently waiting for the fulfilment of the divine promise, John's witness respecting Jesus would have turned 'all' Israel (and, through Israel, 'all' men) to the Saviour. In immediate eff"ects the work of John, like that of One higher than John, would be pronounced by men a failure. In the light of this verse we can better understand such passages as Mai. 4 ; Matt. 11 : 0-U ; Luke 7 : 29, 30. Yer. 8 He was not the Light, but he was that he might bear witness concerning the Light. The thought of the greatness of the witness borne by John underlies the words of this verse. Great as the Baptist was, he was not the Light. What he was is not expressed, but only the purpose which he was to fulfil (comp. ver. 23). It is very possible that the words may have had a special 10 JOHN I. [1: 9. 9 bear witness of the light. ^ There was the true light, even the light which lighteth ^ every man, coming into 1 Or, The true light, vohich lighteth every man, teas coming. * Or, every man as he cometh. application to the opinions which (as we learn from Acts 18 : 25, 19 : 3) existed at Ephesus with regard to the mission of John. Ver. 9. There "was the true Light, "which lighteth every man, coming into the world. This almost literal rendering of the Greek will show how it is that these simple words have been so variously explained. As in the English, so in the Greek, the word ♦coming' might be joined either with 'light' or with 'man.' The punctuation we have adopted (it will be remembered that in ancient manuscripts of the original there is little or no punctuation) will show that, in our view, the last clause is to be joined, not with the second, but with the first clause of the verse. What has been said above of the general structure of the Prologue has shown that, as yet, the full presence of the Word personally come is not before us. The manifes- tation is in its initial stage, not yet complete. To this thought the word 'coming' exactly corresponds. But still more important in guiding to the right interpretation of the verse is the Evangelist's use of the last phrase elsewhere. The expression 'come into the world' occurs in as many as seven other passages of this Gospel (chap. 3:19, 6: 14; 9: 39, 11:27; 12: 46; 16: 28; 18: 37). In everyone of these passages the words relate to the Lord Himself : sometimes they are used by the multitude (6: 14), or by a disciple (11: 27), as a designation of the Messiah, ' He that should come ;' sometimes tliey are the words of Jesus or of the Evangelist, in passages which speak of the purpose of His 'coming.' In chaps. 3: 19 "and 12: 46 the phrase stands in close connection with the figure which is now before ns. The latter verse (chap. 12:46) is especially noteworthy; for Jesus Himself says, ' I am come a light into the world.' If, then, we would allow the Evangelist to be his own interpreter, we seem bound to believe that he here speaks of the liffht as ' coming into the world.' If the words are joined with 'man.' they add little or nothing to the thought. ' Every man ' is really as full and inclusive an expression as ' every man that cometh into the world.' Familiarity with the common rendering may prevent the reader from at once perceiving that this is true ; but we are persuaded that reflection will show that by the change much is gained, nothing lost. In the previous verse we have read that John was not 'the Light.' When he 'arose' as a witness, the true Light was in existence ; it had been shining in the darkness ; it was now ' coming into the world,' — about to manifest itself with a clearness and in a manner hitherto unknown. Two more of the special terms of the Gospel meet us here, ' true ' and ' world.* It is unfortunate that two different words must be represented by the same English word, 'true.' The one (used in chaps. 3: 33; 5: 31, 1: 10.] JOHN I. 11 10 the world. He was in the world, and the world was and eleven other verses of the Gospel) denotes truth in contrast with falsehood ; the other, which we have before us here, expresses the real as contrasted with the phenomenal, that which is perfect and substan- tial as opposed to what is imperfect and shadowy, or that which is fully accomplished in contrast with the type which prefigured it. This word is, in the New Testament, almost confined to the writings of John. Of twenty-eight passages in which it occurs, nine are found in this Gospel, four in the First Epistle, ten in the Revelation. Three of the remaining five passages are (as might almost have been foreseen) in the Epistle to the Hebrews. The other examples of the word in this Gospel will be found in chaps. 4 : 2]. 37; 0 : 32 ; 7: 28; 8: 16; 15: 1; 17: 3 ; 19: 35, and in most of these the reader will easily trace the idea. The 'true worshippers' are tho-e whose worship is real, not imperfect and undeserving of the name ; the bread which came down from heaven is ' the true bread,' that of which the manna was a type, that which ministers real and abiding nourishment. So here we read of the archetypal source of light, the light which alone is real and perfect. — This true Light was coming into the 'world.' Originally signifying the universe created and ordered by the hand of God, ' the world ' came successively to mean the world of men, and the world of men as opposed to God. In this Gospel especially, we read of the world as an antagonistic power, unbelieving, evil in its works, hating and persecuting Jesus and His people, — a power over which He will be victorious, and which shall be convicted of sin and judged ; but we also read of God's love to the world (chap. 3 : 16), and of the gift of His Son that the world may be saved through Him. If the thought of evil and alienation is brought out in the following verse, it is most important to observe that this verse speaks of the illumination of every man. No man belongs to the world that is given up to darkness and impenitence, unless he, through resistance and choice of evil, have made the light that was in him to become darkness (comp. Eph. 4 : 18). — We cannot doubt that in the words 'every man' there is an allusion to John ('a man sent from God') as himself illumined by this Light. Ver. 10. He was in the -world, and the world came into being through him, and the world knew him not. The sub- ject is still the Light, which (ver. 9) was existent, and was 'coming into the world.' In the world, indeed, it was already (though the complete manifestation was yet to come), and— here the figure passes imperceptibly away, giving place to the thought of the Person — the world, though brought into being through Him, recognized not His presence. Note the simplicity of John's style, in which the three thoughts of the verse, thoufirh very various in their mutual relations, are, so to speak, placed side by side. These words relate both to the Pre-incarnate and to the Incarnate Word. The development is rather of thought than of time. Alike before His manifestation in the flesh 12 JOHN I. [1: 11-12. 11 made ^ by * hira, and the world knew him not. He came unto ^his own, and they that were his own 12 received him not. But as many as received him, to them gave he the right to become children of God, 1 Or, througli. - Gr. hh own things. * Substitute the margiual rendering fur the text.— ^m. Com. and after it, the Word was * in the world.' The statement must not be limited to the manifestation of Christ in Israel. This verse is a repetition, in a more concrete form, of vers. 3-5 (in part). Ver, 11. He came unto his o-wn home, and his own ac- cepted him not. Is this verse practically a repetition of ver. 10, in language more solemn and emphatic ? Or do we here pass from the thought of the world in general to that of the Jewish people? The question is one of some dithculty. As ver. 12 is certainly quite general in its meaning, it may seem hazardous to introduce a limitation here. But the weight of argumeiit seems on the whole to be on the other side. There is a manifest advance of thought as we pass from the last verse to this. Instead of ' He was in,' we find ' He came unto ;' for 'the world,' we have 'His own home;' for 'knew' (perceived or recognized), we have ' accepted.' Every change seems to point to a more intimate relationship, a clearer manifestation, and a rejection that is still more without excuse. The Word, who was in the world (comp. Prov. 8: 31), had His home with the chosen people (Ex. 19: 5; Ps. 76: 2), to which had been given the revelation of the truth of God (Rom. 9: 4). It is still mainly of the Pre-incarnate Word that John speaks. In the whole history of Israel had been illustrated unfaithfidness to the truth (comp. Luke 11: 49, 50; Acts 7: 51-53); and the tender pathos of this verse recalls the words in which Jesus speaks of the rejection of Himself (Matt. 23 : 37). Ver. 12. But as many as received him, to them gave he right to become children of God, even to them that believe in his name. We have beheld the light shining in the darkness (vers. 10, 11) ; the thought of this verse is, that the darkness overcame it not ! As we have already seen (see note on ver. 11), the language again becomes altogether general. Whosoever 'received Him,' to whatever period of time or nation they might belong, won the gift here spoken of. There is a perceptible diiference between ' accepted ' (ver. 11) and ' received,' as here used. Whilst the former lays emphasis on the will that consented (or refused) to receive, the latter brings before us the possession gained ; so that the full meaning is, As many as by accepting Him received Him. The gift is not directly stated as ' son- ship.' perhaps because the full manifestation of this blessing belongs to the latter, days alone (comp on chaps 3: 5; 7: 39; Rom. 8: 15), whereas the Evangelist would here include the time of incomplete revelation which came before the Incarnation. Then, as now, men accepted or refused Him ; but for those who accepted was reserved 1 : 13.] JOHN I. 13 13 even to them that believe on his name : which were ^born, not of ^ blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor 1 Or, begotten. 2 Gr. hloods. 'some better thing' (Heb. 11: 40) than had yet been clearly made known to man. — We must not fail to note (for in these wonderful verses everything is significant) that there is special fitness in the expression * children' rather than ' sons of God;' for, whereas ' sonship ' is often spoken of in connection with mere adoption, stress is here laid on an actual (though spiritual) paternity. The right or authority thus to become children of God is given by the Word ' to them that believe in His name.' It is very important to discriminate between the diiferent phrases which John uses in relation to belief or faith. On the one hand we have the simple expression 'to believe Him' (as in chaps. 8 : 31 ; 5 : 38, etc.), usually denoting the acceptance of something said as true. On the other hand, we find very frequently in the New Testament, but especially in the writings of John, a remarkable com- bination of 'believe' with a preposition literally meaning 'into,' by which is denoted not merely an acceptance of woi'ds or professions, but such an acceptance of the Person trusted, such an approach of the heart towards Him, as leads to union with Him. This peculiarly Christian formula is by some rendered ' believe in,' by others ' believe on.' Both renderings are found in the Authorized Version. We have uniformly adopted the former, because it most clearly indicates the union towards which the faith tends. — There are a few passages (see ch. 2 : 23 ; 3 : 18 ; and John 5 : 13) in which, as here, this phrase ' believe in' is followed by ' the name.' We have already seen with what fulness of meaning John uses the word ' name.' As in many passages of the Old Testament the ' name ' expresses the sum of the qualities which mark the nature or character of a person (comp. Ex. 84: 5, 6). It is hard to fix the precise distinction between 'believing in Him' and 'believ- ing in His name.' Perhaps we may say that, in the former case, the believer trustfully yields himself up to the Person, in the latter, to the revelation of the Person. Those who in chap. 2: 23 are spoken of as believing 'in the name' of Jesus, had not reached the personal union which believing in Jesus implies ; but through their trustful accept- ance of His revelation of Himself, the higher gift, the closer know- ledge, might soon be gained. Here the ' name' cannot but recall ver. 1: the 'name' Word expressed the nature of the Person (comp. ver. G). Ver. 13. Whicli -were begotten, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. The spiritual history of those who are spoken of in ver. 12 is here contin- ued, and the nature of their sonship more fully defined. It is easy to see that in the three'clauses there is a distinct progress of thought, the second (containing the thought of ' will') being more definite than the first, the third (in which 'man' is substituted for 'flesh,' — a person 14 JOHN I. [1 : 14. 14 of the will of man, but of God. And the word became flesh, and Mwelt among us (and we beheld his glory, glory as of ^the only begotten from the 1 Gr. tabernacled. ' Or, an only begotten from a father. for human nature in general) being again more definite than the se- cond. The three clauses, however, really express but one main idea ; •what that is must be learnt from the contrast in the closing words — ' but (they were begotten) of God.' These believers have received the right to become ' children of God ' by virtue of a true spiritual filia- tion, being begotten of God. The contrast to such a sonship is the very claim which is so strongly made by the Jews in chap. 8, and the validity of which our Lord altogether denies. The recollection of that chapter, which only brings into bold relief the habitual assumption of the Judaism of that day, will be sufficient to explain the remarkable emphasis of this verse, the threefold denial that men become children of God by virtue of any natural hereditary descent. — Although it is the claim of the Jews that is here in the writer's thought, yet, as often elsewhere, the Jews are the type of the world at large ; by others be- sides Jews like presumptuous claims have been made, others have rested in the ' divinity' of their race. It is very possible that the pe- culiarity of the first clause (literally 'not of bloods') may be thus ex- plained. Ver. 14. And the Word became flesh. With this verse we enter upon the fuller and more concrete aspect of the Word appearing among men. As personally come in the flesh, however, the Word con- trasts with what He was in His pre-existent state; and hence, before we have the Baptist introduced to us, we have statements exactly par- allel to those of vers. 1-5. That now before us corresponds to ver. 1, for the Incarnate Word in Himself is here spoken of. He who was in the beginning, who was with God, who was God, ' became flesh ; ' did not merely take to Him a human body, did not merely become an in- dividual man, but assumed human nature in its entireness (see chaps. 12: 27. 'soul;' 13: 21. 'spirit'), identified Himself with the race, en- tered into such a condition that He could have perfect communion and fellowship with us, and we with Him. The word ' became ' does not denote that His divine nature was laid aside, and that His mode of being was simply human until, in the accomplishment of His work, He gradually transformed His human mode of being and regained for it all the glory of the divine. Were such a view correct, it would follow that when the divine was regained the human was laid aside, and that the humanity of the exalted Redeemer is not now as real as it was during His earthly course. No such thought is suggested by * be- came; ' for this word does not imply that the former state of being ex- ists no longer. What is really indicated is th& passing into a new state, — a transition rather than a transformation. The Word re- mains, with all His essential properties; there is added a new mode of 1: 14.] JOHN I. 15 being, the assumption of a new nature, denoted by ' flesh.' The most impoBtant parallels to this verse are 1 John, 4: 2, and 2 John, 7 ; these passages differ from the present in that the historical name 'Jesus Christ ' is substituted for the Word, and that for the mysterious words 'became flesh' we read 'hath come' (or 'cometh') 'in flesh.' — And he set his tabernacle among us, and we beheld his glory (glory as of an only begotten from a father), — full of grace and truth. As the first clause of this verse corresponded to verse 1, so these clauses correspond to vers. 2-5; only that, whereas there we had those properties of the Word in virtue of which He gives life and light in their most general form to all, here we have those in virtue of which, as the now completed revelation of the Father, He carries this life and light onward to perfection in such as truly receive Him. Still, however, it is the glory of the Word in Himself that is before us ; if men are introduced in the words which follow as beholders of His glory, it is that our thought may rest, not on the blessing man thus receives (that is expressed below, vers. 16-18), but on the witness borne to the glory of the Incarnate Word. Ihe figure of this verse is taken from the Old Testament (Lev. 26: 11; Ezek. 37: 27, etc.); the Tabernacle was the meeting-place of God and Israel, the house in which Jehovah dwelt in the midst of His people. With the image of a tent or tabernacle is often associated the thought of transitoriness ; but that the word used here does not necessarily carry with^t this thought is sufficiently proved by the language of the final promise, * The tabernacle of God is with men, and He shall set His tabernacle with them.' (Rev. 21 : 3). As the Shechinah dwelt in the Tabernacle, in the midst of the camp of Israel, so 'the Word become flesh' dwelt * among us.' Some have taken the last words to mean ' in us,' and to contain a new reference to the assumption of human nature ; but this view seems plainly inconsistent with the words which follow, 'we be- held His glory,' the meaning of which is fixed by the opening passage in the First Epistle (1 John 1 : 1-3). The glory was like that of an only son sent from a father ; no image but this, it has been well said, 'can express the two-fold character of the glory, as at once derivative and on a level with its source,' In the only son are concentrated all the characteristics of the father; on him all the father's love is poured ; to him belongs the whole inheritance ; on him the father, when he sends him forth on an embassy, bestows all the plenitude of his power. The translation we have given is, we believe, that which the Greek words absolutely demand; it appears to us, moreover, to be the only render- ing that gives meaning to the word of comparison 'as,' or preserves the progress of the Evangelist's thought. As yet there has been no word bringing in the thought of Divine Sonship. The attributes and working of the Divine Word have been continually before us ; here the glory of the Word become flesh is compared with that of an only son sent from a father ; but it is not until ver. 18 that these elements are combined into one supreme utterance of truth. The last words of the verse must be connected with the subject of the sentence: 'He (the 16 JOHN I. [1: 15. 15 Father), full of grace and truth. John beareth witness of him, and crieth, saying, VThis was he of 1 Some ancient authorities read {this was he that said). Word) set His tabernacle among us, full of grace and truth.' They go far towards explaining the 'glory' which the disciples 'beheld.' That the Word has been from the beginning of the woi-ld's history the bestower of 'grace and truth' is implied in the imagery of the earlier verses (vers. 4, 9) ; that which has been involved in the teaching re- specting the pre-incarnate Word is clearly stated here of the Word be- come flesh. But this fulness of grace and truth does not exhaust the meaning of the ' glory.' In the glory of the Incarnate Word there are two elements, as His one Person unites two natures: in part the glory is unique (in kind and not only in degree), belonging to the God-man and not to the perfect Man ; in part it is communicable to men, as Jesus Himself says, ' The glory which Thou gavest me I have given them.' Ver. 15. John beareth -witness concerning him, and hath cried, saying. This was he of whom I spake. He that com- eth after me has become before me, because he w^as before me. We have seen that ver. 14 is parallel to vers. 1-5. In like man- ner this verse is parallel to vers. 6-8 ; but it is also an advance upon those verses containing the Baptist's witness to the Personal Word be- come flesh, not to the Word as the general Light of men. — 'Beareth witness,' not 'bare witness' (ver. 32). It is as if the Evangelist would say, Of this John is the witness ; his testimony abides, un- changing, always present. The same thought comes out more distinctly still in the verb which follows, ' hath cried.' (The usual translation ' crieth' seems on vai'ious grounds less probable.) The loud cry of the faithful witness has come down through all the years ; we seem to hear its echoes still. The Baptist clearly refers to witness which he had borne after Jesus appeared; hence the words, ' This ivas he.' It is un- usually difficult to find a rendering that will fully convey the meaning of this verse. As the word 'before' occurs in two members of the verse, the English reader inevitably considers the contrast to be be- tween 'is preferred' (or 'is become') and 'he was.' In reality, 'be- fore' here answers to two different words. A literal translation will show at once the meaning and the difficulty of finding an easy expres- sion of the meaning : ' He that cometh behind me has become in front of me, because he was before me.' Jesus came ' after ' or ' behind ' John, as coming later in His manifestation to the world. As the later in time, it might have been expected that He would take rank after him who was His predecessor ; but He has been advanced before John; the reason of this is given in John's declaration, ' He was be- fore me.' That which these words directly affirm is priority of time; but, as in respect of human birth this could not be affirmed of Jesus, the words bring into view a pre-existence so transcendent as of itself to assert an infinite superiority to every other man. This anterior 1 : 16.] JOHN I. 17 whom I said, He that cometh after me is become before 16 me : for he was ^ before me. For of his fulness we all 1 Gr. first in regard of me. dignity explains why He that followed John has come to be before Him. The herald came first to prepare the way for the King ; when the King arrives, the herald retires from view. The last words of the verse require further notice. They are not fully represented by * be- fore me,' as if they contained nothing beyond a comparison of Jesus with the Baptist. The former word is absolute, ' He was first ; ' the other word is added because a comparison is needed, * first in regard of me.' We might almost paraphrase the very remarkable combination thus : First, and (by consequence) before me. Ver. 16. Because out of his fulness we all received, and grace for grace. In order to understand this verse, and especially the very difficult word ' because,' with which the true reading of the verse begins, we must look at the structure of the whole passage. Along with vers. 17 and 18, this verse is parallel to vers. 9-13; and ver. 14, as we have seen, answers to vers. 1-5. The last verse in like manner stands related to vers. 6-8 ; and, as these verses are intro- duced between ver. 5 and ver. 9, — which might be read continuously, the subject remaining the same,— so is ver. 15 almost parenthetical, bringing in (as in the earlier verses) the witness of John before the statement of the results following the manifestation of the Word. The words ' we all received' and * His fulness' are sufficient to show that the verse is a continuation of the thought cf ver. 14, and belongs to the Evangelist, not to the Baptist. If, then, ver, 15 is parenthetical, the present verse is naturally introduced by the word ' because.' We have here an illustration of the extreme importance which John at- taches to Christian experience. In ver. 9 we have had the/aci of what the Word bestows. Here we have more. We have the answer of Christian experience to the fact. We have not merely the light light- ening, but the light appropriated, its value appreciated, its power felt. Verse 14 had not described Christian experience. The word ' be- held' there used had only assumed it (see the comment), and had mentioned the witness which it gave. Now we have the description itself: hence the ' because.' We beheld the glory of the Word become flesh, and are able to speak of that glory, ' became out of His fulness,' etc. The last stage of the Prologue is thus reached, because the high- est point of thought is attained. No more can be paid when the ap- propriation of the Word is complete. The fulness spoken of is that of grace and truth, which so reside in the Incarnate Word that nothing more can be added. It is an absolute, not a comparative fulness, — a proof again that no part of that fulness is to be won back in the pro- gress of the Messianic work. That fulness resides in the 'Word be- come flesh,' as such. ' Out of ' it ' we all' — believers who beheld His glory, among whom He set His tabernacle — received. The thing is past. We received Him (ver. 12). When we received Him, He com- 18 JOHN I. [1 : 17-18. 17 received, and grace for grace. For the law was given iby* Moses; grace and truth came ^by Jesus Christ. 18 No man hath seen God at any time ; ^ the only begot- 1 Or, through. - Many very ancient authorities read God only begotten. ♦Substitute the marginal rendering for the text. — Am. Com. municated Himself to us. His fulness, so far as we could receive it, was made ours. Hence it is not said what we received ; because it was not a gift bestowed by His fulness, but the measure of that ful- ness itself which we were capable of receiving. We are thus led also to the clear meaning of the last clause of the verse, ' and grace for grace.' Not exactly ' grace upon grace,' as if the meaning were suc- cessive measures of grace, one added to another ; but grace given in fresh measure as each preceding measure has been improved, the ' ful- ness' constantly more and more made ours until we 'are fulfilled unto all the fulness of God' (Eph. 3: 19). It is Christian experience again. Ver. 17. Because the la-w -was given through Moses : grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. It is very possi- ble that this verse should be taken as directly parallel to ver. 11 ; hence the definite reference to the Y)re-Christian revelation here (see note on ver. 11). The thought of Christian experience again explains the connection of this verse with the preceding. The law is not un- dervalued. It was divine. It was a gift of God. It was a gift through the great Lawgiver of whom Israel was proud. But it was a fixed, unalterable thing, with definite boundaries, not stretching out into the illimitable and eternal. It could not express unbounded grace and truth, unbounded Jove, because in its very nature law has limits which it cannot pass. Now, however, there has 'come' (a far higher word than 'was given') a fulness of grace and truth, within which we stand, and which we are to appropriate more and more, — vast, illimitable, as is that God who is love. Hence, therefore, the experience of ver. 16 is possible. It will be noted that the two thoughts of this verse are placed side by side (see ver. 10), though in reality the first is subordinate to the second. And now comes in the great Name as jet unnamed, but named now in all the universality of its application, the Name which embraces historical Christianity in its whole extent as the religion both of Jew and Gentile, the religion of man, — the name which, in its one half ('Jesus,' Joshua, Jehoshua, 'Jehovah is Salvation,') expresses the purpose of all God's dealings with man, and in its other half ('Christ') the divine consecration of the Redeemer to His work. The verbs of this verse are used with great propriety, — 'was given' of what was incidental in origin and temporary in duration ; ' came' (literally ' became') of what, though revealed in time, was an eternal reality. One reflection alone remains, and then the Prologue may close. Ver. 18. No one hath seen God at any time ; One -who is only begotten God, he that is in the bosom of the Father, 1: 18.] JOHN I. 19 ten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him. he declared him. It is not possible in a commentary such as this to defend the reading which we here adopt, 'God' instead of 'Son.' But the passage is so extremely important that we may be permitted for once to depart from our usual practice of not referring to other writers, and to commend to our readers one of the finest critical Dis- sertations ever published in any language upon a reading of the New Testament. We refer t3 that by Dr. Hort of Cambridge upon this text (London, 1876). We add only that by thus reading we pre- serve an important characteristic of the structural principles of our Evangelist, that which leads him at the close of a section or a period to return to its beginning. The word ' God ' here corresponds to ' God' in ver. 1, 'No one hath seen God at any time.' The contrast is to 'we beheld' in ver. 14, and the words describe God in his nature as God; He dwelleth in light that is inaccessible. The soul longs to see Him, but this cannot be. Is, then, its longing vain, its cry unheard? The Evangelist answers, No. One has 'declared' Him, has, as the Word, unfolded and explained Him. And the glorious fitness of the Word to do this is pointed out in three pai-ticulars, all showing how fitly He could do that which none other could do. (1) He is 'only begotten,' Son among all other sons in His own peculiar sense, who is fully able to repi-esent the Father, to whom all the perfections of the Father flow. (2) He is God, not only Son, but, as Son, God, — Him- self divine, not in a metaphorical sense, but possessing all the attri- butes of true and real divinity. (3) It is He who ' is in the bosom of the Father.' The climax of thought, and the consideration that here are mentioned the conditions which make it possible for .Jesus to be the complete Interpreter of the Father, preclude our taking these words as referring to the state which succeeded the resurrection and ascension, — in the sense, ' He that hath returned to the bosom of the Father.' He of whom the Evangelist speaks is more than ' only be- gotten,' more than ' God.' He is ' in the bosom of the Father.' In Him God is revealed as a Father; without Him He can be revealed only as God. The words thus include more than 'with God' in ver. 1, more than the Divine self-communion, the communion of God with God. The fatherly element, the element of love, is here. Out of that element of love, or of grace and truth, the Son comes ; into it He re- turns. It is of the very essence of His being so to do. He did so from eternity. He did so in time. He shall do it in the eternity to come. Not less does it belong to the profoundest depths of His nature to do so, than to be ' only begotten,' to be ' God.' Therefore is He fully qualified to declare the Father, whom to know as thus made known in Jesus Christ (ver. 17) is that ' eternal life' after which the heart of man feels, and in the pos-ession of Avhich alone is it com- pletely blessed (comp. 17: 3 ; 2!J: 31). One remark has still to be made upon a point which may seem at first sight to interfere with the 20 JOHN I. [1: 19. Chapter I. 19-34. The Witness of the Baptist to Jesus. 19 And this is the witness of John, when the Jews sent unto him from Jerusalem priests and Levites to correctness of that view of the structure of the Prologue which (as we have seen) is not only a matter of interest, but also a guide in the in- terpretation. There is no mention of the rejection of the Word in vers. 14-18. But this fact when rightly considered rather confirms what has been said. It illustrates that progress which in this Gospel always accompanies parallelism. In vers. 1-5, the first section of the Prologue, we have seen that rejection is implied. In vers. 6-13, the second section, it is fully brought out. In vers. 14-18, the third sec- tion, it is overcome. Thus also, taking the Gospel as a whole, it is implied in the section immediately preceding the Conflict (chaps. 2 : 12 ; 4: 54). It is fully brought out in the section of Conflict (chaps. 6: 1 ; 12: 50). It is overcome in the section following (chaps. 13: 1 ; 17:26). How unique, how wonderful is the plan of the Gospel! How much light does the whole cast upon each part, how much each part upon the whole I The Witness of the Baptist to Jesus. — Vers. 19-34. Contents. — We enter here upon the second great division of the Gospel, extending from 1: 19 to 2: 11, and containing the presentation of Jesus, as He takes His place in the field of human history and, alike in the witness borne to Him by the Baptist and in His manifestation of Himself to His disciples, shows us what He is. When we know Him we shall be prepared to follow Him as he enters upon and accomplishes His work in the world. That work, in the proper sense of the word, does not yet be- gin. The first section of this division extends from 1 : 19 to 1 : 34, and contains the witness of the Baptist. Tiie subordinate parts of this section are — (1) vers. 19-28, the witness by the Baptist on the first day spoken of; (2) vers. 29-34, His witness on the second day. Ver. 19. And this is the witness of John, when the Jews sent unto him from Jerusalem priests and Levites to ask him, Who art thou? The preceding verses (1-18) are so strongly marked in character, and so distinctly constitute one coherent whole, that we cannot but place them in a section by themselves. And yet they do not form a distinct preface to the book (such, for example, as we find in Luke 1 : 1-4), for the first word of the present verse (with which the regular narrative commences) shows that this section must be connected with what goes before. It is possible that this connec- tion is really very close. The words ' this is the witness of John' do not necessarily mean 'this witness which follows is the witness of John ;' the Evangelist's ordinary usage in similar cases suggests that the sense intended is rather, ' And of this kind — confirmatory of the pre- 1: 19.] JOHN I. 21 ceding statements — is the witness,' etc. Such an interpretation best accounts for the use of the present tense, ' this is,' (comp. ver. 15), standing in striking contrast to the past tenses which immediately follow ; it also throws light on the remarkably emphatic words which form the iirst half of ver. 20. Thus viewed, the present section at- taches itself to ver. 15 ; what is there given in a general form is now related with greater fulness in connection with the circumstances of the history. The ' witness ' directly intended is that of vers. 19-27 ; but we must also include the very important testimony borne on the following day, especially tbat of vers. 33, 34, which presents (in a diiferent form) some of the leading truths of the Prologue. As in the earlier Gospels, the mission of Jesus is introduced by the Baptist ; the peculiarity of John's narrative consists in this, that the Baptist's tes- timony is obtained in answer to a question asked by ' the Jews,' who send a deputation to him 'from Jerusalem,' the centre of the theoc- racy. In this mention of *the Jews' we meet for the first time with one of the most characteristic terms of the Fourth Gospel. In the other Gospels the expression occurs only fifteen or sixteen times, and twelve of these instances are examples of a single phrase, ' King of the Jews,' and that phrase used by Gentiles. The remaining passages are Mark 7:3; Luke 7:3, 23: 51; and Matt. 28: 15 (slightly difi'erent from the rest in the absence of the article). In this Gospel— in addi- tion to six examples of the title ' King of the Jews,' used as in the other Gospels — we find more than fifty passages in which the Evan- gelist himself (not quoting from any Gentile) speaks of ' the Jews.' Had the author of this Gospel been a Gentile, this usage might have seemed very natural ; but it is no less natural in the case of a writer who, though a Jew by birth, has long been severed from his country- men through their rejection of his Lord. The leaders and represen- tatives of the nation in this rejection of Jesus are those whom John usu- ally designates as ' the Jews.' When the other Gospels speak of opposi- tion on the part of Pharisees, chief priests, elders, scribes, Sadducees, or lawyers, John (who mentions none of these classes except Phari- sees and chief priests, and these not very frequently) is wont to use this general term. The mass of the people, the led as contrasted with the leaders, he speaks of as * the multitude,' or ' the multitudes.' Hence in most of the passages in which we meet with 'the Jews,' we must understand the party possessed of greatest influence in the na- tion, the representatives of Judaism, the leaders in opposition to Jesus. Even where the term is used in a wider sense, it does not simply designate the nation ; when employed by the Evangelist him- self, it almost always bears with it the impress of one thought — that of general unfaithfulness, of a national depravation which culminated in the crucifixion of the Lord Jesus. There is nothing to indicate that the deputation here spoken of was sent by the Sanhedrin ; but it appears to have been formal and important, composed as it was of persons belonging to the two classes which, in the Old Testament, rep- 22 JOHN I. [1 : 20, 21. 20 ask him, Who art thou ? And he confessed, and de- nied not; and he confessed, I am not the Christ. 21 And they asked him, What then ? Art thou Elijah ? And he saith, I am not. Art thou the prophet? resent the service of the Temple (Josh. 3: 3 ; 2 Chron. 30: 27 ; Ezek. 44: 15). If we add to this the fact that, as appears from ver. 24, Pharisees also were present, tlie striking character of the scene before us will be manifest. On the one side is the Baptist, standing alone in the startling strangeness of his prophetic mission ; on the other are all who either possessed or had assumed religious authority in Israel — the Jews, the priests, the Levites, and the Pharisees. The question 'Who art thou?' has reference to the supposed personal claims of the Baptist. Might it not be that one who had so suddenly appeared in the wilderness, and who had produced go profound an effect upon all classes, was the very Messiah anxiously waited for at this time? Compare Luke 3: 15. Ver. 20. And he confessed, and denied not. And he con- fessed, I am not the Christ. The answer of the Baptist is report- ed with great solemnity. The effect of the double statement, ' he con- fessed, and denied not' (comp. ver. 3; 1 John 2: 4, 27) is to give peculiar impressiveness to the words : St. John thus brings into relief the single-minded faithfulness of the Baptist, and at the same time corrects mistaken opinions as to the character of his mission (see note on ver. 8). In the reply itself the first word is strongly emphatic, *It is not I who am the Christ.' The Baptist thus prepares the way for the further statements which he is to make with the view of guid- ing his hearers to that Christ who is come, and whom with gradually increasing clearness he is to proclaim. Ver. 21. And they asked him. What then ? Art thou Elijah ? And he saith, I am not. The question was a natural one, for the thought of the coming of Elijah was intimately associated with that of the coming of Messiah (Mai. 4: 5). The answer seems less natural, for our Lord, when He spoke of the Baptist, described him as 'Elijah who was to come' (Matt. 11: 14). It is possible that even the Baptist himself did not know that he was 'Elijah' in this latter sense, and hence could reply without hesitation that he is not that prophet.— Art thou the prophet ? And he answered, No. A third supposition is tried. Is he ' the prophet ? ' A com- parison of 1: 25 and 7: 40, 41, with 6: 14, 15, seems to lead to the conclusion that there were at this time two currents of opinion with regard to the coming prophet (Deut. 18: 15), the one distinguishing him from the Messiah, the other maintaining that the two characters would be united in ' him that should come.' But that a prophet would certainly appear at the opening of the Messianic age was expected by all. Hence the question, as now put, covered the only other suppo- sition that could explain the important position which the Baptist had 1 : 22-24.] JOHN I. 23 22 And he answered, No. They said therefore unto him, Who art thou ? that we may give an answer to them that sent us. What sayest thou of thyself? 23 He said, I am the voice of one crying in the wilder- ness, Make straight the way of the Lord, as said Isa- 24 iah the prophet. ^ And they had been sent from the ^Or, And certain had been sent from among the Pharisees. assumed, and which appeared to indicate that he was introducing a new era. But the main point with the Baptist is to show that, strictly- speaking, he is simply the herald of that era. He is only to prepare the way for Him in whom it both begins and is completed (comp. 3Iatt. 11 : 11-13). The new supposition is accordingly repudiated in terms as emphatic as before. Ver. 22. They said therefore unto him, Who art thou? that we may give an answer to them that sent us. What sayest thou of thyself? The Baptist has disowned the three sup- positions that have been made. He is not 'the Christ,' not 'Elijah,' not ' the prophet.' The deputation now appeal directly to himself to state who he is. Ver. 23. He said, I am a voice of one crying in the w^il- derness, Make straight the way of the Lord, as said the prophet Isaiah. The words are from Isa. 40 : 3, and, though slightly modified in form, they completely express the sense of the original passage. To captive Israel, whose warfare is now accom- plished, whose iniquity is pardoned, the glorious approach of her Deliverer is proclaimed. He comes to lead back His people through the desert to their own land. The herald's voice sounds in the desert, announcing the coming of the King, commanding that all obstacles be removed from the course of His triumphal march, and that through the wilderness there be made a highway for the Deliverer and for the people whom He has set free. The Baptist takes the words in their true application to the Messianic deliverance and kingdom. He speaks of himself as the herald, or rather as the herald's voice ; as in ver. 8, his personality, so to speak, is swallowed up in the message which he came to bring. Ver. 24. And some from among the Pharisees had been sent. We cannot doubt that these words are introduced to lead on to the following statement, rather than to give completeness to the ac- count of the preceding verses. It is not necessary, however, to think of a second and entirely new deputation. The persons now intro- duced may have formed part of the first body of questioners. But the point of special interest to them is that which meets us in ver. 25, rather than that already spoken of. They were Pharisees, and the Pharisees considered themselves the guardians of the ordinances of religious worship among their countrymen. Hence the significance 24 JOHN I. [1 : 25-27. 25 Pharisees. And they asked him, and said unto him, AYhy then baptizest thou, if thou art not the Christ, 26 neither Elijah, neither the prophet ? John answer- ed them, saying, I baptize ^ with w^ater : in the midst 27 of you standeth one whom ye know not, even he that cometh after me, the latchet of w^hose shoe I am not 1 Or, w. of the statements in 4 : 1,9: 13-15, 12 : 42 ; and also of the question which is now addressed to the Baptist, That question does not ne- cessarily indicate a hostile bearing towards him ; nor during the ear- lier part of the life of Jesus do the Pharisees in general appear to have opposed the Saviour in the same manner as the 'Jews' (comp. on 3: 1, 7: 32). A^er. 25. And they asked him, and said unto him, "Why baptizest thou then, if thou art not the Christ, nor Elijah, nor the prophet ? The ' Jews,' the representatives of the theo- cratic spirit of the people, had been mainly concerned about the posi- tion of the Baptist in relation to the national hopes. Could it be that he was about to assume the government of the nation, and lead it to victory? The Pharisees concern themselves more about the rite ad- ministered by Lhe Baptist. It is the baptism of persons belonging to the chosen people that startles them. They might have viewed his baptism without surprise had he invited to it those only who were be- yond the pale of Israel. But that one who, by his own confession, was neither the Christ, nor Elijah, nor the prophet, should thus ad- minister a rite symbolical of cleansing to those who, as Jews, were already clean, this it was that threw them into perplexity. On the significance of John's baptism, see notes on chap. 3: 5, and Matt. 3:6. Vers. 26, 27. John answered them, saying, I baptize in ■water. The meaning of the Baptist's answer has been greatly ob- scured by the insertion of ' but ' after these words. It has thus been supposed that the object of the Baptist is to depreciate his baptism by bringing it into comparison with the baptism in the Spirit adminis- tered by Jesus. The two baptisms, however, are not as yet compared with one another. What John depreciated was himself, not the rite which he administered; and at ver. 31 he expressly magnifies his baptism, and points out its high prophetic significance. From this last-mentioned verse the import of the present clause must be deter- mined. Even now John means, I baptize in water that I may call at- tention to Him whose way I am commissioned to prepare. For this purpose I am a ' voice of one that crieth ; ' for this purpose also ' I baptize in Avater.' — In the midst of you standeth one "whom ye know not, coming after me, the latchet of whose san- dal I am not worthy to unloose.. Now follows the great fact explanatory of all this divine work of preparation, that the One waited 1: 28,29.] JOHN I. 25 28 worthy to unloose. These things were done in ^ Bethany beyond Jordan, where John was baptizing. 29 On the morrow he seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith. Behold the Lamb of God, w^hich ^taketh 1 Many ancient authorities read Bethabarah, some Betharabah. 2 Or, beareth the sit'. for is come. Three stages of His manifestation, however, are to be marked ; and as yet we have only reached the first, ' He standeth in the midst of you. ' So standing, He is distinguished by three charac- teristics : (i) 'Ye know' Him ' not,' — the 'ye' being emphatic, ye to whom He would gladly reveal Himself: (2) He cometh 'after me' (see ver. 15) : (3) His glory is so great that the Baptist is not worthy to unloose the latchet of His sandal. On the last words see note on Mark 1 : 7. Such is the first testimony of the Baptist to Jesus. The fuller testimonies have yet to come. At this point, therefore, the nar- rative pauses to tell us that this testimony was given at the very place where the Baptist was at the moment making so profound an impres- sion upon the people. Ver. 28. These things -were done in Bethany beyond Jordan. There can be no doubt that Bethabara is not the true read- ing in this verse. Origen, writing in the third century, states that he found Bethany in almost all copies of the Gospel. This statement is decisive. It cannot be set aside, nor indeed is it even lessened in weight, by the fact that Origen himself, owing to his inability to iden- tify Bethany, believed Bethabara to be the place intended. The exist- ence of another Bethany, near Jerusalem, presents no difficulty, as it was not uncommon for two places to bear the same name. The in- stances of Bethsaida (Luke 9: 10; Mark 6: 45), Carmel, Caesarea, etc., are well known. It is even possible that the two names, though alike written Bethania in Greek, may in their original Hebrew form have been difi"erent words; just as, for instance, the 'Abel' of Gen. 4 : 2 is altogether different in actual form from the ' Abel ' of 2 Sam. 20 : 14. This Bethany may have been small and unimportant ; Beth- abara, on the other hand, seems to have been so well known that the addition of the words ' beyond Jordan ' would have been less natural. Of the situation of Bethany we know no more than we are told in this verse (comp. chap. 2: 1). It has been variously placed — near Jericho, near Scythopolis (a few miles south of the sea of Galilee), and by one recent writer, Caspari, a little to the north of that sea. The last opinion seems the least probable of the three. The second testimony of the Baptist is now presented to us. Ver. 29. The next day he seeth Jesus coming unto him. The ' day ' is that immediately following the day of the first testimony, and the climactic arrangement of the narrative is already perceptible. Already Jesus is in a different position. On the previous day He was spoken of as ' coming after ' John ; now He is ' coming unto ' Him. 26 JOHN I. [1: 29. Then He stood unknown, unrecognized, amidst the throng ; now He is expressly pointed out by His forerunner. Then it was His eleva- tion above John that was expressed ; now it is the greatness of His work in itself. — And saith, Behold the Lamb of God, -which taketh away the sin of the "world. The translation of this clause has been disputed (see the margin of the Authorized Version), but without good reason. The idea of ' taking ' or ' bearing ' sin is indeed of very common occurrence in the Old Testament ; but it is not expressed by the word here used, which denotes taking away, removal. In meaning, however, the two renderings would almost coincide, since the metaphor of the verse is sacrificial : in the thought of hearing sin as an atoning sacrifice is involved the removal of the punishment de- served and of the sin itself. There is only one other passage of the New Testament in which this expression is found, 1 John 3 : 5, and there the meaning is very clear. A much more difficult question re- mains : What is the Baptist's meaning when he speaks of '■the Lamb of God ? ' The answer which perhaps now finds most favor with commentators is, that this particular image was directly suggested to his mind by the memorable prophecy of Isa. 53,in one verse of which (ver. 7) there is an allusion to 'a lamb.' But there are serious diflB- culties in the way of this explanation. A reference to the chapter will show that in that verse the prophet speaks of the ' lamb ' as an example of uncomplaining patience, and not in connection with tak- ing away sin. ' He was oppressed, although he submitted himself, and opened not his mouth ; as a lamb that is led to the slaughter, and as a sheep dumb before her shearers ; and he opened not his mouth.' Again, had the prophecy of this chapter been definitely the source of the Baptist's words, we might surely have looked for some close re- semblances of language. But such coincidences are not to be found in any part of the chapter : the ideas of taking and bearing sin are prominent, but they are expressed by words altogether diff"erent from that here used. If we are thus obliged to look away from Isaiah's great prophecy of Messiah, we naturally turn to the Mosaic ritual of sacrifice. Again we are met by ditficulties. It would seem impossible to bring in here the thought of any other than the sin-offering, and yet it was only occasionally, and almost as an exception, that a sin-ofi'er- ing consisted of a lamb (Lev. 4: 32). The lamb of the morning and evening sacrifices was a burnt -offering. There remains only two other explanations of the phrase. It is just possible that ' the lamb ' merely indicates a sacrificial victim, the gentleness and harmlessness of this animal making it especially suitable as a type. It is, however, much more probable that the Baptist spoke of \i)i\Q paschal lamb. The pecu- liar definiteness of the expression {'the Lamb of God') will in this case need no explanation : no thought was more familiar to the Is- raelite than that of the lamb for the Passover; and, we may add. few thoughts are brought out in this Gospel with greater distinctness than the relation of the Lord Jesus to the paschal sacrifice and feast (see notes on chaps. 6 and 19). As the institution of the Passover pre- 1: 30,31.] JOHN I. 27 30 away the sin of the world ! This is he of whom I said, After me cometh a man which is become before 31 me : for he was ^ before me. And I knew him not ; but that he should be made manifest unto Israel, for 1 Gr. first in regard of me. ceded the general Mosaic legislation, its laws and arrangements lie without the circle of the ordinary ritual of sacrifices, and combine ideas which were otherwise kept distinct, The paschal supper resem- bles the peace-offerings, the characteristic of which was the sacred feast that succeeded the presentation of the victim (Lev, 7: 15), — an emblem of the fellowship between the accepted worshipper and his God. But the sin-offering also is included, as a reference to the ori- ginal institution of the Passover will at once show. The careful sprinkling of the blood upon the door-posts was intended to be more than a sign to the destroying angel whom to spare The lamb was slain and the blood sprinkled that atonement might be made for sin : when Israel is consecrated anew to God, the sin and the deserved punishment removed, the sacred feast is celebrated. It has been sug- gested that the nearness of the Passover (see chap. 2: 13) may have presented these thoughts to the Baptist's mind. It is still more likely that one who was enabled so clearly to discern the meaning of the Old Testament as to recognize the removal of 'the sin of the world' as the object of Messiah's coming, would see from the first how fitly that ordinance, in which Israel's redemption began, associated itself with the approaching redemption of the world. It is the world's Passover, both the sacrifice and the feast, that John sees to be at hand. With this verse compare especially 1 Pet. 1 : 18, 19; Eev. 5: 6, 9. The raaiginal references will show to what an extent this Gos- pel is pervaded by the thought of ' the world ' as the object of Christ's saving work. Ver. 30. See the note upon ver. 15. Here, as there, the words re- fer to testimony given by the Baptist to Jesus at some point of time and on some occasion not recorded. Ver. 31. And I kne-w him not; but that he may be made manifest to Israel, therefore came I, baptizing in -water. The explanation of the first clause of this verse will be best given when we come to ver. 33. The object which the Baptist here assigns for his work of baptizing may at first sight seem to be different from that mentioned in the earlier Gospels, where he is spoken of as sent to prepare the way of the Lord. Attention to the words used by John will remove all difficulty. ' Israel ' is not to be limited to the Jewish nation. It embraces the true theocracy of God, — neither Jews nor Gentiles as such, but all who will believe (comp. on vers. 47, 49). 'Made manifest,' again, is not a mere outward manifestation, but a revelation of Jesus as He is. Thus the meaning of the words is not, ' I baptize in water in order that Jesus may come to my baptism, 28 JOHN I. [1: 32, 33. 32 this cause came I baptizing ^ with water. And John bare witness, saying, I have behekl the Spirit de- scending as a dove out of heaven ; and it abode upon 33 him. And I knew him not : but he that sent me to » Or, in. and may there receive a testimony from on high; ' but, ' I baptize that I may declai-e the necessity of that forsaking of sin without which no true manifestation of Jesus can be made to the heart.' The words in their real meaning, therefore, are in pei'fect harmony with the ac- counts of the Synoptists. The advance of thought from the unrecog- nized Jesus of ver. 26 to the * made manifest' of ver. 31 is obvious. It corresponds to the ' stand eth ' of ver. 26, and the 'coming unto him ' of ver. 29 ; with the fact, also, that the one is the first, the other the second, testimony of the Baptist. Ver. 32. And John bare witness, saying, I have beheld the Spirit descending. The effect of what the Baptist had_ seen had remained, and still remains with him in all its power : ' I have beheld.'— And it abode upon him. John had not merely seen the Spirit descend with dove-like motion upon Jesus ; he had also seen that it ' abode ' upon Him, — the symbol of an abiding and permanent possession. Ver. 33. And I knew him not. The first clause of this verse, like that of ver. 31, is attended with peculiar difficulty, for it is hardly possible to imagine that, intimately connected as the families of Jesus and of the Baptist were, the former should have been for thirty years personally unknown to the latter. Moreover Matt. 3 : 14 seems distinctly to imply not only (hat such personal acquaintance- ship existed before the baptism, but that the Baptist even then knew Jesus as greater than himself. Here, however, he says that until after the descent of the Spirit he ' knew Him not.' Without noticing the other explanations which have been given, we may observe that the solution of the ditficulty is to be found in keeping distinctly before us the official and not personal light in which both Jesus and the Baptist are presentel to us here. No denial of personal knowledge of Jesus has any bearing upon the point which the Baptist would establish. He is himself an official messenger of God, intrusted with a commission which he is to continue to discharge until such time as he is super- seded by the actual arrival of Him whose way he prepai-es. But this latter is also the ' Sent ' of God, and has particular credentials to pro- duce. Until these are produced, the herald of His approach cannot * know ' Him in the only character in which he has to do with Him. No private acquaintanceship with Him — and, we may even say, no private convictions as to His Messianic character — will justify that recognition of Him before which alone the herald may give way. The gi-eat King from whom the herald and the Ambassador are alike sent has named a particular sign which shall attest the position of the 1: 34.] JOHN I. 29 baptize ^ with water, he said unto me, Upon whomso- ever thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and abiding upon him, the same is he that baptizeth ^with the 34 Holy Spirit. And I have seen, and have borne wit- ness that this is the Son of God. 3 Or, in. latter, and close the labors of the former. That sign must be exhibited before the herald of the Ambassador's approach will be warranted to withdraw. Until then the one ' knows ' not the other. But he that sent me to baptize in vrater, he said unto me, Upon v^homsoever thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and abiding upon him, the same is he -which baptizeth ■with the Holy Spirit. As to the sign, comp. ver. 32. It is the token that in Jesus are fulfilled the prophecies of the Old Testament with regard to the pouring out of the Spirit in the Messianic age, and especially to the impartation of the Spirit to the Messiah Himself (Isa. 61 : 1; Luke 41 : 18), — prophecies which describe the crowning glory of the latter days. John's baptism could only point to the lay- ing aside of sin ; that of Jesus brought with it the quickening into spiritual life (comp. on 3: 5). It is to be noticed that the words ' Holy Spirit' are here used without the article. The object is to fix our attention, not upon the Spirit in His personality, but upon the power of that spiritual influence which He exerts. It would be better to translate, ' the power of the Holy Spirit,' were it not difficult to use such an expression, in conformity with the idiom of the English tongue, in the many passages where this particular form of the origi- nal is employed. Ver. 34. And I have seen, and have borne witness that this is the Son of God. ♦ I have seen,' for the result of the see- ing abides unchanged and ever present : ' I have borne witness,' for the Baptist has entered on that one witness-bearing for which he was sent (ver. 7), and which it will henceforth be his office simply to re- peat. It is particularly to be noticed that the ' witness' referred to is not that Jesus baptizes with the Spirit, but that He is ' the Son of God,' — a designation which expresses the divine nature and character of Jesus, and with this the relation in which He stands to the Father. In one aspect He is God; in another He is the Son of God, the Son distinct from the Father. The link of connection between the trans- cendent conclusion of the Baptist and the fact upon which it rests is probably to be found in the thought that He who baptizes with the Holy Spirit, who therefore has the power to impart the gifts and in- fluence of the Spirit of God, must be Divine. The special form which this confession of our Lord's divinity takes was, we cannot doubt, de- termined by the words spoken from heaven : ' This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased' (Matt. 3 : 17). It has been sometimes maintained that * Son of God' must be un- 30 JOHN I. [1: 35, 36. Chapter I. 35-51. Jesus manifests Himself to hearts open to receive Him. 35 Again on the morrow John was standing, and two 36 of his disciples ; and he looked upon Jesus as he derstood as a mere designation of ' tlie Messiah.' For this opinion we believe that no evidence can be found, either in Scripture or in early- Jewish writings. There are, indeed, passages in the Old Testament, acknowledged to be prophecies of the Messiah, in which a Divine Sonship is attributed to Him (see especially Ps. 2:7); but the name seems to be always indicative of nature, and not merely of office. How the name was understood by the Jews of our Lord's day may be seen from chap. 5: 18, 19, 10: 29, 30, 33. ^ It is important to compare this section with the corresponding por- tions of the other Gospels. The omissions are very remarkable. We say nothing of the Evangelist's silence as to the circumstances of our Lord's birth and early years ; this belongs to the general plan of the Gospel, which here agrees with that of Mark. But it is noteworthy that nothing is said of the baptism of Jesus, or of the temptation which followed. To the baptism, however, there is a clear allusion in vers. 38, 34 ; hence its place in the order of events is before ver. 19. The temptation also was at an end befere John ' saw Jesus coming unto him' (ver. 29), On the other hand, these verses contain many co- incidences in language with the Synoptic Gospels. John's application of Isa. 40 : 3, and the contrast wOTbh he draws between himself, bap- tizinnr in water, and Him who shall baptize with the Holy Ghost, are related by every Evangelist. In all the Gospels, also, we find words similar to those of ver. 27. Jesus manifests Himself to hearts open to receive Him. 35-51. Contents. The same general subject is continued in this section — Jesun taking His place on the stage of history. We pass now, however, fi-om the witness of the Baptist, given on two successive days, to the manifestation of Himself by Jesus to hearts open to receive and welcome Him. This manifestation takes place upon two successive days. The subordinate parts of the present section are — (1) vers. 35-42, witness borne on the first of the two new days (the third day from that of ver. 19) ; (2) veis. 43-51, witness borne on the second day (the fourth day). Vers. 35, 36. In these verses we have a new testimony borne by the Baptist to Jesus. In ver. 29 we were simply told that John * seeth Jesus coming unto him and saith ;' to ivhom the words were spoken we know not. There is therefore great importance in the defi- nite statement of verse 35, that John now spoke in the presence of disciples. The Baptist came to deliver a general witness respecting Jesus ; but he also came to direct to Jesus all over whom he had gained influence. The words which he utters are few, so that the second testimony may seem inferior to the first. We may perhaps, 1 : 37-39.] JOHN I. 31 37 walked, and saith, Behold, the Lamb of God ! And the two disciples heard him speak, and they foUow- 38 ed Jesus. And Jesus turned, and beheld them fol- lowing, and saith unto them. What seek ye ? And they said unto him, Rabbi (which is to say, being in- 39 terpreted, ^ Master), where abidest thou ? He saith 1 Or, Teacher. say that it is not really inferior. When the earlier words (ver. 29) had once made clear what was signified by the announcement of ' the Lamb of God,' this title by itself, in its own simplicity, really con- veyed a fuller meaning. ' The Lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the world' brought to mind the paschal sacrifice ; but in point- ing to Jesus as ' the Lamb of God,' the Baptist, impljnng all that he had expressed before, presents to the thought all the symbolism of the words, — with the true paschal sacrifice }o\nm^ the iv\xQ feast Ver. 37. And the two disciples heard him speak, and they followed Jesus. The witness of the Baptist has its proper etfect, — an effect, we cannot doubt, foreseen and designed by himself (chap. 3 : 27-30). Those who listen to it turn from him, and follow Jesus. Ver. 38. And Jesus turned and beheld them, following, and saith unto them, What seek ye ? They who thus follow Jesus shall not do so in vain. As in the sense of their own un wor- thiness tliey walked after Him, He turned, and inquired what they sought. — And they said unto him, Rabbi, w^hich is to say, being interpreted, Teacher, where abidest thou ? ' Where is Thy permanent resting-place and home, that as pupils we may seek Thee there, and may abide with Thee till we have seen the glory of which we have heard ?' By the title Rabbi (which strictly meant my master or lord, but which in the time of Jesus had already come to be applied to teachers) they had been wont to address their own master (chap. 3 : 2ii); and they naturally give the same name of honour to Jesus. When they have done with ' seeking,' when they have found Him, they will say more (com. 13 : 13). Ver. 39. He saith unto them. Come, and ye shall see. They came therefore and saw where he abode, and abode "With him that day. The seeker shall not seek in vain. They had asked where He abode ; and that the answer of Jesus was a direct meeting of their request is proved by the statement made by the Evan- gelist, that 'they came and saw where He abode.' The nature of the intercourse is not described. We are left only to imagine from the confession of Andrew in ver. 41 what must have been the solemn teachings, the gracious communications of Himself by Jesus, the pa- tient instructing of ignorance, the tender removal of doubts, until, in all the joy of their new discovery, they could say, ' We have found.' 32 JOHN I. [1 : 40, 41. unto them, Come, and ye shall see. They came therefore and saw where he abode ; and they abode with him that day : it was about the tenth hour. 40 One of the two that heard John speak, and followed 41 him, was Andrew, Simon Peter's brother. He find- eth first his own brother Simon, and saith unto him, We have found the Messiah (which is, being inter- This much, however, we seem entitled to infer from the thrice-re- peated ' abide' or 'abode,' — a word characteristic of the Fourth Gos- pel, and always full of deep and solemn import, — that the Evangelist designs to convey to us something more than the thought of mere outward presence with Jesus. — It vsras about the tenth hour. There are four passages in which the Evangelist directly refers to the hour of the day at which an event occurred (seei^chap, 4 : 6, 52 ; 19 : 14). But for the last of these passages it might be natural to suppose that John, like the other Evangelists, reckons time from sunrise, an hour being the twelfth part of the (varying) interval between sunrise and sunset. As, however, Mark«records (chap. 15: 25) that Jesus was crucified at the 'third hour' (between 8 and 9 a. m.), and John expressly states that His condemnation was later than the ' sixth hour,' the probability that the latter writer follows a diflFerent reck- oning is very strong. Further investigation has shown that at the Tery time when this book was written a mode of computation substan- tially agreeing with our own was known in Asia Minor (where John wrote) and elsewhere. It is easy to see that in such a matter as this a writer naturally follows the custom of those amongst whom he lives, and whom he has immediately in view as his readers. We shall as- sume, therefore, in each case that the hour (of fixed length, not var- iable) is reckoned from midnight or noon. Here the tenth hour will no doubt be the hour between 9 and 10 a. m. Yer. 40. One of the t-wo vrhich heard from John and fol- Icwed him, "was Andrew, Simon Peter's brother. Andrew belonged to Bethsaida (ver. 44), and is again referred to in 6 : 8, 12 : 22. That he is now spoken of as the brother of Peter is an interest- ing indication of the importance attached by the Evangelist to the latter. There is little reason to doubt that the second of the two was the Evangelist himself. Simon Peter, who has not yet been men- tioned, is introduced to us here as if he were well known to the reader — an illustration of the writer's tendency to anticipate what is hereafter to be fully explained: we have an equally striking instance in the mention of Mary in chap. 11:2. Yer. 41. He first findeth his own brother Simon, and saith unto him, "We have found the Messiah (vrhich is, be- ing interpreted, Christ). The peculiar language of this verse leads directly to the conclusion that each of the two disciples men- 1: 42, 43.] JOHX I. 33 42 preted, ^Christ). He brought him unto Jesus. Je- sus looked upon him, and said, Thou art Simon the sou of "John: thou shalt be called Cephas (which is by interpretation, ^ Peter). 43 On the morrow he was minded to go forth into Galilee, and he findeth Philip : and Jesus saith unto 1 That is, Ariointed. ^ Gr. Joanes : called in Matt. xvi. 17, Junah. 2 That is, Bock or Stone. tioned in the previous verse had gone in search of his brother, and the fact is not without interest as confirming the supposition that the second of the two disciples was John. Andrew and his brother, John and his brother, seem to have been the only two pairs of brothers in the apostolic band. The finding was not accidental. An- drew had gone in search of Peter, John of James. When Andrew found the object of his search, his joyful announcement was, 'We have found the Messiah.' This Hebrew term — occurring only twice in the 2sew Testament, here and at 4 : 25, in the mouth of the woman of Samaria — denotes ' the Anointed One ;" and is immediately inter- preted by the Evangelist, the Greek word ' Christ' having the same meaning. One of the great hopes of Israel was fulfilled. Ver. 42. He brought him to Jesus. There can be little doubt that Peter had shared the expectations and longings of his brother xVndrew, as well as of all those more earnest spirits of the time who were waiting for ' the consolation of Israel.' He too had been ' seek- ing/ and he too finds. — Jesus looking upon him said, Thou art Simon the son of John : thou shalt be called Cephas. Jesus looked upon him with that divine glance which read the heart (comp. 2: 25) ; and, following the custom of which so many illustra- tions are afforded in the Old Testament, marked the great crisis in his life which had now arrived by giving him a new name. ♦ Cephas,' with which corresponds the Greek word Petros (a ' stone' or ' piece of rock'). How much importance was attached by the Evangelist to this name given to his brother apostle will appear on other occasions in the course of his Gospel. The name Johannes, or John, corresponds to the Hebrew Jochanan ; in Matt. 16: 17 the same name is repre- sented in a slightly different form (Joua). Ver. 43. The next day he would go forth into Galilee. On this day begins the journey consummated at chap. 2 : 1 (see note). — And he findeth Philip ; and Jesus saith unto him, Fol- lo-w me. The first two disciples had ' sought' and ' followed' Jesus ; then they had found Him. Now Jesus (seeks and) 'finds' Philip, and bids him follow Him (compare the two parables in Matt. 13 : 44, 46). We are left to infer that the command was immediately obeyed. The calling of Philip and of Xathanacl is recorded by John alone ; both -Matthew and Mark, relate that Jesus called to Him Andrew and 3 34 JOHN I. [1: 44-46. 44 him, Follow me. Now Philip was from Bethsaida, 45 of the city of Andrew and Peter. Philip findeth Nathanael, and saith unto him, We have found him, of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets, did 46 write, Jesus of Nazareth, the Son of Joseph. And Nathanael said unto him. Can any good thing come out of Nazareth ? Philip saith unto him, Come and Peter, James and John (Matt. 4: 18-22; Mark 1 : 16-20; compare Luke 5: 1-11) ; but it will be remembered that this was a second sum- mons, later (by some months, probably) than the events of which we are reading here. Ver. 44. Notv Philip -was of Bethsaida, out of the city of Andre-w and Peter. This verse appears to be inserted for the purpose of clearly showing that these three disciples were Galileans. The next verse would lead to a similar inference in regard to Nathan- ael, and this inference is confirmed by chap 21:2. It is thus an un- designed (but not the less striking) proof of the Johannine authorship of this Gospel that a similar statement is not made with regard to the two disciples of vers. 37-40. John is aware that he was himself well known to be a Galilean. In simple consciousness that he was so, and that no one would doubt it, he omits notice of the fact in his own case and that of his brother. But he felt it of importance to bring out the Galilean birth of the others. We might have supposed them to be Ju- deans ; but Judas is the only Judean of the apostolic circle. The im- portance of the fact in the mind of the Evangelist is connected with the opinion entertained by him of ' the Jews' and of ' Judas.' Ver. 45. Philip findeth Nathanael, and saith unto him, "We have found him of whom Moses in the la-w, and the prophets did v/rite, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph. It was in all probability on the journey from Bethany beyond Jordan to Cana of Galilee that Jesus had ' found' Philip. As on the journey recorded in Luke 26 : 13, the conversation turned on the things concerning the promised Saviour which were contained in ' Moses and all the prophets ;' and to this conversation the particular form of conviction impressed upon the mind of Philip was due. He does not speak of Jesus simply as the Messiah (ver. 41), but as the fulfillment of the law and the prophets. There is an advance in fulness on the confession of ver. 41, and the special chai-acter of the advance is important; it helps to explain the words of the following verse. There is nothing accidental in the finding of Nathanael. Philip had gone in search of him in particular. Can we doubt that it was because he knew him to be specially fitted and ready to be a follower of Jesus ? Ver. 46, And Nathanael said unto him, Can there any- good thing come out of Nazareth ? Philip saith unto him, Come and see. The mind of Nathanael (who, from his close 1 : 47, 48.] JOHN I. 35 47 see. Jesus saw Nathanael coming to him, and saith of him, Behold, an Israelite indeed, in whom is no 48 guile ! Nathanael saith unto him. Whence knowest association with Philip, is probably to be identified with the Barthol- omew of the earlier Gospels) is, as we shall more fully see below (vers, 47, 48 1, full at the moment of that prophetic hope the fulfillment of which was associated, not with Nazareth, but with Bethlehem or Je- rusalem. To him all good was summed up in the thought of the com- ing King ; and it may have been that at the moment a place uncon- nected with the great promise of God seemed to him a place from which no good could come. Such considerations go far towards ex- plaining his disparaging remark ; though they do not completely re- move the impression which we receive from the words, that Nazareth was a place held in v€ry low esteem. We have, however, no other information that such prejudice (whether well or ill founded) existed; and the only notices in Scripture which can throw light on the sub- ject are the records of the obstinate unbelief of the Nazarenes (Matt. 13 : 58) and their attempt upon the life of Jesus (Luke 4 : 29). Ver. 47. Jesus saw Nathanael coming to him, and saith of him, Behold, an Israelite indeed, in whom is no guile ! Again, as at ver. 43, we are left to infer that the call thus addressed to Nathanael was obeyed ; and in his obedience to it he illustrates the frame of mind for which he is immediately commended by Jesus. He is ingenuous, willing to be taught, ready to receive what is shown to him to be truth, however strougly it may conflict with his prepossessions. Jesus saw him as he drew near, and commended him as a genuine Is- raelite in whom there was no guile. The last words have been some- times understood as if they were explanatory of the term Israelite, that term, again, being supposed, together with the word ' guile,' to allude to the history of Jacob. As the name of Jacob (' supplanter') was changed to Israel (' prince of God') the characteristic of this patri- arch's true descendants will be absence of guile. The suggestion is ingenious, but for several reasons hardly tenable. (1) It is guile of an entirely different kind that is here referred to ; (2) There is no spe- cial connection between the qufxlities displayed by Jacob on the occa- sion when he received the name Israel and those that here distinguish Nathanael; (3) The part of Jacob's history present to the mind of Jesus, in ver. 51, was the vision at Bethel, which belongs to a period much earlier than that in which his name was changed ; (4) It is difficult to believe that 'Israelite' is intended to convey no meaning beyond absence of guile. It is rather to be taken as denoting one who belongs to the true people of God (comp. ver. 31); and the words that follow are then added to bring out its special meaning upon this occasion. Nathanael, in short, is ' of God,' is ' of the truth, 'has no selfish impure aims, and therefore he shall be fully taught. Ver. 48. Nathanael saith unto him, Whence knowest thou me ? The words of Jesus had been spoken while Nathanael 36 JOHN I. [1 : 49. thou me ? Jesus answered and said unto him, Be- fore Philip called thee, when thou wast under the 49 fig tree, I saw thee. Nathanael answered him, Rabi- bi, thou art the Son of God ; thou art King of Israel. was drawing near, and the latter heard them. He does not deny the truth of the commendation, and yet it can hardly be said, on the other hand, that he accepts it. It is enough for him that he sees that he is not discerned by one whom he had previously met, and what he asks is, Whence gettest Thou Thy knowledge of me? Who has told The^ any- thing about me?— Jesus answered and said unto him, Before that Philip caUed thee, -when thou wast under the fig tree, I saw thee. Jesus replies by referring to a previous, probably re- cent, incident in his history. The heart of the guileless man had been so moved by the great thoughts stirring at that time with respect to the Saviour at hand, that he had retired under a fig tree to study the Scriptures, or meditate, or pray. It is this that (as the Greek im- plies) is now brought to his recollection — not his heing under the fig ti'ee, but his having gone under it ; and we are thus rather invited than forbidden to suppose that the emotions filling his heart at the moment, and impelling him to seek solitude, had been peculiarly strong. Then Jesus had seen him, and had recognized in him one of His sheep, just as His sheep recognize Him (10: 16). If the incident had taken place in Nathanael's own Cana, it must have been all the more strik- ing to him that it should thus be known. But, however this may have been, these wonderful words of Jesus, coming suddenly upon him after long preparation for them and after the instructions just given by Philip, at once set his heart on fire, and drew from him the mem- orable confession which follows. Ver. 49. Nathanael answ^ered him. Rabbi, Thou art the Son of God ; Thou art King of Israel. The confession is the highest that has yet been made, for it is impossible to understand ' Son of God ' as the simple equivalent of Messiah (see note on ver. 34). Yet it is a confession coming out of the very heart of Old Tes- tament prophecy, and to be accounted for by those circumstances of Nathanael' s past history and present position that have been already noticed. It was not merely of a great Deliverer that the prophets had spoken. They had spoken not less of Jehovah Himself as com- ing, and as coming to be their Deliverer and their King. In the se- cond Psalm, in particular, we find the two ideas of the Son of God and of Zion's King closely conjoined; and in the seventy-second Psalm the psalmist had described in glowing language that kingdom of peace and righteousness, extending over the whole earth, of which a shadow and type were afforded by the reign of Solomon. But if it be undeniable that these ideas were imbedded in the Old Testament, there is nothing inconceivable in their being gathered from it and enunciated by these who in meditation and prayer had caught its 1: 50, 51.] JOHN I. 37 50 Jesus answered and said unto him, Because I said unto thee, I saAV thee underneath the fig tree, believ- est thou ? thou shalt see greater things than these. 51 And he saith unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Ye shall see the heaven opened, and the angels spirit. Arid to this the self-evidencing power of the Person of Jesus, which must have been so much more to Nathanael than the mere re- cord can be to us, and we need not wonder that he should thus ac- knowledge Jesus, Nor is there any warrant for describing his feel- ings as vague. What he did was to rise to the height of Old Testa- ment prophecy ; what he saw was that ihis must be Jehovah that Avas to come, the universal King. The three confessions have risen as they have succeeded one another. Higlier than the last they cannot rise. The Lord Himself is come ; His kingdom is without limit and without end. Ver. 50. Jesus answered and said unto him, Because I said unto thee, I saw thee under the fig tree, believest thou ? Thou shalt see greater things than these. An inti- mation of that growth of divine revelation which this Gospel teaches us shall be made the portion of all, — of some to an ever-increasing fulness of blessing, of others to an ever-increasing fulness of judg- ment. For the one, see chap. 14: 12; for the other, chap. 5: 20. These * greater things ' are more particularly mentioned in the next verse. Ver. 51. And he saith unto him Verily, verily, I say unto you. This is the first occasion on which we find the repeated ' Ver- ily,' so characteristic of the discourses related in this Gospel. The formula is always employed to mark some important step in a dis- course, where the words of Jesus either tak^some new start, or rise to some higher stage. Both these conditions are fulfilled in the verse before us. As to the first, it will be observed that Jesus no longer addresses Nathanael alone : the plural instead of the singular is used and we must understand that He is speaking to all the disciples. As to the second, again, the words of themselves suggest the hi/her stage of revelation promised. — Ye shall see heaven open, and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of man. The figure is taken from Jacob's dream (Gen. 28: 12). A wanderer from his father's house and country, he is encouraged by a vision which teaches him that earth is united with heaven, and that God's messengers descend to minister to those who are the objects of God's care. If the ascent of the angels is mentioned (in Gen. 28) hrfore the descent, this is because to Jacob is shown an intercourse that already exists, not one that now begins. Some angels are already returning from earth, their ministries accomplished. What .Jacob saw in vision is now in the highest sense fulfilled. There is real and unceasing in- tercourse between earth and heaven. It is to Jesus that the angela 38 JOHN I. [1 : 51. of God ascending and descending upon the Son of man. descend ; it is from Him that they return to heaven ; through His presence on earth this union between earth and heaven exists. Even though He is in His state of humiliation, it is His bidding that the angels do. Perhaps it is this thought that accounts for the mention (in this verse) of the ascending angels first. These words have no direct reference to the angelic visits received by Jesus at different points of His earthly ministry ; still less can we refer them to mir.icles to be hereafter performed, greater even than that displayed to Nathan- ael, miracles of which the next chapter will furnish the first exam- ple. We have simply a symbolical representation of the fact that through the Incarnation and sulferings of Jesus heaven is opened, is brought into the closest and most constant communion with earth, so that the latter is itself ti'ansfigured with the glory of God's special abode. This interpretation is confirmed by two circumstances men- tioned in the verse : 1 ) Nathanael is to see ' heaven standing open,' — not ' opened ' as if it might again be closed, but opened so as to continue open. It is the complete withdrawal of the inner veil of the Tabernacle, so that all the children of God, now made priests and high priests unto God, even the Father, may pass freely into th^ in- nermost sanctuary and out of it again without interruption and with- out end. (2) Jesus speaks of Himself as the 'Son of man.' This important designation, often used by Jesus of Himself, once only used of Him by another (Acts 7 : 5G), is not, as some maintain, a simple equivalent of ' Messiah.' It expresses rather One i:i whom all that truly belongs to humanity is realized, and by whom it is represented, Jesus is the Son of man, connected with no special race, or class, or condition, equally associated with all, equally near to all, in whom all are equally interested, and may be equally blessed. The designation is not a fourth confession, additional to the three that have been al- ready made, for it comes from the lips of Jesus Himself. It is rather that in which all the confessions meet, the expression of the Personal- ity to which they all belong. Jesus is the Incarnate Word, and as such He is the ' Messiah,' the One ' of whom ]Moses in the law and the pi'ophets did write,' the ' Son of God and King ( f Israel.' Every child of humanity, realizing his true humanity in Him, has as his own the blessings a'-sociated with th^^se three aspects of the Redeemer, He is anointed with the Holy Spirit, lives in that love which is the fulfil- ling of the law, is a son in the house of the Heavenly Father, himself a king. These are the ' greater things ' which every one who is an 'Israelite indeed' shall see in the new creation introduced by the ' Word become flesli,' and enlightened by the full brightness of that Light in whose presence old things pass away, and all things are made new. 2: 1.] JOHN II. • 89 Chapter 2 : 1-11. The Ilirade at Cana of Galilee. 1 And the third day there was a marriage in Cana of The Miracle at Cana of Galilee. — Vers. 1^11. Contents. — The general subject of the second great division of the Gospel is con- tinued in this section. It contains an account of the miracle at Cana of Galilee, in which, as we are told at ver. 11, Jesus ' manifested His glory.' The Kedeemer is still in the circle of His disciples and friends, and there are no traces of His approaching conflict with the world. Our thoughts are directed solely to Himself, and to the glorious nature of that dispensation which He is to introduce. [This miracle of transformation is a fit beginning of Christ's works. His whole mission was to transform sinners into saints, grief into joy, the woi'ld into the king- dom of heaven. It is also significant that he began His miracles in the bosom of the famih/, which is the first institution of God on earth, and the nursery of the state and the church. His presence, with His mother and disciples, at a woddiag feiust sanctifies and elevates marriage and every innocent joy, and condemns that monkish asceticism which flees away from society instead of leavening it with the gospel, and which hates the order of nature instead of elevating it to the sphere of divine grace. — P. S.] Ver. 1. And the third day. The third day, as reckoned from the day last mentioned (chap. 1 : 43-51) ; the sixth day referred to in these chapters. The first is the day of the Baptist's interview, at Bethany, with the priests and Levites sent from Jerusalem (1 : 19-28). On the second (1 : 29-34), John bears testimony to Jesus as the Lamb of God. The third is the day on which the two disciples follow Jesus (1 : 35-42). On the next day Jesus sets out for Galilee (1 : 43). That day, the next, and part of the third day may have been spent in trav- elling ; for, if Bethany was in the neig-hborhood of Bethabara, and if the latter may be identified with the modern Beit-nimrim, the dis- tance traversed even to Nazareth must have been more than eighty English miles. Very possibly, however, Bethany may have lain far- ther north (see note on chap. 1 : 21). — There was a marriage, or marriage-feast. The feast, which was the chief constituent in the ceremonies attending marriage, extended over several days, — as seven (Gen. 29: 27; Judg. 14: 12), or even fourteen (Tobit 8: 19).— In Cana of Galilee. There is a Kanah mentioned in the book of Joshua (19 : 28) as one of the towns in the territory of Asher, situated near Zidon. This cannot be the place referred to here. No other town of the same name is mentioned by any sacred writer except John, who in every instance marks the place as Cana of Galilee. From this many have hastily inferred that ' of Galilee ' was part of the name, distinguishing this village from some other Cana, — perhaps from that mentioned above, which (though really within the limits of Galilee) lay near to Phoenicia. Two villages of Galilee claim to be the Cana of this chapter, — Kefr-Kenna, four or five miles north-east of Nazareth ; and Khurbet-Cana, about eleven miles north of the same 40 JOHN II. [2 : 2, 3. 2 Galilee ; and the mother of Jesus was there : and Jesus also was bidden, and his disciples, to the mar- 3 riage. And when the wine failed, the mother of Je- place. The latter village is usually said to bear the name Kana-el-Je- lil (i. e. Cana of Galilee) ; if so, and if the antiquity of the name could be established, this might be decisive, although even then it would be hard to understand how Christian ti^adition could so long re- gar 1 Kefr-Kenna as the scene of our Lords first miracle, when within a few miles there existed a place bearing the very name found in the Gospel. The question cannot be further discussed here : we will only express a strong conviction that Kefr-Kenna is the Cana of our narra- tive. It seems probable that John himself has added the words ' of Galilee,' that he may lay stress upon the j^rovince, not the town. To him the point of main interest is, that this manifestation of the Sav- iour's glory took place in Galilee. — And the mother of Jesus -was there, — already present as a friend, possibly a i-elative. Mary comes before us twice in this Gospel, at the commencement and at the close of our Lord's public life (2: 1-11, and 19: 25-27), and is also refer- red to in another passage (6 : 42) ; but she is never mentioned by name. As for his own name, the Evangelist always substitutes words expressive of relationship to Jesus (' the disciple whom Jesus loved'), so with him Mary's name gives place to ' the mother of Jesus.' Both here and in chap. 19 his designation has special significance. It ex- presses not only the light in which she appeared to John, but that in which he knew that she appeared to lesus. It is essential to the spirit of the narrative to behold in Jesus one who, with the warmest filial afi"ection, acknowledged Mary ae His mother. Thus only do we see the yielding of the very closest earthly relationship to yet higher claims. The word of Jesus, ' He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me,' must in its spirit be exemplified in His own case. Most fitting, therefore, is the use of the tenderest designa- tion here. All that is dear and sacred in the name of mother was felt by Him in its deepest reality at the very time when He showed that every earthly tie must give way at the call of His Father in heaven. Ver. 2. And Jesus also -was called, and his disciples, to the marriage. The form of the sentence shows that our chief atten- tion is to be fixed on Jesus, not on the disciples. They were invited as His disciples. Those wlio came were probably the five or six men- tionel in chap. 1, viz. Andrew, Simon Peter, Philip, Nathanael, and John himself (and probably James). Ver. 3. And when wine was wanting. The failure (which must be understood as complete) may have been occasioned by the long continuance of the festivities, but more probably arose from the presence of several unexpected guests. — The mother of Jesus saith unto him, They have no wine. Nothing was more natu- ral than that Mary should be the one fo point out to lier Son tlie per- plexity of the family ; but the whole tenor of the narrative compels 2 : 4.] JOHN II. 41 4 sus saith unto him, They have no wine. And Jesus saith unto her, Woman, what have I to do with attention to one thought alone. The absolute singleness with which Jesus listens to the voice of His heavenly Father is the point to be brought out. Had it been consistent with His mission to lend help at the suramons of any human authority, no bidding would have been so powerful as that of His mother. Many conjectures as to Mary's ob- ject in these words are at once set aside by the nature of His answer. Tliere may have been in her mind no d'-finite idea of the kind of help that might be afforded, but she felt that help was needed, and that what was needed could be given by her Son. The reply of Jesus, however, shows that, besides perplexity and faith, there was also pre- sumption in Mary's words: she spoke as one who still had the right to suggest and to influence His action. Verr4. And Jesus saith unto her, "Woman, what have I to do "with thee ? The English words convey an impression of disrespect and harshness which is absent from the original. This use of the Greek word for ' woman ' is consistent with the utmost respect. In Homer, for example [Iliad, 24 : 300), Priam thus addresses Hecuba, his queen, and other examples of the same kind might easily be given. This Gospel itself shows that the word is not out of place where the deepest love and compassion are expressed : see chap. 19 : 26 ; 20 : 13, 15. Yet the contrast of ' woman ' and ' mother ' must strike every one who reads with attention. The relation of mother, however pre- cious in its own sphere, cannot be allowed to enter into that in which Jesus now stands. John does not relate the incident recorded in Matt. 12 : 46-50 : Mark 3 : 31-35 ; Luke 8 : 19-21 ; but the same thought is present here. Still more distinctly is this lesson taught in the words that follow, ' What have I to do with thee? ' The rendering defended by some Roman Catholic writers (though not found in the Vulgate, or in the Rhemish Testament of 1852), * What is that to thee and me? ' — that is, ' Why should we concern ourselves with this fail- ure of the wine ? ' — is altogether impossible. The phrase is a common one, occurring in Judg. 11: 12; 2 Sam. 16: 10, 19 : 22 ; 1 Kings 17: 18; 2 Kings 3: 13; 2 Chron. 35: 21 ; Matt. 8: 29; Mark 1 : 24, 5: 7 ; Luke 4 : 34, 8 : 28 : comp. also Josh. 22 : 24 ; 2 Kings 9:18: Ezra 4:3; Matt. 27 : 19. These passages show beyond doubt the meaning of the words: whoever makes use of the phrase rejects the interference of another, declines association with him on the matter spoken of. Hence the words reprove, though mildly. They do more ; in them .Jesus warns even His mother against attempting henceforth to prescribe or suggest what He is to do. Thus understood, the words are an irresistible argument against the Mariolatry of Rome. — Mine hour is not yet come. In two other places in this Gospel Jesus refers to the coming of • the hour '(12 : 23; 17: 1); and three times John speaks of His hour as not yet come ( 7 : 30 ; 8 : 20), or as now come (13 : 1). The other passages throw light on this, showing the 42 JOHN II. [2: 5,6. 5 thee ? mine hour is not yet come. His mother saith unto the servants, Whatsoever he saith unto you, do 6 it. Now there were six waterpots of stone set there after the Jews' manner of purifying, containing two peculiar solemnity which belongs to the words before us. In every instance 'the hour' is fraught with momentous issues: — 'the hour' when the restraint put upon His foes shall continue no longer; when He shall pass away from the world to His Father ; when He shall be glorified. So here the hour is that of the manifestation of His glory. The language used in chap. 13 : 1 and 17 : 1, together with the general teaching of the Gospel, shows that the hour is not self-chosen, but is that appointed by the Father. He came to do the will of Him that sent Him, the apj ointed work at the appointed time. That time none may hasten or delay by a single instant. If, then, the miracle quickly followed upon these words, which would seem to have been the case, this can present no difficulty ; the Son waited for the very moment chosen by the Father's will. Ver. 5. His mother saith unto the servants, "Whatsoever he saith unto you, do it. The answer of Jesus (ver. 4) plainly implied that His hour would come. Mary, therefore, turns to the servants, and bids them be ready. The words are indefinite, and we have no right to suppose either that she now looked for miraculous help, or that she had received some private intimation of her Son's purpose. She waits for the hour : whatsoever the hour may bring, let the servants be prepared to do His bidding. Mary here retires from the scene. Ver. 6. And there were there six waterpots of stone, placed after the manner of the purifying of the Jews, containing two or three firkins apiece. The waterpots were near at hand, — in the court or at the entrance to the house, not in the house itself. Considering the many washings and purifyings of the Jews, there is nothing to surprise us in the number or in the size of the waterpots. Even a small family might easily possess six, and when the number of guests was large, each of them would naturally be in use. There is much uncertainty as to the value of Hebrew mea- sures whether of length or of capacity. Most probably the measure here mentioned was equivalent to between eight and nine of our im- perial gallons. If each waterpot contained two ' firkins ' and a half, the whole quantity of water would be about 130 gallons. — On the words ' of the Jews,' see the note on chap. 1 : 19. Even here the phrase is not without significance. When we have set ourselves free from our prevailing habit of using this term simply as a national de- signation, we cannot but feel that the Evangelist is writing of that with which he has entirely broken, and is characterizing tlie ordinary religion of his day as one that consisted in ceremonies and external purifications. 2 : 7, 8.] JOHN II. 43 7 or three firkins apiece. Jesus saith unto them, Fill the waterpots with water. And they tilled them up 8 to the brim. And he saith unto them, Draw out pow, and bear unto the ^ ruler of the feast. And iQr, steward. Yer. 7. Jesus saith unto them, Fill the waterpots with ■water. Probably they were now empty, perhaps in consequence of the ablutions before the feast. — And they filled them up to the brim. And when they are thus filled, nothing more can be done to fit them for their original design. They are able to furnish all that can be supplied for ' the purifying of the Jews.' Yer. 8. And he saith unto them, Draw now, and bear unto the ruler of the feast. As the words are commonly under- stood, *.he servants are bidden to bring to the table (in smaller jars or bowls) part of the contents of the larger vessels, which were them- selves *.oo unwieldy to be moved without difficulty. If this be the meani>»g, we must still ask. What was it that was drawn, water or wine ? Many will answer, wine, believing that the point at which the miraHe is effected comes in between the seventh and eighth verses, and »,hat all the water in the vessels was then made wine. The strong argument in favor of this interpretation is the exactness with Avhich the number and size of the vessels are specified ; and no difficulty need be found in the abundance of the supply. * He, a King, gave as became a king' (Trench). Still there is nothing in the text that leads necessarily to this interpretation ; while the language of ver. 9, ' the servants who had drawn the tvater,' distinctly suggests that what they drew was water, which, either as soon as drawn, or as soon as presented to the guests, became wine. But there is yet another ex- planation (suggested in Dr. Westcott's Chdracteristics of the Gospel Mira- cles, p. 1-5), having much in its favor. The Authorized Version (ver. 8) gives the command to the servants as 'Draw out now,' etc.. plainly implying that it was out of the waterpots that they were bidden to draw. But the original word is simply ' draw,' or ' draw water.' This would seem to suggest that the servants were sent again to the spring or fountain from which they had drawn the water to fill the waterpots. First, the vessels set for the purifying of the Jews are completely filled. Nothing is neglected that can be needed to prepare for all ceremonial requirements. There the water re-^ts, and rests un- changed. Not till now is the water drawn for thfe thirsty guests, in bowls filled, not from vessels of purification, but at the spring itself; it is borne to the ruler of the feast, and it is wine ! The decision be- tween the last two interpretations must be left with the reader ; it will probably rest less on the words of the narrative than on the view which is taken of the significance and meaning of the miracle. See below on ver. 11. — By 'the ruler of the feast' is meant either an up- per servant, to whom was intrusted the duty of tasting the different 44 JOHN II. [2: 9-11. 9 they bare it. And when the ruler of the feast tasted the water ^now become Avine, and knew not whence it was (but the servants Avhich had drawn the water knew), the ruler of the feast calleth the bridegroom, 10 and saith unto him, Every man setteth on first the good wine; and when men have drunk freely, then that which is worse : thou hast kept the good wine 11 until now. This beginning of his signs did Jesus in Cana of Galilee, and manifested his glory; and his disciples believed on him. » Or, that it had i drinks and articles of food, and, in general, of superintending all the arrangements of the feast; or one of the guests acting as president of the feast, at tiie request of the bridegroom or by election of the guests. The latter view is ftivored by our knowledge of Jewish usages (comp. Ecclus. 32 : 1, 2), and by the fact that the ruler is spoken of as distinct from the servants, and, as the next verse shows, was ignorant of the source from which the wine was supplied. Vers. 9, 10. In these verses we have the testimony borne to the completeness of the miracle. The ruler of the feast, a guest speaking as the representative of the guests, calling the bridegroom (who sup- plied the feast, and in whose house they were), emphatically recog- nizes the excellence of the wine, not knowing ' whence it was.' ' From whatever source this may have come, it is wine, and good wine :' this is his witness. — ' Whatever it may be, it has but now flowed from the spring as water,' is the unexpressed but implied testimony of the ser- vants. The simplicit}'^ of the double witness gives it its force ; the guests as yet know nothing of the miracle, and thus afford the strong- est evidence of its truth. An attempt is sometimes made to soften down an expression used by the ruler of the feast, ' when men are drunken.' There need, however, be no scruple as to giving the word its ordinary meaning. The remark does but express his surprise at the ])ridegroom's departure from the ordinary custom, in bringing in so late wine of such excellence as this. The common maxim was that the best wine should be given first, when it could be appreciated by the guests ; the weak and poorer when they had drunk moore than enough, and the edge of their taste was blunted. No answer is re- coi-ded, — a plain proof, were any needed, that the Evangelist values the incident not so much for its own sake as for the lesson it conveys. Ver. 11. This did Jesus as the beginning of his signs, in Cana of Galilee, and manifested his glory ; and his dis- ciples believed on him. This, Ills first sign, was wrought in Galilee, where Isaiah (9: 1, 2) prophesied that Me-siah's work should begin. The threefold comment of the Evangelist is of the utmost im- 2: 12.] JOHN II. 45 Chapter 2 : 12-22. T}te Transition to the Public 3Hnistry, and the Cleansing of the Temple. 12 After this he went down to Capernaum, he, and portance. This was a sign, and His first sign ; in it He manifested His glory ; His disciples believed in Him. 'Sign' is one of John's favorite words. Of the three words used in the New Testament to denote a miracle, the first (literally meaning ' power') is not once found in his Gospel ; the second ('prodigy,' ' wonder 'j occurs once only (4: 48); the third, 'sign,' as many as seventeen times. The earliest use of ' sign' in connection with a miracle is in Ex. 4 : 8, and the context makes the meaning very clear : the miracle was the sign of an invisible Divine Presence with Moses, and hence it attested his words. Thus also, when the manna was given, the miracle manifested the glory of the Lord (Ex. 16 : 7). The miracles of Jesus, and all His works, manifested not only God's glory (8: 50), but His own: they were signs of what He is. This gives a new starting-point. Each miracle is a sign of what He is, not only in regard of the power by which it is wrought, but also by its own nature and character, — in other words, it is a symbol of His work. The words which John adds once for all are to be understood with every mention of a ' sign,' for in every miracle Jesus made manifest (removed the veil from) His glory, revealed Himself. Two other passages complete the view which John gives us of his meaning. Of the ' signs ' he says him- self: 'These (signs) are written that ye may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing ye may have life in His name,' Of the glory he says : ' We beheld His glory, glory as of an only begotten from a father.' First, then, this miracle attested the mission of Jesus as the Christ ; the miracle established, as for Moses so fur Him, the divine commission, and ratified His words. Next, it revealed His own glory as Son of God, manifesting His power, in a work as sudden and as inexplicable as a new creation ; and not only His power but His grace, as He sj^mpathizes alike with the joys and with the difficulties of life. Further, the miracle brought into light what He is in His work. The waterpots filled full for the purifying of the Jews stand as an emblem of the religion of the day, nay, even of the ordinances of the Jewish religion itself, ' carnal ordinances imposed until a time of reformation.' At Christ's word (on one view of the miracle) the water for purifying is changed into wine of glad- ness : this would point to Judaism made instinct with new life. On the other view, nothing is withdrawn from the use to which Jewish ritual applies it, but the element which could only minister to outward cleansing is transmuted by a new creative word. ' The law was given through Moses : grace and truth came throiigh Jesus Christ.' The ob- ject of all the signs (23: 31) was answered here in the disciples. 46 JOHN II. [2 : 12. his mother, and his brethren, and his disciples : and there they abode not many days. They had believed already that He was Christ, the Son of God (1 : 41, 49): ihQy noyf belieoed in Him, — each one ' throws himself with ab- solute trust upon a living Lord,' recognizing the manifestation of His glory. The miracles in this Gospel, like the parables in the other Gospels, are a test of faith. They lead onward the believer to a deeper and a firmer trust ; they repel those who refuse to believe. The Transition to the Public Ministry, and the Cleansing of the Temple. — Vers. 12-22. Contexts. In the passage before us we have the first section of the third great di- vision of our Gospel. Jesus leaves the circle of His disciples, and begins His public work. This is done at Jerusalem, after a few daj's spent in Capernaum. In the me- tropolis of Israel He appears as the Son in His Father's house ; and in the cleansing of the old temple and the promise of the raising up of a new one He illusirates the nature of the work He is to do. The first symptoms of opposition accordingly appear in this passage. Jesus is rejected by the theocracy of Israel, and the foundation is laid for His entering upon wider fields of labor. The subordinate parts of this sec- tion are— (1) ver. 12 ; (2) vera. 13-23. Yer. 12. After this he went down to Capernaum, Naz- areth, not Cana, would appear to be the place from which Jesus ' went down' (from the hill-country of Galilee, — comp. chap. 4: 47,49, 51) to Capernaum, for His brethren, who are not said to have been with Him in Cana, are now of the company. All that can be said with cer- tainty as to the position of Capernaum is, that it was situated on the western coast of the Lake of Gennesaret, not far from the northern end of the lake ; whether the present Tell Hum or (less probably) Khan Minyeh be the site, we cannot here inquire (see note on Matt. 4 : 13). We have here the earliest appearance of this busy and thriv- ing Galilean town in the history of our Lord's life. The visit related in Matt. 4 : 13 and Luke 4: 31 belongs to a later period than this, a period subsequent to the imprisonment of John the Baptist (see chap. 3: 22). Luke's narrative, however, (chap. 4: 23), contains an allu- sion to earlier miracles in Capernaum. Whether reference is made to this particular visit (which, through the nearness of the passover, was of short duration) or not, it is interesting to note that the two Evan- gelists agree in recording a residence of Jesus in this town earlier than that brought into prominence in Matt. 4: 13. In the Fourth Gospel Capernaum occupies a very subordinate place ; the centre of the Judean ministry Avas Jerusalem. — He, and his mother and brethren, and his disciples. In his usual manner John divides the compafty into three groups, naming separately Jesus, His rela- tions by natural kindred, His disciples. The brethren of Jesus were James, Joses (or Joseph), Simon, and Judas (Matt. 13: 55; Mark 6:3). In what sense they are called ' brethren ' whether as the sons 2: 13,14.] JOHN 11. 47 13 And the passover of the Jews was at hand, and 14 Jesus went up to Jerusalem. And he found in the temple those that sold oxen and sheep and doves, of Joseph and Mary, as sons of Joseph by an earlier marriage, or as sons of Mary's sister (' brother ' taking the meaning of near kins- man), lias been a subject of controversy from the third century to the present day. It is impossible to discuss the question within our limits, though something further must be said when we come to later chap- ters (chs.7 and 19). Here we can only express a very decided conviction that the last mentioned of the three opinions is without foundation, and that the ' brethren ' were sons of Joseph, their mother being either Mary herself or, more probably, an earlier wife of Joseph (comp. note on Matt. 13 : 58). This verse alone might suggest that the brethren were not disciples, and from chap. 7 : 5 we know they were not, Ver. 13. And the passover of the Jews was at hand, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem. The expression, ' passover of the Jews,' is very remarkable, and can be explained only by the usage already noticed in ver. 6. To John's mind the nation cannot but pre- sent itself habitually as in opposition to his Master. As yet, indeed, Jesus is not confronted by an organized band of adversaries represent- ing the ruling body of the nation ; but we are on the verge of the con- flict, and the conflict itself was only the outcome of ungodliness and "worldliness existing before their manifestation in the persecution of Jesus. The light was come, but it was shining in darkness : this darkness rested on what had been the temple, the city, the festivals, of the Lord. The feast now at hand is not ' the Lord's passover' (Ex. 12: 11), but 'the passover of the Jews.' The prevailing spirit of the time has severed the feast from the sacred associations wliich belonged to it, so that Jesus must go up rather as Prophet than as worshipper, — not to sanction by His presence, but powerfully to pro- test againsf the degenerate worship of that day. The word of proph- ecy must be fulfilled : ' And the Lord whom ye seek shall suddenly come to His temple . . . but who may abide the day of His com- ing?' (Mai. 3: 1, 2). Ver. 14. And he found in the temple-courts those that sold oxen and sheep and doves. The scene of this traffic was the outer court, commonly spoken of as the court of the Gentiles, but known to the Jews as ' the mountain of the house.' This court (which was on a lower level than the inner courts and the house or sanctuary itself) occupied not less than two-thirds of the space in- closed by the outer walls. Along its sides ran cloisters or colonnades, two of which, ' Solomon's porch ' on the east, and the ' Royal porch ' on the south, were especially admired : to these cloisters many of the devout resorted for worship or instruction, and here, no doubt, our Lord often taught (chap. 10 : 23). In strange contrast, however, with 48 JOHN 11. [2: 15. 15 and the changers of money sitting : and he made a scourge of cords, and cast all out of the temple, both the sheep and the oxen ; and he poured out the the sacredness of the place was what He now ' found in the temple- courts,' At all times, and especially at the passover, the temple was frequented by numerous worshipers, who required animals that might be offered in sacrifice. The law prescribed the nature of each sacri- fice, and enjoined that all animals presented to the Lord should be ' without blemish' (Lev. 22: 19,20), — a requirement which the 'tradi- tion of the elders' expanded into minute detail. Hence, sacrifice would have been well-nigh impossible, had not facilities been afforded for the purchase of animals that satisfied all the conditions imposed. Tlie neigh- boring quarter of the city naturally became a bazaar for the purpose ; but unhappily the priests, yielding to temptations of gain, had suffered such traffic to be carried on within the precincts of the temple itself. At what period this abuse took its rise we do not know. Some have supposed that the last words of Zechariah (chap. 14 : 21) refer to sim- ilar practices, the verse being i-endered : ' In tliat day there shall be no more the trafficker in the house of the Lord of hosts.' The book of Nehemiah shows examples of the spirit of disorder and irreverence from which such usages naturally spring ; and the representations of Malachi make it easy to understand that the priests would be only too readily accessible to the allurements of a gainful traffic. In the court of the Gentiles, then, stood those who offered for sale oxen and sheep, — also doves (for the poor. Lev. 14: 22, and for women. Lev. 12: 6). The wording of this verse (' those that sold,' etc.) shoAvs that the trade was now an established custom. The discordance between a cattle-mart and a place for sacred worship and converse need not be drawn out in detail. But this was not all. — And the changers of money sitting : — at their tables in the sacred place. The annual tribute which every man of Israel was bound to pay to the temple treasury could be paid out only in the half-shekel 'of the sanctuary' (see Matt. 17 : 24-26). All who came from other lands, therefore, or who had not with them the precise coin, must resort to the exchangers, who (as we learn from the Talmud) were permitted to do their busi- ness in the temple during the three weeks preceding the passover. Their profits (at a rate of interest amounting to ten or twelve per cent.) were very great. Ver. 15. And making a scourge of cords, he drove them all out of the temple-courts, and the sheep and the oxen. The scourge was made for the expulsion of the animals, but by it Jesus also declared His purpose to the traders themselves. The words show distinctly that it is with the men that He is dealing ; but He drives them from the sacred place by banishing the instruments and means of their unholy trainc. In a figurative sense IMessiah was said to come armed with a scourge. * Rabbi Eliezer was asked by his dis- ciples: How should a man live to escape the scourge of the Messiah ? 2: 16,17.] JOHN II. 49 16 changers' money., and overthrew their tables ; and to them that sold the doves he said, Take these things hence ; make not my Father's house a house of mer- 17 chandise. His disciples remembered that it was written, The zeal of thine house* shall eat me up. * For " The zeal of thine house " read " Zeal for thy house" — Am, Com. He answered : Let him live according to the law and in love towards men." — And poured out the changers' money, and overthrew the tables — the counters on which the bankers placed their heaps of change. Ver. 16. And said unto them that sold the doves, Take these things hence : make not my Father's house an house of merchandise. We must not suppose that the sellers of doves were more leniently dealt with. The oxen might be driven away, the tables overturned, but the cages of birds must be carried out by their owners : hence it is to these alone that Jesus directly addresses words which were really spoken to all, and which explained His action. Any zealous reformer, who understood the faith of Israel, might have done as much : indeed, the first treatise in the Talmud contains regulations for the due reverence of the temple which utterly condemn such pro- fanations as are related here. But though the action of Jesus might imply no more. His words declare that He vindicates the honor of His Father's house. Thus He at once honors His Father and declares Himself. He offers Himself to Israel as the Son of God. In this deed, as in all His acts and words (comp. MiUtt. 13: 11-15), there is a mingling of revelation and reserve : the declaration of Sonship is combined with an act which no true Israelite could fail to approve. Those who, yielding to the impulse of right, and listening to the voice of conscience, accepted the act, would be led to ponder the words ; in them would be fulfilled the promise, ' To him that hath shall more be given.' Those who hardened their heart against the act lost the revelation which was given with it, and were in danger of losing all. John does not speak of the cleansing of the temple as miraculous, but the Saviour's words themselves mark it as a * sign :' and it is only by thinking of a divine awe attending the words (comp. chap. 18 : 6) that we can explain the immediate submission of the traffickers. The fol- lowing verses describe the twofold effect of the act of Jesus on the dis- ciples and on ' the Jews.' Ver. 17 His disciples remembered that it was written, Zeal for thy house shall eat me up. Clearly (from the contrast with ver. 22) they remembered this scripture at that time. The quotation is from Ps. 69, a psalm which is several times referred to in the New Testament. See Rom. 1-5 : 3 ; 11 : 9, 10 ; Acts 1 : 20 (per- haps John 15: 25) ; and comp. Ps. 69 : 21 with the accounts of the crucifixion. We have no record of the interpretation of this psalm by Jewish writers in a Messianic sense, but New Testament usage can 4 60 JOHN 11. [2: 18,19. 18 The Jews therefore answered and said unto hira, What sign showest thou unto us, seeing that thou 19 doest these things? Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this ^ temple, and in three days I will 1 Or, sanctuary. leave no doubt that such an application of many verses is both allow- able and necessary. What was true of the devout and afflicted Israel- ite who wrote the words was true in the fullest sense of the Servant of Jehovah, of whom all such faithful servants were imperfect types. The exact meaning of the words here quoted will best appear if we take the whole verse : ' Zeal for thy house consumed me: and the reproaches of them that reproached Thee fell on me.' The par- allelism of the lines shows that the chief antithesis lies in the pro- nouns. Dishonor shown to God has been felt by the psalmist as a cruel wrong to himself. ' Zealous indignation for T/ii/ house, inspired by the sight or news of unworthy treatment of l^/diie house, con- sumed me, — so to say, destroyed my very life.' The quotation is not exact ; what in the psalm is past is here future : ' shall eat me up.' An examination of other passages will show that, where John uses the words ' it is written,' he does not necessarily imply that the quotation is made with literal exactness. Had we the past, ' con- sumed,' we might be led to think of the inward consuming of holy zeal from which resulted this act of indignation ; the future, ' will eat me up,' brings us nearer to what we have seen to be the meaning of the passage in the psalm. His zeal for His Father's house will devour His very life — will bring destruction in its train. Ver. 18. The Je-ws therefore ans-wered. The effect on the disciples has been related ; what will be the response of the rulers to the self-revelation of Jesus? The word 'therefore,' answers to the Evangelist's knowledge of the fact. Their position of inward antag- onism is presented to his thought, though it has not yet found expres- sion in their deeds. And said unto him, "What sign showest thou unto us because thou doest these things ?— This an- swer (replying to the act rather than the words) is in the tone of in- dignation, not of sincere inquiry : ' Because Thou doest these tilings Thou art bound to show a sign, a sign that shall justify such actions.' The effectual cleansing was the ' sign,' but as such they would not re- ceive it. Their question is a token of the failure (so far as the nation was concerned) of the manifestation which Jesus had given of Him- self as Son of God. Both in the question and in the response of our Lord we have a clear parallel in the earlier Gospels : see Matt. 12 : 38-40. Ver. 19. Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple. The most important point for the understanding of this verse is the distinction between the two words which the English Bible renders * temple.' The word used in vers. 14 and 15 denotes 2: 20.] JOHN II. 51 20 raise it up. The Jews therefore said, Forty and six years was this Hemple in building, and wilt thou 1 Or, sanctuary. generally the whole area within the walls, and here especially the out- ermost space in the sacred enclosure ; while .the latter signifies the holy place, and the holy of holies. The sanctity of the temple-court has been vindicated ; the true temple, the sanctuary, the dwelling- place of Jehovah, has not been mentioned in the nai-rative until now. But even this vei-y significant change of expression would not render the meaning plain, for the words were intended to be enigmatical — to be understood after, and not before, the event which fulfilled them. If we would understand them, we must take them in connection with ver. 21, ' But He spake of the temple of His body.' To the English reader they seem merely to convey a warning that, if the Jews go on with such profanation as that which Jesus had checked, they will bring the temple to ruin. But it is of the sanetuary that He speaks, not of the temple-court which had sustained the desecration. When therefore He says, ' Go on in your present way, and by so doing de- stroy this temple,' He means that their rejection of Himself shall cul- minate in their consigning to destruction the temple of His body. The essence of the temple is, that it is the dwelling-place of God : His body is God's temple, for in Him 'dwelleth all the fulness of the Godheid bodily.' The material temple had been for ages the type of His body, in which God first truly manifested Himself to man. The continuance of the temple was no longer needed when the living temple was reared ; but it was by the destruction of the latter that the destruction of the former was brought about, — its destruction, that is, as the dwelling- place of God. In the holiest place, behind the veil, Jehovah had dwelt: when the Lord Jesus was crucified, the veil was rent, the ho- ly of holies was thrown open, and by being thrown open was shown to be God's habitation no longer. Our Lord therefore might well use words which relate at once to His body and to the temple, such being the connection between tlie two. And in three days I will raise it up. — His crucifixion involved the total destruction of the Jewish tem- ple and polity. No longer will there be a special place in which God's glory will be revealed, to which God's worshippers will come, — a place in which are national distinctions, a court of the Gentiles, a court of Israel, a court of the priests. His resurrection will estab- lish a new temple, a new order of spiritual worship. He Himself, as raised and glorified Messiah, will be the Corner-stone of a spiritual temple, holy in the Lord. This is one of the many passages in the Gcspel which show to us how perfectly all the future of His histor}'' was anticipated by our Lord (see chap. 3 : 14. etc). There is no real difficulty in the words, '/ Avill raise it up;' chap. 10: 17, 18, fur- nishes a complete explanation. Ver. 20. The Jev/s therefore said, Forty and six years \v^as this temple in building, and wilt thou raise it up in 52 JOHN II. [2 : 21, 22. 21 raise it up in three days ? but he spake of the 22 temple of his body. When therefore he was raised from the dead, his disciples remembered that he spake 1 Or, sanctuary. three days ? They answer only by another question, not an in- quiry, but really an indignant and scornful rejection of His words. It was at the close of the year 20 b. c. or the beginning of 19 b. c. that Herod the Great began the rebuilding of the temple. The tem- ple itself was completed in eighteen months ; the extensive buildings round it required eight years more. So many additions, however, proved necessary before the work could be regarded as finished, that the final completion is assigned by Josephus to the year 50 a. d., sev- enty years after the commencement of the undertaking, and but twen- ty years before Jerusalem was destroyed. The ' forty and six years' bring us to the year 28 a. d. It is perhaps strange that the Jews should associate the long terms of years with the rebuilding of the sanctuary and not the temple as a whole ; it is, however, very likely that, at all events, the ornamentation of this building might still be incomplete. Moreover, in their indignant rejoinder to the saying of Jesus, they not unnaturally take up the very term which He had used, even though it applied in strictness only to the most sacred portion of the structure. Ver. 21. See above on ver. 19. Ver. 22. When therefore he was raised from the dead, hia disciples remembered that he said this. Again (as in ver. 10) we are struck by the suddenness with which the narrative breaks ofi^. It has been related mainly to bring out the rejection of Jesus by the Jews; the Evangelist pauses upon it only for a moment to speak of the eflFect on the disciples, as after the former miracle he records that the 'disciples believed in' Jesus (ver. 11). We do not find the same statement here, but are told (comp. chap. 12: 16) that the words which baffled the Jews were mysterious to the disciples likewise. Whilst, however, the Jews rejected the ' hard saying,' the disciples ' kept all these things and pondered them in their ' hearts,' not under- standing them until the prophecy was fulfilled. This record of words not understood at the time, even by the inner circle of the followers of Jesus, is a striking indication of the simple truthfulness of the nar- ration (oomp. ver. 11). — And they believed the Scriptures and the word which Jesus had said. — The recollction of the words after the resurrection led the disciples (we cannot doubt that John is speaking chiefly of his own experience) to a fuller and richer faith in 'the scripture' and 'word' of Jesus. The 'word' must be that of ver. 19 ; but it is not so easy to explain ' scripture.' It cannot mean the Old Testament as a whole, for in this sense John always uses the plural, ' the Scriptures.' It would be easier to suppose that the Evan- gelist has in mind some passages of the Old Testament predictive of the resurrection (e. g., from Ps. 16 ; Isa, 63 ; Hos. 6), or the rebuild- 2 : 22.] JOHN II. 53 this ; and they believed the scripture, and the word which Jesus had said. ing of the temple (^^Zech. 6 : 12-15). If however, we include several passages, the difficulty in the use of the singular remains as before ; and if we seek for a single prediction, we cannot meet with any one that a^rrees so closely with our Lord's saying as to be thus definitely pointed out as ' the scripture.' We seem bound to refer the word to the only ' scripture that (ver. 17) has been quoted in the context, Ps. 69 : 9. This verse speaking of the consuming and of its cause, formed the groundwork of the first part of our Lord's saying (' De- stroy this temple'). Hence this passage of the psalm and ' the word which Jesus had said ' form one whole, and as such are mentioned here. The disciples, guided to deeper faith by that which was at the time wholly mysterious (and which was a • stone of stumbling ' to those who believed not), recognizing the fulfillment of Old Testament proph- ecy and of the prediction of Jesus Himself in the death and resur- rection of their Lord. Thus in the first scene of His public ministry, we have Jesus before us in the light in which the whole Gospel is to present Him, at once the crucified and the ri-en Lord. The whole narrative has been subjected to keen scrutiny both by friends and foes, but its importance has hardly yet been properly acknowledged. A few words must still be said as to its relation to the other Gospels, and as to its place in this. Each of the earlier Gospels records a cleans- ing of the temple, accomplished, however, not at the outset but at the close of our Lord's public ministry, on the Monday (probably) pre- ceding the crucifixion. To some it has seemed altogether improbable that there should have been two acts of precisely similar character at the extreme points of the oflBcial life of our Lord. But is the char- acter of the two the same ? We would not lay too much stress on some of the differences of detail, for apparent divergences sometimes present themselves in connection with narratives which no one would be inclined to explain as relating to different events. There are, how- ever, not a few touches in the account before us which show the hand of an eye-witness ; such as the making of the scourge of cords, the scattering of the money of exchange, the words addressed to the sell- ers of doves alone, the form of the rebuke, the conversation with the Jews, the incidental notice of the forty-six years (a statement which only elaborate calculation shows to be in harmony with inde- pendent statements of another Evangelist). Finally, there is the re- markable perversion before Caiaphas of the words regarding the re- building of the temple, on which nothing contained in the earlier Gospels throws any light, and which (especially as given in Mark 14 : 58) bears all the marks of having been exaggerated in the popular mind through lapse of time. Such considerations as these seem to show that, if the cleansing can have occurred once only, its place in the history is that assigned by John. But is it really at all improba- ble that two cleansings should have taken place, separated by such an 54 JOHN II. [2 : 23. Chapter 2: 23—3: 21. The Conversation with Nicodemus. 23 Now when he was in Jerusalem at the passover, during the feast, many believed on his name, behold- interval of time as the Gospel narrative presupposes ? No one will think that the action of our Lord, as here related, would put an end to the traffic, when this very narrative brings before us an official chal- lenge of His authority so to act. At the last Passover Jesus M'ould find the temple-court as much the scene of worldly trading as it was at the first. Did He then, it will be asked, condone the evil when in intervening j'-ears He went up to the same feast? This question must be met by another : Have we reason to believe that Jesus attended any other Passover than these two ? The feast of chap. 5 : 1 was in all probability not a Passover, and at the Passover mentioned in 6 : 4 He certainly was not present. If then he attended two Passovers only, is it at all improbable that on the second occasion, as on the first. He would vindicate the purity and sanctity of the temple? The purpose, too, of the two cleansings is different. At the close of His ministry He is hailed as King of Israel, and He indignantly expels from God's house those who practically denied to Gentiles any share in that place of prayer. Now He acts as the Son of God, offering Himself in this character to rulers and to people, that they may acknowledge His Son- ship and obey His word. ' He came unto His own home,' His home as Son, • and they that were His own received Him not.' This is the turning-point of His ministry : henceforth He is the rejected of the Jews. This is the significance of the narrative before us. The cleans- ing and the mysterious words spoken by Jesus (ver. 19) are alike ' signs.' The first was a sign of His Sonship, a sign which they re- fused to accept. That refused, He gives the second ; just as, when the Pharisees asked of Him a sign from heaven. He refused lo give any save the sign of the prophet Jonah. If they will not listen to the former, the latter alone remains. He WDuld have renewed the life of the temple, but they would not have it so. Let them, then, go on in their ways, and destroy the temple ; let them go on in their rejection of Him, and destroy His life. The result will be the raising of the spiritual temple which shall be none of theirs— a temple in which God Himself shall dwell, manifested to all men in the Son. The Conversation with Nicodemus. — Chap. II. 23 — III. 21. CoNTEXTis. — It is of much importance to keep the closing verses of chap. 2 in close connection with the opening verses of chap. .3 (s"e the commentary on 3 : 1). Reject- ed by the theocracy of Israel, Jesus turns to individuals, but these are not confined to Israel. The woman of Samaria and the king's officer of Galilee are beyond the the- ocratic pale. Nicodemus, however, who is first introduced to us, does belong to the chosen people; and the conversation of Jesus with him, as it leads liim from an im- perfect to a perfect faith, illustrates the power which Jesus, though rejected by Israel and doomed to die, shall exercise over the hearts of men. The subordinate parts of this section are— (1) 2 : 23-35 ; (2) 3 : 1-15 ; (3) 3 : 16-21. 2: 24, 25.] JOHN II. 55 24 iug his signs which he did. But Jesus did not trust 25 himself unto them, for that he knew all men, and because he needed not that any one should bear witness concernino; ^man ; for he himself knew what was in man. 1 Or, a man ; for .... the man. [One of the richest sectioQs of the X. T. : the infinite love of God to the whole world (10), the mission of Christ, the kingdom of God, regeneration by his Spirit, eter-' nal life : these grand truths are set forth in this interview with a timid, j-et earnest en- quirer from the highest ranks of Jewish society. The first sign of Christ in Galilee was a miracle of transformation ; his first public act in Jerusalem an act of reforma- tion, his first discourse a discourse on regeneration. This is the central idea and one of ihe three fundamental ideas of Christianity : incarnation— atonement— regeneration. The new birth from heaven by a creative act of the Holy Sjnrit is, like the natural birth, a mystery as to its origin and mode, but a mystery manifest in its effects to all who have spiritual eyes to see, and meets us in every true Christian who is as certain of his liigher life as he is of his natural life. The results of this conversation with Mc- odemus appear in 7 : 50 and 19 : 39 and are repeated ever since in the experience of all attentive readers and hearers. — P. S.J Ver. 23. Now when he was in Jerusalem at the pass- over, at the feast, many believed in his name, beholding his signs which he did. In this verse we pass from the public presentation of Jesus to the people and 'the Jews' in the House of His Father to His more private ministry in Jerusalem : rejected as the Son of God, He continues His work as a Prophet, doing many * signs,' and by these leading many to faith in His mission. The time spoken of is still the season of the Passover. The remarkable repetition, ' at the Passover, at the feast,' may probably be intended to direct our thoughts especially to the very night of the paschal supper. If so, the purification of the temple may have fallen at the very time when every Israelite sought to purify himself and his house for the great festival that was now approaching. The words would also point to our Lord's ob- serving the feast Himself. It is noticeable that we do not here read * the Passover of the Jews : ' the desecration of the festival has been condemned in one of its manifestations, but the festival itself is honored. Vers. 24, 25. But Jesus did not trust himself unto them on account of his discerning all men, and because he needed not that any should bear witness concerning a man ; for he himself discerned what was in the man. The effect produced upon Jesus Himself by this imperfection of faith is described in very remarkable language. Many 'believed in His name,' and so took the first step towards that surrender of the heart to Him which in ver. 11 we read of as made by His disciples. Had they thus fully trusted themselves to Him, then would He have trust- ed Himself to them. This is one of the illustrations of the teaching, 80 characteristic of the Fourth Gospel, with regard to the union and communion of Jesus with His people ; if they abide in Him, He abides in them. That these believers have not reached such maturity of faith Jesus Himself discerns. No witness by another is needed by Him, for 66 JOHN III. [3: 1. 1 Now there was a man of the Pharisees, named the thoughts of every man with whom He speaks are 'naked and opened' unto Him. The words of John do not in their literal sense go beyond this ; but, in declaring that Jesus read the heart of all who came to Him, they imply that other truth with which the rendering in our Bibles has made us familiar : ' He knew Avhat was in man.' Ver. 1. And there -was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews, That this verse does not begin a new section is clearly shown by the first word ' And,' which links it with the last chapter; another indication of the same kind is seen when the true reading is restored in ver. 2 (' to Him' for * to Jesus' ). A closer examination will show that the connection thus suggested is really very close and important. In chap. 2 : 24, 25, a very marked emphasis is laid on ' man ;' the same word and thought are taken up in this verse. Ver. 2 of this chapter brings before us a belief agree- ing in nature and ground with that spoken of in chap. 2 : 23, 24. The last thought of chap. 2 is powerfully illustrated by the answers which Jesus returns to the thoughts of Nicodemus. Clearly, then, John means us to understand that out of the many Avho ' believed in the name' of Jesus was one deserving of special attention, not merely as representing a higher class and special culture, but chiefly because, brought by the signs to a degree of fsaith, he was desirous of knowing more; and our Lord's dealings with Nicodemus show how He sought to lead all who were so prepared to a deeper knowledge and higher faith. The name Nicodemus is found in the Talmud, as a Hebrew surname borne by a Jew, a disciple of Jesus, whose true name was Bonai. There is nothing to show that the persons are identical, and on the whole it is more probable that they are not. It is most natu- ral to regard the name Nicodemus as Greek, not Hebrew ; compare 'Philip' (chap. 1: 43). Nicodemus is described as a Pharisee (see notes on chaps. 1 : 24 ; 7 : 32), and as 'a ruler of the Jews,' — i. e.., a member of the Sanhclrin (comp. chap. 7: 50), the great council of seventy-one which held supreme power over the whole nation. In other passages John uses * ruler ' in this sense (see 7 : 26, 48 ; 12 : 42) ; here only does he join with it the words ' of the Jews.' The added words (see chap. 1: 19) show that Nicodemus stood connected with that body which was ever present to John's thought as the assemblage of those who represented the self-seeking and formalism which Jesus came to subvert. The elements of hostility already existed, though the open conflict had not yet begun (see chap. 2 : 18). It is not easy always to define the relation between ' the Pharisees' and ' the Jews,' as the two terms are used by John ; for under the latter designation the leaders of the Pharisees would certainly be included. The former perhaps usually brings into prominence teaching and principles ; the latter points rather to external action. The Pharisees took alarm at the new doctrine, the Jews resented the new authority. Nicodemus is not free from the externalism and prejudices of his class, but his can- 3: 2.] JOHN III. 57 2 Xicodemus, a ruler of the Jews : the same came unto him by night, and said to him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God : for no man can do these signs that thou doest, except God be with dour and his faith stand out in wonderful contrast to the general spirit evinced by the Pharisees and the Jews. Ver, 2. The same came to him by night. Chap. 19 : 38, 89, seems clearly to show that the r:otive of Nicodemus in thus coming by night was the same as the cause of Joseph's secret discipleship — the 'fear of the Jews.' That he himself was one of 'the Jews' only makes this explanation more probable. We cannot doubt that he came alone ; whether Jesus also was alone, or whether John or other disciples were present at the interview, we cannot tell. — And said unto him, Rabbi, "we kno-w that thou art come from God a teacher. Every word here is of importance. On Rabbi see the note, chap. 1 : 38. We may be sure that a member of the sect that carefully scrutinized the Baptist's credentials (chap. 1 : 19-24) would not lightly address Jesus by this title of honor, or acknowledge Him as a Teacher. But the words 'Thou art come from God' will appear even more sig- nificant, if wfi keep in mind that the most familiar designation of the Messiah was ' tl^ coming One,' ' He that should come.' The appear- ing of the Baptist quickened in the minds of ' all men' (Luke 3 : 15) the recollection of God's great promise ; and the signs lately wrought by Jesus in Jerusalem may well have excited in the mind of the Pharisee hopes which find a hesitating expression in his words. No ordinary prophet would have been thus acknowledged as one ' come from God.' At the vei-y least, the confession assigns to Jesus a su- preme authority as Teacher. The confession of Nicodemus was made in the name of others besides himself. ' We know;' — others amongst the Pharisees, perhaps already others amongst the rulers (chap. 12 : 42), had reached the same point. Xo doubt the number was but small, too small to make confession easy, or to banish the very natural fear of the Jews which brought Nicodemus to Jesus by night. — For no one can do these signs that thou doest except God be ■with him. Nicodemus acknowledges the works to be ' signs ' (not so the .Jews, chap. 2: 18), and he shows that in him the signs had pre- cisely answered the designed end. The faith indeed which rested on these alone was imperfect, but it was faith ; more could be gained ; the faith could be educated, raised higher, and made more complete. How truly this faith has been educated will be shown when (chap. 19: 39) it shall come forth in honor of that crucified Redeemer who is here to be proclaimed (ver. 14). Such education, however, can be efi"ected only by the word of Jesus, leading to fellowship with Himself. For this word Nicodemus now comes. In reading the following verses we must bear in mind that, as Jesus would train and strengthen the faith of Nicodemus, it is the weak side of this faith that is kept in view ; 68 JOHN III. [3: 3. 3 him. Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born ^anew, 1 Or, from above. but the Saviour's acceptance of the faith as real is plainly to be seen in the openness and unreservedness of the teaching He vouchsafes. Many have pointed out the contrast between this discourse and those related in the other Gospels ; but had there been no difference between " discourses delivered to the half-instructed excitable multitudes of Gal- ilee and those intended for a ' teacher of Israel,' the apparent agree- ment would have been a discord which no argument could explain away (see Introduction), Ver. 3. Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee. Except any one have been born anevr, he cannot see the kingdom of God. Jesus answers his thoughts rather than his words, but the connection between the address and the answer is not hard to find. John the Baptist had familiarized all with the thought that the kingdom of God was at hand, that the reign of the Messiah, so long expected, would soon begin. Whatever meaning may be assigned to the words of ver. 2, we may certainly say that every thoughtful Jew who believed what Nicodemus believed was ' waiting for the kingdom of God.' But the Pharisee's conception of the Mes- sianic promise was false. In great measure, at least, his ' kingdom of God' was outward and carnal, not inward and spiritual, — a privilege of birth, belonging of riglit to Israel. This false conception Jesus would at once correct, and the gravity of the error is reflected in the solemnity of the language, ' Verily, verily, I say unto thee.' — ' Any one.' Tliis more literal rendering is necessary here because of the next verse. Our Lord says simply any one. Nicodemus brings in the word 'man' to give more expressiveness to his reply. ' Have been born anew.' It has been, and still is, a much controverted question whether the Greek word here used should be rendered again, or aneio, or from above. 'Again' is certainly inadequate ; for, though the word may denote beginning over again, commencing the action afresh, it cannot express mere repetition. Much may be said in favor of the tlaird rendering ' from above.' This is the undoubted meaning of the same word as used below (ver. 31) ; and a similar idea is expressed in the passages of the Gospel (chap. 1 : 13) and First Epistle of John (chap. 2: 29, 5: 1, etc.) which speak of those who are begotten of God. It may also be urged that, as Christ is ' He that cometh from above ' (ver. 31), those who through faith are one with Christ must derive their being from the same source, and may well be spoken of as ' born from above.' Notwithstanding these arguments, it is probable that anew is the true rendering. Had the other thought been intended, we might surely have expected 'of God' instead of 'from above.' The corre- spondence between the two members of the sentence would then have been complete ; only those who have been born of God can see the 3 : 4, 5.] JOHN III. 69 4 he cannot see the kingdom of God. Kicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old ? can lie enter a second time into his mother's womb, 5 and be born ? Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say kingdom of God. Further, born (or begotten) of God is a very easy and natural expression, but this can hardly be said of born (or be(jotten) from above : ' coming from above ' is perfectly clear ; ' born from above' is not so. The chief argument, however, is afforded by the next verse, which clearly shows that Nicodemus understood a second birth to be intended. But the words ' except any one have been born from above' would not necessarily imply a second birth. The Jews maintained that they were born of God (see chap. 8: 41), and would have had no difficulty whatever in believing that those only who re- ceived their being from above could inherit the blessings of Messiah's kingdom. Our Lord's words, then, teach the fundamental truth, that not natural birth, descent from the stock of Israel, but a second birth, the being begotten anew, a complete spiritual change (see ver. 5), ad- mits into the kingdom of God. On the general expectation of a king and a kingdom, see chap. 1 : 49. It is remarkable that the kingdom of God is expressly mentioned by .John in this chapter only (compare, how^ever, chap. 18: 36). — 'Cannot' is by no means the same as 'shall not.' It expresses an impossibility in the very nature of things. To a state of outward earthly privilege, rights of natural birth might give admittance. In declaring that without a complete inward change none can possibly see (have a true perception of ) ' the kingdom of God,' Jesus declares the spiritual character of His kingdom. In it none but the spiritual can have any part. Ver. 4. Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born -when he is old ? can he enter a second time into his mother's womb, and be born ? These are the words of a man amazed beyond measure. Jesus has read his thoughts, and the answer to his unspoken question has come with the suddenness and surprise of a thunderbolt. The solemn emphasis laid on the words *born anew' forbids his thinking of a mere figure of speech, and apparently banishes from his mind the Old Testament expressions which approach the same truth (see ver. 5). The privilege which he attached to natu- ral birth within the bounds of Israel is torn away by -a word ; the ' any one' of our Lord's answer makes all men equal ; and the prize which seemed almost within his grasp is given to every one who has been born anew. In his bewilderment he sees no meaning in the words of Jesus, except they be understood physically of a second natural birth ; and the evident impossibility of this he expresses in the very strongest terms. Ver. 5. Jesus answered. Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except any one have been born of water and spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. The answer is a 60 JOHN III. [3 : 5. unto thee, Except a man be born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. stronger affirmation of the same truth, with some changes of expres- sion which made the words no easier of acceptance, save as the new terms might awaken echoes of Old Testament language, and lead the hearer from the external to an inward and spiritual interpretation. The first words have given rise to warm and continued controversy. Many have held that the bii"th ' of water and spirit' can only refer to Christian baptism ; others have denied that Christian baptism is alluded to at all. The subject is very important and very difficult. Our only safety lies in making the Evangelist his own interpreter. We shall repeatedly find, when a difficulty occurs, that some word of his own in the context or in some parallel passage brings us light. (1) First, then, as to the very peculiar expression 'of water and spirit.' We cannot doubt that this is the true rendering; no direct reference is made as yet to the personal Holy Spirit The words ' water and spirit' are most closely joined, and placed under the government of the same preposition. A little earlier in the Gospel (chap. 1 : 33) we find the same words — not, indeed, joined togetlier as here, but yet placed in exact parallelism, each word, too, receiving emphasis from the context. Three times between chap. 1 : 19 and chap. 1 : 33 John speaks of his baptism with water ; twice there is a reference to the Spirit (1 : 32, 33) ; and in ver. 33 John's baptizing with water and our Lord's baptizing with 'holy spirit' (see the note) stand explicitly contrasted. It is very possible that this testimony was well known to others besides John's disciples, to all indeed in Judgea who were roused to inquiry respecting the Baptist and his relation to Jesus. (2) It is possible that the Jews of that age may have been familiar with the figure of a new birth in connection with baptism. It is confessedly difficult accurately to ascertain Jewish usages and modes of thought in the time of our Lord. The Talmud indeed contains copious stores of information, but it is not easy to distinguish between what belongs to an earlier and what to a later age. We know that converts to the Jewish religion were admitted by baptism to fellowship with the sacred people. The whole tenor of the law would suggest such a washing when the uncleanness of heathenism was put off, and hence no rite could be more natural. Yet we have no certain knowledge that this was practiced so early as the time of our Lord. There is no doubt that, at a later date, the proselyte thus washed or baptized was spoken of as born again. Here again, therefore, we have some confirmation of the view that in the words before us there is in some sort a reference to baptism, — at all events, to the baptism of John. (3) But what was John's baptism? We see from chap. 1 : 25 how peculiar his action ap- peared to the rulers of the people. Even if proselytes were in that age baptized, a baptism that invited all, publican and Pharisee alike, would but seem the more strange. John's action was new and startling; and from chap. 1 : 21-25 it appears that the leaders of Jewish thought be- 3 : 6.] JOHN III. 61 6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh ; and that held in it an immediate reference to the time of Messiah, It seems very- probable that John's baptism was directly symbolic, a translation into visible symbol of such promises as Ezek. 36 : 25, which looked forward to the new spiritual order of which he was the herald. To the sprink- ling with clean water, the cleansing from all filthiness, of which Ezek- iel speaks, answers closely John's ' baptism of repentance for the re- mission of sins' (compare also Ezek, 36: 31), To the promise which follows, 'A new spirit will t put within you. ... I will put my spirit within you,' answers just as closely John's testimony to Jesus, ' He it is that baptizeth with holy spirit,' (4) The two contrasted elements in the baptisms of chap, 1 : 33 are (a) the covering and removal of past sin ; and [b) the inbreathing of a new life. In that verse 'holy spirit' is the gift and not the Giver. The Giver is the Holy Spirit ; but the gift, that which is the essential element in the new baptism, is the bestowal of 'holy spirit,' the seed and the principle of a holy spiritual life. (5) These two elements were conjoined in the Christian baptism instituted afterwards: the cleansing of forgiveness through Christ's death and the holiness of the new life in Christ are alike symbolized in it. Here, therefore, our Lord says that no man can enter into the kingdom of God unless he have been born anew, the elements of the new birth being the removal by cleansing of the old sinful life, and the imparta- tion by the Holy Spirit of a new holy principle of life. — If this view of the words is correct, there is error in both extremes of which men- tion has been made. There is no direct reference here to Christian bap- tism; but the reference to the truths which that baptism expresses is distinct and clear. Ver. 6. That which hath been born of the flesh is flesh ; and that -which hath been born of the Spirit is spirit. In the last verse was implied the law that like is produced from like, since the pure and spiritual members of God's kingdom must be born of water and spirit. Here this law is expressly stated. Flesh pro- duces flesh. Spirit produces spirit. Thus the necessity of a new birth is enforced, and the 'cannot' of ver. 3 explained. It is not easy to say whether ' flesh,' as here used, definitely indicates the sinful prin- ciples of human nature, or only that which is outward, material, not spiritual but merely natural. The latter seems more likely, both from the context (where the contrast is between the natural and the spirit- ual birth) and from John's usage elsewhere. Though the word occurs as many as thirteen times in this Gospel (chap. 1 : 13 ; 14, 6: 51, 52, etc., 8 : 15 ; 17: 2), in no passage does it express the thought of sinful- ness, as it does in Paul's Epistles and in 1 John 2 : 16. Another diffi- culty meets us in the second clause. Are we to read 'born of the Spirit' or 'of the spirit?' Is the reference to the Holy Spirit Him- self, who imparts the principle of the new life, or to the principle which He imparts, — the principle just spoken of in ver. 5, ' of water and spirit ? ' It is hard to say,, and the diff"erence in meaning is ex- 62 JOHN III. [3: 7, 8. 7 which is born of the Sj^irit is spirit. Marvel not 8 that I said unto thee, Ye must be born ^anew. ^The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the 1 Or, from above. 20r, The Spirit breatheth. tremely small ; but when we consider the analogy of the two clauses, the latter seems more likely. There is no reference here to ' water ; ' but, as we have seen, the water has reference to the past alone, — the state which gives jjlace to the new life. To speak of this would be beside the point of the verse now before us, which teaches that the spiritual life of the kingdom of God can only come from the new spiritual principle. Ver. 7. Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born ane"w. Nicodemus had no doubt shown by look or exclamation his astonishment at hearing such words, containing so strange a view of the kingdom of God and the conditions on which it could be entered. The use of ' marvel ' in other passages would seem to show that in this Gospel the word indicates much more than amazement. It is certain- ly not the astonishment of admiration, but incredulous and sometimes angry surprise. Our Lord's teaching had set at nought the accepted teaching of Israel, thoughts and hopes to which Nicodemus had long and firmly clung, and his heart rebels. Our Lord, according to His wont, does but the more emphatically affirm the truth at which Nicodemus stumbled. ' Ye must be born again : ' the necessity is absolute. Before, He had spoken of 'any one,' leaving the application to His hearer; now, as Nicodemus had said ' We know,' Jesus says ' Ye must,' — even ye who possess the treasures of Israel's learning, and whom the signs are guiding to the King of Israel, ' ye must be born again : ' * Marvel not at this.' Ver. 8. The words of this verse point out to Nicodemus why he must not thus "marvel' at the new teaching, — must not cast it away with incredulous surprise. Nature itself may teach him. In nature there is an agent whose working is experienced and acknowledged by all, while at the same time it is full of mystery ; yet the mystery makes no man doubt the reality of the working. — The wind breath- eth where it listeth, and thou hearest the voice thereof, but knowest not whence it cometh, and whither it goeth. From the beginning the wind seems to have been the divinely-intended wit- ness and emblem in the natural world of the Spirit of God. Ever pre- sent it bore a constant witness. A commentator (Tholuck) has conjec- tured that, whilst .Jesus spoke, there was heard the sound of the wind as it swept through the narrow street of the city, thus furnishing an occasion for the comparison here. It may well have been so ; every reader of the Gospels may see how willingly our Lord drew lessons from natural obiects around Him. Such a conjecture might help to explain the abruptness with which the meaning of the word is changed, the very same word which in vers. 5 and 6 was rendered 3: 9.] JOHN III. 63 voice thereof, but knowest not whence it coraeth and whither it goeth : so is every one that is born of the 9 Spirit. Nicodemus answered and said unto him, spirit being now used in the sense of wind. Nothing but the abrupt- ness of this transition needs any exphination. The appointed emblem teaches the lesson for which it was appointed. The choice of terms {breathpth, listcth, voice) shows that the wind is personified. It is per- iiaps of the gentle breeze rather than of the violent blast that the words speak (for the \;OT(i pneuma is used with much more latitude in the Greek Bible than in classical Greek) ; in the breath of wind there is even more mystery than in the blast. Thou hearest its voice, it is present though invisible ; thou feelest its power, for thou art in its course ; but where the course begins, what produces the breath, — whither the course is tending, what is the object of the breath, — thou knowest not. Nicodemus, unable to question this, would remember Old Testament words which spoke of man's not knowing 'the way of the wind' as illustrating man's ignorance of the Creators works. (Eccles. 11 : 5). — So is every one that hath been born of the Spirit. As in the natural, so it is in the spiritual world. The wind breatheth where it listeth ; the Spirit breatheth where He will. Thou hearest the sound of the wind, but canst not fix the limits of its course, experiencing only that thou thyself art in that course : every one that hath been born of the Spirit knows that His influence is real, experiencing that influence in himself, but can trace His Avorking no farther, — knows not the beginning or the end of His course. Our Lord does not speak of the birth itself, but of the resulting state. The birth itself belongs to a region beyond the outward and the sensible, just as none can tell whence the breath of wind has come. Many take the first part of the verse as having reference to the Spirit, not the wind: 'The Spirit breatheth where He will, and thou hearest His voice, but knowest not whence He cometh and whither He goeth ; so is every one that hath been born of the Spirit.' The chief arguments in favor of this translation are the fi llowing : — (1) It does not involve a sudden transition from one meaning to another of the same Greek word. (2) On the ordinary view there is some confusion in the com- parison : the words are not, ' The wind breatheth where ... so is the Spirit,-' but, 'The wind breatheth where . . . so is every one that hath been born of the Spirit.' These two arguments have substantially been dealt with above. The language is condensed, it is true, and the words corresponding to the first clause are not directly expressed, but have to be supplied in thought. The chief comparison, however, is between the 'thou' of the first clause and the 'every one' of the second, as we have already seen. On the other hand, the diflficulties presented by the new translation are serious, but we cannot here follow them in de- tail. Ver. 9. Nicodemus ans-wered and said unto him, Ho^v can these things come to pass ? The tone of this answer is very 64 JOHN III. [3: 10. 10 How can these things be ? Jesus answered and said unto him, Art thou the teacher of Israel, and under- diflFerent from that of verse 4. Here, as there, the question is. How can . . ? But there the added words show that the meaning is, ' It is impossible' (comp. Luke 1: 18); whereas in this verse the chief stress lies on the first word ' How ' (comp. Luke 1 : 34). The offended astonishment of Nicodemus (ver. 7) has yielded to the words of Jesus. He now understands that Jesus really means that there is such a thing as a new spiritual birth, in contrast with that natural birth which had ever seemed to him the only necessary condition of entrance into the kingdom of Messiah. Still, as ver. 12 shows, the victory over unbe- lief is not yet complete. Ver. 10. Jesus ansvrered and said unto him, Thou art the teacher of Israel ; and perceivest not these things ? The question which expressed the bewilderment of Nicodemus is an- swered by another question. He has assumed the office of teacher, teacher of God's people Israel, and yet he does not recognize these truths. ' Israel ' is a word used only four times in this Gospel, and never without special meaning. We have seen its significance in 1 : 31 and 49 ; and chap. 12 : 13 is similar The only remaining passage is that before us. No word so clearly brings into view the nation of God's special choice. The name carries us back from a time of degen- eracy and decadence to past days of hope and promise. It was to Israel that God showed His statutes and His judgments (Ps. 147: 19), and this thought is very prominent here. Of Israel thus possessed of the very truths to which Jesus had made reference (see above, on ver. 5) Nicodemus is • the teacher.' It is not simply ' a teacher,' though it is not very easy to say what the presence of the article denotes. It is possible that Nicodemus occupied a superior position, or was held in especial honor amongst the doctors of the law ; or the words may merely imply that he magnified his office and was proud to be teacher of God's people. Surely from him might have been expected such knowledge of the Scriptures and insight into their meaning that the truth of the words just spoken by Jesus would at once be recognised. For our Lord does not say ' and knowest not ;' Nicodemus is not blamed for any want of previous knowledge of these things, but because he does not perceive the truth of the teaching when presented to him, — and presented, moreover, by One whose right to teach with authority he had himself confessed. It will be observed that Jesus does not answer the ' How ' of the preceding question ; that had been an- swered by anticipation. In ver. 8 Jesus had declared that the man- ner must be a mystery to man, whereas the fact was beyond all doubt. The fact was known to every one that had been born of the Spirit, but to such only. Hence in the following verse we have a renewed and more emphatic affirmation of the truth and certainty of what has been said. If Nicodemus would really know the fact, it must be by the knowledge of experience, — He appears no further in this narra- 3: 11, 12.] JOHN III. 65 11 standest not these things ? Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Vie speak that we do know, and bear witness of that we have seen ; and ye receive not our witness. 12 If I told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how tive. The last words have reduced him to silence, — thoughtful silence, we cannot doubt, — but have not brought him to complete belief. Ver. 11. Verily, verily, I say unto thee. These woi-ds form the solemn introduction to a new division, a higher stage, of the dis- course. The connecting link between vers. 10 and 11 is reproof. The last verse laid stress on the knowledge which should have pre- pcared the teacher of Israel for the reception of the word of Jesus ; in this the emphasis lies on the dignity of the Teacher Avhose word he had been so slow to receive. We speak that "which "we know, and bear witness of that which we have seen. The sudden transition to the plural ' we know ' is remarkable. We cannot suppose that our Lord here joins with Himself the prophets of the Old Covenant, or John the Baptist, or that He is speaking of the testimony of the Father and the Holy Spirit. The key to the plural is found in ver. 8. Every one who dwells in the spiritual world of which Jesus has been speaking is a witness to its reality and its wonders. Here then Jesus associates with Himself in this emphatic testimony all who have been born of the Spirit. The change of expression is peculiarly appropriate, since He is about lo pass away from the direct address to Nicodemus himself, and to speak through him to the class to which he belonged. Nicodemus had at first said ' we know ' (ver. 2), as rep- resentative of others like-minded with himself, who by the signs had been led to faith in the name of Jesus, but were ignoi-ant of His spir- itual work. Jesus now contrasts with these another class, consisting of all who from their own experience could join Rim in His testimony to the reality of the spiritual kingdom. The words of Jesus in chap. 9 : 4 are equally remarkable in their association of His people with Himself. — The tAvo parallel members of this verse bring the truth ex- pressed into bold relief. The words closely correspond [knoicing to speaking, seeing to bearing witness), while there is at the same time an advance in the thought, since bearing witness rises above speaking, and we have seen is more expressive than we know. In ver. 8, where the wind was taken as the emblem of the Spirit, the sense which bore witness was that of hearing. This verse speaks of something more convincing still, the sense of sight. And ye receive not our witness. To such sayings of his Master we may trace the mourn- ful reflections which are again and again made by the Evangelist (see 1: 11,3: 32, 12: 37). Though the reference is to a class (' ye re- ceive '), yet the words seem to imply that some unbelief still lingered in the heart of Xicodemus himself. Yer. 12. If I told you the earthly things, and ye believe not, how^ shall ye believe if I tell you the heavenly 5 66 JOHN III. [3: 12. things ? Here our Lord returns to the singular, ' I told ;' for He is not now speaking of the witness of experience, but of instruction which He Himself had personally given. It seems hardly possible, however, that our Lord simply refers to words just spoken. In say- ing 'If I told you the earthly things, and ye believe not,' He plainly refers to unbelief after instruction, — unbelief which instruction failed to remove. But if Nicodemus came alone (and there is no doubt that he did), he alone had received this last instruction. Others might be described as unbelievers, but not as remaining in unbelief after having heard the teaching concerning the new birth. We are compelled, therefore, to suppose that our Lord spoke generally of previous dis- courses to the Jews, and not specifically of these His latest words. But what are the earthly and the heavenly things ? Many answers have been given which are little more than arbitrary conjectures. Again the Evangelist must be his own interpreter. As in the next verse ' heaven ' is not used figuratively, it cannot be maintained that 'heavenly' is figurative here. The words 'earthly' and 'heavenly' must have their simple meaning, ' what is upon earth,' ' what is in heaven.' The things that are in heaven can only be made known by Him who has been in heaven ; this is suggested by the connection be- tween this verse and the next. When we come to the last section of the chapter, we shall find that it contains (in some degree) a comment upon these verses. Now there (in ver. 82) we read of Him ' that Cometh out of heaven, who ' bears witness of what He has seen and heard,' — who being sent from God ' speaketh the words of God ' (ver. 34:). But tbis same comment takes note of the converse also. Con- trasted with Him who comes from heaven is ' he that is out of the earth' and 'speaketh out of the earth' (ver. 31). Combining these explanatory words, we may surely say that ' the heavenly things ' are those truths which he who cometh from heaven, and He alone, can reveal, which are the words of God revealing His counsels by the Di- vine Son now come. The things on earth, in like manner, are the truths whose hoine is earth, so to speak, which were known before God revealed Himself by Him who is in the bosom of the Father (chap. 1 : 18). They are 'earthlj'',' not as belonging to the world of sin or the world of sense, but as being things which the prophet or teacher who has never ascended into heaven, but whose origin and home are the earth, can reach, though not necessarily by his own un- aided powei's. In His former discourses to the Jews, Jesus would seem not to have gone beyond the circle of truth already revealed. Even in His words to Nicodemus He mainly dwells on that which the Scriptures of the Old Testament had taught ; and He reproves the teacher of Israel who did not at once recognize His words, thus founded on the Old Testament, as truth. The kingdom of God, the necessity of repentance and faith, the new heart, the holy life, the need at once of cleansing and of quickening — these and other truths, once indeed inhabitants of heaven, had long been naturalized on earth. Having been revealed, they belong to men, whereas the secret 3 : 13.] JOHN III. 67 13 shall ye believe if I tell you heavenly things ? And no man hath ascended into heaven, but he that de- things belong unto the Lord (Deut, 29: 29). Those of whom our Lord spoke had yielded a partial belief, but the 'believing' of which He here speaks is a perfect faith. Nicodemus was a believer, and yet not a believer. If some of the truths hitherto declared had been so imperfectly received, though those who were mighty in the Scriptures ought to have recognized them as already taught, almost as part of the law that was given through Moses (chap. 1 : 17), how would it be when He spoke of the things hitherto secret, coming directly out of the heaven which He opens (comp. chap. 1 : 51), and for the first time revealed in Him, — part of the ' truth ' that 'came through .lesus Christ?' (chap, 1 : 17). — It will be seen, then, that the truth of ver. 5 would seem to be placed by Jesus rather amongst the ' earthly ' than amongst the ' heavenly ' things. Of some of the heavenly things He proceeds to speak (vers. 14, 15). Ver. 13. And no one hath ascended up into heaven, but he that came dow^n out of heaven, the Son of man. The con- nection is this : ' How will ye believe if I tell you the heavenly things ? And it is from me alone that ye can learn them. No one can tell the heavenly things unless he has been in heaven, and no one has been in heaven and come down to earth save myself.' Repeatedly does our Lord in this Gospel speak of His coming down out of heaven (6 : 33, 38, etc. ), using the very word that we meet with here ; and hence it is impossible to give the phrase a merely figurative sense. He came forth from the Father, and came into the world (16 : 28) that He might declare the Father (chap. 1 : 18) and speak unto the world what He had heard from Him (chap. 8: 26). But this requires that we take the other verb 'hath ascended up' in its literal sense, and then the words seem to imply that Jesus had already ascended into heaven. ' Hath ascended up ' cannot refer to His future ascension ; and there is no foundation for the view held by some, that within the limits of His ministry on earth He was ever lit- erally taken up into heaven. What, then, is the meaning? There are several passages in which the words ' save ' or ' except ' present the same difficulty. One of the most familiar is Luke 4 : 27, where it seems at first strange to read, ' Many lepers were in Israel in the time of Elisha the prophet, and none of them was cleansed saving Naamau the Syrian,' — no leper of Israel cleansed except a leper who was not of Israel ! The mind is so fixed on the lepers and their cleansing, that the other words ' of them ' are not carried on in thought to the last clause : * none of them was cleansed.' — indeed, no leper was cleansed save ' Naaman the Syrian.' So also in the preceding verse (Luke 6 : 26). In other passages (such as Gal. 2 : 16 ; Rev. 21 : 27) the same peculiarity exists, but it is not apparent in the Authorized Ver- sion. The vei'se before us is exactly similar. The special thought is not the having gone up into heaven, but the having been in heaven. This "Was the qualification for revealing the truths which are here spoken of 68 JOHN III. [3 : 14, 15. scended out of heaven, even the Son of man, Svhich 14 is in heaven. And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted 15 up : that whosoever ^believeth may in him have eter- nal life. 1 Many ancient authorities omit which is in heaven. 2 Qr, believeth in him way have. as heavenly things. But none (none, that is, of the sons of men ; for this is a general maxim, the exception is not brought in till after- wards) could be in heaven without ascending from earth to heaven. No one has gone up into heaven, and by thus being in heaven obtained the knowledge of heavenly things ; and, indeed, no one has been in heaven save He that came down out of heaven, the Son of man. Ob- serve how insensibly our Lord has passed into the revelation of the heavenly things themselves. He could not speak of His power to re- veal without speaking of that which is first and chief of all the heav- enly things, viz. that He Himself came down out of heaven to be the Son of man (on the name ' Son of man ' see chap. 1 : 51). The ref- erence to our Lord's humility is here strikingly in place. He came down from heaven and became the Son of man to reveal these heav- enly truths and (vers. 14, 15) to give the heavenly blessings unto man. The weight of evidence compels us to believe that the concluding words of this verse, Avhich is in heaven, as it stands in the Authorized Version, were not written by John. We can only suppose that they were a very early comment on, or addition to, the text, first written in the margin, then by mistake joined to the text. Were they genu- ine, they would probably refer to the abiding presence of the Son with the Father ; but in such a sense it is very improbable that ' Son of man ' would have been the name chosen. At all events, we have no other example of the same kind. Vers. 14, 15. And as Moses lifted on high the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted on high, that every one that believeth may in him have eternal life. These verses continue the revelation of the heavenly things. The first truth is, that He who was in heaven came down to earth to be the Son of man. The next is, that the Son of man must be exalted, but in no such manner as the eager hopes of Nicodemus imagined. The secret counsel of heaven was, that He who was with God should as Son of man be lifted on high, as the serpent was lifted on high by Moses in the wilderness. Thus, indeed, it ' must be, that He may become the Giver of eternal life. — The word rendered 'lifted on high ' occurs fifteen times in other parts of the New Testament, sometimes in such proverbial sayings as Matt. 23 : 12, sometimes in reference to the exaltation of our Lord (Acts 2: 33, 5 : 31). In this Gospel we find it in three verses besides the present. The general usage of the word in the New Testament and the Old is sufficient to show that it cannot here signify merely raising or lifting up. And yet 3: 15.] JOHN III. 69 John's own explanation forbids us to exclude this thought. All the passages in this Gospel which connect the word with the Son of man must clearly be taken together ; and chap. 12 : 33 (see note there) de- clares that the word contains a reference to the mode of the Saviour" s death — the elevation on the cross. Nicodemus looked for the exalta- tion of the King in the coming kingdom of God. Exalted He shall be, not like the monarch sitting on a throne, high and lifted up, amid pomp and splendor, but receiving His true power and glory at the time Avhen He hangs upon a tree an object of shame. The brazen serpent, made in the likeness of the destroyer, placed on a standard and held up to the gaze of all, might seem titted only to call forth ex- ecration from those who were reminded of their peril, scorn and con- tempt from those who saw but a powerless symbol ; but the dying Is- raelite looked thereon and lived. The looking was a type of faith — nay, — it Avas itself an act of fiiith in the promise of God. The serpent was raised on high that all might look on it ; the exaltation of the Son of man, which begins with the shame of the cross, has for its object the giving of life to all (compare chap. 12 : 32, and also Heb. 2 : 9). — ' That every one that believeth.' At first our Lord closely follows the words spoken in ver. 12, As there we read, 'Ye believe not,' so here, ' He that believeth : ' as yet no qualifying word is added to deepen the significance of the ' belief.' What is before us is the gen- eral thought of receiving the word of Jesus. In that all is in truth included ; for he that truly receives His word finds that its first and chief requirement is faith in .Jesus Himself. So here, the trust is first general, but the thought of fellowship and union, so characteristic of this Gospel, comes in immediately, ' that every one that believeth may in Him have eternal life,' These verses which reveal the heavenly truths contain the very first mention of ' eternal life,' the blessing of which John, echoing his Master's words, is ever speaking. 'Eternal life ' is a present possession for the believer (comp. ver. 36) ; its essence is union with God in Christ. See chap. 17 : 3 ; 1 John 1 : 2, 5 : 11. The result of the interview with Nicodemus is not recorded, but the subsequent mention of him in the Gospel can leave no doubt upon our mind that, whether at this moment or not, he eventually embraced the truth. It would seem that, as the humiliation of Jesus deepened, he yielded the more to that truth against which at the beginning of this conversation he would most have rebelled. It is the persecution of Jesus that draws him forward in His defence (7: 51); it is when Jesus has been lifted up on the cross that he comes to pay Him honor (19: 39). He is thus a trophy, not of the power of signs alone, but the power of the heavenly things taught by Jesus. At this point an important question arises. Are the next five verses a continua- ation of the preceding di.scourse? Are they words of Jesus or a reflection by the Evan- gelist himself upon his Mastar"s words ? Most commentators have taken the former view. The latter was first suggested by Erasmus, and has found favor with many thoughtful writers on this Gospel. And with reason. The first suggestion of a sud- den break in the discourse may be startling, but a close examination of the verses will 70 JOHN III. [3: 16. 16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on him should show that they present distiuct traces of belonging to John : (1) Their general style and character remind us of the Prologue. (2) The past tenses ' loved ' and ' were ' in ver. 19 at once recall chap 1: 10, 11; and are generally more in harmony with the tone of the Evangelist's later reflections than with that of the Redeemer's discourse. (3) In ver. 11 Jesus eays, ' ye receive not our testimony :' in ver. 19 the impression produced is not that of a present refusal, but rather of a past and continued rejection. (4) In no other place is the appellation ' only begotten ' used by Jesus Himself in re- gard to the Son, though it is used by the Evangelist in chap. 1 : 14, 1 : 18, and 1 John 4:9. It cannot be fairly said that there is anything really strange in the introduc- tion of these reflections. It is altogether in the rnanner of this writer to comment on what he has related (see especially 12: 37-41); and in at least one instance he passes suddenly, without any mark of transition, from the words of another to his own, — for very few will suppose chap. 1 : 16 to be a continuation of the Baptist's testimony (ver. 15). The view now advocated will receive strong confirmation if we convince the reader that there is a similar break after ver. 30 in this chapter, the last six verses belonging to the author of the Gospel and not to the Baptist. Ver. 16. For God so loved the -world, that he gave his only- begotten Son, that every one that believeth in him may not perish, but have eternal life. [The whole gospel in a nutshell.] In the preceding verses is recorded the first announcement of the gos- pel by our Lord, the revelation of the mystery made manifest by Him who came out of heaven. John pauses to set his Master's words in the light in which he himself had afterwards beheld them, Jesus bad said * must be lifted on high-,' but had given no reason. His disciple, whose message to the church was ' God is love' (1 John 4 : 16), refers back the necessity to this truth. Whatever remains still hidden, so much as this is certain, that the humiliation and exaltation of Him who came down out of heaven were the expression of God's love to the whole world. The Son of man is the Son of God, the only begotten Son ; the one term expresses His fitness for the work, the other points to His dignity and greatness of the Father's love. In this love the Father gave the Son : to ivhat He surrendered Him is not here said ; our Lord's own words (ver. 14) fill up the meaning. The universality of the blessing is marked Avith twofold emphasis ; designed, not for Israel only, but for the whole icorld, it is the actual possession of every believer. The words relating to faith are more definite than in ver. 14; for (see chap. 2: 11) to ' believe in Him' points to a trust which casts itself on Him and presses into union with Him. — The Di- vine purpose is presented under two aspects, not one onl}' (as in ver. 15) ; it is that the believer maybe saved from perdition, and may now possess eternal life. — This verse contains most of the leading terms of John's theology. The 'world' does not in this verse designate those who had received and rejected the offer of salvation. It is thought of as at an earlier stage of its history ; the light is not yet presented by 3 : 17, 18.] JOHN III. 71 17 not perish, but have eternal life. For God sent not the Son into the world to judge the world ; but that 18 the world should be saved through him. He that be- lieveth on him is not judged : he that believeth not hath been judged already, because he hath not be- the acceptance or rejection of which the final state of the world shall be determined. Ver. 17. For God sent not the Son into the world that he may judge the world ; but that the world through him may be saved. The thought of the last verse is expanded. There it was the gift of God's love that was brought before us ; now it is the mission of the Son. To ' may perish (ver. 16) here corresponds ' may judge the world, to * have eternal life ' answers ' may be saved.' This alone is sufficient to show that the word 'judge,' though not in itself equivalent to ' condemn,' has reference to a judgment which tends to condemnation. The Jews believed that Messiah would come to glorify Israel, but to judge the Gentiles ; the solemn and emphatic repetition of ' the world ' rebukes all such limitations, as efi'ectually as the words of ver. 3 set aside the distinctions which were present to the thought of Nicodemus. — It may seem hard to reconcile the first part of this verse with 5 : 22,27; 9: 39; 12: 48. We must, however, recog- nise a twofold purpose in Christ's coming. He came to save, not to judge the world. He came to judge the world in so far as it will not allow itself to be saved ; and this judgment is one that takes place even now (because even now there is wilful unbelief;, though it will be consumed hereafter. Ver. 18. He that believeth in him is not judged : he that believeth not hath been judged already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. The two preceding verses express the Divine purpose in itself, and that purpose passing into accomplishment ; this verse speaks of the actual result. Two of the terms of these verses, the believing in Jesus of ver. 16 and judging of ver. 17, are here brought together. He that abides in faith in Christ abides in a state to which judging belongs not ; whilst the faith remains, the idea of judgment is excluded, for the be- liever is one with the Lord in whom he has placed his trust. Not so with the unbeliever ; on him the sentence of judgment is already pronounced. As long as the unbelief is persisted in, so long does the sentence which the rejection of Jesus brings vrith it remain in force against him. The great idea of the Gospel, the division of all men into two classes severed from each other, is very clearly presented here ; but no unchangeable division is thought of. The separation is the result of deliberate choice ; and whilst the choice is adhered to, the severance abides. — As the faith of the believer is faith 'in Him,' faith that brings personal union, the unbelief is the rejection of His Person re- vealed in all its dignity, the only begotten Son of God. 72 JOHN III. [3: 19,20. lieved on the name of the only begotten Son of God. 19 And this is the judgment, that the light is come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than 20 the light ; for their works were evil. For every one Ver. 19. And this is the judgment, — the judgment is of this kind, takes phxce thus, — because the light is come into the ■world, and men loved the darkness rather than the light, for their -works were wicked. These words bring out clearly that the ' not believing ' spoken of in the last verse signifies an active rejection, and not the mere absence of belief— a rejection of the true light which in the person of Jesus came into the world, and hence- forth ever is in the world. Men loved the darkness, for their works — not single deeds, but the whole expression and manifestation of their life — were wicked. The word used ('wicked') is that which else- where expresses the character of the arch-enemy as ' the wicked one' (John 17 : 15 ; 1 John 3 : 12). It denotes active evil, positive and pronounced wickedness. Ver. 20. For every one that committeth evil hateth the light, and he cometh not to the light lest his works should be convicted. This verse explains the last, and refers the action there described to a general principle. The universal law is, that he who committeth evil hateth the light. Not ' he that hath committed,' for what is spoken of is the bent and the spirit of the man's life. The word ' evil ' here is not the same as that rendered ' wicked ' in ver. 19, but is more general. The one word means evil in active manifestation ; the other what is worthless, good for nothing. No doubt the second word is used in this verse partly for the sake of vivid conti-ast with the real and abiding ' truth' of ver. 21, partly because what is worthless and unsubstantial will not stand the test of coming to that very light which shows in all its reality whatever is substantial and true. Every one whose life is thus evil knows that in the presence of the light he must stand self-condemned. The experience is painful, and he endea- vors to avoid it by turning from the light, till, as conscience still asserts its power, he seeks defence against himself by hating the light (compare 1 Kings 22 : 8). We must not forget the application that is in John's mind. The light that is come is Jesus Himself. He is come; but men also must come to Him. If they came not, the cause was a moral one. Before He came, some light had been in the world (1 : 5) ; those who, living a life of evil (whether open wickedness or a worth- less self-righteousness), hated this light, were thus prepared to reject the Light Himself. The last word of the verse is remarkable, as it is more naturally applied to the doer than to his deed. Not only will the works be shown by the light — be exposed in their true character ; the works are looked on as if of themselves the criminals — they will be self-convicted, self-condemned. The thought of self-conviction has in this Gospel an importance that can hardly be over-estimated. 3: 21, 22.] JOHN III. 73 that ^ doetli ill * hatetli the light, and cometh not to 21 the light, lest his works should be ^reproved. But he thatdoeth the truth cometh to the light, that his works maj be made manifest, ^that they have been wrought ^ in God. ^ Chapter 3: 22-36. The Fassing away of the Baptist in the presence of the True Bridegroom of the Church. 22 After these things came Jesus and his disciples into the land of Judaea ; and there he tarried with them, '^OVjpracticeth. ^ Or, convicted. ^ Or, because. * For " ill " read " evil." So in ver. 29. — Am. Com. Ver. 21. But he that doeth the truth cometh to the light, that his "works may be made manifest, because they have been -wrought in God. lu contrast with those who commit evil is another chiss — those who do the truth. The words expressing action in vers. 20, 21, are different: that in ver. 20 ('comraitteth') refers di- rectly to the particular acts, that which is used here (which properly denotes to make, to produce) brings into view rather the result. The man here spoken of is (so to speak) at work in raising the abiding structure of ' the truth.' So far as the truth has been revealed to him, his life is ftiithful to it ; his works are an expression of the truth that is in his heart. As Jesus says (chap. 18: 37), 'Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice ; ' so here we read, ' He that doeth the truth cometh to the light.' There is a natural affinity between truth and light ; he who is faithful to truth received is, through the very nature of the truth within him, impelled towards Him who is the Truth. He does not come to the light that his works may be made known to others; there is no self-seeking, — perhaps even it is not the conscious purpose of the man himself that is spoken of, but rather the instinctive aim of the truth within him, and thus in reality the purpose of God, that all the works of God be made manifest. The works of this doer of truth have been wrought in God. The discipline by which he is led to the Son is of the Father (see chap. 6 especially). For this cause he comes, and must needs come, at the bidding of the truth, that the works of God in him may be brought out of all concealment and made mani- fest. His coming to Christ is itself a manifestation of the preceding work of God in him. The Passing away of the Baptist in the presence of the True Bridegroom of the Church.— Vers. 22-36. CoxTESTS. — This section affords us our last view of the great Forerunner when, at the moment of hid disappearance, he utters his highest testimony to Jesus as the true 74 JOHN III. [3: 22,23. 23 and baptized. And John also was baptizing in ^non near to Salim, because there ^ was much water there : 1 Gr. were many waters. Bridegroom of the Church, alone to be welcomed by all waiting hearts. Hence it immediately precedes Christ's proclamation of His truth beyond Judea. The subor- dinate parts are— (1) vers. 22-30 ; (2) vers. 31-36, Ver. 22. After these things came Jesus and his disciples into the land of Judea ; and there he tarried w^ith them, and baptized. The introductory words 'After these things' may possi- bly include a considerable period. Apparently several months inter- vened between the Passover of chap. 2 : 13 and the visit to Samaria (chap. 4); but only two events belonging to this period are related. The words of this verse, however [tarried and baptized), show that af- ter leaving Jerusalem .Jesus remained for some length of time in the country parts of Judea. In no other passage than this is there any mention of the Saviour's baptizing, and chap. 4: 2 explains that this baptism was only indirectly His. Still, however, it is clear that the baptism was by the authority of Jesus, the disciples acting only as His ministers. Yet they did not baptize with Christian baptism in the full sense of the term. They were engaged in preparatory work like that of the Baptist, just as the Twelve were sent forth by Jesus to declare the very message which John had preached (Matt. 10: 7). The bap- tism of the Spirit was still future (chap. 7 : 39). The next verse shows the main design of this section. When Jesus baptized in Judea, He came into direct and necessary comparison with John. Ver. 23. And John also "was baptizing in -SJnon near to Salim, because there -were many -waters there ; and they came and -were baptized. Where ^Enon and Salim were situated it is not easy to determine. The position assigned them by Eusebius and Jerome, near the northern boundary of Samaria, does not agree well with ver. 22. It is more probable that Salim is the Shilhim (trans- lated Salem in the LXX.) of Josh. 15 : 32, a town not far from the southern limit of Judea. In this verse of Joshua (in the Hebrew) Shilhim is directly followed by Ain, from which ^non differs only in being an intensive form — Ain denoting a spring, and j^non, springs. The objection to this identification is that, as John was clearly in the neighborhood of Jesus, it takes the latter from the route leading to Samaria and Galilee. But the history of the events of the period is so brief and fragmentary that this objection has not much weight. John no doubt alludes to the meaning of jEnon when he adds that there were 'man}' waters' there. [The most probable site of iEnon is at the present village Salim, east of Nablus (Shechem) in Samaria, near the passage of the Jordan at Succoth, and far away from that near Jericho. There are copious springs there, and three or four miles north of the springs is a village called 'Agnu7i. This is the view of Robinson, Stanley, Conder, Thomson. — P. S.] 3: 24-27.] JOHN III. 75 24 and they came, and were baptized. For John was not 25 yet cast into prison. There arose therefore a ques- tioning on the part of John's disciples with a Jew 26 about purifying. And they came unto John, and said to him, Rabbi, he that was with thee beyond Jordan, to whom thou hast borne witness, behold, the same 27 baptizeth, and all men come to him. John answered and said, A man can receive nothing, except it have Yer. 24, For John -was not yet cast into prison. Words in which the Evangelist vindicates the accuracy of his narrative, and corrects a mistake apparently prevailing in the Church when he wrote. The earlier Gospels, dealing mainly with the Galilean work of Jesus, do not mention His entering upon His public ministry until after the Baptist had been delivered up. This seems to have led to an impres- sion that the Baptist was imprisoned before our Lord entered on His public work. The false inference is here corrected. Ver. 26. There arose therefore a questioning on the part of John's disciples -Nvith a Jew about purifying. In the cir- cumstances just described, discussion would inevitably arise as to the relative position and value of the two baptisms. A ' Jew ' (see note on chap. 1:19) had placed the baptism of Jesus above that of John in regard to its purifying power. Although the Jews in general were hostile to Jesus, this man may have shared the convictions of Nicode- mus (vers. 1 : 2). The disciples of John refused to regard their mas- ter's baptism as less efficacious than that of another, who had been himself baptized by him. Unable either feo set the question at rest, or to ignore the opposition of the Jew, they brought the matter of con- tention before John. On the symbolic character of John's baptism, see the note on ver. 5 ; on ' purification,' eee 2:6; 13 : 10 ; 15 : 3, and 1 John 1 : 7, 9, Ver, 26. And they came unto John, and said unto him, Rabbi, he that -was -with thee beyond Jordan, to -whom thou hast borne -witness, behold, the same baptizeth, and all men come to him. Their description of Jesus (whom they do not name) shows their feelings. This man came to thee beyond Jordan, it has been thy great object to magnify his fame ; and yet he is now thy rival, he baptizes, and all are flocking to him rather than to thee. Their last words are in their lips but a natural exaggeration ; to the Evangelist, however, they are an unconscious prophecy (see an ex- actly similar instance in 12 : 19, 20). This is the last trial of the Baptist's fidelity to his mission, and nobly is it sustained Ver. 27. John ansvvrered and said, A man can receive nothing, except it have been given him out of heaven. Not for a moment does he enter into their jealous advocacy of his claims. Understanding the true force of their hasty words, ' All men come to 76 JOHN III. [3 ! 28, 29. 28 been given him from heaven. Ye yourselves bear me witness, that I said, I am not the Christ, but, that I 29 am sent before him. He that hath the bride is the bridegroom : but tlie friend of the bridegroom, which standeth and heareth him, rejoiceth greatly because of the bridegroom's voice : this my joy therefore is ful- him,' he tells them that such honor, such position, Jesus cannot re- ceive unless it have been givea Him from heaven. He says this in words so general that they seem certainly intended to point to him- self also. ' Each of us, in accomplishing God's work, will receive the place appointed to him from heaven.' Ver. 28. Ye yourselves bear me -witness, that I said, I am not the Christ, but I am sent before him. The acceptance of the lower place was no new thing to John. ' Ye remind me that I have borne witness to Him ; ye yourselves bear witness to me, that my testimony to Him contained in it all that now offends you.' Of the two sayings here quoted, one (' I am not the Christ') is to be found in 1 : 20 : the other is not given in this Gospel in the very words, but is implied in 1 : 30, 31, and no doubt had been expressly uttered by John to his disciples. Ver. 29. He that hath the bride is the bridegroom : but the friend of the bridegroom, w^ho standeth and heareth him, rejoiceth greatly because of the bridegroom's voice: this my joy therefore hath been made full. ' He that hath the bride,' he and no other, ' is the bridegroom.' The Lord is taking home His bride — His people. To the name of bridegroom I have no claim, nor can I have the bridegroom's joy. But in his joy his friends must needs share. The friend of the bridegroom that standeth and heareth his voice, catching the first sound as he draws near, listening to the words and tones in which his joy breaks forth throughout the marringe feast, he too has his joy, a reflection of the rejoicing of the bridegiojm: this joy is mine, and it is now filled to the full.' In these exquisitely tender and beautiful words does the Baptist at once reprove the natural but petty jealousies of his disciples and set forth his own relation to Jesus. The image employed is common in the Old Testament (Isa. 54 ; Jer. 3 : 31 ; Hos. 2 ; Ezek. 16, 23), even if nothing be said of the Song of Solomon, and is taken up in the New (Matt. 9 : 15, 25 ; 2 Cor. 11 ; Eph. 5 ; Rev. 19, 21). By the ' friend' John does not mean the particular fi-iend who presided over the marriage cere- monies (the Shoshben), for the words ' standeth and heareth ' are un- suitable to a functionary whose duties were those of action. But these words exactly correspond to the position of the Baptist as one who stood apart and listened. Once only does the Forerunner seem to have met with Jesus : afterwards he watched His course and rejoiced, and pointed his disciples to his Lord. 3 : 30, 31.] JOHN III. 77 30 filled.* He must increase, but I must decrease. 31 He that cometli from above is above all : he that is of the earth is of the earth, and of the earth he ♦For 'fulfilled' read 'made full' [and so 15; 11; 16: 24; 17: 13. [See ' Classes of Passages,' 14]. — Am. Com. Yer. 30. He must increase, but I must decrease. What the disciples now see is but the beginning of a process that must continue. The necessity spoken of here is another statement of the heavenly gift of ver. 27. John must become less and less, whilst the glory of his Lord will increase without limit or end ; and thus his ' decreas- ing ' IS not the failure but the accomplishment of his work.* It is quite impossible to read carefully the following verses without perceiving that they bear a remarkable resemblance to the early part of the chapter, and that the general style and language are those of the Evangelist himself. In ver. 31 we read of him * that cometh out of heaven ;' in ver. 13 of Him "that came down out of heaven.' That He who is from heaven beareth witness of what He hath seen, and that His witness is not received, we read both in ver. 32 and in ver. 11. The 35th verse might perhaps seem to contain Christ's own words, but not such as the Baptist would be likely to employ. So also in ver. 36 all the terms used, ' he that believeth in,' ' the Son ' (standing absolutely), ' eternal life,' • hath eternal life,' remind us of the language of the Evangelist himself and of Christ's discourses as related in this Gospel, especially in this chapter (vers. 15, 16, 17), but it is hardly possible to suppose them used by John the Baptist. Those writers who cannot admit that there is a break after ver. 30 are constrained to confess that the Baptist's subsequent words are expressed in the Evan- gelist's own language and style. It is a far simpler and more proba- ble theory that the Evangelist (as in 1 : 16 and 3 : 16 — see notes there) passes from his narrative into a meditation which it suggests, gather- ing together the main thoughts of the two sections which precede. Ver. 31. He that cometh from above is above all; He that is out of the earth is out of the earth, and out of the earth he speaketh. The claim of the Baptist's disciples that to their master should be accorded a higher place than to Jesus, and John's emphatic testimony to his own lower station, lead the Evangelist to reflect upon the words of Jesus to Nicodemus as decisive of all such [* 'The true description of the relation between John and Christ, and between the Old Covenant and the New, in the primitive church, in the mediaeval church, in this modem age, in the life of everj- evangelical community and of every individual Christian. Increase: in lalwrs, in authority, in disciples. Decrease: be diminished. Noble freedom from en\-y. An admonition to his disciples. St. John the Baptist's day in the calendar, the longest day C June 24th), after which the days decrease ; the birth-day of Christ (Dec. 2.5), one of the shortest, from which the days grow lon- ger.'—Lange.) 78 JOHN III. [3 : 32-34. speaketh : ^ he that coraeth from heaven is above all. 32 What he hath seen and heard, of that he beareth wit- 33 ness ; and no man receiveth his witness. He that hath received his witness hath set his seal to tkis, that 34 God is true. For he whom God hath sent speaketh the words of God : for he giveth not the Spirit by 1 Some ancient authorities read he that cometh from heaven beareth witness of what he hath seen and heard. questions. * He that cometh from above ' and * He that cometh out of heaven ' are clearly the same as ' He that came down out of heaven ' (ver. 13), and all three expressions are designations of Jesus. There is but One who thus ' cometh from above' (though many others have received their mission from above), and He therefore is above all. In comparison with Him, every other prophet or teacher has his origin out of the earth ; and as is his origin, so is his nature, so is his ut- terance. Ver. 32. He that cometh out of heaven beareth -witness of -what he hath seen and heard ; and no man receiveth his witness. In ver. 12 we have seen that heaven is spoken of as the place of immediate divine knowledge and light. Jesus alone be- longs to this sphere : all the prophets before His coming, though di- vinely commissioned, had 'the earth' as the starting-point of their utterances, spoke of what they had received on earth, spoke truly but not perfectly. The Divine light was reflected from the prophets to the woi'ld around. In Jesus the heavenly light itself came into the woi'ld. Jesus alone, then, beareth witness to that which He hath seen and which He heard, and (here again is the mournful cadence of this Gospel) no one receiveth His witness. So few receive, that they seem as nothing in comparison with those who reject. That the rejection is not in strictness universal the next verse declares. Ver. 33. He that received his witness set his seal to this, that God is true. Every man who accepts His witness and thus declares that Jesus is true, in that very act attests, sets his seal to, the declaration that God is true. (For the opposite, see 1 John 5:10). A mere prophet miglit be unfaithful or might err. Jesus ' comes out of heaven,' declares ' what He hath seen,' and ' what He heard ' from God : to disbelieve Him is to disbelieve God, to declare Him true is to declare God true. This is further explained and confirmed by the next verse. Ver. 34. For he whom God sent speaketh the words of God. The last verse rests on the thought that the words of Jesus are the words of God. Here it is shown that this is involved in the very proposition that Jesus is the Sent of God. Strictly, there have been many whom God has sent, — for example, John the Baptist (chap. 1 : 6) : his words were true, and were words of God. But where one is thus isolated as sent by God (and this is repeatedlv done in this 3: 35,86.] JOHN III. 79 35 measure. The Father loveth the Son, and hath given 36 all things into his hand. He that believeth on the Son hath eternal life ; but he that ^ obeyeth not the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abideth on him. 1 Or, believeth not. Gospel), he is the Sent in a peculiar and pre-eminent sense. He speak eth not ' words of God ' only, but ' the words of God,' giving all the reve- lation that God gives. The enabling power thus to speak is the gift of the Spirit. Every one whom God sends is enabled to speak God's words — words that, for the portion of the revelation he is com- missioned to give, are truly God's words — For not by measure giveth he the Spirit. He gives the Spirit not partially, but com- pletely, for the purpose of enabling him who is sent to speak words of God. Rising from the partial and incomplete to that which is full and perfect, wo find but One Avho has thus been sent by God, and but One who receives the Spirit in unmeasured fulness, enabling not for the complete declaration of a part only, but for the perfect revelation of the whole of the words of God. Ver. 35. The Father loveth the Son. There is a continual heightening of the thought and expression. "We read of Him ' that Cometh from above,' Him ' that cometh out of heaven,' Him ' whom God sent,' —